From (Theogonic) Mythos to (Poetic) Logos: Reading Pindar’s Genealogical Metaphors after Freidenberg

in Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

This paper analyzes the use of kinship categories to refer to personified (hypostasized) concepts in Ancient Greek literature, with particular emphasis on Pindar. This device serves to include an abstract concept within a genealogy that is dominated by divinities or quasi-religious entities. Comparing the use of this device in Hesiod, Plato, and Pindar, I suggest that, before the emergence of properly analytic categories within the philosophical discourse, genealogical metaphor served as the most important means of concept formation available to Ancient Greeks. In particular, Pindar’s use of genealogical metaphors points to a productive encounter between image and concept. In this context, I review the neglected work of the Soviet Classicist Olga Freidenberg, who put forward a theory of poetic metaphor as a transitional phenomenon between mythological image and philosophical concept, and discuss the differences between the method of historical poetics employed by Freidenberg and the idealist paradigm that informs the better known work by Hermann Fränkel, Bruno Snell, and Wilhelm Nestle on the shift from “mythos” to “logos” in early Greek thought and literature.

From (Theogonic) Mythos to (Poetic) Logos: Reading Pindar’s Genealogical Metaphors after Freidenberg

in Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions

Sections

References

1

See for example H. Fränkel“Pindars Religion,” Die Antike 3 (1927) 39–63. Notable examples of works that foreground Pindar as a historical individual are U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Pindaros (Berlin 1922) and C. M. Bowra Pindar (Oxford 1964); the biographical approach also informs much of the older commentarial tradition on Pindar’s epinician odes.

25

E. Cassirerop. cit.87–88.

37

L. KurkeCoins Bodies Games and Gold50.

40

Cf. Macarius ChrysokephalusParoemiae 8.27; Michael Apostolius Collectio paroemiarum 16.65.

57

Dornseiffop. cit. 52.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 38 38 17
Full Text Views 28 28 22
PDF Downloads 3 3 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0