Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar: A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, & Pythian VIII

731 Pages·1999·12.701 MB·English

by  Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer

THREE AEGINETAN ODES OF PINDAR
MNEMOSYNE
BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BAT A VA
COLLEGERUNT
H. PINKSTER , H. W. PLEKET
CJ. RUIJGH, D.M. SCHENKEVELD, P.H. SCHRIJVERS
BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT
C.J. RUIJGH, KLASSIEK SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT 129, AMSTERDAM
SUPPLEMENTUM CENTESIMUM NONAGESIMUM SEPTIMUM
IIJA LEONARD PFEIJFFER
THREE AEGINETAN ODES OF PINDAR
THREE AEGINETAN ODES
OF PINDAR
A COMMENTARY ON NEMEANV,
NEMEAN III, & PYTHIAN VIII
BY
ILJA LEONARD PFEIJFFER
BRILL
LEIDEN · BOSTON · KOLN
1999
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available.
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
[Mnemosyne / Supplementum]
Mnemosyne : bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum. - Leiden ;
Boston ; Killn : Brill
Friiher Schriftenreihe
Teilw. u.d.T.: Mnemosyne / Supplements
Reihe Supplementum zu: Mnemosyne
197. Pfeijffer, llja Leonard: Three Aiginetan odes of Pindar. - 1999
Pfeijffer, Ilja Leonard:
Three Aeginetan odes of Pindar : a commentary on Nemean V,
Nemean III, & Pythian VIII / by Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer. --Leiden ;
Boston ; Kiiln : Brill, 1999
(Mnemosyne : Supplcmentum ; 197)
ISBN 90-04-1 1381-9
ISSN OI 69-8958
ISBN 90 04 11381 9
© Copyright1 999 by Koninkli;keB rill .Nv, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rightsr eservedN. o part eft his publicationm ay be reproducedtr, anslateds, toredi n
a retrievarl ystem,o r transmittedin anyf arm or by airym eans,e lectronic,
mechanicalp,h otocopyingr,e cordingo r otherwisew, ithoutp rior written
permissionfr om thep ublisher.
Authorizationt o photocopyit emsf ar internalo r personal
use is grantedb y Brill providedt hat
the appropriatfee es arep aid directlyt o The Copyright
ClearanceC enter,2 22 RosewoodD rive, Suite 910
Darwers0 1923, USA.
Fees are subjectt o change.
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
een dove <lode taal onleesbaar
behalve voor wie zich krap zet en hard
hardnekkig zegt dit versta ik zeer goed
dit boor ik duidelijk ja overduidelijk
dit ruisen in mijn kromgetrokken oren
is een dwaalleer vol aangepaste dogma's
Lucebert, fragment from: oh dolorosa
(from: van de roerlozew oelgeest1, 993).
niemand is gezonden
woorden te wegen en te bezien
men strompelt vrijwillig
van letter naar letter
roept oe en a
in de schaduw der schaamte
Lucebert, fragment from: 'nu na twee
volle ogen vlammen .. .'
(from: apocriefI de analphabetischnea am, 1952).
lyriek is de moeder der politiek
Lucebert, fragment from: schoold erp oifzie
(from: apocriefI de analphabetischnea am, 1952).

CONTENTS
PREFACE························································································· lX
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... . I
The Occasional Nature of Pindar's Odes ........................... . 2
17zeO ccasionaal nd the Conventiona..l. ..................................... . 4
17zeO ccasionaal nd AestheticA ppraisal. ................................... . 6
17zeO ccasionaal nd the PanhellenicD imension.. ........................ . 7
Modem Historicism.................................................................. l l
Unity...................................................................................... 12
Unity and the Occasional..................................................... 15
Method .................................................................................. 18
Pindar's Style ............................................................................ . 22
TiotKtAia.. .............................................................................. . 22
I1nplicitness ........................................................................... . 23
Implicitnessi n the Macro-Stmcture.. ......................................... . 23
Implicitnessi n lntersententiaRl elations. .................................... . 26
Implicitnessw ithin the Sentence.. .............................................. . 30
The Fictional Mimesis of Ex Tempore Speech ................... . 34
RelativeC lausesa nd 'RelativeC onnection.'. .............................. . 37
Linear Development: Manipulation of Expectancy and
Creation of Suspense............................................................. 41
Variationse fM ood .................................................................. 45
Variationse f Tempo. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
Word Order............................................................................. 49
'lnconcinnitas..'. ...................................................................... . 51
Metre ..................................................................................... . 52
Pindar's Style: Towards a Synthesis .................................... . 53
DIFFERENRTE ADINGS..................................................................... 55
NEMEANV ...................................................................................... 57
Date and Historical Setting . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . .. . . 59
Interpretation . ... . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . 62
Proem .................................................................................... 62
Myth ...................................................................................... 63
Closure .................................................................................. 78
The Relevance of the Historical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Structural Analysis .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. 89
Metrical Analysis....................................................................... 92
Commentary . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . 99
CONTENTS
Vlll
NEMEANII I ... .. .. ......... .. .. .. ... ...... .......... .. ........ .. .............. .. .......... ... 195
Date ........................................................................................ 197
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Proem .................................................................................. 199
First Myth: Heracles.... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 202
Aeacid Myths ....................................................................... 206
The Final Triad................................................................... 216
The Relevance of the Heracles Myth................................. 224
The Role of Chiron ....... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .... .. .... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ... 228
Structural Analysis .................................................................. 232
Metrical Analysis..................................................................... 234
Commentary ..... .. .... .. . ...... .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. 241
PYrHIANV III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 3
Date ........................................................................................ 425
Interpretation . .. .. ..... .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .... .. . . . .... .. .. .. . . .. ... .. .... .. 426
The First Triad.................................................................... 426
Method ................................................................................ 427
Historical Setting................................................................. 429
The First Triad (Resumed) ................................................. 431
The Second Triad ............................................................... 434
Myth .................................................................................... 436
The Fourth Triad................................................................ 442
The Final Triad ................................................................... 447
Summary & Conclusion..................................................... 452
Epilogue............................................................................... 454
Structural Analysis .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ..... ..... .. 45 7
Metrical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460
Commentary ........................................................................... 467
APPENDIX...................................................................................... 603
Nemean V ............................................................................... 605
Nemean III .............................................................................. 613
Pythian VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY·············································································· 667
INDICES.. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. . .... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... . .. .. .. ... 699
Index of Greek Words Discussed............................................ 701
General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
PREFACE
'You ought to make things big. People like it that way.' In spite of
Andy Warhol's dictum, some readers will no doubt be annoyed by
the size of this commentary. As an apology to them I can only say
they have never been out of my mind while I was working on this
book, first, from 1992, as a Leiden University doctorate dissertation,
defended 4 November 1996, and later, while I was bringing it into
its present form.
The core of this book is formed by the introduction and the inter
pretative essays in the three odes commented upon. In the introduc
tion, the reader will find my views on the place of a Pindaric ode in
its historical setting, on unity, and on Pindar's style and poetical
techniques. The three interpretative essays address the question as to
how every single detail in the ode makes sense as a part of a unified
specimen of the literary art, composed with the specific purpose of
celebrating the glory of a victor for a specifically defined audience at
a specific moment in time. The reader who confines himself or her
self to these portions of the present book will read the most impor
tant things I have to say about Pindar.
The ideal I had in mind for the commentary was to combine the
scrutiny of an instrumentd e recherchwe ith the convenient organization
of an easy-reference instrumentd e lecture.I tried to approach this ideal
by offering all the material necessary in order to substantiate my
views in a fair way, while at the same time arranging my notes in
such a way that those who are interested only in my interpretation
of the general purport of a passage, or in some specific details, can
easily find their way. The longer notes begin with my conclusion,
which is my proposal of how to interpret the text. My adstruction,
following it, has been articulated as much as possible by means of
headings. Bold printing of Greek words further articulates the
semantic discussions. Moreover, I used two different formats of
printing, which, I hope, helps the reader to overlook the sometimes
copious notes: everything that is not directly relevant to the under
standing of the word or words discussed is printed in nested para
graphs in a smaller font size. Each set of notes on a passage that can
be considered to form some kind of self-contained unit is preceded
by a translation of the passage, printed in italics. I wish to emphasize
that these translations do not pretend to literary merit; their sole ob
ject is to serve the convenience of the reader, as the shortest possible
X PREFACE
summary of the notes following them. I apologise for the repetitions
which this procedure inevitably involves; I pref erred being clear to
being terse, whenever I found it beyond my capacities to be both at
the same time.
This commentary aims at being explanatory as well as descriptive.
I do not only devote space to attempts at explaining passages that
may elude the immediate understanding of a reader of the Greek
text or that have given rise to controversy in the past; it has also
been my ambition to describe particularities of Pindar's style and
poetic techniques used in the three odes commented upon here.
In spite of its size, the commentary is far from exhaustive. It is my
objective to deal with every feature of the Greek text in so far as it is
relevant for the interpretation of the text as a whole. As a result, the
reader will find a relatively large number of observations bearing on
semantics, style, and structure, whereas, e.g., matters related to his
torical grammar and dialect are discussed only sporadically. I did
not want to overload my commentary with references to earlier crit
ics. In many cases I concentrated them in a select bibliography at
the end of a note. Although, of course, I have not read everything
that could have been helpful to my understanding of various fea
tures of Pindar's texts, my omissions are not always based on igno
rance, but sometimes on criticism.
Conventions of our trade prevent a commentator from expressing
his own personal enthusiasm about the aesthetic qualities of the texts
he is commenting upon. Nevertheless, I want my book to contain at
least one explicit record of the pleasure I have had in working on
Pindar. I never once regretted my choice of author and I have al
ways regarded it as a great privilege to spend all these years with this
stunning and magnificently eccentric poetry. I sincerely hope that
my attempts at following the conventions of objectivism and at con
cealing my admiration have not entirely succeded.
In the course of my work on the present commentary I have
benefited from various kinds of help which it is a pleasure to record
here. My principal debt is to two men of great learning with whom I
worked together intensively, to my enormous profit and great plea
sure. Professor C.MJ. Sicking of Leiden University combines a su
perior feeling for Greek language and first-hand acquaintance with
Greek texts with an unfailing preparedness to think everything over
and over again. Professor Christopher Carey of Royal Holloway
University of London combines a profound understanding of Greek
literature in general and of Pindar in particular with an admirable
capacity of inspiring enthusiasm and new ideas. By their criticisms