No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 September 2021
This article contributes to a discussion raised more than forty years ago in this journal by Richard Stoneman on how to interpret the unexpected image of an eagle at Pind. Nem. 3.80. Without excluding the possibility of a reference to the poet himself, this article argues, mainly based on a survey on the traditional elements used in that passage, that the eagle also refers—at least partially—to the victorious athlete Aristocleides. This is demonstrated by an internal investigation of the structure of the ode and the use of signal words (–θεν, δέδορκεν, φάος). Moreover, the image of the eagle stands in a series of other ancient and traditional motifs, such as the ‘song of milk and honey’ (77–9) and ‘(far-)shining fame’ (64, 81–4), which can be also found in the Rigveda and therefore can be regarded as an inheritance of the Indo-European (= IE) poetic tradition. Parallels from the Rigveda can be found for the avian imagery too, in which the eagle is compared to someone striving for fame in an athletic contest; this suggests that the image of the eagle is another traditional motif from IE times in Pindar, who uses it as a device to transition from a poetological to a laudatory part of the epinician, perhaps deliberately playing with the ambiguity of the image.
1 Cf. e.g. Bundy, E., Studia Pindarica I and II. The Eleventh Olympian Ode and the First Isthmian Ode (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1962), 3, 35–6Google Scholar.
2 C. Watkins, ‘ΕΠΕΩΝ ΘΕΣΙΣ. Poetic grammar: word order and metrical structure in the odes of Pindar’, in H. Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektiven (Wiesbaden, 2002), 319–37, at 319 = id., Selected Writings. Vol. III. Publications 1992–2008, ed. L. Oliver (Innsbruck, 2008), 1005–23, at 1005.
3 Darmesteter, J., ‘Iranica’, Mémoires de la société de linguistique de Paris 3 (1878–9), 302–21Google Scholar, at 319–21.
4 Schmitt, R., Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit (Wiesbaden, 1967), 14–15, 297–8Google Scholar.
5 Nagy, G., Pindar's Homer. The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore and London, 1990)Google Scholar.
6 Masetti, L., Phraseologie und indogermanische Dichtersprache in der Sprache der griechischen Chorlyrik: Pindar und Bakchylides (Washington, DC, 2019)Google Scholar.
7 Meusel, E., Pindarus Indogermanicus. Untersuchungen zum Erbe dichtersprachlicher Phraseologie bei Pindar (Berlin and Boston, 2020)Google Scholar.
8 Translations of Pindar are taken from W.H. Race, Pindar, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA and London, 1997).
9 The fronted copula right before δέ is somewhat odd, but can be found a couple of times in Pindar in this position: I.L. Pfeijffer, Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar. A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, & Pythian VIII (Leiden / Boston / Cologne, 1999), 414.
10 Cf. Pfeijffer (n. 9), 221.
11 Gundert, H., Pindar und sein Dichterberuf (Frankfurt, 1935), 98Google Scholar; L.R. Farnell, Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar (Amsterdam, 1961), 262; C.M. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford, 1964), 18–19; Bernardini, P.A., ‘L’“aquila tebana” vola ancora’, QUCC 26 (1977), 121–6Google Scholar, at 124.
12 M. Theunissen, Pindar. Menschenlos und Wende der Zeit (Munich, 2000), 415–16.
13 Given the transmission at Ol. 2.87 it is possible either to read a third-person dual (γαρύετον) or a plural imperative (γαρυέτων). For the implications of the different readings with further literature, see I.L. Pfeijffer, ‘The image of the eagle in Pindar and Bacchylides’, CPh 89 (1994), 305–17, at 312.
14 Even Horace in his imitations of Pindar uses the image of birds representing the poet: Carm. 2.20, 4.2.25. The eagle in Carm. 4.4, however, stands not for the poet but for Drusus and for his victory over the Vindelici: Stoneman, R., ‘The “Theban eagle”’, CQ 26 (1976), 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 197.
15 G. Norwood, Pindar (Berkeley, 1956²), 82; Bowra (n. 11), 9–10; Bernardini (n. 11), 124; Most, G.W., The Measures of Praise. Structure and Function in Pindar's Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes (Göttingen, 1985), 150–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lefkowitz, M.R., First-Person Fictions. Pindar's Poetic ‘I’ (Oxford, 1991), 163Google Scholar; Theunissen (n. 12), 415–16; Maslov, B., Pindar and the Emergence of Literature (Cambridge, 2015), 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 E.g. Pind. Ol. 13.21, Pyth. 1.6–12; Aesch. Ag. 113, Cho. 247–8; Stoneman (n. 14), 193. However, Stoneman's analysis of the term σοφός (191–2), which renders it as characteristic of the ‘initiate, he who understands the speaking of the arrows’, can hardly withstand a closer examination, because σοφός is much too important a word in Pindar for it to refer exclusively to the victor.
17 Bock, M., ‘Aischylos und Akragas’, Gymnasium 65 (1958), 402–50Google Scholar, at 403–4; Stoneman (n. 14), 193.
18 That J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford, 19592), 386–8 files the γε μέν of Pind. Nem. 3.83 under ‘adversative’ is only due to Bowra's advice, as he states himself (see also R. Stoneman [n. 14], 194); otherwise, it would have been found under the tag ‘affirmative’.
19 A slightly different interpretation of the γε μέν, although with the same result, is given by Pfeijffer (n. 13), 314–15 with n. 41.
20 Bernardini (n. 11).
21 Hubbard, T.K., The Pindaric Mind. A Study of Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry (Leiden, 1985), 149–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 D. Steiner, The Crown of Song. Metaphor in Pindar (Oxford and New York, 1986), 104–10.
23 Pfeijffer (n. 9) and (n. 13). K.A. Morgan, Pindar and the Construction of the Syracuse Monarchy in the Fifth Century b.c. (Oxford, 2015), 123–32 follows Pfeijffer.
24 Pfeijffer (n. 13), 315.
25 Pfeijffer (n. 13), 317.
26 Hence this is one great example for the interplay between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’, an important aspect of the IE poetic tradition; cf. the contrast between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ song in IE poetry (cf. Meusel [n. 7], 486–94, 540–59).
27 Aegina is not that far from Nemea, but nevertheless Aristocleides is no local and had to travel across the sea to participate.
28 This is corroborated by the use of the affirmative particle chain τίν γε μέν (§2.2.2), to which Stoneman (n. 14), 194 and Pfeijffer (n. 13), 314 point, and which also links lines 83–4 to the preceding ones.
29 The motif which is used to establish such a structure is the same as in Nem. 3: (far-)shining fame.
30 Cf. Steiner (n. 22), 103–4. The excellence of both comes from their feet: cf. 52 ποσσί, 81 ποσίν.
31 The second compound member of τηλαυγές, –αυγές, also hints at φάος (84) or the optical dimension in general.
32 The correspondence of the origin marker –θε(ν) is by no means trivial. Outside of αὐτόθεν and τηλόθε, it occurs only once more in Nemean 3 (not counting σέθεν in line 5), in οἴκοθεν (31, eleven times in Pindar).
33 In the aforementioned example of Ol. 1 similar terminological doublings are to be found as well. λάμπει (23) is picked up by δέδορκε (94, just like in Nem. 3.84), κλέος (23) by the same word (93) and ἐν εὐάνορι Λυδοῦ Πέλοπος ἀποικίᾳ (24) by τᾶν Ὀλυμπιάδων ἐν δρόμοις Πέλοπος (94–5), with the genitive Πέλοπος appearing each time.
34 The interpretation of W.J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin, 1969), 499 seems faulty here; I do not see how in Nem. 6.48 one could understand τηλόθεν as a pre- or postposition.
35 τηλόθεν is important for the ritual hic et nunc at the performance of a victory ode. By opening up the concept of a place far away, the poet simultaneously evokes the complete opposite, i.e. the here and now of the performance. And since all the here and now of a performance is about the victor and his κλέος (cf. Bundy [n. 1], 3, 35–6), it is no wonder that τηλόθεν is nearly exclusively found in passages where one can also find κλέος.
36 The substitution of a term for ‘fame’ or ‘glory’ by means of a term for ‘name’ is common, and already a full-furnished feature of the IE poetic tradition: West, M.L., Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford and New York, 2007), 398CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meusel (n. 7), 200–8.
37 For the connection between Gr. τῆλε and the concept of fame, compare also the compounds τηλεκλυτός and τηλεκλειτός with Schmitt (n. 4), 72–3 with n. 442.
38 Nordheider, H.W., ‘δέρκομαι’, LfrgE 2 (1991), 251–2Google Scholar; cf. Hom. Od. 19.446, [Hes.] Scut. 145.
39 Cf. Slater (n. 34), 127.
40 B.K. Braswell, A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine (Berlin and New York, 1998), 123–4.
41 Bowra (n. 11), 255: ‘It is also present in Pindar's use of δέδορκεν for the brilliance of fame, whether in general for the Olympian Games (O. 1. 94) or in particular for individual victors (N. 3. 84; 9. 41–42). In the last case the notion is helped by φέγγος, but what counts most is the eye that both gleams and is visible from afar.’
42 Slater (n. 34), 526–7. There could even be a deeper connection between κλέος and φάος than just on a metaphorical level. The word φάος stems from the PIE root *bheh2– (H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band II: Κρ–Ω. Zweite, unveränderte Auflage [Heidelberg, 1973], 991), which could mean either ‘to speak, say’ or ‘to shine’ (H. Rix et al., Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage [Wiesbaden, 2001], 68–70), and which is reflected in the verb φαίνω, which is often used to designate a poetological activity. Cf. D. Bremer, Licht und Dunkel in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Interpretationen zur Vorgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik (Bonn, 1976), 277: ‘Der Dichter ist Seher und zugleich der, der die Kunde hört. Das dichterische Wort hat die Kraft des Erscheinenlassens (φαίνειν) und ist zugleich auf die Vermittlung durch das Hören angewiesen.’ As a consequence, it is possible to interpret φάος not only as that which shines, but what the poet ‘lets shine’ or ‘says’. This way, it would stand much closer to the concept of the κλέος, since that what people hear (i.e. κλέος, see below) is exactly what the poet is speaking about in his poem. See further Meusel (n. 7), 407–8 n. 1005, 476–7, 559–66.
43 For the substitution of κλέος by δόξα, see Meusel (n. 7), 186–91, 428–30 and (for further examples) 398–403.
44 It can probably be regarded as a kind of Leitmotiv for the entire victory ode: Peifjffer (n. 9), 370.
45 The poet's need to renew the tradition by altering and changing traditional elements, but at the same to stick to it tightly, can best be observed in the contrast between the ‘old song’ and the ‘new song’: Thummer, E., Pindar. Die Isthmischen Gedichte. Textkritisch herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert, mit einer Analyse der pindarischen Epinikien. Band I: Analyse der pindarischen Epinikien. Text und Übersetzung der Isthmischen Gedichte (Heidelberg, 1968)Google Scholar, 151 and n. 26.
46 A high degree of informativity could be characteristic of a highly innovative and novel collocation stemming from the mouth of one single poet as well. But it is, none the less, a good starting point for seeking out a potentially traditional origin. Cf. e.g. the compound ‘wordsmith’ as a term for a poet. It is of highly informational character, since words are not something that is usually crafted by a smith. Rather, they are spoken. Therefore, the highly informational character of the compound hints to a past time when producing words was metaphorically seen as some kind of craftsmanship.
47 Even if there are only a few terminological correspondences between Vedic and Greek in this case, this is not bothersome, because the highly informative character of the motif—fame is not something that naturally shines—lets a reconstruction rest on relatively firm ground.
48 All translations of the Rigveda are taken from S.W. Jamison and J.P. Brereton, The Rigveda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India (Oxford, 2014).
49 For further examples of the motif in Vedic, see Meusel (n. 7), 406–10.
50 Cf. from Latin the fulgor nominis, famae or gloriae in Livy 21.43.12, Ov. Trist. 5.12.39, Val. Max. 6.2.3 or nomen fulget in Val. Max. 6.9.5, Sen. Contr. 2.1.17.
51 Perhaps this absolute construction makes it even more probable that Pindar uses the Muse's proper name just to refer to the κλέος. Otherwise, why would he have had the need to mention her? He possibly just inserted her name to make the reference to κλέος more obvious to those who were not able to grasp it up to that point. If the Muse would have been of essential importance to the content, her name would surely be better implemented in the syntax as well.
52 These means include the traditional motif of (far-)shining fame, the name-dropping of Κλεώ, but also the imagery of the eagle (§3.2).
53 On this, see Meusel (n. 7), especially 431–3.
54 There is some kind of imperative at work here, deeply grounded in the poetic tradition: see nn. 26, 45 above.
55 Pfeijffer (n. 9), 221.
56 On the latter, see n. 60 below.
57 Jamison and Brereton (n. 48) translate the term śyená- m. with ‘falcon’, but—as Graßmann, H., Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. 6., überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage von Maria Kozianka (Wiesbaden, 1996)Google Scholar, 1417 states—every large bird of prey could be designated by the term. Geldner usually translates śyená- with ‘Adler’. Thus I replace ‘falcon’ in the otherwise untouched translation of Jamison–Brereton with ‘eagle’ to make the parallels between Pindar and the Rigveda more lucid. The etymological discussion of the term śyená- provides no relevant information for the imagery or the metaphor in Pindar. Cf. Mayrhofer, M., Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. II. Band (Heidelberg, 1996), 662Google Scholar.
58 Ved. śrávas- is the exact cognate to Gr. κλέος coming from the PIE s-stem *k̑léu̯os (see above).
59 On the eagle's swiftness, see also Stoneman (n. 14), 189.
60 This phrase, like the Rigveda's ubiquitous mádhu somyám, could go back to an original IE ritual drink. This is suggested by terminological correspondences between the Pindaric phrase and Vedic (e.g. kṣīraír … ā́śīrtas) and Avestan (e.g. haoma yō gauua). One has only to assume the unproblematic substitution of *κιρνᾱμενον by μεμιγμένον in the Pindaric poem. Another hint to an original ritual provenance of Pindar's μεμιγμένον μέλι λευκῷ σὺν γάλακτι is the poetological nature of this drink, which Pindar makes explicit in line 79 (πόμ’ ἀοίδιμον). In Vedic it is also very common that the mádhu- stands metaphorically for the song in a ritual performance. See E. Meusel, ‘Zum Verhältnis von ved. āśír- f. “Milch(beimischung)”, śrī́- f. “Vollkommenheit, Schönheit, Glanz” und der Verbalwurzel śrayi- “vollkommen, glänzen machen” aus phraseologischer Sicht’, Historische Sprachforschung 132 (2019 [2021]) and Meusel (n. 7), 630–53.
61 It may be quite a long shot, but perhaps Pindar is playing here with this exact image (or myth) of the eagle stealing or getting back the ‘honey’ from heaven, which is found in the Rigveda as well, when he places his μεμιγμένον μέλι λευκῷ σὺν γάλακτι right beside the image of the eagle in Nem. 3. In addition, such a juxtaposition would also contribute to an elegant transition between the poetological and the concluding praising part of the hymn, since both references, the one to the poet as well as the one to the athlete, would then be grounded in tradition. First, it would seem that Pindar as the eagle is bringing the poetological honey (cf. lines 77–9), i.e. poetry itself, ‘home’ to men. But afterwards, those acquainted with the poetic tradition would remember that the eagle is a bird of prey and as such is just like an athlete seeking fame. Given the shared ritual foundation of Pindar's and Vedic poetry, perhaps such a play is another distant echo from the past in Pindar.
62 Note the opening verses of the hymn, which are close to the introductory lines of some of Pindar's epinicians: tuvā́m íd dhí hávāmahe | sātā́ vā́jasya kārávaḥ | tuvā́ṃ vr̥tréṣu indra sátpatiṃ náras | tuvā́ṃ kā́ṣṭhāsu árvataḥ (‘Because it is just you that we bards call upon at the winning of the prize, you, Indra, as master of settlements that our men [sc. call upon] amid obstacles, you at the finish lines of our steed.’).
63 For the defective syntax and the missing main clause in verses 13 and 14, see Oldenberg, H., Ṛgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Erstes bis sechstes Buch (Berlin, 1909), 396Google Scholar; Jamison–Brereton (n. 48), 832; and in more detail the online commentary to Jamison–Brereton on Book 6 ad loc. (S.W. Jamison, Rigveda Translation: Commentary, retrieved 21 September 2020, http://rigvedacommentary.alc.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VI.33-75-7-15-20.pdf).
64 See n. 24 above.
65 Such a double reference to the poet as well as to the laudandus is also already observable in the poetic tradition of IE. For example, in Vedic the genitive found in combinations like narā́ṃ śáṃsa- ‘praise of men’ or the compound nárāśáṃsa- ‘(posessing) praise of men’ can be interpreted as both subjective and objective genitive (Schmitt [n. 4], 98–9), and the κῶμον ἀνέρων from Pind. Pyth. 5.22 may be a direct cognate to that. On the term κῶμος in Greek choral lyric and its connection to the IE ritual, see Meusel, E., ‘Comic Relief – Erleichterung im Streit um die Etymologie von gr. κῶμος’, Glotta 97 (2021), 183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
66 Cf. e.g. Nem. 6.53–4 καὶ ταῦτα μὲν παλαιότεροι | ὁδὸν ἀμαξιτὸν εὗρον· ἕπομαι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἔχων μελέταν· ‘The older poets found in such deeds as those a highway of song, and I myself follow along, making it my concern.’
67 This is executed by a somewhat chiastic arrangement. Whereas the traditional reference of the image (i.e. the eagle as the athlete) points towards the hic et nunc, the more recent reference (i.e. the eagle as the poet) would stick to the poetological digression and therefore hinder the progression towards the performative presence.
68 Stoneman (n. 14), 194.