I PINDAR AND THE POETICS OF AUTONOMY: AUTHORIAL AGENCY IN PINDAR’S FOURTH PYTHIAN ODE 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 Dennis Robert Alley May 2019 II ©2019 Dennis Robert Alley III PINDAR AND THE POETICS OF AUTONOMY: AUTHORIAL AGENCY IN PINDAR’S FOURTH PYTHIAN ODE Dennis Robert Alley Cornell University 2019 Over the last decade a growing number of scholars have questioned the veracity of the longstanding commission-fee model which placed the Greek lyric poet Pindar in the thrall of various aristocratic patrons to secure his pay. This seismic shift in our view on Pindar’s composition reveals manifold new questions to explore in its wake. What happens to our understanding of the 45 extant odes and extensive fragments, when, for example, angling for commission no longer mandates procrustean generic strictures? How do we understand praise poetry if not as exclusively solicited and sold? Where do we even begin examining the odes under this new model? Pindar and the Poetics of Autonomy suggests one ode in particular has suffered from the rigidity of scholarly expectations on commission and genre. In the corpus of Pindaric epinicia, Pythian Four, written around 462 for Arcesilaus the fourth of Cyrene, is conspicuously anomalous. At 299 exceptionally long lines, the poem is over twice as long as the next longest ode. While most epinicia devote considerable space in their opening and closing sections to celebrating the present victory, Pythian Four makes only one clear mention of it. Unlike other Pindaric epinicia which develop myths focusing on a critical crisis which reveals a hero’s IV exceptional character, Pythian Four features a continuous narrative which lingers on emotional moments of loss, recognition, deceit, success, and return. Finally, the ode concludes with a request for the repatriation of a Cyrenean exile—a feature not only unattested in other Pindaric poems, but which lacks clear precedent in extant Greek poetry. While any one of these features might easily be placed in an epinician to achieve, for example, variation or vividness, the accretion of so many irregular features in a single ode should at least encourage us to consider other generic options, or, alternatively, freer constraints on its composition. This dissertation does just that. It suggests that our understanding of Pindaric lyric, and Pythian four especially, has been problematically skewed by long assumed—but poorly documented—compositional and generic constraints. Finally, it offers a different way of understanding Pindar and Greek Lyric generally. V BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dennis R. Alley was born in Syracuse, New York and raised on a small farm in Verona, New York. The son of Gary and Catherine Alley, Dennis’ intellectual curiosity was piqued at a very young age by multiple discoveries of centuries-old artifacts on his family’s farm. A first- generation university student, Dennis was attracted to the study of Classics during his time at Syracuse University, where he completed an honors thesis on Herodotus’ characterization of the Spartans in the Histories under the supervision of Craige Champion and Jeffrey Carnes. Dennis completed his B.A. from Syracuse, Summa Cum Laude, in 2011 and began graduate studies at Cornell University in the Fall of 2012. At Cornell, under the direction of Jeffrey Rusten and Hayden Pelliccia, Dennis has worked on Greek Historiography, Attic Comedy, and specialized in Archaic Greek Lyric. The seeds of his dissertation were planted in part during his work on a topic exam in 2015 on Pindar under the direction of Hayden Pelliccia, and a seminar the same year on the Platonic Letters taught by Hayden Pelliccia and Charles Brittain. VI DEDICATION For my parents, Gary and Catherine Alley, whose endless love, support, generosity, and encouragement made this unlikely path a reality. For my grandmother, Vera B. Alley, whose indelible spirit has inspired and encouraged me since she departed this world in 2005. VII Acknowledgments As is to be expected with any project of this magnitude, I have incurred a tremendous number of personal and professional debts. The oldest and longest standing of which stretches back long before this project was conceived. My parents, Gary and Catherine Alley, cultivated in me a curiosity and fascination with the world that ultimately made this project a possibility. They taught me how to think for myself and ceaselessly inquire about the world—for that I will always be grateful to them. Next, I must thank my wife, Leita Powers, whose love, support, patience, and willingness to listen to an endless number of practice conference papers or to help proof-read (though I have no doubt she would rather not have) far exceeded what could fairly be asked of a spouse. Moreover, Leita provided the emotional support necessary to reach the end. Intellectually, this project has benefited from the input of a wide range of scholars in the field. I would especially like to thank Kathryn Morgan of UCLA who took the time to read and suggest various revisions at early phases. My graduate colleagues in Cornell’s Classics department have all contributed valuable input along the way and are due my gratitude. I would especially like to thank Hannah Karmin of the Comp. Lit. department, whose interests in poetic authority in English literature offered me a tremendous wealth of historical parallels for the notion of poetic autonomy, and my dear friend Natasha Binek of Classics, with whom I had the opportunity to discuss this project over coffee on a weekly basis. Her critical eye and impeccable judgement helped me expand my thinking as the project grew and spared me from numerous embarrassing errors. VIII Two scholars from my past have exerted a tremendous influence in the development of this project. Craige Champion of Syracuse University was kind enough to read many drafts of each chapter and suggest numerous revisions. It is highly unlikely that this project would have ever taken form had it not been for Jeffrey Carnes also of Syracuse. Jeff, ever the enthusiastic Pindarist, introduced me to Pindar in my senior year at Syracuse. In our time together, he presented Pindar as an author who composed in a genre of which we are largely ignorant: his illumination of that that genre throughout my final semester at Syracuse allowed me to both appreciate and sincerely enjoy the Theban poet. My greatest debts lie with the faculty and staff of Cornell’s Classics department. The superb support and organization afforded us by the secretarial staff has been inspirational. Linda Brown, Philip Rusher, and Jessica Smith always helped me in any capacity they could. A particularly large debt is due to Eric Rebillard, who in his capacity as DGS has ensured the timeliness of this project and guaranteed that I had the opportunity to present versions of each chapter at numerous conferences in North America and Europe. Manifold faculty members have provided exceptional support, guidance, and suggestions at numerous points in this project’s devlopement, of whom I would especially like to thank Fredrick Ahl, Charles Brittain, Todd Clary, and Piero Pucci. My advising committee has been incomparable in the development of this project. The endless enthusiasm, generosity, support, and insight of Athena Kirk and Courtney Roby helped me improve my methodological and theoretical views—considerably sharpening my critical focus. Next, Jeffrey Rusten’s knowledge of Greek language and literature was invaluable in the more philological sections of the project. Moreover, during my time at Cornell, Jeff’s kindness, warmth, and welcoming personality made meeting the challenges of graduate study possible. IX Aditionally, his generous gift of an edition of the scholia to Pindar made working on the ancient reception of the odes substantially easier. Finally, in his capacity as my advisor, Hayden Pelliccia’s endless patience, insight, critical eye, and unwavering commitment to my intellectual development ensured my success. Ever ready with words of encouragement, a useful article he had just encountered, a willingness to listen to my newest thoughts on Pindar or P.4—even in their most inchoate state—or in his capacity to gently dissuade me from topics that might become “quicksand,” Hayden has helped me at every stage of my graduate career. I cannot express the depth of my gratitude to him. Finally, I would be remiss to neglect a final member of our staff, who was tragically unable to see the completion of this project. Katrina Neff, an administrative assistant in the Classics department, passed away in the Fall of 2016. Katrina’s kindness, warmth, generosity, and humor made her a bright spot in the lives of all graduate students in the department and, indeed, everyone who knew her. Many of us often lovingly referred to her as the “Classics den mother.” I am sincerely grateful to have known Katrina and deeply saddened that future members of the Cornell Classics community will not have that opportunity. X TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: Pindarus Lyricus 1 Chapter I: 7 An Autonomous Praise Poet? Poetic Autonomy and the The Epinician Poet. Chapter II: A Poetic Nostos? 49 Rethinking P.4 Chapter III: Speaking to the Powerful: 87 The Poet’s Voice Chapter IV: Jason at the Symposium: 137 The Exile and the King Chapter V: Demophilus at the Symposium: 176 The Plea for Return Conclusion: 200 Resetting the Boundaries of Pindaric Poetry Bibliography 229 1 INTRODUCTION: PINDARUS LYRICUS ἐπέγνω μὲν Κυράνα 280 καὶ τὸ κλεεννότατον μέγαρον Βάττου δικαιᾶν Δαμοφίλου πραπίδων. κεῖνος γὰρ ἐν παισὶν νέος, ἐν δὲ βουλαῖς πρέσβυς ἐγκύρ- σαις ἑκατονταετεῖ βιοτᾷ, ὀρφανίζει μὲν κακὰν γλῶσσαν φαεννᾶς ὀπός, ἔμαθε δ' ὑβρίζοντα μισεῖν, 285 οὐκ ἐρίζων ἀντία τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, οὐδὲ μακύνων τέλος οὐδέν.