apollo and his oracle

7/30/2019 apollo and his oracle

1/67

APOLLO AND HIS ORACLE IN PINDARS EPINICIANS:POETIC REPRESENTATIONS, POLITICS, AND IDEOLOGY

*

Lucia Athanassaki

University of Crete

ll ka n Delfow profthw mllvn kleein tn nen khrsseikay mran: Pndarow mousopoiw partv prw t depnon t ye.

(Vita Ambrosiana, 1416)

i. INTRODUCTION

Later tradition envisaged the Delphic priest inviting Pindar to dine with Apollo

every day at the closing of the temple. The point of the anecdote, namely the

poets exclusive privilege to enjoy the gods company, admirably captures a

distinctive feature of Pindars representations of human communication with

Apollo. In sharp contrast to other depictions, which reveal a similar fascination

with Apollo, especially characteristic of fifth-century literature and iconography,

but point up the problematic aspects of communication with the god of prophecy,

Pindar uses Apolline prophecy to paint a totally different picture.1

His epinician

odes display a clear tendency either to bring out the harmony of human

communication with Apollo or, at the very least, to dissociate Apolline discourse

either completely or as much as possible from the intellectual challenge that

ordinarily leads mortals to misguided action, failure, or transgression.2

In the

paeans and other fragments Pindar makes occasional references to seers, but

prophecy proper of Apolline or other origin is remarkably rare.3

The reason

possibly lies in the paucity of the paeans and other non-epinician genres and the

* Warmest thanks to Ewen Bowie, David Fearn, Elizabeth Irwin, Richard Martin,

and John Miller for reading and commenting on this version.1 For Apollos violent and ambiguous sides see especially Detienne. For the gods

centrality in fifth-century literature see Wilamowitz 1896: 24656 and Defradas 1972(both scholars trace the beginnings of Apollos dominance to the seventh and sixth

centuries); in iconography see Moret and for Athens in particular Shapiro.2 Athanassaki 1990. For Pindars representation of Apollo see also Duchemin 105

14 andpassim; and Stfos comprehensive study.3

For references to seers and prophecies in the paeans see Rutherford 17374.


2/67

L. ATHANASSAKI406

fragmentary state in which they have come down to us. The lack of adequatecomparative material is regrettable, but in the present state of the evidence

comparison of the epinicians with the extant odes in other genres shows that

harmonious human communication with Apollo is a distinctive epinician

characteristic.

Harmonious communication between gods and mortals through prophecy

and the dissociation of divine discourse from human sufferings characterize not

only Pindars representation of Apolline prophecy, but of all prophecy. The

celebratory character of the epinician genre is a possible reason for the unusually

smooth communication between mortals and immortals. Such an explanation,

however, requires the total absence of sinister tales, which is certainly not the

case. Stories of human transgression and divine punishment are not absent from

Pindars mythical epinician narratives. Pindar does not refrain from telling thestories of offenders such as Tantalus, Ixion, and Coronis. Unlike tragic,

Herodotean and even Homeric prophecies, however, Pindaric prophecy does not

function as the catalyst in transitions from fortune to misfortune.4

Neither

Tantalus, nor Ixion, nor Coronis are warned through prophecy as to the proper

course of action. Pindaric gods punish the evildoers after committing a crime, but

send them no warning.5

It is remarkable that in Pindars poetry it is not divine

speech, but divine silence that bodes disaster.6

Apollos pattern of speech and

silence in the story of Coronis and Asclepius in the Third Pythian is a

characteristic example. Neither Apollo nor any other god warns Coronis againstsleeping with another man before her marriage or of her imminent death after her

transgression (840). When Apollo speaks it is to announce his decision to save

his son Asclepius (4046).In a comprehensive study of Pindaric mantic diction I have suggested

that a major consideration underlying the dissociation of prophecy from semantic

obscurity and human suffering is its fundamental role in the construction of the

poets authoritative persona.7

I have argued that prophecy is abundant in Pindars

mythological narratives, but predictably absent from the encomiastic hic et nunc,

where Pindar restricts himself to prayers or wishes for the future success and

prosperity of his patrons; that the projection of prophecy onto the remote past is a

4 The prophecy of Calchas in theIliad, for instance, marks the beginning of Achilles

hostility towards Agamemnon and his withdrawal (1.84214). Hermes warning toAegisthus in the Odyssey is the first signal of his eventual downfall; for Aegisthus see

below section ii.3.5 For Apollos interaction with his adversaries see Stfos 8698.6

See Athanassaki 1990: 6174.7

Athanassaki 1990.


3/67

APOLLO AND HIS ORACLE IN PINDARS EPINICIANS 407

strategy whereby the poet constructs mantic discourse as a mirror image of hispoetry.

Through the various mantic personages the poet avails himself of

alternative authoritative masks, thereby enhancing his persona of the poet-

prophet. The paradigmatic function of the mythical narratives enables the poet to

draw the parallel between past and present/future without jeopardizing his

authority by venturing into the realm of foreknowledge where, as he repeatedly

stresses, no mortal can have access.

In what follows I examine the function of Apolline prophecy in Pindars

epinicians as an encomiastic device that takes account of the contemporary

sociopolitical context and as a vehicle for shaping elite ideology.8

I will survey

both auspicious and inauspicious stories, focusing on the nature and the degree of

Apollos involvement in the consulting process, on the identity of Apollos

addressees, and on their relationship with the laudandus of each ode.

9

Earlier orcontemporary variant accounts will serve as comparative material in order to

examine the political and ideological significance of Pindaric representations of

Apollo and his oracle in a cultural context where communication with the

oracular god of Delphi was depicted as increasingly problematic or adversarial. I

will suggest that, whereas Aeschylus and Herodotus resort to Apolline prophecy

to showcase the ramifications of ancestral guilt, Pindar uses it to illustrate

ancestral excellence. Specifically, I will argue that Pindars representations of

ancestral glory in Apollos company are innovative accounts that serve as

instantiations of elite privilege and wisdom which have been passed on fromgeneration to generation (ii.2); that in cases where Apolline hostility was too

strong a tradition to obliterate, the poetic strategy is to distance Apollo and

foreground all-powerful Moira (ii.1). I will discuss separately Pindarsdissociation of Apollo from Orestes matricide in the Eleventh Pythian, for

Apollos role in this case does not raise the issue of human and divine

8For extensive discussions of Pindars ideology see in particular Donlan 7711;

Rose 14184; Kurke 1991.9 For a full account of Apollo in Pindar see the study of Stfos. My own focus here

will be on oracular Apollo, i.e. instances in which Apollo is represented as participant in

verbal communicative acts and cases in which his role was already part of the tradition,

but Pindar suppresses it or plays it down. In this sense the two Pindaric versions of

Neoptolemus and Apollo constitute an anomalous case, because in neither version are thegod and the hero represented in an act of verbal communication, nor do we know of any

such earlier tradition. My reasons for including them is that (a) in the Sixth PaeanNeoptolemus is represented as defying well-known ethico-religious precepts that need

not be communicated to him in the form of an oracular statement and (b) the Seventh

Nemean displays a pattern of suppression similar to that of the Second Olympian.


4/67

L. ATHANASSAKI408

antagonism, but the question of Apolline justice. Taking into account the absenceof any ancestral link between Orestes and the honorand in this instance and the

fact that the ode was composed for performance at a festival in honor of Apollo

Ismenios, I will argue that Pindar capitalizes on the double encomiastic program

in order to reinstate Apollo as a god of peace, justice and eunomia. I will also

suggest that in the ideological register of this ode the Oresteia constitutes a

distorted elite model that serves as a foil for the definition and public promotion

of a positive aristocratic civic lifestyle consistent with Apolline values (ii.3).

ii.1 THE WORKINGS OFMOIRA

Theron of Acragas, whose chariot victory in 476 the Second Olympian

celebrates, claimed descent from Thersander, son of Polyneices. The

commemoration of Therons ancestry may have been suggested to the poet by theSicilian tyrant or his entourage, but it is equally possible that Therons claim to

this ancient and noble lineage exercised an irresistible appeal to the poet for

whom phya was of paramount importance. Yet Labdacid descent was not only

associated with ancestral glory, but with divine wrath and punishment originating

with Laius disobedience of Apollos oracle. Whether the thematic choice

belonged to the poet or to the patron, Pindar repeatedly asserts Therons ancestral

nobility and smooths away the successive mistaken choices of the Labdacids by

attributing their misfortunes toMoira. Thus he sidesteps the fundamental issue of

human responsibility that lies at the heart of tragic representations of the Thebancycle, but is already evident in the surviving account of Stesichorus.

The commemoration of Therons glorious lineage begins immediately

after the initial praise of the victor in the form of a much admired priamel andcovers roughly the first half of the ode (748). The account falls into three parts:

first, Pindar praises Therons immediate ancestors who settled happily in Acragas

after much suffering (722); the story of the sufferings and rewards of Cadmus

daughters (2234), which immediately follows, serves as an exemplum of the

change of fortunes and forms the link in the transition from Therons immediate

ancestors to the remote ones, the Labdacids (3548). Variations on the theme of

the supreme power ofMoira preface all three parts and link them together.

The first reference to moira is made in connection with the course of life

alloted to Therons ancestors (afin . . . mrsimow,10) that brought them wealthand grace after much suffering (711). After a brief prayer to Zeus to preserve

the ancestral land for future generations, a gnomic reflection on the inability even

of Time to undo whatever has been done either justly or unjustly follows andleads to the reiteration of the theme of moira. With good fortune (ptm snedamoni, 18) forgetfulness may come, for pain dies whenever divine Moira


5/67


raises happiness high (tan yeo Mora pmp / nekw lbon chln,2122).Pindar proceeds to illustrate the power ofMoira by the great suffering and

subsequent happiness of Semele and Ino and concludes by yet another

restatement of the changeability of human fortunes (3135). This latest

reformulation of the theme of alternation of pleasure and pain leads to a further

reflection on the power ofMoira, which is slightly modified this time so as to

make explicit its relevance to Therons family.

Through the modified repetition of the supreme power ofMoira, who is

said to bestow more often happiness than suffering in the case of Therons

family, Pindar makes a leap in time and illustrates the workings of Fate in the

lives of the honorands remote ancestors (3547):10

otv d Mor, te patriontnd xei tn efrona ptmon, yert sn lb

palintrpelon ll xrn:j oper kteine Lon mrimow uflwsunantmenow, n d Puyni xrhsynpalafaton tlessen.

fidosa d je Erinwpefn ofl sn llalofon& gnow rion:lefyh d Yrsandrow ripnti Polu-

nekei, noiw n yloiwn mxaiw te polmoutimmenow, Adrastidn ylow rvgn dmoiw:yen sprmatow xonta =zan prpei

tn Afinhsidmougkvmvn te melvn lurn te tugxanmen.

Thus Fate, who controls the kindly fortune of these men that is ancestral,

sends them, together with their heaven-sent happiness, some suffering as

well, reversible at another time, from the time when the fated son met and

killed Laius and fulfilled the prophecy spoken in ancient times at Pytho.

10All Pindaric citations of the epinician odes are taken from SnellMaehlers edition

and of the paeans from Maehlers edition.


6/67

L. ATHANASSAKI410

But a sharp-eyed Erinys saw it and killed his warlike offspring at eachothers hands; Thersander, however, survived the fallen Polyneices and

was honored in youthful contests and in war battles, a succouring offspring

to the house of Adrastus line. It is fitting that the son of Aenesidamus,

who has his roots in that seed, should be praised by victory songs and

lyres.

Pindars highly selective and cursory treatment certainly exemplifies the power

of destiny, but falls short of showing the predominance of kindly fortune. Even in

the story he chooses to tell, the only piece of good fortune is the survival of

Thersander to whom Theron traced his origin.11

Thersanders greatest claim to

fame was his Labdacid origin and on this sensitive path the poet had to tread.

In keeping with the persistent attribution of human fortunes andmisfortunes toMoira in this ode, Oedipus is represented as the person whom fate

appointed to fulfill an ancient prophecy spoken in Pytho. Neither the source nor

the recipient of the prophecy is specified.12

The mention of Pytho evokes, of

course, Apollo, but it also shows how much Pindar mediates his involvement,

especially when compared with his active role in the auspicious stories.

Remarkable is also the brevity of the account of the consequences of Oedipus

crime on his progeny. The agent of retribution in their case is Erinyes.13

The

diction is cursory and thus it remains unclear for which acts the Erinyes punished

Oedipus sons. Pindars choice to focus on the consequences of human acts andnot on the acts themselves and their causes is not, of course, accidental. Focus on

the acts and their causes would bring to the surface the issue of human

responsibility and thus weaken the foundation of the argument based on theunconquerable power of Moira. Explicit mention of the circumstances of

11Segal 1986: 11617: When Pindar relates this myth in Olympian 2, he turns its

better face outward and goes on at once to the survival of the royal line in the only

descendant, Thersander, to whom Theron, the victor celebrated in this ode, traces his

ancestry (4347). But, as in Pythian 4, the bright side of seasonal aternation cannot be

thought of without its death and darkness too.12 Pindar constructs the unpropitious Delphic oracle to Pelias in the Fourth Pythian

(7378) in a similar way. As Segal 1986: 45 observes, Though this chill prophecy is

spoken at the navel of the well-treed mother (earth) at Delphi (74), no voice or

messenger is mentioned, in contrast to the Pythia at 5963 and Pindars praise of thegood messenger in 27779. Nor is there a prayer for divine aid. Instead the prophecy

(manteuma a rather neutral word) merely came (elthen).13 In Odyssey 11.27180, the oldest identifiable version of the Oedipus legend, there

is no mention of Oedipus progeny; the Erinyes acting on behalf of Epicaste bring upon

Oedipus many sufferings. See Heubeck 93 ad 27180 in HeubeckHoekstra.


7/67


Apollos oracle would necessitate mention of Laius disobedience and wouldtherefore detract from the heavy emphasis on Moira by bringing to the surface

his own responsibility. In this hypothetical scenario, any attempt to play down

Laius responsibility would inevitably transfer the problem to Apollo in parti-

cular and prophecy in general. Distancing Apollo and bringing into the picture

all-powerful Moira, to whose will not only mortals but even Zeus succumbs, is a

much more effective strategy.

According to an ancient scholion Pindar mentioned the oracle given to

Laius in a paean (fr. 68). The paean has not survived and the scholiast does not

provide enough information to allow comparison between the epinician and the

paeanic version. All we can infer from the scholion is that in the paean Laius was

specified as the recipient of the prophecy, the content and, possibly, circum-

stances of which were not as brief and vague as in the Second Olympian. In lightof the different encomiastic intentions of the two genres, it is reasonable to

assume that in the paean Apollos role was more prominent than in the epinician.

The differences in the portrayal of Apollo in the Sixth Paean and the Seventh

Nemean, which will be discussed later, argue in favor of this hypothesis, but

certainty is impossible.

Nor do the very few fragments of the Labdacid epic cycle allow us either

to assess how much Pindars treatment in the Second Olympian owes to the epic

tradition. In contrast, Stesichorus account of the fate of the Labdacids that the

Lille papyrus has brought to light, fragmentary as it may be, provides a reliable

measure of comparison. Unlike the Pindaric account, in the surviving part of

Jocastas speech Stesichorus lays equal emphasis on Moira and Apollo and, in

addition, shows clearly the human effort to avert misfortune or, at the very least,the wish to push it as far into the future as possible.14

Specifically, Jocasta points

out that the gods did not establish either permanent strife or permanent friendship

among mortals, but in one day they can make mortals change their minds (204

208). She then expresses the wish that Apollo may not fulfill all of Teiresias

prophecies (mantosnaw d tew naj kergow Apllvn / m psaw tless-ai,20910).15This wishful thought is followed by her wish to die, if the Fateshave spun for her the destiny to see her sons die in mutual slaughter (afi d mepadaw fidsyai p lllois damntaw / mrsimn stin, peklsan dMora[i], / atka moi yantou tlow stugero[o] gn[oito,21113).Havingexpressed her wish to die, Jocasta repeats once more how painful it would be to

14 Stesichorus is the earliest witness for Apollos role; see the discussion in Burnett

1988: 150.15

Citations of the Lille papyrus are taken from Campbells edition.


8/67

L. ATHANASSAKI412

see either her sons dying in the palace or the city captured . At this point she turnsand addresses her sons. She advises that one of them stay and rule and that the

other depart with all the flocks and gold of his father, respecting whichever lot

the Fates allocated to each (21824). Jocasta concludes with two important

remarks: the solution she proposes might be their release from the evil fortune

prophesied by the divine seer (toto gr n dokv lutrion mmi kakognoito ptmo[u / mntiow fradasi yeou, 22526); such a release would bepossible, if the son of Cronus is willing to preserve the family and the city of

Cadmus by postponing for a long time the evil that is the fate of the family

(mbllvn kaktata poln xrnon [ basileai / pprvtai gen[y]lai, 23031).

In Jocastas speech, Stesichorus puts in a nutshell the themes that will

become the core of tragic representations, namely the inevitability of destiny, thecatalytic role of Apolline prophecy, and the desperate human effort to prevent its

fulfillment.16

Aeschylus Seven against Thebes was performed nine years after

the composition of the Second Olympian. In view of Pindars ties with Athens

and the Sicilian connections of the two poets, the possibility of Aeschylus

knowledge of Pindars epinician for Theron cannot be excluded.17

Yet whether

Aeschylus knew the Pindaric ode or not, it is remarkable how much closer his

representation of Apollos involvement is to Stesichorus than to Pindar.18

Specifically, the chorus of the play reveals that Apollo had prophesied three

times at Pytho (trw efipntow, 746) that Laius should die without offspring inorder to save his city (74257). A little later, the messenger reports to the chorus

that Apollo took upon himself the disaster at the Seventh Gate, fulfilling thus his

prophecy to Laius (tw d' bdmaw semnw . . . naj Apllvn elet' Ofidpougnei kranvn palaiw Laou dusboulaw, 800802). Right before the con-frontation, Eteocles tells the chorus that Apollo hates all the race of Laius (Fobstughyn pn t Laou gnow,691). Erinyes are not absent either, but their roleis clearly secondary to that of Apollo (88687). Aeschylus treatment, poles apart

from the Pindaric version, is emblematic of the catalytic role that Apollo and his

oracle would continue to play on the Athenian tragic stage. If we were to imagine

the same audience present at the performance of the Second Olympian in Acragas

16 Burnett 1988: 129 characterizes the Stesichorean song as proto-tragical; see11029 for a detailed discussion of the tragic elements of the poem.

17

For the acquaintance of the two poets see Finley 3. For the possibility ofAeschylus familiarity with some Pindaric odes see Winnington-Ingram 1213 and

Hubbard 1987: 1213, and most recently Finglass 2007: 1516.18

For the gap separating Aeschylus from Pindar see Finley 244.


9/67


and of the Seven in Athens, there is little doubt that this audience would be struckby the contrasting roles of Apollo. The performances of the Oresteia in Athens

and of the EleventhPythian in Thebes, which will be discussed in the last

section, would also be another good occasion for such a hypothetical audience to

marvel at the safe distance of Pindars Apollo.

To return to the Second Olympian, Stesichorus account shows that the

interplay of destiny, prophecy, and personal responsibility was already part of the

lyric tradition, and a part which Pindar chose not to follow. After the briefest

possible account of the misfortunes of the Labdacids over three generations, the

poet introduces the theme of the change of fortunes in the person of Polyneices

son Thersander whom he describes as honored both in youthful contests and in

war. Immediately after the mention of Thersanders good fortune, Pindar

mentions the ancestral link between the fortunate hero and Theron and swiftlybrings the genealogical account to an end by resuming his praise of the honorand.

Pindar employs the same strategy in his epinician version of the fortunes

of Neoptolemus in the Seventh Nemean. In this ode too he attributes the death of

Neoptolemus in Delphi to Moira and dissociates Apollo from the incident.19

Conversely, in the Sixth Paean it is Apollo himself who kills Neoptolemus in

order to avenge the death of Priam who, although a suppliant, fell into the hands

of the young hero. The epinician and the paeanic versions of the story of

Neoptolemus display other important differences as well and already in antiquity

scholars considered the Seventh Nemean a kind of palinode aiming at appeasingthe Aeginetans who were offended by Pindars unfavorable treatment of

Neoptolemus in the paean. In the heyday of New Criticism this interpretation was

discredited, but Ian Rutherford has recently adduced a new piece of evidence thatreopens the question.20

The problem of the relation of the two odes bears to some

extent on the issue of the different representation of Apollo and I will address it

in the course of my discussion.

The Seventh Nemean celebrates the victory in the pentathlon of the

Aeginetan Sogenes. The ode opens with an invocation of Eileithyia and continues

in the typical epinician manner, namely with praise of the victor and his

homeland (710) and with gnomic reflections on great deeds as a source of

poetic inspiration and on the power of poetry to preserve their memory (1116).

19 On Pindars reticence about Apollo see also Segal 1967: 450.20 The apology hypothesis was challenged by Bundy 4 and was followed by a

number of scholars. In favor of the apology hypothesis see Lloyd-Jones 1973: 12728with a survey of scholarly opinion before and after Bundy and more recently DAlessio

and Rutherford 298338. Against the apology hypothesis see the more recent discussions

in Burnett 1998 and Burnett 2005: 179202; Currie 296343.


10/67

L. ATHANASSAKI414

By means of an enigmatic comment on wise mens knowledge of the uncertaintyof the future and their immunity to greed, which leads to the observation that

death is inevitable for rich and poor alike (1720), the first mythical narrative is

introduced. The fortunes of two Aeacids are the subject of the odes two mythical

narratives: the account of Neoptolemus Delphic visit and death is preceded by a

corrective account of Ajaxs true valor. Interestingly, both narratives are

introduced by and connected with variant formulations of the inevitability of

death.

The account of Ajax first. There are clearly two strands in Pindars

account. The narrative begins with an explanation for Odysseus fame and

retrogresses to highlight the reasons that led to Ajaxs suicide. According to

Pindar, Odysseus fame has been greater than he deserved thanks to the sweet

verses of Homer (2021). The corrective account continues with the concessionthat there is some majesty in Homers lies and winged resourcefulness and ends

with the more general observation that poetry deceives by misleading tales (22

23).21

The comment on poetrys power to deceive leads to the statement that most

people are blind (24), which Pindar instantiates by the example of Ajax. Pindars

argument runs as follows: if Ajaxs contemporaries could have seen the truth,

Ajax would not have committed suicide in anger over their wrong judgement

over the arms.22

The praise of Ajaxs valor concludes with the assertion that he

was second only to Achilles among the warriors that went to Troy to bring back

Helen to Menelaus (2730).Reflections on the inevitability of death and on the honor that god can

bestow on the dead frame the account of Ajax and lead to the story of

Neoptolemus. After a statement that has caused much perplexity (3233), Pindarintroduces the story of Neoptolemus by the mention of the heros tomb in Delphi

(3435) and ends it in ring form with a more elaborate variant formulation (44

47).23

According to the epinician version, Neoptolemus sacked Troy, missed

Scyros on his way back, and settled in Ephyra. There he ruled for a short time

and then set out to visit Apollo, taking to him the finest spoils from Troy (38

21

See however Khnken 5560, who suggested that the reference is not to poetry,

but to Odysseus cleverness and lies.22 Khnken 58: Mit Vers 24 (gr) beginnt der eigentliche mythische Bericht, der

zugleich ein konkreter Beleg fr die Lgen des Odysseus und ihre Folgen ist: das

griechische Heervolk lie sich durch Odysseus verfhren, ihn ber Aias zu stellen und

mit den Waffen Achills zu ehren.23 The main problem of ll. 3233 is the subject ofboayvn: scholars have argued infavor of Apollo, or the epinician speaker, or Neoptolemus. For a review of the various

proposed renderings see Most.


11/67


41). In Delphi, in a quarrel over sacrificial meats, a man stabbed him with aknife. This incident, however, which gave the Delphians much grief according to

this version, was not accidental, but the fulfillment of fate (4347):

brunyen d periss Delfo jenagtai.ll t mrsimon pdv-

ken: xrn d tin ndon lsei palaittAfiakidn krentvn t loipn mmenaiyeo par eteixa dmon, roaiw d pompawyemiskpon ofiken nta poluytoiw.

His Delphian hosts were exceedingly grieved. But he had paid the debt tofate; for it was ordained that one of the royal Aeacids should remain for

the rest of time within the most ancient grove, beside the gods well-built

temple, to dwell there as a rightful overseer of processions, rich in

sacrifices, in honor of heroes.

It is now time to compare the epinician with the paean version.24

The

struggle for the recovery of Helen is the common theme of the two mythical

narratives, but in the Sixth Paean Pindars focus is on the protagonists of the sack

of Troy, Achilles and Neoptolemus, and on the citys defender, Apollo.25

The

power ofmoira is another theme that the two odes share, but the perspective is

clearly different. In the paean the poet dwells on the fate of Troy, not of the

Aeacids. The first indication of the power of fate comes at 78 ff., where Pindarsays that Apollo postponed the capture of Troy by killing Achilles (Ilou dyken far/ citran lvsin,8182).After a brief mention of the conflict ofApollo with Hera and Athena over the fate of Troy, Pindar reiterates Apollos

protection of the city: Achilles would have sacked Troy, if Apollo had not been

on guard (efi m flassen Ap[l]l[v]n,91). Immediately after the twice-statedeffort of Apollo to preserve the city, Pindar introduces the theme of the supreme

power ofMoira by means of a description of Zeus that is strongly reminiscent of

the Iliadic scene (16.43338) where he weighs the fate of Sarpedon (9298):

nfessi d n xrusoiw Olmpoi-

24 For a detailed comparison of the paean and the epinician see in particular

Tugenhadt who argued in favor of the apology hypothesis and Khnkenwho rejected it.25

For Apollo as defender of Troy see Tugenhadt 390 and Burnett 1998: 51213.


12/67

L. ATHANASSAKI416

o ka korufa[si]n zvnmrsim na[l]en Zew yen skopw o tl-ma: per d cikm [E]ln&xrn ra Prgamon er[n] -istsai slaw afiyomnoupurw:

But Zeus, the watcher of gods, sitting in golden clouds on the peaks of

Olympus, did not dare undo what was fated. On account of high-haired

Helen it was ordained that the blaze of burning fire should destroy broad

Pergamum.

It is remarkable that Pindar uses identical diction (mrsima/mrsimonxrn/xrn) to describe the fate of Pergamum in the paean and the fate of Neoptol-emus in the Seventh Nemean. In the paean version, however, fate does not appear

to play a role in the fortunes of Neoptolemus, unless something was said in the

missing part of the second strophe (6278). Such possibility seems unlikely,

however, in view of the narratives unmistakable emphasis on Neoptolemus acts

and their consequences.

Immediately after the disclosure of the destiny of Troy, the paeans

narrative shifts to Neoptolemus and his fortunes (98120):

pe d lkimon

nkun []n t[f] polustn ynto Phledan,lw p kma bntew []l-

yon ggelo[i] psvSkuryen Ne[o]ptlemo[neruban gontew,w dipersen Ilou pl[in:ll ote matr peita kednnden ote patrvaiw n ro[raiwppouw Murmidnvn,xalkokoru[st]n milon ge[r]vn.sxedn d[ To]mrou Molossda gaan

jket od []nmouw [l]a[y]enod tn [e]rufartran kablon:


13/67


[mo]se [gr y]ew,g[ron]y [ti] Pramonp[r]w rkeon nare bvmn [p-

en]yornta, m nin efron w o[k]onmt p graw flj-

men bou: mfiploiw dk]urin per timn

dhri]azmenon ktnen tem]ne fl gw par mfaln ern.

And after they had placed the brave corpse of Peleus son in the much-

lamented grave, messengers crossed the wave of the sea and came backbringing mighty Neoptolemus from Scyros, who sacked the city of Ilium.

But afterwards he saw neither his dear mother again, nor the horses of the

Myrmidons in his ancestral fields, arousing the bronze-helmeted host to

battle. Near Tomaros he reached the Molossian land and did not escape the

winds, nor the Far-shooter with the broad quiver; for the god had sworn,

that because he had killed the old Priam as he leapt towards the altar of

Zeus Herkeios, he would not come back to his kindly home, nor would he

reach old age in life; as he was quarreling with the attendants over the

appointed honors, Apollo slew him in his own sanctuary by the broad

navel of the earth.

The quarrel over due honors and the death of Neoptolemus in Apollos sanctuaryare the themes common to the paean and the epinician. Beyond these similarities,

however, the two narratives display totally different perspective and motivation.26

The paean celebrates Apollos crucial role in the protection of Troy. As a

defender of the city, Apollo succeeds in deferring the capture of the city, but like

Zeus he must eventually yield to the supremacy ofMoira. As is evident from his

decision to punish Neoptolemus, Apollos care for the doomed city does not

cease with its capture. In the paean the reason for the punishment of

Neoptolemus is unequivocal. The god punishes the young hero for killing a

26For differences due to genre and occasion see Lloyd-Jones 1973: 132; Rutherford

322; Burnett 1998: 507509.


14/67

L. ATHANASSAKI418

suppliant.27

The fact that it is Apollo himself who slays Neoptolemus for hisimpious act is in keeping with the emphasis on the gods role as a guardian of

Troy in the second triad.

The ancient scholiasts attributed to Aristarchus and his pupil

Aristodemus the view that the Aeginetans were offended by Pindars treatment of

the death of Neoptolemus in the paean and that the more favorable version of the

Seventh Nemean constituted Pindars apology.28

The view attributed to Arist-

archus is general enough (xrin to Neoptolmou, 70) and does not specify thereason of the offense. The more detailed explanation attributed to Aristodemus

(150a), however, namely that the Aeginetans criticized Pindar for saying that

Neoptolemus went to Delphi with sacrilegious intentions, is not an accurate

account of Pindars treatment in the Sixth Paean. In the paean it is clear that

Apollo was determined to punish Neoptolemus for the impious act of killing thesuppliant Priam before his visit to Delphi, but there is nothing to suggest that the

quarrel in which Neoptolemus got involved came as a result of his attempt to rob

the temple. I agree with Ian Rutherford that if Pindars treatment offended the

Aeginetans, the reason must have been the sacrilege of killing a suppliant and the

continuing antagonism between Apollo and Neoptolemus.29

Whether the Aeginetans really took offense at Pindars treatment or the

apology hypothesis originated with Aristarchus is a question than can find no

conclusive answer. A major obstacle is the uncertainty concerning the chrono-

logical relation of the two odes. Beyond this insoluble problem, however, schol-

arly opinion is divided concerning the interpretation of the concluding epode of

the Seventh Nemean (103105), which some scholars have considered apologetic

and therefore referring to the paean, while others have interpreted it as anassertion of Neoptolemus proper praise in this ode with no reference to the

paean.30

Whether the Seventh Nemean was meant as an apology or not, however,

it remains true that it downplays the antagonism between Apollo and Neoptol-

emus, which means that Pindar considered this version more suitable for an

Aeginetan audience. Moreover, Rutherfords discovery of a marginal subtitle that

designates the last triad of the Sixth Paean as a prosodion for the Aeginetans in

27 Tugenhadt 390: Die fr den Vergleich mit dem Epinikion allein wichtige zweite

Epode bleibt in das Gesamtmotiv Apollon als Schtzer von Ilion eingebettet und wird

zugleich modifiziert zu Apollon als Rcher der Gottlosigkeit.28 For a challenge to the reliability of the ancient scholia in this case see Smith.29

Rutherford 323. For a similar argument see Lloyd-Jones 1973: 12737.30 For ll. 103105 as an assertion of a proper encomium see the recent discussions in

Burnett 2005: 199201 with a review of previous scholarship and Currie 33043; contra

DAlessio 13239.


15/67


honor of Aeacus has revived Farnells apology theory and has opened the way toother interpretations as well.

Farnell advanced the view that the third triad of the paean, which is

dedicated to the praise of Aegina, is an apologetic postscript, added by Pindar

himself, and welded to the fabric of the paean, to soothe the feelings of the

Aeginetans.31

Rutherford has reevaluated the merits of Farnells hypothesis in

light of his discovery and, in addition, has put forward an alternative scenario to

explain the double transmission of the triad as part of the paean and as an

independent ode. According to this alternative scenario the paean was originally

composed for performance by two choruses: a Delphic chorus would dance the

first two triads at the altar and an Aeginetan chorus would perform the third triad

in procession towards the altar. After the original performance, the third triad

could have been performed separately as a prosodion in Aegina.

32

Rutherfordcredits Farnells postscript hypothesis with the advantage of economy, but

leaves the matter open. If the last triad of the paean was a postscript, as Farnell

suggested, the apology hypothesis gains ground. Whatever the actual situation

may have been, it is undeniable that the epinician version, silent on Neoptol-

emus sacrilege, emphasizes instead his piety and the grief of the Delphians on

account of his death. The question can thus be reversed. Instead of asking how

much offense a tale could cause, we can ask how favorable a reception it could

find. In light of the vested interest which the Aeginetans had in their Aeacid past,

as is manifest in the literature and monuments of the period, there is no questionthat the epinician version would be far more suitable for an Aeginetan

performance.

In the first half of the fifth century poetry and monumental structureswork in tandem to forge and commemorate the close ties of the island with the

glorious offspring of Aeacus. By 480 a new set of pediments was carved for the

temple of Aphaea and replaced the earlier pediments that represented an

abduction and an Amazonomachy. The first sack of Troy was depicted in the new

east pediment, the second sack in the west.33

Since the Aeacids had a leading role

in both expeditions, the pedimental sculptures clearly indicate the wish of the

Aeginetans to monopolize these heroes. In view of the hostility between Athens

and Aegina and of the Athenian counter-effort to appropriate Telamon and Ajax,

31

Farnell 1932: 408.32 Rutherford 33738. For an interpretation taking as its starting point Rutherfords

alternative scenario see Kurke 2005.33

Ohly 4766; Burnett 2005: 2944.


16/67

L. ATHANASSAKI420

Robin Osborne has suggested that the motivation behind the expensive newsculptural program launched by the Aeginetans must have been political.

34

The poetry that the Aeginetans commissioned shows a similar tendency.

Two of the fourteen extant epinicians of Bacchylides celebrate Aeginetan victors.

Of these ode 12 is too fragmentary. The mythical narrative of ode 13, however,

commemorates Ajaxs aristeia in defending the Achaean ships at the time of

Achilles withdrawal and traces the origin of the two foremost warriors to

Aeacus. One fourth of Pindars epinicians are composed for Aeginetans and all

commemorate their Aeacid ancestry.35

With the exception of the Eighth Pythian,

all contain mythical narratives that explore, with varying degree of elaboration,

different glorious achievements of the four generations of Aeacids.36

Comparison

of the exclusive thematic focus of Pindar and Bacchylides on the Aeacids with

the variety of mythological narratives that they choose, for instance in the Hieronodes, shows that their choice must have been affected by the wishes of their

patrons. Whether the Aeginetans expressed their wish openly, or the poets sensed

it and played along, is impossible to know.37

The exclusive poetic focus on the

Aeacids, however, is remarkable and evokes the visual representations of the

Aphaea temple and other monuments.38

The individual and communal care that was devoted to the lavish public

display of the Aeginetans Aeacid ancestry through monumental structures and

choral performances indicates that a sacrilegious Aeacid would not be a

congenial topic for an Aeginetan celebration. Pindars strategy in the Seventh

Nemean points in the same direction. If the Sixth Paean predated the Seventh

Nemean, the epinician version need not be an apology, but a meditation on the

variety of poetic versions on a Panhellenic scale.

39

Interestingly, Pindar does notsing of Achilles and Neoptolemus in the Seventh Nemean, but of Ajax and

34Osborne 1998: 12427. On the importance of genealogies and myth-manipulation

for inter-state rivalries see the recent contribution of David Fearn taking Bacchylides c. 9

as a test-case (Fearn 2003).35 For Pindars odes for Aeginetans see Hornblower 2007.36Olympian 8;Nemeans 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8;Isthmians 5, 6, 8.37 Cf. Burnett 2005: 212 who suggests that Pindars Law of Aiakid Praise, as she

calls it, was self-imposed.38

PindarsNemea 8.712 evokes the entrance relief to the shrine of Aeacus, which isdescribed by Pausanias 2.29.7; see Farnell 1961: 304 ad 912.39

For the Panhellenic character of the mythical narrative of the Sixth Paean see

Kowalzigs interesting discussion.


17/67


Neoptolemus, both controversial figures for different reasons.40

Pindars repeat-edly expressed view of Ajax is consistent: as a warrior Ajax was second only to

Achilles. In the Fourth Isthmian (3739), composed for the Theban Melissos,

Pindar praises Homers divine verses for doing justice to Ajaxs valor. The Sev-

enth Nemean, however, shows the flipside of the coin. We have seen that the

poets clever use of the Homeric example implies that Ajax was overshadowed

by Odysseus in posterity as he was in his lifetime, because following the views of

Ajaxs contemporaries Homer exaggerated Odysseus true merit. The poetic error

that Pindar attributes to Homer is therefore a matter of perspective and emphasis.

Pindars criticism of Homer could thus be a meditation on his own different

perspective in the paean and a signal for his shift of perspective in the epinician

version; as we have seen, in the Seventh Nemean the poet explores the issue of

the destiny of the protagonists of the Trojan war from the viewpoint of theAeacids. The choice of the Homeric example is all the more successful, because

Homer was the Panhellenic poet par excellence and the impact of his poetry on

the ever-changing audiences was beyond control.41

Of course, Pindar does not

make the point explicitly, but it is an inference that his audience could easily

draw. The example of Homers erroneous emphasis and perspective sets a pre-

cedent for similar poetic choices and puts the impact of competing poetic

accounts on their audiences in a far broader perspective.

Celebration of the honorands Aeacid ancestry and emphasis on the

importance of inherited excellence are characteristics that all Pindaric Aeginetanepinician odes share.

42Sogenes is no exception. In the opening triad Sogenes

home is described as the songloving city of the spear-clashing Aeacids who

show great concern for his agonistic spirit (plin gr filmolpon ofikedoriktpvn / Afiakidn: mla d ylonti smpeiron gvn& yumn mfpein,910). In the concluding triad the poet prays to Heracles to help Sogenes livehappily in the well-built sacred street of his ancestors, showing tender concern

for his father (etuxw naein patr Svgnhw taln mfpvn yumn

40 For the significance of Pindars choice of these two heroes see also Khnken 42

60.41

For a similar view see Khnken 55: Die Dichtung Homers ist bezaubernd schn

(21 duepw)und ihr Einflu reicht sehr weit (22 potanw).Pindar was certainly not the

first to enter into dialogue with Homer. According to a papyrus commentary (193 P.)Stesichorus blamed Homer and Hesiod in his palinodes.42

For the importance of the Aeacids for Aeginetan self-definition see Burnett 2005:

1328, 238250 andpassim.


18/67

L. ATHANASSAKI422

prognvn uktmona zayan guian, 9092).43

The use of identical diction(mfpein yumn) to describe a sons feelings for his father is an unmistakableecho of the feelings of the Aeacids for Sogenes and an effective strategy to bring

close together immediate family and remote ancestors. The attempt to bridge the

gap between Sogenes family and the Aeacids is also obvious in the transition

from the story of Neoptolemus to the praise of Sogenes and his father Thearion.

The transition is effected by the mention of the splendid achievements of Zeus

and Aeginas offspring (5052), the significance ofphya (5455), and the role of

Moira as the dispenser of happiness which is followed by the assertion that she

has given Thearion a fair share of prosperity (5659).

Clearly, in the case of Sogenes and the Aeacids Pindar handles the

sensitive issue of ancestral misfortune and its eventual reversal in exactly the

same way as he did with Theron and the Labdacids. In each instance thehonorands enjoy happiness and prosperity that is ancestral, whereas a pair of

ancestors exemplify the exception by suffering the blows that the all-powerful

Moira occasionally deals. In both cases Apollo is conspicuously distant from the

events that lead to disaster. Comparative evidence sheds light on the advantages

of foregroundingMoira and distancing Apollo. The Stesichorean fragment is an

early witness to the belief that wise behavior can postpone misfortune, a view

that Herodotus voices much later through the Pythias response to Croesus

(1.91).

Unlike Moira, prophecy occasionally leaves room for personal choice.

Precisely for this reason oracles function not only as catalysts, but as touchstones

for the ethos of the recipients. The Lille text is too fragmentary to allow glimpses

into the Stesichorean representation of the ethos of Polyneices and Eteocles. Wehave seen, however, that the Aeschylean Laius does not heed Apollos repeated

warning and his failure to comply with the divine command causes the gods

relentless wrath. Similarly, Aegisthus does not heed the warning of Hermes in the

Odyssey and pays for his defiance with his life. In the Iliad Agamemnon, who

finally obeys the Apolline command, shows his irascible and despotic temper in

his confrontation with Calchas (1.10520). The Herodotean Croesus does not

recognize the ambiguity of Apollos prophecy and the Pythia exposes his lack of

good judgement (1.91). The case of Neoptolemus in the Sixth Paean is somewhat

different, for in his case Apollos antagonism is not due to his attitude to a

specific oracle, but to his defiance of established and well-known religious ethics

43Segal 1967: 473 also noted the parallelism between these two passages, but

interpreted its effect differently.


19/67


that prescribe respect for suppliants. Neoptolemus decision to overlook thisprinciple constitutes in effect defiance of divine command in a broader sense.

Defiance of divine precepts or lack of wisdom are faults that would

definitely detract from the ancestral excellence that Pindars epinicians celebrate

and would cast a shadow on the merits of descendants as well.44

Pindars

portrayal of Diagoras ancestor Tlepolemus, which will be discussed in the

following section, shows an unmistakable effort to affirm ancestral wisdom and

to attribute murder to an unfortunate momentary lapse. The problem with the

claim to inherited qualities is the danger of inheriting negative qualities as well as

guilt, an issue that found its most magnificent expression on the Athenian stage.

In this respect, Polyneices reminder of Apollos hatred of Laius and its fatal

consequences for his race in the Seven sheds light upon the advantages of

attributing misfortunes to moira. Unlike prophecy, moira precludes choice andoffers therefore the easiest way out of notorious cruces.

ii.2 APOLLINEPAS DE DEUX

If in the Seventh Nemean Pindar frees Neoptolemus from sacrilege by attributing

his death to moira and downplays the antagonism between Apollo and the

Aeacids, in theEighth Olympian he eliminates it. In this instance, the poet casts

Apollo, the epic and paeanic defender of Troy, in the role of the prophet of the

doomed citys fall. Apollos addressee is Aeacus, the progenitor of the Aeacids

(3152):

tn paw Latow erumdvn te Poseidn,

Il mllontew p stfanon te-jai, kalsanto sunergntexeow, n ti nin peprvmnonrnumnvn polmvn ptolipryoiw n mxaiwlbron mpnesai kapnn.glauko d drkontew, pe ktsyh non,prgon sallmenoi trew, ofl do mn kpeton,ayi d tuzmenoi cuxw blon,ew d nrouse bosaiw.nnepe d nton rmanvn traw eyw Apllvn:Prgamow mf teaw,

rvw, xerw rgasaiw lsketai:

44For the importance ofphya for Pindaric ideology see in particular Rose 16063.


20/67

L. ATHANASSAKI424

w mo fsma lgei Krondapemfyn barugdopou Diw:

ok ter padvn syen, ll ma prtoiw rjetaika terttoiw. w ra yew sfa epaiwJnyon peigen ka Amaznaw ep-

pouw ka w Istron lanvn.Orsotraina d p Isym pont&rma yon tnuen,popmpvn Afiaknder n ppoiw xrusaiw

ka Kornyou deird pocmenow daitiklutn.

whom [sc. Aeacus] the son of Leto and wide-ruling Poseidon, who were

about to crown Ilium with battlements, invited to help them build the wall,

because it was her destiny at the outbreak of wars in city-destroying battles

to breathe out ravening smoke. When the wall was newly built, however,

three grey-eyed snakes leapt into the tower; the two fell down and, in a

state of terror, lost at once their lives, but one jumped in with a shout.

Apollo pondered over the adverse omen and immediately said: Pergamum

will be captured, hero, at the place of your handiworkso tells me the

vision sent by loud-thundering Zeus, son of Cronusnot without your

children; but it will begin with the first and also with the fourth. So the

god spoke, clearly, and sped his horses to Xanthus, to the Amazons of the

fine horses, and Ister. The Wielder of the Trident, on the other hand,

steered his swift chariot to the Isthmus on the sea bringing back to this

place Aeacus on golden horses on his way to look upon the ridge of

Corinth famous for its festivals.

The ode was composed for the Olympic victory of the Aeginetan boy

Alcimedon, probably in 460. A substantial part is dedicated to the praise of the

boys trainer Melesias (5466). Some scholars have seen a parallelism between

Apollo and Aeacus on the mythical level and the trainer Melesias and Alcimedon

in the hicet nunc. Kevin Crotty, for instance, suggested: In 60, too, the use of

promayen seems intended to present athletic training as a form of prophecyinasmuch as it provides some foreknowledge of the outcome, enabling athletes to


21/67


be confident of their skills and strength.45

Yet Pindars emphasis is not onMelesias predictions but rather on his knowledge and expertise which he imparts

to his trainees. Melesias is first and foremost a good teacher because he knows

his job (5960). His trainees show good judgement too, because they recognize

the importance of learning in advance (6061). Melesias is by far the most

qualified to tell what deeds and ways will help the contestants win in the games

(6264). What precisely are the deeds (rga) and the ways (trpon) thatMelesias advised is left unclear, but the reference is presumably to the whole

athletic preparation before the games. Like musical education, athletic training

did not contradict the belief in phya, but brought out native ability.46

The

celebrated example of Chiron shows that for all their claims to the importance of

phya, aristocrats did not deny the value of education.47

The important point of

comparison between Apollo and Melesias is therefore not prediction per se, butknowledge which the god and human trainer impart to their associates ahead of

time. If we are to see a close parallelism between Apollo and Melesias, it follows

that Aeacus stands for Alcimedon. Such a neat parallel, however, does not do

justice to the rich texture of this ode, for the point of the mythical exemplum is

not simply the value of prediction or communication of knowledge, but the

divine favor Aeacus enjoyed.

In his prophecy to Aeacus, puzzling though it may be, Apollo mentions

four generations. The diction is obscure, as is the relation between the portent

and the gods elucidation, and various solutions have been offered. One way out

of the difficulty is the solution proposed by Crotty: all that the portent tells

Apollo is that Troy will be taken at the place where Aeacus had worked (4244);

the reference to the four generations of Aeacids (4546) is the gods ownaddition.

48If we dissociate the Aeacids from the snakes, the agents of the fall of

Troy will be Aeacus in the first generation, who is unintentionally responsible for

the weak spot, and Neoptolemus for the second sack in the fourth.49

Whatever

interpretation we give to Apollos prophecy, however, it is clear that there is no

hostility towards the Aeacids on the gods part. Apollo prophesies in a matter-of-

fact manner the central role of Aeacus and his offspring in the fall of Troy. The

45 Crotty 25; see also Burnett 2005: 21719 and Nicholson 13645.46 For the potential tension between learning andphya see Nicholson 13945.47 The paradigm of Chiron as teacher of heroes in Nemean 3.4053 offers a good

example of the role of education in bringing out native ability; on this point see Robbins

1986a: 32021.48 Crotty 26 with note 42.49

For this interpretation see Robbins 1986a with a discussion of ancient and modern

views on the significance of the portent; similarly Athanassaki 1990: 4449.


22/67

L. ATHANASSAKI426

glorious deeds of the ancestor find a parallel in the achievements of thedescendants.

Pindar mentions at least three generations of Blepsiads: Alcimedon and

Timosthenes (1520), whom the ancient scholia identify as Alcimedons brother,

but Christopher Carey has argued in favor of the grandfather who is later

mentioned (7073).50

In the last epode Alcimedons dead father Iphion is said to

hear the news of his sons victory from Angelia and pass on the good news to

Callimachus, another dead relative (8184). Pindar links together living and dead

members of the family by the observation that death does not hide the glory of

kinsmen (7980). Noting the parallelism between Aeacid and Blepsiad

achievements over the generations, Thomas Hubbard has pointed out that the

theme of inter-generational reflection of glory with descendants deeds seen by

ancestors and foreshadowed by the virtues and deeds of these ancestors, was verymuch on Pindars mind when writing Ol. 8.

51The parallelism between the

Aeacids and the Blepsiads is reinforced by the theme of prophecy in the mythical

exemplum and the encomium. The ode opens with the mention of oracular

consultation at Olympia before the contests, when seers examine burnt offerings

in order to test Zeus plan as to the outcome of the contests (na mntiew . . . /mproiw parapeirntai Diw rgikeranou, 23). The testing of Zeus willbefore the games parallels Apollos prophecy to Aeacus, which has as its starting

point the omen Zeus sends (fsma lgei Kronda / pemfyn barugdopouDiw, 4445).52

An ancient scholion reports that Didymus considered the collaboration of

Aeacus Pindars innovation (par oden d presbutr Pindrou flstora,41a). According to Didymus Pindar introduced Aeacus as a collaborator in order

to show that Troy was conquerable through the part that Aeacus built (na ditotou to mrouw p Afiako ofikodomhyntow lsimow gnhtai Iliow, 41a). The two divergent accounts in the Iliad corroborate Didymus

50 The ancient scholia identify Timosthenes as Alcimedons brother (16), Iphion as

the father, and Callimachus as an uncle or alternatively as mere relatives. For the

identification of Timosthenes as Alcimedons grandfather see Carey 1989. Kurke 1991:

29398 raised objections to Careys identification and suggested that Alcimedon musthave had the same name as his grandfather. Burnett 2005: 208 adopts Careys

identification and suggests that it was Timosthenes who commissioned the ode.51 Hubbard 1987: 21. Race 134 also remarks on the close parallelism between the

Aeacids and the Blepsiads.52

Crotty 26.


23/67


view.53

In Book 7 Poseidon complains to Zeus about the new Achaean wall andvoices the fear that the wall he and Apollo once built will be forgotten (45153).

In Book 21 Poseidon reminds Apollo of their service to Laomedon, when he built

the wall and Apollo tended Laomedons herds (44149). The divergence has

been variously explained, but for our purposes it is more significant that neither

version acknowledges the participation of Aeacus.54

In the second Iliadic

passage, Poseidon claims that he built a wide and very strong wall so as to make

the city unconquerable (er te ka mla kaln, n rrhktow pliw eh,21.447). In Book 6, however, Andromache mentions a weak spot in the wall,

where both city and wall can be overrun (mbatw sti pliw ka pdromonpleto texow,434). Andromache does not give reasons for the vulnerability ofthat part of the wall, but, as Farnell suggested, the Iliad may reflect here a

tradition according to which the cause of the weak spot was the work of amortal.

55Interesting too is Andromaches point that some of the Achaeans thrice

tried this spot either out of their own initiative or because somebody skilled in

prophecy told them (6.43539). The identity of the prophet is unclear, but Apollo

is excluded, for as the defender of Troy in the Iliad, he could not have been the

one to reveal to the Achaeans the weak spot. The two different Iliadic traditions

clearly underlie Pindars version, but the addition of Aeacus to the building team

and, more important, Apollos prophecy to him give the mythological narrative

of theEighth Olympian a totally different new turn.56

Viewed as an exemplum of divine favor to Aeacus, Apollos prophecy

has a double function. Insofar as the Blepsiads are concerned, the prophecy

foreshadows their achievements and points up their inherited excellence.

Inasmuch as the Aeacids are concerned, the gods prediction, framed by thedivine invitation to Aeacus to collaborate and by his departure in the company of

Poseidon, is an effective poetic strategy to obliterate the antagonism between

Apollo and the Aeacids. The contrast between the representation of the role of

Apollo and moira in this ode and in the Second Olympian and Seventh Nemean

could not have been sharper. Pindar mentions in passing the design of destiny (n. . . peprvmnon), but the centerpiece of the mythical narrative is unquestionablythe divine favor to Aeacus and Apollos spontaneous prophecy. The balance is

cleverly reversed. Apollos diction is carefully chosen so as not to leave out

Neoptolemus and his crucial role in the fourth generation.

53

See also Hubbard 1987: 1722 who argues in favor of Pindaric innovation.54 For the divergence see Kirk 28889 and Richardson 8990.55

Farnell 1930: 45.56

For Apollos prophecy as Pindars innovation see Hubbard 1987: 21.


24/67

L. ATHANASSAKI428

In comparison to the representation of Apollos relationship with theAeacids in the Sixth Paean, theEighth Olympian is a tour de force. An intriguing

question is whether the Eighth Olympian was composed for performance at

Olympia or Aegina. The opening invocation of the personified Olympia, which is

followed by an invocation of the grove of Pisa and a prayer to accept the komos,

defines Olympia as the celebratory setting. In the second strophe, however, the

reference to Aegina through the deictic expression tnd' lierka xran (25)signals a shift of the locus of performance from Olympia to Aegina. With regard

to the locus of performance there is no scholarly consensus, but I find more

persuasive Franco Ferraris solution, who suggested an original performance at

Olympia after the victory that anticipates a future performance in Aegina.57

In

this scenario, the political significance of Pindars innovative treatment of

Apollos prophecy to Aeacus would be much more pointed, since the targetedaudience of the first performance would be in all likelihood the Panhellenic

audience of the games. Reperformance on Aegina, on the other hand, would

evoke the performance at Olympia and would be a reminder of the Panhellenic

display of Apollos favor to the Aeacids.58

We may now turn to the Sixth Olympian. Pindar is our earliest source for

the myth of Iamus, the progenitor of the honorands family on his maternal side.

Wilamowitz posited an Elean epic as Pindars source, but the ancient scholia

provide no hint of any preexisting version.59

Whether and to what extent Pindar

followed a local epic is, therefore, impossible to ascertain, but Apollos

benevolence and munificence to the great ancestor of thehonorand is typical of

Pindars representation of the gods attitude to a favored few. Wilamowitz was of

57Ferrari 14647; similarly Athanassaki 2004: 337 and n. 42 (I came to the same

view independently of Ferrari). In favor of performance at Olympia: see Gildersleeve

192; Farnell 1961: 59. Scholars who favor performance on Aegina explain the initial

localization at Olympia differently. Wilamowitz 1922: 403, for intance, postulated an

Aeginetan Olympieion. Burnett 2005: 208 n. 4 thought that the invocation to Olympia is

equivalent to the wish to please a distant audience as in N. 4.46. Thummer 1.32. n. 11,

criticizing Wilamowitzs view, suggested poetic fiction whereby poet and audience arevicariously transported to Olympia.

58

I discuss in detail the broader political significance of Pindars choices inOlympian 8 vis--vis a Panhellenic audience in a forthcoming paper; see Athanassaki

forthcoming.59

Wilamowitz 1886: 174.


25/67


two minds as to whether Apollo was already part of local traditions, but thoughtthat the scene between Apollo and Iamus had Pindars own touch.

60

The ode was composed for the Olympic victory in the mule chariot,

probably in 468, of Hagesias, a close associate of Hieron, whose family

participated in the foundation of Syracuse and whose maternal side held a

hereditary priesthood at Olympia. Pindar praises Hagesias for his athletic

achievement and his political prominence, but not surprisingly his emphasis is on

Hagesias Iamid ancestry. The extensive mythical narrative covers almost half of

the ode and focuses on two scenes: the events surrounding the birth of Iamus

(2857) and Apollos prompt response to his sons invocation and request for

honor, when he reached adolescence (5770). In both scenes Apollos care for

his son is manifest. Evadne, daughter of the nymph Pitane and Poseidon, was

raised by king Aepytus; in due time she lies with Apollo, becomes pregnant withhis child, and tries, unsuccessfuly, to hide her pregnancy. Aepytus discovers her

secret, but suppresses his anger and goes to Delphi to inquire of the god. To

Evadne, who meanwhile gives birth to the baby secretly, Apollo sends Eleithyia

and the Fates; through divine design too two serpents feed the newborn with

honey. The presence of the divinities and the nurturing snakes foreshadow

Iamus extraordinary future, which is confirmed by Apollos response to

Aepytus. Upon his return from Delphi Aepytus tries to find the still hidden

newborn and declares publicly Iamus Apolline parentage (Fobou gr atnf gegkein patrw, 4950), his future extraordinary mantic authority amongmortals (per ynatn d ssesyai mntin pixyonoiw joxon,5051), and thefact that his race will never end (od pot klecein genen,51). The narrativeleaves open the outcome of Aepytus search. All we learn is that Evadne choosesthe name Iamus for the babybecause violets (a) cover his tender body in thethicket where he is hidden (5357). The qualification of the name as immortal

(num ynaton, 57) at the conclusion of the first scene reinforces Apollosprophecy with respect to the continuity of thegenos.

With the assertion of the immortality of Iamus name, the scene shifts

rapidly to the time when Iamus, now an adolescent, goes at night to Alpheus and

invokes his grandfather Poseidon and his father Apollo requesting honors that

will enable him to serve his people. Of the two gods it is Apollo who reaches out

to him promptly and speaks clearly (ntefygjato d rtiepw patra ssa,

60 Wilamowitz 1886: 175. Defradas 1974: 39 interpreted Apollos prominence as an

attempt to attribute to the god of Delphi patronage of Zeus oracle at Olympia. For

Apollos prominence vis--vis Zeus see also Garner 48.


26/67

L. ATHANASSAKI430

metllasn t nin,6162). Apollos request to Iamus to follow his voice to theland which is shared by all is rendered in direct discourse (6263). After the short

Apolline quotation the narrative shifts again to third person and Pindar describes

their arrival at the hill of Cronus where Apollo bestows on Iamus exceptional

privileges (6470):

konto d chloo p-tran lbaton Kronounya oflpase yhsaurn ddumonmantosnaw, tka mn fvnn koeinceudvn gnvton, et n

d yrasumxanow lynHraklhw, semnn ylow Alkadn, patrortn te kts pleistmbroton te-

ymn te mgiston ylvn,Zhnw p krott bv-

m tt a xrhstrion ysyai kleusen.

And they reached the steep rock of Cronus high hill, where he bestowed

on him the twin treasure of prophecy, to hear at that time the voice that

knows no falsehood, and thenwhen the bold in resource Heracles, thehonored offspring of the Alcaids, should come and found for his father a

festival crowded with people and the greatest institution of gameshe

ordered him to establish his oracle at the highest altar of Zeus.

The remote time of the event is remarkable. Apollo designates Iamus as an

official seer at Olympia before the foundation of the Olympic games. The

antiquity of the event is consistent with the cosmogonic character of the myth of

Iamus that places the episode at a time when the world was taking shape, as

Charles Segal has shown.61

The mythical narrative concludes with the scene of Apollos splendid

gifts to Iamus and is followed by the reminder that the much renowned Iamids

draw their origin to him (j o polkleiton kay Ellanaw gnow Iamidn,72). Through a cluster of statements that point out their prosperity, their

honorable deeds, their renown, and finally the danger of blame as a result of envy

61Segal 1986: 94105 where, in addition to the Sixth Olympian, Segal discussed the

three Cyrenean odes and the Seventh Olympian.


27/67


for great achievements Pindar resumes the praise of Hagesias and his maternalgenos and home, Stymphalos, where the performance is taking place (7391).

The ode ends with the praise of Hieron, the anticipation of a future performance

in Syracuse, and a prayer to Poseidon to secure a safe trip home for Hagesias and

his friends and the flourishing of his own song (92105).

The locus of the first performance may have suggested the choice of

mythical subject matter. Eva Stehle has suggested that the poets choice and

treatment of subject aims at making relevant the victory celebration to a

community that was not the honorands own, but consisted of maternal relatives

to whom Hagesias paid a visit on his way back to Syracuse.62

To this attractive

suggestion I will add that the hereditary seerhood of the honorands maternal

ancestors was for the poet a congenial topic in and of itself and one that gave him

the opportunity to depict the Apolline parentage of Iamus and thus foregroundthe honorands ancestral privilege and wisdom. The explicit association of

Hagesias with Amphiaraus in the opening triad highlights the honorands martial

prowess and wisdom (1218). The story of Iamus adds that his wisdom is

ancestral. As Simon Goldhill pointed out, Apollos two prophecies predict

Iamos descendant, Hagesias.63

The similarities in the depiction of Apollos interaction with Aeacus and

Iamus in the Eighth and Sixth Olympians respectively are noteworthy. Both

episodes are projected into a very remote past when the worlds of mortals and

immortals were not yet separated. Thus Apollo predicts the fall of Troy at themoment of its first fortification and the mantic priesthood of the Iamids before

the institution of the Olympic games. It is also remarkable that whereas Poseidon

is present in both stories, the scenes each feature only Apollo speaking to amortal addressee of divine origin. The addressees are represented as the great

ancestors of the honorands whose athletic achievements constitute a

manifestation of excellence predicted in the very remote past. Finally, the clarity

of the gods speech receives special mention in both instances (sfa epaiw, O.8.46 / rtiepw patra ssa,O. 6.6162).

Pindar offers a very similar picture in his representations of Apollos

interaction with Tlepolemus in the Seventh Olympian and Battus the First in the

Fourth and Fifth Pythians, respectively ancestors of the celebrated boxer

Diagoras and of king Arcesilaus the Fourth. In the colonial narratives of Rhodes

and Cyrene Apollos oracles interlock with much earlier prophecies which they

are represented either as fulfilling or as complementing: Apollos oracle to Battus

62Stehle 160.

63Goldhill 155; see also 149.


28/67

L. ATHANASSAKI432

in the Fourth Pythian is said to fulfill Medeas prophecy in the seventeenthgeneration, whereas the gods response to Tlepolemus represents the final stage

in the foundation of Rhodes which began with Helios prediction of the

emergence of the island from the sea, when the gods apportioned the earth.64

The

colonization of Rhodes is already attested in the Catalogue of Ships, whereas

Herodotus provides variant accounts of the colonization of Cyrene. Comparison

of the Homeric and Herodotean accounts with the epinician representations of

Apollos role in both colonizations shows once again Pindars own touch.

The colonization of Rhodes first. In broad outline the Pindaric and the

Homeric accounts tell essentially the same story, namely Tlepolemus murder of

his maternal uncle Licymnius, his flight from home, the successful colonization

of Rhodes and Zeus favor towards the island, which is instantiated by the wealth

he poured over the Rhodians. The epinician version differs from the epic accounton several points, but the major departure from the epic tradition is Tlepolemus

visit to Delphi to consult Apollo (2737):

ka gr Alkmnaw kasgnhton nyonskpt yennsklhrw laaw ktanen T-

runyi Likmnion lynt k yalmvn Midawtsd pote xyonw ofiki-

str xolvyew. afl d frenn taraxaparplagjan ka sofn. mantesato d w yen lyn.

t mn xrusokmaw e-deow j dtou nan plonepe Lernaaw p ktw

eyn w mfiylasson nomn,nya pot brxe yen basilew mgaw

xrusaiw nifdessi plin,nx Afastou txnaisinxalkelt pelkei pa-

trow Ayanaa korufn kat krannorosais llajen permkei bo.

64For the effect of the retrogressive interlocking prophecies see Athanassaki 2003.


29/67


Thus once in Tiryns the founder of this land, filled with anger, struck witha staff of hard olive and killed Likymnios, Alcmenas bastard brother,

when he came from the chambers of Midea. Disturbances of mind lead

even a wise man astray. He went to the god to consult the oracle. From

within his sweet-smelling sanctuary the Golden-haired spoke of a

straightforward voyage from the shore of Lerna to a seagirt pasture land,

where once the great king of gods drenched the city with a golden snow-

storm, when by the skill of Hephaestus and with an axe forged of bronze

Athena leapt up from the top of her fathers head with a tremendous shout.

In addition to Apollo crucial role, the Pindaric version differs from the epic

account on the following points: (a) whereas Pindar attributes Tlepolemus act to

anger, the epic gives no motive; (b) Pindar does not mention fear as the reasonfor Tlepolemus departure; in contrast, fear of the other Heraclids provides the

motivation in the Iliad (pelhsan gr ofl lloi / uflew uflvno te bhwHraklehw, 665/6); (c) in the Seventh Olympian Apollo predicts a straight-forward voyage to Rhodes, whereas the Iliadic voyage includes wandering and

suffering (atr g w Rdon jen lmenow, lgea psxvn,667).65Whether Tlepolemus visit to Delphi is Pindars innovation,as Wilamo-

witz and other scholars have suggested, or an already established post-Homeric

tradition which the poet chose to follow is impossible to ascertain.66

The unmedi-

ated and smooth communication between Apollo and Tlepolemus in the Seventh

Olympian, however, follows the pattern we have seen in the Eighth and Sixth

Olympians and has therefore an unmistakable Pindaric ring. It is Apollo himself

who responds to Tlepolemus and predicts a straightforward voyage to Rhodes(nan plon . . . eyn). Unlike the epic version, there is no mention of wander-ing and suffering. Apollos prophecy of the colonization of Rhodes merges into

the earlier prophecy of Helios to his sons, which in turn leads to the sun gods

still earlier prediction of the birth of Rhodes. The regressive narrative does not

offer any further information concerning Tlepolemus colonial mission until its

end, where the success of the enterprise becomes manifest through the mention

of the periodic honors, which Tlepolemus receives as oecist after his death (77

80).

Diagoras, one of the most celebrated athletes of his age, acquired with

time a legendary status. According to the scholia, the Rhodians maintained that

65 For further differences between the two accounts see Young 8384.66

For Apollos prophecy as Pindars innovation see e.g. Wilamowitz 1922: 366;

Young 83; Defradas 1974; Dougherty 12325.


30/67

L. ATHANASSAKI434

he was a son of Hermes; there had been no other instance of father and sonswinning Olympic victories ever since Heracles founded the Olympic games; his

daughter Callipateira was the only woman who gained entrance to the Olympic

games when she said that she was the daughter, sister, mother, and aunt of

Olympic victors (inscr. a). Cicero reports a charming story: a Spartan seeing

Diagoras borne on the shoulders of his two victorious sons exclaimed: morere

Diagora, non enim in caelum ascensurus es (Tusc. Disp. 1.46.111). According to

Pausanias, Diagoras father Damagetus was a king in Ialysos (4.24.23). To

judge from Pindars impressive catalog of victories Diagoras must have been

already famous by 464, but this was probably too early for the legendary fame

that later sources reflect. Comparison of his later fame with Pindars praise,

however, shows that unlike later tradition, which focuses on the merits of

Diagoras and his progeny, Pindars strategy is to sing of Diagoras achievementsin the light of his illustrious ancestry.

67

The close association of Diagoras with the Heracleid Tlepolemus is

evident in the statements that preface and conclude the mythical narrative and

link it to the encomiastic hic et nunc. The second triad opens with the declaration

of the poetic intention to set forth for Diagoras and Damagetus, beginning with

Tlepolemus, the history they share as members of Herakles mighty race, in

William Races translation (yelsv tosin . . . p Tlapolmou / junn . . .diorysai lgon, / Hraklow erusyene gnna,2023). The mention of thegames in honor of Tlepolemus at the end of the long mythical narrative forms the

link for the transition to the praise of Diagoras (7780). In the impressive list of

Diagoras panhellenic and local victories that immediately follows, Pindar

mentions first his two victories at the Tlepolemeia, thus linking closely thehonorand and his remote ancestor (8081).

The list of Diagoras victories is followed by a prayer to Zeus Atabyriosto honor the celebratory performance and grant the victor the respect of his

fellow-citizens and xenoi, which concludes with an assertion of Diagoras

inherited excellence (9092):

pe briow xyrn dneyupore, sfa daew te ofl patrvn

rya frnew j gaynxreon.

67For the parallelism between Tlepolemus and Diagoras in terms of violence and

risk, common to colonization and athletics, see Dougherty 12628.


31/67


for he travels straight along a road that is hostile to hybris, havingclearly learned what right wits inherited from his noble forefathers

revealed to him.

But who are Diagoras wise ancestors that Pindar is thinking of at the conclusion

of the ode? On his mothers side Diagoras is an Amyntorid, but this is the only

mention of his maternal ancestry (2324). Of the Heraclids the poet has already

named three: his father Damagetus, who is said to please Dike (dnta Dk&,18), a certain Kallianax (93), who may have been singled out for mention on

account of his meaningful name, and his great ancestor Tlepolemus who atoned

for murder by his consultation and obedience to Apollos oracle. It is possible,

however, that at the conclusion of the ode the poet also enlists the glorious

Heliadae. I have argued elsewhere that the Seventh Olympian shows a cleartendency to mask colonial disruption through the fusion of Doric and pre-Doric

paston the narrative level.68

It is significant that the description of the honors,

which Tlepolemus receives after his death, immediately follows the account of

Helios progeny. If Pindar associates the Heliadae and Tlepolemus in linear

catalog fashion, in the case of Diagoras he resorts to close parallelism through

similar content and diction. Diagoras inherited wisdom clearly echoes the

inherited wisdom of the Heliadae.69

The seven sons of Helios and Rhodes are

said to have inherited the wisest counsels of all men (softata nomat pprotrvn ndrn paradejamnouw, 72). We have seen that Diagoras hasclearly learned what inherited wisdom has revealed to him (sfa daew te oflpatrvn rya frnew j gayn xreon,9192).Moreover, the choice of theverb xreon (92), which the scholiasts take in its oracular sense, i.e. xrhsm-doun, to denote the way Diagoras ancestors imparted their knowledge to theirdescendant, has a double effect: it echoes Helios prediction of the birth of

Athena to his sons and his advice to honor their future debt to the goddess (tte .. . Uperiondaw mllon nteilen fuljasyai xrow paisn floiw, 3941)and, simultaneously, evokes Apollos oracular response to Tlepolemus to sail to

Rhodes.

In the Seventh Olympian ancestral wisdom is affirmed, despite the

momentary more or less serious lapses which have, significantly, a divine

paradigm, for even the gods forgot to allot Helios his share of land (5861).

68 Athanassaki 2003: 10813.69

Gildersleeve 191 ad 91 noting the parallelism obseves: This is poetry for

hereditary good sense.


32/67

L. ATHANASSAKI436

Similarly, due to a momentary lapse of memory the Rhodians forget to bring firefor their sacrifice to Athena, but Zeus mends swiftly the situation by pouring

down upon them golden rain (4550). Tlepolemus lapse is far more serious, but

momentary and, for this reason, does not cancel out his wisdom. This is evident

from the gnome that qualifies the description of his deed: disturbances of mind

lead even a wise man astray (3031).

It is remarkable that even in a situation of clear personal responsibility,

Pindar does not represent Apollos oracle as the agent of retribution, but of

reparation. In this ode momentary lapse and reparation is a repeated pattern in the

mythical narrative. Apollos benevolent attitude to Tlepolemus closely parallels

Zeus and Athenas benevolence to the Heliadae despite their forgetfulness,

which in turn reflects Helios complacent attitude to the gods upon his return and

realization of their omission. Zeus proposition to cast the lots again shows thatthe omission was not intentional. Likewise, the forgetfulness of the Heliadae was

involuntary (4547):

p mn banei ti ka lyaw tkmarta nfow,ka parlkei pragmtvn ryn dnjv frenn.

Yet some cloud of forgetfulness comes over people, without warning, and

draws the right path of action out of their minds.

The similarity between the description of the state of mind of the Heliadae andthat of Tlepolemus is quite remarkable and argues in favor of the view that

several details of the Pindaric version suggest that the murder was involuntary.70

Yet Tlepolemus responsibility, underplayed though it is, may be the underlying

reason for Pindars decision to associate Diagoras ancestral wisdom with the

wisdom of the Heliadae.71

We can now turn to theFourth andFifth Pythians, where Apollo and his

oracle play a major role.72

Pindar and the Herodotus are our earliest sources for

70 Defradas 1974: 3943; Dougherty 12425.71

Kurke 1991: 201 suggests that in the treatment of the myth in this ode transformsall Rhodess children into a single symbolic oikos (6976).72

I will not discuss the variant version in the Ninth Pythian , because in this ode

Pindar reverses the roles and casts Chiron in the role of the prophet and Apollo in the role


33/67


the colonization of Cyrene and they both attribute a major role to the Delphicoracle.

73Yet in terms of the nature of communication between the divine and the

human archagete the epinician and the historical versions offer totally different

pictures. According to Herodotus the unsuccessful attempts and delays are

attributed to neglect and ignorance of the Apolline oracles and to the Pythias

unwillingness to provide any further information beyond her repeated command

for the colonization. In the Fourth and Fifth Pythians, on the other hand,

ignorance does not come into play at all thanks to Apollos presence and strong

support.

Herodotus provides two variant versions of the consultation of the

Delphic oracle. According to the Therans the Pythia commanded king Grinnus to

send a colony to Libya and he tried to delegate the undertaking to Battus on

account of his old age (4.150). Conversely the Cyreneans, in disagreement withthe Therans with regard to the recipient of the oracle, maintained that the Pythia

ordered Battus to colonize Libya on the occasion of his visit to Delphi to consult

the god about his stammer(4.155):

Btt, p fvnn lyew: naj d se Fobow Apllvnw Libhn pmpei mhlotrfon ofikistra,

Battus, you have come for your voice; but the lord Phoebus Apollo

sends you to Libya, nurse of flocks, to found a city.

Battus initial reaction is to point out to the Pythia his inability to undertake the

mission and to convince her to give him another response, but in vain (okpeiye lla ofl xrn, 4.155). When the Pythia repeated the same command,Battus left for Thera. Back on Thera things did not go well for either Battus or

the Therans. When they inquired of the god, the Pythia reiterated the command to

colonize Libya. This time, the Therans sent Battus off to Libya with some men,

but when they arrived they could not decide what to do and so they returned to

Thera. The Therans, however, did not let them put in, but ordered them to go

back. Forced to go back, they settled in Plataea, an island off the coast of Libya

(4.156). They stayed on the island for two years, but did not prosper,

Documents

apollo and his oracle