Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:17:57.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pindar's Nemean xi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Mary R. Lefkowitz
Mary R. Lefkowitz
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pindar, perhaps more than any other ancient poet, seems to demand from his interpreters declarations of their critical premises. In recent years scholars customarily have made initial acknowledgment to the work of E. R. Bundy, as psychoanalysts must to Freud, before they begin to offer their own modifications to and expansions of his fundamental work. Much contemporary scholarship has concentrated on the identification and classification in the odes of the elements whose function Bundy labelled and explained. But useful as this type of analysis has been for exorcising the demon of biographical interpretation, it has, like all orthodoxies, prevented perception of other equally important truths. It constitutes no radical heterodoxy to try to account for the fact that each individual ode, for all its dependence on common conventions of structure and of content, makes a different impression. Nor is it unreasonable to try to explain what makes Pindar's style and approach distinctive.

In my own work I have argued, though perhaps not always convincingly, that language as well as structure contributes to an ode's coherence. Scholars trained in America are more willing to assume that repetition of phrase or theme within a poem has significance, and that metaphors can simultaneously bear more than one connotation. The issues at stake have most recently been delineated by Michael Silk, in his discussion of the effect of metaphor in archaic poetry: ‘By “patent”, I mean effects whose existence is not in doubt, though their character may be disputed; by “latent”, those whose effective significance is so tenuous or marginal that one resents the impression of solidity that even mentioning them produces. Such insensitivity is more common than it should be among American classicists, many of whom have also been influenced by the “New Criticism”…’ As illustration of the erroneous American approach Silk cites Cedric Whitman's description of the thematic relation of fires in the Iliad. Silk himself avoids the trap Whitman falls into by considering only ‘patent’ metaphors, and these consistently out of context, so that there is no necessity to comment on the existence or non-existence of thematic connections among them. But it is possible—at least logically—to frame the question differently, and to ask whether a metaphor cannot have patent and latent associations at the same time.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 99 , November 1979 , pp. 49 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* I am grateful to Professor H. Lloyd-Jones and Dr. F. J. Nisetich for many specific improvements.

1 See esp. Lefkowitz, M. R., ‘Pindar's Lives’ in Classica et Iberica (Festschrift Marique: Worcester, Mass. 1975) 87–90Google Scholar.

2 Acknowledging the existence in a poem of logical argument and recognizable structure does not necessarily preclude the simultaneous appreciation in the poem of significant language. But cf. Slater, W. J.. ‘Doubts about Pindaric Interpretation’ in CJ lxxii (1977) 195Google Scholar, who brands as ‘eccentric’ and ‘Procrustean’ critics who consider the function of imagery in the odes. Yet his own approach is equally Procrustean and certainly unhistorical: ‘more scholars (should) begin to ask whether the genre is not more important than the poem’ (207–8). This is to forget that Pindar's audiences heard individual odes, and did not have access, as we do, to the corpus as a whole.

3 E.g. ‘Bacchylides' Ode 5: Imitation and Originality’ in HSCP lxxiii (1969) 45–96, but cf. Gerber, D. E., ‘Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry’ in CW lxx (1976) 128Google Scholar; The Victory Ode: An Introduction (Park Ridge N.J. 1976), but cf. Lloyd-Jones, H., TLS 8th April 1977 438Google Scholar; Gerber, D. E., Phoenix xxxi (1977) 181–3Google Scholar.

4 Interaction in Poetic Imagery (Cambridge 1974) 63–4.

5 Allowing only the alternatives of patent and latent sets up a false dichotomy, as e.g. also in Richmond, J. A., ‘Symbolism in Virgil: Skeleton Key or Will-o'-the-Wisp?’ in G&R xxiii (1976) 142–58Google Scholar; see Fischer, D. H., Historians' Fallacies (New York 1970) 9–12Google Scholar.

6 Op. cit. (n. 4) 90.

7 Describing a tree's swift growth with a verb of motion creates a similar fusion of the life of man and of plants in Nem. viii 40–1: ἀίσσει δ᾿ ἀρετά, χλωραῖς ἐέρσαις ὡς ὅτε δένδρεον … ἀερθεῖσ᾿. But the dramatic ἀίσσει is emended to αὔξεται by some edd.; see Gerber, D. E., Emendations in Pindar 1513–1972 (Amsterdam 1976)Google Scholar; Carey, C., ‘Pindar's Eighth Nemean Ode’ in PCPS xciii (1976) 41Google Scholar n. 42. On multiple implications, see Nowottny, W., The Language Poets Use (London 1962) 146Google Scholar ff.

8 On the passage, see Lefkowitz, M. R., ‘Pindar's Pythian 8’ in CJ lxxii (1977) 216Google Scholar. Silk (n. 4) in fact notes the existence of a thematic link between τρύμνη (‘stern’) in Aesch. Sept. 2, and πρυμνόθίν (‘from the roots’), Sept. 71 (p. 183). lntentionality on the poet's part is a false issue, since covert structures exist whether or not they are openly recognized; see Vernant, J. P., Mythe et pensée chez les Grecs (Paris 1974) 128Google Scholar. On plant terminology in Nem. viii, see Carey (n. 7) 35.

9 On the delicacy of Pindar's metaphors, see Silk (n. 4) 97, 101; and Mueller, J. M., ‘Living Imagery, a Dead Tongue, etc.’ in CPh lxxii (1977) 156–8Google Scholar.

10 The Victory Ode (n. 3) 42–103.

11 E.g. U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, , Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 429–32Google Scholar; Farnell, L. R., The Works of Pindar (London 1930) i 234Google Scholar; Bury, J. B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London 1890) 218Google Scholar.

12 ‘Modern Interpretation of Pindar’ in JHS xciii (1973) 136; The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley 1971) 69–70,213; The Victory Ode (n. 3) 41 n. 43.

13 Vernant (n. 8) 142; Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Three Notes on Aeschylus' Agamemnon’ in RhM ciii (1960) 78–9Google Scholar; Miller, S. G., The Prytaneion (Berkeley 1978) 14Google Scholar.

14 Lefkowitz, , ‘Pyth. 8’ (n. 8) 211Google Scholar.

15 On Hestia as patroness of human concerns, see Vernant (n. 10) 126.

16 E.g. the description of the giant Asteros in the prose summary of the Coan epic Meropis: μάχιμόν τινα καίδυνατόν,ἒΤι δὲ ἂτρωτον (P. Col. inv. 5604 ll. 23–25); see Henrichs, A., ‘Zur Meropis’ in ZPE xxvii (1977) 72Google Scholar. Cf. Aesch. Ch. 532, of Clytemnestra's breast left ἂτρωτος by the snake in her dream.

17 Vernant (n. 8) 142; Burkert, W., Homo Necans (Berlin 1972) 158–9Google Scholar. On the importance of a ceremonial hearth for a guild or group of men with common interests, see Burkert, , ‘Die Leistung eines Kreophylus’ in MH xxix (1972) 79Google Scholar.

18 E.g. Hor. Carm, i 4, iii 13; Lefkowitz, M. R., ‘The Ilex in O Fons Bandusiae’ in CJ lviii (1962) 65Google Scholar.

19 Two accusatives in 11, instead of the usual acc. pers. and gen. rei with μακαρίζω led the ancient commentators to translate: ‘the man I congratulate is Arcesilas your father and his courage and his handsome body’. But most modern commentators agree that ἂνδρα must be Aristagoras, e.g., Metzger, who observes that ἀτρεμία does not describe the father whose ‘too hesitant expectations’ held his son back from competition (22), Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig 1880) 482. Syntactically, πατέ;ρα, δέμας, and ἀτρεμίαν appear to be accusatives of respect. Cf. the use of two accusatives with τιμῳρέομαι in Eurip Cyc. 595, Alc. 733; see MacDowell, D. M., ed., Aristophanes' Wasps (Oxford 1971) 212–13Google Scholar. in the case of exchange of partitive genitive for accusative appears to have been readily comprehensible. E.g., in the case of verbs with meanings analogous to μακαρίζω: αἰτιάομαι with acc. pers. gen. rei in Hdt. v 27, but two accs, in Ar. Ach. 514; ἐπαινέω with two accs, in Aesch., but acc. pers. gen. rei in Plut. and Lucian; θαυμάζω with acc. pers. gen. rei in Thuc. vi 36, but with two gens, in Lys. Occurrence of gen. pers. acc. rei, dat. pers. acc. rei with μέμφομαι (all in the fifth century) indicates that sense was determined by context and expectations. In victory odes audiences would expect praise of the victor. Relatives are praised only in conjunction with the victor's accomplishments, e.g., Pyth, x 23–6, Isthm. viii 1–4, Nem. vii 58–60; cf. the commemorative epigram for an Aeginetan victor (first half of the fifth century), παῖδα…κάλλιστον μὲν ἰδεῖ άθλεῖν δ' ou ο ύ χείρονα. μορφής, /ὃς πατέρων άγαθών ὦκστεφάνωσΐ πόλιν; Ebert, J., Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger, etc. (Abh. Sachs. Akad. der Wiss. zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Kl. lxiii. 2: Berlin 1972)Google Scholar no. 12.

20 See n. 12.

21 E.g., also Soph., Ant. 903, Aj. 1170; cf. 821, of Ajax setting his sword in the earth and ‘decking it out well’ (εὖπεριστείλας).

22 E.g. the formulaic ἀναιδείην ἐπιειμένε (I1. i 149, ix 372), ἐπιειμένοι ἀλκήν (Il. vii 164, viii 263, xviii 157; cf. λάϊνον ἕσσο χιτῶνα, Il. iii 57). The metaphor θανόντες γᾶν ἐπιέμμενοι first occurs in Alc. G I. 17 L; cf. Simon. 6. 4 W, AP vii 480.

23 Cf. the formulaic δούπησεν δὲ πεσών (Il. iv 504, etc.). On βρέμεται see Kannicht, R., Euripides Helena (Heidelberg 1969) on 1. 1350Google Scholar.

24 Cf. δαιδαλωσέμεν ὕμνων πτυχαῖς, ‘adorn in folds of song’ in Ol. i 105. On the text, see Hermann, G., Opuscula (Leipzig 1827–1839) i 260Google Scholar, vii 172.

25 von der Mühll, P., ‘Bermerkungen zu Pindars Nemeen, etc.’ in MH xiv (1957) 127–8Google Scholar= Kl. Schriften 194–6.

26 On the technique, see Smith, Barbara Herrnstein, Poetic Closure (Chicago 1968) 172–82Google Scholar.

27 The Victory Ode (n. 3) 158 n. 10.

28 Bury (n. 11) 225.

29 The MS. reading ἐναμείβοντι (plural) seems inconsistent with ἐθελει (sing.), ἐθελει, as in Ol, ii 97, Ol. xi 9, can denote customary behaviour (see LSJ s.v. ἐθέλω, Il. 2). But English ‘tend’ does not adequately convey the verb's sense of volition; cf. φιλέω in Pyth. iii 18, which means at once ‘like to’ and ‘are accustomed to’.

30 The Victory Ode (n. 3) 31–2, 34.

31 Leflcowitz, , ‘Pyth. 8’ (n. 8) 216–17Google Scholar.

32 Nisetich, F. J., ‘The Leaves of Triumph and Mor tality’ in TAPA cvii (1977) 246–7Google Scholar.

33 Onians, R. B., The Origins of European Thought (Cambridge 1951) 327–9Google Scholar.

34 Ibid. 229–36, 242–53.

35 Young, David C., Three Odes (Leiden 1968) 35Google Scholar; The Victory Ode (n. 3) 145. Cf Pyth. viii 78, where god (as opposed to man) ‘throwing one man up high, another underhand, enters the contest at the measure’, i.e. with control and balance; see Lefkowitz, , ‘Pyth. 8’ (n. 8) 215 n. 18.Google Scholar

36 Lefkowitz, , ‘Pyth. 8’ (n. 8) 218Google Scholar.

37 Cf. inscriptions commemorating athletes, which list only their successes; Ebert (n. 19) 19, 267 on no. 40.

38 Cf. Finley, J. H., Pindar and Aeschylus (Cambridge, Mass. 1955) 189Google Scholar: ‘Pindar lingered in the untroubled view which lost the self in the surrounding world.’ On the relation of Pindar's, poetry to contemporary and sub sequent literature, see The Victory Ode (n. 3) 34Google Scholar, 172–3.

39 E.g. κατεφυλλορόησε, Ol. xii 15; Nisetich (n. 32) 257–61. Cf. Borthwick, E. K., ‘Zoologica Pindarica’ in CQ xxvi (1976) 198–9Google Scholar.