LIMINAL TELEPHUS: MYSIAN OR GREEK?

Telephus was the son of Heracles and Auge, daughter of King Aleus and great-granddaughter of Arcas, founder of the Arcadians. Despite his Greek pedigree, one of the most intriguing things about Telephus as a figure is how his identity sits on the borderline between Greek and barbarian, and can be developed in either direction. Some scholars have posited a gradual process of Hellenization, during which he moves from being a local Mysian hero to being progressively more Greek, first through his parentage and secondly through the stories told about his birth and upbringing.Footnote ¹⁰ Yet the flexibility inherent in Telephus' story gives poets a great deal of choice as to how they present his ethnic identity. In the version of the myth which became canonical, Telephus was abandoned in the wilderness as an infant by his grandfather Aleus, who had received an oracle warning him that he would be overthrown by a grandson. Aleus initially tried to avoid the fulfilment of the oracle by making his daughter become a priestess of Athena Alea; when she was seduced by Heracles, he punished her by shutting her in a box and casting her out to sea, and had the infant exposed. Telephus was miraculously suckled by a deer, and upon reaching adulthood he crossed over to Asia in search of his mother. He discovered her in Mysia, where she had married the local king, Teuthras; Telephus was welcomed, and succeeded Teuthras as king of Mysia.Footnote ¹¹

However, our earliest source for the Telephus myth, the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, differs from other versions in that it places Telephus' conception, birth, and upbringing in Mysia rather than Arcadia ([Hes.] fr. 165.6–10 M–W):

κούρη]ν δ' [ἐ]ν μεγάροισιν ἐῢ τρέϕεν ἠδ' ἀτ[ίταλλε

δεξάμ]εν[ο]ς, ἶσον δὲ θυγατράσιν ἧισιν ἐτί[α.

ἣ τέκε] Τήλεϕον Ἀρκασίδην Μυσῶν βασιλ[α,

μιχθε]ῖσ' ἐν ϕιλότητι βίηι Ἡρακληείηι

εὖτε μεθ' ἵ]ππους στεῖχεν ἀγαυοῦ Λαομέδοντο[ς.

In this version of the myth, Auge is exiled while still a virgin and adopted by the Mysian king. Telephus is therefore depicted as a Mysian ruler, born and raised in Asia, albeit one with Greek parentage; indeed, in the lines which follow, he is assimilated to ‘the best who were nurtured in the land of Asia’ (ἄριστοι ἐν Ἀσ[ί]δι ἔτραϕεν αἴηι, 15), those fighters who defeated the Greeks when they arrived in Mysia.

Conversely, the version of the myth used by fifth-century tragic writers stress the hero's Greek identity, a strategy which not only makes him more appealing to a Greek audience in the period after the Persian Wars but also lessens the potential charge of treachery in Telephus' decision to guide the Greeks to Troy, for, rather than selfishly betraying his own kind to save his skin, he acts in accordance with the demands of blood and kinship. This is particularly apparent in Euripides' Telephus, where the question of Telephus' identity and heritage, and the contrast between Greeks and Asians, appear to be significant themes in the play.Footnote ¹² In the prologue, Telephus affirms his Greek birth and upbringing, going so far as to derive his name from his status as an emigrant far from home (Eur. Telephus fr. 696.11–16 Kannicht):

Even before he offers to help the expedition, Telephus presents himself as a Greek, in natural opposition to the barbarians among whom he lives, and implies that his leadership over them is paradoxical. The Mysians themselves apparently share this view, for the name that they give him reflects his status as an outsider. Telephus presents his anomalous status as a Greek leading barbarians as ceasing once he comes into contact with his fellow Greeks; although on a logical level this is simply because of his wounding by Achilles, it is also symbolically significant, for it paves the way for the idea that Telephus will now return to serve his Greek kinsmen. Later in the play, the Chorus also affirm Telephus' Greek identity in order to justify his decision to help the Greeks (fr. 727c.7–10 Kannicht):

The description of Telephus' birthplace as the ‘Tegean woman’ not only ties into the traditional idea that the land that bore you is a mother to you, but also reminds the audience that Telephus' real mother was a Greek. His connection with Mysia is rejected as commanding no true loyalty, and his willingness to act as a guide for the Greeks is therefore patriotic and in accordance with divine will.Footnote ¹³

Thus we can see that Telephus' ethnic identity is malleable, and that Greek writers can adapt it to suit their own literary goals, as well as to reflect the ethnic politics of their day. We know of other versions of the myth which also vary the details in order to lessen or maximize Telephus' Greekness: for example, in one version Telephus is born in Greece but is shut in the box along with Auge and so comes to Mysia as an infant, which puts him in a halfway position between the Telephus of the Catalogue and that of the Telephus (Strabo 13.1.69; Paus. 8.4.9). Conversely, at the most Hellenic end of the scale, we know of a version in which Telephus simply goes to Mysia to find his mother and then returns with her to Greece, making his connection with Mysia little more than a quest to a foreign land (Hyg. Fab. 100). Unless we posit a strictly chronological development of the myth (which seems unlikely given the variability of myth across the Greek world at all periods), it seems likely that Archilochus, too, had flexibility in his presentation of Telephus, and that the hero was an intrinsically liminal figure, who could be presented as more or less Hellenized.Footnote ¹⁴

ARCASIDS AND HERACLIDS: TELEPHUS' HERITAGE IN ARCHILOCHUS

If we turn now to the question of how Archilochus presents Telephus, we see that he, too, manipulates the hero's ethnicity and origins to suit his own ends.Footnote ¹⁵ Telephus is named twice in the fragment, at the beginning and end of the mythological section (5, 24), and the use of his name therefore operates as another framing device. On each occasion, Telephus is described in a way which highlights his genealogy: his first appearance alludes to his matrilineal descent from the royal house of Arcadia, and his second to his status as a son of Heracles. As we shall see, both of these family lines are of interest to a Parian audience, for both can be connected to local myth.Footnote ¹⁶

Telephus enters the poem at line 5, where he is described with the patronymic Arcasides.Footnote ¹⁷ The epithet has often been explained as a traditional one, since it is also used of Telephus in the Hesiodic Catalogue (fr. 165.8 M–W), and in both contexts it stresses his descent from the royal house of Arcadia, just as when the author of the Catalogue uses it of Apheidas, the son of Arcas ([Hes.] fr. 129.16–22 M–W).Footnote ¹⁸ Yet Archilochus' use of the epithet requires further explanation. The Catalogue of Women is a poem which places particular emphasis on genealogies: the function of the women named is essentially their role in the foundation of dynasties, and the poem traces the origins of the major Greek lineages.Footnote ¹⁹ It is therefore unsurprising that the poet of the Catalogue should find Arcasides a particularly appropriate epithet for Telephus, especially since it comes in a passage which tells the story of his mother.Footnote ²⁰ It is quite another thing for Archilochus to choose it out of all possible epithets to introduce Telephus into a narrative which focusses on his prowess as a warrior.

The significance of Arcasides becomes clear, however, when we recall that the Parians traced their own origins back to Arcadia, and to a legendary figure called Paros, son of Parrasios, who emigrated from Arcadia to found the new colony (cf. Steph. Byz. 507.5–8 [s.v. Πάρος]; Heraclid. Lemb. 25 Dilts).Footnote ²¹ Emphasizing Telephus' Arcadian descent on his mother's side is therefore a strategy designed to increase his appeal to a Parian audience, as it reminds them that they share a common origin with the hero. The initial description of Telephus is designed to emphasize his brilliance in battle and to encourage the audience to admire him: Archilochus takes care to point out that he acts alone (μ]οῦνοὼ, 5), yet can defeat the entire Achaean army (πολὺν στρα[όν,] 6), while the image of Telephus bloodying the waters of the Caicus with his enemies aligns him with Achilles, the greatest hero of all (Il. 21.7–221).Footnote ²² Naming Telephus as Arcasides therefore further encourages the audience to identify with him rather than with the Achaeans at this point in the poem, and invites them to share in Telephus' glory through their common Arcadian heritage.Footnote ²³

The second time that Telephus is named, Archilochus shifts the emphasis from the maternal to the paternal line, as he depicts him alongside his father Heracles.Footnote ²⁴ There is evidence that Heracles played an important role in the mythological tradition of Paros, and several myths connect Heracles, Paros, and Mysia.Footnote ²⁵ While the chronology of these mythological traditions is problematic, as we are reliant on later sources, it seems likely that at least some of these connections date back to the Archaic period. By the fifth century, a tradition existed that Heracles visited Paros on his way to punish Laomedon and founded an altar to Zeus and Apollo (cf. Pind. fr. 140a.62–8 Snell–Maehler). In the Hesiodic tradition, this was also the journey that resulted in Telephus' conception, and, if these can be connected, the myth joins Telephus' story to that of Paros, while Paros in turn is linked to the myths of Troy in which Telephus would later play his own part.

Another connection between Heracles, Paros, and Mysia is found in a myth told by Apollodorus, which describes Heracles' adventures on his way to collect the girdle of the Amazon (2.5.9). Heracles is said to have stopped at Paros, where some of his companions became embroiled in a dispute with the sons of Minos resident there; two of Heracles' companions were killed in the quarrel, and in compensation two of the sons of Minos took their places on the expedition. Heracles continued on to Mysia, and then after visiting the Amazons went to Troy, where he rescued Hesione from the sea-monster and quarrelled with Laomedon over his refusal to honour his promise to give him his horses in return (hence prompting the return trip to Troy, during which, according to the Catalogue, Heracles begot Telephus). Again, we find the connection between Paros, Mysia, and Troy, with Heracles as the figure who links the three. This story is of particular interest as it includes the detail that Heracles continued from Troy to Thasos, where he defeated the local Thracians in battle and gave the island to the descendants of Minos who had accompanied him from Paros.

It seems likely, therefore, that the myth is in origin a Parian story, designed to justify Parian control of Thasos by presenting it as something directly authorized by Heracles himself. We have no evidence for this myth's existence in the Archaic period, and when dealing with a myth known only from later sources it is difficult to judge how far one can legitimately retroject its origins. Nevertheless, a myth whose purpose was to present the colonization of Thasos as an extension of the mythological past served an obvious purpose at the time of the colonization or shortly afterwards.Footnote ²⁶ There is a hint of this connection in Archilochus fr. 89 W, a battle narrative where we have a mention of Thasos and Torone in successive lines (οἱ μὲν ἐν Θάσωι.[ | καὶ Τορωναίν[, 19–20, ‘some in Thasos … and Torone’) a combination that evokes Apollodorus' story that Heracles defeated the Thracians on Thasos and then went to Torone.Footnote ²⁷ While we cannot therefore exclude the possibility that this myth grew up later in order to explain Parian control of Thasos, it is also highly plausible that the story could have been known in Archilochus' time, and that Heracles' adventures were seen as a foil for contemporary military activities. Moreover, even if the details in Apollodorus' version date from a later period, it seems likely that the choice of Heracles as proto-colonizer for the Parians grew out of an earlier association between Heracles and Paros: a relationship for which there is some evidence elsewhere in Archilochus' own poetry, for it is striking that the only attested instances of Archilochus narrating myth are all connected with Heracles and his descendants.Footnote ²⁸

The theory that Heracles was an important figure on Paros helps to explain his presence in the poem, which seems to be an original addition by Archilochus. His epiphany emphasizes Telephus' glory, for gods tend to favour natural winners. Nevertheless, Heracles' appearance is a detail found nowhere else in accounts of Telephus' rout of the Achaeans; indeed, the poet has gone out of his way to incorporate Heracles into the scene. After the middle section of the mythological narrative, which explains the Achaeans' mistake in confusing Mysia with Troy, it is the presence of Heracles that brings us back to the immediate situation, and the rout of the Achaeans. He is described as physically present on the battlefield and involved in the action, as we are told that he ‘came to meet them shouting to his brave-hearted son’ (Ἡρακλ]' τη[ε] βοῶ τα[α]κἀρδιον [υἱόν, 22).Footnote ²⁹ It is only after being identified as the son of Heracles that Telephus is named once again (24). We are reminded of his prowess in battle as the poet returns to the motif of his rout of the Achaeans (24–5), while his description as [πρό]μαχο (25) echoes μ]οῦνος in portraying Telephus as unique and exceptional in his ability.Footnote ³⁰ His achievements on the battlefield are then focalized through Heracles' eyes, as we are told that his fighting ‘gave pleasure to his father’ (πατρὶ χαριζ[ενος, 25); this, too, foregrounds Telephus' Heraclid identity as important. Thus Heracles assumes a role in the poem beyond mythological tradition or logical necessity, and Telephus is closely identified with him.

TELEPHUS AND THE WRONG WAR

If Archilochus draws attention to the aspects of Telephus' genealogy which assimilate him to the audience, we would expect Telephus to be the primary focus of the audience's emotional engagement, and the central figure of the mythological paradigm. Yet, as various scholars have noted, the paradigm is presented in a surprisingly ambiguous fashion, and it remains unclear whether we are meant to be sympathizing with Telephus or with the Achaeans.Footnote ³¹ In this respect, Archilochus draws on the Homeric presentation of the Trojan War, where there are few sociological or cultural differences between the two sides, and the audience is encouraged to feel sympathy for both. This is striking when we compare the poem to other presentations of non-Greeks in Archilochus' poetry, where we find foreigners presented more negatively, and as different from the Greek ‘self’. For example, in fr. 5 W we find a dismissive reference to ‘some Saian’ who has captured the poet's shield (ἀσπίδι μὲν Σαΐων τις ἀγάλλεται, ‘some Saian exalts in my shield’, 1–2): here Archilochus draws on Homeric echoes, but does so to characterize the Saian as arrogant (for ἀγάλλομαι tends to be used in this sense in the Iliad), and to suggest an ironic mismatch between the grandeur of Iliadic heroes and the ignominy of being defeated by an anonymous barbarian warrior.Footnote ³²

Distinction between Greeks and non-Greeks can also be seen in fr. 93a W: though the text is problematic, we find references to tension between Greeks and Thracians; Archilochus criticizes the Greeks' motivations in their dealings with the Thracians (οἰκείωι δὲ κέρδει ξύν' ἐποίησαν κακά, ‘for private gain they did public harm’, 3) coupled with a suggestion of indignation that the Greek leader bribed or paid the Thracians (Θρέϊξι δῶρ' ἔχων ἀκήρατον | χρυσόν, ‘bringing gifts of pure gold for the Thracians’).Footnote ³³ Similarly, in fr. 216 W, Archilochus refers in negative terms to mercenaries as ‘Carians’ (καὶ δὴ ᾽πίκουρος ὥστε Κὰρ κεκλήσομαι, ‘indeed I shall be called a mercenary, like a Carian’), which further suggests an intrinsic contrast between Greeks and barbarians (the negative associations of mercenaries in Archilochus' poetry can clearly be seen from fr. 15 W: Γλαῦκ', ἐπίκουρος ἀνὴρ τόσσον ϕίλος ἔσκε μάχηται, ‘Glaucus, a mercenary is a friend only as long as he is fighting’). Thus Archilochus' poetry in general suggests that he and his audience share a sense of Greekness, and identify themselves to some extent in opposition to non-Greeks, even if we do not find the developed anti-Asian feeling of the post-Persian Wars period.

In fact, when we examine the presentation of Telephus and the Achaeans, we find not only that the two sides are indistinguishable, but also that the myth is told in a way which leaves it unclear where our sympathies lie, and what moral we should draw from the paradeigma. The moral which introduces the myth implies that the Achaeans are the subject, and the lesson to be drawn is the inevitability of defeat under difficult circumstances: even the great heroes of old had to retreat when fate was against them. Indeed, there are several aspects of the narrative that bolster the theme of consolatio: the poet stresses the courage and martial ability of the Achaeans despite their defeat (λκ[οι,] … αἰχμη πε ἐόντε[ς], ‘powerful men … spearmen though they were’, 7–8), and emphasizes that their retreat was fated (όσα δὴ μοῖρα θεῶν ϕόβ, ‘so great was the fate of the gods that routed them’, 7),Footnote ³⁴ while later in the poem the audience is reminded that they are no ordinary mortals but demigods (αîδές ' θανάτων ἀδελϕε, ‘sons and brothers of the immortals’, 14).Footnote ³⁵

Yet against this strand of consolatio is set a competing voice, which admires and celebrates the prowess shown by Telephus.Footnote ³⁶ This internal conflict is signalled by the shift from the introductory moral justifying flight (ϕεύγ[ειν δέ τις ὥρη· ‘there is a time for flight’, 4) to the exemplum which illustrates it (ο[ε μ]οῦνος ὼ Τήλεϕος, ‘even Telephus once, alone as he was’, 5). Whereas the gnômê leads us to expect a paradigm which identifies with the valiant defeated, instead Archilochus turns the myth on its head by using it to focus on Telephus and his single-handed excellence in combat. The poem thus weaves together two conflicting strands, and in doing so creates an unsettled narrative which leaves the audience uncertain as to where their loyalties should lie, and what message they should take from the paradigm.Footnote ³⁷ This tension is exemplified by the description of the Achaean flight as κακή (24), a word designed to evoke the opening moral on cowardice (3). The use of κακή reinforces the degree to which the myth undermines and challenges the expectations set up by the gnômê, for it invites us to wonder whether this is Archilochus' own judgement or focalized through Telephus or the despondent Achaeans. The epithet, then, is carefully chosen to fit with the poem's consistent uncertainty as to whether one should criticize defeat as cowardice or regard it simply as divinely ordained misfortune, for κακός itself can hold both meanings.Footnote ³⁸

The reason for the central ambiguity lies in the problematic nature of the conflict, since, as Archilochus takes care to point out, the battle he describes is one which ought never to have happened: while the Achaeans imagine themselves to be fighting the Trojan War, they are in fact fighting the wrong enemy, in the wrong place. This point is made explicit throughout the poem; indeed, the purpose of the central flashback is to clarify that the Achaeans have made a mistake. As the Achaeans flee before Telephus, we are told that their intention was to fight at Troy (λιον εἰς ἱερὴν ἦγε μαχησομέν[υς, 15); Archilochus then goes into further detail to explain how they ended up in Mysia: they lost their way (λαϕθέντες ὁδοῦ, 16) and attacked the city of Teuthras (Τε]ύθραντο' ατὴν πòς πόλιν [ἐ][έπεσον, 17). A few lines later the poet reiterates the Achaeans' confusion: they believe they are attacking Troy (ϕ]νὰρ ὑψίυλον Τρώων πόλι εἰσ[αναβαίνειν, 20) but are in fact standing on Mysian soil ([ά] δ'ἐπάτεον Μυσίδα πυροϕόρ[ν, 21). It is therefore unsurprising that the poet leaves it ambiguous whether we are to side with Telephus or the Achaeans, for the overriding moral is that the conflict between them is a futile misunderstanding.Footnote ³⁹

Reading the poem in this light, the emphasis that Archilochus places on Telephus' Greek heritage can be seen as another way in which to indicate the mistaken nature of this battle, for not only have the Achaeans failed to find the Trojans, but the enemy who defeats them is another Greek. Ιn only twenty lines of mythological narrative, Archilochus appears to use all three of the Homeric words for the Greeks (᾽Αργείων, 6; ᾽Αχαιοί, 12; οῖσι, 24),Footnote ⁴⁰ and this sets up an expectation of a contrast between Greeks and foreigners, with regional distinctions between groups of Greeks elided.Footnote ⁴¹ Yet the apparently Asian enemy turns out to have a purely Greek pedigree, while the other Mysians seem to play no role in the battle. This irony is brought out by the word order of lines 5–6, where the Arcadian Telephus attacks the Argives: Τήλεϕος ᾽Αρκ[σίδης | ᾽Αργείων ἐϕόησε πολὺν στρα[όν,]. The juxtaposition of words indicating Greek regional identity contributes to the idea that this is a war between Greeks. The enjambement gives greater emphasis to ᾽Αργείων (already in prominent position as first word in its line), and highlights the oddity of Arcadians fighting Argives in a battle which purports to be a conflict between Greeks and Asians. Similarly, the image of the Greeks being beaten back through the intervention of their own Panhellenic hero Heracles again suggests that the battle is a misguided one (Ἡρακλ]' τη[ε], 22). Thus Archilochus uses his focus on Telephus' genealogy to add weight to the poem's central conceit that, far from participating in the glorious battles at Troy, what the Greeks are involved in is no more than an embarrassing mistake.

It is tempting to take this as criticism of whatever policy led to the defeat which the contemporary audience has suffered. A myth which begins by looking like a consolatory piece of moralizing turns out to have a sting in the tail, as it suggests that the battle was fought in vain. Not only is the conflict in the wrong place, it is also against the wrong enemy, for both of the conflicting sides within the poem are simultaneously presented as analogues for the Parian audience. The opposition that the Achaeans face from Telephus and Heracles is connected to the mistaken nature of the attack on Mysia; Parian policy-makers may think that they are fighting a battle as glorious as the Trojan War, but they are in fact as misguided as the Achaeans in Mysia.

Most of Archilochus' political poetry can be connected with the colonization of Thasos, and this is therefore the most plausible context for the new fragment (especially once we consider the possible mythological connection between Thasos and Heracles discussed above). We know from Archilochus' other Thasian poetry that he frequently tackled the subject with a strong element of criticism and abuse: thus, for example, fr. 93a W attacks a political decision by a fellow Parian, the son of Pisistratus, whose allies are said to have ‘done public harm for private profit’ (οἰκείωι δὲ κέρδει ξύν' ἐποίησαν κακά, 7), in his dealings with the Thracians.Footnote ⁴² In other fragments Archilochus attacks Thasos itself, calling it a poor and undesirable land in fr. 22 W, and comparing its rugged and rocky terrain to a donkey's back in fr. 21 W. Fr. 22 W compares Thasos unfavourably to Siris in southern Italy, a site colonized by settlers from Colophon in the early seventh century (οὐ γάρ τι καλός χῶρος οὐδ' ἐϕίμερος | οὐδ' ἐρατός, οἷος ἀμϕὶ Σίριος ῥοάς, ‘it is not a fine place, nor a desirable one, nor a lovely one, like that around the streams of the Siris’).

Archilochus thus draws on recent history in order to express his reservations with contemporary policy, suggesting that the Parian attempt at colonization is a feeble attempt to imitate more successful states.Footnote ⁴³ The simile in fr. 21 W is designed to emphasize the poverty of the island, for Archilochus says that ‘it stands like the spine of a donkey’ (ἥδε δ' ὥστ' ὄνου ῥάχις | ἕστηκεν, 1–2), indicating that we are to imagine an animal in poor condition with its bones clearly visible. Thasos is thus likened not only to a humble beast of burden but to a starving one, to suit the poet's implication that the island provides little livelihood.Footnote ⁴⁴ Both these descriptions mock the efforts at colonization and question the decision to fight for this piece of territory, a point made still more explicitly in fr. 228 W, where Thasos is called ‘thrice-wretched’ (τρισοιζυρήν).

A politically critical message in the new poem would therefore be in keeping with what we know elsewhere of Archilochus' approach to current affairs in general and to Thasos in particular. Moreover, since we know from his other poetry that the fighting around colonization involved battles with other Greeks (frr. 89, 98 W), the Telephus myth may have a more direct resonance: Archilochus and his friends expect to fight Thracians in Thasos but find themselves, like the Achaeans at Mysia, embroiled in a conflict with Greeks. Again, this interpretation fits with Archilochus' standpoint elsewhere: as we have already seen, anti-Thracian feeling can be seen in fr. 93a W, where the implication is that the son of Peisistratus has behaved outrageously by benefitting the Thracians for personal reward. The comment in fr. 102 W, Πανελλήνων ὀϊζὺς ἐς Θάσον συνέδραμεν (‘the misery of the Panhellenes has rushed to Thasos’), could also be interpreted as a criticism of conflict between different groups of Greeks in the region. In the absence of any direct evidence about the Telephus elegy's historical context, this line of interpretation can only be suggested tentatively; nevertheless, reading the poem through the filter of political and ethnic tensions helps to explain both why Archilochus tells the myth of Telephus and why he presents it as he does.