Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:31:18.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Transitions in Pindar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Christopher Carey
Christopher Carey
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper addresses itself to two transitional passages in Pindar which are frequently misunderstood. In both we appear at first sight to have an awkward change of direction, with the myth terminated abruptly and the following item of praise merely juxtaposed. In reality, both transitions are effected smoothly, and the same technique is employed in both odes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 287 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

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 cf. O. 10.16–19, N. 4.93–6, N. 5.48–9, N. 6.64–6, I. 4.73f., I. 5.59–61, Bakch. 13.191–6. The unusual scale of the praise of Melesias suggests to Robbins, E., CQ 36 (1986), 320f. that the ode is a joint tribute to victor and trainerCrossRefGoogle Scholar. But here as in other odes where Pindar includes an extended praise of someone instrumental to the patron's success (P. 5.26–53, I. 2.20–8) the ode is unambiguously dedicated to the victor and his family, as the relative length of treatment indicates.

2 Blass, F., Rh.M. 53 (1898), 284Google Scholar; von der Mühll, P., MH 21 (1964), 54f.Google Scholar, who notes the similarity with N. 5.37ff. discussed below; Lehnus, L., Pindaro: Olimpiche (Milan, 1981), p. 140 (tentatively)Google Scholar. Von der Mühll ascribes this view to W. Christ in his commentary of 1896 and Bischoff, H., Gnomen Pindars (Würzburg, 1938), pp. 61f.Google Scholar, neither of which I have seen.

3 δε⋯ρο line 51 (together with τ⋯νδε χώραν 25) is a major stumbling-block for those who believe that O. 8 was performed at Olympia, since there is no obvious reason why Aiakos should be deposited at Olympia. Boeckh, Augustus, Pindari opera 2.ii (Leipzig, 1821), p. 183 statesGoogle Scholar: ‘Graeci δε⋯ρο etiam de eo loco dicunt, de quo sermo sit, etsi qui loquitur alio sit loco.’ His one parallel, Plat, . Phaid. 58bGoogle Scholar, looks like a confusion of dramatic location with place of composition rather than evidence of Greek usage. Gildersleeve, B. L., Pindar: the Olympian and Pythian Odes 2 (New York, 1890), p. 197Google Scholar, Lehnus, , op. cit. (n. 2), p. 136Google Scholar suggest that δε⋯ρο refers to Greece, which would of course include Olympia. But in a context in which Poseidon's goal is specified as the Isthmus it seems most unlikely that Aiakos' goal would be given vaguely as ‘Greece’. δε⋯ρο is most naturally taken as a specific reference to Aigina, and we must suppose that the ode was performed there.

4 See schol. 70a, Drachman, A. B., Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina (Leipzig, 1903–1927), i.254Google Scholar.

5 cf. Boeckh, , op. cit. (n. 3), p. 183Google Scholar, Dissen, L., Pindari carmina 2 ii (Gotha, 1843), p. 115Google Scholar, Fennell, C. E. M., Pindar: the Olympian and Pythian Odes 2 (Cambridge, 1893), p. 90Google Scholar, Farnell, L. R., The Works of Pindar (London, 1932), i.43Google Scholar, Nisetich, F. J., Pindar's Victory Songs (Baltimore, 1980), p. 120Google Scholar.

6 Lehnus, , op. cit. (n. 2), p. 139Google Scholar.

7 Whitmore, C. E., Studies in Philology 15 (1918), 346Google Scholar: ‘Nothing among men rests equally (that is, uniformly) joyful’, Bowra, C. M., The Odes of Pindar (Harmondsworth, 1969), p. 212Google Scholar: ‘But no joy will stay the same among men.’

8 cf. Pelops, at O. 1.65ff.Google Scholar, Perseus, at P. 10.46ffGoogle Scholar.

9 cf. von der Mühll, , op. cit. (n. 2), 55Google Scholar, Lehnus, , op. cit. (n. 2), p. 140Google Scholar, Race, W. H., TAPA 113 (1983), 110Google Scholar, Robbins, , op. cit. (n. 1), 321, n. 23Google Scholar. So already Forbes, P. B. R., CR 47 (1933), 167Google Scholar.

10 Boeckh, , op. cit. (n. 3), p. 184Google Scholar. The suggestion that Melesias had also trained Timosthenes (mentioned at O. 8.15) is based on the ancient conjecture (recorded as fact in schol, . O. 8.16Google Scholar, 19b, Drachmann i.241) that Timosthenes was Alkimedon's brother. In ‘Prosopographica Pindarica’, CQ 39 (1989), 1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar I seek to demonstrate that the conjecture is erroneous. Boeckh is followed in referring 54f. to Melesias' success as trainer by Mezger, F., Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig, 1880), p. 381Google Scholar, Gildersleeve, , op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 197f.Google Scholar, Fennell, , op. cit. (n. 5), p. 90Google Scholar, Bowra, , op. cit. (n. 7), p. 212Google Scholar, Lattimore, R., The Odes of Pindar 2 (Chicago, 1947), p. 27Google Scholar, Nisetich, , op. cit. (n. 5), p. 120Google Scholar. Race, , op. cit. (n. 9), p. 110 n. 42Google Scholar, suggests deliberate ambiguity.

11 Drachmann i.256.

12 Dissen, , op. cit. (n. 5), p. 116Google Scholar, Farnell ii.65.

13 Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles 2 (Oxford, 1954), pp. 110fGoogle Scholar.

14 Contrast P. 9.90f.: Aἰγ⋯ναι τε γ⋯ρ φαμι N⋯σου τ' ⋯ν λ⋯χωι…

15 cf. P. 8.6 and see further e.g. Horn, . Il. 1.196, 8.214, 9.320Google Scholar, Aisch, . Ag. 67Google Scholar, Cho. 336f., Dem. 21.51, 55, 43.20. The avoidance of δ⋯ in this idiom is due neither to chance nor to caprice. Denniston, , op. cit. (n. 13), p. 162Google Scholar notes: ‘δ⋯ usually couples sentences, clauses or phrases, single words being normally joined by κα⋯ and (in some styles)τε’. He adds (162 n. 3): ‘Adversative δ⋯ may couple single words, … continuative δ⋯ hardly ever, if at all’.

16 Farnell ii.279 rightly rejects the possibility that μετα⋯ξαντα might agree with ἔθνος (which would then designate an individual) by a σχ⋯μα κατ⋯ σ⋯νεσιν. Pindar never uses ἓθνος of a single individual.

17 Farnell ii.278. See Slater, W. J., Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin, 1969), p. 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Schol, . N. 5.78cGoogle Scholar, Drachmann iii.97.

19 Schol, . N. 5.75bGoogle Scholar, Drachmann iii.96f.

20 Farnell ii.278.

21 See West, M. L., Greek Metre (Oxford, 1982), p. 71Google Scholar.

22 In line 44 με⋯ς τ' ⋯πιχώριος explained by the scholia as designating the Aiginetan month Delphinios (schol, . N. 5.81a, bGoogle Scholar, Drachmann iii.97), must refer to a victory in Aigina (at the Delphinia, according to Farnell ii.279). If δ⋯ in line 45 is used for γ⋯ρ the same victory is referred to in both verses. However, the reference to the victor's age group (which is otiose in the context of a victory by an adult) and the postponement of this detail to line 45 suggest that these verses may list two Aiginetan victories by Euthymenes, one as an adult (line 44) and an earlier victory as a boy (line 45).

23 According to the data assembled by Thummer, E., Pindar: die isthmischen Gedichte, 1 (Heidelberg, 1968), pp. 27f.Google Scholar, Aigina should follow games of the periodos in victory catalogues, but may either precede (O. 7.86, P. 9.90f.) or follow (O. 13.109) Megara; this vacillation and the close association of the two venues in O. 7, O. 13, P. 9 and N. 5 (cf. also P. 8.78–80) suggest that they had virtually equal prestige.

24 For victories at the same locale summed up in a single figure cf. O. 7.81, 86, O. 9.86, O. 12.18, O. 13.32, 38, 40, 99, 107, P. 7.13/14, 16, P. 8.80, P. 9.91, P. 10.13, N. 2.19, 22, 23, N. 5.52, N. 6.19, 20, N. 10.24, 27, 28, 42, I. 4.70, 71, I. 5.17, I. 6.61; for such victories listed side by side cf. P. 9.97–103 (all local victories), I. 4.70–1.

25 For other cases in which more important follow less important victories see Thummer, , op. cit. (n. 23), p. 28Google Scholar.

26 cf. O. 8.15ff., N. 10.32 6.

27 cf. schol. 67a, Drachmann iii.96. For recent arguments for a reference in N. 5 to an Isthmian victory by Euthymenes see Wüst, E., Pindar als geschichtschreibender Dichter (Tübingen, 1967), pp. 173f.Google Scholar, Köhnken, A., BICS 22 (1975), 35, n. 21Google Scholar. Mezger, , op. cit. (n. 10), p. 337Google Scholar, and Bury, J. B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London, 1890), p. 95Google Scholar likewise accept the Isthmian victory, but erroneously rewrite the text in order to secure an explicit reference to the Isthmus in line 41. The reference to success at the Isthmus is rejected by Hamilton, R., Epinikion (The Hague, 1974), p. 106Google Scholar, who finds in the gnome in 40f. a ‘shift to a new topic’. But the presence of a gnome need not signal a major change of direction; we find gnomai alone or in clusters mediating between related themes, such as O. 8.8 (linking the divination of athletes at Olympia with the Olympic victory of Alkimedon), P. 9.76–9 (between Telesikrates' Pythian victory and the catalogue of earlier successes), N. 9.33 (between two elements in the praise of Chromios). The suggestion is also rejected by Privitera, G. A., Pindaro: le Isthmiche (Milan, 1982), pp. 211fGoogle Scholar.

28 The interpretation of the transitional passage in O. 3 depends on our understanding of the phrase τα⋯ταν ⋯ορτ⋯ν in line 34, which is often referred to the festival at Akragas at which (probably) O. 3 was performed; so most recently , E. Robbins, in Greek Poetry and Philosophy, ed. Gerber, D. E. (Chico, 1984), p. 222Google Scholar. Most recent writers refer the phrase to the Olympic games; see Lehnus, , op. cit. (n. 2), p. 67Google Scholar, Köhnken, A., HSCP 87 (1983), 59, n. 44Google Scholar, Verdenius, W. J., Commentaries on Pindar, 1 (Mnemos. Suppl. 97, 1987), pp. 32f.Google Scholar, Shelmerdine, S. C., HSCP 91 (1987), 77Google Scholar. The latter is the correct view, (i) κα⋯ ν⋯ν/κ⋯ νυν in transition from past to present or general to particular should establish a logical relationship (parallelism or illustration; cf. O. 7.13, O. 10.78, P. 5.20, N. 6.8, I. 5.48, I. 8.61) between the passages so linked; but if the ⋯ορτ⋯ is at Akragas the connection is purely external (‘a sweet desire for the trees seized him … And now/now too he comes …’). A reference to the Olympic games gives the expected logical connection (the interest in Olympia demonstrated by Herakles' acquisition of the olive continues in the present), (ii) ⋯μ⋯ δ ὦν in line 38 should signal a transition as at P. 9.103. But if lines 34ff. refer to the victory celebration line 38 merely continues a subject begun in line 34. Probably therefore lines 34–8 belong to the myth and continue the tale of Herakles' connection with Olympia (note especially ν⋯ν δ' … ⋯μ⋯ δ⋯ … O. 1.90–100, κα⋯ νυν … ⋯μ⋯ δ' ὦν … O. 3.34–8). For the performance of O. 3 at a feast of the Dioskouroi at Akragas cf. Carey, C., A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar (New York, 1981), p. 19Google Scholar, Robbins, , op. cit. (n. 28), p. 220Google Scholar, Verdenius, , op. cit. (n. 28), p. 6Google Scholar.

29 Bergk, T., Poetae lyrici Graeci 4 (Leipzig, 1878), p. 352Google Scholar. He is followed by Bury, J. B., The Isthmian Odes of Pindar (London, 1892), pp. 116f.Google Scholar, Christ, W., Pindari carmina (Leipzig, 1899), p. 255Google Scholar, Farnell ii.361, Nisetich, , op. cit. (n. 5), p. 318Google Scholar, Kirkwood, G., Selections from Pindar (Chico, 1982), p. 295Google Scholar. Kirkwood following Bury finds the imprecision in τ⋯ς δ' (if τρεῖς refers only to victories at the Isthmus) ‘improbable’. But cf. O. 7.82, O. 9.87, O. 13.43ff., 107, N. 2.23, N. 10.46. A comparison of this list with that in n. 24 above will demonstrate that Pindar not only leaves the number of victories vague on occasion but also mixes precise and vague numerations in a single list, partly no doubt for variety, an important consideration in Pindar's victory lists. Cole, T., AJP 108 (1987), 553–68Google Scholar includes the list in I. 6 among a number of passages in which Pindar is deliberately ambiguous about the number of victories. That is, Pindar leaves it unclear whether he means ‘three from the Isthmus and others from Nemea’ or ‘three, (one) from the Isthmus and (two) others from Nemea’. I remain unconvinced by his argument that Pindar persistently indulges in such ambiguity. In the present case (as also at O. 9.86f., TV. 5.52f, O. 12.17C, discussed by Cole, 554, 558, 562) he approaches the text as a reader and ignores the effect of performance. The presence or absence of a comma in the printed text reflects the presence or absence of a pause in performance. The ambiguity exists only on the page. It is significant that in his translation on p. 554 Cole creates the desired ambiguity by departing from the colometry of Pindar's text.

30 So Hamilton, , op. cit. (n. 27), p. 106Google Scholar.

31 See n. 24 above.

32 Schwartz, E., Hermes 39 (1904), 636Google Scholar.

33 Thus Slater, , op. cit. (n. 17), p. 16Google Scholar translates Aἰγ⋯ναθε ‘at Aigina’ cf. Lattimore, , op. cit. (n. 10), p. 115Google Scholar, Nisetich, , op. cit. (n. 5), p. 254Google Scholar. The termination could be locative or separative; for the latter cf. P. 4.102, N. 3.81, N. 7.70, N. 9.1, N. 10.43, I. 3.17.

34 So Sandys, J. E., Pindar (London, 1919), p. 363Google Scholar, Wüst, , op. cit. (n. 27), p. 167Google Scholar.

35 cf. Bowra, , op. cit. (n. 7), p. 40Google Scholar.