Pindar's Isthmians 3 and 4
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PINDAR’S ISTHMIANS 3 AND 4: ESSAYS AND COMMENTARY A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Roman Vladimirovich Ivanov May 2010 © 2010 Roman Vladimirovich Ivanov PINDAR’S ISTHMIANS 3 AND 4: ESSAYS AND COMMENTARY Roman Vladimirovich Ivanov, Ph. D. Cornell University 2010 As pointed out by Richard Hamilton, ‘commentaries on individual odes are arguably the most obvious need in Pindaric scholarship’ (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1999.01.01). My dissertation is a small step toward satisfying this need. The choice of the Third and Fourth Isthmians has been motivated by the lack of a thorough and up- to-date commentary and by the fact that this pair of odes poses a number of interpretative problems with resonances throughout the entire epinician corpus. The dissertation opens with four essays that address the major problems besetting the interpretation of the two odes. The first, ‘Isthmians 3 and 4: One or Two Poems?’, examines critically the arguments about the relationship between the two poems. Section two, ‘Isthmians 3 and 4: Imitation at the Symposium’, argues that Isthmian 3 is an improvised piece imitating Isthmian 4. On the basis of evidence from Pindar and Bacchylides, I follow J. Strauss Clay in positing the symposium as the most likely performance setting of this poem. Section three, ‘Μοῦσα Ἀυθιγενής: Context and Performance of Short Epinician Odes’, raises doubts about the now orthodox assumption that short epinician odes like Isthmian 3 were performed at the sites of the games and proposes plausible alternative scenarios. The last section, ‘Isthmian 4: Ἐνάργεια and Performance of Pindar’s Odes’, takes cue from Pindar’s reference to the topography of the sanctuary of Herakles at Thebes and the vivid account he gives of the sacrifices performed at the local festival of Herakleia (Isthm. 4.61-6). After examining in extenso references to geographic and architectural landmarks in Greek poetry, I suggest that the nature of such descriptions is uninformative about the performance-setting and is often mimetic, i.e. aiming to evoke places in the mind of the audience rather than drawing attention to what they can see for themselves. My text follows the Teubner edition of Snell-Maehler. The deviations are minimal and are listed in the note preceding the text. The accompanying translation has no pretension for literary merit and is meant primarily to complement the text and the commentary. The purpose of the commentary is to provide a comprehensive exegesis, which may be useful both while reading the two odes from start to finish or merely consulting notes on individual lines and passages. The emphasis is on matters of literary, philological, historical, and linguistic significance. Metrical issues have been for the most part left out. Naturally in a work of this kind attempts to come up with new and original interpretations go hand in hand with assimilation and analysis of previous scholarship. Where I felt unable to shed any new light, I tried to provide ample bibliography on the question. As a rule, though, doxography for the sake of doxography has been avoided. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Roman Ivanov was born in Balkhash, Kazakhstan in 1977. He studied Classical Archeology, Greek and Latin Literature in Tel Aviv University, from where he graduated magna cum laude in 2002. In August of 2003, he entered the doctoral program in Classics at Cornell, where he concentrated primarily on Greek Lyric Poetry. He defended his thesis in July of 2009. iii To my parents, Vladimir and Lydia τί φίλτερον κεδνῶν τοκέων ἀγαθοῖς; iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I am grateful to my supervisor, Professor Hayden Pelliccia, who spent much time patiently scrutinizing my drafts, and to Professor Michael Fontaine, who read parts of my thesis at various stages of completion and suggested numerous improvements. I have greatly benefited from the immense learning of Professors Alan Nussbaum and Pietro Pucci, both of whom were always a source of support and encouragement. I am also very thankful to all my teachers in Tel Aviv University: Rachel Birnbaum, John Glucker, David Weissert, Netta Zagagi, and Rachel Zelnik- Abramowitz. I owe a special debt of gratitude to my undergraduate mentor, Professor Margalit Finkelberg, cui condignas grates uix umquam referre ualeam. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Biographical Sketch…………………………………………………………………...iii Dedication……………………………………………………………………………..iv Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………...v Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...vi List of Figures………………………………………………………………………...vii List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………...viii Introduction I. Isthmians 3 and 4: One or Two Poems?......................................................................1 II. Isthmians 3 and 4: Imitation at the Symposium...................................................... 11 III. Μοῦσα Ἀυθιγενής : Context and Performance of Short Epinician Odes………….50 IV Isthmian 4: Ἐνάργεια and Performance of Pindar’s Odes…………………………76 Note on the Text………………………………………………………………………92 Text and Translation………………………………………………………………….93 Isthmian 4: Commentary…………………………………………………………….101 Isthmian 3: Commentary…………………………………………………………….173 Appendix A: Genealogies…………………………………………………………...197 Appendix B: Iconography…………………………………………………………...198 Maps and Plans……………………………………………………………………...201 Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………205 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 (East frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi)...……………………….. 198 Figure 2 (Red-figured calyx-krater, London, British Museum F 480)...…………... 198 Figure 3 (Brygos Painter. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Mus. 86.AE.286)...……………… 199 Figure 4 (Cavalcade Painter. Basel, Antikenmuseum BS 1404)…………………... 199 Figure 5 (Euphronios painter. Paris, Louvre G 103)………………………………. 200 Figure 6 (Cyrene)………………………………………………………………….. 201 Figure 7 (Temenos of Apollo at Delphi)..….……………………………………… 202 Figure 8 (The Isthmian Sanctuary of Poseidon)...…………………………………. 203 Figure 9 (Greater Thebes)...………………………………………………………... 204 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Denniston J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles2 rev. K. J. Dover (Oxford, 1954). D-K H. Diels (ed.) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6, 3 vols., rev. W. Kranz (Berlin, 1951-2) Ebert J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen (Berlin, 1972). FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 15 vols. (Leiden, 1923-58). GMT W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (Boston, 1890). Hummel P. Hummel, La syntax de Pindare (Paris, 1993). K-G R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, zweiter Teil: Satzlehre (Hanover and Leipzig 1890-2). Käppel L. Käppel, Paian (Berlin, 1992) LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Stuart Jones, R. McKenzie, and P. G. W. Glare, Greek-English Lexicon, with a Revised Supplement (9th edn.; Oxford, 1996). PMG D. L. Page (ed.) Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford, 1962). Schwyzer E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik 3 vols. (Munich, 1950- 93), vol. ii rev. A. Debrunner. Slater W. J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin, 1969). viii Smyth H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. G. Messing (Harvard 1956). Snell-Maehler B. Snell and H. Maehler (eds.) Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1987-9). Abbreviations of ancient authors and their works are those of LSJ and OLD, with the exception of Pindar’s odes. These are referred to as follows: Isthmians – Isth., Nemeans – Nem., Olympians – Ol., Pythians – Pyth. Abbreviations of journal titles which appear in Works Cited follow the conventions of L’Année philologique. ix INTRODUCTION I. ISTHMIANS 3 AND 4: ONE OR TWO POEMS? The Problem The question of the relationship between the Third and Fourth Isthmian odes, both composed for Melissos of Thebes, has always challenged the ingenuity of Pindarists and yet evaded a satisfactory solution.1 The metrical identity of the two poems finds no adequate parallel among the complex forms of Greek lyric. This fact has naturally provoked a fair amount of speculation. Some scholars have argued that Isth. 3 and Isth. 4 were conceived as a single compositional unit. Others have insisted that the two poems are independent. The only way to settle this question is to carefully reexamine the meager evidence that we have. Any account of the problem must start from the fact that Isth. 3 and Isth. 4 are transmitted as separate poems in MS B (=Vat. Gr. 1312). On the other hand, MS D (=Laur. 35,52) and its Triclinian progeny run them together. The editio princeps of Aldus (1513) follows the latter, whereas the slightly later edition of Kallierges (Rome 1515, editio Romana) the former. The evidence of MS D, however, is of little value because it fails to separate other odes as well.2 By contrast, the separate transmission in MS B is supported by the scholia, which twice refer to Isth. 4 as ἡ ἐξῆς ᾠδή (‘the following ode’) and explicitly distinguish between τρίτον and τέταρτον εἶδος (‘the third and the fourth poem’).3 Given all this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that 1 Slater on Willcock (1997) in BMCR (96.02.03) declares them ‘a notorious and insoluble conjunction’. 2 Barrett (2007) 164 n. 137: ‘Isth. 2, 3, 4. The common ancestor of BD omitted the headings of all the Isthmians and left in each case simply a blank space; B preserves the spaces, but D in these two places closed them up’. For a brief assessment of the manuscript evidence concerning Isth. 3 and Isth. 4, see Köhnken (1971) 87 n. 1. 3