The Herodotus Encyclopedia. Группа авторов
FURTHER READING
1 Bloedow, Edmund F. 1983. “Archidamus the ‘Intelligent’ Spartan.” Klio 65: 27–49.
2 Kagan, Donald. 1990. The Archidamian War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
3 Poralla, Paul. 1985. A Prosopography of Lacedaemonians from the Earliest Times to the Death of Alexander the Great (X–323 B.C.). 2nd edition, edited by Alfred S. Bradford, pp. 32–33. Chicago: Ares.
ARCHIDICE (Ἀρχιδίκη, ἡ)
CHRISTOPHER BARON
University of Notre Dame
A courtesan (hetaira) in NAUCRATIS, a Greek settlement in EGYPT. Near the end of his DIGRESSION on the courtesan RHODOPIS (to whom one of the PYRAMIDS at Giza had been falsely attributed on account of her immense WEALTH and FAME), Herodotus notes that the courtesans in Naucratis “have a certain tendency to be charming (epaphroditos).” He gives Archidice as an example of one whose fame was celebrated in song throughout Greece, though she was less “notorious” (perileskhēneutos, the only occurrence of the word in extant ancient Greek literature) than her predecessor Rhodopis (2.135.5). Naucratis was the major port of call in Egypt, and worship of APHRODITE was prominent (Gutzwiller 2010, 135–36). An inscription on the foot of a vase discovered at Naucratis in the 1890s (Hogarth et al. 1898–99, 56 and plate V, no. 108) reads Ἀρ]χεδικη, that is, (Ar)chedice, the spelling of her name which is found in later authors (Ath. 13.596d–e; Ael. VH 12.63).
SEE ALSO: Epigraphy; Prostitution; Sex; Women in the Histories
REFERENCES
1 Gutzwiller, Kathryn. 2010. “The Demon Mosquito.” ZPE 174: 133–38.
2 Hogarth, D. G., C. C. Edgar, and Clement Gutch. 1898–99. “Excavations at Naukratis.” ABSA 5: 26–97.
FURTHER READING
1 Kurke, Leslie. 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, 220–27. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ARCHILOCHUS (Ἀρχίλοχος, ὁ)
CHARLES C. CHIASSON
University of Texas at Arlington
Archilochus was a poet from the island of PAROS, active in the second half of the seventh century BCE, whose fragmentary verses address a wide variety of topics, project a passionate but unsentimental persona, and demonstrate great poetic skill (including a notorious gift for invective). Herodotus cites Archilochus only once (1.12), for mentioning the contemporary Lydian king GYGES SON OF DASCYLUS (c. 680–644) in a poem—a citation ostensibly intended to help Herodotus’ Greek AUDIENCE identify a long‐deceased foreign monarch.
In one of his best‐known narratives, Herodotus tells how Gyges founded the Mermnad dynasty by killing CANDAULES and marrying his widowed queen (1.8–12). At the end of the story, Herodotus describes Gyges as one “whom in fact Archilochus of Paros, living at the same time, mentioned in an iambic trimeter poem” (1.12.2). (Four lines of the poem survive: see Gerber 1999 F19.) The authenticity of this citation has been questioned: Asheri (in ALC, 84) considers it a post‐Herodotean interpolation because of its “technical” metrical terminology, and because no such clarification would have been necessary for a king as well known as Gyges was during Herodotus’ day. However, there are parallels for Herodotus’ specifying the meter or genre of poetic sources that he cites (e.g., SAPPHO at 2.135, SOLON at 5.113.2), possibly to indicate the degree of their historical RELIABILITY (Boedeker 2000). Moreover, the historical grounding provided by Archilochus’ contemporary witness initiates a transition between the “mythical” narrative mode of the Gyges story (whose details are scarcely factual) and the “historical” narrative mode of its sequel, the political agreement brokered by DELPHI between the Lydians and Gyges’ partisans (Baragwanath 2019).
SEE ALSO: Authority, Narrative; Lydia; Mermnadae; Poetry
REFERENCES
1 Baragwanath, Emily. 2019. “Myth and History Entwined: Female Influence and Male Usurpation in Herodotus’ Histories.” In Historical Consciousness and the Use of the Past in the Ancient World, edited by John Baines, Henriette van der Blom, Yi Samuel Chen, and Tim Rood, 293–311. Sheffield: Equinox.
2 Boedeker, Deborah. 2000. “Herodotus’s Genre(s).” In Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons and Society, edited by Mary Depew and Dirk Obbink, 97–114. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3 Gerber, Douglas, ed. 1999. Greek Iambic Poetry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ARCHITECTURE (TEMPLES)
ROBIN F. RHODES
University of Notre Dame
When Herodotus wrote his Histories the Ionic and Doric orders had only been established a few generations before. The Temple of ARTEMIS at EPHESUS (1.92) and the Temple of APOLLO at DELPHI (5.62), respectively, well epitomize the distinct natures of the two orders as they established themselves in the first century of their existence. Scholars have traditionally viewed Ionic and Doric TEMPLES as variations on a theme, the differences lying mainly in decorative details of their façades, and it is true that the essential purpose of both was to house a cult image. But, in fact, in their origins Ionic and Doric represent different conceptions of temple architecture, different design solutions for different conceptions of divinity and the RITUALS surrounding it. Indeed, their molded bases, spirally‐voluted capitals, and continuously carved friezes immediately distinguish Ionic from Doric, whose columns have no base, whose capitals are simple bowls, and whose frieze is broken into an alternating pattern of triglyphs and metopes. But much more significant and essential, the early temples of IONIA were colossal in scale (4–5 times larger in plan than contemporary Doric ones), and the siting of the temples and the overall visual organizations of the façades of the two orders accomplished completely different things (Rhodes 1995, 54–60).
Figure 3a Reconstructed view of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, mid‐sixth century BCE. From A. E. Henderson, “The Croesus (VIth Century BC) Temple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus,” Journal R.I.B.A. 16.3 (1909), 77–96, fig. on p. 77 (reproduced in R. F. Rhodes, Architecture and Meaning on the Athenian Acropolis, 59, fig. 33b). Public domain.
In Doric the geometry of the façade becomes increasingly elaborate from bottom to top, from temple platform to roof, and, in many cases, leads to the temple’s most elaborate visual display, the carved and painted pediments at each end. Everything about the elevation of the Doric temple emphasizes the vertical, leads the eye up, and, in those temples where it exists, it focuses the worshipper’s attention on the most elaborate conditioner of temple approach, the temple pediment, the emblem of divinity (see SCULPTURE). It was here, outside, under the gaze of the east pediment that Doric divinity was confronted, that SACRIFICES were made, that communication between human and divine took place.
Figure 3b Temple of Apollo at Delphi, reconstructed E façade; late sixth century BCE. From M. Courby, La Terrasse du Temple, Fouilles de Delphes II: Topographie et Architecture (Paris: de Boccard, 1915–27), pl. XII (Relevés et Restaurations par H. Lacoste, 1920) (reproduced in R. F. Rhodes, Architecture and