13. Uluslararası Dil, Yazın ve Deyişbilim

Bildiriler Kitabı
13. Uluslararası Dil, Yazın ve Deyişbilim
Sempozyumu: Basit Üslup
26-28 EYLÜL 2013
Book of Proceedings
th
13 International Language, Literature and Stylistics
Symposium: Simple Style
SEPTEMBER, 26-28, 2013
Kafkas Üniversitesi
Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi
Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları Bölümü
Telefon: +90 474 225 11 50-56
E- posta: [email protected]
ISBN 978-975-00350-4-3
Copyright © 2013 remains with the author/owner(s).
Kitapta yer alan tüm içerikler yazarlara aittir.
Destekçiler
Ardahan Üniversitesi
Kars Valiliği
Kars Belediyesi
Kars İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü
KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ
FEN EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ
Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları Bölümü /
İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Anabilim Dalı
KAFKAS UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS AND
SCIENCES
The Department of Western Languages
and Literature / ELL Division
SEMPOZYUM ONUR KURULU
BAŞKANI
Prof. Dr. Sami ÖZCAN
(Kafkas Üniversitesi Rektörü)
SYMPOSIUM HONORARY CHAIR
Prof. Dr. Sami ÖZCAN
(Rector, Kafkas University)
SEMPOZYUM ONUR KURULU EŞ
BAŞKANI
Prof. Dr. Haydar YÜKSEK
(Kafkas Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat
Fakültesi Dekanı)
SYMPOSIUM HONORARY COCHAIR
Prof. Dr. Haydar YÜKSEK
(Dean, Kafkas University, Faculty of
Arts and Sciences)
SEMPOZYUM DÜZENLEME
KURULU
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gencer ELKILIÇ
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Turgay HAN
SYMPOSIUM ORGANISATION
BOARD
Asisstant Prof. Dr. Gencer ELKILIÇ
Asisstant Prof. Dr. Turgay HAN
BİLİMSEL DANIŞMA KURULU / SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD
Yazın (Literature) (Alfebetik olarak)
Ahmet Beşe (Atatürk Üniversitesi)
Ali Güneş (Karabük Üniversitesi)
Ayten Er (Gazi Üniversitesi)
Deniz Bozer (Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Fehmi Efe (Atatürk Üniversitesi)
Haluk Harun Duran (Marmara Üniversitesi)
Hasan Boynukara (Namık Kemal Üniversitesi)
Hurşit İsayev (Kafkas Üniversitesi)
Kemalettin Yiğiter (İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi)
Mehmet Takkaç (Atatürk Üniversitesi)
Ramazan Korkmaz (Ardahan Üniversitesi)
Karşılaştırmalı Yazın (Comparative Literature) (Alfebetik olarak)
Ali Gültekin (Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi)
Kubilay Aktulum (Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi)
Nevzat Kaya (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
Yabancı Dil Öğretimi (Foreign Language Teaching) (Alfebetik olarak)
Abdülvahit Çakır (Gazi Üniversitesi)
Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland)
Arif Sarıçoban (Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Ayten Genç (Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Cemal Yıldız (Marmara Üniversitesi)
Dinçay Köksal (Çanakkale 18 Mart Üniversitesi)
Hüsnü Enginarlar (ODTÜ)
Jakub Bielak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland)
Mehmet Çelik (Bingöl Üniversitesi)
Mehmet Demirezen (Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Mirosław Pawlak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland)
Necmettin Kamil Sevil (İstanbul Üniversitesi)
Nijole Brazeniene (Vilnius University, Lithuania)
Recep Songün (Avrasya Üniversitesi)
Roin Kahrelishvili (Kafkas Üniversitesi)
Selami Aydın (Balıkesir Üniversitesi)
Şevki Kömür (Muğla Üniversitesi)
Dilbilim (Linguistics) (Alfebetik olarak)
Aysu Erden (Çankaya Üniversitesi)
Battal Arvasi (Ankara Üniversitesi)
Ceval Kaya (Ardahan Üniversitesi)
Daniela Guglielmo (The University of Salerno, Italy)
Deniz Zeyrek (ODTÜ)
Doğan BULUT (Melikşah Üniversitesi )
Hülya Aşkın Balcı (Niğde Üniversitesi)
Mehmet Baştürk (Balıkesir Üniversitesi)
Mehmet Osman Toklu (Ankara Üniversitesi)
Muhsine Börekçi (Atatürk Üniversitesi)
Rebeca Soler Costa (University of Zaragoza, Spain)
Ünsal Özünlü (Uluslararası Kıbrıs Üniversitesi)
V. Doğan Günay (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
Çeviribilim (Translation Studies) (Alfebetik olarak)
Alev Bulut (İstanbul Üniversitesi)
Gürkan Doğan (Ardahan Üniversitesi)
Işın Bengi Öner (İstanbul Üniversitesi)
Mine Yazıcı (İstanbul Üniversitesi)
Sakine Eruz (İstanbul Üniversitesi)
Suna Ağıldere (Gazi Üniversitesi)
Tahsin Aktaş (Nevşehir Üniversitesi)
Turgay Kurultay (İstanbul Üniversitesi)
KOORDİNASYON VE İLETİŞİM / COORDINATION AND CONTACT
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gencer ELKILIÇ
Arş. Gör. Onur TOPALOĞLU
SEMPOZYUM YÜRÜTME KURULU /SYMPOSIUM ORGANISATION BOARD
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Âdem Balkaya
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Arzu Şeyda
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Aşkın Çelik
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Çulpan Çetin
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Erdinç Parlak
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gökay Durmuş
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Kadir Bayrakçı
Yrd. Doç. Dr. İlhami Ege
Yrd. Doç. Dr. İlkin Guliyev
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Meheddin İspir
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mithat Durmuş
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mustafa Kol
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mustafa Özdemir
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Tazegül Demir
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Turan Özgür Güngör
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Turgay Han
Dr. Ayşe Uyanık
Öğr. Gör. Kenan Bekis
Öğr. Gör. Selahattin Yenikaya
Öğr. Gör. Semih Okatan
Öğr. Gör. Ülfet Doğan
Arş. Gör. Adem Polat
Arş. Gör. Dinçer Atay
Arş. Gör. Ekin İlhan
Arş. Gör. Gülşen Erişen
Arş Gör. Kezban Topbaşoğlu
Arş. Gör. Murat Akbay
Arş. Gör. Onur Topaloğlu
Arş. Gör. Sertaç Ayaz
Arş. Gör. Uğur Bakan
Okt. Alper Bahtiyaroğlu
Okt. Asiye Burgucu
Okt. Catherina Akça
Okt. Haluk Şahin
Okt. Harun Karaca
Okt. Muhammet Çitgez
Okt. Tolga Akar Çay
İçindekiler / Table of Contents
‘Aşk’ Bir Çeviri Değil
A.Nursen Durdağı………………………………………………………………….………..1
Abdülhalim Memduh’un Tarih-i Edebiyat-ı Osmaniye Adlı Eserinde Bilimsel Üslup
Emine Neşe Demirdeler……………………………………………………………….…….9
Albert Camus’nün “L’étranger’’ Adlı Romanının Çeviri Stratejileri ve
İşlemleri Açısından İncelenmesi
Perihan Yalçın, Ayşegül Teflek…………………………………………………………....17
Âli Bey’in Lehçetü’l Hakâyık İle Misafiri İstiskal adlı Eserlerinin
İronik Üslûp Açısından Karşılaştırılması
Refika Altıkulaç Demirdağ…………………………………………………………….…..25
Aligarh Aydınlarının Üslup Yönleri
Aykut Kişmir……………………………………………………………………..………..33
Amat’ta Mekânın Poetiği
Dinçer ATAY………………………………………………………………………………41
Amerikalı Kızılderililerin Sibirya Türkleri Olması Hakkında Yapılan
Araştırmaları Üzerine Bir İnceleme
Tamilla Aliye……………………………………………………………………..………...51
Anı Döken Bahçe’de Metinlerarası İlişkiler
Yılmaz Evat………………………………………………………………………..……….57
Bir Dönem Romanı Olarak Ölmeye Yatmak ve Yazarın Dile Müdahalesizliği
M. Demir…………………………………………………………………………….……..67
Böyle Bir Kars: Mekân-Üslup Etkileşimi Bağlamında Oluşan Memleket Yazını
Hikmet Asutay……………………………...…………………………………………...…75
Cahit Zarifoğlu Üzerinde Rainer Maria Rilke Etkisi (Mensur Eserler Üzerinden)
Ümit Soylu………………..……………………………………………………...………...85
Çeviri Eleştirisi Bağlamında Kül Tigin Yazıtı’nın İki Farklı Çevirisi Üzerine
Abdullah Elcan………………………………………………………………………….….95
Çeviri ve Göstergebilim: Bir Uygulama
Elif Batu………………………………………………………………………….……….107
Çeviride Teknoloji Araçlarının Seçiminde Çeviri Bellekleri Örneğinde Çevirmen Tercihleri
Ulvican Yazar………………………………………………………………………..……123
Çocuk Kitaplarında Bağdaşıklık ve Tutarlılık Görünümleri
Tazegül Demir…………………………………………………………….………………127
Daniel Kehlmann’ın “Ruhm. Ein Roman In Neun Geschichten” Adlı Romanındaki
Anlatılarda Modern Medya Gerçekliği ve Sanallık Kavramı
C. Arslan, D. Uysa..............................................................................................................151
Dr. Jivago ve Türk Kültürü
Hülya Arslan…………………………………………………...……………………...….163
Edirne Muradiye, Diğer Adıyla Mevlevihane Camii Çinileri Restarasyon Öncesi
ve Sonrası Hali
Şerife Bilgi …………………………………………………………….…………............169
Feridun Zaimoğlu’nun “Leyla” Adlı Romanında Tarih Bilinci
Ünal Kaya……………………………………………………………………..…………..181
Halit Kakınç’ın Çerkes Aşkı İsimli Romanındaki Kültürel Öğelerin Etnometodolojik
Yöntem İle Çözümlenmesi Ve Kültürel Bir Uygulama
Mesut Kuleli……………………………………………………………………….……...187
Halit Ziya Uşaklıgil’in “Ferhunde Kalfa” Başlıklı Öyküsünü
Göstergebilimsel Yaklaşımla Okumak
Gökay Durmuş………………………………………………….………………………...201
Hermann Broch’un “Vergilius’un Ölümü” Romanında Kriz Çağında
Edebiyatın Anlamı, Sanat, Sanatçı ve Sanat Eseriyle Hesaplaşma
Binnaz Baytekin………………………………………………………………….……….213
Hintli Şair-Yazar Kalidasa ve Dram Türündeki Eserleri: Şakuntala,
Malavikaagnimitra ve Vikramorvaşi
Yalçın Kayalı…………………………………………………………………………..….221
Hitopadeşa Masal Serisinden Özdeyişler
H. Derya Can…………………………………………………………………………..….235
İlhan Berk'in ''Güneşi Yakanların Selamı'' Şiirine Deyişbilimsel Açıdan Bir Bakış
Yavuz Sinan Ulu……………………………………………………………………….…243
İtalyan Şair-Yazar Cesare Pavese’nin Yapıtlarında Üslup Özellikleri
Ebru Balamir…………………………………………………………….………………..253
İvan Kupala Bayramının Putperest İçeriğinin Rus Yazar N.V. Gogol’ün
“İvan Kupala Arifesi Akşamı”Adlı Eserine Yansıması
Çulpan Zaripova Çetin……………………………………………………………..……..265
Kelime Derleme Kaynağı Olarak Halk Kültürü Verileri: Avşarlar Örneklemi
Yaşar Kalafat, Adem Balkaya……………………………………………….……………273
Klasik Hint Edebiyatında Okyanusun Çalkalanması Efsanesi:
Kültür ve Edebiyat Değerlendirmesi
Yalçın Kayalı, Esra Büyükbahçeci…………………………………………….…….……285
L. Tolstoy’un Sivastopol Öyküleri Örneğinde Rus Edebiyatı Penceresinden
Kırım Savaşına Yaklaşım
Badegül Can………………………………………………………………………………295
La Fontaine’in “Ağustos Böceği ile Karınca” Adlı Masalının Göstergebilim Açısından
İncelenmesi
Eyup Sertaç AYAZ……………………………………………………………………….303
Mirze Feteli Ahundzade Mevlana Hakkında
Hacali Necefoğlu……………………………………….………………………………....315
Modern Arap Şiirinin Öncü Kadın Şairi Nâzik el-Melâike
Gürkan Dağbaşı, Murat Demir, Sadık Bol………………………………………….…….323
Molière’in Cimri Adlı Tiyatro Eserinin III. Bölümünün II. Sahnesinin
Nur Nirven Tarafından Türkçeye Çevirisinin Vınay ve Darbelnet’nin
Çeviri Yöntemlerine Göre Çözümlemesi
Serkan DEMİRAL, Muzaffer KAYA…………………………………………….………333
Mustafa Necati Sepetçioğlu’nun “Kilit”Romanı’nda Toplumsal
Bilinçdışının Görüntü Düzeyleri
Gürhan Çopur ……………….……………………………………………………..……..343
Nodar Dumbadze’nin “Köpek” Adlı Öyküsünün Türkçe Çevirisindeki
Kültürel Öğelerin Kaynak Metindekilerle Örtüşme Sorunu
Muzaffer Kır……………………………………………………………………..……......349
Rus yazar ve düşünür K.N.Leontyev’in kaleminden Türkiye ve Türkler
İlsiyar Rameeva……….………………………………………………..…………..……..357
Stefan Zweig’in Castellio Calvin’e Karşı Eseri Örneğinde Diktatör Kitle İlişkisi
Leyla Coşan………………………………………………………………………….……367
Tevfik Fikret, Yahya Kemal, Necip Fazıl Ve Orhan Veli’nin
İstanbul Temalı Şiirlerinde “Zihniyet”
Salih Uçak………………………………………………………………………...………379
Tour du Monde en Quatre-Vingts Jours’’ un Türkçeye Çevirileri Üzerine
Osman Coşkun, Duran Gündüzalp……………………………………………………......385
Türk “Mihriban” ile Amerikan “Anabell Lee” Şiirlerinin Karşılaştırılması
Lütfiye Cengizhan…………………………………………………………….…………..393
Türk Edebiyatinda Hatira ve Onun Fuzuli Yaraticiliğinda Tezahürleri
Naile Samedova………………………………………………………..………………….407
Uwe Timm’in “Kırmızı” Romanında Anımsama
Gonca Dönen…………………………………………………………………...…………415
Üslupsuz Bir Üslup Biçimi Olarak “Argo”
Müzeyyen Altunbay……………………………………………………………….……...423
XI-XII yy. Türkî Edebi Eserlerindeki Sufiliğin
Cevher Kaideleri
B. Kulzhanova………………………………………………………….…………………429
Yazınsal Metin Çevirisi Aracılığı İle Sözcük Öğretimi: Sıfat Örneği
Ayşe Uyanık……………………………………………………………….……………...437
Yeniden Çeviri Bağlamında Oluşan Üslup Değişikliği Üzerine Bir İnceleme:
A.S.Puşkin’in “Yüzbaşının Kızı” Adlı Romanı
Gamze Öksüz………………………………………………………….………………….443
A Comparative Analysis of Edith Wharton’s "Expiation" and Bret Harte’s "The Luck of
Roaring Camp" From a Feminist Perspective
Hafize Gül Koparanoğlu…………………………………………………….…………....453
A Story of Self-Fulfilment: Xiaolu Guo’s A Concise Chinese-English Dictionary for
Lovers as A Modern Bildungsroman
Merve Aydoğdu……………………………………………………………………...……459
Against Society: Antoinette’s Madness in Wide Sargasso Sea
Mesut Günenç, Arzu Korucu…………………………………………………..………….473
An Analysis of Willa Cather’s Short Story “Paul’s Case” under the light
of Freud’s Essay “On Narcissism: An Introduction” and Lacan’s
concepts of imaginary and symbolic order
Aycan Leventli……………………………………………………………….…………...479
Complexity in Simplicity: The Power of Border Corrido
Ece Saatçıoğlu………………………………………………….…………………………487
Five seventeenth-century English verse translations of Martial, Spect. 1:
A comparative study
Catherine Notter………………………………………………………………..…………495
Nature Nortures the Misfits of the Society: A Case Study of Huck and Ruth
Nuray Önder………………………………………………….…………………………...507
North and South: A Marxist Rereading
Dilek Tüfekçi Can…………………………………………………….…………………..517
Psychosemiotic analysis of Louis Aragon’s poem “un grand secret”
Mehmet Bedirhan Öncül………………………………………………………….………531
Recasting Parenthood in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall
Feryal Cubukcu…………………………………………………………………….……..545
Sexually Suggestive Language in T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
Yiğit Sümbül……………………………………………………….……………………..555
The Birth of New Sudden Fiction in American Literature (ILLSS’77)
Zennure Köseman………………………………………………………..………………..563
The Journey of Harry: A True Hero’s Story
Sadenur Doğan…………………………………………………………….……………...573
The Manifestation of Theatre of Catastrophe in Howard Barker’s
Scenes from an Execution
Neşe Şenel…………………………………………………….…………………………..581
The One Hundred- Year- Old Shadow of Shāhnāmeh on the Formal Children’s
Literature in Iran
Maryam Jalali…………………………………………………………….……………….589
Transnational Reading of V.S. Naipaul’s A Bend in the River
Samet Kalecik………………………………………………………………..……………597
Turkish Occidentalism in Harput’ta bir Amerikalı (1955)
Cansu Özge Özmen……………………………………………………………….………607
Two Distinct Epinician Styles: Uniqueness of Poetic Expression in Bacchylides’
and Pindar’s Victory Odes
Erman GÖREN…………………………………………………………………..………..615
Two Distinct Epinician Styles: Uniqueness of Poetic
Expression in Bacchylides’ and Pindar’s Victory Odes
Erman GÖREN1
1
Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey, [email protected]
Abstract: Beginning with the criticism in antiquity scholars have commonly perceived
Bacchylides “the Cean nightingale” and Pindar “the Theban eagle,” as two rival poets in
epinician poetry with totally different styles. Dionysius of Halicarnassus is one of the
earliest critics who explores this stylistic bifurcation clearly. Dionysius’ distinction
between “austere” (austêra) and “polished” (glaphyra) forms of composition makes the
identification of the prominent bifurcation between the styles of Bacchylides and Pindar
possible. Defining this stylistic bifurcation accurately is only possible by scrutinizing the
categories represented by the music in the archaic epoch, which is an integral part of
epinician poetry. These musical categories clarify how the style chosen by the Archaic
Greek poet is parallel to the ethical references of the performed music of epinician. In this
paper which takes its point of departure from the above-mentioned stylistic bifurcation, I
will argue that both poets have their “unique” expressions in stylistic contexts via a
comparative study of some pieces of Bacchylides’ and Pindar’s victory odes.
Keywords: austere style, Bacchylides, epinician poetry, Pindar, polished style, stylistic
bifurcation.
Introduction
It is very remarkable that the two of the three prominent epinician poets in the golden age
of epinicia (especially fifth century BCE) are close relatives and have similar styles.
Besides, it is necessary to investigate why there is a conspicuous difference in the poetical
approaches of these two Cean poets, i.e. Simonides and Bacchylides, and their Theban rival
Pindar. Does this difference depend on the ethnical, geographical or political origins of
these poets? In my opinion, the differences in their poetical approaches become clear upon
an careful observation of the usage of the tropes in their poetry. Therefore, in this paper, I
aim to look at the aforementioned stylistic bifurcation, by a close philological reading on
their metaphoric languages to discuss the relation between this bifurcation and ethical
references of the musical approaches in their performances.
Stylistic Bifurcation in Epinician Poetry
Bowra (1971, 194) observes that Simonides keeps himself distanced to the “new” in poetry
and he applies the wine/vine metaphor to imply that his poems are “in an established
manner” or “aged/mellow” (Simon. PMG 602):
ἐξελέγχει νέος οἶνος οὔπω
‘New wine does not yet bring to the test last year’s
615
<τὸ> πέρυσι δῶρον ἀµπέλου·
†ὁ δὲ µῦθος· ὁ δὲ κενεόφρων· κούρων δέ,†
gift of the vine’: that is an empty-headed saying of
children.
However a scholiast (Sch. ad Pi. O. 9.74d Drachmann) reads Pindar’s composition as a
declaration of his usage of the “old” materials, while it is an emphasis that his production is
“new” (Pi. O. 9.48-49):
αἴνει δὲ παλαιὸν µὲν οἶνον, ἄνθεα δ’ ὕµνων
νεωτέρων. […]
praise wine that is old, but the bloom of hymns
that are newer. […]
The word anthos, as Borthwick (1976, 6) underlined, means “scum on wine” or “bouquet”
(cf. Eur. Or. 115) in some contexts. In this case, Pindar may take advantage of the
ambiguity of the word anthos referring to wine. Bowra presumes that the context shows
that Simonides is a “traditionalist” and Pindar is an “innovator.” On the other hand,
analyzing their intellectual points of view, someone may paradoxically infer that Pindar has
a “traditionalist” position and correspondingly Simonides expresses his innovative ideas.
As a matter of fact, Pindar’s conservative political or ethical perspective is not an obstacle
to being an “innovator” in poetical style, nor Simonides’ progressive opinions are
inconsistent with his style which appears traditional in some points of view (Though it is
assumed by Bowra that Simonides’ poetical approach is “traditionalist,” this assumption
still refutes the ıdea that he has no innovation in poetical style; on the contrary he uses
some innovative expressions in his poetry; In his vocabulary some of the particular words
cannot be considered as the heritage of his poetical tradition. Bowra (1971, 197) lists some
of the Simonidean vocabulary “not tied to tradition” parallel with Pindar’s. We can expand
this list by adding some other examples from Pindar and Bacchylides: alektôr (Simon.
PMG 583; Pi. O. 12.14; B. 4.8), eudoxia (Simon. PMG 531.6; Pi. P. 5.8; N. 3.40, Pae.
14.31; eudoxos in Bacchylides: B. 7.9, 9.21, 14.22, 14b.1), adiantos (Simon. PMG 543.5;
Pi. N. 7.73; B. 17.122), aponos (Simon. PMG 523.3; Pi. O. 2.62, 10.22), enagônios
(Simon. PMG 555.1; Pi. P. 2.10; N. 6.13), ioplokamos (Simon. PMG 555.3; Pi. P. 1.1),
anteinô (Simon. PMG 509; Pi. O. 7.65, N. 1.43, 7.25, 34; 8.25; I. 6.41; B. 13.138, fr. 17.3),
exelenchô (Simon. PMG 602.1; Pi. O. 10.53; N. 10.46), eudendron (Simon. PMG 507; Pi.
O. 8.9; P. 4.74; N. 11.25, B. 17.80), keneophrôn (Simon. PMG 602; Pi. N. 11.29, fr. 212),
potheinos (Simon. PMG 584; Pi. O. 8.64, 10.87; P. 4.218, I. 5.7).).
The musical performance in epinician poetry can be considered as a key field to elucidate
this discussion around the terms “innovativeness” and “traditionalism.” Therefore, it is
essential to comprehend “the basic melodic patterns of Archaic Greek lyric” or
“harmoniai” (Nagy, 1990, 92). It is not so easy to draw the boundaries between the
“innovativeness” and “traditionalism” as the poetical roles in Archaic Greek lyric. Now let
me attempt to clarify it.
Ethical View of Music in Epinician Poetry
Plato (Resp. 3.398e-399a) discusses six kinds of “modes” (harmoniai) in Greek music
(Nagy (1990, 92 n. 49) suggesting that harmonia can be considered parallel with the Arabic
maqam or Turkish makam (mode). If we concede harmonia as a “system of intervals in
pitch,” these certain intervals can be considered similar to what the notion of
maqam/makam represents in traditional Eastern music. As pointed out by Plato (Pl. Resp.
3.397c-d), if “traditional harmoniâ and rhythm of song is regulated by the words of song”
(Nagy, 1990, 91), then, chosen harmonia of the poet determines also the diction of
616
epinician. This parallelism shows that harmonia is a consonance not only in a musical
sense, but also in an ethical sense.): “Iasti, Dôristi (Aristotle (Pol. 8.1342b12) reads that
“and all agree that the Dorian mode is more sedate and of a specially manly character”
(peri de tês dôristi pantes homologousin hôs stasimôtatês ousês kai malist’ êthos echousês
andreion). Besides cf. Arist. Pol. 8.1340b4.), Phrygisti, Lydisti, Mixolydisti, Syntonolydisti.
However in Archaic Greek lyric there are some other harmoniai that are not mentioned by
Plato. The prominent one of these modes is the “Aeolian mode.” Based on the testimony of
Lasus of Hermione (apud Heraclides of Pontus; PMG 702.3: Aiolid’ am barybromon
harmonian), it can be “marked by its frequency of lower notes” (Nagy, 1990, 92 vs.
Prauscello, 2012, 69sqq.; West (1981, 126) hesitates to conclude that the Aeolian mode has
always lower notes with reference. But he supported this opinion by underlining the term
hypatoeidês which means the lowest string of phorminx, hypatê is often played in the
context of Aeolian mode.). In another context, Heraclides testifies Pratinas of Phleius’
verses (PMG 712) and emphasizes clearly that the “Aeolian mode” (Aiolis harmonia) fits
to “all bass singers” (pasin aoidolabraktais). Heraclides of Pontus offers “a kind of
racialized taxonomy of Greek modes (Dorian, Aeolian, Ionian)” and Aeolian mode “goes
lower than the Dorian mode, with which it shares some superficial characteristics, whence
its nickname, the ‘Hypodorian’ (which is best taken to mean ‘not Dorian, yet nearly
Dorian’.” (Porter, 2007, 12; cf. Hagel, 2009, 431-435).
Pindar (fr. 67, 191; O. 1.17, 3.5, P. 8.20) attributes his poetic art to his own origin. So these
roots go back to the Dorian rather than the Aeolian element. Nagy (1990, 94) observes that
Pindaric references to the contradiction between Dorian-Aeolian elements are “framed in
the metrical system known as dactylo-epitrite, which is the Doric counterpart to the other
major metrical system used in Pindar’s choral lyric compositions, the Aeolic.” The
evidence in Pindaric verses, in which the Aeolian element is associated with musical
shows, support Nagy’s argument (Pi. O. 1.102: molpa, P. 2.69: chorda, N. 3.79: aulos).
Therefore in the Dorian mode, the song element regulated by the metrical systems
dominated in the performance and the musical instruments accompanied to the metrical
tonality (Stesichorus (PMG 947) exposed the well-known superiority of aulos to lyrai by
the expression “many-strings aulos” (polychordos aulos). Although aulos has this technical
advantage upon its rival, lyra was considered the aristocratic instrument, and the aulos “as
a thrusting parvenu” (Lesky, 1966, 109). For example Alcibiades, who is one of the
distinguished aristocrats in Classical Athens, refused to learn playing aulos as a symptom
of this common opinion (Pl. Alc. I. 106e: ou gar dê aulein ge êtheles mathein).). On the
other hand, the musical elements were prominent to the song in the performances of
Aeolian mode. In my opinion, these two different approaches reveal two distinct aims of
the epinician poetry. At that point, a stylistic distinction exposed by Dionysius of
Halicarnassus can be arbitrating in our discussion (Dion. Hal. Dem. 47):
“Virtually every work, whether it is created by ‘nature’ (physis) or mothered by the ‘arts’ (technê), has two
‘objectives’ (telos): ‘pleasure’ (hê hêdonê) and ‘beauty’ (to kalon) […] Each, when separated from the other,
in addition to being incomplete, maintains its own qualities only in an attenuated form. Realising this, and
understanding ‘beauty’ (to kalon) to be the object of the ‘severe style’ (austêros), an the ‘charm’ (hêdy) that
of the ‘polished style’ (glaphyros), he tried to discover what constitutes beauty and what charm. And he
discovered that both had the same elements, tone, rhythm, variation and propriety of use, which accompanies
all these; but that the relationship of one to the others was not always the same.”
Dionysius of Halicarnassus puts the aforementioned terms into his general literary theory
(Although it can be suggested that these terms are akin to Epicureanism, it is also possible
617
that these ideas are derived from Dionysius’ readings on Platonic dialogues, especially
through Philêbos about which he declared (Dion. Hal. Dem. 23) that he is “wondered and
marveled” (agamai te kai tethaumaka) (cf. Usher, 2000, 419, n. 1). For the Epicurean
notion of “pleasure” (hêdonê) he may be under the same influence. v. Long–Sedley, 1998,
114-129 and Long–Sedley, 2001, 112-125). He (Dion. Hal. Comp. 21) assumes that the
author aims “beauty” (to kalon) and/or “pleasure” (hêdonê), describing three different
styles determined by the dominant role of these elements “via metaphorical names”
(metaphorikos onomasi): “austere (mode)” (austêra (sc. harmonia)), “polished (mode)”
(glaphyra (sc. harmonia)), “well-blended (mode)” (eukrata (sc. harmonia)). The third style
(i.e. well-blended) is not a distinct category, it only indicates that it is blended by the other
two styles equally. However the other two styles are described comprehensively by
Dionysius (The adjective austêros is the superlative form of auos which means literally
“dry.” In other contexts, auos also means, “stale” (bread), “rasping” (sound), “withered”
(crown), and finally “severe” (style) (LSJ, s.v. auos). We can comprehend precisely what
Dionysius implies by austêros via reading it with its opposite, glaphyros. Instead of
glaphyros Dionysius (Dion. Hal. Comp. 21, 23) sometimes disposes the equivalent
adjective anthêros which means “flowery, florid, blooming, fresh, new, bright-colored,
brilliant.” Hence, in my opinion, austêros in Dionysius is parallel with Pseudo-Longinus’
(de Sub. 17) argument that “art” (technê) must be concealed while hypsos is emerging in
the work of art. Thus, contrary to what the “polished style” does, the “austere style” does
not blossom like a flower, but conceals its content like a kernel of the poetic discourse). In
the list of Dionysius, Pindar is declared the representative of the first, and Simonides of the
second. Dionysius reads the characteristics of “austere style” as follows (Dion. Hal. Comp.
22):
“The special character of the austere style of composition is this: it requires that the words shall stand firmly
on their feet and occupy strong positions; and that the parts of the sentence shall be at considerable distances
from one another, separated by perceptible intervals. It does not mind admitting harsh and dissonant
collocations, like blocks of natural stone laid together in building, with their sides not cut square or polished
smooth, but remaining unworked and rough-hewn. […] In respect of words (sc. onomata), then, these are the
affects which it strives to achieve and the principles to which it adheres. In its clauses it both pursues the
same policy with regard to words, and cultivates dignified and impressive rhythms, and aims to make its
clauses not parallel in structure or sound, nor slaves to a rigid sequences, but noble, conspicuous and free. It
wishes them to suggest ‘nature’ (physis) rather than ‘art’ (technê), and to portray ‘emotion’ (pathos) rather
than ‘moral character’ (êthos).”
The emphasis in the last sentence is parallel with the argument of Pseudo-Longinus (de
Sub. 22.1) who underlined the terms physis and pathos in the framework of the emergence
of hypsos in any work of art. As Segal (1959, 124-125) pointed out we cannot certainly
gloss over “techne as a “help” and “good counsel” for physis and pathos.” However, some
defects or insufficiencies of the art do not prevent the emergence of hypsos. But without a
sublime physis, someone cannot reach hypsos only by a competent technê. So, conditions
of the emergence of hypsos defined by Pseudo-Longinus coincide directly with the “austere
style” of Dionysius. Then, Dionysius (Comp. 22) compiles the other characteristics of
“austere style” and clarifies this deliberate coincidence:
“It is flexible in its use of cases, uses ‘a variety of figures’ (poikilê peri tous schêmatismous) and few
connectives, lacks articles, and often neglects grammatical sequence. It is not at all ‘florid’ (anthêra), but
‘magnanimous’ (magalophrôn), ‘outspoken’ (authekastos), ‘unadorned’ (akompseutos): its beauty consists in
its ‘patina of antiquity’ (archaismon… pinon).”
618
These characteristics are essential for the emergence of hypsos and all of them reflect a
contradiction between “new” and “old.” Particularly “patina of antiquity” seems
contradictory to Bowra’s consideration of Pindaric “innovation.” After all, in another
passage (Dion. Hal. Dem. 38) Dionysius assumes that “austere mode” (including the poets
(epic poet Antimachus of Colophon, physician Empodocles, tragic poet Aeschylus) like
Pindar, there are also the historiographer Thucydides, and the rhetorician Antiphon who
prefer the “austere mode.” Dionysius (Comp. 22) describes Pindar among poets and
Thucydides among prose writers as “the most distinguished” (epiphanestatôn) and “the
best writers in the austere style of composition” (kratistoi gar outoi poiêtai tês austêras
harmonias).) is “old-fashioned” (philarchaios) and it aims at “dignity” (semnos) rather than
“elegance” (kompsos). This kind of style that targets “beauty” (kalos) instead of
“attractiveness” (hêdonê) has a “heading list” cataloged by Dionysius: “impressiveness”
(megaloprepeia), “solemnity” (baros), “seriousness” (semnologia), “dignity” (axiôma),
“patina [of antiquity]” (pinos) and qualities like them.
Dionysius elaborates also the “polished style” rigorously. Because Dionysius presents
essential details by applying very crucial metaphors for our discussion, I prefer to quote the
entire passage without interruption (Comp. 23):
“The polished (glaphyra [kai anthêra]) style of composition, which I placed second in order, has the
following character. It does not intend each word to be viewed from all sides, nor that every word shall stand
on a board, firm base, nor that the intervals of time between them shall be long; nor in general is this slow,
settled quality congenial to it. It requires that the words shall keep on the move, swept forward and riding
along on the top of another, all sustained in their movement by mutual support, like the current of a stream
that never rests. It sets out to blend together and ‘interweave its component parts’ (synyphanthai ta moria),
and to make them convey as far as possible the effect of a single utterance. This result is achieved by the
exact fitting together to the words, so that no perceptible interval between them allowed. In this respect the
style resembles finely-woven net, or pictures in which the lights and shadows melt into one another. It
requires all its words to be melodious, smooth and soft and like a maiden’s face. It shows a sort of repugnance
towards rough and dissonant syllables, and careful avoidance of everything rash and hazardous. It requires
not only that its words shall be properly fitted and smoothed together, but also that the clauses should be
effectively interwoven with one another and achieve their final form together as a period. It limits the length
of a clause so that it shall not be immoderately short or long, and the length of a period by capacity of a man’s
single breath to encompass it.”
(Syn-yphainô is essential because of the specific meaning of hyphainô in Greek Poetry. In
the Archaic Greek society, “weaving” and “spinning” have a substantial role in the
domestic life of women. Hence, in the cases of Helene (Hom. Il. 3.125-128), Andromache
(Hom. Il. 22.441-442), and Penelope (Hom. Od. 17.96-97, 18.315-316) these activities
fulfill their “need to overcome death by producing an artifact which will survive and "tell
[their] story,” [their] kleos, to all future generations” (Pantelia, 1993, 495-497). However,
as Snyder (1981, 193-196) underlined hyphainô implies not only the weaving activities
performed by women in Homer, but it is also considered a metaphor for an “intellectual
activity”: Hom. Il. 3.211-213, 6.187-189, 7.324-325; Od. 4.677-680, 5.356, 9.420-423,
13.303-307, 13.386-388. Thus the original word in Latin texo, texere from which “text”
(Fr. texte, Ger. Text) or “texture” (Fr. texture, Ger. Texture) is derived, refers to “weaving,
knitting” (Onians, 1966, 913). As Ricoeur (2006, 27) observes “these sequences of
sentences which, as the word indicates, are textures which weave the discourse into longer
or shorter sequences.” Besides, this verb can be connected with the music by the accurate
linguistic evidences. The word hymnos is etymologically related to hyphê, which means
“web” (cf. Boisacq, 1938, 1002; Chantraine, 1984, 1156). Likewise krekô literally means
619
“to strike” implying either the interlacing warp and filling threads on a loom by a shuttle or
striking to play a string instrument by a “plectrum” (plêktron). In Pindar, there are some
passages where he connects his production to “weaving.” (Pi. O. 6.86-87; N. 4.44; 4.94; fr.
179; cf. Rueda Gonzáles, 2003, 144-145). In extant verses of Bacchylides, we come across
the verb hyphainô twice in connection to mêtis in the Homeric sense (B. 16.24-25; 17.5152; cf. Rueda Gonzáles, 2003, 157-158), and two times connected with hymnos (B. 5.9-10;
19.8-9). It is noteworthy that Dionysius uses the action of “weaving” only for “polished
mode,” conversely he emphasizes that the “austere mode” does not have this kind of
action.)
In these detailed characteristics of the polished style, technê stands out instead of physis in
“austere mode.” “Polished mode” puts in a “polished” appearance, by sleeking roughness
and angularity of the content through the modification of the poet. The poets who perform
in this mode are listed as Simonides, Hesiod, Sappho, and Anacreon, the tragic poet
Euripides, historiographers Ephorus and Theopompus, rhetorician Isocrates. Bacchylides
can be added to the lists considering Pseudo-Longinus’ testimony.
On the other hand, Dionysius lists the aims of “polished mode” as; “attractiveness” (Dion.
Hal. Comp. 11): “freshness” (hôra), “charm” (charis), “euphony” (eustomia), “sweetness”
(glykytês), “persuasiveness” (pithanos) and all such qualities. Especially the last item
authenticates the “innovative” approach of this mode. Consequently, it is not as easy in
Bowra’s argument to distinguish the “innovator” poet from the “traditionalist” (for further
discussion cf. Mackie, 2003, 39sqq.).
Pindar’s Metaphoric Discourse and His Stylistic Obscurity
“In dealing with Pindar, misconceptions are the rule: the odes do not have a linear unity;
the transitions are abrupt” (Bundy, 1986re, 2). Accordingly, the images in Pindar’s O. 1
leach into one another, which is referred to as “stand firmly on their feet” in the terms of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Pi. O. 1.1-7):
Ἄριστον µὲν ὕδωρ, ὁ δὲ χρυσὸς αἰθόµενον πῦρ
ἅτε διαπρέπει νυκτὶ µεγάνορος ἔξοχα πλούτου·
εἰ δ’ ἄεθλα γαρύεν
ἔλδεαι, φίλον ἦτορ,
µηκέτ’ <ἀε>λίου σκόπει
ἄλλο θαλπνότερον ἐν ἁµέρᾳ φαεννὸν ἄστρον ἐρήµας δι’ αἰθέρος,
µηδ’ Ὀλυµπίας ἀγῶνα φέρτερον αὐδάσοµεν·
Best is water, while gold, like fire blazing
in the night, shines preeminent amid lordly wealth.
But if you wish to sing
of athletic games, my heart
look no further than the sun
for another star shinning more warmly by day
through the empty sky,
nor let us proclaim a contest greater than Olympia.
Some of the ethnographic features can be analyzed or placed in a formulaic frame as Wells
(2009, 121sq.) did precisely. Apart from that, this passage has prominent evidence
revealing Pindar as “the very figure of discontinuity, representing a decisive break that
renders the entire notion of cultural transmission highly problematic” (Hamilton, 1999, 31).
That is to say, Pindaric images conceal their appearances behind the images juxtaposed to
the former ones; as if the images cover each other; it gets complicated to judge that the
brightness is the attribute of water, sun, star or gold. “Elusiveness” becomes a virtue in the
Pindaric poetics: being the best of the water, its uniqueness disguises behind the
transplendency of the glittering gold in the darkness of the night. The references of “the
best” are ever so multitudinous. Following the water, the other images become prominent
620
alternately, but right after this, the semantic field of the water becomes clearer again and
makes the other images obscure. So, you can see the object that you are merely staring at.
However, it is misleading to think there is only that image. Because shortly after seeing and
focusing on another image, the newer one becomes clearer, the former seems obscure and
disappears in the semantic blurriness. Decidedly, both images are in the same realm of
reality, one becoming clear while the other becoming blurry simultaneously. This is not an
optic or intellectual illusion, but a poetical refutation against the preciseness in the
ontological realm. It is the acknowledgement of the autarchy of the images ergo things and
justification that they can be understood in themselves by the authority of the gods.
In my opinion, as Renehan (1969, 217-228) argues, though it is doubtful in Bacchylides,
there are some passages that can be assumed as “conscious ambiguity” in Pindar. However,
this “ambiguity” is not a mere polysemy. I am proposing that the ambiguity in this context
can be interpreted with the terms of photography. In photography, the diaphragm aperture
can be adjusted for reducing the amount of light coming into the picture. In order to make
the object in the front clearer and to make the objects in the background blurry, an “open
diaphragm” is used. So only the object in focus becomes clearer while the rest is in a blurry
background. On the other hand, “closer diaphragm” helps to make clear the whole
panoramic scene. It has the same principle with how our eyes work. If the eyes are wide
open to stare at an object, the others become blurry. That is why portraits are usually taken
with the “open diaphragm,” in spite of the fact that “closer diaphragm” is more appropriate
for the landscapes. Likewise, in the Pindaric passages where the “transitionality” increases,
the object stared at becomes clearer. At the exact time that the spectator decided that she/he
has seen this object totally, it seems like it is concealing itself behind the other object and it
is permeated by the neighboring image. In the second process, when the spectator focuses
on the other object, the former one becomes blurry. This is directly proportional: as the
images multiply, the dynamism of this circularity increases.
In this ambiguous context Pindar’s quite subtle usage of trope, prima facie, seems
contradictory to Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ definition of “austere mode” (austêra
harmonia) that reads “… It wishes them to suggest ‘nature’ (physis) rather than ‘art’
(technê), and to portray ‘emotion’ (pathos) rather than ‘moral character’ (êthos).” This
point of view, however, is under the misleading determination of our contemporary notions
of physis and technê. In fact, according to both the criticism of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
and that of Pseudo-Longinus, Pindar’s rich language, i.e. full of metaphors and plentiful
images, does not stem from his technê, but these qualities prove his unique physis or
“immediate” and totally “natural” poetical talent. The idea that employing metaphors
skillfully depends on physis is not invented by the later critics; it can be traced back to
Aristotle. Hence, as Aristotle (Poet. 1459a 5-8) argues “… but much the greatest asset is a
capacity for metaphor. This alone cannot be acquired from another (oute par’ allou esti
labein) and is a sign of natural gifts (euphuïas te sêmeion esti): because to use metaphor
well is to discern similarities (eu matapherein to to homion theôrein estin),” the metaphoric
style is not considered as a “technic,” but a kind of sign of the genius.
At that point, the Pindaric approach to the tropes seems contradictory to Dionysius of
Halicarnassus’ assessment about “austere mode” (austêra harmonia), which reads “it
requires that the words shall stand firmly on their feet and occupy strong positions.” On the
contrary, the “austere mode” (austêra harmonia) helps significantly to make the images
appear intermittently. Likewise, “polished mode” (glaphyra harmonia) which “requires
621
that the words shall keep on the move, swept forward and riding along on the top of
another, all sustained in their movement by mutual support, like the current of a stream that
never rests,” does not pose an obstacle to the obvious language of Simonides and
Bacchylides. “Stream that never rests” in Cean epinician style is the very diffusion of the
“verbal” and “musical” elements in order to maintain the integrity of the panoramic scene
of poetry.
Bacchylides’ Polished Style and Pivotal Metaphor
The most outstanding characteristics of Bacchylides’ way of using images are plainness,
limpidness or lucidity. Kenyon (1919, 5) who prepared his editio princeps, prefers to place
him out of the great poets, as his rival Pindar, yet already praises some of the qualities of
his genuine stylistic approach:
“His merits are of the minor order―ease, lucidity, a picturesque handling of epithets (often coined for the
occasion), pleasant touches of natural scenery, simple moralities which are perilously near platitudes, and
withal a Hellenic grace and sense of beauty which redeems everything. Nothing but his direct appeal to men
of simple understanding (and such, it is safe to say, were not a minority among athletes and the patrons of
athletes) can have saved him from utter annihilation in the competition with Pindar.”
“Polished mode” becomes evident in Bacchylides’ style as “plainness and limpidness” by
observing his usage of tropes and his approach to set the images/things in his poetics. I
reached the notion of “pivotal metaphor” from Stern’s (1965) term of “pivotal word.” Stern
defines “pivotal word” as: “a word ambiguous in either its essence or in the special context
in which it functions, which is used by the poet to make some sort of thematic transition.
Its two possible senses will refer backward to the old and forward to the new idea” (Stern
apud Carson, 1984, 118 n. 22). Stern, and Carson who borrowed the term of “pivotal word”
from Stern, aim to interpret the conditions of “transitionality” in Bacchylides’ epinikia.
However I pursue a conception that makes possible some general assessments. In my
opinion, Bacchylides’ images/things are situated around a determined or stable pivot. It can
be observed that every image depends on this pivot and moves under this pivotal point.
One of the numerous examples in Bacchylides that pivotal images occur is as follows (B.
13.175-181):
οὐ γὰρ ἀλαµπέϊ νυκ[τός
πασιφανὴς Ἀρετ[ὰ
κρυφθεῖσ’ ἀµοθρο[ῡται καλύπτρᾱι
—
ἀλλ’ ἔµπεδον ἀκ[αµάτᾱι
βρύουσα δόξᾱι
στρωφᾱται κατὰ γᾶν [τε
καὶ πολύπλανγτον θ[άλασσαν.
for all-shining Excellence
is not hidden
and effaced in the lightless [veil?] of night,
—
but always abounding
in unfailing glory
she roams the earth
and the shifting seas.
The images of “veil” or “cloak” (kalymma, kalyptra: Hom. Il. 24.93; Od. 5.231-232;
h.Hom. h.Cer. 42; Hes. Theog. 574) are not found in Pindaric rich imaginary, literally they
imply the clothes to cover oneself in Homeric poetry (cf. Boisacq, 1938, 400). However,
Bacchylides’ metaphoric usage gives a chance to analyze his approach to the “excellence”
(areta). The image of light-darkness in this context has a mutually complementary
parallelism with the verse “revealing your excellence to men on earth” (tean aretan
manyon epichthnioisin: B. 10.11-14). “Veil of night” which puts the lid on the appearance
of “Excellence” [Areta] is “lightless.” Being “all-shining” is an essential characteristic for
622
“excellence,” not an attribute obtained a posteriori. Yet, it is not enough for “excellence”
to send forth her splendor, because the pressure of night (hence of entire semantic field of
darkness) hides its radiance like an opaque veil. The epinician discourse is the sui generis
instrument to unveil this concealment. Whenever “excellence” reaches to “victory” (nika),
“fame” (doxa) starts the infinite journey that proceeds from one polis to another and from
one country to another in the pan-Hellenic world. Areta is one of the three allegorical ladies
in the poem with Euclea and Eunomia. Euclea is the cause and Areta is the result of present
performance, while Eunomia holds the present dance and banquet as her allotted portion
(Burnett, 1985, 95).
Bacchylides also uses “flower” image to express the manifestations of expectations of
laudandus and the poetical skill of laudator as a metaphor in the context of light-darkness
(B. 13.59-66):
Νίκας φ[ε]ρ[ε]κυδέος ἀνθρώπο]ισιν ἄν[θ]εα,
χρυσέ]αν δόξαν πολύφαντον ἐν αἰῶνι] τρέφει παύροις βροτῶν
α]ἰεί, καὶ ὅταν θανάτοιο
κυάνεον νέφος καλύψηι, λείπεται
ἀθάνατον κλέος εὖ ἐρχθέντος ἀσφαλεῖ σύν αἴσαι.
the blossoms of glory-bringing
Victory,
nurture for men golden, conspicuous fame
throughout their lives, for a select few,
and when the dark cloud of death
covers them,
the undying glory of their fine deed is left behind,
secure in its destiny.
The polarization of life-death, which is one of the elements of the semantic field of lightdarkness, occurs as a main problem of the athletes who compete in pan-Hellenic culture, of
which Homeric heroes are examples. Victory supplies an idiosyncratic solution to this
problem, because victory, as well as kydos like a “talisman de suprématie” (Benveniste,
1969, 57-69) bestowed by gods, grants to the victorious athlete two different kinds of gifts
that make him prominent: (1) “fame” (doxa) that expands by being seen, and (2) “glory”
(kleos) that spreads. Bacchylides’ (B. 13.81-83) verses “shining [your new victory?] like a
torch among all Greeks” (en pantessin [agôsin, | pyrson hôs Hellasi | phainôn) brings forth
how essential this gift is for the pan-Hellenic society. This kind of recognition is described
with “gold” which is not only “a manifestation of the victor’s generosity” (Svarlien, 1995,
39), but also of the mighty gods, i.e. the patrons of the pan-Hellenic games.
Consequently, Bacchylides’ images reside in the semantic field of light-darkness, at every
turn as emerging, blossoming, covering or uncovering, placing “light” or “darkness” in the
central/pivotal position of his pictorial representation. That is, the images revolve around
this pivotal position, light and darkness, like the hobbyhorses of a carrousel. Without a
pivotal metaphor, the elements of the semantic field lose the connections between each
other and it is not possible to maintain the unity of the imagination. Bacchylides presents
these elements from a bird’s-eye view; the more obvious the axis is, the clearer the
revolving imageries are. However, we perceive this carrousel of images not in an inert
position, but moving about in the prosperous epinician musicality. Contrary to its
perspicuous mobility, this musicality contributes to eliminate the obscurity and
impenetrability of the images.
623
Results
Dionysius of Halicarnassus clarifies the distinct discrepancy between the approaches of
Pindar and Cean poets by placing the aforementioned stylistic bifurcation upon two main
terms of ”beauty” (to kalon) and “attractiveness/pleasure” (hêdonê). However, it is not just
to presume that Pindar, as a Dorian poet, considers the semantic aspect of parole important
and that Cean poets, who are akin to the Aeolian element, rather follow musicality in
poetry. Still, I accept that this theoretical argument needs to be explored further in order to
to comprehend the practical standpoint of this stylistic bifurcation explicitly. I do not mean
that the Cean poets pay no attention to the semantic aspects of parole. On the contrary, the
principal intention of my assumption is to emphasize a different kind of strategic poetic
approach of that Cean poets: Simonides and Bacchylides do not want to allow semantic
complexity and the inconsonance of the elements of parole in the harmonious background
of musicality. This attitude in usage of tropes and figuration of parole, has the intention to
give priority to the musicality that comes into prominence by “a well-timed flash […] like
a bolt of lightning” (kairiôs exenechthen […] dikên skêptou: Ps.-Long. de Sub. 1.4) in
epinician performance without endangering the autonomy of parole. With these styles, as
Most argues (2012, 264), “where Bacchylides permits his listeners to cooperate with him in
producing the meaning of his song, Pindar limits them within narrow bounds and imposes
the meaning of his song upon them.”
Discussion and/or Conclusions
Discussing the stylistic bifurcation, I would like to bring into attention to the crucial role of
style in manifesting the content of epinician poetry. It should be remembered that, though
the content is not an unshaped total of the ingredients, it needs mediation of the style to be
unraveled from its nebulous appearance. While the content shapes in flesh and bones by
taking a stylistic form, social actors of the discourse emerge clearly. That is why the
stylistic approaches always have political aspects. The appearance of the images in
epinician poetry shows how the poet perceives the political realm and whom he assigns as
the author of the poetical discourse. This is not only a decision that determines the religious
authorities, but also the political authorities assigned by the gods. In conclusion, the
political aspect of this stylistic bifurcation should be seriously scrutinized within the
historical context of the patrons and the poets of epinician poetry.
624
References
Agócs, P.–C. Carey–R. Rawles (2012). Reading the Victory Ode. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Arist. Poet. è Halliwell, S. (trans.) (2005). Aristotle, Poetics. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Arist. Pol. è Rackham, H. (ed./trans.) (1959re). Aristotle: Politics (reprint, first published
1932). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
B. è Maehler, H. (1982). Die Lieder des Bakchylides, Erster Band, Die Siegeslieder I-II:
I. Edition des Textes Mit Einleitung und Übersetzung, II. Kommentar. Leiden, E.J.
Brill. — (1997). Die Lieder des Bakchylides, Zweiter Band, Die Dithyramben und
Fragmente: Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Svarlien, D.A.
(trans.) (1991). Bacchylides (retrieved 15th of August, 2013 from
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu).
Benveniste, É. (1969). Le Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, Tome I:
Economie, Parenté, Société; Tome II: Pouvoir, Droit, Religion. Paris: Les Éditions
de Minuit.
Boisacq, É. (1938). Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque: Étudée dans ses
Rapports avec les Autres Langues Indo Européennes. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Borthwick, E.K. (1976). “The ‘Flower of the Argives’ and a Neglected Meaning of
Ἄνθος.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 96: 1-7.
Bowra, C.M. (19712). Pindar (second edition, first published 1964). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Bundy, E.L. (1986re). Studia Pindarica I-II (reprint, first published 1962). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Burnett, A.P. (1985). The Art of Bacchylides. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Carson, A. (1984). “The Burners: A Reading of Bacchylides’ Third Epinician Ode.”
Phoenix: Journal of the Classical Association of Canada 38/2: 111-119.
Chantraine, P. (1984re). Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque: Histoire des
Mots (reprint, first published 1968). Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Dion. Hal. Comp. è Usher, S. (ed./trans.) (1985). Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Critical
Essays, Vol. II: On Literary Composition, Dinarchus, Letters to Ammaeus and
Pompeius. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dion. Hal. Dem. è Usher, S. (ed./trans.) (2000). Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Critical
Essays, Vol. I: Ancient Orators, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes,
Thucydides. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Eur. Or. è Kovacs, D. (ed./trans.). (2002). Euripides: Helen. Phoenician Women. Orestes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hagel, S. (2009). Ancient Greek Music: A New Technical History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
625
Hamilton, J.T. (1999). “Soliciting Darkness: Pindar Obscurity and the Classical Tradition.”
New York: New York University (unpublished PhD dissertation).
Hes. Theog. / h.Hom è Evelyn-White, H.G. (ed./trans.) (2000). Hesiod, Homeric Hymns,
Epic Cycle, Homerica. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hubbard, T.K. (1985). The Pindaric Mind: A Study of Logical Structures in Early Greek
Poetry. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Kenyon, F.G. (1919). “Greek Papyri and their Contribution to Classical Literature.” The
Journal of Hellenic Studies 39: 1-15.
Lesky, A. (1966). A History of Greek Literature (trans. J. Willis–C. de Heer). London:
Methuen.
Long, A.A.–Sedley, D.N. (1998re). The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. II: Greek and Latin
Texts with Notes and Bibliography (reprint, first published 1987). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
— (2001re). The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. I: Translations of the Principal Sources
with Philosophical Commentary (reprint, first published 1987). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
LSJ è Liddle, H.G. – R. Scott – H.S. Jones (199610). Greek English Lexicon (tenth edition,
first published 1843). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mackie, H. (2003). Graceful Errors: Pindar and the Performance of Praise. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Most, W.G. (2012). “Poet and public: communicative strategies in Pindar and
Bacchylides.” è Agócs–Carey–Rawles (2012): 249-276.
Nagy, G. (1990). Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Onians, C.T. (1966). The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Pantelia, M.C. (1993). “Spinning and Weaving: Ideas of Domestic Order in Homer.” The
American Journal of Philology 114/4: 493-501.
Pi. N., I., Pae., and fr. è Race, W.H. (ed./trans) (1997). Pindar: Nemean Odes, Isthmian
Odes, Fragments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pi. O. and P. è Race, W.H. (ed., trans.) (2002). Pindar: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pl. Alc. I è Lamb, W.R.M. (ed./trans.) (1979). Plato: Vol. XII, Charmides, Alcibiades 1 &
2, Hipparchus, The Lovers, Theages, Minos, Epinomis. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Pl. Resp. è Shorey, P. (ed./trans.) (2003). Plato: Vol. V, The Republic: Books 1-5.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
PMG è Page, D.L. (19672). Poetae Melici Graeci (second edition, first published 1962).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
626
Porter, J.I. (2007). “Lasus of Hermione, Pindar and the Riddle of S.” The Classical
Quarterly 57/1: 1-21.
Prauscello, L. (2012). “Epinician sounds: Pindar and musical innovation.” è Agócs–
Carey–Rawles (2012): 58-82.
Ps.-Long. de Sub. è Fyfe, W.H. (trans.)–D. Russell (rev.) (2005re). Longinus: On the
Sublime (reprint, first published 1995). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Renehan, R.F. (1969). “Conscious Ambiguities in Pindar and Bacchylides.” Greek, Roman
and Byzantine Studies 10/3: 217-228.
Ricoeur, P. (2006). On Translation (trans. Eileen Brennan). London/New York:
Routhledge.
Rueda Gonzáles, C. (2003). “Imágenes del quehacer poético en los poemas de Píndaro y
Baquílides.” Cuadernos de Filología Clásica: Estudios griegos e Indoeuropeos 13:
115-163.
Sch. ad Pi. è Drachmann, A.B. (1903-1927). Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina, Vols. IIII. Leipzig: Teubner.
Segal, C. (1959). “Ὕψος and the Problem of Cultural Decline in the De Sublimitate.”
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64: 121-146.
Simon. è Campbell, D.A. (ed./trans.) (2001re). Greek Lyric III: Stesichorus, Ibycus,
Simonides, and Others (reprint, first published 1991). Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Snyder, J.M. (1981). “The Web of Song: Weaving Imagery in Homer and the Lyric Poets.”
The Classical Journal 76/3: 193-196.
Stern, J.H. (1965). “Metrical and verbal patterns in the poetry of Bacchylides.” New York:
Columbia University (unpublished PhD dissertation).
Svarlien, D.A. (1995). “Reversal of Imagery and Values in Bacchylides 3 and 5.” Quaderni
Urbinati di Cultura Classica 50: 35-45.
Wells, J.B. (2009). Pindar’s Verbal Art: An Ethnographical Study of Epinician Style.
Cambridge/London: Center of Hellenic Studies Trustees for Harvard University.
West, M.L. (1981). “The Singing of Homer and the Modes of Early Greek Music.” The
Journal of Hellenic Studies 101: 113-129.
— (1992). Ancient Greek Music. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
627

Download Report