Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T06:12:40.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMMENTING ON PINDAR, OLYMPIAN 2: THE EMMENID GENEALOGIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2018

Antonio Tibiletti
Antonio Tibiletti*
Affiliation:
University of Bern, Switzerland
*
*anto.tibiletti@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article examines the two different genealogies of the Emmenids reported by the scholia on Pindar's Olympian 2: scholl. 16c ~ 70f Dr. connect Theron to the Labdacids Thersander and Polynices via Thera (the ‘Therean’ genealogy), whereas 82d Dr. links him with Eteocles via Rhodes (the ‘Rhodian’ genealogy). Modern interpretations associate the former with the Epinician, the latter with the Encomium to Theron. By contrast, it is argued that the ‘Therean’ genealogy originated from an ancient mistaken interpretation of the role of Thersander in Ol. 2.43–7: a careful reading of that passage and of relevant testimonia shows that Pindar endorsed the ‘Rhodian’ version in both poems, thus showing a unanimous tradition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Classical Journal , Volume 64 , December 2018 , pp. 166 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am very grateful to the anonymous referees of CCJ for valuable contributions and helpful comments on this article.

References

Works cited

Baron, Ch. A. (2013) Timaeus of Tauromenium and Hellenistic historiography, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Braswell, B. K. (2011) ‘Didymus on Pindar’, in Matthaios, S., Montanari, F. and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Ancient scholarship and grammar: archetypes, concepts and contexts, Berlin and New York, 181–97.Google Scholar
Braswell, B. K. (2013) ‘Reading Pindar in antiquity’, MH 69, 12–28.Google Scholar
Braswell, B. K. (2017) Didymus of Alexandria: Commentary on Pindar, 2nd edn, Basel.Google Scholar
Broggiato, M. (2011) ‘Artemon of Pergamum (FGrH 569): a historian in context’, CQ 61, 545–52.Google Scholar
Broggiato, M. (2014) Filologia e interpretazione a Pergamo. La scuola di Cratete, Rome.Google Scholar
Brown, T. S. (1958) Timaeus of Tauromenium, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Buongiovanni, A. M. (1985) ‘Una tradizione filoemmenide nella fondazione di Acragas’, ASNP 15, 493–9.Google Scholar
Caserta, C. (1999) Gli Emmenidi e le tradizioni poetiche e storiografiche su Agrigento arcaica fino alla battaglia di Imera, Palermo.Google Scholar
Caserta, C. (2000) ‘Le genealogie mitiche degli Emmenidi negli Scholia vetera alla Olimpica ii di Pindaro’, Hormos 2, 5–42.Google Scholar
Catenacci, C. (2005) ‘Letture pindariche’, QUCC 81, 25–31.Google Scholar
Catenacci, C. (2006) ‘Pindaro e le corti dei tiranni sicelioti’, in Vetta, M. and Catenacci, C. (eds.), I luoghi e la poesia nella Grecia antica, Alessandria, 177–97.Google Scholar
Deas, H. Th. (1931) ‘The Scholia vetera to Pindar’, HSPh 42, 1–78.Google Scholar
Dunbabin, T. J. (1948) The western Greeks: the history of Sicily and South Italy from the foundation of the Greek colonies to 480 bc, Oxford.Google Scholar
Eckerman, Ch. (2010) ‘The ΚΩΜΟΣ of Pindar and Bacchylides and the semantics of celebration’, CQ 60, 302–12.Google Scholar
Fileni, M. G. (1993) ‘Una pagina di storia agrigentina: Pind. frr. 118 e 119 Sn.-Maehl.’, in Pretagostini, R. (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all'età ellenistica, Rome, 427–40.Google Scholar
Finnerty Cummins, M. (2010) ‘Sicilian tyrants and their victorious brothers i: the Emmenids’, CJ 105, 321–39.Google Scholar
Gauger, B. and Gauger, J.-D. (2015) Die Fragmente der Historiker: Ephoros von Kyma (FGrHist 70) und Timaios von Tauromenion (FGrHist 566), Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Gentili, B. et al. (2013) Pindaro. Le Olimpiche, Milan.Google Scholar
Irigoin, J. (1952) Histoire du texte de Pindare, Paris.Google Scholar
Kühner, R. and Gerth, B. (1898) Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Volumes i–ii, Hannover and Leipzig.Google Scholar
Lapini, W. and Luraghi, N. (1996) ‘La genealogia degli Emmenidi nella scoliastica pindarica. Note di lettura a Schol. Pind. Pyth. 6.5a’, PP 51, 213–20.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, J. (1964) Pindarus’ Tweede Olympische Ode. Volume i, Assen.Google Scholar
Maehler, H. (2000) ‘Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch des Satz-Asyndetons bei Bakchylides und Pindar’, in Cannatà Fera, M. and Grandolini, S. (eds.), Poesia e religione in Grecia. Studi in onore di G.A. Privitera. Volume ii, Naples, 421–30.Google Scholar
Miller, M. (1970) The Sicilian colony date, New York.Google Scholar
Musti, D. (1992) ‘Le tradizioni ecistiche di Agrigento’, in Braccesi, L. and De Miro, E. (eds.), Agrigento e la Sicilia greca. Atti della settimana di studio (Agrigento, 2–8 maggio 1988), Rome, 27–45.Google Scholar
Nünlist, R. (2009) The ancient critic at work: terms and concepts of literary criticism in Greek scholia, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Privitera, A. G. (1972) ‘Eracle nella prima nemea’, GIF 3, 28–51.Google Scholar
Race, W. J. (1997) Pindar. Volume i, Cambridge, MA and London.Google Scholar
Rose, P. W. (1974) ‘The myth of Pindar's First Nemean: sportsmen, poetry, and paideia’, HSPh 78, 145–75.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. (2000) ‘De Cadmos aux Émménides’, Kentron 16, 65–81.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, E. and Debrunner, A. (2013) Griechische Grammatik. Volume ii: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, München.Google Scholar
Suárez de la Torre, E. (2006) ‘Les mentions généalogique chez Pindare’, Kernos 19, 97–111.Google Scholar
Vassilaki, E. (2009) ‘Aristarque interprète des odes siciliennes de Pindare: explication interne et explication externe’, in David, S., Daude, C., Geny, E. and Muckensturm-Poulle, C. (eds.), Traduire les scholies de Pindare. Volume i: De la traduction au commentaire: problèmes de méthode, Franche-Comté, 121–45.Google Scholar