Pindar's victory odes have suffered from a curious lack of interest on
the part of poststructuralism. Even a first, relatively superficial
reading of the surviving corpus, however, reveals an intense interest in
and exploitation of rhetorical figures and tropes, and an element of
autoreferential self-questioning that throughout the history of Pindaric
scholarship has attracted much comment. In view of the radical
discontinuity within language postulated by Walter Benjamin, Jacques
Derrida and Paul de Man between what is meant and the mode of meaning,
we can on this basis alone ask what effects the rich figurality of the
epinicians might have on what they intend to say. Are expression and
intention, in these poems, always simply co-extensive? Or do the odes,
read in the context of a series of concerns addressed in recent decades
by deconstructive literary theory, reveal instead a level of reflection
on the nature of literary language itself to which the hermeneutical
assumption of such co-extension does not entirely do justice?