Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:41:18.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The date of Pindar's fifth Nemean and Bacchylides' thirteenth ode

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer
Ilja Leonard Pfeijffer
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Just about every odd year in the early fifth century B.C. has been proposed as the date of the Nemean victory of Pytheas from Aegina, celebrated in Pindar's Fifth Nemean and Bacchylides' thirteenth ode. Scholars have attempted to date both odes with the help of Isthmian 6 and 5, which celebrate victories of a member of the same family and the latter of which at 48ff. refers to Salamis as a recent event. Various interpretations of the victory catalogues in I. 6 and 5 have led to various dates for N. 5 and B. 13. The fullest analysis of the material is that by Severyns, who argues that N. 5 and B. 13 must be at least seven years earlier than I. 5. In his conclusion (pp. 50–51), however, he still suggests three possible dates for N. 5 and B. 13: 487, 489, and 485 B.C., in what he considers to be the order of likelihood.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , December 1995 , pp. 318 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Most often proposed is 485: Körte, A., ‘Bacchylidea’, Hermes 53 (1918), 133–47Google Scholar, esp. p. 142; Schmid, W., Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (Schmid, W. & Stählin, O.), I, i (München, 1929), p. 524Google Scholar; Turyn, A., Pindari Carmina cum fragmentis (Cracow, 1948), p. 164Google Scholar, Bowra, C. M., Pindar (Oxford, 1964), p. 407Google Scholar. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Pindaros (Berlin, 1932), p. 169Google Scholar: 483, but more likely 485. Snell, B. & Maehler, H., Pindari Carmina cum fragmentis, Pars I Epinicia (Leipzig, 1987 8)Google Scholar, print ‘483?’ above the text of N. 5; however, in the praefatio of their Bacchylides edition (Bacchylidis Carmina cumfragmentis [Leipzig, 1970 10]), p. xlvGoogle Scholar, they give 485 as the most likely date. Maehler, H., Die Lieder des Bakchylides. Erster Teil, die Siegeslieder, 2 vols. (Mnemosyne Supplement 62, Leiden, 1982), II, pp. 250–51Google Scholar, gives 483 as the latest possible date. 481 has been proposed by: Bornemann, L., ‘Pindar (1903–1927) und Bakchylides (1908ff.)’, Jahresberichte über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 54 (1928), 216Google Scholar. Band, pp. 131–86, esp. p. 173; Jebb, R. C., Bacchylides, The Poems and Fragments (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 214–15Google Scholar; Taccone, A., Bacchilide, Epinici, Ditirambi e Frammenti (Turin, 1907)Google Scholar.

2 Severyns, A., Bacchylide, Essai biographique (Liège, 1933), pp. 41–51Google Scholar.

3 Gaspar, C., Essai de chronologie pindarique (Brussels, 1900), pp. 63–4Google Scholar.

4 Mommsen, T., Pindaros: zur Geschichte des Dichters (Kiel, 1845), p. 47Google Scholar.

5 Farnell, L. R., The Works of Pindar, vol. 2 (commentary) (London, 1932), p. 274Google Scholar.

6 In line 41 the MSS. read αἰγναι θεc contra metrum;; E. Schwartz’ emendation αἰγναθεδϲ. (‘Zu Bacchylides’, Hermes 39 [1904], 636)Google Scholar is generally accepted.

7 The text of line 43 is very uncertain. With the text of the Snell-Maehler edition, ἤτοι μεταḯξαιϲ ϲ κα νȖν τεϲ μτρωc γλλει κενου μϲπορον ἔθνοϲ. ΠυΦα (‘[Surprisingly?] your uncle [Euthymenes] has now too rushed after you, Pytheas, doing honour to that hero's [i.e. Peleus’] kindred race [i.e. the Aeginetans]’), this line probably means that Euthymenes’ Aeginetan victories are posterior to Pytheas’ Nemean victory (cf.Carey, C., CQ 39 [1989], 291Google Scholar; see also n. 13 below). This does not affect my argument.

8 ‘Euthymenes from Aegina’; thus Sandys, J. E., Pindar (London, 1919), p. 363Google Scholar; Wust, E., Pindar als geschichtschreibender Dichter (Diss. Tubingen, 1967), p. 167Google Scholar.

9 Carey, C., ‘Two Transitions in Pindar, 0.8.52–5, N.5.37–42’, CQ 39 (1989), 287–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Thus also Cole, T., ‘1 + 1 = 3: Studies in Pindar's Arithmetic’, AJPh 108 (1987), 553–683Google Scholar, esp. p. 564, with n. 15.

11 Cole, T., AJPh 108 (1987), 564–5Google Scholar, does not take this passage to refer to two Isthmian victories of Euthymenes. He supposes Euthymenes’ victories to be identified in lines 44–6. See also Cole's criticism of Carey in Pindar's Feasts or the Music of Power (Rome, 1992), p. 139Google Scholar. The scholia on line 37 (εὐθυμνηϲ ϲ νκηϲεν ‘ιιϲθμι, 67a, III 96 Dr.) and 38 (εȋτα ποϲει δι τ τοȖ ‘ιϲθμοȖ μνϲθη, 70b, III 96 Dr.) refer to an Isthmian victory of Euthymenes. These remarks can be understood perfectly well without any reference in this ode to an Isthmian victory of Euthymenes. From 7.6 it can be deduced that Euthymenes has won twice on the Isthmus (and at least once in Nemea). So the remark of the scholiast on line 37 is in fact true, although Euthymenes’ Isthmian victories must be posterior to this ode. See below.

12 Cf. ἔχοντα Πυθωνθεν / τ καλλνικον λυτριον δαπανν / μλοϲ χαρεν, P. 5. 105–7; εἴη νιν εὐϕώνων πτεργεϲϲιν ερθντ’ γλαιϲ / Πιερδων, ἔτι κα Πυθθεν ‘ολυμπιδων τ’ξαιρτοιϲ /’ αλϕεοȖ ἔρνε ϲι ϕρξαι χεȊρα τιμν πταπλοιϲ / θβαισι τεχοντ’, I. 1.64–7 νȖνδ’ ‘ολυμπαι στεϕανωϲμενος / κα δς κ Πυθνος ‘σθμοȊ τ’, ο. 12.17–18; πε ϲτεϕνουϲ / ἔξ πασεν κδμου ϲτρατι ξ θλων, I.1.10–11.

13 Carey, C., CQ 39 (1989), 291Google Scholar. Mss BD read the nominative Πυθας, but the E. ad loc. (78c, III 97 Dr.) attests that not all ancient texts read the nominative: καταλληγτερον δ ἔνιοι γρϕουϲ, ἴν’ ἠι μτρωϲ Πυθαϲ, which practically gives the vocative (first restored by Mignarelli) the status of an ancient varia lectio. It is certainly correct, because ‘Euthymenes… was p.drpoic of Pytheas, not the reverse’ (Carey, ibid.); cf. I. 6.62 (cited below). See also n. 7 above.

14 All the same, Kayser's easy conjecture κρτειϲ deserves consideration. This presupposes a corruption from a second person to a third person, which might be accounted for by the second person reference to Pytheas in line 43 already having been corrupted into a third person (the nominative Πυθαϲ instead of the vocative Πυθα in most of the texts the scholiasts had at their disposal.

15 Bury, J. B., The Isthmian Odes of Pindar (London, 1892), p. 117Google Scholar. Thus also Maehler on B.I 3 (II p. 251).

16 Thus also Hummel, P., La syntaxe de Pindare (Paris, 1993), p. 402Google Scholar(§510). If Pindar had intended to say that the three men had won a total of three victories, he would have written something like: ἄραντο γρ νκαϲ π παγκρατου τρεȊϲ, τνμν π’ ‘ιοθμοȖ, τϲ δ’ π’ εὐϕλλου νεμαϲ, γλαο παȋδϲ τε κα μτρωϲ as even Bury (ad loc, p. 117) admits.

17 Thummer, E., Die isthmischen Gedichte (Heidelberg, 1968–9), II, p. 109Google Scholar.

18 Cf. esp. ἄλλαι δ δ’ ν κορνθου πλαιϲ γνοντ’ ἔπειτα χρμαι, / τα δ κα νεμαϲ ‘εϕαρμϲτωι κατ κλπον, ο. 9.86–7; cf. also N. 6.61–3, P. 11.46–50.

19 Phylacidas’ Isthmian victory, celebrated in 1.6, is said to be the second victory of the sons of Lampon (line 2). As the first one must be Pytheas’ Nemean victory, celebrated in N.5 and B.13, two Isthmian victories (and at least one Nemean victory) remain for Euthymenes.

20 E. inscr.ad 1.5 (III 241 Dr.) speaks of an Isthmian victory for Pytheas as well: ν γρ τι γεγραμμνηι μδαι ιδηι ὡϲ οἰκεωι ατι ἱστορεȋ, τι κα Πυθαϲ ‘ιϲθμια νκηϲε. λγει δ ἤδη τετελευτηκτοϲ τοȖ Πυθα κεἴ μο τιν’ ἄνδρα τν θανντων (fr. 4), κα τ ξς. If this is true, one must assume that Pytheas had won this victory after the one of Phylacidas celebrated in I. 5. If 478 is assumed as the date of I. 5, the earliest possible date for Pytheas’ Isthmian victory is 476.

21 This has been suggested by Gaspar, p. 62 n. 3. See further Severyns, p. 46, and Maehler on B.13 (op. cit. II, pp. 250–51).

22 If Euthymenes has won only once in Nemea, he may have won either in 483 or in 481 B.C.

23 Not ‘through the good fortune of Menander’; cf. e.g. ῥμα δ’ ργμτων χρονιώτερον βιοτεει, / τι κε ϲὺν χαρτων τχαι / γλϲϲα ϕρενϲ βαθεαϲ, nnnn τχαι θεν / ϕξεται λαι ϲὺν βλαβεῖ / ‘αβαντοϲ εὐρυχρουϲγυιϲ, P. 83 53–5; ϲὺν θεοȖ δ τχαι / ἔτερον οὔ τινα οȋκον πεϕνατο πυγμαχα <πλενων> / ταμαν ϲτεϕνων μυχι ‘ελλδοϲ πϲαϲ, N. 6.24–6; ϲ τχαι μν δαμονοϲ, νοραϲ δ’ οὐκ μπλακὼν / ν ττραϲιν παδων πεθκατο γυοιϲ / νϲτον ἔχθιϲτον, ο. 8.67–9; cf. also ο. 13.105, etc.

24 ουτοϲ δ λγεται ππποϲ τι Πυθαι πρϲ μητρϲ, ε.91 (III p. 99 Dr.).

25 Thus also Wilamowitz, p. 170. Bury (p. 97) too interprets μηκτι ῥγει (‘“Be reserved no longer” implies that there were reasons for reserve in reference to somebody else’), but he does not draw the obvious conclusion that this applies to the preceding section of the poem, where Menander is mentioned.

26 See e.g. Sicking, C. M. J., ‘The Distribution of Aorist and Present Tense Stem Forms, Especially in the Imperative’, Glotta 69 (1991), 14–43Google Scholar and 154–70, esp. p. 157 with his examples 78–80, pp. 160–61.

27 Cf. e.g. Dissen, Gerber, Verdenius, adO.1.5; Verdenius, , ‘Tyrtaeus 6–7D. A Commentary’, Mnemosyne 22 (1969), 345CrossRefGoogle Scholar, speaks of ‘rhetorical μηκτι’.

28 See e.g. Becker, O., Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im friihgriechischen Denken (Hermes Einzelschriften, Heft 4; Berlin, 1937), p. 71 n. 58Google Scholar; Maas, P., ‘Zu den neuen Bruchstiicken des Bakchylides’, Jahresberichte Philol. Verein Berlin 45 (1919), 39Google Scholar n. 8 (= Kleine Schriften [München, 1973], 30–31 n. 8), who regards ἔτι here as ‘abundierend’;, referring to O.I.5, and denies that earlier, in 48–9 where Menander is mentioned, Pindar ‘shuddered’ ('Dann ist μηκτι ῥγει einfache Litotes’).Schadewaldt, W., Der Aufbau des pindarischen Epinikions (Halle, 1928), p. 25Google Scholar n. 2 (= Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschqft, geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse 5.2,259–343, at p. 283 n. 2), disapproves of Maas's ‘abundierend’, but does not draw the conclusion that Pindar implicitly characterizes his act of praising Menander as an act of ῥιγεȋν ‘Vielmehr: “gilt's den Themistios zu preisen, dann heraus mitder Stimme, so daB sie (im Vergleich zu solchem Jubel) vorher klamm gewesen zu sein scheint”. Es gilt also nicht, Früheres abzuschwächen…, sondern das Neue hervorzuheben. Lebendige und prachtvoll “unlogische” Steigerung des Motivs O.9.109.’ But if Pindar wanted to give emphasis to his praise of Themistius without detracting anything from the praise of Menander, this would have been a rather tactless means of doing so.

29 For ἔλπετο δ’ οὐκτι οἱ κεȋνο γε πρξαϲθαι πνον, P. 4.243 (Jason ha d mastered the firebreathing bulls, but when it came to the serpent that guarded the fleece, Aietes did not expect him to accomplish that),Braswell, B. K., A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Berlin and New York, 1988), p. 332Google Scholar, suggested: ‘no t “no longer”…but “not now”. The reference is not to the continuation of an action already begun, but to the execution of it at a particular time.’ The point is, however, that ἔτι underscores the contrast with the other labour that Jason did accomplish earlier. See alsoWest, M. L. on Hes. Op. 174 (p. 196)Google Scholar, with further examples.

30 Cf. Severyns, pp. 47–8, n. 30.

31 N. 4.93–6, N. 6.64–6, /. 4.72–4, /. 5.59–61, O. 8.54–66, O. 10.16–21.

32 Another indication may be the use of τοι in 48. As this particle has a special affinity for statements that are in a way surprising (e.g. N. 9.32, I. 4.37, P. 1.87, O. 8.72, N. 5.16), it may present the assertion ‘sweet was the recompense you got because you had Menander’ as something surprising to say and something which may be expected to meet with disbelief.

33 For the maritime rivalry between Athens and Aegina see my ‘Pindar's Eighth Pythian. The Relevance of the Historical Setting’,Hermes 123 (1995), 156–65Google Scholar. Further references are to be found therein.

34 Cf. O. 6.17, P. 2.65, P. 8.43.

35 Cf. I. 4.31 (= 3/4.49); I. 5.54.

36 Cf. O. 5.15, N. 1.25, N. 10.86.

37 Bury, ad he, p. 96Google Scholar.

38 H. P. Grice, ‘Logic and Conversation', in:Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (edd.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3Google Scholar: Speech Acts (New York, 1975), pp. 41–58Google Scholar. See also my ‘The Image of the Eagle in Pindar and Bacchylides’,CPh 89 (1994), 305–17Google Scholar, esp. pp. 306–7.

39 That this ode, pace Wilamowitz, (Pindaros, p. 170)Google Scholar, was performed during the war can be deduced from the present tense μρναταιin line 47.

40 For an interpretation of the eagle-image in line 21 seeCPh 89 (1994), pp. 309–11Google Scholar.

41 E.g. Stern, J., ‘The Structure of Pindar's Nemean 5’, CPh 66 (1971), 169–73Google Scholar: ‘Pindar… turns to new themes, or at least appears to do so (vs. 19). But here too the poet sets a program which he does not follow. In general terms it might be said that Peleus achieves ἄλβοϲ, but there is in the myth which follows no reference to war and physical might.’ (p. 172).

42 Stoneman, R., ‘The “Theban Eagle”’, CQ 26 (1976), 188–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 194–5.

43 Suppl. Maehler: ξει Kenyon.

44 Suppl. Blass, cf. βαρυτνωϲ τ ‘αδης τ γρ πιθετκν ξνεται. δυϲμενων δ’ üδϲ λγει βακχυλδηϲ, Cram. An. Ox. 1.65.22.

45 δκαι is emphatically placed at the very end of the sentence.

46 For the idea cf. Pi. O. 10.53–5, O. 1.33–4, fr. 159.

47 Cf. B. 5.129–35, B. 18.3–7, B. fr. dub. 60.9 with line 12, Pi. N. 9.37–9, Pae. 2.68–70, in P. 8.8–12 Hesychia's hostile behaviour towards those overcome by κτοϲ and ὔβριϲ is described in martial terms. Cf. also Sim. Epigr. 6.215.1–2, Sol. 4.19–22 W., A. Th. 233–4 (cf. 366), etc. In the Iliad δυϲμενϲ is exclusively used to refer to the relationship between Greeks and Trojans (3.51, 5.488, 6.453, 10.40, 100, 193, 221, 395, 13.263, 16.521, 17.158, 19.62, 168, 232, 22.403, 24.288, 365), whereas χθρϲ may also refer to hostile relations within one and the same camp (9.312, of Achilles calling Agamemnon χθρϲ 1.176, vice versa; 2.200, of Thersites being ἔχθιϲτος to Achilles and Odysseus; 5.890, of Ares being ἔχθιϲτος to Zeus).

48 Maehler, on 199–220 and on 199–201 (II, pp. 286–7), explicitly rejects this interpretation (‘es wäre abwegig, daraus etwa auf eine feindselige Stimmung der Aigineten gegen den athenischen Trainer zu schlieBen’, p. 286).

49 Kenyon, F. G., Bacchylides (Oxford, 1898)Google Scholar, too, interprets this passage as an apology for praising an Athenian. See alsoWoloch, M., ‘Athenian Trainers in the Aeginetan Odes of Pindar and Bacchylides’, CW 56 (1963), 102–4Google Scholar and 121. On p. 103 Woloch argues that Bacchylides does no t praise Menander willingly. Surprisingly, he takes Pindar as being unequivocally complimentary with respect to Menander.

50 Bacchylides emphasizes the Panhellenic character of the festivals in 198, in connection with Menander.

51 Later sources for a combined cult of Eukleia and Eunomia in Athens (1G II2 5059, cf. 4193.13–14 and 4874, quoted by Jebb and Maehler ad loc.) explain nothing in this respect.

52 Maehler ad loc.

53 Sevi'a is mentioned in colon 224. The concept plays a crucial role in N. 5 too (8, 33).

54 According toSingor, H. W., Oorsprong en betekenis van de hoplietenphalanx in het archaische Griekenland, Diss. (Leiden, 1988), pp. 241–5Google Scholar, a TroAeftoc πλεμοϲ κρυκτοϲ is not a war that has not officially been declared, but a war that was unimpeded by any formal regulations, an allout war in which anything was allowed. If this is true, Herodotus’ qualification can hardly apply to the war following the events of 506, which merely consisted of Aeginetan raids on the Attic coasts, while Athens did not strike back (5.81, 89–90). See also below.

55 This phrase excludes the (in itself unlikely) possibility of Pindar referring to the war following the events of 506, which merely consisted of Aeginetan raids on the Attic coasts, while Athens did not strike back (5.81, 89–90).

56 Peleus and Telamon were exiled from Aegina after slaying their half-brother Phocus, because of their violation of internal Aeginetan solidarity (9–16). This is made clear by the portrayal of the three sons of Aeacus praying together in harmony (line 11, esp. μ), immediately preceding the reference to their crime. The implicit allusion to their crime (15–16) and the praeteritio do but emphasize this point, πϲα in line 47 and κενου μϲπορονἔθνοϲ in line 43 emphasize internal Aeginetan solidarity too.

57 The pre-Marathon chronology is defended by some scholars, notably by N. G. L. Hammond, ‘Studies in Greek Chronology of the Sixth and Fifth CenturiesV, B.C.. The War between Athens and Aegina, c. 505–481’Google Scholar, Historia 4 (1955), 406–11Google Scholar. For a detailed criticism of his arguments, seeFigueira, T. J., QUCC 28 (1988), 49–89Google Scholar. Further references are to be found therein.

58 The most recent discussions are:Amit, M., Great and Small Poleis. A Study in the Relations between the Great Powers and the Small Cities in Ancient Greece (Collection Latomus 134) (Brussels, 1973), 17–29Google Scholar; H.-J. Gehrke, Stasis. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Munich, 1985), 15–16Google Scholar with n. 4; Figueira, art. cit. Further references are to be found therein.

59 Cleomenes’ death is frequently dated to 488 B.C., e.g. byLuria, S., Philologische Wochenschrift 1928, 27ff.Google Scholar; Giusti, A., Atene e Roma 10 (1929), 54ff.Google Scholar; Lenschau, T., Klio 31 (1938), 412ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bengtson, H., Griechische Geschichte von den Anfängen bis in die römische Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1960 2), p. 156Google Scholar.

60 See pp. 56–9, 84. See also his chronological table, pp. 88–9.

61 No indication of this occurs in either ode. Contrast O. 10 and N. 3.80.

62 Th.l. 108.4;Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford, 1972), p. 98Google Scholar; Bengtson, p. 211. See also my ‘Pindar's Eighth Pythian. The Relevance of the Historical Setting’,Hermes 123 (1995), 156–65Google Scholar.

63 Singor, , op. cit., pp. 241–5Google Scholar.

64 See Singor, pp. 243–4.

65 I would like to thank Professor C. Carey and Dr H. W. Singor for their valuable advice. Thanks are due also to Dr Peter Stork, Professor C. M. J. Sicking, Anne-Marie Smakman, and Michel Buijs. Flaws and imperfections are solely mine. The research for this article was made possible through a grant of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (N.W.O.).