PINDAR'S FIRST OLYMPIAN

1. In a summary discussion of Pindar's first O!Jmpian, D.C. Young (1968, 121-3) presents an analysis of the poem, the purpose of which is to demonstrate that its construction is strictly symmetrical. A nucleus of 12 lines (53-64: Tantalus honoured by the Gods, his misdeed and punishment, introduced and followed by a "transitional gnome") is preceded by a first Pelops myth (25-53) and followed by a second (65-94), each of about 28 lines. The poem begins and ends with passages of approximately 24 lines (1-24 and 95-118) dealing with the Olympic games, Hieron, his victory, and the poet's role as the recorder of victory. To make my point, there is no need to treat the question whether the lines 95-118 Inirror in every detail lines 1-24, as Young claims they do: "A : superlatives, a: vµ.vos ciµ.cfn/3a.AAEra,, B: general praise of Hieron, b: tlwpiav cf,opµ.,yya, C: (Hieron's) Olympic victory, c: Mµ.1m oe oi KAeos" opp. "c 1: TO 0£ KAeos oeoopKE, C1: Olympic victory (general), b1: Aio>..17to, µ.oMr~, B 1: general praise of Hieron, a 1: Mo'io-a Tpecf,u (3e>..os, A 1: superlatives (specific)." Apart from the details, it is undeni• able (1) that both passages deal with the Games, the victory, the victor and the poet, and (2) that the poet uses Hieron's KAeos, which shines in the ci1ro,Kia of Pelops, to move from the opening passage to the first myth, and ends the second myth with the mention of Pelops' KAeos radiating (oeoopKE) from afar in Olympia. It is equally undeniable that the section between lines 24 and 95 is in the form of a triptych: first Pelops myth -Tantalus myth - second Pelops myth. Reduced to the simplest form possible, the symmetrical construction of the poem appears as follows: A (1-24) Olympia, Hieron, his victory, the poet; Bl (25-53) Pelops abducted by Poseidon; B2 (53-64) Tantalus; B3 (65-94) Pel ops defeats Oenomaus; A 1 (95-end) as in A.

The transition from B3 to A1 does indeed reflect exactly that from A to

B1; even the same words are used. It is also notable that a gnome occurs both between B1 and B2 and between B2 and B3• 20 PINDAR'S FIRST OLYMPIAN

The question of the function of such a construction is answered by Young as follows: (1) the symmetry as such is aesthetically satisfying; (2) "the emphasis on superlativity" at the beginning and end accentuates the interest "of the very idea of superlativity" with regard to "the heroic act" (of Pelops?), the Olympic games, and Hieron's position in the world; (3) "the balanced expressions about the shining of KAf.OS, the one pertaining to Hieron, the other to Pelops, tend to clarify the para• digmatic relationship of Pelops' Olympic success to Hieron's victory"; (4) "the structural isolation of the Tantalus-myth, and its removal from all contexts directly associated with Hieron elucidate its function as a foil for the subjects with which the poem is elsewhere concerned, esp. for example, Hieron's way of life." This calls for comment. Re (1) It is doubtful whether, and if so, how it is possible to discern symmetry in the case of a text, where it cannot be perceived at a single glance as it can be in the case of a painting whose composition is sym• metrical. It is evident that Pindar's audience can only realize afterwards, i.e. during and after hearing A1 and B3, that A and A1, and B' and B3 are of equal length. This also presupposes that the demarcation lines between the symmetrically composed sections are recognisable as such to the audience; that, for example, B' is almost of exactly the same length as B3, will only be apparent to them, when they are aware of the fact that the poem is divided into sections, and this awareness can only grow while they are listening, or rather at the point at which one section is followed by the next. If the audience is ignorant of this fact, they will merely notice that the poet again turns his attention to Pelops in B3 • Re (2) "Superlativity" is an abstract based on the presence of superlatives and superlative expressions. That superlative expressions accentuate the superlative character of the person or thing to which they are applied is a tautology; the fact that they occur more fre• quently at the beginning and at the end than elsewhere in the poem is due to the subjects dealt with. Young's observation, therefore, amounts to no more than the statement that greater attention is paid to Hieron and his victory at the beginning and end of the poem. Re (3) K>,.fos of both Hieron and Pel ops does indeed constitute the transition to and from the central mythical section. But I do not see how this parallel could "clarify" the paradigmatic relationship of Pe-