A Defense of “Blood-Price” in Pindar Fr. 133 (Maehler): Ποινη in Homer, Aeschylus, the Orphic Fragments, and Pindar

Abstract

This paper argues that Pindar fr. 133 (Maehler) is best interpreted as referring to the Orphic myth of the murder of Dionysus. The author traces the use of the word ποινή “blood-price” in early Greek literature to show that the word is typically associated with familial violence and reciprocity for murder.

Keywords:

• poine
• blood-price
• familial murder
• compensation
• Orphism
• Dionysus

Acknowledgements

I owe special thanks to Lorenzo F. Garcia, Jr, as well as to Marco Antonio Santamaría and Fritz Graf for their critical comments. I would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their suggestions and corrections.

Notes

1 See Schmidt (2004, 1325). The LSJ defines the term as “blood money, were-gild, a fine paid by the slayer to the kinsmen of the slain, and generally, a price paid, satisfaction, retribution, requital, penalty.” The Cambridge Greek Lexicon (Diggle et al. 2021, 1151) distinguishes six separate meanings: 1. Blood-price for murder; 2. Compensation as requital for loss or damage; 3. Requital/vengeance for person murdered or killed in war; 4. Retribution/penalty imposed for a crime; 5. A reward with a positive connotation; 6. The personified spirit Vengeance or Avenging Fury. For the etymology of ποινή, see Beekes (2010, 1487) and note 26 below.

2 Socrates tackles Meno’s paradox which posits that we cannot learn what we do not already know, by introducing the theory of ἀνάμνησις “recollection.” The theory of anamnesis is proposed in the Phaedo (72e) as one of the proofs for the soul’s immortality. For Plato’s view of the authority of traditional mythology, see Latona (2004).

3 For the editions of the Orphic fragments (OF), see Bernabé (2004, 2005). For Orphic ideas of immortality and reincarnation, see gold tablet 26 a, b (Graf and Johnston), as well as the Olbian bone tablets (Graf and Johnston 2013, 214–215). Pindar fragment 133 Maehler (= OF 443 Bernabé) also alludes to reincarnation (Graf and Johnston 2013, 118–119).

4 Olympiodorus In Phd. 1.3 (41 Westerink) = OF 304 I, 318 III, 320 I Bernabé. For scholarship supporting the antiquity of the Orphic myth of Dionysus and the Titans, see e.g., Rose (1943, 1967); West (1983, 137); Bernabé (2002); Bremmer (2002, 20–23); Santamaría (2005, 397–405, 2008, 1161–1184); Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristobal (2008); Graf and Johnston (2013); Henrichs (2011); Gagné (2013, 457–458).

5 Johnston dates the myth of the dismemberment of Dionysus to the 6th century BCE.

6 For πένθος as expressing sorrow for the dead, see e.g., Hom. Il. 11.658; 17.37; Od. 18.324. Rose (1967, 85–86): “But even if we allow that this would naturally be called a πένθος, no man had anything whatsoever to do with it from first to last; … No human soul could be expected to make requital to the goddess for what she underwent then. Remains therefore only one possibility, the death of her son, Dionysus, at the hands of the Titans. That this was a πένθος in the fullest possible sense, and also παλαιόν, are facts so evident as to need no proof.”

7 Linforth (1941, 350) states, “One must acknowledge that there is a high degree of probability in Rose’s interpretation. The fragment may be accepted as at least plausible evidence that the story of the dismemberment was known to Pindar.”

8 Rose argued, “ποινάν is simple enough, for it always means a recompense of some sort in Pindar, though generally keeping close to its proper sense of wergelt.”

9 Olympiodorus In Phd. 1.3 (41 Westerink) = OF 304 I, 318 III, 320 I Bernabé. See also Sarah Johnston’s chapter on the myth of Dionysus (Graf and Johnston 2013, 66–93).

10 E.g., Brisson (1992); Holzhausen (2004).

11 Edmonds’ monumental 2013 study pursues his original argument from Edmonds (1999). See also Edmonds (2008).

12 “I argue that, in both these texts, the ποινή Persephone accepts is not a blood-price, but rather ritual honors in recompense for her traumatic abduction to the Underworld by Hades” (Edmonds 2013, 305).

13 “In the particular fragment, however, the verb “accept” (δέχϵσθαι) strongly suggests a relation between an offender and an offended party, who may or may not accept the proffered ποινά” (Parker 2014, no pagination).

14 Hdt. 2,134,17; 3,14,16; 7,134,13; 7,136,9; Xen. Cyr. 6,1,11,5; Eur. IT 200, 446; Soph. El. 564, 592.

15 In the Homeric Lexicon by the 1st-century CE grammarian Apollonius the Sophist (Bekker 1833), the entry for ποινή defines the word as: ἀντέκτισις· κυρίως δὲ τὴν ὑπὲρ φόνου, “retribution: having authority over murder.”

16 For reciprocity in Homer, see Donlan (1982).

17 I use the edition of Allen (1969) for the Iliad and the edition of von der Mühll (1962) for the Odyssey.

18

λαοὶ δ’ ϵἰν ἀγορῇ ἔσαν ἀθρόοι· ἔνθα δὲ νϵῖκος

ὠρώρϵι, δύο δ' ἄνδρϵς ἐνϵίκϵον ϵἵνϵκα ποινῆς

ἀνδρὸς ἀποφθιμένου· ὃ μὲν ηὔχϵτο πάντ’ ἀποδοῦναι

δήμῳ πιφαύσκων, ὃ δ’ ἀναίνϵτο μηδὲν ἑλέσθαι· 500

ἄμφω δ’ ἱέσθην ἐπὶ ἴστορι πϵῖραρ ἑλέσθαι.

“The people were gathered in the agora, and there a quarrel arose, two men were quarreling on account of a blood-price for a dead man. One man declared to the people and was claiming that he had paid back completely, and the other man was refusing to not get a conviction, and both men were eager to get a verdict by the judge” (Hom. Il. 18.497–501; trans. my own).

19

 … ὃ δ’ ἐπϵὶ κάμϵ χϵῖρας ἐναίρων,

ζωοὺς ἐκ ποταμοῖο δυώδϵκα λέξατο κούρους

ποινὴν Πατρόκλοιο Μϵνοιτιάδαο θανόντος·

“But after his hands were weary from slaying, he chose twelve living youths from the river – as the price to pay for the death of Patroclus, son of Menoetius” (Hom. Il. 21.26–28; trans. my own).

20 The ghost of Patroclus proclaims this relationship when he visits Achilles to persuade him to bury his body so that he can pass on to Hades (Hom. Il. 23.90–95; trans. my own).

21 For the etymological connection between ποινή and τίνω, see Chaintraine (1968–1980, 925) and Beekes (2010, 1218 and 1487) in note 26 below.

22 According to Edmonds (2013, 311), “The mention of Persephone’s ancient grief and the compensation provided by human activity would be easily recognizable as a reference to her abduction and the τιμαί due to her as compensation.”

23

Ζϵῦ πάτϵρ Ἴδηθϵν μϵδέων κύδιστϵ μέγιστϵ,

Ἠέλιός θ’, ὃς πάντ' ἐφορᾷς καὶ πάντ’ ἐπακούϵις,

καὶ ποταμοὶ καὶ γαῖα, καὶ οἳ ὑπένϵρθϵ καμόντας

ἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ,

ὑμϵῖς μάρτυροι ἔστϵ, φυλάσσϵτϵ δ’ ὅρκια πιστά· 280

ϵἰ μέν κϵν Μϵνέλαον Ἀλέξανδρος καταπέφνῃ

αὐτὸς ἔπϵιθ’ Ἑλένην ἐχέτω καὶ κτήματα πάντα,

ἡμϵῖς δ’ ἐν νήϵσσι νϵώμϵθα ποντοπόροισιν·

ϵἰ δέ κ’ Ἀλέξανδρον κτϵίνῃ ξανθὸς Μϵνέλαος,

Τρῶας ἔπϵιθ’ Ἑλένην καὶ κτήματα πάντ' ἀποδοῦναι, 285

τιμὴν δ’ Ἀργϵίοις ἀποτινέμϵν ἥν τιν’ ἔοικϵν,

ἥ τϵ καὶ ἐσσομένοισι μϵτ’ ἀνθρώποισι πέληται.

ϵἰ δ’ ἂν ἐμοὶ τιμὴν Πρίαμος Πριάμοιό τϵ παῖδϵς

τίνϵιν οὐκ ἐθέλωσιν Ἀλϵξάνδροιο πϵσόντος,

αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ ἔπϵιτα μαχήσομαι ϵἵνϵκα ποινῆς 290

αὖθι μένων, ἧός κϵ τέλος πολέμοιο κιχϵίω.

“Father Zeus, ruling from Ida, most glorious and greatest, and Helius, who sees and hears all things, and the rivers and the earth, and those under the earth who punish men who have wasted way, whosoever swears a false oath: you all, be my witnesses and guard trustworthy oaths: On the one hand, if Alexander kills Menalaus, then let he himself have Helen and her belongings, and we will go back home in our sea-faring ships. On the other hand, if blonde Menelaus kills Alexander, then let the Trojans give back Helen and all her belongings, and pay back (ἀποτινέμϵν) a compensation (τιμὴν), whichever one is seemly, and which will also be among men who are yet to come. But if Priam and his sons are not willing to pay (τίνϵιν) compensation (τιμὴν) to me when Alexander has fallen, nevertheless then indeed I shall fight for the sake of reparation (ποινῆς), remaining here, until I reach an end of war” (Hom. Il. 3.276–291; trans. my own).

24 Persephone and Hades or the Erinyes, cf. Kirk (1985, 305).

25 “Timḗ takes the form of a payment which the Trojans will make over and above the property which they are to return. It is only chance and in this single example that timḗ comes to be associated with the verb ‘pay in return’. It follows that the poet did not conceive of timḗ as a morphological correlative of apotíno. On the contrary this text clearly brings out the gap separating timḗ and poinḗ. If the Trojans refuse the timḗ, then Agamemnon will have the right to fight to obtain a poinḗ. That is quite a different matter: poinḗ is the punishment and the reparation due for violation of an oath” (Benveniste 1973, 344).

26 Benveniste (1973, 340) pointed out that the terms ποινή and τιμή are semantically related and often thought to be derived from the same PIE root *k^wei-, but he rejected an etymological connection. According to the linguist Pierre Chantraine (1968–1980, 925), the semantic field of τιμή “penalty” is distinctly different from ποινή, although the words are often “contaminated.” According to Robert Beekes (2010, 1218), the word ποινή and its Indo-European root *k^woi-neh2- is ultimately derived from the IE verbal root *k^wei-. Both Beekes (2010, 1487) and Chaintraine (1968–1980, 925) agree that the noun ποινή is etymologically related to the Greek verb τίνω “to pay, atone, punish, avenge” through the shared Indo-European root *k^wei- “to punish, avenge.” However, they disagree on the connection between the verbs τίνω and the τίω. Thanks to the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European, Beekes (2010, 1487) offers evidence that τίνω is in fact cognate with τίω: “it is now customary to distinguish three roots *k^wei-: 1. ‘to observe’ (whence probably Gr. > τίω), 2. ‘to gather, pile up’ (whence perhaps Gr. > ποιϵ́ω), and 3. ‘to punish, avenge’.” While these roots may be customarily distinguished, Beekes offers us good cause to believe that they are in fact one and the same, and he connects these semantically different verbs to the same Indo- European root *k^wei-, which allows comparison of Indo-European cognates in Avestan, Sanskrit, Anatolian and Lithuanian. Av. Kaēnā- ‘punishment,’ Skt. Cáyate ‘avenge, punish,’ Anatolian: Lyc. A ttiti, B kikiti ‘to fine,’ Lith. Káina, ‘price,’ (Beekes 2010, 1487). Furthermore, Beekes (2010, 1217–1218, s.v. ποινή) points out that ποινή is identical with Old Church Slavonic cena, which he glosses as the Greek word τιμή.

27 Treston (1923, 45) states, “Wergeld was essentially a ‘diffused’ penalty, involving a large number of debtors, any one of whom could, equally with the murderer, be sold as a slave at the command of the tribal authorities.” Benveniste says (1973, 342–342) that τιμή “is conferred by destiny: it forms part of one’s personal lot” and “is of divine origin.”

28 According to the Contest of Homer and Hesiod (311–312), the statue of Homer built at Argos included an inscription that stated the Argives destroyed Troy as ποινή “retribution” for Helen: ἔξοχα δ’ Ἀργϵΐους, οἳ τὴν θϵοτϵίχϵα Τροίην / ἤρϵιψαν ποινὴν ἠυκόμου Ἑλένης, “and especially the Argives, who threw down the god-built walls of Troy as retribution for beautiful-ankled Helen” (Allen 1969). Note that the manuscripts have ποινή in the genitive (ποινῆς); Allen preserves the emendation by Barnes of ποινὴν in the accusative.

29 For oath sacrifices in general, see Burkert (1985, 250–254). For Homeric sacrificial killing and oath-sacrifice, see Kitts (2005, 159–160) and Faraone (1993, 74). For the etymology, see note 26 above.

30 Although the Erinyes are unnamed in the oath-sacrifice, we can be sure of who they are by the vocabulary in the line: ἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ, “they punish humans, whoever swears a false oath” (Hom. Il. 3.279). Aristarchus (Arn/A) ascribed Hades and Persephone as the subject of the dual verb τίνυσθον. However, the exact formula ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ occurs in one other place in the Iliad exclusively in conjunction with the Erinyes where the verb τίνυσθαι “to punish”, a middle form of the verb τίνω “to pay price” is also included with the formula. Γῆ τϵ καὶ Ἠέλιος καὶ Ἐρινύϵς, αἵ θ’ ὑπὸ γαῖαν / ἀνθρώπους τίνυνται, ὅτις κ’ ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ, “Both the Earth and the Sun, and the Erinyes, who under the earth punish humans, whosoever swears a false oath” (Il. 19.259–260; trans. my own). As Kirk (1985, 305) notes, “the principle of formular economy makes it probable that the Erinues are envisaged here too, despite Aristarchus.”

31 In Book 3 of the Iliad, the Erinyes are linked to ποινή as the avengers of oath-breakers, but in later representations they are connected to ποινή more explicitly with epithets derived from the word. The use of epithets such as ποίνιμος with these deities, who are specifically roused after the murder of a family member, highlights the link between the word ποινή and its original meaning as a blood-price for murder. Aeschylus uses the adjective ὑστϵρόποινον, “late-avenging” to describe the Erinyes (Ag. 58). Sophocles uses the word ποίνιμος, “avenging”, an adjectival form of the noun ποινή, as an epithet to describe the Erinyes in Ajax, ποίνιμοί τ’ Ἐρινύϵς, “avenging Erinyes” (Aj. 844).

32 Although the use of ποινή in the archaic period is limited predominantly to Homer, the 7th-century poet Hesiod does use the word twice in the Works and Days (749, 755) in common superstitions with the meaning “mischief.”

33 Johnston (1999, 250) emphasizes “the original divinity,” of Erinys in Greece because the goddess is included on the Mycenean tablets alongside Zeus and Athena in the form e-ri-nu. Sommerstein (1989, 6) believes the Mycenean evidence may be a reference not to the Erinyes of Homer and Aeschylus, but rather to the epithet of the Arcadian goddess Demeter Erinys. In the myth preserved by Pausanias, the goddess Demeter gains the epithet Erinys due to her wrath at her abduction by the god Poseidon (Pausanias, 25.4–5). After her abduction, Demeter Erinys gave birth to the goddess known only as Δέσποινα, “the Mistress” (Pausanias, 42.1). The word Δέσποινα is commonly used for goddesses but especially to Demeter’s daughter Persephone, and the word occurs on a gold tablet from Thurii as a name for Persephone (Thurii 3 = 5.7 Graf and Johnston).

34 Hom. Il. 9.454, 571; 21.412; Od. 2.135, 11.280.

35 Hom. Il. 9. 569–572.

36 According to Hesiod the Erinyes were born from Gaia after being impregnated by the blood of the castration of Uranus by his son Cronus – the Erinyes are literally born from blood and familial strife (Hes. Theog. 183–185). In Hesiod’s Shield of Herakles (252) the Erinyes show up as Kēres, “goddesses of death,” who desire to drink blood.

37 I use the edition of West (1991) and the commentary of Sommerstein (1989). The traditionally titled play Eumenides does not actually contain the word Eumenides, which only later became associated with the Erinyes. This was perhaps due to the interchanging use of Erinyes and Eumenides in Euripides’ Orestes (38, 321, 836, 1650). But Iphigenia among the Taurians calls them only Erinyes (79, 294, 299, 931, 963, 970, 1439, 1456). For further discussion, see Mitchell-Boyask (2009, 24–25).

38 Besides Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound which uses the word a total of six times.

39 The Erinyes are named 17 times total in the Oresteia and four times in Eumenides (331, 344, 512, 950).

40 ὑπὸ δὲ γᾶν φυγὼν οὔποτ’ ἐλϵυθϵροῦται. / ποτιτρόπαιος ὢν δ’ ἕτϵρον ἐν κάρᾳ / μιάστορ’ †ἐκϵίνου† πάσϵται, “And fleeing under the earth he is never set free. But being polluted he goes where he will get another avenger on his head” (Aesch. Eum. 175–178; trans. my own).

41 Bigot proposes πρᾶξαι and Heath suggests πέμψας.

42 καὶ ζῶντά σ’ ἰσχνάνασ’ ἀπάξομαι κάτω / ἀντίποιν᾽ ὡς τίνῃς ματροφόνου δύας, “And after having withered you away still alive I will carry you down below so that you pay the mother-slaying anguish in requital” (Aesch. Eum. 267–268; trans. my own). The word ἀντίποινος is a hapax legomenon in the Classical period, and it only occurs again in Pausanias (9.17.1.3) where it is used as a personification. The word ἀντίποινος is preserved in the oldest manuscript (M) in the accusative plural as ἀντιποίνους, but Schütz made the conjecture ἀντίποιν᾽ ὡς in order to provide a particle indicating a result clause with the subjunctive of the verb τίνω (line 268). His reading is accepted in the editions of Sommerstein (1989) and West (1991). In his commentary on the Oresteia, Thomson (1938, 200–201) connected these lines to the unwritten laws (agraphoi nomoi) of the mysteries and the descriptions of Eleusinian and Orphic punishment. For the classic studies on Aeschylus and the Mysteries, see Thomson (1935) and Tierney (1937).

43 ἔκτϵινα τὴν τϵκοῦσαν, οὐκ ἀρνήσομαι / ἀντικτόνοις ποιναῖσι φιλτάτου πατρός, “I killed my mother, I will not deny it, for retribution in requital for the murder of my dearest father” (Aesch. Eum. 463–464; trans. my own).

44 See the Lex Dracontis (IG XII.115.12).

45 §17 … τὴν θυσ[ία]ν τούτου ἕνϵκϵ[ν] π̣[οιοῦσιν] | οἱ μά[γο]ι, ὡ[σ]πϵρϵὶ ποινὴ[ν] ἀποδιδόντϵς. τοῖ⟨ς⟩ δὲ | ἱϵροῖ[ς] ἐπισπένδουσιν ὕ[δω]ρ καὶ γάλα, ἐξ ὧνπϵρ καὶ τὰς | χοὰς ποιοῦσι. ἀνάριθμα [καὶ] πολυόμφαλα τὰ πόπανα | θύουσιν, ὅτι καὶ αἱ ψυχα[ὶ ἀν]άριθμοί ϵἰσι. §18 μύσται | Εὐμϵνίσι προθύουσι κ[ατὰ τ]αὐτὰ μάγοις· Εὐμϵνίδϵς γὰρ | ψυχαί ϵἰσιν … 

“ … This is why the magi perform the sacrifice, as if they were paying a penalty. On the offerings they pour water and milk, from which they make libations, too. They sacrifice innumerable and many-knobbed cakes, because the souls, too, are innumerable. Initiates make the preliminary sacrifice to the Eumenides, in the same way as the magi. For the Eumenides are souls … ” (Derveni Papyrus, col. VI.4–10; trans. Betegh [2004, 15]). For the first critical edition and commentary of the papyrus, see Kouremenos, Parássoglou, and Tsantsanoglou (2006). I follow Kotwick’s (2017) edition which does not differ substantially from the ed. pr. 2006 in this passage. For discussion of the Eumenides in the papyrus, see Henrichs (1984). On the word ποινή in this text, see Santamaría (2017, 42–43).

46 West (1983, 1997, 84) argued the Derveni Papyrus belonged to an Orphic discourse, and he focused on the evidence of column VI. Graf (1994, 32–33) proposed the μάγοι in column VI belongs to the group of Orphic initiators. For the magoi as Orphic priests, see Bernabé (2014) with references. At line VI.9 the μύσται “initiates” sacrifice in the same way as these μάγοι, which implies the commentator of the text is speaking about a rite associated with a mystery cult. Betegh (2004, 76–79) points out that the Magoi offer not simply τὰ πόπανα “cakes” (col. VI.7), but specifically ἀνάριθμα [κα]ὶ πολυόμφαλα “numberless and knobbed cakes”, which “were used in the mystic cults of Demeter and Dionysus”. For the Orphic milieu in which this ritual is a part, see Bernabé (2014) and Jiménez San Cristóbal (2019).

47 For the edition and commentary, see Hordern (2000). P.Gur. col.i = OF 578 Bernabé. For translation, see Graf and Johnston (2013, 217–218).

48 Burkert (1987, 70ff.) identified the Gurôb papyrus as a Hieros Logos, and West (1983, 171) pointed out the relevance to the Orphic poems of the rites described in Col. i. According to Graf and Johnston (2013, 151), “the Gurôb text seems to deal with ‘Orphic’ rites whose aim was salvation from afflictions.” For a recent study of the Gurôb papyrus and its importance in the Orphic papyrological tradition, see Bernabé and Jiménez San Cristóbal (2019).

49 δῶρον δέξ]ατ᾽ἐμὸν ποινὰς πατ[έρων ἀθϵμίστων, “[Receive my gift] as payment for law[less ancestors … ” (P.Gur. 1, Col.i.4 = OF 578 Bernabé; trans. Graf and Johnston [2013, 217–218]). The text refers to the sacrifice of a ram and goat (Col.i.9–10) and the consumption of the goat meat (Col.i.14), as well as drinking wine (Col.i.25) and ritual objects associated with the cult of Dionysus (Col.i.28–30). For a study of blood rites in the Orphic cult and their contradiction with Orphic vegetarian beliefs, see Jiménez San Cristóbal (2009).

50 For Brimo as an Orphic cult title for Persephone, see Graf and Johnston (2013, 133 and 150).

51 On tablets 6 and 7 from Thurii and tablet 27 from Pherae (Graf and Johnston). I use Graf and Johnston’s (2013) edition and translation of the gold tablets.

52 Cf. Thurii 5, which was found in the same grave as Thurii 4 and contains an identical formulation:

4 πο⟨ι⟩νὰν δ᾽ ἀνταπέ{ι}τϵ⟨ισ᾽⟩ | ἔργων ἕνϵκα οὔτι δικα⟨ί⟩ων.

[…]

6 νῦν δ᾽ ἱκέτ⟨ις⟩ ἥκω πα⟨ρα⟩ὶ ἁγνη⟨ν⟩ Φϵ⟨ρ⟩σέ|φονϵιαν,

7 ὥς μϵ{ι} πρόφρων πέμψη⟨ι⟩| ἕδρας ἐς ϵὐαγέ{ι}ων.

“I have paid the penalty for unrighteous deeds . . . Now I come, come as a suppliant (feminine) to holy Persephone so that she may kindly send me to the seats of the pure” (Thurii 5.4–7; trans. Graf and Johnston [2013, 14–15]).

53 5.5–7 Graf and Johnston (Thurii 3) κύκλō | δ᾽ ἐξέπταν βαρυπϵνθέος ἀργα|λέοιο·Δϵσσποίνας δὲ ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔδυν χθονί|ας Βασιλϵίας. “I have flown out of the painful, grief causing circle I have sunk beneath the breast of the Lady, the Chthonian Queen” (Thurii tablet 5.5–7; trans. Graf and Johnston [2013, 12–13]). The word Δϵσσποίνας “Lady,” which refers to Persephone, might also be an example of linguistic word-play as a reference to the ποινά which she receives. Cf. δϵσποίνας χϵιρὶ θάνηι / ποινὰς δοῦσ’ ἀντιπάλους, “she might die by the hand of my mistress and pay her requital” (Eur. IT 445–446 Diggle; trans. my own).

54 I use Snell-Maehler’s (1971) edition of the epinician poems and Maehler’s (1971) edition of Pindar’s fragments. Pindar uses the word ποινά five times in his extant corpus (Ol. 2.58, Pyth. 1.59 and 4.63, Nem. 1.70, and fr. 133). Slater’s (1969, 434) Lexicon to Pindar provides three related meanings: “penalty” (Ol. 2.58 and fr. 133), “reward” (Pyth. 1.59 and Nem. 1.70), and “remedy” (Pyth. 4.63).

55 See Bernabé (1999); Graf and Johnston (2013, 100–105); Lloyd-Jones (1990); Santamaría (2008). Obbink (2011, 308) maintains Pindar was disseminating some of the sacred Orphic doctrine in Isthmian 6 as he does in Olympian 2, and, following Faraone (2002), he argues, “Pindar is alluding to the same myth and performative pattern found in the gold leaves.”

56

… ϵἰ δέ νιν ἔχων τις οἶδϵν τὸ μέλλον,

ὅτι θανόντων μὲν ἐν-

θάδ’ αὐτίκ’ ἀπάλαμνοι φρένϵς

ποινὰς ἔτϵισαν – τὰ δ’ ἐν τᾷδϵ Διὸς ἀρχᾷ

ἀλιτρὰ κατὰ γᾶς δικάζϵι τις ἐχθρᾷ

λόγον φράσαις ἀνάγκᾳ·

“If one has it and knows the future, that the helpless spirits of those who have died on earth immediately pay the penalty – and upon sins committed here in Zeus’ realm, a judge beneath the earth pronounces sentence with hateful necessity” (Ol. 2.56–60 Snell-Maehler; trans. Race [1997, 69]). Wilamowitz (1922, 248 n. 1) explained the corresponding μὲν and δὲ of lines 56–60 of Olympian 2 as two separate points of view, that of the deceased and that of the judge, but Aristarchus (Schol. in Pi. Ol. 2.58b = Drachmann 1903, 75) understood these lines as an indication of the idea of rebirth, an ordinary Orphic idea (cf. Willcock 1995, 155).

57 Along similar lines, Santamaría (2008, 1183) argues, “In various passages of Pindar (especially in Ol. 2 and in different fragments of the Threnoi and Dithyrambs) doctrines of Orphism are perceived, as well as features of the style and literary expression that these beliefs had received in a heterogeneous series of writings.”

58 For the precise definitions of ποινή in the Orphic texts, see Santamaría (2005). For Pindar and Orphism, see Santamaría (2008).

59 E.g., Bernabé (1999, 2002); Santamaría (2005).

60 “A genitive used with ποινά designates normally either, in the case of (1), the person for whose death or injury blood-money, etc., is paid or else, in both cases, an action for which one is rewarded. Obviously then Battus cannot ask for a “requital” in the second sense, but only in the first, i. e. the gods are thought of as having injured him by giving him a bad voice. However, what the stammerer wants is not damages for his impediment, but a cure, i. e. the requital will consist in putting it right. This is not so odd an extension of the first usage as it might seem, since the basic notion behind payment of damages is that of putting an unsatisfactory situation right. Pindar is thus using ποινά here in a very general sense which includes the notion of cure as well as that of compensation. This is probably best rendered by ‘satisfaction’” (Braswell 1988, 149).

61 See note 6 above. This construction parallels the example from Eumenides in West’s (1991) edition in which the word ἀντίποινος governs a genitive that references the anguish (δύας) for the murder of Klytaimnestra, the victim of the crime (ἀντίποιν᾽ ὡς τίνῃς ματροφόνου δύας, Aesch. Eum. 268). The words πένθος and δύη “misery, anguish” are parallel in meaning and grammatical construction.