View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
1/20
Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"Author(s): Annette TeffetellerSource: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 1 (May, 2005), pp. 77-95Published by: on behalf ofCambridge University Press The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240Accessed: 17-03-2015 10:36 UTC
F R N S
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3556240http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
2/20
Classical
Quarterly
5.1
77-95
(2005)
Printed n
Great
Britain
77
doi:
10.1093/cq/bmi005
PINDAR'S
THREE
WORDS:
THE
ROLE OF APOLLO
IN THE
SEVENTH
NEMEAN*
At
the
end
of
his account
n the
SeventhNemeanof
Neoptolemus'
deathat
Delphi
and
subsequent
honours
there,
Pindar
remarks:
EVboVV14OV8tKaV
7pLa
ErTEa8LtapKEaEt.
While commentators
isagree
on
whether
he referenceof
the 'three
words'
is ana-
phoric
or
cataphoric,
here
s
general
agreement
s to
the
lackof numerical
pecificity
implied.
The
view
is
forcefully
stated
by
Lloyd-Jones:
WhenPindar
ays,
'for
ustice
...
three
wordswill be
enough',
here
s no use in
trying
o
work
out what
the
threewords
are;
n
Greek
three',
ike
our
expression
two or
three',
can
simply
mean'a
few'.1
It is
the
purpose
of this
paper
o
suggest
hat t is
in
fact
possible
to workout what
he
threewords
are,
hat hereferences
specific
and
numerically recise,
and hat he 'three
words'
epitomize
Apollo's
role n
legitimizing
he
posthumous
tatus
f
Neoptolemus,
whose
story
n life
and
n death
orms
he central
aradeigma
of
the
ode.
The
passage
that
contains
the
account
of
Neoptolemus'
life
and
posthumous
honours
and
provides
he
context
for the
disputedphrase
comprises
ines
30-53:
aAAAOLVOV
yap EPXETaL
30
KE1
'Aia,
ieaE
8'a'8'K?7-
Vroy Kat
0oK.ov'ra
7rt,
84
ytv'vEat
cv
OEOS
,6lpov
6elp
Abyov
rETVaKo7-Wv.
foa0oc0v rot
7rapahLyav
8Cp/aAbvbpUVKOA7O
'bAov
Oov6s.
v
OLvOowtS'8arT'8otL
KELTaL
Iptiztov 7TrAtv
NeoiTrrAEt,
E'7TELTpa'OEV,
35
Kq
Kaz•
avaoi
rr6v'vqaav8' 7ro7rA&tov
ZK6poU
V
~v
alapTE, 7rAayX0EvrEs8'~
'E0 'bpav
LKOV0O.
MoAoaaid
8'CLqPaaiAevEv
ALyov
XpOVov
aRdap
yeVor
alEl
EPEL
rofr6 of
tpas.
ofXE'o
~
rp
S
OE6V,
40
K7TE7
a
ywv
TpoifaEv
dKpOtViWV
tva
KpECJV
VLV
V5TrEpaixag
iAaaEv&wVTLvX6'V7 p ,IaxalpQL.
/a'pvvOv E TErptW&aa& oot
6EvayEaL.
&AAa
-
To6Patlov
a&i8oW-
KEy
Epiv
Se
rv' E&VOV 'AcEL
TaAaLraTW
*
It
is a
pleasure
o record
my
deep
ndebtedness
o
AlexanderDale for
help
with
many
of
the
points
discussed
here.
My
thanks
go
also to
the
editorandreader or
CQ
for
a
number
f useful
commentsand
suggestions.
1
H.
Lloyd-Jones,
'Modem
interpretation
f Pindar:
he
Second
Pythian
and
Seventh
Nemean
Odes',
JHS 93
(1973),
109-37,
at 133
=
Greek
Epic, Lyric,
and
Tragedy:
The
Academic
Papers
1
(Oxford, 1990),
110-53,
at
146.
Cf.
C.
Carey,
'Pindarica',
n
R.D.
Dawe,
J.
Diggle,
and
P.E.
Easterling
(edd.), Dionysiaca:
Nine Studies in Greek
Poetry
Presented
to Sir
Denys Page
(Cambridge, 1978),
21-44,
at
37; id.,
A
Commentary
on
Five
Odes
of
Pindar:
Pythian
2,
Pythian
9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8
(New
York,
1981),
154;
G.
W.
Most,
The Measures
of
Praise: Structure and
Function
in
Pindar's
Second
Pythian
and SeventhNemean
Odes,
Hypomnemata
3
(G6ttingen,
1985),
174;
L.
Woodbury,
'Neoptolemus
at
Delphi:
Pindar,
Nem.
7.30ff.',
Phoenix
33
(1979),
95-133,
at
113;
L. R.
Famell
(ed.),
The Works
f
Pindar
(London,
1930),
2.296.
Classical
Quarterly
5.1
?
The
ClassicalAssociation
2005;
all
rights
reserved
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
3/20
78
ANNETTE
TEFFETELLER
AlaKLLVvpEOV7rwV
o'
AotTF
V
/LEa~L
45
OEO1
trap'
EVToELXEaCL
01OV,
rpOolaLS
'
o8,
csTO/.L7Tais
OEpUaKo7TOV
IKEEV
V5VraoATOvOTLS9.
E(OnvvI3ov
9s
t'Kav
pla
Herma
nsapKEtEtL
pOV
b0E
t
0
c,
alTUS
Efpy/iaaul•
EaLoTC•TEL.
A'iytva,
rEW-V
J60
T'
KYOVCo)V
paac/
LOL
OroELIEwt
50
(aEvvais
gpEtrais
g
SOv
KvpIav
Aywv
OLKOOEV
vhaa
yap
avarrav-
atr
Eiv
lTavr
t
tvKEia Epyq). KOpov3'EXEL
Kat
Ka'
T
'Tp7TV'
aVOE'
ApoS(ata.
Controversy
centres
on
the
lines at the
beginning
and end of the
passage
cited: 31-6
and
48-52. For
lines
31-6 the text cited is that of the
manuscripts
with the
following
exceptions:
(1)
Line 33: for the
manuscripts'
floaO6wv,
Famell's
floaOowv,
onstrued
as
present
participle
masculine
singular
nominative of
roao&ow,2
and
taken as
referring
to
Pindar3
(or,
more
precisely,
to
the
'I'
of
the ode's
narrator,
who
is
to be identified
with Pindar).4
(2)
Line 33: for the
manuscripts'
yap,
Hermann's
rrapa
requiredby
the
metre,
sup-
ported by
the
scholia,
and all
but
unanimously
accepted).5
(3)
Line 34:
p6,ov,
an ancient variant
(•E1oAov)ofz6AEv
(mss.
4toAE[v]),
recorded in
the scholia6 and read
by
Hermann
and
others.7 Construed
as
first-person singular,
referring
to Pindar as
poet
and
ode-narrator.8
2
Farnell
(n.
1),
291-5;
this
reading
(and
construal)
s
acceptedby
C. M.
Bowra
(ed.),
Pindari carmina cum
fragmentis
(Oxford,
19472),
ad
loc.;
B. Snell
(ed.),
Pindari
Carmina
cum Fragmentis (Leipzig, 1953',
19552);
ibid., vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1959', 19644), ad loc.;
E.
Wiist,
'Pindar
als
geschichtsschreibender
ichter',
dissertation
Tilbingen,
1967), 144-5,
154-5;
C.
Segal,
'Pindar'sSeventh
Nemean',
TAPA
8
(1967),
431-80,
at
445;
Lloyd-Jones
(n.
1),
132
(= 145);
G. M.
Kirkwood,
Nemean7
and the theme
of vicissitude n
Pindar',
n
id.
(ed.), Poetry
and Poetics
from
Ancient
Greece to the
Renaissance:
Studies in Honor
of
James
Hutton
(Ithaca,
NY,
1975),
56-90,
at
81-2;
A.
K6hnken,
Die Funktion
des
Mythos
bei
Pindar:
Interpretationen
zu sechs
Pindargedichten, Untersuchungen
zur
antiken
Literatur
und
Geschichte
12
(Berlin,
1971),
67
and
nn.
143, 144;
B. Snell and
H.
Maehler
(edd.),
Pindarus
Pars
I:
Epinicia
(Leipzig, 19715,
19806),
ad.
loc.;
G.W.
Most,
'Pindar,
Nem.
7,
31-
36',
Hermes
114
(1986),
262-71,
at
268-70;
cf.
id.,
Measures
n.
1),
157;
and
W.H. Race
(ed.
and
trans.),
Pindar: Nemean
Odes,
Isthmian
Odes,
Fragments,
Loeb Classical
Library
(Cambridge,
MA,
1997),
ad
loc.
(Cf.
Schmidt'semendation
foacowv
with the
same
interpret-
ation,noted butrejectedby Farnell n. 1], acceptedby Carey,Commentaryn. 1].) (Thislist,
as similar
nstances
below,
is
intended
o be
representative,
ot
exhaustive.)
3
WithWiist
(n. 2),
Segal (n. 2),
Lloyd-Jones n. 1),
Snell-Maehler
editions
5
and
6)
(n.
2),
and
Race
(n.
2).
4
Cf.
M. R.
Lefkowitz,
First Person
Fictions:
Pindar's Poetic
'I'
(Oxford, 1991).
5
See D. E.
Gerber,
Emendations
in
Pindar 1513-1972
(Amsterdam,
976),
115.
6 ?
Nem. 7.47
(Drachmann
II
123.1).
7
W. J. Slater
'Doubts
aboutPindaric
nterpretation',
J 72
[1977],
193-208,
at
206)
is
too
severe
on the
provenance
f
ot6Aov
'molon
has no
ms.
authority');
ee
Carey,Commentaryn.
1),
148-9,
who
judges,
more
reasonably,
hat
'We
may
conclude
that
'6hAov
and
1L6AEV
re
ancient
variants.'
It
will
be
clear
from
the discussion n the
text, however,
that I
disagree
with
Carey's udgement
'Pindarica' n. 1),
44,
n.
96]
that
'the
reading
L6AEv
s
convincingly
defended
by
W.
J.
Slater'.)
8With G. Fraccaroli,Le Ode di Pindaro(Verona,1894), 588, n. 2; G. Hermannn C. G.
Heyne
(ed.),
Pindari
carmina
G6ttingen,
1798),
ad
loc.;
U.
von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,
'Pindars
iebentes
nemeisches
Gedicht',
SB
Berl
(1908),
328-52;
Wiist
(n.
2); Segal (n. 2),
445-9;
Lloyd-Jones
n. 1),
132-3
(= 145-6);
Snell-Maehler
(editions
5
and
6) (n. 2);
Race
(n. 2).
For those who take the
verb
as
third-person
lural,
ee
Most,
Hermes
n. 2),
264,
n. 6.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
4/20
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
5/20
80 ANNETTE TEFFETELLER
claim:
specific
nstance
f
the
gnomic
ruths to
be
considered,
ndnot
ust
anygod
is meantbut the
god,
the
god
of
Delphi,Apollo.15
nd now the
goaOocov
s
par-
ticularly
vocative:he
poet
comesas a
helper
o the
Helper od;16
he
word
play
in the
clause-initial
articiple
s
signalledby
the enclitic
rot,
ensuring
hatthe
pointed sage
s not
overlooked.
floaOoov
eferring
o Pindar
rather
han
Apollo
or
Neoptolemus)'8
akesmorestructuralnd
poetic
sense in the contextof the
ode
and its
Pindar's
iew,
expressed
lsewhere,
f his roleas
praise-poet.19
tk6Aov
s to be takenn a
figurative
ense,
as seen
by
Segal,20
ho
adduces
he
par-
allelof a
figurative
rrival
n
Olympian
of the
poet
with
he
victorious
mule-team
and
heir
harioteer
going'
o Pitana n
the Eurotas
24)
and
coming
o',
'arriving
at'
(28)
he
ineage
f
Hagesias'amily.
The
verbs
f
'going'
n
the
Ol.
6
passage
re
modal
nd
hus
provide
o
parallel
or ndicative
sage,
but
f
Pindar ished
o make
the
igurative
tatement
I
come',
whethero Pitana r
Delphi
r
anywhere
lse on
the
map
oroff
it,
howelse wouldhe do it?
Aorist orms re
precisely
what s
wantedn
such a context.21
15
Cf. line 40.
It
was
regular
usage among
the Athenians o
referto
Apollo
simply
as 'the
god',
as
observed,
for
example, by
T.
Gould on OT 86
(Oedipus
the
King:
A
Translation
with
CommentaryEnglewood
Cliffs, NJ,
1970], 26).
16
3o0rl-8p6ttoS
was a cult title of
Apollo
at
Delphi
(cf.
Callim.
Ap.
69)
and
Boa06os
was the
nameof a month n the
Delphic
calendar
cf.
Callim.Del. 27:
goa06os
as an
epithet
of
Apollo
at
Delos).
17
See
J. D.
Denniston,
The GreekParticles
(Oxford,
19502),
537-55.
18
For
example,Carey, Commentaryn. 1)
150
(Neoptolemus);
Most,
Hermes
(n.
2)
270
(OE6s).
19
For
example,
Ol.
13.96-7, 1.110,9.83;
Pae. 6.10-11. See
Lloyd-Jones
n. 1),
132
(=
145)
and
Segal
(n. 2),
447. The
interpretation
of
foa6wov
as
genitive
plural,
taken with
re0vaRK6rwv
as
referringo 'deadchampions'honoured tDelphi,wasperemptorilyondemned
y
Wilamowitz
as 'heller Unsinn' and
refuted
n
detail
by
Farnell
(n. 1),
292--convincingly,
in
spite
of
Woodbury's
n. 1)
subsequent
ttempt
at
resuscitation
and
Maehler's
acceptance
n
editions
7 and 8 of
Snell-Maehler
[Leipzig,
19847, 19878]).
As
Carey
rightly
observes
Commentary
[n. 1],
149),
'this
reading
s
disastrous or
the
progress
of
thought
n
the ode. It
contradicts
11ff.,
narrowing
he
possibility
of
rT1td
so as to offer
Sogenes
no
hope.'
20
Segal
(n. 2),
447. His
(and
others')
past
tense
rendering
I
came',
however,
obscures
he
sense.
Carey'sobjection
Commentaryn. 1], 150)
that aorists
uch
as
4toAov,
Iflavalways
refer
to the
arrival f
poet/chorus
at the
place
of
performance'
s
not
compelling;
ee
below,
text
and
n. 21.
21
Goodwin,
Syntax
of
the Moods and
Tenses
of
the
Greek
Verb
rev.
edn,
London,
1889),
?60,
notes
that:
The aorist s
sometimesused
colloquiallyby
the
poets
(especially
he
drama-
tists)when a suddenaction,which isjust takingplace, is spokenof as if it hadalreadyhap-
pened.'
This
usage,
however,
is
not,
as Goodwin
implies
it
is,
a
departure
rom
standard
usage
in
the sense of an
innovating
olloquial
deviation;
t
is,
rather,
n
archaizing
sage,
con-
tinuing
he
originalaspectual
non-temporal)
unction
of the aorist.
n
verbs
of telic
Aktionsart,
such
as
~oAE'v,
he root aorist
s
the
unmarkedorm
(both
morphologically
nd
semantically),
expressing
he
basic actionof the verb
rrespective
f time.
(In
poAtv,
~toA-s
generalized
s
the
uniform oot in the aorist
[andfuture]
rom
*pSEA-
*
<
melH3-]
and its
ablaut orms
[with
the
phonologicaldevelopments
ndergone y some]
via metathesis nd
evelling:
see A. L.
Sihler,
New
Comparative
Grammar
f
Greekand Latin
[New
York
and
Oxford,
1995],
?
106.2.)
This
usage
occurs in the attested
iterature ven with
augmented
orms
(cf.
e.g.
Il.
4.243
'ar-TrrE),
although
he
original
usage
was of
coursewithout he
augment,
as
here;
moreover,
t
spreads
to
sigmatic
aoristsbuilt to verbs of
atelic Aktionsart
as
well as
secondary igmatic
aorists
built to
presents
ormed rom
root
aorists,
either
characterized
y
stem-formants
e.g.
ske/o,
-
ye/o]
or back-formedalthoughhese oftenindicate ngressive vel sim.) action]); or the two
types (non-ingressive
nd
ingressive),
cf.,
for
example,
Od.
8.481
,t4AalE;
Aesch.
Ag.
1192
a7rrE7rvaav;
II.
1.33
I36ELaUv.
See
J. D.
Denniston
(ed.),
Euripides:
Electra
(Oxford,
1939),
ad verses
215 and
248;
W.
S. Barrett
ed.),
Euripides:Hippolytos Oxford,
1964),
on verse
614.
Dennistonrefers to
Kiihner-Gerth,
Ausfiihrliche
Grammatik
er
griechischen
Sprache
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
6/20
PINDAR'S
THREE
WORDS
81
The 8
of 34
marks a
paratactic
rogression,
n effect
explanatory:
Why
do
I
mention
Delphi?-Because
Neoptolemus
s buried
here.'22
Usages
such
as this are
best
interpreted
as
remnants-found,
not
surprisingly,
in
archaizing poetic
tra-
ditions-of
the
original
function
of
particles
such as
SE
not as connectives
but
as
enclitic
emphasizing
particles
in
a
paratactic
structure,
as
analysed by
Meillet.23
Pindar
says
in effect:
'In
order
to illustrate the honour
that a
god
can bestow
upon
a
mortal-and,
moreover,
through
the medium
of
poetry-I
turn now to
Delphi,
and
I
do so because
that is
where
Neoptolemus
is buried.
It is
in
Pytho's
holy ground
that he
lies,
and
he lies
there because
he sacked
Priam's
city.'
The related
themes of
different
fates allotted
to different
men and
a mixture
of
good
and bad allotted
to
any given
individual
(cf.
5-6
and
54-8)
are illustrated
in
Neoptolemus'
story,
the former
in
relation
specifically
to
Ajax
(20-30),
the
latter
to be
echoed
in
the
transition to
praise
of
Thearion,
whose
gifts
from
Fate are
predominantly
positive
(54-60)
and
who
is fortunate
also
in
having
as a
guest-friend
a
praise-poet
who
brings
him
true
fame
in
song
(60-3).
The transition from Ajax' story to Neoptolemus' is made via the gnomic obser-
vation
that death
comes to
all
men,
whether esteemed
or not.
Other
interpretations
of
a86K77TOV
Kat
80KEOVTa
in 31
(for example,
'the
unexpecting
and the
expecting')24
obscure
the
point
of
the
gnome
and
its structural
unction in the
ode.25
Not
only
is
the
following
rt•-•
relevant,
so also
is the
preceding
story
of
Ajax
and
Odysseus;
hence
(Hanover,
19043),
II.i.163-5,
for
'an excellent
accountof the
aorist
apparently
sed for
the
present';
ee Denniston's
note on
El.
248,
where
he refers
o
44wfta
at
Med.
791 as used
'for
olyt~uw'.
This observation
ointsup
the error
f the
perspective
which sees
these
types
of
aor-
istic
usage
as
strategies
of
stylistics.
They
are, rather,
vestiges
of an
Indo-European
erbal
system,
the
morphosemantics
f
which
operated
via the
alignment
of formal
(stem)
classes
with functional
(semantic) categories
in the verb. (Even
though
the onomatopoeicverb
4tuowa
is a
sigmatic
aorist formed to
a
present
in
-?o
[<
*yeo)],
the inherent
semantics of
the
verb,
expressing
as
it does the
uttering
f the
exclamation
titot,
a telic
action,
avoursaor-
istic
usage.)
22
See
Denniston
n.
17),
169
(8E
or
y&p);
f.
182
('resumptive'
84;
cf.
8j).
Thus neither
Farnell's
but'
nor
Woodbury's
and' is an
appropriate
endering
f 84 n this
passage;
such
translations
re in fact
little betterthan
'straw-man'
rguments,
et
up
merely
and
precisely
for the
purpose
of
being
knockeddown.
23
A.
Meillet,
ntroduction
c
' tude
comparative
es
langues
ndo-europeennes
Paris,
1903,
19378),
372.
Meillet's
remarkably
stute
nsights
nto
the
syntactic
tructure
f the
early
Indo-
Europeananguages
have been
recently
confirmed
by
the identification f
(early)
Greek
as a
'non-configurational'
anguage;
ee A.
M. Devine
and L. D.
Stephens,
Discontinuous
Syntax:
Hyperbatonn Greek(New York and Oxford,2000) (although, nexplicably,Devine and
Stephens
do not
mention
Meillet;
see
my
'Greek
syntax:
heoretical
pproaches
rom
Meillet
to
Devine and
Stephens',
Mouseion,
eries
III,
1
[2001],
251-78).
The
value of
diachronic
onsiderations
n
synchronic
nalysis
s missed
by
(among,
unfortu-
nately,many
others)
Denniston
n. 17),
162,
who dismisses
suchconcerns
as
pertaining
o
'only
the
history
of
language'.
24
For
example,
Farnell
n.
1),
291;
D. E.
Gerber,
Pindar,
Nemean
7, 31',
AJP
84
(1963),
182-8,
at
187;
Carey,
Commentary
n.
1),
148;
Most
(n.
1),
154-5.
25
Thetranslation
esteemed'
and ts
negative
s better
n
the
context
hat the obscure
and he
famous' since
it is
possible
(in
English
usage
at
least)
to be famous
without
being
actually
esteemed,
and esteem
is the
point
at
issue
here.
Asymmetrical eadings
such
as Fennell's
('Ingloriously
even
on a
glorious
hero',
Pindar:
The Nemean and
Isthmian Odes
[Cambridge,
883;
18992],
87)
and others'
miss the
polarity
of the
figure,
which
emphasizes
the
mortality
of all humankind.
&86K-o70V
Ka
to0KEov7a
is
a
quantifier
formula of a familiar
type,
as discussed
by
C.
Watkins,
How to Kill
a
Dragon:
Aspects
of Indo-European
oetics
(New
Yorkand
Oxford,
1995),
41-9. In this case
the
designators
oth shareand
oppose
mor-
phological
signs
(the
stem
morphology
and
the inflectional
morphology,
respectively),
via
polyptoton.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
7/20
82 ANNETTE TEFFETELLER
the aAAa
of
line 30:
'Odysseus'
fame
was
greater
than he
deserved;
people
are
blind:
Ajax
was best after
Achilles;
but,
ah
well,
we all
die,
whether
we're esteemed or not
(and,
moreover,
whether the esteem
or
lack of it is
just
or
not).
But,
properly
esteemed
in
life or
not,
a
god
can
increase
our fame
after death
(and
poets
are the vehicle of that
fame).
So,
I
come to the
story
of the
honour
Neoptolemus
has received from
Apollo'---the
subtext
being
the
complexity
of
Neoptolemus'
fame in both its
positive
and
negative
aspects
(the
latter
notoriously
dwelt
on in
the Sixth
Paean).26
Both
aspects
are undeniable
parts
of
Neoptolemus'
story
and thus
both are valid
subjects
for a
poet
(hence
the final lines
of
this
ode
in
which Pindar denies
explicitly-
what is
implicit
in the
passage
at
hand-that he has ever treated
Neoptolemus
with
disrespect, undoubtedly
an allusion to the
unfavourable
reception
assumed
by
com-
mentators
since
antiquity
on the
part
of
(some) Aeginetans
to
Pindar's
account of
the circumstances
of
Neoptolemus'
death
in
the Sixth
Paean)27
but
here,
among
his
kin,
the
positive aspects (the
a3pors,
tender',
'graceful'
part
of
Neoptolemus'
A6yoc)
re
to
be
emphasized.28
Thecomplexityf Neoptolemus'ame,his fortunes verwaxingandwaningby
turns,
hapes
he
ensuing
arrative
36-47):
Whenhe left
Troy,
he
missed
Scyros,
his
boyhood
home
(an
unfortunate
ccurrence)
ut
he
reached
Epirus
wherehe
ruled
n Molossia
a
fortunate
episode)--only
or
a
short
ime,
however
unfortu-
natebut
his
offspring eep
hat
honour or ever
(fortunate).
e
went
to
Delphi
to
propitiate pollo
with
the
finest
poils
rom
Troy
a
positiveaction),
but when
therebecame nvolved
n
a
quarrel
verthe sacrificialmeats
a
negative
ction),
during
which
he was
killed
(unfortunate),
ut his deathwas fatedfor he was destined
26
Observing
hatPae. 6
presents
the deathof
Achilles'
son
Neoptolemus
s a
rial
s,
or ven-
geance,
of the
god Apollo',
Watkins
n. 25),
512-13,
records
with
approval
an
Rutherford's
suggestion 'Neoptolemusand the paean-cry: n echo of a sacredaetiologyin Pindar',ZPE
88
[1991],
1-10;
cf.
id.,
Pindar'sPaeans
[Oxford,
001],
318-20)
that
he
Pythoctonia-aetiol-
ogy
of the
paean-cry
n
Pae. 6
serves
o
suggest
that
as an
opponent
f
Apollo
Neoptolemus
s a
sort of second
Delphic
dragon',
and
goes
further
o see
the
Neoptolemus-serpentquation
encoded in
the
basic formulaof
dragon-slaying
n
Pae. 6.112-20. Cf.
W.
Burkert,
Homo
Necans:
The
Anthropology
f
Ancient Greek
Sacrificial
Ritual and
Myth,
trans.
P.
Bing
(Berkeley,
1983),
119-20.
27
Z
Nem.
7.48,
E
Nem.
7.64,
E
Nem.
7.103
(Drachmann
III
126.8ff.,
129.4,
137.3ff.).
For
discussion,
see
especially
W.
Schadewaldt,
Der
AuJbau
des Pindarischen
Epinikion
Halle,
1928),
259-343;
E.
Tugendhat,
Zum
Rechtfertigungsproblem
n
Pindars 7 Nemeischen
Gedicht',
Hermes 88
(1960),
385-409;
Lloyd-Jones (n. 1),
127-37
(= 138-53);
Most,
Measures
n.
1),
133-4 and
203-13;
M.
Heath,
Ancient
nterpretations
f Pindar'sNemean
7', Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 7 (1993), 169-99. Prominent among dis-
sentersare
E.
L.
Bundy,
StudiaPindarica
Berkeley,
1962
=
CPCP
18,
1-92)
1.4.29,
n.
70,
and
elsewhere;
A.
K6hnken
n. 2),
38-42;
W.
Slater,
Futures
n
Pindar',
CQ
19
(1969),
86-94
(see
contra S.
Fogelmark,
Studies in Pindar with
Particular
Reference
to
Paean VI and Nemean VII
[Lund,
1972],
93-116;
G.
Cerri,
A
proposito
del futuro
della
litote
in
Pindaro:Nem.
7,
102
sgg.',
QUCC
22
[1976], 83-90);
see
now also
Slater, 'Pindar,
Nemean
7.102--past
and
present', CQ
51
(2001),
360-7,
reprising
his
views in
response
o
H.
Erbse,
'Uber
Pindars
Umgang
mit dem
Mythos',
Hermes
127
(1999),
13-32. For recentdiscussion
and
support
of
the
apologyhypothesis,
ee
Rutherford,
aeans
(n. 26),
321-3.
28
Cf.
B.
Gentili,
L'effigie
bifronte
di
Neottolemonel sestoPeana e nella settimaNemeadi
Pindaro',
n Letterature
omparate:
roblemi
metodo.Studi
n onoredi
E.
Paratore
Bologna,
1981),
esp.
108-9;
cf.
id,
Poesia e
pubblico
nella Grecia
antica
(Rome,
1984),
185-91,
esp.
190:
'La
coesistenzadi
episodi
degni
e
indegni,
di azioni
pie
ed
empie
nel dossier
biografico
fu il datoproprio qualificante ellaconcezionegrecadell'eroe.'
As discussed
above,
the
god
here
is
Apollo,
but the
OE6r
in the
general
statement
f 31 is
unnamed
and,
while
clearly
the reference s in the
first instance
o
Apollo,
we
recall,
with
the
scholiasts,
hat the Muse is
also
a
•E6s;
the
ambivalence
mphasizes
he
fact
that both
play
a role in
the
establishment nd
promulgation
f
Neoptolemus'
ame.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
8/20
PINDAR'S
THREE WORDS
83
to remainthere
for ever as a
GEttLLUKo1TO
of ceremonies
n
Apollo's
holy precinct
(fortunate).
The
complexity
of
Neoptolemus'
story
as told
by
Pindar
supports
the
interpretation
given
above of
lines 34-5:
Pindar
turns to
Delphi
because
it is
in
Pytho's
holy ground
that
Neoptolemus
lies-and he
lies there because
he sacked Priam's
city. Limiting
E7TE'
o a
temporal
sense here
impoverishes
the moral dimension of Pindar's narrative.
Lloyd-Jones
urges
a causal sense
which
will
introduce
'not
simply
the statement
that
Neoptolemus
took
Troy,
but the
whole
explanation
of how he came
to
Delphi.'29
I
would
go
a
step
further: with
multi-layered,
systematic ambiguity,
Pindar is
making
the
point
that
Neoptolemus
not
only
went
to
Delphi
but
died in
Delphi
because
he
sacked
Priam's
city.
As Most
observes,
'by
the
simple expedient
of
referring
to
Troy
as
Hp~aiov
vrr6A'
Pindar
'unmistakably
set before
the reader's
[and,
more
pertinently,
his
listeners']
eyes
the whole scene of
carnage perpetrated
by
Neoptolemus'30-and,
most
importantly,
he reminded
them of
the critical
point
that his atrocities
constituted
sacrilege.
For that
sacrilege Apollo
had
vowed to
slay
him and did so, ironically, in his own sanctuary where Neoptolemus had come
hoping
to
propitiate
him, and,
moreover,
through
the
agency
of one
of his
priests,
in
a
quarrel
over
sacrificial
offerings.31
It
is not
necessary
to
see,
as
many
commenta-
tors
do,
a stark
contrast between
the account
in
Paean
6 and that of
Nemean
7;32
t is a
common theme
in Greek
thought
that,
while a
god
is the ultimate cause
of
a
given
action,
especially
a
slaying,
a man
may
be
the
proximate
cause.33
Having
slain
him
for his
crimes,
Apollo
then honours
Neoptolemus
for
his
virtues
by granting
him burial within the
holy precinct
of
Delphi.
This is the
final result
in
the
causal
chain of
events
beginning
with
his
sack of
Troy. Neoptolemus
may
thus
be
said--paradoxically--to
lie
in
Delphi
because he sacked
Troy.34
Most
sees
clearly
that this is the only sense that can be extracted from the sentence beginning Cv
29
Lloyd-Jones
n.
1),
132-3
(=
145-6).
30
Most,
Measures
(n.
1),
166
(my
brackets).
Most's
interpretation
f the
Neoptolemus
passage,
however,
differs
significantly
rom that
proposed
here;
see the discussion
n
the text
below.
31
Forthe
pMaXapa
s sacrificial
nife and therefore he
slayer
as
priest,
see
Most,
Measures
(n. 1),
164 and
n.
146.
Furthermore,
is
death
by
sacrificial
knife
recalls
another of
Neoptolemus'questionable
actions:
his sacrifice
of
Polyxena,
almost
certainlyregarded
as
sacrilegeby
Pindar's
audience,
as indicated
by
the treatment
f the theme
in archaic
poetry
and
vase-painting;
ee
the references ollected
n
Most,
161-2.
32
For
example,
Tugendhat
n. 27),
391,
who sees the two
accountsas
significantly
ifferent
stories; f. Most,Measuresn. 1), 165: whilebothpoems ell the samegeneral tory, heydiffer
markedly
n details
of
incident,
mphasis,
ndmotivation
n such a
way
that he
Paean's
argely
hostile
account
f
Neoptolemus
ontrasts
harply
with the
Nemean's
uniformly
avourable ne'.
33
For
instance,
he
death
of
Patroclus,
I.
16.788-822,
849-50, or,
indeed,
the death of
Achilles
as
treated
by
Pindar n
Pae.
6.78-80: shot
by
Apollo taking
the
mortal form
of
Paris.
Consequently,
s Rutherford bserves
Paeans [n.
26], 314),
'the
discrepancy
of
Nem.
7
with Pae.
6]
is
not so
great,
because
Pindarhas
already
established
hat
Apollo
can act
in
the
form
of
another'.
Moreover,
do
not
take
avrLrvX6vr'
n 42 as
exculpating
Neoptolemus,
as do most
commentators,
n
attributing
is death to
'mere chance and bad
luck'
(Most,
Measures
[n. 1],
170;
cf.
to the
contrary
Rutherford,
14,
translating
Nem. 7.42
as 'where a
man struck
him
with
a sword as
he struckback
...').
On
the
contrary,
he
perpetrator/
victim-to-be s caused
(enticed?
nvited?)by
the
deity
to
repeat
his
crime,
mutatis
mutandis,
and is
then,
in the
full flush of
guilt,
slain for it. The statement
hat
Neoptolemus
s
slain
by
a priest(a man with a sacrificialknife,a
,tpXaLpa)
hile quarrelling ver sacrificialofferings
clearlypoints
to
yet
another
ct of
sacrilege
on
Neoptolemus'
part.
34
The
paradox
s missed
by
H.
Pelliccia,
Pindar,
Nemean
7.31-36 and he
syntax
of
aetiol-
ogy',
Harvard
Studies
n
Classical
Philology
92
(1989),
100-1;
while he is
prepared
o allow
a
causalsense for
Ebr7En
n the
passage,
he
sees
only 'vagueness
or confusion'
n the construction.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
9/20
84
ANNETTE TEFFETELLER
Hnlo'ocr
and
ending
davaol
rr6vq-aav,
but he
rejects
this
interpretation
on
the exces-
sively
literal
objection
that
Neoptolemus'
sack of
Troy
is not
the
proximate
cause of
his
receiving
funeral honours at
Delphi,
and he
adjusts
the text
accordingly.35
But not
even Homer
in
his
relatively
straightforward
narrative
limits himself
to
proximate
causation
(consider,
for
instance,
Achilles' bitter
lament that Artemis
did
not
slay
Briseis at the sack of
Lymessos, thereby
forestalling
the chain of events that led to
the death of
Patroclus,
or the
complex unfolding
of the
causal
chain that led to the
action of the
Iliad)
and
Pindar,
of all
poets, ought
not to be
expected
to do
so.36
Having
begun
his
story
of
Neoptolemus
with
the observation that
Apollo
honours
him,
expressed
in
the
general
gnome
that
OEOs
rings
a man
honour
by exalting
his
fame after
death,
a
generality
made at once
specific
by
mention of
Neoptolemus,
Pindar ends
his account with
the observation that
Apollo
bears
true witness to
Neoptolemus'
deeds,
thereby assuring
that
justice
is done
him in his
posthumous
reputation.
The
controversy concerning
lines 48-52
is focused on
the
punctuation
and
resulting
variations
in
sense,
and
the
identity
of
the witness.
The
punctuation
of the manuscripts, followed by a number of earlier editors, is given above (p. 78).
Most modem
editors
accept
Hermann's
punctuation:
ma7t7arnE,/AIYLva,...
EKyOVWV.
Opa
..., 37
but
he
manuscript
eading
was
convincingly
efended
y
Carey:38
he
EvtLrXavwa-theme,
oiced
n
49
andechoedand
expanded, long
withthe wealth-
of-inspiration
and boldness themes
in
50ff.,
cut
off
by
the Abbruch of
52,
all
support
he
manuscriptunctuation.
In
addition,
wo urther
roblemslague
he
nterpretation
f the
praise
f
Aegina's
descendants
in
lines 50-2:
the
construal of
Opau6{
..
OL'KOOEv
nd the sense
conveyed
by
otKOOEv.
or
the
former,
he
most
satisfactory
olution
s that
proposed
by
Fennell
and followed
by
Kohnken
and
Carey:
assumption
f
an elided
Jtvat,
with
the
phrase
6'8v
(EdvaL)
aken n apposition o
o66';39
f the manyandvariedobjections o this
view none
has
demonstrated
that
it
is
unacceptable.40
It is
perplexing
hat he
sense
of
otKOOev
as been so
disputed,41 articularly
n
view
of
Pindar'suse
of the wordelsewhere
see
esp.
01.
3.43, 6.99, 7.4;
Nem.
9.19;
Isthm.
4.12).
Carey's interpretation
of
OLKOOev
as
'at
home',42
however,
perhaps
overempha-
sizes a locatival
sense;
while the reference s
clearly
to
stories
of
Aeginetan
heroes,
O~KOOEv
ppears
to
carry
more of
an ablatival than
a locatival sense.
Even
in
Nem.
3.31,
where
o'KOOEv
LpTvE
s
taken
by Carey
andothers
as
'search
at
home',
an
abla-
tival sense is
to be
preferred:
'look
for
stories that
originate from
Aegina'.43
Pindar
35Most,Hermes n. 2), 268-71.
36
Another
Homeric
parallel
warning
us not to look
to
proximate
auses is
II.
2.270:
the
Achaeansare
'grieved'
not because
of Thersites'recent
treatment nd
present
sufferings
but
rather
because
of his own
prior
actions.
Perhaps
he
grief
of the
Delphians
noted
at
43 arises
not
in
response
to
Neoptolemus'
death
itself
(as
generally
assumed
by
commentators,
or
example,
Most,
Measures
[n. 1],
171)
but
to
his
sacrilege
n
the
holy precinct
and the fact
that a murder
ccurredwithin the
sanctuary.
37
This
punctuation
nd the
resulting
sense is
accepted
also
by Lloyd-Jones
n.
1),
133
(= 146)
and
Most,
Measures
n. 1),
174.
38
Carey,
Pindarica'
n. 1),
36;
id.,
Commentaryn.
1),
154-5.
39
Fennell
n.
25),
90;
Kohnken
n.
2),
56-7;
Carey,
Pindarica'
n. 1),
37.
40
See,
for
example,
Farnell
n. 1),
297;
Lloyd-Jones
n.
1),
133-4
(= 147);
Most,
Measures
(n.
1),
175.
41
Forexample, by birthright',Most,Measures n. 1), 174;cf. Carey,Commentaryn. 1),
156-7.
42
Carey,
Pindarica'
n. 1),
37;
id.
Commentary
n.
1),
157.
43
Interestingly,
while
Carey
ranslates
LKOOEv
t Nem.
7.52 as
locatival,
he discusses
t as
ablatival n sense.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
10/20
PINDAR'S THREE WORDS
85
has
recalled
himself from
the Pillars
of
Hercules
only
to
turn
to
Peleus and
Iolcus,
Telamonand
Troy,
and Achilles'
boyhood
with
Chironand later
exploits
at
Troy-
all
Aeacid
heroes
at
play
in
a
far-flung
world. The
point,
then,
must
be not so
much
geographical
s
cultural;
he
proper ubject
or
Pindar's
victorysong
is the
tra-
ditionaland familiar
epertoire
f storiesof
the Aeacid
clan,
not new and
outlandish
tales from he
edges
of the world44-an
interpretation
ecured
by
Pindar's
njunction
to
his
Ovpo6s
t
28:
AltaK
oE
batk/LL
EL
T•
Mourav
kEPELv.
With the
passage
in
Nem.
7.50-2
compare
also Nem.
3.64:
r-qAavybE
ipapE
•,yyos
AlaKL&iv
avr68OEv
esponds
to
3.31
otKOOEV
prEvE,
losing
the inner
ring
of
tales
'from
home',
itself enclosed
in
the
outer
ring
of
the
god-born
aceof
Aeacus,
opened
with
Pindar's ddress o
his
Ovpo6s
t
26ff.
and
closed
with
the
address
o Zeus in
praise
of his blood
in
the
Aeacid
ine,
his
contestat
Nemea
where he
victory
was
won,
and he
joy
of
the
landof
Aegina
which
partakes
f both.
In
Nemean
7, then,
Pindar ddresses
Aegina
and
says
that
he is bold
enough
o
say
thatfor the
splendid
excellencesof her
offspring
and Zeus'
there s an ordained oad
of words,of heroictales,running romherhome,and he impliesthathe could take
that road
and
it would
lead
him far and
wide,
to tell
many
splendid
ales of
many
famous heroes
(compare
he
hyperbolic
claim of
Isthm.
6.22-3: 'Countless
roads
have been cut for the
noble deeds
of the
Aeacidae
beyond
the
springs
of the
Nile
and
through
he
Hyperboreans')45-but
e restrains imselfwith a
typical
observation
that a
sample
s best and
not the
full
catalogue.46
Both
Carey
andMost
have advanced
ood arguments
along
with
some that
arenot
so
good)
for
understanding
he
paprvs
o be
Apollo,
andboth
have
drawn
attention o
some
ring-composition
eatures
f the
larger
passageconcerning
Neoptolemus.47
ut
the full
extent of the structure f the
Neoptolemuspassage (31-49)
and
its
impli-
cations for the interpretationf variousdisputedpoints has not been noted. The
passage
s in
fact
an
elaborate nd
perfectring.
It
begins
with
the
general
observation,
soon made
specific
o
Neoptolemus,
hat
god
can
confer
posthumous
onour;
t moves
inwardvia
accounts
of
Neoptolemus'posthumous
honours,
his
defining
crime,
and
his
subsequent
icissitudes,
o the centralmoment and
pinnacle
of his mortal
ife,
his
kingship,
hen moves
outward
n
mirror-image
ccountsof further
vicissitudes,
a
final
crime,
and returns
o
his
posthumous
and
paradoxical)
honours,
with an
echo of
the
honour-bestowing
OE6s,
the
/izprvs,
the
true
witness
who
presides
over
and stands
surety
or
Neoptolemus'
enduring
enown.
THENEOPTOLEMUS ING
a
OEos
honours
dead heroes
[Apollo
honours
Neoptolemus]
31-2)
b
Neoptolemus'
burial
n
Delphi (33-5)
c
his
sack of
Troy:
his
crime,
condemning
him
to
death
(35-6)
d
his
journey
nward
from Troy,
missing
Scyros,
to
Epirus)
36-7)
44
Thus n
a sense local
aga'
K6hnken
n.
2]
and
others)
ut
local'
only
n
theancestral
lineage
f
the
heroes.Cf.
Nem.4.69-72.
45
For
imilar
oads f
deedand
ong,
cf. Isthm.
9-29, 4.1-12;
0l.
8.13-145.
R.
Janko,
'Another
path
of
song',
AJP 112
(1991),
301-2,
proposes
o
emend
KvpLav
n
51 to
pvplav,
'many
road'.
46ThusollowingCorinna'seputeddvice-among therhings, oubtlessliteraryefer-
ence
o
earlierraditionsf
catalogueoetry,
whose
poetsunquestionably
id
not
sowwith he
hand.Cf.
Nem.
4.69-72,
Isthm.6.56-9.
47
Carey,
Pindarica'
n. 1),
38,
Commentaryn. 1),
155;
Most,
Measures
(n. 1),
159;
cf.
Pelliccia
n.
34),
100,
n.
45,
whoseesa
ring-structure
n
lines34-50.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
11/20
86
ANNETTE
TEFFETELLER
e
kingship:
the
pinnacle
of
his life48
(brief
but
kept
by
his
line) (38-40)
d'
his
journey
outward
(from
Molossia
to
Delphi) (40-1)
c'
his
quarrel
at
Delphi:
an
echo of
his
earlier
sacrilege,
accomplishing
his
death
(42-4)
b' his burial
in
Delphi
(44-7)
a'
6
iiprvs
[Apollo]
bears witness to his
just
renown
(48-9)
The
witness,
then,
can
only
be
Apollo.49
As
Carey
and
others
point
out,
Apollo
for
Pindar
defines
the notion of
being
'not-false'
(Pyth.
3.29-30,
9.42).
But of course
Pindar
claims truth
for
his
poetry
as
well
and,
on the
general principle
that Pindar
will never
restrict
his
meaning
to
a
unidimensional
sense
when multidimensional
res-
onances can be
evoked,
we are
surely
justified
in
hearing
at least
an
echo of
the
poet's
role
in
providing
a faithful
witness
to
glorious
deeds
(cf.
the
7TWaTr
..
~.uprvS
of fr.
94b
[Parth.]).
Just as Pindar is
a
helper
to
the
divine
Helper,
so Pindar is a witness
to the divine
Witness;
it
is his
song
that bears witness to
the
witness-bearing
of
Apollo.
What, then,
of the 'three
words'?
We now
see
that
the reference
is
clearly
cata-
phoric.50
The claim that 'for fair-named
justice
three words will suffice' introduces
the
majestic
proclamation
that a true
witness stands
surety
for
Neoptolemus'
fame,
closing
the
ring
of
Neoptolemus' story
and at the same time
emphatically closing
the
question
of Pindar's
public pronouncements
on
this
legendary
Aeacid
hero.
Nemean
7
is not an
'apology'
for
Paean
6;
it is a
magisterial
lesson in
epinician
appreciation, rebuking any
who
may
have
dared
to
quibble
at the
Neoptolemus
story
in
Paean
6,
thereby
questioning
Pindar's command of
his art
and his
subject.
The
poet
puts
his faith
in
the
ta0tyv,
who will
know if
he
sings
'out
of tune'
(68-9).51
Pindar
began
his
ode with the name of
Ilithyia, by
whose
grace
Thearion's son is
blessed
with
success
and
honour.
He
returnsto
the
theme of children
at
the end
of his
song,
first with
an
appropriately
encomiastic
prayer
that
Thearion's
and
Sogenes'
children's children
may
always enjoy
such
honour as
they
themselves
enjoy
now.
Then,
in
a
sudden and
unexpected
coda,
he turns
abruptly
to the issue
of
his
treatment of
Neoptolemus
and now we see the
negative aspect
of
children,
clearly
a
metaphor
for his unlearned
detractors,
the v
oTLno
ho
crave
both
simplicity
and
48
For
Pindar'sview
of
kingship
as a man's
greatest
achievement,
ee,
for
example,
01.
1.13-14.
49
As seen
by Carey,
Pindarica'
(n. 1), 38,
Commentary
(n. 1),
155,
Most,
Measures
(n.
1),
177,
and others
before
hem;
cf.
Most
177,
n. 193
(despite
M. Bernard's ecentreversion
o
the
older
view
of
the
poet
as
witness
['Der
Dichterund sein
Gegenstand--Zu
Pindars iebentem
Nemeischen
Lied',
Wiirzburger Jahrbiicher fir
die
Altertumswissenschaft
21
(1996-97),
101-27,
at
113]).
50
Most,
Measures
n.
1),
174,
n.
176,
refers o
Bundy n. 27),
21,
in
support
f his view that
LtapKE•EL
s
'a kind
of
epinician
future'
with
anaphoric
reference and adduces
as a
parallel
for
'the whole
sequence
of
thought'
01.
13.98-100. But neither
n
this
passage
nor in
any
cited
by
Bundy
does the
epinician
uturehave
anaphoric
eference.
n
01. 13.98-100 the
poet says
that
he will
revealthe sum total of the
victories
of
the
Oligaethidae
t the
Isthmus
and
Nemea;
he
does so
in
the
next ine. Cf. further
Ol.
6.21:
Pindar
ays
thathe will
swear
a
great
oathand
bear
witness
to
the
hereditary
ifts
of
Hagesias
n
prophecy
romhis father's
amily
and in athletic
skill
from
his
mother's;
hen follow
sixty
lines
(22-81), attesting
o
the
virtues
of the two
families, which culminate n the honorand's.And so on. Cf. I. L. Pfeijffer,First Person
Futures n
Pindar,
HermesEinzelschriften 1
(Stuttgart,
999),
who
rejects
he notion of an
'encomiastic'
uture.
51
Cf.
Tugendhat n.
27),
391-400;
cf.
also
Carey, Commentary
n. 1),
136,
and
Most,
Measures
(n.
1),
207.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
12/20
PINDAR'S THREE
WORDS
87
repetition.52
hat
Pindarwill not
give
them.
In
an
uncharacteristically
traightforward
statementhe
categorically
denies
that he has
ever treated
Neoptolemus
with
disre-
spect.53
But,
he
emphatically
mplies,
the
matter nds
there.Neither
for
his
present
audiencenor
for
future
generations
will
he
repeat
his
protestations
f
innocence on
this
charge.
He
has
not
'worried'
Neoptolemus'reputation
nd
he will
not
'worry'
the issue of whetherhe has.
Sadly
do we miss a secure
dating
sequence
for
Pindar'swork.
It
would be
of
great
interest
o
know
when
he
was invited back to
Aegina, by
whom,
and what
ode
he
offered
on
that
occasion.
So,
why
does Pindar
ay
three
words
will
sufficeandthen
give
us,
apparently,
ix?
If,
as
commentators
seem to
agree,
'--pLa
Era'
is
a
conventional
phrase
for
'a
few
words',54
we would
hope
to
findsome
support
or
this
usage
both
n
Pindar'suse
else-
where of the
number
three'and
in
his
expressions
ndicating
ntended
brevity.
Pindar
uses the
number
three'
n
a
variety
of
contexts;
nstances
romthe
epini-
cians are
the
following:
(1) Threevictories:
(a)
a
thrice-Olympic-victoried
ouse: 01. 10.1
(b)
three
prizes
in
Athens:
01.
13.38
(c)
with threevictories
you
mastered
Hera's ocal contest:
Pyth.
8.80
(d)
three imes at
Aegina
andthe hill of
Nisus
you
[or
I:
see
app.
crit.]
glori-
fied this
city:
Pyth.
9.91
(e)
a
thirdwreath
ast
upon
the
hearth
of
his fathers
apparently
he
family's
third
Pythian
victory]:
Pyth.
11.14
(f)
a double
victory
and a third
previously
amongboys:
Isthm.4.71
(g) may
there
be a third
bowl
[i.e.,
may
therebe a
third,
Olympian,
ictory
o
celebrate]:
sthm.
6.7
(h)
threevictories n the
pancration
t the Isthmus: sthm.6.61
(i)
threecrowns
at
Nemea:Nem. 6.20
(j)
threevictors:
Hagesimachus'
hree sons:
Nem. 6.23
(k)
thrice
winning
crowns
[at
the
Isthmus]
and thrice
[at Nemea]:
Nem.
10.27-8
(2)
Threerefrains f
a
hymn:
01. 9.2
(3)
Three-citied sland
(Rhodes):
01. 7.18
(4)
Triennial
biennial]
estival:Nem.
6.40
(5)
The
third
wind:
Nem.
7.17
(6)
The third
generation:
yth.
4.143
(7) The thirdcontinent Africa):Pyth.9.8
(8)
The
third
of the sisters
(Gorgons):
Pyth.
12.11
(9)
Third
among
elders someone
proves
superior
following
child
among
chil-
dren,
man
amongmen):
Nem. 3.72
(10)
Tantalus' ourth
oil
along
with threeothers:
01. 1.60
(11)
Three
and ten
suitors:01.
1.79
(12)
Threesnakesat
the
building
of
the
wall
of
Troy:
01.
8.38
(13)
Three
daughters
of
Cadmus'
our):Pyth.
3.98
52
Cf.
Carey,
Commentaryn.
1), 180,
whofurther
dducesor
he
child's
ack
of
judgement
Pyth.2.72.
53
The
raditionalnd
learly
orrect
nterpretation
f
102-4,
despite
later's
n.
27)
efforts
at
reworking
he
syntax
and
H.
Pelliccia's
proposed
mendation
o
7Tno'
O'r'EL
n
102
(Mind,
Body,
and
Speech
n
Homer
and
Pindar,
Hypomnemata
07
[G6ttingen,
1995], 347).
54
Most,
Measures
n. 1),
174.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
13/20
88 ANNETTETEFFETELLER
(14)
Threewarrior
ons
of Zeus:
Pyth.
4.171
(15)
To
plough
he same
ruts
or
make he same
claims)
hree imes and four
imes
is
futile,
like
idly
babbling
o
children
AdLs
K6pwvOos:
em.
7.10455
In
each
of these
references
leaving
aside for
the moment he
last)
t is clear
hat
he
numerical eference s precise; n each case three itemsare meant:threevictories,
three
cities,
three
snakes,
and so on.56
Only
in
the last
passage
(Nem. 7.104)
is
the
numerical eference
used
in
a
pointed
sense in which
the
precise
numerical
value
is not
crucial
to
the
meaning
of
the
phrase.
Here
'three times and four
times'
means
many,
ndicating edundancy
n
an
activity
that
needs
doing
only
once.
In
support
f the
standard iew that
rpla
rTEa
t
Nem.
7.48
means
vaguely
'a
few',
Woodbury
adduces Ar. Nub. 1402:
ov8'iv
7pl
.Et.V
.
ta9L'to6
''
rrpv
.a..apIEtv,
of
which
Dover
comments: Three
was
a
proverbiallynsignificant
umber.'57
ndeed,
in
many
cultures
he
numbers
one',
'two',
and 'three'have a
special
statusand are
used both
positively
and
negatively
to
make
rhetorical
points;
but as Nem. 7.104
attests, he number three'does not necessarily ndicatean 'insignificant'number;
much
depends
on
context.
Clearly
n
Ar. Nub.
1402 the sense is
general
and
limiting:
'I
could
hardly
speak
at all
without
making
a mistake.'
And
yet
it is
surely
a fair
assumption
hat
if
Pheidippides
ad
followed his claim of not
being
able
to
get
out
without error three
words
(or phrases
or
sentences:
Ap-ara)
with
an
illustrative
example
n which he
managed
o
speak
six
words
(or
phrases
or
sentences)
without
trippingup,
the
discrepancy
would have raiseda
good laugh
from
the audience.
Similarly,
n
Nem.
7.48,
the
use of
the verb
&SapK•'Et
in
itself shows thatthe
rpla
TrEa
re to be
understood
n
a
limiting
sense;
the
phraseclearly
ndicates hat
only
a
brief
statement
s
needed
and
only
a
brief statementwill be
made.The
question
s
not
whether he
phrase
pt'a
'ea
is used here o
indicate
brevity-it
is
clear
that t
is-but
whether
he
actual
meaning
of
-rpla
here is
vague:
'a
few',
or whether
t
means
pre-
cisely
'three',
as
it
does
in
its uses elsewhere n the
odes.
The
corollary
s:
how does Pindar
lsewhere ndicate
ntended
brevity?Happily,
we
have
other
nstances
ince this
is
an
epinician
opos,
a
sub-category
f the
oft-repeated
concern
with
avoiding
excess
and
prolixity
n
celebrating
his laudandi
(as
in Nem.
7.50-3;
cf.
Pyth.
1.82,
8.29-32 and
Ol.
2.95-100,
13.9-10,
13.45-8).
Pyth.
9.76-9 contains a succinct
statementof the
dangers
of
excess
and
the
virtues of
careful
selection,
while Isthm.
6
provides
an excellent
example
of the full
topos
of
rejectingprolixity
n
praise:
22-3: Countless oadshavebeen cut forthe noble deedsof the Aeacidaebeyond
the
springs
of the Nile and
through
he
Hyperboreans;
55
As
Carey
omments
Commentaryn.
1], 179),
dirwoA•Wvmeans
erely plough '; learly,
the
metaphor
ere
depends
on
precisely
what
ype
of
ploughing
s
in
question.
Since the
plough-
ing
of fallow land s
Properly
one
multiple
imes
(cf.
repeated
eferences o
a
'thrice-ploughed
fallow
field'
veto's
TpiroAos,
1.
18.541-2;
Od.
5.127;
Hes.
Th.
971;
and
esp.
Theoc. 25.
25-6,
rpur6Aots
.. VELOTULV
..
KaL
TE7patr6AoLLtv;
ee
West's note on Hes.
W&D
462-3),
and since
Pindar
bviously
ntends
a
metaphor
which
indicates
ointless
(&ropia,
105) activity,
he refer-
ence
here must be
to
the
ploughing
of
a
furrow
for
sowing:
once is
enough.
56
Even
Thomas
Cole,
who considersPindar's
arithmetic
n
certain
passages
o
be
'faulty',
concedeshat t is 'unlikelyhatPindar assimply aguewith igures nd .. ambiguousn
citing
hem': ee his
'1
+
1
=
3: studies
n
Pindar's
rithmetic',
JP 108
(1987),
553-68,
at
563
(an
analysis
which
do not find
compelling
ndwhichshowsa
startling isregard
or
Pindar'sown view of
himself as a faithful
witnessto deeds
of
glory).
57
Woodbury
n.
1),
113;
K.
J.
Dover
(ed.),
Aristophanes:
Clouds
Oxford,1968),
ad
loc.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
14/20
PINDAR'S
THREE
WORDS
89
24-56:
Here are
some
samples:
mention of
Peleus,
Ajax; exploits
of
Telamon
and
Hercules;
56-9:
But it
would
take me too
long
to
recount
all their
excellences.
....
In
the
Argive
manner
t
will
be stated n
the briefest erms
(Ppaxta(ots):58
60-1: States
in
two
lines
that his three honorands
the
addressee,
his
brother,
and his
uncle)
took threevictories at the Isthmusand more atNemea.
At
Nem. 10.19-20 Pindar
deftly
blends
hyperbolic
encomiastic
praise
with the
brevity
theme
in his
disclaimer
hat his
mouth
is too
small
(Ppax6)
to
tell
all
the
apportioned
blessings
of
Argos' holy precinct-and
in
any
case,
he
continues,
satiety
s a
grievous hing.
In
01.
13,
for
Xenophon
of
Corinth,
Pindar urns
at
the
end
to the countlessvic-
tories
of
Xenophon's amily,
the
Oligaethidae,
eclaring
irst
that he
will
revealthe
sum of
their
victories
at
the
Isthmus
and
Nemea
in a
'brief
word'
(rra6bpWpTL,
98).
That 'brief
word'
follows
in
the next verse:
E?7KOVrL7KL,
sixty
times'
was the
herald'sshoutheardat thosevenuesproclaimingheirvictories.
We
have
no
actualevidence
then,
either romPindar
or
elsewhere
n
Greek
usage,
that he
specific
number
three',
standing
lone,
is
used
in
a
positive
context o mean
vaguely
'a
few',
either
of wordsor
of
anything
lse.
Evidently,
when a
Greek-speaker
wanted
o
say
'two
or
three'to
mean 'a
few',
he
said
precisely
hat,
as
Demosthenes
does
in
De
Falsa
Legatione
209.
In
an ironic commenton an
adversary's
hreat
of
impeachment,
Demosthenes
suggests
that
instead
of
the
many
lengthy speeches
involved
in
an
impeachment
rocess,
his
enemy
could
damn him
with
just
two or
three
phrases (86'
i
rpt'
lawcs fjvara),
which
even
a
new-bought
slave
could
manage.59
He then
succinctly
tates
he
suggested
charges,
most
interestingly
n
pre-
cisely
'two or
three'
phrases,
hat
s,
in three
sentences'
of
which
the
latter wo
areco-
ordinatedwith
Kai
ntoone
complex
'sentence'.60
In the
absence
of
evidence,
then,
for
the
use of the number three'
(or any
other
number)
used alone with
non-precise
reference,
we must consider the
possibility
that
Pindar
really
meant
to
say
that
he would
sum
up
the evidence for
Neoptolemus'posthumous
eputation
n
precisely
three
'words'. As we
have
seen,
the
promised
'three
words' are
to
follow
in
the
immediatelysucceeding
verse,
which
makes
a claim
about
Apollo
relativeto
Neoptolemus.
It
follows, therefore,
that
the
three 'words' must
be:
OvEiv&
-
_
-1aprvS
pylzaatLV-ErtL•TaTEL
not-false
the-witness
over-[Neoptolemus']-deeds-presides.
The
question
hus becomes
not
what Pindar
means
by
'three'
but
what he means
by
'words':
•TEGa.
This
is a difficult
concept
even
now,
and
it
was even
more
fluid for
the
ancient
Greeks. In
her
study
of
'Folk-linguistics
and
the
Greek
word',
Anna
Morpurgo
Davies
notes
that
while we have
in
English(as
in
other
modern
Europeananguages)
a word
for
'word',
contemporary
inguists
nevertheless
continue
to
encounter
58
Cf.
Aesch.PV 505:
fpaXEi
S't•6
0
W7Ivra
avAA Pf1
pd0'E,/r&aCaaL
rXVaL
porotawv
EK
HIpotl)6wos.
59
Cf.
D. M.MacDowell
ed.),
Demosthenes:he
False
Embassy
Oxford,000),
ad
oc.
The
Demosthenes
assage
s
adduced
y
Carey, ommentaryn.
1),
154,
asa
parallel
o
theNemean
usage,
but t illustrates
uite
hereverse.
60
An
adequate
efinitionf the sentence ludes
inguists
till.
This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:36:02 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/9/2019 Pindar's Three Words: The Role of Apollo in "The Seventh Nemean"
15/20
90 ANNETTE
TEFFETELLER
'notorious difficulties
... in
their
attempt
to
produce
a
definition of
this
concept'.61
All
the
more
problematic
is
defining
what constitutes a
'word' for the
speakers
of
ancient Greek
since
'During
most of its
history
the ancient
Greek lexicon offers no
exact
equivalent
for
our
word .'62
Consider
the
use
of
Tros
nd
&tvOog
n
Homer;
as
Morpurgo
Davies
points
out,
'We
have no
evidence that Homer had the
lexical
resources
necessary
to ask
questions
such as is X one
or two words? .' In
Herodotus
also
'7TOS
s used to refer to a
single
word
(2.2,
2.30),
a
proverb
(7.51),
a
verse
(4.29),
or a
phrase
or sentence
(3.82).
By
the
second
century
A.D.
Apollonius
Dyscolus
is still
using
four
different words or
phrases
to
designate
a
'word'.63
Nonetheless,
lexical
precision
notwithstanding,
evidence
from various
quarters
indicates that a
working
concept
of
what constitutes a
word was
relatively
stable
from
the
Mycenaean
period
onward.
And
while Pindar uses
E'rog/rEa
for
phrases,
proverbs,
and
lengthy speeches
and stories
(for
example,
Pyth.
2.81,
3.2;
Isthm.
6.67,
fr.
35b;
Pyth.
4.9,
4.57;
OL.
6.16;
Nem.
10.80;
Isthm.
6.42;
Nem.
3.53)
and
such an
extended sense
would
cover the
use of
Er'ea
in
Nem.
7.48,
the
reference
here is actually to what is more properly considered to be 'words', by the Greeks
as
by
us.
C6-piprvS
nd
ob-StEj3
are
prosodic
units
resulting
from
proclisis
of
the
article and
the
negative, respectively,
with their
host words.
Although
proclisis-as opposed
to
enclisis-was not
recognized
by
the
ancient
grammarians,64
evidence
from
a
variety
of sources attests to
the
presence
of
the
phenomenon
in
the natural
language.
Cliticization of the
article and
of
prepositions
is indicated
by
various
types
of
phono-
logical
reduction: reduction of
long
diphthongs,
contraction,
reduction
of
disyllabic
forms to
monosyllabics,
assimilation of
final