Pindar and the Cult of Heroes by Bruno Currie

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS Pindarand theCult ofHeroes.By BRUNO CURRIE. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxfordand New York:OxfordUniversityPress,2005. Pp. xv + 501. Cloth,$125.00.ISBN 0-19-927724-9. BrunoCurrie'sprimarygoal inthisbook is toinvestigatewhether "a literary motivationforthenumerousallusions to hero cultin Pindar 's odes [is] to be found in theprospectofheroic honours forthe addressee" (p. vii). The intended audience forthe volume includes bothPindarscholarsand specialistsinGreekreligion.The arguments, presentedas threeparts subdivided intofifteen chapters,are incremental and too detailed to summarize fullyhere; the conclusion in favorofheroichonors fortheaddressees oftheodes restson the cumulativeforceofthese arguments.Even ifone does not findthethesis convincing,thestudyprovides a freshand originalperspectiveon Pindar,and raises interesting questionsaboutheroiccultas well. In PartI (Chs. 1-5), "Some Themesin Hero Cult: Homer and Pindar ," C. first considers and compares perceptionsofdeath and mortalityin the Iliad,the Odysseyand Pindar's extantworks. Especially in theIliad,Homer is found to expressan "austere,minimalist"view ofdeath and the afterlife, not because thiswas the only view when thepoems were composed, but because morerobust and optimistic popular views, laterrecognizable in Pindar,weresuppressed in epic. Further, theboundaries betweenimmortalandmortalstatusare more permeable in Pindar (who recognizes a special status in the afterlife forAchilles, Diomedes and others)thanin theIliad, where mention ofheroiccultis avoided. The careerofthehero,so oftenfollowinga pattern inwhichtrialsand testsarerewardedwithimmortality and /or cult,can be viewed as a paradigm forthelaudandusin Pindar's odes. Chapter6 introducesa keythemein thebook, thedistinctionbetween "inclusive" and "exclusive" conceptsofimmortality. The latter, characteristic oftheIliad,makes renownin song (kleos)theonlyvehicle for(a clearlymetaphorical)immortality. The "inclusive" concept of immortality, which C. attributesto Pindar,recognizes two paths to immortality: the kleosof song, and thetime of cult.In order to argue thatPindar's concept ofimmortality is "inclusive," C. must first explain the many Pindaric gn6maithatseem to contradictthis view (e.g.,N. 11.15;I. 5.16 "mortalaims befitmortals")and remindersthat song is the only means of continued existenceafterdeath (e.g. N. 7.14-16; P. 1.92-4). The gn6maiare rhetorical gambits,C. argues, and "generalizations which permitcontradiction"as the thoughtof the ode develops. Furthermore, insistenceon human mortalitydoes not conflictwith "immortality"throughheroiccult,formost recipients ofculthave died. 202 BOOK REVIEWS In Part II, "Heroization in the FifthCenturyBC,"C.'s goal is to demonstratethatheroizationwas a more widespread practicethan has been recognized,in order to establish a 5th-century contextin whichPindar's clientsmightreasonablyexpecttobecome cultheroes. He identifiesthreecategoriesofneglectedheroes: thewar dead, athletes ,and personswhose cultscommencedwhile theywere stillalive. In the case ofthe war dead (Ch. 7), the only securely attestedcontemporarycultis thatof Plataia (Th. 3.58.4), although earlycults of theMarathondead and thePersianWar dead ofMegara areprobable. C. assimilates "institutionalized cults of thewar dead" (p. 95) to heroic cult,based on the scale of theirhonors, the sponsorship of the cityand deliberatearchaismsin the ritual.But as he recognizes,the war dead are not called "heroes" in extantGreek textsuntilthe Roman period. Furthermore, the collectivenature of most honors paid to the war dead sets them apart fromotherheroes. The evidence seems to pointnot to routineheroization,but to an ad hocpractice, more commonin some citiesthanothers,which graduallyexpanded over thecenturies. The heroizationofathletes(Ch. 8) is betterattestedand moredirectlyrelevantto C.'s project,forthe popularityof hero-athletesincreased dramaticallyduringthe 5thcentury.C. argues convincingly thattheheroizationofathleteshad to do directlywiththeirstatusas athletes,and was notprimarilydue to local politics or otherfactors. He makes a case fora quasi-culticatmospherearound certainathletes, but falls shortof demonstrating thatOlympic or othervictorswere routinelyheroized. One argument concerns the dedication of the victor'sstatuein a sanctuaryor the agora, which C. wishes to regard as tantamountto heroization.Although statues seem to play an importantrole in athletecults,thededication ofa statuein itselfis not diagnosticofheroiccultin thesame way a tomblocated in a sanctuaryor theagora is. C. nextestablishes(Ch. 9) thatthereis no a priori obstacleto hero cultforlivingpersons,by showing thatwhile thetermhir6susually refersto "a dead human investedwith special power," itcan also be applied to "a supernaturalbeing subordinate to the gods" (p. 161). Although thisis technically correct, C. underplays thesignificance of death as partoftheculthero's story.Most culturesattribute uncanny powers to thedead, powers theliving do notpossess. Of themen C. cites as living recipientsof cult,almost all received theirhonors in political contextsafterthePeloponnesian war (e.g., Lysandros,Dion ofSyracuse,DemetriosPoliorketes),by which timeitis reasonable to assume thatmanytraditional expectationsabout cultsand theirrelations to the cityhad been irrevocablytransformed. The slightlyearlier case of Hagnon (Th. 5.11.1) is controversial,leaving the cult of EuthymosofLokroias theonlyexample contemporarywithPindar. BOOK REVIEWS 203 C. also holds that popular adulation could, under certain...