Simonides Lyricus

Another interesting field for our understanding of the character of Simonides’ poetry is his handling of his predecessors. I will begin with the famous fragment where Simonides mentions by name two of them, Homer and Stesichorus, as authorities for the funeral games for Pelias (PMG 564 = 273 Poltera):

ὃς δουρὶ πάντας

νίκασε νέους, δινάεντα βαλὼν

Ἄναυρον ὕπερ πολυβότρυος ἐξ Ἰωλκοῦ·

οὕτω γὰρ Ὅμηρος ἠδὲ

Στασίχορος ἄεισε λαοῖς.

… who defeated all the young men with his spear, hurling it over the eddying Anaurus from grape-rich Iolcus; for so Homer and Stesichorus sang to the peoples (trans. D. A. Campbell).

The two poets are linked by the conjunction ἠδέ instead of καί or τε, which gives epic colour to the passage; moreover, ἄεισε λαοῖς stresses the statement as universally valid,71 whereas Simonides’ description of Meleager’s exploit seems to be based exclusively on Stesichorus (PMGF 179 ii = fr. 4 Finglass).72 The mythical narration is suitable to a victory song, as is shown by the treatment Bacchylides gave to it in his epinician celebrating Hieron’s victory of the Olympic horse race in 476 BCE.73 What is more important for our purposes here is that Simonides uses Homer and Stesichorus, treating both as authorities from a distant past.74 He would certainly not have cited them both if his intention was to refute their version of the myth.

In another fragment (PMG 579 = 257 Poltera) Simonides alludes to Hesiodic wisdom, although he does not name the author of the particular logos he cites. The subject matter here must have been sufficiently well known to allow his audience or readers to identify its author,75 and Simonides makes the burden easier by closely paraphrasing his model. Unfortunately, we lack any certainty about the aim of his paraphrase; it seems improbable, however, that he strongly digressed from Hesiod’s claim here, although his conception of ἀρετά might have been somewhat different.76

This leads us to examine the fragments where Simonides seems to engage in a kind of intellectual sparring by criticising sayings ascribed to ‘wise men’, namely Pittacus of Mytilene and Cleobulus of Lindos.77 Let us begin with the so-called ‘encomium to Scopas’ (PMG 542 = 260 Poltera), where Simonides proposes to critique a saying of Pittacus. At the beginning of the second strophe,78 Simonides says (PMG 542.11–16 = 260.11–16 Poltera):

ὠς γὰρ δήποτ’ Ἀριστόδα-

μον φαῖσ’ οὐκ ἀπάλαμνον ἐν Σπάρται λόγον

εἴπην, χρήματ’ ἄνηρ, πένι-

χρος δ’ οὐδ’ εἲς πέλετ’ ἔσλος οὐδὲ τίμιος. 79

For they say that Aristodemus once expressed it shrewdly at Sparta: ‘Money is the man, and no poor man is good or honourable.’ (trans. D. A. Campbell)

Once again, the poet does not subscribe to the saying without reservations: he uses the litotes ‘not helpless’ (οὐκ ἀπάλαμνον … λόγον).80 But there is more: this ‘reserve’ leads us straight back to Simonides, who actually looks not for ‘a completely blameless man’ (PMG 542.24 = 260.24 Poltera πανάμωμον ἄνθρωπον), but for one who is not ‘too shiftless, one who understands the justice that helps his city, a sound man’ (PMG 542.34–6 = 260.34–6 Poltera μηδ’ ἄγαν ἀπάλαμνος εἰδώς γ’ ὀνησίπολιν δίκαν, | ὑγιὴς ἀνήρ).81 Although Simonides does not discuss the maxim of Aristodemus, he seems to forge (hidden) links between the sayings of the two ‘wise men’.82

This contrasts sharply with the way Simonides critiques the global meaning of the funeral epigram for Midas, which is generally attributed in the tradition to Homer.84 The secondary attribution of an extended version to Cleobulus of Lindos is first attested in Diogenes Laertius (1.89–90), immediately followed by the poem of Simonides that serves as proof for his claim (PMG 581 = 262 Poltera):

τίς κεν αἰνήσειε νόῳ πίσυνος Λίνδου ναέταν Κλεόβουλον,

ἀεναοῖς ποταμοῖσ’ ἄνθεσι τ’ εἰαρινοῖς

ἀελίου τε φλογὶ χρυσέας τε σελάνας

καὶ θαλασσαίαισι δίναις

ἀντιθέντα μένος στάλας;

ἅπαντα γάρ ἐστι θεῶν

ἥσσω· λίθον δὲ καὶ βρότειοι παλάμαι

θραύοντι· μωροῦ φωτòς ἅδε βουλά.

What man who can trust his wits would commend Cleobulus, dweller in Lindus, who against ever-flowing rivers, spring flowers, the flame of the sun or the golden moon or the eddies of the sea set the might of a statue? All things are less than the gods. Stone is broken even by mortal hands. That was the judgement of a fool. (trans. D. A. Campbell)

The poem represents a Ringkomposition ending in a pun on Cleobulus’ name: μωροῦ φωτòς ἅδε βουλά at the close of the final verse antithetically echoes Κλεόβουλον at the close of the first. The final element recalls σοφοῦ παρὰ φωτός from the encomium to Scopas (PMG 542.12 = 260.12 Poltera), but once again in an antithetical way: Simonides is clearly cynical and irreverent towards this Cleobulus. But who is Cleobulus of Lindus? Plato includes him in the select circle of the Seven Sages (Prot. 343a), just before he proceeds to discuss Simonides’ poem about the saying of Pittacus, the σοφòς φώς. The way Plato treats this poem makes it highly probable that he knew much more of Simonides’ work and in particular the poem that contains the attack on Cleobulus. Therefore, the inclusion of Cleobulus in the list of the ‘seven wise men’ may well be a joke.85 Be that as it may, it seems that the real matter under discussion in Simonides’ poem concerns κλέος:86 this is not only the very function of a funeral inscription but it also forms part of Cleobulus’ name. Thus there is perhaps no personal attack at all. Simonides may be using this name for its programmatic significance (Κλεό-βουλος | μωροῦ φωτòς βουλά·).87

Let us take stock of our survey of the lyric fragments of Simonides. We began by focusing on the epinicians and the fragments of songs that celebrate the Greek fighters fallen in the Persian Wars because they allowed us to establish a chronological framework for the poet. Simonides as we meet him here is a man who fully belonged to the early fifth century BCE, and whose poetry is consistent with the image we have of contemporaries such as Pindar, Bacchylides and Aeschylus. His poetry looks very modern for its time, and his metaphors lack conventional archaic features. Moving on to the linguistic level, we could note that Simonides was also extremely creative in his coining of striking new compounds which are often well attested in the tragedians and later borrowed by Alexandrian poets and grammarians. Furthermore, he displays the main characteristics of the writers of choral lyric who celebrate athletic victories: he uses the same topoi and metrical patterns.88 His legendary avarice (TT74–7, 94–9 Poltera), and his statements about the uncertainty of human knowledge, which look very ‘sophistic’ (T93 Poltera = T47c Campbell; PMG 521 = 244 Poltera), can be compared to passages from Pindar and Bacchylides (desire for advantage: Pind. Pyth. 4.139, Isth. 2.43; Bacch. 15.57 and fr. 1 M; uncertainty of human knowledge: Pind. Ol. 12.9, 7.24, fr. 182 M, as well as Pae. 6.51 = fr. 52f M = D6 Rutherford). And when Aristophanes at Av. 904–53 parodies the three poets of choral lyric, although he is essentially quoting Pindar and Bacchylides, he still names Pindar (l. 939 τὺ δὲ τεᾷ φρενὶ μάθε Πινδάρειον ἔπος) and Simonides (ll. 917–19 μέλη πεποίηκ’ … κύκλιά τε πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ | καὶ παρθένεια καὶ κατὰ τὰ Σιμωνίδου).89 It would seem that Aristophanes treated Pindar and Simonides as contemporaneous rivals; for him, Simonides was clearly not an older poet whose career overlapped with that of a younger competitor. Moreover, if we try to identify some stylistic or linguistic elements that might connect Simonides to Stesichorus or Ibycus, there are indeed some hints, but on closer examination, they turn out to be part of the usual poetic game played by lyric poets with their predecessors. On one occasion, Simonides mentions Homer and Stesichorus as authorities for the funeral games for Pelias (PMG 564 = 273 Poltera). Here, the two poets clearly represent the mythical tradition,90 whereas the Hesiodic paraphrase (PMG 579 = 257 Poltera) opens up a field of gnomic paraenesis whose validity can change in the light of changing social and ethical conditions, as the fragment (PMG 542 = 260 Poltera) on the Pittacus saying admirably illustrates.91 Pittacus, a contemporary of Stesichorus, basks in the glow of his status as a ‘wise man’, whereas Stesichorus seems to be, at least in Simonides’ eyes, an expert who can be cited on mythical questions. Both clearly belong to a past that is apparently quite remote in Simonides’ own lifetime. On the other hand, his irreverent mockery of Cleobulus (PMG 581 = 262 Poltera) makes it obvious that Simonides is not disputing the statement of a wise man, or even of any real, existing, man. In any case, these verses cannot be used as evidence either for chronological discussion or for the authorship of the Midas epigram.92

Generally the first notice about Simonides is thought to come from Xenophanes, who reputedly called him a ‘skinflint’ (Σ Ar. Pax 697e = T74d Poltera = T22 Campbell): τοῦ ἰαμβοποιοῦ καὶ < … > μέμνηται, ὅτι σμικρολόγος ἦν· ὅθεν Ξενοφάνης κίμβικα αὐτòν προσαγορεύει). But the textual corruption here does not allow us to consider this text a valuable witness. Rather, the statement seems to belong to Chamaeleon (fr. 33 Wehrli = T96 Poltera = T23 Campbell): ὄντως δ’ ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς κίμβιξ ὁ Σιμωνίδης καὶ αἰσχροκερδής, ὡς Χαμαιλέων φησίν. I think it is time to admit that the name of Xenophanes is out of place here.93 Thus, the first reliable witness to Simonides comes from the historian Herodotus. In his narrative of the Persian Wars, he not surprisingly makes our poet the outstanding epigrammatist of the period (7.228 = T62 Poltera). Some chapters before, in his account of the great Ionian Revolt at the beginning of the fifth century (499–493 BCE), he mentions Eualcides, the famous military commander from Eretria on Euboia who was killed in battle at Ephesus in 498. Alluding to Eualcides’ victories in athletic competitions, Herodotus adds that Simonides greatly praised this man (5.102 = T54 Poltera = PMG 518).94 All this fits perfectly with the early period of poetic activity we have discerned for Simonides.95 Aristophanes likewise repeatedly quotes Simonides.96 Though he does not give us any hints useful for chronological purposes, we can infer from Aristophanes’ testimonia first that Simonidean poetry was still being sung in Attic symposia in his lifetime (cf. PMG 507 = 16 Poltera, Ar. Nub. 1354–71, Eup. fr. 148 K–A = T18 Poltera), and second that Simonides’ greed was already proverbial (cf. Ar. Pax 695–9 = T74 Poltera = T22 Campbell). Next, Xenophon in his Hieron stages a dialogue between Hieron and Simonides, which fits with the period of activity in Sicily attested for the 480s–470s in other sources.97 Finally, the claim that Simonides dwelt at the court of the Peisistratids together with Anacreon appears rather later, in texts that derive from the philosophical circles around Plato and Aristotle (cf. TT63, 77 Poltera). There is no corroborating textual evidence, however, for this supposed much earlier period of Simonidean activity in Athens in the last third of the sixth century.98 The reverse is true: as [Pl.] Hipparch. 228b–c = T77a Poltera shows (and even more explicitly Ael. VH 8.2 = T77b Poltera), these traditions grew up around the folktale figure of Simonides that developed shortly after his own lifetime. This also applies specifically to Aristotle, who mentions the rivalry between Simonides and Timocreon of Rhodes 99 and who alludes to Simonides the sophos.100 Therefore, all these stories and assertions about the sixth-century Simonides inspire little confidence. It is Chamaeleon of Heraclea Pontica, not by chance an immediate disciple of Aristotle, who in the late fourth century BCE fixed once for all the anecdotical traditions about the poet from Ceos by writing his Περὶ Σιμωνίδου.101

To sum up, the general impression we get of Simonides qua poet, contrasted with the entertaining figure of the anecdotal tradition, is of a kind of Janus. The extant fragments reveal a poet who is a representative of choral lyric in the vein of Pindar and Bacchylides. Furthermore, Simonides looks ahead and finds the words to strike the right chord about the heroes of the Persian Wars. In the later tradition, and especially once Chamaeleon of Heraclea Pontica had composed his anecdotal monographs on the ancient poets from Homer to Anaxandrides, Simonides was associated with the Seven Sages, and became the inventor of four letters of the Greek alphabet102 and a rival of Anacreon and Ibycus. His time at the court of the Peisistratids, too, though lacking textual evidence, seems already have been an accepted fact by Aristotle’s time. The ground was thus quite well prepared for people to connect the year of Simonides’ birth to that of the death of Stesichorus, all the more so since Simonides explicitly mentions his predecessor (PMG 564.5 = 273.5 Poltera).103 From the Hellenistic period onwards, Simonides was thus for good embedded in the literary and cultural history of the sixth century BCE, a world he never directly knew.104

* I wish to thank Carine Maffli, Marie-José Christmas and the editors for their help in improving my written English.

2 Cf. Willi 2008: 52–4; Ercoles 2013: 62–4 (Ta 5) with the commentary at 244–52.

4 Even Solon (fr. 20 W2) did not want to live longer than the supposed poetical akmē of Simonides.

5 Pindar’s first ode, the tenth Pythian, dates from 498 BCE, when he was about twenty years old; at this moment, Simonides would have been fifty-eight. Simonides’ total lifetime would have covered about ninety years. If we compare other poets with equally long lifetime, e.g. Sophocles and Euripides, we are reliably informed on their poetical activity at latest from the age of twenty-five/thirty (cf. Zimmermann 2011: 573–4, 587).

6 There are some other elegiac fragments that seem to fit a sea-battle theme (frr. 1–9 W2), but these give no decisive hint that would allow us to ascribe them to either of the two battle poems mentioned in the Suda life (ἡ ἐπ’ Ἀρτεμισίῳ ναυμαχία and ἡ ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχία), one of which (the ‘Artemisium’ one) is mentioned as having been composed in elegiacs: cf. Poltera 2008: 415–16. See now the overall discussion by Rawles 2018: 269–80.

7 ‘… and Leonidas bears witness’. See Morgan’s and Carey’s chapters below. Herodotus seems to borrow from this poem of Simonides when he concludes about Leonidas (7.220.2) that remaining there [sc. at Thermopylae], he left a name of great reknown’ (μένοντι δὲ αὐτοῦ κλέος μέγα ἐλείπετο). Later in the same text, Herodotus mentions Simonides by name when he relates the episode of the epigram that the poet reputedly dedicated to his friend Megistias, fallen in the same battle (7.228.4).

8 … and them the son of divine Cleombrotus led out, that gallant man … Pausanias’.

11 Cf. Parsons 1992: 36 (ad fr. 2.14), with parallels from the Odyssey. See now Rawles 2018: 77–106, who draws our attention to the way Simonides succeeds in appropriating Homer’s Iliad for his new Panhellenic ideology.

12 ‘Their fortune is famous, their fate fair, their tomb an altar, their remembrance †of ancestors†, their pity praise.’ On this passage, and the difference between Page’s reconstruction of the ode and my own, see Morgan’s chapter below. The whole quotation, which we owe to Diodorus Siculus, forms a Ringkomposition (εὐκλεὴς – ἀέναόν τε κλέος: see Suárez de la Torre 1998: 32). For the influence of Simonides’ style on Horace, see Poltera 2008: 210. For an interpretation that tries to defend the importance here of material commemoration, cf. Fearn 2013: 235–9.

14 Or perhaps, as Gow 1952: II.312 notes (ad Id. 16.34–9, a xenos of the father of Ἀλεύα παῖδες, who was named after the founder of the line, Aleuas the ‘red-haired’.

15 An ancient formula, as follows from Herodotus, who makes Mardonius address Thorax and his brothers as παῖδες Ἀλεύεω (9.58.2; cf. 7.130.2). They were the rulers of Thessaly in the late 480s.

17 Neither Pindar nor Bacchylides mention a group or community of victors: cf. Poltera 2008: 284.

19 It cannot be ruled out that the song of Simonides was composed after the 490s BCE. Therefore, this form is not necessarily the first testimony to the existence of compounds of this type.

21 27.2 [ ]αισιμο̣[ | 3 []ὁ̣μότιμον[ / 4 []σ̣ι Μοισᾶν[ | 5 [ Π]ηνειοῦ.

25 See Rawles 2018: 171–8, esp. 175–6. I am not convinced, however, that the story told by Aristotle goes back to the lifetime of Anaxilas and that Simonides’ opening verse – perhaps the ‘title’ of the poem (cf. Poltera 2008: 274–5) – was supposed to deprecate Anaxilas’ achievement. Certainly, a mule-cart victory was not as prestigious as one with the quadriga; nevertheless, the mule-cart race was an Olympic event and remained so for fifty-six years (and, we should not forget, all winners there, regardless of event, were Olympic champions).

26 Pind. Nem. 11 celebrates not an athletic victory but rather the installation of Aristagoras as prytanis on Tenedos.

27 Cf. also Pind. Isth. 8.64–5. There are no other occurrences of περικτίονες in the early Greek lyric.

28 ‘Many Cydonian apples they threw on their lord’s chariot, many myrtle leaves and garlands of roses and twined wreaths of violets’, perhaps describing the wedding-procession of Menelaus and Helen.

29 For a similar case involving Theocritean imitation of Simonides in a praise-poem, see Theocr. Id. 16.13 τίς τῶν νῦν τοιόσδε, which seems to be a learned allusion to the same poem of Simonides; the whole composition entitled ‘Charites or Hieron’ is in fact riddled with Simonidean reminiscences, in particular to the popular anecdotal traditions about his life and personality (see on this esp. Hunter 1996: 77–109).

30 34.4 Φοίβῳ γὰρ π[ | [5] μάρ[ν]αντο· τ . [ | [6] Ζευ[ξ]ίδαμος· εκ[ | [7] κατόπ̣ισθε κλόνοι̣ δεν̣[ | [8] θρόν̣ος ἀμφοτέρων κ[ | [9] μι̣δαν θ̣’ ὑπεδε[ξ- | [10] κ̣ον θ̣ε̣μίστων. [ | [11] τ̣οὶ δ’ Ἱπποκρατ̣̣ίδ̣[ σκᾶ- | [12] π̣τρόν τ’ ἐδέξ[ατ(ο) | [13] στέφανος . [ (‘For to/for Phoebus … they fought … Zeuxidamus … behind, the swirling throngs (of fighters) … the throne of both (men?) … -midas (personal name?) … took/afraid … of the oracles… and they, Hippocratides … and he grasped the skēptron … crown …’).

31 Leotychidas II was the father of Archidamos II (~ 469–427 BCE). The first part of the Peloponnesian War (the ‘Archidamian War’) is named after this Spartan king, who commanded the Spartan armies that twice invaded Attica in 430 and 428 BCE.

33 οὐδὲ Πολυδεύκεος βία | †χεῖρας ἀνατείνασθαι ἂν αὐτῶι ἐναντίας τὰς χεῖρας† | οὐδὲ σιδάρεον Ἀλκμῖνας τέκος (‘Neither the might of Polydeuces nor the iron-hard child of Alcmena would have dared stretch forth his fists in opposition to him’: the text and metrical reconstruction of the middle verse is uncertain: see Poltera 2008: 318–21).

34 Molyneux 1992: 33–42. See, on this fragment and its context, also Nicholson 2018: 48–9 and Rawles 2012: 12.

35 πατρὶς μὲν Κόρκυρα, Φίλων δ’ ὄνομ’· εἰμὶ δὲ Γλαύκου | υἱὸς καὶ νικῶ πὺξ δύ’ Ὀλυμπιάδας (‘I am Corcyraean by country, my name is Philon, and I am the son of Glaucus, and I won two Olympiads as a boxer’. Baele 2011: 130 gives a good framework for this kind of votive offering.

37 It should not be forgotten that, according to Pausanias (6.10.1), some people said that he was of divine descent (from the sea god Glaucus).

39 The song the Archilochean verse comes from seems to have been quite famous throughout antiquity, for Stobaeus still knows seven lines from it.

40 Not ‘born later’: as Gow 1952: II.421 rightly remarks, Theocritus does not allude to the retardation of Heracles’ birth by Hera (pace Legrand 1967: 171).

41 Aeschylus (Supp. 361 lyr.) contrasts ὀψίγονος with the hapax legomenon γεραιόφρων. Thus, ὀψίγονος conveys the general meaning ‘young’.

43 Hom. Od. 4.336 νεβροὺς … νεηγενέας γαλαθηνούς; Anacr. PMG 408.1–2 νεβρὸν νεοθηλέα γαλαθηνόν.

44 Together with γαλαθηνός, Theocritus also uses ὀψίγονον, which occurs in Simonides too (12.6–7, see (ii) above). This looks like more than mere coincidence. For Theocritus and the reception of Simonides in general, cf. Rawles 2018: 226–68.

46 With this list, I do not wish to claim that Simonides’ was necessarily the earliest instance of each given word: he could have borrowed the compound from one of his contemporaries.

47 Besides Bacchylides and his four (!) occurrences, this compound appears only in Eur. Hipp. 168 and in a late funerary epigram (Anth. Graec. App. 194.1).

48 Call. fr. 197.2 Pf. shows again that the Alexandrian grammarians like to cherry-pick such rare words.

49 Pindar’s ode was written about 474 BCE for a winner in the boys’ (!) boxing-contest who came from Locri in southern Italy.

51 Cf. Waszink 1974: 14–17. For Pindar, see Pyth. 10.53–4 (the victory ode flits from theme to theme like the bee from flower to flower), and Pyth. 6.52–4 (Thrasybulus’ ‘sweet spirit’ as he mixes with his friends at the symposium eclipses ‘the perforated labour of bees’). For Bacchylides, see 10.10, where the poet composing the ode is described as ‘the clear-voiced island bee’.

53 The formulation of Plutarch in Quomodo prof. virt. 8 (ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνθεσιν ὁμιλεῖν ὁ Σιμωνίδης φησὶ τὴν μέλιτταν ξανθὸν μέλι μηδομέναν, ‘Just as Simonides says the bee mixes among flowers, as she plots yellow honey’) is reminiscent of Pindar’s concluding words γλυκεῖα δὲ φρὴν καὶ συμπόταισιν ὁμιλεῖν μελισσᾶν ἀμείβεται τρητὸν πόνον at Pyth. 6.52–4 (see n. 51 above).

55 Compare the whole distich (XXVII FGE = AP 6.213.3–4): τοσσάκι δ’ ἱμερόεντα διδαξάμενος χορὸν ἀνδρῶν | εὐδόξου Νίκας ἀγλαὸν ἅρμ’ ἐπέβης (‘so many times [sc. on fifty-six separate occasions] after teaching the lovely chorus of men | did you [Simonides] climb aboard the shining chariot of famous Nike’). Nünlist 1998: 258 n. 6 mentions the importance of the epigram for documenting the poetological meaning of the Simonidean fragment under discussion, but underscores the hypothetical nature of such an interpretation in both cases.

56 Cf. Pyth. 2.1–13 and also Isth. 2.1–2 oἱ μὲν πάλαι, ὦ Θρασύβουλε, φῶτες, οἳ χρυσαμπύκων | ἐς δίφρον Μοισᾶν ἔβαινον κλυτᾷ φόρμιγγι συναντόμενοι (a classic ‘chariot of the Muses’ passage: ‘the men of olden days who used to mount the chariot of the golden-wreathed Muses, taking with them the glorious lyre …’; trans. W. H. Race).

57 Maehler 1963: 92 n. 1 thinks that ‘Pindar das Bild vom Musenwagen nicht selbst geprägt hat, sondern bereits als feste Vorstellung übernimmt – wahrscheinlich von Simonides’. But it is not totally excluded that the second Isthmian ode, though composed only in 470 BCE, precedes the cited fragment of Simonides.

58 For the Ringkomposition εὐκλεὴς–ἀέναόν τε κλέος, cf. n. 12 above.

60 Cf. Hes. Op. 325 and the funeral epigram from Amorgos (GVI 889, second half of the fifth century BCE), quoted by West 1978: 239 ad loc.

64 Nem. 3.7–8 ἀεθλονικία δὲ μάλιστ’ ἀοιδὰν φιλεῖ, | στεφάνων ἀρετᾶν τε δεξιωτάταν ὀπαδόν.

66 ‘Neither axes nor Sirens: this is in answer [i.e. by Pindar] to Simonides, since in one song he called Peisistratus “Sirens” [sic]; in his own [Maehler: “other”, Pap.] songs he [Pindar] calls an axe-carrying horse “bearing the swallow as its sign” [Pind. fr. 339a M]: for they branded horses with swallows.’

68 The words ἐπόησεν Σειρῆνας τὸν Πεισίστρατον are somewhat puzzling: first, because the grammarian chose the rare poetic form ἐπόησεν; second, because the plural form Σειρῆνας is perhaps not simply a slip requiring the correction Σειρῆνα. Thus, I am not quite sure that the equation ‘Peisistratus = Siren’ is what the scholiast had in mind. The second part of the note speaks about branded horses. We know that there were horses branded with the letter σάν or the letter κόππα (cf. Ar. Nu. 121–2 οὐκ ἄρα, μὰ τὴν Δῖμητρα, τῶν γ’ ἐμῶν ἔδει, | οὔτ’ αὐτὸς οὔθ’ ὁ ζύγιος οὔθ’ ὁ σαμφόρας, 438 διὰ τοὺς ἵππους τοὺς κοππατίας; Luc. Ind. 5 ὁ δὲ ἵππον κτῖσαιτο Μῆδον ἢ κενταυρίδην ἢ κοππαφόρον), but none with a πέλεκυς (‘double axe’). The compound πελεκυφόρας (‘axe-bearer’) rather recalls a type of military unit (Arr. Alan. 21 πελεκοφόροι) or else the roman lictors (cf. Plut. Publ. 10.7 τούς τε πελέκεις ἀπέλυσε τῶν ῥάβδων, ‘he unbound the axes from the fasces of the lictors’: ἑξαπέλεκυς is the terminus technicus for the Roman praetor, cf. Plb. 2.24.6, etc.); in addition, the πέλεκυς is actually said to be a χελιδών, i.e. a ‘swallow’ (another metaphor?). Perhaps it is more than a coincidence that the term χελιδών defines the inner part of the horse’s hoof (Xen. Eq. 6.2 καὶ τὴν χελιδόνα τοῦ ἵππου θεραπεύειν ἀναπτύσσων τὴν ὁπλῖν). Incidentally, the word τὸ ἐπίσημον is better used of shields and money than of branded horses: cf. Arist. Cat. 8.44 fr. 394 τινὲς δὲ λυκόποδας διὰ τὸ ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσπίδων ἐπίσημον λύκον; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 200 τῶν προτέρων διδράχμων ὄντων ἐπίσημόν τε βοῦν ἐχόντων.

69 Cf. Nünlist 1998: 132; cf. also AP 9.184 = T26 Poltera Πίνδαρε, Μουσάων ἱερὸν στόμα, καὶ λάλε Σειρῖν | Βακχυλίδη Σαπφοῦς τ’ Αἰολίδες χάριτες | … ἥ τε Σιμωνίδεω γλυκερὴ σελίς. It is worth noting that Pindar uses σειρῖν as an adjective in a fragment from a partheneion (fr. 94b.13 M): σειρῆνα δὲ κόμπον.

70 Cf. section 7 below; cf. also Rawles 2018: 174. There remains the question why Simonides would have joined Hipparchus and not rather his brother Hippias, the actual ruler of Athens.

71 The ὅς at the very beginning of the quotation – (mis-)interpreted by the copyists as the correlative ὥς – could be a clue to the understanding of the aorist ἄεισε as the expression of this kind of statement (cf. K–G II.1.158–9). The plural λαοῖς points in the same direction. For a different view, cf. Rawles 2018: 31–5.

72 Cf. Rawles 2018: 39–41. There is also Stesichorus behind another passage from the epinician, but this time without any clue, cf. section 3(iv) above.

73 The way Bacchylides develops the ‘Meleager logos’ in this ode leads Rawles 2018: 44 to suggest that ‘the Simonidean usage does not close up the account of Meleager but rather introduces a longer treatment’. For the function as a break-off, cf. Poltera 2008: 513.

74 We do not have any trace of an Homeric treatment of this funeral games for Pelias. Therefore, the name of Homer seems to stand for some kind of overall epic authority, cf. Poltera 2008: 513.

77 Rawles 2018: 133–54 discusses these fragments focusing on the intertextual connection between Pindar’s Isthmian 2 and Simonides’ φιλαργυρία.

78 If we follow Plato, the verses open the second strophe, but we cannot exclude the possibility that he changed the original order: cf. Poltera 2008: 454–5 and Rawles 2018: 145 n. 44.

79 For Aristodemus as ‘wise man’, cf. D.L. 1.31 and Fehling 1985: 30 with n. 46.

80 Although the litotes stresses the positive meaning, the saying is not perfect but only comes closest to perfection.

81 This reminds us of Sol. fr. 27.11–12 W2 τῇ δ’ ἕκτῃ περὶ πάντα καταρτύεται νόος ἀνδρός, | οὐδ’ ἔρδειν ἔθ’ ὁμῶς ἔργ’ ἀπάλαμνα θέλει (‘In the sixth (hebdomad) a man’s mind is being trained for everything and he is no longer so willing to commit acts of foolishness’; trans. D. E. Gerber).

82 Still, we should not forget that a list of the ‘seven wise men’ did not yet exist in Simonides’ time: Plato, Prot. 343a, is our first witness for it (cf. Fehling 1985: 9–18).

83 Might we see here a further clue to the mention of Simonides’ legendary greed for money by the scholiast of Pind. Isth. 2.9a (iii: 214 Dr.)?

84 Cf. Markwald 1986: 34–83. The version of the epigram that Simonides seems to have known is the following: ἔστ’ ἂν ὕδωρ τε νάῃ καὶ δένδρεα μακρὰ τεθῖλῃ, | ἠέλιός τ’ ἀνιὼν λάμπῃ, λαμπρά τε σελῖνη, | αὐτοῦ τῇδε μένουσα πολυκλαύτῳ ἐπὶ τύμβῳ, | ἀγγελέω παριοῦσι, Μίδας ὅτι τῇδε τέθαπται. (‘As long as water flows and tall trees grow, and the rising sun gives light or the bright moon, here I shall remain on this sad tomb and tell passers-by that Midas is buried here’).

86 Cf. Ibyc. S151.47–8 καὶ σύ, Πολύκρατες, κλέος ἄφθιτον ἑξεῖς | ὡς κατ' ἀοιδὰν καὶ ἐμὸν κλέος with the commentary by Wilkinson 2013: 85–7.

87 Cleobulus’ Rhodian origin is challenged by Duris (FGrHist 76 F 77 Κλεόβουλος Εὐαγόρου Λίνδιος, ὡς δὲ Δοῦρις, Κάρ), who alleged that he was Carian.

88 I cannot discuss this in detail; let us say here that Pindar frequently presents metrical patterns which derive from an expanded aeolic base and that much the same happens in Simonides (7, 22, 244, 255a, 260 (cf. now Lidov 2010: 25–53), 261, 302 Poltera; cf. further 12, 13, 262 Poltera). Moreover, PMG 541 = 256 Poltera is very similar to Bacch. dith. 17 M.

89 Bacchylides still remains present in Aristophanes’ mind: cf. Cairns 2010: 13. Cf. also Simonides PMG 614 = 330 Poltera ἀρίσταρχος (Ζεῦς) and PMG 625 = 337 Poltera κυανόπρῳρα (ναῦς): both adjectives are not only present in Bacchylides, but they are also linked to the same nouns (13.58, 17.1), while for the quotations of Simonides there is no context at all. Therefore, confusion of the names of the two poets from Ceos remains possible.

90 Cf. Rawles 2018: 35: I concur with him that there is no strongly expressed admiration of Homer here (pace West 1993a: 6).

91 Plato’s choice to illustrate his sophistic discussion – a demonstration by Socrates – with this Simonidean poem is not accidental at all.

92 I do not agree with the observations of Fearn 2013: 234–5, who believes that ‘it is Kleoboulos’ literary efforts that are subject to critique’, and makes him an earlier rival of Simonides: what about the (contested) attribution of the epigram and the different versions?

93 Rawles 2018: 159 rightly states that the notice of the scholiast is irredeemably corrupt; nevertheless he goes to consider further the philarguria of Simonides and the reason why Xenophanes censured him. This is all speculation.

94 However, Herodotus remains very vague: Εὐαλκίδην στρατηγέοντα ‘ρετριέων, στεφανηφόρους τε ἀγῶνας ἀναραιρηκότα καὶ ὑπὸ Σιμωνίδεω τοῦ Κηίου πολλὰ αἰνεθέντα (‘Eualkides, the commander of the Eretrians, a man who had won at the crown games and who had been much praised by Simonides the Keian’, Hdt. 5.102). Therefore, it is not sure that Herodotus alludes here to epinicians written by Simonides: a thrēnos is an equally good guess, cf. 248 Poltera Σιμωνίδης ἐν τῷ εἰς Λυσίμαχον τὸν ‘ρετριέα θρῖνῳ. On Simonides’ thrēnoi, see Carey’s chapter below.

96 For the presence of Simonides in Aristophanes, see Rawles 2013 and 2018 passim.

98 The attribution to Simonides of all the unattributed epigrams of the past, including the ones about the relatives of Peisistratus (Sim. XXVIa/b FGE), stems from his renown as composer of epigrams and elegies celebrating the heroes of the Persian Wars. It is significant that Thucydides quotes the same epigrams without the author’s name.

99 Fr. 75 Rose = T69 Poltera. Timocreon is a Rhodian citizen, like Cleobulus. In the later tradition, this rivalry is fleshed out by satirical distichs, cf. Sim. fr. 92 W2 vs Timocr. fr. 10 W2 (= T109 Poltera), on which see Sider’s chapter below.

100 Ph. 4.13.222b16–19 = T71 Poltera. Cf. Rh. 2.16.1391a8–12, where Simonides is said to prefer wealth.

101 Cf. Christ 1941: 52. And, I repeat, it is Chamaeleon who called Simonides a κίμβιξ, cf. above.

102 Willi 2013: 135 deduces from this tradition that ‘the East Ionic alphabet became known in Athens through Simonidean mediation’. But an indirect justification for this claim seems equally possible, perhaps for instance involving some inscriptions composed by, or more likely ascribed to, Simonides.

103 There are other instances where Simonides shows great affinity with Stesichorean verses, cf. section 2(iv) above.

104 When Pheidippides refers to him as antiquated (Ar. Nu. 1354–71 = T18 Poltera), he refers to the values of his own lifetime (the end of the fifth century BCE). Thus there is no reason to place Simonides in the sixth century BCE, all the more so as Pheidippides also disapproves of the poetry of Aeschylus.