Pindar composed splendid victory odes for Sicilian tyrants, but his statement “I disapprove of the fate of tyrannies” tells us nothing about his attitude towards Hieron or Theron. In its context in the 11th Pythian, it is a comment on the fate of Agamemnon, Klytaimestra and Aigisthos. The poet supplied what his clients commissioned and paid for - it was essentially a business relationship. Pindar’s praise for Hieron und Theron is measured, not flattery; they were not power-greedy despots like Hieron II, Dionysios or Agathokles, let alone the dictators of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Eustathios, the illustrious scholar and clergyman of the 12th century AD, wrote a commentary to Pindar’s epinician odes, from which only the proem survives. Eustathios treatment of the lyric poet, his ideas and criteria of literary criticism have not been re-assessed since Kambylis’ interpretation and text edition (1991). The aim of this paper is to supply this re-evaluation. Besides, a new Homeric allusion and some evidence for Eustathios’ productive imitation of Pindar’s style are dealt with.
[Mosch.] 3.88 does not refer to the Boeotian forests but to the Boeotian town Hylai as Pindar's birthplace. The tradition that Pindar was born in Kynoskephalai seems to have originated later and may go back to Plutarch.
Every Pindaric ode poses the question of literary unity, which is the main issue of Pindaric scholarship. But every ode presents a specific form of unity, and so does the Sixth Olympian, one of Pindar’s most accomplished poems, whose ways of achieving unity are the chief concern of this paper. I argue that unity in O. 6 comes about by dint of a metaphoric parallel between the poet (Pindar) and the prophet (Hagesias, the victor, and Iamos, the mythic protagonist). This parallel is based on two significant moments, which are typical of both the prophet and the poet: the moment of inspiration and that of the utterance (of the oracle viz. poem). The same moments are brought to the fore in vv. 58–70 concerning the prophet Iamos, then in vv. 82–91 (the main stumbling block in the interpretation of the poem) concerning the poet Pindar. From this core metaphors of prophetic-poetic activity permeate the whole epinician ode.
. 5. 56–58 is one of the few highly controversial cruxes in Pindar, though it may be an interpretative and not a textual one. The kernel of the ambiguity is in the expression ὄπιζ ἐλπὶδων. After examining the various interpretations my paper analyses the concept underlying the rare and quaint word ὄπιζ from Homer on, which turns out to be a strong visual metaphor in Pindar as well. My reading of the passage:
nec labor ingens occaecatus est, nec tot sumptus, qui aciem spei excitaverunt
is examined within the context of the poem, and the relevance of the keen visual metaphor prevalent in Pindar’s whole poetry is elucidated.
Joint Performance of Pindar’s Isthmian 2 and Pythian 6. Mnemosyne 66 (2013) 31–53, l’ode sarebbe stata riproposta in occasione della première della seconda Istmica , che celebrava la vittoria con la quadriga del padre ormai defunto, ed era parimenti
This paper explores the iconography of two prints owned by Haydn, the traditions to which they belonged and their aesthetic consequences. The prints depict two contrasting audiences, one amused and the other despondent, and feature a range of iconographic references that Haydn would have readily responded to, including such themes as the death of Dido, the world of Tristram Shandy, the madness of Orlando and Don Quixote, the humorous verse of Peter Pindar (one of Haydn’s librettists) and inevitably (in prints of this kind) contemporary English politics. A particular point of interest is a caricature of Edward Topham, an amateur caricaturist and founding editor of the influential newspaper
, featured in one of the prints. In a series of issues in the late 1780s
published a ‘correspondence’ with Haydn himself, which sought to undermine the composer’s suitability for composing with London audiences’ in mind. The print may have helped serve to remind Haydn of this dispute at the time he actually began composing in London and to aid him in keeping such audiences in mind when composing for them.
This paper attempts to solve a difficult textual problem in Pindar (N. 5. 43). Although the manuscripts concerning this verse are unanimous, editors tend to correct the passage. I, on the other hand, argue in favour of preserving the tradition in the sense: immo nuper delectat Neptunum ad gentem Pelei cognatam etiam nunc transgressum materterus tuus, Pythea. Implications of the suggested new interpretation are presented.
Minden Pindaros-óda szembesít az egység mibenlétével, mely a Pindaros-kutatás talán legfontosabb kérdése. Ám minden költemény más és más módon egységes, s ez igaz a hatodik olympiai ódára is, melyet a költő egyik legnagyszerűbb versének szokás tartani. Jelen tanulmányban megmutatom, hogy az O. 6 egységét a költő (Pindaros) és a jós (Hagésias, a győztes és Iamos, a mondabeli ős) metaforikus párhuzama biztosítja, melynek alapja két, a költőre és a jósra egyaránt jellemző mozzanat: az isteni ihlet és kimondás-kifejezés pillanata. Ezek jelennek meg a jós (Iamos) elhivatásának leírásában (58–70), majd a költő saját tevékenységére reflektáló megnyilatkozásában (82–91), mely a vers legvitatottabb soraiban fogalmazódik meg. E magból sugárzanak szét a költő és a jós tevékenységének metaforái a győzelmi óda egészében.