Bonifazi, Anna, Annemieke Drummen, and Mark de Kreij. 2016. Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse: Exploring Particle Use across Genres. Hellenic Studies Series 79. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_BonifaziA_DrummenA_deKreijM.Particles_in_Ancient_Greek_Discourse.2016.
Unlike Homeric epic, the texts of Pindar’s lyric do not reflect composition-in-performance, but they were still composed for performance: Pindar composed them with an occasion, a performer, and an audience in mind. 
1.1 Starting points
ἀμφέσταν δὴ ἄστυ διαρραῖσαι μεμαῶτες·
were marshalled about the city, eager to raze it utterly. [Translation Murray]
If we follow the translation given by Murray, it appears that δή is in fifth position in a sentence (ἀτάρ … μεμαῶτες), and moreover the particle remains untranslated. This position does not fit well with what we know about postpositive particles like δή. In fact, the position and force of δή here cannot be explained sufficiently if one regards the sentence or clause as the main domain of analysis. As an alternative to established explanations, in chapter II.2 “Discourse Acts” we discuss ways to segment discourse at the subsentential level, and re-examine the function of particles in this new light.
λέγειν ἐν πτερόεντι τροχῷ
τὸν εὐεργέταν ἀγαναῖς ἀμοιβαῖς ἐποιχομένους τίνεσθαι.
ἔμαθε δὲ σαφές. εὐμενέσσι γὰρ παρὰ Κρονίδαις
γλυκὺν ἑλὼν βίοτον, μακρὸν οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν ὄλβον.
on his feathered wheel,
spinning in all directions:
to go to one’s benefactor and pay him back with good deeds.
And he learned it clearly. Indeed, among the kind children of Kronos,
having obtained a sweet life, he did not endure his bliss for long.
The relation between the γάρ clause and the one that precedes it cannot be construed as causal. Ixion did not learn his lesson “because” he had a sweet life among the gods, nor “because” he could not endure his bliss. Rather, he was punished “because” he made advances on Hera, and this causal link is expressed by ὅτ(ι) in line 27. The link marked by γάρ is a different one, and it does not concern a relation between two adjacent clauses, but between one clause (ἔμαθε δὲ σαφές) and the following narrative (25-34). Commentaries do not address these subdivisions of the discourse above the clause or sentence level, and translations cannot easily render it. The problem of γάρ can be better understood if we examine more closely the segmentation of discourse above the sentence level: this is the topic of II.3 “Moves.”
ὅς ῥά τε βεβρωκὼς βοὸς ἔρχεται ἀγραύλοιο·
πᾶν δ’ ἄρα οἱ στῆθός τε παρήϊά τ’ ἀμφοτέρωθεν
αἱματόεντα πέλει, δεινὸς δ’ εἰς ὦπα ἰδέσθαι·
ὣς Ὀδυσεὺς πεπάλακτο πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ὕπερθεν.
which, having fed, comes from an ox in the field,
completely then his breast and both his paws
are bloody, and terrible for the eyes to see.
Just so Odysseus was bespattered, his feet and his hands above.
Odysseus is compared to a lion covered in blood, and in the language we find two instances of so-called “epic” τε, in lines 402 (ὥς τε) and 403 (ὅς ῥά τε), along with two instances of “copulative” τε in line 404 (στῆθός τε παρήϊά τ’). “Epic” τε is most commonly described as denoting a habitual action, a permanent fact, or a temporary fact. On the one hand, this broad description deserves elaboration, and on the other one might ask what makes the τε in lines 402 and 403 different from the two in line 404. The Homeric and Pindaric material in fact suggests that these instances represent two aspects of the same τε, a particle that reflects an ongoing negotiation with tradition. Chapter II.4 “Discourse Memory” explores this constant interaction between current discourse and knowledge shared between performer and audience.
ἵκων χρόνῳ κλυταῖς ἐν Ἀμύκλαις,
μάντιν τ’ ὄλεσσε κόραν, ἐπεὶ ἀμφ’ Ἑλένᾳ πυρωθέντας
Τρώων ἔλυσε δόμους ἁβρότατος. ὁ δ’ ἄρα γέροντα ξένον
Στροφίον ἐξίκετο, νέα κεφαλά, Παρνασσοῦ πόδα ναίοντ’·
arriving in time in renowned Amyklai,
and he brought death on the seer girl, after over Helen he had despoiled
the burnt down houses of the Trojans of their luxury. So HE [sc. Orestes], the young boy,
went to his aged host, Strophius, living at the foot of Parnassus.
The particle ἄρα has confused classicists and linguists for centuries, in Homer more than in Pindar, but one thing that is clear here is that it cannot mark an inference or conclusion from the preceding. It does not mean: Agamemnon died, “and because of that” Orestes went to Strophius. In fact, when Agamemnon is murdered, Orestes is saved by Arsinoe, and later he goes to Strophius: there is no direct temporal or causal connection between the two events, so (δ᾽) ἄρα must be doing something different. An understanding of the cognitive underpinnings of anaphoric reference combined with particles will provide better tools to deal with examples like this one, and this topic is elaborated in II.5 “Particles and Anaphoric Reference.”
|Narrator text||Direct speech||Narrator text||Direct speech|