1 Generalities
This work on Pindarâs Pythian Twelve is conceived both as a linguistic commentary and a comparative study. A small part of the material presented in the book was originally covered in the final chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation, Phraseologie und indogermanische Dichtersprache in der Sprache der griechischen Chorlyrik: Pindar und Bakchylides, defended on July 22, 2016 at the University of Cologne. However, the chapter was not included in the version of my doctoral thesis published online (Massetti 2019). The redaction of the book was possible thanks to my work on the project The Lords of the Rings: A Comparative Lens on Ring-Compositions of Greek Lyric Poetry (acronym LORACOLA, project nr. MSCA_0000083), carried out at University of Naples âLâOrientaleâ (December 2022âDecember 2025), and financed through the program âNEXT Generation EU, funds NRRP (Italian PNRR) M4C2â.
Pindarâs Pythian Twelve, which honours the aulete Midas of Acragas, stands out as the only choral lyric epinicion in our possession composed for the winner of a non-athletic competition. Over the years, various aspects of the ode have been subject to thorough study, including its myth (e.g. Dolin 1965, Köhnken 1971, Bernardini in Gentili 20064), performance, and musical dimension (Phillips 2013 and 2016). Often regarded as an ode of relatively straightforward interpretation (Radt 1974), close analysis of the text reveals that the epinicion presents several challenges to modern readers.
The main goals of the book are:
-
to provide an updated translation and linguistic commentary of the text;
-
to investigate the main interpretative issues of the epinicion with the aid of historical linguistics;
-
to provide insights into the thematic aspects of the ode as well as on Pindarâs compositional technique, through the identification of devices, which Pindar might have inherited from earlier periods of poetic language.
The work is divided into two parts. Part 1, âPindarâs Pythian Twelve: Text and Linguistic Commentaryâ, comprises a short introduction, a structural analysis of the poem and a series of remarks concerning the language of the ode, with particular reference to its dialectal colour. The aim of the introduction is to provide an âorientationalâ overview on the ode as a prelude to both the commentary and the comparative mythological study. Pindarâs text is then presented with a critical apparatus and my own translation. Besides concentrating on the textual and interpretative issues of the poem, the commentary includes etymological notes and remarks on possible phraseological parallels for single Pindaric expressions, both ex Pindaro ipso, i.e. drawn from Pindarâs corpus, and ex Graeco ipso, i.e. drawn from other Greek literary sources. Part 1 concludes with an analysis of Pythian Twelveâs echoes in Nonnus of Panopolisâ Dionysiaca, the only literary source in our possession that preserves any reference to the same mythological tradition as that found in Pythian Twelve.
Part 2, âA Melody with Multiple Heads: A Vedic Parallel to Pindarâs Pythian Twelveâ, is a thematic, structural and phraseological comparison of features of Pythian Twelve with those of an Old Indic religious hymn, Rigveda (RV) 10.67. Part 2 starts by presenting the Old Indic text that is juxtaposed to Pythian Twelve. The Vedic hymn, taken from van Nooten and Hollandâs (1994) edition, is accompanied by Jamison and Breretonâs (2014) English translation and my own commentary, which highlights the aspects of RV 10.67 that are most relevant to the comparative study. The purely contrastive section of the book focuses on possible common elements between episodes from the Greek Perseus myth and the Old Indic myths of Vala and VrÌ¥tra. My hypothesis is that Pythian Twelveâs mythological narrative is constructed on inherited thematic and phraseological material, which Pindar employs to fashion his own work.
I concentrate on remarkable structural and stylistic similarities between my two comparanda as well as on similar compositional purposes and criteria or âstates of thingsâ, which underlie the Pindaric and Rigvedic texts. The Rigveda is a collection of sacred texts written in Vedic Sanskrit comprising 1028 hymns mostly dedicated to deities who were the subjects of Vedic rituals. Since the very first Indo-European studies, scholars have recognized impressive word-by-word (or even phoneme-by-phoneme) correspondences between short syntagms attested in Greek texts of the Archaic and Classical Ages and those attested in Vedic poetry. Over the years, the identification of multiple aequabilia has demonstrated the fruitfulness of a comparison between Vedic and Greek Archaic poetry, even for studies of what we know about Greek phraseology and compositional technique within Greek, and Vedic phraseology and compositional technique within Vedic. Indeed, the comparative approach enhances our understanding of the history behind the use of the constituents of ancient poetic texts, such as combinations of words, motifs and themes. A comparative lens on these devices highlights the conservative character of inherited compositional techniques, which possessed sufficient flexibility to guarantee semantic integrity as well as historical continuity of the inherited themes through time and space. Ultimately this allowed their poetic expressions and structures to survive within diverse cognate traditions.
I argue that comparative focus on Pindarâs Pythian Twelve yields new results. The study carried out in Part 2 of this book sheds light on a variety of aspects of Pindarâs language and style, which escape any merely synchronic analysis. The study shows that some poetic devices employed by Pindar, namely: lexical, semantic and phraseological repetitions, which shape âringsâ within the ode, precisely parallel those found in the Old Indic tradition at both structural and semantic levels. The quantity and quality of these correspondences suggest that they should not be regarded as independent manifestations of universals, i.e. parallel creations of human creativity. Conversely, they are best explained as a common poetic inheritance. This insight invites us to reflect on (i) Pindarâs style in relation to his Greek literary ancestors (hexameter poetry, other melic poets etc.), (ii) Pindarâs style in relation to Pindar, i.e. on original and novel aspects of his poetry, (iii) the prehistory of choral lyric as a poetic genre, a problem which this study does not attempt to discuss at length. Finally, the attention paid to analogous systems of images, documented in Pindar and the Rigvedic hymns, allows us to reconstruct shared systems of concepts, all of which ultimately pivot on the idea of glory and reward to be achieved in and through poetry. The comparative phraseological reconstruction thus paves the way for the reconstruction of common âstates of thingsâ.
2 Methodological Limits of Comparative Philology
Before expanding on how this study considers macro-structures, I must touch upon a few methodological matters. As partly anticipated, Comparative Philology applies the linguistic comparative method to expressions found in two or more Indo-European languages in order to reconstruct previous stages, which may be called âdescriptively pre-historicâ and âdescriptively Indo-Europeanâ, of the artistic usage of language peculiar to two historically attested traditions. The methodological premise of this reconstruction is that the artistic usages of cognate languages are just as strongly related as their grammatical aspects. Hence, the comparative method is primarily concerned with genetic linguistic reconstruction. That is, it aims at explaining how and to what extent two linguistic traditions are connected and where they stand in relation to each other, as well as to their possible common ancestor. By borrowing simplified schemes and examples from Watkins (1995:5â6, including schemeâ¯s 1â2, below), it is possible to visualize the simplest model of linguistic reconstruction as a case in which two languages A (e.g. Greek) and B (e.g. Vedic Sanskrit) exhibit systematic similarities on every level of grammar (phonetics, morphology, syntax, and lexicon) âwhich cannot be attributed to borrowing nor to universals nor to chanceâ (Watkins 1995:5). By comparing A and B we are able to tell how and why A resembles B and vice versa. Furthermore, we are able to account for the systematic similarities of the two languages by postulating a (proto-)language stage O from which both A and B derived.
It is often the case that languages A and B came to be used for artistic purposes, i.e. for poetics. If we designate the poetic language of A as A1 and the poetic language of B as B1, we can visualize the relation between A1 and B1 as analogous to that between A and B. In the same way as comparing A and B allows us to reconstruct a proto-language stage O, comparing A1 and B1 allows us to reconstruct a proto-poetic-language stage O1: the relation of A1 to B1, and both to O1 will resemble that of A to B, and both to O, cf.
Scheme 2
Sample linguistic reconstruction and the reconstruction of poetic language
Obviously, these are simplifications and, as such, they do not give a well-rounded idea of the complexity of the comparative work applied to poetic language. In an attempt to anticipate possible responses to sceptical criticism, I would like to address two problems in the following paragraphs: (i) what we are reconstructing and why, (ii) how the comparative work applied to poetics deals with universals.
Words like âphilologyâ (e.g. in âComparative Philologyâ) and âreconstructionâ may create erroneous expectations for the reader. First of all, because the aim of Comparative Philology differs from that of general philology, the questions comparative philologists ask in their research are in some ways different than those of mainstream philologists. âReconstructingâ implies setting up a theoretical model on the basis of linguistic elements (A and B derive from O, see above), i.e. not on the basis of continuously documented facts. The theoretical model followed here assumes that there was some (pre-)historical continuity between O1 and A1, and O1 and B1. However, being able to reconstruct a relationship between two poetic languages does not mean that we are able to parse the details of the historical transmission (from O1 to A1 and O1 to B1). It is, therefore, crucial to clarify that the purpose of Comparative Philology differs from that of other philologies, like Classical Philology, contrarily to what it is often (erroneously) believed. Although both disciplines are ultimately concerned with how expressions manifesting themselves in a linguistic form are preserved and/or transmitted, the methodological strength of Comparative Philology has a counterbalance in its structural limits. We are detecting formal correspondences among expressions occurring in traditions separated by huge chronological and geographical gaps: a âperfect matchâ (see below, âPhraseological and Linguistic Conventions, Definitionsâ) between an expression attested in the corpus of a 5th century BCE Greek poet, like Pindar, and an Old Indic text which began to be composed in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE, like the Rigveda, is to be considered a âsafeâ piece of linguistic inheritance. We can exclude that the Greek-Vedic match in question
-
is a coincidence: it is anti-economic to think that two cognate traditions innovated in the same way independently, i.e. they used the same linguistic means to create the same poetic expression independently;
-
is due to linguistic contact: we can exclude that Pindar took a certain combination of lexemes from Vedic, because he had no contact with Vedic Sanskrit.
However, the reconstruction model of Comparative Philology does not go much further than this. Not only is there no way of telling how and why a specific expression survived in specific Greek and Vedic corpora, but it would also be unrealistic to wish to determine these things. The data in our possession being what they currently are, it is impossible to say precisely how that transmission happened. Certainly, Greek and Vedic poets must have learned how to be poets from their contemporaries but there is no way whatsoever to find out how aware poets (and their audiences) were of any IE poetic inheritance. Although, in some fortunate cases, we can identify a Greek model for Pindar or a model that is similar to a Vedic text, the data in our possession do not allow us to reconstruct how IE poetic inheritance came to be transmitted, so to say, step by step. Such a level of reconstructive detail is well beyond the scope of Comparative Philology. Nonetheless, renouncing reconstruction of the single steps of this historical transmission does not mean that they did not exist at all, but only acknowledges the limits of the comparative method as it stands.
On the contrary, the objectives of comparative philologists are to find out (1) to what extent analogous linguistic expressions of cognate traditions resemble each other; (2) how a previous (undated) stage of these cognate linguistic expressions which in most cases, would come from a combination of two or more IE roots, might have looked. Things like fixed combinations of terms are likely to have been passed through generations and generations of poets. On this basis we posit that they guaranteed semantic integrity and historical continuity with inherited thematic material within the individual IE daughter languages after they diverged from the proto-language. Since the comparative method allows us to reconstruct a part of the stylistic and phraseological toolbox at the disposal of IE poets, we conclude that the character of IE compositional technique was highly conservative. On this aspect, although reconstructing how exactly this compositional technique worked is more than Comparative Philology can undertake, we can still focus on similarities and dissimilarities between comparanda with respect to their content and their individual compositional techniques.
3 Going beyond Atomic Comparisons and the Problem of the Universals
I stated above that âsystematic similarities on every level of grammar (phonetics, morphology, syntax) which cannot be attributed to borrowing nor to universals nor to chanceâ guarantee that two languages A and B are related and derive from a common ancestor O (scheme 1). I also affirmed that the relationships between the poetic languages A1 (of language A) and B1 (of language B) with respect to O1 (proto-poetic language stage of A1 and B1) are analogous to those of A and B to O (cf. scheme 2). We may now consider the implications of this for the reconstruction of the proto-artistic language stage in connection to the question of universals, i.e. independent creations of linguistic creativity found in any time and space. If we extend the three criteria âno borrowing, no universal, no chanceâ to the study of poetic phraseology and myth, without any other specification, even the Indo-Europeaness of Indo-European poetic scaffoldings (e.g. the phraseme âunperishable gloryâ: Greek
How the comparative method works when applied to macro-structures (e.g. themes, myths, compositional structures etc.) deserves further clarification. As already anticipated, the comparative method makes the reconstruction of common linguistic ancestors between two or more elements (sounds, words, phrases etc.) rely on systematic correspondences, allowing one to recognize a given phenomenon as âregularâ. This way of proceeding, however, is not well-suited to the comparative study of phraseology and themes. The further the comparison detaches from the atomic dimensions of two linguistic cognates (sounds, single words etc.), the more difficult it becomes to claim that something is inherited. Paradoxically, phraseological and thematic similarities are often perceptible to the naked eye or to the ear of a modern scholarly audience. However, most similarities turn out to be vague, inconsistent, unsystematic and consequently not as convincing as those evidenced at the levels of phonetics, morphology and word-structure (cf. the critics to Watkins 1995 by Ogden 2013:21). They appear diluted and faded because they lack any phonetic precision to tether them. The comparative study carried out in the second part of the book targets this very limbo, trying to cope with the issues a comparativist has to face in reconstructing inherited themes and phraseology. To address this, my investigation attempts to follow the methodological path opened by seminal studies such as those by Toporov [publ. post. Toporovna 2012], Durante (1962, 1976), Schmitt (1967), and fully developed by Campanile (e.g. 1977, 1990), Watkins (representatively, 1995) and GarcÃa Ramón (2000). Not only does the scientific work of these scholars prove that historical linguistics, and in particular, the comparative approach, offers powerful means to elucidate various aspects of Archaic Greek poetry in general, and Pindar in particular (see GarcÃa Ramón 2000, Watkins 2001, 2002a, 2002b), but it also lays out the basis for new work in the field of Comparative Philology. The forementioned studies show that comparative phraseological analysis actually allows us to reach plausible conclusions on inherited poetic stock, even when it operates with non-perfect word-/collocation-correspondences, while the phenomenon of lexical renewal is regulated by a variety of patterns that can be studied and described in detail. Furthermore, the combinatory phraseological approach allows us to frame single phraseological tokens within wider systems of concepts and images as well as within inherited âstates of thingsâ. According to this method, isolated features attested in different linguistic contexts may be combined together on the strength of their complementarity. Such complementarity, in turn, allows us to recompose the puzzle of complex metaphors or associations which have their âlimbsâ âscatteredâ in diverse but related traditions. This methodological legacy is particularly dear to me as a scholar of Indo-European poetics, as I am seeking to pursue it further and to contribute to demonstrating its soundness and effectiveness with this new study.
Contrasting entire myths or entire compositions attested in two different though related traditions is, undeniably, a particularly challenging task. An initial problem is how it is possible to select two very different texts, such as, in this specific case, a victory ode composed by Pindar in the early 5th century BCE and a religious hymn to a Vedic god allegedly composed around the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. It is clear that these two works were created within different cultural frameworks. Moreover, they responded to the demands of different occasions. Lastly, they were âinternally governedâ by the rules of their respective literary genres, which thrived and developed independently, each within its own tradition. Hence, the choice of this unusual and, one may say, hybrid format âText, Linguistic Commentary + Comparative Essayâ may be considered an attempt to cope with the complex interaction between the synchronic and diachronic aspects of texts that are extremely complicated and profoundly different.
Since synchronic dimensions are such fundamental constituents of these texts, they must be the starting point for a sound diachronic analysis. In connection to Pindar, I must start by drawing attention to the occasion for which the ode was composed, then examine the text and its âshapeâ. Such a critical analysis is necessary if one is to provide the reader with as much information as possible about the philological problems of the text. Once the synchronic issues are outlined, it becomes necessary to deal with the diachronic questions, hence the problem of the selection of possible comparanda for Pindarâs myth.
In my previous and current comparative mythology work, I set two fundamental criteria for the selection of potential comparanda: discrepancy and isolation within synchrony. That is, if a narrative or phraseological detail is apparently inexplicable and rare within its own context, but conserved in another context by a certain author, this detail has potential for a diachronic comparison. In the case of the present study, the criterion of isolation played a major role in the selection of my comparandum for the Pindaric phraseological structure and myth. My choice of the Old Indic comparandum fell on RV 10.67 because this hymn preserves a unique phraseological structure, namely: âdeity invents a seven-headed poetic thoughtâ that strikingly resembles the unique Greek collocation âthe goddess invented ⦠tune of many headsâ, found at 22â23 of Pindarâs Pythian Twelve. With my phraseological investigation I try to show that Pindar and RV 10.67, apparently dealing with completely different myths, inherited the same thematic material.
Overall, with this work I endeavour to respond to what I imagine might be the different demands of its potential readers, which I hope shall be a wide, non-necessarily highly specialized audience, ranging from students and scholars in the field of Indo-European studies and comparative philology with an interest in the reconstruction of inherited structures, motifs, phraseology and myth, to students and scholars of Classical literature with an interest in the comparative aspects of Greek poetic language. Indeed, it is possible to state that the two parts of the book have different but complementary âconcernsâ, which may be pertinent to such a heterogeneous audience. While Part 1 mainly deals with the problems of the Pindaric texts, between synchrony and diachrony, i.e. with workings of a system within a given time and place and the transformation of a system through time (Nagy 1990a:4â5), Part 2 is more about diachronic concerns. Although this book will not solve the issues it addresses once and for all, my personal goal is to show what comparative philology can do to enlighten us on Pindarâs poetic language or, at least, open a debate about it. I will thus consider myself satisfied if this study provides new inputs for reflection and discussion on the dynamics underlying Pindaric language.
Acknowledgments
My first and outmost thanks goes to my mother and father, as well as to my inner-circle people for the unconditional love they gave me during the time I have been working and reworking on this book: I owe them everything. A second goes to my âacademic familyâ, i.e. the people with whom I first discussed some ideas collected in the book: my Doktorvater, José Luis GarcÃa Ramón, and my Doktor-geschwister: Andrea Lorenzo Covini, Riccardo Ginevra, and Matilde Serangeli.
I would like to express a special thanks to several colleagues and friends who helped me with their expertise on various matters. For their bibliographical help and advice on points of details, Matteo DâAcunto, Anna Maria DâOnofrio, EijirÅ DÅyama, Patrick Finglass, Stefan Hagel, Angelo O. Mercado, Riccardo Palmisciano, Tiziana Pontillo, Eleonora Rocconi, Paola Maria Rossi, Velizar Sadovski, Marco Sciascia, Tullia Spinedi, Patrick Stiles, and Carlotta Viti.
A special thanks goes to John Perchard, whom I involved in a painstaking proofreading process and provided me with invaluable advice on my translation and my text.
I am also grateful to the Editorial Board of alac, Wendy Logeman, Marlou Meems, and Elisa Perotti for their support.
The standard disclaimers apply.