David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Classical Quarterly 36 (02):317- (1986)
In the Eighth Olympian, for Alcimedon of Aegina, Pindar recounts a story that, according to a notice in the scholia, is not found in earlier Greek literature. Aeacus was summoned from Aegina to Troy by Apollo and Poseidon to help in the construction of the city's fortifications. Smoke, says the poet, would one day rise from the very battlements Aeacus built. The wall newly completed, a portent appeared: three snakes tried to scale the ramparts but two fell to earth while one succeeded in entering the city. Apollo immediately interpreted this sign: Troy would be taken ‘owing to the work of Aeacus’ hand' and would, moreover, be taken ‘by the first and the fourth generations’. If there is literary invention here, it would seem that Pindar has drawn inspiration from three passages of our Iliad: 7.452–3, Apollo and Poseidon toiled to build a wall for Laomedon; 6.433–4, there was one spot in the wall of Troy that was especially vulnerable; 2.308–29, the seer Calchas declares an omen involving a snake to signify the eventual destruction of Ilium. The general import of the passage is clear enough — descendants of Aeacus play a prominent part in the Trojan war and in the capture of the city. But the details of the portent and of the prophecy have caused much perplexity, for they cannot easily be made to correspond to the history they prefigure. It is the numbers in Pindar's account that are the chief source of confusion. On the model of the omen interpreted by Calchas the three snakes in the Pindaric story might reasonably be expected to represent the lapse of three generations before Aeacus' great-grandson Neoptolemus played his conspicuous part in the final agony of Troy. But this interpretation of the portent forces us to explain away the fact that Troy was also destroyed by Aeacus' son, Telamon, as Pindar repeatedly insists in his Aeginetan odes : if the snakes are taken to represent generations, one of the unsuccessful snakes in fact represents a successful conqueror. This is a disturbing inconcinnity
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David H. Sanford (2003). Fusion Confusion. Analysis 63 (277):1–4.
David Ridgway (1995). Etruscan Roof-Tiles Ö. Wikander: Acquarossa Vol. VI. The Roof-Tiles. Part 2. Typology and Technical Features. (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, Series in 4o, XXXVIII: VI, 2.) Pp. 189, 65 Figs., 5 Tables. Stockholm: Paul Åström, 1993. Cased, S. Kr. 350. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 45 (02):384-385.
Gunter Fuchs & Philipp Lücke (2012). Iteratively Changing the Heights of Automorphism Towers. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 53 (2):155-174.
M. M. Willcock (1972). Pindar Again W. J. Slater: Lexicon to Pindar. Pp. Xiv + 563. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969. Cloth, DM. 168. The Classical Review 22 (01):14-15.
Roy Sorensen (2008). Philosophy for the Eye. The Philosophers' Magazine 42 (42):31-39.
Nikk Effingham & Jon Robson (2007). A Mereological Challenge to Endurantism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (4):633 – 640.
Peter Kosso (2000). The Epistemology of Spontaneously Broken Symmetries. Synthese 122 (3):359 - 376.
Stephen Instone (1993). Myth and History in Pindar Thomas Cole: Pindar's Feasts or the Music of Power. (Filologia E Critica, 69.) Pp. 174. Rome: Ateneo, 1992. L. 30,000. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 43 (02):233-235.
M. M. Willcock (1971). Pindar Translated Carl A. P. Ruck and William H. Matheson: Pindar, Selected Odes. Pp. 269. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1968. Cloth, £3·75. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 21 (01):13-15.
I. Pfeijffer (1996). Review. Pindar's Epinicia. Pindar, Victory Odes: Olympians 2, 7 and 11; Nemean 4; Isthmians 3, 4 and 7. M M Willcock. The Classical Review 46 (2):216-219.
M. M. Willcock (1969). Folk-Tales in Pindar Mary A. Grant: Folktale and Hero-Tale Motifs in the Odes of Pindar. Pp. 172. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1967. Cloth, $4.00. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 19 (03):276-277.
C. Carey (1988). An Introduction to Pindar W. H. Race: Pindar. (Twayne's World Authors Series.) Pp. Ix+162; 1 Plate. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1986. £17.95. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 38 (01):6-8.
Dennis E. Skocz (2011). Wall Street and Main Street in Schutzian Perspective. Schutzian Research 3:165-184.
Added to index2010-12-09
Total downloads2 ( #729,190 of 1,938,858 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #459,264 of 1,938,858 )
How can I increase my downloads?