Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Founded in 1846!


Zeitschrift für antike Literatur und ihre Rezeption / A Journal for Ancient Literature and its Reception

Ed. by Föllinger, Sabine / Fuhrer, Therese / Reinhardt, Tobias / Stenger, Jan / Vöhler, Martin

CiteScore 2018: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.100
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.867

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 163, Issue 1


Achilles from Homer to the Masters of Late Archaic Poetry, or: From pathos to Splendour

Annamaria Peri
  • Corresponding author
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Abteilung für Griechische und Lateinische Philologie, Geschwister-Scholl-Pl. 1, 80539 München, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-02-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2018-0002


Late archaic lyric poetry tends to obscure all pathetic and tragic elements of Achilles’ destiny present in the Iliad. The offence against his honour, his grief for Patroclus, his yearning for native Phthia, and a painful awareness of being ὠκύμορος (“short-lived”) – none of these themes play a role in the passages of Pindar, Bacchylides or Simonides where Achilles is mentioned. Yet each of these three poets operates differently with regard to the epic source, and it is worth investigating how they do so.

Keywords: Achilles; Iliad; Pindar; Bacchylides; Simonides


  • Bacchylides, The Poems and Fragments, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Prose Translation by R. C. Jebb, Cambridge 1905.Google Scholar

  • Pindar, The Odes, Including the Principal Fragments, with an Introduction and an English Translation by J. Sandys, London/New York 21919.Google Scholar

  • Pindar, The Odes, translated with an Introduction by C. M. Bowra, Harmondsworth [etc.] 1969.Google Scholar

  • Pindar, Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes, Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments, 2 vols., edited and translated by W. H. Race, Cambridge, MA/London 1997.Google Scholar

  • The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, LIX, edd. E. W. Handley/H. G. Ioannidou/P. J. Parsons/J. E. G. Whitehorne, London 1992.Google Scholar

  • C. M. Bowra, Pindar, Oxford 1964.Google Scholar

  • A. P. Burnett, The Art of Bacchylides, Cambridge, MA/London 1985.Google Scholar

  • D. L. Cairns, Bacchylides: Five Epinician Odes (3, 5, 9, 11, 13), Text, Introductory Essays, and Interpretative Commentary: D. L. Cairns; Translations: D. L. Cairns and J. G. Howie, Cambridge 2010.Google Scholar

  • W. M. Calder III, “A Reconstruction of Sophocles’ Polyxena”, GRBS 7, 1966, 31–56.Google Scholar

  • G. Christ, Simonidesstudien, Freiburg 1941.Google Scholar

  • M. Davies/P. J. Finglass, Stesichorus: The Poems, edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Cambridge 2014.Google Scholar

  • D. Fearn, Bacchylides: Politics, Performance, Poetic Tradition, Oxford 2007.Google Scholar

  • E. Fitch, “Pindar and Homer”, CPh 19, 1924, 57–65.Google Scholar

  • K. C. King, Achilles: Paradigms of the War Hero from Homer to the Middle Ages, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1987.Google Scholar

  • H. Maehler, Die Lieder des Bakchylides, I: Die Siegeslieder, 2 vols. (Mnemosyne Suppl. 62), Leiden 1982.Google Scholar

  • P. Michelakis, Achilles in Greek Tragedy, Cambridge 2002.Google Scholar

  • M. S. Mirto, “La scelta di Eracle”, in: ead. (ed.): Euripide: Eracle, Milano 22006, 7–61.Google Scholar

  • G. W. Most, “Poet and Public. Communicative Strategies in Pindar and Bacchylides”, in: P. Agócs/C. Carey/R. Rawles (eds.), Reading the Victory Ode, Cambridge 2012, 249–276.Google Scholar

  • L. Muellner, The Anger of Achilles. Mênis in Greek Epic, Ithaca/London 1996.Google Scholar

  • G. Nagy, Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past, Baltimore/London 1990.Google Scholar

  • F. J. Nisetich, Pindar and Homer, Baltimore/London 1989.Google Scholar

  • D. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus. An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry, Oxford 1955; repr. 1970.Google Scholar

  • I. L. Pfeijffer, Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar. A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, & Pythian VIII, Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999.Google Scholar

  • O. Poltera, Le langage de Simonide. Étude sur la tradition poétique et son renouvellement, Bern 1997.Google Scholar

  • G. A. Privitera, Pindaro: Le Istmiche, Milano 1992.Google Scholar

  • I. Rutherford, “The New Simonides: Towards a Commentary”, in: D. Boedeker/D. Sider (eds.), The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire, Oxford 2001, 33–54.Google Scholar

  • C. Segal, “Bacchylides Reconsidered: Epithets and the Dynamics of Lyric Narrative”, QUCC 22, 1976, 99–130.Google Scholar

  • M. S. Silk, Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy, Oxford 2000.Google Scholar

  • M. L. West, “Simonides Redivivus”, ZPE 98, 1993, 1–14.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-02-28

Published in Print: 2019-05-29

Citation Information: Philologus, Volume 163, Issue 1, Pages 1–15, ISSN (Online) 2196-7008, ISSN (Print) 0031-7985, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2018-0002.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in