A HISTORICAL READING of PINDAR's OLYMPIAN 1 Ryan

REMEMBER YOU ARE MORTAL: A HISTORICAL READING OF PINDAR’S OLYMPIAN 1

Ryan Masato Baldwin

A thesis submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Classics in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Chapel Hill 2021

Approved by:

Patricia Rosenmeyer

William H. Race

Janet Downie

ABSTRACT

Ryan Masato Baldwin: Remember You Are Mortal: A Historical Reading of Pindar’s Olympian 1 (Under the direction of Patricia Rosenmeyer)

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the historical context of Pindar’s Olympian 1, the myths and adaptations that Pindar utilizes, and the overarching didactic and cautionary lessons meant for Hieron, Pindar’s benefactor. After I establish the historical context, I argue that the poet attempts to warn Hieron about potential revolt through his rendition of the Tantalus myth. In addition, by beginning his ode with a priamel; juxtaposing the actions of Tantalus with those of

Pelops; and ending with the hope that Hieron will win a chariot race, Pindar advises Hieron to avoid hubris. Lastly, I claim that Hieron later redeemed himself in the eyes of the poet by analyzing the shift of Pindar’s poetic methods and didactic lessons in Pythian 1, given six years later. Pindar portrays Hieron as a virtuous king who has received—and will continue to receive—glory on account of his international reputation as a harbinger of peace.

iii

ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Patricia Rosenmeyer, not only for her prompt edits, excellent advice, and for meeting with me so frequently, but also for believing in me and for instilling confidence in me as a scholar and writer. I would also like to thank the rest of my committee, William Race and Janet Downie, for their insightful remarks and expertise in helping me revise and correct my thesis to what it is now. Regarding others who have helped me create this final product, I would like to thank my friends Joshua MacKay, John Martin, and Allen

Kendall for their feedback and their questions, in addition to their emotional support throughout this process. I would also like to thank my immediate and extended family for their continual love and support in my endeavors. Lastly, I would like to thank my kids—Lawrence and

Amelia—along with my wife Daricka, without whom I could have never come this far. Their laughs and unconditional love have provided me with more strength than they could possibly know. Thank you!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF PINDAR’S POEM TO HIERON IN 476 BCE ...... 5

THE PEOPLE’S DISCONTENT: PINDAR’S MYTHOLOGICAL ADAPTATIONS AND HIS WARNINGS TO HIERON ...... 12

Impending Revolt: Pindar’s Adaption of the Tantalus Myth ...... 14

Accepting Mortality and Refraining From Hubris: Tantalus, Pelops, and Winning a Chariot Race ...... 25

The Opening Priamel and Its Ties to Mortality ...... 31

HIERON REDEEMED: PINDAR’S PYTHIAN 1 ...... 40

CONCLUSION ...... 48

APPENDIX A: MAP OF SICILY, FIFTH CENTURY BCE ...... 51

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 52

Introduction

Pindar’s famous Olympian 1 has fascinated—and continues to fascinate—scholars. Many issues in this ode are hotly debated: the meaning of its beautiful opening line ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ

(“water is best”); Pindar’s unusual adaptation and use of the Tantalus and Pelops myths; and the curiously anticlimactic conclusion expressing hope that Hieron will someday win a chariot race.

Scholars have analyzed Pindar’s ode to Hieron through different lenses, including philology, modern theory, historical background, and intertextuality, many of which have yielded fruitful results. My own approach will be to consider in greater depth how historical events and the topics addressed in the victory ode itself are connected: historical context and epinician content are mutually dependent.

The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to analyze the historical context of Pindar’s

Olympian 1, the myths and adaptations that Pindar utilizes, and the overarching didactic and cautionary lessons meant for Hieron as the primary recipient of the ode. Nigel Nicholson writes,

“A New Historicist would assume the presence of conflict, and assume that the various representations were responding to, and trying to win, that conflict. The moment a text takes the time to present something as uncontroversial is surely precisely when it is controversial.”1 I hope to show that Pindar was indeed aware of the events and controversy that occurred in Sicily in

476 BCE and that he structured his ode to warn Hieron about how his political and military endeavors were negatively impacting his people. To show this, I will explain—through a

1 Nigel Nicholson, “Pindar, History, and Historicism,” Classical Philology 102, no. 2 (2007): 227.

summary of historical events—how the people in Sicily experienced a power struggle between rulers, endured the suppression of popular revolts, and suffered forced displacement—events all performed by Hieron—in the year of the first performance of Pindar’s ode. After establishing the historical context surrounding Olympian 1, I argue that the poet attempts to warn Hieron about possible revolt from his people through his rendition of the Tantalus myth. In addition, by beginning his ode with a priamel about water, gold, and the Olympic games; adapting the myths of Tantalus and Pelops and juxtaposing their actions; and ending his ode with the hope that

Hieron will one day win a chariot race, Pindar reminds Hieron of his mortality. The poet advises him to seek mortal glory in a manner similar to Pelops—winning a chariot race and winning the favor of his people—rather than glorifying himself through his own destructive policies—such as depopulating the city of Catana to establish Aetna for his own glory at the expense of his own people whom he displaced. Lastly, I hope to show that Hieron redeemed himself in the eyes of the poet by briefly analyzing the shift of Pindar’s poetic methods and didactic lessons in Pythian

1, given six years later. By comparing Hierons’ accomplishments with Zeus’, explicitly describing historical events, and alluding to Olympian 1, Pindar portrays Hieron not as someone greedy for glory at the expense of his own subjects, but as a virtuous king who has received— and will continue to receive—glory on account of his presence on the international stage as a harbinger of peace.

Pindar’s Olympian 1, which I will summarize briefly here, was performed in 476 BCE for

Hieron, tyrant of Syracuse in Sicily who was the victor in the keles—the single-horse race. The keles, however, was not a particularly prestigious event, especially compared to the other horse races such as the tethrippon—the chariot race.2 William Race argues convincingly that the ode

2 William H. Race, trans., Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1997): 44.

begins with a priamel (lines 1-7), which will be analyzed later in the paper.3 After the priamel and Pindar’s praise of Hieron and his horse Pherenicus (8-24), the poet focuses on the story of

Pelops (25-51), albeit a different story from the Homeric tradition.4 Rather than describing the dismembered Pelops being served to the gods and the subsequent events in the house of

Tantalus—an account which Pindar attributes to embellished storytelling (28a-29)—Pindar describes how Pelops was born with an ivory shoulder, was taken by lovestruck Poseidon to

Olympus, and sent back to Earth because of Tantalus’ stealing and distributing of godly ambrosia to his friends. Tantalus’ punishment (52-64) is also different from the Homeric tradition: in Pindar, he stands with a rock hanging over his head, a change that will be more fully analyzed later. Pindar then resumes the story of Pelops and how he, after being sent back to

Earth, married Hippodameia after he defeated her father Oenomaus in a chariot race with the help of Poseidon, who gifted him a golden chariot and winged horses (65-87). After Pindar briefly describes Pelops’ children, his burial in Olympia, and his lasting fame (88-105), the poet closes his ode by praising Hieron and expressing a hope that the tyrant will one day win a chariot victory and that he will be able to celebrate it with him (106-116).

Because scholars are uncertain whether Pindar incorporated historical events into his odes, little has been written about the historical context and its effect on our understanding of

Pindar’s first Olympian ode. In his 1982 commentary, Gordon Kirkwood argues that we can never know to what extent Pindar meant to compare the myths in Olympian 1 with Hieron.5 Both

3 William H. Race, “Pindar’s ‘Best is Water’: Best of What?” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 22, no. 2 (1981): 121. Cf. Race, Olympian Odes, 44.

4 Hom. Od. 11.582-592.

5 Gordon Kirkwood, Selections from Pindar: Edited with an Introduction and Commentary (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982): 44.

Chris Carey and Elisabetta Pitotto argue that Pindar’s odes, including Olympian 1, avoid treatment of historical events.6 Pitotto continues her argument by claiming that the lack of historical information in Pindar’s ode proves that the ode was meant to be performed in Olympia to boost Hieron’s reputation and bring him onto the international stage.7 Contrary to these other scholars, Jenny Clay analyzes the historical events surrounding Sicily to argue that Olympians 1 through 3 should be treated as a ring composition and should be read as a triptych.8 While all of these works bring up important and necessary points and have laid a foundation for my own analysis, I argue that our understanding of Olympian 1 is substantially diminished if we do not properly acknowledge the events preceding and leading up to Hieron’s victory in the horse race.

In addition to these previous scholars, Kathryn Morgan gives us essential literary and historical analysis in her monograph, Pindar and the Construction of Syracusan Monarchy in the

Fifth Century B.C. She argues that Pindar’s four odes to Hieron—Olympian 1 and Pythians 1-

3—are more than just epinikia: Pindar attempts to construct a model of virtuous kingship and place Hieron’s rule in a space between the gods and ordinary mortals.9 As Morgan eloquently puts it, “The odes thus theorize and perform the creation and promulgation of a particular

6 Chris Carey, “Pindar and the Victory Ode,” The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions, ed. Lewis Ayres (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995): 91; Elisabetta Pitotto, “Olympia and Syracuse, the Polis and Panhellas in the Epinicians for Hieron,” The Classical World 108, no. 1 (2014): 3-26, esp. 10-13.

7 Pitotto, “Olympia and Syracuse,” 25-26.

8 Jenny Strauss Clay, “Olympians 1-3: A Song Cycle?” Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics, Dissemination, ed. Lucia Athanassaki and Ewen Bowie, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011): 337-346, esp. 338-340.

9 Kathryn A. Morgan, Pindar and the Construction of Syracusan Monarchy in the Fifth Century B.C. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015): 2.

understanding of kingship.”10 While Morgan operates within a historicizing framework and discusses the historical events of Hieron’s life and some of the overall context surrounding

Pindar’s odes to Hieron, she does not tie the historical events—particularly Hieron’s military and political endeavors—surrounding Olympian 1 to the content of the ode. Rather, she focuses on how the ode portrays Hieron as a just ruler similar to Pelops and how it relates to the poet’s construction of a virtuous king. Despite not elaborating on the significance of the historical context for this particular ode, Morgan’s analysis of Pindar’s retelling of the Tantalus and Pelops myths in Olympian 1 and how these characters can be tied to Hieron—in addition to many other insights—elucidates our understanding of the ode and is essential for my own analysis.11

Building on Morgan and others, I hope to add to these other arguments by analyzing more deeply the historical context of Olympian 1 and how it shaped Pindar’s retelling of his myths as he sought to instruct his benefactor. To argue this, let us now turn to the historical context.

The Historical Context of Pindar’s Poem to Hieron in 476 BCE12

The catastrophic historical events preceding the performance of Olympian 1 can—and will—illuminate and expand our understanding of the ode. Our historical sources for the time period, unfortunately, are minimal. Most of our information—especially that which calls into question the fifth-century claims of Hieron’s successes—comes from Diodorus and the eleventh book of his Bibliotheca Historica from the first century BCE. Although Diodorus and his work are much later than the events described, the historian used reliable sources such as Herodotus,

10 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 3.

11 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 209-259.

12 See Appendix A for a map of Sicily in the fifth century BCE.

Thucydides, and Ephorus, a fourth-century BCE historian from Cyme in Asia Minor.13

Regarding Ephorus, by whom the eleventh book of Diodorus’ Bibliotheca Historica was heavily influenced, we know little about the historian aside from the fact that he was a pupil of Isocrates, so he likely spent some time in Athens. Although we cannot compare Diodorus’ work with

Ephorus’, Diodorus’ faithful use of Herodotus and Thucydides in other places allows us to assume cautiously a similar faithfulness towards Ephorus for the events of 476 BCE.

Most of our other earlier writings either omit information about Sicily or are lost:

Herodotus describes the battle of Himera of 480 BCE but is silent on the affairs of Hieron;

Aeschylus’ Aetnean Women, a play written and performed in 476 BCE to celebrate the foundation of Aetna, is lost aside from a few small fragments; and, while Thucydides briefly mentions the eruption of Mount Aetna that occurred around the time of Aetna’s founding, he is silent about the affairs of Sicily in his summary of the Pentecontaetia. While there is some archaeological evidence, such as coins that possibly compare Hieron to Zeus, most of our analysis must stem from the histories of Diodorus.14

Hieron’s desire to gain power and his fear of losing it led to some of the catastrophe that occurred in 476 BCE. Hieron ascended to the throne of Syracuse in 478 BCE after the death of his brother and predecessor Gelon. While David Asheri mentions that power under the

Deinomenids was traditionally handed down from brother to brother, Pitotto argues that Hieron was likely a placeholder, meant to be a guardian along with his brothers for Gelon’s underage

13 Lisa Irene Hau, “The Burden of Good Fortune in Diodoros of Sicily: A Case for Originality?” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 58, no. 2 (2009): 171-97, esp. 174.

14 Meister mentions two coins, both of which depict Zeus holding a scepter. He argues that these coins were meant to portray Hieron as the earthly equivalent of Zeus. See F. J Meister, “Hieron and Zeus in Pindar,” Classical Philology 114 (2019): 366–382, esp. 373.

son who was the rightful heir.15 Kirkwood seems to be in agreement with Pitotto that Hieron unlawfully seized the throne, arguing that Hieron was likely a “conspiratorial and bloody-minded despot.”16 If Pitotto is correct, and Hieron took sole power of Syracuse despite not being the proper heir, the actions of Hieron—which I will elaborate on shortly—could be even more painful to many who did not support Hieron in the beginning and did not believe he was their rightful ruler.

Hieron had two surviving brothers after Gelon’s death: Polyzelos and Thrasybulos.

Polyzelos in particular was popular among the Syracusans, which led Hieron to believe that his brother wanted the kingship.17 This idea was compounded by the fact that Polyzelos was contacted by Anaxilas, king of Rhegium in Sicily, who had been forced into an alliance with

Syracuse by Gelon after the Battle of Himera in 480 BCE. Taking advantage of the dynastic difficulties of the Deinomenids, Anaxilas contacted Polyzelos—likely in an attempt to create an alliance with him—and attacked the Epizephyrian Locrians of southern Italy, whom Hieron supported and defended in 477/476 BCE.18 Little is known about this event, but Pitotto argues that Anaxilas conducted this expedition to expand the influence of Rhegium.19 Contacting

Polyzelos, Anaxilas could have tried to gain support from Hieron’s brother in order to have a new Syracusan ruler who was more favorable to him. Alternatively, perhaps he was attempting

15 D. Asheri, “Sicily, 478-431 B.C,” The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. David M. Lewis, John Boardman, J. K. Davies, and M. Ostwald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992): 147-70, esp. 149; Pitotto, “Olympia and Syracuse,” 3-4.

16 Kirkwood, Selections from Pindar, 125.

17 Diod. Sic. 11.48.3. Any Greet text from Diodorus has been taken from C.H. Oldfather, trans., Diodorus: Diodorus of Sicily, vol. 4, Books IX-XII.40 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946).

18 Race, Pythian Odes, 239n6.

19 Pitotto, “Olympia and Syracuse,” 4.

to weaken Syracuse by exacerbating Hieron’s and Polyzelos’ struggle in the hopes of conquering their territory once it was weakened. However, Anaxilas died in 476 BCE before any of his plans were realized. Anaxilas’ involvement, however, stirred up further conflict between Hieron and

Polyzelos even after his death.

The conflict between Hieron and Polyzelos increased nearly to the point of civil war. In an attempt to kill his brother, Hieron sent Polyzelos to command a band of mercenaries and foreign soldiers to protect the Sybarites from the Crotoniates, both of whom dwelt in southern

Italy. Polyzelos, recognizing the danger and his likely death if he went, refused to embark on the campaign and fled to Theron, ruler of Acragas, in southern Sicily. Hieron prepared for war against Theron and his brother. However, the citizens of Himera, a city in northern Sicily under

Theron’s power, approached Hieron in the hopes of revolting against Theron and his brother

Thrasydaeus, who ruled Himera βαρύτερον τοῦ καθήκοντος (“more harshly than was proper”), and joining Hieron in his battle against Theron.20 Rather than accept them, however, Hieron told

Theron about the dissenters, who were then captured and killed. While peace between Theron and Hieron was restored, the city of Himera had to be repopulated and re-founded due to the number of people who had been killed by Theron. Diodorus’ use of σφαγή to describe the deaths of the dissenters in Himera likely indicates his disapproval of Theron’s actions and the bloodiness of the affair, labeling it as a slaughter rather than some other milder term.21 Polyzelos, after returning to Syracuse, was later exiled by Hieron to Gela in southern Sicily, thus cementing

Hieron’s claim to the throne as Syracuse’s sole ruler. The slaughter at Himera certainly had an impact on many under Theron’s rule, but for those ill-disposed towards Hieron or more favorable

20 Diod. Sic. 11.48.6.

21 Diod. Sic. 11.49.3.

towards Polyzelos in Syracuse, the successful rise of Hieron would have been discouraging now that they were permanently under Hieron’s control.

In addition to Hieron being the cause of the deaths of the dissenters in Himera because he betrayed them to Theron, he was also responsible for forcibly removing many of the inhabitants of cities under his rule. In 476 BCE, Hieron forced the people of Naxos and Catana—both coastal towns in eastern Sicily—to emigrate (ἀναστήσας) from their ancestral lands (ἐκ τῶν

πατρίδων) and resettle in Leontini, a town southwest of Catana.22 Diodorus does not give an exact reason for moving these people, but Asheri points out that Naxos remained depopulated.23

Catana, on the other hand, was recolonized by Hieron, who sent five thousand Dorians and five thousand Syracusans—all who were favorable towards the tyrant—to settle the city and the land surrounding it, renaming the city Aetna. He then placed his son, Deinomenes, as ruler of Aetna.

The reasoning for establishing a new city is uncertain. Diodorus claims that Hieron desired to not only have a strong force nearby if he needed aid, but also because he wanted to be praised like a mythological hero.24 This logic does not entirely make sense. What was wrong with the previous inhabitants of Catana that they needed to be relocated? Why were the previous inhabitants unable (or even unwilling) to praise Hieron like a hero? What makes these new settlers different compared with the original inhabitants? Why was Naxos depopulated without any intention of rebuilding it? If anything, this would seem to hurt his standing among other towns under his rule. While we can imagine that any ruler might desire to be praised like a hero to cement his glory and immortality, to do so at the expense of his own people seems

22 Diod. Sic. 11.49.1-2.

23 Asheri, “Sicily, 478-31 B.C.,” 150.

24 Diod. Sic. 11.49.2.

counterintuitive. While glory and recognition provide one possible reason, we cannot tell from

Diodorus’ history why the city was repopulated or pinpoint Hieron’s purposes behind his actions.

Regardless of Hieron’s reasoning, two entire cities were depopulated under his rule: people were displaced and forced to rebuild and integrate into a new society, a catastrophe for all who were impacted by it.

So, how does the historical context of Pindar’s Sicilian odes play into our understanding of them? To summarize the historical context: Hieron desired to be sole ruler, possibly usurped the throne, feared losing his power, suppressed a popular revolt, and launched a mass immigration that forced many people to lose their homes or their loved ones. While Aetna was colonized with people likely favorable towards Hieron, many others were forced to start their lives over from scratch. Even those who might not have been directly affected by it likely knew of these events. Diodorus sums up Hierons’ rule,

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.

But Hieron, the next oldest among the brothers, who succeeded to the throne, did not rule over his subjects in the same manner; for he was avaricious and violent and, speaking generally, an utter stranger to sincerity and nobility of character. Consequently there were a good many who wished to revolt, but they restrained their inclinations because of Gelon’s reputation and the goodwill he had shown towards all the Sicilian Greeks.25

Beyond Diodorus and everything mentioned previously, we know little, but there is enough to see the tension that existed between Hieron, Polyzelos, Theron, and their respective subjects and areas of rule.

25 Diod. Sic. 11.67.3-4, trans. Oldfather.

As mentioned previously, Carey and Pitotto both argue that Pindar’s odes, including

Olympian 1, avoid treatment of historical events.26 Pitotto argues that the lack of historical focus is evidence that the performance of the ode was in Olympia, where people would not have known about the affairs of Hieron in Sicily, rather than in Syracuse. However, these odes were reperformed in the victor’s hometown, so it is likely that Pindar would have incorporated material pertaining to Syracuse. While we are uncertain where exactly the ode was first performed and whether Pindar made any reference to historical events in his Sicilian odes,

Kirkwood argues that Pindar likely visited Sicily to perform Olympian 1 based on his description of the eruption of Mount Aetna in Pythian 1, performed six years later.27 While Pindar might not state any historical events outright, he can still allude to historical events and instruct his audience about possible or probable future consequences of these events. Aristotle writes about the function of poetry,

It is also evident from what has been said that it is not the poet’s function to relate actual events, but the kinds of things that might occur and are possible in terms of probability or necessity. The difference between the historian and the poet is not that between using verse or prose; Herodotus’ work could be versified and would be just as much a kind of history in verse as in prose. No, the difference is this: that the one relates actual events, the other the kinds of things that might occur. Consequently, poetry is more philosophical and more elevated than history, since poetry relates more of the universal, while history relates particulars.28

26 Carey, Pindar and the Victory Ode, 91; Pitotto, “Olympia and Syracuse,” 10-13.

27 Kirkwood, Selections from Pindar, 125.

28 Arist. Poet. 1451a36-1451b8, trans. Halliwell, emphasis my own. “Φανερὸν δὲ ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων καὶ ὅτι οὐ τὸ τὰ γενόμενα λέγειν, τοῦτο ποιητοῦ ἔργον ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾿ οἷα ἂν γένοιτο καὶ τὰ δυνατὰ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον. ὁ γὰρ ἱστορικὸς καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς οὐ τῷ ἢ ἔμμετρα λέγειν ἢ ἄμετρα διαφέρουσιν· εἴη γὰρ ἂν τὰ Ἡροδότου εἰς μέτρα τεθῆναι καὶ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἂν εἴη ἱστορία τις μετὰ μέτρου ἢ ἄνευ μέτρων· ἀλλὰ τούτῳ διαφέρει, τῷ τὸν μὲν τὰ γενόμενα λέγειν, τὸν δὲ οἷα ἂν γένοιτο. διὸ καὶ φιλοσοφώτερον καὶ σπουδαιότερον ποίησις ἱστορίας ἐστίν· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ποίησις μᾶλλον τὰ καθόλου, ἡ δ᾿ ἱστορία τὰ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον λέγει.” The Greek text was taken from Stephen Halliwell, trans., Aristotle, vol. 23: Aristotle: Poetics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).

Aristotle’s description of poetry here suits how I am reading Pindar’s discourse. While Pindar does not relate the specific events connected to Olympian 1, the myths that Pindar tells and the didactic lessons of his ode can—and do, as I will argue—reflect the historical context. Political conflict, murdered civilians, and displaced settlers all transpired on the island of Sicily leading up to Pindar’s decisions about what to emphasize and/or include in his ode to Hieron in

Olympian 1. Pindar’s first ode to Hieron, I argue, was an attempt to warn the tyrant about the discontent that could occur on account of his actions and his desire to be like the gods. Pindar’s later odes, particularly through his direct comparison of Hieron with Zeus in Pythian 1 after his long-awaited chariot victory—which will be analyzed later—, suggest that Hieron understood the warnings of Pindar’s poetry, had won the approval of his subjects, and had later success as a ruler. To see what Pindar’s warnings were, I will turn to the poet’s adaptations of his myths in

Olympian 1 and how these myths and their corresponding lessons relate to the historical context.

The People’s Discontent: Pindar’s Mythological Adaptations and His Warnings to Hieron

The majority of Olympian 1 focuses on the myth of Pelops and his father Tantalus.

Pindar’s versions of these myths, as we will see, are vastly different from both earlier and later sources that depict the traditional stories of these characters. We have already mentioned how the punishment of Tantalus in Pindar’s retelling of the myth is different from Homer’s: a rock hangs over Tantalus’ head. Regarding Pelops, Pindar omits certain parts of the traditional story. For example, neither Myrtilus—the man who tampered with Oenomaus’ chariot chariot—nor a description of the chariot race between Pelops and Oenomaus are described in Pindar’s ode.

Pitotto argues that Pindar’s choice of myths and the changes that he makes are not “creative inspiration,” but rather calculated retellings; the discrepancies between the “traditional” and

“new” versions of these myths should highlight the core of the poet’s message and his plan for praising the laudandus.29 Agreeing with Pittoto, I argue that the protagonists of these myths and the changes to these stories are not ornamental, but should be tied to Hieron.

Scholars have already noted the relation between Hieron and the Pelops described in

Olympian 1. Kathryn Morgan argues that the myth of Pelops points to Hieron because Pelops is the mythological archetype of kingship.30 Pindar makes the connection between the two near the beginning of his ode to Hieron, θεμιστεῖον ὃς ἀμφέπει σκᾶπτον ἐν πολυμήλῳ / Σικελίᾳ

(“[Hieron,] who wields the rightful scepter in flock-rich Sicily”).31 While F.J. Meister argues that

Pindar is comparing Hieron to Zeus in these lines, I am in agreement with Morgan that Pindar is referring to Agamemnon, the grandson of Pelops.32 Agamemnon is often referred to in Homer’s

Iliad as ποιμὴν λαῶν (“shepherd of men”), which is similar to Pindar calling Sicily “flock-rich,” thus portraying Hieron like an epic hero.33 Nestor, in Book 9 of the Iliad, points out that Zeus has put into Agamemnon’s hands σκῆπτρόν τ᾽ἠδὲ θέμιστας (“the scepter and rights”).34 Lastly,

Homer describes the rightful scepter that was given to Agamemnon.

ἀνὰ δὲ κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων ἔστη σκῆπτρον ἔχων, τὸ μὲν Ἥφαιστος κάμε τεύχων. Ἥφαιστος μὲν δῶκε Διὶ Κρονίωνι ἄνακτι,

29 Pitotto, “Olympia and Syracuse,” 6-7.

30 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 228.

31 Pind. Ol. 1.12-13. The Greek text for Pindar’s Olympian and Pythian odes were taken from William H. Race, trans., Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). Note: all translations of Olympian 1 are my own.

32 Meister, “Hieron and Zeus in Pindar,” 371-372; Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 226- 227. Cf. Race, Olympian Odes, 47n3.

33 For example, Hom. Il. 2.85. The Greek text from Books 1-12 of Homer’s Iliad was taken from A.T. Murray, trans., Homer: Iliad, vol. 1: Books 1-12 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).

34 Hom. Il. 9.99.

αὐτὰρ ἄρα Ζεὺς δῶκε διακτόρῳ ἀργεϊφόντῃ· Ἑρμείας δὲ ἄναξ δῶκεν Πέλοπι πληξίππῳ, αὐτὰρ ὁ αὖτε Πέλοψ δῶκ᾿ Ἀτρέι, ποιμένι λαῶν· Ἀτρεὺς δὲ θνῄσκων ἔλιπεν πολύαρνι Θυέστῃ, αὐτὰρ ὁ αὖτε Θυέστ᾿ Ἀγαμέμνονι λεῖπε φορῆναι, πολλῇσιν νήσοισι καὶ Ἄργεϊ παντὶ ἀνάσσειν.

Then among them lord Agamemnon stood up, holding in his hands the scepter which Hephaestus had toiled over making. Hephaestus gave it to lord Zeus, son of Cronos, and Zeus gave it to the messenger Argeïphontes; and Hermes, the lord, gave it to Pelops, driver of horses, and Pelops in turn gave it to Atreus, shepherd of men; and Atreus at his death left it to Thyestes, rich in flocks, and Thyestes again left it to Agamemnon to carry, to be lord of many isles and of all Argos.35

The rightful scepter, made by Hephaestus, came from Zeus and was passed down to Hermes and then to Pelops and his descendants. By referring to the scepter of Agamemnon, Pindar is connecting Hieron with Pelops and his descendants, including Agamemnon. Despite making the connection between Hieron and Pelops, Morgan does not fully analyze the myths in Pindar’s ode to further tie the tyrant with Pelops. Analyzing the content of the Pelops myth in Olympian 1 can further help us tie the mythological hero to the Syracusan tyrant. While the myth of Pelops can yield fruitful results for understanding Pindar’s use of these myths—which I will analyze more fully later—, I argue that we should first tie Tantalus to Hieron in order to more fully elucidate the meaning behind the poet’s connection of Hieron to Pelops and the didactic lessons that come from these portrayals and connections.

Impending Revolt: Pindar’s Adaption of the Tantalus Myth

Can Hieron be tied to Tantalus in addition to Pelops? In Olympian 1, Tantalus is a stand- in for Hieron not only through their punishment of a rock hanging over their heads—as we will later see—but also by their wealth. Morgan argues that the Tantalus myth was chosen in

35 Hom. Il. 2.100-108, trans. Murray.

Olympian 1 because the family of Tantalus “was paradigmatic for wealth and royalty.”36

Socrates, in Plato’s Euthyphro, prefers his cleverness to the wisdom of Daedalus and the wealth of Tantalus.37 In his speech to Philip, Isocrates points out the wealth of Tantalus, although he makes the argument that no poet would applaud it on account of his crimes.38 Diodorus describes how Tantalus was the son of Zeus and was a person who was πλούτῳ δὲ καὶ δόξῃ διαφέρων

(“surpassing in wealth and renown”).39 Lastly, Strabo tells us that the wealth of Tantalus and the

Pelopidae arose from the mines that surrounded Phrygia and Sipylus.40

The wealth of Hieron is also undisputed in primary and secondary sources. In Olympian

1, Pindar describes Hieron’s hearth as ἀφνεὰν...μάκαιραν (“rich [and] blessed”).41 In praising

Hieron’s chariot victory in Olympia in 468 BCE, Bacchylides points out that Hieron οἶδε

πυργωθέντα πλοῦτον μὴ μελαμφαρέϊ κρύπτειν σκότωι (“knows how not to hide his towering wealth in black-cloaked darkness”).42 Chris Eckerman argues that Pindar’s and Bacchylides’ use of gold is a metaphor for a person’s—namely, Hieron’s—wealth.43 With regard to Hieron,

36 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 218.

37 Pl. Euthphr. 11d-e.

38 Isoc. Philippus, 144.

39 Diod. Sic. 4.74.1, trans. Oldfather. The Greek text was taken from C.H. Oldfather, trans., Diodorus of Sicily: The Library of History, vol. 3: Books IV.59-VIII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939).

40 Strab. 14.5.28. Later sources also reference Tantalus’ wealth. Cf. Pl. Amat. 759f. Tantalus, according to the Suda (ad. loc), was so renowned for his wealth that this knowledge was handed down as a proverb. See Suda, tau 147.

41 Pind. Ol. 10-11.

42 Bacchyl. 3.13-14, trans. Campbell. The Greek was taken from David A. Campbell, trans., Greek Lyric IV: Bacchylides, Corinna, and Others (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).

43 Chris Eckerman, “Pindar's Olympian 1, 1-7 and Its Relation to Bacchylides 3, 85-87,” Wiener Studien 130 (2017): 7-32, esp. 8.

Morgan argues that Pindar links gold with the sun in Ol. 1.1-2 to naturalize wealth, which enables participation and victory in hippic contests. To Morgan, Hieron is present in the priamel as early as the second line of the poem when Pindar describes gold, a statement that will be analyzed more fully when we discuss the priamel.44 By linking Tantalus and Hieron through their wealth, Pindar is able to compare and contrast the two characters to effectively relay his didactic lessons to the tyrant of Syracuse.

In order to advise the tyrant, Pindar uses a different version of the myth of Tantalus, offering an alternative depiction of the man’s punishment. The poet says,

εἰ δὲ δή τιν᾿ ἄνδρα θνατὸν Ὀλύμπου σκοποί ἐτίμασαν, ἦν Τάνταλος οὗτος· ἀλ- λὰ γὰρ καταπέψαι μέγαν ὄλβον οὐκ ἐδυνάσθη, κόρῳ δ᾿ ἕλεν ἄταν ὑπέροπλον, ἅν τοι πατὴρ ὕπερ κρέμασε καρτερὸν αὐτῷ λίθον, τὸν αἰεὶ μενοινῶν κεφαλᾶς βαλεῖν εὐφροσύνας ἀλᾶται.

But if, in fact, the beholders of Olympus honored any mortal man, that man was Tantalus. But he was not able to digest his great happiness, but he seized overwhelming ruin because of his insolence, because of which the Father hung a strong rock above him, and he, always desiring to cast it away from his head, wanders away from happiness.45

While the suspension of a boulder above Tantalus’ head effectively portrays Pindar’s lesson to

Hieron that one should not excessively take advantage of one’s good fortune, another aspect of the Tantalus myth is missing: Tantalus’ punishment in Tartarus of being unable to drink from the spring beneath him or eat the fruit above him. We know that the version that included Tantalus’

44 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 220-221.

45 Pind. Ol. 1.54-58.

inability to be nourished was in existence during the time of Pindar. In Odysseus’ journey to the underworld in Odyssey 11, the Greek hero sees Tantalus, who is unable to drink or eat what is around him.46 Why would Pindar use a different version of the Tantalus myth?

An overview of other instances where this version of the myth is told will help answer this question. The rock hanging over Tantalus’ head is not unique to Pindar, and wherever this punishment is portrayed, the rock is often metaphorical for some kind of fear, anxiety, or impending disaster. Earlier Greek lyric and elegiac poets portrayed this same punishment. The scholiast on Pindar states that Alcaeus and Alcman both describe a stone that hangs over

Tantalus.47 Alcaeus writes, κεῖται πὲρ κεφάλας μέγας, ὦ Αἰσιμίδα, λίθος (“A great stone,

Aesimidas, lies over your(?) head”).48 Alcman writes, †ἀνὴρ δ᾿ ἐν ἀσμένοισιν ἀλιτηρὸς ἧστ᾿ ἐπὶ

/ θάκας κατὰ πέτρας ὁρέων μὲν οὐδὲν δοκέων δέ† (“A sinner, he sat among agreeable things on a seat under a rock, seeing nothing, but supposing that he did”).49 Unfortunately, this is all we

46 Hom. Od. 11.582-592, trans. Murray. καὶ μὴν Τάνταλον εἰσεῖδον κρατέρ᾿ ἄλγε᾿ ἔχοντα / ἑστεῶτ᾿ ἐν λίμνῃ· ἡ δὲ προσέπλαζε γενείῳ· / στεῦτο δὲ διψάων, πιέειν δ᾿ οὐκ εἶχεν ἑλέσθαι· / ὁσσάκι γὰρ κύψει᾿ ὁ γέρων πιέειν μενεαίνων, / τοσσάχ᾿ ὕδωρ ἀπολέσκετ᾿ ἀναβροχέν, ἀμφὶ δὲ ποσσὶ / γαῖα μέλαινα φάνεσκε, καταζήνασκε δὲ δαίμων. / δένδρεα δ᾿ ὑψιπέτηλα κατὰ κρῆθεν χέε καρπόν, / ὄγχναι καὶ ῥοιαὶ καὶ μηλέαι ἀγλαόκαρποι / συκέαι τε γλυκεραὶ καὶ ἐλαῖαι τηλεθόωσαι· / τῶν ὁπότ᾿ ἰθύσει᾿ ὁ γέρων ἐπὶ χερσὶ μάσασθαι, / τὰς δ᾿ ἄνεμος ῥίπτασκε ποτὶ νέφεα σκιόεντα. (“Yes, and I saw Tantalus in bitter torment, standing in a pool, and the water came close to his chin. He was wild with thirst, but had no way to drink; for as often as the old man stooped down, eager to drink, so often would the water be swallowed up and vanish away, and at his feet the black earth would appear, for some god would dry it all up. And trees, high and leafy, let hang their fruits from their tops, pears, and pomegranates, and apple trees with their bright fruit, and sweet figs, and luxuriant olives. But as often as the old man would reach out toward these, to clutch them with his hands, the wind would toss them to the shadowy clouds.”). The Greek was taken from A.T. Murray, trans., Homer: The Odyssey, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).

47 Schol. Pind. Ol. 1. 91a (i37-38 Drachmann).

48 Alc. Fr. 365, trans. Campbell. The Greek text was taken from David A. Campbell, trans., Greek Lyric I: Sappho and Alcaeus (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).

49 Alcm. Fr. 79, trans. Campbell. The Greek text was taken from David A. Campbell, trans., Greek Lyric II: Anacreon, Anacreontea, Choral Lyric from Olympus to Alcman. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988).

have of these two poems, so it is impossible to know how they used the Tantalus myth. However, there is enough in these fragments to conclude that they used the same punishment as Pindar.

In addition, there is a fragmentary poem of Archilochus that describes a rock hanging over Tantalus’ head:

[ ]ον παθεῖν [ ν]ή̣πιοι φρένα [ ]τ̣’ ἀκήρατος [ ] σ̣ημάντορες [ αἰ]χμητὴς ἐών (5) [ ]ε̣υμενος· [ ]δρης τελεῖν [ ο]μνύων, ὅτε [ ]ν ἀκούσεαι [ α]ν̣τίον· (10) [ ]πολει· [ ]έχειν [ ]σμενος [ μηδ’ ὁ Τα]ν̣τάλ̣ου λ̣ί̣θος τῆσδ’ ὑπὲρ νήσου κρεμάσθω] | ]·.ς ἔχων (15) 16-23: omisi π̣αντ̣[.....]η̣νες γεν̣έ̣σ̣θ̣α̣ι̣ [ φαίνο[μαι ..]τ̣ωνδ’ εν.μ.[ (25) εἰ γὰρ ω[...... ]..ν μ.[.]...[ χωρὶ̣ .ς α̣[.....]ν̣π̣ε̣..α̣..ζ̣[ συνια[....]ω̣.ιων[..]...α̣.[ ειτο̣δ̣[.]υ̣[.].(.)ο̣ν̣.(.)νε̣θ̣ε̣ι̣μ̣...[ ἐς μ̣έ̣σ̣ο̣ν̣, τ̣ά̣λ̣α̣ν̣τ̣α δ̣ὲ Ζε̣ὺ̣[ς] ε̣χ̣[ (30) μήτε τῶν̣ καινῶν μετω̣π̣ασμ[ γῆ φόνωι χ̣λ̣κ̣.ο̣ν̣δ̣ενη̣ε̣δ̣[ (.)α̣τ̣ε̣οφε̣ζ̣ε̣α̣μ̣⟦ω̣⟧...τ̣ε̣..[.]δ̣[

. . to suffer . . . foolish at heart . . . pure (gold?) . . . commanders . . . being a spearman . . . to complete . . . swearing, when . . . you will give ear . . . opposite (against?) . . . city(?) . . . to have(?) . . . let the stone of Tantalus not hang over this island . . . having . . . to become . . . I seem . . . would that . . . apart . . . into the middle, and Zeus (held?) the scales . . . nor the front-line(?) of the new(?) . . . the earth with blood . . .50

50 Archil. Fr. 91, trans. Gerber. The Greek text was taken from Douglas E. Gerber, Greek Iambic Poetry: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).

While we only have one or two lines from Alcman and Alcaeus, the Archilochus fragment can tell us a little more. Words and phrases such as “spearman,” “Zeus held the scales,” and “the earth with blood” tells us that this is likely a passage related to war. The hortatory subjunctive indicates a command or wish that the rock of Tantalus not hang over the island—presumably

Thasos.51 The rock, therefore, rather than being a literal, floating rock, is likely symbolic of some impending danger, warfare, or bloodshed that is looming over the inhabitants of Thasos. This

Archilochus poem was so influential that Polygnotus, a fifth-century BCE painter, depicted

Tantalus suffering both the Homeric punishment and the one described by Archilochus in his painting of those punished in Tartarus; the painting no longer exists, but was described in detail by Pausanias.52 In addition, Plutarch cited this poem as an example of how to move an audience through political orations.53

Since there is a lack of context in some of these earlier fragments, let us look at some later literature that demonstrates that the rock over Tantalus is a symbol of anxiety and impending destruction. Euripides, in his Orestes, compares Tantalus’ punishment—albeit in the clouds rather than in Tartarus—to the anxieties of Electra’s and Orestes’ predicament after

Agamemnon’s murder. Electra states at the beginning of the play,

Οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν δεινόν, ὧδ᾿ εἰπεῖν ἔπος, οὐδὲ πάθος οὐδὲ ξυμφορὰ θεήλατος, ἧς οὐκ ἂν ἄραιτ᾿ ἄχθος ἀνθρώπου φύσις. ὁ γὰρ μακάριος (κοὐκ ὀνειδίζω τύχας) Διὸς πεφυκώς, ὡς λέγουσι, Τάνταλος κορυφῆς ὑπερτέλλοντα δειμαίνων πέτρον ἀέρι ποτᾶται· καὶ τίνει ταύτην δίκην, ὡς μὲν λέγουσιν, ὅτι θεοῖς ἄνθρωπος ὢν

51 Gerber, Greek Iambic Poetry, 133n1.

52 Paus. 10.31.12.

53 Plut. Moralia, 803a.

κοινῆς τραπέζης ἀξίωμ᾿ ἔχων ἴσον, ἀκόλαστον ἔσχε γλῶσσαν, αἰσχίστην νόσον.

There is virtually nothing horrific, no suffering, no god-sent affliction, whose burden man, being what he is, might not shoulder. Tantalus was a prosperous man (and I do not reproach him with his good fortune), the son of Zeus, they say: now he is suspended in the clouds, in constant fear of a rock hanging above his head. He pays this penalty, so men say, because though enjoying, as a mortal, equal rank with the gods at their shared table, he had an unbridled tongue, a most disgraceful malady.54

Electra mentions the rock that hangs over Tantalus’ head again in lines 982-988.55 Ruth Scodel points out that the rock magnifies the sufferings of the Tantalids, as Tantalus was their great- great-grandfather.56 The rock, therefore, symbolizes Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, who are hindering Electra’s and Orestes’ happiness, and the many deaths and other acts of violence that they and their ancestors have experienced.

Moving into the Roman period, Lucretius, in his De Rerum Natura, describes the rock hanging over Tantalus’ head and compares it to an irrational fear of death.

Atque ea nimirum quaecumque Acherunte profundo prodita sunt esse, in vita sunt omnia nobis. nec miser inpendens magnum timet aere saxum Tantalus, ut famast, cassa formidine torpens; sed magis in vita divom metus urget inanis mortalis, casumque timent quem cuique ferat fors.

54 Eur. Or. 1-10, trans. Kovacs. The Greek text was taken from David Kovacs, trans., Euripides, Vol. 5: Helen, Phoenician Women, Orestes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

55 Eur. Or. 982-988, trans. Kovacs. μόλοιμι τὰν οὐρανοῦ / μέσον χθονός <τε> τεταμέναν / αἰωρήμασιν / πέτραν ἁλύσεσιν χρυσέαις, / φερομέναν δίναισι / βῶλον ἐξ Ὀλύμπου, / ἵν᾿ ἐν θρήνοισιν ἀναβοάσω / γέροντι πατέρι Ταντάλῳ, / ὃς ἔτεκεν ἔτεκε γενέτορας ἐμέθεν, δόμων / ἃς κατεῖδον ἄτας· (“O that I might go / to the rock hung aloft / between heaven earth / from golden chains, / a rocky mass from Olympus / borne on the heavens’ rotation! / There in lamentation would I loudly proclaim / to old Tantalus, my ancestor, / who sired, who sired my forefathers, / what ruin I have seen in the house”).

56 Tantalus sired Pelops, who sired Atreus, who sired Agamemnon, who sired Electra and Orestes. See also Ruth Scodel, “Tantalus and Anaxagoras,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 88 (1984): 13-24, esp. 14.

And assuredly whatsoever things are fabled to exist in deep Acheron, these all exist for us in this life. There is no wretched Tantalus, as the story goes, fearing the great rock that hangs over him in the air and frozen with vain terror; rather it is in this life that the fear of gods oppresses mortals without cause, and the fall they fear is any that chance may bring.57

The rock hanging over one’s head is symbolic of superstitio and one’s fear of the gods as they oppress mortals, thus hindering a person’s happiness as they live life.58 While the lack of context makes it difficult to ascertain fully how poets before Pindar used Tantalus’ punishment in their respective works, authors after Pindar help us understand that the rock hanging over Tantalus is a metaphor for some problem that must be dealt with or swept away.

Now that we have analyzed how poets before and after Pindar used the myth of Tantalus to symbolize anxiety and impending disaster, let us look at how Pindar uses the Tantalus myth in his odes. The poet uses the same account in Isthmian 8, an ode to Cleandrus, winner of the

Pancratium—wrestling and boxing—composed before Olympian 1 in 478 BCE.59 The poet says towards the beginning of the ode,

τῶ καὶ ἐγώ, καίπερ ἀχνύμενος θυμόν, αἰτέομαι χρυσέαν καλέσαι Μοῖσαν. ἐκ μεγάλων δὲ πενθέων λυθέντες μήτ᾿ ἐν ὀρφανίᾳ πέσωμεν στεφάνων, μήτε κάδεα θερά- πευε· παυσάμενοι δ᾿ ἀπράκτων κακῶν γλυκύ τι δαμωσόμεθα καὶ μετὰ πόνον· ἐπειδὴ τὸν ὑπὲρ κεφαλᾶς λίθον γε Ταντάλου παρά τις ἔτρεψεν ἄμμι θεός, ἀτόλματον Ἑλλάδι μό- χθον.

57 Lucr. 3.978-983, trans. Rouse. The Latin text was taken from W.H.D. Rouse, trans., Lucretius: De Rerum Natura (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992).

58 David West, The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994): 98. Cf. Cic. Fin. 1.60; Plut. De superst. 11. Cicero and Vergil also describe the rock hanging over Tantalus’ head. See Cic. Tusc. 4.35; Verg. Aen. 6.601-603.

59 Race, Isthmian Odes, 206.

And so I too, although grieved at heart, am asked to invoke the golden Muse. And, having been released from great sorrows, let us not fall into a dearth of crowns, nor should you nurse your troubles. Let us cease from incurable ills and sing for the citizens a sweet song even after toil, since a god has turned away from over our heads the very rock of Tantalus, that unbearable labor for Hellas.60

Race points out that Pindar uses the same rock in Olympian 1, but also adds that the rock in

Isthmian 8 is a metaphor for the recent Persian invasion of 480 BCE, a metaphor which I agree with.61 While Pindar describes the rock as a metaphor for the Persian invasion, the poet later mentions in lines 11-15b that the rock is also a metaphor for the treacherous course of life that hangs over everyone. Unlike Tantalus in Olympian 1, however, all of these other metaphorical rocks are eventually swept aside: the Persians are already defeated and the worrisome rock of life can be removed so long as people have freedom and hope in Isthmian 8, Clytemnestra and

Aegisthus are killed in Euripides’ Orestes, and death is inevitable to Lucretius so we should not worry about our inevitable demise.

In contrast, worry and anxiety are still present as we turn to the rock in Olympian 1, where we see how the rock continues to threaten Hieron. As mentioned previously, Pindar states that Tantalus was not able to obtain joy because he constantly desired to cast the rock away from him in line 58 (μενοινῶν βαλεῖν). Can this hanging rock relate to Hieron? What can Hieron’s

60 Pind. Isthm. 8.5a-11, trans. Race. The Greek for the Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, and Pindaric fragments were taken from William H. Race, trans., Pindar: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997).

61 Race, Isthmian Odes, 206 and 211n3.

own rock symbolize? Pindar could be telling Hieron to focus on his own victory—his current situation—rather than the many problems that were surrounding him, as Pindar did in Isthmian 8.

ἀλλ᾿ ἐμοὶ δεῖμα μὲν παροιχόμενον καρτερὰν ἔπαυσε μέριμναν· τὸ δὲ πρὸ ποδός ἄρειον ἀεὶ βλέπειν χρῆμα πάν· δόλιος γὰρ αἰ- ὼν ἐπ᾿ ἀνδράσι κρέμαται, ἑλίσσων βίου πόρον· ἰ- ατὰ δ᾿ ἐστὶ βροτοῖς σύν γ᾿ ἐλευθερίᾳ καὶ τά. χρὴ δ᾿ ἀγαθὰν ἐλπίδ᾿ ἀνδρὶ μέλειν.

But for me the passing of fear has halted my strong anxiety; and it is always best to look at each thing right at our feet, for over men hangs a treacherous time as it unrolls the course of life, but even this can be healed for mortals so long as they have freedom. A man must cherish good hope.62

To enjoy a victory, Pindar says in Isthmian 8, men must avoid their surrounding anxieties and fears. However, there are stark differences between the odes to Cleandrus and Hieron that prevent us from coming to the same conclusion for Olympian 1. One is their age: Cleandrus is the son of Telesarchus, who commissioned Pindar to compose the victory ode. Race points out that Cleandrus may have competed in the boy’s division.63 Therefore, Cleandrus’ youth implies that he has much less to worry about compared to a tyrant like Hieron. Another difference is their position: Hieron was ruler of Syracuse whereas Cleandrus was a resident in Aegina—little is known about the boy. Lastly, the timing of their odes is significant: the ode to Cleandrus was composed as the Persians were retreating from mainland Greece, so the threat was no longer hanging dangerously above them. While Hieron’s actions had come to completion, the threat of

62 Pind. Isthm. 8.11-15b, trans. Race.

63 Race, Isthmian Odes, 206.

discontent and even possible revolt still loomed over the ruler’s head. In addition, Pindar points out in Olympian 1 that Tantalus was punished because he καταπέψαι / μέγαν ὄλβον οὐκ

ἐδυνάσθη (“could not digest his great good fortune”).64 Hieron has been blessed with wealth, prosperity, and now glory. If Pindar wanted Hieron to focus on his victory, these lines would not make sense, because reveling in one’s victory for a long period of time is not a sign of digesting one’s good fortune. While Pindar could be encouraging him to celebrate his victory for a time,

Pindar’s portrayal of Tantalus in Olympian 1 would not have the same symbolism and meaning as the other authors who portrayed Tantalus’ same punishment. Hieron can celebrate, but he should not be ignoring the problems that were still unresolved and occurring in his territory.

Therefore, there must be an additional meaning to this myth aside from just encouragement to enjoy his victory.

Based on the historical context and how Pindar portrays the Tantalus myth, I argue that the rock that hangs over Tantalus’ head is primarily a metaphor for the discontent and possible impending revolt of Hieron’s subjects as well as a warning for the tyrant to remember his mortality. Although written much later than Pindar, perhaps a passage from Dio Chrysostom’s first-century CE discourse on tyranny can help us understand this metaphor.

ἔστιν οὖν ὁ βίος ὅμοιος ὥσπερ εἴ τις καθείρξειέ τινα ἐν εἱρκτῇ μικρᾷ, τῶν μὲν ἄνωθεν ξιφῶν κρεμαμένων, τῶν δὲ κυκλόθεν περιπεπηγότων, καὶ τούτων ἁπτομένων τοῦ χρωτός· οὕτως οὐ τῷ σώματι μόνον, ἀλλὰ τῇ ψυχῇ τοῦ τυράννου περιπέπηγε τὰ ξίφη, ὥστε τὸν ἐν Ἅιδου Τάνταλον, ὅν φασι κεφαλῆς ὑπερτέλλοντα δειμαίνειν πέτρον, πολὺ ῥᾷον διάγειν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἔτι φοβεῖται ὁ Τάνταλος μὴ ἀποθάνῃ· τῷ δὲ τυράννῳ ζῶντι τοῦτο ξυμβέβηκεν ὃ ἐκείνῳ νεκρῷ λέγουσιν.

[A tyrant] lives, therefore, like one shut up in a narrow cell with swords hanging over his head and others, just touching the skin, fixed all about him. So closely indeed about the tyrant’s soul as well as his body are the swords set that Tantalus in Hades has a far easier time of it, Tantalus, who is said ‘to dread the rock that sways above his head.’

64 Pind. Ol. 1.55-56.

Tantalus at least has no further dread of death, while the tyrant suffers in life that fate which men ascribe to Tantalus in the other world.65

Dio Chrysostom describes how tyrants are always in danger of conspiracies, assassination, and more because, as he states, οὐδεὶς τυράννου ἐπιφθονώτερός ἐστιν (“no man is disliked more than the tyrant”).66 To Dio, a tyrant acquires wealth unjustly and shows favors to those around him by taking from others. Turning back to 476 BCE, many people were likely discontented at Hieron’s usurpation of power, his depopulation of Naxus and Catana, the foundation of Aetna with those favorable towards him, or a combination of any of these events. Hieron can celebrate his victory like Cleandrus in Isthmian 8, but if he is unable to “digest” (καταπέψαι) his good fortune by using it for the betterment of his people, the people’s discontent will be his downfall.67

Accepting Mortality and Refraining From Hubris: Tantalus, Pelops, and Winning a

Chariot Race

The historical context surrounding Olympian 1 also gives us insight into another of

Pindar’s didactic lessons: the need to refrain from hubris and accept one’s mortality. Let us first look into the reason for Tantalus’ punishment, as it can also be tied to Hieron. Many sources such as Euripides’ Orestes and Iphigenia Among the Taurians, along with Statius’ Thebaid, relate how Tantalus was punished because he murdered Pelops and fed him to the gods.68 Other

65 Dio Chrys. Or. 6.54-55, trans. Cohoon. The Greek text was taken from J.W. Cohoon, trans., Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-11 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932). The phrase “to dread the rock that sways above his head” is a quotation from line 6 of Euripides’ Orestes, cited previously.

66 Dio Chrys. Or. 6.50.

67 Pind. Ol. 1.55. A similar conclusion can be seen in Xenophon’s Hiero, as Simonides advises the tyrant that he should be generous with his wealth and glory for the betterment of the state. See Xen. Hier. 11.

68 Eur. Or. 814, IT. 386-390; Stat. Theb. 1.247, 11.126-127.

sources, such as Diodorus, Hyginus, Ovid, Martial, and Lucian describe how Tantalus was punished because he was a garrulous person who divulged the secrets of the gods.69 Pindar seems to be one of the only ancient authors who explicitly states that Tantalus was punished because he stole ambrosia and nectar from the gods and gave them to his companions (συμπόταις).70

Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca—written possibly as early as the second century BCE and as late as the second century CE—is the only other source to mention the same reason for Tantalus’ punishment.71 Athenaeus mentions how Tantalus desired immortality—similar to Pindar describing how Tantalus stole ambrosia to gain immortality—but was punished with the rock over his head because he asked Zeus for immortality in addition to things that would give him pleasure, not for stealing the nectar of the gods.72 In her analysis of the Tantalus myth in

Olympian 1, Morgan argues that the story of Tantalus investigates a boundary between mortality and immortality and paints a picture of what happens to those who are favored by the gods when their arrogance runs amok.73 Tantalus’ stealing of ambrosia depicts Tantalus attempting to cross the boundary between mortality and immortality, a sign of hubris. In addition, Pindar’s Tantalus gave the nectar and ambrosia only to those closest to him. While Tantalus was punished primarily for stealing the victuals of the gods, Tantalus’ distribution of the ambrosia to his friends should not be ignored as we link Tantalus to Hieron.

69 Diod. Sic. 4.74.2; Hyg. Fab. 82; Ov. Ars. am. 2.605-606; Mart. Epi. 10.5; Luc. Sacr. 9. Hyginus also tells of Tantalus chopping up Pelops in his myth of Pelops, but does not cite it as the reason for Tantalus’ punishment. See Hyg. Fab. 83.

70 Pind. Ol. 1.61. Cf. lines 59-64.

71 Apollod. Bibl. e.2.1.

72 Ath. 7.281.

73 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 234.

We see a similar desire for glory, and perhaps even immortality, in Hieron’s foundation of Aetna. As discussed in the section on the historical context, Diodorus stated that the primary reason for the recolonizing of Catana and the foundation of Aetna was to accrue the glory and honor attributed to heroes. While I am skeptical that this was the primary reason for Hieron’s founding of Aetna, it can be one among other reasons for establishing the city. Accumulating

κῦδος allows a person to gain immortality by living on in the songs and memories of those who live after the person’s death. The fact that Hieron sent Dorians and Syracusans who were favorable to him and placed his son in charge of the city is evidence that he distributed his favors to those who were close to him, implying a leader intent on his own glorification at the expense of his own people, such as those who were relocated from Catana.

If we take Diodorus’ claim that Hieron wanted glory seriously, the Tantalus myth illustrates the consequence of Hieron’s desire for fame. His desire to be praised and glorified is coming at the expense of his own subjects, as we have seen in his forceful movement of the people of Catana when the tyrant founded Aetna. His attempts to glorify, and possibly even immortalize, himself will surely bring punishment, according to Pindar, if he is not careful. If he does not remember his own mortality, he will become like Tantalus, doomed with constant fear—for Hieron, fear of impending revolt—and remembered for his misdeeds rather than his accomplishments.

After Pindar finishes his retelling of the Tantalus myth, the poet returns to Pelops, the son of Tantalus. Race rightfully points out that the wrongdoing of Tantalus is juxtaposed with and counterbalanced by Pelops’ heroic achievement.74 We see this juxtaposition in how Pindar portrays Pelops: the hero is beloved by Poseidon and is given a chariot, he defeats Oenomaus in

74 Race, Pythian Odes, 234.

the chariot race, and, most importantly, he does not use his favor from the gods to make himself immortal, as we will soon see. Many scholars have tied the myth of Pelops to Hieron, and rightfully so. As mentioned previously, Morgan argues that Pindar compared Hieron to Pelops because Pelops is the archetype of virtue. However, my analysis differs from these other scholars. While Pindar praises his patron by comparing the tyrant with Pelops, the poet also encourages Hieron to pursue glory on the mortal sphere, namely through a chariot victory.

Pindar’s omission of certain key events and his emphasis on others in the Pelops myth help elucidate the poet’s decision to juxtapose Pelops with Tantalus—namely, to instruct Hieron to remember his mortality. Pitotto points out that Pindar leaves out any mention of Myrtilus, the man who tampers with Oenomaus’ chariot; Myrtilus’ subsequent death at the hands of Pelops; and the race between Oenomaus and Pelops.75 Instead, Pindar focuses on Pelops’ favor with the gods—namely, Poseidon—and how he uses that favor. Pelops was kidnapped by Poseidon and taken to Olympus, thus obtaining immortality for a brief time. However, due to Tantalus’ crime, the young man was sent back to Earth, thus becoming mortal again. Pelops is given a golden chariot with winged horses and defeats Oenomaus. Pindar then tells how the hero married

Hippodameia and had six sons. Pindar states,

νῦν δ᾿ ἐν αἱμακουρίαις ἀγλααῖσι μέμικται, Ἀλφεοῦ πόρῳ κλιθείς, τύμβον ἀμφίπολον ἔχων πολυξενω- τάτῳ παρὰ βωμῷ·

And now he mixes among splendid blood sacrifices while he is reclining by the river Alpheus, having a frequented tomb beside the altar that is visited by many guests.76

75 Pitotto, “Olympia and Syracuse,” 7-8.

76 Pind. Ol. 1.90-93.

Unlike his father, who used his favor from the gods to his advantage by stealing ambrosia to gain immortality, Pelops knew to be wary of imitating and becoming like the gods in Pindar’s rendition of the myth. This is emphasized in Pindar’s description of Poseidon kidnapping Pelops: despite once being immortal, Pelops never attempts to re-immortalize himself. Tantalus was able to dine with the immortal gods, thus being among the divine, but Pelops was given a gift for the mortal sphere: a chariot. Pindar emphasizes the fact that Pelops’ tomb is παρὰ βωμῷ—it is by the altar of Zeus rather than it being the altar itself. Because he recognized his mortality, Pindar states, Pelops was praised for his mortal deeds: his fame was omnipresent because of the

Olympic festivals.77 Unlike Tantalus, Pelops did not express hubris, but maintained his humility by accepting his mortality and by fathering a line of excellent descendants.

Let us now tie Pindar’s myth of Pelops to Hieron and the historical context surrounding

Olympian 1. I previously tied Hieron to Tantalus on account of their wealth and their similar desire for glory, whether through gaining immortality or being remembered forever. With regards to Pelops, however, rather than equating Hieron directly with the mythological king,

Pindar advises what rewards and κῦδος the tyrant can receive if he isn’t so focused on his own glory. While Hieron and Tantalus have a rock of anxiety hanging over their heads, Pelops, although dead, is glorified throughout Greece and is free from harm.

This advice culminates in Pindar’s hope that Hieron will someday win a chariot race. The poet states,

θεὸς ἐπίτροπος ἐὼν τεαῖσι μήδεται ἔχων τοῦτο κᾶδος, Ἱέρων, μερίμναισιν· εἰ δὲ μὴ ταχὺ λίποι, ἔτι γλυκυτέραν κεν ἔλπομαι σὺν ἅρματι θοῷ κλεΐ-

77 Pind. Ol. 1.93-96.

ξειν ἐπίκουρον εὑρὼν ὁδὸν λόγων παρ᾿ εὐδείελον ἐλθὼν Κρόνιον.

A god, being your guardian, cares for these things, having this concern, Hieron, for your ambition. Unless he would suddenly depart, I hope to praise something sweeter with a swift chariot, having found a helpful road of words as I come to Cronus’ distinct hill.78

In his commentary, Kirkwood argues that Pindar could be prophesying a future chariot victory, but is more likely alluding to ἅρματι and “a road of words” as a metaphor for Pindar’s poetry, citing Olympian 6.23-24 and Pythian 4.247 as evidence for that metaphor.79 However, I think there is more to the metaphor than Pindar expressing just his hope to praise Hieron in some future victory: Pindar reminds Hieron—and his audience—of the mythological chariot race of

Pelops, encourages Hieron to win a chariot race, and advises him to obtain glory by mortal means—through winning equestrian contests at Olympia.

In the literal sense, Pindar is hoping that Hieron will win a chariot race. Hieron cannot be entirely tied to Pelops as the tyrant has not yet won a chariot victory, which is perhaps why

Pindar omitted the description of Pelops’ victory in his version of the Pelops myth. In the quotation above, Pindar hopes that Hieron’s benefactor—a god—will not abandon him so that the poet can praise and sing of something sweeter. Hieron was only a winner of the horse race after all, not the chariot race, which Pindar states is the “very apex of contests for horses” in an

78 Pind. Ol. 1.106-111. Edwin Floyd argued that κῦδος should be used instead of κᾶδος in line 107, citing the scholia and manuscript C. Although the word pertains to glory, κῦδος is an unlikely reading. See Edwin D. Floyd, “Kydos in Pindar, Olympian 1,107,” Hermes 100, no. 3 (1972): 485-87, esp. 486.

79 Kirkwood, Selections from Pindar, 58.

ode to Chromius, one of Hieron’s commanders.80 This is not a prophecy, as Kirkwood claims, but a literal hope that also has a further, metaphorical meaning.

In the metaphorical sense, rather than symbolizing just Pindar’s poetry, Hieron’s future chariot victory is also a metaphor for further accomplishment and further glory, but also a reminder to recognize his mortality. Hieron has an immense amount of wealth and has now obtained some of the honors that come from a horse race. We can see how Hieron’s divine benefactor is intent on giving him glory because they have a care (κᾶδος) for his ambition.

Rather than gaining further glory through his military and political efforts (depopulation and recolonization), Pindar is encouraging him to keep competing in the athletic arenas. Like Pelops who gained glory by defeating Oenomaus and being a good ruler, Hieron can gain similar praise if he focuses on obtaining glory in the mortal sphere. The themes of mortality and immortality are seen in the myths of Tantalus, Pelops, and the poet’s reminder of Pelops’ chariot victory at the end of Olympian 1. Similarly, in the next section, I argue that the opening priamel of the poem also ties into the themes of mortality and is meant to instruct Hieron to follow the actions and achievements of Pelops.

The Opening Priamel and Its Ties to Mortality

Hieron is not only reminded of his mortality in the middle and end of Pindar’s

Olympian 1, but also in the beginning of the ode. The poet begins,

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 φαεν- νὸν ἄστρον ἐρήμας δι᾿ αἰθέρος,

80 Pind. Nem. 9.8-9, trans. Race.

μηδ᾿ Ὀλυμπίας ἀγῶνα φέρτερον αὐδάσομεν·

On the one hand, water is best, on another, gold, like blazing fire in the night, shines above others among man-exalting wealth. But lastly (δ᾽) if you wish to sing, dear heart, about athletic contests, look no further than the sun for another warmer star that shines in the day through the empty aether, nor let us speak of contests greater than Olympia.81

Starting from ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ (“water is best”) in the first line, the audience—especially

Hieron, the laudandus—begins to be reminded of their mortality. This connection becomes clearer as Pindar continues into the lessons of his ode.

The famous phrase ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ has long puzzled scholars. In exasperation,

Douglas Gerber writes in his commentary, “Commentators have generally sought a specific reason or reasons why Pindar should have called water ‘best’ and a great variety of explanations have been given. Such attempts are fruitless, since we shall never know what prompted Pindar’s utterance.”82 He then gives eight different claims that scholars have made over the years.83

Shortly after Gerber’s commentary, Race posited a ninth. More recently, Eckerman posited a tenth, which expanded on a previous theory of linking water with poetry. While these may not be all of the arguments that have been made, some of these claims are: 1) water is the source of all things; 2) water is the most useful of all things; 3) water is everlasting; 4) water is sacred; 5)

Poseidon is a primary figure in the ode and water is his realm of authority; 6) Pindar is calling back to the fact that water surrounded Ortygia until the mid-sixth century BCE; 7) Water serves

81 Pind. Ol. 1.1-7.

82 Douglas E. Gerber, Pindar’s Olympian One: A Commentary (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 7.

83 Gerber, Pindar’s Olympian One, 7-8.

as an image of poetic inspiration; 8) water plays a large role in the Tantalus and Pelops myths; 9) physical needs are contrasted with achievements and water represents the human condition whence wealth and glory are made possible;84 and 10) water is a metaphor for song and poetry.85

These claims come from a variety of sources from Homer to Bacchylides to the Pre-Socratic and

Socratic philosophers to the scholia and Christian writers nearly a thousand years after Pindar. I argue that Eckerman is correct in his analysis that the beginning of Pindar’s poem should be read metaphorically, but I agree with Race’s analysis of water that the means for sustaining and nourishing life should be the correct interpretation.

Unlike our analysis of the Tantalus myth where we had to look at other texts outside of

Olympian 1 to discern its meaning, texts outside of Olympian 1 only muddy further the nearly- opaque waters of understanding the meaning of ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ. In his commentary, Farnell writes about the first line of Olympian 1, “These aphorisms concerning water and gold are more quoted in antiquity than any other passage in Pindar...”86 However, we cannot trust most—if any—of these ancient writings to elucidate Pindar’s intent, as it is evident that later writers had no idea what Pindar implied. Joannes Grammaticus, a sixth-century CE philosopher and theologian, is a prime example. He writes in his epigram,

Αἴθε σέ, Πίνδαρε, μᾶλλον ἐμοῖς ἐκάθηρα ῥεέθροις, καί κεν ἄριστον ὕδωρ τοὐμὸν ἔφησθα μόνον.

Pindar, if only I could have washed you instead with my streams. Then you would have said that my water alone was best.87

84 Race, “Best is water,” 119-124.

85 Eckerman, “Pindar’s Olympian 1.1-7,” 8-14.

86 Lewis Richard Farnell, Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1965), 4.

87 Joannes Grammaticus, The Greek Anthology, 9.629, translation my own. The Greek was taken from W.R. Paton, trans., The Greek Anthology, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917).

Joannes, in his introduction to the epigram, states that he is referring to washing Pindar in a public bath in Alexandria—called the Horse—implying that the waters there were best. Is water best because one can bathe in it? Olympian 1 gives no commentary on washing and bathing.

Macedonius Consul, a sixth-century CE poet, states in his epigram,

Οὐ λαλέει τὸ κάτοπτρον· ἐγὼ δέ σε †πάλιν ἐλέγξω τὴν νοθοκαλλοσύνην φύκεϊ χριομένην. τοῦτο καὶ ἡδυλύρης ποτὲ Πίνδαρος . . . ἐλέγχων, εἶπεν ἄριστον ὕδωρ, φύκεος ἐχθρότατον.

The mirror does not speak, but I will criticize you, the one annointing your counterfeit beauty with rouge. Sweet-lyred Pindar as well, who once criticized this [behavior], said that “water is best, [because it is] the greatest enemy of rouge.”88

This is just as confusing, yet has a somewhat similar meaning to Joannes’ epigram. Macedonius is stating that water is best on account of its ability to erase makeup—again implying its ability to wash and cleanse. However Macedonius also claims that Pindar was censuring his audience about the use of makeup in his first Olympian ode. In a poem about Hieron, king of Syracuse and victor of the horse race, one does not have to go far to see why we should be skeptical about

Macedonius’ reference to Pindar.

In addition to these epigrams, Aelian and and Athenaeus also quote Pindar in Varia

Historia and Deipnosophistae, written in the early second century CE and early third century CE, respectively.89 However, Athenaeus and Aelian added πάντων to their quotation of Pindar, which

88 Macedonius the Consul, The Greek Anthology, 11.370, translation my own. The Greek was taken from W.R. Paton, trans., The Greek Anthology, vol. 4, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918).

89 See Ael. VH. 1.32; Ath. 2.13. The Greek was taken from N.G. Wilson, trans., Aelian: Historical Miscellany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) and S. Douglas Olson, trans., Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters, vol. 1: Books I-III.106e (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006). For more quotations of the Pindaric phrase, see Bruno Snell, Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1953), 2; and Race, “Best is Water,” 120.

led many scholars to supply this very word as the missing genitive of ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ.

Claiming this is incorrect, Race writes, “πάντων is so inclusive that it adds a note of finality, as if

Pindar were making an absolute statement and granting complete superiority to water over all else. And yet the following lines also grant preeminence to gold and to the Olympic games.”90

Race’s argument is based on his assumption that the ode opens with a priamel.91 I agree with

Race’s analysis that a priamel consists of five things: 1) a general context or category; 2) a marker of quantity; 3) a capping particle; 4) an indication of relative merit; and 5) a subject of ultimate interest.92 While Eckerman argues that the beginning of the ode is not a priamel, but rather a list of clauses that are meaningfully united and not used as a foil to anything else, I agree with Race and others that the beginning of this ode is, indeed, a priamel.93 The first word of

Olympian 1, ἄριστον, gives us the context and quantity: the priamel introduces what is best of the objects in its own sphere. Particles such as μέν and δέ in the first line implies a series of things that are most important, rather than something that is the best all by itself. Therefore the use of δέ to introduce gold and εἰ δ᾽ to introduce athletic games implies that these things are best in their own spheres of wealth and athletic competition. When comparing athletic competitions,

Pindar compares the games at Olympia with the sun: just as the sun shines brighter than any other star in the sky, no contest is greater (φέρτερον, line 7) than the Olympian games. Thus

Pindar indicates relative merit. When describing Olympia, Pindar finally mentions Hieron—the

90 Race, “Best is Water,” 121.

91 William H. Race, The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 75-76.

92 Race, Classical Priamel, 13-16.

93 Eckerman, “Pindar’s Olympian 1.1-7,” 28.

subject of ultimate interest—in line 11 of his poem. The beginning of Olympian 1 follows all of the necesssary requirements to be labeled as a priamel. Because the opening of Olympian 1 is a priamel, therefore, it is unlikely that water is best “of all things,” but the best in relation to things that provide nourishment for mortals.

In addition to these previous references, the scholia provide στοιχείων as the missing genitive.94 Race also rejects this interpretation due to the fact that Pindar does not show an interest in primal elements anywhere in his odes, so this would probably be an unlikely reading.95 Again, I agree with Race’s argument. Many of these later interpretations of the poet’s famous phrase conflict or are difficult to understand, making it impossible to decipher Pindar’s meaning of how and why water is best. Because of this, we must rely on the works of Pindar himself—especially Olympian 1—to understand what ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ implies. When we can adequately understand the first line of Pindar’s Olympian 1, we can tie the rest of the priamel together.

Based on Pindar’s didactic lessons in Olympian 1, I argue that the priamel is a metaphor—namely, for mortality. Eckerman argues that scholars have taken Olympian 1 too literally and that we should analyze Pindar’s words metaphorically rather than focusing on water and gold as literal objects.96 As Pindar himself says, his poems are complex and many people need interpreters to understand its meaning.97 Therefore, the metaphors that Pindar uses can be best understood only after consideration of the poem as a whole. Using conceptual metaphor

94 Anders Bjø Drachmann, Scholia in Olympionicas (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, Inc., 1997), 17.

95 Race, “Best is Water,” 119-120.

96 Eckerman, “Pindar’s Olympian 1.1-7,” 9.

97 Pind. Ol. 2.83-87.

theory, Eckerman argues that water is best because it is a metaphor for song, citing phrases such as “the soft dew of songs,” “streams of the Muses,” “pour poetry like a libation,” and “streams of verse” to argue that Pindar uses water as a metaphor for song in his poetry.98 However, I don’t think this coincides with the overarching themes of Pindar’s ode. While Eckerman is correct that we should try to read Pindar’s poems less literally, the priamel can be read on multiple levels: both metaphorically and literally at the same time.

A literal reading of the priamel shows that there are three things that are best for mortals: water, gold, and glory. This is not a new argument, as the scholia express a similar opinion,

“Pindar says that three things in the case of humans are best: best is water when it comes to life, for without it existence is impossible; then gold in the case of wealth is superior to other possessions; but when it comes to glory, best is an Olympic victory.”99 The argument for water as nourishment was more than adequately argued, I believe, by Race, who claims, “I would argue that there is a consistent pattern of thought in Pindar’s poetry, whereby basic physical needs (often expressed in terms of water) are contrasted with achievement (generally athletic) and its celebration.”100 This means that water represents the human condition from which wealth and glory arise: water is best because it nourishes and sustains life, which allows people like

Hieron to compete—and win—in games and contests that bring glory.

While water is best because of its abilities to nourish, gold is best as a means of accruing and maintaining wealth for mortals. In addition, an Olympic victory is best when it comes to obtaining glory. Morgan rightfully points out that Pindar links gold with the sun through fire,

98 Pind. Pyth. 5.99; Nem. 7.12; Isthm. 6.19, 7.19, trans. Eckerman.

99 Schol. Pind. Ol. 1.1a (i16-17 Drachmann), trans. Race. Cf. Race, “Best is Water,” 121.

100 Race, “Best is Water,” 124.

which naturalizes wealth.101 This naturalization of gold links it with the sun, Morgan argues, which is a witness to Hieron’s deeds, excellence, and wealth.102 Lastly, victory in the Olympic games is best because it is the best way to earn glory, compared with other games and venues: the games were dedicated to Zeus and were founded by a descendant of Zeus—Pelops, whom we have already discussed thoroughly.

To summarize, the priamel describes in a literal sense each sphere in which each object is best: water is best for its ability to nourish and sustain life, gold is best for its ability to accrue wealth and compete, and winning the events at the games in Olympia—especially the chariot race—is the best way to obtain glory as a mortal. But when reading this priamel metaphorically, each object is best in its sphere in the mortal realm and thus represents mortality: in order to have a long, prosperous, glorious life, you need each element. This metaphor also works in other odes, such as Olympian 3, an ode to Theron of Acragas for his chariot victory in the same year.

εἰ δ᾿ ἀριστεύει μὲν ὕδωρ, κτεάνων δὲ χρυσὸς αἰδοιέστατος, νῦν δὲ πρὸς ἐσχατιὰν Θήρων ἀρεταῖσιν ἱκάνων ἅπτεται οἴκοθεν Ἡρακλέος σταλᾶν. τὸ πόρσω δ᾿ ἐστὶ σοφοῖς ἄβατον κἀσόφοις. οὔ νιν διώξω· κεινὸς εἴην.

If water is best, while gold is the most revered of possessions, then truly has Theron now reached the furthest point with his achievements and from his home grasps the pillars of Heracles. What lies beyond neither wise men nor fools can tread. I will not pursue it; I would be foolish.103

101 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 221.

102 Morgan, Construction of Syracusan Monarchy, 221. Cf. Simon. 16 West.

103 Pind. Ol. 3.42-45, trans. Race.

Diodorus claims that Theron and Acragas were vastly wealthy in 476 BCE, so Theron was already living a prosperous life.104 Regarding Theron’s glory and success, Maria Pavlou argues that the pillars of Heracles in line 44 was a metaphor to indicate ultimate achievement and success.105 Unlike Hieron, Theron had accomplished the pinnacle of achievement and glory with his chariot victory. By using a present simple condition, Pindar argues that, since water and gold are best, Theron has truly achieved the greatest victory: he is alive and well, vastly wealthy, and has won in the greatest equestrian event at the greatest games. In addition, Pindar ends the ode by saying that nobody should pursue what is beyond Theron’s achievements, which ties it back to accepting one’s mortality and earthly achievements: to go beyond what Theron has accomplished would be hubris.

I have argued that Pindar used themes and motifs of mortality and immortality throughout the entirety of Olympian 1. Pindar, aware of recent events in Syracuse and the island of Sicily, composed his ode to remind Hieron that he is mortal. He may or may not have been attempting to gain immortality through his actions, but at the very least, he sought to obtain glory at the expense of his own people. Hieron does not yet have a long, prosperous, and glorious life.

He has the wealth and power to compete, but the discontent that hangs over his head can negate his praiseworthy achievements at any moment and he has not yet won the pinnacle of the equestrian events: the chariot race. Pindar advises Hieron throughout this ode to remember his mortality, win the favor of his people, and seek to win a chariot race. When Pindar finally celebrated Hieron’s chariot victory, the poet’s ode reflected the glory of Hieron and his efforts as a virtuous ruler.

104 Diod. Sic. 13.81.4.

105 Maria Pavlou, “Pindar Olympian 3: Mapping Acragas on the Periphery of the Earth.” Classical Quarterly 60, no. 2 (2010): 313-326, esp. 313. Cf. Race, Classical Priamel, 74-75.

Hieron Redeemed: Pindar’s Pythian 1

Hieron would later win his first chariot race in the Pythian games in 470 BCE. Upon

Hieron’s victory, Pindar was commissioned to celebrate the victory with another ode, now known as Pythian 1. This ode, however, was much different than the one composed six years earlier. Unlike Olympian 1, Pindar alludes to specific historical events and accomplishments, compares Hieron to Zeus, and even alludes to the first Olympian ode which celebrated his victory in the horse race. These changes, I argue, illustrate Hieron’s transformation as a ruler in the eyes of Pindar.

First, let us look briefly at the historical background of Pythian 1 in addition to the contents of the ode. Previous to his victory, Hieron won major conflicts against the Etruscans at

Cyme in 474 BCE and against Thrasydaeus of Acragas in 472 BCE. Theron, the previous ruler of Acragas, died in 473. Since the victory celebrated in Olympian 1, Hieron had accumulated even greater wealth and renown, this time through his own accomplishments rather than riding on the coattails of his brother Gelon. Upon Hieron’s victory in the Pythian games, the tyrant was declared a citizen of Aetna, which publicized to mainland Greece the tyrant’s founding of the city.106 The ode, therefore, is centered on the city established in 476 BCE. In Pythian 1, Pindar begins with a hymn to the golden lyre (lines 1-12), which calms even the gods and strikes terror into the enemies of Olympus. Pindar then mentions Typhon, who fought against Zeus for supremacy of the gods, lost, and—in Pindar’s retelling—was buried under Cyme and Mount

Aetna (13-28). The poet also compares Hieron to Philoctetes (50-55), who was also a glorious figure and may have been tied to Hieron because of his declining health and his willingness to

106 Pind. Pyth. 1.31-33; Race, Pythian Odes, 216.

bring relief to his friends.107 Historical events abound in this ode: the founding of Aetna and the placement of Deinomenes as ruler (58-70), the Battle of Himera (71), and the Battle of Cyme

(71-75) are all mentioned to express Hieron’s achievements. Pindar then ends the ode by advising Hieron to be generous like Croesus, the king of Lydia (94-100).

This leads to an important question: in an ode that is praising Aetna, can we accept

Pindar’s praises as genuine or geared towards people who were already sympathetic to Hieron? I argue that, while Pindar certainly has more license to heap praise upon praise for Hieron, the historical and literary connections between Pythian 1 and Olympian 1 are evidence that the poet was aware of Hieron’s current accomplishments and, therefore, amplified his praise by referring to the tyrant overcoming his trials. Hieron could not announce the founding of Aetna in 476

BCE, as the city was established on a questionable—and likely violent—foundation, so his chariot victory in 470 BCE allowed ample opportunity to announce Aetna’s existence to the world.

While Pindar compared Hieron to Tantalus, Pelops, and possibly Agamemnon in

Olympian 1, the poet takes his praise a step further by comparing the tyrant to Zeus in Pythian 1.

Pythian 1 is not the only place where Hieron is compared to Zeus in Pindar’s poetry, as Meister argues. Hieron is compared to Zeus in Pythian 2, Nemean 1, and fragment 105.108 The comparison of Zeus and Hieron was so well-known, according to Meister, that Aristophanes used similar language to Pindar’s fragment 105 in his Birds when Pisetaerus is approached by a poet in an appeal for patronage.109

107 Race, Pythian Odes, 217.

108 Meister, “Hieron and Zeus,” 368-369.

109 Pind. Fr. 105, trans. Race: Σύνες ὅ τοι λέγω, / ζαθέων ἱερῶν ἐπώνυμε / πάτερ, κτίστορ Αἴτνας. (“Understand what I tell you, / you whose name means holy temples, / father, founder of Aetna”). Ar.

To equate Hieron with Zeus, Pindar refers to specific historical events in order to increase his praise for Hieron. Pindar states shortly after his hymn to the golden lyre at the beginning of

Pythian 1,

ὅσσα δὲ μὴ πεφίληκε Ζεύς, ἀτύζονται βοάν Πιερίδων ἀίοντα, γᾶν τε καὶ πόν- τον 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·...

But those creatures for whom Zeus has no love are terrified when they hear the song of the Pierians, those on land and in the overpowering sea, and the one who lies in dread Tartarus, enemy of the gods, Typhos the hundred-headed, whom the famous Cilician cave once reared; now, however, the sea-fencing cliffs above Cyme as well as Sicily weigh upon his shaggy chest, and a skyward column constrains him, snowy Aetna, nurse of biting snow all year round...110

Pindar focuses on Typhon, the monstrous serpent-like figure. In mythology, Typhon is particularly known for being Zeus’ last opponent for supremacy over the cosmos. By mentioning both Cyme and Aetna in the passage, Pindar juxtaposes Hieron with the myth of Typhon and

Zeus: just as Zeus brought peace to the realm of the gods, Hieron brought peace to the realm of

Av. 924-930, trans. Henderson: ἀλλά τις ὠκεῖα Μουσάων φάτις / οἷάπερ ἵππων ἀμαρυγά. / σὺ δὲ πάτερ, κτίστορ Αἴτνας, / ζαθέων ἱερῶν ὁμώνυμε, / δὸς ἐμὶν ὅ τι περ τεᾷ κεφαλᾷ θέ- / λεις πρόφρων δόμεν (“Nay, the Muses’ voice is a swift one, / like the twinkle of horses’ hooves. / But you, father, founder of Aetna, / namesake of holy rites, grant me whatever you wish by your nod / graciously to grant (emphases my own). The Greek text for Aristophanes’ Birds was taken from Jeffrey Henderson, trans., Aristophanes: Birds, Lysistrata, Women at the Thesmophoria (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000). Cf. Meister, “Hieron and Zeus,” 366-367.

110 Pind. Pyth. 1.13-20, trans. Race. All passages from Pythian 1 are translated by Race.

the mortals in Sicily.111 Hieron’s success at Cyme against the Etruscans and his foundation of

Aetna were two of Hieron’s own personal achievements that brought him further wealth and notoriety. From Pindar’s perspective, Hieron is establishing peace.

Pindar continues to describe Hieron’s accomplishments. While Pindar began the poem by focusing on Aetna and Cyme to establish the tyrant as a harbinger of peace, the poet further describes Hieron’s military accomplishments to emphasize that point. The poet states,

λίσσομαι νεῦσον, Κρονίων, ἥμερον ὄφρα κατ᾿ οἶκον ὁ Φοίνιξ ὁ Τυρσα- νῶν τ᾿ ἀλαλατὸς ἔχη, ναυσίστονον ὕβριν ἰδὼν τὰν πρὸ Κύμας, οἷα Συρακοσίων ἀρχῷ δαμασθέντες πάθον, ὠκυπόρων ἀπὸ ναῶν ὅ σφιν ἐν πόν- τῳ βάλεθ᾿ ἁλικίαν, Ἑλλάδ᾿ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας. ἀρέομαι πὰρ μὲν Σαλαμῖνος Ἀθαναίων χάριν μισθόν, ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾿ ἐρέω πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχαν, ταῖσι Μήδειοι κάμον ἀγκυλότοξοι, παρὰ δὲ τὰν εὔυδρον ἀκτὰν Ἱμέρα παίδεσσιν ὕμνον Δεινομένεος τελέσαις, τὸν ἐδέξαντ᾿ ἀμφ᾿ ἀρετᾷ, πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν καμόντων.

I beseech you, son of Cronus, grant that the war cry of the Phoenicians and Etruscans may remain quietly at home, now that they have seen their aggression bring woe to their fleet before Cyme, such things did they suffer when overcome by the leader of the Syracusans, who cast their youth from their swiftly sailing ships into the sea and delivered Hellas from grievous slavery. I shall earn from Salamis the Athenians’ gratitude as my reward, and at Sparta I shall tell of the battle before Cithaeron, in which conflicts the curve-bowed Medes suffered defeat; but by the well-watered bank of the Himeras I shall pay to Deinomenes’ sons the tribute of my hymn, which they won through valor, when their enemies were defeated.112

111 Cf. Meister, “Hieron and Zeus,” 367-368.

112 Pind. Pyth. 1.71-80.

Pindar mentions the Phoenicians (Carthaginians) and the Etruscans because they were the enemies of Hieron’s army in the battles of Himera and Cyme, respectively. Gelon was the primary commander at Himera, but praise is still heaped upon Hieron and his brothers by Pindar, signifying his importance in the battle. In addition, Pindar compares the battles of Himera and

Cyme—fought by Hieron and the people of Sicily—with the battles of Salamis and Cithaeron

(Plataea)—fought by those in mainland Greece against the Persians. By referring to Hieron’s battles alongside those of the Persian invasions, Pindar equates Hieron’s victories with those of the mainland Greeks: he has saved Sicily and brought peace in the same way as the Greeks did by repelling the Persians. Almut Fries also points out a second dimension to this praise: Pindar alludes to Aeschylus’ description of Salamis in his Persians and Simonides’ praise of the

Spartans in his Plataea Elegy in fragments 11 and 13.113 Hieron saved Sicily from slavery just as the Greeks did, and his achievements should be praised, according to Pindar, in a similarly generous and laudatory literary manner.

There is a stark contrast between Pythian 1 and Olympian 1 in the levels of praise towards Hieron and the number of direct references to previous historical events. Pythian 1 is direct in its mention of Aetna’s founding and the battles of Himera and Cyme, but Olympian 1 is more allusive with his references to Tantalus and Pelops. However, if we tie in the content of

Olympian 1 with that of Pythian 1, we can better understand Pindar’s methods. In Olympian 1, as we have seen, Pindar attempted to relay to Hieron the possible consequences of his actions: his people were angry and could potentially revolt against his rule—a rule that was already fragile because of the events that surrounded Hieron’s rise to power. This anxiety and impending

113 Almut Fries “Pindar, Hieron and the Persian Wars History and Poetic Competition in Pythian 1, 71- 80,” Wiener Studien 130 (2017): 59-72, esp. 62-71. See also Aesch. Pers. 353-432 and Simon. Fr. 11 and 13 IEG.

destruction were seen in the rock that was hanging over Tantalus. When Pindar ended Olympian

1 with his hope of a future chariot victory to symbolize peace and glory, the poet fulfilled that hope and promise in Pythian 1: Hieron is now a bringer of peace and prosperity in addition to competing and winning the most prestigious equestrian event at the Pythian games—in Pindar’s view, the tyrant has successfully moved the rock away from him. Not only do the references to previous battles indicate that he should be favorably compared with the previously victorious

Greek armies, but the references to Zeus show that Hieron has done more and is worthy of further praise. The chariot victory hoped for in Olympian 1 becomes a fulfilled metaphor because

Hieron has established peace and prosperity within Sicily in addition to actually winning a chariot race.

Pindar uses similar language from Olympian 1 in Pythian 1 to describe his endeavors and the struggles of being a poet: he compares himself—rather than Hieron—to Tantalus. The poet states,

ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ μαχαναὶ πᾶσαι βροτέαις ἀρεταῖς, καὶ σοφοὶ καὶ χερσὶ βιαταὶ περίγλωσ- σοί τ᾿ ἔφυν. ἄνδρα δ᾿ ἐγὼ κεῖνον αἰνῆσαι μενοινῶν ἔλπομαι μὴ χαλκοπάραον ἄκονθ᾿ ὡσείτ᾿ ἀγῶ- νος βαλεῖν ἔξω παλάμᾳ δονέων, μακρὰ δὲ ῥίψαις ἀμεύσασθ᾿ ἀντίους.

For from the gods come all the means for human achievements, and men are born wise, or strong of hand and eloquent. In my eagerness to praise that man, I hope I may not, as it were, throw outside the lists the bronze-cheeked javelin I brandish in my hand, but cast it far and surpass my competitors.114

114 Pind. Pyth. 1.41-45, emphasis my own.

Μενοινάω is used three times in Pindar’s corpus: Olympian 1, Pythian 1, and Nemean 11.115

While the first two are epinicia—victory poems—Nemean 11 is better qualified as an encomium: a poem of praise. While βαλεῖν of line 44 is not the complementary infinitive of μενοινῶν as in

Olympian 1, the fact that the same participle and infinitive are so close together is worth noting.

In Olympian 1, Tantalus was “eager to move” (μενοινῶν βαλεῖν) the rock away from his head. In

Pythian 1, Pindar uses an analogy of javelin throwing to express his hopes of praising Hieron in a way that beats his competitors. In a way, like Tantalus, Pindar has a rock hanging above his head that is symbolic of his anxiety to adequately and appropriately praise his patron in order to make a living. The phrase ἀγῶνος βαλεῖν ἔξω, according to James Dennis Ellsworth, indicates that Pindar is not trying to overshoot his target—accuracy of a throw—nor hurl an object excessively far—strength of a throw—but rather that the poet wants to throw far enough to win and defeat his competitors.116 This means that Pindar does not want to express excessive praise so as to anger the people or the gods—or even the patron himself—but to make it believable and acceptable for the occasion. We see this when he checks himself and his praise in lines 81-84.117

Comparing Hieron and his accomplishments to Zeus and Greek military victories can be pleasing at first, but could be drawing near the level of excess. By moving the rock from Hieron to the poet, Pindar is now the one who has anxiety hanging over him as he is trying to adequately praise his benefactor, whereas Hieron’s rock has been pushed away—has vanished, even—which allows the tyrant to revel in his victory and accomplishments.

The end of Pythian 1 also ties back to the first Olympian ode. Pindar states,

115 Pind. Ol. 1.58; Pyth. 1.43-45; Nem. 11.45.

116 James Dennis Ellsworth, “Pindar's Pythian 1.44: ἀγῶνος βαλεῖν ἔξω, a New Suggestion,” The American Journal of Philology 94, no. 3 (1973): 293-96, esp. 295.

117 Ellsworth, “Pindar’s Pythian 1.44,” 296.

εἴ τι καὶ φλαῦρον παραιθύσσει, μέγα τοι φέρεται πὰρ σέθεν. πολλῶν ταμίας ἐσσί· πολλοὶ μάρτυρες ἀμφοτέροις πιστοί. ... οὐ φθίνει Κροί- σου φιλόφρων ἀρετά. τὸν δὲ ταύρῳ χαλκέῳ καυτῆρα νηλέα νόον ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις, οὐδέ νιν φόρμιγγες ὑπωρόφιαι κοινανίαν μαλθακὰν παίδων ὀάροισι δέκονται. τὸ δὲ παθεῖν εὖ πρῶτον ἀέθλων· εὖ δ᾿ ἀκούειν δευτέρα μοῖρ᾿· ἀμφοτέροισι δ᾿ ἀνήρ ὃς ἂν ἐγκύρσῃ καὶ ἕλῃ, στέφανον ὕψιστον δέδεκται.

Even some slight thing, you know, becomes important if it flies out from you. You are the steward of many things; many are the sure witnesses for deeds of both kinds. ... The kindly excellence of Croesus does not perish but universal execration overwhelms Phalaris, that man of pitiless spirit who burned men in his bronze bull, and no lyres in banquet halls welcome him in gentle fellowship with boys’ voices. Success is the first of prizes; and renown the second portion; but the man who meets with both and gains them has won the highest crown.118

While there are no linguistic ties to Olympian 1, I believe that references to witnesses, Croesus, and Phalaris can all be tied back to the historical events surrounding Pindar’s two odes. The first sentence can imply that it is difficult to be a tyrant: their deeds are seen and criticized by everyone, whether those deeds are good or bad. However, Pindar argues that it is the fame after one’s death that reveals a person’s true acclaim. He then compares the glory of Croesus and

Phalaris. They both lived around the same time (ca. 550 BCE) and held tremendous wealth and power: Croesus in Lydia and Phalaris in Acragas. Croesus was known for his kindness, whereas

118 Pind. Pyth. 1.87-88, 93-100.

Phalaris was especially cruel and punished criminals by roasting them in a bronze bull.119 Pindar equates Hieron with Croesus, saying that he has success, renown and generosity. In Olympian 1,

Pindar links Hieron’s mighty wealth with Tantalus’, thus depicting him as a ruler bent on his own glorification. By switching from Tantalus in Olympian 1 to Croesus in Pythian 1, Pindar portays Hieron as a generous ruler. By labeling the antithesis of Croesus as Phalaris—a king in the rival state of Acragas—Pindar not only diminishes the rulers of Acragas, a kingdom he has recently conquered after the death of Theron, but also distances himself from that cruelty. Pindar could be loosely referring to the slaughter and repopulation of Himera and the decolonization of

Aetna here, saying he has overcome the challenges and problems of lesser rulers and risen to become a great tyrant. As Kirkwood states, Pindar ends the poem by restating the importance of harmony: harmony and order triumphs over their opposites.120 Just as Phalaris is held down

(κατέχει, 96) by his reputation, Typhon is held down (κατ᾽...ἔχῃ, 72) by Zeus and Aetna. Hieron, like Croesus, is praised and lauded. For Pindar, Hieron is redeemed to the people of Sicily and stands as a powerful figure on the international stage; by 470 BCE, he has become a bringer of peace, a generous and wealthy man, and a victor of multiple equestrian events in multiple arenas.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the historical context of Pindar’s odes can help us better understand the content of the odes themselves. In Olympian 1, Tantalus is not only a symbol of wealth and

Pelops is not only a model of a good ruler; Tantalus is a metaphor for Hieron’s possible destruction while Pelops is an archetype for Hieron to imitate. In addition, these odes help us

119 Kirkwood, Selections from Pindar, 139.

120 Kirkwood, Selections from Pindar, 139.

understand aspects of Hieron’s character and how his wealth, actions, and policies can be tied to these mythological figures. This is not criticism, but rather advice and a warning for possible consequences if Hieron did not change his actions and address the discontent of his people.

Throughout Olympian 1, Pindar reminded the tyrant of his mortality and his need to sweep away the metaphorical rock of anxiety that hangs over him: he should think more specifically of the welfare of his people. Beginning with the priamel, Pindar reminded Hieron that the three best aspects of mortality were water, gold, and Olympic victories: these are best because they are the necessary elements to live a long, prosperous, and glorious life. Pindar then tied Hieron to Tantalus because of his wealth and poor decisions. Hieron’s actions caused discontent among his people, which is why Pindar described the rock that hung over Tantalus as a metaphor for discontent among his people and of the ramifications for his future success as a ruler.

The poet then juxtaposed Tantalus with Pelops. Pelops, unlike his father, recognized his own mortality and never actively sought immortality, despite once having it. Pindar advised

Hieron to emulate Pelops, whose recognition of his mortality and subsequent mortal deeds brought him great glory. The poet then ended his poem by hoping that Hieron would win a chariot victory, which should be read both literally—he is encouraging him to win a chariot race—and metaphorically—the chariot race will bring him further glory so he can be among the best of mortals. Whether Hieron recognized these lessons is unknown, but Pindar’s performance of Pythian 1 provides evidence that Hieron had changed how he ruled his people: he was now known on the national and international stage as a bringer of peace, an incredibly wealthy man, and one who had won the pinnacle of equestrian events: the chariot race.

This does not entirely mean that Hieron truly changed his method of ruling or that he was actually a good, virtuous ruler. For example, Strabo tells us that Hieron’s tomb in Aetna was trampled over and destroyed by the displaced citizens of Catana when they returned after

Hieron’s death in 461 BCE, evidence that people were still bitter towards Hieron over a decade after these events.121 Rather, Pindar accepted that Hieron had accomplished great things during his rule. Hieron was favored by the gods, had a vast amount of wealth, and brought glory upon himself and his people through his Olympic and Pythian victories. His other methods of gaining glory before Pythian 1 were gained at the expense of others within his rule—particularly through the depopulation of Catana and its refoundation of Aetna—rather than through the conquest of other kingdoms and regions.

Nicholson states that a text is surely controversial when it attempts to present itself as something uncontroversial. Olympian 1 is filled with praise of Hieron: he is wealthy, has a blessed hearth and table, and is favored by the gods. While scholars have focused on the complex nature of the patron-poet relationship, most of their analysis has focused on the content of the praise itself and not enough has been mentioned about any kind of challenge or controversy raised by Pindar. The historical context of many of these odes can help elucidate a deeper meaning in Pindar’s poems, both the myths that he used and adapted, and the conflict that existed outside of these praise poems. Almost every aspect of Olympian 1 can be tied to Hieron in some way, and the various methods and complex metaphors which Pindar used to portray his lessons to his patrons make Pindar’s odes critical for our understanding of Hieron’s role in Greece and

Sicily both literarily and historically.

121 Strab. 6.2.3.

APPENDIX A: MAP OF SICILY, FIFTH CENTURY BCE122

122 Asheri, “Sicily,” 148.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Babbitt, Frank Cole, trans. Plutarch: Moralia. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928.

Campbell, David A., trans. Greek Lyric I: Sappho and Alcaeus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Campbell, David A., trans. Greek Lyric II: Anacreon, Anacreontea, Choral Lyric from Olympus to Alcman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Campbell, David A., trans. Greek Lyric IV: Bacchylides, Corinna, and Others. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Cohoon, J.W. trans. Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-11. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932.

Emlyn-Jones, Chris and William Preddy, trans. Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017.

Fairclough, Rushton H., trans. Virgil: Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid 1-6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Fowler, Harold North, trans. Plutarch: Moralia. Vol. 10. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936.

Frazer, James George, trans. Apollodorus: The Library. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921.

Gerber, Douglas E., trans. Greek Iambic Poetry: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Halliwell, Stephen, trans. Aristotle. Vol. 23: Aristotle: Poetics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Harmon, A.M., trans. Lucian. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921.

Henderson, Jeffrey, trans. Aristophanes: Birds, Lysistrata, Women at the Thesmophoria. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Jones, Horace Leonard, trans. Strabo: Geography. Vol. 3: Books 6-7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924.

Jones, Horace Leonard, trans. Strabo: Geography. Vol. 6: Books 13-14. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929.

Jones, W.H.S., trans. Pausanias: Descriptions of Greece. Vol. 4: Books VIII.22-X. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935.

Kovacs, David, trans. Euripides. Vol. 4: Trojan Women, Iphigenia Among the Taurians, Ion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Kovacs, David, trans. Euripides. Vol. 5: Helen, Phoenician Women, Orestes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Marshall, Peter K., ed. Hyginus: Fabulae. Munich: K.G. Saur, 2002.

Mozley, J.H., trans. Ovid. Vol 2: The Art of Love and Other Poems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Murray, A.T., trans. Homer: Iliad. Vol. 1: Books 1-12. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Murray, A.T., trans. Homer: The Odyssey. Vol. 1: Books 1-12. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Oldfather, C.H., trans. Diodorus of Sicily: The Library of History. Vol. 3: Books IV.59-VIII. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Oldfather, C.H., trans. Diodorus of Sicily: The Library of History. Vol. 4: Books IX-XII 40. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1946.

Oldfather, C.H., trans. Diodorus of Sicily: The Library of History. Vol. 5: Books XII.41-XIII. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.

Olson, Douglas S., trans. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters. Vol. 1: Books I-III.106e. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Olson, Douglas S., trans. Athenaeus: The Learned Banqueters. Vol. 3: Books 6-7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Paton, W.R., trans. The Greek Anthology. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1917.

Paton, W.R., trans. The Greek Anthology. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918.

Race, William H., trans. Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Race, William H., trans. Pindar: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Rackham, H., trans. Cicero: De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931.

Rouse, W.H.D., trans. Lucretius: De Rerum Natura. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Shackleton Bailey, D.R., trans. Martial: Epigrams. Vol. 2: Books 6-10. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Shackleton Bailey, D.R., trans. Statius: Thebaid, Books 1-7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Shackleton Bailey, D.R., trans. Statius: Thebaid, Books 8-12, Achilleid. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Wilson, N.G., trans. Aelian: Historical Miscellany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Secondary Sources

Asheri, D. “Sicily, 478-431 B.C.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Edited by David M. Lewis, John Boardman, J. K. Davies, and M. Ostwald, 147-70. The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Boedeker, Deborah and David Sider. The New Simonides: Contexts of Praise and Desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Budelmann, Felix, ed. Greek Lyric: A Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Briand, Michael. Pindare, Olympiques. Parris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014.

Carey, Chris. “Pindar and the Victory Ode.” In The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions. Edited by Lewis Ayres. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995.

Clay, Jenny Strauss. “Olympians 1-3: A Song Cycle?” Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics, Dissemination. Edited by Lucia Athanassaki and Ewen Bowie, 337-346. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.

Drachmann, Anders Bjø. Scholia in Olympionicas. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, Inc., 1997.

Eckerman, Chris. “Pindar's Olympian 1, 1-7 and Its Relation to Bacchylides 3, 85-87.” Wiener Studien 130 (2017): 7-32.

Ellsworth, James Dennis. “Pindar's Pythian 1.44: ἀγῶνος βαλεῖν ἔξω, a New Suggestion.” The American Journal of Philology 94, no. 3 (1973): 293-96.

Farnell, Lewis Richard. Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1965.

Floyd, Edwin D. “Kydos in Pindar, Olympian 1,107.” Hermes 100, no. 3 (1972): 485-87.

Fries, Almut. “Pindar, Hieron and the Persian Wars History and Poetic Competition in Pythian 1, 71-80.” Wiener Studien 130 (2017): 59-72.

Gerber, Douglas E. Pindar’s Olympian One: A Commentary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982.

Gray, Vivienne J., ed. Xenophon: On Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Hau, Lisa Irene. “The Burden of Good Fortune in Diodoros of Sicily: A Case for Originality?” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 58, no. 2 (2009): 171-97.

Kirkwood, Gordon. Selections from Pindar: Edited with an Introduction and Commentary. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982.

Maehler, Herwig (post B. Snell), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, pt. 2, 4th edition. Leipzig: Teubner, 1975: 1-161, 215-216.

Meister, F. J. “Hieron and Zeus in Pindar.” Classical Philology 114 (2019): 366–382.

Morgan, Kathryn A. Pindar and the Construction of Syracusan Monarchy in the Fifth Century B.C. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Negri, Monica. Pindaro ad Alessandria: le Edizioni e gli Editori. Brescia: Paideia, 2004.

Nicholson, Nigel. “Pindar, History, and Historicism.” Classical Philology 102, no. 2 (2007): 208-27.

Pavlou, Maria. “Pindar Olympian 3: Mapping Acragas on the Periphery of the Earth.” Classical Quarterly 60, no. 2 (2010): 313-326.

Pitotto, Elisabetta. “Olympia and Syracuse, the Polis and Panhellas in the Epinicians for Hieron.” The Classical World 108, no. 1 (2014): 3-26.

Race, William H. “Pindar’s ‘Best is water’: Best of What?” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 22, no. 2 (1981): 119-124.

Race, William H. Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

Race, William H. The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius. Leiden: Brill, 1982.

Scodel, Ruth. “Tantalus and Anaxagoras.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 88 (1984): 13- 24.

Slater, William J. Lexicon to Pindar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969.

Snell, Bruno. Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis. Leipzig: Teubner, 1953.

West, David. The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.