The scholia on Pindar's Olympian 2 relate two different genealogies of the Emmenids: one wonders how they can coexist in the exegetical context of the same ode, even though they explain different passages.Footnote ¹ They are as follows.

(1) Scholl. 16c and 70f, which rely on the same ‘Rhodian’ account beginning with Eteocles and his son Haimon, comment respectively on l. 9 ἱερὸν ἔσχον οἴκημα and on l. 38 ἐξ οὗπερ:

The same material is related in schol. BEHQ Pind. Ol. 2.9 (16c, i.64 Dr.), although it exhibits a lacuna in the genealogy: Κάδμου γὰρ <Πολύδωρος· τοῦ δὲ Λάβδακος· τοῦ δὲ Λάιος· τοῦ δὲ Οἰδίπους· τοῦ δὲ Ἐτεοκλῆς· τοῦ δὲ> Πολύδωρος· τοῦ δὲ Αἵμων κτλ. Schol. 16c does not transmit Pind. fr. 118 M. The two versions (scholl. 70f and 16c) are probably twins reporting material from a single source to a different degree of precision.Footnote ²

(2) Schol. 82d, with the ‘Therean’ version beginning with Polynices and his son Thersander, comments on l. 46 ὅθεν σπέρματος ἔχοντι:

Most importantly, one wonders how these genealogies might have coexisted in Akragas and how Theron and his family could have justified them. Until now the two have been viewed as contemporary traditions which served different purposes.Footnote ³ Carmine Catenacci admits:

This is not precisely true. I will try to show that one of the two is in fact the consequence of a specific misinterpretation of Ol. 2.43–47. In order to understand the text and its content correctly, it will be useful to describe how the narration (ll. 5–46) was devised by Pindar:

5–7

Eulogy of the laudandus

8–11

Eulogy of the laudandus’ ancestors

12–15

Prayer to Zeus

15–22

First gnōmē: time and fate

22–30

Myth (1): Semele and Ino (per aspera ad astra)

30–7

Second gnōmē: fate and the destiny of a family

38–42

Myth (2a): Laius, Oedipus, Eteocles and Polynices (per aspera)

43–5

Myth (2b): Thersander (ad astra)

46–7

Conclusion: eulogy of the Emmenids and of Theron

In particular, ll. 5–11 are resumed at ll. 43–7:Footnote ⁵

The structure is chiastic:

• A (ll. 5–7 Θήρωνα κτλ.): B (ll. 8–11 καμόντες … θυμῷ κτλ.) =

• B (l. 46 ὅθεν … ῥίζαν): A (ll. 46–7 πρέπει τὸν Αἰνησιδάμου κτλ.).

The ‘illustrious forefathers who suffered greatly’ (ll. 7–8) are connected to the Labdacids of the mythical section (ll. 22–45): ἔχοντι (l. 46) concludes the Ringkomposition recalling ll. 7–8 εὐωνύμων τε πατέρων … | καμόντες οἳ πολλὰ θυμῷ ἱερὸν ἔσχον οἴκημα ποταμοῦ and l. 36 τῶνδ(ε) … πότμον; in between we find two pictures of the Cadmean–Labdacid myth introduced by two gnōmai on human destiny. As for the composition, see Nem. 3.43–70, where the epigrammatic αὐτόθεν-clause (l. 64) connects myth and eulogy.

The adverbial clause (l. 46) introduced by the ὅθεν-Anschluß (Kühner and Gerth (Reference Kühner and Gerth1898) ii.443) recalls the metaphorical δόμοις at l. 45. The scholia seem to understand this correctly, as they read ἀφ᾽ ὧν (schol. 82a) and ἀφ᾽ οὗ γένους (schol. 82d). Nonetheless, the passage would have been a fairly obscure riddle for ancient readers; the ambiguous phraseology employed to describe Thersander and the special emphasis given to him were probably suited to misinterpretation. Hence one might reasonably posit that the Emmenids’ lineage departing from Thersander himself (the ‘Therean’ version) originated from a misunderstanding of the primary importance that Pindar bestowed on Polynices’ son. Modern scholars, too, have had the same difficulty regarding the role of Thersander (see n. 3 above). Catenacci's observation quoted above summarises them all: ‘it is Pindar himself who, before Theron, declares the lineage from Thersander in Olympian 2 and the provenance from Rhodes in the encomium’.Footnote ⁶

So why did Pindar dedicate those impassioned lines to Thersander? As intimated, in Olympian 2 Theron and his ancestors are said to be born from the Cadmean–Labdacid γένος/δόμος, not from Thersander specifically. This finds confirmation in schol. 39a (commenting on l. 23 Κάδμοιο κούραις):

Pindar's Encomium to Theron clearly dealt with the tyrant's origins from Cadmus, probably described as his first progenitor, and from Rhodes, as schol. 15d shows and proves by quoting the Encomium itself (fr. 119 M.):

From schol. 15a (Timaeus FGrHist 566 F 92) we learn that Timaeus was one, perhaps the first or the sole, of the ἔνιοι:

Like scholl. 70f and 16c, scholl. 15d and 15a are a pair which relates the same material (they thus refer to a common source, or to a common intermediary work): both of them quote the poet's Encomium in order to demonstrate that Theron's family came from Rhodes to Akragas. Schol. 15a is more accurate insofar as it mentions Timaeus as its authority;Footnote ⁷ by contrast, schol. 15d replaces the historian's name with a more general ἔνιοι, i.e. a formulaic expression not necessarily implying a plurality of authors (but note that scholl. 16a and 16c present this same view from Aristarchus and Menecrates). The phraseology of schol. 15a suggests that Timaeus quoted the Pindaric fragment (it will not be necessary to recall Pindar's importance as evidence for Sicilian history);Footnote ⁸ the quotation from Timaeus and the doxographical structure of schol. 15a suggest that Didymus was the intermediate source of both.Footnote ⁹ In brief: Pindar scholia < Didymus < Timaeus [ < Pindar]. Schol. 29d (= Aristarch. fr. 2 Feine) proves that Aristarchus also believed that the Emmenids came from Rhodes:

Timaeus was followed, it seems, by both Aristarchus (scholl. 16c ~ 29d) and Didymus (scholl. 15a ~ 15d), although the two scholars read the text of Ol. 2.46 differently (see n. 5 above).

Unlike the Encomium – which spoke of Rhodes as the Emmenids’ homeland in clear terms – Olympian 2 is not explicit in this regard. The myth starts at ll. 22–3 with Cadmus’ daughters and concludes by mentioning his δόμος (l. 45). The main theme here is the fate (l. 35 Μοῖρα) which operates on a family's destiny (l. 36 πατρώιον τῶνδ(ε) … πότμον); in particular (ll. 33–4, but see the entire passage, ll. 30–7):

The prayer (ll. 12–15) that the god might preserve the homeland for future generations (l. 15 λοιπῷ γένει), bestowing ‘prosperity’ (l. 36) against ‘pain’ (l. 37), is a necessary step to prevent a sudden reversal of good fortune. The Labdacids experienced tragedy. Thersander eventually comes as the θάλος who brings ῥοαὶ εὐθυμιᾶν and as the ἀρωγός who causes his γένος to emerge from a period of sufferings (l. 34 πόνων ~ l. 37 πῆμα): note the positive emphasis given by the participle τιμώμενος (l. 45). The myth is a functional, pragmatic and paradigmatic example (i.e. a form of teaching) employed to explain the previous gnōmē (ll. 30–7).Footnote ¹⁰ Such a mythical παράδειγμα is even more meaningful in the laudandus’ eyes because it is οἰκεῖος, ‘domestic’ (= ‘taken from the same family’), therefore ‘familiar’ (= ‘well known’) and ‘appropriate’, as was that of the daughters of Cadmus (see the expression οἰκείῳ παραδείγματι in schol. 39a quoted above): it involves τῶνδ(ε) πότμον, i.e. the destiny of Theron's οἶκος (see the connective ἐξ οὗπερ, ‘since the time when’, l. 38 ~ schol. 70e). Given that ‘a paradeigma is the presentation of events that bear a resemblance to the present < events>’ (Ps.-Herod. Fig. 65 Hajdú),Footnote ¹¹ by means of the ὅθεν-clause Pindar connects myth to history, example to reality. If one puts the Pindaric thoughts in an equation, πατέρες (ll. 38−42 (−)) : Thersander (+) = πατέρες (l. 8 (−)) : Theron (+), the eulogistic function of the comparison emerges distinctly: only Theron (l. 7 πατέρων ἄωτον), whose πατέρες experienced πόνοι (l. 8 (–)),Footnote ¹² must be the θάλος and ἀρωγός who assures his family of a good πότμος (ll. 6–7, 10–11, recalled at ll. 91–5 (+)); like Thersander, Theron is ‘τιμώμενος in the athletic games [see l. 49] and in the battles of the war’ (l. 6 ἔρεισμα).Footnote ¹³ In sum, Pindar proposes a gnōmē (the πότμος of a family fluctuates) and discusses it in the light of the family heritage,Footnote ¹⁴ ideally by means of the myth (πατέρες > Thersander) and concretely by reference to history (πατέρες > Theron).

As for the Emmenid genealogy, the two incompatible versions arose from the same ode:

1. (1) scholl. 16c + 70f vs (2) schol. 82d.

(1) The story is evoked twice (scholl. 16c and 70f), both times to explain a decisive passage in the ode regarding the laudandus’ progenitors, respectively l. 8 (καμόντες κτλ.) and l. 38 (ἐξ οὗπερ κτλ.):Footnote ¹⁵

1. (1a) The syntax of schol. 70f is clear: the γάρ explicativum following the first sentence introduces the interpretamentum of the ancient source, which is summarised by means of a series of infinitive clauses; the subject and the verbum dicendi (λέγει, φησί or the like) went missing during the process of scholiastic synthesis: the identity of the ancient source of the scholium is not mentioned, but Timaeus is the most likely candidate on the grounds of parallel with scholl. 15a + 15d.

2. (1b) Schol. 16c is more intricate. The ‘Rhodian’ genealogy is in fact inserted into a series of scholarly views on the origins of Theron's family: Aristarchus (schol. 16a = fr. 1 Feine, see also 29d = fr. 2 Feine) supported the Rhodian origins of the Emmenids; Artemon (schol. 16b = FGrHist 569 F 1) wrote that the participle καμόντες (Ol. 2.8) must rather refer to the ἄποικοι Antiphemus of Rhodes and Entimus of Crete who led the colony from Rhodes (Lindos) to Gela in 688 bc;Footnote ¹⁶ Menecrates (schol. 16c = FGH ii.344) argued against Artemon (ληρεῖν τὸν Ἀρτέμονα, ‘Artemon is foolish’) and interpreted the phrase as referring to Theron's ancestors; then, by means of a γάρ explicativum (GP 58–9, point 2), the Emmenids’ Cadmean origins are elaborated; another γάρ introduces the ‘Rhodian’ genealogy in order to explain the Cadmean/Rhodian link. Schol. 16c concludes: ἴσως οὖν πρὸς ταῦτα ἀφορῶν ὁ Πίνδαρός φησι· καμόντες … ποταμοῦ, (‘thus Pindar, probably having in view these arguments, says: …’). The ancient source knew this story from Pindar's Encomium to Theron and interpreted Olympian 2 in the light of this poem. The flow of thoughts in schol. 16c is analogous to that of schol. 39a (a much rougher version of the same account which, however, transmits Pind. fr. 118 M.) and the content has a close resemblance to schol. 70f: Timaeus’ Sikelika is likely to be the source.

  (2) The account elucidates Pind. Ol. 2.46: Schol. 82d is linear. It introduces a paraphrase of Pindar's words: ‘from that race, that of Thersander, Theron's ancestors have their origin’. The ‘Therean’ genealogy follows. It is noteworthy that the writer focuses on Thersander: ‘that of Thersander’. Is this a clue that the commentator considered him one of the Emmenids’ forefathers alongside Laius and Oedipus? Possibly. The intermediary stage of this narration is not Rhodes but Thera, which was linked to the Labdacids through Polynices’ dynasty: Hdt. 4.147–9 tells us the story of Theras, Thersander's descendant who colonised the island of Calliste and renamed it Thera. Herodotus also reports the genealogy as given in schol. 82d (from Polynices to Theras).Footnote ¹⁷ Although schol. 82d does not recall the story of Theras, Herodotus’ passage hints that the myth was so old and well known that a commentator, understanding the Pindaric passage to mean that Thersander was the ancestor of the Emmenids, could easily provide a ‘Therean’ genealogy of Theron's family. Any substantial link between Thera and Sicily seems otherwise unattested.Footnote ¹⁸ Finally – in spite of scholl. 16c ~ 70f – schol. 82d transmits the recent lineage of Theron's family (‘Telemachus – Chalciopeus – Aenesidamus – Theron’): the lacuna in the scholium makes it unclear whether it was Telemachus who guided the colonists to Sicily, or a descendant of his, whose name got lost in the process of scholiastic synthesis (if not afterwards). One cannot exclude the possibility that the lacuna hides the name of Emmen(id)es. Schol. A Pind. Ol. 3.38 (68a, i.124 Dr.) and its twin BCDEQ Ol. 3.38 (68d, i.124 Dr.) have the series ‘Telemachus – Emmen(id)es – Aenesidamus – Theron’; again, schol. BDEGQ Pind. Pyth. 5 (5a, ii.194 Dr.) quotes Hippostratus, author of Sicilian Genealogies (FGrHist 568 T 1), for the lineage ‘Telemachus – Emmenides’ and Hipp. FGrHist 568 F 3 (from schol. 15d quoted above) is another source for the historian dealing with Theron.Footnote ¹⁹ It is interesting to observe that in schol. 15d Hippostratus is juxtaposed with ἔνιοι (Timaeus?). Are we then to consider scholl. 68a and 68d as compendia from Hippostratus’ Sicilian Genealogies? It is conceivable.

In conclusion (caution is in this case necessary). As often happens, a misunderstanding or misinterpretation arose from Pind. Ol. 2.43–7 and gave rise to an alternative Emmenid genealogy. Such a mistake may have been corroborated by an incorrect use of ancient external sources by a historian or commentator. It thus seems plausible that the two genealogical versions originated in different contexts, but further hypotheses about them are speculation: different genealogies arranged by different historians and later welcomed by commentators? Scholars criticising the statements of other authors?Footnote ²⁰ The scholia involved in this topic (scholl. Ol. 2.15a, 15d, 16b, 16c, 29d, 39a, 70f, 82a, 82d + scholl. Ol. 3.68a, 68d + schol. Pyth. 5.5a) reveal an intricate ὕλη ἱστορίης which is difficult to unravel in all its details. Since the evidence at hand is neither complete nor sufficient to offer a valid answer in this regard, let us note some reasonable inferences.

It has been argued that the source(s) of schol. 82d, somehow misunderstanding Ol. 2.43–7, considered Thersander to be Theron's progenitor and put together a complete ‘Therean’ genealogy departing from Polynices (sequence ‘Thebes, Sparta, Thera, Sicily/Akragas’), perhaps on the basis of independent mythical material on the Labdacids. By contrast, scholl. 16c ~ 70f relied on a common source and adopted the ‘Rhodian’ genealogy from Eteocles: the testimonia hand down the sequence ‘Thebes, Athens/Argos, Rhodes, Sicily/Akragas’ and embrace the provenance of the Emmenids from Rhodes. The crucial parallel with scholl. 15a ~ 15d in addition to that of the sketchy schol. 39a (also transmitting fr. 118 M.) invites the inference that the ultimate authority and common source of scholl. 16c ~ 70f is Timaeus (via Didymus); Timaeus in his turn relied on both poems of Pindar, the Olympian 2 and the Encomium: if so, the Sicilian historian was able to interpret the former on the basis of the more explicit elements contained in the latter. Scholl. 16c and 29d prove that Aristarchus, too, followed this ‘Rhodian’ version, supposedly by reference to Timaeus.

Should the formulated hypothesis be correct, schol. 82d would show a parallel yet incorrect exegesis of the poem and could thus be rejected as autoschediastic or, more prudently, external to the Pindaric and Emmenid world. Didymus might have been the intermediary between schol. 82d and its source, if it is the case that he compiled both the ‘Therean’ and the ‘Rhodian’ versions in his Commentary on Pindar.

At present further conjecture about the source of schol. 82d would lack solid evidence. It is at least worth saying that more than one historian or scholar is quoted in the Pindaric scholia with regard to Theron and his family: among them, Hippostratus (FGrHist 568) is defined as ὁ τὰ περὶ Σικελίας γενεαλογῶν, the author ‘who wrote Sicilian genealogies’, and might tentatively be proposed as the source of the ‘Therean’ version. We know that he catalogued Theron's more recent ancestry (schol. Pyth. 5.5a + scholl. Ol. 3.68a and 68d), which is partially similar to that of schol. Ol. 2.82d (Chalciopeus is missing from the former, Emmenides from the latter, but this might be due to flawed textual transmission). Whether Hippostratus argued against Timaeus on the ‘mythical’ section of the genealogy is impossible to ascertain. Furthermore, one has to acknowledge that the name of Hippostratus as a source of schol. 82d is only conjectural. Positions on Theron's recent lineage and the list of its members, in fact, may reveal little about positions on his mythical ancestry.

Other authors involved in this subject – Aristarchus, Artemon, Menecrates and Hippostratus – are too fragmentary to invite speculation. The remains from Menecrates (schol. 16c) and Artemon (schol. 16b) do not relate Theron's genealogy. Moreover, the controversial Geloan stage urged by Artemon poses new difficulties, given that it – logically speaking – also presumes a Rhodian background.Footnote ²¹ As a consequence, there seems to be no good reason to consider Artemon the compiler of the ‘Therean’ version.

To conclude conservatively. If what has been proposed for scholl. 15a, 15d, 39a and 70f is correct, Timaeus may well also have been the unnamed authority behind schol. 16c. In this case, his work was quoted to defend Menecrates’ view on the Rhodian origins of the Emmenids against Artemon's account of a Geloan period. It is important to note that the discussion in scholl. 16a–c focuses on the addressees of the participle καμόντες (l. 8), and not on Theron's genealogy; the lineage is simply adduced to prove that the Emmenids came directly from Rhodes to Akragas and to exclude a possible Geloan stage in their history, as Artemon stated. An alternative reconstruction is that Timaeus was cited to offer a definitive (in Didymus’ eyes?) answer to that matter despite other interpretations. The same happens, for instance, in schol. 29d, where Didymus is said to quote Timaeus as a decisive witness/source on a given topic: Δίδυμος τὸ ἀκριβέστερον τῆς ἱστορίας ἐκτίθεται, μάρτυρα Τίμαιον [FGrHist 566 F 93b] τὸν συντάξαντα τὰ περὶ τῆς Σικελίας προφερόμενος, ‘Didymos gives a more accurate account of the story quoting as his source Timaeus [FGrHist 566 F 93b], the author who arranged the facts about Sicily.’

Whatever the circumstances which gave rise to these genealogical traditions, Pindar offered a coherent history in both poems: he talked about and stressed the Cadmean–Rhodian origins of the Emmenids in the Encomium to Theron (fr. 119 M. + scholl. Ol. 2.16c and 39a), whereas in the Olympian 2 he did not need to retell it at length; rather, a handful of details and echoes were sufficient for the audience (probably the Deinomenid circle) to understand the background – one should admit, however, that it is impossible to date the Encomium; Catenacci proposes that it was composed in 476, as were Olympians 2 and 3.Footnote ²² It has been said that Olympian 2 was performed ‘in front of a more homogeneous audience, probably in the tyrant's palace and in a context of broad conviviality’.Footnote ²³ If this was the case, the Rhodian element would have been an important aspect of the song on such an elite occasion. It would be surprising were it to have been neglected in favour of an unmotivated ‘Therean’ alternative.Footnote ²⁴