Genealogy, History, and Mythology in Olympian 9

Genealogy, History, and Mythology in Olympian 9From Polis to OikosAt the end of Olympian 9, the ode for Epharmostos, the champion wrestler from Opountian Lokris, Pindar decl ars phya, his idiosyncratic rendering of physis(altogether silk hat Ol. 9.100)1 he says that the heralds proclamation ought to record that his winner was born (with quick hands, nimble legs, de callination in his look), all the natural and inherited endowments necessary for athletic skipper (Ol. 9.108ff).2 Despite his emphasis on Epharmostos birth (with divine help he was born), Pindar, unusually, rings neither the father of the victor nor acknowledges any family whatsoever. In a musical genre as concerned with family and individuation as epinikian, the omission is striking and potentially troublesome for the rhetoric of epinikian congratulations. Miller remarks that such an omission would almost certainly that occur at the instruction of the client himself, and thus we should conclude that Epharmostos d id non regard family or fathers name as essential to his self-definition.3 Pindars encomium still bleeds, only the absence of family disturbs many of the regular features of epinikian, especially the vantage pointard integration of phya and family.4Family, via the fathers name, was an element of the heralds proclamation or angelia and would father been announced after Epharmostos achievement.5 While Pindars epinikian evokes the angelia, it freely includes, excludes, or modifies elements of the proclamation.6 The modification, or omission, of a comp nonpareilnt of the angelia therefore serves as an opening for my analysis of the ode rather than focus on the question of why Pindar did not include the fathers name, this name explains how Pindaric praise, particularly the praise of inherited ability, still functions in an ode that omits a key comp one(a)nt of epinikian poetics. Pindar, despite the ostensible absence of family in this ode, nonetheless praises phya by ethnic gr oup and polis and with a colonial narrative of early Lokrian and Opountian history. While the focus on the conjunction of the victor with ethnos and polis is certainly not without parallel, Ol. 9 is singular in its emphasis on the correlation of biography and history. The Archaic and early Classical assimilation of genealogy to ethnic and civil history joins such jutmingly different concepts as inheritance, family lineage, and genealogy with ethnic descent and civic fundament. The polis, one component of the angelia, can replace family, another component, because of the conceiving of ethnic and civic identity as essentially genealogical.In her study of the economy of praise in epinikian, Kurke concludes that the family is crucial not only to the solemnization of athletic success but to success itself (1991, 3 cf Cole 1987, 560). She suggests that the family connection is important enough that we should recognize Pindars (and his victors) different concept of self-identity, whi ch was integrated, to a great degree, with family.7 In this conceiving of self-identity, personal athletic supremacy can be understood as a renewal of the family, especially through the metaphors of new birth, marriage, and rites for dead ancestors.8 Thus, the exclusion of family from Epharmostos ode is unexpected his victory, while it may have brought fame to his living relatives, is not represented as renewing or reviving the fame of his oikos, since the oikos is absent from the ode his Olympic victory cannot participate in the common epinikian analogizing of athletic victory to family renewal, since there is no literal family in the poem. This omission is highly unusual in epinikian, which, as Carey points out, memorializes through naming.9In only a few odes does Pindar not mention family members Ol. 1, Ol. 4, Ol. 9, Pyth. 3, Pyth. 12, and Isthm. 3. In a number of these, the paternal and familial absence may be able to be rationalized the victor is either a ruler or policy-maki ngly or socially prominent and thus the ode focuses attention on them, or at any rate participates in a rather complex policy-making context (Ol. 1 for Hieron Pyth. 3 for Hieron)10 in another two cases the fathers name appears in an earlier ode for the same victor, and thus perhaps familial self-identity had been fulfilled (Hierons fathers name appears in another ode as well Pyth. 1.79 Ol. 4 for Psaumis of Kamarina, whose father Akron is named at Ol. 5.8, and his sons at 5.23 Isthm. 3 for Melissos of Thebes, whose father is named at Isthm. 4.45).Pythian 12 and Olympian 9 stand out, since they lack any explicit reference to the father, clan, or family of the victor. Pyth. 12 praises the victory of Midas of Akragas in the aulos competition at the Pythian Games significantly, it is the only extant ode to praise a victor in a musical contest. While Strauss-Clay suggests that the absence of Midas father and family is explained by his professional standing as an aulos player, Maria Pavlo u offers a convincing and subtle interpretation that situates the absence of family in the context of Akragrantine politics.11 She suggests that Midas victory is an agalma for the metropolis, since Akragas itself receives an extended encomium (Pyth. 12.1-5), and she argues that Midas victory ode was commissioned by the then-ascendant Emmenidae (perhaps Theron himself), in order to stress their power, and to relate them to a celebration of Akragantine culture. Thus Pythian 12 does not offer evidence that lower-status athletes (if, indeed, Midas was lower-status) would not celebrate their fathers, but rather indicates the potential utility of an epinikian victory to the political program of an shoot for tyrant.12Consequently, Ol. 9 is alone in its complete absence of a literal family or subscriber line, or at least, it is the only ode in which an obvious explanation does not appear to be forthcoming through the political or social context of the poem, and the lack of fathers name c annot be explained because of any known personal political prominence or a powerful patron. Even if Epharmostos family had not had previous athletic success, family could still appear, since in other odes victory acts retroactively to glorify differently obscure ancestors (e.g., Nem. 6.17-29).Aside from Epharmostos, the ode mentions one other apparently historical individual, Lampromachos, whose armorial bearing has sparked much ancient and modern discussion.13 He is introduced as a cause for the poets presence at the celebration of Olympian 9 (82-84)Because of guest friendship and achievementI have come to honor the Isthmian fillets of Lampromachos, when twain wintheir victories in one day.The scholiasts are divided on the consequence of 123a and 123c regard Lampromachos as a proxenos in the technical sense, while 123d and 123e consider to be equivalent to in this passage finally, 125c considers Lampromachos a kinsman of Epharmostos.14 Modern scholarship has been similarly div ided.15 While the institution of proxenia existed in the fifth-century, it is not certain that an institutionalized proxenia has any relevance to Pindars use of the term in Ol. 9.16 In one of the only accounts to try to rationalize the appearance of proxenos here, Pavlou focuses on the early evidence for proxenia in Lokris specifically she is skeptical that Pindar would use a technical term so loosely and she contends that by the fifth-century, proxenia was firmly entrenched as an institution.17 Pavlou follows the opinion of one of the scholiasts and regards Lampromachos as the proxenos of the Thebans at Opous, and thus a relevant personage to Pindars presence and the commissioning of the ode.18The Pindaric usage of proxenia and related passwords, however, suggests that proxenia could also signify vaguer cordial reception. Isthm. 4.8, for example, teams proxenia with the adverb which renders it tall(a) that the word refers to a contemporary institution it is probable that appropr iate hospitality is simply another component of the praise of the Kleonymidai.19 In fr. 94b, Pindar uses the plural dative describes a tradition of hospitality, which began in the past and extends to the present day (38-45), and once again, it is unlikely that the combination of a temporal adverb referring to the past and proxenia refers to the institution.20 Nem. 7 has presented its own issues of interpretation, in terms of situating the passage in the larger organization of the poem, but proxenia, nonetheless, likely system general rather than specific.21 At Nem. 7.64-65, the reference to proxenia probably has little to do with the Achaian man, and rather, proxenia evokes the previous reference to xenia at Nem. 7.61 ( I am a guest-friend).22 Again, an institutionalized meaning is highly unlikely.In other poetic uses from the early fifth-century, the term can refer to general hospitality in Aeschylus Suppliant Women, proxenia refers to general protection by a powerful patron (or d eity), rather than an institutionalized system of city-sponsored hosting (Aesch. Supp. 420, 491, 919). A fragment of Aeschylus Diktyouloi uses proxenia but then glosses it with the word champion (TrGF III fr. 47a.768-770). Therefore, proxenia in Ol. 9, and end-to-end the Pindaric corpus, can occur as a metaphor for hospitality, guest-friend relations, and philia, rather than a reference to the civic institution the term is not evidence for a civic commissioning or biographical speculation but rather reinforces the intimate connection of city and victor.Lampromachos opens the victory catalogue two other Isthmian wins are recorded separately in the following line (Ol. 9.86). The mention of Lampromachos is likely a flourish with which to open the catalogue, an instance in which Epharmostos and his countryman both won at a pan-Hellenic festival on the same day. Pindar begins with a special victory, and then proceeds to begin the catalogue-proper of Epharmostos, proceeding, as is norm al, from victories in the Crown Games.23 The victory with Lampromachos is given special prominence (it begins the catalogue) because of its moment to the city of Opous, a city poorly represented in victories at the Crown Games.24 Considering the odes explicit focus on praise of Opous aswellasEpharmostos, the inclusion of its other stephanitic victor is hardly surprising. It may be strange, in this case, that Pindar does not mention Menalkes (Moretti no. 240), who won at boxing at the same Olympics as Epharmostos, though perhaps the inclusion of another Olympic victor would challenge the primacy of Epharmostos praise in the ode Lampromachos lesser Isthmian victory fulfills the function of praising the city without eclipsing the praise of the laudandus.The mythic section of the ode, in which hospitality and guest-friendship not institutionalized proxenia are conjoined, when foreigners are welcomed to the new city of Opous (Ol. 9.67-69), supports my interpretation of proxenia at La mpromachos appearance. In fact, the settlement of foreigners (explicitly xenoi Ol. 9.67) and the arete of Opous himself (Ol. 9.65-66 and the polis at Ol. 9.16) as well as one of the descendants of the new settlers (Patroklos, Ol. 9.70-76), have al submity appeared together in the odes narrative. Thus, Pindar comes to Opous because of the same qualities that have already characterized the polis and ethnos in the mythic narrative he, like the xenoi in the myth, is attracted to the presence of the famous residents of the city, and its famous hospitality. Repetition and a cyclical perspective on Lokrian and Opountian history predominate in the structure of the ode, and so the rationale for Pindars visit seems to reinforce the identity of Epharmostos victory with the past history and mythology of his city and ethnos. Lampromachos is not include because of any political office, special relation, or involvement in the commissioning of the ode (all the suggestions of the scholiasts), but s imply because of his status as an Opountian pan-Hellenic victor.25 Regardless of the always vague, and unfeasible to prove historical circumstances surrounding the commissioning of the ode, the focus is on Opountian achievements in the victory catalogue, first in the single victory of Lampromachos, and then in the longer record of Epharmostos myriad victories this is not proof of a civic commissioning, but rather exemplary of Pindars method of integrating victor with community.26Ol. 9 exemplifies the Pindaric inclining to merge oikos and polis epinikian is a form of civic adornment by the wealthy after all. Merger, however, does not fully satisfy in the context of the ode, since the family in Ol. 9 is not simply combined with the polis that, in athletics, is the normal state of affairs, because the angelia teams together individual, familial, and civic identities. 27 In Ol. 9, in contrast, Epharmostos family is absent, and the ethnos of Lokris and the polis of Opous replace the oikos of the victor. The presence of Lampromachos in the victory catalogue, in a place generally reserved for family achievements, as a result of his civic identity, indicates this replacement the polis relegates family and positions itself as the family of the seemingly family-less Epharmostos, so that the history of Lokris and Opous becomes the biographyof Epharmostos, the citys putative ancestry replaces the victors actual genealogy.While homeland praise is a commonplace in Pindaric criticism, Kurke notes that the place of neither family praise nor homeland praise in epinikian has ever been questioned.28 She stresses the humankind and communal nature of the reception of Pindars art, and comments that Pindar uses foundation myths because of their inherently political quality, since they transform an entire polis into a single family descended from a common mythic ancestor.29 The public survey of epinikian, and the function of homeland praise as part of the political performative of epinikian provokes this articles new interpretation of Olympian 9 the recognition of Opous and Lokris standing in as the oikos of this victor allows us to reimagine the connection between Epharmostos Olympic victories and the mythic narrative in the ode in the context of replacement family and substitute ancestry.This reimagining begins by situating the series of foundations and renewals in the procedure of the song itself. The respective establishment of ethnos and polis are emphasized in the ode and function to praise Epharmostos by placing him in a continuity of inheritance (Pindaric phya), modulate through civic and ethnic lineage. Although he has no actual family worth mentioning in the ode, the song manufactures a lineage (and inheritance) of great deeds through the utter and re-telling of history and mythology. It is therefore in the two figures who complete great deeds, Deukalion and Opous (ethnic and civic founders, and themselves involved with unusual family), that w e should look for the mythic parallels through which Pindar praises his patron, Epharmostos, and the polis, Opous.30Pindars narrative in Ol. 9 is one of the earliest, and most complete, Lokrian myths.31 He begins from the pig out, after which Deukalion and Pyrrha descend from Mount Parnassos to found a city and establish its autochthonous inhabitants (Ol. 9.43-46), the Leleges who become the ethnos of the Lokrians32 second, the lineage of kings is regenerate through the adoption of a son, Opous, descended directly from Zeus (Ol. 9.57-66), through whom the civic identity of Opountians is established.33 In both cases, foundations are not straightforward. Standard Greek commencement stories revolved around autochthony or migration (Hall 2002 31-35), but in Pindars narrative, colonial-style foundation is coupled with autochthony (Deukalion and Pyrrha) and hereditary inheritance is complicated by adoption (Opous) a productive merger for representing Epharmostos civic and ethnic geneal ogy. Thus, Pindar finds room in his Lokrian and Opountian creation myths to accommodate all manners of foundation and establishment, and in doing so, firmly establishes the Hellenic identity of Epharmostos Lokrian ancestors.34The section on Deukalion and Pyrrha opens after Pindars self-recrimination for the Herakles narrative. While the digression accords with Pindars formal use of Abbruchsformeln,35 the specific rationale for the inclusion of Herakles here has generated debate, and some have compared Herakles stance against the gods (mortal versus immortal) with Epharmostos victory at Marathon, when he was, according to Pindar, incorrectly placed in the mens category (Ol. 9.89-90).36 Though some audience members may have made this connection, I accede with Gerber, who regards the comparison as inappropriate, since it would claim some glory for doing combat with the gods (surely, un-Pindaric see Ol. 9.35-41 cf. Ol. 1.35).37 Rather, the Abbruchsformel, as ofttimes, allows Pindar to draw a connection through juxtaposition, where one is logically absent here, Herakles descent from Zeus and its consequent effect on his abilities (for the general principle of inherited ability and divine grace Ol. 9.28-29 for the specific application to Epharmostos, see Ol. 9.100-104) is placed in close contact with the founding story of Opous and the Lokrians, in which Zeus volition similarly play a major role and will bequeath abilities to Lokrian and Opountian progeny (Ol. 9.56-65).38 By the end of the ode, the connection of divinity and ability is made clear in the latest generation, in the object of the odes praise, when Pindar observes that men do poorly (Ol. 9.103).After this apparent interruption, with characteristic self-recrimination (though with the effect generated by the juxtaposition in place), Pindar directs himself to stay to the topic at hand, which is the city of Protogeneia (Ol. 9.41-56) , , 45 . , , . 50 , - -. 55, , apply your speech toProtogeneiascity, where, by decree of Zeus of the brightthunderbolt,Pyrrha and Deukalion came down from Parnassosand first established their home, and, without coupling,founded one folk, an offspring of stoneand they were called people.Awaken for them a clear-sounding driveway of wordspraise wine that is old, but the blooms of hymnsthat are newer. Indeed they tell thatmighty waters had flooded overthe dark earth, but,through Zeus contriving, an decrease tide suddenlydrained the floodwater. From them cameyour ancestors of the bronze shieldsin the beginning, sons from the daughters of Iapetosrace and from the mightiest sons of Kronos,being always a native line of kings,In this passage, Pindar briefly summarizes the end of the flood narrative, which left only Deukalion and Pyrrha alive atop of Mount Parnassos. In Pindars telling, the origin of the flood is left obscure, though Zeus will is the clear cause of its cessation.39The significance of 48-49 has been inte rpreted variously.40 Despite some attempts to connect this comment to Simonides, the phrase must make sense in the context of its performance and patron, not to mention in re-performance scenarios.41 The contrast is perhaps best understood in terms of praising the essential qualities of things antiquity in wine is best (e.g., Od. 2.340), whereas novelty in songs, at least in the context of this ode (which opens, after all, with a contrast between old and new songs Ol. 9.1), is best. Here I am not arguing for a universal motif in Pindar, but rather, that in thisodeinparticular, Pindar opens by stressing the novelty of his song (the Archilochus song), and thus, in this ode, newness in song is an important element42 Pindar buttresses this public debate perhaps not so self-evident by the comparison with wine.43 In fact, since essential qualities generally phya play a major part in the praise of the victor (Ol. 9.100ff), the extension of this opinion to the song that praises that vi ctor makes thematic sense and further strengthens the encomium. If the following myth is unconventional, or stresses unconventional aspects by focusing on the Lokrian and Opountian origin of humanity after the flood, then the statement serves as a self-reference to the poets skill as well as being emphatic about one of the objects of the odes praise.44 In fact, when Pindar turns to the story of Lokrian and Opountian foundation, he foregrounds the connections amongst ethnos, polis, and Epharmostos (and thus strengthens his case for a continuity of inheritance), by asking for a clear-sounding path of words for them (Ol. 9.47) surely here we read a reference to the whole race of the Lokrians through all the temporal stages of the ode, since for them follows the riddling reference to their name (Ol. 9.45-46). Thus, the whole of 48-49 serves as a transition and, via a terse priamel, an explicit way to focus audience attention on the objects of the odes praise, before turning to implicit praise via the mythic narrative.45The foundation of Opous, the first human ingleside following the destruction of the race, comes about (by decree of Zeus, Ol. 9.42). is a complicated word in Pindar, though its basic meaning of share or portion often metaphorically denotes fate (s.v. (A), Slater), and, in several instances, is the fate that allows athletic victory to come to fruition in Nem. 3.16, Aristokleidas strength in the pankration persists (thanks to your i.e., the Muses favor) at Nem. 6.13, Alkimidas fortune at Nemea is expressly connected to Zeus favor ( a fortune from Zeus) in Pyth. 10, it is (duly) that a living man sees his son crowned at the Pythian Games (10.25-26).46 Ol. 9 points to the extremity of the favor of the gods (above all, Zeus) to athletic victory , / (but when god takes no part, each deed is no worse / for being left in silence, 103-104) (also, Ol. 9.28-29) in fact, Zeus is one of the honorees of Epharmostos ode (Ol. 9.6).47 The involve ment of the nous of Zeus in Opountian history connects the distant foundation of ethnos, the legendary establishment of polis, and the present praise of Epharmostos, especially through a word that can be used to describe the role of fate in athletic victory. As Pindar describes it, these three instances are correlative, not through content, but through the aition for each, that is, divine will (and Zeus is particularly attuned to watching over Lokrian history, as this odes mythic narrative demonstrates) they are thematically contiguous despite the vast country of time.48Deukalion and Pyrrha are the founders of the Lokrian ethnos their arrival at what will be Opous is characterized less as an arrival at a foreign land and rather as the arrival at their destined home Deukalion and Pyrrha are not alien (although simultaneously not native) to the land of Opous, and it is there that they establish their home (Ol. 9.44 cf. Str. 9.4.2). suggestively combines foundation language ( to f ound) with parentage ( offspring) it also evokes Pindars vocabulary for athletic inscriptions (cf. Ol. 7.86 / while in Megara the record in stone / tells no other tale).49 Deukalion and Pyrrha begin the replacement of oikos by ethnos and polis their natural daughter, Protogeneia, evaporates into the city they found (Ol. 9. 41-42)50 the (stone people) are treated as if their children the original inhabitants of Opous, their fellow-citizens, are also their descendants. Pindar emphasizes the blurring of oikos and polis he describes the descendants of the as from them came your ancestors of the bronze shields (Ol. 9.53-54).The actor of has provoked much discussion among commentators ancient and modern, though rather than stress a specific meaning, equivocalness, as often, renders Pindars verse more, not less understandable ambiguity exists in the initial description of the city of Protogeneia and the parentage of the .51 As so often, Pindars verse resists an interpretive straightjacket the ambiguous demonstrative suggestively begins the replacement of oikos by polis, which is, of course, big to the encomium of the odes laudandus, Epharmostos.The understanding of (Ol. 9.54) has proceeded along similarly fraught lines, though again, sensitivity to the theme of replacement and identity of oikos, ethnos, and polis in the ode provides some clarity.52 can refer to both Epharmostos family and the Opountians generally because Epharmostos family, as represented in the ode, istheOpountians (thus, Epharmostos is like his mythological antecedent, Opous, whose true family are the inhabitants of his eponymous city). Pindars verse, through mythic narrative and purposeful ambiguity completes not a merger of oikos and ethnos and polis, but rather a replacement of one by the others Deukalions natural daughter becomes an alternative name for a city that is populated by the fellow-citizens (or family) of the descendants of the .The appearance of the autochthonous original inhabitants of Opous, the race of stone, evokes colonial motifs, which muddles distinctions between native and foreign, and which stress the rele