Към жителите на Пруса. Автобиографични

1. ΕΝ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΦΥΓΗΣ - в Атина, за изгнанието си (13)
Ὅτε φεύγειν συνέβη με φιλίας ἕνεκεν λεγομένης ἀνδρὸς οὐ πονηροῦ, τῶν δὲ τότε εὐδαιμόνων τε καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐγγύτατα ὄντος, διὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ ἀποθανόντος...
In the year A.D. 82, probably, Dio was banished by the Emperor Domitian, not only from Rome and Italy but also from his native Bithynia, on the charge of being in some way implicated in the conspiracy of one of the Emperor's relatives, Junius Rusticus, as some including Mommsen maintain, Flavius Sabinus as von Arnim with better reason believes. Each of these men was related to the Emperor, Flavius Sabinus being the husband of Julia, the daughter of Domitian's elder brother Titus, who had been Emperor before him; and each of them was executed on the charge of having conspired against him. If it is Flavius Sabinus to whom Dio refers, then since this man was executed in the year A.D. 82, we may infer that Dio's banishment began in this year, and it was intended to last his lifetime. However, with the accession of Nerva in A.D. 96 he was permitted to return.
In the Thirteenth Discourse Dio gives us an interesting glimpse into his thoughts and feelings at that time. Adopting the attitude of a Stoic, he resolved to endure his banishment manfully and found that it was quite endurable. Then he tells how at the urgent request of others he began to deliver moral addresses to groups of people gathered to hear him.

2. En te patridi peri tes pros apameis homonoias - (Произнесена) в родината си, относно споразумението с апамейците (40)
Enomizon men, o andres politai, nyn goun, ei kai me proteron axein ten hapasan hesychian...
As indicated by the title, the background of this Discourse is a quarrel between Prusa, the home of the speaker, and its near neighbour, Apameia. The precise nature of the quarrel remains in doubt, but it seems to have involved business relations, and possibly also property rights. The relations between the two cities were extremely intimate. Prusa used the port of Apameia, and Apameia looked to Prusa for its timber. There was constant intercourse of many kinds between the two, and citizens of the one not infrequently were citizens also of the other, sometimes even receiving a seat and vote in the Council of the second city. Dio's own connexion with Apameia was especially close. As we learn from Or. 41, not only had he himself been honoured with citizenship there, but also his father before him; his mother and her father too had been awarded citizenship in Apameia along with the grant of Roman citizenship; and, finally, it would appear that Dio's household had found a refuge in that city during his exile.
Whatever the nature of the quarrel, it had lasted for some time prior to the date of our Discourse (A.D. 101), and it had been so bitter that Dio had feared to accept the invitation of Apameia to pay a visit joint upon his return from exile, lest by doing so he might offend the city of his birth, and for the same reason he had resisted a request to intervene in behalf of Apameia in its quarrel. He had, to be sure, urged upon his fellow citizens, as occasion offered, the desirability of reconciliation with Apameia, and negotiations to that end were actually in progress when Dio, responding with some reluctance to the summons of his fellow townsmen, appeared in town-meeting and pleaded afresh the cause of concord. It would appear that his words received a favourable hearing, for in the next Discourse in our collection, delivered at Apameia shortly afterwards, he speaks as a member of an official delegation to arrange terms of agreement.
This Discourse, as well as several to follow, is valuable both as shedding light upon doings in Bithynia, doings about which we get supplementary information from the correspondence of Pliny the Younger written during his term as proconsul of that province, and also as supplying biographical data regarding the speaker.

3. Pros apameis peri homonoias - към апамейците относно споразумението (41)
Hoti men hymeis, o boule kai ton allon hoi parontes hoi metriotatoi, praos pros eme kai philikos echete...
This short address constitutes the sequel to Or. 40, which it must have followed closely in point of time. Dio is speaking before the Council of Apameia as a member of the official delegation from Prusa sent to conclude the reconciliation which forms the theme of both speeches. That the question was of widespread interest is shown by the presence in the audience of others than members of the Council.
The first half of the address is aimed at dispelling the distrust and hostility toward Dio occasioned by his seeming indifference to the Apameians in the past. This he attempts to bring about by recalling the ties which bound him and his family to that city and by explaining the delicacy of his situation as a member of both communities. The remainder of the speech is devoted to praising the blessings of concord and stressing the peculiarly intimate nature of the ties existing between the two cities.
The abruptness of the close might suggest that the speech is incomplete. However, such a supposition is not unavoidable. Dio has presumably achieved his immediate purpose — to restore himself to good favour at Apameia and, as a delegate from Prusa, to make his voice heard in support of concord. It is not as if he were the only delegate to be heard.

(J.W. Cohoon)

За Диоген, Сократ и киническата философия

1. Diogenes e peri tyrannidos - Диоген, или за тиранията (6)
Diogenes ho Sinopeus, hotan ephygen ek Synopes aphikomenos eis ten Hellada diege pote men en Koryntho...
Von Arnim has proved quite conclusively that the 6, 8, 9, and 10 Discourses belong to the period when Dio was a wanderer in exile. For example, many things that Dio speaks of Diogenes doing, such as going through armies safely without a herald's staff, fit better the experience of Dio himself, and many of the references to the Persian king would apply just as well to Domitian, who banished Dio. No doubt the speaker's audiences would understand his veiled allusions quite easily.
In these Discourses Dio sets forth certain tenets of the Cynical philosophy, using Diogenes as his mouthpiece. His subject is Contentment.

***



2. Diogenes e peri aretes - Диоген, или за доброделта (8)
Diogenes ho Sinopeus ekpeson ek tes patridos, oudenos diapheron ton panu phaulon, Athenaze aphiketo...
The subject of the eighth Discourse is "The Real Athlete," and the speech was evidently delivered during Dio's period of exile. The reference to Diogenes' exile at the beginning is no accident. When the latter was represented as telling how he endured hunger, thirst, and poverty, and narrating the labours of Heracles, Dio's audience naturally thought of the speaker himself; and when Eurystheus, who tyrannized over Heracles, they thought of Domitian, who banished Dio.

3. Diogenes e Isthmikos - Диоген, или Истмийска реч (9)
Isthmion onton katebe Diogenes eis ton Isthmon, os eoiken, en Korintho diatribon, paretunchane de tais panegyresin...
In the ninth Discourse, as in the eighth, we find Diogenes attending the Isthmian games, and in both Discourses there is the same reference to the importance of the great public gatherings for Diogenes' purpose, the same references to physicians and to dogs. These similarities have led to the inference that the two Discourses were prepared at about the same time; but while in the preceding Discourse we are given the subject-matter of Diogenes' teaching, in this one it is rather his method of teaching that is shown.

4. ΔΙΟΓΕΝΗΣ Η ΠΕΡΙ ΟΙΚΕΤΩΝ - Diogen, ili za robite
Ἀπιών ποτε Διογένης ἐκ Κορίνθου Ἀθήναζε συνέβαλε κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἑνὶ τῶν γνωρίμων, καὶ ἤρετο ποῖ ἄπεισιν, οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπερωτῶσιν...
The tenth Discourse contains Cynic doctrine and belongs like the two preceding Discourses to Dio's period of exile. He could not consistently have praised the condition of being without property except when he was in exile and without property himself...
This Discourse has two parts. In the first it is shown to be better to be without a slave or any other piece of property if you do not know how to use it, and then the stronger statement is made that it is better to have no property at all. In the second part it is shown to be very dangerous and indeed harmful to consult a god when you do not know how to do so; while if you do know, it is unnecessary. To sum up: it is better to own no property and to consult no god.


5. ΠΕΡΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ - За Сократ (54)
Ἱππίας ὁ Ἠλεῖος καὶ Γοργίας ὁ Λεοντῖνος καὶ Πῶλος καὶ Πρόδικος οἱ σοφισταὶ χρόνον τινὰ ἤνθησαν ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι καὶ θαυμαστῆς ἐτύγχανον φήμης...
This little tribute to Socrates is presumably the prelude to some longer discussion. It affords no clue as to either the occasion or the place where the speech was delivered, but the speaker's rather scornful treatment of the sophists, who occupy fully one-third of the piece, and his affectionate regard for Socrates point clearly to some date subsequent to Dio's exile.
Hippias of Elis, Gorgias of Leontini, Polus, and Prodicus are all familiar figures among the sophists who made such a stir in Greece toward the close of the fifth century B.C. All make their appearance in the pages of Plato, Hippias and Gorgias having provided the titles for three of his dialogues. One might wonder why Dio refrains from naming "the man from Abdera" (§ 2). Abdera's fame may be said to rest upon that of two of her native sons, Democritus, the famous philosopher, and Protagoras, no less famous as a sophist.


6. ΠΕΡΙ ΟΜΗΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ - За Омир и Сократ (55)
Ἐπεὶ φαίνῃ καὶ τἄλλα Σωκράτους ὢν ἐπαινέτης καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα ἐκπληττόμενος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, ἔχεις μοι εἰπεῖν ὅτου μαθητὴς γέγονε τῶν σοφῶν...
Just as in some dialogues of Plato, there is at first a lively debate between teacher and pupil, after which the teacher takes possession of the field and expounds his doctrine with little or no interruption from the pupil. The text of Dio, however, does not reveal the identity of speakers other than the master himself.
The theme of the present Discourse is that Socrates acquired his art as a teacher from Homer. The anonymous interlocutor is sceptical on that point, objecting that Socrates never met Homer, and also calling attention to the wide difference between the function of the poet and that of the philosopher. After successfully demolishing these objections, Dio proceeds to note certain points of resemblance between Homer and Socrates — their modesty, their scorn of wealth, their interest in ethical problems, their use of parables or similes as vehicles of instruction, and their method of employing specific human beings to illustrate virtues and vices. To this last-named point Dio devotes fully a third of his dialogue. His arguments seem to have silenced his pupil, for there is no rejoinder.

(J.W. Cohoon)

Царство-тирания и свобода-робство

1. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ І - За царското управление I (1)
Φασί ποτε Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ τὸν αὐλητὴν Τιμόθεον τὸ πρῶτον ἐπιδεικνύμενον αὐλῆσαι...
The first Discourse as well as the following three has for its subject Kingship, and from internal evidence is thought to have been first delivered before Trajan in Rome immediately after he became emperor...
Dio's conception of the true king is influenced greatly by Homer and Plato. The true king fears the gods and watches over his subjects even as Zeus, the supreme god, watches over all mankind. At the end is a description of the choice made by Heracles, who is the great model of the Cynics.


2. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ІІ - За царското управление ІІ (2)
Λέγεταί ποτε Ἀλέξανδρον τῷ πατρὶ Φιλίππῳ μειράκιον ὄντα διαλεχθῆναι περὶ Ὁμήρου...
The second Discourse on Kingship is put dramatically in the form of a dialogue between Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander, and in it the son is Dio's mouthpiece, in marked contrast to the situation in the fourth Discourse, where Diogenes — and therefore Dio — is opposed to Alexander. We are shown here the way in which the true king acts in the practical affairs of life, and the Stoic ideal, drawn largely from Homer, is set forth. Toward the end the true king is contrasted with the tyrant.


3. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ІІІ - За царското управление ІІІ (3)
Σωκράτης Ἀθήνησι, πρεσβύτης ἀνὴρ καὶ πένης...πυθομένου τινὸς εἰ εὐδαίμονα νομίζοι τὸν Περσῶν βασιλέα...
Dio's protest in this Discourse that he is not flattering would seem to indicate clearly that he is addressing Trajan — otherwise his words would be meaningless — and many of the things said point to the existence of very cordial relations between the orator and that emperor...
Stoic and Cynic doctrine as to the nature of the true king is set forth. The reference to the sun is of Stoic origin. Then Trajan, the type of the true king, is contrasted with the Persian king to the latter's disadvantage.


4. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ІV - За царското управление ІV (4)
Φασί ποτε Ἀλέξανδρον Διογένει συμβαλεῖν οὐ πάνυ τι σχολάζοντα πολλὴν ἄγοντι σχολήν...
In the fourth Discourse Alexander the Great is represented as conversing with Diogenes, who tells him that the real king is a son of Zeus even as Homer says. Then he goes on to give the Cynic doctrine that this sonship is evidenced by qualities of mind and character, not by military power and wide dominion. He concludes by picturing graphically the spirit of avarice, the spirit of the love of pleasure, and the spirit of ambition, which rule the lives of ordinary men.

5. Peri douleias kai eleutherias I - За робството и свободата І (14)
Hoi anthropoi epithymousi men eleutheroi einai malista panton...
Dio begins this Discourse by saying that the majority of men do not know the real difference between slavery and freedom, and after examining the question for some time, finally states his own view that freedom is the knowledge of what is allowable and what is forbidden, while slavery is the opposite. Then, identifying the free man with the king, he proceeds to prove the paradox that the king, or free man, may be such although he is kept in prison or suffers other seeming indignities.
This Discourse along with the Fifteenth is our chief source for knowledge of the Stoic doctrine that the wise man alone is free.

6. Peri douleias kai eleutherias II - За робството и свободата IІ (15)
Alla men enanchos paregenomen tisi diamphesbetousi peri douleias kai eleutherias...
This Discourse, just like the preceding one, deals with the distinction between freedom and slavery, and for the same reasons may be assigned to the period of Dio's exile or later. Dio begins by reporting an informal debate on this question between two men, who we may suppose were Athenians. At the end of their debate Dio gives the reasoned opinion of the audience that when one human being gets lawful possession of another with the right to use him as he likes, then the second man is the slave of the first. After this the question is raised as to what constitutes valid possession.
The first speaker is just such another man as the slave Syriscus in the Epitrepontes of Menander. Both are voluble aggressive debaters with a wealth of illustrations drawn from mythology and tragedy to enforce their points.

7. ΑΓΑΜΕΜΝΩΝ Η ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ - Агамемнон, или за царското управление (56)
Πότερα βούλει περὶ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἀκούειν φρονίμους λόγους, ἀφ´ ὧν ἔστιν ὠφεληθῆναι τὴν διάνοιαν...
This document appears to be a transcript of a conversation between Dio and an unnamed pupil. In his opening sentence Dio proposes Agamemnon as a topic likely to improve the mind. Having secured the pupil's acceptance of that theme, he proceeds, in true Platonic fashion, to elicit a definition of the word king; "he who exercises general supervision of human beings and gives them orders without being accountable to them." That definition having been obtained, he demolishes it by calling attention, first to the restraint imposed upon the kings at Sparta by the ephors, and then to Agamemnon's dependence upon Nestor and his council of elders... The various aspects of kingship are considered by Dio not only in the first four orations in our collection — assigned by Arnim to the opening years of Trajan's reign — but, at least incidentally, in several others.

8. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΥΡΑΝΝΙΔΟΣ - За царското управление и тиранията (62)
Καὶ μὴν εἴ τις ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς οὐχ οἷός τε ἄρχειν ἐστί, καὶ τούτου σφόδρα ἐγγὺς ὄντος, ᾧ δὴ ξύνεστιν...
The complimentary address contained in our Discourse could hardly have been intended for any one but Trajan. Yet the document is so abrupt in both beginning and ending and so brief when compared with the four treatises on kingship supposed to have been addressed to Trajan that it is difficult to imagine that it ever was delivered as a distinct entity in the form in which we have it. It is of course conceivable that we are dealing with a fragment of a fifth speech on kingship addressed to the much-enduring Trajan, but it is more likely that we have before us a variant version of a portion of one of the addresses just mentioned. Dio himself makes it plain that on occasion he took the liberty of repeating to other hearers speeches previously delivered before "the Emperor." On such an occasion he doubtless felt free to modify the original wording, and such a procedure would explain the existence of certain doublets in his text. We may conjecture that his editor, finding the substance of Or. 62 imbedded in such a variant version of one of the four speeches to which we have referred and not wishing to discard it, gave it independent existence here.

9. ΠΕΡΙ ΝΟΜΟΥ - За закона (75)
Ἔστι δὲ ὁ νόμος τοῦ βίου μὲν ἡγεμών, τῶν πόλεων δὲ ἐπιστάτης κοινός, τῶν δὲ πραγμάτων κανὼν δίκαιος...
On stylistic grounds this Discourse has been assigned to the sophistic period of Dio's career. It is an encomium such as is familiar in sophistic literature, and it exhibits both the merits and the defects of that form of composition. Careful attention is paid to matters of detail connected with rhetorical effect, but one misses the note of sincere conviction to be found in many other writings of our author.
The topic chosen for eulogy is νόμος. As is well known, that word covers a wide range, meaning at one time usage sanctified by long tradition, at another divine ordinance, and at another statutory law. Dio treats all three varieties impartially, passing lightly from one to another and back again.

10. ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΚΙΛΙΚΙΑΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑΣ - За свободата (80)
Ὑμεῖς μὲν ἴσως θαυμάζετε καὶ παράδοξον ἡγεῖσθε καὶ οὐδαμῶς σωφρονοῦντος ἀνδρός, ὅστις ἁπάντων ἀποστάς, περὶ ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ σπουδάζουσι...
The freedom which the speaker has chosen as his theme is the freedom which characterizes himself, the philosopher — freedom to come and go as suits his fancy, freedom from the anxieties and inconveniencies that harass mankind at large, freedom from the temptations which assail seekers after riches or fame or self-indulgence. Such freedom belongs to him who leads the simple life, obedient to the ordinances of Zeus rather than to those of some imperfect, earthly law-giver. This creed is abundantly fortified with illustrations drawn from Greek myth and history.

(J.W. Cohoon)

Дион Хризостом. "Олимпийска реч"

І. За работата през семестъра

Четене и коментар на избрани места от речите на Дион от Пруса (Хризостом). Задачата на коментара е да обърне внимание на литературния и исторически контекст на написаното от Дион.


II. Превод на части от речта

Смятаме, че първи извор на човешкото мнение и понятие (hypolepsis) за божественото е вродената на всички хора мислена представа (epinoia), която възниква от самата действителност и от истината (ex auton ton ergon kai tou alethous); тя не е възникнала по някакво заблуждение, нито как да е, но е силна и вечна, започнала e и e устойчиво пребиваваща (diamenousa) от началото на времето и при всички народи. Тя е по някакъв начин обща и е достояние на [целия] род на разумните същества (demosian tou logikou genous)(39).


ІІI. Бележки и коментари

Dio Cocceianus Chrysostomus, ca. 40–ca. 120 CE, of Prusa in Bithynia, Asia Minor, inherited with his brothers large properties and debts from his generous father Pasicrates. He became a skilled rhetorician hostile to philosophers. But in the course of his travels he went to Rome in Vespasian's reign (69–79) and was converted to Stoicism. Strongly critical of the emperor Domitian (81–96) he was about 82 banned by him from Italy and Bithynia and wandered in poverty, especially in lands north of the Aegean, as far as the Danube and the primitive Getae. In 97 he spoke publicly to Greeks assembled at Olympia, was welcomed at Rome by emperor Nerva (96–98), and returned to Prusa. Arriving again at Rome on an embassy of thanks about 98–99 he became a firm friend of emperor Trajan. In 102 he travelled to Alexandria and elsewhere. Involved in a lawsuit about plans to beautify Prusa at his own expense, he stated his case before the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, 111–112. The rest of his life is unknown.
Nearly all of Dio's extant Discourses (or Orations) reflect political concerns (the most important of them dealing with affairs in Bithynia and affording valuable details about conditions in Asia Minor) or moral questions (mostly written in later life; they contain much of his best writing). Some philosophical and historical works, including one on the Getae, are lost. What survives of his achievement as a whole makes him prominent in the revival of Greek literature in the last part of the first century and the first part of the second.

***

The Olympic Discourse was delivered by Dio at Olympia in the year A.D.В 97 before a large audience of Greeks which had come to the city to witness the games, and in sight of the famous statue of Zeus which had been made by Pheidias, the greatest of Greek sculptors, more than five centuries before.
After his introductory remarks, in which he tells us that he has just returned from the Danube, where the Roman army under Trajan was about to begin the Second Dacian War, he raises the question as to whether he shall tell his hearers about the land of the Dacians and the impending war, or take a subject suggested by the god in whose presence they stood. He chooses the latter and, after explaining that a conception of the nature of the gods, and especially of the highest one, is innate in all mankind, and that this innate conception and belief is strengthened by men's experiences and observations in the world about them, Dio gives a classification of the way in which a conception of and a belief in their existence are implanted in the minds of men. In section 39 he makes a classification into notions innate and notions acquired. Then in section 44 and following he subdivides the acquired notions into (1) the voluntary and hortatory, given by the poets, (2) the compulsory and prescriptive, given by the lawgivers, (3)В those given by the painters and sculptors, and (4) the notions and concepts as set forth and expounded by the philosophers. He is careful, however, to point out that the poets, lawgivers, and sculptors and others would have no influence whatever if it were not for that primary and innate notion.
After this the speaker proceeds to what is the most important part of his address, in which he offers a great wealth of apparently original ideas as to what is the field and function of the plastic arts and what are their limitations. He puts his thoughts on this subject into the mouth of Pheidias, who takes the specific case of his own great statue of Zeus and attempts to show that he has used all the resources of the sculptor's art in producing a worthy statue of the greatest of the gods. Pheidias in the course of his exposition says among other things that he took his conception of Zeus from Homer, and he makes a detailed comparison between the respective capacities of poetry and sculpture to portray and represent, to the decided advantage of poetry.

No ancient writer up to Dio's time, whose works are extant, has given us such a full treatment of the subject. The others, such as Plutarch, make just a passing reference to the plastic arts. Certainly no one of them has made such a detailed comparison between them and poetry. Not until we come to Flavius Josephus do we find such a treatment of the subject, and Dio by many centuries anticipated the most important principles upon which the theory of Lessing's Laokoоn is based...

(J.W. Cohoon)


Библиография:

Dio Chrysostom. The Loeb Classical Library edition in five volumes. Translator J. W. Cohoon. HUP, Heinemann, 1939-1961.

Осма Питийска ода. Аристомен от Егина

І. Съдържание

Благосклонно Спокойствие (hesychia), дъще на Дике, която държиш ключове на съвети и войни, приеми питийска почит за Аристомен. Защото ти знаеш да дадеш благо да причиниш вреда в уместно време. И когато някой внесе сурова злоба в сърцето си, го посрещаш и побеждаваш, а дързостта му е хвърлена в бездната. Така стана и с бунтовния Порфирион (1-14).
Насилието на надменния унищожава с времето и самия него. Това не избегна нито стоглавият киликийски Тифон, нито царят на Гигантите. И Тифон бе повален с мълния и със стрелите на Аполон; а той самият прие сина на Ксенарх, дошъл от Кира и увенчан с парнаска зеленина и съпроводен от дорийска свита. Не е далеч от Грациите и справедливият остров, украсен със славните добродетели на Еакидите. От самото начало той има съвършена слава, защото е прославена с много победни подвизи и е отгледала най-велики герои (15-27).
Не бих желал да дотежавам с многословие на лирата и песента. Нека литне сега, момче, твоята най-нова награда с помощта на моето изкуство.
Ти следваш борбите на вуйчовците си Теогнет и Клитомах, които победиха в Олимпия и Истъм. Възвеличаваш рода на Мейдилидите и напомняш думите, изречени от Ойклеевия син, когато видя синовете пред седмовратната Тива - Епигоните, когато дойдоха за втори път от Аргос. Той каза "По природа благородната воля преминава от бащи към синове. Виждам многоцветна змия на щита на Алкмеон да върви най-отпред през вратите на Кадъм" (28-47).


ІІ. Коментари

The precise date of this ode is uncertain, but there is strong
internal evidence of its having been written soon after the battle of
Salamis, after which, as is well known, the aristeia, or first
honours for valour, were awarded to Aigina. The insolence of the
barbarian despot seems to be symbolized by that of the giants Typhon
and Porphyrion.
The ode was apparently to be sung on the winner's return to Aigina. No
less than eleven of the extant odes were written for winners from that
island.

(E. Myers)

Aristomenes of Aigina, the son of Xenarkes, belonged to the clan of the Midylidai, and had good examples to follow in his own family. One of his uncles, Theognetos, was victorious at Olympia, another, Kleitomachos, at the Isthmian games, both in wrestling, for which Aristomenes was to be distinguished. His victories at Megara, at Marathon, in Aigina, were crowned by success at the Pythian games. It is tolerably evident that at the time of this ode he was passing from the ranks of the boywrestlers. No mention is made of the trainer, a character who occupies so much space in O. 8.
P. was, in all likelihood, present at the games. The poem seems to have been composed for the celebration in Aigina -- compare tothi (v. 64), which points to distant Delphi...
What is the date?... If we accept the late date, the poem becomes of special importance as Pindar's last, just as P. 10 is of special importance as Pindar's earliest ode...
Hesychia is to Aigina what the lyre is to Syracuse; and the eighth Pythian, which begins with the invocation philophron Hêsuchia, is not unrelated to the first Pythian, which begins with the invocation chrusea phorminx. In the one, the lyre is the symbol of the harmony produced by the splendid sway of a central power, Hieron; in the other, the goddess Hesychia diffuses her influence through all the members of the commonwealth. In the one case, the balance is maintained by a strong hand; in the other, it depends on the nice adjustment of forces within the state. Typhõeus figures here (v. 16) as he figures in the first Pythian; but there the monster stretches from Cumae to Sicily, and represents the shock of foreign warfare as well as the volcanic powers of revolt... Here, too, Typhõeus is quelled by Zeus, and Porphyrion, king of the giants, by Apollo.
The opening, then, is a tribute to Hesychia, the goddess of domestic tranquillity...
Then begins the praise of Aigina for her exploits in the games, and the praise of Aristomenes for keeping up the glory of his house and for exalting the clan of the Midylidai and earning the word that Amphiaraos spoke (vv. 21-40).
The short myth follows, the scene in which the soul of Amphiaraos, beholding the valor of his son and his son's comrades among the Epigonoi, uttered the words: Phuai to gennaion epiprepei | ek paterôn paisin lêma. The young heroes have the spirit of their sires. Adrastos, leader of the first adventure, is compassed by better omens now; true, he alone will lose his son, but he will bring back his people safe by the blessing of the gods...
Such, then, were the words of Amphiaraos, whose praise of his son Alkmaion is echoed by Pindar -- for Alkmaion is not only the prototype of Aristomenes, but he is also the neighbour of the poet, guardian of his treasures, and spoke to him in oracles.
P. now turns with thanksgiving and prayer to Apollo... Success is not the test of merit. It is due to the will of Fortune, who makes men her playthings. “Therefore keep thee within bounds.”
Then follows the recital of the victories, with a vivid picture of the defeated contestants as they slink homeward...

To sum up: The first triad is occupied with the praise of Hesychia, ending in praise of the victor. The second triad begins with the praise of Aigina, and ends with the Midylidai, to whom the victor belongs. The third triad gives the story of Alkmaion, as an illustration of the persistency of noble blood. The fourth acknowledges the goodness of Apollo, and entreats his further guidance; for God is the sole source of these victories, which are now recounted. The fifth presents a striking contrast between vanquished and victor, and closes with an equally striking contrast between the nothingness of man and the power of God, which can make even the shadow of a dream to be full of light and glory. At the end is heard a fervent prayer for Aigina's welfare.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


The traditional date for this poem is fairly sure at 446 BC. It was written
for one Aristomenes who won the Pythian wrestling contest, and is interesting
as the sole poem of Pindar on a man from Aegina, which had lost her
independence after the Athenian victory in 457. Aegina had been suspected
of a pro-Persian attitude before the Persian Wars, and since Pindar was
Theban and Thebes was suspected of Persian sympathy before the wars, he
may have found himself at one time between the interests of Thebes,
Aegina and a hostile Athens. But his reputation as a poet permitted access to
Athens, where he studied the poetic art in his youth and was valued for his
poetry.
At the time this Ode was written Pindar was near eighty and this is so far as
we know his last victory Ode, and the only one which celebrates Aegina,
which had opposed the imperialist policies of Athens and was repopulated
later around 430 after its defeat, as an Athenian colony. In this poem Pindar
is aware of the difficult position of the island and hopes she will remember
her old glory from the days of the pious and just founder-hero Aeacus, and
still find a place in the new pan-Hellenic world. Aegina in fact never recovered
its former standing as a great naval power rivaling Athens earlier in the
century, and praise of this state in this poem must be seen as a sad hope
which was not borne out by history.
References in the poem to Dike as the personification of justice may have
had more meaning for the Aeginetans than one would at first assume, and
the name of Aeacus in the poem calls up a reputation of piety from a time
when Aegina was infested by plague. Zeus rewarded him for his concern
and aid to the people, and gave him as many people as there were ants on
the island, henceforth named Myrmidons from the word for ant.
The name Aegina also has a special history, as a nymph loved by Zeus who
bore Aeacus and brought her name to this island. The names of Aeacus and
his son Telamon who fathered the greater Ajax and Peleus father of
Achilles are all brought together at the end of the poem, in a resounding
prayer for peace with Zeus and Aegina presiding, thus confirming the
mention of Hesychia or "Quietude" with which the poems starts.
There are other famous names in the poem which must have touched deep
resonances in the politico-religious mythology of the people of that age. For
us many of the names are just items to look up in a book of classical reference,
since the Greek mythic tradition has a mainly literary value in the new
world of the West. And how do we respond to the names of Indra and Vishnu, still alive in Hindu society? Mythic and religious names depend on their social setting for
meaning and impact.
The constant in-weaving of mythic names and actions in Pindar's poetic
fabric is not decorative. It is critical to the poems, but at the same time it is
impossible for us to conjure up their effect in the vivid way he employed it.

(William Harris)
http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/pindar.pdf

Олимпийски оди I-II

I. Хиерон от Сиракуза, конно надбягване

1. Съдържание

Няма по-добро за възпяване състезание от Олимпийското. Нека с химн да прославим сина на Кронос и щастливия дом на Хиерон, царя на Сиракуза. С дорийската лира ще споменем и за коня Ференик, който, без да бъде пришпорван, спечели надбягването при река Алфей (1-23).
Славата на Хиерон блести в колoнията на лидиеца Пелопс, в когото се влюби земетръсецът Посейдон. Разказвано е, че Тантал е убил сина си Пелопс и сварил тялото му, но това е лъжа - а и човек трябва да говори за боговете само добро (защото се разказва, как те разделили и яли от тялото на Пелопс). Но Пелопс не е бил убит, а е бил отнесен в дома на боговете, също като Ганимед. Тантал пък е наказан, защото е откраднал от безсмъртните нектар и амброзия и ги дал на своите сътрапезници. Греши човекът, който се надява да извърши нещо, тайно от бог (34-65).
Пелопс бил върнат, и когато станал мъж, пожелал да се ожени за Хиподамия; призовал Посейдон и го помолил да му помогне в състезанието с баща й Еномай. Дотогава Еномай, за да отлага брака на дъщеря си, вече бил убил тринадесет кандидати. И така, Пелопс получил от Посейдон златна колесница и крилати коне; спечелил състезанието, взел Хиподамия и тя му родила шестима сина. Сега гробът му е край река Алфей, близо до олтар, посещаван от множество чужденци (xenoi) (66-96).
А победителят в тези състезания е блажен през останалия си живот. Аз пък увенчавам героя с еолийска песен и съм сигурен, че не бих могъл да прославя с химн никого сред живите гърци (xenoi), който да има качествата на Хиерон.
Хората са велики в различни неща. Нека ти, Хиероне, да бъдеш на върха като цар, а аз - да общувам с победители и да съм пръв завинаги по мъдрост (или изкуство - sofia) сред гърците (97-117).

2. Коментари

This ode seems to owe its position at the head of Pindar's extant
works to Aristophanes the grammarian, who placed it there on account
of its being specially occupied with the glorification of the Olympic
games in comparison with others, and with the story of Pelops, who was
their founder.
Hieron won this race B.C. 472, while at the height of his power at
Syracuse. Probably the ode was sung at Syracuse, perhaps, as has been
suggested, at a banquet.

(E. Myers)

Syracuse was founded by a colony of Dorians from Corinth, under the Herakleid Archias, in Ol. 11, 3 (734 B.C.).
The constitution of Syracuse, originally aristocratic, was changed into a tyrannis by Gelon, prince of Gela, who reconciled the factions of the city, Ol. 73, 4 (485 B.C.). After Gelon became lord of Syracuse, he made it his residence, enlarged it, built up Achradina, added Tyche, and what was afterwards called Neapolis. All this was not accomplished without high-handed measures, such as the transplanting of the populations of other cities. Gela lost half its inhabitants. Kamarina was razed to the ground, and the Kamarinaians transferred in a body to Syracuse (see O. 4). Under Gelon's rule Syracuse became the chief city of Sicily, the tyrant of Syracuse one of the most important personages on Grecian soil.
The great battle of Himera, popularly put on the same day as the battle of Salamis -- really fought somewhat earlier -- ended in the signal defeat of the Carthaginians, who lost one hundred and fifty thousand men dead on the field.
The consequence of the victory at Himera was a vast accession of power and influence for Gelon. Anaxilas of Rhegion, and a number of Sicilian cities, recognized his supremacy. But in the midst of his plans and projects Gelon died of dropsy, Ol. 75, 3 (478 B.C.). To his brother, Polyzelos, he left the command of the army, the guardianship of his minor son, and the hand of his widow, daughter of Theron. Hieron, the elder of the surviving brothers, who had been prince of Gela, succeeded to the government. Owing to the machinations of Hieron, Polyzelos was forced to take refuge with Theron of Akragas, who was at once his father-in-law and his son-in-law; and a war between Hieron and Theron was imminent, had not a reconciliation been effected by Simonides, the poet. Polyzelos was allowed to return to Syracuse, but Hieron was thenceforward sole ruler.
In 474 the inhabitants of Kyme (Cumae) were hard pressed by the Etruscans. Hieron immediately granted the desired aid, and defeated the Etruscans in a naval engagement off Cumae. The year after -- Ol. 76, 4 (473 B.C.) -- Hieron defeated Thrasydaios, son of Theron, and Akragas and Himera both acknowledged his sway; but he granted them their independence and a democratic constitution.
To his success in war Hieron wished to add the heroic honors paid to the founder of a new city. This new city, Aitna, was founded, Ol. 76, 1 (476 B.C.), in the territory of Katana, the old inhabitants having been removed to Leontini. Ten thousand citizens were imported, half from Syracuse and Gela, the other half Peloponnesian immigrants. The constitution was Doric; and Hieron's son, Deinomenes, and his brother-in-law, Chromios, were put in charge. Hieron often called himself Aitnaios (P. 1); Chromios followed his example (N. 1), and the founding of the city was celebrated by the “Aitnaian women” of Aischylos, and by Pindar's first Pythian.
The court of Hieron was a centre of literature and art. Epicharmos was a frequent guest. Aischylos, Simonides, Bakchylides, Pindar were among the visitors. No Doric prince ever reached such a height of glory. He was brilliantly successful at the great games: Ol. 73 and 77, with the single horse; Ol. 78, with the chariot; Pyth. 26 and 27, with the single horse; Pyth. 29, with the chariot, and again with mules.
As a Doric prince, Hieron has found as little favor with posterity as he did with his Athenian contemporary Themistokles. A tyrant, he helped the moralists to make the uneasiness of crowned heads still more uneasy. He became the type of splendid success and of splendid misery; for he was tortured by bodily suffering, he was surrounded by sycophants and informers, and lived in an atmosphere of treachery and meanness. Those who see in Pindar's Hieronic odes sermons levelled at the unfortunate prince will be inclined to despise the greatest ruler of his day. A more humane judgment will recognize high qualities impaired by the faults that were engendered and exaggerated by the tyrannis.
Hieron died Ol. 78, 2 (467 B.C.), at Aitna, and upon his death received heroic honors.

The first Olympian celebrates the victory gained by Hieron, Ol. 77 (472 B.C.), with his race-horse Pherenikos. He was then at the height of his power and glory. Some put the ode four years earlier, Ol. 76 (476 B.C.).

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


II. Терон от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)

1. Съдържание

Лири и химни, кой бог, герой или мъж ще възпеем? Пиза е Зевсова, Херакъл установи игрите, но ние ще пеем за Терон. Той е защитник на Акрагант, неговите предци станаха око на Сицилия. Съдбовното време им носеше богатство и красота. Крониде, сине на Рея, послушай песента ми и остави на рода им бащината нива (1-15).
Дори и Хронос, бащата на всичко, не може да отмени никое от направените неща. Но щастливата съдба може да донесе забрава. Болезнената беда умира, победена от радостите, когато божията Мойра изпрати велико щастие.
Това се отнася и за добропрестолните дъщери на Кадъм. Загиналата от мълния Семела живее на Олимп, където вечно я обичат Палада, бащата Зевс и собственият й син. Неугасим живот завинаги в морето е отреден и на Ино, наред с дъщерите на Нерей (16-30).
На нас, смъртните не е отредено да имаме опит за смъртта, нито да знаем деня, в който ще умрем. Всеки път различни потоци от радости и мъки вървят към хората.
Така и фаталният син срещна Лай и го уби - и така изпълни древното пророчество, изказано в Пито. Като видя това, Еринията започна да гаси мъжете от рода му с взаимните им убийства. Но след Полиник остана Терсандър, почетен в нови подвизи и битки - и той бе цвят в помощ на дома на Адрастидите. Оттам взе корена на семето си синът на Енесидам - и е достоен да получи похвални песни под съпровод на лира (31-48).
В Олимпия получи наградата си сам, а при Пито и на Истъм - заедно с брат си, за дванадесетте пробега на конната четворка.
Победата обезсилва състезателното безумство. Ако някой знаеше бъдещето - че душите на умрелите тук веднага получават наказания и че в онова подземно владение на Зевс някой съди, произнасяйки думи с враждебна принуда. Но достойните мъже получават безболезнен живот сред зачетените от боговете (49-68).
А онези, които са били три пъти от всяка страна (на земята) и са запазили душата си от несправедливости, те отиват по пътя на Зевс в крепостта на Кронос - там, където полъхът на Океана подухва край Острова на блажените. Там те се увенчават според справедливите решения на Радамант, когото великият баща, съпругът на Рея, е поставил да седи край него. Там са Пелей и Кадъм; там е и Ахил, когото отнесе майка му, след като убеди с молби сърцето на Зевс - и който повали Хектор, непобедимия стълб на Троя (69-83).
Много са бързите стрели в колчана под лакътя ми - и те звучат за умните. Който знае много, расте като мъдрец; а онези, които само учат, със всеезичие надигат крясък като врани срещу божествената птица на Зевс.
Към Акрагант ще заговоря с клетвено слово и истинен ум: сто години градът не е раждал мъж, по-благодетелен и изобилен към приятелите си от Терон. Някои искат да укрият добрите дела на достойните мъже. Но след като пясъкът убягва на числото, то кой може да изкаже радостите, които онзи мъж даде на останалите хора? (84-100)

2. Коментари

Theron's ancestors the Emmenidai migrated from Rhodes to Sicily and
first colonized Gela and then Akragas (the Latin Agrigentum). His chariot won this victory B.C. 476.

(E. Myers)

Akragas (Agrigentum) was a daughter of Gela. Gela was founded, Ol. 22, 4 (689 B.C.), by a Rhodian colony; Akragas more than a hundred years afterwards, Ol. 49, 4 (581 B.C.). In Ol. 52, 3 (570 B.C.) the notorious Phalaris made himself tyrant of the city, and, after a rule of sixteen years, was dethroned by Telemachos, the grandfather of Emmenes or Emmenides, who gave his name to the line, and became the father of Ainesidamos. Under the sons of Ainesidamos, Theron and Xenokrates, the name of the Emmenidai was brought to the height of its glory, and an alliance formed with the ruling house of Syracuse. Damareta, the daughter of Theron, married first Gelon, and, upon his death, Polyzelos, his brother. Theron married a daughter of Polyzelos, and, finally, Hieron married a daughter of Xenokrates.
The Emmenidai belonged to the ancient race of the Aigeidai, to which Pindar traced his origin, and claimed descent from Kadmos, through Polyneikes, who was the father of Thersandros by Argeia, daughter of Adrastos. Evidently a roving, and doubtless a quarrelsome, race, the descendants of Thersandros went successively to Sparta, to Thera, to Rhodes, and finally to Akragas. Such was the ancestry of Theron, who made himself master of Akragas by a trick, which he is said to have redeemed by a just, mild, and beneficent reign. Under his rule Akragas reached its highest eminence, and Theron's sway extended to the neighborhood of Himera and the Tyrrhenian sea. When he drove out Terillos, tyrant of Himera, and seized his throne, Terillos applied to his son-in-law, Anaxilas of Rhegion, for help, who, in his turn, invoked the aid of the Carthaginians. Thereupon Theron summoned to his assistance his son-in-law, Gelon, of Syracuse, and in the famous battle of Himera the Sicilian princes gained a brilliant victory. The enormous booty was spent on the adornment of Syracuse and Akragas. Akragas became one of the most beautiful cities of the world, and the ruins of Girgenti are still among the most imposing remains of antiquity. A few years after the battle of Himera, Gelon died, Ol. 75, 3 (478 B.C.), and was succeeded by his brother Hieron in the rule of Syracuse. To the other brother, Polyzelos, were assigned the command of the army and the hand of Damareta, daughter of Theron, widow of Gelon, with the guardianship of Gelon's son; but the two brothers had not been on the best terms before, and Hieron took measures to get rid of Polyzelos, who was a popular prince. Polyzelos took refuge with Theron, who had married his daughter, and who in consequence of this double tie refused to give him up to Hieron...
Theron sat firmly on his throne again, and, after putting to death all his enemies, had the great satisfaction of gaining an Olympian victory, Ol. 76 (476 B.C.), which Pindar celebrates in this ode and the following.
Theron died Ol. 76, 4; Xenokrates, his brother, who won two of the victories celebrated by Pindar (P. 6 and I. 2), died either before him or soon after.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)

Списък на одите

І. Олимпийски оди

1. Хиерон от Сиракуза, конно надбягване
2. Терон от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)
3. Терон от Акрагант, за празника Теоксения
4. Псаумий от Камарина, надбягване с колесници (мулета), за изпълнение в Олимпия
5. Псаумий от Камарина, за изпълнение в Камарина
6. Агезий от Сиракуза, надбягване с колесници (мулета), за изпълнение в Стимфал
7. Диагор от Родос, юмручен бой
8. Алкимедонт от Егина, борба за момчета
9. Ефармост от Опунт, борба, за изпълнение в Опунт на празника на Аякс Локрийски
10. Агезидам от Епизефирските Локри, юмручен бой за момчета, за изпълнение в Епизефирските Локри
11. Агезидам от Епизефирските Локри, юмручен бой за момчета, за изпълнение в Олимпия
12. Ерготел от Химера, бягане на дълго разстояние
13. Ксенофонт от Коринт, бягане на един стадий и петобой
14. Азопих от Орхомен, бягане на един стадий за момчета


ІІ. Питийски оди

1. Хиерон от Етна, надбягване с колесници (коне )
2. Хиерон от Сиракуза, надбягване с колесници (коне)
3. Хиерон от Сиракуза, надбягване с колесници (мулета)
4. Аркезилай от Кирена, надбягване с колесници (коне)
5. Аркезилай от Кирена, надбягване с колесници (коне) за Карнейския празник
6. Ксенократ от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)
7. Мегакъл от Атина, надбягване с колесници (тетрипос)
8. Аристомен от Егина, борба
9. Телезикрат от Кирена, бягане с оръжие
10. Хипокъл от Тесалия, бягане на два стадия за момчета
11. Тразидей от Тива, бягане на един стадий за момчета, за изпълнение в Тива
12. Мидас от Акрагант, свирене на флейта


ІІІ. Немейски оди

1. Хромий от Етна, надбягване с коне (хипойс)
2. Тимодем Ахарнянина, панкратион
3. Аристоклид от Егина, панкратион, за изпълнение в Егина
4. Тимасарх от Егина, борба за момчета
5. Питей от Егина, панкратион,
6. Алкимид от Егина, борба за момчета
7. Соген от Егина, петобой за момчета
8. Диний от Егина, бягане на два стадия
9. Хромий от Етна, надбягване с колесници (коне), за изпълнение в Сикион
10. Теей от Аргос, борба, за изпълнение в Аргос на празника на Хера
11. Аристагор от Тенедос, за избирането му за притан


ІV. Истмийски оди

1. Херодот от Тива, надбягване с колесници (коне)
2. Ксенократ от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)
3. Мелис от Тива, надбягване с коне (хипойс)
4. Мелис от Тива, надбягване с коне (хипойс) - продължение
5. Филакид от Егина, панкратион за момчета
6. Филакид от Егина, панкратион за момчета ІІ
7. Стрепсиад от Тива, панкратион
8. Клеандър от Егина, панкратион за момчета

Първа Питийска ода. Хиерон от Етна

Въведение - 4 март, вторник

І. За работата през семестъра

1. Произведения за обсъждане

а. Оди в превод на български

- Първа Питийска
- Осма Питийска
- Единадесета Олимпийска; Дванадесета Питийска

б. На старогръцки


2. Начин на обсъждане

Да се прочете и коментира одата. При това:

а. Да се раздели на части според смисъла на текста
б. Да се отделят типовите (характерни за жанра и специално за Пиндар) теми (род на победителя; митове, разказани по определен повод; размисли - за поезията, за нравите; други)
в. Да се обсъдят трудностите за разбирането - както когато се чете в превод, така и при четене на гръцкия текст


ІІ. Първа Питийска Ода

1. Съдържание

Певците в хора се подчиняват на музиката, идваща от лирата (phorminx) - тя самата принадлежи на Аполон и Музите. Лирата угасява Зевсовата светкавица и дори приспива орела му. Под нейните звуци заспива и Арес, оставил копието си. Тя очарова умовете на боговете (daimonon phrenas) с мъдростта на дълбокоскутните (bathykolpoi) Музи (1-15).
Но неприятелите на Зевс се боят от гласа на Музите. Сред тях е и противникът на боговете (theon polemios), отгледаният в киликийска пещера Тифон, чиито гърди сега са притиснати под скалите на Куме и под цяла Сицилия. Задържа го и Етна, от която излизат пушеци, пламъци и скали, отлитащи с трясък чак в морето. Реки от огън излизат от гърлото на това влечуго (herpeton) - чудно да бъде видяно, чудно дори да се чуе за него (16-28).
Зевс, на чиято обич се надяваме, владее планината и плодородната земя около нея. Името на съседния на планината град е прославено от основателя му, прочутия Хиерон, който беше обявен за победител на Питийските игри в състезанието с колесници. Както попътният вятър помага на моряците и им предвещава щастливо завръщане, така и този успех в състезанието ще прослави града. Нека и ликийският Аполон, царуващ над Делос и обичащ касталийския извор до Парнас, да внимава за това (nooi tithemen) и да обогатява земята с прекрасни мъже (29-40). Боговете идва всичко, с което хората са добродетелни, мъдри, сръчни и красноречиви. Аз се надявам да възхваля този мъж така, сякаш хвърлям копие - и ще го направя по-добре от съперниците си. Дано времето да носи щастие и блага на Хиерон и да облекчи болките му. Водил е много битки и с помощта на боговете е постигнал чест, каквато не е имал никой сред гърците. Подобен е на Филоктет, който, макар и болен, беше доведен пред Троя, за да участва в разрушаването й и да прекрати мъките на данайците. Боледуваше, но съдбата му беше добра. Нека така да помага на Хиерон и богът, който поправя бедите (orthoter), та да случи с времето, каквото мечтае (41-57).

2. Коментари

The date of this victory is B.C. 474. In the year 480, the year of Salamis, the Syracusans under Hieron had defeated the Carthaginians in the great battle of Himera.
In 479 a great eruption of Etna began. In 476 Hieron founded,
near the mountain but we may suppose at a safe distance, the new city
of Aitna, in honour of which he had himself proclaimed as an Aitnaian
after this and other victories in the games.
And in this same year, 474, he had defeated the Etruscans, or Tuscans,
or Tyrrhenians in a great sea-fight before Cumae.
Pindar might well delight to honour those who had been waging so well
against the barbarians of the South and West the same war which the
Hellenes of the mother-country waged against the barbarians of the
East.

(E. Myers)

The victory commemorated in this poem was gained Pyth. 29, or Ol. 76, 3 (474 B.C.). Hieron had himself proclaimed as a citizen of Aitna in order to please the city founded by him, Ol. 76, 1 (476 B.C.), to take the place of Katana. In the same year he had gained a victory over the Etruscans, thus crowning the glory of the battle of Himera. The great eruption of Aitna, which began Ol. 75, 2 (479 B.C.), and continued several years, figures largely in this poem, which has been much admired and often imitated...

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


ІІІ. За Пиндар
Kynoskephalai in Boeotia 522 - Argos after 446

Pindar's life attracted considerable attention in ancient times, but recent scholarship has shown that much biographical material consists of questionable deductions from his poetry. We can still, however, say something about Pindar's life.
A biography of Pindar attached to a manuscript of his poems (Vita Ambrosiana, fr. 193) quotes a poem, unnamed and otherwise lost, in which Pindar says of himself: “it was the fourth-yearly festival, the one with a procession of oxen, in which I, well-loved, was first put to bed in my swaddling clothes: pentaetêris heorta boupompos, en hai prôton eunasthên agapatos hupo sparganois).” This festival was the one sacred to Pythian Apollo and celebrated at Delphi (which began with a procession of oxen). Since this is quoted as Pindar's own statement, it is one of the best pieces of evidence that we have about his life and far more reliable than those details reported in the Vitae or other late sources. Ancient sources place his “floruit,” the peak of his career, generally reckoned to be the age of 40, at the time of Xerxes’ invasion, 480. This would place his birth at the festival of 522 or 518, with little to choose between the two.
We do not know when Pindar died, but his latest surviving poem (Pind. P. 8) dates from 446, when he was in his seventies, and scholars have traditionally assumed that he died shortly thereafter.

The ancient biographical sketches of Pindar present conflicting views of his parentage and the details of his family. More important, though controversial, is a single remark which Pindar makes in one of his poems. The text of a poem to Arkesilaus, the ruler of the Greek colony Kyrene, refers to a famous and ancient Greek clan, the Aigeidai, as “my fathers” (Pind., Pyth. 5.76). Elsewhere, Herodotus (Hdt. 4.149) mentions the original Aigeus, who founded a “great clan” (phulê megalê) in Sparta. Pindar's reference indicates that this clan first played a major role in the founding of the island colony Thera, one of Sparta's few colonies, and then in the subsequent foundation of Kyrene by Thera. If we are to understand the speaker in this poem to be Pindar, then he is claiming to be part of an ancient and now international clan with connections to Sparta, Thera and Kyrene. Some scholars feel that the “I” in this case is conventional and does not describe Pindar himself. In any case, the Aigeidai are a typical extended kinship group such as those we see elsewhere in Pindar.
The extended family of a victor or any individual is a major concern in Pindaric poetry. Pindar's poems do not simply celebrate the particular victories which his patrons may have won in recent games. He uses his poems to emphasize, where possible, two aspects of the victor's family: its antiquity and its wide connections throughout the Greek world.

Surviving Poems:
First - P. 10 498, Last - P. 8 446

Pindar's own poetry provides us with our best evidence of his career, but scholars have argued at length as to how much these poems tell us. Nevertheless, it is certainly clear that Pindar associated with many of the wealthiest and most prominent members of Greek society, that he had a long term relationship with several tyrants in Sicily and that he worked frequently with citizens from the small but prosperous island of Aigina, a rival and eventual victim of Athens.
His own Boeotian background surely had some effect on the way he interacted with others in Greece. He seems to reject a tradition that Boeotians were crass and uneducated, when he challenges someone to see “whether we truly escape that ancient reproach, ‘Boeotian pig’ (Pind. O. 6.89-90).” His Boeotian citizenship would tend to place him at odds with Athens, and Athenians play a distinctly minor role in Pindar's work. Nevertheless, it is not clear to what extent local rivalries would have affected such a man as Pindar, who clearly belonged to the cosmopolitan elite of archaic Greece. Among the elite, ties of family and friendship often crossed the narrow boundaries of the polis. When Athens and Sparta first began to quarrel in the mid fifth-century, for instance, the Athenian statesman Cimon, who had named his son Lakedaimonios (“The Spartan”), reportedly felt that he had to prove his loyalty to Athens over Sparta in dramatic fashion at the battle of Tanagra (Plut. Cim. 17.3-5).
Pindar himself, it should be stressed, was a celebrated personality, and an association with this poet brought to wealthy tyrants a prestige which money did in fact buy. Poets like Pindar (and his contemporaries Simonides and Bacchylides) used their literary skills and reputation to inscribe their patrons in the poetic tradition of Greece. These poets played a major role in creating a respectable and even venerable image of their patrons in the Greek world at large. A poet such as Pindar had much to offer to the most powerful men of his time, and should not be seen as a mere dependent hanger-on at the courts of the great.

Of all Pindar's writings, only the four books of “Epinicians” (poems written to commemorate athletic victories at the greatest contests in the Greek world) have survived intact. Our perception of Pindar as a poet thus necessarily overemphasizes this category of poetry, distorting in some measure our view of his work. Nevertheless, epinician poetry seems to have been immensely popular at the time, and the victories celebrated in these poems should not be seen as objects of ephemeral interest. When Aristophanes portrays a “standard” conservative middle-aged Athenian man in the 420s, he has this man ask his son to sing him an epinician poem composed by Pindar's contemporary, Simonides. Simonides died in 468. Aristophanes’ typical Athenian thus asks to hear a poem about a victory that took place more than forty years earlier.
In another play, the Birds, Aristophanes parodies the events which followed the foundation of a city. At one point, a poet enters and promises-in exchange for various gifts-to praise the new city in his poetry. This poet imitates two passages of Pindar (Aristoph. Birds 926-7 and Aristoph. Birds 945 echo Pind. fr. 105a, while Aristoph. Birds 941-5 recalls Pind. fr. 105b). Aristophanes is clearly parodying the way in which Pindar helped Hieron, the tyrant of Syracuse, celebrate the foundation of the city Aitna in 476/5, an event which took place on the other end of the Greek world and more than sixty years before the Birds was produced (414). Lyric poets such as Pindar and his older contemporary Simonides (who is also mentioned in this section of the Birds, Aristoph. Birds 919) were enormously famous and their words were recited throughout the Greek world.
Pindar and his colleagues differ markedly from the tragic playwrights in more than subject matter or format. Pindar's poetry was designed to be performed throughout the Greek world. It did a tyrant in Sicily or an athlete in Rhodes relatively little good if Pindar's poetry were performed once and then remembered only in the patron's native city state. Pindar's poetry had to appeal to the same international audience that patronized the great Panhellenic festivals at Olympia, Delphi, Nemea and the Isthmus. Greek tragedy was, by contrast, performed at Athens, and the citizens of Athens met each year to pass judgment on the tragedies which they had seen. If a playwright expected to find someone to bear the production costs of his work, he needed to succeed with this local audience. What people thought of Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides in Sicily or Macedonia was of interest, but of little importance compared to local Athenian opinion. It is ironic that tragedy, the most parochial of all Greek poetic forms, ultimately gripped the imagination of the Greek world, while the lyric poetry of Pindar, which had always been aimed at a cosmopolitan audience, declined in importance with the poet's death.
Yet the relative growth of tragedy over lyric has at least one driving cause. Pindar's poetry was aimed at an international audience, but this audience consisted of a small elite. Pindar's work is openly complex and difficult to appreciate. He challenges his listeners to follow his meaning, for the ability to appreciate Pindar was itself a sign that one belonged to the Greek elite. Tragedy's audience, though Athenian, drew from all segments of the Athenian citizenry. It needed to appeal to a vertically layered mass of viewers ranging from the most well-educated down to the overworked farmer or tradesman. Pindar assumed that his audience either knew or felt that they should know what he was talking about. The tragic playwrights had to engage their audience if they wished to be successful, and their work, designed to appeal to many kinds of listener, have always been more accessible. Hence, Pindar's work, challenging as it is to the reader, offers an excellent view into the way in which elites of the late archaic period viewed themselves and their world.

(Gregory Crane)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0004%3Aid%3Dpindar

Елий Аристид. Към Рим, 61-64

І. Съдържание на откъса



II. Съвременни учени за "римското гражданство"