Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"

8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"

1/20

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"Author(s): Annette TeffetellerSource: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 1 (May, 2005), pp. 77-95Published by: on behalf ofCambridge University Press The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240Accessed: 17-03-2015 10:36 UTC

F R N S

Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/20

Classical

Quarterly

5.1

77-95

(2005)

Printed n

Great

Britain

77

doi:

10.1093/cq/bmi005

PINDAR'S

THREE

WORDS:

THE

ROLE OF APOLLO

IN THE

SEVENTH

NEMEAN*

At

the

end

of

his account

n the

SeventhNemeanof

Neoptolemus'

deathat

Delphi

and

subsequent

honours

there,

Pindar

remarks:

EVboVV14OV8tKaV

7pLa

ErTEa8LtapKEaEt.

While commentators

isagree

on

whether

he referenceof

the 'three

words'

is ana-

phoric

or

cataphoric,

here

s

general

agreement

s to

the

lackof numerical

pecificity

implied.

The

view

is

forcefully

stated

by

Lloyd-Jones:

WhenPindar

ays,

'for

ustice

...

three

wordswill be

enough',

here

s no use in

trying

o

work

out what

the

threewords

are;

n

Greek

three',

ike

our

expression

two or

three',

can

simply

mean'a

few'.1

It is

the

purpose

of this

paper

o

suggest

hat t is

in

fact

possible

to workout what

he

threewords

are,

hat hereferences

specific

and

numerically recise,

and hat he 'three

words'

epitomize

Apollo's

role n

legitimizing

he

posthumous

tatus

f

Neoptolemus,

whose

story

n life

and

n death

orms

he central

aradeigma

of

the

ode.

The

passage

that

contains

the

account

of

Neoptolemus'

life

and

posthumous

honours

and

provides

he

context

for the

disputedphrase

comprises

ines

30-53:

aAAAOLVOV

yap EPXETaL

30

KE1

'Aia,

ieaE

8'a'8'K?7-

Vroy Kat

0oK.ov'ra

7rt,

84

ytv'vEat

cv

OEOS

,6lpov

6elp

Abyov

rETVaKo7-Wv.

foa0oc0v rot

7rapahLyav

8Cp/aAbvbpUVKOA7O

'bAov

Oov6s.

v

OLvOowtS'8arT'8otL

KELTaL

Iptiztov 7TrAtv

NeoiTrrAEt,

E'7TELTpa'OEV,

35

Kq

Kaz•

avaoi

rr6v'vqaav8' 7ro7rA&tov

ZK6poU

V

~v

alapTE, 7rAayX0EvrEs8'~

'E0 'bpav

LKOV0O.

MoAoaaid

8'CLqPaaiAevEv

ALyov

XpOVov

aRdap

yeVor

alEl

EPEL

rofr6 of

tpas.

ofXE'o

~

rp

S

OE6V,

40

K7TE7

a

ywv

TpoifaEv

dKpOtViWV

tva

KpECJV

VLV

V5TrEpaixag

iAaaEv&wVTLvX6'V7 p ,IaxalpQL.

/a'pvvOv E TErptW&aa& oot

6EvayEaL.

&AAa

-

To6Patlov

a&i8oW-

KEy

Epiv

Se

rv' E&VOV 'AcEL

TaAaLraTW

*

It

is a

pleasure

o record

my

deep

ndebtedness

o

AlexanderDale for

help

with

many

of

the

points

discussed

here.

My

thanks

go

also to

the

editorandreader or

CQ

for

a

number

f useful

commentsand

suggestions.

1

H.

Lloyd-Jones,

'Modem

interpretation

f Pindar:

he

Second

Pythian

and

Seventh

Nemean

Odes',

JHS 93

(1973),

109-37,

at 133

=

Greek

Epic, Lyric,

and

Tragedy:

The

Academic

Papers

1

(Oxford, 1990),

110-53,

at

146.

Cf.

C.

Carey,

'Pindarica',

n

R.D.

Dawe,

J.

Diggle,

and

P.E.

Easterling

(edd.), Dionysiaca:

Nine Studies in Greek

Poetry

Presented

to Sir

Denys Page

(Cambridge, 1978),

21-44,

at

37; id.,

A

Commentary

on

Five

Odes

of

Pindar:

Pythian

2,

Pythian

9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8

(New

York,

1981),

154;

G.

W.

Most,

The Measures

of

Praise: Structure and

Function

in

Pindar's

Second

Pythian

and SeventhNemean

Odes,

Hypomnemata

3

(G6ttingen,

1985),

174;

L.

Woodbury,

'Neoptolemus

at

Delphi:

Pindar,

Nem.

7.30ff.',

Phoenix

33

(1979),

95-133,

at

113;

L. R.

Famell

(ed.),

The Works

f

Pindar

(London,

1930),

2.296.

Classical

Quarterly

5.1

?

The

ClassicalAssociation

2005;

all

rights

reserved


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/20

78

ANNETTE

TEFFETELLER

AlaKLLVvpEOV7rwV

o'

AotTF

V

/LEa~L

45

OEO1

trap'

EVToELXEaCL

01OV,

rpOolaLS

'

o8,

csTO/.L7Tais

OEpUaKo7TOV

IKEEV

V5VraoATOvOTLS9.

E(OnvvI3ov

9s

t'Kav

pla

Herma

nsapKEtEtL

pOV

b0E

t

0

c,

alTUS

Efpy/iaaul•

EaLoTC•TEL.

A'iytva,

rEW-V

J60

T'

KYOVCo)V

paac/

LOL

OroELIEwt

50

(aEvvais

gpEtrais

g

SOv

KvpIav

Aywv

OLKOOEV

vhaa

yap

avarrav-

atr

Eiv

lTavr

t

tvKEia Epyq). KOpov3'EXEL

Kat

Ka'

T

'Tp7TV'

aVOE'

ApoS(ata.

Controversy

centres

on

the

lines at the

beginning

and end of the

passage

cited: 31-6

and

48-52. For

lines

31-6 the text cited is that of the

manuscripts

with the

following

exceptions:

(1)

Line 33: for the

manuscripts'

floaO6wv,

Famell's

floaOowv,

onstrued

as

present

participle

masculine

singular

nominative of

roao&ow,2

and

taken as

referring

to

Pindar3

(or,

more

precisely,

to

the

'I'

of

the ode's

narrator,

who

is

to be identified

with Pindar).4

(2)

Line 33: for the

manuscripts'

yap,

Hermann's

rrapa

requiredby

the

metre,

sup-

ported by

the

scholia,

and all

but

unanimously

accepted).5

(3)

Line 34:

p6,ov,

an ancient variant

(•E1oAov)ofz6AEv

(mss.

4toAE[v]),

recorded in

the scholia6 and read

by

Hermann

and

others.7 Construed

as

first-person singular,

referring

to Pindar as

poet

and

ode-narrator.8

2

Farnell

(n.

1),

291-5;

this

reading

(and

construal)

s

acceptedby

C. M.

Bowra

(ed.),

Pindari carmina cum

fragmentis

(Oxford,

19472),

ad

loc.;

B. Snell

(ed.),

Pindari

Carmina

cum Fragmentis (Leipzig, 1953',

19552);

ibid., vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1959', 19644), ad loc.;

E.

Wiist,

'Pindar

als

geschichtsschreibender

ichter',

dissertation

Tilbingen,

1967), 144-5,

154-5;

C.

Segal,

'Pindar'sSeventh

Nemean',

TAPA

8

(1967),

431-80,

at

445;

Lloyd-Jones

(n.

1),

132

(= 145);

G. M.

Kirkwood,

Nemean7

and the theme

of vicissitude n

Pindar',

n

id.

(ed.), Poetry

and Poetics

from

Ancient

Greece to the

Renaissance:

Studies in Honor

of

James

Hutton

(Ithaca,

NY,

1975),

56-90,

at

81-2;

A.

K6hnken,

Die Funktion

des

Mythos

bei

Pindar:

Interpretationen

zu sechs

Pindargedichten, Untersuchungen

zur

antiken

Literatur

und

Geschichte

12

(Berlin,

1971),

67

and

nn.

143, 144;

B. Snell and

H.

Maehler

(edd.),

Pindarus

Pars

I:

Epinicia

(Leipzig, 19715,

19806),

ad.

loc.;

G.W.

Most,

'Pindar,

Nem.

7,

31-

36',

Hermes

114

(1986),

262-71,

at

268-70;

cf.

id.,

Measures

n.

1),

157;

and

W.H. Race

(ed.

and

trans.),

Pindar: Nemean

Odes,

Isthmian

Odes,

Fragments,

Loeb Classical

Library

(Cambridge,

MA,

1997),

ad

loc.

(Cf.

Schmidt'semendation

foacowv

with the

same

interpret-

ation,noted butrejectedby Farnell n. 1], acceptedby Carey,Commentaryn. 1].) (Thislist,

as similar

nstances

below,

is

intended

o be

representative,

ot

exhaustive.)

3

WithWiist

(n. 2),

Segal (n. 2),

Lloyd-Jones n. 1),

Snell-Maehler

editions

5

and

6)

(n.

2),

and

Race

(n.

2).

4

Cf.

M. R.

Lefkowitz,

First Person

Fictions:

Pindar's Poetic

'I'

(Oxford, 1991).

5

See D. E.

Gerber,

Emendations

in

Pindar 1513-1972

(Amsterdam,

976),

115.

6 ?

Nem. 7.47

(Drachmann

II

123.1).

7

W. J. Slater

'Doubts

aboutPindaric

nterpretation',

J 72

[1977],

193-208,

at

206)

is

too

severe

on the

provenance

f

ot6Aov

'molon

has no

ms.

authority');

ee

Carey,Commentaryn.

1),

148-9,

who

judges,

more

reasonably,

hat

'We

may

conclude

that

'6hAov

and

1L6AEV

re

ancient

variants.'

It

will

be

clear

from

the discussion n the

text, however,

that I

disagree

with

Carey's udgement

'Pindarica' n. 1),

44,

n.

96]

that

'the

reading

L6AEv

s

convincingly

defended

by

W.

J.

Slater'.)

8With G. Fraccaroli,Le Ode di Pindaro(Verona,1894), 588, n. 2; G. Hermannn C. G.

Heyne

(ed.),

Pindari

carmina

G6ttingen,

1798),

ad

loc.;

U.

von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,

'Pindars

iebentes

nemeisches

Gedicht',

SB

Berl

(1908),

328-52;

Wiist

(n.

2); Segal (n. 2),

445-9;

Lloyd-Jones

n. 1),

132-3

(= 145-6);

Snell-Maehler

(editions

5

and

6) (n. 2);

Race

(n. 2).

For those who take the

verb

as

third-person

lural,

ee

Most,

Hermes

n. 2),

264,

n. 6.




4/20


5/20

80 ANNETTE TEFFETELLER

claim:

specific

nstance

f

the

gnomic

ruths to

be

considered,

ndnot

ust

anygod

is meantbut the

god,

the

god

of

Delphi,Apollo.15

nd now the

goaOocov

s

par-

ticularly

vocative:he

poet

comesas a

helper

o the

Helper od;16

he

word

play

in the

clause-initial

articiple

s

signalledby

the enclitic

rot,

ensuring

hatthe

pointed sage

s not

overlooked.

floaOoov

eferring

o Pindar

rather

han

Apollo

or

Neoptolemus)'8

akesmorestructuralnd

poetic

sense in the contextof the

ode

and its

Pindar's

iew,

expressed

lsewhere,

f his roleas

praise-poet.19

tk6Aov

s to be takenn a

figurative

ense,

as seen

by

Segal,20

ho

adduces

he

par-

allelof a

figurative

rrival

n

Olympian

of the

poet

with

he

victorious

mule-team

and

heir

harioteer

going'

o Pitana n

the Eurotas

24)

and

coming

o',

'arriving

at'

(28)

he

ineage

f

Hagesias'amily.

The

verbs

f

'going'

n

the

Ol.

6

passage

re

modal

nd

hus

provide

o

parallel

or ndicative

sage,

but

f

Pindar ished

o make

the

igurative

tatement

I

come',

whethero Pitana r

Delphi

r

anywhere

lse on

the

map

oroff

it,

howelse wouldhe do it?

Aorist orms re

precisely

what s

wantedn

such a context.21

15

Cf. line 40.

It

was

regular

usage among

the Athenians o

referto

Apollo

simply

as 'the

god',

as

observed,

for

example, by

T.

Gould on OT 86

(Oedipus

the

King:

A

Translation

with

CommentaryEnglewood

Cliffs, NJ,

1970], 26).

16

3o0rl-8p6ttoS

was a cult title of

Apollo

at

Delphi

(cf.

Callim.

Ap.

69)

and

Boa06os

was the

nameof a month n the

Delphic

calendar

cf.

Callim.Del. 27:

goa06os

as an

epithet

of

Apollo

at

Delos).

17

See

J. D.

Denniston,

The GreekParticles

(Oxford,

19502),

537-55.

18

For

example,Carey, Commentaryn. 1)

150

(Neoptolemus);

Most,

Hermes

(n.

2)

270

(OE6s).

19

For

example,

Ol.

13.96-7, 1.110,9.83;

Pae. 6.10-11. See

Lloyd-Jones

n. 1),

132

(=

145)

and

Segal

(n. 2),

447. The

interpretation

of

foa6wov

as

genitive

plural,

taken with

re0vaRK6rwv

as

referringo 'deadchampions'honoured tDelphi,wasperemptorilyondemned

y

Wilamowitz

as 'heller Unsinn' and

refuted

n

detail

by

Farnell

(n. 1),

292--convincingly,

in

spite

of

Woodbury's

n. 1)

subsequent

ttempt

at

resuscitation

and

Maehler's

acceptance

n

editions

7 and 8 of

Snell-Maehler

[Leipzig,

19847, 19878]).

As

Carey

rightly

observes

Commentary

[n. 1],

149),

'this

reading

s

disastrous or

the

progress

of

thought

n

the ode. It

contradicts

11ff.,

narrowing

he

possibility

of

rT1td

so as to offer

Sogenes

no

hope.'

20

Segal

(n. 2),

447. His

(and

others')

past

tense

rendering

I

came',

however,

obscures

he

sense.

Carey'sobjection

Commentaryn. 1], 150)

that aorists

uch

as

4toAov,

Iflavalways

refer

to the

arrival f

poet/chorus

at the

place

of

performance'

s

not

compelling;

ee

below,

text

and

n. 21.

21

Goodwin,

Syntax

of

the Moods and

Tenses

of

the

Greek

Verb

rev.

edn,

London,

1889),

?60,

notes

that:

The aorist s

sometimesused

colloquiallyby

the

poets

(especially

he

drama-

tists)when a suddenaction,which isjust takingplace, is spokenof as if it hadalreadyhap-

pened.'

This

usage,

however,

is

not,

as Goodwin

implies

it

is,

a

departure

rom

standard

usage

in

the sense of an

innovating

olloquial

deviation;

t

is,

rather,

n

archaizing

sage,

con-

tinuing

he

originalaspectual

non-temporal)

unction

of the aorist.

n

verbs

of telic

Aktionsart,

such

as

~oAE'v,

he root aorist

s

the

unmarkedorm

(both

morphologically

nd

semantically),

expressing

he

basic actionof the verb

rrespective

f time.

(In

poAtv,

~toA-s

generalized

s

the

uniform oot in the aorist

[andfuture]

rom

*pSEA-

*

<

melH3-]

and its

ablaut orms

[with

the

phonologicaldevelopments

ndergone y some]

via metathesis nd

evelling:

see A. L.

Sihler,

New

Comparative

Grammar

f

Greekand Latin

[New

York

and

Oxford,

1995],

?

106.2.)

This

usage

occurs in the attested

iterature ven with

augmented

orms

(cf.

e.g.

Il.

4.243

'ar-TrrE),

although

he

original

usage

was of

coursewithout he

augment,

as

here;

moreover,

t

spreads

to

sigmatic

aoristsbuilt to verbs of

atelic Aktionsart

as

well as

secondary igmatic

aorists

built to

presents

ormed rom

root

aorists,

either

characterized

y

stem-formants

e.g.

ske/o,

-

ye/o]

or back-formedalthoughhese oftenindicate ngressive vel sim.) action]); or the two

types (non-ingressive

nd

ingressive),

cf.,

for

example,

Od.

8.481

,t4AalE;

Aesch.

Ag.

1192

a7rrE7rvaav;

II.

1.33

I36ELaUv.

See

J. D.

Denniston

(ed.),

Euripides:

Electra

(Oxford,

1939),

ad verses

215 and

248;

W.

S. Barrett

ed.),

Euripides:Hippolytos Oxford,

1964),

on verse

614.

Dennistonrefers to

Kiihner-Gerth,

Ausfiihrliche

Grammatik

er

griechischen

Sprache




6/20

PINDAR'S

THREE

WORDS

81

The 8

of 34

marks a

paratactic

rogression,

n effect

explanatory:

Why

do

I

mention

Delphi?-Because

Neoptolemus

s buried

here.'22

Usages

such

as this are

best

interpreted

as

remnants-found,

not

surprisingly,

in

archaizing poetic

tra-

ditions-of

the

original

function

of

particles

such as

SE

not as connectives

but

as

enclitic

emphasizing

particles

in

a

paratactic

structure,

as

analysed by

Meillet.23

Pindar

says

in effect:

'In

order

to illustrate the honour

that a

god

can bestow

upon

a

mortal-and,

moreover,

through

the medium

of

poetry-I

turn now to

Delphi,

and

I

do so because

that is

where

Neoptolemus

is buried.

It is

in

Pytho's

holy ground

that he

lies,

and

he lies

there because

he sacked

Priam's

city.'

The related

themes of

different

fates allotted

to different

men and

a mixture

of

good

and bad allotted

to

any given

individual

(cf.

5-6

and

54-8)

are illustrated

in

Neoptolemus'

story,

the former

in

relation

specifically

to

Ajax

(20-30),

the

latter

to be

echoed

in

the

transition to

praise

of

Thearion,

whose

gifts

from

Fate are

predominantly

positive

(54-60)

and

who

is fortunate

also

in

having

as a

guest-friend

a

praise-poet

who

brings

him

true

fame

in

song

(60-3).

The transition from Ajax' story to Neoptolemus' is made via the gnomic obser-

vation

that death

comes to

all

men,

whether esteemed

or not.

Other

interpretations

of

a86K77TOV

Kat

80KEOVTa

in 31

(for example,

'the

unexpecting

and the

expecting')24

obscure

the

point

of

the

gnome

and

its structural

unction in the

ode.25

Not

only

is

the

following

rt•-•

relevant,

so also

is the

preceding

story

of

Ajax

and

Odysseus;

hence

(Hanover,

19043),

II.i.163-5,

for

'an excellent

accountof the

aorist

apparently

sed for

the

present';

ee Denniston's

note on

El.

248,

where

he refers

o

44wfta

at

Med.

791 as used

'for

olyt~uw'.

This observation

ointsup

the error

f the

perspective

which sees

these

types

of

aor-

istic

usage

as

strategies

of

stylistics.

They

are, rather,

vestiges

of an

Indo-European

erbal

system,

the

morphosemantics

f

which

operated

via the

alignment

of formal

(stem)

classes

with functional

(semantic) categories

in the verb. (Even

though

the onomatopoeicverb

4tuowa

is a

sigmatic

aorist formed to

a

present

in

-?o

[<

*yeo)],

the inherent

semantics of

the

verb,

expressing

as

it does the

uttering

f the

exclamation

titot,

a telic

action,

avoursaor-

istic

usage.)

22

See

Denniston

n.

17),

169

(8E

or

y&p);

f.

182

('resumptive'

84;

cf.

8j).

Thus neither

Farnell's

but'

nor

Woodbury's

and' is an

appropriate

endering

f 84 n this

passage;

such

translations

re in fact

little betterthan

'straw-man'

rguments,

et

up

merely

and

precisely

for the

purpose

of

being

knockeddown.

23

A.

Meillet,

ntroduction

c

' tude

comparative

es

langues

ndo-europeennes

Paris,

1903,

19378),

372.

Meillet's

remarkably

stute

nsights

nto

the

syntactic

tructure

f the

early

Indo-

Europeananguages

have been

recently

confirmed

by

the identification f

(early)

Greek

as a

'non-configurational'

anguage;

ee A.

M. Devine

and L. D.

Stephens,

Discontinuous

Syntax:

Hyperbatonn Greek(New York and Oxford,2000) (although, nexplicably,Devine and

Stephens

do not

mention

Meillet;

see

my

'Greek

syntax:

heoretical

pproaches

rom

Meillet

to

Devine and

Stephens',

Mouseion,

eries

III,

1

[2001],

251-78).

The

value of

diachronic

onsiderations

n

synchronic

nalysis

s missed

by

(among,

unfortu-

nately,many

others)

Denniston

n. 17),

162,

who dismisses

suchconcerns

as

pertaining

o

'only

the

history

of

language'.

24

For

example,

Farnell

n.

1),

291;

D. E.

Gerber,

Pindar,

Nemean

7, 31',

AJP

84

(1963),

182-8,

at

187;

Carey,

Commentary

n.

1),

148;

Most

(n.

1),

154-5.

25

Thetranslation

esteemed'

and ts

negative

s better

n

the

context

hat the obscure

and he

famous' since

it is

possible

(in

English

usage

at

least)

to be famous

without

being

actually

esteemed,

and esteem

is the

point

at

issue

here.

Asymmetrical eadings

such

as Fennell's

('Ingloriously

even

on a

glorious

hero',

Pindar:

The Nemean and

Isthmian Odes

[Cambridge,

883;

18992],

87)

and others'

miss the

polarity

of the

figure,

which

emphasizes

the

mortality

of all humankind.

&86K-o70V

Ka

to0KEov7a

is

a

quantifier

formula of a familiar

type,

as discussed

by

C.

Watkins,

How to Kill

a

Dragon:

Aspects

of Indo-European

oetics

(New

Yorkand

Oxford,

1995),

41-9. In this case

the

designators

oth shareand

oppose

mor-

phological

signs

(the

stem

morphology

and

the inflectional

morphology,

respectively),

via

polyptoton.




7/20

82 ANNETTE TEFFETELLER

the aAAa

of

line 30:

'Odysseus'

fame

was

greater

than he

deserved;

people

are

blind:

Ajax

was best after

Achilles;

but,

ah

well,

we all

die,

whether

we're esteemed or not

(and,

moreover,

whether the esteem

or

lack of it is

just

or

not).

But,

properly

esteemed

in

life or

not,

a

god

can

increase

our fame

after death

(and

poets

are the vehicle of that

fame).

So,

I

come to the

story

of the

honour

Neoptolemus

has received from

Apollo'---the

subtext

being

the

complexity

of

Neoptolemus'

fame in both its

positive

and

negative

aspects

(the

latter

notoriously

dwelt

on in

the Sixth

Paean).26

Both

aspects

are undeniable

parts

of

Neoptolemus'

story

and thus

both are valid

subjects

for a

poet

(hence

the final lines

of

this

ode

in

which Pindar denies

explicitly-

what is

implicit

in the

passage

at

hand-that he has ever treated

Neoptolemus

with

disrespect, undoubtedly

an allusion to the

unfavourable

reception

assumed

by

com-

mentators

since

antiquity

on the

part

of

(some) Aeginetans

to

Pindar's

account of

the circumstances

of

Neoptolemus'

death

in

the Sixth

Paean)27

but

here,

among

his

kin,

the

positive aspects (the

a3pors,

tender',

'graceful'

part

of

Neoptolemus'

A6yoc)

re

to

be

emphasized.28

Thecomplexityf Neoptolemus'ame,his fortunes verwaxingandwaningby

turns,

hapes

he

ensuing

arrative

36-47):

Whenhe left

Troy,

he

missed

Scyros,

his

boyhood

home

(an

unfortunate

ccurrence)

ut

he

reached

Epirus

wherehe

ruled

n Molossia

a

fortunate

episode)--only

or

a

short

ime,

however

unfortu-

natebut

his

offspring eep

hat

honour or ever

(fortunate).

e

went

to

Delphi

to

propitiate pollo

with

the

finest

poils

rom

Troy

a

positiveaction),

but when

therebecame nvolved

n

a

quarrel

verthe sacrificialmeats

a

negative

ction),

during

which

he was

killed

(unfortunate),

ut his deathwas fatedfor he was destined

26

Observing

hatPae. 6

presents

the deathof

Achilles'

son

Neoptolemus

s a

rial

s,

or ven-

geance,

of the

god Apollo',

Watkins

n. 25),

512-13,

records

with

approval

an

Rutherford's

suggestion 'Neoptolemusand the paean-cry: n echo of a sacredaetiologyin Pindar',ZPE

88

[1991],

1-10;

cf.

id.,

Pindar'sPaeans

[Oxford,

001],

318-20)

that

he

Pythoctonia-aetiol-

ogy

of the

paean-cry

n

Pae. 6

serves

o

suggest

that

as an

opponent

f

Apollo

Neoptolemus

s a

sort of second

Delphic

dragon',

and

goes

further

o see

the

Neoptolemus-serpentquation

encoded in

the

basic formulaof

dragon-slaying

n

Pae. 6.112-20. Cf.

W.

Burkert,

Homo

Necans:

The

Anthropology

f

Ancient Greek

Sacrificial

Ritual and

Myth,

trans.

P.

Bing

(Berkeley,

1983),

119-20.

27

Z

Nem.

7.48,

E

Nem.

7.64,

E

Nem.

7.103

(Drachmann

III

126.8ff.,

129.4,

137.3ff.).

For

discussion,

see

especially

W.

Schadewaldt,

Der

AuJbau

des Pindarischen

Epinikion

Halle,

1928),

259-343;

E.

Tugendhat,

Zum

Rechtfertigungsproblem

n

Pindars 7 Nemeischen

Gedicht',

Hermes 88

(1960),

385-409;

Lloyd-Jones (n. 1),

127-37

(= 138-53);

Most,

Measures

n.

1),

133-4 and

203-13;

M.

Heath,

Ancient

nterpretations

f Pindar'sNemean

7', Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 7 (1993), 169-99. Prominent among dis-

sentersare

E.

L.

Bundy,

StudiaPindarica

Berkeley,

1962

=

CPCP

18,

1-92)

1.4.29,

n.

70,

and

elsewhere;

A.

K6hnken

n. 2),

38-42;

W.

Slater,

Futures

n

Pindar',

CQ

19

(1969),

86-94

(see

contra S.

Fogelmark,

Studies in Pindar with

Particular

Reference

to

Paean VI and Nemean VII

[Lund,

1972],

93-116;

G.

Cerri,

A

proposito

del futuro

della

litote

in

Pindaro:Nem.

7,

102

sgg.',

QUCC

22

[1976], 83-90);

see

now also

Slater, 'Pindar,

Nemean

7.102--past

and

present', CQ

51

(2001),

360-7,

reprising

his

views in

response

o

H.

Erbse,

'Uber

Pindars

Umgang

mit dem

Mythos',

Hermes

127

(1999),

13-32. For recentdiscussion

and

support

of

the

apologyhypothesis,

ee

Rutherford,

aeans

(n. 26),

321-3.

28

Cf.

B.

Gentili,

L'effigie

bifronte

di

Neottolemonel sestoPeana e nella settimaNemeadi

Pindaro',

n Letterature

omparate:

roblemi

metodo.Studi

n onoredi

E.

Paratore

Bologna,

1981),

esp.

108-9;

cf.

id,

Poesia e

pubblico

nella Grecia

antica

(Rome,

1984),

185-91,

esp.

190:

'La

coesistenzadi

episodi

degni

e

indegni,

di azioni

pie

ed

empie

nel dossier

biografico

fu il datoproprio qualificante ellaconcezionegrecadell'eroe.'

As discussed

above,

the

god

here

is

Apollo,

but the

OE6r

in the

general

statement

f 31 is

unnamed

and,

while

clearly

the reference s in the

first instance

o

Apollo,

we

recall,

with

the

scholiasts,

hat the Muse is

also

a

•E6s;

the

ambivalence

mphasizes

he

fact

that both

play

a role in

the

establishment nd

promulgation

f

Neoptolemus'

ame.




8/20

PINDAR'S

THREE WORDS

83

to remainthere

for ever as a

GEttLLUKo1TO

of ceremonies

n

Apollo's

holy precinct

(fortunate).

The

complexity

of

Neoptolemus'

story

as told

by

Pindar

supports

the

interpretation

given

above of

lines 34-5:

Pindar

turns to

Delphi

because

it is

in

Pytho's

holy ground

that

Neoptolemus

lies-and he

lies there because

he sacked Priam's

city. Limiting

E7TE'

o a

temporal

sense here

impoverishes

the moral dimension of Pindar's narrative.

Lloyd-Jones

urges

a causal sense

which

will

introduce

'not

simply

the statement

that

Neoptolemus

took

Troy,

but the

whole

explanation

of how he came

to

Delphi.'29

I

would

go

a

step

further: with

multi-layered,

systematic ambiguity,

Pindar is

making

the

point

that

Neoptolemus

not

only

went

to

Delphi

but

died in

Delphi

because

he

sacked

Priam's

city.

As Most

observes,

'by

the

simple expedient

of

referring

to

Troy

as

Hp~aiov

vrr6A'

Pindar

'unmistakably

set before

the reader's

[and,

more

pertinently,

his

listeners']

eyes

the whole scene of

carnage perpetrated

by

Neoptolemus'30-and,

most

importantly,

he reminded

them of

the critical

point

that his atrocities

constituted

sacrilege.

For that

sacrilege Apollo

had

vowed to

slay

him and did so, ironically, in his own sanctuary where Neoptolemus had come

hoping

to

propitiate

him, and,

moreover,

through

the

agency

of one

of his

priests,

in

a

quarrel

over

sacrificial

offerings.31

It

is not

necessary

to

see,

as

many

commenta-

tors

do,

a stark

contrast between

the account

in

Paean

6 and that of

Nemean

7;32

t is a

common theme

in Greek

thought

that,

while a

god

is the ultimate cause

of

a

given

action,

especially

a

slaying,

a man

may

be

the

proximate

cause.33

Having

slain

him

for his

crimes,

Apollo

then honours

Neoptolemus

for

his

virtues

by granting

him burial within the

holy precinct

of

Delphi.

This is the

final result

in

the

causal

chain of

events

beginning

with

his

sack of

Troy. Neoptolemus

may

thus

be

said--paradoxically--to

lie

in

Delphi

because he sacked

Troy.34

Most

sees

clearly

that this is the only sense that can be extracted from the sentence beginning Cv

29

Lloyd-Jones

n.

1),

132-3

(=

145-6).

30

Most,

Measures

(n.

1),

166

(my

brackets).

Most's

interpretation

f the

Neoptolemus

passage,

however,

differs

significantly

rom that

proposed

here;

see the discussion

n

the text

below.

31

Forthe

pMaXapa

s sacrificial

nife and therefore he

slayer

as

priest,

see

Most,

Measures

(n. 1),

164 and

n.

146.

Furthermore,

is

death

by

sacrificial

knife

recalls

another of

Neoptolemus'questionable

actions:

his sacrifice

of

Polyxena,

almost

certainlyregarded

as

sacrilegeby

Pindar's

audience,

as indicated

by

the treatment

f the theme

in archaic

poetry

and

vase-painting;

ee

the references ollected

n

Most,

161-2.

32

For

example,

Tugendhat

n. 27),

391,

who sees the two

accountsas

significantly

ifferent

stories; f. Most,Measuresn. 1), 165: whilebothpoems ell the samegeneral tory, heydiffer

markedly

n details

of

incident,

mphasis,

ndmotivation

n such a

way

that he

Paean's

argely

hostile

account

f

Neoptolemus

ontrasts

harply

with the

Nemean's

uniformly

avourable ne'.

33

For

instance,

he

death

of

Patroclus,

I.

16.788-822,

849-50, or,

indeed,

the death of

Achilles

as

treated

by

Pindar n

Pae.

6.78-80: shot

by

Apollo taking

the

mortal form

of

Paris.

Consequently,

s Rutherford bserves

Paeans [n.

26], 314),

'the

discrepancy

of

Nem.

7

with Pae.

6]

is

not so

great,

because

Pindarhas

already

established

hat

Apollo

can act

in

the

form

of

another'.

Moreover,

do

not

take

avrLrvX6vr'

n 42 as

exculpating

Neoptolemus,

as do most

commentators,

n

attributing

is death to

'mere chance and bad

luck'

(Most,

Measures

[n. 1],

170;

cf.

to the

contrary

Rutherford,

14,

translating

Nem. 7.42

as 'where a

man struck

him

with

a sword as

he struckback

...').

On

the

contrary,

he

perpetrator/

victim-to-be s caused

(enticed?

nvited?)by

the

deity

to

repeat

his

crime,

mutatis

mutandis,

and is

then,

in the

full flush of

guilt,

slain for it. The statement

hat

Neoptolemus

s

slain

by

a priest(a man with a sacrificialknife,a

,tpXaLpa)

hile quarrelling ver sacrificialofferings

clearlypoints

to

yet

another

ct of

sacrilege

on

Neoptolemus'

part.

34

The

paradox

s missed

by

H.

Pelliccia,

Pindar,

Nemean

7.31-36 and he

syntax

of

aetiol-

ogy',

Harvard

Studies

n

Classical

Philology

92

(1989),

100-1;

while he is

prepared

o allow

a

causalsense for

Ebr7En

n the

passage,

he

sees

only 'vagueness

or confusion'

n the construction.




9/20

84

ANNETTE TEFFETELLER

Hnlo'ocr

and

ending

davaol

rr6vq-aav,

but he

rejects

this

interpretation

on

the exces-

sively

literal

objection

that

Neoptolemus'

sack of

Troy

is not

the

proximate

cause of

his

receiving

funeral honours at

Delphi,

and he

adjusts

the text

accordingly.35

But not

even Homer

in

his

relatively

straightforward

narrative

limits himself

to

proximate

causation

(consider,

for

instance,

Achilles' bitter

lament that Artemis

did

not

slay

Briseis at the sack of

Lymessos, thereby

forestalling

the chain of events that led to

the death of

Patroclus,

or the

complex unfolding

of the

causal

chain that led to the

action of the

Iliad)

and

Pindar,

of all

poets, ought

not to be

expected

to do

so.36

Having

begun

his

story

of

Neoptolemus

with

the observation that

Apollo

honours

him,

expressed

in

the

general

gnome

that

OEOs

rings

a man

honour

by exalting

his

fame after

death,

a

generality

made at once

specific

by

mention of

Neoptolemus,

Pindar ends

his account with

the observation that

Apollo

bears

true witness to

Neoptolemus'

deeds,

thereby assuring

that

justice

is done

him in his

posthumous

reputation.

The

controversy concerning

lines 48-52

is focused on

the

punctuation

and

resulting

variations

in

sense,

and

the

identity

of

the witness.

The

punctuation

of the manuscripts, followed by a number of earlier editors, is given above (p. 78).

Most modem

editors

accept

Hermann's

punctuation:

ma7t7arnE,/AIYLva,...

EKyOVWV.

Opa

..., 37

but

he

manuscript

eading

was

convincingly

efended

y

Carey:38

he

EvtLrXavwa-theme,

oiced

n

49

andechoedand

expanded, long

withthe wealth-

of-inspiration

and boldness themes

in

50ff.,

cut

off

by

the Abbruch of

52,

all

support

he

manuscriptunctuation.

In

addition,

wo urther

roblemslague

he

nterpretation

f the

praise

f

Aegina's

descendants

in

lines 50-2:

the

construal of

Opau6{

..

OL'KOOEv

nd the sense

conveyed

by

otKOOEv.

or

the

former,

he

most

satisfactory

olution

s that

proposed

by

Fennell

and followed

by

Kohnken

and

Carey:

assumption

f

an elided

Jtvat,

with

the

phrase

6'8v

(EdvaL)

aken n apposition o

o66';39

f the manyandvariedobjections o this

view none

has

demonstrated

that

it

is

unacceptable.40

It is

perplexing

hat he

sense

of

otKOOev

as been so

disputed,41 articularly

n

view

of

Pindar'suse

of the wordelsewhere

see

esp.

01.

3.43, 6.99, 7.4;

Nem.

9.19;

Isthm.

4.12).

Carey's interpretation

of

OLKOOev

as

'at

home',42

however,

perhaps

overempha-

sizes a locatival

sense;

while the reference s

clearly

to

stories

of

Aeginetan

heroes,

O~KOOEv

ppears

to

carry

more of

an ablatival than

a locatival sense.

Even

in

Nem.

3.31,

where

o'KOOEv

LpTvE

s

taken

by Carey

andothers

as

'search

at

home',

an

abla-

tival sense is

to be

preferred:

'look

for

stories that

originate from

Aegina'.43

Pindar

35Most,Hermes n. 2), 268-71.

36

Another

Homeric

parallel

warning

us not to look

to

proximate

auses is

II.

2.270:

the

Achaeansare

'grieved'

not because

of Thersites'recent

treatment nd

present

sufferings

but

rather

because

of his own

prior

actions.

Perhaps

he

grief

of the

Delphians

noted

at

43 arises

not

in

response

to

Neoptolemus'

death

itself

(as

generally

assumed

by

commentators,

or

example,

Most,

Measures

[n. 1],

171)

but

to

his

sacrilege

n

the

holy precinct

and the fact

that a murder

ccurredwithin the

sanctuary.

37

This

punctuation

nd the

resulting

sense is

accepted

also

by Lloyd-Jones

n.

1),

133

(= 146)

and

Most,

Measures

n. 1),

174.

38

Carey,

Pindarica'

n. 1),

36;

id.,

Commentaryn.

1),

154-5.

39

Fennell

n.

25),

90;

Kohnken

n.

2),

56-7;

Carey,

Pindarica'

n. 1),

37.

40

See,

for

example,

Farnell

n. 1),

297;

Lloyd-Jones

n.

1),

133-4

(= 147);

Most,

Measures

(n.

1),

175.

41

Forexample, by birthright',Most,Measures n. 1), 174;cf. Carey,Commentaryn. 1),

156-7.

42

Carey,

Pindarica'

n. 1),

37;

id.

Commentary

n.

1),

157.

43

Interestingly,

while

Carey

ranslates

LKOOEv

t Nem.

7.52 as

locatival,

he discusses

t as

ablatival n sense.




10/20

PINDAR'S THREE WORDS

85

has

recalled

himself from

the Pillars

of

Hercules

only

to

turn

to

Peleus and

Iolcus,

Telamonand

Troy,

and Achilles'

boyhood

with

Chironand later

exploits

at

Troy-

all

Aeacid

heroes

at

play

in

a

far-flung

world. The

point,

then,

must

be not so

much

geographical

s

cultural;

he

proper ubject

or

Pindar's

victorysong

is the

tra-

ditionaland familiar

epertoire

f storiesof

the Aeacid

clan,

not new and

outlandish

tales from he

edges

of the world44-an

interpretation

ecured

by

Pindar's

njunction

to

his

Ovpo6s

t

28:

AltaK

oE

batk/LL

EL

T•

Mourav

kEPELv.

With the

passage

in

Nem.

7.50-2

compare

also Nem.

3.64:

r-qAavybE

ipapE

•,yyos

AlaKL&iv

avr68OEv

esponds

to

3.31

otKOOEV

prEvE,

losing

the inner

ring

of

tales

'from

home',

itself enclosed

in

the

outer

ring

of

the

god-born

aceof

Aeacus,

opened

with

Pindar's ddress o

his

Ovpo6s

t

26ff.

and

closed

with

the

address

o Zeus in

praise

of his blood

in

the

Aeacid

ine,

his

contestat

Nemea

where he

victory

was

won,

and he

joy

of

the

landof

Aegina

which

partakes

f both.

In

Nemean

7, then,

Pindar ddresses

Aegina

and

says

that

he is bold

enough

o

say

thatfor the

splendid

excellencesof her

offspring

and Zeus'

there s an ordained oad

of words,of heroictales,running romherhome,and he impliesthathe could take

that road

and

it would

lead

him far and

wide,

to tell

many

splendid

ales of

many

famous heroes

(compare

he

hyperbolic

claim of

Isthm.

6.22-3: 'Countless

roads

have been cut for the

noble deeds

of the

Aeacidae

beyond

the

springs

of the

Nile

and

through

he

Hyperboreans')45-but

e restrains imselfwith a

typical

observation

that a

sample

s best and

not the

full

catalogue.46

Both

Carey

andMost

have advanced

ood arguments

along

with

some that

arenot

so

good)

for

understanding

he

paprvs

o be

Apollo,

andboth

have

drawn

attention o

some

ring-composition

eatures

f the

larger

passageconcerning

Neoptolemus.47

ut

the full

extent of the structure f the

Neoptolemuspassage (31-49)

and

its

impli-

cations for the interpretationf variousdisputedpoints has not been noted. The

passage

s in

fact

an

elaborate nd

perfectring.

It

begins

with

the

general

observation,

soon made

specific

o

Neoptolemus,

hat

god

can

confer

posthumous

onour;

t moves

inwardvia

accounts

of

Neoptolemus'posthumous

honours,

his

defining

crime,

and

his

subsequent

icissitudes,

o the centralmoment and

pinnacle

of his mortal

ife,

his

kingship,

hen moves

outward

n

mirror-image

ccountsof further

vicissitudes,

a

final

crime,

and returns

o

his

posthumous

and

paradoxical)

honours,

with an

echo of

the

honour-bestowing

OE6s,

the

/izprvs,

the

true

witness

who

presides

over

and stands

surety

or

Neoptolemus'

enduring

enown.

THENEOPTOLEMUS ING

a

OEos

honours

dead heroes

[Apollo

honours

Neoptolemus]

31-2)

b

Neoptolemus'

burial

n

Delphi (33-5)

c

his

sack of

Troy:

his

crime,

condemning

him

to

death

(35-6)

d

his

journey

nward

from Troy,

missing

Scyros,

to

Epirus)

36-7)

44

Thus n

a sense local

aga'

K6hnken

n.

2]

and

others)

ut

local'

only

n

theancestral

lineage

f

the

heroes.Cf.

Nem.4.69-72.

45

For

imilar

oads f

deedand

ong,

cf. Isthm.

9-29, 4.1-12;

0l.

8.13-145.

R.

Janko,

'Another

path

of

song',

AJP 112

(1991),

301-2,

proposes

o

emend

KvpLav

n

51 to

pvplav,

'many

road'.

46ThusollowingCorinna'seputeddvice-among therhings, oubtlessliteraryefer-

ence

o

earlierraditionsf

catalogueoetry,

whose

poetsunquestionably

id

not

sowwith he

hand.Cf.

Nem.

4.69-72,

Isthm.6.56-9.

47

Carey,

Pindarica'

n. 1),

38,

Commentaryn. 1),

155;

Most,

Measures

(n. 1),

159;

cf.

Pelliccia

n.

34),

100,

n.

45,

whoseesa

ring-structure

n

lines34-50.




11/20

86

ANNETTE

TEFFETELLER

e

kingship:

the

pinnacle

of

his life48

(brief

but

kept

by

his

line) (38-40)

d'

his

journey

outward

(from

Molossia

to

Delphi) (40-1)

c'

his

quarrel

at

Delphi:

an

echo of

his

earlier

sacrilege,

accomplishing

his

death

(42-4)

b' his burial

in

Delphi

(44-7)

a'

6

iiprvs

[Apollo]

bears witness to his

just

renown

(48-9)

The

witness,

then,

can

only

be

Apollo.49

As

Carey

and

others

point

out,

Apollo

for

Pindar

defines

the notion of

being

'not-false'

(Pyth.

3.29-30,

9.42).

But of course

Pindar

claims truth

for

his

poetry

as

well

and,

on the

general principle

that Pindar

will never

restrict

his

meaning

to

a

unidimensional

sense

when multidimensional

res-

onances can be

evoked,

we are

surely

justified

in

hearing

at least

an

echo of

the

poet's

role

in

providing

a faithful

witness

to

glorious

deeds

(cf.

the

7TWaTr

..

~.uprvS

of fr.

94b

[Parth.]).

Just as Pindar is

a

helper

to

the

divine

Helper,

so Pindar is a witness

to the divine

Witness;

it

is his

song

that bears witness to

the

witness-bearing

of

Apollo.

What, then,

of the 'three

words'?

We now

see

that

the reference

is

clearly

cata-

phoric.50

The claim that 'for fair-named

justice

three words will suffice' introduces

the

majestic

proclamation

that a true

witness stands

surety

for

Neoptolemus'

fame,

closing

the

ring

of

Neoptolemus' story

and at the same time

emphatically closing

the

question

of Pindar's

public pronouncements

on

this

legendary

Aeacid

hero.

Nemean

7

is not an

'apology'

for

Paean

6;

it is a

magisterial

lesson in

epinician

appreciation, rebuking any

who

may

have

dared

to

quibble

at the

Neoptolemus

story

in

Paean

6,

thereby

questioning

Pindar's command of

his art

and his

subject.

The

poet

puts

his faith

in

the

ta0tyv,

who will

know if

he

sings

'out

of tune'

(68-9).51

Pindar

began

his

ode with the name of

Ilithyia, by

whose

grace

Thearion's son is

blessed

with

success

and

honour.

He

returnsto

the

theme of children

at

the end

of his

song,

first with

an

appropriately

encomiastic

prayer

that

Thearion's

and

Sogenes'

children's children

may

always enjoy

such

honour as

they

themselves

enjoy

now.

Then,

in

a

sudden and

unexpected

coda,

he turns

abruptly

to the issue

of

his

treatment of

Neoptolemus

and now we see the

negative aspect

of

children,

clearly

a

metaphor

for his unlearned

detractors,

the v

oTLno

ho

crave

both

simplicity

and

48

For

Pindar'sview

of

kingship

as a man's

greatest

achievement,

ee,

for

example,

01.

1.13-14.

49

As seen

by Carey,

Pindarica'

(n. 1), 38,

Commentary

(n. 1),

155,

Most,

Measures

(n.

1),

177,

and others

before

hem;

cf.

Most

177,

n. 193

(despite

M. Bernard's ecentreversion

o

the

older

view

of

the

poet

as

witness

['Der

Dichterund sein

Gegenstand--Zu

Pindars iebentem

Nemeischen

Lied',

Wiirzburger Jahrbiicher fir

die

Altertumswissenschaft

21

(1996-97),

101-27,

at

113]).

50

Most,

Measures

n.

1),

174,

n.

176,

refers o

Bundy n. 27),

21,

in

support

f his view that

LtapKE•EL

s

'a kind

of

epinician

future'

with

anaphoric

reference and adduces

as a

parallel

for

'the whole

sequence

of

thought'

01.

13.98-100. But neither

n

this

passage

nor in

any

cited

by

Bundy

does the

epinician

uturehave

anaphoric

eference.

n

01. 13.98-100 the

poet says

that

he will

revealthe sum total of the

victories

of

the

Oligaethidae

t the

Isthmus

and

Nemea;

he

does so

in

the

next ine. Cf. further

Ol.

6.21:

Pindar

ays

thathe will

swear

a

great

oathand

bear

witness

to

the

hereditary

ifts

of

Hagesias

n

prophecy

romhis father's

amily

and in athletic

skill

from

his

mother's;

hen follow

sixty

lines

(22-81), attesting

o

the

virtues

of the two

families, which culminate n the honorand's.And so on. Cf. I. L. Pfeijffer,First Person

Futures n

Pindar,

HermesEinzelschriften 1

(Stuttgart,

999),

who

rejects

he notion of an

'encomiastic'

uture.

51

Cf.

Tugendhat n.

27),

391-400;

cf.

also

Carey, Commentary

n. 1),

136,

and

Most,

Measures

(n.

1),

207.




12/20

PINDAR'S THREE

WORDS

87

repetition.52

hat

Pindarwill not

give

them.

In

an

uncharacteristically

traightforward

statementhe

categorically

denies

that he has

ever treated

Neoptolemus

with

disre-

spect.53

But,

he

emphatically

mplies,

the

matter nds

there.Neither

for

his

present

audiencenor

for

future

generations

will

he

repeat

his

protestations

f

innocence on

this

charge.

He

has

not

'worried'

Neoptolemus'reputation

nd

he will

not

'worry'

the issue of whetherhe has.

Sadly

do we miss a secure

dating

sequence

for

Pindar'swork.

It

would be

of

great

interest

o

know

when

he

was invited back to

Aegina, by

whom,

and what

ode

he

offered

on

that

occasion.

So,

why

does Pindar

ay

three

words

will

sufficeandthen

give

us,

apparently,

ix?

If,

as

commentators

seem to

agree,

'--pLa

Era'

is

a

conventional

phrase

for

'a

few

words',54

we would

hope

to

findsome

support

or

this

usage

both

n

Pindar'suse

else-

where of the

number

three'and

in

his

expressions

ndicating

ntended

brevity.

Pindar

uses the

number

three'

n

a

variety

of

contexts;

nstances

romthe

epini-

cians are

the

following:

(1) Threevictories:

(a)

a

thrice-Olympic-victoried

ouse: 01. 10.1

(b)

three

prizes

in

Athens:

01.

13.38

(c)

with threevictories

you

mastered

Hera's ocal contest:

Pyth.

8.80

(d)

three imes at

Aegina

andthe hill of

Nisus

you

[or

I:

see

app.

crit.]

glori-

fied this

city:

Pyth.

9.91

(e)

a

thirdwreath

ast

upon

the

hearth

of

his fathers

apparently

he

family's

third

Pythian

victory]:

Pyth.

11.14

(f)

a double

victory

and a third

previously

amongboys:

Isthm.4.71

(g) may

there

be a third

bowl

[i.e.,

may

therebe a

third,

Olympian,

ictory

o

celebrate]:

sthm.

6.7

(h)

threevictories n the

pancration

t the Isthmus: sthm.6.61

(i)

threecrowns

at

Nemea:Nem. 6.20

(j)

threevictors:

Hagesimachus'

hree sons:

Nem. 6.23

(k)

thrice

winning

crowns

[at

the

Isthmus]

and thrice

[at Nemea]:

Nem.

10.27-8

(2)

Threerefrains f

a

hymn:

01. 9.2

(3)

Three-citied sland

(Rhodes):

01. 7.18

(4)

Triennial

biennial]

estival:Nem.

6.40

(5)

The

third

wind:

Nem.

7.17

(6)

The third

generation:

yth.

4.143

(7) The thirdcontinent Africa):Pyth.9.8

(8)

The

third

of the sisters

(Gorgons):

Pyth.

12.11

(9)

Third

among

elders someone

proves

superior

following

child

among

chil-

dren,

man

amongmen):

Nem. 3.72

(10)

Tantalus' ourth

oil

along

with threeothers:

01. 1.60

(11)

Three

and ten

suitors:01.

1.79

(12)

Threesnakesat

the

building

of

the

wall

of

Troy:

01.

8.38

(13)

Three

daughters

of

Cadmus'

our):Pyth.

3.98

52

Cf.

Carey,

Commentaryn.

1), 180,

whofurther

dducesor

he

child's

ack

of

judgement

Pyth.2.72.

53

The

raditionalnd

learly

orrect

nterpretation

f

102-4,

despite

later's

n.

27)

efforts

at

reworking

he

syntax

and

H.

Pelliccia's

proposed

mendation

o

7Tno'

O'r'EL

n

102

(Mind,

Body,

and

Speech

n

Homer

and

Pindar,

Hypomnemata

07

[G6ttingen,

1995], 347).

54

Most,

Measures

n. 1),

174.




13/20

88 ANNETTETEFFETELLER

(14)

Threewarrior

ons

of Zeus:

Pyth.

4.171

(15)

To

plough

he same

ruts

or

make he same

claims)

hree imes and four

imes

is

futile,

like

idly

babbling

o

children

AdLs

K6pwvOos:

em.

7.10455

In

each

of these

references

leaving

aside for

the moment he

last)

t is clear

hat

he

numerical eference s precise; n each case three itemsare meant:threevictories,

three

cities,

three

snakes,

and so on.56

Only

in

the last

passage

(Nem. 7.104)

is

the

numerical eference

used

in

a

pointed

sense in which

the

precise

numerical

value

is not

crucial

to

the

meaning

of

the

phrase.

Here

'three times and four

times'

means

many,

ndicating edundancy

n

an

activity

that

needs

doing

only

once.

In

support

f the

standard iew that

rpla

rTEa

t

Nem.

7.48

means

vaguely

'a

few',

Woodbury

adduces Ar. Nub. 1402:

ov8'iv

7pl

.Et.V

.

ta9L'to6

''

rrpv

.a..apIEtv,

of

which

Dover

comments: Three

was

a

proverbiallynsignificant

umber.'57

ndeed,

in

many

cultures

he

numbers

one',

'two',

and 'three'have a

special

statusand are

used both

positively

and

negatively

to

make

rhetorical

points;

but as Nem. 7.104

attests, he number three'does not necessarily ndicatean 'insignificant'number;

much

depends

on

context.

Clearly

n

Ar. Nub.

1402 the sense is

general

and

limiting:

'I

could

hardly

speak

at all

without

making

a mistake.'

And

yet

it is

surely

a fair

assumption

hat

if

Pheidippides

ad

followed his claim of not

being

able

to

get

out

without error three

words

(or phrases

or

sentences:

Ap-ara)

with

an

illustrative

example

n which he

managed

o

speak

six

words

(or

phrases

or

sentences)

without

trippingup,

the

discrepancy

would have raiseda

good laugh

from

the audience.

Similarly,

n

Nem.

7.48,

the

use of

the verb

&SapK•'Et

in

itself shows thatthe

rpla

TrEa

re to be

understood

n

a

limiting

sense;

the

phraseclearly

ndicates hat

only

a

brief

statement

s

needed

and

only

a

brief statementwill be

made.The

question

s

not

whether he

phrase

pt'a

'ea

is used here o

indicate

brevity-it

is

clear

that t

is-but

whether

he

actual

meaning

of

-rpla

here is

vague:

'a

few',

or whether

t

means

pre-

cisely

'three',

as

it

does

in

its uses elsewhere n the

odes.

The

corollary

s:

how does Pindar

lsewhere ndicate

ntended

brevity?Happily,

we

have

other

nstances

ince this

is

an

epinician

opos,

a

sub-category

f the

oft-repeated

concern

with

avoiding

excess

and

prolixity

n

celebrating

his laudandi

(as

in Nem.

7.50-3;

cf.

Pyth.

1.82,

8.29-32 and

Ol.

2.95-100,

13.9-10,

13.45-8).

Pyth.

9.76-9 contains a succinct

statementof the

dangers

of

excess

and

the

virtues of

careful

selection,

while Isthm.

6

provides

an excellent

example

of the full

topos

of

rejectingprolixity

n

praise:

22-3: Countless oadshavebeen cut forthe noble deedsof the Aeacidaebeyond

the

springs

of the Nile and

through

he

Hyperboreans;

55

As

Carey

omments

Commentaryn.

1], 179),

dirwoA•Wvmeans

erely plough '; learly,

the

metaphor

ere

depends

on

precisely

what

ype

of

ploughing

s

in

question.

Since the

plough-

ing

of fallow land s

Properly

one

multiple

imes

(cf.

repeated

eferences o

a

'thrice-ploughed

fallow

field'

veto's

TpiroAos,

1.

18.541-2;

Od.

5.127;

Hes.

Th.

971;

and

esp.

Theoc. 25.

25-6,

rpur6Aots

.. VELOTULV

..

KaL

TE7patr6AoLLtv;

ee

West's note on Hes.

W&D

462-3),

and since

Pindar

bviously

ntends

a

metaphor

which

indicates

ointless

(&ropia,

105) activity,

he refer-

ence

here must be

to

the

ploughing

of

a

furrow

for

sowing:

once is

enough.

56

Even

Thomas

Cole,

who considersPindar's

arithmetic

n

certain

passages

o

be

'faulty',

concedeshat t is 'unlikelyhatPindar assimply aguewith igures nd .. ambiguousn

citing

hem': ee his

'1

+

1

=

3: studies

n

Pindar's

rithmetic',

JP 108

(1987),

553-68,

at

563

(an

analysis

which

do not find

compelling

ndwhichshowsa

startling isregard

or

Pindar'sown view of

himself as a faithful

witnessto deeds

of

glory).

57

Woodbury

n.

1),

113;

K.

J.

Dover

(ed.),

Aristophanes:

Clouds

Oxford,1968),

ad

loc.




14/20

PINDAR'S

THREE

WORDS

89

24-56:

Here are

some

samples:

mention of

Peleus,

Ajax; exploits

of

Telamon

and

Hercules;

56-9:

But it

would

take me too

long

to

recount

all their

excellences.

....

In

the

Argive

manner

t

will

be stated n

the briefest erms

(Ppaxta(ots):58

60-1: States

in

two

lines

that his three honorands

the

addressee,

his

brother,

and his

uncle)

took threevictories at the Isthmusand more atNemea.

At

Nem. 10.19-20 Pindar

deftly

blends

hyperbolic

encomiastic

praise

with the

brevity

theme

in his

disclaimer

hat his

mouth

is too

small

(Ppax6)

to

tell

all

the

apportioned

blessings

of

Argos' holy precinct-and

in

any

case,

he

continues,

satiety

s a

grievous hing.

In

01.

13,

for

Xenophon

of

Corinth,

Pindar urns

at

the

end

to the countlessvic-

tories

of

Xenophon's amily,

the

Oligaethidae,

eclaring

irst

that he

will

revealthe

sum of

their

victories

at

the

Isthmus

and

Nemea

in a

'brief

word'

(rra6bpWpTL,

98).

That 'brief

word'

follows

in

the next verse:

E?7KOVrL7KL,

sixty

times'

was the

herald'sshoutheardat thosevenuesproclaimingheirvictories.

We

have

no

actualevidence

then,

either romPindar

or

elsewhere

n

Greek

usage,

that he

specific

number

three',

standing

lone,

is

used

in

a

positive

context o mean

vaguely

'a

few',

either

of wordsor

of

anything

lse.

Evidently,

when a

Greek-speaker

wanted

o

say

'two

or

three'to

mean 'a

few',

he

said

precisely

hat,

as

Demosthenes

does

in

De

Falsa

Legatione

209.

In

an ironic commenton an

adversary's

hreat

of

impeachment,

Demosthenes

suggests

that

instead

of

the

many

lengthy speeches

involved

in

an

impeachment

rocess,

his

enemy

could

damn him

with

just

two or

three

phrases (86'

i

rpt'

lawcs fjvara),

which

even

a

new-bought

slave

could

manage.59

He then

succinctly

tates

he

suggested

charges,

most

interestingly

n

pre-

cisely

'two or

three'

phrases,

hat

s,

in three

sentences'

of

which

the

latter wo

areco-

ordinatedwith

Kai

ntoone

complex

'sentence'.60

In the

absence

of

evidence,

then,

for

the

use of the number three'

(or any

other

number)

used alone with

non-precise

reference,

we must consider the

possibility

that

Pindar

really

meant

to

say

that

he would

sum

up

the evidence for

Neoptolemus'posthumous

eputation

n

precisely

three

'words'. As we

have

seen,

the

promised

'three

words' are

to

follow

in

the

immediatelysucceeding

verse,

which

makes

a claim

about

Apollo

relativeto

Neoptolemus.

It

follows, therefore,

that

the

three 'words' must

be:

OvEiv&

-

_

-1aprvS

pylzaatLV-ErtL•TaTEL

not-false

the-witness

over-[Neoptolemus']-deeds-presides.

The

question

hus becomes

not

what Pindar

means

by

'three'

but

what he means

by

'words':

•TEGa.

This

is a difficult

concept

even

now,

and

it

was even

more

fluid for

the

ancient

Greeks. In

her

study

of

'Folk-linguistics

and

the

Greek

word',

Anna

Morpurgo

Davies

notes

that

while we have

in

English(as

in

other

modern

Europeananguages)

a word

for

'word',

contemporary

inguists

nevertheless

continue

to

encounter

58

Cf.

Aesch.PV 505:

fpaXEi

S't•6

0

W7Ivra

avAA Pf1

pd0'E,/r&aCaaL

rXVaL

porotawv

EK

HIpotl)6wos.

59

Cf.

D. M.MacDowell

ed.),

Demosthenes:he

False

Embassy

Oxford,000),

ad

oc.

The

Demosthenes

assage

s

adduced

y

Carey, ommentaryn.

1),

154,

asa

parallel

o

theNemean

usage,

but t illustrates

uite

hereverse.

60

An

adequate

efinitionf the sentence ludes

inguists

till.




15/20

90 ANNETTE

TEFFETELLER

'notorious difficulties

... in

their

attempt

to

produce

a

definition of

this

concept'.61

All

the

more

problematic

is

defining

what constitutes a

'word' for the

speakers

of

ancient Greek

since

'During

most of its

history

the ancient

Greek lexicon offers no

exact

equivalent

for

our

word .'62

Consider

the

use

of

Tros

nd

&tvOog

n

Homer;

as

Morpurgo

Davies

points

out,

'We

have no

evidence that Homer had the

lexical

resources

necessary

to ask

questions

such as is X one

or two words? .' In

Herodotus

also

'7TOS

s used to refer to a

single

word

(2.2,

2.30),

a

proverb

(7.51),

a

verse

(4.29),

or a

phrase

or sentence

(3.82).

By

the

second

century

A.D.

Apollonius

Dyscolus

is still

using

four

different words or

phrases

to

designate

a

'word'.63

Nonetheless,

lexical

precision

notwithstanding,

evidence

from various

quarters

indicates that a

working

concept

of

what constitutes a

word was

relatively

stable

from

the

Mycenaean

period

onward.

And

while Pindar uses

E'rog/rEa

for

phrases,

proverbs,

and

lengthy speeches

and stories

(for

example,

Pyth.

2.81,

3.2;

Isthm.

6.67,

fr.

35b;

Pyth.

4.9,

4.57;

OL.

6.16;

Nem.

10.80;

Isthm.

6.42;

Nem.

3.53)

and

such an

extended sense

would

cover the

use of

Er'ea

in

Nem.

7.48,

the

reference

here is actually to what is more properly considered to be 'words', by the Greeks

as

by

us.

C6-piprvS

nd

ob-StEj3

are

prosodic

units

resulting

from

proclisis

of

the

article and

the

negative, respectively,

with their

host words.

Although

proclisis-as opposed

to

enclisis-was not

recognized

by

the

ancient

grammarians,64

evidence

from

a

variety

of sources attests to

the

presence

of

the

phenomenon

in

the natural

language.

Cliticization of the

article and

of

prepositions

is indicated

by

various

types

of

phono-

logical

reduction: reduction of

long

diphthongs,

contraction,

reduction

of

disyllabic

forms to

monosyllabics,

assimilation of

final

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	flanagann-chimaeren-kuenstler
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"

Documents