The Dating of Pindaric Odes by Comparison POHLSANDER, HANS A Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1963; 4, 3; ProQuest pg. 131 The Dating of Pindaric Odes by Comparison Hans A. Pohlsander W HENEVER the lack of external evidence forces scholars to search for internal evidence of chronology, as is so often the case, caution must restrain imagination and enthusi­ asm. In the case of Pin dar's Odes we are fortunate to have considerable external evidence for the dating of Olympians and Pythians. This, alas, is not true of Nemeans and Isthmians, where we depend entirely on internal evidence, often of an elusive nature. I wish to examine here one type of internal evidence that has at times been adduced to estab­ lish a date for a Nemean or Isthmian ode: the comparison of similarities in diction or thought. The difficulties of this approach to Pindaric chronology are several: 1. Since only a portion of Pindar's poems are extant, internal evi­ dence of this type is necessarily incomplete. How can we be sure that a given expression, now found in only two odes and eagerly seized upon as a revealing clue, did not occur repeatedly in those poems now lost to us? 2. When a parallel has been found it may not always be possible to distinguish between coincidental similarity, unconscious borrowing, and conscious borrowing. 3. In most cases we lack clear criteria to decide which of two paral­ lels is the original, which the copy. 4. If we have succeeded in determining the original and if the date of the original is known, we still have only a terminus post quem for the copy, because we cannot be certain that the borrowing occurred im­ mediately. If the date of the copy is known, we only have a terminus ante quem for the original. It is no wonder, then, that this approach has led to widely varying results. Nevertheless some dates arrived at by this method have found their way into standard editions and commentaries. This essay will seek to demonstrate that the commonly accepted date of Nemean 3 131 132 THE DATING OF PINDARIC ODES BY COMPARISON cannot be secure, and that similar attempts to date such other odes as Nemean 11 and Isthmian 4 from parallels have failed. The Date of Nemean J Let us examine first Nem. 3, which was written in honor of Aristo­ cleides of Aegina, winner in the pancration. Two facts are well known: the conquest of Aegina by Athens in 458 B.C. and the poet's fondness for Aegina. Yet nowhere in the ode does Pindar give us any indication of the disaster that has befallen his beloved "Doric island of Aegina, thronged with strangers" (11. 2-3). Pyth. 8, which was written in 446 B.C., if we may trust the scholiast, and is thus the latest among Pindar's dated extant odes, is also for an Aeginetan victor. In this ode, especially in its concluding prayer (11. 98-100), the poet expresses his hope that somehow the island will regain its former freedom: l "Aegina, dear mother, guide this ciry on freedom's course by the aid of Zeus, king Aeacus, Peleus, goodly Telamon, and Achilles." Nem. 3, significantly, does not express a similar sentiment and therefore, it is commonly agreed, cannot have been composed after 458 B.C. Leopold Schmidt2 attempted to link Nem. 3 with Pyth. 3 by pointing to a similarity in thought and dated both poems to OL. 76,2= 475 B.C. The date of Pyth. 3 is, however, not by any means firmly estab­ lished, and we may safely say only that it was composed while Hieron was king of Syracuse (478-467 B.C.). Because of a reference to the king's health (1. 73), the later years of his rule seem more likely than the earlier years; Pyth. 1 of 470 B.C. also informs us of Hieron's ill health (11. 50-57). Richmond Lattimore3 feels that Pyth. 3 "reads like a letter of farewell" and suggests 468 B.C. as a possible date. More to the point of the present investigation, the similarity in thought supposedly linking the two odes does not seem to make necessary the assumption of a common date or even of borrowing. The similarity, according to Schmidt,4 is this: In Pyth. 3 Pindar aims "to lead the thoughts of Hieron from the non-attainable to the attainable" and counsels him "to be content with the fulfillment of only a part of his desires." In Nem. 3 Pindar advises Aristocleides "to reach only for those things that are according to his own nature and 1 In this interpretation I am following John H. Finley, Jr, Pindar and Aeschylus (Cambridge [Mass.] 1955) 168. 2 Pindar's Leben und Dichtung (Bonn 1862) 464-465. 3 The Odes of Pindar (Chicago 1947) 154. , Loc.cit. HANS A. POHLSANDER 133 way oflife." We may say that the common theme is moderation, awcPPo­ aVV7}. But Pindar occupies himself with this theme also in 01. 13 and voices similar warningsinNem.11.47-48,Isthm. 7.43-48, and elsewhere. At the same time Schmidt believed that he had found further evi­ dence for his chronology in verbal parallels between Nem. 3 on one hand and Pyth. 2, al. 2, al. 3, and Pyth. 3 on the other. This approach to Pindaric chronology was more fully explored by another scholar, to wl,lom we shall turn presently. Wilhelm von Chri:t5 called attention to several points of resem­ blance between Nem. 3 and the "Sicilian Odes", i.e. Ol. 1, 2, 3, Pyth. 2, and Nem. 9, and concluded that Nem. 3 must have been written at a time later than these, namely in 469. I repeat here Christ's list: 6 1. Nem. 3.21-22: oUK'n 7TPOT'PW / a{3(l-rav uAa KLOVWV {mEp rHpaKA'os A , I 7T€paV €VfUXP€S. Ol. 3.43-45: €iJljpwv apETataLV !,Kavwv u7TTETaL / OLKO()EV rHpaKMos / aTaAav' T() 7Topaw 0' ean aoc/>ots a{3aTov / Kaa0EVVOS av~p aAAoT' aAAa 7TV'WV OU 7TOT' aTp€Kt,; / KaT'{3a 7TooL Ibid. 80-82: ean 0' al€TOS 6JKVS ev 7ToTaVOtS, / os eAa{3€V alt/Ja, TT)Ao8€ I ~.J..'" I / I~' \' " /-LETa/-Lato/-L€vos, oa'f'Otvov aypav 7TOULV' KpaYETat OE KO/\Otot Ta7TEtVa V€/-LoVTat. 01. 2.86-88: ao TO~OV ayE, ()V/-L" T{va {3aAAO/-LEV I EK \() A l' .J.. ' , \ I ,.. ,r I /-La/\ aKaS aVTE 'f'pEVOS €VKI\EaS OLU'TOVS LEVTES; 5. Nem. 3.76: TWV OVK rX7TeaaL' XatpE, c/>lAOS. 7 Pyth. 2.65-67: {3ovAaL DE 7Tpea{3vn=pat / ••. uE 7TOTL 7TCXVTa ,\oyov / E7TaLV€tV 7Tap'xovn' XatpE. 6. Nem. 3.83-84: aE(}A0vlj. KpaTLUTOV a7Tav' 7ToAAot OE 8LSaKTa~~ I av- f) ' , A \' I" , '() I" ~\ f} A 'I pW7TWV apETaL~ KI\EO~ wpovuav apEU aL' aVEV 01£ EOV uEuLyaJ.LEVOV , , _'1'1 OV UKaLOTEpoV XP'YJJ.L EKaUTOV' Oi. 13.13: cxpaxov O€ KpVt/;aL TO avYYEVE~ .ry(J0~. 9 Pindari Carmina (Leipzig 1896) 249. 10 Essai de chronologie Pindarique (Brussels 1900) 104-107. 11 Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 276. 12 Pindare, TIP: Nbneennes (Paris 1958) 39. 13 The Works ofPindar, TI (London 1932) 254. 14 Pindari Carmina (Oxford 1952) 153. 15 Pindari Carmina, J3 (Leipzig 1959) 128. 16 All citations are from C. M. Bowra's OCT, 2nd ed. HANS A. POHLSANDER 135 Pyth. 8.44-45: cPVCf. T6 YEVVCXLOV E7TL7TPE7TE£ / EK 7TCXTEPWV 7TatUt Af}fLcx. Since al. 9 was written about 466 B.C., al. 13 in 464, and Pyth. 8, as mentioned above, probably in 446, we must either dismiss the idea of borrowing or allow for its occurrence over as many as thirty years. In either case we can say nothing about the date of Nem. 3. The simile of the crows and the eagle, which made Christ link Nem. 3.80-82 with al. 2.86-88, is not at all peculiar to Pin dar but is found in similar form in Greek literature both before and after Pin­ dar, namely in Homer (ll. 16.582f and 17.755ff), Sophocles (Aj. 167- 171), and Theocritus (7.47f). In comparisons 4, 5 and 6, no longer gnomic, the similarity is much less pronounced. My own examination of Nem. 3 has yielded some additional words or phrases which might be thought to have been taken from the CXTOV 7TaAcxlcPCXTOS is found elsewhere in Pindar only in Nem. 2.16 and ibid. 6.31. 5. Nem. 3.41: aTp€K€L I ... 7TOO{ 01. 3.12: aTp€K~S '>'CXVOOLKCX!) aTp€~s elsewhere in Pindar is limited to Nem. 5.17 and Pyth. 8.7. 6. Nem. 3.44: BcxfLtva 01. 1.53: BcxfL£va Pindar normally uses BcxfLa. 7. Nem. 3.84: N€fLECXS 'EmocxvpoB€v T' a7To KCXt MEyapwv O€OOPKEV c/>ao!). This resembles not only Ol. 1.93-95 (see above), but also Nem. 9.41-42: 8E8oPKEV / 7TCXt8l. TovB'