Massetti ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 ISSN 2159-3159 Article copyright held by the author(s) and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Pindar, Perseus, and the θρῆνος πουλυκάρηνος in Nonnus of Panopolis Laura Massetti NTERTEXTUAL INVESTIGATIONS on Nonnus’ Dionysiaca have led to great satisfaction.1 Not only is Nonnus’ ‘Late- Greek baroque’ poetry2 consciously presented as variegated in nature from the very start of the Dionysiaca,3 but his phraseol- ogy also draws from different literary genres.4 Among others, 1 See e.g. M. Paschalis, “Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos,” in K. Spanoudakis (ed.), Nonnus of Panopolis in Context (Berlin 2014) 97– 122; D. Gigli Piccardi, “Nonnus and Pindar,” in H. Bannert et al. (eds.), Nonnus of Panopolis in Context II (Leiden 2018) 255–270; S. Bär et al. (eds.), Narrative, Narratology and Intertextuality: New Perspectives on Greek Epic from Homer to Nonnus (London 2019). 2 On the concept of ‘Late-Greek baroque’ see G. Braden, The Classics and English Renaissance Poetry (New Haven 1978) 55–78, and the seminal study of G. D’Ippolito, Studi nonniani. L’epillio nelle Dionisiache (Palermo 1987). 3 Dion. 1.13–15 Μοῦσαι στήσατέ µοι Πρωτῆα πολύτροπον, ὄφρα φανείη ποι- κίλον εἶδος ἔχων, ὅτι ποικίλον ὕµνον ἀράσσω, “Muses, put on my side Proteus of many turns, so that he may appear with a variegated aspect, since I strike (on my harp) a variegated hymn.” As showcased by Gigli Piccardi, in Nonnus and Pindar 258–259, the collocation ποικίλον ὕµνον is Pindaric (Ol. 6.87, Nem. 5.42). As a further comparandum cf. Ol. 3.4–9 Μοῖσα δ᾽ οὕτω ποι παρέστα µοι νεοσίγαλον εὑρόντι τρόπον […] φόρµιγγά τε ποικιλόγαρυν καὶ βοὰν αὐλῶν ἐπέων τε θέσιν […] συµµῖξαι, “Muse, so stand by me as I invent a brand new song [… it is my due] to mix the phorminx of variegated voice, the sound of the auloi and the arrangement of words.” 4 Cf. A. M. Lasek, “Nonnus and the Play of Genres,” in D. Accorinti (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Nonnus of Panopolis (Leiden 2016) 402–421, who shows how some passages of Nonnus draw from bucolic, epigrammatic, and I LAURA MASSETTI 301 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 Pindar is one of Nonnus’ models.5 The supreme lyric poet makes an appearance in the proem of Dion. 25, the content of which can be summed up as follows.6 The Muse-Maenad is invoked to sing the war of Dionysus in India (25.1–6). However, the poet will “make his pattern like Homer’s” (8 τελέσας δὲ τύπον µιµηλὸν Ὁµήρου) and only focus on the last year of the conflict (9 ὕστατον ὑµνήσω πολέµων ἔτος). He will also mix his song with Thebes (11 Θήβῃ δ᾿ ἑπταπύλῳ κεράσω µέλος). After a brief mention of two well-known Theban myths (11–14 Pentheus, 15–17 Oedipus), the city is identified as the homeland of Pindar (18–21): Ἀονίης ἀίω κιθάρης κτύπον· εἴπατε, Μοῦσαι, τίς πάλιν Ἀµφίων λίθον ἄπνοον εἰς δρόµον ἕλκει; οἶδα, πόθεν κτύπος οὗτος· ἀειδοµένῃ τάχα Θήβῃ Πινδαρέης φόρµιγγος ἐπέκτυπε Δώριος ἠχώ. I hear the twang of the Aonian lyre. Tell me, Muses, what Amphion is pulling dead stones to a run anew? I know where that sound comes from: surely it is the Dorian tune of Pindar’s lyre for Thebes celebrated in song.7 ___ hymnic poetry. According to her analysis, Nonnus’ epic responds to “in- tentional compositional strategy” subordinated to the principles of poikilia or diversity, as “Nonnus shapes his text so as to evoke in the reader associa- tions with traditional literary genres” (404), depending on the degree of education of the reader. 5 For reasons of space and convenience, I limit my analysis to a selection of passages in which the Dionysiaca draws on Pindar. Pindaric intertextual references have been identified in other late antique authors, such as Tri- phiodorus, cf. Cannatà Fera, “Pindaro in Trifiodoro,” in F. Benedetti et al. (eds.), Studi di filologia e tradizione greca in memoria di Aristide Colonna I (Perugia 2003) 193–198. 6 Editions used: F. Vian, Nonnos de Panopolis, Les Dionysiaques IX (Paris 1990); B. Simon, Nonnos de Panopolis, Les Dionysiaques XIV (Paris 1999); B. Snell and H. Maehler, Pindari Carmina cum fragmentis (Leipzig 1987). 7 Transl. W. H. D. Rouse, Nonnos. Dionysiaca (Cambridge [Mass. 1940]), slightly modified. The same mythological tradition on Thebes’ foundation is referred to in Dion. 25.413–428, in the description of the shield of Dionysus, 302 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 In reiterating his intention to celebrate Dionysus’ deeds in India (22–30), Nonnus argues that the accomplishments of the god are unrivaled. Neither the deeds of Perseus (31–147) nor those of Minos (148–173) or Heracles (174–252) can stand comparison. At 253 the poet refuses to compare Dionysus to the heroes of the Trojan war. A second address to the Muse (264–270) shifts the focus to the Indian conflict, the narration of which occupies 271–572 of Dion. 25 and further extends up to 40.250, intercalated by the epyllia of Morrheus and Chal- comede (33.35–222), and Phaethon (38.108–434).8 Given this set of subject(s), the short evocation of Pindar at Dion. 25.18–21 is enigmatic to modern readers. In this paper, I argue that the missing link between Pindar and the topic of the Dionysiaca is his association with elements of the Perseus myth: (i) Episodes from the saga of Perseus are a prelude to the ac- count of Dionysus’ Indian war (25.31–147). As some of these subjects were treated in Pindar’s victory odes and dithyrambs, it is possible to recognize thematic and phraseological Pin- daric echoes in Nonnus’ text. (ii) The aition of the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος (40.224–233) was con- nected to Perseus’ battle against the Gorgons and relies upon a Pindaric model (Pyth. 12). Specifically, in Dion. 40 the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος is performed to honor the dead of Dionysus’ army, right after the paean of victory. The θρῆνος πολυκάρη- νος thus entails a ‘memorial’ and a celebrative dimension. Ac- cording to Pyth. 12.6–24, Athena invented the “tune of many heads” by imitating the lament of the Gorgons over Medusa. However, the same νόµος is also said to be a µναστὴρ ἀγώνων (24). The use of the term µναστήρ opens to a variety of inter- ___ on which see K. Spanoudakis, “The Shield of Salvation: Dionysus’ Shield in Nonnus Dionysiaca 25.380–572,” in Nonnus of Panopolis in Context 333–371. 8 On the epyllia in the Dionysiaca cf. D’Ippolito, Studi nonniani, and G. Agosti, “L’epillio nelle Dionisiache? Strutture dell’epica nonniana e contesto culturale,” Aitia 6 (2016): https://journals.openedition.org/aitia/1579?lang= it#text (last accessed 14 Feb. 2023). LAURA MASSETTI 303 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 pretative scenarios. Identifying a ‘celebrative’ component in the Pindaric νόµος κεφαλᾶν πολλᾶν ultimately depends on how one interprets Pindar’s text (see §3 for my proposal). I begin by recapitulating the structure of the synkrisis between Perseus and Dionysus in Dion. 25 (§1); I focus on the identifica- tion of possible Pindaric echoes in 25.31–84 (§2). I then move on to the analysis of the Pindaric innuendos in 40.215–233 (§3) and sum up my conclusions on Nonnus’ ποικίλος ὕµνος (§4). The overall aim of the study is to show how Nonnus closely interacts with Pindar’s phraseology and themes. In doing so, I wish to contribute to clarifying Nonnus’ methods of ‘artistic translation’.9 Needless to say, by isolating the Pindaric matrix/ matrices in Nonnus’ text, I do not mean to deny that other models exist. On the contrary, the aim of my study is to spot- light the rich intertextual dimension of the Dionysiaca, by using Greek choral lyric as an additional filter to approach Nonnus’ poem. In a complementary way, I must stress that, as far as this paper is concerned, my analysis of Pindaric echoes is far from exhaustive, for Pindar appears to be a promising intertextual comparandum for further passages of the Dionysiaca,10 a matter which I hope to explore further in other venues. 1. Nonnus’ Perseus Before focusing on possible Pindaric influences on the episode, I recapitulate the structure and themes of Dion. 25.31– 147. Unlike other passages, in which Perseus’ and Dionysus’ heroism are explicitly paired or compared by a certain char- acter, i.e. through his/her point of view (cf. Athena’s speech at 30.258–277), in 25.31–147 the poet talks to the audience with- out any fictional intermediary, with all his own bias. Perseus’ 9 On this concept see G. B. Conte, Dell’imitazione: furto e originalità (Pisa 2014). 10 The passages analyzed by Gigli Piccardi, in Nonnus and Pindar 255–270, which mostly differ from those taken into account here, count as a precious scientific input to further in-depth intertextual investigations. 304 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 deeds are mocked11 and belittled in order to exalt Dionysus’ accomplishments. The rhetorical strategy of the passage is as follows: 31–79: Perseus’ ‘fight’ against the Gorgon is compared to Dionysus’ war against the army of Deriades. In a chiastic way, Nonnus first tells us what Perseus did and did not do (31–60), then what Dionysus did not do and did (61–79). The contrast between the two characters is realized by means of a variety of lexical reprises throughout.12 11 In this mockery, Nonnus seems to play with a variety of literary refer- ences. For example, εἰ ἐτεὸν πεπότητο “if he has really ever flown [at all!]” (25.33) seems a skeptical comment on [Hes.] Sc. 222 ὃ δ᾽ ὥς τε νόηµ᾽ ἐποτᾶτο Perseus “flew like a thought.” Note also that Perseus is ὠκυπέδιλος “swift- shoed” (cf. 54 ὠκυτέρῳ … ἀνῃώρητο πεδίλῳ), not “swift-footed,” like the Homeric heroes (e.g. ποδὰς ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς, Il. 1.58). The poet repeatedly stresses that Perseus fought only one enemy who was a woman (38 µιῆς ἤµησε Μεδούσης, 85 µία Γοργώ, 121 Περσῆα µίαν κτείναντα γυναῖκα). It is tantalizing to link this emphatic “one” to Hes. Theog. 277–278 ἣ µὲν ἔην θνητή, αἳ δ᾽ ἀθάνατοι καὶ ἀγήρῳ, αἱ δύο· τῇ δὲ µιῇ παρελέξατο Κυανοχαίτης, Medusa “was mortal, the other two were immortal and un-aging; but the Kyanokhaites (i.e. Poseidon) had intercourse only with that one.” 12 E.g. at 38 Perseus is said to have “harvested” (ἀµάω) Medusa’s head (ὄγµον ἐχιδνήεντα µιῆς ἤµησε Μεδούσης; for ὄγµον … ἀµάω cf. Il. 11.67–68 οἳ δ’, ὥς τ’ ἀµητῆρες ἐναντίοι ἀλλήλοισιν ὄγµον ἐλαύνωσιν ἀνδρὸς µάκαρος κατ’ ἄρουραν). The choice of ἀµάω (cf. Dion. 30.277, and also Lycoph. 840, in which Perseus is called θηριστήρ) might be taken as an implicit reference to Perseus’ weapon, the sickle, ἅρπη (Dion. 8.100; 25.41, 55, 130; 30.274; 31.12; 47.541) or δρεπάνη (25.108; 30.271; 31.20; 47.504, 522, 538, 584, 618). Significantly, at 25.70–71 the massacre of the Indians is compared to a rich harvest, πολὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ µητέρι Γαίῃ ὑψιλόφων ἀκάρηνος ἐτυµβεύθη στάχυς Ἰνδῶν, “Great was the harvest of high-crested Indians buried headless in mother earth”; and at 87 ἀµάω applies to Dionysus. On harvest metaphors as a recurrent trait of Nonnus’ poem, as they are intimately connected with the nature of Dionysus, god of wine, but also of war since the Homeric poems, see D. Gigli Piccardi, Metafora e poetica in Nonno di Panopoli (Florence 1985) 125–128. The recurrent use of these metaphors, especially applying to a variety of contexts, contributes towards creating the effect of estrange- ment (τὸ ξενικόν), that is, the alteration of the predictability of discourse, LAURA MASSETTI 305 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 31–60: Perseus reached Libya, robbed the Graeae of their eye, killed only Medusa, and ran off. He did not slaughter an entire army of people, but only one pregnant female. In a nutshell, he resembles a thief more than a warrior. 61–79: By contrast, Dionysus is no “sneaking champion” (62 δολόεις πρόµος). Indeed, he massacred a huge army of enemies. The bloodshed was such that changed the color of the sea. 80–97: Perseus’ petrification of the κῆτος (Andromeda’s epi- sode) and that of the inhabitants of Seriphos are compared to Dionysus’ battle against Porphyrion, Enceladus, and Alcyo- neus. Once again, Nonnus contrasts what Perseus did with what Dionysus did not do (85–86 οὐ µία Γοργώ, οὐ λίθος ἠερόφοιτος ἁλίκτυπος ἢ Πολυδέκτης)13 and did (87 ἀλλὰ δρακον- τοκόµων καλάµην ἤµησε Γιγάντων Βάκχος).14 98–112: Perseus’ and Dionysus’ deeds are judged on the basis of their witnesses’ reactions: Helios, who was shocked by Dio- nysus’ triumph over the Indian army (100 ἠέλιος θάµβησεν), Selene, who saw Perseus while flying away (101 Περσῆα τα- νύπτερον εἶδε Σελήνη), and the river Inachus, who saw both actions as well as Perseus unintentionally killing Ariadne in his retreat (on the episode cf. 47.665–667, in which she is said to be petrified). 113–122: Perseus is judged as inferior to Dionysus on the basis of his birth: Danae was not raised to Olympus (114 οὐ Δανάην ἐκόµισσεν ἐς οὐρανὸν ὑέτιος Ζεύς),15 while Semele was.16 ___ which G. D’Ippolito, “Straniamento ossimorico e mitopoiesi nel barocco letterario tardo-greco,” in Mito, storia e società (Palermo 1987) 347–357, iden- tifies as a distinctive feature of the late antique baroque. 13 “The terrible exploits of Bacchus were not one Gorgon, not an air- soaring sea-beaten cliff, not a Polydectes.” 14 “No, Bacchus reaped the stubble of snake-haired giants, a conquering hero with a tiny man-breaking wand.” 15 “But rainy Zeus did not raise Danae to heaven.” 16 On the synkriseis of the Dionysiaca involving Semele see L. Miguélez Cavero, Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid 200–600 AD 306 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 123–147: Perseus is judged as inferior to Dionysus because he caused unhappiness to Andromeda after her καταστερισµός (124 ἀλλὰ πάλιν µογέει καὶ ἐν αἰθέρι).17 Andromeda’s complaint contrasts with the result of the καταστερισµός of Ariadne (47.700–704). 2. Nonnus’ and Pindar’s Perseus Pindar mentions episodes from the Perseus myths on a variety of occasions (Pyth. 10.30–48, 12.7–27, Nem. 10.4, Ol. 13.63, frr.70a [Dith. 1] and 70d [Dith. 4]).18 The most complete accounts and/or references concern the slaying of the Gorgon and the events adjacent to it (travel to the land of the Hyper- boreans,19 petrification of Polydectes, Pegasus’ birth). The con- flict between Perseus and Dionysus (treated in Dion. 47–48) was the object of Pindar’s Dithyramb 1,20 but the text is incomplete. As a consequence, we do not know any Pindaric version of the Andromeda episode. Therefore, in this paper, possible com- ___ (Berlin 2006) 364. 17 “But she is unhappy still even in the sky.” 18 [Apollod.] 2.4.2 confirms that Pindar and Hesiod were the reference works for the episode of the Gorgons in antiquity: Πίνδαρος δὲ καὶ Ἡσίοδος ἐν Ἀσπίδι ἐπὶ τοῦ Περσέως. On the topic see L. Miguélez Cavero, Tri- phiodorus, the Sack of Troy (Berlin 2013) 56–57, who discusses Pindaric and Hesiodic influences in Triphiodorus, pointing out that they are not limited to phraseological reprises, but may involve entire scenes. This paper shows that the same applies to Nonnus, see §3. 19 The order in which these two events occur in Pyth. 10 has been the subject of debate since Antiquity, cf. schol. Pyth. 10.72b Drachmann. On the different hypotheses formulated see P. Angeli Bernardini, “Pitica X. Introduzione. Commento,” in B. Gentili (ed.), Pindaro. Le Pitiche. Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione (Milan 1995) 263–269, 621–646, at 638. 20 See S. Lavecchia, Pindari Dithyramborum fragmenta (Rome 2000) 43–61, 231–253, for text and comment. Cf. G. B. D’Alessio, “Argo e l’Argolide nei canti cultuali di Pindaro,” in P. Angeli Bernardini (ed.), La città di Argo: Mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche (Rome 2004) 107–125, at 122–125, who proposes that ἀσπ]ασίως (conjectured by Grenfell and Hunt) in fr.70a.31 (Dith. 1) refers to the reconciliation between Dionysus and Perseus. LAURA MASSETTI 307 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 parisons between Dion. 25.31ff. and Pindar’s poems will be limited to 25.31–84. Dion. 25.31–34 Περσεὺς µὲν ταχύγουνος, ἐύπτερον ἴχνος ἐλίσσων, ἀγχινεφῆ δρόµον εἶχεν ἐν ἠέρι πεζὸς ὁδίτης, εἰ ἐτεὸν πεπότητο. τί δὲ πλέον, εἰ σφυρὰ πάλλων ξείνην εἰρεσίην ἀνεµώδεϊ νήχετο ταρσῷ; Nimbleknee Perseus, waving his winged feet, held his course near the clouds, a wayfarer pacing through the air, if he really did fly. But what was the good if he swung his ankles and swam the winds with that strange oarage of legs? An explicit reference to Perseus’ winged sandals is attested, among other sources, in [Hes.] Sc. 220 (ἀµφὶ δὲ ποσσὶν ἔχεν πτερόεντα πέδιλα), but may also be found, though only in an implicit form, in Pindar: Pyth. 10.30–33 ναυσὶ δ᾽ οὔτε πεζὸς ἰών κεν εὕροις ἐς Ὑπερβορέων ἀγῶνα θαυµαστὰν ὁδόν. παρ᾽ οἷς ποτε Περσεὺς ἐδαίσατο λαγέτας, δώµατ᾽ ἐσελθών… Neither by ship nor on foot could you find the marvelous road to the meeting-place of the Hyperboreans—once Perseus, the leader of his people, entered their homes and feasted among them… As noted by Barkhuizen and Köhnken,21 by excluding the sea and the earth as paths which lead to the land of the Hyper- boreans, Pindar implicitly opens to the possibility that Perseus arrived there through the air. Dion. 25.38–44 ὄγµον ἐχιδνήεντα µιῆς ἤµησε Μεδούσης, ἦς ἔτι κυµαίνουσα γοναῖς ἐθλίβετο γαστήρ 21 J. H. Barkhuizen, “Une note sur Pindare, Pyth. X, 28–31,” AClass 12 (1969) 169–170; A. Köhnken, Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar (Berlin 1971) 176, 182. 308 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 Πήγασον ὠδίνουσα, καὶ ἔγκυον αὐχένα νύµφης Γοργόνος Εἰλείθυια µογοστόκος ἔθρισεν ἅρπη, αὐχένος ἱπποτόκοιο θαλύσιον; ἀπτολέµου δέ Περσεὺς ὠκυπέδιλος ἐκούφισε σύµβολα νίκης ἄπνοα, Γοργείης ὀφιώδεα λήια χαίτης, Then (Perseus) shore off the snaky swathe of only one Medusa,22 while her womb was still burdened and swollen with young, still in foal of Pegasus; what good if the sickle played the part of childbirth Eileithyia, and reaped the neck of the pregnant Gor- gon, firstfruits of a horse-breeding neck? There was no battle when swiftshoe Perseus lifted the lifeless token of victory, the snaky sheaf of Gorgon hair. By pathetically mentioning the birth of Pegasus Nonnus stresses how defenseless the enemy of Perseus was. Pegasus’ birth is briefly touched upon in Pindar’s Ol. 13 in connection with the Bellerophon myth: Ol. 13.63–64 ὃς τᾶς ὀφιώδεος υἱ- όν ποτε Γοργόνος ἦ πόλλ᾽ ἀµφὶ κρουνοῖς Πάγασον ζεῦξαι ποθέων ἔπαθεν. (Bellerophon) who once suffered much indeed in his yearning to yoke Pegasus, the snaky Gorgon’s son, beside the spring.23 From the phraseological point of view, it is noteworthy that the adjective ὀφιώδης “snaky” is applied to the “sheaf of Gorgon hair” in Dion. 25.44 and to the Gorgon in Ol. 13.63. Dion. 25.53–59 ἀλλὰ δρακοντείης τροµέων συριγµὸν ἐθείρης Σθεννοῦς µαινοµένης πτερόεις ἐλελίζετο Περσεύς, καὶ κυνέην Ἀίδαο φέρων καὶ Παλλάδος ἅρπην, καὶ πτερὸν Ἑρµάωνος ἔχων καὶ Ζῆνα τοκῆα, ὠκυτέρῳ φύξηλις ἀνῃώρητο πεδίλῳ, Εὐρυάλης µύκηµα καὶ οὐ σάλπιγγος ἀκούων, 22 On the uses of ἀµάω and µία in this verse cf. nn.11 and 12 above. 23 On the folk-etymology of Pegasus cf. Hes. Theog. 281–283, which Pin- dar might be following here. LAURA MASSETTI 309 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 συλήσας Λιβύης ὀλίγον σπέος· Perseus fled with flickering wings trembling at the hiss of mad Sthenno’s hairy snakes, although he bore the cap of Hades and the sickle of Pallas, with Hermes’ wings and though Zeus was his father; he sailed a fugitive on swiftest shoes, listening for no trumpet but Euryale’s bellowing—having despoiled a little Libyan hole! This passage may contain more than one Pindaric echo. Nonnus insists on Perseus’ fear, τροµέων (53), ἐλελίζετο (54), as well as on his flight, ὠκυτέρῳ φύξηλις ἀνῃώρητο πεδίλῳ (57). Certainly, Perseus’ escape is a common iconographic and literary motif.24 For instance, according to Ps.-Hesiod, a running Perseus, the winged sandals on his feet, was repre- sented on Heracles’ shield.25 Nevertheless, the use of φύξηλις (“cowardly,” etymologically related to φεύγω) is noteworthy. Pindar’s Dith. 1 may indeed preserve the same flight-image: fr.70a.15–17 λέγοντι δὲ βροτοί [ ]α φυγόντα νιν καὶ µέλαν ἕρκος ἅλµας κορᾶν⸥ Φόρκοιο I agree with D’Alessio and Lavecchia,26 who propose that here is a reference to the Gorgons episode,27 and translate: 24 L. Jones Roccos, “Perseus,” LIMC VII (1994) 340–342 (§§139, 142, 154, 158, etc.). 25 [Hes.] Sc. 229–231: αὐτὸς δὲ σπεύδοντι καὶ ἐρρίγοντι ἐοικὼς Περσεὺς Δαναΐδης ἐτιταίνετο. ταὶ δὲ µετ᾽ αὐτὸν Γοργόνες ἄπλητοί τε καὶ οὐ φαταὶ ἐρρώοντο ἱέµεναι µαπέειν, “Perseus himself, the son of Danae, was at full stretch, like one who hurries and shudders with horror. And after him rushed the Gorgons, unapproachable and unspeakable, longing to seize him.” 26 G. B. D’Alessio, review of M. J. H. Weiden, The Dithyrambs of Pindar (Amsterdam 1991), JEA 81 (1995) 270–273, at 271; Lavecchia, Pindari Dithy- ramborum fragmenta 103. 27 Pace Weiden, The Dithyrambs of Pindar, who restores Περσέα in 16 and translates “the mortals say that [Perseus] escaped to him [Acrisius] and to the dark brine-enclosure,” arguing that the passage alludes to the story of 310 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 The mortals say that he (Perseus) having also fled the black brine- enclosure of the maidens(?) of Phorcus…28 A second significant trait of Dion. 25.53–58 is the reference to Sthenno and Euryale. While in [Hes.] Sc. 229–231 both Gor- gons chase Perseus (note the plural at 229–230 ταὶ δὲ µετ᾽ αὐτὸν Γοργόνες ἄπλητοί τε καὶ οὐ φαταὶ ἐρρώοντο), in our passage Sthenno and Euryale are singled out. Perseus’ flight seems to be connected with “the hissing of the hair of mad Sthenno” (53–54 συριγµὸν ἐθείρης Σθεννοῦς µαινοµένης), while Euryale utters a µύκηµα (58). The reference to the acoustic dimension of the Gorgons is reminiscent of the Gorgons’ sounds in Pindar’s Pyth. 12 (see §3 on lines 5–27). In this poem, Athena recreates the “tune of many heads,” as she hears the sounds “poured forth” from “under the unapproachable heads of the maidens and the snakes” (Pyth. 12.9 τὸν παρθενίοις ὑπό τ᾽ ἀπλάτοις ὀφίων κεφαλαῖς). Moreover, at 20–21 Pindar states that Euryale’s lament is “high-screaming,” i.e. loud, τὸν Εὐρυάλας … ἐρι- κλάγκταν γόον “the loud lament (sc. from the jaws) of Euryale.” The emphasis Nonnus puts on the different sounds emitted by the Gorgons may be a Pindaric echo, since Pindar too specifies that a loud γόος is uttered by Euryale.29 Finally, the occurrence of συλέω at 25.59 is noteworthy. The verb applies to the stripping of the weapons from the dead in traditional hexameter poetry (Il. 4.446 and elsewhere). Here, once again, Nonnus is emphasizing the thieving nature of Per- seus’ accomplishment. Significantly, in Pyth. 12 συλάω applies to Perseus (12.16 κρᾶτα συλάσαις Μεδοίσας, “as he took out the head of Medusa”). It is also significant that συλάσαις is an ___ Danae and Perseus’ chest. 28 On φυγόντα … ἕρκος ἅλµας as reminiscent of Hom. φύγεν ἕρκος ὀδόντων see L. Massetti, Pindar’s Pythian Twelve: A Linguistic Commentary and a Comparative Study (forthcoming). 29 Indeed, Nonnus’ phraseology itself confirms that γόος is a synonym of µύκηµα: φρικτὸν ἐµυκήσαντο Λίβυν γόον, on which see §3 below. LAURA MASSETTI 311 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 emendation proposed by Heyne in 1824, while most manu- scripts give συλήσας (G, Gotting.phil. 29, 13th cent.) or συλήσαις (B, Vat.gr. 1312, 12th cent.).30 It is thus tantalizing to think that Nonnus in fact read συλήσα(ι)ς in Pythian 12 and used the verb to consciously create a Pindaric innuendo. But even if Nonnus’ version of Pindar displayed συλάσαις, the formal resemblance to συλήσας (and συλήσαις) is such that 59 συλήσας Λιβύης ὀλίγον σπέος echoes Pyth. 12.16 κρᾶτα συλάσαις Μεδοίσας.31 Dion. 25.61–65 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοῖος ἔην Βροµίου µόθος· οὐ ποσὶν ἕρπων Βάκχος ἐθωρήχθη δολόεις πρόµος, οὐδὲ λοχήσας φρουρὸν ἀκοιµήτοιο µετήλυδα κύκλον ὀπωπῆς Φορκίδος ἀλλοπρόσαλλον ἀµειβοµένης πτερὸν Ὕπνου ἤνυσε θῆλυν ἄεθλον ἀθωρήκτοιο Μεδούσης· Far other was the struggle of Bromius. For Bacchus was no sneaking champion, crawling along in his armor; he laid no ambush for the sentinel eye of Phorcis, the ball of the sleepless eye that passed from hand to hand, giving each her share under the wing of sleep in turn; he won no womanish match over a Medusa unarmed. The expression ἤνυσε θῆλυν ἄεθλον may be connected to Pyth. 30 Cf. B. Forssman, Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars (Wiesbaden 1966) 157–158. I concur with C. G. Heyne, Pindari Carmina (London 1773), in reading συλάσαις and align with W. H. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969) s.v. συλάω, according to whom the verb means “to take out” (cf. Il. 4.105). Differently, R. W. B. Burton, Pindar’s Pythian Odes. Essays in Interpretation (Ox- ford 1962) 29–30, C. O. Pavese, “Αὔω 3° τὸ ξηραίνω: un nuovo verbo nella Pitica XII di Pindaro, in Simonide e in Alcmane,” Lexis 7–8 (1991) 73–97, at 90, and C. Segal, “Perseus and the Gorgon: Pindar, Pythian 12.9–12 Reconsidered,” AJP 116 (1995) 7–17, at 13 n.14, argue that συλάω here means “behead.” This interpretation is supported by Theon’s commentary on the passage (P.Oxy. XXXI 2536, cf. P. Angeli Bernardini, “Il banchetto di Polidette in Pindaro, Pyth. 12,14 e il nuovo scolio papiraceo di Teone,” QUCC 11 [1971] 99–101). 31 Note also the resonance between the myth of Pythian 12 and the men- tion of Euryale’s µύκηµα in the passage of Nonnus. 312 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 12.11 Περσεὺς ὁπότε τρίτον ἄυσεν κασιγνητᾶν µέρος, “when Per- seus shouted (in triumph) against the third part of the sisters.” Schol. Pyth. 12.19b has ἄνυσε “he finished/killed” as an al- ternative reading for ἄυσεν,32 which is preserved in all Pindaric manuscripts except Φ (Athous Iber. 161, ca. 1300). If we imagine that Nonnus was somehow familiar with this variant, ἤνυσε θῆλυν ἄεθλον may be an allusion to τρίτον ἄνυσεν κασιγνητᾶν µέρος. In this scenario, Nonnus might be referring to Pindar’s text (if he read ἄνυσεν) or to a part of the ancient Pindaric exegesis (if he read ἄυσεν, but knew the variant ἄνυσεν). Dion. 25.82–84 τί πλέον, εἰ φονίης δεδοκηµένος ὄµµα Μεδούσης ἀνδροµέων µελέων ἑτερότροπον εἶδος ἀµείψας εἰς λίθον αὐτοτέλεστον ἐµορφώθη Πολυδέκτης; What was the good, if Polydectes, looking upon deadly Medusa’s eye, changed his human limbs to another kind and transformed himself into stone? Polydectes’ petrification is found in Pindar’s poems too: Pyth. 10.47–48 ἤλυθε νασιώταις λίθινον θάνατον φέρων. (Perseus) came to the islanders, bringing them stony death. fr.70d.39–41 (Dith. 4) τὸ µὲν ἔλευσεν· ἴδον τ᾿ ἄπ̣οπτα . . . . .] .· ἦ γὰρ [α]ὐτῶν̣ µ̣ετ̣άσ̣τ̣ασι̣ν ἄκ̣ρ̣αν̣[. . . θη]κ̣ε· πέτραι δ᾿ [ἔφ]α̣[ν]θ̣εν ἀντ̣[ὶ] φωτῶν He brought it, and they saw things not to be seen. Truly he(?) made their transformation extreme(?); and they became stones instead of humans. Although only λίθινον θάνατον (Pyth. 10.48) may be echoed 32 As T. Phillips, Pindar’s Library: Performance Poetry and Material Texts (Ox- ford 2016) 268–269 n.80, points out, ἄνυσεν is a textual variant, since the scholion uses διχῶς, which in the Pindaric scholia explicitly refers to alterna- tive meanings or readings. LAURA MASSETTI 313 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 through εἰς λίθον αὐτοτέλεστον ἐµορφώθη (Dion. 25.84), the mythological episode is a Pindaric subject.33 The intertextual dissection of Dion. 25.31–84 under a Pin- daric lens proves that some themes and lexical options chosen by Nonnus parallel those found in Pindar’s passages on Perseus. However, the function of Perseus’ myth in Dion. 25 transcends the use of the myth in Pindar’s poetry. To use G. Nagy’s words, in Pindaric victory odes the difference between Panhellenic heroes and Panhellenic winners collapses.34 Con- versely, in the Dionysiaca’s synkrisis (25.29–30 κρίνων ἠνορέην τεκέων Διός, ὄφρα νοήσω, τίς κάµε τοῖον ἀγῶνα, 98 ἀλλά, φίλοι, κρίνωµεν),35 the accomplishments of Perseus (as well as those of Minos and Heracles) are judged inferior to those of Dionysus. The myth is thus a terminus comparationis to exalt Dionysus, whose greatness transcends that of other sons of Zeus.36 3. Dion. 40.215–233 and Pythian 12 The other end of Nonnus’ Indian epic’s frame is found in 33 I do not discuss a possible comparison between 25.113–122 (Danae and Perseus’ birth) and Pyth. 12.17 υἱὸς Δανάας· τὸν ἀπὸ χρυσοῦ φαµὲν αὐτορύτου, because the only word the two passages have in common is “gold/golden.” Therefore I consider this phraseological match a trivial one. 34 G. Nagy, Pindar’s Homer. The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore 1990) 146: “just as the Games, as ritual, momentarily collapse the distinc- tion between hero and athlete, so too does epinician lyric poetry.” 35 On the concept of σύγκρισις see H. Erbse, “Die Bedeutung der Synkrisis in den Parallelbiographien Plutarchs,” Hermes 4 (1956) 398–424. On the σύγκρισις as a constituent element of the encomia cf. L. Pernot, La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain (Paris 1993) 691–698. On the ways of σύγκρισις in the Dionysiaca see T. Duc, “La question de la cohérence dans les Dionysiaques de Nonnos de Panopolis,” RPhil 64 (1990) 181–191. 36 As L. Miguélez Cavero, Poems in Context 362–365, points out, the synkrisis of Book 25, “one of the most notorious elements of the encomium […] is multi-purpose.” It aims at showing not only Dionysus’ supremacy over all gods, but also the superiority of the Indiad over the Iliad, that of Dionysus over Achilles, and ultimately “implies Nonnus’ superiority over Homer and the modern poets” (363). 314 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 Dionysiaca 40. Here Dionysus defeats Deriades, chief of the Indian army. The Bacchoi first celebrate Dionysus’ victory with a paean. Immediately after that, they perform a θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος to honor their dead. Although the reference to the “many-headed tune” strictly involves only 40.224–233, I want to present the passage together with its preceding sequence (215–223), since it contains some relevant information. Dion. 40.215–233 Βάκχοι δ᾽ ἐκροτάλιζον ἀπορρίψαντες Ἐνυώ, τοῖον ἔπος βοόωντες ὁµογλώσσων ἀπὸ λαιµῶν· “ Ἠράµεθα µέγα κῦδος· ἐπέφνοµεν ὄρχαµον Ἰνδῶν.” καὶ γελόων Διόνυσος ἐπάλλετο χάρµατι νίκης, ἀµπνεύσας δὲ πόνοιο καὶ αἱµατόεντος ἀγῶνος πρῶτα µὲν ἐκτερέιξεν ἀτυµβεύτων στίχα νεκρῶν, δωµήσας ἕνα τύµβον ἀπείριτον εὐρέι κόλπῳ ἄκριτον ἀµφὶ πυρὴν ἑκατόµπεδον· ἀµφὶ δὲ νεκροῖς Μυγδονὶς αἰολόµολπος ἐπέκτυπεν αἴλινα σύριγξ, καὶ Φρύγες αὐλητῆρες ἀνέπλεκον ἄρσενα µολπήν πενθαλέοις στοµάτεσσιν, ἐπωρχήσαντο δὲ Βάκχαι ἁβρὰ µελιζοµένοιο Γανύκτορος Εὐάδι φωνῇ· καὶ Κλεόχου Βερέκυντες ὑπὸ στόµα δίζυγες αὐλοί φρικτὸν ἐµυκήσαντο Λίβυν γόον, ὃν πάρος ἄµφω Σθεννώ τ᾽ Εὐρυάλη τε µιῇ πολυδειράδι φωνῇ ἀρτιτόµῳ37 ῥοιζηδὸν ἐπεκλαύσαντο Μεδούσῃ φθεγγοµένων κεφαλῇσι διηκοσίῃσι δρακόντων, ὧν ἄπο µυροµένων σκολιὸν σύριγµα κοµάων θρῆνον πουλυκάρηνον ἐφηµίξαντο Μεδούσης. The Bacchoi played the cymbals, sending out an enuō-cry, shouting this word from their throats, which spoke with the same tongue: “We obtained great glory! We killed the leader of the Indians!” And Dionysus laughing exulted for the joy of victory, enjoying a respite from the trouble and the gory battle. Firstly he honored the ranks of unburied dead by building a 37 Cf. Ap. Rhod. 4.1515 Γοργόνος ἀρτίτοµον κεφαλήν “the newly-cut head of the Gorgon.” LAURA MASSETTI 315 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 single huge mound with a wide bottom around a 100-foot com- mon pyre. The Mygdonian syrinx,38 of modulated song, re- sounded a funeral lament and the Phrygian auletes braided a male song with their sorrowful lips, the Bacchai danced on that, while Ganytor delicately sang with the euoë-voice. And under the mouth of Cleochus the Berectynian pipes, with twofold yoke, mooed the awful Libyan wail, which once both Sthenno and Euryale with one many-throated voice, rushing cried on newly- beheaded Medusa, while screamed two hundred heads of ser- pents, from whose heads, which were wailing a sinister hissing, they uttered a many-headed thrēnos for Medusa. As pointed out by Simon and Gigli Piccardi,39 one can assume that this passage is based on Pindar’s Pythian 12. While accounts of Athena’s invention of the aulos abound,40 no other archaic or classical source preserves the same etiology of the “tune of many heads” as Pindar and Nonnus. Indeed, this is the myth of this ode, dedicated to the Acragantine aulos-player Midas (490 BCE).41 Athena is said to have invented the “tune of many 38 Phrygian: see A. Frey, “Mygdon,” Brill’s New Pauly Suppl. 1 (Leiden 2007). On the use of this and other geographical terms in this passage see P. Chuvin, Mythologie et géographie dionysiaques (Clermond-Ferrand 1991) 100. 39 Simon, Les Dionysiaques XIV 273; Gigli Piccardi, in Nonnus and Pindar 268–269. 40 According to the version of this story that is likely of Athenian origin (T. Spinedi, “Music Legends and αὐλητική in Boeotia” [2016], https:// www.academia.edu/104616800/Music_legends_and_%CE%B1%E1%BD %90%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_in_Bo eotia_Editare_Commentare_Interpretare_Approcci_multiformi_al_testo_le tterario_Urbino_23_24_giugno_2016), Athena invented the aulos but threw it away, disgusted by her face deformed by the musical performance. So the instrument accidentally fell into the hands of Marsyas, cf. Telestes fr.805–806 PMG, Melanippides fr.758 PMG, [Apollod.] 1.24, Ov. Fast. 6.697–706, Diod. 5.49.1, Hyg. Fab. 165, Plut. De cohib. ir. 456B (Aesch. TrGF II 381). For Athena playing the aulos or associated with Marsyas see P. Demargne, “Athena,” LIMC II (1984) 1014–1015. 41 For a recent comment on the poem see Angeli Bernardini, QUCC 11 (1971) 99–101. 316 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 heads”42 by reenacting,43 on the aulos, the sounds she heard after Medusa was killed: Pyth. 12.5–27 δέξαι στεφάνωµα τόδ᾽ ἐκ Πυθῶνος εὐδόξῳ Μίδᾳ, 5 αὐτόν τέ νιν Ἑλλάδα νικάσαντα τέχνᾳ, τάν ποτε Παλλὰς ἐφεῦρε θρασειᾶν <Γοργόνων> οὔλιον θρῆνον διαπλέξαισ᾽ Ἀθάνα· τὸν παρθενίοις ὑπό τ᾽ ἀπλάτοις ὀφίων κεφαλαῖς ἄιε λειβόµενον δυσπενθέϊ σὺν καµάτῳ, 10 Περσεὺς ὁπότε τρίτον ἄυσεν κασιγνητᾶν µέρος εἰναλίᾳ Σερίφῳ λαοῖσί τε µοῖραν ἄγων. ἤτοι τό τε θεσπέσιον Φόρκοι᾽ ἀµαύρωσεν γένος λυγρόν τ᾽ ἔρανον Πολυδέκτᾳ θῆκε µατρός τ᾽ ἔµπεδον δουλοσύναν τό τ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον λέχος, 15 εὐπαράου κρᾶτα συλάσαις Μεδοίσας υἱὸς Δανάας· τὸν ἀπὸ χρυσοῦ φαµὲν αὐτορύτου ἔµµεναι. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἐκ τούτων φίλον ἄνδρα πόνων ἐρρύσατο, παρθένος αὐλῶν τεῦχε πάµφωνον µέλος, ὄφρα τὸν Εὐρυάλας ἐκ καρπαλιµᾶν γενύων 20 χριµφθέντα σὺν ἔντεσι µιµήσαιτ᾽ ἐρικλάγκταν γόον. εὗρεν θεός· ἀλλά νιν εὑροῖσ᾽ ἀνδράσι θνατοῖς ἔχειν, ὠνύµασεν κεφαλᾶν πολλᾶν νόµον, εὐκλέα λαοσσόων µναστῆρ᾽ ἀγώνων, 42 We have little information on this nomos: its invention is credited to Crates or Olympus (cf. Pind. fr.157), who was also believed to have invented the nomos Pythikos (cf. Pratinas fr.713 PMG, [Plut.] Mus. 1133D–E). T. Phillips, “Epinician Variations: Music and Text in Pindar, Pythians 2 and 12,” CQ 63 (2013) 37–56, proposes to identify the “nomos of many heads” of Pyth. 12 as the “Athena nomos,” which however is mentioned by [Plut.] Mus. 1143C as a different nomos. 43 I translate µιµήσαιτ(ο) (21) as “reenact” as per G. Nagy, “The Delian Maidens and their Relevance to Choral Mimesis in Classical Drama,” in R. Gagné et al. (eds.), Choral Mediations in Greek Tragedy (New York 2013) 227– 256. The verb denotes the artistic creation in which a sound which does not have a precise intonation is reenacted. In our case, the γόος (“wail”) of the Gorgons is artistically transformed into a θρῆνος. LAURA MASSETTI 317 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 λεπτοῦ διανισόµενον χαλκοῦ θαµὰ καὶ δονάκων, τοὶ παρὰ καλλίχορον ναίοισι πόλιν Χαρίτων. Καφισίδος ἐν τεµένει, πιστοὶ χορευτᾶν µάρτυρες. 7 Γοργόνων suppl. Tricl. e schol. 11 ἄυσεν pler. codd.: ἄνυσεν ΦΣb v.l.: ἄνυσσεν Boe. Welcome (sc. Acragas) this crown from Pytho for Midas of good fame and him himself, who beat Hellas in the art which Pallas Athena once invented by braiding the mournful thrēnos of the fierce Gorgons. She heard it being poured forth from under the unapproachable snaky heads of the maidens, with sorrowful pain, when Perseus shouted (in triumph) to the third part of the sisters, bringing doom to maritime Seriphos and its people. Yes, he weakened the mon- strous race of Phorcus and made repentful the feast for Polydec- tes, the constant bondage of his mother, and her enforced bed, as he took out the head of strong-cheeked Medusa—the son of Danae, who, we say, was born of self-flowing gold. But when she had rescued the man dear (to her) from those troubles, the maiden built a melody with all the voices of the aulos, so that she might reenact with instruments the loud lament ex- tracted from the trembling jaws of Euryale. The goddess invented it, but invented it for mortal men to have, and called it the tune of many heads, a glory-making memento of the contests that stir people, (a tune) that often passes through the thin bronze and the reeds which dwell by the Graces’ city of beautiful dancing places, in the precinct of Cephisis, as faithful witnesses of dancers. In Nonnus’ poem, the Gorgons’ lament and the νόµος κεφαλᾶν πολλᾶν are mentioned more than once.44 In contrast to Pindar, who seems to be reticent about the Gorgons’ location,45 44 The motif of the νόµος πολυκέφαλος recurs in Dion. 24.35–38 and 30.264–267. On both passages see L. Massetti, Pindar’s Pythian Twelve. 45 In Pyth. 10.44–48 Perseus’ slaying of Medusa seems to happen close in time to his visit to the land of the Hyperboreans (the order in which these events occur is debated: A. Palaiogeorgou, “Pindar’s Pythian 10: The Case of the Myth,” Δωδώνη 31 [2002] 279–289; L. van den Berge, “Mythical Chro- nology in the Odes of Pindar: The Cases of Pythian 10 and Olympian 3,” in R. J. Allan et al. [eds.], The Language of Literature: Linguistic Approaches to Classical 318 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 Nonnus situates the killing of Medusa and the creation of the many-headed tune in different but fixed geographic areas: the Carian mountain range, the city of Mycale-Mycalessos,46 and Libya. In Dion. 13 we read that the place-name Μυκαλησσός “bears as a name the reenactment of Euryale’s throat” (77–78 Μυκαλησσοῦ Εὐρυάλης µίµηµα φερώνυµον ἀνθερεῶνος).47 In any case, Dion. 40.224–233 is the longest passage about the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος in Nonnus’ poem. At first glance, 215– 218 are a variation on the typical scene of the victorious ___ Texts [Leiden 2007] 29–41; Angeli Bernardini, in Pindaro. Le Pitiche 638– 639). Ol. 13.63–64 mentions that the yoking of Pegasus by Bellerophon happened in the vicinity of a water-spring, but this does not guarantee that this happened right after Medusa was killed. If we restore γ]ύαλα µι[νυᾶν in fr.70d.9, as proposed by Lavecchia, Pindari Dithyramborum fragmenta 231 (differently Lobel: γ]ύαλα µι[δέα), the dithyramb may have contained a reference to the region of Cyrene. 46 Mycale is the name of a city and of a mountain range (corresponding to Dilek Dağı, cf. W. Blümel, and H. Lohmann, “Mycale [01/10/2006],” Brill’s Neue Pauly). According to Il. 2.869 Mycale was occupied by Carians. A. Herda, “Panionion-Melia, Mykalessos-Mykale, Perseus und Medusa: Überlegungen zur Besiedlungsgeschichte der Mykale in der frühen Eisen- zeit,” IstMitt 56 (2006) 43–102, at 85–93, points out that, according to Eu- stathius (ad Il. 2.498), Perseus founded the temple of Zeus Mycalesius (dated around 700 BCE). Herda thus proposes that the Gorgons’ clash was linked to the city of Mycale by the end of eighth century BCE. 47 This folk-etymology is a pun on µυκάοµαι “bellow” (also “lament”), which Nonnus, Herodian, and the Suda apply to the Gorgons’ cry, cf. Dion. 30.266 Εὐρυάλης µυκώµενον ἀνθερεῶνα, “the bellowing throat of Euryale” (also 40.228, on which see below): Hdn. De Pros. 3.2 Μυκάλη … ἐκλήθη δὲ ἐπεὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ Γοργόνες … µυκώµεναι τὴν κεφαλὴν Μεδούσης ἀνεκαλοῦντο, “Mycale … was named (so) because the remaining Gorgons … bellowed and called upon Medusa’s head” (cf. Steph. Byz. III 338 Billerbeck); Suda s.v. Μυκάλη καὶ Μυκαλησός … παρὰ τὸ ἐκεῖ µυκᾶσθαι τὰς Γοργόνας, “Mycale and Mycalesus … (named) after the Gorgons bellowing there.” The Etym.Magn. s.v. preserves a connection with µυκάοµαι but associates the “bellowing” with a different moment of Perseus’ endeavor, παρὰ τὸ ἐκεῖ µυκᾶσθαι τὰς Γοργόνας διωκούσας τὸν Περσέα, “because the Gorgons bel- lowed as they were pursuing Perseus.” LAURA MASSETTI 319 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 warrior boasting over the defeated enemy. In particular, 217 emulates Il. 22.393,48 which, as Nagy highlights, virtually in- cludes two verses of a paean:49 Il. 22.393 Dion. 40.217 Ἠράµεθα µέγα κῦδος Ἠράµεθα µέγα κῦδος –◡◡–◡◡– – ἐπέφνοµεν Ἕκτορα δῖον ἐπέφνοµεν ὄρχαµον Ἰνδῶν ◡–◡◡–◡◡– – The sequence of events in Nonnus is similar to that in Pindar. The winner’s triumph (Dion. 40.216 ἔπος βοόωντες / Pyth. 12.11 ὁπότε τρίτον ἄυσεν κασιγνητᾶν µέρος) is followed by a funeral lament: Dionysus exults over Deriades in a similar way to Per- seus exulting over the “third part of the sisters” (Medusa); the Bacchoi honor their dead with the thrēnos, through which Athena imitated the Gorgons’ lament over Medusa. In this connection, the reference to the timing of the performance in Dion. 40.219–220 (ἀµπνεύσας δὲ πόνοιο … πρῶτα µὲν ἐκτερέιξεν ἀτυµβεύτων στίχα νεκρῶν) resembles that of Athena’s compo- sition in Pyth. 12.18–19 (ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἐκ τούτων φίλον ἄνδρα πόνων ἐρρύσατο, παρθένος αὐλῶν τεῦχε πάµφωνον µέλος): in both texts, the tune of many heads is performed after the heroes’ πόνος. The performance of the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος is linked to the honors bestowed upon the dead (see, again, Dion. 40.219–220). It is thus remarkable that in Pyth. 12.24 the newly-invented νόµος is said to be a “glory-making (εὐκλέα) memento of con- tests (µναστῆρ᾽ ἀγώνων).” µναστήρ is an agent noun based on the same root as µνάοµαι “woo” and µιµνήσκω “tremember.” In principle, in Pyth. 12.24 the term might be taken as “inviter” (cf. µνάοµαι) or “reminder”50 (cf. µιµνήσκω and schol. Isth. 2.1a 48 On the similarities and discrepancies between this passage and Il. 22.395–472 see H. Bannert and N. Kröll, “Nonnus and the Homeric Poems,” in Brill’s Companion to Nonnos 479–506, at 490–491. 49 G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans (Baltimore 1979) 79. 50 So W. H. Race, Pindar. Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes (Cambridge [Mass.] 1997) 381. 320 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 τὴν µνήµην, hence my translation “memento”).51 By applying εὐκλεής to µναστήρ, Pindar stresses the indissoluble tie between “memory/thought” and the attainment of glory through poetry and music. The tune of many heads thus has a ‘memorial’ dimension. It recalls and bestows glory (εὐκλεὴς µναστήρ) on wars/contests (ἀγώνων) and the people who took part in them. The representation of the performance of the nomos in Nonnus matches its definition in Pyth. 12.24: the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος bestows honor on the dead of Dionysus’ army, as such it is a glory-making memento of the warriors’ fight. Nonnus’ passage differs from its Pindaric model in two crucial details. Although elsewhere Nonnus credits Athena with the invention of the double-piped aulos (24.35–38, 30.264–267), in 40.215–233 the goddess is somehow out of the picture. Moreover, Pindar’s word choice reflects a distinction between the unarticulated, animalistic γόος of the Gorgons and Athena’s artistically fashioned θρῆνος (21);52 conversely, Nonnus treats γόος and θρῆνος as synonyms (40.228, 223). But the phraseo- logical comparison between Dion. 40.224–233 and Pythian 12 allows us to recognize several common traits: 224 ἀνέπλεκον ἄρσενα µολπήν : 8 θρῆνον διαπλέξαισ᾽ Ἀθάνα. Pindar does not identify Athena’s composition as male or female. That “male” (ἄρσενα) describes the melody woven by the Phrygian pipes is a reversal of what is found in traditional hexameter poetry, where lamenting and weaving are typical activities of women.53 225 πενθαλέοις στοµάτεσσιν : 10 δυσπενθέΐ σὺν καµάτῳ, 12 καρπαλιµᾶν γενύων. 51 Pace Köhnken, Die Funktion 140, proposing “proclaimer” (“Künder”). 52 On the distinction between thrēnos and goos see D. Steiner, “The Gor- gons’ Lament. Auletics, Poetics, and Chorality in Pindar’s Pythian 12,” AJP 134 (2013) 173–208, at 175–183. 53 C. Bozzone, “Weaving Songs for the Dead in Indo-European: Women Poets, Funerary Laments, and the Ecology of *k̑léu̯os,” in D. M. Goldstein et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference (Bremen 2016) 1–22. LAURA MASSETTI 321 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 227 δίζυγες αὐλοί : 21 διανισόµενον χαλκοῦ θαµὰ καὶ δονάκων. The opposition χαλκοῦ (sg.) vs. δονάκων (pl.) hints at the two-piped aulos.54 228 φρικτὸν ἐµυκήσαντο … γόον : 21 ἐρικλάγκταν γόον. 229 Σθεννώ τ᾽ Εὐρυάλη : 20 Εὐρυάλας. 229 µιῇ πολυδειράδι φωνῇ recalls both 24 κεφαλᾶν πολλᾶν νόµον (see below) and 19 αὐλῶν … πάµφωνον µέλος. 231 κεφαλῇσι … δρακόντων : 9 ὀφίων κεφαλαῖς. Furthermore, φθεγγοµέ- νων κεφαλῇσι διηκοσίῃσι δρακόντων is comparable to Pind. fr.70b.15 (Dith. 2) µυρίων φθογγάζεται κλαγγαῖς δρακόντων, (Athena’s aegis) “screams of the cries of thousands of serpents.”55 The resemblance is even more significant because the serpents on Athena’s aegis be- long to Medusa’s head. 232 ἄπο µυροµένων … κοµάων : 9–10 ὑπό τ᾽ ἀπλάτοις ὀφίων κεφαλαῖς … λειβόµενον, and λειβόµενον is supported by Hesychian glosses, which interpret µύρειν as “to cry”: Hsch. µ 1887 µύρειν· ῥεῖν [ὕδωρ.] κλαίειν, θρηνεῖν. 233 θρῆνον πουλυκάρηνον : 23 κεφαλᾶν πολλᾶν νόµον.56 From this analysis of Dion. 40.224–233 concerning the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος, it is possible to deduce Nonnus’ take on some de- bated aspects of Pythian 12: (i) The fact that, in Dion. 40.216, ἔπος βοόωντες precedes the thrēnos section may parallel the sequence of mythological events, which we reconstruct for Pythian 12 by accepting the reading ἄυσεν in line 11. This coincidence, however, cannot be con- sidered decisive. The shouting of a battle- or triumph-cry over the defeated enemy is a topos of warfare accounts. Furthermore, Nonnus applies ἀνύω to Perseus’ accomplishment (see 312 above), which may support the idea of Nonnus being aligned 54 On the double-pipe aulos and its mouthpiece see now K. Wysłucha and S. Hagel, “The Mouthpiece of the Aulos Revisited,” Greek and Roman Musical Studies (2023) 1–46. 55 This parallel is also identified by D. Accorinti, Nonno di Panopoli. Le Dionisiache IV (Milan 2004) 100, note ad loc. 56 As Maria Cannatà Fera kindly points out to me and as remarked by D. Accorinti, πολυκάρηνος is applied to the hydra in Anth.Gr. 16.19. 322 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 with the varia lectio ἄνυσεν (schol. Pyth. 12.19b). Consequently, there is no guarantee that Nonnus read ἄυσεν or that Dion. 40.216 relies upon Pindar’s Pythian 12. (ii) The correspondence between ἀνέπλεκον … µολπήν (40.224) and θρῆνον διαπλέξαισ᾽(α) speaks in favor of διαπλέκω meaning “to weave,” i.e. “to fashion,”57 not “to interweave.”58 These numerous analogies support that Pythian 12 works as a thematic and phraseological model for line 224–233 of Dion. 40. Elements attached to Perseus’ myths frame the narration of the Dionysian Indian epic: the aition of the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος, invented by Athena in connection with Perseus’ slaying of the Gorgon, is found at the end of the narrative of Dionysus’ Indian war; Perseus killing the Gorgon was placed before the Indian section. 4. Conclusions: Nonnus’ ποικίλος ὕμνος My study supports that the agonistic superiority of Dionysus to other great heroes, the foreshortened Pindaric subjects, and a variety of Pindaric phraseological innuendos contribute to make Nonnus’ poem a ποικίλος ὕµνος (Pind. Ol. 6.87,59 Nem. 5.42, and Nonnus Dion. 1.15): Dionysus wins both kinds of agones, namely synkriseis and war. Therefore, I propose that the presence of Pindar at Dion. 25.18–21 (21 Πινδαρέης φόρµιγγος ἐπέκτυπε Δώριος ἠχώ) makes sense for at least two reasons: (i) Elements connected with the saga of Perseus, the archrival of Dionysus in Nonnus’ poem, frame the Indian epic of the Dionysiaca. Indeed, the account of the Indian war opens (25.31– 147), and closes (40.215–233) with references to: the fight against the Gorgons, the petrification of Polydectes, the 57 As per G. F. Held, “Weaving and Triumphal Shouting in Pindar, Pythian 12.6–12,” CQ 48 (1998) 380–388. 58 As per J. Strauss Clay, “Pindar’s Twelfth Pythian: Reed and Bronze,” AJP 113 (1992) 519–525. 59 It is worth noting that ποικίλον ὕµνον is the object of πλέκω in this Pindaric passage. LAURA MASSETTI 323 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 Andromeda episode, and Perseus’ birth (25.31–147) and the aition of the tune of many heads (40.224–233). Pindaric echoes can be recognized at different levels in both extremities of the frame. In the beginning of the frame: The portrayal of flying Perseus in Dion. 25.31–34 may be connected to Pind. Pyth. 10.30–33. The birth of Pegasus, mentioned in 25.38–44, was mentioned by Pindar in Ol. 13.63–64. Significantly, both Nonnus and Pindar use the adjective ὀφιώδης with reference to the Gorgon or the Gorgon’s hair (Dion. 25.44, Ol. 13.63). The portrayal of Perseus’ flight in 25.57 (φύξηλις) may be connected to Pind. fr.70a.15–17 (Dith. 1), in which Perseus is said to escape (φεύγω) from the brine-enclosure of Phorcus’ daughters. The singling out of Euryale and Sthenno in 25.53–59 further recalls the twofold reference to the Gorgons’ utterances in Pyth. 12.9 and 20–21: in Pindar’s and in Nonnus’ texts, Euryale is connected with a (loud) lament (Dion. 25.58, Pyth. 12.20–21). In both Nonnus and Pindar συλέω/συλάω describes the Perseus episode (Dion. 25.59, Pyth. 12.16). The use of ἀνύω in Dion. 25.65 may be noteworthy. Accord- ing to a tradition found in the Pindaric scholia, a variant ἄνυσεν existed for ἄυσεν (Pyth. 12.11). Nonnus may therefore be familiar with this varia lectio. The petrification of Polydectes (Dion. 25.84) was a Pindaric subject, cf. Pyth. 10.47–48 and fr.70d.39–41 (Dith. 4). (ii) As for the final end of the frame, in Dion. 40 the νόµος πολυ- κέφαλος is performed to honor the dead of Dionysus’ army. In doing so: The sequence paean (40.217) – thrēnos (40.224–233) matches the timing of Perseus’ triumph and Euryale’s γόος (and Athena’s θρῆνος) in Pythian 12 (11, 8–9, and 20–21). The θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος in 40.224–233 features a memorial song. Significantly, Pindar defines the νόµος κεφαλᾶν πολλᾶν as a “glory-making memento of contests” (Pyth. 12.24): Non- nus’ scene may be taken as a narrative, expanded interpre- 324 PINDAR, PERSEUS, AND THE ΘΡΗΝΟΣ ΠΟΥΛΥΚΑΡΗΝΟΣ ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 63 (2023) 300–324 tation of the Pindaric verse. Contrary to Pindar (Pyth. 12.8, 21), Nonnus makes no distinc- tion between γόος and θρῆνος (40.228, 233), but a variety of phraseological usages are similar or identical to those found in Pindar’s Pythian 12. This poem works as a model for the aition of the θρῆνος πολυκάρηνος in Dion. 40.224–233. In conclusion, I hope to have shown some of the ways by which Nonnus artistically translates Pindar. My study certainly does not exhaust the possibilities of (Pindaric and non-Pindaric) intertextual analyses one can do on Nonnus’ text. In any case, I hope to have provided an encouragement to future investi- gations on possible influences of Greek choral lyric on the text of the last Greek epic poet.60 August, 2023 Università di Napoli L’Orientale Dept. Asia Africa and Mediterranean laura.massetti@unior.it 60 This paper has been written in the framework of the project The Lords of the Rings: A Comparative Lens on Ring-Compositions of Greek Lyric Poetry (MSCA_0000083-project LORACOLA), through the program NEXT Generation UE, funds PNRR M4C2. I thank the anonymous reviewer of GRBS for useful bibliographical references. I also thank Maria Cannatà Fera for her critique and remarks on an earlier version of this paper. A special thanks goes to John Perchard for reviewing my English. The usual disclaimers apply.