Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T08:34:34.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Performance of Bacchylides ODE 5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. A. Schmidt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The consensus of modern opinion on the performance of this ode is that it was not a properly commissioned epinicion, but was sent spontaneously by Bacchylides in an attempt to introduce himself to Hieron. Gzella, for one, argues that many so-called epinicia were sent from poet to patron in order to impress and win commissions. Hence one finds, or so he claims, the terms , though, to be sure, commissioned epinicia were far more common.1 One could be misled here into believing that these were terms used by Pindar and Bacchylides themselves

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , May 1987 , pp. 20 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1987

Access options

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

References

1 Gzella, S., ‘Problem of the Fee in Greek Choral Lyric’,Eos 59(1971),191.Google Scholar

2 Agamemnon (Oxford, 1958), 2, p. 444.

3 Steffen, W.,‘Bacchylides’ Fifth Ode’,Eos 51(1961),12.Google Scholar

4 Cinna, r. 1 (M), Menander Rhetor p. 395, cf. 333 and 336 S. On the propempticon see Nisbett and Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace Odes I(Oxford, 1970), pp.40Google Scholarff. and Cairns, F., Generic Composition(Edinburgh, 1972), pp.6ff.Google Scholar

5 E.g. Maehler, H.Bakchylides(Leiden,1982) Kommentar, p. 84Google Scholar, n. 15 (though only in reference to the prooemium); Brannan, P. ‘Bacchylides Fifth Ode’, CF 262(1972), 20Google ScholarIff.;Lefkowitz, M. R., ‘Bacchylides Ode Five, Imitation and Originality’, HSCPh 73(1969),49;Google Scholar et al., though Gentili, B., Bacchilide, Studi (Urbino,1958), p. 14Google Scholar and Burnett, A., The Art of Bacchylides(Harvard,1985), p. 197, n. 1 are exceptions.Google Scholar

6 It is true that Isthmian 2 is thought not to be a proper epinicion either (so Wilamowitz, Pindaros, pp. 311–12, though see Five Odes of Pindar [New York, 1981], p.23), but not Pythian 6.Google Scholar

7 For a discussion of the various types of opening see Brannan, op. cit. (n. 5), 201–2.

8 E.g. Pindar, P. 5.5 (after introductory gnome), 01. 6.12; 8.15. Note also that Pythian 12 begins with an invocation of Acragas.

9 01. 1.13–17, P 1.90–1. Note the similarity with Pindar's expression in P. 3.80:

10 Bornemann, L.,‘Pindar und Bakchylides’ in JA W 216(1928),153, gives examples of used in this sense in Pindar.Google Scholar

11 Wilamowitz, Pindaros, pp. 276, 293. Cf.Gaspar, E., Essai de chronologie Pindarique(Brussels, 1900), pp.60,146Google Scholar

12 Carey, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 5; Bornemann, loc. cit.

13 Becker, ‘Das Bild des Weges’, Hermes Einzelschriften 4(1937),71 collects examples of this ship-subterfuge in Pindar.Google Scholar

14 Severyns, Bacchylide(Liege, 1933), p.78.Google Scholar

15 Chamaeleon apud Athen. 656d; Aelian,Var. HistGoogle Scholar. 4.15, 9.1, 12,25;Xenophon, Hiero; Timaeos F 93566Jacoby); etc.Google Scholar

16 Aelian, Var. Hist. 4.15Google Scholar

17 Korte, ‘Bacchylidea", Hermes 53(1918),133–4; Severyns, op. cit. (n. 14), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

18 Vit. Aesch. p. 332.13 (Page).

19 Contrast in particular Brannan, op. cit. (n. 5), 203–4, who carries Steffen's arguments to their logical extreme and sees no specific victory mentioned in ode 5. For the date see Beazley in RPh 24(1900),61–5Google Scholar, on P. Oxy. 222.