Laura Massetti here provides a linguistic commentary on Pythian 12, as well as a comparative study with an Old Indic religious hymn, Rigveda 10.67, a work that shares phraseological structure with Pythian 12. Thus, Massetti seeks to interrogate Pythian 12 in light of historical linguistics. Her hypothesis is that “Pythian Twelve’s mythological narrative is constructed on inherited thematic and phraseological material, which Pindar employs to fashion his own work” (x). This is a groundbreaking book, one that employs a methodology that is seldom used in classical studies: Massetti shows that placing Pindar in correspondence with his broader Indo-European heritage yields valuable results.
In her preface, Massetti begins by outlining her goals and argument. She says, on page IX, that her three main goals are “to provide an updated translation and linguistic commentary on the text”; “to investigate the main interpretive issues of the epinicion with the aid of historical linguistics”; and to shed light on Pindar’s compositional technique by studying devices which Pindar may have inherited. She points out that Pindar’s ring-composition is paralleled “at both structural and semantic levels” (XI) in the Old Indic tradition and that “shared systems of concepts,” including the importance of glory and reward are paralleled in Rigvedic hymns. Thereafter, she provides a helpful introduction to the methodology of comparative philology (a section that will be especially useful for those of her readers who have been trained in classical philology) and positions her work in relation to scholars who have done analogous work before her.
In the brief first chapter, Massetti addresses the ode’s content and performance context. Herein Massetti provides both a summary of the ode and a brief overview of musical contests at Delphi. She also discusses the dating of the earliest Pythian competitions, in relationship to stephanitic and chrematitic agones, and, like others, dates the ode to 490 BCE. Massetti unsurprisingly comes down in favor of first performance at Akragas, after having considered the possibility that it might first have been performed at Delphi (here, consideration of GRBS 52 (2012) 338–360 would have been valuable). Furthermore, she sensibly avers that “it is reasonable to imagine that Pindar introduces the aetiological myth of the ‘tune of many heads’ into the ode because Midas won by performing it” (10). Thus, the first chapter largely addresses historical concerns regarding the ode’s context.
Massetti’s second chapter focuses on Pindar’s use of ring-composition in Pythian 12, wherein she identifies three main rings. She asserts that ring-composition is a “framing device” whereby “a central section is enclosed by an element and its repetition at a later part of the text, the element and repetition forming a ring” (12). After discussing some of her previous comparative work on ring-composition in Pindar and the Rigveda, Massetti analyzes Pythian 12. Herein she provides a detailed analysis, classifying ring-compositional schemata in terms of lexical, semantic, and phraseological repetitions. The section is highly descriptive, and I would have appreciated more literary analysis, with discussion of why Pindar uses ring-composition in terms of narrative goals.
Chapters three and four provide preliminary descriptive material. In her brief third chapter, “Linguistic Remarks”, Massetti considers Pindar’s dialect. Employing the term Kunstsprache, she asserts that “Pindar’s language is an artificial amalgamate of different Greek dialects, which taken all together seem to produce a non-Attic-Ionic colour” (22). And she makes the important point that different manuscripts attest different traditions, thereby “mak[ing] it difficult to assess the genuineness of dialectal forms” (23). The chapter includes an extensive list of dialectical features in Pythian 12. Here Massetti’s competence in historical linguistics is on display as she moves from Indo-European roots through to the peculiarities of various Greek dialectal forms. Her brief fourth chapter provides colometry, synopsis of readings, text, and English translation; these sections are all quite conservative.
In chapter five, Massetti provides just over fifty pages of “linguistic commentary” for Pythian 12, a 32-line poem. In many respects, the material found herein will be familiar to readers of traditional philological commentaries, but one will also regularly find etymologies that go back to IE (good examples of this can be found, for example, in the notes on lines 2 and 4), comparanda from IE poetic traditions that are generally not cited in commentaries on Pindar (e.g., Old English and Irish), and excursuses on thematic concerns (e.g., the relation of weaving-imagery in Pindar and Indo-European to poetics). In a note on αἰτέω (line 1) Massetti asserts that “the speaking persona is the chorus” (33), although we do not know that Pythian 12 was first, or ever, performed chorally (see, e.g., AJP 109 (1988) 1–11; CP 86 (1991) 173–191). At 41–43, Massetti provides an excursus on “crowns” in Pindar; here consideration of HSCP 110 (2019) 59–95 would have been valuable. Massetti is strong not only as a historical linguist but also as a classical philologist, as witnessed, for example, by her discussion of εὐκλέα at line 24. Massetti’s commentary is a valuable addition to previous commentaries on Pythian 12.
In chapter 6, Massetti turns to consider Nonnus of Panopolis’ engagement with Pythian 12 in his Dionysiaca, noting that passages of the Dionysiaca are reminiscent of Pythian 12 both in lexicon and in content. Massetti catalogues numerous similarities between D. 24.35–38 and Pythian 12, between D. 40.215–233 and Pythian 12, and between D. 30.264–267 and Pythian 12 (and Pythian 10). Having noted various resonances, Massetti creates a ‘conclusion’ wherein she discusses how Nonnus’s interpretation of Pindar’s text can help us to elucidate, at least from Nonnus’ perspective, passages of Pindar’s text that have been viewed as interpretively complicated.
In her brief seventh chapter, Massetti sets the groundwork for her comparative approach to the myth of Pythian 12. Her thesis is that “whether the case is that Pindar invented the myth himself or that he re-elaborated a lost, pre-existing tradition, his mythological digression is built with phraseological tools, which are an inheritance from a previous stage of poetic language” (95). Here Massetti notes that her comparative approach is based on a striking phraseological match, shared by Pythian 12 and Rigveda 10.67: [god-invents (:finds)-melody/song-multiple-headsadj./gen.]. Massetti refers to such a match as a ‘base collocation.’
In chapter 8, Massetti provides introduction, text, and commentary for Rigveda 10.67, her primary intertext for her comparative study. Rigveda 10.67 is a cattle-raid narrative. Massetti first outlines lexical repetitions and ring-composition within the text and thereafter suggests that “since the correlation between the act of ‘searching for the cows’ and that of ‘discovering of (sic) the cow’s name(s)’ poetically describes the dynamics of the creative process, the Vala-myth configures as a myth which is ultimately about the discovery of artistic-inspiration” (112). I am not a Sanskritist, and I leave it to others to evaluate Massetti’s contribution to Sanskrit studies.
In chapter 9, Massetti examines similarities in the myths of Perseus slaying Medusa and Indra/Brihaspati’s destruction of Vala. These include description of the abode of the enemy, association with the “base collocation” [hero-kills-serpent], association with the collocation [hero drives away goods], and “acoustic dimensions of the narratives.” To give an example of Massetti’s method in this section, I note that she concludes that “the [Gorgons’] associations with ‘remoteness’, ‘sea-enclosure’ and ‘rock/stone’ are significant because Perseus’ enemies share these characteristics with the Paṇis and Vala, Indra’s adversaries and conquest” (126). Massetti came to this conclusion after having examined numerous passages in Greek literary texts that support these assertions. Overall, this is a detailed and lengthy chapter, since Massetti mines extensive details, from both cultural traditions, that help fill out the Greek and Indic myths in relation to their cultural contexts.
Although the final chapter is titled as though it were a separate thematic chapter, it is actually a conglomeration of a thematic chapter and a conclusion to the volume as a whole. Massetti begins by noting how Pindar uses lexical and semantic repetitions to analogize Midas and Perseus so as to “collapse” myth and reality. Analogously, Massetti observes that Pindar constructs Athena such that she plays a positive role in the lives of both Midas and Perseus. Thereafter, Massetti shows how Pindar links dekomai (“receiving”) and doxa (“glory”) and how an analogous line of thought can be found in the Vedic hymns: “dákṣiṇā-…is a linguistic cognate of δόξα and designates the auspicious disposition of a deity towards the sacrifice” (178). Thereafter, she turns to provide a conclusion to the volume as a whole. In her conclusion, she notes that she has shown that both poems have a (meta-)aetiological character, that both poems employ ring-composition, that both poems share analogous thematic material, and that both poems disseminate the idea that glory comes through toil and glory comes through poetry. She concludes: “The coincidences between Pythian Twelve and the Rigveda support the hypothesis that Pindar had mastered a series of poetic devices (themes, phraseological structures, compositional structures), which he inherited from a previous Indo-European (namely: Graeco-Aryan) stage of the poetic language and that are not preserved in other Greek texts in our possession” (181).
As noted above, Massetti’s work is a success, and she is to be commended. I imagine that her work will spawn further valuable studies on Pindar’s relation to Indo-European poetics.