Jenni Glaser (Bryn Mawr College)
In this paper, I examine how the abrupt ending of the myth in Pindar’s break-off formulas, or Abbruchsformeln, is meant to affect the audiences’ overall reception of the poem, and therefore shows us what variants were familiar to them. I propose that Pindar exerts his power over the subject of the poem through a manipulation of available variants by breaking off the myth at the crossroads of possibility and preventing a negative future. Therefore the audience’s recognition of rejected negative variants is as significant as of variants selected for this exertion of power. This has implications for the history of mythical variants and their availability to Pindar and his audience in the 6th century. In light of this, Pythian 11, I argue, presents compelling evidence that the negative version of the Orestes myth where he is pursued by the Furies, first explicitly extant in Aeschylus’ 5th century Eumenides, was more widely known in Pindar’s time.
Many scholars have sought to divine the purpose of the myths, which appear in 36 of 45 extant Pindaric odes, and the many break-off formulas. Willcock has seen his positive exempla as a monument to the excellence of the victor and his negative exempla as a parallel that highlights the good of the victor. Mackie and Hubbard have seen these elements as a warning to the victor against ὕβρις, while Bundy and his followers have seen his break-offs in light of encomiastic propriety. I argue that by cutting off the myth before an ending that would plunge the hero of the story into infamy, Pindar exhibits his power as a poet to shape the future of the subject. If this is true, then the missing end of the Pythian 11 myth must be negative, i.e. the Furies.
I have chosen three myths, spread out over four poems: Olympian 1, Olympian 13 and Isthmian 7, and Pythian 11. In Olympian 1, with the myth of Pelops and Tantalus, Pindar highlights the tension between multiple versions in an elaborate recusatio. His Pelops is not fed to the gods in a cannibalistic feast; he is stolen by Poseidon as a lover. Pindar hints at the alternate version throughout, both explicitly – saying he would not speak such evil of the gods – and implicitly – Pelops still has an ivory shoulder. Next, Olympian 13 and Isthmian 7 together exhibit both halves of the myth of Bellerophon, the part deemed acceptable – his capture of Pegasus – and the part rejected – his being cast down from an attempt on Olympus –, allowing us to see how Pindar himself views and treats material that he leaves out. Finally, Pythian 11 breaks off immediately after Orestes’ murder of his mother and Aegisthus, but through interrogation of other aspects of the myth, Pindar invites the audience to reflect on what goes unsaid. The examination of these four Pindaric odes in light of one another shows us that the way Pindar uses his power as poet also proves the availability of the Orestes-variant in the final poem.
Silence speaks louder than words: The missing myths in Pindar’s Olympian 1, Olympian 13, and Pythian 11.