Two Notes on Pindar

[BICS 25 (1978) 92-96]

The following notes are designed to supplement my earlier articles on Pythian 12 and Isthmian 8.' I. Pythian 12,9-42 should be punctuated as follows:

τόυ παρθενίοις ύττό τ ' άττλάτοις όφίων κεφαλαΐς / άϊε λειβόμευον (sc. Άθάνα) 2 δυσπενθέϊ συν κ α μ ά τ ω / Περσεύς2 όπότε τρίτου άϋσεν1 κασιγνηταν μέρος / ένναλίσ Σερίφω λαοΐσί τε μοΐραυ ά γ ω ν .

Translate: "The lament which Athena heard flowing from the unapproach-able snake-heads of the Gorgons when amid a dreadful struggle Perseus had for the third time called upon her for help (and she had made her appearance to rescue him) while he carried off part of the (Gorgon-)sisters to Seriphos and its people as their portion".

τρ ίτον has always been connected with μέρος ("the third part of the sis-ters"). This, however, is unsatisfactory on at least two grounds: Medusa 's head, which Perseus carries off to Seriphos, is not exactly "the third part of the three (Gorgon-)sisters"; syntax and effect of the μέρος - μοΤρα clause is impaired by

1 " P e r s e u s ' K a m p f u n d A t h e n e s E r f i n d u n g " , Hermes 104 (1976 ) 2 5 7 - 2 6 5 (cf. m y Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar, 1971, 117ff . ) and " G o d s and D e s c e n d a n t s o f A i a k o s in P i n d a r ' s E igh th I s thmian O d e " , BICS 22 (1975) 2 5 - 3 6 [dieser B a n d S. 2 6 8 - 2 8 1 ] , I shou ld like to thank Professors A.J . BEATTIE, W.G. ARNOTT, and 0 . LUSCHNAT for their c o m m e n t s w h i c h p r o m p t e d m e to r econs ide r the textual detai ls d i scussed here .

2 For the order o f w o r d s δυσπενθέϊ συν κ α μ ά τ ω / Περσεύς ό π ο τ ε ... άϋσεν ( two key phrases p r e c e d i n g the re la t ive adverb ) cf. Pyth. 2 ,26f . μαινομέναις φρασίν / " H p a s o r ' έ ρ ά σ σ α τ ο ; Nein. 7 ,35 Π ρ ι ά μ ο υ π ό λ ι ν Νεοπτόλεμος έπε'ι πράθεν ; Ol. 6 ,26f . στεφάνους έν Ό λ υ μ π ί ς ι / έπε'ι δ έ ξ α ν τ ο ; Pyth. 5 ,84 κ α π ν ω θ ε ϊ σ α ν π ά τ ρ α ν έπε'ι ϊδον (cf. Mythos bei Pindar 130 n. 72) . A c o m p a r a b l y late pos i t ion of the par t ic lc in t roduc ing the adverb ia l c l ausc is s o m e t i m e s f o u n d even in prose : sec e. g. Thuc . 1,10,3 τ ή Ό μ η ρ ο υ συ ποιήσει εϊ τι χ ρ ή κ ά ν τ α ΰ θ α πιστεύειν. For the e v i d e n c e d e m a n d i n g r epunc tua t ion in 1. 10 ( c o m m a before and not a f t e r δυσπενθέϊ συν κ α μ ά τ ω ) see Hermes 104, 259 f f . (cf. Mythos bei Pindar 129ff . ) . It s e e m s to m e essent ia l to unde r s t and the c los ing m a x i m of the ode (11. 28 f f . ) as a genera l conc lu s ion d r a w n f r o m the myth (or v ice versa, the m y t h as a par t icu lar i l lustrat ion of the m a x i m ) ; κ ά μ α τ ο ς (1. 10), πόνο ι (1. 18), and κ ά μ α τ ο ς (1. 28) are related and should be exp la ined acco rd ing ly (cf . a l so Nem. 10,78f. π α ϋ ρ ο ι δ' έν π ό ν ω πιστοί β ρ ο τ ώ ν / κ α μ ά τ ο υ μεταλαμβάνε ιν ) . δυσπενθής cou ld pe rha ps even be t ransla ted as " d e a d l y " (A.J . BEATTIE) bu t does not sugges t " l amen ta t ion for dea th or a dead p e r s o n " (see Hermes 104, 2 5 9 - 6 1 wi th notes) . In s ense and f o r m a t i o n δυσ-πενθής m a y be c o m p a r e d to δυσ-κηδής (a t t r ibute o f " n i g h t " Od. 5 , 4 6 6 ) or to δυσ-ηλεγής (a t t r ibute o f " w a r " and " d e a t h " II. 20 ,154 ; Od. 22 ,325) , ά λ γ ο ς and πένθος b e i n g near s y n o n y m s (Hcs . Th. 621 ά λ γ ε α ~ 623 πένθος) cf. a lso B a c c h . 14,12f . έι> βαρυπενθέσιν ... μάχα ι ς (in a genera l charac te r iza t ion of war) . Pyth. 11,18 έκ δ ό λ ο υ ... δυσπενθέος refers to C l y t c m n e s t r a ' s (cf. 11.22 νηλής γ υ ν ά ) " d r e a d f u l " or " g r u e s o m e p lo t " aga ins t A g a m e m n o n ' s l ife ( c o m b i n c φονευομένου π α τ ρ ό ς ... έκ δόλου δυσπενθέος: sec Mythos bei Pindar 134 with n. 81) . T h u s Pe r seus ' s t ruggle aga ins t the G o r g o n s in Pyth. 12 is p resen ted as despe ra t e (δυσ-πενθής κ ά μ α τ ο ς "e in K a m p f au f Leben und Tod" ) . Medusa's fa te , on the o ther h a n d , does no t m u c h conce rn P inda r : T h e s tory is p resen ted in terms of Pe r seus ' s t rugg le and P e r s e u s ' sue-ccss , as in Pyth. 10 ,46ff .

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 93.180.53.211

Download Date | 11/3/13 5:34 PM

Two Notes on Pindar 301

μέρος being entangled with the preceding part of the sentence (11 όποτε τρίτου άϋσευ ... μέρος ... μοΤραυ άγωυ).3

On the other hand, άϋσευ (11) has either been emended to άυυσσευ,4 a ra-ther colourless word not very apt in this context5 (it has the additional disadvan-tage of splitting apart even further the μέρος - μοίρα antithesis), or has been taken to mean "he uttered a cry of triumph",6 which is difficult to parallel and does not fit the situation suggested by the context.7

If one adds the rather strange "aloofness" of Athena from the struggle of Perseus suggested by the traditional interpretation,8 which is, in fact, contradic-ted by the resume at the end of the myth, where Athena's intervention on behalf of Perseus is explicitly stated (18f. άλλ' έπει έκ τούτων φίλου άυδρα πόυωυ / έρρύσσατο παρθένος, ...),9 one is led to question the order of words generally assumed in 1. 11.

τρίτου should, I think, be detached from κασιγυητσυ μέρος and be taken as a temporal adverb ("for the third time") with its neighbour σϋσευ. The nature of the "cry" in verbs like άύω, ίαχέω, βοάω and so on is usually determined by

3 it is, in fact, only the intrusion of τρίτον that destroys the otherwise perfect balancc of the participle clausc (κασιγνητάν μέρος ... μοϊραν άγων) .

4 Α. BOECKH post Schol., accepted by O. SCHROEDER, ed. mai. 1900 (1922), C.M. BOWRA 1947, and A. TURYN 1952; cf. for instance, SCHROEDER'S commentary, Pindars Pvthien, 1922, 111 ("confecit") and L. ILLIG, Zur Form derpindarischen Erzählung, 1932, 94 with n. 1. For other still more improbable conjectures cf. D.H. GERBER, Emendations in Pindar, 1976, 96. άνυσσεν, which 1 formerly accepted, would case only the first of the above mentio-ned difficulties of τρίτον μέρος.

5 Cf. R.W. BURTON, Pindar's Pythian Odes, 1962, 29 ("the colourless άνυσσεν = confecit"); "The true sense is colloquial", A.J. BEATTIE (letter, 21.xii.1976, examining the Homeric par-allels), "The verb is unlikely to be used in lyric narrative, even with reference to the loathso-me Medusa". Moreover it should be noted that άνυσσεν does not fit well with the preceding lines: the "wailing of the Gorgons" (11. 7-10) points to a time when Medusa has already been slain, not to the actual slaying itself.

6 W. SCHADEWALDT, Der Aufbau des pindarischen Epinikion, 1928, 50 n. 1, accepted by BURTON, loc. cit. 29: "... the translation 'Perseus cried out aloud (in triumph) when he brought the third Gorgon as a doom to Seriphos' suits the style better than the colourless σνυσσεν . . ." It should be noted, however, that the action of the subordinated όπότε-clause (άϋσεν ... άγων ) is linked to that of the main άϊε-clause; therefore άϋσεν cannot refer to a dif-ferent (i. e. later) occasion than that of the άϊε-clause.

7 Cf. ILLIG, loc. cit. 94 n. 1; L.R. FARNELL, Pindar, 1932, Commentary 235 on 1. 1 If. 8 It has led astray, for instance, E. SCHLESINGER, Hermes 96 (1968) 275ff. (283: "Dem finste-

ren Wesen der Gorgonen ... steht die ruhige Gelassenheit der Göttin gegenüber, die unberührt von all dem Aufruhr ihn einfach in Musik verwandelt etc."): cf. Mythos bei Pindar 118f. SCHLESINGER^ theory, however, still has supporters: cf. for instance C. SEGAL, RhM 117 (1974) 37f.

9 I should now prefer to take (with E. WÜST, Pindar als geschichtschreibender Dichter, 1967, 78: cf. Mythos bei Pindar 142 n. 114) the flute-music (and not "Athena") as subject of the όφρσ-clause (1. 20f.): while the έπεί-clausc (1. 18f.) gives the reason for Athena's invention (sec Hermes 114, 263 with n. 37), the όφρσ-clause states the purpose for which the flute is designed ("because Athena had saved her mortal friend from this laborious struggle, she in-vented the music of the flute, in order that it should represent instrumentally the loud lament that emerged from the ... jaws of Euryalc. This music of the flute the goddess invented ...").

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 93.180.53.211

Download Date | 11/3/13 5:34 PM

302 Lyrisches Erzählen: Pindar

the context (compare the examples quoted in n. 10 below). In this case the des-perate struggle o f Perseus (10 δυσπενθέϊ σϋν καμάτω) from which he was "res-cued by Athena" (18f.) points definitely to a "cry for help" to the goddess. The sense of τρίτον άϋσεν (sc. αύτήυ) will then be: "for the third time he cried to Athena for help".1 0 The "third call" marks success," and the phrase should the-refore mean in its context: "Athena heard the Gorgon's lament at the time when Perseus, engaged in a desperate struggle (against the remaining Gorgon-sisters), had successfully cried to her a third time to rescue him, being about to carry off part of the sisters to the Seriphians as their portion".

This interpretation would remove the doubts on the one hand about σϋσεν (which is in itself unlikely to be corrupt)12 and on the other meet the objections raised against the participle-clause mentioned above: i f separated from τρίτον, the antithesis κασιγνητδν μέρος - μοϊραν άγων would be unobjectionable. The solution suggested here would, moreover, provide the missing link between Athena and the struggle o f Perseus13 and would fit in with 1. 13 (ήτοι τό τε θε-σπέσιον ΦόρκοΓ άμαύρωσεν γένος)14 and 1. 18f. (έκ [93] τούτων φίλον άνδρα πόνων / έρρύσσατο παρθένος): Perseus won his "dreadful struggle" (10 δυσ-πενθής κάματος ~ 18 πόνοι, compare 28 κάματος) against the Gorgons by ap-pealing successfully to Athena. Finally, the resemblance of Pindar's allusive li-nes to the struggle of Perseus as "depicted" on the "Shield of Herakles" (Hes. scut. 228ff.) 1 5 would become even more apparent.

10 For άύω or άπύω with a personal object expressed or implied sec, for instance, II. 11,46Iff. (Odysseus' cry for help) que S' Εταίρους- / τρ'ις μέν έπειτ' τίϋσεν (sc. εταίρους) . . . , / τρίς δ' άϊ-EV ί ά χ ο ν τ ο ς ... Μενέλαος ; c f . Od. 9 , 6 5 τ ω ν δ ε ι λ ώ ν έ τ ό ρ ω ν τρ ις ε κ α σ τ ο ν άΟσαι, / ο'ί θάνον . . . ;

Pindar, Ol. l ,72f. (Pclops) οίος έν όρφνα / άπυεν βαρύκτυττον / Εύτρίαιναν- ό δ' αϋτώ / παρ ττοδι σχεδόν φάνη; for the situation cf. also Pyth. 6 ,35-37 (Nestor) βόασε παϊδα öv, / χαμαι-πετές δ' άρ' Επος ούκ άπέριψεν. For adv. τρίτον cf. Nem. 3,72; Bacch. 4,4, and see next note.

11 For "three" as a success-number, the third time being decisive, cf. II. loc. cit.; Pindar, Ol. 2,68 (έστρίς); Ol. 8,37ff. ("three snakes", the third being successful, cf. 1. 45f.); Cf. also II. 8,488 (τρίλλιστος έττήλυθε νϋξ έρεβεννή); Hcs. Fr. 76,21 M.-W. (Hippomcncs - Atalante) ό δέ τά τρίτον ήκε χαμαζε, sc. μήλον. / σύν τώ δ' έξέφυγεν θάνατον; Α. Ch. 655 (Orestes) τρίτον τόδ' έκπέραμα δωμάτων καλώ (at that the call is answered, 1. 657); E. Hel. 1417 (Thcoklymcnos conceding Helen's request): αύθις κελεύω και τρίτον γ', ει σοι φίλον; cf. also Ar. Ra. 1176 (Dionysos): τεθνηκόσιν ... ελεγεν ... / οίς ουδέ τρις λέγοντες έξικνούμεθα.

12 Cf. intransitive άντ-άϋσε Pyth. 4,197. 13 Otherwise it would not make much sense to continue "Athena" as subject from the first into

the second stanza of the poem (cf. Mythos bei Pindar 132 and the alternative possibilities I considered in Hermes 104, 26If .) .

14 As 1. 13 (ήτοι) evidently refers back to 11. 9 -11 the verb in 1. 11 should, however indirectly, express the success of Perseus' fight against the Gorgons: SCHROEDER, Pyth.-Komm, on 1. 13; Cf. Hermes 104, 261 with n. 27.

15 228-31 αυτός δέ σπεΰδοντι και έρρίγοντι έοικώς / Περσεύς Δαναΐδης έτιταίνετο· / τα\ δέ μετ' αυτόν Γοργόνες αττλητοί ΤΕ και ού φαταϊ έρρώοντο / ίέμεναι μαπέειν ... 235-37 λίχμαζον δ' άρα τώ yE ... έπ'ι δέ δεινοϊσι καρήνοις / Γοργείοις έδονεΐτο μέγας φόβος: cf. Mythos bei Pindar 136f.

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 93.180.53.211

Download Date | 11/3/13 5:34 PM

Two Notes on Pindar 303

II. Isthmian 8,46f.: έπέωυ δέ καρπός / ού κατέφθιυε- φαυτι y a p ξύυ' άλέγειυ / και γάμου Θέ-

τιος άυακτε (άυακτε Triklinios : άυακτα Β D : άυακτας BERGK). Translate: "And the fruit of Themis' words did not wither; for, they say, the

two mighty gods (i. e. Zeus and Poseidon) jointly cared also for the marriage of Thetis".

The lines quoted are the closing sentence of the story of Zeus' and Posei-don's rival love for Thetis (Isthm. 8,26a-47).16 Modern editors either print Tri-klinios' άνακτε (Ο. SCHROEDER, ed. mai. 1900 [1922]; C.M. BOWRA 1947), or BERGK's conjecture άυακτας (A. TURYN 1952; B. SNELL 1964) although the latter introduces a metrical anomaly into the text. The manuscript reading άυακτα has, however, been defended by P. VON DER MÜHLL18 and, following h i m , b y E . T H U M M E R . 1 9

VON DER MÜHLL thought άυακτα should refer to Peleus, to whom Thetis is to be given in marriage (11. 38f f ) , and took the sentence to mean: "The warning of Themis was successful because even Peleus himself, in agreement with the decision of the gods, cared for marrying Thetis".20 Such a statement, he argues, would be a fitting conclusion to the story because "to praise Peleus was the purpose of this part of Pindar's narrative, to Peleus therefore it was also desig-ned to lead ,..".21

Two questions must be asked here: Does VON DER MÜHLL account suffi-ciently for the γ ά ρ in 1. 46a and the position of καί in 1. 47 (φαυτι γ ά ρ ξύυ' άλέγειυ / και γάμου ... άυακτα)? And is Peleus really in the centre of Pindar's story, as VON DER MÜHLL takes him to be?

Both VON DER MÜHLL and THUMMER translate the sentence as if Pindar wrote και άυακτα ("auch Peleus seinerseits", VON DER MÜHLL; "der Herrscher auch seinerseits", THUMMER), but, in fact, we have και γάμου "the marriage al-

16 There should be a full stop after 1. 47 άνακτε (SCHROEDER ed. mai.; BOWRA; TURYN), not a c o m m a ( S N E L L ) .

17 The conjecture would produce the only long syllabic (-ας καί) at this place of the metrical system (six instances against, in the seven stanzas of the poem's strophic composition). The problem is underrated by P. VON DER MÜHLL, ΜΗ 22 (1965) 50 = Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften, 1976, 239f. (see next note).

18 "Weitere pindarischc Notizen", MH22 (1965) 49 -52 = Ausgew. Kl. Sehr., 238-242 . 19 Pindar. Die isthmischen Gedichte II, 1969, 137 on I. 46f. (cf. his translation, loc. cit. I, 1968,

195). 20 VON DER MÜHLL 51: "Und nun heisst es, dass der Themis warnender Rat, dem die Kronidcn

zugestimmt hatten, fruchtete ..., weil (γάρ), wie erzählt wird, auch Peleus seinerseits ξυνά, d. h. in Gemeinschaft mit jenem Götterwillcn (this paraphrase of ξυνά is hardly justified by the text), auf die Heirat mit Thetis ... bedacht war..."; - cf. THUMMER 137: "Peleus habe sich um das gemeinsame Anliegen (ξυνά) gekümmert und Thctis ... zu seiner Frau gemacht". But why should this not very surprising outcome have been stressed in such a strange way?

21 VON DER MÜHLL, loc. cit.: "Den Peleus zu verherrlichen, war der Sinn dieses Stücks der pin-darischen Erzählung, auf seine Person sollte sie auch hinauslaufen"; similarly THUMMER, loc. cit.

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 93.180.53.211

Download Date | 11/3/13 5:34 PM

304 Lyrisches Erzählen: Pindar

s o " (that is, "someone cared for the marriage as well as for something else"). Moreover, VON DER MÜHLL and THUMMER take the γάρ-clause to mean that the fulfilment of Themis ' advice depended on the collaboration of Peleus ("der Themis ... Ra t . . . fruchtete, weil ( y a p ) ... auch Peleus seinerseits ... auf die Hei-rat mit Thetis ... bedacht war", VON DER MÜHLL). But are we really to believe that, according to Pindar, Themis' plan could be successful only if Peleus was ready to co-operate? Should we not rather expect from the consent of the two gods (Zeus and Poseidon) mentioned in 1. 45af. that they would take charge of the marriage? Now VON DER MÜHLL objected to reading άνακτε in 1. 47 exactly because "die ... Zustimmung der beiden Kroniden zum Vorschlag der Themis im Gedicht j a schon ausgesprochen ist (45a). φαυτι γ α ρ ... καί sind danach gänzlich überflüssig". But this is not true. In 1. 45a it is only said that Zeus and Poseidon consented to the plan of Themis, whereas in 1. 46af. we are told (if άνακτε is read) that the two gods themselves presided over the marriage of Thetis. VON DER MÜHLL's objection to άνακτε is thus not really justified.

The decisive question, however, is: who is in the centre of the story as told in Isthmian 8? The line of the argument leading up to lines 46af. does not sup-port the idea that it could be Peleus. In 11. 38f. Themis suggests to Zeus and Po-seidon (compare 35a and 45 Κρονίδαις έννέποισα) that they should give Thetis to Peleus (Πηλέϊ γέρα$ θεόμορον / όπάσσαι γάμου Αίακίδα); in 11. 4 I f f . she says that the gods themselves should arrange for this marriage (she even proposes a date: 44f. έν διχομηνίδεσσιν δέ έσπέραις έρατόν / λύοι κεν χαλινόν ύφ' ήρωϊ παρθενίας. There is not the slightest hint of Peleus having a say in this arrangement. The implication rather seems to be that he will gladly accept anything the gods think fit for him). When Themis' speech has ended, we are informed that Zeus and Poseidon agreed to her suggestion [94] (44-46 ώς φάτο Κρουίδαις / έννέποισα θεά· τοι δ' έπι γλεφάροις / νεΰσαυ άθαυάτοισιν), and subsequently (46-46a) we are told that her words came true (έπέων δέ καρπός / ού κατέφθινε). To this statement the sentence in question is added as an explanation (46a φαντί γ ά ρ ξύν' άλέγειν / και γάμον ...) .

From the context outlined here it is apparent that the subject o f the infiniti-ve άλέγειν cannot be "Peleus" or "Zeus" alone22 or "all of the gods" 2 3 but only "Zeus and Poseidon", the divine pair of competitors for the love of Thetis to whom Themis addressed herself (35ff.), whom she urged to give Thetis to Pe-leus (38f.), who gave their consent (45af.), and whose relationship to Thetis has been the dominant theme throughout this part of Pindar's narrative (since 1.

22 " Z e u s " was understood as early as ER. SCHMID (1616 : cf. SCHROEDER, cd. mai. on 11. 4 6 - 4 7 ) ; cf., for instance, FARNELL, C o m m . 382 on 1. 56; the interpretation is rejected by VON DER MÜHLL, loc. cit.

23 The " a s s e m b l y o f the g o d s " (1. 26af . , cf. 30f . ) only f igures as " f o i l " for " Z e u s and Pose idon" ; see a l so n. 17 above.

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 93.180.53.211

Download Date | 11/3/13 5:34 PM

T w o Notes on Pindar 305

27).24 Thus άυακτε should be read in 1. 46a. The final statement ("the two gods jointly cared also for the marriage of Thetis") points back to the beginning of Pindar's narrative (27 "Zeus and Poseidon competed for the marriage of The-tis"). The joint competition of the two gods for Thetis is in the end transformed into a joint patronage over her marriage to Peleus (as they had cared for Thetis they also cared for her marriage, kcu γάμου).25 Peleus himself, however, is not given an active part in this version of the story. The essential fact is that the marriage of Thetis is in Isthmian 8 presented as being conferred upon Peleus as a divine favour (1. 38f. γέρας θεόμορου).

24 For the prominence of "Zeus and Poseidon" in Isthm. 8 and the s ignif icance of their str iking " twin-pres idency" in the myth see BICS 22 (1975) 26 -29 .

25 άλέγειυ does not mean " für sich betreiben", as VON DER MÜHLL suggests (loc. cit. 50, cf. 51) but " to take care o f ' or "honour" : cf. Ol. 1 l ,14f . (the poet " taking care o f ' the victor and his city) κελαδήσω. / Ζεφυρίων Λοκρώυ γενεάν άλεΥων. "Ring-compos i t ions" like this one in Isthm. 8 (27 άμφ'ι Θέτιος ... γ ά μ ω ~ 47 γ ά μ ο ν Θέτιο;) mark ing off narrative units are a well known device in Pindar (for a closing return to the be-ginning modif ied , as here, by the course of events in the narrative cf. for instance Ol. 13 ,63f . and 8 4 - 8 6 or Pyth. 3 , 1 - 5 and 63 -67) .

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 93.180.53.211

Download Date | 11/3/13 5:34 PM