Studia Pindarica [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9780520324992

Citation preview

STUDIA

PINDARICA

STUDIA PINDARICA BY E L R O Y L.

UNIVERSITY BERKELEY

BUNDY

OF C A L I F O R N I A AND LOS

1986

PRESS

ANGELES

University of California Press University of California Press, Ltd., London, England First published in 1962 as Volume 18, nos. 1 and 2, of the University of California Publications in Classical Philology This combined edition published 1986 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bundy, Elroy L. Studia Pindarica. (California library reprint series) ' ' First published in 1962 as volume 18, nos. 1 and 2, of the University of California publications in classical philology''—T.p. verso. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. Contents: The eleventh Olympian ode—The first Isthmian ode. 1. Pindar—Criticism and interpretation. 2. Pindar. Olympian odes. 11. 3. Pindar. Isthmian odes. 1. 4. Odes—History and criticism. I. Title. I I . Series. PA4276.B93 1987 884\01 86-6992 I S B N 0-520-05098-3 (alk. paper) I S B N 0-520-05111-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CONTENTS

Publisher's Note I. II.

The Eleventh Olympian Ode

vii 1

The First Isthmian Ode Introduction

35

The Opening Foil, Lines 1-13: Prooimion

36

The First Crescendo, Lines 14-32: Kastor and Iolaos

44

The Second Crescendo, Lines 32-40: Asopodoros

47

The Third Crescendo, Lines 41-63: Herodotos

53

The Concluding Crescendo, Lines 64-68: Prayer for the Future

76

Selected Works Cited

93

Index Locorum

95

Subject Index

125

Index of Greek Words

137

P U B L I S H E R

'S

NOTE

In May 1959 the University of California Press accepted for publication Elroy Bundy's book-length manuscript entitled Hesufchia: A Study of Form and Meaning in Pindar. Two years later, after trying out his methodology on seminar students, Bundy became dissatisfied with the manuscript and withdrew it. He then distilled the essence of this methodology into two short monographs, Studia Pindarica I and II, which appeared in 1962 in the University of California Publications in Classical Philology. On these two slender books—wrote W . S. Anderson, L. A. MacKay, and A . Renoir after Bundy's sudden death in 1975—'' an international reputation was slowly built.'' The monographs have long been out of print and hard to find. Reprinting was first suggested by Robert Renehan of the University of California, Santa Barbara, at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal Classical Antiquity. Mark Griffith, a Berkeley member of the same board, spoke up in agreement. Both men helped in gathering opinions and making arrangements. A n independent proposal came from John Dillon, once of Berkeley and now Regius Professor of Greek at Trinity College, Dublin. Several other scholars, when queried, declared the reprinting clearly desirable. A f t e r discussion among all those concerned and consultation with Barbara Bundy, the author's widow, the decision was made—with some regret—not to include other published and unpublished writings of Bundy's. So the two monographs are here presented quite as they first appeared, with but a few typographical corrections and without critical introduction or commentary. The only additions are three indexes and a list of works cited; these were prepared by Thomas Walsh, with the assistance of Andrew Miller and Donald Mastronarde.

[vii]

I

The Eleventh Olympian Ode

Tenth and Eleventh Olympians for Hagesidamos of Epizephyrian Lokris have suffered much at the hands of critics and scholars from being treated not as individual unities, but as subordinate parts of a unity achieved by the two odes together. This pernicious tradition goes back to the Alexandrians, who placed the Eleventh after the Tenth in their editions because the word TOKOS in 0 . 10 seemed to designate 0 . 1 1 as interest in payment of a debt long overdue.1 Although this view still has adherents today,2 modern scholarship most often reverses the ancient judgment.3 Attacking the odes in the same spirit as the Alexandrians, scholars take the future «eXa^ou in 0. 11.14 as a reference to 0. 10 and label the former as an improvisation performed at Olympia immediately after the victory. 0 . 10 is then the "regular" ode composed for a later celebration in the victor's home town. With the truth or falsehood of these theories it is useless to concern oneself, for not a shred of evidence can be found in either ode to support either of them, or any other view of the relation between the two odes—so long, at least, as Pindaric studies continue on their present track. As for the evidence adduced in TOKOS and KtKaSifao: this is nonexistent, for certain rhetorical conventions make the true meaning of these words inconsistent with reference to anything beyond the compass of the odes in which they appear.4 It is, indeed, to this question of convention, in matters small and large, that scholarship must now address itself if it is to add in any significant way to our knowledge of Greek choral poetry.6 PINDAR'S

1 See scholia O. 1 1 inscr. RI3 ObrQ t¿KOS. All references to Pindar and Bakkhulides in this essay are to the editions of Turyn (Krakow, 1948), and Snell (Leipzig, 1949). 2 E.g., A. Puech, Pindare, Olympiques (Paris, 1949), p. 124. 3 Turyn, in his edition, puts the view succinctly: "Hoc carmine . . . Pindarus promisit se victoriam Hagesidami uberiore poemate celebraturum. E t reapse postea poeta carmine Olymp. X promissum suum exsecutus est." 4 T )—ideas contrasted again and again by Pindar in rhetorical elaboration of his themes. 0. 2.91-105, 105-110 (see n. 71), O. 9.107/8-120, N. 3.77-80, N. 4.33-44, and N. 8.19-39, passages which we cannot here discuss in detail, exemplify Pindar's use of this rhetorical motive, in which the laudator, disdaining all device, makes his straightforward confidence and enthusiasm the measure of the laudandus' worth. In all such contexts, Pindar himself is hidden behind the conventional mask of the laudator; yet they are regarded by critical opinion as personal to the poet, often in embarrassing senses. What is required to set right our knowledge of these and other problem passages is a thorough study of conventional themes, motives, and sequences in choral poetry—in short, a grammar of choral style that will tell us what systems of shared symbols enabled the poet and his audience to view the odes as unified artistic wholes. HepiK\rjs TOV KIRITApos kv 'OpxofKvQ