10. Praising Kinyras

Pindar’s Pythian 2 contains the most elaborate allusion to Kinyras in early Greek literature and is our first explicit source for him as a familiar of Aphrodite and Apollo. [1] The latter relationship by itself readily suggests the musical and prophetic abilities credited to Kinyras elsewhere. [2] This natural inference, I shall argue here, is not mistaken, so that Pindar (ca. 518–440) equally becomes our earliest source for a musical Kinyras, while himself presupposing a tradition of untold antiquity.
The poet juxtaposes the Cypriot king with Hieron of Syracuse, an analogy that sheds light on both parties, and so contributes considerably to our understanding of Kinyras as a royal figure. At the same time, the immediate context of the comparison is musical, both figures being the subject of celebratory song. The verses, complemented by scholiastic notices and iconographic evidence, can be pressed to yield further insight about the musical—and specifically lyrical—aspect of Kinyras.

Pindar and the Example of Kinyras

The poem, addressed to Hieron, alludes to a chariot-racing victory of controversial date and location, notwithstanding its traditional Pythian designation. [3] It is a complex work, the tone and meaning of which have occasioned much debate. Ancient allegations of rivalry between Pindar and Bakkhylides induced older scholars to infer a souring of relations between patron and poet, detecting discreet reprimands by the latter. [4] Later fashions discredited this idea as so much biographical fiction; Pindar’s decrying of envy becomes a well-developed generic theme—something that eminent men like Hieron inevitably attract. [5] One’s critical stance will color interpretation of the poem’s two mythological exempla—Kinyras and Ixion—and their relevance to Hieron. Both relate to kháris—that sense of gratitude for a good deed that compels reciprocal action. [6] Kinyras—who is associated with kháris surprisingly often in early sources—is presented concisely as a positive parallel to Hieron himself, and receives his due from those in whom he has aroused gratitude. [7] Ixion’s refusal to requite the favor shown him by the gods negates the motif and is developed at length. Yet Kinyras himself featured in some traditions as a dishonest double-dealer—kháris perverted, leading to his kingdom’s downfall; moreover, like Ixion, he was a sobering a case of “lawless coupling” (eunaì parátropoi, 35) “without the Graces” (áneu Kharítōn, 42), thanks to his unwitting incest with Myrrha. [8] Pindar seems to allude to these darker tales in Nemean 8, where he declines to elaborate. [9] It is therefore worth considering whether Pindar chose Kinyras precisely because the theme of kháris was ambivalently developed in his mythology. If so, the exemplum could contribute to a larger admonitory program by bridging the wholly positive Locrian maidens (see below) with the wholly negative Ixion. I shall return to this point below.
For now we may concentrate on the more obviously favorable. The relevant verses are as follows:
Other men have made well-sounding hymns (euakhéa hýmnon) for other kings—the reward of virtue. While
Cypriots’ songs (phâmai Kypríōn) often resound around
Kinyras—whom golden-haired Apollo gladly loved, the
Cherished (ktílon [10] ) priest of Aphrodite—driven no doubt by awe-filled gratitude (kháris) for one of his friendly deeds,
You, Deinomenes’ son, the maids of Western Locri
Sing (apúei) before the temple (prò dómōn), looking out secure from helpless
Toils of war, because of your great power. [11]
The passage has been closely analyzed for linguistic nuance and historical context in a recent study by B. Currie. [12] Two main questions arise. What did Hieron do to earn Kinyras-like gratitude? And why has Kinyras, of all possible mythical figures, been chosen to mirror the tyrant?
The scholia adduce the infamous episode of the Locrian maidens, otherwise known from Justin’s epitome of Pompeius Trogus (Augustan era), who in turn probably drew on fourth-century historical sources: Hieron saved the city of Locri from attack and destruction by Rhegion between 478–476, with the Locrians allegedly vowing to prostitute their maiden daughters to Aphrodite if they prevailed. [13] This passage has been much debated. Currie, attempting to harmonize textual and archaeological evidence, concludes that the vow was indeed made and executed. Hieron should be connected, he argues, with the construction of the Ionic temple, dated to ca. 480–470, which lies just outside of Locri, and a reorganization of Aphrodite’s cult there, specifically the institution of a festival of deliverance (sōtēría) in which the maidens fulfilled their promise and celebrated Hieron in choral-song “before the temple.” [14] The crucial point that allies Kinyras and Hieron, he suggests, is the Cypriot king’s associations with ‘sacred prostitution’ at Paphos. [15]
This complex thesis will raise eyebrows in the current critical climate, highly skeptical of all references to ‘sacred prostitution’ (in various forms). [16] But Currie’s reconstruction of a celebratory choral context at Locri can stand. [17] I shall consider in detail below its implications for Cypriot choral-lyric in the cult of Kinyras. But note first that, if the analogy is strictly pressed, we should be dealing with female Cypriot choruses—an idea that distinctly resonates with the lyre-playing and dancing women who grace the Cypro-Phoenician symposium bowls. [18] One should also emphasize the traditions of Kinyras as founder of Aphrodite’s temple in Paphos, as this is a strong parallel for Hieron’s presumed building initiative at Locri. [19]
Let us leave Locri and consider the conjunction of Kinyras and Hieron more generally. The scholia conjecture that, while Kinyras was consecrated as hierophant for the two gods, Aphrodite and Apollo, Hieron’s father was responsible for transferring cultic rites from Cyprus to Sicily; or that Deinomenes was himself of Cypriot ancestry. [20] The latter is probably biographical fiction; the former less obviously so. [21] Modern scholars have pointed out that Kinyras and Hieron were both priest-kings—the latter being hierophant of Demeter and Persephone. [22] Others suggest that Hieron, victorious at the Pythian games, could resemble Kinyras in enjoying the favor of Apollo. [23]
Certainly the comparison with Hieron guarantees that Kinyras is regarded here as a king. That he is simultaneously priest of Aphrodite confirms the Paphian dynastic legend already for the fifth century (see Chapter 16). Yet the poet’s general terms show that Kinyras is envisioned as a pan-Cypriot figure; and it is this island-wide stature that justifies the parallel with Hieron. The Syracusan tyrant, as “lord and master of many well-garlanded cities and an army,” dominates his own large island, reproducing a Golden Age like that of Kinyras on Cyprus. [24] A scholiast aptly suggests that the Cypriots celebrated Kinyras “either as founder/leader (arkhēgétēn) of the island, or as its most fortunate (eudaimonéstaton) king and greater than those before him.” [25]
A further point of contact probably relates to Kinyras’ proverbial connections with seafaring. [26] Pindar’s awareness of this dimension is seen in Nemean 8, were he parallels the “blessed fortune” of the honorand (Deinias of Aegina) with that which “freighted Kinyras with riches once upon a time in Cyprus on the sea.” [27] Here the Cypriot king’s immense wealth is quite logically linked to seafaring. The same association suits Hieron, who inherited one of the two largest fleets in the Greek world—some two hundred ships at the time of the Persian Wars, built up by Gelon for use against his Sicilian neighbors and Carthaginian rivals. [28] Hieron himself won a famous naval victory against the Etruscans at Cumae in 474, and other such actions may be presumed. [29]
Pindar’s two allusions, though concise and disconnected, reveal a consistent view of the Cypriot king. In Nemean 8, Kinyras exemplifies “wealth” which is “more stable” for having been “planted with a god’s favor.” Further details clarify that Aphrodite is the deity in question. [30] The idea is conventional; but when applied to Hieron’s own prosperity in Pythian 2 it brings further point to the comparison with Kinyras. [31] Hieron’s fortune is so great, Pindar claims there, that nobody in ancient Hellas was so exalted in wealth or honor. [32] Similarly, Kinyras was ranked among such wealthy kings of legend as Kroisos, Midas, and Sardanapalos; and even here Kinyras was exceptional since, by one proverb, “Rich was Midas, but thrice as rich Kinyras.” [33] In a further popular saying, someone particularly well-to-do was “richer than Kinyras.” [34] Pindar’s point is therefore that Hieron has achieved and exceeded the highest prosperity known to myth and legend. Yet the poet may include an insurance policy against divine envy by specifying Hieron’s peer group as Hellas, whereas Kinyras belonged, like Kroisos, Midas, and Sardanapalos, to its oriental periphery. [35] They all experienced catastrophic reversals-of-fortune, so that the wealth of an eastern monarch was something better avoided. Thus Kinyras, despite his virtues and prosperity, could equally serve as a conventional admonition about the instability of fortune and the enduring importance of reputation (like Kroisos in Pythian 1). [36]
Given Pindar’s purposeful contrast between Hellas and the Orient, it is probably significant that he refers to the composition and dispatch of his ode as follows:
Like Phoenician merchandise this
Song is being sent beyond the dusky sea.
Inspect with open mind this Kastor-song on Aeolian strings—
Greeting with favor this gratitude-gift (khárin)
From my seven-toned lyre. [37]
Poet as navigator and poem as voyage are again conventional ideas. [38] But the ethnographic detail stands out. For Bowra, who considered the work a “poetic letter” rather than a proper choral ode, “Phoenician merchandise” effectively means “on approval.” [39] I suggest rather that it takes its point from the earlier Kinyras exemplum, given the Cypriot king’s treatment as a virtual Phoenician in some strands of tradition. [40] The poet, in singing of Hieron, does so like the Cypriots who praise Kinyras in a “well-sounding hymn” (euakhéa hýmnon). The parallel nature of their activity, resulting logically from the exemplum itself, [41] is emphasized by the poet through well-placed verbal echoes. Pindar’s description of his poem as a kháris-gift (70) recalls the kháris that motivates the Cypriots in their celebration of Kinyras. [42] And since Pindar’s own musical kháris-gift was a product of “the seven-toned lyre,” he implies that the Cypriots also venerated their ancient king through choral lyric. Now in Pindar’s later statement “I shall embark on a well-flowered naval-expedition, resounding about your virtue,” the phrase amph’ aretâi / keladéōn clearly echoes the earlier keladéonti … amphì Kinýran, of the Cypriot singers’ own praise-songs. [43] Yet, whereas they can praise their king in their own territory, Pindar’s song must be shipped to Syracuse: the “Phoenician merchandise” is thus a virtual Cypriot song dispatched by Pindar—temporarily assuming the guise of a Cypriot lyre-singer—to Hieron, that new Kinyras. The poet’s maritime metaphor, reinforced by reference to the “Kastor-song,” equally recalls Pindar’s treatment of Kinyras in Nemean 8, where the king grew wealthy from seafaring: Hieron will be enriched by Pindar’s musical ‘merchandise’. [44]

The Love of Apollo

That Pindar places himself in the position of a Cypriot lyre-singer executing royal praise calls for closer examination of the Kinyras passage in its own right—that is, divorced from its immediate context and treated as an ethnographic idyll. The poet sketches a vivid cultic scene, evoking the sight and sound of celebration in a few deft strokes. Pollákis (‘often’) shows that Pindar envisages the Cypriot praise-songs (phâmai) as an ongoing custom, not a single occasion. [45] This is given further substance by Kinyras as “priest of Aphrodite” and “beloved of Apollo,” which conforms to a pattern of early epichoric ‘heroes’ who were connected to the cults of female gods and eventually absorbed by male Olympians who wore their names as epithets. The phenomenon brings further point to Apollo’s title Kenyristḗs, the preconditions for which were therefore already established in Pindar’s own day, and probably before (see below). [46] The poet thus assumes a sanctuary-setting of Cypriot ‘Aphrodite’ where Kinyras played a role, just as we find at Classical Paphos (see Chapter 16). This would be a natural venue for the development of cult-narratives, helping account for the rich (if lamentably terse) notices that survive about Kinyras, his family, and associates. [47] The Cypriot king was the center of his own mythological cycle, giving the phrase “about Kinyras” (amphì Kinýran) one immediate point. [48]
Admittedly Pindar’s phâmai does not directly denote a musical form; the word’s basic meanings are an ‘utterance prompted by the gods’ and ‘reputation’ (that is, what people are saying). [49] Yet this is linked to the basic function of a praise-poet, whose divinely inspired songs secure such ‘fames’. [50] This explains the parallel construction between the “Cypriots’ phâmai” and the “well-sounding hymn(s)” (euakhéa hýmnon) with which other unnamed singers celebrate their own patrons. So Pindar definitely alludes to a Kinyras song-tradition. It is precisely this which gives the exemplum weight: not only are Hieron’s “friendly deeds” worthy of similar praise-poetry, they are great enough to endure the centuries and secure imperishable fame—the essential self-justification of the professional praise-singer. [51]
By contrast with Aphrodite, the presence of Apollo adds nothing essential to the picture. It is rather a Panhellenizing gloss on Kinyras himself—an alternative expression of the cultural encounter that underlies the fatal musical contest. [52] Pindar’s Apollo, who “loved” (ephílēse) Kinyras, emphasizes cultural sympathies. One scholiast denies that Kinyras was Apollo’s beloved (erṓmenos)—an idea perhaps inspired by parallels like Hyakinthos. [53] Another states that Kinyras was the Olympian’s son—a seemingly banal solution that may nevertheless reflect a specific dynastic construction developed by the Kinyrad kings of Paphos and/or Salamis, integrating themselves into a Panhellenic framework. [54]
franklin fig17 topfranklin fig17 bottom
Figure 17. Lyrist-archer, White Painted krater from Khrysokhou (near Marion), ca. 850–750 (CG III). Collection of the Archbishopric of Cyprus, Nicosia. Drawn from Karageorghis 1980b.
A third commentator supposes that Apollo loved Kinyras “either as an archer or as a musician.” [55] Neither suggestion grows obviously from the Pindaric text, and one may suspect that the scholiast has simply brought forward bow and lyre as being Apollo’s main attributes—an ancient pairing, firmly entrenched in epic diction. [56] Yet the scholion prompts comparison with a remarkable Cypriot vase dated to the ninth or eighth century and discovered near Marion, bordering the kingdom of Paphos to the north (Figure 17). [57] One side shows a lyre-player seated, surrounded by quadrupeds like an Orpheus, and playing an instrument of at least six strings; that he is enthroned is suggested by the chair’s monumental proportions. The other side shows him (or a twin?) returning from the hunt, leading a captive bull; he carries a quiver of arrows on his back.
By what name would the painter have known this figure? Bow and lyre make the Classicist think first of Apollo. Yet the Greeks had no monopoly over this ancient idea. We have seen a probable example from Ugarit in the Tale of Aqhat. [58] There is also Kinyras’ syncretism with Kothar, Aqhat’s bow-maker. [59] The bow is besides an attribute of the WS god Resheph, who was equated with Apollo by Phoenician-Cypriots. [60] But a fourth-century bilingual inscription from Tamassos qualifies both Apollo and Resheph as ‘Alashiyan’, so that we must also assume a pre-Greek, pre-Phoenician figure whose powers overlapped with theirs. [61] The vase vividly illustrates the problem of isolating indigenous gods in the Cypriot iconographic record. It would be no less reckless to suppose that the painter intended Apollo and Apollo alone, than to insist upon seeing only Kinyras here. This situation is familiar from the many exotic titles born by Apollo on Cyprus from the Classical period onwards; for despite the diversity and strangeness of these epithets, the Cypriots themselves were evidently prepared to see one god with many faces. [62] The two that come most readily to mind in the present case are Hylátēs (the ‘woodsman’), attested from the fourth century; and of course Kenyristḗs. [63] And yet the vase is centuries older than the epigraphic evidence for Apollo’s insular cult-titles.
The ultimate age of the Olympian’s association with Kinyras cannot be determined; Pindar merely provides a terminus ante quem. It may have developed very early indeed, if Apollo was imported to the island during Aegean migration in the twelfth and eleventh centuries, when comparisons with pre-Greek divinities will have been quickly drawn. [64] While Apollo is not attested in Linear B, recent scholarship on his Anatolian background indicates that he was indeed of BA antiquity. [65] Certainly by the Archaic period Apollo was known on the island. His name is found in a sixth-century inscription fragment from Paphos (Rantidi). [66] And a seventh-century tripod dedicated by a Cypriot to Apollo at Delphi, along with other contemporary evidence for a Cypriot aristocratic presence there at this time, shows that the Olympian’s cult was influential on the island. [67] The laurel spray and eagles that appear on some fifth-century Paphian coins have been interpreted as Apollonian symbols, and later fifth-century types from Marion seem to show Apollo’s head accompanied by the king’s name. [68]
Given this early evidence, and Apollo’s traditional guise as lyre-player, his identification or association with Kinyras surely goes back into the Archaic period—whether the connection was made by Aegean Greeks seeking to understand the peculiarities of Cypriot cult, Greek-Cypriots under Panhellenizing influence, or both. [69]

Singing ‘about’ Kinyras

While the ancient suggestion that Apollo loved Kinyras “as a musician” is in itself too bland to inspire much confidence, another scholiast makes a crucial contribution:
[Kinyras] was loved by the god because he [Kinyras] was celebrated in song by musicians. [70]
This could hardly have been inferred from the poem alone, for Pindar’s “Cypriots’ songs” suggests pandemic reverence, not the narrower customs of musicians. [71] But of course the latter group will have been essential in practice. The musicians’ Kinyras is therefore a genuine tradition. Once this is appreciated, Apollo’s affection for Kinyras becomes readily intelligible, just as the scholiast saw. [72] And because Kinyras enjoyed his musical praise in a formal cultic setting, his honors were akin to those of a god.
Let us reexamine the passage with this in mind. First, one may read amphí in its literal spatial sense (‘around, about’), and so interpret the Cypriot praise-songs as those of a festival chorus of traditional circular shape, with ‘Kinyras’ in the center. In early Greek choral lyric, this was the position typically occupied by the musician, sometimes at an altar, whose playing led the dance. [73] The arrangement is seen in many Cypriot terracotta figure-groups, probably going back to the pre-Greek period. [74] Pindar’s allusion to choral space was caught by one scholiast: “The hymns of the Cypriots often dance around (perí) Kinyras”. [75] Note that hýmnos (drawn from the poet’s own text) is properly used of divine praise-songs, typically to the lyre in Apollonian contexts; and that perí permits the same ambiguity between ‘about’ and ‘around’ as amphí. [76] As noted above, Pindar’s parallel with the Locrian maidens makes it very likely that female choruses are imagined here, just what one finds in the Cypro-Phoenician bowls, the Hubbard amphora, and other Cypriot representations, where again a circle dance is assumed. [77]
It is equally possible to connect amphí + DN with a regular device of early Greek lyre-poetics, describing the god ‘about’ whom one is singing. Several examples from Homer and the Homeric hymns show that the phrase had general application. [78] Yet the professional interests of kithára-singers (kitharōidoí) meant that Apollo was so invoked especially often. This led to the semi-technical expression amphianaktízein for the act of calling upon ‘Lord’ (ánax) Apollo at a musical outset—a protocol so standard that kitharōidoí became known as amphiánaktes. [79] Such an epicletic force to amphí in our Pindar passage is made perfectly possible by keladéonti (‘resound’), which, referring basically to the production of loud sound, commonly described celebratory singing addressed to god, hero, or man, especially in citharodic contexts. [80]
I suggest therefore that amphì Kinýran both gives the subject of the “Cypriots’ songs,” and evokes the lyric environment in which they transpired. This would provide an attractive context for Apollonios of Rhodes’ amphì kinȳrómenai, which several ancient lexica construed as a compound verb, “play music, sing,” deriving it “from the kinýra.” [81] While this word/expression, like the simple kinȳ́resthai, just as readily connotes ‘lament’, I have argued that the Apollonios passage is purposefully ambivalent between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ connotations, reflecting the two main performance moods of the kinýra. [82] The same duality would readily apply to songs about Kinyras himself, since the Cypriot king, as father of Adonis and many other ill-fated children, was well qualified to bestow or receive lyric-laments (see Chapter 12). Note that Pindar’s keladéonti, translated above as ‘sing’, is also found of mournful outcries. [83]
The proposed semantic duality, with the “Cypriots’ songs” both about Kinyras and performed around Kinyras, is harmonized by the lyrist himself who, by singing hymns about a god, leads an encircling chorus in bringing that power into the space they circumscribe. [84] (The audience creates a second concentric circle.) It is a mimetic ritual where the performer, in the Aegean, ‘played Apollo’—whose most familiar guise, after all, was kitharōidós. Such enactments must have been seen as sufficiently magical for kitharōidoí like Terpandros and Arion to perform the civic catharses and city-foundation rituals that are surprisingly abundant in Greek legend, music-historiography, and other sources. [85]
Pindar implies a comparable conception of ritual performance on Cyprus, where the distinction between ‘Kinyras’ and ‘kinyrist’ vanishes. This idea is corroborated by further implications of “our kenyristḗs Apollo.” As Cayla rightly stresses, the epithet adheres to a well-attested pattern of agent-words in -stēs/-stas or -dēs/-das and verbs in -zein built upon divine names and cult-titles, and relating to cultic societies that celebrated the root-figure. Many such groups are found in Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman-era inscriptions. [86] From Cyprus itself one may note Damatrízein (glossed by Hesykhios as “to gather in the fruit of Demeter”); [87] and the Basiliastaí (‘Celebrants of the King’, perhaps garrison soldiers) attested at Old Paphos and Lapethos in connection with the Ptolemaic ruler cult in the early first century. [88]
A Kenyristḗs Apollo can therefore be not only a kinýra-player but “un fidèle de Kinyras, qui honore Kinyras, qui participe au culte de Kinyras.” [89] It is no great leap to see this Apollo as embodying the function of the Kinyradai of Paphos. [90] There are strong parallels with various musical ‘clans’ from the Greek world: ‘Musaists’ (Mousaïstaí) of Rhodes and Macedonia; [91] the Homeridai of Chios and the Kreophylidai of Samos, well-known rhapsode-guilds; [92] and especially lyre-clans like the ‘motherless’ Ametorídai (purveyors of erotic kithára-songs in the context of Cretan rites-of-passage), [93] and the Eumolpidai of Eleusis and the Euneidai at Athens. [94] There are also the Thamyríddontes (< *thamyríddein = *thamyrízein) of an early fourth-century inscription from Thespiai in Boeotia. [95] These functionaries, probably not a standing body but periodically appointed, [96] clearly evoke Thamyris (or Thamyras), the legendary lyre-singer who was blinded for rivaling the Muses (a myth perhaps representing a competing regional tradition, or epic competition itself). [97] They evidently presided over a “hero-cult for Thamyris himself in the valley of the Muses.” [98]
This argument for kenyristḗs Apollo as “the one who celebrates Kinyras” is not incompatible with a concurrent interpretation as the ‘kinýra-player’. [99] A kinyrist venerated Kinyras precisely by playing the instrument from which the Cypriot king took his name. The title recalls our attention to the lyre itself—just as the Ugaritian pantheon text makes plain, through its determinatives, that Kinnaru’s flesh was wood. [100] This conflation accords perfectly with the phenomenon of divinized instruments. One effected the god’s epiphany by playing the kinýra in the appropriate ritual setting and so assuming the role of kenyristḗs—of Kinyras himself. He thereby gives voice to, and receives it from, the instrument, which is thus as central to the celebration as its player. If we seem to have come a long way from Pindar, recall the apostrophe of Pythian 1, where the lyre is virtually personified and celebrated for powers one might rather attribute to the lyrist:
Golden phórminx—Apollo’s and the dark-tressed
Muses’ joint possession—whom the dance-step heeds, the beginning of festivity,
And singers obey your signs
When thrumming you fashion beginnings of chorus-leading preludes. [101]
Only change phórminx to kinýra and one arrives at a fundamental aspect of the Cypriot celebrations “about Kinyras” to which Pindar alludes.

Caught in the Act: Two Model Shrines

The idea of ‘Kinyras in performance’ becomes much more tangible when confronted with the rich music iconography of Cyprus, which extends our chronological horizons far beyond the literary record. We may begin with two model-shrines showing lyre-players in clear cult contexts. [102] Both pieces are thoroughly Cypriot, incorporating older stylistic elements going back to comparable LBA specimens of both the Levant and Aegean. Their provenance is unknown, with no compelling reason to assume a special Paphian connection. [103] After all, the goddess had many other cult centers throughout the island—Amathous, Kition, Golgoi, Idalion, Tamassos, Lapethos, and Salamis, to cite only the more prominent. [104] The models therefore indicate that hieratic lyre-playing was a general feature of Cypriot cult.
The presence of ‘Aphrodite’ is especially clear in the first model, from perhaps the seventh century (Figure 18). [105] At the center of this complex composition is a tapering, fenestrated pillar surmounted by birds. Its general shape evokes the aniconic representation of the Paphian goddess that appears on coins of the Roman era (also apparently adorned with birds, perhaps representing sculpted ornaments). [106] The pillar’s identification as a ‘dove-cote’ [107] lets it be confidently linked with ‘Aphrodite’, whose sacred birds are well known. [108] This conforms to a wider regional pattern, which Lucian also attests for his ‘Syrian Goddess’ of Hierapolis (Manbog), in whose cult doves were held to be sacred or even divine. [109] On Cyprus, they are linked to Kinyras himself through the aetiological myth of Peleia/Pelia. [110]
franklin fig18
Figure 18. Model shrine with dancers and lyrist. Unprovenanced (seventh century?), Louvre AO 22.221. Drawn from Ridder 1908 pl. 20.106 and CAAC IV pl. LXXVII:9.
Four figures have been placed around the pillar. Three dancers occupy half the perimeter, facing the shrine. Opposite is a lyrist, whose back is to the pillar. Yet he stands so close that his ‘interest’ in it is clear, and this is reinforced by a cauldron at his side, presumably containing an offering. The configuration has several effects. First, the pillar-shrine is clearly the primary object of adoration. Yet the lyrist himself enjoys secondary focus, since, with his back to the dancers, and indeed the pillar itself, they become background for his performance. He controls the viewer’s entrance into the cultic circle—a Master of Choral Ceremonies who mediates between ‘audience’ and god.
franklin fig19
Figure 19. Model shrine with lyrist and spectators. Unprovenanced (eleventh–seventh century), Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. B 220.1935. Drawn from Boardman 1971 pl. XVII.1–V.
The second model has been variously dated between the eleventh and seventh centuries (Figure 19). [111] It is a rounded, rectangular house-shrine, with three windows, damaged door, and missing roof. Against one of the inner walls sits the lyre-player. Near the opposite wall is a broken stump, probably the base of an offerings table. Two rough figures on the outer walls peer through window and door, as though glimpsing a sacred mystery; two more have been lost, and another probably peeked through a vent above. [112] Their collective gaze shows that here too the object of veneration is the shrine itself and the deity for whom it stands. [113] But the composition, like that of the pillar-shrine, serves to isolate the lyrist within a sacred space, which he alone is worthy to enter.
In both scenes then the lyrist is a secondary focus, so that while he is as an intermediary to the divine, his own numinosity must not be underestimated. Boardman aptly applied the Homeric expression ‘divine singer’ (theîos aoidós) to these musicians:
His isolation with the table in the Nicosia model, his place in the de Clercq model and the generally religious association of all the other models mentioned, may lend support to his identification either as divine or as an important servant or familiar of the deity … The lyre player lacks a name still, but perhaps this too will one day be revealed in the island or the east (my emphasis). [114]
It was left to Mlynarczyk to connect these shrines with Kinyras and the Paphian kings in their role of “High Priest of the Queen.” [115] But we must not forget Boardman’s intuition about the lyrist’s own divinity.


[ back ] 1. Kinyras is probably understood as Aphrodite’s lover here (Woodbury 1978:285n3), cf. Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 2.14 (ἡ Κινύρᾳ φίλη κτλ), 2.33 (Ἀφροδίτη δὲ ἐπ’ Ἄρει κατῃσχυμμένη μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ Κινύραν κτλ).
[ back ] 2. So Farnell 1896–1909 4:245.
[ back ] 3. See Lloyd-Jones 1973:117–118, with reference to the theories and classifications of the Alexandrian scholars (preserved in the Σ) and the extensive secondary literature. The proposed dates range from 477 to 468, with the majority of scholars divided between 470 (Pythian games) and 468 (Olympics).
[ back ] 4. See e.g. Bowra 1964:135–136 (from the slanderers mentioned in 72–82, 89–92, and the Σ relating to Bakkhylides). The controversy, well reviewed by Gantz 1978, Woodbury 1978, and Currie 2005:258–295, need not be rehearsed here.
[ back ] 5. So Lloyd-Jones 1973:126–127, very forcefully. See generally Kurke 1991:218–224.
[ back ] 6. For χάρις in Pindar, Bundy 1962:86–91 (on εὐεργεσία); Nagy 1990:65–66n72 (“a beautiful and pleasurable compensation, through song or poetry, for a deed deserving glory … [kháris] conveys both the beauty (‘grace’) and the pleasure (‘gratification’) of reciprocity”) et passim; Kurke 1991:154–156 (“that force which creates community, which links the victor to the gods, his family, his aristocratic group, and the poet,” 155). Xάρις in this poem: Schadewaldt 1928:328–330; Lloyd-Jones 1973:119, 121n72; Bell 1984:5–7; Kurke 1991:98, 111–112.
[ back ] 7. Kinyras is connected with χάρις by Homer Iliad 11.19–23 (χαριζόμενος, 23), the relationship with Agamemnon being further developed in the Kypria’s terracotta fleet episode (see Chapter 14); also Alkman 3.71 PMGF (νοτία Κινύρα χ[άρ]ις), for which see p1, 330.
[ back ] 8. For the double-dealing Kinyras, see p343–346; for Kinyras and Myrrha, p282–289. The phrases quoted are used of Ixion and the cloud and the birth of Kentauros. For the contrast of Kinyras/χάρις and Ixion/ἄνευ Χαρίτων, Gantz 1978; Bell 1984:11–14; Brillante 1995:33–34; Redfield 2003:415. For the Kharites/Graces as personifications of χάρις, Nagy 1990:206.
[ back ] 9. Pindar Nemean 8.19–22, with Σ and Giuffrida 1996:292. Cf. below p223n30.
[ back ] 10. My translation follows observations by Woodbury 1978 on the nuances of κτίλον (285–286 and n3). Morpurgo 1960, followed by Currie 2005:277–283, interpreted Pindar’s κτίλον literally as ‘ram’, instead of (or in addition to) its derived sense of ‘beloved’ (cf. Σ 31: κτίλον Ἀφροδίτης οἱονεὶ σύνθρεμμα καὶ συνήθη τῇ θεῷ). This idea was rejected by Lloyd-Jones 1973:119n59, overlooking however the fleece-clad priests mentioned by John Lydus (On the Months 4.65, discussed by Currie) who, writing in the sixth century CE, gave an antiquarian description of the old Adōniá at Paphos. The details are too abstruse to be pure invention. During a sacrifice of sheep the priests would (apparently) dress in fleeces; wild pigs were also slaughtered, a choice which the author relates to Adonis’ death at the tusks of the boar. Note also that early coins from the reign of Euagoras of Salamis, who claimed descent from Kinyras, depict a ram on the reverse: BMC Cyprus:c, cii and pl. XI.8–11.
[ back ] 11. Pindar Pythian 2.13–20: ἄλλοις δέ τις ἐτέλεσσεν ἄλλος ἀνήρ / εὐαχέα βασιλεῦσιν ὕμνον ἄποιν’ ἀρετᾶς. / κελαδέοντι μὲν ἀμφὶ Κινύραν πολλάκις / φᾶμαι Κυπρίων, τὸν ὁ χρυσοχαῖτα προφρόνως ἐφίλησ’ Ἀπόλλων, / ἱερέα κτίλον Ἀφροδίτας· ἄγει δὲ χάρις φίλων ποί τινος ἀντὶ ἔργων ὀπιζομένα· / σὲ δ’, ὦ Δεινομένειε παῖ, Ζεφυρία πρὸ δόμων / Λοκρὶς παρθένος ἀπύει, πολεμίων καμάτων ἐξ ἀμαχάνων / διὰ τεὰν δύναμιν δρακεῖσ’ ἀσφαλές.
[ back ] 12. Currie 2005:258–295, with a thorough review of the secondary literature.
[ back ] 13. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.36bc, 38; Justin Epitome 21.3.
[ back ] 14. For a good survey of archaeological work conducted at Locri, and the history and identification of the cult-structures, see Redfield 2003:207–223; cf. Bellia 2012, with references in 21n6.
[ back ] 15. Following Woodbury 1978, especially 291–292. The main sources for ‘sacred prostitution’ in connection with Paphos and Kinyras are Christian and polemical. First and foremost is Clement of Alexandria Exhortation 2.13.4–5: “The Cypriot islander Kinyras would never beguile me—he who dared transmit from night to day the lustful orgies of Aphrodite, eagerly hoping to deify a prostitute, one of his citizens” (Οὐ γάρ με ὁ Κύπριος ὁ νησιώτης Κινύρας παραπείσαι ποτ’ ἄν, τὰ περὶ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην μαχλῶντα ὄργια ἐκ νυκτὸς ἡμέρᾳ παραδοῦναι τολμήσας, φιλοτιμούμενος θειάσαι πόρνην πολίτιδα); repeated verbatim by Eusebios Preparation for the Gospel 2.3.12, 15; cf. Firmicus Maternus On the Error of Profane Religions 10.1.
[ back ] 16. See now Budin 2008, who argues that all relevant passages constitute so many historiographical myths going back ultimately to Herodotos, who is himself given a liar-school interpretation; Near Eastern references (she holds) have been alleged by those seeking confirmation of Herodotos. Leaving aside the dubious Christian polemics relating to Kinyras (see n15), I am not fully convinced by her account (210–239) of other evidence for Cyprus (Herodotos 1.199.5; Klearkhos fr. 43a Wehrli = Athenaios 515e; Justin Epitome 18.5). In particular recall that Klearkhos was himself from Cypriot Soloi (rightly stressed by Currie 2005:283). Moreover Budin’s proposed “neutral” translation of Justin (239) leaves unexplained exactly how the dowry money was to be earned. For a good response to Budin’s treatment of the ANE material—in which Cyprus must be included—see Bonnet 2009.
[ back ] 17. Bellia 2012:21–22 further relates Pindar’s sketch to cultic and performance realities at Locri.
[ back ] 18. See p258–272.
[ back ] 19. See Chapter 16.
[ back ] 20. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.27b: διαπορεῖται δὲ, τί δή ποτε εἰς τοὺς τοῦ Ἱέρωνος ἐπαίνους τὸν Κινύραν προσῆκται, εἰ μὴ ὅτι ταῖν θεοῖν ἱεροφάντης ἀπεδέδεικτο· Δεινομένους γὰρ υἱεῖς εἰσιν οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἱέρωνα τοῦ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐκ Τριοπίου [ἐκ τριοπίας, GQ; αὐτροπίου, EF; ἐκ τριόπου, P; ἐκ τριόπης, C] τῆς Κύπρου εἰς Σικελίαν κομίσαντος … ἢ οὕτως· εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες τὸν Δεινομένην τὸν πατέρα Ἱέρωνος ἀνέκαθεν Κύπριον· διὸ νῦν εὐλόγως γράφων εἰς τὸν Ἱέρωνα μέμνηται Κινύρου. Cf. Σ in Abel 1891: ὁ τοῦ Ἱέρωνος πατὴρ Δεινομένης τὸ ἀνέκαθεν Κύπριος ἦν.
[ back ] 21. The point is obscured by textual corruption (see previous note), as no site called Triopios is known on Cyprus: see Bell 1984:6–7 with literature in n17; Cannavo 2011:419. For other attempts to explain the connection of Deinomenes and Cyprus, see Giuffrida 1996:294–301, with further references.
[ back ] 22. Σ Pindar Olympian 6.158a. Bell 1984:6–7 and n17; Currie 2005:283; Cannavo 2011:419. Note Cypriot Aphrodite’s identification with Demeter: p287n46, 396n133.
[ back ] 23. Schadewaldt 1928:328; Lloyd-Jones 1973:119–120; Parry 1982:30–32.
[ back ] 24. Pindar Pythian 2.58: πρύτανι κύριε πολλᾶν μὲν εὐστεφάνων ἀγυιᾶν καὶ στρατοῦ. For the parallelism between the two islands and rulers, Gildersleeve 1907:258; Schadewaldt 1928:328. For the Golden Age of the blessed, virtuous Kinyras, see further Chapter 13.
[ back ] 25. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.27 (Abel 1891): τὸ δὲ κελαδέοντι εἶπεν ἢ ὡς ἀρχηγέτην τῆς νήσου, ἢ ὡς βασιλέα αὐτῆς εὐδαιμονέστατον καὶ μείζω τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ γενόμενον.
[ back ] 26. See p326–330.
[ back ] 27. Pindar Nemean 8.17–18: ὄλβος … / ὅσπερ καὶ Κινύραν ἔβρισε πλούτῳ ποντίᾳ ἔν ποτε Κύπρῳ.
[ back ] 28. Herodotos 7.158.
[ back ] 29. For Gelon’s naval program, including probable maneuvers around the battle of Himera in 480, see Dunbabin 1948:419–426.
[ back ] 30. Kinyras stands at the climax of a sequence of thought that progresses by the following stages: an invocation of “Youth, the herald of Aphrodite’s immortal love-encounters” (Ὥρα πότνια, κάρυξ Ἀφροδίτας ἀμβροσιᾶν φιλοτάτων, 1); the “better loves” (τῶν ἀρειόνων ἐρώτων) which one attains by “not straying from due season” (καιροῦ μὴ πλαναθέντα … ἐπικρατεῖν, 4–5); such loves, the “shepherds of Kypria’s gifts” (ποιμένες … / Κυπρίας δώρων), attended the bed of Zeus and Aigina (6–7); consequently their son Aiakos and all his line (including by implication the honorand) enjoyed the same long-lasting good fortune as Kinyras (7–18). The circuit is closed by Kinyras’ own “immortal loves” with Aphrodite (cf. Giuffrida 1996, 292). Given the context of encroaching sexual maturity and the exhortation to age-appropriate decisions, the specter of Kinyras and Myrrha is probably in the background—an ominous reminder of paths not to be chosen: cf. p220.
[ back ] 31. See Parry 1982:32 on Pythian 2.56: τὸ πλουτεῖν δὲ σὺν τύχᾳ πότμου σοφίας ἄριστον (“to be wealthy by the good fortune of one’s divine fate is wisdom’s best [sc. result vel sim.].” Although the sentiment is somewhat obscurely deployed here, its application to Hieron (rather than the poet himself) seems guaranteed by the sequel: see the reading of Lloyd-Jones 1973:121–122. For extra-Pindaric parallels: Henry 2005 ad loc.
[ back ] 32. Pindar Pythian 2.58–61.
[ back ] 33. Pap.Oxy. 1795.32 (Lyrica Adespota 37 CA): ὄλβιος ἦν ὁ Μίδας, τρὶς δ’ ὄλβιος ἦν ὁ Κινύρας. For further sources, p323n10.
[ back ] 34. Κινύρου πλουσιώτερος: Suda s.v. καταγηρᾶσαι; Appendix Proverbiorum 4.68.
[ back ] 35. Differently Currie 2005:293–294, who argues for divine overtones in the poet’s treatment of Hieron: “The implications of the simple collocation of Kinyras and Hieron at 15–20 thus seem to have become bolder: now not even Kinyras (or any other hero of myth) could claim to outdo Hieron.”
[ back ] 36. Pindar Pythian 1.92–98.
[ back ] 37. Pindar Pythian 2.67–71: τόδε μὲν κατὰ Φοίνισσαν ἐμπολάν / μέλος ὑπὲρ πολιᾶς ἁλὸς πέμπεται· / τὸ Καστόρειον δ’ ἐν Αἰολίδεσσι χορδαῖς θέλων / ἄθρησον χάριν ἑπτακτύπου / φόρμιγγος ἀντόμενος.
[ back ] 38. Kurke 1991:49–61, 198; Segal 1998, Chapter 10, gives a detailed reading of the motif as developed in Nemean 5.
[ back ] 39. Bowra 1964:135–136; cf. Gentili 1992:52.
[ back ] 40. See p317, 345. Compare Bakkhylides’ and Korrina’s use of ‘Phoenician’ to mean ‘Carian’ (Athenaios 174f), and consider the substantial Phoenician population which had long been present on Cyprus itself.
[ back ] 41. Cf. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.27e: ἡ δὲ ἀνταπόδοσις τοῦ λόγου αὕτη· περὶ μὲν τὸν Κινύραν οἱ τῶν Κυπρίων ὕμνοι, περὶ δὲ σὲ ὁ ἐμὸς καὶ τῶν Συρακουσίων. Similarly Σ 2.32: προευεργετηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἱέρωνος νῦν ἀμείβεται αὐτὸν τοῖς ὕμνοις καὶ ἐγκωμίοις.
[ back ] 42. Cf. Gentili 1992:52–53, who notes also χαῖρε in 67.
[ back ] 43. Cf. 62–63: εὐανθέα δ’ ἀναβάσομαι στόλον ἀμφ’ ἀρετᾷ / κελαδέων. Also noted by Currie 2005:293, with different emphasis.
[ back ] 44. Note too the poet as unsinkable cork (80). The Καστόρειον is evidently to be connected with fr. 105–106: see Gentili 1992, with 54–55 for possible generic nuances of Kastor-song. The Dioskouroi’s role as patrons of sailors (GR:213) is probably relevant. Their cult on Cyprus is known from the loyalty oath to Tiberius (see p205). They are also called κιθαρισταὶ ἀοιδοί by Theokritos Idylls 22.24 (see p480n126); the fifth-century currency of this detail is seen in a red-figure hydria by the Kadmos Painter (ca. 430–420 BCE: SIAG:74, fig.7), for which, and the Theokritos passage generally, see now Power 2010:282–285.
[ back ] 45. See Currie 2005:275 and n84, with Pindaric parallels.
[ back ] 46. Cayla 2001:74, with the parallels Erekhtheus + Athena > Poseidon-Erekhtheus; Hyakinthos + Artemis > Apollo Hyakinthios. For Apollo and his rivals, see p189–190.
[ back ] 47. Farnell 1930–1932 2:122 (“Pindar’s statement that Apollo also loved him points to the contemporary prevalence in Cyprus of music associated with Kinuras [sic]”); Bell 1984:6 (“cultic community”); Karageorghis 1988:182n6. Hero-cult as productive of mythmaking: Nagy 1979:304–305 and n4 (vis-à-vis Arkhilokhos). For other hero-cults connected with legendary priest-kings, interred within a deity’s temple, see Pfister 1909–1912:450–459 passim (for Kinyras/Kinyradai, 295 [as city founder], 303 [as royal ancestor], 452–453); Farnell 1921:17; West 1966:428; Currie 2005:275 and sources in n86.
[ back ] 48. For Kinyras’ family ‘cycle’, see p280–291 and Chapter 14. Cf. Σ Pindar Nemean 8.32c: πολλαὶ οὖν, φησί, περὶ τοῦ Κινύρου καταβέβληνται ἱστορίαι καὶ διάφοροι.
[ back ] 49. LSJ s.v. φήμη I.1–3; Woodbury 1978:294–297 especially n31; Kurke 1991:124n46.
[ back ] 50. Cf. Pindar Olympian 7.10–12, etc.; of external parallels, note especially Aiskhylos Suppliants 694–697: εὔφημον δ’ ἐπὶ βωμοῖς / μοῦσαν θείατ’ ἀοιδοί, ἁγνῶν τ’ ἐκ στομάτων φερέσθω φήμα φιλοφόρμιγξ.
[ back ] 51. Cf. Gantz 1978:17–18; Bell 1984:6; Currie 2005:284.
[ back ] 52. See p187, 189–192.
[ back ] 53. Kinyras appears in Clement of Rome’s catalogue of Apollo’s lovers (Homilies 5.15.2; PG 2:184C–185D): Ἀπόλλων Κινύρου, Ζακύνθου, Ὑακίνθου, Φόρβαντος, Ὕλα, Ἀδμήτου, Κυπαρίσσου, Ἀμύκλα, Τρωίλου, Βράγχου, ?Τυμναίου [i.e. Ὑμεναίου?], Πάρου, Ποτνιέως, Ὀρφέως.
[ back ] 54. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.27a: ἦν δὲ οὗτος Ἀπόλλωνος υἱός. See further p410. Apollo is also Kinyras’ father in Σ Theokritos Idylls 1.109; Hesykhios s.v. Κινύρας. For the Kinyrad descent of Euagoras of Salamis, see p351–359.
[ back ] 55. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.30g (Abel 1891): ἢ ὡς τοξικὸν ἢ ὡς μουσικόν.
[ back ] 56. Homer Odyssey 21.406–411; Homeric Hymn to Apollo 131; Homeric Hymn to Hermes 515; cf. Herakleitos 22 B 51 DK; Plato Kratylos 404e–405d; Kallimakhos Hymns 2.42–46; Diodoros Siculus 5.74.5; innumerable later instances, especially in poetry. The two ‘instruments’ share the same principle of construction; their historical kinship (HMI:56–57) is reflected in Greek vocabulary, both having ‘arms’ or ‘horns’, ‘yoke’, and string (πήχεις/κέρατα, ζυγόν, χορδή). See further Kirk 1954:207–209; Franklin 2002b:2–5; Franklin 2003:297–301.
[ back ] 57. White painted ware krater (CG III) in private collection, dated ca. 850–750 by Karageorghis 1980b (giving the number of strings as five—but examine them just under the crossbar); stylistically it is very close to SB.1 and SI.1 in CCSF Supplément:6–17.
[ back ] 58. See p131–134.
[ back ] 59. See Chapter 18.
[ back ] 60. Lipinski 2009:104–108.
[ back ] 61. ICS 216. See p372.
[ back ] 62. Cult-titles of Apollo on Cyprus include (besides Alasiṓtas) Amyklaîos (see p372n6), Hylátēs, Kaîsar, Keraiátēs, Kýprios, Lakeutḗs, Mageírios, Melánthios, Myrtátēs. See with further references HC:80–81; Mitford 1961a:116, 134; Glover 1981; Cayla 2005:227n1.
[ back ] 63. See further p204–213.
[ back ] 64. See generally Dietrich 1978. Apollo Keraiátēs (‘Horned Apollo’) has been adduced as an import, because Apollo was known under such a title in Arcadia (Kereátas, Pausanias 8.34.5): see e.g. Karageorghis 1998:32, noting that Apollo was worshipped as a god of sheep and cattle at Kourion by the eighth or seventh century (cf. Hadjioannou 1971:40, also affirmative). Yet there is the counter-example of a cult of Paphian Aphrodite at Tegea, which obviously originated in Cyprus, probably in some kind of reciprocal action following the EIA migrations: see further p364–365. Others would explain Keraiátēs in light of the famous Horned God of Enkomi, itself exemplifying a widespread ANE pattern of divine representation: see p396n134.
[ back ] 65. This question will be treated in detail by Bachvarova forthcoming.
[ back ] 66. I.Rantidi 14; ICS 39 (cf. 40–41, 43–44); DGAC:780 no. 237.
[ back ] 67. The evidence for Cypriots at Delphi down into the Roman period is collected by Pouilloux 1976, to which one should add the case of the (sixth-century?) lyre-singer Stesandros/Stasandros (see p211). Apollo Pýthios is attested at the sanctuary of Apollo Hylátēs at Kourion (I.Kourion 41, late third century BCE). Note also that a connection between Kinyras and Delos may be implied by the myth of ‘Melus’: see p290.
[ back ] 68. Paphos: BMC Cyprus:lxviii–lxxiv; Marion: BMC Cyprus:lviii and pl. XX.5–6; Head et al. 1911:739.
[ back ] 69. But this need not contradict Cayla’s hypothesis that Nikokles of Paphos introduced an Apollo-Kenyristḗs alongside Apollo-Hylátēs when founding New Paphos in the fourth century: Cayla 2005:235–238; see further p410.
[ back ] 70. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.31b: οὐχ ὅτι ἐρώμενος Ἀπόλλωνος ὁ Κινύρας· ἀλλ’ ἀγαπᾶσθαί φησιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὸ ἐγκωμιάζεσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν μουσικῶν. For the musical dimension of ἐγκωμιάζεσθαι, cf. LSJ s.v. ἐγκώμιος, ΙΙ.2 (ἐγκώμιον, ‘laudatory ode’), noting that a group performance (κῶμος), i.e. choral, may also be implied.
[ back ] 71. Jager 2000:270 (following Zarmas 1975:10–11) states without argument that Pindar considered Kinyras a κιθάρα-player (sic), by tacitly combining the Pindaric scholia with Eustathios’ etymology of Kinyras < κινύρα, and imputing both ideas to the poet himself. I agree with the overall result; but the treatment of sources here and throughout is cavalier.
[ back ] 72. Cf. Farnell 1930–1932 2:122.
[ back ] 73. A circle-dance is often described by χορεύειν + ἀμφί or περί; note also the compounds ἀμφιχορεύειν and περιχορεύειν. A vivid citharodic example is Euripides Alkestis 583: χόρευσε δ’ ἀμφὶ σὰν κιθάραν, of Apollo; the arrangement is also readily inferred for Homeric Hymn to Apollo 194–203. Perhaps the most detailed performative sketch is the much-discussed Pratinas PMG 708 (although this concerns the αὐλός).
[ back ] 74. See p242.
[ back ] 75. Σ Pindar Pythian 2.27d: χορεύουσι μὲν περὶ τὸν Κινύραν πολλάκις οἱ τῶν Κυπρίων ὕμνοι.
[ back ] 76. Ὕμνος developed a special connection with praise of gods and heroes by the Classical period: see especially Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. ὕμνος; Furley and Bremer 2001 1:9–14, with Appendix C for the link to lyre-music (cf. e.g. Pindar Olympian 2.1: ἀναξιφόρμιγγες ὕμνοι).
[ back ] 77. See p222, 236–237, 256, 262, etc.
[ back ] 78. The construction, which takes both genitive and accusative, may be seen in Homer Odyssey 8.267: ἀμφ’ Ἄρεος φιλότητος ἀείδειν; Homeric Hymn 7.1–2: Ἀμφὶ Διώνυσον Σεμέλης ἐρικυδέος υἱὸν / μνήσομαι; 19.1: Ἀμφί μοι Ἑρμείαο φίλον γόνον ἔννεπε Μοῦσα; 22.1: Ἀμφὶ Ποσειδάωνα θεὸν μέγαν ἄρχομ’ ἀείδειν; 33.1: Ἀμφὶ Διὸς κούρους ἑλικώπιδες ἔσπετε Μοῦσαι (Dioskouroi). See further Power 2010:194–195. Pindar usually makes the object praised accusative without preposition: Pindar Olympian 1.9–10, 2.2, 6.88, 10.79–81, Pythian 11.10, Nemean 9.54, Isthmian 1.52–54. But the prepositional complement is paralleled by Pythian 2.62–63 (κελαδεῖν + ἀμφί + dative) and Isthmian 5.47–48 (κελαδεῖν + περί + genitive), and after all accords with the traditional syntax.
[ back ] 79. The key evidence comes from the Suda s.v. ἀμφιανακτίζειν, defining it as τὸ προοιμιάζειν. διὰ τὸ οὕτω προοιμιάζεσθαι (“to sing a prelude, from preludes being so sung”). See further Gostoli 1990:49–50; Power 2010:194–195; Franklin 2013:221–222.
[ back ] 80. Cf. Woodbury 1978:294–5n30. For ‘positive, citharodic’ κελαδέω, a few further examples may suffice: the invocation of Apollo attributed to Terpandros (σοὶ δ’ ἡμεῖς … / ἑπτατόνῳ φόρμιγγι νέους κελαδήσομεν ὕμνους, Terpandros 4 [Gostoli]); Pindar Olympian 2.1–2 (Ἀναξιφόρμιγγες ὕμνοι, / τίνα θεόν, τίν’ ἥρωα, τίνα δ’ ἄνδρα κελαδήσομεν, which gives the range of usual praise-objects), cf. Olympian 10.79–81; Euripides Iphigeneia among the Taurians 1129, cf. Herakles 694.
[ back ] 81. Apollonios of Rhodes 1.882–883; Etymologicum Genuinum s.v. ἀμφικινυρόμεναι· Ἀπολλώνιος. κινυρόμεναι· μέλπουσαι, ᾄδουσαι· ἀπὸ τῆς κινύρας; similarly Etymologicum Symeonis, Etymologicum Magnum s.v. See further p200n73.
[ back ] 82. See p200–201 and further Chapter 12.
[ back ] 83. Pindar fr. 128eb.7 (threnodic context); Aiskhylos Seven against Thebes 866–870 (ed. Page), especially τὸν δυσκέλαδόν θ’ ὕμνον Ἐρινύος ἀχεῖν Ἀίδα τ’ / ἐχθρὸν παιᾶν’ ἐπιμέλπειν; cf. Libation Bearers 609 (of a baby’s cry); Euripides Iphigeneia among the Taurians 1089–1093 (of the halycon’s lamenting song); Hel. 371 (formal lament for war-dead); Cyclops 489–490 (κέλαδον μουσιζόμενος / … κλαυσόμενος).
[ back ] 84. This idea is inherent in the citharodic epicletic formula itself. The basic version associated with Terpandros (fl. ca. 675, and credited with traditional practices of unknowable antiquity) permits two simultaneous readings: 1) Let my heart for me again sing about the far-shooting Lord; 2) Round about me let my heart sing again the far-shooting Lord (ἀμφ’ ἐμοὶ αὖτις ἄναχθ’ ἑκατηβόλον ἀειδέτω φρήν, Terpandros 2 Gostoli = Suda s.v. ἀμφιανακτίζειν). The viability of the second interpretation is confirmed by a skillful Aristophanic pastiche in the parabasis of Clouds. The antode begins by invoking Apollo with a spare adaptation of the citharodic formula—“(Be) around for me once again, Lord Phoebus” (Clouds 595: ἀμφί μοι αὖτε, Φοιβ’ ἄναξ κτλ)—where the absence of any explicit verb, and the appearance of “ánax Phoebus” in the vocative rather than nominative case, requires amphí to bear the full weight of invocation with its literal spatial force. The antode’s three further invocations (of other junior Olympians) all depend upon this opening construction.
[ back ] 85. See generally Franklin 2006a, especially 52–62.
[ back ] 86. Besides the Adoniasts and Haliads of Rhodes (Cayla 2001:79–80), there were Ἀπολλωνιασταί, Ἀρτεμισιασταί, Ἀσκληπιασταί, Βακχισταί, Διονυσιασταί, Διοσσωτηριασταί, Διοσκουριασταί, Ἑστιασταί, Πανιασταί, Ποσειδωνιασταί, Πριαπισταί, Σαβαζιασταί, Σαραπιασταί, etc. (LSJ s.v.).
[ back ] 87. Hesykhios s.v. Δαματρίζειν· τὸ συνάγειν τὸν Δημητριακὸν καρπόν. This verb, which relates to the Cypriot goddess’s fertility aspect (see p287 and n46) probably does not predate the influx of Olympian names in the Classical and Hellenistic periods: Karageorghis 1988:191.
[ back ] 88. ExcCyp 124; HIOP 105; I.Paphos 82; cf. HC:185; Papantonio 2012:154; Fujii 2013:18n31. Other such royal-cult groups are known: Καισαριασταί, Ἀτταλισταί, Εὐμενισταί, et al.: see LSJ s.v.
[ back ] 89. Cayla 2005:229. Cf. GR 184 for other Apolline cult-titles deriving from festivals or ritual activities the god is imagined as doing (e.g. Daphnēphóros).
[ back ] 90. See p421–424.
[ back ] 91. Ialysos, Rhodes, third century: Carratelli 1939–1940:165–166 no. 19.24; IG XII.1, 680 (undated); Pieria, Macedonia, early second century: SEG 49:697.
[ back ] 92. Allen 1924:42–50; Burkert 1972b; West 2001:15–17.
[ back ] 93. Athenaios 638b, with Chaniotis 2013 §2.3; cf. Power 2010:373n164.
[ back ] 94. Burkert 1994; Cassio 2000; Power 2010:305, 364–367.
[ back ] 95. SEG 32:503 (genitive θαμυριδδόντων, line 2), ca. 400–350 BCE. Cf. Cayla 2001:79–80.
[ back ] 96. The present participle θαμυρίδδοντες (rather than *Θαμυριστᾶν) “indicates a temporary function, probably an office … they were the presidents of the association’s assembly” (A. Chaniotis, SEG 55:562).
[ back ] 97. Wilson 2009 has argued that this figure’s negative treatment by Homer and later authors was generically motivated, with Thamyris representing a rival regional tradition of considerable antiquity, closer perhaps to Aeolic lyric. Ford 1992:90–101 views the contest in terms of agonistic poetics and the singer’s relationship to the tradition (represented by the Muses).
[ back ] 98. Wilson 2009:51–52 (quotation), with additional evidence for a local cult of Thamyris in n17 (adding Clay 2004:87 and 153, and noting especially Durante 1971–1974 2:202); further observations in Power 2010:208–209. Wilson suggests that the name “probably combined the sense of ‘the gatherers’ with that of ‘Thamyrists’,” looking to Hesykhios s.v. θάμυρις· πανήγυρις, σύνοδος … καὶ ὁδοὺς θαμυρὰς τὰς λεωφόρους and s.v. θαμυρίζει· ἀθροίζει, συνάγει. That *θαμυρίζω may mean ‘celebrate the cult of Thamyris’ was recognized by P. Roesch (SEG 32:503). For a possible connection with Tacitus’ Tamiradae of Paphos, see p405–406.
[ back ] 99. As Cayla 2001:79, rightly notes.
[ back ] 100. RS 20.024, 31: see p5.
[ back ] 101. Pindar Pythian 1.1–4: Χρυσέα φόρμιγξ, Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ ἰοπλοκάμων / σύνδικον Μοισᾶν κτέανον· τᾶς ἀκούει μὲν βάσις ἀγλαΐας ἀρχά, / πείθονται δ’ ἀοιδοὶ σάμασιν / ἁγησιχόρων ὁπόταν προοιμίων ἀμβολὰς τεύχῃς ἐλελιζομένα. For the comparable personification in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, see p6n32. For Kallimakhos Hymns 2.18–21, see p318n233.
[ back ] 102. The careful description and initial observations of Boardman 1971 were brilliantly expanded by Mlynarczyk 1983, whose interpretation I develop here.
[ back ] 103. But note that Mlynarczyk 1983:113–115 does argue for dove-apertures in the architectural remains of the Paphos sanctuary, comparing those of the first model shrine (see below).
[ back ] 104. For these and numerous minor cult-places, see Kypris.
[ back ] 105. Louvre AO 22.221: Ridder 1908:120–124 no. 106, pl. 20.106 (more intact than presently. He considered the lyrist female, and described the now-lost instrument’s shape as trapezoidal, 123); Boardman 1971:40, fig. 4, pl. XVIII.1; Mlynarczyk 1983:111 fig. 2; CAAC IV:III[i]10 and pl. LXXVII:9 (Karageorghis associates with Kinyras); Paleocosta 1998:49–50, pl. V; Dunn-Vaturi 2003:109–110 (dating to late seventh or early sixth century).
[ back ] 106. See p481n129.
[ back ] 107. This depends on a close parallel from Kition, another conical structure with apertures attended by birds and now a female figure gazing from a doorway—a feature familiar from many house-shrines of Cyprus and the Levant (Boardman 1971:38 with further references in n2; 39 fig. 1). Two such specimens from Idalion—an important cult-site of the goddess (Kypris:179–189)—have rows of apertures on their upper walls, evidently for birds.
[ back ] 108. Sources for Aphrodite’s doves, and at Paphos in particular (cf. Martial 8.28.13, Paphiae columbae), are collected and discussed by Blinkenberg 1924:17, 20; Pirenne-Delforge 1994:415–417. For Aphrodite’s doves on Paphian coins (Timarkhos and an early Alexandrine): BMC Cyprus:lxxvi–viii and pl. VIII.8–10, pl. XXII.6, 8–9; HC:73.
[ back ] 109. Lucian On the Syrian Goddess 14, 33, 54 with comments of OSG:513–514; cf. GR:153.
[ back ] 110. Servius Auctus on Vergil Eclogues 8.37: for this passage, see p290.
[ back ] 111. Cyprus Museum, Nicosia, inv. no. B 220.1935: Dikaios 1961:205n54 (seventh or sixth century); Boardman 1971, pl. XVII.1–V; Mlynarczyk 1983:111 fig. 1; dated to CG I (ca. 1050–950) in CAAC II:III[LGB] with fig. 69 and pl. XXXVIII; Paleocosta 1998:48–49, pl. IV.1–3; Aspects:103–104 no. 78, fig. 90–91 (dated simply CG).
[ back ] 112. One may note here various sources that refer to the rites of Aphrodite as ‘mysteries’ (Kypris:53–54), although these typically relate to allegations of ‘temple prostitution’, or may be dismissed as poetic conceit in the context of love elegy (e.g. Ovid Art of Love 2.607–608).
[ back ] 113. No birds are to be seen, though the lost roof would have provided an appropriate perch.
[ back ] 114. Boardman 1971:41.
[ back ] 115. Mlynarczyk 1983:112–113.