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

Founded in 1846!

Philologus

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

Online
ISSN
2196-7008
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 163, Issue 1

Issues

Archilochus 222W and 39W: Allusion and Reception, Hesiod and Catullus

Shane Hawkins
Published Online: 2018-05-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2018-0007

Abstract

This article is a contribution to our understanding of how Archilochean poetics may be situated in the longer poetic tradition. In examining two fragments that have received little attention, I hope to illustrate how Archilochus’ poetry both engaged with its predecessors and was in turn engaged by its successors. Fragment 222W employs a theme that was perhaps already conventional for Hesiod, in which the incompatibility of the sexes is implicated in the cycle of seasons, an idea that also seems relevant to Archilochus’ quarrel with the daughters of Lycambes. Light is shed on 39W by comparing it to later words for skinning that serve as metaphors for cheating someone, the best known example of which is found in Catullus. In the first fragment the text can be elucidated by a look to Archilochus’ forerunners, and in the second by looking to his heirs.

Keywords: Archilochus; Hesiod; Catullus; allusion; reception

Bibliography

  • Aeschyli Agamemnon, ed. C. J. Blomfield, London 31826.Google Scholar

  • Archilochi iambographorum principis reliquiae, ed. I. L. Liebel, Leipzig 1812.Google Scholar

  • Archilochus, ed. I. T. Tarditi, Roma 1968. Google Scholar

  • Archilochos, ed. M. Treu, München 1959.Google Scholar

  • Etymologicum Graecae linguae Gudianum et alia grammaticorum scripta e codicibus manuscriptis nunc primum edita, ed. F. W. Sturz, Leipzig 1818.Google Scholar

  • Etymologicon magnum seu verum lexicon saepissime vocabulorum origines indagans, ex pluribus lexicis, scholiastis et grammaticis anonymi cuiusdam opera concinnatum, ed. T. Gaisford, Oxford 1848.Google Scholar

  • Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, ed. M. L. West, Oxford 21998.Google Scholar

  • Poetae Lyrici Graeci, II, ed. Th. B. Bergk, Leipzig 41882.Google Scholar

  • J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London 1982.Google Scholar

  • F. R. A. Adrados, “Nueva reconstrucción de los epodos de Arquíloco”, Emerita 23, 1955, 1–78.Google Scholar

  • F. R. A. Adrados, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable (vol. 3), Leiden/Boston 2003.Google Scholar

  • A. Aloni, Le Muse di Archiloco. Ricerche sullo stile archilocheo, København 1981.Google Scholar

  • B. Arkins, “Catullus 58.5”, LCM 2.10, 1977, 237–238. Google Scholar

  • B. Arkins, “Glubit in Catullus 58.5”, LCM 4.5, 1979, 85–86.Google Scholar

  • B. Arkins, Sexuality in Catullus, Hildesheim 1982.Google Scholar

  • D. Bain, “Low Words in High Places: Sex, Bodily Functions, and Body Parts in Homeric Epic and Other Higher Genres”, in: P. J. Finglass/C. Collard/N. J. Richardson (eds.), Hesperos. Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday, Oxford 2007, 40–57.Google Scholar

  • R. S. P. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden/Boston 2010.Google Scholar

  • D. Berranger, Recherches sur l’histoire et la prosopographie de Paros à l’époque archaïque, Clermont-Ferrand 1992.Google Scholar

  • N. Bershadsky, “A Picnic, a Tomb, and a Crow. Hesiod’s Cult in the Works and Days”, HSPh 106, 2011, 1–45. Google Scholar

  • F. Bossi, “Note al nuovo Archiloco”, MCr 8–9, 1973–1974, 14–17.Google Scholar

  • F. Bossi, Studi su Archiloco, Bari 1990.Google Scholar

  • F. Bossi, “Nota a Hippon. fr. 108 (POxy. 2175,5), 10 Dg”, ZPE 159, 2007, 23–24.Google Scholar

  • E. Bowie, “Athenaeus’ Knowledge of Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry”, in: D. Braund/J. Wilkins (eds.), Athenaeus and His World. Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter 2000, 124–135.Google Scholar

  • E. Bowie, “Wandering Poets, Archaic Style”, in: R. L. Hunter/I. Rutherford (eds.), Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality, and Pan-Hellenism, Cambridge 2009, 105–136.Google Scholar

  • T. Breitenstein, Hésiode et Archiloque, Odense 1971.Google Scholar

  • C. G. Brown, “Ruined by Lust: Anacreon, fr. 44 Gentili (432 PMG)”, CQ 34, 1984, 37–42.Google Scholar

  • C. G. Brown, “The Parched Furrow and the Loss of Youth: Archilochus fr. 188 West”, QUCC 50.2, 1995, 29–34.Google Scholar

  • C. G. Brown, “Iambos”, in: D. Gerber (ed.), A Companion to The Greek Lyric Poets, Leiden/New York/Köln 1997, 11–88.Google Scholar

  • C. G. Brown/D. E. Gerber, “The Parched Furrow: Archilochus Fr. 188, 1–2 W”, in: R. Pretagostini (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’età ellenistica. Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili, Vol. 1, Roma 1993, 195–197.Google Scholar

  • W. Burkert, Homo Necans, trans. P. Bing, Berkeley 1983.Google Scholar

  • A. P. Burnett, Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, Cambridge, MA 1983.Google Scholar

  • D. A. Campbell, “The Language of the New Archilochus”, Arethusa 9, 1976, 151–157.Google Scholar

  • L. G. Canevaro, “The Clash of the Sexes in Hesiod’s Works and Days”, G&R 60, 2013, 185–202.Google Scholar

  • M. Cannatà Fera, “Archiloco homericōtatos”, in: M. C. Caltabiano (ed.), Poesia epica greca e latina a cura di Salvatore Costanza, Soveria Mannelli 1988, 55–75. Google Scholar

  • C. Carey, “Archilochus and Lycambes”, CQ 36.1, 1986, 60–67.Google Scholar

  • A. C. Cassio, “The Language of Hesiod and the Corpus Hesiodeum”, in: F. Montanari/A. Rengakos/C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden/Boston 2009, 179–201.Google Scholar

  • P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots (new ed. with supplement 2009), Paris 1968–1980.Google Scholar

  • D. Clay, Archilochos Heros: The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis, Washington, D.C. 2004.Google Scholar

  • J. S. Clay, “Archilochus, the Lover”, in: D. Katsonopoulu/I. Petropoulos/S. Katsarou (eds.), Archilochos and his Age, Athina 2008, 115–121.Google Scholar

  • J. S. Clay, “Works and Days: Tracing the Path to Arete”, in: F. Montanari/A. Rengakos/C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden 2009, 71–90.Google Scholar

  • P. Corrêa, “A Human Fable and the Justice of Beasts in Archilochus”, in: P. J. Finglass/C. Collard/N. J. Richardson (eds.), Hesperos. Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M. L. West on his Seventieth Birthday, Oxford 2007, 101–117.Google Scholar

  • A. Corso, “L’Heraíon di Paro”, ASAA 62, 1984 [1988], 97–101.Google Scholar

  • S. Costanza, “Melampo, le Pretidi e il ΧΟΛΟΣ di Era nel Catalogo esiodeo”, ZPE 169, 2009, 1–14.Google Scholar

  • R. Cowan, “On Not Being Archilochus Properly: Cato, Catullus and the Idea of Iambos”, MD 74, 2015, 9–52.Google Scholar

  • G. B. D’Alessio, “The Megalai Ehoiai: A Survey of the Fragments”, in: R. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Constructions and Reconstructions, Cambridge 2005, 176–238.Google Scholar

  • L. W. Daly, “Hesiod’s Fable”, TAPhA 92, 1961, 45–51.Google Scholar

  • E. Degani, “Il nuovo Archiloco”, A&R 19, 1974, 113–128.Google Scholar

  • E. Degani (ed.), Poeti greci giambici ed elegiaci: letture critiche, Milano 1977.Google Scholar

  • M. Detienne, The Gardens of Adonis: Spices in Greek Mythology (2nd edn.), trans. J. Lloyd, Princeton 1994 (orig. pub. as Les jardins d’Adonis, Paris 1972).Google Scholar

  • F. G. Doering, Chrestomathia Horatiana et P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica, Hamburg 1835. Google Scholar

  • G.-J. van Dijk, Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek Literature: With a Study of the Theory and Terminology of the Genre, Leiden/New York 1997.Google Scholar

  • N. Dunbar (ed.), Aristophanes. Birds. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1995.Google Scholar

  • C. C. Eckerman, “Teasing and Pleasing in Archilochus’ First Cologne Epode”, ZPE 177, 2011, 11–19.Google Scholar

  • R. Ellis, A Commentary on Catullus, Oxford 1889.Google Scholar

  • H. Erbse, Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika, Berlin 1950.Google Scholar

  • R. K. Fisher, Aristophanes Clouds: Purpose and Technique, Amsterdam 1984.Google Scholar

  • C. J. Fordyce, Catullus, Oxford 1961.Google Scholar

  • R. L. Fowler, The Nature of Early Greek Lyric. Three Preliminary Studies, Toronto 1987.Google Scholar

  • E. Fraenkel, Horace, Oxford 1957.Google Scholar

  • M. Gagarin, “Dikē in Archaic Greek Thought”, CPh 69, 1974, 186–197.Google Scholar

  • R. Gagné, “A Wolf at the Table: Sympotic Perjury in Archilochus”, TAPhA 139.2, 2009, 251–274.Google Scholar

  • J. H. Gaisser (ed.), Catullus, Oxford 2007.Google Scholar

  • T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth, Baltimore 1993.Google Scholar

  • T. Gelzer/W. Theiler/L. Koenen/M. L. West/H. Flashar/K. Maurer, “Ein wiedergefundenes Archilochos-Gedicht?”, Poetica 6, 1974, 468–512.Google Scholar

  • B. Gentili, Poetry and Its Public in Ancient Greece. From Homer to the Fifth Century, trans. A. T. Cole, Baltimore 1988.Google Scholar

  • D. Gerber, Greek Iambic Poetry: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge, MA 1999.Google Scholar

  • A. W. Gomme/F. H. Sandbach, Menander: A Commentary, London 1973.Google Scholar

  • A. S. F. Gow, Machon: The Fragments, Cambridge 1965.Google Scholar

  • A. S. F. Gow/D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams 2, Cambridge 1965.Google Scholar

  • M. Griffith, “Personality in Hesiod”, ClAnt 2.1, 1983, 37–65.Google Scholar

  • G. Gruben, “Naxos und Paros. Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungskampagnen 1972–1980”, AA 112, 1982, 621–689.Google Scholar

  • C. B. Gulick, Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists, Cambridge, MA 1967.Google Scholar

  • S. Hawkins, “The Interchange of δ and ζ in Early Greek Epic”, Glotta 80, 2004, 46–71.Google Scholar

  • S. Hawkins, “On the Oscanism salaputium in Catullus 53”, TAPhA 142, 2012, 329–353. Google Scholar

  • S. Hawkins, “Catullus c. 60: Lesbia, Medea, Clodia, Scylla”, AJPh 135.4, 2014, 559–598.Google Scholar

  • J. Heirman, Space in Archaic Greek Lyric. City, Countryside and Sea, Amsterdam 2012.Google Scholar

  • J. Henderson, “The Cologne Epode and the Conventions of Early Greek Erotic Poetry”, Arethusa 9.2, 1976, 159–179.Google Scholar

  • J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (2nd edn.), New York/Oxford 1991.Google Scholar

  • J. Henderson, Aristophanes, Vol. 1, Cambridge, MA 1998.Google Scholar

  • G. L. Hendrickson, “Archilochus and Catullus”, CPh 20.2, 1925, 155–157.Google Scholar

  • S. J. Heyworth, “Catullian Iambics, Catullian Iambi”, in: A. Cavarzere/A. Aloni/A. Barchiesi (eds.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire, Lanham, MD 2001, 117–139.Google Scholar

  • O. Hezel, Catull und das griechische Epigramm, Stuttgart 1932.Google Scholar

  • O. Hoffmann, Die griechischen Dialekte in ihrem historischen Zusammenhange mit den wichtigsten ihrer Quellen, Bd. 3: Der ionische Dialekt. Quellen und Lautlehre, Göttingen 1898.Google Scholar

  • A. S. Hollis, “A New Fragment of Eratosthenes’ Erigone?”, ZPE 89, 1991, 27–29.Google Scholar

  • N. Holzberg, “Lesbia, the Poet, and the Two Faces of Sappho: ‘Womanufacture’ in Catullus”, PCPhS 46, 2000, 28–44. Google Scholar

  • N. Holzberg, Catull. Der Dichter und sein erotisches Werk, München 2002.Google Scholar

  • J. T. Hooker, The Language and Text of the Lesbian Poets, Innsbruck 1977.Google Scholar

  • T. K. Hubbard, “Hesiod’s Fable of the Hawk and the Nightingale Reconsidered”, GRBS 36, 1995, 161–171.Google Scholar

  • R. Hunter, “Hesiod’s Style: Towards an Ancient Analysis”, in: F. Montanari/A. Rengakos/C. Tsagalis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hesiod, Leiden 2009, 253–269.Google Scholar

  • R. Hunter, Hesiodic Voices, Cambridge 2014. Google Scholar

  • G. O. Hutchinson, “Booking Lovers: Desire and Design in Catullus”, in: I. Du Quesnay/T. Woodman (eds.), Catullus: Poems, Books, Readers, Cambridge 2012, 48–78.Google Scholar

  • E. Irwin, “Biography, Fiction, and the Archilochean ainos”, JHS 118, 1998, 177–183.Google Scholar

  • F. L. Jacobs, Animadversiones in epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae, Vol. I 1, Leipzig 1798.Google Scholar

  • F. Jacoby, “The Date of Archilochos”, CQ 35, 1941, 97–109.Google Scholar

  • R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction, Cambridge 1982.Google Scholar

  • R. Janko, “πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατον αἰὲν ἀείδειν: Relative Chronology and the Literary History of the Early Greek Epos”, in: Ø. Andersen/D. T. T. Haug (eds.), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, Cambridge 2012, 20–43.Google Scholar

  • M. S. Jensen, “Tradition and Innovation in Hesiod’s Works and Days”, C&M 27, 1966, 1–27.Google Scholar

  • H. D. Jocelyn, “Catullus 58 and Ausonius, Ep. 71”, LCM 4, 1979, 87–91. Google Scholar

  • C. H. Kahn, “Review of F. Solmsen’s Kleine Schriften (Hildesheim 1968)”, Gnomon 45, 1973, 737–745.Google Scholar

  • J. C. Kamerbeek, “Remarques sur le nouvel Archiloque (P. Colon. inv. 7511)”, Mnemosyne 29, 1976, 113–128.Google Scholar

  • J. T. Katz, “Testimonia Ritus Italici: Male Genitalia, Solemn Declarations, and a New Latin Sound Law”, HSPh 98, 1998, 183–217.Google Scholar

  • J. T. Katz, “The “‘Urbi et Orbi’-Rule” Revisited”, JIES 34, 2006, 319–361.Google Scholar

  • L. Koenen, “Horaz, Catull und Hipponax”, ZPE 26, 1977, 73–93.Google Scholar

  • M. Kõiv, “A Note on the Dating of Hesiod”, CQ 61.2, 2011, 355–377.Google Scholar

  • S. Koster, Die Invektive in der griechischen und römischen Literatur, Meisenheim am Glan 1980. Google Scholar

  • G. Lafaye, Catulle et ses modèles, Paris 1894.Google Scholar

  • R. Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes. Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer, London 2008.Google Scholar

  • F. L. Lasserre, Les Épodes d’Archiloque, Paris 1950.Google Scholar

  • J. Latacz, “‘Freuden der Göttin gibt’s ja für Männer mehrere...’ Zur Kölner Epode des Archilochos (Fr. 196 a W.)”, MH 49, 1992, 3–12.Google Scholar

  • B. M. Lavelle, “The Apollodoran Date for Archilochus”, CPh 97.4, 2002, 344–351.Google Scholar

  • D. E. Lavigne, “Catullus 8 and Catullan Iambos”, SyllClass 21, 2010, 65–92.Google Scholar

  • M.-C. Leclerc, “L’épervier et le rossignol d’Hésiode. Une fable à double sens”, REG 105, 1992, 37–44.Google Scholar

  • F. Lenz, “Catulliana”, RCCM 5, 1963, 62–67.Google Scholar

  • F. Létoublon, “Archiloque et l’ ‘encyclopédie’ homérique’”, Pallas 77, 2008, 51–62.Google Scholar

  • Y. Lolos/A. Koskinas/L. Kormazopoulou/I. Zugouri, et al., Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State, Princeton 2011.Google Scholar

  • S. H. Lonsdale, “Hesiod’s Hawk and Nightingale (Op. 202–212): Fable or Omen?”, Hermes 117, 1989, 403–412.Google Scholar

  • L. Lulli, “Elegy and Epic. A Complex Relationship”, in: L. Swift/C. Carey (eds.), Iambus and Elegy: New Approaches, Oxford 2016, 193–209.Google Scholar

  • M. Marcovich, “A New Poem of Archilochus: P.Colon. inv. 7511”, GRBS 16.1, 1975, 5–14.Google Scholar

  • R. P. Martin, “Hesiod’s Metanastic Poetics”, Ramus 21, 1992, 11–33.Google Scholar

  • R. Merkelbach, “Nachträge zu Archilochus”, ZPE 16, 1975, 220–222.Google Scholar

  • R. Merkelbach/M. L. West, “Ein Archilochos-Papyrus”, ZPE 14, 1974, 97–113.Google Scholar

  • C. Miralles/J. Pòrtulas, Archilochus and the Iambic Poetry, Roma 1983.Google Scholar

  • C. Miralles/J. Pòrtulas, The Poetry of Hipponax, Roma 1998.Google Scholar

  • M. J. Mordine, “Speaking to Kings: Hesiod’s ΑΙΝΟΣ and the Rhetoric of Allusion in the Works and Days”, CQ 56.2, 2006, 363–373.Google Scholar

  • K. Muse, “Fleecing Remus’ Magnanimous Playboys: Wordplay in Catullus 58”, Hermes 137, 2009, 302–313. Google Scholar

  • G. Nagy, Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter, Cambridge, MA 1974.Google Scholar

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

  • G. Nagy, “Copies and Models in Horace Odes 4.1 and 4.2”, CW 87, 1994, 415–426.Google Scholar

  • S. Nelson, “The Justice of Zeus in Hesiod’s Fable of the Hawk and the Nightingale”, CJ 92.3, 1997, 235–247.Google Scholar

  • J. K. Newman, Roman Catullus and the Modification of the Alexandrian Sensibility, Hildesheim 1990. Google Scholar

  • W. Nicolai, Hesiods Erga: Beobachtungen zum Aufbau, Heidelberg 1964.Google Scholar

  • A. Nicolosi, “Naufragi e furti d’amore: cinque epigrammi di Meleagro”, Prometheus 40, 2014, 134–144.Google Scholar

  • A. Nicolosi, “Archilochus’ Elegiac Fragments: Textual and Exegetical Notes”, in: L. Swift/C. Carey (eds.), Iambus and Elegy: New Approaches, Oxford 2016, 174–189.Google Scholar

  • A. Nicolosi (ed.), Ipponatte, epodi di Strasburgo-Archiloco, epodi di Colonia. Con un’appendice su P. Oxy. LXIX 4708, Bologna 2007.Google Scholar

  • A. Nikolaev, “An Epic Party? Sober Thoughts on νηφέμεν (Archil. Fr. 4 W.2)”, Philologus 58.1, 2014, 10–25. Google Scholar

  • J. A. Notopoulos, “Archilochus, the Aoidos”, TAPhA 97, 1966, 311–315.Google Scholar

  • E. Oliensis, “Canidia, Canicula, and the Decorum of Horace’s Epodes”, Arethusa 24, 1991, 107–138.Google Scholar

  • D. S. Olson, Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, Vol. 2, Books 3.106e–5, Cambridge, MA 2006.Google Scholar

  • D. S. Olson, Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, Vol. 7, Books 13.594b–14, Cambridge, MA 2011.Google Scholar

  • R. B. Onians, The Origins of European Thought About the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate, Cambridge 1951.Google Scholar

  • D. Page, Euripides. Medea, Oxford 1938. Google Scholar

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

  • D. Page, “Archilochus and the Oral Tradition”, in: J. Pouilloux, et al. (eds.), Archiloque: sept exposés et discussions (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, 10), Genève 1964, 119–179.Google Scholar

  • D. Page, Further Greek Epigrams. Epigrams before A.D. 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, not Included in Hellenisitic Epigrams or the Garland of Philip, Cambridge 1981.Google Scholar

  • R. J. Penella, “A Note on (De)glubere”, Hermes 104, 1976, 118–120. Google Scholar

  • J. C. B. Petropoulos, Heat and Lust. Hesiod’s Midsummer Festival Scene Revisited, Boston/London 1994.Google Scholar

  • J. C. B. Petropoulos, “Some New Thoughts on the Old ‘New Archilochus’ Fr. 196A West2”, in: D. Katsonopoulou/I. Petropoulos/S. Katsarou (eds.), Paros II: Archilochos and His Age. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades. Paroikia, Paros, 7–9 October 2005, Athina 2008, 123–131.Google Scholar

  • V. Pisani, “Review of Hjalmar Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Lieferung 13–14), Heidelberg 1963”, Paideia: rivista di filologia, ermeneutica e critica letteraria 19, 1964, 116–117. Google Scholar

  • P. Pucci, Hesiod and the Language of Poetry, Baltimore/London 1977.Google Scholar

  • M. Puelma, “Sänger und König: zum Verständnis von Hesiods Tierfabel”, MH 29, 1972, 86–109.Google Scholar

  • K. Quinn, Catullus: The Poems, London 1970.Google Scholar

  • J. G. Randall, “Glubit in Catullus 58: retractio”, LCM 5.1, 1980, 21–22. Google Scholar

  • O. Riemann, “Inscriptions grecques provenant du recueil de Cyriaque d’Ancône. I. Manuscrit 996 de la bibliothèque Riccardienne à Florence”, BCH 1, 1877, 81–88, 134–136, 286–294.Google Scholar

  • E. Risch, “Sprachliche Betrachtungen zum neuen Archilochos-Fragment (Pap. Colon. Inv. 7511)”, GB 4, 1975, 219–229.Google Scholar

  • O. Rubensohn, “Paros I”, MAI 25, 1900, 341–372.Google Scholar

  • O. Rubensohn, “Paros II”, MAI 26, 1901, 157–222.Google Scholar

  • C. M. Sampson, “A Note on Archilochus fr. 177 and the Anthropomorphic Façade in Early Fable”, CQ 62.2, 2012, 466–475.Google Scholar

  • A. Scherer, “Die Sprache des Archilochos”, in: J. Pouilloux et al. (eds.), Archiloque: sept exposés et discussions (Entretiens su l’antiquité classique, 10), Genève 1964, 89–116. Google Scholar

  • J. Schweighäuser, Animadversiones in Athenaei Deipnosophistas (vol. 2, books 3 and 4), Argentorati 1802.Google Scholar

  • E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik (3rd edn.), München 1953–1966. Google Scholar

  • R. Seaford, “The Eleventh Ode of Bacchylides: Hera, Artemis, and the Absence of Dionysos”, JHS 108, 1988, 118–136.Google Scholar

  • M. S. Silk, “Greek and the Inauthenticity of Archilochus 331”, Eos 73, 1985, 239–246.Google Scholar

  • O. Skutsch, “Catullus 58.4–5”, LCM 5, 1980, 21. Google Scholar

  • S. R. Slings, “Three Notes on the New Archilochus Papyrus”, ZPE 18, 1975, 170.Google Scholar

  • S. R. Slings, “‘Second Cologne Epode’ (fr. 188)”, in: J. M. Bremer/A. M. van Erp Taalman Kip/S. R. Slings (eds.), Some Recently Found Greek Poems, Leiden 1987, 62–69.Google Scholar

  • S. R. Slings, “Archilochus, fr. 188.1–2”, ZPE 106, 1995, 1–2.Google Scholar

  • A. Sommerstein, Acharnians, Aristophanes. Edited with Translation and Notes, Warminster 1980.Google Scholar

  • A. Sommerstein, Lysistrata, Aristophanes. Edited with Translation and Notes, Warminster 1990.Google Scholar

  • L. Spitzer, “Lat. mentula”, BSL 40, 1939, 46–47.Google Scholar

  • V. Steffen, “De Archiloco quasi naturali Hesiodi aemulatore”, Eos 46, 1952–1953, 33–48.Google Scholar

  • D. Steiner, “Feathers Flying: Avian Poetics in Hesiod, Pindar, and Callimachus”, AJPh 128.2, 2007, 177–208.Google Scholar

  • D. Steiner, “Fables and Frames: The Poetics of Animal Fables in Hesiod, Archilochus, and the Aesopica”, Arethusa 45.1, 2012, 1–41.Google Scholar

  • F. Stoessl, “Review of Lasserre 1950”, AJPh 74.3, 1953, 296–302.Google Scholar

  • K. Strunk, “Sprachliches und Prosodisches zur mykenischen Orthographie”, IF 66, 1961, 155–170.Google Scholar

  • L. Swift, “Negotiating Seduction: Archilochus’ Cologne Epode and the Transformation of Epic”, Philologus 159.1, 2015, 2–28.Google Scholar

  • L. Swift, “Poetics and Precedents in Archilochus’ Erotic Imagery”, in: L. Swift/C. Carey (eds.), Iambus and Elegy: New Approaches, Oxford 2016, 253–270.Google Scholar

  • J. Taillardat, Les images d’Aristophane: études de langue et de style, Paris 1965.Google Scholar

  • H. Thesleff, “Man and locus amoenus in Early Greek Poetry”, in: G. Kurz/D. Mueller/W. Nicolai (eds.), Gnomosyne: Menschliches Denken und Handeln in der frühgriechischen Literatur: Festschrift für Walter Marg zum 70. Geburtstag, München 1981, 31–45.Google Scholar

  • H. Tränkle, “Catullprobleme”, MH 38, 1981, 245–258. Google Scholar

  • J. Trappes-Lomax, Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal, Swansea 2007. Google Scholar

  • M. Treu, “Archilochos und die Schwestern”, RhM 119, 1976, 97–126.Google Scholar

  • H. Troxler, Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods, Zürich 1964.Google Scholar

  • R. G. Ussher, Ecclesiazusae, Aristophanes. Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1973.Google Scholar

  • H. Van Noorden, Playing Hesiod: The ‘Myth of the Races’ in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge 2015.Google Scholar

  • J. Van Sickle, “The New Erotic Fragment of Archilochus”, QUCC 20, 1975, 123–156.Google Scholar

  • J.-P. Vernant, “At Man’s Table: Hesiod’s Foundation Myth of Sacrifice”, in: M. Detienne/J.-P. Vernant (eds.), The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks, trans. P. Wissing, Chicago 1989, 21–86 (orig. pub. as La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec, Paris 1979).Google Scholar

  • F. Vian, “Mélampous et les Proiteides”, REA 67, 1965, 25–30.Google Scholar

  • B. Vine, “On ‘Cowgill’s Law’ in Greek”, in: H. Eichner/H. C. Luschützky/V. Sadovski (eds.), Compositiones indogermanica: in memoriam Jochem Schindler, Praha 1999, 555–600.Google Scholar

  • B. Vine, “A Hipponactean Echo in Catullus (Frigus, 44.20)”, CPh 104.2, 2009, 213–216.Google Scholar

  • G. Vorberg, Glossarium Eroticum, Stuttgart 1932. Google Scholar

  • J. Wackernagel, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer, Göttingen 1916.Google Scholar

  • C. Watkins, “La famille indo-européenne de grec ὄρχις: linguistique, poétique et mythologie”, BSL 70, 1975, 11–26 (reprinted in Watkins 1994, 520–535).Google Scholar

  • C. Watkins, “ἀνόστεος ὅν πόδα τένδει”, Étrennes de septantaine: travaux de linguistique et de grammaire comparée offerts à Michel Lejeune par un groupe de ses élèves. Études et commentaires 91, Paris 1978, 231–235 (reprinted in Watkins 1994, 588–592).Google Scholar

  • C. Watkins, Selected Writings, hrsg. von L. Oliver, Innsbruck 1994.Google Scholar

  • L. Watson, “Rustic Suffenus (Catullus 22) and Literary Rusticity”, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6, 1990, 13–33. Google Scholar

  • M. L. West, Theogony, Oxford 1966. Google Scholar

  • M. L. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Berlin 1974.Google Scholar

  • M. L. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Its Nature, Structure, and Origins, Oxford 1985.Google Scholar

  • M. L. West, The Making of the Iliad: Disquisition and Analytical Commentary, Oxford 2011.Google Scholar

  • M. L. West, “Towards a Chronology of Early Greek Epic”, in: Ø. Andersen/D. T. T. Haug (eds.), Relative Chronology in Early Greek Epic Poetry, Cambridge 2012, 224–241.Google Scholar

  • T. P. Wiseman, “What Catullus Doesn’t Say”, Latin Teaching 35, 1979, 11–15. Google Scholar

  • F. W. Wolf, Untersuchungen zu Archilochos’ Epoden, Halle/Saale 1966.Google Scholar

  • D. Wray, Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood, Cambridge 2001.Google Scholar

  • A. T. Zanker, “A Dove and a Nightingale: Mahābhārata 3.130.18–3.131.32 and Hesiod, Works and Days 202–213”, Philologus 153.1, 2009, 10–25.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-05-08

Published in Print: 2019-05-29


Citation Information: Philologus, Volume 163, Issue 1, Pages 16–46, ISSN (Online) 2196-7008, ISSN (Print) 0031-7985, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2018-0007.

Export Citation

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

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in