Linguistic Commentary

Laura Massetti

Jump to Content

Chapter 5 Linguistic Commentary

In: Pindarâs Pythian Twelve: A Linguistic Commentary and a Comparative Study

Author:

Laura Massetti

Laura Massetti
Search for other papers by Laura Massetti in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Type:: Chapter

Pages:: 32â84

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004694132_006

Access via:

Dar Hadith al Hassania

Download PDF

1 Invocation (1â6)

In the first six verses the chorus addresses Acragas. This invocation provides us with some fundamental information on the Panhellenic victory: winnerâs hometown (1â3), winnerâs name (5), place of victory and discipline in which the victory was obtained (6, cf. chapter 1, sections 1 and 3). An opening apostrophe to the winnerâs personified hometown is also found in I. 7.

Together with O. 12 (1, Î»á½·ÏÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹, ÏÎ±á¿ ÎÎ·Î½á½¸Ï á¼Î»ÎµÏÎ¸ÎµÏá½·Î¿Ï) P. 12 is the only Pindaric victory ode beginning with âI entreatâ, though it does not comply with the standard traits of the cletic hymn (e.g. Sapph. 1.1â3 V ÏÎ¿Î¹ÎºÎ¹Î»á½¹Î¸ÏÎ¿Î½â á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î±Ïâ, á¼ÏÏÎ¿Î´á½·ÏÎ± â¦ Î»á½·ÏÏÎ¿Î¼Î±á½· ÏÎµ, || Î¼á½µ Î¼â á¼ÏÎ±Î¹ÏÎ¹ Î¼Î·Î´â á½Î½á½·Î±Î¹ÏÎ¹ Î´á½±Î¼Î½Î± on which see Cameron 1939, Privitera 1967, Burzacchini 2005; on the cletic hymn see also Pfister 1924, Meyer 1933), featuring an explicit âI callâ (e.g. Sapph. 1.16 V Î´á¼¦ÏÏÎµ Îºá½±Î»Î·Î¼Î¼Î¹; cf. O. 14, N. 7.1â4) and a verb of movement in impv. (e.g. Sapph. 1.5 V ÏÏá½·Î´â á¼Î»Î¸â[Îµ]; descende in Nordenâs [1913:148] terminology; cf. P. 11.1â10, N. 3.1â3). Here, instead, Acragas is invited to welcome Midas and his victory ode. This is a Pindaric topos, which is occasionally found in the first verses of encomia á¼Ïá½¶ Î½á½·Îºá¿, (cf. O. 5.1â3, P. 8.1â4, N. 11.1â5, O. 4.6â10, O. 8.9â10, cf. Schadewaldt 1928:269, who defines Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹ âformulaicâ (see also Heath 1988:189, Bremer 2008:6â7)). In such passages the impv. âwelcome!â is preceded by the accusative of the thing/the person that shall be welcomed by the addressee and by a series of vocatives with embedded relative or participle clauses (P. 8.3â4), usually following the first or the second (P. 8.1â2) vocative. The beginning of Pythian Twelve is slightly different from the above cited parallels: the initial appeal (âI entreat youâ) is followed by four vocatives (1â3) encasing a relative clause (2â3)âthe antecedent of this clause is the second person singular ÏÎµ âyouâ (thee), at 1â, which is located between the third and the fourth vocative. A sequence of this kind creates a sense of solemn suspension. In P. 12 the rallentando increases the expectations of the audience, as it lends a certain grandeur to the announcement of the winnerâs name (first named after 5 verses). Indeed, the poetâs request is only clarified at 5, the impv. Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹ being additionally preceded by a predicative and a modal complement (4). The verb is, in turn, followed by the accusatives of the thing and the person that Acragas is invited to welcome (5â6).

I would claim that the naming of Acragas supports the conclusion that the ode was performed in the winnerâs hometown (cf. chapter 1, section 3). For a visual disposition of the syntactic elements in the apostrophe cf. Sulzer 1961:34. On the prooimion and further Pindaric comparanda cf. Maslov 2015:310.

1Â Â Îá¼°Ïá½³Ï âI entreatâ, cf. Î±á¼´ÏÎ·Î¼á½· ÏÎµ (fr.Â 155.3), Î±á¼°Ïá½³Ï ÏÎµ (N. 9.30). In Pindar, the verb is usually constructed with 2 acc. (of the person entreated and of the thing entreated), or acc. (of the person entreated) and inf. (of the thing entreated). On the use of the first person in Pindar cf.Â DâAlessio 1994, Currie 2013. In our verse, the speaking persona is the chorus. This is the only Pindaric instance of Î±á¼°Ïá½³Ï being followed by an acc. of the person asked (1, ÏÎµ) and an impv. (5, Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹, cf. Slater 1969 s.vv. Î±á¼°Ïá½³Ï, Î±á¼´ÏÎ·Î¼Î¹, cf. Hummel 1993:274), i.e. another sentence. A construction of this description resembles that of Î»á½·ÏÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ âI entreat/beseechâ, followed by the impv. of the thing requested in O. 12.1â2, P. 1.71, N. 3.1â3, and constructed with acc. and impv. in fr.Â 52f.1â6 (Pae. 6.1â6 = D6 Rutherford) ÏÎµ, ÏÏÏÏá½³Î± | ÎºÎ»ÏÏá½¹Î¼Î±Î½ÏÎ¹ Î ÏÎ¸Î¿á¿ || Î»á½·ÏÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ [â¦] Î¼Îµ Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹ âI beseech you, golden Pytho famous for seers, welcome meâ (as per Race 1997b, differently, Slater 1969 s.v. Î»á½·ÏÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹). According to Lefkowitz 1991:35, together with O. 14, P. 12 may be recognized as a âdedicatoryâ ode, i.e. as a poem in which the poetâs task is to offer prayer, unlike the epinicia, which have an encomiastic scope. I believe that an encomiastic component, though not as prominent as in epincia honouring tyrants or aristocrats, is definitely present (cf.Â 5, Îµá½Î´á½¹Î¾á¿³ Îá½·Î´á¾³, 6, á¼Î»Î»á½±Î´Î± Î½Î¹Îºá½±ÏÎ±Î½ÏÎ± Ïá½³ÏÎ½á¾³) albeit Midas is extolled in a different way to what Pindarâs modern-day readers are used to: i.e. he is praised in relation to the glorious past of his art (Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î±) rather than to his lineage (on Midasâ glory see also chapter 10).

1Â Â ÏÎµ âyouâ, (2.sg. âtheeâ), the city of Acragas, personified. Acragas is allegedly homonymous of the local nymph (cf. MacLachlan 2021:40â41). This mythological figure is only mentioned in Î£ P. 12.1a Dr. ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïá½´Î½ á¼¡ÏÏá¿Î´Î± Ïá½´Î½ á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Î½ÏÎ±, while Stephanus of Byzantium speaks of a male (river) Acragas (see below, 3 á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï). In fact, since names ending in -Î±Ï (gen.sg. -Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï, with a ptc. suffix) are masculine (cf. Risch 1974²:26â27 on the Homeric mnâ¯s), a feminine Acragas would be unique. Although a nymph called Nestis was worshipped in Acragas (cf. Portale 2012), she is not the nymph Acragas. The existence of such a character is a secondary invention by Pindarâs scholiast.

1Â Â ÏÎ¹Î»á½±Î³Î»Î±Îµ âlover of brillianceâ first occurs in P. 12.1 and is glossed as ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹ÎºÎ±Î»Î¿Ï âlover of beautyâ by Î£ P. 12.1ab Dr. The compound is also attested in Ba. 13.225 (as an attribute of âhospitalityâ), 18.60 (of Athens), fr.Â 3.13 and Pos. E. 136.3 (of Eros). Compounds with fcm ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿Â° are already attested in Mycenaean (cf. e.g. wn Pi-ro-wo-na /PhilowoinÄ/, PY Ae 344, MYÂ VÂ 659.7). According to Risch 1974²:193 (cf. Tribulato 2015:168, 334â335, 421â422), the so-called âÏÎ¹Î»Î¿ÏÏá½¹Î»ÎµÎ¼Î¿Ï-typeâ was primarily possessive (âhaving a[n] own/beloved Xâ), but soon came to be associated with ÏÎ¹Î»á½³Ï âto loveâ. As a consequence, they came to overlap a compound type with a verbal fcm: âloving Xâ. Gk. ÏÎ¹Î»á½±Î³Î»Î±Î¿Ï is remarkable: most compounds of type ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿ÏÏá½¹Î»ÎµÎ¼Î¿Ï exhibit the structure [ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿Â°substantive], cf. e.g. ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿Î¼Î¼ÎµÎ¹Î´á½µÏ (Il. 5.375+, with scm Î¼Îµá¿Î´Î¿Ï âsmileâ) etc. The same applies to the Pindaric compounds with fcm ÏÎ¹Î»(Î¿)Â°.¹ In contrast, ÏÎ¹Î»á½±Î³Î»Î±Î¿Ï reflects a rare structure [ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿Â°adjective],² since its scm is the adj. á¼Î³Î»Î±á½¹Ï âsplendid, shining, brightâ (Il. 1.23+), synchronically connected to the semantic field of âbeautyâ (cf. á¼Î³Î»Î±á¿Î±, á¼Î³Î±Î»Î¼Î±, on which cf. NeerâKurke 2019:46, 92â122, esp.Â 95â96).

The syntax underlying the compound may thus be reconstructed as [to love (ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿Â°/ÏÎ¹Î»á½³Ï)âsplendid/beautiful things (: á¼Î³Î»Î±á½±)] or [to loveâthe splendid thing (par excellence: light/feast)]. According to Meusel 2020:562, á¼Î³Î»Î±á½¹Ï is a lexicalized variant of ÏÎ±ÎµÎ½Î½á½¹Ï âshiningâ, with which it shares a number of phraseological matches, e.g. á¼Î³Î»Î±á½¹ÎºÏÎ¼Î¿Ï (O. 3.6), Îºá¿¶Î¼Î¿Î½ â¦ Ïá½±Î¿Ï á¼ÏÎµÏá¾¶Î½ âkÅmos (feast/celebration) â¦ light of excellent deedsâ (O. 4.9â10), the subst. Ïá½±Î¿Ï being an etymological congener of ÏÎ±ÎµÎ½Î½á½¹Ï.³ To this we may add that since Antiquity á¼Î³Î»Î±á½¹Ï has been glossed through Î»Î±Î¼ÏÏá½¹Ï, cf. Hsch. Î± 587 LC á¼Î³Î»Î±á½±Î Î»Î±Î¼ÏÏá½±, which, in turn, shares collocations with ÏÎ±ÎµÎ½Î½á½¹Ï (cf. Massetti 2019:133). Since á¼Î³Î»Î±á½¹Ï applies to Ïá½±Î¿Ï in fr.Â 52m.15 (Pae. 12.15 = G1 Rutherford), we can assume that it was indeed associated with the semantic field of âlight, brightnessâ in the Pindaric SprachgefÃ¼hl. If ÏÎ¹Î»á½±Î³Î»Î±Î¿Ï meant âloving the shining [light, i.e. Ïá½±Î¿Ï]â, ex Graeco ipso it matches [Ïá½±Î¿ÏâÏÎ¹Î»Îµá¿Î½], Eur. HF 90, and [Ïá½±Î¿ÏâÏá½·Î»Î¿Ï], Eur. IA 1509.

1Â Â ÎºÎ±Î»Î»á½·ÏÏÎ± Î²ÏÎ¿ÏÎµá¾¶Î½ ÏÎ¿Î»á½·ÏÎ½ âmost beautiful of mortal citiesâ, cf. Od. 5.101 Î²ÏÎ¿Ïá¿¶Î½ Ïá½¹Î»Î¹Ï, Eur. Hipp. 486 Î¸Î½Î·Ïá¿¶Î½ â¦ Ïá½¹Î»ÎµÎ¹Ï; for ÎºÎ±Î»Î»á½·ÏÏÎ± â¦ ÏÎ¿Î»á½·ÏÎ½ cf. P. 9.69 ÎºÎ±Î»Î»á½·ÏÏÎ±Î½ Ïá½¹Î»Î¹Î½.

2Â Â Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î±Ï á¼Î´Î¿Ï âabode (lit. seat) of Persephoneâ. The gn Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î± (Pi.) is one of the so-called âpoetic formsâ of Persephoneâs name. The form Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î±, together with other versions of the name with an initial Ï- (e.g. Î¦ÎµÏ[Ï]á½¹ÏÎ±ÏÏÎ±, Î¦ÏÎµÏá½¹ÏÎ±ÏÏÎ± [Att. vase-paintings, 5th c. BCE], Î¦ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ±ÏÏÎ± [Soph., Eur.], Î¦ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ±ÏÏÎ± Aristoph., etc.), reflects a synchronic connection between the goddess name and the verb Ïá½³ÏÏ (cf. Wachter 2007â2008:165). Indeed, according to ancient lexicographers, Persephone is the âbringer (Ïá½³ÏÏ) of death (Ïá½¹Î½Î·) or profit (á¼ÏÎµÎ½Î¿Ï)â, cf. EM 665.50 â¨Î ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î·â©Î ÏÎ±Ïá½° Ïá½¸ Ïá½³ÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá½¸ Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï, cf. Hsch. Ï 317 HC Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½ÎµÎ¹Î±Î â¦ á¼¡ Ïá½³ÏÎ¿ÏÏÎ± Ïá½¸ á¼ÏÎµÎ½Î¿Ï â¦ Î´Î¹á½° Ïá½¸Î½ ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½¹Î½, â¨á¼¢â© á¼Ïá½¸ ÏÎ¿á¿¦ Ïá½³ÏÎµÎ¹Î½ á½Î½Î·ÏÎ¹Î½.⁴

As Persephone is the spouse of Hades (cf. e.g. HHÂ 2), her house is most commonly identified as the underworld (cf. e.g. O. 14.21 Î¼ÎµÎ»Î±Î½ÏÎµÎ¹Ïá½³Î± Î½á¿¦Î½ Î´á½¹Î¼Î¿Î½ Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î±Ï, I. 8.55 Î´á¿¶Î¼Î± Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î±Ï). Without any context, the âabode of Persephoneâ would probably seem apt to designate the goddessâ gloomy kingdom. Here, contrary to our possible expectations, the abode of Persephone is sunny Acragas (cf.Â 1, ÏÎ¹Î»á½±Î³Î»Î±Îµ âlover of brillianceâ). The collocation [abodeâPersephone_gen.] is a variation kenning for the city in which the goddess was worshipped,⁵ cf. other kennings with the structure [abodeâgod/genos/hero_gen.], in which á¼Î´Î¿Ï (s-stem from IE *sed- âto sitâ, cf. liv² 513â515, iew 884â887, nil 590â600, StÃ¼ber 2002:144â145) expresses âabodeâ, e.g. á½Î»ÏÎ¼ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ á¼Î¸Î±Î½á½±ÏÏÎ½ á¼Î´Î¿Ï (Il. 5.360+), Î¸Îµá¿¶Î½ á¼Î´Î¿Ï â¦ á½Î»ÏÎ¼ÏÎ¿Î½ (Il. 5.367+). Ex Pindaro ipso cf. P. 2.7 ÏÎ¿ÏÎ±Î¼á½·Î±Ï á¼Î´Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏá½³Î¼Î¹Î´Î¿Ï (= Ortygia), N. 4.11â12 Îá¼°Î±ÎºÎ¹Î´á¾¶Î½ || á¼ á½»ÏÏÏÎ³Î¿Î½ á¼Î´Î¿Ï (= Aegina); ex Graeco ipso cf. also Aeschl. Pers. 126, TrGF 158.3, TrGF 664a.4, Eur. TrGF 781.35 (= Phaeth. 248). Further Pindaric and Aeschylean passages make reference to a certain place as the âseatâ (á¼Î´ÏÎ± : *sed-reh₂) of a divinity, cf. O. 7.76, O. 14.2, I. 7.44, Aeschl. Ag. 596.

The kenning alludes to the cult of Persephone in Acragas. According to Pindar (N. 1.14), Zeus gave Sicily to Persephone; indeed, the scholia specify (cf. Î£ O. 6.161g.2 A, N. 1.17 A) that Sicily or Acragas (Î£ O. 2.15d Dr.) were given to the goddess Îµá¼°Ï Ïá½° á¼Î½Î±ÎºÎ±Î»ÏÏÏÏá½µÏÎ¹Î± (âthe presents given to the bride when she first took off her veilâ, cf. Gildersleeve 1885 ad P. 12.2). In the 6th c. BCE three sanctuaries near the city (SantâAnna, San Biagio, and the Rock Sanctuary) were dedicated to the cult of Demeter and Persephone. A further sanctuary in honour of Demeter was built by Theron between 490 and 480â¯BCE, cf. Hinz 1998:70â92, Mertens 2006:197, 239, 317, Holloway 2000:60â63, HannahâMagliâOrlando 2017.

2Â Â á¼ Ïá¾½ á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î¹Ï á¼ÏÎ¹ âwho on the banksâ. This relative clause is comparable to an ornamental epithet (cf. Hummel 1993:321â322, 390). Gk. á½ÏÎ¸Î· may apply to a height of any kind (e.g. Od. 9.132+). In Pindar it often means âriver-bankâ and is usually preceded by ÏÎ±Ïá½± or á¼Ïá½·, cf. P. 4.46 ÎÎ±ÏÎ¹ÏÎ¿á¿¦ ÏÎ±Ïá¾½ á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î¹Ï, N. 9.22 á¼¸ÏÎ¼Î·Î½Î¿á¿¦ Î´á¾½ á¼Ïá¾½ á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î¹ÏÎ¹, I. 5.42 ÎÎ±á½·ÎºÎ¿Ï ÏÎ±Ïá¾½ á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î¹Ï. I concur with Bernardini 2006⁴:671 (contra Cerrato 1934) in taking the relative clause as referring to ÏÎµ âyouâ (1), i.e. the personified city (ÎºÎ±Î»Î»á½·ÏÏÎ± â¦ ÏÎ¿Î»á½·ÏÎ½, fem.) and not to Persephone or the (inexistent) nymph Acragas (cf.Â 1 ÏÎµ, 3 á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï).

2Â Â Î¼Î·Î»Î¿Î²á½¹ÏÎ¿Ï âsheep-grazed (i.e. grazed by the sheep)â is built with the same lexical material as the compound Î¼Î·Î»Î¿Î²á½¹ÏÎ·Ï âshepherdâ (I. 1.48+), the collocation [Î¼á¿Î»Î±_nom.âÎ²á½¹ÏÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹], cf. Od. 12.128, HHÂ 3.412, and the gn ÎÎ·Î»á½¹Î²Î¿ÏÎ¹Ï (HHÂ 2.420).⁶ The epithet only applies to the river Acragas (á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï, 3) in Pindar. The wording of 2â3 Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î±Ï á¼Î´Î¿Ï, á¼ Ïá¾½ á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î¹Ï á¼ÏÎ¹ Î¼Î·Î»Î¿Î²á½¹ÏÎ¿Ï â¦ á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï resembles that of Hes. fr.Â 180.3â4:

..â¦Â â¦ ÏÏ]ÏÎ¿Ïá½¹ÏÎ¿Ï á¼Ïá½·Î·Ï á¼Î´Î¿Ï [

..â¦Â .. Î¼Î·Î»]Î¿Î²á½¹ÏÎ¿ÏÏ á¼ÏÎ¼Î¿Î½ Ïá½±ÏÎ± Î´Ì£[Î¹Î½á½µÎµÎ½ÏÎ±

â¦ seat of wheat-bearing Asia [] sheep-grazed, beside the [eddying] Hermus â¦
transl. Most 2007

3Â Â Î½Î±á½·ÎµÎ¹Ï â¦ á¼á½»Î´Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Î½ ÎºÎ¿Î»á½½Î½Î±Î½ âyou, (who) dwell upon the well-built hillâ. Acragas was located on a hill (San Biagio). The verb Î½Î±á½·Ï builds a repetition with 26, cf. chapter 2, section 4 (1st ring).⁷ The collocation [Î½Î±á½·ÏâÎºÎ¿Î»á½½Î½Î±_acc.] matches [Î½Î±á½·ÏâÎºÎ¿Î»ÏÎ½á½¹Ï_acc.], occurring in Hes. fr.Â 59.2: Î½Î±á½·Î¿ÏÏÎ± ÎºÎ¿Î»ÏÎ½Î¿á½»Ï (of Coronis).

3Â Â á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï âof Acragasâ, gen.sg. of á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Ï, -Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï, river and city name. The genealogy of the river is recalled by Stephanus of Byzantium Î± 167 (= Ethn. p.Â 62.15) á¼Ïá½¸ á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¿á¿¦ ÎÎ¹á½¸Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼ÏÏÎµÏá½¹ÏÎ·Ï Ïá¿Ï á½¨ÎºÎµÎ±Î½Î¿á¿¦. According to Lewis (2019), in Pindarâs odes for Acragantine victors (O. 2, O. 3, P. 6, P. 12, I. 2), the river Acragas is a civic symbol ârooted in the [â¦] landscapeâ. The centrality of the water stream in the civic imagery may be confirmed by the analysis of the numismatic evidence: by the end of 6th c. BCE Acragantine coins featured a crab (Kraay 1976:208, Jenkins 1990:43), interpreted by Holloway (2000:124) as a pun on the riverâs name (cf. Îºá½±ÏÎºÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï âcrabâ, á¼ÎºÏá½±Î³Î±Ï).

3Â Â á½¦ á¼Î½Î± âO queenâ (= Att. á½¦ á¼Î½Î±ÏÏÎ±). The form á¼Î½Î± is feminine only here, being mostly employed as voc.sg. of masc. á¼Î½Î±Î¾ (so in P. 9.44, cf. Alph. Gk. [Ï]á¼Î½Î±Î¾ ârulerâ, cf. Leumann 1950:39â44; Myc. wa-na-ka /wanaks/, PY Na 334+, designating a functionary) vs I. 5.6 á½¤Î½Î±ÏÏÎ± âO queenâ.⁸ The vocative preceded by á½¦ and the form á¼Î½Î± are probably not used to convey a particular tone or emotion (cf. Dickey 1996:199â206 with bibliography inherent poetic usages). Greengard 1980:57 argues that the vocative may suggest here a âreinvocationâ of the deity, which precedes the victory announcement. But, as I already pointed out, no deity is actually called upon in this beginning passage. Although Persephone is named at 2, it is unlikely that she is the referent of the vocative. âO queenâ must again refer to personified polis Acragas. In my view, the word choice is aimed at creating a quasi-echoing effect within the verse (ÎºÎ¿Î»Î©ÎÎÎ Î© ÎÎÎ). Echoes of this kind are occasionally fashioned by Pindar, as a representative example cf. N. 3.1 á½® ÏÎÏÎ½ÎÎ Î¼ÎÎÏÎ, ÎÎÎ¤ÎÎ¡ á¼ÎÎÎ¤ÎÎ¡Î.

4Â Â á¼µÎ»Î±Î¿Ï âbenevolent â¦ receive (Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹)â; cf. [Îµá½ÏÏÏÎ½_pred.âÎ´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹], P. 9.73, N. 5.38; on the phraseology âto receive benevolentlyâ cf. chapter 1, section 3.

4Â Â á¼Î¸Î±Î½á½±ÏÏÎ½ á¼Î½Î´Ïá¿¶Î½ ÏÎµ âof immortals and menâ. The expression can be identified as a quantifier (or merism) for the notion of [totality], in this case: âall intelligent beingsâ (West 2007:100). Quantifiers of this type usually consist of a pair of contrasted terms and display two different structures: (a) [argument + negated-argument], e.g. âthe living and the non-livingâ, or (b) [argument + counter-argument], e.g. âthe living and the deadâ (cf. Watkins 1995:46). In Pindar, merisms for [all (intelligent) beings] exhibit both structures (a) and (b), and are expressed by means of different lexemes for the [argument + negated/counter-argument]. The Pindaric quantifiers also find perfect and partial phraseological matches in Greek and other IE languages, cf.

[mortal + immortal]: Pi. [Î¸Î½Î±Ïá½¹Ï + á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Ï] displays derivatives of IE *d^henh₂- âto leaveâ (liv² 144â145, cf. iew 249, contra Beekes edg s.v. Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Ï) for both members of the collocation, cf. fr.Â 169.2 Î¸Î½Î±Ïá¿¶Î½ ÏÎµ ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î¸Î±Î½á½±ÏÏÎ½ (cf. Il. 12.242+) and can be compared to Ved. [mÃ¡rtya- + amÅÌ¥ta-] cf. e.g. amÅÌ¥tam mÃ¡rt_iyaá¹ ca (RVÂ 1.35.2b+), exhibiting an identical structure and different lexemesâVed. mÃ¡rtya- and amÅÌ¥ta- are derivatives of IE *mer- âto dieâ (cf. liv² 439â440, iew 735). The variant [mortal (*mer-) + immortal (*nÌ¥-d^hnÌ¥h₂-)], with different lexemes expressing the two members of the collocation, occurs in the epics (Il. 11.2+), but is not attested in Pindar.
[mortal/man + immortal/god]: different combinations are attested:
1. [immortal (IE *d^henh₂-) + man (IE *h₂ner-)], cf. P. 12.4 á¼Î¸Î±Î½á½±ÏÏÎ½ á¼Î½Î´Ïá¿¶Î½ ÏÎµ;
2. [god + mortal (IE *mer-)],⁹ cf. P. 3.30 Î¿á½ Î¸Îµá½¹Ï Î¿á½ Î²ÏÎ¿Ïá½¹Ï, which can be compared with Ved. devÄÌsaÅ ca mÃ¡rtÄsaÅ ca âgods and mortalsâ (RVÂ 6.15.8+), Av. daÄuuÄiÅ¡cÄ maÅ¡Ì£iiÄiÅ¡cÄ âwith/by daÄvas and mortalsâ (pl.instr., YÂ 29.4);
3. [god + human], with different lexemes for âhumanâ (á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï âhumanâ, á¼Î½á½µÏ âmanâ),¹⁰ cf. P. 9.40 á¼Î½ ÏÎµ Î¸ÎµÎ¿á¿Ï â¦ Îºá¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï, fr.Â 194.6 Î¸Îµá¿¶Î½ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÎºÎ±Ïá¾½ á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÏÎ½ á¼Î³ÏÎ¹á½±Ï, fr.Â 224 Î¸Îµá½¸Î½ á¼Î½Î´ÏÎ± ÏÎµ,¹¹ which can be compared with ON goÃ° Ã¶ll ok gumar âall gods and humansâ (Ls. 45.3, 55.6), allra guÃ°anna ok manna âamong all gods and menâ (Gylf. 21).¹²

4â5 Ïá½ºÎ½ Îµá½Î¼ÎµÎ½á½·á¾³ || Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹ âalong with the goodwill (of all) receiveâ.¹³ Cf. [Ïá½ºÎ½ (Îµá½Î¼ÎµÎ½á½´Ï Î½á½¹Î¿Ï)_dat.âÎ´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹] in P. 8.19, fr.Â 52e.45 (Pae. 5.45 = D5 Rutherford); cf. also, though more vaguely, O. 5.2â3 ÎºÎ±ÏÎ´á½·á¾³ Î³ÎµÎ»Î±Î½Îµá¿ || Î´á½³ÎºÎµÏ.

5Â Â Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹ ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± Ïá½¹Î´á¾½(Îµ) âreceive this crownâ. Panhellenic champions were awarded crowns. Since laurel was sacred to Apollo, Pythian winners were crowned with laurel (Blech 1982:137â138). In Pindarâs poems, the collocation [Î´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹âcrown_acc_.] is well attested in connection with victory events since [athlete_nom.âÎ´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹âcrown_acc.] equates [athleteâwins], cf. O. 6.27, P. 1.100, I. 3/4.11, I. 6.4 and P. 9.125, containing a substitution kenning for âcrownâ: ÏÏÎµÏá½± â¦ Î½Î¹Îºá¾¶Î½ âthe wings of victoryâ. Here, however, âthis crownâ is a metaphor for the hymn. A closer look at the usages of ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± in Pindar reveals that the term means âthe (metaphoric) crowning objectâ which is awarded to the victor. In a complementary fashion, the hymn is occasionally compared to a crown (cf. section 1.1 below).

5Â Â á¼Îº Î ÏÎ¸á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï â(sc. coming) from Pythoâ. According to RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas (2001:68), this reference hints to the fact that the ode was performed in Acragas. Pytho (Î ÏÎ¸á½½Î½, Î ÏÎ¸á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï), the other name of Delphi, is related to Î ÏÎ¸á½½, the name of she-serpent killed by Apollo. According to the foundation myth, the god established the agon in honour of his enemyâs death (Davies 2007, see also chapter 1, section 1). As we learn from HHÂ 3, the name Pytho was synchronically connected to the verb Ïá½»Î¸Ï âto rotâ, cf. HHÂ 3.373â374 Î á½»Î¸Î¹Î¿Î½ á¼Î³ÎºÎ±Î»á½³Î¿ÏÏÎ¹Î½ á¼Ïá½½Î½ÏÎ¼Î¿Î½, Î¿á½Î½ÎµÎºÎ± ÎºÎµá¿Î¸Î¹ || Î±á½ÏÎ¿á¿¦ Ïá¿¦ÏÎµ Ïá½³Î»ÏÏ Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Ï á½Î¾á½³Î¿Ï á¼¨ÎµÎ»á½·Î¿Î¹Î¿.¹⁴

5Â Â Îµá½Î´á½¹Î¾á¿³ Îá½·Î´á¾³ âfor Midas of good fameâ. As already touched upon (chapter 1, section 1), the lack of references to the winnerâs genos suggests that he did not belong to an illustrious family. Îá½·Î´Î±Ï is also the name of the Phrygian king whose figure, as Roller (1983:309â310) highlights, came to be associated with qualities and achievements considered by the Greeks as âtypicallyâ Phrygian, including music. In fact, King Midas is credited with the invention of a type of aulos (Pli. HN VIIÂ 204, Athen. 617b) and with the introduction of aulos-music at sacrifices and funerals (Suid. s.v. á¼Î»ÎµÎ³Î¿Ï). It is probably for this reason that Clay (1992:519) and Martin (2003:169, fn. 69) surmise, though without any strong textual support, that P. 12âs Midas is a stage name of Phrygian colour. Although the traditions on king Midas and the invention of flute music are preserved in sources that are dated at a much later age than Pindar, it is tantalizing to imagine that these connections were older. If so, our Midas, whether Midas be his real name or his stage name, would have borne a name of a certain mythological and musical weight.

Gk. Îµá½Î´Î¿Î¾Î¿Ï displays a scm Â°Î´Î¿Î¾Î¿Ï, cf. Gk. Î´á½¹Î¾Î± âfameâ, a linguistic cognate of Î´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (cf. Chantraine delg, Frisk gew, Beekes edg s.v. Î´á½¹Î¾Î±, see also chapter 10, section 4). Since ÎºÎ»á½³Î¿Ï and Î´á½¹Î¾Î± are synonyms (Massetti 2019:116â117), Îµá½Î´Î¿Î¾Î¿Ï semantically overlaps Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ âhaving good fameâ (also âmaking fame goodâ, with factitive nuance, see below, 24). Gk. Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ is the inherited compound for âhaving good glory/fameâ.¹⁵

6Â Â Î±á½Ïá½¹Î½ Ïá½³ Î½Î¹Î½ âand him, himselfâ, cf. Slater 1969 s.v. Î½Î¹Î½ âcombined with Î±á½Ïá½¹Î½, emphaticâ. For the city receiving and welcoming (Î´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹) the winner cf. O. 4.9, P. 8.19, N. 4.11, N. 5.38, N. 11.3. In P. 9.73 á¼ Î½Î¹Î½ Îµá½ÏÏÏÎ½ Î´á½³Î¾ÎµÏÎ±Î¹ recalls á¼µÎ»Î±Î¿Ï â¦ Î´á½³Î¾Î±Î¹ â¦ Î½Î¹Î½ (cf.Â 4â5 and chapter 1, section 3).

6Â Â á¼Î»Î»á½±Î´Î± Î½Î¹Îºá½±ÏÎ±Î½ÏÎ± Ïá½³ÏÎ½á¾³ â(him,) who beat Hellas in the art (whichÂ â¦)â. Gk. Î½Î¹Îºá½±Ï and Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î· also combine in Hes. Th. 496 Î½Î¹ÎºÎ·Î¸Îµá½¶Ï Ïá½³ÏÎ½á¿ÏÎ¹ Î²á½·Î·Ïá½· ÏÎµ. For âHellasâ as a designation for âPanhellenic competitorsâ cf. P. 11.50, N. 10.25. According to Î£ P. 12.12a Dr. (followed by Slater 1969 s.v. Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î±, KÃ¶hnken 1971:143â144, 1976:263â265, Sotiriou 2001:124, Bernardini 2006⁴:672; cf. also chapter 6, section 2) Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î± refers here to the Î±á½Î»Î·ÏÎ¹Îºá½´ Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î· âart of playing the aulosâ. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î± regularly denotes âskillâ or âcraftâ in Pindar, not âthe object produced by means of a skillâ (a meaning attested in Soph. OC 472+). Conversely, Mezger (1880:197) Schroeder (1922:112), Wilamowitz (1922:144), Burton (1962:26), Schlesinger (1968:276) and PÃ¶hlmann (2010â2011:45) argue that the verse refers to the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Ï. I believe that such an implicit reference could provide a solid basis for the choice of the myth. This interpretation may be sustained by making reference to semantic and lexical repetitions within the ode (cf. chapter 1, section 4, chapter 2, sections 4â5).

1.1 Excursus: ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï and ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± in Pindar

Two Gk. terms for âcrownâ, ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï âcrown, wreathâ/âgarlandâ and ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î±, âid.â are derivatives of IE *(s)teg^uÌ¯h- âto crownâ (so Beekes edg s.v. ÏÏá½³ÏÏ). Specifically, ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï is a (a)no-derivative of the root, while ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± reflects a deverbal mnÌ¥-formation to the denominative verb ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½á½¹Ï âto crownâ. In Pindar, ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï (43x) mostly denotes âcrownâ, âwreathâ as a physical object, whereas ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± (8x) designates the âcrowning objectâ. Besides referring to âcrown/wreathâ (cf. N. 5.54, I. 2.15, fr.Â 333a.7), ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± is often used metaphorically (cf. P. 1.50, P. 9.4, I. 3/4.44, I. 3/4.61). Conversely, for ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï only two instances out of 43 reflect a metaphorical usage of the term: in O. 8.32 ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï applies to a âcircling wallâ. Since Î£ O. 5.1b Dr. identifies the expression ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ½ á¼ÏÏÎ¿Î½ âthe crownsâ choicest flowerâ as the âhymnâ in O. 5.1, it is commonly assumed that ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï stands for âhymnâ in the passage. In my opinion, however, the kenning [ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï_gen.pl.âá¼ÏÏÎ¿Ï] might just refer to the âbest crownsâ, i.e. those awarded to winners of the Panhellenic games in honour of Zeus (cf. Kurke 1993:140).

According to ancient commentaries, ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± is a metaphor for âsongâ in P. 12.5 (Gildersleeve 1885 ad P. 12.5, Bernardini 2006⁴:672; differently, Kurke 1993:140, who supports a literal meaning âcrownâ), cf. Î£ P. 12.7 Dr. Ïá½¸ á¼Îº Ïá¿Ï Î ÏÎ¸á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î±, Ïá½¸Î½ á½Î¼Î½Î¿Î½; Î£ P. 12.5 prae 8 Mo. Ïá½¹Î´Îµ Ïá½¸ ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± ÏÎ¿á¿¦ á¼Î½Î´á½¹Î¾Î¿Ï Î¼á½·Î´Î± Ïá½¸ á¼Îº ÏÏÎ¸á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï, á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ Ïá½¸Î½ á½Î¼Î½Î¿Î½ Ïá½¹Î½Î´Îµ Ïá½¸Î½ á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá¿ Î½á½·Îºá¿ Ïá¿¶Î½ ÏÏÎ¸á½·ÏÎ½ Î³Î¹Î½á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ Î±á½Ïá¿·. The term ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± also designates the hymn in Eur. HF 355â356: á½Î¼Î½á¿ÏÎ±Î¹ ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± Î¼á½¹ÏÎ¸ÏÎ½ [â¦] Î¸á½³Î»Ï. This parallel supports the idea that ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± is a metaphor in our passage as well.

The semantic distribution of the pair ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï âphysical crownâ vs ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± âthe thing with which I crown someone/somethingâ, i.e. the metaphoric crowning object, may be a Pindaric usage that reflects a morphological distinction. Indeed, ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± seems to preserve the semantic de-instrumental nuance of the denominative ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½á½¹Ï from which the term is derived. The metaphor [hymn/poem] = [crown] finds parallels ex Pindaro ipso and ex Graeco ipso. In Simon. FrGHÂ 1a.8.FÂ 6 ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½Î·ÏÎ»á½¹ÎºÎ¿Ï âweaving a wreath/garlandâ (with a fcm based on ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï) applies to Homer: Ïá½¸Î½ Î´á½² á½Î¼Î·ÏÎ¿Î½ ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½Î·ÏÎ»á½¹ÎºÎ¿Î½, [â¦] Ïá½¸Î½ Î´á½² á½¡Ï á¼Î¾ Î±á½Ïá¿¶Î½ ÏÏÎ¼ÏÎ»á½³Î¾Î±Î½ÏÎ± Ïá½¸Î½ á¼¸Î»Î¹á½±Î´Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½Î´ÏÏÏÎµá½·Î±Ï ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Î½. Not only do the verbs âto singâ and âto crownâ appear at close distance in Pindaric and Bacchylidean poetic discourse, as if they were hinting at concomitant and/or associated gestures, cf. P. 8.56â57, N. 7.77, Ba. 4.14â18 (cf. NÃ¼nlist 1998:215â223; cf. also DâAlessio 2004:288, fn. 75), but, in a variety of Pindaric passages, the verb âto crownâ also means âto celebrate with song and danceâ, e.g. O. 1.100â103 á¼Î¼á½² Î´á½² ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½á¿¶ÏÎ±Î¹ || ÎºÎµá¿Î½Î¿Î½ á¼±ÏÏá½·á¿³ Î½á½¹Î¼á¿³ || Îá¼°Î¿Î»Î·á¿Î´Î¹ Î¼Î¿Î»Ïá¾· || ÏÏá½µ (cf. N. 5.53â54, I. 5.62â63, I. 7.39, I. 7.49â51, I. 8.66aâ67). After all, hymns and crowns both materialize victory, in an âaudibleâ or a âvisibleâ form. For this reason, Pindar stresses that these things are received by the winner and by his fatherland (cf. chapter 10, section 4), cf. [Î´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹âÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï_acc.] (see above), cf. [Î´á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹âsong/hymn_acc.], cf. O. 5.3, O. 6.98, O. 8.10, O. 13.29, P. 1.80, P. 5.22, I. 1.51, fr.Â 52f.129 (Pae. 6.129 = D6 Rutherford). Remarkably, in O. 1 the hymn is represented as a crown (Nisetich 1975, cf. also Stoneman 1981), being the subject of the verb á¼Î¼ÏÎ¹Î²á½±Î»Î»Ï âto put around (: to crown)â cf. O. 1.8â9 á½Î¸ÎµÎ½ á½ ÏÎ¿Î»á½»ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿Ï á½Î¼Î½Î¿Ï á¼Î¼ÏÎ¹Î²á½±Î»Î»ÎµÏÎ±Î¹ || ÏÎ¿Ïá¿¶Î½ Î¼Î·Ïá½·ÎµÏÏÎ¹ (on ÏÎ¿Î»á½»ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿Ï cf. Hummel 1992; on á¼Î¼ÏÎ¹Î²á½±Î»Î»Ï, cf. Slater 1969 s.v. âto put ÏÎ¹ around ÏÎ¹Î½Î¹, crown withâ, who points out that the verb is employed in connection with âcrown/wreathâ and âhairâ in P. 3.13, P. 5.31, while the context of fr.Â 337.5 is unclear).

Finally, both âcrownsâ and âhymnsâ are imagined as objects which can be âbraided/wovenâ, as in the collocation [(Î´Î¹Î±)ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏâÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï_acc.], underlying ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½Î·ÏÎ»Î¿Îºá½³Ï âto plait wreathsâ (Sapph. 125 V+), cf. O. 2.74â75 á¼Î½Î±ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÎ¿Î½ÏÎ¹ â¦ ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½Î¿ÏÏ; N. 9.53 Î¸ÎµÎ¼Î¹ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏÎ¿Î¹Ï â¦ ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½Î¿Î¹Ï; fr.Â 70c.7 (= Dith. 3.7) ÏÎ»á½¹ÎºÎ¿Î½ Ï[ÏÎµÏá½±]Î½ÏÎ½ ÎºÎ¹ÏÏá½·Î½ÏÎ½, and [(Î´Î¹Î±)ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏâsong_acc.], on which see below 8, [Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½] Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³Î¾Î±Î¹Ïá¾½ á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î±.¹⁶ Significantly, in P. 12.5â8 Midasâ hymn is imagined as a crown (woven by Pindar), while Athena is said to have braided a song inspired by the Gorgonsâ lament. This suggests to us a possible overlap between Pindar (weaver of crowning hymns) and Athena (weaver of the âtune of many headsâ).

2 Transition (7â8) and Myth (8â24)

The reference to the Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î± through which Midas triumphed at Delphi works as the starting point for the mythological digression of the ode, which is introduced by a relative clause (6â8). For a visual description of 6â7 cf. Sulzer 1961:23, who identifies chiastic structures.

The transition occupies the last verses of the first strophe, while the mythological excursus is fully developed in the following strophe (cf. Nierhaus 1936:58â59, who stresses that the narration is âover-bridgingâ the stropheâs limits). This section concerns the genesis of the âtune of many headsâ. After Perseus decapitates the Gorgon, Medusaâs sisters Euryale and Sthenno lament for their loss. Athena, who assisted Perseus in his endeavour, hears their sounds and composes a melody by imitating the Gorgonsâ and the Gorgonsâ serpentsâ cries. And so the âtune of many headsâ is born. Perseus then brings Medusaâs head to Seriphus and manages to free his mother Danae from the slavery Polydectes had imposed on her. In chronological order, the actions of Perseus and Athena are as follows:

Athena helps Perseus and Perseus beheads Medusa
Athena hears Euryaleâs lament and decides to imitate it
Athena finds the âtune of many headsâ
Perseus shows Medusaâs head in Seriphus, petrifies the islanders, and frees Danae.

The mythological digression is constructed in a chiastic way. The focus moves from Athena (7â10) to Perseus (11â18) and then back to Athena and her invention (18â23), forming two concentric rings (cf. chapter 2, sections 4â5). The events concerning the creation of the nomos pollÄn kephalÄn are firstly presented in descending chronological order (i.e. from the most recent to the most ancient), then in ascending chronological order (i.e. from the most ancient to the most recent), according to a process also found in Greek epics (cf. e.g. Latacz 2009:27 ad Il. 1.12bâ21, Gaisser 1969) and elsewhere in choral lyric (e.g. Pi. P. 3.8â46). The section starts by mentioning Athenaâs invention (7â8); Pindar then moves backwards in time: at 9â10, a new relative clause connects Athenaâs invention to the moment in which the goddess hears the Gorgonsâ lament that she decides to re-enact. At 11 a temporal clause shifts the focus further back to the clash between Perseus and Medusa. The poet then concentrates on the heroic achievements of Perseus (11â16), which are presented in ascending chronological order: Perseus defeats Medusa and thanks to her head petrifies the inhabitants of Seriphus (11â12). At 13â15, advancing towards the centre of the ode, Pindar highlights the extraordinary nature of Perseusâ victories by providing more details about his achievements. The emphatic particle á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ at 13 and the use of copulative coordinating elements at 14â15 do not simply contrast with the hypotactic constructions, by means of which the poet has so far played with the chronological dimensions of the myth, but also work to reaffirm the definitive triumph of Perseus over all his enemies in an accumulative, almost catalogue-like form. Within the participle clause at 16 the expression ÎºÏá¾¶ÏÎ± ÏÏÎ»á½±ÏÎ±Î¹Ï is located at the very centre of the poem, a position which gives prominence to Perseusâ culminating act.

The scene of Perseus producing Medusaâs head or the moment that immediately precedes it are both attested on Attic vase-paintings dated around the end of 6th c. BCE. On an Attic hydria (cf. Tsountas 1885:124â125, Ïá½·Î½Î±Î¾ 5) a character, most likely identifiable as Polydectes, sits close to Perseus, who stands on a Î²á¿Î¼Î± and holds the Îºá½·Î²Î¹ÏÎ¹Ï. The beholder glimpses Medusaâs head, which has not yet been shown to the tyrant of Seriphus. Scenes of the headâs production are found on the red-figure Attic pelike from Cerveteri (Museo Villa Giulia, Roma; limc s.v. Polydektes 2) and the kalyx krater from Camarina, dated ca.Â 480â¯BCE and attributed to the Mykonos Painter (Museo Civico, Castello Ursino, Catania, cf. arv² 515.6, 1657, limc s.v. Polydektes 3, BarresiâValastro 2000:82â84, nr. 63).¹⁷

After this section, a quick reference to Perseusâ extraordinary birth, once again within a relative clause (17), marks the second part of the circular digression. The narration then proceeds in an almost uninterrupted ascending chronological order (18â23). The section begins with a temporal clause (á¼ÏÎµá½·, 18): after Athena rescues Perseus, the goddess invents a melody to imitate Euryaleâs lamentation and calls it âtune of many headsâ (19â23). The comparison between the time of the myth and the sequences of the mythological digression may be summarized as follows:

Table 6

Chronological order and mythological digression

Chronological order	Mythological digression
a Athena helps Perseus and Perseus beheads Medusa	c *Athena finds* the tune of many heads** (7â8)
	b Athena hears Euryaleâs lament (9â10)
b Athena hears Euryaleâs lament	a Perseus beheads Medusa (11, 13, cf. 16)
c Athena finds the tune of many heads	d Perseus frees Danae in Seriphus (12, 14â16) â Perseus was born form [Danae and] flowing gold
d Perseus frees Danae in Seriphus	a Athena helps Perseus (18â19)
	b Athena hears Euryaleâs lament (20â21)
	c *Athena finds* the tune of many heads** (22â23)

As table 6 makes evident, the structure of the mythological excursus manages to underscore both the âperipheral factsâ, i.e. Athenaâs invention, and the central events, i.e. Perseusâ heroic endeavours. Indeed, the descending and ascending chronological sequences concerning the origin of the âtune of many headsâ depart from and emphasise the central image of Medusaâs head (16). The emphasis is additionally expressed by the lexical repetitions of the section. As already touched upon (cf. chapter 2, sections 4â5), between 7 and 22 the terms for âto find/discoverâ (á¼ÏÎµÏÏá½·ÏÎºÏ, Îµá½Ïá½·ÏÎºÏ) and âhead(s)â (ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»Î±á½·, ÎºÏá½±Ï), are repeated three times each. While the repetition of the verb stresses the action of Athena, the repetition of âhead(s)â hints at Perseusâ victoryâs token, the name of the newly invented melody, and the origin of this same melody.

The mythological digression concludes with Athenaâs gifting men the nomos kephalÄn pollÄn, âglory-making memento of the contestsâ (24). The reference to the context in which the nomos is performed somehow reconnects the poem to the present and paves the way to the next conceptual transition of the ode.

6Â Â Ïá½±Î½ ÏÎ¿ÏÎµ âthe one (that) onceâ, cf. P. 10.31. The relative pronoun often marks the passage to the mythological section in Pindarâs odes, cf. Jllig 1932:32, fn. 4, Des Places 1947:48â50, Slater 1969 s.v. ÏÎ¿ÏÎµ (b) and 1983:118, Carey 1981:18, Hummel 1993:326â327, Devlin 1995:98â100, Bonifazi 2004:42â47. Carey 1981:67 underlines that, by using relative clauses to introduce mythological excursus, Pindar gives the impression of extempore composition and avoids rhetoric rigidity.

7Â Â Î Î±Î»Î»á½±Ï âPallasâ, epithet of Athena (cf. Î Î±Î»Î»á½°Ï á¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±á½·Î·, Il. 1.200+), here goddess of musical invention.¹⁸ The Pindaric version of the myth is reprised by Nonnus of Panopolis (cf. Massetti 2023), who, just like Pindar, connects the Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½±ÏÎ·Î½Î¿Ï with the Gorgonsâ lament. In the Dionysiaca, Athena is also said to invent the á½Î¼Î¿Î¶ÏÎ³á½³ÏÎ½ Ïá½»ÏÎ¿Î½ Î±á½Î»á¿¶Î½ âthe type of pipes united with one yokeâ by imitating Euryaleâs lament (D. 24.35â38). Thus, for Nonnus, the invention of the double-piped aulos is concurrent with that of the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Ï (cf. chapter 6, section 5). Differently, Pindar seems to omit the tradition concerning âAthena primus inventor of the aulosâ, the aition of the ode actually concerning only the invention of the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á¾¶Î½ ÏÎ¿Î»Î»á¾¶Î½. Since the myth is essentially unparalleled in antiquity, Vivante (1990) and Wallace (2003:79) propose that it is a Pindaric invention. According to Steiner 2013:175, Pindar constructs the myth so as to provide an authoritative antecedent for novel and controversial aspects of his musical technique as well as to eradicate the association between the aulos and Phrygia/the Phrygian mode. In my opinion, this latter point contrasts with the Phrygian name of the winner, Midas (see above, section 1, 5), which may support a Phrygian association. To be sure, the invention of the instrument is elsewhere ascribed to Phrygian Hyagnis, father of Marsyas (Athen. 624b citing Aristoxenus, [Plut.] Mus. 1132â¯f., 1133dâf, Marm. Par. AÂ 10, Apul. Florid. 1.3, cf. Huchzermeyer 1931:14, fn. 57, Leclercq-Neveu 1989, Maniates 2000 on Marsyas). But according to the version vulgata (cf. e.g. [Apollod.] 1.24, Ov. F. 6.697â706+), which, as shown by Wilson (1999), ultimately reflects an Athenian tradition, the aulos had been invented/discovered by Athena. However, having seen her face deformed when playing it, the goddess threw it away and the instrument accidentally came into the possession of Marsyas, cf. Aristot. Pol. 1341b, Tel. 805â806 (on which cf. LeVen 2014:109â110), Melan. 758+, D.S. 5.49.1, Hyg. Fab. 165, Plut. De cohib. ir. 456b, quoting Trag. adesp. IIÂ 381; on Athena playing the aulos or associated with Marsyas cf. limc s.v. Athena 617â623; on the sculptural group âAthena and Marsyasâ (Paus. 1.24.1, Pli. HN XXXIVÂ 57) cf. Daltrop 1980. Chuvin 1995 argues that the story concerning the Phrygian origin of the aulos and Athenaâs rejection of the instrument is glossed over by Pindar, to reaffirm the dignity of the Î±á½Î»Î·ÏÎ¹Îºá½´ Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î·. Vernant (1995) proposes that Pindar is focusing on a different moment of the story, which precedes the rejection of the instrument by the goddess. Our text and further sources do not support these theories: as several commentators proposed (Farnell 1932:234, Bowra 1961:113â114 and 285, Frontisi-Ducroux 1994, PapadopoulouâPirenne-Delforge 2001), the myth of Pythian Twelve is best framed within Boeotian traditions on the Î±á½Î»Î·ÏÎ¹Îºá½´ Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î·. As Spinedi (2018: xxvii) shows, not only does a fragment of Corinna (668, in [Plut.] Mus. 1136b) mention that Athena taught Apollo how to play the aulos,¹⁹ but we also know that the Î±á½Î»Î·ÏÎ¹Îºá½´ Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î· was important to Boeotia and Boeotians: Boeotian families handed down the Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î· of making and playing the aulos for generations (Roesch 1989); the art of the aulos was part of the Boeotian paideia (Plut. Pelop. 19, Athen. 184d) and Theban auletai were Panhellenic celebrities (cf. the parody of Aristoph. Pax 950â955, Av. 858, cf. also Acharn. 15â16, 865â866 for the aulos as a typical âBoeotian accessoryâ). Pindar was himself an aulos-player and teacher (Suid. s.v. Î á½·Î½Î´Î±ÏÎ¿Ï, Cor. 695a, Vita Ambr.): a pupil of Skopelinos of Thebes, he later taught Olympichos the same art (Î£ P. 3.137b Dr.).

In my view, several elements may have conditioned the choice of the myth: above all, the odeâs occasion, as Midas probably won by performing the tune of many heads, and its performance context, the Gorgon iconography being popular in Sicily (Akhunova 2020:14, 18â19, Belson 1981). In any case, Pindar might have relied upon a Boeotian tradition according to which Athena was a model for aulos-performers, i.e. Midas (Martin 2003:163) and the poet himself (Spinedi 2016). Whatever synchronic factors played a role in Pindarâs âassemblingâ of the myth, I argue that Pindar exploited traditional building blocks on the level of themes, phraseology, and structure (cf. chapters 9â10).

The invention of wind instruments is often connected with lamentation and death in both IE and non-IE traditions. In this context, I would like to bring to light a less known typological parallel of the story, drawn from the Celtic world. The Irish saga Cath Maige Tuired ascribes the invention of the âwhistle for signalling at nightâ to BrÃg, a figure associated with the figure of the Celtic goddess Birgit, who is also identified with Lat. Minerua (so Olmsted 1994:163). Significantly, the whistle reproduces BrÃgâs weeping, cf.

Cath Maige Tuired 125

ImmesoÃ didiu RÃºadÃ¡n Ãer tabairt in gaÃ dÃ³, & geogoin

555] Goibninn. TÃscais-side an gaÃ as & fochaird for RÃºadÃ¡n co lluid trÃt; &

556] co n-Ã©rbailt ar bÃ©laib a athar a n-oirecht na Fomore. Tic BrÃc & cÃ¡ines

557] a mac. Ãghis ar tÃ³s, goilis fo deog. Conud and sin roclos gol & Ã©gem

558] ar tÃ³s a n-Ãrinn. (Is sÃ didiu an PrÃch-sin roairich feit do caismeirt a n-oidci.)

But after the spear had been given to him, RÃºadÃ¡n turned and wounded Goibniu. He pulled out the spear and hurled it at RÃºadÃ¡n so that it went through him; and he died in his fatherâs presence in the Fomorian assembly. BrÃg came and keened for her son. At first she shrieked, in the end she wept. Then for the first time weeping and shrieking were heard in Ireland. (Now she is the BrÃg who invented a whistle for signalling at night.)
transl. Gray 1982

7Â Â á¼ÏÎµá¿¦ÏÎµ âinventedâ. In other Pindaric passages, (á¼Ï/á¼Î¾)Îµá½Ïá½·ÏÎºÏ²⁰ applies to the invention of a new type of composition/art/musical instrument (cf. Gentili 1971; Bernardini 2006⁴:673 proposes the meaning âinventare ex novoâ, also in connection with P. 4.262), cf. O. 3.4 Î½ÎµÎ¿Ïá½·Î³Î±Î»Î¿Î½ Îµá½Ïá½¹Î½ÏÎ¹ ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ¿Î½, P. 1.60 á¼Î¾Îµá½»ÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½ á½Î¼Î½Î¿Î½ (cf. also Stes. 173.2), Pi. fr.Â 125 Ïá½¹Î½ á¿¥Î± Î¤á½³ÏÏÎ±Î½Î´Ïá½¹Ï ÏÎ¿Î¸á¾¿ á½ Î»á½³ÏÎ²Î¹Î¿Ï Îµá½ÏÎµÎ½ | ÏÏá¿¶ÏÎ¿Ï, fr.Â 122.14 ÏÎ¿Î¹á½±Î½Î´Îµ Î¼ÎµÎ»á½·ÏÏÎ¿Î½Î¿Ï á¼ÏÏá½°Î½ | Îµá½Ïá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ ÏÎºÎ¿Î»á½·Î¿Ï.

In the choral lyric, the theme of poetic invention is developed through a palette of poetic images. The âpoetic inspirationâ is materialized as a physical place, cf. the expression âto find the doors/way of the song/wordsâ (O. 1.110, N. 6.54, Ba. fr.Â 5.3â4; on the image of the âwayâ cf. Becker 1937:68â85, Steiner 1986:76â86). In connection with the same theme, Pindar documents the first instance of the compound Îµá½ÏÎ·ÏÎ¹ÎµÏá½µÏ âword-finderâ (O. 9.80, cf. Aristoph. Nub. 447), matching Ïá½³ÏÎ· â¦ Îµá½ÏÎµ (Alcm. 39.1, cf. Massetti 2019:56â59). The compound partially matches other IE collocations and epithets, namely: Ved. vacovÃd- âword-finderâ (RVÂ 1.91.11b+, vÃ¡cas- : á¼ÏÎ¿Ï, [*uÌ¯ek^uÌ¯-e/os-]), and the iuncturae [vÃ¡cas-_acc.âved] âfind the word(s)â (RVÂ 8.19.12d), [vÄÌc-_acc.âved] âto find the speechâ (RVÂ 1.92.9), [dhÄ«Ì-/manÄ«á¹£ÄÌ-/arkÃ¡-_acc.âved] âto find a poetic vision, poetic thought/a chantâ (RVÂ 3.57.1a+); OE word â¦ fand âfound the wordsâ (Beow. 870).

7Â Â Î¸ÏÎ±ÏÎµÎ¹á¾¶Î½ â¨ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÏÎ½â© âof the fierce Gorgonsâ.²¹ Gk. Î¸ÏÎ±Ïá½»Ï means both âboldâ and âfierce/savageâ (cf. Slater 1969 s.v.).²² ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÏÎ½ (cf. Î£ P. 12.12ab Dr.) is omitted by the mss. and was supplied by Triclinius. Lasso de la Vega 1986â1987:367â368 proposes a possible integration ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½ÏÎ½, which, according to him, would have been lost for haplography. In contradiction of this assumption, there is no reason to imagine that Pindar could not have preserved a gen.pl. ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÏÎ½: fr.Â 70a.5 (= Dith. 1.5) preserves ÏÎ±ÏÎµÏÎ± ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³Î¿Î½[, which could be gen.pl. or sg. âfather of the Gorgon[s]â (cf. Lavecchia 2000:103 contra van der Weiden 1991:40, 42, who argues in favour of ÏÎ±Ïá½³ÏÎ± Î³Î¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½, identified with Acrisius). An integration â¨ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½ÏÎ½â© would create a repetition with ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸ÎµÎ½á½·Î¿Î¹Ï (9).

According to Hesiod, the Gorgons are the daughters of Phorcys and Ceto who live beyond the Ocean (i.e. in the extreme West). Other sources, however, propose alternative genealogies and/or different mytho-geographical locations (cf. chapter 9, section 1.1â3). The myth of Perseus and the Gorgon is also found in P. 10, where Pindar mentions only Athena as Perseusâ helper and guide (P. 10.45; on Athenaâs role cf. SuÃ¡rez de la Torre 2016). Differently, fr.Â 70d.37â39 (= Dith. 4.37â39) (cf. Phillips 2016:266â268), Pher. 43â44 and [Apollod.] 2.4 recall Hermes or Hermes and Athena as helper(s) of Perseus (cf. Pellizer 1987:46â49). Finally, according to a tradition, which is first attested in [Hes.] Sc. 216â227, the Nymphs bestow a series of gifts to Perseus to help him against the Gorgons.

Vernant (1991:117â118) and Segal (1998:86) argue that the Archaic image of the Gorgons reflects an association with the dreadful sounds they uttered, invoking [Hes.] Sc. 231â233 á¼Ïá½¶ Î´á½² ÏÎ»ÏÏÎ¿á¿¦ á¼Î´á½±Î¼Î±Î½ÏÎ¿Ï || Î²Î±Î¹Î½Î¿ÏÏá½³ÏÎ½ á¼°á½±ÏÎµÏÎºÎµ Ïá½±ÎºÎ¿Ï Î¼ÎµÎ³á½±Î»á¿³ á½ÏÏÎ¼Î±Î³Î´á¿· || á½Î¾á½³Î± ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î»Î¹Î³á½³ÏÏ. I must stress, however, that this passage refers to the battle clash rather than to the vocal sounds the Gorgons produce. An association between the Gorgon(s) and music/loud sounds could exist even without the etymological link between ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½½ and the notion of âuttering a loud soundâ Segal (1998) proposes. The iconography of the Gorgons, who are commonly represented with an open mouth, resembles that used to represent roaring lions, cf. Belson 1981, Vernant 1985, Hirschberger 2000, Gufler 2002, Cooper 2006, DÃez de Velasco 2007, RodrÃguez Blanco 2011. On the Near Eastern origin of the Gorgonâs iconography and other elements of Perseusâ saga cf. chapter 7, sectionÂ 3.

8Â Â Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ âdeathly thrÄnosâ. The meaning of Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Ï is debated. It may be interpreted as a derivative of IE *h₃elh₁- âto perishâ (cf. liv² 298, iew 777) with an active meaning, i.e. âdestructive, deadlyâ (cf. Slater 1969 s.v. Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Ï, KÃ¶hnken 1971:136, cf. O. 9.76, O. 13.23, Kaimio 1977:152, with whom I align) or with a passive meaning, i.e. âTodesschreiâ (Schroeder 1922, Bernardini 2006⁴:673). Gerber 1986:248 (cf. Pavese 1991:88 and Steiner 2013) proposes a meaning âthickâ* > âoften-repeatedâ and derives the form from IE *uÌ¯el(H)- âto turnâ (liv² 675, iew 1140â1142), adopting the explanation provided by McKenzie 1925 and Greppin 1976 for Î¿á½Î»Î¿Î½ ÎºÎµÎºÎ»á½µÎ³Î¿Î½ÏÎµÏ âuttering thick screamsâ (Il. 15.756, 759). Moreover, Gerber points out that in P. 12 Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ parallels á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½ (21). I disagree with Gerberâs interpretation, although I think that Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ is paralleled by á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½. Indeed, Pi. Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ and á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½ might be interpreted as two renewed versions of the same Homeric collocation: á½Î»Î¿Î¿á¿Î¿ â¦ Î³á½¹Î¿Î¹Î¿ âdire lamentâ (Il. 23.10). This Homeric parallel, however, speaks against Gerberâs proposal (Gk. Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Ï as âoften-repeatedâ). Since á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ means âhigh-screamingâ, âloudâ (see below, 21), it belongs to the semantic sphere of âacoustic volumeâ rather than to that of âthicknessâ.

The term Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Ï may also be translated as âdirgeâ, however I opt for thrÄnos, since the thrÄnos-song came to be canonized as a poetic genre in antiquity (officially, in the Hellenistic Age). Here, the term is opposed to Î³á½¹Î¿Ï âlamentâ (cf.Â 21) and denotes the poetic creation of Athena in opposition to the inarticulated vocalisations of the Gorgons.

For Hubbard (1985:95), Athenaâs song combines Athenaâs joy and the Gorgonsâ sorrow, the musical loveliness (âmalthakos-qualityâ, in Hubbardâs terminology) and the harshness (âtrakhus-qualityâ) of death. Dolin 1965:86 proposes Athenaâs joy derives from a sorrowful event in a similar way as Perseusâ achievement of fame happens as a consequence of the despair of his mother Danae. Although these two interpretations are fascinating, the text once does not provide any information about the feelings experienced by the Olympian goddess or the quality of the music she invented. Steiner (2013:182, invoking Eur. Hel. 177 and Aristoph. Av. 222 as parallels) proposes that Athenaâs thrÄnos âtakes the form of an epinician melodyâ. In my view, this interpretation might receive âinternalâ support (see below, 24). The nomos is said to be a Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ Î¼Î½Î±ÏÏá¿Ïá¾½ á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½ âmemento of the contests which stir peopleâ. It thus entails a memorial dimension and a celebrative one (in this connection cf. also Nonnusâ interpretation, chapter 6, section 3).

8Â Â (Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½) Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³Î¾Î±Î¹Ïá¾½ á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î± âAthena, braiding the (thrÄnos)â. Just like in traditional hexametrical poetry, Pindar places the nom.sg. Î Î±Î»Î»á½±Ï at the beginning of the verse (cf.Â 7, Î Î±Î»Î»á½±Ï)²³ and the nom.sg. á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î± (= á¼Î¸á½µÎ½Î·) at the end of it (excp. Il. 5.260), cf. P. 10.45, N. 3.50 (we lack the context of fr.Â 52h.4 [Pae. 7b.4 = C2 Rutherford]). Î Î±Î»Î»á½±Ï and á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î± are separated by six words and create a strong hyperbaton, which encases the finite verb á¼ÏÎµá¿¦ÏÎµ (7) and the ptc. Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³Î¾Î±Î¹Ï(Î±) (8). According to Race (2002), Pindarâs hyperbata often occur at the end of a strophe or a period and thus mark a transition to a different theme. Here, the hyperbaton occurs at the beginning of the mythological digression about Perseus and the Gorgons.

Clay (1992), followed by Segal (1995:12), PapadopoulouâPirenne-Delforge (2001), Martin (2003) and Phillips (2013), argues that Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏ means to âinterweaveâ²⁴ in the light of HHÂ 4.79â80, Ïá½±Î½Î´Î±Î»Î± â¦ Î´Î¹á½³ÏÎ»ÎµÎºÎµ âinterwove [recte wove] sandalsâ and N. 7.98â99 Î²á½·Î¿ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÎ¿Î¹Ï â[that] you may interweave [recte weave] a lifeâ. According to this interpretation, Athena would be interweaving Euryaleâs lament and Perseusâ cry of victory (cf. á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½, 11, â[he] shouted in triumphâ, as per Schadewaldt 1928:308, see below). As shown by Held 1998:380â386 (cf. also Gentili 1984:8), Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏ means âto weave, i.e. to fashion, produceâ (also metaphorically, cf. the collocations in which the verb combines with Î²á½·Î¿Ï in Hdt., Alcm., Pl. and elsewhere, paralleling N. 7.99, on which see CannatÃ Fera 2020:477) and refers to the combination of two different laments (Euryaleâs and Sthennoâs ones). The use of Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏ in the episode is probably echoed by Nonnus, who, in introducing a short digression about the Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½±ÏÎ·Î½Î¿Ï (D. 40.224), states that âthe Phrygian auletes braided/wove a male songâ (cf. chapter 6, section 3).

2.1 Weaving Songs: A âGendered Metaphorâ?

As Palmisciano (2017:186â188) and Steiner (2013:175â183) point out, Athena transforms the primeval, unmusical Gorgon goos (âlamentâ or unarticulated lament, improvised by the kinswomen of the dead, here: the Gorgons) into a thrÄnos (âmusical dirgeâ, performed by a professional musician, here: Athena). Such a representation could be interpreted as a poetic reflection of a real practice: Feld (2012:264) suggests that âhuman experimentation with polyphony arose out of the cross-cultural phenomenon of collectively improvised wailingâ (cf. also Weiss 2017:245). The first passages in which goos and thrÄnos co-occur are preserved in Gk. traditional hexameter poetry. The two terms are associated with distinct groups of performers: in Il. 24.717â776, Hectorâs thrÄnos consists of a sung sequence executed by male aoidoi and by a series of gooi, uttered by women of the household; analogously, in Od. 24.58â62 the Muses perform a thrÄnos for Achilles, while Thetis and her sister perform a goos (cf. Alexiou 2002², Tsagalis 2004, Perkell 2008, Karanika 2014).

We know of the existence of professional female musicians in Greece (Pl. Leg. 800e.1â3, Hsch. Îº 824 LC), who accompanied the lamentation over the dead by playing the aulos. In this regard, the identification of singers as female is significant. Since âweavingâ and âsingingâ are two recognizable activities of women in epics, âthe metaphor of weaving and poetic creation seems [â¦] to fit particularly well the role of women who are fulfilling their duties towards a close relative who has died: to weave a (funerary) cloth and to weave a (funerary) songâ (Bozzone 2016). Other IE traditions attest parallels for the binomial âlamenting-weavingâ in relation to women (Foley 2002:188â218 on South Slavic, Nevskaja 1993, IvanovâNevskaja 1990, Ivanov 1987 on Balto-Slavic). In connection with the wording of P. 12.8, I would like to note a possible comparandum from the Old English poem Beowulf:

Beow. 3150â3152

swylce giÅmor-gyd [Ge]at[isc] mÄowle

[BÄ«owulfe brÃ¦gd b]unden-heorde

[so]ng sorg-cearigÎ

So too a death-dirge a [Ge]at[ish] woman [wove for Beowulf], her hair [bound up], a sorrowful [so]ng.
transl. Bozzone 2016:14

Unfortunately, the collocation [brÃ¦gdâgiÅmor-gyd_acc.] with brÃ¦gd âmove quickly, knit, weave a death-dirgeâ cannot be recovered with certainty because the verb is an integration to the text (Chickering 2006²:240, cf. also Westphalen 1967, who dedicates an entire book to the textual problems of Beow. 3150â3155). Beow. 3150â3152 offers two further parallels to the Pindaric verse: Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ partially overlaps OE giÅmor-gyd âdeath-dirgeâ and the dirge is performed by a woman.

Old Indic Rigveda does not seem to preserve traces of weaving and lamenting as activities that are regularly joined together. However, in RVÂ 1.61 the metaphor of âweaving a songâ is opposed to that of âfashioning a songâ in a gendered way: men fashion a song (IE *tetÆ-, Ved. taká¹£, Gk. Ïá½³ÎºÏÏÎ½, cf. P. 3.113â114+) as if it were a chariot, while women weave it (IE *[H]euÌ¯-, Ved. vÄ), cf. RVÂ 1.61.4ab stÃ³maá¹ sÃ¡á¹ hinomiÂ , rÃ¡thaá¹ nÃ¡ tÃ¡á¹£á¹eva âI put together praiseâlike a carpenter a chariotâ, RVÂ 1.61.8 Ãd u gnÄÌÅ cid devÃ¡patnÄ«á¸¥Â , [â¦] arkÃ¡m ahihÃ¡tya Å«vuá¸¥ âeven the ladies, the Wives of the Gods, wove a chant at the serpent-smashingâ. The gendered distribution witnessed in Vedic may be compared to the distribution of menâs and womenâs material activities, which aim at immortalising the ÎºÎ»á½³Î± á¼Î½Î´Ïá¿¶Î½ in Greek traditional hexameter poetry. As Bozzone (2016) points out, Helenâs story cloth in Il. 3.125â128 represents the battles of Trojans and Achaeans, i.e. the ÎºÎ»á½³Î± á¼Î½Î´Ïá¿¶Î½ of the Iliad. To this I would add that Helenâs cloth is a sort of âfemaleâ-version of the work executed by a smith, cf. Il. 18.509â540 (Haephaestus engraves a battle scene on Achillesâ shield).

Pindarâs Pythian Twelve reflects a different state of things: Athena is said to both âweave a thrÄnosâ and âconstruct (ÏÎµá½»ÏÏ, 19, see below) a melos (song)â. However, such a twofold lexical choice could be conditioned by the fact that Athena masters both skills, cf. e.g. Il. 5.733â735, HHÂ 5.12â15, Pi. fr.Â 52i.66 (Pae. 8.66 = B2 Rutherford).

2.2 Weaving Songs in Pindar and Indo-European

In Pindar, (Î´Î¹Î±)ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏ applies to the poetic composition, cf. O. 6.86â87 ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏÎ½ || ÏÎ¿Î¹Îºá½·Î»Î¿Î½ á½Î¼Î½Î¿Î½ (on which cf. Giannini 2009, AdorjÃ¡ni 2014:273); N. 4.94 á¿¥á½µÎ¼Î±ÏÎ± ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏÎ½; fr.Â 52c.12 (Pae. 3.12 = D3 Rutherford) á¼Î¿Î¹Î´Î±á¿Ï á¼Î½ Îµá½ÏÎ»ÎµÎºá½³ÏÏÎ¹; fr.Â 246a Î¼ÎµÎ»Î¹ÏÏá½¹Î¸ÏÎ½ â¦ ÏÎ»á½¹ÎºÎ±Î¼Î¿Î¹ (cf. Vissicchio 1997:293â296). A variety of parallels may be identified for this metaphorical use of the verb, cf. Fanfani 2018. Le Feuvre (2015:324â326) reconstructs a collocation [Î¼á¿¦Î¸Î¿Ï_gen.pl.âá¼Ïá½·ÏÎ»Î¿ÎºÎ¿Ï]* â(adj.) twisting, (subst.) weaver of words/storiesâ in Od. 21.397. This collocation, preserved as varia lectio, would have been substituted in the tradition by á¼Ïá½·ÎºÎ»Î¿ÏÎ¿Ï âthievingâ. The collocation [Î¼á¿¦Î¸Î¿Ï_gen.pl.âá¼Ïá½·ÏÎ»Î¿ÎºÎ¿Ï]* would perfectly correspond to Î¼ÏÎ¸Î¿ÏÎ»á½¹ÎºÎ¿Ï âweaver of storiesâ (Sapph. 188 V) and partially overlap á¿¥á½µÎ¼Î±ÏÎ± ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏÎ½ (N. 4.94) as well as á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½± â¦ Îµá½ÏÎ»ÎµÎºá½µÏ (fr.Â 52c.12 [Pae. 3.12 = D3 Rutherford], cf. also Crit. 81 BÂ 1.1â2, carm. conv. 917b.3, Sapph. 194A, Tel. 806.3â4).

At the same time, the use of (Î´Î¹Î±)ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏ in connection with the poetic activity can be compared to that of other verbs belonging to the same semantic field, such as (á¼Î¾)á½ÏÎ±á½·Î½Ï âto weaveâ and á¿¥á½±ÏÏÏ âto sewâ. In Pindar (á¼Î¾)ÏÏÎ±á½·Î½Ï combines with Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï âchant, songâ (N. 4.44â45) and á¼Î½Î´Î·Î¼Î± âhair-bandâ (fr.Â 179), a metaphoric designation for âhymnâ.²⁵ á½ÏÎ±á½·Î½Ï occurs in Bacchylidesâ corpus with the same value (Ba. 5.10, 19.8â9, fr.Â 1.4). The Pindaric collocation á¿¥Î±ÏÏá¿¶Î½ á¼Ïá½³ÏÎ½ (N. 2.2, cf. also Lyr. adesp. 995.1â2, Sapph. 195 V) partly corresponds to [á¿¥á½±ÏÏÏâá¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½µ_acc.] (Hes. fr.Â 357.2), cf. the compound á¿¥Î±Ïá¿³Î´á½¹Ï ârhapsodeâ (cf. Tarditi 1968, Pavese 1974, Gentili 1995, CannatÃ Fera 2020:297 with reference to alternative synchronic etymologies of Gk. á¿¥Î±Ïá¿³Î´á½¹Ï). A reference to the act of spinning may underlie further Pindaric collocations, in which Gk. derivatives of IE *ten- âto stretchâ (cf. liv² 626â627, iew 1065â1066) occur in connection with the creation of a poetic work. The use of ÏÏÎ½ÏÎ±Î½á½»Ï âstretch, bring togetherâ (Slater 1969 s.v. ÏÏÎ½ÏÎ±Î½á½»Ï) in P. 1.81 ÏÎµá½·ÏÎ±ÏÎ± ÏÏÎ½ÏÎ±Î½á½»ÏÎ±Î¹Ï âbringing the threads togetherâ is explained by the scholion ad loc. as a weaving metaphor, cf. Î£ P. 1.157d Dr. Îµá¼° Ïá½° ÎºÎ±á½·ÏÎ¹Î± Î»á½³Î³ÎµÎ¹Ï Ïá¿¶Î½ ÏÎ¿Î»Î»á¿¶Î½ Ïá½° Ïá½³ÏÎ±ÏÎ± Îµá¼°Ï á¼Î½ ÏÏÎ½ÏÎµÎ¼á½¼Î½ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÏÎ¼ÏÎ»á½³Î¾Î±Ï. A derivative of the same root occurs in the iunctura ÏÏÎ¿Î¹Î½Î¿Ïá½³Î½ÎµÎ¹Î¿Ï â¦ á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½± (fr.Â 70b.1 [= Dith. 2.1]).

The metaphor of âweaving songs/poetic wordsâ is lexicalized as âto singâ in some IE languages. Several terms for âsong, chantâ or âstropheâ can be traced back to IE roots meaning âto bindâ or âto weaveâ:

IE *sh₂e(iÌ¯)- âto tie, bindâ (cf. liv² 544, iew 891â892) underlies sÄÌman- âsong, chantâ (*sh₂o-men-, cf. RVÂ 10.130.2d sÄÌmÄni cakrus tÃ¡sarÄá¹_iy Ã³tave âthey made the sÄman-chants the shuttles for weavingâ), Hitt. iÅ¡á¸«amÄi- âsongâ (*sh₂em-Åi-), Gk. á½Î¼Î½Î¿Ï (*sh₂omno-, as per Eichner 1979:205),²⁶ and Î¿á¼´Î¼Î· âsongâ (Osthoff 1901:158â¯ff., cf. Nagy 2017a ad O.08.074), which, in the Odyssey, has the meaning âsong-pathâ because it was synchronically crossed with Gk. Î¿á¼¶Î¼Î¿Ï âpathâ (cf. Od. 8.480â481, 8.73â74, 22.348, cf. Becker 1937:68â70, Durante 1976:176).
IE *uÌ¯eb^h- âto weaveâ (liv² 658, iew 1114, cf. Gk. á½ÏÎ±á½·Î½Ï, Ved. vabh âto tie, bindâ) lies at the basis of OAv. vaf âto singâ, vafu- âutteranceâ. The use of (á¼Î¾)á½ÏÎ±á½·Î½Ï (N. 4.44â45, fr.Â 179, cf. Ba. 5.10, 19.8â9, fr.Â 1.4) and IE *uÌ¯eb^h- âto weaveâ in connection with the poetic activity is further paralleled in Old English and Old Irish, cf. Cyn. El. 1237 wordcrÃ¦ft wÃ¦f âI wove word-craftâ; OIr. Amr. Col. Ch. 52 fÃ¡ig ferb fithir âthe teacher wove wordsâ (Campanile 1977:37â38, West 2007:37â38).
Just like in Pindar (cf. P. 1.81, fr.Â 70b.1 [= Dith. 2.1]), in Vedic poetry derivatives of IE *ten- (Ved. [vÃ-]tan âto stretchâ, tÃ¡ntu- âthreadâ) are too employed to describe the poetic creative process (cf. West 2007:36â37).
Further semantic comparanda can be identified in Germanic and Latin: ON mÃ¦rÃ° fjÇ«lsnoerÃ°a âa song consisting of many threadsâ (Ht. 68.4) is vaguely reminiscent of Îµá½ÏÎ»ÎµÎºá½µÏ â¦ á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½± (fr.Â 52c.12 [Pae. 3.12 = D3 Rutherford]); the weaving-metaphor additionally underlies Lat. (con)texere carmen (Cic. Cael. 18+, with IE *tek-s- cf. liv² 619â620, iew 1058, cf. Melchert 2018; see the phraseological dossier collected by Darmesteter 1878, who nevertheless wrongly traces Lat. texere back to *tetÆ- âto fashionâ).

From modern observation of weavers in India and Central Asia, Tuck 2006 suggests that the metaphor originates from the practice of weaving complex designs. Since complicated designs demand the memorization of a great amount of information, weavers used rhythmic chants to remember distinctive numeric sequences and reproduce specific patterns.

9Â Â Ïá½¸Î½ ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸ÎµÎ½á½·Î¿Î¹Ï á½Ïá½¹ Ïá¾½ á¼ÏÎ»á½±ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï á½Ïá½·ÏÎ½ ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»Î±á¿Ï âthat (was poured forth) from under the unapproachable snaky heads of the maidensâ, lit. âthat (was poured forth) from under the maidensâ heads and the unapproachable heads of the snakesâ, cf. Î£ P. 12.15a Dr. á½Î½ÏÎ¹Î½Î± Ïá½¸Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ á½Ïá½¸ ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸ÎµÎ½á½·Î¿Î¹Ï ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÏÎ½ ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»Î±á¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½Ïá½·ÏÎ½ á¼ÏÎ»Î·ÏÎ¹á½±ÏÏÎ¿Î¹Ï ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»Î±á¿Ï á¼Ïá½µÎºÎ¿ÏÏÎµ.

From the phraseological standpoint, cf. á½ÏÎ¹á½½Î´ÎµÎ¿Ï â¦ ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½Î¿Ï âof snaky Gorgonâ (O. 13.63); for [ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¹Î¿Ï²⁷âhead], cf. Pi. fr.Â 94b.10â12 á½Î¼Î½á½µÏÏ ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½Î¿Î¹ÏÎ¹ Î¸á½±Î»Î»Î¿Î¹ÏÎ± ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¹Î¿Î½ Îºá½±ÏÎ±. According to Nonnus too, the Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½±ÏÎ·Î½Î¿Ï is inspired to the Gorgonsâ lament and the snakesâ hissing, cf. D. 24.37â38 and D. 40.229â233 (cf. chapter 6, sections 2â3). Steiner 2013:179 proposes to take á½Ïá½¹ + dat. as âattendant circumstances, including â¦ (with reference to) musical accompanimentâ. Such a value, however, is attested only for á½Ïá½¹ + gen. in Pindar (cf. Slater 1969 s.v. á½Ïá½¹, gen. [c]). âUnderâ might hint at the place from which the thrÄnos is poured, uttered, i.e. the mouth of the Gorgons.

The epithet á¼ÏÎ»Î·ÏÎ¿Ï²⁸ applies to the Gorgons in [Hes.] Sc. 230 ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÎµÏ á¼ÏÎ»Î·ÏÎ¿Î¹ and to Typhon âof fifty headsâ in Pi. fr.Â 93.1â2 á¼ÏÎ»Î±ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ Î¤ÏÏá¿¶Î½Î± ÏÎµÎ½ÏÎ·ÎºÎ¿Î½ÏÎ¿Îºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Î½. The collocation á½Ïá½·ÏÎ½ ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»Î±á¿Ï, displaying the inherited term for âsnakeâ á½ÏÎ¹Ï,²⁹ and ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á½µ âheadâ is also reminiscent of [Hes.] Sc. 161 á½Ïá½·ÏÎ½ ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»Î±á½· (of the hydra).

10Â Â Ïá½¸Î½ á¼Î¹Îµ Î»ÎµÎ¹Î²á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ âshe heard it being poured forthâ. The subject of á¼Î¹Îµ is Athena (Schlesinger 1968:277, Clay 1992:525, Bernardini 2006⁴), not Perseus, as suggested by KÃ¶hnken (1971:131, 1976:259) and Watkins (1995:40).

According to Gildersleeve (1885 ad P. 12.10), Î»ÎµÎ¹Î²á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ is reminiscent of [Î´á½±ÎºÏÏÎ±âÎ»Îµá½·Î²Ï] âto pour forth tearsâ (Il. 13.88+). The collocation [to pourâÎ¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Ï_acc.] is paralleled ex Pindaro and ex Graeco ipso, cf. I. 8.58 á¼Ïá½¶ Î¸Ïá¿Î½á½¹Î½ ÏÎµ ÏÎ¿Î»á½»ÏÎ±Î¼Î¿Î½ á¼ÏÎµÎ±Î½ (on the passage cf. Privitera 2001⁴:238), HHÂ 19.18 Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ á¼ÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¿Ïá½³Î¿ÏÏá¾½[Î±]; cf. also [to pourÂ âlament(Î³á½¹Î¿Ï)_acc.] in Aeschl. Choe. 448 Ïá½³Î¿ÏÏÎ± ÏÎ¿Î»á½»Î´Î±ÎºÏÏÎ½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½. For [to pourâhymn/utterance_acc.], expressed by means of Gk. Î»Îµá½·Î²Ï (IEÂ 2. *leiÌ¯H-, cf. liv² 405â406, iew 664â665) or Ïá½³Ï (IE *Ä^heuÌ¯-, cf. liv² 179, iew 447â448) and derivatives, cf. O. 7.7, P. 5.100, P. 10.56, Ba. 5.15, Ib. S257a.27.3â4 á½[Î¼Î½Î¿Ï â¦] â¦ á¼ÏÎ¿Î»Îµá½·Î²ÎµÏÎ±Î¹ âa hymn â¦ is poured forthâ (suppl. West 1984:29),³⁰ Aeschl. Suppl. 631. Furthermore, Pindar applies the verb âto pourâ to the poet himself, cf. I. 1.4, fr.Â 123.10â11.

As pointed out by Kurke 1989, the collocation [to pour (IE *Ä^heuÌ¯-[d]-)âutterance_acc.] is expressed by means of the same verbal lexemes in Old Indic and Latin, cf. [to pour(Ved. hav)âhymn/prayer/praise song_acc.(Ved. mÃ¡nman-, manÄ«á¹£ÄÌ-, gÃr-)], Lat. fundere preces (Verg. Aen. 5.233+). Possible Hittite comparanda, namely instances of the collocation [Å¡unna-/Å¡uá¸«á¸«a-âÅ«ttar_acc.] âto fill with wordsâ, have been identified by Dardano 2018:47â64. The analysis of the corpus of Archaic Greek poetry allows us to recover a well-articulated system of images, which centre on the metaphoric overlap between âpoetryâ/âsongsâ/âverbal utterancesâ and liquid substances (NÃ¼nlist 1998:178â205 and Manieri 2021 on the Greek passages; Massetti 2019:162â178 on possible IE comparanda). Since the poetic celebration of Panhellenic winners grants immortality to the laudandi, poetic words are often said to be like drinks of immortality: âthe holy water of the Musesâ (I. 6.74, Simon. 577a, cf. Faraone 2002), ambrosia (P. 4.299, cf. Hes. Th. 69, HHÂ 27.18, Ba. 19.2, Soph. Ant. 1134, Lyr. adesp. 936.15), nectar (O. 7.7).³¹ Words also originate from an immortal spring (P. 4.299, cf. Ba. 29.15), which is occasionally identified with the poet himself (Pi. fr.Â 94b.76). The same images are found in Old Indic (MBh. 12.279.1cd amrÌ¥tasyeva vÃ¡casÄs âof [your] speech like of amrÌ¥taâ [âdrink of immortalityâ, *nÌ¥-mrÌ¥to-, cf. Gk. á¼Î¼Î²ÏÎ¿Ïá½·Î±]), while the poet is compared to an âinexhaustibleâ (Ã¡ká¹£Ä«yamÄna-, reflecting *nÌ¥-d^hg^uÌ¯hi- cf. Gk. á¼ÏÎ¸Î¹ÏÎ¿Ï) âwell-springâ (Ved. Ãºtsa- < *ud-so-, cf. Gk. á½Î´ÏÏ âwaterâ) in RVÂ 3.26.9, cf. Geldner 1951â1957.³²

Elsewhere Pindar speaks of poetic streams, cf. N. 7.12 á¿¥Î¿Î±á¿ÏÎ¹ ÎÎ¿Î¹Ïá¾¶Î½, I. 7.19 á¼Ïá½³ÏÎ½ á¿¥Î¿Î±á¿ÏÎ¹Î½ (cf. Il. 1.249, Hes. Th. 39â40, 83â84, 96â97 [= HHÂ 25.4â5], HHÂ 5.237). In turn, this metaphor finds a perfect parallel in Old Indic poetry, where âto flow, streamâ is expressed by means of a variety of lexemes (Ved. ará¹£, ká¹£ar, [sÃ¡á¹-]sec, sarj), including Ved. srav (IE *sreuÌ¯-, liv² 588, iew 1003), a linguistic cognate of Gk. á¿¥á½³Ï, á¿¥Î¿á½µ, and á¿¥ÏÎ¸Î¼á½¹Ï ârhythmâ [*sru-d^hmÃ³-]. The same IE root *sreuÌ¯- underlies ON straumr, which is featured in kennings for âpoetryâ, cf. hornstraum HrÃmnis âthe horn-strom of HrÃmnirâ (EVald ÃÃ³rr 1^III), granstrauma GrÃmnis âlip-streams of GrÃmnirâ (Eil Ãdr 3^III), mÃna straumr glaumberg vinar MÃms âmy streams of the joy-cliff of the friend of MÃmrâ (VSt Erf 1^III).

10Â Â Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½³Ï Ïá½ºÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±Ïá¿³ âwith grievous toilâ. The expression refers to the Gorgonsâ lament;³³ ex Graeco ipso cf. Od. 5.493 Î´ÏÏÏÎ¿Î½á½³Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±ÏÎ¿Î¹Î¿ âtoilsome effortâ, although Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï and Ïá½³Î½Î¸Î¿Ï are not etymologically related.

KÃ¶hnken (1971:129â136, 1976:258â259, contra Radt 1974:117, Clay 1992:525) proposes a different punctuation of the verse: á¼ÏÎµ Î»ÎµÎ¹Î²á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½³Ï Ïá½ºÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±Ïá¿³ || Î ÎµÏÏÎµá½»Ï, á½Ïá½¹ÏÎµ ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ ÎºÎ±ÏÎ¹Î³Î½Î·Ïá¾¶Î½ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï (cf. also KÃ¶hnken 1978:92, accepted by SnellâMaehler 1980, but rejected by SnellâMaehler 1987). According to this interpretation, Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½³Ï Ïá½ºÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±Ïá¿³ refers to Perseusâ battle, not to the Gorgonsâ lament, as suggested by Î£ P. 12.18 Dr. Contrarily to KÃ¶hnken, Radt (1974:117) notes that Ïá½³Î½Î¸Î¿Ï always applies to the âgrief for a deadâ (cf. N. 10.77, I. 7.37). But KÃ¶hnken (1976:259â260) provides Pindaric examples (fr.Â 52d.53 [Pae. 4.53 = D4 Rutherford], fr.Â 133.1) of Ïá½³Î½Î¸Î¿Ï meaning âpainâ, âsorrowâ in a wider sense, cf. Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½µÏ â¦ Î´á½¹Î»Î¿Ï (P. 11.18, on which see Finglass 2007:90). Against the idea that Îºá½±Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï applies to âhuman effort/toilâ, being a synonym of Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï and Î¼á½¹ÏÎ¸Î¿Ï (KÃ¶hnken 1976:259â260) cf. Bernardini (2006⁴:674, cf. also RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas 2001: Span. dolor), who translates the term as It. pena in the light of Simon. 20.8+. Akhunova 2020:7 argues that Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½³Ï Ïá½ºÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±Ïá¿³ is in apo koinou and applies to both Perseus, who accomplishes a toilsome endeavour, and the Gorgons, who perform a deadly lament.

I find these explanations unlikely. I follow SnellâMaehler 1987 in rejecting KÃ¶hnkenâs punctuation. It is certainly true that Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½³Ï Ïá½ºÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±Ïá¿³ may in principle denote different kinds of pain. However, as I already anticipated (cf.Â 10), it is Athena, i.e. the one re-enacting the Gorgonsâ lament, who hears the sounds produced by the Gorgons, while they are mourning their sister.

11Â Â Î ÎµÏÏÎµá½ºÏ á½Ïá½¹ÏÎµ âwhen PerseusÂ â¦â. On the disposition of single elements at 11â12, cf. Sulzer 1961:56. On Perseus, Argive hero, son of Zeus and Danae (Il. 14.319â320+), cf. limc s.v. Perseus, Brommer 1973³:271â291, Pellizer 1987, Gantz 1996:300â311, Sansone di Campobianco 2003, Ogden 2008, 2013:93â99, Cursaru 2013, and Finglass (forthc.). A general account of Perseusâ deeds is found in Pher. 43â44, [Apollod.] 2.4, A.R. 4.1513â1517. Pindar mentions Perseusâ victory over the Gorgon(s) in N. 10.4, fr.Â 70a (= Dith. 1), fr.Â 70d.39â41 (Dith. 4.39â41), P. 10.44â48 (cf. Bieler 1931). In this poem, the episode is also connected with Perseusâ visit to the Hyperboreans. On this aspect of the myth and the problematic sequence of the events in P. 10 cf. Palaiogeorgou 2002, van den Berge 2007, Bernardini 2006⁴:638â639, summarizing the previous hypotheses (Farnell 1932, Dugas 1956, Pennington Bolton 1962:61â62, Barkhuizen 1976:10, KÃ¶hnken 1971:177â178, and Kirkwood 1982).

11Â Â á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ âshouted (in triumph?)â. The verse is object of intense debate (cf. Sotiriou 2001). The form á¼ÏÏÎµ(Î½) (aor. of á¼ÏÏ âto shoutâ) is preserved in all mss., except Î¦, which has á¼Î½ÏÏÎµÎ½. At the same time, Î£ P. 12.19b Dr. preserves two explanations: (1) á¼ÏÏÎµ = á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ âhe shoutedâ (cf. Il. 20.48+), (2) á¼ÏÏÎµ = á¼Î½ÏÏÎµ âhe finished/killedâ (cf. Od. 24.71, á¼Î¾Î±Î½á½»Ï in Il. 11.365). Boeckh 1811â1821 proposes a correction á¼Î½ÏÏÏÎµÎ½ metri causa (cf. á¼Î½á½»ÏÏÎµÏÎ¸Î±Î¹, Od. 16.373 etc.), which Heyne 1824⁴, von Schroeder 1922, Farnell 1932, Turyn 1948, Bowra 1964 and KÃ¶hnken 1971 accept. Farnell stresses âthe dramatic improbability that Perseus would shout to awaken the sisters when it was his cue to fly awayâ. To be sure, according to one tradition, Perseus finds Medusa and her sisters sleeping (cf. Aeschl. TrGF 262+) and beheads the Gorgon while she is not awake. However, iconographic sources dating to the 6thâ5th BCE preserve different traditions: occasionally, Perseus beheads or attacks a running Gorgon (cf. e.g. the black-figure Attic olpe from Vulci, ca.Â 550â¯BCE, London, British Museum [= limc s.v. Perseus 113]). Analogously, it is certainly possible to distinguish between vases in which Perseus carries the head of sleeping Medusa in his Îºá½·Î²Î¹ÏÎ¹Ï, as the eyes of Medusa are closed (e.g. limc s.v. Perseus 161, a red-figure Attic kalpis, ca.Â 460â¯BCE, London, British Museum), in contrast to others, in which Medusaâs head has open eyes (e.g. limc s.v. Perseus 163: a red-figure Attic lekythos, ca.Â 460â450â¯BCE, SÃ£o Paulo, Museum of Art). Since Pindar does not provide extensive details on the episode in our text, âdramatic improbabilityâ cannot count as a decisive argument to prefer á¼Î½ÏÏÎµÎ½ over á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ in Pythian Twelve.

Wilamowitz (1922:146) is the first modern commentator to favour á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½. However, since á¼ÏÏ in Homer is often followed by direct speech, he proposes that á¼Î³ÏÎ½ stands for á¼Î³ÎµÎ¹Î½ and connects it to á¼ÏÏÎµ. Schadewaldt (1928:50, fn. 1), followed by Burton (1962:29), Schlesinger (1968:277), and PapadopoulouâPirenne-Delforge (2001), proposes that á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ applies to Perseus and means âto shout in triumphâ. Clay (1992) concurs with the same interpretation, but makes the case that Perseus shouts when he petrifies the people of Seriphus. Segal (1995:15â16), followed by Steiner (2013:185), reads á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½, âhe shoutedâ, and argues that Perseus shouts as he kills Medusa. KÃ¶hnken (1978:92â93, 1995:384â387) reads á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ [á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½] but proposes a meaning âto call for helpâ (cf. also Sotiriou 2001:124 âbetenâ), which is attested in Homer (see below, 11). Pavese (1991:81â82) proposes that this is the verb á¼ÏÏ/á¼ÏÏ âto dryâ (cf. Hdn. Od. 2.132 Î±á½ÏÎ Î¾Î·ÏÎ±á½·Î½Ï â^hauÅ: I (make) dryâ) from IE *saus- âto dryâ (recte *h₂seus- âto become dryâ, cf. liv² 285, iew 880â881), suggesting a semantic shift âto dry (someone) outâ > âto killâ, as in It. fare secco âto make dry, i.e. to killâ, cf. Hsch. Î± 8331 LC Î±á½Î¿Î½Î â¦ Î½ÎµÎºÏá½¹Î½ âauon: â¦ deadâ. Bernardini (2006⁴:675) reads á¼Î½ÏÏÎµÎ½, âterminated (: killed)â, arguing that this verb does not create any syntactical or metrical difficulties, since 3 reflects âÂ â âªâªÂ â âªâªÂ â x â âªÂ â âÂ â âª x (cf. Gentili 2006 âNota Metricaâ ad P. 12). SnellâMaehler 1987, with whom I concur, propose a different metrical interpretation of the verse:Â âDâE.

I believe that the reading is á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ âshouted/cried aloudâ, which may refer to a particular moment of Perseusâ ambush. Perseus shouts as he attacks Medusa or after he has killed her (for á¼ÏÏ âto shout/cryâ without a direct object in battle scenes, cf. chapter 9, section 4.1).

11Â Â ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ ÎºÎ±ÏÎ¹Î³Î½Î·Ïá¾¶Î½ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï âagainst the third part of the sistersâ.³⁴ KÃ¶hnken (1978:92â93, 1995:384â387, contra Clay 1992), who interprets á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ as âcall for helpâ, proposes a translation âwhen â¦ Perseus had called upon [her: Athena] for help for the third timeâ, interpreting ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ as an adverb (cf. Il. 11.462â463). Beside the fact that one would expect (á¼Ï) ÏÏá½·Ï as âfor the third timeâ (cf. P. 4.61+), á¼ÏÏ âto cry for helpâ is usually constructed with the accusative of the person called upon (cf. Pavese 1991:76; as an example cf. Il. 11.461+), but here we lack such an accusative (namely: á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î±Î½, ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¿Î½ vel sim.). The scholia identify Medusa as âthe third part of [three] sisters/Gorgonsâ, cf. Î£ P. 12.19a Dr., 15 Mo. This explanation is preferred by a variety of modern commentators and translators (Gildersleeve 1885, Bernardini 2006⁴:674â675), myself included. Nevertheless, which verb we should join this accusative case to is debated. More specifically, Pavese 1991:86 and Bernardini 2006⁴:674, who respectively read á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ âhe dried outâ (Pavese) and á¼Î½ÏÏÎµÎ½ âhe killedâ (Bernardini), highlight the parallel with P. 4.65 á½Î³Î´Î¿Î¿Î½ â¦ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÎºÎµÏá½·Î»Î±Ï âthe eighth part (i.e. generation) of Arcesilasâ. In this expression, structured as [number_ord.adj.âÎ¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï], the ordinal adjective designates âX_nr.ord. in a rowâ. Moreover, according to Segal (1995:11), P. 12.11 is reminiscent of Hes. Th. 277â278 (á¼£ Î¼á½²Î½ á¼Î·Î½ Î¸Î½Î·Ïá½µ, Î±á¼³ Î´á¾½ á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Î¹ ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î³á½µÏá¿³ || Î±á¼± Î´á½»Î¿Î Ïá¿ Î´á½² Î¼Î¹á¿ ÏÎ±ÏÎµÎ»á½³Î¾Î±ÏÎ¿ ÎÏÎ±Î½Î¿ÏÎ±á½·ÏÎ·Ï). Pi. ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï could thus apply to the âmortal Gorgonâ, by singling her out. Although Pavese and Bernardini disagree on the form and the meaning of the verb of 11 (see above), they concur in making ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï the direct object of á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½/á¼Î½ÏÏÎµÎ½ âhe dried out/terminated (= he killed) the third part of the sisters (i.e. Medusa)â. Gentili (2006: xxxviâxxxvii), though ultimately supporting a reading á¼Î½ÏÏÎµÎ½ âhe killedâ, suggests an alternative solution: if á¼ÏÏÎµÎ½ means âhe shouted (in triumph)â, ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï could be interpreted as a relational accusative, i.e. âwhen Perseus shouted (in triumph) in relation to/for the third part of the sistersâ. However, the relational accusative is not commonly found in these contexts in Pindar (cf. Clapp 1901, Hummel 1993:103â105). Such a construction of Î±á½Ï would thus be unparalleled.

I propose that the accusative designates the direction of the shout. Therefore, I take [Î±á½Ïâthird part of the sisters] as âto shout towards/against somebodyâ. This construction is attested for verbs meaning âto shout/callâ, like Î²Î¿á½±Ï, a synonym of Î±á½Ï, in P. 6.36 Î²á½¹Î±ÏÎµ ÏÎ±á¿Î´Î± á½Î½ âhe shouted to his sonâ (Race 1997a; on this passage cf. Fraenkel 1952 ad Aeschl. Ag. 48 who however proposes âhe shouted:âMy son!â), cf. also Eur. Med. 206â207 Î»Î¹Î³ÏÏá½° Î´á¾¿ á¼ÏÎµÎ± Î¼Î¿Î³ÎµÏá½± || Î²Î¿á¾· Ïá½¸Î½ á¼Î½ Î»á½³ÏÎµÎ¹ ÏÏÎ¿Î´á½¹ÏÎ±Î½ ÎºÎ±Îºá½¹Î½ÏÎ¼ÏÎ¿Î½ âthe shrill accusations she utters against the husband who betrayed her bedâ (transl. Kovacs 1994).

Schadewaldt 1928:20 and Burton 1962:29, followed by Segal (1995) and Race (1997a), take ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ ÎºÎ±ÏÎ¹Î³Î½Î·Ïá¾¶Î½ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï as the direct object of the ptc. á¼Î³ÏÎ½ âwhen Perseus shouted [in triumph] bringing the third part of the sisters and (bearing) death to Seriphusâ. In this case, á¼Î³ÏÎ½ would be in apo koinou (cf. Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ±Î½ á¼Î³ÏÎ½, 12, see below) like the ptc. Ïá½³ÏÏÎ½ in P. 10.46â48, cf. ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÎ¿Î¹Îºá½·Î»Î¿Î½ Îºá½±ÏÎ± || Î´ÏÎ±Îºá½¹Î½ÏÏÎ½ Ïá½¹Î²Î±Î¹ÏÎ¹Î½ á¼¤Î»ÏÎ¸Îµ Î½Î±ÏÎ¹á½½ÏÎ±Î¹Ï || Î»á½·Î¸Î¹Î½Î¿Î½ Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Î½ Ïá½³ÏÏÎ½ (cf. also Eur. TrGF 124.5â6 Î ÎµÏÏÎµá½»Ï [â¦] Ïá½¸ Îá½¹ÏÎ³Î¿Î½Î¿Ï Îºá½±ÏÎ± ÎºÎ¿Î¼á½·Î¶ÏÎ½). This explanation, however, seems incompatible with the identification âthird part of the sisters = Medusaâ. It is certainly true that Perseus kills the Gorgon, but he only takes her head to Seriphus, not her entire body. At least some of the ancient commentators seem to be aware of this: Î£ P. 12.21 Dr. specifies that âthe third part of the Gorgonsâ must be Medusaâs head, cf. Ïá½¸ ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï Ïá¿¶Î½ ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÏÎ½Î á¼Îº Î´á½² ÏÎ¿á½»ÏÎ¿Ï Ïá½±Î»Î¹Î½ Ïá½´Î½ Ïá¿Ï ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½Î¿Ï ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á½µÎ½. To my knowledge, this use (âpart of group = head of part of groupâ) is unparalleled in Pindar, in Greek, and elsewhere. Indeed, the equation [headâof person] = [person] does not work in a biunivocal direction. That is, [headâof a person] can stand for [person] (e.g. Soph. Ant. 1); but [person] does not automatically equate [headâof a person], cf. MoE bring me his/her head equates kill him/her, but bring him/her to me does not mean bring me his head as a spoil. Therefore, the interpretation âthird part of the sisters = Medusaâs headâ seems forced to me.

12Â Â Îµá¼°Î½Î±Î»á½·á¾³ Î£ÎµÏá½·Ïá¿³ âin maritime Seriphusâ. Schroeder 1900 conjectures á¼Î½Î½á½±Î»Î¹Î¿Ï for all Pindaric instances of the adjective (cf. O. 9.99, P. 2.79, P. 4.27, P. 4.204, P. 11.40). Finglass 2007:111 (with reference to Braswell [1988 ad P. 4.14(d)] and Irigoin 1952:23) points out that Pindar would have used the metrically lengthened Îµá¼°Î½á½±Î»Î¹Î¿Ï (Od. 4.443+, cf. Chantraine 1948²:99â100). This Homeric compound is a derivative to a prepositional compound (Risch 1974²:189, Rousseau 2016:1â12) that can be recognized as the hypostasis of a collocation Îµá¼°Î½ á¼Î»á½· (Od. 1.162+, on hypostatic compounds cf. Pinault [forthc.]).

12Â Â Î»Î±Î¿á¿Ïá½· ÏÎµ Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ±Î½ á¼Î³ÏÎ½ âbringing doom to the people of Seriphusâ. The petrification of Seriphusâ inhabitants is also described in fr.Â 70d.39â41 (= Dith. 4.39â41, as per Lavecchiaâs [2000] edition and comment ad loc.). The term Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ± echoes Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï, 11.³⁵ The co-occurrence of Î»Î±Î¿á¿ÏÎ¹ and á¼Î³ÏÎ½, i.e. a derivative of IE *h₁aÄ-, parallels Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ â¦ á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½ (24). Ex Pindaro ipso Î»Î±Î¿á¿Ïá½· ÏÎµ Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ±Î½ á¼Î³ÏÎ½ can be compared to P. 10.47â48, cf. á¼¤Î»ÏÎ¸Îµ Î½Î±ÏÎ¹á½½ÏÎ±Î¹Ï || Î»á½·Î¸Î¹Î½Î¿Î½ Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Î½ Ïá½³ÏÏÎ½. Specifically, Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Î½ Ïá½³ÏÏÎ½ matches Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ±Î½ á¼Î³ÏÎ½, because Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Ï and Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ± commonly pair in the Homeric binomial Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ± âdeath and the allotment of fate (= doom)â (Il. 3.101+), cf. also the collocation [Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ±_acc. Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿Ï_gen.âá¼ÏÏ/ÎºÎ¹Î³Ïá½±Î½Ï/Î»Î±Î¼Î²á½±Î½Ï] in Calli. 1.15, Mimn. 6.2, Tyrt. 7.2+, Sol. 20.4+, Theogn. 340+, Aeschl. Pers. 917, Ag. 1462, Eur. Med. 987+. Additionally, Ïá½³ÏÏ and á¼Î³Ï share some common usages, cf. Nagy 2015, 2017b.

Pavese (1991:89) suggests that the verse contains a word-play between Î»Î±á½¹Ï âpeopleâ (cf. Î»Î±Î¿á¿ÏÎ¹ on the possible connection with Hitt. laá¸«á¸«- cf. Gschnitzer 1977) and Î»á¾¶Î±Ï âstoneâ (on the etymology cf. Nikolaev 2010b), cf. Hes. fr.Â 234.3 and Pi. O. 9.46 (cf. also Epich. 122, Call. fr.Â 496, Î£ O. 9.70d Dr. á¼Îº Î´á½² Î»á½·Î¸ÏÎ½ á¼Î³á½³Î½Î¿Î½ÏÎ¿ Î²ÏÎ¿ÏÎ¿á½·, Î»Î±Î¿á½¶ Î´á½² ÎºÎ±Î»á½³Î¿Î½ÏÎ±Î¹).

13Â Â á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ âindeedâ is an emphatic particle, equating á¼¦ ÏÎ¿Î¹. According to DennistonâDover (1954:553â554), âÏÎ¿Î¹ serves to bring home a truth of which the certainty is expressed by á¼¦â. In most Pindaric instances á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ introduces a sentence (in O. 12.13 it is preceded by a vocative), cf. Slater 1969 s.v. á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ (a)â(b).

13Â Â Ïá½¹ ÏÎµ Î¸ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ¹Î¿Î½ âmonstrous/supernatural (progeny)â,³⁶ note the alliterative sequence ÎÎ¤ÎÎ¹ Î¤Î Î¤Î ÎÎÏ-. Gk. Î¸ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï âproclaimed by the godsâ is similarly structured as Gk. Î¸á½³ÏÏÎ±ÏÎ¿Ï, applying to divine utterances in Pindar (P. 4.71, I. 8.31). A meaning âproclaimed by the godâ, or even âdivinely proclaimedâ, is well suited to the majority of the Pindaric instances of Î¸ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï, since it applies to spoken or chanted words, cf. N. 9.7 (á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½±), I. 3/4.57 (á¼Ïá½³ÏÎ½), I. 6.44 (Îµá½ÏÎ±á¿Ï), fr.Â 52g.1 [Pae. 7 = D7 Rutherford] (Î¼Î±Î½ÏÎµÏÎ¼á½±ÏÏÎ½). However, the term also occurs as a poetically lexicalized word for âdivineâ, âwonderfulâ, âmonstrous/superhumanâ (cf. Fraenkel 1952 ad Aeschl. Ag. 1154). In connection with 13, it is significant that Î¸ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï applies to Typhonâs heads in Hes. Th. 827â828, 855â856.

13Â Â Î¦á½¹ÏÎºÎ¿Î¹á¾½ á¼Î¼Î±á½»ÏÏÏÎµÎ½ Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï âhe weakened Phorcusâ raceâ. Ex Graeco ipso cf. Hes. Op. 284 ÏÎ¿á¿¦ Î´á½³ Ïâ á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏÎ¿Ïá½³ÏÎ· Î³ÎµÎ½Îµá½´ Î¼ÎµÏá½¹ÏÎ¹ÏÎ¸Îµ Î»á½³Î»ÎµÎ¹ÏÏÎ±Î¹.

According to Hes. Th. 270â274, the Gorgons are Phorcusâ daughters; conversely, in Eur. Ion 989 (cf. Theon P.Â Oxy. 2536, as per Calvani 1973) Medusa is the daughter of Earth (Îá¿). Pindar follows the genealogy found in Hesiod, cf. also fr.Â 70a.15â17 (= Dith. 1.15â17). According to the most common account of the mythological episode, Perseus also overcomes another group of Phorcusâ daughters, the Graeae, sisters of the Gorgons (Hes. Th. 270â274), on his way to Medusa. For this reason, it is debated which daughters of Phorcus are referred to at 13. This matter is further complicated by the interpretation of the verb á¼Î¼Î±á½»ÏÏÏÎµÎ½. Î£ P. 12.23 Dr. glosses it as á¼ Ïá½±Î½Î¹ÏÎµ âmade disappear (: killed)â and identifies Î¦á½¹ÏÎºÎ¿Î¹(Î¿) Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï with the Gorgons (Ïá½°Ï ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½Î±Ï, cf. also Î£ P. 12.24b Dr.). This interpretation is inconsistent with our context: Perseus only kills Medusa, while her sisters, who, according to Hesiod, are immortal, do not die. In P. 12, Pindar specifies that Euryale survives and performs a goos for her decapitated sister. Î£ P. 12.24a, c, and d Dr. provide a different explanation and seem to confuse the Gorgons and the Graeae. Accordingly, Perseus decapitates Medusa and âblindsâ (á¼Ïá½»ÏÎ»ÏÏÎµÎ½) âthe other twoâ, supposedly, the Graeae (?), who shared one eye, cf., among other sources, Aeschl. TrGF 262, preserving a version of the story in which Perseus throws the eye of the Graeae in Lake Tritonis. Finally, Î£ P. 12.24e Dr. identifies Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï as â(Phorcusâ) daughterâ, i.e. Medusa (for this use cf. P. 3.41, in which Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï refers to Asclepius; Soph. Ant. 1117+).

Modern commentators are divided on the matter: for Pavese 1991:89, Segal 1995:11 and Bernardini 2006⁴:676, Pindar is referring to the Gorgons; according to Farnell 1932, Burton 1962:29, and Nikolaev 2014:123, Pindar is referring to both the Graeae and the Gorgons; according to Gildersleeve 1885 ad P. 12.13 and Christ 1896, Pindar is talking about the Graeae. Two objections can be raised to this latter hypothesis: (a) the content of 11â12 can be summarized as follows: Perseus killed Medusa and brought death to Seriphus; 13â16 are introduced by á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ âindeedâ and seem to repeat, in varied form, the content of the preceding verses, (b) mythographic sources about the Graeae mention them as the ones impeding the way to the Gorgons (cf. Dolcetti 2004 on Pher. 43 with reference to alternative traditions about Perseusâ encounter with the Graeae). In fact, all sources in our possession mention that Perseus meets the Graeae before reaching the Gorgonsâ abode, not after. At this point of Pindarâs narration the hero is moving towards Seriphus and has already met the Gorgons.

The interpretation of á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏá½¹Ï is crucial for clarifying this textual detail. The verb is a denominative, based on the adj. á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏá½¹Ï âweak, faint, obscureâ (of Îµá¼´Î´ÏÎ»Î¿Î½, Od. 4.84+, Î½ÎµÎºá½»Ï, Sapph. 55.4 V) and thus means âto make (smth./smbd.) á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏá½¹Ï (obscure, weak)â. The family of Gk. words to which á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏá½¹Ï and á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏá½¹Ï belong has been convincingly etymologized by Nikolaev 2014: á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏá½¹Ï reflects *nÌ¥-meh₂uÌ¯-r-o-,³⁷ from the IE root *meh₂- âgreat, largeâ (cf., among others, Gk. Â°Î¼ÏÏÎ¿Ï âgreat, famousâ, Gmc. *mÄra- âfamousâ, ORuss. [Vladi]mÄr). A meaning âto weakenâ perfectly suits the Pindaric passage and supports the identification of âprogeny of Phorcusâ as âthe Gorgonsâ or even as âthe entire progeny of Phorcus, i.e. the Gorgons + the Graeaeâ. This explanation is also consistent with the most common value of Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï in Pindar (cf. Slater 1969 s.v. Î³á½³Î½Î¿Ï) âkin, people, descendantsâ: by killing Medusa Perseus âweakened Phorcusâ progenyâ, but he did not completely extinguish it.

14Â Â Î»ÏÎ³Ïá½¹Î½ Ïá¾½ á¼ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Î½ Î Î¿Î»ÏÎ´á½³ÎºÏá¾³ Î¸á¿ÎºÎµ âand he made the feast repentful (lit. mournful) for Polydectesâ.³⁸ The term á¼ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï designates a banquet to which every participant contributes with a share (cf. LfrE s.v. á¼ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï). For [to make (Ïá½·Î¸Î·Î¼Î¹)âX_acc.âÎ»ÏÎ³Ïá½¹Ï_acc.pred.] cf. Eur. Med. 399 Î»ÏÎ³ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î¸á½µÏÏ Î³á½±Î¼Î¿ÏÏ.

According to [Apollod.] 2.36 (cf. Tzet. Î£ Lyc. 838) Polydectes asked Perseus to bring him Medusaâs head, because this would be his nuptial gift to Hippodameia, daughter of Oenomaus. PrellerâRobert 1921â1924⁴: IIÂ 233, fn. 3, propose that this second banquet (i.e. the á¼ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï of P. 12) is the continuation of the first one. As clarified by Theonâs hypomnema (P.Â Oxy. 2536), Pindar is probably referring to a banquet, which took place after Perseus had collected the Gorgonâs head (cf. also Î£ P. 10.72a Dr.) and not, as suggested by Î£ P. 12.25a Dr., to the cena collaticia, at which Polydectes had requested Medusaâs head from Perseus (Bernardini 1971).

14â15Â Â Î¼Î±ÏÏá½¹Ï Ïá¾½ á¼Î¼ÏÎµÎ´Î¿Î½ Î´Î¿ÏÎ»Î¿Ïá½»Î½Î±Î½ Ïá½¹ Ïá¾½ á¼Î½Î±Î³ÎºÎ±á¿Î¿Î½ Î»á½³ÏÎ¿Ï â[he made repentful] the constant bondage of his mother, and her bed forced by necessityâ.³⁹ Gk. Î»á½³ÏÎ¿Ï is a metonymic designation for âsexual unionâ, cf. P. 3.99, P. 4.51, P. 11.24. Polydectes had made Danae his concubine (APÂ III 2.1, Hyg. Fab. 63.5). Hence, their union is á¼Î½Î±Î³ÎºÎ±á¿Î¿Î½ âforced by necessityâ. The entire verse has a parallel in fr.Â 70d.15 (= Dith. 4.15) [ ]ÏÌ£á½»ÏÎµÏÎµ{Î½} Î¼Î±ÏÏá½· || [ ].Î±Î½ Î»á½³ÏÎµá½± Ïâ á¼Î½Î±[Î³]ÎºÌ£Î±á¿Î± Î´Î¿Î»Ì£[âwas planting for the mother â¦ and the forced bedâ, which refers to Perseusâ and Danaeâs story.⁴⁰

16Â Â Îµá½ÏÎ±Ïá½±Î¿Ï ÎºÏá¾¶ÏÎ± ÏÏÎ»á½±ÏÎ±Î¹Ï ÎÎµÎ´Î¿á½·ÏÎ±Ï âwhen he took out the head of strong-cheeked Medusaâ.⁴¹ The adj. Îµá½Ïá½±ÏÎ±Î¿Ï (cf. Îµá½Ïá½±Ïá¾³Î¿Ï, on which see Forssman 1966:152â153) is one of the two Pindaric compounds with scm Â°ÏÎ±ÏÎ±Î¿Ï [on which cf. Peters 1980:295â298], cf. ÏÎ±Î»ÎºÎ¿Ïá½±ÏÎ±Î¿Ï âbronze-cheekedâ (P. 1.44, N. 7.71). It might in principle be compared to ÎºÎ±Î»Î»Î¹Ïá½±Ïá¿Î¿Ï âbeautiful-cheekedâ (Il. 1.143+) because possessive compounds with a fcm Îµá½Â° often overlap compounds with a fcm ÎºÎ±Î»Î»Î¹Â° (Massetti 2019:47â56, e.g. Îµá½ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½Î¿Ï Ïá¾½ á¼ÏÏÎ¿Î´á½·ÏÎ·Ï, Od. 8.267+ : â¨ÎºÎ±Î»Î»Î¹ÏÏÎµ[Ïá½±]Î½Î¿Ì á¼ÏÏÎ¿Î´á½·ÏÎµÌÏâ©, ceg 454.3 (Nestorâs Cup)+ [Cassio 1994, Valerio 2017]). The parallel may be supported by Hes. Th. 270, in which ÎºÎ±Î»Î»Î¹Ïá½±Ïá¿Î¿Ï applies to the Graeae, cf. West 1966:244â245, who points out the difference between Hesiodâs and Pherecydesâ traditions about the Graeae.

Bernardini 2006⁴:677 proposes a meaning âstrong-cheekedâ (It. dalle forti guance), stressing the absence of a âgood-looking Medusaâ in the iconography contemporary to Pindar. A tradition about âbeautiful Medusaâ is attested in a later age (cf. Attic 5th c. BCE red-figure pelike, Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, New York; Cic. Verr. IVÂ 56.124, Ov. Met. 4.793, Serv. Aen. 6.289, Myth. Vat. IÂ 130â131, IIÂ 112; on the genesis of the motif of the âbeautifulâ Gorgon see Zolotnikova 2016, 2019). According to Î£ P. 12.24b Dr., Medusa was not beautiful but believed to be good-looking; so, she challenged Athena, who punished the maidenâs á½Î²ÏÎ¹Ï. Moreover, Î£ P. 12.35a Dr. glosses ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½±Î»Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï as á¼°ÏÏÏÏá½¹Ï, supporting Bernardiniâs (2006⁴) claim. In favour of the proposed translation âstrong-cheekedâ, Bernardini 2006⁴:677 refers to the use of Îµá½á½½Î»ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï in P. 9.17. In this passage, the epithet applies to Cyrene who is fighting against a lion. Although I concur with Gentiliâs and Bernardiniâs (2006⁴) translation âstrong-cheekedâ in P. 12.16, I do not consider the use of Îµá½á½½Î»ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï in P. 9.17 a convincing parallel. Nothing prevents us from imagining that Cyrene appears beautiful while she is fighting with a lion. Î£ P. 9.31 Dr. glosses Îµá½á½½Î»ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï as Î»ÎµÏÎºá½¹ÏÎ·ÏÏÏ âhaving white armsâ, probably influenced by Î»ÎµÏÎºá½½Î»ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï âwhite-armedâ, regularly applying to Hera and Persephone in traditional hexameter poetry, i.e. to two goddesses whose physical strength is not regularly emphasized. Akhunova 2020:12â13 makes the case that Îµá½Ïá½±ÏÎ±Î¿Ï refers to the âidea of the strain required [viz. to the Gorgons] to produce a soundâ. This explanation, however, does not take into account that Îµá½Ïá½±ÏÎ±Î¿Ï applies to dead Medusa and not Euryale, who is said to utter the lament (20â21).

Heyne 1824 proposes a reading ÏÏÎ»á½±ÏÎ±Î¹Ï (cf. ÏÏÎ»á½±Ï), while the mss. preserve ÏÏÎ»á½µÏÎ±Î¹Ï (Î), ptc. to ÏÏÎ»á½³Ï, defended by Forssman (1966:157â158), ÏÏÎ»á½µÏá¾³Ï (G) or ÏÏÎ»á½µÏÎ±Ï (rell. codd.). Burton 1962:29â30, Pavese 1991:90, and Segal 1995:13, fn. 14 argue that the verb means âto beheadâ. Hence, Pindar would be referring to the decapitation of Medusa, which is first described in Hes. Th. 280 Î ÎµÏÏÎµá½ºÏ ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á½´Î½ á¼ÏÎµÎ´ÎµÎ¹ÏÎ¿Ïá½¹Î¼Î·ÏÎµÎ½. However, according to Slater (1969 s.v. ÏÏÎ»á½±Ï), the verb means âto take outâ (cf. Il. 4.105+). This interpretation is supported by Theonâs commentary to the passage (P.Â Oxy. 2536, cf. Angeli Bernadini 1971): Pindar is thus focusing on the moment in which Perseus takes Medusaâs head out of the Îºá½·Î²Î¹ÏÎ¹Ï and shows it to the inhabitants of Seriphus.

17Â Â Ïá¼±á½¸Ï ÎÎ±Î½á½±Î±Ï âDanaeâs sonâ. Cf. [Hes.] Sc. 216 ÎÎ±Î½á½±Î·Ï Ïá½³ÎºÎ¿Ï, P. 10.45 ÎÎ±Î½á½±Î±Ï â¦ ÏÎ±á¿Ï; ÎÎ±Î½Î±á¿Î´Î·Ï in [Hes.] Sc. 229. For Danae in P. 12 as the âanti-Clytaemnaestraâ (P. 11), cf. Phillips 2016:241.⁴²

17â18Â Â Ïá½¸Î½ á¼Ïá½¸ ÏÏÏÏÎ¿á¿¦ ÏÎ±Î¼á½²Î½ Î±á½ÏÎ¿Ïá½»ÏÎ¿Ï || á¼Î¼Î¼ÎµÎ½Î±Î¹ âwho, it is said (lit. we say), was (born) from self-flowing goldâ. The account concerning Danaeâs conception is preserved by several authors (Il. 14.319, Aeschl. TrGF 46â47a, Soph. TrGF 165â170, Eur. TrGF 316â330, Simon. 38, cf. [Apollod.] 2.34, D.S. 9.4, Ov. Met. 4.607â¯ff., Pli. HN IIIÂ 9.56, Tzet. Î£ Lyc. 838). When Zeus fell in love with Danae, who had been walled in by her father Acrisius in an unreachable place, he took the shape of golden rain to lay with her. Pindar (I. 7.5â7) preserves a similar story about Alcmena. The verb á¿¥á½³Ï commonly describes Zeusâ accomplishment in the Danae episode, cf. Pher. 43, Isocr. Hel. 59.5, Eur. TrGF 228a. On the âgolden rainâ and its possible meanings cf. Radermacher 1922, Cantilena 1990 (on O. 7), Garelli 2009. NewmanâNewman 1984:87, fn. 2 suggest that the reference to âself-flowing goldâ may be a âpun on the victorâs famous namesake, who turned everything into goldâ, just like in Ov. Met. 11.116â117 ille etiam liquidis palmas ubi laverat undis, || unda fluens palmis Danaen eludere posset.

Pindar attests three compounds with fcm Î±á½ÏÎ¿Â° âselfâ: Î±á½Ïá½¹ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï, Î±á½Ïá½¹Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï âspontaneous, of oneâs own accordâ (with *Â°mnÌ¥-to-, P. 4.60, cf. also Il. 2.408+), Î±á½Ïá½¹ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï âself-engenderedâ (*Â°b^huh₂-to-, P. 3.47, Trag. adesp. IÂ 5+) and two compounds with scm Â°ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï (Â°*[s]ru-to-): Î±á½Ïá½¹ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï âself-flowingâ and á¼Î¼Ïá½·ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï âflown around, i.e. surrounded by streamsâ (I. 1.8, fr.Â 350). Îá½Ïá½¹ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï can be compared to ÏÏÏÏá½¹Ï(Ï)ÏÏÎ¿Ï âgold-streamingâ or âflowing as goldâ, which applies to Perseusâ birth in Soph. Ant. 950 and Eur. TrGF 228a (cf. von PrellerâRobert 1921â1924⁴: IIÂ 230, fn. 4).

The âinclusiveâ 1.pl. ÏÎ±Î¼á½³Î½ contrasts with the 1.sg. Î±á¼°Ïá½³Ï. It is thus possible to recognize here an opposition between the performers (âI entreatâ, Î±á¼°Ïá½³Ï) and the Panhellenic public (ÏÎ±Î¼á½³Î½ âwe sayâ, i.e. âit is saidâ), who is familiar with the myth of Perseusâ birth.

18â19Â Â á¼Î»Î»á¾½ á¼ÏÎµá½¶ á¼Îº ÏÎ¿á½»ÏÏÎ½ Ïá½·Î»Î¿Î½ á¼Î½Î´ÏÎ± Ïá½¹Î½ÏÎ½ || á¼ÏÏá½»ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿ âbut when she had rescued (her) beloved man from those troublesâ, with á¼ÏÎµá½· meaning âwhen, afterâ (pace KÃ¶hnken 1976:263, fn. 37). For á¼Îº â¦ Ïá½¹Î½ÏÎ½ á¼ÏÏá½»ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿ cf. Alc. 350.4 Îµá½Ïá½»ÏÎ±Î¿ Î´â á¼Îº Ïá½¹Î½ÏÎ½; for á¼Î½Î´ÏÎ± á¼ÏÏá½»ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿ cf. Od. 5.484 á¼Î½Î´ÏÎ±Ï á¼ÏÏÏÎ¸Î±Î¹. The collocation Ïá½·Î»Î¿Ï á¼Î½á½µÏ is attested in hexam. (Il. 14.504+) and Pindar (P. 4.1, P. 5.123, P. 9.64, N. 7.62, N. 8.42, I. 6.18).

19Â Â ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¿Ï Î±á½Î»á¿¶Î½ ÏÎµá¿¦ÏÎµ Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Î½ Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï âthe maiden built a melody with all the voices of the pipesâ. Î Î±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¿Ï âvirgin/maidenâ is a common designation of Athena (cf. also O. 13.71), who, together with Hestia and Artemis, is one of the three Olympian virgin goddesses (cf. HHÂ 5.7â30).

Gk. ÏÎµá½»ÏÏ âto makeâ is a derivative of the IE root *d^heuÌ¯g^h- (âtreffenâ cf. liv² 148â149, iew 271, underlying both Gk. ÏÎµá½»ÏÏ and ÏÏÎ³Ïá½±Î½Ï), from which, among other terms, also OIr. dÃºan âpoemâ [*d^h(e)uÌ¯g^hnÄ-] is derived (Watkins 1976). The verb ÏÎµá½»ÏÏ is constructed with a direct object meaning âsong/hymn/voiceâ in several passages of Gk. archaic poetry, cf. P. 1.4 (á¼Î¼Î²Î¿Î»á½±Ï) and, ex Graeco ipso, Od. 10.118 (Î²Î¿á½µ), Od. 24.198 (á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½µ), Aeschl. Sept. 835 (Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï), Ion 1.5 (á¼Î»ÎµÎ³Îµá¿Î¿Î½). Moreover, the compound Î¼ÎµÎ»Î¹ÏÏá½¹ÏÎµÏÎºÏÎ¿Ï âmade/constructed by the beesâ refers to the poetâs song in fr.Â 152, while Î¼ÎµÎ»Î¹ÏÎµÏÏá½µÏ âmade of honeyâ applies to the spring from which songs flow in Ba. 29.14. The latter compound partially matches Ved. madhudÃºgha- âmilking out honeyâ (RVÂ 6.70.5b) and madhudoghÃ¡- âid.â (RVÂ 7.101.1b) with scmâ¯s Â°dÃºgha- and Â°doghÃ¡- reflecting Â°d^hÃºg^h-o- and Â°*d^houÌ¯g^h-Ã³-, and fcm madhuÂ° âhoneyâ (: Gk. Î¼á½³Î¸Ï), semantically overlapping Gk. Î¼á½³Î»Î¹ âid.â (as a recent reference, cf. Massetti 2019:3â4). The metaphor âto fashion a song/poem/celebrationâ (á¼ÏÎ¿Ï, Îºá¿¶Î¼Î¿Ï) is expressed in Pindar by means of a variety of lexemes for âto make/create/fashionâ (cf. also the set of metaphors in which the construction of a poem is compared to that of a chariot, Gk. á¼ÏÎ¼Î± [*Har-s(-)mnÌ¥-], the âobject, whose different parts are joined togetherâ, cf. Steiner 1986:52â65, Massetti 2019:192â194). In particular, Ïá½³ÎºÏÏÎ½ âfashionerâ, a nominal derivative of IE *tetÆ- âto fashionâ (cf. liv² 638, iew 1058â1059, cf. [á¼ÏÎ¿Ï_acc.sg.âÏÎ±ÏÎ±ÏÎµÎºÏÎ±á½·Î½Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹] in Od. 14.131, [Ïá½³ÎºÏÏÎ½âÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¹Î¿Î½_gen.pl.] in P. Oxy. 2389, fr.Â 9.8â10 (maybe by Pindar, cf. Lobel 1957 and now Recchia 2017), [Ïá½³ÎºÏÏÎ½âÎºá¿¶Î¼Î¿Ï_gen.pl.] in Pi. N. 3.4) combines with *Har- âto join, arrangeâ (IEÂ 1.*h₂er- in liv² 269â270, iew 55â58) in P. 3.113â114. The verb á¼Î½Î±ÏÎ¼á½¹Î¶Ï applies to the semantic field of âsung celebrationâ in I. 1.16 (á¼Î½Î±ÏÎ¼á½¹Î¾Î±Î¹ Î½Î¹Î½ á½Î¼Î½á¿· âto arrange/fit him [: the winner] a hymnâ), O. 3.5 (ÏÏÎ½á½°Î½ á¼Î½Î±ÏÎ¼á½¹Î¾Î±Î¹ ÏÎµÎ´á½·Î»á¿³), cf. also [á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½µ_acc.sg.â(ÏÏÎ½)á¼ÏÎ±Ïá½·ÏÎºÏ] in HHÂ 3.164 and [Î³á¾¶ÏÏÏ_acc.âá¼ÏÎ±Ïá½·ÏÎºÏ] in Simon. 595.3â4. Both collocations have Old Indic and Iranian comparanda: taká¹£ occurs with an object [song/hymn], which may be expressed through different lexemes, namely: brÃ¡hman- âprayerâ (RVÂ 1.62.13b+), dhÄ«Ì- âpoetic vision/poetic insightâ (RVÂ 1.109.1d+), mÃ¡nman- âpoemâ (RVÂ 2.19.8ab), mÃ¡ntra- âpoemâ (RVÂ 7.7.6b+), stÃ³ma- âpraiseâ (RVÂ 5.2.11b+), vÃ¡cas- âpoetic wordâ (RVÂ 6.32.1d+), cf. YAv. vacataÅ¡ti- âstropheâ (YÂ 58.8+) and [taÅ¡âmÄÏra-] (YÂ 29.7b), on which cf. Schmitt 1967:14, 297â298, Darmesteter 1878. OInd. [sÃ¡m-rÌ¥ âto arrange togetherââlaudandus_acc.âdhÄ«Ì-_instr.] parallels the structure of á¼Î½Î±ÏÎ¼á½¹Î¾Î±Î¹ Î½Î¹Î½ á½Î¼Î½á¿· (I. 1.16), cf. RVÂ 3.11.2cd hÃ³tÄram â¦ dhiyÄÌ â¦ sÃ¡m rÌ¥á¹vati â(the chanters) bring together with their poetic insight the Hotar [= Agni]â (JamisonâBrereton 2014, modified by the author).

19Â Â Î±á½Î»á¿¶Î½ â¦ Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Î½ Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï. Note the âpun-likeâ tautometric position of Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï (11) and Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï (19).⁴³ The term Î±á½Î»á½¹Ï designates both the aulos and wind-instrumentsâ pipes, cf. Î±á½Î»Î¿á½¶ ÏÎ·ÎºÏá½·Î´Î¿Ï (ig iv.53, Aegina). The aulos consisted of two bored pipes, which were played simultaneously. Thus, the genitive Î±á½Î»á¿¶Î½ can be interpreted as a genitive of possession, cf. Gentiliâs (2006⁴) translation âuna melodia â¦ con tutte le voci dellâauloâ, with which I align, or as a genitive of relationship, cf. Race 1997a âa melody with every sound for pipesâ. In two other Pindaric passages (O. 7.12, I. 5.27), Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Ï is connected with the aulos (on the topic cf. Kaimio 1977:148â149, Wilson 1999, Martin 2003), a musical instrument which Uhlig (2019:111) defines as âa tool made of voiceâ. Differently, Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Ï applies to âhymenaeusâ in P. 3.17 and to the Ïá½³Î»ÏÏ in Men. Leuk. 6. According to PapadopoulouâPirenne-Delforge 2001 (cf. also Barker 1984:57, Lasserre 1954:35) the pamphÅnon melos could be produced through the partial obstruction of the holes or the control of the pressure exerted on the aulosâ reed. This hypothesis does not seem to find any support in the material evidence. Earlier types of auloi, such as the exemplars from Paestum (ca.Â 480â¯BCE) and Pydna (ca.Â 580â¯BCE), display two bored pipes of different length, in which fingerholes are shifted against each other only by a single hole (Hagel 2020:424). There was a margin of tuning at disposal of the player and the double-reed mechanism allowed a series of different effects (such as overblowing, pitch fluctuation, and vibrato, cf. WysÅuchaâHagel 2023:4). Given its vague semantic employment, here the adjective Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Ï may simply refer to a Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï that exploits the full potential of the instrument.

20Â Â á½ÏÏÎ± Ïá½¸Î½ Îá½ÏÏá½±Î»Î±Ï á¼Îº ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ±Î»Î¹Î¼á¾¶Î½ Î³ÎµÎ½á½»ÏÎ½ âso that she (might re-enact the lament) from the trembling (lit. rapid) jaws of Euryaleâ. Sulzer 1961:27 provides a visual description of the verse. Hes. Th. 276 is the earliest source in our possession mentioning the names of the three Gorgons: Sthenno, Euryale and Medusa. According to Held (1998:384), by singling out Euryaleâs lamentation, Pindar is implying that the tune produced by Athena contains only two strains. Differently, I think that the focus on Euryale may be conditioned by the phonetic shape of Euryaleâs name, since the sequences ÎÎ¥Î¡(Î¡)-/-ÎÎ¥-/ÎÎ¡-/Î¡Î¥- occur five times within five consecutive verses (see below, 22).

The adj. ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½±Î»Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï, of unknown etymology (according to Chantraine delg, Frisk gew, Beekes edg s.v. ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½±Î»Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï), regularly applies to the swiftness of feet in traditional hexameter poetry (Il. 16.342+, cf. LfrE s.v. ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½±Î»Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï) and later authors (Aristoph. Thesm. 957+). The Pindaric usage is unique. It might refer to the agitated movements of Euryaleâs jaws and is thus freely translated here as trembling. For the image of the âgnashing jawsâ cf. P. 4.243, where the dragonâs jaws are described through Î»á½±Î²ÏÎ¿Ï âfuriousâ: Î´Ïá½±ÎºÎ¿Î½ÏÎ¿Ï â¦ Î»Î±Î²ÏÎ¿ÏÎ±Ïá¾¶Î½ Î³ÎµÎ½á½»ÏÎ½, cf. also Eur. HF 253 Î»á½±Î²ÏÎ¿Î½ Î´Ïá½±ÎºÎ¿Î½ÏÎ¿Ï â¦ Î³á½³Î½ÏÎ½.⁴⁴

21Â Â ÏÏÎ¹Î¼ÏÎ¸á½³Î½ÏÎ± Ïá½ºÎ½ á¼Î½ÏÎµÏÎ¹ Î¼Î¹Î¼á½µÏÎ±Î¹Ïá¾½ á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½ â(so that) she might re-enact with instruments the loud (lit. high-screaming) lament that was extracted (from Euryaleâs jaws)â. The passage emphasizes the acoustic dimension of Euryaleâs lament. According to Vernant 1985 and Segal 1994, 1998, the association with loud sounds is a distinctive trait of the Gorgons.

For ÏÏÎ¹Î¼ÏÎ¸á½³Î½ÏÎ± â¦ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½ cf. Aeschl. Sept. 84 ÏÏá½·Î¼ÏÏÎµÎ¹ Î²Î¿á½±Î½. The verb ÏÏá½·Î¼ÏÏÏ (âto nearâ in Homer, cf. LfrE s.v. ÏÏá½·Î¼ÏÏÏ) is here constructed with á¼Îº + gen. (cf.Â 20) and means âto force fromâ (Slater 1969 s.v. ÏÏá½·Î¼ÏÏÏ), cf. Hsch. Ï 743 HC ÏÏá½·(Î¼)ÏÏÎµÏÎ¸Î±Î¹Î â¦ á¼ÎºÎ²Î±Î»Îµá¿Î½ âthrow out/extract fromâ. Akhunova 2020:10, instead, renders: âthe lament brought up close to the swift jaws and [coming] out of themâ, suggesting that this description hints at the âsensitive adjustments in pressure of the reedâ that an aulete had to make while playing. This interpretation presupposes an overlap between Athena and Euryale. But the use of Î¼Î¹Î¼á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ makes it unlikely that such an overlap exists (see below). As a parallel for Ïá½ºÎ½ á¼Î½ÏÎµÏÎ¹ instead of the âsimple instrumentalâ (á¼Î½ÏÎµÏÎ¹), Bernardini (2006⁴:679) proposes P. 4.39.

As stressed by Bernardini 2006⁴:679 (contra KÃ¶hnken 1976:95, fn. 9), Athena is the subject of Î¼Î¹Î¼á½µÏÎ±Î¹Ï(Î¿). According to Burton 1962:26 Î¼Î¹Î¼á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ hints at the expressive possibilities of the aulos, while Schlesinger 1968:278 argues that the verb refers to the nature of the artistic creation. In my view, this claim is supported by further Greek poetic parallels.

As emphasized by Gentili (1971) and Palmisciano (2017:186â188, 2022:107â108), in Pindar Î¼Î¹Î¼á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ denotes the act of creating an artistic work (a musical or dance performance), by re-enacting a non-artistic model, such as a non-articulated sound or a non-choreographed movement,⁴⁵ cf. fr.Â 94b.13â15 ÏÎµÎ¹Ïá¿Î½Î± Î´á½² Îºá½¹Î¼ÏÎ¿Î½ | Î±á½Î»á½·ÏÎºÏÎ½ á½Ïá½¸ Î»ÏÏá½·Î½ÏÎ½ | Î¼Î¹Î¼á½µÏÎ¿Î¼á¾½ á¼Î¿Î¹Î´Î±á¿Ï âI shall re-enact in my songs, to the accompaniment of lotus pipes, (that) sirenâs clashâ; fr.Â 107a Î ÎµÎ»Î±ÏÎ³á½¸Î½ á¼µÏÏÎ¿Î½ á¼¢ Îºá½»Î½Î± || á¼Î¼ÏÎºÎ»á½±Î¹Î±Î½ á¼Î³ÏÎ½á½·á¿³ || á¼Î»ÎµÎ»Î¹Î¶á½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î´á½¶ Î¼Î¹Î¼á½³Î¿ ÎºÎ±Î¼Ïá½»Î»Î¿Î½ Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï Î´Î¹á½½ÎºÏÎ½ âre-enact the Pelasgian horse or a dog from Amyclae as you shake with your foot in the contest and drive forward the curved songâ (on the ÎºÎ±Î¼Ïá½»Î»Î¿Î½ Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï cf. Franklin 2013:227â229). Below, I argue that an analogous idea underlies a non-Pindaric parallel, HHÂ 3.161â164, which displays a number of similarities with P. 12.19â21:

HHÂ 3.161â164

á½Î¼Î½Î¿Î½ á¼Îµá½·Î´Î¿ÏÏÎ¹Î½, Î¸á½³Î»Î³Î¿ÏÏÎ¹ Î´á½² Ïá¿¦Î»â á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÏÎ½.

Ïá½±Î½ÏÏÎ½ Î´á¾¿ á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÏÎ½ ÏÏÎ½á½°Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÎºÏÎµÎ¼Î²Î±Î»Î¹ÏÏá½»Î½

Î¼Î¹Î¼Îµá¿ÏÎ¸á¾¿ á¼´ÏÎ±ÏÎ¹Î½Î ÏÎ±á½·Î· Î´á½³ ÎºÎµÎ½ Î±á½Ïá½¸Ï á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ¿Ï

ÏÎ¸á½³Î³Î³ÎµÏÎ¸á¾¿Î Î¿á½ÏÏ ÏÏÎ¹Î½ ÎºÎ±Î»á½´ ÏÏÎ½á½±ÏÎ·ÏÎµÎ½ á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½µ

As they sing the humnos, and they enchant all different kinds of humanity. All human voices and loud sounds they know how to re-enact [mimeisthai]. And each single person would say that his own voice was their voice. That is how their beautiful song has each of its parts fitting together [sunarariskein].
transl. Nagy 2013:230, modified by the author

The similarities between P. 12.19â21 and HHÂ 3.162â164 are remarkable, although the passages deal with different artistic genres. Both texts ultimately concern the creation and the nature of a piece of art, namely: a choral performance, in the case of the Delian maidens (on which cf. Nagy 2006, 2013), a musical piece (the nomos kephalÄn pollÄn) in Pythian Twelve. Three common traits between the passages must be highlighted in this context:

the performance of the Delian maidens and that of Athena are both of imitative nature, more specifically,
they figure as the re-enactment of a sound, which does not have a precise intonation (ÎºÏÎµÎ¼Î²Î±Î»Î¹ÏÏá½»Î½ in HHÂ 3.162,⁴⁶ Euryaleâs á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½ in P. 12.21).
the transition from âsoundâ/ânoiseâ or âspeechâ to âsong/performanceâ (ÎºÎ±Î»á½µ â¦ á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½µ, HHÂ 3.164; Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½, P. 12.8) happens through a process of construction (ÏÏÎ½á½±ÏÎ·ÏÎµÎ½, HHÂ 3.164, on which cf. Nagy 2006, Î¿á½Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ Î¸Ïá¿Î½Î¿Î½ Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³Î¾Î±Î¹Ï[Î±], P. 12.8, ÏÎµá¿¦ÏÎµ Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Î½ Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï, P. 12.19), which involves a great deal of skill (ÏÎ±á½·Î· Î´á½³ ÎºÎµÎ½ Î±á½Ïá½¸Ï á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ¿Ï || ÏÎ¸á½³Î³Î³ÎµÏÎ¸á¾¿[á½-], HHÂ 3.164; Ïá½³ÏÎ½á¾³, P. 12.6).

From a mere phraseological point of view, Ïá½±Î½ÏÏÎ½ á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÏÎ½ ÏÏÎ½á½±Ï (HHÂ 3.162) matches Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Ï; Î¼Î¹Î¼Îµá¿ÏÎ¸á¾¿ á¼´ÏÎ±ÏÎ¹Î½ (HHÂ 3.163) matches Î¼Î¹Î¼á½µÏÎ±Î¹Ï(Î¿) (P. 12.21) and the use of ÏÏÎ½Î±ÏÎ±Ïá½·ÏÎºÏ in connection with á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½µ (HHÂ 3.164) is comparable to that of ÏÎµá½»ÏÏ in P. 12.19, since the metaphor âsongâ : âfashioned objectâ may underlie both expressions (see above, 19). Finally, I would add, the Delian maidens perform a á½Î¼Î½Î¿Ï (HHÂ 3.161), etymologically, âa woven compositionâ (as per Eichner 1979:205), while Athena âbraidsâ (Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³Î¾Î±Î¹Ï[Î±], P. 12.8) a thrÄnos. As Phillips 2013 points out, in the ode the theme of mimeticity could be regarded as multiplied: Athena creates the new nomos by imitating Euryale, Pindar imitates Athena and, in turn, Pythian Twelve may imitate the âtune of many headsâ.

21Â Â á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½ â(the) loud (lit. high-screaming) lamentâ. Ex Graeco ipso cf. Aeschl. Pers. 947 ÎºÎ»á½±Î³Î¾Ï â¦ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½. As Steiner 2013:179 points out, ÎºÎ»Î±Î³Î³á½µ hints at the âanimalistic quality of these soundsâ since the term often denotes cries of birds and other animals. Significantly, in fr.Â 70b.18 (= Dith. 2.18) ÎºÎ»Î±Î³Î³á½µ applies to the snakes of Athenaâs aegis. The compound á¼ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ (hapax eiremenon) is glossed as Î¼ÎµÎ³Î±Î»Î¿ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Î½ by Theon (P.Â Oxy. 2536). It exhibits a scm Â°ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÎºÏÎ±Ï*, which has an active meaning (on -ÏÎ±Ï formations cf. Leukart 1994). GarcÃa RamÃ³n (2011a) identifies phraseological and onomastic parallels for the Pindaric collocation, namely: HHÂ 2.82 Î¼á½³Î³Î±Î½ Î³á½¹Î¿Î½, the Myc. mn E-ri-ko-wo (PY An 656.2, Ep 212.2, Jn 845.7, 944, with a fcm E-riÂ° from IE *seriÂ° âhighâ [loc.], cf. Willi 1999), which may reflect /Erigowos/ and so partially match both [Î¼á½³Î³Î±_adv.âÎ²Î¿á½±Ï] (Il. 17.334) and the epithet á¼ÏÎ¹Î²á½¹Î±Ï (âwhose cry is highâ, Dionysus in Pi. fr.Â 75.10). The entire Pindaric iunctura is also comparable to Î³á½¹Î¿Î½ á½Î¾ÏÎ²á½¹Î±Î½ (Aeschl. Ag. 57).

22Â Â Îµá½ÏÎµÎ½ Î¸Îµá½¹ÏÎ á¼Î»Î»á½± Î½Î¹Î½ Îµá½ÏÎ¿á¿Ïá¾½(Î±) âThe goddess invented it, but invented (lit. inventing) it â¦â Greengard 1980:24 highlights the chiastic disposition of the members of the collocation [goddessâfindâ¯s/inventâ¯s], namely: Î Î±Î»Î»á½°Ï á¼ÏÎµá¿¦ÏÎµ (7) and Îµá½ÏÎµÎ½ Î¸Îµá½¹Ï (22). On Îµá½Ïá½·ÏÎºÏ and the poetic invention see above, 7. Uhlig 2019:109 argues that âthe iterative patterns of the ode mirror the mimetic tool at its centerâ. On the iteration of the verb with ptc. cf. Fehling 1969:146â148 (âVerkettung von SÃ¤tzen durch Partizip oder Nebensatzâ). The quasi-allitterative repetition of the sequence ÎÎ¥Î¡- and ÎÎ¡- between 16 and 22 stands out, cf. Î±á½ÏÎ¿Î¡Î¥ÏÎ¿Ï (17), ÎÎ¡Î¡Î¥ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿ (19), ÎÎ¥Î¡Î¥á½±Î»Î±Ï (20), ÎÎ¡Î¹ÎºÎ»á½±Î³ÏÎ±Î½ (21) ÎÎ¥Î¡ÎÎ½, ÎÎ¥Î¡Î¿á¿ÏÎ± (22).

22Â Â á¼Î½Î´Ïá½±ÏÎ¹ Î¸Î½Î±ÏÎ¿á¿Ï á¼ÏÎµÎ¹Î½ âfor mortal men to haveâ, cf. á¼Î½Î´Ïá½±ÏÎ¹ Î³Îµ Î¸Î½Î·ÏÎ¿á¿ÏÎ¹ (Il. 10.403+) and O. 1.54, O. 13.31. The collocation [mortalâman] occurs in Homer and elsewhere also as Î²ÏÎ¿Ïá½¸Ï á¼Î½á½µÏ (cf. Il. 5.604+), a variation of which is attested in P. 5.3 Î²ÏÎ¿Ïá½µÏÎ¹Î¿Ï á¼Î½á½µÏ.

23Â Â á½ Î½á½»Î¼Î±ÏÎµÎ½ ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á¾¶Î½ ÏÎ¿Î»Î»á¾¶Î½ Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Î½ âand she called it the tune of many headsâ. Gk. á½Î½Î¿Î¼á½±Î¶Ï⁴⁷ means âto give a nameâ in Pindar (Slater 1969 s.v. á½Î½ÏÎ¼á½±Î¶Ï), unlike in Homer (cf. LfrE s.v. á½Î½ÏÎ¼á½±Î¶Ï also âto call [smbd.] by nameâ).

Gk. Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï is âa specific, nameable melody, or a composition in its melodic aspect, sung or played in a formal setting in which it was conventionally appropriateâ (West 1992:216, cf. also Power 2010:215â224). In particular, the ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á¾¶Î½ ÏÎ¿Î»Î»á¾¶Î½ Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï invented by Athena is commonly identified as the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Ï. However, Phillips 2013, 2016 argues that the tune of many heads of P. 12 is the âAthena nomosâ, proposing that the final line of each strophe mimics the Athena nomosâ modulation. The invention of the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Ï was credited to Crates or Olympus (cf. Pi. fr.Â 157), who was also believed to have invented the nomos Pythikos (cf. Pra. 713, [Plut.] Mus. 1133de).

The scholia give three different explanations for the name of the ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á¾¶Î½ ÏÎ¿Î»Î»á¾¶Î½ Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï: (1) the nomos imitated the sound emitted by the numerous snakesâ heads (so Î£ P. 12.39a Dr., cf. Perrot 2012:357â360), (2) fifty choreutes accompanied the nomos (so Î£ P. 12.39b Dr.), (3) the nomos included several prooimia (so Î£ P. 12.39c Dr.). On the basis of (3), PÃ¶hlmann 2010â2011:44 suggests that the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Ï included many episodes, named prooimia by Î£ P. 12.39b Dr. As Bernardini (2006⁴:680) points out, Pindarâs text suggests that the nomos re-enacted the snakesâ hissing. Nonn. D. 40.229â231, which is inspired by P. 12, provides the same aetiological explanation (cf. chapter 6, section 3). Luisi (in GentiliâLuisi 1995:20) proposes that the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Ï, performed on a double-piped aulos, consisted in the âvirtuoso interweaving of arias passing from one reed of the aulos to another, or from one tetrachord to anotherâ or in the âinterweaving of arias in a sort of possible heterophonyâ (transl. from the Italian original by the author). Imagining that the nomos was that of such complexity appears consistent with its aetiology.

24Â Â Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³Î± Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ Î¼Î½Î±ÏÏá¿Ïá¾½ á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½ âa glory-making memento of the contests, which stir peopleâ. As pointed out by Gentili 2006⁴: xxxvii, fn. 3, to the modern reader the entire Pindaric verse may recall the wording of Od. 22.210â211, where Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹Î¿Ï and Î¼Î½Î·ÏÏá½µÏ feature at a close distance, cf. á½Ïá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹Î¿Î½ á¼Î¼Î¼ÎµÎ½â á¼Î¸á½µÎ½Î·Î½. || Î¼Î½Î·ÏÏá¿ÏÎµÏ Î´â á¼Ïá½³ÏÏÎ¸ÎµÎ½ á½Î¼á½¹ÎºÎ»ÎµÎ¿Î½ á¼Î½ Î¼ÎµÎ³á½±ÏÎ¿Î¹ÏÎ¹. However, a dependence between Pindar and the Homeric passage cannot be proved. The co-occurrence of Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ and á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½ creates a repetition with cognate terms Î»Î±Î¿á¿ÏÎ¹ and á¼Î³ÏÎ½, at 12 (see above). Greengard 1980:47 stresses that âá¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½ is the critical word in this transition from the goddess Atheneâs flute to that of the victor Midasâ.

As already touched upon (see above, 5), in Pindar Gk. Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ has a possessive (âwhose ÎºÎ»á½³Î¿Ï is goodâ) or a factitive value (âmaking ÎºÎ»á½³Î¿Ï goodâ). Î£ P. 12.42 Dr. glosses Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ as á¼Î½Î´Î¿Î¾Î¿Ï âfamousâ; but this does not necessarily speak in favour of a possessive meaning of Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³Î± since á¼Î½Î´Î¿Î¾Î¿Ï recursively glosses Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ, cf. Î£ O. 6.124b Dr. (on O. 6.76 and the role of Î§á½±ÏÎ¹Ï as âglory-makerâ through poetry cf. AdorjÃ¡ni 2014:250). I believe that the compound has a factitive value in this context (cf. chapter 10, sections 3â4). Following Bernardini (2006⁴:680), who proposes that the adjective is in hypallage, Meusel (2020:304â310) reconstructs a collocation *[Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏâá¼Î³á½½Î½] underlying 24 (cf. I. 3/4.1 Îµá½Î´á½¹Î¾Î¿Î¹Ï â¦ á¼á½³Î¸Î»Î¿Î¹Ï, Ba. 9.21 Îµá½Î´á½¹Î¾ÏÎ½ á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½). This reconstruction matches the emendations Ahlwardt 1820 and Thiersch 1820 propose to the verse: Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³ÏÎ½ Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹Î¿Î½. In turn, Meusel compares the Gk. reconstructed iunctura to Ved. [ÅrauvasÃ¡-Â âÄjÃ-] (RVÂ 7.98.4d), which would constitute an almost perfect match to the Pindaric collocation. While Gk. Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ may be transposed as [*h₁su-ÆlÃ©uÌ¯es-], Ved. ÅrauvasÃ¡- reflects a thematic vrÌ¥ddhi-derivative of ÅrÃ¡vas-; Gk. á¼Î³á½½Î½, Ved. ÄjÃ- are both derived to IE *h₁aÄ- âto lead/driveâ (cf. liv² 255â256, iew 4â5).

The referent of the entire expression Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³Î± â¦ Î¼Î½Î±ÏÏá¿Ïá¾½ á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½ is identified with the aulos by Clay 1992:523, with the Î±á½Î»Î·ÏÎ¹Îºá½´ Ïá½³ÏÎ½Î· by KÃ¶hnken 1976, and with the Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎºá½³ÏÎ±Î»Î¿Ï by Bernardini 2006⁴:681. I concur with the latter hypothesis (cf. chapterÂ 10).

24Â Â Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³Î±: The metrical interpretation of 24 is debated because of this word. The presence of Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³Î± points to an anaclastic responsion, i.e. a responsion in which a choriamb equates an epitrite (cf. Schroeder 1922:503, Wilamowitz 1921:433â434), which is accepted by Gentili 2006⁴. Schmidâs (1616) proposal to change Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³Î± in Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá¾¶, in order to keep the responsionality, is followed by the rest of modern editors (cf. SnellâMaehler 1987), while Maas [in Bowra 1930:503] defends the form Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá¾¶, interpreting it as Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³ÎµÎ± (comparing á¼Î³Î±ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½³ÎµÎ¹ in P.Â Oxy. 659.50, cf. also SchrÃ¶derâs emendation Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³ÎµÎ± with synizesis).

The acc.sg.masc. of compounds with scm ending in *euÌ¯-es- commonly appears as -á½³á¾° in Pindar, cf. á¼Î³Î±ÎºÎ»á½³Î± I. 1.34, Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³Î± cf. O. 6.76, P. 8.62, P. 9.56, N. 5.15, N. 6.29, N. 6.46, fr.Â 52b.103 [Pae. 2 = D2 Rutherford], á¼©ÏÎ±ÎºÎ»á½³Î± O. 10.16, cf. also Î½Î·Î»á½³Î± P. 1.95 (reflecting *nÄleuÌ¯es- âinescapableâ or *nÄleuÌ¯es- âpitilessâ). In two cases, the final syllable is long (-á½³á¾±), but these accusatives are always placed at the end of the verse, cf. á¼¸ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½³Î±# P. 9.88, á¼Î³Î±ÎºÎ»á½³Î±# fr.Â 52d.12 (Pae. 4.12 = D4 Rutherford). The same treatment seems also to be analogically extended to the acc.sg.masc. of Îµá½ÎµÏÎºá½µÏ, cf. Îµá½ÎµÏÎºá½³á¾±# (fr.Â 52d.45 [Pae. 4.45 = D4 Rutherford]). This compound displays a scm Â°ÎµÏÎºá½µÏ (cf. á¼ÏÎºÎ¿Ï [*serÆ-e/os-]), which shows no trace of uÌ¯-loss and possible vowel contraction. The form Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá¾¶ would thus stand out as unparalleled.

In Bowra 1930:182, Maas proposes that Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá¾¶ is based on an acc.sg. -ÎºÎ»á½³ÎµÎ±* which contracts in -ÎºÎ»Îµá¾¶, given the existence of the dat.sg. á¼Î³Î±ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ»á½³ÎµÎ¹ (fr.Â 94b.38). However, this hypothesis is unlikely. The acc.sg.masc. of an s-stem, regularly appears as -ÎºÎ»ÎµÎ± in Attic mnâ¯s with scm Â°ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ, but as -ÎµÎµÎ±, -ÎµÎ· or -Î· in other dialects (Buck 1955:39â40, 90â91). Thus, one would need to assume that Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá¾¶ is an artificial form with hyperdoric colour. For this reason, Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³á¾° is probably preferable here. Indeed, one may account for the outcome -á½³á¾° < -ÎµÎµÎ± < *-euÌ¯-es-mÌ¥ in different ways: (a) through analogy to forms attested in Gk. hexameter poetry, and (b) through analogy to s-stem adjectives. Explanation (a) works for a form like Î½Î·Î»á½³Î± Î½á½¹Î¿Î½ (P. 1.95), which echoes Î½Î·Î»á½³Î± Î¸ÏÎ¼á½¹Î½ (Il. 19.229). Phraseological analysis reveals that Î½á½¹Î¿Ï and Î¸ÏÎ¼á½¹Ï share some collocations ex Graeco ipso, cf. ÏÏÎºÎ¹Î½á½¸Ï Î½á½¹Î¿Ï (Il. 15.461) and ÏÏÎºÎ¹Î½á¿· â¦ Î¸ÏÎ¼á¿· (P. 4.73), and ex Pindaro ipso, cf. Î½á½¹Î¿Î½ á¼°Î±á½·Î½ÎµÎ¹ (P. 2.89) and Î¸ÏÎ¼á½¸Î½ á¼°Î±á½·Î½ÎµÎ¹Î½ (O. 7.43).

For the acc.sg. Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³á¾°, á¼Î³Î±ÎºÎ»á½³á¾° both explanations (a) and (b) are possible:

Homer attests two acc.sg.masc. -á½³á¾° of compounds with scm Â°ÎºÎ»á½³Î·Ï, namely: Î´ÏÏÎºÎ»á½³Î± âin disreputeâ and á¼ÎºÎ»á½³Î± âwithout gloryâ. Chantraine 1948²:7, 74 notes that the Homeric vulgate preserves Î´ÏÏÎºÎ»á½³Î± á¼ÏÎ³Î¿Ï (Il. 2.115 = Il. 9.22), á¼ÎºÎ»á½³Î± á¼Îº Î¼ÎµÎ³á½±ÏÏÎ½ (Od. 4.728) and proposes that this orthography may be explained as an âartifact of the written transmissionâ (Nussbaum 2018:269, fn. 7), which substituted Â°ÎºÎ»á½³Î± to Â°ÎºÎ»á½³Îµá¾½. This view is contested by Nussbaum (2018:298), who explains Î´ÏÏÎºÎ»á½³á¾°, á¼ÎºÎ»á½³á¾° and Î½Î·Î»á½³á¾° as âNeo-Ionicâ forms resulting from hyphaeresis (namely: V₁V₁V₂ > V₁V₂: -ÎµÎµá¾° > -Îµá¾°). At the same time, Nussbaum (2018:307) also points out that Hom. Î´ÏÏÎºÎ»á½³á¾° and á¼ÎºÎ»á½³á¾° are not metrically guaranteed, since they occur in hiatus and as a consequence the hyphaeresis is not guaranteed either. Since Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ âhaving or making good gloryâ and á¼Î³Î±ÎºÎ»á½³Î·Ï âhaving great gloryâ are antonyms of Î´ÏÏÎºÎ»á½³Î·Ï and á¼ÎºÎ»á½³Î·Ï, they may have an underlying Homeric model.
One might alternatively imagine that accusatives like Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³á¾° and á¼Î³Î±ÎºÎ»á½³á¾° are analogical to the regular uncontracted acc.sg.masc. of compounds with s-stems as scmâ¯s, i.e. -á½³á¾° < *-eh-a < *-es-mÌ¥, cf. e.g. Î¼ÎµÎ»Î±Î½ÏÎµÎ¹Ïá½³Î± O. 14.20 (Î¼ÎµÎ»Î±Î½ÏÎµÎ¹Ïá½µÏ, ÏÎµá¿ÏÎ¿Ï), Îµá½ÏÎµÎ¹Ïá½³Î± N. 7.46 (Îµá½ÏÎµÎ¹Ïá½µÏ, ÏÎµá¿ÏÎ¿Ï), Îµá½Î±Î½Î¸á½³Î± P. 2.62, Î. 7.51 (Îµá½Î±Î½Î¸á½µÏ, á¼Î½Î¸Î¿Ï), Î»ÎµÏÎºÎ±Î½Î¸á½³Î± N. 9.23 (Î»ÎµÏÎºÎ±Î½Î¸á½µÏ, á¼Î½Î¸Î¿Ï), á¼Î»Î¹ÎµÏÎºá½³Î± O. 8.25, I. 1.9 (á¼Î»Î¹ÎµÏÎºá½µÏ, á¼ÏÎºÎ¿Ï) etc. The uncontracted forms are attested in almost all dialects, except Attic.

From this analysis it follows that, in principle, P. 12.24 may contain Îµá½ÎºÎ»á½³á¾°, i.e. the accusative form of Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ. In this case, the metrical irregularity might be explained in two different ways. The verse may contain an anaclastic responsion (see above). Alternatively, as argued by Bowra (1930:182) and mentioned by Gentili (2006⁴:317), the verse may exhibit a metrical lengthening of -á¾° followed by Î»- (Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ is the next word), like the one seen in Il. 6.64 #Î¿á½ÏÎ± ÎºÎ±Ïá½° Î»Î±Ïá½±ÏÎ·Î½, cf. West 1982:15â16; on the phenomenon of a short vowel which is metrically lengthened by a resonant or a semi-vowel in Pindar cf. Christ 1867:630â631, Maas 1913:307 [= 1914:19].

24Â Â Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ Î¼Î½Î±ÏÏá¿Ïá¾½ á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½ The compound Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ is built with the same lexical material as the collocation á¼ÏÎµÏÏÎµá½»Î¿Î½ÏÎ¿ â¦ Î»Î±Î¿á½· (Il. 2.86+),⁴⁸ with mid.intr. ÏÎµá½»Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹. Moreover, it partially matches Vedic collocations of the type [to set in motion (Ved. cyav)âmen (Ved. nÃ¡r-, jÃ¡na-)/people (Ved. krÌ¥á¹£á¹Ã-)], found in RVÂ 10.50.4c, 1.37.12b, 7.19.1b. As NewmanâNewman 1984:90 point out, Athenaâs invention possesses a power that is the opposite of that of Medusaâs gaze: âthe many-headed tune eventually became, not something that immobilized men, but rather something which courted the men, into action at the gamesâ.

Gk. Î¼Î½Î±ÏÏá½µÏ is a nomen agentis based on the IE root *mneh₂- âto think toâ (cf. liv² 447, iew 726â727), which underlies both Gk. Î¼Î½á½±Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ âto wooâ and Î¼Î¹Î¼Î½á½µÏÎºÏ âto rememberâ. In principle, the term might count here as âinviterâ (cf. Î¼Î½á½±Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹) or âreminderâ (Race 1997a, cf. Î¼Î¹Î¼Î½á½µÏÎºÏ and Î£ I. 2.1a Dr., hence my translation âmementoâ), pace KÃ¶hnken 1971:140, who proposes âproclaimerâ (âKÃ¼nderâ). Ex Pindaro ipso cf. Î¼Î½Î±ÏÎ¹ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï âreminding crowns, inviting to the victoryâ (Slater 1969 s.v. Î¼Î½Î±ÏÎ¹ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï), which probably refers to á¼Î³á½½Î½ in fr.Â 19 and matches the collocation Î¼Î½Î±ÏÏá½´Ï ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ½ âreminder of crownsâ, âinviter to crowns(/victory)â (Pi. fr.Â 10).

3 Transition (25â27)

The mention of the âtune of many headsâ concludes the mythological excursus. The new transition section occupies 25â27 and thus precedes the final part of the poem. At 25, with a participle clause referred to the ÎºÎµÏÎ±Î»á¾¶Î½ ÏÎ¿Î»Î»á¾¶Î½ Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Ï, Pindar quickly shifts the focus from the occasion on which the nomos is executed (24) to the instrument on which the nomos is played (25), the aulos. Reference to single organologic components of the wind-instrument allows the poet to detach from the indistinct, blurred dimension of myth. At 26, once again by means of a relative clause, Pindar returns the ode back to earth, specifically to the Greek landscape of Orchomenos and the river Cephisus, on the banks of which the reeds used for the aulos thrive.

25Â Â Î»ÎµÏÏÎ¿á¿¦ Î´Î¹Î±Î½Î¹Ïá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ ÏÎ±Î»ÎºÎ¿á¿¦ Î¸Î±Î¼á½° ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î´Î¿Î½á½±ÎºÏÎ½ â(the tune) often passing through thin bronze and reedsâ. For Î»ÎµÏÏÎ¿á¿¦ â¦ ÏÎ±Î»ÎºÎ¿á¿¦ cf. Î»ÎµÏÏá½¹ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿Ï â¦ ÏÎ±Î»Îºá½¹Ï âvery thin bronzeâ (of a shield, Il. 20.275).

According to WysÅucha (2019:231 fn. 61, cf. also Î£ P. 12.44a), the âthin bronzeâ and the âreedsâ are a metonymy for the aulos. Differently, PapadopoulouâPirenne-Delforge 2001 propose that the verse refers to the âbronze-coatedâ aulos. After all, ÏÎ±Î»Îºá½³Î¿Ï was integrated by SnellâMaehler in fr.Â 52c.94 (Pae. 3.94 = D3 Rutherford ÏÎ±Î»Îº]á½³Î¿Ïá¾½ Î±á½Î»á¿¶Î½ á½Î¼Ïá½±Î½) on the basis of this very passage and the reference to the âbronze voiceâ of the maidens of Delphi in fr.Â 52b.100 (Pae. 2.100 = D2 Rutherford ÏÎ±Î»Îºá½³á¾³ â¦ Î±á½Î´á¾·) may also hint at an aulos accompaniment. We know that all-metal auloi existed, but there is no actual archaeological evidence for them from ancient Greece. We should therefore imagine this instrument from Pindarâs age (beginning of 5th c. BCE) as similar to one from the 1st BCEâ1st c. CE: the âTibiae Gorgaâ (two separate pipes acquired at the beginning of the 20th c. by Evan Gorga, currently under restoration, but probably coeval of the auloi from Pompeii), which were almost entirely covered with a double layer of bronze foil;⁴⁹ the tibia held by Euterpe on the Pompeian fresco from the Inn of Sulpicii Monagine (Pompeii, inv. nr. 85182). Horace (Ars 202â204, on which cf. Brink 1971:262â266) too mentions a wind-instrument covered with brass or a metal-alloy (tibia â¦ orichalco vincta, 202, cf. WysÅucha 2022) as opposed to the simple, tender tibia (tenuis simplexque, 203, cf. WysÅucha 2018:231 on the passage), companion of the choir (adspirare et adesse choris, 204).

Alternatively, 25 might refer to the components of the aulosâ upper part. In our text, the use of Î´Î¿Î½á½±ÎºÏÎ½ stands out in opposition to the possible metrical equivalent ÎºÎ±Î»á½±Î¼ÏÎ½, which, in Pindar, commonly applies to the aulosâ pipes (cf. O. 10.84, N. 5.38, fr.Â 52i.36 [Pae. 8.66 = B2 Rutherford], fr.Â 70.3). As Luisi (in GentiliâLuisi 1995:20â21) suggests, Î´á½¹Î½Î±Î¾ may hint at a special type of reed, from which the aulosâ mouthpiece was built (cf. Loscalzo 1989 on the Boeotian production). Indeed, the reed, called âhymn-makerâ (á½Î¼Î½Î¿ÏÎ¿Î¹á½¹Ï) in Eur. TrGF 100 (quoted by Theon P.Â Oxy. 2536.29â30), not the pipes, is the primary producer of the aulosâ sound. In early auloi, the mouthpiece probably consisted of two reeds, namely, âtwo trapezoidal âbladesâ fastened together to form an openingâ, which were controlled by the lips (by compression and expansion) so as to produce different sound effects (WysÅuchaâHagel 2023:3â4). Further support to this hypothesis may come from a comparison with Nonnus of Panopolis. In D. 24.38, the invention of the nomos polykephalos is said be concomitant to that of the âtype of pipes, which has the same yokeâ or âare yoked togetherâ (á½Î¼Î¿Î¶ÏÎ³á½³ÏÎ½ Ïá½»ÏÎ¿Î½ Î±á½Î»á¿¶Î½); in D. 40.227, the Phrygian auloi on which the nomos polykephalos is performed are called Î´á½·Î¶ÏÎ³ÎµÏ âhaving two yokes or a towfold yokeâ. Nonnusâ terminology can be connected to that employed by Theophrastus (Hist. Pl. 4.11.1â9), who seems to apply Î¶Îµá½»Î³Î· to mouthpieceâs parts in a general sense (in opposition to Î³Î»ÏÏÏá½·Ï, denoting a single reed, cf. WysÅuchaâHagel 2023:30). So, in Nonnus, the compounds might refer to the fact that the many-headed nomos was performed on a double-reeded, double-piped aulos (as opposed to the monocalamos), cf. chapter 6, sections 2â3. As Nonnusâ passage is likely to be based on Pindarâs Pythian Twelve, we may reconstruct that, by Nonnusâ time, our passage was interpreted as containing a reference to the aulosâ mouthpiece.

A more remote option is that Î»ÎµÏÏÎ¿á¿¦ â¦ ÏÎ±Î»ÎºÎ¿á¿¦ hints at the syrinx-mechanism, identified by Luisi (1995:26â27) as a bronze connecting-device or support that would have been added on the aulosâ mouthpiece so to allow Midas to play the aulos ÏÏá½¹Ïá¿³ Ïá½»ÏÎ¹Î³Î³Î¿Ï âin the way of the syrinxâ after the reed of his aulos had broken (Î£ P. 12 inscr. Dr.). This hypothesis should be revised in the light of most updated archaeo-musicological analyses: as Hagel (2010â2011) shows, the aulosâ syrinx designates a âspeaker holeâ, usually located in proximity to the aulosâ mouthpiece or the highest fingerhole, aimed at enabling or facilitating overblowing, i.e. switching to a higher register (cf. Howard 1893:32â35). The syrinx allowed performers to produce shrill squeaking sounds, so that, by the middle of the 4th c. BCE,⁵⁰ syringes were regularly employed by the auletes who performed the nomos Pythikos at the Pythian games, since this re-enacted the sounds of Apolloâs hissing enemy Python (cf. chapter 1, section 1). The syrinx was activated by ârotating rings with a hole that could be aligned with a hole in the core [scil. of the pipe], and sliders attached to rods, where the hole is covered by a moving plateâ (Hagel 2010â2011:500). The rings seem to have been realized in metal on auloi of Roman age. Our information on syringes of the earlier auloi is scarcer. Auloi from the Classical Age feature the syrinx, but it might have been activated by removing a wax plug (Hagel 2010â2011:503). It is tantalizing to connect a syrinx mechanism, especially if we imagine it as a bronze ring, to the execution of the nomos performed by Midas. If this piece is identified with the nomos kephalÄn pollÄn, which, just like the Pythikos, re-enacted the Gorgonsâ serpentsâ hissing sounds (see above, 9, 21), using a syrinx might have helped the performer to re-enact the Gorgonsâ snakes. Against this hypothesis speak the archaeological evidence, namely, the syringes found in the Megara auloi (dated to the first half of the 3rd c. BCE, cf. AvgerinoÃº in Terzá¸sâHagel 2022): these instruments offer the oldest (known) attested examples of syringes, which were activated by bronze rings. However, the rings were pushed away to uncover the speaker-hole. As a consequence they were not âtraversed by the soundâ (Î´Î¹Î±Î½Î¹Ïá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½).

A further, maybe more likely, possibility is that the âthin bronzeâ hints at metal reinforcing rings which are often found on the joints on bone auloi, or, maybe, to a bronze ÏÎ¿ÏÎ²ÎµÎ¹á½±, i.e. a band put round the lips of pipers to assist them regulating the sound (cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 582, Hsch. Îµ 5411 LC á¼Ïá½·ÏÎ±Î»ÎºÎ¿Î½ ÏÏá½¹Î¼Î±Î Ïá½¸ Ïá¿¶Î½ Î±á½Î»Î·Ïá¿¶Î½, Î´Î¹á½° Ïá½´Î½ ÏÎ¿ÏÎ²ÎµÎ¹á½±Î½, cf. Landels 1964:392, fn. 4). In this scenario, stating that the sound âoften passes through the reeds and thin bronzeâ would turn out to be a quite accurate description of the sound production. Pindar, who, as we know, had been trained as auletes, could have been aware of any of these details and have alluded to them in his poem.

The rare verb Î´Î¹Î±Î½Î¹Ïá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½, glossed as Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ¿ÏÎµÏá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ by Î£ P. 12.44b Dr., is an acc.masc.pr.ptc.mid. of the Î´Î¹Î±-prefixed verb Î½á½·ÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ âto comeâ (cf. O. 3.10, O. 3.34, N. 5.37), which reflects a reduplicated pr. *ni-nÌ¥s-e/o- from the IE root *nes- âto go homeâ (see above, 3 Î½Î±á½·ÎµÎ¹Ï). In all Pindaric instances, Î½á½·ÏÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ exhibits a long á¿ from 1cl *-ins- > *-Ä«s- (cf. all dialects, except Thessalic and Lesbian). Therefore, there is no reason to read Î´Î¹Î±Î½Î¹ÏÏá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ with V (Sandys 1937). For Î´Î¹Î±Î½Î¹Ïá½¹Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ â¦ Î¸Î±Î¼á½± cf. N. 5.37 Î¸Î±Î¼á½° Î½á½·ÏÎµÏÎ±Î¹ âoften comesâ. In both P. 12.25 and N. 5.37 the use of the adverb Î¸Î±Î¼á½± would stress the idea of a repeated action, which can be assumed to already be a semantic component of the reduplicated present. According to Spelman (2018:37, fn. 3) this is one of the verses in which Pindar âdescribes various sorts of poetry and poetic traditions as iterative, abiding presences in the worldâ. As stated above, I think that this verse may actually be connected to the aulosâ technique: in wind-instruments the air is breathed into the reeds and the pipes to emit the sound.

The reading Î¸Î±Î¼á½± is preserved by the majority of the mss. and by Theonâs hypomnema as a varia lectio besides Î¸á¾½á¼Î¼Î± â(passes through thin bronze) together with (the reeds)â (adopted by Gentili 2006⁴).

26Â Â ÏÎ¿á½¶ ÏÎ±Ïá½° ÎºÎ±Î»Î»á½·ÏÎ¿ÏÎ¿Î½ Î½Î±á½·Î¿Î¹ÏÎ¹ Ïá½¹Î»Î¹Î½ Î§Î±Ïá½·ÏÏÎ½ âwhich dwell by the Gracesâ city of beautiful dancing placesâ. The city in question is Orchomenos, cf. O. 14.1â4, where 2 (referring to the Charites) Î±á¼µÏÎµ Î½Î±á½·ÎµÏÎµ ÎºÎ±Î»Î»á½·ÏÏÎ»Î¿Î½ á¼Î´ÏÎ±Î½ vaguely recalls P. 12.26 and P. 12.1â2 (see above, á¼Î´ÏÎ± and á¼Î´Î¿Ï both derive from IE *sed-). The compound ÎºÎ±Î»Î»á½·ÏÎ¿ÏÎ¿Ï, matching a collocation [ÎºÎ±Î»á½¹ÏâÏá½¹ÏÎ¿Ï] (Od. 12.318+, cf. esp. ÎÎ 27.15 Î§Î±Ïá½·ÏÏÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î»á½¸Î½ ÏÎ¿Ïá½¸Î½ á¼ÏÏÏÎ½á½³Î¿ÏÏÎ±), first occurs in hexam. (Od. 11.581+).

As Î£ P. 12.44a, 45ab Dr. suggest (Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¿á¿¦ÏÎ¹ â¦ Ïá½»Î¿Î½ÏÎ±Î¹), this is the verb Î½Î±á½·Ï âto inhabitâ (see above, 3), not Î½á½±Ï âto flowâ, preserved by Theon (P.Â Oxy. 2536: Î½á½±Î¿Î¹ÏÎ¹, judged as âimproperâ [á¼ÎºÏÏÎ¿Î½] by Theon himself, cf. Maehler 1968, Treu 1974). The Charites are daughters of Zeus and Eurynome (Hes. Th. 907, [Apollod.] 1.13, Call. Aet. 6, Paus. 9.35.1, Hyg. Fab. praef.) or Helios and Aegle (Ant. 140, apud Paus. 9.35.5+), or Dionysus (Anacr. 38+). The cult of the Charites associated with three stones in Orchomenos was established by Eteocles, the son of river Cephisus (Hes. fr.Â 71, Î£ O. 14 inscr.c Dr.+, Strabo 9.2.40, Paus. 9.35.1, 9.38.1), who had received them from the sky. In Orchomenos, the remains of a temple in honour of the Charites have been identified cf. AmandryâSpyropulos 1974. On the Charites in O. 14 cf. also Athanassaki 2003, Lomiento 2010â2011, Nieto HernÃ¡ndez 2017.

27Â Â ÎÎ±ÏÎ¹Ïá½·Î´Î¿Ï á¼Î½ ÏÎµÎ¼á½³Î½ÎµÎ¹, âin the precinct of Caphisisâ. ÎÎ±ÏÎ¹Ïá½·Ï is first attested in hexam. (Il. 5.709+) in connection with a lake (Î»á½·Î¼Î½Î·). Here the name is identified with that of the river Cephisusâ nymph. The river Cephisus is a son of Ocean and Tethys (Hyg. Fab. 6). Gk. Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï denotes a sacred space, which is imagined as âcut-out for a godâ (on Gk. Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï, Lat. templum and common poetic usages cf. GarcÃa RamÃ³n 2008). The collocation [Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ïâgod_gen./god_adj.] is often attested in the Pindaric corpus as a variation or substitution kenning for a pn, cf. Î Î¿ÏÎµÎ¹Î´á½±ÏÎ½Î¿Ï â¦ Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï (P. 4.204) Î Î¿ÏÎµÎ¹Î´á½±Î½Î¹Î¿Î½ â¦ Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï (: the Isthmus, N. 6.41), ÎÏÎ¿Î½á½·Î¿Ï Ïá½°Ï ÏÎµÎ¼á½³Î½ÎµÎ¹ (: Olympia, N. 6.61), Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï á¼ÏÎµÎ¿Ï (: Syracuse, P. 2.2), Ïá¿Î¿Î½ Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï ÎÏÎ¿Î½á½·Î´Î± (: Libya, P. 4.56).⁵¹

27Â Â ÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¿á½¶ ÏÎ¿ÏÎµÏÏá¾¶Î½ Î¼á½±ÏÏÏÏÎµÏ âfaithful witnesses of dancersâ. For ÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¿á½· â¦ Î¼á½±ÏÏÏÏÎµÏ cf. P. 1.88. In fr.Â 70 Pindar states that the streams of the Boeotic river Melas nourish the âmost musical reedâ (Ïá½¸Î½ á¼Î¿Î¹Î´á½¹ÏÎ±ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ Îºá½±Î»Î±Î¼Î¿Î½, cf. Loscalzo 1989). A variety of ancient sources (Theophr. Hist. Pl. 4.11.8, Strabo 9.2.8) confirm that the Pelecania, a region located in the Copais marsh, at the confluence of rivers Cephisus and Melas, was renowned for the production of aulos reeds (cf. Roesch 1989). As Bernardini (2006⁴:682) points out, Corinna (692.2) describes the Cephisus as Îµá½Î´ÎµÎ½Î´ÏÎ¿Ï ârich in plants/treesâ (cf. Spinedi 2018:133). Maslov 2015:219 notes: âThe reeds used in constructing auloi are not merely present at the choral performances; they are, literally, the vocal supporters of the chorus. The immediate proximity of this image to the mention of the choreuts (the only occurrence of the word ÏÎ¿ÏÎµÏÏá½±Ï in Pindar) is also suggestive, as it invites us to think of the members of the chorus, by analogy, as a collective of marturesâ.

4 GnÅmai (28â32)

As Rutherford (2013:51) underlines, some âepinikia end with a narrower vision of limits: the hero has achieved the ultimate, and he should go no further, and neither should the songâ. The end-lines of P. 12 can be juxtaposed to those of other odes which end with gnÅmai warning about the variability of fate, such as O. 7.94â95 (cf. O. 5.23â24, P. 7.20â22, I. 3/4.17â18).

The final section of our ode includes a series of three gnÅmai, which, according to Boeke (2007:57) are structured in an opposite way to the myth (cf. âin the myth the movement is from hardship to the pleasures of music, but in the gnÅmai the movement is in the opposite direction. Happiness is hard won, and life is uncertainâ). More precisely, closing verses consist of two main clauses (28â29, 29â32) intercalated by a third gnÅmÄ at 30, and expanded by a relative sentence at 31â32. The entire section is characterized by the use of a âchainâ of enjambments (á¼Î½ÎµÏ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±ÏÎ¿Ï || Î¿á½ ÏÎ±á½·Î½ÎµÏÎ±Î¹, 28â29; ÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏÏá½±ÏÎµÎ¹ â¦ || Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½, 29â30; ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï || Î¿á½ÏÎ¿Ï, 30â31; on the enjambment in Pindar cf. Giannini 2008). The first gnÅmÄ is formulated through a conditional sentence: its protasis, in which the verb âto beâ is unexpressed, occupies 28, while the verb of the apodosis is located at 29. The enjambment between the syntactic components of the apodosis clause, namely: the complement á¼Î½ÎµÏ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±ÏÎ¿Ï âwithout toil/effortâ (28) and the main verb Î¿á½ ÏÎ±á½·Î½ÎµÏÎ±Î¹ (29), gives prominence to the factor which conditions the achievement of happiness, i.e. âtoilâ, one of the main themes of the ode (cf. chapter 2, section 5).

The interpretation of the second gnÅmÄ is debated. It begins at 29, but it is somehow suspended, being interrupted by the third gnÅmÄ, which is formulated in parenthetic form at 30. The way we understand 29â32 is conditioned by the interpretation of á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ at 29. Whether the particle is emphatic (âtrulyâ) or constructed with Ïá½±Î¼ÎµÏÎ¿Î½ (29) and taken as disjunctive (âeither todayâ), it is apparent that we lack something: continuation, if á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ is emphatic; a second term for the correlation, if we concur with the disjunctive hypothesis. The gnÅmÄ stops in anacoluthon and is continued by an adversative coordinating sentence (á¼Î»Î»á¾½ á¼ÏÏÎ±Î¹ ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï) after the parenthetic clause. By breaking the main gnÅmÄ, the encased new clause lends drama to the passage. As noted by Race (1989:190) âone of the ways in which Pindar maintains an impromptu quality in his poetry is by appearing to react to his statements, as if he were hearing themâlike a listenerâfor the first timeâ. In this case, one may argue, the parenthetic interruption, which coincidentally occupies a paroemiac sequence (âªâªââªâªâÂ â â x), resembles a gnomic comment expressed by a tragic chorus.

The continuation of the previous gnÅmÄ at 30 starts with an adversative conjunction á¼Î»Î»á½±. Although á¼Î»Î»á½± follows a negative clause like elsewhere in Pindar (Slater 1969 s.v. á¼Î»Î»á½± [1]), it is possible that here it introduces a different attitude. After all, á¼Î»Î»á½±, etymologically belonging together with á¼Î»Î»Î¿Ï [*h₂el-iÌ¯o-], carries in itself âthe primary sense of âothernessâ, diversityâ (DennistonâDover 1954:1) and could be understood as âotherwise, elseâ in this passage. The final relative clause, with embedded participle clause, may be interpreted as quasi-consecutive âTime will be the one who gives one thing and delays anotherâ.

28â29Â Â Îµá¼° Î´á½³ ÏÎ¹Ï á½Î»Î²Î¿Ï á¼Î½ á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÎ¿Î¹ÏÎ¹Î½, á¼Î½ÎµÏ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±ÏÎ¿Ï || Î¿á½ ÏÎ±á½·Î½ÎµÏÎ±Î¹ âif there is any happiness among men, it does not appear without toilâ. VersesÂ 28â30 were identified by Theonâs hypomnema as a âsort of ÏÏÏÎ±Î³á½·Ïâ (P.Â Oxy. 2536 ÏÎ¿á¿¦[Ï]Î¿ Î´á½² á½¥ÏÏ(ÎµÏ) á¼ÏÎ¹ÏÏÏÎ±Î³á½·Î¶ÏÎ½ [Ï]Î¿Îµá¿, cf. Anderson 2023). The sententia of 29â30, introduced as âa sort of cosmic lawâ (Welles 1966:92, RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas 2001:81â82 who cites the conception underlying Il. 24.527â533 as a parallel), can be compared to other Pindaric gnÅmai concerning the link between âhappinessâ (á½Î»Î²Î¿Ï) and âtoil/effortâ (Îºá½±Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï/Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï, cf. Welles 1966:93, KÃ¶hnken 1976:259â260), cf. P. 1.46, N. 6.44â45, I. 6.10â12. The term á½Î»Î²Î¿Ï, of debated etymology (cf. Chantraine delg, Frisk gew, Beekes edg s.v. á½Î»Î²Î¿Ï; see also Janda 2005:275â278), denotes happiness and (material) prosperity (cf. Slater 1969 s.v. á½Î»Î²Î¿Ï, cf. also Konstas 2003, Coin-Longeray 2014). Ancient interpreters explain the gnÅmÄ as hinting at Midasâ extraordinary victory (cf. chapter 1, section 2). According to these commentaries, Midas had won the competition even though his reed (Î£ P. 12 inscr. Dr.) or pipe (Î£ P. 12.52, 54 Dr.) broke, but he had carried on his execution Î¼á½¹Î½Î¿Î¹Ï ÏÎ¿á¿Ï ÎºÎ±Î»á½±Î¼Î¿Î¹Ï ÏÏá½¹Ïá¿³ Ïá½»ÏÎ¹Î³Î³Î¿Ï âonly with the pipes, in the way of the syrinxâ (Î£ P. 12 inscr. Dr.). Modern commentators are divided on the truthfulness of this story. Wilamowitz 1922:146, MÃ©autis 1956:226â228, Welles 1966:85, Thummer 1968â1969:75, fn. 52 strongly doubt the scholion; Puech 1922:165 and Burton 1962:26 are sceptical, Christ 1896 and Bowra 1964:293 state that Midasâ accident might have happened; Gildersleeve 1885, Sandys 1937, GentiliâLuisi 1995 and Bernardini 2006⁴ trust the scholiast. According to Welles 1966:93 and KÃ¶hnken 1976:94 the sententia is linked to the myth, regardless of any possible reference to Midasâ performance in Delphi. I align with this interpretation.

29â30Â Â á¼Îº Î´á½² ÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏÏá½±ÏÎµÎ¹ Î½Î¹Î½ á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ Ïá½±Î¼ÎµÏÎ¿Î½ || Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½ âwhether a god will bring it to fulfilment todayâ. DennistonâDover (1954:554) propose âverily todayâ as a possible translation for á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ Ïá½±Î¼ÎµÏÎ¿Î½. For Christ (1896) á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ expresses hesitation (âwill it be today?â). As an alternative interpretation, followed by Slater 1969 s.v. á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ 2.a, DennistonâDover (1954:554) suggest that á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ stands here in anacoluthon âeitherâ. According to Bernardini 2006⁴:683 á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ = á¼¤ ÏÎ¿Î¹ can introduce an alternative whose second part is implicit. Î£ P. 12.51â52 Dr. propose that a temporal complement âtodayâ should be followed by an omitted/implicit á¼¢ á¼ÏÏÎ¹Î¿Î½ âor tomorrowâ or á¼¢ á½ÏÏÎµÏÎ¿Î½ âor laterâ. While Schroeder 1922 joins á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ and á¼Î»Î»á½± 30, RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas 2001:83â85 unites á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ with Î§Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï (personified): âthis will accomplish today a god or â¦ Timeâ, neglecting the presence of á¼Î»Î»á½±. A correlation á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ â¦ á¼Î»Î»á½± is actually unparalleled and the conjunction should not be ignored, see below 30â31. Therefore, I align with the hypothesis of an anacoluthon (on Pindaric anacolutha cf. Misiano 2001).

The encl.3.sg.pron. Î½Î¹Î½ is interpreted by Î£ P. 12.51â52 Dr. as referring to á½Î»Î²Î¿Ï, while á¼ÎºÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏÏá½±Ï is understood as âto fulfilâ (á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá½³Î»Î¿Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÎ¹ âwill bring to completionâ, so Î£ P. 12.51 Dr.), i.e. as a synonym of á¼ÎºÏÎµÎ»á½³Ï (Il. 9.493+). This interpretation is accepted by Boeckh 1811â1821, Cerrato 1934, KÃ¶hnken 1971, with whom I concur (pace von Mezger 1880 and Gildersleeve 1885, for whom Î½Î¹Î½ refers to Îºá½±Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï).

In Pindarâs victory odes, derivatives of the Gk. root ÏÎµÎ»-, that is, synchronically and etymologically connected with the term Ïá½³Î»Î¿Ï âendâ, occasionally occur in âend-proximityâ position (within the last 10 verses of an ode), cf. P. 2.95, P. 3.115, N. 7.105 (ÏÎµÎ»á½³Î¸Ï), Î. 13.115 (Ïá½³Î»ÎµÎ¹Î¿Ï, as noted by Rutherford 2013:45), O. 3.41 (ÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏá½±), O. 5.22, I. 7.48 (ÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏÏá½±), P. 5.117, I. 1.68 (ÏÎµÎ»á½³Ï), P. 9.118, N. 8.45 (Ïá½³Î»Î¿Ï). Pfeijffer 1991 argues for an âambiguousâ meaning of á¼ÎºÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏÏá¾¶Î½, i.e. as both âto endâ (the god can end the human happiness) and âto fulfilâ (the god can favour the human being). RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas 2001:87 suggests an unstated substantive Î¸á½³Î¼Î¹Ï in the light of HHÂ 4.531. Gk. Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½ (on the synchronic connection with Î´Î±á½µÎ¼ÏÎ½ âwiseâ cf. Pl. Crat. 398b) denotes the divinity without a specific reference to a god nor any monotheistic nuance (cf. FranÃ§ois 1957:69â¯ff., Burton 1962:188). The term is etymologically related to Î´Î±á½·Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ âto divideâ and may be traced back to IE *deh₂-iÌ¯- âto cut, divideâ (cf. liv² 103â104, iew 175â176). Such an etymological connection was also perceived at the synchronic level, cf. Hsch. Î´ 73 LC Î´Î±á½·Î¼Î¿Î½ÎµÏ â¦ á¼¢ á½ÏÎ¹ Ïá½±Î½ÏÎ± Î¼ÎµÏá½·Î¶Î¿ÏÏÎ¹Î½, á¼Ïá½¸ ÏÎ¿á¿¦ Î´á½±ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸Î±Î¹ (cf. also Et. Gud. Î´ 328.23). The fact that Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½ was perceived as the âdistributorâ at a certain level of Greek synchrony does not imply that Pindar too preserves this etymology, although the mention of Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½ is immediately followed by a reference to the âallotment of fateâ (see below). On the passage cf. Boeke 2007:35. On specific usages of Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½ in some Pindaric passages cf. Molyneux 1972 (O. 9), Taillardat 1986 (P. 8), Lavecchia 1999 (fr.Â 282).

30Â Â Ïá½¸ Î´á½² Î¼á½¹ÏÏÎ¹Î¼Î¿Î½ Î¿á½ ÏÎ±ÏÏÏÎºÏá½¹Î½ âthe allotment of fate cannot be escapedâ. Gk. Î¼á½¹ÏÏÎ¹Î¼Î¿Î½ (Ïá½¸ Î¼Î¿Î¹Ïá½·Î´Î¹Î¿Î½ Theon P.Â Oxy. 2536) is âallotment of fateâ/âshare [of destiny]â (from IE *smer- âto get a shareâ, cf. Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï, 11). On âfateâ in this and other Pindaric gnÅmai cf. Boeke 2007:32â37. The variant Î³Îµ, found in Theonâs hypomnema, is preferred by Pavese 1990:92, RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas 2001:87 and Bernardini 2006⁴:683. As Turner 1968 tab. III points out, Theon already read Î¿á½ ÏÎ± ÏÏÎºÏá½¹Î½ (found in V and preferred by Pavese 1990:72), while ÏÎ±ÏÎ±ÏÎµá½»Î³Ï is preserved in Theonâs paraphrasis (Pardini 1997). However, the majority of the manuscripts preserve Î¿á½ ÏÎ±ÏÏÏÎºÏá½¹Î½ (allegedly, hapax eiremenon). I read ÏÎ±ÏÏÏÎºÏá½¹Î½ and propose a parallel ex Graeco ipso: Il. 6.488 Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ±Î½ Î´â Î¿á½ ÏÎ¹Î½á½± ÏÎ·Î¼Î¹ ÏÎµÏÏÎ³Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Î½ á¼Î¼Î¼ÎµÎ½Î±Î¹ á¼Î½Î´Ïá¿¶Î½.

30â31Â Â á¼Î»Î»á¾½ á¼ÏÏÎ±Î¹ ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï || Î¿á½ÏÎ¿Ï, á½ ÎºÎ±á½· ÏÎ¹Î½á¾½ á¼ÎµÎ»ÏÏá½·á¾³ Î²Î±Î»á½½Î½ âelse it will be Time such as that, striking someone with surprise â¦â. As emphasized by RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas (2001), the wording of the passage is similar to that of Il. 4.160â161, 164 Îµá¼´ ÏÎµÏ Î³á½±Ï ÏÎµ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î±á½Ïá½·Îºá¾½ á½Î»á½»Î¼ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï Î¿á½Îº á¼Ïá½³Î»ÎµÏÏÎµÎ½, || á¼Îº ÏÎµ ÎºÎ±á½¶ á½Ïá½² ÏÎµÎ»Îµá¿ [â¦] á¼ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î¹ á¼¦Î¼Î±Ï á½Ï(Îµ), Diag. 2 ÎºÎ±Ïá½° Î´Î±á½·Î¼Î¿Î½Î± ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá½»ÏÎ±Î½ || Ïá½° Ïá½±Î½ÏÎ± Î²ÏÎ¿ÏÎ¿á¿ÏÎ¹ á¼ÎºÏÎµÎ»Îµá¿ÏÎ±Î¹, and to that of other sententiae in which time plays a role in fulfilling human destiny (cf. Aeschl. Pers. 740). Furthermore, RiaÃ±o Rufilanchas proposes that (i) á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ creates an opposition between Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½ and ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï, (ii) ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï is personified in P. 12, like elsewhere in Pindar, cf. O. 2.17, O. 10.55, fr.Â 33, fr.Â 52d.11 (Pae. 4.11 = D4 Rutherford), fr.Â 159.

While, here, the hypothesis of a personified âTimeâ may suit the context, RiaÃ±o Rufilanchasâ proposal of a disjunction Î´Î±á½·Î¼ÏÎ½ â¦ á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹ â¦ ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï* (âa god or Time [will fulfillÂ â¦]â) may be weakened by the fact that ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï/Î§Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï is introduced by á¼Î»Î»á½±, which does not usually correlate with á¼¤ÏÎ¿Î¹. This difficulty might be overcome by taking á¼Î»Î»á½± as âotherwise, elseâ, i.e. as âsimply introducing a new attitudeâ (Slater 1969 s.v. á¼Î»Î»á½± 2.c). For á¼ÎµÎ»ÏÏá½·á¾³ cf. Archil. 105.3 á¼Î¾ á¼ÎµÎ»ÏÏá½·Î·Ï. The reading ÏÎ¹Î½á¾½(Î±) is preferable over Ïá½·Î½ âyouâ (Christ 1896, cf. also Gildersleeve 1885), since it suits the general tone of the gnÅmÄ, cf. P. 8.76â78 (as proposed by Welles 1966:95).

32Â Â á¼Î¼ÏÎ±Î»Î¹Î½ Î³Î½á½½Î¼Î±Ï Ïá½¸ Î¼á½²Î½ Î´á½½ÏÎµÎ¹, Ïá½¸ Î´á¾½ Î¿á½ÏÏ âwill give one thing against hope, and defer anotherâ. The sententia vaguely resembles O. 12.10â12 (on which cf. Race 2004). Cf. ex Pindaro ipso Ïá½° ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá½± (P. 5.55, P. 7.22, I. 5.52), on which cf. Bischoff 1938:159â160. The meaning of Î¿á½ÏÏ is debated: some interpreters opt for ânotâ (Gentili and Bernardini 2006⁴), others for ânot yetâ (e.g. Slater 1969 s.v. Î¿á½ÏÏ, Race 1997a). Both interpretations make sense, although the overall meaning of the gnÅmÄ acquires different nuances according to which solution is preferred. By employing ânotâ alone interpreters confer a more definite tone to the gnÅmÄ: there is a certain allotment of fate, which comprises some things and does not comprise others; this is what will be given to men, according to the will of god or Time. Employment of ânot yetâ emphasizes the timing of destinyâs gifts: âit will be Time the one who gives one thing and defers anotherâ. I align with the latter interpretation which, in my view, is consistent with the references to Time and timing at 29â32. For 32, as well as with the ârevelatoryâ role of ÏÏá½¹Î½Î¿Ï/Î§Ïá½¹Î½Î¿Ï, attested elsewhere in Pindar cf. Komornicka 1976.

Cf. ÏÎ¹Î»á½±Î½ÏÏ (mn, in O. 12.13, epithet in fr.Â 236), ÏÎ¹Î»á½±ÏÎ¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï (I. 8.20), Ïá½·Î»Î¹ÏÏÎ¿Ï (N. 9.32), ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿ÎºÎµÏÎ´á½µÏ (I. 2.6), ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï (fr.Â 164), ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹Î¼Î¿Î»ÏÎ¿Ï (N. 7.9), ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹Î½Î¹ÎºÎ¿Ï (O. 6.19), ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹Î¾ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï, ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹Î¾ÎµÎ¹Î½Î¿Ï (I. 2.24, O. 3.1), ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹ÏÎ¿Î»Î¹Ï (O. 4.16), ÏÎ¹Î»á½¹ÏÏÏÎ½ (P. 1.94, P. 8.1) and the subst. ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿ÏÎ¹Î¼á½·Î± âambitionâ (fr.Â 210) and ÏÎ¹Î»Î¿ÏÏÎ¿Ïá½»Î½á¾± âact of friendlinessâ (O. 4.14, fr.Â 128d.14).

Cf. the type âfond of jeeringâ (Od. 22.287+, cf. adj. Îºá½³ÏÏÎ¿Î¼Î¿Ï, -Î¿Î½ subst. in Îºá½³ÏÏÎ¿Î¼Î± Î²á½±Î¶ÎµÎ¹Î½, Hes. Op. 788).

Both Ïá½±Î¿Ï and ÏÎ±ÎµÎ½Î½á½¹Ï are based on IE *b^heh₂- âto shine, become visibleâ, cf. liv² 68â69, iew 104â105; on Ïá½±ÏÎ¿Ï cf. Peters 1993:107, nil 7â11.

Î¦ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½¹Î½Î± means *âslayer of sheavesâ, cf. Î ÎµÏÏÎµÏá½±ÏÏÎ± < *perso-k^uÌ¯nÌ¥tiÌ¯Ä-, cf. Wachter 2006, contra Petersmann 1986, Anttila 1997, 2000:164â165: âdie von Feuer (Ïá½³ÏÏÎ±), Licht Ãbervolleâ (with scm from IE *g^uÌ¯hen- âto swellâ, as per Heubeck 1954), Bader 1989:38: âwho destroys (Ïá½³ÏÎ¸Ï) deathâ (with Ïá½¹Î½Î· from IE *g^uÌ¯hen- âto killâ), Janda 2000:224â250: âdie das/den GlÃ¤nzende(n) (Ïá½±Î¿Ï) hinÃ¼berbringt (ÏÎµá½·ÏÏ, ÏÎ¿ÏÎµá¿Î½)â. On the etymology of the name and its variants, see now Nussbaum 2022.

A kenning (pl. kennings or kenningar) is âa bipartite figure of two nouns in a non-copulative, typically genitival grammatical relation (A of B) or in composition (B-A/A-B) which together make reference to, âsignifyâ a third notion Câ (Watkins 1995:44). According to Mittner 1954:15, we can distinguish a âsubstitution kenningâ, which replaces one term in the poetic discourse, and a âvariation kenningâ, which is juxtaposed to the term it refers to, as iteration, apposition, epithet etc. For a study and a repertoire of kennings in Greek literature cf. WÃ¦rn 1951.

Î¼Î·Î»Î¿Î²á½¹ÏÎ¿Ï: the compound is first attested in Hesiod and reflects a âtype Î¸Îµá½¹Î´Î¼Î·ÏÎ¿Ïâ (Risch 1974²:210â211), i.e. a compound with a zero-grade deverbal (ptc.) scm, which, in this case, is based on Î²á½¹ÏÎºÏ (IE *g^uÌ¯eh₃- âto feedâ, cf. Tribulato 2015:373â374).

Î½Î±á½·Ï reflects *nÌ¥s-iÌ¯e/o-, from IE *nes- âto go homeâ, cf. liv² 454â455, iew 766â767, Forte 2017: âto turnâ, Frame 2009: âto returnâ, Ginevra 2022: âto return safely home, to attain the desired goalâ. á¼á½»Î´Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï, âwell-builtâ (attested only here, in Pindar), Ion. á¼á¿£Î´Î¼Î·ÏÎ¿Ï (Il. 1.448+), is a âÎ¸Îµá½¹Î´Î¼Î·ÏÎ¿Ï-typeâ with a fcm Îµá½Â° (: IE *h₁su- âgoodâ [adj.] and âwellâ [adv.], u-stem from *h₁es- âto beâ, cf. liv² 241â242, iew 340â341, cf. Pinault 2003:162â165, Nussbaum 2014:231), and, as scm, a to-adj. from Î´á½³Î¼Ï âto buildâ (IE *demh₂- âto buildâ, cf. liv² 114â116, iew 198â199, cf. Nikolaev 2011). The compound can perfectly match YAv. hu.Î´Äta- âwell formed/madeâ (= *h₁su-dmÌ¥h₂-tÃ³-, YÂ 9.16+; differently, Bartholomae AirWb. 1824 s.v., tracing Â°Î´Äta- back to YAv. *Î´Ä- âto put/setâ, IE *d^heh₁-). The term ÎºÎ¿Î»á½½Î½á¾± (also found in fr.Â 140b.5), exists as well as ÎºÎ¿Î»ÏÎ½á½¹Ï âhillâ (HHÂ 2.272+; on the word-formation cf. Schmeja 1963, Peters 1980:168). The forms reflect a thematization (ÎºÎ¿Î»ÏÎ½á½¹Ï) and an individualizing feminine (ÎºÎ¿Î»á½½Î½á¾±) derived from an n-stem (*kolH-n- from IE *kelH- âto rise upâ cf. liv² 349, iew 544, cf. Lith. kÃ¡lnas âmountainâ, Lat. collis âhillâ < *kolnis, OE hyll, MoE hill < PGmc. *hulni-).

á½¦ á¼Î½Î±: a feminine form wa-na-sa* /wanat^sa-/* (: á¼Î½Î±ÏÏÎ±, cf. Peters 1980:289â290) is also attested in PY FrÂ 1219.2. The etymology of the term remains opaque: Willms 2010 supports SzemerÃ©nyiâs (1979) proposal, i.e. *uÌ¯en-aÄt- (?) or *uÌ¯nÌ¥-aÄt- âleader (IE *h₁aÄ- âto lead, conveyâ [*h₂eÄ- in liv² 255â256, cf. iew 4â5]) of the kin/people (IE *uÌ¯en-)â. Alternatively, the fcm *uÌ¯nÌ¥- could be interpreted as âgoodsâ or âvictoryâ cf. Ved. van âto overpower, conquerâ (IE *uÌ¯en- on which, as a recent reference, cf. Weiss 2018), *uÌ¯nÌ¥-aÄ-t- âconveyer (IE *h₁aÄ-) of goods (IE *uÌ¯en-)â could formally match Ved. vaá¹Ãj- âmerchantâ (RVÂ 1.112.11a+). Palaima 1995 proposes a non-IE origin for the wanaxâ functions.

A type [immortal + mortal man] and [immortal god + mortal man] is attested in Il. 14.199 á¼Î¸Î±Î½á½±ÏÎ¿ÏÏ á¼ Î´á½² Î¸Î½Î·ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÎ¿Ï, Od. 24.64 á¼Î¸á½±Î½Î±ÏÎ¿á½· ÏÎµ Î¸ÎµÎ¿á½¶ Î¸Î½Î·ÏÎ¿á½· Ïâ á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Î¹.

In further Pindaric passages [god] and [man] occur at close distance, but in a different syntactic relation (i.e. non-copulative), cf. O. 1.64â66, O. 11.10, P. 3.81, N. 6.1, N. 10.54.

In principle, Pi. P. 4.13 ÏÎ±á¿Î´ÎµÏ á½ÏÎµÏÎ¸á½»Î¼ÏÎ½ ÏÎµ ÏÏÏá¿¶Î½ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î¸Îµá¿¶Î½ could also belong to this group. In the passage, however, Medea is addressing the Argonauts, who (literally) are âsons of gods and heroesâ. Therefore, it is unlikely that the expression means âyou allâ.

ON goÃ° Ã¶ll ok gumar matches Hes. Th. 372â373 á¼ÏÎ¹ÏÎ¸Î¿Î½á½·Î¿Î¹ÏÎ¹ [â¦] á¼Î¸Î±Î½á½±ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï ÏÎµ Î¸ÎµÎ¿á¿ÏÎ¹ âto the humans and the immortal godsâ, since both ON gumi- âmanâ and Gk. á¼ÏÎ¹ÏÎ¸á½¹Î½Î¹Î¿Ï âterrestrialâ derive from the IE *d^hÄ^hom-/*d^hÄ^hem- âearthâ, cf. also Il. 5.442 á¼Î¸Î±Î½á½±ÏÏÎ½ ÏÎµ Î¸Îµá¿¶Î½ ÏÎ±Î¼Î±á½¶ á¼ÏÏÎ¿Î¼á½³Î½ÏÎ½ Ïâ á¼Î½Î¸Ïá½½ÏÏÎ½ âof the immortal gods and men who walk on the earthâ.

Ïá½ºÎ½ Îµá½Î¼ÎµÎ½á½·á¾³: Îµá½Î¼ÎµÎ½á½·Î±, poetic form for Îµá½Î¼á½³Î½ÎµÎ¹Î±, is a substantivizing/individualizing feminine based on a possessive compound Îµá½Î¼ÎµÎ½á½µÏ âwhose Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Ï (mental energy) is goodâ (HHÂ 22.7+, on Îµá½Â° see above, 3). The compound matches Î¼á½³Î½Î¿Ï á¼ á¿£ âbrave spiritâ (Il. 17.456+); yet it perfectly overlaps Ved. sumÃ¡nas- âbenevolentâ (RVÂ 1.36.2c+), YAv. hu.manah- âid.â (Vr. 3.3+), cf. Durante 1962:33. Ved. [bhadrÃ¡-âmÃ¡nas-] âgood mental energyâ (RVÂ 2.26.2b+) may partially match Ved. sumÃ¡nas-, cf. Schmitt 1967:120.

Î ÏÎ¸á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï: as pointed out by Toporov 1974 (cf. also Watkins 1995:460â463), it is likely that Î ÏÎ¸á½½ reflects a derivative of IE *b^heuÌ¯d^h- âbottomâ also seen in Gk. ÏÏÎ¸Î¼á½µÎ½ âbottom of a vessel, the seaâ, cf. Ved. budhnÃ¡- âbottomâ, OE botem (MoE bottom), ON botn âid.â Primordial dragons are traditionally located âat the bottom (of something, e.g. the sea, the cosmic tree)â, cf. Ved. Ã¡hi- budhnyÃ¡- âthe serpent of the depthâ (RVÂ 7.34.16â17+) and ON NiÃ°hÇ«ggr, who is situated at the bottom of the tree Yggdrasil (cf. DumÃ©zil 1959, StrÃ¶m 1967, Ginevra [forthc./b]). Significantly, the Ved. collocation [Ã¡hi-âbudhnyÃ¡-] matches Gk. Î ÏÎ¸á½½ â¦ á½ÏÎ¹Î½ (Call. H 2.100â101).

Îµá½Î´á½¹Î¾á¿³ cf. Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ: Îµá½ÎºÎ»Îµá½µÏ reflects *h₁su-ÆlÃ©uÌ¯es- and has a perfect match in Ved. susÅÃ¡vas- âhaving good fameâ (RVÂ 1.49.2c+); Av. *hu.srauuah- âid.â, cf. YAv. mnâ¯s HaosrauuaÅhan-, HaosrauuaÅhana-, and Haosrauuah- (with secondary âsubstantivizingâ vrÌ¥ddhi, cf. Rau 2007); OIr. sochlu (on which cf. Thurneysen 1946:216); further partial matches are the OCS mn Vescleves and YAv. [vaÅhu-âsrauuah-], in which âgoodâ is expressed by means of IE *uÌ¯esu- âgoodâ (Schmitt 1967:82â87).

Cf. also Ba. 19.5â8 ÏÎµÏÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Î¹ Î§á½±ÏÎ¹ÏÎµÏ | Î²á½±Î»ÏÏÎ¹Î½ á¼Î¼Ïá½¶ ÏÎ¹Î¼á½±Î½ || á½Î¼Î½Î¿Î¹ÏÎ¹Î½Î á½ÏÎ±Î¹Î½á½³ Î½ÏÎ½ á¼Î½ || ÏÎ±á¿Ï ÏÎ¿Î»ÏÎ·Ïá½±ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï ÏÎ¹ ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½á½¹Î½ ââ¦ whose songs are crowned with honour by the garland-bearing Graces. Weave, then, in lovely (Athens) something newâ. Here ÏÎµÏÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï is reminiscent of ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½Î±Ïá½¹ÏÎ¿Ï âbringing wreaths/crownsâ (Ba. 19.51, fr.Â 2, fr.Â 20b.48) and the collocation [crowning object_acc.âÏá½³ÏÏ], connected with the Graces in Pi. N. 5.54 Ïá½³ÏÎµ ÏÏÎµÏÎ±Î½á½½Î¼Î±ÏÎ± Ïá½ºÎ½ Î¾Î±Î½Î¸Î±á¿Ï Î§á½±ÏÎ¹ÏÏÎ¹Î½. Moreover, the Bacchylidean expression Î²á½±Î»ÏÏÎ¹Î½ á½±Î¼Ïá½¶ ÏÎ¹Î¼á½±Î½ || á½Î¼Î½Î¿Î¹ÏÎ¹Î½ (6â7) resembles á½Î¼Î½Î¿Ï á¼Î¼ÏÎ¹Î²á½±Î»Î»ÎµÏÎ±Î¹ || ÏÎ¿Ïá¿¶Î½ Î¼Î·Ïá½·ÎµÏÏÎ¹ (Pi. O. 1.8â9).

Further artistic representations are: an Etruscan bronze statuette dated to the 1st half of the 4th c. BCE (Museum fÃ¼r Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg, inv. nr. 1929.22); a Roman coin from Argos (2ndâ3rd c. BCE, probably portraying a statue from the herÅon of Perseus in Argos, cf. Imhoof-BlumerâGardner 1887:35).

Î Î±Î»Î»á½±Ï: the form was synchronically connected to Ïá½±Î»Î»Î±Ï âyoungâ (e.g. cf. Ael. Dion. Ï 8, see also Beekes edg s.v. ÏÎ±Î»Î»á½±Ï) or to the verb Ïá½±Î»Î»Ï âto brandishâ (Pl. Crat. 406dâ407a), cf. IE *pelh₁-/*plÌ¥h₁- âto brandish, waveâ (found in Gk. Ïá½¹Î»ÎµÎ¼Î¿Ï, Ved. prÌ¥ÌtanÄ- âfightâ, âenemy armyâ, Lat. populus, Umbr. puplum). However, Î á½±Î»Î»Î±ÌÏ (masc., a Titan, cf. HHÂ 4.101+) may reflect a labiovelar, as suggested by Myc. qa-ra₂ /K^wallÄnt-s/ (PY An 192.16+, cf. GarcÃa RamÃ³n 2021b).

The date of Corinnaâs production is debated: Lobel 1930, West 1970, 1990, Clayman 1993 defend a 3rd c. date; on the contrary, Coppola 1931 and Davies 1988 support the Archaic date suggested by ancient sources. Spinedi 2023 suggests that the mythological traditions mentioned by Corinna fit best within a programmatic agenda of the Late Archaic-Early Classical Age Boeotia. Given the uncertainty that surrounds this matter, Corinnaâs fragment cannot be invoked alone as an authority for the existence of a tradition about âAthena discoverer of the aulosâ attested in Boeotia during the Archaic Age. Nevertheless, it reflects the existence of a difference between the Athenian and the Boeotian traditions on Athena and the aulos.

(á¼Ï/á¼Î¾)Îµá½Ïá½·ÏÎºÏ: derivative of IE *uÌ¯reh₁- âto findâ, cf. liv² 698, iew 1160.

ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÏÎ½: the name ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½¹Î½ÎµÏ (first occurring in pl. in Hes. Th. 274+) has no clear etymology. It was synchronically connected to the adj. Î³Î¿ÏÎ³á½¹Ï âgrim, fierceâ (of gaze, Aeschl. Sept. 537+). Frisk gew s.v. Î³Î¿ÏÎ³á½¹Ï, proposes OIr. garg(g) âraw, wildâ as a possible linguistic cognate of the term, while Leumann 1950:154â155 explains Î³Î¿ÏÎ³á½¹Ï as a back-formation to Î³Î¿ÏÎ³á¿¶ÏÎ¹Ï (Aeschl. Ag. 302), Î³Î¿ÏÎ³á½½Ï (Eur. El. 1257), Î³Î¿ÏÎ³ÏÏá½¹Ï ([Aeschl.] PV 356). For Szidat (2013) ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½½ is an adaptation of Car. ÎÎÎ¡ÎÎÎ£ âstoneâ. Beside the fact that ÎÎÎ¡ÎÎÎ£ probably means âwhite (stone)â (cf. Bianconi 2022), it is unlikely that Car. ÎÎÎ¡ÎÎÎ£ would have been borrowed into Greek as Î³Î¿ÏÎ³á½¹Ï. Segal (1998) connects ÎÎ¿ÏÎ³á½½ to an allegedly IE root *garj- (sic) âto emit a loud soundâ. But the existence of such a root is doubtful: Skr. garj âto roarâ (epic), Oss. qÃ¦rzyn âto groanâ, OHG krÄhhon âto make a soundâ and, possibly, Gk. forms in Î³Î¿ÏÎ³- point to a common ancestor *gerÄ-, which displays a root structure (*DeRD-) incompatible with what we know about IE root shapes (cf. liv² 5). Moreover, all the alleged derivatives of such a root may be explained as onomatopoetic parallel creations.

Î¸ÏÎ±ÏÎµÎ¹á¾¶Î½: u-adj. from IE *d^hers- âto take courageâ (cf. liv² 147, iew 259; on other Caland-derivatives, such as Î¸á½±ÏÏÎ¿Ï, Î¸ÏÎ±ÏÎ¹Â° see de Lamberterie 1990:846â866, Rau 2009:119).

#Î Î±Î»Î»á½°Ï á¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±á½·Î· always occurs at the beginning of the verse (cf. also [Î Î±Î»Î»á½±Ïâepithet] in HHÂ 2.424). In Pindar, Î Î±Î»Î»á½±Ï occurs at the verse-beginning here and in O. 13.66.

Î´Î¹Î±ÏÎ»á½³ÎºÏ: derivative of IE *pleÆ- âto braidâ, cf. liv² 486, iew 834â835.

Cf. also Pi. P. 9.77â78 Î¼á½·ÏÏÎ±Î½ â¦ ÏÎ¿Î¹Îºá½·Î»Î»Ï. Gk. ÏÎ¿Î¹Îºá½·Î»Î»Ï is used in a similar sense in N. 8.15, cf. Kaimio 1977:149, Jackson [Rova] 2002, CannatÃ Fera 2020:489, referring to Maehler 1963:90 and KÃ¶hnken 1971:28, fn. 32.

Other etymologies for the á½Î¼Î½Î¿Ï have been put forth, cf. Vine 1999:575â576, who proposes *suÌ¯onH-mo- (cf. Lat. sonÄre, IE *suÌ¯enH- âto intoneâ, *suÌ¯enh₂- in liv² 611, iew 1046â1047).

ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸ÎµÎ½á½·Î¿Î¹Ï: cf. ÏÎ±ÏÎ¸á½³Î½Î¿Ï, a term of opaque etymology for which Klingenschmitt 1974 proposes *prÌ¥-steno- âwhose breast are protrudingâ, cf. Delamarre 2008 contra Collinge 1970:77: *prÌ¥-th₂eno-.

á¼ÏÎ»á½±ÏÎ¿Î¹Ï: cf. á¼ÏÎ»Î±ÏÎ¿Ï reflecting *nÌ¥-plh₂-to-, derived from IE *pelh₂- âto approachâ, liv² 470â477, iew 801â802.

á½Ïá½·ÏÎ½, to IE *h₁og^uÌ¯hi-, cf. Katz 1998, Oettinger 2010a, 2010b.

For IE parallels to this passage cf. Massetti forthc./b.

On the attestations and semantics of ânectarâ and âambrosiaâ in Archaic Greek texts cf. Roscher 1883, Kretschmer 1949, Verdenius 1949, UrÃa Varela 1992, Manco 2012. Rahmani 2008 compares the usage of nectar and ambrosia with that of therapeutic substances in Anatolian rituals. On the etymology of the terms cf. Thieme 1952, 1965, Lazzeroni 1988, Watkins 1995:391.

Cf. JamisonâBrereton 2014:498, who provide a different interpretation of the passage.

Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½³Ï Ïá½ºÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î¼á½±Ïá¿³: Gk. Î´ÏÏÏÎµÎ½Î¸á½µÏ is a possessive compound with fcm Î´ÏÏÂ° (= Ved. dusÂ°, Av. duÅ¡Â°, reflecting the zero-grade of the IE s-stem *dÃ©uÌ¯es- âabsence/lackâ, cf. Schindler 1987, StÃ¼ber 2002:29), and a scm to Ïá½³Î½Î¸Î¿Ï (s-stem from IE *k^uÌ¯end^h-, according to liv² 390, iew 641, *b^hend^h- âto bindâ according to Beekes edg s.v. Ïá½±ÏÏÏ). Gk. Îºá½±Î¼Î±ÏÎ¿Ï is a derivative of *Æemh₂- âto become tiredâ (cf. liv² 323â324, iew 557).

ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Î½ â¦ ÎºÎ±ÏÎ¹Î³Î½Î·Ïá¾¶Î½ Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï: ÏÏá½·ÏÎ¿Ï reflects a to-adj. *tri-to-, built on the word for âthreeâ (IE *treiÌ¯-es-); Î¼á½³ÏÎ¿Ï [*smer-o/es-] is an s-stem from IE *smer- âto get a shareâ (cf. liv² 570, iew 970); ÎºÎ±Ïá½·Î³Î½Î·ÏÎ¿Ï reflects *kmÌ¥ti-ÄnÌ¥h₁-to- âborn togetherâ with scm from IE *Äenh₁- âto generateâ (cf. liv² 163â165, iew 373â375).

Î¼Î¿á¿ÏÎ± reflects *smor-iÌ¯eh₂, a derivative of IE *smer- (see above, 11).

Î¸ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï (adj.) reflects *d^hh₁s-sk^uÌ¯e-tiÌ¯o-, cf. Beekes edg s.v. Î¸ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï; on the term in Homer cf. LfrE s.v. Î¸ÎµÏÏá½³ÏÎ¹Î¿Ï. Gk. Î¸á½³ÏÏÎ±ÏÎ¿Ï âestablished by the godsâ reflects *d^hh₁s-b^hh₂-to-, with a scm from IE *b^heh₂- âto clarifyâ, cf. liv² 69, iew 105â106 . On Î¦á½¹ÏÎºÎ¿Ï and its etymology cf. chapter 9, section 1.3.

á¼Î¼Î±á½»ÏÏÏÎµ: *nÌ¥-meh₂uÌ¯-r-o- is a compound with a thematized adj. from an heteroklitikon *meh₂-uÌ¯rÌ¥-/-n- as scm, or *mh₂uÌ¯-ro-, a ro-adj. to a u-stem *moh₂u-/meh₂u- as scm (cf. the type á¼ÏÏÏá½¹Ï âstrong, secureâ explained by Nussbaum 1998 as *seÄ^hu-ro-).

Î»ÏÎ³Ïá½¹Î½: Î»ÏÎ³Ïá½¹Ï is a derivative of IE *(s)leuÌ¯g- âto swallowâ (liv² 567â568, iew 964, cf. KÃ¶lligan 2005), and belongs etymologically with Lat. lÅ«gÄre âto mournâ and tb lakle âpainâ. á¼ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Î½: as explained by Weiss 1998:46, á¼ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï can be traced back to IE *h₁erh₂- âto divide (and distribute)â in the same way as Î´Î±á¿Ï âbanquetâ belongs together with Î´Î±á½·Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ âto divide (and distribute)â.

á¼Î¼ÏÎµÎ´Î¿Î½ Î´Î¿ÏÎ»Î¿Ïá½»Î½Î±Î½ Ïá½¹ Ïá¾½ á¼Î½Î±Î³ÎºÎ±á¿Î¿Î½ Î»á½³ÏÎ¿Ï: á¼Î¼ÏÎµÎ´Î¿Ï (á¼Î½, Ïá½³Î´Î¿Î½, from *pedo- âplace, groundâ) means â(standing) on the ground, firmâ, hence âconstantâ. The subst. Î´Î¿ÏÎ»Î¿Ïá½»Î½á¾± reflects an abstract in -(Î¿)Ïá½»Î½Î·, i.e. a *tuÌ¯onÄ-formation (Vine 1999:576â578) on Î´Î¿á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï, a word of debated etymology (cf. Myc. do-e-ro /do^helos/, for which Neumann 1986 proposes the meaning âthe one taken from homeâ [?], on which cf. Chantraine delg, Frisk gew, Beekes edg s.v. Î´Î¿á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï). Gk. Î»á½³ÏÎ¿Ï reflects an s-stem from IE *leg^h- âto lie downâ (cf. liv² 398â399, iew 658â659).

This fragment includes a reference to a violence against Danae, but the identity of Danaeâs rapist is debated. Since Î£ Il. 14.319 (= Pi. fr.Â 284) reports that Pindar told the story of Danae being raped by her brother Proetus, some editors and commentators identify Proetus as Danaeâs rapist in fr.Â 70d.15 (= Dith. 4.15), e.g. SnellâMaehler (in their 1987 Pindarâs edition, ad fr.Â 70d.15) and Hirschberger 2004:296. The claim that Danaeâs abuser in fr.Â 70d.15 (= Dith. 4.15) is Polydectes is supported, among others, by Lobel 1961:88, Karamanou 2006:125â126, and Kenens 2012:163, fn. 44, Lavecchia 2000:232, and Finglass (forthc.). I align with this second view.

ÎºÏá¾¶ÏÎ±: on the etymology ÎºÏá½±Ï and Îºá½±ÏÎ± âheadâ [*Æerh₂-s-nÌ¥-], cf. Nussbaum 1986:195â218.

Ïá¼±á½¸Ï ÎÎ±Î½á½±Î±Ï: the term for âsonâ reflects a secondary thematic stem to *suH-iÌ¯u- (from IE *seuÌ¯H- âto give birthâ, cf. liv² 538, iew 913â914, cf. also GarcÃa RamÃ³n [forthc.]). The name Danae is connected with that of Danaus (and Danaoi). The etymology of this mn is debated: Kretschmer 1935:15 proposes a tie with *deh₂-/*dh₂-, underlying several river names (Danube, Tanais etc.), whereas Latacz 2001:150â165 (cf. also Oreshko 2018) suggests a possible borrowing from Egyp. Danaja (name of a country in Egyp. inscr. 1390â1352â¯BCE).

Î±á½Î»á¿¶Î½ â¦ Ïá½±Î¼ÏÏÎ½Î¿Î½ Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï: Gk. Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï derives from IE *mel(H)- âto be object of thoughtâ (Serangeli 2016). The etymology of Î¼á½³Î»Î¿Ï suits the Pindaric usages of the word and Gk. cognate terms well, see, in particular O. 14.18, P. 4.15, P. 10.59. Cf. also the secondary root *meld^h- from *mel(H)-d^heh₁- (KÃ¶lligan 2018:231â233), which has a reconstruction supported by the parallel with Pi. P. 10.58â59 Î¸Î·Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½ â¦ Î¼á½³Î»Î·Î¼Î± âwe will make (him) object of thoughtâ. Furthermore, Î¼á½³Î»ÏÏ and Î¼Î¿Î»Ïá½µ may belong to a root displaying a p-enlargement, also attested in OIr. Â°molor âI praiseâ (Stokes 1901:190).

á¼Îº ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ±Î»Î¹Î¼á¾¶Î½ Î³ÎµÎ½á½»ÏÎ½: significantly, both ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½±Î»Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï and Î»á½±Î²ÏÎ¿Ï may be etymologized as belonging to roots with a basic meaning âto take/seizeâ. As first proposed by Schrader (1890:473) ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½±Î»Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï may be based on IE *(s)kerp- âto pluckâ (liv² 559, iew 944â945, cf. Gk. ÎºÎ±ÏÏá½¹Ï âfruitâ, Lat. carpÅ âI seizeâ; on the -Î±Î»Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï formation cf. Arbenz 1933:28â29), while Î»á½±Î²ÏÎ¿Ï may reflect a ro-formation from IE *sleh₂g^uÌ¯- âto seizeâ (liv² 566, iew 958, cf. Gk. Î»Î±Î¼Î²á½±Î½Ï âI takeâ), cf. the semantic shift seen in Lat. rapiÅ âto seizeâ, rapidus ârushingâ. The word for âjawâ is inherited: Gk. Î³á½³Î½ÏÏ reflects *Äenu- (cf. Nikolaev 2010a:1â18).

This aspect of Î¼á½·Î¼Î·ÏÎ¹Ï is criticized by Pl. Leg. 669de.

V.l. Î²Î±Î¼Î²Î±Î»Î¹Î±ÏÏá½»Î½ âbabbleâ (as a recent reference cf. West 2003b). On ÎºÏÎµÎ¼Î²Î±Î»Î¹ÏÏá½»Ï cf. Nagy 1990a:43, Peponi 2009, who shows that ÎºÏÎµÎ¼Î²Î±Î»Î¹ÏÏá½»Ï âdenotes the act of generating a sound through percussion devicesâ, referring to Athen. 636c and a variety of iconographic sources.

á½ Î½á½»Î¼Î±ÏÎµÎ½: denom. from *h₁/h₃nÌ¥Ã©h₃-mnÌ¥- cf. Pinault 1982, with Ï-vocalism [á½Î½ÏÎ¼Î±, á½Î½ÏÎ¼á½±Î¶Ï] for Cowgillâs Law, cf. Vine 1999:557â558. Î½á½¹Î¼Î¿Î½: thematic o-grade derivative from IE *nem- âto distributeâ (cf. liv² 453, iew 763).

Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ Î¼Î½Î±ÏÏá¿Ïá¾½ á¼Î³á½½Î½ÏÎ½: Î»Î±Î¿ÏÏá½¹ÏÎ½ (Il. 13.128+) displays a scm based on IE *kiÌ¯euÌ¯- âto put in motionâ, underlying Ved. cyav âto set in motionâ, Av. Å¡(ii)auu- âto undertakeâ (as per GarcÃa RamÃ³n 1993, 1994:71, cf. also Costa 1987, contra liv² 394â395 [cf. iew 539], reconstructing *k^uÌ¯iÌ¯euÌ¯- âto put oneself in motionâ), cf. Gk. ÏÎµá½»Ï, ÏÎ¿á½³Ï* âto put in motionâ, from which the scmâ¯s of Î´Î¿ÏÏÏÏá½¹Î¿Ï âbrandishing the spearâ ([Hes.] Sc. 54+) and á¼±ÏÏÎ¿Ïá½¹Î±Ï âinciting horsesâ (P. 2.65+) are derived.

http://www.icr.beniculturali.it/pagina.cfm?usz=5&uid=67&rid=50&rim=159 (last accessed: SeptemberÂ 01, 2023).

The provided date is connected with information concerning of Telephanes of Megara, cf. Î±á½Ïá½·ÎºÎ± Î¤Î·Î»ÎµÏá½±Î½Î·Ï á½ ÎÎµÎ³Î±ÏÎ¹Îºá½¸Ï Î¿á½ÏÏÏ á¼ÏÎ¿Î»á½³Î¼Î·ÏÎµÎ½ ÏÎ±á¿Ï Ïá½»ÏÎ¹Î³Î¾Î¹Î½ á½¥ÏÏÎµ ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î±á½Î»Î¿ÏÎ¿Î¹Î¿á½ºÏ Î¿á½Î´á¾¿ á¼ÏÎ¹Î¸Îµá¿Î½Î±Î¹ Ïá½½ÏÎ¿ÏÎµ Îµá¼´Î±ÏÎµÎ½ á¼Ïá½¶ ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î±á½Î»Î¿á½»Ï, á¼Î»Î»á½° ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÎ¿á¿¦ Î ÏÎ¸Î¹ÎºÎ¿á¿¦ á¼Î³á¿¶Î½Î¿Ï Î¼á½±Î»Î¹ÏÏÎ± Î´Î¹á½° ÏÎ±á¿¦Ïá¾¿á¼Ïá½³ÏÏÎ· (Aristox. apud [Plut.] Mus. 1138a), âat any rate, Telephanes of Megara fought so harshly against the syringes that he never even allowed the aulos-makers to add them to [his] auloi, but preferred to stay away from the Pythian games mainly for this reasonâ.

Cf. also á¼ÏÎ³Îµá¿Î¿Î½ â¦ Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï (Pi. N. 10.19) with the structure [Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ïâcity_adj.]. Differently, Î¤ÏÎ½Î´]Î±ÏÎ¹Î´á¾¶Î½ â¦ || ÏÎµÎ¼á½³]Î½ÎµÎ¹ (supp. Lobel) in fr.Â 52s.2 (Pae. 18.2 = S7 Rutherford) may refer to an actual Ïá½³Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï of Castor and Polydeuctes in Argos, as they were honoured with a theoxeny in the polis (Pi. N. 10.49).

Citation Info

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share link with colleague or librarian

You can email a link to this page to a colleague or librarian:
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://brill.edhh.ma/display/book/9789004694132/BP000005.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

Pindarâs Pythian Twelve: A Linguistic Commentary and a Comparative Study

Series:Â Ancient Languages and Civilizations, Volume: 6

Cover Pindarâs <i>Pythian Twelve</i>: A Linguistic Commentary and a Comparative Study

E-Book ISBN:: 9789004694132

Publisher:: Brill

Print Publication Date:: 04 Apr 2024

Subjects

Front Matter

Part 1 Pindarâs Pythian Twelve: Text and Linguistic Commentary

PartÂ 2 A Melody with Multiple Heads: A Vedic Parallel to Pindarâs Pythian Twelve

Back Matter

Metrics

	All Time	Past 365 days	Past 30 Days
Abstract Views	0	0	0
Full Text Views	1451	840	31
PDF Views & Downloads	298	185	20

African Studies	Education	Media Studies
American Studies	History	Middle East and Islamic Studies
Ancient Near East and Egypt	Human Rights and Humanitarian Law	Musicology
Art History	International Law	Philosophy
Asian Studies	International Relations	Religious Studies
Biblical Studies	Jewish Studies	Slavic and Eurasian Studies
Biology	Languages and Linguistics	Social Sciences
Book History and Cartography	Life Sciences	Theology and World Christianity
Classical Studies	Literature and Cultural Studies

Subjects

Authors

Open Access

Product Information

Company

Contact

Chapter 5 Linguistic Commentary

1 Invocation (1â6)

1.1 Excursus: ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï and ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± in Pindar

2 Transition (7â8) and Myth (8â24)

Table 6

2.1 Weaving Songs: A âGendered Metaphorâ?

2.2 Weaving Songs in Pindar and Indo-European

3 Transition (25â27)

4 GnÅmai (28â32)

Citation Info

Share link with colleague or librarian

Pindarâs Pythian Twelve: A Linguistic Commentary and a Comparative Study

Table of Contents

Metrics

Metrics

1 Invocation (1â6)

1.1 Excursus: ÏÏá½³ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï and ÏÏÎµÏá½±Î½ÏÎ¼Î± in Pindar

2 Transition (7â8) and Myth (8â24)

2.1 Weaving Songs: A âGendered Metaphorâ?

3 Transition (25â27)

4 GnÅmai (28â32)

Pindarâs Pythian Twelve: A Linguistic Commentary and a Comparative Study