Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T15:10:45.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PINDAR ΙΣΧΝΟΦΩΝΟΣ (SCHOL. IN PI. O. 6.88)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2017

Krystyna Bartol
Krystyna Bartol*
Affiliation:
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland
*
*Email: krbartol@amu.edu.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue in this article that the scholiast's claim (schol. in Pi. O. 6.88) that Pindar was ἰσχνόφωνος meant that he was believed to be a stammerer rather than a weak-voiced person. I have attempted to show how later commentators developed some points of Alexandrian critics’ judgement of Pindar's poetry into a conventional biographical reference to the poet's speech defect.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Classical Journal , Volume 63 , December 2017 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

My gratitude goes to both anonymous referees of this article and the editors, for all their valuable remarks and suggestions which helped me improve this contribution.

References

Works Cited

Adorjáni, Z. (2014a) ‘Iamos und Pindar’, Hermes 142, 27–57.Google Scholar
Adorjáni, Z. (2014b) Pindars sechste olympische Siegesode: Text, Einleitung und Kommentar, Leiden.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G., Calvani Mariotti, G. and Montanari, F. (1991) Concordantia et indices in scholia Pindarica vetera. Volume ii N–W, Hildeshein, Zürich and New York.Google Scholar
Asper, M. (1997) Onomata allotria: zur Genese, Struktur und Funktion poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Bona, G. (1995) ‘Pindaro tra poeti e filologi alessandrini’, Aevum 8, 87–103 (repr. in V. Citti and G. Gianotti (eds.), Scritti di letteratura greca e di storia della filologia, Amsterdam 2005, 205–17).Google Scholar
Bonifazi, A. (2001) Mescolare un cratere di canti: pragmatica della poesia epinicia in Pindaro, Turin.Google Scholar
Bowra, C. M. (1964) Pindar, Oxford.Google Scholar
Briand, M. (2009) ‘La danse et la philologie: à partir du mouvement strophique dans les scholies anciennes à Pindare’, in David, S., Daude, C., Geny, E. and Muckensturm-Poulle, C. (eds.), Traduire les scholies de Pindare. Volume i: De la traduction au commentaire: problèmes de méthode, Besançon, 93–106.Google Scholar
Bulloch, A. W. (1989) ‘Hellenistic poetry’, in Easterling, P. E. and Knox, B. M. W. (eds.), The Cambridge history of Classical literature. Volume i.4: The Hellenistic period and the Empire, Cambridge, 18–81.Google Scholar
Burnett, A. P. (2008) Pindar, Bristol.Google Scholar
Calderón Dorda, E. (1990) ‘Ateneo y la λετπότης de Filetas’, Emerita 58, 125–9.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. (1995) Callimachus and his critics, Princeton.Google Scholar
Carey, C. (2007) ‘Place and performance’, in Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (eds.), Pindar's poetry, patrons, and festivals: from Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford, 199–210.Google Scholar
Currie, B. (2004) ‘Reperformance scenarios for Pindar's Odes’, in Mackie, C. J. (ed.), Oral performance and its context, Leiden, 49–70.Google Scholar
D'Alessio, G. B. (2000) ‘Le Argonautiche di Cleone Curiense’, in Pretagostini, R. (ed.), La letteratura ellenistica: problemi e prospettive di ricerca, Roma, 91–112.Google Scholar
Daude, C., David, S., Fartzoff, M. and Muckensturm-Poulle, C. (2013) Scholies à Pindare. Volume i: Vies de Pindare et scholies à la première Olympique, Besançon.Google Scholar
Deas, H. T. (1931) ‘The scholia vetera to Pindar’, HSCP 42, 1–78.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2007) Ancient Greek scholarship: a guide to finding, reading, and understanding scholia, commentaries, lexica, and grammatical treatises from their beginnings to the Byzantine period, Oxford.Google Scholar
Drachmann, A. B. (1903) Scholia vetera in Pindari Carmina. Volume i: Scholia in Olympionicas, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Fränkel, H. F. (1961) ‘Schrullen in den Scholien zu Pindars Nemean 7 und Olimpien 3’, Hermes 89, 385–97.Google Scholar
Giannini, P. (2013) ‘Olimpica sesta’, in Gentili, B., Catenacci, C., Giannini, P. and Lomiento, L. (eds.), Pindaro: le Olimpiche, Milan, 137–65, 445–74.Google Scholar
Giannini, P. (2014) ‘Note integrative alle Olimpiche di Pindaro’, in Giannini, P., Homerica et Pindarica, Pisa and Rome, 2014.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, B. L. (1885) Pindar: the Olympian and Pythian Odes, London.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1991) The poet's voice: essays on poetics and Greek literature, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hardie, A. (2015) ‘A dithyramb for Augustus: Horace, Odes 4.2’, CQ 65, 253–85.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. (1995) ‘Horace, Pindar, Iullus Antonius, and Augustus: Odes 4.2’, in Harrison, S. J. (ed.), Homage to Horace: a bimillenary celebration, Oxford, 108–27.Google Scholar
Heath, M. (1986) ‘The origins of modern Pindaric criticism’, JHS 106, 85–98.Google Scholar
Heath, M. (1988), ‘Receiving the κῶμος: the context and performance of epinician’, AJP 109, 180–95.Google Scholar
Heath, M. (1989) Unity in Greek poetics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Horn, E. (1883) De Aristarchi studiis Pindaricis, Greifswald.Google Scholar
Hornblower, S. (2004) Thucydides and Pindar: historical narrative and the world of epinikian poetry, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hummel, P. (1997) Philologica lyrica: la poésie lyrique grecque au miroir de l’érudition philologique de l'antiquité è la Renaissance, Leuven.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (1988) Hellenistic poetry, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (2001) Greek lyric poetry. A commentary on selected large pieces, Oxford.Google Scholar
Instone, S. (1986) ‘Pythian 11: did Pindar err?’, CQ 36, 86–94.Google Scholar
Irigoin, J. (1952) Histoire du texte de Pindare, Paris.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (2000) Philodemus: On poems, Book one, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kambylis, A. (1991) Eustathios von Thessalonike: Prooimion zum Pindarkommentar, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Kline, A. S. (2003) ‘Horace C. 4.2’, http://www.poetryintranslation.com (accessed June 2017).Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. (1975) ‘The influential fictions in the scholia to Pindar's Pythian 8’, CPh 70, 173–85.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. (1981) The lives of the Greek poets, London [Bristol (20122)].Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. (1985) ‘The Pindar scholia’, AJP 106, 269–82 (repr. in M. Lefkowitz, First-person fictions: Pindar's poetic ‘I’, Oxford 1991, 147–60).Google Scholar
Luraghi, N. (1997) ‘Un mantis eleo nella Siracusa di Ierone: Agesia di Siracusa, Iamide di Stinfalo’, Klio 79, 69–86.Google Scholar
Masson, O. (1976) ‘Le nome de Battos, fondateur de Cyrène, et un group de mots grecs apparentés’, Glotta 54, 84–8.Google Scholar
Maurach, G. (1999) Horaz: Werk und Leben, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Mayhew, R. (2011) Aristotle: Problems, Books 1–19, Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Meijering, R. (1987) Literary and rhetorical theories in Greek scholia, Groningen.Google Scholar
Minar, E. L. (1961) Plutarch: Moralia. Volume ix, with an English translation by Minar, E. L., Sandbach, F. H. and Helmbold, W. C., Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Muir, J. V. (2001) Alcidamas: the works and fragments, Bristol.Google Scholar
Negri, M. (1997) ‘La sopravvivenza degli Epinici di Pindaro: le ragioni della scelta antica’, in Discentibus obvius: omaggio degli allievi a Domenico Magnino, Como, 87–108.Google Scholar
Negri, M. (2004) Pindaro ad Alessandria, Brescia.Google Scholar
Nünlist, R. (2009a) ‘Narratological concepts in Greek scholia’, in Grethlein, J. and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Narratology and interpretation: the content of narrative form in ancient literature, Berlin and New York, 63–83.Google Scholar
Nünlist, R. (2009b) The ancient critic at work: terms and concepts of literary criticism in Greek scholia, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Perrin, B. (1967) Plutarch's Lives. Volume i, with an English translation by Perrin, B., Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Phillips, T. (2015) Pindar's library: performance and material texts, Oxford.Google Scholar
Pontani, F. (2013) ‘Noblest charis: Pindar and the scholiasts’, Phoenix 57, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Race, W. H. (1997) Pindar. Volume i: Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes, Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. (2001) Quintilian: The orator's education. Volume iv: Books 9–10, London.Google Scholar
Rusten, J. S. (1982) Dionysius Scytobrachion, Opladen.Google Scholar
Sbardella, L. (2000) Filita: testimonianze e frammenti poetici, Roma.Google Scholar
Too, Y. L. (1991) ‘Ἥρα παρθενία and poetic self-reference in Pindar's Olympian 6.87–90’, Hermes 119, 257–63.Google Scholar
Vendruscolo, F. (1994) ‘La deliziosa acqua di Tebe (Pind. O. 6. 82–87)’, Eikasmos 5, 53–63.Google Scholar
Villarrubia, A. (1995) ‘La victoria de Hagesias de Siracusa y la Olímpica 6 de Píndaro’, Habis 26, 13–28.Google Scholar
Wilamowitz Moellendorff, U. von (1886) Isyllos von Epidauros, Berlin.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. (1980) ‘Pindar and his reputation in antiquity’, PCPS 26, 97–114.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, B. (2011) Handbuch der griechischen Literatur der Antike. Volume i: Die Literatur der archaischen und klassischen Zeit, Munich.Google Scholar