BMCR 2008.11.23, Hanna Boeke, The Value of Victory in Pindar's Odes

Hanna Boeke, The Value of Victory in Pindar's Odes. Gnomai, Cosmology
and the Role of the Poet. Mnemosyne Supplementa, 285.  Leiden/Boston:
Brill, 2007.  Pp. x, 227.  ISBN 978-90-04-15848-1.  $125.00.

Reviewed by Maria G. Xanthou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
([email protected])
Word count:  2476 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-11-23.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/11/20081123.html
-------------------------------

Table of Contents (http://lccn.loc.gov/2007046054)

Hanna Boeke's monograph examines gnomai in Pindar as vehicles of
cosmological ideas and how they serve the encomiastic purpose of each
ode. Already in chapter one, the author (henceforth B.) establishes the
scope of her thesis, which is the examination of the value assigned to
victory within a particular cosmological context and of how the purpose
of each ode unfolds and is accomplished within that context. After
briefly discussing the divide between Pindar's private person and
poetic persona and asking to what extent a contemporary reader should
take the mores in Pindaric epinikia at face-value and attribute them to
the historical persona of the poet, B. presents the notion of the term
"cosmology" as T. Oudemans and A. Lardinois explain it. She
subsequently shows how this notion conforms to the main principle of
the epinician already specified by Bundy, i.e. the primary encomiastic
intent of the ode, combined with the value of victory and the glory it
confers.

In chapter two the author undertakes the onerous task of pinning down a
specific definition of gnome according to modern scholarship. After a
concise review of the literature, Lardinois' definition is chosen as
the methodological cornerstone, while the function of gnome is argued
on the basis of moral-didactic intent as defined by J. Russo and
enriched by W. Spoerri and W. T. Wilson. Credit is also given to the
field of ethno- and sociolinguistics for analyzing the forms and
contexts in which gnomai occur in archaic Greek poetry. In addition, B.
provides us with an informative review of the way ancient authors such
as Xenophon, Isocrates, Aristotle, Anaximenes of Lampsacus, and
Aeschines perceived the study of literature, the educational purpose
they attributed to this study, how they defined gnomai, and the
differences between Aristotle's and Anaximenes' viewpoint on this
matter.

As a result of this overview, the scope of the survey is narrowed and
its main question is posed, i.e. "whether the pronouncements contained
in proverbs and gnomai can be used as the basis for describing the
cosmology of the society in which Pindar worked." This question is
framed by a brief review of the literature on the existence of a
cross-cultural tradition of wisdom teachings, which draws on W. Slater
and K. Bielohlawek, and with an extended reference to D. Shimkin and P.
Sanjuan's modern anthropological study, which analyses the proverbs of
three pre-revolutionary Russian communities in order to establish "the
major attitudes and psycho-dynamic patterns common to relatively
homogeneous communities."[[1]]

Chapter three forms the core of B.'s systematic survey by combining the
concept of cosmology with the concept of morality in order for the
first "to include, besides a description of the world and man in the
world, recommendations for living in the world thus described."
Moreover, by combining  Oudemans/Lardinois' six cosmological categories
with Shimkin/Sanjuan's three socio-psychological dimensions, she limits
her classification to two main categories, i.e. a) philosophical
orientation and b) man in society. Under the first category fall views
on elemental forces (fate, god, nature) and man's relation to them, as
well as views on the human condition (life and death, the implications
of mortality). The second category hosts views on the nature and
obligations of different human relationships, such as those with
family, fellow citizens and enemies, as well as views on human nature
as it reveals itself in a social context. Her procedure is to start off
with a general statement and then to analyze it by looking more closely
at the text.

In dealing with the first category, the author finds that "fate" is
represented either as an active force that steers human life or as that
which is allotted. Its central characteristic lies in its
ineluctability. Fate as an agent in the world appears in the form of
personified <greek>po/tmos</greek>, <greek>moi=ra</greek> and
<greek>tu/xa</greek>. To <greek>moi=ra</greek> is also attributed
control over human life, while the characterization of
<greek>moi=ra</greek> as <greek>qeou=</greek>, poses the question of
the relationship between god and fate, and whether one of these is
supreme. B. is critical of Thummer's view of a fate dependent on and
subordinated to god, and favours Greene's idea that there is no real
distinction between personal gods and a less personal power like
<greek>moi=ra</greek>. Therefore, she argues for an interchangeability
between god and fate.

B.'s discussion of the notion "god" in gnomic utterances starts off
with the much-debated opening statement of Nemean Six <greek>e(\n
a)ndrw=n, e(\n qew=n ge/nos; e)k mia=s de\ pne/omen || matro\s
a)mfo/teroi</greek>.[[2]] Her discussion is based on D. E. Gerber's
unitarian interpretation of vv. 1-2, but it also extends his
interpretation of vv. 2-3, since it lays emphasis on the key difference
between man and the gods, which is mortality and immortality and their
consequences for human life.

After drawing a succinct outline of the way "nature" is perceived, i.e.
as a force threatening civilization but also as a power sustaining both
civilization and life, the author discusses divine power over nature
and man's ambiguous relationship with it as reflected in weather
phenomena. Moreover, she elaborates on the imagery derived from these
phenomena to describe the fluctuation and unpredictability of human
fortunes. The same type of analysis is applied in the vegetational
imagery denoting man's integration into the cycle of nature. The last
issues discussed in this part are the role of natural ability in human
achievement, the supremacy of natural ability over learning, and
natural ability as an indication of divine support.

In the last part of chapter three, B. expands the discussion of gnomic
reflections on man by taking into account man's place in the social
network , firstly man's position in the inner circle of "the household
and family relationships", and secondly his position in the wider
social circle formed by "relationships outside the
<greek>oi)=kos</greek>". Under the first rubric, B. gathers the gnomic
formulations concerning the relationship between parents and children,
the obligations of the latter towards the former, children's duty of
preserving the household and its land for the family, the patriarchal
nature of the family and its implication for woman's status, man's
responsibility towards his ancestors, the different responsibilities
and privileges of different generations, and, finally, the rewards
awaiting a man in old age for the proper execution of his duties as a
young man. Under the second rubric "relationships outside the
<greek>oi)=kos</greek>", after sketching the functioning of reciprocity
in all relationships, i.e. between ruler and subject, god and man,
<greek>xei=noi</greek>, and neighbours, and analyzing thoroughly the
conditions defining and governing  relationships between benefactor and
beneficiary, the author narrows the scope of her analysis and
introduces into her discussion the notion of success, interpreted more
specifically as athletic victory. In the wider frame of the civic body
receiving the excelling individual, she goes on to analyze the appeal
made by the poet on the basis of the generally accepted principle of
reciprocity in relationships and the portrayal of the victor as a
benefactor of his community.

In chapter four, B. focuses on the application of cosmological ideas
for encomiastic purposes by considering particular odes. In her
introductory note she uses Pythian 7 and Nemean 2, which serve as foils
to one another,[[3]] as examples to sketch the context formed by the
individual's justified desire for recognition of the divine, the claims
of the divine and the sensitivities of society. In the following three
sub-chapters, the author investigates the role of gnomic formulations
within the context of each ode, namely Olympian 12, Isthmian 4 and
Olympian 13. Each ode is treated as thoroughly as possible through
close reading, cross-references to other epinician odes, references to
secondary literature, and citation of Homeric parallels. The author's
central argument is that all three odes pose the question of the
inherently incongruous relation between a non-native person and his
adopted homeland, between "the pankratiast's performance and his actual
appearance",[[4]] between the need for personal achievement and the
priority of a social group.

Chapter Five proves B.'s most fertile contribution, since the author's
focus moves from the text to the poet and the construction of the
poetic persona. B. refers succinctly to the problem of the distinction
made between Pindar and the narrator of his poems, or, preferably, the
agent of the narrative discourse. She favours Felson-Rubin's
distinction between the epinician speaker i.e. the poet figure acting
in the so-called Encomium World, and the poet Pindar acting in the real
world, whose "purposes change in accordance with the circumstances of
the particular victor he is celebrating". She analyzes Isthmian 4,
Olympian 13, Olympian 12, Nemean 2, Isthmian 3, Olympian 5, Pythian 5,
Olympian 9 and Nemean 3 under two main principles, a) the poet's task
to praise the victor, and b) the modification of cosmological
principles according to the victor's actuality. This last chapter thus
forms the concluding apex of B.'s methodology applied to the
interpretation of gnomai in Pindaric epinikia, the cosmological
principles underlying these gnomai and, most of all, the role of the
poet as mediator and modifier of cosmological ideas according to the
agenda set by the athlete's victory.

In the last chapter, the author recasts in a succinct form the major
conclusions of her inquiry.

Finally, some typos: p. 11 <greek>*Xei/rwnos *(Upoqh/kai</greek>
instead of <greek>*Xei/rwnos *(Upoqh=kai</greek>, p. 19 <greek>tou=
legonto/s e)sti</greek> instead of <greek>tou= le/gonto/s
e)sti</greek>, p. 32 <greek>ai)/sa</greek> instead of
<greek>ai)=sa</greek>, p. 39, n. 32 <greek>ghras</greek> instead of
<greek>gh=ras</greek>, p. 57 <greek>kai\ tin</greek>' instead of
<greek>kai/ tin</greek>', p. 60 <greek>kei=tei</greek> instead of
<greek>kei=tai</greek>, p. 69 <greek>i(/ketai</greek> instead of
<greek>i(/khtai</greek>, p. 82, n. 135 (and p.206) Seaforth instead of
Seaford, p. 95 <greek>qe)sqai</greek> instead of
<greek>qe/sqai</greek>, p. 128 <greek>ou\</greek> instead of
<greek>ou)</greek>, p. 150 <greek>xqusa/mpuka</greek> instead of
<greek>xrusa/mpuka</greek>, p. 151 <greek>eu(/rwn</greek> instead of
<greek>eu(rw/n</greek>, p. 183 <greek>kata\ dai/mon</greek> instead of
<greek>kata\ dai/mona</greek>, p. 184 <greek>e)pifle/fwn</greek>
instead of <greek>e)pifle/gwn</greek>, p. 187 <greek>dida/kta</greek>
instead of <greek>didakta/</greek>.

Although B. claims to use Snell-Maehler's (sic) edition of Epinicia
(1987) and Maehler's edition of Fragmenta (1989), unless stated
otherwise in a footnote, there is an instance, p. 60, Pythian 8. 76-77,
where she adopts Race's edition without stating it: at the end of line
76, after <greek>pari/sxei</greek> she follows Race's punctuation with
a comma instead of Maehler's punctuation with Greek <greek>a)/nw
te/leia</greek>.

The same is true of B.'s introductory claim to use names of ancient
authors as abbreviated in OCD, i.e. instead of Isocrates, Socrates,
Phocylides, Bacchylides, Sophocles, we read Isokrates, Sokrates,
Phokylides, Bakchylides, Sophokles.

In the catalogue of the bibliography cited, in p. 200 the name of David
Cohen should be abbreviated as Cohen D., in line with the way the
author lists the majority of her secondary material. In p. 206 Rubin,
N. F. should be listed according to her first surname, i.e. Felson.

In p. 12, n. 6, I would prefer the anglicized version of "John of
Sardis" for "Ioannes Sardianus" instead of "Jean de Sardes". Likewise,
in p. 57, n. 81, I would prefer the designation "Aelius Aristides" to
"the sophist Aristides", and the more common title "On the Four" for
his work to "In Defense of the Four".

There are some bibliographical addenda. One of them was not available
to the author due to its being published almost simultaneously with her
survey. This is the first chapter of C. Tsagalis, Inscribing Sorrow:
Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams (de Gruyter, 2007; recently
reviewed for BMCR), pp. 9-61, entitled "The Use of Gnomic Expressions".
Others are in Modern Greek, and perhaps not easily accessible to her.
Two such are articles by D. J. Jakob, the most recent one entitled
"Pindar and the Afterlife: Rereading Second Olympian Ode",[[5]] in
Hellenika 55.1 (2005), 7-18, where Jakob offers a new reading and
interpretation of vv. 56-83 of the Second Olympian Ode, and an earlier
one, entitled "A Koinos topos in Pseudo-Phocylides",[[6]] in Hellenika
39 (1988), 405-412, where he gathers many parallels for a gnome in
Pseudo-Phocylides and adduces among them vv. 15-17 of the Second
Olympian Ode. The latter bibliographical suggestion is meant for p. 36
of B.'s survey, the former for p. 56. The third case is a book, also
written in Greek, by V. Liapis, Menandrou Gnomai Monostixoi (Athens:
<greek>*Ekdo/seis *Stigmh/</greek>, 2002) and already reviewed for
BMCR, which offers an excellent introduction to wisdom literature
focused on gnomai.

Other bibliographical addenda are the article by M. S. Silk, "Pindar's
Poetry as Poetry: A Literary Commentary on Olympian 12", in S.
Hornblower and C. Morgan (eds.) Pindar's Poetry, Patrons, and
Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire (Oxford: OUP, 2007),
pp. 177-197, which offers an insightful interpretation of
<greek>basta/zeis</greek> in Olympian 12; M. Stuligrosz, "Maxims in
Pindar's poetry", Eos 87 (2000), 153-162; M. S. Funghi (ed.), Aspetti
di letteratura gnomica nel mondo antico, vols. 1-2 (Florence: L. S.
Olschki Editore, 2003-2004); Chapter Five "Social Charis" and Chapter
Six "Epinician Charis" of B. MacLachlan's, The Age of Grace: Charis in
Early Greek Poetry (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993),
pp. 73-123, regarding the semantics and use of the term "Charis"; and
J. Stenger, "Apophthegma, Gnome und Chrie. Zum Verhaeltnis dreier
literarischer Kleinformen", Philologus 150.2 (2006), 203-221. As far as
plant and nature imagery is concerned D. Steiner's, The Crown of Song:
Metaphor in Pindar (London: Duckworth, 1986) remains a useful guide. M.
Briand's article, on "Le vocabulaire de l' excellence chez Pindare",
RPh 76 (2002-3), 203-218, offers a valuable insight on the notion of
<greek>a)reta/</greek> and excellence in Pindar, and corroborates B.'s
main argument on the value of victory, the use of gnomai and the role
of the poet.

At the end of chapter two a slight objection could be raised as regards
the use of the term "proverb", since this term shifts the focus of the
survey which lies on gnomai.[[7]]

In chapter four, the author omits to mention that according to modern
scholarship, Olympian 12 actually celebrates a Pythian victory, an
innovative view introduced by Barrett and now widely accepted, although
she is aware of Barrett's redating of the ode.[[8]]

Summa summarum, the book is largely successful. B. had to deal with the
diverse nature of the material. In addition, she had to debate with the
long philological tradition on the subject and meet the challenge of
answering philosophical and sociolinguistic questions. Compared to
previous philological efforts on the same subject such as H. Bischoff's
Gnomen Pindars, B. offers an enriched discussion and a
contextualization of each passage, informed by the social agenda set by
the potential audience of each ode. In other words, she does not
sidestep the methodological principles underlying works like
Bischoff's, i.e. close reading of the text, tracking parallel passages
and analyzing each passage. Moreover, it is definitely a step forward,
since the author exploits critically all the achievements of modern
Pindaric scholarship, <greek>dre/pousa korufa\s a)reta=n a)/po
pasa=n</greek>, to answer in a clear-cut way complex issues such as the
construction of poetic persona or the poet's "I" and how this affects
the use of cosmological ideas in the encomiastic context of epinicia.


------------------
Notes:


1.   At this point, it should be stressed that the use of this combined
method, i.e. enriching the analysis of ancient texts with methods
applied to modern literary artefacts is well known and welcome in the
field of classical scholarship, provided this fusion is not at the
expense of the analysis of primary ancient material. See recently P.
Kyriakou, "Epidoxon Kydos: Crown Victory and its Rewards" in C+M 58
(2007), 119-158.

2.   The standard reference for a full discussion of the problem is D.
E. Gerber, "Pindar, Nemean Six: A Commentary", HSCP 99 (1999), 33-91,
esp. pp. 45-46.

3.   In the fourth chapter <greek>H mnhmei/wsh tou kle/ous ths
po/lhs</greek> of L. Athanassaki's, <greek>A)ei/deto pa=n
te/menos</greek>, (<greek>Hra/kleion: Panepistimiake/s Ekdo/seis
Krh/ths</greek>, forthcoming), the author offers an analysis of the
politics of Pythian Seven in comparison to Nemean Two.

4.   W. H. Race, Style and Rhetoric in Pindar's Odes (Atlanta, Georgia:
Scholars Press, 1990), p. 191.

5.   <greek>O Pi/ndaros kai h metaqana/tia zoh/: xanadiaba/zontas ton
deu/tero Olumpio/niko</greek>.

6.   <greek>E/nas koino/s to/pos ston Yeudo-Fokuli/dh</greek>.

7.   Although there is a lengthy secondary literature on the
distinction between proverb and gnome, A. Jolles' contribution,
Einfache Formen: Legende, Sage, Mythe, Raetsel, Spruch, Kasus,
Memorabilie, Maerchen, Witz (Halle: V. M. Niemeyer Verlag, second
edition 1956), pp. 124-140, remains useful. R. P. Martin, "Gnomes in
Poems: Wisdom Performance on the Athenian Stage", Princeton/Stanford
Working Papers on Classics, May 2005, 1-25, uses invariably both terms
(online address:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/rpmartin/050502.pdf, date of
online access: 2008/03/28).

8.   W. S. Barrett, "Pindar's Twelfth Olympian and the Fall of the
Deinomenidai", JHS 1973, 23-35; W. J. Verdenius, Commentaries on
Pindar, vol. 1: Olympian 3, 7, 12, 14, Mnemosyne Suppl. 97 (Brill,
1987), p. 89. In her review of B. Gentili, C. Catenacci, Polinnia:
Poesia greca arcaica, Terza edizione (Firenze: G. D' Anna Casa, 2007)
in BMCR 2008.04.23, L. Athanassaki favours Barrett's redating. For
archaeological evidence combined with literary interpretation see R.
Hamilton, "Olympian 12 and the Coins of Himera", Phoenix 38.3 (1984),
261-264; for a more recent interpretative approach see M. S. Silk
(cited above), esp. p. 181.