¹ See Prauscello, L., ‘Epinician sounds: Pindar and musical innovation’, in Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (edd.), Reading the Victory Ode (Cambridge, 2012), 58–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar for discussion of this problem, with detailed bibliography. I share her scepticism about the validity of seeing connections between particular modes and metres.

² Studies include Pearson, L., ‘The dynamics of Pindar's music: ninth Nemean and third Olympian’, ICS 2 (1977), 54–69;Google ScholarD'Angour, A., ‘How the dithyramb got its shape’, CQ 47 (1997), 331–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Porter, J., ‘Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the riddle of S’, CQ 57 (2007), 1–21;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Prauscello (n. 1). See in general West, M.L., Ancient Greek Music (Oxford, 1992), 344–7.Google Scholar

³ Cf. D'Angour (n. 2) on the role of self-referentiality in Pindar's response in Dith. 2 to Lasus of Hermione's alterations of dithyrambic performance practice. This analysis is extended by Porter (n. 2), 6–10, who sees Pindar's rhetoric in Dith. 2 as proclaiming an allegiance to a new Lasian ‘poetics of sound’.

⁴ See Gentili, B., Bernardini, P. Angeli, Cingano, E. and Giannini, P., Pindaro. Le Pitiche (Milan, 1995)Google Scholar, on 23.

⁵ See e.g. Frontisi-Ducroux, F., ‘Athéna et l'invention de la flûte’, Musica e storia 2 (1994), 239–57Google Scholar, at 260; Morrison, A., Performances and Audiences in Pindar's Sicilian Victory Odes (London, 2007), 82–4Google Scholar. Both hypothesize choral performance with aulos accompaniment.

⁶ All translations are from Barker, A., Greek Musical Writings: I (Cambridge, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁷ Barker (n. 6), 253. See further West, M.L., ‘Stesichorus’, CQ 21 (1971), 309CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the harmateios nomos cf. Hagel, S., Ancient Greek Music (Cambridge, 2010), 402–3.Google Scholar

⁸ See Fleming, T., ‘The musical nomos in Aeschylus’ Oresteia’, CJ 72.3 (1977), 222–33Google Scholar and Danielewicz, J., ‘Il Nomos nella parodia di Aristofane (Ran. 1264 sgg.)’, in Lirica greca e latina: atti del convegno di studi polacco-italiano (Rome, 1990), 131–42Google Scholar for detailed discussion.

⁹ West (n. 7), 309–10. See Lasserre, F., Plutarque: de la musique (Olten, 1954), 22–9Google Scholar, and Power, T., The Culture of Kitharôidia (Washington, 2010), 215–24Google Scholar, on nomoi in general. While we should be sceptical of Lasserre's validation of ancient classification of nomoi and of his thesis of the wide and pervasive influence of nomoi on musico-poetic practice in the Archaic and Classical period (see the comments of Barker [n. 6], 249–55), this should not lead to the conclusion that nomoi were never utilized in the manner indicated by the sources.

¹⁰ D'Angour, A., ‘The ‘new music’: so what's new?’ in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (edd.), Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 2006), 278–80Google Scholar.

¹¹ An identification accepted by Barker (n. 6), 253. Köhnken, A., Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar: Interpretationen zu sechs Pindargedichten (Berlin, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 143 sees a more general reference to Athena's musical inventiveness. Given the precision of the etymology, this seems unlikely. See Gentili et al. (n. 4), 679–80 on the attribution to Olympus: ‘il racconto di Pindaro riguarda l'origine mitica dell'arte auletica e del nomos policefalo … mentre l'attribuzione a Olimpo riflette una fase posteriore, già storica’.

¹² Barker (n. 6), 249–55.

¹³ An identification made by Barker (n. 6), 240 n. 210. [Plut.]’s information that the ‘many-headed nomos’ was dedicated to Apollo should not make us question this thesis. It is likely that this reflects a tradition that it was also performed as part of the Delphic contests, but this does not mean that it was not associated with Athena, and hence could not be known as the ‘Athena nomos’.

¹⁴ [Plut.] De mus. 1143B. Despite the time gap, [Plut.]’s evidence for such pieces can probably be applied to the classical period with reasonable confidence, given the conservative nature of their performance. [Plut.] is likely to reflect Aristoxenus and other early sources closely, and thus effectively provide evidence not far removed from Pindar's time.

¹⁵ The text is probably corrupt here. As Barker (n. 6), 240 n. 221 points out, the expression ‘enharmonic genus’ is used elsewhere only of melodic structure, whereas rhythmical structure alone is being discussed here.

¹⁶ [Plut.] De mus. 1143B–C. The meaning of harmonia is uncertain, but must refer to a section of the piece: see Barker (n. 6), ad loc.

¹⁷ Other instances of intrastanzaic/intratriadic repetition of whole lines in D/e odes are P3e5/6 (D – E); N1s2/4 (– e – D); N10e1/2 (e – D – e); I5s5e1 (e – D –); I6e3/6 (E – D). The verse E – e – also occurs at O3s5, O3e5, O7e7, I2s5 and I3/4s6. In each case the verse is the final line in the stanza. There are also six cases in Bacchylides: 9s9, 10s9, 11e11, 14e8, 15s5/7. It is important to note that there is no a priori connection between a rhythmical form and a particular form of melodization; I do not wish to suggest that each time the E – e – verse occurs it would have been melodized in connection with the Athena nomos. In order to hypothesize such a melodic connection, we need more than just the rhythm. In the cases of Ol. 3, Isthm. 2 and Isthm. 3/4 I can see no reason for positing any such link. In the case of Ol. 7, however, Athena plays a large role in the poem as object of the fireless sacrifice (39–53) and patroness of the Rhodian craftsmen (43–4). It is suggestive, for instance, that the dramatic episode of Athena's birth at 35–8 ends with the E – e – line Οὐρανὸς δ’ ἔϕριξέ νιν καὶ Γαῖα μάτηρ. It seems possible that Pindar may have made some use of the Athena nomos in Ol. 7, but the greater rhythmical and narrative complexity of this poem must render such a suggestion tentative. See Kowalzig, B., Singing for the Gods (Oxford, 2007), 224–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a reading of the poem's ritual context; use of the Athena nomos would be apt for a performance at the shrine of Athena Lindia.

¹⁸ For the rhythm of the paeon epibatos, see Aristid. Quint. 1.16, 2.15; West (n. 2), 156. Trochees are relatively rare in lyric: see e.g. West (n. 2), 102–6.

¹⁹ See e.g. Morrison (n. 5), 82–4.

²⁰ Strabo 9.3.10.

²¹ This parallelism is assumed by Barker (n. 6), 253 and Papadopoulou, Z. and Pirenne-Delforge, V., ‘Inventer et réinventer l’aulos: autour de la XIIe Pythique de Pindare’, in Brulé, P. and Vendries, C. (edd.), Chanter les dieux: musique et religion dans l'antiquité grecque et romaine (Rennes, 2001), 56–7Google Scholar.

²² Σ Pyth. 12.15b, 39b–c. While the scholia's etymology of the many-headed nomos should not be dismissed out of hand, a certain scepticism is in order. It is possible that the sources from whom the scholia derive had never heard the melody, and were making guesses based on the name and subject matter alone. Equally, their explanation may be influenced by an awareness of the mimeticity of the (better known?) Pythikos nomos.

²³ See Prauscello (n. 1), for the suggestion that Pyth. 12 was played in the Phrygian harmonia.

²⁴ Cf. Papadopoulou and Pirenne-Delforge (n. 21), 57 for musical mimesis independent of language.

²⁵ Cf. [Plut.] De mus. 1138A with Barker (n. 6), 226 n. 137. Cf. Porter (n. 2), 18 on the ‘ophidian imagery’ of Dith. 2. See ibid. n. 98 for the connection between snakes and the aulos. On melism in general see West (n. 2), 201–4, 320, 322–3. The effect was a common trope of late fifth-century music: see West (n. 2), 201 on Ar. Ran. 1314 and 1348. He proposes (p. 202) that division of long syllables into two short notes was common by the late fifth century. Although there is no evidence for the use of melism as early as our piece, we should perhaps expect that the practice predated the innovations of the ‘New Musicians’ in at least a limited form.

²⁶ Cf. PMG 758 and 805 for 5th-c. versions of the Athena/Marsyas narrative. Paus. 1.24.1 describes the famous statue group by Myron on the Athenian Acropolis which depicts the myth. For analysis, seeLeclerq-Neveu, B., ‘Marsyas, le martyr de l'aulos’, Mètis 4 (1989), 251–68Google Scholar. For later treatments see e.g. Hyg. Fab. 165; Apollod. Bibl. 4.4.3. Papadopoulou and Pirenne-Delforge (n. 21), 44–5 explore possible echoes of the Marsyas story in Pyth.12.

²⁷ See e.g. Landels, J., Music in Ancient Greece and Rome (London, 1999), 154–9Google Scholar. Cf. Papadopoulou and Pirenne-Delforge (n. 21), 38.

²⁸ This is assumed by West (n. 2), 214 and followed by Porter (n. 2), 17, but we are not told that this was the case.

²⁹ e.g. F. Frontisi-Ducroux (n. 5); Papadopoulou and Pirenne-Delforge (n. 21); Martin, R., ‘The pipes are brawling: conceptualizing musical performance in Athens’, in Dougherty, C. and Kurke, L. (edd.), The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaborations (Cambridge, 2003), 153–80Google Scholar. For disputes about the aulos see generally Wilson, P., ‘The aulos in Athens’, in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (edd.), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy (Cambridge, 1999), 58–75Google Scholar.

³⁰ e.g. Schlesinger, E., ‘Pindar Pyth. 12’, Hermes 96 (1968), 275–86Google Scholar; Segal, C., ‘The Gorgon and the nightingale: the voice of female lament and Pindar's twelfth Pythian ode’, in Dunn, L. and Jones, N. (edd.), Embodied Voices: Representing Female Vocality in Western Culture (Cambridge and New York), 17–34Google Scholar: reprinted in Aglaia: The Poetry of Alcman, Sappho, Pindar, Bacchylides and Corinna (Lanham and Oxford, 1998), 85–104Google Scholar, at 99.

³¹ One might compare the performative ‘reinvention’ of the ‘original’ dithyrambic circular chorus in Dith. 2.

³² The former sense is usually favoured by commentators (e.g. Köhnken [n. 11], 136: ‘in seiner Wirkung auf Perseus gleicht der Threnos der Gorgonen einem furchteinflössenden und verderbenbringenden Kriegsgeschrei’. Gerber, D., ‘The Gorgons’ lament in Pindar Pythian 12’, MH 43 (1986)Google Scholar, 248 follows Greppin, J., ‘Oulos, “baneful”’, TAPhA 106 (1976), 177–86Google Scholar in seeing Pyth. 12.8 as echoing e.g. Il. 17.756 οὖλον κɛκλήγοντɛς and drawing on the repetitiveness of ritual lament.

³³ For a classic analysis of the Gorgons as other see Vernant, J.-P., La mort dans les yeux (Paris, 1985)Google Scholar, 12, and further Segal (n. 30), 86–8.

³⁴ Clay, J., ‘Pindar's Twelfth Pythian: reed and bronze’, AJPh 113 (1992)Google Scholar, 523, followed by Martin (n. 29), 163.

³⁵ Cf. Segal (n. 30), 90–3, who stresses the transformation of the Gorgons’ cry from a shriek of primordial pain into a culturally contained and sanctioned practice.

³⁶ On embodiment see Habinek, T., The World of Roman Song (Oxford, 2005), 4–6Google Scholar with bibliography.

³⁷ Papadopoulou and Pirenne-Delforge (n. 21), 47–51.

³⁸ Cf. e.g. the naming of Iamus in Ol. 6.

³⁹ See e.g. Bowra, C., Problems in Greek Poetry (Oxford, 1953), 82–4;Google ScholarBurton, R., Pindar's Pythian Odes: Essays in Interpretation (London, 1962), 122–3;Google Scholar Gentili et al. (n. 4), 391–2. See Most, G., The Measures of Praise (Göttingen, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 99 n. 21 for further references.

⁴⁰ As noted by Gildersleeve, B., Pindar. The Olympian and Pythian Odes (New York, 1890)Google Scholar in his discussion of this passage. See further Slater, W., Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin, 1969), 323–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar on the various uses. He cites Pyth. 2.67–9 under the heading ‘opposed sentences’ (p. 324). Pindar's uses may reflect the multifarious use of μέν … δέ in epic discourse, for which see Bakker, E., Poetry in Speech (Ithaca, 1997), 80–5Google Scholar. He identifies various Homeric usages which do not adequately correspond to the oppositional sense customary in e.g. Attic prose. Particularly germane to our discussion is his analysis of Il. 5.148–9 where μέν … δέ ‘mark events in performance time, not in story time’. This is an apt description of the use at Pyth. 2.67–9.

⁴¹ So Gentili et al. (n. 4), 391–2, citing Ol. 1.101–5; Nem. 3.76–9 (χαῖρɛ … τόδɛ τοι πέμπω μɛμιγμένον μέλι λɛυκῷ σὺν γάλακτι … πόμ’ ἀοίδιμον Αἰολίσσιν ἐν πνοαῖσιν αὐλῶν); Nem. 4.44–5 (τόδ’ … Λυδίᾳ σὺν ἁρμονίᾳ μέλος). Cf. e.g. Ol. 3.5; 14.17–18. The reference at Ol. 9.1–2 to τὸ μὲν Ἀρχιλόχου μέλος | ϕωνᾶɛν Ὀλυμπίᾳ καλλίνικος ὁ τριπλόος κɛχλαδώς is an exception, but because it refers to an extraneous composition it does not refute the proposition that with regard to musicological descriptions of his own compositions Pindar only refers to a present performance.

⁴² Σ Pyth. 2.127. See further below, n. 65.

⁴³ Boeckh, A., ‘Kritik der Schrift G. Hermanns de officio interpretis’, in Ascherson, F. and Eicholtz, P. (edd.), Gesammelte Kleine Schriften 7: Kritiken nebst einem Anhange (Leipzig, 1872), 404–77Google Scholar, followed by e.g. Christ, W., Pindar Carmina, prolegomenis et commentariis instructa (Leipzig, 1896)Google Scholar, 130; Schroeder, O., Pindars Pythien (Leipzig, 1922)Google Scholar, 21; Carey, C., A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar (Cambridge, 1981), 47–8Google Scholar; Kirkwood, G., Selections from Pindar (Chicago, 1982)Google Scholar, 154; Most (n. 39), 99–100. See Most, ibid. 99 n. 22 for further references.

⁴⁴ Carey (n. 43), 48: Ol. 2.27–31; Pyth. 2.48, 63–5; 4.86; 8.70–2; Nem. 9.39–40; Isthm. 6.44–7; 8.56–8.

⁴⁵ Gentili et al. (n. 4), 392. Cf. Gentili, B., ‘Pindarica III. La Pitica 2 e il carme iporchematico di Castore (fr. 105a–b Maehler)’, QUCC 40 (1992), 51–2Google Scholar where he argues contra Schroeder's citation of Pyth. 4.13 and 5.102–3 to support his contention of reference to separate pieces that ‘manca in questi casi l'elemento significativo dell'opposizione (μέν … δέ) che risulta invece determinante nella P.2’.

⁴⁶ For which see Carey (n. 43), 48; Gentili et al. (n. 4), 391. There are no good grounds for following the scholia's reading, seeing an opposition between Φοίνισσαν ἐμπολάν and χάριν, referring to the epinician being sent in exchange for payment and τὸ Καστόρɛιον, identified with the hyporchema, being sent as a free gift.

⁴⁷ Note also Most (n. 39), 98–100, who argues that χαῖρɛ is deployed with the same force that it bears in the Homeric Hymns; see 98 n.16 for hymnal examples. Most, ibid. 99 comments on 67–71 that ‘the assumption that two different poems are involved would violate the generic expectations aroused by the hymnal χαῖρɛ. For it is typical in the Homeric Hymns that χαῖρɛ be followed by the poet's expression of the wish that this poem might meet with a favourable response’. The Castoreion is also identified with the hyporchema by Ferrari, F., ‘Le prospettive del rito nelle Pitiche di Pindaro’, SemRom 3 (2000), 217–42Google Scholar, who suggests a ‘programma celebrativo’ in which Bacch. 4 was followed by Pyth. 2 and then the hyporchema. This argument, however, does not address the μέν … δέ problem.

⁴⁸ Cf. Pyth. 4.298–9. I take Syracuse to be the location of the performance on the basis of the invocation which opens the poem. For the controversy over date and performance see Morrison (n. 5), 66 n. 164.

⁴⁹ So e.g. Burton (n. 39), 122; Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Modern interpretation of Pindar: the second Pythian and seventh Nemean Odes’, JHS 93 (1973), 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carey (n. 43), 48; and further Most (n. 39), 100 n. 25. So also Gentili et al. (n. 4), 391–2, referring it to the hyporcheme.

⁵⁰ Privitera, Thus A., Le Ismitiche (Milan, 1982), 142–3Google Scholar on Isthm. 1.16: ‘Il significato di Καστορɛίῳ ὕμνῳ è dunque generico … Pindaro vuole associare l'ode … ad un inno che celebri Castore o Iolao, perché chi si impegna con spese e fatiche fino alla vittoria merita di essere affiancato ai valorosi che hanno meritato la lode dei poeti.’ Cf. Race's Loeb translation.

⁵¹ Pace Gentili (n. 45), 53 n. 25: ‘[è] inutile dire che non v’è alcun rapporto tra “l'inno di Castore” della Ismitica 1 e il Castoreion della Pitica 2, e tuttavia il confronto tra i due è divenuto quasi topico’.

⁵² For extensive references and discussion see Privitera (n. 50), 143.

⁵³ See e.g. [Plut.] De mus. 1140C; Plut. Lyc. 22. Cf. Thuc. 5.70 for Spartan use of music in military contexts. Note also Σ Pyth. 2.128 on the enoplion nomos and cultic significance of the Castoreion.

⁵⁴ Lloyd-Jones (n. 49), 123 and Kirkwood (n. 43), 154 see a reference to music; Gentili et al. (n. 4), 392 to metre. For the dispute over the question of links between metres and modes (i.e. the supposition that a piece in Aeolic metres must have been accompanied by the Aeolian mode), see e.g. Most (n. 39), 100 n. 26 and Prauscello (n. 1), with extensive bibliography.

⁵⁵ ‘String’ is the basic meaning of χορδή, as at Od. 21.407 in the simile of the lyre player tuning his instrument by wrapping the string around a peg: ὡς ὅτ’ ἀνὴρ ϕόρμιγγος ἐπιστάμɛνος καὶ ἀοιδῆς | ῥηϊδίως ἐτάνυσσɛ νέῳ πɛρὶ κόλλοπι χορδήν. Cf. Hymn. Hom. Merc. 51. The technical sense of ‘note’ is not attested before Pindar. The distinction between ‘string’ and ‘note’ is however, in a sense, a false one, because each string was tuned to a single note and because lyre players did not manipulate the strings in order to obtain a variety of pitches from each, as for instance modern guitarists do. These tunings described the limit of the lyre's pitch range. Thus each ‘string’ was a ‘note’. Nevertheless, it is notable that χορδή and its compounds are rare in Pindar; Pyth. 2.69 is our only use of the word itself, and the only use of a related compound is Nem. 10.21 ɛὔχορδον ἔγɛιρɛ λύραν. Pindar never uses χορδή or related words to describe wind instruments: cf. e.g. [Ol. 5.19]; Ol. 7.11–12; 10.94; Nem. 3.79. For Pindar's use of sound terms see Kaimio, M., ‘Characterization of sound in early Greek literature’, Societas Scientiarum Fennica 53 (1977), 146–62.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ So Schroeder (n. 43), 21 citing Ol. 10.94; Puech, A., Pindare (Paris, 1931)Google Scholar, 45 translates ‘reçois-le avec faveur, en l'honneur de la cithare aux septs notes’; Slater (n. 40), 542bα interprets χάριν as acc. sing. used as a preposition (citing e.g. Ol. 10.94; Isthm. 4.72); Gentili et al. (n. 4), 392 also take χάριν as being in apposition and translate ‘dono, gioia, cosa gradita’. The prepositional reading gives poor sense; the recipient being asked to welcome the song ‘in honour of/for the sake of the lyre’ involves a quasi-personification of the instrument not found elsewhere (Pyth. 1.1–12 being an obvious exception, although there the emphasis is on the phorminx’s powers and their effects, not on the response of a human audience). Most economical is Carey (n. 43), 48 who cites Schroeder criticizing the prepositional reading on the grounds that the position of the preposition, before the genitive, is unexampled, and reads χάριν in apposition as ‘gracious offering’, ‘beautiful gift’. The sense highlights the transposition of the Castoreion melody to the phorminx. For the meaning, cf. Ol. 7.5.

⁵⁷ We are not explicitly told that the Castoreion was played in the Dorian mode; given its place of origin this might seem likely, but see Csapo, E., ‘The politics of the New Music’, in Murray, P. and Wilson, P. (edd.), Music and the Muses (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar, 216 for the conventionality of such ethnic labels.

⁵⁸ Val. Max. 2.6.2 eiusdem civitatis exercitus non ante ad dimicandum descendere solebat quam tibiae concentu et anapaesti pedis modulo cohortationis calorem animo traxissent. Cf. Barker (n. 6), 232 n. 168 and also Ath. 630f on the link between Spartan embateria and the anapaestic poems of Tyrtaeus; cf. Dio Chrys. 2.59. Note also Plut. Lyc. 22 on the playing of the Castoreion immediately before the embaterios paean. See further on the embaterios rhythm Polyb. 4.20.10; Polyaen. 1.10. Cf. Barker (n. 6), 234–5 on the anapaestic Ares nomos.

⁵⁹ Cf. Prauscello (n. 1), 18 n. 106.

⁶⁰ For rhythmical analysis see West (n. 2), 53–4.

⁶¹ Itsumi, K., Pindaric Metre (Oxford, 2009), 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² At P2s2 and 7, e2 and 3. The other occurrences are O1e6b; P5e3 and 6; N6s3; N7e2; N7s4.

⁶³ See Itsumi (n. 61), 39–40 for the similarities between reversed dodrans and the first part of a resolved glyconic, and 31 with 32 n. 55 for statistics of aeolic base usage and a full list of u u u occurring as base.

⁶⁴ Although cf. the combination rdod e² at P10s4 and N3e3. See Itsumi (n. 61), 218.

⁶⁵ Gentili (n. 45) argues that the scholia are right to identify the Castoreion with the hyporchema they cite (fr. 105), and argues on metrical grounds that fr. 106 also belongs to this poem. The fragments do not offer sufficient evidence for his taking them as ‘serio-comic’ (pace e.g. pp. 54–5 his reading of the Scythians in fr. 105.4–5). He notes the metrical similarities between frr. 105–6 and Pyth. 2 (for which cf. Ferrari [n. 47], 233), but does not dwell on their shared anapaestic character: it is possible on these grounds to hypothesize use of the Castoreion melody for both Pyth. 2 and the hyporchema, but given the exiguous remains of the latter this must remain highly speculative.

⁶⁶ See Pfeijffer, I., Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar (Leiden, 1999), 409Google Scholar; Itsumi (n. 61), 209–10, and 434–6 for continuous single short movements in the epinicians. Particularly notable are the similarities between P2s4 and N3e4, and between the double short movement at O1s2 and the verses analysed above.

⁶⁷ See e.g. Itsumi (n. 61), 141–53 for metrical analysis.

⁶⁸ So Köhnken, A., ‘Pindar as innovator: Poseidon Hippios and the relevance of the Pelops story in Olympian 1’, CQ 27 (1974), 204.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See e.g. Bowra (n. 39), 77–80; Most (n. 39), 60–1.

⁷⁰ On the role of dance in general see Mullen, W., Choreia: Pindar and Dance (Princeton, 1982)Google Scholar.

⁷¹ On the role of Archilochus in the poem, see e.g. Miller, A., ‘Pindar, Archilochus and Hieron in P. 2.52–56’, TAPhA 111 (1981), 135–43Google Scholar; and, for the opposition between praise and blame, Most (n. 39), 88–9; Held, G., ‘Archilochos’ ἀμηχανία: Pindar, Pythian 2.52–56 and Isthmian 4.1–3’, Eranos 101 (2003), 30–48Google Scholar. These readings follow Lloyd-Jones (n. 49), and Crotty, K., ‘Pythian 2 and conventional language in the epinicians’, Hermes 108 (1980), 1–12Google Scholar in dismissing the view propounded by e.g. Bowra (n. 39), 66–92 and Gantz, T., ‘Pindar's second Pythian: the myth of Ixion’, Hermes 106 (1978), 14–26Google Scholar that Pyth. 2 is an attack on Hiero for ingratitude, Hiero having chosen Bacchylides over Pindar to commemorate his chariot victory in 468.

⁷² For which, see e.g. Most (n. 39), 73–86.

⁷³ See Currie, B., Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford, 2005)Google Scholar for a detailed analysis, and the view that Cinyras’ status as a recipient of hero cult prefigures a similar status for Hiero.

⁷⁴ So Most (n. 39), 85–6.

⁷⁵ See Gentili et al. (n. 4), ad loc.

⁷⁶ Diod. Sic. 11.49, with Σ Pyth. 1.120a. See in general Luraghi, N., Tirannidi archaiche in Sicilia e Magna Grecia (Florence, 1994), 335–68Google Scholar. See Demand, N., Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece (Bristol, 1990), 45–58Google Scholar on population relocations under the tyrants; further Lomas, K., ‘Tyrants and the polis: migration, identity and urban development in Sicily’, in Lewis, S. (ed.), Ancient Tyranny (Edinburgh, 2006), 95–118Google Scholar and, on Deinomenid self-representation, S. Harrell, ‘Synchronicity: the local and the Panhellenic within Sicilian tyranny’, in ibid., 125–33, with Luraghi (this note), 354–68.

⁷⁷ As argued by Kirsten, E., ‘Ein politisches Programm in Pindars erstem pythischen Gedicht’, RhM 91 (1941), 58–71Google Scholar; contra Gentili et al. (n. 4), ad loc.

⁷⁸ See Dougherty, C., The Poetics of Colonization (Oxford, 1993), 93–7Google Scholar on Pyth. 1 as a colonializing discourse and ead., ‘Linguistic colonization in Aeschylus’ Aetnaeae’, GRBS 32 (1991), 119–32Google Scholar for the role of Aeschylus’ Aetnaeae in the foundation of Aetna. Cf. Brillante, C., ‘La musica e il canto nella Pitica 1 di Pindaro’, QUCC 41 (1992), 7–21Google Scholar on the role of music as a textual figuration in Pyth. 1. See pp. 10–11 for his analysis of the effects of music as described at Pyth. 1.1–12 and pp. 16–21 for possible Spartan elements in the depiction of the Muses.

⁷⁹ Cf. Péron, J., ‘Pindare et Hiéron dans la IIe Pythique’, REG 87 (1974), 27–8Google Scholar, at 56 on the idealization of self-knowledge.

⁸⁰ e.g. Woodbury, L., ‘The epilogue of Pindar's Second Pythian’, TAPhA 76 (1945), 11Google Scholar. The observations of e.g. Lloyd-Jones (n. 49) and Crotty (n. 71) that Pyth. 2 contains no elements which cannot be seen as variations of standard epinician tropes, while correct, should not disguise the oddness of their deployment.

⁸¹ For which, see Hubbard, T., ‘Hieron and the ape in Pindar, Pythian 2.72–73’, TAPhA 120 (1999), 76–7Google Scholar.

⁸² [Plut.] De mus. 1138B–C.

⁸³ Contrast Barker (n. 6), 227 n. 140, who sees the contrast as between Pindar, Simonides, etc. and later fourth-century composers, the ‘New Musicians’ being missed out of the narrative.

⁸⁴ Cf. Ar. Ran. 1249–50. Euripides criticizes Aeschylus as κακὸν | μɛλοποιὸν ὄντα καὶ ποιοῦντα ταὔτ’ ἀɛί with the interpretation of Danielewicz (n. 8), 139–40 that what is being stressed here is the repetitiousness of Aeschylus’ melodies.

⁸⁵ This emphasis on Pindar responding creatively to contemporary developments aligns with D'Angour (n. 2) on Pindar's validation of Lasus’ reforms of dithyrambic performance, followed and expanded by Porter (n. 2), and also with Prauscello (n. 1).