Reading the Victory Ode 1107527511, 9781107527515

Citation preview

RE AD I N G T HE V I C TO RY O D E

The victory ode was a short-lived poetic genre in the fifth century bc, but its impact has been substantial. Pindar, Bacchylides and others are now among the most widely read Greek authors precisely because of their significance for the literary development of poetry between Homer and tragedy and their historical involvement in promoting Greek rulers. Their influence was so great that it ultimately helped to define the European notion of lyric from the Renaissance onwards. This collection of essays by international experts examines the victory ode from a range of angles: its genesis and evolution, the nature of the commissioning process, the patrons, the context of performance and re-performance, and the poetics of the victory ode and its exponents. From these different perspectives the contributors offer both a panoramic view of the genre and an insight into the modern research positions on this complex and fascinating subject. p e t e r a g ocs ´ is an affiliated lecturer in the Faculty of Classics at the University of Cambridge. He has spent the last four years as a Junior Research fellow at Christ’s College, Cambridge. c h r i s ca r e y is Professor of Greek at University College London. r i c h a r d r a w l e s teaches in the Department of Classics at the University of Nottingham.

READING THE VICTORY ODE edited by ´ PE TE R AG OCS, CHRIS CAREY AND RICHARD RAWLES

University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107527515 © Cambridge University Press 2012 his publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2012 First paperback edition 2016 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Reading the victory ode / edited by Peter Agócs, Chris Carey and Richard Rawles. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-107-00787-1 (hardback) 1. Odes, Greek – History and criticism. 2. Laudatory poetry, Greek – History and criticism. 3. War poetry, Greek – History and criticism. I. Agócs, Peter. II. Carey, Christopher. III. Rawles, Richard. pa3118.o3r43 2012 881´.0109 – dc23 2012002686 isbn 978-1-107-00787-1 Hardback isbn 978-1-107-52751-5 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

In memory of our colleagues M. M. Willcock and Stephen Instone

Contents

List of figures List of contributors Preface and acknowledgements Abbreviations Critical signs Introduction

page ix xi xv xviii xxv xxvi

Peter Ag´ocs, Chris Carey and Richard Rawles

part i the lost history of epinician  Early epinician: Ibycus and Simonides



Richard Rawles

 The lost Isthmian odes of Pindar



Giovan Battista D’Alessio

 Epinician sounds: Pindar and musical innovation



Lucia Prauscello

 Epinicians and ‘patrons’



Ewen Bowie

 What happened later to the families of Pindaric patrons – and to epinician poetry?



Simon Hornblower

part ii contexts of performance and re-performance  Performance, re-performance and Pindar’s audiences A. D. Morrison

vii



Contents

viii

 Performance and re-performance: the Siphnian Treasury evoked (Pindar’s Pythian , Olympian  and Isthmian )



Lucia Athanassaki

 Representations of cult in epinician poetry



Franco Ferrari

 Epinician and the symposion: a comparison with the enkomia



Felix Budelmann

 Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



Peter Ag´ocs

 Pindar’s ‘difficulty’ and the performance of epinician poetry: some suggestions from ethnography



Rosalind Thomas

part iii critical approaches to the victory ode: rhetoric, imagery and narrative  Poet and public: communicative strategies in Pindar and Bacchylides



Glenn W. Most

 Image and world in epinician poetry



G. O. Hutchinson

 Metaphorical travel and ritual performance in epinician poetry



Claude Calame (translated by Lucy Whiteley)

 Bacchylidean myths



David Fearn

epilogue  Reading Pindar



Michael Silk

Bibliography Index of Greek/technical terms Index of proper names General index

   

Figures

 Rhegian silver tetradrachm (c. –) showing the victorious mule-cart of Anaxilas, tyrant of the city, crowned by Nike. By permission of the British Museum.  Syracusan silver tetradrachm with quadriga drawn by horses (late sixth century to c. ). By permission of the Perseus Coin Archive.  Plan of Delphi. Source: Bommelaer , by ´ permission of the Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes.  Reconstruction of the east side of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, seen from below, with the view approaching along the Sacred Way. Source: E. Hansen in Daux and Hansen , by permission of ´ the Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes.  Drawing of right-hand side of the East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi. By permission of U. Koch in Brinkmann .  Right-hand side of the East Frieze of the Siphnian ´ Treasury at Delphi. By permission of the Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes.  Drawing of left-hand side of the East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi. By permission of U. Koch in Brinkmann .  Left-hand side of the East Frieze of the Siphnian ´ Treasury at Delphi. By permission of the Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes.  Goddesses on the East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi: Athena, Hera and Thetis (?). By ´ permission of the Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes. ix

page   













x

List of figures

 The entire East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury. Source: Museum of Delphi. Personal archive of L. Athanassaki, photo taken by permission of the th Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities.  Reconstruction of the view of the Siphnian Treasury from the north, seen from above as the viewer progresses past along the Sacred Way. Source: E. Hansen in Daux and Hansen , by permission ´ of the Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes. (a–c) Attic red-figure hydria (c. –) from Duvanlii in Bulgaria: theoxenia scene with Dioscuri. Mus. Plovdiv . Source: Filow and Welkow  (Abb. –).  Drawing of Attic red-figure hydria (c. –) from Duvanlii in Bulgaria: theoxenia scene viewed from above with inscriptions. Mus. Plovdiv . Source: van Hoorn  pl.  (repr. from Filow and Welkow , Abb. : ).









Contributors

peter ag ocs ´ studied at E¨otv¨os Lor´and University (ELTE) in Budapest before coming to London to write a PhD on Greek song at University College London under Chris Carey’s supervision. He is a Junior Research Fellow at Christ’s College, Cambridge. lucia athanassaki is Associate Professor of Ancient Greek Literature at the University of Crete (Rethymno). She wrote her PhD (Mantic Vision and Diction in Pindar’s Victory Odes) at Brown University, and taught at the University of Virginia before returning to Greece. She is the author of several articles on Pindar in English and Greek and a monograph, Choral Performances and Their Audience in the Archaic and Early Classical Period (). She is co-editor (with R. P. Martin and J. F. Miller) of the volumes Apolline Politics and Poetics (), and, with E. Bowie, of Archaic and Classical Choral Song (Trends in Classics) (forthcoming). ewen bowie taught Greek language and literature at Corpus Christi College, Oxford as E. P. Warren Praelector in Classics from  to . He writes widely on all aspects of ancient Greek literature including the Greek prose and poetry of the high Roman empire, archaic Greek lyric (especially elegy and iambos), Hellenistic poetry and Old Comedy. He is completing a commentary on Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe, and a volume of essays on Philostratus (with J. Elsner) has just appeared. His next project will be a study of Hadrian’s interaction with the Greek world. felix budelmann is Tutorial Fellow in Classics and Ancient Literature at Magdalen College, Oxford. The author of The Language of Sophocles: Communality, Communication and Involvement (Cambridge, ), and editor of The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric, he publishes on Greek poetry, drama, literary and cognitive theory, performance studies

xi

xii

List of contributors and the modern reception of ancient Greek literature. He is currently working on a ‘Green and Yellow’ commentary on selected fragments of Greek lyric for Cambridge University Press.

claude calame is Honorary Professor of Greek at the University of ´ ´ ´ Lausanne and Directeur d’Etudes at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. He has published a number of monographs and articles on early Greek poetry, including a revolutionary commentary () on Alcman. English publications include The Craft of Poetic Speech in Ancient Greece (), Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece (), Myth and History in Ancient Greece () and Masks of Authority (). chris carey taught at St Andrews, the University of Minnesota, Carleton College and Royal Holloway, the University of London, before becoming Professor of Greek at University College London. He has published extensively on Pindar and early lyric, Homer, drama, Greek law and politics and the Attic Orators. His most recent work includes a new OCT edition of Lysias. He is currently writing a commentary to Book vii of Herodotus for Cambridge University Press, Athenian Law and a book of essays on Pindar’s Olympian Odes. giovan battista d’alessio is Professor of Greek at King’s College London. An expert on archaic and Hellenistic poetry, he has published an edition of Callimachus and important studies of Hesiod, lyric and literary papyri. He is currently working on an edition of the fragments of Pindar. david fearn is Assistant Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Warwick. His monograph Bacchylides: Politics, Performance, Poetic Tradition was published in , and he has published a number of articles on the socio-political contexts of classical and archaic Greek literature. He is currently editing a volume on the poetry and culture of Aegina in the fifth century bc. His next project will concern the cultural history of modern discoveries of Greek literature on papyrus in Egypt in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. franco ferrari taught at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa before taking up a Professorship of Greek at the University of Aquila. He is author of six books and many important articles on ancient Greek poetry, drama, textual criticism and literary papyrology; his version of Sappho’s songs () won the Latina Prize. He has also translated

List of contributors

xiii

Pindar’s Olympians (). His most recent books are Una mitra per Kleis: Saffo e il suo pubblico and La fonte del cipresso bianco: racconto e sapienza dall’Odissea alle lamine misteriche (). His book Sappho’s Gift: The Poet and Her Community recently () appeared in English. simon hornblower is Fellow of the British Academy and Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. Apart from a monumental three-volume commentary on Thucydides, recently completed, and his Thucydides and Pindar (), he writes extensively on Greek historiography. With C. Morgan he has edited the volume Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals (). He is writing a commentary on Herodotus Book v for Cambridge University Press. g. o. hutchinson is Professor of Greek and Latin Languages at the University of Oxford and Fellow and Tutor in Classics at Exeter College. His books include Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas: Edited with Introduction and Commentary (), Hellenistic Poetry (), Greek Lyric Poetry: A Commentary on Selected Larger Pieces () and Talking Books: Readings in Hellenistic and Roman Books of Poetry (). a. d. morrison is the author of two books on ancient Greek poetry: The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry (Cambridge, ) and Performances and Audiences in Pindar’s Sicilian Victory Odes (BICS Supplement , ). He studied in Oxford and at University College London. He is co-editor (with Ruth Morello) of Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (). He is currently working on Herodotus’ influence on the Hellenistic poets, and narrative in the socalled Platonic epistles. glenn w. most is Professor at the Committee on Social Thought, the University of Chicago and the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Alongside his interests (too catholic to be easily summarized) in literary theory, comparative literature, philosophy and cultural history, he has written many books and articles on Pindar and other aspects of early Greek poetry and thought. lucia prauscello studied at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, before coming to University College London for two years as Momigliano Fellow in Arts. She is Lecturer in Classics at the University of Cambridge and Fellow of Trinity Hall. She is the author of Singing Alexandria: Music between Practice and Textual Transmission (), and publishes extensively on Plato and Greek music, poetry and cult.

xiv

List of contributors

richard rawles wrote his PhD on Simonides at University College London under the supervision of Alan Griffiths and Chris Carey. He has taught at St Andrews and UCL, and now holds a lectureship at the University of Edinburgh. He has published on archaic lyric and on Hellenistic poetry, and is presently revising his thesis for publication as a monograph. michael silk was Professor of Classical and Comparative Literature at King’s College London. He has published many books and articles on literary criticism, poetic language, literary theory, drama, the classical tradition and modern poetry. His books include Interaction in Poetic Imagery (Cambridge, ), Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy () and Homer: The Iliad (Cambridge, ). His current project is the book Poetic Language in Theory and Practice. rosalind thomas was Professor of Greek History at Royal Holloway, the University of London, before moving to Balliol College, Oxford. She has published on Greek historiography, literacy and law. Her books include Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge, ), Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, ), and Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion (Cambridge, ). She is co-editor (with D. Gerstle and S. Jones) of the volumes Performance Literature  and , Oral Tradition .– ().

Preface and acknowledgements

The essays which make up this collection were presented at the four-day conference ‘Epinician: An International Conference on the Victory Ode’ which took place on – July in the cold summer of  in Bloomsbury, London. Organised under the joint auspices of University College London and the University of London’s Institute of Classical Studies, it aimed to explore different strategies of reading a single genre of archaic and classical Greek poetry. The conference brought together experts in many different fields in a collective effort to visualise epinician poetry in its contexts of performance and reception. Scholars from the UK, Italy, Greece, France, the Netherlands, the United States and Canada, Argentina, Scandanavia and Eastern Europe met in the lecture hall of UCL’s Institute of Archaeology. Delegates came from as far away as Germany and South Africa to hear the speakers, and there was a sizeable postgraduate contingent from UCL, Oxford, Cambridge and many other British and European universities. If they do little to convey the excitement of the occasion (performance being an emergent phenomenon), the editors feel that the selection of essays collected in this volume (slices from the banquet) represent a rewarding contribution to a rapidly developing area of study. In combining and editing these heterogeneous papers into a book, we have not aimed to unify the authors’ varied styles and voices. As always, transcription of Greek names was a problem, and we make no claim to consistency, but have generally opted for more familiar Latinate forms. The poets are usually cited from the most recent editions: Alcman from PMGF and Calame; Stesichorus from PMGF; Ibycus from SLG, PMGF or Campbell, Anacreon and Simonides from PMG (elegy from W ); Pindar from the latest editions of S–M (Epinicians) and M (Fragments). Theognis follows W; the Homeric Hymns Allen’s OCT. Other poets and classical authors are cited from familiar recent editions. Translations are most often based on the Loeb Classical Library editions of W. H. Race and D. A. Campbell; but the authors have often altered the wording to fit the point at hand. The Greek xv

xvi

Preface and acknowledgements

text was typeset in the GraecaU font produced by Linguist’s Software, Inc. (PO Box , Edmonds, WA –, www.linguistsoftware.com). A project of this length and scale needs and finds many friends and helpers along the way. First of all, we must mention our sponsors: the British Academy, the Art & Humanities Research Council, the Institute of Classical Studies, University College London Graduate School, the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the Gilbert Murray Trust, without whose great generosity the conference would never have happened. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. We owe personal thanks to Professor Mike Edwards (then Director of the ICS), Nora Goldschmidt, David Leith, Herwig Maehler, Lucia Prauscello and Cornelia Roemer gave much assistance and encouragement. We would also like to mention a number of other scholars who gave papers and whose active participation added greatly to the experience of everyone who attended: Antonio Aloni, Silvia Barbantani, Jan Maarten Bremer, Ettore Cingano, Stephen Colvin, Armand D’Angour, A. M. Gonz´alez de Tobia, Alan Griffiths, Stephen Instone, Filippomaria Pontani, Cornelia R¨omer, Ian Rutherford, David Sider and Penny Wilson. A very active postgraduate section added much: the participants were Vasiliki Dimoula, Chris Eckermann, Jonathan Halliwell, Daniel Koz´ak, Kalle Lundahl, Victoria Moul, Florencia Nelli, Arlette Neumann, Maria Pavlou, Anna Tatsi, Lukas van der Berge, Evelyne van ’t Wout and Maria G. Xanthou. (The papers of Barbantani, Carey, Dimoula, Rutherford, Pontani, D’Angour, Wilson, Koz´ak and Moul will be published in a forthcoming separate supplementary volume of the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies; and others have already appeared elsewhere.) Peter Ag´ocs also wishes to thank the Master and Fellows of Christ’s College, Cambridge. Special thanks are due to Alan Griffiths, who, generous as ever with his time, read through the manuscript with painstaking precision and offered substantive changes as well as purging errors. We would also like to thank the two very helpful anonymous readers who read an early draft of the manuscript for Cambridge University Press and Theodora Hadjimichael, who compiled the index. Finally, there is one more name that must be mentioned: Amanda Cater, former administrator of the UCL Department of Greek and Latin. She devoted days of her time and led the organisation and running of the conference. Her kindness, utter selflessness and cool head in a crisis are warmly remembered. One can only say that none of this would have been possible without her. A few days before the conference began, we received news of the death of a friend and colleague, Malcolm Willcock, former Professor of Latin at UCL, who would have liked to attend. His contributions to scholarship on

Preface and acknowledgements

xvii

Pindar and Greek poetry are well known, and his acuteness, intelligence, humanity and teaching are fondly remembered by anyone who has read his work or had the good fortune to study under him. While the text was in the final stages of preparation UCL lost another devotee of Pindar, Stephen Instone, who died in Lake Geneva on  July . An inspirational teacher, Stephen had a passion for all things classical – above all for Pindar. He is much missed. To these two colleagues this volume is dedicated.

Abbreviations

Adler AION (Filol) Allen

An. Oxon. Ar. Arist. ARV  Beazley Add.

Bergk, PLG  Bernab´e Brussich CAH  , 

Suidae lexicon ( vols.), edidit A. Adler. Leipzig –. Annali dell’ Istituto Universitario Orientale Napoli. Dipartimento di Studi del mondo classico e del Mediterraneo antico, sezione filologico-letteraria. Homeri opera Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Thomas W. Allen. Tom. v, Hymnos, Cyclum, Fragmenta, Margiten, Batrachomyomachiam Vitas continens. Oxford Classical Texts. Anecdota Oxoniensia e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecarum Oxoniensium, ed. J. A. Cramer. Oxford –. Aristophanes Aristotle J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-Figure Vase Painters, nd edn ( vols.). Oxford . Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV 2 and Paralipomena, nd edn, compiled by T. H. Carpenter with T. Mannack and M. Mendonc¸a at the Beazley Archive. Oxford . Poetae Lyrici Graeci, th edn ( vols.), recensuit Theodorus Bergk. Leipzig –. Poetae epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta, pars i , nd edn, edidit A. Bernab´e. Stuttgart–Leipzig . Laso di Ermione. Testimonianze e frammenti, ed. F. Brussich. Pisa . Cambridge Ancient History, vol. iv, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525–479 b.c., xviii

Abbreviations

CAH  , 

CAH  , 

Calame

Campbell

CEG, CEG  CPG

Cramer Da Rios Dav., Davies Dilts

xix

nd edn., eds. J. Boardman, N. L. G. Hammond, D. M. Lewis and M. Ostwald. Cambridge . Cambridge Ancient History, vol. v, The Fifth Century b.c., nd edn, eds. D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, J. K. Davies and M. Ostwald. Cambridge . Cambridge Ancient History, vol., vi, The Fourth Century b.c., nd edn., eds. D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, S. Hornblower and M. Ostwald. Cambridge . Alcman. Fragmenta edidit, veterum testimonia collegit Claudius Calame. Lyricorum Graecorum quae exstant: Collana di testi critici diretta di B. Gentili, . Rome . Greek Lyric, with an English translation by D. A. Campbell. ( vols.: i, Sappho–Alcaeus; ii, Anacreon, Anacreontea, and Choral Lyric from Olympus to Alcman; iii, Stesichorus, Ibycus, Simonides, and others; iv, Bacchylides, Corinna and Others; v, The New School of Poetry and Anonymous Songs and Hymns). Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.–London –. Carmina Epigraphica Graeca. Saeculorum viii–v a. Chr. n., vol. , Texte und Kommentare edidit P. A. Hansen. Berlin–New York . Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, vol. ii, Diogenianus Gregorius Cyprius, Macarius Aesopus, Apostolius et Arsenius, Mantissa Proverbiorum, ediderunt E. L. Leutsch et F. G. Schneidewin. G¨ottingen ; repr. Hildesheim . Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecarum Oxoniensium ( vols.), descripsit J. A. Cramer. Oxford ; repr. Amsterdam . Aristoxeni Elementa harmonica, recensuit, R. da Rios, Scriptores Graeci et Latini. Rome . see PMGF Excerpta politiarum Heraclidis Lembi, edited and translated by M. R. Dilts. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs no. . Durham, N.C. .

xx Dion. (de avibus) DK Dr. Ebert ed. pr. EGF Davies enc. E., Eur. Etym. Gen.

Eus. FD FGE

FGrHist Gaisford Gentili et al.

GGM

Abbreviations Dionysii Ixeuticon, seu De aucupio libri tres, in epitomen metro solutam redacti, recensuit A. Garyza. Leipzig . Die fragmente der Vosokratiker. Griechisch und Deutsch ( vols.), von H. Diels. Sechste verbesserte Auflage hrsg. von W. Kranz. Berlin . Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina ( vols.), recensuit A. B. Drachmann. Leipzig –; repr. Stuttgart–Leipzig . J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen. Berlin . editio princeps Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, edidit M. Davies. G¨ottingen . encomium Euripides F. Lasserre and N. Livadaras (eds.) (–) Etymologicum Magnum Genuinum, Symeonis Etymologicum una cum Magna Grammatica, Etymologicum Magnum Auctum, vol. i (Rome ), vol. ii (Athens ). Eusebius Fouilles de Delphes Further Greek Epigrams. Epigrams from before a.d . 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, not Included in ‘Hellenistic Epigrams’ or ‘The Garland of Philip’, ed. by D. L. Page, revised and prepared for publication by R. D. Dawe and J. Diggle. Cambridge . F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker ( parts), Leiden–Boston–Cologne –. Etymologicon Magnum. [. . .], recensuit Th. Gaisford. Oxford ; repr. Amsterdam . Pindaro. Le Pitiche, introduzione, testo critico e traduzione di B. Gentili, commento a cura di P. Angeli Bernardini, E. Cingano, B. Gentili e P. Giannini. Milan . Geographici graeci minores, vol. ii, e cod. recogn. [. . .] K. M¨uller. Paris .

Abbreviations GHI GMW Hell. Oxy. Hense Hilgard

Hollis Holwerda

IEG, IEG  IG I. Lindos Jul. K–A

Kannicht Lasserre Latte

xxi

R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the end of the fifth century bc, revised edn. Oxford . A. Barker, Greek Musical Writings ( vols.: i, The Musician and his Art; ii, Harmonic and Acoustic Theory). Cambridge –. Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, edidit M. Chambers. Stuttgart–Leipzig . Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo posteriores ( vols.), recensuit O. Hense. Berlin –. Scholia Londiniensia (AE) in artis Dionysianae. In Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, recensuit [. . . ] A. Hilgard. In Grammatici Graeci, vol. i./iii. Leipzig ; repr. Hildesheim . Callimachus: Hecale, ed. A. Hollis. Oxford . nd edn with addenda and enlarged commentary. Oxford . Scholia in Aristophanem, edidit edendave curavit D. Holwerda. ( parts,  vols.: i/., In Nubes; ii., In Pacem; ii., In Aves.) Groningen ,  and . see W, W Inscriptiones Graecae Lindos. Fouilles de l’Acropole. 1902–1914, vol. ii, Inscriptions, publi´ees [ . . . ] par Chr. Blinkenberg. ( vols.: i, nos. –.) Berlin–Copenhagen . Julianus Poetae Comici Graeci (PCG), ediderunt R. Kassel and C. Austin. ( vols.: iii/, Aristophanes, Testimonia et Fragmenta; viii, Menecrates–Xenophon.) Berlin–New York  and . Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. R. Kannicht. ( vols: v.–, Euripides.) G¨ottingen . Plutarque de la musique, texte traduction commentaire [ . . . ] par F. Lasserre. Olten–Lausanne . Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, recensuit et emendavit K. Latte ( vols: i, A–D. Haunia ; ii,

xxii

Lenz–Behr Leutsch LGPN LIMC LSJ

M Macleod Massimilla ML Moretti () Moretti () OCD  Para Pf., Pfeiffer P. K¨oln

Pl. pl.

Abbreviations E–O. Haunia ; iii [ed. P. A. Hansen], P–S.). Berlin–New York –. P. Aelii Aristidis Opera Quae Exstant Omnia, vol. i, Orationes I–XVI complectens, ed. F. W. Lenz and C. A. Behr. Leiden –. see CPG Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Oxford –. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae A Greek–English Lexicon, compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, revised by H. S. Jones and R. MacKenzie, th edn. Oxford ; with Supplement, Oxford . Pindarus pars II. Fragmenta. Indices, edidit H. Maehler. Stuttgart–Leipzig . Luciani opera ( vols.), recognovit [ . . . ] M. D. Macleod. Oxford –. Callimaco. Aetia. Libri Primo e Secundo, a cura di G. Massimilla. Pisa . See GHI L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Studi Pubblicati dall’ Istituto Italiano per la storia antica, fasc. . Rome . L. Moretti, Olympionikai, i vincitori negli antichi agoni olympichi. Rome . The Oxford Classical Dictionary, rd edn, revised, eds. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth. Oxford . J. D. Beazley, Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, nd edn. Oxford . Callimachus, edidit R. Pfeiffer. ( vols.: i, Fragmenta; ii, Hymni et epigrammata.) Oxford –. K¨olner Papyri (P. K¨oln). Bd. . bearbeitet von C. Armoni, M. Gr¨onewald et alii. Vol. vii/, Papyrologica coloniensia. Abh. der nordrhein-westfal. Akad. der Wissenschaften, . Plato plate

Abbreviations Plut. PMG PMGF Pos. P.Oxy. Preger

Procl. [Psell.] De trag. Rabe Radt R–O RE Rose Rutherford S S Thom.-Tricl. SEG Serv. Severyns SH

xxiii

Plutarch Poetae Melici Graeci, edidit D. L. Page. Oxford . Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. i, Alcman–Stesichorus–Ibycus, post D.L. Page edidit M. Davies. Oxford . Poseidippus The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, recensuit Theodorus Preger. Fasc. i, Hesychii Illustriou Origines Constantinopolitanae. Leipzig –. Proclus, Chrestomathia. See Severyns. Pseudo-Psellus, De tragedia. See Perusino  in Bibliography. Scholia in Lucianum, edidit H. Rabe. Leipzig . Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF), vol. iii, Aeschylus; vol. iv, Sophocles, ed. S. Radt. G¨ottingen,  and . P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323. Oxford . Real-Encyclop¨adie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, eds. A. Pauly, G. Wissowa and W. Kroll. Stuttgart –. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, collegit V. Rose. Leipzig . I. Rutherford, Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre. Oxford . See SLG, PMGF Scholia Thomano-Tricliniana in Pindari Pythia v–xii ex cod. Florentino edita, ed. T. Mommsen. Frankfurt a.M. . Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. –. Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina, commentarii ( vols.), recensuerunt G. Thilo et H. Hagen. Leipzig –. A. Severyns, Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos. Paris . H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin–New York .

xxiv SLG S–M Snell

Syll  T, test. TGF TGrF TLG V., Voigt Vit. A, Ambr. Vit. Th, Thom. W, W

Wehrli

WJA

Abbreviations Supplementum Lyricis Graecis. Poetarum lyricorum fragmenta quae recens innotuerunt, ed. D. L. Page. Oxford . Pindarus. Pars I. Epinicia, post B. Snell edidit H. Maehler. Stuttgart–Leipzig ; repr. . Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TGrF), vol. i, Didascaliae tragicae, catalogi tragicorum et tragoediarum testimonia et fragmenta tragicorum minorum, ed. B. Snell. nd edn. by R. Kannicht. G¨ottingen . Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum a G. (W.) Dittenberger condita et aucta ( vols.), rd edn. Leipzig –. testimonium Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, nd edn, recensuit A. Nauck. Leipzig . Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. See Snell, Radt and Kannicht. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (www.tlg.uci.edu). Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta, edidit Eva-Maria Voigt. Amsterdam . Vita Ambrosiana (vol. i, –,  Dr.). Vita Thomana (vol. i, , –,  Dr.). Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, edidit M. L. West. ( vols.: i, Archilochus, Hipponax, Theognidea, Oxford ; ii, Callinus, Mimnermus, Semonides, Solon, Tyrtaeus, Minora, Adespota expanded nd edn, Oxford .) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, hrsg. von F. Wehrli. ( vols. and  Supplements: ii, Aristoxenus; vii, Heracleides Pontikos; ix, Chamaileon.) Basel–Stuttgart . W¨urzburger Jahrb¨ucher f¨ur die Altertumswissenschaft.

Critical signs

ms, mss P., pap., P a. b. g. [abg]

{abg} [[a b g]] d(”) ab †abg† 10 abg Heyne: dez DG

manuscript, manuscripts papyrus letters that are not securely read editor’s supplement of letters that have not survived letters omitted by the scribe, but added by an editor letters on the papyrus which an editor would delete letters deleted by the scribe of a papyrus resolution of an abbreviation used by the scribe b has been written above the line on the papyrus indication that corruption has obscured the text here in line , the reading of mss D and G is dez; the reading accepted, abg, is a conjecture of Heyne.

For metrical signs, see the convenient explanations in Battezato  (in Bibliography) and M. L. West, Introduction to Greek Metre (Oxford ); for dactyloepitrite, see P. Maas, Greek Metre (Oxford ), §: –.

xxv

Introduction Peter Ag´ocs,Chris Carey and Richard Rawles

The victory ode is something of a paradox. No more than a hundred years separate emergence from eclipse. But in that period it managed to attract some of the most talented poets Greece ever produced, and to encapsulate her highest physical and ethical ideals. And despite the relative brevity of its life as a productive poetic genre, the limited range of its values and aspirations and the social exclusivity of the groups to which it primarily spoke, it has through the poetry of Pindar exercised a lasting influence on subsequent literary tradition, notably the European classical tradition from the Renaissance through to the poetry of H¨olderlin. Pindar still embodies Greek lyricism in all its fascinating otherness: he is a challenge and frustration to readers and critics alike. The nature, historical, generic and cultural context of the victory ode, its impact and transmission in antiquity and its reception in the modern world were the subject of an international conference held at University College London in July . The premise was a simple one: that after half a century in which different trends and approaches have emerged in Pindaric criticism with remarkable speed, and different disciplines and theories within and beyond classical scholarship been brought to bear, the time had come to take stock of the state of research in the field and to see where the interesting ideas were to be found. This was the first conference of this type and scale devoted to the genre. The present book gathers together many of the papers from that conference which dealt with the victory ode in its Archaic and Classical Greek contexts. A separate volume currently in preparation addresses the reception of epinician poetry from fifth-century tragedy through ancient Alexandria to modern Greece. A health warning is necessary at this point. This book is not a companion to the victory ode (though such a book would no doubt be useful – the need is partly fulfilled by Hornblower and Morgan ); nor does it provide an overview of every trend or movement in current scholarship, or of every issue. It is rather a series of deep ‘drills’ in areas of major activity. xxvi

Introduction

xxvii

The aim is not to create or to reflect an orthodoxy. Certain modes of reading, particularly the New Historicist criticism of Pindar developed by American or US-based scholars like Leslie Kurke, Carol Dougherty and Nigel Nicholson, and strongly represented in the work of contemporary British Classicists like David Fearn (represented here by a rather different kind of essay) are largely and unintendedly absent. For at least the last century there has fortunately never been a time when monolithic scholarly consensus has prevailed in this area. This volume is faithful to that tradition, to the point that some contributions run distinctly against the grain of contemporary work. Insofar as a coherent picture emerges, it is one of diversity and complexity: complexity, both diachronic and synchronic, within the genre and the individual oeuvres; diversity of factors which generate the text, and of perspectives on the text. The book is organised into sections which consider the epinician from different perspectives – in terms of origin and evolution, social and political environment, physical or occasional setting, performance, rhetoric and literary theory, with a pyrotechnic finish by Michael Silk. Any division inevitably forces the material, and the reader will recognise that the boundaries between parts and chapters are permeable. In the end, what we have is a richer and (in many ways) more incomplete picture of the world of epinician poetry. The richness only adds to the incompleteness, as solutions to old problems raise new questions for the future. Part i, The lost history of epinician, concerns aspects of the history of the victory ode (the fragmentary epinicia of Ibycus, Simonides and Pindar; epinician music; poetic patronage) which are often neglected, still obscure, or effectively lost to us. In ‘Early epinician: Ibycus and Simonides’, Richard Rawles grapples with the origins and pre-Pindaric history of the genre in the sixth century bc. Thanks to the survival, largely intact, of Pindar’s four books of victory odes through the mediaeval tradition when the other thirteen books of his sacred and secular songs were lost together with the rest of the lyric corpus, the victory ode is today the most familiar and accessible form of Greek public lyric. It was, however, a very late entry into the repertoire. Its emergence is inextricably linked with the sudden expansion of athletic activity connected to the sixth-century reorganisation of the Panhellenic games. Beyond this, it is very difficult to extract anything like a satisfactory picture. Though the sixth-century victory ode is vital to our understanding of the origins and evolution of the genre, its nature is elusive. Until very recently we could comfortably assert that the victory ode began with Simonides, until John Barron suggested that it can be traced back to Ibycus a generation before. Rawles examines the earliest attested

xxviii

peter ag ocs, chris carey and richard rawles ´

or postulated beginnings of epinician. He tentatively concludes that the genre in some sense begins with Ibycus, but also that its emergence is evolutionary and hard to define. There is no single moment or place where epinician comes into being. Though most attempts to obtain a sense of the victory ode as a type have tended to emphasise convergence, Rawles uncovers a picture of diversity within both expectations and practice. The history of the text of Pindar is a combination of canonisation and accident. Most classical scholars work on the unspoken assumption that we have Pindar’s epinician oeuvre more or less as he wrote it. The sheer volume of his epinician corpus can obscure the fact that it is incomplete. But the accident which projected the Nemean odes in front of the Isthmian odes when the text made the transition from papyrus roll to codex left the Isthmians vulnerable at the end of the collection. Giovan Battista D’Alessio (‘The lost Isthmian odes of Pindar’) restores lost poems of Pindar’s Isthmians from fragments preserved on papyrus. The paper is an outstanding example of philological reconstruction. It will be a standard reference for future work on the fragments, which D’Alessio is currently editing. The need to revisit and revise historical narratives also motivates the chapter of Lucia Prauscello, ‘Epinician sounds: Pindar and musical innovation’. Discussions of Greek music generally focus on seismic changes in the medium in the second half of the fifth century bce. The tendency for comic poets and especially Plato to frame the history of lyric within an antithesis of past and present meant that Pindar, as the lyric poet (along with Simonides) most often quoted or cited by Aristophanes, was recruited posthumously in Athens as a musically conservative figure, just as he is regularly presented in modern sources (on the basis of a single fragment (fr. ) and a self-narrative which stresses his piety) as intellectually conservative. Prauscello presents a radical new synthesis of developments in Greek music around the turn of the sixth century, documenting in particular the influence of the famous composer Lasus of Hermione on the music of the young Pindar. Her survey allows us to see Pindar as the radical musical innovator he was in his own time. In the next two essays, Ewen Bowie discusses the mechanics of patronage in Pindar’s world, while Simon Hornblower asks what became of the families and descendants of Pindar’s aristocratic patrons in the very different political and social climate of the fourth century. In ‘Pindar and his patrons’, Bowie presents a critique of what has become the orthodox reading of Pindar’s statements about patronage (Pyth. .–, Isth. .– , cf. Gentili  and ; Kurke ; Nicholson ): namely that the praise-poet was a paid craftsman working for a misthos or wage. The

Introduction

xxix

recognition from the time of Wolfgang Schadewaldt in the first half of the twentieth century that claims of the poet to be the philos and/or xenos of the patron represent a generic topos leads almost inevitably to a reading of Pindar which sees in his emphasis on friendship a means to palliate the uncomfortably mercantile aspect (and apparent insincerity) of selling praise for cash. Understandably, therefore, scholars over the last five decades have placed the emphasis more on the commercial than on the interpersonal aspect of the poet’s relationship with those who hire his services. Bowie presents an iconoclastic view of the currently fashionable economic interpretation of Pindar’s poetry, asking whether the poet’s relationship to his patrons really was as strongly coloured by the cash relationship as has often been thought. The poets, he argues, were not dependents but rather fellow aristocrats, bound, as equals, to their patrons by real ties of friendship and gift exchange. By the mid fifth century, the victory ode had reached the end of its life as a major Panhellenic song-form. After Pindar and Bacchylides, we have one victory ode: that for Alcibiades attributed to Euripides ( PMG). But that is clearly a revival or a last gesture towards a moribund art form. It is difficult to tease out the reasons for the disappearance of epinician as a productive poetic genre. But however we explain the decline of the epinician in the fifth century, the disappearance of its clientele (implied in the tacitly Athenocentric narratives of Pindar as the spokesman for a disappearing world found in some modern studies) is not an option. In a prosopographical study (‘What happened later to the families of Pindaric patrons – and to epinician poetry?’) Simon Hornblower uses test cases to examine what became of Pindar’s aristocratic patrons, demonstrating that these families persisted and remained influential. It has long been recognised that athletic verse inscriptions become more ambitious in the fourth century, and it is not unreasonable to see here an attempt to fill the lacuna left by the demise of epinician lyric. But as Hornblower argues, the lacuna is not total; the victory ode shrinks rather than disappearing entirely, its place being taken by less ambitious, local, less celebrated and ultimately short-lived compositions. The older songs of Pindar and Bacchylides were re-performed at family celebrations which kept the archaic victors’ memories alive. The argument is not only important to our understanding of the social background of fifth-century epinician poetry, but has serious implications for the survival and transmission of the poems themselves. The essays in Part ii (Contexts of performance and re-performance) reflect what is perhaps the greatest tectonic shift in Hellenic studies of the past two generations. This is the realisation (see e.g. Herington ), grounded

xxx

peter ag ocs, chris carey and richard rawles ´

in the pioneering work of Parry and Lord on Homer and reflecting similar developments in the study of Greek drama, that early poetic texts, lyric included, though often transmitted in writing, were realised in performance before an audience. The context and mode of choral or solo performance have profound implications for the meaning of lyric texts; indeed, as has become clear, they are in many ways definitive of genre. In recent Pindaric studies (see e.g. Currie ; Hubbard ; Morrison b) there has been a move away from one single hypostasised context of celebration towards a deepening consciousness of the ways in which praise-song, to be an effective vehicle for the victor’s fame, had to stand its ground in multiple contexts of performance and re-performance. Several of the essays here reflect this view of the multiplicity of epinician performance contexts. Various models are proposed. Some are more hierarchical and focused on the meaning of the poetry in particular defined historical contexts; others take a more de-centred and relativistic stance, asking how references to context help to define the world of each given poem and of the genre. Again we have no one answer to the questions (methodological and otherwise) posed by this new field of study, but the essays can be read together with profit as an attempt to map out an emerging and rewarding field of research. Andrew Morrison’s ‘Performance, re-performance and Pindar’s audiences’ is the first piece in this sequence. He adopts a model (in line with recent work by Currie , and using a methodology rehearsed at greater length in his own book on the Sicilian odes of Pindar (Morrison b)) of multiple potential occasions for performance and (re-)performance before multiple audiences which in some cases overlap, but whose interests and prejudices may conflict. Through a detailed study of odes for Sicilian tyrants and Arcesilas king of Cyrene, he presents a model for understanding the diffusion of Pindar’s odes from the ‘primary’ audience to ‘secondary’ and even ‘tertiary’ audiences, showing how this variety of audience viewpoints will have affected the meaning of Pindar’s victory odes both individually and in relation to other songs. He asks how Pindar took his different audiences into account in composing his victory songs. His work is of particular interest in understanding the political dimension of the victory ode as a form of propaganda; but its implications are wider. It is in fact the first sustained and systematic attempt to grapple with what it was that Pindar’s audiences brought to the act of listening to epinician song over a large corpus of the poetry, and to define the ‘horizon of expectation’ against which the text, as a performance, was heard in each particular place and time.

Introduction

xxxi

In ‘Performance and re-performance: the Siphnian Treasury evoked’ Lucia Athanassaki is also interested in time and place. In particular, she asks how a sense or a memory of a place can be enacted in the song, and the relationship between song and this physical, especially monumental, environment. She looks at the multiple performance settings implied in Pindar’s sixth Pythian, both in its Delphic context (where she draws attention to the link with one of the most famous masterpieces of late archaic architectural sculpture: the Siphnian Treasury) and in sympotic reperformance. She finds that the ode inscribes more than one performance setting without explicitly declaring for either, thus allowing it to function successfully both at the original celebration and in subsequent sympotic settings. The next three chapters look at broader contexts of performance: religious festivals, the symposion and the komos. It has long been argued that some victory odes were celebrated at civic festivals, though the evidence is often ambiguous and individual instances are invariably contentious. The most important contribution in this area is Eveline Krummen’s Pyrsos Hymnon (). In ‘Representations of cult in epinician poetry’ Franco Ferrari presses Pindar’s possible allusions to cult practices in a number of odes and also a number of allusions in the ancient scholia, examining both their relevance to the performance of the victory ode, and the meaning of the religious background which informs so much of the poetry. He finds reason to attach Olympian , Pythian  and Pythian  to cult practice, but rejects the commonly accepted link of Pythian  to the Carneia at Cyrene. The chapters of Budelmann and Athanassaki can be viewed as companion pieces. Both in different ways examine the relationship between the epinician and the context(s) of feasting or festivity in which it locates itself. In ‘Epinician and the symposion: a comparison with the enkomia’, Felix Budelmann presents a lucid and careful discussion of the permeable boundary between the epinician and the encomium. He finds that the encomium locates itself more explicitly in a sympotic context, unlike the epinician, where references to the symposium are more ambiguous. The epinician is less easy to fix in (original) performance, a fact he connects at least in part with the potential for re-performance. Peter Ag´ocs’ essay ‘Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s  ’ continues and develops many of Budelmann’s themes. He too is interested less in reconstructing particular historical performances than in examining what epinician says about itself through the language of occasion and performance. As the most richly attested mode or context of epinician singing, the komos plays

xxxii

peter ag ocs, chris carey and richard rawles ´

a special role in the way individual songs define themselves as examples of a genre. Finally, Rosalind Thomas’ chapter examines Greek epinician poetry from a broader ethnographic perspective, as an example of the genre ‘praisepoetry’. Half a century ago Bundy (in a memorable formulation) observed: ‘it should be evident that the Epinikion must adhere to those principles that have governed enkomia from Homer to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address’. Though this bold statement ignores what is culturally specific to Greek public praise, it remains the case that comparative study has much to contribute to our understanding of the nature of praise-poetry. In ‘Pindar’s “difficulty” and the performance of epinician poetry: some suggestions from ethnography’, Thomas uses living traditions of oral praise-poetry in sub-Saharan Africa to explore aspects of Pindar’s epinicians. She argues from the style of African praise texts for dense language as an important part of Pindar’s communicative strategy designed to engage the audience. The third part, Critical approaches to the victory ode: rhetoric, imagery and narrative, examines epinician from a variety of more ‘literary’ angles. Glenn W. Most’s comparative study, ‘Poet and public: communicative strategies in Pindar and Bacchylides’, begins from the fact that Pindar and Bacchylides sometimes composed songs for the same occasion and audience: odes that are nevertheless very different in language, tone and form. Through close comparison of two such pairs of odes (Bacchylides  and Pindar Nemean , written for an Aeginetan boy victor at the Nemean Games of  bc; and Bacchylides  and Pindar’s first Olympian, written for the chariot victory of the Sicilian tyrant Hieron at Olympia a decade later), Most is able to show the great differences in the rhetoric (‘communicative strategies’) of the two poets, and to suggest reasons for the differences. His essay is an important examination of the diversity of means and thought in epinician: a question often underrated since the work of Bundy (), with its notion of genre and its conventions as something fixed by tradition, set the tone of critical thinking on the poets, particularly in the English-speaking world. The following two essays study Pindar’s use of imagery, one of the most immediately striking and memorable aspects of his poetic technique, and also one of the greatest obstacles to the first-time reader’s appreciation of the poetry. It also points to another, broader and more philosophical sense of ‘world’. In ‘Image and world in epinician poetry’, Gregory Hutchinson, building on recent theoretical and philosophical work on the nature of metaphor, presents a comprehensive overview of the sources and use of metaphor in Pindar and Bacchylides. He writes profoundly about how imagery contributes to the reader’s sense of a poetic world. Where

Introduction

xxxiii

Hutchinson takes a large sweep, Calame focuses on a single metaphor. Though Greek choral song is about the here and now of a ritual, there is a tendency of epinician poets, especially Pindar, to stretch the geographical bounds of their occasional frame through various poetic fictions; in ‘Metaphorical travel and ritual performance in epinician poetry’, Claude Calame, in a close reading of Olympian  and passages of other odes, examines Pindar’s use of journey imagery to structure the form and expression of his thought. Metaphors of movement as well as reflecting the diffusion of the song also unify two diverse perspectives on the victory ode, its status both as product of divine inspiration and as the creation of human craftsmanship. Metaphorical journeys and settings stand in a subtle relationship to the actions and contexts of actual performance. Bacchylides’ victory songs and dithyrambs, rediscovered on a papyrus from Egypt in  (see the introduction to Most here), have been known to us for over a hundred years. He surfaced however already condemned to a judgement of mediocrity by the author of the treatise On the Sublime. The tacit acceptance of this judgement by modern critics is reflected in the relatively limited attention which Bacchylides has received in his own right until fairly recently. In ‘Bacchylidean myths’, David Fearn discusses Bacchylides’ narrative technique, particularly in his myths, and especially though not exclusively in his epinicians. Fearn emphasises in particular the use of extended character speech and similes to create complex interactions within the myths and between the mythic section and the contemporary frame, with consequent reliance on audience collaboration in the construction of meaning within performance. Also important is his emphasis on the relatively open texture of the odes; the absence of the governing presence of the emphatic authorial first person leaves more space for the audience or reader ‘to come to individual understandings about the meanings of poems both as wholes and as parts of wider contexts’. Finally, the Epilogue. For most Pindaric scholars probably the most significant single work on the victory ode in the twentieth century was Elroy Bundy’s Studia Pindarica (). This appeared at a time when classical scholarship was in retreat from Romantic or biographical criticism under the belated influence of the American New Criticism of the s. On Bundy’s view, there was nothing in the Pindaric ode which did not ultimately have its origin in its laudatory – and rhetorical – function. Bundy’s work proved hugely influential in a time when genre was still generally perceived as a set of objective rules to which poets adhered. One aspect of Bundy’s approach which early attracted dissent was that it was in key respects anti-historical. Though the most significant development

xxxiv

peter ag ocs, chris carey and richard rawles ´

in the last decade or so has been the resurgence of explicitly historicising readings of the odes, Bundy’s work holds an iconic status in Pindaric studies comparable with (and subject to the same tensions) as that of Parry in the study of Homer. In ‘Reading Pindar’, Michael Silk offers an iconoclastic survey of recent Pindaric criticism which strongly opposes both Bundy’s work and the preoccupations of many of the present authors. It is a fine and careful study of Pindar’s poetic diction, which brings our volume on the worlds of epinician poetry to a rhetorical and highly enjoyable close.

c ha p te r 1

Early epinician: Ibycus and Simonides Richard Rawles

‘The study of Pindar’, wrote Bundy in , ‘must become a study of genre.’ Rather than appealing to the supposed historico-biographical data which earlier critics of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries used to try to explain perceived anomalies in Pindaric epinicians, the interpreter would inhabit an epinician textual world, in order better to understand individual aspects of Pindar’s work within a broader generic picture. As the very nature of the present collection shows, we are now accustomed to think about and study epinician poetry as a genre. Yet, in comparison with students of other kinds of poetry, scholars of epinician have often been disinclined to examine genre in a diachronic perspective, instead concentrating on a system of cross-references internal to the corpus of Pindaric and (usually to a lesser degree) Bacchylidean epinician. Only to a limited degree has the appeal to genre been realised in movement away from a synchronic treatment of Pindaric epinician, and even reference to Bacchylides is found rather more sporadically. Reasons may be found for this. While Bacchylides has been well served by papyri, the several pieces I shall discuss here by the earlier poets Ibycus and Simonides are preserved only in short quotations and on papyri whose fragmentary state makes discussion perilous. If we might be in danger of forgetting that ‘What we do not know of epinikian poetry would fill many unwritten volumes’, a glance at the fragments of Ibycus and Simonides will soon remind us. So discussion of Pindar and Bacchylides in the light of their predecessors can look like obscurum per obscurius, while study of these predecessors in their own right is confined to a small number of

  

Thanks for encouragement, suggestions and the removal of errors are due to the anonymous readers of Cambridge University Press, to Giuseppe Ucciardello and to my fellow editors; remaining deficiencies are my own. Bundy : . On the history of Pindaric scholarship, see Young ; Lloyd-Jones  and . Lowe : .





richard rawles

fragmentary texts. Again, the segregation of Pindaric criticism from work on the other poets could partly be a consequence of Pindar’s own lack of explicit reference to the work of the other epinician poets. All the same, this neglect is unfortunate. The fragments of early epinician are of interest in their own right, and should be of interest to the scholar of Pindar and Bacchylides as well. We do not know when or how epinician poetry started. But perhaps the fault lies in the questions. They can be refined in two ways. First, when did praise-poetry begin to be composed so as to focus especially on athletic victories? Second, when did the victors in athletic contests start to arrange the commemoration of their victories by commissioning special songs for the occasion? This second definition implies a specially organised occasion for the performance of the song, which cannot have been immediately after the victory, since time must be allowed for the poet to compose it first, and for the poet or another to rehearse a chorus to sing it (but the general point applies even if early epinician was not choral). Even in Pindar and Bacchylides, the gap will have been shorter for a few of the briefest poems, such as Olympian , Bacchylides , etc. Before epinician existed by this relatively constricted definition, songs of a more traditional kind were probably performed: we have evidence for these from Pindar and his scholia. Pindar associated one such song with Archilochus (Ol. .–):    ! " #$ % !&',  '" ( )& "  *" +,   &  % -. /0,  $1) #'" % #  ,) ,2 3) '"4 

  

True of epinician but less so of other genres, perhaps: pae. . (D Rutherford) is praise of Ceos for its abundance of song, which would have reminded the audience of Simonides and Bacchylides. See below on the ‘song of Archilochus’ at Ol.  init. One might also add e.g. fr. b, of uncertain genre, which compares the chorus’ song to Xenocritus of Locri, a poet of the late seventh and early sixth centuries active in Sparta. The scholia are of course keen to interpret some Pindaric passages as expressive of antagonistic relations with Simonides and/or Bacchylides (see Ol. .a–d (i:  Dr.), Ol. .b (i:  Dr.), etc.), and they have sometimes been followed by modern scholars. But this was the kind of biographical interpretation of Pindar that Bundy was trying to get away from. Simonides referred explicitly to earlier poets, and not only early epic:  PMG. For an important recent approach to the origins of epinician, see Thomas . See Gelzer . I doubt whether Nem. .– can be taken as evidence for Pindar’s awareness of the antiquity of epinician as a genre; for a more positive view of this passage as evidence that Pindar must have believed that epinician was considerably older than he was, see Barron : . Cf. Thomas :  and Ag´ocs (this volume, pp. –).

Early epinician: Ibycus and Simonides



The song of Archilochus, sounding at Olympia, the threefold-swelling kallinikos, was sufficient beside the hill of Kronos for Epharmostos to lead in celebrating with his dear companions.

Here Pindar describes the immediate reaction to Epharmostus’ victory: a performance by Epharmostus’ komos at the site of the victory. The present song is a later, more considered and individualised matter. The scholia and others give the text of ‘Archilochus’ song’ (Archilochus fr. spurium  W): )5  '  6 + 7 891",

:) " )  ;  ", ;$. Hurrah, fair-victor! Hail, Lord Herakles, you and Iolaos, spearmen both!

)5 is supposed to have imitated the sound of a lyre. The song does not appear to have been personalised for the victor, even to the extent of ‘Happy Birthday’, where at least a name is inserted: rather, as when he listens to a formal epinician with a mythical narrative section, he and his companions must infer the connection between the victorious Heracles and Iolaus and his own victory. If the  ,) , to which Pindar refers elsewhere, apparently specifically associated with equestrian events, is a way of designating epinician by reference to a similar sort of traditional song, it is interesting that each of these apparently traditional ways of saluting a victor assimilates him to a heroic figure who is accompanied by another. In the first instance, Iolaus is mentioned along with Heracles, and in the second Castor is presumably seen in company with his twin. As Heracles is praised, he is placed in an important social relationship. Might one say that this most primitive kind of epinician song already to some extent enacts the ‘reintegrative’ function which has been perceived by scholars as characteristic of fully fledged epinician, as found in Pindar and Bacchylides?  



Cf. Morgan : –; Kurke : –. Pyth. ., Isth. .. See Carey a ad Pyth. .; Giannini in Gentili et al.  ad Pyth. .–. For the theory (based on the apparent prominence of the Dioscuri in the poem apparently reflected in Simonides  and on the references to the Kastoreion in Pindar) that epinician in general was derived from hymns to gods and heroes, see Fr¨ankel : –, and cf. Currie :  n.. See (e.g.) Kurke : e.g. – (and passim).

richard rawles



ibycus In any case, this sort of traditional material is fully distinguishable from epinician in a fuller sense, according to the definitions suggested above. By these definitions, the beginnings of epinician ‘proper’ are invisible to us. It is not impossible that Stesichorus composed songs which, if we had more material, we might call epinician. But the earliest likely (and to some degree substantial) evidence of poems which might fit the bill comes in certain fragments of Ibycus whose date is not securely known, but can be placed approximately around the middle of the sixth century. The case was first made by John Barron in . His argument that P.Oxy.  (S–) represented fragments of Ibycus, and not of Stesichorus, is convincing. The longest fragment is the following (S = P.Oxy. , fr. , as supplemented in Campbell’s Loeb): epode ])[ ]. & . [ ][ ] $[ ] . ).  ?$. [ @&% ]:. .  "  )') ". Hence the answer which Simonides gave about the clever and the rich to the wife of Hieron when she asked him whether it was better to be rich or to be clever. ‘Rich’, he said, for he said that he saw the clever spending their time at the doors of the rich.

This anecdote attests not only to Simonides’ reputation for witty comments but also to his regular association with questions concerning remuneration, exchange and the relationship between rich and poor, an association which is as old as Aristophanes. We are thus tempted to associate testimonia such as this with the development of professionalism in praise-poetry, and with the critical reaction to economic change (especially monetisation) in  

 

See on this fragment Page b: –; Molyneux : –; Mann : –. For texts of Simonides testimonia, see the useful (but not complete) collection in Campbell’s Loeb. The association of Simonides with a keen interest in remuneration goes back at least as far as Aristophanes (Pax – = T Campbell) and may be as old as Xenophanes (fr.  W = Ar. Pax c–e ( Holwerda) quoted by Campbell at his Simonides T). On ancient traditions concerning Simonides see in particular Slater , Bell , Lefkowitz : – and Rawles (forthcoming a), in which I treat the question of the relation between Simonides’ works and his reception in much more detail. In addition to the works cited above (n.), Carson  is thought-provoking on this point despite a certain philological weakness reviewers have tended to point out. See for example Gentili , chs.  and ; Svenbro , ch. ; a different view is taken by Bowie below: –.



richard rawles

poetry of the late Archaic and early Classical periods which has become a special object of attention in particular through the work of Leslie Kurke. Did Simonides engage in the same sort of witty and potentially shocking treatment of issues concerning money as we have seen that he seems sometimes to have done with other matters? Such anecdotes as this are worthy of great scepticism as to their strictly historical value. It is now well understood that the traditions concerning the lives of ancient poets were frequently formed through a process more mythopoeic than properly historical, often involving such dubious procedures as (for instance) taking jokes in comedies as if conveyers of real historical information. There is certainly no reason to suppose that the story told here by Aristotle derives from a genuine tradition which has accurately recorded an incident in Simonides’ biography. If this anecdote and others like it tell us something about Simonides, it is something more general: perhaps that in his songs he genuinely did problematise issues to do with the relationship between exchange and poetic production, or the difference between wealth and poverty; or perhaps that his activity in composing songs in exchange for payment was viewed as problematic and interesting in his own time. This question of how to treat the Simonidean tradition as evidence is thus an important one for the historian of epinician: it bears on the questions why and how epinician poetry may have included passages easily understood as engaging with the socio-economic circumstances of its production, and how early audiences may have responded to their awareness of such circumstances and of their treatment in the songs. This is a large and difficult subject; I have tried elsewhere to treat it extensively. Here it seems appropriate to treat a couple of prominent examples rather briefly. Is the tradition of Simonides’ association with remuneration one which we can push back to his own time? horses, mules and money A good place to start, one would imagine, would be an anecdote which is firmly tied to a fragment of a poem about whose original occasion and



 

See Kurke , ; cf. Carson . Seaford  treats lyric poetry little, moving from Homer to tragedy by way of the pre-Socratic philosophers, but can be related to the same trend in cultural description. The classic study of this phenomenon is Lefkowitz ; for Simonides, see in particular Slater . On folk-tale elements in Simonidean anecdote, see Davies .  Rawles (forthcoming a). As I believe he did: but see also Bowie this volume: –.

Early epinician: Ibycus and Simonides



date we can know at least something with confidence (Arist. Rhet. b = Simonides  PMG):  D ( $'! % :)  >! Bergk | 1 Hermann

Maehler prints Hermann’s conjecture 1, which gives the desired dactyloepitrite length. Keeping the transmitted  , which in fact is linguistically unobjectionable, we get a sequence of four long syllables (fairly rare in any case in Pindar). On such an interpretation, the line cannot be dactyloepitrite (and, of course, it is possible that the quoted words did not belong to the same metrical sequence). Other fragments, not explicitly attributed to the Victory Odes by ancient sources, may conceivably belong to a lost Isthmian for an Aeginetan athlete. Fragment  mentions Aegina as ‘the city of the Aiakidai’ (/  & " ; ). Turyn attributes this fragment to the Isthmians (his fr. ), but there is no reason to think it must have come from an Epinician at all. Fragment  consists of seven dactyloepitrite verses with a catalogue of the glory achieved by the young Peleus through innumerable toils. He captured Troy together with Heracles, fought against the Amazons and took part in the expedition to Colchis with the Argonauts: )!  . ‘But he who has been allotted a new success| is inspired by hope at his great splendour| and takes flight| on the wings of manly deeds, having| aspirations superior to wealth’). The idea in our fragment seems to be that whoever wants and can enjoy the splendour of life (and for Pindar glory is its greatest part), should accept the idea that death at the right moment is the best conclusion. Plato on the other hand uses the expression ( ;D C.$ )  D !1" to indicate his particular idea of the fate of souls after death, who are simultaneously free and subject to destiny. Its most elaborate development is in the ‘Myth of Er’ in Republic  (dff.), another passage which may evoke Pindaric echoes. The wording of the latter part of the fragment is peculiar. This is the first occurrence of ,!!' , a word otherwise extremely rare in poetry. There may be some doubt that what we have here are Pindar’s original words. It is very interesting, anyway, that the occurrence of the word ,!!' in connection with Apollo’s oracular advice matches the usage attested in Hellenistic inscriptions. 

   

The pairing of the participles of these two verbs coordinated in this way and governing the same verb (or being used absolutely) in their singular form is surprisingly rare judging from a search in TLG version E (I give the occurrences for the sake of completeness). A passage where both participles are preceded by a negative (/ )6 Y . )$  $'") is harder. Different contrasting interpretations have been advanced. Notwithstanding the lack of a general consensus, a safe starting point from which to tackle the passage was suggested a long time ago by Privitera. The rhythms ‘altered’ by Lasus cannot, he wrote, be dithyrambic ones, since their A$5, prior to Lasus’ reform, was evidently not dithyrambic. The pseudo-Plutarchan passage is therefore telling us that Lasus extended the use of rhythms originally perceived as proper to the dithyramb to non-dithyrambic compositions – an extension which fifth-century audiences are likely to have interpreted as a crossing of genres. And since in this passage A$5 is probably broadly inclusive in meaning (not only ‘rhythmic style’ but also ‘musical tempo’), it is reasonable to infer that this change to a more dithyrambic sort of rhythm also entailed an alteration in the ethos of the music. And this in turn is strictly related to Lasus’ use of the Aeolian mode, which makes its first (for us) recorded appearance in Greek literature in his Hymn to Demeter ( PMG = Ath. .e–f ): 

     

According to Barker GMW (:  n.) the participle " ‘might mean either “disconnected”, referring to “unrelated” notes belonging to different harmoniai, or simply “widely spread”, indicating an increased range’. Privitera : – convincingly argues that the  ' between #. " is not disjunctive but explicative, as the following passage about Timotheus ([Plut.] De mus. c) seems to confirm: N)" (that is, Timotheus) 1, 3&) #. ! )" > " @& >, /'  2 '  codd.: corr. Hartung I sing Demeter and Kore, wife of Clymenus, raising a honey-voiced hymn in the deep-sounding Aeolian mode

Two related facts call for detailed attention: the metrical pattern of Lasus’ hymn, and his use of the Aeolian mode. First, the metre. Once more, let us start from Privitera’s metrical analysis and see whether we can go a little further in interpreting the scansion. Privitera rightly noticed that the first line is dactyloepitrite (––k––k––kk–kk–: epitr. cr. hemiep, or, in Maas’ notation: –eeD ), quoting as a close parallel Pind. fr. b l.  M '!, )& C#&,   & ) ', (–ee–D). To the second line (kkk––kk–k–) he compares Pind. fr. d M (= paean D Rutherford) l.  ." ;[$]&   ": that is, a sequence of cr dodrans. Finally, the third line was analysed by Privitera as the sequence adon + hemiep (–kk–k–kk–kk–). Staying with line  and accepting, as I think we should, the transmitted '  as a cult epithet of Kore, an alternative scansion, suggested to me by Franco Ferrari, might be ia cr hemiep for line , kk ia kk ia for line , and dodrb (= ∧∧ gl ) an for line . In other words, we have in these verses a shift from dactyloepitrite to iambic–choriambic metre. Whatever reading one accepts at the beginning of line  (Hartung’s   or the transmitted ' ), what strikes one above all in these lines is () the clear shift of rhythm from the dactyloepitrite start to a composite form made largely from iambic and/or aeolic kola, and () the coincidence of this rhythmical shift with the mention of the Aeolian mode defined here as  >". The definition of the Aeolian mode as ‘deepsounding’ is in itself not at variance with what we know about the relative  

 



 On Maasian notation, see Battezzato : –. Privitera : . Even if Privitera eventually prints Lasus’ PMG text, he considers Page’s supplement ) (l. ) likely on syntactical grounds: with Page’s emendation the first line of Lasus’ hymn would be perfectly identical, in rhythm, to Pind. fr. b l.  M. For a defence on cultic and linguistic grounds of the transmitted ' , see Breglia : – and in greater detail Prauscello  and forthcoming. Iambic metra with first anapaestic foot, even if not in consecutive series, are frequent in Pindar: cf. e.g. Ol. . ep. , Ol.  str. , Nem.  ep. . From a metrical point of view, reading 'v in the second line we would have kk–k–kk–k–: that is (as Ferrari suggests), a sequence kk ia kk ia‘ (i.e. with the first foot of the iambic metra realised as an anapaest). Otherwise one could think of scanning '  with shortening in hiatus of the internal diphthong: at line  we would thus have ia ∧ dodrans. Following Privitera’s scansion, we would in any case have a third line beginning with an adoneus followed by a hemiepes.



lucia prauscello

pitch-levels of the different harmoniai, but it is interesting to note that all other (later) cases of the adjective  >" with reference to the sound of instruments (and/or musical mode) occur apparently in a strongly Dionysiac (and/or dithyrambic) context, in clearly marked reference to the Phrygian mode. The instruments involved are never the kithara, but always the aulos and/or the orgiastic tympana or cymbala. This cannot be by chance. These passages, significantly enough, are either Euripidean (late Euripides actively engaging in the experimentalism of the New Music) or presuppose direct engagement with Euripides. They are: Eur. Hel. – (aeolic kola)  ,  .1,| 7 ) )% C"  "|  > :| )#.6,% A   (referring to Cybele/Demeter: ‘the goddess laughed and took in her hands the deep-sounding aulos, rejoicing in its loud cry’), Eur. Bacchae – (ionic–aeolic) &) )  !,|  ! $ @& )!&1$, J ) J A    .| C i!' ,  6" C& 6,' ) ). (‘celebrate Dionysus singing to the deep-sounding drums, exalting in ecstatic cries the god of ecstasy with Phrygian shouts and cries’) and Ar. Clouds – `' )% C& R' 1"| :1$ )  C.', ) |  D 0,  >" : (‘and with the approaching spring we have the delight of Bromius, the provocations of the melodious choruses and the deep-sounding music of the auloi’), where the ‘exotic’ paroemiac rhythm of the final kolon has been explained as a metrical parody of Euripides’ late lyric style. In Euripides’ day, the highest flowering of the New Music, a ‘deep-resounding’ melody ( >") was thus, it seems, strongly associated with the dithyramb and the Phrygian mode. 





 





Cf. CPG ii:  l. – Leutsch A& $'! C&D i!'4 A& )0 A! ;" ) C)*) (cf. Suda s.v. *" [  Adler]) and Aristox. Harm. . = p. .ff. Da Rios. On the Aeolian scale and its probable tonal range see Hagel : –. This is acknowledged also by Hagel :  n. even if he inclines to consider Lasus’ hymns as ‘most probably citharodic’. The first occurrence of  >" is in fr. ep. adesp.  W (Loeb;  EGF = Suda s.v. .$w,,)" [.  Adler]: @ )!)": x &  :  !5a, o,' &" | 0  ) )= &,  > ?  \5 and Nonn. Dion. . >  >!,  > '!   (said of the Bassarid Stesichore). Cf. Csapo –. For the syncretism of Cybele, Demeter and Dionysus in the second stasimon of Euripides’ Helen, see Kannicht : ii ff. and Allan : –. For  >" referring to the Phrygian, deep-sounding aulos see Ion of Chios F TrGF C)>& +$  >| : )) q!. and to Soph. fr.  Radt !)   (= Hesych. s.v.   Latte). Here C i!' ,  6" C& 6,' refers to the Phrygian mode within a parodos that in itself can be considered an ‘embedded’ dithyramb, with the typical New Music syncretism of Cybele and Dionysus. Cf. also ll. –  ' |  % V ,!) |  ,  W!  i!'$| : &> )  ) " ) 8b " C"|  . , )>& :1, ,  . Cf. Parker : –.

Epinician sounds: Pindar and musical innovation



What, then, was the musical mode traditionally associated with the dithyramb? Later evidence (after the period of the New Music) seems to point consistently towards the Phrygian, as the episode, mentioned by Aristotle, of Philoxenus unsuccessfully trying to compose a dithyramb in the Dorian mode seems to imply (Arist. Pol. a–b). Here, however, we again have a post-New Music tradition – to use West’s words, ‘this sounds like a rather tendentious way of saying that the work progressed from a Dorian to a Phrygian modality’. It is only in the New Music that the dithyramb and the Phrygian mode became virtually indistinguishable, with the consequence that other options fell into oblivion or, even worse, into censure. Nevertheless, there are certain sporadic and halfhidden traces which suggest that a more variegated use of modes must have been the norm even for the masters of the New Music. [Plut.] De mus. f (following Aristoxenus) tells us, against Aristotle, that in his dithyramb The Mysians Philoxenus used the Hypodorian ( = Aeolian) mode at the beginning, the Hypophrygian and Phrygian in the middle, and the Dorian and Mixolydian modes at the end. Earlier composers’ dithyrambs seem also to have employed a wider variety of tonal modes. An epigram datable to the first half of the fifth century bce (Antigenes AP .) which commemorated a dithyrambic victory at the Great Dionysia in Athens mentions (ll. –) the aulete Ariston playing $'" [. . . ]  . 6" C

:6". Finally, in [Psell.] De trag.  the Hypodorian mode (the new label for the old Aeolian mode), along with the Hypophrygian, is said to be quite rarely used in tragedy inasmuch as it is ‘natural to the dithyramb’ (F" .!1 &,5)"). Notwithstanding our sources’ post-New Dithyramb perspective, we are able to recover at least partly what seems

 



  

For a discussion of the passage see West b: – and . For the Phrygian and Hypophrygian mode as proper to the dithyramb, see also Procl. Chrest.  ( = p. , l.  Severyns). West b: . In Aesch. fr.  Radt we are told that ‘the dithyramb with its mixed shouting is a proper accompaniment to Dionysos in his revels’ (7  && .>  ( )6 ,>$ >,). By Plato’s time the old Aeolian mode had already been absorbed within the Dorian, receiving the new label of Hypodorian: on this process as testified by Heraclides Ponticus in Ath. .c–f, see Nagy : – and now Hagel : –. The date is discussed by Page FGE, p. ; in the inscriptio of AP the epigram is ascribed either to Bacchylides or Simonides. On this epigram see also Fearn :  n.. For $'" [. . .]  . 6" C :6" referring to the Dorian tune see already Schneidewin in D¨ubner : II ; Buffi`ere : ; West b:  n. and Csapo :  n.. [Psell.] De trag.  (  yz&#>"  D ( yz&*" ,&1 &  % :)^X (i.e. in tragedy) ;,, F" .!1 &,5)" (Browning: F" ) Cc) .!1$ &,5,)" cod.). For the text see Perusino : . For the Hypodorian and Hypophrygian modes as not apt for tragic choruses cf. [Arist.] Probl. . (cf. also Hagel :  with n.).



lucia prauscello

to have been a more fluid picture in terms of actual musical practice. And still more significantly, the Aeolian or Hypodorian mode, at least at an earlier stage of the dithyramb’s development, does not seem to have been as extraneous to the traditions of the genre as later evidence might lead us to believe. If, bearing this in mind, we turn back to the charge that Lasus moved the rhythms of non-dithyrambic compositions (such as our hymn to Demeter) towards a dithyrambic A$5, considering both the shifting metrical pattern of Lasus’ Hymn to Demeter and its stated relation to the Aeolian mode, it is hard to resist the temptation to see in Lasus’ fragment an instance of a dithyrambic A$5 in a non-dithyrambic composition, combined with the new ‘liberated’ use of the Aeolian mode. The association in the New Music (in late Euripides, certainly, and perhaps parodied in Aristophanes’ Clouds ) between  >" and dithyrambic music in the Phrygian mode fits perfectly with a strategy of selfrepresentation according to which the New Music composers ‘imagined their project as the (re-)creation of an authentically Dionysian music’ (Csapo –: ). Carrying this argument further, one might also add that it is hardly accidental that from Sophocles onwards the term  " and its derivatives, which previously referred indiscriminately to both stringed and wind instruments, are associated only with auloi and percussion. We can now see that a medley of dactyloepitrite and aeolic kola in the same composition, and the association of this composite metre with the Aeolian mode, are characteristics of Lasus’ innovative style. Such shifting rhythms within the same poem are not at all alien to Pindar’s epinicians either. Nor is the Aeolian mode. But there is an additional piece of evidence that the use of the Aeolian mode may have been a highly debated 

 

  

Nagy :  interprets it as part of the process of ‘mutual assimilation’ between Aeolian and Doric tradition: ‘Given that the provenience of Lasus is the Dorian city of Hermione, we may note again the specific reference to a harmonia described as Aeolian in Lasus PMG . ’ (author’s italics). Cf. Privitera : –. This is even more apparent if we think that the integration of contemporary mystery and orgiastic cults (in particular the assimilation of Demeter to Cybele) into a New Music manifesto may have found its involuntary starting point in Lasus’ Hymn to Demeter and his use of the  >" Aeolian mode. For the syncretism of Demeter and Cybele in the fifth century bce see now Currie : –; cf. also Allan : –. For the aulos cf. HyMerc. (Allen iv) , HyMeter (Allen xiv) , Soph. fr.  Radt; for stringed instruments cf. Nem. . and Nem. .. See Paterlini : –. Note in particular the mixture of dactyloepitrites and aeolic cola (within the same strophe) in Ol. ; cf. Battezzato : .

Epinician sounds: Pindar and musical innovation



issue around the time of Lasus. This is Pratinas’ fragment  a–b PMG ( = Ath. .f–a): (a) 5) ,>) '$ 5) )= A  [[ % ,)']] 0, , A= )= ,   +!  ;  )  2 % ,)' exp. Page Do not pursue the tight-strung Muse, nor the relaxed Muse either: plough the middle of the field and Aeolise in your song (Campbell).

and (b)

&& ) &, A 1) " ;D" /' 3 A 1) " Bergk: A=  1) " codd.

The Aeolian mode is appropriate for all singer-braggarts (Campbell).

The context of these lines in Athenaeus does not allow one to recover with any certainty the genre to which they belonged; the metre (dactyloepitrite for Snell; sequences of dactylo-trochaic kola for Cipolla) is of no help. One can only observe that the overtly metaliterary content of the verses is in itself no valid reason to reject their attribution to a satyr-play. Scholars have usually taken fr. a–b PMG at face value, assuming that 

  

The date and poetic status of Pratinas has been the object of great dispute in recent years, splitting the critics between supporters of an early date (Seaford –, West b: , Ieran`o : –, Napolitano , Barker : , Cipolla  and most recently D’Alessio ) and a later one (Lloyd-Jones , Zimmermann  and , Wallace : –, Csapo :  n.). I cannot discuss this issue here, where I will limit myself to pointing out two factors that in my opinion strongly support an early date, at least for the Pratinas of a–b PMG. First, the context. It can never be emphasised enough that in Heraclides Ponticus’ account of the three original modes (Dorian, Aeolian, Ionian) as reported by Ath. .f–a the quotation of Pratinas a–b PMG immediately follows Lasus  PMG, as an instance of the old Aeolian mode, now called the Hypodorian. Now, given that the Hypodorian label may go back to Damon, it seems safe enough to conclude that, for Heraclides Ponticus at least, Pratinas was a representative of the old musical school, where such a relic as the Aeolian mode still existed. Second, our New Musical evidence does not allude anywhere to a specific debate on the Aeolian tune (that perhaps already at that time was not any longer called ‘Aeolian’), the ‘polarised’ tunes and overexploited targets of the New Dithyramb (whose aetiology is constantly reshaped) being, if any, the Phrygian and the Lydian ones (as Telestes’ fragments  and  PMG testify). See respectively Snell in  Pratinas  TrGF ( k|E|E|k k|e) for a PMG and k–| D?–| D| for b PMG) and Cipolla :  n.. As already observed by Cipolla :  n.. Pace Cipolla : –, Kaimio  has recently shown that satyr-drama was not alien to such a practice.



lucia prauscello

Pratinas is recommending the Aeolian mode. But as Anderson has rightly remarked, ‘if the two quotations in Athenaeus are connected (as most assume), Aeolian cannot function as a mean in the second one’. If fr. a seems unconditionally to recommend the Aeolian mode as a somewhat obscure middle way between the tense muse (either the Dorian or the tense version of the Ionian) and the relaxed one (most probably the Ionian), alluding to the novelty of the resulting song and punning on the variegated nature ( ; ") of the Aeolian mode, the derogative A 1) " (something like ‘boasters in song’) can hardly be meant as a term of praise. The most economical explanation of this apparent contradiction is the rhetorical device of irony. Pratinas’ bitter and parodic praise of the new course in sixth-century music could well have labelled the radicals who used the Aeolian mode as A 1) , while allowing him to allude elsewhere to the proper kind of song (cf. && at b l.  PMG). The metre may provide a further hint in this direction: the conservative Pratinas is prima facie recommending the new Aeolian mode, but the metrical form in which he makes his pitch is dactyloepitrite (or dactylo-trochaic), rather than the mixed rhythms with aeolic cola of Lasus. We cannot be sure that Pratinas’ frr. a–b PMG belonged to a satyr-play, but were this so, they testify how the influence of Lasus’ innovations made the rounds of the genres. Be that as it may, it is safe to assume that near the end of the sixth century and early in the fifth, the turn that the Aeolian mode was taking was a sensitive topic among poets and musicians. Let us now return to our main question. What position did Pindar take in this ongoing debate? We have already seen that he did not abstain from 

    

  

Cf. e.g. Lloyd-Jones : , Seaford –:  and West b: . An exception is Cipolla :  n., who notes the incongruity between the alleged laudatory praise of a and the derogatory A1) " in b, and suggests the presence of two choruses or split semi-choruses. Anderson : . Anderson’s (: –) is the most detailed analysis of the fragment. See Barker GMW :  n.. For Page’s expunction of % ,)' (l. ) as a gloss intruded into the text see Anderson :  and Csapo :  n.. For the image of the virgin land which has to be ploughed see Anderson : –; the same image is present also in Pratinas  PMG :  : ,  A, A % +, #  )>$. Cf. Csapo :  n.. For the pseudo-etymological connection of ;>" with ; " in antiquity, see Dyer : –. For ; , referred to the varied tones of the lyre see Soph. Ichn. . For A 1) " and its negative connotation conjured up via some Homeric echoes (   )!4 the best thing is water, and gold shines out like a fire burning at night, exceeding bold riches.

Performance, re-performance and Pindar’s audiences



Why should Bacchylides make such a reference to an ode by a different poet? Perhaps because in Olympian  Pindar had wished at the end of that ode to celebrate in future a chariot-race victory of Hieron’s at Olympia (vv. –), which he strongly suggests is one of Hieron’s ‘ambitions’ (cf. ' ,, v. ). In fact, the whole of Olympian  might be said to point forward to such a chariot victory: the myth is Pelops’ ‘original’ chariot victory over Oenomaus of Elis to win Hippodamia. So Bacchylides alludes to the beginning of the ode where Pindar expresses Hieron’s ambitions to win the chariot race in an ode which itself marks Hieron’s achievement of that very ambition. He also seems to echo another of Pindar’s Sicilian odes from  in saying that he ‘speaks to the wise’, which seems to pick up a passage from Olympian , itself celebrating another Olympic chariot victory, that of Theron of Acragas in , where Pindar describes his poetic o < as #$1) ,!)6,4 C"  ) & 3 $|  )': ‘intelligible to the wise, but in general they require interpreters’ (Ol. .–). We find a similar case of allusion within the Pindaric corpus in the similarity between the beginning of Olympian  (see above) and the end of Olympian  (–). Whichever was the ‘original’, I think we should interpret this in the same manner, as further associating the success of one victory with another great celebration of victory in song: ; % A,)>  U$, )1$  !," ;,) )", 0  &" C, )'  M5$ A) 6, H1$ V&))  O. 89 " ,) . if water is the best, and gold the most hallowed of possessions, Theron now has come from home to the limit of excellence and seizes the pillars of Herakles.

It seems clear to me that such verbal echoes, similar passages, and recurring imagery and language form obvious ways for Pindar (and Bacchylides) to exploit overlapping (local) audiences in locations such as the Sicilian cities. This in turn means we need to be careful not to ascribe similarities 



Jenny Clay  has recently suggested that there are several ways in which Olympians – form a ‘song cycle’ through significant resemblances, so the old question of priority needs in any case to be reformulated. She also suggests that their interaction is perhaps partly the creation of Pindar, not just the Alexandrian editors of his poetry. Pindaric intertextuality of this kind can be very extensive, and we find it even in the mythic parts of the odes. Amongst the best examples are the echoes between Nem. , for Chromius of Aetna (but really Syracuse), and Ol.  for Hagesias of Syracuse, on which see Morrison b: –.



a. d. morrison

between ‘connected’ odes simply to ‘conventions of praise’ or the like. I do not mean by this to overturn the work of Bundy and others in establishing the rhetorical patterns and encomiastic strategies underlying Pindar’s victory odes. But I do think it is important to recognise that there may be two examples of such a ‘convention’ where we also have a specific reference from one example to the other (in addition to, rather than instead of, their status as examples of a convention). To make this clearer, it is worth considering an ‘ordinary language’ example. Imagine the use of a proverb in a conversation between two academics about a recently promoted colleague: ‘call no man happy until he is dead’ offers one. The next day, when the promoted colleague’s political views are being discussed the other offers ‘call no man happy unless he is red’. Clearly both utterances are only possible because of the existence of the proverb, but the second use also points to the particular quotation of the proverb on the previous day. Such a specific reference to a particular instance of a convention is possible because the parties in the conversation have said or heard both examples in the two conversations. I suggest that a similar specific reference is possible in epinician, when overlapping audiences can compare different uses of conventional material in different victory odes (e.g. perhaps the use of superlative vaunts in Pindar’s odes for Sicilian tyrants). Let us see how such cross-referential uses of the same convention in Pindar might have operated. For example, the end of Nemean  would (I suggest) have prompted an audience which had also heard Pindar’s other ode for Chromius, Nemean .– to recall the peace which Pindar proclaims for Chromius there (Nem .–): C & $ %, ‚ ,2  ) ) $)  ,> ) ', ). &"  " ;P / . O,)$  P &"   $ . ! ,) -. from the labours, which came with youth and justice, his life is calm into old age. Let him know he has been allotted wondrous blessedness from the gods. W,!'   1)$ 1$ &=   )% C7 ') T'" C * ,, 71 . = x 9  +)  D 1  ', ) &= D ' , ;5,  . 

Cf. the dissatisfaction expressed by Irwin :  n., developing Hinds , esp. pp. –, with the identification of ‘commonplaces’ as the end of interpretation.

Performance, re-performance and Pindar’s audiences



he will be allotted peace in a blessed home as a choice reward for his great labours, and receive blooming Hebe as his wife, and celebrating his wedding at the side of Zeus, son of Kronos, will praise his holy law.

In Tiresias’ prophecy, Heracles receives peace from the gods as recompense for his labours, and is to live ‘in a blessed home’, while Chromios in Nemean  is released from the labours of youth for a calm old age and god-given -". This echo re-emphasises for an overlapping audience the parallelism of Heracles and Chromius within Nemean  itself, and an overlapping audience which had heard Nemean  might also recall the description there of Chromius’ house as a ‘blessed home’ (- . . .  , v. ), which further reinforces the connection between Chromios and Heracles and his blessed dwelling in retirement. Moreover Pindar picks up in Nemean  the emphasis at the beginning of Nemean  on Chromius’ hospitality, the doors of whose house at Aetna are thrown open and overwhelmed by guests (A &&)   7'$ ' )  .> , Nem..) by describing him as a ‘guest-loving man’ (A" #7'!, v. ) who has prepared for Pindar a ‘fitting meal’ (/ | 6&, vv. –). Such praise of a patron for his hospitality is ‘conventional’, but we can see that in this case it can have particular significance for an overlapping audience which is aware of similar praise in a different Pindaric victory ode. The repetition or recollection of the earlier praise gives the praise added authority, and itself emphasises the bonds of xenia which link patron and poet. What, though, of the potential for Pindar’s different audiences, primary, secondary and tertiary, to have different interests or demands from the victory ode (as well as differences in knowledge of the circumstances of the victory and premiere, connections with the victor, etc.)? Can we find any evidence that Pindar took these different audiences into account? In one sense, of course, Pfeijffer’s criticism that the primary audience is the only important one is a claim that Pindar does not really bother with later audiences – his focus is on the premiere and its primary audience. And we can see that the primary audience is of great importance. Certain key members of the primary audience, namely the victor and those close to him, would have demanded that certain elements be included, such as the prominence of particular individuals from the victor’s family like Thrasybulus and Theron in Pythian  for Xenocrates of Acragas. Two    

See Braswell :  and :  on the respective Nem.  and Nem.  passages.  Cf. Bundy  : –. On which cf., e.g., Carey a: . On such xenia see Woodbury : , Kurke : –. Pfeijffer a: ; see n. above.



a. d. morrison

particularly good examples of the demands of the patron, hence of the most important part of the primary audience, are perhaps the eschatological material in Olympian  and the heavy emphasis placed on Hieron as ‘Aetnaian’ in Pythian . The picture of the afterlife presented in Olympian  is justly famous, partly because of its oddity – very different from Pindar’s other ‘myths’ in the victory odes, and giving voice to ideas at variance with the usual Pindaric picture of death and immortality, where song is the principal means of bestowing the latter. In Olympian  there is a clear reference to reincarnation at vv. –, which is without parallel in the victory odes: G, % C)  ,  C,)'" 3 )$. ' )" A& &1&  A'$ ? Q!1, ?)  " ( & =  ! )>,. whoever is steadfast enough, when remaining three times on either side, to keep their soul completely free from wrong completes Zeus’ road to Kronos’ tower.

The natural assumption is that such passages, which may reflect the influence of Pythagoreanism, reflect Theron’s beliefs, not Pindar’s. But one of the most striking things about Pindar’s picture of the afterlife is (as many scholars have pointed out) how carefully it develops previous poetic versions of the Underworld, and how much of it is general and unspecific. In Pindar’s underworld in Olympian  there are three states to which we find the dead can go: the perpetual equinox of the C,', that is ‘the good’ (vv. –), the unbearable labour of the wicked (v. ) and the Isle of the Blest (vv. –). The intertextual relationships of the passage to earlier accounts of the afterlife are most obvious in the final, third state. Pindar’s models here are principally the Isles of the Blest from Hesiod’s Works and Days (Op. –), which like Pindar’s Isle reward the just (Ol. .–, Op. ), and the prediction of Proteus to Menelaus about the Elysian plain at Odyssey .–. But the influence of these passages is not confined 

   

Cf. Willcock : . Bruno Currie (in Currie ) has argued persuasively that Pindar has a more ‘inclusive’ notion of immortality than Homer, so that such immortality can include cultic worship as a hero (especially for the war dead or those who have founded cities) as well as the survival and dissemination of the victor’s kleos in song. Nevertheless, the latter remains the main vehicle for a type of survival after death which Pindar presents for the majority of his athletic patrons. E.g. Bowra a: ; Willcock : ; cf. Currie : –. See Willcock : – on the evidence for Pythagorean influence at Acragas in the period of and after Ol. . Kirkwood : –; Willcock : –. See also Nisetich : –. See Woodbury  on vv. – as referring to a state of perpetual equinox.

Performance, re-performance and Pindar’s audiences



to the Isle of the Blest: some elements of Pindar’s other two states also reflect the accounts in Hesiod and Homer. Pindar names Peleus, Cadmus and Achilles (Ol. .–) as living on his Isle, which picks up the fact that it is heroes who live on Hesiod’s Isles (Op.), while the ocean breezes which blow round Menelaus’ Elysian plain (Od. .–) are also found on Pindar’s Isle (Ol. .–). Rhadamanthys is common to both the Elysian plain and Pindar’s Isle (Ol. ., Od. .). The ‘life without labour’ (A&,)| . . . '), Ol. .–) of the Pindaric C,' echoes the ‘most easy life’ (q$| #.) ,2 ?), 5, )% C&1)   , ‘the Maiden [sc. Athena] fashioned for the auloi a song with every sound, in order to imitate with instruments the loud-sounding wail which was forced from Euryale’s quick jaws’, Pyth. .–). But if 

Cf. Morrison b: .

Performance, re-performance and Pindar’s audiences



one were a member of the audience of a solo re-performance to the accompaniment of the lyre rather than the aulos, one would hear the ode proclaim the mimetic power of an instrument one could not hear . . .  Nevertheless, it is clear that Pindar was interested in accommodating secondary and tertiary audiences, and perhaps advertises this fact in Pythian : after the (very powerful) description of Mount Aetna erupting, Pindar tells us that this is ‘a wondrous marvel to witness, and a wonder even to hear about from those present’ ( . . . ) "  . !1, &,,. ,| . 0   D &  )$ A0, ). Part of the point of this comment is to underline the power of the phenomenon itself, but it also advertises the powerful nature of Pindar’s own description of it in Pythian , implying that it too is a ‘wonder’. Such an effect would be felt at the first performance, but it may have gained in significance away from Aetna itself (a possible location for the first performance of Pythian ). Pindar’s poetry has the power to evoke for distant secondary and tertiary audiences even the magnificence of the flaming lava Typhon sends upwards from his prison. What of tertiary audiences, those audiences more distanced from the original, first performance, the circumstances of the victory, and local reperformances celebrating again the glory of the victor? Such audiences (in contrast to primary and secondary audiences) would probably have been less interested in the victor, as they would have enjoyed no close political, historical or geographical connection with him, and their preferences for songs they wanted to hear at symposia could exert a force on the form of the songs themselves: witness the process of generalisation (and in particular abbreviation) which Alcaeus fr.  v. underwent to become  PMG (quoted by Athenaeus as an Attic skolion). But they are still part of Pindar’s anticipated future audiences for his odes (cf. the beginning of Nemean ). He claims his odes will spread across Greece and last into the future. Assuming that Pindar was aware of the potential for generalisation, abbreviation and a gradual loss of a connection with the victor, how could he avoid the victor disappearing from view, if spreading the very fame of this victor to such tertiary audiences was part of his encomiastic promise? Later citations of Pindar and other poets show a marked preference for  

 

But one should not forget the role of this statement of the power of the aulos in general in marking out the special, performative character of the reperformance for its audience (see above). For this interpretation of . 0   D &  )$ A0,  cf. Cingano in Gentili et al. :  (cf. also Race : i ), who argues convincingly that we should take &  )$ as governed by A0, , which is more natural than a genitive absolute (so, e.g., Kirkwood : ). On the first performance of Pyth.  see Morrison b: –. On which cf. Currie : –.



a. d. morrison

beginnings and for gnomic passages. I suggest Pindar was aware of the potential popularity of such parts of his odes, and strove to keep his victor in view in these sections through a number of strategies. We find, for example, striking openings in several of the Sicilian odes, notably Olympian , the most famous Pindaric opening of all, as well as Olympian , Olympian , the opening of which itself concerns the need to make openings impressive, Pythian , the invocation of the golden lyre, Pythian , an imposing address to Syracuse with several descriptions of it in apposition, the ‘involving’ beginnings of Pythian  (see above) and Nemean , which open with an imperative and a jussive subjunctive respectively, and the address to Acragas followed by its impressive description in Pythian . In the majority of the openings of the Sicilian odes, we usually find the victor’s name and a clear indication of the encomiastic nature of the song. In nine out of the fifteen Sicilian odes, we find the victor’s name in the opening strophe of the ode, while we find a clear indication of the type of song the audience is listening to in the opening strophe of eleven of the fifteen Sicilian odes, e.g. with a verb of praising or a reference to a victory. Of the exceptions, Olympian  names the victor in the first line of the first antistrophe, and Olympian  in the second line of the antistrophe (in the form of a patronymic), while both these odes indicate the nature of the song in the opening strophe. Hence these odes in fact conform to the pattern of the majority of the odes. The remaining four exceptions (Olympian , Pythians  and  and Isthmian ) are special cases – Olympian  is very brief, while Pythian  and Isthmian  may be ‘anniversary’ odes rather than straightforward epinicians. Pythian , as we have seen, delays the naming of the victor Hieron until the end of the second strophe in order to emphasise his announcement as ‘Aetnaean’ rather than Syracusan, perhaps for ‘local’ Sicilian audiences. Other Pindaric strategies for keeping the victor in view include linking him with the gnomic passages of the ode, for example by having gnomai lead into praise of the victor or vice versa. The ‘personality’ Pindar develops in his odes will also have been important. He regularly portrays his relationship with the victor as one of xenia, and some passages of the      

Cf. Currie : . Cf. Ol. ., Ol. ., Ol. ., Ol. ., Pyth. ., Pyth. ., Pyth. ., Nem. ., Nem. .. Cf. Ol. .–, Ol. ., –, Ol. .–, Ol. ., –, Ol. ., , Ol. ., –, Pyth. .–, Pyth. .–, Pyth. .–, Nem. .–, Nem. .–. Cf. Ol. . ( 5,), – (reference to victory). On such ‘anniversary’ odes see Morrison b:  n., . Linking gnomes to victor: Ol. .– – gnomes sandwiched between patronymic and name; gnomes into praise, e.g. Ol. .– leading to ff., cf. also Ol. .ff., Pyth. .ff., Pyth. .–; praise into gnomes, e.g. Ol. .ff., Ol. .ff., Ol. .–, Pyth. .ff., Ol. .ff.

Performance, re-performance and Pindar’s audiences



odes (e.g. the wish to have been able to bring good health to Hieron in Pythian ) depict this relationship as very close. The prominence of ‘Pindar’ keeps the ode’s contents recognisably Pindaric, and by implication keeps the victor in view also. One might think that such strategies would have been in vain: later, tertiary audiences (and readers) would have treated victory odes as they saw fit, and would have been free to choose not to ‘read for the victor’, or the victor’s fame, if they so wished (though one might say that Pindar’s strategies for keeping the victor in view worked at least on Bundy . . . ). Nevertheless, it does seem plausible that Pindar did employ such means for taking those very future audiences into account, which he advertises as the means by which his patrons can attain broad and lasting fame. It is in particular these tertiary audiences, lacking any close connection to the victor, who form the Panhellenic potential of the victory ode of which Pindar boasts. Such audiences are in many ways as important as the first audience of the premiere. Indeed, more generally, we can perhaps say that some ‘occasional’ (or ‘occasion-bound’) aspects or elements of epinician poetry have begun to change, given the importance of re-performances and secondary and tertiary audiences: what becomes important now is the victor and the diffusion of his fame, rather than details of how the victory was won or of the conditions of the first performance. Is this an anticipation, in a sense, of the textualisation of the song, and of later (e.g. Hellenistic) poetry? 

On the Pindaric ‘personality’ cf. Morgan : –; Carey : –; Carey ; Morrison a: –, –.

c ha p te r 7

Performance and re-performance The Siphnian Treasury evoked (Pindar’s Pythian 6, Olympian 2 and Isthmian 2) Lucia Athanassaki

Pythian  belongs to the category of epinician poems which offer a fair number of indications of their performance setting. Some odes in this category share a further common characteristic: once the setting has been outlined, the narrative veers off and the initial localisation gives way gradually to a different setting. Pythian  begins with an image of a choral procession to the temple of Apollo at Delphi and ends with an image of the addressee in sympotic company. The majority of scholars take the self-referential statements of the first strophe at face value and, in the light of the monostrophic pattern of the ode, think that this is a processional song performed by a chorus proceeding to the temple. But there are also scholars, like Christopher Carey and Jenny Clay, who entertain the idea of a sympotic performance. To trace this alternative suggestion further back, August Boeckh interpreted the first strophe metaphorically and the last scene literally, suggesting that the ode was performed at a symposium







Warmest thanks are due to Ettore Cingano and Giovan Battista D’Alessio for their suggestions at the oral presentation in London; to Ewen Bowie and Angelos Chaniotis for their suggestions and ´ comments on this version; and finally to Vinzenz Brinkmann, Ulrike Koch, the Ecole franc¸aise d’Ath`enes and the th Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities for drawings and pictures of the Siphnian treasury. This is a condensed and bibliographically updated version of a chapter of a book published in Greek (Athanassaki a: –). Notable examples are Ol. , whose starting point is an image of a komastic procession to the grove of Olympia (ll. –), which gradually gives way to the localisation of performance in Aegina at ll. ff., discussed in detail in Athanassaki (a); Nem. , which will be briefly discussed below; and Ol. , which shows traces of composition intended for a first performance in Stymphalos followed by a performance in Syracuse; see Mullen : . For the interplay of localisations in Ol. , see Athanassaki ; in Pyth. , see Athanassaki b. See e.g. Bury : –; Wilamowitz : ; Farnell –: ii ; Burton :  and ; Jakob and Oikonomidis : ; Race : . Cf. Gentili: xxxv and Giannini:  in Gentili et al. , who do not think Pyth.  is a processional song, and opt instead for a monodic performance at the Delphic sanctuary. In favour of performance in the vicinity of Apollo’s temple see now NeumannHartmann : – and –, who entertains the possibility of a joined performance of a soloist and a chorus. Clay : – and Carey :  n..



The Siphnian Treasury evoked



in Delphi. To a certain extent, the issue of the occasion bears on the issue of genre, which has been a matter of debate. Whether Pythian  is an epinician or an erotic encomium has preoccupied a number of scholars and has led to strongly opposed interpretations. At one end of the spectrum, the poem has been viewed as an erotic encomium that Pindar composed gratis, as a result of the strong attraction he felt for the young Thrasybulus. At the other end, the poem is an epinician and the erotic relationship is a metaphor whereby the cash relationship is concealed in the guise of a pederastic one. In what follows, I will examine the blend of epinician and erotic themes in the light of the two types of performance that the two different settings suggest. Central to my discussion will be the re-evaluation of the relationship between the mythical narrative and the poem’s Delphic context. I will argue that it alludes systematically to the whole East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury, and that it is precisely this sustained dialogue with the monument that reinforces the poem’s character as a public monument and makes the distinction between a public performance in Apollo’s sanctuary and a more intimate sympotic context sharp and significant for the survival of poetry through re-performance in different environments. In the course of my discussion, I will trace the evocation of Pythian , and thereby the same Delphic monument, in Olympian  and Isthmian , both of which were composed for the same family. The first two strophes (–) are occupied with description of the Delphic setting of the performance, the impressive architectural metaphor with which the poem opens, and the comparison (to the advantage of poetry) of the epinician song with built monuments: strophe 1 >, )%4 ` = 3*&" #') " +!  ] j ')$ A &', T#  C ! ." C" 1a &, 4 !. " ?. % T', % ' "  



Boeckh : ii.  and . See in particular Bury : – and Wilamowitz : ; cf. Von der M¨uhll , who attributes the erotic allusions not to the poet’s personal feelings, but to the poetic tradition of composing erotic encomia for the aristocracy; see also below, n.. On erotic encomium, see the recent discussions of Bowie : – and Cingano : –, and the comments in Rawles (this volume): nn.–. The view that Pyth.  was not commissioned by Xenocrates is based on the testimony of the ancient scholiasts, according to whom Simonides celebrated in song both the Pythian and the Isthmian victory of Xenocrates ( Isth. , inscr. a [iii: ,– Dr.]). Nicholson .

lucia athanassaki



&) ' )% 1 )  D = m1) 3)6" U$ .& ,)&  ! ) &>) , . ,,. 4 ) >) "  5 &) )" A' $ ' &&$. strophe 4 ?)  D & ) )'"  )="   ) . 1) & , 0" ) & 6% ;.'& . &1  @&% A" o < ? C)D # ) " #$1) ,!)6,, C"  ) &= 3 $  )'. ,#" ( &= ;P" #!4 Peleus and Kadmos are numbered among them, and Achilles too, whom his mother brought, after she persuaded the heart of Zeus with her entreaties. He laid low Hektor, Troy’s invincible pillar of strength, and gave death to Kyknos and Dawn’s Ethiopian son. I have many swift arrows under my arm in the quiver that speak to those who understand, but for the whole subject, they need interpreters. Wise is he who knows many things by nature . . .

In this version, Thetis brings Achilles to the Isles of the Blest where he joins his father Peleus. The image of the imploring mother evokes the figure who   

For a political interpretation of the representations of the whole monument, see Neer . See Neer :  who points out that the two halves of the frieze narrate a ‘single event with two aspects, divine and mortal’. Il. .– and –; .– and –; .–; .–.

The Siphnian Treasury evoked



makes a gesture of appeal in the frieze. In relation to the earlier ode and to the Siphnian sculptures, here Pindar clearly provides the missing link. Since this ode was composed for the same family, the audience would know to include Xenocrates and Thrasybulus in its reading of the passage. Olympian  redresses the balance of the myth by explicit reference to the entreaties of Thetis to Zeus in favour of Achilles and to their fulfilment. In this version, the battle of Achilles and Memnon is included, and Eos is referred to by name in addition to Thetis. Again, this is not a case of exact correspondence, but once we take into account that the ode was composed for the same audience, the allusion to Pythian  and thereby to the Delphic monument is unmistakable. Would the sunetoi of v.  associate this particular reference to children and parents with the earlier one? Certainty is impossible, but the expectation on Pindar’s part need not be doubted. The encomiastic sequence in the two odes is easy to discern. In Pythian  it is the parallel between Thrasybulus on the one hand and Achilles and Antilochus on the other that constitutes maximal praise, which in turn reflects back on his father Xenocrates. In addition to his chariot victory, he has the good fortune of having such a devoted son. Simultaneously, Pindar secures for himself a place in the picture behind the mask of the wise Centaur. The parallelism of Xenocrates with Peleus remains implicit. In Olympian , on the other hand, we find Achilles and Peleus in the Isles of the Blest. To the extent that Peleus and Achilles mirror Xenocrates and Thrasybulus, this version redresses the balance of the parallelism in 





For the various Sicilian audience combinations in performance and re-performance, see Morrison (this volume). According to Pausanias (..–) Zeus being entreated by Thetis and Day/Dawn (89 ) on behalf of their children was the sculptural subject also of the middle of a semicircular pedestal of a monument dedicated at Olympia by the people of Apollonia on the Ionian sea; Achilles and Memnon occupied the two edges of the pedestal which featured other pairs of combatants as well (Odysseus vs. Helenus, Alexander vs. Menelaus, Aeneas vs. Diomedes and De¨ıphobus vs. Telamonian Ajax). Barringer :  draws attention to the thematic similarities between Ol.  and the Apollonian monument, but as she points out it is impossible to draw a direct connection between the two given our uncertainty regarding the date of the monument (c. – according to her, or later according to others; Barringer : –). Note that in Isth. . Pindar calls Thrasybulus wise (,# "). Pindar could probably assume that those of his Sicilian audience with a knowledge of the frieze would remember the left-hand part. As Osborne :  observes, ‘There is no architecturally imposed order of scanning imposed by the architectural framework [i.e. in continuous sculpted friezes], and viewers may begin to look from either end or spread their gaze in each direction successively from the middle.’ This is how Pindar approached the frieze on the two successive occasions; in all likelihood, he expected his audience to have done the same. In Pyth.  he directs their gaze to the right-hand part; in Ol.  to the left (Figure ). For Pindar and Bacchylides as viewers of monuments see Athanassaki a: –. For the parallelism between Chiron/Achilles and Pindar/Thrasybulus see also Schein : –. In Pyth.  Pindar tells the story of the union of Apollo with Cyrene first in propria persona (ll. –) and then in Chiron’s persona; see Athanassaki : –.

Figure  Photo of the entire East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury.

The Siphnian Treasury evoked



Pythian , where Pindar compared Thrasybulus with two heroes who both died young. Xenocrates and Thrasybulus cannot have been displeased. An interesting detail in the description of the Isles of the Blest is that of all heroes who live there, except for the judge Rhadamanthys, only three are singled out for mention: Peleus, Cadmus and Achilles. Theron traced his genealogy to Thersander, son of Polynices. In Olympian , Pindar makes a further leap into the past and ties the fortunes of the Labdacids with the fortunes of Cadmus’ daughters, thus bringing Cadmus into the picture (–). If Peleus and Achilles stand for Xenocrates and Thrasybulus, Cadmus inevitably mirrors the tyrant of Acragas. Since in all the epinicians that Pindar composed for the Emmenids, he includes collective references to them all, it is reasonable to assume that he does the same here. The monumental nature of Pythian  is also evoked in Isthmian , composed some four or five years after Olympian . Before turning to the last ode that Pindar composed for the Emmenids, however, a summary of the conclusions we can draw so far is in order. The effect of the poetic dialogue with the Siphnian monument, introduced as an elaborate metaphor and sustained by the mythical narrative, is to keep the Delphic setting of the performance in the foreground till the end of the fifth strophe, which concludes with the explicit comparison of Thrasybulus and Antilochus. To those familiar with the treasury of the Siphnians the points of contact between poem and monument – as well as the points where the poem departs from its model – would be clear and the evocation of the monument inescapable (Figures  and ). In this connection, it must be noted that descriptions of performance settings are necessary not for the initial, but for subsequent performances and audiences, as Thomas Gelzer and Ian Rutherford have pointed out for the epinicians and the paeans respectively.  

 



For Pindar’s version of Theron’s genealogy see Athanassaki c: –. See Pyth. .– and –; Ol. .–; Ol. .–; Isth. .–. cf. Gildersleeve : , who reports that ‘it has been fancied that Theron was a Peleus, a Kadmos, and an Achilles in one’. For Pindar’s relations with the Emmenids, see also the judicious account of Hornblower : – and the imaginative scenario of Bell . Pindar could presuppose knowledge of the Aethiopis and the Precepts of Chiron on the part of those who were not familiar with the representations of the East Frieze. Figure  offers a reconstructed view of the sculptural composition of the East Frieze as whole, from the position of a viewer making his way to the Temple of Apollo with the Treasury on his left. Figure , i.e. the fac¸ade, is what he would have seen had he gone past the Treasury. Gelzer :  and Rutherford : –. The vagueness about the physical aspects of the performance has a similar objective: see Morgan  and now Carey : , who suggests that this lack of specificity is a poetic strategy aiming to ‘elide the difference between the first and subsequent performances’.



lucia athanassaki

Figure  Reconstruction of the view of the Siphnian Treasury from the north, seen from above as the viewer progresses past along the Sacred Way.

In the final strophe, the systematically sustained focus on Apollo’s temple and its surroundings shifts rapidly to Thrasybulus’ lifestyle (–): strophe 6 &1) )% C& " A |  {?7} V& , .    &0) + + J. % @&& l  &$, ,#'  % C !6, '$4 )' )%, % ., +" " H&& C, $, 1 / )  , ,1, &,) . !6  #Y  D ,!& ) , (6 ,, A')  ), can only refer to the song that is   

For similarities in the praise of Xenocrates and Thrasybulus in the two odes, see Bury : . Isth. . (iii:  Dr.) Loscalzo : – and –; Hubbard . Pfeijffer b: – thinks that Pindar has in mind a spontaneous re-performance.



lucia athanassaki

being performed. Pindar’s choice of the plural instead of the singular, however, suggests that he opted for the plural because he had in mind all the songs he composed for the Emmenids. Moreover, the use of the participle C>,) ", which in Nemean  is used with reference to statues, indicates that the poet must have had in mind the treasury-poem as well. Yet there is a remarkable difference between Pythian  and Isthmian , namely the reformulation of the relation between poetry and sculpture. In Pythian , the act of poetic composition was described as a kind of building ())',) , ) in order to show its greater endurance, but also to highlight the affinities between the epinician song and the Siphnian monument. Twenty years later, the focus is no longer on the greater endurance of poetry versus sculpture, but on the means whereby Thrasybulus can capitalise on this endurance in light of the mobility of song. Whereas the Siphnian Treasury remains motionless in Delphi, the poetic treasure-house is agile: it can move from the Sacred Way of Apollo’s sanctuary in Delphi to the space of the symposium in Acragas. Moreover, unlike treasure-houses which can communicate their message only in public, the epinician song can certainly convey its monumental story in a public setting, but it can also accommodate it in the intimate milieu of the symposium. But in order to fulfil any of these possibilities, as Thrasybulus is now reminded, he must keep the songs going. I suggest that the mirrored performance settings in Pythian  indicate precisely this multifaceted flexibility: the mobility of song, its adaptability to different performance contexts and its power to rival the monuments by offering custom-made versions of the stories that they tell. In the foregoing discussion I have focused on the symposium as an alternative performance setting. Needless to say, the ode could be re-performed in the sanctuary of Apollo in the event of another Emmenid victory at the Pythian



 

 

I owe this point to Giovan Battista D’Alessio. Privitera :  adduces parallels for the use of the plural with reference to one and the same song. Isth. . is, however, the only instance where the plural U!" is qualified by a deictic. Farnell –:  suggests that Pindar may have sent another ode to Thrasybulus along with this one, possibly the sympotic fr. . For the relation of Pindar’s poetry with sculpture see Steiner ,  and , who emphasises the similarities; cf. O’Sullivan  and Yvonneau , who identify a polemical tenor; see also Kurke  who studies the similar function of epinician poetry and victory monuments in bestowing kudos on the athlete. ore recent discussions include Smith , Thomas , Pavlou , Athanassaki a, Hedreen , Indergaard  and Athanassaki b. Jebb’s discussion, now well over a century old (Jebb ), is still of great value. For the ability of song to move from place to place, see the eloquent statement of Theog. –. Nisetich : – sees an element of praise in this admonition.

The Siphnian Treasury evoked



games. In terms of the thematic versatility of poetry versus sculpture, Pindar’s creative dialogue in Pythian  and Olympian  with the East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury bears witness to the power of poetry to free, as it were, the sculptures from their bases and enable them to form new and unexpected combinations. Although Pindar does not theorise on this aspect of flexibility, his odes for the Emmenids and for the Aeginetans show that the sculptural representations of public monuments were to him a recurrent source of inspiration and creativity. 

For the suitability of this particular song for re-performance in Delphi, see Currie : ; for the re-performance of the epinicians at the site of the victory at the next convocation of the games, see Hubbard .

c ha p te r 8

Representations of cult in epinician poetry Franco Ferrari

epinician and cultic song In Pindar’s epinicians the victory celebration, which can involve the athletic victor, his friends and indeed the whole community, seems sometimes to be linked to or embedded in a larger cultic occasion. But the converse is also true: athletics is sometimes a theme for sacred song. Pindar’s second Partheneion, a song of praise for Apollo performed in the ancient and precisely defined liturgical context of the Theban Daphnephoria festival, incidentally celebrates some past athletic exploits of the family of which Pagondas, the commissioning party, was head (Pind. fr. b ff.). These two cases demonstrate the permeability of the border between epinician and cultic song. The Alexandrian editors of Pindar’s odes gathered into four books a harvest of songs, many of which cannot be categorised neatly as epinicians. For example, they included the eleventh Nemean, a song that Didymus ( Nem.  (iii: f. Dr.)), the last of the great Hellenistic critics of Pindar, supposed in fact to be a partheneion, and which was composed for a non-athletic occasion: to celebrate Aristagoras of Tenedos’ elevation to the prytany on his tiny island. We cannot, therefore, ever state without further inquiry whether a given song is or is not a ‘true’ epinician. But the epinician genre is surely not a later invention, for its history can be traced through verse-inscriptions on the statue-bases, tripods and so on which commemorate successes in athletic or equestrian contests from the first half of the seventh century bc. Nor did epinician end with Pindar: the history of inscribed epinician poetry is continuous from the seventh century bc down to the Roman empire. An interesting literary revival of this elementary form of epinician poetry can be found in the eighteen epigrams on horses (Hippika) contained in the Milan roll of Posidippus.  

See Angeli Bernardini : –, Krummen : passim (synopsis on p. ), Currie : –. Cf. Angeli Bernardini .



Representations of cult in epinician poetry



There the epigrams follow the following prevailing pattern: ‘this horse ran (or won) at such-and-such a place (Delphi, the Isthmus etc.)’, with frequent mention of former victories won by the horse and his owner. Posidippus’ Hippika show a certain formal similarity to archaic epigrams for victorious horses in the keles, or horse race. Thanks to recent reinterpretation of certain papyri, the existence of choral epinician can be pushed back at least as far as the mid sixth century, making the genre more or less contemporary with the festivals of the reorganised Panhellenic periodos. The corpus of surviving ‘real’ epinician song, as opposed to epigram, contains some short poems like Bacchylides’ second ode: songs improvised by the great lyric poets of the fifth century bc for celebrations at the site of the games immediately after the contest. Most, however, are elaborate compositions which must have demanded intense premeditation and planning. There is a very great distance between nearly all of the longer epinicians of Pindar and Bacchylides and the kind of almost oral poetic production exemplified in the shorter poems. From the point of view of pragmatics, the occasion and context of performance surely created a set of predetermined expectations which were shared by the entire audience of an epinician ode. But it is one thing to realise that this was the case, and quite another to base one’s reading of a given ode on this assumption. In most cases, determining and assessing the original context of an ode is neither easy nor self-evident, for it depends on understanding the purpose or function of a given poetic message. theoxenia in acragas: olympian 3 One piece of ancient evidence for the performance of epinician poetry at religious festivals is a scholion to Pindar’s first Nemean (b (iii: – Dr.)), an ode written to celebrate a chariot victory of Hieron’s henchman, Chromius. As the scholiast tells us, Hieron and his followers (H &D ) 8$ ) sang the epinicians composed for the great crown games during the festival for Zeus Aitnaios. Didymus is therefore persuasive when he says that the song for Chromius’ victory at Nemea was also composed in order that Chromius himself should hear it at the festival.    

Cf. .,.–., .ff., , .– A-B. Nicholson : ff. compare nos.  Ebert ( CEG and nos.  and  Ebert (all of which apparently date to the late sixth century). See Rawles (this volume). Reading ;,.5,,.  with mss. BD, against ,.5,,.  as read by Triclinius and printed by Drachmann, and Drachmann’s   .

The break-off sets up a tension between the poet’s actual practice and the implied norm that a panegyrist should keep to his subject. The rock sets a limit to the forward movement of digressive narrative. Pindar then adds that the ‘quintessential part (+$)") of komastic songs’ is in their nimble flight from logos to logos. To his earlier implied norm of relevance, the speaker opposes a new ‘law’ of komastic spontaneity. My songs, he says, are free to speak as they like: a licence that they inherit from the established customs of komastic celebration. This is not the only place where Pindar invokes propriety, norms and expectations. Recent work has tended to emphasise the ‘rhetorical’ character of these passages. A ‘law’ in one context is a negotiable convention to be transgressed in the next. This flexibility is part of the language of genre in any period of literary history, and we should not press Pindar’s ‘law’ of the komastic genre too hard. The terms C*" and C&*" U" recur in Pindar’s later epinicians. At Olympian .–, the lyric speaker commends his innovative combination of Dorian song and a komastic style of singing. Despite an implied setting (.7' at Akragas) which is distinctly un-komastic, the ode is an instance of C* " (). So too is Nemean , when it asserts the poet’s mission ‘to yoke a komastic tune (C* ", ) to victorious deeds’. Olympian .ff., in an idiom of prayer not alien to Pindar’s conception of the komos, calls upon Zeus to ‘receive’ (7 ) ‘a komastic liturgy of crowns (,)#1$ C* ).") brought by the victor from the plains of Pisa’. The performance is at once a komos and      



‘Ease the oar! Plant the anchor quickly in the earth from the prow: a shield against the hog-back reef; for the essence of komastic songs flits like the bee ever from tale to tale.’ Pyth. .b (ii:  Dr.) and Pyth. .ad– (ii: – Dr.). Nagy :  notes that Pindar’s frequent inconsistencies and self-mockery make sense when read through the merry parrhesia of the komos; cf. also Burnett :  n.. Most notoriously perhaps at Nem. .–; cf. e.g. Isth. .–. Miller ; Carey : – and unpublished; Pavlou : –. On the fluidity of genre norms in practice: Colie ; Fowler ; Frow . See Prauscello (this volume, p.  n. and pp. –). ( For the alternative view that $' &' alludes to metre or dance, cf. Fennell : i –; Lehnus : ; Verdenius : –; Heath :  n..)  See section  (pp. –). See Ferrari (this volume, pp. –); cf. however Figure .



peter ag ocs ´

a ritual wearing and dedication of crowns (stephanephoria); )." marks the unchanging propriety of religious 1", legitimating the genre by appeal to divine ordinances. Here too epinician chorality is assimilated to the komos, and on two grounds. They share a mode of performance and a ‘law’: the latter this time rooted in the sacred proprieties of the games. The Protean komos Komos is a group (the $ ,) ' ), a kind of music-making and an action. Less tangibly, it marks an atmosphere. It functions as a term for the concrete ode or for the group that sings it. It can also point to the wider context of performance. Finally it can allude to certain norms and expectations associated with that context, the precise character of which is hard to establish. Religious devotions (dedications, sacrifices and processions) formed a part; so did feasting and drinking; and finally the song: the C&*" U". Staying for the moment with the latter, it is difficult to infer anything about the performing group or their production. The size of epinician choruses is unknown, and the poets do not talk about their selection or training. The victor is sometimes a participant, sometimes not. Sometimes, he leads his own celebration. The speaker, too, may present himself as a komast, or even a solo performer ; or he can remain aloof. The komasts themselves are rarely characterised. They are always male. At Olympian . and Olympian . they are the adult victor’s 3) 6; elsewhere they are ‘men’. In some odes for young athletes, they        

 

For an analogous passage, see pp. – below. Thanks to Agis Marinis on this point. Heath : –; Carey : –; Lape : –. General discussions: Budelmann (this volume, pp. –); cf. Lamer ; Lawler : ff.; Heath : –; Lape : –. Note (Frisk : ii ; Chantraine : ) that " may be etymologically connected with  ". Adapting a term from linguistics, one might call it a ‘register’. On )= C&' , see p.  above; on epinician rituals of return: n. below. See Herington : –, –, –; Heath : –; Carey . Komoi are typically depicted as singing (and, on red-figure vases, dancing: see Lawler ; P¨utz : ). Victor as participant: Ol. .–; Pyth. .ff.; Nem. .–; Isth. .–. Whether he joins or ‘receives’ the komos can express something about the social dynamics between the actors of an ode. Compare the accessible, participatory tone of Arcesilas’ komos at Pyth.  init. with his detached ‘reception’ of the returning komos at Pyth. .. For the distinction between recipient and leader of a komos see e.g. Cole : . Ol. .– is arguably such a case. Cf. Pyth. ., Pyth. . (andres) and Ol. .– (hetairoi); Pyth. . (C A $); Nem. . and  (T&D $); Pyth. . (& '$ T1,) may refer obliquely to the performing group, but more likely to singing at the symposion: cf. Cingano in Gentili et al. : .

Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



come from the victor’s own age-class. As singers, the komasts may have been friends of the laudandus, or hired professionals, as the instrumentalists probably were – this, however, like the problems of choregia in general, is irrelevant within the fictional world of the song, and never mentioned by Pindar. Nor is it easy to get a sense of komastic music and dance. Epinician performance must have been very different in Hieron’s Syracuse, at Aegina or Thebes, or in re-performance at a symposion in Athens: but we lack even a sense of possible parameters. There is no one definition of the victory celebration or of song’s place within it; it is likewise impossible to determine anything about the relative ‘formality’ or ‘informality’ of a particular komastic performance. If there is no direct path from descriptive to performative context, we can at least examine the cultural baggage of the word. ‘Secular’ or ‘private’ komoi are normally (if unscientifically) distinguished from those of a ‘sacred’, ‘public’ or ‘official’ sort. I will begin with the ‘private’ komos. In fifth- and fourth-century Attic texts, komos often means a drunken procession from symposion to symposion (cf. Olympian .: O. O ). It was associated with youth, an upper-class lifestyle, moral licence, recklessness, informality, unbridled speech of a jocular, mocking or abusive kind; singing, dancing and sometimes random violence. (In comedy and in Hellenistic poetry, it belongs to the erotic topos of the paraklausithyron. ) The boundary between symposion and komos is not always clear. Symposion can become komos and komos symposion. Komos does not always imply movement: the word is used of other kinds of drunken carousal. Often, it is simply symposion a` l’outrance: what happens when the drinking and the discourse, the singing, dancing and flirting get out of hand. Theognis associates it both with contagious depravity and with ‘the greatest pleasure known to men and women’. Like wine, komos was an ambiguous blessing of Dionysus. As an explosion of sympotic energies into the city, it is derided (especially by the orators) as antisocial behaviour. But it is also associated 

      

Isth. .ff.; ; Bacch. .; .; and Carey : –. Komastic participation was perhaps a way to create unanimity in competitive elites through the co-optation of the less by the more successful. Carey : –; on the broader question of choregia and remuneration, see Bowie (this volume) with references. These terms have often been used to characterise epinician in contrast with the komos: cf. Heath : , – and Morgan : –. Lamer ; P¨utz : , –; Calame : –; Lape : –. Cf. Budelmann (this volume, pp. –).  P¨ Heath : n.; Lape : –. utz : . See n. below. See Heath : ; P¨utz : –; komos and mockery: –. Cf Theogn. – and –. See Budelmann (this volume, p.  n.); Heath :  n..



peter ag ocs ´

with the celebration of victory ()= C&' ). Aristophanes’ heroes often lead a euphoric komos in the final scene. The connection of komos with $' is obvious but obscure. Wedding processions are also described as komoi, and the word is used of aulos music for dancing. Different artistic media represent different aspects of the komos situation. Attic vase-painters draw the komos as a symposion in motion, conveying its own centre, the krater, O. O . The poets represent the komasts waiting at the door. Their liminality is central to its meaning as a social ritual. Most komastic song refers in some way to the reception of the komos. Take for example a fragment attributed by Hephaestion to Alcaeus (fr.  L–P): 7   $1,) 7 4 ',, ' , ',, .

Like suppliants and xenoi, komasts claim rights over the oikos of their host. Claiming a hospitality that has not been offered, they force him to choose between uninvited company and infringing deep-set expectations. Their self-assertion can express itself in banter or swaggering intrusion. Alcibiades’ night visit to Agathon in Plato’s Symposium illustrates the exchange of requests and permissions komastic etiquette demanded. As with xenia, ritualised behaviour could eliminate uncertainty, assuring each party of his dignity. Liminality was followed by integration: once accepted, the komast became a sympotes. Or, if played aggressively, komos could be a challenge to the host’s position. We will see (in section ) that Pindar opts for a model of komos that foregrounds integration and collaboration over aggression and point-scoring. Let us turn to the ‘sacred’. Komos can also point to formal occasions for choral singing. Komoi are attested at the Great Dionysia in Athens, and        



E.g. Ar. Nub. , fr.  K–A. Pickard-Cambridge , ch. ; P¨utz : –, –. On padded dancers (‘komasts’) in art, see Csapo and Miller : – and Rothwell . On phallika, see Bierl : –.  Ath. .c; Lawler : . See e.g. Eur. Alc. –; Oakley and Sinos : –. Lissarrague a: –; –; b: –; Bron . E.g. Theogn. –, –, –, –, –; Heath : . ‘Welcome me, the reveller, welcome me in, I beg you, I beg you.’ On xenia, see Gould : –. Cole : ch.  (–) emphasises the violence, disruption and political subversiveness of the komos; as, in a different way, do Newman and Newman : vii–viii, –, –, whose description (which strongly and unconvincingly assimilates the Pindaric komos to komoidia) incorporates elements of Bakhtinian carnival. Budelmann (this volume, p.  n.). IG ii ,; Dem. Meid. –. As Pickard-Cambridge :  n., , – and Goldhill :  note, the inscription’s ‘komoi for Dionysus’ may refer to the festival, to the dithyrambs, to other performances by male choroi or even to the pompe. Nor do ancient texts make a clear distinction between komos and pompe.

Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



the name is used of other sacred choral performances which are neither exclusively processional nor Dionysiac. Even in the context of formalised polis religion, komos preserves its tone of spontaneity and ‘carnival’, and it is hard to draw a boundary between these performances and the ‘private’ komos. Like sacrifice, choral song and the symposion, komos is invoked by poets as a symbol of the wealthy city at one with itself and at peace with its neighbours. It denotes a mood of festivity in the city. 2. pindar’s komoi and the ‘epinician moment’ Like other such terms, komos is a flexible concept. It unites a range of connotations in ‘family resemblance’. No core sense underpins this range of meanings. Bundy once wrote that ‘song and revelry are the two elements of the victory celebration’. His caution was warranted. It is by no means easy to generalise about how komos as ‘song’ related to komos as ‘celebration’. The situation changes from poem to poem; and Pindar’s komastic diction often shows the tell-tale distortions of what, since Bundy, is recognised as a dominant epinician tense – a kind of futurum in praesente. His statements of komastic intention can be interpreted in three ways: first, as declarations by a poet composing the ode for future performance; second, as ‘performative’ or self-realising assertions; and third, as references to a larger celebration instaurated (enacted and re-enacted) by the victory song. This ambiguity crops up in several passages. Sometimes Pindar seems bent on enforcing a distinction between revelry (the wider celebration) and song–dance performance within the poem’s own world. This can express itself in a gap which suddenly opens between the first-person speaking voice of the poem and the komos which performs it. The proem 



   

Cf. e.g. Eur. Hipp. ff., Hel.  (cf. Allan : ), Bacch. . For sacred komoi in comedy, P¨utz : –. IG ii  (/ bc) records victors of komastic contests in the Marathonian Tetrapolis; for the tetrakomos, an Attic song–dance sacred to Heracles Epinicius, see Lawler : –. E. Tro. – even speaks (puzzlingly: see below n.) of funeral komoi. For another sacred komos, see Figure  (pp. –). Bacch. fr. ; Theogn. – (with van Groningen : ). In tragedy, these associations are sometimes ‘inverted’: Heath : – (cf. Rutherford : – for a similar phenomenon in the paean). E.g. Hdt. ., &'  D * ,.  ;" A5!", implies that the citizens of Miletus are visiting each other in komoi; cf. Xen. Cyrop. .., .., ... See also Bacch. .–, .–. Cf. the multiple senses of ‘paean’: Rutherford : –. For Wittgenstein’s ‘family resemblances’ applied to literary genre: Fowler : – and Frow : –; Swift : –. Bundy : . See on this most recently D’Alessio : ff. Cf. Morgan :  (‘komastic language . . . brings the future into the orbit of the present’); Slater a; Hummel : §– (–); Pfeijffer b: esp. –. On Alcman: Calame : –.



peter ag ocs ´

of Nemean  is an example. The implied setting is probably Aegina. A group of youths, ‘carpenters of sweet-sounding komoi’ ( >$ ))" *$  ' , –), eagerly awaits the voice of the Muse (,. -&   , ) by ‘the water of Asopus’ (U ) . . . )% C&% ,$&', –). The speaker asks her to grant him an abundance of singing ‘from my own mind’ ([A"] A#.'  -&  5)" /" +&, ), These lines separate the authorial ego from the performing komos (C* . . . '$, ). Do they also drive a wedge between the komos and the formal ode? They were extensively cited on both sides of the debate on epinician performance; but the Greek seems to suggest that it is the komos of youths and not the ‘poet’ who will perform the ode. Since it will not begin until the Muse sings, the U" the poet requests is also what the youths are ‘waiting’ for. Komoi meligarues resembles passages where a song word in the plural denotes the performative medium of the epinician utterance. ‘Komos’ refers to the group who will perform the ode the speaker invokes. The separation between speaker and komos does not reflect any one historical moment; rather it refers to a model of relations between imaginary roles within an idealised process of epinician production from commissioning to performance. The first-person speaker is an authorial voice and master of ceremonies for a performance which has not yet begun; the komos represents the performers. If the author is composing, the komos must ‘wait’. As the song progresses, it oscillates sharply between this sense of separation and deferral (the absence of performance), and a heightened sense of performance (past or ongoing). The latter makes itself especially felt on at the ‘return’ from myth to occasion, where times of utterance and celebration suddenly and momentarily coincide (ƒ0 ) = B , , % A*, ) U" ?  | T&D $ C&* 1  $, – ) in a complete and fully realised performance (? ) on Aegina. The initial sense of deferral is, however, restored at the poem’s conclusion (–), whose implied context also definitively wrenches the authorial speaker away from the waiting komos:      



On the ‘Asopian water’ (–) see Privitera ; Lefkowitz : –, ; Pfeijffer a: –. Morgan : –. On this debate, see Morgan : – n.; Pfeijffer a: –; D’Alessio ; cf. also Carey b: – and : – with Lefkowitz : . Cf. e.g. Ol. .; Ol. .; Ol. .; Ol. . (hymnoi); Ol. .; Ol. .; Ol. .; Pyth. . (aoidai). Cf. Mullen : –. On ‘time of composition’ vs. ‘time of performance’ see D’Alessio :  and passim. For a similar case (absence aligned with the composer’s role; presence with the performer’s) see Calame : –. ‘Zeus, yours is the blood, and yours the contest, which this song has struck with the voice of youths in proclamation of Aeginetan joy.’ Cf. Carey : .

Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



 6 #'"4 CP )  ) &&$   ! ,2 1 ),   % ?, % A#&, &% A' C & 6, :, TQ &.

The &&' gesture, a momentary allusion to the ritual protocols of the symposion, is enabled by the komastic context of the opening but also clashes with it. In the proem, both author and performers were present in the scene; now, the author is absent. The song is a finished text () ) but only a potential performance: the sense of ‘lateness’ that we felt in the proem takes on concrete quasi-narrative form. The poem thus inhabits three separate ‘worlds’ at different points in its trajectory (celebration at Nemea, the composing poet at Thebes and the komastic performance on Aegina), and alludes to four phases of the poetic process (‘original’ celebration of victory which provides a motivating parallel (or aition) for the epinician utterance; composition or enunciation; ‘sent’ poem; and choral execution). The final deferral, an assertion of authorship enacted through the trope of ‘sending’ projects komos into the poem’s future. The young Aeginetans are still waiting for the voice of the Muse. With its bold discontinuities of time and place, Nemean  exemplifies the problems of occasional reference in Pindar. The closing lines project komos and performance into the future of the epinician utterance. The same strategy is found in other odes. But the boundaries are not always clear. At Isthmian .– (* % ?&) /> ,2 U) komos materialises as soon as the poet invokes it. In the epode of Olympian , the speaker enjoins the Muses to come and ‘join the komos’ (?. ,!$17 ), ). That this declaration should be taken with reference to a second victory ode was refuted by Bundy. Still, the passage remains ambiguous. The komos is the current song imagined in terms of an ongoing, developing ritual process; it is also the celebration that surrounds and embraces the performance (which in this case is quite brief ). The song is a symbol for ‘celebration of victory’ in all its forms: a ritual process not limited to the immediate performance. Nemean  (), r &6) , $17 ) 5 ,2 :a  ,)|  

 

‘Hail, my friend! I send you (&&$) this, a mixture of honey and white milk with stirred drops of dew busy about it: a singing drink accompanied by the breaths of auloi, late though it be.’ ‘Quasi-narrative’ in the sense that the poet leaves to the reader the task of constructing a narrative out of the bits of ‘story’ scattered discontinuously through the poem. On ‘non-narrated stories’ in ancient lyric, see Lowrie : – n.. D’Alessio : –. On entextualisation, see Barber  and Thomas (this volume). Bundy : –, –, ; D’Alessio : .



peter ag ocs ´

/! % C71) #$, ) closes similarly, with an announcement of komoi addressed this time to the whole citizen body. Nemean .– displays the same ambiguity about the temporality of the komos. The speaker defines his task as dedicating (.) a U! &* (‘komastic prelude in song’/‘prelude to a song’) to Zeus, Nemea and the wrestling of Timasarchus. Prelude to what? Otherwise unattested and probably coined by Pindar, prokomion must combine the senses of prooimion and enkomion. Prooimion refers to the beginning of a song, to the hymn which precedes a rhapsodic performance of epos, to the instrumental prelude (also called an anabole) which begins the song–dance of a chorus, or to the first part of a kitharodic nome. One might argue that the komos is the celebration instaurated by the song: the song is thus a prelude to something larger. On this view song and komos do not coincide. But if komos to pro-komion is like oime (‘epic song’) to pro-oimion (that is, if it refers to a longer poem which follows the ‘prelude’ in the same performance, or – as in the kitharodic nome – simply to an opening movement), then the rest, since it comes after, is marked as a komos: a victory ode. Song and komos can coincide – hymnos on either account refers to the medium of the performance: song. Pindar continues: ‘may the Aeacid seat [Aegina] with its high bastions . . . accept (7 )) my song’. As Bury notes, . here suggests ‘the setting up and dedicating of a work of architecture or sculpture; the prokomion is related to the komos or hymn as the pronaos is to the naos’. 7 ) () points to a moment when the song will be a finished object and a performance worthy of literal dedication. It is impossible, I think, definitively to decide between these two interpretations of prokomion. Both are possible. But the second seems more convincing. The motif of consecration is an important guide. The poet consecrates his utterance (ana)thematically to the god, the man and the city he praises. It is at once a prokomion to a performance that has not yet begun, and a song 

  



Isth. /, taken together, provide another possible case of an initial komos’ return, in changed circumstances, at the end of a poem; and of the projection of a komos towards the immediate aftermath of performance. On the semantic development of prooimion see Costantini et al. :  on the present passage. For Pindar’s use of the word, see Appendix iv (p. ). Cf. Fennell : , ; Farnell –: ii ; Henry : . Boeckh –: ii. ; Nisetich ; Willcock : ; Race . On the kitharodic nome see Costantini et al.  –. For a similar case where prooimion seems to frame the first part of a speech – not perhaps incidentally a hymn of thanksgiving to ‘Argos and the country’s gods’ – see Aesch Ag.  and Fraenkel : ii . Thanks to Agis Marinis for pointing me to this passage, and for his help on Nem. . See below, pp. –.

Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



which has already started: it is a komos, an act of dedication and the object of the consecration it enacts. Again we find an awareness of different stages in the choral process from commissioning to composition to performance and transmission. The triple definition offered by the poet alerts us also to the functional complexity of the epinician genre. My poem, he says, is at once a thanksgiving offering to Zeus, a celebration of the victory and of his festival and an encomium to the victor. Nemean  will be our final example of the ambiguity of komos as song and celebration. At the start, a komos of the speaker and the Muses is preparing to go in procession from Sicyon to Chromius’ house at Aetna in Sicily. The victor is there: he climbs into his chariot and signals ( :=  >, ) to begin a hymn to Apollo, Artemis and Leto. Whether this opening paralleled a real procession or merely embroidered the nostos theme, the terms of the description it offers are imaginary. After a myth (ll. –) and praise (ll. –), the song returns to a different setting (ll. –). We are now at the victor’s house in Aetna. The poet’s komos has become a symposion. The victory at Sicyon and its crowns and silver cups are in the past. It seems that Chromius was in Sicily all along, for they were earned (&) . . . ) " A" #7'!  = & ", ?.  /    

Against the symposion, see Carey : , who notes the similarity to Ol. .  Heath : . Budelmann (this volume, p. ) and Athanassaki (this volume, p. ). Heath : –. For another case of performance at the victor’s door, see Bacch. .– (though as Maehler : – notes, this may refer to the &  " of a temple).

Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



6&  ,), a passage (Fuhrer : –) that has something in common with Ol.  init. On the archaic choregos (‘chorus-leader’) or exarchon, often identified in song and iconography with Apollo Musagetes, see Calame : –. The problems converge on Pindar’s )'&". cite two interpretations, one of which, attributed to Eratosthenes (k (i:  Dr.)), says that the  ' refrain (ephymnion) was repeated three times; and the other, attributed to Aristarchus ( i, g (i: ,  Dr.)), which says the song was )',)#", ‘tristrophic’). As von Sybel  notes (still despite its logical flaws and unfortunate conclusions the best critical study of these scholia), it is difficult to see what Aristarchus’ tristrophos meant. The waters are further muddied by scholiasts’ clumsy attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable. Note also a (i:  Dr.), which attempts to explain triploos by positing three separate performances: one at the time of the victory, one C ) ! ,', and the third in the victor’s home city. That Epharmostus led his own victory komos seems to me the most natural interpretation of /0, , : cf. however n. above. Komastic singing is hard on the voice: Theogn. –. Similar words for epinician ‘shouting’ in Pindar: ,  6, ,,/A;  >,  !1 , .6, or ‘boasting’: Jd  , ;6,  & or $6. These associations are not as strong in Bacchylides’ epinicians (see Gerber : s.vv.).

Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



= 0 () shifts the focus from the old song to the new. Kathryn Morgan sees a contrast here between Pindar’s ode and the ‘lesser song’ of the komos. The new song is superior to the old one in many ways (Panhellenic reach and commemorative force, originality, complexity, musicality). But this assertion of originality is not perhaps incompatible with the Greek poet’s staged (and largely obligatory) deference towards tradition. Pindar’s allusion also has an aetiological point. The scholia tell us that Archilochus, wishing to strike up (A 1,. ) a hymn to Heracles at Olympia and lacking a kithara-player (A&5, " . 0) imitated the strumming noise with his voice. This became the ritual cry )5 . This legend may underlie Pindar’s allusion to the kallinikos. In his description of the current performance, he chose after all to emphasise the role of the Apollonian lyre (the ‘far-shooting bow and arrow of the Muses’ ). The kallinikos was not exclusive to Olympia: Pindar mentions it mostly in connection with other festivals. But the scholiasts’ aetiology sets the origin of the kallinikos at Olympia. If their testimony is not mere inference from Pindar’s words, he too may have recalled the same story here. But even if the anecdote about Archilochus singing at Olympia is a later invention, it is clear that the Parian poet’s kallinikos hymnos is being positioned as a precedent for the present song. Pindar refers the current ode to the kallinikos, and the

  



Gerber : –; Pavlou : . Morgan (: –) speaks of ‘foil’ and ‘contrast’ between the poet’s ‘professional’ song and the ‘less formal’ komos; cf. also Pavlou : . Note that the scholia frequently mention performance to the aulos rather than the lyre, the former being much more appropriate to a Dionysiac komos. Cf. c, f (i: ,  Dr.): lyre; h (i:  Dr.): aulos; k (i:  Dr., attributed to Eratosthenes): the tenella imitates either lyre or aulos. We may be dealing in the last case with a version which reflects actual (perhaps fourth-century?) komastic practice; or, alternatively, with an inference from Pindar’s frequent references to mixed kithara and aulos accompaniment in epinician (cf. Herington : –, ; and Prauscello (this volume, p.  n.). Note also EM p. , – (Gaisford) and ri. Av.  (p.  Holwerda), the latter of which says that tenella is a mimesis of the aulos, adding that the first kallinikos hymnos was performed ‘after the labour of Augeas’ or (by a v. l.) ‘Heracles’ greatest labour’ (see also n. above with West :  on the text). Both passages in the Pindar scholia ( c, f ) which relate the aetiological tale refer only to the lyre. Archilochus was associated in local Parian legend with the lyre: see the ‘Mnesiepes inscription’ discussed most recently by Clay . Olympia is the only scene of the Archilochus anecdote reported in the Pindar scholia. See e.g. Gildersleeve : . Note that only part of the ms tradition has the correct reading ,, in l. ; the rest have ,,: see Gerber : –. The story of the absent lyre-player may, as von Sybel  and West : – assume, be an invention of the scholiast; in any case, the aetiological function of Pindar’s allusion, and the epinician function of the kallinikos hymnos are clear with or without the anecdote. That at least some ancient commentators may have grasped the aetiological point of the passage is attested by the description ( f (i:  Dr.)) or Archilochus as & )>)$ ) !  ": sc. more ancient than the poets of Pindar’s generation.



peter ag ocs ´

kallinikos back to its origins. Elsewhere he refers to the epinician ode as )  ', or (  '" U"; he likewise applies the epithet to the victor and the glory he wins. The komos of the victor and his friends thus points through Archilochus to a living tradition of performance. If we accept that a story about the first performance at Olympia existed in the early fifth century, his allusion takes on even greater resonance with the tradition. The kallinikos hymnos is also, therefore, a kind of epinician. It is the folkloric model that the current performance develops and improves on. Perhaps it relates to choral epinician as the paean-cry to the developed paean, or anonymous hymns of cult to the new songs composed for Panhellenic and polis festivals. Although new Panhellenic song may draw attention to its artistic or intellectual superiority and even originality, there is a sense in which the local and organic is more authoritative, for it takes its legitimacy from established custom. The historical idea – that new and more complex forms of song emerge from familiar rituals and interactions – is expressed through synchronic comparison of different but related forms of celebration. As often in the language of genre, what looks like disavowal or ‘foil’ has an integrating purpose. Other odes recast this analogy in terms that are more directly religious and aetiological, projecting epinician back into the time of the heroes. Olympian  makes the present performance a literal re-enactment of illud tempus. Here the focus is on the continuity of an archetypal moment. The poem’s myth evokes one aetiology of the Olympics: foundation by Heracles. With his army, the hero occupies the site of the festival, measures out its sacred and profane spaces, and inaugurates the contests. The new festival, like any birth, is blessed by the Moerae; but the force that guarantees the continuity of tradition is Time itself, ‘who alone discovers the real truth’; ‘who going forward, has made the facts clear’ (;P & ,$ 

   

 

Ar. Av.  (p.  Holwerda) gives a third aition for the kallinikos hymnos: performance on Paros, celebrating the poet’s victory in a musical agon for Demeter. Note also that Eratosthenes ( k (i:  Dr.)) apparently questioned the hymn’s epinician function, arguing that it was ‘only’ a Hymn to Heracles: see von Sybel ; Wilamowitz :  n.; West : –. Of the victory song: Pyth. ., Nem. ., ., Isth. .; of the victor or his ancestral line: Pyth. ., .; victor’s glory: Isth. .. My description shares something with Nagy’s ‘diachronic skewing’ (see : –) except that it emphasises the poet’s active role in creating, rather than simply inheriting, his tradition. Old and new song: Herington : – and Rutherford : –. This passage is thus an early example of the idea, expressed most strikingly in Aristotle’s ‘archaeologies’ of tragedy and comedy, that ‘high’ or ‘literary’ genres originate in traditional or popular ones. On intertextual allusion as a figure, see Conte : esp. –. On other aitia for the Olympics, see Nagy : –.

Performance and genre: reading Pindar’s kämoi



 )# , ) , # ", ll. –). The presence in situ of such a force of memory is crucial to the poem’s argument. Beginning his myth (–), the singer has already claimed that ‘the just ordinances (.)") of Zeus have roused me (r, ) to sing of that great contest’. This motivates his move towards narrative as a response to an external demand. The real nature of this claim becomes clear towards the end of the myth, where the speaker, having run through the victors of the founding contest, evokes the atmosphere of the first Olympic epinicians: moonlit komoi to balance the athletes’ daytime agones (–): antistrophe 4, line 4 . . . C % f,& ?#7 :*&" ,1 " C ) #1".

 

epode 4, line 1 A')  & )" )& 6, . ' " ) C* A#D ) &. A 6"  &) " 3&   D 0 C&$!'  1 ' " A*!  ,  ,1, )= C&', A 6" & & C . Bacchylides refers once (.) to C&' :  6  !, % :.5" !6  :   1  '!,% C&'"  .' #' !H .

Here the context is musical: the C&' in question may be the current song or the wider celebration of which it forms part. IV PROOIMION IN PINDAR

Pyth. . of an instrumental prelude to a choral song (cf. Pyth. . a (ii:  Dr.) and Cingano in Gentili et al. : ). Cf. Pyth. . 1,)

H  & " .  &' . . . (‘in praising the Alkmeonidai, we should begin with Athens’): the word refers to the beginning of the song; finally Nem. ., where it refers, in the context of a larger argument about beginnings, to a rhapsodic or ‘Homeric’ hymn. V KK‡c IN PINDAR

As a victory song: Ol. .; Nem. .; Nem. .; Isth. .. As an adjective applied to the victor: Pyth. .; Pyth. .. As an adjective applied to the victor’s glory: Isth. . (here the whole phrase can be taken metonymically in reference to the victory song). Note that only Ol. . applies to an Olympian victory. Bacchylides ignores the term.

c h a p te r 11

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’ and the performance of epinician poetry Some suggestions from ethnography Rosalind Thomas Pindar’s difficulty does not need illustration. It has defined the reputation of his poetry from antiquity to the present day. The dominant mode in Pindaric criticism has always been exegetical. The victory odes are read through a commentary tradition that seeks to elucidate the words, phrases, myths, structure and very unity of the poems. A recent study by John Hamilton has nevertheless taken Pindar’s obscurity as its starting point, suggesting how we might begin to embrace it. Eloquently entitled Soliciting Darkness: Pindar, Obscurity and the Classical Tradition, Hamilton’s book argues that the tradition of Pindar’s opacity may derive from a wholly adequate reading of his poetry, one that may turn out to be ‘essential’. Dark passages or incomprehensibility are not necessarily signs of failure on the part of the listener or reader, let alone a failure of the modern reader. Rather, they are an essential feature of the poet’s style. In Pindar, darkness has an encomiastic function. The allusiveness, obscurity, and twists and turns of Pindar’s poetry are beautifully described by Glenn Most. ‘Pindar’, he writes, ‘seems, for us, to be the very paradigm of poetic difficulty.’ He continues: The development of European lyric poetry, at least over the past two centuries, has been decisively influenced by the model of Pindar as an esoteric poet, one in whom clarity of thought – whether because of the frenzy of overpowering inspiration, the constraints of personal provincialism or of archaic and pre-logical patterns of association, or dependence upon situations and generic expectations whose details are irretrievably lost – is mantled over by so thorough an obscurity of expression, that the meaning of individual phrases is already often impenetrable and the organization of poems as a whole scarcely imaginable.  



Hamilton : . He hopes also that his detailed readings ‘will demonstrate the need to reformulate our conception of praise, to re-establish the encomiastic role of darknesss (and not merely as a ‘foil’)’: Hamilton : , the latter (‘foil’) referring to Bundy’s term (). Most : ; cf. also Hamilton , already mentioned, for more extended analysis.



Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



While Most believes not everyone in the ancient world thought Pindar was hard (he claims that those who did were mainly scholars), his description concerns only the problems involved in following the odes on the written page. It does not even begin to consider the difficulty of this poetry when experienced in performance. Yet, as we all know, this was public poetry, meant for choral performance and (choral or solo) re-performance to audiences in different cities, of varying kinds and sizes, on different occasions: social, ritual or sympotic. The poet sometimes describes his odes and the fame they generate as travelling through the world quite freely. His faith in his ability to confer permanent fame on any victor implies that these poems were not necessarily condemned after the great initial celebration to silence on the written page. Although there must have been written texts of Pindaric and Bacchylidean odes in the fifth century, we do not know how or where they were preserved and used. Evidently they were passed around for others to learn and sing. People memorised the songs and re-performed them. The transmission and influence of Pindar’s poetry was probably largely founded on performance, with writing’s role limited to fixing the text and facilitating its transmission and diffusion. Live audiences were important to the survival and influence of the song at every stage. Without their participation and comprehension, Pindar’s performances could not be a success and his victors would remain unrecognised. How, then, did live audiences follow these richly metaphorical and allusive songs with their sudden transitions and myths? As a production, the epinician ode was a powerful and many-sided experience. The complexities of the text were overlaid by those of the performance – a chorus dancing as well as singing to instrumental accompaniment and a melody now lost. Mullen has argued that the dancing would have helped the audience follow





 

On the chorality of Pindar’s epinicia, see Herington : –, Carey  and  and D’Alessio  (with full bibliography of the recent solo vs. choral performance debate). On ‘performance’ and ‘re-performance’, see Currie  and Morrison b, and the indexes of that and the present volume s.v. re-performance. See Irigoin  (esp. –) for hypotheses about fifth-century Pindar texts and their uses. According to Ol. , inscr. (i:  Dr.), the ode was dedicated ‘in golden letters’ (perhaps inscribed) in the temple of Athena Lindia on Rhodes, the victor’s home island. This is the only case in which we read of an epinician text deposited in a temple or other place for safekeeping, or inscribed on a monument. Note also that Pindar’s Hymn to Ammon was also engraved, perhaps in Hellenistic times, on a stele in the Theban temple of the god (Paus. .). For other poems inscribed in temples and book-texts deposited in sanctuaries see Allen et al. : lxxv–vi. Herington : –; Thomas : –. Pindar’s myths are especially complex. They are often mere allusions; often they are only partly told (e.g. Nem. , Isthm. ) or altered (e.g. Ol. ), sometimes with changes signposted, sometimes not.



rosalind thomas

the sense, but the opposite may as easily have been true. The concrete details of performance are impossible to reconstruct. We are left with the texts’ half-told myths, their dense language, allusive style and so on: words sung by dancers that might be harder to grasp amidst the movement of the dance. The imagination of most modern readers is prone to falter at this point. Or perhaps one can imagine how the grandeur of an ode might be mangled and lost in the hopeless strivings of an amateur chorus. It is perhaps simpler not to think about the performance side at all. This is where it might be helpful to turn to audiences and ‘performance literatures’ available for study in their entirety and beyond the written page, for the simple reason that they still exist. These modern performance literatures have recently been the subject of a stimulating set of comparative workshops held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, in which I was privileged to become involved. By ‘performance literature’ I mean literature meant to be experienced primarily or wholly in performance. It may be written down wholly or partially (in fact, much modern performance literature is only partly transcribed or published to preserve the secrets of the performer’s trade), and such written texts can have differing functions, from aides-m´emoire intended solely for the performer to printed reading editions. Still, performance remains the main way to experience such literature. These modern examples raise important and interesting questions about performance literature in the Greek world, and they deserve to be more widely known among Classical scholars. The present chapter will reflect on the atmosphere of Pindar’s epinician odes and their performative effects, particularly their obscurity and allusiveness, with the help of such performance literatures. But it is also a meditation on the value of comparison itself. Certainly, comparison cannot offer ‘proof’ – ‘parallels’ are, after all, only parallels – but by taking us away from the Classical world and our own preconceptions (sometimes insufficiently admitted or formulated) about what might or might not be appropriate to literature and literary audiences, modern ethnographic analogies can help us to phrase our questions differently, to question the assumptions we, as classical scholars, inevitably make in the absence of any direct visual experience of

 



Mullen . See Oral Tradition 20() and 20() (), ed. D. Gerstle, R. Thomas and S. Jones, and Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies 66 (). Note also Vail and White , ch. : ‘The invention of “Oral Man”’. Du Perron and Magriel .

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



those ancient Greek performances, and even suggest new ways to imagine performance in a long dead society from which only the texts remain.  african praise-poetry and pindar I will concentrate on several kinds of so-called ‘praise-poetry’ from contemporary western and southern Africa, inspired by recent ethnographic and literary studies of such poetry. The parallels with Pindar are particularly suggestive, both in terms of genre and function and because this poetry too puts a premium on allusiveness and difficulty. In addition, it is highly personal, utterly embedded in the societies for whom it is performed and indeed barely translatable. Most important, it gives us a sense of the challenges praise, as a topic of poetry, presents to poets and performers alike. As in Pindar’s case, the label ‘praise-poetry’ is something of an oversimplification: still, this African poetry allows us to grasp some of the difficulties and dangers inherent in the act of praising someone in a relatively small and close-knit community with formal and informal subgroups, a clear hierarchy and concentrations of power – an audience, in short, afflicted by normal human divisions and disagreements. We shall see that in African poetry, where social context can be revealed by fieldwork, allusiveness and obscurity are often responses to perceived divisions in the audience. The canonical status of Pindar’s victory songs as the archetypal poetry of inspired obscurity might seem to preclude attempts at ethnographic comparison. As a classical scholar, one might even feel that any such comparison is in some way sacrilegious. Surely no modern oral poetry could equal Pindar’s, and epinician existed in any case in very different literary as well as social contexts from the African genres with which I will compare it. But the answer one gives these doubts depends on what the comparison compares. Pindar’s epinicians do not have a monopoly on difficulty: there is plenty of dense, ‘difficult’ poetry, some of it Greek, and much of it ‘oral’ and performed. But an allusive style and sudden transitions have always been 



For instance certain assumptions about the behaviour of an oral poet when he starts to write down his poetry can at least be questioned: some extremely recent Zulu poetry in praise of the Inkatha movement in South Africa remains in the tradition of the old oral praise-poetry; and as Whitaker (, ) has shown from very well-documented examples of oral and literate praise-poets in this tradition, it is not actually possible to deduce from style alone (formulae, etc.) whether or not a poem is composed entirely orally or by a literate or illiterate person. Note also the theoretical treatment in Vail and White . See Silk  and this volume.



rosalind thomas

central hallmarks of his style, and his epinicians are particularly perplexing in this regard because their social and cultural role – and the exceptional social and political status of the victor – meant that they were performed in public to wide audiences. If one wonders about performance literature at all in the Greek world, this corpus of texts must rank among the most enigmatic. If we focus in on complexity, density and general ‘difficulty’, African praise-poetry can offer constructive ideas about the performance of a ‘difficult’ piece, and about the uses of ‘difficulty’ or obscurity in praise. The two questions are related, but we may be somewhat hesitant at first about the precise degree of that relation. Let us begin, then, with the first of our two questions: whether ‘performance’ necessarily implies a lack of ‘obscurity’, density or allusion. This is clearly not the case. Experts in Somali oral poetry, mediaeval Persian court literature or African praise-poetry would retort that complexity in performance is precisely the point. It is well known among those who study modern performance literatures that they can be extremely dense, allusive and complex, but that none of this detracts from their potential effect in performance. Indeed, it adds to it – as was brought home very clearly at the SOAS workshops. Somali oral poetry of the traditional kind known as maanso, composed and transmitted completely without writing, is so dense, carefully composed (in fact ‘woven’), alliterative, metrically complex and ornamented with special language and imagery that Martin Orwin prefers to speak of such a poem as a ‘definitive text’. In mediaeval France, certain polyphonic motets offered their audience multiple melodies with three separate musical chants and two or three separate texts, often in different languages (often one text in Latin and one in French, for instance). All were sung simultaneously, and it is highly unlikely that such compositions were meant (as was once suggested) to be experienced simply as meaningless babble. Several types of praise-poetry in the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa also value obscurity and allusiveness in ways that show some basic similarity to Pindar. Vail and White, in their study of southern African praise traditions, analyse several types which abound in figurative and metaphorical language. The ‘difficulty’ of the poetry, which expressed itself in density of allusion, metaphor, imagery, difficult, unconventional    

See a selected and revised collection of papers in the special issue of Oral Tradition (20() and 20() (); and in Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies 66 (). Orwin . Somali official script developed in the s. One of the first books to be written was of oral poetry. See the discussion of Ardis Butterfield (and musicologists cited there), whom I thank for guidance on this material: Butterfield . Vail and White , esp. chs. ,  and  (e.g. ).

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



grammar and unusual elevated diction, far from making the performance less easy, renders it more special and distinct. In these various modern – or indeed mediaeval – performance literatures, the more elaborate or elaborated the performance, the more it fulfils its function of marking off and marking out the event, capturing audience attention, raising sentiments to a specially refined, more sophisticated or more exalted level than would be possible in listening to ordinary speech. In short, difficulty helps make the performance a performance. The theoretical implications are interesting. When thinking about literature being performed, heard or read aloud, we sometimes assume that what is heard must be immediately clear, lucid and comprehensible to the audience, and that if it is complex, its effectiveness as literature depends upon study and rereading. Thucydides’ dense style is thus taken as meant for private reading. On the other hand, one might also think of Athenian deliberative oratory, which needed to persuade its democratic audience; or of some of the debates about the orality of Homer (though here we should distinguish between composition by a poet and reception by an audience). While no one would wish to deny that complex literature will always repay extended study and rereading, we should pause over the assumption that extreme complexity by itself makes something unsuitable for performance. The ethnographic examples confound this, at least as a general assumption based on certain premises about oral cultures or listening audiences. It may be that performance literature occurring in contexts virtually without writing might have greater need for some kind of density, in order to make the performance more memorable. Recent research by Karin Barber, Professor of African Cultural Anthropology at the University of Birmingham, has attempted to investigate more fully and tackle possible explanations for the density and obscurity of African poetry, of which Africanists have long been all too well aware. While they vary considerably in detail between cultures and regions, the different types of central African ‘praise-poetry’ share vivid ‘second-person address’, simultaneous evocation of past and present events which brings ‘the power . . . of dead predecessors into the centre of the living community’, and a condensed, enigmatic and riddling quality. Expressions are highly compressed and often figurative, so that their literal meaning is obscured. They are highly quotable, and do get quoted frequently. Indeed, as Barber suggests, this ‘quotability’ is an   

Cf. Yunis , Crane  on Thucydides (I remain unconvinced). See also further works below, esp. Gunner , Vail and White . Barber : ; she has also worked on this in Barber ; and  for the specific case of oriki poetry.



rosalind thomas

essential feature of one such genre, the Yoruba oral poetry from Nigeria known as oriki. It is praise-poetry, and notable for its allusiveness, density and difficulty. In the case of the genre of oriki (to which we will return) segments of diction can be recombined in a different order depending on occasion and context. Oriki are composed, in Barber’s words, of ‘chunks of examinable, quotable, repeatable text’ which can be used and reused or reincorporated into a later performance. She argues persuasively that this is part of the technique of ‘entextualization’ – an attempt to make the oral word, by nature fluid and evanescent, into something more substantial and lasting. It sets the performance off from its surroundings. According to Barber, a true performance must, by definition, be something special: its language normally will acquire or enact certain object-like features associated with texts, in the most general and pregnant sense of the term. As a text, it must, she writes, . . . be treated as the object of attention – by exegesis and by being quoted in new contexts of utterance – in order to attain meaning; while a performance that was truly ephemeral would be a performance of nothing.

To many classical scholars, the use of the word ‘text’ to denote the fixity of an oral poem will doubtless seem odd or even unacceptable, but Barber’s general argument is most revealing for anyone interested in the performance of other poetry. Her judgement forms part of a wider and ongoing re-evaluation of certain types of oral poetry which stresses their density as something that makes them memorable and contributes to their fixity. For us, the important point is that African oral poetry presents us with a number of genres in which allusiveness, obscurity and general complexity are precisely what constitutes a satisfying performance: a performed event that therefore becomes ‘quotable’, detachable and memorable. We know, of course, that much poetry was performed in Archaic Greece which was not characterised by density or allusiveness: Homeric epic, for example. But if we do wonder about the performability of Pindaric victory odes (or, to a lesser degree, those of Bacchylides) then this comparative material would suggest that – in performative terms – the density of a poet’s language, combined with choral singing and dancing, could combine to make a spectacle whose very elaboration elevated the occasion (and therefore the victor’s achievement) to a higher plane. The difficulty of the text might impart an element of mystery or Delphic enigma, since riddling allusiveness might seem reminiscent of the oracle. This association of  

 Barber : ; and developed : ch.  on African literature. Barber : . I owe this point to Glenn Most.

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



song and prophecy would further elevate the performance and the victor. Greek audiences will have been familiar with certain poetic devices characteristic of hymns or epinicians, and so better able to appreciate the way these traditional elements succeeded and transformed one another. If the performance was hard to follow, this might be taken for profundity, and the spectacle enhanced. The sense of distinctness would be furthered by the creation, in the language of Pindar’s odes, of a ‘distinctive universe’ (to use Gregory Hutchinson’s phrase in his contribution here) for the poetic text and the performance. We should also add the element of sheer risk involved in any performance (as opposed to reading a text on the page), and in difficult poetry most of all. As a factor in the effect of a performance, risk is often neglected. It is of course something that cannot be replicated or recorded. Peter Middleton has elegantly analysed the risk element in contemporary readings by modern British poets, working in a genre not noted for its performative values. In Greek choral performance, a sense of risk could impart a frisson of excitement. Will the chorus achieve perfect co-ordination? Have they practised enough? All this would be more nerve-racking if a relatively small community was witnessing an even smaller group of its young men engaged in choral dance. Such anxiety about the performance (will the amateur choir manage to pull it off?), might resolve itself in an effect of communal wonderment, creating a spectacular event of considerable grandeur. Social and political tensions in the audience are another element of risk in the performance of praise-poetry, and a danger for poet, chorus and victor alike. The Swazi praise-singer can go as far as to criticise the object of praise, showing that such tensions are at least not a theoretical impossibility (and the criticism was couched in figurative and metaphorical language). Political tensions are perhaps somewhat easier to reconstruct (see also the chapter by Aloni in this volume). Take for example cases where the victor’s city had recently been riven by civil strife. Pythian , the longest of Pindar’s odes, was composed and performed in honour of Arcesilas IV, king of Cyrene for a victory in , shortly before the monarchy fell to 

 

Cf. Most : : such audiences ‘might be capable of appreciating a density of figural texture, even when performed orally, that later scholars will find obscure . . . Such listeners, if there were any, will have taken the obscurity to be the profundity of grandeur’; he adds, however (p. ), that others will have worked out a meaning and felt pleased. Middleton . See Vail and White : ch.  and ch. : e.g. where () a Swazi poet says of a ruler who squandered the national resources, ‘You gave up the oxen and bought doves.’ Vail and White argue that in the context these songs could often be understood as sharply critical of the king.



rosalind thomas

a democratic revolution (c.  bc). One wonders if there were already hints of this in the air at the first performance. We know much of the surrounding political context from the Pindar scholiasts. Can we reverse the process of historical reconstruction to imagine a charged atmosphere at the performance itself? Were the poem’s extreme length and narrative structure in part a rearguard action by a failing monarchy in a city which was described in the ode as wounded (Pyth. .–)? Whatever the precise aims of Arcesilas, the performance surely would have been quite riven with political tension. If some odes were performed, as seems very likely, at civic festivals, then one might imagine numerous other cross-currents, tensions and rivalries which might induce or encourage extreme concentration on the words and content of the song. It has been pointed out that where performance at a civic festival is considered most likely, the relevant odes (e.g. Ol. , Pyth. ) were for autocrats. Pythian , also performed in Cyrene for Arcesilas, probably at the Carneia, the great Dorian festival of Apollo, begins with the grandiose but politically rather tendentious statement ( &0)" :!,.5" (‘Wealth has wide strength’) when combined with excellence (arete), and when it is used to make friends. A gnomic platitude, perhaps, but this ode was performed for the same victory as Pythian  and in the same precarious situation, and the political nuances of this opening, as an arrogant assertion of royal wealth and power, might have been manylayered and possibly even explosive. Olympian  was also performed at a civic festival (a theoxenia for Castor and Polydeuces, the Dioscuri). The song honours Theron, tyrant of Acragas as having reached the utmost limits of excellence – it would be foolish to go further (ll. –). More generally, meditations on the relevance of a myth might have a particular edge for fellow-citizens of Theron, Hieron, tyrant of Syracuse, or the king of Cyrene, let alone for rival aristocrats. When the laudandus’ clan was prominent in an oligarchic or aristocratic city, glorification of family and victor might cause resentment and envy among other leading members of the same community, or its dominant clans. This is particularly interesting, perhaps, in cases where Pindar’s victor was a young boy. Thrasydaeus 





On the political situation in mid fifth-century Cyrene, see esp. Mitchell : –; cf. Chamoux  and Hornblower and Morgan : – for good discussion of the topographical and local focus of the Cyrene odes (Pyth.  and ). Hornblower and Morgan : –, suggest the odes ‘imply a sharper, more impassioned plea to both local and international audiences’. Pyth.  ends with a plea for the return of the exile Damophilos. Cf. also Isth. : see Krummen ; Currie ; Carey : n. and : – on performance at civic festivals, and Ferrari (this volume).

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



of Thebes won the boys’ stadion and was honoured with Pythian , Pindar’s ‘little Oresteia’. Another winner in the boys’ stadion, Alcimidas of Aegina, is celebrated in Nemean . In his case, the family’s athletic success had skipped a generation, and the young man’s victory allowed his ancestral heritage to shine through. These facts and the theme of inherited excellence were tied by the poet into a meditation on the difference and common ancestry of men and gods (ˆ A, ˆ . "4 C "  & |  )" A# ), –). Adolescents like Alcimidas gained grandeur by association with such mythic wisdom and spectacle. Yet we do not know now how far they lived up to that grandeur in real life, or if the poet’s choice of opening had further private resonance for the family. The same question might, again, be asked of myths. If there were resentments or ambiguous feelings in the community about these young men, or about the self-assertion of their prominent families and clans, they would only add to the heightened atmosphere of the performance. This could continue into later generations. As Hornblower has recently reminded us, many of the families honoured in Pindaric odes maintained their prominence long after the first performances of their respective odes. Tensions would not necessarily dissipate. the uses of obscurity This brings us back to our initial problem of obscurity and incomprehension. Pindar’s or even Bacchylides’ odes often leave modern readers wondering about rapid transitions from one topic to another, why a certain myth rather than another is being told, or the relevance of a gnomic statement suddenly and disruptively inserted into the train of thought. We might be tempted to think that original audiences, more familiar with both myths and circumstances than we, would have found the poetry less enigmatic, and indeed much elucidation is achieved by careful commentary. But the praise-poetry of sub-Saharan Africa suggests that an element of obscurity and enigma may be part of the allure of an oral performance. African audiences listen intently to catch the performer’s drift. One wonders if, in Greece, the element of difficulty likewise helped to define the charm of praise-poetry as a genre. Was the success of Greek epinician, at least in its Pindaric form, partly due to the way it deliberately embraced obscurity and riddling ambiguity? 

Hornblower  and this volume.



rosalind thomas

To answer this, we will need to look more more closely at the nature of obscurity in African praise-poetry. We will concentrate on Yoruba oriki, which has been extensively collected, translated and analysed by Karin Barber (). She did her fieldwork in a small Nigerian town of cultural and historical importance, which was also a district capital. Barber’s work is particularly valuable for our purposes, both because she has shown more interest in obscurity in its own right than other students of African praisepoetry, and because, having come to anthropology from a background in English literature, she was struck by the way oriki, despite their many apparent Bakhtinian features, confound the assumptions of a criticism based on the western literary canon. Oriki are the most valued type of oral literature in Yoruba culture, sung by specialists and professionals and also by ordinary women. There are individual performers, but no individual poets in our sense. Oriki consist of a dense series of dense epithets, each of them created from a sentence or ‘nominalised statement’ that arises from some incident, often trivial, in the past of the laudandus or his community. The epithet alludes to this incident without actually narrating it. If you know the story, you can understand the epithet. These epithets are accumulated over a lifetime, and they are passed down by people no longer living to their descendants. Past ancestors can be incorporated into the oriki of a descendant or a group. The epithets become an individual’s appellation (oriki is also the Yoruba word for ‘definition’): ‘they encapsulate your essential being’. They are highly prized by the individuals to whom they refer. Highly personal and not necessarily flattering, they might enshrine a character-trait or event which is not entirely admirable, thus characterising the individual. At the same time, they are definitely self-aggrandising. Barber herself acquired a series of epithets which were often recited to her at the start of the day. Yoruba ‘big men’ gained and still acquire long and important oriki (see the example in the Appendix to this chapter). These epithets are strung together in a fluid manner with gnomic wisdom, riddles or proverbs, interspersed in any order and reconstituted in a different order by different singers, defying European concepts of poetic unity and conventional critical ideas like closure. The diction is characteristically archaic and special to oriki. Oriki are performed (indeed, shouted with considerable force) directly to the relevant individual, or at grand ritual    

Barber : –. See Barber : esp. ch.  and – for ‘praise-poetry’ and self-aggrandisement; ch.  on ‘big men’. Barber , and : ch. . It is like a secret language: Barber : . Note that Bantu praise-poetry (too) is in specially archaic language.

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



occasions (religious rites, funerals or weddings: the same verses might be presented at either, but with different force according to the context). An allusion that once referred to a specific event can become a timeless appellation in a way which renders it quite baffling to the outside observer. These allusions enshrine the past, which is constantly present through the ubiquitous oriki. An example of oriki is the epithet ‘block-road-not-budge’ (Dina-mayo). Though this sounds simply like an adjective for anyone obstinate, it is actually the epithet for a great nineteenth-century hunter and his descendants. A story is told about him in which he did indeed ‘block the road and not budge’; and this combines with his other epithet which means ‘one who fills the coward with apprehension’. In another area, the kingdoms of the Luba in central Africa, a praise-epithet for the founding culture hero of the Luba is ‘The wild dikoko fruit, though it has blotches, it does not ripen quickly; people wear a path in going to look for its fall.’ This is not a remark about the wild dikoko fruit except on the surface: it is a reference to and reminder of a mythical episode in the life of the Luba culture hero Kalala Ilunga in which he escaped murder at his uncle’s hands and uttered this phrase in order to claim that he was invincible and it would be a long time before he died. The praise-epithet is, as Barber puts it, the kernel of a narrative, but the meaning cannot be teased out of the text. It lies beyond it. The precise meanings of the epithets – the references to past events and individuals – have to be learned by the curious from someone other than the oriki singer, most often an old man who, acting as an exegete, will provide the underlying narrative. Different sectors of the community may disagree about interpretation. As an example of what a larger section of oriki can look like, here is part of a long performance by an accomplished female performer. It is addressed to Eesade, a title-holder in the guild of hunters, and has many allusions to his ancestors, to the Aran-Orin people from whom his family derives, to isolated incidents in the family and to various other individuals whose own personal oriki are cited: This will not be the last festival you celebrate Eesade, son of Owolabi, it is I Abeni calling you Child of Mofomike, child of Moyosi, child of one who had a fine house in which to receive slaves as gifts,   

The most extensive study is Barber , cf.  and .  Barber : ch. , –, citing Reefe. Barber : ; cf. also . Barber : – with full exegesis; for another example, see the Appendix.

rosalind thomas



Child of one whose corridors reverberated like rain Mofomike, magnificence is acquired with money, money has made your house its headquarters Native of Aran, child of one who gets rich on gifts Let us go to our house, Aran-Orin, child of ‘The pepper leaf spreads’ Child of Omiyode, child of Alari, one who taps the base of the wild mango tree and gets wine When you rise today pay homage to your father, Olugbede Otabilapo Ogun Ajagbe who got a kowee bird to make medicine He had nothing to give the visitor so he made a present of Fomike Native of Aran, child of One who gets rich on gifts, Ajagbe who found a kowee bird to make medicine Just make sure you pay homage to your father, you’ll spend the rest of your money rearing children . . .

It is hard for an outsider to grasp even the surface meanings, let alone follow the exegesis. Other poetic traditions are equally baffling on the surface. The Mbiimbi dynastic poetry practised in an area of the Congo seems to avoid relating or explaining any facts but instead, ‘insinuates the facts rather than describing them’: Oh he-who-floats-across-the-river shoot that floated in the company of the aquatic reed oh chameleon, what did you see in me, Nteeba?

This refers to a king who was deported by the Belgian government early in the twentieth century. The first two lines refer to the fact that he left by river; the chameleon apparently refers to his ‘majestic walk’. These are nominalised emblems, ‘power names’ which avoid as well as honour. Both the Asante people of Ghana and the Xhosa of South Africa practise praise-poetry; and both genres, despite the distance and linguistic and cultural differences which separate them, show (as is widely recognised by scholars familiar with them) an allusiveness and indirectness basically similar to what Barber found in the Yoruba material. As summarised by her, ‘obscurity – the presentation of a laconic, incomplete, and allusive expression – is thus at the centre of a complex mode of textual constitution’. In other words these poems are constructed in such a way that you need other traditions, other expertise, other people, to make sense of them. In Zambia, Ila elders regard a praise-poem which is immediately understandable  

Barber : , citing N’Soko Swa-Kalamba (); also Barber : –.  Barber : . Barber : .

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



as uninteresting. Africanists explain this obscurity also partly in terms of political risk, as necessary or wise indirectness. Carefully transmitted poetry can deliberately hint at secrets without revealing them, maintaining them as part of an element of power relations. Criticism can also be discreetly veiled by careful use of metaphor and allusion. In some forms of African praise-poetry, sarcasm and criticism is clothed in such language. As we have seen, Barber’s own focus is partly on the implications of obscurity and density for the ‘oral text’. To alter scholars’ perceptions of oral poetry, she maintains that difficulty is in part a way to ‘enshrine’ the oral word, making it memorable and object-like. But she does not deny a political dimension to obscurity. mock spontaneity To someone familiar with ancient Greek praise-poetry, these examples seem suggestive in several ways. It shows that one cannot assume a priori that poetry which is performed must necessarily be immediately intelligible. African praise-poetry shows that allusive and obscure poetry can be highly effective in performance. The possibility that this is one way of ‘enshrining’ the oral word is perhaps less relevant to Greek epinician, where writing provided poets, patrons and audiences with convenient means to ‘entextualise’ utterance in the narrower, literal sense of the term, but the acceptibility of sudden transitions and breaks, the penchant for density, and the presence of a richly allusive texture, and the presence of the past (myth, ancestral achievement) are all very relevant to our question about performative impact. Much of African oral literature delights in riddling and playful (or sometimes not so playful) obscurity. Audiences are evidently very familiar with these techniques and the style they presuppose. While not unique to praise-poetry, it is certainly very evident in it, on a cross-cultural level. It is interesting that Norwegian skaldic praise-poetry of the early mediaeval period is also difficult, allusive and obscure. Perhaps there is something intrinsic to praise-poetry, at least interesting or successful praise-poetry, that puts a premium on allusiveness. This suggests that it might at least 

   

Barber : –, citing Rennie . Cf. the court bards in Rwanda who create dynastic poems (not praise-poems), in which they ‘make disappear’ the royal subject: Barber : ch.  and ch. , ff. See Furniss and Gunner  for praise-poetry’s ability to subvert or negotiate power relations. Vail and White  is particularly interesting on this (for South African praise-poetry). Barber : – nn.–. She cites deliberately obscure poetry (not praise); cf. Furniss and Gunner . O’Donaghue : ff.



rosalind thomas

partly be the dynamics of successful praise which lies behind these genres’ strong penchant for allusiveness. This too is probably too simplistic, for other praise traditions show that the praise-singer can effectively impose expectations and therefore limits upon those in power. But let us examine each of these ideas in turn. Pindaric odes engage in twists and turns, sudden break-offs and transitions, allusions and what Chris Carey calls ‘the oral subterfuge’ – cultivated spontaneity and a sense of ongoing interaction with the audience. In Nemean , for instance, written to celebrate a victory in the youths’ pankration, we soon find ourselves (vv. ff.) in a myth about Aegina (the victor’s homeland) and the heroes Peleus and Telamon, who are named obliquely as Endais’ illustrious sons. Pindar suddenly (vv. –) breaks off his tale of their exploits with the words ‘I shrink from telling of a mighty deed, one ventured not in accord with justice’ ( ;   ;&6 C ' ) Y !!: translation by Race ), &" Y '& : ,,  D )'" + " A'!"  '$ A&% ;* " ? ,. ,)1, 4 J ) V& , '$ # ', & ,$& A1.% A)"4  D ) , &1" C,)D ,#*) ) A.*& , . . . . how in fact they left the glorious island and what fortune drove the brave men from Oinona. I will halt, for not every exact truth is better for showing its face, and silence is often the wisest thing for a man to observe.

The break-off alludes to the myth that Peleus and Telamon, never named here, murdered their half-brother Phocus and were exiled from Aegina for the crime. Then another sudden switch (‘But if it is decided to praise happiness or strength of hands or steel-clad . . . ’) and a further myth, this time how Hippolyta, a married woman, tried to seduce Peleus, and the latter’s refusal which led Zeus to give him Thetis the Nereid as a reward for his piety. The poem ends with a section on the family and ancestors of the 

  

See Furniss and Gunner ; Vail and White  (e.g. pp. – for an unexpected insertion in a poem honouring the new chancellor of Rhodes University attacking apartheid, or p.  for a famous singer in Mozambique who dared to attack his patron; this seems conceivable for ancient Greece). Carey ; also Pfeijffer a: –. Pfeijffer’s translation (a ad loc.) is ‘Shame prevents me from speaking out something big and something not ventured according to ' .’ Pfeijffer’s interpretation is harsher (a: ), taking the Greek more literally (and more surprisingly), as ‘It is not profitable’ to tell the truth (see also pp. – on truth in Pindar).

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



victor ( ff.). Local knowledge seems assumed at every step in the poet’s argument. In any performance, an audience would have had to listen very attentively: they could not (to adopt a point of Chris Carey’s) like a modern reader check down the page to see the break-off coming. Even if they knew from their knowledge of other epinician odes that one was likely, they could not be sure when it would come. It is true that the break-off in Nemean  does not in fact avoid telling the tale altogether, for the poet has irrevocably drawn attention to it through his expression of distaste. That, too, attests the allusive use of the break-off. The African material seems to imply that sudden transitions might enhance rather than diminish audience attentiveness. Pfeijffer, who approaches the question from a literary angle and on strictly Pindaric terms, considers that the poet’s mock spontaneity would ensure the intellectual engagement of the audience. If they had to guess what was in the gaps, this, he writes not only increased their attention, but gave them ‘a feeling of belonging to an in-crowd’. The African material offers confirmation of this from the point of view of the anthropology of performance. At the very least, it seems to make the complex structure of Pindar’s odes more comprehensible in terms of audience reception. The sense of conversation with an audience, the fictional spontaneity, the drawing back (‘I will halt’) in the middle of a story, the teasing allusiveness with respect to a myth about heroes only partly named, which cannot in fact be told because it is too shameful – all this keeps the audience on tenterhooks and probably would leave an audience even of Aeginetans a few puzzles to consider afterwards. The comparative material we have been considering suggests that far from making Nemean  unviable or frustrating as performed poetry, it might make it all the more magnificent. African praise-poetry thus allows us to ask new questions about Greek audience expectations. It seems we should wonder whether a Greek audience in the fifth century was as keen on deciphering riddles or interpreting allusive puzzles as these African audiences seem to be. There were no formally appointed groups of logioi, elders or interpreters in Greece, as  



As Pfeijffer points out, a: ad loc. Pfeijffer a: e.g. pp. – and esp. p. : ‘but that they have to find out for themselves is designed to increase their intellectual attentiveness and gives them a feeling of belonging to an incrowd’ cf. also pp. – on ‘implicitness’. On audiences and ‘in-crowds’, see Morrison (this volume). Pfeijffer assumes that an Aeginetan audience would know the myth being avoided instantly and thus that there would be no puzzle (a: ad loc.), but at the same time that they would have mentally to recall and insert it and be pleased that they could (e.g. p. ). Cf. Burnett  on Aeginetan local knowledge.



rosalind thomas

there are in sub-Saharan Africa, though interpretation is by no means left to a formal body of elders there either. But this fits the nature of tradition in the Greek world, where processes of transmission seem generally to have been very informal. On the other hand, the Delphic oracle was notorious for its riddling manner, and Heraclitus chose to adopt a similar enigmatic style for his philosophical theories, arrogating the authority of the oracle for his own pronouncements. This would imply that the habit of puzzling out allusions, as with oracular pronouncements, was deeply ingrained as well as culturally respectable in Pindar’s world. allusiveness and conflict Let us return to the question of allusiveness. Since Elroy Bundy, there has been a reaction against biographical and political readings of Pindar’s poetry. In Pindar, it is said, everything contributes to the praise. The unity of the ode as well as its social function is thereby assured. But as many critics have pointed out, this is so reductive (or formalist) as to do considerable injustice to the thematic richness of the odes. Can we approach this question from another angle? Is it possible (a) that the ‘difficulty’ of these poems might in part (and I stress in part) be a result of the genre’s long development, with poets meditating on and learning by hard experience what worked in a genre of praise and celebration; and (b) that deliberate allusion might be intended to be understood at different levels by different individuals or audiences? If we take the example of the actual victory, pre-Pindaric epinician may have done more to describe it. Simonides may have described chariot races (,  PMG), and Bacchylides too gives some attention to the victory, something Pindar conspicuously does not do. Lesser fifth-century poets may perhaps have continued to describe the victor’s athletic performance, but obviously there is a problem about how often you can do this without tedium. One hundred-metre race is much like another to non-athletes. Simple, direct praise is almost by definition bound to be conventional, moulded into very familiar shapes, and therefore highly repetitive – this is what happened with the Athenian genre of the public funeral oration. Had all epinician poetry been as direct and crude as Euripides’ ode for Alcibiades, the genre might well have sunk without a trace. Partly by    

 Cf. Bundy  and Silk (this volume). Thomas : chs.  and . Cf. Carey : – on the need for a balancing act in the task of praise. Cf. Carey ; on description of events in Simonidean epinician see Rawles (this volume). Bowra .

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



avoiding the specifics (‘sports reportage’), Pindar managed to foreground what was exemplary about the victor’s achievement, and thus ensured his odes remained accessible to wider audiences in the future. It is, however, significant that bold directness about victory was not considered impossible in all contexts, for Greek epigraphic celebrations of the victor are often extremely forthright and boastful: they are, however, also crude, dull and verbally unmemorable. An obvious problem here is that ‘difficulty’ and indirectness may be more characteristic of Pindar than the genre itself, or at least characteristic of the later development of the genre exemplified by Pindar rather than its beginnings. I am still, however, inclined to think that ‘praise’ is inherently hard to make interesting or unproblematic in circumstances where it is closely connected to social and political contexts. The comparative material tends to reinforce this impression. The African poems are reassuring in that they encourage us to consider more positively the possibility (it raises the question of a possibility) that audiences, even for the original performance, were meant to work hard in understanding the odes. Indeed, it may be that some individuals were meant to understand more than others. Messages that are simultaneously private and public are particularly fascinating and powerful: investigating women’s praise-poetry among the Zulus, Gunner found that allusions couched in elaborate metaphor could refer to specific grievances and air them in a manner absolutely clear to the female offender but not necessarily to others. The possibility of different levels of understanding even within the original audiences of epinician has not been much discussed, so far as I know: for modern readers are inevitably preoccupied with their own difficulty and level of understanding. Pfeijffer, who considers ‘implicitness’ a central feature of Pindar’s lyric style, suggests tentatively that he might have constructed his poems in such a way as to enable multiple interpretations (‘polyinterpretability’). It is true that obscurity in African praise-poetry is very much embedded in the complex system of epithets or the figurative language. But it is interesting that there are also plenty of allusions and epithets which refer to events or embarrassing details or facts known only by one or two people: a fact known to us only because  

 

See Thomas ; and the collections of Moretti : esp. nos. –; Ebert : esp. nos. –; and the relevant material in Hansen  (CEG). Cf. Gunner ; this poetry was performed publicly amongst women. Cf. Vail and White : – for a song of ‘deceptive lightness’ about deeply felt injustices and personal scandal. Inevitably we need exegesis of both expert and anthropologist to realise how much is going on in the text. Pfeijffer a: esp. pp. ff. See Barber : ch. , esp. for ownership of knowledge, e.g. of scandals understood by only a tiny number of listeners, and the political dimension of secret allusions (with rich further bibliography).



rosalind thomas

these poems have been studied as live creations within living communities. Scholarly attempts to elucidate the Pindaric odes may not, after all, be so utterly distant from the difficulties faced by some modern audiences of oral poetry. While the Bundy school of interpretation set the tide against an overly historicist quest for hidden personal or political meaning in every Pindaric allusion, the fact remains that his frequent aphorisms or proverbs (gnomai) can have specific application while remaining universal and timeless. Overspecific advice to someone as powerful as a tyrant could be dangerous or impolitic in a public song, yet quite acceptable under the vague and traditional blanket of gnomic wisdom. Some audience-members or whole audiences might happily read it as universal wisdom, while others know it alludes to something quite tangible. General allusions too can have multiple meanings. The comparative material encourages us, I think, to consider more explicitly the possibility of intended differences of understanding. To pose the question the other way round: is there any reason why in Greece public performance should not have contained secret hints, especially where there might be political tension? If one accepts the importance of the Greek athletic victor in general social and political – or indeed heroic – terms, then the possibility of political undercurrents in the most general sense is harder to downplay. Virtually every ode has something relevant. To take some examples almost at random: Pythian , written for Hieron tyrant of Syracuse, has much to say about slander and praise, ending with a series of gnomic remarks of extreme ambiguity about slanderers and flatterers (ff., ff.). This could be taken by many audiences on a general level as poetic wisdom, but by Hieron perhaps as a specific reference; some audience-members at the first performance might even have heard in it a veiled threat. We will never know, but it is highly likely that the court of Hieron, like any court, was seething with intrigue, and that beyond the court there was opposition, even if it tended to remain silent. Olympian , for Theron, alludes darkly (–) to listeners who do not like too much praise; while Pythian , for Megacles of Athens, contains dark hints of the phthonos (‘envy’) that accompanies great achievement. Any audience that did not know Megacles had suffered ostracism could take the threat of phthonos as a general platitude and the correlative of supreme success – but it could also be seen as an allusion to those political machinations. It must in fact  

Currie: . I concentrate on this here, rather than the more general implicitness discussed by Pfeijffer, for example.

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



be such an allusion; still, it remains highly ambiguous, vague, general and susceptible to multiple interpretations. Isthmian , composed for Herodotus of Thebes, has several sudden transitions, makes an unexplained allusion to some misfortune of the victor’s father, and ends abruptly with a gnome about hoarding wealth and attacking others with laughter (vv. –: ;  )" ?  &0) !# 6, | +, % ?&'&)$  . . . ). Close to the end, the poet departs from a catalogue of allusions to numerous victories won by Herodotus with a sudden and wholly enigmatic verse about silence being better (‘And in fact what is left in silence often brings even greater cheer,’ ). Isthmian  for Cleandrus of Aegina hints several times at vague misfortunes and anxieties: e.g. at vv. –,  " = ;P C&% A1,  ) , | 3',,$ '! &  – ‘for over man hangs a treacherous time as it unrolls the course of life’. Is this a vague allusion to some specific problem as well as a generalisation about the uncertainties of the future? The misfortunes of the ode are generally taken to refer to a recent crisis, the Persian invasion of Greece in which Thebes and Aegina both suffered in different ways, yet the gnome at – (above) is couched in general terms, and might as easily refer to specific personal misfortunes, as to the larger sufferings of the Greeks. One cannot tell, and perhaps different members of the audience strove to interpret it in varying lights according to their experience and presuppositions. Occasionally we might suspect a deliberate ploy to divide audience comprehension. Bacchylides is straightforward about this. In his third Epinician, composed for Hieron tyrant of Syracuse, he makes a series of riddling statements. As Maehler says: ‘The meaning of this sequence of gnomai has eluded most scholars.’ What is interesting for our purposes here is that Bacchylides prefaces this with the words (.): #) ,!)=  >$ I say what will be intelligible to one who thinks.

Bacchylides implies that his message will elude most of his original audience but be wholly intelligible to Hieron. A similar sentiment occurs in Pindar’s Olympian ., where he mentions swift arrows that ‘speak to those who understand’ (#$1) ,!)6,). There, however, the poem’s myth    

Race’s translation (‘whirling’ would be more accurate than ‘unrolling’: see Carey a: ad loc.). Carey a:  takes this mainly as an archaic truism about the instability of human life. Note also the baffling last gnome at the end of the ode.  Maehler : . Maehler : ad loc.



rosalind thomas

makes some reference to Orphic knowledge likely – again an implied division of the audience, but this time along the simpler and more conventional division of initiates from non-initiates. There are many reasons why poetry that celebrates individuals, often very powerful people, might choose a strategy of indirectness and allusion. Fear of phthonos – envy from the gods or other human beings – would also play a part in encouraging the poet to play on or cultivate allusiveness. The comparative material from other quite unrelated traditions of highly personal praise-poetry suggests that this teasing indirectness might also have at least something to do with the difficulties (political, social or religious) posed by praise-poetry for living individuals. This is not to suggest it is the whole explanation, of course, but rather a factor lying alongside many others in successful praise poetry. The possibility, tentatively suggested by Pfeijffer, that different audiences were meant to interpret odes in different ways, or perhaps not understand some references at all, draws some strength from comparison with living praise traditions. We should moreover perhaps embrace the possibility that Greek audiences discussed or argued about the meaning(s) after the performance. As for the live performance of such complex odes, the features of difficulty familiar to Pindaric scholars (fake spontaneity, sudden transitions, break-off formulae, half-told myths or mythical allusions) would keep a live audience attentive and intellectually engaged, the additional complexity of dancing and music only compounding the impression of a supremely elaborate celebration. Hamilton’s recent emphasis on Pindar’s obscurity as a feature to be embraced rather than argued against or interpreted away seems to be supported as at least a theoretical possibility by the anthropological evidence. The comparative evidence suggests that it made the poems more engaging, more successful as performances, and grander in their opaqueness.



 

And note the following remark: ‘but in general they lack interpreters’; possibly simply a reference to those who understand Pindar’s poetry and the rest, according to Willcock : –. Cf. however, Hamilton : : ‘On this basis, I would make the postulation that in Olympian  interpreters are unnecessary “for those who understand” (,!)6,), not because they know what Pindar’s swift arrows signify, but rather because they understand that they signify darkly.’ Hamilton . I would like to thank the editors, the audience of the original paper delivered at University College London, and the anonymous readers of Cambridge University Press for their comments; and Karin Barber for an illuminating correspondence and for letting me see a manuscript in advance of publication, as well as permission to reproduce the two poems here.

Pindar’s ‘difficulty’: some suggestions from ethnography



appendix Another Yoruba oriki of a ‘big man’, Oyinlola, who became ‘king’ of the town in : he was wealthy, entrepreneurial in kola-nut production, and a consummate politician who had the backing of the colonial authorities and used both their support and their local ignorance to extend his power ruthlessly. The following revels in his power. Text, translation and exegesis at Barber : –: Rare as a wasp ‘The gall-bladder can’t be eaten with the meat’ Ajala Okin build a separate house for his car Oyinlola, he built one for the petrol He built one for the lizard The scabby-skinned one Staple that pins down both mother and child [i.e. the whole world] Husband of the senior woman The European of Oke Otin Ajala has stopped people being insolent One who locks people up until the while man comes He dips the overreacher into hot water Ajale blocked the road to Ibadan for the disobedient people [people who don’t hear when we speak] Oyinlola, one who seizes the goods of the man who defies him [the man who squares his shoulders with resolute indifference].

c ha p te r 12

Poet and public Communicative strategies in Pindar and Bacchylides Glenn W. Most

Richardo Kannicht magistro necnon amico quinque et sexaginta annos nato dedicatum olim nunc dedicandum octogenario

Until somewhat over a hundred years ago, Classicists did not know very much more about Bacchylides than what the author of the ancient treatise On the Sublime (.) had said about him: )' ‰ C ,  [ E  R !' [ ; )= % '[)%] C ,', 

 

Pindar particularly invites the classification by action (‘poetry’, ‘victory’) rather than by laudator and laudandus; Bacchylides is more interested than Pindar in notable images for the poet as a figure rather than for his actions. The figure of the poet, especially in Pindar, is in the last analysis a way of talking dynamically about the poetry. See Lakoff and Turner : –, for their index of metaphors. This and following translations of Pindar after Race; Bacchylides after Campbell. For this understanding of 3,& " see Hutchinson : .



g. o. hutchinson

6 VQ  &!, U$ |  D ',, (‘ . . . over the all-fruitful earth and through the sea has gone the radiance of noble deeds forever undimmed. May I find the favour of the Muses to light that beacon-fire of songs for Melssos, too’) shows heavenly body and fire explicitly joined (6), and exemplifies the connection with Homer (+,,)") and Sappho. Bacchylides .– ` ) 1 . [' "] | ?$ )1| C &1),, [) ] | &!, " x [ , ' ] | # '$ (‘ . . . truly (the son of Kronos) has given you [Aegina] great honour, displaying among all the Greeks (a new victory) like a beacon . . . ’) and – : = A &. a !. [) "] | & ,# Y" )[=] | !#.6,’ A ![0)   >&) ,] | A% ?& A[ 1) ] | >!,  7 | ,)$#)   )=  [)] |  D &>& ) .[1 ,, ] (‘ . . . for Excellence, shining among all men, is not dimmed, hidden by the lightless (veil) of night: but flourishing and full of tireless fame she ranges over the land and the sea much travelledon’) present the two ideas more separately, but could be thought to make them part of the poem’s connected sequence of images. Such language is also used outside epinician: cf. Pindar Pae. .– (D Rutherford) (     ) &5[,] " | : ' , # (‘A man who has performed noble labour is set alight by praises’). We see, then, built into but not peculiar to the sub-genre, both a basic conceptual image and various ways of developing it. The image is particularly relevant to poetry and its purpose. The reason for such an abundance of emphasis on poetry in epinician might be the ambition of poets; but a more promising possibility is suggested by the element of tradition in the imagery and by Alcman’s elaborate treatment of singer and song. The occasion must be converted into choral lyric. We may turn for now to the other area richest in conceptual images, the victory. Examples would be: victory is sunshine, victory is flying, victory is reaching the furthest point. Compare for example Pythian .– C7 C&'" &) )  | @&&)" A " (‘[the successful man] flies because of hope on wings of manly valour’); Olympian .– 0  &" C, )= M5$ A) 6, H1$ V&))  | O. 89 " ,)  



In view of this whole linguistic complex, A)#7 at Ol. . for the moon not the sun probably ´ak. III. (Kale : ) visr.jat˙r himagabhair does not have the paradox of agnim ‘fire’ at K¯alid¯asa, S¯ agnim indur may¯ukhais ‘the moon sends out fire with rays cold within’; cf. Pasternak, Doktor Zhivago, Part  ch.  (p.  ed. Eksmo, Moscow ), the moon gorel i ne grel ‘was burning but giving no warmth’. On Ol. .– see Hutchinson : . Studies of Proust have long explored degrees of development in imagery: Crosman ; Pimentel , esp. chs.  and . The conceptual image ‘song is a road’ (cf. &') would also be interesting to investigate. It is used by Bacchylides as well as Pindar, in an obviously connected tradition, cf. Isth. .–, Bacch. .–; .– (non-epinician).

Image and world in epinician poetry



(‘ . . . then truly has Theron now reached the furthest point with his excellences and from his home touches the Pillars of Heracles’). The accent here is especially on subjective experience. The victory takes the victor, in perception and in actuality, outside mundane and familiar existence. Notably slight as a target for imagery is the sporting activity which occasioned the victory. This corresponds to the small place of that activity in the poems more generally; but the significance of sport as a source for imagery stands in contrast. It is not simply that the instances are decidedly more numerous (thiry against eighteen; but see below). Many of the images with sport as target are relatively slight (so Bacch. . A1! &1 ": ‘the wrestling’s flash’), or relate e.g. to trainers rather than the victors themselves (so Pind. Nem. . ))% A. j'! c )% ? ,  # " C* 07  " (‘ . . . Chromios’ chariot and Nemea urge me to yoke a song of celebration for victorious deeds’). Hence in the catalogue chariots have usually been taken as sporting imagery (CiV). Archery was not a sport at the festivals and is not included as CiV; but it is a related and vigorous activity. Jumping is included; in fact, though clearly a sport and frequent as source, it is not prominent among the achievements of victors in these poems (it formed part of the pentathlon). Although the sporting success is important to the use of sport as source, one function of this imagery goes beyond it. The poetry, which is by far the most frequent target in these cases, is being turned into a dynamic activity, particularly in its movement between subjects. Passages conventionally regarded as transitional are actually some of the most impressive in the poem; it has been said that in good music ‘there are no transitions’. Some examples: Pythian .– + % CP 6 | ;,   ?&  | Y  &1  +.% F,')% A"  6 ?7$ & 1 $, |  =  q'Q " A>, ,.% A)'!" (‘I hope I may not, in my eagerness to praise that man, as it were throw outside the lists the bronze-cheeked javelin I brandish



g. o. hutchinson

in my hand, but cast it far and surpass my competitors’; this passage combines the reaching of an extreme and of the right place, both concerns of epinician); Nemean .–  1  | :) . V .% @&,1&) )"4 ?$ 1)$ (= C #1 (‘ . . . let someone dig for me, starting from this very spot, a long jumping-pit, for my knees spring lightly . . . ’) (this passage fits in with the whole sequence of motion and standing still in the poem); Bacchylides .– )'  = . [][,],  ;.>, " C >$ | C. )" (0; (‘But why, forging ahead, do I drive my tongue far off course?’; the speaker’s question to himself animates the moment). We now come back to the surprising relative importance of sport as target and as source. This could not be explained by a wish to have poet and athlete on the same level; a power struggle with the patron, won by the poet, sounds implausibly romantic. Work on medical language in Latin poetry offers the useful idea of simultaneous avoidance and inclusion: in Latin poetry, it is argued, technical medical language is largely confined to metaphorical uses. But it is not clear why sport should seem in itself a subject to eschew. It can be talked of directly in epinician, see for example the extended passage Bacchylides .–. Its importance in art, including epinician monuments, shows its potential for aesthetic appeal. We should think rather about the relation between imagery and the poetic world. In some works, imagery plays an important role in defining the main world of the poetry. In the Iliad, definition of the primary narrative world of war is promoted through contrast with the similes. These avoid the world of war, except in special circumstances like Achilles’ re-entry into battle (Il. .–, –). They thus emphasise the claustrophobic world of the main narrative. In bucolic and pastoral poetry, on the other hand, the circumscribed world of the poems is reinforced by imagery which is usually drawn from that same world: the humble speakers have no horizons beyond sheep and trefoil. ‘World’ is a more difficult concept with so wide-ranging a genre as epinician; still more so the idea of different ‘worlds’ within it. The history of the concept ‘world’ includes German philosophy: the world as all perceived 





Chariot and bow are discussed by Simpson . Polybius’ sporting imagery strikingly extends itself to the sphere of writing: so ..– (writing as violent sport); ..–. (describing sport and describing war; the imagistic passage itself is to be a more powerful substitute for narrative). For sport in art cf. e.g. Poliakoff ; Tzachou-Alexandri ; Pavese ; Mann : –; Decker and Thuillier ; Hawee ; W¨unsche and Knauss . On the relation of victory statues and epinician see e.g. Kurke ; Steiner ; O’Sullivan . For medical language in Latin poetry see Langslow , esp. p. . The point on Il. .– is not inconsistent with the chain of images seen by Edwards : .

Image and world in epinician poetry



phenomena in Kant, the world as the totality of facts in early Wittgenstein. If we move to a plurality of worlds (cf. David Lewis), we would want at least firm boundaries habitually to separate them. In epinician, we sometimes find such firmness, as in the separation of Perseus from ordinary mortals at Pythian .– ( 1" : " J&)% A )" :) ). (‘The bronze heaven he can never scale’). But more characteristic is the joining of different spheres. Victors are assimilated to heroes rather than separated from them, and the gods participate in present events no less than in the events of myth. The glory of the victor blends into that of family and city (frequent targets), and these in turn have many links with other spheres. In epinician, the poetic ‘world’ might most profitably refer to the construction of all the genre’s material, including the poetry itself as contemplated object, into a totality with a distinctive disposition and shape. The crucial feature of this construction is the transformation into choral poetry of the immediate occasion (the celebration) and its cause (the victory). The strong emphasis we have seen on poetry or song, and its creation and performance, doubly promotes the transformation: directly, through self-reference, and generically, through the lively and dramatic presentation of song and singers in choral lyric more widely. The strategy is promoted too by the handling of sport: it is the whole basis of victory and occasion, and it appears, but predominantly in transfigured form. There is highly self-conscious interplay between the original sphere of sporting and its poetic metamorphosis. This approach to the treatment of sport is reinforced by the treatment of partying: a feature in some way or other related to the present occasion, and important to it. There is little direct description of the partying, and it is not a common target of imagery; although it is not often a source, it does make some spectacular appearances, and always in relation to poetry (Ol. .–, Isth. .–; cf. Nem. .–). Parties could hardly be thought an unsuitable subject for Greek poetry; but in epinician they too must be transfigured. Patrons wanted, not an action replay of the games or a video of the party, but a great poem that would spread their fame in space and time. The poem must have the hallmarks of choral lyric: long before epinician, that genre had 

On worlds in Pindar, cf. Felson ; Athanassaki . Different applications of the term will suit different texts and different lines of critical thought; so Hutchinson () uses dual worlds (writing world and story world) to reconsider Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Distinct but ultimately connected is the idea of frequently changing text worlds, as in Gavins  (differently Werth ); cf. Hutchinson (). For Welt, see e.g. Kant (st edn. [A] ; nd edn. [B] ): A /B  (‘das mathematische Ganze aller Erscheinungen’) A –/B –, Wittgenstein : . (‘alle Tatsachen’); worlds: Lewis .



g. o. hutchinson

conjoined praise, myth, religion, wisdom, families, cities and self-referential song. While it is important to stress the performative, political and social contexts of these poems, it is important to stress too the poetic complexity of the transformation by which event and occasion are turned into song. Through its handling of imagery, as in other ways, epinician builds different spheres into an elaborate poetic world, or maybe universe. To put it differently: stringing garlands together is easy; the Muse of epinician joins together gold, white ivory and the coral flower from under the water of the sea. epinician For convenience’ sake, the texts here and in the preceding part of the chapter are cited from the most recent Teubner editions of S-M (Pindar’s Epinicia) and M (Pindar fragments and Bacchylides), PMGF (Ibycus) and PMG (Simonides). This course was recommended by the extent of the material, and the unimportance of textual problems for the topics under consideration; but it is not to be supposed that I would prefer these texts in all instances. Areas receiving imagery, with numbers of epinician passages for each area A Partying 5 (but in  mythical, in  coupled with fame) AV Partying as vehicle 6 Bi The present poetry and poet/singer 154 Bii Other poetry of present poet’s 11 (+  shared with Bi; +  shared with Biii–viii) Biii Others’ poetry (song) 20 (+  shared with Bi; +  shared with Bii, iv–viii) Biv Epinician poetry in general 7 (+  shared with Bi) Bv Poetry in general, esp. praise-poetry 20 (+  shared with Bi; +  shared with Bii–iv, vi–viii) Bvi Converse of praise-poetry: voices of blame and envy 8 (+  shared with Bi) Bvii Extension of praise-poetry: fame 15 Bviii Other aspects of poet 9 (+  shared with Bi) 

For the presentation of singers, song, etc. in choral lyric cf. e.g. Alcm. frr. , ,  PMG, Pind. Pae. .– (D Rutherford); .– (A Rutherford); Parth. fr. b.–. Whether the figure of the narrator is singer, poet, or both, that should not obscure the affinity of all such first-person passages in this sort of lyric. For the openings of Ol.  and Isth. , see Bonifazi : –; Retter .

Image and world in epinician poetry



B = 246 (incl.  just ‘B’ from Pind. Isth. fr.); Bi (with half of shared passages, i.e. ., removed) = % of  Ci Sporting activity 18 Cii Games festivals 11 CiV Sporting activity as vehicle 30 Di The victory and victor 25 Dii The announcement and reward of the victory at the games 5 Diii Victory in general 11 Div Other victories of victor 8 (+  shared with Di) Dv Victories of family, city, region 15 Dvi Converse of victory: defeat 2 Dvii Non-sporting aspects of victor 40 D = 106 DiiV Announcement and reward of victory as vehicle 7 Ei City 41 Eii Region 7 Eiii Other city 2 F Family 35 G Fortune 40 H Other themes of wisdom 89 G + H = 129 J War 10 JV War as vehicle 6 K Myth etc. 153 L Gods, cultic heroes, personifications 41 Number of passages (some assigned to more than one area): 720 As table (without V) A Bi 

Bii Biii Biv Bv Bvi Bvii Bviii B 





Ci Cii Di Dii Diii Div

[] 

 







Dv

Dvi

Dvii

D

Ei

Eii

Eiii

F

G







[]





















H

G+H

J

K

L

All



[]







720



g. o. hutchinson Pindar

Ol. .– Cii {,)  U$, (  !," ;.  &0 | V)  && !)D 1" ?7 &>)!; – Cii;  Dvii;  Ci;  Di 1)  &,7 ,& ) ;  Rvii 1&  H ";  Biii;  Biii;  K;  HK;  K;  K;  HK;  K;  L;  Diii,  Diii ? ) ,,  :' ;  Bi;  L; – Bii, CiV ?) !!)   ?&  | ,2 V ) . |7 C&'! @P (  $ | & % :' C.P  ; – Bii, CiV/JV CD  r | 6,  )*) ) " A )#; – Dvii;  Di O< , ) )0) @Q0   & )6. Ol. . Cii;  Dvii;  Dvii;  Ei Oa )7$ |  . [Ol. . Di;  Dvii  ) ,) '$ . 1$ ) $" @Q'! +,";  Dvii Ei +$ C" #1" )   A,);  H.] Ol. .– Bi j!, " @&,)1, )" :)6 &.> . 1! | ' " F" G) . . )% C  .  | 1, -, L$ ' ) &" A |  D "4 6  = C7 A ( /0,  | ) >)  C&',) ) ;  Bi Y )'! &> " U$ A &)1 :) 6";  Bi, CiV;  K ?Q !,% #') ";  K;  K A)6, "; – K 1  & x 9 ";  L; – K ?. H €& , . | !.1% Ta,) 4 J)   &)$  $ C#1Q ;  Diii; – Bi &  |   6" C&d #$ A 6" . . . ;  Bii C7 ') j ')$   &; – Bi;  Bv, H; – Bi, AV ?% C&$ ,# E >, | O  &    E, +. % U$ | $)$; – K;  K, Ei; – Bi, CV O, )" 1 "; – Dvii )1  | C1 " V)% A)$ ,!  & % 3,)' | AY" )=  )#!  6;  Bi %  .' ,' )% ?  C&'!";  Dv;  Bi + >#, ?!, &,'.

Image and world in epinician poetry



Ol. . L;  Dii C,)#1$, !'$ A.$ &)6,  ') . Pyth. . Bv; – Bv, L  & % C&' H #  | A>  )', d #1$ /2 1a.,  )! " . . . | . . . ) 6" | q& 6,  ) , ";  Bv, L    D   $ . # "; – Ei '$ % : ' ,!, | # ,,% O) , &1)"  " T7' " ).5 ;  Ei -", :1&  ' " )$&; – Dii  !,#5)" % A1, &*) 1" | C" &  A" && 6 C.6 I4 C ) 1|  D )!) #)!  ,)! )!6; – Bi, CiV + % CP 6 |

;,   ?&  | Y  &1  +.% F,')% A"  6 ?7$ & 1 $, |  =  q'Q " A>, ,.% A)'!"; –  Dvii & | &>)! ,)#1$%;  Bi;  K;  Ei   '$ )1& ,>#$ C" W,!' ;  Dvii, J 8 1% C7$  ' " !' ";  Bi, H;  Bi, H; – Dvii, Ei Y & '  1. *  ' &   6,% A,# ";  K;  K; – K;  K, H; – L; – Bi, vi C  * | #> 1" A   ; – Biii, vi '  ! " ?., | &  ;  Dvii; – Bi : . % A 1,  ,)  A#% A) |  $; – Bi )    )= i',,  C&1 | " @& &" /" &&) ; – H; – K, H;  Bvi T 6" A)" A$&$ O; – Bii V) = C1 &  C', "  .> | ,!" 3) ", A1&),)" E #" " @& f" V ";  H;  H; – H, Bviii &)D % C. V)% C." CP > '  @&.>, , | +% +) & )$ (6" , 6"; –  H ,)1. "  )" 3 | &,," C& 7  f" T!  3 & ,.  '| . . . # % C #" C& !   ) !  | A54 &)D )  ) |  ) ). | T,.)" - .1 " ,' "; – Bi A& % :) CP ', , *,$ |  D ) &1!, 1" 0;  K ) D #>)!.;  K )'"  '!"  )6" A1 )" , V";‰  K;  K;  K &= , T#  : q; – K, F  D C A & 6" | ,&% A> " )!)1" @) " A)6" -! 7 ) ' | …  ] >)"; – Ei, H . 0 )= ;&  ,#' 4 ; 1 )" -!" T7!)  & | C7'Q 1 " ! ", ;,>  H . d  , C |  . +" A#& >,)  C )',, | 3 C,, 1   3,)' ;  H; – F ,!5" | T#.  ";  Dvii;  Bi &* +.! ; – K, F;  Bi , % \w #) j1)";  G;  K, F;  K, F /"  .6  !. A'$;  K, F; – Bi, F, AV   % A) |  ,  . 

Image and world in epinician poetry



| q ., *$ {.% } @& > ,; – Bi;  Dvii   #) ; – Dvii .1,"  ) >&)" | C -7 ;)" ?&),  Ci, Div A$' " %, f" B, ,.";  Biii ? ) ', , &)  ";  Dvii   ?,; – G Y #.&$D" A$ | '  )= &=   '  ; – L  " )  "  " ! |  '% A #'$. Pyth. .– Bi ` = 3*&" #') " +!  ] j ')$ | A &'; /– Bi U$ .;  Dii;  Bi;  Bv, vii; a– Bii j ')$   | 5  '&  .  #"; – Bi, F C % I )" A | 'Q  A  &1,, ", I)" C6 |  D &  =  7  3 & $; – K x 9 " |  & A.5, )% A&Q ;  K;  K, Dv &=  & ,. &)= 7 ) . Pyth. . Di >)  = A.$;  G;  G; – G, Diii G, "  ) ?." A | " /&) ,. , & ' &" ?, ) | & ;  Biii; – K; – K; – Bi, iv *&  ,1,, ) 2 % +!  ?, .' | &  ., 1" +  &) ". | C$'$ = +$)" U$ | C&% +)% + S) ,, .>  ; – Bi, CiV C= &&>$ 1 | ) % ?!7 V '$ ))1, | #$ #)%, +$ +) &# $"; – H &)   D !," C  ,1 && |  D  " T. ";  Eii. Pyth. . Di;  H; – Bi `%, r #',  )% A!,'& )' C1. )" A D .7   /&)  . | : .d  U$ ) ,   . = )> | !6 , ) ,, :' #  ,!1";  Bv; – Ei ' 7 a   | #";  K  6'  . . . +., '!; – Bi, CiV Ou % f  `) d # , !6 ,  D ) % :)' , # 7;  K; – Bi Z '$ ) &"  # : & ) 4 A& )& | I)" :*&  &)D , ?)  "4 | +& =   . . . ) V& )1  .6;  Bi, DiiV;  Bi ,)1  .  '! '.! !) ; – Bv ( !," 3Q " | :=" ?7 /&1, ", U"  . . . ;  Dv; – Biii, CiV B ;$  " /'. Nem. . H; – Bv ;  )>, "; –  Bi, CiV A&>$ | Y ) & D" +.% S)  &1  -,  | .= ,, ; – Bi ? 4 )'  1, O ) &  A.'" | A , : ) >" ;  ) .. | O ,)#1!" C # , A 14 6,1 ) |  !, ? ) ! C# .% / |  D ' +. &)' " @#6,% C, ";  H; – Dvii, CiV )) , S.% /1)$ !6" | C ),,   ? )6";  L; – L ') . . .  &"; – Bi, ii, CiV A) &, c&)  3>,  | ?&,;  Bv . . . ), V)  Q!1 " ‘"  ."’.

Image and world in epinician poetry



Nem. .– L x & ) , 1!7 #') " A, #)1)$, | V ) . . . C#', #1", | )  W" A1 " ,D  ,)1" . . . ; – L &" . . . !&' " *$; – Bi, DiiV Hd ) " ; 0 . . . 1)$ . . . V&)  #$ | K!'  ')    #", A&$ ) &' ) #1; – Bv, vi;  K;  H;  Bvi ) % A#1)$ 0" A)' , . ; – Bviii >." | /& " $" C# &)' ;  Bviii #= % C&,&'$ A)6"; – H A|,, % A)1, $ 6" C, " F" G)  , | ,#6" A A.6,% C  '" ) &" @  | ;. ; – Bi ,0  &1) j 1 " )% C # | @&6,  '. , 6. Nem. . Bi; – Bv;  Bi; – K ! . ,* , &'    & 4 | 3&)= =  ', ) &! D !'!" #) " . . . ; – Dvii, J # ! & &'! # ;  K; – Dvii, J  | & D )0.% ~,, A.)% A

6" | '$;  Dii. Isth. .– Biii, CiV, JV H  &1  . . . | #)", ‚ !, &>$ | C" '# , ?  . . . , q'# & '!" C) 7! 1! " U!", | G,)" CP  " E #') " | :. ! 1,)  /',)  T&* ; – Biii . . . :% C& ) !6  #. ! &)D Q  " | A!$.6,  & ,$&  .  #$ A ';  Dvii;  Di !, " C > , &')) c' "; – Dv L% A. 1d )" ;, " @&,)% H,)' A#D )1& 4 | A% C& &)D  i, .' ", | C   &$ c'! &" A)1;  Bvi;  Bi. Isth. . Bvii :' " A,) '. ; – G *  1,,$ -" T&$, & ' "  #,, | : (" &1)   .1$ (6; –b F. Isth. .– Bi e ,)  . f ) !' & ) !." . . . @) " A)=" U *; – F B, $!'  .1)" ;' | ,2 . . ) )   )! )"; – G +) % A6" I" | &1d ) " A.*&!" C& |,,$ C >; – Bvii, F G,, % C&% A.*&!" + . . . A&)!  7 ", C&Q !,   )= &= )"4 A " % C,1) , | O. ,)1 , V&). % 89 ' "4 |  D  A)1;  F, J ) 6 #=" &; – G 0 % I )=  &'    )1 ,; – Biv C % C ) | ) . . . ; – F J) ))>#$)    " |  ." A;  Bi. Isth. .– AV, Bi M1)" A F" G) ,!&,'! | >)  ) , '$ $ | ' ;  Div; – Bvii . . . ; . . . ,> ) H  '$ #!)>  7  C&5 ), C, ) 6" _< &" -! | 1)% +!  . )" C*; – Bi, Ei, L J . . . q  :' ". | !'  % ?$   )) .% 3 ) & C , !. |  D &  c' &   D % yz&!";  K;  K;  K;  Bi; – Biii, Dv; – Ci # '$    | !,&&!  ,> " A)  . . . Isth. . K, L !, . . . '#) ; – Bv A= &  = 1 | U 1", A1"  )', | G ) Y ,#' " +$) + | !) 6" C&$ q 6, C7') ;  F, J; – F, G 0  | Z 1" :'  -& ,, | C ";  Bviii; – H. Isth. . Bi; – Bi A)$ | ; – J, L C&Y ) @& # " | ††  )1! '. & 1 )" ?)Q + . "; a Bi ;' j ')$ +$) &;  K 6 " {| C ' ,)& 6,' )% A= &; – K , . Isth. fr.  B &= ,)  #. Bacchylides .– Cii r &" & " | 1,! .  ) &> ; – Ci 6[" k–k] )" | .![ ?$];  Biii ]I   P [j] ')$; – H C&' !)  | , '  ; – H ;D )= #>-|) ',, ) '-| "

;)" :!1 )" +" | ƒa, &)1,,) % --|" >#. # $4 | J  !# D 1 " O,!,  ' ", | :% /" A 1) " | !,& '&  > ) 4 $-| 6 % C A)>)$ 1 | &) ) ,2 #>! &| 6, ?.  A'-|$)" A.*&" ;64 | )P" 0  D D !' &1)  !." | @)  A)1 | @6;  Bi  % C&,5&)$ &# >,$; – Ci q& = O,"  |  !5)  #!1,,$ | L)   ) | '  8$ #7'$ ))>,$; – K Q!="

Image and world in epinician poetry



C1< . . . B1 ) #>% +" | e  " A= ].! | !' &1)  #1)" . . . ;  L ] )[% A]1[&])$ C*)$. .– Bi . ,) C'#. ,, , | C. . " L% A.1d  ) !, +  | 7!.  A.*&, O< | 1 . . . ; – Bvii  )> | % +[" A']  !., | V)[ ,)']$ A*)  7 " | )>7) ; – Bv ` = ,. []#" ] j ')$ )= *" | C&' !,  ). ; – H, JV f)" % C&D & ,' | &' ) 7 )) ';  G; – Bi, CiV )'  = [][,],  ;.>, " | C >$ C. )" (0;. .– Ci ' " !. | ; 5 )" A&) & T."; – Ci;  K;  K. .– Bi 8,D !5) " ,# ", @1 ,-|,% J.! 6 | 0 # " /) "; – Cii C &" . . . " | 1,! &[])!*a ' . . K U" @Q !; – Bvii, Dii  D G)  . 1) | !1 #"  >Q-| ] ).$.6, ; – H [" )=] &= " ! -|[, ] ' , #,,. earlier actual or possible epinician, or related poetry Ibycus S. PMGF ]. " C ['] E. ["; S.– Ž&. [ ] &4 S,&  D .[& ] " C ) A.[5],.  C& [ ] )" L&&$;  fr.  col. ii  B (cf. )? .$;  fr. . !$;  fr. . A&,)17 ; ( fr. .]. )? [ possible for . ];)  fr.  col. i.–  '$ % A#D &!, S,.% !H 1))! #"; fr. . Bv .,  , .   ?; fr. a.– Bi C ) - " C7 ,'" .1!,% A. 5" x z", Œ &0. ). []. > ' ) . $" A ) €& ,, I)" . % C"  .2 && #. 4 ]'.  D @&#1!" Z"] & 6 " €,, Z' ) ".% Muse, who was the first to begin the words of righteousness? Pleisthenid Menelaus spoke with spell-binding words; the fair-robed Graces informed his words: ‘Trojans, lovers of war, Zeus on high who sees all things is not accountable to mortals for their great woes. It lies open for all men to attain upright Justice, companion to pure Order and provident Law. Blessed are they whose sons choose her to share their homes. But, luxuriating in shifty cunning and outright folly, brazen Hybris, who swiftly hands a man another’s wealth and power, only to send him into deep ruin: she it was who destroyed those arrogant sons of Earth, the Giants.’

Here are the comments made by Kirkwood in his study of Bacchylides’ narrative art: It is not to dwell on Bacchylides’ shortcomings that it has seemed appropriate to illustrate [the] gnomic side of his poetry, but to show how a poet whose talent and impulse are for the clarity of simple narrative can sometimes achieve the appearance of thoughtfulness that was conventional in these public choral performances. Bacchylides’ method is to put the reflections in the mouth of a mythical speaker. We do not expect philosophical subtlety in Heracles or Menelaus. The well-worn 

Kirkwood : , quoted by Rengakos :  n..



david fearn

truisms fit them better and at the same time lend dignity to the hero, who is made to seem thoughtful.

Quoting the end of Menelaus’ speech in that poem, he continues: We are not likely to concern ourselves with the question of whether this is an old thought or a new one; we are concerned with how it will apply to what Menelaus is discussing . . . Where Pindar might carry conviction by brilliance of utterance, Bacchylides does so by narrative technique.

We are left with the feeling that whatever conviction Bacchylides’ poetry does convey through narrative is secondary, derivative and certainly inferior to that of Pindar. Although such prejudice against character narrative has been dispelled in the case of Homer, it has remained largely unexamined in Bacchylides, whose narrative technique is so often likened to that of Homer. Such criticism fails to do justice to the complexity and multiplicity of audiences at the close of Bacchylides , an issue I pursue in detail elsewhere. There are, however, better ways of dealing with Bacchylides’ use of myth, in both his epinicians and his dithyrambs. Appendix ii demonstrates the fundamental difference between Pindar and Bacchylides here. With direct speech uttered by mythological characters, the difference is partly one of degree: Bacchylides in his epinicians uses direct character speech far more frequently than Pindar, especially if the extended Pythian  is taken out of the equation; moreover, as Jebb astutely remarked, Bacchylides’ myths seem more self-contained than do Pindar’s. Bacchylides again differs from Pindar in his use of simile. Pindar has no similes within epinician myths at all, and there is only one uncertain case of a simile inside a myth in all of Pindar. Bacchylides, by contrast, with far fewer epinicians, uses two similes within myths, both of which I discuss below in their surrounding mythological contexts. In what follows, my focus will be Bacchylides’ epinician output, though, given the importance of the dithyrambic form to his oeuvre, dithyrambic parallels will be noted where relevant. Indeed, it is my contention that Bacchylides’ most thought-provoking work in the epinician form is the result of a typically dithyrambic use of sustained mythological narrative applied to a structuring and framing encomiastic system.   

Kirkwood : –. See Carey , esp. p.  and pp. – for a recent attempt to make more of this parallelism; cf. Carey b: .  See n. above. Fearn : ch. .

Bacchylidean myths



narrative, character speech and communication Bacchylides uses mythological narrative (and character speech within it) extensively, but often makes the connection between it and its frame (poetic or contextual) difficult to grasp. This suggests that we should take very seriously indeed the challenge of interpreting the gaps between these mythological narratives and their frames, as well as those gaps which open between the words spoken by the mythological characters and the eyes and ears of Bacchylides’ ancient and modern audiences. This is particularly true of Bacchylides’ dithyrambs, but we need also to consider the issues of communication and understanding that such a technique poses to readers and original audiences of victory odes as well, including of course victors. With his dithyrambs, access to truth is rendered problematic because of complex narratorial presentation, in ways that often invite self-conscious reflection about the nature of muthos and of storytelling in general. A different though related point is raised by Bacchylides’ treatment of character speech in his epinician poetry: here, the presence of mythological narrative and character speech within, but not straightforwardly connected to, an encomiastic frame, invites audiences, victors included, to scrutinise the correspondences, contrasts and gaps between narrative and frame. In his epinicians no less than in his dithyrambs, Bacchylides is fascinated by the possibilities offered by the incorporation of epic-style narrative in lyric. Bacchylides  ( bc: for Hieron, tyrant of Syracuse) provides some of the most conspicuous examples. Here the poet generates depth out of the juxtaposition of the persona loquens’ comments on eudaimonia in the poem’s encomiastic frame with the rather less self-aware comments of the speaking Heracles in the myth, as he interrogates the ghost of Meleager. Yet it is not simply that Heracles functions as an unreflective cipher for Hieron to trump. Along with all the other mythological figures with whom the poem is in dialogue, Heracles is set against Hieron, a man whose unique combination of mortality and supreme success fleetingly places him in such company. Hieron and the other members of the poem’s audiences are challenged to think about the parallelisms for themselves, without being pointed to them directly.   

An issue I explore at length in Fearn : ch.  on Bacch. ; cf. also discussion below of Chiron in Bacch. Dith. ; also the presentation of Pasiphae’s illicit love in Bacch. Dith. . Bacch. .– ∼ ff.; Arnson Svarlien : – n.. Bacchylides alludes to a number of meetings in epic which have mortality as their theme: Odysseus and Tiresias in Od. , Achilles and Priam in Il. , Glaucus and Diomedes in Il. . For detail here, see Lefkowitz  and Goldhill .



david fearn

The way in which Bacchylides  closes its myth by merely alluding to Heracles’ ominous future marriage to Deianira needs little further comment. But the myth’s opening is perhaps worthy of further scrutiny. Heracles at Odyssey .– tells Odysseus that his most dangerous challenge was to ‘bring back the dog’ (>% +7)%). Mary Lefkowitz commented on the way in which the myth of Cerberus is introduced before being passed over in favour of a more challenging engagement with Meleager and mortality. Bacchylides’ myth begins with ‘they say’ (l. ), pointing to the Odyssean precedent with the very same phraseology (>% +-|7)%, ll. –); but full exposition of this version is turned down in favour of an encounter which poses an even greater challenge for Heracles: the recognition of the extent of his own mortality through the meeting with Meleager. This is a challenge which Bacchylides’ Heracles may be assumed not to have passed quite as successfully (especially if we consider lines –, where Heracles is so impressed by Meleager’s heroism that he does not realise the lessons his story bears for his own mortality), and it is a challenge which the poem insistently poses to its laudandus Hieron. A further point can also be made about the language used by Bacchylides in achieving this shift of focus. It does not seem a coincidence that the marker of Cerberus’ monstrosity, his pedigree out of ‘unapproachable Echidna’, A&1)% % ' " (), is as far as Bacchylides takes us with this myth. The very unapproachability of Echidna’s, and by extension, Cerberus’ monstrosity is the marker of Bacchylides’ avoidance of any further detail: rather as with Minos’ ring in Bacchylides , Cerberus is now passed over. Bacchylides now moves to much more obviously 

  



Lefkowitz : –; Goldhill : ; Burnett : – on the myth in general; Rutherford :  n.; Rengakos : –. See Carey :  for the emotionally disengaged use of a muse invocation to end this myth, and p.  for Bacchylides’ narratorial subtlety in contrast with Pindar’s own version of Heracles and Deianira (fr. a). Lefkowitz : ; cf. Goldhill : . Cf. e.g. Stern :  on Bacchylides’ decision to have Heracles ask about Meleager’s sister; Maehler : ii – ad loc .. For Cerberus’ genealogy, see Hes. Theog. –. It seems that Pindar described Cerberus in detail, giving him  heads, probably in a dithyramb: fr. c with Lavecchia : –. Bacchylides, it is clear, veers away from this level of detail on Cerberus. Compare Bacch. .– with .-end. Bacchylides does not ‘forget’ the ring; rather, his omission of it on Theseus’ triumphant return to the ship is a sign of the poem’s utter rejection and defeat of Minos’ authority as master of the sea. Compare also here Bacch.  (Pasiphae?), a text which seems to revel in the problematic relation between monstrous immorality and its articulation through lyric narrative. Indeed, it seems possible to identify Bacchylides’ poem as one source behind Virgil’s complex Cretan ekphrasis at Aen. .ff., esp. –: hic crudelis amor tauri suppostaque furto | Pasiphae mixtumque genus prolesque biformis | Minotaurus inest, Veneris monimenta nefandae; see Armstrong

Bacchylidean myths



Iliadic, and mortal, territory with Heracles’ encounter with the soul of Meleager. Once Bacchylides has focused on an engagement with specifically Iliadic material he is able to use epic-style narrative in lyric to create further impressive effects, effects which play up the communicative potential of narrative in lyric. The climax of Meleager’s narrative to Heracles arrives with Meleager’s expressiveness concerning the moment at which he recognized his own imminent death. See lines –: '.   Q!= !6 4  % T,.$,

; 64 &!1)$  &$ 1!, )1. [$, A = l  &'&$.% # ,D A,  #)>$" & 6 0 Y ) ) )7  # , )  &." & ) ;)') #$) "4 ‘ . . . The sweetness of my spirit grew weak. I knew that my strength was ebbing away, alas! Breathing my last I wept, wretch, leaving my glorious youth behind.’ They say that the battle-hardened son of Amphitryon only then wet his eyes with tears, pitying the fate of the unfortunate hero.

It has long been realised that in lines – Bacchylides has drawn upon the Iliadic description of the death of Hector; but insufficient attention has been paid to the precise way in which Bacchylides appropriates the Homeric lines on the soul’s departure. Goldhill comments: ‘As he fades, it







: ff. For Virgilian interest in Bacchylides elsewhere, see fr.  = Serv. ad Verg. Aen. . for intertextuality with one of his dithyrambs in Virgil’s description of Arcadian funerary practice; fr.  = Serv. ad Verg. Aen. ., for one of his dithyrambs as a source for the story of Laocoon. See below: –, for discussion of the simile at Bacch. .–. As Burnett :  notes, however, Bacchylides has made a precise choice to select Meleager’s death itself as the primary focus, stripped of extraneous epic material. A mortal self-recognition of an Iliadic and specifically Achillean kind, for which the description of the log which sets the limit of Meleager’s life as o>" () serves as the clear marker, following Il. . and . Maehler : ii  ad loc. is too quick to assume a Meleager epic as the source for this language. As Stern :  points out, the log’s epithet functions almost as a personification, so closely is that object intertwined with the destiny of the hero with whom it is associated. It may be possible that Bacchylides is drawing from a version of Stesichorus in which Althaea is strongly characterised and directly involved in Meleager’s death: see Garner  discussing P.Oxy.  frr. –. Whatever the level of intertextuality with the Homeric and Stesichorean details (note that fr.  ll. – alludes directly to Il. .–: Garner : ), a systematic familiarity with the nature and characteristics of the Iliadic Achilles is very clear from Bacch.  and elsewhere. See further e.g. Bacch. .– and .– with Lefkowitz : , – and –; Bacch. .ff. and –. Lefkowitz : –; Segal : .



david fearn

is the recognition, , of his lack of strength, his lack of control, faced with his own mortality, that causes him to wail ; 6’.’ Lefkowitz suggests: ‘The painfulness of the realization is brought out forcefully in the cry “aiai” occurring directly in the narrative’, but then supposes that Bacchylides is departing from Homer’s text here. I would prefer to say that Bacchylides is building upon, and making fully audible for his audience, what is left narrated but not given a voice in Homer’s text. Homer’s verses run as follows (Il. .– = .–): Q!= % C q.$ &) < a , 5,  & )  $, , &0, % A))  D l , Il. .), but not in recollection of the moment of death itself. Further Bacchylidean interest in the Underworld, and its potential for Homeric appropriation, may be shown by Bacch. fr. ,  !." O$ A" %. Q  3'.  See n. above.  Carey b: . See further Sider .

Bacchylidean myths



(or indeed fantasy) from encomiastic frame challenges audiences and laudandi to create meaning out of analogies or discontinuities between the two parts. In the case of Bacchylides , it has always been rather embarrassing that few if any of the critics who highlighted the supposed pellucidity of Bacchylidean style were able to discover what positive message Hieron could be expected to extract from the poem’s myth; this difficulty was generally explained away by criticism of Bacchylides’ lack of unity. The poet’s interest in epic-style simile is another aspect of this oppositional style. Taken singly, the individual aspects of each of these parts may be thought simple to understand and clear in their expression; but as with simile, where the challenge is to create meaning out of the process of understanding connections between tenor and vehicle, the subtlety of Bacchylides often lies in the way he challenges his readers to establish connections between the constituent parts. Ultimately the poems have to be interpreted and understood as unified wholes: it is here that meaning is generated. Again, the situation is the same with similes, where tenor or vehicle cannot be understood in isolation from one another. In Homer, as Michael Silk has argued, greatness is achieved through the jarring juxtaposition of high-register formulaic stylisation with the often brutal concreteness and immediacy of detail. In the case of Bacchylides , considered by many his greatest work, overall unity is achieved through the complex mixing together of mutually opposed stylistic aspects: on the one hand, the grandeur and luxuriousness of lexical inventiveness and the boundlessness of the narrator’s desire to offer praise; on the other hand, the darkly allusive pessimism of the myth, expressed in that same lexical grandeur and luxuriousness. Greatness here lies in the force of the opposition between the beauty of language and scenic imagination and deep mortal pessimism. And Bacchylidean greatness in general lies in a kind of magnanimity: a willingness to allow audiences for themselves ‘to entertain conjecture’, to fill in gaps and to work through the various intertextualities, to come to individual understandings about the meanings of poems both as wholes and as parts of wider contexts.   

See Bacch. fr.  B.– (formally separated off from its encomiastic frame as an extended temporal clause; overt praise is swiftly but abruptly resumed in l. ), on which see Fearn : –.  Silk : – and : . See Stern : –. Shakespeare, Henry V, prologue to Act  (itself the introduction to a narrative), quoted by Hainsworth :  ad Il. .– on the simile at Il. .–: ‘the simile . . . indirectly invites audiences to “entertain conjecture . . . ”, an important function of similes’.



david fearn appendix i: bacchylides’ myths

The order of the entries is as follows: () commissioning individual/state; () poem length; () myth(s)/mythological title. Epinicians Bacch. 

Bacch. 

Bacch. 

Bacch.  Bacch.  Bacch.  Bacch. 

Bacch.  Bacch.  Bacch.  Bacch.  Bacch. 

Dithyrambs (all with extensive myths) For Argeius of Ceos;  lines; Bacch.  Minos, Euxantius, and the colonisation of Ceos (cf. Pind. Pae.  (fr. d, D Rutherford); contrast Bacch. ) For same; short poem of  Bacch.  lines; no myth (though Ceos as  .  :7 )' ,: cf. Bacch. ) For Hieron of Syracuse;  Bacch.  lines; Croesus, Admetus For same; short poem of  lines; no myth For same;  lines; Heracles and Meleager (cf. Bacch. ) for Lachon of Ceos; short poem of  lines; no myth For same; short fragmentary poem of  lines; no myth extant

[Athens];  lines; Antenoridai or the Request for Helen’s Return

Delphi;  lines; Heracles

Bacch. 

Ceans for Delos (under Athenian influence);  lines; Youths or Theseus; cf. Serv. ad Verg. Aen. . Athens;  lines; Theseus

Bacch. 

Athens;  lines; Io

Bacch.  Sparta;  lines extant; Idas [Athens?]; Kassandra [cf. Porphyr. ad Hor. C. .; poss. also Pind. Pyth. . (ii.– Dr)] Bacch.  ?; at least  lines; ? myth with dialogue Bacch.  ?; at least  lines; [Meleager?] Bacch. 

Liparion of Ceos(?); short poem of  lines; no myth Automedes of Phlius;  lines; Seven against Thebes and Asopidai Unnamed Isthmian victor Bacch.  ?; at least  lines; [Pasiphae?] from Athens;  lines; no myth Alexidamus of Metapontium; Bacch.  ?; at least  lines; [Chiron?];  lines; Proetidai cf. Hor. Ep.  Tisias of Aegina;  Bacch.  ?; at least  lines; ? Artemis fragmentary lines; no myth and Delos mentioned extant

Bacchylidean myths



(cont.) Epinicians

Dithyrambs (all with extensive myths)

Bacch. 

Pytheas of Aegina;  lines; Bacch.  ?; extensive fragments; Heracles and Nemean [Orpheus?] Lion; Aeacidai at Troy Bacch.  Cleoptolemus of Thessaly; fr.  Serv. ad Verg. Aen. .: at least  lines; no myth Bacchylides on Laocoon extant Bacch. A ? fr.  Hom. Il. .: Bacchylides on Zeus and Europa [Bacch. Aristoteles of Larisa Other possible dithyrambs (?Simonidean?) B (Hipparch); more than  fr.  ?; at least  lines of narrative lines; no myth extant] and speech on a Homeric topic; [Kabeiroi??] fr.  ?; title and opening  lines preserved; Leucippides frr.  and ?; fragments; battle narratives  fr.  ?; mythical narrative of at least  lines; Heracles, a river, and a centaur; [Nessus??] Paeans fr. + Asine, Apollo Pythaeus;  lines; Heracles, Ceyx, the Dryopes, and the foundation of Asine (cf. esp. the Cean poems Bacch.  and Pind. Pae.  (fr. d, D Rutherford)) ‘Enkomia’ ?;  lines?; Idas and Marpessa fr.  A (cf. Bacch. ) fr.  D ?; fragments; Cleopatra(?) and Meleager; Niobe and children fr.  E ?; fragments; Sarpedon Total  or  epinician odes; only  over  lines long, of which  contain extended myths. Compare Pindar:  epinician odes;  over  lines long;  containing extended myths

david fearn



appendix ii: direct speech Pindar

Bacchylides

Epinicians Ol. .– Ol. .–

Epinicians Bacch. .–? –?

Pelops’ prayer to Poseidon Erginus to Hypsipyle (ends poem) Ol. .– Adrastus – Apollo’s voice to Iamus Ol. .– Apollo prophecy about destruction of Troy Ol. .–b Athena to Bellerophon Pyth. .– Apollo Pyth. .– Medea – Unidentified Thessalian – Pelias addressing Jason – Jason replies – – –

Lysagora (at least  lines) Macelo addressing Zeus and Poseidon [Bacch. .ff. ? see Carey : ] Bacch. .– Croesus – Apollo to Admetos Bacch. .– – – – – Bacch. .–

Jason again

Bacch. .?–

Pelias Aeetes

Dithyrambs Bacch. .–?

Pyth. .–

Amphiaraus

Pyth. .– – Nem. .– –

Apollo to Chiron Chiron replies Polydeuces Zeus replies

Bacch. .– – – [Bacch. 

Isth. .–

Heracles’ prayer for Ajax

Bacch. 

Isth. .a–

Themis on Thetis’ mortal Bacch. .– marriage

Hymns fr. 

–

Bacch. .ff. Amphiaraus advising his son Amphilochos on praise; cf. Theognis 

fr. +.–

Meleager to Heracles Heracles replies Meleager on how he died Heracles’ response Meleager on Deianira Proitus offering Artemis  oxen Athena? on Heracles’ killing of Nemean Lion (at least  lines) Theano addressing Odysseus and Menelaus (at least  lines) Menelaus addressing Trojans Theseus rebuking Minos Minos calls on Zeus Minos challenges Theseus All mythical character speech (Athenians and Aegeus), though not technically within narrative] Mythical character speech: ) 0) % E]& #  . [(line ) Minos worried about a muthon: a prelude to speech? (cf. .ff.) Speaker reporting Chiron on future of Achilles Heracles

Bacchylidean myths



(cont.) Pindar

Bacchylides

Paeans

fr. dub. 

Pae. .– Pae. .–? Pae. b.?– Pae. a.–?

+ lines of speech on the effects of the aftermath of the Trojan war on unidentified female characters

Prophecy of Hecate Euxantius on Crete and Ceos (at least  lines) Asteria Cassandra(?) reporting prophetic speech of Hecabe (at least  lines)

Some very rough totals Pindar Character speech in epinician including Pythian : ± 237 / ± 3462 lines excluding Pythian : ±  / ±  lines % lines with character speech inc. Pythian : ± % % excluding Pythian : ± 4%

Bacchylides Character speech in extant epinician 128+ / ± 1051 lines % lines with character speech: 12%± (with % for Dithyrambs likely to be higher)

Similes within mythological narrative Pindar Bacchylides Many short comparisons, but only five simi- Bacch. .– and Bacch. .–. See also Bacch. .–, Bacch. .–, and les: Ol. .–; Ol. .–; Nem. .–; fr. a; fr. .–, and only one within Bacch. .–. mythological narrative: fr. .–.

c ha p te r 16

Reading Pindar Michael Silk All art conforms in some degree to general expectations: even the art of a Stockhausen, or of BritArt installationists, or of a poet of a revolutionary era like Eliot, or a poet of a less revolutionary era like Pindar. With the work of any artist, there is no case for ignoring the conformity or, especially, the degree of conformity. But the work of significant artists is, by definition, special – this is part of what ‘significant’ means – and with the work of any significant artist, there is no case, either, for ignoring what makes it special. And any reader of Pindar, certainly, does well to ponder both what makes his poetry special and why we need to think about the special, perhaps as professional custodians, certainly as privileged readers. This volume is wider than Pindar, but Pindar – by the special distinction of his victory odes at their best – invites special attention. A suitable starting point here might be the fundamental propositions advanced, variously, by Leavis and by Eagleton and Althusser, among others. The writers who matter most (in a large perspective) are usually not those who merely reflect the values, the textures and the tempers, the dominant ideologies, of their time: they are those who, with or without adjustment, bring those dominant modes of thought and feeling to a higher consciousness or else ‘altogether rupture’ or transcend them. Such writers revalue, and enact their revaluations.  



For comparisons of the different epinician poets, see Rawles, Fearn and Most (this volume). Leavis’s appeals to the principle vary from ‘he made himself (answering to our account of the important poet) the consciousness of his age’ (on Eliot: Leavis : ) to ‘[his] art exposes so cogently the malady of a civilization in which . . . ’ (on D. H. Lawrence: Leavis : ). For Eagleton : – (one example of many), writers like Dickens uncover the ‘fault lines’ of bourgeois ideology. For Althusser (: ), ‘Balzac and Solzhenitsyn give us a view of the ideology to which their work alludes and with which it is constantly fed, a view which presupposes . . . an internal distantiation from the very ideology from which their novels emerged.’ The only significant attempt to discuss Pindar in terms of such propositions is Rose : –, which (like Eagleton and Althusser, proceeding from a neo-Marxist perspective) closes with the observation that Pindar ‘succeeds in exhausting and transcending the ideology of his class in a utopian affirmation of a higher order of being’ and thereby ‘does enhance the aesthetic richness of his art’ (: ). Contrast the flat assertion by Braswell : : ‘The poetry of Pindar is distinguished neither by originality of ideas nor profundity of thought. The basic values implied in it are those professed by his patrons and as such represent the contemporary attitudes and poses of the rich and successful.’ ‘[Samuel] Johnson cannot see that works of art enact their moral valuations’: Leavis : – (his italics). On enactment, see Silk .





michael silk

To appreciate any such achievement in the literature of the past, we obviously need to make reference to the norms of the time; we do need to contextualise the writing in question. Pindaric epinician poetry, like all poetry, is made of words; and any rich understanding of those words, their precise force and their interactivity, depends indeed on an understanding of their contexts – in the Greek language and, therefore, in Greek culture and society. But equally, and urgently, it depends on an understanding and apprehension of poetic possibility as attested in comparable contexts in other poetry, from whatever time, and in whatever language; only through such an extra dimension can the special distinction become an experiential reality for us now. Contextualising may be necessary; it is not sufficient. The choice of comparative perspective, as also the degree to which any comparison needs to be formally sustained, is another matter, and partly a matter of critical tact – but then so too (though few acknowledge this) are judgements about the precise relevance of contexts in Pindar’s Greece, and the degree to which discussion of those contexts needs to be pursued. The corollary, in any event, is that it is not a given that a writer must be placed, first and foremost, against other writers of his time, culture or genre: it is not a given that a Pindar is best placed against a Bacchylides – though it might be a conclusion. It might equally be a conclusion that a writer is most profitably placed against writers from quite different times, cultures, genres: a Pindar against an Eliot, say. In a large perspective, it may seem odd that poetry worthy of such placing can manifest itself from within such a seemingly marginal form. The epinician ode is typically a poem centred on, or arising out of, the celebration of an athletic victory: not (an after-comer might think) a promising recipe for work to stand up against (say) Four Quartets. Insofar as Pindar justifies the placing, he does so partly by virtue of some especially felicitous poems, partly by virtue of a new exploration of poetic language and, thereby, poetic possibility. In generic terms, it is not, indeed, that his ‘exploration’ works against the grain of the epinician genre, but rather that he achieves it through a notable intensification of the apparent premises of the epinician, along with a certain reorientation: the Pindaric enactment   

As it probably will be a conclusion that a Bacchylides is best placed against a Pindar; cf. the discussions of Fearn and Most (this volume). Cf. Carne-Ross : –, who relates the opening of Ol.  to (briefly) Eliot, then Pound. No book has done more than Carne-Ross’s to present Pindar as a poet. The point – made at greater length in Silk : – – is not peculiar to a twenty-first-century outlook. Cf. Sidney’s Apology for Poetry () on the way that ‘the gorgeous eloquence of Pindar’ can be lavished on ‘matters rather of sport than virtue’: Maslen : .

Reading Pindar



(as I shall now be calling it, by way of a convenient shorthand) is particular and distinctive. As far as Pindar’s language is concerned, there are two separate issues to bear in mind, as I have noted elsewhere. In the first place, the idiom of his poetry is, of course, elaborately and pervasively elevated, with heroic– Homeric antecedents, like the idioms of most Greek lyric in the Archaic and Classical age. More than most Greek poetry, though, Pindar’s epinicians use this elevation, with its heroic connotations, as a linguistic corollary of the aristocratic ideology that he so actively upholds. The second point is quite different. Pindar’s language is distinctively and locally heightened. To quote my own words: Pindar cultivates what Horace calls the callida iunctura and what Eliot, almost paraphrasing Horace, called ‘that perpetual slight alteration of language, words perpetually juxtaposed in new and sudden combinations, meanings perpetually eingeschachtelt [‘boxed’] into meanings’ – where ‘alteration of language’, crucially, means, not alteration from the unelevated norm to the elevated norm, or from one elevated norm to another, but alteration from some notional, pre-existing, conventional linguistic norm (which might be, and here would be, an elevated norm) to what defies identification in terms of norms or conventions at all.

I am aware, obviously, that ‘reading’ Pindar in this spirit tends to elide the fact of original performance, and the admittedly murky contexts of performance (the where and the how and the who), as well as the specific concomitants of performance, music and dance. But how could ‘reading’ Pindar do anything else? It is not that one recommends ignoring the issues of performance (and I am as interested as anyone in any firm conclusions, if any, about them). But reading, rightly and inevitably, privileges experientiality; and whereas we do have a set of words and, within the limits of our competence, can construct an experiential response from them, specifically, the rest is a few notional and generalised suppositions, remote from experience in every sense. The further question, what could one do with the experience, supposing one could somehow have it, simply does not arise. However, in case this stance should seem unduly disrespectful to the original facts on their original ground (if only we had them), we may note – in equally general terms – that within the Greek Gesamtkunstwerk, as within the Greek hierarchy of arts, words come first. Pindar himself,  

 See Silk .  See Silk : .  Silk : . Silk : –. I remain of the view that one of the most interesting books on Greek lyric poetry is the attempt by Mullen () to reconstruct the specifics of (Mullen’s subtitle) ‘Pindar and Dance’: cf. my review comments in Silk : .



michael silk

though happy to speak of his ‘draught sung to the Aeolian breath of the pipes’ (Nem. .), & % A' ;',, C & 6, :

is also content to present himself as a ‘word-finder’, @,  . . . There is no ‘logic’ here, but argument, or rather enactment, by association. John Finley wrote eloquently of the implicit analogy (in itself, a revisionist configuration) between the victor and the heroes in the Pindaric victory ode; in fact, it might better be seen as association, not as analogy – as, so to speak, metonymy, not as metaphor. Enactment by association: Pindar, like no other Greek poet, is the poet of the associative co-presence. Such association is everywhere in the epinicians. There are the Youngian motifs (like ‘the near and the far’ in Pythian ). There are 

Finley : .



Young : –, –.



michael silk

simple but decisive juxtapositions, like the juxtaposition of ‘god’ and ‘man’ at Olympian .: ;  . A5 )" ?&) ' )  . ?$, / )1. If from a god a man hopes to hide his deed, he fails.

Then there are accumulations of connotations ‘across the grammar’, as at the start of the same ode, where a sequence of terms of positive value gives us a suitably expansive welcome to the celebration of Hieronic (Hierarchic?) achievement (Ol. .–): +,)  U$, (  !," ;.  &0 V)  && !)D 1" ?7 &>)!4 ; % +.  > ?  . . . Best, water; and gold, like fire Blazing in the night, stands out superior from lordly wealth; But should it be games You wish to celebrate . . .

Not only, but also: +,) and !, " and  && and 1" and ?7 and &>)! and +. . There is of course grammatically based argument in this case, but all in major chords, so to speak; and the very accumulation of major chords becomes an additional (in this case, complementary) ‘argument’ in its own right. As I have suggested, positive value is the ultimate ideological implication of Pindar’s customary high style, as it is, no doubt, of epinician celebration itself; and the bold display of yes-saying here, from the very first word of all, serves to convert the ultimate and the implicit into the experiential and the immediate. Pindar’s way of working by association has a bearing on the long-standing debate about the ‘unity’ of the Pindaric ode. Some odes, no doubt, are more unified (in most senses of the word) than others, but unity of one kind, at least, is often provided by association, even sometimes by the generalising of the associative ‘logic’ of a particular mode. An example   

Or ‘outside’ the grammar, as I phrased it in Silk : , –. Or ‘utopian affirmation’, as Rose :  calls it. Cf. Rose’s approval (: ) of Hermann Fr¨ankel’s ‘proposition that the coherence’ . . . of an ode derives in large measure from Pindar’s concern to demonstrate ‘an immense number of individual connections of all kinds and directions’. For the debate itself, see notably Heath  and (more generally)  – though Heath’s appeal to the ancient formula of ‘unity with diversity’ adds more darkness than light (‘diversity is one constituent of coherence’: Heath : ).

Reading Pindar



is the prevalence of ainigma in Pythian . The poem confronts us with Oedipus’ riddle, with Medea’s prophecy, with Pelias’ 1)! (l. ) and dream, with Mopsus and the ‘signs from heaven’ (.0 ,1 ,, l. ), all of which is elusively connected with the A' of poetry:

J7)   D 6,  % A' " T."



Even a Muse grows tall on straight reporting –

not least because Pindar’s own stylistic usage in this ode is unusually sympathetic to ainigma-tic wordplay, with nothing ortho- about it. Medea, notoriously, dispenses her own private cryptograph (‘my mediation’, 5, . . . /6", l. ). More discreetly (and too discreetly for Pindar’s commentators), there would seem to be a coded allusion at the start of the ode (ll. –): ,1  5 , &  % AD  ,) . . . : A&* & $" )! )" . . .

  

This day, beside a friend [philˆoi] you must Take a stand . . . (With) Apollo not abroading [-damou] . . .

The allusion is to the exile Damo-philos, whose deserts are due to figure (symmetrically, but, in terms of poetic rationale, quite gratuitously) at the very end of the poem, where our attention is directed to this same Damophilos’ ‘righteous heart’ ( | 9* & &'$, ll. –). If we look more closely at our innocent-seeming passage from Isthmian , associative co-presence is seen to be the key: 



Dismissed by Braswell :  ad loc. on grounds that combine expectation with question-begging: ‘in genuine cases of name-etymologizing the name normally appears with the word or phrase which is supposed to explain it’. Apart from anything else, one does not have to think of this kind of word-play as ‘etymology’. Despite properly commenting on the double negative : A&1!, and despite helpfully noting that the adjective A&1! is ‘first attested here’ (but, then again, forgetting to tell us that it occurs only here in pre-Hellenistic Greek, therefore may well be a neologism – and perhaps a Pindaric coinage – and, in either case, will have a distinctive tone), Braswell :  ad loc. opts for reductivity: ‘I see no difference between saying : A& 6 and C& 6.’ The difference is that the abrasive oddity of : A&1- draws attention to itself, in a way that would not arise with C& -, and sufficiently to foreground the relevant element. Rather, the grammatical fact that #' belongs to the honorand Arcesilas and : A&1! to the god Apollo makes ‘no difference’ to the ghostly (connotative) presence of Damo-philus here – which indeed Pindar is anxious to make less ghostly (denotative) by virtue of this poem. Pindar (or his Muse) would be happy to ‘stand’ with Damophilus, as with Arcesilas, and Damophilus would be only too happy to be (like Apollo) ‘not abroading’.



michael silk CP  ,1$ %,. )  . % ,  )0 % A" C ) 6, A  )= %,$&*! & )" E,  % 6 ) & )

 +! , V  C   ! ' " C7 A)5) " /" C !,, 7 ) ,!)!'.







As I &,)$ a song for Poseidon, for sacred Isthmus And Onchestus’ shores, Amidst the honours of this man I shall proclaim his father Asopodorus’ glorious fate And his ancestral Orchomenus’ soil, Which him, by shipwreck swayed In chill contingency, From boundless wet bade welcome.

Within the single sentence, there are, it seems, three direct beneficiaries of Pindar’s celebration – the god (along with sites associated with him), the human achiever, the family (alive and dead) – and all as part of a larger complex (programmatic, if one cares for the word): poet, god, festival (%,.), achiever, ancestry, soil. And yet without an articulated ‘argument’ as such, we seem, rather, to be left with a certain syntactic indeterminacy as between the denotative elements of the sequence, and a sense of unstructured, or incompletely structured, relationships. The effective outcome is a vacuum, or something approaching a vacuum, which must be filled (since poetry, like nature, does abhor a vacuum), and is filled, beyond the denotations, by available connotations, activated in lieu. In the first place, there are, as so often, strong connotations of positive value, explicit in the case of  . (l. ) and ) 6, A  (l. ), and, very evidently, connotations enforced by epic–Homeric resonance. Such resonance is evoked particularly by the dactylic elements of these dactyloepitrite rhythms () 6, A  )1: ––kk–kk–) and it is of positive value in itself, partly because epic usage is in any case poetic authority usage, but also because here (besides the epic pedigree of the explicit-value terms just cited) several particular items residually evoke the amplifying directives of the epic generic epithet. ,1$: the god perhaps needs no amplification, but in Homer he is indeed a ‘great god’ (,1$   . , Il. .). % < in Archaic greece’, ClAnt : –. () ‘The economy of kudos’, in Dougherty and Kurke (eds.): –. () ‘Pindar and the prostitutes, or reading ancient pornography’, Arion : – (= ead. [] in Constructions of the Classical Body, ed. J. I. Porter. Cambridge: –). () Coins, Bodies, Games and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece. Princeton, N.J. () ‘Choral lyric as “ritualization”: poetic sacrifice and poetic ego in Pindar’s Sixth Paian’, ClAnt : –. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson () Metaphors We Live By: With a New Afterword. Chicago, Ill. Lakoff, G. and M. Turner () More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, Ill. Lamer, H. () s.v. ‘Komos’, Paulys Real-Encyclop¨adie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft xi.: coll. –. Lan´er`es, N. () Les formes de la phrase nominale en grec ancien: ´etude sur la langue de l’Iliade. Lille. Langslow, D. () ‘The language of poetry and the language of science: the Latin poets and medical Latin’, in Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose, eds. J. N. Adams and R. G. Mayer. Proceedings of the British Academy . Oxford: –. Lape, S. () ‘The poetics of the komos in Menander’s comedy’, AJP : – . Larmour, D. H. J. () ‘Making parallels: Synkrisis and Plutarch’s “Themistocles and Camillus”’, ANRW ii./. Berlin: –. Lasserre, F. () ‘Ornements e´rotiques dans la po´esie lyrique archa¨ıque’, in Serta Turyniana: Studies in Greek Literature and Paleography in Honor of Alexander Turyn, ed. J. L. Heller. Urbana, Ill.: –. Lasserre, F. and A. Bonnard (eds.) () Archiloque: Fragments. Paris. Lattimore, R. (tr.) () The Iliad of Homer. Chicago, Ill. () The Odyssey of Homer. New York. Lattmann, C. (). Das Gleiche im Verschiedenen: Metapher des Sports und Lob des Siegers in Pindars Epinikien. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte . Berlin.

Bibliography



Lavecchia, S. () ‘Il “secondo ditirambo” di Pindaro e i culti tebani’, Studi classici e orientali (Pisa) : –. () Pindari Dithyramborum Fragmenta. Lyricorum Graecorum Quae Exstant . Rome. () ‘La “via di Zeus” nella seconda “Olimpica” di Pindaro’, in D’Alessio and Cannat`a Fera (eds.): –. Lawler, L. B. () ‘Orchˆesis Kallinikos’, TAPhA : –. Leavis, F. R. ( ) New Bearings in English Poetry. London. () The Common Pursuit. London. () D. H. Lawrence: Novelist. London. Lefkowitz, M. R. () ‘Bacchylides’ Ode 5: imitation and originality’, HSCP : –. () The Victory Ode: An Introduction. Park Ridge, N.J. () The Lives of the Greek Poets. London. () ‘The poet as athlete’, SIFC (Florence) rd ser. : – (= Ead. []: –). () ‘Who sang Pindar’s victory odes?’, AJP : – (= ead. []: –). () First-Person Fictions: Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’. Oxford. () ‘The first person in Pindar reconsidered – again’, BICS : –. Lehnus, L. (ed.) () Pindaro: Olimpiche. Milan. () ‘Notizie callimachee ii’, Scritti in onore di A. Grilli. Paideia : –. Lemon, L. T. and M. J. Reis (tr. and eds.) () Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lincoln, Nebr. Leo, F. () Die griechisch–r¨omische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form. Leipzig. Lesky, A. (–) ‘Hellos–Hellotis’, WS : –; : –, –. Leumann, M. () ‘Deminutiva auf -> und Personennamen mit Kennvokal ! im Griechischen’, Glotta : –. Lewis, D. () On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford. Lissarrague, F. (a) The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual. Princeton, N.J. (= id. [] Un flot d’images, une esth´etique du banquet grec. Paris). (b) ‘Around the krater: an aspect of banquet imagery’, in Murray (ed.): –. Lloyd-Jones, H. () ‘Problems of early Greek tragedy’, Cuadernos de la Fundaci´on Pastor : – (= id. []: –). () ‘Heracles at Eleusis: P.Oxy.  and PSI  [= Pindar fr.  S.-M.]’, Maia : –. () ‘Modern interpretation of Pindar: the Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean odes’, JHS : – (= id. []: –). () ‘Pindar’, Proceedings of the British Academy : – (= id. []: –). () Greek Epic, Lyric and Tragedy: The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh LloydJones. Oxford. Lobel, E. (ed.) () The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. xxvi. London.



Bibliography

() ‘. Commentary on choral lyric’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. xxxii: –. () ‘. Choral Lyric’, in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. xxxv: –. Lomiento, L. () ‘Semantica agonistica: kylindein in Pind. Nem. , v.  e Nonn. Dionys. , vv. ; ’, Nikephoros : –. () ‘“Intrecciare” i metri-ritmi: tradizione di una metafora da Laso di Ermione (test.  Brussich) a Marziano Capella (De Nupt. . )’, in Studi di filologia e tradizione greca in memoria di Aristide Colonna, vol. , eds. F. Benedetti and S. Grandolini. Perugia. –. Loscalzo D. () La parola inestinguibile: Studi sull’epinicio pindarico. Rome. Lowe, N. J. () The Classical Plot and the Invention of Western Narrative. Cambridge. () ‘Epinikian eidography’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.): –. Lowrie, M. () ‘A parade of lyric predecessors: Horace C. .–’, Phoenix : –. () Horace’s Narrative Odes. Oxford. Lundahl, K. O. () Les banquets chez Pindare. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg. Luraghi, N. () Tirannidi arcaiche in Sicilia e Magna Grecia. Florence. ed. () The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Oxford. Lyne, R. O. A. M. () Words and the Poet: Characteristic Techniques of Style in Vergil’s Aeneid. Oxford. () ‘Structure and allusion in Horace’s Book of Epodes’, JRS : –. Ma, J. () Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford. Mackie, C. J. (ed.) () Oral Performance and Its Context. Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. Maehler, H. () Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im fr¨uhen Griechentum bis zur Zeit Pindars. Hypomnemata . G¨ottingen. ( and ) Die Lieder des Bakchylides. In two parts: i Die Siegeslieder (i. Introduction, Critical Edition and Translation; i., Commentary); ii Die Dithyramben und Fragmente. Mnemosyne Suppls.  (: i.–) and  (: ii). Leiden. (ed.) ( [= ]) Pindarus. Pars ii. Fragmenta–Indices. Leipzig. (ed.) ( ) Bacchylidis Carmina cum Fragmentis. Munich. Maingon, A. D. () ‘Epic convention in Stesichorus’ Geryoneis: SLG S’, Phoenix : –. Mann, C. () ‘Der Dichter und sein Auftraggeber: Die Epinikien Bakchylides’ und Pindars als Tr¨ager von Ideologien’, in Bagordo and Zimmermann (eds.): –. () Athlet und Polis im archaischen und fr¨uhklassischen Griechenland. Hypomnemata . G¨ottingen. Marcad´e, J. and F. Croissant () ‘La sculpture en pierre’, Guide de Delphes: Le Mus´ee. Paris. March, J. R. () The Creative Poet: Studies on the Treatment of Myths in Greek Poetry. BICS Suppl. . London.

Bibliography



Marchant, E. C. (ed.) () Xenophontis opera omnia, vol. , nd edn (repr. ). Oxford. Marinis, A. () Mortals and the divine in Pindar: a study in religious mentality and epinician poetics. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. (unpublished) Reassessing religious Panhellenism: the paradigm of Pindaric invocations. Martin, R. () The Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad. Ithaca, N.Y. (). ‘Telemachus and the last hero song’, Colby Quarterly : –. () ‘Home is the hero: deixis and semantics in Pindar Pythian ’, Arethusa : –. Maslen, R. W. (ed.) ( ) Sir Philip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry. Manchester. Massimilla, G. (ed.) () Callimaco, ‘Aitia’: libro primo e secondo. Pisa. McLaughlin, K. () Challenge and interaction: metaphor and related phenomena in the Iliad and Odyssey. DPhil dissertation, University of Oxford. Medda, E. () ‘ e 9 ) ) A& )$: Prosperit`a e limitatezza umana in una gnome pindarica (Pyth. iii  ss.)’, in Scritti in ricordo di Giorgio Buratti. Pisa: –. Meier, C. () Politik und Anmut. Berlin. Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis (eds.) ( ) Greek Historical Inscriptions. Oxford. Middleton, P. () ‘How to read a reading of a written poem’, Oral Tradition (): –. Miller, A. M. () ‘N., - and the defense of digressive leisure’, CJ: –. () ‘Pindaric mimesis: the associative mode’, CJ: –. Minchin, E. () Homer and the Resources of Memory: Some Applications of Cognitive Theory to the Iliad and the Odyssey. Oxford. Mitchell, B. () ‘Cyrene and Persia’, JHS : –. () ‘Cyrene, typical or atypical’, in Brock and Hodkinson (eds.): –. Molyneux, J. H. () Simonides: A Historical Study. Wauconda, Ill. Montanari, F. (ed.) () La philologie grecque. Entretiens Hardt . Vandoeuvres–Geneva. Moretti, L. () Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Studi Pubblicati dall’ Istituto Italiano per la storia antica . Rome. () Olympionikai: i vincitori degli antichi agoni olimpici. Rome. Morgan, C. () ‘Debating patronage: the cases of Argos and Corinth’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.): –. Morgan, C. H. () ‘Excavations at Corinth, -’, AJA : –. Morgan, K. A. () ‘Pindar the professional and the rhetoric of the  ’, CPh : –. Morrison, A. D. (a) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge. (b) Performances and Audiences in Pindar’s Sicilian Victory Odes. BICS Suppl. . London. Most, G. W. () The Measures of Praise: Structure and Function in Pindar’s Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes. Hypomnemata . G¨ottingen.



Bibliography

() ‘Epinician envies’, in Konstan and Rutter (eds.): –. Mullen, W. () Choreia: Pindar and Dance. Princeton, N.J. Murray, O. (a) ‘The affair of the Mysteries’, in Murray (ed.): –. (ed.) (b) Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford. Murray, P. and P. Wilson (eds.) () Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City. Oxford. Nagy, G. ( [repr.  ]) The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Baltimore, Md. () ‘A poet’s vision of his city’, in Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the Polis, eds. T. J. Figueira and G. Nagy. Baltimore, Md.: –. () Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Mary Flexner Lectures . Baltimore, Md. () ‘Genre and occasion,’ Metis : –. Napolitano, M. () ‘Note all’iporchema di Pratina (PMG  = TrGF I,  F )’, in Synaulia: cultura musicale in Grecia e contatti mediterranei, eds. A. C. Cassio, D. Musti and L. E. Rossi. Naples: –. Neer, R. T. () ‘Framing the gift: the politics of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi’, ClAnt : –. Negri, M. () Eustazio di Tessalonica: Introduzione al Commentario a Pindaro. Milan. () ‘L’oschophorikon di P. Oxy  B fr. . e la sua posizione nell’edizione di Pindaro’, ZPE : –. () Pindaro ad Alessandria: Le edizioni e gli editori. Antichit`a classica e cristiana . Brescia. () ‘Nuovi contributi esegetici al P.Oxy. xxvi  B fr.  col. i’, in Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologen-Kongress, Wien, 22–28. Juli 2001, ed. B. Palme. Vienna: –. Neumann-Hartmann, A. () Epinikien und ihr Auff¨uhrungsrahmen. Nikephoros Suppl. . Hildesheim. Newman, J. K. and F. S. Newman () Pindar’s Art: Its Tradition and Aims. Hildesheim. Nicholson, N. () ‘Pederastic poets and adult patrons in late Archaic lyric’, CW : –. () ‘Aristocratic victory memorials and the absent charioteer’, in Dougherty and Kurke (eds.): –. () Aristocracy and Athletics in Archaic and Classical Greece. Cambridge. Nilsson, M. P. () Griechische Feste von religi¨oser Bedeutung. Leipzig. Nisbet, R. and M. Hubbard () A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book ii. Oxford. Nisetich, F. J. () ‘Convention and occasion in Isthmian ’, CSCA : –. () Pindar’s Victory Songs. Baltimore, Md. () Pindar and Homer. Baltimore, Md. Norwood, G. () Pindar. Sather Classical Lectures . Berkeley, Calif. N¨unlist, R. () Poetologische Bildersprache in der fr¨uhgriechischen Dichtung. Beitr¨age zum Altertumskunde . Stuttgart.

Bibliography



Oakley, J. H. and R. H. Sinos () The Wedding in Ancient Athens. Madison, Wis. Obbink, D. () ‘The genre of Plataea: generic unity in the new Simonides’, in Boedeker and Sider (eds.): –. Obbink, D. and M. Depew (eds.) () Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, Mass. Odelberg, P. () Sacra Corinthia, Sicyonia, Phliasia. Uppsala. O’Donaghue, H. () Old Norse–Icelandic Literature: A Short Introduction. Oxford. Ohly, D. () Die Aegineten. Munich. Orwin, M. () ‘On the concept of ‘definitive text’ in Somali poetry’, Oral Tradition (): –. Osborne, R. () ‘Archaic and Classical Greek sculpture and the viewer’, in Word and Image in Ancient Greece, eds. N. K. Rutter and B. A. Sparkes. Edinburgh: –. O’Sullivan, P. () ‘Victory statue, victory song: Pindar’s agonistic poetics and its legacy’, in Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, eds. D. J. Phillips and D. Pritchard. Swansea: –. ¨ Otto, D. () Wendungen der Metapher: Zur Ubertragung in poetologischer, rhetorischer und erkenntnistheoretischer Hinsicht bei Aristoteles und Nietzsche. Munich. Page, D. L. (a) ‘Ibycus’ poem in honour of Polycrates’, Aegyptus : –. (b) ‘Simonidea’, JHS : –. () ‘Stesichorus: P.Oxy.  fr. ,  fr.,  fr.,’ PCPS : –. () Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge. Paige, D. (ed.) () The Letters of Ezra Pound, 1907–1941. New York. Papadopoulou, Z. and V. Pirenne Delforge () ‘Inventer et r´einventer l’aulos: autour de la XIIe Pythique de Pindare’, in Chanter les dieux: Musique et religion dans l’antiquit´e grecque et romaine, eds. P. Brul´e and Ch. Vendries. Rennes: –. Parker, L. P. E. () The Songs of Aristophanes. Oxford. Paterlini, M. () ‘Annotazioni in margine all’zK ’, Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale (Roma) : –. Patten, G. () Pindar’s Metaphors: A Study in Rhetoric and Meaning. Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, n.s. . Heidelberg. Pavese, C. O. () ‘Semantematica della poesia corale greca’, Belfagor : – . () L’Auriga di Mozia. Studia archaeologica . Rome. Pavlou, M. () ‘Metapoetics, poetic tradition, and praise in Pindar Olympian ’, Mnemosyne : –. () ‘Pindar Olympian : mapping Acragas on the periphery of the Earth’, CQ : –. Pelliccia, H. () ‘Two points about rhapsodes’, in Homer, The Bible, and Beyond, eds. M. Finkelberg and G. G. Stroumsa. Leiden: –. () ‘Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides’, in Budelmann (ed.): –.



Bibliography

Pelling, C. (a) Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies. London. (b) ‘Synkrisis in Plutarch’s Lives’, in Pelling, Plutarch and History. Swansea: –. () ‘Educating Croesus: talking and learning in Herodotus’ Lydian Logos’, ClAnt (): –. P´eron, J. () Les images maritimes de Pindare. Paris. Perron, L. du and N. Magriel () ‘Shellac, bakelite, vinyl, and paper: artifacts and representations of North Indian art music’, Oral Tradition (): –. Perusino, F. () Anonimo (Michele Psello?), La tragedia greca. Urbino. F. Perusino and M. Colantonio (eds.) () Dalla lirica corale alla poesia drammatica: forme e funzioni del canto corale nella tragedia e nella commedia greca. Pisa. Petrovic, A. () Kommentar zu den simonideischen Versinschriften. Leiden. Pfeiffer, R. () History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford. Pfeijffer, I. L. () ‘The date of Pindar’s Fifth Nemean and Bacchylides’ Thirteenth Ode’, CQ : –. (a) Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar. A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, and Pythian VIII. Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. (b) First Person Futures in Pindar. Hermes Monographs . Stuttgart. (c) ‘Bacchylides’ Homer, his Tragedy, and his Pindar’, in Pfeijffer and Slings (eds.): –. () ‘Pindar and Bacchylides’, in Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature, eds. I. J. F. de Jong, A. Bowie and R. N¨unlist. Leiden: –. Pfeijffer, I. L. and S. R. Slings (eds.) () One Hundred Years of Bacchylides, Proceedings of a colloquium held at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Amsterdam. Pfister, F. () Der Reliquienkult im Altertum ( Parts: citations refer to vol. i). Giessen. Pickard-Cambridge, A. () The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, nd edn revised by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis. Oxford. Pimentel, L. A. () Metaphoric Narration: Paranarrative Dimensions in A` la recherche du temps perdu. Toronto. Pinsent, J. () ‘Pindar’s Narrative Technique: Pythian  and Bacchylides ’, Liverpool Classical Monthly : –. Platnauer, M. () Aristophanes Peace. Oxford. Podlecki, A. J. () ‘Athens and Aegina’, Historia : –. Poliakoff, M. B. () Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence, and Culture. New Haven, Conn. Polinskaya, I. () ‘A new inscribed funerary monument from Aegina’, Hesperia : –. ´ Poltera, O. () Le langage de Simonide: Etude sur la tradition po´etique et son renouvellement. Sapheneia – Beitr¨age zur klassischen Philologie . Bern. () Simonides lyricus: Testimonia und fragmente. Schweizerische Beitr¨age zur Altertumswissenschaft . Basel.

Bibliography



Pontani, F. () Sguardi su Ulisse: la tradizione esegetica gceca all’ Odissea, Rome. Porter, J. () ‘Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the riddle of S’, CQ n.s. : –. Prauscello, L. () Singing Alexandria: Music between Practice and Textual Transmission. Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. () ‘ KR : the chthonia of Hermione and Kore’s lost epithet in Lasus fr.  PMG’, CQ n.s. (): –. (forthcoming). ‘Demeter and Dionysus in the sixth-century southern Argolid: Lasus of Hermione, the cult of Demeter Chthonia, and its dithyrambic roots’, in Song-Culture and Social Change: The Contexts of Dithyramb, eds. B. Kowalzig and P. Wilson. Oxford. Pretagostini, R. (ed.) () Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’et`a ellenistica: Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili ( vols.). Rome. Pritchett, W. K. () Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, part ii. Berkeley, Calif. Privitera, G. A. (). Laso di Ermione nella cultura ateniese e nella tradizione storiografica. Rome. () Pindaro: Le Isthmiche. Milan. () ‘Pindaro, Nem. iii, – e l’acqua di Egina’, QUCC n.s. : –. Pugliese Carratelli, G. () Tra Cadmo e Orfeo: Contributi alla storia civile e religiosa dei Greci d’Occidente. Bologna. Pulleyn, S. () Prayer in Greek Religion. Oxford. P¨utz, B. () The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes. T¨ubingen. (Revised nd edn: . Oxford.) Race, W. H. () ‘Pindaric Encomium and Isokrates’ Evagoras’, TAPhA : –. () Pindar ( vols.: i Olympian Odes – Pythian Odes; ii Nemean Odes – Isthmian Odes – Fragments). Loeb Classical Library  and . Cambridge, Mass. Rawles, R. () ‘Simonides and a new papyrus in Princeton’, ZPE : –. () ‘Simonides and Theocritus : intertextual readings’, MD : –. () ‘Eros and praise in early Greek lyric’, in Athanassaki and Bowie (eds.). (forthcoming a) Simonides and Simonidea: a study in poetic tradition. PhD dissertation, University of London. Reale, G. () Platone: Fedro. Milan. Recanati, F. () Literal Meaning. Cambridge. Reitzenstein, R. () Epigramm und Skolion. Giessen. Rengakos, A. () ‘Zu Bakchylides’ Erz¨ahltechnik’, in Bagordo and Zimmermann (eds.): –. Rennie, J. K. () ‘Cattle, conflict, and court-cases: the praise-poetry of Ila leadership’, Research in African Literatures (): –. Retter, A. () Das Prooimion von Pindars siebter olympischer Ode: Versuch einer integrierenden L¨osung von Bezugsproblemen. Innsbruck. Reynolds, L. D. and N. G. Wilson (eds.) () Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics. Oxford. Richardson, N. J. () The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford. Ricœur, P. () La m´etaphore vive. Paris.



Bibliography

Roberts, W. R. (ed.) ( ) Longinus on the Sublime. Cambridge. Rocconi, E. () ‘Harmoniai e teoria dei gene musicali nella Grecia antica’, Seminari Romani : –. Rose, H. J. () ‘Simonides and Glaukos’, CR : –. Rose, P. W. () Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece. Ithaca, N.Y. Rosenfeld, A. () La po´etique d’Emp´edocle: Cosmologie et m´etaphore. Bern: – . Rosenmeyer, P. A. () ‘Simonides’ Danae fragment reconsidered’, Arethusa : –. Rossi, L. E. () ‘I generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle letterature classiche’, BICS : –. Rothwell, K. S. () Nature, Culture, and the Origins of Greek Comedy: A Study of Animal Choruses. Cambridge. Rudberg, G. () ‘Zu Pindaros’ Religion’, Eranos : –. Rutherford, I. and J. Irvine () ‘The race in the Athenian oschophoria and an oschophoricon by Pindar’, ZPE : –. Rutherford, I. () ‘Odes and ends: closure in Greek lyric’, in Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, eds. D. Roberts and D. Fowler. Princeton, N.J.: –. () Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre. Oxford. Rutter, N. K. () The Greek Coinages of Southern Italy and Sicily. London. Sanders, G. D. R. () ‘The Sacred Spring: landscape and traditions’, in Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, eds. S. J. Friesen, D. N. Schowalter and J. C. Walters. Leiden: –. Schachter, A. (–) Cults of Boiotia. ( vols.: i Acheloos to Hera []; ii Herakles to Poseidon []; iii Potnia to Zeus []; iv Index of Inscriptions []) Bulletin of the Instititute of Classical Studies (London) Suppl. .–. Schade, G. () Stesichoros: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2359, 3876, 2619, 2803. Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. Schadewaldt, W. ( ) Der Aufbau des Pindarischen Epinikion (T¨ubingen) (reprint of id. [] Schriften der K¨onigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft. Geisteswissenschaftliche Kl. . Jahr, vol. ). Scheid, J. and J. Svenbro () Le m´etier de Zeus: Mythes du tissage et du tissu dans le monde gr´eco-romain (Paris) (= id. [] The Craft of Zeus: Myths of Weaving and Fabric, tr. C. Volk. Revealing Antiquity . Cambridge, Mass.). Schein, S. L. () ‘Unity and meaning in Pindar’s Sixth Pythian Ode’, Metis : –. Schmidt, D. () ‘An unusual victory list from Keos: IG xii, , and the dating of Bakchylides’, JHS : –. Schmitt Pantel, P. () ‘Sacrificial meal and symposion: two models of civic institutions in the archaic city?’, in Murray (ed.): –. () La cit´e au banquet: Histoire des repas publics dans les cit´es grecques. Collec´ tion de l’Ecole franc¸aise de Rome . Rome.

Bibliography



Schroeder, O. () Pindari carmina cum fragmentis selectis. Leipzig. () ‘Die Religion Pindars’, Neue Jahrb¨ucher f¨ur das klassische Altertum : –. Seaford, R. (–) ‘The ‘Hyporchema’ of Pratinas’, Maia –: –. () Euripides: Bacchae. Warminster. () Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy. Cambridge. Segal, C. P. () ‘God and man in Pindar’s First and Third Olympian Odes’, HSCP : –. () ‘Arrest and movement: Pindar’s Fifth Nemean’, Hermes : –. () ‘Bacchylides reconsidered: epithets and the dynamics of lyric narrative’, QUCC : –. Severyns, A. () Bacchylide: Essai biographique. Paris. Sevieri, R. () ‘Un canto sul far della sera: Autoreferenzialit`a e mimesi cultuale nella Pitica xi par Trasideo di Tebe’, Aevum Antiquum : –. (ed.) () Bacchilide: Epinici. Milan. Shapiro, K. () ‘Hymnon thesauros: Pindar’s Sixth Pythian Ode and the Treasury of the Siphnians at Delphi’, MH : –. Sichtermann, H. () Ganymed: Mythos und Gestalt in der antiken Kunst. Berlin. Sicking, C. M. J. () ‘Pindar’s First Olympian’, Mnemosyne : –. Sider, D. () ‘“As Is the Generation of Leaves” in Homer, Simonides, Horace, and Stobaeus’, in Boedeker and Sider (eds.): –. Siewert, P. () ‘Die wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der bronzeUrkunden aus Olympia, mit der Erstedition einer fr¨uhen TheorodokieVerleihung als Beispiel’, in Olympia 1875–2000: 125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen, ed. H. Kyrieleis. Berlin: –. Silk, M. S. () Interaction in Poetic Imagery: With Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry. Cambridge. () ‘LSJ and the problem of poetic archaism: from meanings to iconyms’, CQ : –. () ‘Greek literature’ [brief reviews], G&R : –. () Homer: The Iliad. Cambridge. () ‘Language, poetry and enactment’, Dialogos – Hellenic Studies Review (King’s College London) : –. () ‘Pindar’s poetry and the obligatory crux: Isthmian .–, text and interpretation’, TAPhA : –. () Aristophanes and the Definition of Comedy. Oxford. () ‘Pindar meets Plato: theory, language, value, and the Classics’, in Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory, and Classical Literature, ed. S. J. Harrison. Oxford: –. () ‘Metaphor and metonymy: Aristotle, Jakobson, Ricoeur, and others’, in Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions, ed. G. R. Boys-Stones. Oxford: –. () ‘Shakespeare and Greek tragedy: strange relationship’, in Shakespeare and the Classics, eds. C. Martindale and A. B. Taylor. Cambridge: –.



Bibliography

() ‘Pindar’s poetry as poetry: a literary commentary on Olympian ’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.): –. () ‘Lyric and lyrics: perspectives, ancient and modern’, in Budelmann (ed.): –. () ‘The language of Greek lyric poetry’, in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, ed. E. Bakker. Oxford: –. (forthcoming) Poetic Language in Theory and Practice. Oxford. Simpson, M. () ‘The chariot and the bow as metaphors for poetry in Pindar’s Odes’, TAPhA : –. Slater, W. J. (a) Lexicon to Pindar. Berlin. (b) ‘Futures in Pindar’, CQ : –. () ‘Pindar’s house’, GRBS : –. () ‘Simonides’ house’, Phoenix : –. () ‘Nemean One: The victor’s return in poetry and politics’, in Gerber (ed.): –. () ‘Pindar’s Pythian : Structure and purpose’, QUCC n.s. : –. Slatkin, L. () The Power of Thetis. Berkeley, Calif. Slings, S. R. (ed.) () The Poet’s I in Archaic Greek Lyric, Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Amsterdam. Smith, R. R. R. () ‘Late Roman philosopher portraits from Aphrodisias’, JRS : –. () ‘Pindar, athletes, and the early statue habit’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.): –. Snell, B. and H. Maehler. ( ) Pindarus, Pars i, Epinicia. Leipzig. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. () ‘The myth of the first temples at Delphi’, CQ : –. Stampolidis, N. C. and Y. Tassoulas () Eros: From Hesiod’s Theogony to Late Antiquity. Athens. Steen, G. () Understanding Metaphor in Literature. London. Stehle, E. () Performance and Gender in Ancient Greece: Non-Dramatic Poetry in Its Setting. Princeton, N.J. Steiner, A. () ‘Pottery and cult in Corinth: oil and water at the Sacred Spring’, Hesperia : –. Steiner, D. () The Crown of Song: Metaphor in Pindar. London. () ‘Pindar’s “oggetti parlanti”’, CPh : –. () ‘Moving images: fifth-century victory monuments and the athlete’s allure’, ClAnt : –. () Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought. Princeton, N.J. Steinhart, M. () ‘From ritual to narrative’, in Csapo and Miller (eds.): – . Stenger, J. () Poetische Argumentation: Die Funktion der Gnomik in den Epinikien des Bakchylides. Berlin. Stern, Jacob () ‘The imagery of Bacchylides’ Ode ’, GRBS : –. () ‘An essay on Bacchylidean criticism’, in Calder and Stern (eds.): –.

Bibliography



Stern, Josef () Metaphor in Context. Cambridge, Mass. () ‘Metaphor, literal, literalism’, Mind and Language : –. Stinton, T. C. W. () Euripides and the Judgement of Paris. London. Stucchi, S. () Architettura Cirenaica. Monografie di archeologia libica . Rome. Sutton, D. F. () Dithyrambographi Graeci. Hildesheim. Svenbro, J. () La parole et le marbre: Aux origines de la po´etique grecque. Lund. Swain, S. () ‘Plutarchean synkrisis’, Eranos : –. Swift, L. () The Hidden Chorus: Echoes of Genre in Tragic Lyric. Oxford. Theunissen, M. () Pindar: Menschenlos und Wende der Zeit. Munich. Thomas, R. () Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge. () Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge. () ‘Performance and written literature in Classical Greece’, Bulletin of SOAS (London) : –. () ‘Fame, memorial, and choral poetry: the origins of epinikian poetry – an historical study’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.): –. Thummer, E. () Die Religi¨osit¨at Pindars. Innsbruck. (–) Pindar: Die isthmischen Gedichte – Textkritisch herausgegeben, u¨ bersetzt und kommentiert, mit einer Analyse der pindarischen Epinikien ( vols.: i ¨ Analyse der pindarischen Epinikien, Text und Ubersetzung der isthmischen Gedichten []; ii Kommentar) []. Heidelberg. Tod, M. N. and A. J. B. Wace () Catalogue of the Sparta Museum. Oxford. Too, Y. L. () ‘ 89b b- c and poetic self-reference in Pindar’s Olympian .–’, Hermes : –. Townsend, E. D. (= Vermeule, E. D.) () Bacchylides and lyric style. PhD dissertation, Bryn Mawr College. Tredennick, H. and R. Waterfield () Xenophon: Conversations of Socrates. London. Turyn, A. ( ) Pindari carmina cum fragmentis. Cambridge, Mass. (nd edn Cracow []). Tzachou-Alexandri, O. (ed.) () Mind and Body: Athletic Contests in Ancient Greece. Athens. Ucciardello, G. () ‘P.Oxy xxxii : commentario a Pindaro o a Ibico?’ in Cannat`a Fera and D’Alessio (eds.): –. () ‘A single scribe in P. Oxy. iv  + P. Oxy. xxiii  + PSI inv.  (Choral Lyric: Simonides?)’, ZPE : –. Vail, L. and L. White () Power and the Praise Poem: Southern African Voices in History. Carter G. Woodson Institute Series in Black Studies. Charlottesville, Va. van Bremen, R. () ‘The entire house is full of crowns: Hellenistic Agones and the commemoration of victory’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.): –. van der Weiden, M. J. H. () The Dithyrambs of Pindar: Introduction, Text and Commentary. Amsterdam. van Groningen, B. A. () Pindare au banquet: Les fragments des scolies ´edit´es avec un commentaire critique et explicatif. Leiden.



Bibliography

() Theognis: Le premier livre, ´edit´e avec un commentaire. Amsterdam. van Hoorn, G. () Choes and Anthesteria. Leiden. Verdenius, W. J. () ‘Pindar’s fourteenth Olympian ode: a commentary’, Mnemosyne : –. () ‘Pindar’s eleventh Nemean ode: a commentary’, Illinois Classical Studies : –. () Commentaries on Pindar, vol. , Olympian Odes 3, 7, 12, 14. Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. () Commentaries on Pindar, vol. , Olympian Odes 1, 10, 11, Nemean 11, Isthmian 2. Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. Vetta, M. (ed.) () Poesia e simposio nella grecia antica. Rome. () ‘La “giovinezza giusta” di Trasibulo: Pind. Pyth. vi ’, QUCC : –. () Theognis: Elegiarum liber secundus. Rome. () ‘Convivialit`a pubblica e poesia per simposio in Grecia’, QUCC : – . Villarrubia, A. () ‘Los s´ımiles en la poes´ıa de Baqu´ılides’, Habis : –. von der M¨uhll, P. () ‘Weitere pindarische Notizen’, MH : –. von Sybel, L. () ‘Zu dem Kallinikos des Archilochos und den Pindarscholien’, Hermes : –. Wade-Gery, H. T. () ‘Jason of Pherae and Aleuas the Red’, JHS : –. Wallace, R. W. () ‘An early fifth-century Athenian revolution in aulos music’, HSCP : –. () ‘Damon of Oa: a music theorist ostracized?’, in Murray and Wilson (eds.): –. Wallach, L. (ed.) () The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan. Ithaca, N.Y. Wells, J. B. () Pindar’s Verbal Art: An Ethnographic Study of Epinician Style. Center for Hellenic Studies. Cambridge, Mass. Werth, P. () Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London. West, M. L. () ‘Stesichorus redivivus’, ZPE : –. () Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte . Berlin. () Greek Metre. Oxford. (a) Euripides: Orestes. London. (b) Introduction to Greek Metre. Oxford. (a) ‘Analecta musica’, ZPE : –. (b) Ancient Greek Music. Oxford. West, S., A. Heubeck and J. B. Hainsworth (eds.) () A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. , Introduction and Books i–viii. Oxford. Whitaker, R. () ‘Pindar and the Iimbongi : functions of praise’, in Oral Traditions and Innovation eds. E. Sienart, N. Bell and M. Lewis. Durban: –. () ‘Pindar und die s¨udafrikanischen Iimbongi-S¨anger: Zwei Traditionen von Preisdichtung’, in Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur, eds. W. Kullmann and J. Althoff. T¨ubingen: –.

Bibliography



() ‘Orality and literacy in the poetic traditions of archaic Greece and Southern Africa’, in Worthington (ed.): –. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von () Bakchylides. Berlin. () ‘Erkl¨arung pindarischer Gedichte’, Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (phil.-hist. Kl.). Berlin: –. () Griechische Verskunst. Berlin. () Pindaros. Berlin. Willcock, M. M. () ‘Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad’, CQ : –. () ‘Second reading of Pindar: the Fourth Nemean’, G&R ser. , : –. () Pindar: Victory Odes – Olympians 2, 7, 11; Nemean 4; Isthmians 3, 4, 7. Cambridge. Williams, C. K. () Pre-Roman cults in the area of the Forum of Ancient Corinth. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Williams, C. K. and P. Russell () ‘Corinth: excavations of ’, Hesperia : –. Wilson, N. G. () Scholars of Byzantium. London. Wilson, P. () The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia: The Chorus, the City and the Stage. Cambridge. () ‘The politics of dance: dithyrambic contest and social order in ancient Greece’, in Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, eds. D. J. Phillips and D. Pritchard. Swansea: –. () ‘Athenian strings’, in Music and the Muses: The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City, eds. P. Murray and P. Wilson. Oxford: – . Wittgenstein, L. () Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. London. Woodbury, L. () ‘Equinox at Akragas: Pindar, Ol. .-’, TAPhA : – . () ‘Pindar and the mercenary muse: Isthm. .-’, TAPhA : –. () ‘Ibycus and Polycrates’, Phoenix : –. Worthington, I. (ed.) () Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece. Leiden. W¨unsche, R. and F. Knauss () Lockender Lorbeer: Sport und Spiel in der Antike. Munich. Yatromanolakis, D. () ‘Ritual poetics in Archaic Lesbos: contextualizing genre in Sappho’, in Yatromanolakis and Roilos (eds.): –. Yatromanolakis, D. and P. Roilos (eds.) () Greek Ritual Poetics. Center for Hellenic Studies. Cambridge, Mass. Young, D. C. () ‘Pindaric criticism’, Minnesota Review : – (= id. [] in Calder and Stern (eds.): –). () Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of Pythian , Pythian , and Olympian . Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. () Isthmian : Myth and Exempla. Mnemosyne Suppl. . Leiden. () ‘Pindar Pythians  and : inscriptional &) and the “Poetic Epistle”’, HSCP : –.



Bibliography

Yunis, H. () ‘Writing for reading: Thucydides, Plato and the emergence of the critical reader’, in Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, ed. H. Yunis. Cambridge: –. Yvonneau, J. () ‘Une e´nigme pindarique: L’ouverture de la N´em´eenne v’, in Jouanna and Leclant (eds.): –. Zanghieri, T. () Studi su Bacchilide. Heidelberg. Zanker, P. () The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley, Calif. ¨ Zimmermann, B. () ‘Uberlegungen zum sogenannten Pratinasfragment’, MH : –. () Dithyrambos: Geschichte einer Gattung. Hypomnemata . G¨ottingen. Zunker, A. () Untersuchungen zur Aiakidensage auf Aigina. St Ottilien.

Index of Greek/technical terms

agalma,  n. agon, ,  n.,  n. agones,  aitia, ,  n.,  aition, , ,  n., –, , ,  n.,  andres,  n. aoidai,  n. archegetes,  n. arete, ,  auletike,  aulos, ,  n., –, ,  n.,  n., –, ,  n.

epinikos/epinikios,  epos, , ,  erastes,  eromenos,  eros, ,  n.,  erotika,  n. ethos,  n., ,  exarchon,  n. exemplum,  n., 

barbitos, , 

harmonia/harmoniai, , ,  n.,  n.,  n., ,  n. Hellenodikai,  hetairai,  n.,  hetairoi,  n. hic et nunc, , , –, ,  hierophanteia,  hiketes,  hippios nomos,  homilia,  hymnos/hymnoi,  n., ,  n., –,  n.,  hypomnema,  hyporchema/hyporchemata, , ,  n. hypothesis, 

choregia, ,  n. choregos,  n. choreia,  n., , ,  choreuein,  n.,  choreutai, ,  choroi/khoroi,  n., ,  n. choros, ,  n., ,  corpus, , , ,  n., ,  cymbala,  dais,  Daphnephoria,  daphnephorika,  daphnephorikon/Daphnephorikon, ,  n. daphnephoros,  deixis,  Deixis am Phantasma,  demonstratio ad oculos,  ekphrasis,  n. encomia, ,  n., ,  n. ephymnion,  n. enkomion/enkomia/Enkomia, – passim, , , , –, ,  n.

gnomai, , –,  gnome/gnomes, ,  n., , ,  n.

iamboi,  incipit,  n. inscriptio/ inscriptiones, ,  n., ,  n.,  kallinikos, hymnos, ,  n., ,  nn.–, –,  n. Kastoreion,  n., ,  n.,  katabasis, ,  n. keles, ,  n. kithara, , , , , , , ,  n.





Index of Greek/technical terms

kleos, ,  n., , ,  n.,  koinonia,  komoidia,  n. komos/komoi, , ,  n., , , ,  n., , –, – passim, ,  n.,  kordax,  kottabos, –,  krater,  kudos, ,  n.

polis, , –, , , , , , , ,  pompe,  n. praeteritio,  prokomion,  prooimion, ,  nn.–,  prosodion,  prothesis, ,  n. proxenos,  recusatio, 

laudandus, –,  n., –, , , , , –, –, , , , , , , , ,  n., ,  laudator,  n.,  n. megaloprepeia, – melos,  misthos,  mousike, , ,  n. muthos,  nomos, ,  nostos, ,  n. Nike,  fig.,  oikos, –,  oratio obliqua, ,  n.,  paraklausithyron,  partheneia,  n. partheneion/Partheneion,  parthenoi,  n. periodos,  persona loquens,  n., , ,  persona poetica,  phallika,  n. philia,  phorminx, ,  n.,  phthonos, ,  poikilia, 

skolion/skolia,  n., , ,  n., ,  n., ,  sophia, ,  stephanephoria,  sunetoi,  symposion, – passim, ,  n., –, , ,  n., ,  n.,  sympotes,  synkrisis, ,  n. tenella,  n. testimonia,  n., ,  n., ,  n.,  n.,  n. testimonium,  tetrakomos,  n. theoria, – theoros,  theoxenion/theoxenia, , , –,  fig.,  fig.,  topos,  n., ,  epinician topos,  erotic topos,  threnos,  tropos/tropoi,  n.,  n. tympana,  xenia, , ,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  n.,  xenos/xenoi, ,  n., 

Index of proper names

Acragas, ,  n., , ,  n., –,  nn.–, , , ,  n., , , , –, , –, ,  n., ,  Aegina, –, –, ,  n.,  n., –, , ,  n., , , –, , , , , –, , –, , , , , , , – Aeginetan/Aeginetans, –, , , , –, , , , ,  n., , ,  n., , –, ,  n., , –, , , – Aeoladai,  Aeschylus,  Aiakidai,  Alcaeus, , , ,  Alcibiades, ,  n., ,  n., , ,  Alcimedon of Aegina,  Alcimidas of Aegina, ,  n.,  Alcmaeon  Alcmaeonid/Alcmaeonids, ,  n. Alcman, , , ,  n., , ,  n. Alexander I of Macedon, , , ,  n. Alexander the Great, , ,  n., , ,  Alpheus, , – Amyntas,  Anacreon, , –,  nn.–, – Anaxilas of Rhegium, ,  fig. , – Antigenes,  Antilochus, , –,  Antipater of Thessalonica,  n. Apollonios Dyscolus,  Apollonius the Eidographus, ,  n. Apollonius Rhodius, ,  n. Arcesilas/Arkesilaos IV of Cyrene, , , –, ,  n., , –, ,  n. Arion of Methymna, ,  n. Aristagoras of Tenedos,  n.,  Aristarchus,  n., , ,  n.

Archilochus, ,  n., , ,  n., –,  nn.–, , ,  Aristodemus of Thebes,  Aristomenes of Aegina , , ,  n.,  Aristophanes, , ,  n., , , , , , ,  n., ,  n.,  Aristophanes of Byzantium, ,  n.,  Aristotle, –, –, , ,  n.,  Aristoxenus of Tarentum, , , ,  Asopids,  Asopus, , ,  Athenaeus, , –,  Athens, , , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., –, , ,  n., –, –, , , , – Autolycus, ,  n., ,  n. Automedes of Phlius, –,  Automedon,  Bassidai,  Battiads of Cyrene, –,  Battus of Cyrene, , – Battus Way, – Bacchylides, – passim, ,  n., , ,  n.,  n., ,  n., , , , , , –, –, –, –,  n., , ,  n., ,  n., –, –, –, ,  n., , –, , , , , – passim, –,  n., ,  n., , , , , , , , , – passim,  Brasidas,  Bundy, Elroy, , , , , , , , , – Callias, ,  n., , , ,  n.,  n. Callimachus, –, ,  n.,  n., , , ,  n. Camarina, , ,  n., –





Index of proper names

Ceos,  n.,  n.,  n., ,  n., , , , ,  Chamaeleon,  n.,  n.,  n. Catullus, ,  n. Chromius, –,  n., ,  n., –, , , , – Cingano, Ettore, , –, – Cleomenes I,  Corinth,  n., , , ,  nn.–, , , , ,  n. Corinthian/Corinthians, , ,  Critias,  n.,  Croesus,  n., ,  Cyrene, –, , –, ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , –, , –,  n.,  Cyrenean/Cyreneans, , ,  Damon, ,  n.,  n. Damophilus, ,  n. Deinomenes,  Deinomenid/Deinomenids of Syracuse, –,  n.,  n., ,  Deinomenidai,  n. Delphi, , , , , –, , ,  fig. ,  fig. ,  figs. –,  figs. –,  fig. , –, ,  n., , ,  n., , , , , , ,  Delphic, ,  n.,  n., , , , , , ,  Demosthenes, , , ,  n. Diagoras of Rhodes, –,  Didymus, –,  Dio Chrysostom,  Diodorus Siculus, ,  Diogenianus, ,  n. Diomedes,  n., ,  n.,  Dionysiac, ,  n., , ,  n. Dionysius I, ,  Dionysius of Phaselis, ,  n. Dionysos,  n. Dionysus, ,  nn.–, ,  n. Dioscuri,  n., –, , , –,  fig. ,  Dorieus, –, – Emmenids of Acragas, , ,  n., –,  n., , –,  Eratidai of Rhodes,  Eratosthenes,  n.,  n.,  n.,  Eretria, ,  Euboea, – Euripides, ,  n., ,  n., , ,  n., , , ,  n., , ,  Ergoteles of Himera,  n., , 

Gelon of Syracuse, ,  n.,  n. Gentili, Bruno, , , ,  Glaucus,  n.,  Glaucus of Carystus, , – Hagesias of Syracuse, ,  n., , , , ,  n., –,  n., – Halicarnassus,  Hellotia, , ,  nn.–, – Heracleidai,  Heraclides Ponticus, ,  n.,  n.,  n.,  n. Heraclitus of Tarentum, ,  Herodotus, ,  n., , , –,  n. Herodotus of Thebes,  n., ,  Hesiod, , , –, ,  Hieron of Syracuse,  n., , , , –, –, , ,  n., –, – passim, ,  n., , , , , –, ,  n., ,  n., , , , –, –, –,  n., , –, –, ,  n. Hieron I,  Himera, , ,  n., , , ,  n. Hipparchus,  Homer,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , , , , –, –,  n., , – passim,  n., , – Homeric, ,  n.,  n.,  n., , , , –, ,  n., , , , ,  n., – passim, ,  n.,  Homerism,  Horace, , ,  n., ,  n., –,  n. Iamids, , , ,  n., – Ibycus, – passim, , –, , , , ,  Iolaea,  n. Ion of Chios,  n.,  Ionia,  n.,  Ionians, ,  n. Irigoin, Jean,  Isocrates, ,  Isthmus, , , , , ,  Kurke, Leslie, , , –, , , , ,  Labdacids,  Lachon, of Ceos, ,  Lampon, –, , ,  Lasus of Hermione, – passim Libya, –, –

Index of proper names Lobel, Edgar, –, –, , –, –, –, – Locri Italian/Epizephyrian,  n., –,  Macedon, ,  n., , –,  Magna Graecia,  Massimilla, Giulio, , ,  Megacles of Athens, , ,  n.,  Megara, –,  n., ,  nn.–, , ,  Messene, ,  Metapontium, ,  Miletus, ,  n. Nemea, , , –,  n., ,  Nicagoras of Rhodian Lindos, ,  n. Nicasippus,  Odysseus,  n., –, ,  n., ,  n., ,  n. Oligaethids of Corinth,  Olympia, , , , , , ,  n., , ,  n.,  n., , , –,  n., –,  n., , , –, – Orchomenos, ,  Pausanias, , , , , , ,  n., , ,  Peloponnese, , , –, ,  Pfeijffer, Ilja Leonard, –, , , ,  Pherenicus,  n.,  n.,  Philip II of Macedon, ,  n., –, – Philostratus, ,  n. Philoxenus of Cythera, , , , ,  n. Pindar, passim; see also victory ode, epinician genre, performance in General index and Alexandrian edition,  n. and descriptions of athletic contests, –, – and patronage, see patron/patrons in General index and payment, – and poetic persona,  n.,  Pisistratids,  Plataea, , ,  Plato, , –, ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , ,  n., , , , , ,  Polycrates of Samos, , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n. Poseidon, , , , –, –, –, , , –, ,  nn.– Poseidon Hippius, 



Posidippus, , , – New Posidippus,  n. Pratinas of Phlius, ,  n., , ,  nn.–, ,  nn.–,  Pytheas of Aegina, –,  n., , ,  n., , , –, –, , , –, ,  Psaumis of Camarina, ,  n., ,  nn.– Rhegium, , –, – Rhodes,  n.,  n., , , –,  Sacadas of Argos, ,  n., ,  n. Samos,  Sappho, –, ,  New Sappho,  n. Sicily, –, ,  n., ,  n., –, , , –, ,  Sicyon, , , , ,  n., ,  Solon, ,  n. Simonides, – passim, , ,  n.,  n.,  n., ,  n., , , ,  n., , , ,  n., ,  n., , , , , ,  n.,  n., –,  n. Sophocles, , ,  n., – Sparta,  n., , , ,  n., –, , –,  Spartans, ,  n., , , , –, , , ,  n. Stesichorus, ,  nn.–, ,  n.,  n., ,  n.,  n., ,  n., – Syracuse,  n., –, , , ,  n., , –, , –,  n., ,  n.,  n., ,  n., , –, , , , –, ,  n., –,  n., , –,  n., –, , , , , ,  Tarentum, – Telesicrates of Cyrene,  n., ,  n., ,  Telestes of Selinous, ,  n., –, ,  n. Teos,  Thebans, ,  n.,  n., ,  n., , –, , , , , ,  n., , ,  n., ,  Thebes,  n., –,  n., , –,  n., , , , , , , , , –, , ,  Theocritus, ,  Theognis, , , , – Theoxenus of Tenedos, ,  n. Thera, 



Index of proper names

Theron of Acragas, , –,  n., –, , –, , ,  nn.–, , –, ,  n., , ,  Thersander,  Thessaly, , , ,  Thrasybulus, –, ,  n., , , – passim, ,  n., –,  Thrasydaeus, of Thebes, ,  n.,  Thucydides, , –, , ,  n. Thurii, ,  Timasarchus of Aegina, , ,  Timotheus of Miletus, ,  n., , ,  nn.–

Wilamowitz -Moellendorff, Ulrich von, , , , , –, , , ,  Xenarces of Aegina, ,  Xenocrates of Acragas, , , ,  n., , , , , ,  n. Xenocritus of Locri,  n., ,  n.,  Xenophanes,  n. Xenophon,  n., ,  n., ,  Xenophon of Corinth, ,  n., , , , ,  n.

General index

Alexandrian edition,  n. editors,  n., ,  scholars, ,  scholarship, ,  Alexandrians, ,  allusion,  n., , –, ,  n.,  n., , , ,  n., –,  n., , , ,  n., ,  n., –,  n., , , –, –,  n., –, –, ,  n., –, ,  nn.–,  n., , –, ,  n.,  allusiveness, , –, , –, , ,  n. anecdote, –,  n., , , , , , , , ,  nn.– archaic lyric, , ,  archaic poetry,  n., ,  n. aristocracy, –,  n.,  n. aristocrat/aristocrats, , , , ,  aristocratic, –, , , , , , , , –, – competition,  education,  n. ideology,  patrons, – society,  symposium,  athlete/athletes, , , ,  n., , ,  n.,  n., , , , , , , , –, , , –,  pentathlete,  n., , , – athletic, , , , , , , , ,  n., , , , , , –, – commemoration,  competition, , , , , ,  contest, , , , , ,  festival,  n. history,  incription,  n.

metaphor,  occasion,  patrons  n. performance, ,  victor, , , , , , ,  victory, ,  n., , ,  nn.–, –, , , , , –, , , , , , ,  athletics, , , , ,  n.,  audience, , , , , , , , , , – passim, , , , , , , –, , , –, – passim, , –, –, , –, –, , –, ,  Greek, , ,  listening,  literary,  original, , , ,  overlapping, , ,  primary, , , , ,  secondary, , , , –, ,  tertiary, , , , –,  wider,  authorship,  autocrat/autocrats, , ,  banquet, , , –, , –, , , , , ,  biographical criticism,  data,  fallacy,  inference,  n. interpretation,  n. reading , ,  reference,  tradition,  biography, ,  n. autobiography,  break-off, , , –, ,  n., , –, 





General index

celebration,  n., , ,  n., , , , –, , , , , –, , –, , –, –, –,  n., , , , , , –, , , , –, , , , , ,  collective,  cultic, ,  epigraphic,  original, ,  past,  wider, ,  charioteer,  n., , ,  n., ,  poet–charioteer,  choral, ,  n.,  n.,  n., , , , , , , , ,  n., , , , –, , ,  n., , , ,  n., , , , –, ,  n., , , –,  n., , ,  lyric,  n., –, ,  n.,  n., , , –, ,  n.,  music,  performance,  n., , , , , , , , , , , , ,  n., ,  n.,  poetry, , , , ,  song, , –, ,  voice, , ,  chorality, ,  n.,  n. chorus/choruses, ,  n., , ,  n., , , , , ,  n., ,  n.,  n., ,  n., , , , , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , , , , –, , , ,  amateur,  maiden,  theoric,  tragic,  n. circulation, , ,  civic, , , ,  community, ,  elite,  festivals, see festival/festivals identity,  classification, , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n.,  n., ,  n.,  collective celebration, see celebration comedy, ,  n., ,  n., , ,  n.,  n.,  n. comic,  n.,  n. poet,  commemoration, , ,  n.,  commission,  n., , , , , , , ,  n., 

commissioning, , , , , , , ,  communal, , , ,  poetry,  community/communities, , , , , , , , , , , , –, , ,  n., – competition, –, , –, , ,  aristocratic,  auletic,  funerary,  Isthmian,  Nemean,  oratorical,  composition, ,  n.,  n., , , , , ,  n.,  n., ,  n.,  n.,  n.,  n., , , ,  n., , ,  n., , –, , , , –, –,  n., , , , , , ,  contest, , –, –, , , , , , , , , –, –, , , ,  boxing, , , , , ,  chariot race, , , , , , – foot race, , , – mule-cart race, , ,  pankration, , , , –, , , – pentathlon, ,  running race, ,  stadion,  wrestling, , –, , , , , ,  context/contexts,  n.,  n., , , , , , ,  n., –,  n., , , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , , –,  n., ,  n., , , –, –, , , , ,  n.,  n.,  n., , , –, –, –, –, , –, –, –, –,  n., , , , , ,  n., –, , –, ,  n.,  agonistic,  n. cultic, , ,  Delphic,  descriptive, –, ,  Dionysiac,  festival, ,  historical, ,  mythological,  performative,  public,  n. re-performance,  social, ,  contextualisation, ,  n.,  n. cult, , , ,  n., , – passim, , , , –,  n., , 

General index cultic celebration, see celebration culture, –, –, , –, , , –, –, , ,  dance, , ,  n., –,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , ,  n., –, , , , , , , ,  n. dancing, ,  n., –, , , , ,  diffusion, , , , ,  direct speech, see speech dithyramb, see genre, dithyramb dithyrambic, ,  n., ,  composition, ,  contest,  n. context, ,  music,  n.,  narrative style,  (non)-dithyrambic poetry, ,  (non)-dithyrambic rhythm,  style,  victory,  drama, , ,  n. economy, ,  elegiac,  n., ,  elegy, , ,  Plataea Elegy,  elite, – passim, ,  elites, ,  n. enactment, ,  n., , –, ,  n., , , ,  encomiastic, ,  n.,  n., , , , , ,  n., –, ,  n.,  nature,  poetry,  n.,  practice,  tradition,  n. voice,  writing,  n.,  encomium, , ,  n., ,  n.,  engagement, , –, , , , , – envy, , , , , , ,  epic, , , , ,  n., ,  n.,  nn.–, –, – Cyclic,  Homeric, ,  narrative,  poetry,  n. simile, – song,  style, , , ,  n., , , – epigram/epigrams, ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., –



epigraphic celebration, see celebration epinician passim; see also victory ode celebration, ,  chorus,  context, ,  epinicians, , ,  n., – genre,  n., , , , ,  poet, , , , , , ,  n. poetics,  poetry, –, ,  n.,  n., , –, , ,  n., ,  n., –, , , –, , , , , , , , ,  ritual,  n. song, , , , , , , , , , ,  n.,  style, –,  voice,  n. equestrian, contest, , , , , , ,  epigram,  n. festival,  n. iconography,  victor,  victory, ,  n., , , , –,  n., – erotic,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., –, ,  n., , ,  n., ,  nn.–,  encomium, ,  n. song,  n. eroticisation, –,  eroticism,  eulogy, , ,  evolution,  n.,  expenditure, ,  experimentation, –,  fame, , , , , , , , , , , –, , ,  feast/feasts, , , , ,  n., –, ,  n., , – fee, , , , , ,  festival/festivals, ,  n., –,  n., –, , , ,  n., ,  n., , –, –,  n., , , –, , ,  Carneia, , –,  City Dionysia,  civic, , ,  n. Dorian,  Great Dionysia, ,  Nemea,  Olympia,  Olympic, 



General index

festival/festivals (cont.) Oschophoria, , – Theoxenia, ,  first person, , , , , –,  nn.–,  n.,  speaker,  voice, ,  n. frieze/friezes, , ,  figs. –,  figs. –, ,  fig. ,  n., ,  n.,  fig. ,  nn.–,  games, , , –, , –, , , , –, , , ,  n., –, , , –, , –, , , –, – crown games, , , ,  Delphic,  Isthmian, ,  n., ,  n., , ,  Nemean,  n., , , , , , , ,  Olympic, , , , , , , ,  n.,  n., , , ,  Panhellenic, , , ,  Pythian, ,  n., , , , ,  genre, ,  n.,  n., ,  n., –, , , , ,  n.,  n., , , –, , , , –, –, –, –, – passim, , –, , , , –, , , –, –,  n., , –,  n., , , ,  dirges,  dithyramb, ,  n., ,  n.,  n.,  n., ,  n., , , ,  n., ,  nn.–, ,  n., ,  n., –, ,  n., , , ,  n., , ,  nn.–, ,  n., ,  n., , –, ; New Dithyramb,  n., –,  n. epinician, see epinician and victory ode hymn/hymns,  n., ,  n.,  n., , ,  n.,  n., , , ,  n., , –,  n., , ,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  hyporcheme/hyporchemes,  n., , , ,  n. maiden song, ,  oschophorikon, , – paean,  n.,  n., ,  n.,  n.,  n., ,  n., , , , ,  n., , ,  n., ,  n.,  nn.–, ,  n., , , , – partheneia, ,  n.,  n.,  prosodia, , , , 

gift/gifts, , –, , , , –, ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  gift-exchange, , ,  gift-giving,  guest–friends,  harmony, , , ,  Aeolian,  n. Dorian,  n. Hypodorian,  n. Ionian,  n.,  Lydian, ,  n., ,  n.,  Phrygian, ,  n. Hellenistic poetry, ,  n. here and now, , ,  history,  n., , , , , , –, , ,  athletic history, see athletic of epinician, ,  n., , ,  n.,  inscribed epinician poetry,  literary,  music, ,  n., –, ,  political, see political prehistory of epinician, ,  social,  Homeric epic, see epic homoerotic, , ,  n. honorand, , , , –,  n. horse race, , –,  victory,  hospitality, –, ,  n., , , ,  n., , ,  hymn/hymns, see genre, hymn/hymns hyporcheme/hyporchemes, see genre, hyporcheme/hyporchemes ‘I ’,  n., ,  lyric,  poetic, ,  self-referential, – signing, ,  speaking, , , , , – speaking/singing or narrating,  identity,  n., , , , , , , , , ,  n.,  ideology/ideologies, ,  n.,  n., ,  imagery, , , ,  n., , –,  n., –,  n., –, , , , , ,  n., ,  n., –,  n. individualisation, – innovation, –, , –,  n.,  n.

General index inscription/inscriptions,  n.,  n., , ,  n., –, –, , ,  n.,  fig. ,  n. athletic, see athletic inscription Eretrian,  Fasti,  n. Hegelochos,  Hellenistic,  Mnesiepes,  n. Sikyonian,  n. verse-inscription,  integration,  n., , , –,  intertextual allusion,  n. combination,  n. link, ,  n., ,  n. pattern,  n. reading,  relationship,  intertextuality,  n., ,  n., , ,  n.,  n.,  n.,  komast/komasts, –,  n., –,  n., – komastic,  n., , , – passim celebration,  context,  ritual, ,  song, , ,  style,  language, –, , , , –, , , , –, , ,  n., ,  n., –,  n., –, ,  n., , , –, , , –,  n., , , , –, , , ,  n., , , ,  n., , –,  n., –, , – laudatory,  n.,  local, , , –, , , , , , , , , , –, , , , ,  n., , ,  nn.–, ,  n., ,  n. competition, ,  tradition,  localisation, ,  n. lyric, ,  n.,  n., –, ,  n.,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  genre,  n., ,  n. ‘I’, see ‘I’, lyric narrative, ,  n.,  n., ,  n.,  poem, 



poet,  n., , ,  poetry, , ,  n. public,  style, ,  text,  tragic lyric,  tradition, ,  voice,  n. maiden song, see genre, maiden song manuscript/manuscripts, – passim, , ,  tradition, , ,  n. melic, , ,  n., , ,  n., –,  poet, –, ,  n. poetry, ,  n., – song, ,  melody,  n., , , ,  mercenary, , ,  metaphor,  n., –,  n., ,  n., , , , –,  n.,  n., , , , , , , ,  n., –, – passim,  n., , ,  n., ,  n., ,  metapoetic, ,  n.,  metre, , , –, , –, , –, , , ,  aeolic, ,  n., ,  n., –, , , , , –,  n. aeolo-choriambic,  anapaest,  dactylic, ,  dactylic hexameters,  dactyloepitrite, ,  n., –, –, , ,  n., , , ,  n., –, ,  dactylo-trochaic, ,  elegiac, , ,  hemiepes,  hexameter, , ,  iambic,  n., , , , , ,  iambic–aeolic, ,  tetrameter,  mimesis,  n., –, –, ,  n., ,  n.,  n., ,  n., , , ,  n. money, –, , –,  n., – monodic,  n.,  lyric,  (re-)performance,  n., ,  n. song,  monody,  monument,  n., , – passim, ,  n., 



General index

Muse/Muses, , , ,  n., , , ,  n., –, ,  n., , , , –, , , ,  n., ,  n., , , –, –, , –, , ,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  n.,  n.,  n.,  music, – passim, ,  n., –, , , ,  New Music, ,  n., ,  n., , , ,  n., –,  n. musical, , , – passim, ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , , , , , , , , , ,  musical instrument/instruments,  n., –, , ,  n., –, , ; see also Index of Greek/technical terms lyre, ,  n., , ,  n., , ,  n., ,  n., –, ,  n., ,  nn.–, ,  pipes, ,  n., ,  musical mode, , –,  n., , –,  Aeolian, – passim Dorian, , –,  n.,  n., , –,  Hypodorian, ,  n.,  n., ,  n. Hypophrygian, ,  n.,  n. Ionian, , –, ,  n., ,  Lydian, , , –, ,  n., – Mixolydian, ,  Phrygian, , ,  n., ,  n., ,  musical tune, , ,  n.,  n.,  Aeolian,  n. Dorian,  n. Doric,  n.,  Lydian,  n.,  n.,  Phrygian,  n.,  n. musicality,  musician/musicians,  n., ,  myth,  n., , , ,  n., –, , ,  n.,  n., , , , , –, , –,  n., , –, –,  n., –, , , , –, , , –, , , – passim mythic,  n., , ,  narrative, , , ,  paradigm, ,  past, ,  section,  mythical, ,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  n., , –, , , , –, , , , –, – passim allusion,  character,  n.

episode,  hero,  material,  monument,  musician,  n. narrative, , , ,  n., , , –, , , , ,  paradigm,  past,  tradition,  mythological, , – passim aetiology,  exemplum,  narrative, , ,  scene,  mythology, ,  mythopoetic,  novelty,  n.,  n., , ,  n., ,  occasion/occasions, , –, , , , , , , –, , , ,  n., –, –, ,  n., , , ,  n., –,  n., –, , –, –,  n., –, , , –, , , , –, , , , –, ,  n., , , –, , , , ,  n.,  primary,  n.,  secondary,  n. oral, , , , ,  cultures,  performance,  n.,  poetry, ,  n., , , ,  song culture,  subterfuge,  text, ,  orality,  oschophorikon, see genre, oschophorikon paean, see genre, paean panegyrist,  n., , , ,  n. Panhellenic,  n., , ,  competition,  festival, ,  games, , , , ,  poet,  sanctuary,  song,  song-form,  status,  n. victory,  partheneia, see genre, partheneia

General index patron/patrons, , – passim, –, ,  n., , , , , ,  n., , –, –, , , ,  n.,  n., – patronage,  payment, , – pederasty,  n., , ,  performance, , –, –, –, , –, , , , , , , , , , ,  original, , , ,  premiere, , , , , , , , , , ,  ritual, –, ,  performance-context,  n., , , , ,  n., –,  n., , ,  n. performance literature, , – re-performance, ,  n., –, , – passim, ,  n., – passim, ,  n., , , ,  n., –,  n., , ,  n., ,  n. performer/performers, , , –, , , , , ,  n., , , , , , , –, ,  persona,  n.,  n.,  n.,  poet, passim iambic,  poet–composer,  poet–speaker, ,  poetic achievement,  activity, , , ,  agenda,  allusion,  celebration,  commission, ,  competition,  composition, ,  n.,  context,  n. discourse,  n. form,  genre, , ,  inspiration, , ,  n.,  language, , ,  memory,  metaphor, ,  mimesis,  occasion,  performance, , , ,  persona,  n.,  production, , ,  rhetoric,  skill, ,  speaker,  strategy,  n.



status,  n. talent,  n. text, , , ,  tradition, ,  n., ,  voice, , , , , ,  word, ,  poetics, , , , , , , ,  n.,  politics, , , , , , , , , , ,  n., ,  n., , ,  n., , ,  n., , , ,  context, , , , ,  history,  polyphony,  n.,  praise, , ,  n., ,  n., –, , –, –, ,  n., , –, –,  n.,  n., , , , ,  n., , –, –, , , ,  n.,  n., , , , –, , , , , , , , –, , , ,  n., – poem,  n., ,  n. poet,  n. singer, ,  song,  n., , , ,  n.,  n., , ,  traditions, , ,  praise-poetry, , –, , ,  n., , –, –, –,  n., , , , ,  private poetry,  procession, , , ,  n., , –,  n., –, , , –, , ,  n., , – professionalisation, – professionalism,  n., , ,  propaganda,  prosodia, see genre, prosodia public poetry, ,  readers, , , , , ,  n.,  n., , , , , , , , , , ,  reception, ,  n., , ,  n., , ,  n., , , , –, , , ,  n. remuneration, ,  n., –, ,  n. revelry, ,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n. rhapsode, –,  rhythm/rhythms, – passim,  ritual,  n., , , , –, , , , ,  athletics,  n.



General index

ritual (cont.) celebration,  connotation,  cry,  cultic ritual,  enactment,  frame,  game,  hospitality,  memory,  n. occasion, ,  process,  procession, , – protocol,  song, ,  song–dance,  taboo,  sanctuary/sanctuaries, , ,  n., , , , , , ,  n.,  n., ,  satyr-drama,  n.,  n. scale (musical), ,  n.,  n. scholia, ,  n., ,  n., ,  n.,  n.,  n., –,  n., ,  n., , –, –,  n., , , , , , –, , –, , –,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , ,  n.,  scholiast/scholiasts, , –, ,  n., ,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  n.,  n., ,  n., , ,  n. sculpture/sculptures, – passim, , ,  n. simile, , , –, ,  n., , , , ,  n., – passim,  epic, see epic singer, , ,  n., , , , –, , , , –, ,  n., , –,  n., ,  singing, , –, ,  nn.–, –, ,  n., , , –,  nn.–, –, , –, –, –, , , , –,  solo,  n.,  n., , ,  n., –, , , , ,  n., ,  n. song, – passim cultic, ,  culture, , , – Dorian,  drinking, ,  hymn-song,  n. maiden, see genre, maiden song new, –, , –,  n.

processional, ,  n.,  n.,  n., – ritual, see ritual sacred,  song-act, ,  n. song–dance, , ,  n., , , –, , ,  tradition,  wedding,  sound, , , , –, ,  speaker, , , , , , ,  n., –, –, –, , –, , , , ,  n., , , , , , , ,  authorial,  epinician,  n. speech, , , , ,  n., , ,  n., , , , , –, –, –, –, – speech-act,  n.,  n., ,  spontaneity, –,  n., , , ,  n., –,  sport, , , –,  nn.–, ,  n. reportage,  writing, ,  n. style, , , , , ,  n., , , ,  allusive, – of Archilochus,  Bacchylidean, ,  collaborative style of communication,  of composition, ,  n. dense style of Thucydides,  early epinician,  enigmatic,  Euripides, late lyric style of,  Homeric, ,  Lasus, innovative style of,  lyric, see lyric musical,  n.,  narrative, ,  n. of New Music,  oppositional,  Pindar, high style of,  rhythmic,  singing,  Stesichorean,  symbolic capital, ,  symposiarch,  symposiast, , – symposion, see Index of Greek/technical terms symposium/symposia,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n.,  n., , , , –,  n., , , , –,  n., –,  n., , , 

General index sympotic,  n.,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., –,  n., –, ,  nn.–, ,  n., –,  n., –, , , –, , ,  audience,  n. celebration,  n. context, , , , , ,  n. epinician,  language, ,  occasion,  ode,  (re-)performance, –,  n., , , –, , – poetry, , ,  song,  n.,  n., –, ,  temple,  n., , , ,  nn.–, ,  n.,  n., ,  n., –, –, , ,  n.,  n. tonal mode, ,  tradition,  n., , , , , , –,  n., –, ,  n., , , , ,  n., ,  Aeolic, of singing,  Commentary,  Dorian, musical,  Doric, of singing,  literary tradition,  myth–historical,  poetic–aristocratic,  tragedy,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n.,  n.,  n.,  n., ,  n.,  trainer, , , , , ,  transmission, , ,  n., , , , , ,  tyrant, ,  fig. , , , –, , –, , , –, , , , –, , , , –, , , , , –, , –



victory, –,  n., , , ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., ,  n., –, , ,  n., , , –, , , –, , , –,  n., –, ,  n.,  n., , ,  n., ,  n., –,  nn.–, , , –, , , ,  n., –,  n.,  n., , –, –, , , –, , –, , , , , ,  catalogue, ,  celebration, , , , , ,  n.,  chariot,  n., , –, , –, , ,  commemoration,  n. feast,  Isthmian,  komos, , ,  n.,  monument,  n. Nemean,  n.,  Olympian,  n., ,  Olympic, , , ,  poem,  Pythian, ,  revel, ,  song, , –, ,  n., , ,  wrestling,  victory ode,  n., , –, –,  n., , , –, , , , , – passim, , , , , –, ,  n., –, , , , –, , , , , , , ,  voice, –, , , , , , , –, –,  n., , , , , , , –, , ,  authorial, ,  collective,  n. speaking,  writing,  n., ,  n., ,  n., , ,  n.,  n., , –, , , ,  n.,  n., , –, , 