Talk:Archilochus

Low importance?
Low importance? Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Low importance? Who makes these judgment calls? Ex0pos (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Archilochus, the subjective poet, has become the victim of a subjective Wikipedia rating.Lestrade (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

According to Nietzsche (Birth of Tragedy, § 5), Archilochus was the correlate of the great Homer. The two poles were Archilochus's lyric and Homer's epic poetry. Is Archilochus then of low importance?173.72.63.150 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Jack Anapes

new edit?
I'm tempted to start a major edit here soon. I notice from the contributions history that the largest edit count by a single contributor so far is just 6 and I think the article needs a controlling hand with edits in the hundreds. I'll wait for a time as I have other things to do at present and also because previous editors might first object to a 'take-over'. I won't commit myself to a major edit if there is resistence to the idea. McZeus (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

'Western tradition'
The current intro informs us that Archilochus was the "...first person in the Western tradition to write lyric poetry in the first person (ref)Rayor, Diane J, Sappho's Lyre: Archaic Lyric and Women Poets of Ancient Greece (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991, ISBN 978-0-520-07336-4)(/ref)" I'm wondering if there is any other tradition associated with 'lyric poetry' and yet the comment is apparaently backed up by a published source. I'm assuming that the source merely identifies A as the first lyric poet to compose verses in the first person, though even then the meaning of 'lyric poetry' really should be distinguished from the Hellenistic meaning, according to which he wasn't a lyric poet at all. Anyhow, I'll probably rephrase the comment unless somebody can vouch for it. When and if I get around to editing this article. McZeus (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've now started the edit and should be finished in 3 or 4 weeks. At last - an honest-to-God heterosexual lyrical poet! No bum boys in this guy's life (at least none we know about). Relief. McZeus (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP needs a proper article on the trochaic tetrameter. The current article is basically unsourced and says nothing about the Greek troch tet catalectic. I don't think I should link to that article while it is so woeful and I'm not prepared to do any work on it. I might say something about t.t.c. in a notes section in the A article. McZeus (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

temporary storage
Here's stuff I deleted and will try to fit back in where I can:


 * Moreover even the poems might not always be as biographical as they seem.(ref)Owen, S. (2003) 'Of Dogs and Men: Archilochos, archaeology and the Greek settlement of Thasos' PCPS 49, 1-18(/ref)
 * He accused Lycambes of perjury and recited verses against his daughters that according to legend led Lycambes and his daughters to hang themselves.(ref)Gerber, Douglas E., A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets, BRILL, 1997. ISBN 9004099441. Cf. p.50(/ref)

McZeus (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sparta?
I'll delete this sentence:
 * According to legend he visited Sparta, but was banished from that city because of his cowardice and the licentious character of his poetry (Valerius Maximus vi. 3, externa 1).

According to my Loeb edition, citing V.Max vi 3 externa 1, the poet's work was banished, not the man himself. I can't recall anywhere reading a report that he visited Sparta in person. However, Loeb might have left that report out. So I'm pasting the sentence here in case it turns out not to be so lame as it looks. McZeus (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also removing this at least for the moment:
 * He visited Magna Graecia, Hellenic southern Italy, of which he speaks favorably. He then returned to Paros,

I don't remember reading this anywhere and I'm not ready to scout around for it yet. It is certainly somebody's invention - the question is: is it somebody long since dead (that's OK) or a WP contributor (that's bad)? We should all be long since dead and then we would all deserve to be quoted. McZeus (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Got it - it was Athenaeus (long since dead and probably drunk at the time). Modern scholars think it's probably based on a mis-reading of a reference to a river flowing into the Propontos, the Syros. I don't think it's worth mentioning except perhaps as an example of how flawed the ancient record is. The ancients quoted from memory regularly. Fortunately WP editors are never guilty of that. McZeus (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

mostly done
I've pretty well finished framing the house and now it's up to the plumbers and electricians and painters to add their bit. I might do some painting myself. I'd like to try a translation of some iambics and an 'epode' but there is no hurry. Also more needs to be done on the murky meanings of iambos; and the erotic/obscene stuff; and probably the biggest papyrus find, with its psychological complexity. As I said, it's just the frame so far. Or as Churchill said (to compare great with small) - this is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning, or maybe even the beginning of the beginning of the end, or possibly even the end of the beginning of the beginning of the end, though that could be going a bit too far. I think he said it in his cups, like Athenaeus. In vino veritas. Or perhaps, in vino the beginning of veritas or maybe in vino the end of the beginning of veritas, or even in vino the end of veritas. Though once again that could be going too far. So. McZeus (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes By McCnut
McCnut (or whatever he calls himself this week) has made some stylistic changes to the article. They are not an improvement. Although he gets very cross when anybody makes changes to "his" articles, and some of the changes he has made (under his various identities) have been an improvement, they are not in this case. Although he seems to be under the impression that this is his private property, I do not feel the need to pander to his hurt feelings (or his ego) by telling him that his recent changes have improved the article, in this case they haven't, and so in good faith I have reverted them.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Continual Paraphrasing
I notice that one editor continues to paraphrase other people's work. There is nothing wrong with that if there are problems with the English phrasing that is being replaced. But this happens not to be the case here. These paraphrases are unnecesary and persistent and all that can result is carelessness with sources and argument. Hence I have reverted his edits. McCnut (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your recent changes not supplied a paraphrase of them. You would have noticed this if you would have read the changes rather than simply reverting them.


 * Quite why (for example) you believe that "Archilochus was much imitated even up to Roman times" is an improvement on "Archilochus was much imitated, by Latin as well as Greek poets" is unclear. Your addition of "Whether or not their lives had been virtuous, authors of genius were revered by their fellow Greeks" is both clumsy and unnecessary.


 * ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't need lessons in English. You reinstated your paraphrase after I had worked on it over several edits to secure what I was comfortable with. The arguments and sources here were all supplied by me so I know how it all fits together. I know from your paraphrasing of Pindar, and from complaints by other editors, how astray your paraphrasing can be. There is no reason to paraphrase coherent English. Let's not pretend that you have any knowledge of this subject. If you did, you would make some meaningful additions, backed by sources, instead of paraphrasing everything because you dislike my English style. In fact you should stick with your right wing articles and leave ancient Greek poetry to people who have made a study of it. McCnut (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are under the mistaken impression that that you own Wikipedia. I hate to disabuse you, but if I believe (in good faith) that some of your changes are not a stylistic improvement I will not pretend otherwise, just because you feel "comfortable" with them. It may come as a surprise to you (a shock even) but Wikipedia is the product of an endless number of editors making slight changes, in the collective hope that the result is improved articles. If you do not understand that, maybe you ought (as you keep promising) retire from Wikipedia and shout at your moggie (or stuffed parrot) instead. I very much doubt that I am the first person to annoy you by questioning your judgement.


 * I am fully aware that you are under the mistaken impression that you write English like an angel. Again, I hate to shatter your illusions, but you don't. Sometimes your English is rather clumsy. Even Homer nods. I would not dream of questioning your knowledge of Greek literature (I am sure you are a legend in your own mind) but if I believe (however mistakenly) that some of your changes are not an improvement, I will change them, even if this leaves me open to the accusation that it is a Right-Wing conspiracy.


 * P.S. While I make no pretence at knowing the subject as well as you (I am assuming you are a retired professor of Greek) I did study the subject at university, and have a small collection of books on the Greek lyric poets, of which Archilochus is a particular favourite; and although your attitude is pathetic (not to say arrogant) I appreciate that since you are now retired (and therefore presumably going senile) you have a great deal more time to devote to these entries than I do. I appreciate your efforts, and find your tantrums amusing, but as I am sure you appreciate, in comparison with Archilochus you are but a speck of dust, and your efforts, unlike his, are the fruits of your utter mediocrity.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)).

You are the one who keeps paraphrasing other people's work, therefore you are the one that fancies himself as a writer. If you have books, and you understand the subject, by all means use them and add to this article in a real way i.e. paraphrase the published scholars, not me. No, WP is not the product of endless numbers of people making slight changes. It is the product of a few people who do a disproportionate amount of work in spite of a lot of other people who generally stuff about. That's life! No I am not a retired professor of Greek. Yes I spend too much time here. Yes I am a speck of dust. McCnut (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mere opinion or encyclopedic fact?
In the “Poetry” section, there is an image of a bird perched on a rock. The image’s caption boldly and dogmatically declares that “&hellip;the rock is a phallic symbol and the kingfisher represents a female partner.” This seems to be an example of a subjective, private opinion being presented as an objective, public fact.Lestrade (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Lestrade

Kerylos and kingfisher
I have removed the photograph of the kingfisher and the associated caption. I have placed a copy of the caption and references below in case someone wants to incorporate them back into the text of the article in one form or another, but the photo itself should not be restored, for a couple of reasons:


 * First, this is a photo of a Ringed Kingfisher. The Ringed Kingfisher is a New World species, found in Central and South America; in appearance it is very unlike the smaller, differently colored, crestless Common Kingfisher of Europe. Whatever bird Archilochos was imagining when he wrote these lines, it may have born little resemblance to a kingfisher (see below), but if it did, it was certainly not this kingfisher. William Wordsworth and Emily Dickinson both wrote poems about robins, but you wouldn't illustrate Wordsworth's article with a photo of an American Robin, and you wouldn't illustrate Emily Dickinson's article with a photo of a European Robin, and if you did, someone would probably catch the error immediately, because a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic are familiar with their local robins. The reason why a tropical American kingfisher has remained in this article for more than a decade, despite the fact that he is thousands of miles from where he belongs, is presumably because more people are familiar with robins than with kingfishers. But that doesn't make his appearance here any less preposterous.


 * Second, the bird that Archilochos names in fr. 41 (West) is the κηρύλος (kerylos). There is no agreement about the identification of this bird ("a bird of disputed spelling and uncertain identity": N. Dunbar, ed., Aristophanes Birds (Oxford 1995), p. 246), but the question is closely bound up with the identification of another Greek bird, the ἀλκυών (alkyon, often spelled halcyon in English). The alkyon and the kerylos are described as companions by the poet Alcman, a rough contemporary of Archilochos, and some ancient sources state that the kerylos is the mate of the alkyon, but the tradition is not consistent. (The Greek sources are collected in D'Arcy Thompson's Glossary of Greek Birds (Oxford UP, 1895), pp. 28–32, 80–81, s.vv. ἀλκυών and κηρύλος. There is a second edition of 1936, but it is not available online.) In Hellenistic and Roman sources, from Aristotle onward, the alkyon (and by extension the kerylos) is conventionally identified with the kingfisher, but the alkyon and kerylos of Archilochos and the other Archaic poets are as much creatures of fable as they are actual birds. They are imagined as sea birds that fly over the crests of the waves, and make hard reddish nests that float like gourds on the surface of the water, breeding during periods of calm when the weather is clear and the water still ("halcyon days"). This is certainly not the case with kingfishers, or any known bird, and most authorities on ancient Greek birds treat the alkyon and the kerylos as fabulous or mythical birds that came to be identified with kingfishers, or kingfishers overlaid with fabulous or mythical characteristics. (See the discussion in the chapter on "Fabulous Birds" in J. Pollard's Birds in Greek Life and Myth (Thames & Hudson, 1977), pp. 97–98; and cf. the definition of kerylos in Liddell and Scott: "fabulous sea-bird, sts. identified with ἀλκυών".) In light of all of this, it's hard to know what mental picture Archilochos had of the bird he calls the kerylos. If someone wants to reintroduce a discussion of this fragment into the article, my suggestion would be not to translate the name at all, but to use the transliterated form kerylos instead, and to add an explanatory footnote saying something to the effect that this is a fabulous bird identified by some ancient sources with the kingfisher. (West's sexual interpretation of this fragment in Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus is attractive, but it is a suggestion, not a certainty; if it is mentioned, it should be attributed to him, not stated as fact in wikivoice.)


 * Copy of the caption of the removed illustration:
 * "A kingfisher flapped its wings on a protruding rock" – Archilochus fr. 41 The poet, "a frank celebrant of sex", found various ways to describe sexual relations, including allusions. Here the rock is a phallic symbol and the kingfisher represents a female partner.

— Choliamb (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)