The volume under review – the first book-length treatment of Pindar's Olympian 6 – originates from A.’s Habilitationsschrift at the Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Piliscsaba. After a brief foreword justifying the choice of Ol. 6 and the contents and articulation of the work, the volume falls into four parts: a critical text with translations into Latin and, ‘as a compromise solution’ (p. ix n. 3), into German; a short metrical analysis; prolegomena on several matters relevant to the ode as a whole; and the commentary itself in all its might. Last come three pages of addenda, a bibliography and five helpful indexes.
The text is A.’s own, but he relies on earlier editions (Mommsen, Turyn, Snell–Maehler) for manuscripts and their readings. This otherwise sensible approach results in the neglect of P. Oxy. 5037 (only published in 2010), which offers no textual novelties but lends ancient support to χώραν at 63 and could have been cited with profit. A.’s text is close to Snell–Maehler's. Of the seven differences (p. 11), three are minutiae of punctuation and one of dialect. A. accepts a conjecture of Wilamowitz's at 15 and rejects another at 43, in each case with sensible arguments (pp. 143–5, 194–5). The most striking divergence comes at 82, where A. eschews emendation and reinterprets the paradosis as Ἀκόνας λιγυρᾶς, taking δόξα as ‘expectation’ and the capitalised whetstone as no less than a kenning for the Muse (pp. 88–92, 262–3). (I am wholly unconvinced, and not only because of the hiatus.)
A. clears away much speculation, ancient and modern alike, concerning the victor Hagesias, the chariot-driver Phintis and the ‘mixing-bowl of songs’ Aineias. Nothing is known for certain about any of the three except what can be extracted from Ol. 6 itself, and Pindar, as A. remarks, ‘schreibt keine Biographie’ (p. 39). Rather, A. deftly illuminates the way in which Pindar sketches each of these characters according to his own poetic programme. Names and connections have an important role to play: Phintis (from the root of φίλος) is Hagesias’ friend, Aineias (αἶνος) his praiser, each functioning as Pindar's doppelgänger in a crucial aspect of his relationship to his laudandus, mirroring each other in their adjutory role towards poet and patron alike (pp. 45–7, 50–1, and passim). Similar connections are also at the core of the section on the ‘unity’ of the ode, which expands on articles A. published in AAntHung 52 (2012), 91–111 and Hermes 142 (2014), 27–57. In A.’s view, what binds Ol. 6 together is the motif of prophecy and the parallel between prophecy and poetry, both on a general level and specifically between Hagesias, Iamos and Pindar, together with countless smaller internal echoes and correspondences. Some elements of A.’s discussion appear more far-fetched than others, but the masterly effect of a ‘narrative ostinato’ (p. 103) with repeated patterns filled by different characters is now clearly established.
A. rightly dismisses the supposed historical grounds for dating the ode to 472 rather than 468 b.c., but his own preference for 468 rests on a jarringly narrow reading of 96–7 (pp. 55–6): why should the λύραι and μολπαί which ‘know’ Hieron (if he is νιν) only be the song that Pindar composed in his honour? As for the vexed question of the place of performance, A. concludes that both a premiere in Stymphalos and a reprise in Syracuse were planned from the start, whence the ambiguity of performance-related clues in the text (p. 63); the similar conclusions reached simultaneously by Z. Stamatopoulou, TAPhA 144 (2014), 1–17 are acknowledged in the addenda (p. 321). The exploration of audience receptions of places, characters and deictics in the various performance scenarios is a wise and welcome touch (pp. 63–5).
By ratio of pages of commentary to lines of text A. (1.9) surpasses such massifs of Pindaric exegesis as B.K. Braswell's Pyth. 4 (1.2), D.E. Gerber's Ol. 1 (1.5) and even I.L. Pfeijffer's Aeginetan Odes (1.7). Such abundance is the result of thoroughness, not of verbosity or accumulation for its own sake, and since this commentary is evidently not meant as a schoolchild's or undergraduate's first port of call, thoroughness is a virtue. The quality, as one would expect, is very good indeed. Recalling Fraenkel's dictum, A. claims not to cater to those who know all about Pindar any more than to those who know nothing about him (p. xii), yet those who know almost all about Pindar will still find much food for thought here. There is a certain amount of repetition with the prolegomena, but the reason is satisfactorily explained in the foreword (pp. xi–xii). Regarding 88 – possibly the most disputed point in the ode – A. rightly rejects the canard of a separate ‘Hera-Lied’, but proceeds to follow Y.L. Too, Hermes 119 (1991), 257–64 in identifying the act of Ἥραν Παρθενίαν κελαδῆσαι with Ol. 6 as a whole (pp. 103–6, 278–9). The likelier interpretation as a performative utterance gets very short shrift, as do the two problems posed by A.’s favoured solution: the loss of the parallel between 88 and 92, effecting praise (in a loose sense) of Stymphalos and Syracuse respectively, and the obvious fact that Ol. 6 as a whole is not a poem in praise of Hera, Parthenia or otherwise (p. 105 n. 122 begs the question; p. 278 appears to conflate the two interpretations).
To be sure, not all in this volume is new, nor can one reasonably expect otherwise when dealing with one of the best-known compositions of a well-researched author. A.’s command of the secondary literature is admirable; like an aptly Pindaric bee, he does not shirk from absorbing all that can be useful nor from stinging (ever so gently) when error or idle assumption cross his path. But was it really necessary to list thirteen different authorities for the echo between ἰόπλοκος Euadne and Iamos’ violets (p. 174) or fourteen – half of which before 1900 – for an admittedly idle (over)interpretation of the proem's κίονες (p. 120)? A.’s conclusions are for the most part solid and judicious. Arguable lapses such as the whetstone Muse are rare. Discussions are enlivened and enlightened by parallels drawn from modern literature. The price is, sadly, in the usual range for this publisher. At least the quality of the printing is good, and the new Brill font, though not as elegant as its predecessor, is handsome and clear.
When reviewing one always risks sounding much grumpier than one is. Despite the few disagreements noted above, let it be clear that A. has produced an altogether learned and insightful volume which deserves a place alongside the best of the one-ode Pindaric commentaries produced in recent decades. No further work on this splendid ode can afford not to engage with A.’s.
