The Pindar ScholiaAuthor(s): Mary R. LefkowitzSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 106, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 269-282Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/295028Accessed: 20/05/2010 14:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY

THE PINDAR SCHOLIA

References to scholars like Aristarchus, Chaeris, Chrysippus, Aris-

todemus, and Didymus indicate that the Pindar scholia are based, how- ever remotely, on Alexandrian hypomnemata. At some point, or more

likely, at several different points, scholarly opinions on individual words and phrases were compiled and paraphrases (sometimes in duplicate and triplicate) recorded into a large book, from which the marginal notes in our manuscripts are derived. The scholia in the Vatican recen- sion (V), which cover in various manuscripts all four books of the odes, offer the kind of information provided by scholia to other poetic texts for use in Byzantine schools, prose paraphrases, background informa-

tion, and summaries of opposing views on disputed interpretations. The scholia to the Ambrosian manuscript (A), which are preserved only for the first twelve Olympian odes, tend to cite more authorities than the scholia to the mss. of the V tradition, which often reproduces opinions only, without individual names; but I have not distinguished here be- tween the two traditions, because the A scholia, despite their greater detail, do not seem to represent more accurately than the V scholia the substance of the original commentaries.1

On the sources of the scholia, see esp. H. T. Deas, "The Scholia Vetera to Pin- dar," HSCP42 (1931) 1-78; on their format and chronology, N. G. Wilson, "A Chapter in the History of Scholia," CQ 17 (1967) 244-56. Citations in this chapter refer to A. B. Drachmann, Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina (Leipzig 1904), C. Wendel, Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium Vetera (Berlin 1935), H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri II- iadem (Berlin 1969-77), B. Snell and H. Maehler, Pindari Carmina (Leipzig 1971).

American Journal of Philology 106 (1985) 269-282 ?1985 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ

The scholia to 01. 10.45 give an impression of what has been lost in both traditions in the course of compilation and condensation:

A (55b: I 324) Aristodemus and Leptines and Diony- sius [Thrax] write Altis, on the grounds that it is not appropriate to say that Elis, which had just been sacked, was sacred to Zeus. And it stands to reason that Zeus' temple was built in Pisa, since people who come to the Festival do not hold their cele- brations in Elis, but in Pisa. Pisa is lo- cated three stades from Olympia; the land round the temple is occupied by lodging houses. Thus it is correct to write "Altis," since that is what they call the place near Olympia.

V (55c: I 324) Aristodemus writes Altis instead of Elis. That is what the vicinity of

Olympia is called, and Zeus has the

epithet "Altius." For it does not stand to reason that he [Heracles] would make a place holy and pure that had been sacked by him. There is no tem-

ple of Zeus in Elis, but rather it is in Pisa. Pisa is six stades from Olympia. Didymus, keeping the reading of the manuscript, says that Pindar calls Pisa Elis because after the Eleians made the inhabitants of Pisa subject to them, they changed the name of Pisa to Elis. And since Pisa has been

changed, why hesitate to write Elis? Callimachus also says that Zeus' habi- tation is Elis rather than Pisa, "he left Elis, Zeus' habitation, to be ruled by Phyleus" (fr. 77 Pf), calling Elis holy rather than Pisa. Callimachus also calls Zeus in Pisa Eleian, "Eleian Zeus" (fr. 196.1 Pf).

The A scholia preserve a summary of the arguments for the clearly pref- erable reading "Altis," which all editors since have retained. They make no mention of Didymus, and by lumping together the names of Aristo-

demus, Leptines, and Dionysius, they invite the inference that these scholars were members of a school of interpretation or were somehow

coordinated, whereas all they had in common was being post-Aristar- chean; Leptines and Dionysius are cited in disagreement in the V scho- lia to Isthm. 1.79c: III 208-9. The V scholia, meanwhile, preserve a

summary of both sides of the controversy, though they mention only Aristodemus among those who read "Altis" and make no explicit obser- vation about why Didymus' arguments must be rejected-namely, that Pisa was not annexed by Elis until 346 B.c. Notions of geography in both sets of scholia are hazy (Elis is in fact two days' march from Pisa, 58 km), and measurements inconsistent: 3 stades in A and 6 in V. Each tradition

270

THE PINDAR SCHOLIA

offers only a distorted and partially obstructed view of what the Helle- nistic commentators said.2

But even though the Pindar scholia preserve in content if not by name much information from Alexandrian commentaries, they cannot for that reason be regarded as reliable guides to the interpretation of his

poetry. On the contrary, it could be argued that no other scholia leave such a confused impression of the poetry that they were meant to ex-

plain. Pindar's lyrics, because of their density and complexity, appar- ently elicited from their Alexandrian commentators more guesswork (seKaOcia) than the texts of the epic poets.3 By contrast, the scholia to Homer and to Apollonius tend to provide supplementary information and to paraphrase lines without radically reinterpreting them. In a re- statement of a phrase, an ordinary word might replace a term charac- teristic of epic, for instance, sirtr for evverts in Od. 1.1. When Homer says in Iliad 2 that he depends on the Muses, the commentators under- stood his words sympathetically, as a form of captatio benevolentiae (485-86a); they remark that it is indeed difficult to remember so many different names (488a). The Apollonius scholia correctly observe that in the poem's first line apX6oievoq recalls traditional usage, and their "translation," though inaccurate, at least suggests that the way in which Apollonius phrases the line gives a new importance to the poet: ap- XaLpeosac0siq irto oou, "elected by you, Apollo" (1.1-4b).

But ancient commentators on Pindar, in the course of paraphras- ing the text, often manage seriously to misinterpret its meaning. Appar- ently they were misled by the poet himself, because they took him at his word. The content of Homer's invocation to the Muses in Iliad 2 might be accurately represented by a prose summary, but in victory odes the poet makes more elaborate statements about himself and his art. In par- ticular Pindar's first-person statements contain complex metaphors whose immediate function, as in the case of the passage from Iliad 2, commentators felt obliged to restate, by simplifying the content of the

2Cf. esp. Deas' detailed comparison of the two recensions (note 1 above, 57-65); also U. v. Wilamowitz, Herakles4 (Darmstadt 1959) I 185-87. Deas' list of instances where B supplies different names from A does not include the 01. 10.55 scholia. The Homeric scholia do not give a very good impression of Leptines' interpretative powers (II. 6.320, 23.397, 731); see K. Latte, "Leptines nr. 7," RE Supp. 7 (1940) 375. On Didymus' inaccuracy, see esp. S. West, "Chalcenteric Negligence," CQ 20 (1970) 288-96.

3On the use of historical conjecture to explain obscure passages, see esp. M. R. Lefkowitz, "The Influential Fictions in the Scholia to Pindar's Pythian 8," CP 70 (1975) 173-85; H. Frankel, "Schrullen in den Scholien zu Pindars Nemeen 7 und Olympien 3," Hermes 89 (1961) 385-97.

271

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ

original, identifying inferences, and by making general allusions spe- cific. When in order to express his superiority Pindar uses a familiar

comparison of an eagle to lesser birds, the ancient commentators sought to identify the poet's rivals. In 01. 2.86 ff. a pair of crows, perhaps be- cause the poet had in mind parent birds defending their nest in mating season, "hint at" (aiviTTTalt) Bacchylides and Simonides (158d, cf. 158c: I 99).4 In Nem. 3, lines about noisy jackdaws "seem to refer" (TEi- vsiv) to Bacchylides (143: III 62). In Nemean 4, when Pindar, after

making an allusion to the achievements of the hero Telamon, explains that he must move on to other topics, and describes himself as if he too were involved in a life-and-death struggle (36-38), the ancient com- mentators on the passage gloss "plots" (nrt3pouAiatq) as "plotters" (mrrl- P3ouXAsuoutv), "hostile craftsmen (6VTLTT6xvOCtq) and lampooners," "hostile poets" (6vTldL6aOKdiAOv). Finally, they identify Pindar's gen- eral, plural "plots" as a specific individual: "these lines seem to refer

(TEiveiv) to Simonides, since he liked to use digressions" (Nem. 4.60b: III 74-75). The information about Simonides' fondness for digressions can be found nowhere else in the biographical tradition; evidently, it is based solely on inference from and interpretation of this passage in Nemean 4.5

In my article "Pindar's Lives," I tried to show how such simplifica- tion of Pindar's metaphors results in a characterization of the poet as combative and defensive-that is, as the very opposite of what the poet himself meant to convey by his statements about competition. The com- mentators may have understood that the victory odes, unlike other

poems, were intended to praise athletic achievement,6 but they appear to have had only a limited appreciation of the qualities that enable the

poetry of these odes to transcend being routinely encomiastic or occa- sional. Pindar characteristically raises all specific accomplishment to the level of the generic by merging present with past and describing, often through metaphor, the most archetypal aspects of particular events. But the commentators often failed to see the relevance of Pin- dar's more abstract statements, or at least said nothing positive about them. For example, the closing lines of Pythian 8 are now much ad-

4G. M. Kirkwood, "Pindar's Ravens," CQ 31 (1981) 240-43; G. Arrighetti, Stud. Class. ed. Or. 25 (1976) 290-304.

5See esp. M. R. Lefkowitz, "Pindar's Lives," Classica et Iberica (Festschrift Ma-

rique, Worcester, Mass. 1975) 79-81; "Autobiographical Fiction in Pindar," HSCP 84

(1980) 37-38. 6See esp. P. Wilson, "Pindar and his Reputation in Antiquity," PCPS 26 (1980)

107; cf. D. Young, Pindar Isthmian 7, Myth and Exempla (Leiden 1971) 30, n. 99.

272

THE PINDAR SCHOLIA

mired: "creatures of a day, what is someone, what is no one, man is a dream of a shadow" (95-96).7 But the ancient commentators give ex-

plicit approval only to the phrase "man is a dream of a shadow": "he

employs the emphasis well, as if to indicate something weaker than weak" (Pyth. 8.135a: II 218). Other commentators (TLveq) apparently criticized the lines on the grounds that a lament for the human condi- tion was out of place in a victory ode (136c: II 219).8

In addition to their restricted notions of relevance, the ancient

commentators, when describing Pindar's techniques of composition, seem to assume that poetry is an irrational or extra-rational process, a

concept that in fact originated only in the latter part of the fifth cen-

tury.9 As a result, when Pindar calls attention to himself and his control over his subject matter, his metaphors are rephrased in a negative and literal manner that makes him appear to have lost control. For exam-

ple, Pindar says in Pythian 10, "hold the oar still, throw the anchor from the prow to the ground as guard against the rock of the reef, for excellence in songs of praise rushes like a bee from one song to another"

(51-54). The helmsman metaphor is meant to express mastery, but the scholia comment instead: "Pindar rebukes himself for having made a

long digression and says so metaphorically" (Pyth. 10.79b: II 249). Or in Pythian 11, when Pindar says, "but now, friends, I have been whirled down the crossroad where ways divide, though I first set off down a

straight path" (38 ff.), the scholia explain: "Pindar had written the vic-

tory ode very well but in what follows he employs an extraordinarily inappropriate (dKaQpoq) digression (rTapKpa3aot)" (Pyth. 11.23b: II

257); "he realizes himself that he is employing an inappropriate digres- sion and says so" (58a: II 259).

In oratory throughout antiquity, "apologies" for digression were used to underline the importance of preceding material and to testify to the speaker's sincerity and enthusiasm.10 But evidently in lyric the func-

7M. R. Lefkowitz, "Pindar's Pythian 8," CJ 72 (1977) 216; M. Dickie, "On the

Meaning of qrlpcpoc," ICS 1 (1975) 7-14. "Wilson (note 6 above) 111.

9E.g., Democritus 68 B 17, 18 D-K; cf. E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irratio- nal (Berkeley 1951) 82; R. Harriott, Poetry and Criticism before Plato (London 1969) 83-88.

0W. H. Race, "Some Digressions and Returns in Greek Authors," CJ 76 (1980) 1-8. Cf. to Pindar's metaphors the poet-rhetorician Licymnius' notions of ernoupoals ("inspiration" ?), &tnonAdvrlotq ("diversion"), and 60ot ("ramifications"), ridiculed by Aristotle in Rhet. 3.13.1414b; only the term danonAdvrlno survived in rhetorical termi-

nology (e.g., Hermagoras, cited in Cic., de Inv. 1.97).

273

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ

tion of these devices ceased to be recognized, especially after the fifth

century, when poetry increasingly came to be regarded as the product of emotion rather than of reason. In Plato's Ion a poet is like a bee, "a light and winged thing and holy, and never able to compose until he has be- come inspired, and is beside himself, and reason is no longer in him."" Pindar's break-off formulae could thus be understood as representing a

struggle between possession and attention to duty: "Pindar interrupts himself so that he will not make a further digression about Cinyras" (Nem. 8.32a: III 143); "he wants to end his digression about Neoptole- mus" (Nem. 7.76: III 127).12 He wins approval from the commentators for his efforts to regain control of his song: "convincingly, since he has

digressed about the Aeacidae in the course of praising their fame, he

wants to get back to the praise of the athlete by making this not irrele- vant diversion" OUK adnpooaoyov 6rtoonaona, Nem. 3:114b: III 58).

The poet's own words appeared to lend support to the remarkable notion that allusions to myths were "digressions" or "excursions" rather than integral or inevitable facets of a victory ode. The commentators' notion of relevance seems to have been much more narrowly defined than the poet's. According to the scholia, Pythian 5 was "more appro- priate" (oiKElOT-pa) in its ideas and organization (oiKovolia) than

Pythian 4, which "employs a historical digression" about the founding of Cyrene (Pyth. 4 inscr. a: II 92);13 this judgment suggests that the commentators were using as their standard Pindar's own statements about the need for brief and controlled narration, and that they pre- ferred narratives directly connected to the event celebrated. Some com- mentators even questioned the relevance of the myths of Heracles' birth in Nemean 1 (49d: III 20) or of Neoptolemus in Nemean 7 (la: III 116). They questioned why Olympian 3 begins with an invocation to the Dios- curi instead of to Heracles, who founded the Olympic games (la: I 105). They suggest that he switches "imperceptibly" (AeAsr106Tq) from an in- vocation to Poseidon to praise of the victor (Isthm. 1.76b: III 208), and

1 Ion 553e-34c, tr. L. Cooper. Cf. also Phaedr. 245a, Apol. 22b-c. The tragic poet Phrynichus is compared to a bee in Ar. Av. 748-50 (cf. Ran. 1299-30). Cf. also Wilson (note 6 above ) 110.

'2Cf. also 01. 13.133b: I 383; Nem. 3.39b: II 47-48; Nem. 6.94a: III 113; Nem. 10.35: III 170.

'ICf. Wilson (note 6 above) 107-8.

274

THE PINDAR SCHOLIA

"imperceptibly" initiates the long catalogue of glories at the beginning of Isthmian 7 (la: III 261).14

In the case of Pindar's exposition, the commentators seem to have preferred the traditional and straightforward. They applauded literal accuracy in description-for example, epithets like "delighting-in- horses" (of Hieron, 01. 1.35b: I 28) or "of flashing lightning" (of Zeus, 01. 9.64a: I 282). They approve of sustained metaphors, like the krater of song in Isthmian 6 (lOb: III 252). But an unusual metaphor, like a thundercloud's "army" instead of "rain," is considered "difficult" and "in the dithyrambic manner" (Pyth. 6.11: II 195).15 They like new ideas to follow an established pattern, as when Pindar calls Hesychia, "Peace," the daughter of Justice (Pyth. 8.1a: II 206) or when Angelia takes a message to the dead (01. 8.106e: I 262). In consequence they often appear to have found the sequence of Pindar's ideas confusing. In Olympian 9, for example, when Pindar speaks of the Dioscuri and Helen before he mentions the victor's city Acragas, a scholium observes: "the order is reversed and appears to cause obscurity (aoad()sa) by its confusion, since the run of the sense is as follows, 'honoring famous Acragas, directing an Olympic victory for Theron, the prize of his horses with tireless feet, I pray that I may please the hospitable Tyndari- dae and fair Helen"' (01. 9. Ib: I 106). When in the beginning of Olym- pian 1 Pindar says, "if you wish to speak of games, my heart, do not look for a shining star hotter by day than the sun," a scholium states: "it is characteristic of Pindar when he begins with a comparison, not to bring in at once the thing which is being compared, but to insert in the middle another model of excellence, and thus to complete the comparison-- that is the work of someone who is passionate (Oepp6cq) and profound

14Cf. also Nem. 10.6: III 166 and 01. 9.40: I 276. I cannot see how these passages reveal an ability on the part of the scholia "to see beyond the surface meaning of Pindar's words to the immediate encomiastic point" (Wilson [note 6 above] 110).

15Also praised are 01. 6.44 f.: I 164; Pyth. 4.154b: II 120; Wilson (note 6 above) 105. But various interpretive problems prevent the scholia from praising the effectiveness of the opening lines of Pyth. 1: for example, one cannot properly refer to fire as "flow-

ing" (9a: II 10). They praise the accuracy, not the poetry of Pindar's picture of Zeus'

sleeping eagle: "he has sketched it very clearly" (rtdvu L6TUrnTOov, 10a: II 10), "he has sketched it very like an artist" (ypatlK6dTaTa uinrTituroov, 17a: II 11); cf. Wilson (note 6 above) 106. Other metaphors criticized are: 01. 13.97a: I 377, Wilson 104; Pyth. 1.167a: II 27; Pyth. 2.97: II 47; Isthm. 4.110: III 238; 01. 6.78a, f: I 171, and quite absurdly, Pyth. 2.12.45b: II 269; Isthm. 8.93c: III 276; Nem. 1.104: III 27.

275

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ

(noAuvouq) in regard to ideas" (01. 1.5g: i 20-21). Apparently the commentator admired the effect, but he implies that it was achieved by passion instead of through an established or, at least to its original audi- ence, recognizable convention. In any case, the charge of obscurity could be confirmed by the poet's own words: "and so in other respects also Pindar writes obscurely (6oa)xCq), in general to need interpreters, as he himself says [01. 2.85]" (Eustathius, 110: III 289).16

Once it was assumed that poets did not try to abide by the same rules as writers of prose, and that the standards of exposition in prose constituted the norm, any perceived departure from standard accounts of myth or history could be regarded as anomalous (aAloyoq) or idiosyn- cratic ('16toq)-for instance, when Pindar says that Heracles was crowned as victor at Nemea, when the games were ordinarily said to have been established a generation later in honor of Archemorus (Nem. 6.71c: III 110), or when Pindar speaks of funeral games for Thoas on

Lemnos, when presumably Thoas should have died in exile ( 01. 4.31a: I 136): "how could he say that [Thoas] was buried on Lemnos and that

Hypsipyle held a contest in his honor? Because it is possible for poets to invent what they wish." They approve of Pindar's consciously omitting an irrational detail, like the tattletale crow in Pythian 3 (43d: II 69), or of an emphasis that makes a heroic deed seem still more glorious (Is- thm. 1.15b: III 200), but they disapprove of what appear to be unjusti- fied deviations: Pindar is being "idiosyncratic" when he calls Orestes' nurse Arsinoe, because according to Pherecydes (FGrHist 3F 134) she was Laodameia (Pyth. 11.25n: II 257),'7 or when he says Zeus rained

gold on Alcmena rather than on Danae (Isthm. 7.5a: III 262). Because Pindar speaks of seven pyres at Thebes when technically there ought to have been five, Aristarchus was able to observe "that Pindar is being idiosyncratic (i6tia6l) here as in other cases," even though other scholars cited the Theban place name "Seven Pyres" in support of Pin- dar's version ( 01. 6.23a: I 158-59).18 They never observe that in the vast

corpus of epic several versions of a myth might be current simultane-

16 Eustathius follows the common Alexandrian interpretation of the passage, tak-

ing Tb nov to mean "for the unchosen many," rather than "in everything" (which it must

mean); see W. H. Race, "The End of Olympia 2," CSCA 12 (1979) 252. On Eustathius'

essay, see N. G. Wilson, The Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 203. I'Also cf. Stesichorus, PMG 218=1 Aesch. Cho. 733. 'S E.g., Armenidas, presumably in his Thebaica (FGrHist 378F6). Cf. Nem. 9.24,

where the inconsistency is not remarked. As Farnell suggests, "the number 'seven' was embedded in tradition"; Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar (London 1932) 42. Cf. Wilson (note 6 above) 103.

276

THE PINDAR SCHOLIA

ously. Apollonius, on the other hand, who says nothing about poetic control (or lack of it) in his few first-person statements, is sometimes praised for departing from religious tradition, as, for instance, when he has Phineus swear by his own blindness (Argon. 2.259a).19

The commentators considered historical or geographical treatises and Hellenistic authors like Apollonius to be more authoritative than Pindar. The passages they cite from these authorities, when we can check them ourselves, sometimes offer only tangential confirmation of the scholiasts' assertions and, on occasion, actually contradict them. The scholia state that Pindar employs "poetic license" (rnorlTlKTl a6Ela) when he says that Adrastus rather than Cleisthenes founded the Pythian games at Sicyon (Nem. 9.20: III 152).20 The scholia claim that their information is based on Herodotus (5.67; Nem. 9 inscr.: III 149), but their summary reveals that they (or some intermediate source) did not understand that Cleisthenes was in fact reconstituting a contest that had originally been held in honor of Adrastus.21 It is significant that the scholia are willing to call attention to alleged deviations like Pindar's accounts of the contests on Lemnos or at Sicyon, but remain silent about the deliberate planning involved in Pindar's brilliantly innovative reworking of the myth of Tantalus and Pelops in Olympian 1,22 where they merely relate alternate versions of the stories. By commenting pri- marily on alleged "eccentricities," the commentators inexorably suggest that the poet, whatever his text says or the nature of the traditions he relates, composes imprecisely and irrationally.23

9 But Apollonius is criticized for including details felt to be inappropriate for

epic, such as Hylas' carrying a bucket (cf. N. G. Wilson [note 16 above]), or the erotic mode of Hylas' death, 1.1297b: cf. Didymus' criticism of Pindar's portrayal of the jack- asses in Pyth. 10.51b: II 246; Wilson (note 6 above) 104.

20 Cf. also the comment that Pindar "in a poetic manner" says Evadne's baby was sent rather than taken away ( 01. 6.52 f.: I 167).

21 Cf. the schol. to 01. 7.146a: I 229, which, apparently on the authority of Ister

(146b: I 129) misconstrues what Pindar says about the founding of the Heliaean games in Rhodes, while a correct interpretation is given on 146c: I 230. On the Nem. 9 passage, cf. Wilson (note 6 above) 105. Similarly, on 01. 6.55a: I 167, Didymus cited Ister against Pindar about the location of the town Phaesane, but the right explanation is given in 55d: I 168.

22 See esp. A. Kohnken, "Pindar as Innovator," CQ24 (1974) 199-206. "Time and Event in Pindar O. 1.25-53," CA 2 (1983) 66-76.

'23Chrysippus even suggested, absurdly in the judgment of the compiler of the scholia, that in one exceptional instance (Isthm. 4.47c: III 229-30), Pindar meant the

opposite of what he said. On the identity of this Chrysippus, see Deas (note 2 above) 14- 15.

277

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ

Rather than contribute to an understanding of the rationale of an ode, these allegations of eccentricity and irrelevance, however unjusti- fied, work against the text. At their most destructive, they offer, instead of elucidation, provocation for misreadings that support the notion of

poetic incoherence. A striking example of the process is, of course, the critical notion of interjection by a choral speaker. When in Nemean 7 Pindar refers to Aeacus as "guardian of my famous clan," namely the aristocratic Aegidae, the commentators, failing to understand the

phrase as an expression of the poet's kinship with the victor, suggest that the chorus must be speaking:24 "in his idiosyncratic way (i6biO) Pindar

appears to be reversing himself in this ode, for at one time he speaks in his own person about those who have criticized him about Neoptole- mus, and at another time he makes the chorus of Aeginetans say [of Aeacus] 'he was guardian of my [clan]' since Pindar was not an Aegine- tan" (Nem. 7.123a: III 134).25 The same sort of critical fiction spoils the effect of the closing lines of Pythian 8, where the poet addresses Aegina, the city for which he celebrated more victories than for any other, as "dear mother" (100).26 A scholium observes "this might be spoken by the chorus, to say that Aegina was the mother of the chorus members"

(140a: II 219). Some commentators had suggested that the chorus spoke "acting the role of the victor" earlier in the poem, in order to account for a sudden reference to the hero Alcmaeon as "my neighbor" (Pyth. 8.78a: II 214-15). When Pindar, after referring to Aegina as "dear

mother," prays that she "guide this city in a free procession," the scholia

gloss "guard the city named for you and protect her with freedom"

(140b) and explain "procession" (To6Ap) as "a course (GaTaAos) or stance (OT6CJl) or perhaps formation (aXrjlaTl), not subordinate to others" (140d: II 219), again emphasizing the presence of political dis- order at the time of the victory (la: II 206).27 The scholia on the pre- vious lines, about man being a dream of a shadow, as we have seen,

24But cf. the schol. on Pyth. 5.101a: II 185, which records accurately that there was a clan (qpaTpia) of Aegidae in Thebes. In the schol. to Nem. 7.123a: III 134, rrcTpa may have been understood as equivalent to rTalpiq ("fatherland," as, e.g., in Pyth. 9.74,

Pyth. 11.23), but on Pyth. 8.53a: II 211 it is correctly understood as (PpQTpia, "clan." 25 vaQCTpeopopal in this sense, cf. the schol. to Nem. 5.10a: II 90, where ava-

oTpo(rl designates a kind of prolepsis. 26See also Lefkowitz, "Influential Fictions" (note 3 above) 181-82. 27 ao6Aq. is glossed by oTlACYs in Nem. 3.27a: III 46, referring to the course of the

pankration (cf. 27b, 6pplj).

278

THE PINDAR SCHOLIA

noted that "some [scholars] criticized Pindar because he laments human life in the context of a victory ode" (136c: II 219). Penelope Wilson has

recently argued that many scholia, although often critical of Pindar, at least preserve a sense of the rhetorical purpose of the original.28 I am not convinced. If occasionally the commentators appear to have summa- rized Pindar's intention accurately, it is because he has expressed it in

relatively explicit terms,29 or because what he says can be made to fit the preconceptions of post-classical rhetorical theory.30 But in most cases, especially if one reads consecutively through the scholia of a single ode, the cumulative effect, as I have suggested in the case of Pythian 8, is that Pindar had several conflicting intentions and methodologies, and at best he expressed himself obscurely, and in a disjointed manner.

Further confusion was introduced by the commentators' assump- tion that Pindar's obscurity was deliberate, like the Poet's in Aris-

tophanes' Birds (936), who garbles lines of Pindar (fr. 105a,b) in the

hope of getting a new chiton. The point of the joke is that the poet's elevated language thinly conceals a demand for payment. Simonides, too, in Aristophanes' Peace, is described as an old man willing to do

anything in order to make money (Pax 965 ff.).31 Avarice became Si- monides' distinguishing characteristic in the biographical tradition: his advice on money was cited by Aristotle and circulated on papyrus in the third century B.C.32 The Pindar scholia likewise construe references to gold and silver in the odes as hints about the size of the poet's fees. For example, in the opening lines of Isthmian 5, the statement "men con- sider gold superior to other things" (2-3) elicits the comment: "we know that Pindar was in all respects greedy for gold. He indicates his own interest in money when he praises wealth and hints that those who are praised should repay Pindar with gold" (Isthm. 5.2a: III 242).33 When Pindar observes in Nemean 7 that avarice does not distort the judgment

'2Wilson (note 6 above) 107, 111.

29E.g., Nem. 4.53a: III 73.

30E.g., Nem. 4.10a: III 65, 66b III 75, Wilson (note 6 above) 103, cf. 101; 01. 1.174a: I 54, Wilson 111.

:' Aristophanes' characterization may have been based on Xenophanes 21 B 21 D- K; M. R. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (London and Baltimore 1981) 52.

32 Rhet. 1391a8: PHibeh 1.17; Lefkowitz, Lives (note 3 above) 50-53.

33E.g., esp. Pyth. 10 inscr.: II 242 and Nem. 5.1a: III 89. Cf. sch. Eur. Med. 9, "there is an impetuous(?) tale by philosophers current, which Parmeniscus also reports, that Euripides got five talents from the Corinthians to attribute the murder of the chil- dren to Medea."

279

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ

of the wise (18), the scholia remark, "that Pindar is completely avari- cious is clear from the preceding; our interpretation is very appropriate, since he continues with it in the next lines [by talking about rich and

poor]" (Nem. 7.25a: III 120).34 It is ironic that such external informa- tion, which seems to have had its origin in comic parody, comes to re-

place appreciation of the rhetorical purpose of Pindar's reflections on men's attitude toward wealth. Allegations about Pindar's avarice can- not but have had a devastating effect on the interpretation of an ode, by implying the presence of hidden meanings and allegories, and by their tacit assumption that the poet can interrupt the expected sequence of

thought for purely personal reasons. No wonder that admirers of Pindar in the Hellenistic age and after appear only to cite phrases from the odes and never try consciously to reproduce their general format.

It is possible to detect in certain later poetic adaptations of Pin- dar's poetry the influence of Aristophanes, the biographers, and the Al- exandrian commentators. Theocritus has Pindar in mind when he asks for payment for his poetry (Id. 16.22 ff.).35 Callimachus' echoes of Pin- daric phrases have a concreteness that is lacking in the original but is

present in the scholia; for example, Pindar in Olympian 14 says that the Graces sit near Apollo (10), but the scholia and Callimachus put them at his right hand (fr. 114.9).36 Horace in particular appears to have read Pindar with a commentary or at least have seen him through an Alexan- drian filter, because the emphasis in his references to Pindar bears the

stamp of interpretations found in the scholia. For example, Horace's simile of the ilex in Odes 4.4 applies specifically to the Romans; his model is the oak in Pindar's Pythian 4.263 ff., but where Pindar's text

characteristically gives the simile no direct application, the scholia iden-

tify the oak tree with his patron Damophilus (468a: II 163). In Odes 1.12 Horace adapts Pindar's simile about areta growing like a tree, but with an emphasis on reputation found not in Pindar's text but in the scholia: "crescit immenso velut arbor aevo fama Marcelli" (45 ff.); "raised up by the wise and just words of the poets" (Nem. 8.68b: III

3'4Cf. N. Austin, "Idyll 16: Theocritus and Simonides," TAPA 98 (1967) 10: "Pin- dar could talk of money in his poems without ever tainting his reputation."

3'D. Young, "Pindar 'Nemean 7,"' TAPA 101 (1970) 642-43; cf. R. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book II (Oxford 1978) 33; Austin (note 34 above) 16.

36Cf. also Callim. fr. 384.39, which uses the terminology of the schol., to 01. 9.1i: I 168.

280

THE PINDAR SCHOLIA

147). Horace describes Pindar in Odes 4.2 as "rushing down like a stream from a mountain which storms have swollen beyond its accus- tomed banks, Pindar seethes (fervet) and rushes forth immense with his deep voice" (profundo... ore, 5-8). Horace's language in this passage recalls certain descriptions of Pindar's style in the scholia. As we saw, in the scholium at 01. 1.5g: I 21 he is called "passionate" and "profound." When Pindar describes his poetry as drafts of water or uses the simile of a sweeping wave to characterize the effect of his song, the scholia para- phrases say a "flowing stream" (psEuia) represents his poetry.37 The phrase "beyond its accustomed banks" suggests that Horace too re-

garded Pindar as willing "to alter even mythological accounts for his own purpose" (Isthm. 1.15b: III 200).

In Odes 4.2 Horace explicitly contrasts the scope of his poetry to Pindar's.38 Pindar is the Dircean swan, he himself only an Italian pro- vincial bee. As when Callimachus describes his Hymn to Apollo as pure drops of water carried by bees in contrast to the flow of a big river (P6ocS), like Homer, Horace means his similes to set him in the Pindaric

tradition, but on his own more limited terms; the idea of a song darting from theme to theme like a bee is, of course, Pindar's (Pyth. 10.53-

54).39 Pindar, at least in microcosm, is frequently on Horace's mind, not in the way that Pindar might have represented himself, but as the Alex- andrians saw him.

The scholia to the opening lines of Olympian 2 state that "Pindar makes it a rule (Turnro) that it is necessary in every victory ode to praise a

god, a hero, and a man" (Id, 4a: I 59).40 Pindar seems not to have abided by this "rule," but Theocritus refers to Pindar's formula at the beginning of each of his encomia.41 Horace too selects the formula for the opening of his Odes 1.12 in praise of Augustus. Horace claims in Odes 3.4 that he was protected as a young boy by doves while he slept;

37Cf. Nem. 7.16b: III 119; Isthm. 6.108: III 260; 01. 10.13a-b: I 311; Wilson (note 6 above) 101.

38 Setting up such a comparison is a rhetorical topos that places the present writer (or speaker) in a tradition; cf. Menander Rhetor 437.15 ff.

39Callim. Hymn 2.198 ff.; see esp. F. Williams, Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo (Oxford 1978). The similarity was noted by Orelli, in Baiter and Hirschfelder, eds., Q. Horatius Flaccus4 (Berlin 1886). Cf. also R. Thomas, "Callimachus and Roman Poetry," CQ 33 (1983) 95.

40Wilson (note 6 above) 107. 41R. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book I (Oxford

1970) 143-44.

281

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ

according to his Hellenistic biographers, while the young Pindar was

asleep bees built a honeycomb in his mouth ( Vit. 2: I 1).42 The scholia to the celebrated passage in Olympian 2 about Pindar's obscurity state that "Pindar knows he uses a lot of mythical learning and unusual fig- ures of speech and varied expression, for he has many dislocations"

(ulneppaT6d, 153b: I 98). This might serve also as a fair description of Horace's style, especially in odes where he refers directly to Pindar.43 It could serve also as a description of the Pindaric style of poets like Goethe or Gray.44 Until Bundy explained the meaning of formal conventions in the odes, literary criticism of Pindar was based on the Alexandrian no- tion of an impulsive, impressive, but enigmatic Pindar.45

MARY R. LEFKOWITZ WELLESLEY COLLEGE

42 Cf. Kiessling-Heinze on Odes 3.4.10; on the topos, Lefkowitz, "Pindar's Lives"

(note 4 above) 73. 43 On Horace's Pindaric style, see esp. J. H. Waszink, "Horaz und Pindar," A&A

12 (1966) 111-24; E. Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford 1957) 425 ff.; G. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968) 751 ff. Horace Odes 3.27 has the format of an ode like Nem. 10; E. Highbarger, "The Pindaric Style of Horace," TAPA 66 (1935) 250. But cf. W. Biihler, Die Europa des Moschos (Hermes Einzelschrift 13; Wies- baden 1960) 22-23. Cf. also Callimachus' imitation of Pindar's unusual language, allu- siveness, and uneven pacing in his Victoria Berenices; P. Parsons, ZPE 25 (1977) 49-50.

44 In a letter Goethe cites 01. 2.85 and refers to Horace Odes 4.2 as expressing what he feels about Pindar; E. Grumach, Goethe und die Antike (Berlin 1949) 1.226. Cf. his Pindaric imitation "Wanderers Sturmlied" (1772). On Gray, M. R. Lefkowitz, The

Victory Ode (Park Ridge 1976) 175, n. 7; cf. also Wilson (note 6 above) 97-98. 45Cf. D. Young, "Pindaric Criticism," in Calder and Stern, eds., Pindaros und

Bakchylides (Darmstadt 1969) 86-88.

282