This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use:

This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given.

2

Politics, Ideology, and Economy in the Pindaric World

Gianna Stergiou

PhD in Classics The University of Edinburgh 2017 3

Declaration This thesis has been composed by the candidate, the work is the candidate’s own and the work has not been submitted for the award of any other degree or professional qualification.

Signed

Gianna Stergiou

4

Abstract

This thesis examines the work of Pindar from a political, ideological, and economic perspective. It is based on the premise that the society in which Pindar lived and the society he presents in the odes are not examples of fully embedded economies, and that elements of a market economy have an impact on both the society and the odes' ideology. A thorough analysis of the economics of Isthmian 2 shows that gift economy coexists with market economy. My thesis focuses on the odes dedicated to the Sicilian tyrants, Hieron of Syracuse and Theron of Akragas. The odes dedicated to Hieron have a different ideology, propaganda and economy in comparison with those composed for Theron. Hieron is presented as an almighty king whose values do not derive from inherited excellence (phya), but from his wealth. By analysing the reciprocal relationships in the mythological exempla, I argue that the poet reveals Hieron to be prone to market behaviour and suggests the dangers involved in pursuing obscene profit and in applying market logic to politics. In the case of Theron, Pindar treats him according to traditional aristocratic values. Theron is the most prominent person of an aristocratic family and closely follows the laws of the gift economy. He is a man whose values are inherited and his exceptional phya justifies his tyranny. A brief comparison of the concept of phya in the Aeginetan odes illustrates the different way the concept is applied in the case of a tyrant. In conclusion, Pindar is a poet who knows the wishes of his patrons and how to promote their propaganda, but he also lives in a society which functions not only under the laws of a fully embedded economy, but also under those of a market economy, and the logic of the latter has influenced his poetry. An ideological examination of his work uncovers the traces of this influence.

5

Lay Summary This thesis examines the Pindaric odes from a political, ideological, and economic perspective. The premise of the study is that the Pindaric world was not homogenous, but two different economical systems co-existed. The poet is aware of both of them: gift economy and market economy. Pindar manages to create a balance between them, as the analysis of Isthmian 2 shows. The rest of the thesis is focused on the odes for Hieron and how they are influenced by the political status of the patron and the economy of the market. By analysing the reciprocal relationships in the mythological exempla, I argue that the poet reveals Hieron to be prone to market behaviour and suggests the dangers involved in pursuing obscene profit and in applying market logic to politics. By contrast with the Hieron odes, the Emmenid odes have a different ideological agenda. They are concerned with the notion of phya, but it too can be understood from an economic perspective.

6

Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον. καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν, καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν, ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάνειν, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδέν εἰμι. καὶ ἐὰν ψωμίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου, καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσομαι, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι

(Apostle Paul, Α´ ἐπιστολὴ Παύλου πρὸς Κορινθίους (ιβ´ 27 - ιγ´ 13)

‘Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not money, it profiteth me nothing. Money suffereth long, and is kind; money envieth not; money vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things… And now abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these is money.

I Corinthians xiii (adapted) ‘

(George Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra Flying)

7

Editions and Abbreviations

Pindar and Bacchylides are cited according to the following editions:

Snell, B., and H. Maehler, (1992), Bacchylides, Leipzig: Teubner.

Snell, B., and H. Maehler, (1987), Pindarus. Pars I. Epinicia, 8th ed. Leipzig: Teubner.

Snell, B., and H. Maehler, (1989), Pindarus. Pars II. Fragmenta. Indices, Leipzig: Teubner.

Drachmann, A. B. (1903–1927), Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina. 3 vols, Leipzig: Teubner.

AJPh American Journal of Philology

BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, University of London

CJ Classical Journal

CQ Classical Quarterly

DK Diels, H., and W. Kranz (eds) (1961/[1952]), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. 10th ed. Berlin: Weidmann.

FGE Page, D. L. (ed.) (1981), Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

FGrHist Jacoby, F. (1923–1958), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Berlin: Weidmann.

GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

HSCPh Harvard Studies of Classical Philology

ICS Illinois Classical Studies

JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies 8

M-L Meiggs R., and D. Lewis, (eds) (1969), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PMG Page, D. L. (1962), Poetae melici graeci, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

PMGF Davies, M. (1991), Poetarum melicorum graecorum fragmenta, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

QUCC Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica

RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie

TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association

TrGF Snell, B., and R. Kannicht (eds) (1986–.), Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

YCS Yale Classical Studies

The poems of Pindar are abbreviated as follows O. Olympians P. Pythians N. Nemeans I. Isthmians

9

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all the people who contributed in some way to the work described in this thesis. First and foremost, I offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Douglas Cairns, who has supported me throughout my thesis not only with his inexhaustible patience and knowledge, but also emotionally through the rough road to finish this thesis. I am especially grateful because he set me free to find my own voice whilst he was guiding me with valuable comments, insightful suggestions and astute criticism. Without him this thesis would not have been completed or written. He is the best supervisor and one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. I will forever be thankful to my dear friend Professor Olga Taxidou for her support, meticulous suggestions, and for engaging me to innovative ideas. She was and remains my best role model for mentor, academic, and friend. Olga was the reason I was involved so much with theory and one of the main reasons I could withstand Edinburgh’s depressing weather. I would like also to thank Professor Peter Rose for teaching me the double hermeneutic method and for making me realize the importance of wealth in defining the elite class. His books were a source of unending inspiration and his comments a guide to uncharted waters. A huge “thank you” to my lovely friend Dr. Stephanie Winder for reading the whole thesis again and again, correcting my English, commenting almost in every paragraph of the thesis, and encouraging me every single time I felt that I had no inspiration. I am especially thankful to her because she introduced me to Laertis, a dear friend who was always available to listen when I needed an ear, always willing to help by all his means and always a person who believed in my abilities. I owe many thanks to my examiners, Professor Richard Seaford and Lilah Grace Canevaro for their inspiring questions and helpful comments. I am more than grateful to my family, especially to my dearest darling mom, for her encouragement, blessings, love, and moral support. I am indebted to her because her strong belief that money cannot buy everything was the inspiration for writing about the autonomy of the poet. I would like to thank my sister and his husband, my brother and my nephews who never let me feel alone. 10

Finally, I would like to thank my friends for providing me love, support, friendship, and making me explore the humorous aspects of life. Forgive me for not listing everyone (you are too many/I am so lucky). Thank you, Georgia, Dimitris, Cynthia, Elena, Thomas. I would like to acknowledge the most important persons in my life: Thanassis and Father Euphrosynos. I dedicate this thesis to them, because they were a constant source of strength and faith. There were times during the past four years that everything seemed meaningless and my pessimism made the situation even worse. I can honestly say that it was their blessings, encouragement, and love that made it possible for me to make this difficult—but interesting—journey.

11

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE ...... 1 Ideology and Hegemony ...... 4 The Autonomy of Art ...... 9 Economic Relations ...... 11 Isthmian 2: Commodity or gift? ...... 13 Overview ...... 26 CHAPTER TWO ...... 29 The Deinomenids ...... 29 Gelon ...... 29 Hieron ...... 33 Deinomenid Identity ...... 40 The Emmenids ...... 43 CHAPTER THREE ...... 46 Introduction ...... 46 The (re)production of Hieron’s "hegemony" ...... 48 Pythian 2 ...... 52 The Ixion Myth: consensus and subordination ...... 60 Pindar and Hieron ...... 69 Conclusion ...... 72 Olympian 1 ...... 74 Introduction ...... 74 The opening Priamel: Gold and Justice ...... 77 Pelops, Tantalus and Hieron ...... 82 Pindar's Mythmaking ...... 90 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 97 The concept of phya ...... 97 The case of Aegina ...... 99 Phya and the mythological heroes ...... 101 Aeginetan phya ...... 104 Aeginetan phya and the economy of the oikos ...... 111 12

Praising the Emmenids: Pythian 6 and Isthmian 2 ...... 118 Olympian 2 for Theron of Acragas ...... 124 Theron's Family ...... 125 Cadmus' Family ...... 127 Eschatology ...... 132 The notion of phya in the laudandus and the poet ...... 137 Conclusion ...... 141 CHAPTER FIVE ...... 143 Introduction ...... 143 Pythian 1 ...... 144 Typhon ...... 145 Hieron and Panhellenism ...... 150 Foundation of Aitna ...... 152 The Founder's Achievements ...... 154 Genealogical ancestry and journey ...... 158 Leadership ...... 160 Economies of Praise ...... 162 Hieron, tyrant of Syracuse and Sicilian leader ...... 164 The Poet and the double hermeneutic ...... 167 Pythian 3: A moral lesson ...... 174 Introduction ...... 174 Coronis ...... 179 Asclepius ...... 183 Coronis, Asclepius, Hieron, and the poet ...... 187 Hieron the king ...... 191 The teacher and the student ...... 192 Cadmus, and Peleus: the great olbos of great men ...... 194 Nestor and Sarpedon ...... 197 Conclusion ...... 199

13

1

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

My reading of the odes of Pindar is based on the premise that Pindar was a political poet. His poetry was political in its function and content. The victors who were praised and the patrons—if different—were wealthy, politically important, belonged to the dominant class and used the Games as an opportunity to support their

"hegemony".1 The institution of tyranny represented a threat to that hegemony by disrupting its hierarchies, regardless of whether the tyrant himself came from an aristocratic background or not. And yet the tyrants were eager to participate in the athletic Games. The tension between the two political systems must inevitably give rise to problems for an epinician poet as to how to fit the two together in his praise programme. It is these problems, this disconnect, that is the focus of my investigation.

In the majority of the odes, Pindar's poetic persona speaks as a member of the same aristocratic group, with shared values and concerns, and addresses the victor, and his audience, as a peer. How can these values be made to serve a different hegemonic project? How are they managed when the poet is in the position of a political inferior to a tyrant? In such a situation, what status can he claim for his voice, and what happens to his autonomy? The most important concept that distinguishes both the victor and his group from others is that referred to by Pindar as

1 This is a Gramscian concept and is analysed below. 2 phya, innate or inherited excellence.2 He invokes the concept both for the purposes of praising the laudandus, and as part of a strategy for the social reintegration of the victor into his oikos by sharing the praise with his family.3 Given that both the rhetoric and economy of praise is tied in so tightly to the concept of phya, what happens when the laudandus has no such distinguished family line, as in the case of

Hieron, tyrant of Syracuse?

Finally, I support the view that Pindar was paid for his compositions and that this transaction has an impact on his work. In the context of epinician's typical aristocratic ideology, payment can be reinscribed as a gift.4 But when the patron is a tyrant and one of the richest men in the Greek world, whose position does not depend on the social relationships of a gift economy, such a reinscription of payment is problematic. In summary, my intention is to explore the political element of the poems for Sicilian tyrants, their ideology, and how and to what extent this ideology is connected with their mode of production.

The issue of the role of money in Pindaric poetry has a long history dating back at least to the Hellenistic period and its scholars. The ancient scholia of Pindar are the most outspoken source. Although the whole work is a compilation of opinions from various periods and various scholiasts, edited by Aristophanes of Byzantium

(3rd century BC),5 there are many insightful views concerning the Pindaric odes mixed together with significant misinterpretations. Among the misconceptions are those that are connected with the issue of wealth and payment. A very common

2 The praise of inherited excellence is not only presented by a simple association of aretai, physical or ethical, with phya, but is also present in many of the myths in the odes. See Rose (1974) especially 152-155. 3 These two perspectives have as representatives respectively Bundy (1962) and Kurke (1991). See Rose’s analysis (1974) 152-153. 4 See Kurke (1991) 208-222 on Isthmian 2. 5 Deas (1931) 1-3. 3 methodology applied in the case of references to money is to invent a historical background which functions as the key to understanding the dense lyrics. For example, in Pythian 1, the reference to the golden lyre of Apollo is interpreted as a reminder to Hieron of the golden lyre that he promised Pindar in payment.6

More recent scholars have tried to solve the problem either by presenting it within the framework of "social economy" as Kurke does,7 or by simply denying the possibility of composing for a fee, as Pelliccia has argued.8 I do not claim that we must see Pindaric poetry only through the lens of this exchange, but if we ignore this dimension we miss a very important element, the "game" involved in the ambiguity of financial, moral, aesthetic, and political terms, such as μισθός, χάρις, χρέος, and

τόκος.

A political approach towards the Pindaric odes, as Rose eloquently shows, involves fewer dangers.9 Many scholars have followed the scholiasts in trying to interpret the odes via a direct relationship to the historical data about Pindar’s life.

Unfortunately, this is hindered by the huge problem of determining chronology, which for many odes has never been solved. As a consequence, "the entire historicising enterprise threatens to self-destruct".10 On the other hand, Bundy claimed that all the allusions or direct references to social, historical, economic or political facts can be explained by reference to one purpose, that of the glorification

6 Γέγραπται μὲν ὁ ἐπίνικος Ἱέρωνι, λέγεται δὲ ὁ Πίνδαρος οὕτως ἐπιβεβλῆσθαι κατὰ Ἀρτέμωνα τὸν ἱστορικόν, ὁτι δὴ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἱέρων χρυσῆν ὑπέσχετο κιθάραν. "This epinikion was written for Hieron, and it is said by Artemon the historian that Pindar was devoted to the work in this way because Hieron promised him a golden lyre." 7 Kurke (1991). Her perspective is analysed further below. 8 Pelliccia (2009) 243-247. Bowie (2012) 89-disputes the fact that Pindar was rewarded in money and he focuses on the fact that we cannot approach his poetry with the anxiety of "hiding" the actual exchange. 9 Rose (1992) 151-158. 10 Rose (1992) 154. 4 of the athlete. This approach, although it was in its time revolutionary for Pindaric studies, was myopic in ideological matters. An indicative example is the way Bundy glosses the term phya.11 The word—and its synonyms—is the epitome of Pindar’s commitment to aristocratic ideology, but Bundy considers that it represents "the natural enthusiasm" of the poet for his patron.

Ideology and Hegemony

The concept of ideology is crucial to my analysis but it is one of the most contested terms as for many years it has been an object of an interpretational war between theorists from various disciplines. Scholarship has created so wide a range of conceptualisations of the term that "ideology" has ended up meaning very different things to different theorists.

Destutt de Tracy coined the term "ideology" in the early nineteenth century.

His aim was to introduce a new "science of ideas" in order to distinguish ideas with metaphysical knowledge.12 Later, the term was given a more derogatory sense by

Napoleon Bonaparte, who believed that ideology was no more than abstract thought by people who had little contact with reality.13 In contemporary mass media, ideology is a term that attaches to a politician who wants to impose his/her dogmatic beliefs on a political system. S/he might be on the right or left and s/he wishes to change the world. It is typically used in a sarcastic way to denote the opposite of

"pragmatic".14 Not all sets of ideas are ideological, because ideology is more than a

11 Rose (1992) 159-165 analyses Pindar’s heavy emphasis on the term phya along with other terms that denote "inborn" excellence. 12 Eagleton (1991) 67. 13 Mannheim (1936) 73. 14 Kavanagh (1990) 306. 5 system of ideas. My use of the term conforms to Thompson's broadly stated view that studying ideology "is to study the ways in which meaning (or signification) serves to sustain relations of domination".15

This perception of ideology, which attributes "instrumentality" to the concept, can be found in the work of Marx, although the term is an evolving one in his work.16

In brief, ideology is closely connected with false consciousness and is part of the superstructure. The ruling class and intellectuals have a distorted set of beliefs about the world which reproduce the dominant material relationships. Since the goal of the ruling class is to legitimate its hegemony, ideological mystification is an essential device: "The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think."17

Although ideology should not be connected only with domination, as Eagleton insightfully emphasises,18 Thompson’s definition shows clearly the relational character of ideology. Class is formulated in relational terms, as a struggle between classes to control the material modes of production, relations of production and distribution of the fruits of production.19 Consequently, class ideology is relational in the sense that its beliefs exist in respect to the opposing class (es) and are rival forms of thought.

15 Thompson (1984) 7. 16 For a more complete presentation, see Marx and Engels (1845). 17 Marx and Engels (1845/1970) 64. 18 Eagleton (1991) 6. He emphasises that an ideology could be used against the dominant ideology, based on the work of Gramsci and Althusser. 19 Rose (2006) 102. 6

Another function of ideology lies in its capacity to inspire and to show new ways of action. This happens, as Rose states, by persuasion rather than force.20 This is the focus of Gramsci's work and it led him to develop the related concept of

"hegemony". He looked at the power of the ruling classes to dominate, and the ways in which it can be acquired and maintained through the power of consciousness and ideology. The issue for Gramsci is how the ruling class has managed to win the consent of the dominated classes in order to understand how to overthrow the old order.

According to Gramsci, the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as "domination" and as intellectual and moral leadership.21 In the case of domination, the subordination happens through coercion and force. Although force and consent do coexist, usually one of them predominates. So, for example, in

Greece during the seven years of rule by military junta (1967-1974), force was the most powerful weapon against the "communist threat", but it was supported by a developing propaganda movement. In contemporary Greece, intellectuals, media, schools and all institutions propagate the "European idea" to every class to facilitate the imposition of as many measures of tough austerity as possible.22 In the latter case, the argumentation is based on what Gramsci calls "cultural hegemony". As

20 Rose (2006) 102. 21 Gramsci developed the idea of hegemony and manufactured consent while he was imprisoned by the Italian fascist regime. His analysis was written between 1929 and 1935, published during the 1950s and first published in English in1971. 22 The role of intellectuals and institutions in modern Greece with regards to austerity illustrates the point. The media and individuals who are very prominent in Greek society (intellectuals, artists etc.) campaigned to persuade people to demonstrate against every move that could lead the country out of the European Union, while at the same time they identified the euro with the European Union. On the other hand, they produced a story according to which Europe is the mother of civilised nations and any attempt to leave it leads to a primitive condition. In addition, every hegemonic attitude from Europe to Greece was interpreted as an attitude of an indignant parent towards his/her intractable child. So the euro, and not Europe, became the symbol of civilisation, democracy and the fight against Stalinism (the new government was accused of Stalinistic plans, because a few of its members were talking about exit). 7

Eagleton explains, "Culture for both [Gramsci and Freud] is an amalgam of coercive and consensual mechanisms for reconciling human subjects to their unwelcome fate as labouring animals in oppressive conditions".23 In other words, the dominant group wins consent for subordination to the existing social order by means of values, norms, perceptions, beliefs, and sentiments that maintain the distribution of the goods as suits it best.24 The dominant class needs to lend its domination an aura of moral authority. This can be done through legitimising symbols.25 The power of attraction that the dominant class exerts not only over the subordinated classes, but also over the intellectuals, is the most effective way that hegemony is imposed.26

Gramsci's perspective as a theorist of State and power is obvious in Althusser's work on ideology. Althusser concentrates on two things: the role of the State in the broad sense and the "material" aspect of ideology.27 He does not present ideology as a set of beliefs or ideas, but says rather that it "represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real condition of life".28 So, ideology as an imaginary representation is always distorted, even if there is no intentional intervention. It does not show the real conditions of an individual’s life; it is rather an imaginary relationship with these conditions, a relationship that expresses a social or political will.29 As the imaginary distortion is dependent also on the imaginary relationship of the individual with the conditions of his existence, so the imaginary relationship is endowed with a material substance. The faith of the individual in certain "values"

23 Eagleton (1991) 179-180. 24 Lears (1985) 569. 25 Lears (1985) 569. 26 The concept of ideology in Gramscian work is not negative as it is in Marx’s work. 27 Althusser (1970) 28 I use the English translation by Brewster (1971) 153. 29 Moriarty (2006) 44. 8 results from certain "ideas" of the individual, which he/she considers that s/he has chosen freely and consciously.

But where do these "ideas" come from? They derive from the practices in which every individual is involved. These practices are governed by rituals that are inscribed within the material existence of an ideological apparatus. In other words, the dominant class maintains its power by reproducing "ideas" that favour subjection to the ruling ideology. In this respect, Althusser is very close to Gramsci’s conception of hegemony as he believes that in order to ensure domination over the labour classes one would not need only means of violent and coercion (Repressive

State Apparatus), but also mechanisms to justify the structures of exploitation

(Ideological State Apparatus), such as school, church, family etc. To sum up, ideology is not a set of beliefs or ideas but a social process in which every subject is involved. This process works on and through every social subject whether or not the subject knows or understands it.30

In applying these concepts to Pindar's work, my aim is to show the

"representation of the real" through the Pindaric odes and what effects this may have on the social subjects. However, the "meaning" of the text, its ideology, is determined by a complex network of factors including the audience, the political status of the victor, the city, the influence of the actual exchange between poet and patron, and its representation. My approach is based on the premise that Pindar composed the odes for tyrants with a different purpose than he does for private citizens.31 He uses his poetry as a means of reproducing ideology that reinforces the

30 Kavanagh (1990) 311. 31 Stegner (2004) 275 argues that Pindar appears to have a different purpose in the case of Hieron. His goal was not to integrate the tyrant into his city, but to present him as a ruler. Race (1987) 138-155 9 tyrannical regime. At the same time, as I stated above, I believe that the actual exchange between the poet and the patron has an impact on the text. The exchange between the poet and the patrons creates relations of power in which the poet tries to find a balance or even to predominate. The relations of power are different according to the political status of the individual that is involved in the transaction.

The Autonomy of Art

The tension between the understanding of poetry as ideology that is rooted in material modes of production such as economics and social relations and the understanding of art as an autonomous work and as an expression of a free individual is much debated by scholars, especially Marxist ones.

Art in all ages and societies has always had a certain level of autonomy. I do not mean that society does not affect art or that art has failed to influence society.

The ultimate purpose and reason for art’s being, its value, is achieved along with the values of the superstructure: political, moral, religious.32 What predominates is a matter of socio-historical situations. For example, mediaeval art functioned in the service of religion, and always in full accordance with the dominant class. In

Pindar’s time—in ancient Greece in general—art was embedded in the civic and religious culture of the community. Pindar’s art was also dependent, because he was paid for it. He had certain patrons, from a certain social class, with certain ideological constitutions. In the case of a tyrant, he had not only to (re)produce the

and Kurke (1991) 224 n.53 believe that there is a marked difference in the way that Pindar praises private citizens on the one hand, and tyrants on the other. In the case of private citizens, Pindar concentrates much more on the athletic victory, while in the case of tyrants his goal is to show his patron's superiority in terms of power. 32 Sanchez-Vazquez (1973) 115. 10 regime’s ideology, but also to propagate the tyrant’s profile. Although this is true and obvious in the odes, it is possible to find a space in them for poetic autonomy.

I do not use the term "autonomy" when I refer to ancient art in the same way it is used for modern art. There are many restrictions when the term is applied to pre- modern or early modern literary productions. I use the term in the way Rose uses it, describing the power of the artistic form, of the particular genre "not as a simple reflection of the reality defined by the Greek aristocracy but as a largely autonomous transformation of and response to aesthetic as well as political realities".33 I talk about a "relative autonomy" far away from the doctrine "art for art’s sake", and closer to a liberation of the work or poet from the restrictions of mere propaganda.

This liberation of the poet can be seen by applying the methodology of the

"double hermeneutic". The term was coined by Jameson,34 and used in the reading of classics by Rose.35 It is based on the premise that art cannot solely be a reproduction of a set of beliefs, or be reduced to ideology. Every work of art functions affirmatively for the class from which it derives. This is the negative hermeneutic.

The Pindaric odes, for example, are a reflection of the reality defined by the aristocracy and the political context. They have, as every work of art has, a relative autonomy, which negates that reality, and gives voice to a second voice, the positive hermeneutic. I do not mean that Pindar was a revolutionary, but that the presentation of Hieron and his world as the utopian world is sometimes disputed in the odes, and it is disputed by using its own values against it.

33 Rose (1992) 41. 34 Jameson (1971), (1981). 35 Rose (1992) 33-42. 11

Economic Relations

My approach explores both ideology and autonomy in Pindar, and the impact on these of the mode of production of the poem. I take for granted that Pindar was paid

(by money or other valuable objects) in order to compose his victory odes. The actual economic exchange has an impact on his work. It is expressed either in a disguised form (gift economy) or clear manner (commodity exchange). This exchange between the poet and the patron was in reality a simple commodity exchange. By simple commodity exchange I mean that the poet brings his "product" to the market (not in a capitalist sense), then the patron pays him (coins or other means of payment), and then the poet is able to purchase a certain amount of commodities.

The exchange relation between the poet and his patrons creates a hierarchy between the contracting parties. This hierarchy is valid due to the economic relationship—the one who is paid is in debt until s/he pays it off—and due to the high political position of the patron. The driving force of the movement is the goal of acquiring the use-value embodied in the commodity-ode. Pindar understands the motives of his patrons and he promotes the use-value of his poems according to the culture, society and social class of his patron, while he constructs another disguised economic system, where the financial terms acquire a symbolic meaning. This means that there is a different use-value in the case of tyrants than in the case of non-tyrant victors.

One of the most valued relationships in the aristocratic world was that established by the value of reciprocity. Mauss' point, in his seminal work, is that in gift economies not everything is categorised in terms of buying and selling, as these 12 societies are far away from a tradesman morality.36 Someone gives a gift to another member of his society, and expects in return something of equal or greater value later on. The gift, in this way, becomes a challenge that the recipient has to face if s/he wants to avoid humiliation. The purpose of gift-giving is to create social relations and not for someone to procure for her/himself the maximum possible profit. Thus the "interest" involved has nothing to do with economic activity.

Kurke demonstrates the importance of economics in understanding the Pindaric odes.37 The main point of her work is to show how the socially embedded genre of epinikion reintegrates the athlete into his heterogeneous communities: into household, aristocratic class, and city. According to Kurke, in order to reintegrate the athlete, Pindar uses metaphors of different modes of exchange. In the case of the internal economy of the house, she grounds her argumentation in the imagery of the birth of an heir and funeral customs. For the reintegration of the athlete into the aristocratic class, she applies the system of gift exchange, based on the work of

Mauss. The final step of the reintegration is that of the athlete into the community of the polis. In order for Pindar to achieve this, he credits his patron with the virtue of megaloprepeia. Her perspective towards Pindar's view of wealth is that the poet disapproved of 'hidden' wealth, but approved of the wealth that can bring or acquire

"symbolic capital". The way that Pindar values wealth constitutes the "embeddeness" of the epinician economy, as money is connected to and measured by the prestige and immortality that it ensures to its possessor.

Kurke's approach has much in common with my own, but it is inadequate for my purposes in three ways. First, her economy of praise cannot fit the case of a

36 Mauss (1925/ 1954). 37 Kurke (1991). 13 tyrant like Hieron. Second, this theory represents only the negative hermeneutic, as it reproduces the dominant ideology. It does so not only in the values that it expresses but also in the inner logic of the poem. The poem is a gift and the victor is the recipient. The gift-giving is a rhetorical gesture in social communication. Due to the fact that exchange objects have a symbolic dimension, transaction becomes the basic expressive act and the object itself loses its meaning as it is transferred to the relationship between people and things. Third, it is based on a view of the Pindaric world as economically unified, whereas I argue that commodity exchange coexists with the gift economy and the values of both are important for Pindar's success, as can be seen in Isthmian 2.

Isthmian 2: Commodity or gift?

Isthmian 2 is composed for Xenocrates of Acragas' chariot victory, probably in 470

BC. The winner was dead by the time the ode was performed and, as we are informed from the first line of the ode, the recipient is now his son, Thrasyboulos.

The victor’s family, the Emmenidai, was politically prominent and one of the founding families of Acragas. Theron, son of Ainesidamos and tyrant of Acragas

(488/7 BC), was Xenocrates’ brother. Xenocrates is also commemorated by Pindar in

Pythian 6 for his victory in the chariot race (490 BC)

This ode is one of the most problematic to interpret. It has many peculiarities that have been much discussed. It is an epinician ode, but it has an unusually personal tone toward the son of the victor. More importantly, it highlights the vexed topic of commissioned poetry. As Nisetich advises, if one wants to interpret this sui 14 generis ode, one should avoid ''a false assumption based on a true premise''.38 The true premise, he explains, is that every device that the poet employs is used to praise the victor.39 This principle, which Bundy pioneered, is valid, but it is not an adequate means of approaching the odes. Bundy’s emphasis on praising the laudandus does not take account of the poet’s ideological agenda that transcend the specific commissions. This false assumption is the main cause for unsatisfactory interpretations of the ode, except that of Kurke. Kurke has recourse to concepts from the Polanyi school—embedded and disembedded economy—which she uses to explain how the new economy is presented in a way that does not contradict aristocratic morality.40

Kurke's argumentation, as I explain below, is based on the view that the ruling class was hostile to coinage and traders. She shows how Pindar devises a way in which money could no longer control social relations, but could be used as a link in the continuous chain of relationships within the framework of the gift economy. So in Isthmian 2, Pindar is not really talking about actual money and exchange, but they are converted into metaphors such that everything fits within the framework of the gift economy.

It is a way of reading Pindar that presupposes that money and trade are incompatible with the values of the ruling class. However, as Seaford points out, hostility is not found towards either trade or money, ''but rather between those who are imagined to be economically self-sufficient (the 'free') and those who have to work for others. The introduction of abstract value embodied in coinage actually

38 Nisetich (1977) 139. 39 Nisetich (1977) 133-136; Woodbury (1968) 527-542; Pavese (1966) 103-112; Thummer (1969) 36- 38; Rawles (2011) 139-159; Cairns (2011) 21-36. 40 Kurke (1991) 240-256. 15 reinforces this imagined self-sufficiency, for it conveniently concentrates automatic

(and so self-sufficient) power (over labour) in durable objects that are easy to transport, to store, to conceal.''41 I also think that the role of money threatens, through marriages, the whole concept of inherited ideology, and it has nothing to do with trade.

So, if we consider that the embarrassment towards paid poetry is not based on the hostility towards money but in the fact that money exchange makes a clear distinction between the two classes, the conclusions are different. In the first class, that of the winners, there are the people who do not need to work and produce, but are self-sufficient, while in the second—to which Pindar the paid poet belongs—are those whose livelihoods are dependent on the production and sale of their products.

In other words, I believe that in this ode Pindar speaks the language of truth, and talks directly about his ode as commodity in a way that 'purifies' commodities. My perspective is the opposite of Kurke’s perspective and of the Polanyi school of anthropology that she follows. So, I must explain my theoretical objections before the analysis of the poem.

The central idea of Polanyi’s work is the concept of "embeddedness".42 Polanyi builds a system according to which there is a significant difference between ancient societies and modern market societies. In ancient societies, money did not play an important role because everything was based on the ethical rules of reciprocity, which function under the rubric of embeddedness. After rejecting economic determinism, he establishes a theory that presents pre-market economies operating

41 Seaford (2004) 15. 42 Polanyi did not explicitly designate this as the label, but subsequent scholarship based on Polanyi's work established it. See Ruggie (1982); Granovetter (1985); Evans (1995). 16 through social status in such a way that ''[i]nstead of economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system.''43 The homo economicus, and disembedded economies, appeared after the 19th century, when market and capitalism dominated society.

Although social relations stopped being embedded in the economic sphere after the 19th century, Kurke uses the danger of disembeddedness to analyse Pindar, stating that ''[w]e might say in Polanyi's terms: the original force of Alcaeus' words is that the economy has become disembedded, that money by itself is taking over and breaking down the proper social categories. Pindar's strategy is to re-embed wealth, to ground it completely in its uses in society. Once this is done, money no longer has to be a negative thing; it is, rather, a powerful tool to win prestige in socially acceptable forms''.44 To sum up, on one hand, the actual economy is disembedded, which means—according to Polanyi's theory of gradational embeddedness—that

Pindar's society has already commodified labour, land, and money, and functions under the rules of the market. On the other hand, Pindar denies this reality and

''guides his aristocratic listeners step-by-step from complete antipathy to a money economy to a willing utilization of it, so that by the end they can meet Thrasyboulos on common ground—the public space of the poem and of megaloprepeia.''45

It is useful to bear in mind that the "Achilles heel" of the Substantivist school is that its scholars preclude economising behaviour or rational calculation from pre- market or non-market economies.46 Thus, this theory presents Pindar as someone

43 Polanyi (1944/ 1957) 57-61. 44 Kurke (1991) 249. 45 Kurke (1991) 222. 46 Cook (2004) 102. The debate between Formalists, Substantivists, and Marxists is extensive and beyond the scope of this work. During the 1960s, there was a debate between two different schools of economic anthropology. Polanyi presented two different aspects of economy. The first had a formal 17 who ignores self-interest, does not act at all within the framework of economic behaviour, but as someone whose only concern is to reintegrate the victor. He is deprived of rational thought, i.e. that which permits him to act as someone who has to procure for himself material goods. It also presents the world of the poems as completely idealised without any reference to the current era. It is absolutely right that praise presents an idealised world that projects the image that the ruling class would like to have.47 However, even if Pindar hides his present, even if he is silent about it, there is something in this absence of speech, for ''the visible is merely the hidden in a different guise (…) Thus we can see that meaning is in the relation between the implicit and the explicit, not one or the other side of that fence; for in the latter case, we should be obliged to choose, in other words, as ever, translation or commentary.''48

In the embedded society, as presented by Kurke, gifts are not exchangeable, but their ability to claim a return is based on moral obligation, customary and

meaning and shows the rational choice of human beings in decision making. The second supported the view that "cultures are so different from one another, especially primitives from moderns, that they cannot be understood with the tools of Western science, tools that are themselves fundamentally a product of modernity" (Wilk and Cliggett 2007: 6). The latter is the Substantive Economics according to which economy is only the way society covers its material needs. The Substantivists recognise three ways that society integrates economy. The first way is through reciprocity and the way reciprocity is presented is very close to Maussian thought. The second way is through redistribution. The central authority redistributes the goods for the sake of the community. The third way is through exchange which takes place when the market exists. This model is relativist as it is based on societal logic and precludes any attempt of understanding non-market economies with modern tools. ''Therefore, the tools for understanding capitalism are as useless for studying the ancient Aztecs as a flint knife would be for fixing a jet engine'' (Wilk and Cligett 2007: 8). Very important works on these two theories are: Dalton (1971) and Sahlins (1960; 1965; 1972). For the bibliography on this debate, see Isaac (1993) 213-233. The difference between Marx and Polanyi is another topic of long discussion, but can be summarised thus: '"Marx and Polanyi had significantly different methods of knowledge production. Marx made use of bourgeois economic categories in a limited but important way that was precluded by Polanyi's extreme cultural relativism and aversion to the heuristic method and dialectical reasoning'' Cook (2004) 105. 47 Rose (2012) 144. 48 Bourdieu (1978) 86-87. 18 religious factors.49 In addition, a gift cannot be useful for the recipient as its usefulness depends on the giver's assessment. Commodities, on the other hand, must have usefulness, which is expressed as use-value. But the whole work of Pindar is not consistent with such a fully gift-based society. The victor needs his praise and this is the reason why Isthmian 2 and Pythian 11 suggest that Pindar was not ignorant of economic relations and of his debt, which among other aspects has a financial aspect also.

Μοῖσα, τὸ δέ τεόν, εἰ μισθοῖο συνέθεν παρέχειν φωνὰν ὑπάργυρον, ἄλλοτ' ἄλλα παρασσέμεν ἤ πατρί Πυθιονίκω τό γέ νυν ἤ Θρασυδαίῳ (P. 11.41-44) Muse, it is your duty, since you have contracted to hire your voice for silver, to keep it moving this way and that, either now to his father, Pythonicus, or to Thrasydaeus.50

Isthmian 2 is much discussed because of its contrast between the old and new poets and relevant here because of the contrast between "disembedded" and

"embedded" poetry.

Οἱ μὲν πάλαι͵ ὦ Θρασύβουλε͵ φῶτες͵ οἳ χρυσαμπύκων ἐς δίφρον Μοισᾶν ἔβαινον κλυτᾷ φόρμιγγι συναντόμενοι ῥίμφα παιδείους ἐτόξευον μελιγάρυας ὕμνους͵ ὅστις ἐὼν καλὸς εἶχεν Ἀφροδίτας εὐθρόνου μνάστειραν ἁδίσταν ὀπώραν. ἁ Μοῖσα γὰρ οὐ φιλοκερδής πω τότ΄ ἦν οὐδ΄ ἐργάτις· οὐδ΄ ἐπέρναντο γλυκεῖαἱ μελιφθόγγου ποτὶ Τερψιχόρας ἀργυρωθεῖσαι πρόσωπα μαλθακόφωνοι ἀοιδαί. νῦν δ΄ ἐφίητι τὸ τὠργείου φυλάξαι ῥῆμ΄ ἀλαθείας ἄγχιστα βαῖνον͵

49 The discussion about the differences between commodities and gifts has many dimensions. Gregory (1982) makes the distinction based on an argument that gifts belong to the sphere of household and personal relationships, while commodities to the sphere of trade and impersonal relationships. The creation of qualitative relationships, the dependence between the actors and the feeling of debt after the gift transactions are his main evidence. In addition, gift economies are characteristic of clans, whereas commodity-based economies are characteristic of social classes. Stathern (1988) focuses on the role of gender in the process of exchange and production. Weiner (1992) points out the fact that some goods cannot be exchanged at all. Parry and Bloch (1989) agree on the range of the goods and their classification, but also add that in traditional Indian societies some gifts are alienable. Veleri (1994) cannot accept the strict division between these two economies. 50 I use Race’s translation (1997) with slight modifications. 19

«χρήματα χρήματ΄ ἀνήρ» ὃς φᾶ κτεάνων θ΄ ἅμα λειφθεὶς καὶ φίλων. ἐσσὶ γὰρ ὦν σοφός· οὐκ ἄγνωτ΄ ἀείδω Ἰσθμιαν ἵππισι νίκαν, The men of long ago, O Thrasybulus, who used to mount the chariot of the golden-wreathed Muses, taking with them the glorious lyre, freely shot their honey-sounding hymns of love at any boy who was beautiful and had the sweetest bloom of late summer that woos fair-throned Aphrodite. For that time the Muse was not yet greedy for gain nor up for hire, nor were sweet, soft-voiced songs with their faces silvered over being sold from the hand of honey-voiced Terpsichore. But now she bids us heed the Argive’s adage, which comes closest to the truth: 'Money, money makes the man,' said he who lost his possessions and friends as well. But enough, for you are wise. Not unknown is the Isthmian chariot victory that I sing.51

These lines emphasise a contrast between the poetry of the past and the poetry of

Pindar's time that has been commodified. Old poets composed love poems motivated by the appearance of the person whose beauty they wanted to praise. These poems were composed spontaneously and without the interference of time, without delay

(ῥίμφα). The poets could do so because at those times the Muse had no involvement with money and she was not a worker or a trader. Now, things have changed. The

Muse works to live, to provide money for the livelihood of the poet, acting as the dominant belief requires whereby man is money.

It seems unusual that a poet chooses to praise a now-dead winner to his son and his community some years after the victory. Even stranger is his choice to refer to his own poetry as a commodity and compare it with the good old times when no kind of exchange took place and the poets acted with selfless motives or motives of erotic seduction. Why does the poet choose to make an apparently nostalgic comparison between the past and the "realistic" present, especially a comparison of erotic poetry with epinician? What or whose interest does such a comparison serve? Why is his

Muse presented with a description that is not flattering in the slightest?

The Muse is presented as a prostitute with silver-painted face who tries to survive by means of toil. This presentation is too derogatory to be the way Pindar

51 This and all subsequent references to Pindar's text are based on Race's edition (1997). 20 really sees his Muse. It does fit, however, the typical aristocratic attitude towards the working and dependent class. This notion applies to poets who compose for money.

If the commodification of poetry was increased in the late 6th century and the poets composed for different patrons concurrently,52 then the problem intensifies. The poets not only belong to the dependent class, but at the same time they are adopting a business conduct that can have a serious impact on their work. Praising is reduced to being only a paid occupation and its truth to being only a financial transaction.

Pindar had to defend himself and his poetry against this prevailing view and this is the main purpose of the ode, or at least this part of the ode. I do not claim that the ode is not meant to praise the athlete also, but that the glorification of the athlete is contingent upon defending his own art and social status.

It is very important to notice that in the ode there are presented two different types of recipients, two different types of poetry (erotic and non-erotic), and two different sources of inspiration. In the old times, the recipients were καλοί, beautiful and attractive, and their outward appearance provoked poets to praise it. Pindar treats the eroticised praise of the old poets as an emotion that derives from a genuine inner need caused only by the beauty of the laundandus and not by self-seeking.53 The beauty of the boy gives rise to a sense of physical excitement that the old poets cannot control and leads them to spontaneous composition (ῥίμφα). The driving force is their desire, the uncontrolled lust that makes them "shoot" the boys with their

52 Nicholson (2005) 67. 53 Rawles (2011) 153 accepts the embarrassment that poets felt because of the commercialisation of poetry, so they had to present their poems as erotic without self-interest. However, he gives weight to the performance of the poems and to the matter of exchange. 21 sweet hymns as "arrows". The context of desire is emphasised by the poet's erotic language (ἁδίσταν, ὀπώραν) and imagery (ἐτόξευον μελιγάρυας ὕμνους).54

At line 6, Pindar changes the erotic atmosphere. The Muse paints her face and comes on the market for sale. Desire becomes commodified sex and the inspiration is not a matter of lust, since the Muse is an ἐργάτις and must work. All these constitute the description of the new situation and the conclusion is that man is nothing more than money. Even social relations and friendships are dependent on money, as the

Argive poet said, which entails that Pindar—and Thrasyboulos and Xenocrates— belongs within this framework. In sum, in the past, not only were the terms of exchange different, but also the genre of the poetry and the recipients. Previously, poetry was erotic and the recipients beautiful; now, poetry is epinician and the recipients wise. Pindar, however, refrains from analysing further the current perceptions of society because the recipient is wise (σοφός). Using this as a transition for his analysis, he moves to the glorification of the athlete. Of course, to say the son is wise does not necessarily imply that the victor father was so, but the main thing is that the father is dead and the recipient is the son, so the father is probably the motive cause and not the real cause for the praise.

Thrasyboulos is wise because, although he knows that it is very easy for someone who is wealthy to buy praise for himself, as poetry is commodified, he prefers to praise his father's achievements, that is, those in the past that were undeniably known to him and to his audience. Kurke interprets the use of σοφός as

54 Woodbury (1968) 532, based on the scholia, claims that the "old poets" are specifically Alcaeus, Ibycus and Anacreon. However, his interpretation in the light of epinician conventions is not very persuasive and, as Nisetich points out, it does not explain Pindar's concern about the old poets as love poets. Nisetich (1977) 138. 22

Thrasyboulos' understanding about the nature and uses of wealth,55 but wisdom in this passage cannot be connected with the wise use of money. Similarly, Pavese is at pains to read here a Pindaric suggestion for the wise use of money, and bases his claim on the fact that Isthmian 2 is connected with Nemean 7 (17-21) because both talk about the connection of wisdom and money. Nisetich correctly refutes Pavese's claim since in Isthmian 2 there is nothing that justifies such a connection.56

The use of σοφός is the coda to the previous description and the link with the poetic commemoration that follows. His wisdom consists in the acquired knowledge according to which χρήματα χρήματ΄ ἀνήρ and the conviction that the exchange was based on facts and not only on money, οὐκ ἄγνωτ΄ ἀείδω (12). Since praise is not only the product of a commodity transaction but also the result of indisputable victories, Pindar is exempted from the category of a purely commodified poetry. The phrase οὐκ ἄγνωτ΄ corresponds to ῥῆμ’ ἀληθείας (10) of the Argive to show that the

Argive's "truth" does not negate the "truth" of praise for actual achievements. Pindar cannot be like the old poets, because his era is different, but he can keep the right balance between commercialisation and truth.

My solution lies between the two current poles of interpreting this passage. At one pole, Pindar is presented as a greedy poet who composes because he wants money, as he makes clear. At the other, the poet suggests another way of using money and the words χρήματα χρήματ΄ ἀνήρ can be explained within the framework of the proper use of wealth in a society that has become disembedded and Pindar tries to re-embed wealth.57 The answer lies in the co-existence of an aristocratic

55 Kurke (1991) 240. 56 Nisetich (1977) 137; Pavese (1966) 103-112. 57 Kurke (1991) 249. 23 economic code and the new economic system and in the alteration of the circumstances that this borderline situation gives to Pindar. Thrasyboulos lives in an era of commercialisation but this does not mean that this era eradicates what his class perceives as "value". Every transaction shows what is appreciated as valuable and which value makes the commodity or the gift desirable. In former times, the value was beauty, but in his present time, the value is money. But this value can make it possible for someone who appreciates valuable things to procure them. Pindar's ode is a valuable possession while at the same time it is a commodity and acquires its value reciprocally. The victor, who desires the ode, sacrifices another object (money or other valuable material objects) to possess it. Pindar, on the other hand, desires the money, so he sacrifices his spiritual product.

Things can be seen differently if I "purify" aspects of commodity. As stated above, the Muse represents what can be characterised as a commodity in the negative notion that we usually give to it, that is as a calculus of material gain which functions as a glue in social relations only through buying and selling. However, a commodity is a thing that can change during the process of exchange as a result of its use- value.58 The focus on a commodity's exchangeability deprives us from appreciating its use-value. It has been accepted that non-market relations emerge between the two transactory members even in commodity exchange. When a product is adapted to the needs of the buyer, or has superfluous aspects, or the relationship between the two members began as impersonal but changes through time, or for other reasons, then we can talk about relationships that involve moral obligation, power and all those

58 The "life" of a commodity is analysed by Appadurai (1986). 24 elements that are supposed to belong only to a gift economy.59 The key characteristic of a commodity remains its alienability. Osteen succinctly proves that inalienability is not an exclusive characteristic of gifts. It can be a feature of things that started as commodities, but change in the course of time. In this discussion, he mobilises two literary examples to show the transformation of things. In both stories, two objects were bought according to the law of the market. In the course of time, they have been converted into inalienable things because they become singularised and an emblem of the personhood of their holders. At the same time, they can function as symbols of power, hierarchy and all the characteristics that are usually attributed only to gifts.60

As stated above, Thrasyboulos is wise because he knows the milieu of his times, he knows that praise can be bought from the "poetry market", but, at the same time, he and his fellow-citizens know that the praise is deserved. This motivation as well as the use-value that he gives to the ode can strip the ode of the negative aspects of a commodity. In the world that Pindar presents in the poem, the ode does not only serve individual purposes. Xenocrates becomes the exemplar of his social class. He follows the proper attitude and behaviours:

καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἀγνῶτες ὑμῖν ἐντὶ δόμοι οὔτε κώμων͵ ὦ Θρασύβουλ΄͵ ἐρατῶν͵ οὔτε μελικόμπων ἀοιδᾶν. (30-32) And so, your family’s houses are not unfamiliar with delightful victory revels, O Thrasybulus, nor with songs of honey-sweet acclaim.

The use-value of his ode is completed with Pindar's encouragement to Thrasyboulos to continue the family tradition of noble deeds:

μήτ΄ ἀρετάν ποτε σιγάτω πατρῴαν, μηδὲ τούσδ΄ ὕμνους· ἐπεί τοι

59 Lapavitsas (undated) 11. 60 Osteen (2002) 233-247. 25

οὐκ ἐλινύσοντας αὐτοὺς ἐργασάμαν (44-46) Let the son never keep silent his father’s excellence nor these hymns, for I truly did not fashion them to remain stationary.

The verb ἐργασάμαν looks back to the origin of the ode, which was the commercial transaction, but now Pindar in a very intense way presents the real reason that this song was composed. The verb's connection with ἐργάτις, previously attributed to his

Muse, indicates that the notion has acquired, during the course of the ode, another meaning without losing the notion of labour. However, his labour is not a negation of labour as creative activity, but an activity of a conscious and free person. We are no longer in the world of impersonal relations because the poet and the public know all the virtues of family, especially those of Xenocrates. Pindar is not alienated from his

"product", but he finds himself in it, so the danger of alienation has disappeared.

Since the impersonal relations (symbolised by the silver-painted Muse) are now absent, the poet has the right to advise Thrasyboulos, which means that Thrasyboulos is not an alien person. The song that was sold has acquired another status and it can now offer super-value to Thrasyboulos. Its super-value is immortality. It might have started with exchange value (χρήματα), but in the process the exchange value has acquired an additional symbolic notion.

As stated above, Pindar's labour is not alienated. He finds so much pleasure in creating an ode for a man like Xenocrates that he cannot feel any fatigue. Everything is easy:

Οὐ γὰρ πάγος, οὐδὲ προσάντης ἁ κέλευθος γίνεται, εἴ τις εὐδόξων ἐς ἀνδρῶν ἄγοι τιμὰς Ἑλικωνιάδων. (33-4) For there is no hill nor is the road steep, when one brings the honours of the Heliconian maidens to the home of glorious men.61

61 I suspect this line is a negating echo of Hesiod (poet of the Heliconian Muses) WD 289. where he spells out how hard and steep is the path to aretê. 26

The ode is labour, but because it has a spiritual dimension it is superior to labour. His labour has an artistic character for two reasons: first, because it is a result of a free relationship (he has enough material, he is not restricted to falsities, he sees himself in his "product" and he does not see only money), and second, because he creates something that has aesthetic value (sweet and beautiful songs).

Overview

My thesis consists of five chapters. The first chapter deals with the theoretical background and elucidates the term of ideology and how it is perceived in this study. Ideology is not and cannot be a mere set of beliefs. It also cannot be an exclusive property of the ruling class, although it is used by them. Poetry functions as a means of propaganda which strengthens the position of the ruling class. On the other hand, it is autonomous and keeps its superiority towards any kind of power. This dimension of ideology in combination with an economic system that balances embedded and disembedded economies results in a different approach to the Pindaric world. In the same chapter, I analyse how Isthmian 2 can be perceived as a "purified" commodity. Thus, I make clear that Pindar not only acknowledges the new economic situation, but he also uses it in his odes.

Chapter Two gives the historical background of the Sicilian tyrannies, which help to elucidate the political implications of the odes. It is concerned mostly with Hieron, as he is the most prominent figure of the odes. It also includes a brief reference to the Emmenids which shows the differences between the two tyrants: Hieron and Theron.

Chapter Three examines two odes for Hieron, Pythian 2 and Olympian 1. In Pythian 2, I elucidate the political agenda of Hieron, which is different from all the other odes. I consider Pythian 2 to be the earliest ode composed for Hieron and I show how Pindar presents Hieron in his community. Hieron is the individual capable of leading and saving a community. This propaganda is accompanied with a warning 27 for the tyrant. The Ixion myth is used to remind him of not only his human limits, but also the danger of absolute autonomy. The same happens in Olympian 1. Olympian 1 is a later ode. It is the most impressive in terms of praise in the whole Pindaric corpus. Hieron is the absolute master. He prevails in his city, his oikos and his fame is—and should be—spread across the whole world. However, this omnipotence of the tyrant creates a form of competition between the patron and the poet. Pindar has to prove that his poetry is not a mere flattery, but. Thus, he uses the co-existence of the two economies—gift and market economy—to undermine the position of Hieron. In the mythological section, he warns Hieron about the dangers of breaking reciprocity through the exemplum of Tantalus. If someone attempts to behave according to the laws of the market he will face disaster, as Tantalus did.

Chapter four examines the odes for another Sicilian tyrant, Theron, mainly for comparative purposes. Hieron was a powerful individual but he was deprived—at least in the Pindaric world—of a powerful phya. His praise and power was based on his wealth. On the other hand, Olympian 2 for Theron is constructed to praise almost entirely on the basis of phya. I examine the notion of phya not only in Theron but also in the case of the Aiginetans and in the Emmenid clan. I show that the term is closely connected with money and wealth. I conclude that Aiginetan phya is the wealth of the people, a wealth that Pindar was aware that derives from market activities. Thus, money is proved to buy even inborn excellences. The Emmenid odes are also constructed on the basis of phya. The laudandus receives praise although he did not participate in the Games and did not win any kind of victory. He receives praise because he is the son of Xenocrates and part of a very prominent family, that of the Emmenids. Phya is again connected with money. Xenocrates is praised for the ability of his father to pay for horse breeding and for a good charioteer. Theron appears to be the most prominent figure among the Emmenids. He is the only one whose phya is connected with the homeland heroes. In the world of Theron, the market economy exists only as a punishment for bad people in the afterlife. Theron is a real aristocrat and the economic system in which he exists is the closest to the utopian world of a fully embedded economy, as it is expressed int the escatological passage of the ode. 28

Chapter five turns back to Hieron and to his later odes, Pythian 1 and Pythian 3. The odes have a more consolatory style and the political propaganda does not aim to make Hieron accepted by the community. The poet rather aims at higher goals: he wants to give Hieron immortality through his poetry. Although Hieron was not at this stage the powerful individual of Olympian 1, Pindar still sees him as competitive and so again through the mythic section undermines the role of the tyrant and projects the autonomy of his art. This happens in Pythian 3, as Pythian 1 is the only ode whose mythic section does not refer to a transgressor of reciprocity. Pythian 1 mainly propagates the re-foundation of Aitna by Hieron in a wider frame than that of Syracuse. He aims at a Panhellenic audience, and thus he purges the negative aspects of Hieron’s tyranny.

29

CHAPTER TWO Introduction to the Deinomenids and the Emmenids

The Deinomenids

The information we have about the Deinomenid family comes either from later

Sicilian historians or Herodotus (7.153). The origin of the dynasty was in Telos, an

Aegean island considered Dorian. Their ancestor left Telos with Antiphemos and moved to Gela. Herodotus does not mention the ancestor's name, probably because it was obvious from the family name that he was called Deinomenes. His name is mentioned by Xenagoras (Fr.15. 240). Since the ancestor was from a Dorian island, it is reasonable to assume that the colonists who arrived in Gela were Dorian and that the Deinomenids identified themselves in this way. The term "Deinomenids" refers to the family of Deinomenes, not because Deinomenes himself founded their

"dynasty" but because he was the father of the subsequent tyrants. The family supported Kleander, tyrant of Gela in the late sixth century, and his successor

Hippokrates.

Gelon

According to Herodotus (7.154-155), when Hippokrates passed away, Gelon took power away from his sons after a victorious campaign. In the following years,

Gelon’s expansion within Sicily and up to Tyrrhenian Sea62 followed the imperialistic plans formed by Hippokrates. Hippokrates had tried, unsuccessfully, to put Syracuse under his control. Gelon's opportunity to invade Syracuse was provided

62 Morgan (2015) 24. 30 by a class struggle in the city. In 485 BC, the old land-owning aristocratic class of the city (the gamoroi) were expelled by the poor (the kyllirioi), and appealed to Gelon for help (Hdt. Hist. 7.155). Gelon seized this opportunity, overthrew the democracy that the poor had established, and brought back the aristocrats to the city. He did not, however, give power back to the aristocrats, but instead made himself tyrant of

Syracuse, and made Syracuse the capital of his empire.

In this way, Syracuse became the capital of the Deinomenid empire, and Gela acquired a new tyrant, Hieron, Gelon's brother, who was put in power by Gelon. The recalling of the old aristocrats was part of Gelon’s wider strategy for transforming the capital of his promising new empire.63 Gelon also imported aristocrats from the cities of Megara, Hyblaea, and Euboea to the new capital. By increasing the number of wealthy people in Syracuse, he enriched the tax-base in order to accomplish his projects.64 He also sold the poor into slavery, and gained a lot of money from this.65

Gelon ensured that the new population could pose little threat to his power, as the newcomers had only the same privileges as the other citizens.

Apart from the wealthy elite groups, Gelon added another contingent to the city. He brought mercenaries to strengthen his military power and gave them citizenship (Hdt. Hist. 7.157.6). Although this created an identity crisis between the

"insiders" and "outsiders", it gave the lower class the opportunity to have rights and so to be more loyal to the tyrant.66 Thus, Gelon secured his power by bringing the gamoroi over to his side, but with few privileges, by installing mercenaries in the city, and by selling, killing, or otherwise controlling the demos. The problem,

63 De Angelis (2016) 182. 64 De Angelis (2016) 182. 65 Holloway (1991) 97. 66 Luraghi (1994) 286-288 claims that Gelon was not a philo-aristocratic tyrant or of democratic inclinations. 31 however, was how to unite all the different populations, each of which had a different sense of identity.67

The sources suggest that Gelon may have found a solution in the creation and promotion of a Panhellenic identity. The Battle of Himera (480 BC), where Gelon, together with Theron, defeated the Carthaginians, was exploited for this purpose.

According to Herodotus (7.153-167), this was a war of revenge for the Spartan

Dorieus’ death. In addition to that, Gelon fought in order to free the trading posts

(emporia). Diodorus Siculus highlights not only Gelon’s decisiveness and bravery, but also his huge military power.68 Gelon considered this a war for all Greeks, and appealed for their help. Unfortunately, the mainland Greeks ignored his plea, but this did not prevent Gelon from promoting his success as a great Greek victory over the barbarians. An important part of his propaganda campaign was his dedication at the

Panhellenic sanctuary in Delphi.69

φαμὶ Γέλων᾽, Ἱέρωνα, Πολύζαλον, Θρασύβουλον, παῖδας Δεινομένεος, τοὺς

τρίποδας θέμεναι ἐξ ἑκατὸν λιτρᾶν καὶ πεντήκοντα ταλάντων Δαμαρετίου

χρυσοῦ, τᾶς δεκάτας δεκάταν, βάρβαρα νικάσαντας ἔθνη· πολλὰν δὲ

παρασχεῖν σύμμαχον Ἕλλασιν χεῖρ᾽ ἐς ἐλευθερίαν. (Σ. Pi. P.1. 151, attributed

to Simonides, frag. 106 Diehl)

I state that Gelon, Hieron, Polyzalos, Thrasyboulos, sons of Deinomenes, offered these tripods

out of a hundred litres of Damaretian gold and fifty talents, a tithe of the booty after defeating

many barbarian races; giving a great allied hand to the Greeks in the fight for freedom.

67 Lomas (2006) 114 argues that the Sicilian population's identification with their previous cities was not destroyed by the population transfers. 68 Diod. Sic. 11.21.1. ὁ δὲ Γέλων καὶ αὐτὸς ἡτοιμακὼς ἦν τὴν δύναμιν, πυθόμενος δὲ τὴν τῶν Ἱμεραίων ἀθυμίαν ἀνέζευξεν ἐκ τῶν Συρακουσῶν κατὰ σπουδήν, ἔχων πεζοὺς μὲν οὐκ ἐλάττους τῶν πεντακισμυρίων, ἱππεῖς δὲ ὑπὲρ τοὺς πεντακισχιλίους. 69 Diod. Sic. 11.26.7. χρυσοῦν δὲ τρίποδα ποιήσας ἀπὸ ταλάντων ἑκκαίδεκα ἀνέθηκεν εἰς τὸ τέμενος τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς Ἀπόλλωνι χαριστήριο 32

The image of unity that the Battle of Himera created is later confirmed and exploited by Pindar in Pythian 1 for Hieron, although Hieron's participation in the battle is not attested as prominent. Hieron—and Pindar—knew how effective the use of that battle could be not only in uniting the diverse population, but also in enforcing the support and respect of the citizens for the tyrant. Diodorus Siculus attests to the possibility of the latter in his depiction of the crowd’s response to Gelon after the battle. Gelon appeared in front of their assembly unarmed. He gave an account of everything he had done and exposed himself to the risk of being murdered by the people. His vulnerable position caused astonishment in the audience, and they with a single voice called him "Benefactor, Saviour, and King".70 Of course, this is an idealised picture of the people's sentiments towards the tyrant but it may reflect a real belief that Gelon had proved himself vital to the city’s well-being, not only because of the Battle of Himera but also because many citizens were indebted to him for the citizenship they had acquired.71

He is presented in contradictory ways. In Diodorus Siculus’ account, on the one hand, we find his cruelty, as he ordered the slaughter of fugitives during the

Carthaginian war,72 but on the other his leniency toward captives of the same war.73

In Herodotus’ story of the Greek envoys to Gelon before the Battle of Salamis

(7.157-162), he is the possessor of a very powerful army, and he demonstrates his

70 Diod. Sic. 11.26.5-6: ἀπελογίσατο μὲν περὶ παντὸς τοῦ βίου καὶ τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτῷ πρὸς τοὺς Συρακοσίους: ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ δὲ τῶν λεγομένων ἐπισημαινομένων τῶν ὄχλων, καὶ θαυμαζόντων μάλιστα ὅτι γυμνὸν ἑαυτὸν παρεδεδώκει τοῖς βουλομένοις αὐτὸν ἀνελεῖν, τοσοῦτον ἀπεῖχε τοῦ μὴ τυχεῖν τιμωρίας ὡς τύραννος, ὥστε μιᾷ φωνῇ πάντας ἀποκαλεῖν εὐεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα καὶ βασιλέα. 71 McGlew (1992) 137. 72 Diod. Sic. 11.22.4: τοῦ δὲ Γέλωνος παραγγείλαντος μηδένα ζωγρεῖν, πολὺς ἐγένετο φόνος τῶν φευγόντων, καὶ πέρας κατεκόπησαν αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐλάττους τῶν πεντεκαίδεκα μυριάδων 73 Diod. Sic. 11.26.2: παραγενομένων γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Καρχηδόνος τῶν ἀπεσταλμένων πρέσβεων καὶ μετὰ δακρύων δεομένων ἀνθρωπίνως αὐτοῖς χρήσασθαι, συνεχώρησε τὴν εἰρήνην. 33 power, but at the same time he is angry with the Greeks who ignored his request for help. Gelon held power for thirteen years until 478 BC, and died of natural causes.74

Harrell states that Gelon presented himself as the (re)founder of Syracuse and so he received posthumous heroic honours as founder from his subjects.75

His political power, and strategy to maintain it, was based on the creation of a large infantry, a quite important cavalry—the outcome of his good relationship with the aristocrats76—on his military victories, on the displacement of people in order to control them and gain money for his empire, on his expansionist plans, and on the absolute control of the demos (Hdt. Hist. 7.156-157). Unity among the heterogeneous populations was achieved not only by creating multicultural communities with equal rights, and by the economic dependence of one part of the population (mercenaries), and the protection of another part of his subjects (gamoroi), but also by ideological means. He used ideological apparatuses to strengthen the links between the various parts of the population in order to leave himself free to continue the exercise of power and his expansionist plans.

Hieron

Hieron took over power from his brother Gelon in 478/7 BC, without having any legitimate claim to rule, and became the new tyrant of Syracuse. With Syracuse came a great empire, splendid wealth, and a huge territory with a multicultural population.

74 Plut. Moralia 430C: ἴστε τοίνυν ὅτι Γέλων μὲν ὑδρωπιῶν ἐτυράννησεν. 75 Harrell (1998) 187-191. See Diod. Sic. 11.38.4-5: ἐτάφη δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα κατὰ τὸν ἀγρὸν τῆς γυναικὸς ἐν ταῖς καλουμέναις Ἐννέα τύρσεσιν, οὔσαις τῷ βάρει τῶν ἔργων θαυμασταῖς. ὁ δὲ ὄχλος ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἅπας συνηκολούθησεν, ἀπέχοντος τοῦ τόπου σταδίους διακοσίους. ἐνταῦθα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταφέντος ὁ μὲν δῆμος τάφον ἀξιόλογον ἐπιστήσας ἡρωικαῖς τιμαῖς ἐτίμησε τὸν Γέλωνα. For a discussion of Gelon as (re)founder of Syracuse, see McMullin (2004) 80. 76 De Angelis (2016) 185. 34

Gelon's popularity, especially after the victorious Battle of Himera, may have provoked Hieron into trying to prove himself superior to his predecessor. Diodorus

Siculus underlines the differences between the two tyrants, but he focuses mostly on their character. He presents Hieron as a wealth-hungry, violent man and the very opposite of the charismatic Gelon.77 Certainly he had much to prove when he became tyrant, not the least of which was to prove that his claim to power was justifiable.

The expansion of his empire may not have been a significant goal for Hieron; his policy can be characterised as policy of "intervention, not aggression",78 except, that is, in the case of the founding of Aitna. When the Locrians were threatened by

Anaxilas of Rhegium (472 BC), they asked for Hieron’s help. The tyrant sent his friend, Chromius of Rhegium, and Anaxilas fell back, but Hieron made no attempt to take over Ephyzephyrian Locri. The Battle of Cumae in 474 BC was Hieron's most important victory. At that time, Cumae, a Greek colony, appealed to Hieron for help in order to face a threat from the Etruscans. Hieron helped them by sending a fairly large number of triremes (Diod. Sic. 11.51). This military victory is praised by

Pindar in Pythian 1 and treated as almost on a level with the Battle of Himera, but the later sources remain silent about it. In this case, Hieron's involvement was not for expansionist motives but rather economic ones, as the Etruscans were in competition with the Greek traders.79 The focus of most of Hieron's activities was on acquiring economic profit, and he used a substantial amount of this profit for the purpose of acquiring cultural capital.

77 Diod. Sic. 11.67.4: ἦν γὰρ καὶ φιλάργυρος καὶ βίαιος καὶ καθόλου τῆς ἁπλότητος καὶ καλοκἀγαθίας ἀλλοτριώτατος. 78 McMullin (2004) 49. 79 McMullin (2004) 54. 35

Hieron's Court

The reasons that Hieron followed policies different from Gelon’s are a matter for speculation. Hieron probably considered cultural artefacts as more powerful for promoting his interests. Aelian states that his obsession with the the leisure artistic forms was due to his poor health.80 Whatever the reason, Hieron is remembered as a great patron of the arts and victorious athlete in the Panhellenic Games, and his court was visited by many of the most prominent Greek poets.

It is possible that Xenophanes visited Hieron, but the evidence is slight: a reference in Clement of Alexandria, probably from Timaeus (DK21, A8), that

Xenophanes lived in the same period as Hieron and the comic poet Epicharmus, and an anecdote in Plutarch (Mor. 175C).81 The tradition linking Simonides to Hieron is somewhat more persuasive. There are anecdotes that connect the poet to the tyrant, and, although one should be sceptical about their reliability, they are plentiful enough to suggest a real connection between the two.82 A scholion claims that Simonides mediated a dispute between Theron of Acragas and Hieron, thus averting war. More convincing evidence is a scholion in Theocritus. According to this (PMG 552 (= Σ.

Theocr. 1.65/66a), Simonides said that Aitna adjudicated between Hephaestus and

Demeter when they contended over possession of the area. We do not have any other evidence about this composition, but it is tempting to connect it with the foundation

80 Aelian 4.15: Ἱέρωνά φασι τὸν Σικελίας τύραννον τὰ πρῶτα ἰδιώτην εἶναι καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἀμουσότατον, καὶ τὴν ἀγροικίαν ἀλλὰ μηδὲ κατ᾽ ὀλίγον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ διαφέρειν τοῦ Γέλωνος: ἐπεὶ δὲ αὐτῷ συνηνέχθη νοσῆσαι, μουσικώτατος ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο, τὴν σχολὴν τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀρρωστίας ἐς ἀκούσματα πεπαιδευμένα. 81 Morgan (2015) 106. 82 Molyneux (1992) 224-226. But Podlecki (1979) 5-16 appears sceptical about the reliability of these anecdotes. For information about Simonides' biography, see Lefkowitz (1981) 49-56. 36 of Aitna,83 a project that we know Aeschylus and Pindar also were commissioned to celebrate.84

There is no doubt that the comic poet Epicharmus was in Syracuse. As a

Syracusan resident, he wrote most of his works there during the reign of Gelon, then

Hieron, and then in the initial years of democracy.85 Although we are sure that he was in Syracuse, it is very difficult to determine with certainty his relationship with

Hieron.86 It is very probable that Hieron was his patron, but this is not an uncontested view. There are many sources stating that he was at the court of Hieron, but none of them clarify whether he composed for him and was paid for his compositions.87 Even if Epicharmus was not paid by Hieron, it is reasonable to assume that he may have tried to gain Hieron’s approval, as he wrote under a tyrannical regime and not a democratic one. A scholion on Pythian 1 says that Epicharmus in Islands makes an allusion to Anaxilas of Rhegium and the fact that Hieron prevented him from destroying Epizephyrian Locri (Σ. P. 1.99a). This is the only knowledge that we have regarding the play. It is completely uncertain whether it focused on Hieron’s achievements in Southern Italy or whether these were only mentioned briefly. If, however, the theme of the salvation of the Epizephyrian Locri was the central one, then Hieron probably received much praise.88

Aeschylus visited Sicily two or three times. The biographical tradition attributes the visits to his disappointment, either because he was defeated by

83 Dougherty (1993) 91-92. 84 It seems probable that he wrote epinician odes. According to scholion Σ. P. I.2 inscr.a,, he composed one for Xenocrates of Acragas. 85 Bosher (2012) 76. 86 For biographical details about his life, see Pickard-Cambridge (1962) 230-239 and Berk (1964) 3- 10. 87 For a brief discussion of the testimonia, see Pickard-Cambridge (1962) 230-239. 88 Morgan (2015) 106. 37

Sophocles, or because he was not chosen to write an epigram after the Battle of

Marathon.89 These biographical stories about the exile or disappointment of a poet follow a standard line that is common in many biographies of the poets: the poet is not appreciated during his lifetime, but acceptance and honour comes after death.90

Another explanation is that Hieron invited the playwright because he was connected with Demeter and the tyrant himself was a hierophant of the two goddesses (Σ. Pi. P.

2.276).91 These explanations are unlikely but not impossible. It is more probable that

Hieron invited Aeschylus to promote his propaganda regarding his reign and the foundation of Aitna.92

But why would Aeschylus agree to go to the court of a tyrant at a time when

Greeks were experiencing anti-tyrannical sentiments due to the Persian invasion, and why would Hieron want him at court? A possible answer can be found in Hieron's self-presentation in mainland Greece. He did not call himself basileus, as he is presented by Pindar, but his image was rather that of an aristocrat who took part in

Panhellenic competitions suitable to his social—and economic—status. As a prominent poet of the eminently democratic genre, tragedy,93 from the leading democratic city, Aeschylus' presence in Syracuse in turn helps to reinforce the more

Panhellenic image for which Hieron was striving. There is some evidence that

Aeschylus' Persians was performed in Sicily two years after its first performance in

89 Vit. Aesch. 8. 90 Lefkowitz (1981) 71-73. 91 Rehm (1989) 31. 92 Morgan (2015) 96. 93 I follow Goldhill (2000) 35 on the connection between democracy and tragedy: "That the event of the fifth-century drama festival in Athens is political (on the broadest understanding of that term) and that its specific rituals and language are integrally democratic is a starting point of much recent writing on tragedy. This does not mean that plays follow some naively conceived democratic party line, but rather that the festival itself, in organisation and structure, despite earlier origins and later development, is in the fifth century fully an institution of the democratic polis, and that the plays constantly reflect their genesis in a fifth-century Athenian political environment." 38

Athens in 472 BC,94 that is, in the same period as Pythian 1, in which Hieron fights the barbarians, and ensures victory and freedom for all Greeks.95

Aeschylus wrote the Aetnaeae to celebrate Hieron's foundation of Aitna. The precise date of the play is a matter of speculation. The foundation of Aitna occurred in 476/5 BC. If Aeschylus staged the play immediately after the foundation of the city, then he had to travel to Sicily before the performance of his Persians. Pythian 1, however, which also celebrates the foundation of Aitna, can be dated to several years after the beginning of the project. Thus, it seems more reasonable to date the play to approximately 470 BC, rather than suggesting a separate trip of Aeschylus to

Sicily.96 The location of the play poses another difficult question. The obvious answer is that Aitna is the place of performance. There are, however, a few indications that would allow us to consider Syracuse as the location of the first performance. The final scene of the play, after several location changes—first Aitna, then Xouthia, then Aitna again—is in Syracuse.97 Syracuse is the more likely location for performance on the grounds that it could serve the political purposes of

Hieron more effectively. It was the centre of the Deinomenids’ empire and had a much bigger population to serve as the target audience for the propaganda.

Unfortunately, very few fragments of the play survive (P. Oxy. 2257), and we cannot form a clear picture of its content. Apart from these fragments, there is a four-

94 Morgan (2015) 96. 95 The way the Persians was performed is beyond the scope of this thesis. I follow Bosher (2012) 110, who argues that the first half of the play can be read in different ways and may not simply present the opposition of monarchy to democracy. Morgan (2015) 96-99 discusses the play and its ideological function in detail and concludes that "the period directly after the Persian Wars put particular pressure on the concept of autocratic rule, and if this in turn necessitated a retooling of kingly ideology in Syracuse, then the Persians serves the valuable goal of setting up Xerxes as a negative paradigm of monarchy". 96 Frankel (1954) 48; Herington (1967) 76; Griffith (1978) 106. 97 Radt (1985) 126-127. 39 line fragment from Macrobius.98 This shows that part of the tragedy dealt with the

Palicoi, gods of the native Sicilians, who took their name because they have come out of darkness back to the light. The play involves the sexual affair between the nymph Thalia and Zeus. The god had sex with the nymph near the river Symaithos, which is located close to Mt. Aitna. The nymph was hidden in the earth by Zeus in order to be protected from Hera’s jealous wrath. When she had to give birth, the earth opened and her children emerged. The twin Palicoi became the protective deities of the two springs of Sicily. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to discuss the tragedy in detail as the evidence is too slight and any conclusion can only be based on scant indications.99 We do not even know if the myth of Palicoi was the central myth of the tragedy.100 I follow Dougherty’s view that "Aeschylus recounts the founding of Aetna as the marriage of a local nymph and Zeus, and thus the birth of the Palici, that is, the origin of their cult, is predicated upon the Greek settlement of

Aetna".101 Of course, we cannot be certain if a marriage took place in the play. The sexual encounter, however, between the nymph and Zeus should be seen in the context of Greek colonial narratives according to which "marriage[...] becomes symbolic of another kind of union as well—that of Greeks and indigenous populations".102

Many possible options for reconstructing the play's plot have been suggested.

The play, as stated above, involves changes in location. The transfer from one location to the other (from Aitna and Xouthia) can be synchronised with the

98 Macrob. Saturn. 5.19.17. 99 For a discussion of the play, see Frankel (1954) 64-71; Dougherty (1993) 88ff.; Morgan (2015) 99- 101. 100 Poli-Palladini (2001) 304-311 and Dougherty (1993) 85-88 share the opinion that this myth was the central story of the tragedy. 101 Dougherty (1993) 90. 102 Dougherty (1993) 68. 40 movement from the mythical past to the present (final destination, Syracuse).103

Dougherty notes a similarity between the Aetnaeae and the Eumenides: "In both the final play of the Oresteia and in the Aetnaeae, the dramatic action returns to the city in which the play is being performed, and it returns as a means of political legitimation and explanation [...] Just as the culmination of the Oresteia refounds the

Athenian court of the Areopagus, the resolution of the Aetnaeae celebrates the

Syracusan foundation of Aetna."104

Deinomenid Identity

Hieron's court functioned as one of the many ideological means (visual, ritual, and literary) used by the Deinomenids to legitimate their rule, enhance their prestige in the eyes of the wider Greek world, and forge an identity that both set them apart from

(and above) other Sicilian leaders and also made them shareholders in the

Panhellenic cultural hegemony.

Gelon was keen to convey what can be called "the architectural message of his regime".105 He built at least two temples. One was in Himera, after the victorious battle, and the other was a temple to Demeter and Kore in Syracuse. He also rebuilt and embellished the old Athenaeum following the new mainland Doric canon. Like the Emmenids of Acragas, the Deinomenids were very well represented in hippic victories at the athletic Games. In the years between 508 BC and 461 BC, one third of twenty-four known victors in horse-related races were Sicilians.106 The importance attached by Sicilians to the hippic races is reflected in the iconography of their

103 La Rosa (1974) 154. 104 Dougherty (1993) 90. 105 Holloway (1991) 74. 106 Morgan (2012) 48. 41 coinage. Syracuse issued coinage at the end of sixth century, at the height of the elite known as gamoroi.107 The oldest Syracusan coins imitate an anonymous northern

Greek coinage, probably that of Olynthus.108 What is important, however, is their image—although borrowed—a quadriga that reflects the culture and self-image of the minting authorities of the city. When Gelon ruled the city of Syracuse (485-478

BC), he made a decisive intervention in the coinage. The old tetradrachm is preserved, but its iconography is improved.109 The obverse depicts a quadriga with

Nike crowning its horses in victory.110 Deinomenid coinage preserved the prestigious image of the quadriga in all the cities of the domains of all the brothers.111 If we consider that money acts not only as a means of exchange but also as a medium for political ideology, then the message is clear. The tyrants not only adopted the activities of the ruling landholding class, but they used them as emblematic for the city and their own values. The attachment to horses in particular is no doubt connected to the extraordinarily large sums of money needed for the horse-training involved, and thus advertised also the enormous wealth of the Sicilian tyrants.

Much of the Deinomenid activity of this type emphasises a Dorian character.

This may well have begun as part of Gelon's attempt at unifying the diverse population of Sicily through the use of Dorian identity (intra-hellenism). Eventually, it is channeled into serving their Panhellenic aspirations, as is clearly illustrated by

Pindar's Pythian 1.112 The ode celebrates Hieron’s victory in the chariot race in 470

BC and his foundation of Aitna, which is given Dorian laws and a Dorian ancestry in

107 Rutter (1997) 115. 108 Fischer- Bossert (2012) 14. 109 For Gelon’s intervention in Syracusan coinage, see Morgan (2015) 62-64. 110 Boehringer (1929) 312. 111 Rutter (1997) 131. 112 Thatcher (2012) 75-89. 42 order to connect Hieron to Dorians everywhere.113 But it places the foundation of

Aitna within a wider context of Hellenism versus barbarism in order to tap into

Panhellenic ideology. The two victories mentioned against the "barbarians" are commemorated by dedications at athletic sites on the mainland. After the Battle of

Himera, Gelon placed a bronze column and a golden tripod at Delphi. The similarities of these dedications to those dedicated to celebrate the Battle of Plataea are "unmistakable".114 After his victory at Cumae, Hieron also made a dedication at a

Panhellenic sanctuary, at Olympia. He offered at least three helmets captured in the battle accompanied by an inscription.

A potential obstacle to Deinomenid Panhellenic pretensions is of course their political status as tyrants. There is controversy regarding whether or not the

Deinomenids used regal terminology to call themselves kings (e.g. basileus). Most scholars have argued that there is no evidence to support such a practice.115

Dunbabin argues that the Deinomenids did not use any constitutional title.116 They support this conclusion with the fact that Diodorus Siculus’ reference to Gelon as king (11.26.) is very late. Pindar’s testimony can be explained away as flattery, and

Bacchylides never addresses Hieron as king. In the famous narrative of the Greek envoys to Gelon, Herodotus himself calls Gelon the "great tyrant" (7.156.3) and tyrant of Sicily (7.163.1) while the ambassadors call him king, basileus (7.161.1), which again can be explained away as flattery. Whatever title they may have assumed at home, the Deinomenids present themselves in mainland dedications not

113 Thatcher (2012) 80. 114 Scott (2010) 88. 115 See Mosse (1969) 85; Finley (1968) 56; Berve (1967) 144. 116 Dunbabin (1948) 427-428. 43 as kings but as private citizens;117 there is no reference in any dedication to their political role, but only to the athletic victories they achieved.118

The Emmenids

The Emmenid family had migrated to Sicily from Rhodes. It is uncertain whether they first arrived in Gela and then moved to Acragas,119 or went directly to

Acragas.120 They were an aristocratic family and, as was typical for their class, they traced their origin back to a hero, in their case, to Oedipus.121 They followed the typical practices of the aristocratic lifestyle that set them apart from the "masses", not the least important of which was participation in athletic Games. Some sources attest that they were involved in the downfall of the infamously cruel tyrant of Acragas,

Phalaris.122 Whether or not this is true, it is evidence, that they were prominent enough for such a story to have become attached to their name. This prominence eventually led to claims for power. In 488 BC, Theron, son of Aenesidamus, overshadowed his fellow-aristocrats—precisely how we do not know—and became the tyrant of what was then the powerful state of Acragas.123

117 Harrell (2002) 450-455. 118 Paus. 8.42.9: Σόν ποτε νικήσας, Ζεῦ Ὀλύμπιε, σεμνὸν ἀγῶνα τεθρίππῳ μὲν ἅπαξ, μουνοκέλητι δὲ δίς, δῶρα Ἱέρων τάδε σοι ἐχαρίσσατο. παῖς δ’ ἀνέθηκε Δεινομένης πατρὸς μνῆμα Συρακοσίου. 119 Acragas was founded in 582 BC by an expedition from Gela. The leaders of this expedition were Aristonous and Pystilos (Thuc. 6.4.4). 120 Theron may have preferred the story that his clan arrived directly from Rhodes to Acragas (Pi Σ. O. 2.15 a = FGrHist 566 F 92). 121 For a review of the information provided by the sources for the Emmenids, see Miller (1970) 52- 59. 122 There are various accounts of Phalaris' downfall. In one, Theron's ancestor, Telemachus, destroyed the tyranny of Phalaris (Pi. Σ. Ο.3.68a), in another, it was the demos who participated in the coup, and in another, more aristocratic version, two women attempted to kill him, but without luck. 123 Diod. Sic. 11.531: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Ἀθήνησι μὲν ἦρχε Χάρης, ἐν Ῥώμῃ δὲ ὕπατοι καθειστήκεσαν Τίτος Μινούνιος καὶ Γάιος Ὁράτιος Πολύειδος, ἤχθη δὲ παρ᾽ Ἠλείοις Ὀλυμπιὰς ἑβδομηκοστὴ καὶ ἑβδόμη, καθ᾽ ἣν ἐνίκα στάδιον Δάνδης Ἀργεῖος. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων κατὰ μὲν τὴν Σικελίαν Θήρων ὁ Ἀκραγαντίνων δυνάστης ἐτελεύτησεν ἄρξας ἔτη δέκα καὶ ἕξ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν διεδέξατο Θρασυδαῖος ὁ υἱός. 44

Theron’s reign made Acragas such a prosperous city that it rivalled Syracuse in wealth. A significant boost to its wealth came from the victory at Himera (480 BC).

After the battle, Acragas gained not only prisoners and slaves but also a huge amount of booty.124 This helped to fund Theron' building programmes in the city, especially temples and civic buildings. It seems likely that these building programmes were seen with favour by the lower classes, as their construction benefited them financially. Thus, Theron probably gained some popularity among these classes.125

Gelon did not treat Theron as a dangerous rival but preferred alliance. As a powerful city, Acragas was an essential help to the Deinomenids for any campaign in this part of Sicily. Their alliance was sealed by intermarriages. Gelon married

Theron’s daughter Damarete, who, after his death passed to Polyzelus. Theron, on the other hand, married Polyzelus’ daughter, and Hieron’s son, Deinomenes, married

Theron’s niece.126 The relationship between Gelon and Theron appears to be a good one. They fought together at Himera and earlier, during 490s BC, against the

Carthaginian colonies in Sicily (Hdt. Hist.7.158).

Theron's relationship with Hieron may have been a little more fractious. They too cooperated but it would have been difficult for two so prominent figures to avoid any conflict—direct or indirect—over the domination of Sicily. There is some evidence that there was tension between Hieron and his brother Polyzelus that culminated in Polyzelus joining forces with Theron. Hieron and Theron were facing a war, which was prevented—according to later sources—only by the mediation of

124 De Angelis (2016) 191. 125 Bracessi and Millino (2000) 100. Note, however, that Polyaneus (6.51) tells us that Theron was not always friendly towards the lower classes. Before he took power, it is said that he had a private mercenary army, which he was unable to pay. He asked the local population and proposed that they build the temple of Athena for which they would be paid. He never returned the favour, and gave the money to the mercenaries, who, in return, helped him to seize the city. 126 For a full account of Deinomenid marriages, see Mitchell (2013) 91-118. 45 the poet Simonides.127 In approximately 476 BC, another possibility of crisis between the two men arose. Theron passed control of Himera to his son Thrasydaeus.

The Himerians were unsatisfied with their new ruler, rejected his authority and asked

Hieron for protection. Hieron did not respond to their request but betrayed them to

Theron. Theron then repopulated Himera with Dorians and non-Dorians, a practice that Hieron followed for the re-foundation of Aitna in the same year.128 Nicholson claims that Theron did not acknowledge Hieron’s power after Gelon’s death, and so

Hieron used Himera as a means of persuasion for his power towards Theron.129 It is noteworthy that the two tyrants never participated in the same equestrian event at the

Games.130 This coincidence may stem from a common agreement between the two tyrants but this does not prove good relations. Compromise and silent fear of the competition might be the other side of the same coin, in order to protect their image, and to avoid the consequences of humiliation in front of one's subjects and a wider

Panhellenic audience.

127 Diod. Sic. 11.48; Timaeus FrGrHist. 566 F93; Pi. Σ. Ο.2.15. 128 Athanassaki (2011) 343. 129 Nicholson, (2015) 239. 130 Bell (1996) 18; Athanassaki (2011) 342. 46

CHAPTER THREE The early Hieron odes: Pythian 2 and Olympian 1

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the two earlier odes for Hieron, which have related purposes.

The oldest ode for Hieron, Pythian 2, portrays him as a capable and outstanding man, wise, blessed by the gods, and one whose deeds distinguish him from other mortals. I argue that the aim is to legitimise the political position that Hieron had acquired without any legitimate or hereditary claim, and for this reason he is not given the title of "king" in the ode. Thus, it is designed to establish a relationship between Hieron and his citizens that is based on the willing acceptance of Hieron’s superiority due to the gods’ decision. In Olympian 1, the use of regal terminology is clear and Hieron is explicitly celebrated as king. I support the view that Pindar’s use of the term was not a matter of flattery, but derived from a wider use of the term by Hieron himself, presenting his power as legitimate and constitutional rather than as a result of usurpation.131 This poem pays less attention than Pythian 2 to legitimising virtues, and I argue that it aims at creating a vision of kingship stripped of the negative aspects associated with tyranny.

The two odes can be seen as paired in their striking use of central mythological narratives featuring infamous transgressors that are treated as narratives of violated reciprocity. In Pythian 2, there is the story of Ixion, who transgressed the rules of reciprocity—and xenia—with the gods. He attempted to rape Hera, although he was a mortal who had received from Zeus the honour of living in Olympus. Olympian 1 is concerned with the myth of Tantalus. Again, a violation of reciprocity is found, as

131 Oost (1976) 225-227; McMullin (2004) 46. 47

Tantalus repaid the gods' xenia and gift of commensality by stealing nectar and ambrosia to share with other mortals.

Both odes (and indeed the later odes too) employ a technique that points clearly to the ideological work going on. The poet remains silent when he deals with events and facts that could have negative connotations. What is kept in silence is an integral part of the reality, but Pindar prefers to depict a different reality. For this feature, I use the term structured silence. The term is used by Rose,132 drawing on

Macherey.133 According to them, the poet systematically excludes elements from an ideological construct that point to contradictions in the "real" world to which the ideological construct is responding, and leaves only "traces or symptoms".134 This is the case when the poet remains silent about the jockeys and charioteers. Hieron is presented as the actual victor without any shadow that can diminish his superiority.

Only the owner and the animals, not the death-defying jockeys or charioteers, are celebrated.135 This is connected with the ideological nature of the horse races in the

Games. All the individual events (wrestling, running, pentathlon etc.) could clearly be held up to celebrate the physical superiority of the overwhelmingly aristocratic contestants. Only the horse races entail no risk for the victors; they were purely a display of the superior wealth of the owners.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine what kind of dynamic is formed between the poet and a tyrant. How does the poetry function, what does it serve, and to what extent is it used for propaganda? How does the poet retain his autonomy and

132 Rose (1992) 36; (1995) 364. 133 Macherey (1978). 134 "The contradictions in the text are not "flaws" in the traditional sense of the term because, on its own terms, the text presents a seamlessly consistent, imaginary transcendence of the real conditions" Rose (1992) 364. 135 Nicholson (2005) refers to the "missing persons" who were charioteers or trainers. Some of them are referred by the poet himself. 48 defend freedom? In other words, I shall be examining how Pindar adapts epinician language and his own role to suit the purposes not of aristocratic peers but of a tyrant, an absolute ruler, and how and to what extent the poems’ ideology serves

Hieron’s hegemony.

The (re)production of Hieron’s "hegemony"

The public celebration of an ode is the right moment for an athletic victor and especially for a tyrant to display his superiority in front of his fellow-citizens. This function can be described in terms of the Gramscian concept of hegemony.136 The ruling class does not preserve its status only by coercion (domination). It does not use only the institutions of violence, for example, army, police, guards, and all the institutions that are described by Althusser as State Apparatus.137 The dominant class—politically or economically—also needs to assign to its domination an aura of moral authority. This can be achieved for instance through legitimising symbols.138

Nevertheless, this is not enough for a secure subordination of the masses. What can ensure subordination is to extract from the masses their consent to their own subordination to the social reality in such a way that it does not disturb the existing distribution of goods.

A social class can maintain its power, political or economic, if it makes its culture dominant, if its moral values, thoughts, and aesthetics about politics, economy, and society become "common sense" (egemonia culturale). The bourgeois hegemony represents political and economic control, but also the ability of the ruling

136 Gramsci (1971). 137 Althusser (1970). 138 Lears (1985) 569. 49 class to display its own worldview as "reasonable" and "natural" to liegemen, thus leading to an active consensus. Hegemony is thus not so much an issue of repression by the mechanisms available to the ruling class—or tyranny in Pindar’s period, or the

State in our era—it consists rather of mechanisms of consensus. Of course, this ability of the ruling class to rule ideologically derives, according to Althusser, from the prestige that the dominant group draws from its position in production.

Hegemony ultimately stems from relations of production and the social division of labour. Thus Pindar’s poetry can function as Ideological State Apparatus that reproduces the dominant ideology. However, I would like to make it clear that ideology also has a material existence that exists in the practices oriented in the

Ideological State Apparatuses and that these practices constitute the realisation of the ideology.139 In other words, the performance of the poem, its religious frame, the myths included, and the genre of Pindar’s poetry are included in these practices.

Since hegemony has an economic base, examining the economics of the odes will be an important way to access their hegemonic gestures and manoeuvres. The

Substantivist school of economic anthropology (whose best-known member is

Polanyi) examined societies in an empirical way. The scholars who followed this school and scholars of gift economies have shown how a society works based on the question of "how things are distributed" without thinking of the principle of economic maximisation.140 In Classics, Finley is the preeminent example of a

Substantivist scholar. He firmly believed that ancient economies were embedded— although he never used the term, as far as I know—and so different from modern ones that it is inappropriate to study ancient economies as such or to use modern

139 Althusser (1971) 96. 140 Graeber (2001) 11. 50 economic terms to describe them. He also stated that the ancient world was free of economic rationalism. He banishes economic rationalism to such a degree that— according to his theory—market exchanges played an insignificant role, because the power of redistribution (from the state or from private initiatives) was the dominant element in Greek society.141

As I have already stated, I do not believe that economic activity in ancient

Greece and in Pindaric poetry was fully embedded. As regards "homo economicus", I do not accept that human beings were always obsessed with profit-making. I fully agree with Polanyi’s statement, which is in harmony with Marx’s belief, that capitalism is the main cause of increasing or creating human beings’ will for gain.142

However, as Rose states, the key difference between Polanyi and Marx is that

Polanyi—like Finley—was uninterested in exploitation.143 In other words,

Substantivists—like Formalists—made great efforts to understand how a society holds itself together—society as a whole was their unit of analysis—and not how a society "reproduces" itself or how it maintains its forms of exploitation and inequality. Thus, my approach is not concerned with the reintegration of the victor, which Kurke has discussed, but in the case of the tyrants, at least, how Pindar presents their domination over their subjects naturally and as something reasonable, desirable, and necessary for the common good.

141 His belief in estates, an idea that derives from the sociological work of Weber, and not in classes, was one of the most central issues in the Marxist critique that he received. A very persuasive criticism has been made by Rose. Following De Ste Croix (1981), Rose (2013) emphasises notions of "class", "class struggle" and "ideology", while at the same time attacking the Weberian notions of status. 142 Polanyi calls capitalism "market economy" and Marx "capitalism". Although they do not share many things in common, both of them do not perceive humanity as a being whose main characteristic was and is profit-making. For Marx (1964), man was the aim of production and not wealth, as opposed to modern man, who seems trapped by money. 143 Rose (2013) 11. 51

Since the relations of production are completely different in a tyranny from those of an aristocratic oligarchy or a democracy, we can expect that the mechanisms of consensus will differ also, and thus Pindar's epinician language and form must adapt to meet the changed circumstances. In Pindar, the case of Hieron is different in comparison with (e.g.) the odes for Theron or the Aeginetan odes. The economic relations between the poet and the tyrant, although presented in the framework of a gift economy and so connecting poet and patron via the bonds of reciprocity, in fact function according to the behaviour of the market. In reality, Hieron is in a position to break the laws of reciprocity, behaving according to the logic of the market, that of kerdos, and so not a perfect xenos for the poet. The poet, on the other hand, constructs his odes based on the propaganda that Hieron desires, while in the mythological section he uses examples that prove that very powerful individuals are possible wrongdoers in terms of reciprocity.

Hieron was a tyrant; that means that he had no need to establish reciprocal relationships in order to maintain his power-base. He based his power on money, military support for which he could pay, propaganda and also more obvious means of coercion. Thus, the issue for Hieron was not so much—or at all—to be reintegrated into his community—but to present his achievement as another reason which could make his subjects desire and accept his power as something of which the gods approve, i.e. to create a willing consensus to Hieron's hegemony. Since Hieron is described as the most prominent and powerful individual, Pindar cannot have the same standing in the poem as he does in the odes that reintegrate a victor into a community of aristocratic peers, but must rather renegotiate his status. If he includes himself as a poet in the community of Hieron-praisers that he constructs out of 52

Hieron-subordinated subjects, his poetry's "truth-value" and status-validating power is in danger. It would be mere flattery or just a commodity. In order to avoid the latter, he presents himself as a friend within the context of gift reciprocity, and in order to rescue the status of his poetry he puts himself into the status of someone who is at least equal (and potentially superior) to the laudandus.

Pythian 2

Pythian 2 is an ode that has created much discussion among both ancient and modern scholars. It is a very obscure ode in several ways. Its genre and its purpose have been disputed,144 there is disagreement about chronology, and, unusually, the venue of the chariot victory is not specified. In addition, there are many vexed passages that make the ode’s interpretation difficult. Despite these problems, Pythian 2 offers a fruitful starting point, for two reasons. First, it is unusual in that Pindar does not address

Hieron as βασιλεύς, or give him that title explicitly—although it can be understood from line 14—as he does in the other odes that he composed for him (O.1.24, P.3.70 and obliquely in P.1.73).145 Therefore, it is likely that the praise has a somewhat different message, one that is adapted to the political purposes of the tyrant. Second, although the poem’s date is much debated, the majority view is that it is early in the relationship between Pindar and Hieron. In order to date the ode, most scholars use as a terminus post quem Hieron’s defence of Epizephyrian Locri (477 BC), which is

144 Wilamowitz (1922) 287, Schadewaldt (1928) 326, Bowra (1937) 23, and Gantz (1978) 19 consider the ode to be a "poetic epistle". Carey (1981) 23 and Young (1983) 38-46 have argued that this notion of a "poetic epistle" is not possible. Ferrari (2012) 165-166 states that the ode "was first performed on the occasion of a solemn sacrifice in honour of Zeus Aitnaios whose cult had been established in Aetna by Hieron himself". 145 By contrast, Bacchylides never calls Hieron βασιλεύς explicitly. He calls him στρατηγός (B.5.1-2) and praises him in the opening of Ode 5 in an unusual way which touches upon Hieron’s function as ruler. See Cairns (2010) 200–1 on Ode 5. 53 referred to in the poem (18-20), and as a terminus ante quem Hieron’s battle at

Cumae (474 BC) because the battle is not mentioned by the poet.146 I shall be arguing for an early dating based on the way Hieron is presented.

I view the ode as an introduction of Hieron to his citizens and consequently as the very beginning of the relationship between the poet and the patron.147 Hieron did not have any legitimate rights to Syracuse, but he took it over after his brother’s death (478/7 BC). The fact that he took the office without any legal claim to inheritance probably created dissatisfaction among the Syracusans.148 Pindar would have to face this discomfort and unite the audience under the leadership of Hieron without provoking their indignation. In the poem, Hieron is not directly presented as a king or associated with tyranny, but he is a wise governor of a blessed city that has to follow the gods’ will. I shall argue that Pindar acts as the mediator for the gods’ will between the citizens and Hieron. His aim is to establish a relationship between

Hieron and his citizens that is based on the willing acceptance of Hieron’s superiority due to the gods’ decision. For these reasons, Pythian 2 is a very interesting ode for exploring the ideological issues and investigating the evolution of the ideological support that Pindar offers to his patron.

Hieron did not acquire tyranny by inheritance. Tyranny, however, requires that the tyrant is treated in the same way as when someone comes to power legitimately.

Pindar had to solve this problem. He does not present Hieron explicitly as a king or associate him with tyranny. Instead, he presents Hieron as what Marshal Sahlins terms "a big-man". Sahlins’ "big-man" is a man who legitimates his status and

146 Carey (1981) 21-23. 147 Note the implication of Hieron's youth in lines 63 νεότατι and 65 βουλαὶ δὲ πρεσβύτεραι. 148 The tradition of Hieron as the “bad brother” in opposition to his brother Gelon see Luraghi (1994) 324-325. 54 political position by "a series of acts, which elevate a person above the common herd, and attract about him a coterie of loyal, lesser men".149 The "big-man" is vital for the community not only because of his personal qualities but mainly because he deploys them for the sake of his community. A detailed examination of the praise confirms the similarity of Hieron to the "big-man". Although the virtues for which

Hieron is praised are those characteristic of a ruler, he is not straightforwardly praised as a ruler, but rather as the most prominent person in the city, who can make the city prominent through his abilities.

The poem opens with an address to Syracuse that highlights its military identity and assigns it to a divine source (1-4):

μεγαλοπόλιες ὦ Συράκοσαι, βαθυπολέμου τέμενος Ἄρεος, ἀνδρῶν ἵππων τε σιδαροχαρμᾶν δαιμόνιαι τροφοί, ὔμμιν τόδε τᾶν λιπαρᾶν ἀπὸ Θηβᾶν φέρων μέλος ἔρχομαι ἀγγελίαν τετραορίας ἐλελίχθονος εὐάρματος O great city of Syracuse, sanctuary of Ares mighty in war, divine nourisher of men and horses who delight in steel, to you I come from shining Thebes bearing this song and its news of the four-horse chariot that shakes the earth.150

Ares is presented as an emblem of Syracuse. The whole city is his temple and his martial spirit its identity. The ode has mainly the city as a recipient. It is the usual practice of Pindar to put the individual’s excellence within the framework of the city, but in this case it will not be that of an equal party but of a prominent leading figure who is suitable to govern the city because of the kingly excellences he has.

The city’s military activity is then paralleled with Hieron’s athletic activity (5-

14):

... Ἱέρων ἐν ᾇ κρατέων

149 Sahlins (1963) 289. The term was coined before Sahlins but he popularised it. It derives from an ethnographic tradition according to which ethnographers began searching for a term that could describe leadership communities. The term "chief" was no longer sufficient for this. 150 I use Race’s translation (1997) with slight modifications. 55

τηλαυγέσιν ἀνέδησεν Ὀρτυγίαν στεφάνοις, ποταμίας ἕδος Ἀρτέμιδος, ἇς οὐκ ἄτερ κείνας ἀγαναῖσιν ἐν χερσὶ ποικιλανίους ἐδάμασσε πώλους. ἐπὶ γὰρ ἰοχέαιρα παρθένος χερὶ διδύμᾳ ὅ τ᾽ ἐναγώνιος Ἑρμᾶς αἰγλᾶντα τίθησι κόσμον, ξεστὸν ὅταν δίφρον ἔν θ᾽ ἅρματα πεισιχάλινα καταζευγνύῃ σθένος ἵππιον, ὀρσοτρίαιναν εὐρυβίαν καλέων θεόν. ἄλλοις δέ τις ἐτέλεσσεν ἄλλος ἀνὴρ εὐαχέα βασιλεῦσιν ὕμνον, ἄποιν᾽ ἀρετᾶς. (5-14) [four-horsed chariot] in which Hieron prevailed and with far-shining garlands crowned Ortygia, abode of the river goddess Artemis, with whose help he mastered in his gentle hands those fillies with their embroidered reins, because with both hands the virgin archeress and Hermes, lord of the Games, place on them the shining harness, whenever he yokes the strong horses to the polished car and to the chariot that controls the bit, and calls upon the wide-ruling god who wields the trident. Various men pay the tribute of a resounding hymn to various kings as recompense for their excellence.

Hieron is presented as skilful in handling situations (7-8), a man competent at controlling the chariot and driving it to the victory. Under the protection of the gods, who so generously favour him (7-13), he disciplines the horses as a great master does. His close relationship to the gods is emphasised by their physical contact— their hands place the reins into the gentle hands of Hieron to wield. This image can be interpreted in three ways: it is a description evoking the historical moment of the victory, it is a metaphor for Hieron’s kingly powers,151 and by the familiar parallel between war and athletics, it identifies Hieron as the ideal representative of the city’s values. Thus, initially the "big man" and his community are linked in identity.

Hieron’s activities are located in an environment of divine care and benefaction;

Syracuse and Hieron’s mastery is the gift of the gods.

After the opening’s focus on human achievements with divine benefaction, the

Priamel (13-20) has as a coherent bond the issue of reciprocal charis between humans. Pindar parallels Hieron with the mythological king of Cyprus and priest of

Aphrodite, Cinyras:

151 Morgan (2015) 177. 56

κελαδέοντι μὲν ἀμφὶ Κινύραν πολλάκις φᾶμαι Κυπρίων, τὸν ὁ χρυσοχαῖτα προφρόνως ἐφίλησ᾽ Ἀπόλλων, ἱερέα κτίλον Ἀφροδίτας (15-19) The voices of the Cyprians often celebrate Cinyras, whom golden-haired Apollo heartily befriended, the priestly favourite of Aphrodite.

Cinyras was famous for his wealth and his hospitality,152 although Pindar does not mention these but identifies him in his role as priest of Aphrodite. Cinyras is remembered because his deeds were so much appreciated by the Cypriots that they reciprocated, moved by charis (ἄγει δὲ χάρις). In this passage, charis represents gratitude but is accompanied by ὀπιζόμενα. The word has a special meaning as it contains the feeling of wonder and awe when someone faces a special and superior character.153 Thus, charis in this passage includes subservience, which is not one of its inherent features.154

Hieron is not addressed in his regal capacity but in his martial aspect, thus linking him back to the opening as a worthy representative of his city’s values.

σὲ δ', ὦ Δεινομένειε παῖ, Ζεφυρία πρὸ δόμων Λοκρὶς παρθένος ἀπύει, πολεμίων καμάτων ἐξ ἀμαχάνων διὰ τεὰν δύναμιν δρακεῖσ' ἀσφαλές. (17-20) But you, O son of Deinomenes, the maiden of Western Locri invokes in front of her house, for after desperate toils of war she has a look of security in her eyes thanks to your power.

According to the scholia, the reference here is to 477 BC when Anaxilas from

Rhegium attempted to conquer Locri and Hieron decisively stopped that attack. The use of this historical moment—in full accordance with the city’s martial character— not only emphasises the bravery and military effectiveness of Hieron, but also creates the image of a man who offers security to the most vulnerable members of the society, women. As in the case of Cinyras and the Cypriots, here also the relationship between the two parties has a clear element of subservience contained in the

152 In Il. 11.19-23, Cinyras offers Agamemnon a breastplate as a token of their friendship. 153 Most (1985) 76; Maclachlan (1993) 120. 154 Maclachlan (1993) 120. 57 maiden’s evident gratitude.155 Reciprocity here should be understood within the framework of leadership-style communities, that is communities that were based on the abilities of one person who carries at the same time the values that each community appreciates.156 At the same time, we should be aware that reciprocity plays a different role in a political hierarchy that is based on wealth (as that of Hieron is) rather than birth (as that of Cinyras is). The broad range of charis’ meaning also involves reciprocity, pleasure, delight, goodwill and emotional charge and in both cases the subservience is given a strong emotional element, particularly dominant in the reference to the Locrian maiden. Her security and gratitude is obvious in her eyes. Pindar again uses face-to-face contact with someone who did something that deserves reciprocity and connects the two cases with their consequent emotions.

Charis includes reciprocity within its scope, but "pure" reciprocity, exchange which involves chreos as debt, is expressed by different terminology. In the alius aliud figure that introduces the Priamel, the chreos-motif is clearly expressed.

ἄλλοις δέ τις ἐτέλεσσεν ἄλλος ἀνὴρ εὐαχέα βασιλεῦσιν ὕμνον, ἄποιν' ἀρετᾶς (14-15). Various men pay the tribute of a resounding hymn to various kings as recompense for excellence.

The chreos-motif of 14-15 applies in the first instance to Cinyras and the Cypriots.

The Cypriots are of inferior status to Cinyras and so the parties involved are not equal. In Homeric usage, apoina is compensation for a loss. This loss in some cases

155 As Race (1982) 78 notes, Pindar uses a summary Priamel (13-20) to introduce the gratitude of the Locrian maiden. The first example, that of Cinyras, is introduced by the μέν (15). It functions as a foil for the true climax. When the subject changes, Pindar uses δέ (18) and vocative ὦ Δεινομένειε παῖ (18) to connect the two parallel cases. 156 Donlan (1998) 58-67 notes that in Homer there was a kind of leadership-style community, where reciprocity had a great contribution towards constructing and preserving this hierarchical political system. Donlan, however, uses Sahlins’ terms, "balanced reciprocity" and "generalised reciprocity" to support his argumentation. 58 is the effort, labour, and expense involved in winning an athletic competition.157 In the case of Cinyras however, who received praise songs from the Cypriots as apoina, there is no obvious loss and it is rather a gift of recognition of his excellence. In fact, this should be viewed as one of the passages that show how apoina in post-Homeric

Greek means the same as poine in its positive sense, that is, repayment for a loss, recompense, reparation or revenge.158 Thus we can see the parallel with line 17 (ἄγει

δὲ χάρις φίλων ποίνιμος ἀντὶ ἔργων ὀπιζομένα) where charis is tied to poine to express the chreos-motif. The general picture in a gift economy is that when someone receives a gift, he must eventually answer with a counter-gift. If he does not give in return, then he is considered inferior and in debt. The "gift" to Cinyras expresses his superiority; it is not based on the fact that he was a king but that he was beloved by the gods and his deeds worthy of the Cypriot recognition he receives in return (16-18).

In order to understand the implications of this exchange, it is helpful to consider two forms of reciprocity: "open" and "closed" reciprocity.159 "Closed" reciprocity is not eternal; if the members do not wish to keep their relationship, the recipient can take back autonomy only by giving back an equal object (or better, in the case of antagonistic gift exchange). This is akin to how Hesiod conceives reciprocity: εὖ μὲν μετρεῖσθαι παρὰ γείτονος, εὖ δ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι, αὐτῷ τῷ μέτρῳ, καὶ

157 Kurke (1991) 102. 158 This view is clearly expressed by Cairns (2011) 119-171, who, in opposition to Wilson’s view (2002), does not see a distinction between the terms. 159 Graeber (2001) 220. Graeber, influenced by Sahlins’ concepts of "generalised" and "balanced" reciprocity, develops the concepts of "open" and "closed" reciprocity. He puts it: "Rather than 'generalised' or 'balanced' reciprocity, then, it might be better to think of reciprocity as relatively 'open' and 'closed': open reciprocity keeps no accounts, because it implies a relation of permanent mutual commitment; it becomes closed reciprocity when a balancing of accounts closes the relationship off, or at least maintains the constant possibility of doing so. Phrasing it this way also makes it easier to see the relationship as a matter of degree and not of kind; closed relationships can become more open, open ones more closed." 59

λώιον, αἴ κε δύνηαι, ὡς ἂν χρηίζων καὶ ἐς ὕστερον ἄρκιον εὕρῃς (WD 340-351).160 In

Cinyras’ case, his excellence and relationship with the gods establishes his superiority to be such that it did not allow his citizens to be equal and so they cannot gain equality by means of equal apoina. This resembles "open" reciprocity where the relationship is eternal; the members do not keep account of what they gave and what they received because they are mutually committed to each other. This is the form of relationship that a family, for example, usually practises. Thus, in the case of the

Cypriots, their offer is eternal; they can never gain autonomy by paying their debt but are eternally indebted to Cinyras. The situation however is not unpleasant for the citizens because they are moved by charis. They accept their indebtedness and they convert it into praise for the priestly favourite of Aphrodite. The production of praise songs for Cinyras makes their situation of eternal indebtedness delightful, while at the same time offering eternal glory to Cinyras.

The chreos-motif also applies in the case of Hieron. He is the one who saved the Locrians and their acceptance of indebtedness is presented in the form of gratitude and embodied in the Locrian maiden’s gaze. The key principle seems to be that the offers given by Hieron—or Cinyras—had a value that was impossible to quantify and so reciprocity cannot function in equal terms, but only in hierarchical.

These are things that are priceless, valuable qualities accumulated in the person of

Hieron who distributes them for the sake for his community. What is clear in the case of Cinyras and Hieron is that the audience’s participation in praise is not the repayment in full of the gifts that the two men offered. It is rather a token of

160 Foucault (2013) 116-129 pays attention to the concept of reciprocity in Hesiod. Foucault notices a different way of approaching justice through exchange in Hesiod from that in which it is presented in Homer. For Hesiod, the main issues are equality, common measure, consent and mutual agreement. The way Hesiod sees justice—in exchange and in general—is influenced by a new knowledge, the knowledge of calculating and measure days, hours, season, natural chronologies. 60 recognition of the existence of the debt, which can never be repaid.161 This happens because competition has entered into and reconfigured the relations, but these competitive relationships are presented as cosmological order, as the will of the gods.

Cinyras and Hieron in this competition of generosity can give more away than their audiences. What Pindar implies here is that Cinyras and Hieron are euergetai of their cities.

Like the Cypriots’, the Locrian maiden’s debt to Hieron cannot be repaid and in a situation of open reciprocity she will remain in a state of eternal indebtedness without the possibility of regaining her autonomy. The Locrian maiden is used as a behavioural example for the audience. In order to avoid this situation, they have to take part in the delight that the ode offers. The poet offers escape from an unpleasant psychological and ethical state of indebtedness by means of his poem, which simultaneously offers eternal glory to Hieron.

However, if we apply the double hermeneutic here, we see a different picture.

It serves Hieron’s purposes to portray him as a powerful saviour to whom gratitude and emotional investment are owed, and an audience can experience delight in this dependence. But if we consider the economics of the situation, what we see is the imposition by force of eternal indebtedness and loss of autonomy, a situation in which the audience are as helpless and vulnerable before Hieron as the Locrian maiden is. The charis experienced masks the reality whereas the charis of the poem also reveals it.

The Ixion Myth: consensus and subordination

161 Graeber (2011) 120. 61

Up to this point, the system that is presented corresponds perfectly to Polanyi’s assumptions and Maussian theory. For both, social integration in pre-capitalistic societies was achieved first and foremost through exchange. Cinyras and Hieron achieve their status in their communities through the exchange system—especially through the chreos they imposed on their citizens—and become the leading parties of their communities as they offer more than the community can reciprocate. The society that Pindar presents thus far in Pythian 2 is a society where economic activity is constrained within non-economic institutions, and the system of reciprocity that functions in the case of Cinyras and Hieron is not assigned material interest. I will show how the "economising" aspect of Hieron's activities, and its importance, is addressed subsequently by Pindar through the central Ixion myth under the guise of ingratitude and hybris. By examining the human motivation involved, Pindar both supports an image of Hieron as the "big-man", the non-economising, status (not wealth) driven human being that Mauss and early Malinowski envisaged,162 and undermines that image at the same time, as hybris is revealed to be an economic crime driven by the human lust for power to achieve ever more material goods.

The Ixion myth was well known in the fifth century and linked with the issues of ingratitude and hybris.163

θεῶν δ᾽ ἐφετμαῖς Ἰξίονα φαντὶ ταῦτα βροτοῖς λέγειν ἐν πτερόεντι τροχῷ παντᾷ κυλινδόμενον·

162 For early Malinowski, the primitive human being was much more interested in power than in wealth. Wealth was the means to acquire social prestige and power. See Malinowski (1922) 62, and 166-168. A very similar view appears to have been held by Mauss, who sees primitive human beings as very different from humans in modern market societies. For Mauss (1925/1967) 72-79, primitive humans were not like modern calculating machines, but their main characteristic was their obligation to reciprocate. However, Malinowski changed his mind and realised that the primitive human being is much closer to modern humans than he had previously thought. He is individualistic and ruled by ambitions. He needs and pursues wealth for every use. See Malinowski (1926) 27, 48, 73. 163 Gantz (1993) 718-721. 62

τὸν εὐεργέταν ἀγαναῖς ἀμοιβαῖς ἐποιχομένους τίνεσθαι. ἔμαθε δὲ σαφές. εὐμενέσσι γὰρ παρὰ Κρονίδαις γλυκὺν ἑλὼν βίοτον, μακρὸν οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν ὄλβον, μαινομέναις φρασὶν Ἥρας ὅτ᾽ ἐράσσατο, τὰν Διὸς εὐναὶ λάχον πολυγαθέες· ἀλλά νιν ὕβρις εἰς ἀυάταν ὑπεράφανον ὦρσεν: τάχα δὲ παθὼν ἐοικότ᾽ ἀνὴρ ἐξαίρετον ἕλε μόχθον. αἱ δύο δ᾽ ἀμπλακίαι φερέπονοι τελέθοντι· τὸ μὲν ἥρως ὅτι ἐμφύλιον αἷμα πρώτιστος οὐκ ἄτερ τέχνας ἐπέμιξε θνατοῖς, ὅτι τε μεγαλοκευθέεσσιν ἔν ποτε θαλάμοις Διὸς ἄκοιτιν ἐπειρᾶτο. χρὴ δὲ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν αἰεὶ παντὸς ὁρᾶν μέτρον. εὐναὶ δὲ παράτροποι ἐς κακότατ᾽ ἀθρόαν ἔβαλον· ποτὶ καὶ τὸν ἵκοντ᾽· ἐπεὶ νεφέλᾳ παρελέξατο, ψεῦδος γλυκὺ μεθέπων, ἄϊδρις ἀνήρ· εἶδος γὰρ ὑπεροχωτάτᾳ πρέπεν οὐρανιᾶν θυγατέρι Κρόνου· ἅντε δόλον αὐτῷ θέσαν Ζηνὸς παλάμαι, καλὸν πῆμα. τὸν δὲ τετράκναμον ἔπραξε δεσμόν, ἑὸν ὄλεθρον ὅγ᾽· ἐν δ᾽ ἀφύκτοισι γυιοπέδαις πεσὼν τὰν πολύκοινον ἀνδέξατ᾽ ἀγγελίαν. ἄνευ οἱ Χαρίτων τέκεν γόνον ὑπερφίαλον, μόνα καὶ μόνον, οὔτ᾽ ἐν ἀνδράσι γερασφόρον οὔτ᾽ ἐν θεῶν νόμοις· τὸν ὀνύμαξε τράφοισα Κένταυρον, ὃς ἵπποισι Μαγνητίδεσσι ἐμίγνυτ᾽ ἐν Παλίου σφυροῖς, ἐκ δ᾽ ἐγένοντο στρατὸς θαυμαστός, ἀμφοτέροις ὁμοῖοι τοκεῦσι, τὰ ματρόθεν μὲν κάτω, τὰ δ᾽ ὕπερθε πατρός. (21-48) They say that by the gods’ commands Ixion speaks these words to mortals as he turns in every direction on his winged wheel: go and repay your benefactor with deeds of gentle recompense. He learned this clearly, for having won a pleasant existence among Cronus’ beneficent children, he could not sustain his happiness for long, when in his maddened mind he fell in love with Hera, who belonged to Zeus for joyous acts of love. But insolence drove him to arrogant delusion, and quickly suffering what was fitting, the man won an extraordinary torment. His two offenses bring this pain: the one, because that hero was the very first to bring upon mortals the stain of kindred blood, not without guile; the other, because once in the great depths of her chambers he made an attempt on Zeus’ wife. One must always measure everything by one’s own station. Aberrant acts of love cast one into the thick of trouble; they came upon him too, because he lay with a cloud, an ignorant man in pursuit of a sweet lie, for it resembled in looks the foremost heavenly goddess, Cronus’ daughter. Zeus’ wiles set it as a snare for him, a beautiful affliction. The man made that binding to the four spokes his own destruction. After falling into inescapable fetters, he received that message meant for everyone. Without the Graces’ blessing, that unique mother bore a unique son, who was overbearing and respected neither among men nor in the ways of the gods. She who reared him called him Kentauros. He mated with Magnesian mares in the foothills of Pelion, and from them issued a wondrous herd of offspring similar to both parents, with the mother’s features below, the father’s above.

Pindar speaks of two crimes that Ixion had committed. First, the murder of a blood- relative (31-2), indeed Pindar claims he was the first mortal to commit such an act.

This is presented summarily, whereas weight is given to the second crime, his act of 63 hybris against Zeus in his attempt to violate Hera. The whole precept of the myth speaks to the question of the human thirst for more—a common topos in Pindar and

Greek literature in general.164 The myth suggests that such human desires cannot give immortality but rather never-ending torment and result in bestialising man (Ixion's monstrous Kentauros offspring). It is explicitly a lesson (25) and a message (42) for humanity.

In a reading of the myth as encomiastic for Hieron (the negative hermeneutic),

Ixion can represent the opposite of what Hieron is or should be. Pindar calls for a moderate attitude not only towards mortals but mainly towards the deities. Hieron must respect Zeus’ status and avoid any hubristic act that is linked with ingratitude.165 For him, there is a stronger obligation to do so because he is extraordinarily blessed by the gods, as was Ixion. His appropriate acknowledgement of his gratitude to the gods for the gifts they have given him is realised in the present ode and Pindar suggests that Ixion's madness should not happen to Hieron by following the myth with a passage praising Hieron's wisdom (56-68).

The gnome that introduces the myth concerns the importance of gratitude to benefactors (24). By linking back to the notion of gratitude in the Priamel, it suggests that the lesson of Ixion should apply also to Hieron's audience: the Syracusans should do the same as the Locrian maiden. Hieron’s subjects should feel gratitude so intense that it is reflected in their eyes because they are before a man who follows the warlike nature of their city and becomes the saviour of the weak and the victor in the

Games. If they do not follow this exemplary conduct, then their fate will be the same

164 For warnings against hybris, see O.1. 114; O.3. 42-45; P.10. 60-63; P.11. 55-58; N.3. 74-75; N.9. 46-47; I.3. 1-6; I. 5. 14-16. 165 Lloyd-Jones (1973) 125. 64 as Ixion’s and their community bestialised. In this series of models for behaviour towards superiors, Pindar is creating a web of custom or habit towards a superior. As

Graeber points out, in order to avoid any abruption in the relationships between the superior and the inferiors in the state of exchange, what is needed is not only the consensus of the majority, but also a precedent that puts that exchange behaviour within the framework of a tradition of such behaviours. 166 In this way, Pindar provokes Hieron’s subjects to acquire, or enforces as the already formed habitus,167 a proper attitude towards a tyrant, without even referring to his political power.

The models provided are aimed at forming appropriate attitudes, values, and behaviours but the relationships that underpin them can instead be viewed as economic ones. As shown above, the Priamel was structured around two gnomai referring to relationships expressed in emotional terms but created via forms of exchange (apoina and charis poinimos). The gnome that introduces the Ixion myth, placed in the mouth of Ixion himself, forms a third model of reciprocal exchange: τὸν

εὐεργέταν ἀγαναῖς ἀμοιβαῖς ἐποιχομένους τίνεσθαι (24). This model locates the myth within the framework of transgression of xenia, but it is not about justice in every exchange, only that towards a benefactor. It is sanctioned by the gods, since they impose the punishment on Ixion for flouting it, and so the gods function not as guarantors of justice in exchange in general, but rather as the guardians of hierarchical reciprocity. This may explain why Ixion was purified by the gods even though he murdered his father-in-law in a dispute over the gifts to be exchanged for

166 Graeber (2011) 110. 167 Bourdieu (1984) 170-174 describes habitus as a system of shapes of thought and action that are products of the active presence of past experiences, and produce individual and collective practices. The key elements are introduced through socialisation and are integrated in the individual. The consequence of this procedure is that the individual produces and instils certain dispositions almost automatically. These moods are not intended as psycho-emotional situations but as predispositions, as trends, as shapes to think, to feel, to perceive, to assess and act in a relatively stable characteristic way. 65 his bride.168 It is possible that Pindar alludes to the transgressions that a tyrant is in a position to commit because he has extraordinary power.169 His transgressions include even the slaughter of close kin and deception in exchange between equals or inferiors. The gods may still forgive him and, as in Ixion’s case, offer more prosperity.

The second and main part of the myth is concerned with the boundaries of human existence, boundaries between gods and human beings, and those between human beings and beasts.170 Reciprocity is again the central issue. Ixion’s transgression is not the fact that he tried to rape Hera, but that Hera was Zeus’ dependant: τὰν Διὸς εὐναὶ λάχον πολυγαθέες (28-29). His crime should be seen not so much as a sexual one, but rather as a violation of the honour of his host and of the reciprocal trust towards his superior. In this light, the act is a double of his previous offence, although it was carried out against a mortal/inferior, for in that case also

Ixion effectively stole the possession of another (that of his father-in-law). As a god’s possession and indeed as the possession of the most powerful of the gods, Hera is an inalienable or sacred object. Inalienable objects are those that cannot be given, or if given must return to their owner.171 When someone possesses such an object, it is more than the material itself, is also the history and the symbolic value of the object.

168 Most (1985) 77. 169 In Pindar’s time, the image of the tyrant as a transgressive and violent being was already widespread. Pindar himself talks about Phalaris and his bull in order to stigmatise the cruel transgressions of a tyrant (P.1. 96-97). From Archilochus to Aristotle, the image of a tyrant is one of a dangerous creature having or desiring everything that pleases him, for example, the unlimited sexual freedom of two tyrants in Herodotus, Cambyses (3.31) and Periander (5.92), and Plato’s descriptive story of Gyges’ ring (Rep. 360b-c). The unlimited freedom and power of the tyrant was unpleasant not only for mortals, but also for the gods. Their hybristic attitude led them to destruction. See Mossé (1969); Ferrill (1978) 385-398; Farenga (1981) 1-31; Gammie (1986) 171-185; Austin (1990) 289- 306; Barcelό (1990) 401-425; Christ (1992) 167-202; Gray (1992) 361-389; McGlew (1993) 32-38; Dewald (2003) 25-57. 170 Morgan (2015) 185. 171 Weiner (1992) 33. 66

In this case, Ixion tried to claim an inalienable object of Zeus as his own. The act symbolises his attempt to become Zeus in Zeus’ position. This link between sexual and economic relationships again connects Ixion with the Priamel as a negative paradigm. There are sources that connect Cinyras with Aphrodite in an erotic way172 and the image of the maiden who vows in front of her house has rightly been seen as a sexual allusion.173 Unlike the stereotypical tyrant, Hieron does not violate the maiden’s virginity, but is represented as her saviour. We can see the contrast here between an erotic relationship of affection based on reciprocity and sexual aggression that breaks the laws of reciprocity.174 The sexual link suggests that Hieron has already been shown to be the opposite of Ixion, but the economic link suggests that the eternal indebtedness imposed on the Locrian maiden binds her forever to

Hieron as master.

Ixion's eternal punishment for his violation forms an explicit lesson for mortals.

Pindar extends the myth beyond the impact on Ixion himself and gives us the further consequences of his sexual encounter with the cloud-deceit that Zeus set in Hera's place (36-48). The resulting offspring is Κentauros, a beast that fits neither among men, nor among gods (43). He was born apart from the Graces, that is, without charis (ἄνευ Χαριτῶν 42). In the case of Cinyras, grace was followed by pleasure, songs, and a cohesive and respectful society. In this case, the song is constituted by

Ixion’s words during his torment. The pleasure involved in a reciprocal transaction is absent, as Ixion’s "repayment" was disrespectful and transgressive. Moreover,

Kentauros is the personification of the uncivilised world, of a world where lust and

172 See Most (1985) 73; Bell (1984) 6-7. 173 Currie (2005) 264-275 notes the implied sexuality but states that the Locrian maiden is connected with sacred prostitution at the temple of Aphrodite. I do not think that this is supported by the text or is Pindar's main point. 174 The parallels between the passages are shown by Most (1985) 73. 67 violence prevail and society is a "liminal space", which is represented symbolically by locating Kentauros’ herd of offspring on the mountains (45-46). The violation of reciprocity—and xenia—towards a superior converts man into a beast and his society into an uncivilised group from which justice, beauty and pleasure are absent. Here again Pindar addresses this paraenetic myth not only to Hieron, but also to his audience. The "lesson" is clear; if even the most prosperous and blessed man is deceived by his lust, the consequences will not be confined only to his own fate. The evil is diffused into communities and affects them by creating a "liminal society".

The audience should comprehend their inferior status, accept the "natural" order and subordinate themselves gratefully to Hieron for the sake of their community.

Ixion’s crime is driven by his lust, but his lust is a symptom and not the cause.

The root cause is his intellectual, and thus moral, blindness (ἄιδρις ανήρ 37) that prevents him from distinguishing what is not his possession from what is, and what is a deceptive illusion of pleasure (νεφέλα, ψεῦδος γλυκύ) from reality.175 Pindar underlines Ixion's state of mind μαινομένας φρασίν (26), ἄιδρις ανήρ (37). He does not talk at all about an intentional dishonour towards Zeus, but rather his hybris is a matter of disposition, a "subjective attitude" or hexis. Ixion could not understand his boundaries because his motivation to acquire more is rooted in his state of character.

He had already violated reciprocity and killed his father-in-law, so it is not the first time that he did something wrong; he has a flaw in his character. His character was trapped by what Aristotle calls pleonexia, a particular form of injustice that derives from one’s own character, the lust to acquire more than one's status permits (Arist.

175 Pratt (1993) 60. 68

NE 1129a32-bll).176 As Cairns shows, hybris does not need an intention to offend someone, its key feature is rather an individual’s state of mind "which over-values one’s own honour".177 This disposition distorts the relationships with others and so inevitably breaks the law of reciprocity.

The opposite state of mind, one that can distinguish truth from falsehood and make the correct assessments of one's relationships with others so as to have just reciprocity, is that which Pindar either recommends for Hieron or indeed suggests that he has already. This is suggested by the use of Rhadamanthys as the counter- example to Ixion and, parallel to Hieron. The parallel phrasing makes this clear, as

Norwood shows.178 Rhadamanthys is not misled by deception (ἀπάταισι 74) as Ixion was by the deceptive cloud (ψεῦδος 37, cf ἀυάτα) and he finds no pleasure in such deceptions (οὐ τέρπεται 74) as Ixion did (γλυκύ 37). The mental cause of Ixion's delusion (μαινομέναις φρασίν 26) is starkly opposed to Rhadamanthys’ intellectual powers (φρενῶν καρπὸς ἀμώμητος 73-74), and leads to opposite results (ἀυάταν

ὑπεράφανον 28 as opposed to εὖ πέπραγεν 73).179 But if this lesson also applies to

Hieron's audience, it is a double-edged sword. It represents precisely the state of willing consensus to subordination that the poem's ideology aims at; but it could also be read in the opposite way, that is, as providing the audience with a model of assessing Hieron, and Pindar's representation of Hieron, that will allow them to see through or resist the propaganda and confront the reality of tyranny.

176 Cairns (1996) 5. 177 Cairns (1996) 5-10 contra Fisher (1992) 148. 178 Norwood (1945) 190-191. 179 καλὸν πῆμα is answered by καλός, ἀεὶ καλός, and παλάμαι are mentioned in both passages. 69

Pindar and Hieron

Thus far, the ode has focused our thoughts on Hieron, and I have argued that Pindar's aim is to create, by ideological means, validation for, and consensus to, Hieron's illegitimate seizing of power and his position as tyrant. But why should the audience believe Pindar? There remains the important problem for Pindar of how to secure his autonomy as poet for without this his words cannot assert their truth-value. His poem must be viewed as having the status of a gift (even though it is in reality a commodity), a gift that is owed to Hieron like the gratitude of the audience. But if he is on a level with the audience then he too has no autonomy. To be autonomous he must be able to speak to Hieron as a peer not a subordinate, and yet Hieron as tyrant can have no peers. These concerns become the focus of the final third of the poem as

Pindar represents himself as having precisely that state of mind which Ixion doesn't and Rhadamanthys (and by implication Hieron) does, that is, one that can distinguish truth from falsehood and make the correct assessments of one's relationships with others so as to create just reciprocal relationships.

He begins by suggesting a link between himself and Hieron in terms of sophia.

After distinguishing his own praising voice from that of the blame poet Archilochus

(to which I return below), he offers a gnome summarising his contrasting position: τὸ

πλουτείν δὲ σὺν τύχᾳ πότμου σοφίας ἄριστον (56), "possessing wealth that is granted by destiny is the best object of wisdom". The mention of wealth looks back to the image of Archilochus growing fat on abuse, and in this context sophia can be understood as meaning poetry, as often in Pindar. However, the next line assigns the gnomic reference to Hieron (τὺ δὲ σάφα νιν ἔχεις 57) and goes on to support this claim by direct praise of Hieron's qualities (57-68). This section contains the most 70 overt praise in the poem. Hieron is not presented as politically superior—as basileus—but he is praised as πρύτανις and κύριος (58), although this has to do with power and prestige and not with legitimate power or a claim that can be transferred to his descendants, as happens in the case of a king. He is praised for his power over city and army (58), his proper use of wealth (57), his superiority in wealth and honour not only in his city but also in Hellas: εἰ δέ τις ἤδη κτεάτεσσί τε καὶ περὶ τιμᾷ

λέγει ἕτερόν τιν᾿ ἀν᾿ Ἑλλάδα τῶν πάροιθε γενέσθαι ὑπέρτερον (58), and his superior boldness in war and military achievements (63-66). But all of these qualities are treated as dependent on one overriding quality whose praise marks the beginning and end of this section: his wisdom. It is this quality which links Pindar with Hieron in the gnome of line 56, and which becomes the guarantor of Pindar's truthful praise

(66-68).

The famous Archilochus passage points to the economics of praise. The uncivilised state of Kentauros’ offspring arises from violation of reciprocity. In the same way, the blame poet leads himself into an animal-like condition when he chooses reproach instead of praise. The word πιανόμενον is used for animals.180 His words, full of hate, cannot keep society united. This attitude leads him to a state of resourcelessness (ἀμαχανία). Amachania describes a state in which the poet is ineffective, he lacks inspiration and he lives in a state of economic poverty. The source of blame is the envy of inferiors (75-6), and envy is the product of faulty mental assessment (they pull the measuring line too tight 90-91).181 As in the case of

180 Payne (2010) 28. 181 In epinician poetry, phthonos (envy) is a central concern. The poet is aware of his poetic ability and of what he can offer to the victor. But his wholehearted praise may arouse envy in the hearts of the audience. The notion of phthonos in Pindar is connected with the intellectual failure of the person who cannot understand his position in the world. See Bulman 1992, especially her analysis of N. 8. For 71

Ixion, the result is self-harm (90, see also ἄμαχον κακὸν ἀμφοτέροις 76)182 because in their attempt to measure superiors they realise their own inferiority.

By contrast, Pindar has an obligation (χρεών) to do the opposite. This obligation is that of a xenos (Pindar comes from afar bringing his gift (3) over the grey sea (68)). It is expressed later in terms of being a friend to a friend and an enemy to an enemy (83-84). As an enemy, he would behave in a similar bestial manner to Archilochus ("pouncing like a wolf" 84). Bestial characteristics are also assigned to whispering slanderers (like foxes 75-77), and the deceptive citizen

(σαίνων 82). These are beings of inferior status and therefore inevitably driven by envy ('always' 75). Thus, xenia here is defined in terms of praise, the obligatory gift of a xenos is to give excellence its due.

The contrast is also expressed in economic terms. Of the envious and blaming contingent, Archilochus is resourceless (54), the foxes gain no profit (78), and their cargo is lost at sea (79-80) whereas Pindar is a successful merchant on a beautiful ship bringing immensely valuable Phoenician merchandise (67)183 which will not be lost at seas for Pindar is unsinkable (80), and a man who can prosper under any political circumstances (86-88). It is Pindar's wisdom that makes this possible for it is the wisdom to make the correct assessment of reciprocal relationships so as to be able to apportion praise of corresponding value. This is the ability described as that

more about blame and envy in Greek thought, see Walcot (1978); Miller (1982) 111-120; Kirkwood (1984) 169-183; Hubbard (1990) 343-351. 182 Payne (2010) 29. 183 It has been said that Pindar chose to present his ode as Phoenician merchandise because Cinyras could actually be Phoenician. Thus, he could make a parallel between the way Cypriots praised Cinyras and the poet Hieron. See Franklin (2016) 316. It seems that such an interpretation does not take into consideration a theme that arises here, that of the quality of the product, its high value. Morgan (2015) 194 states that the reference to the Phoenicians is to show that Hieron's war with the Carthaginians has passed and now people are back to business. But it would be ill-fitting for Pindar to present Hieron only in this part of the ode as a peaceful man towards his enemies, one who allows his enemies to continue their lives. 72 of a straight-tongued man (εὐθύγλωσσος 86), an image that draws upon the long- standing association of straightness with justice.184

Pindar is at pains in this section to negotiate a position for himself from which he can represent his praise as the just representation of Hieron's superiority. But he must do so as an equal xenos, he cannot put himself in the position of an inferior because that would compromise the value of his praise as not freely given and associate him with those who make wrong evaluations, the blamers. The delicacy of this position can be seen in the image of euthyglossia as equated to praise. From one perspective (negative hermeneutic), Pindar praises as a truth-teller uncompromised by any political regimes (86). Euthyglossia resembles parrhesia, a privileged situation in which every person can express his opinion without negative consequences for himself. This suggests that under Hieron’s regime people who speak the truth have the same privileges as those who are governed democratically.

From another perspective (positive hermeneutic), euthyglossia can resemble praise that is given as the only safe option in a tyranny. Pindar says that a deceptive citizen's word has no persuasive force for aristocrats, that is, among aristocrats only a truthful praise-giver carries conviction, leaving available an implication that in other regimes

(tyranny and democracy) praise-givers can succeed regardless of their truthfulness.

Conclusion

In this ode, the poet's aim is to attribute to Hieron all the virtues of a king, without referring directly to tyranny. These qualities are aimed at making the audience—the

184 E.g. Hesiod, Work & Days (225), says that Justice blesses those who give "straight judgments to strangers and to the men of the land". In Theog. (22-34), the Muses grant Hesiod not only the gift of poetic composition but also a sceptre, and in Theog. (79-103), there is a parallel between kingly speech and singing. 73 citizens—amenable to his rule and eliciting their respect for him as tyrant. The audience cannot seek equality in exchange, but must put themselves under the condition of eternal debt. If they refuse, their fate will be like living in a barbarous, bestial society represented by Kentauros, Archilochus, slanderers, foxes, and those who suffer from phthonos. The situation of eternal indebtedness cannot be pleasant for anyone. However, a solution is offered by the poet. A state of pleasure and mental calmness is the reward for people who know their position in society and accept it, as in the case of Cypriots. In this case, Pindar gives the chance to the Syracusans to experience the same state, and thus he too is in the superior position of a benefactor to whom they owe a debt.

There is no indication of inferiority by the poet, rather he talks about participating in a community of equals (ἀδόντα δ’εἴη με οῖς ἀγαθοῖς ὅμιλεῖν 96). If we apply the double hermeneutic, the poet may even have the upper hand. Hieron as a tyrant is prone to hybris and the poet narrates a myth of repeated violation of reciprocity that applies both to the audience and Hieron, and leads to a bestialised society. Like Ixion, who continually dishonours the institutions of reciprocity as a result of overestimating his position, Hieron runs the risk of doing the same not only towards his subjects but also towards the poet, which would lead to the loss of charis. The poet thus becomes the one who determines whether and to what extent reciprocity between Hieron and himself is honoured. The poem is neither just a gift, nor just a commodity (67-68), rather it is a "socialised thing"185 with no static value.

Its value is not defined only by money, but by the status and political power of

185 Appadurai (1986) 6. 74

Hieron, the status of the poet, and the sacrifices that Hieron has made to acquire it.

Thus, Hieron's status, the poet's status, and the ode's value are interdependent.

In conclusion, in this ode, there are two forms of reciprocity expressing relationships with Hieron. One is the "open" form, in which the audience participates, and the other is the "closed" form, in which the poet participates. The transaction with Hieron functions primarily as a propaganda instrument to legitimate tyranny. Hieron should be accepted as the most superior among all the Syracusans.

Nothing less would be appropriate for him (60-61). Failure to accept this truth derives from mental error, which leads to psychological trauma, and personal and social misery. These beliefs place Hieron above the common run of mortals, near to the gods, but by no means equal to them. He is the personification of common good whose exclusive access to the divine sphere, which controls the world, can only be matched by that of the poet, who is therefore the only one who can 'truthfully' represent it.

Olympian 1

Introduction

In Pythian 2, as I have shown, Hieron is not directly labelled or addressed with the title "king" but is presented in such a way as to show that he is worthy of such a position. Thus the poem provides a form of legitimisation of Hieron's rule such as fits an early stage in his tyranny. By contrast, I argue that in Olympian 1 Pindar deals with a slightly different ideological challenge. In this poem, Hieron is explicitly called a king but there is less focus on legitimising virtues and qualities, and more 75 attention is paid to distancing him from all the negative aspects associated with one- man rule. This fits a somewhat later stage in his rule, and is designed to counter the growing demonisation of tyranny that was taking place, especially after the Persian wars.186 The reciprocal relationships of Pythian 2 set up kingship as the appropriate reward for Hieron, whereas those of Olympian 1 offer a model of kingship that distances it from tyranny. The complex mythological section, on the one hand, engages the motifs of envy and invidious distortions of truth in its striking reorientation of a traditional tale, and on the other, offers in the figure of Pelops a paradigm of perfect reciprocity, the embracing of purely mortal status, and immortality of a kind as a result of a heroic challenge parallel to Hieron’s victory.

The elaborate focus on the crime and punishment of Tantalus offers a corroborative negative paradigm of the wrong exercise of kingship. Pindar may even go one step further in holding out the possibility of immortality not only through poetry, but also in cult, like that of Pelops.

Olympian 1 celebrates Hieron’s victory in the single horse race (κέλητι). It is the ode that was assigned the most prominent position when the Pindaric epinikia were organised.187 The actual date of the ode is a matter of debate among scholars. In

P. Oxy 222, a victory-list, two single-horse victories at Olympia are attributed to

Hieron, who is called Συρακόσιος, one in 476 BC and the other in 472 BC. Many scholars prefer the earlier date partly because two important historical events are not mentioned in the poem as might otherwise be expected. There is no mention of the foundation of Aitna, 476 BC or the glorious victory of Hieron at Cumae, 474 BC.

186 Morgan (2015) 133-162. 187 Its placement at the head of the book is attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium in the Vatican or Thomana Vita. For a taxonomy of the Pindaric corpus, see Negri (2004) 157-158, Clay (2011) 337- 346. 76

The celebration of a prestigious victory in the most prestigious Games—that of the

Olympics—is a very suitable occasion to praise the victor for all his achievements. In addition to this, if the ode celebrates the victory in 472 BC, it would also be expected that the previous victory of 476 BC be mentioned. Moreover, proponents of the earlier date also claim that since Pherenikos, the victorious horse, also won in 478

BC he would be too old in 472 BC for another victory. On the other hand, those who favour the later date of 472 BC argue that it would indeed be possible for Pherenikos to win in 472 BC based on a passage in Herodotus (6.103) that mentions the same horses as winners in three successive Olympic Games. With regard to the unmentioned historical events, they claim it is problematic to expect that every ode must include all previous victories and important achievements.188 For example, in

Pythian 1 (470 BC), Pindar does not mention any of the Olympic victories of 476 and 472 BC. Moreover, it is not absolutely clear that there is no indication of Aitna in

Olympian 1. In lines 90-93, Pindar highlights the cult of Pelops, and this has led many scholars to argue that this is a direct indication that Hieron will or should receive a similar cult,189 as in fact he did posthumously as the founder of Aitna. My own view is that the poem does indeed make a strong link between Hieron and

Pelops concerning heroic honours and that this would be clearer after the time when

Hieron founded Aitna, so after 476 BC, but my reading is not dependent on accepting the later dating.

188 Fraccaroli (1901) 389. 189 Gerber (1982) xv; Slater (1989) 499; Morgan (2015) 233. Currie (2005) 75 notes that "an inclusive model of immortality (i.e. immortality through renown in conjunction with immortality in cult) would apply to Hieron as well as to Pelops". 77

The opening Priamel: Gold and Justice

Ἄριστον µὲν ὕδωρ, ὁ δὲ χρυσὸς αἰθόµενον πῦρ ἅτε διαπρέπει νυκτὶ µεγάνορος ἔξοχα πλούτου· εἰ δ᾽ ἄεθλα γαρύεν ἔλδεαι, φίλον ἦτορ, µηκέτ᾽ ἀελίου σκόπει ἄλλο θαλπνότερον ἐν ἁµέρᾳ φαεννὸν ἄστρον ἐρήµας δι᾽ αἰθέρος, µηδ᾽ Ὀλυµπίας ἀγῶνα φέρτερον αὐδάσοµεν· ὅθεν ὁ πολύφατος ὕµνος ἀµφιβάλλεται σοφῶν µητίεσσι, κελαδεῖν Κρόνου παῖδ᾽ ἐς ἀφνεὰν ἱκοµένους µάκαιραν Ἱέρωνος ἑστίαν, θεµιστεῖον ὃς ἀµφέπει σκᾶπτον ἐν πολυµάλῳ Σικελίᾳ δρέπων µὲν κορυφὰς ἀρετᾶν ἄπο πασᾶν, ἀγλαΐζεται δὲ καὶ µουσικᾶς ἐν ἀώτῳ, οἷα παίζοµεν φίλαν ἄνδρες ἀµφὶ θαµὰ τράπεζαν (1-17) Best is water, and gold, like fire blazing in the night, stands out supreme of all lordly wealth; But if, my heart, you wish to sing of athletic Games, do not look for another star as being warmer (and shining) than the sun, shining by day through the empty sky, Nor let us sing a competition greater than Olympia, whence comes the famous song that enfolds the skilful minds of experts, who have come to sing the son of Cronus to the rich and blessed hearth of Hieron, who wields the sceptre of justice in Sicily with its rich flocks. He reaps the summits of every excellence. He is also glorified by the finest songs, such as those where we men often perform in play around his hospitable table.190

Olympian 1 opens with a series of images: flashes of water, gold that blazes like fire at night and then a transition to the sun that shines in the empty sky. Each of the things that Pindar singles out constitutes the best thing of its genus. Water is the best in the category of natural elements, gold among possessions, the sun among the heavenly bodies, and the Olympic Games among other athletic Games. Water is the source of life and at the same time it is the element mixed with wine to avoid

190 I use here Race’s translation (Loeb) with the following modifications: I translate ἔρημος as "empty", because the sky is empty as the other stars are absent. Σοφῶν: Gerber (1982) 28-29 sees in σοφῶν a generic reference to poets. However, σοφῶν μητίεσσι literally means "the devisings of wise men". There is no doubt that Pindar often uses σοφός, and words derived from it, to refer to poets and poetry (cf. e.g. O.2.86), but I think that it has a wider application in this case, including both composers and audience of poetic song. For a summary of the possible metaphoricity of ἀμφιβάλλεται, see Gerber (1982) 26-28. Μητίεσσι: I translate as "skilful minds", but I do not agree with Gerber’s explanation when he prefers to call it "imagination"; rather I follow Verdenius' interpretation that it refers to the "ability to give to it (song) artistic form" (Verdenius 1988 ad loc.). 78

ἄκρατος οἶνος that ensures the kosmos of the symposium, a relevant location here because it is the site and context of Hieron-praising (17).191 Gold is the symbol of wealth, preciousness and splendour.192 It is also the major prerequisite for someone to participate in chariot racing. The brilliance of the sun is connected with the brilliance of the Olympic Games,193 and the sun functions as witness to the Games, making the victory clear under its shine. The beginning of the ode is calculated to praise not only the supremacy of the Olympic Games, but also of Hieron,194 and the

"journey" from the Games to Hieron's hearth takes as its "cargo" all the encomiastic associations of this cluster of images.

He describes Hieron’s pre-eminence in a specific location (Hieron’s hearth), moving then to a more general and broader one (Sicily), and back again via a spatial reduction (Hieron’s table), where the poet himself enters. His first location, Hieron’s hearth, is described as ἀφνεάν and μάκαιραν (rich and blessed). The hearth, ἐστία, is not only a place that marks the centre of the family and hospitality, but is also the seat of patriarchal and political authority, and the site of household worship. The sacred atmosphere is enhanced by the adjective μάκαιραν that attaches blessedness from the gods to Hieron’s hearth.195 The spatial movement locates Hieron's political and religious authority at the symbolic centre of Sicily and Pindar's poetic authority at the symbolic centre of Hieron's xenia and reciprocal relations.

191 For the banquet imagery of the poem, see Krummen (1990) 164-166, 208-210 192 Verdenius (1988) ad loc. 193 I do not follow Verdenius' (1988) ad loc. statement that the connection between sun and victory is an arbitrary idea. 194 Morgan (2015) 220. See also Mullen (1982) 167. 195 Hieron’s hearth might be the metaphorical hearth of a mother-colony. We know that before setting out on the expedition, the oikistes was responsible for transferring fire from the hearth of the mother- city to the hearth of the new-founded city. So Hieron’s hestia is the mother city for the whole of Sicily. For evidence about the transfer of the sacred fire see Etymologicum Magnum 694.28-31. 79

Hieron is presented as someone who rules the whole of Sicily and moreover he does it justly (θεµιστεῖον ὃς ἀµφέπει σκᾶπτον). The reference to the sceptre of justice presents the tyranny of Hieron as both perfectly legal and as completely just in its exercise of kingly powers. However, we know that Hieron did not have a legitimate claim to rule in Syracuse. He took over tyranny from his brother Gelon, who had earlier bestowed on him the tyranny of Gela, and then, when ill, also passed to him the tyranny of Syracuse. In an attempt to naturalise Hieron’s authority, Pindar presents two factors that aim at precluding any attempt to dispute Hieron’s power.

The first is the divine decision. Political power is a divine gift to Hieron and his just rule is a consequence of divine help (μάκαιραν). The second concerns the character of Hieron and consists in his reaping the summits of all excellences (δρέπων µὲν

κορυφὰς ἀρετᾶν ἄπο πασᾶν 13). Pindar does not specify what kind of excellences

Hieron has––he does not need to because Hieron has all of them. The use of the superlative expression, and his ideal kingly behaviour help to present Hieron's rule as beyond any challenge.

Hieron's tyranny is presented concretely in the form of a sceptre, a symbol associated with monarchical power, justice, Zeus, and the tradition of epic kings. The association is supported by the connection noticed between this line and Iliad 9.98-

99, where Nestor is advising Agamemnon, which is discussed in detail by Morgan.196

οὕνεκα πολλῶν λαῶν ἐσσι ἄναξ καί τοι Ζεὺς ἐγγυάλιξε σκῆπτρόν τ’ ἠδὲ θέμιστας, ἵνά σφισι βουλεύῃσθα. τώ σε χρὴ περὶ μὲν φάσθαι ἔπος ἠδ’ ἐπακοῦσαι, κρηῆναι δὲ καὶ ἄλλῳ, ὅτ’ ἄν τινα θυμὸς ἀνώγῃ εἰπεῖν εἰς ἀγαθόν· σέο δ’ ἕξεται ὅττί κεν ἄρχῃ. (96-102) For you are king over many people. Zeus, moreover, has granted you to wield the scepter and to uphold what is right [themis] that you may take thought for your people under you; therefore

196 Morgan (2015) 226-228. 80

it behoves you above all others both to speak and to give ear, and to out the counsel of another who shall have been minded to speak wisely. All turns on you and on your commands (Trans. Butler 1898).

Morgan underlines the fact that the audience could easily recall this passage and so they could connect the explicit association of Agamemnon’s sceptre with Zeus to a connection between Zeus and Hieron.197 The association between the passages becomes closer because both kings are rulers of many people, as the Pindaric Hieron is presented as a king not only of Syracuse but also of the whole of Sicily. Both of them have the sceptre of judgment and in order to judge fairly they need the advice of wise people. Agamemnon calls the elders, and Hieron the poets, to the table of friendship. In the Iliad passage, the importance of a good counsellor is exemplified by Nestor. In Olympian 1, this role is implicitly fulfilled for Hieron by Pindar.

Morgan’s analysis becomes more interesting when she states that the function of

Agamemnon is to become a negative paradigm for Hieron: "Diomedes reproaches

Agamemnon for cowardice...(Il. 9.37–39). Here kingly authority (the scepter) is not matched by qualities of character. Agamemnon could thus serve as a negative paradigm for a Sicilian tyrant. By the end of the ode, however, the audience will be reassured that Hieron’s character lives up to his scepter-bearing status. No contemporary is more authoritative in power or more knowledgeable of good things

(lines 104–105)." However, it is not necessary to pinpoint Agamemnon as a specific parallel for Hieron here because the image of a sceptre-bearing, justice-wielding king is a well-known type in both Homer and Hesiod.198 It could be argued that epic

197 Morgan (2015) 227. 198 In the Iliad, for example, (2.183-332) Odysseus restores order by the use of Agamemnon’s sceptre. The authority of the sceptre stops the fight. The episode is also known for its end: Odysseus beats with the sceptre the rebellious Thersites. For Hesiod, sceptre-bearing kings come from Zeus (Theog. 96). 81 models of kingship provided Pindar with a useful way to present Hieron's absolute rule as far removed from that of tyranny.

Before line 17, the two types of songs that are mentioned (πολύφατος ὕμνος and the sympotic songs) do not refer to Pindar’s current song. In the symposium,

Pindar participates not only as a poet (παίζομεν),199 but also as a friend (φίλαν). He builds up an atmosphere of the centrality of song in Hieron's seat of power as the setting for his current praises. From line 17 onwards, he turns to his own song and focuses on Hieron's victory itself.

ἀλλὰ Δωρίαν ἀπὸ φόρμιγγα πασσάλου λάμβαν’, εἴ τί τοι Πίσας τε καὶ Φερενίκου χάρις νόον ὑπὸ γλυκυτάταις ἔθηκε φροντίσιν, ὅτε παρ’ Ἀλφεῷ σύτο δέμας (20) ἀκέντητον ἐν δρόμοισι παρέχων, κράτει δὲ προσέμειξε δεσπόταν, Συρακόσιον ἱπποχάρμαν βασιλῆα· λάμπει δέ οἱ κλέος ἐν εὐάνορι Λυδοῦ Πέλοπος ἀποικίᾳ· Come, take the Dorian lyre from its peg, if the splendour of Pisa and of Pherenikos has indeed enthralled your mind with sweetest considerations, when he sped beside the Alpheus, giving his limbs ungoaded in the race, and joined his master to victorious power, Syracuse’s horse- loving king. Fame shines for him in the colony of brave men founded by Lydian Pelops.

His point of departure for his praise is the horse, Pherenikos, who achieved its huge success without any need for the goad (akenteton). The use of the word akenteton is not ideologically innocent. As it is known, Hieron did not participate in person in the chariot races, but rather the chariot was driven by a driver.200 Pindar systematically excludes all references to the driver, as if he never existed, in order to credit the victory to the patron himself or to the animal that brought the victory—which is the property of the patron and therefore represents its owner's skills (cf. B. 5.43-45). The

199 Morgan (2015) 225-227 notes that the verb παίζομεν marks the amateurish character of the song in contrast with the professional song that begins in line 17. I do not agree; the description that Hieron "is glorified" aglaisdetai by "the finest songs" mousikas aotoi does not fit a non-professional song or its capabilities. 200 Nicholson (2005) 99-101. 82 contradiction between reality and Pindar's construction of it requires silencing those elements that disclose what really happened. This is a structured silence, that is, one that suppresses anything that could challenge or undermine the poem's ideology.201

This device is also active in any celebration of the tyrant’s effort to become the winner of the Games. Pindar is completely silent about the vast difference between participating in the Games in person as a wrestler, runner, boxer, etc., and

"participating" merely as the wealthy owner of horses. He celebrates the toil and danger for the tyrant-owner exactly as he does for real competitors. For example, when he refers to the Olympic Games in line 96, he speaks directly of the extreme physical effort of the athletes, and in line 82 he claims more generally that any man who does not place himself physically at risk is doomed to stay in the darkness. This, in turn, points to the contradiction in the Games themselves, between their status as an ideological institution designed to showcase the actual superiority of those who compete, and the overriding reality that what really matters is the superior wealth to be able to afford the leisure and training to compete.202

Pelops, Tantalus and Hieron

The mythological section in Olympian 1 occupies approximately two-thirds of the ode (25-99), and tells the story of Tantalus' transgression and punishment, his son

Pelops' abduction by Poseidon, and Pelops' later chariot victory to gain Hippodameia in marriage. Pindar rejects a former version of the myth about the cannibalisation of

201 See the introduction to this chapter 47-48. 202 See Chapter Two on the Sicilian tyrants' preference for hippic events where their superior wealth could be showcased. 83

Pelops at a feast of gods.203 According to the former version, Tantalus, in order to test the power of the gods, offered them his murdered and stewed son, Pelops. None of the gods tasted the meat, except Demeter whose mind was occupied by

Persephone and she bit into Pelops’ shoulder. Consequently, Tantalus was eternally punished for this impiety. I return later to Pindar's revisionism; it will be helpful to discuss the myth itself first. Pindar's version replaces the cannibalised Pelops with his abduction by Poseidon, and makes Tantalus’ crime the theft of nectar and ambrosia from the immortals in order to share with his mortal drinking companions.204

The myth projects an ideology that is addressed not only to the audience but also to Hieron himself. Tantalus is the negative exemplum, while Pelops is the positive one. Moreover, the negative exemplum is presented as inextricably connected with the positive one. The myth is not presented in temporal terms but mostly in terms of a series of antitheses that "make emphatic the indivisibility of their significance".205 Poseidon’s love is announced before Tantalus is introduced.

The god’s affection for the boy thus precedes Tantalus’ symposium where the god saw the boy. Then Pindar puts side-by-side the contrast of Pelops’ flawless service to the gods with Tantalus’ transgression. Thus, Pindar presents a myth in which the fate

203 Pelops is described as the favourite of Poseidon in Il. 2. 104. The kreourgia of Pelops is attested in Σ. Ο. 1.40a according to which Tantalus, who was beloved by the gods, invited them to dine and he offered his own son as a meal. The gods realised what was in front of them and did not touch the food. Demeter alone—others say Themis—absorbed by the disappearance of Persephone, consumed Pelops’ shoulder. Zeus then ordered Hermes to put in a cauldron the limbs of Tantalus’ son and restored him. The scholiast also says that according to other sources, Pelops was restored by Rhea. Ovid, in Metamorphoses (6. 405), repeats the same story. Other sources for the myth of Pelops: Seneca Thyest. 145-148; Statius Theb. 1. 246-247, 11. 126-129; Lycophron Alex. 53-55. 204 It remains a controversial issue as to how much Pindar has changed the myth. E.g. Hansen (2000) 35 claims that Poseidon’s help to Pelops is not Pindar's invention since stories about divine help can be found before Pindar. Köhnken (1974) 200 supports the view that the chariot race is an innovation. Gerber (1982) xii disagrees with Köhnken’s view. For Nagy (1990) 116-135 the revision of the myth is the consequence of the fusion of two pre-existing myths. Hansen (2000) 19-40 parallels the myth of .״the bride won in a tournament״ Pelops and Hippodameia with the international story of 205 Bennett (1976) 129. 84 of two paradigms is linked causally (Tantalus' transgression forms the origin of

Pelops' virtue) and contrapuntally (where Tantalus failed, Pelops succeeded).

The indivisibility of the connection between Pelops and Tantalus depends on their being embedded in a world in which they and the gods do not live separately and are bound together in the scheme of reciprocity.206 Let us begin with the reciprocity between Tantalus and the gods involving commensality. Tantalus offered a meal to the gods (ἔρανον, 38) that was "most orderly" (εὔνομώτατον 37). The word

ἔρανος refers to a meal offered in return for a service or in return for a service that is requested.207 In this case, it is offered in return for meals they had given him

(ἀμοιβαῖα δεῖπνα 39). The gods reciprocated by giving him nectar and ambrosia.

According to Godelier, there is one more obligation in addition to the three Mauss delineated—give, receive and reciprocate. The fourth obligation is the exchange between gods and humans and is defined as "a certain type of relationship that humans entertain with the origins of the things".208 According to this fourth obligation, humans receive from the gods things that are inalienable. This type of gift must be kept and not given away.209 They affirm differences of identity between individuals that are not neutral, since they create or continue hierarchies through affiliation with the gods. This is the case with ambrosia and nectar. They were given to Tantalus and must be kept by him alone. Tantalus did not maintain this hierarchy, but instead he tried to distribute these inalienable possessions to other mortals (60-

63). He acts with a form of generosity that is allowed only to the gods, since the ambrosia and nectar belong only to them. In addition, the gods are the only ones who

206 Morgan (2015) 240. 207 Gerber (1982) 56. It should be noted, however, that it is a common notion that humans cannot repay the gods since even their existence is a gift from the gods. 208 Godelier (1999) 171. 209 The theory of inalienable gifts is first devised by Weiner (1992) and developed by Godelier (1999). 85 are entitled to place people in a state of debt through these donations. Tantalus must have recognised his state of indebtedness that could entail only a state of gratitude.

Instead of this, by offering a divine meal to mortals, Tantalus placed himself in a position that belongs only to the gods; and he created a state of indebtedness—from the mortals to himself—to which he was not entitled. Furthermore, he gave an opportunity to people, unsanctioned by the gods, to receive gifts that made them special. His transgression is thus a compound one and should be punished accordingly.

The gods reply to this offence by punishing Tantalus eternally:

...ἀλλὰ γὰρ καταπέψαι μέγαν ὄλβον οὐκ ἐδυνάσθη, κόρῳ δ᾽ ἕλεν ἄταν ὑπέροπλον, ἅν οἱ πατὴρ ὑπερ κρέμασε καρτερὸν αὐτῷ λίθον, τὸν αἰεὶ μενοινῶν κεφαλᾶς βαλεῖν εὐφροσύνας ἀλᾶται. ἔχει δ᾽ ἀπάλαμον βίον τοῦτον ἐμπεδόμοχθον, μετὰ τριῶν τέταρτον πόνον, ἀθανάτων ὅτι κλέψαις ἁλίκεσσι συμπόταις νέκταρ ἀμβροσίαν τε δῶκεν, οἷσιν ἄφθιτον θέν νιν. (55-64) He, however, could not digest his great fortune, and because of his greed he won an overwhelming punishment in the form of a massive rock that the Father suspended above him; in his constant eagerness to cast it away from his head he is banished from joy. He has this helpless existence of constant weariness, the fourth toil along with three others, because he stole from the deathless gods the nectar and ambrosia with which they had made him immortal, and gave them to the companions who drank with him.

The phraseology is taken from the dietary sphere (e.g. καταπέψαι) as is the transgression itself, since he gave the food of immortals to his own age-mates.

Although in human terms his crime may not seem so terrible, he is terribly punished.

He is exiled from the feast and he has a stone over his head that follows him wherever he goes, threatening extinction. He not only transgresses human limits by giving immortal food to mortals, he also violated the terms of reciprocity between the gods and—most important—he did not appreciate the gift of the gods. It was unique, 86 special, inalienable, a mark of immortality and a symbol of blessing, but he gave it away. As Godelier puts it, in the case of inalienable possessions only the original donor has the rights to them, rights that are as inalienable as the gifts themselves.210

Tantalus is condemned not only to be away from the cheer of commensality

(εὐφροσύνας),211 but also to live his entire life with the fear of death. Thus, he lives in a perpetual psychic state of fear about his own extinction; the inalienable gift of commensality has become the inalienable gift of eternal torment.

Where Tantalus fails in keeping the terms of reciprocity between himself as a mortal, inferior being and gods, Pelops succeeds. The key to Pelops' success lies in his obedience to the laws of reciprocity that in turn depends on his respect for the limits of his status as a human. There is a great difference between the reciprocal relationship of Tantalus with the gods on the one hand, and that of Pelops with the gods on the other. Tantalus is involved in an exchange where the two parties are not equals and he is clearly the inferior, so he is eternally in a state of debt and gratitude towards the gods (open reciprocity). Pelops’ exchange is represented as closer to an exchange between equals (closed reciprocity).

Although Pelops, as a human, is hierarchically inferior to the god Poseidon, he addresses the god in terms that present their relationship as one in which he is entitled to Poseidon's gratitude for his sexual service.212

φίλια δῶρα Κυπρίας ἄγ᾽ εἴ τι, Ποσείδαον, ἐς χάριν τέλλεται, πέδασον ἔγχος Οἰνομάου χάλκεον, ἐμὲ δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταχυτάτων πόρευσον ἁρμάτων ἐς Ἆλιν, κράτει δὲ πέλασον. (75-78)

210 Godelier (1999) 52. 211 Even the language that Pelops uses testifies to such a relationship, as he dares to use the imperative, see Bundy (1986) 2. 212 Cairns (1977) 130-132 stresses the importance of the paederastic relationship in creating emotions of gratitude. 87

"If the loving gifts of Cypris count at all for gratitude, Poseidon, come! Hold back the bronze spear of Oenomaus and speed me in the swiftest of chariots to Elis and bring me to the victorious power."

Pelops is the eromenos and Poseidon the erastes. As an eromenos, he gave pleasure to his erastes and so he can ask for a favour in return. Given the fact that he is now at an age that he can become a husband, he asks to be paid back in the field of sexual relations.213 Reciprocity is expressed in more equal terms. Poseidon is in a state of debt if he agrees with Pelops' assessment that this gift creates a state of pleasure and debt (charis). In fact, Pelops’ formulation "gifts of Aphrodite", taken literally, would mean that Pelops asks Poseidon to repay him for the gifts of Aphrodite, which casts

Pelops in the role of the embodiment of a gift from one god to another, like a woman between father and husband.

Just as Tantalus' transgression against reciprocity was linked to and predicated on his lack of respect for human limits, so Pelops' request for reciprocity here is tied to and predicated on his acknowledgement of those limits.

ὁ μέγας δὲ κίνδυνος ἄναλκιν οὐ φῶτα λαμβάνει. θανεῖν δ᾽ οἷσιν ἀνάγκα, τί κέ τις ἀνώνυμον γῆρας ἐν σκότῳ καθήμενος ἕψοι μάταν, ἁπάντων καλῶν ἄμμορος; (81-84) "Great risk does not take hold of a cowardly man. But since men must die, why would anyone sit in darkness and coddle a nameless old age to no use, deprived of all noble deeds?"

Pelops recognises that, as a purely mortal being, a man who is brave does not waste his time sitting in the darkness and in namelessness (81-85). He must be aware of his mortality, and therefore of his inferiority towards the gods, and so he should seek for brave deeds that will leave his name immortal. Pelops recognises that he cannot be a god; therefore, he has to find another substitute for immortality, without offending

213 According to Dover (1989) 87, it would be shocking for an erastes to be younger than the eromenos. So Pelops was the eromenos of Poseidon and when he grew up ("when downy hair began covering his darkened chin" trans. Race) it was his turn to become the erastes of someone else. 88 the gods or exceeding human limits. This is to participate in acts of bravery and claim a victory with the help of the gods. Poseidon reciprocates Pelops' grace not only because he was his eromenos, but also because Pelops fully respects the limits of human condition.

All three individuals of the myth, Tantalus, Pelops and Poseidon, serve as examples for Hieron and the audience. Tantalus is the one who acts as a reminder to the tyrant to respect human limits. Hieron ruled Syracuse at a time when the image of despotism was worsening under the impact of the Persian invasion (490-480).214

Herodotus' Xerxes functions as the analogue for every Greek tyrant who adopted eastern autocratic behaviours, and among the recurrent tyrannical motifs in

Herodotus are the refusal to listen to good advice or to bear in mind their own mortality.215 Diodorus' portrayal of Hieron as a harsh tyrant, often cruel and greedy

(11.67.2-4) casts Hieron into a similar mould as Herodotus' Xerxes.216 The stone over

Tantalus' head symbolises his life being in a state of permanent oppression by the gods and constant fear, an apt image for the life of a stereotypical tyrant.217 At the same time, Tantalus functions as a counter-example for the audience, guiding them to respect the hierarchy imposed by the gods. Hieron is superior and he should receive

214 Morgan (2015) 4, 98, 217-218. 215 Dewald (2003) 34. 216 Γέλων ὁ Δεινομένους ἀρετῇ καὶ στρατηγίᾳ πολὺ τοὺς ἄλλους διενέγκας καὶ Καρχηδονίους καταστρατηγήσας ἐνίκησε παρατάξει μεγάλῃ τοὺς βαρβάρους, καθότι προείρηται· χρησάμενος δὲ ἐπιεικῶς τοῖς καταπολεμηθεῖσι καὶ καθόλου τοῖς πλησιοχώροις πᾶσι προσενεχθεὶς φιλανθρώπως, μεγάλης ἔτυχεν ἀποδοχῆς παρὰ τοῖς Σικελιώταις. οὗτος μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ πάντων ἀγαπώμενος διὰ τὴν πρᾳότητα, διετέλεσε τὸν βίον εἰρηνικῶς μέχρι τῆς τελευτῆς. τὴν δὲ βασιλείαν διαδεξάμενος Ἱέρων ὁ πρεσβύτατος τῶν ἀδελφῶν οὐχ ὁμοίως ἦρχε τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων· ἦν γὰρ καὶ φιλάργυρος καὶ βίαιος καὶ καθόλου τῆς ἁπλότητος καὶ καλοκἀγαθίας ἀλλοτριώτατος. διὸ καὶ πλείονές τινες ἀφίστασθαι βουλόμενοι παρακατέσχον τὰς ἰδίας ὁρμὰς διὰ τὴν Γέλωνος δόξαν καὶ τὴν εἰς τοὺς ἅπαντας Σικελιώτας εὔνοιαν. 217 See Griffith (1986) 8, who says that the stone on top of Tantalus' head can be the symbol of the state of fear in which the tyrant always lives and the metaphorical predecessor of the sword of Damocles which was on top of Dionysus II, another Sicilian tyrant. 89 the respect and obedience that befits someone who has divine protection. Similarly,

Pelops offers the audience an example of the right way to treat their superior, Hieron.

Because of Hieron's absolute superiority over the Syracusans, Poseidon could be understood as a parallel to Hieron.218 He rewards the good behaviour of Pelops and he fairly repays it. Thus, if the Syracusans give the proper service to Hieron, he will reward them as Poseidon did with his eromenos. More importantly, it is Pelops who functions as a positive paradigm designed for Hieron’s superiority. First, both are blessed from birth. When Pelops was pulled from the cauldron, Poseidon immediately fell in love with him and gave him all his affection (25-27). While we know nothing of Hieron’s sexual life, such relationships were so central an element in the ideological representation of mainland aristocratic society that it would not be surprising if, like Roman aristocrats later, members of the Sicilian elite represented themselves as cultivating such relationships. In any case, Hieron has a god as his guardian (θεὸς ἐπίτροπος 106). Second, Pelops endured many tribulations because of his father’s transgression. He lost eternal life with the gods and came back to a mortal life of toils, labour and danger (65-66). Pindar implies Hieron's strenuous efforts in the Games when he talks about Pelops' agon (95-99), despite the fact that the victor’s only "toil" in horse-races may have been purely monetary. Thus, both

Pelops and Hieron are described as refusing to "sit in darkness" or to deprive themselves of "all noble deeds" (83), but rather they participate in difficult and dangerous struggles. The most obvious parallel, of course, is the fact that Pelops

218 Morgan (2015) 249. 90 succeeded in a race on Olympian soil as did Hieron also in the Games there. Even the phraseology of the passages describing them is closely paralleled.219

Thus, Pelops can be a model for Hieron in that he respects human limits, has the god(s) as assistant(s), when he pursues noble deeds, and understands how to manage reciprocal relationships correctly. As a result, he enjoys eternal glory and honour in the form of a cult beside the altar of Zeus: τύμβον ἀμφίπολον ἔχων

πολυξενω-/τάτῳ παρὰ βωμῷ (93-96). If this is Pelops' reward, the situation is similar to that of the Cypriots and Cinyras in Pythian 2 where the cult is an expression of an eternal unpayable debt. Hieron did in fact acquire posthumous cult status. He founded Aitna in 476 BC by an unconventional method; he displaced its current population and replaced it with his own.220 When he died (467 BC), he was buried in

Aitna and received heroic honours, as the founder of the city.221 Although there is no direct evidence that Hieron aspired to cult status, nonetheless, the close parallels between Pelops and Hieron offered by the poem hold this possibility up to Hieron as part of its praise programme.

Pindar's Mythmaking

219 Of Hieron: λάμπει δέ οἱ κλέος ἐν εὐάνορι Λυδοῦ Πέλοπος ἀποικίᾳ (23), and of Pelops: τὸ δὲ κλέος τηλόθεν δέδορκε τᾶν Ὀλυμπιάδων ἐν δρόμοις (93-4). Of Hieron: δρέπων μὲν κορυφὰς ἀρετᾶν ἄπο πασᾶν (13), and Pelops' reference to ἁπάντων καλῶν ἄμμορος; (82). Of Hieron's victory: κράτει δὲ προσέμιξε δεσπόταν (22), and of Pelops' κράτει δὲ πέλασον (78). 220 Diodorus 11.49.1-2. Ἱέρων δὲ τούς τε Ναξίους καὶ τοὺς Καταναίους ἐκ τῶν πόλεων ἀναστήσας, ἰδίους οἰκήτορας ἀπέστειλεν, ἐκ μὲν Πελοποννήσου πεντακισχιλίους ἀθροίσας, ἐκ δὲ Συρακουσῶν ἄλλους τοσούτους προσθείς· καὶ τὴν μὲν Κατάνην μετωνόμασεν Αἴτνην, τὴν δὲ χώραν οὐ μόνον τὴν Καταναίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλὴν τῆς ὁμόρου...τοῦτο δ᾽ ἔπραξε σπεύδων ἅμα μὲν ἔχειν βοήθειαν ἑτοίμην ἀξιόλογον πρὸς τὰς ἐπιούσας χρείας, ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς γενομένης μυριάνδρου πόλεως τιμὰς ἔχειν ἡρωικάς. τοὺς δὲ Ναξίους καὶ τοὺς Καταναίους ἐκ τῶν πατρίδων ἀνασταθέντας μετῴκισεν εἰς τοὺς Λεοντίνους. See also Strabo 6.2.3. 221 Diodorus 11.66.4: Ἱέρων δ᾽ ὁ τῶν Συρακοσίων βασιλεὺς ἐτελεύτησεν ἐν τῇ Κατάνῃ, καὶ τιμῶν ἡρωικῶν ἔτυχεν, ὡς ἂν κτίστης γεγονὼς τῆς πόλεως. 91

Pindar’s declared reason for revising the myth is that its former version involves a series of injustices, mainly against the gods. In addition, Hieron was a priest of

Demeter and Kore, so it would be unseemly for him to include a myth with negative associations for Demeter.222 Nonetheless, although Pindar advertises his rejection of the cannibalisation story ὑιὲ Ταντάλου, σὲ δ’ἀντία πρότερων φθέγξομαι (36), puzzling traces of that version remain in the poem. Notably, the myth begins with

Pelops being pulled from a cauldron (lebetos) and having an ivory shoulder.223 If

Pelops has not been dismembered for dinner, why does Pindar put him in a cauldron?

What is the reason for his having an ivory shoulder? If he could not find a solution for the cannibalisation, it would have been easier just to avoid it completely.

This problem has provoked a great deal of scholarly discussion.224 For my purposes, finding a mythological solution to this particular problem is not important and I accept the compromise view represented by Morgan: "The introductory sentence accommodates both versions of the myth. It seems at first to conform to the cannibalistic version, but in retrospect we can understand it (if we choose) as part of the purified version."225 What is important for my reading is how the reference to the cauldron works as a rhetorical device. Pindar wants to awaken his audience’s mental reflexes to the crucial topic of the role of envy and lies in constructing narratives. He commences from the moment of Pelops’ emersion from the cauldron with his ivory shoulder but leaves the references unexplained. This moment necessarily creates

222 For Hieron as a priest of Demeter and Kore, see Griffith (1989). 223 The ivory shoulder in particular would be familiar element of the myth as it was a cult object exhibited at Olympia. See Walker (2000) 203. 224 For a detailed discussion, see Howie (1983) 277-313. 225 Morgan (2015) 235. Or as Currie (2005) 352 puts it "the poet both has his cake and eats it." A different view is expressed by Nagy (1990) 117, who supports the view that there is not any substitution of one myth for another but rather "the substitution as represented in Olympian 1 is in fact a poetic expression of a pre-existing fusion of two myths, where the earlier myth is officially subordinated to but acknowledged by the later myth". 92 ambiguities in order to emphasise the power of lies (and, by implication, poetry), and the potential for a double reading of events: the true and the false.

In Pindar, the "correction" of myths in order to reveal the truth is not uncommon. A striking example is in N. 7.20-27, where the poet challenges the authority of Homer:226

ἐγὼ δὲ πλέον᾽ ἔλπομαι λόγον Ὀδυσσέος ἢ πάθαν διὰ τὸν ἁδυεπῆ γενέσθ᾽ Ὅμηρον· ἐπεὶ ψεύδεσί οἱ ποτανᾷ τε μαχανᾷ σεμνὸν ἔπεστί τι· σοφία δὲ κλέπτει παράγοισα μύθοις· τυφλὸν δ᾽ ἔχει ἦτορ ὅμιλος ἀνδρῶν ὁ πλεῖστος. εἰ γὰρ ἦν ἓ τὰν ἀλάθειαν ἰδέμεν, οὔ κεν ὅπλων χολωθεὶς ὁ καρτερὸς Αἴας ἔπαξε διὰ φρενῶν λευρὸν ξίφος I believe that Odysseus’ story has become greater than his actual suffering because of Homer’s sweet verse, for upon his fictions and soaring craft rests great majesty, and his skill deceives with misleading tales. The great majority of men have a blind heart, for if they could have seen the truth, mighty Ajax, in anger over the arms would not have planted in his chest the smooth sword.

The song is a recompense for the victor’s successful toils (11-12) and Pindar’s recompense is compared with Homer’s for Odysseus.227 Homer is the earliest source for athletics in Greek literature (Il. 23; Od. 8) and he recognises the athletic field as a chance for men to gain glory. However, Pindar is critical of the glory Homer gave to

Odysseus.

Along with Homer, it can be said that Pindar’s critique concerns also Odysseus himself,228 as he narrates many of his achievements in the Odyssey.229 Pindar does not accept the story that Ajax was inferior to Odysseus, stating that it is a lie that

226 For a detailed discussion of the passage, see Park (2009) 65-75. 227 For Homer in Pindar, see Nagy (1979) 16–18, 35–41, 94–106 and (1990) esp. 147–152, 199–206; Nisetich (1989); Goldhill (1991) 69–166, esp. 128-132. 228 Kromer (1975) 438 puts it in a comprehensive way; Pindar deliberately intermingles the qualities of Homer and Odysseus so that the two are seen as one individual. Through this rhetorical device, Pindar simultaneously describes the power of song through which the poet and hero become inseparable from one another. 229 Lloyd-Jones (1978) 127-131; Carey (1981) 144-146; Most (1985) 148-151. 93 remains believable due to the deceptive power of Homer’s sweet verse.230 This contradicts Homer’s praise of Ajax in Isthmian 4.37-39. Homer with his "divine verses" gave the opportunity to Ajax to be glorified through the song and also gave the chance to future audiences to enjoy the beautiful verses dedicated to the hero.

People were blind and could not see that Ajax was the second best of the Achaians and that led the hero to commit suicide.231 Homer was influenced by this perspective and was unfair towards Ajax. Odysseus received an excessive recompense, more than he deserved for his sufferings,232 and that therefore constitutes a lie. The correction of Homer’s poetry confirms Pindar’s poetic authority, which he makes more obvious with the emphatic ἐγὼ δέ (20). Pindar does not compare his poetic art with that of Homer; what he does is to correct the perspective of Homer who was influenced by blind people, as Pindar is not.

In Olympian 1, Pindar's explanation for why false stories exist is twofold. First, charis makes believable the artfully embellished products of mortal speech (βροτῶν

φάτις 28-32).

ἦ θαυματὰ πολλὰ, καί πού τι καὶ βροτῶν φάτις ὑπὲρ τὸν ἀλαθῆ λόγον δεδαιδαλμένοι ψεύδεσι ποικίλοις ἐξαπατῶντι μῦθοι Χάρις δ, ἅπερ ἅπαντα τεύχει τὰ μείλιχα θνατοῖς, ἐπιφέροισα τιμὰν καί ἄπιστον ἐμήσατο πιστὸν ἔμμεναι τὸ πολλάκις. Yes, wonders are many, but then too, I think, in men’s talk stories are embellished beyond the true account and deceive by means of elaborate lies. For Charis, who fashions all things pleasant for mortals, by bestowing honour makes even what is unbelievable often believed.

Second, mortal speech may be prompted by the emotion of the envy that one can feel about one's neighbour:

ὡς δ’ ἄφαντος ἔπελες, οὐδὲ ματρὶ πολλὰ μαιόμενοι φῶτες ἄγαγον,

230 The passage has important intertexts with N. 8. 23-34. 231 Köhnken (1971) 58. 232 Mann (2011) 327. 94

ἔννεπε κρυφᾷ τις αὐτίκα φθονερῶν γειτόνων (46-47) But when you disappeared and despite much searching no men returned you to your mother, one of the envious neighbours immediately said in secret...

Thus, envy motivates people to create stories that are not true, their spread inspires or influences poets and charis will transform them into persuasive sweet sounds; but since the original motivation is envy, the end product will be blame poetry. But can he really be saying that all lying poetry originated in envy and is blame poetry? If he were, then there would be charis in blame poetry too. When charis transforms the lie-decorated speech of humans, the product is kind and gentle (μείλιχα), and it has timê (τιμὰν), and often (but not always) makes the unbelievable believable. Thus he leaves space for a different kind of poetic lie to exist. Pindar's use of a different version of the myth identifies his poem as truthful and as praise poetry, and his performance of the process of choosing based on ethical criteria is part of the way he authorises his status as knowledgeable (he knows all the stories), virtuous and pious

(he knows which ones are the appropriate ones to tell), and truth-telling.233 The self- presentation of the poet as a reformer of the past gives a sense of security both to the victor that he will receive exactly the praise he deserves and desires, and also to the audience that they will hear the true account.

This practice of appropriating and innovating tradition serves political and ideological purposes. Pindar moralises tradition in order to provide a usable account of the past, an account that is based not so much on factual truth, but on

"appropriateness" as a criterion of truthfulness.234 To a Victorian reader, Pindar’s cleaning up the traditional tale by substituting a homoerotic relationship was

233 As Wells (2010) 140 states, "It is important to stress that a process of selection is actually endemic to tradition and its power as a dimension of culture. So it is not that selection itself is new in the process of Panhellenism, but that the criteria for selection change." 234 Pratt (1993) 123. 95 probably both shocking and laughable. But celebration of such relationships was also a central component of aristocratic ideology. Pindar, it can be said, acts as a propagandist of tyrannical ideology, while grafting it onto more traditional mainland aristocratic ideology such as horseracing and pederasty. He criticises envy towards people of a higher social and political position as a force that leads to hubris against the gods. People who act with the motivation of envy have recourse to lies and create or continue a tradition that leads to insulting the gods. The implication is that to tell a story about divine cannibalism is equally as offensive to the gods as Tantalus' crime against them. Pindar thus offers an ideological account of envy by connecting it with a group of people who are not only far from the truth but also devoid of wisdom, since they cannot even recognise their own interest. The envious neighbour is a certain type of citizen who would act in such a way towards Hieron and from whom

Pindar must protect him by telling the truth.

This practice of reforming the tradition in order to create a new "regime of truth" has political implications.235 The term is Foucault's and by "regime" Foucault connects truth to forms of power:

"Truth isn’t outside power, or deprived of power...it isn’t the reward of free spirits, the child of prolonged solitudes, or the privilege of those who have been able to liberate themselves. Truth is of this world; it is produced here by virtue of multiple constraints. And it induces here the regulated effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its "general politics" of truth; that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true, the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true."236

235 I borrow the concept "regime of truth" from Foucault, although it is important to note that it was an evolving concept in his work. 236 Foucault (1979) 45-46. 96

For Pindar, the truth that he creates and then presents gives no choice, it attempts to force the audience to accept it and build up our conduct and ideas in full accordance with it. We have seen that the mythological exempla in Pythian 2 and Olympian 1 can function in several ways and can suggest various contrasting parallels. They may be seen as supportive of Hieron's hegemony (negative hermeneutic) or critical of it

(positive hermeneutic). This is potentially a very dangerous game for Pindar to be playing with a tyrant. His ethical stance regarding what is appropriate in stories is more than support for his truth-telling claim, it is part of his "regime of truth". The various "meanings" may be a form of autonomy but he also needs a safeguard against

Hieron disliking some of those meanings. His ethical stance thus is a way to protect the negative hermeneutic by modelling the right set of attitudes to adopt in reading his poems, that is, an audience should find the meanings that are appropriate for

Hieron, and reject other possible ones. In this respect, Pelops can represent Pindar, connected by their shared understanding of what their obligation means (χρέος 45;

χρή 103).

97

CHAPTER FOUR Praising Theron and the Emmenids

Scholars have rightly contended that Pindar’s praise strategy for a tyrant differs from when he composes for a citizen. Mann has proved extensively that Pindar is more direct and personal when the victor is a tyrant.237 Kurke points to a change in the rhetoric of blame and envy when Pindar addresses a tyrant.238 Luraghi expands on this difference and sees a dichotomy between the odes for Theron and Hieron.239 He states that Pindar praises Hieron as a sole ruler who has achieved the highest degree of virtue and the most prominent man in his city with the most significant political power. Theron, on the other hand, is praised within the context of an aristocracy as most aristos of all the aristoi of his city.240 In this chapter, I will show the different ideology and strategies of praise in the odes for Theron (and the Emmenids). I will argue that what is distinctive about Pindar's representation of Theron as an Emmenid tyrant can be seen primarily in the role of phya and its economic aspects.

The concept of phya

φυᾷ τὸ γενναῖον ἐπιπρέπει / ἐκ πατέρων παισὶ λῆμα (P.8.44-45)

The importance of heredity in Pindar has long been recognised. Jaeger states that in the works of Pindar and Theognis there is an "unshakable belief in the virtues of noble blood".241 Bowra points out that "Pindar, like Alcaeus and Theognis before him, believed in the paramount worth of birth and breeding. His chief, almost his

237 Mann, (2001) 253-281. 238 Kurke (1991) 189-194. 239 Luraghi (2010) 27-48 240 See also Morrison (2007) 33-37, 84-87 about Pindar's high praise of Hieron and Theron—and their relatives—which distinguishes them from all their fellow-citizens. 241 Jaeger (1947) 204. 98 only concern was with established aristocrats; for others he had little regard or respect, calling them ὁ λάβρος στρατός (P.2. 87)".242 Donlan notes that "the belief that excellence depends on birth is stronger in Pindar than in any other poet of the archaic period".243

In Pindar, the word physis occurs only twice (N.6.5; I.4.49) and it refers to bodily form.244 However, its synonyms are found in the entire Pindaric corpus.245

Rose has noted that in twenty-four out of the surviving forty-four odes Pindar stresses the importance of the victor's excellence as an inheritance from the heroes of his homeland.246 The odes that he counts are: Olympian 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11; Pythian 4,

5, 9; Nemean 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; Isthmian 1, 3 and 4, 5, 6, 8.247 Additionally, in Olympian 9, Pindar underlines the importance of inherited excellence (O.9.100-

104) even though the victor’s family was not particularly distinguished.248 Nobility through birth is attributed instead to the polis (42-56, 57-79) and the previous victories of relatives (81-86) prove that victory is the outcome of inherited excellence. In order to see what is distinctive about the way Pindar represents

Emmenid phya, it will be helpful first to explore how the concept of phya works in

242 Bowra (1964) 100. 243 Donlan (19800 110. 244 Hubbard (1985) 107. 245 For a full account of the vocabulary of the terms that denote "inborn", see Rose (1992) 161. 246 Rose (1992) 160-161. Kurke (1991) 19, esp. n.14. finds thirty-seven passages in which the victory is presented as a hereditary achievement which increases the symbolic capital of the oikos, and twenty-eight in which the achievement is attributed only to the victor. In the former group are: O.2.45- 51; O.3.37-38; O.6.71-78; O.7.15-17; O.8.15-17, 67-76; O.9.83-99; O.13.1-2, 29-46, 97-113; P.6.5-6, 45-46; P.7.13-18; P.8.35-38; P.9.71-72; P.10.11-16; P.11.13-14, 43-50; N.2.17-24; N.4.73-90; N.5.41-46, 50-54; N.6.11-22, 25-26, 31-44, 58-63; N.8.16; N.10.33; N.11.19-20; I.2.28-32; I.3.9-17b; I.4.1-5, 25-29; I.5.17-19; I.6.3-7, 57-62; I.8.61-66. In the latter group are: O.1.18-22; O.4.8-12; O.5.1- 3; O.7.80-87; O.10.1-3; O.11.11-14; O.12.17-18; O.14.17-20; P.1.30-33; P.2.5-6; P.3.73-74; P.4.1-3, 66-67; P.5.20-22, P.8.78-84; P.9.97-103; P.12.5-6; N.1.5-7; N.3.15-18; N.7.6-8; N.9.4-5, 51-53; N.10.24-28; I.1.52-63; I.4.69-71b; I.7.21-22; I.8.1-5). One obvious problem with this list is the fact that some odes belong in both categories (e.g. O.7; I.8 etc.), and so it sometimes gives a contradictory view of the victor. In addition, the case of Arcesilas of Cyrene (P.4 and P.5) is included in the second category although Pindar makes a strong connection between the founder of Cyrene and Arcesilas. 247 Rose (1992) considers Isthmian 3 and 4 as one ode. 248 Rose (1992) 160-161. 99 the context of odes for (non-tyrannical) aristocrats. For this purpose, I focus initially on the Aeginetan odes.

The case of Aegina

In the Aeginetan odes, it is notable that Pindar takes every opportunity to connect the victor with the past of his family.249 The only Aeginetan odes that do not refer to the name of another relative, apart from the father-patron, are N.3, 7, and 8, and of these,

N.7 and 8 name the clan of the victor.250 This emphasis on the importance of inherited excellence could be considered typical of Pindaric odes for aristocrats, except that the Aeginetan elite were not typical aristocrats. Traditional aristocracies were based on land-owning elites. Land was the most aristocratic source of wealth because of its permanence, its safety and because it was the most subject to the constraints of the genos.251 Thus, in traditional aristocratic ideology, inherited land- wealth is interconnected with inherited excellence. But Aegina is a rocky island without any (significant) agricultural land and in the archaic period, Aegina's elite was not based on inherited land-wealth but on wealth acquired mainly through long- distance trade, 252 and possibly also from some rather disreputable activities such as piracy and/or slave-trading.253 The extent to which Pindar uses naval imagery in the

249 I note thirteen odes in which Pindar includes in his praise relatives of the victor (apart from his father): O.7, 8, 13; P.6, 8; N.4, 6, 10; I.2, 5, 6, 7, 8. See also Carey (1989) 3. He also finds thirty-seven passages, in the odes and other fragments, where the victor is placed in the context of family relationships. 250 It is beyond the scope of this thesis to examine Aeginetan odes in depth. However, it will be helpful to analyse those instances that are useful for a comparison with Pindar’s treatment of the Emmenids and Hieron. 251 Murray (1980) 210. 252 It not without symbolic interest that the archaic currency of Aegina depicted a sea-turtle, an amphibious animal. For the change of the sea-turtle into the land-turtle after the occupation of the island by Athens, see Picard (1978) 330-333. 253 Hubbard (2001) 392-394. 100

Aeginetan odes suggests254 that Pindar was aware of the source of his laudandus’ wealth.255 The high traffic of the island is obvious in Pindar’s odes—for example in the repeated references to the island's xenia and its characterization as "much visited" in N. 3.2)—and in Bacchylides (13.95).

The social groups that ruled the island were called patriai.256 They held the most important positions in the city,257 but due to the island's economic activities, the elite was mobile. Whether or not patriai were based on inheritance is uncertain, but their lack of inherited land-wealth had an impact on their life-style and on the ways in which they could compete for prestige both within Aegina and with aristocrats from other cities and regions. The topography of the island did not permit horse- breeding, and so the Aeginetans could not participate in horse races, the most prestigious of all athletic competitions. Deprived of the most important symbols of aristocracy (land, inheritance, and horses), the Aeginetans' participation in the

Panhellenic Games became even more important as a way to present themselves as proper aristocrats, not only in front of the local audience, but also in front of the

Panhellenic. Aegina had avid sportsmen in physically demanding events and the surviving texts emphasise young athletes with trainers. A victory in the Games

254 Murray (1980) 211. Cf. N. 3. 22-26, 41-42, N.4.36-37, N. 5.3-9, N.7. 28-29; O. 8.21 etc. For a full catalogue of Pindar’s imagery of roads, sea and land, see Becker (1937) 54-100. For the references to sea in the Aeginetan odes see Gzella (1981) 6 n.1 and Hubbard (2001) 393. For a discussion about if Pindar’s preference in the Aeginetan odes for maritime imagery is significant or not, see Hornblower (2007) 296-297 who states that "Aeginetan maritime imagery in Pindar is, (...), an extension of a predilection well attested in other contexts". 255 See Arist. Pol. 1291b224 about the main occupations of the Aeginetans. De Ste Croix (1972) 266- 267, and (1981) 41, 286 argues that in Aegina there might be a small elite whose wealth was based on agriculture. His view is also followed by Hornblower (2007) 290-291. I find Murray’s opinion is more persuasive. See also Rose (1992) 146, n.7 and Figueira (1981) 321-322. It is not the first time in history that we meet a trading aristocracy; Palmyra, a "caravan city", had an aristocracy whose wealth was based on trade. See Rostovtzeff (1971) 81-93. 256 For a detailed discussion of the Aeginetan aristocracy and its emergence in the fifth century, see Burnett (2005) 13-28. 257 Burnett (2005) 15. Burnett suggests that these ruling social groups were ten and their members "filled the various priesthoods, decided on building projects, and maintained the calendar of religious celebrations, while they, or some inner group, also fixed alliances and city policy". 101 provides the Aeginetan aristocrats with an impressive presentation of the individual, the oikos, and the island in front of other rival aristocratic houses but also in front of a wider community.

Most of Kurke’s evidence for the epinician depiction of aristocracy within the framework of oikos and polis derives from the Aeginetan odes. Her treatment of xenia between the poet and the patron, and between the patron and his polis is almost entirely focused on these odes. I agree with her system in which the oikos is the minimum unit of the Greek society and not the individual.258 I also agree that in these cases the victory of the oikos is expressed as a benefit for the whole city and thus is subordinated to the polis. However, this does not apply to the whole Pindaric world, and particularly not to the world of the Sicilian tyrants, Hieron (as I have shown) and

Theron (as I will show below). Moreover, I have also been arguing against the claim that the aristocratic values of the oikos are expressed and function only in terms of a fully-embedded (gift) economy, and thus, I shall be arguing against the view that phya is unconnected to money and the disembedded economy.

Phya and the mythological heroes

Phya, as Rose has noted, is usually expressed when the victor appears to inherit values from the founding heroes of his homeland.259 In the Aeginetan odes, the poet's recurrent treatment of the myth of the Aiakids creates the impression that Pindar considered the Aiakids to be the blood ancestors of the Aeginetans.260 However, this cannot be true as Pindar makes clear that none of the Aiakids remained on the island

258 Kurke (1991) 8. 259 Rose (1974) 152. 260 Nisetich (1980) 118 traces the roots of the Blepsiads back to Zeus through Aiakos. 102 but were scattered around Greece. In Nemean 5.9-16, we are told that Phokos was killed by his brothers who were themselves sent in turn into exile. Telamon's home became Salamis and his sons also lived and died outside Aegina; Ajax was killed in

Troy and Teukros went to Cyprus where he founded a city named Salamis (N.4.46-

47). The fate of Peleus is attested many times. He is found in Thessaly with his

Myrmidons and married to Thetis (N.3.31-39, 4.50-51, 5.22-43; I.8.38-45). His mighty son, Achilles, died in Troy and his shade was believed to dwell in Leuce

(N.4.49-50). Neoptolemos, Achilles’ son, is connected with Epirus and he died in

Delphi (N.4.51-53, 7.34-48).

The question that arises then is whether the Aeginetans considered themselves as blood descendants from the Aiakids and whether Pindar is promoting such propaganda. Carnes points out that there is poor evidence to suggest that Pindar calls the present-day inhabitants of Aegina "Aiakids".261 What is more reasonable is that when Pindar uses the word "Aiakids", he is referring to the mythological heroes and not to the contemporary Aeginetans. In Pythian 8, the poet clearly shows that he distinguishes "Aiakids" from the contemporary citizens of Aegina:

ἔπεσε δ᾽ οὐ Χαρίτων ἑκὰς ἁ δικαιόπολις ἀρεταῖς κλειναῖσιν Αἰακιδᾶν θιγοῖσα νᾶσος· τελέαν δ᾽ ἔχει δόξαν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχᾶς. πολλοῖσι μὲν γὰρ ἀείδεται νικαφόροις ἐν ἀέθλοις θρέψαισα καὶ θοαῖς ὑπερτάτους ἥρωας ἐν μάχαις· τὰ δὲ καὶ ἀνδράσιν ἐμπρέπει. (21-27) Not far from the Graces has the lot of this just island city fallen, which has attained the renowned achievements of the Aiakids; and it possesses consummate fame from the beginning: it is sung for rearing heroes who were supreme in many victorious contests and in swift battles, and it is distinguished for its men as well.

261 Carnes (1986) 94-95. 103

From the beginning, Aegina was a heroic island as she/it nourished the Aiakids; now, it is still exceptional for its men. The distinction between heroes and men is clear, as well as the connection of the heroes with the Aiakids, which does not include contemporary men. From numerous examples it will suffice to mention two more to reinforce the point. In Isthmian 6, the poet states that whenever he goes to Aegina he has to praise the Aiakids (19-24). Everyone in the world knows about these heroes who are named in the next lines: Peleus, Ajax and Telamon (25-28) and the mythological section that follows concerns their achievements. In Nemean 4, the poet separates the Aiakids from his patrons:

ἄπορα γὰρ λόγον Αἰακοῦ παίδων τὸν ἅπαντά μοι διελθεῖν. Θεανδρίδαισι δ᾽ ἀεξιγυίων ἀέθλων κάρυξ ἑτοῖμος ἔβαν Οὐλυμπίᾳ τε καὶ Ἰσθμοῖ Νεμέᾳ τε συνθέμενος (71-75) It is impossible for me to go through the whole account of Aiakos’ descendants. It is for the Theandridai that I contracted to come as a ready herald of their limb-strengthening contests at Olympia and the Isthmos, and at Nemea.

The use of δε in this case is antithetical. On one side are the descendants of Aiakos who are numerous, but Pindar cannot talk about them because he is paid to praise the clan of Theandridai.

It is indisputable that the Aiakids were Aeginetan cult heroes, but they were not ancestors at least in the strict sense of the term. Pindar informs us that Aiakos and his descendants had a cult in Aegina from which they received honours (I.5.28-38). But a local hero need not be a bloodline ancestor. However, as Rose has noticed, phya can be expressed metaphorically.262 Thus, in all the odes where the victors are paralleled with the Aiakids, the transmission of the virtues from the heroes to the contemporary Aeginetans is metaphorical.

262 Rose (1974) 152. 104

Aeginetan phya

The Aiakids are important for the origins of the island and contribute to Aeginetan phya, but the Aeginetans themselves traced their ancestry to Heracles. Claiming

Heracles as an ancestor was commonplace in Dorian cities, so much so, in fact, that by Plato's time it could even be seen as grounds for light mockery.263 But what is it that Heracles contributes to Aeginetan phya that can explain its importance in the odes and why it is praised so repeatedly? In the Aeginetan odes, Heracles' role is most commonly that of a xenos, a role that he rarely plays in other odes. I will show how Pindar links Heracles' xenia, Dorian ancestry, and Aiakid virtue with Aeginetan phya, and in such a way that xenia becomes not only an aspect of Aeginetan phya but also part of its origin and cause.

The Aeginetans were first and foremost Dorians. Almost all of Pindar's references to Dorian identity and customs are found in the Aeginetan odes.264 In

Olympian 8.30, the poet calls the Aeginetans Δωριεῖ λαῷ, "Dorian people". The same

263 Pl. Lysis 205c-205d: μὲν μηδὲν ἔχειν λέγειν ὃ οὐχὶ κἂν παῖς εἴποι, πῶς οὐχὶ καταγέλαστον; ἃ δὲ ἡ πόλις ὅλη ᾁδει περὶ Δημοκράτους καὶ Λύσιδος τοῦ πάππου τοῦ παιδὸς καὶ πάντων πέρι τῶν προγόνων, πλούτους τε καὶ ἱπποτροφίας καὶ νίκας Πυθοῖ καὶ Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ τεθρίπποις τε καὶ κέλησι, ταῦτα ποιεῖ τε καὶ λέγει, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἔτι τούτων κρονικώτερα. τὸν γὰρ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους ξενισμὸν πρῴην ἡμῖν ἐν ποιήματί τινι διῄει, ὡς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἡρακλέους συγγένειαν ὁ πρόγονος αὐτῶν ὑποδέξαιτο τὸν Ἡρακλέα, γεγονὼς αὐτὸς ἐκ Διός τε καὶ τῆς τοῦ δήμου ἀρχηγέτου θυγατρός, ἅπερ αἱ γραῖαι ᾁδουσι, καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τοιαῦτα, ὦ Σώκρατες: ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἃ οὗτος λέγων τε καὶ ᾁδων ἀναγκάζει καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀκροᾶσθαι. "Not having something to say that not even a boy could say, how could it not be ridiculous? What the whole city sings about Democrates and the boy's grandfather Lysis and all his ancestors, about their wealth and the horses they kept, and their victories at Delphi, the Isthmus, and Nemea, with four-horse chariot and with races, these are the things he composes and says in addition even more obsolete things than these. Only two days ago he was relating to us in some poem about the hospitality he gave to Heracles, how, because of his kinship with Hercules, their forefather welcomed the hero, who himself was the offspring of Zeus and of the daughter of their deme's founder; such things old ladies sing, and many more of the sort, Socrates. These are the things he tells and sings, while compelling us to be his audience." (My translation) 264 Only two references concern other places: P.1.65 for the re-founded city of Aitna and I.7.10 for a Theban athlete. 105 characterization is also found in P.8.20 and I.9.4.265 Isthmian 9, although fragmentary, is an important source for understanding this aspect of Pindaric Aegina:

Κλεινὸς Αἰακοῦ λόγος, κλεινὰ δὲ καιὶ ναυσικλυτὸς Αἴγινα·σὺν θεῶν δέ νιν αἴσᾳ Ὕλλου τε καὶ Αἰγιμιοῦ Δωριεὺς ἐλθὼν στρατός ἐκτίσσατο· τῶν μὲν ὑπὸ στάθμᾳ νέμονται οὐ θέμιν οὐδὲ δίκαν ξείνων ὑπερβαίνοντες· οἷοι δ’ἀρετάν δελφὶνες ἐν πόντῳ, ταμίαι τε σοφοί Μοισᾶν ἀγωνίων τ’ ἀέθλων (1-8) Famous is the story of Aiakos, and famous too is Aegina, renowned for her navy. By the destiny of the gods the Dorian army of Hyllos and of Aigimios came and founded her. Her citizens live in obedience to their rule, transgressing neither divine law nor justice due to strangers. As for their excellence, they are like dolphins in the sea, and wise stewards of the Muses and of athletic contests.

The ode summarizes all the characteristics of Aegina in its few lines: the mythic hero

Aiakos, the important navy of Aegina, alluding to its trade, love of athletics and music, Dorian identity derived from Hyllos and Aigimios, and xenia.266 The same characteristics appear in a fragment of Paean 6:

ὀνομακλύτα γά̣ρ̣ ἐσσι Δωριϵι̑ μ[ϵ]δέοισα [πό]ντῳ να̑σος, [ὠ̑] Διὸς Ἑλ- λανίου φαϵννὸν ἄστρον. οὕνϵκϵν οὔ σϵ παιηόνων ἄδορπον ϵὐνάξομϵν, ἀλλ’ ἀοιδα̑ν ῥόθια δϵκομένα κατϵρϵι̑ς, πόθϵν ἔλαβϵς ναυπρύτανιν δαίμονα καὶ τὰν θϵμίξϵνον ἀρϵτ[άν. (123-131) Island whose name is famous indeed, you live and rule in the Dorian sea, O shining star of Zeus Hellanios. Therefore, we shall not put you to bed without a banquet of paeans; rather, as you receive waves of songs you will recount where you got your ship-ruling fortune and that virtue of just regard for strangers.

The beginning of Nemean 3.1-3 also includes the two most important characteristics, xenia and Doric identity:

265 Figueira (1986) 175-180 supports the view that Aegina was Dorian and dependent on Argos. 266 The dolphin simile is reminiscent of the unusual simile for Melesias in N.6.64-66. Nicholson (2005) 152-153 points out that the dolphin was a symbol of the aristocracy of Aegina. Furthermore, the local athletic festival was called "Delphinia". 106

ὦ πότνια Μοῖσα, μᾶτερ ἁμετέρα, λίσσομαι, τὰν πολυξέναν ἐν ἱερομηνίᾳ Νεμεάδι ἵκεο Δωρίδα νᾶσον Αἴγιναν. (1-3) O mistress Muse, our mother, I beg of you, come in the Nemean sacred month to this much- visited Dorian island of Aegina.

Olympian 8, similarly to Isthmian 9, emphasises the naval character of Aegina, the importance of xenia and justice, and the Dorian tradition of the island:

Τιμόσθενες, ὔμμε δ᾽ ἐκλάρωσεν πότμος Ζηνὶ γενεθλίῳ· ὃς σὲ μὲν Νεμέᾳ πρόφατον, Ἀλκιμέδοντα δὲ πὰρ Κρόνου λόφῳ θῆκεν Ὀλυμπιονίκαν. ἦν δ᾽ ἐσορᾶν καλός, ἔργῳ τ᾽ οὐ κατὰ εἶδος ἐλέγχων ἐξένεπε κρατέων πάλᾳ δολιχήρετμον Αἴγιναν πάτραν· ἔνθα σώτειρα Διὸς ξενίου πάρεδρος ἀσκεῖται Θέμις [ἔξοχ᾽ ἀνθρώπων. ὅ τι γὰρ πολὺ καὶ πολλᾷ ῥέπῃ, ὀρθᾷ διακρίνειν φρενὶ μὴ παρὰ καιρόν, δυσπαλές· τεθμὸς δέ τις ἀθανάτων καὶ τάνδ᾽ ἁλιερκέα χώραν παντοδαποῖσιν ὑπέστασε ξένοις κίονα δαιμονίαν ὁ δ᾽ ἐπαντέλλων χρόνος τοῦτο πράσσων μὴ κάμοι Δωριεῖ λαῷ ταμιευομέναν ἐξ Αἰακοῦ (15-30). Timosthenes, destiny allotted to your family to Zeus, its progenitor, who made you famous at Nemea, but by the hill of Cronos made Alkimedon an Olympic victor. He was beautiful to behold, in action he did not discredit his looks, and by winning in the wrestling match he proclaimed long-oared Aegina as his fatherland, where Themis, the saving goddess enthroned beside Zeus, respecter of strangers, is venerated most among men, for when much hangs in the balance with many ways to go, deciding with correct judgment while avoiding impropriety is a difficult problem to wrestle with. But some ordinance of the immortal gods has set up this seagirt land for foreigners from all places as a divine pillar—and many time to come not tire of accomplishing this—a land governed by Dorian people from the time of Aiakos.

The victor's clan, the Blepsiads, are Dorians and so descendants of Zeus through his son Heracles. The laws of the Dorians (τεθμός 25) govern the city, as also in P.1.61-

66. The xenia of the polis is repeated twice within fifteen lines (21, 26), and the notion of justice and safety three times (22, 24, 25). But why does Pindar date Dorian government to the time of Aiakos (30)? The scholiasts dispute the statement (Σ.

Ο.8.30-39b), and we have seen that Pindar himself does not consider the Aeginetans to be descendants of Aiakos. Given the importance of xenia in the ode, it is probable 107 that the reference concerns the bonds of xenia between the Aiakids and Heracles. In

Nemean 4.19-27, the poet exploits the theme of friendship between Aegina and

Thebes, which is expressed in the cooperation of Heracles and Telamon. Heracles and Telamon worked together to destroy Troy and accomplish other achievements.

In Isthmian 6.35-56, Heracles is a guest-friend of Telamon and brings as his gift a prayer-prophecy for a mighty son. Thus, xenia is what links the mythological heroes with Heracles. It is the cause of the Aeginetans’ phya from the Aiakid side. It is also the outcome of such phya, as guest-friendship is one of the most important characteristics of the aristocracy in general, and this commercial aristocracy in particular.

In the Aeginetan odes, xenia appears as a theme in every single ode: bonds of xenia between the poet and the patron, the famous xenia of the Aeginetans, and the guest-friendships of the Aiakids with Heracles. In all the Aeginetan odes, the references to the hospitality of the patrons and of the island itself are numerous (e.g.

O.8.20-23, 25-28; N.3.2-3, 4.12-13, 5.8, 7.61-62, 8.42; I.6.70, 9.5).267 Aegina’s hospitality is praised far more than that of any other place,268 and it is the most important aspect of Pindar's characterisation of the island as an aristocratic utopia. It is usually tied together with the notion of justice; Aegina is lawful, in particular towards strangers: "Her citizens live in obedience to their rule, transgressing neither divine law nor the justice due to strangers" (4-6). In Isthmian 5, Aegina is called lawful, εὔνομος (22), and in Pythian 8, a just city, δικαιόπολις (22). In Nemean

267 For a full presentation of the passages that express the hospitality of the Aeginetans in Pindar and Bacchylides, see Hornblower (2007) 294-295. 268 Hornblower (2007) 300 counts more passages for Aegina’s xenia than that of Sicily or Thessaly, although they too score well. Aeginetan hospitality is found in fifteen passages in the Pindaric corpus and in Bacchylides, while hospitality everywhere else is found in only twelve passages. 108

4.12.13, she protects all foreigners (δίκᾳ ξϵναρκέι κοινόν/ φέγγος), and in Paean

6.131, she has the virtue of justice towards strangers (θϵμίξϵνον ἀρϵτ[άν).

In these cases, xenia encompasses the aristocratic values of a fully-embedded economic relationship between the citizens of Aegina and the visitors. However, the

Aeginetan aristocracy was a commercial one, and its relationships with its xenoi will have been predominantly commercial ones. The island is presented in sources as a place of maritime commerce.269 It was familiar with coinage as it was among the first places where coinage issued and its coins functioned as standard in many places, including Egypt and Sicily.270 Thus, Aeginetan xenia must also encompass the economic activities between the Aeginetans and other traders. Moreover, there are many testimonies that connect Aiakos’ justice with strangers, in addition to those in

Pindar (e.g. Bacch. 12.4-6, 13.95). This characteristic, from an ideological perspective, strengthens the propaganda of the Aeginetans in support of their xenia.

Kowalzig goes a step further and suggests that the myth of the prayer for rain from

Aiakos on behalf of all Greeks alludes to a legal hospitality with regard to foreign merchants.271 Although the "ideology of connectivity" is present in this myth, there is not much evidence to prove that the myth contains legal justice or foreign trade.272

What is more reasonable is that the combined image of a mythological hero connected with justice and that of the island's population with xenia function to make the island ideally suited to commerce.273 Thus, this utopia has a different economy

269 Hdt. Hist. 2.178; Arist. Pol. 1291b17–25; FGrH 70 F 176 = Strabo 8.6.16. It is implied by Polyaenus (Strat. 5.14) that the Aeginetans were involved in piracy very early, c. 560 BC. 270 Kowalzig (2011) 134 and n.16. 271 Kowalzig (2011) 135-139. 272 The term is used by Kowalzig (2011) 134-135 and suggests that the presence of other Greeks in the myth alludes to a strong role of the island in the intermediary trade. 273 Polinskaya (2013) 154. 109 than the usual aristocratic utopias. In this utopian world, the aristocratic virtue of excellent xenia becomes "a form of civically institutionalized hospitality".274

This utopia includes also the guest-friendship of the poet with his patrons.

Their relationship of xenia is also rooted in the past, and is the outcome and the symptom at the same time of blood relations. According to Pindar, Theba was twin sister of Aegina (I.8.17) and both were daughters of the Boiotian Asopos. In addition, the co-operation of Theban heroes with Aeginetan "is a leitmotif in Pindar’s

Aeginetan odes: in addition to N.4, cf. O.8.45f., N.3.36f., I.5.35-8, I.6.27- 31".275

Isthmian 6 is a famous example for the parallel between the mythological heroes’ xenia and that of the poet and patron.276 The ode begins with a scene from a symposium, where the ode is paralleled with a libation (1-3). There are three libations; the first is for Pytheas’ victory in Pythian Games, the second is for

Phylacidas’ victory, and the third is for a future success. What is important is the fact that the poet pours the libation upon Aegina (8-9). This act alludes to the place of performance, but also it could be said that Aegina thus acquires a divine role in helping Lampon’s offspring in regard to a future success. From line 19, the poet moves to the topic of the greatness of Aegina. The image of the song that falls upon the Aiakidai as a shower of praises engages the communal emotion of the audience

(19-27). At first, the praise is said to come from Thebes to Aegina (20-2), but in the next line it comes along "countless roads" for Aiakid fame is spread beyond the land of Hyperboreans and the springs of the Nile. Pindar's song travels from the present to the past and from his laudandus to Aiakids. Thus, it is an eternal song that links

274 Kowalzig (2011) 135. 275 Hubbard (1991) 30 n. 28. 276 Indergaard (2011) 294-322 reads the ode as a parallel for the relationship of Aegina with Thebes in an anti-Athenian stance. 110 temporally and spatially, the present with the mythical past, Aegina with the whole world.277

As in N.5.9, the reference to the Aiakidai is followed by a mythological section. The poet gives a synoptic picture of the great achievements of Telamon and

Heracles, underlining their close relationship. The important moment of the myth is when Heracles finds Telamon dining (35-36). Heracles raises his cup upwards to the sky to pour out a libation to Zeus (41-42) and pray for him to bring a mighty son to his guest-friend. The answer is immediate. Zeus sends the chieftain of all birds, his eagle (50), to show that he will fulfil the prayer. Heracles then connects the bird with the name of the future child and chooses the name Ajax for him. He becomes his godfather, together with Zeus, who fulfilled the prayer.278 Heracles’ prayer refers not only to the past, but also to the present and future; conversely, when Pindar talks about the fame of the Aiakids, he travels from the present to the past. The sympotic atmosphere of the myth recalls the beginning lines of the poem (1-9). Both libations concern offspring. The resonance is obvious for the audience: the sons of Lampon are paralleled with Ajax.

Pindar states that he will praise the achievements of Phylacidas, Pytheas, and their uncle, Euthymenes, "in the briefest terms" (59).279 The final lines of the poem reveal that the victor and his victorious brothers are Pindar’s guests. Pindar offers his guests water from Kadmeian Dirke. The clan of Psalichiadai will have fame in the future ("They refresh the clan of the Psychaliadai with the finest dew of Graces" 62-

63). This refreshment will be eternally valid, because it derives from the water of

277Sigelman (2004) 194. 278 Burnett (2005) 84. 279 Indergaard (2011): 320 states that "in Isth. 6 Heracles speaks not only to Zeus, Telamon, and the guests at the wedding, but also, through the embedded speeches, to the audience of Pindar’s poem, as a parallel for Pindar’s own prayers for future successes for Lampon’s family." 111

Dirke (74). The reference to Dirke recalls the libation of the proem and the libation of Heracles. The present (Phylakidas’ victory) meets the past (Heracles' libation for

Ajax) and the future (Phylakidas’ and his brothers’ fame) under the umbrella of

Mnemosyne (75).

Thus, Aeginetan phya is produced partly from xenia and produces the virtue of excellent xenia. This virtue is expressed through trade and through the patronage.

The institution of xenia between the islanders and other Greeks is not a purely embedded aristocratic one, but derives from the economic activities of the

Aeginetans.280

Aeginetan phya and the economy of the oikos

The Aeginean athletes are victorious because of their phya, the excellences inherited from their ancestors, both mythological (metaphorical) and "literal". In three odes

(N.5, I.5 and 6) composed for an elite family of Aegina, that of Lampon’s sons from the Psalychiadai clan,281 we can detect a treatment of phya which connects the individual with his clan, his city and the economy of the island. In N.5 3-8, we are informed that Pytheas, who is described as εὐρυσθενής "mighty" 4, has achieved a personal victory that adds to the greatness of his polis. Pytheas is presented in his filial identity thus emphasising his oikos; he is the son of Lampon and an important mother (4-6). In addition, the ode includes a catalogue of the family victories. In lines 39-46, we are informed about the victories at Nemea and Megara of

280 The relationship of the poet with his Aeginetan patrons is a subject that needs an extensive analysis. This thesis does not explore further the Aeginetan odes, but only as a foil for the phya of Theron. 281 Burnett (2005) 61 n.2 has suggested that Lampon is the son of Kleonikos (I.6.16), who is mentioned by Herodotus (Hist. 9.78.1) as the most important individual from Aegina who fought in Plataia. 112

Euthymenes, a brother of Pytheas’ mother. Themistios, his mother’s father, won a double boxing crown at Epidauros (50).282 The ode's myth is about heroes who were brothers, and the whole ode is rich in words that denote a familial relationship (υἱός,

ματέρ᾽, πατέρος, υἱοὶ, ἀκοίταν, πατρὸς, γαμβρὸν, συγγενὴς, ὁμόσπορον).

In Isthmian 6, for Pytheas’ brother, Phylacidas, who won at the boys’ pankration, the involvement of the family is also very strong.283 The sympotic atmosphere and the imagery of the "second bowl" δεύτερον κρητῆρα (2) suggests that a re-performance of Nemean 5 may have preceded on the same occasion, or at least encourages the audience to remember Nemean 5 and its family victories. It is in this context that Pindar mentions the victorious generation of Lampon Λάμπωνος

εὐάθλου γενεᾶς (3) and also expresses hope for a third success for Lampon’s family at Olympia (7-9). In lines 10-18, Pindar express the idea that one who spends money on noble deeds, attains a godlike life, is honoured, and has reached happiness. This idea applies primarily not to the victor but to Lampon, the father (15-16). The victor is included, but precedence is given to the patron, the man who finances his sons’ achievements. After the mythological section, in which Heracles wishes for Telamon to have a mighty son, Pindar once again brings the victories of the oikos to the fore that is those of Pytheas, Phylakidas and Euthymenes (57-58, 60-62). It is clear that

Pindar wants the audience to connect the glorious past with the whole family and not only with the present victor.

282 I follow Burnett (2005) 61 that the uncle of Pytheas competed with him at Nemea. For a different opinion, see Pfeijffer (1995) 318-322. 283 I.6 is the second ode, probably three years after N.5. It is dated to 480 BC as there is no mention of the battle of Salamis as in I.5.49. See Burnett (2005) 81 n.1; Nicholson (2005) 255-256, n.1; Indergaard (2011) 295. 113

The role of the oikos in the ode is significantly increased by replacing the trainer with the victors’ father, Lampon:284

Λάμπων δὲ μελέταν ἔργοις ὀπάζων Ἡσιόδου μάλα τιμᾷ τοῦτ᾽ ἔπος, υἱοῖσί τε φράζων παραινεῖ, ξυνὸν ἄστει κόσμον ἑῷ προσάγων, καὶ ξένων εὐεργεσίαις ἀγαπᾶται, μέτρα μὲν γνώμᾳ διώκων, μέτρα δὲ καὶ κατέχων· γλῶσσα δ᾽ οὐκ ἔξω φρενῶν· φαίης κέ νιν ἀνδράσιν ἀθληταῖσιν ἔμμεν Ναξίαν πέτραις ἐν ἄλλαις χαλκοδάμαντ᾽ ἀκόναν. (66-73) In devoting industry to his deeds, Lampon holds in particular honour that saying of Hesiod, which he quotes and recommends to his sons, as he brings to his own city an adornment all share and is beloved for his acts of kindness to foreigners, pursuing due measure in judgment and holding fast to it; his tongue does not stray from his thoughts; you would say that among athletes the man is a bronze-taming whetstone from Naxos compared to other stones.

It is not Lampon's side of the family but his wife's that is presented as having a tradition of athletic talent and victory. However, Pindar creates the impression that

Lampon was the trainer, which was not true.285 What Lampon transmits is not athletic skill but god ethical behaviour, and he trains by means of advice and his personal example (moderation 71, judgment 71, and control of his tongue 72).286

Pindar puts Lampon "in the act of impersonating through this quotation, Hesiod's parainetic stance: Lampon himself παραινεῖ."287 According to the Hesiodic saying, success needs "care", "attention" and "industry", and these guidelines are followed by the whole family.288 By misrepresenting Lampon as trainer, Pindar compensates for the lack of athletic honour on the father's side of the family. He provides Lampon a share in the athletic Games by praising his moral talents and aristocratic values rather than athletic skill. Thus, the victories become a common possession for the whole

284 My analysis of this passage is indebted to Nicholson (2005) 170-175. 285 Pindar does not say explicitly that Lampon was the trainer, but that someone "would say" (φαίης 72) that he was. See Nicholson (2005) 171. 286 Nicholson (2005) 171-172. 287 D’ Alessio (2005) 231. 288 The reference is to Works & Days 412: μελέτη δέ τοι ἔργον ὀφέλλει "care/industry is good for work". Kurke (1990) 89 n.18 states that the word ἔργοις in Pindar may allude to the Hesiodic work: "By this play on ἔργοις, Pindar signals the source of his allusion". 114 oikos, including members such as Lampon whose phya lacks a tradition of athletic victory.

Isthmian 5 is the third and final ode commissioned by Lampon. It was composed for Phylakidas, the youngest son, who was trained by his brother and won at the Isthmian Games. The ode was composed c.478 BC.289 In the first epode,

Pindar accumulates all the victories won by Lampon’s sons and Kleonikos’ grandsons:

τὶν δ᾽ ἐν Ἰσθμῷ διπλόα θάλλοισ᾽ ἀρετά, Φυλακίδα, κεῖται, Νεμέα δὲ καὶ ἀμφοῖν, Πυθέᾳ τε παγκρατίου. τὸ δ᾽ ἐμὸν οὐκ ἄτερ Αἰακιδᾶν κέαρ ὕμνων γεύεται· σὺν Χάρισιν δ᾽ ἔμολον Λάμπωνος υἱοῖς τάνδ᾽ ἐς εὔνομον πόλιν. (17-22) For you Phylakidas, a flourishing double achievement is stored up at the Isthmus, and at Nemea for both you and Pytheas in the pankration. But my heart tastes no hymns without including the Aiakids, for I have come with the Graces at the bidding of Lampon’s sons.290

In lines 54-58, Pindar talks explicitly about Kleonikos’ γενεάς: anyone wanting to compete in the Games should learn about the family of Kleonikos (Lampon's father).

Even though Lampon's side of the family have not been credited with any victories, in contradistinction to his wife's side, Pindar chooses to talk about the family of

Kleonikos (Lampon’s father) in connection with athletic success. Line 57 explains that what can be learned from Kleonikos' line is that family glory comes from hard work (literally since the victors themselves took part in physically demanding events) and dapanai, economic expenditure. Thus, the phya of Lampon's victorious oikos is directly connected to the economic wealth of his family line; both the ability and

289 Burnett (2005) 92-93 esp. n.1. 290 It is implied that both the brothers gained a victory each in Nemea (Σ. I.5.18a-21a). It is not clear whether or not attributing a victory in Nemea to Phylakidas is an exaggeration. For this, see Cole (1987) 559. It is possible that Phylakidas has achieved another victory in Nemea, as two further passages may imply (I.6 1-7, 57-66). 115 willingness to spend money for athletic success is presented as part of the family's phya.

In the case of the Aeginetans, we are facing a complex construction of phya.

The victors’ hereditary virtues and values, derived literally and metaphorically from the past, are expressed in the Games and in their xenia. For a victory in the Games, the role of phya is not only the transmission of "victorious genes", but also involves the utilisation of money. Lampon did not have a distinguished athletic past, but his phya is highly praised. This is because he has a double role: he is not only the father of his victorious sons but also the patron who uses his wealth for success in the

Games. Both roles engage his phya and thus a commercial element is added to the traditional notion of inherited excellence.

The praise of the oikos and its phya is in turn merged with that of the whole island, its heroes, land, and citizens. In N.5.7-8, Pytheas brings glory to the Aiakidis and to his "mother city" (ματρόπολιν) Aegina.291 Pindar here exploits the myth of

Aegina according to which Aiakos is the offspring of Zeus and nymph Aegina (see also N.8.6-8). Although the nymph Aegina was distinguished from the island—in

P.8.98-100, Pindar prays to the nymph Aegina to safeguard the city—Pindar plays with the notion of Aegina as mother-city and as mother-nymph. The literal use of the word "mother" in the case of Aiakos is interwoven with the metaphorical use of the word in the case of its victors. In Nemean 7.82-84, Aegina is personified as the mother who bequeaths divine blood to her descendants after she receives the seed of

Zeus. The vocabulary of the passage is full of notions of phya. Aegina is the fertile

291 The reference to Aiakos possibly indicates that the ode was first performed near the ἡρῷον of Aiakos. See Steiner (1993) 163; Pfeijffer (1999) 193; Pavlou (2010) 6. 116 mother in whose womb Zeus plants his seed. She is also the dapedon ("ground" 83) and patra ("land" 85).

In Nemean 5, Pytheas is introduced as Lampon’s son. Thus, the victor at the beginning of the poem is the offspring of Lampon, of his mother, and of Aegina.

Aegina is personified as an aristocratic mother; she is hospitable (φίλαν ξένων

ἄρουραν 8), glorious (εὐκλέα νᾶσον 15) and her "children" strive for "noble prizes"

(47). She might be the parallel of Pytheas’ natural mother. Such a parallelism provides all the citizens of Aegina with equality, as they too are the children of a noble mother. The reference to the audience’s common knowledge about the mythological past of the city also encourages the communal feeling.

Pindar continues the connection between the victor and the island with a prayer that connects the past, present and future of the polis.292 The prayer asks the gods to make the citizens of Aegina skilful in sailing (ναυσικλυτάν 9) and εὔανδρον (9).293

This prayer does not only function as praise for Lampon’s oikos, but it also includes the whole community; the citizens are conscious of their strong connection with sailing and the poet declares that the whole city pursues noble deeds (47). The ratification of the communal character of the victory comes with the gnome of lines

40-41: Πότμος δὲ κρίνει συγγενὴς ἔργων πέρι/πάντων, "Inherited Destiny decides the outcome of all deeds". The gnome is situated after the mythical digression that focused on the noble deeds of Peleus (respecting the laws of xenia and rejecting

Hippolyta’s love), and before the victories of the family. In addition, the poet then

292 It seems that the prayer does not only refer to the present of Aegina but has also a future aim. The use of ποτέ (9) may contain the notion of an on-going process towards success. 293 The meaning of εὔανδρον is not straightforward. Race (1997) translates it as "of brave men". The context suggests that more is involved. In the myth that follows, Peleus shows himself to be pious (31- 34), respectful towards aristocratic codes, such as hospitality (ξεινίου πατρός 33), and a man whom it is difficult to deceive, in contrast to Akastos (27-30). 117 repeats a word that emphasises the Aeginetans’ inheritance: ὁμόσπορον ἔθνος (43).

Thus, the nobility of the victor does not derive solely from his oikos, but also from the nobility of his city. This over-projected nobility of Aegina raises the question of her source of wealth. However, Pindar solves this problem by presenting trade as the consequence of the great ancestors’ prayer (9). These two characteristics— distinguished merchant sailors and "good" men—combine two (contradictory) elements of the Aeginetan aristocracy. The reference to sailing alludes to the economic activities of trade, while the characterisation "good man" refers to the notion of genos.294

This obvious over-promotion of Aegina’s xenia, apart from depicting the high traffic of the island due to its economic activities, may hide an insecurity, as every exaggeration does. Good hospitality was an emblematic virtue for which every patron was praised. The Aeginetans, although their occupations were in stark contrast with the world of a fully embedded economy, in reality had the opportunity to exercise this virtue if they were rich. Their wealth was not only the outcome of their phya, but the cause, as we saw in the case of Lampon. Moreover, there were other

294 The reference to trade is also alluded to at the beginning and at the end of the poem. In the famous opening of the ode, Pindar sets up an opposition between himself and craftsmen; he states that he is not a sculptor of stationary statues, but he produces sweet songs that travel everywhere and spread the fame of Lampon’s family (1-4). I will not discuss the issue of whether Pindar expresses a rivalry between his art and the art of statues. Some scholars believe that the lines display a clear polemical attitude towards handicrafts as the poet has to support the superiority of his art. See Farnell (1930) 186; Hubbard (1985) 104-105; Kurke (1991) 251; Ford (2002) 119-123); Burnett (2005) 63. On the other hand, others believe that the poet does not express any rivalry with the craftsmen, but rather he compares his songs with agalmata in order to show their monumentalizing power. See Steiner (2001) 251, 263-264. I follow the first opinion, and more particular Pavlou’s (2010) 1-14 argumentation that "by juxtaposing his poetry with statuary, Pindar implies not only that his song can range in space and time with greater ease, but also and most importantly that it can embrace and include all time and all space". As regards whether the poet alludes to trade or not, there is also disagreement. De Ste Croix (1972) 267 n.61 states that the reference to ships is not restricted to merchant ships but includes also, and most importantly, the warships of Aegina. The same opinion is followed by Hornblower (2007) 295-297. It seems more likely though that Pindar talks about the main occupation of the Aeginetans without any embarrassment. It was their everyday life, and rejecting trade would involve automatically rejecting part of their identity. 118 cities, mainly islands, which exercised the same profession as the Aeginetans and

Pindar knew that they could project themselves onto the Aeginetan aristocracy. Thus, the over-promotion of hospitality and of a refreshed phya could help every wealthy person to identify his class with that of the Aeginetans and so believe that he is a

"proper" aristocrat.

Praising the Emmenids: Pythian 6 and Isthmian 2

The case of Hieron has made clear that kleos is almost exclusively for the tyrant, not to be shared with anyone or any institution. We have seen that kleos in the Aeginetan odes is familial and civic not personal, and it is due in part to a phya that can have an economic dimension.295 I shall show that the case of the Emmenids is somewhat similar to that of the Aeginetans, and that Theron is in-between the spirit of the

Hieron odes and that of the Aeginetan odes. I shall argue that the Emmenid odes praise the importance of their oikos, as the Aeginetans do, but they do not include any praise of the homeland heroes, and the praise of the oikos is not subsumed into praise for the polis. The Emmenid oikos is so important that it can offer kleos to the polis, but is not dependent on it, as happens in the case of Aegina. Pindar composed four odes for the Emmenids and at least two encomia (frags. 118-9; 124-6). These odes have much to say about Emmenid wealth and aristocratic status and in all of them there are references to previous victories of members of the Emmenid family.

In Pythian 6, Pindar celebrates Xenocrates’ victory in the Pythian Games of

490 BC. It is the earliest ode for the Emmenids and although it is composed for

295 N.3 is a different case as the family of the victor is hardly present. For further analysis see Pavlou (2012) 68-75. 119

Xenocrates’ victory, most of the poem is addressed to the victor’s son, Thrasyboulos.

The ode also contains indirect praise for Theron (46) who at that time had not yet assumed power.296 Since the ode was composed before the Emmenids become the tyrannical family of Acragas, the praise does not contain the superlative vaunts that are a characteristic of the tyrannical odes, such as in Olympian 2. Pindar presents an aristocratic family with inborn excellences that pass from the father to the son and also from the uncle to the nephew.

Thrasyboulos is described as a sweet figure among his equals, the perfect son for every father, and has a good example to follow in his uncle. Although the atmosphere is erotic, the political element is not excluded.297 The young addressee spends his wealth wisely for the sake of his community (νόῳ δὲ πλοῦτον ἄγει 47).298

The poet makes a civic-friendly portrait without excluding the essential elements of the aristocratic lifestyle: hippotrophia, xenia, patronage, symposia. The reference to civic values, and not to more individualistic qualities, shows that Pindar’s intention was not to create enmity between the peers. In addition, the Emmenids do not make expenditures in order to achieve a dangerously high position in the city. Acragas is probably under tyranny at that time. The successors of the notorious tyrant Phalaris were Alcamenes and Alcandros.299 If we consider that two years later Theron seized

296 According to Diodorus Siculus (11.53.1-4), Theron died in 472/71 BC after reigning for sixteen years. This means that he took the power in 488/7 BC. See Luraghi (1994) 241. 297 Although there is disagreement whether the ode was performed at Delphi or in a sympotic context, the second option has prevailed among scholars. The ode was first performed in Acragas in a symposium. It has all the elements of a proper symposium ((homo)erotic ambience, homilia, poetry, praise for equestrian achievements, praise for the genos, strong reference to wealth).For Pythian 6 as a monadic performance at Delphi, see Burton (1962) 15; Race (1997) 312. For Pythian 6 in the context of a sympotic performance, see Clay (1999) 30-1; Carey (2001) 22; Athanassaki (2012) 134. 298 Another connection with Antilochos is the word νόῳ, which is connected with νόημα (29), the thoughts of Antilochos before he makes the right decision—impulse is not excluded, βιατάς—and rescues his father. See Nagy (1990) 213. 299 It has been said that there is a possibility that demokratia existed in Acragas before Theron. This derives from a translation of a passage of Diodorus (11.53.5). Diodorus states that after the brutal 120 power and his family was one of the most prominent, it is reasonable that among the elite there might be suspicions about members of Emmenids trying to claim the power. Pindar was no doubt aware of this suspicion as it was a common fear among the aristocrats, especially during politically unstable periods. Thus, he intends to present the Emmenids as a family whose older members are the exemplars for the younger. The ambitions, the achievements, and the virtues of his father and uncle become the character of the young Thrasyboulos.

Thrasyboulos is praised for filial devotion and for moderate—non hubristic— behaviour. Although he is wealthy, what characterizes his symposia is not luxury but his sweet attitude:300

γλυκεῖα δὲ φρὴν καὶ συμπόταισιν ὁμιλεῖν μελισσᾶν ἀμείβεται τρητὸν πόνον. (52-54) And his sweet spirit, in company with his drinking companions, surpasses the perforated labour of bees.301

The same characteristics are praised in Isthmian 2.33-42 for Xenocrates.302

Isthmian 2 was probably performed around 470 BC. At that time, Xenocrates and

Theron are probably dead, and it was a politically insecure period for the whole of

Sicily. Theron’s son, Thrasydaeus, assumed power after Theron but he was not

reign of Thrasydaeus the demos revolted against him and restored their democracy. For the notion of restoration, Diodorus uses a middle voice participle komisamenoi tin dimokratian. The verb komizo in the middle voice has in Diodorus not only the meaning of "restore" but also "regain, get back", see Robinson (1997) 79. It is also said that the two tyrants adopted moderate behaviour by comparison with Phalaris. See Robinson (1997) 79-80. 300 See fr. 124a-b Sn- M. 301 The interpretation of the passage has been a subject of debate. Kurke (1990) 100-103 takes the phrase μελισσᾶν ἀμείβεται τρητὸν πόνον metaphorically. She states that these words signify the poet’s ponos, and so ἀμείβεται is translated as "requite". Thrasyboulos has such sweet conduct in symposia that it is like the poet’s artefact, the poem-gift. This interpretation, although attractive, is discussed by Athanassaki (2012) 149-150. It seems somewhat illogical for Pindar first to present his poem as a monument and then as a miniature made by bees. If Kurke’s interpretation is accepted, we must add Pythian 6 in the poems that were sung in Thrasyboulos’ symposia. Athanassaki shifts the focus onto the iterative character of the last strophe, which express the behavioural patterns that Thrasyboulos expresses regularly. Kurke’s interpretation is followed by Morrison (2007) 43. 302 Clear (2013) 49. 121 accepted by his subjects. Indeed, his outrageous treatment of the Akrantines led to his expulsion not long after 471 BC.303 A few years later (466 BC), Hieron’s successor, Thrasyboulos—and the third Deinomenid tyrant—was overthrown. He exercised power similarly to Thrasydaeus; both of them followed an abusive and harsh manner towards their fellow-citizens. Thus, the ode was performed in a turbulent moment for Acragas. Information about its début performance is restricted to the ode’s content and so impossible to ascertain. From the sympotic context, one can assume that the ode was not performed in front of a wide audience but rather for a more select one.304 A symposium attended by Thrasyboulos’ high-ranking peers should not be excluded as a valid possibility for both Isthmian 2 and Pythian 6.305

They were the right audience to appreciate his traditional aristocratic values.

Pindar offers in these lines a non-athletic but perfectly aristocratic encomium.

Xenocrates "surpassed all men in his sweet disposition" (36). In company with his fellow-citizens he enjoyed their respect (37), he practiced hippotrophia (38) and he was never deficient in hospitality (39). Thrasyboulos is the leader of the symposium but Xenocrates participates in divine feasts. He has reached this level of happiness, as in the case of Tantalus (O. 1.37-39, 55), Pelops, Cadmus (P. 3.93), and all mortals to whom the gods offer ὀλβον ὑπέρτατον (P. 3.89). Thus, Xenocrates was welcomed at the feasts of the gods: καὶ θεῶν δαῖτας προσέπτυκτο πάσας (I. 2.39), while in

Olympian 3 all the family of the Emmenids, but mainly Theron, enjoy the attendance at their feasts by the Dioscuri (40).

303 De Angelis (2016) 192; Diod. Sic. (11.67.5-68.7). 304 In this ode, as also in Pythian 6, there are many indications for re-performance. See Athanassaki (2009) 241-273. 305 Morrison (2007); Eckerman (2011) 1-8. See also Clay (1999) 25-34; Budelmann (2012) 173-190; Clear (2013) 31-53. 122

There are also more indications for a dialogue between Isthmian 2 and the other Emmenid odes. The song is full of recollections of glorious achievements attained by the Emmenid clan. At lines 12-17, Pindar talks about Xenocrates’

Isthmian victory of 488 BC. The next line refers to Xenocrates’ Pythian victory in

490 BC, celebrated in Pythian 6. The three lines that follow report another victory of

Xenocrates in the Panathenea for which there is no further information or song.

Finally, lines 23-29 mention Theron’s victory in Olympia, which is celebrated in

Olympian 2 and 3. In lines 30-34, Pindar praises the familiarity of the Emmenids with songs and revels. Such a statement is a summary of the victories of Xenocrates and Theron. All their achievements have been accumulated inside the house (ἐντὶ

δόμοι I.2.30) and they function as a kind of wealth. While wealth for Pindar should not be amassed and hidden, this treasure is gathered together and becomes obvious for everyone although is kept inside the house of the family. This interior treasure- house can be considered parallel to the monument of hymns306 constructed by Pindar in Pythian 6. 1-18, a monument which Athanassaki has persuasively analysed as in dialogue with the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi.307

In both Isthmian 2 and Pythian 6, the importance of Acragas is not based on the city itself; it is the Emmenid family that transmits its glory to Acragas. In Pythian

6.6, the reference to Acragas is part of the standard epinician opening, but the rest of the poem focuses on the family and mainly on the son, who follows his glorious

"genes" and is praised for his civic values. In I.2.17, praise of Xenocrates is "a light

306 The use of plural "hymns" and not "hymn" is not without significance. It is a promise of future achievements and an allusion to the achievements of the ancestors. 307 Athanassaki (2012) 134-157. 123 to the people of Acragas". Unlike Aegina, the place acquires fame through praise of the victory. Without that, the people of Acragas are in darkness.

The victory of Xenocrates is attributed both to him and to his γενεᾷ (15). This clan is that of I.2.28, the sons of Ainesidamos. It is important that the victor is not called by name, neither in I.2.28 nor in P.6.15, where Pindar addresses Thrasyboulos.

The only name Pindar uses in these passages is that of Thrasyboulos (I.2.31; P.6.15).

Xenocrates appears as the son of Ainesidamos (I.2.28) and the father of

Thrasyboulos (P.6.15). The notion of phya is also implicated in the myth of Pythian

6. The myth narrates the story of a devoted son, Antilochos,308 who is praised for his virtuous behaviour towards his father and not for any other achievement. The same applies to the brief reference to Chiron’s teaching of Achilles. The mighty son of

Peleus is used as an example of an obedient student. Achilles’ devotion to his tutor's precepts functions as the introduction for the theme of the myth.309 The parallel between the heroes and the laudandus is unusual, mainly between Achilles and

Thrasyboulos. Pindar uses mighty Achilles, a hero renowned for his epic achievements, as a "good student" and Antilochos’ charioteering talent is not mentioned. This means that Thrasyboulos is praised exclusively for his filial identity.

This also explains why Pindar avoids calling by name both Theron in Pythian 6 and

Xenocrates in the passages quoted above. Thrasyboulos’ glory derives from the fact

308 It has been suggested that Thrasyboulos was the charioteer of the victorious chariot because he occupies most of the ode. If so, the myth can be a good parallel with this interpretation. Antilochos entered the chariot races in the funeral games of Patroklos and due to his father’s advice won the second prize (Il. 23.262-613). See Gentili (1995) 184-185. I do not agree with such an approach. Pindar would typically have exploited this further and more explicitly. Apart from this, the poet names the charioteer of a lesser competition (I.2.18-29). In other words, if the owner uses professionals for smaller events, why at the biggest one would he trust a non-professional? See Nicholson (2005) 56. 309 Achilles is not called by name but by his patronymic "the son of Peleus" (23). 124 that Xenocrates is his father and Theron his uncle, and this is the only reason that his name appears in the ode.

Thus, Emmenid phya is interwoven with money. It is not only that wealth is part of phya, but also that it "produces" phya. In other words, the inborn excellences are a matter of exchange. All the virtues of Thrasyboulos are ones that anyone can acquire if he has money: hippotrophia, patronage, xenia and symposia. The right attitude that is described in lines 47-49 recalls the mythical examples of Achilles and

Antilochos: νόῳ δὲ πλοῦτον ἄγει (47) recalls the νόημα τοῦτο φέρων (29), which in turn alludes to Chiron’s precepts (Πηλεΐδᾳ παραινεῖν 23). Achilles is not a random choice. His attitude is paralleled with that of Thrasyboulos’, while Chiron’s role with that of Pindar. Thrasyboulos’ attitude is also based on Pindar’s advice. This is the wise use of money, which is further explained in my earlier analysis of Isthmian 2.

He has not been victorious but only a son of a victorious father. He is praised for virtues that only wealthy people can have and can preserve (the need for advice about the right attitude). He is also praised in two epinician odes, not because he achieved a victory, but for victories that his father paid for him to achieve (we know that he used charioteers, Nikomachos, Nikasippos).

Olympian 2 for Theron of Acragas

Although Pindar is very generous when he praises the Emmenids, his praise culminates in Theron’s case: Theron is the bulwark of Acragas (6-7), and in 91-5 he affirms that his patron has a uniqueness that no-one else can have. Olympian 2 was performed no later than 476 BC, many years after Theron’s seizing of power. The ode was probably first performed in Acragas; at the end of the poem, Pindar exhorts himself to aim his arrows at Acragas (89-91) and the beginning of the ode 125 concentrates on the city and its founders (6, 9). In form, the ode is structured around what look like typical Pindaric praise strategies incorporating phya and oikos, class, polis, poetic claims to truth etc. but I will show that they turn out to be functioning quite differently.

Theron's Family

Ἀναξιφόρμιγγες ὕμνοι, τίνα θεόν, τίν᾽ ἥρωα, τίνα δ᾽ ἄνδρα κελαδήσομεν; ἤτοι Πίσα μὲν Διός· Ὀλυμπιάδα δ᾽ ἔστασεν Ἡρακλέης ἀκρόθινα πολέμου· Θήρωνα δὲ τετραορίας ἕνεκα νικαφόρου γεγωνητέον, ὄπι δίκαιον ξένων, ἔρεισμ᾽ Ἀκράγαντος, εὐωνύμων τε πατέρων ἄωτον ὀρθόπολιν· καμόντες οἳ πολλὰ θυμῷ ἱερὸν ἔσχον οἴκημα ποταμοῦ, Σικελίας τ᾽ ἔσαν ὀφθαλμός, αἰὼν δ᾽ ἔφεπε μόρσιμος, πλοῦτόν τε καὶ χάριν ἄγων γνησίαις ἐπ᾽ ἀρεταῖς. ἀλλ᾽ ὦ Κρόνιε παῖ Ῥέας, ἕδος Ὀλύμπου νέμων ἀέθλων τε κορυφὰν πόρον τ᾽ Ἀλφεοῦ, ἰανθεὶς ἀοιδαῖς εὔφρων ἄρουραν ἔτι πατρίαν σφίσιν κόμισον λοιπῷ γένει. τῶν δὲ πεπραγμένων ἐν δίκᾳ τε καὶ παρὰ δίκαν, ἀποίητον οὐδ᾽ ἂν χρόνος ὁ πάντων πατὴρ δύναιτο θέμεν ἔργων τέλος λάθα δὲ πότμῳ σὺν εὐδαίμονι γένοιτ᾽ ἄν. ἐσλῶν γὰρ ὑπὸ χαρμάτων πῆμα θνάσκει παλίγκοτον δαμασθέν, ὅταν θεοῦ Μοῖρα πέμπῃ ἀνεκὰς ὄλβον ὑψηλόν. (1- 22) Hymns that rule the lyre, what god, what hero, and what man shall we celebrate? Indeed, Pisa belongs to Zeus, while Heracles established the Olympic festival as the first-fruits of war; but Theron, because of his victorious four-horse chariot, must be proclaimed—a man just in his regard for guests, bulwark of Acragas, and foremost upholder of this city from a line of famous ancestors, who suffered much in their hearts to win a holy dwelling place on the river, and they were the eye of Sicily, while their allotted time drew on, adding wealth and glory to their inborn virtues. O son of Cronus and Rhea, ruling over the abode on Olympus, over the pinnacle of the contests, and over Alpheus’ course, cheered by my songs graciously preserve their ancestral land for their children still to come, once deeds are done, whether in justice or contrary to it, not even Time, the father of all, could undo their outcome, but with a fortunate destiny forgetfulness may result, for under the force of noble joys pain dies and its malignancy is suppressed, whenever divine Fate sends happiness towering upwards.

At the beginning of the ode, Pindar asks which god, hero and mortal he should praise. The next line gives the answer: among the gods, Zeus, god of the Games is to 126 be praised, among the heroes, Heracles, the founder of the Games, and among mortals Theron, the victor in the Games. This Priamel form resembles the opening of

Olympian 1 for Hieron, setting the laudandus up as the best of his kind against a background of other examples of the best of their kind. But there is a striking difference, for within the Priamel form of Olympian 2 there is also a genealogy.

Heracles is the son of Zeus, and Theron claimed to be descended from Heracles.310

The importance of Theron's family line is emphasised at every opportunity throughout the ode; this is in stark contrast with the odes for Hieron, which rarely mention any family.

The poem's opening sets up a continuity between the past and the present. The shifts in time—from the mythic past (Zeus, Heracles) to the present (Theron and his victory) and then back to the past of the ancestors—place Theron in the pivotal position as a continuer of prominent figures with whom he has blood ties, and as the

"finest flower" of the family (7). The continuity between the past and the present is presented not only temporally but also spatially.311 Theron’s forefathers, after much toil managed to win "a holy dwelling place on the river" (9),312 which has become the

"eye" of Sicily (10) because of their arête. Their excellences, which attracted wealth and charis, were "inborn" (γνησίαις), that is, they belonged to their (divinely originated) blood-line. This blood-line should not stop with Theron for Pindar prays to Zeus to ensure prosperity in the same land for future generations (12-15).

310 The Emmenids based their ethnic identity as Dorians on the narrative that they were descendants of Heracles' son, Hyllos. The reference to Heracles should also be connected with the fact that the Acragantines had a strong claim on Heracles. They founded a great temple c.520 BC wherein probably they performed the ἄθλοι of Heracles. Hucley (1969) 101. 311 Pavlou (2008) 76. 312 The city was founded on a river that had the same name. 127

All praise for Theron in Olympian 2 is tied into his family in one way or another and thus draws on traditional aristocratic ideology, that of inherited excellence, phya. The ode has a rich variety of terms that insist on the genealogical principle or element of phya: πατέρων (7), πατρίαν (14), γένει (15), κούραις (23),

παῖς (27), κόραισι (29), παῖδ (32), πατρώιον (35), γένος (42), θάλος (45), ἀδελφόν,

μάτηρ (80); and words that denote the physical process of transmitting the excellence: φυᾷ (85), τεκεῖν (93), σπέρματος (46).313 The genealogical principle is even applied to the non-human world of the poem. Time is the father of everything

(17). The personification of Father Time is not very common in Greek literature.314

The same imagery is used to describe day as the sun’s child (32).315

Theron is described as the "bulwark of Acragas" and orthopolis but these characterizations are embedded in his family tradition (6-7).316 Theron orthopolis is the man who keeps the polis upright or straight. It is obvious that the meaning of the word has a political notion and it makes us understand that he is talking about not only an excellent victor, but also a politically important individual.317 Unlike Hieron,

Theron is not praised with a royal title. This probably reflects Theron’s own preference as neither Pindar nor Bacchylides call him by such a title and even in the historical sources he is rarely called king or tyrant.318

Cadmus' Family ἕπεται δὲ λόγος εὐθρόνοις Κάδμοιο κούραις, ἔπαθον αἳ μεγάλα, πένθος δὲ κρεσσόνων πρὸς ἀγαθῶν. ζώει μὲν ἐν Ὀλυμπίοις ἀποθανοῖσα βρόμῳ

313 For a full catalogue of these terms in Pindar, see Rose (1974) 152. 314 Kirkwood (1982) 67. 315 Willcock (1995) 145. 316 Greithlein (2010) 25. 317 Luraghi (2011) 31. 318 Diod. Sic. 11.20.5, 11.53.1, 4.79.5; Tim. FGrHist566 F 93b (= Σ Pi. O. 2.29d). 128

κεραυνοῦ τανυέθειρα Σεμέλα, φιλεῖ δέ νιν Παλλὰς αἰεί, καὶ Ζεὺς πατὴρ μάλα, φιλεῖ δὲ παῖς ὁ κισσοφόρος· λέγοντι δ᾽ ἐν καὶ θαλάσσᾳ μετὰ κόραισι Νηρῆος ἁλίαις βίοτον ἄφθιτον Ἰνοῖ τετάχθαι τὸν ὅλον ἀμφὶ χρόνον. ἤτοι βροτῶν γε κέκριται πεῖρας οὔ τι θανάτου, οὐδ᾽ ἡσύχιμον ἁμέραν ὁπότε, παῖδ᾽ ἁλίου, ἀτειρεῖ σὺν ἀγαθῷ τελευτάσομεν· ῥοαὶ δ᾽ ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλαι εὐθυμιᾶν τε μετὰ καὶ πόνων ἐς ἄνδρας ἔβαν. οὕτω δὲ Μοῖρ᾽, ἅ τε πατρώιον τῶνδ᾽ ἔχει τὸν εὔφρονα πότμον, θεόρτῳ σὺν ὄλβῳ ἐπί τι καὶ πῆμ᾽ ἄγει παλιντράπελον ἄλλῳ χρόνῳ· ἐξ οὗπερ ἔκτεινε Λᾷον μόριμος υἱὸς συναντόμενος, ἐν δὲ Πυθῶνι χρησθὲν παλαίφατον τέλεσσεν. ἰδοῖσα δ᾽ ὀξεῖ᾽ Ἐριννὺς ἔπεφνέ οἱ σὺν ἀλλαλοφονίᾳ γένος ἀρήιον· λείφθη δὲ Θέρσανδρος ἐριπέντι Πολυ- νείκει, νέοις ἐν ἀέθλοις ἐν μάχαις τε πολέμου τιμώμενος, Ἀδραστιδᾶν θάλος ἀρωγὸν δόμοις· ὅθεν σπέρματος ἔχοντα ῥίζαν, πρέπει τὸν Αἰνησιδάμου ἐγκωμίων τε μελέων λυρᾶν τε τυγχανέμεν. Ὀλυμπίᾳ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς γέρας ἔδεκτο, Πυθῶνι δ᾽ ὁμόκλαρον ἐς ἀδελφεὸν Ἰσθμοῖ τε κοιναὶ Χάριτες ἄνθεα τε- θρίππων δυωδεκαδρόμων ἄγαγον. τὸ δὲ τυχεῖν πειρώμενον ἀγωνίας δυσφρονᾶν παραλύει. (22-52) This saying befits Cadmus’ fair-throned daughters, who suffered greatly; but grievous sorrow subsides in the face of greater blessings. Long-haired Semele lives among the Olympians after dying in the roar of a thunderbolt; Pallas loves her ever and father Zeus; and her ivy-bearing son loves her very much. They say too, that in the sea Ino has been granted an immortal life among the sea-dwelling daughters of Nereus for all time. Truly, in the case of mortals death’s end is not at all determined, nor when we shall complete the day, the child of the sun, in peace with our blessings unimpaired. For various streams bearing pleasures and pains come at various times upon men, thus it is that Fate, who controls the kindly destiny that is the patrimony of this family, adds to their heaven-sent happiness some misery as well, to be reversed at another time—from that day when his fated son met and killed Laius and fulfilled the oracle declared long before at Pytho. When the sharp-eyed Fury saw it, she killed his warrior progeny in mutual slaughter; but Thersandrus, who survived the fallen Polyneices, gained honour in youthful contests and in the battle of war, to be a saviour son to the house of Adrastus’ line. It is fitting that the son of Aenesidamus, whose roots spring from that seed, should meet with victory songs and lyrics. For at Olympia he himself received the prize, while at Pytho and the Isthmus Graces shared by both bestowed upon his equally fortunate brother 129

crowns for his team of four horses that traverse twelve laps. Winning releases from anxieties one who engages in competition.

The mythical section is introduced as illustrating the gnome that sufferings can be forgotten when the gods send prosperity (19-22). Semele, after a life of sorrows, lives in Olympus with the gods, while Ino lives among the Nereids. The appearance of

Cadmus' daughters in the poem is calculated to make even the myth section illustrate the genealogical principle. In another poem (fr. 118), Cadmus is said explicitly to be

Theron’s ancestor (Σ O. 2.39).

A new cluster of gnomai leads from the immortal life of Semele and Ino to the temporal suffering of the Labdacids, also Cadmus' descendants and therefore

Theron's ancestors. This echoes the gnomai of lines 15-22 and the poet takes it a step further: καὶ πῆμ᾽ ἄγει παλιντράπελον ἄλλῳ χρόνῳ (37) echoes παλίγκοτον δαμασθέν

(20) while the word πῆμα is repeated (19, 37).319 It is not only that the past cannot be changed but sorrow can be forgotten when happiness comes from the gods. There is another parameter, that of the contingency of chance. Oedipus is the mythic paradigm of what is beyond human control, the unexpected disaster that illustrates the limitations of human knowledge.320 Oedipus—remains unnamed, called the

μόριμος ὑιος—killed his father (38-40). His act was seen by the Sharp-Eyed Erinys, and the mutual murder of his sons, Polyneices and Eteocles, followed along with the civil war (41-2).

The theme of Moira is predominant in the narration about the Labdacids,321 and links it to that of Cadmus' daughters. The theme of moira was evoked in the introductory gnomic statement that forgetfulness may come if good fortune is sent

319 Grethlein (2010) 26. 320 Grethlein (2010) 27. 321 Athanassaki (2009) 308-313. 130

(πότμῳ σὺν εὐδαίμονι γένοιτ᾽ ἄν. 18), and that the definitive victory over pain comes when divine Moira sends happiness (ὅταν θεοῦ Μοῖρα πέμπῃ 21). The following story of the sisters Semele and Ino testifies to this role of moira. In the story of the

Labdacids,322 Pindar uses the device of structured silence for the presentation of the myth. Oedipus becomes the fatal agent who had to fulfil a prophecy. There is no reference to Laius’ disobedience or to the role that Apollo played in the story.

Oedipus fulfilled a prophecy, which caused the activation of the Erinys and so the punishment of his offspring. It is also not accidental that the poet remains completely silent about Oedipus’ marriage with his mother. The ἀλλαλοφονία of Eteocles and

Polyneices is portrayed as the result of the Furies’ punishment without giving any further details. In so doing, Pindar plays down the consequences of Oedipus’ crime and as a result emphasizes the influence of Moira.

In fact, the theme of Moira connects the mythological characters back to the opening reference to Theron's ancestors. In line 10, we are informed that the allotted time of Theron’s immediate ancestors brought them wealth and glory (αἰὼν...

μόρσιμος) after the hardships they experienced. So not only do the mythological ancestors illustrate the optimistic aspect of the alternation of fate, but also this positive Moira is presented almost as another "inborn" or "inherited" excellence.

Consequently, human culpability is deemphasized in the myths, while any connection between the fate of the brothers Eteocles and Polyneices on the one hand, and that of Theron and his brother Xenocrates, on the other, is discouraged.

Although Pindar tries to avert the dark side of the myth he still needs an

"innocent" person for the transition to the praise of Theron. This person is Polynices'

322 Athanassaki (2009) 409. 131 son, Thesandros, from whom the line of the Emmenids begins. Thesandros is the first indication that the fate of the doomed family changes. He was honoured in the races and in the battlefield. The parallel with Theron is obvious. Thus, Pindar can now easily bring us back to the present. Thresandros is called θάλος, "new growth, scion" and then the "the seed" (σπέρματος) from which Theron has his roots. The plant imagery strengthens the notion of the inborn element. A plant grows and gives flowers, thus metaphorically expressing the continuity which leads us to Theron.323

Theron is named by his patronymic, "son of Aenesidamos". This address plays down the impression of individualism while underlining aristocratic ideology in the family. This point becomes more emphatic in the next lines, where Pindar gives a victory catalogue of the family. The central victory is the one currently being celebrated, that of Theron at Olympia, but it also lists the victories in the Pythian and

Isthmian Games of his "equally fortunate brother", Xenocrates (ὁμόκλαρον ἐς

ἀδελφεόν, 49), and the two brothers have shared charis (koinai Charites 50).

This sibling story is the third in Theron's family after that of the sisters Semele and Ino and the brothers Eteocles and Polyneices.324 Semele and Ino enjoy immortality given by the gods after the toils they experienced, and so Theron and

Xenocrates will have the same fate through the poems which praise their victories.

The problem occurs in the case of Polyneices and Eteocles, which Pindar tries to overcome through structured silence. As said above, they are presented as the victims of moira and any reference to their political disagreement is kept in silence.

Their compensation comes only through Polyneices’ son, Thesandros, whose survival is the first signal for the alternation of the family’s fate. He was honoured in

323 Grethlein (2010) 27. 324 Cummins (2010) 327. 132 battles and in athletic competitions. The parallel with Theron is obvious, and the culmination of these family achievements is Theron’s victory at Olympia.325

The section on Theron's mythic ancestors concludes with a gnome expressing praise of wealth in combination with virtues:

ὁ μὰν πλοῦτος ἀρεταῖς δεδαιδαλμένος φέρει τῶν τε καὶ τῶν καιρόν, βαθεῖαν ὑπέχων μέριμναν ἀγροτέραν (53-54) Truly, wealth embellished with virtues provides fit occasion for various achievements by supporting a profound and questing ambition.326

This statement connects the wealth of Theron with the wealth of his ancestors (10-

11) and so the blessed acquisition with its proper use. In the case of the ancestors,

Pindar underlines that the ancestors acquired wealth through the divine intervention.327 This god-sent acquisition is now spent by Theron properly. Wealth has given him the opportunity to succeed in the Games, to be a just man for his guests (6), and to commission the ode. Thus, Theron's phya is presented as a combination of (inherited) wealth with inherited arete.

Eschatology

The eschatological section (57-83) that follows addresses the issue of a change in fate from a different perspective. It focuses on the judgement of rewards and punishments in an afterlife. A detailed discussion of the eschatological passage is beyond the scope of this project. The concepts of judgement, salvation, transmigration of the soul, future rewards and punishment are believed to share much

325 Cummins (2010) 328. 326 Wilson (1980) 184 translates kairos not as temporal but as normative: "the right degree of this and that". 327 Nisetich (1988) 6. 133 in common with the Orphic/Pythagorian eschatology.328 The majority of scholars have supposed that this passage reflects either Theron’s own religious beliefs, or those with which he wished to be associated.329 What is important for my purposes here is that it represents an extension of the genealogical principle into the future; thus, Pindar offers Theron a vision not of immortality in fame but of real immortality.

The good men (esloi 62) go where they have the sun "in equal nights and in equal days". The permanent equinox might be a symbol of justice, excellence and temporal stability.330 In this place, they do not have to toil; they do not need to practice manual labour (οὐ χθόνα ταράσσοντες 63) nor trade (ἐν χερὸς ἀκμᾷ οὐδὲ

πόντιον ὕδωρ 64) in order to make a living. The good men who respect εὐορκία (66) are rewarded by the gods, while these who break oaths receive punishment consisting of unbearable toil (τοὶ δ᾽ ἀπροσόρατον ὀκχέοντι πόνον 67).331 The fate of good men does not include any kind of ponos, so it is portrayed as the everyday life of the class of the aristocrats, those who have the time and wealth for their leisure activities. This is the way that Theron is presented in the ode (53-54) but there is an obvious difference. During life on earth, anxiety is inevitable even if someone has "blue blood", wealth and leisure, as the myths and the gnomai show: τὸ δὲ τυχεῖν

πειρώμενον ἀγωνίας παραλύει δυσφρονᾶν (51-52).

328 There is an extensive bibliography about this passage. See Wilamowitz (1922) 248-252; Long (1948); Tummer (1957); Bluck (1958); Gianotti (1971); Demand (1975); Fitzgerald (1983); Lloyd- Jones (1985); Nisetich (1988); Currie (2005) 223; Hornblower & Morgan (2007) 29; Morrison (2012) 126. 329 Bowra (1964) 23; Willcock (1995) 137-140; Torres (2007) 267-369. 330 See Woodbury (1966) on 61-62; Gianotti (1971) 41-42. 331 It is unusual to have a reward for oath-keeping for an essential component of the oath is the curse that falls on the person who breaks the oath. See Torrance (2014) 351. This may be an element derived from the Pythagorean/ Orphic eschatology. 134

Finally, Pindar presents the destination of those who have managed to live three times in the upper world and three in the lower without any wrongdoing (68-

83). The place for them is the Isle of the Blessed (makaron nasos). This part functions as a contrastive foil for the life of Theron’s ancestors. It is not clear if this utopia includes all people whether they are part of a lower or upper class. However, it is legitimate to assume that this stage of the dead includes people of the same status of Theron’s ancestors, as it functions as a contrastive foil. As said above, toil does not exist in the place of the good men (63-65) which contrasts with the life on earth that Theron’s ancestors had (8).

Pindar clearly gives two kinds of utopias, one for the ἐσλοί and the other for the dwellers of the Isle of the Blessed. In the first case, what makes the place utopian is the absence of any kind of ponos, especially the ponos that is required in order to earn a living. In the case of the Isle of the Blessed things are different. The utopia is vividly expressed at first in the description of the place. The ocean breezes that blow round recall Hesiod and Homer. The race of heroes in Hesiod enjoys a life on the

Islands of the Blessed, where the "fertile soil bears honey-sweet fruit, cropping three times a year" (W&D 170). In Odyssey 4. 332-592, Menelaus receives a prophecy according to which he will be saved from death and transferred to the Elysian plain, at the ends of the earth. The place in Pindar is enriched: flowers of gold and radiant trees create a scenery of exceptional beauty, which is increased by the description of the dwellers who entwine their arms with garlands and crown their heads (72-74).

In the Isle of the Blessed, the only heroes that are mentioned are Peleus,

Cadmus and Achilles. The reference to Cadmus makes sense, as the hero is mentioned earlier as a paradigm of bad fortune and reward and the parallel with 135

Theron is obvious.332 Pindar chooses a different fate for Achilles than Homer offered him. Instead of the bleak vision of the Odyssey (11. 478-91), Achilles enjoys immortality among select worthy mortals including his father, Peleus. The poet states that Achilles’ move to the Isle of Blessed is due to Thetis’ entreaties to Zeus.333

There is much discussion about Pindar’s choice to single out Peleus and Achilles and for this departure from the fate assigned in the Odyssey and Aethiopis.334 It suffices to mention that the role of the family is still present. As said above, Athanassaki has shown that the scene of Thetis blinding Zeus for her son’s immortality recalls the

East Frieze of the Siphnian Treasury. The scene of the monument depicts an earlier moment of Achilles life, but its theme, Achilles’ immortality and his mother’s love and devotion, and the figure that makes a gesture of appeal are well-suited to

Pindar’s purpose. It might be said that some of the audience, who were also present at the performance of Pythian 6, probably understood the allusion to the sculpture theme. So, they might recall the praise of Xenocrates and Thrasyboulos of Pythian 6, which Pindar himself refers to in line 49.335 In Pythian 6, Pindar underlines the theme of filial devotion through the figures of Antilochos and Achilles. Chiron instructed Achilles to honour his parents, while Antilochos gave his life for his father’s life. In an ode for a son and his dead father the connection is obvious: Peleus stands for Xenocrates, while Achilles for Thrasyboulos.

However, in Olympian 2, the figures do not serve the same purpose. The appearance of Cadmus both in the myth of the ode and in the eschatology mirrors

332 Cadmus and Harmonia as dwellers of the Isle of the Blessed are mentioned for the first time in Euripides Bacchae (1338-1339), but this tradition must be already old and widespread in Pindar’s time. See Currie (2005) 44. 333 For the parallel role of Thetis in the Iliad and in the ode, see Solmsen (1982) 19-24. 334 See Nisetich (1988) 8-16; Currie (2005) 41-6. 335 Athanassaki (2014) 205-207. 136

Theron’s fate especially because Cadmus was his glorious ancestor. One possible suggestion is that Pindar alludes to the immortality of the Emmenids not only in the afterlife, but also through his poetry. The poem is full of terms that emphasise the element of birth and family. The myth describes a family fate, the family of Cadmus,

Achilles is found on the Isle of the Blessed due to his mother's love and there he meets his father. The heroes that live in the Isle of the Blessed are wreathed. This description suggests a parallel between the victorious Theron at the Olympian

Games, where he received his crown. His brother Xenocrates was also victor and was praised along with his son Thrasyboulos by the poet. Consequently, the Emmenids who were praised by the poet are all together in the Isle of the Blessed. Thus, some members of the audience can make the link with the afterlife immortality and the poetic immortalization of the Emmenids.336

In Olympian 2, the utopian vision does not only mirror the ideology of the poetic persona and/or the patron, but it is also infused with religious beliefs. My analysis, however, concentrates on the evidence that shows the political and social dimension of ideology. The utopian life that is presented in Olympian 2 is the world of aristocrats. It projects the values, the lifestyle, the desires and the everyday life of a certain class which will be also valid in the afterlife. Such a description is an affirmation of the aristocratic ideals which acquire a universal and religious validity.

In the case of Theron, the utopian world is more communal. It does not exclude from the highest level of blessing people who are not kings but it projects the world of aristocrats.

336 The replacement of an afterlife immortality by immortalization through poetry is suggested by Nisetich (1988) 6-8, but he restricts it only to Theron. 137

The notion of phya in the laudandus and the poet

The description of Achilles’ achievements is immediately followed by a much- discussed self-referential statement:

πολλά μοι ὑπ' ἀγκῶνος ὠκέα βέλη ἔνδον ἐντὶ φαρέτρας φωνάεντα συνετοῖσιν· ἐς δὲ τὸ πὰν ἑρμανέων χατίζει. σοφὸς ὁ πολλὰ εἰδὼς φυᾷ· μαθόντες δὲ λάβροι παγγλωσσίᾳ κόρακες ὣς ἄκραντα γαρυέτων Διὸς πρὸς ὄρνιχα θεῖον· (83-88) I have many swift arrows under my arm in their quiver that speak to those who understand, but for men in general, they need interpreters. Wise is he who knows many things by nature, whereas learners who are boisterous and long-winded are like a pair of crows that cry in vain against the divine bird of Zeus.337

In these lines, Pindar praises his own poetic skill. He uses the image of the arrows to present himself as an athlete. As the scholia say, the quiver is the poet’s mind and the target his laudandus, Theron. The quiver is under the arm of the poet, which means that he possesses it for good and is ready at any time to "shoot". However, his "swift arrows", his songs, speak only to those "who understand".338 The image of the arrows with the select audience alludes to the Apollinian element of unerring archery with oracular mysteriousness.339

The reception of poetry as well as its production requires wise people. Pindar himself is wise by nature (φυᾷ). The concept of superiority by nature in opposition to the mere "learner" is a topos in Pindar (O. 9. 100–102; N. 1. 25–26, 40–42; 3. 40–

337 The passage has a wide range of interpretations. I follow Most (1986) 316: "I have many swift arrows under my arm in my quiver that speak to those with understanding and they thoroughly crave oracular announcers. Wise is that announcer who knows many things by nature; but those who have only learned speak out futilities like many-tongued vociferous crows in comparison to the divine bird of Zeus. Now then, spirit, come, aim your bow at the target: whom are we shooting at, casting forth arrows that provide good repute from a well-disposed mind". 338 It seems better to translate "those who understand" rather than "the intelligent". See Willcock (1995) 161. 339 Sigelman (2016) 46. 138

42), and his work is the first surviving text that articulates this opposition.340 The depth of the poet’s wisdom is conceivable only by those who, like the patron, have wisdom by nature. Those without this inborn talent are like the crows that cry in vain. Whether these crows represent the rival poets, Simonides and Bacchylides, or the political opponents of Theron cannot be said with certainty; that said, they undoubtedly represent the "boisterous learners", people who lack phya. Thus, the divine eagle can be both Pindar and Theron who fight against cacophony.341

Pindar directly addresses his thymos to aim at the recipient of the "arrows of fame" (81). In the extant works, Pindar addresses his thymos four times in the vocative (N. 3. 26; fr. 123.1; fr. 127.4).342 The act of addressing this part of his inner being suggests that thymos can act independently.343 The use of the first plural that follows strengthens this suggestion: "At whom do we shoot?" (89). The source of the

"arrows of fame" is Pindar’s gentle phren (90).344 The quiver thus symbolises the poet’s phren. Phren in Pindar is connected with counsels, planning and deliberation.345 From his phren, Pindar draws his ideas for the praise of the victor while his thymos gives him the will to act.346 The arrow goes to Acragas and the poet swears that he will make a statement with "truthful mind". The poet uses all his psychic entities for his laudandus, as Theron is such a distinctive individual that "no city within a century has produced" (93) someone like him.

340 Rose (1992) 164. 341 The passage is a good example of "polyintepretability", as Pindar formulated it in a way that applies both to Theron’s athletic and political ambitions and to Pindar himself as a professional poet. See Pfeiffer (1994) 313. For a similar image of the poet as an eagle N. 3. 80-2. 342 For the use of thymos in Pindar, see Sullivan (1993) 46-68. 343 Sullivan (2002) 91. 344 In N. 1. 28-9, Pindar again connects intellectual activity with phya. 345 For phren in Pindar, see Sullivan (1989) 148-189. 346 Sullivan (2002) 92. 139

The use of thymos and phren and noos for the glorification of Theron proves not only the value of the victor but also the poetic ability of Pindar. The victor is not a simple man. He comes from noble ancestors who founded the city which is glorified in the Games and in the poem. Theron’s blood line comes from mythical heroes. His future will be a joyful life at the Isle of the Blessed between Peleus,

Cadmus and Achilles. His family has been glorified by the deed of Theron himself and other members such as Xenocrates. However, Theron is distinguished from the other members of the Emmenids. He is the "bulwark of Acragas" (6). He has also achieved such a level of aristocratic virtues that only every one hundred years is a greater man born. The qualities that make him stand out is not leadership, nor warlike prowess. They are traditionally aristocratic. He is praised for the institution of xenia and for his generosity, which make him a benefactor. Although the praise of

Theron resembles that of Hieron (O. 1. 103-5) the difference is obvious.347

πέποιθα δὲ ξένον μή τιν᾽, ἀμφότερα καλῶν τε ἴδριν ἁμᾷ καὶ δύναμιν κυριώτερον, τῶν γε νῦν κλυταῖσι δαιδαλωσέμεν ὕμνων πτυχαῖς (O. 1. 103-105) For I am confident that there is no other host both more expert in noble pursuits and more lordly in power alive today to embellish in famous folds of hymns.

These lines repeat the opening of the poem in which Hieron is a king delighted in music and rules with justice (11-13). He is praised as a xenos who has power and is hierarchical superior to his subjects. Pindar underlines the fact that Hieron is δύναμιν

κυριώτερον and thus importantly different from Theron. Theron is just towards his guests and not towards his subjects. His social virtues (hospitality, piety, generosity)

347 The two passages have a formal similarity. In O. 1, Pindar says that he is persuaded that there is no other host who is expert both in noble pursuits and more sovereign in power. According to Morrison (2007) 85, the passages are not identical but the use of the superlative vaunt suggests a competition between the two tyrants. The differentiation of the two passages is deeper and more fundamental. 140 make him a distinguished aristocrat but not a monarch. Even his piety is completely different from this of Hieron.

The Deinomenids were priests and hierophants of Demeter and Persephone.348

This title seems to be important for Gelon and the whole family to present themselves as respected people. It is not without importance also that Sicily was a fertile place and well-known for its abundance in wheat.349 A popular goddess could be an advantage for their ambitions. Probably the Deinomenids understood the worship of Demeter was so vital that "wielding the power of agriculture was persuasive enough to restore the exiles".350 It is no coincidence that Hieron showed his piety by expensive dedication to Panhellenic sanctuaries.351

On the other hand, in parallel with the glorification of Theron we can see the self-praise of the poet, as well as the elevation of himself at least to the level of the laudandus. The poet does not hesitate to praise in abundance and accuracy Theron, with whom he is connected with the bonds of friendship. The same qualities that are praised in Theron and make him stand out in for a long time are met in Pindar too.

Both of them have, by nature, virtues such as wisdom, both possess the aristocratic virtues of beneficence and generosity. Both of them respect the institution of xenia.

But the virtues of Theron are dependent on the poet’s will and ability. In order for

Theron to achieve the highest praise for his virtues that lasts at least a hundred years he needs the thymos, phren and noos of the poet.

348 According to Herodotus (Hist. 7. 153. 2), Telines, an ancestor of the family, secured for the line of Deinomenids the priesthood of Demeter. 349 Finley (1979) 27. 350 Kowalzig (2008) 133. 351 For all the dedications of the Deinomenids, see Morgan (2015) 29-52. 141

Conclusion

Every Pindaric scholar has noticed that the notion of phya is very important in Pindar. Generally, phya refers to the inborn excellences someone has inherited from his ancestors. However, the concept is not always consistent in the odes. The Aiginetans are praised for their inborn excellences and their xenia to such an extent that the Aiginetan odes are constructed according to these two ideas. The mythic section of almost all the Aiginetan odes is about the Aiakids, so someone could assume that they are their progenitors. This was not true and Pindar was absolutely aware of it. In fact, the Aiakids could only metaphorically be Aiginetans’ancestors. Their ancestry is found in Heracles with whom the Aikadis had relationships of xenia. Thus, their ancestry was not something very special, as all the Dorian cities could have equally important ancestry. The question that arises is why then the Aiginetans are praised so much for their phya and xenia? The economy of the island can help us to find the solution. Aigina was a commercial center, so much visited by many people. Thus, xenia refers to the commercial activities of the island. Hospitality derives from phya and is a traditional quality that every aristocrat has. But in the case of the Aiginetans, as said above, their phya was not so special. Not only that, but also Pindar praises Lampon’s phya whose clan was never victorious in the Games. He was the patron, the father of the victorious children and paid for the composition, so the poet had to find an excuse to include him in the ode. The excuse was the vague use of phya, which became almost a synonym of money. In conclusion, the hospitality of Aigina was the result of market activities. Thus, the vague use of the concept balances two different economic systems and ideologies. Slightly different is the case of the Emmenids. Xenocrates’ odes include praise for his son and to such an extent that the son, Thrasyboulos, is praised more than the victor. Again the excuse for the praise is his special phya. Thrasyboulos is a member of the most prominent family of Acragas. In fact, neither the phya of Xenocrates was victorious nor Thrasyboulos’. Xenocrates did not participate in the odes physically; we are informed that he paid for a charioteer and Thrasyboulos did not pay for anything apart from the composition. Again the concept is used as almost 142 a synonym of money and an excuse to offer praise to the patron. Theron, has a very prominent phya. He is connected with the homeland heroes and his ancestry derives from Cadmus. He appears to be the most "pure" aristocratic figure of the odes. His lifestyle is paralleled with the utopian lifestyle of the afterlife. He lives in a world that acknowledges the existence of the market, money and paid work, but his future is projected to be the purest expression of aristocracy. Nonetheless, in this case too, ultimately Theron is an expression of the Emmenid phya.

143

CHAPTER FIVE The later Hieron odes: Pythian 1 and Pythian 3 Introduction

Pythian 1 and Pythian 3 clearly belong to a later stage in Hieron's rule than Pythian 2 and Olympian 1. Both are understood to have been composed during the period of

Hieron's (ultimately fatal) illness because of supposed references to that illness within the poems. Pythian 1 compares Hieron to the diseased Philoctetes, and

Pythian 2 voices a wish to bring Chiron the healer back to life and to offer "golden health" to Hieron. I shall show that both odes pay less attention to emphasising features that justify and enhance Hieron's tyranny in Syracuse, but rather set their sights on broader, grander goals: Pythian 1 on Panhellenic status for Hieron, and both it and Pythian 3 on his future immortality. In both odes, the poet presents himself as more confident and assertive in his relationship with Hieron. He negotiates a position for himself that moves beyond that of a xenos on equal terms and approaches a superior stance.

Pythian 1 weaves together the myth of Typhon and other figures with Hieron's military and athletic victories and his foundation of Aitna. It is the only Pindaric ode for Hieron that does not contain a myth dealing with transgression in reciprocity. It aims at locating Hieron's achievements at the forefront of Panhellenism, and at promoting Hieron as a champion of Greek freedom and defender of civilisation against barbarism. In order to do this, Pindar tries to make Hieron fit the mould of a model aristocrat and enlists the praise tactics that are typical in poems for private citizens. Pythian 3 begins with mythological narratives of a similar pattern to those in Pythian 2 and Olympian 1. The tale of Coronis involves violations of the norms of 144 an embedded (gift) economy, whereas Asclepius opts out of the gift society and acts in accordance with a disembedded (market) economy. But this ode has the most personal tone of all the odes for Hieron, and the latter part offers consolatory mythological exempla teaching the need to accept the alternation of fate and offering compensatory poetic immortality.

Pythian 1

Pythian 1 celebrates Hieron’s victory in the chariot race in August 470 BC. The ode was possibly first performed in Aitna as part of the inauguration festivities, but it is uncertain how much time elapsed between the victory and the performance. Taking into consideration that Hieron succeeded again in the Games in 468 BC, and that he passed away in 467 BC, the original performance cannot be much later than 470 BC.

Pythian 1 displays features that are unusual among the Hieron odes. There is no central mythological narrative, rather the poem opens with a tableau of Typhon's punishment. Only here are the mythological figures not primarily paradigms of positive or negative reciprocal behaviour. There is more historical material than usual, including narrative of Dorian movements and Hieron's military campaigns.

Finally, there is more direct advice from Pindar for Hieron, especially concerning wealth. The presentation of Hieron is also somewhat unusual. In contrast with his previous focus on a powerful Hieron's legitimate and justified rulership, Pindar now praises Hieron as a liberal monarch, almost at the end of his life, pursuing

Panhellenic recognition, posthumous fame, and dynastic continuity through his son.

The difference is even more marked because it also contrasts with Bacchylides' depiction of Hieron in an ode for the same event of 470 BC. Bacchylides' fourth ode presents Hieron merely as an aristocrat among fellow-aristocrats. I will show how 145 these unusual features are the result of Pindar adapting the form and content of epinician in order to serve Hieron's political agenda and Panhellenic aspirations. His adaptations involve grafting typical devices for praising aristocrats onto a tyrant, and combining the ethics of the gift economy with commodified praise.

Typhon

The first two strophes function, at first, to evoke a festive context with an emphasis on the soothing and harmonising effects of music, but will turn out to be an elaborate foil for the demise of Typhon. The oppositions and tensions set up in these two opening tableaux will be played out in various ways throughout the ode. Both scenes foreground the visual and auditory aspects of the experience. It is worth spending some time on exploring these contrasts first since the later analysis depends significantly on them.

χρυσέα φόρμιγξ, Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ ἰοπλοκάμων σύνδικον Μοισᾶν κτέανον· τᾶς ἀκούει μὲν βάσις, ἀγλαΐας ἀρχά, πείθονται δ᾽ ἀοιδοὶ σάμασιν, ἁγησιχόρων ὁπόταν προοιμίων ἀμβολὰς τεύχῃς ἐλελιζομένα. καὶ τὸν αἰχματὰν κεραυνὸν σβεννύεις ἀενάου πυρός. εὕδει δ᾽ ἀνὰ σκάπτῳ Διὸς αἰετός, ὠκεῖαν πτέρυγ᾽ ἀμφοτέρωθεν χαλάξαις, ἀρχὸς οἰωνῶν, κελαινῶπιν δ᾽ ἐπί οἱ νεφέλαν ἀγκύλῳ κρατί, γλεφάρων ἁδὺ κλαΐστρον, κατέχευας· ὁ δὲ κνώσσων ὑγρὸν νῶτον αἰωρεῖ, τεαῖς ῥιπαῖσι κατασχόμενος. καὶ γὰρ βιατὰς Ἄρης, τραχεῖαν ἄνευθε λιπὼν ἐγχέων ἀκμάν, ἰαίνει καρδίαν κώματι, κῆλα δὲ καὶ δαιμόνων θέλγει φρένας, ἀμφί τε Λατοίδα σοφίᾳ βαθυκόλπων τε Μοισᾶν. (1-12) Golden Lyre, rightful possession of Apollo and the violet-haired Muses, to you the footstep listens as it begins the splendid celebration, and the singers heed your signals, whenever with your vibrations you strike up the chorus-leading preludes. You quench even the warring thunderbolt of ever flowing fire; and the eagle sleeps on the sceptre of Zeus, having relaxed his swift wings on either side, the king of birds, for you have poured over his curved head a black- hooded cloud, sweet seal for his eyelids. And as he slumbers, he ripples his supple back, held in check by your volley of notes. For even powerful Ares puts aside his sharp-pointed spears and delights his heart in sleep; and your shafts enchant the minds of the deities as well, through the skill of Leto’s son and the deep-breasted Muses. 146

The lyre inspires dance and festivities but in a controlled, orderly way. This world is ordered by its own laws that must be followed.352 The lyre is the "legitimate joint possession" (σύνδικον Μοισᾶν κτέανον 2) of Apollo and the Muses, footsteps

"listen" (ἀκούει 2) to the lyre, the music is the "leader of the chorus" (ἁγησιχόρων 4), and the singers "obey the signals" (πείθονται δ᾽ ἀοιδοὶ σάμασιν 3). The corollary is that the music calms and suppresses anything that could disturb this order, in the terms of this ode that is anything connoting violence. Its calming power is seen as it extinguishes the fire of Zeus' warlike thunderbolt (5), sends to sleep Zeus' eagle that rests on the sceptre representing political power and justice (6-8) and warms in rest the heart of violent Ares who puts his weapon aside (10-11). But this power has a restraining aspect also, as it seals the eagle's eyes (γλεφάρων ἁδὺ κλαΐστρον,

κατέχευας 8), holds its powerful body in check (κατασχόμενος 19), and spellbinds the minds of the gods (κῆλα δὲ καὶ δαιμόνων θέλγει φρένας 12).

The next two strophes depict the contrasting image of the monster Typhon's current demise. The opposition is made clear in the opening lines:

ὅσσα δὲ μὴ πεφίληκε Ζεύς, ἀτύζονται βοάν Πιερίδων ἀΐοντα, γᾶν τε καὶ πόντον κατ’ ἀμαιμάκετον, ὅς τ’ ἐν αἰνᾷ Ταρτάρῳ κεῖται, θεῶν πολέμιος, Τυφὼς ἑκατοντακάρανος· τόν ποτε Κιλίκιον θρέψεν πολυώνυμον ἄντρον· νῦν γε μάν ταί θ’ ὑπὲρ Κύμας ἁλιερκέες ὄχθαι Σικελία τ’ αὐτοῦ πιέζει στέρνα λαχνάεντα· κίων δ’ οὐρανία συνέχει, νιφόεσσ’ Αἴτνα, πάνετες χιόνος ὀξείας τιθήνα· τᾶς ἐρεύγονται μὲν ἀπλάτου πυρὸς ἁγνόταται ἐκ μυχῶν παγαί· ποταμοὶ δ’ ἁμέραισιν μὲν προχέοντι ῥόον καπνοῦ αἴθων’· ἀλλ’ ἐν ὄρφναισιν πέτρας φοίνισσα κυλινδομένα φλὸξ ἐς βαθεῖαν φέρει πόντου πλάκα σὺν πατάγῳ. κεῖνο δ’ Ἁφαίστοιο κρουνοὺς ἑρπετόν

352 Morgan (2015) 310. 147

δεινοτάτους ἀναπέμπει· τέρας μὲν θαυμάσιον προσιδέσθαι, θαῦμα δὲ καὶ παρεόντων ἀκοῦσαι, οἷον Αἴτνας ἐν μελαμφύλλοις δέδεται κορυφαῖς καὶ πέδῳ, στρωμνὰ δὲ χαράσσοισ’ ἅπαν νῶ- τον ποτικεκλιμένον κεντεῖ. (13-28) But those creatures for whom Zeus has no love are terrified when they hear the song of the Pierians, those on and the overpowering sea, and the one who lies in dread Tartarus, enemy of the gods, Typhos the hundred-headed, whom the famous Cicilian cave once reared; now, however the sea-fencing cliffs above Cumae as well as Sicily weigh upon his shaggy chest, and a skyward column constrains him, snowy Aitna, nurse of biting snow all year round. From whose depths belch forth holiest springs of unapproachable fire; during the days rivers of lava pour forth a blazing stream of smoke, but in times of darkness a rolling red flame carries rocks into the deep expanse of the sea with a crash. That monster sends up most terrible springs of Hephaestus’ fire—a potent wondrous to behold, a wonder even to hear of from those present— such a one is confined within Aitna’s dark and leafy peaks and the plain; and a jagged bed goads the entire length of his back that lies against it.

The harmony and stability that music offers in lines 1-12 are only available to those whom Zeus loves; those whom Zeus does not love experience the music very differently. Instead of being calmed and charmed, Typhon, the enemy of the gods

(15), is terrified (ὅσσα δὲ μὴ πεφίληκε Ζεύς, ἀτύζονται βοάν Πιερίδων ἀΐοντα 13-14) and suffers constantly. In lines 26-27, Pindar draws attention to the audience' contrasting visual and auditory experience to that of the opening.353 Typhon lies in

Tartarus, where he cannot enjoy the grace of dance as he is constrained by a skyward column. He makes his own cacophonous music in the form of ugly sounds (belching

21, crashing din 24).354 Music extinguishes Zeus' fiery missiles but Pindar devotes six lines to describing the terrible floods of fire, smoke and fiery rocks that Typhon send shooting up from below (21-26). The immortal rebel beast is imprisoned

353 According to Burton (1962) 94, "the first illustration of the function of the lyre arises naturally from what the audience could see and hear (...) Βάσις is to be taken literally and signifies the actual steps of the dancers as they begin the spectacle." 354 See Hesiod’s account of Typhon (Theogony 820-835). He presents him as a monster with a hundred heads whose individual voices are combined to produce a sonic akosmia, as Goslin argues (2010) 351-373. Goslin notes that Typhon destabilises the hierarchy of sounds that constitute the world order. Typhon’s defeat by Zeus is a precursor to the birth of the Muses and a victory that enables communication between gods and mortals. 148 because he failed in his attempt to overthrow Zeus' divine order,355 and so he is the counter-example of the Muses (music), Zeus (political power) and Ares (military success). Thus, in Pindar, (as also in Hesiod) the contrasting images make Typhon a symbol of cosmic cacophony and ethical discord, a representative of everything that is the opposite of, and a threat to, the divine order of Zeus.

The order of Zeus is represented as encompassing three worlds: the divine, the human, and the chthonic, here equated with the bestial. The human element appears not just in the geographical location of Tartarus just under Mt. Aitna, and in the human audience of its eruptions, but also in the opening festivities. It has been debated whether the opening lines of the ode are a description of divine or human performance,356 but, given the parallels, it is likely that Pindar aims at an ambiguity emphasising the liminal nature of the ode between divine and human performance and participating in both. Moreover, the opening festivities are contingent upon

Typhon's imprisonment. Both scenes evoke the latent violence that is ready to break through the status quo.357

Mt. Aitna, the skyward pillar that constrains the monster and keeps it in

Tartarus, is the visual symbol of the connection between the three worlds, and the maintenance of this status quo.358 What is important here is Pindar’s choice to put

355 It is a common practice for Pindar to use rebellious figures that dispute the power of the gods. In Olympian 1, it is Tantalus, in Pythian 2 Ixion, in Pythian 3 Coronis and Asclepius. However, in this case, it is not a mortal who rebels, but an immortal beast. See Morgan (2015) 314. 356 See Burton above (1962) 94 on the audience perspective. Gentili (1995) 12 states that Pindar creates a parallel between divine performance and human. Athanassaki (2009) 247-249 suggests that there is a fusion of divine and human song, while Segal (1998) 12-15 is more eager to believe that it is a reference to a human celebration of Aitna. See also Race (1986) 37. 357 Note the parallel between the sleeping eagle, whose latent power is depicted in its swift wings and rippling back, and the buried Typhon, whose bed scratches and goads him—an action which is simultaneously his torture and the reminder of his existence. 358 Segal (1999) 22 draws up a diagram depicting the various contrasts between these three domains, but especially in terms of language. Olympian spoken language and immortal song is far away from 149

Aitna in the middle of this cosmos.359 The role he assigns to Aitna suggests that he wants to "include the foundation of Aitna within the continuing narrative of the

Greek cosmic victory over barbarian chaos".360 The safety and security of Aitna is the sine qua non of this narrative because it forms the epicentre of cosmic order.

After these two scenes, Pindar invokes Zeus in the second person:

εἴη, Ζεῦ, τὶν εἴη ἁνδάνειν, ὃς τοῦτ᾽ ἐφέπεις ὄρος, εὐκάρποιο γαίας μέτωπον, τοῦ μὲν ἐπωνυμίαν κλεινὸς οἰκιστὴρ ἐκύδανεν πόλιν γείτονα, Πυθιάδος δ᾽ ἐν δρόμῳ κάρυξ ἀνέειπέ νιν ἀγγέλλων Ἱέρωνος ὑπὲρ καλλινίκου ἅρμασι. (29-33) Grant, O Zeus, grant that I may please you, you who rule the mountain, the brow of a fruitful land, whose neighbouring city that bears its name was honoured by its illustrious founder, when at the racecourse of the Pythian festival the herald proclaimed it in announcing Hieron’s splendid victory with the chariot.

In contrast to Typhon, with whom Zeus cannot have bonds of friendship, he takes care of and also rules Mt. Aitna (30) and the neighbouring city. The subsequent announcement of Hieron as the illustrious founder of that city (30-31) connects

Hieron in friendship with Zeus.361 It is also said in the scholia that Hieron founded a cult of Zeus Aitnaios, which would strengthen the bond between the god, the king, and the city.362 Zeus managed to punish his enemies and to impose a harmonious atmosphere on his reign. Similarly, Hieron managed to destroy his enemies, bring safety to his people, become an athletic competition winner, and so provide his people with the harmony of music represented by this poem. The eagle of Zeus is the perfect image for combining all that is at stake in these scenes. The eagle, king of

the confused roar and barbarian linguistic code of Typhon. In the middle, is the human song that is produced by the poet and praises Hieron. 359 It has been said that Pindar locates Typhon under Aitna because of the volcano. It was a common belief that the volcano was an opening into the underworld. See Steiner (1986) 104-105. 360 Dougherty (1993) 94. 361 Dougherty (1993) 94. 362 Σ. P. 1.56b; N. 1.7a,b. 150 birds, on Zeus' sceptre represents the physical might, political authority, and justice of Zeus' kingship over gods and men. The eagle is also used by Pindar—and

Bacchylides—in the imagery representing the poet's superiority over other poets. It can also represent Hieron the king, Zeus' human analogue, and indeed Aitna as his domain, for it appears on the coins minted for Aitna after Hieron's (re)foundation of the city. Thus, cosmic order involves the interdependent success of Zeus, Pindar,

Hieron, and Aitna.

Hieron and Panhellenism

The cosmic scale of the opening tableaux indicates that this ode has an agenda of grander scale and more far-reaching scope than Pythian 2 and Olympian 1. Typhon's defeat by Zeus is the climax of Hesiod's cosmogonic narrative, which was becoming increasingly important as a foundational narrative for Panhellenic culture. The polarities it sets up, and which Pindar taps into, between, for example, barbarism and civilisation,363 chaos and order, war and peace, discord and harmony, nature and culture, oppression and freedom, brute force and reasoned persuasion, were in the process of becoming some of the key images through which Panhellenism was unified in identity against the "other", in particular, the barbarian Persians. It is well

363 The term "civilisation" is an extremely difficult term to explain and use. I borrow the definition from Freud (1961) 36, who describes it as "the whole sum up of achievements and the regulations which distinguish our lives from those of our animal ancestors and which serve two purposes— namely to protect men against nature and to adjust their mutual relations." The most significant aspects of civilisation are beauty, cleanliness, order, intellectual, scientific and artistic achievements such as religion, philosophy etc. According to Segal (1981) 2-3, n.3, in Greek, there is not a single word that describes this notion of civilisation. He claims that civilisation includes three levels, social organisation, cultural attainment and man’s position in the world of beast and gods and cites the Greek words which might describe civilisation: "The most likely possibilities: nomos and ta nomima, which imply the established institutions, the customs and norms of the society; politeia, which refers to the form of government, especially constitutional government; and paideia, which refers to culture as manifested and transmitted through poetry and art." 151 known that Hieron spent considerable financial sums and effort on gaining fame, recognition, and prestige within the wider Greek world. His athletic activities and temple dedications on the mainland attest to this, as does his attempt to make

Syracuse a Greek cultural capital by hosting the leading Greek poets. I will show that this ode is Pindar's boldest attempt at placing Hieron front and centre on the Greek world stage. It aims to support not merely Hieron's Syracusan and even Sicilian hegemony, but more importantly his Panhellenic hegemony, and I will show that this agenda accounts for the ways in which this poem's strategies and economy of praise work differently to those of his other odes for Hieron.

I consider that Pythian 1 was first performed in Aitna, but in Aitna there were also people belonging to a wider Sicilian and Greek group who were also Hieron’s targets for propaganda. However, whether or not Aitna is the location of its first performance is not very important for my purpose, as the ode was probably intended for repeated performances in many locations including Aitna, locations either controlled by Syracuse or under its influence.364

This composition of the original and projected future audiences creates complications for the way Hieron can be presented. On the one hand, for the Sicilian audience (both local and region-wide), Hieron should be the tyrant, the possessor of absolute power, chosen by the gods and founder of a promising new city. On the other hand, for a Panhellenic audience, Hieron's status as tyrant must be played down since in the mainland of Greece there was a hostile attitude towards tyranny, especially after the Persian invasion. The contrary requirements lead Pindar to a presentation of Hieron primarily as the founder, the law imposer and the skilled

364 Morrison (2007) 65-70, n.175. 152 warrior. He is the rightful holder of power, because this is divinely determined, and as a blessed person he has the abilities that have been shown in the Pythian Games and in the field of battle. He is a king who rules his city based on traditional laws and—most importantly—he is the man who has ensured freedom for all Greeks by facing the great barbarian danger at Himera and Cumae. Hieron is not praised as an omnipotent king but for his loyalty to ideals such as freedom, the rule of law, piety, and bravery. All these are ideals suitable for a ruler of a perfectly well-governed city rather than for a tyrant.

Four parts of the poem's content carry the weight of this agenda: his leadership values, his military victories, his athletic victory, and his foundation of Aitna. In fact, the first three function as part of the last.

Foundation of Aitna

The foundation of Aitna is the key to Pindar's programme of praise for Hieron as

Panhellenic champion. The opening scenes place Aitna at the epicentre of the divine order and make the safety and security of Aitna symbolically crucial for the continued hegemony of Greek civilisation. The remainder of the ode is mostly devoted to identifying the city with Hieron and attaching to him all the necessary leadership qualities for that responsibility.

Foundation narratives are ideological constructions designed to justify the rights of the new settlers over the new space by means of myths that explain the 153 relationship between their community and the territory.365 They operate using a form of structured silence that hides the realities of conquest, typically under the mask of divinely sanctioned heroic deeds by direct mythological ancestors, within narratives that justify primarily economically-driven conquest on various ideological grounds.

Pindar has good reason to mask the reality of Hieron's foundation of Aitna.

According to Diodorus Siculus’ account (11.49.1-2), Aitna’s foundation was not peaceful and harmonious but a violent act of conquest over an already settled community.366 The Cataneans and Naxians, the original inhabitants, were forcibly removed to Leontinoi, while Hieron replaced them with paid settlers (5,000 from

Syracuse and 5,000 from the Peloponnese).

Pindar's strategy involves a double structured silence. He does not narrate the act of foundation itself, nor does he give an ideologically constructed mythological narrative to replace it. It would have been difficult to do so because Hieron was mythologically rootless with no ancestral heroes to draw upon. Instead, he replaces the foundation myth with two elements that resemble foundation myth motifs in function: 1) the motif of recalling the legendary founder's achievements, and 2) a genealogical ancestry and journey.

365 The same tactics are followed in other colonial narratives in Pindar (Pythian 4, Pythian 9, Olympian 7). For a more detailed analysis, see Athanassaki (2003) 93-128 and Dougherty (1993) 68- 69. 366 Ἱέρων δὲ τούς τε Ναξίους καὶ τοὺς Καταναίους ἐκ τῶν πόλεων ἀναστήσας, ἰδίους οἰκήτορας ἀπέστειλεν, ἐκ μὲν Πελοποννήσου πεντακισχιλίους ἀθροίσας, ἐκ δὲ Συρακουσῶν ἄλλους τοσούτους προσθείς· καὶ τὴν μὲν Κατάνην μετωνόμασεν Αἴτνην, τὴν δὲ χώραν οὐ μόνον τὴν Καταναίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλὴν τῆς ὁμόρου προσθεὶς κατεκληρούχησε, μυρίους πληρώσας οἰκήτορας. τοῦτο δ᾿ ἔπραξε σπεύδων ἅμα μὲν ἔχειν βοήθειαν ἑτοίμην ἀξιόλογον πρὸς τὰς ἐπιούσας χρείας, ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς γενομένης μυριάνδρου πόλεως τιμὰς ἔχειν ἡρωικάς. τοὺς δὲ Ναξίους καὶ τοὺς Καταναίους ἐκ τῶν πατρίδων ἀνασταθέντας μετῴκισεν εἰς τοὺς Λεοντίνους, καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων προσέταξε κατοικεῖν τὴν πόλιν. 154

The Founder's Achievements

The first mentioned achievement of the founder is his Pythian victory. Lines 30-32 say that Hieron "gave kudos to the city [of Aitna]" (τοῦ μὲν ἐπωνυμίαν κλεινὸς

οἰκιστὴρ ἐκύδανεν πόλιν) when he was announced as victor in Delphi. There has been much debate over whether this means that he was formally proclaimed as

"Aitnaios".367 The scholiasts provide us with contradictory explanations.368 In

Bacchylides’ fourth ode, for the same victory, Hieron is announced as "Syrakousios".

The ambiguity in the text is probably deliberate; what is important is that an audience should think that Hieron could be called Aitnaios, whether or not this happened.

Thus, Aitna is the space in which the athletic victory, the mythological demise of

Typhon and the (at least fictive) performance of the ode are connected.369

Hieron's victory is treated as a good omen for the city’s prosperity, comparable to a favourable wind at the start of merchant ships’ voyage that promises a more successful return (33-35), and so the city will have a better future.370 As Mackie shows, Pindar becomes a prophet for the future when he describes events that come

367 In P.Oxy. 222, Hieron is called Συρακόσιος. Morrison (2007) 66, following Maehler (1982) 64 and (2003) 100-101, states that Hieron in Delphi was proclaimed as Συρακόσιος, but in front of a Sicilian audience opted to be announced as Aitnaios. Currie (2012) 298 asserts that Hieron was announced as Aitnaios. In addition, Currie states that there is an inversion of the name of the victor and the ethnic. Instead of "the winner is Hieron from Aitna" what we should understand is "the winner is Aitna by reason of Hieron". For further discussion, see Morgan (2015) 447-449. 368 In Σ. P. 1.inscr.b, the scholiast states that Hieron was announced as Aitnaios although he was from Syracuse. The same opinion is expressed by the scholiast of Σ. P. 1.58, who justifies the proclamation of Hieron as Aitnaios on the grounds that he founded the city. The scholiast of Olympian 1 states that Hieron won at the Olympian Games and was announced as Συρακούσιος καὶ Αἰτναῖος. In Σ. Ο. 1,35c, another scholiast claims that at that time Hieron was not Συρακούσιος but Αἰτναῖος, as he had already founded Aitna. However, in the next few lines of the same scholion, this opinion is disputed by Didymus using information from Apollodorus (FGRHist 244 F69). According to Didymus, Hieron was still Συρακούσιος and not Αίτναῖος. A compromise solution is given by a scholiast called Aristonicus (fr.51 Razzetti), who says that Hieron was from Aitna but was announced as being from Syracuse. 369 Currie (2012) 297. 370 Kurke (1991) 46. 155 to pass "in accordance with a previously ordained pattern."371 Pindar can see the future because he knows the victor's present (victory in the Pythian Games) and past

(victorious battles), which he relates later in the ode.372 Dougherty argues that by connecting the athletic victory with the "present" of Aitna's foundation "Pindar substitutes the act of foundation for victory".373 The substitution is facilitated here by the fact that Apollo is the tutelary god of colonisation, prophecy, and the Pythian

Games, and so Pindar calls upon Apollo (39-40) to sanction Hieron's victory qua omen qua foundation.

The founder's other achievements given are his military victories. For his military victories, Hieron is assigned the most honour of all the Greeks (ἦ κεν

ἀμνάσειεν οἵαις ἐν πολέμοισι μάχαις/ τλάμονι ψυχᾷ παρέμειν᾽, ἁνίχ᾽ εὑρίσκοντο

θεῶν παλάμαις τιμάν,/ οἵαν οὔτις Ἑλλάνων δρέπει,/ πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον

46-50). This claim is later justified on the basis of two particular victories (told at greater length than is usual for historical events in Pindar's poems): at Cumae against the Etruscans 474 BC (71-75) and at Himera against the Carthaginians 480 BC (76-

80). Hieron not only defeated these enemies but he also made them stay quiet (72); their war cry parallels the threatening sounds of Typhon.374 The Etruscans witness defeat as punishment for their hybris (72), and the victorious outcome of the battles corresponds to Zeus' victory over Typhon. Just as Zeus' victory represents the triumph of Greek ideals, so Hieron here is credited with rescuing Greece from

371 Mackie (2006) 79. 372 This metaphor might also serve as an indication for the future re-performances of the ode. The re- performances function as a mechanism for spreading fame. See Morrison (2007) 99. Note also the importance of time-phrases to connect Hieron's past, present and future. They appear at the beginning and at the end of the encomium (46 and 56-57), connecting Hieron’s glorious past, future and present (νῦν 50). See Burton (1962) 101. 373 Dougherty (1993) 97. 374 Lefkowitz notes a connection between phoinissa (24) and the Phoenician war-cry called Phoinix (72). 156 grievous slavery (to the barbarians), Ἑλλαδ’ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας (75).375 Since, as we have seen, Aitna symbolises the foundational act of Zeus' order, so these military victories replicate that foundational act and also stand in for Hieron's foundation of Aitna.

In reality, the Sicilian battles with their neighbours were fought for political, economic, and territorial motives, not ethnic ones.376 But on the mainland, the

Persian Wars involved the creation of a collective Panhellenic identity, continuing the already existing sense of ethnicity of the archaic period.377 Pindar knew very well that foreign policy was based on the ideology of a Panhellenic war against the barbarians. Under Pausanias’ leadership, the "Hellenic War" against the Persians began during which many Greek cities were liberated.378 This narrative pattern was adopted by Pindar in his presentation of all neighbours as enemies who threaten the

Panhellenic community. The same narrative is also active in the comparison of

Hieron to Philoctetes (50-56) that follows Pindar's reference to Hieron as first in honour of the Greeks. The Trojan War was, of course, the most obvious mythological parallel for the Greece-Persia opposition, and in that war it is

Philoctetes, marginalised and ignored by the Greeks, who must be invited back to conquer "barbarian" Troy.

In this propaganda campaign, the Battle of Himera has a particularly important role. Sicilian tyrants in general were seeking not only to be accepted by mainland

Greeks but also to gain their admiration, so they constructed a narrative that makes

375 Note that slavery is "heavy" (βαρειάς) like the weight of Aitna that presses on top of Typhon. 376 Note the commercial imagery of the prosperous merchant ship associated with Aitna's future (33- 34). 377 Hall (1989) 6. 378 The Greeks defeated the Persians at the two sieges of Sestos and Byzantium (479-478 BC), and they also liberated Thrace from the Persians. See Hornblower (2011) 18-19. 157 them as militarily important as the other Greeks in order to share in the glory of being victors over the barbarians.379 This narrative is recorded in Herodotus.

Herodotus states that the "Sicilians say" that they could not offer their help against the Persians at Salamis because on the same day they had to face the Carthaginians at

Himera (7.166). The synchronisation of victories is part of the Sicilian project to link themselves with the eastern Greeks and at the same time to compete with them. The synchronisation of the battles against the "barbarians" was recorded in more detail by later authors. Timaeus' Sicilian history aims to make the western Greek world an equal partner in Hellas.380 His synchronisation was of Himera not with Salamis but with Thermopylae, a Greek defeat and so an even bolder suggestion of western superiority.381 Diodorus Siculus, on the other hand, connects the Battle of Himera with that of Plataea, and Gelon with Themistocles.382

The synchronisation of battles is one way of creating a "common cause" and a

"common enemy".383 Pindar, however, does not provide any synchronisation between the Battles of Himera and Cumae with the Battles of Salamis or Plataea.

What he does is to place the two great battles of Salamis and Plataea side-by-side with Hieron’s victories (75-80). Instead of constructing a narrative according to which the battles coincide and explaining the Deinomenids’ absence, rather he aims at a comparison regarding the relative importance of the battles. In these lines, the structure of the Priamel makes it clear that Pindar considers Hieron’s victories superior to the first two.

379 Gauthier (1966) 24. 380 Feeney (2007) 48. 381 Plb. 12.26b on Timaeus' account (=FGrH 566 F94). 382 Ephorus, in a scholion on Pythian 1.146 (=FGrH 70 F186), states that Gelon freed not only the Sicilians by this victory but all the Greeks. 383 I borrow the terms "common cause" and "common enemy" from Feeney’s work (2007). 158

Hieron's brother, Gelon, is at the centre of Herodotus' narrative. He relates that

Gelon was visited by ambassadors from Athens and Sparta asking him to offer help in facing the Persian invasion. Gelon was keen to help only on condition that he was the leader of all the Greeks, on the grounds that Syracuse was the most powerful among all the Greek cities, but the ambassadors refused mockingly (7.157-159). In addition, Herodotus attributes to Gelon complaints about the mainland Greeks who did not help him in his battles against the "barbarians" (7.157.1-3) when he fought to take revenge for Dorieus and also to liberate emporia in Sicily. The meta-history of this event should be seen as being in line with the propaganda of the Sicilian tyrants as it is materially expressed in their dedications at Delphi.384 Whether Gelon constructed his victories on a narrative of opposition between Greeks and barbarians is a matter for debate. For Hieron, however, this narrative is clear. Pindar assigns the victory to "the sons of Deinomenes" (79), even though there is little indication that

Hieron played a very significant role. Pindar is thus minimising the role of Gelon in order to credit Hieron.385 In this respect, the poem also assigns Sicilian pre-eminence to Hieron, and makes that part of his Panhellenic importance.

Genealogical ancestry and journey

A typical foundation narrative involves tracing the ancestry of the founder through the physical journey made over time from homeland to colony. But Hieron did not

384 Gelon not only erected temples for his victory in Syracuse and Himera, as part of his attempt to legitimate his power, but he also offered dedications at Delphi accompanied by an epigram which is attributed to Simonides (Σ. P. 1.152). See Prag (2010) 57. After the Battle of Cumae, he dedicated helmets at the temple of Zeus in Olympia. Two tripods commemorate his Pythian victories in 482 BC and 478 BC. The most prominent dedication of Hieron is highlighted explicitly in Bacchylides third ode (60-66), where Hieron is praised for his lavish dedication of golden tripods. See Luraghi (1994) 354-368. 385 Cingano (1995) 345. 159 come from a distinguished aristocratic family, as far as we know, and so Pindar could not draw upon this mythological resource. He does give a genealogical account tracing ancestry geographically, but it is that of the nomoi (62)386 imposed by Hieron on the new city, not that of the founder himself (62-67). These are identified as

Dorian nomoi in that they are named as being those of Hyllos. The Dorians, identified as the descendants of Pamphilus and the Heracleidae (sons of Heracles), were blessed (65), moved from Pindos, took Amyklai, and became neighbours of the

Tyndaridae without losing their identity, but remained forever under the rules of

Hyllos (ναίοντες αἰεὶ μένειν 64). This device works within the logic of the poem because Hieron is so closely identified with the city that he can be seen as its embodiment, and thus he becomes the embodiment of Dorian ancestral mores.

Dorian ancestry has an important ideological role in the Panhellenic propaganda of the poem. It appropriates for Hieron, and Aitna, an ideological programme that had been very much promoted both by Gelon,387 and by Theron of

Acragas.388 At that time (470 BC), the only two cities outside of Sicily that were under monarchical regimes were Sparta and Cyrene. By following this path and creating a constitutional parallel with Sparta, Pindar connects Aitna, and by extension Hieron, with Sparta, the city that played so important a role during the

Persian wars.389 It has also been suggested that the reference to Hieron founding

Aitna for his son to rule and the use of the plural basileusin (68), could refer to their

386 In this passage, nomos is interpreted not as "law" but as the mores of a specific city, clan, or society, which can include the laws. See Ostwald (1969) 34. 387 After his victory, Gelon built a temple to Demeter and Kore in Syracuse and a temple at Himera. He also rebuilt the old archaic temple to Athena in Syracuse. The temple at Himera and the temple to Athena were built according to the Doric style of the mainland. Holloway (1991) 74 states that "through his new temple, Gelon enunciated the architectural message of his regime." 388 See my discussion of Olympian 2. 389 Morgan (2015) 334. 160 co-existence in power. In that case, the use of the plural also alludes to Sparta’s famous double monarchy.390 Moreover, in archaic Sparta, Dorian identity served as

"a strategy of exclusionary social closure, defining the elect against those who were not so blessed by the gods".391 Thus, Pindar associates Hieron and Aitna with the divinely sanctioned elite of the Panhellenic community.

Leadership

Hieron the victorious athlete, the victorious warrior, and the successful founder of

Aitna are all presented as human analogues of the Panhellenic conquering Zeus. But the opening song of Apollo and the Muses, and the reference to Zeus' sceptre, evoke another aspect of Zeus' order. Here, as in Hesiod, poetry or beautiful speech and the sceptre are associated with Zeus' wisdom, justice, and his ability to use reasoned persuasion rather than merely force, i.e. the elements that distinguish him from a tyrant. These virtues as a package are summarised in a gnome that transitions between Hieron the victorious athlete-founder and Hieron the warrior: ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ

μαχαναὶ πᾶσαι βροτέαις ἀρεταῖς/ καὶ σοφοὶ καὶ χερσὶ βιαταὶ περίγλωσσοί τ’ἔφυν

(41-42), "For from the gods come all the means for human achievements, so men are born wise, strong of hand and eloquent". A reader of Pindar is familiar with the idea that the values that make people distinguished from others are given by the gods (e.g.

O. 9.28). This ode will show that Hieron has all these gifts from the gods and so, in this respect too, he is an analogue of Zeus.

Thus, Pindar can focus attention on Hieron as a ruler, but also soften his presentation of monarchy to avoid any implication of tyranny. He is, as we saw, the

390 Luraghi (2011) 38. 391 Hall (2002) 89. 161 law-giver and preserver of the Dorian tradition (61-62), who must abide by truth (86) and by the straight i.e. just path (εὐθύνοι 46, νώμα δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ 86). This advice for how Hieron should govern his people is echoed a few lines later (ἐξίει δ’ ὥσπερ

κυβερνάτας ἀνήρ ἱστίον ἀνεμόεν, 92-93), which recalls the good omen of line 34

(πομπαῖον οὖρον). If Hieron is a good governor of his own city (ship), he can have a great reputation.

Hieron is never called directly "king", although his son is (60), and it may be implied in line 68 (καὶ βασιλεῦσιν διακρίνειν ἔτυμον λόγον ἀνθρώπων). In this ode,

Pindar prefers to refer to him with terms connoting leadership (ἀγητήρ 69 and

Συρακοσίων ἀρχός 73)392 as befits his claim to being worthy of Panhellenic leadership. His rule, and that of his son, is legitimised by Dorian tradition. He is the champion of "freedom", the watchword of Panhellenism, referring not just to the triumph over an external enemy (the barbarians) and freedom from slavery (δουλείας

75), but also political freedom, as Pindar says that Hieron founded Aitna with god- built freedom.393 He shares his honour with his city (59) and his people (δᾶμον

γεραίρων 70). The harmony of the ideal constitution is parallel with the harmonious atmosphere of the proem. The reactions to music are reflected at the level of internal polis relations.394 The ambience of such a polis is briefly described in lines 37-38, where the city celebrates its ruler's victories with garlands and festivities.

In both Aitna and the proem's scene, there are laws that people must obey in order to maintain peace and harmony (laws of Hyllos 62; πείθονται δ’ άοιδοὶ

σάμασιν, 3). The interruption to the harmonious peace in both situations comes from

392 ἀρχός is used in Homer as synonymous with basileus (Il. 1.144), and in Pindar as an epithet for heroes. See Luraghi (2011) 33. 393 Burton (1962) 104. 394 Morgan (2015) 336. 162 a cry; in the first situation, it is the cry of Typhon and, in the second, the war-cry of the barbarians. Most importantly, although in both situations harmony is the result, in neither of them is violence condemned. Zeus maintains the cosmic order through violence against those who oppose it, and in his hand he holds the thunderbolts.

Hieron, on the other hand, not only brought peace by repelling his external enemies, but also re-founded Aitna by means of a violent displacement of the previous population. The violence here is not the opposite of harmony; it can be the means to achieve this. As Race notes, even the use of certain words in the peaceful atmosphere indicates power and potential violence: the thunderbolt’s fire is "eternal", the eagle’s wings are "swift", Ares is "violent" and his spears are "sharp". These characterisations are not just decorative, rather they indicate the potential for transformation into powerful and forcible action.

Economies of Praise

As the content of praise for Hieron is massaged to fit a Panhellenic agenda, so is the form of praise. I have shown that Kurke's view of the economy of praise does not fit in the case of odes for Hieron. In Pythian 2, and Olympian 1 (and Pythian 3, as I shall show), the poet does not aim at civic and social reintegration where oikos, class, and polis share in the laudandus' achievements, but rather at justification and legitimisation for Hieron's autocratic authority, which is owed to him by the people.

In Pythian 1, however, Pindar adjusts his praise gestures so that they resemble those in poems for other Greek aristocrats, adding the Panhellenic community to those of oikos, class, and polis. 163

As I showed above, Hieron distributes shares in his honour to his city (59), thus conforming to the pattern of what Kurke calls an "economy of kudos", that is, "a circulation of powers and honors whose goal is to achieve a harmonious sharing of this special commodity within the city".395 He also gives honour to the people (δᾶμον

γεραίρων 70). The verb γεραίρω in Pindar expresses the action of honouring a laudandus for or with a victory prize.396 In this context, the people (damos) are not urged to praise the victor, as the verb is usually used, but are themselves the recipients of honour. In a typical non-tyrant ode, Pindar locates the current victory within, and shares praise with, a tradition of ancestral achievement based on innate, inherited excellence (phya). This is not a tactic elsewhere applied to Hieron. He lacks such an ancestry, and typically Pindar attaches all praise to him alone. But in Pythian

1, Pindar taps into this tactic. As we saw, something resembling an honoured ancestry of inborn excellence is provided in the form of tracing the heritage of

Aitna's Dorian laws. The key term of innateness, phya, is evoked in the gnomic reference to the gods' gifts: ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ μαχαναὶ πᾶσαι βροτέαις ἀρεταῖς/ καὶ σοφοὶ

καὶ χερσὶ βιαταὶ περίγλωσσοί τ’ἔφυν (41-42). Moreover, this is the only ode in which

Hieron's family is praised. Pindar calls for a hymn of praise for Deinomenes,

Hieron's son, as reward (apoina) for the Pythian victory and explains that the son shares in the joy of the victory (Μοῖσα, καὶ πὰρ Δεινομένει κελαδῆσαι/ πίθεό μοι

ποινὰν τεθρίππων. χάρμα δ᾽ οὐκ ἀλλότριον νικαφορία πατέρος./ ἄγ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ Αἴτνας

βασιλεῖ φίλιον ἐξεύρωμεν ὕμνον, 58-60). When Pindar praises Athens and Sparta for their important victories, he does not concentrate on a person or a family but on the whole state, whereas for the Battle of Himera he offers praise to a family, to

395 Kurke (1993) 141. 396 Morgan (2015) 335-336. 164

Deinomenes’ sons (παρὰ δὲ τὰν εὔυδρον ἀκτὰν Ἱμέρα παίδεσσιν ὕμνον Δεινομένευς

τελέσαις,/ τὸν ἐδέξαντ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀρετᾷ, πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν καμόντων, 79-80).

Hieron, tyrant of Syracuse and Sicilian leader

I have shown how Pindar has modified his construction of Hieron in order to cast him in the role of Panhellenic leader, and how he had recourse to the typical tactics of aristocratic epinician odes in order to do this. The ode also has local audiences and local purposes. Most of what is said to praise Hieron as Panhellenic leader obviously can also serve to glorify Hieron as the tyrant of Syracuse, and even as the leading power of Sicily. But how is Pindar to resolve the tensions between Hieron the liberator and Hieron the tyrant, and how can praise tactics for aristocrats be reconciled with those for a tyrant?

The key is that the tactics resemble typical ones, but they function differently.

We saw that Hieron redistributes his glory to the city (59) and its people (70); and yet the poem so closely identifies the city with the founder himself that all glory ultimately goes to Hieron alone. The appeal to family, which would typically act as part of the victor's reintegration into his oikos, is in fact working to create an oikos, putting down a dynastic claim for the future. In addition, by using the myth of

Heracles as if he were an ancestor, Pindar reinforces Hieron’s hopes. Heracles was killed, but became a god, and his son established dynastic succession.397 This plays to Hieron's aspirations to an afterlife, on the one hand, through a founder's cult, and on the other hand, by establishing a dynasty of rulers, continuing with his son.

397 Cairns (2011) 23-24. 165

Other elements in the ode function slightly differently according to whether they are viewed from a Panhellenic or local aspect. The comparison of Hieron to

Philoctetes (50-56) glorifies Hieron from a Panhellenic perspective by plugging him into the most powerful Greek versus barbarian narrative. But it also works as local political propaganda. Philoctetes is an important figure in Sicily and southern Italy because it was said that he and his men settled in the area after the Trojan War, and that he dedicated his Heraclean bow to Apollo in a temple near Sybaris. The

Crotonites had claimed Philoctetes' bow and used its symbolic power in their territorial expansion. Croton was an important and wealthy rival to Syracuse during this period, and Hieron was successfully involved in the long military conflict between Croton and Sybaris.398 By assimilating Hieron to Philoctetes, Pindar gives him the upper hand in the propaganda war with Croton.399 This probably reflects

Hieron's own strategy since Pindar was not the only one to appropriate Philoctetes;

Pythagoras was commissioned by Hieron to erect a statue of Philoctetes in

Syracuse.400

The ode closes, as it opens, with two contrasting images of possible subjects for human talk and singers, and contrasting models for Hieron. On the positive side,

Croesus, the wealthy king has acquired a form of immortality (οὐ φθίνει 94) because of his kindly virtue (φιλόφρων ἀρετά 94). Gildersleeve notes that arête in this passage means generosity,401 and Croesus was known for his rich gifts to Apollo.

398 Diodorus Siculus 11.48.4. 399 Another story preserved by Strabo suggests that the "cold war" propaganda of Croton and Syracuse continued to circle around the same issues. Strabo 6.2.4 relates that Myscellus, the founder of Croton, visited the oracle at Delphi on the same day as Archias, the founder of Syracuse. Asked by Apollo if they preferred health or wealth, Myscellus replied health and Archias wealth. Apollo then suggested Myscellus should found Croton and Archias Syracuse. 400 Nicholson (2015) 154-155. 401 Gildersleeve (1890) 252. 166

More generally, the good fame that Croesus bequeathed to posterity is based on the way he spent his money, which must also apply to his excellent way of ruling since he is contrasted with Phalaris, the negative paradigm, based on the way he treated his community. In contrast to Croesus' kindness (φιλόφρων 94), Phalaris has a pitiless mind (νηλέα νόον 95), and uses a bronze bull, an animal-like instrument of torture in which to burn people.402 Consequently, a "hateful report" (ἐχθρά...φάτις 96) envelops

Phalaris (κατέχει 96), and he is never welcomed as the subject of praise in song (97-

98). Hieron is encouraged by Pindar in a direct way to do the opposite of Phalaris.

The echoes linking the two (χάλκευε 86 and χαλκέῳ 95) strengthen this view.

From one perspective, the echoes of the opening cast these two figures as part of the Greek versus barbarian scheme, and yet Croesus is Lydian and Phalaris Greek.

In this ode, Pindar modifies the category of "barbarian" so that it refers to anyone who does not respect Greek nomoi, that is, those who commit hybris and try to gain more than they are destined to have, and anyone who does not respect the authorities, the gods and the mortal limits. If Hieron were to follow the model of Phalaris, he would be judged barbarian, regardless of his Greek ethnicity. In this passage, the role of the audience, and by extension the role of the citizens, is very important. They are the ones who will judge the deeds of Hieron in good faith as they did with Croesus and Phalaris (98). In these cases, the judgement of people was not focused on the relationship of the two tyrants with the gods (as in the example of Tantalus in

402 The stories about Phalaris and his cruelty began during his rule and continued until the fourth century, when Aristotle recorded some of them, making Phalaris the paradigm of tyranny. See Ar. Nic.Eth. 1148b21–1149a15. 167

Olympian 1), but on their relationship with the community.403 In other words,

Hieron's Panhellenic standing is made contingent upon his local behaviour as well.404

The Poet and the double hermeneutic

If we apply the critical method of the double hermeneutic we can see that Pindar offers support to Hieron, but at the same time his art is not reduced solely to ideology and propaganda. On the one hand, there is the negative aspect, which works in favour of Hieron’s purpose and supports the values of his hegemony. On the other hand, there is the positive aspect, a negation of the reality that the status quo has created for self-serving purposes. It cannot be said that Pindar was a revolutionary, but we can trace internal contradictions in his work that point to a different reality.

I have shown some of the different levels on which this ode works. The mythological paradigms, in particular, are notoriously slippery tools in Pindar's odes.

Some of the myths he tells contain both the affirmation and the negation of the status quo side by side.405 The reference to Philoctetes is used to praise Hieron, but at the same time it may evoke the harsh reality of Hieron's illness, the inescapable reality that destroys the elite utopian narrative based on the premise of gods' will. Two scholia say that Hieron suffered from cystic and was not even able to walk.406

Similarly, Croesus here acts as a positive example for Hieron, but he is more usually associated with a negative paradigm of tyranny. The most famous story is Herodotus'

403 Phillips (2016) 154. 404 There is a specific local dimension to the use of Phalaris also, for Phalaris was tyrant of neighbouring Acragas. Morgan (2015) 119-121 believes that Phalaris was used to denigrate and attack Theron of Acragas by his political opponents. 405 The central idea of the function of myth as a means to justify social norms and institutions comes from Malinowski (1926). This is not the only function of myth, but it helps us to see another aspect of its use. See Kirk (1974) 82-103. 406 Σ. P. 1.89a, b. 168 account of his meeting with Solon (1.30-46), where Solon tries to teach Croesus that his vast wealth does not make him the happiest man in the world. In fact,

Bacchylides also uses Croesus when he praises Hieron in his third ode, and it is in this negative capacity that he is invoked. As pointed out by Cairns, Croesus in

Bacchylides "is undeniably a symbol of the vulnerability of despotic power. His example shows that wealth, in the material sense, can come to nothing".407 Moreover, the Croesus and Phalaris examples are introduced by reference to the role of others

(including future audiences and his community) as judge and witness of how Hieron is to be viewed:

εἴ τι καὶ φλαῦρον παραιθύσσει, µέγα τοι φέρεται, πὰρ σέθεν. πολλῶν ταµίας ἐσσί· πολλοὶ µάρτυρες ἀµφοτέροις πιστοί. (97-98) Even some slight thing, you know, becomes important if it flies out from you. You are the steward of many things. There are many reliable/ believable witnesses of both good and bad.

The ambiguity in άμφοτέροις is crucial. It can be read as referring to the following examples of Croesus and Phalaris, but it can also be read as referring to the important good and bad deeds of Hieron. This is how the scholiast understands the phrase,408 and as such it points to Croesus and Phalaris both exemplifying Hieron's behaviour.

As the Frankfurt School has clearly shown, although art can be used as a means to further or maintain domination, at the same time it embodies the potential for liberation. The liberational element in Pindar can be found in his characterisation of poetic power. Pindar separates himself from the audience and puts himself above it.

He is not part of the potentially hostile στρατός (86) like the audience, but he is a

407 Cairns (2011) 26. 408 Σ. P. 1.169: εἴ τι καὶ φλαῦρον παραιθύσσει: λείπει ὁ γάρ· ἐὰν γάρ τι καὶ εὐτελὲς παρὰ σοῦ λεχθῇ καὶ ὁρµήσῃ, καὶ τοῦτο µέγα καὶ διὰ πάντων φέρεται. φησὶ δὲ µεγάλα εἶναι τὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων ἁµαρτήµατα, κἂν εὐτελῆ τυγχάνῃ. εἰ καί τι οὖν εὐτελὲς ἁµάρτῃς, τοῦτο µέγιστον ἔσται. 169 friend (92). More importantly, the relationship between Pindar and his patron may not be on equal terms; the poet may put himself above even the tyrant Hieron.

As in the other odes for Hieron, Pindar portrays his relationship with Hieron as being one of friendship. He refers to his praise of Hieron's son as a "friendly song"

(φίλιον...ὕμνον 60), and more directly than in the other odes he addresses Hieron as

"my friend" (ὦ φίλε 92). The verb philein and its derivatives have a very important role in the whole poem. Reciprocity characterises all the relationships mapped out in the ode, whether they be ones of philia or its opposite. Philia is connected with Zeus

(ὅσσα δὲ μὴ πεφίληκε Ζεύς 13), with Hieron (εἴπερ τι φιλεῖς 90), with the relationship between the poet and the patron (µὴ δολωθῇς,/ ὦ φίλε 92), and with his own poem (φίλιον ἐξεύρωμεν ὕμνον 60). Τhe condition of philein, to love, is a condition that brings peace in the city, harmonious music, the beauty of the hymn, and the exercise of virtue. In all contexts in which philein is involved, music is implied. Αs a corollary of philein, we have hymns, praise, music and relationships built on it. But it is not unconditional. One must love things that deserve it, like Zeus does, and not love other things.

In the final part of the ode, where Pindar often devotes attention to his self- positioning as poet, he gives a series of pieces of advice to Hieron that is longer and more direct than in the other odes: μὴ παρίει καλά...νώμα δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ...χάλκευε

γλῶσσαν...εὐανθεῖ δ' ἐν ὀργᾷ παρμένων...μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις...ἐξίει ίστίον

ἀνεμόεν...μὴ δολωθῇς κέρδεσιν εὐτράπελοις (85-92). The paraenetic tone is not only a way of advising someone. In the context of a praise song it is itself praise, however indirect. Following the Bundyist School, one could claim that in this context the second person commands strengthen the praise for the laudandus. The friendly 170 atmosphere, the aim of the ode and the social status of the addressee signal that they are used for Hieron’s benefit. This benefit could be either indirect praise (I command you not to be deceived by gain or not to spend your money without reason, because I know that you have not done something like that. The proof is that you commissioned this ode) or wise advice from someone who is wise, as the poet has presented himself. The advice then is part of the exchange that is given in terms of a gift economy, and creates the impression that the poet speaks freely, without fear of the recipient's reaction, even though he is a tyrant.

This perception of the paraenetic tone is in full accordance with Kurke’s view about the economy of the odes. According to this view, the economy of the ode is based on reciprocity and every term should be understood within the framework of a fully embedded (gift) economy. Most of Pindar's advice here concerns the use of money (μὴ παρίει καλά...μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις...ἐξίει ίστίον ἀνεμόεν...μὴ δολωθῇς

κέρδεσιν εὐτράπελοις 85-92). The advice not to be misled by shameful profit fits

Pindar's typical recommendation that wealth should not be hidden away or stored up,409 and the use of kerdos seems to fit Kurke's view that market profit is always a negative concept.410 Pindar repeatedly encourages Hieron to indulge in lavish expenditure of wealth (e.g. "do not grow too tired of spending" 90), because this will make the polis praise him. This resembles what Kurke sees as a typical demand for megaloprepeia, that which "represents the civic appropriation of aristocratic competitive expenditure, transforming private gift exchange into the public adornment of the city".411 She acknowledges that such spending is conceived of

409 For example, N. 1.31-32; P. 3.110-111. 410 Kurke (1991) 198. 411 Kurke (1991) 148. 171 differently for private citizens and for tyrants. Lavish expenditures by private citizens are always connected with ambitions for tyranny, and Pindar typically deflects such accusations by inviting the polis to participate in communal praise and by invoking the restraining force of phthonos.412 The advice section here also begins with a reference to phthonos (85), but this is not a Pindaric topos, for as Kurke rightly points out, the sentiment "envy is better than pity" "would be unimaginable in a poem commissioned by a private citizen".413 The poet accepts that in the case of tyrants, phthonos is inevitable as a result of the tyrant's superiority, and here envy is not a restraining force but rather one that should encourage further spending. Thus, the relationship of friendship that Pindar demonstrates by addressing Hieron as "my friend" (92) becomes beneficial for the whole polis.

This is the perspective of the negative hermeneutic, which legitimises Hieron’s tyranny, presents as natural his superiority, includes Hieron in an embedded economy and presents Pindar as the poet whose only concern is to fulfil the desires of his patron. However, we can read the passage differently. We can find traces of a positive role for the disembedded economy, and at the same time elements that show that Hieron may not be the most powerful figure in the poem. We can see that kerdos is a term that does not have bad connotations because it is linked with the market economy, but only when it is used for bad purposes, while the word dapane can acquire a very selfish notion. Beginning with the paraenetic tone of the poem, we can trace a hierarchy derived from the repeated second person instructions. Lardinois argues that second person gnomai are used by someone in a position of authority

412 See O. 5.15-16; P. 8.21-24; O. 13.1-5 413 Kurke (1991) 191. 172 over the recipient.414 Moreover, the use of prohibition always implies that the receiver of the command is not stable and may possibly do the wrong thing

(μὴ παρίει καλά, μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις... μὴ δολωθῇς κέρδεσιν εὐτράπελοις). By framing the exchange as one based in the gift economy, Pindar can put himself in a position of authority not safely available to him in a purely disembedded transaction.

The way Pindar refers to money and spending in this section may resemble

Kurke's view, but in fact it can also work very differently. When the poet addresses his patron as friend, we find next to the word "friend" the word "profit" (kerdos), which clearly represents a danger for his patron since he advises him not to be deceived by it. Kurke states that the word kerdos never has a positive meaning in

Pindar unless it is used metaphorically. It is linked with the disembedded (market) economy,415 and refers to profit that does not suit the values of a gift society. In

Pythian 1, the noun is accompanied by an adjective to clarify whether the poet is talking about good or bad profit, that is, it allows room for profit to be neutral, or have a positive function.416 In this context, it is used to represent the opposite of dapane, expenditure, suggesting that if kerdos is to be understood within the framework of a disembedded economy, so also is dapane. Pindar encourages Hieron to indulge in dapane if he wants to be praised:

εἴπερ τι φιλεῖς ἀκοὰν ἁδεῖαναἰεὶ κλύειν, μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις, "if indeed you love always to hear pleasant things said about you, do not grow too tired of spending"

(90). Kurke argues that dapane is usually used in a context of aristocratic competition, for instance, where aristocrats compete for prestige within the city by

414 Lardinois (1997) 227. 415 Kurke (1991) 198. 416 Wealth is beneficial only when the patron spends money in order to be praised in an ode. In this case, profit does not acquire a vulgar meaning (I. 1.51; I. 5.27). 173 public gift-giving.417 However, in this ode, Hieron, as tyrant, has no competitors in prestige within the city, and the money he is encouraged to spend is not for the public benefit, but for his own individualistic goals, specifically, the money he should spend in order to acquire personal fame and poetic immortality (92). The focus on spending money on poetry is indicated by the subsequent and final section of the poem that refers to a man's fame as subject matter for tales and song (καὶ λογίοις καὶ ἀοιδοῖς

94) and the negative exemplum of Phalaris whom no-one praises in song.

Thus, as in Isthmian 2, Pindar does not need to hide the commodity aspect of his poem nor the disembedded (market) aspect of his relationship with Hieron. The high market value of his poem and Hieron's ability to spend liberally on it are in fact aspects that enhance the prestige of both parties. Kerdos is not necessarily negative and is even necessary if wealth is to be acquired to buy prestige items. Hieron's dapane is not to show megaloprepeia for the community's sake, but for his own individual purposes to acquire the praise he deserves because of his arete:

παίδεσσιν ὕμνον Δεινομένευς τελέσαις,/ τὸν ἐδέξαντ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀρετᾷ, πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν

καμόντων, "I shall pay to Deinomenes’ sons the tribute of my hymn, which they won through arête, when the enemies where defeated" (79-80). It may be a commodity but it also has the most important characteristic of gifts, that of inalienability. It functions as an emblem for the holder, and at the same time a symbol of power and hierarchy. Ultimately, it will give him the most inalienable possession of all, that of immortality (τὸ δὲ παθεῖν εὖ πρῶτον ἄθλων· εὖ δ᾽ ἀκούειν δευτέρα

μοῖρ᾽· ἀμφοτέροισι δ᾽ ἀνὴρ/ ὃςἂν ἐγκύρσῃ, καὶ ἕλῃ, στέφανον ὕψιστον δέδεκται,

"success is the first of prizes; and renown is the second portion; but a man who meets

417 Kurke (1991) 86-87. 174 with both and gains them has won the highest crown" 99-100). The poet's misthos is paid for the ode as commodity, as well as part of a gift exchange, ἀρέομαι/

πὰρ μὲν Σαλαμῖνος, Ἀθαναίων χάριν,/ μισθόν (75-77). Thus, Pindar's guidance, and the whole ode, is framed in such a way that it tries to attach the ethics of the gift economy to the operation of market transactions.

Pythian 3: A moral lesson

Introduction

The circumstances of Pythian 3's composition remain uncertain and much debated.

The performance location is Sicily, but whether in Syracuse or Aitna is unclear.418

There is disagreement about the date of its composition and the date of its first performance. It is also unclear which athletic occasion is being celebrated, if any at all, and in turn this causes problems in determining the poem's purpose and genre.

The ode must have been classified as a Pythian ode because of the reference to

Pherenicus' past victories at the Pythian Games (72-74). One minority view is that the poem celebrates these two victories and dates to before 476 BC. This is based on information in the scholia that Hieron was victorious at Delphi in 482 BC and 478

BC.419 Within the poem, however, Pherenicus' races are assigned to the more distant past (ποτε 74) and so are unlikely to be the subject of this ode. An additional argument is that there is not in the ode any indication of the victory at Olympia in

476 BC, but this is not a very persuasive point as Pindar does not always mention

418 See P. 3.69 Ἀρέθοισαν ἐπὶ κράναν παρ’ Αἰτναῖον ξένον. 419 Σ. P. 3 inscr.a.b; P. 1 inscr.a. See Farnell (1932) 135; Duchemin (1970) 82; Young (1983) 31-42. 175

Hieron's earlier victories.420 Better opposing evidence is found in the poem's reference to Hieron as Αἰτναῖος ξένος "my Aitnaean host" (69). The epithet probably refers to the foundation of Aitna, so I use 476 BC as the terminus post quem.421

The majority of scholars are in favour of a date after 476 BC. They view the poem not as celebrating a victory, since no recent victory is mentioned, but rather as consolatory, in keeping with its overall tone, either for a failure at the Games or for failing health (or both). Two dates have been put forward as possible, both depending on a reading of Bacchylides' fourth ode: 474 BC and 470 BC. Bacchylides' fourth ode (11-14) refers to Hieron's failure at the Games, and on this reading, reminding

Hieron of Pherenicus' previous victories (72-74) is part of this consolation.422

Cingano represents the view that this failure refers to the Pythian Games of 474

BC and so Pythian 3 functions as consolation for this loss.423 On this dating, it would be reasonable to make a reference to the very recent Battle of Cumae of 474 BC,424 but the absence of any military victory could be explained by the fact that the ode has a different character. The atmosphere of the poem is sober, melancholic and has a tone of defeat. Pindar is not focused on the warlike character of Hieron, on the contrary, he describes Hieron as the father and gentle king for his subjects (71).

Gallavotti suggests that the ode is consolation for Hieron's failure in the single-horse race in 470 BC, and that this is the loss referred to in Bacchylides 4.11-14.425 In this

420 Robbins (1990) 308. 421 Burton (1962) 78-79. But the epithet Aitnaios may refer to the famous mountain. See Luraghi (1994) 339. 422 Burton (1962) 80. 423 Cingano (1991) 97-107. 424 The absence of any reference to the most important Panhellenic achievement of Hieron, the Battle of Cumae, is the strongest argument for those who date the ode after the foundation of Aitna and before the Battle of Cumae. See Gentili et al. (1995) 81; Cingano (1991a) 103 n.24. 425 Gallavotti (1944) 18. 176 year, Hieron took part in two events. He won the chariot event, for which Pythian 1 was composed, and Pythian 3 was composed for the single-horse race.

There is no definitive argument for either date, but I am in favour of the later date of 470 BC. The ode's tone and concerns are more appropriate for and relevant to the final years of Hieron's rule and life, and Hieron died in 467 BC. The issue of

Hieron's illness seems central to at least the first part of the ode, as suggested by the use of Chiron and Asclepius, the poet's wish to bring "golden health" to Hieron, and comments in the scholia. We do not know when Hieron's illness began but there is no reference to it in Olympian 1, dated to 472 BC, whereas it is suggested by the use of

Philoctetes in Pythian 1, dated to 470 BC. It is reasonable to suppose that Pindar might avoid any reference to illness in Olympian 1's depiction of an ideal king.

Nonetheless, Pythian 3's emphasis on the acceptance of fate and mortality, especially in the second half, is more suited to a date close to the end of Hieron's life than to the earlier options. Moreover, the depiction of Hieron as a caring and gentle ruler does not match the emphasis on his powerful kingship found in the earlier odes, but is much closer to the softened image of the later Pythian 1.

The problem of the poem's date and occasion is connected with the problem of its genre.426 Pythian 3 follows the format of an epinikion and includes the three basic elements of the genre: reference to the victor’s life, myth, and moralising.427 Despite the form, there are significant differences from other epinician odes. It is the only ode in which Pindar does not praise a recent victory at the Games. As mentioned above, the victories of Pherenicus in 72-74 belong to a more distant past. The

426 The ode as consolation for illness: Mezger (1880) 64–66 and Burton (1962) 78–80. The ode as consolation for defeat at the Games: Wilamowitz (1922) 283 (P. 3 as a poetic epistle which replaces the victory ode); Cingano (1991a) (connecting the ode with Bacchylides 4.11–14); Robbins (1990) 312. 427 Willcock (1995) 12. 177 dominant tone throughout is consolatory rather than celebratory, and it includes an unusually high level of admonition.428 For these reasons, Nagy argues that it is not an epinikion in the strict sense of the term.429 Wilamowitz also claims that it cannot be an epinician ode and calls it a "poetic epistle" sent by Pindar to console his sick friend,430 but there are no other examples of this poetic genre in Pindar’s time.431

Whether we see the ode as praising, consoling, admonishing, or all three, what is important is the status, the cultural capital, of epinician poetry. As Morgan observes, epinikion "was an accepted style of commemoration whose conventions anchored the laudandus in Panhellenic ethics and accomplishment and thus helped to domesticate him".432

In Pythian 3, Hieron is explicitly praised as a king. Unlike the depiction of

Hieron the king as absolute master in Olympian 1, here he is extolled for quieter kingly virtues, as one who loves his subjects and is very gentle with them (71).433

The picture may be adjusted to suit better a ruler of failing health, but it may also be part of the modifications to his image to fit the Panhellenic aspirations of his later years. The relationship between the poet and patron is that of xenia (69), but here, as in Pythian 1, although Pindar does not advise him in the second person,434 he becomes Hieron’s advisor indirectly and tactfully and puts himself in a superior position.

ἤθελον Χείρωνά κε Φιλλυρίδαν,

428 Pindar expanded the genre by using the content of didactic poetry and sometimes even the language. See Currie (2005) 24. 429 Nagy (1990) 142. 430 Wilamowitz (1922) 280. 431 Young (1983) 33. 432 Morgan (2015) 271. 433 Odysseus is also called ἡπιος as a characteristic of a good king (Od. 2.234; 5.12). 434 When someone addresses another in the second person and offers gnomai or moral lessons, he is usually a person with authority over the addressee. See Lardinois (1997) 229. 178

εἰ χρεὼν τοῦθ᾽ ἁμετέρας ἀπὸ γλώσσας κοινὸν εὔξασθαι ἔπος, ζώειν τὸν ἀποιχόμενον, Οὐρανίδα γόνον εὐρυμέδοντα Κρόνου, βάσσαισί τ᾽ ἄρχειν Παλίου Φῆρ᾽ ἀγρότερον, νοῦν ἔχοντ᾽ ἀνδρῶν φίλον: οἷος ἐὼν θρέψεν ποτὲ τέκτονα νωδυνίας ἥμερον γυιαρκέος Ἀσκλήπιον, ἥρωα παντοδαπᾶν ἀλκτῆρα νούσων. (1-7) I would/could wish that Chiron—if it is right for my tongue to utter that common prayer—were still living, the departed son of Philyra and wide-ruling offspring of Uranus’ son Cronus, and still reigned in Pelion’s glades, that wild creature who had a mind friendly to men. I would have him be as he was when he once reared the gentle craftsman of body-strengthening relief from pain, Asclepius, the hero and protector from diseases of all sorts.

The ode is structured into two inseparable parts. The first part (1-76) is a presentation of a utopian and unattainable wish for Chiron to be alive, which leads in the second part to a realistic hope of the acceptance of human mortality and the possibility of immortality through poetry. The path to the realistic hope comes by exploring the possibilities of the unattainable wish via the mythological examples of Coronis and

Asclepius to show that the unattainable is in fact also inappropriate and undesirable.435 Thus, the first part of the ode "performs" a person whose mind leads him to wish for inappropriate things and, step by step, through the mythological examples, reaches the point at which he can, in the second part, "perform" a wise person. The wish is indeed made, and at the end of the first part, Pindar expresses the theoretical consequences of the fulfilment of the original wish, i.e. it gives us the reason for the wish and what Pindar offers in return.436 But after the wise persona has

435 The wish begins with a reference to Chiron, who is connected with Asclepius, who leads to Coronis, then back to Asclepius and finally back to Chiron, creating a ring form. 436 I follow Pelliccia (1987) 40-46, who argues that Pindar does not refuse to make such a wish—for Chiron to be alive—but uses an "unattainable wish" to construct his poem, and that line 2 is a parenthetical conditional clause which refers to the propriety of the wish. He reads the missing verb as the present tense εἰμι and states that "Pindar arranges the poem so as to make himself appear to discover, in the course of presenting the exempla (part of the topos as inherited from Homer) and as a result of it, the arguments for spurning the wish and facing up to the hic et nunc (also traditional)." This is not in accordance with Young’s observation (1968) 33-34 that the poem up to line 76 is a recusatio for the rest of it, and so the poet never makes such a wish 179 examined the ethical consequences through the mythological examples of Coronis and Asclepius, a second solution will be provided to the laudandus.437

Coronis τὸν μὲν εὐίππου Φλεγύα θυγάτηρ πρὶν τελέσσαι ματροπόλῳ σὺν Ἐλειθυίᾳ, δαμεῖσα χρυσέοις τόξοισιν ὕπ’ Ἀρτέμιδος εἰς Ἀΐδα δόμον ἐν θαλάμῳ κατέβα, τέχναις Ἀπόλλωνος. χόλος δ’ οὐκ ἀλίθιος γίνεται παίδων Διός. ἁ δ’ ἀποφλαυρίξαισά νιν ἀμπλακίαισι φρενῶν, ἄλλον αἴνησεν γάμον κρύβδαν πατρός, πρόσθεν ἀκερσεκόμᾳ μιχθεῖσα Φοίβῳ, καὶ φέροισα σπέρμα θεοῦ καθαρόν οὐκ ἔμειν’ ἐλθεῖν τράπεζαν νυμφίαν, οὐδὲ παμφώνων ἰαχὰν ὑμεναίων, ἅλικες οἷα παρθένοι φιλέοισιν ἑταῖραι ἑσπερίαις ὑποκουρίζεσθ’ ἀοιδαῖς· ἀλλά τοι ἤρατο τῶν ἀπεόντων· οἷα καὶ πολλοὶ πάθον. ἔστι δὲ φῦλον ἐν ἀνθρώποισι ματαιότατον, ὅστις αἰσχύνων ἐπιχώρια παπταίνει τὰ πόρσω, μεταμώνια θηρεύων ἀκράντοις ἐλπίσιν. ἔσχε τοι ταύταν μεγάλαν ἀυάταν καλλιπέπλου λῆμα Κορωνίδος· ἐλθόντος γὰρ εὐνάσθη ξένου λέκτροισιν ἀπ’ Ἀρκαδίας. οὐδ’ ἔλαθε σκοπόν· ἐν δ’ ἄρα μηλοδόκῳ Πυθῶνι τόσσαις ἄϊεν ναοῦ βασιλεύς Λοξίας, κοινᾶνι παρ’ εὐθυτάτῳ γνώμαν πιθών, πάντα ἰσάντι νόῳ· ψευδέων δ’ οὐχ ἅπτεται, κλέπτει τέ μιν οὐ θεὸς οὐ βροτὸς ἔργοις οὔτε βουλαῖς. καὶ τότε γνοὺς Ἴσχυος Εἰλατίδα ξεινίαν κοίταν ἄθεμίν τε δόλον, πέμψεν κασιγνήταν μένει θυίοισαν ἀμαιμακέτῳ ἐς Λακέρειαν, ἐπεὶ παρὰ Βοιβιάδος κρημνοῖσιν ᾤκει παρθένος· δαίμων δ’ ἕτερος ἐς κακὸν τρέψαις ἐδαμάσσατό νιν, καὶ γειτόνων πολλοὶ ἐπαῦρον, ἁμᾶ δ’ ἔφθαρεν· πολλὰν δ’ {ἐν} ὄρει πῦρ ἐξ ἑνός σπέρματος ἐνθορὸν ἀΐστωσεν ὕλαν. (8-37) Before the daughter of the horseman Phlegyas could bring him to term with the help of Eleithyia, goddess of childbirth, she was overcome by the golden arrows of Artemis in her chamber and went down to the House of Hades through Apollo’s designs. The anger of Zeus’ children is no vain thing. Yet she made light of it in the folly of her mind and unknown to her father consented to another union, although she had previously lain with long-haired Phoebus, and was carrying the god’s pure seed. But she would not wait for the marriage feast to come or

437 Halliwell (2008) 205 supports the view that there are two "speakers" in the poem. The first speaker voices the wishes of someone who is like Hieron and seeks a cure. The second speaker is the voice of Chiron, the wise voice, who shows the right way by his own life, and this way is voiced in the second part of the poem. This means that the unattainable wish is made and not refused, but effectively granted by resurrecting a Chironic voice in Pindar's poem. Currie (2005) 352 notes that "The examples of Coronis and Asklepios seem to have problematised the laudator’s wish-fantasy, but not to have silenced or quashed it". 180

for the sound of full-voiced nuptial hymns with such endearments as unmarried companions are wont to utter in evening songs. No, she was in love with things remote—such longings as many others have suffered, for there is among mankind a very foolish kind of person, who scorns what is at hand and peers at things far away, chasing the impossible with hopes unfulfilled. Indeed, headstrong Coronis of the beautiful robes fell victim to that great delusion, for she slept in the bed of a stranger, who came from Arcadia. But she did not elude the watching god, for although he was in flock-receiving Pytho as lord of his temple, Loxias perceived it, convinced by the surest confidant, his all-known mind. He does not deal in falsehoods, and neither god nor mortal deceives him by deeds or designs. And at this time, when he knew of her sleeping with the xenos Ischys, son of Elatus, and her impious deceit, he sent his sister raging with irresistible force to Lacereia, for the maiden was living by the banks of Lake Boebias. An adverse fortune turned her to ruin and overcame her; and many neighbours shared her fate and perished with her. Fire that springs from one spark onto a mountain can destroy a great forest.

As in all the odes for Hieron, Pindar begins with negative mythological exempla. The first exemplum is Asclepius' mother, Coronis, who is killed in her bedroom by the arrows of Artemis at Apollo's instigation (8-20). She is punished because she slept with a mortal man, Ischys, despite already being pregnant by Apollo. The cause of this transgression is assigned to a mental mistake (ἁ δ’ ἀποφλαυρίξαισά νιν

ἀμπλακίαισι φρενῶν 13). This in turn is characterised as a desire for what is absent or distant (20), and then generalised as a human error by means of a gnome: "for there is among mankind a very foolish type of person (φῦλον), who scorns what is at hand and peers at things far away, chasing the impossible with hopes unfulfilled"

(21-3). Her crime is blackened by being labelled as deceptive towards both man

(κρύβδαν πατρός 13) and god (ἄθεμιν τε δόλον 32), but also as a violation and indeed rejection of the rituals that bind communities of men (τρᾶπεζαν νυμφίαν 16) and articulate mortal relationships with gods (παμφώνων ἰαχἀν ὑμεναίων 17).

In order to understand the significance of the Coronis' story in the poem, it will be helpful to consider first the several ways in which her case is parallel to the mythological exempla offered in previous odes to Hieron, that is, Ixion in Pythian 2 and Tantalus and Pelops in Olympian 1. In many cases, this parallelism is reinforced by a number of verbal resonances. Both Ixion and Coronis were driven by a 181 transgressive sexual desire for what they did not have (ἤρατο τῶν ἀπεόντων P. 3.20 and Ἡρας ἐράσσατο P. 2.26), which was the result of an error in judgement

(ἀμπλακίαισι φρενῶν P. 3.13 and αἱ δύο ἀμπλακίαι P. 2.30), and their demise had a negative impact on their wider community also.438 In Olympian 2, Tantalus’ crime is not sexual, but he too has a transgressive desire in wanting to share the nectar and ambrosia with his mortal community.439 All three transgressors experience a delusional state (μεγάλαν ἀυάταν P. 3.24, ἀυάταν ὑπεράφανον P. 2.28, ἀταν

ὑπέροπλον O. 1.57). Deception plays a key role in all three violations (δόλον P. 3.32 and P. 2.39, κλέψαις Ο. 1.60, and κλέπτειν P. 3.29), but the gods see everything and have direct knowledge of mortal transgressions.440 All three had previously enjoyed a special and very close relationship with the divine,441 but commit an offence against the gods and violate ritualised reciprocity.442 In Olympian 2, Pelops represents an exemplum contrary to Coronis, and also Tantalus. He too is a mortal in an erotic relationship with a god but acts with perfect reciprocity in order to obtain marriage to a mortal.

In all these cases, the transgressors break the terms of reciprocity. Coronis’ case, however, is more complicated, as she does not take part in any kind of

438 The actions of Coronis bring death not only to herself but also to her neighbours. By Apollo’s design, Artemis unleashes her arrows on the whole town, and she causes death even to innocent people. See Morrison (2007) 96 and Morgan (2015) 278. 439 Morgan (2015) 277. 440 The gods are called σκοποί (O. 1.54) like Apollo in Pythian 3 (σκοπόν 27). Both Tantalus’ and Coronis’ transgressions were noticed by the "watcher(s)" although they believed they could escape their attention: ἔλπεταί / <τι> λαθέμεν ἔρδων (O. 1.64) and οὐδ’ ἔλαθε σκοπόν (P. 3.27). See Morgan (2015) 277. Note that Hesiod's Apollo is informed about Coronis' transgression by a raven, whereas Apollo in Pindar learns from his "all-knowing mind" (29). See Burton (1962) 84, Young (1968) 36. In so doing, Pindar stresses the omniscience of the gods in opposition to the ignorance of mortals. 441 Medda (1989) 297-300 analyses the special situation of a mortal when s/he is very close to the gods. The closer the god is to the human being, the more the latter should understand the gap between them and the divine cosmos. 442 In the case of Coronis, the violation of ritual reciprocity (not participating in marriage rites) is clearly significant as here Pindar diverges from the epic tradition in which she does go through the ritual of marriage to Ischys. 182 exchange, at least not in an obvious exchange. In ancient societies, the institution of marriage functions within the terms of a gift economy as an exchange between two men, that is, between the current and future owner of the bride. In the ritual of marriage, both active parties, the groom and the father—or guardian of the bride— exchange gifts. As anthropologists have shown, the bride is a passive part of the exchange and is the most important gift.443 The bride does not constitute an autonomous person or one of the parties of the exchange, but is an object that enhances their social institutions, promises immortality through procreation and expands one's estate. Coronis and Ischys have a pre-nuptial union secretly from her father. This constitutes a transgression by Coronis but also by the groom. By calling the groom xenos (ξένου 25, ξεινίαν 32), Pindar underlines the fact that the violation here is one against xenia. Disruption of this institution leads to disruption of the ritual of marriage. The wedding songs are not heard; music does not accompany the event and thus grace is absent.

But this is a compound violation, for the divine is directly involved, and in more than their capacity as guardians of xenia. Even if the proper marriage ritual between xenoi had been performed, it would still have been a transgressive act because the body of Coronis did not belong to her father either, but rather to Apollo.

In fact, Coronis was not just his possession but his inalienable possession, and her body carried the seed of the god inside, another inalienable possession of Apollo.

Thus, as in the case of Tantalus and Ixion, there is an attempt to violate the inalienable possessions of the gods, and give them to a mortal owner. Anything that belongs to the gods cannot be passed on to humans indiscriminately or the hierarchy

443 Levi-Strauss (1969) 65. 183 will be disrupted. Inalienable possessions cannot be given to anyone else other than returned to the original owner, the only one who has a right to them. Thus, Apollo has the right to dispose of Coronis as he wishes and to save Asclepius.444

This is how we can understand the economics of the crime from the perspective of the males involved. But Pindar presents the story from the perspective of Coronis as agent, and this points to a significant difference between Coronis and the other transgressors. Coronis acts as if her body is her own possession and she can give it to whomever she wants. The choice she makes is based upon a valuation and done out of self-interest. She puts a low value on Apollo (αποφλαυρίξαισά νιν 22), and thus values Ischys more. This is more than a desire for what is absent or distant.

The gnome of 21-24 talks of relative values, of giving a higher estimation to what is far away than what is nearby. This is the perspective of merchant traders for whom wares brought from afar are more valuable than local ones. Thus, in exchanging herself for an item of higher value to her than Apollo, Coronis' action works in accordance with market calculations. The myth suggests that when market calculations override other considerations, community breakdown occurs.

Asclepius ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τείχει θέσαν ἐν ξυλίνῳ σύγγονοι κούραν, σέλας δ’ ἀμφέδραμεν λάβρον Ἁφαίστου, τότ’ ἔειπεν Ἀπόλλων· ‘Οὐκέτι τλάσομαι ψυχᾷ γένος ἁμὸν ὀλέσσαι οἰκτροτάτῳ θανάτῳ ματρὸς βαρείᾳ σὺν πάθᾳ.’ ὣς φάτο· βάματι δ’ ἐν πρώτῳ κιχὼν παῖδ’ ἐκ νεκροῦ ἅρπασε· καιομένα δ’ αὐτῷ διέφαινε πυρά. καί ῥά νιν Μάγνητι φέρων πόρε Κενταύρῳ διδάξαι

444 Note that the verb used for her punishment is ἐδαμάσσατό which means at the same time "kill" and "tame", a verb usually found in scenes of erotic pursuit and rape. See Tsitsibakou-Vasalos (2010) 32. Thus here, the death of Coronis is equivalent to her repossession by Apollo, represented as a re- enactment of his original taking possession. 184

πολυπήμονας ἀνθρώποισιν ἰᾶσθαι νόσους. τοὺς μὲν ὦν, ὅσσοι μόλον αὐτοφύτων ἑλκέων ξυνάονες, ἢ πολιῷ χαλκῷ μέλη τετρωμένοι ἢ χερμάδι τηλεβόλῳ, ἢ θερινῷ πυρὶ περθόμενοι δέμας ἢ χειμῶνι, λύσαις ἄλλον ἀλλοίων ἀχέων ἔξαγεν, τοὺς μὲν μαλακαῖς ἐπαοιδαῖς ἀμφέπων, τοὺς δὲ προσανέα πίνοντας, ἢ γυίοις περάπτων πάντοθεν φάρμακα, τοὺς δὲ τομαῖς ἔστασεν ὀρθούς. ἀλλὰ κέρδει καὶ σοφία δέδεται. ἔτραπεν καὶ κεῖνον ἀγάνορι μισθῷ χρυσὸς ἐν χερσὶν φανείς ἄνδρ’ ἐκ θανάτου κομίσαι ἤδη ἁλωκότα· χερσὶ δ’ ἄρα Κρονίων ῥίψαις δι’ ἀμφοῖν ἀμπνοὰν στέρνων κάθελεν ὠκέως, αἴθων δὲ κεραυνὸς ἐνέσκιμψεν μόρον. χρὴ τὰ ἐοικότα πὰρ δαιμόνων μαστευέμεν θναταῖς φρασίν γνόντα τὸ πὰρ ποδός, οἵας εἰμὲν αἴσας. (38-60) But when her relatives had placed the girl within the pyre’s wooden wall and fierce blaze of Hephaestus ran around it, then Apollo said ‘’No longer shall I endure in my soul to destroy my own offspring by a most pitiful death along with his mother’s heavy suffering.’’ Thus he spoke, and with his first stride came and snatched the child from the corpse, while the burning flame parted for him. He took him and gave him to the Magnesian Centaur for instruction in healing the diseases that plague men. Now all who came to him afflicted with natural sores or with limbs wounded by gray bronze or by a far-flung stone, or with bodies wracked by summer fever or winter chill, he received of their various ills and restored them; some he tended with calming incantations, while others drank soothing potions, or he applied remedies to all parts of their bodies; still others he raised up with surgery. But even wisdom is enthralled to gain. Gold appearing in his hands with its lordly wage prompted even him to bring back from death a man already carried off. But then, with a cast from his hands, Cronus’ son took the breath of both men’s breasts in an instant; the flash of lighting hurled down doom. It is necessary to seek what is proper from the gods with our mortal minds, by knowing what lies at our feet and what kind of destiny is ours.

Apollo decides to rescue Asclepius, his inalienable possession (γένος ἀμὸν 41) from death by fire with Coronis. It is important to note that he rescues him from the fire, he does not bring him back from the dead. The moment is dramatised by the sudden epiphany of the god, his thoughts in direct speech (40-42) and his rapid actions. It is clear that the god is still sensitive to the needs of mankind as he sends his son to

Chiron, the wise centaur, to be educated in healing human diseases and wounds.445

Whatever method Asclepius used (drugs, incantations or surgery) was always successful, which gives the impression that mankind has returned to a time when

445 Race (1986) 55. 185 illnesses were absent.446 Pindar does not blame the art of healing,447 on the contrary, he praises the art, but it is the way it is practiced that is under consideration.448 Pindar himself dedicates seven lines to glorifying Asclepius’ ability to cure people (47-53).

The days of relief do not last for a long time. In line 54, a gnome leads us to

Asclepius’ transgression: "Even wisdom (sophia) can be bound by the prospect of gain (kerdos)." In this case, Asclepius is persuaded by the prospect of immediate gold (χρυσὸς ἐν χερσίν 55) as payment (ἀγάνορι μισθῷ 55) to revive a dead man.449

For this crime, he is immediately killed by Zeus’ thunderbolts. The myth ends with another gnome summarising the moral lesson of both myths that Hieron, the poet himself, and the audience should learn: we must desire only things that are appropriate for humans, things that are at our feet, and we must always know our destiny.450

The Asclepius myth has much in common with that of Coronis, and of Tantalus in Olympian 1. All three have a privileged relationship with the divine (Asclepius as

Apollo’s son) as a consequence of which they receive a special gift from the gods

(for Asclepius, the power to heal) that is their inalienable possession.451 All commit the crime of violating reciprocity by sharing their inalienable possession with others

446 In Hesiod’s Works and Days (90-105), before Pandora’s misdeed, people lived without sickness. See Morgan (2015) 279. 447 In Pythian 4, the image of the healer is completely different: ἐσσὶ δ᾽ ἰατὴρ ἐπικαιρότατος, (271). Arcesilaus’ leadership capacity is praised by the use of metaphor; he was as good as a "healer with a perfect sense of timing". 448 Kosak (2004) 25. 449 Pindar avoids giving any detail about the dead man or the person who bribed Asclepius, but there are sources that give various names to the man (Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.10.3). Instead, he concentrates on Asclepius and his transgression. See Young (1968) 44 n.2. 450 θναταῖς φρασίν in line 59 recalls line 13 ἀμπλακίαισι φρενῶν of Coronis. 451 The dead man is described as ἤδη ἁλωκότα 57, "already been taken possession of", which may hint at the commercial notion that he has already been entered into Hades’ balance books. 186 not entitled to it.452 In the case of Asclepius and Tantalus, both gifts involve the power to make mortals immortal and thus their crime against reciprocity is also a violation of the hierarchy between gods and men at the most fundamental level. But there is an additional dimension to Asclepius’ transgression. We are not told the cause of Tantalus’ crime, but Coronis’ act is attributed to a mental error, one that made wrong evaluations of relationships, that in turn produced a desire for the wrong things based on self-interest. In the case of Asclepius, there is also a mental error, indicated by the reference to the binding of his sophia (23), and in the gnomic advice directed at the mind (θναταῖς φρασίν 59).453 Here, the poet is more explicit that the mental error was based on an issue of value and self-interest when he states that

Asclepius acted for kerdos, gain, specified as payment in gold.454 Asclepius would have been guilty of the crime of violating reciprocity and resurrecting the dead whether he had taken payment for this or not. By taking money on this occasion,

Asclepius opts out of the gift economy and into the framework of a disembedded

(market) economy, that is, as part of a normal commodity transaction.

452 Both Coronis’ neighbours and the dead man whom Asclepius had resurrected suffer death along with the offenders, thus suggesting that disruption and destruction of society occurs when the laws of reciprocity are disturbed. 453 These lines recall the story of Coronis: παρ ποδός (60) corresponds to ἐπιχώρια (22). Mortals should seek (μαστευέμεν 59 and παπταίνει 22) what is proper from the gods. See Young (1968) 43. 454 There is a long discussion about the ethics of the art of medicine and its connection with money. In Euripides’ Electra (426-428), we find an indication about the connection between money and health. Money is a source of power even to keep one's body healthy. In Aristophanes, there is another implication of physicians’ greediness: "Must we not go and seek a physician? Seek physicians at Athens? Oh! There is no art where there is no fee" (Plutus 407-408). During this time, it is possible the state used to pay doctors to offer public care to people, especially in war periods or when epidemics threatened the city. In Herodotus (3.131), we are told that Democedes of Croton was a famous physician who was paid first by Aegina, then moved to Athens where he was given a very good salary, and then to Polycrates of Samos. The ethical dimension, however, which clearly concerns money and the proper attitude of the physicians is found mostly in later sources. For the fees of the physicians and the ethical perspective, see Petridou, Thumiger (2016) esp. Part 5. 187

Coronis, Asclepius, Hieron, and the poet μή, φίλα ψυχά, βίον ἀθάνατον σπεῦδε, τὰν δ’ ἔμπρακτον ἄντλει μαχανάν. εἰ δὲ σώφρων ἄντρον ἔναι’ ἔτι Χίρων, καί τί οἱ φίλτρον <ἐν> θυμῷ μελιγάρυες ὕμνοι ἁμέτεροι τίθεν, ἰατῆρά τοί κέν νιν πίθον καί νυν ἐσλοῖσι παρασχεῖν ἀνδράσιν θερμᾶν νόσων ἤ τινα Λατοΐδα κεκλημένον ἢ πατέρος. (61-67) Do not, my soul strive for the life of the immortals, exhaust the practical means at your disposal. Yet if wise Chiron were still living in his cave, and if my honey-sounding hymns could put a charm in his heart, I would surely have persuaded him to provide a healer now as well to cure the feverish illness of good men, someone called a son of Apollo or Zeus.

The two mythological exempla are followed by the poet’s first person address to his own soul in which he voices a final lesson: μή... βίον ἀθάνατον/ σπεῦδε, τὰν δ’

ἔμπρακτον ἄντλει μαχανάν (61-62). This is followed by a wish that it were possible for him to bring a healer together with a victory song to Hieron. Since healing itself is not presented as improper in the mythological section, the implication is that

Hieron’s illness seems incurable.455 The two men who could cure Hieron are dead, and so healing is connected with the resurrection of either Asclepius or Chiron.

Pindar could convince Chiron, if he were alive, to heal Hieron, but the wise Chiron has died (εἰ δὲ σώφρων ἄντρον ἔναι’ ἔτι Χείρων 63),456 and his wisdom includes the acceptance of death. By showing the impropriety of such a wish, Pindar indirectly underlines that it would be ethically improper for Hieron to wish for it.457 So, in lines

61-62, the address to his soul is a poetical device according to which the poet voices the probable thoughts of his patron in order to correct his desires. His ethical advice

455 As Chiron’s own wound was incurable, according to tradition (Apoll. 2.5.4). Chiron was poisoned by an arrow and, although he was a legendary healer, he could not cure himself. 456 In this passage, I translate sophron as "wise" and not "moderate", following Race (1997) and North (1948), 307 n.8. For Pearson (1962) 85, Sophrosyne is the intelligence that enables one to foresee the consequences of one’s actions. I agree with Cairns that the term does not denotes a "purely intellectual kind of 'good sense' " Cairns (1993) 177 n.109. Here, Chiron is also the opposite of Asclepius; he did not misuse sophia (54) in order to pursue kerdos, and he did not suffer from lack of knowledge about what is proper and what is not (60). The term includes techne, the proper use of it, and knowledge of mortal limits, so it is something more than being moderate in mind. 457 Young (1968) 31. 188 is a combination of the γνῶθι σεαυτόν motif in μή... βίον ἀθάνατον/ σπεῦδε,458 and a carpe diem motif in τὰν δ’ ἔμπρακτον ἄντλει μαχανάν.

If we consider the exempla in economic terms for the positive hermeneutic, what they warn against is a system of economic valuation which destroys or undermines the current ideology and leads to the accumulation of economic power in the hands of those who feel no obligation to that ideological system. What Hieron could, but should not do—according to the mythological exempla—is attempt to rupture the institution of reciprocity and to exclude himself from the gift society, acting by his preference according to the morality of a disembedded (market) economy in which profit is a commercialised concept. Rather, he should turn his attention to the beneficial aspect of gain, which requires spending money (in the proper way) and not accumulating it. A similar notion is also expressed in Isthmian

1: εὐαγορηθεὶς κέρδος ὕψιστον δέκεται, πολιατᾶν καὶ ξένων γλώσσας ἄωτον (51).

With regard to Pindar’s situation, a commodified world would reduce his relationship with Hieron to the material-economic aspect of the transaction, would convert the poet into merely a craftsman producing a purchasable commodity, and would thus destroy the cultural value of the poem.459 It is precisely this cultural value that Hieron seeks to acquire since, although Pindar cannot offer physical immortality, he can offer immortality through poetry.460 Thus, Hieron should sacrifice money (the economic implication of τὰν δ’ ἔμπρακτον ἄντλει μαχανάν 62) with a view to the gain that is derived from poetry. The poet is not paid, instead he offers a gift to his

458 Burton (1962) 85. 459 The parallel between the art of healing and the art of poetry has another dimension, that of fees. Contemporary sources are few but it can be said that the involvement of money and gain in a service for the public benefit assigns an inferior place to one who exercises this art. Personal gain is always an obstacle to proper estimation by one's fellow-citizens. 460 Kurke (1991) 228-239. 189

"host" respecting the institution of xenia (Αἰτναῖον ξένον 69), thus reinscribing his relationship with Hieron into the gift economy.

As usual, Pindar presents his poem as a gift given to the patron based on the reciprocity laws, and thus an embodiment of the xenia relationship between them.

Within the ode, there are two exempla of the use of gift rituals to express relationships, both involving marriage.461 The positive one is represented by the gods giving ἕδνα to Cadmus and Peleus as an acknowledgement of their new relationship through marriage. The negative one is where Coronis hubristically gives herself in marriage to Ischys without the usual bonding rituals of gifts, feasts and music, and in this she represents the counter-example to Pindar's gift.

Coronis is a gift given secretly (13), whereas the poem is offered publicly by

Pindar. Coronis' act was not sanctioned by any reciprocal rituals, and was done without songs, whereas if the poet went to Syracuse he would offer the poem to

Hieron with honours (73), and currently enjoys the night-time maiden choruses (78-

79). Coronis' role in marriage is to offer her mortal husband a form of immortality through procreation, but children are not an unproblematic form of immortality as the examples of Asclepius, Cadmus and Peleus show. Pindar's gift offers a more reliable form of immortality: kleos in song. Coronis and the Pindaric persona of the first part make a similar error in judgement in their desire for what is absent or distant. The desire to bring the dead Chiron back to life (τὸν ἀποιχόμενον 3) recalls the desire of

Coronis (τῶν ἀπεόντων 22). But Pindar learns from Coronis' mistakes and indeed his

461 Gift-exchange imagery drawn from marriage is not common in Pindar, as has been noted by Kurke, however, it is not absent. See Kurke (1991) 102. The poet uses hedna twice, both times describing the gifts given by the father to the groom (ἕδνα τε δέξατο P. 3.95 and O. 9.5-10). See Kurke (1991) 133. The use of hedna in Pindar is noted by Ormand (2014) 82. On both occasions, the use of the social institution of hedna concerns the mythological past. In this way, Pindar praises his victor not only by using the ideological institutions of his class, but also as a part of a mythological- heroic past which was inseparable from the gods. 190 gift is partly this lesson. The gnomai in lines 59-62 recall the ending of the Coronis’ myth: we should be aware of our destiny and our mortal limits. They are presented in a climax; the first is expressed by an implied third person (χρή τὰ ἐοικότα

μαστευέμεν), then he uses a generalising first person plural (γνόντα τὸ πὰρ’ ποδός,

οἵας εἰμὲν αἴσας), and he ends with a second-person address to his own soul (μή,

φίλα ψυχά, βίον ἀθάνατον/ σπεῦδε).462

Coronis' act of giving herself to Ischys leads to a breakdown in xenia between her father's family and Ischys' family, and disaster for the whole community. Hieron is presented as a "wondrous father" to his ξένοις (71). Pindar knows the disaster that follows violations in reciprocity so he is careful with his gift. Even if he wishes to bring golden health to Hieron and a victory revel (73) he does not do that, but he offers a(n)—unfinished—prayer.463 As I have shown, Coronis' transgression stems from two mental errors: 1) her faulty evaluation of Apollo and Ischys, 2) not understanding her status as an inalienable gift for Apollo. By contrast, Pindar shows that he has learned the right way to evaluate, and so he can give Hieron this ode as his inalienable possession. Thus, the poem serves as a counter-example to Coronis. It is given with wisdom and it gives wisdom. Both the giver and the receiver respect the laws of reciprocity and do not disrupt the social welfare. On the contrary, it strengthens the position of the king by propagating a wonderful profile, and simultaneously it teaches the king the fate of mortals so that he can avoid mistakes that affect not only his fate but also the welfare of his community.

462 Morgan (2015) 282. 463 The use of the poetic "I" in the poem is not always the same. In lines 1, 63, and 65, the poetic "I" impersonates the desires of an external addressee in wishing to provide Hieron with health. See Halliwell (2008) 185. These desires describe what Pindar would have done if Chiron were still alive. Now, Chiron is dead and Pindar cannot seek things that are far, so he concentrates on what he ought to do. 191

Hieron the king καί κεν ἐν ναυσὶν μόλον Ἰονίαν τάμνων θάλασσαν Ἀρέθοισαν ἐπὶ κράναν παρ’ Αἰτναῖον ξένον, ὃς Συρακόσσαισι νέμει βασιλεύς, πραῢς ἀστοῖς, οὐ φθονέων ἀγαθοῖς, ξείνοις δὲ θαυμαστὸς πατήρ. τῷ μὲν διδύμας χάριτας εἰ κατέβαν ὑγίειαν ἄγων χρυσέαν κῶμόν τ’ ἀέθλων Πυθίων αἴγλαν στεφάνοις, τοὺς ἀριστεύων Φερένικος ἕλεν Κίρρᾳ ποτέ, ἀστέρος οὐρανίου φαμὶ τηλαυγέστερον κείνῳ φάος ἐξικόμαν κε βαθὺν πόντον περάσαις. (68-76) And I would have come, cleaving the Ionian Sea in a ship, to the fountain of Arethousa and to my Aitnean host, who rules as king over Syracuse, gentle to townsmen, not begrudging to good men, and to xenois a wondrous father. And if I have landed, bringing him two blessings, golden health and a victory revel to add luster to the crowns from the Pythian Games which Pherenikos once won when victorious at Cirrha, I swear that I would have come for that man as a saving light outshining any heavenly star, upon crossing the deep sea.

The poet’s moral lessons derived from the myths are followed by a fictive scenario in which Pindar travels to Syracuse, by the fountain of Arethousa, to the palace of

Hieron, his Aitnean host (68-69). The reference to Hieron opens the next triad, which is dedicated to the qualities of the laudandus. The political propaganda is part of a hypothetical scenario presented in the first person (73-75). The use of this "I" is consistent with the "I" of lines 62 and 65; it voices the desires of his laudandus.464

According to this scenario, Pindar would have come to Syracuse to bring Hieron golden health and a victory komos, what he describes as a dοuble or twin charis

(διδύμας χάριτας 72). His description amounts to a picture of what Hieron would be, if reinscribed within the gift economy with the appropriate values. Hieron is directly called "king" (βασιλεύς 70) and thus he portrays his rule as legitimate and constitutional. After the address to Hieron as a king, Pindar enumerates his values: he is gentle to his townsmen, he does not feel envy for the agathoi, and he treats his friends as a kind father would. He accumulates the qualities of a man who has

464 Halliwell (2008) 185. 192 excellent behaviour towards any class, including both aristocrats (agathois) and demos (astois). The same qualities, in similar words, appear in Olympian 13, but for a clan not an individual: Τρισολυμπιονίκαν/ ἐπαινέων οἶκον ἅμερον ἀστοῖς,/ ξένοισι

δὲ θεράποντα (1-3). By contrast, the historical sources for the Deinomenids are not very supportive of the view that they were very friendly to the demos or to the aristocrats. Pindar, thus, makes a perfect image for Hieron, of an unusual tyrant-king whose qualities make him just and valuable to his polis, and this image is ideally suited for the Panhellenic re-performances of the ode.

The teacher and the student ἀλλ’ ἐπεύξασθαι μὲν ἐγὼν ἐθέλω Ματρί, τὰν κοῦραι παρ’ ἐμὸν πρόθυρον σὺν Πανὶ μέλπονται θαμά σεμνὰν θεὸν ἐννύχιαι. εἰ δὲ λόγων συνέμεν κορυφάν, Ἱέρων, ὀρθὰν ἐπίστᾳ, μανθάνων οἶσθα προτέρων ἓν παρ’ ἐσλὸν πήματα σύνδυο δαίονται βροτοῖς ἀθάνατοι. τὰ μὲν ὦν οὐ δύνανται νήπιοι κόσμῳ φέρειν, ἀλλ’ ἀγαθοί, τὰ καλὰ τρέψαντες ἔξω. τὶν δὲ μοῖρ’ εὐδαιμονίας ἕπεται. (77-84) But for my part, I wish to pray to the Mother, to whom, along with Pan, the maidens often sing before my door at night, for she is a venerable goddess. But, Hieron, if you can understand the true point of sayings, you know the lesson from those who have come before: the immortals apportion to human a pair of evils for every good. Now fools cannot bear them in good order, but good men can, by turning the noble portion outward. Your share of happiness attends you.

At 77-79, the speaker’s mood changes into the indicative for the first time in the ode.

The poet now shifts from the improper wish for an absent healer to a prayer to the

Mother, a transition marked by parallel phrasing (ἤθελον... εὔξασθαι 12 to

ἐπεύξασθαι... ἐθέλω 77).465 The first part of the ode was focused on exempla from the past and formed a ring that opened and closed with the reference to Chiron. The

465 The prayer’s content is not given. See Pelliccia (1987) 56, but note its connection to the first part in phrasing: as well as (επ)εὔξασθαι, Pindar hears night-time maiden songs (μέλπονται… ἐννύχιαι 78- 79) such as Coronis rejected (17-19), and they take place by his door (παρ’ ἐμὸν πρόθυρον 79) reminiscent of the near at hand that we should value (e.g. τὸ πὰρ’ ποδός 60). 193 second part is concerned with expectations for the future and forms a ring that opens and closes with Pindar’s wishes for the future (ἐπεύξασθαι...ἐθέλω 77 and ἐλπίδ’ ἔχω

111). Instead of wishing for Chiron the teacher,466 which would allow Pindar to send a double gift (charis) to Hieron, Pindar now takes on the role of teacher to Hieron, imparting ethical knowledge that forms his gift-ode.

The prayer to the Mother is followed by a direct address to the patron. The poet assumes that Hieron has the ability to understand the true point of the logoi of the poets who preceded him, i.e. he has the capacity to learn from a poet. Thus, he is able to comprehend that "the immortals apportion to humans a pair of evils for every good" (81-82). The remainder of the poem is an exploration of this principle in the form of a combination of mythological exempla (Peleus, Cadmus, Nestor, Sarpedon) and gnomai. They illustrate the principle that not only can you not live for ever, but you cannot have any good for ever, no matter how divinely blessed or virtuous you are. The only immortal good for humans is the immortal fame that poetry alone can provide. The chief precedent for a similar principle is Homer, Il. 24.527-530. In the context of consolation (as here) to Priam for the loss of his son Hector, Achilles states that the gods are almost indifferent to the fate of mortals.467 The lives of the latter are either a mix of good and evil or pure evil.468 The Homeric parallel constitutes praise for Hieron as Priam was considered an example of excellent

466 In the first part of the ode, Chiron is not presented as the healer, but as the educator of Asclepius. However, the speaker acted as though what he wished for was a healer when in fact what he needs is a teacher. 467 It is notable that both Homer and Pindar illustrate the gnome with the example of Peleus (although Pindar uses Cadmus as well). See Mann (1994) 319. 468 The problem with the number of jars in Homer is not relevant to my analysis, i.e. whether there were three or two, and if Pindar misunderstood Homer or made a deliberate change. For more about this problem, see Young (1968) 50-51; Robbins (1990) 313-314; Currie (2005) 391-392. 194 kingship, but it also evokes Priam as a prime example of the inevitable alternation of fate.469

Cadmus, and Peleus: the great olbos of great men λαγέταν γάρ τοι τύραννον δέρκεται, εἴ τιν’ ἀνθρώπων, ὁ μέγας πότμος. αἰὼν δ’ ἀσφαλής οὐκ ἔγεντ’ οὔτ’ Αἰακίδᾳ παρὰ Πηλεῖ οὔτε παρ’ ἀντιθέῳ Κάδμῳ· λέγονται {γε} μὰν βροτῶν ὄλβον ὑπέρτατον οἳ σχεῖν, οἵτε καὶ χρυσαμπύκων μελπομενᾶν ἐν ὄρει Μοισᾶν καὶ ἐν ἑπταπύλοις ἄϊον Θήβαις, ὁπόθ’ Ἁρμονίαν γᾶμεν βοῶπιν, ὁ δὲ Νηρέος εὐβούλου Θέτιν παῖδα κλυτάν, καὶ θεοὶ δαίσαντο παρ’ ἀμφοτέροις, καὶ Κρόνου παῖδας βασιλῆας ἴδον χρυσέαις ἐν ἕδραις, ἕδνα τε δέξαντο· Διὸς δὲ χάριν ἐκ προτέρων μεταμειψάμενοι καμάτων ἔστασαν ὀρθὰν καρδίαν. ἐν δ’ αὖτε χρόνῳ τὸν μὲν ὀξείαισι θύγατρες ἐρήμωσαν πάθαις εὐφροσύνας μέρος αἱ τρεῖς· ἀτὰρ λευκωλένῳ γε Ζεὺς πατήρ ἤλυθεν ἐς λέχος ἱμερτὸν Θυώνᾳ. τοῦ δὲ παῖς, ὅνπερ μόνον ἀθανάτα τίκτεν ἐν Φθίᾳ Θέτις, ἐν πολέμῳ τόξοις ἀπὸ ψυχὰν λιπών ὦρσεν πυρὶ καιόμενος ἐκ Δαναῶν γόον. εἰ δὲ νόῳ τις ἔχει θνατῶν ἀλαθείας ὁδόν, χρὴ πρὸς μακάρων τυγχάνοντ’ εὖ πασχέμεν. ἄλλοτε δ’ ἀλλοῖαι πνοαί ὑψιπετᾶν ἀνέμων. ὄλβος οὐκ ἐς μακρὸν ἀνδρῶν ἔρχεται σάος, πολὺς εὖτ’ ἂν ἐπιβρίσαις ἕπηται. (85-106) For truly if great destiny looks with favour upon any man, it is upon a king who leads his people. But an untroubled life did not abide with Aeacus’ son Peleus or with godlike Cadmus; yet they are said to have attained the highest happiness of any men, for they have heard the golden-crowned Muses singing on the mountain and in seven-gated Thebes, when one married ox-eyed Harmonia, the other Thetis, wise-counselling Nereus’ famous daughter; The gods feasted with both of them, and they beheld the regal children of Cronus on their golden thrones and received their wedding gifts. By the grace of Zeus they recovered from their earlier hardships and they raised up their hearts. But then in time, the bitter suffering of his three daughters deprived the one of a part of his joy, although father Zeus did come to the longed-for bed of white-armed Thyone. But the other’s son, the only child immortal Thetis bore him in Pythia, lost his life to an arrow in war, and as he has consumed by the fire, he raised a lament from the Danaans. If any mortal understands the way of truth, he must be happy with what good the blessed gods allot him. Now here, now there blow the gusts of the high-flying winds. Men’s happiness does not come for long unimpaired, when it accompanies them, descending with full-weight.

469 Mann (1994) 321. 195

Pindar marks the transition into mythological exempla with the words "for, truly, if great destiny looks with favour upon any man, it is upon a people-guiding turannon."

His examples will show that the divine principle of the alternation of fate applies even to the best of men, and the phrase marks out Hieron as prominent among those.470 Peleus and Cadmus had suffered many calamities (καμάτων 96), but the charis of Zeus compensated them for their toils and changed their fortunes. The change is expressed as "raised up their hearts" ἔστασαν ὀρθὰν καρδίαν 96, paralleling the change from disease to health that Asclepius could accomplish

ἐστασεν ὀρθούς 53.471 The charis of Zeus put them in the position of the most blessed men among mortals (ὄλβον ὑπέρτατον 89) and is expressed as the fact that they heard the song of the Muses472 (using the same word μελπομενᾶν 90 as for the songs Pindar hears μέλπονται 78), and that they were in such closeness with the gods that they married goddesses. At their weddings, the gods also dine with them and give marriage gifts, hedna (95), marking the festivities as the very opposite of

Coronis’ wedding.

The "principle of the alternation of fate" is in continuous operation and does not stop after one change.473 The two blessed heroes did not commit any transgression or hubristic deed, but nonetheless their fortunes turn to calamity again, this time through their children. The sufferings of Cadmus’ daughters emptied him of joy τὀν…ἐρήμωσαν…εὐφροσύνας 97-98, and Peleus’ only son, Achilles, famously

470 The use of turannos here does not allude to any ideological or political differentiation from basileus; it is rather its synonym. It is the first time that Pindar calls a person turannon. He uses the word "tyranny" only twice (P. 11.53; P. 2.87). 471 Young (1968) 54. Charis is also connected with the gift of healing. See MacLachlan (1993) 45. 472 Young (1968) 53 n.3. 473 The term is used by Cairns to describe the idea that no human life is without misfortunes and suffering. This was the fundamental idea of archaic Greek thought about happiness: "suffering is inherent in the human condition, which is defined by antithesis with the divine; good fortune is not permanent, but inevitably alternates with its opposite." Cairns (2014) 106. 196 died in battle prompting communal lamentation. The lesson for Hieron is clearly that he too, even if he is as blessed as the two heroes, must accept the alternation of fate.

But the exempla also contain an element of hope for a different kind of change in fortune. The poet distinguishes Semele from the other daughters.474 Her life and death function as the counter-example for Coronis: both had an intimacy with a god, both died by fire as a result, and in both cases the child was snatched from their bodies. The difference is that Semele did not commit any transgression; her death was probably a kind of "violent grace".475 As a result of her prudent behaviour, she enjoyed afterlife honour. The use of the name "Thyone" in the passage alludes to her apotheosis,476 as "Thyone" was the name Semele received after her death.477 Thus,

Semele escaped the alternation of fate by entering the immortal realm. Similarly, the lamenting Danaans at Achilles’ funeral allude to the oral poetic tradition that will make the hero immortal in fame,478 for the lament is the beginning of Achilles’ praise. What differentiates them, however, is the reputation gained after their death, which is proportional to the relationship they had with their gods. This conclusion is reinforced by the subsequent generalising verses: "If any mortal understands the way of truth, he must be happy with what good the blessed gods allot him"(103-104).

This gnome, although set in the third person, is an indirect reference to Hieron as it recalls the advice given to him in lines 80-81.479 If we apply the principle to Pindar and Hieron, Pindar’s odes’ charis has offered Hieron compensation for the toils and

474 The myth of Semele was widespread in the fifth century, and the audience could easily imagine the rest of the myth, which Pindar does not mention. See Currie (2005) 89. 475 Morgan (2015) 290. 476 Diodorus Siculus 4.25.4: καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνον μυθολογοῦσιν ἀναγαγεῖν τὴν μητέρα Σεμέλην ἐξ ᾄδου, καὶ μεταδόντα τῆς ἀθανασίας Θυώνην μετονομάσαι. 477 Currie (2005) 89. 478 Morgan (2015) 291. 479 Young (1968) 56; Currie (2005) 399-402. 197 dapane of competing,480 and his current misfortunes, and this ode offers also the potential for escaping the alternation of fate into the world of immortal fame.

Nestor and Sarpedon σμικρὸς ἐν σμικροῖς, μέγας ἐν μεγάλοις ἔσσομαι, τὸν δ’ ἀμφέποντ’ αἰεὶ φρασίν δαίμον’ ἀσκήσω κατ’ ἐμὰν θεραπεύων μαχανάν. εἰ δέ μοι πλοῦτον θεὸς ἁβρὸν ὀρέξαι, ἐλπίδ’ ἔχω κλέος εὑρέσθαι κεν ὑψηλὸν πρόσω. Νέστορα καὶ Λύκιον Σαρπηδόν’, ἀνθρώπων φάτῑς, ἐξ ἐπέων κελαδεννῶν, τέκτονες οἷα σοφοί ἅρμοσαν, γινώσκομεν· ἁ δ’ ἀρετὰ κλειναῖς ἀοιδαῖς χρονία τελέθει· παύροις δὲ πράξασθ’ εὐμαρές. (107-115) I shall be small in small times, great in great ones; I shall honour with my mind whatever fortune attends me, by serving it with the means at my disposal. And if a god should grant me luxurious wealth, i hope that I may win lofty fame hereafter. We know of Nestor and Lycian Sarpedon, still the talk of men, from such echoing verses as wise craftsmen constructed. Excellence endures in glorious songs for a long time, but few can win them easily.

The hint in the previous section to a change in fate towards immortality is taken up in the final section. From the third person, Pindar now shifts to the first person. This first person is the poetic persona who voices what Pindar desires for Hieron, after the

"lesson" he gave to him (προσωποποιία). He will be "small in small times, great in great ones" (107), and he will exploit only the means at his disposal (machanan 109).

The reference to the means that are appropriate and possible corresponds inversely to the unrealistic wish for Chiron (63-67).481 The final hope expressed is dependent on the means at his disposal; if the gods grant wealth he hopes for fame (110-111). The exempla of Nestor and Sarpedon are sandwiched between this hope and the final gnome, "Excellence endures in glorious songs for a long time" (114-115).

The two exempla clearly testify to the alternation of fate, the inevitability of death, and the consolation derived from future immortal fame in poetry.482 The

480 See Kurke (1991) on ponos and dapane, 86-90; 153-155. 481 Morgan (2015) 291. 482 For an extended discussion, see Morgan (2015) 293-297. Miller (1994) considers the two heroes as symbols of longevity. Young (1968) 62 states that the choice was rather random and not targeted. 198 precise relevance of Nestor has been debated. Morgan claims that the use of Nestor by Pindar recalls the lengthy narrative of the hero that begins with his wish to be young and powerful as he used to be (Il. 4.318-323). This unattainable wish is connected with Pindar’s unattainable wish that Chiron be still alive. Neither of them achieved their wish, but both will be preserved forever in the songs. Sider, on the other hand, suggests that the reference to Nestor should be seen as a reference to the abolishment of death through fame (Il. 11.761),483 while Miller suggests the relevance lies in the hero’s longevity.484 It might be added that the models of Priam,

Peleus, Cadmus and Sarpedon all refer to the deaths of their children, and Nestor’s son, Antilochus, sacrificed his own life to save his father (Pythian 6, 28-42). All these approaches are pertinent, but there is another element that makes Nestor a good model. Nestor is known above all as the wise advisor of the Iliad, whose voice flows from his tongue sweeter than honey (Il. 1.249), and who knows how to persuade by teaching. The example of Sarpedon evokes not only the responsibilities and dangers of kingship in war mentioned in his famous dialogue with Glaucus (Il. 12.310-

328),485 but also Zeus’ lament for the inevitability of his death even though he was the most loved of Zeus’ mortal children (Il. 16.440-442),486 and loved and honoured by his people (Il. 12.310-312). The lesson is clear; Hieron has all the qualities that form a perfect candidate for immortal fame. He is a wise warrior-king, beloved of gods and men alike. He is also very wealthy and his hospitality testifies to his generosity. If he uses the means at his disposal in the right way, he can be rewarded by the charis of Pindar’s poem, which offers immortality in song.

483 Sider (1991) 111. 484 Miller (1994) 383-386. 485 Morgan (2015) 292. 486 Sider (1991) 110-111. 199

The principle of the alternation of fate is expressed in the language of gift and exchange. Pindar's wish to change Hieron's fate is expressed as giving him a double charis, the inverse of the gods' gift (δαίονται 82) of double πήματα. The change in fortune for the better for Cadmus and Peleus is symbolised by the wedding gifts from the gods (ἕδνα 94) and expressed as an exchange of fortune (μεταμειψάμενοι 96) that is the charis of Zeus. This can imply that the gift economy is the "natural" way, that which reflects the human condition. To wish otherwise is as impossible (and potentially hubristic) as Pindar's original wish, which in this light resonates with that of Sarpedon in Homer. It is not possible to buy one's way out of the human condition, but the gift of song can effect an alternative fate.

Conclusion At face value, the poem is offered as consolation to an ill Hieron. Pindar shows that he cannot offer physical healing or immortality but he can offer moral medicine and immortality in poetry. In the first part, the negative mythological exempla of Coronis and Asclepius are models of why it would be morally wrong to aim at physical immortality, even if it were possible; the implied praise being that if anyone deserved it, Hieron did. Both Coronis and Asclepius violate reciprocity, whereas Hieron is presented as having perfect reciprocal relations with ordinary citizens, aristocrats, foreigners and guests.

In the second part, the mythological exempla of Peleus and Cadmus, Nestor and Sarpedon, are instructive models to teach Hieron that even those most blessed by the gods and who commit no moral error (like Hieron) are subject to an inevitable pattern of repeatedly alternating fate between good and bad given by the gods, for this is the human condition. Thus, the wish for Chiron in the first part seemed to be 200 for Chiron’s medical knowledge (given to Asclepius τέκτονα 6), whereas the second part shows that what is needed is Chiron’s ethical knowledge, which can teach that the only escape from this cycle is to find immortality in poetry, the gift of Pindar, one of the τέκτονες σοφοί 113.

If we examine the economic basis of the relationships and actions in the poem, we can see a slightly different lesson (the positive hermeneutic). The gods are the protectors of reciprocity in all its forms and human beings are punished for any violation in the gift economy between mortals and between mortals and gods. Their hierarchy is based on the fact that humans face eternally an unpayable debt to the gods. In their relationships with humans, the gods themselves may partake in a system of charis, but they are not bound by the gift economy. They can give and take whatever they want. They give two evils for every good, and they can take back what they gave at any moment, which manifests itself as the sometimes arbitrary alternation in fortune where good is exchanged for evil. The divine economy maintains the divine hierarchy.

The ultimate problem with a tyrant like Hieron whose power is based on wealth is that economically he has godlike power. Even if it suits his purposes sometimes to participate in the gift economy, he has no need of the reciprocal relationships it embeds within it. His wealth can give him the ability to acquire whatever he wants. As is suggested by the negative Coronis and Asclepius exempla, his economic world is that of the disembedded (market) economy, and political power has been bought like a commodity. In such a scenario, community networks that bind humans to each other and to the gods are jeopardised. The only thing

Hieron cannot buy is real immortality. He may, in reality, buy a poem from Pindar 201 offering poetic immortality, but the only way for it to provide him the immortality he needs is ideologically, by re-embedding him in the reciprocal relationships of the gift economy, emptied of his godlike economic power.

202

Conclusion In dealing with the economy, politics and ideology in Pindar one must first address some long-standing prejudices about the poet, his art, and the concept of ideology. On the one hand, there is the perception of the poet held by the ancient scholiasts. They believed that the relationship between the poet and the patrons was nothing more than a commodity exchange, and they approached the odes in a rather vulgar materialistic way. A very common tactic is to invent a historical background which functions as the key to "decoding" the dense lyrics. For example, Pindar's reference to the golden lyre of Apollo in Pythian 1 is interpreted as a reminder to Hieron about the golden lyre that he had promised as a reward to Pindar:

Γέγραπται μὲν ὁ ἐπίνικος Ἱέρωνι, λέγεται δὲ ὁ Πίνδαρος οὕτως ἐπιβεβλῆσθαι κατὰ Ἀρτέμωνα τὸν ἱστορικόν, ὁτι δὴ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἱέρων χρυσῆν ὑπέσχετο κιθάραν. This epinikion was written for Hieron, and it is said by Atremon the historian that Pindar wasdevoted to the work in this way because Hieron promised him a golden lyre. This belief influenced the way they saw the politics of form in Pindar; even the literary terms they used are influenced by the economic relationship they perceived between the poet and patron. Thus, in Pythian 11, the scholiast sees an apology from the poet for his long digression on the grounds that he was not consistent with the payment agreement. He was paid to offer praise and not lyrics in vain:

Σ. P.11.58a: ἦ ῥ᾽, ὦ φίλοι, κατ᾽ ἀμευσιπόρους: συνήσθηται καὶ αὐτὸς ἀκαίρῳ παρεκβάσει κεχρημένος (...) ἐπλανήθην τῆς ὁδοῦ τὸ πρότερον ὀρθὴν πορευόμενος (...) διὸ ἀπέστρεψεν τὸν λόγον πρὀς τὴν Μοῦσαν καί φησιν ͘(...) ὑπάργυρος γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ φωνὴ καὶ ἔμμισθος. My friends, I was whirled off track at a shifting fork in the road: He himself understood that he has used an untimely digression (…) he lost the right way that he was following previously. That is why he addressed his words to the Muse and said (…) The voice is salaried and for fees. In contrast with the ancient commentators is the perception of the Pindaric world as a unified and homogenous world which functions under the umbrella of a fully embedded economy. According to this view, by locating the ode within the framework of a gift economy, the poet protects his own status—he is not the seller of 203 praises to wealthy patrons—but also reintegrates the victor into his home and city. I argue that this view of the economy is mistaken and also involves a fundamental distortion of the concept of ideology. Ideology is the prerogative only of the people of the upper class and is used by them to promote their common view of the world. Although ideology includes such a function, this one-dimensional perception of the concept restricts its nature. Ideology includes an unconscious aspect that goes beyond a mere set of beliefs. By addressing the problems with these two perspectives, I have argued for a new way of reading the odes. My analysis of Isthmian 2 showed that the poet is not only aware of the developing market economy, and understands the power of money and that his song is a commodity, but also he is proud of this as he is able to purge his poetry of the negative connotations of commodity, and to create a situation in which his poems participate both as gift and commodity. Such a view of economy—which creates a balance between the vulgar materialism of the ancient scholiasts and the utopian holistic view of a gift economy—allows us to see the other side of ideology, the positive hermenutic. From this perspective, poetry does not only function as propaganda, but it is also autonomous. I talk about a "relative autonomy" far away from the doctrine of "art for art’s sake", and closer to a liberation of the work or poet from the restrictions of mere propaganda. This autonomy gives us the opportunity to see that the values of the ruling class can be undermined or at least challenged by the poet. My thesis centres on the odes for Hieron because these offer a perfect test case for the issue of economics and ideology in Pindar. How can the epinician genre—devised as a prestige management tool for aristocrats bound by traditional reciprocal relationships—serve the needs of a tyrant, especially one whose power is based fundamentally on commodified wealth unbound by any reciprocal relationships? According to the view that Pindar's poetic world exists in a fully embedded economy, Pindar and Hieron have a reciprocal relationship far removed from any behaviour of a non-embedded economy. This reciprocity extends to the relationship of Hieron with his oikos and his city. Hieron is reintegrated into his oikos and into his polis and at the same time he becomes their euergetes, through the virtue of megaloprepeia. He gives to his polis the glory of the victory, and most 204 importantly the chance to participate in the celebrations. The polis receives immortality through Hieron who in turn receives it through the ode. However, my analysis has shown that Hieron did not have any need or desire to be reintegrated into his oikos or into his polis. He was the most powerful and prominent individual, an omnipotent tyrant who could repopulate whole cities and rebuild them. For such an individual, praise has other purposes, not reintegration. His political career emerges progressively. In Pythian 2, the poet presents him as a capable leader of a society that needs him in order to be prosperous and safe. In Olympian 1, Hieron becomes the absolute master. There is no need for acceptance of his authority by his subjects. His political agenda is now different. It is clear in these early odes that there is no redistribution of praise, but rather all praise is concentrated together within the figure of Hieron. The later odes have broader and longer-term purposes. Pythian 1 capitalises on the (re-)foundation of Aitna in order to give Hieron an enhanced Panhellenic profile. In order to do so, Pindar minimises any "tyrannical' elements in the profile and uses praise strategies that resemble those for a typical aristocrat but adapted so as to maintain the accumulation of praise for Hieron as sole recipient. Pythian 3 returns to the "form" of the earlier odes but as consolation, probably for an ill or dying Hieron, and is concerned with compensatory immortality in poetry. As I said above, the economy influences the form of the poems. All the myths in the odes for Hieron deal with individuals who transgress the rules of reciprocity and act according to the morality of the market, according to a mistaken perception of kerdos. This shows that the economy of the odes is not fully embedded. This also gives us the opportunity to see how ideology can function against the powerful Hieron. In all these odes—except Pythian 1—Hieron is presented as a possible transgressor, as one who could adopt the behaviour of the market. Pindar is not shown to be against the market. What he does is to put himself in a hierarchically higher position in relation to Hieron by using as a pretext the behaviour of profit. The myths of Tantalus, Ixion, Coronis and Asclepius are ones in which the mythological person breaks the institution of reciprocity. S/he acts driven by the shameful gain, and usually based on a mistaken assessment of relationships with others. S/he puts her/himself above the gods, ignoring that s/he will always be in debt towards them. 205

Hieron does not have an aristocratic phya and is not praised for it. Perhaps this lack in combination with his economic and therefore political omnipotence makes it more possible or likely for him to become a transgressor. And this is the opportunity for Pindar to show that he will always be hierarchically below the poet. The poet is so wise as to inform him of the danger, is so self-sufficient that he is not driven by shameful gain, so special that he knows how to function in a market economy where he sells without being sold himself, and so capable that he is the only person on whom the reputation of the tyrant depends. Thus, the economy of the external world influences the poet. The ideology that is produced is not only a confirmation of the world of the upper class, but a negation of its power, as poetry— and the poet—can be free and autonomous. In order to understand how my approach works for Theron, the other Sicilian tyrant in Pindar's odes, it was necessary first to reconsider how phya works in Pindar, since this is the basis and main substance of praise for Theron. The Aiginetan odes provide a very useful group for surveying Pindaric phya, in particular because these odes allow us to see how phya can have an economic dimension. Here the system of Kurke can be applied, but with an important difference. The victor is reintegrated into his oikos and polis, but his victory is ultimately not a personal achievement and is rather that of the island polis itself. The political institution of Aigina—a commercial aristocracy—leads to Pindar structuring his odes differently. Now the politics of form is not based on the breaking of reciprocity but on the power of phya. Analysis of Aiginetan phya shows that they are presented as metaphorical descendants of Aiakides, but blood-descendants of Heracles, i.e. Dorians. Pindar links these two origins together via ancestral xenia, which is understood both literally and metaphorically for Aigina's trading activities. Thus, Aiginetan phya participates in both embedded and nonembedded economies. In the case of the Emmenids, the politics of form is closer to the Aiginetan odes. The odes are constructed mainly based on the notion of phya. In Isthmian 2 and Pythian 6, the praise of Xenocrates is that he is the son of a wealthy aristocrat, member of a prominent family which resides in a place that acquired fame because of his ancestors and continues to have glory because of his family. In this case, unlike the Aiginetan odes, the oikos prevails over the polis. The laudandus does not 206 receive more glory and praise because he comes from Acragas, but vice versa. But, as in the other cases, praise derives from the fact that Thrasyboulos has the money to pay for it. He is rich enough to have the best aristocratic lifestyle with banquets and horse-racing, and to exercise generous hospitality. He is indeed so rich that he can even be praised in a victory celebration ode although he neither participated nor even was a sponsor in the games. His phya operates as an excuse and pretext for his glorification. Phya also constructs the ideology of form in Olympian 2 for Theron. Theron is the most important member of the Emmenid clan. He is the only one whose phya is connected with the heroes of his homeland. Thus, the poet creates the impression that Theron’s political power is inherited. Even the eschatological passage, despite its religious connotations, is structured based on the notion of phya. The post-mortem utopia where Theron will surely go is a utopia of an absolute aristocratic lifestyle. That utopian society is not concerned with money and work. In this utopian world, Theron together with Xenocrates and Thrasyboulos, will live for ever. In all three cases examined, the victor is not reintegrated into various groups and there is no redistribution of praise. In Hieron's case, all praise is directed at the tyrant himself, in the case of Aiginetan victors, the polis becomes the ultimate laudandus, and in Theron's case, it is the oikos. In all three cases, economic factors affect the politics of form, and it is Pindar's ability to capitalise on both embedded and disembedded economic systems that allows him to adapt the economy of praise to suit each case and also still retain poetic autonomy.

207

Bibliography Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles R. (eds) (2012), Reading the Victory Ode, Cambridge:CUP.

D’ Alessio, G. B. (2005), 'Ordered from the Catalogue: Pindar, Bacchylides, and Hesiodic Genealogical Poetry', in R. Hunter (ed.) The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Constructions and Reconstructions, CUP. 217-238.

Althusser, L. (1971), ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation)’ (trans. B. Brewster as Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Monthly Review Press)

Appadurai, A. (1988), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, CUP.

Bennett, C. (1976), God as Form: Essays in Greek Theology with Special Reference to Christianity and the Contemporary Theological predicament, New York.

Athanassaki, L. (2003), ‘Transformation of Colonial Disruption into Narrative Continuity in Pindar’s Epinician Ode’, HSPh 101: 93–128. (2004), ‘Deixis, Performance, and Poetics in Pindar’s First Olympian Ode’, Arethusa 37: 317–341. (2009a), ‘Narratology, Deixis, and the Performance of Choral Lyric: On Pindar’s First Pythian Ode’, in J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos (eds) Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Trends in Classics, Supplementary Vol. 4: 241–273. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

(2009b), ‘Apollo and His Oracle in Pindar’s Epinicians: Poetic Representations, Politics, and Ideology’, in L. Athanassaki, R. P. Martin, and J. F. Miller (eds) Apolline Politics and Poetics, Athens. 405-471. (2012), ‘Performance and Re-performance: The Siphnian Treasury Evoked (Pindar’s Pythian 6, Olympian 2 and Isthmian 2)’, in P. Agόcs, C. Carey, and R. Rawles Reading the Victory Ode, Cambridge: CUP.134–157.

Berk, L. (1964), Epicharmus. Groningen. (2014), 'The Creative Impact of the Occasion: Pindar'S Songs for the 208

Emmenids and Horace'S Odes1.12 and 4.2', in D. Cairns, R. Scodel (eds) Defining the Greek Narrative, Edinburgh: EUP. 198-224.

Bell, M. (1996), ‘The Motya Charioteer and Pindar’s Isthmian 2’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 40:1-42.

Berve, H. (1967), Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen. Erster Band. Munich.

Biucchi A. with Weiss A.P. (2007), ‘The River God Alpheios on the First Tetradrachm Issue of Gelon at Syracuse’, in Numismatica e antichità classiche Vol. 36: 59-74.

Bosher, K. (2012) (ed.) Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy. Cambridge: CUP.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. (trans. R. Nice, London: Routledge).

Bowra, C. M. (1937), ‘Pindar's Pythian II'’, HSCPh 48: 1-28. (1964), Pindar, OUP.

Braccesi, L., and Millino G. (2000), La Sicilia greca, Rome.

Burnett, A. P. (2005), Pindar’s Songs for Young Athletes of Aigina, Oxford: OUP.

Burton, R.W.B. (1962) Pindar's Pythian Odes: Essays in Interpretation. Oxford: OUP.

Cairns, F. (1977), ‘Eros in Pindar's First Olympian Ode’, Hermes 105: 129-132.

Cairns, D.L. (1996), ‘Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big', HS 116:1-32. (2010), Bacchylides: Five Epinician Odes (3, 5, 9, 11 and 13), Cambridge: Francis Cairns Publications Ltd. (2011), ‘The Principle of Alternation and the Tyrant’s Happiness in Bacchylidean Epincian’, Symbolae Osloenses 85: 17-32.

Carnes, J.S. (1986), Pindar's Use of Aiginetan Autochthony Myths, Diss. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 209

Carrey, C. (1981), A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar : Pythian 2, Pythian 9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8, New York. (1989), ‘Prosopographica Pindarica’, CQ 39,1-9. (2001), ‘Poesia pubblica in performance’, in M. Cannatà Fera (ed.), I lirici greci: Forma di comunicazione e storia del testo, Messin. 11–26.

Clay, J. S. (1999), ‘Pindar’s Sympotic Epinicia’, QUCC 62: 25-34.

Clear, R. (2013), ‘Family, Duty and Expectation: A Case for the Joint Performance of Pindar’s Isthmian 2 and Pythian 6’, Mnemosyne 66: 31-53.

Cole, T. (1987), '1 + 1=3: Studies in Pindar's Arithmetic ', AJPh 108: 553-568.

Cook, S. (2004), Understanding Commodity Cultures: Explorations in Economic Anthropology with Case Studies from Mexico. U.S.A.

Cummins, M. (2010), ‘Sicilian Tyrants and Their Victorious Brothers I: The Emmenids’, CJ 105: 321–339.

Currie, B. (2005) Pindar and the Cult of Heroes. Oxford: OUP.

De Angelis, F. (2016), Archaic and Classical Greek Sicily: A Social and Economic History, Oxford: OUP.

Deas, H. T. (1931), ‘The Scholia Vetera to Pindar’, HSPh 42, 1-78.

Dewald, C. (2003), ‘Form and Content: The Question of Tyranny in Herodotus’, in

K. A. Morgan (ed.) Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece, Austin: University of Texas Press, 25–58.

Dickie, M. W. (1984), ‘Hesychia and Hybris in Pindar’ in D. E. Gerber (ed.) Greek Poetry and Philosophy. Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury, Chicago. 83-109.

Donlan, W. (1980), The Aristocratic Ideal in Archaic Greece. Attitudes of Superiority from Homer to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Lawrence, Kan. (1998), ‘Political Reciprocity in Dark Age Greece: Odysseus and his Hetairoi’, in C. Gill, N. Postlethwaite, and R. Seaford (eds), Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, Oxford. 51-71. 210

Dougherty, Carol. 1993. The Poetics of Colonization. Oxford. and Leslie Kurke. (1993) Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics. Oxford: OUP.

Dover, K. J. (1989), Greek Homosexuality, HUP.

Dunbabin, T.J. (1948),The Western Greeks. Oxford: OUP.

Eagleton, T. (1991), Ideology: An Introduction, Verso Books.

Evans, P. (1995), Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformations, Princeton: PUP.

Feeney, D. (2007), Caesar’s Calendar. Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. Berkeley: UCP.

Ferrari, F. (2012), ‘Representations of Cult in Epinician Poetry’, in Carrey C., Agocs, P., Rawles, R. (eds). Reading the Victory Ode, Cambridge: CUP.

Figueira, T. J. (1981), Aigina: Society and Politics. Salem. New Hamp.

Finley, M. I. (1979), Ancient Sicily, 2nd edn. London.

Fischer- Bossert W. (2012), ‘The Coinage of Sicily’ in W. E. Metcalf (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford: OUP, 142-156.

Fitzgeralf, W. (1987), Agonistic Poetry: the Pindaric Mode in Pindar Horace, Hölderlin, and the English Ode. Berkeley: UCP.

Foucault, M. (1979), ‘Power and norm: Notes’, (in trans. M. Morris & P. Patton as Truth, Strategy, Sydney). (2013), Lectures of the Will to Know: Lectures at the College De France 1970-1971 With Oedipal Knowledge, (trans. G. Burchel. Great Britain. Chippenham and Eastbourne)

Fraenkel, E. (1954), ‘Vermutungen zum Aetna-Festspiel des Aeschylus’, Eranos 52: 61–75.

Freud, S. (1992), Civilization and its Discontents, (ed. & trans. James Strachey. New York: Norton). 211

Gantz, T. (1978), ‘Pindar's Second Pythian: The Myth of Ixion’, Hermes 106: 14-26.

Gauthier, Ph. (1966), ‘Le parallèle Himère-Salamine au Vº et au IVº siècle av. J.C’, REA 68: 5–32.

Gentili, B., P. Angeli Bernardini, E. Cingano and P. Giannini 1998-19982 Pindaro: Le Pitiche. Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione di Bruno Gentili, commento a cura di Paola Angeli Bernardini, Ettore Cingano, Bruno Gentili e Pietro Giannini. Milan Gerber, D. E. (1960), ‘Pindar, Pythian 2.56’, TAPhA 91: 100-108.

Gianotti, G. F. (1971), 'Sull'Olympica seconda di Pindaro', Rivista di Filologia e di lstruzione Classica ser 399: 26-52.

Gildersleeve, B. L. (1890), Pindar: Olympian and Pythian Odes. 2nd ed. New York and London: Harper.

Goldhill, Simon. (2000), Civic Ideology and the Problem of Difference: The Politics of Aeschylean Tragedy, Once Again’, JHS 120: 34-56.

Goslin, O. (2010), ‘Hesiod's Typhonomachy and the Ordering of Sound’, TAPhA 140: 351-373.

Graeber, D. (2001), Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of

Our Own Dreams. New York: Palgrave. (2011), Debt: The First 5000 Years, Melville House.

Gramsci, A. (1971), Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.

Granovetter, M. (2005), ‘The impact of social structure on economic outcomes’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, 1: 33-50.

Gregory, C. A. (1982), Gifts and Commodities, London: Academic Press. (1993), Early Greek Myth, A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore, London: JHUP.

Grethlein, J. (2010), The Greeks and Their Past: Poetry, Oratory and History in the Fifth Century BCE. Cambridge and New York: CUP. 212

Griffith, M. (1978), ‘Aeschylus, Sicily and Prometheus’, in R.D. Dawe, J. Diggle, and P. Easterling (eds) Dionysiaca: Nine Studies in Greek Poetry by Former Pupils, Presented to Denys Page on his Seventieth Birthday, Cambridge: CUP. 105–139.

Griffith, R. D. 1989. ‘’Pelops and Sicily, the Myth of Pindar Ol. 1’’, JHS, 109, 171-

173.

Griffiths, L.G. (1991), The Divine Verdict: A Study of Divine Judgement in the Ancient Religions, Leiden: Brill.

Godelier, M. (1985), The Mental and the Material Thought Economy and Society, (trans. Martin Thom. Verso) (1999), The Enigma of the Gift, (trans.N. Scott, Chicagp: UChP).

Gzella, S. (1981), 'Pindar and Aigina', Eos 69: 5-19.

Hall, E. (1989), Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy, Oxford: OUP.

Hall, J.M. (1997), Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: CUP.

Hansen, W. (2000), ‘The Winning of Hippodameia’, TAPhA 130: 19–40.

Harrell, S. (1998), Cultural Geography of East and West: Literary Representations of Archaic Sicilian Tyranny and Cult, Diss. Princeton University.

(2002), ‘King or Private Citizen: Fifth-Century Sicilian Tyrants at Olympia and Delphi’, Mnemosyne 55: 439–464.

Herington, C. J. (1967), ‘Aeschylus in Sicily’, JHS 87: 74–85.

Holloway, R. R. (1991), The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily. London: Routledge.

Hornblower, S. (2007), ‘Dolphins in The Sea’, in S. Hornblower and K. Morgan (eds), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford: OUP. (2011), The Greek World, 479-323 BC. Fourth Edition (first published 1983), Routledge History of the Ancient World. Abingdon; New York: Routledge. 213

Howie, J. G. (1984), 'The Revision of Myth in Pindar Olympian I. The Death and Revival of Pelops (25-27; 36-66)', Liverpool Lat. Semin. IV. 277-313.

Hubbard, T.K. (1985), The Pindaric Mind. A Study of Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry, Mnemosyne Supplements 85. Leiden. (1991), 'Theban Nationalism and Poetic Apology in Pindar, Pythian 9.76-96', RhM 134: 22-38. (2001), ‘Pindar and Athens after the Persian Wars’, in D.Papenfuss, and V. Strocka (eds.), Gab es das Griechische Wunder? Griechenland zwischen dem Ende des 6. und der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Mainz. 387–397.

Huxley, G. L. (1969) Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis, HUP.

Indergaard, H. (2011), ‘Thebes, Aigina, and the Temple of Aphaia: A Reading of Pindar's Isthmian 6’, in E. Fearn (ed), Aigina: Contexts for Choral Lyric Poetry: Myth, History, and Identity in the Fifth Century bc. Oxford: OUP.

Isaac, B. L. (1997), Research in economic anthropology, Supplement 7, CT: JAI Press.

Jaeger, W. (1947), Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, (trans. of second German edition of 1935 G. Highet, vol. I, Oxford)

Kavanagh, J. H. (1990); (1995), ‘Ideology’, in F. Lentricchia and T. McLaughlin (eds), Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed., Chicago, 306-20.

Kirk, G.S., (1974), The Nature of Greek Myth. Harmondsworth.

Kirkwood, G. (1982), Selections from Pindar: edited with an introduction and commentary. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Kingsley, P. (1995), Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kowalzig, B. (2007) Singing of the Gods: Performance of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece. Oxford: OUP. (2008), 'Nothing to do with Demeter? Something to do with Sicily! Theatre and society in the early fifth-century West’, in M. Revermann, and P. Wilson 214

(eds.), Performance, Iconography, Reception: Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin. Oxford. 128–5 (2011), ‘Musical Merchandise ‘on every vessel’: Religion and Trade on Aigina’, in E. Fearn (ed), Aigina: Contexts for Choral Lyric Poetry: Myth, History, and Identity in the Fifth Century bc, Oxford. OUP.

Kurke, L. (1991), The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lardinois A.P.M.H. (1997), ‘Modern Paroemiology and the Use of Gnomai in Homer's Iliad’, CPh 92: 213-34.

La Rosa, V. (1974), ‘Le Etnee di Eschilo e l’identificazione di Xuthia’, ASSO 70: 151– 164.

Lears, J. (1985), ‘The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities’, The American Historical Review, 90, 3: 567-593.

Lloyd-Jones, H. (1973), 'Modem Interpretation of Pindar: The Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes', JHS 93: 109-137. (1985), 'Pindar and the After-life', in A. Hurst (ed), Pindare: Entretiens surläntiquite classique 31. Geneva, Fondation Hardt, 245-283.

Lomas, K. (2006), ‘Tyrants and the Polis: Migration, Identity and Urban Development in Sicily’, in S. Lewis (ed.), Tyrants, kings, dynasts and generals: modes of autocracy in the classical period (500-320BC), Edinburgh: EUP, 95–118.

Long, H. H. S. (1948), A Study of the Doctrine of Metempsychosis in Greece from Pythagoras to Plato, Princeton: PUP.

Luraghi, N. (1994), Tirannidi arcaiche in Sicilia e Magna Grecia: da Panezio di Leontini alla caduta dei Dinomenidi. Florence: Leo S. Olschki. (2011), 'Hieron Agonistes or the Masks of the Tyrant', in G. Urso (ed.), Dicere laudes: elogio, comunicazione, creazione del consenso. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, settembre 2010, I convegni della Fondazione Niccolò Canussio, 10. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 27–47. 215

Mackie, H. S. (2003), Graceful Errors: Pindar and the Performance of Praise. Ann Arbor: UMP.

Maclachlan, B. (1993), The Age of Grace: Charis in Early Greek Poetry. Princeton: PUP.

Maeher, H. (2003), Bacchylidis Carmina cum Fragmentis. Munich.

Malinowski, B. (1922), Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (1926) Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Kegan Paul, Trenchand Trubner. (1926), ‘Myth in Primitive Psychology’, in Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1954 [1926]), 100- 145.

Mann, C. (2001), Athlet und Polis im archaischen und frühklassischen Griechenland, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Mannheim, K. (1936), Ideology and Utopia. London: Routledge.

Marx, K. (1964), Pre- Capitalistic Economic Formations, (trans. F. Cohen, International Publishers).

& Engels, F. (1970) The German Ideology: Part One with Selections from Parts Two and Three and Supplementary Texts, (ed. with an Introduction C. J. Arthur. International Publishers).

Maslov, B. (2015), Pindar and the Emergence of Literature. University of Chicago.

Mauss, M. (1967) The Gift, (transl. I. Cunnison, New York: Norton).

McGlew, J. (1993), Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

McMullin, R. M. (2005), The Deinomenids: Tyranny and Patronage at Syracuse, Diss. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004. Ann Arbor: UMI, 2005. 216

Miller, A. M. (1981), ‘Pindar, Archilochus and Hieron in P. 2.52–56’, TAPhA 111: 135–143.

Miller, M. (1970), The Sicilian colony dates. Albany: N.Y.

Mitchell, L. (2013), The Heroic Rulers of Archaic and Classical Greece. London.

Molyneux, J. H. (1992), Simonides: A Historical Study. Wauconda, IL: BolchazyCarducci.

Morgan. K. (1993), ‘Pindar the Professional and the Rhetoric of the ΚΩΜΟΣ’, CPh 88: 1–15. (2012), ‘A prolegomenon to performance in the West’, in Bosher K. (ed.) Theater Outside Athens: Drama in Greek Sicily and South Italy, 35-55. (2015), Pindar and the Construction of the Syracusean Monarchy in the Fifth Century BC. OUP.

Moriarty, M. (2006), ‘Ideology and literature’. Journal of Political Ideologies 11 ,1: 43-60.

Morrison, A. (2007), Performances and Audiences in Pindar’s Sicilian Victory Odes. BICS Suppl. 95. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

(2012), Performance, Re-performance, and Pindar’s Audiences’, in P. Agócs , C. Carey, and R. Rawles, , (eds). Reading the Victory Ode, Cambridge: CUP,111–133.

Mosse, C. (1969), La Tyrannie Dans la Grece Antique. Paris.

Most, G. W. (1985), The Measures of Praise: Structure and Function in Pindars Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes. Hypomnemata 83. Göttingen. (1986), ‘Pindar, O. 2.83–90’, CQ 36: 304–16.

Murray, O. (1980), Early Greece. Atlantic Highlands. N.J. Humanities Press.

Nagy, G. (1990), Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past, London. Negri, M. (2004), Pindaro ad Alessandria: Le edizioni e gli editori. Brescia. 217

Nicholson, N. J., (2005), Aristocracy and Athletics in Archaic and Classical Greece, Cambridge: CUP. (2015), The Poetics of Victory in the Greek West: Epinician, Oral Tradition, and the Deinomenid Empire. N.Y. OUP.

Nisetich, F. J. (1975), ‘Olympian 1.8-11: An Epinician Metaphor’, HSPh 79: 55–68. (1980), Pindar's Victory Songs. Translation, Introduction, Prefaces. Baltimore and London. (1988), ‘Immortality in Acragas: Poetry and Religion in Pindar’s Second Olympian Ode’, CPh. 83:1–19.

Oates, F. (1963), ‘Pindar's Second Pythian Ode’, AJPh 84: 377-389.

Oost, S. I. (1976), ‘The Tyrant Kings of Syracuse’, CPh 71: 224–236.

Osteen, M. (2002), The Question of the Gift: Essays across Disciplines, Routledge.

Park, A. (2009), Truth, Falsehood, and Reciprocity in Pindar and Aeschylus, Diss. University of North Carolina.

Pavese, C. (1966), ‘ΧΡΗΜΑΤΑ, ΧΡΗΜΑΤ’ ΑΝΗΡ ed il motive della liberalità nella seconda Istmica di Pindaro’, QUCC 2: 103-12.

Pavlou, M. (2010), ‘Fathers in absentia in Pindar’s Epinician Poetry’, GRBS 52: 57- 88.

Payne, M. (2010), The Animal Part: Human and Other Animals in the Poetic Imagination, The University of Chicago Press.

Pelliccia, H. (2009), ‘Simonides, Pindar and Bacchylides’, in F. Budelmann (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Lyric, 1st ed. Cambridge: CUP. 240-262.

Perysinakis, I. (1997), ‘Pindar’s Imagery: The Nemean Odes’, Δωδώνη: Φιλολογία, 26: 93-125. (1998), ‘Pindar’s Imagery: The Nemean Odes’, Δωδώνη: Φιλολογία, 27: 17-68.

Pfeijffer, I. (1995), 'Pindar’s Eighth Pythian: The Relevance of the Historical Setting', Hermes 123:156–65. 218

(1999), Three Aeginitan Odes of Pindar: A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III & Pythian VIII. Leiden.

Phillips, T. (2016), Pindar’s Library Performance Poetry and Material Texts. OUP.

Picard, O. 1978. 'La tortue de terre sur les monnaies d'Egine.' BSFN 33. 330-33

Pickard-Cambridge, A. (1962), Dithyramb, Tragedy, and Comedy (2nd Edition Revised by T.B.L. Webster). Oxford.

Podlecki, A. (1979), ‘Simonides in Sicily’, PP 34: 5–16.

Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation, Beacon Press.

Polinskaya, I. (2013), A Local History of Greek Polytheism: Gods, People and the Land of Aigina, 800-400 BCE, Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Poli-Palladini, Letizia. (2001, ‘Some Reflections on Aeschylus’ Aetnae(ae)’, RhM 144: 287- 325.

Prag, J. (2010), ‘Tyrannizing Sicily: The despots who cried ‘Carthage’, in A. J. Turner, James H. Kim On Chong-Gossard, and F. J. Vervaet (eds), Private and Public Lies: The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden: Brill, 51-71.

Pratt, L. H. (1993), Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar. Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics, Ann Arbor.

Race, W.H. (1986), Pindar. Boston. (1987), Pindaric Encomium and Isokrates’ Evagoras’’, TAPhA 117: 131-155.

(1997a), Pindar Nemean Odes Isthmian Odes, Fragments (1997b) Pindar, Olympian odes, Pythian Odes Cambridge, Mass.

Radt, St. ed. (1971-85) Tragicorum Graecorum Fragments, vol. 3. Gottingen.

Rawles, R. (2011), ‘Eros and praise in early Greek lyric', in L. Athanassaki and E. Bowie (eds), Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and 219

Dissemination. Trends in Classics – supplementary volumes, 10. Berlin; Boston, 139-59.

Rehm, R. (1989), ‘Aeschylus in Syracuse: The Commerce of Tragedy and Politics’, in B. Daix Wescoat (ed.), Syracuse: The Fairest City, Roma: De Luca, 31–34.

Robinson, E.W. (1997), The First Democracies. Early Popular Government Outside Athens. Historia Einzelschriften 107. Stuttgart.F. Steiner.

Rose, P. W. (1974), ‘The Myth of Pindar's First Nemean: Sportsmen, Poetry and Paideia’, HSCPh 78: 147-75. (1992), Sons of the Gods, Children of the Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece, Ithaca.

(2006), ‘Divorcing Ideology from Marxism and Marxism from Ideology: Some Problems’, Arethusa 39.1: 101-136 (2012), Class in Archaic Greece, CUP.

Rostovtzeff, M. I. (1971), Out of the Past of Greece and Rome, Biblo and Tannen, New York.

Ruggie, J. G. (1982), ‘International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic system’, International Organization 36, 2: 379- 415.

Sahlins, M. (1963), ‘Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief; Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia’, in Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 5, 3: 285-303. (1972), Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.

Sánchez Vázquez, A. (1973), Art and Society: Essays in Marxist Aesthetics, New York: Monthly Review Press.

Schadewaldt, W. (1928), Der Aufbau des pindarischen Epinikions, Halle.

Scott, M. (2010), Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Cambridge: CUP. 220

Scodel, R. (2001), ‘Poetic Authority and Oral Tradition in Hesiod and Pindar’, in J. Watson (ed.) Mnemosyne Suppl. 218, Boston: Brill, 109–138.

Seaford, R. (2004), Money and the Greek Early Mind: Homer, Philosophy, and Tragedy. Cambridge: CUP.

Segal, C. (1986), Pindar’s Mythmaking The Fourth Pythian Ode, PUP. (1998) Aglaia: The Poetry of Aleman, Sappho, Pindar, Bacchylides, and Corinna, Lanham, Md. (1999), Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles, CUP.

Sigelman, A. (2004), Xenia and the Unity of Time in Pindar’s Victory Odes, Diss. Boston University. (2016), Pindar’s Poetics of Immortality. CUP.

Skulsky, S. D. (1975), ‘ΠΟΛΛΩΝ ΠΕΙΡΑΤΑ ΣΥΝΤΑΝΥΣΑΙΕ: Language and Meaning in Pythian 1’, CPh. Vol. 70: 8-31.

Solmsen, F. (1982), ‘Achilles in the Islands of Blest: Pindar vs. Homer and Hesiod’, AJPh 103:19-24.

Strathern, M. (1988), The Gender of the Gift, University of California Press.

De Ste.Croix, G. E. M. (1972), The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London.

Steiner, D. T. (1986), The Crown of Song: Metaphor in Pindar. London: Duckworth. (1993), ‘Pindar’s Ogetti Parlanti’, HSCPh 95: 159–80. (2001), Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought, Princeton. (2002), ‘Indecorous Dining, Indecorous Speech: Pindar’s First Olympian and the Poetics of Consumption’, Arethusa 35: 297–314.

Stenger, J. (2004), Poetische Argumentation: Die Funktion der Gnomik in den Epinikien des Bakchlides, Berlin.

Stoneman, R. (1981), ‘Ploughing a Garland: Metaphor and Metonymy in Pindar’, Maia 33:125-138. 221

O’ Sullivan, P. (2015), ‘Pindar and the Poetics of the Athlete’ Classics@ vol.13. Online Journal. Greek Poetry and Sport.

Sullivan, S. D. (2001), ‘PHREN AND PLANNING: PINDAR, NEMEAN 1.27’, Prometheus 27: 211-216. (2002), 'Aspects of the ‘Fictive I’ in Pindar: Address to Psychic Entities.' Emerita 70:83–102.

Svarlien, D. Amson. (1990), ‘Epicharmus and Pindar at Hieron’s Court’, KOKALOS

36-37: 103-10.

Thatcher, M. (2012), ‘Syracusan Identity between Tyranny and Democracy’, BIAL 55: 73-90.

Thompson, J. B. (1984), Studies in the Theory of Ideology, Cambridge: Polity Press and Berkeley: UCP.

Thummer, E. (1957), Die Religiosität Pindars. Commentationes Aenipontanae 13. Innsbruck (1969), Die isthmischen Gedichte- Band 2, Kommentar. Heidelberg.

Torrance, I.C. (2014), ‘Swearing oaths in the authorial person’, in A. H. Sommerstein, I. C. Torrance (eds), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece. De Gruyter. 348-379.

Torres, D. A. (2007), La escatología en la lírica de Píndaro y sus Fuentes. Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Young, D.C. (1983), 'Pindar Pythians 2 and 3: Inscriptional ποτέ: and the "poetic epistle", HSCPh 87: 32-48.

Veleri, V. (1994), ‘Buying women but not selling them: gift and commodity exchange in Huaula alliance’, Man, New Series, Vol. 29, 1: 1-26.

Verdenius, W. J. (1982), Pindar's Second Isthmian Ode: A Commentary, Mnemosyne, Vol. 35, 1-37. (1988) Commentaries on Pindar, vol. II: Olympian Odes 1, 10, 11, Nemean 222

11, Isthmian 2. (Mnemosyne Suppl. 101.). Leiden, New York, Copenhagen and Cologne.

Walker, J. (2000), Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity, New York.

Weiner, A.B, (1992), Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While- Giving, UCP.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. VON (1922), Pindaros, Berlin.

Wilk, R. & Cliggett L.C. (2007), Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology 2nd ed., Boulder (ed.), CO: Westview Press.

Willcock, M. M. (1995), Pindar. Victory Odes, Cambridge: CUP.

Wilson, J. (1980), 'kairos as ‘Due Measure’, Glotta 50:177–204.

Woodbury, L. E. (1966), `Equinox at Acragas: Pindar, 01.2.61-2', TAPhA 97: 597- 616. (1968), ‘Pindar and the Mercenary Muse: Isthm. 2.1–13’, TAPhA

99: 527–542. (1978), ‘The Gratitude of the Locrian Maiden: Pindar, Pyth. 2.18–20’,

TAPhA 108: 285–299