The Performance of Pindar. "Pythian" 8.55-70 Floyd, Edwin D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1965; 6, 3; ProQuest pg. 187 The Performance of Pindar, Pythian 8.55-70 Edwin D. Floyd PYTHIAN 8, one of Pindar's last poems, celebrates the victory of the Aiginetan youth Aristomenes in the wrestling contest at Delphi.1 The myth in this poem, uniquely in Pindar's odes for victors from Aigina, does not deal with Aiakos and the other local Aiginetan heroes. Rather, it is the story of the Bpigonoi, told in the form of a prophecy delivered by the seer Amphiaraos. In this pro­ phecy, which is presented in Pyth. 8 as a direct quotation, Amphiaraos foretells the success of Adrastos and his army in their attack on Thebes, and in lines 45-47 he mentions especially his own son Alk­ maion, "foremost in the gates of Kadmos, wielding the spotted dragon upon his shining shield."2 Then, just after Amphiaraos' prophecy, there occurs a first person passage, in which the speaker says that he too honors Alkmaion, who is his neighbor and the guardian of his possessions (lines 55-60): - I TOLaUTa J.LEV • J..O' l:. "A J.. I I ~ \ \ ., E'f' EysaT J.L'f'Lap7JO~. xaLpwv DE Kat aUTo~ 'A\ - J.. 1 f3 '\ \ • 1 ~ \ \., IlKJ.Lava UTt::.,.,aVOtUt a/l/lw. paww DE Kat UJ.Lvcp, '" \ 1 .J.. 1\ t ' -yELTWV on J.L0£ Kat KTEavwv .,.,ulla~ EJ.LWV • I , I -. .J.. " , , I~ V7TavTauo Lovn ya~ 0fJ-.,.,allov 1Tap aOtoLfJ-0V. I , ".J...' .. /, I I J.LavTEUJ.LaTWV T E.,.,a.,.,aTo auYYOVOLUL TE:XvaL~. «Such things said Amphiaraos; and even I, rejoicing, throw crowns about Alkmaion, and drench him with song, because 1 This article incorporates material from my unpublished doctoral dissertation ("Pin­ daric Persona: The Roles of Chorus and Koryphaios in the Epinikia," Princeton, 1964; cf. abstract in DA 25 [1965] p. 7252). I should like to thank all who have helped me in my work on Pindar. I am especially grateful to my dissertation adviser, A. E. Raubitschek, now of Stanford University, to whose suggestions [his article owes much. Of course, I alone am to be held responsible for the specific interpretations which are presented here. S The translations from Pindar in chis article are my own. The texts which I have followed are B. Snell's Teubner text (Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis, pt. 1 [Leipzig 1959]) and, for the scholia, A. B. Drachmann's edition (Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina, 3 vols. [Leipzig 1903-1927]). 187 188 THE PERFORMANCE OF PINDAR, PYTHIAN 8.55-70 as my neighbour, and the guardian of my possessions, he met me going to the renowned navel of earth, and applied him­ self to in-born arts of prophecy." The general interpretation of these lines is not difficult. There must have been, it would seem, a shrine of the hero Alkmaion near the speaker's dwelling-place; furthermore, on a journey to Delphi, Alkmaion somehow appeared to him and made a prophecy. So much seems clear. There is, however, some question as to the identity of the speaker. According to the view generally accepted by modem scholars, he is Pindar, since the first person in the Epinikia must always refer to the poet himself.s Some scholars, however, have held that the first person reference in this passage must be to the chorus rather than to Pindar.4 Finally, if we tum from modern dis­ cussions to an examination of the ancient scholia, we find still a third explanation, that this passage is sung in the person of the victor Aristomenes. In this article, I wish to consider primarily the last of the interpre­ tations enumerated above. The most ancient of the three, it is stated most clearly in scholion 78a to Pyth. 8: To£tXOTa p.~v ~c/>(}ly~aT' 'Ap.c/>lapTJos· ws &11'0 TOO xopoO TO 11'POUW7TOV p.Lp.ovp.lvov TOO VEVLKTJKOTOS. Tawa 8~ " f f , f, \ - ....,.. A.' , I ELpTJKEV WS V1TapxoVTOs TJPCfJOV KaL YELTVLWVTOS TTl TOV VLKTJo.y0POV OLKL~. '() ~\ rt , f I " '\ ,..... , ..... 11'POUV11'OTL ETaL OE OTt KaL V1rTJVTTJUE 11'0pEVOP.EVCP ELS TOV aywva KaL T'Y}S , ',1.. '.1. '" '" , , ,1..' t' , t" , ., p.CXVTELas Eo.yTJo.yaTO Ka, aVTOS WV p.aVTLS. Ep.o.yaLVEL OE OLa TOVTWV. OTt " " ..... , , ..... EyEyOVEt TtS p.aVTELa 11'EP' T'Y}S VLKTJS aVTOV. In addition to this scholion, there are four other ancient comments a For the view that Pindar is the speaker in Pyth. 8.55fT, see especially A. Boeckh, Pindari Opera I1.2 (Leipzig 1811-1821) 314; U. von Wilamowitz-MoellendorfI, Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 441; L. R. Farnell, The Works of Pindar II (London 1930-1932) 195-196; R. W. B. Burton, Pindar's Pythian Odes (Oxford 1962) 182-183. Cf. M. R. Lefkowitz, "Tw Kal ~c:..: The First Person in Pindar," HSCP 67 (1963) 232-233. Most modem scholars believe that it was a convention of the epinikion form that the chorus should sing throughout each poem in the person of the poet. For a general discussion of this convention, see A. Croiset, La p~sie de Pindare (Paris 1895) 99-101; W. Christ, Pindari Cannina (Leipzig 1896) xcvii; E. Reisch, s.v. CHOR, RE III (1899) cols. 2377-2378; W. Schmid and O. Stahlin, Geschichteder griechfschen Literatur 1.1 (Munich 1929) 456-457 and 576; and Lefkowitz, op.cit. 225-237. , For the view that the chorus is the speaker in Pyth. 855ff, see F. Studniczka, Kyrene, eine altgriechische GoUin (Leipzig 1890) 79; I. Mueller, Quomodo Pindaru.s chor! persona 1($1($ sit (Darmstadt 1914) 40-41; F. Domseiff, Pindars StU (Berlin 1921) 84; E. Thummer, Die Religiosititt Pindars (Innsbruck 1957) 32; E. L. Bundy, Studia Pindarica II [Univ. of Cal. Publ. in Classical Philology 18.2] (Berkeley 1962) 69-70 (esp. n.84). Cf. H. Frankel, Dichtung und Philosophie des fruhen Griechentums (Munich 1962) 485 n.2; Frankel regards another passage in Pyth. 8, line 98, as a specifically choral passage, but he does not mention lines 55ff in this connection. EDWIN D. FLOYD 189 on this passage, viZ. scholia 78b, 82, 83a, and 83b. Two of these, scholia 78b and 83b, do not contain any specific interpretation concerning the speaker or manner of performance. Scholion 82, however, connects the passage with Aristomenes in a way which indicates that he should be regarded as the speaker: Y€{TWV OTt ~ 'A I , I I~ 'A \ I • ~ " ~ , , p,Ot' TTl p£aT0f.1.EVov~ OtKtq. 7TapwpVTo I\Kf.1.aovo~ TJPc.pOV. LGW~ uE KaL '" ,.... I I '" \ ,..... , '(J " I TTl aVTOV f.1.aVTEUf XPTJGap,EVO~ E7Tt TOV aywva E7TOPEV TJ Kat EvtKTJGEV. Scholion 83a, on the other hand, explains why the ChOlUS sings the first person passage in line 58; according to this scholion, this is appropriate, because the chorus is composed of Aiginetans: KTEeXvwv c/>vAa~ Ep,WV' E7TE~ 0' cbo TOU xopou AlywTjTa{ ElGLV. Scholia 82 and 83a therefore both indicate the same sort of explanation as is given by scholion 78a, and though they are less detailed, they are fully consistent with the explanation presented there. In particular, it is noteworthy that there is nothing in any of the ancient comments which would support the view that the speaker in lines 55iI is Pindar himself. Yet, despite the unanimity of the Scholiasts on this point, most modern scholars have rejected their interpretation. The principal reason for this is the fact that one other passage in Pyth. 8 appears to contain first person statements which must refer to Pindar rather than to the chorus or the victor. This passage (lines 29-34) runs as follows: , , ~,,, \ '(J I Hp,L 0 aGXOl\oS' ava Ef.1.EV - I 7TaGaV p,aKpayopLav Avpq. TE Kat. c/>(JI.yp,aTt p,aA(JaKip, \, '\(J , , , ~, , , , f.1.TJ KOP0S' EI\ WV KV£aT]. TO 0 EV 7TOCTL p,o£ TpaXoJ/ ., , , l' ... I \ ..... LTW TEOV XpEOS', W 7TaL, VEWTaTOV Kal\WV. EP,ij. 7TOTaVQV &p,cf>'i p,axavij.. "But I am without leisure to dedicate prolixity of telling to the lyre and soft voice, lest satiety, coming, chafe. But, 0 child, let the task at my feet, the newest of fair accomplish­ ments, run winged by my art." The analysis of these lines as containing statements appropriate only to Pindar is undoubtedly correct. Only the poet could refer to himself as dedicating the victor's accomplishments to the lyre. and only he 190 THE PERFORMANCE OF PINDAR, PITHIAN 8.55-70 could properly speak of giving the victor wings through his art.5 There is no sufficient reason, however, why such a first person state­ ment in lines 29-34 should preclude the scholiasts' interpretation of lines 55ff, although modern scholars have thought so. This belief that the first person reference must remain the same throughout Pyth. 8 does, to be sure, seem reasonable. In particular, it would appear that without a consistent reference of the first person, the audience which heard the poem could never be sure whether the poet or the chorus or the victor should be regarded as the speaker at any particular point. Nevertheless, there is one way of explaining Pyth. 8 in terms of a shifting first person reference without any resulting lack of clarity. This manner of explanation (at least for the Epinikia in general, though not specifically for Pyth. 8) has now been known for nearly a century and a half, for it was presented in detail by Friedrich Thiersch in his edition of Pin dar in 1820. According to Thiersch, there was a division of parts in the performance of Pindar's poems, with some passages being sung by the entire chorus, some by a portion of the chorus, and some by the chorus-leader alone. Such a division in the pelformance is a natural and effective way of achieving variety, and is quite likely to have existed in Greek choral poetry. Furthermore, it may in some instances have been important for understanding the poet's meaning. According to Thiersch, Pindar used solo parts for passages in whi,h he speaks speafically in his own person, and choral parts for specific first person statements by the chorus.6 For the performance of G For the interpretation of lines 29-34 as a statement specifically by Pin dar, see Boeckh (supra n.3) II.2, 314; and Wilamowitz (supra n.3) 441. (Boeckh, besides pointing out the first person reference to Pindar in lines 29fT, also mentions the fact that the victor is ad­ dressed or referred to in the second person in lines 33ff, 38, and 78ff, and that in line 72, the second person plural form VJLE'r/paLS is used to refer to the victor's father Xenarkes.) IF. Thiersch, Pindarus Werke (Leipzig 1820) vol. I, "Einleitung in die pindarischen Gesange." pp. 143-151. (In vol. I, there are two sets of page numbers: 1-166 in the intro­ duction, and 1-343 in the commentary on the Olympian and Pythian Odes, which is contained in the same volume.) In his discussion. Thiersch considers six passages as illustrations of a division of parts or of a choral first person: Pyth. 1.1-5; Pyth. 11 (entire poem); Nem. 1.19-24; Nem. 7.85; Pyth. 9.97-103; and Pyth. 5.72ff. In general. Thiersch's discussion of these passages is somewhat cursory, and his first two examples seem to me to be ill-chosen. In the case of Pyth. 1.1-5, Thiersch's division between speakers is based on A. Kircher's musical notation, which may well not go back to Pindar himself; in his second example, Pyth. 11. Thiersch's analysiS is purely hypothetical, and is not based on any definite evidence either from the scholia or from within the poem itself. Possibly because of his own somewhat inadequate treatment of his material, Thiersch's work has not had the effect on subsequent scholars it deserves. In a fairly extensive search through Pindaric scholarship, I have found only eight references to Thiersch's work in this regard: Boeckh (supra n.3) II.2, 10-11; EDWIN D. FLOYD 191 some of the poems, the chorus-leader or koryphaios may have been Pin dar himself. In such instances, it would be most natural for him to sing in his own person in solo rOles, while the sections sung by the entire chorus would appropriately refer to all of the chorus-members and not just the poet alone. Often, though, Pindar would be unable to be present for the performance, or would choose not to lead the chorus in person. In these cases it would be an easily understood convention for the koryphaios to sing in the person of the poet, since the effect of an individual singing for the poet would be much more natural than that of the entire chorus singing for him. There are several otherwise difficult passages in Pin dar' s poems which may be easily explained in terms of such a division of parts between chorus and koryphaios. To cite just one example, the famous crux in Pyth. 5.72ff suggests such a manner of performance. In this passage, the speaker refers to his ancestors as the Aigeidai, who founded Cyrene. This would more naturally be spoken by the Cyrenaean chorus than by Pindar, but the conclusion of most scholars has nevertheless been that this first person statement must refer to the poet, since Pyth. 5 contains other first person references which must certainly be to him rather than to the chorus. According to Thiersch, however, a division of parts would make it possible for the first person in Pyth. 5.nff to be unambiguously choral in reference, i.e. these lines would be sung by the entire chorus, while the passages Tycho Mommsen, Pindaros: Zur Geschichte des Dichters und der Parteikiimpfe seiner Zeit (KielI845) 10; G. Hermann, "Ueber die Aegiden, von denen Pindar abstammte," Opuscu/a VIII (Leipzig 1877) 94; Studniczka (supra n.4) 78; Croiset (supra n.3) 92 n.l; Mueller (supra n.4) 7; Wilamowitz (supra n.3) 7; Lefkowitz (supra n.3) 252 n.1l7. Of these, only Boeckh's discussion (in the introduction to his commentary) is at all favorable to the idea of any alternation of speakers in the Epinikia; however, in his discussion of individual poems in his commentary, Boeckh nowhere accepts this interpretation. Otherwise, this idea has simply been rejected by subsequent scholars, without any adequate discussion. Mommsen refers only to the relatively limited discussion of Pytlt. 5.72ff which Thiersch makes in his commentary, and he does not mention the much fuller account of his views which Thiersch presents in his introduction. Hermann, Studniczka, Croiset, Mueller, and Wilamowitz all dismiss Thiersch's work in no more than a sentence or two. Likewise, Lefkowitz, p. 252, makes merely passing mention of Thiersch, and she does not discuss in detail his views concerning the performance of the Epinikia. Elsewhere in her article, pp. 183-195, she discusses at some length the possibility of there being more than one speaker in anyone poem, but she does not mention Thiersch there. I believe that Thiersch's work is basically sound, however, and in this article I hope to show that his ideas concerning [he perfor­ mance of [he Epinikia deserve fllller consideration than they have yet received. 2-C.R.B.S. 192 THE PERFORMANCE OF PINDAR, PYTHIAN 8.55-70 in which Pindar speaks in his own person would be sung by a solo voice.? Thiersch does not discuss Pyth. 8 in connection with his theory of the performance of the Epinikia.8 This seems somewhat surprising, since the scholiasts present more extensive evidence for a division of parts in this poem than for any other.9 It should be noted, however, that scholion 78a interprets lines 55ff as being sung by the chorus, not in their own person but «imitating the person of the victor." Since Thiersch's emphasis throughout his discussion is on specifically choral first person passages, he may for this reason have disregarded the idea of any first person reference to the victor. Also, he may have felt that the explanation given in scholion 78a is improbable, since the other scholia to Pindar do not contain any exact parallel for the chorus' singing in the person of the victor. Yet, although scholion 78a to Pyth. 8 is not specifically paralleled elsewhere, I believe that it provides some of the clearest evidence available for interpreting any of Pin dar's poems in terms of a division of parts between chorus and koryphaios. In this scholion we may distinguish two quite separate elements in the explanation which is given for lines 55-60 of the poem: (1) the passage is «-7T0 ToD xopoD, which must mean that it is sung by the chorus, and (2) the chorus is not singing in its own person, but is here imitating the person of the victor. This particular combination of ideas would be unnecessarily complicated unless the scholiast had some specific reason for men­ tioning the choral performance of the passage. If the entire poem were sung by the chorus, he could more simply have identified lines 55ff 7 Thiersch (supra n.6), "Einleitung ... ," pp. 149-151. Cf. Thiersch, I, commentary. pp. 260-262. Nearly every scholar, in commenting on this passage (Pyth. 5.72£1), has raised the question of a possible first person reference to the chorus, but most have rejected this possibility; see Wilamowitz (supra n.3), 479; Farnell (supra n.3) II, 177-179; Lefkowitz (supra n.3) 177-178; Burton (supra n.3) 146-147. On the other hand, for a concise and force­ ful statement of the reasons for taking the chorus as the speaker in this passage. see Frankel (supra n.4) 485 n.2; Frankel, however. does not discuss Pyth. 5 in terms of a specific division of parts between choral and solo sections. 8 In fact, Thiersch (supra n.6) I, commentary, pp. 288-289, specifically refers the first person forms in Pyth. 8.55ff to Pindar. 8 There are three scholia to Pyth. 8 (78a, 99a, and 14Oc) indicating a first person reference which is not to Pindar. For one other poem, Pyth. 9, there are similarly three scholia indi­ cating a reference to the victor or the chorus (156b, 161, and 172). However, the evidence from the scholia for a specific division of parts seems to me to be much clearer in the case of Pyth. 8 than in the case of Pyth. 9. Besides these two poems, the other scholia references to a choral first person or to specifically choral presentation are as follows: Of. 8.66; Pydl. 2.6b, 5.96a, 6.1a, Ie; Nem. 1.29a, 7.123a, 9.1a, Isth. 7.51a. Cf. 1sth. 7, scholion 55b, which refers a first person passage to the victor. EDWIN D. FLOYD 193 as being in the person of the victor, without any specific mention of the chorus. Emphasis on the choral performance of lines 55if may easily be explained, however, if the scholiast wished to contrast this passage with some other section or sections of the poem in which the performance was not by the chorus. Such other sections in the poem could scarcely be anything except passages sung by a part of the chorus or by a solo voice rather than by the entire chorus. An interpretation of Pyth. 8 in terms of a division between choral and solo performance is also indicated by two other scholia, 95a and 99a. In scholion 95a the prayer to Apollo in lines 67-69 is interpreted as a request to watch over whatever the speaker writes: €K6vTL 0' " , \ ~\ .,. "A \\ " 'A.. - ., ~ EUXofLaL VoltJ· ClOt OE. W 1TOI\I\OV. EUXoJ.LaL E'f'opav ClE EKaClTOV TWV , PI , f , ., \ 'A.. H h 1TOtTJJ.LaTWV. OCla KaTa TLva apJ.Lovtav E1TEpxoJ.Lat Kat 'Ypa'f'W' ere t e reference to the speaker's poems clearly indicates that the scholiast regarded the first person as referring to the poet Pindar rather than to the chorus. In scholion 99a, on the other hand, there is an equally clear first person reference to the chorus: KWJ.L.a p.cXTIEP indicates a distinctively choral passage, see Studniczka (supra n.4) 79; Mueller (supra n.4) 37; and Frankel (supra n.4) 485 n.2. On the other hand, cf Dornseiff (supra n.4) 83, who holds that there may be an intentional ambiguity in the first person reference in this passage; and H. Gundert, Pindar und sein Dichterberuf (Frankfurt-am-Main 1935) 33, who holds that although Pin dar here identifies himself with the chorus, the first person reference is still basically to him, rather than to the chorus.