MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths 

Rupert Mann 

I T HAS BEEN generally acknowledged that Pindar owes little to 
Homer as a source of mythological material-in Bowra's 
words: "almost nothing."l The judgement seems confirmed 

by the most cursory glance at a catalogue of Pindar's myths: 
there is much of unknown provenance (presumably, drawn 
from local traditions), and much from the other poems of the 
Epic Cycle; but nothing from the main narrative of either Iliad 
or Odyssey. 2 

This imbalance is, on the face of it, surprising-and becomes 
more so on reflection. Homer's heroes would be ideal exem­
plars of many of the virtues of epinician. On a simple level, 
Achilles' encounter with Hector would seem to be attractive 
material because it is the fight between the greatest hero of each 
side.3 It also offers a richer dimension: Achilles' decision to fight 
Hector-the symbol of his decision to fight rather than flee to a 
comfortable old age (II. 9.410-16, 18.79-126)-epitomises the 
choice between obscure comfort and glorious endeavour: a 
classic cpinician opposition. 4 But in Pindar, Hector appears as 
Achilles' opponent just three times; each time briefly, in a 
catalogue-and nowhere as the climactic term (Ol. 2.81f; Isthm. 
5.39, 8.55). 

Finally, one would have thought that the Iliad and Odyssey 
would furnish excellent material for Pindar's style of 
mythological narration, well described as "brief and condensed 
with sudden flashes to illuminate ... the mythological land-

1 C. M. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford 1964) 283. 
2 See e.g. Appendix III of F. Nisetich, Pindar's Victory Songs (Baltimore 

1980). 
3 The equivalence of warrior and athlete is central to Pindar: D. C. Young, 

Pindar, Isthmian 7: Myth and Exempla (= Mnemosyne Suppl. 15 [Leiden 
1971]) 39-43; cf B. K. Braswell, A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian of 
Pindar (Berlin 1988) index S.'V. "games." The locus classicus is ISlhm. 1.50f; cf 
OL 2.43ff, 1 0.16ff; Pyth. 8.26ff; Nem. 1.16ff, 5.19ff. 

4 E.g. 0/. 1.81-85, Pyth. 4.185ff; K. Crotty, Song and Action: The Victory 
Odes of Pin dar (Baltimore 1982) eh. 4, esp. 108-11. 

313 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

314 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

scape.» 5 Material as well known as the Iliad and Odyssey would 
provide excellent reference points for such allusive narration. 

The absence of Homeric material from Pindar, then, remains 
surprising. This article is concerned with this absence: exploring 
it; suggesting a reason for it; and finally drawing wider con­
clusions from it. 

The phenomenon repays exploration because it is not as 
straightforward as it at first seems: it has been argued that some 
Homeric myths do in fact appear in Pindar; and, more per­
suasively, Kohnken and others have shown that Pin dar does 
make some use, highly sophisticated and allusive, of Homer­
without actually narrating mythological material from the Iliad 
and Odyssey. (The water of this argument is muddied by the 
difficulty of pinning down exactly what Pindar means when he 
refers by name to "Homer": does he mean the author of those 
two epics only, or of the whole Epic Cycle?) I consider these 
matters in the first part of this article and conclude that the two 
Homeric epics are, indeed, not quarried for source material as 
the other epics of the Cycle are. In the second part, I consider 
possible reasons for the absence and, through a comparison of 
the rejection of unsuitable mythological matter in Nem. 7 with 
that in at. 1, identify the quality that disqualifies Homeric myth 
from Pindar. In the third, appealing to the generic demands of 
epinician, I draw wider conclusions. 

I 

Young offers the two most striking counterexamples to the 
bald statement that Pindar does not draw mythological material 
from the Iliad and Odyssey. 6 The first is the suggestion, based 
on verbal similarities, that the Tlepolemos myth (01. 7) is drawn 
from Il. 2.653-70. But the verbal similarities are not striking.? 

5 S. Fogelmark, «Kat K£ivOl<;: Pindar, Nemean 5.22," in G. Bowersock et al., 
edd., Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox on the 
Occasion of his 65 th Birthday (Berlin 1979) 70-80 at 70. 

6 D. YOUNG, Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of P.ll, P.3, 0.7 
(=Mnemosyne Supp!. 9 [Leiden 1968: hereafter 'Young']) 114 n.5. Young does 
neverthless remain broadly in agreement with Bowra. 

7 Young 82f, 83 n.1, 90. The best is Il. 2.655f on the Rhodians: 

... 'POOOV alL<P£v£lLOV'tO Ol<1. 'tPlxa l(oO'lL'l8£v'tES 
AlV80v 'IllA:uaov 'tE l(al apYlVOEV'ta KUlLElpOV. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 315 

Further, there is good evidence, in the form of details that do 
not appear in Homer, that Pindar was using another source. 8 

These non-Homeric components defy explanation as Pindar's 
inventions, contributing in some way to the drift of the poem. 9 

For example, Pindar describes Tlepolemos EASon' EK SaAa~wv 
Mt8Ea~ (a/. 7.29). This detail neither appears in Homer, nor can 
be situated in the landscape of the Homeric account. 10 The only 
plausible explanation is that it is an allusive detail taken from 
another version; other accounts certainly existed ([Hes.] fr. 232 
M.-W.). It is tempting to conclude that it is to the Homeric 
version that Pindar refers in 21.11 

Young also suggests (55 n.3), arguing from "similarities of 
content," that Pyth. 3.101ff and Isthm. 8.56ff draw on ad. 
24.58-73 for their descriptions of Achilles' funeral. But what of 
the A ethiopis, in which the funeral was presented not as 
digression, but as part of the main course of the narrative 
(Chrest. 196-200= EGF p.47.24-30)? Given that Agamemnon's 
account of Achilles' burial in the Odyssey conforms to Proclus' 
outline of the same events in the A ethiopis, similarity of 
content is no warrant for believing that in his descriptions of 
Achilles' funeral Pindar was following the Homeric Odyssey 
rather than the non-Homeric Aethiopis .12 We cannot know 

Cf Of. 7.73-76 on the Heliadai: 

de; flCV KUfllPOV 
np£(J~{l'ta1:6v 't£ 'IU1.u-

crov C't£K£V AlVOOV 't'. anu"t£ptk 0' fxOV 
Ol<X YUtUV 'tPlXU oucrcrUfl£VOl nu"tproluv 
acr'tErov floipac;, Kh:1.11V'tat OE crqltV (OPUL 

S As M. M. Willcock, who, though he follows Young, conveniently notes 
the discrepancies, concedes: Pindar: Victory Odes (Cambridge 1995) 118f. 

9 A strategy for the interpretation of odd details in Pindar's myths that 
dates back to the scholiast (IJ sthm. 1.15b); Young 54, 34-43. 

10 Pace Willcock (supra n.8) ad loe.; see W. J. Verdenius, Commentaries on 
Pindar 1 (=Mnemosyne Supp!. 97 [Leiden 1987]) ad loc., who suggests that the 
story lying beneath these lines is that Likymnios, as a bastard, failed to inherit 
his father's kingdom and so remained in his mother's house (8UAUrtWv 
M to£u~). This hint at a family feud is attractive. 

11 O. Smith, «An Interpretation of Pindar's Seventh Olympian Ode," 
CIMed 28 (1967) 172-85 at 176; Verdenius (supra n.10) ad loe. 

12 E. Thummer, Pindar: Die isthmischen Gedichte (Heidelberg 1968- 69) II 
139, thought that Isthm. 8,56a was an echo of ad. 24.93. But the verbal echo 
is slight and the thought different. I consider whether the opposition of 
Homeric and non-Homeric would have had any meaning for Pindar at 324f 
below. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

316 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

what allusions to the Aethiopis' account might be concealed 
within the Pindaric text. Certainly, Pindar followed the 
Aethiopis in the immediate sequel to the burial: Achilles is 
taken to a better place, the White Island; in the Odyssey, his 
shade is left stalking the Underworld. 13 

A comparable preference for the Cycle over the Iliad and 
Odyssey is shown in the matter of Achilles' infancy. Pindar 
treats the subject in three places (Pyth. 3.100f, 6.21-27; Nem. 
3.43-58) and nowhere prefers the Homeric version to the 
Cyclic. 

The Iliadic account of Achilles' early life has Peleus and Thetis 
living together, sending him off to war, and then waiting in vain 
for his return. 14 A more folkloric version appeared, it is 
generally agreed, in the Cypria. 15 Here Thetis attempts to 
immortalise her son through alternately burning him and 
anointing him with ambrosia, and then, surprised by Peleus, 
hies away. 16 (This version would appear to be the older, for it 
leaves traces in the Iliadic text.)!7 And this is the one that Pindar 
prefers. IS 

It would seem, then, most likely that there is not one sur­
viving example of Pindar's dependence on the Iliad or Odyssey 
as a mythological source. This indifference is in itself surprising; 
and it becomes doubly so when juxtaposed with a survey of the 
use, more sophisticated than simply quarrying him for material, 
that Pindar does make of Homer. 

13 Nem. 4.49f; Od. 11.467ff; A. T. Edwards, "Achilles in the Underworld: 
Iliad, Odyssey, and Aethiopis," GRBS 26 (1985) 215-227 at 221 with n.l4. 

H Il. 16.222f, 574; 18.57ff, 89f, 331f; 19.422; Thetis bringing Achilles up: 
1.414f; 18.55ff, 438. 

15 C. Robert, Der griechische Heldensage (=L. Preller, ed., Griechische My­
thologie II [Berlin 1920-26]) 67 n.4; A. Severyns, Le Cycle Epique dans l'Ecole 
d'Aristarque (Paris 1928) 254-58; see l:A Il. 16.222b=C)pria fr. 35 dub. II PEG. 

16 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.869-79; Apollod. Bibl.3.13.6. 
17 For example, Thetis lives in the sea apart from her husband (1.357f, 18.35f, 

24.72ff); and Chiron did have some part in Achilles' education (he taught him 
medicine, 11.831 f). This latter is the last vestige of whJt would appear to be a 
classic fosterage at the margins of society by a maternal relative: Chiron was, 
in one genealogy, Thetis' father (L Ap. Rhod. 1.558; H yg. Fab. 14; Dict. Cret. 
1.4; Tzetz. Antehomerica 180). See J. Bremmer, "Importance of the Maternal 
Uncle and Grandfather in Archaic and Classical Greece and Early 
Byzantium," ZPE 50 (1983) 173-86. 

18 Pyth. 6.21-27 (note 6p<pavt(;0~tvCfl, 22), Nem. 3.43-58; R. Stoneman, "Pin­
dar and the Mythological Tradition," Philologus 125 (1981) 44-63 at 62. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 317 

Kohnken triumphantly demonstrated that the enigmatic 
exchange between Apollo and Chiron the centaur in Pyth. 9 is 
an echo of the exchange between Zeus and Hera in II. 14.19 
Scholars had been puzzled by the dialogue in Pyth. 9 between 
Apollo and Chiron, in which Apollo quizzes the centaur about 
the girl he sees fighting a lion and asks how he should behave 
(30-37). Chiron, in his answer, points out the absurdity of 
Apollo, 'tOY ou 8EJll'tOV 'l'EU()El 8rYEtV (42), needing information 
and advice (39ff). Pindar's exploitation of the Homeric original 
turns on the identity of Hera's response to Zeus and Chiron's 
to Apollo.20 Hera would be ashamed to lie with Zeus on Mt Ida, 
and proposes retreat to her chamber, which Hephaestus ~as 
fitted with close-fitting doors (II. 14.330-40), opened l(Allt()l 
l(pU7t'tn (168). And so Chiron answers Apollo (Pyth. 9.39ff): 

KpU1t'tat KAa'{o£~ EVtl. 0o<pa~ 
[]£leOU~ i£pav <plAo'tcit(J)v, 
<l>Ol~£, Kat EV 't£ e£Ol~ 'tOU'to KUVepO:lTCOl~ OIlW~ 
ai8fov't', ull<pavoov aod-

a~ 'tUXElV 'to 1tpw'tov Euva~.21 

The parallel demonstrates the power of Cyrene's beauty and 
Apollo's desire for her, by allusively comparing first Apollo's 
urgency to Zeus' on seeing Hera wearing Aphrodite's girdle, 22 
and then his witlessness to that of the victim of whispered 
seduction, it 't' £l(AE'I'E VOOV 1tUl(U 1tEp q>POVEOV't(uV (II. 14.217), 
embroidered upon the girdle. All this glorifies Cyrene, and thus 
Pindar's Cyrenean patron. 

Homeric forms lurk behind Pyth. 3 also. Hayden Pelliccia has 
argued that the argument of the first part of the poem follows a 
typical Homeric pattern: unattainable wish followed by "the 

19 "Meilichos Orga: Liebcsthematik und aktueller Sicg in der Neunten 
Pythischen Ode Pindars," in A. Hurst, ed., Pindare (=Entretiens Hardt 31 
[Vandoeuvres 1985]) 71-116, esp. 86-90. 

20 K6hnken (supra n.19) 87f. 
21 They are secret keys 

With which Persuasion knows how to unlock 
'The sanctuaries of love, 
Phoibos: Gods and men alike 
Shy of it being spoken of, when first they come 
To some sweet maidenhead. 

This translation, and those from Pindar that follow, is from C. M. Bowra, The 
Odes of Pin dar (Harmondsworth 1969). 

22 Zeus' yA.uxu:; '{~EPO:; (Il. 14.328) becomes Apollo's ~dA.txo:; opyo. (Pyth. 
9.43). 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

318 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

expansion of the wish with a narrative, at the completion of 
which the wish is recapitulated, and finally dismissed. "23 In 
Pyth. 3 the wish is for Chiron to be alive (1-5); the narrative 
follows (6-62); the wish is recapitulated and spelled out: if 
Chiron were alive he might cure Hieron (63-76); and it is finally 
dismissed: Hieron's safety is placed in the lap of the gods (aAA' 
E1td)~acr8al JlEv EyWV E8€AW Ma"Cpi, 77f). The particular 
Homeric model is Od. 1.253-71,24 in which Athena/Mentes 
first offers a prayer to Odysseus' safe return (255f), follows it 
with a short narrative of the first time he saw Odysseus 
(257-64), recapitulates and spells out the wish (265f), and finally 
leaves it in the lap of the gods: 

'tOt os £rov flVT)OTIlPcnv 0flLA:1l0ElfV '08uooEus' 
nuv'tES K' WKUflOPOl 'tE YEvolU'to 1ttKPOYUflOi 'tEo 
aAA' it 'tOt flfV 'tUll'tU SECOV £V youvucn KEt'tUl, 
11 KEV VOO'tT)OUS o:no'ttOE'tUl, ~E KUt OUKe 
oloLV £Vl flQupOtOL,25 

Another dynamic use of a Homeric model, very similar to 
that of the Mas a1teX"Cll in Pyth. 9, occurs later in the same poem 
(Pyth. 3.80ff): 

Ei Df AOYWV OUV£flEV KOpUq>UV, 'I£pwv, 
opSuv £nlo'tq., flUVSuvwv otoSu npO't£pwv 

fV nup' £OAOV nT)flu'tu OUVDUO Duiov'tUL ~po'tOtS 
aSuvU'toL,26 

Chief among the 1tp01fPWV is Homer, for the image spnngs 
from that of Zeus' urns: 

DOWl yup 'tE ni80L KU'tUKdU'tUl £V .1 LOS OVDEl 
Dropwv olu DlDWOL, KUKWV, f'tEPOS Df fUWV' 
cP flEV K' aflfld~us Dron ZEUS 'tEp1ttKEPUtJVOS, 
aAAo'tE fl£V 1E KUKCP (5 yE KUPE'tUl, aAA01E D' £o8Acp·27 

23 "Pindarus Homericus: Pythian 3.1-80," HSCP 91 (1987) 39-63 at 53. 
24 Pelliccia (supra n.23) 55ff. 
25 Od. 1.267-71. 
26 And you, Hieron, 

Having the wit to know 
What sayings are sharp and true, have learned the old proverb: 
"With every blessing God gives a pair of curses." 

27 Jl. 24.527-30. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 319 

Critics have been distracted by the apparent change from 
Homer's two urns to the equivalent of three in Pindar. 28 So it 
seems to have been ignored 29 that both Homer and Pindar go 
on to use Peleus as paradigmatic of the gnome. 

ros IlEV Kal. 0l1A:I'!"i 8£01. oooav uyAaa owpa 
EK y£v£'tl1S' 1tuV'ta<; yap E1t' uv8po)1tous EKEKaOlO 
OAl3cr '"C£ reAo{ncr '"C£, uvaoo£ OE MUPf.uoov£OOt, 
Kat ot 8V11'"Cip tov'"Ct 8£av reOt110av UKOl'"CtV. 
aAA' E1tt Kat 'tip 811K£ 8£os KaKOv, o't'tt Ot OU n 
reatO())v tv Ilqa.POtOt yov';' YEvno KP£tOV'"C())V, 
uAA' Eva reatoa '"C£K£V 1tavawptOv.30 

We compare Pyth. 3.85-95,100-103): 

aiwv 0' uo<paAlls 
OUK £YEV't' ou.' A iaKtoq; reapa 011AEt 
OU'"CE reap' uvn8£C? Ka.0IlC?· A£yOV'"CUl llaV I3po'"Cwv 
oAl3ov i.lTC£p'"CU'"Cov O't 0XEtV O't'"CE Kat xpuOallreUK())V 

90 Il£AreOIlEVUV tv OpEl MOtouv Kal. tv £mareuA.otS 
utOV S"I3Uls, C>TeOe' 'Aplloviav YUIlEV 130wmv, 
<-> OE N11P£OS £ul3ouAou S£'"ClV reatoa KAu'"Ca.v, 
Kal. 8£01. oaioav'"Co reap' UIl<l'O'"CEPOts, 
Kat Kpovou reatoas ~aotAl1as tOOV xpu­

oeal!; tv [opatS, [Ova '"C£ 
95 O£~av'"Co. 

100 '"Co\> OE [Sc. Peleus'] reats, ovre£p 1l0VOV u8av(X'"Ca 
'"CtK'"C£V tv <l>eLq; ee'"CtS, tv reoAEIlC? '"CO-

~OtS area \jIUXaV Atrcwv 
wpo£v reupt KUlOflEVOS 
h ~avawv y60V.31 

28 I.Pyth. 3.141; Young 51. We should not lose sight of the fact that Pindar 
does not mention urns. 

29 Although Robbins notes it, he suggests only that it confirms the reference 
to If. 24.527f: "The Gifts of the Gods: Pindar's Third Pylhian," CQ N.S. 40 
(1990) 307-18 at 313. 

30 Jl. 24.534-40. 

31 Untroubled life 
Neither Peleus had, the son of Aiakos, 
N or godlike Kadmos. 
These two, they say, had the utmost bliss of men: 
They heard the Muses 
singing, with gold in their hair, 
On that mountain and in seven-gated Thebes 
(When one 
Married soft-eyed Harmonia, and one Thetis, 
Wise Nereus' golden child) 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

320 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

The passages run parallel, but for Cadmus' intrusion and 
Pindar's elaborations: Homer's uYAaa (5wpa (534) are Pindar's 
OA~OV {>1t£ptatov (89); II. 24.537 becomes Pyth. 8.89-95 and 
1taVaWpLOv (540) becomes 101f. They then continue on broadly 
similar lines. Achilles notes that Priam was once prosperous, 
but is now beset with care, and urges him to endure and not 
endlessly and pointlessly mourn his son (24.543-51). Pindar 
touches on the same themes in general terms: he notes the 
precariousness of good fortune and urges that one make the 
best of one's lot (Pyth. 3.104-109). 

If Il. 24.534ff do lie behind Pyth. 3.86ff, then the precise nature 
of Peleus' disappointment at Pyth. 3.100f becomes clear: his 
only son (~ovov) was not the marvellous progeny he might 
have expected from his divine bride (ueaVata) and was 
doomed: Ot OU n rra[8wv EV ~£"(apot(Jl yovil Y£VEto KPEtOV'tWV, 
uAA' Eva rral(5a t£KEV 1taVawpLOv. 32 

More broadly, the Homeric model enriches the close of this 
ode. Pyth. 3 has a strong consolatory tone;33 and the consolation 
that Pindar offers Hieron in this ode is informed by Achilles' 
consolation of Priam. 34 Pindar exploits the brillance of fl. 24 to 

And with both the Gods feasted. They saw those Kings, 
The sons of Kronos, sitting on golden thrones, 
And took their marriage gifts .... 

And Peleus' son, the only son 
Whom immortal Thetis bore to him in Phthia, 
Killed by an arrow in battle, was burned with fire 
And woke the Danaans' tears. 

32 Cj. B. Gildersleeve, Pin dar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes (New 
York 1899) 269. 

33 Indeed, there is so little celebration in Pyth. 3 that some have thought it 
not an epinician at all, but instead a consolation in the desirable form of an 
epinician, which Pindar regrets he cannot bring (72ff; cf Pelliccia [supra 
n.23]). Alternatively, the poem might be at once an encomium and a 
consolatio (so e.g. W. J. Slater, "Pindar's Pythian 3: Structure and Purpose," 
QuadUrbin N.S. 29 (1988) 51-61). But the only mention of a victory is at 73f, 
where 1to"t£ suggests that it was not a recent win. D. Young, "Pindar Pythians 
2 and 3: Inscriptional 1tO"tE and the Poetic Epistle," HSCP 87 (1983) 31-42, 
attempts to explain 1to"t£ away (it is to be read from the perspective of the 
future audience); but see M. R. Lefkowitz, The Victory Ode (Park Ridge 
1976) 163 n.42; Robbins (supra n.29) 307-12. For the present argument it need 
only be agreed that it has a consolatory tone. 

14 [Plut.] Mor. 1 05 B~; cf 107 B; O. Schantz, De Incerti Poetae Consolatione 
ad Liviam deque Carminum Consolatioriorum apud Graecos et Romanos 
Historia (diss.Marburg 1889) 21f; C. MacLeod, "Homer on Poetry and the 
Poetry of Homer," in id., Collected Essays (Oxford 1983) 1-15 at 14. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 321 

buttress his poem in a number of ways. First, Priam, as a 
pattern of kingship, is a flattering analogue for Hieron. 35 The 
pathos of his situation in II. 24 generates sympathy for Hieron, 
his analogue: for, by the time of Aristotle at least, Priam is also 
the pattern of good fortune turned to bad. 36 In Pyth. 3 he is thus 
a third paradigm, generated only through allusion,37 exempli­
fying the frailty of human flourishing and the preponderance of 
misfortune. 

Finally, the shadow of II. 24 prepares us for the claims of the 
last lines of Pyth. 3, formally guaranteed by the examples of 
Nestor and Sarpedon (112). The epinician theme that poetry 
gives lasting value to human achievement-some sort of 
immortality-is a commonplace;38 but here it provides a 
surprisingly confident ending for a poem that has focused not 
on triumph but on the limits of achievement and the univer­
sality of misfortunc.39 

In the Homeric poems, however, the though t is not a 
triumphal boast but a comfort. 40 Alcinous wonders why 
Odysseus weeps (Od. 8.577-80): 

Ei1l:E 8' (5 'tt KAaiEl<; Kal 68uPEal Ev80Eh BUIlOO 
'APYEl(Ov L\avaoov i8£ 'IAioD ohov UKOU(OV. ' 
'tOY 8£ BEol Il£v 'tEu~av, £1l:EKAwcravw 8' OAEBpov 
uv8pw1l:mS, '{va 11Gl Kat £crcrollEVOlGlV um6Tj.41 

The use of the Homeric model at Pyth. 3.80ff suggests that the 
claim of the last lines has this melancholy colour-and this is 
confirmed by the otherwise curious choice of Nestor and 

35 See e.g. Jl. 3.105ff, 20.183; M. van der Kolf, U Priamos (1)," R E 22.2 (1954) 
1848ff. 

36 Eth. Nic. 1100a5-9: 1tOAAat yap /-l£'ta~OAat ytvov'tat Kat 1tav'totat 'tUXat 
Ka'ta 'tOY ~lOV, Kat £VO£XE'tat 'tOV /-lUAt<H' EU811vODv'ta /-lEYUAau; O"U/-l<popa'i~ 
1tEpl1t£OE1V btt 'Yllpwr;. Ka8u1t£p tv 'tOtr; TpWtKOtr; 1tEpt ITptU/-lOU /-lu8£u£'tat" 'tOY 
Of 'tOtau'tat~ XPllO"U/-lEVOv 'tUX,at~ Kat 'tEAE'\J't~O"aV'ta U8AtWr; OUO£l~ EUOat­
IlOvit;n. A little further on he describes a man encountering ITpta/-ltKate; 'tux,ate; 
(I10Ia8). 

37 Cf the allusive citation of Semele at 98f: Robbins (supra n.29) 314f. 
38 E. L. Bundy, Studia Pindarica (=CPCP 18 [Berkeley 1962J) II 86ff. 
39 R. W. B. Burton, Pindar's Pylhian Odes (Oxford 1962) 78, with Young 

62--68. 
40 J. Griffin, Homer on Life and Death (Oxford 1980) 96-102. 
41 So too Helen explains that Zeus has given her and Paris KaKov /-lapov, w~ 

Kat 01tlO"O"W uv8PO:mOtCH 1tEAW/-lE8' UOtOt/-lOt fO"O"O/-l£VOtO"t (It. 6.357f); cf 22.303ff; 
ad. 5.309-12, 24.200f. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

322 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

Sarpedon as cxemplars.42 They are ideal paradigms of the 
consolatory theme: all must die,43 for they both represent a 
maxi mum :44 even the oldest must die; 45 and even the most 
favoured. 46 The failure of each emphasises the failure of the 
other to cheat death. The force of the argument is: even Nestor 
and Sarpedon died, but they are at least celebrated in song. The 
application to Hieron is, of course, left implicit: even they died, 
and so shall you; but as they were celebrated in song, so shall 
you beY 

The addressee of such remarks could only be in extremis. I 
suspect that the analogy between Hieron and Priam had an 
even more poignant dimension. Priam's particular grief is that 
he lived too long.48 His case shows that the postponement of 

42 Young suggested (62) that they are "deliberately random names"; Gilder­
sleeve (supra n.32: 269), that they were paradigmatic of mourning. The only 
critic to confront the real difficulty here is D. Sider, ";\Testor and Sarpedon in 
Pindar, Pythian 3," RhM 134 (1991) 110f, who argues that the two are ap­
posite because they are "among the very few in the Iliad who explicitly state 
the theme of non omnis moriar." But the passages he cites, J!. 11.761, 
12.310-28, do not show this. 

41 R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epigraphs (Urbana 1942) 
250-56. The locus classicus is Achilles' confrontation of his own mortality at 
IL 18.117ff. 

H A quality central to the paradigm: C. Carey, "The Epilogue of Pindar's 
Fourth Pythian," Maia 32 (1980) 143-52 at 150. 

45 Nestor's age: Il. 1.250ff; cf l1.669ff; Pyth. 6.35; J. Schmidt, "Nestor, (1)," 
RE 17.1 (1936) 119f. E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle 
Ages, tr. W. R. Trask (Princeton 1973) 80ff, notes the use of the extremely old 
as consolatory material. He cites Tithonus, who is associated with Nestor in 
old age at e.g. Prop. 2.25.10; cf Schmidt 120. 

46 A late epitaph from Teas (EG 298.7f): 

t~; bt' [!-lOt A\l1tT1<; 1tapa!-lU81OV t!-l <pP£IJt 8£a8£ 
tOUtOV' Kat !-laKUpWV 1taiD£<; £v£p8cv i:~av. 

Cf Lattimore (supra n.43) 254. Sarpedon is not simply the son of a god, but 
the dearest son of Zeus (J!. 16.432-61). Zeus' dilemma over whether to save 
him dramatises how near he came to defying his mortality. 

47 The application to Hieron is generated through the first person in 111 f: 
Young 58f. 

48 [Plut.] Mar. IDE: "J.u:'iov'" yap QVtco:; "i:80.KpuoTV TpcoiAO:; 11 Opia).!o:;," 
(Kal) oino:;, Ei 1tPOEt£A£DtT]O£V Etl uK).!ai;oDOT]:; autcp tTj:; ~a(HAda:; Ka 1 tTj:; 
tOoaDtT]:; tUXT]:;; cf Cic. Tuse. 1.85; Juv. 10.258; cf too Il. 24.244ff. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 323 

death does not simply controvert the natural order of things, 
but is not even desirable (Ill), <piAa 'l'UXu, ~iov aSuva'tov 
aUEuoE): if no cure is possible, then death may be our 
physician. 49 

Smaller, more straightforward-but still dynamic-uses of 
Homeric originals occur at 01. 9.66 and Nem. 2.14 (ef n.67 
infra). The latter is a vaunt about Salamis (2.13f): 

Kat JlaV a. laAaJltt; 'IE 8PE\jIat cpona JlaXa'tav 
ouva'tos. EV Tpo·{q. IlEV "EK-

HOp A lanos UKOUOTV. 

axouaEv is a puzzle. Critics have, in the main, interpreted it as 
"obey" in a metaphorical sense and thus "submit to";50 but 
aKOUW can only mean "submit to" in the sense of obeying 
orders-which is not what is needed here. 51 

The best explanation remains Monro's.52 Hector hears Ajax 
just before their duel in II. 7, when he spoke to him an£lAl)aW; 
(7.225-32). But the passage specifically referred to here occurs a 
little earlier, when Ajax, chosen by lot to fight Hector, closes 
his address to the other Achaeans: 

ou yap 'tis IlE ~in 'IE ixcOV UEKov'ta ()lll'tat, 
QUOE 'tt iopdn, E7td ouo' EIl£ vrfiOa 'I' ou'tcos 
EA,7tOJlat £V laAaJlLvl YEvEcr8at 'tE 'tpacpEJlEV 'tE.53 

Munro suggests that Pindar has simply made a small mistake in 
attributing this vaunt to Ajax's exchange with Hector a few lines 

49 Cf Aesch. fro 353Rj B. Lier, "Topica carminum sepulcralium latinorum," 
Philologus N.r. 16 (1903) 445-77, 563-603; 17 (1904) 54--65 at 596£. 

50 S. Instone, "Pindar's Enigmatic Second Nemean," BICS 36 (1989) 109-16 
at 115 with n.26. 

51 See R. Kannicht, ed., Euripides Helen (Heidelberg 1969) ad 733. 
52 D. B. Munro, "On Pindar Nem. 2.14," CR 6 (1892) 3f. 
53 Il. 7.197-99. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

324 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

later,54 and translates "Salamis was ever the nurse of heroes: 
such as the boast of Aias to Hektor." The effect of this is that 
the vaunt is made again on the present occasion and Ajax 
becomes a flattering analogue for the laudandus. 55 

In O/. 9 Pindar describes the succession of Opous to his 
father's throne. This, according to Eust. ad II. 2.531, was the 
upshot of a family feud. Pindar not only glosses over the 
unhappy quarrel,56 but by using vocabulary used by Homer to 
describe Phoenix's happy adoption by Peleus, in which Peleus 
amicably handed over to him the rule of the Dolopes (II. 9.483), 
also suggests that Opous' succession was similarly happy: 

1tOAtv 0' (,)1t(XO£V Aaov 't£ Otanuv (01. 9.66) 

Kat /l' (x<pvnov E8llKE, 1toAuv Of /lOt (,)1tacrE Aaov (II. 9.483). 

Such use of Homer approaches the non-allusive borrowings 
of vocabulary noted by Bowra (supra n.1: 215-19), who 
emphasised that even on this small scale, Pindar uses Homeric 
material in novel ways. 

These examples of Pindar's sophisticated use of Homer serve 
to counterpoint Homer's absence as a mythological source. 
They emphasise its strangeness: it is a genuine phenomenon. 

This observation enables comment on an interesting side 
issue: when Pindar writes of <Homer', what does the name 
signify? Does it refer, in accord with our usage, to the author of 
the Iliad and Odyssey only or to the author of those and the 
other poems of the Cycle? The earliest surviving expression of 
scepticism of Homer's authorship of epics other than the Iliad 
and Odyssey occurs at Hdt. 2.117 (=Cypria fr. 14 PEG; cf II. 

54 Cj. the misquotation of Jl. 15.207 (taBA()v Kat 'tIl 'tfrUK'ta t. o't' ayt£Ao" 
atO"llla don) at Pyth. 4.277f: 

'twv 8' 'OI1TlPO\l Kal 't08£ a\lv8cl1£VOC; 
p~l1a 1topauv'· aYYrAov £aA.bv Eq>a n-

I1(Xv 11£'Y1a'tav 1tpaYl1an 1tav'tl q>cpnv. 

Some have doubted that this does refer to Jl. 15.207, but see Braswell (supra 
n.3) ad loc.; Burton (supra n.39) 170f. 

55 The victor was in fact from Ac harnai (16) but must have had some 
connection with Salamis-perhaps as a member of the family Salaminioi: 
Instone (supra n.50) 115. 

56 M. van der Kolf, Quaeritur quomodo Pindarus [abu/as tractaverit quid­
que in eis mutarit (Rotterdam 1923) 104. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 325 

6.289ff).57 The question seems to have remained a matter of 
controversy until the time of Aristotle's Poetics. 58 

The name of Homer appears four times in the Pindaric 
corpus (Pyth. 4.277; Nem. 7.21; Isthm. 3/4.55; Pae. 7b.ll), and 
none of these passages can be construed so as to prove 
definitively either an inclusive 59 or exclusive60 interpretation. 

Rather than studying the passages where Homer is named, 
however, we may consider what use Pindar makes of Homeric 
material. Nagy argues that the fact that Hector slips undistin­
guished into catalogues with the heroes from the rest of the 
Cycle-Telephus, Cycnus, Memnon-indicates that Pindar 
regarded them all as characters from the same canon. 61 But a 
difference of treatment has now emerged: Pindar does not 
make straightforward large-scale use of Homer as a source of 
mythological material, as he does of the other poems of the 
Cycle. This divergence shows that he perceived a qualitative 
difference between the Odyssey and the Iliad and the other 
poems of the Cycle; and the simplest inference that he, or 
anyone, might draw from the perceived difference was that 
Homer did not write the other poems of the Cycle.62 

II 

What might be the explanation for the absence of Homer? 
Wilamowitz 63 swept to the conclusion that Pindar found 

57 R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968) 43ff. 
58 Poet. 23 (1459a17ff); Pfeiffer (supra n.57) 73f, 117. 
59 E. Fitch, "Pindar and Homer," CP 19 (1924) 57-65, argued that Pyth. 

4.277f did not refer to any known passage in the Iliad and Odyssey, but see 
supra n.54. 

60 See F. Nisetich, Pindar and !lomer (=AJP Mono. 4 [Baltimore 1989]) esp. 
1-23, 70fL His arguments rest on two crucial passages. In the first, Nem. 
7.20-24, Pindar does specify Homer as the author of the Odyssey, but this 
does not, of course, rule out his authorship of other poems in the cycle. The 
second is Isthm. 3/4.53-60, in which Nisetich (10ff) discovers an antithesis 
between the poet of the Aethiopis and Homer (53f: 59f). But the true 
antithesis there is between Ajax's contemporaries, who failed to honour him, 
and the epic poet who did. 

61 G. NA GY, Pindar's Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past 
(Baltimore 1990: hereafter 'Nagy') 414f. 

62 Cf ]. Griffin, "The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer," J!lS 97 
(1977) 39-53, esp. 53. 

63 Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 463. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

326 PINDAR'S I-IOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

Homer unsympathetic; this unlikely hypothesis is immediately 
disproved by the familiarity evidenced by the sophisticated use 
of Homer that we have seen. 

On the opposite tack is an intuitively attractive explanation­
an appeal to the brilliance of Homer: "the cycle is seen as a 
repository of saga rather than as a literary work, in sharp 
contrast to the works of Homer. Pindar did not want to 
impinge on territory where a supreme poet had already trod. "64 

On this course, one might go further and suggest that at the 
core of the poetics of Homer and Pindar lies the same principle 
(however obscurely expressed): ~Ul(X £V JlUKpOtm 1tOtKtAA£lV 
aKoa croq>Ot<; (Pyth. 9.77f);65 and it is this identity of aesthetic 
purpose that makes it unfeasible for Pindar to treat the material, 
for it has already received a 'Pindaric' treatment at the hands of 
Homer. 

But these explanations simply defer the problem, which now 
becomes: why should Pindar not cover the same ground as 
Homer? 

Another approach suggests that the answer might be found in 
the one place where Pindar explicitly challenges the authority of 
Homer, Nem. 7.20-27: 

EYw b£ 1tA£OV' EA1tO)lat 
AOYOV '08uaa£os i1mx8uv 

bux 'tOY ubumll YEv£a8' "O)lTJPov' 
E1td \jfEubEat oi 1to'tav~ ('tE) )laxav~ 
aE)lVOV £1tEO'tt 'tt. (lO<Ptu 

b£ KA£1t'tEt 1tUpayOlaa )lU80lS. 'tU<pAov b' EXEt 
~'top O)ltAoS aVbprov 0 1tAE'ia'tos. Ei yap ~v 
E 'tav aAa8nav ib£)lEY, OU KEV D1tAWY XOAWeEtS 
o Kap'tEpos A las E1ta~E bta <pPEVWY 
MUPOV ~t<pa<;.66 

64 Stoneman (supra n.18) 63; cf M. Davies, The Epic Cycle (Bristol 1989) 10. 
65 For the principle see D. Young, "Pindar, Aristotle and Homer: A Study in 

Ancient Criticism," ClA nt 2 (1983) 156-70, with N. J. Richardson, "Pindar 
and Later Literary Criticism in Antiquity," Papers of the Liverpool Latin 
Seminar 5 (=Arca 19 [Liverpool 1985]) 383--401 at 389. 

66 But I hold that the name of Odysseus 
Is more than his sufferings 
Because of Homer's sweet singing; 
For on his untruths and winged cunning 
A majesty lies. 
Art beguiles and cheats with its tales 
And often the heart of the human herd is blind. 
If it could have seen the truth, 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 327 

Following the lines establishing song as recompense for 
successful labour (11 f), the dictum that Odysseus' logos was 
more than his patha must, on first reading (or hearing), suggest 
that Homer's account of Odysseus' experiences outweighs his 
travail: that Homer was so good a poet that Odysseus was more 
than recompensed. But if the account exaggerates, it is false 
(22f). 

naSuv suggests that this is the Odysseus of the Odyssey (1.4, 
nOAAa 8' 0 y' £V novnp naSEV aAYEu 0V Kata SUjlov).67 Re­
luctant to imagine Pindar impugning Homer and taking ad­
vantage of the hoplon krisis that follows, some critics have 
referred the Ot of 22 to Odysseus, as we know of his patha 
through his own account to Alcinous (Fraenkel [supra n.67] 
360). But context, metaphor, and vocabulary all suggest that 
Homer is meant. 68 Certainly, by lines 25f the lies have shifted to 
Odysseus' lips, for they are the slippery argument with which 
he triumphed in the contest for Achilles' armour. To enable 
that slide, there is some ambiguity in lines 21-24, where the 
unfocused cusp of the shift from the particular of Homer's 
narration of Odysseus' patha to the particular of Odysseus' 
specious rhetoric embraces cro<pta-both Homer's and Odys­
seus'-and, in OI-HAOe; av8pwv (, nAEtO"'tO<;, both the majority of 
mankind (i.e.) Homer's audience) and the voting majority 
amongst the crowd of Greeks at Troy.69 

In Nem. 7, then, Pindar's mistrust of Homer is that he 
distorts the truth. Is this the reason for Pindar's failure to use 
Homer as a mythological source-that Homer's myths are un-

Aias would not, in wrath about armour, 
Have driven a smooth sword through his breast. 

67 H. Fraenkel, Wege und Formen fruhgriechischen Denkens 3 (Munich 
1968) 360. Later in the poem, Pindar allusively casts further doubt on Homer's 
championship of Odysseus. N em. 7.35ff recalls Od. 1.4; and it emerges that 
Neoptolemos, not (as Homer claimed) Odysseus, was the true sacker of Troy: 
A. KOHNKEN, Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar (Berlin 1971: hereafter 
'Kohnken') 69f. 

68 C. Carey, A Commentary on Five Odes of Pin dar (New York 1981) 145. 
69 See T. Hubbard, "The Subject/Object Relation in Pindar's Second 

Pythian and Seventh Nemean," QuadUrbin 51 (1986) 53-72 at 63f; G. W. 
Most, The Measures of Praise: Structure and Function in Pindar's Second 
Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes (=lIypomnemeta 83 [Gottingen 1985]) 
150: "the fact that the four books of Odysseus' fabulations are reported in 
oratio recta means that the words are simultaneously both Odysseus' and 
Homer's." 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

328 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

trustworthy versions; that his depictions of the heroes are 
wrong? 

This straightforward explanation is immediately ruled out by 
another of the occasions on which Pindar names Homer. 70 In 
Isthm. 3/4 Ajax is used to demonstrate how we cannot know 
our fate 7tpiv 'tEAO~ aKpov iXE08ut (50). The lesser man tricked 
Ajax (lsthm. 3/4.53-60): 

lO't£ Ilav 
A tuv'tOS aA.Kav, q>OlVlOV 'tav O\jll~ 
EV VU1('tt 'tUIlOlV 1tEpt ql q>uoyavcp 1l01lq>UV EXn 
1tui8EOOtV 'EAAavffiv aoot Tpoiuv8' E~UV. 
aAA' "OllllPOS 'tOt 'tE'ttIlUKEV bt' av8pJmwv, oS UtHOU 
1tUOUV op8ffioUtS aPE'taV KU'ta pa13bov £q>puo£v 
8E01tEOtffiV E1tEffiV AOt1tOlS a8upEtv. 
'tOU'tO yap u8avu'tov q>ffiVUEV ep1tEt, 
£1 'tlS E~ £l1tn 'tt· KUt 1tay-

KUp1tOV E1tt x86vu KUt bta 1tOV'tOV ~£13UK£V 
EPYlla'twv UK'tlS KUA&V ao~£o'tOS uid.!l 

Instead of being associated with Ajax's adversaries, as he is in 
Nem. 7, Homern is here on the side of the angels: setting Ajax's 
virtue aright 73 and bringing him the immortality of song in 
compensation for his mistreatment by the other Greeks who 
went to Troy (Kohnken 110-14). 

All the qualities with which the poetry of Homer is credited 
in Isthm. 3/4-recognition of true virtues, recompense for 
7t6vo~, immortalisation-are, in fact, characteristics of epinician. 
Indeed, in N em. 7 it transpires that Pindar is claiming them for 

70 Nisetich (supra n.60) 2, 23. 
71 You know 

Of the valour of Aias. He ripped it in blood 
On his own sword late at night, 
And brings reproach to all sons of the Hellenes 
Who went to Troy. 
But Homer has done him 
Honour among men; for he set straight 
All his prowess, and to his wand of celestial words 
Told of it, to the delight of men to come. 
For this goes forth undying in speech 
If a man says a thing well. 
Over the fruitful earth and across the sea 
The sunbeam of fine things has gone 
Unquenchable forever. 

72 Either as the author of just Iliad and Odyssey or of the whole cycle. 
73 On op9wcrat:; see Young 78 n.2. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 329 

himself, in implicit contrast to Homer. In Nem. 7, the first 
myth introduces the notion of deceptive reputations and gives 
two instances-Odysseus' and Ajax's-exemplifying excess and 
deficiency of reputeJ4 The myth of Neoptolemus, complex, 
confused and, in some earlier versions, highly uncomplimen­
tary to the hero, follows. 75 The story is a test case of extreme 
difficulty for the praise poet who wishes to honour him, but 
Pin dar successfully navigates his way through it, rediscovering 
the true version and saving N eoptolemus' honour. He stands 
back in triumph and claims: he is the true witness for the 
Aeacids' deeds;76 he invites a Molossian, who knows the true 
story about Neoptolemus because it is for him traditional 
material, to approve of his version (64f);77 and he prays for the 
future-suggesting the ultimate revelation of truth that will bear 
him out.78 All these claims contrast him with Homer, who 
exaggerated Odysseus' patha. 79 

Seeing the depiction of Homer in N em. 7 as a true and 
complete reflection of Pindar's view of him is therefore im­
possible, for in Isthm. 3/4, working within the same nexus of 
ideas, Pindar produces an exactly antithetical judgement. 

74 D. Young, "A Note on Pindar Nemean 7.30f," CSCA 4 (1971) 249-63 at 
252f; Carey (supra n.68) 147. 

75 Evidence for my observations on N em. 7 is to be found in R. Mann, 
"Myth and Truth in some Odes of Pindar" (diss.Oxford 1992) ch. 7, esp. 
313-68, 445-61 for an examination of the mythological confusion surrounding 
Neoptolemus-a confusion exacerbated by his use as a symbol by both the 
Crisaeans (who picture him attacking the Delphic shrine) and the 
Amphictions (who picture him liberating it). 

76 That Pindar is the witness of 49 follows from my interpretation of 31£, the 
kephalaion that 49 recapitulates. e fOe; in 32 is the divine element in any 
egregious human achievement-here, logically, the poet's (the scholiast [Nem. 
7.46a] thought the god the Muse). There is thus no polar opposition between 
the mortal and the divine. It seems to me prima facie unlikely that Pindar 
should be comparing his own poetry unfavourably with anything; and thus I 
rule out the notion that Pindar is here discussing honour that is bestowed by 
a divine, rather than mortal power (Most [supra n.69] 151). C. Carey, 
"Pindarica," in R. Dawe, J. Diggle, and P. Easterling, edd., Dionysiaca 
(Cambridge 1978) 21-44 at 38, makes the best case for Apollo both in 31£ and 
49f. 

77 G. W. Most, "Nemean 7.64-67," GRBS 26 (1985) 315-31. 

78 H. J. Lloyd-Jones, "Modern Interpretation of Pindar: The Second 
Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes," filS 93 (1973) 109-37 at 135 (=Greek 
Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy [Oxford 1990J 110-53 at 149). 

79 L. Woodbury, "Neoptolemus at Delphi: Pindar Nem. 7.30ff," Phoenix 33 
(1979) 95-133 at 113. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

330 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

Homer was wrong about Odysseus, but right about Ajax; and 
this entirely comprehensible verdict, that Homer was wrong in 
some particulars and right in others, gives no insight what­
soever into the reasons for Homer's absence from most of 
Pindar. 

But there is something to be learnt from the N em. 7 passage. 
Why should the audience believe his claim that Odysseus' 
virtues were exaggerated and that Ajax was the better man? 

In Of. 1, where Pindar confronts a similar case of exag­
geration,80 consisting of a kernel of truth overlaid with seductive 
and misleading embroidery, 81 he works hard to ensure the 
triumph of his own version: 82 he first introduces the possibility 
of exaggeration (28ff) and then, as he outlines the neighbour's 
story, sabotages it,83 and finally recoils from it: it would entail 
yacrtpiJlapyov ,.wKaprov ttv' tl7tElY (52). The crucial word is 
yacrtpiJlapyoy-not "cannibal," nor yet simply "gluttonous" 
(Gerber) but the brutish "belly-crazy" of Howie. 84 Plato (Tim. 
73A) describes the function of stomach and entrails: men have 
them 07tC.O~ Jl~ 'tCXxu 8tEK7tEPWcrCX ~ 'tpo<p~ 'tCXxu 7taAtV 'tpo<Pl1~ 
h£pcx~ 8Elcr8cxt 'to crWJlCX aycxYKasOt, KCXt 7tCXPEXOUcrCX a7tAl1cr­
day, 8HX yacr'tptJlCXPYlCXV a<ptAocro<poy Kat aJloucrcxy 7tay a7to­
'tEAol 'to YEYO~, aYU7t~KOOV 'to\) 8no'ta'tOu 'tWV 7tCXP' ~JllV. What 

80 W. ]. Verden ius, Commentaries on Pindar 2 (=Mnemosyne Supp!. 101 
[Leiden 1988]) ad Ol. 1.27; K6hnken 52; Richardson (supra n.65) 385ff. 

81 Nagy 66; P. Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? (Chicago 
1988) ch. 5. 

82 W. ]. Slater ("Pindar and Hypothekai," Tiresias Suppl. 2 [Montreal 1979] 
79-82 at 80) wrote that the audience of epinician 

could think of Hesiod where the Muses are said to inspire truth or lies 
like truth. The audience were then perfectly aware that they could be 
listening to lies, and like a good orator the poet will do his best to raise 
this issue and lay their suspicions to rest. That is the whole point I am 
sure in the elaborate recusatio in Olympian 1; it is designed to make us 
feel that Pindar is honest and religious unlike previous bards .... His 
audience contained potential sceptics. 

83 E.g. rather than Demeter alone eating one part of him, the gods ate 
Pelops up (<payov, 51), which makes the business of revival, and the ivory 
shoulder, problematic. See T. Gantz, "Pindar's First Olympian: The Masters 
of Darkness," RStCl26 (1978) 24-39 at 33f 

84 ]. G. Howie, "The Revision of Myth in Pindar's Olympian One: The 
Death and Revival of Pelops (25-27; 36-66)," in Papers of the Liverpool Latin 
Seminar 4 (=Arca 11 [Liverpool 1983]) 277-313 at 295. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 331 

is important about yaa'tptllapyov is: how unlike a god. It makes 
no sense. A god could not be yaa'tpillapyo<;. 85 

In Nem. 7, however, there is no comparable process of 
sabotage. The logic herein is a pleasing circularity: Pindar posits 
that Odysseus' reputation is, thanks to the genius of Homer, 
inflated (20f); this is because (EnEl, 22) there is something 
marvellous about his lies (22f); and, indeed, such power can 
deceive (23f)-most people cannot discern the truth (23f); and 
this is proved (ya.p, 24) by the fact that most of the people at 
Troy backed Odysseus over Ajax, thus ensuring Ajax's death 
(24-27); and their blindness neatly tallies with the starting 
hypothesis that Odysseus was not as good as words painted 
him. Which is thus, spuriously, confirmed. 

This tautology is neat, but goes no way towards the proof of 
the original hypothesis. Why should the potentially sceptic 
audience let Pindar get away with pulling himself up by the 
bootstraps in this way? The answer is that there is one element 
here that is for them an axiom, on which the whole argument 
depends-Ajax's superiority over Odysseus. And this is 
axiomatic because they are Aeginetans, and he is an Aeacid, 
their hero. He should by rights have been judged best of the 
Achaeans after Achilles; and thus Homer's glorification of 
Odysseus throughout the Odyssey is necessarily exaggeration. 
Pindar's challenge to Homer's authority is enabled by the 
attitudes of the audience: "What the poet tells is true or false, 
depending on where he tells it: the local traditions on which the 
poet's immediate audience have been reared constitute the 
ultimate criterion of 'truth'."86 

And indeed, these tensions appear in the choice-but 
typically opaque-slogan that appears immediately after the 
myth of Neoptolemus at Nem. 7.49-52. 

ou \jI£UOt<; 6 Ilap'tu<; EPYIlCX<JtV bncna't£t, 
Atytva, 'trov lno<; 't' £K"(ovCJ)v. 8paau IlOt 'too' Eln£tv 

85 To this whole process, cf. Woodbury's reconstruction of Stesichorus' 
palinode: "Helen and the Palinode," Phoenix 21 (1967) 157-76 at 166, with 
n.16, 170, 173f. In Of. 1 Pindar has sabotaged the traditional version to lend 
credence to his apostasy. 

86 G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the llero in Archaic 
Greek Poetry (Baltimore 1979) 3.6 n. Cf O/. 7, where Pindar's challenge to 
B.omeric authority is enabled, presumably, by the popularity of another 
version amongst his audience: P. Sfyroeras, "Pindar's Olympian 7 and the 
Panathenaic Festival," AJP 114 (1993) 1-26, esp. 22f. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

332 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

<P(u:vv(iiC; apE'tu'ic; a80v lCUPlUV AOYWV 
otlC09£v· 

It is now broadly agreed that 8pucru 1l0l 'to8' d1tElV must mean 
"I make bold to say this" (Woodbury [supra n.79] 113). The 
interpretation of the next line then should reflect that it has 
been marked by this vaunt: it must accommodate the line being 
audacious. A perfectly reasonable interpretation is to see it as an 
elaboration of 49. 

So, with Carey, I take 680v in apposition with 'tOOE, and 
supply dvul. The 600v ... 'Aoywv is the course of Pindar's 
poetry, as laid out by the deeds he describes there. KUptUV must 
mean, broadly, "right," whether it functions within the road 
image (" righ t road") or outside it ("legitimate").87 Whichever; 
KUptUV connotes authority: this is the proper road to be on. The 
apE'tUlr; are those of the Aeacids: the deeds of excellence by 
which the road of words is led. 88 

0'{K08EV appears problematic: whose house is involved? It 
may refer to the Aeacids' home of Aegina; then the sentence 
means "the right version of the song about the Aeacids' deeds is 
that of the Aeginetans" (Kohnken 75ff). Or it may refer to 
Pindar: "I know the right version of the song." The problem is 
that the sense of OlK08EV boils down to "here"; it might be 
marked by AlYlVU or 1l0l (50). 

Once we accept, however, that Pindar's preference is for the 
tradition favoured locally, the ambiguity becomes unobjec­
tionable: the right version of the song about the Aeacids' deeds 
will simultaneously be Pindar's and that of the Aeginetans. 

In N em. 7, then, Homeric and local traditions are ranged 
against each other; and it is the local tradition that is preferred. 
And this opposition dramatises a fact that is implicit throughout 
the corpus, of which the absence of Homer is only half the 
story, and which is as true for the stories of which no 
Iliadic/Odyssean version exists as for the stories of which they 
do: for every ode of Pindar in which a myth appears it can be 
said that a less well-known myth-be it from one of the lesser 
epics of the cycle, or the Hesiodic corpus, or a local 
tradition-has been chosen over a Homeric one. 

87 Carey (supra n.76) 37 and (supra n.68) 156. 
88 S. Fogelmark, "Pindar, Nemean 7.50-52," ClAnt 45 (1976) 121-32 at 129. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 333 

III 

This is the observation that provides a possible solution to the 
problem of Homer's absence from Pindar; a solution that 
reveals why Pindar should be reluctant to follow in Homer's 
footsteps. It is suggested by considering a reductionist 
restatement of the whole question. If the observation of the 
preference for the lesser-known myth is combined with 
Bundy's tenet (supra n.38: 3) that "there is no passage in Pindar 
... that is not in its primary purpose enkomiastic-that is, 
designed to enhance the glory of a particular patron," then the 
question becomes: what encomiastic function did lesser-known 
myth perform better than Iliadic/Od yssean? 

The answer lies, I suggest, in the notion of epinician as 
monument. 89 This is a topic neglected, I suspect, in part because 
of the famous lines in which Pindar contrasts his own art with 
that of the sculptor (N em. 5.1 ff): 

auK' avoPUXV'W1tolO<; £i~', rocn' EAwuoov'tu EPYU­
~£(JeUl o:yuA~U't' En' utn6:<; ~ue ~ lOO<; 

£o'tuo't'· aAA' En\. nuou<; 
OAK'UOO<; ev 't' aK'u't<p, yAUK'El' a018u, 

O"n:tX' aIT' Aiytvu<; OlUY'l£AA.otO' .... 90 

But the genuine contrast here is not between sculptor and poet 
but between EIT' au'ta~ ~aelll80.; and EITl1t6.O'a~ 6AK6.80.;: 
between the monument that appears on its plinth and nowhere 
else91 and the monument that goes everywhere. 92 The first is 
sculpture; the second, epinician. Because Pindar contrasts this 
aspect of his work with sculpture docs not mean that the media 

89 See], Duchemin, Pindare: poete et prophete (Paris 1955) Pt 4, ch. 1, esp. 
28lf, 296, 343f; C. Greengard, The Structure of Pindar's Epinician Odes 
(Amsterdam 1980) 3f; D. Steiner, "Pindar's 'Oggetti Parlanti'," I1SCP 95 
(1993) 159-80; cf]. W. Day, "Early Greek Grave Epigrams and Monuments," 
JHS 109 (1989) 16-28, 

90 I am no maker of statues 
Who fashions figures to stand unmoved 
On the self-same pedestal. 
On every merchantman, in every skiff 
Go, sweet song, from Aigina, 
And spread the news .... 

91 See C. A. M. Fennell, Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes2 (Cam­
bridge 1899) ad loe.; for the idleness of EAtVucroV1:a, cf lsthm. 2.44ff. 

92 Cf M. Lefkowitz, First Person Fictions: Pindar's Poetic 'I' (Oxford 1991) 
30. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

334 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

do not share other qualities, although the poem is superIor, 
because, going everywhere, it is more conspicuous. 

The notion of poem as monument is a theme thoroughly 
explored at Nem. 7.11-16: 

Ei 8e 'tUXll n<; ep8rov, Il-EAiq>pov' ai'tiav 
poa'icrt Motcruv EVEpaAE' 'tal Il-EYUAat yap uAKai 
crKOWV 1tOAUV Ull-vrov exovn 8E0Il-EVat· 
epyot<; 8e KaAo'i<; ecro1t'tpov tcrall-EV EVl cruv 'tpon:,?, 
d Mvall-0cruva<; EKan At1tapUIl-n:UKO<; 
EUpTJ'tat {n<;} a.1tOtva ll-oX8rov KAU'ta'i<; E1t£rov uOt8a'i<;.93 

Now, if song is to preserve deeds, it must itself be mem­
orable. Epinician must mark its victory and myth must play its 
part in this.94 Given the degree of familiarity with the Homeric 
poems evidenced by the sophisticated level of allusion that we 
have seen, would any retelling of a Homeric story mark the 
victory it was supposed to celebrate? Certainly, Pindar claimed 
that Homer had celebrated95 Ajax permanently (Nisetich [supra 
n.60J 12; Isthm. 3/4.55ff): 

UAA' "OIl-TJPo<; 'tOt 'tnillaKEv 8t' uv8pwJ1rov, 0<; alHoD 
n:a.crav op8wcrat<; apnuv Ka'tu pup80v Eq>pam:v 
8EO"J1EO"irov E1tErov AOt1to'i<; a8upnv. 

Ranged against Homer, any retelling would be a pale shadow: it 
would not be linked with the victor, but remain rooted in its 
Homeric source. The occasion would not be marked. 

And this, I suggest, is the reason for the absence of Homer 
from Pindar: Homeric myth could not properly mark his 

93 If any man's actions prosper, he strikes 
A honey-hearted well of the Muses' streams. 
Even high deeds of bravery 
Have a great darkness if they lack song; 
We can hold a mirror to fine doings 
In one way only, 
If with help of Memory in her glittering crown, 
Recompense is found for labour 
In echoing words of song. 

94 As every part of the epinician must; consider, for example the striking, 
memorable openings (e.g. 01. 1, 01. 6 or N em. 5 itself). Note the theme of 
conspicuousness in these: b Of Xpu(Jo~ uiSOflEVOV 1tUP U:tE Ota1tPC1t£t VUK1:l (01. 
1.1 f); apxoflcvOU o· £pyou 1tp0(JO)1tOV XpT] SCIlEV 'tT]AUUyCC; (Ot. 6.3f). 

95 R. A. McNeal, "Structure and Metaphor in Pindar's Fourth Isthmian," 
Quad Urbin 28 (1978) 135-56 at 154, attractively suggests that Pindar, in using 
6peooatC;. is using the vocabulary of monument. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 335 

patrons' victories, because it would have recalled not the 
victory, but its own Homeric past. It was so fully in the public 
domain that it could not be particular to anyone victory 
celebration. Homer was too well-known for Pindar to use. The 
myths that Pindar does relate, on the other hand, offer him the 
opportunity to provide their authoritative relation,96 and thus in 
turn distinctively to ornament his patrons' achievements.97 

This gives content to the appealing but unsatisfying notion of 
Pindar's refusal to walk in the shadow of Homer. Pindar 
avoided Homeric myth because it was so well-known; it was so 
well-known because of the quality of its narration in Homer. 

This nexus of ideas is neatly illustrated by the comparison of 
Griffin and Nagy on the uniqueness of Homer. Griffin (supra 
n.62: 53) ascribed the difference between the Cycle and the 
Iliad and Odyssey to "the exceptional genius which went into 
the creation of the two Homeric epics." Nagy, however, uses a 
model of evolving traditions and concentrates on the panhel­
lenism of the Homeric epics: how well-known they were. He 
argues that "the cycle epics are so different from the two 
Homeric epics not because they are more recent or more 
primitive but rather because they are more local in orientation 
and diffusion" (supra n.86: 8.14 n.4; cf Nagy 70-81). The 
Homeric epics have evolved to acquire their pan hellenic 
character. Pindar operates within the same tradition of 
panhellenisation (Nagy 416), transforming local into panhellenic 
traditions. 98 

This is Pindar's poetry going out on every boat announcing 
Aegina (Nem. 5.1ff), just as Homer blazed out the name of Ajax 
(Isthm. 3/4.55-60), and returns us to the notion of conspicuous 
monument. The myth makes a bid for panhellenic status,99 and 
the patron's fame is secured. 

96 The authoritative relation thus proves that his praise of the victor is 
reliable. I argue elsewhere (supra n.75) that Pindar's myths are less innovative 
than is widely believed; hence their authority. 

97 Hence, I am sure, the emphasis on the novelty of song at 01. 9.47ff (cf 
ad. 1.351£) which reveals that Nem. 8.20f, a more controversial passage, refers 
to the risk in the attempt to produce a new authoritative version of a myth. 

98 Nagy 437, 423. J. Strauss Clay uses the model of local evolving into 
panhellenic in her examination of the Homeric Hymns: The Politics of 
Olympus: Form and Meaning in the Homeric Hymns (Princeton 1989) 92f, 
268. 

99 If the myth is drawn, as many are, from traditions local to the victor, 
then, as the myth is placed in the hellenic canon, so are the city's defining 
traditions acknowledged throughout Greece. 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

336 PINDAR'S HOMER AND PINDAR'S MYTHS 

The notion of myth as monument suggests an approach to the 
large problem of the function of myth in Pin dar. Most 
contemporary scholarship approaches this question by seeing 
the myth of an epinician as a paradigm of themes stated 
elsewhere in the poem1oo-which paradigm either plays a part in 
an accumulation of significant detail and motif to form a 
complex unity with every other part of the poem,lOl or explores 
and illuminates themes that are suggested by the rest of the 
poem, while resisting neat integration with it. 1e2 I suggest that 
the function of myth is to provide a distinctive and distin­
guishing ornament on the monument to his patron's achieve­
ment and thus to mark that achievement. 

The two approaches are not, it fact, contradictory but 
complementary.l03 Indeed, my hypothesis should encourage 
rather than disappoint interpretative textualists. Bearing it in 
mind, they need not attempt to force every detail, however 
recalcitrant, of a myth into a unitarian interpretative schema. 104 

Nor, on a larger scale, need they be disturbed by the coun­
terexample of a myth that resolutely resists unitarian assimila­
tion with the rest of the poem in which it occurs, and which 
thus suggests that the whole paradigmatic approach is wrong­
headed. The view of myth as a conspicuous monument to the 
patron's achievement, comprising striking details that conduce 
to that end, offers a sufficient explanation for any myth or any 
detail in a myth: they are simply marking the victory. There 
may be a paradigmatic rclation over and above this function; 
there may not. This having been said, the model of myth as 

100 The classic exposition is Young (supra n.3) esp. 35-38. 
101 An approach exemplified by Young (esp. 2, 106) and Kohnken (esp. 227). 
102 Carey (supra n.44) 149f; cf D. P. Fowler, "Narrate and Describe: The 

Problem of Ekphrasis," JRS 81 (1991) 25-35, esp. 34£ on ekphrasis; R. Lyne, 
Words and the Poet (Oxford 1989) 63-68 on epic simile; C. W. MacLeod, "A 
Use of Myth in Ancient Poetry," CQ :-1.5.24 (1974) 82-93 (=supra n.34: 
159-70); and, strikingly, Dodds' comment on Platonic myth at Grg. 523A2. 

103 One approaches Pindar as encomiastic poetry; the other as poetic en­
comium. This convenient formulation appears in H. Lee, "The 'Historical' 
Bundy and Encomiastic Relevance in Pindar," CW 72 (1978-79) 65-70 at 67. 

104 The charge of hyperinterpretation is commonly levelled at the inter­
pretative textualist: S. Radt's review of Kbhnken, Gnomon 46 (1974) 113-21; 
Verdenius (supra n.l0) 4£, 57; cf Young 106. Avoiding hyperinterpretation by 
seeing the paradigm as an extreme, whose every detail need not be integrated 
into a unitarian interpretation, simply substitutes one difficulty for another: if 
these details are not to be related to other elements in the poem, why are they 
there? 



MANN, RUPERT, Pindar's Homer and Pindar's Myths , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 
35:4 (1994:Winter) p.313 

RUPERT MANN 337 

monument can confirm the sceptic's position also: if the hunt 
for a paradigmatic relation within a poem does not offer a 
reasonable quarry, it should be abandoned and not elaborated 
until it works out.10S 

OXFORD 

June, 1995 

105 I would like to thank the anonymous reader for this journal and, 
especially, Margaret IIowatson.