Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:51:06.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Archilochus' Message-stick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Stephanie West
Affiliation:
Hertford College, Oxford

Extract

The second line of the poem in which Archilochus related his fable of the fox and the ape was a source of perplexity to Hellenistic scholars. According to Athenaeus Apollonius Rhodius explained it by reference to the Spartan practice of winding official dispatches round a staff or baton: ὅτι δ λευκῷ ἱμντι περιειλοντες τν σκυτλην οἱ Λκωνες ἔγρφον ἅ ἠβολοντο εἴρηκεν ἱκανς Ἀπολλώνιος Ῥδιος ν τῷ περ Ἀρχιλχου. This interpretation evidently failed to satisfy Aristophanes of Byzantium, who wrote a monograph (σγγραμμα) περ τς χνυμνης σκυτλη' view has held the field.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A.R. fr. 22 Michaelis, Ath. 451d. Athenaeus produces this information in the course of a discussion of riddles, to support his interpretation of a perplexing fragment of Achaeus' satyrplay, Iris (TrGF i, 20 F 19). His explanation seems to me more ingenious than sensible; see below, supplementary note.

2 Fr. 367 Slater (Ath. 83e); see Slater ad loc.

3 For a very clear account see Plu. Lys. 19; cf. Sch. Pi. O. 6.154, Hsch. s.v. σκυτλη Λακωνικ, Gell. 17.9.15.

4 So LSJ.

5 Most Hellenists would, I believe, favour an eighth-century date, not long before our first specimens: see further Jeffery, L. H., CAH iii 21.819ffGoogle Scholar., Heubeck, A., Archaeologia Homerica x (Schrift) (Göttingen, 1979), 73ffGoogle Scholar. However, some Semitic epigraphists argue for a twelfth-century date: see Naveh, J., AJA 77 (1973), 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Early History of the Alphabet (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 175ffGoogle Scholar., Cross, F. M., BASOR 238 (1980), 1ffGoogle Scholar., Puech, E., RBi 90 (1983), 365–95 (esp. 391ff.)Google Scholar; for a more moderate view see Isserlin, B. S. J., CAH iii 21.81618Google Scholar.

6 The much discussed σματα λυγρ of Il. 6.168–9 are surely not some sort of code but simply a written message, felt to be somewhat alien to the heroic milieu and therefore camouflaged.

7 Cf. Herodotus' stories of secret messages, 1.123.3–4; 5.35.3–4; 7.239.3–4.

8 On this passage see Hooker, J. T., B1CS 32 (1985), 68Google Scholar.

9 This passage causes grave complications for the traditional cryptographic interpretation, as it seems to imply a practice tantamount to dispatching the code-books along with the encoded message. Admittedly, the scholia on Pi. O. 6.92 speak of baton and message-bearing strip being consigned to different messengers; but that sounds absurdly complicated. Of course, it might be argued that Aristophanes should not be pressed on such a point.

10 Jeffery, L. H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961), pp. 57–8Google Scholar.

11 Burkert, W., MH 29 (1972), 74–5 n. 4Google Scholar.

12 Cf. Ong, W. J., Orality and Literacy (London, 1982), p. 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the general question see Andersen, Ø., ‘Mündlichkeit u. Schriftlichkeit im frühen Griechentum’, A&A 23 (1987), 2944Google Scholar.

13 Heubeck, op. cit. (n. 5), 150.

14 Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), i.25Google Scholar f.; cf. Easterling, P. E., JHS 105 (1985), 36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Johansen, and Whittle, on Aesch. Suppl. 179Google Scholar. The most striking of the literary references is undoubtedly Eur. Erechtheus fr. 160.6–7 Austin (369.6–7 N.) δλτων ναπτσσοιμι γρυν, ᾇ σοφο κλονται cf. Hipp. 451ff. (where it is interesting that Phaedra's nurse refers towritten works as a normal source for knowledge of legend; see further Barrett ad loc.).

15 2.50. On tally-sticks in mediaeval English book-keeping see Clanchy, M. T., From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 (London, 1979), pp. 95–6Google Scholar, Plate viii.

16 The book of Ser Marco Polo, ed. SirYule, Henry and Cordier, H.3 (London, 1903), ii.96Google Scholar.

17 Suppl. Vossius.

18 γρφουσα] τμπλακματ' ν δλτῳ Δι[ς (fr. 281a.21 Radt), cf.Eum. 275, E. fr. 506 N. See further Hopkinson, on Callim, . Cer. 56Google Scholar.

19 See further Diringer, D., The Alphabet 3 (London etc., 1968), i.7fGoogle Scholar., ii. 12 (Plate a). A rather elaborate development of this device (combining the notched stick with the conventions of the symbolic message exemplified in the Scythian ultimatum to Darius, (Hdt. 4.131–2, Pherecyd. FGrHist 3 F 174))Google Scholar is thus described by de Lacouperie, Terrien (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society N.S.17 [1885], 421)Google Scholar: ‘When the Li-su are minded to rebel, they send to the Mo-so chief (who rules them on behalf of the Chinese government)…a stick with knife-cut notches. Some symbols are fastened to it, such, for instance, as a feather, calcined wood, a little fish, etc., etc. The bearer must explain the meaning of the notches and symbols. The notches may indicate the number of hundreds or thousands of soldiers who are coming; the feather shows that they arrive with the swiftness of a bird; the burnt wood, that they will set fire to everything on their way; the fish, that they will throw everybody into the water, etc., etc. This custom is largely used among all the savage tribes of the region. It is also the usual manner in which chiefs transmit their orders.’

20 See further Harvey, F. D., REG 79 (1966), 624–7Google Scholar, Cartledge, P., JHS 98 (1978), 2537CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Boring, T. A., Literacy in Ancient Sparta (Leiden, 1979)Google Scholar.

21 Possibly the belief that the Spartan σκυτλη primarily served a cryptographic purpose arose from misunderstanding of just such a defence of traditional practice. Reluctance to put proposals in writing would have been in accordance with the Spartan character for deviousness; cf. Hdt. 9.54.1, E. Andr. 445–53 (with Stevens's n.). See also Clanchy, op. cit. (n. 15), 211–12. A further idiosyncratic Spartan use of σκυτλαι in correspondence is mentioned in the sch. on Pi. O. 6.92, but sounds like mere speculation: ἄλλοι δ τι χρντο πλατεαις σκυτλαις οἱ Λκωνες γγρφοντες αὐταῖς τς πιστολς κα γκλεοντες εἰς σκτινα γγεῖα κα οὕτω σφραγζοντες.

22 I suspect that the leather strip interpreted by Hellenistic scholars as the message-bearing part of a Spartan dispatch simply served as a protective cover or carrying case.

23 Cf. Aἰσιμδης (fr. 14.1), Σελληδης (fr. 183); see further Bonanno, M. G., ‘Nommi e sopranommi archilochei’, M/H 37 (1980), 6580 (esp. 78–9)Google Scholar.

24 For the change from sg. to plur. cf. fr. 13, which starts Περκλεες (1) and continues with ὦ φλ' (6), but concludes λλ τχιστα τλτε, γυναικεῖον πνθος πωσμενοι.

25 For the converse oxymoron cf. ἄναυδος ἄγγελος (Aesch. Suppl. 180, Sept. 82), of the cloud of dust heralding an approaching army, ἄγγελος ἄφθογγος (Thgn. 549), of a beacon summoning to battle. On such apparently paradoxical kennings see further Waern, I., ΓHΣ ΟΣΤΕΑ: the Kenning in Pre-Christian Greek Poetry (Uppsala, 1951), pp. 55–8Google Scholar, Johansen, and Whittle, on Aesch. Suppl. 180Google Scholar.

26 The dat. seems, in any case, practically untranslatable, though the difficulty is sometimes veiled by such translations as ‘grievous’ for χνυμνῃ.

27 His fellow-citizens, presumably; I shall resist the temptation to suggest a scenario.

28 See further Finnegan, R., Oral Poetry (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 224–8Google Scholar.

29 Cf. Andrewes, A., ΦΟΡΟΣ: Tribute to B. D. Merritt (edd. Bradeen, D. W. and McGregor, M. F., New York, 1974), pp. 26–8Google Scholar.

30 See further Gow, A. S. F., CQ 34 (1940), 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Haspels, C. H. E., ABSA 29 (1927/8), 216–23Google Scholar.

* I am indebted to a referee for several very helpful suggestions.