Full text of "The Nemean odes of Pindar"

See other formats

: > rene enemy
= *
a ae

oS mm uz Ss ye S
= Ss 8 aos a ie <
= aes =e a 8 =
S Sie S.% ere. te =
USHANINI: > Waosny)-40” Waoai): jor’ “onznysor™
gh lOSANGELEL QOFCALIFORY, 4 0F us ME UNIVERS/
= oem: 62 - = a
= S SF i ee Nae 2
S Pe Se a 5 3
= =~< wa — uu pa =
=) S x cS ee ay we
TASININN IDS” onwuanae — “oxyyuanas’ “STN: one
E-LIBRARY. WEUNIVERS/ w:LOS-ANGELES ELIBRARYG
EY es s 08 ES Zs, ey &
3 s & gages s S
Z( ant = & = Ss _——! z
= Vai fog NZ SkT7Ve8
Sec ee S S
fea 4 Ar WySOL __ SAINI Sis jor’
OF (All Ne tt UNIVER. _SMUOSANCELE, Qk CAFO,
= om = lowe = = Ele )s
z z = = : Z BI Z
OnWHRTA FAEW “Us JAINMARS onevean yw
Digi By the In nterne ee |
SN LOS ANGELES cin ‘2008with funding from itt UNIVER,
= be) = =
S = =M soft Co “a = o
= = = = = = x =
S a BS Ae =
S i = 3 5 we =s
Tasannnaye Aor “aor “4 EmagwysorS
gs lOSANGELEN OF CALL FORy, i 0F CALLEORY, <All pees
s . - ES he Sa 3
= ae = ae: =
= 2) 08 seme 5 8 =
S s s a s ean Oo
LOSE Ce eS “Oni a “gaavor®
SAE LIBRARYOe, <_AVEUNIVERS/7 glo ANGELES, xt LIBRARY.
2 2 ¢& a= =e =
z ae 3 ee ¢
LZ, — S eA $
Wagaiyy-40% pnaonvsors™ — “isuaninnaws” “Wagaty)-40™
l OF-CALIFOR,
gt CALLFORY, < aE peed x ry: LOSVANGE Ely, BS Me
Jn 2 a 5 = Ss S =
= a ee ce a ae z
es s://archive tai Isinemeé esofpi in
pian Sg ie Paks sos —- &oyazainn-ayy YOANN

©:

ste

4. OF CALIFOR,

gslOS ANGELES kee

=)
art

E-UNIVERS

“4
>)

OF-CALIFORY,

G&S
S> ca

OF-CALIFOR,
SAN

a
(a)
ce

cslOSANCELES,
SS aa p

i=)
=.

E-UNIVERS/;
& (A
= Pe cot

Sp LOSANCELE
Pets
ss lOS:ANGELE
Pol
AQELBRARY.

“Haoanny-s
OF CALIFOR
“OANA
sys lOSANGELE

“hao {¥)-40"

Sy.
2
S
S

paging ,
sand

Yo navuan ay

itt oe

Oe,

ant wre:
“Waoai)-30

~\:

STHONV-SOVS
itt peg

NELIBRARYQe
Waoavd-40

‘smaony-sorss

AQ ELIBRARYG

:
Uh
“y

MOAN):

peta
CSHININD-DS

iit

OF-CALI FORy,

YOAV

AVEUNIVER
ae

STEUNIVERS 7,

“enaony- sors
git UNIVER,

iy)

STHONV-SOVS

AE: es
WAOINVI-30

AELIBRARY.O¢

N
WaOsNIV)-4

Hagan): iV

OF CALFORy,
ES 5
Ss
z &
“YORIHATT®

LOS-ANGELES,

OF-CALIFORy,
YOAV”

yrs
SS as

ZUSANIND- we
gp l05: ANGELES,

AUVUSITSS

OF CALIFORy,

CUSHININNARS:

)

XE LIBRARY:

Wao NV¥)-40'

Oo
Oo
=
aS):
“STIONY-SOVSS
vt: UBRARY Os,
M4OAITY)-30

AMEUNIVER

OXWVUAIT IS

“LOS-ANGELES:

OF-CALIFORy,
“OAWUAITS

sHOSANELE
AND

NDS AMTELE
at

» ASHaNINO: rc

QslOSANCELES

CUSMANINI a>

E-LIBRARY.

OF CALIFORY
YONA

AME-UNIVER

“enaaysorss
HE yates

QE UIBRARYOe,
WaO3TW)-40°

STTIONV-SOF

At-LIBRARY-Ox

)

MOSEL
ae

W034 IT¥)-40'

Spy

AVE-UNIVER

et.

YO.ANWHATIS

gHEUNVERS/y,

STIONY-SOVS

403 1¥)-40

aNE uae

STIONV-SOV

AQELUBRARY OQ,

\s
=
=

i
YO-ANWHANYY

senna
gs lOSANGELES

CUSHANINAANS

OF CALIFORY,
Sonus

AL-LIBRARYO

W403 WI-40

AWE-UNIVER

3
“STONV-SOF

A XELIBRARY.

OA HATTA

LOS:ANCELES,

3. 0F CALIFORY,
OAVAAS

Be /

sana
gp lOSANGELEY

.0F-CALIFORy,
“YORU

ISHANINNARS

AELIBRARY-Q¢

“W403 IT¥)-40°
OF-CALIFORy,

YOAUVYAIT: aw

ae
ana

Of
2
<-
a

Pit;

NCLB

ee Ry BS
=>]
= 0

N
s
on

Sit

i dh

TIINAAPOY ETTINIKOL NEMEONIKAI2.

TENE NCE AN OD ES

PINDAR

TIINAAPOY ETTINIKOIL NEMEONIKAIL2.

iit NEMEAN ODES

IP INT Wa Les

EDITED, WITH

it RODUCTIONS: AND COMMENTARY,

oBe BURY. MA.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

Dondon:
MACMILLAN AND ‘CO,
AND NEW YORK.

1890

[7he Right of Translation is reserved.|

Cambridge
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A., AND SONS, ©

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

MAM es VE

7 SRLF
jh YRL
j ie
PREFACE.

F all the great Greek poets Pindar has received least

attention from English scholars. The only complete
commentary that has appeared since Donaldson’s is that of
Dr Fennell. The Nemean and Isthmian Odes came off even
less well than the Olympian and Pythian, which were separately
edited by Cookesley and in America by Mr Gildersleeve (whose
work however was published in England). When we compare
this list with the number of editions of Homer and the Greek
dramatists which appear from year to year, it may seem needless
to apologise for a new commentary on the works of Pindar ;
and certainly an editor of the Nemean Odes may feel secure
against the charge of crambe repetita.

The methods of interpretation and the plan of exposition
adopted in the present volume are in many respects new;
otherwise indeed this edition, after Dr Fennell’s sound work,
which so opportunely supplied a want, would have no reason
for existing. The reader will find in the general /rtroduction
a statement of my principles of interpretation, and he will see
how much I owe to a new idea put forward by F. Mezger in
Pindars Siegeslieder, 1880. To the other well-known German
scholars who have edited or dealt with Pindar (Boeckh, Dissen,
Mommsen, Bergk, &c.) I gratefully acknowledge my obligations,
and their names will be found in every page of my commentary.
Rumpel’s Lexicon Pindaricum and E. Abel’s edition of the
Scholia vetera on the Nemean and Isthmian Odes have been
specially useful. Dr Fennell’s Memean and Isthmian Odes has
been always by me.

In the revision of the proof-sheets I have received most

372155

vi PREFACE.

valuable help from my friend Mr R. Y. Tyrrell, to whom I
would here express my best thanks. Some of his suggestions
are specially mentioned in the notes.

I have also to acknowledge the kindness of Dr J. P. Postgate
in offering to place at my disposal his manuscript notes on the
Nemean Odes. Unfortunately I was unable to take full advan-
tage of his offer, as the greater part of my Commentary was
already finally printed; but I have mentioned a few of his
suggestions in a list of Addenda, to which I would invite
attention. (See too Appendix A, note 10.)

In regard to Pindaric metres, I have adopted with hesitation
the conclusions of M. Schmidt. As I have not made a thorough
study of Greek metric, I do not feel competent to pronounce on
a subject which demands the concentrated powers of specialists.

As six of the hymns included in this volume celebrate
Aeginetans, I should like to have added an essay on the
contemporary history of Aegina, but the introductory matter
touching the art of Pindar claimed so much room that such an
addition would have made the book too big. If however I
realise my hope of editing the Isthmian Odes, there will be
an opportunity of dealing with Aegina then. The two hymns
to Chromius likewise suggest a section on a greater island than
Aegina; but that will be more in place when we reach the
presence of the Syracusan ‘Basileus’ himself. And besides
when I come to the Olympian and Pythian Odes, if I should
ever get so far, we shall have the advantage of new light on
the island of the Sikels and Pindar’s Sikeliot friends from the
first instalment of the expected work of Mr Freeman.

The Appendix on the Origin of the Great Games, in which I
have had some useful help from Mr Mahaffy, propounds a new
view as to the establishment of the Olympian games. I have
stated there as strongly as possible the case which I plead, but
of course I am fully conscious that it is only guesswork.

ERRATA AND ADDENDA.

P. 1, footnote 1. After the words ‘Y¥ournal of Hellenic Studies’ read ‘vol. ii.’
for ‘vol. i.’

P. 2, footnote (continued from page 1), for ‘as Aetna was founded in 475’ read
’ gS ’ 475
‘as Aetna was founded in 476 B.c.’, and in next line for ‘472 B.C.’ read ‘473 B.C.’

P. 20, add to note on 1. 46:
Dr Postgate, however, quotes Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 894, Tod EvvebdovTos
xpévov ‘the time that shared my sleep’ as an instance of time being said to do what
takes place during its lapse.

P. 44, 13th line from foot,
for -~-~~ (17),
read ~~~—~~ (17).

P. 49, add to note on 1, 22:
The difficult expression 7pas Veds has never been satisfactorily explained. Dr
Postgate conjectures 7pq 6s, and this certainly deserves consideration.

P. 50, to note on 1, 24 add a reference (pointed out to me by Dr Postgate)
to Plato, Critias, p. 108.

P. 53, 1. 41 of text, for drpexét read arpexet.

P. £9, to note on 1. 72 add the following words: rpirov is the reading of the
Mss. of Triclinius. BB have rplraros and the other ancient Mss. tpirarov, contrary
to the metre.

P. 61, in note on |. 80 after the words ‘associated with the city of Agrigentum’
add :
The scholiast says that Pindar is alluding to Bacchylides.

P. 89, in note on |. 2, for xadxdv...dv7e...€vixacay read xXadkdv...0vTE...viKaoa.

P. gt, add to note on 1. 20:
Dr Postgate compares Oed. 7yr. 1301 Tis 6 mndjoas uelfova daiuwy TaY waxlo-
Tw; and suggests that we may infer from this that a maximum and a minimum leap
were marked.

P. 92, add to note on 1. 26:
Dr Postgate believes that redacac here means fo £2//, comparing pirevé for Oavarov
Iv. 59 and Zhren. fr. 6, wépve dé rpets Kat éx avdpas, TeTpdtw 5 adrds TEddO.

Vill ERRATA AND ADDENDA.

P. rog, in note on 1. 38 after the words ‘the significance of yépup’ axduavros has
been explained in the Z7troduction’, add :

I feel doubts however whether Dr Fennell and Mr Paley are right in taking adxa-
payros as a collateral form of adxduas. Dr Fennell translates ‘the impregnable cause-
way through the sea’, and Paley ‘the hard rocky causeway’. But I can find no analogy
for a nom. sing. dkduavros (which would imply a *xawalyw), and, though I am sorry
to abandon the conception of the ¢defatigable bridge (see p. 100), I must admit that it
is safer to follow Boeckh in taking axduavros with movtou (maris indefesst).

P. 130, add as a note on |. 14:
For €vl oly Tpomw, ‘in one way only’, Dr Postgate compares the use of cam in
Latin, as e.g. in Lucretius v. 364 solido cum corpore mundi naturast.

P. 133, to note on 1. 30 add:
Dr Postgate however thinks the meaning is ‘Death comes unexpected even on
the best prepared’ and compares Horace, C. I. 13, 13. It cannot be denied that
this explanation suits the position of cat better than that which I have adopted.

P. 135, in note on 1. 48, add after the word ydorpis:
Compare also kaxwy pextnpa kat UBpw dvépa, Hesiod, ”E. xat‘H. 1gt (a reference
for which I am indebted to Dr Postgate).

P. 144, after the words (crying for nothing) in 1. 19 of note on 1. 102 add:
Dr Postgate, who takes the same view of the construction as Dr Fennell, would
illustrate papuddKas (‘vainly babbling’, practically=‘vainly babbled’) by Wetoray
Adyov in Ven. V. 29.

P. 152, add as a note on keivov ye |. 10:
Dr Postgate has pointed out to me that the force of ye may be brought out by
rendering ‘a prince like him’ (cf. vil. 75).

P. 158, add to note on |. 51:

For the repetition of the article (rdv) although the strife of Adrastus and the
strife of the Cadmeans were one and the same, Dr Postgate well compares the
repetition of z7¢er in Horace, Zp. 1. 2, 11 Lestor componere lites inter Peliden festinat
et inter Atriden, the effect here being to bring out the fact that Adrastus and
the Thebans were on different sides.

PAbiak Or CONTE N VS:

PAGE

Preface : : : 5 : ; : : : : : ; Vv
Introduction: i. Zhe Jnterpretation of Pindar : : ; xl
2. The Construction of the Pindaric Ode . : » XXXII

ay lhe Lext-. : : : : : 2 ; : lii

Text and Notes . : 5 : : : - : ; : . I
Appendix A (Notes 1—10) . : 3 “ : : : : 1. 1p e227
Appendix B, The Graces in Pindar . : : : : 3) 24n
Appendix C, Pindar’s visit to Sicily . : : : : : 245
Appendix D, Origin of the Great Games . : 5 , : . 248
index: I.Greck . : ‘ : a, ‘ : : : : . #265

II. English : : F : : : ; : : s0 e279

IN RODUCTION:

1. Zhe Interpretation of Pindar.

Tuose who desire to study the Greek mind as revealed in literary
art will probably find that there are more secrets to be learned in Pindar
than in any other writer. For of all Greek poets he is the most Greek ;
or, rather, in his poems those distinctive qualities of the Greek temper
which are alien to modern sentiments and ideas are more clearly
reflected than for instance in the tragedians. ‘The Greek tragedies deal
with forms of human emotion which are universal ; as we read them, the
stress of common humanity tends to eliminate the differences between
the modern and the ancient spirit; and hence we even find it difficult
to avoid the importation of modern emotions into our reading of
Sophocles and Euripides. Whereas there is no temptation to falsify
Pindar in this way, or, as we might say, to modernise him. He is the
poet of ‘the delightful things in Hellas’, ra teprva év “EAAdSu, and his
works reflect the authentic quality of the Hellenic spirit. This is
the secret of his charm, and to this, too, is due the fact that he is less
generally read than other Greek poets. For the complicated structure
of his Odes,—demanding from the reader a close searching attention, to
apprehend the unity of the whole and grasp the punctual meaning of
every part,—cannot be regarded as a completely independent cause of
unpopularity ; inasmuch as this elaborate art is likewise a revelation
of the Hellenic spirit, here carrying the desire of artistic perfection to
the extreme limit of achievement.

For recognising that with nature their power was small, the Greeks
determined that over art at least their control should be complete, and
they left little to chance. ‘The saying of the poet Agathon that art and
chance loved each other,

/ i ,
TExVN TUXHV ETTEPsE Kal TUX TEXVAV,

Xil INTRODUCTION.

had certainly no application to the work of Pindar. He elaborated his
poems to such a point that every phrase was calculated, and no word
was admitted which did not ‘tell’ in the total effect. In one place
indeed he speaks as if he wandered from matter to matter at random
‘like a bee’ (dre péAooa') flitting from flower to flower; but that
is only a graceful reserve or eipwveta—an expression of the artistic
hiding of art. Nor is the contrast between genius and the mere know-
ledge of rules (fvyj and réxvy), on which he often dwells, in any sense
inconsistent with the self-consciousness of his own art. His idea of puy
was not of some blindly acting force, moving outside rules, successful
by sheer strength ; nor did he condemn in téxvy an excessive care for
order or diction. By réxvy, rather, he meant the mere mechanical,
slavish application of formulae, where the divine gift of insight is
absent; by $v, the power which can wield art more artfully and
effectually than ever, because it works freely. His hymns wonderfully
unite an appearance of the absence of restraint with the most scrupulous
precision of language. ‘The poetry seems to flow with the impulse of a
torrent or some free natural force, unable to confine itself; and yet
when we look more closely we find that every sentence is measured,
every word weighed, every metaphor charged with subtle meanings that
play beneath the surface. To be fettered and yet free is the ideal of
art, or, in Pindaric phrase, the ‘aim of the Muses’ (Mowév oxozos) ;
and perhaps no literary artist has ever realised that ideal as perfectly as
the poet of Thebes.

For appreciating Pindar a susceptibility to the effects of words is
eminently necessary ; for each of his is, as it were, a gem with a virtue
of its own, which the poet had fully appreciated before he set it in its
place. To show what in editorial waywardness may result from a lack
of this susceptibility, I may choose (one of many instances) the last
measure of the Sixth Olympian Ode. This poem written in honour
of Agesias of Syracuse, closes with an invocation of Poseidon, who is
besought thus:

euav & vpvov acé edteprés avOos,
Cause the delectable flower of my hymns to grow. As the chief feature of
the Ode is the story of Iamus, laid after birth in a bed of pansies (ia)
and thence deriving his name, the last word av@os is calculated to
suggest the aesthetic virtue of the whole hymn, reminding us, even
at the end, of that flowery ‘woodborn wonder’, to which the victor
Agesias is compared. And aegew is the appropriate verb for a flower,

L Pyth, X. 54.

INTRODUCTION. Xili

Poseidon is implored to tend the growth of Agesias even as he had
watched over Iamus. Yet Bergk is led by the indications of some
Mss. to adopt in his text

euav vpvov dé be& edteprés avOos'.

We shall meet many instances of this kind in the Nemean Odes.
But what one may lose through mere inattentiveness of the ear to words
and their intentions, most readers have perhaps at some time or other
experienced in the case of really careful poetry written in their own
language. In this stanza for example of Tennyson’s Zz AZemoriam—

And up thy vault with roaring sound
Climb thy thick noon, disastrous day ;
Touch thy dull goal of joyless gray,
And hide thy shame beneath the ground,
—the felicity of the word disastrous in the context might easily pass
unnoticed.

And words have the habit of investing themselves, through asso-
ciations, with a certain atmosphere, sometimes palpable, sometimes
very subtle,—these associations being often the secret of the whole
aesthetic effect, and withal of so volatile a nature as to elude inquiry.
In the poetry of an ancient, in the poetry even of a foreign language,
much is missed by the impossibility of feeling instinctively such associa-
tions ; but in some words at least, used by Pindar, we may detect special
significances. é¢yyos, for example, seems to have been charged with a
mystic import, designating most probably, in the mysteries, a divine
Light; it was an aBporov ézos, a ‘mystic word’’. And thus Pindar’s
phrase of the Graces, xafapov péyyos Xapitwv, will suggest (as aos
could not) a wonderful light,—as it were, ‘the light of ineffable faces’.
But the delicate potencies in words tend to vanish, when you try to
define them, for in definition there is mostly a certain violence or
rudeness. Of modern poets Rossetti was a master in handling the
subtle suggestiveness of words. In one of his sonnets in the House of
Life, for instance, these lines close the octave :

Such fire as Love’s soul-winnowing hands distil

Even from his inmost ark of light and dew.
To this curiously happy effect it is clear that the choice of the word
ark and its accompaniment by ‘light and dew’ most largely contribute ;
and yet if we let the mind force into full consciousness the associations

! Another objection to this reading is 2 See below, note on Mem. IX. 42
that in an Olympian Ode Poseidon could (p. 180).
not be the receiver of the poet’s offering.

Xiv INTRODUCTION.

which have determined the virtue of that word, the happy effect is
spoiled by an emerging incongruity. For when you pass into imagi-
native literature, no coquettes are so capricious as words, so easily
spoiled in more than one sense, their humours requiring the patient
study of a lover.

Nor is the mere sound of a word insignificant. In poetry of all
ages effects frequently depend on similar sounds which represent quite
different meanings, as in Pindar’s aAAowr 8 aArkes aAAo, in Homer's
wdivwov odvvyot, abdppara Ovi, or in Rossetti’s

By what spell they are sped.

This is carried further, the poet, as it were, drawing attention to it,
when Viola says in Twelfth Night

And what should I do in Illyria?

My brother he is in Elysium.
The effect of these lines depends on the assonance of the names.
Now to the Greeks similarity in sound meant far more than to modern
ears, for they (except a few rationalists) regarded language as a divine
invention and of this view it was a corollary that behind a likeness in
sound lay some hidden likeness in fact. And this theory, in combi-
nation with a belief in omens, suggested especially significances in
proper names; ovoya opvis, a name is a bird. References to such
significances, common to all Greek poets, are a notable feature in
Pindar, occurring in almost every hymn’. And this was recognised by
Greek critics. Ina note which probably comes from Didymus we read
the words: elwOe dé 0 Iivdapos tats opwvuptas eravaraver Oar ee idiw
(Schol. on Mem, 11.11). There is a good example in the Second Pythian
Ode. Rhadamanthys is there introduced for the sake of his name,
interpreted as ‘easily learning’, and contrasted with the ape who also
‘learns in a way’ :—

padav Kados Tor Tw, Tapa Taiv alec

Kaos’ 0 6€ ‘Padapavéus ed mwémpayev, OT. ppevav
eAaXe KapTOV Gpupnrov.
Unless we recognise this intention, we shall have to think that
Pindar, introducing Rhadamanthys without a motive, had forgotten his
cunning.
It is obvious that in many cases, where it would have been improper

to mention names, unmistakable allusions could easily be made by

1 Instances will be found in most of — paronomasia from Homer, Aeschylus &e.
the Odes in this volume. It is needless The derivations of /amus and A/zas in
to cite here the familiar instances of | Pindar are well known.

INTRODUCTION. XV

various kinds of ‘ paronomasia’. Latin poets, as everyone knows, used
to introduce real personages under fictitious designations, metrically
equivalent to the original names. Pindar combined this device with
etymological allusion. In the Seventh Nemean Ode the strange
coinage pawvAakas can, in my opinion, have been invented for no other
purpose than to designate Pindar’s younger rival Bacchylides. pay-
YAaxas is metrically equivalent to BaxyvAédys and has the same number
of letters (¥=7c). And no enemy of Bacchylides who wished to refine
on the significance of his name, could have more cunningly combined
a plausible derivation and an invidious suggestion. Connecting the
first syllable Baxy- with the evil influence of wine on ‘rhyme and
reason’, he parodies it by paw ‘wildly, rhymelessly’; and he sees in the
second part of the name a relation of the words which mean ‘bark’
(vAaw, etc.)’. Philologists, much nearer to our own day than Pindar,
would not have hesitated at such an etymology.

There is in the Eighth Pythian, if my view of the passage is right,
an interesting instance of an etymological allusion.

That Ode, written in honour of an Aeginetan, soon after the
conquest of Aegina by Athens (B.c. 457), though containing no direct
reference to the Athenians, dwells on the uncertainty of prosperity ;
ina short time, we read, ‘men’s pleasance waxeth; but in the same wise
too it falleth to the ground’. There is a clear prophecy of a reversal of
fortune for the Aeginetans at the expense of the Athenians. Some
words however contain a more pointed allusion. The victor who had
won his laurel wreath in wrestling had thrown four competitors ; and of
these defeated men it is said that they did not return home to be
welcomed by the smiles of their mothers,—

, Lal
KATO avpas XOpav a7raopou

, ~ ‘J /
TTWTTOVTL TuLpopa dedarypévor,

‘they cower, aloof from dances, in lanes’. The expression is strange ;
but it wins significance if we suppose that one at least of the wrestlers
was an Athenian and that Aavpas alludes to the silver mines of
Laurium—Aavp/or being really a diminutive of \avpa ‘The suggestion,
then, covertly expressed, is this: an Aeginetan has vanquished an
Athenian in wrestling; well, let the Athenian skulk in those mines, the
source of the strength of his countrymen. The commercial Aeginetans
must certainly have been jealous of the riches which their neighbours

1 Tf Pindar had been defending his connexion, suggested in the Odyssey, be-
etymology he might have supported the tween Yx’AXa and cxvrAaé.
connexion of -vAééns with -vAdKas by the

B. b

XVI INTRODUCTION.

dragged out of the earth at Laurium; but this jealousy was still more
bitter, if, as has been plausibly suggested’, Laurium originally belonged
to Aegina herself and was wrested from her by Athens, ‘the fountain
of silver’ being really the fountain of discord between the two cities
throughout the early part of the 5th century.

We should not expect to find one so punctual as Pindar in the
use of words errant in the matter of metaphors. For in this as in
other respects Greek literature was marked by temperance ; in Greek
writers there is not that oriental exuberance of metaphorical language,
which, at first attractive through its very strangeness to the western
mind, soon offends the dry understanding. This shyness in regard
to metaphor produced the habit of qualification; as when a chorus
of maidens, in the /phigenia among the Tauri, comparing them-
selves collectively to a bird, add azrepos, ‘a bird—but wingless’. The
oestrus which drove Io is called by Aeschylus adpéis azrupos, ‘a goad—
but unforged’; Orestes and Pylades in the Orestes are ‘ Bacchants—
but wandless’ a@vpoo.; discord in the same play, is ‘fire, but not of
Hephaestus’. In Pindar we shall find that his metaphors, when they do
not arise naturally out of the metaphorical usage of a word in common
speech, are due to some motive which renders them appropriate. In

the expression
kAvtaiot darvdadwoeuev Vuvwov TTvyXaIs

the comparison of strains of music to the folds of a dress enveloping
the object arises smoothly out of a metaphor latent in the verb daida-
ody. The remarkable image of a hymn as

Avétav pitpay Kavaxada TETTOLKLA LEVY

has its justification in the use of the pétpa to bind together the leaves of
the victor’s crown, and xavaxada is the qualification of the image; ‘a
headband—but of sounds’. This temperance in direct metaphorical
language is combined with a sharp sensibility to the metaphors latent
in words, leading to a choice of harmonious phrases. Thus ovv Ged
dutevoels dABos (in the Eighth Nemean) followed by Kuvpav eBpwe
7AovTw suggests a tree weighed down by its fruit, but does not force the
image on the vision. In another passage (JVemean 11. 7) evOuropres,
implying the image of a wind, seems at first sight to stand alone. But

1 By Mr Mahaffy (Rambles and Studies (3) the allusion in the Persae of Aeschy-
in Greece, p. 163). This hypothesis ex- lus, which indicates that the mines had
plains (1) the power of Aegina, (2) the only recently come into prominence at
existence of an Aeginetan metric system, Athens,

INTRODUCTION. xvii

looking closer, we discover that the substantive which it qualifies, aiwy,
is really conceived as a breeze, for Pindar associated it with anu.

And thus, though Pindar has won a repute of audacity for bold and
mixed metaphors, we shall find on examination that his language is
always scrupulously weighed, and charged with intention, his metaphors,
as all else, bearing a definite relation to the whole effect. He does not
mix images incongruously, though sometimes they follow in rapid succes-
sion; but he is rather inclined to push a single metaphor further than
may be superficially obvious. ‘The famous instance of mixed images in
the Sixth Olympian Ode is clearly due to an error in the text. The
lines are these :

KeVOS, © Tal Sworrparov,
ovv Bapvydovrw Tarpt Kpaiver oebev EUTVY (av.
dogav exw tw’ eri yAdoou akovas Aryupas,
ad p eédovta mpowédKker kadAtpooise Tvoats,

parep ea Srvuudadris evavOyns Meruira.

The idea of a whetstone on the tongue, to sharpen it, interposed
between the god of the sea and the waters of Metopa, with which the
phrase kaAdipoo.st mvoats is accordant, is merely grotesque, and has
absolutely no motive. Even in a modern writer, as eccentric as
Browning, it would seem unusually harsh; for Pindar, I believe, it
would have been impossible. A little consideration will show what
word originally held the place usurped by axovas. From éyw émi yAdooa
it is evident that the writer had in his mind the proverbial Bots émt
y\wooe signifying ‘silence’ ; and as his meaning clearly is ‘I cannot be
silent touching Metopa’, we must infer that for the ox of muteness he
substituted a singing creature, a bird. And to be really suitable to the
context, to harmonize with the presence of the sea and the rivers, the
voice of a seabird was required. ‘On my tongue I have (not an ox
but) @ certain fancy of a vocal seabird, which draweth me on full willing
with a fair stream of breathed sounds. And this, I believe, was what
Pindar wrote:

, ” Sea AN , > , res
do€av Exo TW ert yAwooa ‘AKUOVOS Avyupas'.

The seabird that he chose was a kingfisher. And the idea is more than
a mere metaphor ; for the seabird, as it were, flies seaward and draws
the minstrel after it to the ‘deep thundering’ ocean from the waters of

1 AKYONOC was read axvovos or akovos, 70 Tis yap apxa “KdéEaro vavTiNias; (as
and ‘corrected’ to dxévas. For the Bergk rightly reads, only he spells apyy
occurrence of such frodelision (as I pre- "kdéEaro), and 250 & ‘pxecita; O72. XIII,
fer to consider it) in Pindar, cf. Pyth. Iv. 99 5h "uorépwOer.

XVill

Metopa and the Stymphalian lake, in Arcadia,

INTRODUCTION. ;

thus symbolizing the

passage from Stymphalus to Syracuse, from home to home (otkofev

olKaoe).

Nor is the imagery mixed; for not the bird, but the imagina-

tion thereof, is said to be émt yAwooa'.

1 This metaphor has been defended by
two eminent scholars. Professor Jebb,
in his admirable study on Pindar (/our-
nal of Flellenic Studies, vol. W1., p. 171);
writes thus: ‘The thought which in-
spires a strain is compared to the whet-
stone which sharpens the knife,—and here,
again, note the mixture of metaphors:
[Greek quoted]: ‘‘ I have a thought upon
my lips that lends keen motive to my
song ; it woos my willing soul with the
spirit of fair-flowing strains”...With re-
gard to this metaphor, as to many others
in Greek lyrics which are apt to strike us
as harsh or even grotesque, there is a
general principle which ought, I think,
to be clearly perceived. Most Indo-
European nouns expressed some one
obvious and characteristic quality of the
object which they denoted: e.g. vais is
“*the swimmer”, dpds the thing which is
cleft, &c. Similarly axévy is the sharpener,
kparnp is the mzxer &c. A Greek who
called a thought an axovn was thus using
a less startling image than we should use
in calling it a whetstone; to call the
teacher of a chorus a xparnp was not the
same thing as it would be for us to call
him a Zow/. And such phrases are less
audacious in proportion as they are old,
z.e. near to the time when the language
was still freshly conscious of the primary
sense in such words as dxovn’.

I find it difficult to elicit Professor
Jebb’s ingenious translation ‘a thought
upon my lips that lends keen motive to
my song’ from ddfay tiv’ dkovas Nvyupas.
His rendering would rather demand 6déav
And his defence
of the metaphors applies with greater
force to xparjp than to dxévyn, inasmuch
as the Greeks had the verb kepavvum to
remind them of the original meaning of

’ > / U
TW, akovay \vyupay.

Kpatnp, whereas they had no word (like
Latin acuere) to associate with dxovyn
except dxovdw itself. Such words as axy,
axwxy, dkwv, axis would, alone, hardly
suggest the idea of sharpening, and, with
all deference to Professor Jebb’s opinion,
I doubt very much whether in Pindar’s
day or many generations before Pindar
the Greek language ‘was still freshly
conscious of the primary sense’ in dxévy.
kparnp, I submit, is on a different footing.
Mr Tyrrell (Classical Review, May 1888,
p- 139) has defended the suspected phrase
on different grounds. ‘On the one hand
it is wellnigh impossible to set bounds to
the ‘‘soaring craft” as Pindar called it.
What may not a great poet say at that
golden moment
‘* When a great thought strikes along
the brain
And flushes all the cheek”?
Yet on the other, it must be owned that
confusion of metaphor has its limits,
and is sometimes quite intolerable. Our
feeling about the expression seems to
depend upon our feeling about the poet’s
mind at the moment when he clothed
his thought in words. The expression
is majestic only if we feel that the poet
was in a “fine frenzy”’. In this con-
nexion he refers to Pindar’s
‘Methinks a whetstone shrilleth on
my lips,
It draws me on full fain
On current of sweet airs’.
But there must, I think, be certain objec-
tive limits to legitimate mingling of meta-
phor, apart from the subjective state of
the poet. Take the familiar instance
from /Zamilet, quoted by Mr Tyrrell in
this connexion,—
Or to take arms against a sea of
troubles.

INTRODUCTION.

X1iX

When this formidable example of metaphorical aberration is removed,
those who read Pindar attentively will, I think, acknowledge that
tenacity of one image is more characteristic of his poetry than a blend-
ing of several.

But though he does not confuse metaphors, he sometimes uses what
we may call double metaphors, by playing on two meanings of a word.
‘There is a remarkable example of this in /sthmdan v1. 18;

apvapoves 6€ Bpotoi

a \

Oo TL py
oo > / c a 2e/ y /
kAuTais éré€wv poats ecixntar Cuyév.

/ + +
codias awTov akpov

The meaning of these lines turns on the double sense of dwros
(1) gloss, or perfection, (2) breeze or breath (ani, awréw), for which I
must refer to note on Vem. 11. 9 and Appendix A, note 3. Thus there
are two distinct metaphors, (1) from driving in a car (évyév) to a height
(axpov) : men remember not whatsoever reaches not the crowning height of
Art, drawn in a rushing car of verses; (2) from a ship wafted by a
breeze: whatever exploit, ungirded by sounding streams of poetry, fails to
win a favouring wind of Wisdom, passeth out of men’s minds. The
language is chosen with the greatest skill, almost every word suggesting
a second meaning. vyev, properly belonging to the first metaphor,
is not inappropriate in the second, for Gevyvype was a technical word for

undergirding a ship.

Here the metaphor ‘sea of troubles’ is
natural and familiar; ‘to take
against’ or fight against troubles is also a
familiar image: and therefore the con-
nexion of the two metaphorical phrases
does not strike us as incongruous. But
if both metaphors had been unusual, the
incongruity would be unjustifiable. This
applies to the passage in the Aztigone
where, according to the generally ac-
cepted correction of the reading of the

arms

Mss., xovis (with other things) is said to
mow down a light which had been set
above a plant. Here the incongruity of
the unfamiliar metaphors is aggravated
by the fact that the thing (fifa) which
seems to offer itself to the scythe of the
Erinys is not mown, while the thing
which could not possibly be mown suffers
that operation. A slight change restores

2¢/ ” Ss D ”
e€ikytar May suggest ikuwevos ovpos, while awrov

the passage and gives its proper object to
aua. The same reasoning applies to the
passage under consideration. Four in-
congruous pictures rise before us; yAwooa,
KaNALpooe The
yAa@ooa is not a natural resting-place for

akova, €)\Keu, TvOat.
the whetfer; an dxova cannot be said to
‘draw on’; and with kadXrpdoe mvoai it
certainly is not accordant. And the
strangeness of the image makes these
discords jar. My reading, while it in-
volves but a very slight .change, harmo-
nises the words into one striking idea.

I should add that the comparison of a
trainer to a Naxian whetstone, that
sharpens athletes, in /stim. Vv. 72 (an
image thoroughly in place there) cannot
be fairly adduced to support axédvas in

Olympian Vi.

Doe INTRODUCTION.

axpov of a prosperous breeze is justified by the Homeric adjective
aKp-ans.

The idea of building up the Ode of Victory on a myth, worked out
so as to contain an application usually to the victor himself, sometimes
to his country, was adopted by Pindar’. Direct praises, blended with
ethical commonplaces, must, when continued through a whole composi-
tion, become monotonous and fulsome’, a poet’s genius notwithstanding.
But the myth gave a sphere both for the higher work of the imagination
and for craft in elaborating a parallel or an allegory ; while the apparent
passing away from the subject of the victor, for a while, was a relief
from the necessity of reiterating a sort of Avs Kopw6os. This new
method of Pindar was thus a happy discovery, and we may regard it as
the chief secret of his poetical charm ; for certainly the interest of each
poem turns mainly on the myth and its relation to the rest.

And here too lies the chief difficulty. Only recently a clue has been
found by a German scholar, whose discovery certainly marks a new
period in the study of Pindar. Just ten years ago F. Mezger published
his Pindars Siegeslieder, in which he pointed out that it was a practice
of the poet to repeat some particular word iz the same verse and foot of
different strophes or epodes, and that he indicated thereby some
connexion in thought between two separated parts of the Ode. Thus
Pindar has himself supplied us with indications for following the ways
of his thought; he has ‘set words’* for us like sign-posts. And he
hinted too that his songs require a key, when he called Aeneas—the
bearer of the Sixth Olympian Ode to Agesias, and charged with its
interpretation—a scyta/e of the Muses (qixopov oxvtada Moar)’.

I need not illustrate the principle of Mezger here, for each of the
Odes in this volume is an example, as is shown in the special /ztro-
ductions. But I must observe that Mezger has not carried his own
principle far enough; and this has precluded him in many cases from
grasping the full meaning of a poem. For Pindar does not confine his
‘responsions’ to verses metrically corresponding—and Mezger has to
some extent recognized this—but indicates the train of his thoughts by

1 He tells us this himself in the Fourth derung an die Nemesis gewesen sein’.

Nemean (g.v.), as Mezger has shown. ® éméav Oécer, Olymp. 111. 8. Mezger

The idea he is said to have derived from has closely connected this discovery with

the instruction of Corinna. Westphal’s untenable theory of the struc-
* Cp. also E. Liibbert, Pindar’s Leben ture of the Pindaric Ode; but the con-

und Dichtung, p. 8: ‘Ein ausfiihrliches nexion is not essential.

directes Lob des Siegers wiirde nach 4+ I (not Mezger) am responsible for

hellenischen Begriffen eine Herausfor- this interpretation.

INTRODUCTION. XXI

verbal echoes anywhere, independently of the metre. ‘These echoes
become formal and emphatic ‘responsions’, where in conformity with
Mezger’s rule the metre is confederate ; but when the metre does not
assist, they are not less important guides for us in detecting the parailel
ranges and answering groups constructed by this wonderful art. The
last words of the Sixth Olympian Ode, already quoted, furnish an
instance in point. Poseidon is invoked for Agesias :

déorota Tovropedov, evOdv d€ mAdOV Kaparwv
éxros éovta didot, xpveadaKatovo Toots
"Apourpiras, uav 8 tuvov ack edtepmis avOos.
In the myth which occupies the centre of the hymn, Poseidon had been
invoked by Iamus, who is the mythical counterpart of the victor
Agesias; and this is recalled by the ringing of ‘gold’ and an echo of
‘delight’. For the appeal of Iamus to Poseidon was introduced by
the words
repvas 5 eel xputootepuvoro Ad Bev
Kapmov “Has.
And, further, there is another cross-echo, here punctually answering ;
for etreprés dvQos, at the end of the fifth epode, recalls evavés Metw7a, the
last words of the fourth epode.
And sometimes the echo is combined with a play on words. In the
First Isthmian Ode, for instance, we read of the ‘omen of Asopodorus’

yapvoopo1—ayakdeu, tav “Acwrodwpou matpos atcav (1. 34),
and we wonder what it may be. Reading further we learn of the
things which this Asopodorus (the father of the victor) had suffered ;

how he had been banished from Thebes and afterwards restored ; and
then the third strophe ends thus :

0 Tovnoais d€ vow Kal mpopaleray déper.
When we reach the end of the fourth antistrophos, our ears are struck
by a reverberation, which clears up our difficulty :
7 pav woAAaKe Kal 70 cerwrapévov cUOuuiav peilo dépe (1. 63).

The repetition of #épec here at the end of the same verse, takes us back
to the man of ‘forethought’; and then we apprehend that ro cecwmapévov
explains the omen of ’A-cwmd-dwpos—the guerdon of silence.

The objections, which will doubtless be made to the principles on
which my interpretation of Pindar is based, I can well imagine. It will
be said that my view imputes to the poet an artificiality which is
unworthy of a great genius and inconsistent with true poetical inspira-

XXil INTRODUCTION.

tion. If it be replied that no @ Arvor7 considerations can alter a simple
fact, the objectors will say that the echoes and ‘responsions’ are
undesigned coincidences, discerned only by the vain fancy of an over
subtle commentator. This second argument is the only one with which
I am necessarily concerned. If it can be shown that the echoes are not
the creatures of a modern fancy, seeing in Pindar more than he ever
dreamed of, then we must simply accept the fact and harmonize it with
our aesthetic theories as we may see fit.

There are two considerations which, in my judgment, peremptorily
exclude the supposition that the echoes and responsions, pointed out in
this volume, were merely accidental. (1) If only one hymn of Pindar
were extant, it might be maintained that echoes of language, noticed by
an editor, were a freak of chance and formed no part of the poet’s
design. But seeing that forty-five (or at least forty-three) poems of
Pindar’ have been preserved, and that in every one of these there are
distinct responsions and echoes in which a direct bearing on the
connexion of thought may be perceived (more or less easily), it
cannot be judiciously or even plausibly maintained that chance worked
so systematically. ‘The eleven odes in this volume are quite sufficient
to establish the principle; but, if additional proof is needed, it will be
shown in the succeeding instalments of this edition of Pindar, how
amply the Olympian, Pythian and Isthmian Odes reinforce the evidence
of the Nemeans, that téyvy, not tvyxy, arranged the answering echoes.

(2) If it be found that the echo-systems guide the student of Pimdar
to an adequate interpretation of the Odes, and enable him to discern the
significance of the myths and the general connexions of thought,—then,
regarding such results, it can only be said that, if this be chance, ‘ yet
there’s method in it’.

Now the explanations offered by Boeckh, Dissen and their successors,
who possessed no directing clue, were certainly, and indeed confessedly,
far from satisfactory. ‘Their analysis was often true as far as it went,
but it generally left serious difficulties unexplained. When Mezger
discovered the law of verbal responsions, he found himself able to
solve problems which had eluded his predecessors ; and it is a feature
of his commentary that the artistic unity of each hymn is exhibited and
analysed more thoroughly than in previous works on Pindar. But even
Mezger frequently failed, and left many knots untied, because he had
not recognised that his ‘responsions’ were only part of a more general
system of echoes and signals,

' Forty-five, assuming Olymp. v. to be consist of eight (not seven) Odes,
genuine, and the Isthmian collection to

INTRODUCTION. XXill

As an example of the inadequacy of hitherto proposed interpreta-
tions, I may point to the First Nemean. The chief question, which
- occurs to the student of any ode, is: what is the application of the
myth? but in the case of the First Nemean this question forces itself on
the attention with more than usual emphasis. What can the story of
Heracles throttling the snakes have to do with Chromius of Syracuse ?
There might be little difficulty in agreeing that the general description
of the labours of Heracles (ll. 63—68) is appropriate to the man who
had fought at Helorus and led an unusually active life; but of all. the
exploits of Heracles why should that of his infancy be selected for a hymn
celebrating a victory won in the chariot-race by a Sicilian noble? The
answer of Dissen was, that, as Tiresias augured the future powers of
Heracles from his achievement zz ¢he cradle, so Chromius had showed
in his early youth at the Helorus what manner of man he was to be. It
is clear that this answer is inadequate ; nor indeed is it tenable. It is
not tenable, because there is no reference or allusion to the battle of the
Helorus throughout the Ode, and in the tale of the conflict with the
snakes there is nothing to suggest it. It is inadequate, because no
account is taken of the elaborate detail in which the exploit of Heracles
is worked out. If Pindar merely meant what Dissen says, these details
are superfluous and must be considered an obvious blemish in the poem.
We have to believe that nearly half the ode is devoted to a description
of accessories, which have nothing to do with the main idea and only
draw the attention away from it. ‘The selection of this event in the life
of Heracles for comparison with the bravery of Chromius in battle does
not, at the best, strike one as happy. But granting that Pindar might
have likened the adventure with the snakes and the fighting at the
Helorus as the opening incidents in two brilliant careers, he would
assuredly have accentuated the point of likeness and passed over the
details in which the dissimilarity was glaring. But this is just what he
has not done. He has worked out an elaborate picture of the battle of
the snakes, while he has not even alluded to the special exploit of
Chromius supposed to be signified thereby.

On this question no new light was thrown in the various explanations
offered by von Leutsch, Rauchenstein and L. Schmidt. All these
interpretations left the remark of Schneider, that the poet ‘verlor sich in
eine Episode die gar kein Verhaltniss zum Ganzen hat und dem
Gedichte die fabelhafte Gestalt eines Hippocentaurus gibt’’, as true as
ever. But Mezger, by the help of his discovery, advanced nearer a
solution. He holds that the myth is intended to illustrate the truth

' Quoted by Mezger.

XXIV INTRODUCTION.

that all men have to contend with troubles and to show how they can
overcome them. ‘The trouble of Chromius was the malice and calumny
of enemies, but by his native faculty he triumphed over them, even as
Heracles proved himself superior to all the trials which beset him even
from his cradle. The responsion of éeoray (1. 19) with éora (I. 55)
suggests that Amphitryon contemplating the triumph of Heracles over
the snakes is compared to the poet contemplating the triumph of
Chromius over his calumniators ; and thus indicates what the intended
parallel is.

This analysis is an important advance on all previous attempts, but
it does not completely solve the difficulty. A general reference to
detractors will hardly account for the elaborate picture of the slaying of
the snakes. Moreover we find that the verses which describe the
success of Chromius against his foes respond, not to anything in the
episode of the dpaxovres, but to the lines in which Tiresias foretells
that Heracles will distinguish himself by killing robbers and fighting
with the Giants (avriov 1. 25, for example, signals to avriagwouw, which
Mezger did not observe). Thus as far as the general comparison is
concerned, the episode under discussion might be spared; for the
Giants and the Ojpes didpodékar of 1. 63 amply suffice as prototypes of
iniquitous foes and calumniators. We may infer that the combat with
the snakes is introduced for the sake of some particular reference.
This special instance of the victories of Heracles over @jpes or kvwdara
(l. 50) must have been selected in order to suggest some special victory
of Chromius over ‘beasts’ who annoyed him. Here we have no clue,
except so far as the language of the myth itself may reveal us some-
thing ; for Pindar preferred to veil his special allusions in a fable which
was perfectly lucid for Chromius and his friends. ‘There is at least one
inference which may be drawn with tolerable confidence. The enemies
of Chromius specially alluded to were two,—neither more nor less.
The accentuation of the dual number (duccaior dovovs) can hardly be
regarded as undesigned,—if it be once admitted that the myth had any
application to contemporary fact. As the allusion to Chromius, which
I suppose to be intended in 1. 46, rests on a slight change in the reading
of the mss., I will not dwell on it here. The responsion éorav—
éora was appreciated by Mezger, but he did not notice a further
responsion, $éuev—Oéoayr (Il. 5, 59), which sustains the parallel between
Heracles and the victor. But enough has been said for the present
purpose ; the other points bearing on the question will be set forth in
the Zntroduction to the Ode under discussion.

It may be shown that another distinct difficulty in the same poem

INTRODUCTION. XXV

yields to investigation, when Pindar’s method of verbal signals is duly
apprehended. ‘The meaning of the opening lines is a puzzle as old as
Didymus. Why is the river Alpheus introduced? Some say (according
to the scholiast) that the stables of Hieron and Chromius were in
Ortygia ; for this reason Ortygia was mentioned ; and Ortygia suggested
Alpheus, though Alpheus has no connexion with the subject. Modern
commentators throw no further light on the question.

It has been noticed by Mezger that in the last verses of this hymn
there is an echo of the beginning (cepvov, —cepvor, ll. t and 72). There
is another echo which he did not observe: OaAos, 1. 2—Oadepay, 1. 71.
Now the Ode closes with the prophecy of the apotheosis of Heracles and
his marriage with Hebe. It is clear, therefore, that if these echoes have
any signification, they must imply some bright augury for the future of
Chromius ; and ¢here must be some allusion to such an augury in the
jirst lines of the Ode. ‘The solution is now obvious; and indeed the
query of the scholiast might have put us on the right path. These are
the words in which he states the difficulty :

Cyreitar dé, ti Syrote TH “AXherd pordiareyerar Kal TH Optvyia, THs

vikns ovK ovens "OAvpmiakys, aAAa Nepeaxis.

That is, “AAgeod would have been pertinent in an Olympian Ode. But it
is now easy to see that the mention of Alpheus is not only quite in place,
but wonderfully happy, although the Ode is not an Olympian. By this
allusion the prospect of an Olympian wreath in the future is held out to
the Nemean victor. Such a victory would be his crowning triumph, as
the entry into the houses of the Gods was the crown of the career of
Heracles.

This interpretation is strikingly confirmed by the reference to
Olympian wreaths won by Sicilians in |. 17'; and it should be observed
that the words

"Odupmiadov piAXous €Aauav ypvo€ors

in the grd line of the rst epode are metrically identical with
v—Oarepav “HBav axotw Kat yapov

in the 3rd line of the last epode. The meed foretold for Heracles
responds to the meed foretold for Chromius.

If these reasons are cogent—and it seems to me that they cannot be
eluded,—students of Pindar must henceforward avail themselves of the

! Timaeus actually inferred from this isws mdavybeis 6 Timacos "ONuumKov Tov
line that the Ode was not a Nemean but — érickov @0y eivac (ed. Abel p. 27).
an Olympian, Schol. on |. 17: évred0ev

evi INTRODUCTION.

signals which the poet himself has placed to guide us. It may be
urged against Mezger, it may be urged against me, that it is difficult to
believe that Pindar alone of the Greek poets adopted such a system of
connecting the trains of his thought. But in the first place, of the lyric
poets complete compositions have not been preserved except Pindar’s
Epinicians ; so that it is impossible to say what they did or did not.
And in the second place it may be pointed out that the artifice of
verbal signals was not unknown to Aeschylus. Pindar’s elaborate
systems of echoes may be illustrated by a familiar choral ode in the
Agamemnon.

The second stasimon in that play (ll. 367—474), whose theme is
suggested by the fall of Troy, falls into four parts. The first part
(367—398) deals generally with the impossibility of hiding injustice, and
asserts that the gods regard it. In the second part, this doctrine is
applied to Paris; the flight of Helen is briefly described ; and the dopwr
mpopyta: lament the case of Menelaus (399— 426). In the third part
the poet passes to the woes brought upon Greece by the Trojan war and
the feelings of discontent which prevailed against the Atridae (427—
455). In the fourth part gloomy presentiments are expressed in the
form of general moral remarks on the results of excessive prosperity and
indifference to human life.—Now it is to be observed that although the
import of the first section is apparently and professedly a comment on
the crime of Paris (otos kai Hapis eAOwv 1. 399), yet the poet dismisses

this crime in a line or two and hurries on to Menelaus, as though he
_ were the real theme of the Ode. It is quite clear that the preliminary
moral reflexions are intended to apply to the Atridae as much as to
Paris, and indeed they have a close resemblance to the moral reflexions
at the close, which refer undisguisedly to the house of Atreus. The
irony of the situation is that a very similar cause to that which overthrew
the house of Priam is now about to bring low the house of the victors.
It was an irony which gained by being covertly suggested rather than
overtly expressed. And thus Aeschylus, while he directly identifies
Paris with the avyp who ‘kicked the altar of Justice’, does not state in
so many words that Agamemnon or Menelaus might be considered
examples of the same type. But he has conveyed this meaning
indirectly by a number of artful echoes. (1) Phrases in the first part
are taken up in the second—in the passage where the ddpwv tpopjtac
describe Menelaus after the departure of Helen. (2) The grief of
Menelaus, as painted in that passage, for his lost wife is contrasted with
the grief of the Greeks at home for their kinsfolk who fell in the war, by
means of answering words. ‘The details are as follows :

INTRODUCTION. XXvil

(1) (a) The elders state at the beginning of the Ode that they
intend to ‘search out the traces’ of the great stroke which Zeus has
dealt to Troy (Avs tAayav). Their words are

Tapeote TovTA y e&tyvedoat.

The metaphor does not recur, and we forget that we are so to speak
on a scent, until a strange phrase let fall by the dépwv tpopyrar reminds
us that we are seeking traces. or(Bou piravopes (prints or traces of a
wife's embrace) is one of the most noticeable expressions in the whole
hymn; and it was chosen, I believe, to suggest that the or/Bo, conceived
as arousing the regrets of Menelaus and determining him to the fatal
expedition, were in a deeper sense ‘traces’ in the course of the tragedy,
—the Avs Aaya, which is here traced out.

The elders begin their investigation by asserting that the gods do
not disregard those

371 dcols dOlkrev xdpis
Tuto .

The man who kicks the altar of justice has no defence against
punishment.

od yap eoTw emadéts

382 mdXovTov mpos Kopov avBpl

AaxticavTe peyav Aikas

Bopov eis addvevav.

It is clear that the Avkas Bwyos is the a6ikrwv xapis under another
aspect. Now by using the same metre and by introducing a responsion,
the poet suggests that the son of Atreus is an example of such an avyp.
At the end of strophe 2 we find

evpoppov d€ Ko\occav
417 €xOerar xdpis dvpt.
oppatov 8 ev axnviats
eppeu waa “Adpodira.
Here is an avyp who also scorns a certain yapis. In both cases the
cause of this scorn is assigned ; and the two causes are parallel. The
typical wicked ‘man’ is constrained by importunate Persuasion: -
385 Piatra d a tadawa Tedd,
The man in the special case is the victim of persuasive dreams, which
will not allow him to forget the treacherous wife:
420 oveipodavtor dé tevOrpoves’

Taper do€at.

1 Mr Housman’s correction of rev@juoves.

XXVIII INTRODUCTION.

In both cases the vanity of hope is dwelt on. ‘The fancy of the
typical scorner that he may escape is vain; the fancy of Menelaus in
his dream that he may clasp Helen is vain.

387 akos d€ Tav pdratov.
421—O0éar hépovear yapw patalav.
paray yap—
BeBaxev ows.

But the parallel is carried further still. It has often struck me, and
it may have struck others, that (in the first antistrophos of this Ode) it
was somewhat strange to introduce the figure of a doy chasing a bird in
the middle of another totally different metaphor taken from ill-mixed
bronze.

We are now in a position to explain the motive of this. ‘The boy
chasing the bird is there for the purpose of the covert parallel. ‘The
unjust man attempting to hide, and Menelaus seeking to embrace the
dream forms, are like men chasing winged things :

394 dwxKer mats Totavey Opry,

26 mrepois O7adois Umvouv KeAcvOots.
p

Another point which strikes the reader in the first strophe is the
expression a@ikrwv yxapis (already mentioned)—surely a somewhat
strange one. It is highly probable that this phrase was echoed in
words regarding Menelaus, and although a corruption in the mss. had
long concealed the echo, the ingenuity of Mr Housman has brought it
to light. In 1. 420 we have, if this restoration is correct

—é€povodi. xdpw paraiay.

patav yap «vt av és Bryds doxav ope’

—BéBaxev ois x.7.A.
Menelaus seeks to fouch the charming visions; but they cannot be
touched. The case of the transgressor was somewhat different ; but the
word a@uxros is ambiguous. The transgressor laid an impious touch on
the charm of things which mst not be ¢ouched. And this is more than
a mere sport with words. The charm of the dream forms (it is
implied) is the cause of the transgression of the Atridae. The
apparitions of Helen in sleep are a poetical symbol for the brooding
and longing regret of Menelaus, ultimately driving him to undertake the
fatal expedition. ‘Thus the dream forms, from this aspect, are literally

! Though I have printed Mr Housman’s read @opy. It would be quite in the
6p¢ (provisionally accepted by Mr Verrall), | manner of Aeschylus to picture Menelaus
[ question it. I should be inclined to leaping up in his bed to clasp the vision,

INTRODUCTION. KMIX

the d@uxra, whose xapis or spell, thrown over the man, tempts and
compels him to transgression. He should have seen that Helen was
aOuKros, like the dreams, and that it was vain (watavos too has a double
sense) to seek to touch her.

(6) But there are some passages in the first part of this Ode to
which a more distant echo answers. (1) ‘The declaration in 1. 370
that the theory which imputes to the gods disregard of transgressors is
impious, is repeated in 1. 461, with a definition however of the
particular form of transgression meant : tév roduKTOvev yap obK amdcKo-
ou Oeoi. (2) Again 70 8 tmepxdtws xAvew ed Bap’ |. 469 repeats, ina
special form, what was said about excessive prosperity in 377 sgq.
prcovrwv dwpdtov tméppev imp to BeAtictov. What was before ap-
plied to the house of Priam is now repeated of the house of Atreus.
(3) In both passages, with this denunciation of the ‘excess’ is closely
connected a reference to moderate prosperity. 379 éotTw 8 amyjpavtov
(sc. 16 BeAtwotov), wor drapKeiv eb mparidwv Naxovta, 471 Kpivw Oo
ddbovov dABov' par’ elnv wrohuropOys pyr obv ards adovs bm ahAwv Biov
karidoyst'. (4) When the curse comes on the transgressor, there is no
defence or aid: 381 08 yap éorw eradkis «.7.A., 466 ev 0 atarows teA€OovTos
ovris ddxdé. (5) In both cases similar expressions are used for the
destruction which awaits the transgressor, 384 «is apaveav, 465 ev o
atotots. (6) The remarkable metaphor from the rubbing of bad
bronze in the first antistrophos is echoed in the last antistrophos.

390 Kaxod dé yadkod Tpo7Tov
tp(Bw Te Kal mpooBodais
peraprayys ede
duKarwOeis— :
moder Tpoatpippa Gels apepTor.
This metaphor is not repeated, but another metaphor to the same
intent is so expressed as to echo some of the words:
461 KeAawvat 0 “Epiies xpovo
TUXNpOV OVT avev OiKas madwWTUXEL
tpiBa Biov tiOeto” apavpor.
It has not been definitely made out, what is the metaphor of
rahwrvxe TpiBa, but tpyBa echoes tpiBw and rpdctpyzpa, both in sense
and language, while the words ayavpdv and xeAawvai (of those who make
apavpov) recall peAaprayys. The Erinyes are said to make the man
dim, and this idea is carried on in words which follow

BddrAcra. yap docos Awbev Kepavvos.

! Of the last two words one is probably, both possibly, corrupt.

XXX INTRODUCTION:

The lightning of Zeus is hurled upon their eyes. ‘Vhis Body of Zeus
is an element in the fatal progress of their doom, and was to the
transgressors of 1. 461 what zpooBodais was to the dixaw6eis of 1. 393 ;
BadXerau echoes tpocBodais.

(2) Another parallel is instituted between the grief of Menelaus
for the loss of Helen, caused by the crime of Paris, and the grief of the
Greeks at home for the loss of their fighting kinsfolk who fell at Troy
through the crime of the Atridae. The parallel is worked out by
echoing in the second description remarkable words which had been
used in the first. As the length of this digression has already exceeded
bounds, I will not enter into the details of comparison between these
companion pictures. But one striking echo may be pointed out. The
charm of the fazr statues of Helen disappears as it were in the hatred of
Menelaus for their blank gaze:

416 evpdphav 6 KoAocoav
&Gerar xapis avdpl.
Even so the fazr bodies of the Greek warriors are lost in a land
which /aées them :
453 Oyxas “IAtados yas
eUpopho. KaTeXovTw: éx-
Opd 5 exovtas expuwer.

It appears then that the artifice of suggesting meanings by echoes
was not confined to Pindar, although he practised it more systematically
and more constantly than any other poet of whose work we have
materials to judge. There is no reason to suppose that he originated
the idea, but he may have been the first to develope it into a system.
If we had the works of the early Greek lyric poets, we should doubtless
be able to trace the evolution of this remarkable feature of Pindar’s
poetry. It might be conjectured that the ‘responsion’ is simply a
subtle modification of the ‘refrain’, a feature of the most primitive
poetry. The refrain is reduced to a catchword ; and as poetry becomes
more subtle and elaborate the catchwords and catch-phrases are varied,
multiplied, refined ; the iteration becomes more than a mere iteration,
and of itself adds an idea. Such a development is intelligible, but we
have not the data for tracing it.

Before leaving the subject, it is worth pointing out that Pindar
sometimes takes a physical substance, bronze or gold, and rings signifi-
cant changes throughout a poem. In the Tenth Nemean and in the
Sixth Isthmian yaAxés, in some form, occurs in each metrical system.
In the Third Pythian, in the Fifth Nemean, in the Sixth and Seventh

LNTRODOUCTION. Xxxi

Olympians, the parts of the argument are connected by go/den links.
Silver has a special significance in the Ninth Olympian. Other sorts of
words are effectively repeated in the same way; for example, €etvos and
its cognates in the Seventh Nemean. ‘Works’ are the keynote of the
Eighth Olympian, and accordingly in the first epode we find épyw, in the
second épyacvais, in the third and in the fourth épya. Now it is worth
noticing that Sophocles adopts the same artifice. In the first choral
ode of the Oedipus Rex (beginning © Aus aédverés darr) a remarkable
effect is won by this device. The bright abode of the Pythian Apollo is
almost physically borne in upon us by the go/d ringing through the hymn.
(1) tas rodvxptcov Ivfdvos 1. 151, (2) & xpvoéas Téxvov éAridos |. 157,
(3) © xpuega Ovyarep Avs 1. 187, (4) xpvooorpddwv ax’ aykvddv 1. 203,
(5) Tov Xpvrouitpay te KuKAHnoKM (Dionysus) l. 209. We observe also the
presence of Aglaia; (1) ayAaas 1. 152, (2) alyAas 1. 207, (3) dyAadme
1. 213. By such a recurrence of physical symbols Sophocles has deter-
mined the bright, hopeful atmosphere of this appeal to gracious deities.

Thus Pindar, hike most great poets, was highly artificial. But he
hid his art so effectually that we are only now beginning to
apprehend how thoroughly self-conscious his poetry really was. His
utterances seem spontaneous; his sentences flow without constraint ;
and yet every word was weighed. It is not within my scope to enter
here upon an aesthetic disquisition, but I may point out one significant
fact. It may appear to many modern minds that the dominant note
of the Odes of Victory is ‘unregenerate’ indeed; Pindar might be de-
scribed as the poet of the ‘pride of life’. He consorted continually with
the great of the earth, he moved among the strong and the beautiful,
where none was ‘sick or sorry’, he derived his inspiration from success,
being himself too intellectually successful in realising his desire of per-
fection. Kingdom and victory, nobility and wealth, strength and
comely limbs, ayAaia and etppoovvy, inherit his palaces of music. The
impression left on the mind, after reading the Odes of Victory, is that
‘lo, the kings of the earth are gathered and gone by together’. Now it
is a significant fact (for the Philosophy of History or the Philosophy of
Aesthetic) that this Pride of Life, in its untroubled phase, found expres-
sion in a spiritual art, which was flawless in the minutest details of order
and diction, and yet moved in lofty places. It is thus suggested that
where there has been no rending of the soul, art can be scrupulously
accurate and achieve finite greatness; ‘avec Vart chrétien nous éprouvons
le trouble et le déchirement’’. Euripides, in the Helena, describes the

1 E. Scherer, Etudes critiques de littérature, vol. 1. p. 57:

XXxXii INTRODUCTION.

life of Ganymede in the Olympian abode as kadAryddnvos, and no
single word perhaps describes more properly the art in which the
Greek spirit revealed its rhythm. The calmness of the atmosphere,
in which that art lived, was untroubled, for ‘the wind which bloweth
where it listeth’ had not yet been loosed.

‘Un rhythme secret’ M. Cherbuliez writes of the Greeks ‘réglait
leurs mouvements les plus vifs, et il se faisait, au fond de ces cceurs si
bien gouvernés, comme le doux bruit d’une féte, dont une divinité,
couronnée de fleurs, était la supréme ordonnatrice’. A divinity crowned
with flowers is a happy image for the spirit which presided over ‘the
delightful things in Hellas’ and illuminated Pindar’s imagination. By
the shores of the midland sea, not yet ‘dolorous’, were raised, under
a really benignant breath, palaces of music, shining afar, and statues
of ivory and gold. Haggard forlorn faces, wizened forms did not
haunt the soul, nor were there any yearnings to heavenward, Grace,
which maketh the ways of men soft’, being arbitress then with undivided
right and ‘crowned with flowers’ in those bright pagan borders. ‘The
spirit of man, bland but without effeminacy, dwelling, as it were, in a
strong and beautiful body, had no thought of the faintness of old age,
no foreboding of a day when it should leave the broken shell, naked,
stark, pallid—as the Roman Emperor conceived the soul sundered from
the body,—and be swept along dreary ways into wild places and
‘devious coverts of dismay’, which are known, at least partly, to those
who live now, the experienced of the children of men. Pindar may
well interest us as the most characteristic poet of that fortunate spirit.

1 ydpis 8 arep dravrarebyerta meldixa of. cit. p. 16: ‘Die Olympischen Gétter
@varots (First Olympian, 1. 30), which werden durch menschliches Leid und
means that men owe all their aesthetic Elend, welches in das Bild der einigen
pleasures to Charis; in other language, Schdnheit der Welt nicht passen wird,
Charis is the divinity of art and of the beleidigt; der Anblick von Leichen
fairest things of nature. For Charis in verunreinigt sie’.

Pindar see Appendix B.—Cf. Liibbert,

2. The Construction of the Pindaric Ode.

The question how the metrical divisions are related to the divisions
of argument in Pindar’s Odes, seems at first sight to present considerable
difficulties. Does each ode, when we regard its matter, fall into divisions
which do not coincide with the terminations of the strophic systems, or
are the two sets of divisions coincident? With this question I propose
to deal. Before dealing with it, however, I must clear the ground by
considering the ingenious but, as I hope to show, groundless theory of
Westphal and Mezger concerning the construction of the Pindaric
hymn.

Westphal has sought to prove, that the hymn of Pindar is built on
the same lines as the nome of Terpander’, and can be analysed into the
parts of which the Terpandrian nome is said to have consisted*. Each
hymn falls into three major divisions, (1) the apya, (2) the oudades and
(3) the odpayis. The transition from the apxé to the opudadds is
called the xatarpo7va, that from the oudados to the odpayis is the pera-
katatpoma. In some hymns a zpooiyov goes before the apya, and
sometimes, though rarely, there is an érapxa or transition from the
mpootm.ov to the apya*. In some hymns too there is an éfddvov or finale,
succeeding the o¢payis.

Of these parts, the o.padds, as its name betokens, is the centre and
kernel of the composition, and it contains the chief thought (Hazége-
danke) of the poem. Thus the nome of Terpander and, according to
Mezger, the ode of Pindar resembled in structure the pediment of a

1 Prolegomena zu Aeschylos Tragé- in the Introduction to his edition of the
dien, 1869. The theory, as worked out Olymfian and Pythian Odes.
by Mezger, was briefly criticised by Mr 2 Pollux, Iv. 66.
Mahaffy in the Preface to his History of 3 For example in the Thirteenth Olym-
Greek Literature, vol. 1. 2nd ed. 1883; pian Ode, which has also an €éédécor,
and afterwards by Professor Gildersleeve according to Mezger’s analysis.

XXXiv INTRODUCTION.

temple. There is a central group, with antiphonic groups on either side
which might be represented thus :

OMadddc
KaTaTpoTa peTakatatpoTa
Apxd coparic
eTrapxa
aes €£d8.ov

Mezger claims to have shown that these divisions underlie all Pindar’s
odes, except six, of which the compass is too short to admit of such
elaboration, and the Eleventh ‘ Nemean’ which is not an ode of victory ;
but even in these a triplicity, which suggests apxa, oppados and ofpayis,
can be traced.

This idea sounds extremely plausible, but will not stand examina-
tion. It must however be distinctly understood that his discovery of
the verbal responsions in Pindar is really quite independent of West-
phal’s attempt to detect the Terpandrian nome lurking in the Odes of
Victory. We can reject Westphal’s Terpandrian divisions, while we accept
the new light thrown by Mezger on the éréwy Oeors ; just as we might
accept Fick’s theory of the original language of the Odyssey, though
we reject the special analysis of Kirchhoff on which Fick has worked.

The considerations, which, in my judgment, are fatal to Westphal’s
theory as worked out by Mezger, may be stated as follows:

1. It implies that Pindar constructed his strophic system and his
trains of thought quite independently ; it implies that the matter and
form of each poem were totally unconnected’. For when the odes are
analysed on the principle of the Terpandrian nome we find that the
strophes are sometimes cut up, sometimes not, at haphazard, by the
divisions of Mezger. Now this independence of matter and form is, @
priort, highly unlikely ; it is certainly not consonant with the spirit of
Greek art. It devolved upon Westphal and Mezger to show cause for
such a strange proceeding, and they have not done so. We know very
little about Terpander’s nome, but it certainly seems extremely probable
that the corresponding parts corresponded in metre. As the apya
answered to the o¢payis, we may conjecture that apyd and odpayis were
similar in metre. ‘The xatatpora was taken up by the petaxatarpora, as
the nomenclature indicates ; is it not probable that they were metrically —
the same? No such metrical correspondence can be found in Pindar;

1 This obvious objection has of course Mr Gildersleeve’s Pindar, Introductory
been noticed by every critic who has Essay, p. lii.
dealt with the question. See, for example,

INTRODUCTION. XXXV

and thus Mezger’s theory implies that the Terpandrian divisions were
transferred into a new metrical system for which they were not intended,
without any attempt to compass a harmony between the old and the
new. That such a consummate artist as Pindar would have been
satisfied with this patchwork it is impossible to believe.

2. Waiving the question of the metre, we find that Mezger’s
analysis of the Odes does not always conform to the structure of the
Terpandrian nome. They do not ali resemble a pediment, of which the
6upados forms the central group. For of some hymns the apxe occupies
the larger portion; in some the o¢payis begins before the middle. Thus
the 6udadds is sometimes in the first half of the hymn and sometimes in
the second'; it is not always in the middle. Such flagrant inequalities
in proportion, as well as the absence of correspondence in metre, throw
discredit on the theory.

3. If then neither fixed relations of metre nor fixed length are
marks of the Terpandrian divisions in Pindar, it remains that they should
be at least distinguished by some definite character in point of matter.
Here certainly the champions of the nome seem to have something to
urge for their cause. It is pointed out as the mark of the oudados that
it contains the myth. But even this mark is not certain, and Mezger
has to confess that there are six odes” in which the op¢adds does not
contain the myth. Allowing the exceptions to pass, we ask whether,
after all, this observation proves anything. Supposing that there had
never been any such thing as a Terpandrian nome, should not we expect
to find, as a general rule, the illustrative legend placed somewhere in
the middle of the poem? ‘The natural conditions of such a work
evidently demand that the poet should begin with his proper theme,
that he should pass from it to the mythical tale which illustrates it, and
that he should then return to his theme again. In certain cases some
artistic effect may be gained by not returning again, as in the First and
Tenth Nemean Odes. Now if Pindar’s hymns conform to this obvious
law of art, how can such a conformity prove any relationship to
Terpander’s nomes? And the same argument applies to the xatatpora
and petaxatatpoma. As a matter of course, there are transitions in
Pindar’s Odes. There must be a transition to the myth; and the poet,
as a rule, passes back again to the personal theme of the poem. But

1 This doubtless is what Wilamowitz- welche Pindar auf das kreuz des terpan-
Moellendorff means when he says (Euripi- drischen nomos schlagen’.
des, Herakles, B. I. p. 329 note) : ‘Dies 2 Pythian \. and 1x., Vemean I. and X.,

gedicht (Vem. 1.) und N. to diirfte man J/sthmian 11. and VI.
zunachst von den herrn erklart wiinschen,

XXXVi INTRODUCTION.

there is no sufficient reason for identifying these transitions with the
catatropa and metacatatropa of the nome. It is true that there is
constantly a connexion in idea between these parts, in the analysis of
Mezger. But this does not amount to a proof, and, if it did, it would
prove too much, for in every hymn there are parallelisms of idea in
many places. Mezger also points out that in certain cases, where the
katatpora and petaxatatpora happen to correspond partially in metre,
there are verbal responsions. But this observation likewise proves too
much ; for verbal responsions occur in all the parts, indifferently, and
are not peculiar to these two divisions.

It appears then that Mezger has produced no sufficient reason for
identifying the divisions into which he has broken up the Odes of
Pindar with the divisions of the Terpandrian nome, recorded by Pollux.
It appears also that in point of form there is much to be said against
this theory ; for it involves divisions which are neither symmetrical in
length nor confederate with the metre.

4. If Pindar really did adopt the structure of the Terpandrian nome
as his reOuos, it is very strange that he makes no allusion to it. For
such an allusion would have been quite in his manner. It seems
almost certain that he would have sometimes hinted at those charac-
teristic names, the sea/ and the zave/. As no such an allusion is to be
found in the Odes, there is, to my mind, a presumption that these
names were not the keywords of his reOyos.

We may then set aside as groundless the doctrine that Pindar built
his odes by the canon of the Terpandrian nome. We must also set aside
the misleading comparison of a Pindaric Ode to the pediment of a
temple. If there had been any real analogy between the Theban and
the Corinthian eagles, Pindar would not have failed to remark it’. He
would have eagerly grasped the opportunity of likening his hymns to
pediments, just as he likens them occasionally to statues and often to
palaces.

Of one fact at least as to the construction of Pindar’s hymns we are
assured. We know that those hymns, which were to be sung by a
chorus in procession, consist of a number of repetitions of a strophe ;
hence they are called monostrophic. We know that the s¢as¢ma, which

1 In OZ. x11. 21 Pindar mentions the comparison between the derds and his
pediment (derés) as an invention of the own odes. It seems to me that too much
Corinthians, along with the curb and the _ is made of this passage in the admirable
dithyramb, (tls...0e@v vactow olwvGv Baoi- essay on ‘ Pindar’s Odes of Victory’ in
Aéa didujsov ér€Oyx’ ;) but he suggests no the Quarterly Review (Jan. 1886) p. 171.

INTRODUCTION. XXXVii

were sung by a standing chorus, consist of a number of repetitions of a
system. By sys¢em I mean the metrical group which consists of strophe,
antistrophos and epode. ‘These are the obvious elementary facts about
the form of Pindar’s Odes. The problem is to determine how the
matter is related to the form. It would be inconsistent with the first
principles of all Greek literary art to suppose that no such relation
existed. It would be absurd to imagine that Pindar constructed his
odes on two discordant systems without any attempt to harmonise
them, or that he adopted a form which had no relation to the matter.
This problem chiefly concerns the stasima. The monostrophic hymns,
which are comparatively few in number, present little difficulty.

If all the hymns were like the Eleventh ‘Nemean’, the problem
would be easily solved. That composition consists of three systems,
and each system is an unity in itself. The divisions of matter and form
in this case absolutely coincide. The whole poem is an unity ; but it is
built up of three subordinate unities of equal length. This hymn
however is exceptional ; it is not the Pindaric type. In the first place,
all the odes are not formally threefold. Of the extant odes, nine
(including ‘Nemean’ x1.) consist of three systems, eleven consist of
four systems, and eleven consist of five systems. In the long Fourth
Pythian there are thirteen repetitions of the metrical unit. Thus odes
consisting of three systems are in the minority. In the second place
we cannot in the other odes distinguish subordinate unities punctually
coinciding with the metrical unities, as in the Eleventh ‘Nemean’.
In most cases the train of thought and the grammar run on from one
system into another.

The inference which we are entitled to draw is clear. The Eleventh
‘Nemean’ represents an older type, against which Pindar’s other odes
are areaction. It is a misfortune that no complete ode remains from
the workshop of Stesichorus, who had the glory of inventing the system
of strophe, antistrophos and epode. But we may consider it probable
that the Eleventh ‘Nemean’ represents the Stesichorean type. I have
little doubt that in the hymn of Stesichorus each system was a
subordinate unity, shut up in itself. My contention is supported by
the circumstance that the Eleventh ‘ Nemean’ is just the work which we
might expect to represent an older form. For it is the only one of
_Pindar’s extant odes which is not an ode of victory. It was composed
for the esttéria of a prytanis of Tenedos, and in a hymn for such an
occasion Pindar was more likely to be conservative.

We are now much nearer to a solution of our problem. In
proposing that problem we have a certain standard in our minds. Our

XXXViil INTRODUCTION.

standard is a hymn in which the divisions of matter and the divisions of
form should punctually coincide; and as we see at the first glance that
Pindar does not conform to such a standard, we ask, why? Had he
some other canon? But now we have advanced to another point of
view, and we have at least reason for suspecting that Pindar was
purposely avoiding the very standard, which we might have expected
him to adopt.

The type of the Eleventh ‘Nemean’ is directly opposed to the
divisions which Mezger has sought to establish in the epinician hymns.
In the former case there is absolute coincidence in the partitions of
matter and form ; in the latter case there is no coincidence at all ; or, if
there is occasionally, it is purely accidental. Nowa careful examination
of all the odes shows that Pindar followed neither of these plans. The
principle assumed by Mezger would indeed never have occurred to him;
for it is thoroughly inartistic. But the other principle was doubtless the
established canon of the Stesichorean hymn, and Pindar must have had
a definite design in abandoning it.

It is not difficult to see Pindar’s motive here. The sheer divisions
between the parts of the hymn produce a stiff and unpleasing effect.
The full stops interrupt the flow; and the unity of the whole is to some
extent sacrificed to the integrity of the parts. The want of transitions
is felt. We can appreciate this stiffness of effect in the Eleventh
‘Nemean’, and we can understand how much was gained by abandoning
that type, when we compare with it one of the epinicians.

What Pindar had to do then was to break down the wall of partition
between the metrical systems. While he preserved the general corre-
spondence between divisions of thought and divisions of metre, it was
his aim to make the whole ode as far as possible continuous. Wherever
the sense is obviously continuous, it makes little difference whether the
systems are syntactically connected or not. Such is the case, for
example, in the narration of a story. It is when a new system introduces
a new division of the composition that Pindar is careful to avoid a
break or a full stop. He tries, as it were, to disguise the division by an
intentional overlapping. Sometimes indeed, though rarely, we find an
absolute break,—a survival of the old method ; but in such cases some
special effect is aimed at. In many cases the continuity is formally
preserved by a relative pronoun or a relative adverb, at the beginning of
the new system. But most often there is an overlapping ; the last words
of an epode belong to the following strophe or the first words of a
strophe belong to the foregoing epode. Occasionally the overlapping is
considerable, but in these cases there was generally a special motive.

INTRODUCTION. XXXiX

There is some reason for conjecturing that in his later years Pindar
handled his transitions with much greater freedom than in his early
period. ©

The comparison which Pindar institutes between his odes and works
of architecture! throws light on his procedure. He likens his works not
to pediments but to palaces. Holding to this metaphor, we may regard
the metrical systems as the rooms of the palace ; the first for example
being the zpo@upoy, as ‘the mason’ himself suggests in the opening lines
of the Sixth Olympian. According to the old type, the systems were like
unconnected compartments, each shut into itself. Pindar’s improvement
was to open the doors of connexion ; in his odes, each chamber com-
municates with that which follows, so that the Muse can sweep on
unhindered from ingress to egress.

In order to establish this it will be necessary to consider briefly each
ode separately. For our present purpose we may divide the odes,
according to the number of systems, into four classes: Odes (n)of3
systems, (2) of 4 systems, (3) of 5 systems; (4) the Fourth Pythian,
consisting of 13 systems. It is worthy of observation that there are no
odes of two systems’.

I. All the odes of three systems are tripartite in matter as well
as in metre. The mythical part is generally in the centre, but not
always.

(x) I begin with the Sixth Nemean because it contains a survival
of the want of continuity which characterised the old type. The third
system begins abruptly, without any attempt at a transition ; and this
is certainly unlike the usual procedure of Pindar. The connexion
between the first and second systems is smoothed by the relative é7et.
In this hymn the myth is in the third part.

(2) In the Eighth Nemean (a) the first line of strophe 2 (beginning
with do7ep) is closely connected with the last line of epode 1. The
second division of the ode properly begins in the second line of the
strophe. (2) The other transition is smoothed by rovotroy at the
beginning of the 3rd system, referring to the last words of the 2nd
epode. The myth is in the centre.

(3) The second transition (from the second to the third system)
in the Fifth Nemean is very skilfully managed. The myth, which

1 Furtwangler (in de Stegesgesdinge des 2 Thus Bergk’s conjecture that the
Pindaros) has worked out curiously a 3rd ‘Isthmian’ (acc. to his numbering)
parallel between the Pindaric Ode and __ originally consisted of two triads, of which
the Greek temple. one has been lost, was not happy.

xl INTRODUCTION.

occupies the second division of the hymn, leads, quite naturally, up to
Poseidon, and in Poseidon’s company we pass from legend to the
Isthmus and athletic victories won there. ‘The third strophe begins

yapBpov Toceddwva mefrais, 6s Atyabev x.7.d.

This is one of Pindar’s most strikingly successful transitions.

On the other hand the first and second systems of this hymn are
not connected; but the want of connexion is intentional. Pindar
notifies this by calling a halt, as it were, at the end of the first epode:

, 5 yy 7
OTagopaL’ OV TOL aTaca K.T.A,

and the second strophe begins abruptly a new subject, with the
usual dé.

(4) The Third Olympian affords another example of a very
successful transition. (a) The myth of Heracles visiting the Hyper-
boreans and obtaining there the olive tree to plant at Olympia occupies
the central system. It is thus introduced

...yAavkoxpoa Kdopov édaias, Tav Tore
"lotpov amd oKiapav mayday evekey “Apditpvoviddas
pvapa tov OvrAvpria Kahduotov adov,
strophe 2
ddpov “YrepBopewy reicais x.7.X.

We thus pass to a new part, without a break in the continuity. (4)
The conclusion of the legend extends a short way into the third
system; but only such a part of it as closely bears on the Olympian
festival to which the poet then returns.

(5) The Second Isthmian is marked by the absence of the mythical
element. In both the transitions there is an overlapping. (a) The
Isthmian victory of Xenocrates leads us from the first system to the
second, in which past victories at other festivals are recorded. ()
The first two lines of the third system are connected not with what
follows but with what precedes.

(6) In the Fifth Isthmian (Bergk’s numbering) the myth is in the
centre. (@) The last sentence of epode r overflows into strophe
2—rtavd és evvouov woAw, and in this position these words become
very emphatic. (4) The third system is connected with the second
by the relative rotov, referring to heroes mentioned in epode 2.

(7) The legend of Telamon occupies the middle system of the
Sixth Isthmian (Bergk’s numbering). (@) It is introduced thus :

INTRODUCTION. xli

ovd éotw ovtw BapBapos ovTe madiyyAwooos moALs
dtis ov I Aéos...Kdéos...

strophe 2
ovd’ atis Alavtos TeAapwvidda

A Ul A
kal maTpos* Tov K.T.A.

(4) The legend runs on into the 3rd strophe, occupying no less than
five lines. This excessive overlapping requires an explanation ; and the
explanation clearly is that the poet wished to make the words of the
prophet, contained in these lines, particularly emphatic, and to point
their application to the matter in hand.

(8) In the Seventh Isthmian (Bergk’s numbering) the mythical
matter is in the first part. (a) The transition from the first to the
second system is divided between them both :

...dpvapoves d€ Bporoi,
strophe 2
0,TL py aodias K.T.A.

(2) The second and third system also overlap :

> , c ,
ameTvevoas adiKiav
strophe 3
Tpopaxov av opirov, evf x.7.d.

at which point Pindar leaves Strepsiades parpus.

In regard, then, to the odes of three systems we see that each
consists of three parts, coincident in form and matter. Eight such
epinician odes are extant, and in these eight there are consequently
16 cases of transition from system to system. In only two of the
16 cases is there an absolute break; and one of these two breaks is
designed.

II. Odes of four systems are of three kinds, bipartite, tripartite,
and quadripartite. They are bipartite when there is a close connexion
between systems 1 and 2, and between systems 3 and 4. They are
tripartite when systems 2 and 3 form an unity. ‘They are quadripartite
when each system stands by itself. Of the eleven odes of this structure,
three are bipartite (Vemean 1., Pythian v., and Isthmian wv.), five
tripartite (Pythian x., Nemean 1., Olympians 1., VUI., 1X.) and three
quadripartite (/s¢hmian 1., Pythian 11. and X1.).

(1) The First Nemean is bipartite, the myth occupying the second
half. The introduction to the myth begins in the second epode, where
the birth of Heracles is related ; but the main tale of the battle with

xlii INTRODUCTION.

the serpents does not begin till the third strophe. Pindar signifies this

by the resumption of os,
epode 2

eee ee eeeeeeree

strophe 3
ws ov Aabov k.7.r.
The second os is as much as to say: ‘the last two lines of the epode
were an anticipation ; we are now really entering on the second part of
the hymn’.

In the two subordinate transitions there is no loss of continuity.
éréBay (last line of epode 1) and éorav 6 (first line of strophe 2) have
the same subject. The fourth system continues the tale of Heracles.

(2) The Fifth Pythian falls into two parts, and the myth occupies
part of the second. ‘The transition is made by the relative 6 at the
beginning of strophe 3. The subordinate transitions are cases of
overlapping’.

(3) The Fourth Isthmian (according to Bergk’s numbering) is
bipartite ; the first part is concerned rather with the family of the victor
Melissus, the second part with himself. The transition is managed
cleverly. Ajax at the end of the 2nd epode suggests Homer who
honoured him, and thus leads to the power of poetry. The two
subordinate transitions in this ode are marked by grammatical con-
tinuity.

(4) The Tenth Pythian, Pindar’s earliest extant hymn, is tripartite,
the myth coming in the central division. (a) The first words of strophe
2 and the last of epode 1 form one idea,

€r0LTO pLotpa. Kal VoTEpaow
év apépais ayavopa thodrov avbeiv opiow*
strophe 2
tov & év “EdAads teprvav
sosase eT UKUpoa.er.
The central part consists of general reflexions and the Hyperborean
myth. (4) ‘There is a break between systems 3 and 4, but Pindar
prepares for a new subject by the last words of epode 3,
eykwplov yap awros UpVov
éx ddAoT aAXov ore pedicca Giver oyov.
1 It might be thought that the return connected with Cyrene that such a divi-
from the myth to Arcesilaus in the end sion was unnecessary, and Pindar clearly

of the 4th strophe ought to mark a new intended to emphasize the intimate con-
division. But the myth is so intimately nexion formally.

INTRODUCTION. xiii

(5) The mythical narratives in Memean u1. fill the second and
third systems, and thus it is tripartite. (@) The transition is skilful.
The proverbial pillars of Heracles introduce the myth of Heracles in the
western sea.

ovKéTt—

kuovev vrép “Hpakdéos repav eipapés,
strophe 2

npws Oeds as K.7.X.

(6) The first line of strophe 4 belongs in sense to the preceding
epode :

mAravyes apape péyyos Aiaxidav aitobev.
But at the same time it lights us forward as well as backward.

In the subordinate division between systems 2 and 3 there is a
break.

(6) The First Olympian is tripartite. (@) The first and second
systems overlap. Preparations for the myth begin in epode 1. (4)
The myth runs over into the fourth strophe, but so as to bring us back
to the Alpheus.

(7) The Eighth Olympian is also tripartite. (a) The transition
from system 1 to system 2 is thus managed:

doKeirat Meus
strophe 2
€£0x avOpwrwv.

(2) The third part is begun at the end of the 3rd epode
viv pev advt@ yépas “AAKipédwv «.T.A.

(8) The Ninth Olympian falls into three parts. (a) The myth is

thus introduced :
epode 1

ayaboi dé kal copot Kata Saipov’ avdpes
strophe 2
eyevovT. eet K.T.A,
(2) Part 3 begins in the penultimate line of the 3rd epode

mpotevia 0 apeta tT HAOov k.T.A.

(9) The First Isthmian naturally resolves itself into four parts,
corresponding to the four systems. (@) The myth, which is placed in
the second system, begins in the last line of the 1st epode :

lal A c / Xx
KELVOL y@P NPwwVv K.T.A,

xliv INTRODUCTION.

(2) The theme of the third system is introduced in the last lines of the
2nd epode, and there is grammatical continuity :

yapicopar—tav “Acwrodwpov matpos atcav
strophe 3
Opxopevoio TE TaTpwav apovpay, k.T.r.
(c) Between the 3rd and 4th systems there is a break, strophe 4
beginning thus :
aupe d e€ouxe Kpovov ceixdov’ viov x.t.A.

But the abruptness is much lessened by the circumstance that he is
proceeding to carry out what he said in the 2nd epode:

eyo 0€ Hocedawvi 7 “Iobua te...7epictéh\Nwv dovdar,

eyd is taken up by aypu, and Iocedaww by cecixov’ viov.

(10) The Second Pythian consists of four parts. (a) The myth
of Ixion is introduced in epode 1. (4) There is a sharp break between
systems 2 and 3, but there was a special intention here. Pindar wished
to emphasize eos, the opposition of 6eoi and Bporoi being an important
element in the ode. The 3rd strophe begins

‘\ 7 SiN / / . ,
Geos amav émi FeATidecou TEKMAP AVVETAL,

, AY ‘
Oeds, 6 Kal x.7.X.

Thus the word is emphasized in two ways, by its abrupt introduction
and by its repetition. (¢) The fourth part begins in the last line of
epode 3, and there is grammatical continuity.

(11) The Eleventh Pythian is peculiar. It falls into four parts,
but Pindar suggests that it was very nearly becoming a poem of three
parts. (a) The relative tov dy connects the second system, which is
occupied with the myth of Orestes, and the first. (4) ‘The myth runs
on into the third system, so that we expect it to occupy two systems.
But at the beginning of the 3rd antistrophos Pindar pulls himself up
with these remarkable words

> © > / WEE) , , > ,
1) Pp > WwW pirou, KAT Q[LEVO LTTOPOV Tplodov edwabyv,

> \ / 2s fi“ 4 , »” ” 4
opOav KeAevOov LWV TOT Ply 7) Pe TL OVELOS e€w aAoou

c 7 2 m” 4
éBarev ws oT axatov eivadiar;

This is a sort of apology for not concluding the myth at the end of the
second epode. Of course the apology is ironical; édwaéyv and e€w
wAoov are also ironical; for it was with a design that Pindar let the myth
overflow. Nevertheless his words indicate that he was doing an
unusual thing. The result is that the third division of the hymn
consists partly of matter that might seem to belong to the second

INTRODUCTION. xlv

division, partly of matter that might seem appropriate to the fourth
division and partly of an explanation of the irregularity. (c) The
fourth part begins with

Oed0ev épaiuny Kaddv
n the second line of strophe 4.

In the eleven Odes, which have four systems, we have met two
cases of an abrupt transition (in the First Isthmian and the Second
Pythian), and in both these cases we have seen that there are reasons
which mitigate or explain the abruptness.

III. Eleven of the remaining Pindaric odes have five metrical
systems, and these systems are combined in various ways. (a) The
favourite type is that in which systems 2, 3 and 4 are closely connected;

thus—
a

I=2+3+4=5.
To this type belong Olympians U., VI., VU, x. and Wemean vil. (6)
Another symmetrical form is

Va as

[+ 2=3=4+5.
The First and Eighth Pythians are thus constructed. (c) The Third
and Ninth Pythians are bipartite, a continuous narration running
through the first three systems:

nS gn —

I+2+3=4+5.
(7) The Thirteenth Olympian and (e) the Tenth Nemean have each
four parts, but not distributed exactly in the same way :

We may consider the Odes in this order.

(1) Inthe Second Olympian (a) the last sentence of epode 1 runs
into strophe 2 and (4) the myth is concluded in the beginning of
strophe 5.

(2) In the Sixth Olympian (a) there is a pause between the first
and second systems. Strophe 2 begins thus:

°Q Pivtis, ddAa Ledéov ndyn por cbevos nurovov.

The abruptness is happy, for it gives the effect of making haste to reach
Olympia. (2) The transition from system 4 to system 5 is veiled by
grammatical continuity.

(3) The transitions in the Seventh Olympian are managed by

xlvi INTRODUCTION.

relatives; (a) totow connects system 2 with system 1 and (4) rot
connects system 5 with system 4.

(4) In the Tenth Olympian, (a) a general remark in the last two
lines of epode 1, followed by a general reflexion in the first two lines of
strophe 2, forms the transition to the myth. (%) ‘The third part begins
in the last line of the 4th epode.

(5) The three central systems of the Seventh Nemean belong
closely together, although the mythical part ends in the third strophe.
By this means Pindar has indicated that the myths are intimately
connected with the words which he addresses to Thearion in the 3rd
epode and with what he says to Sogenes in the 4th strophe and anti-
strophos. (a) The transition to the myths is a criticism of Homer
which begins in the last lines of epode 1. (6) ‘The third part of the
ode begins at the end of the 4th epode—Aé€yovri yap Aiaxov x.7.A.

(6) Of the First Pythian (a) the second part, which occupies the
third system, begins in the second line of strophe 3: avdpa 8 éyw
ketvov «.7.\. (2) The fourth system is connected with the third by the
relative 70.

(7) In the Eighth Pythian (a) the transition from the second to the
third system is skilful :

epode 2

Aoyov épets
Tov ovmep tot "OuxXéos mats ev extarvAos idwv
@nBais viots aivigato wappévovtas aixpa,
strophe 3

onot am “Apyeos nAvOov x.7.X.
It will be observed that while the narration is continuous we do not
know that we are to have the myth until the third strophe begins. (4)
Between the third and fourth systems there is an apparent break.
Strophe 4 begins with an address to Apollo:

mT 8, éxataBoXe, tavdoKov
vaov evkA€a dvavewwv
IIvOGvos év yvadous x.7.A.
But as Delphi is directly suggested in the last lines of epode 3,

c / Ow “ > ‘\ > Wey 2
(vravracev iovte yas oppadov map aoidipov
pavTevpdtov T epaiatro cvyyovoiwt TEéxVaLs)
the passage to the last part of the hymn is not really abrupt. In fact

this case might be quoted to illustrate Pindar’s care in smoothing
transitions,

INTRODUCTION. xlvii

(8) The myth occupies the first three systems of the Third Pythian.
The 3rd epode leads gradually up to the Airvatos éévos,

ds Suvpaxdocaror véwer BaoiAevs—strophe 4.

(9) Between the two parts of the Ninth Pythian there is, super-
ficially, a sharper division than usual. The myth ends in the middle of
epode 3, the rest of which is occupied by a declaration of the victory
achieved by Telesicrates :

kat vov ev Wvéoavi wv [Kupavay| dya@éa Kapveada
e\ > a , , 7
vids evOarel cvvewee TVya,
va vikdoas avepave Kupavay a vw evdpwv déEerar
Kaddvyvvaike TaTpa
dogay iweptay ayayovt amd AeXdav.
strophe 4
apetat & aiet peyadar rodvpvOor'
‘\ > + an /
Bawa 8 ev paxpotor zoukiAXew
> \ ~ ¢ \ ‘\ ec ,
akoa Gopots' 0 d€ KaLpos Opotws

‘ ” ,
TAVTOS EXEL KOpudav.

The last lines of the epode in the strictest sense belong to the first part
of the hymn. The myth is both preceded and followed by notifications
of Telesicrates’ victory ; and these lines express in a new way the idea
which the first lines of the hymn had already stated. Thus we come to
a full stop at the word AeAdav, and if the hymn had ended here we
might have thought it a complete composition. dperai 8 aiet peyadar
seems to begin anew, and although we apprehend on reflexion that the
general expression is suggested by the particular dpera of Telesicrates, just
mentioned, still it cannot be denied that there is as rough a break here
between the systems, as either of the breaks in the Eleventh Nemean.
It may be that by this break Pindar wished to introduce with solemn
emphasis his thoughts about Opportunity ; for this idea is the feature of
the ode, called by Mezger ‘ Das Hohelied von xaipés’.

(10) In the Thirteenth Olympian (a) there is a sufficient break
between systems 1 and 2 to invest the prayer to Zeus with a due
solemnity. ‘The first system eulogizes Corinth and strophe 2 begins

iA ? ,
UTaT evpvavacowr

*Odvprias..-

Kat tovde Aady aBAafsh véwwv K.7.X.

There is no stiffness in a transition like this. (4) There is sufficient

B. a

xl viii INTRODUCTION.

connexion of thought between the end of epode 2 and the first lines of
strophe 3 to obviate the unpleasant effect of a complete break.
ws pav cades
ovk dv cidetnv A€yew Tovtiav Wadwv apiOpor.
strophe 3
emetar © ev ExaoTw

pétpov? vonoar d€ KaLpOS apLoTos.
(c) There is a greater break between systems 4 and 5.

epode 4
siagwracopal of popov eys,
tov 0 ev OvidAvyrw darvar Zyvos apxator dékovrat.
strophe 5
tut 0 evdiv axovtwv
es ev \ ‘ 3 \
ievra pouBov mapa oKorov ov xpy K.T.A.

Here the emphatic repetition of the first personal pronoun helps to
bridge across a passage to the new system.

(11) In the Tenth Nemean (a) the first line of strophe 2 refers
directly to the theme of system 1. (4) There is a slight break between
systems 2 and 3, but the subject of the verb (€uoderv) in the last line of
epode 2 is directly addressed in the first line of strophe 3. (¢) The
third epode leads up to the myth. The direct continuity is superficially
broken by the interposed reflexion (kai av Gedv microv yévos) at the end
of epode 3.

From this analysis it appears that in the eleven odes consisting of
five metrical systems, there is only one case of an abrupt division,
without an apparent motive, namely in the Ninth Pythian.

IV. The Fourth Pythian stands by itself as the only surviving
specimen of an ode exceeding in length the measure of five systems.
It falls naturally into three parts, the myth extending from strophe 4 to
epode 11. Thus:

I+2+3=4+7..-+11L=12 + 13.

(2) ‘The first transition is on this wise :
azo 8 avtov eyo Moicoor duiow
Kal TO TdyYXpvToV VaKOS KpLOv’ peTa yap
Keivo tAevodvrwy Murvav, Oedroprot odiow tysat puvtevder.

strophe 4

, ‘\ > *
TLS yap apxy KoEeLaTo vauTtAtas 3 K.T.A.

INTRODUCTION. xlix

(2) Weare prepared for the end of the myth and the approach of
the third part by the first words of the 11th epode (paxpa pow vetoOar Kar’
apaéirov x.7...). ‘The end of the legend, rapidly told, runs over into the
r2th strophe, where it loses itself in the early history of Cyrene.

The result of this investigation is that the avoidance of abrupt
transitions is a distinct feature of Pindar’s art, and that this feature tends
to disguise the agreement which really exists between the metre-groups
and the subject-groups (if I may be permitted to use these expressions)
of his odes. ‘There are a few cases in which the clefts of metre are
not bridged over by a close connexion of grammar or sense; but they
are few, and mostly designed to produce a special effect. There are
only two cases where no cause for the abruptness is apparent, in (1) the
Sixth Nemean and (2) the Ninth Pythian; and even of these the
second possibly admits of explanation.

The strange expression which Pindar uses of his own improvements
in art, veootyadov e’povte tporov (OZ. 111. 4), may allude partly to his
smooth transitions. In any case it is a metaphor from the craft of the
mason or the carpenter, not from the craft of the sculptor ; for words in
the context show that the construction of the hymn is compared to the
building of a house.

, > , o > , > ,
@npwvos ‘Odvpsriovikay vpvov op@dcas, axapavToTodwy
Y ” a > 9 / ay 4,
imrwv awtov. Motca 8 ovtw rou wapéota por veortyadov evpdvTe tporov
> ‘i ,
TEL... OTEPAVOL
, , A , ,
TPATCoVTL pe TOLTO HedSpatov xpéos,
/ > a .
poppiyya Te Tou yapuv Kal Body avrdv éréwy Te Pow (laying of words)
cal ,
Bers OUMpigar TpeTovTus.

The adjective ovyadces is used in Homer of vzepwia as well as of
seats (Apovos), reins, linen garments &c.; and veoo’yados suggests the
high polish, obtained by new methods, of the chambers of Pindar’s
palaces.

In conclusion I must briefly notice the monostrophic Odes, intended
to be sung in procession. They are built on the same principles as the
stasima. The strophe takes the place of the system. Thus the Twelfth
Pythian, consisting of 4 strophes, is constructed in the same way as the
Tenth Pythian which consists of 4 systems. The 2nd and 3rd strophes
containing the myth hang closely together. A relative pronoun
connects the 2nd strophe with the rst, while there is grammatical
continuity between the 3rd and 4th. The Eighth Isthmian (to Clean-

] INTRODUCTION.

dros of Aegina), consisting of seven strophes, is similarly constructed

ae rea aes

(1+2=3+4+5+6=7), and the transitions are equally smooth. The
a 7a

formula of the Second Nemean (5 strophes) is 1+2=3 =4+5; the

central strophe being mythical. The Fourth Nemean has twelve
strophes, of which the central six contain the mythical element; (a) the
first transition is skilful and (4) the return from myth-land is formally
announced in the end of the gth strophe. The transitions in the

Fa EO
Sixth Pythian (1+2=3+4+5=6) are also smooth. The Ninth
Nemean falls into two parts, a mythical and a non-mythical, which
meet in the 6th or central strophe. But this poem suggests more than
anything else a series of scenes, passing into each other, on a running
frieze, like that of the Parthenon cella. And this comparison illus-
trates the feature of Pindar’s art, which it has been the object of this
essay to illustrate and emphasize. The metrical systems of the older
Odes, typified by the Eleventh Nemean, might be compared to a series
of metopes, kept apart by the intervening triglyphs; whereas the
Pindaric hymn resembled rather a continuous frieze, without blanks.
But it should be remembered that the truest analogy for the Pindaric
Ode, and that sanctioned by the artist himself, is the analogy of a house
or palace’.

As to the construction of the strophe itself, it is not my intention to
say much. I determined to exclude from this edition the abstruse and
repulsive subject of ‘colometry’, for [ could not find that it contributed
to the comprehension of Pindar’s meaning or that it gave much assist-
ance towards the enjoyment of his rhythms. But I have taken
advantage of Dr M. Schmidt’s studies on the S¢rophendau of the
Pindaric Ode (which indeed involve the rejection of colometry) and
I have incorporated his results in the metrical analysis of each hymn.
It seemed quite unnecessary to give any account of the new methods
of treating Greek metres, of which J. H. H. Schmidt has been the chief
exponent. The mysteries of irrational syllables, cyclic dactyls, synco-
pation, paxpai tpionuor &c. have been familiar to English students

1 Tt is unnecessary to introduce into
this discussion the four short Odes of one
system (Olymp. Iv., X., X11. and Pyth.
vil.) or the Fourteenth Olympian which
consists of two strophes. I have omitted
the Fifth Olympian from my list of hymns

of three systems, as I have been unable
to satisfy myself that it is the work of
Pindar. As for the 7hzrd ‘Isthmian’,
see my paper in /V/ermathena, vol. XV1.,
18go.

INTRODUCTION. li

since the publication of Professor Jebb’s Oedipus Rex. The subject
has also been treated, in special reference to Pindar, in Mr Gilder-
sleeve’s edition of the Olympian and Pythian Odes.

The symmetrical arrangements of peyeOy, or groups of feet, which
M. Schmidt has discovered in the strophes and epodes, seem to me
superior to the analyses of J. H. H. Schmidt and Westphal. Occasionally
these constructions compass or conduce to an aesthetic effect ; as for
example in the first epode of the Eleventh Nemean

(A) avdpa 8 eyo paxapilo pev marép “Apkeciday,
Kat 70 Oanrov demas atpeuiav te Evyyovov.

(A’) «i d€ tus OABov exwv popha mwepapevoerar aGrwv,
ev tr aAouww apistevov éerédeacev Biav'

(B) vara pepvacbw repictéAov pen

‘ \ ¢ / cal /
Kal TeXevTaVY aTavTWY yaVv ETLETTO/LEVOS.

Here the structure is epodic. Upon the two parts A and A’ (corre-
sponding in the number and character of their feet), which describe the
advantages of the man who is deemed happy, supervenes an epode (B),
metrically dissimilar, with the suggestion of death supervening on the
fair things of life. ‘Thus the metrical structure deepens the effect of
the words,—they have almost the sound of a knell. That the effect
might have been deepened still more by the accompanying music, we
can well imagine.

ey MID Teak

The most important mss. for the text of the Nemean and Isthmian
Odes are the Vatican B (of the 12th century) and the Medicean D (B).
Unfortunately the Ambrosian (A), which has preserved some important
variants, contains only the first twelve Olympian hymns. All the mss.’
of Pindar are derived from a single archetype; and there are con-
siderations which show that this archetype was of late date. The
principles adopted by its author in arranging the verses set at defiance
the metrical doctrines of the Alexandrine grammarians, and betray
complete ignorance of the studies of Aristophanes in the field of lyric
poetry. Hence Christ deduces that this lost Ms. was written long after
the days of Alexandrine learning.

It is a matter of importance for the purposes of textual criticism to
reach some conclusion as to the comparative values of the fountain
of our mss. and the Pindaric scholia. It is generally confessed that
some German scholars have gone to unwarranted extremes in eliciting
emendations from the scholia; but even judicious editors have, in
my opinion, given them undue weight. ‘These scholia are founded
on a Pindaric commentary composed by Didymus, who lived about the
Christian aera; but citations from the grammarian Herodian prove
that they were compiled at a time subsequent to the middle of the

‘emendations’ of these students of the
15th century, and have little value ; some-

1 Of less importance are B (Augusta-

nus C) and B (Augustanus E?). Besides

these, MSs. contain Vem. I., 11., U1. and
1v. ll. 1—68: namely V (Parisinus A),
X Estensis B, X (Estensis A), these two
also containing Vem. VI. 34—44; also
X (Par. D), Y (Venetus D). Moreover
Z (Vindobon. D!) has Mem. 1.—111., T
(Vat. C) and U (Vindob. A) have Wem. 1.,
i. and Z (Aug. D?) has Vem. 1. 1—40.
The Byzantine mss. of Moschopulos
and Triclinius are spoiled by the bad

times however they have a reading which
deviates from the old Mss. and rests per-
haps on some lost scholium. Thus in
Ol. VI. 83, &@ pw’ €0édovTa mpogédKe is
found in the “drt Triclinianz, while the
best Mss. have mpocépre. (Two MSS.
have mpocé\xor, and the scholium on 142
has the explanation : mpooayer, mapoévver
Kat a’rov we Oédovra, while in that on 144
we find @\keral we ) Merwrr7.)

INTRODUCTION. liii

second century A.D. It is likely enough that they are considerably
earlier than the archetype of our ss.; but there is no definite proof
of this. I certainly cannot attribute much value to the argument of
Christ, based on Pythian x1. 42. In this passage all the Mss. except
one have

Motoa, 7o 8 éreov, ci picOd ovvebev mrapexew
42 dvav vrdpyvpov addor’ adda xp) Tapacoepev K.T.d.

(P, a Heidelberg ms., has ro 6 redv). The metre in l. 42 requires the
omission of xp7 (and the restoration of dAA@ or aAdq for ada), and this
correction is confirmed by the scholion: avri tod tapacce Kat petadepe*
Neier TO SetAers. Thus the scholiast used a text, which had not been
corrupted by the insertion of xpy, and Christ infers that our archetype
is more recent than the scholia. Possibly; but, on the other hand,
it may be shown that our Mss. are sometimes free from corruptions
which beset the text of the scholiast. There is a remarkable example
in Olympian vi. 97, which has hitherto escaped notice. ‘The Mss.
have
advdoyou S€ vw

Avpau podmat TE ywodoKovte.

On this the scholiast has the following comment: Aé€yovtar at aro Tay
dpydaveov mvoat’ 6 d& Adyos* ai dé ydvAcyor avTov Tvoal TOV opyavwev Kat
dat yvwpilovow.

It is perfectly clear that this is not an explanation of Avpau, which
required no explanation. Bergk recognised this, but he was wrong
in his conclusion that the scholiast read zvoaé, and he was not judicious
in expelling Avpae from the text in favour of zvoai. It is manifestly an
instance of the confusion of A and A. The scholiast found in his text
AYPAI and naturally interpreted it by wvoaé, whereas our archetype
preserved the genuine reading AYPAI. This is a case in which the
ss. have the best of it.

In most cases however there is little or nothing to choose between
the mss. and the scholia. The archetype and the text of the scholiast
seem to have been very much alike; indeed, we might conjecture that
both were derived from a common original, exhibiting all the most
serious corruptions which disfigure our Mss. I am unable, for example,
to ascribe any value to the note preserved in the Medicean on Wemean
X. 74, a note on which Mommsen bases an emendation. (See note on
that passage.)

Although the text of Pindar, compared with that of his contemporary

liv INTRODUCTION.

Aeschylus, has been well preserved, there are many passages which »
obviously demand correction. In dealing with such passages my first
principle has been that no conjecture is of the slightest critical value
unless it explains the origin of the corruption, which it claims to heal.
And a mere vague resemblance in the ductus litterarum of two words is
not enough to show that one could have taken the place of the other.
If we adhere strictly to this principle, there is some chance of setting
textual criticism on a scientific basis; but far the larger number of the
‘emendations’ proposed every day in philological journals and new
editions are condemned at once, when tried by this standard.

In the Nemean Odes we find instances of most of the well-known
causes of corruption. For example, in vu. 68 there is an instance of a
false division of words; av épet has taken the place of avepet. Similarity
of adjacent syllables has led to errors in many places. Thus in Iv. 91
av tis io became ay ts 7, and was afterwards emended to ay tis TUxy.
But perhaps the most fertile source of corruption is the occurrence of
strange words and unusual forms. That /rz¢, restored by Mr Ellis in
the J/ostellaria, should have suffered corruption may be regarded as
inevitable. Such a word as ropyos, occurring in a tragedian, was a trap
for the ignorance of a late scribe. The forms érov, éravy, which Bergk
has brilliantly restored in some passages of Pindar’, could not fail to
become tov and tay. Sometimes rare words were explained by a
marginal gloss, and in these cases the gloss often insinuated itself into
the text. Thus in em. vi. 52 and Wem. x. 60 axa was ousted by its
explanation aixua at the expense of the metre. In Py//. v. 31 we read
vdatt (Kaoradias) where the metre rather demands* —— or —v (whence
vypa and xpava have been proposed). It seems probable that véare was
a gloss on véde, a form found in Hesiod, which Pindar may well have
used. In many cases the change of a letter transformed a rare into a
familiar word, and of such ‘emendations’ on the part of copyists there
are, if I am right, three instances in the First Nemean (1. 45 xpovos for
xpopos, 1. 48 BéAos for zéAos, 1. 66 decew for rocev). It is often
impossible to know whether a corruption is due to the usurpation of
a gloss or to a deliberate alteration; as in /Vem. vil. 37, where,
according to my view, tAayévres became wAayxOertes.

In the case of Pindar, we are in a better position to deal with
corruptions in the text than in the case of most ancient authors ; for he
often assists us himself in restoring the genuine reading. I refer to the
systems of verbal echoes and responsions which render us so much

1 See Vem. VII. 25. * The tribrach however is quite possibly right

INTRODUCTION. lv

help in following his trains of thought. I may first direct attention to
an instance in which a responsion confirms the reading of our Mss. as
against a reading found in Plutarch. In (Vem. iv. 4,

ovde Oeppov vdwp tocov ye paGaxa Tedxet.

Plutarch (de tranguillitate, 6) read réyée. But in the corresponding
line of the 11th strophe we find revyex in the same metrical position,

c , a > } rd ¢
Epyparwv Bagietow ivodaipova Tebxe.

Instances in which this principle has guided me in restorations of the
text will be found in JVem. iv. 68 (evgavav), VI. 50 (fave), VIII. 40,
RAL; OCC.

There is a remarkable case in the Tenth Pythian which will serve to
illustrate the principle. We read there of the Hyperboreans (31 sqq-):

? i ‘ > , ,
map ois mote Ilepoeis édatcato Aayeras
, Ses ,
Swpar eredOurv,
kAettds dvav ExatouPBas emitoccais Gee,
oo
pélovras’ dv Oadias Eymedov
eihapias Te paior *Amo\wv
xalper yeAa & opdv vBpw dpiiav Kvwoahuv.
> ~
Moica 8 ovK aodapet
fe ° ‘\ / * ~ ‘ A
TpoTos €Tl OPETEpOLTL” TavTae d€ xopot taplévev
a“ > a“
Aupav te Boat Kavaxai 7 addAdv dovéovtat’

, , / > / = , > ’
dadva TE Xpvoéa Kopas avadynacavres ciAarwaloiow evfpovas.

The difficulty in this passage is tpowos which yields no meaning (as
Bergk says, plane alienum vocabulum). Now when we turn to the last
system of the hymn, we find a parallel worked out between the festival
of the Hyperboreans in honour of Apollo, and the festival which
celebrated the success of the victor Hippocles at Apollo’s Pythian
games. In the first place there is a play on the name Hippocles: the
3rd line of the 4th strophe

Tov ‘Immokdéav rt Kai pddAov adv aoLoats
echoes the 3rd line of the 2nd epode
kKNeitds dvev éxaTouPas.

The glory of asses was a feature at the mythical feast; the glory of
horses is an omen, at least, at the victor’s feast. In both celebrations
the presence of mazdens is a feature: cf. 1. 59

, , , ,
veaitiy Te Taplévoot peAnma.

lvi INTRODUCTION.

In 1. 64 the poet proceeds thus :
néroia Evia. tpocavel Owpakos doTep ewav TouTviwy xapLv
Tod. elevEev appa TlueptSov tetpaopov
piiewv pirt€ovT, aywv a&yovta mpodpdvas.
67 eipavre de Kat xpvoss ev Bacavw mpéret
Kal voos opQds.
There are four echoes here of the revels in the far north. Ivepidwv
corresponds to Moica, zpodpovus recalls etippovws, xpvads echoes xpuvcéa,
and op60s explains the point of op6iav. The golden laurel, with which
the Hyperboreans bound their hair and with which the victor has
recently bound his, is an emblem, compared to the most precious of the
metals; and the victor’s horse-name, suggesting the op6ia vBpus kvwdadwr,
is an omen of voos op6os.
It is now an easy matter to restore the genuine word which was
replaced by tpézos. This cluster of four verbal responsions was
originally a cluster of five. I have no doubt that Pindar wrote

, SEEN /
TpoTois ETL TPETEPOLOL

and echoed it in év Bacdvw mpére (1. 67). mpomos is formed from zpérw
as tpozos from tpérw; the adb/aut (to use the technical expression) has
been preserved in @eorpdzros, Oeorporéw, and in the gloss amporov-
atpotov, amperés in Hesychius. We may render at ‘their solemnities
or at their rites. mpérew’ means ‘to be due’; mpemovrws=rite; so
that zporo. would mean 7ifus, ‘rites’. I need not add that a strange
word like zporous was doomed to be corrupted; and the most natural
corruption was tporots.

This restoration in the Tenth Pythian suggests a discussion of a
general question, connected with the art or science of textual criticism,
which has assumed considerable importance within the last ten years.
Some scholars do not hesitate to introduce into Greek texts words
which are not to be found in the dictionary. Others condemn such a
procedure as unjustifiable without qualification. It may occur to an
impartial observer, who wishes to preserve the due mean between
excessive caution and rashness, that there is probably some reason on
both sides. The question, certainly, deserves to be fully argued out.

Our texts of the Greek poets, as they stand, present us with a
considerable number of rare words and aza€ cipyyéva. No one could

1 apérew implies the idea of solemnity; x xluos mpérovoa, in voles of solemn black
cf. Avamemmnon, 30 ws 6 ppukrosdyyéAAwv (cp. Shakespeare’s ‘customary suit of
mpéme., as the beacon solemnly or duly solemn black’).
announces ; Choephori 1 papecw peday-

INTRODUCTION. lvii

fairly object to an editor making use of one of these to correct a
corrupt passage.

Let us go a step further. In the great body of lyric poetry and in
the numerous tragedies which have perished, many words occurred
which do not happen to occur in the extant remains of the contemporary
literature. But all these words are not lost. Some have been preserved
by the Alexandrine writers, especially by Lycophron; others by the
compilers of glossaries, like Hesychius. Lycophron is a great store-
house of strange words, which he culled from older literature—from the
dramatists, and from the lyric poets. We meet in the A/exandra many
a word, which is found isolated in one passage in tragedy. A student
of the Greek tragedies is thoroughly justified in regarding Lycophron’s
vocabulary as available for purposes of emendation.

The use of the lexicons of Hesychius, Suidas, &c., takes us a step
further still. These compilers preserve many words of whose existence
we should otherwise be ignorant. Suppose a corrupt passage in which
one of these words would restore perfect sense and satisfy the conditions
of the critical problem, would it be reasonable to reject the restoration
because it so happens that the word does not occur in our extant
literature? There are many who would not scruple to restore in
Euripides a word which our mss. have only once preserved in tragedy,
and yet would hesitate to admit a word vouched for by Callimachus
or Lycophron. There are others who would swallow Lycophron
but strain at Hesychius. The reason for this distinction is that the
Alexandrine writers are nearer in time to the older classical writers ;
whereas the glossaries are late and it cannot be proved, in the large
majority of instances, that any given gloss actually occurred in an early
Greek poet. The distinction is certainly valid, but it would be a false
inference that would lead us to discard the assistance of the glossaries.
It is a question of a degree of probability. Let us suppose two corrupt
passages. Let us suppose that in one of these the demands of the sense
are perfectly satisfied by the restoration of a word whose existence is
vouched for by Hesychius ; and that the other can be perfectly healed,
as far as the meaning is concerned, by the restoration of a word whose
literary use is proved by its occurring in Callimachus or Lycophron.
If we were told nothing more of the two cases, we should be justified
in saying that the second restoration had a higher degree of probability
than the first. But if we learned then that critical considerations
founded on the indications of the Mss. pointed with much more cogency
to the Hesychian word than similar considerations, in the second case,
pointed to the Alexandrine word, we should be compelled to acknow-

Iviii INTRODUCTION.

ledge that the comparative probabilities were equalised or perhaps that
the first emendation was even more convincing than the second.

The next step is the restoration of a word, which is of irreproachable
form, but does not happen to have been preserved in our extant
literature, as transmitted to us through a period of twenty centuries.
Many scholars demur to such conjectures without any reservation,
and consider them in all cases unjustifiable. But these objectors will
nevertheless admit that numerous words were used by Greek men of
letters (especially by poets), which have not been preserved. Even as
it is, there are many amaé cipypéva, that is, rare words; and it would be
absurd to suppose that there were not many others. They will also
have to admit that some of these words say have been used in passages
which have become corrupted in the course of transmission. And this
possibility forces itself seriously upon the attention, when we consider
that unusual words were the words, of all others, most exposed to
corruption, whether through conscious correction, unconscious mis-
copying, or the intrusion of a gloss.

Now it is important to draw a distinction between two kinds of
strange words, (1) words whose existence at some time or other is
presupposed by actually existent forms; (2) words whose existence is
not thus presupposed, but which, being formed on correct analogy, may
have been in use. It is clear that these two classes do not stand on
the same level. Let us take them in order.

(1) Suppose two passages, a and 4, which require correction. In
aa strange word is introduced which harmonises with the context
admirably and is palaeographically a sound emendation. This strange
word is found in Hesychius. Ina strange word is also introduced, equally
sound from a critical point of view, and equally suitable in meaning.
This word is not found in Hesychius or elsewhere, but not only is it of
unimpeachable formation but its existence is presupposed by cognate
words in actual use. It is clear that ceteris paribus the emendation of a
is more probable than the emendation of 4. We know that both words
existed ; but the occurrence of the first in the glossary of Hesychius
certifies us that it was a word which probably was used in literature,
whereas it might be urged that the second may have fallen out of use at
such an ancient date that it was unknown in the age of the earliest
Greek literature. Nevertheless it is obvious that cases are conceivable
in which the immediate data would point so strongly to the restoration
of a word of this kind that there could be little doubt as to its
correctness. Perhaps an illustration from English literature will put
this in a clearer light. Let us suppose that Tennyson’s Locksley Hall is

INTRODOCTLION. lix

transmitted to distant posterity in two mss. In one of these (A) the
following line occurs :

In the spring a livelier rainbow changes on the burnish’d dove,
while in the other (B) there is an obvious corruption,
In the spring a livelier is changes on the burnish’d dove.

It is clear that the first reading, though it scans and is intelligible, does
not account for the corruption in the second. Let us suppose that the
critic has at his disposal only a comparatively small part of the entire
body of English literature ; and let us further suppose that in that extant
part the word zrzdescent happens to occur, but not zrvzs. /ridescent conse-
quently is recognised in his English lexicon; and he has sufficient
philological knowledge to know that z77s is presupposed by ¢ridescent.
Would he not, then, be amply justified in reading

In the spring a livelier iris changes on the burnish’d dove—?

The variants are thus completely accounted for. Rainbow was merely
a gloss on 777s; while the corruption in B arose from the omission of
one of two similar syllables
eke
But we cannot expect many cases so clear as this. In most cases of
this kind we must admit that the emendation would gain in probability
if the word had more than an etymological certification. In other
words, such emendations must be for the most part labelled ‘ possible’
and await accident to verify or condemn them. But at the same time
they are thoroughly justifiable, and may often pass into the region of
high probability, 2 becoming as probable as @ under favourable circum-
stances.
As an example of a word, certified by etymology, I may refer to a

passage in the Choephori, 61 sqq.

pown 6 émurKomel OiKav

Taxela Tols pev ev act

Ta O ev petaiypio oKOTOV

64 péver xpovilovr ayn Bpver

Tovs 0 aKpatos eye VvE.
axn and Bpve. cannot stand together in 1. 64 for the metre demands
words equivalent in quantity to

pever xpovidovTa Bpvet.

It seems clear that ayy is a gloss on ta 6 and that Bpve. is a corruption
of a substantive in the dative case agreeing with perarxpiw. I believe

Ix INTRODUCTION.

that the word whose place has been usurped was Bpvxt. pvé is
presupposed by Bpvxios, troBpvxuos, as surely as xAuv is presupposed by
x9ovi0s, eriyOovios. In fact, droBpvxuos is simply io Bpvyxé affected with
an adjectival termination. ‘The picture is a twilit sea between the coasts
of darkness and light. The slight change of Bpvxi to Bove was
facilitated by the actual occurrence of Bpve: a few lines below.

This conjecture can only lay claim to possibility. But if there had
chanced to be an explanatory gloss, adi, or Bucod, or something of the
kind, then it might fairly be regarded as highly probable.

(2) The case is different when etymology does not demand the
assumption of a lost word, but only acquiesces in a legitimate formation.
Here it must be admitted that the word may not have existed, and if
the only sign of its existence is an inference from a corrupt passage, the
emendation which assumes it must be regarded as extremely doubtful,
though no one can deny that it is possible.

But it is conceivable that other considerations might intervene which
might raise this possibility into a probability ; and such considerations
would of course apply to (1) as well as to (2). There might be a
confirmation of a strange word as cogent as a gloss in Suidas if not more
cogent. I may illustrate this from a passage in the First Nemean. In
1. 48 we read

ék 0 ap artdatov déos t
make yuvaixas,
where the mss. vary between déo0s and Pédos. In the note on this
passage I have shown that neither of these variants can be right and I
have ventured to restore mé\os, a word of unexceptionable formation,
whose existence is recognised by Hesychius. I need hardly say that it
was the conditions of the problem, not a knowledge of the Hesychian
gloss, that suggested this emendation. Now if I had not found this
word in Hesychius or anywhere else, I should not have been able to
consider the correction highly probable; I should only have been
entitled to regard it as possible. The circumstance that Theocritus uses
the word zeAwpia in his description of the battle with the snakes might
be adduced to bring the conjecture a degree nearer probability. But let
us suppose, now, that in some other strophe of the ode we found a
series of verbal echoes, answering to the passage under consideration,
in accordance with Pindar’s method, and let us suppose that among
these echoes the word zéAwp or zeAwpiov occurred; in that case we
should have a confirmation of the conjecture zéAos, rendering it not
only quite as probable as if the word were found in Hesychius (as ex
hypothest it is not), but even more probable. An Hesychian gloss

INTRODUCTION. Ixi

proves the existence of a word, but not its use in a particular passage ;
in the hypothetical case the use of wéAos in the particular passage is
indicated.—These are the principles on which I would defend the
emendation zpdozors in the Tenth Pythian.

I have attempted to deal with this vexed question as generally as
possible, but it is obvious that general conclusions will require modifica-
tion in any particular instance. Special groups of hypothetical words,
such as strange compounds (like Mr Tucker’s Awoowei in the Supfplices
of Aeschylus) or strange parts of verbs in ordinary use, demand special
consideration ; and it is clear that different minds will always estimate
differently the amount of evidence required to render probable a
conjecture of the kind here discussed.

: ‘

a
cathy tt
a ,

J as
~~ aaa _ ! U .

ETINIKO!L NEMEONIKAL2.

NEMEAN 1,

ODE-IN HONOUR OF A. VICTORY WON AT NEMEA
BY THE HORSES OF CHROMIUS OF SYRACUSE.

INTRODUCTION.

THE ideal of successful labour on a grand scale is continually kept before
us in the poems of Pindar. The mythical type of this ideal was the son of
a god—Heracles, the deliverer of the Greek world, who, having lived laborious
days and gratified the lusts of the flesh, was in the end elevated to heaven,
to crown a splendid life by a marriage with immortal Youth. Pindar cer-
tainly clave unto Heracles. He often praises the qualities of his patrons by
suggesting points of comparison with the hero of the twelve, and other,
labours, whose Theban birth supplied a special ground of interest to a Theban
poet ; and the legend that this son of Zeus instituted the Olympic games!
rendered frequent mention of him in odes of victory a matter of course.

For such a comparison with Heracles was selected a Sicilian noble, a
friend of king Hiero and conspicuous at the Syracusan court. On the
occasion of a victory won in a chariot race at Nemea, Chromius’ employed

1 The tale of the early institution of | observed in his paper on the Olympic

these games by Heracles and by Iphitus
was invented when in comparatively later
days the Olympic festival had won a
Panhellenic repute. In Homeric days the
Olympic games, if they existed, must have
been insignificant and local. The games
described in the 23rd Book of the Iliad are
quite unlike the Olympic, as Mr Mahaffy

nw B.

* He belonged to the tribe of the
Hylleis. He is also celebrated in the
Ninth which Boeckh and
Dissen are certainly right in assigning to
a later date than the present Ode. As
the epithet veoxricray is applied to Aetna

‘Nemean’,

2 NEMEAN I.

Pindar to write an epinician hymn, and invited the poet to his house at
Syracuse, where an unusually rich hospitality was dispensed. Chromius had
been always a fighter. He had played a prominent part in the vicissitudes
which attended the rise and continuance of Gelon’s power; he had fought
bravely in battles by land and sea'. He was certainly one of those who
had laboured on a distinguished scale, and might without absurdity be
likened, in the exaggerating language of art, to Heracles.

But the incident in the life of Heracles, which Pindar has chosen to
portray at length, in this Nemean Ode,—the infant throttling the serpents,
—seems a somewhat strange parable to speak to a Nemean victor, and it
puzzled the curiosity of ancient readers. To attempt to resolve this enigma,
we must analyse the hymn?.

At Syracuse, in the place where the fountain of Ortygia reminds the
visitor of that ‘lovely’ nymph and of her lover the river Alpheus and of
Olympia overseas, the hymn first sets our thoughts, as in a divine retreat ;
and then proceeds to comply with the usual formalities of an epinician song.
The god, at whose games the victory was won, the kind and the place of the
contest, the name of the victor, are indicated in the lofty, somewhat indirect
language, which Pindar wields with a peculiar grace and never discards.

This is the foundation of the building, secured with divine names*.
Then reflecting that great contests are a grateful theme for poets, Pindar
goes on to praise the victor’s country, and tells how long ago Zeus promised
to Persephone that he would exalt the cities of Sicily, and how he fulfilled
this promise, and blessed the island with a nation of horsemen and warriors,
and granted them the boast of winning not a few Olympic crowns.

It is evident that this shower of grace (dyAaia), which is flung over Sicily,
is intended for Chromius, one of her typical children, a wooer of brazen war,
and one whose horses had won a conspicuous, though not an Olympic,
victory. And the reference to the ‘golden leaves of Olympic olives’
supplies us with a clue to the meaning of the whole hymn. As long as
those golden leaves had never shone on his brow, Chromius had not won
the highest attainable glory in his brilliant world, he was not quite the ideal
Sicilian lord. Well, Pindar holds out to him the prospect of this glory,

in the Ninth ‘Nemean’, and as Aetna was
founded in 475, we can hardly assign a
later date to Nemean I. than 472 B.C.,
in which year Nemean games were cele-
brated. As Pindar probably went to
Sicily in 473, an earlier date is also
excluded.

1 Especially at Helorus; see Nemean
1x. and Introduction to that Ode.

2 Mezger, applying the nomenclature of
the Terpandric nomos, divides as follows :
I—7 dpxd; 8—12 Katarpoma; 13—20
duparss ; 31—33 merakararpoma; 33—72

oppayis.

The c¢payls has such a disproportion-
ate length that one is forced to suspect
the whole arrangement. An 6udadds,
extending from 1. 13 to 1. 20 in a poem
of 72 lines, is not an du@adés in any
legitimate sense.

3 Zeus is named Aetnean (1. 6), as in
Ol. v1. 96; but this does not give the
least support to the extraordinary notion
of Welcker that the poem is a glorifi-
cation of Aetna, that newly-founded city
being compared to the infant Heracles.

INTRODUCTION. 3

not directly, but, as we shall see hereafter, covertly. And this motive too,
prompted the artist at the outset to place our thoughts in a spot where the
reputed waters of the Alpheus should remind us of Olympia.

We enter the hospitable home of Chromius, filled with strangers ; and the
poet stands at the door of the great hall, ‘singing a beautiful strain’—

éorav & er avrcias Ovpats

dvdpos idokeivov Kaka peArropevos.
The house in Ortygia is accustomed to the faces of strangers; and this
note of Chromius’ liberality surprises the poet into remarking that envy has
been thwarted or crushed, and that arts or artifices have been foiled by the
straightforwardness of nature. Chromius has good friends to support him
against detractors, friends ready to whelm the smoke as with water; for
smoke, insinuating and noxious, seemed to the Greeks a fitting symbol
of envy.

The connexion of ideas in this strophe, and the significance for Chromius
of the persons mentioned—Pindar himself, the strangers (a\X\odarov), and the
-detractors—is not made clear to us (though doubtless Chromius and his
friends readily apprehended it) until we read the passage in the light of a
later portion of the hymn!, The last line of the strophe contrasts the arts
of his enemies with the ‘ plainness and clearness’ of Chromius, who opposes
the virtue of nature, ud, to the tricks of art. ‘Arts vary, but tt ts meet,
walking in straight paths, to oppose them by the quality of nature.

The opposition of art and genius is a favourite theme; Pindar was no
friend of rhetoric reduced to rules. And in the present passage, too, he is
thinking of his own rivals, as well as of the adversaries of Chromius; and he
reveals this thought in the following antistrophos ;

, A JA ‘ ,
26 mpdocoe yap épyo pev obevos
27 Bovdaior S€ ppny eocdpevoy mpowwetv
28 ovyyeves ois erera

In these words (see note on 1. 26) Chromius (I. 26) and Pindar (27, 28) are
designated, as endowed with two forms of gud, respectively, practical and
intellectual ; and it is noteworthy that the intellectual faculty is specialised as
the power of foreseeing future events. We shall learn hereafter the signifi-
cance of these words”.

The circumstance that Chromius conducted his house at Syracuse with
lavish expenditure, not hoarding his wealth, but using it with unwithdrawing
hand for the joyance of life and the solace of his friends, seems to have given
occasion to illwishers to say unkind things about him. At least Pindar here
makes an emphatic apology for the uses to which ‘the son of Agesidamus’
put the gifts of fortune, and justifies the indulgence of oneself and one’s
friends in the pleasant things of life by a reflection on the vicissitudes
incident to mortal frailty ; ‘for ¢o all alike come the hopes and fears which
beset toiling men’.

1 See below, p. 5. 2 See below, p. 6.

4 NEMEAN I.

‘Toiling men,’ roAurévey dvdpdv,—that is the key-note, here sounding
loudly at the beginning of the epode. It closes the first part of the hymn
which treats directly of Chromius, and introduces the second, somewhat
longer, half, in which the tale of Heracles, the great toiler of legend, is told’.

The lines which introduce the myth have two indications that it is directly
applicable to Chromius.

eyo S “Hpakdéos avréxopar mpodppoves

év kopudais dperav peyddas apxatov orpvvav doyor,
‘In the world of great towering excellencies, I am fain to cleave fast to
Heracles, stirring an ancient story; how &c. Two words here, xopudais and
érpivev, are echoes, recalling the ‘towering’ cities wherewith Zeus promised
to enrich Sicily,
(l. 15 Kopugdais modiwv adveais),

and the ‘stirring’ of Pindar to sing the praises of Chromius,

(1.7

The birth of Heracles is described in significant words ; he came forth

into a marvellous brilliant light, Oanrav és atydayv, this son of Zeus. These

words remind us that Chromius was born in a land already dr7d/éant, the
gift of Zeus to Persephone, whereof it was said before

appa 8 otpuvver Xpopiov k.t.X.).

PEEP. > oh A U
omeipé vuv ayAatay Twa vac@ (\. 13).

The mission of the serpents by Here, their coming through an open gate
to the bower of Alcmene, their approach to the children, and the strangling
in the hands of Heracles, are set forth in a series of brief and vivid pictures.
Then we see the women stricken with horror, and the mother leaping from
her bed to protect her infants. Presently arrive Cadmean nobles in bronze
armour, and Amphitryon himself, brandishing a naked sword, in deep
distress, as the messengers had brought tidings that the serpents had slain
the children. He stands at the door of his wife’s chamber, in ‘a notable
passion of wonder,’ seeing the proof of the miraculous strength of his
reputed son and the tale of the messengers reversed. Then he sends for the
seer Tiresias, who prophesies the future prowess and the apotheosis of the
wonderful child.

As to the import of this story?, Pindar supplies us with clues, and

1 In the scholia on 1. 33 various ancient Mezger’s view of the Ode. ‘Der Mythus

theories as to the application of the myth
Of these I need only
call attention to that of Didymus, who

are mentioned.

supposes that as Heracles’ first achieve-
ment was an emblem of future exploits,
so this Nemean victory of Chromius is
designated by Pindar as the first of a
long series to come—mpopavreverar drt
Kal Tov Nouray orepavwny TEVEET AL.

2 This is a suitable place to state

von Herakles soll also zeigen, dass alle
Menschen mit Miihen zu kampfen haben
...und we man iiber diese Herr wird.
Die Ausfiihrung schliesst sich eng an den
In the
duados there are three ideas: (1) the
promise of Zeus to give Sicily a victorious
people; (2) repulse of calumniators; (3)
papvacba pua. To these correspond in
the o@payis three pictures, in chiastic

Gedankengang des éudanés an.’

INTRODUCTION. 5

especially sets two unmistakable sign-posts, shewing the connexion between
the first and second parts of the ode.
The fifth line of the fourth strophe

dyyéAov prow Oécav
responds to the fifth line of the first strophe
Uuvos oppara Oépev.

This means that even as the immortals established the prowess of Heracles by
reversing the tale of the messengers, so the hymn of victory establishes the
prowess of Chromius by reversing (we may read between the lines) the
dark prophecies of illwishers.

Again the first line of the fourth strophe,

gora 6€ OapBer dvodpopa,
responds to the first line of the second strophe,
éotav © én avdeias Ovpats,
indicating that the part played by Pindar in the drama in Sicily corresponds
to the part played by Amphitryon in the drama at Thebes!. Pindar was
moved with concern for his friend Chromius, and with delight at his
achievements, as Amphitryon was moved for his ‘son’ Heracles. And
this gives a clue to the meaning of the second strophe, which puzzled us.
Amphitryon, yet ignorant of the event, is sorely distressed:
TO yap oikeiov mueCet mav opas*

evOds 8 dmnpov kpadia Kados dud’ addorptor.
Now we see the position of the strangers a\Aodame@y, in the hall of
Chromius. As strangers, they are external and indifferent to the weal or woe
of Chromius, and thus are contrasted with Pindar himself, who, like
Amphitryon, feels the fortunes of his friend as something o/ketoy or pertaining
to himself.

That the dragons represent enemies who attempted to injure Chromius
and were worsted by him, there can be no doubt ; else the myth would have
no point. And the emphatic prominence given to the dual number of the
beasts in 1. 44

duraaior Sous avyévav

renders it probable that the foes crushed by Chromius were also a pair.
Assuming the correctness of the reading which I have printed in the text,
with some confidence, in 1. 46

dyxopévors Sé xpopos,

order; (a) the infant Heracles, answering _ prophesying the future victories and re-
to (1), cf. vv. 25 and 43; (6) Amphi- wards of Heracles (cf. v. 14 with v. 61);
tryon, beholding his expectations re- this answers to the promise of Zeus.
versed, cf. v. 19 éorav and vy. 55 éoTa; 1 This responsion was noticed by Mez-
this corresponds to (2); and (c) Tiresias _ ger, see last note.

6 NEMEAN I.

we have a special note of the application of the story to the personal history
of the victor.

That rivals of Pindar took part in disparaging Chromius is perhaps
indicated by the words madiyyAoooov pow dyyédov Oécar. The: rare
adjective mad/yykooooy may be an allusion to certain pedantic words or
y\éooa which those rivals affected; just as réxva in 1. 25 may be an
allusion to their studied rules of art. And perhaps we should not be far
astray in interpreting the two snakes as Simonides and his nephew
Bacchylides. There is reason to suppose that about the year 474 some
intrigue was carried on against Pindar by these two poets, and it may well
have been that Chromius, zealously espousing the interests of his friend,
foiled their schemes}.

But Pindar is more to Chromius even than Amphitryon was to Heracles ;
he is a true prophet as well as a friend, and thus it becomes necessary
to supplement Amphitryon by the ‘true prophet’ Tiresias. And now we
understand the reference to the prophetic gift in Il. 27, 28.

The utterance of Tiresias enables us to see still further. He foretells
that Heracles is destined to slay many workers of iniquity both on the dry
land and on the ‘monstrous deep’, and declares that he will give a draught
of death for drink to those who walk in the ways of crooked envy ; he
foretells moreover the battle with the giants on the plain of Phlegra. The
language in this prophecy is clearly meant to be an answering echo to
the words in which Chromius’ victory over the envious was described.
‘The man who walketh with crooked envy’ (64, 65)

atv tayig@—koOp@ aTEixovTa
characterises those cunning detractors, who are opposed? (1. 25) to ‘the man
who walketh in straight paths’,

> > / c Cm ,

ev evOeias ddois oTELyovTa.

And as smoke is quenched by water, so the envious are borne down by
a draught of death. And again as the Gods ‘affront’ the Giants, so
the good friends of Chromius ‘affront’ his disparagers—this echo being
metrically punctual :

25, dvriov—beginning the last line of second strophe
68, dvrid¢oow—beginning the last line of fourth antistrophos.

1 Prof. Jebb in his essay on Pindar
(Yournal of Hellenic Studies, U1. p. 163)
suggests such an allusion in the First
Pythian (474 B.C.).
é\rropar.—dapevoacd’ ayrious, and |. 85

Referring to l. 45

Kpécowv yap olkripuod pOdvos he writes:
‘The tone of this and other passages is
(to my mind) not that of a jealous man,
but of one who is maintaining an atti-
tude of defence against calumny; and it

is difficult to resist the impression that,
at this time, Pindar had been the object
of some hostile intrigue at Hiero’s court,
which he associated with the desire of
Simonides to advance the fortunes of a
young kinsman more distinguished by
diligence than by originality’.

2 So Mezger, p. 106, but he does not
notice the responsion dvrlov—dvTiafwow.

INTRODUCTION. 7.

Moreover the reference to Heracles’ victories on ‘the dry land’ and ‘on the
sea’ might remind Chromius of his own land and sea battles, not indeed
expressly referred to in this hymn, but mentioned in another ode written
by Pindar in his honour, the Ninth ‘ Nemean’: 1. 43,

moAAd pev ev Kovia yépo@, Ta Se yelrov. TOVT@
ld r xX Pp 1? y. rad

But the vision of Tiresias looks forward still further to the apotheosis of
the hero and his marriage with Hebe; and the hymn ends with this vision of
a state which we call 4/ss, and the Greeks called @anros oABos. ‘ Moreover
he declared that Heracles should win a meed passing rich for his great
labours, even an everlasting rest and unbroken peace, in a fortunate habita-
tion, and that having received Hebe, ever-fatr, for a bedmate, and having
held high nuptial feast, he would be well content with a holy abode in
the home of Zeus,

Here, and again, as we shall see, in the Tenth ‘Nemean’, Pindar makes
the marriage of Heracles and Hebe the type of supreme happiness ; and in
both cases the supreme happiness typified is that which an Olympic victory
confers. For this is the meaning of the prophecy! As Tiresias foretells
the winning of an Olympian bride by Heracles, so Pindar foretells the
winning of an Olympic wreath by Chromius. Of this signification there are
proofs. We find in 1. 70 (second line of fourth epode)

dovyiay Kaparov peyad@v trowar,
corresponding to

> - > “~ ,

ev Kopudais aperay peyadats,

in 1. 34 (second line of second epode)?. In Pindar’s view, the kopudai peyadar
for men like Chromius were victories at Olympia; and this is suggested
by the occurrence of xopudais in the lines on Sicily, whose people had often
felt the touch of ‘the golden Olympic olive leaves’.

An artful reminiscence of the first lines of the ode establishes the truth of
this interpretation. The note of rest, lightly struck in the suggested picture
of Alpheus in the arms of the ‘lovely’ nymph Ortygia,

dumvevpa oepvov “Addeod
kAeway Supaxoccay Oados ’Oprvyia,

1 Mezger refers it to ‘die schliessliche
Aufnahme auf die Inseln der Seligen’.
Leopold Schmidt thinks that a reference
to a possible marriage of Chromius is
intended, which might seem to be con-
firmed by the circumstance that the gift
of Sicily to Persephone, mentioned in an

antlatos placida vita ludicrorum certa-
minum summis coronis ornatus’. I[
submit that my interpretation alone
explains satisfactorily the connexion of
the opening and the closing lines of the
ode.

2 Mezger notices this (p. 111). He

earlier part of the ode, was supposed to
Dissen finds the
foretold ‘rest’ in a plactda vita: ‘Fruitur
Chromius ut Hercules post labores ex-

be els dvakadumrnpia.

also observes that the hymn, beginning
with dumvevya ceuvov closes with ceuvorv
Oomov.

8 NEMEAN I.

is reiterated in the full, sounding description of the rest of Heracles in
heaven, in the arms of the ‘lovely’ Hebe— 2
OABios ev Sdpact, SeEawevov Oadepav “HBav akowrw Kal yapov
daicavta, map At Kpovida wepvov aivnoew orabpov.
Thus the rest of Heracles, recalling the repose of Alpheus, bears our thoughts
to Olympia, where Chromius hoped to win a wreath of olive leaves, the
highest honour in the Greek world of those days, and which Pindar often
compares to gold. It is suggested that Chromius too, like Heracles, may
perhaps set up an ‘everlasting rest’.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.
VU.I—5. FU my ey ef er er A tuv-uu--|
Suey Vr -AtVU RA (21)
uv. 6—7. ROO ORO ORO era rel
NY i

Thus the strophe falls into two peyé6n of equal length, each of which is
made up of three smaller peyé6n, in mesodic symmetry : thus,

Sra
8—5 —8=2I1.
EPODE.

Ss
rs)

B. CP OO ORO I ORC ie Oi ene ee (8)

Ty lis Ip ae A NG IRR (9) |

Uv. 2 i Flas (2)
a a. Fu VU HV Ve HH FU KH (8) |

U. A. Ne Fue ev Ht ee yvu—A (9)

This is an example of the tripartite mesodos. Like the epode itself, the
mesode of the epode is divided mesodically.

As I accept the reading of the Mss. ev cyep@ 1. 69, I have to deviate
slightly from the arrangement of M. Schmidt (which practically coincides
with that of Rossbach-Westphal and J. H. Schmidt) by making AA’ consist
of 9 instead of 8 feet.

The rhythm of this ode is ‘dactylo-epitritic’; the mood was Dorian.

NEMEONIKATI A’.

XPOMIQ:

AITNAIQz

TIMIIO1s.

"Apurvevpa cepvov 'Ardeod,

oTp. a.

kKrewav Yvpaxoccady Paros ’Optvuyia,

I. dparvevpa oepvov "AdAdeod] The
choice of dumvevya is a Pindaric felicity.
.The word expresses the mythical identity
of the fountain Arethusa with a ‘spout’
of the river Alpheus, and at the same
time conveys the poetical application that
Alpheus ‘ rested’ in Ortygia after the toil
of his journey under seas. dvdavevpa,
which is not the same as dvamvon, must
mean, according to the analogy of words of
like formation, ‘that which is exhaled, ex-
halation, breath respired’; the fountain
in Ortygia, with which Ortygia is almost
identified, is literally the breath exhaled
by Alpheus. We may translate Breath
of the holy rest of Alpheus. Perhaps ceuvov
suggested the adjective in Milton’s

Divine Alphéus, who by secret sluice
Stole under seas to meet his Arethuse.

The legend which connected Alpheus
and Arethusa may be a younger form of
the legend which connected Alpheus and
Artemis. See Roscher’s Lexikon der
griechischen und rimischen Mythologie,
article A/pheios by H. W. Stoll.

The huntress nymph Arethusa was
loved by the hunter Alpheus, and to
avoid his wooing she fled to Ortygia
and became a spring. Alpheus, through
a sort of sympathetic charm, was trans-
formed into a river, which flowed beneath
the sea and united its waters with the
spring. Pausanias v. 7, 2. A somewhat

different form is given to the myth
in Ovid, AZetam. Vv. 752 sqq., where
Artemis is introduced as protecting her
nymph Arethusa. Under the legendary
connexion of Ortygia with Elis lies the
fact that Eleans from the neighbourhood
of Olympia took part in the colonization
of Syracuse and brought with them the
cult of Artemis Potamia, who was so
widely worshipped in the Peloponnesus
(in the neighbourhood of the river Al-
pheus under the special name of Artemis
"Areata, AdXgelouoa or ANpewvia).

2. Q@ddos] There were five parts of
Syracuse (Ortygia, Achradina, Neapolis,
Epipolae, and Tyche) and @aXos expresses
the fact that Ortygia is one of them. But it
expresses much more, and is not synony-
mous with épvos, just as it is not synony-
mous with pifa. The notion of bloom
is uppermost, and ‘branch’ is conse-
quently an inadequate rendering ; trans-
late fair branch of glorious Syracuse. In
the last lines of the ode Pindar will come
back to the note which he strikes in the
opening verses, peace and beauty after
labour ; even as ceuvov orabuor (1. 72)
recalls dumvevua ceuvov, So Oadepar “HBav
(l. 71) fair Hebe recalls @aXos ’Opruyla
(l. 2). It is worth noticing that when
the poet speaks of Libya (Pyth. Ix. 8) as
plfav daetpov tpirav he adds the epithet
daddoway.

10 NEMEONIKAI A’.

déuviov “Apréuc6os,

€ \
Addov Kaciyyyta, oéBev adveTrns

dA ¢ a ,
Uuvos oppatar Oéwev

, ,
aivov dédXoTTObwy péeyav immwv, Znvos Aitvaiov yapww
A >] x) / / J Lhe 2 / > /
dpua & otpvver Xpouiov Neuéa & Epypacw vixadpopors éye@pov

fedEat pédos.

3. Séviov "Apréuid0s] Couch of Ar-
temis. Inthe second Pythian Ode (I. 7)
Pindar uses the words mroraplas ¢dos ’Ap-
Téudos, habetation of Artemis queen of
rivers, of Ortygia. Here he chooses 6€éu-
viov ded, to harmonize with the note of
rest struck in the first line. Ortygia is a
resting-place for Alpheus, for Artemis,—
and for Chromius. It is usual to com-
pare 22 615 where the nymphs are said to
have their beds, ev’vat, in Sipylus.

The worship of Artemis as a goddess
of rivers, lakes, springs and marshes (7ro-
Tapla, Aywaia, édela) was widely spread
in the Peloponnese, especially in Arcadia;
she was a ‘ Naturgottin von ahnlichem,
nur allgemeinerem Wesen als die Nym-
phen der Berge, Fliisse und Biche’
(Article Avtemzs, in Roscher’s Lexikon,
p- 560). In Elis she was brought into
relation with the river god Alpheus and
called after his name. ‘At Letrinoi
where the Alpheios flows into the sea
Artemis Alpheiaia had a temple, and the
inhabitants related as cause of its building
that Alpheios inflamed with love for
Artemis, and unable to attain to his
wishes by persuasion or entreaties, re-
solved to resort to violence ; but Artemis
smeared the faces of herself and her
nymphs with mud at Letrinoi (where she
celebrated with them a nocturnal feast)
so that Alpheios retired unable to re-
cognise her’ (see Pausanias VI. 22, 5).
‘According to another legend Alpheios
pursued Artemis to the island of Ortygia,
where she had a temple as Alpheiaia.’
(H. W. Stoll, article A/phezos, in Ros-
cher’s Lexikon, p. 257.)

4. Addov kacryvyta] Sister of Delos,

not literally, but spiritually, as sharing
with Delos the favour of Artemis.

oéev] From thee, the second syllable
-Oev having its full ablative force. 6p-
aca could hardly be constructed with
the simple genitive.

dSverys] Used of persons; e.g. dv-
émecat Modca, Hes. 7h. 965; Néorwp
noverns, A 2483 adver “Ounpov, Pind.
Nem. VUl. 21; and of things personified,
as here; e.g. Olymp. X. 93 advemys TE
Nvpa, Sophocles O. 7. 151 adverés pare
(of the oracle of Apollo). dévemjs tuvos
is the hymn that speaketh sweetly (with
the special sense of speaking in verse ;
én = verses).

5, 6. Oesev x.7.A.] Zo render high
praise to the storm-swift steeds, and to
pleasure Aetnean Zeus. Both Zeus of
Aetna (the city afterwards governed by
Chromius) and the victorious steeds are
honoured by the hymn. xdpw, a grateful
service, is in apposition with aivoy and is
not to be confounded with its quasi-
prepositional use in Pyth. Il. 95 (Atds
xdpw, by grace of Zeus) and other places.

0éuev means to set or establish; but
see below note on |. 59. Aetnean Zeus
is mentioned in Olymp. VI. 96.

7. But the car of Chromius and Nemea
impel me to harness a song of praise for
deeds of victory. The exploits of Chromius
are the car to which the song, as a steed,
is yoked. In Pyth. x. 65 765° efevter
dpya ITvepldwv rerpdopov, the metaphor is
different ; the ode is compared to the car
of the Muses. It is a characteristic usage
of Pindar to apply to the work of the
poet expressions appropriate to the ex-
ploits which he is celebrating. épyuaow

NEMEAN I. II

apyal € BéBrAnvta Bed

, /
avT. a.

i \ ’ \ / > lal
Kelvov adv avdpos Salpoviars apeTais.

(B épuacr) is stronger than épyors, and is,
as Dissen remarks, ‘sollemne apud Pinda-
rum de certaminum labore’. vikapdpors
has a literal signification ; Victory rides
in the chariot.

8. dpxat 8& BéBAnvrat Beav] The
difficulty, which has always been found
in these words, is due to the blending of
a metaphor with a somewhat uncommon
construction. Pindar often conceived his
hymns as works of visible art, plastic or
architectural, statues or temples ; thus in
Pyth. vit. 4 he speaks of laying the
corner-stone of songs, kpn7té’ dodav Ba-

déc@at, and in the opening lines of Olymp.-

vi. he works out the metaphor of a
palace with some elaboration. Here he
only suggests the metaphor by the use of
BéBXnvrar. Why, it may be asked, did
he abstain from writing xpn7is dé BéBXn-
rat (asin Pyth. vu. 4 and Iv. 138) and
choose the weaker word dpxai? The
answer to this question involves the ex-
planation of dpxai @e@v. apxouas is the
technical word for the opening invocation
of a hymn, and is regularly used with the
genitive. Thus in I 97
é&y col pev Anzw oéo & dpEouar,

and in Wem. v. 25 (of the Muses) Avds
Somewhat boldly (not how-
ever more boldly than Attic prose writers
use @é8os and such words with an ac-
cusative) Pindar has here transferred to
apxai the construction of dpyoua, and
dpxat BéBAnvTa Oedy is equivalent to
apxouevos Oedv BddNomae Kpyida aovdas.
Translate, First hymning the gods, and
withal the heroic excellences of that man
(Chromius), I have laid a foundation for
my song. It is impossible to give the
sense and at the same time preserve the
conciseness of the original, as we have
no word that conveys to an English ear
all that apxy7 or dpxouac in connexion
with a hymn suggested to a Greek ear.

apxomevar.

In translating Matthew Arnold’s lines
‘First hymn they the Father
Of all things ;—and then
The rest of immortals,
The action of men’
apxouat would be the word to use.

It should also be remembered that in
the Terpandric nomos the word dpya
had a special sense ; it was the first chief
division of the composition, as distin-
guished from the du@adés and ogpayis.

The gods with whose mention Pindar
has ‘begun’, in the first strophe are
Aetnean Zeus, Artemis and the river
deity Alpheus. He has united with their
names the victory of Chromius, and this
union of ‘the action of men’ with the
praise of the immortals might seem to
require an explanation. Such an ex-
planation is contained in the epithet
Satpovlats, heroic, half-divine; the dai-
poves being an intermediate class between
gods and men, as is clearly stated for
example in the AZo/ogy of Plato.

Other explanations of this passage
have been put forward, and even emen-
dations have been proposed. Dissen
translates ‘initia autem horum factorum
jacta sunt a diis una cum viri illius sin-
gularibus virtutibus’, interpreting apyai
Gedy as ‘ (initia) divina, a diis profecta’.
We may confidently hold that the words
could not admit this meaning. Mr Fen-
nell’s view almost coincides with mine in
sense, but not exactly; he takes ‘‘the
genitive Oedy as ‘xara otveow’, apxat
BéBAnvra being regarded as equivalent
to ‘I have begun’”.
and Mingarelli proposed Bé8Anv7’ €x
@eav, both of which give an inferior sense
to the reading of the Mss. and are from
a critical point of view highly improbable,
as no reason for the assumed corruption
is apparent.

The note of a scholiast is worth quoting

Dawes read dew,

12 NEMEONIKAI A’.

yy ’ ’ ’ ,
éote & €v evTvyia

mavdokias dkpov’ peyddov 8 aéfdov

Moica pepvacbat ED

omelpé vuv ayratav TWA VAT, TAY iO\pEaen deamroTas

Leds wxev Peprehdva, xatévevoév té Fou xaitars, apioTevoicay.

evKapTrou x Oovos

in support of the explanation which I
have adopted and which is practically
that of von Leutsch and Mezger :

dpxal ai Tod éyKwutov. TotTo de Neyer
dua TO ard Oeod THs ’"Aprepuldos KaTrnpxOa
Wate apxas Ta Mpooluia THS @Bdijs avtov
déyeuv.
émwoodv Tots avOpwmos Exrrov opera.

I think however that @eav may include
Zeus, if not Alpheus, as well as Artemis.

ro—12. Jn success ts the attainment
unto perfect glory;
Muse delighteth to remember.
tuxla refers primarily to victory in games;
but as it generally bears a wider meaning
and as dé@\wy may bear a wider meaning,
we need not, in translation, limit the
words of Pindar to athletic contests ;
they would be true, for example, of
the labours of Heracles.
Pindaric formation and may be compared
to mavéacla, ravdnula; as mavdaola is a
banquet at which nothing fails, mav dokla
is glory to which nothing is wanting (not
world-wide glory). A similar coinage of
Pindar is mayyAwoola (Olymp. WU. 87).
dixpov mavdokias is the eminence of perfect
praise, which is won by success celebrated
in song.

13. omeipé vuv] MSS. éyetpe viv, Beck

ZOos 5 Tivdapw Scots avarrew Ta

and great contests the
Here ev-

mavodotla is a

and Hermann restored o7retpé vuv, which
is palaeographically almost identical.
Compare ereipe with creipe. It is
clear that ometpe was read by the scholiast
who wrote éxrepre Tolvuy, & Motca, kal
omeipe NaumpornTa TWA TH VHoW TH Te-
keNla.

The usual interpretation that Pindar
calls upon the Muse to scatter (sfargere)
praises, or shed /ustre on the island may

be right. One might translate perhaps
Fling then some thing of beauty over the
island—remembering of course that vaow
is the dative of the interested person.
The idea of spreading ‘broad rumour’
may be implied in ozeipe, but it certainly
is not prominent. Editors always com-
pare tly 8 ddvemyns te dbpa yAuKs 7”
avNos dvardacce xapv (Ol. X. 94), but the
reading there is very uncertain, as the
Mss. vary between avamdocet, dvarTaocet
and dvam\dooe. A better parallel is Vem.
VIIL. 39 wompay 5° eriomelpwv air pois.

A new suggestion as to the meaning
of ometpe will be found in the Additional
Note on p. 27; but see also note on 1. 18
below.

dyAatay twa] The indefinite pronoun
is frequently used to express the writer’s
consciousness that his words are unusual
or metaphorical,—that he is taking a
liberty with language. Brightness is
the idea dominant in dy\ata, which re-
minds us a little of Fame’s ‘glist’ring
foil’ in Lycidas. ‘Song’ or ‘praise’ or
Jaus tllustris is an inadequate translation.

14. Pepoepdva] Zeus gave Acragas
(Agrigentum) as an ‘unveiling gift’ (es
Ta dvaxadumrjpia) to Persephone, and
hence that city is called by Pindar in
the Twelfth Pythian Ode (l. 2) Pepoe-
povas €50s. The donation was afterwards
Pherse-
phona, with double aspirate, is doubtless
the original form of the name of the
maiden of Enna, and attempts to deter-
mine the etymology should start with it.

Observe that of is digammated in
Pindar, cp. below 1. 16.

Katévevoréy Té Fou xaltats] Ard shook

extended to the whole island.

NEMEAN I. 13

’ a / ’ lal
Yuxeriav trieipav opOdce Kopudais troriwv adpveats’

ém. a. 15

v \ /, / a / /
@mace b€ Kpoviwy moréuov pvactipa Fou yadkevteos
adv tmmarypov Oawa 8) Kal "Odvpriddmv pvAdows €arav

xpuaéo.s

puyOévra. TorANaY éréBav Karpov ov evder Badov.

his locks in token unto her that he would
exalt Sicily to be the richest soil on
the fruitful earth, with cities supreme
in wealth. Compare A, 524 Kepady
KaTavevoomual.

dpirrevoirayv...miepav] meipav defines
the quality in which Sicily excels. x@ovds
depends on the comparative idea implied
in dpioreve.

15. Kopupats trodlwv adveats]
gaits and d@veais stand to each other in

Kopu-

the same relation as dpirevouwav and
mlepav; ceties unmatched in wealth. This
use of xopud7, head, occurs below 1. 34 and
in Olymp.1. 13 dpérwv Kopupas aperav aro
macav : it may be illustrated by our word
‘chief’ (chef, caput). In Olymp. XIII.
111, the poet speaks of the cities made
beautiful with wealth at the base of high-
peaked Aetna, rat @ bm’ Aitvas bYrdpov
KaNNlaovro odes. But perhaps xopupats
(especially taken in connexion with ép-
@aHoewv) may be intended to suggest also
the lofty situation of the Sicilian cities;
so Mezger ‘die Stadte Siciliens lagen
grosstentheils auf steilen Anhdhen’.

16. Kpovioy] In Homer Kpoviwy,
Kpovioves but Kpovtwvos, Kpoviwva ; in
Pindar Kpoviwy and Kpoviwy, see Mem.
IX. 19 and 28; cp. Tyrtaeus, Evvoula
2, 1 (Bergk’s numbering) atros yap Kpo-
view Kaddorepdvou méars"Hpns.

Tokéhov pvactypa)] Lxamoured of
war, war-wooig. In the Twelfth Py-
thian (]. 24) the Many-headed Mood
(ro\uKépados véuos) invented by Athene
is called a glorious lover of games, edKhed
Naocobwy pvactip ayavwy, and in the
Second Isthmian (I. 5) we read of ’Agpo-
diras evOpdvov pvacrepay adloray dmwpar.
It is certain that praorjp and prvdorerpa

are the same word as puvyorhp a suitor,
whether pvdouat, wynornp and pynorevw
be originally connected with [LLY TKO,
pvnun &e. or not. We can hardly
hesitate to assume however that the
Greek, whether rightly or wrongly, men-
tally associated pynornp with pyquwv,
especially in such a phrase as modéyou
pvactnp, and we might attempt to re-
produce this association by rendering @
people that turns to thoughts of bronze-clad
Such a rendering will be still more
appropriate in the passage quoted from
the Second Isthmian: ¢he sweet summer
season which turns to thoughts of Love.

XaAkevtéos] A Pindaric adjective, oc-
Another
Pindaric epithet o.dapoxdpuns is applied
in the Second Pythian to the steeds and
warriors of Sicily.

17. tmmatxpov] of horsemen, lit. fight-
ing on horseback. The cavalry of Sicily
were famous. tmmatxmos is also, as far
as we know, a word framed by Pindar.

Oapa Sy Kal...pix8évta] who full often
too felt the touch of the golden leaves of
Olympian olives, that is whose children
often won victories at Olympia. Some
Mss. have 6’ dua, but @apa is the best
attested reading and is indubitably right.
The old idea that @aua might mean ‘to-
gether’ as well as ‘often’ and was in fact
a collateral form of dua, was exploded
by Dr Ingram, Hermathena, vol. I. p.
217—227.

war,

curring also in Vev. XI. 35.

dy here has its regular em-
phasizing force. For this use of wx dévra
(characteristically | Pindaric)
Nem. IV. 21 Kaduetot vw avbeor ulyvvor,
crowned him with flowers.

18. modddv éréBav katpov od Wevder

compare

Baddv] These words have caused con-

14 NEMEONIKAI A’,

» ’ ’ /
éotav 5 é avrelats Ovpacs otp. PB’.
dvépos pidokeivov Kaa peATrOMEVOS, 20

évOa pou appodiov

siderable difficulty to editors, who are
divided as to the construction of kacpér,
some (notably Mr Fennell) taking it with
Badr, while others, including Dissen and
Mezger, regard it as the object of éwéBav.
Dissen translates multarum rerum tetigt
commode oblatam cofiam non loguitus
mendacia ; Mezger ‘ich habe Gelegenheit
zu vielem Lobe gefunden, ohne dass ich
doch mit einem Liigenworte geschleudert
hatte’; Mr Fennell on the other hand ‘I
have entered upon a copious theme, having
aimed at moderation with a statement of
simple truth’ (inadvertently rendering
katpov Badwy as if it were Kacpod Badwr).

If it were not for the difficulties which
have been discovered and discussed by
the commentators, the sentence would
appear clear and simple enough. We
should instinctively take capor with oA-
Gv and therefore with éréBar, especially
bearing in mind such passages as ay
éparar Karpov didovs (Pyth. 1. 57), and
€orxora Karpov bABov (Vem. VII. 58) ;
émiBjvac Katpov to alight on an occasion
would seem a natural expression (for
émiBalyw, alight om, with accusative see
Liddell & Scott); and we should take ov
Wevde. Barwy, casting no falsehoods, with-
out introducing the idea that Pindar
imagines himself shooting at a mark.
This is the interpretation adopted by
Dissen and Mezger, and it is the only
one that gives pertinent sense.

Translate: Z have found meet matter
Jor many praises without flinging one
Salse word.

Pindar has touched on various dis-
tinctions of Sicily; she was a gift of
Zeus to Persephone, her soil is fertile,
her cities are wealthy, her children are
warriors, and Olympian victors. There
is thus much matter for praise, and, he
adds, all the praise is true.

I confess that the words ov wevdder
Badwy cast doubt on the somewhat bold
explanation of ometpe (1. 13) offered in
the Vote on p. 27. On the whole I am
disposed to think that Pindar bids his
Muse fling gleaming words in praise of
Sicily, and then, when she has glorified
the island, assures his hearers that the
praises which she has flung are not mere
glittering falsehoods.

19. éotav 8’ ém’ avdrclats Oipats] 7
stood at the door of the courtyard ; that
is, I approached the vestibule ; compare
Isthmian VU. 2 wapa mpoOupov icv ave-
yepérw K@pov, also Pyth. 111. 78 Kovpac
map’ €uov mpodupov wéXtrovrat. So Dissen
‘accesst ad aulicas fores, ad vestibulum
Chromit’, and Mezger ‘ich trat an das
Hofthor’. Harpocration sa voce explains
aveia Opa as 7 ard THs 6600 mpwrn Ovpa
Tis oixtas (Dissen).
mUNat, a gate.

Ovpat, a door is like
20. KaAd peAtropevos] In Pythian
Ill. 78, Marpi ray xodpar map’ euov mpobv-
pov wéNrovrat Paya ceuvay Oeov, we have
“é\rrowae with an accusative of the burden
of the song, like the active wéA\7w. And
so here it is better to take xadd as a direct
accusative than as an adverb,—celebrating
a fair theme in choral song. The genitive
avdpos diNogetvov (that is, Chromius) de-
pends on @vpats.

Bergk conjectures, but wisely does not
read, k\éa. (1) kaa gives excellent
sense; (2) were «\éa the true reading,
it was too familiar a word to suffer
corruption.

21. appddioy Setrvov] Properly daz-
quet due, and so equivalent to generous
banquet, compare the Homeric pevoekéa
datra, This use of apuodcos is illustrated by
Eelv’ apudfovra, generous entertainment,
in Pythian Iv. 129 (‘epulas convenientes
non parcas’ Dissen).

NEMEAN I. 15

Seirvov Kexdopntat, Gaya 8 adrodaTov

’ ,’ , /
ovK atre(patou Sopot

évti* rédoyxe Se peupopevors eorods VOwp Kamvpe pepe

Mezger gives us the alternative of ‘ein
geziemendes’ or ‘ein fertiges Mahl’, with-
out deciding which is preferable. He
suggests the latter rendering (which to
me seems impossible) because a scholiast
writes mpoxetpos kal dpudédios in elucida-
tion of eroimov alvoy in Olymp. VI. 18.
But the fact that érocuos is (rightly) para-
phrased in that passage by ‘at hand and
due’ does not prove that dpyddios, due,
fitting, could be equivalent to ‘fertig’.

22. Oapd 8 dddoSarav] and often
are his halls visited by outlanders. In
another ode, the Ninth Nemean, composed
in honour of Chromius, the poet refers to
his hospitality by mentioning that the
door was too narrow to admit the multi-
tude of guests, Eelyvwy vevikavrar Ovpac
(I5F2);

Bergk, in order to connect this sentence
more closely with the following words in
lines 24, 25, has proposed @aya 6° €xGo0d0-
mav (Adua paroxyton for dua; but see
above, note on l. 17). Hartung proposed
Kekoopntat 0 dua 3’.

23. ovk ate(parot] Litotes. For azel-
paros compare O/. XI. 18 wd” arelparov
kadGv; in active sense, #xzadventurous,
Isth. 1. 48 (IV. 30). (In Olymp. V1. 54,
the Mss. vary between dmecpary and
dmeipavTw, the words being
Kéxputo yap cxolvy Baria 7’ év dmewpire,
where the metre requires that the pen-
ultimate syllable of the verse should be
short. Boeckh and Dissen take dzelparos
as equivalent to dme(pacros, untried, and
so of a thicket, dense; compare Oavparés,
Bergk reads dreipiry.)

24. Nédoyxe SE pepdopévots x.7.d.]
But he hath won good friends to quell as
with water the smoke of envious cavillers.

The following considerations are, it
seems to me, decisive in favour of the
meaning elicited by Hermann and Mat-

Oauuacrtos.

thiae, whose interpretations differ only in
a minor detail. (1) The impersonal con-
struction of \é\oyxe which underlies other
explanations is at least doubtful; the
personal construction is regular and occurs
in Pindar OZ. 1. 53 axépdeva édoyxev
Bayivad kaxaryopos (though there the verb
is used in a somewhat different sense).
(2) Here especially the context seems to
require the personal construction, as
affording a closer and more natural con-
nexion with the preceding sentences. Zhe
generous host has won by his hospitality
good friends. (3) A remark of Plutarch
(Frag. XX111. 2) that ‘envy is compared
by some to smoke’ (tov POdvov enor 7H
kamve@ elxag¢ovow), whether he had this
passage in mind or not, strongly confirms
the opinion that kamv@ here, occurring in
close connexion with wmenpopuévots, Means
the smoke of envy. This passage was
adduced by Hermann in support of his
explanation. (4) The collocation peydo-
pévots €cdovs Vdwp kaye strongly suggests
that the éodol are pitched against the
weupomevor as Udwp against kamvos; whence
we infer (a) that écAovs is not governed
by weupomevor, (b) that kamvds represents
the quality or work of the detractors, not
of the good.

The general sense then is: Chromius
has won for himself noble friends, who
defend him against cavillers and quench
their envy. In this sense Hermann and
Matthiae interpreted the passage, but
their analyses of the sentence are some-
what different. Hermann, followed by
Dissen, takes it thus: Nactus est (hospitii
liberalitate) viros probos adversus obtrecta-
tores, ad aquam fumo obviam ferendam.
Matthiae (Seebode’s Archiv fiir Philo-
logie, V. ii. fasc. 4, p. 681, quoted by
Dissen) takes peupopuévas, not with deé-
hoyxev Ecdovs, but with avriov pépew, the

16 NEMEONIKAI A.

’ / / ,’
avtiov. Téyvat 6

4 / a
oteiyovta papvacba va.

order being édAovxev éEarovs, wEeupowévors
Udwp dvtiov pépew (domep) karv@. Dissen
objects to Matthiae’s view, on the ground
that the natural order of the words is
neglected and that it is intolerable to
have to supply the comparative conjunc-
tion worep. I am disposed to agree with
Bergk that Matthiae comes nearer the
truth than Hermann. That peudopuévors
alone with \éAoyxev could mean against
cavillevs, I cannot believe; the so-called
dativus incommodé is sufficiently elastic,
but it would not at its tensest meet a case
like this. We have only to suppose the
first three words standing in a clause by
themselves, and we see that Hermann is
wrong and that the case of meupomévors
is really determined by the subsequent
words avriov pépew. So far Matthiae is
right, but he need not have introduced
womep: Pindar is using a metaphor rather
thanasimile. Without metaphor he might
have written NéAoyyxev Eodods, Wepomevwy
p0ovm avriagew. In the metaphor, téwp
avriov pépev takes the place of dvridigew
and xarve of @90vm; and the poet gains
an elegant verbal antithesis by writing,
instead of the genitive peugdoudrvwr, the
dative weupouévas, a strict dativus incom-
modi (‘their smoke for cavillers’).

A totally different interpretation, which
is at first sight attractive, has been sug-
gested by von Leutsch and is accepted
by Mezger. Observing that water poured
on smoke increases it these scholars con-
clude that éwp karv@ pépew avriov was a
Greek proverb corresponding to our
‘pouring oil on the fire’, and translate
thus: ‘It is the lot of those who detract
from the noble to carry water to quench
smoke’, that is to increase the glory which
they would fain disparage. Strabo, Ix.
443, OerraNiav Naxetv Acvxadlwne is quoted
to support AéA\oyxe with the dative, but
Herwerden both suspects the reading in

c al
érépwv €repar' xp 8 ev evbelais dois

Strabo, and rightly takes dvjp as the
subject of Ndd\oyxe (Pindarica, p. 24).
Considerations already adduced tell a-
gainst Mezger’s view, and the only argu-
ment in its favour falls to the ground
through the simple reflection that though
a small quantity of water poured on a
smoking fire causes the vapour to spread
about, a sufficiently large quantity will
extinguish it.

But Mezger may be judged almost out
of his own mouth, and here we come to
another argument which supports the
explanation adopted by the present editor.
According to the Pindaric usage, which
Mezger has the credit of having discovered,
dvriov in 1. 25 corresponds to avridgwow
in 1. 68, both words occupying the same
position in the same verse of strophe f’
and antistrophos 6’ respectively. By this
device Pindar indicates a connexion in
thought between the two passages, and
the connexion is patent. The good men
oppose the cavillers as the gods and
Heracles oppose the giants. This cir-
cumstance confirms the view that the
éodol are the subject of avriov pépeuv.

The next note will develop Pindar’s
meaning further.

25. Téxvat 8’ érépwv x.7.A.] Aris are

divers ; but it ts meet that a man should

walk in straight paths, and use in strife
his native vigour. For might of limb
worketh (manifests itself) by action ; and
wit—in those to whom it is given by nature
to foresee the future—by counsels.

The opposition of born talent, gud, to
art and acquired learning is a favourite
theme of Pindar.
the Second Olympian Ode, where he
attacks Korax and Teisias ; 1. 86 codds 6
moANa eldws pug’ pwabbyres 5é NaBpor ray-
yrwoola, Kbpakes Ws, dkpayvra yapterov Acos

He touches on it in

mpos Opvixa Oetov, Wise 7s he who hath
much knowledge through native wit ; but

NEMEAN I. 17

/ \ ” \ ,
Mpacoe, yap épyw pev abévos,

avr. B’.

Bovraior S€ dpnv éooopevoy mpoideir,

zt ts through study that they twain clamor-
ously utter their lean notes, idly, like
crows against the divine bird of Zeus.
(Mr Verrall showed, from the dual yapv-
erov combined with the Pindaric paro-
nomasia képaxes, that Korax and Teisias
the Sicilian rhetors are alluded to. For
AdBpo, loud, see note on Nem. VIII. 46.)
Again in Olymp. 1x. 1. 100, we read,

TO 5€ Pua Kpdticrov amrayv* moNdol dé

dvdaxrais

avOpwmwv aperats Kdéos

w@povoav apécOar.

In the Second Pythian 1. 72 the ac-
complishments of the ape, which amuse
children, are contrasted with
ability ;

pabayv Kkadds tor ribwy mapa ma.oly
alel

KaNés.

ore ppevOv

&axe Kapmrov duuwunrov, K.T-r.
where the purpose of introducing Rha-
damanthus, as I have pointed out
(Hermathena, vol. VI. p. 185), is the
suggestion that his name means padiws
bavOdvuy,

Pindar himself provides us with a
means of elucidating to some extent the
present passage by the hint (contained in
avriov—arvTiagwow) that we are to take
part of the fourth antistrophos in con-
nexion with it. And it requires no in-
genuity to see that odv mraylw Kdpw orel-
xovra (1. 64) him who walketh with
crooked envy is opposed to (‘findet seinen
Gegensatz in’ Mezger) oreixovra év ev-
Geis odors him who walketh in straight
paths ; and the képos of 1. 65 corresponds
to the kamvés of 1. 24. Thus the thought
is: the true and noble man, when he is
assailed by envious cavillers, who, because
they are envious, use crooked wiles (réx-
vat), will not deviate from the straight
path but will oppose their adventitious
arts by his own inborn strength. So it

natural

6 d€ ‘PadayavOus eb mémparyev

was that Heracles subdued those who
walked with crooked envy, and aided the
gods to overcome the envious giants.

In the first instance the poet is aiming
these shafts at enemies of Chromius ; but
it would be quite in the manner of Pindar
to intend a side-blow at his own rivals ;
and this is suggested by réxvai 6” érépwv
érepar, see above, Lntroduction, p. 6. It
is possible that Pindar’s rivals, or literary
foes, may have been actually among the
detractors of Chromius.

26. mpacoe] operates by, manifests
itself in. &pyov is the oAévos externalised,
and mpdooce. means the process. For
mpacow=ago, ‘function’ Mr Fennell
compares mpacodvTwy meNéwv in frag. 131,
1. 4 (ed. Bergk).

This verse refers to Chromius, whose
deeds prove his native strength.

27. Povdator 8 hprv «.7.A.] These
words, I believe (with Welcker), refer to
the poet himself, not, as is generally
assumed, to Chromius. In this ode Pindar
is a prophet foretelling, under the cover
of myth, a glorious career for Chromius
and a fair close thereto. As Heracles
in the myth corresponds to Chromius,
Tiresias, who prophesies the greatness
and final apotheosis of Heracles, corre-
sponds to Pindar. And in the passage now
under consideration Pindar indicates this
by the words ¢hose to whom it is given to
foresee the future. For @rerac in this
sense—not quite the same as éveort, but
suggesting continuity in time—compare
Isthm. 11.
érovTat.

The general connexion of thought in
ll. 24—28 may be summed thus. We
must oppose envy and artifice by straight-
forwardness and native faculty, gua. In
you, Chromius, this gud is oévos, in me
ppyv, whereby I can foresee what is to be,

4 meydrar 6 dperal Ovarots

and can meet the cavillers by prophesying
your glorious future.

ouyyeves ols ErreTau.
"Aynavoajov

TOV TE Kal TOY YpHoLES.

NEMEONIKAI

al Lf , ’ ‘ /
mat, céo & audi tpoTw

> byA \ ’ U la) / BA
OVK Epaual ToNUY EV fEeyap@ TOUTOY KaTaKpUals EXEL),

3 Lal > lal
aX éovtov ev te Tabeiy Kai axotcat dirows &EapKéwv.

yap épxovt édrides

29, 33. But in the compass of thy
character, O son of Agesidamus, are
powers of using ( fortune’s) various gifts.
For dul (somewhat like German JZe7)
compare Olymp. XIII. 37 dedlw dud’ évl,
in the compass of one suns race; Pyth.V.
11g divacw...ém epyouw aut te Bovdais
éxew, puissance for the achievement of
deeds and in the scope of his counsels ;
Nem. Vi. 14 00K Gupopos audi mada, 272
the field of wrestling.

Ta Kal ta] ¢his and that, is a favourite
expression of Pindar and always means
divers things ; according to the context,
the divers things may all be good, or some
may be good and others—@drepa. Ob-
serve the following passages. Olymp. 11.
53 0 pay mdovTos apeTais Jedacdadpuevos
péper Tay Te Kal TGv Katpdv, wealth surely,
if tricked out with fair qualities (of its
possessor), giveth occasion (means) for
Pyth. V. 55 6 Bar-

tov 8 émerat madaids O\Bos éurav Ta

divers achievements.

kal Ta véuwy, mUpyos doteos, But the
ancient fortune of Battus’ house abideth,
notwithstanding, allotting various bless-
mes, a tower of defence to the city.
(For érerat compare above, note on
]. 27.) Pyth. Vil. 20 gavTl ye pay
otTw avdpl Oa)Xot-
evdauovlay Ta Kal Ta gépecbat,

Kev Tapwovluav
oav
Surely they say (ye italicises paytt) that
Happiness, when she thus abideth with a
man always in the fairness of her youth,
winneth divers things ; that is good and
bad, the bad being @@évos, mentioned in
the previous line. [Dissen takes pépeoOau
here as equivalent to ¢épew (afferre, and
so Mezger ‘mit sich bringe’); wrongly ;
evdayovla does not bring é@évos in her
train, but wins it (@épera in its regular

Kowal

middle sense).] JZsthm. IV. 52 Zebs 7a
te Kal Ta véwer, Zeus distributes various
Jots (good and bad).

With these passages in view I cannot
hesitate to disagree with the majority of
commentators, who made tév kal Tov
refer to the épyov and BovAal mentioned
in the preceding verses. ‘In utraque
virtute uteris’, Dissen; ‘Rath und That’,
Mezger ; and even Welcker, who rightly
refers BovAats to Pindar, explains ‘tu
alterum habes, c@évos, alterum experiris,
BovAds’. But it is quite gratuitous to
assign to Ta kal 7a here a definite sense
which the expression bears nowhere else ;
and especially in the light of the verses
quoted above from the Second Olympian
ode. Chromius’ character is such that he
can use well the various gifts of fortune,
wealth among the rest. The two follow-
ing lines, I think, make this explanation
certain.

3r. ovK Epapar, x.7.’.] L love not to
keep great store of treasure hidden in the
palace, but of my abundance to make good
cheer and win a good name, contenting my
friends. From this defence of Chromius’
lavish hospitality, we may with some
probability conclude that one of the
charges brought against him by the cavil-
lers was prodigality. Observe that radety
and dkodcat are aorists: e8 mdoxew would
mean to indulge in continual high living.
ev is carried on to akovcat.

$2. éévtwv] Such expressions as /o
give of your abundance or xaptfouévn
mapeovTwy are familiar ; édvTwy eb mabe
is the same construction in a_ passive
form. Dissen compares Theognis 1. roog
The
genitive is akin to the partitive gen.; if

Tw avrod KTedvwv e0 macxéuer.

NEMEAN I. 19

/ r
ToduTOVMY avopwn.
vos,

ey) © “Hpaxréos avtéxopar mpodpo-

én. [.

> fal , fal / > lal > / /
€v Kopupats apeTav peyadats apxYatoy oTpvvwv Royor,

[4 > \ / e / cde ey? \ > ”
@s, émel oTAayyvwv Uro patépos avTixa Oantav €s aiyday

qrais Autos

wdiva pevywv Sudvu@ adv KaclyVnT@ LorEV,—

ws ov AKaAA@dY ypuccOpovov

oTp. Y’.

“HH \ , > , A
pav KPOK@TOV oTaApYyavov eyKatéBa

grammarians seek a name for it, they
might call it the genitive of Capital.
Kowal ydp «.7..] For to all alike
come the hopes and fears of toiling men ;
none are exempted from the changes and
chances of mortal life; therefore make
use of the wealth while it is still called
to-day. Kowal, common (as in Hamlet,
‘ay, madam, it is common’); compare
Nem. Vil. 30 Kowov yap epxerar Kom
"Alda, to all alike comes the wave of
Death's river. édwldes, hopes and fears,
édmis being neutral, either hope or fear ;
translated into objective language it
means changes and chances.
toiling and suffering; compare tadaol
Bporot, comfortless mortals, Aristoph.
Birds, 687, and éugupods Bporov’s, N 569.
33-38. éyo 8’ x.7.d.] But I hold
fain and fast by Heracles for matchless
deeds of mighty prowess, and stir a time-
honoured tale,—how no sooner had the son
of Zeus with his twin brother issued from his
mother’s womb forthright into the won-
derful dazzling light, fresh from the birth-
pang, than his swathing in the saffron
bands was known to Hera on her golden
throne.
érp’vw is used like xww,—as if the tale
lay quiet and Pindar disturbed its rest.
35. omtddyxvev tro] from beneath the
heart. A passage in the Sixth Olympian,
telling of the birth of Iamus, is very
nearly verbally identical: yA@ev & bro
otdyxXvwv bm wdives 7 éparas*lamos
és Pdos avrixa (l. 43). Here avrixa is

;
TONVTOV WY,

taken by Dissen with érel (quam primum,
the very moment that); but Mr Fennell
rightly observes that it ‘indicates the
normal process of the delivery’, as in the
Sixth Olympian. The point of avrixa
is that the passage from the womb into
the light is not graduated, but sudden,
and this idea is further developed in the
words Oanray aiyhav. Oanrdy for Onnrav,
wondrous to look upon, suggests the first
surprise of light dawning on a newborn
infant’s eyes; and aiy)ay is felicitously
chosen to express the dazzle after the
darkness of the womb.

36. Kkacvtyvyte] Iphicles, son of Am-
phitruo.

37- s] So Boeckh for Mss. ws 7’.
Some scholars have wished to change
émel in 1. 35, for it is clear that émel and
ws 7’ cannot stand together. [Hermann,
for example, read ws dpa, Rauchenstein
ws more, but these and other attempts
to emend ws ézeé set all principles of
textual criticism at defiance.] The omis-
sion of 7’ is a simple and certain remedy ;
a scribe observing ws following ws in the
same sentence and unconnected by a
copula would be tempted to insert a Te
or a kat. The second os is (as Mezger
says) a repetition or resumption of the
first ws. The object of this resumption is
to begin the tale proper in the new
strophe.

38. KpoKwtdv] saffron-dyed ; Kpoxwrés
is generally used as a substantive. The
colour was worn by kings and heroes ; in

2—2

20 NEMEONIKAI A.

arra Oedv Bacirea

omepyGcica Supe tréurre Spaxovtas aap. 40

Tol wev oiyPevcay TuAaY

/ /
és Oaddwouv puyov evpdy éBav, Téxvoiow wxelas yvabous

apperiEacbar wewadtes’ 6 8 opbov pev

dé TpeToV payas,

» /
aVTELWEv Kapa, TrELPATO

a > U
Siccaicr Sovors avyévav avt. ¥.
udprais apvxrous yepolv éais dias’ 45

ayxowevors Sé€ ypomos

the Fourth Pythian, Jason flings off a
saffron-coloured garment, xkpoxdev eiua
(1. 232). ;

éyxatéBa] was placed and swathed in,
stronger than évéBa just as éyxaradéw is
Verbs compounded
with éyxara- (such as éyxaraNelrw, éy-

stronger than évdéw.

KaTragevyvuul, eyKaTaTlonu, eyKardKeua,
&c.) connote a firm insertion or a strict
inclosure; here éyxar(éBa) suggests the
swathing.

39. GAAA Beav Bacirea] Aut she
queen of the gods, in hot wrath, straight-
way sent serpents. I follow Heyne
and Bergk in reading Baci\ea for MSS.
Bacitea ; compare iépea for iépera and
see Bergk’s note. Boeckh’s Bac:Aéa would
mean falace (Baorela). omépxomat is
used of hasty and violent anger; as a
medical term omepxvéds connotes the
violence of a fever or sickness. The
scholiast explains by tzepféovea.

42. Sardpov] Addauos and Addamor
have the special sense of a woman’s
chamber or bower. puxov
chamber far withdrawn, inner.

Tékvoioty wKelas x.7.\.] There can
hardly be any doubt that dupeditacba
refers to the coiling of the serpents round
the bodies of the children; cf. X 95
The
proper meaning of éXlcow is to coil, and

Oadapov =

E\oobuevos rept xe of a serpent.

the middle in active sense is quite right
here as its object is part of the subject’s

body. The use of yvddouvs, where we

might expect a word denoting the whole
body, is bold and graphic; in the swift
process of coiling, the jaws of the snakes
and the darting tongues are the most
prominent feature,—they seem all jaws.
wxelas refers to the rapid motion of the
head. Ravening, although as a transla-
tion, it would be inexact, is the subjec-
tive aspect of wxelas and is expressed by
peuawres. We may translate, Yearning
to wind round the children their coils and
darting jaws.

Dissen’s note is ‘dicit avidas maxillas
celeriter se moventium, appropinquan-
tium bestiarum, ad partem corporis revo-
cato epitheto, quod proprie toti corpori
serpentium competit’.

43. Sp0ov dvreivev] dpdy dvareivew =
This in itself
was the mark of a prodigious infant.

mpatov] for the first time. It was his
first battle.

Sircaicr Soros K.7.A.] by seizing in the
sure grasp of his hands twain the two
serpents by their necks. adixros Bergk
unnecessarily changes to agvxtws. Notice
the stress laid by Pindar on the dual
number of the serpents by diccator dorovs
in the emphatic position at the beginning
of the antistrophos (see next note).

40. dyxopévors S€ xpopos] As chey
were throttled, the breath of life left their
unutterable limbs in a gurgling hiss.

xpévos is the reading of the Mss., which
editors have (vainly I think) endeavoured

raise in an erect posture.

NEMEAN J. 21

‘ , La / ’ ,
wuyas anémvevoey pedewy apatov.

éx © ap atraTov TéXosS

to explain. ‘Constrictis tempus vitam
exstinxit’, Dissen; ‘indem sie gewiirgt
wurden, blies die Zeit ihre Seelen aus
den unsagbaren Gliedern=die lange Zeit
des Wiirgens raubte ihnen den Athem’,
Mezger; ‘the time made them breathe
forth the life from their dread frames’,
Fennell. Von Leutsch says zzsolens sane
dicendi genus sed necessarium, and Mr
Fennell admits that ‘it is quite possible
that there is some corruption but it is
impossible to establish a correction’.
Hartung has adopted ayxdpmevor dé Xpovy
puxas dmrémvevoay, a reading which may,
primo conspectu, be rejected as uncritical ;
Bergk suggests 5’ dtpouos, which, we may
safely say, would never have become
corrupted to dé xpovos.

The obvious objections to xpdvos are
decisive. xpovos by itself can only mean
a long time, and thus gives a sense discor-
dant with the spirit of the narrative. As
Bergk says, celeriter facinus patravit
infans, his mighty grasp throttled them
at once, and so it is represented in
Theocritus’ account of the prodigy, XXIV.
55. But even if we waive this, amémvevoe
cannot admit an external agent (like
xXpovos) as its subject.

I have no hesitation in restoring xpo-
pos, the conjecture of Schmidt. From a
critical point of view it is a perfect emen-
dation; for that the unfamiliar xpopos
would have almost inevitably been ‘cor-
rected’ to the familiar and nearly identical
xpdvos will be admitted by any one who
has dealt at all with questions of textual
criticism. It is moreover a fine addition
to a realistic picture; we hear the hissing
death-rattle, in which, literally, the breath
leaves the serpent’s body. (Cp. Vem. X.
74, where Polydeukes finds the dying
Castor doOuatt ppicoovra mvoas.) The
strangling grasp produces the xpdmos in
the throat, and the xpomos, as it were,

‘expires’ their souls. As xpés0s is merely
the audible sign of the departing breath
and is not external to the organisms, the
phrase xpéuos amémvevce is not exposed
to the objection which applies to xpévos
amémvevoe. For xpouos see Hesychius.

But there is a further consideration
that removes remaining doubts on the
subject of xpouos. The idea of the ode
is a comparison between the fulfilled
career of Heracles and the unfulfilled
career of Chromius, and it would be
characteristic of Pindar’s art to remind
the hearer or reader of this by indirect
allusion in the course of the narrative.
A favourite mode of such allusion was
paronomasia, and here the strange word
xpoumos (which arrests the attention all
the more because it is strange) im-
mediately suggests Xpdmsos. This also
explains the form of the phrase xpéos
amémvevoev; the circumstance that xpoyos
is the subject and as it were the agent
makes the allusion to some exploit of
Chromius more precise. What this ex-
ploit was, to which Pindar compares the
slaying of the serpents, we have no
means of knowing; but the emphatic
prominence given to the number of the
serpents by diccaior Sovo’s (see last note)
suggests that two special enemies of
Chromius are alluded to. See above,
Introduction.

Herwerden (Pindarica, p. 25) suggests
xdvos (equivalent to o76ua) for xpovos.

47- pedtéov ddatwv] This use of pe-
Aéwy is a reminiscence of Homeric phrases
like @uuds é&€arato éx pedéwy (Dissen).
For d@drwr, vast, huge, compare Hero-
dotus VII. 190 apara xpijuata, vast sums
of money (like German ‘kolossal’).

48. é& 8 dp’ drAatov méAos make
yevaikas] The better Mss. have ar\arov
déos, while V,, X, Y, Z and the dri of
Moschopulos have Bé\os. Many editors,

22 NEMEONIKAI A’.

a a / ’ / ? Ud / A
mrAdEe yuvaixas, boar TUYOV ‘AXKpnVas apiyoltaL EXEL
> UA > \ a c a
Kal yap avTa, Tocoly atreTAOS Opoicaic ATO cTPa-VaS, OMwS

dpuvev UBpw Kvwdarov.

including Dissen and Fennell, adopt Bé\os
on the intelligible ground that déos can
be explained as an interpretation of the
difficult BéX\os, whereas BéXos cannot be
accounted for if déos were the word
written by Pindar. This argument is
conclusive against 6€os. They explain
BéXos as a pang of fear (vepentinus animé
motus), and support it by Homer’s ws 6’
67’ dy wdlvovcav éxn Bédos 6&d yuvatka,
A 269 (compare also Homeric dxet BeBo-
Anuévos). But this use of BédXos 6&d for
the sharp phystcal pain of a woman in
travail—almost a SédXos of Artemis—does
not in any way justify or explain the
absolute use of BéXos for fear. To me it
seems incredible that Pindar would have
used the word in this sense without some
further definition of its meaning. I hold
therefore, with Bergk, Hartung and
others, that both fédXos and déos are
corrections, but their suggestions are
certainly untenable. Neither Bergk’s
dm\atov xpéos (which assumes a double
corruption), nor Hartung’s BAdBos nor
even Rauchenstein’s tapos stood in any
peril of being changed; and even if tagos
might have been surmounted with the
gloss 6éos, it could never have produced
Bédos. In the reading BéXos we have a
valuable clue for discovering the lost
original. Bé\os gives such poor sense
that no scribe would have thought of
introducing it into the text unless it were
very similar tn letters to the actual word
he found, that word being itself so un-
familiar that it puzzled him completely.
In fact the only circumstance that could
have determined anyone to read BéXos was
its likeness to an unintelligible original.
This argument appears to me conclusive,
and I haye no hesitation in restoring
mé\os, a neuter noun related to wéAwp,
as dos (Hesiodic védec) is related to téwp.

It may be that Hesychius had this very
passage before him when he noted the
gloss
TéNos* meya, Tepdoriov.

(His gloss on wédwp is péya, treppues.)
This rare word was not understood; and
while one scribe, who clung to the letter,
altered it to the nearest word that sug-
gested anything like sense (Gédos), another
who had a keener eye for the meaning
boldly read 6é0s. While 7é\wp was con-
fined in use to living organisms, 7réXos (as
is indicated by Hesychius’ repdorioy and
as the form of the word suggests) might
be used of a strange or prodigious event ;
hence Pindar uses it here. We may
render; dwt the terrible prodigy struck
with dismay the women who were helping
Alcmena at her bedside.

50. kal yap atrd «.7.r.] All the
Mss. read mogciv (U ociv). Dissen’s
note is ‘non temere adjecta voce 7oc-
atv, sed oppositionis causa ; consternatae
feminae, ipsa vero etiam accurrit’; in
other words zrogoty is added to dpovcaca,
in order to emphasize the motion of
Alcmena ; cf. rocat rpéxwv Olymp. X. 65,
where the footrace is opposed to the
wrestling match. Cf. also Olymp. X11.
72 ava 6° é€madr’ dp0q modi. As Mr
Fennell says, we may translate ‘to her
feet’, though the dative is certainly instru-
mental. Bergk reads mavoly (to be taken
with duuvevy) which Mezger accepts.
Translate: For she too leaped to her feet
where she lay, robeless, and was fain to help
im repelling the felon monsters.

Stephanus’ éuws for the Mss. 6uds is
arbitrary and Mezger is right in rejecting
it. The choice of tps to designate
the attack of the beasts is notable,
and indicates that Pindar is thinking
of some triumph of Chromius won over

human kvddara. demos, it is perhaps

NEMEAN I. 23

ray) 5€ Kadyelwv ayoi yarnéous adv brdos dpapov abpo-

b] /
eT. Y.

év xept & ’Apditpdwv Kodeod yupvoyv Twacowy pacyavov

” ft Sry ee? /
LKET , o&elals aVlLalolt TUTTELS.

\ \ > a / / > ¢ Ar
TO yap oixelov miéler Tave omas

evOds 8 amnuov Kpadia Kados aud’ addorptop.

éota € OapBer Svopop@

OTP. O77 55

TEpTV® TE pixels. eide yap exvopLov

Ajuda Te Kal dvvamw

viod’ TadiyyAwooor Sé Fou abavarou

unnecessary to observe, does not mean
naked, but €v xiTwviw, or povoxitwr.

51. xXadkéors ody OmAos] Here
Pindar (in the 3rd epode) represents the
countrymen of Heracles as wearing
bronze arms, just as he represented the
countrymen of Chromius (in the first
epodel. 16) as a people wohéuou mvacrhpa
xadxevréos. Hints like this serve the
purpose of keeping the parallel in the
reader’s mind.

€Spapov] in arsis, as below 1. 69 xpévor ;
Ol. VI. 103 TovTdmedov, Pyth. Il. 6
yurapkéds. Note the quantity of ab poor.

52. ev xepl] ch. Pyth. 11. 8 &v xeEpot
édduacce modovs. _Moschopulos is our
authority for ¢dcyavov which is omitted
by the Mss.

53. d€elats dvlator tumefs] A remi-
niscence of T 125 Tov 8’ dxos df) rhe.
In Pindar the ¢ of dviapés is short, cf.
Ol. XIL. 11 dviapais; that of avla is short
here (as in Sappho and Theognis), but
long (as always in Homer) in Pyth. Iv.
154.

TO yap olkeiov mele. wav dpas] Lor
each alike is whelmed by his own trouble
(the grief that comes home to him), dz¢
distress for a stranger's sorrow soon
passeth away from the heart. miéfw, keep
under, whelm, compare Eurip. Hippol.
637 miéfer Tayab@ To SuaTuxés.

54. €v00s 8 dmypeov] The heart feels
concern, but straightway—loses it; the
feeling is only a passing impression (vasch

wieder voriibergehender Eindruck, Mez-
ger).

dpi Kaos] cf. Zsthm. VI. g (duper
eUppavas) dud’ Iohaov immopunry.

55. €ora St OdpBer «.7-A.] He stood
oppressed with wonder and delight ; for
he saw the strange spirit and power of hts
son, and the immortals had rendered the
tidings of the messengers perverse.

For the responsion of éora to éoray at
the beginning of the znd strophe, see
Introduction p. 5.

pixOeis] fouched with. The mental
state of Amphitryon was @duBos wonder,
and this wonder was at once painful and
pleasurable. Dissen quotes olkrw ovyxe-
Kpauwevnv, Soph. Aj. 896, and deraig
ovykéxpayat 60a, and translates affectus ;
but I doubt whether the use of ovyxepay-
vue can throw much light on the use of
plyvume. At the same time I have no
doubt that he is right in taking it simply
as affected, and not as in a state of
mingled &c. Compare v 203 avdpas
puoryeuevac KaxoTrnTe Kal adyeot; Lsthm.
lll. 5 evAoylas dorwy peutxOar; the
general use of the word is ¢o bring into
contact with.

58. viov] Intended by its position in
the verse to correspond to ’Aynovdapou
mat in the corresponding line of the
second antistrophos, and thereby indi-
that Chromius like Heracles is
endowed with éxvoj.oy Ajua Kal diva.

madltyykwooov] This word may be

cate

24 NEMEONIKAI A.

ayyérov pnow Oécav.

yeltova 81) kadecev Avos victov mpopatav é€oxor,

> t / BAe \ an ' \ \ a. ,
opOopavti Teipeciav’ 0 dé Fot ppafe kal mavtTi otTpat@, Trovals

¢ / /
OMlLANTEL TUYALS,

termed a vox Pindarica. It occurs only
here and in Jsthmian V. 24 008 éorw
ovTw BapBapos ore maNlyyAwooos TOs,
ats ov IIndéos diee kNéos. Commentators
have been in the habit of assigning
different meanings to the word in these
two passages; (1) here zz contrarium
verterant ; schol. évavtignuov, (2) Lsthunz.
V. 24, speaking a foreign language ; schol.
As to the general sense they
are of course right, but it is important to
observe that madlyyAwooos itself has the
same connotation in both passages, the
apparent difference being due to the con-
text.
words, that is, words which do not agree
with a certain standard. In the passage
under consideration, the standard is the
truth or the fact; as it turned out, the
speech of the messengers used words
which did not agree with the fact. In
the other passage, the standard is the
Greek language. See Aff. A, note 1.
Fot for Amphitryon.
59. Vérav] rendered.
a similar metrical position in l. 5; and
Pindar intended to intimate that his hymn

a\XoKoTos.

TaNnlyy\wooos means using wrong

Oéuev occupies

renders praise to Chromius even as the
gods gave glory to Heracles by rendering
When
we take this in connexion with the word

the tale of the messengers false.

malyy\wooor, it would seem that Pindar
hints at slanders circulated by Chromius’
enemies, and that among these there may
have been literary men, who affected the
use of yA@oou, strange dialectic words.
See Jntroduction, p. 6.

60. ‘yelrova] Pausanias (1X. 16) men-
tions that there was a so-called olwvocko-
meiov Tecpectou in the region of the Electra
Gate of Thebes, and the same writer
(1x. 11) also mentions that Amphitryon
dwelled by the Electra Gate. This

explains yeirova. Near the same gate
too was the Ismenion (a\a6éa pavtiwv
O&kov, Pyth. x1. 6), of which Tiresias
was probably the pavzts (Dissen).

8 Kddeoev] This reading is due to
Bergk. The reading of the best Mss. is
5° éxaNecav; that of B, DV and the Mos-
chopuleans 6 éxkadeoav is clearly a cor-
rection for the sake of the metre and
probably has no independent authority.
Most editors read with Triclinius 6” éxxa-
Neoev. It is just possible that the plural
form of the Mss. may be right and that
Pindar may have represented the same
persons who had brought the news to
Amphitryon as having called forth Ti-
resias.

Avos tiorov x.7.d.] Zhe eminent in-
terpreter of Zeus most high, the true seer,
Tiresias.

61. dp0opavtis] Formed by Pindar as
the opposite of wevdouaytis. Compare
gepvouartis, a coinage of Sophocles,
O. 7. 556.

6 8 Fot x.7.\.] 6 is Tiresias, of is
Amphitryon: but the subject of owAjoee
is Heracles.

Translate: And he declared to him and
all his host, what fortunes shall attend
the boy, and how many uncouth prowlers
he shall have slain on the dry land,
and how many on the sea.

Tbxas refers to the destiny of Heracles
after all his labours have been accom-
plished, as described in the last lines of
the ode, and xravwy is aorist in reference
to ouidjoe. Mr Fennell explains xkravay
as ‘the participle of the gnomic aorist
referring to sundry points of the time
covered by the principle verb’, and
equates dacous kravay with kai modXods

KTEVEL.

NEMEAN I. 25

uA / iy
Oaaous pev ev Yépow KTAVOD,

/
.

avt. §

doaous d€ TovTw Ojpas aidpodixas*

kal Twa avy TAYLO

avdpév Kop@ oteiyovta Tov éxOpoTtaTov

cal a
pacé viv TacELy mopov.

kal yap brav Ocoi év medio Préypas Tvyavtecow paxav

63. aidSpo8l{kas] The best comment
on this word is the Homeric line quoted
by Dissen (« 215), avdpa otire dixas et
eidéra ore Oéutoras. For Ojpas the same
editor compares Archilochus, frag. 88
(ed. Bergk) col 6€ Onpiwv tBpis Te kal dixy
péXet, but Pindar doubtless chose the
word to suggest that the exploit of the
infant in slaying the cvwéada was typical
of his future achievements.

64—66. Kal twa K.7.\.] And he said
that he would give many a one who
walked with crooked envy a draught of
direst doom to drink,

With the reading of the Mss. dwoew
this sentence has no construction. Most
of the changes which have been proposed,
beginning with Boeckh’s pépw, seem un-
critical. The most ignorant scribe was
so familiar with the fact that d/6wuc takes
a dative, that his tendency would have
been to substitute a dative for an accusa-
tive rather than to do the reverse. If
Pindar wrote “épw, or (as Kayser would
have it) mavexOpordrw popy, no reason
can be assigned for the corruption.

There can be no doubt, I think, that
-the error lies in dWcew and in dacew
only. In fact even if the Mss. gave py,
I should feel confident that Pindar did
not use such a weak expression as d.d0vac
popw. The words in Olymp. 11. 82 KvKvoy
Te davdtw mopev do not support it ; mdpev
(connected as it is with murpwoxw, wémpw-
pat) is a very different word from didwur.
I may illustrate what I mean by a similar
case in English; ¢o give death would be
an intolerably bald expression for Zo s/ay,
(except there were some special reason
for representing death as a gift) and it

could not be supported by such a phrase
as to deal death. Another difference
between the present passage and the
verse in the Second Olympian is that 04-
varos may be personified, wdpos hardly.

I conclude therefore that dwWocev has
taken the place of some unfamiliar word
which it closely resembled, and I restore
mocew, Aeolic for ricew, future of muric-
kw, just as 7, 7G are Acolic for 7th,
drink! (Alcaeus, 54 A. B. ap. Bergk,
P. L. G., xaipe kal 7& ravde. Seipo cbp-
moh), movw for mivw. Pindar uses the
future wiow in the 5th Isthmian, 1. 74,
but this circumstance would not be an
objection to his using m#ow here. In
that passage micw takes the double ac-
cusative: micw ope Alpxas ayvov tdwp.

This description of Heracles’ punish-
ment of the envious corresponds to the
lines in the second strophe concerning
the envious foes of Chromius who are
thwarted by him and his friends, as has
been pointed out in the Zztroduction and
in the notes on Il. 24 and 25. It may
be added that téwp pépew there may
perhaps be taken up by mwoew here.
Bucketfuls of water quenched the xamvos
of the cavillers; Heracles quenches the
xopos of the crooked walkers by a draught
of death.

66. vw] See Olymp. vi. 62; Pyth.
IV. 36.

67. Kal ydp x.7.d.] Aye, he told that
when the gods on the plain of Phlegra
stand against the giants in battle, their
foes shall have their bright tresses mingled
with Earth’s dust under the potency of
that hero’s whizzing bolts. Heracles is
represented as a knight-errant against

26 NEMEONIKAI A’.

avtiatwow, Bedéwov bro pitratce Kelvou paidimav yaia mepvp-

cecOat Kopav

” FA Ss \ ? Sea, Noy Gh / > a ? '
EVETTEV’ AUVTOV LAV EV ELPAVGA TOY ATAVTA KYPOVOV EV OYEPM ETT. a
¢ / / / \ / ? > /

dgvxylav Kapat@v peyadwv Trowvav NayovT €EaipeTov 7O

kopos, and his championship of the gods
against the giants is one instance; hence
kal yap. pdxav avTidfwow is equivalent
to udxav dvrloy pdxecOat, to engage in a
battle against. Dissen compares 7rod)ovs
ayavas éiwv, Soph. 7rach. 159, but the
Pindaric expression is hardly so bold.
Pindar uses bravruagw in Pyth. VuUl. 11.

Professor Jebb in his essay on Pindar
(Fournal of Hellenic Studies, 11. 179)
notes that ‘‘the Gigantomachia adorned
the pediment of the Megarian ‘Treasury’
at Olympia”, as an instance of “ how
Pindar and the sculptors were working in
the same field”’.

@éypas] on the isthmus of Pallene.

68. pumater] purai is used by Pindar
of winds and waters Pyth. IX. 48, Kuua-
Twy pumas avéuwy te Pyth. IV. 1953 boo"
ayhad xOcv movrov Te pirat pépovow fr.
220, 3; of a lyre’s waves of melody, Teats
puraiot (addressed to yxpvocéa Popuryé)
Karacxouevos Pyth. I. 10.
value it answers very nearly to our
influence. ~rral dotpwr (Sophocles, //ec-
tra, 106) are the influences of the stars,
suggesting at the same time the visible
signs of the influence—the twinklings.
And so in Pindar fr. 166 avédpoddauarra &
érel Pipes Saev purdv fwedadéos oilvov,
pera connotes the influence of the wine,
If we
had to render in Greek Shakspere’s
‘skyey influences’ or Milton’s

visible as it were in its sparkling,

‘With store of ladies, whose bright eyes
Rain influence’
perat would be a suitable word to use.
pardipav yala mepiprerOar Kopav] I
believe that Mezger’s novel interpretation
of these words ‘ The earth shall have her
bright hair soiled’ (es werde der Erde das
glinzende Haar besudelt sein) is highly

In poetical -

improbable, for, if Pindar had meant to
say that, he would have almost inevitably
written yaias...The familiar use of pipw
with the dative as in daxpuot eluar’ épv-
pov (Q 162) renders a ‘ dativus commodi’
intolerably ambiguous. Moreover paid-
pos, which, as far as we know, was al-
ways applied to the bodies of gods or
heroes, would hardly have been used to
describe the plants and grass of the
Earth, even though the foliage were
conceived as her hair. It may be said
that @vpev yaia is a strange expression
for vpew xovee (Eur. Hec. 496 Kovec
ptpovta Kapa), but the choice of yaia is
determined here by the context; the
Giants are the sons of the Earth and
when they fall their locks mingle with
their mother’s dust.

dard(yav] This Homeric word is used
of the dright visage of a god assuming
human form in Pyth. Iv. 28 atdiuav
Tpocoww.

mepvpoerOat] A perfect future which
occurs only here. .

69. Tov dtavTa xpovoy]| amas is not
equivalent to was. Both words connote
all the parts conceived as one; but mwas
emphasises all the parts, das makes the _
unity prominent. Cp. /Ve. Iv. 83; VII.
50s) VLLUR2O)-sVienOs

Xpdovov é€v cxep@] The second syllable
of xpdvov is treated as long; compare
é5pauov above in |. 51. é€v oxepw ex-
presses a line without a break; each
moment of happy rest holds to another
(éxerac). Compare Wem. XI. 39; and
Lsthm. V. 22 éxaroumedor ev axep@ (con-
tinuous) KédevOor.

70. peyddoy]

back, as Mezger has pointed out, tol. 34

This word takes us

where the poet introduces the story of

NEMEAN I. 27

orBiow ev Sopmact, SeEduevov Oarepav "HBav akowtw Kal yapov
Saicavta, map Ai Kpovida cepvov aivncew orabpor.

Heracles. jpeyddats and peyddwy occur
each in the second line of an epode and
in the same foot. (‘Dass aber der Dichter
diese so wortreich gepriesene selige Ruhe
in Causalzusammenhang mit der Be-
wahrung der angebornen Tiichtigkeit in
Miihe und Noth gesetzt wissen will, diirfte
daraus vorgehen, dass er an den betreffen-
den Puncten v. 34 und 70 péyas zweimal
in die gleiche Stelle der Epode setzt’,
Mezger, p. 111.) For the significance of
the artifice here see Zutroduction to this
ode. '

Towa] eed or recompense. Compare
Pyth. 1. 59 Kedadjoa mowav (meed of
praise) TeOpinmwv.

71. @Oarepdiv] This word expresses
the eternal youth and fairness of the
immortals, an idea which is personified
in the Grace Thaleia. Compare note on
line 2.

yapov Salcavra] a Tomeric phrase ;
see T 299.

72. At] The mss. give Ad. I follow

Heyne and Bergk in writing it as a
monosyllable, to suit its metrical value.
aivyoev] For the meaning I may refer
to the Zzztroduction to this ode, p. 7.
ora0uov] The best Mss. have ddpor,
others have ydauov. It seems clear that
neither reading can be right; yajov was
introduced from the preceding line, and
douov is hardly more than a repetition of
The choice lies between two
readings: Pauw’s voudv and Bergk’s
orabuov. For vouoy it may be urged that
a scholiast seems to have read vdmov (rh
Siavéwerw Tiv mapa eos erawéoev); but
Bergk’s proposal is strongly supported
by Lsthm. V1. 45
decmotav é0édovr’ és ovpavod srabmovs
éNOety web’ oudyupw BeddX\epopovrav

Owbmact.

Znvos,
and Olymp. X1. 92 6rav...els’ Aida oradpov
avip ixnrac. Moreover ceuvdov oraduov
is a felicitous suggestion of dumvevya
geuvov, the opening words of the ode.

ADDITIONAL NOTE. Wemean i. 13.

Iam not sure that the usual interpre-
tation of ozetpe in this passage is true.
‘Scatter’ is a secondary sense of the verb,
derived from the meaning ‘sow’; it is not
the primary meaning from which ‘sow’ is
derived. The original meaning, I believe,
was ‘to set in a certain order, range’; but
in order to establish this, I must ask the
- reader to consider for a moment the
Latin sevo ‘I sow’. It is generally sup-
posed that this present form belongs to
the same family as sevz, satem, semen,
and etymologists attempt to explain it as
a reduplicated present. If such, the re-
duplication must be internal or ‘broken’;

for if it were regular, the word would
necessarily be *séso, *s¢vo, and *s¢vo could
not become sevo, all the more as there
already existed a sevo of different meaning.
A ‘broken reduplication’ in the present
tense is an extremely doubtful assump-
tion. I submit that sevo ‘I sow, plant’
is the same word as sero ‘I twine’ (elpw),
the original meaning being azvazge, set
22 a row ; seed is sown along furrows, as
cords or flowers or leaves are plaited in
a chain.
a coil or twisted cable, and omdprov, a
rope, with o7relpw, the
suggests itself strongly that here too we

Now when we compare ovetpa,

omaprés, idea

28 NEMEONIKAI A’.

have the same development of meanings ;
and the two cases mutually confirm each
other. The original signification of omelpw
I suppose to have been ‘to arrange or
draw in a line’, and like sevo it might be
developed in the sense of sowing or in
the sense of twining. It is perhaps
hardly necessary to remark that Latin
sfira does not invalidate the connexion
of ometpa with omeipw, as sfira is clearly
borrowed.

If these etymological considerations
are correct, is it not possible that in
oreipe, in this passage, we have the link
between omelpw sow and ometpa coil? If
so, we might render, 7zwine a bright
wreath of song for the island &c. Com-
pare Wem. vil. 77 dpew orepdvous éda-
ppov’ k.T-A., a passage indeed which
once suggested to me that the true
reading here might be elpe.

NEMEAN “TL

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN THE PANCRATION
AT NEMEA WON BY TIMODEMUS OF AEGINA.

INTRODUCTION.

THE second Nemean QOde?!, composed to be sung in a procession,
celebrated a victory in the pancration, won by Timodemus, the son of
Timonous, an Athenian. The Timodemids were a family belonging to the
deme of Acharnae ; but Timonous lived in Salamis, the island associated
with Telamon and Ajax, and there Timodemus was reared.

Athletic prowess was hereditary in this family, and there were many
victories to boast of, including four Pythian, eight Isthmian, and seven
Nemean crowns, besides successes passing number at the Athenian festival
of Olympian Zeus. These victories might be taken as an indication that
Timodemus, who had now gained his first great distinction in the really
trying strain of the pancration contest, would win a Pythian and an Isthmian
to set beside his Nemean wreath, thus walking in the way of his fore-fathers
(xarpiav ka@ ddov). Pindar suggests this hereditary obligation, as we may call
it, by making his prophecy of the future career of Timodemus respond, in
part, to his commemoration of the past achievements of the Timodemids.
Thus :

1.9, Odpa pev “IoOpiadov SpémrecOar KaddALoTov dwrov ev IvOiowi te vikav
1. 19, mapa pev vYipddovte Ilapvacd técoapas e& aéOdwv vikas exopttar.
And the very name of the family, borne also by the victor himself, might be
regarded as an omen of honourable distinction ; this omen moreover, tid,
being discoverable in the father’s name, 777zono0us, as well as in 7zmodemus,

1 There is no indication of the date. dyopdy of l. 5 as a proof that both poems
Boeckh’s connexion of this ode with frag. | were composed soon after the battle of
75 (a dithyramb) is a mere guess; and Plataea, when the Athenians restored
even if the connexion had some foundation __ their city.
we could hardly take mavdaidanov 7 evKrXE?

30 NEMEAN II.

This thought,—that Timodemus’ success is what might be looked for from a
Timodemid and a son of Timonous,—is expressed indirectly by a mythical
parallel.

It is meet that the Mountaineer (Orion) should rise at no long distance
Srom the Mountain Maids, the Peletads.

éott & éotkos
opevay ye Tederadav
py THAdOev ’Qapiwv’ aveia Oat.
The fitness of the proximity of the constellations depends on the mountain-
name of Orion and the mountain-associations—whereof indeed little
information has survived—of the Pleiads, here conceived as Dove-maidens.

Prior commentators had perceived the play upon words, but Mezger first
apprehended its significance in the context of the Ode. Timodemus follows
as naturally in the wake of the Timodemids, as the mountain-hunter follows
the mountain Doves. But a question still occurs, and Mezger has not
answered it. There was surely some special fitness in this comparison,
some motive for it; why is Timodemus compared to Orion, or rather,
should we ask, to a star?

The solution of this question lies, I think, in the circumstance that
Timodemids had already won seven victories at Nemea: émra & ev Nepea.
This number suggested to Pindar the conceit of the seven Pleiads, followed
by Orion, a kindred constellation, to symbolize the group of seven Nemean
victories, followed by the kindred achievement of Timodemus; and this
conceit has been worked out with the utmost adroitness.

It must be observed that there is a double force in the word aveto@ar! (for
avaveia Oat), which, besides its usual meaning Zo 77se, of a heavenly body, could
signify to veturn. Thus it might suggest the return of Timodemus from the

scene of his victory, as well as the ascent of Orion ; and this is confirmed by
aviv evkdet voota, in |. 24, vooros being connected in Pindar’s mind with
veio Oat.

And moreover the Pleiads, who were daughters of Atlas, might seem not
unsuitable emblems of a flock of pancratiasts, men of ‘ Atlantean shoulders’;
inasmuch as endurance was the prime virtue of such athletes, and endurance
was the proverbial quality of Atlas, supposed to be signified by his name.
Remembering that A/cyone was one of the seven daughters, we find an
allusion of this kind in the words

@® Toone, oe 8 adxka
maykpatiov Tha Oupos acker.
It should be observed that aé£eu pleads for such an allusion; for the subject
of the verb in this sense of increasing or glorifying, should be not a
quality, but a person. The expression is explained, if we apprehend
a suggestion that Alcyone, daughter of Atlas,—Might, daughter of Endu-
rance, in abstract language—exerts a ‘stellar virtue’ on Timodemus, or, at
least, that her faculty consents with his.

1 See note on |. 12.

INTRODUCTION. 31

An education in Salamis too might be interpreted as a fortunate augury
for a pancratiast. Boxing and wrestling are the games which partake of the
nature of war, and ‘Salamis, certainly, is able to rear a warrior’, such as
Ajax for example, whose weighty strength was felt by Hector at Troy.

‘Praise Zeus and withal the glorious return of Timodemus? These
words at the end of the hymn, which begins and ends with Zeus, are a brief
abstract of its theme,—the distinguished /ostos or Coming Home of the victor
from Nemea, where he was brought into a certain connexion with the
highest of the gods. He came home to Salamis; but he also rose to a new
home in a firmament named of honour, to move among a Starry train.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.
he) L—3-
Y—-vu-v— A 4. a ee f 4 SFU HUH A (16)
UU. 4, 5.
/
OS SU = 1 1 me | tuu-G-ue-* (16)

Thus each strophe falls into two parts of an equal number of beats, provided
we recognise that the end of the fourth line is a tetrapody, not a tripody—
thus :

-xrat mpo | rov Nepe | ai -| ov A |
and that, in the same way, the last two syllables of the 3rd and corresponding
lines are equivalent to two feet. The rhythm is logaoedic.

NEMEONIKAT B’.

TIMOAHMQ:

AOHNAIQ:

IATKPATIASTH:.

"“Odevrrep kai “Opnpidar

A > °’ \
pamtav éméwy TaTOXN aoLdoi

OT pas

” \ > / ‘ NTN SN
apxovtat, Avos €x Tpoowmiov’ Kat co avnp

KaTtaBorav lepav aydveav vixadopias débextar tpwTtov Nepeaiov

1. OBevmep x.7.\] Aven as Homerid
minstrels most often begin their linked
verses with a prelude in honour of Zeus;
so likewise hath this man laid the first
foundation for a tale of achievements in
the sacred games, by receiving a crown in
the song-famd grove of Nemean Zeus.

In this strophe, without any detriment
to the lucidity of his thought, Pindar has
gracefully mixed two constructions. The
Homerids mostly begin their epopees by
hymning Zeus ; with Zeus, similarly, this
young man begins his career of victory.
This comparison might have been ex-
pressed either 6@ev—(Avds being the ante-
cedent of 60ev) dpxovra, Avds év ddoe Kal
60° dvip K.T.r. OY Womep—apxovra Ards éx
Pin-
dar begins with 60ev and then goes on as

wed

mpoou.lov, (orm) Kal 60° avip K.T.r.

if he had written domep, this change
being necessitated by the words Avds éx
mpooustov, which supply é6@ev with an
antecedent inapplicable to the second
clause.

Mr Tyrrell may “be right in suggesting

that ‘Ounpidac here simply means foets
(successors of the Poet) and not specially
the Homerid school of Chios. For
pamray éréwy cf. Hesiod (frag. 227)
év Andw tore mp@rov éya kal "Ounpos
dotdol
MéXmomev ev veapots Uuvos pawayTes
ao.ony
PoiBov "Ami\Nwva xXpvodopoy av TéKeE
Anro.
2. tamoAN] Schol. ézel odx dei ao
Awds 7pxovTo, a\Na Kal ard Movoay.
3. adpxovTat] Compare note on Ven.
I. 8, above.
avy] note the quantity, as in avépes.
4. kataBoddv] See above Mem. 1.
1. 8, note. The scholiast compares Calli-
machus fr. 196, "Apowdns, & fetve, ydwov
kaTaBdddouw’ aeldev. It may be that
xaraBo\a was a technical term for the
proem of an ode or nome.
I am not sure that
editors have been right in restoring lepar,

tep@v] MSS. lepav.

though it was the reading of the scholiast ;
the cause of the corruption is not ex-

NEMEAN II. 33

év Tmodvipyynt@ Avos adoet.

odeithes & Ett, TaTpiay

elmep Ka ddov viv evOuTromTros

otp. B.

aiov tats peyadats dédwxe Koopov ’APavais,

Baya pev “loOpiddwv SpérecOar KadduoTov dwrov év IvOiovci

TE ViKAV

plained. I am almost inclined to read
iepdy (with xaraBoddv). Timodemus’
victory is compared to a proem in honour
of Zeus, and thus its religious side is
rendered prominent, it is iepa.
vikadoplas] a career of success.

Sekrat mpatov] has legun by winning.
Compare Pyth. 1. 80 tuvov tov édéEav7’
aud apera, and zhid. 100 crépavoy trYio-
Tov dédexrat, Olymp. 11. 48 “ONvurlia pev
yap avros yépas édexTo, VI. 27 oTedpa-
vous défavro. Commentators generally
take dédexrac here in the sense of
winning a victory as we say, but all the
examples cited from Pindar fail to prove
this use. déxouac can only be employed
of recetving the rewards of victory (whether
crowns or poems), and so here the idea
of karaBoNav vixadoplas is (not the first of
a series of victories, but) the first of a
series of victory-odes. The meaning of
xataBoda, and the choice of the adjective
tmo\vimvynTw in 1. 5, confirm this view.

5. tTodvipvytw] A Pindaric word
equivalent to moNviiuvos, theme of many
hymns.

6. dether 8 ru x.7..] Lt needs must
be that the son of Timonoos shall cull yet
the bloom and breath, most fair, of [sth-
mian glories and Pythian victories, since
time wafting him straight along the way
which his fathers went hath given him as an
ornament to great Athens. It ts meet that
the rising of the Mountain hunter should
not be far from the Mountain Peleiads.

édetder] Impersonal; z¢ 7s due. Schol.
*Aplorapxos ovk éml Tod avdpds 7d ’Odeler
GNN’ éi Tod mpdyuarés pnow, ws dav TLS
elrrot” dpetNdpevor 6 ere eoriv.

matptav] That is, of the Timodemi-
dae.

8. atév] adv is not synonymous with
#otpa and it is a mistake to render it fate
(fatum Dissen), although the ideas are
intimately connected. It is the time of
life. The Greeks connected it with anu,
and here this connexion is prominent, for
evOuTrou7dés implies a breeze. The cogency
(6@eiher) depends partly on this etymo-
logy. See Appendix A, note 2.
Lsthm. 111. 18
aiay d€ kuvAwdouévats apépars GAN’ addor7’

Compare

é&aaéev,
the wind of time causeth divers changes
to the rolling days (of life’s sea).

g- ‘IobpidSwv] agrees with vixay.

Spérec Oat dwtov] dwros, a favourite
word of Pindar, which he uses in many
ways; but in all the passages, where it
occurs, it preserves its proper force, some-
what obscured by the hackneyed trans-
lation ‘flower’. dw7ros means the fine
nap of a cloth, which might be described
as bloom; and this explains the usurpa-
tion of the floral metaphor. The follow-
ing passages will elucidate the force of
awros, but I must also refer to Appendix
A, notes 2 and 3. Jsth. I.
pndets (the victor) Képdos vysorov déxerat,

51 evayo-

mowarav Kal tévwy yAdbooas dwrov, the

fine praise breathed from the tongues of

citizens and strangers.

Tsth. V1. 18 duvdmoves 6€ Bporol

8 Te pi coplas dwrov aKpov

KNurats éméwy poais étlknrat
fuye,
unlinked with

streams of verses attains not to the height

whatsoever sounding

a
a

34 NEMEONIKAI B’.

Tipovoov maid. gate 8 éoixos

opevav ye Iedevadwv

of exquisite poetry, passeth out of the
minds of men.

Here and in some other cases exgzisite
is perhaps the fittest rendering of this gloss
of perfection. For example in /s¢/. vit. 18
xph 6 —Alyiva Xapirwy dwrov mpovéuer,
at is meet that Art (the Graces) should pay
Aegina an exquisite tribute. Again in
Pyth. X. 51 éykwulwy yap dwros vurewv
ém’ dNdor’ aAdov @TE pédicoa O’ver Néyov
(here flower would be ludicrously incon-
gruous), the fine art of hymns of praise
darteth like a bee, from tale to tale (but
see App. A, xote 2). And in O/. I. 14,
dyNatferar 6€ Kal povoixds év awTw, we
may render he courts grace too in exqui-
site kinds of music.

If we had to translate into Greek
Shakspere’s ‘‘culling the principal of all
the deer” (Henry VZ., Part 11. Act 3,
sc. 1, 1. 4), or ‘the flower of the flock’,
dwros would be the very word; cf. vavray
dwros Pyth. 1v. 188, and see Wem. Vil.
g- Or again dwros would be suitable
for rendering Tennyson’s “the roof and
crown of things”: compare O/. 11. 8
where Theron is called evwrtuwv rarépwy
dwrov, the qualities of his ancestor, as it
were, achieving their ultimate and crown-
ing bloom in him. The phrase ‘ plumage of
fire’, by which Flaubert suggests an ideal
prose style, might be done into Greek by
mupods dwros. Pindar calls the finest
bloom which the flower of life reveals
(wads dwros (Jsth. Iv. 123 cf. Pyth. rv.
131 dpamow iepoy edfgas dwrov). Now we
are in a position to see the exact meaning
of such phrases as tuvoy dkauavrorbdwy
dwrov trmwv (Ol. Ill. 4), xeupdv dwrov
émivixov (O/. VIII. 75), the highest excel-
lence which feet (or hands) can realise
(cf. Ol. V.1). dwrov crepdvewv in /sth. V. 4
might be rendered crown of crowns. In
the present passage dpéweo0ac determines

oTp. 9.

the meaning Jd/oom.
note 2.

to. Tipovdov maid’] A misapprehen-
sion of the impersonal construction of
épeiiec led to the insertion of a full stop
after vixdy (1. g) and the connexion of
Tiwovdov maid’ with the following sentence
(with the reading dpecdy Te).

Ir. dpedv] The home of the Pleiad
sisters, daughters of Atlas and Pleione,
was Mt Cyllene in Arcadia. Fleeing
from the pursuit of Orion they were
changed into doves and finally became a
constellation.

The ancient interpreters found con-
siderable difficulty in explaining dépecav,
as will be seen from the following extracts
from the scholia.

But see Aff. A,

) Tay dpewy erred) 6 “ATNas 6 Tov
Tl\eddwy rarhp ouavuna éoxev opn* 7) ore
bpor eial TOU dunrov* 7) NuToTEpoy TwY pay
kal Tov Témwy ey ols ela of doTépes.

ol 6€ ovTw* KaOd IleNerddas avras ele
kal dpetas* ai yap mepotepai dpecal eiow
elwOe d€ 0 Iivdapos rats ouwyuplars Erava-
maverOar Oe lily.

éviot O€, Oia TO emi THS Ovpas TOD Ta’ipov
KetaOat, KaTa Upeow Tod U NéyeoOat k.T.d.

4) dro THs Kuddqvns & 7 erpadnoar.

Crates wrote Oeperdy IeNecddwv, but (as
a scholiast observes) they rise in winter as
well as in summer. From one of the
scholia we learn that Simonides called
the Pleiad Maia ovpela; two lines are
given, one imperfectly,

Maraddos ovjpelas EXcKoB\epdpovu

Kvuddjvns €v operat Sew Kypuxa réx’

“Epujy.:
(Tzetzes read €AckoBAepdpao yéveOXor, in
his note on Lycophron, 219.)

The names of the Pleiads are given in
the following lines, whose authorship is
uncertain (some ascribing them to He-
siod, fr. 10 4, ed. Flach) :

NEMEAN II. 35

pn tTyrAOOev “OQapiov’ aveio bar.

kal pav &d Ladrapis ye Opévar Pata payarav
Suvatés. év Tpoia péev “Extwp Aiavtos cixovoev’ & Tipodnpe,

,
oe 8 avka

Tniyérn 7 épbecoa kai Hdéxrpy kvavo-
Ts

*AXkudvn Te Kal Aorepdmy din Te KeXat-

Maia re kat Mepérn, Tas yelvaro pato-

pos” At\as.

The name Tyiyérn combined with the
fact that they were the daughters of
Atlas seems enough to explain the epithet
operav.

ye] The particle shows that the stress
of the argument rests on dpetdv ; because
they are mountain nymphs, dpeai, the
hunter of the mountain ’"Qaplwy moves
near them. For this force of ye compare
Eurip. Bacchae, 926 4) riv “Ayatys éora-
vat, untpos y’ euns (seeing that she is my
mother). Soin sth. Vv. 4 Pauw’s resto-
ration rly 7 for Tw is certainly right.

12. dvyetc8a] This is the reading of
B, B, D ; and in ascholium on Nev. I. 3,
where the line is quoted, B, Brfsw
The other Mss.
have ‘Qapiwva vetc@a, which is explained
in the scholium by mopeveo@a. Editors
before Bergk adopted vets@a, but Bergk
showed that dveto@ac is for dvavetoba,
oriri; compare x 192 006’ bmn 7édos
gacoluBporos cio’ bro yaiav otd’ brn
dvveira. It is obvious that it is much
more likely that the difficult dvetcOac
should have become veto#a: than that the
easier vetoOac should have been altered to
dvetoOat, and therefore I cannot hesitate
to accept the reading of B, B, D. It has
been pointed out in the Zr¢voduction that
the verb has a secondary import, in regard
to Timodemus, who is compared to Orion.

13. kalpdvd Barapis ye] Aye and
Salamis ts potent to rear a fighting man.
I have attempted, by rendering 7s potent
instead of zs able, to arrest the attention
in somewhat the same way as Pindar does

have @aplwy avetcbat.

by duvarés for feminine duvara.

14. “Exrop Alavros dakovoev] A/
Troy Hector heard Ajax like a rushing
wind. Aias, like aidy in 1. 8, is conceived
as a wind (dvéuwy drddavros aéNX7).
Schol. 7odero 77 metpa, ws kal"Ounpos [A
532]
alc @émevot.

Tol d€ mAnyis atovres, avTi Tov
Zoxe O€ 6 IIivdapos 7d map’
Alavtos pnOev mpos”EdXqvas brovevonkévat
eipjtbar mpos"Exropa* pyat yap [H 198]
émel ovd? Eue vitdd y oUTwS
é\rowar €v Dadapiv yevéoOar Te Tpa-
péemev TE.

el wi) dpa tus TH Trelpa peuabnxévac
troatiacera. Tov EKTopa, ws émiTnbelws 7
Dadapls exer mpos THy Twv Hpwwv yéverw.

Editors have failed in their attempts to
The meaning supposed
to be required is expressed in the scholiuin

explain dxovoer.

joOero TH Weipa ‘learned by experience’,
but such a sense cannot possibly be elicited
from dkovoev, which would rather mean
the reverse (‘knew by hearing only’).
The Homeric rAnyjjs atovres proves no-
thing for axovw, nor will it avail to adduce
bmakovéwev avyats deNtov, Olymp. Il. 24,
to show that dxovw could mean Zo feel the
might of. Nor will the word bear the
interpretation which Mezger proposes as
an alternative: he hearkened to him, that
is, listened for his battle-cry, in order to
bring succour to the point of danger.
But when we apprehend that Alas by
virtue of his name is conceived as a blast
(anu), we see that dkovoe bears its ordi-
nary meaning /eard (of asound). Pindar
chose the word in order to bring out the
play on Alias. His object was to suggest
a connexion between the Timodemids
and Aeacids.

Though I believe the text to be sound,
I suggest as possible

"Extwp Alaytos €xoucev*

éxovcev being an aorist from kof (koéw)
like €\ovea from Xof- (Aovw).

The form

36 NEMEONIKAI B’.

mayKpatiov thabupos aéEet.

*"Ayapvat d€ Taraipatov

evavopes' boca 8 apd’ aéOrors,

otp. 0.

Tipodnuidar eEoyotato. mpodéyovTat.

\ \ ¢ / a vA
Tapa pev wrpiuedovts Ilapvacd® técoapas

> /
exoutEav"
adra Kopivbiov ve datav

év €odov IléXomos truyais
5) \ , v aN
OKTO oTEpavors EwryGev 6

é€& aéO\wv vikas
20

‘
OTp. €.

émta & év Neuéa, Ta & olkot wacocoyv apitOmov
bed, T be plLopov,

\ ,’ a
Auos ayout.
/
VOOT@'

éxénoe occurs in Callimachus frag. 53.
That xkow was used not only in the sense
of vow but also in the sense of aicAdvopat
is proved by glosses of Hesychius: xow
aicOavomar, Koet’ alcbaverat, Exouev’ tdo-
ev, evpomer, HaOdueNa. (Compare x(o)wr*
émevondn, epwpaby, and
Exodues* nxovcamev, emvOdueda.) Bergk
reads émato’ and points out that it was
probably the reading of the scholiast.
Hecker proposed éyevcar’.

15. TAdOvpos] Staunch Might in the
pancration maketh thee great, O Timode
TAaMumos expresses the endurance
necessary for the feats of the pancration.
I have explained in the /rtrodzction the
probable significance of this sentence.
A comparison of the passages in which

eldws, éxoadn:

Mus.

dééw, avéw, av’édvw occur in Pindar shows
that adka oé ade. would be an awkward
expression, if a\xad did not imply some
personal influence. I therefore conclude
that d\xa alludes to Alcyone, the Pleiad,
and that 7tAdOumos, as it were ‘TAdOvpOs,
suggests "Ar\as.

16. “Axdpvar] Long of yorets Achar-
nae famous for brave men, Pindar uses
the adjective ev’dywp of places; in the
TH[omeric poems it is applied to wine and

to arms. In O/. I. 24 we read of the

5 a \ ’ fien
TOV, @ ToAtTal, Kopmatate Tipodnuw avy evknéel

colony of Lydian Pelops blessed with a
fine race of men (év evdvope Ilé\omos
amoxia); in Of. vI. 80 Arcadia is called
evdvopa ; in Vem. X. 36 the Argives are
evavopa adv.

17. 8000] Lut in all that apper-
taineth unto games the Timodemids are
preferred for highest excellence.

18. mpod€éyovtat] Compare N 689
"AOnvalwy mpoeheyuévor, quoted by the
scholiast. Pyae caeteris nominantur,
Dissen ; mpoxéxpwra, schol.

1g. wipédovT] By the lordly height
of Parnassus. The adjective is gene-
rally applied to Zeus, as by Hesiod,
Theog. 529.

20. Kopw0lwv] The judges of the
Isthmian games.

21. év...mrvxais] lz dells of Pel-
ops. Compare Jsthm. 111. 11 év Bao-
VII. 63 “Io@ucov dv
Bergk’s proposal miéAas is un-

caw “Iobuov, 20.
VaTos,
fortunate. mrvxais is a touch of local
colouring, like byiuédovre Tapvace.

23. é€mta) <Arnd with seven crowns at
Lemea.

ta 8 olka] Lut their achievements
at home, at the games of Zeus, are
beyond the compass of number. Lim

(Zeus), O cttizens, Timodemus biddeth you

NEMEAN I.

aduperet 8 éEapyete pwva.

hymn, and withal his own glorious home-
coming. Begin the sweet vocal music.

otkot] at Athens. The festival of Zeus,
at which the Timodemids won so many
victories, was the Athenian Olympia (so
schol., Boeckh, Dissen &c.). Mezger
thinks that these games must have been
Diasia at either Salamis or Acharnae, of
which we have no record. Reference to
the Olympia he thinks is impossible,
‘weil es sich dann nicht erklaren liesse,
warum sich die Timodemiden von den
iibrigen athenischen Festspielen fern
gehalten haben sollten”. But Pindar’s
silence does not prove that Timodemids
did not win prizes at other less important
Athenian games. Observe too that ra 0’
oikoc in 23 responds to peydAas ' APavacs
in 8.

24. Tov] There can be no question
that the Mss. reading is right and that roy
is Zeus. The honour of Zeus and the

37
25

praise of Timodemus’ victory are to be
the joint subject of the hymn. As in
Nemean i. 8, 9, we have Oewy xelvov abv
avdpos aperais, so here we have Tov...ovv
Tiwodjum is the dative of
the person interested. For xwpagw with
accusative, compare Vem. X. 34. Theo
form of the aorist occurs in Vem. XI. 28
Kwpdoas, IX. I Kwudocouev. So Pindar
uses also kouléars and komioov, évappoear
and dpuocav, &c. Hehas eddxnoev (Pyth.
VI. 40) as well as €doéa.

Bergk punctuates at dpifuod, and joins
Avs adyave with the following words,

EVKAEL vOoTW.

referring it. to the recent victory at
Nemea; instead of tov he reads 766’, that
is, TOd€ EyKwuwor.

25. aSupedet] Compare J/sthm. V1.
20 kwuat’ Erertev ddumedel ody Uuvw. For
éfapxere compare D> 51 Oéris 5 eEHpxE
yyooto, Hesiod, Scut. Her. 205, €&qpxov
dons.

NEMEAN III.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN THE PANCRATION
WON AT NEMEA BY ARISTOCLIDES OF AEGINA.

INTRODUCTION.

THE modern theory of the hereditary transmission of qualities, which in
this century is being worked out in so many directions, would have found a
warm advocate in Pindar. For it is clear that this doctrine might be
perverted by an upholder of aristocracies and monarchies in support of his
political prejudices. And Pindar in his sympathies was thoroughly aristo-
cratic, belonging himself to a distinguished family and associated in friend-
ship with men of high position and with families of ancient name. He
believed in the derivation of excellences, physical and moral, from the
ancient heroes, to whom such families traced their descent; and he
disdained the doctrine that excellences might be acquired. People of low
position are outside his world; and those whose natural faculties do not
reach a certain high level, he regards as doomed, in spite of all teaching,
to abide for ever ‘in the dark’. The world of men is divided, for him, into
eagles and daws.

This principle dominated his mind, when he composed a hymn on a
victory in the pancration at Nemea!, won by an Aeginetan, Aristoclides, son
of Aristophanes, whose remarkable achievements—at Megara and Epidaurus
as well as at Nemea—in that trying contest beseemed the comeliness of his
strong limbs. His name Avzstoclides, too, might strike his friends as a fair
augury, to Pindar at least suggesting that the man was under the special
patronage of C/éo, the Muse whose name is of glory ; and, with this thought,
he associates her intimately with his hymn. Aristoclides had already
reached the years of later manhood, and might seem to his contemporaries
one of those few men who at every age realise an appropriate excellence.

The hymn opens with a picture of young men standing in Aegina on the
banks of the Asopus stream, on the anniversary of the Nemean festival,
ready to lift up their voices and waiting only for the arrival of the Muse;
for it appears that Pindar had been tardy in executing the commission of
Aristoclides”. Victory thirsts for a draught of song ; and in the latter end
of the ode we shall see how Pindar describes the ingredients of the potion,

1 As to the date of this ode we only —_ independence.
know that it must have been composed 2 Compare “atdpuevor, 1. 5, and dpe mep
before 457 B.C., when Aegina lost her 1. 8o.

INTRODUCTION. 39

‘with many murmurs mix’d’, which he offers to the lips of the victor. But
here, with a characteristic change of metaphor (suggested by an etymology),
he proceeds!: ‘song, a most propitious szzzster of crowns and brave deeds,
-—whereof do thou, O Muse, mzzzster abundance, drawing from the store of
my craft’.

This is the prelude; and now, under the auspices of Zeus, the hymn
begins; a hymn in praise of one who is fair like a statue, and touched
with the grace of art,—really recalling, perhaps, as he stood in the agora of
Aegina, a statue of Onatas. And the exploits of Aristoclides are like unto
his comely form, equally worthy of the time-honoured agora, associated
with the Myrmidons of Achilles. For through the favour of Clio, whose
virtue as it were passed into his name, Aristoclides behaved with dauntless
hardihood at Nemea, and the blows which wounded him are salved by the
hymn of triumph. And thus in marine metaphor,—addressed to the ears
of the seafaring Aeginetans,—‘the son of Aristophanes’ has embarked in
pinnaces of splendid prowess; but with the Greek instinct to moderation,
the poet straightway marks the limit of the triumphant voyage by the
pillars of Heracles, figuring probably the goal of an Olympic victory.

Here the first system of the Ode ends, and the next two systems are
occupied with the mythical tales which Pindar has chosen to illustrate his
theme. In the fourth and last system we return to Aristoclides and
Aegina,

Having named the pillars of Heracles, the poet is moved to speak of the
voyage of discovery made by that hero in the far west, where he reached the
end of possible navigations, and reached it a/ove.

And here, having fully expressed what he would say, Pindar feigns to
check himself, and to recall his imagination from its wanderings far at sea;
for there are examples, awaiting it, at Aegina itself, Aeacid heroes, who can
as punctually illustrate the truth which he wishes to convey. To speak
of older men, for instance, Peleus—he who cut the supereminent spear—
captured Iolcus a/ove,

povos avev otparias,
and by hard wrestling captured Thetis. There was Telamon too, who, with
Iolaus, slew Laomedon, and went against the Amazons, the fear that killeth
never dulling the edge of his spirit.

And the lesson that is conveyed by these examples,—Heracles, Peleus
and Telamon—is now, at the end of the second metrical system, clearly
stated? :

‘A man who hath the birthright of nobility prevaileth greatly ; but he
whose knowledge ts a lesson learned ts a man in darkness, whose thought és

1 See noteonl.g. Mezgerdividesthe _ triple division.

hymn thus : 7 In these words Mezger finds the

apxa ({—25); Kxatarpord (26—32); Grundgedanke of the hymn; p. 39t- The
dupadds (32—64); meraxararpora (65— mark, he says, of taught excellence is voids
67); oppayls (68—84). aredjs (v. 42), that of innate excellence

This practically corresponds to my _ is TéXos év melpg (v. 70).

40 NEMEAN TI.

as a veering gale,and who never cometh to port with unerring course, but
with ineffectual mind tasteth a thousand excellences,

ovyyevet S€ tis evdokia péya Bpider* J
os b€ Siddkr exer Wednvos dvyp Gdor adda Tve@v ovo’ aTpeEKEl
katéBa wodi, pupray © aperav aredei vow yeverat.
In these lines ‘the dark man’ who never comes to port is contrasted with
Heracles, in echoing words : for of Heracles it was said

1.25. oma moumipov katéBaive vootov TéXos.

It is meant moreover that Aristoclides is worthy of comparison with each
of these mythical ensamples; and this meaning is conveyed by Pindar’s
system of echoes. The swferiorities of the victor, noted in 1. 20,

> , c Ul > ,
avopeais uTmEpTaTals emréBa,

are echoed in the suferlative beasts subdued by Heracles, proving his own
superlative qualities,
Sdauace S€ Onpas—vmepoxous (I. 24),
and again in the swferlative spear which Peleus cut on Mount Pelion (1. 33)
UmépadXoy aixpay Taper.

The comparison between Aristoclides and Telamon is exhibited by the
application of mepeo evs to the pancration in 1. 16, echoed in evpuadevys!
as the epithet of Telamon in 1. 36.

We now come to the third system, in which the life of Achilles is sketched,
both in childhood and in manhood. We see him, a child of six years, in the
cave of Chiron, dealing death to lions and boars with a small javelin and
dragging the bodies, too heavy for him yet, to the feet of the Centaur; and
again we see him by virtue of his fleet feet overtaking and slaying stags without
aid of hounds or snares, and in the background Artemis and Pallas Athene
standing, amazed.

He was nourished in all things fitting his condition by Chiron, that
trainer of divine young men, who had brought up Jason and Asclepius, and
who compassed the marriage of Peleus with the nymph of the bright
well-head. And this training prepared him for fighting with the Lycians and
Dardanians at Troy, where his great achievement was to slay Memnon, the
son of Morning, and cousin of the inspired Helenus.

Pindar leaves us in no doubt that he is comparing Aristoclides to Achilles.
Chiron, who is a master in the healing art, bears, it is suggested, the same
relation to Achilles, as the poet, who heals by his song, bears to Aristoclides.
‘Chiron of deep thoughts’

Badupnra Xeipov
is said to have taught Asclepius the art of dispensing remedies with gentle

hands,
pappaxov® didake padakoxetpa vopor.

1 Both these adjectives are unusual. logy of Xelpwr.
2 , 3 U PAO b # :
2 wadakoxetpa suggests the etymo- ” dapy-akov: epew akos; see note.

INTRODUCTION. 41

Now these words are intended to recall the curious description of the
pancratiast’s victory (ll. 15, &c.)

dyopav—ov«— epiave—pahay Jeis—
kanatwdeov Se mayav
dkos vyinpov & ye Badurédo Nepea TO KadXwekov pepe.
The deep soil of Memea, ‘the dispenser’, provides a remedy, like the deep
mind of Chiron, but Chiron himself rather corresponds to the poet? as is
indicated by BaOupjra, which recalls pyrvos apas aro of 1. 9.

Other intentions of Pindar in this story of Achilles will be elucidated by
the fourth system, to which we may now pass. By the ‘far shining star’
of the Aeacidae, fixed at Troy by their achievements there, especially by this
victory of Achilles over Memnon, we are lit back, as it were, to the young
men singing at Aegina and the proper theme of the hymn.

The fourth system is parallel to the first :

l. 10. dpxe © ovpava—kpéovti— 1.65. Zev—dyav rov Upvos €Barev.
Upvov.

l. 5. veaviar obey ora patopevor. 1.66. omit véwr.

1.12. (&pvov—), xaplevra & e&er 1.66. Upvos—emtx@ptov xXappa
Tovov x@pas ayahpa. keAadéwr.

1. 7. deOXovixia dé paduor’ dodav 1.67. Boa de vixapop abv’ Apioto-
pre. kAeida mperet.

1. 3. tkeo Awpida vacoy Atywar. 1. 68. 6s ravde vacov.

1. 13. x@pas dyadpa. 1. 69. dydaaioe pepipvacs.

Moreover the thirst of l. 6 is assuaged in the honeyed draught of
ll. 76 sqq., wéAc in 77 echoing peAryapvor in 1. 4, and mop aoldyoy echoing
dowd of 1.7. All these echoes mark, as it were audibly, a train of thought
returning to the places from which it set out.

Aristoclides is said to have wedded the island of Aegina to Renown, and
the Theorion or sacred college of Apollo to a society of bright Ambitions.
The remarkable words are :

a , See ,

os tavde vacov evkdr€i mpooeOnke oyo
69 Kai ceuvov dyaaiot pepipvas

IlvOiov O¢eaprov®.

Now dyAaaiot pepivvas responds to dyAadxpavoy, the epithet of Thetis,
in the corresponding line of the 2nd antistrophos; of Chiron it is said,

56 vipdevoe 8 adris dyad Kpavoy
Nnpéos Ovyarpa.
Aristoclides is said to marry Aegina to evkAejs Adyos, and the college of
Theori to a company of dyAaai Mépiva, just as Chiron married Thetis
dyAadxpavos to Peleus. What is the meaning of this? How is it that the

1 épecy too is echoed in yovov pépta- 2 This comparison was noticed by Lud-
rov (as it were, most winning) in |. 57. wig.
See Appendix A, note 3. 3 See note on this passage.

42 NEMEAWN T1711.

victor, who has already been compared both to Peleus and to Achilles, is
now compared to Chiron? The puzzle is solved in the following lines.

Pindar proceeds to set forth that each of the three ages of man, child-
hood, early manhood, and elder age, has a proper excellence of its own; and
besides these there is another excellence, not confined to a particular time of
life, namely wisdom. ‘Thus there are four excellences or ‘virtues’ in mortal
life. The childhood of Achilles exhibited the first, and his manhood the
second. Of advanced age Peleus was the example, as is pointed out by
a responsion},

32: madaaiot & ev dperais.

1. 73. ev madaitépoust...
eee eet eenseeee Tecoapas apetas.
It has already been observed that Aristoclides is compared to all these
heroes; the implication being that he inherited the apera appropriate to each
age. For his perfection, it only remains that he should have the fourth
excellence, wisdom. Now it is manifest that this excellence would be well
illustrated by Badupjra Xeipwv ; and therefore, by comparing Aristoclides to
Chiron, Pindar would imply that he possessed wisdom. This is the solution
of the problem.

But in regard to these virtues it must be observed that the fourth, which
bids man do wisely that which he does, may be possessed at any age.
And Pindar takes care to indicate that all the heroes, whom he has celebrated
in the hymn, were endowed with this faculty of thought. Of Heracles it is
said

kat yav dpadacce (I. 26).

The wisdom of Peleus is alluded to by the responsion already mentioned.
Telamon is praised because

ovdé viv tore oBos avdpodapas emavoev akuav ppevorv.
And of Achilles it is related that in his childhood Chiron nourished him

ev appevorot aot Ovpov avéav”,
and of his resolve to slay Memnon the curious expression is used
ev ppact makaro.

The words of 1.75 ppovety © evéret To mapkeipnevoy elucidate all these phrases®*.

Finally the poet turns to Aristoclides‘, and solemnly offers him, to assuage

1 This responsion is noticed by Mezger.

2 On the significance of this passage I
must refer the reader to Appendix A,
note 3, where he will find a discussion
of other details, connected with the
argument of the hymn.

3 I may observe that Dissen found
the Grundgedanke of the poem in the
passage on the four virtues. ‘Fons
explicationis est in eo loco, ubi de aetati-
He thinks that the

three victories mentioned in the last line

bus vitae dicitur.”

of the hymn were gained respectively in
youth, manhood and advanced age. I
have already mentioned that Mezger
places the Grundgedanke in the passage
about innate and acquired excellence.
The truth is that both thoughts have
been worked out in the poem, the apera
of Aristoclides being the link between them.

4 Mezger sees in yatpe (I. 76) ‘‘eine
Zuriickweisung auf yéyade v. 33, womit
der Mythus begonnen wurde ”. Aristo-
clides is to be glad like Peleus.

INTRODUCTION. 43

the thirst mentioned at the beginning of the hymn, a draught of song, with
honey and white milk for ingredients,—as the Muses accepted only wineless
libations—and crowned with foam, presented ‘in the breathings of Aeolian
flutes’, as cups. The hymn concludes with a pointed comparison of
Aristoclides to the Aeacids, and especially to Achilles. Just as the eagle,
aietos, is the emblem of the Aeacids, Aiaxidat, so Clio’s favour is indicated in
the name Aristoclides. The eagle is described seizing a hare in these words

€daBev alia, TnAGGe perapawpevos, Sadouvov dypav Troai».
The choice of language shows that Achilles is primarily intended! ; Sapowov
adypay recalls
AedyvTegow aypoTtépots empaccev ovo (46)
and gogiv recalls mooat yap kpareoke (Il. 52) the traditional quality of
Achilles.

And Aristoclides too, if not an eagle, has a quality etymologically
resembling the eagle’s power of ‘grasping’ prey (€AaBev); for he has
deOXopopov Anja, which suggests Ajupa*. And he too, like the Aeacids, has
a star

(1. 84, Séd0pxev aos. 1. 64, dpape péyyos*).
And the prey of Aristoclides is indicated ; for peranacopevos, used of the
eagle, echoes oéOev ora patépevor said of the young men in the first strophe.
It was upon the song of victory that he swooped.

The whole composition is a hymn of the perfect man, who has realised
duly the excellences appropriate to the three periods of life,—childhood,
manhood, and later manhood. Old age is not mentioned, for the Greeks
regarded it as hardly a part of life in the true sense of the word. The
perfect man will also realise a fourth quality, not confined to any age,—
poveiy TO mapkeiwevov. These virtues are illustrated by (1) Achilles as a
child, (2) the same hero as a man, and Heracles, (3) Peleus and Telamon,
(4) Chiron.

The perfect man, who always attains his end by his own faculty, without
extraneous aid, is also the man of light, opposed to the ineffectual man, who is
called a ‘dark’ one. And there is a certain atmosphere of light, consciously,
about the whole poem ; we feel that we are in the bright Greek world, which
extends to the pillars of Heracles, dividing it from darkness. dyadua (I. 13),
ay\aoxpavor (1. 56), dyNaaion (1. 69), are notes suggesting the gracious presence
of Aglaia; rndavyes dpape éyyos (I. 64), dédopxev qdos (1. 84), Suaaivera
(I. 71), even the name of the victor’s father "Aputrod wns, determine the bright
atmosphere, of which Clio is the presiding deity.

And as in all Pindar’s works there are many striking phrases and
suggested pictures in this poem—for instance, the young men waiting
at the river, the balm of Nemea, Heracles alone in the far west sounding

1 In these lines there is a secondary 1. 83, and to Appendix A, note 3.
allusion to the poet himself. See note. 3 This comparison is noticed by
2 In support of this explanation I must Mezger.
refer to the note on the significant uéy in

44 NEMEAN I/1.
the shallows, the child Achilles with his short spear at the entrance of

Chiron’s cave, the lowflying daws, the draught of song ministered in the
breathings of Aeolian flutes, the constellations of glory.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.
A.
UU. 1, 2
abou ewy eu Sy Stay \ Susu sy Wy =9 = -DOu~A (15)
UU. 3,4
By -v ve myn tu Bu ey tun tury mya (15)
B.
Ga 5. NE GS oN (7)
vu. 6, 7 SO Sp FG ES SG OG, GS IS (12)
vy & Fuvev—-vutu-v-—:—A (7)

Here the strophe falls into two unequal parts of which the second has
a mesodic structure (compare the strophes of the Tenth Nemean Ode).
Observe that the first two syllables of the 8th line belong rhythmically to
the 7th.

It is worthy of remark that ékeo, in 1. 3, seems to have led Schmidt into the
mistake of making the:second péyeOos begin with -vv.

EPODE.

UU. 1, 2.
,
l4
a SG I OU I Oe (17)
e

UV. 354
s f s s
A A TF 5 5 FS FY VY (17)

Uv. 5. Ao eV HU tu Hv HK AU HH A (8)

A structure of this kind is called by Hephaestion an ér@ducov. The
ér@ducd, writes Schmidt, “sind so gebaut, dass den zwei gleichen peyeOn ein
drittes entweder nachfolgt, oder vorangeht, oder als Centrum eingewebt wird”.
He proceeds “die erste Art ist héchst wahrscheinlich die alteste, da es nahe
genug lag, die einzelnen Systeme, ebenso wie die umfangreichere TTEPLKOTIN,
auch wieder gleichsam in zwei Stollen und einen Abgesang zu theilen”.

It is clear that the strophes of the present ode might be also included
under the head of epodics.

The rhythm of this hymn is logaoedic, and the mood was Aeolian, as we
earn from lI. 79.

NEMEONIKAI I”.

APIS TOKAEIAH:

ASTIN T Ht

TIATKPATIASTH:.

a an ¢
°Q, motvia Moica, wadtep apetépa, Nicoopat,

oTp. a.

Tav todvéévay év iepounvia Nepweac.

ixeo Awpida vadoov Airway.

vdaTe yap

/ or S ee Nae / , /
evovt é7 Acwrrim medtyapu@Y TEKTOVES

I. @ wotva Motca] O Muse august,
mother of us, come, I beseech thee, on
the holy moon of Nemea to the Dorian
island of Aegina which harbours many
strangers. The Muse invoked is Clio,
mentioned by name in line 83.
are her spiritual children. The scholiast
suggests the relation of Odysseus to
Athene, ¥ 783:

parnp ws Odvoqi mapicrata 75° éra-

piryet.

2. todvtévav] Pindar sometimes
adopts a feminine termination in the case
of compound adjectives; as

Poets

abavara
Pyth, Wl. 100, dxwyrav Ol, 1X. 33, map-
hovivay Pyth, VII. 20, and cp. Mem. v. 9.
The Mss. have zrodvéeivay, but the resto-
ration of modvtévay (with Moschopulos)
is necessary for the metre.

The kindness of the Aeginetans to
strangers was famous. In the 8th Olym-
pian, 1. 26, the island is called zayvro-
Oarotow vos klova damovlay, a divine
pillar for strangers of all lands, and in
the 5th Nemean, 1. 8, ¢itav ftévuv
d&poupar.

év tepopnvla. Newed&t] The anniversary
of the Nemean festival. iepounvia is, as
Hesychius explains it, simply éoprdcimos

nuépa festal day, and does not imply that
the moon was new or at the full.

3. Sarr yap x.7.A.] Aor by the waters
of Asopus are waiting young men, smiths
of honeyed hymns, eagerly seeking for thy
voice.

Although there is no evidence beyond
this passage, it would seem that there was
a stream named Asopus near the city
Aegina (as well as the Asopus in Boeotia
and the Asopus near Phlius). In legend
Asopus was the father of the nymphs
Thebe and Aegina.

4. pévovt’] That is, uévoyvts=pévover.

peAryaptav TéxToves KHpwv] Here the
singers (xopevral) are called artificers of
the hymns. In another place (Pyth.
III. 113) the metaphor is used of the
poet:

KnE émréwy

soot
apmocayv, ywwoKouer,
Jrom the sounding verses wrought by skilful
joiners. The writer of the essay on
Pindar’s Odes of Victory in the Quarterly
Review of Jan. 1886 observes in regard
to this phrase (p. 171); ‘‘ Even the ex-
pression ‘poet-builders’, though it does

KeNadevya@y, TéKToves ota

not seem unnatural to us who are familiar

46 NEMEONIKAIL I.
Kdpov veaviat, c60ev OTA paLoperot. 5

Supn Sé mpayos ado pev addov"

deOrovixia S€ pddiat aoway piréi,

orepdvev apetav te deEwwtdtav oTador.

a > / ” , Ske ” 5 > !

Tas apOoviay drake pajtios auas ato ayT. a’.
lal i ,

dpxe 8, ovpavod modvvepéra KpéovTe Ovyatep, 10

with Milton’s ‘build the lofty rhyme’,
must have been a significant expression
when it was used by Pindar; since we
find it parodied by Aristophanes and
Cratinus”’. See Aristophanes, /gzttes 530
réxtoves evradduwv tuywy and Cratinus,
Biv. 3. It is to be observed that pen-
vyapus is not used as an epithet of persons
but only of utterance.
always of hymns; O/. xI. 4 and Pyth.
Il. 64 medvydpves tuvor; in Homer it
qualifies dy, u 187.

5. patdpevor] Pindar has chosen this
word to allude to the circumstance that
~ the hymn was delayed beyond its due
time. paloua, Z seek, is used by Pindar
(«) without a case, O/. 1. 46, (2) with
accusative, as here and Py/h, XI. 51
Suvara pacduwevos, (3) with infinitive, O/.
VIII. 5 paomévuy aBew. But there is
ultimately little difference between the
three cases; in (i) an accusative is under-
stood, and in (3) the infinitive is gram-
matically the object.

6. Supq 8€] Divers are the thirsts of
divers exploits; but victory in the games
is chiefly fain of song, ministress most
auspicious of crowns and valiant deeds.

Dissen translates dun destderat, but it
is a mistake to render the original, which

Pindar uses it

is far stronger than rofet or émvbupet, by
a weaker equivalent. Compare Pyth, IX.
103 éue 0° Gy Tis doddy dipay adKevdmevor
mpdooe. xpéos abris éyetpa. The rare
word mpayos differs from épyov only in
dignity and solemnity.
mparyos is an exploit.

7. a@dovixla] This word occurs only

épyov is a deed;

here.

8. orepdvev dperav te] In sense this
is a hendiadys, but there is no reason to
translate it as such. Joined with émadéy
the adjective defwrdray is felicitous; it
suggests that song, the companion, walks
on the right of victory. de@Aovixla and
dowd are abstractions; daddy suggests a
concrete picture, and deéwrtdray helps to
define it.

g. tas adGovlav] Thereof minister
an ungrudging measure from the store of
my craft, tTas=dodds; the request is
addressed to the Muse. In the preceding
verse Song was called the companion of
victory; in this verse song is regarded
rather as a measurable thing than as a
person, and the Muse is asked to send
abundance thereof to accompany the vic-
tory of Aristoclides. With consummate
skill the poet connects the second meta-
phor with the first by choosing the word
omad¢w, which literally meant sezd along
with (as an 6madés), as in € 310 aw’ Hyeudr’
écONOv drraccoy, but acquired the more
general sense of destow. With pirios duds
amo compare Wem. Iv. 8. In Homer
ads means ow but in Pindar my; see
Isth. V. 45, Pyth. WV. 27 and Il. 41.

10. adpxe 8 ovpavod x.7.d.] Begin a
true hymn in honour of the king of
the cloudy welkin, his daughter thou ;
and I will impart it to their blending
voices and commit it to the lyre.

Dissen’s explanation of 1. ro is certainly
correct, practi vero caeli regi praecclarum
hymnum, filia (=filia ovis). Bergk
introduces into the text of his fourth
edition Otpavot, moduvepéXa xpéovTt Ov-
yarep, Urania, daughter of the king

NEMEAN I/II.

“ou ¢ Dae IN \ t , par
OOK LO UBPVOV EY@ b€ KELVMV TE VLV Oapols

ON ‘s if / 8 cca /
Upa TE KolWacopal. yaplevta 5 é€eu Trovov

xepas dyadpa, Muppidoves iva mpdtepor

” + DN / ’ \
@KnTAaV, OY Tadaidhatov ayopav

enwrapped in clouds, but the Muse ad-
dressed is Clio, not Urania, and all the
Mss. have modvvepéda (genitive). The
scholium 6 pév ’Aplorapxos Ovpavod
duyarépa thy Moitcay dédexra shows, as
Mommsen pointed out, that Aristarchus
read Ovpave moduvedéd\a Kpéovte Ouyatep,
which would support Bergk’s construc-
tion.

11. SoKupov] ez echtes Lied, Mezger;
approved. Compare Aeschylus, Persae,
547

Kaya b€ pdpov Tav olxouévwr

aipw doxiuws movrev 67.
5éxtuuos would be the word for translating
patent into Greek.

dapots] Used of choral song (cf. raldwv
ddpoot, Pyth. 1. 98). vw (restored by
Mommsen for pv) is tuvov.

12. Kotvaoopat] For the sense com-
pare Pyth. Vill. 29 dvabéuev (commit)
macav pakpayoplay NUpa Te Kal PbEyuaTe
padOaxg, and Horace, Odes IV. 9. 11 v-
vuntgue commisst calores Aeoliae fidibus
puellae. The poet acts as a mpopyrns or
interpreter of the Muse to the musicians.
In Pyth. tv. 115 Pindar uses the active
aorist of kowdw in the same construction,
vuxtl Kowdoavtes 00dv, to Night (and to
none other) having imparted the secret of
their journey.

xaplevra 8’ ee movov] //s gracious
work will be a bright jewel to deck the
land where in former days dwelled the
Myrmidons. wtpvos is the nominative to
éfe, and if any change were necessary
I should prefer Rauchenstein’s é£es (sc.
Motca) to Mr Fennell’s é&eax (sc. Moica),
of which, as of other ‘causal Middles’,
I confess that I feel rather shy. But it
seems unnecessary to deviate from the
MsS.; the semi-personification of the
Hymn is thoroughly Pindaric (compare

Nem.t. 5). The interpretation of Dissen
is as untenable as those of Boeckh and
Matthiae. (1) Boeckh making ywpas
dyahuwa mean the chorus took it for the
subject of ée: ‘*pulcrum elegantemque
laborem habebit chorus”. (2) Matthiae
also took xwpas dyahua for the subject
but explained it as the ode. (3) Dissen
and Hermann understood Zeus as the
subject of é&e and took yapievra as pre-
dicate; ‘‘lubens autem accipiet hoc carmen
Iuppiter utpote ornamentum terrae”’.

xaplers mévos is a work inspired by
the Graces, and the closely following
dyahua suggests Aglaia. (See Appendix
B.) évos does not mean toil here, rather
work of the hands, as though the song
in honour of Aegina were a statue, and
this comparison is further hinted at in
the word a&yadya, which is specially used
of images (in Mem. X. 67 it means the
headstone of a tomb).

13- Muppiddves] In a fragment of
Hesiod it is related that Zeus supplied
Aeacus with a people by transforming
ants, “Upunkes, into men, who were thence
called Mupudéves. They were the oldest
inhabitants of Aegina.

14. ayopdv] In conformity with the
metre of the corresponding lines of the
other strophes we expect here a word of
spondaic instead of anapaestic scansion.
(Hence Rauchenstein has proposed a\xdv
and Kayser éépay.) But in the fourth
lines of the epodes of this ode we also
find a variation between —and ~~; hence
it seems gratuitous to suppose that there
is a corruption, especially as the word
gives most excellent sense. Aristoclides
brought no soil of shame on the Place
of Assembly called after the Myrmidons ;
and in the fourth strophe (1. 6g) it is said
that he glorified the Theorien, which was

48 NEMEONIKAI [’.

ovx édeyyéeoow “Apiotoknrelbas Teav 15

> / ’ et > Lal \
€ulave KaT aicav év tepicbevet warax eis

' 7. ft \ a
TAYKpaTlov CTOAW’ KapaTwbéwy O€ TAAYAVY

2 /
€7T. Aa.

akos vyinpov év Baburedio Newéa TO Kadrdivixov pépet.

probably situated close to the agora (cf.
Mezger, p. 386). It is clear, I think,
that dyopd means here, primarily, the
place of assembly (not conventum as
Dissen takes it), suggesting of course the
fame and traditions of the Myrmidons
inseparably associated with the place.

15. ovK €\eyxéeooty k.7.A.] Translate:
whose time-honoured agora Aristoclides,
by virtue of thee, O Clio, stained not with
soils of shame through soft succumbing in
the stalwart array of the pancration.

That Aristoclides is possessed of the
valour that wins renown (x)éos) his very
name (’Apioro-k\eldas) is a sign, and for
the same reason he is the favourite of
Clio (Kew, who sings 7a kd\éa dvdpwr).
This idea is expressed by reay kar’ aicar,
under thy auspices—a stronger phrase
than cot xdpw. For aica means omen
(compare the adjective atsvos), and here
suggests that the name <A7*?stoclides is
ominous. In a passage in the Ninth
Olympian Ode (I. 42) the word, I think,
has a similar significance:

tv’ aiodoBpévra Acds atog
Ilippa AevkaXiwv tre Ilapvacod xara-
Bavre

Sbuov €Oevro mpwrov K.T.X.
where under the auspices of Deus (Zeus),
who wieldeth the forked flame, Pyrrha
(suggesting mp) and Deu-calion &c. Here
alsa calls attention to an omen latent
in the names Deucalion and Pyrrha.
With ov« é\eyxéecow eulave Dissen com-
pares Solon (frag. 32, Bergk) pudvas kal
Compare Wevdeor ka-
rapudvas (Pyth. IV. 100) and Oedyvnrov
od katedéyxeus (Pyth. VII. 36). For ted

sergk reads éay after a scholium.

16. meptoGevet] This Pindaric adjec-

KaTawrxvvas KNéos.

tive occurs only here and in frag. 131, 1. 2,

where it is used of Death: kal coma pev
mavTwv ererat Oavarw tepiabevel, and the
body of each followeth stalwart Death. It
conveys the idea of the immense strength
required for the pancration. o7d\w sug-
gests a comparison with real warfare, as
Dissen has noticed, comparing Py¢h. XI.
50 Ivdot re yupvdr éri oradiov kaTraBavTes
jreyéav “ENavida orpatiayv wktbrate.
Mezger translates Alkampfsgang (cf.
Waffengang).

17. Kapatwdewv S€ mAayav] But he
hath a healthful balm for weary blows and
bruises, even the hymn of victory which
the deep dale of Nemea doled to him. The
thought that victory and the songs which
celebrate victory are a physic for pain
often recurs in Pindar; compare e.g. the
opening lines of the Fourth Nemean, and
Nemean VIII. 40.
Hesiod, Of. e¢ D. 582 Oépeos kapmatadeos
@py, and Pindar, frag. 218 kaparwdees
MEpluvar.

18. é Babviredio Nepwéa] Most mss.
have évy Badurediw, two (X and Z prima
manu) have €v Babvrédw, the Moscho-
puleans have & ye Badurédw. I think
Bergk is rash in adopting the latter.
Badurédios (with low-lying plain) is an
isolated compound of zediov, and Pindar
coined it in order to arrest the attention
and emphasize his covert meaning. Me-
mea is a dispenser (véuw) of balm and
her vale is deep, even as the mind of
Chiron the healer is deep (see below
1. 53 Badupjra and |. 55 voor).

TO KaAAlviKov déper] he has won the
song of triumph; he ts greeted in song as
In Olymp.
IX. 2 we have xaANlvixos 6 Tplardoos Ke-
XAadws (the hymn swelling with thrice-
resounding shout of triumph), where tuvos

For kaparwdns cf.

® kadNlvixe, conquering hero.

NEMEAN T11.

ei 0 édv Kados Epdwv 7 éoixoTa poppa

> , € U b / a U 9 LA /
avopéas vTreptatats évéBa Tais Aptotopaveus, ovKeTe TpoTw 20

’ ’ a / ¢ \ c y a ’ /
aBatrav ada Kivev v7rép “Hpakd€os Tepav evpapes,

Hpws Oeds as One vauTirlas éoxyatas

is understood ; cf. Pyth. Vv. 106 76 KadXl-
vikov wédos. épev is used for winning as
well as pépecOar; see Lsthm. V1. 21. But
here axos dépe is intended to suggest an
etymology of ¢apu-axov, see below 1. 55.
The present tense implies that the conse-
quences of the victory are not yet over.
Bergk, after a scholium, reads pépeuv (Zo
win at Nemea is balm). But a view of
the whole context supports the Mss.
reading; it seems most natural that after
the negative assertion ov« é€ulave, the
particle 6é should introduce a corre-
sponding positive assertion.

19. € 8 édovx.r.r.] But tf the son of
Aristophanes, being comely and doing
deeds like unto his comeliness, embarked
in the loftiest achievements of manhood’s
excellence, then it zs not an easy thing to
traverse further the pathless sea beyond
the pillars of Heracles which the hero-god
set as witnesses of the limits of his famed
seafaring. For the association of beauty
with beautiful deeds compare Olymf. Ix.
94 patos éwv Kal Kadds KaANOTA Te péEas,
Isthm. Vi. 22 cO&ver 7 Exmayndos idety Te
Mmoppaers, dyer T aperay ovK alaxuov puas,
Olymp. VIII. 19 qv & écopay Kadds epyw
T ot Kara eldos éXéyxwv. It is not neces-
sary to interpret dvopéas /audes with
Dissen; it simply means manly deeds,
which imply manly qualities. é7é8a in-
troduces the metaphor of the seafarer;
compare émiBaivew vavol Thucyd. VII. 70.
In Wem. X1. 44 meyaravoplais éuBaivouer,
we embark in great deeds of valour, a
similar metaphor is used of the poet.
Aristoclides’ noble qualities are the ship
in which he sails and reaches the pillars
of Heracles; the fact that he reaches
them, though not expressly stated, is

atp. B’.

implied in the next clause, and is
assured by the excellence of the ship
(bmepraracs).

20. ovKére tpdow x.7.A.] The pillars
of Heracles were a prominent feature in
Pindar’s view of the world. In Olymp.
III. 43 it is said of Theron that by his
deeds of prowess he toucheth without
leaving home (amrrerac otkoGev) the pillars
of Heracles, 76 mopow 8 éort coors
aBarov Kacogos, but that which is beyond
may not be traced by wise or witless ;
compare /sthm. U1. 30 dvopéas 8 éoxa-
Taw olkobev otddaow amrové’ “Hpa-
kNelats, almost verbally the same. In
both these cases the force of otkofev is to
qualify a somewhat strong metaphor.
See also Wem. 1v. 69 Tadelpwv 7d pos
épov ov meparév. In the present case
the poet makes the metaphor an intro-
duction to a short statement of the
services of Heracles the Deliverer.

The declension of ‘Hpaxdéns in Pindar
is -éos, -ec and -7, -éa -ees. The ante-
penult is long in 12 passages, short in 10,
and twice doubtful.

22. vavtidlas KAvtas] Pindar uses
vavridla in the plural, also of Heracles’
sea-voyaging, in /sthm. 111. 75:

ds OUAuprdve’ Ba yalas Te Tdacas
kal Baduxpjyvov modtas adds eSeupwv
dévap

vauTirlacl Te TopOudv apmepwoats,
who went to Olympus, having discovered
the beetling ledge of the whole earth and of
the white sea, and having tamed the deep
by his seafaring (rop6uds is the sea from
the aspect of navigators). The reading of
the best Mss. kAurd@s is certainly right
(al. xKAurds); vavTiNlas kuTas balances
éoxaras Klovas.

50 NEMEONIKAI I.

paptupas KAuTas' Sapwace 5é€ Ojpas év terayel

ic
vTrEepoxous, LOia T épevvace TEevaryéwy

pods, 67a TouTiov KatéBawve vooTou TéXos, 25

Kal yav dpadacce.

23. Sdpace 8€ x.7.d.] He subdued
monstrous beasts on the ocean and by him-
self searched out the streams and the
shallows, as far as where he was landing
at the goal that speedeth homeward, and
he made land known. All the Mss.
have meddyer, except B which has 7ehd-
yeot. I follow Bergk in reading reddyet
(there is a similar error, drpexet for
arpexéi, in 1. 41 below). Von Leutsch
suggests that these words may be a
reminiscence of words of Stesichorus,
who first narrated the fable.

24. The Mss. have depdxos idla(a)
7 é€pedvace. The scholia mention another
reading dud 7’ épedvace, whence Boeckh
deduced 61a 7’ éEepedvace. With Momm-
sen and Mezger I believe we should
retain idla, om his own account, without
the aid of others; this was a significant
characteristic of Heracles’ achievements,
and that Pindar wished to insist on it in
this ode is clear from the emphatic
prominence given to the fact that Peleus
was single-handed when he captured
Tolcos, pdvos dvev orparias, 1. 34. M.
Schmidt proposed omdlas (=axpas) and
Bergk didvas (caliginosa, cf. mndds aidvds
in Hesychius).

tevayéwv] The schol.: dtvypor cal mapa-
mwoTdu.oc opptes 7row maparerapévyn Kal
birrepéxovoa yn ovoa, is hardly correct.
Tevayn are, as Dissen says, ‘mndwdn
medayn, vada’, and Mr Fennell aptly
quotes Pliny’s remark about the straits of
Gades, frequentes taeniae candicantis vadi
carinas tentant (Hist. Nat. 1. 1),
Heracles discovered the channels (pods)
intersecting the tracts of shallow water.
With épevvace (Lat. scrutari) compare
ft 259 mépous ads é&epectvwr.

25. 6mq@x.7.d.] This clause defines the
place up to which Heracles explored the

Oupé, tiva mpos adXobaTray

shallows. He was landing (note the im-
perfect, which is relative to épe’vace not
to Pindar) at the goal which causeth
return—beyond which none sail—that is
the Straits of Gades. The meaning of
the passage has been obscured by not
attending to the tense of xaraBaivw and
by taking voorov as meaning Heracles’
own return. As no causal adjective is
formed from yvdcros, voorov méoumimoy is
used instead. Mezger compares rommimos
gitwy, Eur. Wed. 848. Dissen wrongly
takes vécrov with téXos (meta reditus).
kataBalvey =deventre ad portum, com-
pare Vem. Iv. 38.

26. paSacce] Coordinate with éped-
vace, not with karéBawe. This verb,
formed from ¢paéa, is perhaps a coinage
of the Pindaric mint. It is generally
rendered ‘made the land known’ (¢exram
indicavit, machte kund das Land), almost
equivalent to éppace. But just as yvw-
pigw means fo discover (as well as to make
known), so ppadavw may mean fo dzscover
by ppady, that is, by conjecture or divina-
tion; he discovered the land which he
had divined. For ¢pad7 compare Ol.
XII. g T&v dé jweddovTw TeTUpwYTAL
ppadat, Aeschylus Lum. 245 unvurijpos
apdéykrou ppadais.

Oupé, tlva x«.7.d.] Soul, to what pro-
montory of outlanders dost thou make
my ship’s course to veer? The expression
reminds us of Dante’s la navicella del
a\dodamds means of a
strange land, as jwedaros means of our
land. mapapelBoua, pass by (in Pyth. I.
50 mapauelBerar dedpiva, outstrips the
dolphin in speed) is here used in a causal
sense; but observe the limitation. éuov
moov is not really distinct from @upos
the subject of mapamelBea, it is merely
Ouuds in another aspect; and thus éudv

mio imgegno.

NEMEAN III. SI

uv ARN / /
aixpav é“ov TAOov TapapelBeat ;

> A lal
Alaxé ce hap yéver te Moicay dépewv.

i / lal
éretau dé NOYw Sikas awTos, éodos atively’

odd’ adddoTplov epwres avdpi hépew Kpécooves.

olkoQev pareve.

mroov mapamelBea is virtually equivalent
to mapauelBear in its usual sense. The
preposition has the shade of meaning
often expressed in Latin by de; deflectere.

28. Atak® x.7.d.] 7 charge thee, con-
vey the Muse for Aeacus and his race; my
tale is wafted on its errand to praise noble
men by a blast of Justice. Desires of
foreign things are not the better burden for
a man; search at home. These lines of
transition from the myth of Heracles to
the exploits of the Aeginetan heroes are
often misunderstood. Pindar recalls the
ship of his soul from Gades, reminding
her that ‘Aeacus and his race’ have
chartered her to carry the Muse (Clio) ;
then he adds that in
Aegina he is adopting the best method
of praising the victor, even by cele-
brating the bravery of the race of
Aeacus. The deprecation of a)dorplwv
pwres applies primarily to the poet him-
self (ddNoTplwy taking up aAdodamay of
1. 26), secondarily to the victor (cf. below
1. 40). In line 28 apt has what the
Germans call a pregnant sense, 7 charge
thee (cp. Tennyson’s ‘Memory, I charge
thee, rise’).

29. tmerar St Ady k.7-A.] Of the two
interpretations of this line which have
been put forward, the most usually ac-
cepted is otiose and irrelevant, the other
is unlikely. (1) Adest autem verbo meo
iustitiae summum decus, bonorum in
praedicatione positum (Dissen); or, as
Mr Fennell (taking Ady» differently)
translates, ‘The flower of justice concurs
with the maxim ‘praise the noble’’’.
Whether Pindar would under any cir-
cumstances have termed such a maxim

returning to

avt. Bi.

motipopov dé Koapov édaBes

‘the gloss of justice’, I may be permitted
to express a doubt, but in this context it
is at best irrelevant, having no connexion
with what precedes or with what follows.
For if it is not irrelevant, it stultifies the
point of Pindar’s argument. He cuts
short his eulogy of Heracles that he may
celebrate the praises of Peleus and
Achilles: why? Because it is the essence
of justice to praise the noble. Therefore,
according to this interpretation, Pindar
either wrote a line that had no point, or
suggested the proposition that Heracles
was not noble. Neither the procedure
nor the doctrine are Pindaric. (2) Von
Leutsch and Mezger to avoid these con-
sequences take éxhés, not as a Doric
accusative, but as a nominative agree-
ing with dwros, and make alvety depend
on the adjective: ‘adjuncta autem meo
verbo justitia egregia ad laudandum est,
i.e. summo jure Aeacum nunc laudo’.
But éodds alvety as a qualification of dikas
dwros is intolerably weak,—it would not
be too much to call it bathos. (déxas)
dwros is the best; it is, certainly, un-
necessary to add that che dest is good to
praise. ésdds would be in any case a
strange adjective with awros.

For my own view of the passage see
Appendix A, note 3.

30. dépev] The metaphor of the ship
ceased in 1. 29, but the sound of the last
word in 1. 28 is echoed in verse 30.
With xpéocoves understand épwrwy olkelwy,
words which it was needless to express,
as d\Xorplwv, being a correlative word,
implies olxelwy and the implication is
rendered quite clear by olko@ev in 1. 31.

31. mortipopov 8€] moridopos (mpic-

4—2

52 NEMEONIKAI [.

yAvKU TL yapuéuer.

lal > >’ , r
mandatatot 8 év apetais

yeyabe IInreds dvak, vépaddov aiypav taper’

\ \ \ Yi a
0s Kal FiwXxKov ere povos avev oTpaTias,

\ /
Kal Tovtiay @érw Katéwapwev
eyKovnti.

popos), meet, but here with a more literal
shade of meaning, determined by @épew
in the preceding line,—good to carry. A
similar reference to the etymological sig-
nification of rpécqopos will be found in
Nem. Vit1. 48 (see note). Kdcpos is argu-
ment or material for praise. We may en-
deavour to bring out the force of rorl@opos
somewhat thus: 7Zhow (Pindar still ad-
dresses his soul) hast taken a fair burden
of praise, to sing withal some sweet strain.
For yAvukd re yapvéwev compare meAvyaptwv
kdpwv in 1, 4. The whole sentence is
illustrated by some verses in the Eleventh
(Tenth) Olympian ode

icOc viv ’Apxeotpdarou

mat, Teas, Aynoldapue, ruymaylas evexev

kéopov eri oredavw xpuvaéas édalas

adumedh KeNadjow (11. 11—14).

Know now, O Agesidamus, that for thy
boxing L will sing a sweet resounding
song to be a jewel in thy crown of golden
olive leaves.

For é\aBes of the Mss., Bergk after a
scholium reads é\axes. But axes gives
inferior sense. €\afes is appropriate after
mdteve. Search out (like a hound on the
traces of prey) matter for praise at home.
Lut thou hast caught &c.

32. Tadatator. 8 év dpetats x.7.d.]
Endued with the excellences of older men,
the lord Peleus had joy therein, when he
cut a spearshaft surpassing great ; it was
he who took Lolcos all alone, without a
host, and who clutched fast Thetis of the
sea by dint of toil and strife. év does not
depend on yéya0e, but means 7” fosses-
ston of, the words év madaais dperats
qualifying the subject. év in Pindar is
elastic, and perhaps some may prefer to
take it here as meaning 77 the sphere of,
to deal with, madaais refers to Peleus’

Aaopédovta 8 evpvaberns

advanced age, not to his antiquity; see
below 1. 73 (note).

33: vUmépaddov aixpav]
towering above others, overtopping, match-
Jess, is a Pindaric coinage. Its motive
is partly to be found in the preceding
addorpiwy; the spear of Aeginetan Peleus
surpasses all others. So too the beasts
which Heracles subdued were bépoxor
(l. 24). See Zrtroduction to this ode. Of
this spear which Peleus cut him on Mt.
Pelion we read in II 143:

IIndcdda pedinv thy marpt Pity mépe

UmépanXos,

Xelpwr
IInXlov €k Kkopudis, pbvoy eupevar hpweo-
ol.

34. Fiwdkév] This name appears to .
have had the digamma, ftw\xéyv (so Christ).
The capture of Iolcos was an act of
vengeance on Acastus, of whose relations
with Peleus we shall hear something in the
Fourth and Fifth Nemeanhymns. Pindar
calls special attention to the circumstance
that Peleus’ exploit was accomplished
singlehanded (see above note on 1. 24).

35. kaTépapwev] For the wooing of
Thetis see Memean iv. 62 sqq. kaTaudp-
mTw is to overtake or catch something
that is running away or trying to elude
the grasp. éyxovyrl is a Pindaric forma-
tion from éyxovéw. As this verb doubtless
suggested kévis to Pindar’s mind, the
idea of éyxovnri may have a shade of
Dissen’s xox sine pulvere, but Mezger is
right in translating it Aastig. The rapid
and sudden transformation of Thetis
demanded exceeding haste in the efforts
of Peleus. The novelty of the adverb
renders it more telling.

36. ebpvobevys] This adjective is
applied in Wem. v. 4 to Pytheas, con-
queror in the pancration, and so here it

NEMEAN III, 53

Terapov “loka tapactaras édy érepoev’

Kal mote yadKoTokov "Apalovwy pet adKav

ér. §’.

émreTo Fou’ ovdé viv rote PoBos avopodapais émavcev axpwav ppevar.
auyyevel O€ Tis evdokia péya Bpiber’ 40
ds 6é dudaxT’ Eyer, Wepnvos avnp ddrdoT drAXa TvéwY Ot TOT

? Jue
ATPEKEL

suggests that in masszve strength Telamon
résembled Aristoclides, the victor év me-
pioOevet mayKxpariov oTo\w (above l. 16).
In the first line of the 5th Pythian ode,
evpvoGevrs is applied to mAodros ; but it is
to be observed that zod7os is personified
and compared to a squire (é7éray 1. 4),
just as here Telamon is a squire of Iolaos.
In Jsthm. i. 17 we have evpvobevns
’AmoA\NwWY; in Ol, XII. 2, if our text is
right, ‘Imépav evpvobevé’, and in O/. Iv. 12
paos evpucbevéwy aperav (of a victor in a
chariot race). In Homer the adjective is
applied to Poseidon.

37. “Iddq] The enterprise against
Trojan Laomedon was undertaken by
Heracles, Iolaos and Telamon; but in
this reference Pindar purposely avoids
mentioning Heracles’ name, which might
have seemed to overshadow the fame of
the hero of Aegina; moreover he had
already done honour to Heracles and had
abruptly turned from the seductive theme.
It was Heracles and not Telamon who
slew Laomedon, hence ézrepoe, which does
not imply the individual act of slaughter,
but means wrought the ruin of, abolished
Laomedon and his city. mapacrarns
means comrade or squire (properly, com-
rade on the flank, distinguished from
émioTarys, man in the rear, and rpoordrns,
man in the front rank). In em. Iv. 25
Telamon is mentioned as Heracles’ com-
panion on this expedition; likewise in
Isthm. V. 27 sqq.

38. Kal wore x.7.\.] And once he
followed him (lolaos) tnx quest of the
mighty Amazons with brazen bows. xah-
kéroéos does not occur elsewhere. Dissen

compares \jma TofovdKov, Aeschylus,
Persae 55.

39. ob8€ viv x.7.d.] Wor did fear that
mastereth men ever dull the flashing edge of
his spirit. The literal meaning of axu7
is edge as in Evpod dkun, Elpous aku &c.;
hence keenness of mind or spirit. In /sth.
VII. 41 €vaNlyKioyv oreporraior akuav Today,
the idea is that of a glancing edge: render
‘like unto lightning-flashes in the splen-
dour and speed of his feet’ (cp. aiyAa
moday, Ol. XIII. 36).

The quantity of the first syllable of
dkud is common in Pindar (here — as in
Lsth. Vil. 413 v in Pyth. iv. 64; OL I.
63; = Lsth. 111. 69).

This casting away of the reproach of
fear from Telamon completes the com-
parison with Aristoclides, from whom the
reproach of wadakta is repelled in ll. 15,
16.

40. ovyyevet S€ x.7..] See Lntro-
evdogia is nobility or
valour, but Pindar probably intended to
suggest thoughts instinctively brave. In
Bpi@w the comparative idea, latent in
all words denoting weight, is strongly
marked: compare Sophocles, Ajax, 130

duction, p. 39.

pn® oyKov &pyn pndév’ el Tivos méov

7 xEtpl BplOecs 7) waKxpod mAovTov Baber,
and (governing an accusative) Vem. VIII.
18 Kuvpav &8pice movTW.

In this passage it is a question of xecpt
BpiOew: in the boxing and wrestling the
hand of Aristoclides was (physically)

. heavy on his adversaries.

For the Pindaric doctrine in these lines,
see (Vent. I. 25.
41. wWepyves] Bergk was rash in alter-

64 NEMEONIKAI I’.

/ / A 5) > la) ,’ a / /
KatéBa Todi, wupiay 8 apetav atedet vow yeveTar.

EavOos S “Ayiredrs Ta pev pévav Dirvpas ev Sopois, aTp. ¥’.
mais éov abupe weyara Fépya, yepot Papua
Bpaxvoidapov dxovta Tdddwv tcov avémots 45

/ ,
Maya NeovTETaW aypoTépots ETpaccev ovor,

Ud Siiwor: / x \ ff
KaTpous T évatpe, capata Oé Tapa Kpoviday

ing the Mss. reading to Wepewds on the
analogy of dpewds adyewos paewos Kc.
These adjectives correspond to épos (dative
dper), adyos, pdos &c., whereas Pepyvds is
to be connected not with pé@os but with
yépas, and finds an exact parallel in
ceAnvn: cédas.

This man, whose soul, unillumined by
native light, is fickle and unsuccessful, is
compared to a mariner sailing under a
dark welkin, yielding to the impulse of
varying blasts and never coming safe to
shore by sheer dint of strong and skilful
steering. While zodé means the foot of
the wanderer it perhaps suggests the sheet
of the ship. Pindar chooses his language
so as to bring out unmistakably the con-
trast between the ineffectual plodder and
an inspired hero like Heracles. od karéBa
contrasts with xaréBawe and aredet with
TéXos in 1. 25.

43. TO pev pevov] These words ac-
cording to Boeckh and Dissen offosita
sunt versibus 59 et sqq., ubt de Troiano
bello et tuvenili s. virili Achillis aetate
agitur ; non potuit sequi ta dé guum mutta
intertecta totague orationis forma mutata
sit. I believe however that Mezger is
right in taking 6é€ in verse 49 as the
When
he was a boy of six years old he shot

responsive to pev of verse 43.

the beasts without leaving the cave of
Chiron (uévav év Sédmos); afterwards he
hunted abroad and pursued the stags.

Pidvpas}] Chiron was the offspring
of Philyra and Cronos.

44. GOupe peydrka Fépya]
mighty deeds in sport.

Bapuvd]

wrought

For #aud, as though a neuter

plural of @auwés; cp. Ol. 1. 53 dKépdera
hédoyxev Oauwa kaxayopos, full often hath
loss befallen evil-speakers.

45. PpaxvolSapov] Full often bran-
dishing in his hands a small-headed
javelin, swift as winds, he would, in
battle with them, deal bloody death unto
savage lions. The smallness of the jave-
lin, suitable to the little boy, is accentua-
ted by a new word Bpaxvoldapos, just as
the size of Peleus’ mighty lance was
described by the novel compound wzép-
a\Xos. The Mss. have toov 7’ avéwouw
év pdxa. The causes of the double
mistake are clear; the omission of the
half-stop after épya in I. 44 led to the
insertion of 7’ (in disregard of the metre),
and €év crept in from the margin (€év udaye
a gloss on paxa). Moschopulos’ ica 7’
avéwo.ow is from a critical point of view
unlikely; the corruption of tea to tov is
not easily explained, and toa dvéuous seems
to require some additional adjective, par-
ticiple or explanatory word, to express
running with windlike speed. But when
we consider the context we see that this
reading is simply impossible. Achilles
is represented as abiding in the house of
Philyra; we must imagine him standing
in the mouth of the cave and shooting
the beasts who prowl thereby. Running
is thus excluded. At a later age he
became a swift runner and his speed is
mentioned below 1. 52 in an express
clause. I have therefore followed the
reading of E. Schmid and Bergk. The
arrow, though shot by the child, flew
with matchless swiftness.

47. ocopata S€«.7.\.] All Mss. have

NEMEAN III. 55

Kévravpov acbpaiverv éxouster,

ter a > » ¥ EX /
éEérns Tomp@OTov, bdXov O Emeut’ av ypovov'

Tov €OauBeov “Aptemis te Kal Opacet’ APava

’ / Yj lal
KTelvovT éNahous avev KvvdV Ooriwyv 0 épKéwv'

’ /
QvT. Y .

\ U A
Tocal yap Kpatecke. eyouevoy Sé TodTO TpoTépwv
eros éxw’ Babuynta Xelipwv tpade AOiv

doOualvovra, and most cdmata; D how-
ever gives gwar, B and B cwpdria.
Most editors have abandoned the reading
of Triclinius cwpat.—acbuaivovTe and
accept cwuata—dcbualvovra, which has
apparently preponderant authority. An
old paraphrase however points in a differ-
ent direction: 7T@ 6é abrot cwpare évepyav
6’ Aydrdeds dc Ouaros tAnpys...O7jpas €pdper.
From this explanation Rauchenstein in-
ferred the reading doOualyev éxduccer,
which is accepted by Mezger. (The para-
phrast read oapari—a.abpalywv.)

It seems to me that Rauchenstein’s
reading recommends itself both on textual
grounds and on the score of the meaning.
(1) Starting with cwuara acbualvev we
can explain the genesis of the text of the
mss. and the variant of the paraphrast.
On the one hand cw&para contaminated
aoOuatvwv (perhaps owing to the notion
that it was unfit that Achilles should be
represented panting). On the other hand,
some scribe, having scruples about refer-
ring owuara to the beasts and expecting
the phrase cGya ac Ouaivewr, altered comara
(2) There is little point in
representing the beasts haled by Achilles
as not yet dead (da@uaivovra); whereas
the picture gains a new touch by do@ual-
The little boy pants from the exer-
tion of dragging the carcases to Chiron.
In the same way Pindar has laid stress
on the toil undergone by Peleus in
capturing Thetis by the word éyxovyrl,
and on the labours of Aristoclides in
the pancration by the word kayuarwiéwy
(l. 17).

49. Odov 8 éret’] dé corresponds to

to owmare.

VO.

ev in verse 43, with which €&érys To-
mp@rov is to be connected. He abode in
the cave when he was six years old or
thereabouts; afterwards he used to slay
beasts as before, but as a hunter on the
mountains (this is implied in ll. 51, 52).

50. Tov k.T.A.] On whom Artemis
and bold Athene gazed with amazement,
as he slew stags without hounds or cunning
nets; for he surpassed them in speed of
feet. médas eds was the Homeric addi-
tion of Achilles. Here too, as in the
exploits of Heracles and Peleus, Pindar
lays stress on the circumstance that
Achilles hunted alone, without aid of
dogs or nets.

52. deydpevov S€x.7.\.] The transition
is somewhat abrupt in expression but not
in thought. The connexion is: Achilles
was educated by Chiron, the celebrated
trainer of heroes, who taught Jason and
Asclepius and assisted at the bridal of
Peleus, Achilles’ father. Instead of say-
ing this directly Pindar begins almost as
if he were passing to a new subject, but
comes back to Achilles in |. 57. Aeyé-
evov is predicate: I tell a story often
told by former poets.
on é7os.

53. Pabvpnra] Deep-counselling ; this
vox Pindarica (as already observed, note

mporépwy depends

on |. 18) has a significance for the com-
prehension of the poem. Chiron (‘he
with the hands’) was skilled in applying
balsams with gentle hands (1. 55), whereby
he could alleviate the wounds of the young
heroes under his care. Even so the vic-
tory at Nemea and the accompanying
hymn of Pindar can alleviate the wounds

, / , yy / \ 4
lacov’ évdov Téyet, Kal ETrELTEV

Tov dappaxov didake wadaKkoxelpa vopov’

UA >) i, 2 > /
vuppevoe 0 avTis ayaoKpavov

NEMEONIKAI T.

*AoKkXaTrLov,

Nypéos Ovyatpa, yovov té Fou péptatov

} :
atitadrev év appévoise Tavta Ovpov av&ov

of Aristoclides. The words Ba@upjra
and vémoy are chosen to recall Badurediw
Neuéa 1. 18; Baduuyra also recalls
penTLos auas do in |. g; and papyacav
suggests dkos péper 1. 18. Deep-crafty
Chiron reared Fason in his house of rock,
and thereafter Asclepius, to whom he
taught the ministry of medicines with
gentle hands.

54. €tvdoyv téyet] Compare Vem, VII.
44 @vdov adcea, but evdov Gadrdcoas Ol.
VII. 62, €vdov Odo Pyth. Xi. 64.

55. padakoxepa] A Pindaric com-
pound, intended to call attention to the
meaning of the Centaur’s name Xelpwr.
The gentle hand of the physician is
mentioned in Pyth. IV. 271 xp madakav
xépa mpocBaddovra Tpwuav Ehkeos auupuTro-
defy. The same Mss. which gave owpate
and cwudria in |. 47, give here voor,
which does not afford a correct sense.
vouos is the act or art of administering
(véuw, dispense).

56. vopdevoe k.7.A.] But on another
day he compassed the marriage of the
queen of well-heads, the bright daughter of
Nereus. vipgevoe nuptias conciliavit (of
Thetis with Peleus). The marriage was
celebrated on Mt. Pelion in Chiron’s
cave. Three Mss. V (fr. man.) X and
Z (pr. man.) give dy\abxapvov; the others
are divided between dy\adKodrov and
dyNaoxaprov. The latter is accepted by
most editors, but variously explained,
(1) bright-wristed (cp. Milton’s ‘pearléd
wrists’ of the Nereids, in Comms), (2)
giver of bright fruits, (3) /ragebus in-
signem ox fruges alentem; (4) Mr Tyrrell
regards ay\aéxapros as the Homeric
word [dva-] apicroréxea reset, and ren-
ders blest in the fruit of her womb. It

is to be observed that the- three Mss.
which combine in reading ayAadxapvov
are generally more trustworthy than the
others ; in v. 39 for example of this hymn
they give dxudvy whereas the rest have
a\xdv, and in v. 38, they preserve xa\ko-
rotov (rell. xakoroéwv). Accordingly, in
order to determine the true reading,
we must start with ay\adxapyov, which
at once suggests dyAadxpavoy (actually
written by a ‘second hand’ in D), an
epithet appropriate to the sea-goddess.
But its peculiar felicity lies in the circum-
stance that -xpavov, besides meaning foun-
tain-head, suggests also xépavov (kapnvor),
the head of Thetis, conceived personally.
This explains the reading dy\adxapvov.
dy\aokdpayoy, written in the margin,
found its way into the text and became
ayNadkapvov metri gratia. I confess that
I was a little sorry to abandon dyAadxon-
mov bright-bosomed, which perhaps sug-
gested Mr Swinburne’s line ‘bright
bosom shortening into sighs’.

57. yovov ré Fouk.7.d.] And nourished
for her a son most brave, in fitting exercises
exalting all his spirit for a voyage.
dpueva would be a suitable word to ren-
der in Greek ‘knightly exercises’; but,
conversely, it is better to avoid a transla-
tion which suggests the medieval world.
Cp. Theognis, 695

ov dt’vamat cot, Ouue, Trapacxe apweva
TAVTO"
rér\abe’ Tay 6 Kadav ot're av jovvos
épas.
Both dpyeva and Pépraroy have a special
significance in this passage, for which see
Appendix A, note 3. avgwy means
training to greatness, or rather fo its
Sullest development.

NEMEAN JI. 57

ddpa Oaracciats avéwwv piraior TweupOeis

’ I
em. y -

7d Tpotay SopixtuToy ddadrav Avkiwv Te mpocpévor Kai Ppuyav 60

AapSaver Te, Kal éyyerpopos émripigars

AiOibrecot xeipas, ev ppaci maka’, dws ohio pn Kolpavos

DIAL fi
OTT LO@

madw olxad averrios Capevns “EXévoto Méwvwv porot.

59: Odpa x.r.d.] Zo the end that
sped by potent sea-blasts to Troy he
should beneath its walls abide the spear-

clashing onslaught and battle-whoop of

Lycians and Phrygians and Darda-
nians, and having fought hand to hand
with the Ethiop spearmen should fix in
his soula firm purpose that their chieftain,
inspiring Memnon, cousin of Felenus,
should never return again to his home.
Oardoora avéuwv pirai were an appro-
priate escort for the son of a queen of the
sea (for purats see above note on 1. 68).
tard Tpotay depends on 7eupeis.

60. Soptktutov] Only found here and
Nem. vil. to. The battle cry resounds
amid the clash of hurtling spears.

61. émupltats xetpas}] For Pindar’s
various uses of émiulyyume compare Ven.
IX. 31 ayAalauw emia adv, Pyth.
Il. 32 alua éméue Ovarots. For this
particular use compare /Pyth. Iv.
Kodxouw Biav pliay (and Xen. Cyr. 1.
I, 11 cuppuyvivac Xelpas).

éyxerodpots] compound,
equivalent to Homeric éyxéo7ranos.

62. év ppact magard’] A strong ex-
pression with which commentators com-
pare Pyth. VU. g omdray ris Kapdla KoTov
éveddoy, after \ 102 KoTov évOeTo Dum.
Nearer parallels may be found in Latin.
Dissen quotes Tacitus, Anz. xv. 5 Vo-
logest vetus et penitus infixum erat arma
Romana vitand’, and Virgil, Aen. IV. 15
st miht non animo fixume tmmotumaque
sederet, ne cui &c. Schol. (1) wa éumnéac
Tas xetpas Tots AlOloyr Kai Ka@iKowro THs

212

Pindaric

ie ores A eiingurs
Puxijs avrav dud Tob modepetv, (2) 7 ewl Tov
a’roo ppevav tod "AxiWdéws dexréov Tov
Noyov iv’ éaurov Tas Xetpas mHEacTo, TeTn-

yuias mapdoxor Tals ppecty, iva d dravondyn
Tais ppeciv trnpernOn dia TaY xXeELpav.
éviore yap emOupoduév Te KaTopOGoa Kal
acbevodmev auto Tojoa py UmnpeTovmeEvor
tats xepolv. 6 dé ’Axudreds erpadpyn W’
Srep dv SuavonOy Suvnby dua T&v xerpwv .
According to both these
explanations xe@pas is taken with r7jgacro,

Katepydoao Pat.

not with émiuigas (it is unnecessary to
suppose with Schmidt that the scholiasts
There is also another
scholium (3) mAaylws Noylcatro Kal Kpivot*

read émumnéais).

dytt Tod eis mépas ayo, where Abel sug-
gests the insertion of i) before mAayiws,
but it that we should
read mayiws. Bergk objecting to the
phrase mdéa.#’ dws ur reads magar Oaros,
assuming @daros to be a Pindaric form of
the Homeric tagos, and to bear here the
sense of fear (cf. Hesychius Oamav* poor).
I retain the reading of the mss., but I do
not feel certain that it is what Pindar
wrote. Some further remarks on the
matter I reserve for Appendix A, note 4.
agict is Dative of the persons interested.

63. dvelids] Priam the father of
Helenus and Tithonus the father of
Memnon were brothers. Two questions
arise here: (1) Why is Helenus singled
out as the cousin of Memnon? (2) Why
is Memnon called fauevys? If we could
assume that Pindar regarded Memnon as
endowed with the gift of prophecy, both
questions would be answered at once, for

seems clear

fapevys is an adjective applied to inspired
seers, to Chiron for example (Py//. IX.
38) and Medea (Pyth. Iv. 10). But there
is no authority for attributing such quali-
Memnon.
given bya right view of the word (apev7s.

ties to The true answer is

58 NEMEONIKAI fF’.

Tnrauyés apape péyyos Alaxidav avrober.

oTp. o

a uA >
Zed, Teov yap aipa, céo 6 ayer, Tov Uuvos éBarev 65

oy L 2 1 1 Se
OTL VEMWV ETTLYWPLOV VAPLa KENAOEWD.

Bod o€ vixadhopwe adv “Aptotokdeida TpéTret,

« n ’ ” / /
0s Tavde VacoY EVKAEL TrPOTEONKE NOY

Kal cepmvov ayhaaiot pepimvats

In Wem. Iv. 13 (see note) it is an epithet
of the Sun, fameve? deXlw, by the genial
sun, and in the same way it is applied
here to the son of the Morning (Vez. VI.
In fact fapevhs
connotes the quality of inspiration and
may be used either of the inspirer or of
the inspired (compare English genial with
German genza/).

52 paevvds viov Aoos).

Memnon is conceived
as having, by virtue of his mother, a
touch of supernatural elemental influence,
and he is called the cousin of Helenus,
because Helenus the prophet would be
specially susceptible to such influences.
So too, in the passage in the Fourth
Nemean already referred to, the poet
or musician Timocritus is described as
warmed by the inspiring sun.

64. THAavyés Apape x.7.\.] Hereby
the Aeacidae have a star in the firma-
ment, shining afar.
of the sun and the moon in the Homeric
hymns.

Thdavy7s is used

In Pyth. il. 75 we have acrépos
ovpaviov TnhavyéoTepov paos ; in Pyth, 11.
6 Hiero crowns Ortygia tn\avyéow ore-
pavors. (Compare also Olymp. VI. 4.)
péyyos is more solemn than ¢dos; it is
a divine or heavenly light, here of @ star.
avrédev goes with apape, which is equiva-
lent to jprnra, but see Appendix A,
note 3.

Pindar seems to conceive that when
Achilles killed the son of Morning he
spoiled him of his light.

65. Zev, teov ydp aipa] Soothly,
Zeus, they are thy blood; and thine is

the contest which provoked these shafts of

song, by the voices of young men singing
woy of this land. ‘The
force of yap is 7 call on Zeus because ;

the gractous

Zeus was the father of Aeacus. For the
comparison of the hymn to an archer,
compare OJ. Il. 89 émexe viv cxow@ Tbéor,
aye Oud, Tlva Baddomev Ex wadOakas are
We are
also reminded of Tennyson’s ‘A random
arrow from the brain’.

66. émixwptov xdppa] This expression
recalls xaplevra mévoyv xwpas dyahwa
im 5 1

ppevos evkhéas dicrovds iévTes;

Xdpua is a cause of joy ; com-
pare O/. Il. 19 é€o\@v yap brd xapudrwv
Tha Ovdoxe (also 2b. gg), Ol. X. 22
dmovov 6’ é\aBov xapua mavpol tives,
Isthm. WW. 54 Kaddinkov xdpua. Ol.
VII. 44. Pyth. VII. 64 76 pev méyiorov
TOO XapuaToV Wracas.

67. obv—tpétme] For cuumpére,
apparently formed by Pindar. cupspe-
ms, fitting, occurs twice in Aeschylus.
Boa a loud strain.

68. Os Tavde k.7.r\.] who wedded this
island to glorious praise and the holy
Theorton of the Pythian god to bright
ambitions. For this sense of mpoori@nut
compare Herodotus VI. 126 ‘“E\qvwv
amavrww e£eupav Toy apioTov TOUT yuUPalKa
mpoobewar (2eerthetlen, Stein).

For its application here Dissen com-
pares Pyth. IX. 72 evOarel cuvéméee TUXa
mwodw (where the adjective ev@adys is ap-
propriate to the metaphor) and Js¢hm.
Notice that
evxNét is here brought into proximity to

Ill. 3 evAoylas peutyOa.

"AputroxN el da.

69. ayAaator pep(uvats] This is usu-
ally taken as an instrumental Dative;
but it seems more natural to connect it
with Oeaprov as evdxrét Adyw is connected
with vaoov. ‘This is confirmed by the con-
sideration that dyNaator by its position

NEMEAN III. 59

Ilv@iov Qeaprov. év dé meipa Tédos 70
Siabaivetas, ov tis eEoxdtepos yévnTat,
> \ / lal > > 8 / >’ / / , 8
év Tact véoict Tats, ¢v avdpacw avnp, TpLTOV apt. 0.
év Tadattépowct, épos Exaotov olov Eyomev

an >
Bporeov eOvos. da Sé kal Técoapas apetas
¢ \ Jang ral ’ ees \ /
6 Ovatos air, dpoveiv & évérrer TO TapKelipmevon, vhs

in the verse corresponds to ay\adkpavoy
in line 56; and thus Pindar indicates
that the marriage of Peleus and bright
Thetis is a type. Aegina is wedded to
evkAens Adyos, not to evkAela ; and in the
same way the sexual distinction is main-
tained in the metaphor by linking the
college of the Theori of Apollo,—a male
and plural conception—to a company of
bright Ambitions.
pare O/. 1. 106 Beds underar Teator peplu-
yaw.

70. Q@edprov] The building in which
a permanent college of Theori lived (or
met and dined). Mantinea, Troezen,
Thasos and other places as well as Aegina
had such permanent staffs of religious
delegates. It is clear that Aristoclides
was a member of the Aeginetan Thearion.
Pausanias (II. 31, 6) mentions Thearios
as a Dorian name of Apollo.

év 8& melpa x.7.r.] But trial (of
strength or skill) revealeth the perfection of
those powers in which one may be the
winner of excellence, as a boy among
young boys, as a@ man among men, 07,
lastly, as an elder, according to the three
stages of our mortal life. meipa is the
test of competition; év melpq, a the lists ;

For pepluvars com-

compare Vem. IX. 28 melipay dyavopa.
The force of dradpaivera is that trial
discloses; the cloud of uncertainty is
removed thereby and the perfection (as a
fact indisputable) shines through.
neuter, equivalent to TovTwy ev ois ; Mez-
ger’s view that it is masculine depending
on éfoxwrepos (‘in der Probe aber zeigt
sich die Vollendung, vor wem namlich
einer hervorragt, ob als Knabe unter

gv is

Knaben u.s.w.’) affords both a loose con-
struction and a loose signification.

72. & maoi x.7-\.] The three ages
of man were illustrated in this hymn,
boyhood and manhood by Achilles as
boy and man, advanced age by Peleus.
Note that instead of raXauds or something
equivalent Pindar says tpirov, thus pre-
paring for réscapas in |. 74. Some
editors (after some MSS.) take mépos with
rpirov: I have followed other Mss. in
placing the comma after madarépoot.
The construction is Tovodros (in apposition
with tis) ofov mépos exacrov (éorw 5) exo-
juev iyuets Bpdreov €vos. Boyhood, early
manhood and late manhood are the pépn
of life.

74. ea Stxal«.7..] But life drives
a team of four excellences, for it biddeth
man be wise in that which he findeth
to do; and these excellences are hts.
Each age has its own excellence, and
there is further an excellence common
to all alike, judgment, povew 6
mapkelwevov (for compare
Ol. xt. 73). The metaphor in éd@, I
think, is from driving, not from plant-
ing ; so /sthm. Iv. 38 &\a wedddev. Mr
Fennell, who translates ‘forms a series

TapKeliLevos

of’, seems to take it from planting. The
same editor is certainly mistaken in
assuming four divisions of life. Compare
Mezger, p. 390, who follows Hermann.
dpetas placed emphatically in the same
position of the verse as dperats in 32
indicates that Peleus is a type of one
age.
c A Oe
75. © OvaTos aiwy|
@varos éov, D, V, X and Z 6 maxpés aiwy.
? ? p

B and B have 6

yaipe, pidos.
TET [LepLUy LEV OV pers NEVED

fe f
TOV OUK ATrEOTL.

NEMEONIKAI fF’.

, \ /
eEy®@ TO de TOL

\ ’ , > oD /
aby yadaxtt, Kipvaméva © Eepo’ apderrer,

~ cal ’ an
Tou aoidiyov Aiodhnaw év Tvoaicw avror,

owe Tep.

It is clear (as Mr Tyrrell has pointed out
to me) that paxpos was introduced by
some one who thought that the fourth
virtue corresponded to a fourth age,
attained only by those who lived long.

76. tov ovk amectt] Mezger (after
Christ) unnecessarily reads ameoot, a con-
jecture of Bergk. The rhythm of these
words recalls strongly kal yav ppadacce
of 1. 26. As Heracles reached the ulti-
mate land, so Aristoclides has reached
or will reach the perfection of life in
all its stages.

xaipe, piros' «.7-A.] Rejorce, my friend!
Lo, I send you, though at late hour, this
honey mixed with white milk, fringed
with the froth of blending, a draught of
song conveyed in the breathings of Aeolian
flutes. It is a draught to still Aristoclides’
thirst, compare dq 1. 6. xalpe is an
appropriate accompaniment of the cup
of song,—drink, hail! Compare Pyth.
Il. 67 xaipe* rode wev...wéAos...TEWTETAL,
also Jsthm. 1. 32. It is a congratula-
tory formula for offering a gift. For éX
compare above 1. 4; also Olym. X1. 98
pédire WOW KaTaBpexw, steeping the city
in honey; and frag. 152 meooorevKTwy
Knpluw ed yAvKEpwTeEpos Gupa, my inspired
voice sweeter than honey or the honey-
comb.

Dissen has an excellent note on this pas-
“The Theban
poet finely says: ‘I send you a sweet

sage, which I translate.

Boeotian draught for your banquet’.
For Boeotia was rich in milk and honey,
whereas Aegina was a barren island ;
moreover the reeds of Lake Copais were
celebrated; and by ‘Aeolian blasts of

flutes’ (i.e. the Aeolian harmony, to

” ’ 3 LaeN Sian 2 a
€OTL r) QlLETOS WKUS EV TIOTAVOLS,

ér. 6. 80

which the hymn was set) Pindar here, as
in other places, signifies Boeotian notes
and Boeotian flutes, the Boeotians being
Aeolians”. Pindar indicates this intention
in his own way: ‘Iodg@ in 1. 37 corre-
sponds to AloAjow in 1. 79. Aeginetan
Telamon was comrade of Theban Jo/aus ;
a Theban (Aeolian) song is a meet
guerdon for an Aeginetan victor.

For the mixture of milk and honey
von Leutsch cites Aelian WV. A. 7 apeéd-
youot yap (‘Ivdol) mepryNixiotov yada Kal
od déovra dvauléa aitw pédu, Omep obv
dpaow “EN\nves—it was a Hellenic cus-
tom. The dlended foam means the froth
that comes from blending (‘aufgemischter
Schaum’, Mezger). For the whole pas-
sage compare the opening lines of the
Seventh Olympian Ode.

79. mop aolStpov] The adjective
explains the metaphor, a favourite mode
of expression in Pindar. For example
Nem. Vil. 15 pitpay Kavaxada memockid-

pévav, 46 AaBpov ALOov Mowatov. sth.
VI. 19 KAuTats Eréwy poatou.
80. €or. 8 alerds «x.7.r.] Swift

among the fowls of the air is the eagle,
which, swooping from afar, seizeth sud-
denly the tawny prey with his talons ;
but the cawing daws fly low. These
words, like many others in Pindar, are
charged with a twofold meaning; they
refer apparently to the victor and covertly
to the poet,—to the Aeginetan as well
as to the Theban eagle. (For Pindar’s
association of the eagle with the Aeacidae,
see Wem. V1. 47.) By choosing the
words 8agdowdv dypav Pindar recalls
to the mind his description of Achilles
in l. 46 NeovTecow aypotépors erpaccev

NEMEAN I7/1. 61

a /
Os €XaBev aivra, THACHE peTaparopevos, Sapoivov aypav Tociv’
Kpayétat S€ KoNOLOL TaTELVAa VvémovTaL.
/ Is a
tiv ye pév, evOpovov Kreods €Oedoicas, deOropdpou Ajpatos

EVEKEV

Newéas “Emidavpobev 7 dito cai Meyapwv dédopKev aos.

gévov, and Achilles in this ode is the
chief representative of the Aeacids. The
addition zrociy too seems chosen for the
purpose of recalling mogoi yap xparecke ;
swiftness, the traditional quality of Achil-
les, is made the prominent quality of the
eagle. But there is a covert reference in
the words too; Pindar is the eagle and
his rivals are the daws. The strange
word kpayérat, invented by the poet,
is not, I think, without significance; it
strongly suggests “kpayas (’Axpd-yas),—
daws of Acragas, and this is confirmed by
the fact that on coins of Acragas eagles
are represented seizing a hare (such a
coin is reproduced in Mr Fennell’s edi-
tion). Weare thus led to conclude that
Pindar referred to some Sicilian rivals,
associated with the city of Agrigentum.
It is worth noting that Aeschylus uses
axpayys (also dat eip.) of the ypizes,
clearly meaning eagles: Prom. 803 dfv-
atopuous Znvos axpayets kivas,

The connexion of this sentence with
the immediately foregoing words 6wé rep
is thus brought out by Dissen: ‘Sero
quidem mittitur carmen, at a poeta, qui,
ubi rem aggreditur, eam tractat eximie’.
It is not due to chance that pera-
facouevos occurs here in the proximity
of ‘the draught’, and that in the begin-
ning of the ode wacdmevor immediately
preceded the ‘thirst’.

81. perapadpevos] Occurs only here;
search after, go in quest of.

82. vépovrar] dwell, move and feed in
low places.
or range, cf. Thucydides, 11. 62, 2 é@’
dcov Te viv véuerbe as far as you range,

véwecOar is used of sphere

72, I novxlay dyere veuopevor TA Upuérepa
a’tav confining yourselves to the sphere of
your own affairs.

83. tly ye pev «.7.A.] wey invariably
implies a dé somewhere, and it would not
be safe to follow Mr Fennell in regarding
ye wév as an equivalent of ye wnv. Pindar
has designedly suppressed the second
member of the antithesis, but has taken
care, by his allegorical expression of the
same thought in the preceding lines, to
leave no doubt what it is. To thee,
Aristoclides, the light of glory hath
shone; to others (the dark ones of line
41, the low-flying daws of line 82) no
such light hath come. We may translate:
To thee certainly, by favour of fatr-
throned Clio, and for the sake of thy prize-
winning valour, a star hath gleamed from
Nemea and from Epidaurus and from
Megara. As Achilles won a constella-
tion of glory by slaying Memnon (I. 64),
so Aristoclides wins such a light by his
victories in the games. See Appendix
A, note 3 for the force of de?\opdpov
Ajua. For 8€So0pkev compare O/. I. 94
To 6€ KAéos THAdHev SédopKe, the eye of
glory shone from afar. es®pdvov suggests
the representation of the Muse in sculp-
ture.

NEMEAN IV.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN THE BOYS’
PANCRATION AT NEMEA WON BY TIMASARCHUS OF
AEGINA.

INTRODUCTION.

THE idea of the fourth Nemean hymn is the sorcery of song, revealing
itself in two ways. Song has the faculty of healing and comforting, for it can
command the presence of good-cheer or Mirth, whe by the Greeks, or as
Milton says ‘in heaven’, was named Euphrosyne; and she is ‘the best
physician of labours past.’ But besides having this gracious faculty, song can
confer upon the hero of great exploits a really kingly lot and secure for his
fame a longer life than his deeds, unsung, could inherit. These thoughts are
cunningly worked out in a double ‘eulogy’ (1. 5) of the Aeacids and the
Theandrids of Aegina. For the boy Timasarchus, who had won a victory in
wrestling at Nemea!, belonged to the Theandrid clan ; and Pindar pays this
clan the high honour of comparing their deeds to the distinctions of mythical
Aeacid heroes.

The hymn, intended to be sung in procession and consisting of twelve
strophes, naturally falls into three parts. The first three and the last three
stanzas are concerned with the praises of the victor and his kinsfolk ; the six
middle stanzas are occupied with the Aeacids. This arrangement is agree-
ably symmetrical ; the beginning and the end are of equal length, and the
centre is devoted to the myth”.

The first strophe, which may be regarded as a prelude, sets forth the magic
power of songs, ‘daughters of the Muses,’ in evoking the Grace Euphrosyne ;
and compares their comforting quality to the effect of warm water in
mollifying weary limbs. Moreover words, provided they be really graceful,—

1 For the date of the ode we have
only the minor limit 457 B.C., the year
of the reduction of Aegina by Athens.

2 Mezger divides thus: mpooimoyr,
1—8; apxd, 9—325 KaTarpomd, 33—44 ;
éupanrds, 45—68; jmerakaratpomd, 69—
72; opparyls, 73—96.
much is gained by this arrangement,

I cannot see that

which would admit of further subdivision.

The point on which I would join issue
with Mezger is the assignment of 25—32
to the dpya. The transition to the mythi-
cal world takes place at the end of the
third strophe. Mezger rightly says “ die
Ode preist die Macht des Gesanges.”
Dissen took an incomplete view when
he found the chief idea in the comparison
of the Aeacids and Theandrids.

INTRODUCTION. 63

drawn out of the depths of thought ‘in a gracious hour of inspiration’ odv
Xapirwy rixa—live longer than deeds. These remarkable lines we shall do
well to bear in mind, for fragments of their language are echoed here and
there in other parts of the hymn.

It will be observed that Pindar places his poem, as it were, under the
care of the Graces, especially Euphrosyne ; and allusions may be found to the
other two sisters in a@yAadv 1. 2o—suggesting Aglaia presiding over games held
near Amphitryon’s tomb—and O4dnoe vedivors 1. 88, implying the presence of
Thalia.

The next two strophes are devoted to Timasarchus and his victories, won
at Nemea, Athens and Thebes; and a reference is made to his father
Timocritus, who was skilled in playing the harp. The visit to Thebes
naturally introduces Heracles, in whose honour the games there were
celebrated ; and Heracles provides the poet with a convenient step to pass to
the praises of the Aeacidae, as he and Telamon had been comrades in an
expedition against Troy!

Of Telamon three exploits are mentioned, the sack of Troy, the conquest
of the Meropes of Cos, and the slaying of the giant Alcyoneus. This mighty
man of Phlegrae, before he fell by the hands of Telamon, had captured
twelve chariots, killing the twenty-four heroes, charioteers and fighting men,
who were in them. And at this no one, who knows by experience what
fighting is, will be amazed ; for ‘give and take’ is the use of battle.

Here Pindar feigns to check himself. If he told the tale of the Aeacids
at length he would exceed the limits of the projected Ode and the time at
his disposal. He feels indeed a spell laid on his soul by the festival of the
new moon,—a moon-spell, as it were,—compelling him to touch on the
theme. But he must resist the temptation of telling a long story. The
principle that one should sow with the hand and not with the full sack—
said to have been inculcated by Corinna—had certainly taken root in
Pindar’s mind and he expresses it here in some curious lines’, directed
against contemporary poets, who censuring his manner of weaving odes on
a warp of myth, used to fill their own compositions with wisdom, expressed
abstractly.

After this digression, the lyre is bidden to ‘weave’ a song, pleasing to
Aegina; and an enumeration of great Aeacids follows: Teucer king in
Cyprus, Ajax in Salamis, Achilles ruling over ‘ Bright Island’ (Leuke) at the
mouth of the Danube, Thetis governing Phthia, Neoptolemus reigning over
the sloping hills of Epirus, finally Peleus, and of him more is said than of the
others. The capture of Iolcos, the plot of Hippolyta, the ambush which
Acastus laid, and the assistance given by Chiron the centaur, are briefly
touched on. Then the marriage with Thetis, who changed herself into fire

1 The transition is managed with a @eds as 20nKe x.T.X.
relative (l. 25) &v @ more Tpwiay k.T.d. 2 See note on these difficult lines
Exactly in the same way Pindar passes to (36 sqq.), whose true meaning was first
the myth in the Third Nemean, also at discerned by Mezger.
the beginning of a strophe: 1. 22 7jpws

64 NEMEAN ITV.

and savage beasts to elude his embraces, is described, and we see the kings
of heaven receiving Peleus among them, and ‘ weaving’ for him and his race
gifts of sovranty. The marriage of Peleus, like the marriage of Heracles, is
an emblem of the highest limit of mortal ambition ; we have reached as it
were Gades, and have no cause to go further westward. ‘The tale of the
sons of Aeacus in its completeness it is not in my compass to narrate.’

Two points may be noted here in regard to the foregoing legends. (1)
Pindar, as a composer of hymns of victory, and thereby a helper of victors, is
compared to Chiron aiding Peleus against the ambush of Acastus. For the
expression in 1. 61

kal TO popoysov Avwwbev mempawpmevov exepev
is clearly an echo of
noi 8 éroiay dperay axe wotpos dvaE— povos Tempwpévay TederEL
(l. 44)
(Zeus corresponds to Potmos). (2) The gift of song, such as Pindar gives
to the victor, is compared to the gift of sovranty which the gods gave to
Peleus and his descendants. This is brought out by the use of the word
é€upaiv in the corresponding line of strophes 6 and 9:
45 eédgaive ydveeia kai Td8 avrixa hoppryé (uedos)
68 Sdpa kai Kparos eEvVpavay és yevos avTa.
It is to be observed too that Thetis herself is an emblem of this sovranty,
kparos!, In 1. 50 it is said
Céris S€ kparet Bia,
and she changes herself into wip mayxpares (1. 62).

The further significance of the catalogue of the Aeacid heroes will be
explained by an examination of the third part of the Ode.

The distinctions of the Theandrids, consisting chiefly of an Olympic, an
Isthmian and a Nemean victory, are celebrated. Besides Timasarchus, his
mother’s brother Callicles, now dead, is specially mentioned; also his
grandfather Euphanes, a poet; and Melesias, the gymnastic trainer of
Aegina, receives a word of praise.

By a system of quaint echoes, a parallel is instituted between the
excellences of the Theandrids and the sovranties of the Aeacids; and this
comparison is quite in place, subordinate to the main idea of the hymn,
that song has the power of conferring a sort of sovranty”.

(1) The rule of Teucer in Cyprus

47 €vOa Tetdxpos amapyxet
is answered by
78 Tiacapye.

1 «Nicht ohne Absicht wird darum 2 Cf. Mezger p. 397 ‘‘es ist in My-
auch Thetis, die in Phthia herrscht (v.50), | thus von lauter Konigen die Rede” &c.;
eine der hochthronenden Nereiden (v.65) and ‘‘ein solches Konigsloos ist dem
genannt und die Gotter selbst als ‘K6- Timasarchus zugefallen, da er von einem

nige des Himmels und Meeres’ (v. 67) — Dichter besungen wird.’
bezeichnet.” (Mezger.)

INTRODUCTION. 65

(2) To the sway of Ajax in Salamis
48 Alas Sadapiy’ e€yer matp@av
responds
77 watpay WwW akovoper.

(3) Achilles’ white island in the Euxine is compared to the white

sepulchral stele in honour of Callicles :
49 &v & Eveive meddyer aevvav ’Axirevs
vacov,
Leuke being the name of this island :
81 oradav Oéyev Tapiov Aidov AevKorépay.
(4) To the sovereignty of Thetis in Phthia
50 @eris Se Kparet
bbia
there was probably an echo in I. go, which has suffered corruption. Perhaps
the original was
deioerar PO tpévors.

(5) The ‘eminent’ hills, which characterised Neoptolemus’ dominions

in the west
52 BovBdora r6Oc mpoves €Eoxot KaTdkewrat
are echoed in the deeds ‘most eminent’ of 1. 92
éAmerai tis Exactos €€ox@rara pacbar,
the emphatic word occupying the same position in corresponding lines.
(6) Of Peleus it is written
54 Uladiov dé map modi Natpiay ‘lawAkoy

modepia xepl mpootparav

IIn\evs mapédoxey Aipoverow.
The application of the capture of Iolcus to the Theandrids is really subtle.
The reader is struck by two points, (a) the curious expression Aartpiav
mapédoxev and (4) the use of Aipoves for the Thessalians. These two peculi-
arities give us the clue. In the roth strophe we meet another. curious
expression

TaTpav iy aKOVOpEY,

78 Tipacapxe, Teav emuikioow aowdais

Tp omoXov epupeva.
We see at once that both these unusual phrases are chosen for the purpose
of corresponding. Iolcus is swdject unto the Haemones (we might render, to
bring out the point) and the clan of Timasarchus is a swdzect for epinician
hymns. And it is with this in view that the poet writes Aipoverow ‘the
Cunning, to suggest ‘the cunning daughters of the Muses’ (I. 2 ai de copa
Moway Ovyarpes dowai). Timasarchus is thus compared to Peleus.

It might be said that it was somewhat incongruous to draw a comparison
between the numerous glories of the Aeacids and the somewhat meagre list
of achievements which the kinsfolk of Timasarchus could produce ; and it is
interesting to observe how Pindar alludes to this criticism and meets it. He
implies that the Olympic victory of Callicles was an exploit which rendered

B. 5

66 NEMEAN IV.

further proofs of excellence almost superfluous. This is the thought that
underlies
82 6 ypuods éyyopevos
avyas eevkev amacas,
gold being the emblem of an Olympic crown, and amaoas echoing
amopa yap oyov Alakov
72 maidwv tov amavrTa pou diedOeiv

whereby it is meant that a family which can boast of an Olympic victory is
worthy of comparison even with the Aeacids.

In the last lines of the hymn, there is another allusion to the criticisms
which rival poets made on Pindar. Adopting, in compliment to the trainer
Melesias, expressions of the wrestling school, he describes himself as

> U > U
94 amadaoros ev Aoy@ Edxety
5] ‘ , > ol
padaka pev dpovewy éeaXois
tpaxvs b€ madtykcrois epedpos.

Here €Axew alludes to wwyy: & €Axopa jrop (1. 35)—the ‘drawing’ which he
resisted ; and the meaning of Noy is mythical tale (as in Il. 31 and 71),
wherein he might claim preeminence. The zadiyxora of 96 are the daior of
38. But for the full import of these lines I must refer to my discussion in
Appendix A, note 5.

In the catalogue of the Aeacids Neoptolemus is specially significant.
Pindar is fond of likening the mimic battles of wrestlers and boxers to real
war, and in Neoptolemus, whose name meant ‘young warrior,’ he might
find a prototype of Timasarchus, the boy-wrestler. And Pindar indicates
the significance of Neoptolemus in his own way, by the use of a striking
expression. ‘The tvy& veopnvia, he suggests, ‘naturally draws me to the
*Iéveos mopos and the realm of NeomroAepos.’ 1. 35

ivyyt & €Akopae jrop veopnvia Ovyépev
responds tol. 51

béia’ Neomrodepos & ’Areip@ Siampvoia.
And the second element of Weoftolemus is also significant. The BovBdrar
mpaves are subject unto him, even as the BouvBoras Alcyoneus was made
subject unto Telamon. xparet expresses the sovereignty of Neoptolemus
(1. 50); kparacos is the epithet of Telamon. The warrior Telamon subdues

1.27 kat Tov péyav ToXepiotay exmayAov *Adkvov7n
and the name of Neoptolemus echoes this note of war in the same foot of
the same line of strophe 7 :
1,51 Oia’ NeorroXepos & ’Areipw Starpvoia.

Having seen the relations subsisting between the myth and the concluding
portion of the hymn, we may observe how here, as in the Third Nemean, the
last part is resonant with words answering to. phrases in the ‘beginning.’ In
the first line of the roth strophe the adjective deévyvioy, coined by Pindar,
reminds us of yvia in the Ist strophe, where song is said to be an emollient
of the limbs.

INTRODUCTION. 67

Again in the Ist line of the 11th strophe there is a punctual responsion to

Oéyev in the Ist line of the 2nd strophe :

19 ro por Oéyev Kpovida re Ai kai Nepea,

1.81 oradav Oépev Tapiov Aidov evkorépar.
The hymn which Pindar ‘sets up’ is to be at once a x@pos for Timasarchus,
and a funeral stele for his dead kinsfolk.

Moreover the comforting power of song, praised in the Ist stanza, is
explained in the 11th, by its glorifying power: it can make a man equal in
fortune to kings. revyec in 1. 84 sets a seal on revyxeu in 1. 41.

1. 4 odd Oeppov VSap troaov ye padOaka Tevet,
1.84 €pypatav Baoretow icodaipova revyet.
And épyparwy in this line echoes the expression in
16 pnpa & Epyparay xpovwrepoy Brorever,
pa being accurately answered in
1.94 pnpata mr€éxov”.
Again yAdéocay evpero keh adyrev (an adjective found only here) in 1. 86, recalls
vidv KeNadnoe KadAinor (I. 16).

METRICAL ANALYSIS:

vU.I—-2, a o|\4G-VU— Un tu HG -o-U (9)
UU. 3—4. b —|4u-vu—- Stu Nee (13)
UU. 5—6. oY 4G a a A FV VP et er (13)
vu. 7—8. a ee | (9)

It is to be observed that each strophe ends with an apparently acatalectic
verse and begins with an anacrusis. Hence M. Schmidt deduced that the
scansion was continuous, the anacrusis belonging to the last syllable of the
preceding line, and the penultimate syllable of that line being a paxpa
tptonpos. For instance 70, the first word of the second strophe, rhythmically
appertains to Badeias, which precedes: thus Badelas. to=
Vv | L | ad |

By this means Schmidt has shewn that the first two and the last two verses in
each strophe produce measures (ueye6n) equal in length (27 ze7/7g); and the
first strophe for example is symmetrically divided at the emphatic word revyet.

Thus here we have an interesting example of the continuation of the
rhythm beyond the end of the verse. “Da diese aber auch an der Stelle
stattfindet, wo die beiden gleichen peyé6n sich beriihren, kann nicht der
mindeste Zweifel mehr zuriickbleiben dass grade dadurch die Einheitlichkeit
des Systems gefestigt werden sollte.”

The rhythm of this ode is logaoedic. We learn from line 45 that the
mood was Lydian. In the 8th Book of the Po/ztécs Aristotle remarks that
the Lydian mood was suitable for boys’ voices. Its character was plaintive,
and perhaps Pindar’s choice of it for this hymn was determined by the refer-
ence to Timocritus, the dead father of Timasarchus. In the Eighth Nemean
we shall find Lydian harmony combined with ‘ dactylo-epitritic’ rhythm.

1 This responsion was noted by Mezger.
2 This responsion also was noted by Mezger.
5—2

NEMEONIKAI J’.

TIMAZAPXQO:

AITINHTH:

TIATAI MAAATSTH:.

” , / / J ,
Aptotos evdppocvva Tovey KEeKpiwévav oTp. a’.
> nes € Q\ \
latpos’ ai dé coda
Moicdy Ovyatpes aovdal Oér€av vv arropevat.

IQO\ \ id / \ ,

ovbe Oepuov Vdwp Tocov ye wadOaxa TEvyeL

yuia, Toooov EvOYia Poppeyyl TvVaopos. 5

pnwa & épypatwv xpoviwtepov Brotever,

I. dpioros x.7-\.] Gladness ts the

best physician of accomplished toils ; and
"songs the artful daughters of the Muses
can charm her forth by their touch. Wov-
ppoctva combines the ideas of gladness
of heart and good cheer. Kekptpévoy is
explained by the scholiast as xplow
NaBivtwy, auvTeecOévtwy ( peractorum,
wiberstanden, Mezger). The
labours no longer await judgment. In

Dissen,

Wem. Vi. 2 the participle is used in a
different sense.

3. O€AEav viv] Mezger has rightly
explained: ‘die Lieder zaubern ihn (den
Frohsinn) hervor’, comparing for this use
of #é\ym, Anthol. Gv. 1X. 544 Totow OéX-
yw avnveuinv. [The same explanation
will be found in Liddell and Scott.] It
seems probable that Aristarchus took the
words thus, and that the scholiast mis-
understood him as assigning the more
usual meaning of soothe to 0é\Eav. The
view of the scholiast is that vw refers to
m OvoUs.

4. ov8 Oeppdy x.7.A.] Wor doth warm
water so softly soothe the limbs as doth
speech of praise, linked with the lyre.

Some editors read réyéer after Plutarch
(de Tranguill. c. 6), but the Mss. are
right, as is proved by the recurrence of
Tevxer in the same foot of the same line
oftherithstrophe. revxec wadOaxa = mol-
lia reddit, mollify, comfort. For técov
—Téccov compare Callimachus, Hy
to Apollo, 94 ob6€ modex Téa” evemev dpéd-
cysa Tocca Kupyvy. Homer ‘links’ the
lyre with the banquet, @. 99 9 dari
guvjopds éatt Oadeln. cuvyjopos (schol.
kowwvovoa) means linked, zscta (as the
Graces in art), not ‘wedded’ (as Holmes
translates). Pindar would not have mar-
ried two feminine conceptions. Compare
Horace’s verba loguor soctanda chordis.

6. pipa 8 épypdrwv «.7.r.] But a
word hath longer span of life than
deeds,—what word soever the tongue
should draw forth from the soul’s depths
in the gracious hour of inspiration. After
& re xe we should expect the subjunctive
and Bergk reads égé\y. But the optative
seems to express the event as more con-
tingent, and thus, as Dissen says, is more
modest (modestior optativus in re quae
non sine Gratiarum ope fit).

NEMEAN IV. 69

a \ / /
0 TL Ke UY Xapitwy TVYa
yrAaooa dpevos €FéXo. Baleias.

/ / /
TO por Oéwev Kpovida
/ ,
Tiacapyouv Te Tada
‘
Upvou TMpoKw@ptov ein’

te Ai kai Nepéa

op. f’.
10

déEarto 8 Alakidav

A gS bu E fw \
nUTupyov €00S, OlKa EEevapKel KoLVOV

peyyos.

et O ére Capevet Tipoxpitos aediw

aos tatnp €OadtreTo, Tovkidov KiOapiCov

Papa Ke TAdE pmédEL KALOEIS

8. pevos Babelas] This expression
recalls Pindar’s adjectives BaduwjAra and
Badddoéos (Pyth. 1. 66), also Aeschylus’
Babetay addoxa bia pevos Kaptrovmevos
Sencumeens 70). ln OZ. 1-54) Wealth 1s
characterized as Badetay bréxwv pépyuwwav
ayporépav. The metaphor here is a deep-
delved storehouse ofsong, to which the
tongue has the key. Compare also
Nem. Ul. 9 pytios amas dro.

gQ- TOporn.7.A.] Sech a word may it
be mine to set up, in honour of Zeus son
of Cronos and of Nemea and of the wrest-
ling match of Timasarchus, as prelude
and frontage of ahymn. Oéuev suggests
the setting up and dedicating of a work
of architecture or sculpture (cf. below 1.
81); the mpoxeuor is related to the k@puos
or hymn, as the mpdévaos to the vads.
vuvouv mpokwusoy is equivalent to K@mou
mpootutov. For the association of Zeus
and the victor in the proem compare
Nem. i. 8.

12. vUmvpyov] Embattled towers were
a feature of the city of Aegina. It
was so strongly fortified that it held out
against the Athenians for nine months.
See Miiller, Aegzet. p. 146.
eUrupyos is an epithet of Troy.

12, Slka EevapKét x.7..] With justice
that besteadeth strangers, lighting all the
world. For Aegina’s hospitality, cp.
Nem. Ul. 2. Eevapxys, protecting foreign-
ers, 1s only found here. Hartung reads
Zevapkel, the father of

In Homer

referring to

Aristomenes mentioned in the Eighth
Pythian ode.

Koivov déyyos] The scholia are in
doubt whether this phrase refers to Aegi-
na or to the hymn: éore pev Kal rH
Alywav axotom, éore 6€ kal TO Tolnua, TO
Kowov péyyos yuwopevov' ob yap €a ev
apavel Ta Epya adda hwrife. Kowws.
Hartung approves of the second explana-
tion, but I think wrongly.

13. €8 érux.7.r.] But of thy father
Timocritus were still warmed by the genial
sun artfully sweeping the lyre, he would
have often, supported by this strain, cele-
brated his triumphant son, for having
sent home a wreath of crowns from the
games of Cleonae and from rich Athens of
auspicious name, and because at seven-
gated Thebes beside the bright tomb of
Amphitryon the Cadmeans, full fain for
Aegina’s sake, crowned him with flowers.

For fapuevel inspiring (Bergk fapevys,
Lehrs ¢afepe?) see note on Wem. 111. 63.
Timocritus was a kitharistes, not a kitha-
rodos.

15. Tode péeder KAWels] Leaning
against this strain, as against a pillar or
support. The words and the
mutually support each other.

music
Compare
klove xekimevn, £ 307. T@de is almost
equivalent to rowde, compare 76 above
l. 9, and perhaps refers partly to the
Lydian harmony. Timocritus would have
played in Lydian mood. See below, 1. 45

Avila ody appovia méXos.

70 NEMEONIKAI J.

vlov KeNadnoe KANALVLKOV

KXewvaiov 7 am’ ayadvos bpmov atepavwv oTp. y.
TeunpavTa Kal AvTrapav

evovipov at Adavav, OnBaw T év érrarvrots,

otvex “Auditpvovos ayNadv Tapa TtipBov 20

al o) ’
Kadpetot viv ovK aéxovtes avOect piryvvor,

16. vidv] A curious but intelligible
corruption has here crept into the
MSS., Uuvov Kedddnoe Kkaddivikov. The
scribe associated Uuvov with kaddvixov
(coming after ke\ddnoe) and thought that
gos marnp excluded vidv. But viov is
absolutely required both by the construc-
tion and by the third personal pronoun
vw inl, 21. In 1. 16 the transition from
second to third person is an elegance, in
]. 21 it would be harsh. The restoration
of viov is due to Bergk and was also
proposed by Hartung who observed that
kal ao OnBav ereupas a’rw srépavoy in
one scholium points to a personal subject
to méuyavra. Mr Fennell proposes rate’
aykehddnoe, on the ground that the words
of the scholiast dveupnunce Kai dveBddeTo
presuppose some qualification of Ke\d-
dnoe. It seems to me that a copyist who
had this reading before him would never
have written Uuvov KeXddnoe. Mezger
accepts méuwavros, the reading of some
Mss. in |. 18, and takes it as dependent
on vuvov. Mommsen proposed xedddn
(for €xeAddet) oe.

17. KXewvatov] ‘ Dicit KNewvatov aya-
va Nemea, quum Cleonaei diu praesides
essent horum ludorum’, Dissen. Compare
KXewvalwy mpos dvipav, Nem. X. 42.
dpyoc of flowers are mentioned in OJ.
Il. 74.

18. Aurapav] So /sthm. 11. 20 Tals
Nurapats év’APdvais, Aristoph. Acharnians
639 el O€ ris buds brodwmretoas AuTrapas
kanéceev “AOnvas, evipero may av dia Tas
Nurapds, aptwy Tyhy Twepidwas.

19. OrPors tr” & x.7.d.]
certainly mistaken in taking év O7Bas Te

Dissen is

Te coordinates ovvexa
ulyvvov with méupavra. The scholiasts
say that these games were the IoAdeca
(and Pausanias notices a gymnasium and
stadium ‘of Iolaus’, 1x. 23, 1), but
quote Didymus to the effect that, though
the gymnasium was called "IoAdevov the
games were ‘Hpdk\ea.

20. TvpBov] The tomb of Amphitryon
was near the Proetid gate, where was
the stadion in which the games at the
festivals of Heracles and Iolaus were
celebrated. See Pausanias Ix. 23.

22. Altylvas ékatt] A strong affirma-
tion of the friendship of Aegina and
Thebes.

irovot yap «.7-A.] For as a friend
unto friends having come to the happy
hall of Heracles he surveyed their hospit-
able city. It is to be noticed that é\@dv
goes, not with dorv, but with mpos avdav.
gido.ct is dative of the persons interested
and goes closely with dorv. The reading
of the Mss. karédpaxev should (with
Mommsen) be preserved. For karadép-
Kowa cf. 6 16 abrods 7éAuos KaTadépKerau.
It is clear that the Aula of Heracles was
on high ground.

(1) Triclinius read karédpauerv which
Dissen renders szdzzt (=xarédv), Mezger
‘er lief durch die Stadt hinab’. Mr Fen-
nell thinks the ‘metaphor is from navi-
gation’, vax into port; but it would
hardly be felicitous to use such a phrase
of one coming to an inland city. (2) A
scholiast read doru xdr’ €dpaxev as ap-

with oredavwv.

pears from his note, Kal ro evfevov doru
KarahaBwv Tas OnBas, HOvv7AOn Kar’ evxHY
Oedoacba Thy Tov ‘HpakxNéous avAjv. He

NEMEAN IV. 71

Atyivas Exate.
Eéviov adotu Katédpakev

Hpakndéos orXBiav pos avdrav.

\ -. oh
Evv @ tote Tpolav xpatais TeXapov

mopOnce kat Méporras

piro.ct yap diros ehOov

\ \ , \ A
Kal TOV méyav ToNEwLaTAaY ExtrayXov ’AdKvOV),

’
ov TeTpaoplias ye mpl dSua@dexa TéTPO
ad , ’ > a ig / ¢-
Hpwas T éTeuBeBawdtas immodapous dev

dis Tocous.
/ in

Noyov 6 pn) cuvieis’ erret

cv U \ a ”

pélovtra Te kat trabety Eotxev.

\ \ ’ 2 , ’ , x
Ta paxpa © é&evérrew épvKes we TeOmos

also read d\ftos (kar’ edx jv) ; see Bergk’s
note on the line. (3) Bergk proposes
karédpacev, in the sense of karéBadev
‘overthrew his opponent in wrestling’,
édpa being a technical phrase in wrestling
(Theophr. Char. 27 rhv €dpav orpépery,
Theocr. XXIV. 109 €dpoarpddor cvdpes).
But the mere fact that he is obliged to
read map’ av\dv for mpds avddy in |. 24 is
decisive against this proposal.

24. “Hpaxdéos atAdv] This is gene-
rally supposed to be the Heracleion men-
tioned by Pausanias (IX. 11) as standing
just outside the Electra gate.

25. &va@n.7.d.] With whom doughty
Telamon once on a time destroyed Troy and
the Meropes, and the mighty warrior, fell
Alcyoneus, yet not ere he had subdued
twelve chariots by hurling rocks and twice
as many steed-taming heroes who drave
The Meropes inhabited the
Of Heracles in Cos, we

therein.
island of Cos.
read in Homer & 255 xal muy érera
Kéwvs 68 vacowévnv The
battle of Alcyoneus and Heracles took
place at Phlegrae. These three expedi-
tions of Heracles are mentioned together
in the Fifth Isthmian Ode (31 sqq.-) :
eiNe O€ ILepyaulav wépvev 5é oly Kelvw

aévelkas.

Mepdrrwy
€dvea kal Tov BovBdrav ovpet taov

aTreélpomayas éov Ke havein 30

OTp. €.

Préypacow eipev “ANkvovh operépas ov

peloaro

xEepolvy BapvpOdyyo.o vevpas ‘Hpaxdéns.
The form Jv does not occur elsewhere
in Pindar, except in composition.

30. Sls Tocovs] In each chariot there
was a charioteer and a mapaiBarns. In
], 29 the quantity of the second syllable
of 7pwas is not determined, a long or a
short being equally admissible. But in
four places in Pindar the wisshort: Pyth.
I. 53, Ill. 7, IV. 58 and frag. 133.

atepopaxas «.7..] Lattle-skilless
would he show himself to be, whoso under-
standeth not my tale; for it ts not strange
that he who doth a deed should suffer.

The tale will be understood by the
Theandridae who are not dzretpoudyac but
metpay €xovres, see line 76, and especially
by Timasarchus, who had really earned his
victory. Schol. ws yap ‘Hpaxnjjs éwt ev
Ths apis éXelwero, Vorepov dé evixnoer,
oTw Kal 6 dOAnTHs. ware elkos elvar abrov
menTwKevat 7 GAO Te TOLOUTOY Urrometvat.

32. péLovra mabety] This is the prin-
ciple of reciprocity ; whereas Aeschylus’
celebrated dpdcavrt madety is the law of
retribution. Compare Sophocles, fr. 210,
quoted by the scholiast ;

Tov OpavrTa mov TL Kal mabety dpelNeTat.

33- Tad paxpa 8’ «.7.A.] Frome telling

T2 NEMEONIKAI Q.

@pat T émevyomevat’

$y re Od 3 / /

luyys © EdKopas Top veounvia Ouyéuev. 35
7 ” ” a \ a

éumra, Kelmep Eyes Babeia trovtias ada

pécoov, avtitew émiBovria’ oodpa do£opev

Saiwy vméptepor ev dae KaTaBaivew"

POovepa 8 ddrdos avnp Br€étrwv

ip \ / U
yvoOmav KEeveay TKOTM KUALVOEL

the long tale to the end the rule of my art
withholdeth me, and the onward pressing
hours. ekevérew, to relate completely. A
passage in the First Isthmian throws light
on this sentence; 1. 60 mdvta 6° é&eurreiv...
aparpeirar Bpaxd pérpov éxwv tyuvos. The
structure of the Ode depends on fixed
principles; the time allotted to this ode
is fixed; and thus it is impossible to give
more than a certain space to each subject.
For re#uos compare OZ. VII. 88 tina mev
Uuvou TeAuov “Odvptiovikay, and Jsth. v.
20 TéOutov or paul cadéoratrov. Here
probably Pindar intended that re@puds
should recall @éuev of 1. g. For épixew
with infinitive compare Euripides, Heracd.
691 wy Tol mw’ Epuxe dpav wapeckevacpeé-
vov.

35. tvyyex.7.r.] But Lam drawn on
by a new-moon-charm to touch thereon
(that is, upon the tale of the Aeacidae).
The context clearly shews that Dissen
was right in not taking veounvia as the
object of @vyéuev (a possible construction
suggested by jouxla Aryéuev in Pyth. Iv.
296). But I think he is hardly right in
taking it as a temporal dative.—vouunvla
(sc. juépa) is merely the feminine of the
adjective vousjvios which occurs in Lucian
(vouunvioe apro, Lexiphanes 6). There is
no reason why vouvgnvig should not qualify
iuvyy:. luy& is properly a moon-charm,
Id being the moon-goddess at Argos;
and the choice of the word here is
€\kopat is the
vox propria for the attractive working of
a magic charm; so in Theocritus Phar-

suggested by veounvia.

makeutria, tuyé, Eke Th THvov éuov Trott
dGua Tov avdpa.

36. Emma x.7.r.] Albeit the deep sea
brine hold thee up to the waist, yet strain
against the conspiring waves. Surely
reaching land in the full light of day we
shall seem superior to our foes; while
another man, with the (blind) eyes of
envy, ti a dark space whirleth a fruitless
saw that falleth to the ground. ‘The
metaphor is that of a man struggling with
the sea ; and in compliment to the victo-
rious ta\aorns the struggle is represented
as a wrestling match (cf. uéooov exe:
Aristoph. Acharn. 571 éyw yap exopar
€o0s).—I have adopted Donaldson’s ket-
mep (accepted by Bergk) for xatarep which
demands the participle.

Badeta ddua, suggesting Ppevos Badelas
of 1. 8, points the meaning of the passage.
The idea is: I adhere to my principle of
making myths the centres of my epinician
hymns; and I shall certainly bear the
palm, provided the very depth of my
imagination does not seduce me into
exceeding the due limits. Perhaps Pin-
dar was thinking of the advice which
Corinna is said to have given him in his
youth.

38. & dae KataBatvery] Not like
‘the dark man’ of Mem. 11. 41 who
ot mor’ arpexét katéBa modl. To ev pace
is opposed oxdérw in 1. 4o.

40. yvepav] Moral reflexions, maxims,
saws, as opposed to Néyos (cf. 1. 31) and
u000s. xudwde zactat ‘ tosses about’, sug-
gesting that the yaar are trite as well
as empty. xasal meroicay (= ecotcar),
aorist because it is a momentary act, opp.
to kudivoe.

NEMEAN IV. 73

Yapat weToioav.
” / ”
édwxe wotTmos ava€,

’ \ ,% {2 / ’ \
é“ol © oTrolay apeTav

oTp. $.

> AQ? 4 , /

eV Fotd’ OTe ypovos épTrwv TeTpwpmEvay TEdETEL.

éEvpawe, yruxeta, Kal 708” avtixa, popmey€,

Avdia cdv dppovia pédos mepidnpéevov 45

Oivava te cai Kimpo, &v0a Tetdxpos amapxer

6 TeXanwrviadas’ atap
Alas Yadapiv’ exer TaTpwav’

év & Evéeivw medayer pacvvay
vacov’ Métis dé Kpatet

41. pol 8 orolay] But whatsoever
excellence lord Destiny gave me, the course
of time will, [ am well assured, bring to
its allotted perfection. The excellence
meant by Pindar is the art of weaving

legends into his: Epinician Odes. For
moTmos dvaé, compare Ve. V. 40 and

Pyth, Wt. 86 Nayérav yap To TUpavvov
dépkeTat o 0 méyas méTMOS.

43. Tempwpevav] Proleptic with redé-
ge. Compare below l. 61.

44. e&vdarve x.7.d.] Sweet lyre, weave
out forthright on warp of Lydian harmony
the woof of this lay also, beloved by Oenone
and Cyprus. Compare Pyth. lV. 275 Tiv dé
rovTwv e&vpalvoyvta xdpires. Kal 700’, is
this song also, in spite of cavillers. Some
translate azd that too immediately, but
such a sense is pointless here.

46. Oivéva te kal Kirpw] Oenone is
the old name of Aegina, and Pindar seems
to have chosen it here in order to suggest,
by the collocation with Kvapy, wine and
love (oivos and Kvmpis), symbols of Euphro-
syne. The song of the Theban is beloved
by Aegina (7e@iAnuevor), as the Aegine-
tan lay was beloved by Thebes (Pidowce
piros, 1. 22).

dmdpxet] (1) In later writers drdpyw
means to lead off a dance, and Mezger
attempts unsuccessfully to introduce this
meaning here. He translates ‘er eroff-
net den Reigen—der im Folgenden auf-
gefiihrten Konige aus dem Aeakiden-
geschlecht’, As there is no special reason

"Ayres

GOTp..G.
50

for beginning with Teucer, there is little
point in such a statement; moreover
(especially coming after &@a) the word
would require some explanatory addition.
(2) Mr Fennell suggests that ‘*the word
may here mean ‘receive dmapxat’ i.e.
offerings made to the dead hero-founder
of the Aeakid colony in Cyprus”, arguing
that dmdpxoua (offer firstfruits) is a
‘causal middle’. The supposition that
dmdpxw could mean receive an amwapxX7
seems to me extremely hazardous. (3)
The most simple and satisfactory explan-
ation is that dio has the same force as
in dmockéw, amoonuew etc. amoikec means
he lives at a distance; amdpxec means he
reigns at a distance (in the new Salamis),
and contrasts with éyec marp@av in |. 48.
So Dissen, Zeucer procul a patria regnat.
Some emendations have been proposed:
Bergk dmdpxec (=danjpxe secessit, cf.
Hesychius, amfjpxey* dredjunker), Pauw
émdpxet, Rauchenstein aroxet. BD have
the lemma imdpxet. The scholiast inter-
prets by ayeHovetier.

49. aevvdy vaoov] Leuce (White
island, now Snake island), at the mouth
of the Ister, where there was a temple of
Achilles probably founded by Aeginetan
sailors. A scholium explains the name of
the island—é.ad 7d m)\HA0s Trav évveoo-
cevovTww dpvéwy Frou épwiiav* pavraclay
yap Toavryy Tots WAéovae WapeXet.

50. Q@éris] The cult of Thetis was
widely spread in Thessaly, and as the

74 NEMEONIKAI J.

POia’ Neomtorepos 8 *Atreipm Siatrpucta,
BovBotat T60c mpaves EEoxou KaTaKeWTaL
Awddvabev apxopevor mpos ‘loviov tropov.
IlaXiov dé wap mod Aatpiav “lawdKov

Todeuia Yepl TpooTpar wv
IInrevs trapédmxev Aipdvercuy,

dSamaptos ‘Imodvtas “Axkactov doAlais
poap

TEXYVALTL KPNTAPEVOS.

wife of the Aeginetan hero Peleus she
has a place in this enumeration. One
scholium mentions a Oeridecov or Thetis-
temple at Phthia; another quotes Phere-
cydes: émera IIneds gyeto els POiay
kal Oérw émt rev tmmayv TolTay dywv
oikec é€v Papcddw Kal &v Oeridelw 6
Ka\etra ao THs O€ridos Toews.

51. Neomrodepos 8’ x.7..] But Weo-
plolemus rules over the long tract of Epirus
where high lawns of pasturage recline,
shelving even from Dodona as far as the
Tonian strait. Stamptiovos is a Homeric
word, occurring in P 748 mpov medioto
dvamrpvcros TeTuXnKwWS, While the adverb
diampiovoy is used of piercing sound.
Mr Fennell is right in connecting it with
dcampo (Aeolic *Svampv) and in explaining
Here it is
used of a line of hills, just as in the
Homeric passage it is used of one hill.

52. €€oxor] prominentes, above the
lower lands.

it to mean ‘right through’.
5S >

So in Homer, [' 227 &£oxos
"Apyetov...keparyv, of height. Kardxecv-
rat (reclinant, cubant) lie down, of sloping
hills, opposed to steeper hills which stand
up (e.g. 6p0erous mdyos Soph. Anéigone,
935):
to the mind.

Horace’s Usticae cubantis recurs
BovBorns is a Pindaric
word; in /sthm. V. 32 the giant Alcyoneus
is called roy BovBoray. Schol. Bourpodos
yap n Hrepos.

54. Iladlov 8€ x.7.d.]
ation of the Minyae in Thessaly was suc-
ceeded by the rule of the Thessalians,
and this change was connected in legend
with Peleus.

The domin-

Peleus quarrelled with

oTp. 1).

Acastus the last king of the Minyae and
sacked his town Iolcus. The cause of
the hostility was the love and vengeance
of Hippolyta, Acastus’ queen, who played
the same part towards Peleus that Sthe-
noboea played towards Bellerophon,
whose story may be read in the sixth
Book of the //ad. See Nem. V. 26 sqq.

The reading of the Mss. arpelay is
both untranslatable and unmetrical (a
molossus instead of a cretic), and I have
not hesitated to adopt Schmid’s Aatptav.
(So in O/. x1II. 68, trmeov should be
corrected to ¢amuov.)
daric adjective,

Adrpios is a Pin-
occurring O/, xX. 28
Adrpiov...ucbov, the hire of a servant.
Here it is to be taken with rapédwxer,
handed over to serve. Hatpeia being a
wellknown word and Adrpuos very rare, the
corruption was most natural.

55. Todewia xept mportpamuyv] av-
ing turned towards it, but with hostile
(not suppliant or entreating) Aad. mpoa-
Tpéww is regularly used of turning to-
wards in prayer. Bergk after Heyne
reads mpotpardy, having impelled, which
is weak.

56. Atpoverowv] Thessalians.
monia was a name of Thessaly.

58. TéXvator xpyodpevos] The uses of
xpnoOat, to experience (cited by Dissen),
with réxy, dvoTuxXias, Svompaylats, cup-
popats &c. do not support such a use of
xpnodmevos, the reading of the Mss., in
this passage.

Hae-

All these datives describe
a state of the person experiencing, not
the objective cause of an experience.

NEMEAN IV. 75

lal / \ / ‘ / /
ta Aaidadov dé payaipa putevé Fou Oadvarov

é« Noyou IleAtao tais' addadke dé Xeipwr, 60

\ \ ' / L ” °
Kat TO gopotmov Aobev trenmpwpmévov Exepev

Mingarelli and Matthiae proposed or
accepted a conjecture mentioned by Tri-
clinius, ywodmevos ; and Bergk has adopt-
ed in his text an ingenious conjecture of
his own réxvais yapacodmevos, bearing
the same meaning as xwodmevos (xXapac-
ocdpevos=xapaxbels, angry with). But
the reading of the Mss. is not necessarily
wrong because the explanation of Dissen
will not hold. ypijo#a with such a dative
as Téxvaicw naturally means (not tec
experience involuntarily but) fo make use
of or to deal with. Peleus dealt with the
sly arts of Hippolyta and used them for
his own purpose. They led to his sacking
Iolcus; that was the use he made of
them.
gas €& “Axdorouv yuvakds doNas réxvaus

Cf. schol. yoXwGels rats yevndel-

Kal radras els mbpOnow Tis IwAxKod alria
XpHnodwevos bre EreBovevOy.

59. Aat8dAov paxalpa] <A sword
forged by Daedalus or Hephaestus for
Peleus and stolen by Acastus. Bergk
has successfully defended Aadddov the
reading of the mss., which had been
abandoned by Boeckh and most editors
in favour of dadddXw, a conjecture of
Didymus. Bergk has shewn that Dae-
dalus was a name of Hephaestus by a
passage in the Hercules Furens (|. 469):
els de&iay 6€ ony adeEnrhprov EVov Kadier
Aadddov, wevd ddcw and by a vase-
picture in Millin’s Gad/. AZyth. xiii. 48.
That Hephaestus stithied a sword, pa-
xatpa, for Peleus is proved by a fragment
of Hesiod quoted by the scholiast on
this passage and numbered frag. 85 in
Gottling’s edition of Hesiod:

noe 6€ of Karu Oupdy dpliorn alyero

BovrAy

avrov mev oxécOat, Kpbyar 8 dddoxynra
bed xaupav

Kadi, mv ot €revse mepixdutos ’Aud-
yunjets*

ws Thy pacrevwy olos Kata IInAcov alrd
aly’ td Kevratpoow dperxwoor da-
bel.

Moreover Zenobius the paroemiographer
states expressly (v. 20) méuynrac rabrys
[uaxalpas] "Avaxpéwy xal Iivdapos év Ne-
peovikats' pact de adriy bro ‘Hdaicrov
yevouevnv S@pov Inder cwppootyvns evexa
mapa Oedv dobjva. He is speaking of
the proverb pwéya gpovet uaddov 7 IIpdeds
éml TH waxalpa.

breve is equivalent to prepared, tried
to cause; so in B 165 Toladeccr Pévov Kal
Khpa puTever mavTecow. €k AdXov means
by an ambush of Centaurs, as the passage
cited from Hesiod indicates. Pindar was
an ardent student of Hesiod (cp. Mem.
vil. 88) and there is nothing in his words
that renders it necessary to suppose that
he deviated from the Hesiodic story.
Acastus, the son of Pelias, having stolen
the weapon of Peleus hid it on Mount
Pelion, and suborned the Centaurs to lie
in wait for the hero when he was searching
for his sword. Chiron protected Peleus
from the danger. We need not suppose
that Acastus himself took part in the
ambuscade.

61. Kal TO pdpoipoy K.7.r.] And he
(Chiron) was carrying out to its destined
end the fate decreed by Zeus. This is the
interpretation of Dissen and most scholars,
and, I believe, it is right. Both the
view of Mezger that Peleus is the subject
of ékpepev, and that of Mr Fennell that
the verb is intransitive (as in Soph. O. C.
1424) and 7d pdpoimor its subject, seem to
render the line almost otiose. There is
little point in the statement (in this con-
text) that Acds éreNelero Bovdy, and such a
remark is not in Pindar’s manner; but
there is point in saying that Chiron took
part in determining Peleus’ destinies.
Compare Wem. S11. 56 viudevoe x.T.d.

76 NEMEONIKAI

(aNie

A ~\ \ U /
mip dé TayKpates Opacupayavwv Te EeovTwY

v ~) / *) /
dvuxas o€uTaTovs aka

f ’
Te SewvoTaTwY oYacals OddVTMY

éyapev vYrOpovwv piav Nnpeidov,

eloev © evKUKAOY Edpar,
p

otp.@. 65

A lal lod if
Tas ovpavod Bacidjes Trovtov T epeCopevor

a \ / > / b] \ ¢ lal
Sapa Kat Kpatos eEvpavav éyyeves avT@.

This interpretation is confirmed by the
echo of 1. 44, see Zutroduction, p. 64.

62. mip 8€ x.7..] Thetis changed
herself into various forms to escape from
the embraces of Peleus, but the counsels
of Chiron enabled the hero to overcome
the fire, the lion, the dragon and other
shapes which she assumed.—épacupa-
xdvwv is Hermann’s emendation of @pa-
cupaxay. Heracles is called @pacuma-
In this
passage the word felicitously suggests
that the lion was a uaxava of the Nereid.

63. akpav te «K.7.’.] Observe the
singular dxudy, for which we might have
expected dxuds, points. The teeth are
conceived as forming a knife or saw, and
axudv is the sharp edge of the row. ‘The
singular also serves to indicate that Peleus
had to do with only one lion. We may
render: Having defeated masterful fire
and the claws full sharp of wily-daring
lions and a gleaming row of teeth most
fell he married one of the high-throned
Nereids.

xavos, wily-daring in Ol. VI. 67.

oxafw has two meanings, (1)
medical, to open a vein, lance, (2) to
drop, let fall. In Pyth. X. 69 xwrav
oxdcov is drop the oar, let the oar rest,
as in Xen. Cyv. I. 5 oxafew Thy ovpav
Cp.

Phoentssae 454 oxdoov dé dewdv dupa Kat

is to drop the tail. Euripides
Oumov mvods, and, in middle, Aristophanes
Clouds 107 cxacdpevos Thy irmixny, where
it might be rendered in English slang
by cut. In the present passage the word
means to set at rest or fotl; and I have a
suspicion that oxafw was a vox propria
in wrestling for foiling the devices of an

antagonist and causing him to abandon
them. The English defea/, in its proper
sense, seems an adequate rendering.

65. wpiOpcvev] A Pindaric com-
pound. Jsth. Vv. 16 tyOpovoy Kw.

66. edKuKAov &pav] A circle of fair
seats. Pindar probably conceived the
seats as joined together (‘una sedes in
qua divisi singulis diis loci’, Dissen), In
Pyth. Wi. 93 sqq- we read how the gods
feasted at the marriages of Peleus and
Cadmus, and how those heroes saw the
royal sons of Cronus on golden seats and
received wedding gifts kat Kpdvou matdas
Baowjas idov xpvcéas ev Edpats Edva TE
déEavTo.

67. Tds—édefopevor] Bergk illustrates
the genitive (Homer uses the dative) with
é€péfouae from Apollonius Rhodius, A7-
gon. I. 1000 a\X’ 7 pev Kal vos...
épefouévn matrpny Nae and Sophocles
Philoctetes 1123 kat mov moXuds mévTou
Owos Epjmevos (where @iwds is generally
taken with zrov).

68. Sapa Kal Kpdros K.7.A.] wove, as
their gifts, a web of sovereignty to devolve
upon his race. ‘The reading of the Mss.
efépavavy can be racked into a certain
sense, but is by no means satisfactory.
It must be explained as a strong zeugma
‘set forth their gifts and declared the
might that would be upon his race’ (or
monstrarunt et potentiam ad posteros du-
valturam). But éxpatvew dwpa is a doubt-
ful expression, to which I have been
I believe that
é£0mavay is what Pindar wrote; the gods

unable to find a parallel.

are represented as weaving out or plan-

NEMEAN IV. 77

Tadetpwv Td mpos Gopov ov meparov.

aah
AT OT PETE

z 5) \ \ s ” (he
QUTLIS EVPpWTTAaV TOTL YEPTOV EVTEA VAOS 70

v \ / > rn
amopa yap Noyov Ataxov

maidwv Tov amavTa pou dedOety.

Ocavdpidarcr & aeEvyviwvy aéOdhov

KapvE érotwos EBay

oTp. U.

Ovrupria te Kal “loOwot Nepég te cvv0épevos, VAS

v tal ” ” /
évOa teipay éxovTes oikabe KNUTOKApPTOV

ning the gifts which they would shower
upon Peleus and his race. It may be
pointed out that in Theocritus vi. 8
épawvov has usurped the place of tpaivor
in the mss. A strong confirmation of
etvgavay is the fact that é&’paive occurs
in the corresponding line of the sixth
strophe. The Theandridae are compared
to the Aeacidae, and Timasarchus to
Peleus. Even as the gods weave a web
of sovereignty as their wedding gift to
Peleus, so the lyre is bidden by Pindar
to weave a web of song and glory as a
gift for Timasarchus, see Jxtroduction,
p. 64. OSdpa Kat xpdros is virtually a
hendiadys. vpatyw (like puredw) is so
constantly used in a figurative sense that
it almost ceases to bea figure. In Pyth.
IV. 141 we have a close parallel to égv-
galvew Kparos :—

arn’ eve xpy Kat oé...dgpaivew Nourdy

o\Bov.
In Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo, |. 56
we read demeidia PotBos bpaiver, and Plato
even uses the word with olxodoujuara
(Critias, 116 B).

The Mss. give és (or els), yeveas (or
yeveds), adr@ (or a’t®). Boeckh read és
yevedy oi, Dissen adopted és yévos atr@.
The scholiast read éyyevés, restored by
Rittershuis and accepted by Bergk who
writes: ‘Librorum lectio orta est ex inter-
pretamento és yeveds, i.e. fosters Pelei vel
éx yeveds, i.e. a principio ei destinatum’.
The word occurs in em. X. 51.

69. Tadelpwv «.7.d.] From Gadira to
gloomward thou shalt not pass; turn back

again the gear of the ship to the broad
continent. Ta Vdéerpa, Gades, Vjderpa in
Herodotus tv. 8. (dos for dicts, west,
is Homeric. The poet having touched
on the supreme height of Peleus’ bliss
can go no further; he has reached the
Pillars of Heracles.

70. edpwrdv xépoov] Europe (evpw-
mos=evpts). évrea vads, vemos et vela
navis, Dissen; compare O/. VII. 12 Tap-
duvool 7 év évrecw avdOv.

71. amopa] Jt zs impossible, I have
no passage. The plural suggests the
abundance of the theme. Cp. O/. I. 52
éuol 6’ dopa yaorpluapyov makdpwy Tw’
elretv, [ have scruples.

72. Tov atavta} The full legend of
the Aeacidae (viewed as a whole).
above Wem. 1. 69, and below 1. 83.

73. OcavdplBaror x.7.d.] For the The-
andridae I came, true to my compact, a
ready herald of their lusty contests at
Olympia and at the Isthmus and at
Nemea, where entering the lists they re-
turn not homeward uncrowned with fruit-
age of glory. The adjective detlyuos,
making the limbs wax lusty, was probably
formed by Pindar for this passage.

See

75. ovvOésevos] Having made a com-
pact; so in Pyth. XI. 41, he says, address-
ing the Muse, ef uicod ye (or pecAoica,
MSS. so) cuvébev mapéxe pwvav brap-
yupov.

76. KAvtoKdptwyv] Another Pindaric
adjective: whose fruit is glory. For
meipay éxovtes, sustaining the trial, com-
pare above l. 30.

78 NEMEONIKAI A.

rd /, , ” i / 7 > ’ /
OV VEOVT AVEU otepavor, TTATPQAV LY AKOVOMLEDV,

/ a
Tipacapye, Teayv éruivixiorow dovdais

/ ” > /
TpoToNoy Eupevat. el O€ TOL

patpo mw’ éte Kadduxde? Kedevers 80
atddav Oéuev Ilapiov XiPov NevKorépar. oTp. ta’.
¢ .
0 Xpuaos Expomevos

’ \ ” (4 / id \ rn > an
avyas éevEev atracas, tyuvos b€ TaY ayabav
Epypatov Bacihedow lioodaipova Tevyer
gata’ xeivos aud ’AyépovTs vateTawy ua 85
yA@ooay evpéTwo KeXadnTW, ‘OpaotpLatva

77. watpav «.7.\.] Where we hear, cles to the bright island, Leuce, of

Timasarchus, that thy clan ts a minister
unto songs of victory; that is the Thean-
dridae win victories, supply choruses and
pay poets for their celebration. For
mpomoXos compare Olymp, XIII. 54 “Apyot
kal mpomédos, the Argo and her crew.
Pindar’s motive in using the curious ex-
pression has been pointed out in the
Introduction p. 65.

79. eb 8€ ro. x.7.A.] But if thou biddest
me yet set up to thy mother’s brother
Callicles a slab whiter than Parian stone,
know that gold in the hands of the refiner
zs wont to reveal the full radiance of its
beams, and a hymn in praise of brave
deeds maketh a man equal to kings in
fortune. For the meaning, and the al-
lusion to the Olympic victory of 1. 75,
I may refer the reader to the /troduction,
p. 66.

patpw] According to the scholiast,
Callicles was the brother of the victor’s
mother and Euphanes her father. pdarpws
itself is ambiguous as it may mean either

“ avus or avunculus maternus. It would
seem that the family of Timasarchus’
mother as well as that of his father be-
longed to the Theandrid clan.

81. otdAay] a sepulchral stélé. For
6éuev compare above 1. g. (The line is
imitated by Horace 1. 19 Pario marmore
purius.) By the choice of evxorépay
Pindar would compare the glory of Calli-

Achilles (in v. 49).

82. 6 xpvods] Gold here is symbolical
of ‘the golden olive leaves’ of Olympic
crowns (cp. Vem. 1. 17). Soin Pyth. x.
67 it is symbolical of the ‘golden laurel’;
see above, /utroduction, p. 66. The
refiner is the poet.

83. dardoas] Not a// (rdoas), but 2
their perfection. See above, Nem. 1. 69.

84. Tebdxet] corresponding to redxe in

line 4. The hymn is both a healer and
kingmaker. épyudtrwy recalls épyudrwr
in 1.6. éoodaluwy means here ‘equal in

fortune’, not ‘equal to the daiuoves’ (as
in Aeschylus, Persae, 633).

85. Ketvos x.7.\.] Let him (Callicles)
dwelling on the shores of Acheron detect
my tongue resounding clear where he won
the bloom of Corinthian parsley at the
contest of the deep-thundering Trident-
wielder. Kkedadjris is found only here.
For Baptxrumos as an epithet of Poseidon,
see Hesiod, Zheogony, 818; Olymp. 1. 72
Baptxrurov eirplaway. *Opoorplawa is a
Pindaric name of Poseidon, cf. O/. vil.
48, Pyth. Ul. 12 é6poorplavav Gedy. Pindar
promises to celebrate Callicles in an
Isthmian Ode, and it is a gratuitous
change on the part of Bergk to read ver’
for WW” év.

88. @4Anoe] The bloom of the Isth-
mian chaplet was figurative, not literal;

the parsley was withered. Cf. schol.

NEMEAN IV.

“7? > ,’ an f
iv év ayove BapuxtvTov
Odrnoe Kopwlows cedtivors’

tov Evdavns €Oérov yepatos mpoTatop,

+0 ods aeioeTat, Trai.

op. tf.
90

drrovocr & iAuKes GAOL’ Ta & avTos av TIs ton,

Tsth, UW. 15 Tots ofy Ta "ToOmea dywreso-
pévors céd\wov Enpdy 6 arépavos, vypov de
Tots TA Néuea.

89. tov Evdavys x.7-’.] The corrup-
tion of 1. go, in which the three Mss. on
which we depend for the last 28 verses
of this ode (B, B, D) agree, renders the
meaning of this passage extremely un-
certain. Not one of the emendations
proposed is really satisfactory, as they do
not account for the corruption in our
text. Hermann proposed 6 ods dewey
mote, mai, but why should dewéy more
have ever become delcerar? Boeckh read
similarly ods dewév wore mat, Hartung
dewé ool more, mat, Rauchenstein ods
dewey TéTe, Tat, Mommsen deloerat, Tai,
3ergk proposed
Tov Evddvns é0é\wv yeparos mpomdtwp

6 obs.

6 obs y’ émdie mat
quas victorias libenter Euphanes anim-
advertit, which, besides being improbable
from a critical point of view, gives a weak
sense,

It appears to me that the unmetrical
reading inl. 90 must be due to the in-
trusion of a gloss into the text. There
is no reason to question the genuineness
of deloerat, which must have been the
first word of the verse. If the word or
words succeeding deloerae had acciden-
tally fallen out and 6 ods, wat a gloss on
mpomdtwp stood in the margin, the gloss
would have almost certainly crept into
the text. I propose, therefore, to deal
with the line as if we found

deloerar —~—
in the Mss.

Pindar is comparing the Theandridae
to the Aeacid kings. He has indicated
in 1. 81 (see note) that Callicles corre-

sponds to Achilles; further in 1. 92 (see
note) he uses words which recall Neopto-
lemus. But in the list of the Aeacidae
Thetis is mentioned between Achilles and
Neoptolemus (1. 50); and we are therefore
led to suppose that Pindar, in speaking
of Euphanes, used words which recalled
Thetis. So little is said of the goddess
(Oéris 5€ xpare? POia) that the problem
is narrowed. I conjecture that Pindar
wrote
deloeTar POipévas,

of whom Euphanes, his old grandfather,
will be full fain to sing to the dead.
Euphanes_ represents the ‘Theandrids
among the @@imevo, as Thetis the
Aeacids at Phthia.

gt. dAdovor 8’ GActkes dAAoL] Men of
each generation have their own comrades.
Perhaps Pindar was thinking of the pro-
verb mE HrAiKa Tépre, but adixes here
has a wider sense than usual and means
not coevals, but contemporaries; e.g.
Euphanes and Callicles.

7a. 8’ avtds k.7.d.] Lach man imagines
that the deeds whereof he himself has
knowledge are the loftiest argument for
The Mss.
Mingarelli’s reading dvra is adopted by

a tale. have dy tis TUXy.-
Bergk. To this may be objected: (1)
the corruption is not accounted for, (2)
we expect dv, (3) dvrta ruxeiy requires
the genitive (as in Mem. vi. 27). Her-
mann’s dy tus tidy cannot be entertained
as there is no reason why ty should
have been corrupted. My reading lof
(subjunctive of toay.; Pindar uses icam,
ictuev and toavtt, pres. part.) accounts
for the corruption. Owing to the simi-
larity of adjacent syllables ANTICICHI

became ANTICHI, dy Tis y, and the un-

NEMEONIKAI J.

Exmetai tus Exaotos e£oydtata pacba.

olov aivéwy ke Medrnoiav épida otpédor,

pynmata THEKOD, amdnatatos év NOY@ EdKEL,

paraka pev ppovéwy €adois,
tpayds dé TadiyKdTows Epedpos.

meaning 7 was changed to 7x7 to make
sense.—gdoat depends on efoxwrara.
It is usually taken with €\mera at the
expense of the sense.
graceful compliment to the victor.

Pindar is paying a
‘ Eu-
phanes thought Callicles preeminent 5
I consider the deeds of Timasarchus
éLoxwrara.’

g2. €oxeTara] This word responds to
oxo. inl. 52. See Zntroduction, p. 65.

g2. otov x.7.d.] ‘What an adversary
in speech were he who learned a lesson
from Melesias! How he would wrestle
with sinuous words, and resistless with-
stand constraint in the trial of story,

a
gentle dealer to the noble, but a sovereign
wrestler rough to naughty foes !’

For an explanation and defence of this

rendering see Appendix A, note 5.

The trainer Melesias is mentioned in
Nem. vi. 66 Olymp. VIII. 54.
orpopy) meant a wrestling-trick, ‘twist’;
macas otpopas otpéperOa, Plato, Le-

and

public, 405. For €\xew compare Hesiod,

Scut. Her, 302 éuaxovro mtE Te kal
€\Kn 0dr.
gs. €odots] The short quantity of

the first syllable of éoXots in this passage
is to be noted; cf. Pyth. 111. 66 and O/.
If. 0s

96. &peSpos] Properly ying in watt,
posted in reserve; and then technically of
the odd man in wrestling pairs. See
Cp. Aeschylus, Choeph.

866 rodvde radny povos wy epedpos boc ots

below, VI. 63.

médret Oetos Opéorys ape.

NEMEAN V.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY AT NEMEA IN THE
BOYS’ PANCRATION WON BY PYTHEAS OF AEGINA.

INTRODUCTION.

IN hymns composed for Aeginetan victors one remarks that Pindar
generally introduces images and metaphors taken from sailing or swimming, or
here and there finds a place for a nautical term, evidently remembering that
his ode will be sung in the city of a seafaring people and wishing to give it a
certain savour of the sea. Now the Fifth Nemean Ode! is more thoroughly
‘sea-saturate, has more of the marine taste, than any other of the series of
Aeginetan hymns,—sounding almost as if it had been actually composed
on the beach of Aegina, in view of her harbour and ships,—a true song
of the sea. And it is certainly possible that Pindar, enjoying the hospitality
of Lampon, a citizen who was noted for his kindness to strangers and
father of the strong boy whose victory in the pancration was the occasion
of the ode, may have written it, or at least been inspired, there. It is built
upon the legend of the temptation of Peleus by the comely and delicate
Hippolyta and his subsequent marriage with Thetis. For Pindar this
marriage, more than a mere marriage, meant the type of highest happiness
(8\Bos), in whatever that happiness may consist; Thetis is a true ‘wish-

1 Of the three odes (Memean V.,
Isthmian 1v., Isthmian Vv.) in honour of
the sons of Lampon, J/sthmian Iv. was
written latest, and a passage in it shews
that it was composed not long after the
battle of Salamis. Vemean v. is the
earliest of the three.

As to the interpretation of the ode,
Dissen thinks the murder of Phocus is
mentioned in v. 10 to warn the son of
Lampon against quarrelling, and that
the myth of Peleus is told as an edify-
ing example of chastity. Mommsen, as
usual, seeks political motives and loses
himself in conjectures. L. Schmidt
assumes that Euthymenes was defeated

at the Isthmus and specially desired that
his defeat should be referred to—a view
worth mentioning as a curiosity. Mezger
finds the leading idea in 1. 40

motrmos dé Kplver ovyyevys Epywv epi

TOT

—the value of noble descent.
the hymn thus: apxa 1—6; xararpora 7,
8; dudados g9—373 meTakaTaTpoTa 38—
40; oppayls 41—54.

This arrangement spoils the symmetry
of the ode, by forcing the mythical
prayer of the Aeacids into the same
division as the myth of Peleus.

For the family of Lampon see Affen-
dix A, note 6.

He divides

82 NEMEAN V.

maiden, waschmdadchen, as her name is actually said to mean, and the
wooing and winning of her by Peleus is an image of any high, d@vzze success
attained by effort.

The ode falls naturally into three divisions corresponding to its three —
metrical systems. And each part offers us duly one moment of the thought
which is worked out. (1) In the first system we have the prayer of the
Aeacids for the people of Aegina. (3) In the third system the victories of
Aeginetans indicate that the wish had been answered. (2) In the second
system, it is shewn, by the allegorical myth of Peleus, why Aegina has
been thus signalised by divine favour. That such is the framework of the
ode may easily be proved.

The glory reflected by Aeginetan victories in the public games on Aegina
herself is strongly emphasised in the third system. Euthymenes’ successes
are ‘for Aegina’ (Aiyiva 1. 41) and ‘glorify’ the Aeacids (1. 42); and the poet
rejoices ‘

OTL

€odoiot papvarar Tépe TAaGA TALS.
And that this is to be regarded as a fulfilment of the prayer of the Aeacids,
is significantly conveyed by the use of a striking expression in the third
system which echoes an equally striking expression in the first system. Of
Peleus, Telamon and Phocus praying at the altar of Zeus, it is said, 1. 11,

mitvay T eis aidépa yxeipas apa.
Euthymenes in 1. 42 is described as

> ,
Nikas ev aykodverot mitver!,

The two verbs (airvnus and witvw) are in sense distinct, but Pindar clearly
connected them, and there is a certain kinship in their meanings.

It is next to be shewn that the story of Peleus symbolizes, in brief, and
explains, the history of Aegina. Peleus won Thetis because he respected
Zeus Xenios; this is the essence of the tale. And so, it is to be inferred,
Aegina won the accomplishment of her wishes by her unremitting exercise of
hospitality.

Several hints leave us in no doubt that this is the argument.

(1) Immediately before the tale of the prayer Aegina is called

ditav E€vwyv dpovpar.

(2) marépos ‘EAXaviov (to whom the Aeacids pray) |. 10 is echoed in rarpis
£e.viov (1. 33) whom Peleus respected.

(3) ‘They prayed’ is expressed by the unusual, archaic word

Oéacarro (1. 10)

which is rendered very prominent by its metrical position ; for not only is its
first syllable a ¢e¢rasemos (measuring four times) but it is preceded by a
pause equivalent to a Ze¢rasemos: thus
~ A Geoc- ‘A. Gpro.
' The emphasis of witvwy is increased — See below, p. 94.
by its allusive associations with zérpos.

INTRODUCTION. 83

(See Metrical Analysis p.88.) Pindar has adopted this means to express
that as the ‘w7si-maid’ Oéris was won by Peleus, so the w7shes of the
Aeacids for Aegina were fulfilled.

But the allegory of Peleus, if it applies generally to Aegina, may be on
this occasion taken to themselves especially by the kindred of Lampon, a
man noted for his hospitality', and whose name (in 1. 4) receives a metrical
emphasis similar to that of @éocavro. And thus Euthymenes, uncle of the
young victor Pytheas and himself an unusually distinguished champion, is said
to have been made happy by the embraces of the goddess Victory and
caressed by hymns of praise, even as Peleus was blessed by the guerdon of
the sea-goddess and glorified by Apollo and the Muses. And the fact that
one of Euthymenes’ successes was achieved on the Isthmus yields a welcome
opportunity to accentuate the sea-motive by introducing the king of the ocean
himself, and also enables the poet to manage a natural but skilful transition
from myth to ‘modern’ history.

But why, one asks, is Euthymenes the prominent figure? why does the
myth bear on him, when the ode is expressly written for Pytheas his nephew ?
It is an instance of the dexterity of Pindar’s art. Pytheas is only a boy, not
yet of nubile age, and the infelicity of comparing his victory to a sexual union
is avoided by making Euthymenes a sort of intermediate reflector. The
artist indicates in his own way that Pytheas will be even as Euthymenes ; and
therefore he may expect in future years, like Euthymenes, to win his ‘sea-
bride,’ rovriav dkowrw, too, perhaps even in the shape of a victory gained also
at the Isthmus.

This is the central thought. Both Pytheas and Euthymenes, his mother’s
brother, have shed glory on Aegina and the Aeacid name. The elder
champion may be said to have attained to the prize and pride of life, figured
in the wooing of the great Aeacid Peleus ; and the younger, a pancratiast like
his uncle, may hope to achieve the same ideal. Let us now see how this
thought is worked out in detail.

The stately odes which Pindar is fond of likening to the works of
architects or of sculptors have one advantage certainly over statues, in the
mere fact that they can travel easily by land and sea. They are dya\pata,—
a word which, meaning any gracious things that shed glory or yield delight
by their beauty, came to have the special sense of carven images, the
ornaments of a temple or agora; but they are not limited to motionless
existence on a base, like that statue for example of Themistius the victor’s
grandfather, which Pindar may have himself seen in the portal of the temple of
Aeacus, crowned with a garland of grass and flowers, as he describes it in
the closing verses. With this comparison and distinction of the two arts the
prelude opens, naturally leading up to the transmission of the present song,
proud of its power of motion, to distant lands, that the victor’s fame may be
diffused throughout the whole Greek world. And with his peculiar skill in
causing vivid pictures to rise up out of a word or two, Pindar makes us fancy

1 See /sth. V. 70.

84 NEMEAN V.

that he has literally issued from the workshop of some sculptor in Aegina—
we think of the famous Onatas who perhaps actually wrought a statue for this
same son of Lampon—and is going down to the wharf to embark his song in
ships, large argosies and smaller craft about to hoist their sails, bound for
distant cities.

I dwell on this proem because it determines what may be called the
imaginary background of the ode. The ‘sweet song’ is shipped for foreign
parts ; the sea spreads out before us; and we are learning what the message
is, the literal burden or freight.

The sea spreads out before us from the beginning to the end of the piece,
and the circumstance that this background is implied, not expressed,
illustrates a notable difference between ancient and modern art. The ancient
poets, presupposing in their hearers and readers a swifter and more active
imagination, did less to assist it; they were more reserved; and this artistic
zvonza is especially characteristic of Pindar. A modern poet, were he writing
anything similar, would probably describe the sea in express words and
pause in his progress to make his reader hear the wreathéd horn of Triton or
see Proteus rising from the wave. But Pindar does not think it necessary
to do that. Those who have really eyes and ears for his words will hear and
see the Greek ocean rolling and sounding before them; and it will soon
become transfigured, not through any extraneous description, but in the
natural progress of the work, by the presence of mermaidens and ocean-
kings.

The message of the ‘sweet song’ is that Lampon’s son Pytheas has been
proclaimed victor at Nemea in the pancration contest which required
superiority in both boxing and wrestling. Pytheas is a strong-bodied boy
not yet adolescent, and there is an allusion to the joy which his mother will
soon have in her son’s puberty, when his cheeks display, like a physical sign
of summer heat, soft down compared to the plumage of a grape, and
suggesting even some Dionysiac association of the voluptuousness of nature.
The pride of parents in their offspring’s puberty is a pagan feature, which had
not disappeared in the days of St Augustine.

Pytheas’ victory is one more distinction for Aegina, the city so good to
strangers—‘ foreign faces’ in her streets and harbour may have been some-
times noticeable—, and to the Aeacidae, whose descent is from Cronos and
Zeus and the golden daughters of Nereus. Thus, at the beginning of the
hymn, the usual formality of making mention of Zeus is informally complied
with, and at the same time the waters begin to change under the golden
wand into a mythical sea where wonders may occur.

Peleus and Telamon and Phocus were the original Aeacids. The mother
of Peleus and Telamon was Endais the daughter of Chiron, the centaur;
Phocus was born of the nymph Psamathea, ‘the sand-maiden,’ on the sea-
beach, emi pnypim movrov. These three sons of Aeacus stood by the altar of
Zeus Hellanios in Aegina, and raising their hands to the firmament prayed
for the glory of their island and her wealth in men and ships. They prayed
together ; but a misfortune led to the banishment of Peleus and Telamon

INTRODUCTION. 85

from their home. This event, of which Pindar speaks with dark shy
reticence, was the death of Phocus, whom, in a fit of jealousy because he was
their father’s favourite, his half-brothers slew. Can we profitably or fitly
apply the moral standards of ordinary men to the deeds of half-divine heroes ?
Pindar perhaps asked himself, and in the full spirit of ‘hero-worship’ he prefers
silence, suspension of judgment (as if the question were a supernatural
mystery), leaning rather to interpretation in favour of the heroes.

At this delicate question the poet, with conscious abruptness, pulls
himself up, remarking on the advantages of silence which is often the fairest
speech, true evdnuia. And having checked himself as at some impassable
obstacle he prepares for a new start, likening himself to a leaper who has
nimble knees and can leap far, if his theme be happiness (dASos), or
prowess in games or war,—and then, recalling his imagination as it were
from an excursion into the gymnasium back to the scene really before
him, likens himself to an eagle which can shoot across the ocean, mépav
movroto. The eagle had a peculiar fascination for Pindar, so that references
to it are quite a note of his poetry, the most striking passage being that in
which the bird of Zeus is described as sitting on the God’s sceptre, lulled to
sleep by the charm of golden Phorminx, his supple, almost fluid (vypdv) back
trembling a little and somewhat voluptuously, to the influences which agitate
the air.

The idea that the eagle is sensible to the concord of pleasant sounds was
in Pindar’s mind here too, for having compared his own spirit of song to the
power of the bird to fly over seas, he goes on to describe the quire of the
muses singing on Mount Pelion at the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, and
Apollo himself, as Musagetes or Muse-leader, sweeping the seven strings of
the lyre with his golden plectrum. And thus the connexion of thought is
really close between lines 21 and 22; there is not, as at first might appear, a
break and then a fresh start. Phorminx has an attraction for the eagle,
which therefore shoots forth to Mount Pelion to hear her—for the instrument
is half personified—answering to Apollo’s touch: this is the graceful figure.
The treatment of the lyre (whose seven strings are called seven tongues) as
though she were alive, and her vibration the actual pulse of an organism,
may be compared to the personification of the violin by modern writers}.

But there is more than this behind; the eagle flying to Pelion has other
feathers for the poet’s shafts. As we shall see in the Sixth Nemean Ode,
Pindar regarded the eagle as a special omen of the house of the Aeacidae,
partly on account of the connexion of both with Zeus, partly for the
sake of the resemblance of aierds and Ataxos. So here too the eagles, to
which Pindar compares himself, are the Aeacidae ; just as his metaphor of
the leaper has reference to a leap of Euthymenes, as we shall see hereafter.
Odes are sung on Mount Pelion for the eagles’, that is for the Aeacidae,

1 For example in Mr Eric Mackay’s mpoppuv dé Kelvols.
Letters of a Violinist. According to Schmidt’s analysis of the
25See note; 1. 22 metre, mpdppwv is rendered very promi-

86 NEMEAN V.

chiefly for Peleus ;—and this thought is important for the understanding of
the application of the myth.

The nome sung by the Muses began, according to the rules of such
compositions, with the praise of Zeus, then told the story of Peleus and
Thetis, and how Peleus was tempted by Hippolyta to dishonour the bed of
his host Acastus!. Hippolyta is described by a word which the Greeks often
used of oriental luxuriousness or soft-living, g8pa, which here almost means
‘sensual’; she was like one of those ‘comely and delicate women’ spoken of
in oriental scriptures. Peleus rejected her bold straight words, so direct that
they were really abashing, not from any idea of abstract right and wrong, but
because Acastus was his host, and he ‘feared the wrath of father Zeus who
protecteth the host and guest.’ Then Zeus, in recognition of his piety,
promised him that he should wed one of the princesses of the sea.

This episode of Peleus’ temptation is introduced, like every episode in
Pindar, with a purpose. It is a typical instance, not of chastity—far from
it—, but of reverence for Zeus Xenios, for the rights and duties of guest and
host ; and this reverence receives a conspicuous reward. Even so Aegina
herself, as Pindar never wearies of telling, was a faithful votary of Zeus
Xenios, pita £éver dpoupa (1. 8); her children, and among the rest conspicuously
Lampon, the victor’s father, were kind to strangers. And Pindar implies
that the great successes gained by Aeginetans—in this instance by
Lampon’s kindred,—at the Hellenic festivals are a divine reward for their
hospitable manners.

Zeus plans that Peleus shall wed a sea-maiden (ovriay), one of Nereus’
daughters, called golden before and now described as spinning with golden
distaffs; and he secures the consent of Poseidon. With these words we
become conscious of the sea again; we prepare to leave Mount Pelion; we
see Poseidon driving from Aegae to Corinth ; and the peals of Apollo’s lyre
pass suddenly into the sounds of the flutes which greet the coming of the
sea-king to his Isthmian games.

And now comes the application of the myth :—the kindred of Lampon
may be compared to that greater Aeginetan family, the Aeacids, the eagles,
who fly beyond the sea. As Peleus won the goddess Thetis, so Euthymenes
enjoyed the embraces of the goddess Victory; and this exploit resembled its
model also in having taken place beyond the sea and under the auspices of
Poseidon. And moreover, in celebration of his victory, Euthymenes was
caressed by hymns as by something tangible (éyavoas), even as the eagle
Peleus heard the nomes of Apollo and the Muses on Pelion. Euthymenes
was a pancratiast, like Pytheas, but it seems highly probable that he won an
Isthmian victory in jumping, as Pindar would hardly have chosen the

nent in recital. So in 1. 46, Nicouv 7’, 1 Hippolyta Aerswaded her husband ;
referring to the Pythian games at Megara, meioa’ axolrav. ‘This is afterwards
has alike prominence. The implication echoed, for the sake of pointing a con-
seems to be that as Apollo shewed him- _ trast, in ll. 36, 37 mpagew dxovrey—llooet-

self favourable to the Aeacids, so he was ddwva meloas.
kind to Euthymenes.

INTRODUCTION. 87

metaphor of the leaper and used technical terms (see above), if it had not
borne specially on the matter in hand. An unfortunate corruption in the
manuscripts renders the exact expression uncertain, but it seems likely! that
Euthymenes was represented ‘darting’ or ‘leaping’ to meet Victory.

Successes at Nemea, at Aegina and at Megara had also fallen to the lot
of Euthymenes, and Pindar indicates them as if they were successes in love.
Nemea, the nymph, was true to him (dpape, ‘clave to him’); and the month
Delphinios, in which the Aeginetan and Megaric victories were gained, is
spoken of as a comely youth whom Apollo once loved and who now be-
stowed his favours upon the champion of Aegina. Moreover Megara is
called ‘the hill of Nisus with fair arms or hollows,’ evaykys, a coinage of
Pindar, suggesting the hollow of the arm and recalling the phrase of a few
lines before, Nixas ev aykdvecou.

By these victories Euthymenes has shed glory on his race, which, as
Aeginetan, is closely connected with the race of Peleus (I. 43). Even so
Pytheas by his recent victory was said, at the beginning of the hymn, to have
done honour to the Aeacids. And thus Pytheas is compared to Euthymenes
who was compared to Peleus’.

And in this 43rd line we are brought back for a moment, as by a sudden
flash of association, but with design on the part of the poet, to the sculptor’s
workshop from which he issued at the beginning of the poem. The word
dyadXer, ‘brightens with glory,’ recalls the aya\yara, ‘bright or glorious
things, which the sculptor makes and the poet makes too; and the words
occur in almost the same parts of metrically corresponding verses. Pindar
has wrought an dyaApa for Euthymenes no less than for Pytheas.

The naming of Apollo here, in connexion with Euthymenes’ victories at
Aegina and Megara, is also notable, and the idea seems to be that, as Apollo
patronised Peleus, so he is favouring Euthymenes.

A reference to the Athenian Menander, who trained Pytheas for the
contest in which he won ‘a sweet meed for his toils,’ leads up to a sort of
exodion in praise of Themistius, the father of Euthymenes and Pytheas’
mother. The poet reminds us of the background—the sea and the ships;
he bids the Muse hoist the sails to the sailyard, using a technical phrase of
navigation. Themistius in his day had won two prizes, for boxing and in the
pancration, at Epidaurus, and his statue stood in the portal of the temple of
Aeacus, crowned with chaplets of flowers and grass, under the auspices of the
fair-haired Charites. Without some mention of (or, at least, allusion to)
the Charites or beings of kindred nature an ode of victory would perhaps
have seemed ungraceful.

This hymn, of whose thought I have sketched the framework and
tried to suggest the spirit, is full of pictures and expressions, which lay hold
of the imagination and dwell in the memory, although they are marked by

1 see note I. 43. and m«arpdémodw 1. 8; and also by the
2 This comparison is further indicated circumstance that 1. 43 is addressed to
by oOévec yviwy Opacet 1. 39 compared Pytheas.
with evpucdevys 1. 4; by warpws 1. 43

58 NEMEAN V.

the temperance or irony of the severest Greek art. The statuary; the sea-
faring language beloved of Aeginetans; the grace of adolescence; the
golden Nereids,—that note of gold sounding again in the god’s golden
plectrum and in the golden distaffs of the nymphs; the heroes praying by
the altar ; the ‘Sand-maid’ in travail by the sea-beach; Apollo Citharoedus
leading the heavenly quire; Poseidon who cometh from Aegae ; the festive
companies at Corinth; the statue of Themistius, with garlands of grass and
flowers—these among other impressions and pictures come to us successively
in the bright sea air.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.
Dy Vo (the ee eG a = a = = SV = 9 == tN (14).
UUs 2— As b. tu muy He tu een | turn
iN 7m NS a)
UV. 5, 6. a. tue fj te YY 45 = (14).

The strophe is of mesodic structure, the formula being
o_o
TAs Or O a One TA
and thus the mesodus itself is mesodic. To carry through this structure
Schmidt has to assume that the first syllable of the fourth line of each
strophe (in other words of the third part of the mesodus) is a pakpa terpa-
onpos (LJ) preceded by a pause or etuua of equivalent length'. This pause
would have the effect of accentuating strongly the first words of these lines,
namely Adprevos, Oeooavto, mpoppav dé, Teiaai’, woTpos O€é, Nicovr’, and, as
such an accentuation really assists the comprehension of the hymn, I am
strongly disposed to concur in Schmidt’s analysis.

EPODE.

UU. 1,2 a
, i
SES LOSS) | tu | ORO ORC On ne

-Uu-o-US- (17)-
Gs Bi, hs He a
tuum |4 | 40 - -- = | 4 - --U (£7):
UV. 5 6. 6 Fe - e — — — — A tU tu yy ey ft (14).

The structure is epodic, the epodos (2) being itself perhaps mesodic. Thus:

a 84+9
(he 8+9
OOM ao

The rhythm of this ode is dactylo-epitritic.

' Schmidt says ‘eine Triseme der eine not ¢vésemoi; a trochee in this rhythm
triseme Pause voranging’. This seemsto being equivalent (by rov7) to four metri-
be an inadvertence. The feet of a dac- cal units (v), or in musical notation
tylo-epitritic composition are ¢etrasemot four quavers.

NEMEONIKAI E’.

IMYOEA:

AITINH DH:

IIAIAI TATKPATIASTH:.

Ovx avdpiavtoro.ds ei’, bot éEdXLWUaoVTA Fepyaler Oar ayadpaT

em avtas Babuidos

OTp. a.

, 2) ’ ¢ / , , / nr) , /
€gTAOT* GAN el Tacas OAKabOS év T AKATM, YAUKEL aoLba,

et ee) ; ’ /
ately am Atyivas, dsayyéXXolo , OTL
>

Aaptrovos vidos Hubéas evpucbevrs

lal / / ,
vikn Nepmeious TayKpatiov aotépavor, 5

wv / / / , 9 > / ? ,
OUuUT@ yEevuol dawov TEPELVAV MATEP otvav0as OTT WpPav,

I. OUK GvdptayvTotrotos ety,” x.7.A.] LZ
am not a maker of statues that I should
frame images to stand in repose on the
self-base. In Lsthm. 11. 45 he uses the
same expression of his hymns, émel roc
ovk ENwUcovTas avTous elpyacduay. Eeduvbw
is used of rest on a holiday.

ém’ avtas] More usually ém ras at’ras.
But seJf and the same (der selbe) are one
notion; self-same is merely a superlative
of same. There are some examples of
this use in Homer, see M 225, VY 480,
0 107, k 263, 7 138. We may reproduce
the unusual omission of the article by
imitating Shakspere’s ‘self-metal’ &c.
Baduis occurs in Pyth. V. 9 axpav amd
Babuldwv (steps).

2. GAN éml macas x.7.\.] Lut, O
sweet song, hte thee from Aegina on every
argosy and in every skiff, spreading the
tidings that Lampon’s son, Pytheas of
massive strength, ts winner at the Nemean
games of the crown in the pancration,
though his mother seeth not yet upon his
cheeks the tender summer-ripeness of the
grape-down.

For evpvofevns compare above III. 36.
I have retained m7, the reading of the
Mss., which editors generally alter to vi«n
(impft. from vixnut) after Heyne. But,
as Bergk remarks, the poet quotes the
herald,—vepettt foeta praeconts vocem.
For with accusative
compare (Vem. X. 48 xadkov...dvTe...
évikacay.

6. yévuor] So the Mss.; Hermann
unnecessarily yévut.

vukav *to win’

The word includes
the chin as well as the cheeks. Bergk is
right in taking warép’ as the dative case.
It is possible that Pindar might have
said ‘the summer-season, tender mother
of the grape-down’, but he would have
hardly made it the object of ¢aivwy
yévuot. A youth displays the grape-down
of puberty, not the mother of the grape-
down, on _ his The
interest in the adolescence of her child
is a graceful touch.

cheeks. mother’s
Bergk compares
Pyth. Vil. 85 ov6€ woddvTwy tap parép’
> 5 f ‘ * Ul .
appl yéXws yAuKYs wocev xapw. For
olvavOas 6rwpa compare Euripides, Phoe-
nissae, 1160 apre olvwirdv yévur.

90 NEMEONIKAI E’.
N \ > \
é« 8€ Kpdvov Kai Znvos tipwas aixuatas putevdévtas Kal amo
an ’ /
ypuoedv Nnpynidwv GvT. a.
AlakiSas éyépapev patpoTroniv te, Pirav Eévwv dpovpav’
Tay Tor evavopov TE Kal vavoLKNUTaV
béccavto rap Bwpov tatépos “EXXaviov 10
Uy an € la)
aTaytes, Titvay T els aldépa yetpas apa
\ (é te
’"Evéaidos apiyvates viot Kat Bia Pwxov KpEorTos,
a n € a I
6 tas Geod, Ov Vapabeva Tixt et pnyptve TovTov. err. a’.

aidéouat meya Fecrrety év Sika Te mn) KEKLVOUVEUMEVOY
be tad Y “ MN) fod ?

7. @« 8& Kpdvov x.7.r.] And that
(ir:) he glorified the warrior heroes
sprung from Zeus and Cronos and from
Nereus’ golden daughters, even the Aea-
cidae, and the mother city, land that
loveth strangers.

Aeacus, the son of Zeus and Aegina,
married (1) Endais, daughter of Chiron,
and begat by her Telamon and Peleus,
(2) Psamathea, the Nereid, whose son
was Phocus. Telamon and Peleus were
connected Cronos both on the
mother’s and on the father’s side as
Chiron was Cronos’ son.

8. oiday Eévev x.7-d.] For this praise
(which here has a special bearing on the
thought of the hymn, see Zztvod. p.82, 86)
compare above Iv. 12. For ¢éAos with
genitive compare Pyth, 111. 5 voov avdpay
pirov.
than marpida, home, and refers to the

with

patpomo\w means, I think, more

fact that Aegina’s descendants, the Aea-
cids, ruled in other lands (Telamon and
Ajax in Salamis etc.), which might
therefore be regarded as in a certain sense
affiliated to the island.

g. tay wor’ x.7..] Lor whose excel-
lence in men and fame in ships they once
on a time offered vows, standing at the
altar of father Hellanius, and together
spread their hands to heaven, even the
notable sons of Endats, and the mighty
lord Phocus.

Oéscayvro Dissen compares Pyth. VIII. 72

For this construction of

Oey Orw dpOirov alréw, for the undying

care of the gods I pray. The present of
éOecoduny has not survived; the participle
Oecodmevos is found in Hesiod and Archi-
lochus, and the adjective dmé@ecros in
p 296. Fick has conjectured that Oérus,
Wunschmidchen (as well as ro@éw) is
akin, and I have pointed out in the
Introduction that Pindar connected them.
Observe that vavoixd\uray is treated as
two separate words and takes a feminine
termination. In the Mss. it is written
vavol KNuUTaY.

10. ‘“E\Aaviov] ‘Myrmidones quum
in Aeginam venissent condiderunt ibi
Jovis Hellenii fanum, patrii sibi numinis,
cuius religiones secum adduxerant’.
Dissen.

12. aptyvores] An equivalent of the
Homeric dplyvywros, only found here.
For Endais and Phocus, see above, note
on line 7. Endais was also called Meve-
dnts, schol. 7/7. & 185 (Bergk).

13. 6 Tas Beov] Zhe son of the goddess,
he whom Psamathea (sand-maiden) bore
on the beach of the sea. émt pnypin
(@aXdoons) is Homeric.

14. alS€opar «.7.r.] L shrink from
telling of a great venture, perchance un-
rightly made, in what wise they left the
glorious island and what fortune drave
them from Ocnone. The inauspicious
event alluded to is the death of Phocus,
the favourite son of Aeacus. His brothers
Peleus and Telamon slew him through
jealousy, and were in consequence obliged

NEMEAN V. QI

A \ / a » ’
mos 61 Nltov evKAEA vaoov, Kai Tis avOpas adKipous 15

/ , ’ ’ f A
daiwov at Oivwvas édacev.

oTao opal.

wv WA /
ov Tou dmaca Kepdiwv

/ / ’ / , ’ tome
paivoica tmpdcwrov adabev’ atpeKns

\ \ a f ’ \ / ,’ , al
Kal TO ovyav ToAXNaKLs eotl copwtatoy avOpaT@ vonaat.

’

OeSOKNTAL, MAKPA LoL

eg © odAPov 7 yewpov Biav 7) aidapitay éemawynoat TodEpLov

otp. ’.

’ / WA Les 2 / Fiat , bt \ c /
avtolev Gua’ UTocKaT ToL TLS’ Exw yovatwv éhadppov oppav. 20

to leave Aegina. See Pausanias, II.
29, 7. The reserved language of Pindar
concerning the deeds of heroes is charac-
teristic. When Dissen interprets péya
as facinus malum et audax, he misses the
point. The poet calls the act great; he
does not qualify it as bad.
pévov suggests the hazard of the deed, not
its moral quality, and the sole ethical
criticism, wy év dike, is ventured upon
in the most mild and tentative form—
‘peradventure, not justly’,—for this is
the force of 47.

16. otdcopar. «.7-A.] ZL will halt.
Soothly, it ts better that unbending truth
should not shew her visage tn all its fut-
ness (amaca), and to hold his peace is
oftentimes mans wisest way.

Similarly in Olymp.1. 52 Pindar breaks
off when he touches on a legend that shews
the gods in a doubtful light: ag¢icramac’
dxépdea dédoyxXEV
I stand apart; loss ever and anon hath
overtaken evil speakers.
zs nol so good as silence; compare Ol. IX.

KEKLV OUVEU-

‘ la
Oamiwa KaKkarydpos,

ov Kepolwy means

103 dvev 6é Deotd ceatyapévor ob oKadTeEpov
xpne €kactov. We might have expected
ov Kepdadéov ; but the comparative is used
because speech is compared with silence.
This usage forms a sort of intermediate
link between the ordinary use of the
comparative and such forms as deécrepés,
OnUTEpos.

18. vonoa] for a man to consider ;=
copuraroyv vonua.

19- xepov Blav] Eminently a quality
of pancratiasts. ovdaplrav mode pnov, mailed

war (distinguished from the war of
games).

20. GApad’ darookdrrot tis] Pindar
compares himself to a leaper who can
leap far, if his theme be bright fortune
or mighty exploits in the arena or on the
battlefield. He wishes therefore that a
long strip of ground should be prepared
for his leap, his starting-point or Barnp
being the death of Phocus (airdéer) :
fodite magnam saliendi arenam (Dissen).
The ground dug for the long jump was
called ra éoxappéva, and brép Ta éoxap-
péva mndav became a proverb. The
distances of individual leaps were marked
by small trenches called Bd@po or cKap-
para. dAmara paxpd, a place for long
leaps, is an expression like ai dpydes,
bird-market, oi mecool, the place for play-
ing weooot. In early Greek the com-
pound bmrocxamrw occurs only here, and
commentators have not explained the
force of the preposition. The ground
dug up might be regarded in relation to
the leaper when actually in the act of
leaping; or tzo- might be on the analogy
of trorvmrw; but it seems to me that
Pindar, though comparing himself to a
leaper, is already, in anticipation, con-
ceiving himself as an eagle aloft, and
that tmocxamro ‘dig beneath me’ is due
to this anticipation—a suggestion, in fact,
of the second metaphor.

exw yovdarwy édadpov dppav}] 7 have
the power of light springing in my knees ;
épu7 means power of motion. Note the
masculine termination of éXa@pov.

NEMEONIKAI E’

\ / / / ,’ 5 A
KQL TEpaVv TOVTOLO TANAOVT ALETOL.

mpoppav b€ Kal Keivors aed év Iladio

A / \
Moody 6 KaddoTos yopos, ev b€ pécals

popuiyy “AmoOAXRY ExTaywooov xpvTéw TAAKTPH SLWOKOY

lal if /
QYEITO TAVTOLWY VOMMD.
apxopevat cemvav Oerw

€ \ , \ df \
at 6€ mpetictovy pev vuvnoav Atos

avt. B'.

IInréa 0, dbs Té viv aABpa KpnOets ‘Inrrodvta Sodm Teddcat

HOere Evvava Mayvyjtev cKorrov

/ b) > / f U4
Telcalg akoiTay TrotKkiios Povevpacwy,

/ \ \ / 4
wevotav dé Tountov cuvéeTrake Noyor,

21. Kalmépavx.7.r.] Lagles poise their
flight even beyond the ocean.
smooths the transition from the leaper to
the eagle, as it might apply to either.

22. mpdodpov S€ k.7.d.] But for them
too on Pelion the quire most fair of the
Muses graciously sang, and in their midst
Apollo, sweeping the seven-tongued Lyre
with his golden quill, led the chant of
divers strains.

aNd ovTat

The imperfect tenses dede and ayeiro
present the picture of Apollo Musagetes
and his quire.—ketvots, strictly referring
to aierois, shows that the Aeacids (I. 8) are
symbolized; see Jntroduction, p. 85.—
It seems probable that both here and in
Nem. 1. 33 Tpoppwy was intended to con-
vey the idea of foreknowledge, as well as
that of goodwill. Such a suggestion was
peculiarly appropriate in the case of
Apollo. [I observe that Mr Verrall
notes a similar intention in mpoPpovws,
Agam. 183.]

24. §wKwv] Apollo with his plectron
chases and agitates Phorminx, as the
wind chases and speeds a ship. Seven-
tongued Phorminx is almost personified.
vopwy means vouwv KOapwdiK@r, 20n2eS.
Ads dpxopevar] See note on I.
8; also Il. 3.

a:
“>:

26. os Te viv k.T.rA.] And how delicate
Hippolyta, Cretheus daughter, was fain
to bind him by guile, having won to her
plan the chief of the Magnetes, her husband,

by artful counsels. melcawa Evvdva is
equivalent to melcaga wore kowwvor eivat,
having persuaded to be her partner in the
plot (so also Mr Fennell). gvvdy (Evvawy):
Euvos; compare vedv: véos, mey.oTdy:
péyioros. Bergk, taking évvava to mean
husband, alters dxotray in the next line
to “Axacrov, in order to avoid the re-
dundancy ; but the mere fact that ’Axdorou
occurs in 1. 30 is decisive against his
reading. It is characteristic of Pindar
not to repeat proper unless
they be very important, and even then
seldom.

Kpnfets] Hippolyta (also called Hip-
podamia) was daughter of Cretheus, sister
of Pelias and Aeson (Jason’s father).
Many cities of the Magnetes were subject
to Acastus, lord of Iolcus.

29. ovveragte] She framed (like a
joiner). The variant in
read by Triclinius, seems due to a mis-
understanding of the text.

names,

D cuvér\eée,

oupmTnyvuvar
is a most appropriate word. ouyros,
invented, manufactured, not genuine. It
is interesting to observe the force of
etoray, for which another poet might
have written evd7. YPevorav (dying, not
false) invests the oyos with a certain
independence, gives it a material existence
apart from the speaker, as if it were a
material frame existing independently of
its artificer. The Noyes, when constructed,
lies on its own account.

NEMEAN V.

c = , ’ / a > / , ,
ws dpa vupdeias erelpa Keivos €v AExTpois “AKkaaTou

arr ALG) os ! y 4 \ / \ a
evvas’ TO 8 évaytiov éokev’ ToAXa yap vw TrayTi Oupe

mappapéva AuTavevev.

93
30

ér. 8’.

a oe tee) \ / > \ t =
tov 6€ opyav Kvifov airewoi oyou

evOvs 8 amavavato vipdar, Eewviou Tatpos yoXov

Seiaais: 6 8 éppacbn Katévevoéy Té Fou dpaowvedrs &€& ovpavod
Zevs aBavatov Bacirevs, bat ev TAayet 35
Tovtiay ypvcadaxatoy tia Nypeidov rpakew axovriy,

yapBpov Ilocedawva teicais, 05 AiyaBev moti KrevTav Papa

viccetat loOpov Awpiav’

30. dpa] apa (dpa) has its frequent
force of introducing an untrue allegation:
saying forsooth that he attempted to lie
with Acastus bride, and board his bed.
vuppelas suggests the youth of Hippo-
lyta.

31. 7d 8 évavrlov x«.7.A.] The fact
was far other; for she besought him
much and often with all her soul, beguil-
ing him. But his mood was stung by her
sheer words, and forthright he repelled
the bride, fearing the wrath of the Father
who protects hosts and guests. évayttov,
he did not tempt her, but she tempted
him. Acrdvevey, the imperfect of repeated
attempts.

32. Tod St opyav x.7..] The reading
of the Mss. involves the assumption of
fopydv, which is supported to some extent
by the adjective dépynros. As this as-
sumption is possible I have not ventured
to depart from the codices. None of the
proposed readings is probable; Boeckh
Tov pev, Rauchenstein Tod 8 dp’, Bergk
tov 6 bm’ (Pindar elsewhere uses brokvifw
of love’s sting), M. Schmidt rod 6€ xépfav
(Aeolic for kapdlav).—éxvigov might be
rendered settled.

aitewvol] s/eer (as it were with no
slope to soften the approach), wnreserved.
The word suggests that the proposal of
Hippolyta was made with a shameless
directness. | Compare

ails &deApos.

OTp. ry’.

Tennyson speaks of ‘the downward slope
of death’, aim’s 6XePpos is death without
the downward slope.

33. §evlov matpds| Zevs févios. Re-
spect for this god is characteristic of an
Aeginetan hero; cf. 1. 8.

34. 0 8 éppdoby x.7.d.] But Zeus,
king of immortals, the cloud-awakener,
considered tt and vouchsafed unto him from
heaven in token that he would speedily
compass for him, to be his bride, a sea-
maiden, one of Nereus’ daughters with
the golden distaffs, and persuade thereto
Poseidon their sister's spouse, who often
proceedeth from Aegae to the famous
Dorian Isthmus.

dpawepys (=vepednyepéra) does not
occur elsewhere. gore is regular after
verbs of promising.

36. ‘tmovtlav] So Mss.
tiav is adopted by most editors, as it

Heyne’s rov-

In the case
of two nouns and two adjectives Pindar
is usually even-handed. Peleus is to have

seems to me unnecessarily.

a sea-bride and she is to be one of the
Nereids. The adjective xpvo»\axaros is
applied in the //iad to Artemis. In
Nem. Vi. 62 it is used of Leto; in O/
vi. 104 of Amphitrite.
recalls xpucedv Nypytdwy of 1. 7 to mind.

Here the epithet

yauBpov means that Poseidon was the
husband of Amphitrite.
37. Atyd@ev] From Aegae in Achaia.

NEMEONIKAI E’.

&vOa pu evfppoves trae adv Kadapyoio Bod Oeoy déxovTat,

\ , / 7, Lal
kat obéver yviwv épifovts Opacel.
motos 5é Kpiver ouyyerns Epywv Tept

n ’ /
mrdvtov. Td & Aiyiva Geod, KvOupeves,
Ni > ’ ! , I yA v
ikas €v ayk@verot TiTVwY TOLKiNoY Efravoas vEVO?,

Perhaps Pindar represents the sea-god
proceeding from Aegae to Corinth in
order to suggest that he also favours the
almost homonymous Aegina, which was
doubtless associated in the poet’s mind
with Aegaens and Aegaeon, names of
Poseidon, and with the Aegean sea.
Héré addressing Poseidon in /Ziad © 203
says

ol 6€ rou els “EX kny Te kal Alyas dap’

avayouct
mo\Na Te Kal xaplevTa.

38. évOa piv x.7.d.] ww followed by
edy is illustrated by two Homeric pas-
sages referred to by Dissen: a 194 5% yap
pw epart’ éerdiyuov eivar, chy marép’, and
¢ 48 7 pw eyepey Navorxaav evrer)ov.
Bergk reads év@a wad’ because a para-
phrast has émrov 6 wadora, but that pan’
would have been altered to suv is im-
probable. The presence of uw serves to
make @eéy more emphatic than if it stood
alone; we are reminded that the yaufpds
(relation by marriage) of Aeginetan
Peleus is a god.—Render, where merry
routs receive him, the god, to the sound of
the pipe-call, and vie boldly in hardthood of
limbs. Poseidon is supposed to arrive at
Corinth on the first day of the Isthmian
games and to be met by festive companies
of young men.

40. Motos cvyyevns] The fortune
or destiny that is born with a man (not
vis ingenita as Dissen renders). ovyyer7s
For
mérpos compare Wem. VI. 5 and Iv. 42.
Pindar associated it etymologically with
mere, wirtw; the fall of fortune; and
this association clearly determined his
the following

is almost equivalent to hereditary.

choice of language in

sentence: But at Aegina, Euthymenes,
where thy fall was in the arms of the

goddess Victory, thou wert caressed by

artful hymns and at the Isthmus thou
didst shoot forth to greet her.

The emphasis laid on rotpos by the
pause which precedes it and the metrical
value of its first syllable (assuming
Schmidt’s metrical analysis to be cor-
rect), supports my view that a paro-
nomasia is intended. See above, p. 82.

41. @€0v] Rightly restored by Schmidt
for Oeds the reading of the Mss. Pindar
uses a Beds, see above 1. 13 0 Tas Geou.
Heads is due to a marginal explanation of
some one who wished to indicate that
Geod was to be taken with Nixas.

42. Nikas] Victory is the goddess
won by Euthymenes (and Pytheas) as
Thetis was won by Peleus. wWavw is not
elsewhere used by Pindar of winning the
meeds of victory (like plyrve@a), and
here it must have some special force.
In Olymp. VI. 35 the word is used of
Evadne’s first taste of love, yAuxeias
mparov épava’ "Adppodiras. We may, I
think, infer that Yavw was specially used
by poets of the touches of amorous en-
counters and that here it serves to bring
out Pindar’s parallel between the prizes
won by Peleus and by Euthymenes. It
is to be observed that Pyth. IX. 130
should not be adduced to shew that
Pindar used yatw with the dative. The
words are 6s av mp@ros Oopaew audi For
Watcere mémdos. api makes all the
difference. In the same ode however we
find Pedder Ovyetv (1. 46) just as in Pyth.
IV. 296 dovxia Ovyéuev, and in Pyth. X.
28 dyNatus arropmerba.

NEMEAN V. 95

"ToOuot 7 diéas davta.
opoatropov éOvos, Ilvbéa.

43- “IoOpot r’ ditas dyra] No line
in Pindar has experienced rougher usage
at the hands of commentators than
this. They have all without exception
condemned as corrupt and altered in
various ways the middle and latter por-
tions of the verse, which however furnish
a perfectly intelligible sense; and they
have, almost without exception, allowed
the first words 7jrou weratéayra, which are
unintelligible and evidently unsound, to
remain. The reading of the Mss. (B, b,
D) is

frou peraitavta Kkal viv Teds parpws

ayadde Kelvou duootmopov Ovos Ilv-

Géas.
Mezger was the first to see where the
corruption really lies and to detect that
the scholiasts had a different reading
before them. In the scholium on 37 we
find Evdupévys ds evixknoev "IoOuca, and in
that on 38 eira émolce: bia Th Too "lo Opod
éuvnobyn. It is clear from this that a
victory gained by Euthymenes at Isthmus
was mentioned, and this is just what the
description of the Isthmian festival would
lead us to expect or even predict. Mez-
ger tentatively restores “Io@uot 7’ ézel
vixns, which is infelicitous and evidently
improbable; it is weak, and Pindar would
not have used vixns after Nikas in the
foregoing line. ro. clearly has come
from a gloss; but “eratEavra could hardly
come from per’ Aiyway as Mezger sug-
gests, and the supposed gloss itself (‘*um
den isthmischen Sieg als den spateren zu
bezeichnen”) is an extremely unlikely
one. The reading which I adopt assumes
that the three first letters of the line 1c@
were through some accident lost or ob-
that from MOITAIZACANTA
was elicited meralfas dvra (some Tri-
clinian Mss. have peraittas); and that
this was ‘emended’ to peralzavra for the
sake of the metre, which was completed

literated ;

\ A \ U , , ,
Kal VUY TEOS PATPWS ayadXeEL KeEivoU

? ’
avT.y .

by the prefixion of a convenient frou
from the margin. difas shot forth, is
appropriate to a victor in a foot race, or
in along jump. The leaper shoots like
a bird © 86r.

We may assume that Euthymenes was
victor in leaping, for thus the metaphor
used by the poet above Il. 19, 20 wins an
appropriateness which it would otherwise
lack. This circumstance I regard as a
confirmation of the reading in the text.

kal viv Teds padtpws «.7.d.] That
Euthymenes was the maternal uncle of
Pytheas is stated by Pindar himself in
Tsthm. V. 62:

dpavto yap vikas amd mayKpartov

Tpets am "IoOuot ras 5’ am’ evptddXov

Nepéas

62 dydaol matiés Te Kal parpws.
It is therefore clear that reds must be
addressed to Pytheas and that IIv@éas is
a mistake for IIv@éa, the vocative. This
conjecture of Mingarelli is confirmed by
a scholium which mentions IIv@éas as a
variant : katad\ndoreEpor 5é evoe ypaover
Ilvéas tv’ 7 pjrpws IIv0éas. The correc-
tion is further confirmed by the following
lines which evidently apply to Euthy-
menes, not to Pytheas. That Euthymenes
won a victory at Nemea is proved by the
plural ras & in Zsthm. Vv. 61, just quoted.
kal viv ‘on the present occasion’; the
victory at Corinth is a thing of the past
(€yavoas), that of Nemea is recent.
ke(yvov is generally misinterpreted. It
refers to Peleus; compare xelvos 1. 22
and xewos |. 30. [I observe that Tycho
Mommsen also refers xelvov to Peleus,
though otherwise his interpretation di-
verges.] Just as in Il. 7, 8 Pytheas was
said to glorify (yepaipew) the Aeacidae,
so Euthymenes is here said to adorn
(aya\Xewv) the Aeginetans. The render-
ings of Dissen and of Mr Fennell give
an impossible sense to é@vos.

06 NEMEONIKAI E’.

a Nepéa pev dpapev peis 7 erexaptos, ov pidno *AmrOdX@v"

drixas § €dOovtas oixow T éxpater 45

Nicov 7 év evayxel Nopw. yaipw 8, ote

€cdolot papvatat Tépt TATA TONS.
rn \
icO1, yruKeiavy tor Mevavdpov ory tixa poxOwv aporBav

) fi \ ’ ’ by wr) [al J od Wicd a ” > /

éravpeo. yp) © am Adavdy téxtov’ abdnTaiow euper. ém. y'.
> Or / ” Pe ee L er /

et S¢ Oeulorioy ike, WoT aeidev, unKéTe plyer’ StdoL 50

We may render Il. 43—-47 thus: Aéso
now thy mother’s brother, O Pytheas,
sheds radiance on the race of that hero’s
kin. Nemea stood fast by him and the
month of his country (Delphinios). which
(Delphian) Afollo loves. But at home
and on the fair-gladed hill of Nisus he
conquered the comers of his own age. LI
rejoice that the whole city joins in the
conflict for noble prizes.

ayddAXe] Adorns, with the further im-
plication that he furnishes material for a
statue of song. The word answers to
ayaduar’ which occurs in the first verse
of the first strophe, and occupies nearly
the same position in the line.

44- Gpapev] Memea was true lo him.
All commentators wrongly interpret /a-
voured him, which
Mr Tyrrell was the first to point out their
error and to assign to dpapev the full
meaning of the perfect, which was re-
cognised by the scholiast: mpooyjpuoorat

would be pape.

avT@ mpds TO vixay del. The expression
éy daayTe Kpare. Kepavvdy dpapora in OZ.
XI. git is to be similarly explained, che
thunderbolt which clave to him, or stood
(Cp. Zsthm. Il. 19.)
The phrase in the present passage suggests
the fidelity of a bride. Dissen compares
Néped 7’ otk dvriéoe? (Ol. x111. 34) Memea
countervatleth not, but this is not quite

him in good stead.

the same. The pels (uv) ércyapros is the
Aeginetan month Delphinios which was
probably also a Megarian month; in it,
Euthymenes
conquered at the Aeginetan Hydrophoria

through Apollo’s favour,

or Delphinia and at the Megarian Pythia.

The Delphinia are referred to in Pyth.
vill. 66. ido’ 7s wont to love when it
comes round; this seems to be the force
of the aorist.

45. GAtkas €\OdvTas]
Pueros Aeginetas, ad

His coevals
who had come.
certamen gui venerant, Dissen; but Mez-
ger is right in not limiting ddcxes to
Aeginetans. Euthymenes conquered the
same pancratiast competitors (hailing
from all parts of Greece) both at Aegina
and at Megara. ékpdrec was the victor
over.

46. evayket] A Pindaric formation,
not occurring elsewhere; for its signifi-
cance see /7troduction, p. 87.

48. Mevav8pov ovv tixa] Compare
oiv Xapitwy rixa, 1V. 7. Menander was
a famous Athenian trainer in gymnastic.
For the introductory to@ compare ic,
Kedadjow, Ol. X. 11. The meaning is:
Z say unto thee, Sweet is the meed that by
Menander’s aid thou hast won from thy
labours. The genitive ox@wv depends
on both éravpeo and auoBav. émavpeo,
second aorist. In Pyth. 11. 36 we find
the aorist active, yertovwy modXol ératpor.

49- Xxpy 8 x.7.d.] Meet it is that
athletes should have their fashioner from
Athens; a manifest paronomasia on ’A0a-
vac and a@dnrat.

50, €l 8€ Oeplorioy tikes x.7.\.] Pin-
dar now addresses himself; zt 2f thou
art come with the thought of singing
Themistios, be cold no more for the task ;
be generous with thy voice, spread sails to
the topmost yard, and proclaim that as a
boxer and in the pancration he was vic-

NEMEAN V. 97

Ul ’ \ ’ e / a \ \ /
dovav, ava § totia tevov pos Evyov Kapxactov,

mUKTay Té viV Kal TayKpatio POéyEat EXeiv *Emidavpw Sutdoav

n , > / / 7. , lel
ViKOVT apeTav, TpoOvpotcw 6 AiaKovd

avbéwv trrovacvta pépew otepavdpata avy EavOais Xadpicow.

tortious at Epidaurus and won a double
glory, and that by favour of the fair-
haired Graces he (his statue) wears grassy
flower-chaplets in the portal of Acacus’
Jane.

Themistios is said to be the father of
Euthymenes and therefore the maternal
grandfather of Pytheas. He is mentioned
in Jsthm. Vv. 65. The phrase pnxére
plyec arrests the attention. Le reserved
no longer implies that there were reasons
for reserve in reference to somebody else.
This suspicion is strengthened by two
circumstances; (1) the ode, formally in
honour of Pytheas, is far more a pane-
gyric on Euthymenes, who is compared
to the hero of the myth; and (2) in line
14 sqq. a theme is introduced, to be set
aside as deserving of silence. We can
see that there is something between the
lines, but we cannot trace the letters.

8(801] Hermann for didov. It hardly
means 2¢fer; rather lend, devote.

51. tora] The phrase is chosen as
suitable to the name OQep-iortos which
Pindar, for the occasion, derives from
Oenody iarta (cf. tAnotorios) to set the sadls
in motion. Kxapxnovov is the masthead, and
fuvyov Kapxactov the sailyard, called so
from its resemblance toa yoke at the end
of the pole in a car.

52. ’Em8atpw] At Epidaurus were
held games in honour of Asclepius. Cf.
Nem. it. 84. durdoav, namely in boxing
and in the pancration. dperay, fee of
excellence.

53. avOdwy trodevTa orepavepara |
A dictio insolens with which Bergk com-
pares O/. VII. 80 pip\wy Kyicdecoa Toya.
The garlands were woven of grass and
flowers. It is to be observed that roiaevra
is scanned as a trisyllable: Hermann
reads modyta. Xdpioow; this dative
was restored by Schmid for Mss. Xdpucw.
Xa pitt > Xapiocr :
ol : modecot.

Xapirecol 2: Toot : Too-

NEMEAN VI.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY AT NEMEA ITN Sie
BOYS’ WRESTLING CONTEST WON BY ALCIMIDAS OF
AEGINA.

INTRODUCTION.

THE young victor celebrated in this hymn belonged to the Aeginetan
family of the Bassidae, whose members had won many crowns, at the great
Hellenic games, for wrestling and boxing. But a curious feature marked
these successes; they were gained in alternate generations. Thus the
victor’s father Theon had achieved no personal distinctions, while Theon’s
uncle, Praxidamas, had been a renowned wrestler ; the father of Praxidamas
was even as Theon, and perhaps, a generation further back, a certain
Agesimachus may have performed some deed of glory. This coincidence, as
we should call it, set Pindar a-thinking and gave him an idea for his Odet.
He reflected that in a peculiarity which might at first sight seem a sign of
weakness, the Bassids really resembled the great first Mother herself. The
fields of the Earth must sometimes lie fallow that they may gather strength
and yield an abundant increase. Thus the Bassids imitate the Earth ; nay,
it would even seem that the nature or essence of Earth, the common mother
of gods and men, had passed in unusual measure, by some special favour,
into the seed of this family. And this similitude to Earth, this partaking in
her nature, may be considered the auspice of the house, and is the key to its
marvellous successes. Such is the thought, which Pindar works out with
a curious subtlety, playing upon the names épa and aia. If the last Ode
was a Song of the Sea, this Ode is a Song of the Earth.

The first strophe of the Ode, is one of the most solemn passages in
Pindar. Both gods and men derive their origin from one source, the Earth;
and there is consequently a resemblance between them, notwithstanding the
vast distance which separates the certainties of divine existence from the
impotence and ignorance of human life. The Greek gods were not like the

1 Mezger describes the ode as ‘‘ein rpomd 29, 30; dupadds 31—53; meTaka-
volltonender Lobgesang auf die Unver- rarpomd 53—57; oppayls 57—66.

wiistlichkeit der im Menschen wohnenden According to my view the natural di-
zur hochsten Entfaltung drangenden Na- visions of the matter correspond to the
turkraft”; and he divides it thus: three metrical systems.

mpooluiov I—v7; dpyd 8—28; Kara-

INTRODUCTION. 99

Semitic God, alone, unbegotten, uncreated ; they were far above man, but
they were not infinitely above him; and thus the Greek religion was a sphere
for beauty rather than for sublimity. When we read that God made man in
his own image, the thought strikes us as sublime ; for while on the one
hand the omnipotence of God, compared with our own nothingness,
annihilates, on the other hand the idea of our resemblance to the Infinite
elevates; and the simultaneous occurrence of these two feelings is
the note of sublimity. But the Greek gods are not infinite. We admire
them, we worship them, we may fear them; but, after all, we and they
are sprung from a common mother, They are the favoured children,
who have the sure abode; we wander, outcasts, in a land of uncer-
tainty and chance. I dwell on this, because the passage before us is
sometimes called sublime, and szd/zme in the modern sense seems hardly a
correct description. It is lofty (Aéés indy); it is written in the grand style ;
but the thought can scarcely be said to contain the element of sublimity.
The brazen firmament, which stands sure, is contrasted with the ignorance
of men touching the way by which their destiny shall lead them, from day to
night and from night to day ; man’s life, subject to changes and chances, is
really ‘nought’ compared with the life of the gods. But the main thought is
that men and gods have a common mother; we are all the sons and
daughters of Earth. These reflections may produce a solemn mood of mind;
we may feel a certain dejection at the contrast, or a certain satisfaction in
the resemblance ; but the atmosphere is too calm and temperate for the pains
and pleasures of sublimity.

It is worth noticing, as a literary curiosity, that, while Pindar here
contrasts the certainty of the brazen heaven with the blindness and
ignorance of men, Mr Swinburne, in lines which suggest this passage of
Pindar, at least in a verbal echo, ascribes to iron heaven the qualities of
witlessness and deafness :—

‘Shall the iron hollow of doubtful heaven
‘That knows not itself whether night-time or day be
* Reverberate sounds of a foolish prayer?!

The fact that men are the children of Earth is illustrated by the family of
Alcimidas the victor ; the Bassids, like the fields, alternately rest and work ;
the nature of the universal mother is peculiarly manifested in them. And
this special connexion with Earth has been a good auspice for the successes
won by the active generations. The boy Alcimidas has even now come
from Nemea, a triumphant wrestler in those ‘lovely’ games, éparov abhor,
of Zeus ;—‘lovely, but does not that signify ‘ar¢h-ly, related to €pa,
earth? and does not this omen explain the victory of the really Earth-born
Alcimidas? Yes, his relation to Earth is the omen or bird which he has
followed like a hunter, even as Praxidamas’, his great uncle, before him.
This Praxidamas was the first Aeginetan who won an olive crown on the

1 The Triumph of Time. statue was erected; Pausanias VI. 18, 5.
* The first victor to whom an athlete-

7—2

100 NEMEAN VI.

banks of the Alpheus. And Pindar chooses an unusual word for the chaplet
of olive: he calls it épvea, shoots, suggesting that here too there is a
mysterious connexion with épa. Praxidamas also won five victories at
Corinth and three at Nemea; his brothers too were distinguished in
athletics ; and thus on their father Soclides, who had achieved nothing
himself, the fame of the sons was reflected.

In boxing, as well as in wrestling, the Bassid family was unusually
distinguished, and Pindar ventures to say that no family had won so many
boxing-matches on the Isthmus. It is a bold affirmation ; and he bids the
Muse direct upon the Bassidae a glorious or glorifying breeze of verses, song
being the true gale to waft the noble exploits of dead heroes across the sea
of time. The Bassidae were an ancient race with a fair record of brave
deeds, an abundant theme for poets. Or, as Pindar puts it, reminding us
again of the Bassid omen, they offer a rich soil to those tillers who work in
the service of the Pzervzdes, the Ladies of Fruitful-land?.

The successes of Callias and Creontidas-—Bassids, though probably not
very nearly related to Alcimidas—may be taken as examples. In the Pythian
games, by the sanctuary of Apollo, Callias won in boxing; the gods
themselves protected him ; he found favour with Apollo and Artemis, the
children of Leto. And here again the omen of Earth is true to the Bassid ;
the two gods are called ¢pvea Aarovs, suggesting a connexion with the Earth
(€pa), which inclines them favourably to Callias. As for Creontidas, he had
won victories at Corinth and at Nemea, and in both cases his honours were
due to the mysterious distinction of his family. Not the Corinthians, nor
yet Poseidon, are said to have honoured him at the Isthmian games, but the
Isthmus itself, that ‘unwearying bridge, which suggests so strongly Earth’s
solid steadfast endurance. And at Nemea a like omen prospered him.
Nemea lies under the mountains of Phlius, dark shady ‘ old-world’ moun-
tains, in which one might expect to come on curious traces of primeval
Earth-worship. Such are the suggestions of the word wyvyious—

dackiots PvodyTos dm w@yvylois bpecivy,—
and dackios, with deep shades, contains the Earth-omen of Da or Damatér
(Demeter).

No hymn in honour of an Aeginetan, in honour even of a Bassid, would
have been complete without some mention of the great Aeacid family,
of which Aegina was so proud. The Aeacids may be considered a mythical
prototype of the Bassids ; they are both ancient families’, they have both
shed great glory on the island*, they have both given ample arguments to
poets’, And like the Bassids, the Aeacids have an omen®,—a bird literally,—
the eagle of their name, which flies over land and sea®. But they have yet
another auspice ; their name Alaxidac is connected not only with aierds, but

1 Thepla =srleipa. 4 Cf. ll. 29, 31—32, with 44, 45.
2 Cf. ll. 30 and 52. See note on 1. 44 5 Cf. aloay 1. 13, aicay 1. 46.
for the parallel phrases. 8 1. 47 mérarar 3 —ovum’ abrov.

3 Cf, evxred 1. 28, with edxréa 1. 45.

INTRODUCTION. 101

with aia, Earth, and thus, in a quite peculiar sense, they are the prototypes of
the Bassidae!. Achilles’? victory at Troy over Memnon, the son of shining
Morning, was achieved under this Earth-auspice; for he descended on the
ground from his chariot and made the conflict Aeavy* (as though the weight
of Earth were on his side) for the Ethiopians.

Ancient poets have rung changes on the deeds of the Aeacidae, and
Pindar conceives himself as following in their track along a spacious
highroad, with a burden of his own. He is fain to bear on his back a double
load ot earth, even the Earth-auspices of the Bassids and the Aeacids. ‘But
I with willing back, in quest of a double load, hied me as a messenger,
proclaiming this twenty-fifth victory, won by Alcimidas for his race renowned.’
The Greek participle, which I have rendered ‘in quest of, pe@émov, was
applied in the first part of the Ode to Alcimidas pursuing his omen ; and
Pindar has taken care to set the word in the same position in correspond-
ing lines‘,

1. 13. mais evayovos, os tavray peOémav Arobev aicar,
1.56. Oupdv. éxdvte 8 eyo voto pedéerarv Sidupov axOos.
This artifice explains the allusion of didupov ay Aos.

It is worth observing how Pindar turns aside, just before this fifty-seventh
verse, to introduce a naval metaphor, to suit an Aeginetan audience. ‘That
wave which rolls by the rudder of the vessel from time to time, doth more
than others, they say, shake a man’s spirit.’ The poet would say that
he has a more lively interest in the Bassidae, now living, than in the
Aeacids ; he is not an epic bard.

The ode concludes with a mention of the circumstance that Alcimidas
and Polytimidas (his brother perhaps) would have obtained crowns at
Olympia, had they not been unlucky in drawing lots, and with a tribute of
praise to the trainer Melesias who for suppleness of body is compared to a
dolphin cleaving the water.

From this examination it results that the poem falls into three parts,
corresponding to its three metrical systems. (1) At the very threshold
Pindar gives us the key to the meaning of the whole ode, and the rest of the
first system is occupied with Alcimidas and the ‘modern’ Bassids. (2) The
second system is devoted to Bassids of more ancient date. (3) The third
system tells of the Aeacids and especially Achilles; and then returns to

Alcimidas and his contemporaries.

1 This explains Adaxidacs in 1. 17 :—
ketvos (Praxidamas) yap ’ONummedvexos
éwy Alaxidacs

épvea mp@tos éroccev am’ ’ANdeod.
He won épvea for the Adaxidac (as it
were carth-flowers for the earth-sons).

2 Achilles is the prototype of Alcimidas
(as the Aeacids are of the Bassids); and,
according to my reading of I. 50, Pindar

The thread connecting the three parts

indicates this by ¢a@ve corresponding to
mépavT inl. 14.

3 Perhaps this is over-subtle; but it is
supported by aos in 1. 56. The curious
phrase Bapv vetkos pave (or deife) requires
some explanation.

4 Mezger, of course, observed this re-
sponsion, but did not discern its full
significance.

102 NEMEAN VI.

is the idea of the power of Earth, the common mother of gods and men,
revealing itself in favoured human races. In the human stock of the Bassids,
as well as in the Aeacids who were of divine origin, the authentic earth-
qualities come out ; and Pindar suggests that his song, in which both these
families are praised, bears two loads of earth, symbolizing the two great races,
gods and men, who are sprung from Gaia.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

The structure is epodic, and the formula

The rhythm of this ode is logaoedic.

NEMEONIKAI ¢’.

AAKIMIAH:

ALEINHT Hit

TIAIAI MAAATSTH:.

a > tal a lod / 5 > n \ /
Ev avdpav, &v Oedv yévos’ éx pds 5€ mvéopev

OTp. a.

patpos aupotepor’ dtelpyes S€ Taca KeKplméva

\ (3 / \
dUvams, WS TO pev ovdeV, 0 bE YAarKEOS aahares alev dos

I. €vy—é€v] Editors are divided as to
whether these words mean év avdpov kal
Oewy yévos or év avdp&v, Erepov Dewey
yévos. I have no hesitation in adopting
the former explanation. It is on the
ultimate, primal unity that Pindar wishes
to insist; he admits the vast ‘differences,
but he accentuates the likeness. As to
the Greek words, one may indeed con-
cede that they might possibly bear the
other meaning and that the second év
might exclude, not repeat the first, but
I submit that they do not naturally bear
such a sense, which would almost necessi-
tate év 0€ Oewy yévos. The opposition is
one which demands pév—éé; wey may be
left out, but both particles can hardly be
dispensed with. Moreover the following
mvéomev, in the first person plural, seems
to imply the association, not the distinc-
tion, of the two kinds of beings in the
foregoing clause.
and the gods, who are classed with us as

aupdrepo. = we men,

of a common race.

2. parpos] Earth, Gaia, the mother
of Iapetos who was the father of Pro-
metheus. Earth was born after Chaos
according to Hesiod’s 7heogony (116)

avrap emerra

yat’ etptorepvos mavtwv eos aapades

altel

adavarwrv ol vipbevTos

éxovcr Kapy

"ONpurov _K.T.X.

Svelpyer x.7.r.] Suelpyet, separates, keeps
apart, as it were places a wall betwixt
(eine Scheidewand, as Mezger says), is
equivalent to an active of the intransitive
duapépw. Svvapis Kekpipéva is a déstinct
power, or power in which they differ,
and maoa means zz every particular case.
Kekpiuéev nv ‘yevenv, an expression used by
Hesiod (Scat. Her. 65) in distinguishing
Iphicles from Heracles, is a good paral-
lel, quoted by all the editors. Schol. 7
aeTaBAnTos 7) 7) Kexwpiouévn. In Mem.
Iv. I we met this participle in a different
sense.

3. ws TO pév x.7.A.] Whereas (or in
that, explanatory) the one is nought, while
(for the other) ¢he brazen heaven abides
as a perpetual sure abode ; a reminiscence
of Hesiod (Zheog. 128) who tells how
Earth brought forth starry Heaven

op’ ein pakdpecor Oeois dos acpadés

aiel.
A passage in the Sixth Isthmian Ode
(l. 42 sqq.), although its connexion is
different, has some points of similarity
which render it worth quoting.
Ovaokomev yap omw@s arayTes*
daluwy 6 dioos' Ta waxpa 5° et Tus
mamraiver Bpaxvds é&ixérOar xadkdredov
Oeay Edparv.
Here too is the contrast of mortals and
their defective powers (8paxvs) with the
gods and the brazen floor of heaven,

104

/ 5) !
evel OUPAaVoOS.

NEMEONIKAI s’.

aNNa TL Tpoghépomev Eutrav
/ / v t >’ /
) wéyav voov ijrow pvow abavato.s, 5

/ 3 / ’ > / IQO\ \ ,
Kaimep éepapepiav ovK elddTes ove peTa VUKTAS

4. G@AAG te «.7.A.] But albeit we
(mortals) have some likeness either in
great mind or at least in our nature to
the immortals, although we know not
what rule or measure, day by day nor in
the night seasons, our master destiny has
drawn that we should run thereby’.

mpoopépew, to be like, is the conjugate
of dvapépew (implied in dielpye), and
although this intransitive sense is not
common, no difficulty need be made.
Dissen refers to Frag. 43 (afud Athen.
Wi, [ig ©)

@ Téxvov

movriou @npos meTpatov xpwrl padiora

voov

mporpépwv macais ToNlecow Opler,
where however voov may be the object of
tmporpépwv. gticw is not the bodily, as
opposed to the mental nature; it is rather,
as Mezger explains, the whole nature or
Wesen of man. vows avOpwrov is equi-
valent to ‘the animal man’, man from
an anthropological point of view. It
must be admitted however that gvcw
‘Qapwwvetay €axev (/sthn. V1. 68) sup-
ports the interpretation ‘body’.
at least’,

roe Sor
because the assumption of
similitude in vous is less bold than a
comparison of intellect.

6. petra vixras] Perhaps 2 midnight
hours, just as wel’ juépavy means at 7007.
More probably however it simply means
tn the night-watches,
diurnus.

cf. peOnueptves,
Hartung strangely wishes to
introduce vuxlav for the sake of coor-
dination with épapeplav.

7. Gppe 4oTHOS K.7.A.] The Mss. have
mory.0s avTw éypawe. Against Triclinius’
obvious correction dyTw’ there are three
objections: (1) it is too obvious; (2) the
sense demands tiva not dvrwa; (3) the
metre requires that the second foot of
the line should be —-— or

~~= oF —~™“

Various emendations have been proposed.
Hermann’s olay rw’ was accepted by
Boeckh; Ahrens proposed aicay ri’.
Hartung reads ovdé vuxlay ris dup mér-
pos évéypawe. But none of these pro-
posals is in the least satisfactory. The
reading which I have printed in the text
satisfies the conditions of the problem.
ANAZ in uncials is very like ANAN, and
if one of the similar syllables fell out
ANTIN (av7w’) would be left. (For aér-
pos dvaé, peculiarly suitable in this con-
text, see Vem. Iv. 43.) It is somewhat
difficult to determine what words were
read here by the writers of two old
scholia which have come down: (1) kataep
ovK elddTes Eire év Huépg elre Ev vuKTL
mOTMos €ypawe Ti eimapunévny juty Kal
Tov @dvarov. This seems to point to a
(2) Kalroe wh yeyywokor-
TES PTE TH TpOS THY Nueépay pATE TA Ove
VUKTOS Egomeva pndé el Tis [D, but dors B]

lection ei Tw’.

Tas p.opos KaTakéKpikey els oKoTOv TWa
The reading of D
might point to av rw’ of the Mss.; as for
doris, Dissen thinks that the scholiast
found a gap in his text, and filled it by
this pronoun.

Kal oTaOunv dpamerv.

mott oTdQyav}] The point is not that
we are ignorant of our goal (which is
death), but that we know not the course
of our lives, which may alter from day to
day and from night to night;—we know
not what a day may bring forth. We
must not then follow editors who force
o7d0ua (which in Pindar always means
measure, rule or norm) into the meaning
of goal (so the schol. interpret by dava-
Tov); and we may ask them, what, if
ora0ua means goal, is the sense of épae-
plav and wera vixras? Is there a new goal
every day and every night? and if not,
why should the ultimate goal be called
épapueplay? orabua is the line by which

NEMEAN VI. 105
wv / wv Lae) v tal \ /
dpe ToTmos avake TW eypavve Spapety toti atadOuav.
ie / ’ / \ \ , a“ , /
Tekwaiper Kal vuy “AXxipidas TO cuyyeves ldetv avt. a.
ayxe Kaptopopos apovpaow. att aperBopuevar
f x La / , / > \ , / A
ToKa mev wv Biov avdpacw émnetavoyv ex Tediwy Edocar, 10

/ ’ A) ? / / »”
ToKa © avT avatravoapevar oOévos Euapav.
MrOE Tor Neuéas €& epatdv aéOdrwv

destiny determines the course of our life,
but we have to run without seeing the
line, and therefore know not from day to
night and from night to day where our
course will lie. An exactly similar ex-
pression, in point of the Greek, occurs in
Pyth. Vi. 45 Opact’Bovdos marpday pa-
NucTa mpos orabuav Ba, he walked by the
line that his father had drawn, followed
in his tracks.

Mezger translates, ‘obwohl wir weder
den Verlauf des heutigen Tages kennen,
noch auch wissen, nach welcher Richt-
schnur nach Verfluss der Nacht zu laufen
das Schicksal uns vorgezeichnet hat’,
that is, we know neither the course of to-
day nor that of to-morrow. He is right
in his interpretation of worl ora0uav, but
I cannot agree with his view of pera
VUKTGS.

éypawe dupe Spamety, prescribed that we
should run, a single act of destiny at our
birth. Mommsen and Bergk rightly hold
that the scholia do not necessarily imply
a reading duu, inferred by Kayser, Har-
tung and others.

8. Tekpaipe. «.7.’.] The active of
Texpalpouar (to judge by signs) is rare;
it occurs in Ol. VI. 73 Tekmalper xpnw
éxaorov, and means ‘to give a token or
sign’. Vow too Alcimidas sets as a token
thereof his natural quality, for in aspect
wt resembles fruitful fields which, alter-
nating, now yield of thetr soil an abun-
dant crop unto men, and anon take rest
and gather strength. Uartung’s reading
’"AXkiuida (genitive) for Mss. ’Adxiuldas
is unnecessary; 70 ovyyeves is the object
of rexkuatpe. The scholiasts read the

nominative, 6 "AAKwidas, Pyol, capes
Tovet TeKUNpLovt bar Nuds, and dydot dé kal
gages trout Td EavTov auyyeves 6 ’AXKt-
pldns. dyxe is used like an adjective, =
ayxe €oxos (cf. Homeric dyxiora exe),
and takes the infinitive of definition,
idetv. adyxov is used with the dative of
nearness in space Vem. IX. 39.

9. Gpovparotv] Mezger has the credit
of having been the first to observe the
point of this comparison. The alterna-
tions in the productiveness of the fields
are a manifestation of the nature of
Earth, the common mother of men and
gods (line 2); and thus a peculiarity
derived from that common mother can-
not be regarded as a misfortune.

10. Blov émrneravov] Hesiod, Of. 31

@rwt un Bios évdov émneravos Kara-

KELTQl

wpatos Tov yata Peper, Anunrepos axTHv.
In a scholion it is explained by 7a pds
Tov Blov dairy Kal woven.

If. €sapav] The idea seems to be
overtake and lay hold of, clutch back, as if
the c@évos were trying to escape.

12. AGE Tor x.7.\.] He came from
the lovely games of Nemea, a boy com-
petitor, who, in pursuit of thes bird from
Zeus, hath now proved fortunate in the
wrestling bout, as a hunter moving tn the
footsteps of Praxidamas, the brother of hts
father’s sire.

This passage has never been really
explained by commentators. ‘Two ques-
tions arise; (1) what is the meaning of
(2) what
is the force of comparing Alcimidas to a
hunter ?

rattav pmebémuy Awbev aicay?

106

NEMEONIKAI s.

a >’ / ra / / / 3
mats évaywvios, 0s Tavtay peBérwv Arobev aicav
vov TwépavT ovK a yupi Tar g

Mmopos audi Tada KuvayéTas,

” > / CHAN , J
iyveow ev Upakidawavtos édv moda vépwv

TATpoTUTOpoS Oparpiou.

CT: Galas

xelvos yap Odrupriovixos é€ov Aiaxidats
” lal ” phe) gt) a
épvea Tpw@Tos EToooev at Addeod,

Dissen observed that the hunting meta-
phor begins with je@émwy (which we find
with é\agov in O/. 111. 31). The game
accordingly is ravtav atoav, which Dissen
renders ‘hance fortunam, victoriam ludi-
cram’, Mezger ‘diesem (der Kampfspiele)
Loose’. It has been already pointed
out (on 11r. 16) that in Pindar aica does
not always mean Jot or share, but also
omen, auspicium; and the present case is
an instance. Omens were so closely
associated with the most common form
of omen, the bird-omen, that dps is
constantly used of an omen in general;
while, on the other hand, aica is occa-
sionally almost equivalent to dzvd (see
below, line 47). Thus, as suggesting a
bird, it is peculiarly appropriate with
peOéruv.

But what is ‘this omen’? ravrav shews
that it has been already mentioned.
When we reflect that the whole point of
the foregoing lines is a resemblance of
the nature inherent in Alcimidas to the
nature of the earth, and when at the
same time we observe the unusual epithet
applied to aé@\wv, we detect the bird
which plays hide-and-seek, like many
other birds in Pindar. The temperament
of earth (pa) in Alcimidas is an omen
that the Nemean games will prove really
lovely and pleasant (épa7a) to him; and
this auspice is from Zeus, as the god of
those games.

The further significance of these words
will be seen in 1. 45 sqq-

14. apt] see on Ven. 1.29. méparr’
is for wépavra, not for répavro. ‘The
elision of -at is common in Pindar: ef.

Ol. XII. 6 KuAWSov7’ edXmldes, Pyth. XI.
53 méupou’ alcav.

15. ltxveow] Cp. Pythian, X. 12 €u-
BéBaxev ixverw marpos ’Ohupmovixa.

16. opaptov] This word is generally
taken as an emphatic epithet of marpo-
matopos. If Praxidamas was Alcimidas’
grandfather, it is hard to see how any
intention of stress could justify such a
superfluous addition as ‘of the same
blood’. Bergk’s ingenious theory cer-
tainly gives force to the word, but cannot
be considered in the least probable. He
supposes that Theon, who was named
Alcimidas’ father in the list of the Ne-
mean victors, was his father by adoption;
hence Alcimidas had two paternal grand-
fathers (1) the father of Theon, (2)
Praxidamas. Thus Praxidamas is called
6uatiwos to distinguish him from Theon’s
father. The only ground for this theory
rests on the circumstance that Theon is
called Kpzjs, a Cretan, in the aforesaid list
(schol. ed. Abel p. 173).

I believe, the scholia notwithstanding,
that ouayulov is equivalent to opaiuou,
brother, and that Praxidamas was the
great-uncle, not the grandfather, of the

victor. The genealogy was:
Agesimachus
Soclides
=
Ul Das, ss
(arporarwp) Praxidamas
Theon
Alkimidas

18. &pvea x.7-A.] This line is defective
in the Mss., the word between mpartos
and dm’ having accidentally dropped out.

NEMEAN VI. 107
\ / ’ fal /
Kai Tevtakis “loOmot orepavwodpevos,
Newéa d€ tpis, éravoe XaOav 20
Yaxneida, 05 viréptatos "A if: :
a, 0S vTéptatos 'Aynowuuayw view yéverTo.

émet Fou tpeis aeOXopopor mpos axpov aperdas atp. §’.
rAOov, oiTe Tovwy éyevcavto. adv Geod &é TUNG
érepov ov twa Foikov amepavato Tuypayla Tredvov

/ , ae / ¢€ /
Tapiav otepavov puy@ “EdXdbos arracas. 25

Hartung proposed édpévar’, Bergk éveu-
kev; Mr Fennell reads émdpxeo’. Why
any of these words should have dis-
appeared, is not explained. I read
éroooev because its omission from the
text is intelligible on the principle of
parablepsia. In uncials the line was
written

EPNEATTPOTOCETOCENATTIAAPEOY

It is clear how easily one Toce might
have been accidentally omitted and the
unmeaning €N which survived would
have been discarded. For this rare aorist
see Pyth. 111.27 Togoas, IV. 25 €mérooce,
X. 33 €mirdcous.

The word épyea may well strike one as
curious for the corona oleagina, but it is
chosen with the special purpose of sug-
gesting épa, the Earth (like éparav above
l. 12, and &pveox below |. 36); connexion
with the Earth is the favourable omen for
the Bassids.

21. wvméptatos] Generally interpreted
eldest (so schol.); but (1) this use is
hardly possible without the addition of
some word like yeved (cf. A 786 yeven
Uméprepos), and (2) émel, which follows
in ]. 22, has no point unless brépraros
means dest. Pindar says that Soclides,
who was personally the least distin-
guished, became through his three sons’
victories the most distinguished of the
sons of Agesimachus. This interpreta-
tion gives the most natural meaning to
umépraros, secures for yévero its full force
and explains éwef. [After this note was
written I discovered that Boeckh had
proposed this explanation. ]

I follow Bergk in accepting DwxXeldg,
handed down in two Byzantine Mss.,
for Dwxdelda, which is inadmissible be-
fore és.

22. émel For] B has preserved the
right reading of (fo.)=atrg, Agesi-
machus. The other Mss. have ée? oi
(nom. plur.), Dissen illustrates pds
axpov dpeTas jAVov by Lsthm, 111. 50 mplv
TéXos akpov ixécOar.

For mévev éyetcavto compare Pyth.
X. 7 yeveTar yap aéO\wv.

23. odv Oeod x.7.d.] But by divine
grace (or concurrence) no other house hath
been ordained by the art of boxing to
husband her more crowns, won at the city
on the Bay of Greece. mvypwaxia is per-
sonified; the victories and crowns are
hers; and the victorious families are the
tapiat. Thus the appointment is made
in her own interest, and this is expressed
by the middle dre@dvaro.

25. pux@ “HAdad0s aracas] Corinth.
amdoas has its strict force,—Greece en-
tire; the bay of Corinth is conceived as
Panhellenic. A modern writer might
express the idea by using a capital letter.
The xédos Kpicatos (as it was called in
the 5th century B.c.) might be well
named ¢he Bay of Greece; the expression
could not be applied to the sézus Ar-
golicus or the sinus Pagasaicus. puxds
is the corner or head of the gulf. Aes-
chylus calls the Propontis puxlav IIpo-
movrida, and Homer’s

gore modus “Edipn pux@ “Apyeos imro-

Borovo (Z 152)
is familiar.

108

NEMEONIKAI ¢".

nr » lal
éAtropar péeya Ferrwyv oKomrov av TeTUXELV

, % \ lal fv n
©T amo Tokou leis eVOuY émt tovTOV, aye, Motca,

) fal \ See
oUpov émréwy EVKNEG" OlYoMEeVMY Yap avEpwV

‘ A ’ / ,’ Ul
dovdalt Kal NOYoL TA Kaa ohiY Epy Exomioar, avt. B.
a ’ Fe /

Bacoliéatow &@ T ov otraviter’ TaXaidatos yevea, 30

26. €tdmopar] ZL hope that, having
spoken a great word, I may hit the mark
therewith, as one shooting from a bow.
The great word is the boast of the two
preceding lines, which Pindar now pro-
ceeds to justify by recording triumphs of.
the Bassid family in the remoter past.—
B has dyvra oxomrod rtervxetv, D avra
okomov TuxeWv, and a scholiast observes
Evot ypapovow av Tervxetv. Mingarelli’s
okorov ayra TuxElv is generally accepted ;
but if it were the original reading, no
motive can be assigned for the transposi-
tion in the mss. I hold that Pindar
wrote av reruxety, which some MSS. pre-
served intact, while others (from which
those extant are descended) suffered a
corruption owing to a wrong division of
words—dv te tuxyev. A very natural
correction was dvta, and if this were
written above the line or in the margin
it might easily be inserted by a copyist.
5 presents a contamination of both read-
ings.—For construction of dy reruxew,
cf. Soph. Ph27. 629.

27. evOvy’ émi todrov x.7..] The
transition here is marked by an abrupt
Come, O Muse,
send straight upon this house a fair wind
of verses, laden with glory. Elsewhere
Pindar has ofpov tuvwy avéns (Pyth. Iv. 3).
The mss. have ev@’v, but Schmidt’s cor-

change of metaphor.

rection is certain, for (1) a long syllable
is demanded by the metre, (2) aye otpov
is at least an unlikely expression. In
]. 28 the mss. have evxéea' TEPOLX OMEV WY ,
a syllable more than the corresponding
lines in the other strophes. The simplest
remedy is to omit map, which may have
come in from a gloss; so Bergk, who

also suggests evk\€* drro-youévwr.

According to the scholia totrov refers
to cKo7rov.

28. otxopévwy x.7.d.] For of its heroes
dead and gone songs and tales conveyed
the noble deeds, whereof the Bassidae
have no scant store.

dovsal Kal Adyot, Pauw’s correction
for dovdol Kai NdyL01, is adopted by Bergk.
The reading of the Mss. requires the
scansion of \dyo as a dissyllable, which
seems extremely doubtful. The best ar-
gument for retaining Noy.or is the circum-
stance that it occurs in the first line of
the third strophe; but this argument is
not really cogent. Pindar’s system of
responsions does not require the recur-
rence of exactly the same word; a cognate
word, similar in form and sense, is suffi-
ciently significant.

Dissen takes éxouigay to mean /ove-
But the metaphor is
clearly preserved ; songs are the breezes
which waft the Bassid ships. kouéfw in
the sense waft is too familiar to need
illustration.

30. madalhatos x.7.\.] They are an
ancient family, who lade their ship with
their own praises, and can furnish the
tillers of the Pierides with many a hymn
in honour of ennobling exploits. For
vavoTo\ew with the accusative, cf. Euri-

runt, servarunt.

pides, Ovestes 741 Kal Oduapra THy Ka-
klornv vavoro\av éAnAvGev; it is more
usual in the intransitive sense of sailing.
Poets are called the ploughmen of the
Muses (cf. Nem. X. 26 Moloaow ew’
dpooa, Pyth. Vi. 1, 2 Adpodiras dpoupay
9) Xapirwy dvaroNlfouev), because the
family of Alcimidas has been compared
inl. 9 toa tilled field (see troduction).

In choosing IIcepié6wy Pindar had a

NEMEAN VI.

109

” / 3 / / ,’ /
(ova vavaoTtonréovtes émrixdmia, Ilvepidwv apdtais

/
duvatol trapéxew Trodvy buvov ayepdyov

Epypatov évexer.

\ \ b] ’ Le
Kal yap év ayabéa

Lal e / x lal / > \ /
xeipas iwavte SeBeis Ilv@dvu Kpatnoev aro Tavtas
aiua Tatpas ypucadaxatov Tote KadXilas ddov 35

épveot Aatovs, mapa Kacradia te Xapitwv

, c
éoTréplos Opmadw préyev"
/
movtov Te yépup akapavTos év

thought of its connexion with rlepa. In
Homer ayépwxos is only used of persons;
Pindar applies it to noble deeds, cf. O/.
X. 79 ayepwxou vikas, and to wealth,
Pyth. 1. 50 whovrou orepdvwm’ ayépwxov.

33. Kal ydp x.7.\.] or once on a
time Callias, who had the blood of this
clan in his veins, at the divine Pytho, his
hands bound with a strap, won a victory,
having found favour with the scions of
Leto of the golden distaff. tabtas is
emphatic and corresponds to tavray in
the corresponding verse of the first anti-
strophe; the omen of the Bassidae (al-
luded to in dpérais) is not to be forgotten.
The collocation of aiwa marpas (for aiua
in apposition to Callias, Dissen com-
pares omépy’ dro Kaddcdvaxros O2. VII.
83) is designed to recall marpomdropos
ouautov of 1. 16. The exploits of the
ancient members of the house are com-
pared with the modern achievements
recorded in the first part of the ode.-—The
victory of Callias was for boxing; schol.
The
old Mss. have iwaytwéels, but Triclinius
read tpavtt Se8els, which is accepted by
all modern editors. The caestus of the
Greeks seems to have consisted in a strap
rolled round the hand.

36. €pverr] epvos is used similarly by
Sophocles, Oed. Col. 1108 & gidrar’
épvn. Apollo and Artemis, who presided
together at the Pythian games are called
in Wem. 1X. 5 Iv@@vos alaewdas ouoxNapors
émomras. ‘They are here called the épv7
of Leto, to suggest a connexion with épa,

‘ A , \ -~ 7
TH TUKTLKA TKEVN META XEtpas AaBuv.

Cm ae

’ /
apple TLOV@V

the Earth,—the Bassid omen. See /7770-
duction, and above 1. 18.

37. opadw ddéyev] And al eventide
by the waters of Castalia he grew radiant
to the dinning music of the Graces. ‘The
victor is saluted by the loud comus-song
of young men in the evening and the
Graces are conceived to wrap him in a
blaze of light. So in the Fifth Pythian
the poet addresses the victor Alexibiades,
‘the Graces, with lovely tresses, make
thee bright’ cé & jiikouor préyoure Xapr-
Tes. ouddw is a curious word to denote
the comus, as éuados suggests an un-
musical din (cf. /sthm. VII. 25 xXaAKeov
préyev, splendebat is
intransitive here as in OZ. Il. 79 dvOeua
dé xpuvood pdéyer (which Sir Francis
Doyle renders by flowers of five). Else-
where in Pindar (except frag. 26) it has a
transitive sense. So the Graces are said
to z//uminate a victor, Pyth. Vv. 45 o€ &
jixouor pdéyovTe Xapites. See Mem.
X. 2.

38. movrov te x.7-.] And the sea-
bridge of unwearying strength honoured
Kreontidas in Poseidon’s sacred precincts,
at the three-yearly festival which the
neighbouring peoples keep with the blood
of bulls. The significance of yépup’
axdavros has been explained in the
Introduction.

Lf ta
oTovoevTa Guador).

As to dudixriovwr Dissen
notes : constat quidem praesides [sthmi-
orum Corinthios fuisse, cum Corinthiis
vero aliae complures civitates inde a
mythico tempore ad hos ludos celebrandos

conjunctae fuerunt, quae etiam postea

IIo

Tavpodove tpreTnpid. Kpeovtiday

, ' 5) s
tiwace Llocevdavioy av Témevos
, / ‘fy? € /
Botava té vw 70? a déovtos
a ay, /
ViKOVT Apepe Sackiols
a € 5
PrLodytTos vm’ wyuylous dpeow.

Tratetar TavToOev Aoyiorcww evTL TpoTodoL

Oewplas mittebant, ut Athenienses. Ac-
cording to modern mode of speech the
Isthmian was a dzennzal feast.

It is worth noticing that the Isthmian
and Nemean victories of Kreontidas are
mentioned in the same verses of the
second Epode, as the victories of Praxi-
damas gained at the same places in the
first Epode. Cf. 1. rg with 1. 40, and
1. 20 with 1. 42. The Olympian victory
of ll. 17, 18 was the preeminent distinc-
tion of Praxidamas; the Pythian victory
(33—37) of Kallias corresponds.

39. KpeovrfSav] Creontidas is the
proper name of an individual, not (as the
scholiast says) a description of Callias
(‘son of Creon’). Bergk observes that
the name Creontidas is on a scarabzeus
discovered at Aegina. Rauchenstein con-
jectured Kpeovriday of the Corinthians.

41. Botdva x.7.d.] And once on a
time the herb of the lion covered his brow,
when he was victorious beneath the deep
shades, of the old-world mountains of
Phiius.

In Jsthm. 111. 11 Nemea is described
Kot\a éovtos Babvorépyw varg. Bergk
wishes to in 1. 41 for
160’ a, but this is quite uncalled for.
& Borava déovros is the parsley, which
woven in a garland formed a sort of roof
for the victor’s head.

42. vikavr’ pede Sacklors}] This
verse presents an interesting critical pro-
The mss. have mxacavr’ épepe
dacklos. Triclinius read épey’ doxlo.s,
and this led to Schmidt’s reading vixa-
On the other hand
Hermann, followed by Bergk, seeks the

introduce moa

blem.

cavr’ eped? acktos.

NEMEONIKAI ¢&.

oTp. y.

error not in dackios but in the first word
of the line and reads vixavr’ Hpepe da-
oxtos. We have already met the imper-
fect and present tenses used of the victor,
vice he is the conqueror, évixa he was the
conqueror, so that vex@vra (impft. part.)
would be quite in Pindar’s manner here ;
further it was liable to be interpreted in
the margin by an aorist participle, if not
‘emended’. It might be observed in
support of dackios that it occurs as an
epithet of épy in Euripides, Bacchae, 218 ;
and that, had doxtos been the word of
Pindar, it was hardly likely to become
dacklors. But what decides me in favour
of Hermann’s restoration is the circum-
stance that Pindar alludes throughout to
verbal connexions between the Earth and
the places where the Bassidae, her true
children, win their laurels or parsley, and
the Mss. reading 8a-cxlocs presents us
with an allusion to Ad, Anw, Anujrnp.
The choice of the word wyvylos in the
next line (see Zntvoduction) emphasises
the point by taking us back to the days
of ancient Earth worship. Bergk reads
wyvylo’, and proposes wdvylos (dark).

44. WAaretar «.7.d.] Broad on all
sides are the approaches for tellers of tales
to adorn this island clad with glory.
Compare /sthm. Ul. 19 €oTe mor Oedy
txare pupla mavra xédevos. Here he
says, the ways are évoad; in a similar
sense in /s¢h. 11. 33 he writes, the way is
not steep (ob5 mpocavrns). Dissen com-
pares a line of Bacchylides, ef 6é Aé-yee Tes
d\X\ws, maTela KéXevOos.

Observe that the lines in strophe and
ant. y in praise of the Aeacidae are

NEMEAN VI.

EDI

vacov evKréa Tdavde Koopeiv’ ered apw Aiaxidar 45

x ” 3 ,’ \ ’ , /
émropov e€Eoyov aiaay apeTas ATOOELKVUPLEVOL [LEYaNAS.

métatas & émi te xOdva Kat dita Padaooas

/ fal ’
Tnrobev dvup’ avTav’ Kat és AiOlorras

Méyvovos ovK atovooticaytos mato’ Bapv 5é ofuv
veixos “Ayireds pave xapale xaBas ad appatov, 50

parallel in thought and phrase to strophe
and ant. 8 in praise of the Bassidae

1. 29 dodal Kat do- 1. 44 Noylou.
you.

ll. 29, 30 7a Kaha 1. 46 aperas pe-
1. .Cpya...a 7” ov ydanas.
oravlfe.

1. 28 evxded. 1. 45 evxdéa.

1. 30 Bacoldacow. 1. 45 Alaxidac.

]. 32 mapéxew To- 1. 46 (cpu) érro-

ody tyuvov (Ile- pov &oxov al-
pliwy dporais).

l. 30 madaldaros

yeved. TEpOl.

45. €ael od k.7.A.] For fo them (the
bards, Ny.o.) the Acacidae brought a pre-
eminent auspice by giving proof of great
excellences ; yea, it flies afar, their name,
over land and across the sea, and it winged
its way to the bourne of the Ethiopians
when Memnon returned not. The alca
of the Aeacidae is the eagle, as we have
seen in the Fifth Ode; and their eagle-
name flies over land and sea. This con-
sideration establishes ovum’? in 1. 48,
against Bergk’s reading xAéos, for which
he seeks to find support in a scholium.
For the expression cf. Agamemnon 581,
imép Oaddoons Kal xPovds moTwuévors. For
the death of Memnon see Wem. III. 63.

49. €radto] So Schol. rouréorw éran-
Oy, €B7On for MSS. ém@ dro (aorist of
épddXNouac). Two considerations decide
in favour of émaXro, aorist of ma\\w
(éradro : maAXw 3: adTo (2-adTOo) : ddXo-
pat): (1) the él in éwaXro has no force.
(2) médXouac is the word used by Pindar
for the rush of the eagle; Mem. Vv. 21 kal
mépav movroto Ta\dovT’ aierol.

50. vetkos «.7.X.] This line, as it

cay.
l. 52 madaco-

stands in the MSs., will neither give sense
nor scan:

veikos €umeo’ "Axirevs' xapmal KauBas

ad’ apyarev
(variants: reo’, "Axdev’s, KaBPas).
Countless emendations have been pro-
posed, but not one of them is quite
satisfactory. We have two clues, the
metre and a scholium. (1) The metre
required is
{ Ue wil as hate

(2) The scholium is: Bapetay 6€ kai éma-
OR maxny did prroverciay aitots ewédetev
(lege dwédetev, Bergk). The metre sug-
gests that the verse began with veikos
*Ayvre’s, that a verb of trochaic quantity
fell out after "AxAevs, and that éu7reo’
was foisted in from the margin in the
wrong place. The scholium
that the lost verb meant skewed; conse-
quently Dissen and Bergk read veikos
"Ayireds dette. But Mr Fennell (with
whose view of the passage I do not

otherwise agree) appositely remarks that
the scholiast’s émédeEe is a reason for

indicates

avoiding dete. Here as elsewhere the
art of Pindar himself enables us to correct
gave is the word
required here, and géve is rendered al-

errors in his text.

most certain by viv répavr’ in the cor-
responding line of the second antistrophos
(Il. 13). Pindar thereby suggests a com-
parison between Alcimidas and Achilles.
As to the last words Dissen and most
editors adopt xaual xaraBas. But as it
is in the highest degree improbable that
xaraBas should have been altered to
xaBBds, I have no hesitation in adopting

I12

A eX gs > / ’ / , fol
gaevvds viov ett évapi—ev ‘Aoos axa

” /
éyyeos Caxoro.o.

NEMEONIKAI ¢.

/
.

avT. ¥

Kal TAUTAY meV TANALOTEPOL

egy ’ \ & A 4 \ \ aN + / A
odov apakitov ebpov' Erouar d€ Kai avTos Eywv pedeTaV

\ \ \ \ \ ¢ a HN
TO bé€ Tap TOOL Vvaos €AXLTOOMEVOV Alet

KULaT@V éyeTaL TravTt padtata Sovely 55

Oupor.

éxdvte & eyo voto pebérav didupov ayGos

v » / Sea) ” fa Uy
ayyedos EBav TéeTTOV ET ELKOTL TOUVTO YapuwV

J id /
eVYOS AywVvV amo, TOS EVvETTOLTW LEpovs,

> /
"ArKipida TO y émapKecev

the reading of Hermann and Schneidewin
xamage KaBds. xamerov in Ol. VII. 38,
is an exact parallel to kaBds.

5I. aka eyxeos Laxdroo] W2th the
point of his wrathful spear. Compare
Horace, Carm. 1. 3, 36 tracunda ponere
fulmina. The mss. have aixuga, which
does not suit the metre. Editors follow
Schmid in reading dxug, but it does not
seem likely that a usual word like axug
should have been thus corrupted. I hold
that aiyua was a gloss on the rare aka,
which I restore also in Vem. X. 60.

52. Kal tavrav K.7.A.] And this high-
way the ancients discovered ; and I follow
them, with a burden of my own. 660s
dpaéitds is one of the ‘broad approaches’
of 1. 45; and consists in praising the
Aeacidae by narrating the deeds of
Achilles at Troy (ravrav). madaorepor
means, not wore ancient but, ancient as
opposed to its correlative vewrepo. The
ancients sang of the Aeacidae; I, a
modern, sing of the Bassidae, who are
also an ancient race (1. 32). pedA€ray is
the cura carminis or theme. Dissen’s oz
sine studio, suggesting subjective care or
zeal, is hardly to the point; rather zfse
quoque habens quod mediter, Compare
the use of wé\w in Homer: “Apy® maou
pédovea p 70, dvOpwrooe wédw, t 20.

54. TO St map wodl x.7.r.] But the
wave which at each moment rolls close to
the rudder of the vessel, according to the
saw, most deeply shakes the spirit, A

eT. Y .

proverbial sea-metaphor is introduced
but without disturbing the metaphor
of the highway, which is continued in
l. 57. Dissen and others take ovs
here to mean ee/; its regular nautical
meaning s/eet being inappropriate. In
the scholia it is explained as rudder:
Tovs pev vews TO mndddoy, and this ex-
planation, I believe, is correct. This
passage and Odyssey k 32 (aiel yap moda
ynds evouwv ovdé Tw GAAw Ox’ Erapwr)
taken together entitle us to conclude that
movs had the meaning /e/m as well as
sheet. For the sense of the lines cf.
Nemean IV. Ot, 92-

56. é€kovTe x.7.\.] But with willing
back, undertaking a double load, I went
as a messenger, proclaiming this twenty-
jifth glory won in the games, yelept
*sacred’,—even this which Alcimidas
secured for his glorious race.

The double burden is the praises of
the Bassids and of the Aeacids (see Z7tre-
duction, p. tot). Were it not for his
special intention of connecting the Bassids
with Earth, Pindar could not have used
language suggesting that his song was a
load, ax@0s, which always implies op-
pression. (Cf. for example, Agamemnon,
176 el TO waray dd dpovriios &xAos xpy
Barew érnripws.) As it is, adxos is
happy, suggesting d@x@os dpovpas and the
heavy quality of earth,

59. “AdkiplSa] This Aeolic form of
the nominative has been restored by

NEMEAN VI.

KXetTa yevea’ Svo wev Kpoviov trap Tewéver
a yeved pev Kpo p Tepever,

oh
60

mai, cé T évoogice Kat odvtiday
KAapos mpotretis avOe ’Ordvprriaédos.

Serdivi Kev tayos Sv adwas
” tal /

ioov otrotut Merdnoiar,
xelpav Te Kal layvos avioxov.

Bergk for ’Adkiuldas, émdpkere (only
here in Pindar) is explained by rpocé@nxe
in the scholia.

61. So pev x.7.r.] A precipitate lot
(that is, drawn too soon) withheld from
thee, boy, and from Polytimidas two
Olympian crowns, hard by the temple of
the son of Cronus. The combatants in
wrestling matches were paired by draw-
ing lots. When the number of com-
petitors was odd, one drew ‘a by’ and
was called égedpos. In the case of
Alcimidas and Polytimidas it would seem
that really inferior boys had the luck to
draw byes, and because they were fresh
defeated their superior opponents who
were wearied by the labours of previous
contests. My rendering of rpomerys im-
plies that the drawer of the last lot had
the advantage of being the épedpos. If
it were proved that the first lot was the
‘by’, we should have to interpret zpo-
mer7js in the more general sense of 7az2-
dom.—vorgpifw, to rob of, is used with
two accusatives (cp. Soph. P/z/octetes,
684) as well as with acc. and gen, ’Odup-
miados (vixas) of an Olympian victory.

A scholiast gives a curious explanation
of k\Gpos—i mpoekavOnors tev TpLXGr.
amexplOnoay yap ws ov mavduKny exovTes
Mruklay dua TO mponvOnxévac ras Tplxas.
mpd wpas yodv Td dvOos avrois THs nBns,

pnot, cuvex\npwbn* ovros yap KARpos
ay @ous.
64. Seddivl kev x.7.d.] Zo a dolphin

darting through the salt sea would I liken
Sor swiftness Melesias, charioteer of hands
and strength. Compare Simonides, fr.
149 (206) madacpootyns dekwdy jvloxov.
See further Appendix A, note 7.

65. Yrov oot] This is my own
correction of the reading of the Mss. icov
elmouut, which does not suit the metre.
In his 4th edition Bergk reads eéxaforue
dubitanter, and suggests étoKowut or avT-
icxoze in the note. But these conjec-
tures cannot be entertained as there is no
apparent reason for their corruption.
CTTOIMI was doomed to be read ETTOIMI
which was of course interpreted eizrouue.
oroijue is aor. optative corresponding to
éomere (B 484, &c.) as (€mt-)orolyny
corresponds to éo7rec@e.
preserved in év-vémw (év-cérw).

The present is

NEMEAN VIL.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY AT NEMEA ISS Gite
BOYS’ PENTATHLON WON BY SOGENES, OF ABGINE
SON OF THEARION.

INTRODUCTION.

THE victory of Sogenes of Aegina in the boys’ pentathlon at Nemea, in
the year 461 B.C., was a consolation, late and all the more welcome, to his °
father Thearion, a man who had been himself disappointed of winning the
fame which he desired. It appears that Sogenes was the son of his old age,
born after a long childlessness—perhaps elder sons had died— and called by
the significant name ‘Saviour of the family,’ as a sacred vessel containing
the future of the pace. An old man, dejected by a hfe of disappointments
and perhaps weakened by ill health, Thearion must have been cheered and
elated by the news of his son’s victory, rendered unusually conspicuous by
the accidental circumstance that Sogenes was the first Aeginetan who won
in the pentathlon at Nemeal.

Pindar, a friend of Thearion, was employed to celebrate the occasion, .
and wrought, in a more than ordinarily elaborate hymn, all that song can
work of consolation, for a man whose past life was somewhat heavy to
remember, and whose future was not his own. In fact this Seventh Nemean
Ode is for Thearion a song of consolation, immortalising the new hope of
an old man, who makes, as it were, a fresh start in life through the success
of his son.

And this Ode had a special personal interest for the poet himself. Some
words in a paean*, which he had recently composed for performance at
Delphi, had wounded the susceptibilities of the Aeginetans, sensitive regarding
the honour of their national heroes. Having occasion to mention Neopto-
lemus, whose death at Delphi was enveloped in some mystery, he had
spoken of him as ‘slain in strife with servants of the temple, in a matter

! Schol. mp@ros 6 Luryévns Alywnrdv 53rd Nemead] ‘tnstitutum esse constat
eviknoe wats dy mevTdOd\y Kata tiv vd — siguidem Eurybates Argivus Nemeae quin-
Newedia* éré0n 5€ 6 wévrabdos mp&ros guertio victor ante proelium Marathonium
kata Ti vy’ Newedda. vd’ is Hermann’s a Sophane Athenienst occisus est, vid.
emendation for 16’, but there is no reason fausan. 1. 29, 43 Lerod. VI. 92, ef
for changing ty’. As Bergk says, guznm- IX. 75.
quertit cerlamen multo ante [before the * See note on line 64.

INTRODUCTION. 115
concerning due honours.’ The mere words seem innocent enough, but
there were tales in circulation touching the hero’s mysterious death, not
quite flattering to him, one legend especially charging him with the intention
of sacrilege, and the susceptible countrymen of the Aeacids perhaps dis-
covered in the paean a suggestion of this enormity. At least they accused
Pindar in strong language of having traduced the fame of Neoptolemus’,
and ‘the opportunity of injuring a rival was doubtless seized eagerly by other
poets? who were his competitors for the favours of rich Aeginetan families.
We may suppose that a cloud overcast for a while Pindar’s reputation at
Aegina, where he had extensive connexions; that victors shewed their
dissatisfaction by not employing him to celebrate their achievements ; and
that Thearion was the first who ventured to ask him for an Ode, at some
personal sacrifice too, for his fortune was only moderate*, and the price of
immortality from the greatest lyric poet of Greece was perhaps a serious tax
on his purse. Pindar embraced the opportunity to right himself in the eyes
of his Aeginetan critics, explaining that he meant no wrong to the fame of
their hero; and he has dexterously interwoven this motive with the main
theme of the poem, making Neoptolemus a mythical prototype of Sogenes.
This Ode has won the reputation of being encompassed with insoluble
difficulties, but it carries its own explanation with it and yields readily to a
really close study. All that has been said here’, can be deduced directly

l EXk’ioa érect, 1. 103 (an expression Mezger divides the Ode thus:

as strong as our mazled).

2 Especially, I believe, Bacchylides.
See note on I. ro2 sqq.

3]. 58, éouxd7a Katpdy OABov. That the
expenses involved in paying the poet
and the chorus were no mere trifle to
Thearion will appear in the course of
the analysis.

4 Hermann rejects the notion that
Pindar is apologising for a paean, and
finds the whole idea of the Ode in a
consolation to Thearion. L. Schmidt
combines, as I have done, both ideas.
Dissen, accepting the story about the
paean, assumes that the house of Thearion
was unpopular at Aegina and that Pindar
by the myths of Ajax and Neoptolemus,
who were illtreated by contemporaries,
bids Thearion be of good cheer. Momm-
sen, as usual, tries to find political ten-
dencies in the Ode and supposes that
Odysseus and Ajax signify Athens and
Aegina; but this theory was easily dis-
posed of by Rauchenstein, Phzlologus,
RNs Zhe

dpxd 1—16; katarpord 17—243 du-
padds 24—743 meTaKkararpoTa 75—79;
oppayls 8o—t1o1; é£6dvov 102—105.

Both dapxa and odpayis deal with the
divine blessing which has been vouch-
safed to the house of Thearion, (1)
through Ilithyia, (2) through Heracles
(cf. dXxKad, responding in v. 12 and v. 96).
Both car. and per. deal with song, the
former emphasizing its necessity, the
latter representing the Muse weaving a
crown. The dudadds consists of two
parts, the first- mythical, the second con-
cerned with the present.

He finds the leading idea of the song
expressed in vv. 7—10: (1) the Aeacids
favour the Aeginetans in their agonistic
ambitions and enterprises, and (2) there-
fore Sogenes, sealed for such glory from
his very birth, is now celebrated in the
island which is distinguished for its love
of song. These two elements of the
Grundgedanke are worked out in the two
parts of the éugadds; so that in the
mythical narration Neoptolemus’ function

8—2

116 NEMEAN VII.

from Pindar’s words; for, even if a scholiast had not preserved in a note the
verse of the obnoxious paean, we should have known from the last lines of
the Ode that Pindar had offended Aegina by some unguarded word con-
cerning Neoptolemus.

An invocation of Ilithyia, the goddess who presides over the births of
children, alleviating the mother’s labour, and extends a beneficent influence
over the troublesome years of infancy, was chosen by Pindar as an appro-
priate introduction. For as all the hopes of Thearion were concentrated in
Sogenes, he owed a peculiar debt to Iithyia for having preserved the boy,
to be a strong youth, through the dangers that surround children before and
after birth. She is daughter of Hera, who presides over marriage, and
beside her at the bed of travail stand the Fates who know the future ; these
associations are mentioned in the invocation. She watches over the being,
whom she ushers into the world, during all his days and nights—/rzendly
nights, for the Greeks propitiated the dangers and darkness of Night by
calling her ‘the friendly season’—until she hands him over to the guardian-
ship of her sister Hebe, to describe whose gleaming limbs, strong for all
active masteries, Pindar compounds a new adjective, dyAacyuos, which
suggests a work of plastic art.

But the lots of men vary ; Thearion, we can read between the lines, was
not like Sogenes; and Sogenes, as a glorious conqueror in the pentathlon,
must thank the indispensable favour of Ilithyia.

After these verses of thanksgiving—naturally occurring to a really religious
mind looking back at a childhood which was now drawing to a close under
happy auspices—the poet passes to the victor’s country. -Sogenes is a
victor, and is now being celebrated in a song. Both circumstances are
natural, for he dwells in a city, where there is a lively spirit of ambition for
success in the national games of Greece, nourished as it were by the
Aeacid heroes themselves; and the same city ‘loveth dance and song.’

But we are sped quickly over this praise of Aegina,—with a Pindaric
rapidity, one might say—to a main thought of the poem, ¢he power of song
to illumine. Great exploits are buried in darkness, unless they are rescued
by a poet, who reflects them into some perpetuating mirror, the streams of
the Muses for example, or the shining surface of the headband or fillet worn
by Memory, their mother. But while the flowing waters of the Muses (a
feature in Pindar’s poetical world) are a reflecting surface, the liquid
substance, inviting as it were actual contact, suggests a second metaphor ;

the Ode, as any one who reads it carefully
may see for himself.

as umpire is the most important moment,
and in the second division Thearion’s

intelligence, revealed in a recognition of
the value of song, assumes the prominent
place.

The expositions of Dissen, Schmidt,
and Mezger are all instructive, but they
are very far from completely explaining

The three divisions which I indicated
in the general Ztroduction nearly corre-
spond to the main divisions of Mezger.
(1) System 1. (2) Systems 2—4. (3)
System 5 (beginning at I. 80).

INTRODUCTION. 117

and a successful combatant is said to ‘cast a honeyed argument’ into
the streams of song. The thoughts and language of these lines are echoed
again in the progress of the poem; the darkness, the streams of the
Muses, the honey (with a savour of wine or sleep), the gleam of Memory’s
fillet, recur, as we shall see!.

A certain abruptness in Pindar sometimes gives us the impression that
he has passed to a new subject, without having smoothed the way for the
transition; whereas a closer examination shews that the new thought is
really confederate with those which have gone before. And so, here, having
declared that song is as a light shining in darkness, he proceeds to say, in
the epode, that wise men consider the wind which is to blow three days
hence, and will not damage their true interests by any shortsighted calcu-
lations of mere lucre. They are really wise; for rich and poor must alike
stand in the presence of Death. At first hearing, these words sound like a
riddle ; are they connected or not, one asks, with the things said about the
power of poetry? The next sentence helps us to solve the difficulty. ‘I
trow,’ Pindar proceeds, ‘that through the sweet speech of Homer the report
of Odysseus’ experiences has exceeded the reality.’ This shows that he is
still dwelling on the potency of poetry ; and it becomes clear that the wise
men are they who are content to sacrifice an ample sum of gold for the
sake of future fame—the wind that cometh on the third day. And the
remark is specially intended for Thearion ; he is one of those wise men ; and
the poet indicates this by a favourite artifice”.

But the mention of Homer and Odysseus leads to a new subject.
Homer is not Pindar’s ideal poet ; in fact Homer affords an example of the
power of ‘sweet verses’ misused. Pindar was a countryman of Hesiod and
he did not forget the mythical contest between Hesiod and Homer ; he
conceived the poet of the Odyssey as a sort of ‘ sophist, one who deceives
his readers by cunning words, the friend of the crafty Odysseus. And so
here, with a clever play on words, he introduces the story of the death of
Ajax, to whom, in consequence of the wiles of Odysseus, the Greeks had not
adjudged the golden arms of Achilles. Ajax is the type of the brave, but
ineffectual hero. If the masses, who made the award, had been keen enough
to see that Ajax was the true eagle (Alas aierds), that hero would not have
slain himself. Homer himself was blind (Pindar hints), and a mass of men
is blind also®.

1 gxdrov (1. 13) and poatst (1. 12) recur
together in ckorewoy (1. 61) and pods
(1. 62).

ped ppova (1. r1) is echoed in mé (1. 53,
corresponding line of antistrophos).

To Aurapdpruxos (1. 15) answers Nurap@
(1. 99, corresponding line of antistrophos).

To dAxaé (1. 13) answers aAxav (1. 96,
same foot in same antistrophic line).

2 Euabov odd’ md Képdee BAaBev (1. 17)
is the second line of the first epode. In
the second line of the third epode, speak-
ing of Thearion, Pindar writes

ctvecw ovK amoBhdmret ppevav.

Thearion is specially alluded to in 1. 17.
3 See note on l. 24.

118 NEMEAN VII.

It is clear that the story of Ajax is introduced with special application to
Thearion, whose life had been ‘brave’ but ineffectual, and who, as some
lines indicate, was sensitive to calumny and disparagement. Ajax is said to
have been the bravest, after Achilles, of those who came to Troy to recover
Helen. Troy, where so many heroes of Greek legend won their laurels, is
a figure or type of the games of historical Greece ; and the circumstance
that Ajax, albeit valiant, never returned to his home with booty and prizes is
an indirect consolation to Thearion for having contended in games without
success. It seems, moreover, to be suggested by the use of a somewhat rare
adjective that the death of Ajax was easy; a smooth sword (Aevpov Eidos)
pierced his heart.

The ineffectuality of Ajax, the prototype of Thearion, is contrasted with
the success of Neoptolemus, who serves as a parallel to Sogenes. The
transition from the first myth to the second is managed by another reference
to the equalising power of Death. It was said above that Death takes not
account of wealth; now it is said that Hades regards not renown. Yet
there is a distinction even in death. Those favoured heroes, who visit
Apollo’s temple at Delphi, the centre of the earth, as guests of the god
himself, may be said to have won true and abiding honour. For at Delphi
there was celebrated a feast called the ‘Entertainment of Heroes,’ at which
Apollo was supposed to entertain those who in their life-time had made a
pilgrimage to his Delphic shrine. This feast was honoured with games
as well as sacrifices, and the Aeacid hero Neoptolemus had received the
privilege of acting as an ideal president of the gymnastic contests.

For the body of Neoptolemus lies in holy ground—in an immemorial
grove—hard by the temple; he is the representative of the Aeacids at
Delphi. He sacked the city of Priam, winning spoils and glory; but as he
sailed homeward, winds drove him from his course, and instead of reaching
Scyros, he found himself in Epirus. There he became king of Molossia
and was succeeded by a line of Neoptolemids. But his own reign was
shortened by an accident. He visited Delphi, to make a rich offering of
his Trojan booty to Apollo; and in a brawl touching sacrificial meats he
was killed—by a priest of the temple, according to the legend, but Pindar
is careful here to call the homicide ‘a man’ merely, in order to avoid the
least appearance of charging the hero with sacrilege. And emphasizing the
innocence of Neoptolemus, he adds, ‘The hospitable Delphians were made
heavy at heart exceedingly.’ But the unlucky stroke proved happy in the
event, for Neoptolemus received the high honour of burial in the precincts of
the temple and of becoming the president of the games at the Feast of Neuza.

This myth serves the purpose of explaining to the Aeginetans Pindar’s
true view of the life and acts of Neoptolemus, whose memory he was said
to have treated with scant courtesy; but, for the comprehension of the
whole hymn, this is an aspect of only secondary import. Our chief concern
is to determine the drift of the myth, in relation to the rest of the Ode. Two
things are clear: Sogenes is compared to Neoptolemus, and Neoptolemus is
contrasted with Ajax. Ajax was ineffectual and did not come back from

INTRODUCTION. 119

Troy; Neoptolemus sacked Troy and returned with the prizes of victory.
In the same way Thearion had failed, Sogenes had won. It would be
inconvenient to anticipate, but we shall shortly see that the parallel between
Sogenes and Neoptolemus is carried out in detail, so that even the
sovranty in Molossia is not insignificant.

At the beginning of the third strophe, after the mention of Neoptolemus’
death, we hear the sound of a new note—friendship which is sanctified
by hospitality:

BapvvOev Se mepiroa Acoli Eevayéra,
and this note of hospitality resounds again and again from this point to the
end. Neoptolemus is a president at the Xevza,; and though Pindar does
not use the word, he renders the idea even more prominent by an allusive
phrase, evovupov es Sikavy, meaning that the hero’s office is to preserve that
justice whose name is lovely, the right of hospitality (dikay &eviav). We
shall soon learn how this idea bears on Sogenes and his father.

We are now reaching the middle of the Ode where Pindar has chosen to
end his mythical narrations. In the land of Greek legend the stories of the
Aeginetan cycle forrn a great high-road, tempting for a poet to pursue;
but that Greek moderation, which so carefully defined the proportions of all
artistic work, reminds him that the sweetness of owey may cloy, and the
delectable flowers of Aphrodite ‘the Foam-born’ queen, may pall through
intemperate use. The recurrence of the metaphor from honey suggests
that the deeds of Neoptolemus, like the exploit of Sogenes, are a ‘ sweet
argument’ for the Muses, and helps to indicate the intended parallel.

But Pindar in this passage implies, I believe, a ‘darker purpose.’ He
cries to Aegina, that he is emboldened to proclaim for the brilliant deeds of
her heroes a high-road of praise, starting from their home (otko@ev) ; and the
form of expression suggests that the adventures of Neoptolemus are not
conceived as occurring on the high-road, xvpia od0s. This conjecture is
confirmed by the line which describes Neoptolemus’ return from Troy (I. 37),

arom éwv
SkKvpov pev duaptev, ixovro & eis "Edvpay mAayertes!.
He missed Scyrus strongly suggests deviation from a 0d0s okuperta”
oixade. Now the stress laid on the circumstance that Neoptolemus did
not return home, has probably a reference to the victor. In a subsequent
verse (91) Pindar gives Sogenes an indirect admonition to be an obedient
boy and honour his father. It would seem that Sogenes had been some-
what intractable’, infected with the ‘taints of liberty’; and perhaps, after

1 For the reading m\ayévTes, see note. previous relations of Sogenes to Thearion
2 gsxupwra 660s (paved road)=kupla 660s had not been of a duly filial character ;
(high-road); cf. Pyth. V. 93 immoxporov probably the young man had left his
okupwray odor. father’s home and been living on terms
3 Such a conjecture had been thrown of some estrangement.” For further con-
out by Mr Arthur Holmes, who observes _firmation see below, p. 123-
that Il. go sqq. ‘‘lead us to infer that the

120 NEMEAN VII.

his victory at Nemea, he had not returned immediately, like a dutiful son,
to his home at Aegina. One might imagine that he paid a visit to Corinth,
that city of pleasure, so attractive and dangerous for young men, so dreaded
by solicitous parents lest it should prove the ‘blastment’ of youth. And if
this were the case, it would be quite in Pindar’s way thus quaintly to ‘breathe
his faults’ and to press home the allusion by that ambiguous name Ephyra,
which, meaning in regard to Neoptolemus a town in Epirus, might suggest
Corinth, called in Homer Ephyra, to the guilty conscience of ‘the wild boy.’

The word ‘honey,’ which has already taken us back to the early stanzas
of the Ode, prepares us for further echoes of the thoughts there expressed.
In the invocation to Ilithyia it was said that men’s endowments and
destinies differ. And the myths have illustrated this remark in the different
careers of Ajax and Neoptolemus. It is therefore fitting and really artistic
to remind us of this truth again, before we hear of the non-legendary careers
of Thearion and Sogenes in the second part of the poem. But Pindar does
not merely ‘repeat himself’; he adds something new. ‘In his nature and
in his life each man differs from another ; but no man can win happiness
entire; or at least, though a few may have gained it for an hour, Fate has
bestowed it on none as a lasting gift.’ A few may have gained happiness,
unchequered and complete, for an hour ; Pindar is thinking of Cadmus and
Peleus, who married goddesses and beheld the celestials at their weddings.
But only for an hour; Cadmus and Peleus saw sorrow and heaviness before
they died. This is meant as a consolation for Thearion, whose life has not
been happy, and Pindar turns to address him.

Fate, he says, has endowed Thearion with three things—in moderate,
not abundant, measure; a sufficient fortune, an ambitious spirit, and in-
telligence, Like Ajax he was brave and yearned for distinction ; and like
Ajax (we read between the lines) he failed to win the golden armour.
Unlike Ajax however, he is possessed of intelligence; he is one of those
wise men (as we have already seen) who consider the wind that cometh on
the third day.

But besides these gifts of Fate, which could hardly be thought to have
distinguished Thearion above his fellows, but were merely, as we say now,
‘respectable, he possessed a quality which gave him a real claim to a
poet’s praise,—/hosfPitality. Pindar, his guest-friend, had experienced his
kindness at Aegina, and solemnly sings, €eivos ei, striking again the note
which he had sounded before in regard to the relations of Neoptolemus
to the Delphian priesthood. But the note is repeated still more distinctly in
the next line but one ; Thearion’s renown for hospitality is not only true of
him, but is what we should expect of him; he is merely true to his own
family name ; he is Thearion, the Lz+enzd, that is, ‘the Hospitable.’

And here again Pindar suggests a comparison with Ajax. ‘The fate of
Ajax was due to the circumstance that the blind crowd did not recognize ‘the
literal truth’ (€rav ad\adevav) that he was the eagle. Let Thearion, unlike
Ajax, be superior to cavil, and instead of repining that he was not successful
on the plain of ‘Troy,’ let him pride himself on a noble quality which

INTRODUCTION.

I21

‘literally belongs’ to him (érnrupov kdéos). We heard how the stream of
the Muses, somewhat as a mirror, rescued doughty deeds from obscurity ;
we have seen how Ajax had no friendly Homer to reflect his fame; and now
Pindar, resuming the metaphor, declares that he will rescue Thearion from
‘dark blame’—the oblivion whereto cavil might consign him—by ‘streams
of water.’ ‘This’ he adds, ‘is a meed meet for good men’—for good men,
even though they be not great.

And now, with an apparent abruptness, we are taken at the beginning
of the fourth strophe to the western coast of Greece,—Epirus. Pindar was
a proxenos of the Epirots, whom he describes as Achaeans dwelling on the
Ionian sea, and he declares, that, by virtue of this relation, he will receive
no blame from them, though they, more than all men in Greece, might be
expected to be jealous for the honour of Neoptolemus. But what, we ask, is
the meaning of this allusive reversion to the subject of Neoptolemus, intro-
duced here, along with some declarations of proud self-assertion!, between
an address to Thearion and an address to Sogenes? The words mpogevia
nérova—this recurring note of ‘hospitality’—supply us with the key’. ‘I
am the €eivos of the Euxenidai, Pindar has already said to Thearion; and
now he would convey to Sogenes, ‘I am the friend of the Epirots, and they
will not misapprehend my words touching Neoptolemus; even so, I am the
friend of the Euxenids, and therefore, O Euxenid Sogenes (1. 70, compare
1. 91), do not misapprehend my indirect strictures on certain escapades, of
which you know.’ By this means Pindar, in passing from the father to
son, indicates the parallel which he has instituted between Neoptolemus
and the victor; and at the same time implies that he does not consider
Neoptolemus quite immaculate.

An incident in the pentathlon suggested a metaphor to Pindar for clothing
his explanation to Sogenes*. It happened that one of Sogenes’ competitors,
who expected to win in the spear-throwing and was formidable in wrestling,

day) he will proclaim whether my
speech be out of tune and my words
Yary.ov dapov, see note on |. 6g.

1 “My regard is clear and bright, dupare
dépkopac Naumpov.’ This is equivalent to

a declaration that he will not treat awry.’

Thearion or Sogenes, and that he did
not treat Neoptolemus, as /7d@ Homer
treated Ajax.

He goes on to disclaim excess or
violence, and expresses a wish that the
time to come may prove kindly, choos-
ing, with Greek moderation, the adjective
eUppwv, which suggests, not the light of
day, but the kindliness of an innocuous
night. And Pindar makes a confession
here that his Odes really require study,
and are not for all who run. ‘If a man
understand me (ua@dy—as a wise man
will, who knoweth the wind of the third

These words are meant more for Sogenes
than for Thearion, as the sentence padar
—évvérwy is closely connected with what
follows, see note on dvepet. wWarycos,
thwart, obligue, may be intended to
contrast with ev@umvéov Zepipoo of 1. 29,
and suggest that, like that breeze, the
‘swift tongue’ of Pindar ‘blows straight ’.

2 The emphasis on mpofevig is indi-
cated by the metrical responsion of mpo-
mpeava Eetvov in a similar position in
the second line of the 5th strophe.

3 For this interpretation, I must refer
to note on l. 7o.

122 NEMEAN VII.

stepped inadvertently beyond the line behind which the ekontistaz were
supposed to stand, and was thereby disqualified. Knowing that he had no
chance of sufficient distinction in the other events (quoit-throwing, running
and wrestling) to win in the pentathlon, he retired from the contest, and the
consequence was that Sogenes had one opponent less to conquer in wrestling.
The labour of the wrestling-contest, in the heat of the day, was severe, and
for the victor the defect of one formidable competitor was really a stroke of
luck. So Pindar makes use of this agreeable reminiscence, in deprecating
any offence which the tone of his Ode might possibly cause to the boy.
Comparing his ‘swift tongue’ to the javelin, he denies that he has advanced
his foot beyond the designated mark; and recalls how the javelin-throwing
had released Sogenes’ body, before it was bathed in sweat and broiled
in the sun, from the toils of wrestling.
But in this passage there is another thought implied, not indeed directly
expressed, but indicated unmistakably by the choice of words.
UTOLVU®

pn Téppa mpofsas akovO wre yadkomapaoy bpaat

Ooav yAéooay os €k o emep Wey Tmadaopatoy K.T.Ar.
We are forced to notice the collocation of doay and dpoa (not just the
word we might expect for hurling a javelin, though dpivew is used elsewhere
of exciting the tongue), and the strange, perhaps unparalleled, use of
éxréurev. We can hardly avoid the conclusion that Pindar chose these
expressions with the design of recalling those west-winds which conducted
Ajax on his sw2/¢ ships to Troy town :

doats
ay vavol ropevoay evOurvdov Zepipo. mopmat

mpos "IAou modu.

By these echoes Pindar would suggest that Sogenes is contrasted with his
father Thearion as Neoptolemus is contrasted with Ajax. Ajax was swéftly
conducted to the city of lus, but he never returned ; whereas Neoptolemus
sacked the city of Priam and did return. Now it would have been hardly
graceful to say in so many words that Thearion had appeared in some lists as
a competitor for glory and had returned uncrowned, whereas Sogenes had
been victorious. Accordingly the meaning is conveyed by an indirection.
Ajax went to Troy by virtue of swift winds ; Sogenes returned from Nemea
by virtue of a swift spear. ‘That is as much as to say; Thearion failed, but
Sogenes succeeded.

This comparison of laurels won at Nemea to laurels won at Troy is
continued in the following line, ‘If ¢ozZ7 there was, greater is the delight that
ensueth, reminding us of the city of Priam, where the Danai Zoz/ed”.

‘If toil there was, greater is the delight that follows. Let me be. If,

1 The contrast of Ajax and Neopto- sacked the city; Ajax only went to it.
lemus is indicated by Ipudmwou modw érrel 2 ef movos Ww 1. 74, TE Kat Aavaol
mpddev in 1, 35, closely following on the mévyaar 1. 36.
apos "IXov modu of |. 31. Neoptolemus

INTRODUCTION. 123

lifted too far, I uttered a loud scream, with a victor certainly I deal not
roughly in paying a gracious debt. It is a light thing to twine garlands.
Sound aloud note! Surely the muse is welding together gold and white ivory
withal and the delicate flower which she has filched from the foam of the sea.’

The special bearing of these lines on Sogenes is indicated by Pindar
in his own way. The delight which follows toil is an echo of the delight
bestowed by those flowers of Aphrodite, which pall on the senses through
immoderate use. The third line of the fourth antistrophos},

ei movos Hv, TO Tepmvdy mréov redépxerat
corresponds to the third line of the third antistrophos,
kat péde kal Ta TéeptrY ave ’Adpodiora.

It is clear then that by the loud scream (dvéxpayov), for which he half
apologises, the poet means his saying about honey and the flowers of
Aphrodite ; and we are led to detect therein a reproof to Sogenes. The
mutining of the blood, so often a consequence of protracted athletic labours
‘in the morn and liquid dew of youth,’ had seduced Sogenes into ways of
pleasure which his seniors could not approve of ; and Pindar gently remon-
strates. ‘You are entitled, he says, ‘to the delight which is the meed
of labour ; but the delight, which you have chosen, soon cloys. Take rather
the delight which I can give you, the fairer reward—not the flowers of the
foam-goddess”, but rather the foam-lily, the coral which the Muse filches
from the sea, and welds into a chryselephantine crown.’ To quote a modern
poet, ‘the foam-flowers endure when the rose-blossoms wither.’

The past and present fortunes of Sogenes—his childhood under the
protection of Ilithyia, and his victory—have been touched on; and now
Pindar turns to consider his future, in the last part of the Ode. The
house of Thearion in Aegina was adjacent to two temples of Heracles, and
it is in the hands of his ‘neighbour’ Heracles that Pindar lays the prosperity
of Sogenes’ manhood. But in true Pindaric style, instead of connecting the
close of the hymn directly with the foregoing stanzas, he turns away from
Sogenes and begins an apparently new subject, the praises of Zeus. The
victories of Aeginetans were generally, perhaps always, celebrated in the
Temple of Aeacus, and it was usual for the victors to dedicate their crowns
there. Aeacus was a son of Zeus, and there was therefore an additional
reason (besides the fact that the Nemean games were held in his honour) for
celebrating the king of the gods in the Aeaceum—‘ on this floor’ (Sdmedov dv
robe) 4,

1 This responsion is noticed by Mezger, perhaps the colour as well as the delicate
but not rightly interpreted. texture of white coral—a true foam-lily.

2 av0e’ ’Adpodicca; the Greeks always > Roses were the flowers of Aphrodite.
connected “Agpodirn with ddppos. The The line is from Swinburne’s ‘A For-
expression was chosen for the sake of the | saken Garden.’
contrast with Nelpiov dvOeuov (see note, 4 Sdredov echoes IIv@lowr damrédas of
l. 79) which the Muse is described as_ 1. 34, and connects Neoptolemus with
movrias ipedoia’ éépoas. elpioy suggests Aeacus.

124 NEMEAN VII.

The introduction of Aeacus has a fitness and necessity of its own ; but it
is also a means for introducing Heracles, his brother and guest-friend.
Now the Euxenidae are citizens of the state whereof Aeacus was prince,
and therefore they may claim the friendship of Heracles—with more
particular reason too by virtue of their name, Evgevida.

éra pev ToNlapxov evovip@ arpa,

‘Hpakdees, céo 5€ mpompedva pev Eeivov adeApeoy 7’.
That the ‘clan of fair name’ means the Euxenidai is clear from three
indications'. In the first place moAiapyov responds to modu in the corre-
sponding line of the first antistrophos, where the Aeacids are referred to:

mOALY yap Piropodroy oiket Sopiktimav
Aiak.dav.

‘Sogenes dwells in the city of the Aeacids, and Aeacus is the ‘city-
prince’ of Sogenes’ clan—these statements are the same fact from opposite
points of view. In the second place, the collocation evavip@ marpa echoes
Evéevida warpabe of 1. 70. In the third place, we have already met evorupov
referring to the fair name éeivos, in connexion with the Xenia at Delphi ;
and we may infer that here, similarly, it designates the Euxenidai. But
apart from these indications, the argument of Pindar requires this interpre-
tation; for his object is to bring Heracles into connexion with the family
of Sogenes.

But not only by virtue of the ancient guest-friendship existing between
Aeacus and Heracles, sons of Zeus, but also by virtue of the casual
circumstance that his father’s house in Aegina adjoins two H/eraclea (one
on each hand, like the arms of a yoke projecting on either side of a chariot-
pole), may Sogenes depend on the aid of him ‘who subdued the Giants.’
With Heracles, his neighbour, to prosper him (Pindar suggests, with indirect
admonition to the lad) Sogenes were fain to dwell in that rich street, where
his fore-fathers had dwelt, hallowed by the two shrines, ‘fostering a spirit of
tenderness’ (the Roman /vefas) ‘to his father.’ The less cogent argument
from neighbourhood, which had not the binding sanctity of the relation of
hospitality, is dignified by an echo from the old Boeotian poet, who in his
work on husbandry had occasion to refer to good and bad neighbours”.

Now throughout this stanza the parallel between Sogenes and Neopto-
lemus is sustained. As the son of Achilles was the guest-friend of ‘the
hospitable Delphians, and still presides at the Xevza ‘of lovely name’ ;
even so the son of Thearion has the advantage of an ancient tie of
hospitality with Heracles, less likely to fade away owing to the fact that
he is one of the Lwxenids, a clan ‘of lovely name.’ And as Neoptolemus is
buried close to the house of the Pythian god, Sogenes’ dwelling is hard by
the shrines of Heracles in ‘a hallowed street.’ And the street is described
as rich—enriched doubtless by the Euxenids, even as Delphi received in
the treasure-house of Apollo rich offerings from Neoptolemus*.

' See note on |. 85. 3 evxrnwova 1. 923 Kréav’ aKxpodwlwy
2 Line 87. eA

INTRODUCTION. 125

Heracles (Heracles Alexikakos}, in his capacity of helping men against
harm) is invoked to preside over the future life of Sogenes, as Ilithyia had
presided over his childhood. And thus the Ode closes with an appeal
to Heracles, rendered effective by echoes of that address to Ilithyia at the
beginning—an artistic device aided by the kindred associations and con-
nexions of the two deities. For Heracles was in name connected with
Hera, Ilithyia’s mother, and was the husband of Hebe, Ilithyia’s sister.
We remember the saying that each man is yoked to a different destiny,
and that through Ilithyia’s help Sogenes had distinguished himself from
others by excellence in athletic contests. Well,—Heracles is now asked
to harness the youth of Sogenes and the old age of Thearion to a life
of ‘steadfast, durable strength.’ Dwelling together in their Aeginetan house,
they are to be as it were the two trace-horses of that fanciful car, whose
pole, their house, is joined to the two temples as the arms of a yoke, the
car itself being the Bioros eumredoaGevns, ‘life enduringly strong.’

The wonderfully careful choice of language in this passage is charac-
teristic of Pindar :

ei yap odiow euredoobevéa Bioroy appoaas

7Ba N\uerape@ re ynpai Svamdekey

evdaipov’ eovra.
eumedooberns, an adjective coined for his purpose, echoes two expressions
occurring in other parts of the Ode, whereof one referred to Sogenes, the
other to Thearion. The second half of the compound echoes sai peya-
oobevéos “Hpas of line 2; while the first half recalls réAos eumedov wpe&e
of line 58. Again Hebe, the goddess of youth (78a), was celebrated in the
opening invocation, while Aurap@ is an echo of the shining fillet of Memory,
which was especially meant to console Thearion (I. 15).

But Pindar has not exhausted the resources of the myth of Neoptolemus,
and, looking still further into the future, he prays that the children’s children
of Sogenes may possess for ever the honour which the family now enjoys,
and honour fairer still; we are not to forget that Sogenes is ‘saviour of the
race. In this prayer the words which had been used of Neoptolemus’ pos-
terity reigning in Molossia are repeated”.

And it is just this echo, bringing us back involuntarily to thoughts of
him, that renders the transition to Neoptolemus, in the last four lines of
the Ode, unstrained and really artistic. Otherwise, they would be almost
offensive, as an abrupt ‘appendix.’ In these lines Pindar disclaims the
charge of having traduced Neoptolemus, and refers to the want of inventive
power shewn by his rivals, who perhaps had tried to poison Aeginetan
opinion against him ; they can never find anything newer to say in praise of

1 This function is indicated by d\xav, function for Thearion and his son. The
1. 96. ddxdy responds to ddxal 1. 12 (as thought is emphasized by the further
Mezger noticed), and the responsion indi- __responsions of mpofevig (65) and £etvoy
cates that Heracles and Pindar (both (86); NurapauruKos (15) and Aurap@ (99).
€eivor) are to perform somewhat the same 2 See note.

126 NEMEAN VII.

Aegina than that Acacus was the son of Zeus’, It seems probable that
Bacchylides was the rival at whom this arrow was chiefly aimed ; Pindar’s
words at least are remarkable enough to justify the conjecture that some
special allusion is intended. ‘To repeat the same words three times or four,
like rhymeless-barkers repeating to children, “A son of Zeus Corinthus
hight,” argues lack of wit.’ payuAdkcas, which I have rendered rhymeless-
barkers, was certainly coined by Pindar to convey some point, for which the
dignity of poetry demanded a decent veil. I believe that pawtddkas is a
parody on Bacchylides (BakyvAzdys) to which it corresponds in scansion.
The malice of Pindar, who may have had good cause for offence, might
have resolved the name of his rival into two parts, suggesting the wild
utterances of intoxication and the barking of a dog. jaw was just the word
to parody the former, while -vAdkas rendered evident an imputation which
accident had laid, and Pindar had discovered, in -vAdéns.

All the ‘stages’ of life, from the portals of birth, where stand Ilithyia
and the Moirai, to the bourn of Hades, are touched upon—the tenderness
of childhood, the strength and waywardness of- boyhood, the gleaming limbs
of youth, the trials of manhood, old age ; but one relation of life, applying to
all seasons, may be almost said to dominate the Ode,—the friendly intercourse
of men, sanctified by Zeus Xenios. Such a relation existed between Neopto-
lemus and the Delphian Xezagetae ; Neoptolemus presided at the games
of the Delphic Xewza; Pindar is the Jroxenus of the Epirots; he is the
friend (xvezzos) of Thearion ; Heracles was the xezwzos of Aeacus and may
extend his friendship to the descendants of Aeacus’ subjects. This motive
is suggested by the namé of Thearion’s clan the Lzxenzds, who might be
expected, in loyalty to their name, to develope this graceful side of life.

One might compare this elaborate Ode, a characteristic work of Greek
art, to a chryselephantine statue, in which every line of carving is calculated.
To use Pindar’s own figure, in the verses of white ivory and rhythms of
ringing gold, forming a true crown of Memory, are reflected, as in a mirror,
the gleaming limbs of Sogenes, the strong young wrestler (round whom,
less distinctly seen, delicate desires hover), and in the background his
home at Aegina—we can see the house adjacent to the two temples, in a
quiet street,—as a hallowed place, suggesting immemorial religious obser-
vances, performed in common with the other houses of the Euxenid clan,
at a hearth now depending on him for its future existence.

The whole life of the boy, past, present and future, is the warp of the
work (to adopt another Pindaric metaphor) whereinto is woven the history of
Neoptolemus, skilfully sketched as a parallel to Sogenes. And over the
cloth, thus wrought, are embroidered ‘foam-lilies, with an amorous perfume

1 That this is the real meaning of that Zeus was the father of Aeacus, an
Pindar’s ‘last words’ on the subject of assertion which is curiously introduced
Neoptolemus, I am convinced not only by the word Aéyorre (1. 84)—clearly an
from the words themselves, but from the allusion to the iterations of other poets.
assertion at the end of the third epode See note on I. 105.

INTRODUCTION. 127

of the foam-born goddess herself in some of them; such as the sheen of
Memory’s fillet, the argument of honey, the luminous streams of music, the
criticism on Homer, the flowers of Aphrodite, the yoking of the father and
son as two steeds of a chariot. And Death, whose existence is recog-
nised as a significant fact of life, is hushed away in the sanctuary of
Apollo—where dead heroes still prolong .a curious Greek existence—, and
Sogenes might contemplate, without shrinking, the day (not definitely
referred to, but thus happily suggested) when he himself should lie in
hallowed ground, in the precincts of the temple of Heracles, close to the
house of his fathers.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.

A.
ai—2. a. Oyu tu \tuy-VGG UU SUH. (15)
U2, bb -G-v—A (3)
UU. A, 5- Fug Hy HF HG ny 46 HS FU (15)

come £ /

WOO; Jn GO = 9 OG | GW —— (13)
UU. 8, 9. Ce 2 GG — UV = (Guu =u =|fuu—vs- 4u-—u == (13)

We have thus two parts of which the first is mesodic.
ES — 7-8) 3.05(—=7-8),
13(=6+7). 13(=6+7).

EPODE.
Ld
UU. I, 2. a FUmVa + tuvn—-|BeY fh |Gy-Gu---u A (12)
,
Ue 3. A. a. tyuqvy HW - VY Nouv (12)
, ld
VU. 5. bd. By muy —+ |Buy ou l|tu-u--- A (10)

The structure is epodic. Schmidt argues that as the last verses of the
strophes are acatalectic, the first syllable of the epode cannot be an ana-
crusis, and assumes a Vorfause, which enables him to constitute the
epodic symmetry.

12(=5+2+5) . 12(=6+6)

10(=4+2+4).

The rhythm of this ode is logaoedic. We may assume that the musical
harmony which accompanied it (as also Vem. VI.) was Aeolian.

NEMEONIKAI Z’.

SORENE!

AITINHTH.

TITAIAL TENTA@AQz.

*"ErelOuia, twapedpe Morpav Badvdpovor,

oTp. a.

a L ” 7] t , tsi ,
Tat peyaroaGevéos, QKOUOOl, Hpas, YEVETELPA TEKYMV AVEU a é€Gev

, ?
ov aos, ov péXaivav dpakévTes evppovav

Tedy adedpeav éhayomev ayaoyuiov “H Bar.

’ Va ’ ’ vf 2} iN /
avatrvéopev 6 ovy amavTes emt Ficas 5

1. “EdelOua, x.7.A.] Lthyia, as-
sociate of the deep-thinking Fates, daughter
of Hera whose strength ts vast, hearken,
O thou who bringest children to the
birth. In Hesiod TZheog. 922 Ilithyia
(HidefAua) is counted among the daugh-
ters of Hera, the goddess who protected
In Homer, A 270, the con-
ception is plural; poyoordKor eidelPuar,
The worship of Hera
at Aegina is said to have been derived
from Argos, where she was held in
higher honour than in any other part
of Greece. The association of Ilithyia
with the Fates is so natural that perhaps
it hardly needs illustration, but I may cite
Olymp. Vi. 42

6 Xpvookbuas
mpaipntly tr’ ’EdelOuay maptoracdy Te

marriage.

“Hpns Ouyarépes.

Molpas.
Babidpwy (equivalent to Badupjra or Ba-
O4BouNos) occurs in Solon.

2. peyaroo@evéos] The force of this
adjective is that the o@évos may be com-
municated ; cf. below line 98. -yevéreipa
does not occur elsewhere either in this
sense or in the sense of mother; in
Euphorion, 47, it means daughter, just
as yevérns means (1) father, (2) son.

avev o€0ev x.7.d.] That is, dvev c0ev
ovK €\dxouev “HBav dpaxéytes aos Te Kal
pé\awav edppbvav (=céo exate éXdxXomev
kK.T.d.). Lot without thy grace saw we
light and black night and enjoyed the
presence of thy sister, bright-Limbed Hebe.
The thought is that we reach the season
of Hebe by living through a series of
days and nights. Rauchenstein is cer-
tainly wrong in finding a reference to
the darkness of the womb in pé\away
evppovay. Compare below 1. 67.

4. “HBav] <A daughter of Hera and
so Ilithyia’s sister. Her limbs are
bright and glorious; probably Pindar
had some work in marble before his
mind. Mr Fennell makes the sug-
gestion that the epithet is ‘causative
= bestowing victorious limbs’. Such an
interpretation transports us from the
realm of poetry to the realm of prose.
Hebe is not a mere abstraction.

Observe that adeAgedy is trisyllabic; so
dde\peotow, Isth. VI. 35. The form
adeAgos is not found in Pindar.

5. avarvéopev x.7.\.] But we draw
not the breath of life, all as one, for the
same ends. dvarvéw, simply respire. émt
toa (Triclinius’ correction for Mss. é7°’

NEMEAN VYIT.

yv \ , / ’ cod ve
elpyer O€ ToTm@ CuyévO” ETEpov ETEpa.

129

avy o€ TLV

\ cal c / > a \
Kai traits 6 Qcapiwvos apeta KpiOels
eVdoEos deiderar Swyévyns peta TevtacOrais.

modw yap pirCporrroy oiKkel SopiKTUTTOV

> ’
avT.a.

’ a A U ae) I / > , \ ,’ /
Alaxidav* para 8 éGédovts cvprretpov aywvia Oupov apdérey. 10
> AN / ” / ’ > /
ef dé TUYN TIS Epdwv, wedippor aitiav

lca) with a view to equal destinies. This
sentence illustrates the difference of
mavres and dtravtes, both of which mean
all, but while the latter emphasizes
the unity, the former accentuates the
plurality. The thought that a number
of men should have exactly the same
‘destinies, groups those men closely to-
gether, hence dmavres; if Pindar had
used a positive expression, he must have
said dvamvéomev mares éml érepa.

6. elpye S€ x.7.d.] But each of us,
yoked to his destiny, ts severed from his
fellow by a different lot.

The mss. have {(vyov 0, and most
editors follow Schmid in reading {uyévé’,
which is a very slight change; € was
liable to confusion with O.—Each man
has his individual zrétmos, to which he is
yoked, and the things for which he is
destined are €repa (not Yca) from the lots
of others. Thus individual lives are
differentiated; and eitpye: expresses the
individualisation.

ovv St tly «.7.\.] dperad in games is
the mark which differentiates Sogenes,
and his destiny is determined by the
special care and favour of the goddess
Ilithyia, whose services to him are
expressed in his name, 2w-yévns. Kprbels
resumes the sense of elpyet; Sogenes is
distinguished by valour, and wins a song
as glorious among _ pentathlon-victors.
Dissen is wrong in supposing an offost-
tion between moTuw and oiv tiv.—The
note of the scholiast is worth quoting:

eviot 6€ pact mpos To’'voua ToD Dwyévous
mapekioba. Thy WirelOuav. etvar yap
airy cwyev Twa Oud TO Ta “yevoueva

dvacwfew, Tov obv Iivdapov puxpevcdpevov
mpos Toivoua Tis EideOvias peuvioba.
The frigidity is a matter of opinion, but
the supposition of the évioe touches the
truth.

g. mwodw ydp k.7.d.] For he dwells
wm the song-loving city of the spear-clash-
mg Aeacids. giopodroy and Sopixtirrwv
(both amaé elpyuéva) give or suggest the
reasons (introduced by yap) for Sogenes
receiving a song of triumph and winning
a victory.

to. pada § eBéAovte x.7.A.] Right
fain are they (the Aeacids) to foster a
spirit conversed in the art of the games.
The word otprreipoy is coined by Pindar
to combine the two kindred ideas of
I have ventured
to render it by coining the expression

cuvovrTa and éuzrecpor.

conversed tn, which suggests conversant
with (ovvevta), and versed tn (éumetpov).
The subject of €0€Novre is clearly Alaxidat,
not as Dissen modérac (implicit in 76s).
For @uwov audérew compare |. gr.

11. eb 8€ «.7.r.] A successful exploit
7s an argument, sweet as honey, cast into
the streams of the Muses (lit. by a suc-
cessful exploit, one casts etc.) ; for mighty
deeds of prowess are wrapt in deep dark-
ness, if they remain unsung; yea, for
fair works we know one, one only mirror,
if, by grace of Memory with the shining
headband, they win the meed of totls in
lines of sounding song.

The adjective wedigpwr, honey-hearted,
(not sweet to the heart, as Liddell and
Scott explain) is used in Homer of sleep
and wine. atrlay is a cause or argument
for song. The streams of the Muses are

130

NEMEONIKAI Z.

a / \ >
poator Mowdy évéBare* Tai peyddrar yap adKai
oKOTOV TOALY tuvev ExovTe Sedpevar'
épyous S€ Kadols Ecomtpov icapev Evi adv TpOTe,
> / 4
ef Mvapoovvas Exate AiTapapTUKOS 15
eipntar amrowa pmoyOav KArvTais éeréwv aoLoais.

copo S€ wéAXovTa TpLTaloy ave“ov
éuabov, ovd vo Képder PraBev

> ‘
e717. a.

> \ / U /
apveos TEVLYXPOS TE Qavatov Trapos

conceived as already flowing; the peXé-
gpwv airla determines that the flowing
element shall be as honey. Compare
below 1. 53. For the absolute use of
tuxew cf. Ol. 11. 52 70 bé TUXEW Tapadver
Ovo ppovay.

12. ddkal] Compare below 4ddxday,
1. 96. The sentiment of these lines is
reproduced in a stanza of Horace (Iv.
9, 26)

omnes illacrimabiles
urgentur ignotique longa
nocte, carent quia vate sacro.
The metaphor of the mirror begins with
oxorov. For éxew oxorov Dissen cites
Euripides, Incert. fr. 51 # 6’ evdAaBera
oKorov éxeu Kad’ “Ea6a.

15. Mvapoctvas AvrapaprrvKos] The
striking adjective urapdwrvé, which
Pindar seems to have coined, is chosen
on account of the metaphor. The head-
band of Memory is conceived as a bright
surface which reflects. In Pyth. 111. 89
we find xpucayrixwv Moody (in OZ. VII.
64 this adjective is applied to Lachesis).
AurapamruKos is emphatic, compare below
line gg.

17. wool S€x.7.d.] Wise men learn
to know the wind that is to blow on the
third day, and are not perverted at the
beck of gain. Difficulties have been dis-
covered in the words t7é Képde BdAaBev,
and SdXov of Triclinius (which might find
a doubtful support in \aBev of D) led to
But Pda-
Bev is demonstrated to be right by dzro-

Donaldson’s dro Képder Badov.

B\amrec in the corresponding verse of the
third epode (I. 60); cf. Mezger, p. 374-
Dissen and Mezger however are hardly
to be followed in their assumption of a
tmesis and a verb troPd\arTw. It is
quite legitimate to suppose that Pindar
might have coined such a verb if he had
wished to express some subtlety for
which B\daTw was inadequate; but it is
clear that in the present case the com-
pound verb would have no force. And
even if we could think some shade of
meaning into it, the interpretation would
be infelicitous; for we should thereby
lose the poetical phrase b2é xépdet, which
is more suggestive and ‘elegant’ than
xépdec alone. Gain is the seducer, the
influence which causes the B\aB7y; and
v7 expresses a little less than subjection,
a good deal more than accompaniment.
In fact wd Képdec suggests phrases such
as épdBnbev bp’ “Exrope and wpro Kkipa
mvo.j taro, on the one hand, and on the
other hand tm’ avdnrijpe mpoc@ excov
(Hesiod, Sc. Her. 283).

BdaBev was the reading of the
scholiast who wrote: ovx vmrT.otyTat
mpos TO mapoy ayadov, and again ovxl
dua 7d mapdy Képdos, Képdos dé TO Tod
mod evd.ov, EnmewOnoay Tov wera Tadra
m)ovv K.T.A.

1g. aveds tevixpos Te K.7.X.] The
rich man and the poor man hie together
to the presence of Death. The Mss. have
Oavarov mapa oaua. * The reading of
Hermann @davarov mapa Sawa must be

NEMEAN VII. 131
apa véovrar. eyo d€ TAéov’ EXTromat 20
Aoyov ‘Odvacéos 1) maPav Sia Tov adver yevéoO “Opnpov.
émrel Yevdeot Fou trotava ‘udi payava otp. B’.

rejected because @aya (as Dr Ingram
has shewn) can only mean offex, which
has no sense here; and for the same
reason Bergk’s @avdrov mopov capa (cf.
capuva’ Oapwd, cuvex@s* Adxwves, Hesy-
chius) cannot stand. Wieseler’s @avarou
mépas &ua has found favour with many,
but on closer examination its specious-
ness disappears. In the first place, the
textual critic asks, why should such a
very simple and common phrase have
been corrupted in the Mss.? In the
second place, we have to assume that
mwépas Gavarov (that is, the end of life
which consists in death; would not
Pindar have written either téXos @avdrou
or mépas Blov?) is used in a very rare
construction (véoua: without a prepo-
sition, H 335) with a verb of motion.
The reading which I have adopted
Oavarov mapos dua véovrac beth satis-
fies the critical conditions of the prob-
lem and ascribes to Pindar a simple
poetical picture instead of a common-
place phrase. The preposition or adverb
mapos is generally used of priority in
time; it is comparatively rarely employed
to express relations of space. Hence a
scribe, unfamiliar with the more ancient
usage, in deciphering an uncial Ms., read
TTAPOCAMA as Tapa caiwa (caua=o7jya,
a tomo), regarding O as a mistake for A.
In the case of mépas agua such a mis-
reading would have been unlikely because
mépas was familiar; in the case of mapos,
it was natural, because mapos, in the
sense of defore (temporal), yielded no
sense. For rdpos ix front of with genitive,
cf. Euripides, Phoentssae 1271
THVOE SwuaTwy mdpos, Orestes
TEKVOV, EEENO’, “Epuuov7n, Souwv mdpos (note,
after a verb of motion), 1216 déuwy madpos
_ pévouga, &c.

aurets
>
III @

mapos calls up a picture

of the rich man and the poor man stand-
ing together in front of Death.

Bergk’s suggestion mépov is at least
more poetical than Wieseler’s 7épas;
it reminds us of Tennyson’s ‘dolorous
strait ’.

20. eyo 8€x.7...] J trow that the tale
of Odysseus surpassed his suffering on
account of the sweet minstrelsy of Homer.
éXrouac L imagine. The Mss. have 7
madav which I retain; Triclinius’ rdev,
with which we should have to understand
a, is hardly possible.

22. é€mel x.7.d.] For his falsehoods,
through winged artifice, wear a flower
of dignity ; but craft decetveth and leadeth
astray by words, and the heart of most men
in company together is blind. Fou, that
is ‘Oujpy. For roravg paxarg of poetry
compare Pyth. VIII. 33 itw Tedv xpéos,
G mat, vedrarov kadOv éug mworavoy audi
paxava. Dissen illustrates tmrerte by
Aristophanes, Clouds 1025 ws 7d cov
Toor Novos TaPpov erecrw ayvOos, com-
pare the scholium, ro@s yap mrepi Oduvccéws
KEKNpUYMEVOLS TEUVOTNS TLS ETHVOEL.

The Mss. read twotava paxava, Her-
mann inserts te, Schmid ye. The passage
quoted from the Eighth Pythian suggests
that *pol fell out, and if we write the
words in uncials we find this suggestion
palaeographically sound.

TIOTANAIM@MIMAYXANAI

The close succession of 1M, 1M, led by
‘parablepsia’ to the omission of im;
and thus produced the same effect as the
omission of mdi. For the scansion of
morava audi cf. Ol. XIII. 99 6H duporépw-
dev (the certain and universally accepted
correction of Mss. & audorépwhev by
Boeckh and Hermann). I would write
however 651) ‘ugorépwHev, regarding it as
a case of prodelision.

Q—2

132

Oo €LVOV

& éyet

Hrop butros avdpav Oo TAEioToS.

NEMEONIKAI Z.

trecti te’ copia dé KrXéTTEL Tapayorca piOous* TUpdov

> \ s
€l yap nv

\ ’ /
érav addabevav idéuev, ov Kev OTAWY YorAWBeIs 25

6 xaptepos Alas érake dia ppevav
Aeupov Eidos’ ov Kpatictov "AxiAEos ATE maxa

A I U Uf lal
Eav0G Mevéra Sapapta Kopicat Boats

23. oopla] This codla, craft, skill
in poetry, is other than that of the wise
men of line 17.

24. €t ydp tv x.7-A.] Bergk’s brilliant
emendation érav, for éay of the MSS.,
has elucidated this passage. For the
rare word éros (=érupos, érntuuos) Bergk
gives abundant authority. In a scholium
on Homer A 133 we read: @orw érés kal
onuatver Tov adnOH, €& ob Kal TrEovacuw
Tov € €Teds* TOUTO Tapa TO ew TO UTrapxu,
Joh. Alex.
de acc. p. 29 ws éra Tyuendav (so Bergk
for Tnuevidos) xpiceov yévos. Corp. [nscr.
Gr. 1.
Noyots metpav wabdv K.T.’. Compare also
’Era:pida a name of Persephone. Bergk
restores the word in two other passages
of Pindar; (1) ew. X. 11, g. v-3 (2)
Isthm. Ui. 10 phy’ ddabelas <éras> dy-

éut: é& abrod érés 6 adnOqs.

569 capas érd Tr’ elodKxove Kal

xLcTa Batvov.

In the present passage éray has that
shade of meaning, which Mr Verrall has
shown to be constantly associated with
érvuos and éryntupos (cf. also below 1. 63
khéos éryTupov), an allusion to the signifi-
cance of aname. Pindar alludes (1) to the
fancied connexion of the name Alas with
alerés, the bird which Homer called
Tededratos meTenvav (8 233), and which
in Pindar is the auspice of the Aeacids
(the family of Aias); this true bird of
Ajax is opposed to the ‘wmged artifice’
of Homer the poet of Odysseus, (2) He
alludes to the name "Oynpos, which ac-
cording to an Ionic Vita Homeri meant
blind in the Cumaean Aeolic dialect,
and which he associates with the 6u.Xos

of blind heart. ad it been possible to

descry the literal truth, it would have
been recognized that Ajax was the true
eagle and that the adherents of Odysseus
were as blind in heart, as his poet in
vision.

Render: For tf they could have dis-
cerned the truth assured by his very name,
the staunch Ajax would not, in wrath
for arms, have planted the smooth sword
blade in his breast,—Ajax the most valiant
in battle, save Achilles only, of those who
were borne on swift ships in course direct
to the city of Ilus, by conduct of the
Zephyr, to recover his wife for fair-haired
Menelaus.

26. 6 Kkaptepds Alas] Cf. 6 xaprepos
BeAXepopovras, Ol. XIII. 84. Compare
the verses on the death of Ajax in
Nemean Vil. 23 sqq. and /sthm. II. 34.
Horace calls Ajax heros ab Achille
secundus, Sat. W. 3, 193, a tradition
derived from Homer, B 768

dvbpav 5’ at péy’ dptoros énv TeXapwveos

Alas

bpp’ “Axireds pnviev’ O

pépraros HEV.

27. devpdv] This adjective is gene-
rally used of sand or rocks. See /ntro-
duction, p. 118.—Ajax fell on his sword,
which he fixed in the ground (cf. Soph.
Aj. 828 menrGra twde mepl veopparTw
Elmer), and émaée (which means fixed, not
plunged) suggests that the sword did not
moye.

28. Koploat] Infinitive of purpose
or end. Pindar generally prefers forms
in -l&at (Kkopléac) and -aéac from verbs
in -l¢w and -afw, See above note on
II. 24.

yap ond

NEMEAN VII.

133

’ \ / , / Ul \
av vavol Topevoav evOurrvdov Zediipovo troutrai

mpos “IXov modu.

29. ev@vmvdov] An adjective coined
by Pindar. Its purpose is to contrast the
direct journey to Troy with the wander-
ings of the returning squadrons, referred
to below in line 37. For the Zephyr
wafting the fleet to Ilion cf. Aeschylus,
Agamemnon 1.674 Lepipou yiyavros avpg.

30. GAAG kody x.7.A.] But fo all
alike cometh the wave of Hades (to swallow
them), yea zt falleth unexpected on one
man and also on him who expecteth it.
So Mezger. (For év with the accusative
cf. Pyth. U1. 10 dippov &v 8 appara. For
kal occupying the same position as Te,
Latin que, cf. viv év Kal tedevTa Ol.
vul. 26.) Dissen’s rendering caditque
in ingloriosos et gloriosos assigns an un-
supported meaning to adéxy70s; and there
is the same objection to Mr Fennell’s
‘ingloriously even on a glorious hero’.
Mezger’s view is supported by the schol-
ium éurlarrer 6 Odvaros omolws Kal mpeoBu-
répos Kai vewrépos. (This scholium sup-
ports the suggestion, put forward in the
Introduction, touching family sorrows of
Thearion.)

31. Tuya St ylverar x.7..] But those
have honour, whose fame a god causes to
wax fair and fine, even the dead war-
riors, who come to the great navel of large-
bosomed earth.

The Mss. have te@vaxétrwv Boaldwy*
Tol yap péyav dupadov edpukddmou éuode
x9oves, év UvOlace 5€ Samrédors x.7.X.
The scholiast testifies to the reading
wodoy and Didymus read Boafowy mapa
péyav x.7.\. Much has been written on
these lines and many emendations have
been proposed. In the first place, the
metre shews that yap is corrupt and that
a pyrrhic preceded wéyay; we can hardly
hesitate to accept Didymus’ rapa, as the
corruption is explained by the close simi-

> \ \ \ yy
aXXa Kolvoy yap EpxXETat
Kop Aida, wéoe 8 adoKnTov év

avt. B’. 30
\ , \ \ ,
Kat Soxéovta’ Tyna dé ylverat,

larity between TTAP and TAP. In the
next place it is clear that this corruption
led to the punctuation after Boafowr,
which is evidently the antecedent of Tol.
In the third place, the singular éuoXe and
the strange (I believe, impossible) antici-
pation of Neoptolemus in this sentence
were consequences of the false punctua-
tion. In fact the key to this passage is
the recognition that the tale of Neoptole-
mus cannot begin until 1. 34 with é& Ilv-
Giowsr 6€ darédots, Such emendations as
povos for wore, yarédas for damédos,
IIv@iowst re for Tv@iowwr dé are quite
arbitrary. Mr Arthur Holmes proposed
BoaOdoov doyov.

As to the warriors who come to Delphi,
I may translate the note of Dissen: ‘At
Delphi were celebrated féma at which
the god was supposed to entertain those
heroes who formerly in their lifetime
had come to Delphi on various occasions
to worship him. There was a solemn
procession at which many victims were
killed (cf. below 1. 46 mpwlacs roumais
modvOuros)’. Schol. yiverac ev Aedgois
Hpwoe téna év ois Soke? 6 Beds emt téa
In Homer foaéoos is
an epithet of a chariot (hastening to help)
PB 48insecle Ne 4775) ang. here toon it
has its proper meaning of he/Zer, refer-
ring especially to the heroes who aided
Menelaus in recovering Helen,—those
who hastened to Troy on szwzf¢ ships,
Goats av vaval (cf. Boa-Aowy).

The epithet aBpov is applied to glory
won in war or games; cf. xddos aBpov
Isthm. 1. 50 and Ol. v. 7. Observe that
Tuya is represented as superior to Ndyos;
it is conferred by a god, not by a poet
(‘Aoyorv habet Ulysses at non timar’,
Dissen).

AL ae ee
Kade Tovs 7pwas.

134

NEMEONIKAI Z’.

av Oeds aBpov av&er NOyov TEOvaKdTar,
Boabc@v, Tol Tapa péyav oppadrov evpuKoATOV
porov yOovoss év IvOiovcr bé dSamrédous

kettat Ilpeapou moduv Neomtoremos eel mpabevy 35

fal \ \ / =) 09 ,
Ta Kal Aavaol wovncav’ 6 8 atroTéwv

/ \ ci / ’ >’ ’ Ud /
YKUpov (LEV GAMAPTEV, LKOVTO & els Egupav wAayerTes.

>
Mondooala § éuBacirever orJLyov
&

Xpovov' atap yévos aiet pépev

33. evpuKoAmov] Pindaric coinage.
Cf. edptcrepvos of Tata in Hesiod, Zheo-
gony, 117.

34. & IIvOlowr «.7.d.] But Neopto-
lemus lieth in hallowed Pythian ground,
after sacking the city of Priam, where also
the Danai toiled. But he, sailing home-
ward, missed Scyros, and they came to
Ephyra, driven from their course.

The place of Neoptolemus’ burial is
mentioned below 1. 44—an ancient grove
close to the temple. is the
ground of the dAcos.—Dissen explains
the consecution Ke@rac émel mpafev thus:

Oamredov

‘nunc opus fuit hac laude [Troiae exci-
dium] ad dignitatem et praestantiam
herois declarandam, tantopere fato hono-
rati’.

37. QUKvpov pev] Cf. T 326. Ephyra,
a town in Epirus, capital of Thesprotia;
see Strabo VII. 324: imépkerrae Tobrou
To0 KoNmrou Kixupos, 4 mpdtepov ’Edvpa,
mods Ocompwrav. See Lrtroduction, p.
11g.

awayevTes]
res (and mAaxdévTes).

The Mss. give mA\ayx0év-
Boeckh, in order
to rectify the metre, transposed tkovro
and miayxOévres (augmented ikovTo be-
coming unaugmented txovro), but this is
‘robbing Peter for the benefit of Paul’,
as the final syllable of aduaprev is thereby
lengthened. In any case the hypothesis
of a transposition, when there is no
special reason, is improbable and uncriti-
cal. Bergk’s mXavaww cannot be ac-
cepted, for there is no reason why it

should have been tampered with. I have

err. B'.

adopted my own conjecture
an unfamiliar second aorist of m\dfw,
which was naturally changed in the pro-
cess of transcription to the familiar first
aorist mAayxOévres. In regard to this
form it is to be observed that, while the
second aorist passive of m\yoow is in-
variably érAnynv, its compounds éxrd7jo-
ow and katamAnoow have ekemdaeynv and
karemdaynv in Attic (egexrAnynv and
katemAnynyv in older Greek). Why these
double forms? Had 7Aynoow two second
aorists érAnynv and émAdynv, of which
the latter became wholly obsolete in its
simple verb? But érAyjynv can hardly
be a ‘new formation’, for it is the form
in older literature, and -erAdaynv is first
found in Attic writers. I believe that
emAayny is the second aorist of mAafw (a
verb, indeed, etymologically related to
mAnoow), and that it contaminated the
Attic conjugation of éxrdjTTw, owing to
the connexion between the meanings of
éxmAnTTecOa, to be driven out of one’s
senses (cf. mAaycos), and of mAagerOat, to
be driven out The
difference between émAwynv and émdayx-
Onv (which has perhaps been intruded
into the place of éw\dynv in other pas-
sages also) is that the former has a passive,
the latter a middle meaning.

38. Modrooolga] There was an Aea-
cid dynasty in Molossia; Neoptolemus
was succeeded by his son Molossus.—
éuBaoirevw is a Homeric compound,

39. Gtdp yévos x.7.A.] But his race
after him for ever had this prerogative

wayevTes,

of one’s. course.

NEMEAN VII.

ee /
TovTo Fou yepas.

= Se \ r) ,
WONVETO O€ TPOS VEOD,

135
40

Tee D. SSF “ > / j
kréav’ ayov Tpoiabev axpoOwiwr

fel f /
iva kpeav viv imep payas éhacev avTiTUXOVT’ avi|p paxaipg.

Bapwvdev 8é mepicod Acro Eevayérar.

oTp.

adXa TO popotpov drredwnen’ expry Sé tw Evdov adoet TAaNALTATH

Alaxiddav KpeovT@ T

oumrov EE,

Geod rap’ evteryéa Soporv, rjpwiars S€ Toptrais

/ > nr ah: /
GeuicKorroy oixeiy édvta ToAvOUTOLS,

Sef 2 / / td / =
EUMVUJLLOV ES LE Tpla Férrea diapKéoer

(that is, his descendants were kings in
Molossia). drap=autem, pépev =habebat,
fo. Dat. commodi.—This remark is not
without its special purpose; see below,
1. 100.

41. Kréav dyov «.7.d.] Taking with
him rich first-fruits of the booty won from
Troy, as an offering to Apollo.

42. twa Kpedv x.7.A.] Where (at Del-
phi) he engaged by chance in a combat
touching flesh-offerings and was smitten
by a man with a knife. The man who
slew Neoptolemus was Machaereus, a
Delphic priest. —The anastrophe of tzrep,
separated by vw from its case, is unusual,
perhaps unparalleled (worl o¢ ravra do-yor
in Pyth. i. 66 is the extremely doubtful
reading of Boeckh).
TuxovT’ cf. dvTidoat mohépovo.
Tuxovra, instead of dvtiacavta, Pindar
expresses that the conflict was casual, not
aforethought.

Various traditions concerning Neop-
tolemus’ visit to Delphi are given in the
scholia, but need not be quoted here.

43. Pdpuvev 88 «.7.d.] And the hos-
pitable Delphians were vexed exceedingly.
BapuvOev for €BapivOnoav.
curs only here.

44. GAAd x.7..] He (Neoptolemus)
however paid the debt of fate. But meet
it was that there should be one of the
Aeacid kings in the precincts of the grove
most ancient, hard by the goa’s fair-walled
house, and should dwell there to preside at

With paxas avti-
By avtt-

Eevayérat Oc-

the processions of heroes, honoured with
many sacrifices, for enforcement of aus-
picious guest-right.

For évéov ddoe cf. evdov réyer Wen.
III. 54.—Qepiokozrov does not occur else-
where, but may be compared to another
Pindaric compound depuoxpéwv, Pyth. Vv
29. Neoptolemus presides at the ééa,
to enforce the laws of guest-right, which
Pindar, alluding to the Euxenid name,
calls evwvumos dixa: see below 1. 85 evw-
viu@ matpa.—Various views have been
held regarding the punctuation of ll. 47,
48. Some place a full stop at rodv#ira1s,
reading 1. 48 as one sentence, but this
does not yield a fair sense. Others punc-
The recognition of
the true meaning of evdvupos dixa decides
for Hermann’s punctuation, which I have
followed.—Pausanias (X. 24. 5) mentions
the tomb of Neoptolemus, and adds xai
oi kara Eros éevaylfoucw oi Aeddol.

48. tpla x.7.A.] Three well
suffice; no false loon is the witness; he
(Neoptolemus) presideth over doughty
deeds. pev8ts (not found elsewhere) is
contemptuous, like ydorpis. As a rare
word it is designed to attract attention
and to suggest that Pindar does not imi-
tate the Homeric Wevdeor of line 22.—The
idea of Hermann (adopted by Mezger)
that the following words Alyiva—éxybvwv

tuate at evwyupor.

Woras

depend on épyuwaow, and that the new
sentence begins at @pac’ is certainly
wrong. Neoptolemus is an émiordrys of

136

ov wevdus 0 waptus’

NEMEONIKAI Z.

Epymaciw emloTartel.

A , nw
Aiywa, teav Atos T éxyovwy Opact’ pot TOd etme 50
lal ’ lal c \ / Up 5 /
paevvats apetais odov Kupiay NOYwV avr. ¥'.

yy “ ’ \ \ ’ U > \ ra , é ,
oixobev’ adda yap avarravais év TavTL yAuKEla Fépyw* Kopov

& éyer

Kat médu Kai Ta TépTrY avOe ’Adpodicra.

a 2 ey, / \ /
gua 6 Exactos Siahépopev Biotdy NayortTes,
0 ev Ta, Ta & Arrow TUxXELY O ev addvaToV 55

5) 2 oe b) ' 5 5) ”
EVOALMOVLAY aATTaAC AV AVENOMEVOV OUK EX@W

> a / a a f ”
elev, Tivt ToUTO Motpa TéXos Eprredov

wpece.

the games, not a mere rpoordr7s or special
defensor in the interests of Aeginetans.
épyHaoiv means the exploits of all com-
petitors in the games celebrated at the
Delphic xenza. Those who are familiar
with the manner of Pindar will recognise,
I believe, that Alywa begins a new
sentence.

50. Atlywwa x«.7.\.] Z am emboldened
(pact wor TObE=LoTL por TOd€ TO Adpoos),
O Aegina, to proclaim for the bright deeds
of bravery of the children of thee and Zeus
a stablished highroad of praises leading
Srom their home. aperats is Dative, as
Dissen takes it, not instrumental.—Mr
Fennell is right in comparing kuptay 686v
with 660v dmaéerov (Ven. VI. 53), but the
former is somewhat stronger. The idea
is that the deeds of the Aeacids are a
highroad in the land of Greek myth.

52. GAAd yap x.7.A.] But J will not,
for in every work rest is sweet; yea,
honey can pall and the delicious flowers
of Aphrodite's garden. For the signifi-
cance of these words see /7troduction ;
also above 1. 11 (ueAlppov’) and below
l. 74.—Mr Fennell reads reprvav0éa, a
compound which, had it been found in
the mss., we should be strongly tempted
to emend. He does not translate his
reading, but I suppose that it means ‘the
uses of Aphrodite, whose flower is de-
light’. The sound, the

text is quite

Ocapiwv, ti 8 eorkoTa Karpov ddABou

grammar being 7a Tépmv’ aviea, ave
"Adpodio.a. That the pleasures of food
and love have a limit is a commonplace ;
the proverb is introduced here in words
which fit it for a figutative application.

54. ova.8 Ekacrtos x.7..] By our
individual natures we differ and the gifts
of life are vartously allotted to men; but
that one man should win the prize of
happiness complete ts inipossible ; I cannot
say to whom Fate hath proffered this con-
summate gift as a sure possession. ;

Pindar returns here to the reflexions
of ll. s—6.—The singular number of Bto-
tav is due to éxacros. ord itself is a
collective word which includes many ex-
periences; hence the plural 7a in line
55—the things which make up the indt-
vidual’s Burd. avedéoOar is often found
in Herodotus of winning victories. aa-
cay has its strict force, 27 ad/ tts fulness.
For Motpa compare |. 1; for éuredov
(predicate extended) see 1. g8. Compare
Lntroduction, p. 125.

A passage in the Third Pythian, 1. 86
sqq. illustrates Pindar’s thought :

alay 5° dopadrs
ovk éyevr’ o'r’ Alaxida mapa Inder
ore map dvri0éw Kadum: déyovrra
pay Bporav

bABov bréprarov ol sxe, oiTe K.T.r.

58. QOcaplwy «.7.r.] But to thee, O
Thearion, she gives a meet measure of

NEMEAN VII.

didwol, ToAwav TE KAXBY apoLéve

/ , ‘ a
cvverw ovK atoBNarTe ppevav.

af
Ecivos etwe’ oKoTewov atréyov woyor,
Wt) ire oN / > By a
Udatos OTe pods Pirov és avdp’ aywv
é aah see / See a \ e
Kr€os eTHTUMOV aivégw' ToTipopos 8 ayabotar pucbos ovToS.

éov 8 éyyds “Ayatds ov péurpetai mw’ avnp

weal, and, having endued thee with a
spirit fain of fair adventures, she perverts
not the understanding from thy breast.
Katpos] due measure (TO mécov), not
necessarily of time. Christ’s «Adpov is
not needed. Compare Pyth. 1. 56 otrw
5 ‘Tépwre Beds dpOwrinp méXo...@v eparac
Katpov O.b0vs ( gratifying his desires in due
measure). ToAwav is the temper which
undertakes courageous deeds. dmoBAat-
Te. means disables and expels from,
gpevav depending on aré, The expres-
sion corresponds to BAdBev in |. 18 (the
second verse of the first epode) ; Thearion
was one of the wise men who gauge the
wind of the third day. See Zztroduction.
61. &etvds eipen.7.r.] Zane your guest-
friend. Averting the dark shadow of
blame, as by streams of water directed
upon my friend, will I sing of a glory
true to the letter. This is a meed that
cometh to good men. The meaning of
KXéos éryTupov is evident from the atmo-
sphere of its environment (if I may be
allowed the expression) ;—éetvos in I. 61,
mpocevia in 1. 65 shew that the kdéos
literally true is the name of Sogenes’
clan, Evéevidar (see below 1. 70) which is
called a evavupos marpa in |. 85. For the
force of érj#rumov, as shown by Mr Verrall
for Aeschylus, see above, note on I. 25.
The streams of water signify neither
the abundance nor the gratefulness of
the praise as Dissen and Mezger re-
spectively hold. The surface of the
water is to be a clear reflector of the
fame of the Euxenidae, which will thus
shine through the darkness. The similar
collocation of poato.and oKéror in Ill.

orp. 6.

12, 13 proves this beyond all doubt. —The
circumstance, that the last syllable of edu
would naturally be lengthened before ox
while the metre requires its brevity, has
caused the suspicion of commentators to
fall upon okorevov. It is possible that it
may be a gloss on some rarer word of
identical meaning; but it would be hazar-
dous to emend. zrerpatn Te oxey in Hesiod,
Works and Days, \. 589 may be quoted
in defence of the metrical liberty, and
oxorov in 1. 13 distinctly supports oKoret-
vov. We certainly cannot accept Bergk’s
KeAaw dv or épeBevvov.

64. eov 8 eyys «.7.A.] But if an
Achaean man be near, who dwelleth on
the Ionian sea, he will not blame me; I
trust in my office of proxenos. In the
streets of Aegina there were many foreig-
ners, and Pindar might count on the
possibility of an Epirot (Molossian) being
actually there when the ode was sung.
A man from Epirus would be jealous for
the honour of Neoptolemus (see below Il.
102 sqq-). Mr Arthur Holmes, I believe,
was the first to point out the meaning of
"Axawds dvjp.—For tmrép compare the
passage of Strabo quoted above on I. 37,
and 2. 326 7a bmép Tod ‘loviov Kddrou,
also Thucydides, 1. 46 &ore d€ Nyuhy Kal
mods wmep avrod Keirac ard Oardoons
(quoted by Dissen). Mr Holmes (7ze
Nemean Odes of Pindar with special
reference to Nem. vit.) has this note on
bmép: ‘If bép be really to wepi what the
highest vertical point of a curve would be
to the curve itself, what preposition could
more exactly describe the position of
Kichyros, the city of Thesprotia, here

138

NEMEONIKAI Z.

Tovias bmép ados oixéwv' mpokevia Téa?” &v te Sapotats 65

oppate Sépkouat NapTrpoV, OVX UTEpBarov,

,
Biava wavrt éx Todds épvcats, 6 € oTrOs EvVppav

\ / x4 \ / ’ a
Trott xpovos Eptrot. pabwy O€ TLS avepel,

supposed to be mentioned? We know
from Strabo that Kichyros stood upon a
cliff ; the sloping of the coast might well
represent the higher portion of the curve
whose lower portion would be the reflec-
tion in the waters’.—The Mss. have kal
mpozevia, a long syllable too much for the
metre. Hermann omits cal, while Momm-
The omission of «at
is clearly a gain for the structure and
style; and I think «at can be explained
asa gloss on Te: év Te dayudrais=kal ev
dauorats.—This passage shews that Pin-
dar was proxenos for the Epirots. Dissen
observes ‘suspicor Pindarum hospitia
gratuita habuisse per Graeciam qualia
Amphictyones alio tempore decrevere
Polygnoto; cf. Plin. Hest. Mat. XXXIV.
2, 33’. But this passage does not prove
the suspicion.

From a scholium on 1. 64 we learn the
fact that offence was given to the Aegi-

sen reads kat Eevig.

netans by a Paean of Pindar: ka@odou
yap amonoyetcbar Bovherar wepi Tod Neo-
mrTo\éu“ov Oavdrov mpos Tos Alywras*
€xeivou yap yTi@vrTo Tov Ilivdapoy ore ypa-
guv Aedpots tov Iadva epn' augdero-
Noto MapYyameEvov forplav wepi TiMav
amowhévar.

65. @ te Sapdtas «.7.d.] And
amongst my fellow citizens my glance
is clear, for I have not broken bounds
and have removed all violent uses from
before my feet; but may the time to come
draw nigh with kindly purpose. The da-
porate are the Thebans as opposed to
éévo. With Oppare x.7.d. cf. Vem. X. 40
py kpbrrew paos 6uparwv, where the con-
nexion however is very different. Nawmpov
dépxeoOa is the clear gaze of a free soul.
brepBaduv=irepBarwv pérpov, excedens
modum (Dissen). Donaldson appropri-
ately cites a gloss of Hesychius, vmep-

Borla* Képos, UBpis.—épvoas €x Todds
refers to dragging away impediments
from one’s path. mo7l—€pzro, tmesis.

68. paddy 8€ «.7.A.] But whoso
understandeth me will proclaim, whether
I come with the discords of crooked parley
on my lips.

dvepet] The mss. have ay épe? which is
supposed to be an instance of the Homeric
construction of dv with the future indica-
tive. But ;) this construction is extremely
doubtful, out of Homer. The few in-
stances cited from Attic prose writers
are clearly due to errors in the Mss.
The passage in Euripides’ Z/ectra, 1. 484
(kav ér’ ere povioy dYouat aiwa) is ob-
viously corrupt (see Weil’s note). (2) If
we allow that Pindar may, in this single
passage, have adopted this epic con-
struction, it is hard to see what force
the words ay épe? can possibly have.
(3) Even without ay, épet would be in-
tolerably weak, and the statement point-
less. (4) As the text stands this sentence
is isolated; some connexion with what
follows seems required.—It is hardly
necessary to mention the suggestion that
ay should be taken with wadwr.

The difficulty has arisen from a slight
error of a copyist who divided avepe? into
two words, just as, below 1. 89, he divided
dvéxor into ay éxou (see note). In Pyth.
I. 32 (and x. 8) we find dvéece, aorist of
avayopevw, used of the herald proclaiming
the victor in a contest. avepe?, the future,
has a similar force here; for these words
(uadcw x.7.r.) are closely connected with
the following lines. When the opponent
of Sogenes overstepped the line marking
the beginning of the spear-throw (see
next note), the question arose whether he
was disqualified; and when the judges
gave it against him, their judgment must

NEMEAN VII. 139
el map pédos Epyomar Yrayiov Gapov évvérov.
Evgevida tratpabe Layeves, Vropvve 70

have been made known to the spectators
by a xfpvé. Pindar applies this incident
to his own case (see /xtroduction), and
dvepet introduces the metaphor of the
following lines. paddy 5é Tis avepet means
when the truth is ascertained, proclama-
tion will be made; whether etc. This
restitution can hardly be called a change.
It removes all difficulties of construction,
and restores the continuity of thought.

For tap pédos cf. O/. IX. 39 70 Kauxao-
Oar mapa Karpov paviaccw vmoxpéKel, wUze-
seasonable vaunting sounds a jarring chord
of madness.—Hesychius gives the gloss
Warytov * mrayiov, Nokdv, emckekAiwévov. It
is only to be wondered that B has pre-
served the right word, uncorrupted.
Schneider’s Yoysov and Ahrens’ Peddov
are worthy of Byzantine scribes.

yo. Hvugevida x.7.d.] Sogenes, of Eu-
xenid clan, I swear that I overstepped not
the line when I propelled my swift tongue
like a bronze-tipped spear, which released
thy neck and thews from the sweat of
the wrestling-bouts, ere thy body met the
rays of the burning sun.

The Mss. have dtropvdw, which would
mean, / swear that I propelled not. With
Bergk I follow the reading of the scholiast
brouviw. pn refers only to mpofds ‘ with-
out having overstepped’. téppa is the
line which must not be overstepped by the
throwers. The mere use of mpofaivw
(‘step in front of’) excludes the old idea
that 7épua meant ‘ the limit of the throw’ ;
in such a sense, mpoBas assuredly could
not take the place of brepBadwv.

In this difficult passage German criti-
cism has conspicuously failed, and more
light has been thrown on the problem of
the pentathlon by the researches of Prof.
Gardner, Mr Fennell and Dr Waldstein
than by the learning of Hermann, Dissen
and Dr Pinder. There can be no doubt
that Pindar’s words contain an allusion

to some circumstance connected with
Sogenes’ victory, and there might seem
to be a choice between two alternatives.

(1) Sogenes’ victory in the spearthrow-
ing was decisive for his victory in the
pentathlon, and the wrestling test was un-
necessary. The order of the five events in
the pentathlon was as follows: G\ya, dxwv,
dickos, Spomos, wan (leaping, spear-throw-
ing, disc-hurling, running, wrestling). The
order dkwy, dickos is generally reversed,
but Dr Waldstein’s observation that ‘ the
Diskos as compared with the Akontismos
was Bapts, while the Akontismos was light
and required above all steadiness of eye
and arm’ (apud Fennell, Memean and
Isthmian Odes, p. xx) is decisive for the
priority of the spearthrowmg. If one
competitor won three of the first four
events, he was declared victor and no
wrestling contest took place (a case of
Tpiayuds, or amorpidéa). This might
have been achieved by Sogenes. If so,
the question arises, why does Pindar
specially mention the spear-throw, the
second event, as decisive? This difficulty
might be removed by the supposition that
Sogenes’ strong points were leaping and
running, and that his victory in spear-
throwing was an unexpected stroke of good
fortune. This good fortune might have
been due to the circumstance that a
superior opponent overstepped the line,
and thus répua mpoBds would have a
special point.

Against this view the word éémeppev
seems to me to be decisive. éxméuzrw is
by no means a synonym of ékhvw. Such
a phrase as éxméumrew kako could not be
used if the evil had never existed; and in
the same way éxméurew madaparov
would be a false phrase if no wrestling
had taken place. This consideration
is fatal also to the theory of Mr Fennell,
(who takes és é&émeupev ‘‘which is wont

140

NEMEONIKAI Z.

) Téepua tmpoBas axov? wTe yar t 7
pn Tépya mpoBas y YaKkoTapaov opaar

\ lal \ ” Joo /
Ooav yA@ooar, Os Ex o ETemrrev TradalopaTwoV

avt. ®.

’ / \ , b) / ” \ , ‘ r b] tal
avxéva Kai obévos ddiavtov, aifwvi piv aédip yutov emmeceiv.

> , oy \ \ / IZ

el TOvoS HV, TO TEpTVOY TEOV TEdEPYETAL.

4 lal

ga pe’ vix@vTi ye yapwv, el Te mépav aepbels 75
avéxpayov, ov Tpayvs elus KaTtabeuer'

elpewy otepavous édhadpov.

,
avaBaneo.

Moicoa Tou

mn \ v \ Le bd ¢ r
KONAG yYpuaov év TE NevKov Eépavd apa

to dismiss”’) that Sogenes ‘discharged
his spear in the pentathlon with his foot
advanced beyond the line, which marked
the beginning of the throw, and so having
failed to gain the third victory was
obliged to go on to the wrestling’. This
view moreover attributes to Pindar the
statement, ‘I have not overstepped
the mark, as you did’. But though I
am unable to accept Mr Fennell’s inter-
pretation of this passage, I must grate-
fully acknowledge the instruction that I
have derived from his learned essay on
the Pentathlon.

(2) The expression éféreupev madaic-
patwy clearly implies that Sogenes
wrestled, but a fortunate accident re-
leased him from the labour betimes ; and
the fact that he wrestled is-confirmed (as
Mr Fennell points out) by ef wovos ny
1. 74. The fortunate accident was of
course connected with the spear-throw-
ing. An opponent of Sogenes trans-
gressed the line behind which he should
have stood and was disqualified for an
event, in which perhaps he hoped to win.
He consequently retired from the compe-
tition, and Sogenes was released from the
necessity of contending with an additional
adversary, probably a dangerous adver-
sary, in the wrestling. This view is held
by Bergk, and it demands a slight altera-
tion in the reading of the mss. The
second personal pronoun ge is required
after éfémewpev, and so Bergk reads 6 a”
for ds, translating zd guod le discedere fecit.
But 6 would almost necessarily mean 76

dkovta Opoat, not 7d Tépua mpoBjva. 8s
is right; the spear, that is the spear-
throwing (owing to the accident which
befel his rival), delivered him from
one wrestler. The mistake lies in é&é-
meuwwev, a most natural and simple cor-
ruption of &é« o’ émeuwev, from which in
pronunciation it can have but very
slightly, if at all, deviated.

7I- xadkotdpgaov] The expression
xXadkorapaov dkovra occurs in Pyth. I. 44.
In Homer the epithet is only used of
helmets. §oav is used on account of the
metaphor; cf. Mem. X. 69 dkovTt Bog.
For dpoat with yA@ooar, cf. O/. XIII. 12
TO\pa TE ot EvHEta yLOoaav dpvver Neveu.

73. @Slayrov] That is, avdpwri.

74. € mévos nv x.7.r.] Lf toil there
was, greater ts the delight that folleweth.
Tepmvov answers to Tepmva in |. 53 (see
Introduction). .

75. taper.7.r.] Let me be. Lf, lifted
too high, I uttered a loud scream, to a
victor certainly my art ts not rough in pay-
ing her gracious debt. It ts a light thing
to twine garlands. Sound aloud prelude;
surely, the Aluse ts welding together gold
and white tory and the delicate flower
which she has filched from the foam of the
sea. €a we implies, ‘I will not deceive or
disappoint you’. For avéxpayov cp. & 467.

77. advaBadeo] addressed by the poet
to himself. Schol. av7t rod dvaxpovou Kal
dpxou Te Néyew éapp&s mepl Trav aTe-
pavuv.

78. xpvodv] In no other passage in
classical Greek poetry, as far as I know,

NEMEAN VII. I4I
Kal eipiov avOemov Trovtias Upedoia’ eépaas.
Avs 6€ pepvapévos audi Nepwéa er. 5. 80

morvpatov Opoov tuvev dover

acvyd. PBacija 5é Gedy Tpéret
, > / / ¢ /

datredov av TOde yapveémev apepa

Sb af / ’ > ' CMLN 1 n aA
Onl’ Néyovte yap Alaxov viv Ud paTpoddKots yovais puTedoat,

eM fe) \ / ’ / /
€TA MEV TOALAPYOV EVWVYUL@ TATPA,

is the first syllable of xpvods shortened.
The v of xptceos, on the other hand, may
be regarded as common; in Pindar it is
found short ten times (e.g. Vem. V. 7).

79. Aelprov dvOepov] white coral, ‘ the
foam-flower’. Xelpcov is adjectival (=Xet-
pwos), and while it suggests the lily means
slender or fine. Compare xpda etpievra
delicate skin, N 830; dma \epiberoay, of
the thin small voice of grasshoppers,
TI 52. Compare also Hesychius depus*
6 icxvds kal wxpos, and NetpioevTa* atrada,
Nerdvov yap TO dvOos* dia [read dvOos dia]
Thv NeloTnTa...

This /oam-flower corresponds to the
dvOea "Adpodiava, flowers of the foam-
born queen, of line 53 (see Lietroduction).

80. Atds 8€x.7.A.] Zeusis mentioned
because he was celebrated by the Nemean
games (dui, in connexion with, in regard
to).
occurs in Pyth. 1. 44 dkovra maddua dovéwy
(making the spear vibrate); Pyth. V1. 36
of a soul shaken by passion, dovydetca
ppny (cf. 20. IV. 219). In Pyth. X. 39 we
find it used of lyres and flutes :

Oovetv, to shake or set in motion

mavrTa 6€ xopol mapbévwr
Aupav re Boal xavaxal 7’ ab\wv dovéov-
Tal

which we might render, a// the air ts
shaken by dances of maidens and loud
notes of lyres and ringing music of flutes.
Dissen’s interpretation of ddve in the
passage before us, as a metaphor from
spear-hurling, can hardly be accepted,
especially in view of the passage cited
from the Tenth Pythian. We may trans-
late :

otp.¢€. 85

In praise of Zeus, whom Nemea calls
to mind, let the sounds of many voices
vibrate to low music. Meet is it on this
floor with utterance soft to sing the king
of the gods. i

ToAvpatos Opdos] is the sound of voices
singing in harmony. dovxg and apépa
émi are expressions appropriate to the
music of the lyre, as distinguished from
the music of the flute.

83. Sdmedov] The floor of the Aeaceum,
where the victory of Sogenes was cele-
brated. This is clear from rode; the
connexion of thought being that as Zeus
is the father of Aeacus, it is meet to cele-
brate him in the house of his son.

84. parpoddéKors] juarpddoxos (accent
so) is not found elsewhere. wo, dy virtue
of; compare /sth, V. 44 edxais Ud Beo-
yw is the subject of puretoa.

85. érq pév x.7.r.] A prince for a
family of truly auspicious name (lit. a
ruler of their city for a true fair-named
clan). Aeacus was the first dpxés of the
mots to which the Euxenidae belonged.
The Mss. have éua which yields no sense.
Pauw proposed reg, but the following
clause excludes the second person here.

Teolals.

Hermann’s é¢ has found more supporters ;
but there are two objections to it. (1)
ég was not likely to become €u@; (2) the
remark that Aeacus was a moNapxos for
his own 7arpa, the Aeacids, is weak and
irrelevant. He was more than 7oNapxos
for the Aeacids, he was their mpéyovos ;
there is some meaning in calling him a
moNiapxos for other families of Aegina.
It is clear that the rarpa meant is that of

142

NEMEONIKAI

Jigs

“Hpakrees, co b€ mpompedva pev Eeivov aderpeov 7. ect Oe

ryeveTat

’ \ ’ ie lal / / ? ”
avopos avnp tt, paiwév Ke yeltov’ éupevar

/ / ’ ’ Tow / Ul /
vow diknoavtT atevel yeltTov. yappa TavToV

? / 5 ’ > au \ \ SENS,
érragtov’ et © avtd Kal Oeds avéxot,

ray , ) a
év tiv kK €Oédot, Tiyavtas 0s eOapacas, evTUY@sS

/ \ “ >) ny ’ U2
vaiew Tatpi Lwyévns atadov audéeTrov

, / ’ /
Oupov mpoyovwv éixtnpova Cabéav ayuiar.

bd \ ‘ erp € / lal
€7rel TeTPAaOpolaly WOO apywatwy Cuyots

the Euxenids; and a connexion between
the Euxenids and Aeacus is a necessary
link in Pindar’s argument. (a) Heracles
is the &etvos of Aeacus; (4) Aeacus is the
prince of the city to which the Euxenids
belong; hence (c) Heracles may be ex-
pected to interest himself in the Euxenids.
Line 85 expresses (6). This interpreta-
tion is confirmed by the adjective evwrv-
wos, which here refers to the name Ev £e-
vidat, just asin l. 48 it referred to the
€évca at Delphi. Heracles and the Euxe-
nids are conceived to be joined by the
bond of gevia, even as the Delphians and
Neoptolemus. (See /ztroduction.)

The word, then, replaced by éua@ must
be a word likely to be corrupted and
must be compatible with the reference
of warpa@ to the clan of Sogenes. ér@
(see above, note on 1. 25) satisfies these
conditions perfectly. It emphasises the
reference in evwvtuw,—a clan whose
actual name is auspicious
to érjrupoy Kdéos in 1, 63.

86. ‘Hpdkdees «.7.d.] Thy own dear
guest-friend and brother, O Heracles. m™po-
mpeova Eetvov corresponds to mpoéevia
(same position in line) ]. 65.
a word only found here (perhaps con-
nected with proprius; compare dméwy :
socius).

el St yeverarn.7..] But ifa man hath
any fruition of man, we should say that a
neighbour ts to his neighbour a priceless
JY, Uf he loved him with steadfast heart.

and answers

™ poTr pewy,

3 !
aVT.€E.

yeverat would be in prose azmodaver.
Pindar is thinking of Hesiod, Works and

Days, IIS 344
THA KaKOS yelTwY, doco T ayabds mey’
évecap,

éupopé Tor Tyuuns bor’ eppmope ~yelrovos
éoO)ov.~

Aleman, fr. 50 (Bergk. P. Z. G.) wéya
yelrov. yeitwy. For vow arevéi cf. Hesiod,
Theog. 1. 660.—For other reminiscences
of Hesiod cp. above VI. 3; note on IV.
59; Zsth. V. 66 Adurwy dé pedérav epyos
ématwy ‘Horddov mada Tyua Tor’ eros.

89. et 8 atré x.7.d.] But if a god
also should uphold this truth (principle),
or be true to this saw. Kal Oeds opposed
aird is the sentiment of the
preceding statement. dvéxou, is a certain
restoration of Thiersch for dy
Bergk however reads d\éyou.

go. év tly K eéXo x«.7.X.] Resting
on thee, who didst subdue the Giants, Soge-
nes were fain to dwell happily in the
wealthy, hallowed street of his ancestors,
fostering a spirit of devotion to his sire.

Observe that marpi Lwyévns responds
to matpabe Xdyeves in 1. 70; and that
dupéerwv Ovuov repeats Ouudy dupérew of
l. ro. For the significance, see J7tyo-
duction, pp. Ig and 121.

93- é€mel x.7.X.] This passage has
usually been misinterpreted. (1) Dissen
translates, guem guadrigalibus velut cur-
ruum in jugis domum habeat inter delubra
tua ab utrogue latere. This no doubt is

to dvnp.

exo.

NEMEAN VII.

BJ Vs / v al > / SEN /
év Tewéverot Sdpmov Eyer TEOIs, auoTépas twv yeELpOS.
\ iJ} / a7 / /

tw & éméouev “Hpas troow te trevbépev

143
4 /
@ pakap,

lal \
Kopay Te yAavKeTioa—dvvacat d5é—potoicw adKav

apuayavay dvaBatov Papa diddopev.

> / > , vf ¢ /
el yap odiow éeutredoabevéa Biotov appocais

nBa dATAap® TE yHpai SiaTrrEKOLS

’ / ’ x7 / \ Lal SYA ees
evoaimov’ éovta, Taidwy Sé Traides Exovev aiel

the general meaning; but he is wrong in
assuming that the reference is to waggons
with two yokes. (2) As there was only
one yoke in the fourhorsed chariot, Mr
Fennell attributes to {vyots the meaning
of (v-y.o1, the two middle horses harnessed
to the yoke; compare Pollux, I. 141 dv
oi pev bd TH Cvy@ Fby.01, of Se Exarepwhev
maphopo.. But this use of ¢vyd has no
authority. Nor does Euripides’ phrase
TeTpacve oxos (a car harnessed to four
horses) prove ‘that {vya was used cata-
chrestically for horses’ here, or even that it
might be so used. Mr Fennell supposes
that the house of Sogenes is compared to
the apua, and the temples of Heracles to
the two yoke-horses. The preposition év
does not suit Mr Fennell’s theory, as he
confesses himself. Mezger’s note on this
passage is vague, but his view seems to
be similar.

The passage admits of a simple inter-
pretation, if we hold fast to Pindar’s
language. {vyov must mean yoke and
év implies the very closest proximity.
The relation of Sogenes’ house to the
temples is compared to that of a chariot-
pole to the two arms of the yoke, which
is attached to its extremity. The plural
fvyots is used to suggest the apparent
plurality of the yoke, its two arms, and
corresponds to teuévn. We may translate:
For he hath his house at the precincts of
thy temples, which face him, like the yoke-
arms of a fourhorsed chariot, on either
hand as he goeth forth.

94. © padkap «.7.d.] But thee, O
blessed lord, it beseemeth to persuade both
the spouse of Hera and the owl-eyed maid

I0O

—thou canst, an thou wilt,—to bestow
Jull often upon mortals mighty help
against difficult distresses. Heracles is
invoked in his capacity of ddetixakos;
Athene is to be persuaded on account of
her title "ANaAkopernis, connected (rightly
doubtless) with ddadxety. Hence the
choice of dAkdv which responds to dAxai
in line 12.— Bergk saw that dvvaca dé isa
parenthesis, and that d:d0wev depends on
mevbévev; but he is wrong in doubting
Gaya. A modern writer would inevitably
say dei; Greek reserve limited the prayer
to apd.

98. et ydpx.7.r.] Lf were well, if thou
shouldst harness their youth and happy ed
to a life of steadfast strength, and eked it
out in happiness to the end; and tf their
children’s children possessed for ever the
honour which 7s now theirs and honour
nobler still hereafter. éymedocbevis, only
here (cf. peyadooberys 1. 2, and éumedov
l. 57). Another dmaé elpnuévoy com-
pounded of @uzredos is found in O/. 1. 59,
also qualifying Biov, éumedduoxAos. appo-
wats is the participle (Bergk, reading
dvamdéxervy, makes it optative); for the
metaphor from a chariot (carried on from
1. 93) see Lrtroduction, p. 125.

99. Ba] We remember that Hebe
was the wife of Heracles and the

daughter of Hera (1. 95).—dcamdéxew, like
mhéxe and karamdéxew, might be used
with Biov in the sense of didyew. Pindar
has it of weaving a dirge, in Pyth. xu. 8,
Opivov SvamdéEao’ A@ava.—urrapy ynpat
(lauta senectus) is Homeric; see 136.
A\cmap@ responds to Atmapauto«os |. 15.

loo. tralSwy $€ x.7.A.] These words

144

ryépas Tohrep vov Kai apevov omer.

\ Ne ho ae AN 4 U ,
To © éuov ov tote hace: Kéap

atpotrotat NeomrToAepov EAKVTAaL

NEMEONIKAI Z’.

2 1
€7. €.

” ° SeeaN \ \ / Pee sd a
€meot’ TauTa O€ Tpls TETpaKL T apTroElV

, , \ '
atropla TerdéOer, Téxvortw ate warrudakas Atos Kopwos.

respond in meaning to Il. 39, 40. ~yévos
answers to maldwyv maides, aie to ailel,
yépas pépev to yépas éxouev.

Io2, 76 8 énov x.7.d.] Never will
my heart confess to having wrought wrong
to Neoptolemus by verses inflexible (i.e. trre-
vocable). But it argues lack of wit to say
over the same words three times and four,
like barkers rhymelessly repeating to chil-
dren, ‘ Corinthus ts a son of Zeus’. drpo-
moot, not 27decoris (Dissen), but ¢hat can-
not be turned away. For oprodetv cf.
Sophocles, Phzloctetes, 1238 Bote Tpls
dvamoNe mg’ émn; pawuddKas is accus.
plural, co-ordinate with the unexpressed
subject of durodet. It is usually taken
as nominative to an understood duzone.
Mr Fennell holds that it qualifies Kopw@os
which he apparently regards as coordinate
with (70) ra’ra& dumodeiv. Schneider
proposed payvdaKais agreeing with réx-
vos (crying for nothing).—In these words
Pindar clearly refers to rival poets whose
uninventive genius he depreciates; and
porpvdAdkas (a word coined for the occa-
sion, perhaps on the analogy of pawl-
gpwvos, see Hesychius sab voce papidwvor)
gives a clue to the identity of. the person
against whom this shaft is chiefly aimed.

105

pay-uNaKkas suggests its metrical equiva-
lent Baxx-vAidys; and while -vAdxas
corresponds closely enough to -vAléns for
the purpose of a parody, Baxx- suggesting
the wildness of intoxication is rendered
by pay. See Lntroduction, p. 126.

Avés Képiv80s, a proverb, explained
thus in a scholium: The Megarians, who
were a Corinthian colony, were treated
arrogantly by the Corinthians, and when
they became strong enough revolted.
Then the Corinthians send envoys to
Megara, and these mpocedOovtes eis Tiv
€xk\nolav dAda TE TOAAG dreEHAGov Kat
TéNos OTe Oikalws av orevdievey emi Tors
yevouevors 0 Ards KopuvOos, ef ui AjWorro
Oiknvy map atrdv. ép ois mapotuvOévtes
oi Meyapets tovs mpéoBers NiPors EBadov *
Kal mera puKpor ériBonbnoayTwy Twaev Tots
Kopw@los kat waxns yevouevns vikjoartes,
gvy7n Tov Kopwbiwy dropuyovrwy éparto-
[eEvol,

y ” , \ \
KTELVOVTES AMA TWalLELY TOV Atos

Kopwéov éxéXevov. dbev dno 6 Ajuwr
ere kal viv émt rap dyav mev ceuvuvopevar,
Kkak@s 6€ xal Se.XGs amaddatToOvTwy Thy
Tapoulay Tabtny TeTAXOaL.—For the point
of the proverb in this passage, as an
allusion to éyovtTe yap Alaxoy k.7.X. in

]. 84, see above, /troduction, p. 126.

NEMEAN VIII.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY AT NEMEA IN THE
STADION WON BY DEINIS OF AEGINA.

INTRODUCTION.

THE Ode in honour of Deinis, who won a footrace at Nemea about the
year 491 A.D,!, is intended for his country Aegina perhaps more than for
the victor himself. It was written in the day of her humiliation ; and the
death of Megas (Meges), the father of Deinis, gave Pindar an opportunity for
introducing some mournful Lydian measures, which might at the same
time convey his sympathy to the island in her distress. The allusions to
the political situation could scarcely be clearer than they are without
becoming more than allusive.

When the ambassadors of Darius visited Greece in 491 to demand
earth and water as tokens of subjection, Aegina had submitted, and Athens
had eagerly seized the opportunity of humbling her rival, by accusing her at
Sparta of treachery to the cause of Hellenic freedom, The Spartans
listened to the charges and the result was, chiefly owing to the activity
of king Cleomenes, that ten of the noblest Aeginetans were sent as
hostages to Athens. It was said by a political opponent that Cleomenes
was bribed by the Athenians*. At this time then the Aeginetans felt that
they were compassed about by enemies, and might be glad to receive
expressions of sympathy from a poet of fame.

Pindar makes the sorrows of Ajax the central point of his hymn. He
often takes this hero as the type of a true man succumbing to envy, and
unable, from mere want of words, to meet the arts and policy of a fluent
rival. In this case the story of Ajax was particularly suggestive, for
Odysseus was a suitable prototype of the Athenians, so noted for their
readiness of speech and wit. The case of Ajax shews that the art of
cajolery by cunning words is of ancient date. But it is some consolation
to reflect that the power of words to heal pain is of ancient date too;
and Pindar suggests that he comes to minister a song of healing to the
wounds of Aegina. It is also a consolation to remember the power of

1 Mezger was the first to determine tion of Aegina after 457 B.C.
the true date of this ode and explain the 2 The full account of these events will
political allusions (pp. 325, 326). Dissen be found in Herodotus VI. 49, 50.
thought the hymn referred to the condi-

b, IO

146 NEMEAN VIII.

her great hero Aeacus, and that the men of Athens and Sparta were once
upon a time proud and eager to acknowledge his lordship. Such are the
chief elements from which this Ode is constructed. We shall now see how
the poet has worked them out}.

A bright prelude, invoking Hora, the maytime of life,—closely associated
with the sweet and bitter uses of love,—is in keeping with the youth of
Deinis and meant perhaps to turn his thoughts from the grave of his father
to the advancing hours. But the ambrosial pensioners of Aphrodite’s
train carry us back to the bridal bed of Zeus and Aegina, where Aeacus
was conceived ; and the transition to the great hero of Aegina is managed
with Pindar’s unfailing skill. We hear how the prince, in whose temple the
Ode is being sung, grew up to excellence in body and mind, and became
the king of Ve-/and (Oenone)—the old name of Aegina. And his greatness
was so eminent that the most noble of neighbouring lords voluntarily?
became his vassals—including the Athenians® and the Pelopids of Sparta.
And now Aeacus is invoked in behalf of Aegina and her citizens, to secure
them the continuance of this prosperity’, The poet is not singing merely
a song of triumph; he comes rather as a suppliant® to clasp the knees
of Aeacus, while he offers his Nemean hymn which he describes as a
Lydian headband of music, richly embroidered—a characteristic metaphor
taken from the band round which the wreath of victory was twined. This
wreath of victory furnishes an opportunity for the supplication; and the
impression conveyed is that when Deinis and Megas have introduced Pindar
into the temple of Aeacus, their occupation is almost over; Deinis is lost
among the citizens of Aegina, of whom solely the poet is thinking, until he
addresses Megas in line 44°.

The protection of a god may secure the permanence of well-being: this
is Pindar’s thought in supplicating Aeacus and he illustrates it by the case
of Cinyras", the beloved of Apollo, who had been blessed with passing great
wealth in Cyprus of the sea. And Pindar indicates that the prosperity of
Cinyras is to be compared to the prosperity of Aegina, not only by the

1 Mezger divides the ode thus:

Tpooluwov I—5 3. apxa 6—18; Kkara-
TpoTd 1g—22; dupadds 23—34; meTaka-
TAaTpoTd 35—39; oppayis 4o—SI.

If we discard his nomenclature, this
division is reducible to a triple division
corresponding to the three metrical sys-
tems.

* The spontaneity is emphasized by
aBoari at the beginning of the sentence
and éxévres at the end, ll. g—10.

3 The application to contemporary
Athens is suggested by o7parés. See
note |. rr.

4 That this is the object of the suppli-

cation is shewn by yép in 1. 17.

5 ixéras is emphasized by its position
in the sentence.

6 The only direct references to the
victor and his father are in 1]. 16 and Il.
44—48.

7 The reference to Cinyras forms the
first line of the second system. By this
Pindar gains two advantages; (1) the
first and second systems are formally
connected by éa7ep; (2) the wealth of
Cinyras, compared to a fruit-tree, re-
sponds, metrically, to the vine-tree, which
in the first line of the 3rd antistrophos
symbolizes Aegina,

INTRODUCTION. 147

expression ‘Cyprus of ¢he sea, but also by a hint that the Cyprian goddess,
so gracious to her priest Cinyras, had also been especially favourable to the
union of Zeus and Aegina (sromméves Kumpias ddpar, |. 71).

And now approaching the main theme, the tale of Ajax, which, being
interpreted, will explain why he should now clasp the knees of Aeacus in
supplication, Pindar professes to be apprehensive of publishing a new version
of an old story, lest envy, like some fell disease, should fasten on him. For
he too has envious rivals to complain of, like Ajax of old,—like Aegina
now,—like all who are worth envying.

Ajax, according to Pindar’s new version’, is the man of valour who
really deserved the golden arms of Achilles. But unfortunately he had no
powers of speech ; and his rival Odysseus, by flattering words, seduced the
Greeks into giving their votes in his own favour. The votes are represented
as given secretly’—as though the Danai were really ashamed of an act of
injustice, knowing well that Ajax was the better warrior.

Such is the power and such the antiquity of Mdppacis, compared to a
false physician, who is attended on her rounds by flattering tales. She is
said to treat with violence the illustrious, while to the obscure she can give
an artificial frame of glory, though they are really unsound patients’.

And now we reach the third part of the Ode, where those who have
suffered like Ajax through the arts of the false physician may find salve for
their wounds from the true physician. Pindar at least is not like the Danai,
—is not a friend of Parphasis®. Some pray for more land (and we read
between the lines ‘like Athens coveting Aegina’); some pray for gold (and
we think of Sparta receiving bribes) ; but the prayer of Pindar is that he may
please the citizens of Aegina, and be just in his praise and in his blame®.
For just praise is really important. Excellence or ‘virtue’ in its Greek
sense, dperd, may be compared to a plant whose growth requires the dew of
friendly praise. For this simile Pindar selects the v7ve, indicating thereby
that his words are meant for V’zze-/and, Oenone, and that the growth of
Aeacus, who had so many friends among the surrounding princes, was
a type of the growth of dpera’.

1 Observe too that Cinyras is compared
to a tree laden with fruit, and cf. notes
on l. 18 and 1. 4o.

2 Elsewhere (in Mem. vii.) Pindar
repeats this new version: but it is clear
from his words that in this Ode (491 B.C.)
it was put forward for the first time.

3 Kpudiaor ev papas, by ballot-pebbles
cast secretly into the voting vessels.

4 See notes on ll. 22, 32, 37, 48 for the
metaphor of the physician which pervades
the Ode.

5 He prays against the contagion of
envy ll. 36—37. See note.

6 Line 39 aivéwy aivnrd x.7.d, is in-
tended to contrast with 1. 22 a@mrera 3
€oNGV K.T.D.

* Compare l. 7

éBracrev 5 vids Olywvas Bacie’s

xetpt Kal Bouats dproros
and |. 40

a al ] > ul a 3 e
avéerar & dpetd, xAwpais eépoas ws

dre dévdpeoy olvas,

The
comparison to a tree with fruit is an echo
of the reference to Cinyras (guTevdeis
1. 17, €Bpice 1. 18).

(where olvas is my emendation).

10—2

148 NEMEAN VI1J1.

Yes, friends are useful, and not only in days of difficulty and distress,
though of course chiefly then; but also in the hour of joy can friendship
render pledges of her loyalty. And this is, after all, an occasion of joy, the
victory of Deinis, clouded indeed by the death of his father Megas. The
power of friendship or the art of the most friendly physician cannot bring
back the spirit of Megas from the underworld; but the Muses can help at
least to assuage the pain.

And Pindar here uses one of his most remarkable expressions,—
ringing almost as a gauntlet of defiance cast at the feet of Athens and
Sparta. He will not offer his services to Aegina covertly, as the Danai, in a
bad cause, served Odysseus by secret febdles ; but he will support her by a
loud, really clamorous, s¢oxe of song—a stone that crieth out. And the
same stone served too as a sort of funeral stele for Megas. Aegina and the
Chariadae (the clan of Megas and Deinis) are here closely associated, and
we may suspect that this clan was in a special manner connected with the
political difficulties of Aegina ; one might even conjecture that the death of
Megas had been in some way brought about by the rupture with Sparta.

The ministry of song is like the art of the physician; and the poet
may expect to exorcise pain by his literal charms*. The word Oepareva
has a double sense, of which Pindar takes advantage to make his
point’, It may mean /o attend as a physician, or to pay court to and flatter.
And these meanings express the distinction between the friendship of the
Danai for Odysseus and the friendship of Pindar for Aegina.

The contrast is carried further. The antiquity of Parphasis had already
been declared, but one must not on that account be dejected. One must
remember that the hymn of victory, the sovereign healer, is also ancient of
days*.

It will be seen from the foregoing analysis that the Ode falls naturally
into three parts, each occupying a metrical system. (1) In the first part
Aeacus is put forward as a hope and divine security for Aegina against all
distresses ; and the poet offers to him his poem, as a suppliant. (2) In
the second part, the myth of Ajax illustrates the power of envy, and shews
the ways of Parphasis, the false physician. (3) In the third part we learn
that there is also a ¢rue physician, here represented by the poet, whose
musical offering to Aeacus is at the same time a charm to heal the wounds of
Aegina,

This hymn, then, is the ministration of a friendly physician. The note
of friendship® lurks even in the opening lines, in that joyous atmosphere

1 Pindar is a voluntary and loyal friend
of Aegina, as the surrounding princes
were loyal friends of Aeacus.
the last line of the third antistrophos
(l. 44) corresponds to zel@ec@’ in the
last line of the first antistrophos (1. Io).

2 This is the force of érao.dats 1. 49.

* @eparevoay |. 26.

mira in

See note on 1. 48,

where it is shewn that mpécgopov throws
a reflex light on amrroua in 1. 14.

4 jv ye wav O) mada, 1. 51 and Hp Kal
madat 1, 32. The contrast expressed in
these words was observed by Mezger.

5 The Pindaric plural PiAorartes, used
in the sense of pwres, suggests gidla as
well as guA\o7ns.

INTRODUCTION. 149

where tender beings hover about the goddess of love or sit, delicately
enthroned, on the eyelids of boys and maidens. The peculiarly solemn
invocation to Aeacus, the dexterous allusions to the conduct of Sparta and
Athens, the comparison of the tree at Aegina to the tree at Cyprus, the
elaborated character of Parphasis, the bold metaphor of the loud stone of
music,—all these thoughts, like the leaves of a garland arranged round a band
or mitra, depend on a subtle thread, at first not apparent, but hidden away,
as it were, in the Lydian warp. This thread is the contrast between the
true and the false physician, or the friend and the flatterer, worked out by
a skilful use of words which had special associations with the operation of
disease or the ministration of medicine—the disease here being envy, which
Pindar regarded as perhaps the most dangerous of all moral maladies.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

The structure is mesodic, and the formula

The first part of the epode is epodic, the second antistrophic.

The rhythm of this ode is dactyloepitritic. The musical accompaniment
was (partly at least) in Lydian mood ; see l. 15.

NEMEONIKAI WH’.

AEINIAT!

ATE INEM He

STAAIBI.

"Opa rota, Kapv€ “Adpoditas auBpocrav pirorator,

oTp. a.

raplevniots veo Taiswv 7 epioca yrepapors

1 [ have followed Schmid in correcting
Aewia, a mistake of the Byzantine scribes.

1. “Opa x.7..] wea is the season of
youth in its ripeness, here personified.
In the Tenth Olympian the victor is
described (1. 103) as l6€a kaddv wpa TE
kekpaévov ; his comeliness is tempered by
puberty; and in the next words @ more
davavdéa Tavupnder motpov ddadke ody Kvu-
mpoyever (she who once, tt conjunction
with Aphrodite, secured immortality for
Ganymede) &pa is almost personified.
motvia is used by Pindar of the nymph
Libya (Pyth. 1X. 55), the Grace Aglaia
(Ol. xiv. 13), the Muse (Mem. 11. 1),
Persephone (fr. 37), axris AeNiov (p. 107,
g), and once of Aphrodite, with a genitive
case (Pyth. 1V. 213 Bedéwv). Mr Myers’
translation, Spirit of youth, is attractive,
but suggests modern associations.—The
plural of @tAétas (a word which implies
sexual enjoyment ; compare the Homeric
purotynte Kal edvy) occurs three times in
Pindar: (1) here, (2) Pyth. 1v. 92 odpa
Tis Tay év Ouvar@ piiorarwv émipatew
éparat, where Yavw suggests love touches,
(3) Pyth. 1X. 39 Kpumral KNatdes évri co-
pois ILeBots iepav piiordrwv. apBpdcros
denotes the peculiar effluence exhaled by
divine persons or things. It is rarely met
in Pindar, In fr. 198 we read of the

The superscription does not occur in the
older Mss.

delectable ambrosial water issuing from
the fair spring of Tilphossa (wedvyabes
auBpbo.ov tdwp); in Pyth. Iv. 299 of a
fountain bubbling with ambrosial verses,
maya auBpoclwv émréwyv, where the adjec-
tive could hardly have been used but for
the image of the spring. Each verse,
éos, is a bead of water with a divine
effluence.

Render: Sovran Vouth, herald of
Aphrodite's ambrostal Loves, whose seat ts
on the young eyelids of maidens and of
boys, him thou dost bear aloft with kind
constraining hands, but another with touch
untoward.

2. epitoira] The seat of desire (as
of sleep, Pyth. 1X. 24 and Moschus Il. 3
tmvos Bledpdpocw eplifwr) is the eyelids ;
cf. Soph. Antigone, 795 vixd & évapyis
Brepapwv iwepos evhéxrpov viudas..—The
received reading dre mapHevntos involves
the insuperable difficulty of a sentence
without a verb (dre Baordgfes being
equivalent to a participle coordinate with
éplgoca). It is clear that a word has
fallen out before waléwv and that ave is an
awkward insertion to rectify the metre.
The line began with mapOevnios (B
mapbevnto.st, D mapbevloocr) and it is not

NEMEAN VIII.

151

\ \ er ayy, sist \ / yg ee ees
TOV meV apépois avayKas yepol Baatalers, Erepov 6 érépacs.
ayaTrata Sé Kaipod un TRavabévTa Tpds Epyov ExacToV

A > t Shae? > a , “
TOV apElovav EpwT@V eTiKpaTely SVVacbaL 5

olor kai Avos Atyivas Te NéxTpov Troiéves aupeToAncav

> ,
avT. a.

Kumrpias dépov’ EBdactev & vidos Oivevas Bacirevs
xelpt Kal Bovdais apiotos: ToANA viv TOOL ALTAaVEVOV iEiV’

difficult to discover the word which has
been accidentally lost. By writing the
words in uncials we can see how easily
véos might have been omitted by a copy-
ist (by parablepsia).
TTAPOENEIOICNEOICTTAIAON.

véots is not superfluous ; cf. Mem. 111. 72
é€y moat véowr mats, and Pyth. X. 59
véaislv Te wapbévoor péAnua. We have
the opposite of ‘young eyelids’ in Pyth.
IV. 121 €k 6° dp’ avrod moupéddvéav Sdkpva
ynparéwy yrepdpwv, tears welled from his
aged eyelids.

3. avaykas] Compare Spenser’s, ‘deare
constraint. —The Mss, reading can be
defended by Pyth. Iv. 234 dvaykas évTe-
ow tustruments of constraint (wherewith
Jason binds the necks of Aeetes’ oxen).
Observe that auepos is treated as an adj.
of two terminations ; in Ve. v1. 83 and
IX. 44 we have the usual feminine forms.
Bacrdtw (estar) is used here in its literal
sense, dear (as in Pyth. Iv. 296); but
Pindar elsewhere has it in the figurative
sense of exalting (=eyadtvew), Ol. XII.
1g and /sth. 111. 8. This transition sug-
gests the idea of ‘chairing’. €répats is
euphemistic for rough (schol. oxdnpats) ;
we may best render it in English by a
negative word, zztoward, ungentle.

4. ayamrata] Jtis good and pleasant;
for plural cf. dopa, above IV. 71. py
TtravalévTa is not quite ui) duaprovra, nor
is duwaprev quite the same as émAavdén in
Wen. Vil. 37.
destination, wavnOjvac to deviate from
the voad, here katpos, due measure.

The giAérares, pensioners of Aphro-
dite’s train, lose their personality and pass

amapreiv is to miss the

into the épwres, objects of love, in line 5 ;
again in line 6 these épwres partly resume
their personality and become the shep-
herds who dispense the gifts of the Cy-
prian queen.

5. apeovav] fpraestantiorum; ‘die
besseren Liebesfreuden’ (Mezger); cf.
dépo.s, 1. 3. émukpateiv, potire.

6. otovKatk.7.A.] Aven such loves as
ministered round the couch of Zeus and
Aegina, dispensing the gifts of the Cyprian
dame; anda son grew up, king of Oenona
(Vineland), sost mighty and wise.

In O/. X. 8 rou is used figuratively
of an heir, dispenser of wealth. (It does
not occur elsewhere in Pindar.) zrowmatyw
is also used figuratively, but rather means
fovere (Ol. x1.93 Lsth. WV. 12.)—oputo-
Aetv means to serve as an dudlrodos (Fe-
pareve, Schol. Pyth. Iv. 271), but sug-
gests the notion of hovering round. BAdore
occurs in O/. VII. 69, but the verb is not
found elsewhere in Pindar. Notice that
e is short here before 6\.—For Oivo-
vas see above Iv. 46 and v. 15; and
compare below, note on |. 40. The close
approximation of Kuzpia and Oivwva is
designed (see Vem. Iv. 46).

A scholiast explains the connexion of
Hora with Aegina thus: elra émuxwmac-
TUGS TOV TaTpiwy epdmrerar, NEywv THY
Alywav 5.’ wpatomatos bro Ads dvnp-
mdobat.—With xerpt kal Bovdats dpioros
the Homeric line (I’ 179)

dupérepov Bacireds 7° dyabds Kparepos

Tr alxunris
is compared in the scholia.

8. mwodAa viv x.7.A.] Many prayed

earnestly to behold him (desiring help or

152

NEMEONIKAI

Laie

€ / f
aBoati yap npwwy awTo. TepivateTaovT@D

/ ,
nOedov Keivou ye TeiecO avakiais ExovTes, 10
v4 a > ,’ / t/ \ > /
ou Te Kpavaais ev “A@avaiow appolov atpatov eT. a.
of 7 ava Sraptav Ledorrniadar.
Cal? 3 fa) a rt U f by € \ I
ixéeras Alakov ceuvav yovatwv trod.os 8 vrép didas
> a“ > ¢ \ A Ce: /
aotav 8 vrep TaVS artTopat hépwv
Avéiay mitpav Kavayada TerroiKiApévayr, is

Acivios Siaca@v otadiov Kai tatpos Méya Nepeaiov dyadpa.

counsel, because he was yepl kai Bovdais
dptaTos).
make many entreaties, occurred above
Wena

g- aBoarl x.r..] For unbidden the
flower of heroes who dwelled round about,
were fain to submit to his dominion, of
thetr own will—they who marshalled a
host in craggy Athens and the Pelopids in
Sparta’s plain. dBoart and dvatta (plu-
ral) are amat elpnuéva. The singular
avagia occurs only in a fragment of Aes-
chylus.—Pindar’s usual word to express
mepwaverdovres (which he uses only here)
is meptxtloves.—The point of these lines is
that the heroes became vassals of Aeacus
voluntarily ; and this is brought out by
introducing the sentence with aSoari and
ending the strophe with éxovres.—For
dwros see note on Il. g. The phrase
‘flower of knights’ occurs in 7yot/us and
Cressida, il. 3.

Il. Kpavaais é€v “A®dvatow] This
expression occurs three times in Pindar ;
here, O/. vil. 82 and O/. x11. 38. In
Aristophanes, 4zrds 123, Athens is called
ai Kpavaal, and in Acharnians 75 Kpavaa
mods. The epithet of course referred to
the Acropolis.
epithet of Delos.—The words dppofov
otparoy, of the Athenians, are remark-
able. orpards clearly alludes to the
Athenian democracy of Pindar’s time ;
in Pyth, i. 87 he calls a democracy
AdBpos orparos.

12. ava Zraptav] Jz Sparta. Cf.
Pyth. Xt. 52 ava modu, tn the city ; Lsth.

The phrase mo\d\a Nravevew,

In /s¢h. 1. 4 Kpavad is an

VII. 63 "IcPpuov av vamos; Mem. Vi. 46.
The form IleXorniddat is related to an
hypothetical *IleXozevs, dative eAom7i, as
*Augitpuwriddns to’ Auditptwv, dative Ap-
gitptwr. From Ilé\oy, dative IHéXome,
comes IIe\oridys. Pindar makes the
power of the Pelopids contemporary with
Aeacus, contrary to the usual chronology
of the legends ; see Miiller, Aegin. p. 36.

14. Gmropat] For the force see note
on lines 37 and 48.

15. Avdlav x.7..] A head-band of Ly-
dian music broidered with ringing threads,
—a hymn partly sung to Lydian harmony.
kavaxabdd refers to the sound of the instru-
ments, especially flutes. Compare Soph.
Trachiniae, 641 abdds otk dvapciav iaxwy
Pyth, X. 39 has been
quoted above on VII. 80. In the Homeric
Hymn to Apollo, \. 185 (or Hymn to
Pythian Apollo \. 7) xavaxn is used of
the lyre:

Kavaxav emdverow.

Toto b€ Popmyé
xpvcéov wrdo mAnKTpov Kavaxny ExEL
imepoeroar.

For the metaphor cp. toatyw motkinoy dv-
Onua, I weave a broidered anadem, frag.
179 (Schol. ev. VII. 116 érrel TO rotnua
vpdouate mapéokev). The uitpa was a
band of wool which formed the founda-
tion of the crown of leaves.

16. Nepeatov dyadpa] 4 thing of
grace from Nemea, to deck two victories
won in the race-course by Deinis and his
father Megas. For the adjective Neueatos
see above Il. 4. dya\ua suggests that
the ode will serve as a statue for Deinis

NEMEAN

VITT. 153

adv Oem yap Tor putevbels GABos avOpwroiot TappLoveTepos*

atp. 8.

vd \ , yy Ul / v ,
domrep Kal Kuwpav é8pice mOVT@ TrovTia év mote Kumpo.

7 \ \ Ud > ‘ , /
istamat 6) Toool Kovdows, aumvewy Te Tply TL Paper,

TOANGA yap TOAAG AéNeKTaL: veapa & éEevpovta dSopev Pacavw 20
és €eyyor amas Kivduvos’ dor de Noyou POovepotaw'

ef > > Lal > ae / >] > b] /

amtetar © éorav del, yeipoverot & ovK Epiter.

and a sepulchral stele for Megas (cf.
Nem. X. 67).

17. ovdv Oe yap x.7.d.] Pindar suppli-
cates Aeacus, because weal planted under
the auspices of a god—Aeacus is the son
of Zeus—is more likely to be permanent.
TapiLovos= mapuovimos (Pyth. VIL. 20 Tap-
poovivav evdamoviay), For the meta-
phorical use of puretvw cf. Zsth. Vv. 12 ov
TE of Oaivwy guTever dofavy, and above
Nem. WV. 59.

18. 6o7mep x.7.’.] The antecedent of
domep is Beds. Cinyras, the beloved: of
Apollo, is mentioned in Pyth. IL. 15.
éBpice sustains the metaphor of purevdeis
—a tree laden with fruit; cf. Bpl@nor de
dévdpea kaprw, tT 212. We met fpifw in
its intransitive sense Vem. III. 40; here
the aorist is transitive, fo /oad. Tyrans-
late, weighed down the branches of Cinyras
with wealth.

19. torapar «.7.A.] LZ stand on feet
lightly poised. To render on light feet
would not convey the meaning, while ov
tiptoe hardly represents Pindar’s style.
The metaphor from starting in a foot-
race is appropriate to Deinis’ victory in
the stadion. kov@o.ow éxvetoat trociy oc-
curs in O/. XUI. 114, there too alluding
to distinctions of the victor Xenophon in
races. In Pyth. IX. t1 we have xepi
xovpa, in Ol. XIV. 17 Kotda BiBavra.
te connects aumvéwy with rogal xotdos,
gapev is the only form of the pres. inf.
of ¢aué found in Pindar.—In explanation
of dparvéwy a scholiast remarks :

oi peyaa Puvety édovTes olov Tpaywool
Tpocavamveovaw éemuTond, Ww’ Grav avapw-
vyiowow ekapkeon emimAéov 7 Pav.

20. modAd yap x.7.r.] Many tales
have been told in many a wise. But to
discover new things and deliver them to
the touchstone for men to prove, is the
height of danger. For tales are a treat to
envious men, and envy ever assaileth the
noble and striveth not with the mean.

The mere translation of these lines
offers no difficulty; but touching their
meaning commentators are divided.
(1) Dissen refers ro\N\a NéXexTaL to Ciny-
ras, and explains: ‘si carminis ratio pos-
tulasset longiorem de Cinyra narrationem,
non tacuisset Pindarus nec timuisset
reprehensores; nunc autem orditur de
Cinyra et statim iterum mittit eum, nulla
alia de causa quam ut quasi timens invi-
dos de invidia ipsa dicat ad eamque sen-
sim transeat’. (2) Mezger explains ‘ die
verschiedensten Dinge sind zwar schon
auf die verschiedenste Weise dargestellt
worden (ohne dass einer etwas dabei
riskirt hatte)’, and supposes the novelty,
for whose reception Pindar feels appre-
hensive, to be the ascription of Odysseus’
victory to his art in twisting words,
Mezger understands by o-yor tales, ‘ Er-
zahlungen, Gedichte’. (3) Mr Fennell’s
interpretation nearly coincides with Mez-
ger’s, but he explains Noyou as diéscus-
sion, criticism.—In my judgment Mezger
is right. I believe that Novos was gene-
rally used by Pindar of his myths, as
clearly in Men. IV. 31 Adyor o un Evvcels,
There can, in any case, be no question
that the lines apply to what follows, and
not to what is said of Cinyras.

22. Gmrerat] The subject is 0 ¢@évos,

implied in ¢@ovepoiow. Dissen quotes

154

NEMEONIKAI

it.

Keivos Kat TeXapdvos Sdrapev vidv dacyave audixudioas. av. B’.
> ’ ” / > , yw / ,
4h TW adydwaooov mév, HTop S aAKimov, Kaba KaTExeEL

év Avyp@ velker’ péyctov S aiokw wevdet yépas avTéTaTat. 25
Kpudiaice yap év wadows ’Odvccy Aavaot Oepatevoav

f s) yy \ ¢ / /
yxpucéwv & Alas otepndets o7AwY Hhovw Tadaicer.

7 “av avomora ye Saorow év Oepyo yxpot evr. 2’
hb pout ye 8¢ PHB Xp ae

Aeschylus, Pevsae, 13 where Ac.aroyévys
supplies the nominative ’Acla to the verb
Save. The metaphor in drrera: is from
a disease, cf. Thucyd. 11. 48 jYaro Tov
avOpHrwv ; and in the following line
ddWev carries on the figure. We shall
see the medical metaphor recurring in
26, in ll. 32—34 (where
Parphasis is the false physician) and in ll.
48—50 (where Pindar is the true physi-
cian): also in ll. 36, 37. Parts of darw
occur four times in this Ode (14, 22, 36,
37):

23. Ketvos x.7..] Zhe son of Tela-
mon too felt the eating malady of envy,
when his flesh closed upon the sword.
Kelvos=6 POdvos, which is said to have
‘rolled Ajax round his sword’. Compare
memT@Ta TwdE TEpi VeoppavTw Elper Sopho-
cles Ajax 828, pacydvy mepimtuxys 899;
éyxos mepurerés go7, also /sthm. Il. 54
adkavy Tapwv mepl @ gacyavw [where
however Mr Tyrrell proposes to read
For xvdivdw
cf. kudwddmuevos mepi xadk@, O 86. Sarpev

U
Jeparrevoay,

duke mépt, = repiBarwr |.

carries on the metaphor implied in éyov.

24. 4 TW x.7.r.] Verily, oblivion
- burieth many a one, whose tongue is silent,
but his heart valiant, in dolorous strife ;
and supreme honour has been the prize of
shifty falsehood.
types. AdOa Karéxes means that Ajax
was not sung, like Odysseus, by Homer.
Avyp@ has the penult short here, but in
Pyth. X11. 14 we find Niypév. dvrérarar
‘protenditur, Aucta locutione a premio
certaminis ad consequendum proposito’,
Dissen.

Ajax and Odysseus are

Compare below I. 34 avrelve..
relvw has often the force of ¢eveo rather

than of tendo.

26. Kpudiaor x.7..] The Greeks
balloted in favour of Odysseus ; Pindar
implies that they would have been afraid
to vote for him openly. Compare Sopho-
cles Ajax 1135:

Teucer. Kdéntns yap abtod Wyporroros
nupebns.
Menelaus. €v Tots Oixacrats KovK émot

TOO eopandn.

27. ove mararev] IWVrestled with
death, wadacev suggesting agony and
gévos implying a violent death attended
with bloodshed. adaiw is constructed
with a dative, cf. Pyth. 1X. 27. For its
metaphorical usage see Pyth. IV. 290
kevos “ATAas ovpav@ mpoomadale, and
Hesiod, Works and Days 413 aryot
mahatet.

28. Wy pdv x7.) Of a surety, un-
equal were the gaping wounds they dealt
in the warm flesh of the foemen, when
they were in the battle-press beneath the
spear defensive,—over the body of Achilles
new-slain, and on other days of labours
fraught with death to many. For p7-
yvusu of wounds cf. Sophocles, Ajax 834
mreuvpav diappjéavta T@dE pacydv~w.—eE-
Aept{opevor, Wakefield’s emendation for
Toeuefomevor, is supported by the scho-
lium tm’ ddeEuBpdrov Noyxns Kwodmevot,
meNewifw means fo shake, wedeulfomat to
quake (used of the earth) and in battle /o
be hard-driven. ade&lpBporosis a Pindaric
compound, occurring alsoin Pyth. V. go
"Amo\wvias ade&uBporois mourats. On
the analogy of adetlkakos, adeSipdpuaxos,
aNecrdpy etc. it ought to mean heeping men
away. Ina fragment of Critiashowever we

NEMEAN VIII.

Edxea pHEav TedepiGopevor

155

Um areEmBpoT@ dNyyxa, Ta pev dud’ “AytrE vEeoKTOVE, 30
arrXwv Te moxOwv év TrorAvPOopo.s

¢ / > \ > ” / a \ Ud

apepais. exOpa 8 dpa mappacis nv Kat Taras,

aintrov pvOwv ouodottos, Sodoppadys, KaKoTrovov dvetdos.

& TO wev Nautrpov Brarat, TOv 8 apavtwv Kddos avTeiver caOpov.

oTp. Y'.

ein fon ToTé foe ToLovTov 00s, Zed matep, adda KereVOoLs 35
e / A > / \ ¢ \ /
atroais Cwas épatroivav, Pavwv ws Taioi KréosS

fn TO dSvcpapov Tpoca.

find de&iNoyos in the sense of shielding
and promoting discourse. Were it not for
the passage in the 5th Pythian we might
explain adeziuBporos Noyxa as the lance
which wardeth men off. vedkrovos (equiva-
lent to veoopayns) is only found here.
For ra pév—addwv Te cf. udda per rpopats
€roimov immwy, xalpovTad re seviats mav-
déxos Ol. IV. 16.—év trodvp@dpors is
Boeckh’s emendation of Mss. mod\uvp@d-
It seems that é was acci-
dentally omitted after ~éx8ev and then
inserted in the wrong place.

32. €xOpa 8’ x«.7..] Vea, deadly
guile in speech is from of old, walking
with flattering tales and imagining de-
cett, a shame that worketh harm,—who
treateth the illustrious with violence, and
for the obscure setteth up glory of heart
unsound, Tappacrs, distortion or Perver-
ston of truth (calumnia), corresponds to
the verb mapdaye which occurs more
than once in Pindar; cf. above Vem. v.
31 (middle); O2. vil. 66 Aewy 5 dpxov
peyav pin wappdmev; Pyth. IX. 43
mappapev Tovrov doyov. The adjective
opodottos (probably first used by Pin-
dar) is not companion, but fellow-visi-
tant. Parphasis is a false physician,
who pays visits in the company of
flattering words (goirdy is the word for
a physician’s visits).—atipvAos combines
the ideas of crafty and bland. 8o0do-
dpadys occurs in the Homeric Ay
to Hermes, \. 282. kaKotrowds is not

poow ev.

ypucov evyovTat, Tediov 8 Erepot

found in an earlier author than Pindar ;
it probably had a medical flavour, xox-
tous, deleterious.

34. adavtwv] Those who ought to be
obscure. Cf. Pyth. XI. 30 6 6€ xaunda
mvéwv adavtrov Bpéwe, Ol. 1. 47 ws 8’
adpavtros émeNes. avrTelyer indicates that
the sentiment of line 25 is echoed; but
it suggests the tension of a really unsound
body to present an artificially healthy
appearance. oapés is a medical term.

35. ToLvovrov 00s] That is rdppaccs.
éharropat is used by Pindar both with
the dative (O/. 1. 88, Pyth. Vil. 60) and
with the genitive (O/, Ix. 12, Mem. 1X.
47). GmAdats is opposed to the crooked
ways of rdpdaors and her comrades, the
aimvroe 000.

37. mpocdpo] This verb is not
found elsewhere in Pindar, and its oc-
currence in such close proximity to épar-
Toiwav is noteworthy. In Soph. Oedipus
at Colonus, 235, we have mpocamrew
xpéos moet. Soph. fr. 514 mpoodmrew
papwaxov. Here the suggestion is of the
transmission of a disease. Pindar wishes
that he may not come in cozfact with the
noxious presence of Envy and convey the
contagion to his children. Cf. the use of
mepiamrew with dvedos, alaxtvnv &c.

Xpvoov K.7.r.] Some pray for gold,
others for boundless land. TI pray that [
may win the favour of my fellow-citizens
and without forfeiting it may hide my
limbs tn earth, praising things of good

156

NEMEONIKAI H’.

am@épavtov' éya 8 aatois adav Kal xyOovl yvia Kadvvaip’,

, tf ’ / WN >] > / > lal
aivéwy aivnta, mowpav & émioteipwy adLTpots.

v 3 ’ / f 37 c iA / Mv
avfetar 0 apeta, yNwpais eépaats ws OTe Sévdpeor oivas,

’ ,
QvT. Y «

> lal > lal ’ a9 > / \ ¢ \
€v aodpots avdpav aepbeta’ év diKaious Te, Tpos Vypov

aidépa.

report and sprinkling blame on trans-
gressors. repo. is understood with xpv-
Bergk reads kay for kaé but kara
with the dative is not found in Pindar.
kai really presents no difficulty: having

a
gov,

pleased the citizens in my lifetime, may I

die still pleasing them (‘etiam moriar
talis’, Dissen). For the allusions in
xpuaov and mediov see Lutroduction. xpvadv
echoes the xpucéwy dmdwy (1. 27), desired
of Odysseus and Ajax.—derots refers to
the citizens of Aegina, adcrwv trwrde of
Ik, ize

40. avgera. 8’ dpera x.7.A.] A cor-
ruption in the Mss. has spoiled this line.
They give ws ore dévdpeov aisce copots.
Boeckh’s emendation doce év cogots has
been generally accepted ; but it is clear
that the corruption lies deeper, as doow
is an unsuitable word. As Bergk says:
‘sufficiebat aivferar, quod additur atoce
non solum otiosum sed etiam incommo-
dum est, siquidem éépcais et alooer non
satis apte conciliantur’. [Mr Tyrrell
however has called my attention to 2 506
where 7jac0v means rose up. This pas-
sage might in some measure defend the
use of dicow with 6évdpeov.] It is also
to be observed that the simple verb alccw
does not elsewhere occur in Pindar, and
that werdicow is not only never contracted
to weracow but has the antepenultimate
always long. Bergk proposes aivw év,
but Pindar would not have used atlvos
after alvéwy alynra in the preceding line,
and év copots dvépwy sufficiently indicates
his meaning.

I have ventured to read ws 6re dévdpeov
olvas, €v. The syllable OIN fell out acci-
dentally after ON, and then the unmean-

a a > a Ld
xpetar d€ TravToiar ditwv avépav' Ta pev audi Trovols

ing letters ACEN were emended to alcel.
Pindar compares the growth of dpera
in the favourable environment of wise
and just men, to that of a vine watered
by dews. Of such a growth the Aegi-
netan hero, Aeacus, was a type; his
birth and growth were described in Il. 6
—8. And Pindar in his favourite way
indicates this. Aeacus was the king of
Oenone, Vineland,

éBracrev 6 vids Oivavas Bacireds,
and dperd (Aeacus was dpicTos) is com-
pared to the wine ;

avgera 6° apera ws dre Sévdpeov oivas.
Excellence waxeth as the tree of a
vine fed by tender dews, and is exalted,
amid wise and just men, to the yielding
aether. ypév connotes the elasticity
of the aether. Zndefinable approaches
the meaning, but a positive word is re-
quired. Here, as often, a modern poet
supplies the most adequate equivalent,
and I have taken a hint from Shakspere’s
yielding air.

év cogots év dtxatos Te refers especially
to poets—such as are not like the poet of
Odysseus.

42. Xpetar S€ «.7..] Divers are the
uses of friends; supremely in hours of
distress, but joy also seeketh that one should
set up for her visible pledges.

B has mora: & Méya, D ricray
Méya. The scholiast explains émignre? dé
kal 7 Tov dupatrwv Tépyis Td TLoTOY, WoTE
Oécbar év bupact. ‘Triclinius read mlorw,
and Mommsen from the scholium deduced
But it is difficult to believe
that either mardv or mliatw could have

ToT OV.

become corrupted to mora before @.
Bergk suggested mora vp (vp is out

NEMEAN VIII.

157

€ ’ : , \ \ L aon Fiat L
Umepwtata’® pactever bé Kal Tépiis ev Gupace OécOar

/
miota Fou.

ov pou Suvatov. xevedv 8 édrridwyv yadvoy Tédos*

Méya, To 8 a’tis Teav Wuydy Kopiéar

ém.y'. 45

aed S€ matpa Xapiddas te AaBpov

of place here). The reading adopted in
the text involves scarcely any change and
improves the sense. OJ] before a vocative
was liable to become @. The addition of
fo. removes ambiguity and makes it clear
that joy seeks, not to make but, to have
made for her (by poetry) a visible pledge
of her existence. For the reflexive use of
fo. in Pindar cf. O/. X11. 76:

detiév Te...

ws Té fou atta

Znvos...mats €mropev

Sauaclppova xpuadv
where fo refers to the subject of devtev.
For the position of fo at the end of the
sentence, cf. Mem. X. 79 Zebs 8 avrios
Hdvbé for, where it ends a clause.—The
plural micra corresponds to vmrepwrara
preceding. In O/. x1. 6 hymns are called
a mioTov dpkiov peyddas aperats, which
illustrates the use of mora here.

44. Meéya] But bring back thy soul
again, Megas,—TI cannot. A slight break
in the translation may partially repro-
duce the effect of carrying the sentence
into the epode.

45. Kevedv x.7.\.] And the end of
fond hopes is vain: a parenthesis. Kxeveds
and yxavdvos are similarly associated in
Pyth. Wi. 61 xabva mparids madamovet
kevea (where however keveds is more ob-
jective, xadvos subjective, while here it is
the reverse). One might translate Mil-
ton’s ‘vain deluding joys’ by répyes
xadval re kal Keveal.

46. oev 8 mrdtpax.t.r.] But for thy
country and for the Chariadae to rest on,
I can set a loud stone of music in honour
of the feet of two men which twice won
auspicious fame. Sduvardov is carried on
from ov uot duvarov to brepetcat. From
the schol. avacrypitac Mezger proposed

bmepécoar (from vrepetca), supposing the
song to be compared to a stone placed over
the tomb of Megas. But brepéooa: (right-
ly rejected by Herwerden) would almost
necessarily require a genitive to follow;
it could hardly be used absolutely. bre-
pétoat, from t7-epeidw, suits the dative
mdrpa Xapiddas re, where 4aTpa is most
simply taken as country, not c/an (so
schol. 77 6€ of marpié.).—If Pindar had
meant frimarily a gravestone he would
not have used dos, which is extremely
rare in this sense; the only case quoted
in Liddell and Scott is 7 N@os in an epi-
gram of Callimachus. The point of this
bold metaphor of a sounding stone is
different. The poet contrasts his own
honesty with the flattery (rdppacs) of
others, illustrated by the case of Odysseus.
The Greeks, whose spirit is reflected by
Homer, served Odysseus by secret pebbles,
kpupiacr €v Wadous Oeparevoay (l. 26).
Pindar casts no secret pebbles for his
heroes; he sets fast a /oud stone of song.—
For Jowd is the meaning of AdBpos (so
schol. evrovoy povatkyy otnnv) which is
generally misinterpreted (Cookesley even
proposed 7’ é\agppdv). A false connex-
ion with \awBayw has not only misled
lexicographers, but affected the later use
of the word. In Homer \afpos always
means /oud or boisterous; téwp NaBpdbra-
tov (P 385) is clamorous rain, Lépupos
haBpos (B 148) the loud west wind &c.
In Pyth. 111. 40 cé&\as 5 dupédpayerv
AaBpov ‘Adatorov, AaBpov signifies the
noise made by the fire. In OZ vil. 36
NaBpov dumvedoa Karvdv, the noise of
the rushing fire and smoke in the confla-
gration of the walls of Troy is suggested.
In Pyth. U1. 244 Spdxovros 5” elxeto Na-
Bporaray yeviwy (the reading is somewhat

158

NEMEONIKAI H’.

¢ fal / a iA lal > /
Umepetcat NiOov Moacaiov Exate Today eVwVipoV

dis 67 Sdvotp.

xyaipw 5é mpoadopor

> \ yy ij CF. > Lal >] ’ \
év pev épy@ Komtrov ieis, émaowais 8 avnp

{2 / / “
vo@duvov Kat TLS KapaTov OAKeEV.

> \ > , ¢/ j
NV YE MAY ETTLK@MLLOS UMLVOS 50

51) marae cal piv yevéoOar tav ’Adpactov tay Te Kadpelwv épw.

doubtful), the epithet becomes much more
effective when we recognise that it does
not mean ‘voracious’, which would be
somewhat otiose, but expresses the loud
hissing of the monster. 6 AdBpos orparés,
Pyth. 1. 87, means the zo%sy mob, and
haBpos has the same sense in O/. II. 95
(AaBpor Kopakes). DaBpevouwac means Zo
talk loudly, hence talk rashly, brag ; and
the same meaning is apparent in the
Aeschylean compounds \afpooropety and
haBpoovtos. In the Atalanta 72 Calydon
Artemis is invoked to come ‘ with clamour
of waters and with might’; AaBpus ody
téacw would be a good Greek rendering.
The use of the word in later authors was
affected by an association with daBew,
and it acquired the sense of violent
greediness.

bmrepetcat, it may be observed, suggests
propping with a pillow, and perhaps had
some special medical use.

47. evovipov}] An allusion to the
names of the father and son, Méyas and
Acivis (uéyas and dewos).

48. xalpw 8€ «.7.r.] LZ rejoice to
minister due praise tn honour of an ex-
ploit ; and many a man ere now exorcised
the pain of toil by songs. Howdbeit the
hymn of victory is of ancient date, even
before the strife arose between Adrastus
and the folk of Cadmus.
gopov in connexion with the following

Taking mpdo-

declaration that song is a physic for pain,

I believe that there is a play on a medical
sense of the word.
to make an application, or to adniinister
medicine. This supports my explanation
of Xi@ov as a contrast to Wado of 1. 26;
for then we have the further contrast of
Oepamevoay there with the true physician

mpoopépecbat means

of 1]. 48—50.—vwévvia is used by Pindar
in Pyth. 111. 6. For mpéagopos with év
cf. Ol. 1X. 80 etnv eipnoverns avaryeiobat
mpoapopos ev Moicay Sippy.

mporpopov responds (as Mezger has
noticed) to dwrowac Pépwy in the same
line of the first epode. The responsion
shews that amrouwa there is intended to
suggest, beyond its primary sense, the
touch of a friendly physician.

50. ye pov] Cp. Zsth. 111. 18 drpwrot
ye may matdes Oey, howbert the children of
the gods are proof against wounds. Ol.
XII. 104 viv & edromae perv, ev dew ye
pay TéXos. So also Pyth. 1. 17 and 50;
VIII. 18.

51. 8 madar]
mada of 1. 32.

Contrast with kai
Song supplies the anti-
dote ofcalumny. In /s¢/. v1. 1 the comus
is called a \Urpov evdofov Kawatwy.—The
Nemean games were said to have been
instituted by Adrastus before his expedi-
tion against Thebes: orparevodvrwy yap
Tav mepl Adpacroy émi OnBas 6’ Apyémopos
Umo Tod Spaxovros dvepOapyn, of dé én’
avT@ Tov mopov adpsavrTe Ta Néuea Onkay
(schol.).

[NEMEAN] IX.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY AT SICYON IN THE
CHARIOT-RACE WON BY CHROMIUS OF AETNA.

INTRODUCTION.

Ecce tterum Chromius! residing not now in Syracuse, as when the
First Nemean Ode was written, but in the city of Aetna, recently founded,
whither Hiero had sent him to govern it, or at least to take some part in the
administration. In his new abode he celebrated (perhaps in 472 B.c.!) the
anniversary of a victory won by his mares, years before, in a chariot race at
Sicyon, in Apollo’s games held there and in those days only less famous
than the Pythian festival of Delphi; and a comus or ode for singing in
procession to the sound of lyres and flutes was composed for the feast by
Pindar. This Sicyonian Ode has been included in the Nemean collection,
along with two other ‘unattached’ hymns, which have as little to do with
Nemea.

The thoughts of the First Nemean and the Ninth ‘ Nemean,’ separated
in date by at least a year or two, are superficially similar but not the same.
In the earlier hymn, a hope was held out of the ‘golden’ Olympian wreath ;
whereas, in the later, Chromius is regarded as a man who after an active and
brilliant career may, and, if he understands the art of life, will now enter into
his rest. Old age, ‘friendless, music-less old age,’ which to the Greeks
seemed such a dismal prospect, was now for Chromius appreciably near ; and
Pindar asks himself, how his patron might make the most of the intervening
years? He has ascended to the highest rung of ambition’s ladder, to use the
modern phrase ; or, in Pindar’s own metaphor, he has upclomb to the loftiest
mountain-top that may be trodden by mortal feet. He is laden with riches,

1 See Introduction to the First Nemean. to Aetna in 1. 2. Boeckh supposes the

Aetna took the place of Catana in 476 B.C.
(Diodorus, XI. 49), but Catana was restored
in 460 B.C. (Diodorus, x1. 76), and thus
we have a posterior limit for the date of
this Ode. The alleged data for a prior
limit are (1) the last stanzas, which have
been supposed to suggest the presence of
Pindar himself at the festivities; Pindar
went to Sicily before summer 472; (2)
the application of the epithet veoxrloray

date to be Ol. 77, (472—471 B.C.).
Leopold Schmidt thinks that this hymn
was composed at the same time as the
Third Pythian.

I am inclined to think that a longer
interval than Boeckh imagines separates
the two hymns to Chromius, both of
which were possibly composed while
Pindar was in Sicily. But see further
Appendix C.

160 [VEMEAN] IX.

and crowned with glory. Well; let him fully grasp the truth that he has no
other worlds to conquer, assured that his estate is really blessed, and let his
remaining years be a ‘gentle time of life’ (aidy duépa). It seems possible that
since his Nemean victory Chromius had actually competed unsuccessfully
for an Olympian wreath.

That a prominent Sicilian noble should have such a ‘gentle time,’ an
evident condition was that his country should not be moved by the alarms
of war; and this thought forms, literally, the central point of Pindar’s comus.
The great idea of the composition,—presented to us in a series of striking
reliefs, connected by the most dexterous transitions,—is the contrast of
war and peace. Not, of course, that all fighting is condemned ; wars may
be just or unjust; but any war is to be regretted. As typical of wars
displeasing in the sight of heaven is chosen the ominous expedition of the
Seven against Thebes, and the hero Amphiaraus is contrasted with Chromius.
For Ckromius was a tried warrior, who had proved his valour in battles by
land and water, but his cause, Pindar says, had been always righteous, and
therefore his last end will not be like that of Amphiaraus, a righteous man
himself, but unhappily involved in evil communications.

Opening with a jocund scene—the Muses coming from Sicyon, the
guests crowding into the house of Chromius, the striking-up of musical
instruments—the Ode soon passes into an unpeaceful atmosphere, resounding
with the tramping of horses and the rattling of chariot-wheels. The noise
of steeds and men contending resounds from strophe to strophe, echoes
answering one another, as it were, in the same rhythm out of corresponding
nooks; so that this hymn, deprecating war, has quite a martial sound,
calculated to awaken in Chromius the memories of his own battles. At
length the clamour of fighting dies away, and returning to the jocund scene,
as after a dream or by magic, we see the things of peace,—the feast, the
poet, the winebowl mixed, and those silver phialae or flat-shaped goblets,
which had been the prize in the chariot-race at Sicyon, on this anniversary
doubtless set in a conspicuous place.

Another element, which contributes to the general effect of the hymn,
is a covert comparison of the life of Chromius to an initiation and
education in divine Mysteries. Greek Mysteries connected with the worship
of various deities, such as Persephone and Dionysus, consisted of ‘sights and
acts. <A toilsome groping through darkness, followed by a gradual or
sudden apparition of light, was one of the acts or dramata which awaited
the young mystes; and one may gather from fragmentary records that
initiation involved bodily labours, designed for spiritual purification. Light,
with sight thereof, one may conjecture, was the great idea round which the
mystical rites revolved, their aim being an education both of the physical and
of the mental eye, and the completely initiated therefore being called ‘the
seer’ (éméntns). Flowers were a feature or an accessory of some of the
ceremonies, and certain kinds at least, such as the asphodel, the hyacinth
and the pansy, had symbolic meanings, closely connected with myths. And
as in all institutions of a religious character, there was a mystical vocabulary,

INTRODUCTION. 161

ordinary words being taken in a higher meaning, or, by an association
with special rites, becoming specialised.

Into this matter of the Mysteries, which excite our wonder now—wonder
being here really equivalent, as Bacon said, to ‘broken knowledge,—I only
go so far as seems necessary for understanding certain allusions in the Ode,
and it is enough to point out these three features, the occult language, the
occasional foreground or background of flowers, and the central idea of light,
called in mystical phrase @éyyos. The poet compares his hymn to a ‘spell,’
and the secret suggestions, coming in, as we shall see, at intervals, invest it
with a solemn air, perceptible even amid the din of men and horses.

Before beginning the analysis of the composition, we must observe its
formal structure, which illustrates the affinities of Pindar’s poetry with plastic
art. The hymn may be compared to a frieze of eleven groups, the whole
work having a well-marked centre in the sixth group, while each group has a
little centre of its own. The strophe consists of three measures, of which
the first and third correspond in rhythmical length, having each eighteen
beats, while the middle has only eight. Thus the formula of metrical division
is

Vous hoe
To seize the rhythmical charm of the Dorian strophes, we must further
subdivide into clauses and observe the repetitions. Let us take for example
the second strophe.

Measure 1. éore S€ Tis Abyos avOpalrwv teTeAeapéevoy eahov (clauses I, 2)
pn Xapal ovya Kadvwat (clause 3)
Oeonecia S éeréwr” kav’~|yars dowda mpoaopos (clauses 4, 5)
Measure 2. GAN dvd pev Bpopiav pop\pryy ava 8 avddov ew airy (clauses 6, 7)
Opoopev K (clause 8)
Measure 3. immiwy aéOdwv Kopupay are BoiBo (clause 9)

Ojjxev "ASpaotos én’ Aco|rod peeOpors dv ey pvac- (clauses 10, I!)

Geis emacknow Kdv|Tais jpwa Tipais (clauses 12, 13)

It will be seen that clauses 4, 6 and 7 are exactly the same in feet and

rhythm as clauses 1 and 2; and that clauses 12 and 13 repeat the rhythm,

but here the dactyls are replaced by trochees, which produce the effect of
coming to a pause.

The hymn opens with a picture of the Muses, coming, in a rout or comus,
to Aetna from Sicyon, where they were in attendance on Apollo, then of
course present on the occasion of the same games, at which Chromius
had won his victory. This skilful indication of the anniversary character
of the feast, brings at the same time, by a sort of unnoticed jugglery, Apollo,
as lord of the Muses, into more special connexion with the hymn itself.
We next see the doors of the rich house at Aetna thrown open, and the
guests crowding in; then the chariot and horses, which had won the
victory, and Chromius himself appear; the young men prepare to lift up their
voices ; and we listen for a hymn, which, as the poet warns us, is to have a

Be RI

162 [VEMEAN] IX.

certain mystic strain in it, the solemnity of a ‘spell’ (avSa), suitable for the
ears of those arch-hierophants, Apollo, his sister and his mother. One must
not let silence, he adds, bury a fine achievement in the ground—a saying, we
may suspect, of mystical significance, just as our equivalent ‘to hide a light
under a bushel’ has a religious association ; and referring to his own special
method, he proclaims legendary tales as suitable (most suitable, he thought
perhaps) to the praise of a victor.

This is the introduction, a sort of 7zse en scene, occupying the first strophe
and part of the second. Then the musical instruments are ‘awakened’
and translate us at once to the mythical world, to the river Asopus
near Sicyon, where the hero Adrastus founded feasts and games, including
chariot contests, and made his city glorious. This picture—the river Asopus,
feasts and carven chariots—is strictly appropriate to the theme of the Ode,
but it serves also to introduce the story of the Seven against Thebes, of
whom Amphiaraus! is selected as the prominent hero, while Adrastus,
sinking among the Adrastidae, passes out of sight.

Adrastus, the son of Talaus, was a prince of Argos, and his presence
at Sicyon was caused bya quarrel between his family and his cousin Am-
phiaraus, another Argive prince, a prophet and the grandson of a prophet.
Their family factions led to bloodshed and to the exile of Adrastus from
Argos ; Pindar does not mention the death of his father or brother, merely
saying, ‘the sons of Talaus, overborne by a sedition, were no longer
regnant’; and then adding, in reference to Amphiaraus, ‘the strong man
does away with what was just before.’

The strong man ; yes, but there was a fate stronger than he, destined to
overthrow him through the covetousness of a woman. And Pindar brings
this out by a really telling artifice, a bold approximation, which has, as
a matter of fact, given some trouble to his commentators, who have failed to
perceive the deliberate stroke of art and suspected something wrong in the
text. The sentence about the strong man ends a strophe, the word ‘strong’
(lit. stronger) emphatically beginning the line, and ‘man’ coming at the
end :—

kpéoowy Se karmaver Sixay tay mpoobev avnp.
The next strophe passes to the reconciliation, but it begins with the very
word which so emphatically ended the preceding line. dyyp is still sounding

1 Boeckh found the main idea of the is sufficient to refute Boeckh’s view. Dis-

Ode in a parallel between the relations of
Hiero and Thero, and those of Amphia-
raus and Adrastus. The quarrel of Hiero
and Thero was arranged by a marriage of
the king of Syracuse with Thero’s niece,
which would correspond to the marriage
of Amphiaraus with the sister of Adras-
tus. The mere consideration that such
an idea would be utterly unsuitable as
the ground-work of an ode for Chromius,

sen thinks that the expedition against
Thebes is merely a warning against un-
just wars.

L. Schmidt says that Pindar is painting
a picture of peace and repose, which he
wishes Aetna and Chromius may enjoy ;
and this practically is the conclusion of
Mezger, who points out the contrast
between the horrors of war and a potpa

elvomos.

INTRODUCTION. 163

in the ears of the friends of Chromius, we may suppose, when the singers of
the comus continue
avdpodapavr ’EpupvtXay, opkioy ws OTE TLoTOV.

‘Man-quelling Eriphyle, the sister of Adrastus, was given to Amphiaraus,
‘as a firm pledge’ (how ironical!) in token of reconciliation, and the power
of the Adrastid house revived. It is said that the sister was to arbitrate,
should disputes arise between her husband and her brother, and on that
account was called by Pindar ‘man-quelling.” And doubtless this is
designed to be the surface meaning, appropriate to the context; but there is
a second intention, and the second intention is here more obvious than the
first. No one could hear the epithet ‘man-quelling’ applied to the
notorious Eriphyle without remembering the necklace and how she com-
passed her husband’s death. Thus advdpodayas, occurring several lines
before the account of Amphiaraus’ fate, quite naturally and in a different
connexion has the effect of an omen, suggesting that even in the day of
his successes there were evil presences near Amphiaraus. The device of
bringing dynp at the end of one strophe and avdpodapayr’ at the beginning
of the next into close proximity forces the omen on the attention; the
effect is heightened by the omission of the usual particle of transition
(which commentators have tried to amend); and by reading over the lines
we can feel how their rhythms, at once similar and different, further the
success of the artifice. The comparison between Pindar’s work and
sculpture suggests an illustration. Let us suppose the third and fourth
strophes translated into two adjoining groups in relief. At the extremity
of the third group would be represented Amphiaraus, the strong man,
triumphant after the fall of the Adrastids ; at the adjacent extremity of the
fourth group we should see Adrastus placing his sister in the hands of his
conciliated rival. Well, if the sculptor turned Eriphyle’s face backward, and
represented her looking with an ominous expression towards the triumphant
figure in the third group, which she of course is not supposed to see, the
direction of her unconscious eyes might have the sense of an omen for
the spectator; and this sense might be accentuated by accessory details.

From the revival of the Adrastid power we pass to the unhappy
expedition against Thebes, impious (Pindar deems it) as undertaken in
disregard of the signs and warnings of Zeus, who thereby ‘bade them forbear
the journey’; and he describes the host hastening to the open jaws of de-
struction in a wonderfully successful arrangement of words, whose sound
and meaning seem to have between themselves some secret affinity or under-
standing,—one of those effects, which Greek art, perfectly concealing her own
‘art, could compass by the simplest words and rhythms dexterously arranged
with regard to the vowel sounds,

, em et | 3 a “~ o cP,
dawopévay 8 ap’ és adrav ameddev opsros ixéoOar
xarkéois OrAovow immelous Te odY EvTETW.
Their doom, as it were, shove for them; and then we have a picture of
seven pyres on the banks of the river Ismenus, fire ‘feasting on the blanched

164 [VEMEAN\ IX.

bodies’ of young men, the smoke rising fat with the nutrition,—a Feast of
Fire; and in the background, obscured by the vapour, a faint vision or
suggestion of that ‘sweet home’ which the dead had wittingly surrendered.
And Pindar’s language implies perhaps a comparison of the Expedition to a
kind of false Mystery; the army is drawn to a false light, and the word
‘ white-flowered’ (AevkavOéa), although the second part of the compound has
lost its individuality, reminds us that, in the presence of the figurative
blossoms of death, there were no real flowers (to be looked for in the case of
a true mystery).

For Amphiaraus a separate fate was reserved by the special mercy of
Zeus. In the panic he was fleeing from Periclymenus, and could not have
escaped him, but that Zeus, willing to spare him the shame of falling by
a death-wound dealt behind, clave the earth with a thunderbolt and opened
a grave to shroud the hero and his horses. The vision of the hero Amphi-
araus fleeing, though, as we are told, he had the spirit of a warrior, must
strike the sentiment of most modern readers as incongruous; and that
is because their sentiment is not attuned to Greek moderation. Pindar
formulates the principle here in words which appear nowadays almost
to invite ridicule; ‘for even sons of gods flee in superhuman panics.’
In the eyes of a Greek, bravery, when it defied the powers of Zeus, had
passed beyond the due measure of bravery and was no longer worthy of
praise ; such rashness was the quality that one might find in a barbarous
Celt.

It is worth noticing how Pindar hints that the death of Amphiaraus was
in some sort a retribution for his part in the civil war at Argos which had
exiled Adrastus. In 1. 14 the Adrastid party is described as

Bracbévres va,

these words ending the line; and the corresponding line of the fifth strophe
(1. 24), where Amphiaraus’ death is described, closes with the words
Kepavv® TrapBia,

this responsion clearly suggesting that as Amphiaraus had smitten Talaus
and his sons, so the bolt of Zeus smote the smiter'. And if an emendation
adopted in the text is true*, Pindar has accentuated his thought by the
responsion of dvSpa in 1. 25 to avyp in 1. 15; ‘the strong man’ is shrouded in
the depths of the earth, Zeus being a stronger than he.

We have now reached the centre of the Ode. Having told what befel
the Seven against Thebes, the artist treats that war as a type of what an
unrighteous war may be, and places exactly in the middle of his frieze a
prayer to Zeus—the god who by his omens had vainly discouraged that
expedition—that for as long as possible Sicily may be exempted from such a
conflict. The most serious foes then threatening the Sicilian Greeks were
the Carthaginians; but the artistic effect of the prayer would have been

1 The adjective mapBlas, omnipotent, expression is riveted in the mind by the
was, as far as we can judge, coined — rarity of the word Ava.
expressly for this place, and the other 2 See note on I. 25.

INTRODUCTION. 165

spoiled if the generality of the statement had been confined by an express
mention of a particular enemy. But it was quite in Pindar’s manner to
introduce an allusion where a direct reference would have been inartistic ;
and the allusion here is so unmistakable that commentators took the second
meaning for the first and mistranslated the passage, until Mezger, a few years
ago, saw the true explanation!

‘If it be possible, O son of Cronus, I would remove to an indefinite
distance such a brute arbitrament of empurpled swords,’ gowtkoorddwy
€yxéov. The adjective suggests a ‘Phoenician armament, and one may
attempt by ‘purpled’ or ‘purple-mantled’ to hint at the Phoenicians of
Carthage.

Having deprecated such a war as that which the legends of Argos had
led him to describe, Pindar further intreats Zeus for the citizens of Aetna,
that they may have a happy experience of political life and that their city
may be brightened with festivities and the triumphs of peace. ‘Peace be
within thy walls, and plenteousness within thy palaces. And there is
some reason to hope for good things in store for them; victories, for
example, in chariot-races because they are devoted to horses, and brilliant
feasts because their souls are free from the bondage of avarice. In
attributing this liberality to the men of Aetna, Pindar of course has one
individual chiefly in view, Chromius himself. And he makes this clear by
the immediate transition”. Love of money is the enemy of the goddess
Aidés,—an enemy capable of overreaching by stealthy ways, but unable
to steal the heart of Chromius. Pindar appeals to proven bravery in battle
by land and sea; and draws a picture of the goddess Aidés arming him,
spiritually, for war—a picture reminding modern readers of a lady buckling
the armour of a medieval knight. ‘Aidés who bringeth glory’; but the glory
of war is indeed won through horrors, which Pindar suggests in vigorous
phrases, descending from ‘the danger of the sharp battle cry’ to the
‘contagious blastment of Enyalius’ and deeper still to ‘the war-cloud whose
rain is clogging blood.’

Thus we have come back to war again, after a transient vision, in between,
of a peaceful future for Aetna. The wars of Sicily, in which Chromius took
part, are the companion picture to the expedition against Thebes, and
Chromius is the figure contrasted with Amphiaraus. The presiding influence
in the mythical war was Ata; the spirit of Chromius’ enterprises was
Aid6s*. Men and horses are resonant, both here and there, sometimes at
the saine points of the repeated musical successions'; and the ‘martial soul’

1p. 118. See note on this line. olvexev €v Todéum Kelva Beds evruev
2 Also by having xredvwy inl. 32, and ~—avrov.
afterwards, of Chromius alone, xredvots 4]. 18 dyayov orparov avidpay alody
moN\Xots in 1. 46. 3: Ll. 38 mori ducwevéww dvdpwy orixas.
% Compare line 21 (first of 5th strophe) 1. 22 xaNkéors brrNOLoWw immetots TE ov

pawouevay 6 ap és drav omeddey buchos evrecw :: 1. 32 Nady. EvTl Tu Pirtim Tor.
ixéoOae with line 36 (first of 8th strophe) Also |. 33 dvdpes. dmiorov am’: K.T.d.

166 [WEMEAN] IX.

of Amphiaraus (for whose end Zeus made provision) seen fleeing before
Periclymenus has a metrical position exactly corresponding to the ‘soul’ of
Chromius, armed by the goddess with a weapon for pursuit’.

For Chromius, thus conceived as (in our phrase) ‘the soul of honour,’
the cloud of war is the medium through which he reaches light and flowers,
as in a mystery. The effect and the connexion of thought in this passage
are lost, if we read the sentences apart. ‘“ Few be they who have the heart,
and hands to take counsel to turn upon the ranks of the foemen the war-
cloud whose rain is blood that cloggeth the feet. Verily it is said that for
Hector glory burst into flower near the waters of the Scamander ; certainly
by the deep-cliff’d banks of the Helorus, which flows into the ‘ Passage of
Rhea,’ such a light ($éyyos) gleamed for the son of Agesidamus in his
early manhood.” The battle of the Helorus was Chromius’ initiation in
mysteries; he had to face the dark cloud, he had to walk in places where
his footing was imperilled and his feet impeded; and then he found
himself near river banks, strown with flowers of glory, in the presence of a
new mystic light.

The scrupulous accuracy of Pindar’s art is illustrated here by the
introduction of Hector. The flowers of glory are intended to be contrasted
with the ‘white-flower corpses’ that were buried on the banks of the
Ismenus; but if Pindar had strown these flowers by the waters of the
Helorus, his contrast between Chromius and Amphiaraus would have been
wounded or blurred by the introduction of a new contrast between Chromius
and the other warriors who fell at Thebes. And so, without sacrificing the
precision of his comparison between the two individuals, the artist translates
his flowers to the banks of the Scamander, and names Hector, as the type of
a class of warriors, to which Chromius himself belongs, patriotic warriors,
contrasting them with the other class represented by Amphiaraus and his
fellows. This accuracy of thought is emphasized by the adjective Ba@v-
kpypvovot, applied to the shores of the Helorus, and responding metrically
to the adjective Ba@vorepyoy, which describes the earth opening her bosom
to enfold the son of Oicles :

1. 25, Zeds trav Baddorepvov xOova kpv avdp’ ap trmos

1. 40, dyyov, BaOupypvoor 8 aud axrais “Espo.
‘In deep places darkness shrouded Amphiaraus’;
‘By deep places light illuminated Chromius.’

Greek art, at its best,—Pindaric art, for instance—is marked by the
rejection of unserviceable ornaments and superfluities. In this passage one
might think that Pindar himself is errant for a moment, and that the clause
determining the sea into which the Helorus flows is on the most favourable
view an unnecessary topographical exegesis, not woven into the spiritual
corresponds in metre (although it is not 1 Pupmdr (1. 27) waxaray 3: Oumov alx-
the same line of the strophe) to 1.16 dv- warav (J. 37). This responsion was
Spoddwavr’ "Epupihay x.t.4.—We have noticed and appreciated by Mezger, p-
immows again in I, 34, and we had kparno- 119.

cmmov in I. 4.

INTRODUCTION. 167

texture of the composition. But on closer examination this criticism turns
out to be unfair, and ‘the Passage of Rhea,’ so far from being trivial,
becomes a phrase of spiritual significance. At Helorus the light of success
had regarded Chromius, but this was only his first achievement, to be
followed by others ; or, Pindar puts it, the Helorus conducts to the sea which
may be considered a passage to scenes of future triumphs, noted immediately
after, ‘exploits on the dusty dryland and on the adjacent ocean.’

That this is really the bearing of the ‘ Passage of Rhea,’ is indicated if I
am not mistaken, in the course of the following lines. Having thus summed
up the career of Chromius, the poet proceeds to point a conclusion which has
a positive and a negative side. A youth and manhood! spent laboriously,
under the guidance of Justice, ought to be followed by a calm space for a
man, who has not yet reached the threshold of old age, and is no longer a véos.
This Chromius may claim. And the gods have in full measure given him
bliss—the supreme aim of all Mysteries?,—having laden him with riches and
honour and glory. This is the positive side of Pindar’s conclusion. The
negative side is an injunction, that he should be content now to embrace the
prospect of that calm life, making up his mind that he has reached the
highest summit possible for mortal feet—reached it, we are reminded by an
echo, through clogging blood and dangers*—and that there is ‘no passage’
to any higher point beyond’. At the Helorus, when he was young, he was
near the Passage called by mortals ‘of Rhea,’ and there were worlds to win :
but now he stands, where is no passage forward known to men,—no war,
at least, if Zeus be gracious to the prayer which the poet addressed to him”.

“No war; but peace, and the things beloved of peace,—banqueting, and
song. Wine and song are in place now; for song has the magic virtue of
touching into young bloom an old victory, and the wine-cup maketh song
bold. Therefore mix the wine and fill the cups!’ These lines, savouring of
the true cOmus inspired by Dionysus, take us back, after our march along
sombre ways, to the cheerful scene before Chromius’ house in Aetna, a scene
which we now regard from a wider aspect in the light of Pindar’s lesson in
the art of life. Echoes of the words which we have heard still haunt the air,
awakening that feeling which Lucretius stereotyped in his suave mari

1 ék movev 8 | ol oly vedrare yevwvrat _ gegeniiber gestellt.’
ov Te dike (1. 44). In point of ‘youth’

Chromius and his countrymen resembled

’ The emphatic dual aodow at the end
of the measure could be dispensed with

the warriors who fought at Thebes; but
in point of ‘justice’ their causes differed.
Observe the responsion of this line to
l. 24
émTa yap datoavTo mupai
paras.
2 pos datuovwr Oavuwacrov odBor, |. 45.

veoyulous

See note. What Amphiaraus won from
the deities was a panic (datmovloise poBocs,
]. 27); compare Mezger, p. t21, ‘den

datmovioe PoBor wird ein Sacuovios oABos

by the sense; but it has the effect of
recalling how the same two feet had often
walked through carnage, @ovou mapzrodiou
1. 37, where govou ends the same measure.

4 I must refer the reader to the com-
mentary on this passage.

5 This is indicated by the use of roprw
here, echoing ®s wopo.sra in the prayer.
The thought, which we read between the
lines, is rendered clear by the immediate
succession of acuxia, Peace.

168 [VMEMEAN | IX.

magno—; and it is suggested! that, if Amphiaraus was smitten by the
violence of lightning, nothing worse will overbear Chromius than the gentle
violence of the ‘child of the vine,’ now inviting him in the silver goblets,
which his horses—another echo—won at Sicyon*. These goblets were not
indeed the sole prize awarded for that victory ; attached to them were wreaths,
‘Apollo’s crowns, twined by Themis,’ this curious epithet Oeyirdéxros being
probably designed to convey a mystic allusion.

The Ode concludes with a second prayer to Zeus, to be taken in connexion
with the former prayer against war, to which it forms a sort of complement :
‘I pray that I may sing such excellence as this (success in the games), the
Graces assisting, and that, above many singers, I may worthily magnify
Victory, shooting my dart very near the mark of the Muses.’ The connexion
of the first and the second prayer is marked by a responsion?;

1. 29 eyxyéwv tavtav Oavatov mépe Kai (was x.T.X.
1. 54 eVyoua tavtav aperav KedXadnoat k.T.D.

It is characteristic of Pindar to desire in his prayer not perfection, but
only a close approach thereto; yet if we judge that in this comus he
hit, absolutely, the mark of Poetry, we shall hardly transgress seriously the
limit of even Greek moderation.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.
ils NBs EN
tun tp = [40 = fu LL tA
stteniee Lay)
WU. 3: B 4uur-v ye sue Hv A (8)
Ds Ag gaa
6 9 | FU er rr (18)

The rhythmical formula of this mesodic structure might be expressed in
the number of beats, thus

ae
Gu. 12, (S), aI2280
Schmidt remarks :

‘Hinsichtlich des Centrums sei noch angemerkt dass die Centre der
Stropben a’ und ca’ die Hauptsachen enthalten ; wegen der zwei Trisemen
aber dass alle Strophen (10) ausser der fiinften, wo “Iopyvov an der Stelle
steht, auch die Notirung “ — zulassen, und auch wohl gehabt haben,
a. a. O. aber nur perpixy dvaykn davon abgewichen ist.’

1 Buarav matd damédov |. 51, a remark-
able expression recalling cepavy@ mauBla
l. 24. The steeds of Amphiaraus were
swallowed up with him; the mares of
Chromius secured him the phzalaz,

2 immoe responds to lrmelos 1. 22 and

plirtrmo 1. 32.
® See note 1. 52.

4 Mezger, p. 121. ‘Wie der Dichter

jene Waffenprobe weit von sich wegweist

(reipavy Tavrav, v. 29), so freut er sich
9 7 ” b)
diese zu preisen (e¥xouar TavTaY Vv. 54)’.

[NEMEONIKAI] @.

XPOMIQ.

EN AO

APMATI.

Kopacopev trap’ ?AmoAN@VoS &

uxv@vole, Moitcat,

OTp. a.

\ / S) ” 4 > 3: / / if
Tav veoxtiatay és Aitvav, év? avaTerrtapévar Ecivwv vevixkavtac

Ovpat,

aXn
\ f A 2) a ,
TO KpatnoiTTov yap és apm

OABvov és Xpouiov dap’.
/ ’ \ ,
Taloecow avday pavvet

I. K@pacopev «.7..] In Zs¢hm. I.
go and Py¢h. 1x. 8g the future of kwudgw
is middle, kwudtoun, kwudacoun. In
those passages however the sense is
‘celebrate’, while here the word bears
the more literal meaning, ‘proceed as a
comus or band of revellers’, comzzssoz.
As the ode is sung on the anniversary of
Chromius’ victory, the Muses are sup-
posed to be with Apollo at the Sicyonian
Pythia, and are called to Aetna. Render:
We shall go in revel forth from Sicyon,
from the presence of Apollo, O chaun-
tresses, to new-butlt Aetna, where doors
wide open are too narrow for all the guests,
in the wealthy house of Chromios.—ro 6é
vevikavtTar avri rod yrTnvTat(schol.). 6A-
Buov és Xpopulov damua defines és Airvay
more strictly.

3+ Tpdooerat] One may feel a doubt
between mpaocere, the reading of B
and of the scholiast (who explains d.a-
vioare), and mpaooerac of D. mpaccew
with the accusative in the sense of make
is characteristic of Pindar, and he may
bid the Muses, make (or deal) a szweet
Aymmn of legends. With mpaooerat, Chro-

\ /
eméwy yAuKvDY Uuvov TpacceTat.
,’ / / \ /
avaBaivav patépe Kat didvpors

mius exacts the ode (a sense which mpao-
coro bears in O/. X. 30). I have decided
for mpdocerac because it is metrically
preferable. No other line in the ode
ends with a short vowel (a, ¢, v, or f),
though we have ov, ep, wy, etc.

4. Kparioirmov] One of Pindar’s
lofty compounds. Compare xparnalpaxos
(Pyth. 1X. 86), kparnoimous (Pyth. X. 16),
kparnotBias (fr. 16).—See Lntroduction,
pp. 165 (note), 166 (note), and 168 (note)
for echoes of ir7os.

maisecot] Pindar uses both this form
and mal, as he uses moot, mooot and
m6decot.—The mother and her two chil-
dren are Leto, Apollo and Artemis,
whom we met together before, Vem. VI.
36. By ascending into his chariot Chro-
mius proclaims a song in honour of
Apollo, who in the worship at Sicyon
was associated with his sister and mother.
avSday has roused the suspicions of editors,
as it would seem to bear here the un-
usual sense of sozg. Boeckh read rraideco’
dowdy; Hermann at’xay (in the same
sense as katxa below, 1. 7), which how-
ever can hardly win much support from

170

[NEMEONIKAI] 0.

Ilv@dvos aitrewds opoxXapous eromrats. 5

Uj /
éoTte 5€ TLs AOyos avOpwTrwy, TeTENETMEVOY ETOV

otp. B.

\ \ a , e , cy eZ , > \
by xXapat ovya Kadrvat' Ocotecia & eréwv Kavyats aoa

poo popos.

’ Sega N \ , » a »
aX ava pev Bpouiav popmeyy’, ava & avrov ew avtTaov opaopev

the scholium 76 OavuagerOar. Bergk sug-
gests aiyAav. Of these, Hermann’s is the
best, because it might conceivably have
been changed to atéav. But the expres-
sion atxav (accent so) pavvew seems
hardly natural.—It might seem suspi-
cious that avda does not occur elsewhere
in Pindar, and indeed I once thought
that Pindar wrote avydv, a blaze of light,
thus hinting at a Naumradndopta or torch
procession in honour of the three divini-
ties, by which Chromius intended to
celebrate his victory. But I now feel
sure that avéav was written by Pindar,
designedly chosen as a word of cere-
monial import. Its special use for an
oracular utterance is well known; and
it is to be further observed that dmavdw
Was a cry used in mysteries and solemn
Moreover in OZ. I1. 92, we
find avddacoma évdpxioy NOyov adaet vow
of a very solemn affirmation, and in
Nem. X. 80 and 8g, the active is used

ceremonies.

of the speech of Zeus. aida suggests
a spell of song, and avédaes in a graceful
fragment of Pindar (194) suggests the
same idea :
KeKpOTnTaL xXpuogéa Kpynmls lepatow dot-
Oats*
cla Tecxlfwpev dn Tockiiwy
Kéopov avddevTa NOywr *
ds kal moAuk\elray mep Eoicay 6440s O7-
Bay ért waddov érackjce Dewy
Kal Kar’ dvOpuirwv ayuds.
Here we lose the effect of the epithet of
xécpov if we do not recognise that it
implies the potency of a solemn spell:—
come let us build straightway a fair wall
of manifold, murmuring tales.
5. OpokAdpors] consordibus. In O/. 1

49 O«dKkAapos means fartaker in the same
Jot, namely victory. émomTa.s = émicKd-
mots. Apollo and Artemis are ¢he joint-
inthroncd governors of steep Pytho.

6. tote 8€ x.7.d.] Aen have a proverb,
‘Hide not a deed of noble achievement on
the ground, in silence’ (lit. that one should
not hide). xapat kadtWar corresponds to
our Aide under a bushel. The positive
equivalent is found in Pyth. VIL. 33 i7w
Teov xpéos—moravov (noted by Mezger).

7. Oeomer(a x.7.r.] A lay of divine
tales ts meet for sounding praises. This
sentence has caused a good deal of dis-
cussion. There can be no doubt, I think,
that Pindar intends to say in Il. 6, 7,
‘a noble deed demands praise, and the
fittest praise is a lay of legendary tales’,
éméwy bearing the same sense as above,
], 3. It is clear then that Benedict’s
correction Kavxats for Ka’xas is right, a
dative being absolutely required after
mpoaopopos. The opposition of cavxa to
silence is illustrated by /s¢hm. IV. 51
GAN Guws Kavxnua KaTaBpexe ovya. The
sense shews that éréwy depends on aovda,
not on kavxats,—doda émréwy being the
tuvos éréwy of |. 3.
closely in sense with émréwy and yet gram-

Oecrecia, going so

matically connected with dod, lessens
the harshness of separating éwéwyv from
ao.da, because it removes all ambiguity.
Cf. decreclwy éméwy (Zsth. 111. 57) of the
tale of Troy
divine’.—katxy, a rare word, may be
compared to aixn, BAaorn, ete.

8. GAN ava x.7.r.] But we shall

rouse the pealing lyre, yea and rouse the

Homeric poems—‘ the

fiute to celebrate the supreme horse-races,

those and none other, which Adrastus

[VEMEAN] IX.

inmiwv adéOAwv Kopupav, ate PolBo Once "Adpactos
’ eek eee J e > \
AcowmTrod peéOpos’ dv eyo

bvacbels emacknow KAUTAIs Nowa Timais,

ds TOTE ev BacireVwv KelOt véatci O éoptais

171
er
10

oTp. y.

toxvos T avdpov awidras Gppact Te yAapupois cypave Kvdalvwv

TrONLD.

hedye yap “Audiapny mote Opacupndea Kat Seay otaow

established in honour of Phoebus by the
waters of Asopus. dvd is adverbial, with
dprouev (so called ¢meszs). Bpémerat is
used of the lyre Mem. x1. 7.—The Mss.
have ém’ av’rév, and all editors read én’
avtdy after Schmid. It is possible that
this is right, but the change seems too
bold, and I content myself with the
simpler emendation ém avteéy, which
cannot be called a change, as it was
originally written
€TTAYTON.

The meaning is the same as with the
reading adray, for Kopupay immiwy aé0\wv
=ckoxwrara imma deO\a (whence the
relative d, for which we might expect dv).
avrav is, as Mezger says of at’rav, ‘im
Gegensatz zu den einleitenden Versen;
der Dichter wendet sich jetzt zum Kern
des Gedichtes, zur Stiftungssage’.—For
the separation of the preposition from
its case cf. Vem. X. 48 map Avos O7}Ke Spouw.
For xopuga cf. Mem. X. 32, I. 34.

9g. Ov«K.7.r.] Making mention where-
of LT shall trick out the hero with sounding
words of honour. Cf. fr. 194 Kdomov
avddevTa dywv, ds Kal moduK\elray ep
€oicav buws OnBav ért waddov errackjoe
Oedy kal kar’ dvOpdrev dyuds. [Homer
p 206 émjoxnrac dé of addy Toltxw Kal
Opvykotot.] That the word ézacxety is
here adopted by Pindar from the language
of the mysteries seems possible, if we
observe the gloss of Hesychius érackew*
céBec0ar, ayvedew, and this possibility
becomes really probable from the circum-
stance that in the fragment, just quoted,
émackyoe is in close junction with avéa-

evra, a word which, as we have already
seen, had mystical associations.

This uncommon expression, used in
reference to Adrastus, is answered in
1. 54 by Tywadrpety Aoyos (also unique in
Pindar) in reference to the victory of
Chromius,—Oykev, here of establishing
games; but deivat aywva was also the
technical expression for administrating
games.

12. toyxvos 7’ «.7.d.] auiddas is con-
structed with both genitive and dative
(as Olymp. V. 6, 7): and by contests which
prove men’s strength and races with carven
chariots he made the city bright and
glorious. In Pyth. 1. 31 the phrase
kudatvew modw recurs (cf. Of x. 66).
For dpdatve cf. Pyth. 1X. 73 va vixdouts
avépave Kupavay, and Pyth. 1v. 62 Bao’
dupavev, declared king.

13. ‘Apdidpny toré] B has preserved
moré, The question is whether we
should, with most editors, adopt ’Amde-
dpnov te from D; or follow Bergk in
reading “Augiapny and keeping moré.
Metrically the reading of D is preferable
to the emendation of Bergk; for in
the corresponding lines of all the other
strophes the third foot is a spondee.
This consideration however is not de-
cisive and must yield to others; but
it may be mentioned that in the present
Ode the second foot of the
strophe is
elsewhere the corresponding feet are
spondees. From a critical point of view
Bergk’s reading is in my opinion inex-
pugnable; for, assuming it to be correct,

seventh

évri, a trochee, whereas

[72

[NEMEONIKAI] ©’.

, ” ’ , Seah a ’ \ ’ ] ADD Sh a
TaTpwwv oikwy ato T “Apyeos apyxot & ov ér écav Tadaov

maives, BuacOévtes dVa.

/ \ / / \ / ’ Uy
Kpécowy O€ KkarTraver Sixavy tav tpocbev avnp. 15

avdpodanavt ’EpipiXav, dpKiov ws OTE TLoTOV,

the corruptions of the Mss. were almost
inevitable. The usual form of the proper
name in Pindar is ’Aw@iapyos, and though
he uses ’Apuduapys in this very hymn 1. 24,
(the Ztym. AlZag. bears witness to the
existence of the form), it is clear that the
scribes had a very strong temptation to
alter the rare into the more usual accu-
sative by the insertion of an omicron.
Hence the reading of B. The next
step was to observe that the metre was
at fault and to amend it by the obvious
resort of clipping moré into re. Hence
the reading of I. In point of sense,
the verse with more is superior to the
verse with re.

Opacvprysea] This epithet (Zo/dhearted)
is applied to Salmoneus, Pyth. Iv. 143,
and to Alexander, son of Amyntas, frag.
120. In two other places @pac’s and
Setvds occur in close collocation: Pyth.
Il. 64 Opacos dewav modéuwv, and Nem.
IV. 64 Opacumaxavwy NeovTwy...deworarwy
ddovrwy. Else in Pindar dewds occurs
only twice, Pyth. 1. 26, of ‘wells of
flame most dire’ and Mem. X. 65.

14. Tadaov raises] Prénax and Ad-
rastus were the sons of Talaus, who was
the son of Bias. For these somewhat
obscure mythological relationships it will
be best to quote the scholium :

oi 0€ act’ IIpotros éBaciNevoce Tod
"Apyous, Tov Ovyarépwy dé abrod pave ay
Meddpzrous pavrTis wy mapeyéveTo* omoNo-
ynbévros 6é air micbot Trav dveiy pepav
Tis Bacwelas éxdOnpey abras* ws dé éxd-
Onpev, abe xara Thy brocxecw, Kal TO
pev Tuscv exowwoaro TG ddeAXp@ Biavri,
TO O€ Huiou Karéoxev avTW, Wore yernOHVac
Thy Ov Bacirelav rpimepj, Medaprrodi-
das,
pev otv Avreparns, ov “Otkdjs, of “Apudua-

seavridas, Iporrldas. MeNdprrodos

Tp: Oe
paos‘ Biavros 6€ Tadaos, ob “Adpacros.
IIpoirov 6é MeyarévOns, of “Immovous ov
Kazavets, ot DOéveNos. dtadopa dé eye-
vnOn Tots mept Audiapaov Kal “Adpacror,
wore Tov pev Tadaov vro Tod “Aupiapaou
admolaveiy, Tov 6€ “Adpacrov duyetv els
Dixveva, x.7.A. Menaechmus of Sicyon
mentions the death of Proénax on the
same occasion, in a passage quoted by
the scholiast and worth reproducing here
if only for the sake of a certain emen-
dation of Carl Miiller: xpovov aped-
Oovros mood IIpavat wey 6 Tadaod Kal
Avowwaxns tis UodvBou Baciiedwy “Ap-
yeluw arobvncke, KatacTac.acbels (Miiller
for katacradels) tro “Audiapaov kal rev
Med\aumodibay kat trav “Avagaryopidav.

Bracbévres AVa] We met a part of
Budw in Vill. 34, here we have a part of
Buagw; they are both unique in Pindar’s
extant poems. vq, an extremely rare
word, equivalent to ordovs, its literal
sense being clearly ‘deliverance’.

15. Kpéoowyv x.7.d.] When a stronger
man cometh, he doeth away with existing
right. Schol. 6 6€ loxupds avip ro mpo-
Umdpxov dikaov karamaver. The point of
the verse, applicable to most conquerors,
disappears, if we take dixy in the sense
of Zs. Mezger interprets rightly ‘Macht
geht vor Recht ’.

16. dvSpo8dpavr’ “EpibvAav] The
German language with its Jann of
double sense might render here, better
than English, an effect of Pindar’s art.
The strong ‘man’ of 1. 15 is immediately
followed by the ‘Man-quelling Eriphyle’ ;
and as we hear of the might and success
of Amphiaraus, we are reminded by an
ambiguous word, as by a bird of ill omen
flitting across the page, that he was to be
subdued through the perfidy of his wife.

[(VEMEAN] IX.

173

dovtes Olikrelda yuvaixa, EavOoxopav Aavady tijcav péytotoct.

And this juxtaposition of avjp ending
the third strophe, and dvdpodduavr’
beginning the fourth strophe, a striking
artifice, is emphasized by the designed
omission of the usual particle of tran-
sition. Other examples of such an
omission will be found in Mem. X. 61
and 75.

The reconciliation of Amphiaraus and
Adrastus was sealed by the marriage of
the former with the latter’s sister Eri-
phyle: schol. torepoy wévroe cuveNnrvOaae
mad, €p @ ouvoiknoe TH "Epiptdyn 6
"Audidpaos, iv’ et te péy’ epicoma mer
dupotépocr yévnta, airy dara. And
on the strength of this von Leutsch and
Mezger hold that Eriphyle is called
dydpodduas, not in reference to her con-
nexion with her husband’s fate, but ‘ weil
sie zur Schiedsrichterin zwischen ihrem
Gatten und Bruder bestellt war, wenn
allenfalls Zwist unter ihnen ausbriche’.
And this suggestion has a certain value,
but it must be supplemented by the
ordinary explanation, which v. Leutsch
rejects. As I said above, dvépodduavt’
is ambiguous. Well, the interpretation
of von Leutsch is the harmless superficial
meaning, while the ordinary explanation
gives the ominous under-meaning. Only
in this case the parts are inverted, and
the under-meaning is the more obvious.

dvdpodauavr’ is preserved by B. B gives
avdpodauay 7, D has dvdpouaday 7’,
The adjective avdpodauas occurs in Vem.
Ul. 39 and frag. 166.

17. Sdvres x.7.d.] Having given to
Amphiaraus (the son of Oicles) Eriphyle
to wife, as a firm pledge, they—the sons
of Talaus—were most mighty among the
yellow-haired Danaz. Such is the mean-
ing of the Mss. reading as it stands—joar
uéyiorot. Either this verse or the next is
metrically incomplete (the Mss. divide
the lines after kal mor és); and the
question is whether the text is right as
far as it goes, or are the words foav

péytoro. themselves corrupt, perhaps a
gloss. It is clear that joay cannot be
right, as the Pindaric form is invariably
éoav (in O/. IX. 53, where the Mss. vary
between 6’ joav, 6° éooay and 36° écay
Bergk has rightly restored 67 “cay), and
Boeckh’s éscay does not improve matters.
And if we condemn 7oay we must con-
demn péyicrot, a word very likely to
have ousted from the text some more
coloured expression, of which it was a
marginal explanation. This is the
view of Bergk.

Assuming then that the original words
of Pindar after Aavady have been lost,
let us see whether we have any means
of finding them.
have the gloss joav wéyiro; and we
have also the paraphrase of a scholiast

To begin with, we

to the same effect, kal ow Trav favAoxé-
pwv “EXX\nvwv éyévovto mepipavéctaro
(Bergk for MSS. repipavéorepor) of epi
"Adpacrov. There can, I think, be no
doubt that the writer of this scholium
had the genuine text before him, for éyé-
vovto Tepipavéctaroc is unlikely as an in-
terpretation of joav mwéyicro. Now the
sense demands a part of yivowa rather
than a part of elu; hence Bergk (fara-
phrasis vestigia legens as he says) supplies
Ta mpwr éyevt’ “Adpacridat.
’"Adpacridac is hardly right: of epi” Adpac-
tov in the scholium does not imply that
the subject of the sentence was expressed.
Moreover éyevro is always singular in
Pindar (see Pyth. vi. 28, frag. 147),
who uses éyévovto very often, and it is
therefore necessary to modify Bergk’s
reading, while we attribute to him the
credit of a good suggestion.
mparo ‘yévovro, but feel unable to decide
whether the lacuna should be marked in
1.17 or inl. 18. On behalf of rparo it
may be said that it isa word likely to have
been elucidated by a marginal synonym,

I propose

inasmuch as Pindar rarely (once or twice)
uses mp@ros in the sense of éy.oTos.

174

[NEMEONIKAI] 6’.

/ > > € UA ! »” \ » Lal -)
kal tor és éntamUXovs OnBas ayayov otpatov avdpov aiovay

od Kat’ opvixwy 68dv: o8é Kpoviwy aoteporrav éhediEats oixobev

papyoupevous

atelyew errwtpuv’, dAXa petcacOa KedevOov. 20

‘ Of S293) v ay) ad Crees, 0
patvomevav ap €S aTay omrevoev optros ikEerVat

OTp. €.

/ a Lg / \ ” 5 ? la) 8 ’ 2
YarKeors OTOLTLY LTTELOLS TE GUY EVTETLY Iopnvov €T

dyOatoe yAUKDY

Other editors, accepting joav or éooay
péy.orot, have filled up the gap in various
ways. Boeckh punctuating at méysoroe
read 67 7é0ev, suggested by the scholium
on |. 18, évredbev 69 Kai eis Tas OnBas
Hartung accepts 63 7é0ev but
connects the phrase with the foregoing
words, punctuating at 7é@ev, Rauchen-
stein reads rourdxe (punctuating at péyio-
rot), which Schnitzer praises. Bergk’s
earlier conjecture \ayéra: deserves men-
[See further Appendix A, note 8.]

18—20. Kal mor’ x.7-\.] And on a
time they led a host against Seven-gated
Thebes, sped on their way by no well-
boding birds ; nor did the son of Cronus
swinging a bolt of lightning urge them to
set forth, in fury fell, from home, but
bade them spare the journey.

Observe that the penultimate of Kpo-
viwy is long here, as in Pyth.1. 71. In
the other five places where it occurs in
Pindar it is short (as below, 1. 28).—Else-
where Pindar uses orepord. €dedi fw
(vibrare) occurs in O/. 1X. 13 and Pyth.
I. 4 of the phorminx.

In |. 20 the sense of éxéNevoe implied
in érwrpuve is carried on to delrac Bar.

21. atvopevav x.7.\.] Lut certes,
the company sped on their way to doom
clearly revealed, with brazen armour and
steeds and the accoutrements thereof (that
is, chariots). In elucidation of pawopeé-
vay all the editors quote Archilochus, frag.
98 (ed. Bergk) pawdpmevov Kaxov olkad’
The point is that the doom

K.ToNe

tion.

ayerOat,

was revealed by omens. trelots &yrect

refer here to the chariots (not merely the
harness) as in O/, XIII. 20 (this use is
noticed by schol. //, 2 277, see Rumpel’s
Lexicon, sz évTos).
word of Pindar for gear and instruments
of various kinds; for example, it is the
Pindaric equivalent of ‘a musical instru-
ment’.

23. épetrdpevor] We have to decide
here between the claims of épetodpevor,
the reading of B, and épvocapeva, Her-
mann’s correction of épvcduevor, the
reading of D. The numerous ‘emenda-
tions’ which have been suggested (such

éyros is a favourite

as 6decoduevo. Benedict, dmrovpamevor
Hartung, épuxduevo. Herwerden) may be
safely neglected, as so many wild guesses;
and in not a single case has any serious
attempt been made to account for the
origin of the Mss. readings.

épvocduevor has been explained in two
ways. (1) Dissen translates zxhzbentes.
This meaning may be arrived at through
the idea of defending oneself against, pre-
venting ; but in this sense, vdcrov épuc-
gdmevot is an unnatural expression, and
quite inappropriate to the context. (2)
Mezger seizes another sense of épvec@at,
—draw towards oneself; and translates
‘um die siisse Riickkehr ringend’ (com-
paring = 174), striving for sweet return.
Against this view—modified and ren-
dered attractive by Mr Tyrrell’s happy
translation after the tug of war for sweet
home—the tense seems to me an objec-
tion. épvccduevoe cannot strictly mean
‘in a struggle for’; and could it mean

[NEMEAN] IX.

175

/
voatov épevadpuevor AevKavOéa oopaT eTiavay KaTrVOY"

(as Mr Tyrrell’s view implies) ‘having
tugged iz vain for’?

The reading épevodmevor, which has the
superior MSs, authority of B B, has
baffled commentators (épvcadevot, I have
no doubt, being only the earliest ‘emen-
dation’), yet its appearance in the text
seems inexplicable, unless we assume it
to be genuine. And if we analyse the
meaning of épeldw, we shall see that the
phrase is really significant. épeléw means
to fix a thing in a position from which it
cannot be dislodged without external
intervention ; épeldew dyxvpav xAovi, to
fix an anchor firm in the ground, épelde-
cOat Nov emi rorxe, to set a stone firm
on a wall, are typical instances. Now
when the Argive army went against
Thebes, their doom was sealed and they
were destined never to return home.
Dealing with this, a modern writer might
say that, when they arrived at Thebes,
they duried their hopes of seeing home once
more on the banks of the Ismenus. Now
Pindar expresses this objectively and
with a different metaphor ; yAuxvs védoTos
sweet return (the nearest Greek equivalent
for our home, sweet home) being conceived
as a sort of burden or cargo, which the
host carried with them, but, instead of
retaining it, fixed in an immovable posi-
tion on the banks of the foreign river.
This imaginative transformation of the
abstract conception yAukvs véaros, as if it
were a kind of talisman, carried in the
hands, is the only difficulty in the pas-
sage. The interpretation of the scholiast,
TH olKo. dvakomdny amébevro, though it
hardly explains the metaphor, gives the
sense and is certainly a paraphrase of
épetodmevo. (not of épuvccduevac), We
may render the whole sentence thus:

And on the banks of Ismenus, having
laid down their longings for sweet home,
as blanched corpses they fed fat the smoke.

It will be noticed that I have used a

subjective phrase to express the force of
the middle in épeccamevor.

AevKavOéa x.7.A.] « in maivw, here long,
is short in Pyth. IV. 150.—A slight slip
in the Mss., and a divergent explanation
in the scholium have given rise to a doubt.
From odpacw ériavay B, and ceépace
émlavay D, it might seem simple to de-
duce odyact miavay (Hermann). But
the scholiast clearly read cwyar’ érlavay
and connected it with NevxarGéa, for he
offers us the choice of connecting the
adjective with either cduara or Kamvov.
The words are:

NevkavOda 5é Néyer Ta THpaTa* vive-
Tat yap Ta owpara TwY KaLo“évwY VvEKpwY
Neukd, 7% Tov xKamvdv, Ste 6 KaTvds
dua THY miwedny AeuKds €oTt Kal Paps
KT.

A moment’s consideration will demon-
strate that the reading explained by this
If Pindar had written

cHpact tiavav, the variant cwuara imply-

scholium is right.

ing a more difficult construction would
never have appeared ; whereas if he wrote
owpar’ émiavay, it is extremely natural
that scribes not apprehending the syntax
should have changed aumar’ to odpact.
This a priori consideration is completely
confirmed by the evidence of the Mss.
—namely by the tell-tale augment. The
scribe who passed by xp’wev in line 25,
would not have added an epsilon in line
23, if he had found mlavay. In other
words, were cWuacr tiavay the true read-
ing, the corruption in the Mss. would be
almost unintelligible; whereas if odpar’
ériavay is genuine, the traditions of Bb
and D are completely explained.

The word Xevxavdys (familiar from
Sophocles’ \evkavés Kapa) is one of those
words in which the second part has
almost lost its original identity of mean-
ing, and it differentiates itself from the
simple Nevkds by a subtle association rather
than by any tangible property; being in

176

[NEMEONIKAI] @.

émta yap Saicavto tmupal veoyvious gatas’ 6 8 ~Apdiadpy

/ lel /
oxXlccas KEepavye Tapia

fact a more exquisite word, so that in
rendering we may adopt 4/anched, a more
exquisite word than wfzfe. But in this
instance, -av@7js has really a function to
perform, and the insignificant ‘bloom’
of the dead on the banks of the Ismenus
is designed to leave an impression, to be
contrasted shortly with ‘ flowers of fame’
plucked hard by the waters of the Sca-
mander and the Helorus.

24. Salcavro] /zasted on the limbs of
the young men. schol. ra TGv véwy Karev-
wxnonoav kat xkatépXezav. This is the
only place in Pindar where dalvuu is used
metaphorically ; it keeps up the metaphor
of émlavay. veoyvious (a Pindaric coinage,
occurring in Fr, 123 as an epithet of
Youth) is emphatic and responds to veé-
Tart in verse 44 below (see above, Zzzvo-
duction, p. 167).

oxloocats] The mss. here present
a problem of some difficulty. B prima
manu, and B have cxlcas, D and B
secunda manu have oxice and cyice
respectively ; all three MSs. agree in
reading xptwev 8 dy’ immas in 1. 25.
Here is a dilemma: if oxiccer is right,
how are we to account for the reading
oxicats, which, as the text stands, lacks
a construction? If on the other hand
oxiooas is right the text in line 25 must
have suffered some corruption. Mr Tyr-
rell has suggested that we should read in
line 24 oxlo0’ év Kepavy@, év having an
instrumental force as in éy xepds axa.
If we suppose that through ignorance
of this usage éy was omitted, it is
possible, but, I think, improbable, that
oxloats might have been elicited from
cxicc.—I believe that we must accept
oxlooas and seek for the error in the
following line. Gp tro is clearly
sound, Kpvw- at least is sound too, and
the fault must lie in the letters ev 6. Now
it seems probable that an accusative

- the accidental omission of p.

followed xpiWe; in reading the whole
sentence one feels that a second indica-
tion of Amphiaraus would be a distinct
improvement. And here Pindar’s arti-
ficial method of responsions supplies us
with the clue and suggests that by the
word avdpa he could have emphasized
the contrast between the day of the
hero’s success, mentioned in line 15
(kpécowv avnp) and the day of his destruc-
tion. I therefore propose to read
Kpvy’ dvdp’ dw’ immos

and I think one feels that du’ immos
almost requires dvdpa. To explain the
corruption, we have only to suppose
Kpuyavd
was necessarily read xkptway &, and xpv-
yar inevitably changed to xptWev. The
correction of cxiccas to cxiccev followed
immediately, but fortunately the traces of
the participle have not been obliterated.

My restoration of dvdpa is confirmed by
tmapBla (omnipotent, resistless), a word in-
vented by Pindar for this passage, for the
purpose of an emphatic responsion to
BracSévres of 1.14. As the children of
Talaus were overpowered by Amphiaraus,
the strong 7zanx who upsets existing right,
even so Amphiaraus was quelled by the
all-powerful lightning of Zeus, the man
himself and his horses.

Rauchenstein reads yay Baédcrepvor,
xPovi Kpvpev 6, and Bergk (who keeps
oxicoas) follows him, except that he
changes 6’ au’ to @du’ (which is of course
untenable). To this change its author
was led by the interpretation of the
scholium: diécxise Kal diéornoe Thy yh
mraretav...kal otrws bro Ti yay expiphOn
k.7.X. This is an absurd way of dealing
with the scholia, and, logically followed
out, would lead to a curious text. The
interpretation does not imply anything
more than the reading which the mss.
present, and I need hardly observe how

[WEMEAN] IX. 177
Zeds tav Babvatepvoy YOdva, xpi avdp’ tw tarros, 25
Sovpt IlepuxAupévou piv veta tuTévta payatapy oTp. 5 «

Ovpov aioyuvOnpev.
maides Dear.

év yap Sdatpoviorct poBos evyovte Kai

> / / Lal \ > / /
et duvatov, Kpoviwy, Treipay mév ayavopa owwikooTodwv

> / / i ee »\ lal > / e /
éyxéwv tavtav Oavatov Tépt Kai Cwas avaBaddropar ws TopatoTa,

poipay 6 evvopov
inferior is Rauchenstein’s gratuitously
redundant sentence. Are we to make the
justifiable pleonasm of a scholiast a
standard for Pindar ?

25. Babterepvov] Deep-chested, sug-
gesting the deep fissure in which the
chariot was engulfed. In J/s¢#. Il. 12,
the adjective is used of the vale of Nemea.
See below on verse 40.

26. ILepuxAvpévov] Schol. 7@ Iepuxdv-
pév@, ds nv vids IlocedGvos kal Xdwpidos
THs Terpectov ouwvupos Te Nndéws.—Of
témtw Pindar uses only the present and
second aorist participles passive.

paxatay Oupdv] Zre—he was shamed
in his valiant soul, or felt a soil on his
warrior soul, aicxpés and aicxtvw imply-
ing originally a physical disfigurement.
The unusual phrase paxatay Bupov (dara
paxardy occurs in Mem. 1. 13, cf. Lsth.
VI. 31) is echoed, with a variation, below
l. 37 in aixpardy Oupdv.

27. ev yap K.7.d.] or in panics super-
human, even sons of the gods flee; and
therefore the flight of Amphiaraus (im-
plied in v@7a) may be condoned. Schol.
év yap Tots peylarots Kal €vOéors PbBots K.T.r.
The author of the panic in this instance
was Zeus (6 yap Zeds cvveuadxer Tére Tots
OnBaios, schol.) and to him the poet
appeals in the next line.

28. et Svyardéy x.7.\.] Lf zt be possible,
O son of Cronus, I had fain defer as long
as may be (indefinitely) @ brute arbitra-
mentof purpled (or purple-mantled) swords,
such as this, fought for life and death.
Mezger was the first to see that douviKo-
orédov is an adjective (he compares huwd-

Bb.

aTo\os, porvikoeiuwv) ‘mit Roth d. h. mit
Blut iiberzogen’, not a proper name, as
the scholiast and previous commentators
explained. Thus tavrav becomes intel-
ligible—such an enterprise as that of the
Seven against Thebes ; and the sentence
is seen to be in close connexion with the
preceding myth. Of course gowtkogré-
Awv alludes to the Phoenicians of Car-
thage, by whom Sicily at this period was
continually threatened. It is impossible
to bring out satisfactorily in English this
second intent; I have made an attempt
to suggest it by the word purpled (cf.
Fulius Cesar, WI. 1, 158, ‘purpled
hands’), in allusion to the famous Phoe-
nician purple. The scholiast explains
meipay as Tiv NyjoTpiKny érlOecw ( piratt-
cal descent), but here it means the test or
contest of two parties, rather than the
enterprise of one. In choosing &ydvopa
Pindar probably dwelt on its etymology,
and gaye its meaning a shade of blame :
too spirited, rash, overdaring, is the force
which we must attach to it. Mr Tyrrell
has suggested the translation drufe arbi-
trament.

29. avaBdddAopar] ‘Dicuntur facere
precantes id quod precibus effectum
volunt’, Dissen. After ef Suvarov, ws
mopo.era must not be translated by the
stereotyped formula as far as possible ; it
means 7xzdefinitely far.

potpav 8’ edvopov x.7.r.] Beet Z beseech
thee to bestow on the men of Aetna for
many generations the gift of a well
governed state (‘ebvoula, respublica bene
constituta legibus, qualem Aetnaei Hie-

178

[NEMEONIKAI] 6’.

Say, \ \ > / by /
aALTEM GE TALOLV dapov Alttvaiwy orate, 30

rn Ale >] , lal
Zed matep, adyraiacw 8 aatuvopois emipigar

Aaov.
Kpéooovas
v
AVOpES.
a péper doEav.
Te vawy T ey pmaxyals
roni debebant, Dissen’).

occur elsewhere in Pindar.
31. aydataow 8 dorvvdpots| Schol.

Sapév does not

kal Todd\ats evppoo’vars émiuiéar Tos dx-
Nous, evppoctvars 5é avacrpepomévars KaTa
rhv rokw. Dissen, decora ludicra quae ad
urbem pertineant (dorvvduos urbicus op-
posed to dypdvopos rustzcus). The schol-
iast is not quite accurate in his interpre-
tation; though both aydata and ev¢po-
aivn are graces, they are distinct, the
first being an objective quality, d77ght-
ness, splendour. The subjective side how-
We
may render, ¢o0 touch the people and their

ever is implied in Aady émmutEac.

city with splendours, or, expanding the
meaning, ¢o gladden the people by splendid
celebrations in their city. Successes in
games (as opposed to war) are chiefly
With émupttor cf. O/. I. go &
aimakouplats ayhaaior MEMKT AL.

32. duro] Responds to imzeios
]. 22 and immo 1. 52 (see Lrtroduction,
p- 165). avrd@, in Aetna.

uxds «.7.d.] With souls unenthralled
by wealth ; so Pyth. VUIL. gi Exwy Kpéooova

meant.

ovxX Hoowy is a more
Here clearly, though
the plural is used, Chromius is meant, and

m\ovToU MépiuLvav.
common phrase.

the man of moral might (kpéocovas
dvdpes) reminds us of the kpécowy
avinp of l. 15.

33. amorov tem x.7.d.] AZy words
are hard to believe; for love of gain
secretly stealeth away Atdés, who bringeth
glory. Like véweots, alBws (sense of
shame, feeling for honour) is untranslat-
able, and it is better to preserve the

orp. ee

’ / / if ? ’ / \ U \ ”
évtt Tot bidummol tT avToO. Kat KTEavwv uxas EXoVTES

v ” ’ ’ \ \ ¢ \ , / /
dmiotov éeim’* aldas yap vme Kpida Képder KET TETAL,
if ¢ t \ / if
Xpopiw Kxev vrraorivwv rapa mefoPoas trots

Greek in construing; especially in this pas-
sage where she is conceived as a goddess
(below 1. 36). Observe the alliteration of
three initial kappas, as if the very letter «
had some mysterious association with
stealth [The mss. have
vroxpupa, but Boeckh restored v76 kpiga
from vrox\érrerat in the scholia. ]

34. Xpoplw kev «.7.A.] Wert thou
the squire of Chromius, beside footmen or
horses, or in conflicts of ships, thou would’ st
have discerned amid the danger of the
shrill battle-whoop, that in war that
goddess (Aidébs) harnessed his soul with
a spearman’s might to repel the destruction
of the war-god.

Owing to a false accent in the Mss.
and the schol., the meaning of this passage
has been distorted. Interpreting ovvekev
(1. 36) as decazse, scribes and commenta-
tors were obliged to take xivduvoy as the
object of éxpuas, and dy (accented) as the
particle, a repetition of xev. Thus changed
the sentence was charged with a far-
fetched meaning; and it is difficult to
see how the privilege of being Chromius’
squire particularly conduced to the dis-
cernment of danger (were the perils of
battle so hard to discern?) or in what
the point of the statement consists. The
squire of Chromius would have had a
better opportunity than others of judging
of the conduct of his master; and it is
clear that otvexey (better perhaps otvexev
as Christ writes) means ¢at, a sense
which it regularly bears in Homer after
verbs of knowing, thinking, &c. The
restoration of dy (dvd) is due to Bergk.

and baseness.

[WEMEAN] IX.

y ’ / ? / bao al
éxpuvas av Kivdvvov o&eias avTas,

id > / / \ 4 > lel
OUVVEKEV EV TONKEL KELVaA beds EVTUVEV AUTOVU

179
ae)

oTp. 1.

Oupov aiypatav apdvewv dovyov ’Evvadiov, mavpor dé Bovredoat

ovou

maptodiov vedérav tpérar Trott Sucpevéwy avdpaev atixas

epol Kab Wwuyda Suvatot: Néyerar wav "Exropt pev Kr€0s avOjoat
C oy lad

LKapavdpov yevpacw

The scholium is curious: 7@ Xpopig
ocuumapwy av év re wecouaxia kal immopaxia
kal vavpaxia, éxpivas olds tis 0 Klvduvos
6 Tav Todéuwv. gaiverar dé Gre Boverat
a’tov ws advdpetov kal diacwfovta ois
cuvovtas alte apbBws mapacrjoa. rel
mas av ayabos yévorro KpiTns meta Séous
dvactpepopuevos Ev TH Todk€uw; That is,
the squire of Chromius, secure under his
shelter, would be able to make observa-
tions at his leisure. The simpler explana-
tion was that one who was always by the
side of Chromius would see those deeds
of bravery which make battle really
dangerous. — With meloBdars compare
mevoudxat, Pyth. 11. 65.—For the office
of Aidés here the schol. appositely cites
E 531

aldouévay 6 dvipay mréoves coo 7e

TwEPAVTAL.

Oupov aixpardv] An echo (as Mezger
pointed out) of waxaray Oupov, |. 26.
Here however aixuardy should be taken
proleptically the clause
apuvew ovydv being a further prolepsis.
Compare Coriolanus 1. 4, 25 ‘with
hearts more proof than shields’. For
aixwards compare Vem. V.7, Fyth. IV. 12;
Ol. V1. 86.

Xovyds occurs only in this and one
other place in Pindar, and a comparison
of the two passages is instructive. In
Tsth. Vi. 28 we read

istw yap capes, doris év TavTa vepéra

xarafav aluaros mpd dias mdtpas
ambverat,

with éyrvev,

Lovyov avtipepwv evavtly oTpar@ K.T.r.

In both cases Novyds is brought into
direct connexion with the metaphor of a
storm-cloud raining blood. For Novyds
originally meant the influence of hostile
forces of nature, a storm for example or
a plague. ovydy dudvew, in the pas-
sage before us, is to repel the ruinous
storm of Ares. In the Sixth Isthmian,
similarly, the picture is a black cloud,
hailing blood, and full of destructive
influences, the endeavour of each army
being to turn the contagion, Novyos, upon
their opponents.

37. tavpo. S€ x.7.X.] For the mean-
ing of this passage see above, p. 166.—
BovAedoat depends on dyvarol, and Tpépar
on BovXedoa. Many parallels might be
quoted for the metaphor of a war-cloud.
In Jsth. 111. 35 we read of war’s rough
snowstorm, Tpaxeia vidas tmodéuo.o. In
Vergil, Aen. X. 809, 2zbes belli is different.

maptodiov is amat elpnucvov. mapa-
modt{w meaning fo impede, entangle the
feet, throws light on the coinage rapamo-
dtos, which clearly signifies clogging, or
pestering the feet.

39. KA€os avOnoat] Séory Zells that
glory flowered for Hector hard by the
pouring waters of Scamander. Schol. tov
dé "Exropa mapel\nge kal otk Alavra 7
"AyiAdéa, TH Kal Tov “Extopa peuaxjobat
brép THs marpldos, ws Kal Tov Xpomcov.

It has been pointed out in the Zy/ro-
duction that Pindar chose the word
dvOjoae (similarly Ba@ukpjuvoe in the
next line), and mentioned the Scamander
with a special purpose.

12—2

180

ayyod, Babuepypvoior 8 aud’ axtais “EXdpov,

évOa “Péas mopov avOpwiro Kxaréoior, SédopKev

[NEMEONIKAI] 0.

otp. 0.

madi Todt “AynoSapou péyyos év adixia Tpwta: ta 8 adraus

apmépats

40. PaSvkpypvoior] Ay the deep-
hanging (deep-clif’'d) banks of Helorus,
where the battle was fought, about 492
B.c., in which Hippocrates of Gela
conquered the Syracusans, and so became
lord of Syracuse. There Chromius won his
first laurels. —BaOdxpynuvos (which occurs
in Zsth. 111. 74) responds to Bavarepvoy
in 1. 25, one of the many verbal indica-
tions of the contrast between Amphiaraus
and Chromius.

41. tva ‘Péas] The Mss. have v6’
’Apelas, a reading condemned by the
metre and incomprehensible. We cannot
hesitate to follow Bergk in reading év@a
‘Péas (accepted by Mezger). The sea of
Rhea is the Ionian sea, as we learn from
Aeschylus, Prometheus, 826 jas mpos
péyav Kooy “Péas, ‘the bay of Rhea’,
being interpreted in the following lines
as wuxos’Iovios. The use of mépos presents
no difficulty, cf. Vem. Iv. 53 mpos *Iovtov
mopov. The source of the Mss. corruption
is indicated in a scholium :

6 bé Tis ’Apelas mopos aveenynros ott"
5d Kal ddndov etre ’Apelas etre ‘Pelas
It is
clear that ‘Péas was written ‘Pelas, and,
the phrase not being understood, the
words were falsely divided.

The idiom é@a mépov xadéoor for
évOa 0...mdpos Kadovpevos éoTt, is too
familiar to need illustration. ¢v@a means
of course that the Helorus flows into the
Ionian sea, and may be rendered at whose
mouth.

Nexréov elte bp’ ev *Apecdomopor.

For the bearing of this clause
on the meaning of the hymn, see above
Introduction, p. 167, and below note on
ATs

42. TovtTo héyyos] Lven such a light
(fame, like Hector’s) began to shine in

his early manhood for the son of Agesi-
demus. éyyos dédopxey is the language
of the mysteries, and an examination of
passages in Pindar where ¢éyyos occurs
shows that he constantly used it with a
mystical reference.

(1) OJ.11. 56 érupwrarov avipt péyyos.
Here the force of the phrase depends on
the mystical meaning of Péyyos ; ‘a light
to a man, in the deepest sense’, that is,
not the vulgar, superficial, but the tech-
nical, mystical sense.

(2) Pyth. 1X. go Xapitwv kedadevvay
fh me Altra KaBapov Péyyos. The epithet
kabapor, of religious significance, indicates
the religious sense of $éyyos.

(3) Pyth. VII. 97,

émamepor* Ti OE Tis; TL BD ob} Tis; oKLGS

dvap
av Opwros.
€NOn,
aumpov péyyos erect avdpav kal
petdryos alwv,

ad’ Oray aiyNa dv0cdoTos

This is obviously a passage in which
Pindar might well have availed himself
of language associated with the deeper
‘cathartic’ teaching of the mysteries, and
the aiyNa dcécdor0s, splendour bursting
upon darkness, suggests a mystical drama.
It is also to be observed that jelAcyos
aidy is equivalent to alav auépa in |. 44
of the ode which is now before us.

(4) Frag. 153

devpéwy 5é voudy motvyabts Awruaos
avédvo.
ayvov péyyos drrwpas,
a passage which Plutarch (de Jside et
Osiride, c. 35) quotes to shew that
Dionysus was esteemed by the Greeks
lord not only of wine but of all moisture

in nature. These wider functions were

[WEMEAN] IX.

181

movrd pev ev Kovia yépow, Ta O€ yelTow TovT@ Pacoma
‘ad v t x P re Y “ liad -

’ / ’ \ \ if: Le ‘ / / \
éx mover 8, ob adv vedtate yévwvtat atv Te Sika, TENeOEL TpOS

ynpas aiov apépa.

lotw Naxev pds Sarovar Oavpactov odPovr. 45

ef yap tua Ktedvors ToAXols éridofov apytat

doubtless explained at large in the mys-
teries of Dionysus. The description of
the god as the ‘holy light of summer’
certainly sounds like an echo from some
mystic ritual.

In Pyth. 1v. 111 (érel wdumpwrov eidov
peyyos, the light of day) it is not used in
a metaphorical sense. See also Vem. III.
64 and Iv. 13.

42. Ta 8 dAdo x«.7.A.] But his
exploits wrought on other days, many on
the dusty dry land, some on the adjoining
sea, will I declare. The schol. wrongly
takes d\Nats auépas with Pdcoua, and
reads xépow for xépoy, making xovia a
substantive. Mr Fennell prefers to
regard xovia as a substantive, xépow as
the epithet; but xépoos is always a
substantive in The adjective
xovia ( pulverulentus) is added to suggest
the moil of battle. Mezger indeed ex-
plains the phrase ‘im Gegensatz zu den
feuchten Ufern des Helorus’, but this
seems extremely doubtful. The battle
chiefly referred to in the words yelrove
movTw was that of Cumae, in which the
Etruscans were defeated.

As to dawopat (compare avdacouar, Ol.
1. ror) I may refer, for the vexed question
of the future middle, to Dr Donaldson and
to Mr Fennell.

44. & Tovey 8 x7.d.] But from
labours, which ave wrought with youth
and justice siding, there ensueth even unto
old age a calm life, Youth and Justice
are conceived as ‘siding champions’ (see
above, Zrtroduction, p. 167). TedOw is a
poetical word for the result of a process.
aidy is found feminine also in Pyéh. Iv.
186 and v. 7 but masc. Pyth. VIII. 97

Pindar.

oTp. U.

and elsewhere. Other noticeable genders
in Pindar are 7 kiwy (Pyth. 1. 19, e¢e.),
n aldip (Ol. I. 5, XII. 88, 6 aidjp Nem.
VIL. 41), 9 Tdprapos (Pyth. 1. 15), 7
Mapaédv (Ol. x11. 110).—In the scholia
it is suggested that duépa is a substantive :
éredav Twes €v VEOTNTL TETOVNKOTES WoL
kal BeBiwoxores dikaiws, juepa pla ev Te
YVihpe cvykpirixy a7 mpos bdov Tov aiava,
and other explanations also are put for-
ward there.

45. Vorw x.7.d.] Let him (Chromius)
know that he hath won from the gods
wondrous weal (a blissful lot).
had mystical associations for the Greeks,
who used it of superhuman things re-
vealed; and if we were called upon to
render ‘ beatific vision’, @auywacros might
be used.

46. eb ydpK.7.d.] For if a man win
glory and repute with great riches, fur-
ther than this there is no way open for
a mortal to attain with his two feet yet
another (higher) semmit.

There is a serious difficulty in the text
here, and editors have not fully met it. B
B have x0dos, odk ére mbpow Ovardv k.T.d.,
Both these read-

Oauacros

D has ovk éort mpdow.
ings are unmetrical, and emendations have
been proposed: Triclinius ovk @r’ éort
mpbaw (réprw), Boeckh ovk éorw Tt roprw,
Hermann ovx éorw 70 wépow, Momm-
sen otk éotw mpbcw Tov, etc. But none
of these suggestions meets the difficulty.
Triclinius’ reading is impossible because
there is an éze already in the line;
Boeckh’s vt is merely ‘padding’; and
obvious objections may be made to the
other conjectures.

In one point all the editors concur,

182

Kd60S, OV TOpTw TOpos Tis OvaToy ETL TKOTLGS dddas efayacBat

TrOOOLD.

youyla S€ iret pev cusTroc.ov: veobarys & avferar

namely in retaining éo7e of D, and here
I dissent. More than once already have
we met cases in which the reading of
D is merely an emendation of a corrup-
tion in B B, and in the present instance
it is evident that éo7e is a correction of
ért, made for the sake of the sense.
Consequently @o7t has no real Mss.
authority. Nor is it at all likely that é7-
in B B isa corruption of éo7. For why
should éort, which makes obvious sense.
have been changed to é€71, which yields no
construction, especially when another €7«
followed? It may be said that éc7e and
ért are very like each other; but in the
case of such simple words similarity of
the ductus Litterarum is hardly worth
considering, if there is no further motive
for confusion. In any case the mere
retention of éo7e does not satisfy the
metre, so that we may safely seek for
some other clue.

In the schol. a parallel passage is
quoted from the Third Nemean: dvurép-
Pyros yap, pynoly, airy | apeTH. mapéotke
dé Tn dvw diavola* Ei 6 édy KaNds Epdwy
7 €ouxdTa poppa, ovKért mopow, Kal Tah
é&js. This suggests the origin of the
reading of the Mss. Either this passage
was written in a marginal note, or some
one, with this passage in his mind, jotted
ovKére Topow, to indicate that ére (@varov
This note
crept into the text, perhaps to fill up a
lacuna.

We are left then with the words ov
mopow, and must now consider whether
it is possible to restore the three missing

é7t) should be joined with ov,

syllables (~-—). In most cases the only
cause of the loss of a word in the middle
of a line is parablepsia, when two words
Here
fortunately we have not to seek far for a

come together similarly spelt.

word, similar to mépow, which will yield

admirable sense. Writing
OYTTOpCoTTOpocTICc

we see how easily a transcriber might

have unconsciously omitted wépoo. Then

tis, left without any construction, was

designedly removed, and é€7 introduced

from the margin.

Thus I arrive at the reading in the
text; but, once it is found, I discover,
owing to Pindar’s careful mode of writing,
‘internal evidence’ to support it. The
metaphor is from climbing mountains. A
man, having reached that height of wel-
fare, to which e.g. Chromius has climbed,
need not hope to reach any higher summit;
there is no path beyond the point attained
(for oxomed meaning mozaztain-semmit
see fy. IOI ckomatow peydats dpéwy tarep
éora). The career of Chromius has been
a gradual mounting higher and higher ;
when he reached one pinnacle, he
bridged a passage to another ; now he is
on theutmost. His first great success was
won at Helorus, near the passage of Rhea,
—an actual physical passage to further
heights of glory won in battles on sea or
land. But now that he has scaled those
heights, there is no other passage of Rhea,
—as it were, no other world to conquer.
Thus the emendation of 1. 47 and the
“Péas mopos of 1. 41 mutually illuminate
each other; it is seen that the reference
to the Ionian Sea is not a useless orna-
ment, in the style of modern art, but has
a definite, really telling, function in the
design of the hymn.

mopaw echoes mépa.ora of 1. 29. Chro-
mius might look on a war with Carthage
as the way to a higher summit.

48. aovuxla x.7.r.] Repose (peace,
the alwy ayuépa of 1. 44) loveth the banquet,
and by virtue of soft lays victory buddeth
afresh; yea, the voice waxeth bold beside
the bowl. veodadgys is proleptic. maOaxg

[WEMEAN] IX. 183

a an , \ a
pardaxd vixapopia adv dowd4a: Oapoaréa dé Tapa Kpathpi pava

rylveTan.
> Ul ‘ih \ , /
éyxipvatw Tis viv, yAvVKVY KwOMoU TpopaTa)r, 50

, \
dpyvpéaict 5 vapatw piaraioe Bratav oTp. ta’.
3 aN tO. th = al ivf / xX / Ul
auméxov maid, as wo? immo. KTynoapevar Xpopiw Tméurpav
/

OemiTrEKTOLS Awa

ah a an A fa) U
Aatoiia otepavas éx Tas lepas Yixvovos. Led wartep,
v / ’ \ fal \ / ¢ \ fal
eVYomat TavTay apetav Kedadjoat avY Napitecow, vTEep TOMY

Te Tiwardeiy AOyoLs

doa means soothing or comforting des-
cant, but we may adopt Milton’s soft day.
Compare Pyth. VUI. 31 POéymare wad-
daxg. For the metaphor see Vem. VUL.
40.

50. éykipvatw «.7.\.] Mix it (the
bowl), sweet tspirer of the comus, and
dispense the potent (overbearing) child of
the vine in the silver cups, which once on
a time his mares won for Chromius and
sent to him from sacred Sicyon with
crowns of Apollo by Themis plight.

Mezger wrongly translates mpodarav
‘den siissen Vorboten des Festes’, attri-
buting to mpo- the sense which it bears in
prophet. eykipvarw tis is the Greek
idiom, where we use the second person
imperative.

As wine is called the son of the vine,
so the vine is called the ‘wild mother’
of wine in Aesch. Pers. 614. Brardv
(schol. tov Bid fecOar elddra Kal eis wéOnv
dyew), a Pindaric word, suggests that
Dionysus, not the lightning of Zeus (7ap-
Bia cepavyw 1. 24), is to master Chromius.
The contrast with the heroes who marched
against Thebes is also kept up by the re-
sponsion of toe with im7etocs in |. 22.

52. Qepwtrdéxrots] Themis was asso-
ciated with Apollo, as we are told in a
scholium: kao mdpedpds éare Tod "Am d)-
Nwvos 7 Odurs xdpw Tov xXpnornplov’ Kal
yap qv mpopyris, and in Pyth. XI. 9 we
read dpa Oéuw iepav Ilv0Gva Te kal

6pOodikav yas dupadov Kedadjrov. It is

appropriate then that she should be con-
ceived as the weaver of Apollo’s garlands
—the due twining thereof being a poetical
symbol that they were fairly won (‘wohl
erworben’, Mezger). There is a hint
thrown out in the scholia that Pindar is
alluding to a report that the Pythian
games at Delphi were not fairly conducted
by the Phocians (xpjmacw avierPar).—
We must not forget that Dika (who
plays a part in this hymn) and Eunomia
(referred to in 1. 29) were daughters of
Themis and closely associated with her,
compare O/. IX. 15 and Xul. 8, also fr.
I. 5; moreover Oéuus and dix are called
by Maximus of Tyre, wuortika kai Oeompemi)
OvOMaTO.

The reading of the Mss. du@éi (for dua)
suits neither sense nor metre, and Schmid
rightly restored apa from the scholiast.
Letters and syllables at the end of a line
run the risk of effacement, and here it
would seem that the final A was oblite-
rated and AM incorrectly supplemented
by gu.

54. evxopat x.7.A.] L pray, O father
Zeus, that such excellence as this may be
the theme of my hymn, the Graces assisting,
and that beyond many poets [ may worship
Victory by my words, shooting very near
to the mark of the Muses.

TavTay apetay, such excellence as that
of victory in games, is opposed, as a
more desirable theme of song, to excel-
lence in war, and the opposition is indi-

184 [NEMEONIKAI] 0’.
Nikav, axovtitwv cxoTot ayxicta Maoay. 55

cated by the responsion of raéray in 1. 54
to ra’ray in 29 (both occurring in prayers
to Zeus) as Mezger has pointed out. In
Pyth. UW. 63 we find xedadety associated
with dpera (dud’ dpera xedadéwv), and
both words, I think, had mystical asso-
ciations. In Pyth. 1x. 89 we have Xapl-
Tu KENadEVVGY,

Tyaddery, a word of peculiar solemnity,
(a favourite of Aeschylus, occurring only
once in Pindar, otherwise rare) is by no
means a synonym of the vulgar timay,
and we lose its flavour if we translate it
by Aonour. It is almost invariably used
of homage paid to divine beings. In
Aristotle’s Politics, Bk. Iv. 15, we have
Tiuarpety Tods Oeovs, sounding like a tech-
nical expression ; in Aeschylus, Agamem-
Non, 922 Beov’s To ToITde TLuahPpely X pew,
Eumenides, 15 worbvrTa 8 abrov Tynahpet
News (of Apollo), 2. 807 bm dcrav Tavde
Tiuadpoumevas (of the Eumenides), 20.
Stocdérots oKHMTpoLot Tiyuadpovmevov (of
Agamemnon, but 6:0066r7o1s is significant).
As the word comes from tiwadpys which
means fetching a price, costly, our best
translation will be worship, which is not
only a most solemn word but suggests
worth as Ty.arpe suggests price. If we
were required to render in Greek ‘Thy
most precious blood’ or ‘Thy precious
death’, aiua riwarpéoraroyv and Timadprs
apayn would be suitable equivalents.

This shade of meaning of r.mad¢eiv has
a bearing on the text of the passage
that vixady the

before us. It proves

reading of the MSs. is wrong and that
vikav (rather Nixav) the emendation of
Ceporinus (and recognized in the scholia)
is right. tiuadety demands as its object
the name of a divine being. In the
passage of Aeschylus, where it is used of
Agamemnon, he is expressly described
as a vicegerent of Zeus, and the verb
felicitously suggests the divinity that
hedges a king. And the Mss, themselves
let the secret out. Had Pindar really
written jmép mo\dav vikav, why should
mo\\av have become zo\\Gy and viKay
remained unaltered? On the other hand,
if Pindar wrote Urép mov virav, it is
quite intelligible that a scribe who did
not understand the phrase brép mo\\wv
(in proof that such want of insight existed
I may point to the scholia) altered vixay
to vixdy without at the same time altering
mo\N@v, and supplied dperdy as the object
of rywadpetv. For vmép in the sense of
superiority see /sth. 11. 36 and frag. 61.

55. o@kotot |] The MSS. give oxomod.
Ahrens restored the rarer form of the
genitive, sett gratia, and this is better
than Bergk’s cxom@, for we find dyxirra
with the genitive in Js¢h. 11. 10 pnw’
ad\abelas éras dyxicTa Baivov. For the
metaphor cf. Mem. vi. 27. To hit the
mark of the Muses would be to write a
perfect poem.—All the Mss. have Mawdy
and we need not pause to consider Motcav
and Moloas, worthless readings discussed
in the scholia.

[NEMEAN] X.

ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN WRESTLING WON AT
THE HECATOMBAEA OF ARGOS BY THEAEUS, SON
OF ULIAS, AN ARGIVE.

INTRODUCTION.

More honoured by time and richer than any Greek city, except perhaps
Thebes, in mythical associations,—impressing the visitor by numerous tombs,
heroa, and temples ascribed to legendary founders,—Argos with its sur-
rounding territory was regarded as holy ground, dedicated to Hera. As you
approached Mycenae from the north, you might feel that you were entering
‘precincts’ (Apyetoy réyevos), and the city had, conspicuous enough, vestiges
of her peculiar history, and perhaps a strange flavour of her own, which
a visitor would notice, just as nowadays we are conscious of a certain sin-
gularity in the atmosphere of such towns as Bruges or Westphalian Miinster.
In the beginning of the fifth century, she took a part in the general spread-
ing and developing of the art of sculpture, winning fame as the seat of the
school of Ageladas, who taught Polycletus: and thus she found an oppor-
tunity of decorating her streets and buildings with beseeming works in
bronze and marble, a new brilliant expression of her ancient distinctions.

While the city could point to many passages in her early history as
proof of a ‘surplus of grace’ vouchsafed from Zeus, there were Argive
families which preserved old tales specially connected with themselves—
these too contributing to determine the atmosphere of the place. In Pindar’s
time there was a family there, of unrecorded name, which looked back
fondly to a day when a remote ancestor, one Pamphaes, entertained at
his house two young strangers, who proved to be Castor and Polydeukes,
henceforward gratefully regarded by the descendants as their approved
patrons. Two members of this family, Thrasyclus and Antias, distinguished
themselves unusually by successes at public games, and a lady, perhaps their
niece, who married a certain Ulias, might imagine that through her rather
than her husband was bequeathed the quality of athletic excellence to their
son Theaeus!, and a portion of the virtue of the Dioscori.

' The date of the ode is supposed to in which the Argives and the Thebans
fall between O/. 78. 1, the year of the were opposing parties. As to the prior
‘reduction of Mycenae’, and O/. 80. 4 limit Dissen writes ‘Constanti traditione
(456 b.c.), the yearofthe battleof Tanagra, | Persidae olim non Argis vixerunt sed

186 [VEMEAN] X.

In the ode, which we are about to consider, commemorative of a
wrestling victory won by this Theaeus at the Hecatombaca, a festival of
Hera in Argos, there is no direct description of the personal qualities of
the victor, so that we can only judge of them by inference from the imposing
array of his successes, and his ambition to crown them by a yet unachieved
Olympian victory. These successes, the distinctions of his mother’s kin, and
the glories of his city, were in themselves material sufficient for an ode ; but
to these, Pindar, taking advantage of the special relation of Castor and
Polydeukes to the house of the victors mother, has adroitly superadded a
myth, including the passage of Castor’s death-wound, the strife of Polydeukes
with the sons of Aphareus, and Castor’s resurrection through the inter-
cession of his brother. In fact the Ode is divided metrically into five
systems ; in the first are enumerated the great heroes and the fair women
of Argos; in the second the exploits of Theaeus are celebrated and
his ambitions encouraged; in the third his mother’s kindred are con-
gratulated on agonistic victories and on their favoured ancestor Pamphaes,
this incident bringing us to the Tyndaridae, whose story is told in the last
two systems, the fourth closing with the death of the sons of Aphareus, and
the fifth containing the relation of the successful intercession of Polydeukes.
But these five parts are interdependent and closely connected in thought,
by means of parallel details, subordinate to a central motive!, che véctor’s
ambition to conguer at Olympia. The reflexion that the gods are faithful
might encourage Theaeus to count on the aid of the Tyndarids, and this
idea is made prominent in the myth.

This legend, handled here in Pindar’s happiest style, and touched in
Greek measure with pathos, is for a modern reader perhaps one of the
most attractive passages in Pindar, and it admits of dislocation from its
context, to be read as an independent tale. In Greek mythology those twin
riders,—suggesting the medieval Dofpelganger,—are engaging figures,
tempting us to think into their legend an element of that which we call
‘romance,’ especially through their mutual devotion, stronger than death,
and their strange double life, passed in heaven and beneath the earth on
alternate days.

Mycenis et Tirynthe; tamen hunc Pin-
darus, isropixwraros poeta, Amphitryonem
Argis dicit nutritum’, and attempts to
explain this difficulty by the supposition
that the Ode was written when Mycenae
and Tiryns had been subjected to Argos.
But this is not cogent, and Mezger justly
remarks on the freedom ‘welche sich die
Griechen in solchen Dingen erlaubten’.
In any case the reduction of Mycenae
and synoectsmus of Argolis probably
took place at a much earlier period (see
Mahaffy, //ermathena, 111. 60 sqy.).

1 I do not mean to say that this is the

‘satay

Grundgedanke, but it is a motive which
has determined the whole moulding of
the hymn.
resorts to the gratuitous hypothesis that
Theaeus had distinguished himself by some
exploit revealing brotherly love (/raterné
amorts documenta). L.

Dissen, to explain the ode,

Schmidt and
Friederichs find the main idea in l. 54
kal wav Oedy miordv yévos, and Mezger
approves of this interpretation, working
it out more fully and recognizing that the
truth of the myth ‘soll seine Hoffnung auf
einen olympischen Sieg starken’.

INTRODUCTION. 187

This divided life may be, as mythological students suggest, in its actual
origin a ‘nature-myth,’ meaning the succession of light and darkness;
certainly it might well serve, like that succession itself, as a poetical
emblem of the alternation of hardships and joys, which those who would
lead full lives must accept as a condition. ‘The sons of Tyndareus,’ as
Pindar calls them, using this name in preference to the more usual designa-
tion Dioscori ‘sons of Zeus!,—perhaps from an inclination to emphasize a
link that bound them with men,—had moreover the repute of being present
saviours and aiders, especially to mariners, thus exercising their renowned
strength in beneficent ways.

Inviting the Graces to sing the praises of Argos”, the poet ushers his
mythical reminiscences as it were into the air of art, associates them at
least with the works which the sculptors of the day were executing. The
Argives could hardly hear of Danaus and his daughters or of the tale of
Perseus, without thinking of reliefs recently wrought to adorn their temples;
for their city was ‘ablaze with countless works immortalising brave deeds.’
And thus Pindar prepares a gracious background. Danaus® first and
his fifty daughters, sitting on bright seats; then the quest of Perseus‘,
represented perhaps on horseback (as in a contemporary clay-relief of
Melos), in his dropped hand the head of Medusa, ‘the contriveress’; Io
and her son Epaphus, founders of Egyptian cities; and, meetly in a place
apart from her sisters, the singular daughter of Danaus® who declined her
father’s command and spared her husband. Next comes Diomede, whom
Athena made a ‘deathless god’; then Amphiaraus, whom earth received
in her bosom through the kind bolts of Zeus; then Alcemene and Danae, to

with sculptured representations of the
Graces and the Hours.
see the connexion of Hera with the

l Atds Kkotpo. Hymn. Hom. 33, 13
Avécxopo in early inscriptions; Doric (in
Sparta) Acécxwpo. In early times, and

Here again we

especially in Laconia, the name Z7yzdari-
dae was the most important designation.
See Roscher’s Lexikon der gr. und ron.
Mythologie, p. 11543 Where we read:
‘Das Natursubstrat ihres Wesens ist im
allgemeinen ohne Zweifel das Licht, doch
nicht in seiner Ruhe, sondern in seinem
Ubergange vom und zum Dunkel’.

2 An Argive would remember the
ancient statues of the Graces which stood
in the pronaos of the Heraeon, a
temple of Hera near Mt Euboea. See
Pausanias Il. 17, 3, &v 6€ T@ mpovdw
TH wev Napires, ayaduard eorw apxaia,
év de&a 6é kAlvn Tijs“Hpas. In this temple
was afterwards placed the great sitting
figure of Hera, in gold and ivory, wrought
by Polycletus; her crown was adorned

Graces.

3 Danaus was said to have built the
temple to Apollo Lycius (Paus. IL 19,
3) at Argos, where there was a @pdvos
Aavaod.

4 The jp@ov of Perseus was on the left
side of the road from Mycenae to Argos
(cd. 18, 1). For Medusa’s head see my
note.

> In the temple of Apollo Lycius there
was an image (éavov) of Aphrodite said
to have been dedicated by Hypermnestra,
as a monument of her acquittal for
sparing her husband (7J. 19, 6). For
the same cause she built a temple to
Artemis Peitho, where her tomb was
shown (zd. 21, I, 2).

188 (VWEMEAN] X.

whom Zeus revealed himself, proving that the repute of Argos for supremacy
in the beauty of its women was really true, inasmuch as the supreme god
selected them; and after these came Talaus and Lynceus, also notably
favoured by Zeus, who, as Pindar curiously expresses it, ‘married the fruit
of their minds to unswerving justice.’

This ‘dream of fair women’ and heroes occupies the first strophe and
antistrophos: the crowning grace, reserved for the epode, was that
bestowed upon Amphitryon, who, when his expedition against the Teleboae
had been successful, was permitted to succeed Zeus in the embraces of
Alcmene. The king of the immortals had come to his house in his dress
and favour, clad in brazen armour, with the dreadless seed of Heracles tn his
Joins. And the marriage of Heracles and Hebe, for Pindar a type of
beatitude,—with a picture of the bride, supreme in beauty, moving beside
her mother Hera, as she was constantly represented in art,—forms a kind of
consummation for the eyes of pious Argives to rest upon.

The dvass armour worn by Zeus, in this epiphany, in imitation of a
mortal, sounds a note which recurs again and again through the Ode.
Pindar sometimes selects a material thing, whose reappearance at certain
intervals—almost like a physical touch-—reminds us of an idea that we
might forget. Brass lent itself without constraint to the central idea of this
hymn, as an emblem; for, associated with contention, and as a baser metal
than gold, it could suggest the state of a mortal not yet deified, or of an
athlete not yet an Olympic victor, such a victory being symbolised by
gold elsewhere”. Figuratively, one might say that the Ode dealt with a
possible transmutation of brass to the more precious metal. The sheen of
the brass—like a torch passed on in a torch race—flashes from system to
system, until in the last verses it grows dim in the intenser light of ‘the
golden houses of heaven’.

Observing that he has not exhausted the praise of Argos, the poet passes
from the marriage of Heracles to the achievements of the victor, Theaeus, in
wrestling. The bridge to the new subject® is made by a general observation,
which seems to be suggested by the praises of the city, but is immediately
applied with emphasis to the praises of the man. ‘ Moreover men’s envy is
grievous to encounter; but nevertheless awake the lyre, and turn to thoughts
of wrestlings.’ The list of victories follows; two (the occasion of the ode),
won at the Argive Hecatombaea, where the prize was a shield of dvass ; one
at Delphi; three at the Isthmian, and three at the Nemean games. More-
over he had been twice victorious at the Panathenaea, and here was a good

1 The word occurs in every system : ° Mezger divides the ode thus:
(First epode) 1. 14 &v xaXkéous GrrNots. apxd, I—18; Kararpord, 19—223 ou-
(Second strophe) 1. 22 ayav rou xaAxeos. parbs, 22—48; meTakararpoTd, 49—-54 3
(Third antistroph.) 1. 45 xaAKov puplov. oppayls, 55—9go.
(Fourth stroph.) 1. 60 xadxéas Adyxas. The apxd, he remarks, and the oppayls
(Fourth epode) 1. 70 év mAeupator xadxdv. contain the mythical portions of the hymn,
(Fifth epode) 1. go xaAkoulrpa Kdoropos. so that in its structure it resembles the

2 Ol. 1. 1 6 6€ Xpvcos—Gampéret K.T.r. Ninth Pythian.

INTRODUCTION. 189

augury for his future success at Olympia; for the prize at the Athenian
festival, a jar of olive oil, might be considered an omen or earnest of an
olive-crown. Professing that Theaeus hesitates to utter his heart’s desire,
Pindar confides it indirectly to Zeus, whose graciousness in olden time to
the men and women of Argos might well encourage a supplication. An
Olympic victory would be ‘the perfection’ (rédos) for the career of Theaeus ;
and by using this word, appropriate to marriage, Pindar suggests Hera ‘who
perfecteth’ (rede‘a, 1. 18), and implies that an olive-wreath would be the
heavenly reward of this man, even as the marriage with Hebe was the meed
of Heracles. And it is signified that Theaeus is prepared, like Heracles, to
endure labours, in no wise expecting to enter into a heritage of glory without
hardships, but quite aware of the unexempt condition of mortal frailty.
‘Great is the glory, for the strife is hard’; and the glory desired by Theaeus
is the highest attainable, a supremacy at the games which Heracles insti-
tuted at Pisa.

In reflecting on the athletic powers of Theaeus it was natural to re-
member the similar exploits of Antias and Thrasyclus, two kinsmen of his
mother, and to record them was a compliment required by the usages of
the epinician hymn. Thus a hereditary transmission of muscular qualities
justifies, as it were, the success of the victor ; but Pindar, going a step further
back, explains the athletic vein in the family by a divine visit, vouchsafed
to a remote ancestor by those lords of athletic contention, Castor and
Polydeukes. Preparing the way for this incident, which he reserves for the
epode of the system, he opens the subject by declaring that Honour, won in
games, is a frequent visitant ‘of thy mother’s family,’ in company with the
Graces and the Tyndarids. ‘If I were a kinsman of Antias and Thrasyclus
I should make bold not to conceal the light of my eyes.’ A catalogue of
their victories follows.

In the third strophe and third antistrophos, there is imagined a parallelism
between the distinctions of the kinsfolk of Theaeus and the distinctions of
Argos, which were rehearsed in the first strophe and antistrophos.

(1) The influence of the Graces is shed over both records'. In the con-
cernment of art they were associated with the city favoured by Hera; in the
concernment of athletic prowess they are associated with the family favoured
by the Tyndarids.

lI. Xapcres. 1. 38. Xapireoou.

(2) Thrasyclus, whose name connotes inherent bravery, responds to the
brave deeds of the Argive heroes.

1. 3. pupias épyov Opacéwy evexev (Ist strophe).
1. 39. déwOeinv Kev €ov Opacv«dov (3rd strophe).

1 Mezger, remarking that the mention — rehrt...; die Unterstiitzung der Tyndari-
of the Graces in v. 37 ‘weist auf v. 1 den, die von seiner Familie besonders
zuriick’, says: ‘Die Unterstiitzung der verehrt wurden, ist ein Erbe von seinen
Chariten verdankt Theidos seiner Zugeh6- —_ Vorfahren’ etc.
rigkeit zu der Stadt, die sie besonders ve-

190 [VEMEAN] X.

(3) Victories won in chariot-races,—literal carryings of victory—by these
men, Antias and Thrasyclus (perhaps others too), attest the proverbial excel-
lence of Argive horses; just as the epiphanies of Zeus, the supreme god,
attested the supremacy in beauty of Argive women. Here the fifth line of
the third strophe answers the fifth of the first antistrophos.

lL 11. Zeds ém ’AXkunvav Aavaay re porav érov KarEepave doyov.
1 414. duparor. wxadopias yap érais Ipoirowo to immotpopov dotv k.T.d.
(4) The prizes in brass tripods and shields won by the athletes are
beyond number, like the works of art which represent the worthies of Argos.

1.3. puptars epyav Opacéwy Evexer.
1. 45. adda yadkov pupiov od duvarov.

(5) An enumeration of these prizes would be too long; even as the
tale of Perseus is a long one.

1.4. paxpa pev ra Hepoéos audi Medoicas Topyovos.
1.46. &&edéyyew" pakporépas yap apiOpnoa oxodas.

(6) Victories won at the ‘high situate’ cities of Achaea, at Tegea and
at Clitor, contributed these things of bronze ; as the cities founded in Egypt
by Io and Epaphus supplied subjects for art.

1.5% aodd\a & Abyinte “Id kricey dotn tats "Erapov mahapas.
1.47. 6évre KXelirwp Kai Teyéa kal "Ayady viBaror wdXuEs.

Having told the achievements by which the victor’s kinsfolk had gone
beyond the mark of ordinary successes, Pindar proceeds, in the epode, to
narrate how Castor came, and his brother Polydeukes, to the house of
Pamphaes, as guests; a visit which makes us cease to marvel that his
descendants are goodly athletes, seeing that those twin beings, who preside
over games ‘in conjunction with Hermes and Heracles, preeminently care
for the interests of just men; and the gods are really true to such a claim as
that of guest-plight.

The first epode and the third epode answer too. Pamphaes entertaining
the divine brothers seems to hold parley, across the interspace, with Amphi-
tryon, whose house was visited by Zeus. And just as the coming of Zeus was
an event ultimately followed by the marriage of Heracles, so the coming of
the Tyndarids was an event which may signify an Olympic victory in the
future. This approximation of thoughts is clearly indicated by the position
of the name of Heracles in the same foot of two corresponding lines.

1.17. omépp ddeipavtoy hépwv “HpakXéos* ov kar’ ”“OAvprov—.

1. 53. potpav “Eppa cai oly “Hpakdet drérovte Oaderav.
It is observable too that poipa Oa\eca is an expression suited to the
marriage of Heracles; and that it suggests the potpa eodor, pertaining to
Argos, mentioned in 1, 20%.

1 For the reading see note. strophe, are really connected with the
2 For the reading see note. preceding system.
31], 19, 20, though in the second

INTRODUCTION. 191

A second responsion confirms this explication of the chain of thought.
The first epode ends with the addition of Hebe

éott, kadXlora Oe@yr (I. 18) ;
the third epode affirms, at its close, the truth of the gods,
kat pav Oeav muorov yevos (I. 54).

Like Heracles, Theaeus has a claim to the grace of the gods!.

The story of Castor and Polydeukes, related in the fourth and fifth
systems, illustrates the declaration that the gods are faithful. It begins and
ends with the strange life of the brothers,—a twi-life, we might call it,
alternating between hollow subterranean places in Therapna where they lived
indeed, but with scarce conscious life, and the palace of Olympus. This
curious condition came about in this wise. The brothers, though peers in
strength and undissevered comrades, were not quite peers in the accident of
birth ; the two names, which they jointly bore, Tyndarids and Dioscori,
pointing to this difference, as Castor was the true Tyndarid and Polydeukes
the true son of Zeus. Thus Castor had a mortal quality in his nature and
was doomed to death. But Polydeukes, his comrade in all uses since their
associated birth, would have preferred sheer death to life unshared by his
brother ; and when the fatal hour for Castor came, Polydeukes, true to his
comradeship, won the consent of Zeus to share his own inheritance of
heavenly life with Castor, on his part sharing Castor’s inheritance of
subterranean existence. Such was the bargain with fate.

Before I point out in detail the significance of this legend for Pindar’s
purpose, it will be well to reproduce it in his own words.

‘Changing their abode daily, alternately they dwell in the house of their
father Zeus, and on the next day are hidden in the hiding places of the earth
in the hollows of Therapna, fulfilling a like destiny ; for when Castor
perished in war, Polydeukes chose this appointment of life, rather than to be
absolutely a god and inhabit heaven. For with the point of a brass spear,
Idas, angered in some matter touching oxen, wounded Castor. Them (the
Tyndaridae) Lynceus, who had a keener eye than all men on earth,
looking abroad from Mt Taygetus, saw sitting in the trunk of an oak. And
with storming feet they twain came speedily, those sons of Speed, to the
place and did swiftly contrive a great thing to do, and suffered dire distress
by the hands of Zeus. Instantly came Leda’s son (Polydeukes) in
pursuit ; and these (Idas and Lynceus) stood opposite, hard by their father’s
sepulchre. Thence catching up a headstone, grace of Hades, a polish’d
rock, they hurled it against the chest of Polydeukes ; but felled him not nor
made him to flinch. And then rushing forward he plunged brass in the

1 Observe the following responsions of I have pointed out in note on 1.
phrase: 37 that many of the expressions at the
1. 14 Uker’ és xelvov yevedy :: 1. 51 end of the third system echo the words

eyyeves Eupev. at its beginning (arpo¢7 +).

1. 16 é€ofOev :: 1. 49 ENO by TOS.

[92 [WEMEAN] X.

sides of Lynceus. But against Idas Zeus drave a fire-charged lurid thunder-
bolt ; and the brothers were consumed together all alone in the lonely place.
For men, a strife with stronger beings is hard to converse with.

(Strophe 5.) Quickly returned the Tyndarid to the might of his brother,
and found him not yet dead, but shuddering in his jaws with hard-drawn
breath. Shedding hot tears and moaning heavily, he lifted up his voice and
cried ; “O father, son of Cronus, what, oh what release from my sorrows
will there be? Upon me too, my lord, as upon him, lay the doom of death.
From a man, bereft of his friends, honour has clean departed; and of
mortals few are they who in hard-besetting need are faithful, to share in the
travail.”

(Antistrophe 5.) Thus spake he, and Zeus came and stood before him,
and pronounced these words: “ My son art thou, but after I had begotten
thee, this man was conceived by thy mother of the drops of her husbands
mortal seed. But notwithstanding, I offer thee the choice of these two lots.
Lf thou art fain to eschew death and loathsome eld and dwell thyself (without
Castor) in the mansion of Olympus, with Athene and with swart-speared
Ares, this guerdon ts thine to have, but if thy zeal ts for thy brother, and it
zs thy purpose to give him an equal share in all, then shalt thou breathe for
the half of thy days in a place beneath the earth, and for the moiety in the
golden house of heaven.” When he had thus pronounced, Polydeukes
halted not between the two ways, but unclosed the eye and then released
the voice of brass-girt Castor.’

There is a certain witchery in the myth of these two young Tyndarids,
men and also gods, alive and yet not always quick, knit closely to each
other, ever since a birth of curious circumstance, by fibres of sympathy
and features of similitude, being almost doubles or ‘shadows,’ and to
men never coming save as a pair, nor often conceived apart. There is
light about them, but it is light experiencing a change, or double (dupAvxn),
partaking of the gloom of hollow chambers at Therapna; the outgoings of
the morning and the evening have passed, shimmering, into the story of
the Laconian horsemen. For they usually rode on horses (like the Vedic
acvins); and they were not heedful of the love of women. Such love
was replaced by that mystical friendship for each other, which became a
type,—comradeship here actually overcoming death, through the conviction
that ‘there are worse things waiting for men than death’ in the world.

The names and qualities of Idas and Lynceus, with whom the Tyndarids
associate and quarrel in the highland glens of Arcadia or Laconia, suggest
(as latent in the legend) strange creatures of the woods, endowed with super-
natural powers, like Pan, and perhaps of his society,—creatures surpassingly
fleet of foot, and of sight potent to pierce through opaque masses of earth or
stone or tree!. Idas may be ‘the man of the wood’; and Lynceus is the
‘lynx-man,’ whose eye is keener than all on earth ; which reminds us of the

1 Schol. on v. 62; 6 6¢ Avyxeds d&vdep- —-yevdueva Bérew, dav did THs Spvds Tov
Kys wv, Wore Kal did NOwy Kal did ys Ta Kaoropa érpwoe NOyx7-

INTRODUCTION. 193

keen vision of Pan (o&éa Sepxouevos), whose back was covered with the
spotted skin of a lynx:
Aaidhos & emi vata Sadowdy
Avykos exer!
Their father’s name, moreover, Aphareus, the Speedy or Sudden one, suits
the sphere of the swift children of the forest.

But while the story suggests this ‘Arcadian’ origin, it is a digression
here, for Pindar is not concerned with this idea. He is rather concerned
to bring out a parallel between the myth of the Tyndarids and the
circumstances of Theaeus.

Let us see. The heart’s desire of Polydeukes was that he and his
brother should share Olympus together, even though this implied a mixture
of hardship with happiness. The heart’s desire of Theaeus was a victory at
Olympia, for which he was prepared to endure travail. The parallel is thus
indicated by a responsion in the first lines of the second and the fifth
epode.

l. 31 Goris ducdAGrat wept
exxatev aéOrwv Kopudais.
: 1. 85 ei b€ Kaowyyynrov mépe

papvacat.
In both cases a prayer is directed to Zeus, and in the same metre; and
in both cases the real petition is not declared. In the last lines of the second
antistrophos Pindar entreats Zeus for Theaeus :

l. 29 Zed marep, Tay pav Epatar dpevi ovya Fou oropa’ wav d€ réXos
ev TW epyov"

In the last lines of the fifth strophe Polydeukes addresses Zeus :

matep Kpovior, tis 57 vous
1. 77 €ooera revOéwy ; Kai euol Odvarov aiv tod eriterdoy, avak.
olyeTau Tysd K.T.A.
In 1. 29 réXos leaves the issue doubtful ; in 1. 77 the réAos named is not that
which is desired.

Again the real desire of Polydeukes, uttered by Zeus, is compared with
the request of Theaeus, under the form of a paronomasia. To both there
were two alternatives open; they might ask for happiness, without a
disposition to undergo hardship, or they might ask for it not unconditioned.
For Polydeukes this alternative is stated plainly at the end of the fifth
antistrophos ; for Theaeus it is suggested at the end of the second anti-
strophos.

1, 30 (ev rly Epywr") ovS auoxOe kapdia mpoohépwy TOApay TapatTettrar Xapwy.

et ev Oavarov te uyav Kal ynpas amex Oopevor
1. 84 avros oikeiy altos OvAvprov Oédets K.T.AL:

—this would have been the wrong request for Polydeukes.

1 See Homeric Hymn (xrx.) zo Pam, ll. t4 and 23.

194 [WEMEAN | X.

But the analogy, most evident in the conclusion, is carried on, directly or
indirectly, throughout the whole passage. Zhe son of Leda in |. 66 responds
to the son of Ulias in 1. 24.

24 Ovria mais €vOa—
66 nde Andas mais—

and we observe that, as Theaeus derived his valour from his mother,
Polydeukes inherited his divinity from his father. And both were engaged
in ‘a brazen contest,’ associated with oxen :

1. 60 tov yap "Idas audi Bovaly ras xodabeis erporev xahkéas oyxas aka,

and, in l. 70, Polydeukes drives brass (yaAx6v) home in the sides of Lynceus.
Theaeus was concerned in such a contest at Argos,

], 22 dyay tor yadKeos
cr ¢
Sapov orpvver mort Bovbvaiav “Hpas.

The requirements of this analogy explain the curious phrase yaAkeos ayer ;
for a direct reference to the prize, a shield of bronze, would have affected the
comparison with a sort of awkwardness, a prize not answering well to a
weapon of offence.

Again the contest is in each case described as a labour or trial (révor,
in 6th line of 2nd strophe, 76v@ in 6th line of 5th strophe)".

But the direct analogy of the deeds of Polydeukes with those of Theaeus
is not continued throughout ; the comparison is partly sustained by a sort of
reflexion, through an intermediate parallel, namely the list of eminent
Argives in the first system. Thus in the last three lines of the fourth
antistrophos we find responsions connecting them with the last three lines
of the first strophe.

l. 4 Medoiaas Topyovos.
1. 64 €unoarr wkéas.

Here the contrivance of Idas and Lynceus is likened to the thought of an
arch ‘contriveress,’ and the comparison of Polydeukes to Perseus is
implied. In 1. 65 the radXdpacs Avs answer to the waddpats ’Eradov (son
of Zeus) in 1. 5 ; in both cases Zeus was a present help to his sons, begotten
of Io and of Leda.

Moreover Polydeukes is compared to Hypermnestra. Just as death
threatened him from the spot where his foes stood fard by their father’s
tomb, so Hypermnestra was threatened by death through keeping her
sword hard pressed in her scabbard,

1. 6 €v kovled katacyxoica Eidos.
, A -
1. 66 tupBo oxedov ratpwio.

And as she did not flinch (ov maperAdyx6n), though her queenly seat with
her sisters (dyAads Opdvos, see ay aoOpdvwr 1. 1) might be converted into an

1 The responsion was observed by kapdia 1. 30.
Mezger, who compares also 006’ dudxOw

INTRODUCTION. 195

emblem of the world of death, even so the headstone (dyadp’ ‘Aida) hurled
at Polydeukes did not make him to quail.

We have already seen how the doughty deeds of the maternal kinsfolk of
Theaeus are compared to the glories of Argive legend. Now we understand
that the list of famous Argives serves as an interposed mirror, reflecting the
tale of the Dioscori into the tale of the victories of this Argive family. That
the ultimate purpose is to institute a comparison between the third system
and the fourth, by means of a common reference to the first, is indicated by
a responsion connecting the third and fourth epodes :

]. 50 kat kaovyyyjrou Tlodvdevkeos.
1. 68 euBarov orépym Todvdevxeos.

The aid rendered by Zeus to Polydeukes, in slaying one of his foes by
the lightning which consumed them both, was an omen of the higher favour
which he granted to his son, a little later. Similarly the jar of olive oil won
by Theaeus at Athens was an omen of an olive wreath to be won at Olympia.
This is brought out by yaia kavOeioa wvpi in |. 35 (5th verse of 2nd epode),
and wupdopov and é€xaiovr’, ll. 71 and 72 (5th and 6th verses of 4th epode).
Similarly the brass, won by Theaeus at Argos and by his kinsmen elsewhere,
is contrasted tacitly with gold, the emblem of Olympian victory ; just as the
brass weapons of Amphitryon are contrasted, tacitly too, with the golden lot
of Heracles, reflected upon the mortal hero ; and as the brass, which flashed
in the combat of the Tyndarids with their adversaries, is contrasted, now
explicitly, with the golden sheen of Olympus.

But with ‘the golden houses of heaven’ the hymn does not conclude.
The victor, for whom the legend of the Dioscori is a figure teaching him
that ‘the gods are true,’ had not yet attained his heart’s desire,—toward
such attainment a season of hardship and endurance being still in prospect,
and the end, like all things dependent on mortal frailty, uncertain. And
therefore with the unerring instinct of the Greek artist, who is never
impatient of the divine repression demanded for the perfection of art,
Pindar turns our eyes from the gold and guides them to the brass girdle
of Castor, now ‘released.’ When the music has unfolded the vision of
Olympian happiness, we slide down from the heights, and are reminded
that it is earth still.

1 The importance of this statement ca’ (words) an betonter Stelle als vorletztes
pay Oeav rigTtov yévos (1. 54) is accentua- Wort der Strophe (Epode) steht. Der
ted by the echo in 1. 78 raipo 5’ év révw Mythus enthalt also ohne Frage das Lod
migTol Bpor&y, ‘wobei zu beachten ist, der gittlichen Treue’ (Mezger).
dass beidemal das entscheidende Wort

13—2

196 [WEMEAN] X.

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.
A.

Pals A Qe GoeAtvy—v-G4tuH- —- VV VU A (8).
Ds Ds. (he $9 a HV ev = HSU Hn (8).
B.

UU.3,4. 6 4Fom——— UHV VHA 40 H- SHU HU LUA (12).
U. 5. if SS VV eV ee ev HU A (8).
v. 6. Gi sy a ee eH tf ee ee ev tA A (12).

Thus the strophe falls into two parts, of which the first (A) is antistrophic,
and the second (B) mesodic,—the mesode being of the same length (péye6os)
as the two measures of A.

The formula is

Site INS tis A}
EPODE.

A.
hy Me (44; 4 eV eH A CGH
Ua2 nae FG eH KA (7).

B.
VU.3,44 0 4FoGe— uy HSUEH UV RH he UV HU HHH «CIID:
U. 5. Gite Ol OMe ON OOS eS (7).
Uv. 6. bY’. GO a er eK (11).

The structure of the epode is exactly the same as that of the strophe,
except that the peyéOy are shorter, the formula being

Fi] Mei Tbs

The rhythm of this Ode is dactylo-epitritic.

[NEMEONIKAT] I.

OEITATQ:

APTLEIQ.

TIAAAISTH:.

oTp. a.

Aavaod Todw dyaobpovev te TevTiKOVTAa Kopayv, Napuites,
"Apyos “Hpas Sdma Ocomperes vuveite’ préyetar 8 apetats

1. dyAao8pévev] This epithet is ap-
plied to the Muses also (O/. XIII. 96)
and refers to their representation in works
of art as seated. See above, Zrtroduction,
p- 187. The first scholia on this Ode
are worth quoting at length:

éviol dacw els melous vikas Tov émlyiKov
ocwrTeTax Oar’ NaBety yap a’rov Kal "loOua
kal IWdua kat Néwea. epi dé rdv ’Oupm-
wiwv etxerat bre pyol’ Let marep, Tov
ye wav €parac[l. 53]. 6 de Mivdapos dre
Bot outro érawely Tas matpldas Tw veEviKN-
KéTwy aOpolvew elwOe TH Tempayyeva Tals
moveot Tepipavy, Kaas év TH BOT, TS 7
apxn: Iounvov 7 xpucnv\dkatov Me-
Mav [fr. 29]. 6 Se Abyos' Huvetre, w
Xdpires, tiv Tov Aavaotd mwodw kal Tas
mevrjnKovTa avrov Ovyarépas. § 0 dé vois
Odos* Thy Tod Aavaod 6d Kal TOY TevT?-
KovTa Ouyarépwv avrod, pnut dé rd” Apyos,
nis mods “Apyelwy olxntnpioy Oewdécra-
Tov éore THS “Hpas, buvjcare, & Xdpires.
€ore O€ mapa 7d ‘Ounpixdv*

nrow émot rpets ev mond Ppirrarai elor

TONNES,
"Apyos Te Xmdptrn Te Kal evpvayua
Mouxjvn.
kal Kad\Xiuaxos*
Tov pev apirkvdns etvis dvAKe Avos
"Apyos €Oew Udidv ep eov Naxos" dda
yevebry
Znvos ows sxorin Tpnxvs deOdos Eor.

(roy in this fragment of Callimachus is the
Erymanthian boar).

2. @eomperrés] meet habitation for a
god.

odéyerat x.7.d.] The usual explanation
of these words will not bear close ex-
amination. If dperat and épya Opacéa
are hardly distinguishable, there is no
meaning in évexeyv. One may seek to
avoid the difficulty by translating dperats
by daudibus, but it is clear that dper? is
not a synonym of érawos. Let us observe
Pindar’s metaphorical use of the verb
préyw. In Pyth. Vv. 45 we read,

*AdeEBidda, oe

Xapures.

& nixowor pdéyovre

pakaptos, ds Exes

Kal meda péyay Kdjarov

Noywr Ppeprarwv

pevapenov
and in sth. VI. 23

préyerar dé lomddxoror Moicas.
This figurative illumination is attributed
in the first passage to the Graces and in
the second passage to the Muses, that is
to the deities who preside over art and
literature. And similarly the sentence
under consideration is immediately pre-
ceded by an invocation of the Graces, so
that we are left in no doubt touching the
agency by which the city is lit up.
Monuments of marble or monuments of

198

fupiats Epywv Opacéwy evexev.

[NEMEONIKAI] I’.

Kaxpa wev ta Iepoéos audit Medotcas Topyovos'
Torra & Aiyirr@ “Id Kricev aotn tats "Eradov traddpas. 5

song (uvaupja Nb6ywv, compare the lines
quoted from the 5th Pythian) might both
claim the patronage of Charites—charis
being, so to speak, exhaled by every
work of art,—and in the present case the
former are clearly intended. The Heroon
of Argos was adorned with Argive heroes
and heroines in marble, and by the
epithet dyAaofpéywy Pindar calls this to
mind at the very outset. It follows that
the aperai here meant are works of art,
and we may translate thus ;

It is litten by countless memorials of

valiant deeds.
If we were rendering in ancient Greek
such a phrase as ‘the tale of Troy di-
vine illustrated by Flaxman’, pdéyecOar
would perhaps be a suitable verb to
use.—For dpetr see further Appendix
A, note 9.

4. pakpa pév x«.7..] Zhe tale of
Perseus and the Gorgon Medusa is long.
Ta apdl—means ¢he labours about; Dis-
sen compares Aeschylus, Prometheus, 702
Tov dau’ éauris aOdov. Schol. paxpa
otv, pnol, TA Omynpara Ta TeEpi Ilepoéws
a émpate kara Thy Lopyéva.—Pindar goes
with some fulness into this story in the
Twelfth Pythian, written for Midas of
Acragas, who had gained a victory in
flute-playing. The head of Medusa was
supposed to lie buried in a mound near
the agora of Argos. Pausanias II. 21, 6,
Tov de &v TH ayopa Tod ’Apyelwy oiKodo-
pjpearos ov pakpay xOua ys éorw* éy be
airy KelcOar tiv Medovons déyovse ris
Dopyévos kepanjv.

5. todd 8’ x.7.d.] The mss. have

a
KarwxicOey (B Kxarwxobev), This does
not suit the metre, which requires here
~~-~~. The corrections proposed can-
not be seriously entertained, as none of
them involves an explanation of the cor-

ruption, I may mention Boeckh’s ra kar-
wkicev, Hermann’s 67a éxriOev, Momm-
sen’s Ta karéxriMev, Rauchenstein’s kara
vaterat, and Bergk’s transposition, mad-
pos Karévacbev dorea Tats ’Emdagov. The
schol. explains the text found in the Mss.;
ToANa 0 av etn Néyetv, Orws ev TH AlyiTTH
KaTtwxloOncayv modes Ud Tav Tod Hrddou
XELpav.

It strikes one as strange that, in this
roll of the worthies and the fair women
of Argos, the illustrious heroine Io
should not be recorded by name. The
Danaids are mentioned, and a long verse
is devoted to Hypermnestra. Although
Perseus is recorded in 1. 4, his mother
Danae is named, along with Alcmena
in l. 11. We might expect similarly to
read the name of Io as well as that of
her son, Epaphus. Now it is remarkable
that in the Prometheus of Aeschylus
(1. 834) the colonisation of Egypt is
attributed to Io and her children, coz-
jointly :

ovTOs o OdwceEr THY Tplywvov és xOova

Neary, of 6) Thy makpay dmo.klav,

"Tot, mémpwrat col Te Kal Téxvols KTloa.
This suggests that Pindar wrote

AITYTTTOQIOQKTICEN.

It is evident that one | might have easily
fallen out; the result would then be
wxticev, Which would be inevitably cor-
rected to @kirev. As the sense of the
sentence, which had lost its true nomi-
native, now demanded a passive verb,
w@xigbev was an easy change, and the
defective metre was roughly supplied by
the addition of kar-.

The sole objection which can be
alleged against this restoration is that
it involves an irregularity in the metre,
namely the condensation of two shorts
into one long. But this is an irregularity
which Pindar not infrequently allows

[(WEMEAN] X.

199

oud’ ‘Trepprjaotpa tapeTrAayxOn, pmovolapov €v Koved KaTa-

ayoica Eidos.

Avopndea § duBpotov EavOa mote VAavKdris EOnke Oeov' avt.a’.
yaia 8 év OnBais Urédexto Kepavywbeica Avos Bédeow
pavri OlKrElSav, Tror€<uo1o védos’

himself. For example in the Seventh
Nemean, |. 35, we have Neomrd\emos
where we should expect five shorts.
Other instances will be found in the
Third Nemean (epode, cf. Il. 20, 41, 62,
83), Sixth and Seventh Nemeans etc.—
There is no objection to the hiatus after
w in arsis; cf. for instance Zstim. 1. 61
“Hpodory eropev.

If we observe (1) that an express
mention of Io by name seems almost
imperatively demanded in this list of
Argive heroes and heroines,—Epaphus,
who had no personal connexion with
Argos, being scarcely an adequate sub-
stitute,—(2) that the expression rats ’Ead-
gov Tadduats suggests that Epaphus is
represented as the agent of someone else,
(3) that in the passage quoted from the
Prometheus Yo is associated with her
children in the foundation of Egyptian
cities; and then find that the reading
to which these considerations point, ex-
plains satisfactorily the corruption which
has beset the text of our MSS.; we are
entitled to conclude that the restoration
admitted in the text rests upon a satis-
factory basis.

6. maperdrayx9n] stray from the true
way. The active occurs in Olymp. VII.
31 al 6¢ ppevav rapayal mapémdayéEar kal
copov.

povoapov «.7.r.] having kept her
dissentient sword wunsheathed. For povo-
Wagos unconsenting see Aeschylus, Szzp-
pliants, 385. The Mss. have povopador,
to agree with Eos, and this is more
poetical than povdpados, which was re-
stored by Hecker, (whom most editors
have followed) on the strength of a
scholium.—Pindar has the form kodeds

in Vemean 1. 52, and the mss. have
ko\ew here, but the metre
kovAem which Hermann restored; com-
pare the double forms “Odvymos and
OvAupTos.

Horace’s familiar splendide mendax et
in omne virgo nobilis aevum is resonant

demands

and catching; but an ear which is a
little impatient of rhetoric in poetry may
prefer Pindar’s ov rapetAdyxOn. Horace
declaims, with an epigrammatic turn,
the maiden’s praise, in the tone of an
advocate; Pindar declares her justified,
with the more effective reserve of a
judge.

7. Avopysea] From a scholiast on
this line we learn that Diomede, accord-
ing to Ibycus, married Hermione and
lives in immortality with the Dioscori;
also that (according to Polemon) he
enjoyed divine honours in Italy, at Meta-
pontum and Thurii. Another note gives
an account of his vengeance on Melanip-
pus who had wounded his father Tydeus.
Tydeus in his wrath felt the craving of a
cannibal and tasted the flesh
enemy, thereby incapacitating himself to

of his

receive the guerdon of immortality pro-
mised by Athena, who transferred her
high gift to the son,—xal ovx éort mapa
rots iaroptkots ebpécOat avtov Tov Odvarov.
Argos preserved the shield of Diomede
in the temple of Athena, and Callimachus
tells how it was laved along with the
Palladion (brought by Diomede from
Troy) in the Noerpa TadXddos (1. 35):
OOdva, pépera 5é kat a Acoundeos doris,
ws €00s “Apyelwy Totro maNaloratov.
g. tMod€pnoro véhos] This expression
is Homeric, applied in the Iliad to Hector
(P 243). Editors compare fedmina belli,

200 [NEMEONIKAI]] I’.
Kai yuvativ KaANKOMOLOW aploTEvEL TAAL 10

‘
Zeds ém ’Arkpmrjvav Aavaav te podrtov érov Katépave oyov'

matpi 8 ’Adpdatowo AvyKet Te fpevav Kaprov evOeia cvvappokev

diKq"

/ > ’ AN ’ / ¢ J 7 / ’ /
Opévre § aiypav ’Apditpiwvos. o 5 OAB@ Péptatos eT. a.
:
ixer’ és Kelvou yevedy, ere ev YarKéous OTrdoLs
TnreBoas évapovte Fou oyu éevdopevos 15

and éudpvaro icos déAXy. (Medes belli in
Virgil means a cloud of arrows.)—For
the valour of Amphiaraus and his fate
see the preceding Ode; also Olymp.
VI. 17 dudorepov pdvtw 7’ ayabov Kal
There was a temple
to Amphiaraus in Argos; see Pausanias,
Il. 23, 2.—The participle xepavywOels
occurs in Hesiod, Zheogony, 859.

10. Kal yuvarel «.7.A.] For fatr-
haired dames also Argos is peerless since
olden time, and the visitations of Zeus to
Alemena and Danaa declared the report
merely true.

érév, for rov of the Mss., is due to
Bergk; see note on Mem. VII. 25. As

doupt papvacba.

Zeus is supreme among the gods, his
choice establishes the supremacy of Ar-
give beauty—this is the force of érov.
Schmid reads rofrov from the scholia.

12. tmatp\8 x.7..] So lemma D for
matpt 7, which however is possibly right.
—Talaus was the father of Adrastus;
Lynceus was the husband of Hyper-
mnestra.— For kaptév dpev@v compare
Pyth. i. 74,

6 6¢ ‘PadduavOus ef mémparyev Ore ppevav

axe Kaprov duwunrov, ovd amdratoe

Oupov répmerar Evdobev k.T.r.
This phrase is perhaps the nearest Greek
Zeus wedded
their hearts to unswerving justice.

Lynceus was buried with Hyperm-
nestra, (Pausanias II. 23, 2), and near
them Talaus, rovrwy dé dmavrikp) Tadaod
The house of
Adrastus was shown in Argos (20. 23,

2).

equivalent to our /eart.

tov Biayros éore Taos.

13. @Opepe x.7.d.] And he nourished
the spear-point of Amphitryon, that is,
favoured the success of the warrior
Amphitryon. Compare Kdoropos aixud,
Isth. V. 33, and Terpander (ap. Plutarch
Life of Lycurgus, c. 21)5

év0? alixud te véwv Adder Kal Motoa

Avyeta

kal Alka evpvdyua.

6 8 OdABw déptatos x.7..] But he
(Amphitryon) “ad the surpassing fortune
to enter into kinship with Zeus (xelvov),
when in bronze armour, in the similitude
of the slayer of the Teleboae etc. The
scholiast wrongly refers 6 & to Zeus and
kelvov to Amphitryon, but explains ker’
és ryevedy rightly: ‘Zeus procreated
Heracles on the first day, on the next
Amphitryon procreated Iphicles, and the
stocks of both were mingled’. Mezger
translates ‘er trat in seine (des Zeus)
Verwandschaft ein’, and so Dissen ‘in
affinitatem Iovis venit’. Compare Pyth.
Ix. 84 Téxe of kal Znvl mryeioa Saippwv
ANKuiva Sddmev cbévos viav.

émet is explained by the scholium:
GOXov yap ) ’ANKunvn Tov EauTAs ydmov
mpovOnke TH Tos TeBdoas KaTamone-
unhoovrt. The Teleboae were a people
who dwelled in Acarnania.

15. é€vapovtt For] B B have évapé*
tt ol, D has évape. Hermann
(followed by Bergk in his 4th ed.)
read évapev’ Tw 6.

Tl ol.

Schmid proposed
The
scholium does not bear grammatical
analysis :

évapovrt, Rauchenstein évapovre ol.

bre yap rots bros avatpovvTos avrou

[VEMEAN] X.

201

aQavatov Bacirels avrav éondOev
omépu adeimavtov bépwv ‘Hpaxdéos* ot Kat’ "OXvpmov
ddoyos “HBa redrcig mapa patépe Baivoiw eats, eaddoTa Oedv.

otp. 8.

+ an lj Id
ayv mot oToua TavT avaynoacO, dowv “Apyeiov Eyer TEWEVOS
ra ye naar’,

rods TdeBoas, Thvikatra Thy oYw apo-
forwbels 6 Leds TS ’Audirptwr Kal ovrws
els Tov olkov €\Ocv THs "AXKuHns éwA7-
clacev airh Kal tov ‘Hpaxdéa eorrecpev.
Hence Mommsen deduced évapéortos,
which Mezger accepts. The circumstance
that évapovros involves a deviation from
the metre of the corresponding lines in
the other epodes (introducing —~ in place
of --) would not be a fatal objection;
but it is impossible to see how the reading
of the Mss. arose from évapovros. The
scholium does not prove a genitive abso-
lute. Hermann’s reading appears to do
more justice to the Mss.; but this ap-
pearance is deceptive. The questions
arise—why should & have fallen out?
why should a simple word like 7@ have
been corrupted? And it must be ob-
served that é€v yadkéors 6rdos protests
against any reading which retains évaper ;
for the picture clearly is, not Amphitryon
fighting in Acarnania in bronze armour,
but Zeus in bronze armour entering his
house in Thebes. This consideration
recommends Rauchenstein’s évapovrte oi,
which, I am persuaded, is the true read-
ing. The order of words is most felici-
tous. TdeBdoas évapovre immediately suc-
ceeding xa\xéors Gros suggests, without
bringing this expedition into undue pro-
minence, that the armour was supposed
to be spoils (éapa) taken from the
Teleboae. Zeus came in Amphitryon’s
similitude and dressed as he would
appear after the success of his enter-
prise. —The cause of the corruption was
a false division of the participle. évapov
was read as third plural (for #vapov) after
émel, and subsequently corrected to the
singular; Te was accented, and left, though

really unmeaning. To -7? fot in the other
epodes corresponds a long syllable; but
cf. Vem. V. 10 where marépds corresponds
to ~— and see note on I. 5 above.

17. adelpavrov] zztrepid, applied also
in Zsth. I. 12 to Heracles, Tov ddetuavrov
"Adkuhva Téxev maida.

od x.7.d.] whose wife Hebe liveth in
Olympus, fairest of the gods, walking
beside her mother ‘who maketh perfect’.
Compare the last lines of the First
Nemean, for Heracles’ union with Hebe;
also Hymn. Hom. xv. (addressed ‘to
Heracles the lion-hearted’) 7, 8

vov 8 On Kara Kaddv bos vipoevros

ONrou
vale. Tepmouevos Kal exer KahNopupov
"HByy.
reXela is the designation of Hera as the
patroness of marriage: schol. éore yap
avTh yaundta Kal fvyla.
rédos dia TO TEAELOTYTA Blov KaTacKEud few
(reproduction being regarded as the ré)os
of the individual). Aeschylus (frag. 373)
has"Hpa redela, Znvos evvala Sduap. In
the Heraeum near Mycenae there was
an altar adorned with a relief of the
marriage of Hebe and Heracles; see
Pausanias II. 17, 6 Bwuds éxwv emeipyac-
pévov Tov Aeyomevorv “HBys kat “HpaxXéous

éore O€ 6 yamos

yduov* otros wey apyvpou K.T.r.

19. Bpaxd por ordopa x.7.d.] Aly
mouth is of small measure to rehearse all
the fair things wherein the precincts of
Argos have share. Compare sth. V1. 44
Bpaxds e&txécOar xadkdmedov Oedy Edpar,
one is of too small stature to come unto the
bronze-floored abode of the gods, For
dvayeio Gar compare /sth. V. 56 €uol €
pakpov macas dvayjoacd’ aperas (Minga-
relli’s restoration; MSS. a@yjoac6’), and

202

lal rn la
poipav éodav’ éote dé Kal Kopos avOpdTwv Bapvs avTiacat’

[NEMEONIKAI] I’

GAN Opws evVyopdov eyerpe NUpar,

Kal Tadaicpatov AaBe ppovTis.

> / /
ay@v Tol “YaXKeEos

Samov otpiver ToTt BovOvaiay “Hpas aéOd\wv Te Kpiow*
Otria mais 0a vxdoats dis éoxev Oevaios evdpopwv abav

TOVOV.

avt. PB.

éexpatnae Sé kai To?” EdXava otparov v0dn, Tvye TE pod@v 25
kal tov “loOpot cal Nenéa otépavov Moicaow ewx’ apocat,
Tpis pev ev TovToLo TUAGLCL AaXwr,

Ol. 1X. 80 elnv ebpynovers avaryetobat
mpoapopos év Moody Sippy. In a well-
known passage in the catalogue ‘ Homer’
despairs of enumerating the heroes, if he
had even ten mouths.

The whole city of Argos is regarded as
in a certain sense ‘holy ground’, dedi-
cated to Hera, as Pindar expresses by
Dissen compares Soph. vectra,
5 dicos Ivdxou Képyns.

20. €or. S€ x.7.r.] There is moreover
the envy of men, grievous to converse
with.
word; here it means 7z7cu7.

TEMEVOS.

dvtidoa. is properly a neutral
The schol.
explains ‘men are not pleased to hear the
wondrous deeds of others, but they are
straightway sick of the praises sounded,
for envy’.

a1. GAN Spws «.7.'.] Watheless,
awake the harmonious strings of the lyre,
and turn to thoughts of wrestling matches.
Compare OJ. 1X. 13 avdpds aud mandaic-
pacw popuryy eel Cwr.

22. ayav xadxeos] Zhe brazen con-
test, so called because the prize at the
Heraea was ashield of bronze. Compare
Ol. vil. 83 6.7 év “Apye xadkos Eyvw vu,
the bronze in Argos knew him. The
victor was also crowned with myrtle.
Compare the schol. on O/. V11. 83:

redeirat Kara Td "Apyos Ta "Hpaa & Kal
‘BxaréuBaca kade?rat mapa 7d éxardv Bods
ObecOar TH GEG, Td 5é EraONov aomls XaNK7,
6 6¢ crépavos Ex pupoivns.

This elucidates BovOvelay. As for Argive

shields, they were said to have come into
use in the reign of Proetus (Pausanias 1.
25, 6).

evpopwv] So the Mss. In the scholia
is mentioned a variant, evppdver :

ypaperat 6¢ kal evppivwv* edpbpwr per,
rel evpopol claw oi Tovoiro mévor TH
dpicra GOda évqvoxévar* evppdvwy 5€, TOY
edppavTiKav.

evpdpwyv has been taken in two ways,
(1) easily borne, (2) fruitful (Mezger).
[Bergk prints ev@épws, Schmid (uncriti-
cally) proposed dvcpépwv.] The first
rendering (‘facile ab eo perlatos’, Dissen)
is hardly possible; in this sense, epopos
could only mean “ght, which is not
suitable. On the other hand, Mezger’s
explanation fruitful, remunerative, gives
excellent sense.

25. “EAAava otpatdov] the athletic
world of Hellas; so Pyth. XI. 50:

Ilv@ot re yuuvor emt ordd.ov KaraBavtes

nreyeav

‘EdAavida orpariav wKirare.

Tvxa, under the guidance of fortune, on a
lucky day.

26. apdoat] ie gave the Muses a
fruitful argument, lit. soil for the Muses
to plough, see note on Mem. VI. 32.
This is a continuation of the metaphor in
eipbpuv, 1. 24.

27. tpls x.7.r.] Scilicet orépavor.
Schol. tpis ev yap Krnpwhels évixnoe Ta
"ToOuca: wévtou yap mdas ele Tov “lo Oudv
dua 7O oTevdv.

[WEMEAN] X.

203

\ \ \ lal / > , / /
tpis d€ Kal oeuvois damrédous ev "Adpactein voyo.
Zed matep, TOv wav Epatar ppevi ovya Fou ordua* wav dé Tédos

> \ ” ~ 9 / / / /~ lal
év tly Epywv’ ovd aoyO@ Kapdia Tpocpépwv TOAmav TrapatTeiTaL

YapL"

yvor acidow Ged TE Kai boTLS apiAdaTaL TreEpl

éoxyatav acOdwv Kopudais.

30
ér. 2’.

tratov 8 écxev Mica

“Hpaxréos teOuov' adeial ye wev auBoradav

28. tpls «.7..] At Nemea. For
the ascription of the foundation of the
Nemean games to Adrastus, see /Vev.
Vill. 51. Schol. tpls 6€ ra Néwea xara,
tiv “Adpdotov diolknow Kal vowobérnow
Tedovmeva. Render, according to the
foundation of Adrastus, Compare Jsth.
IT. 38 év ILave\Navwv vouw, according to
the universal use of the Greeks.

29. Zevmdrep x.7.\.] O father Zeus,
his mouth is dumb of his heart's desires ;
in thee lieth every tissue of works; nor
doth he with heart unapt for totl sue
amiss for a grace, but he hath the addition
of endurance.

The desire of Theaeus was an Olym-
pian victory. For épawa: in sucha context,
cf. Pyth. XI. 50 Oeddev epatunv Kaha.
tmapattetrat has been explained in three
ways: (1) closely with ovdé, in the sense
of deprecate, decline; ‘neque profecto
ignavo animo deprecatur gloriam’, Dissen;
(2) ‘eine neben hinausgehende Bitte thun,
die keinen Erfolg haben kann, weil sie
verkehrt bittet’ (cf map@duev, mapdyey,
etc.) Mezger, and so Rumpel ‘tenere
precor’; (3) Schol. rapa cod airetrac.

Mezger’s interpretation, fray anitss,
misask, is clearly right, and a confir-
mation of it will be found in my note on
1. 84. Pindar says that Theaeus does not
trust in faith alone; he would fain gain
his desire by both grace and bravery.

31. yvor del8w] Zhe burthen of my
verses ts well known both to god and to
whosoever contendeth for the summit of
the supreme contests (Zeus and all athletes
know what I mean).

One scholiast referred écr1s especially
to Theaeus, and his corrupt note (evyvwo-
Ta O€ Néyw aiT@e TH Hew kal TH Oecalw
Goris Oeratos apuh\Grac x.7.A.) uNneces-
sarily gave rise to Hermann’s conjecture
yurd Oealw Te kal doris, and to Kayser’s
ot for Oeg. Philip Melanchthon, from the
continuation of the same scholium, sub-
stituted kopuypas for kopydats.—For the
collocation of ésyaros and xopudd cf.
OF Ginnie

ém’ dAdotor 8’ GAOL peyddor* 7d

éoxatov Kopypovra Baciredor,
For the application of kopydd to the
Olympian games, see O/, Il. 14 €6os
ON parov véuwy adéO\wv Te Kopupav.

32. Umatov x.7.A.] Lor most high ts
the institution of Heracles which Pisa
won (cf. Ol. VI. 69 TeOuov péy.oror
déO\wv, and Mem. XI. 27). Umarov éaxev
is an etymological explanation or analysis
of éoxdrwy. The same connexion of
words is suggested in /sth. VI. 36:

Mpouaxwv av’ Ouov, évO’ apioror

éoXov Toemoo vetkos Eo XaTaLs EXTiowW,
where the noblest encountered war, with
hopes most counter to then.

33. adetal yepév x.7.A.] Szveet, surely,
prelude-wise at their ceremonies the chants
of the Athenians twice celebrated his
praise; and in earth burnt in the fire,
came to the brave people of Hera the fruit
of the olive, even within the walls of
painted vessels.

Olive oil enclosed in a painted vase
was the prize at the Panathenaic festival.
Pindar regards the success of the victor
at Athens as an omen of future successes

204

[NEMEONIKAI] I’,

év teretais dis “APavaiwy viv oppat

t ; / \ / \ \ 5) /
KoOpacav’ yala oe Kkavieioa Tupi KapTos €alas 35
” a \ Sieh, \ > > / ig U
éuorev “Hpas Tov evdvopa Naov év ayyewy EpKEerW TAULTOLKLNOLS.

> A / Lal / / / € / /
eérrer 5é, Oevaie, waTpHwy TodvyvwTOY YyEéVvos UMETEPWY OTP. Y.

at Olympia; the olive-juice of Athena
being a sort of prelude (aduBodaday) to
the olive leaves of Zeus.
above, /ntroduction.

opr means a solemn voice or utterance,
(compare Milton’s ‘saintly shout’) and is
appropriate to the context with TeNerais.
It does not occur elsewhere in Pindar,
save in two fragments; fr. 75, 1. 19
axet T dudal peréwy ody avdots (an in-
stance of the schema Pindaricum), and
fr. 152 medoooTedKTw Knplwy éud yAuKE-
pwrepos oupd, wey voice more sweet than
honey or the honeycomb.—In Iliad ® 364
dpBorAdSynv is used of the surface of
a seething cauldron; but in the Hymn
to Hermes 1, 426 it has the meaning
which belongs to it in this passage.

35. yala «.7.A.] Schol. yatav de
kexauuevny elre Thy USpiav ev y TO EAaLov*
OmTarar yap O Képaos.

See more fully

dua 6€ TovTOU
onuatver Tovs Ta ILavabjvara vevixnKoras *

Tidevra yap ev ’AOjnvais ev éraOdov Taker °

Vdplac mAjpers edalov. dw Kal KadnXl-
puaxos *
Kal yap “A@nvatos map émt oréyos iepov
qvrae
Kadmides ov Kbcmou atuBodrov, adda
Tans.
we§...0UK Core O€ eEarywyi) EXalov €& A@nv av
el wu Tots viKwoL.
special force to €uoev.—maprolkidos
occurs in both the ZZad and Odyssey.
37. éémer x.7.d.] MSS. era. It

has been supposed that Pindar in two

This last note gives

passages has contravened the universal
Greek usage of constructing érojac with
a dative, and assigned to it an accusative.
One passage is O/. VI. 71, where a cor-
rect punctuation suffices to abolish the
anomaly: €& oJ moNKAevrov Kad’ “ENAqvas
yévos “Lapidav* OABos aw Eomero* k.T.X.

The other case is the passage before us.
Dissen owns that érec#ac with a dative
‘verisimile non est’, and takes yévos as
an accusative of place, ‘pro mera és
yévos, constructum ut Balvew Ol. Il. 95,
aliaque multa verba eundi’. He explains
the meaning thus: ‘es folgt, geht aber zu
den miitterlichen Vorfahren der Ruhm
der Kampfe hinan’. Even if we admit
that the construction is possible, the sen-
tence is a curious mode of expressing this
meaning.

The note of the scholiast is: éaakoNou-
det, pynol, Kata 7d ToNyYwTOV buay yévos
ro amd THS unTtpds* pirpwes yap ol amo
Mntpos mpoyova' evdywv Tih, K.Tr.
From this note Hartung deduces that
the annotator had before him not dmeré-
pwy but buérepoy, and reasoning that the
former could not have arisen from the
latter—‘denn das natiirliche pflegt nicht
leicht in das unnatiirliche umgeandert zu
werden’—, suggests ‘dass yéver twerépw
geschrieben stand’. He proposes to read
modvyvwrTw yévet, which he supports by a
scholium on v. 49: 61a Toro év vois émavw
ceive’ Xapirecot re kal ody Tuvdapldas rv
viknv airav éd\ndv0dvac TH yéver.—Bergk
reads med’ ev-yywrov (érerat 1eda = meOEre-
tat); but the mere fact that modvyywrov
does not occur makes the
assumed corruption improbable.

An examination of the passage will
soon show us that the seat of the
corruption is the verb éera: itself. (1)

elsewhere

émerat...0audkis is a distinctly unhappy
expression ; the sense rather demands
visit. (2) As
roma requires a dative, it is incon-

a verb signifying to
ceivable that, if there were originally a
dative in the passage, it should have been

changed to the accusative. Therefore

[WEMEAN] X. 205
evaywov Tyna Xapitecoi te Kal ovv Tuvdapidars Oaparis.
adEvwbeiny Kev, dv Opacicrov
"Avtia te Evyyovos, "Apyei pw KpuTTew paos 40

> ‘
OMMaTOV.

the probability is that érera: has taken
the place of a verb which governs the
accusative.

The word which exactly suits the
passage is épéme., visits. The words
then mean:

Honour, queen of noble contests, doth
often haunt the far-famed race of your
mother's kin, Theaeus, by favour of the
Graces and the Tyndarids.

The corruption was due to an accident.
Letters at the beginning and end of lines
and strophes are more liable than others
to obliteration. If such a chance befel
the first two letters of EPETTE], it is
clear that the surviving eme.—the sense
requiring a verb and the metre an
anapaest—was very likely to be inter-
preted as a mistake for mera,

But there is another reason for accept-
ing épémet. Looking down to the epode
of the present system (ep. 7), we find
a cause assigned for the athletic prowess
of Theaeus’ maternal kinsfolk. Pam-
phaes in mythical days had entertained
the Tyndarids, and they are the stewards
of the games at Sparta, which they order
in confederacy with Hermes and Heracles.
Now the words in these lines (51—53)
are selected so as to recall strophe y.
Thus

eyyevés, 51: yévos, 47,

ayovev, 52: evaywv, 48,

Oddevav, 53: Oddnoer, 42,
these echoes serving to emphasize the
logical connexion of the system, and
linking the Tuvdapidas of 1. 38 with
their next introduction in 1. 49. In
the same way écémoyrz |. 53 is an echo
of épémer 1. 37. The share which the
Tyndaridae have in the success of the
kin of Theaeus, is brought into relation
with the share which they have as the

/ \ > cal / [ANS e /
vixapopiais yap érais Ipoliroo 168’ immotpodov

‘starters’ (d@erypioc) in the games at
Lacedaemon.—It is interesting to ob-
serve that a like echo occurs in the
First Pythian. The fourth line of the
2nd antistrophos begins
ds ToOr Epémecs Opos,

and the fourth line of the 3rd antistrophos
ends
vov ye wav Tay PiroxTHTao Oikay €pétur.

39. aéwwOelny x.7.A.] schol. eye, Pot,
KaTakiwbelny tT&v mept Opacuxdrov kal
"Avriay ovyyevns wy ev Te “Apyer Sudyeuv
kal (hv, évOa ovK ay admappynotactos dueré-
Kkatw Brérov Kal

Neca ovd€e KpUmrT wy

é€uauTod 7 édevOepoy. of yap wiKayTeEs
pera tappynclas avw Bdémrovres Badifovcw,
of 6€ rrnuévor Sia Ti alioxtyny ovx
ovTWs.

éav Evyyovos, were J a kinsman. wn
Kpi@Tew pdos 6up.dtwy is expressed posi-
tively in Mem. vil. 66 (d€pxecOar Nap-
mpov).

41. vekadoplats x.7..] The reading
of the MSS. is:

vixapoplaise yap boas trmorpipov daru
70 IIpolroo x.7.X. Boeckh
poplats yap dca.s Ipotrovo 765° immrorpégov
dorv, Hermann vikadoplats yap dcats
immotpopov dotu 7d ody, IIpotre, Oadyoer.
Bergk remarks ‘non Argos, sed victoriae,
quas maiores Theaei...rettulerunt, prae-
dicandae’, and reads (ed. 4) vixadoplacs
yap boas Ipolrou 7’ av’ immrorpbpov dor
Oadnoay (the accidental omission of 7’
av’ would lead to the change of @d\noav
to @adnoev).—The ‘reason’ for Bergk’s
emendation will hardly recommend itself.
Leaving aside for a moment the difficulty
presented by 8cas, we can see nothing
suspicious in the sentence. Ay victories
the horse-rearing city, of Proetus, burst
into bloom (won crowns) at Corinth on the
inland gulf and at the hands of the men

read viKa-

206

[NEMEONIKAI] 1.

dot Oddnoev KopiOov 7 év puxois, cal KNewvaiwy mpos avdpav

/
TETPAKLS

of Cleonae (at Nemea), four times. For
Oadéw cf. Mem. Iv. 88 (in Rumpel’s
Lexicon Pindaricum, the quantity is
wrongly marked short).—Some_trans-
position however seems necessary, for the
line as it stands in the Mss. ends in the
middle of a word (IIpotr-o.). I have
adopted, as simplest, the proposal of
Boeckh, though I confess that I regard
such transpositions as suspicious. Her-
mann’s conjecture need not be enter-
tained, as it has no support from either
Mss. or scholia. The scholium is:

mocas yap trmotpogpias, pnoly, arn 7h
modus ovK €Oaddev 7 To IIpolrov, Tovro
pev év TS KopwOlw "lob robro 5 &v 7H
Newéa terpaxts viknoaca* K.T.X.

It is clear that éca:s is inconsistent
with revpdxis, and the unmetrical vuxago-
plaioc in the Mss. points also to an ancient
corruption in this spot. 6écas was sub-
stituted for another word, which was not
intelligible. I believe that this word was
ais.

vikapoplars yap ais
became metr? gratia
vikagopiaior yap ais
and then sezsus gratia
vikagoplaiot yap dos.

If this be so the problem is to deter-
mine the origin of ais, and here the scho-
lium comes to our help. The scholiast
evidently had a different text before him ;
he read neither vixadoplace nor immorpé-
gov, but dcats yap larmotpodplats or immorpo-
plas yap boas, the line being probably
filled up by words corresponding to ovx
and aiirn in his note. We must inquire,
what could have elicited immorpoplais from
immotpbpov? It is clear that, if the article
rats preceded irmorpopov, there would
have been a very strong temptation to
alter the adjective to a dative plural.
This consideration places the solution in

our hands. ais arose from érats, just as

in ]. 11 above 7év arose from érév.

As for the meaning, éras is peculiarly
suitable here. The victories referred to
were clearly won in chariot-races, as the
close collocation of immotpégor indicates.
Thus they were vixa-doplat, in the literal
sense of the word; the horses, as it were,
bearing Victory like a charioteer. In the
case of running, wrestling and other non-
equestrian contests, vixapopia could not
bear this literal sense. é7a’s expresses
this shade of meaning; I have already
referred to Mr Verrall’s elucidation of
éruuds and ér7jrupos.

Another ccnsideration weighs in favour
I have explained fully in the
Introduction (above, p. 189 sg.) how Pin-
dar establishes a comparison between the
mythical glories of Argos and the special
glories of the kinsfolk of Theaeus. This
comparison is carried out by responsions
between the first strophe and antistrophos,
and the third strophe and antistrophos.
Observe :

ll. 1, 2 Xdperes
1. 3 epyov Opacéwy

of érats.

1. 38 Xapirecot
1. 39 €wv Opacd-

évexev kNou
1. 3 puplacs 1. 45 aAXa yadkov
puuptov

1. 46 waxporépas yap
1. 47 bYiBaror 1é-

Aces

The import of these responsions has
been set forth in the Zztroduction. They
form a strong confirmation of éva?s in the
fifth 1. of the third strophe, corresponding
to érév, Bergk’s certain restoration in the
fifth line of the second antistrophos. As
the choice of Zeus established the ex-
cellence of Argos ‘the city of Danaus’
in women, so the victories of Thrasyclus
and Antias establish the excellence of
Argos ‘the city of Proetus’ in horses.
The Homeric epithet of Argos is tr-

mOBorov.

[VEMEAN] X.

Luxvovobe § apyupwlévtes ody oivnpais piadats arréBar,

207

aT. y’.

\ / lal a
éx O€ IleAXavas ériecodpevot vOTOV padaKaict KpoKais’

3 \
Gra yYadKov pupiov ov SuvaTov

éEehéyyew" paxpotépas yap apiOunoar oxonas.
évte KXeitwp cat Teyéa cal “Ayardv tWiBatou modes

kat Avxawov trap Avos OjKe S0um@ ody Today YELPaV TE ViKATA!

oa béver.

43. adpyvpwévres] For the prize at
the chariot-race of Sicyon, see Mem. Ix.
51. Just as in 1. 22 the contest whose
prize is a bronze shield is named a bvonze
contest, so the victors in a race rewarded
by silver cups are said to be sélvered.
dméBay, schol. dvexwpnoay éml rd “Apyos.
The Aldine ed. has éréBar.

44. &« 8 TleMAdvas] Schol. riderar dé
maxéa iwarva év IleMAnvyn ayvapa’ dvoxel-
fuepou O€ of TémoL, TepippactiKds b€ Thy
xAavida wadakhy Kpoxny eles Kal érépwOe

Puxpav érér’ evdiavov pdpuaxov avpav

Ile\Adva mapéxet [O/. 1X. 97, MSS.

Ile\Xdva, or a, pépe].

eEedéyxerv] fo fest by measure. Schol.
NEBnTa yap eTyvTo év modols TAY ayu-
vow Kal domlda yadkqy.

47. KyXelrop x.7.d.] It is supposed
that the games at Clitor were called
Képeva, from the Kédpy (Persephone) who
was there worshipped with her mother ;
see Pausanias VIJI. 21. 2. At Tegea
were held the’ AXeaza in honour of Athene;
see Pausanias VIII. 47. 3. Cf. Hermann,
Lehrbuch der Gottesdienstlichen Alter-
thiimer der Griechen (ed. Stark) p. 336,
and Curtius, Peloponn., 1. 254, 273.—For
the high sztuate cities of Achaea cf. B
573>

ot 0 ‘Trrepnoinv re kal airewhy Tovdec-

cay

Tled\Anvnv 7 elxov 75° Alyov audevé-

[OvTO.
It is not known in what cities games
were held. In many Achaean towns
(Dyme, Patrae, Aegium, Tritaea, as well
as Pellene) there were temples of Athena,
and perhaps in some her worship was

attended with gymnastic contests (see
Pausanias VII. 17 e¢ sgq.).

48. Avxatov] The temple of Zeds
Av«acos in Arcadia. Pausanias (VIII. 38.
5) describes this strange réwevos, in which
men and beasts were said to cast no
shadows: écodo0s dé ovx éotw és avro
avOpwros. For games at Lycaeum, cf.
Simonides, 155 (Bergk P. Z. G. Ill.
p- 501), where a list of victories is
given, among the rest d¥o 5 éy Avkaly.
—Oyke vikaoot means se¢ as prizes to
win. ovv goes with cbévea, by dint of
the strength.

The scholiast has confused the sense of
the passage, and copyists have corrupted
the text, through the idea that dpouw
(so Mss.) belonged to the latter part of the
sentence.
that dpou@ modév should balance yxepav
c0éve. LD attempts to rectify the metre,
without due consideration of the meaning,
by omitting re after yepav. The note of
the scholiast is: év cal 7d A’Katoy €0nKe
xadkov mapa TH TOD Avds Bw Tots Suva-

B has moda re yepev Te, so

pévos vikhoa aby todwy cbéver, Spduw,
Kal xeipwv oOéver, wary Kal mayKpatiw Kal
muyen.—From duvauévots Mommsen de-
duced daeto.w which he substitutes for
dpoum atv; but the participle in the
scholium is merely an elucidation of the
infinitive construction. M. Schmidt fol-
lowing in the same track and regarding
dpouw as a gloss on modav cbéver, reads
OéXovew modwy x.T.X. Rauchenstein ob-
jecting to ody proposed dpduoow. Bergk
has 7’ évikacav, the subject of the verb
being the ancestors of Theaeus, and takes
ovv not with o@évec but with the verb.

208

Kaortopos & éOovros eri Eeviay map Wapudan

[NEMEONIKAI] I’.

em. y'.

kal Kacruyvntov IlodvdevKeos, od Oadpa ohiow 50
2 a p) a ’ a rei tse ON
eyyev és Eupev acOAntais ayabotow: érei
, /
evpuXOpou Tapuiar Yraptas aydvev
Co fal A /
potpav “Epa cal odv ‘Hpaxknrel Svérrovte Oandevay,

In regard to Bergk’s emendation it
may be observed that it is gratuitous to
change wxdoa, and in regard to his
explanation of ody, there is the serious
objection that cwycKay means Zo take part
tz a victory, a sense inappropriate here.
ow signifying by means of is characteristi-
cally Pindaric, and may be supported,
for example, by évi ody tporw in Nem.
vil. 14. The proposals of Mommsen
and Rauchenstein are due toa too curious
examination of the scholiast’s words.

The only difficulty lies in rap dpopw,
which is hardly explicable. €éy dpouw
is required and Bergk’s citation mapa
Tupavyvidc is not a parallel. I have
ventured to print 8ép, for though in
ordinary circumstances 60uq@ would be
more likely to usurp the place of dpouw
than conversely, here 6pou@ insinuated
itself into the text from a gloss on roday
obévec with the utmost facility, or perhaps
came not from a written, but, so to speak,
from a mental gloss, a copyist ‘correcting’
doum, in view of the context, as an
obvious clerical error. For 6éuos used
of a temple, see Vem. vil. 46, Pyth. Vil.
10.—A parallel passage in Pyth. X. 23
merits quotation :

ds av Xepoly 7 Todwy dpeTa KpaThoats

TH péyir dé—\wv én TOMA TE Kal

obéve.

49. emi fevlav x.7.d.] ¢o the home of
Pamphaes, secking friendly entertainment.
Pamphaes was a remote ancestor of
Theaeus’ mother, Many epiphanies were
attributed to the Tyndarids, for example
they were said to have appeared in a
battle fought at Sagra between the
Locrians and Crotoniates. The story of
the rescue of Simonides at the court of
Scopas is well known.

50. od Baitpa odlow x.7..] Wo
marvel that it should be a quality of their
race to be good athletes. oplow, the
persons spoken of in the preceding strophe
and antistrophos. &pev, as Mezger point-
ed out, does double duty, linking (1)
Oadua with éyyerés, (2) eyyevés with
deOdnrals ayabotow.

51, 52. émel x.7..] The Dioscori were
regarded as patrons of gymnastic contests.
In Sparta they were worshipped as
‘Starters’: mpds d€ Tod Spomov TH apxD
Avcxoupol ré eiow "Aderypiot, Pausanias
Ill. 14. 7. They were related to have
won victories in the Olympic games,
Castor in the footrace, Polydeukes in
boxing (Pausanias v. 8. 4), and their
altar stood at the entrance of the Olympic
hippodrome (24. 15. 5). They also con-
tended in the stadion of Hermione (Pausa-
nias, II. 34. 10). .These links with the
games instituted by Mevacles and with
Hermione, explain ‘Epua kal ody “Hpa-
KNEC,

To the Dioscori was ascribed the in-
vention of the war-dance in Sparta (see
Athenaeus Iv. 14 e3 schol. Pind. Pyth.
v. 128), and thus the epithet edpvxdpouv
(spacious for dancing) in this context is
seen to be peculiarly appropriate. Pindar
applies the adjective also to Asia (O/. vil.
18), Libya (Pyth. Iv. 43), and Argos
(Pyth. Vil. 55). For potpay dydvey cf.
Ol. V1. 79 ds dywvas éxer motpdy 7 déOAwr.
For S.érovti and @dAeray see above, note
on |. 37, and Zntvoduction p. 190.

Render: For the guardians of Sparta’s
Spacious dancing-floor, with Hermes and
LTeracles, their graceful
charge, and for just men they care ex-
ceedingly.

order games,

Yea verily, the gods are sure.

[VEMEAN] X.

dra pev avdpav Sixaiwy tepikaddpevor.

ryévos.

peTaperPouevor 8 évarra€ apépay Tay pev Tapa Tatpl dio

209

\ \ A \
Kal pav Oedyv tiotov

otp. ©.
55

\ / \ ’
Ai véuovtat, tav & tro KevOecr yaias év yuadrows Ocpatrvas,
/
TOTMOVY auTimTNaVTES Omolov’ émrel
an nN a A“
TOUTOV 7) TapTrav Oeds Eupevat oiKely T ovpave
etreT ai@va POiuévov Lorvdevens Kactopos év tmodéuo’
\ \ ” > \ / \ y” a /
tov yap “Idas audi Bovoilv mws yorwbeis Etpwce yarkéas

oyxas aKa.

54. pada pév] pev implies another
clause, unexpressed and unnecessary, ov
6é dvipwrv adlkwy tepixadopevo. One of
the functions of the Tyndaridae was the
saving and helping of men; see /rtroduc-
tion.

Qeov] For the responsion of Oewy 1.
18 and the echo of riaréy in |. 78 see
Introduction, pp. 191 and 195.
perapeBopevor] Passing from
heaven to Hades and back again; éva-
aE, day about (schol. évad\dooovTes Tas
nmépas). Compare ) 301,

Tovs dugw woods katréxer puolfoos aia

55°

ot Kal vép0ev yns Timnv mpos Znvos

exovTes

didNore ev (wWoue’ ETEpTMeEpoL, cAdoTE O

adre

Tedvaow, Tiny 5é NeNyxXaow toa Peotor.
Pyth. Xi. 94 viol Pew To pev map’ duap
€dpace Oepdrvas 7d 6 olkéovres évdov
’ONUprov. Also T 243.

56. vbmo KevOert x.7.d.] 22 the subter-
ranean hollows of Therapna (schol. év rots
bmoyelous THs Oepdmvas). wd kevOerr= Ev
vmoyelos Keveot. ‘yUada occurs in Pyth.
VIII. 61 of the vales of Pytho. Compare
Aleman frag. 5 bro riv ynv THs Oepdmvns
evar NéyouTat CwyrTes.

aprimdavres] ching out, fulfilling.

émel x.7.\.] Hor when Castor perished
in war, Polydeukes preferred this way of
life to being completely a god and dwelling
mm heaven. eétdero takes 7 like a compa-
rative.

60. tov yap "I8as «.7.A.] Schol.:
‘the tale is as follows: Lynceus and Idas,
the sons of Aphareus wooed Phoebe and
Hilaria, the two daughters of Leucippus,
and at the marriage festivities invited the
Dioscori to the banquet. But they carried
off the maidens and fled, and the bride-
grooms pursued. Anda battle took place
between the sons of Aphareus and the
Dioscori, for the matter of the marriage, and
Castor is slain. Then Polydeukes slew
both, Zeus assisting him in the work and
sending lightning against them. But,
according to Pindar’s version, the quarrel
arose not on account of brides, but on
account of driving away oxen’.

In making the matter a dispute about
oxen, Pindar agrees with the Cyfrza,
Jrag. 9. The four heroes made a joint
raid in Arcadia and stole a herd of oxen.
Idas and his brother managed to drive
the whole herd to Messenia, but Castor
and Polydeukes went in pursuit and in
turn appropriated the whole spoil. This
was the cause of the ire of Idas. Tov is
Castor.

aka] Here and in Mem. Vi. 52 aixua
is found in the Mss. where it is metrically
impossible. Editors with one accord
read dxud. But had dkug, a common
word, been originally written, it would
never have been altered. I therefore
restore the rare word axdé in both pas-
sages (see note on Mem. VI. 52). In
Tsthm. itt. 69 aixua, which editors after

210

amo Taiyérou medavyatwr idev Avyxeds Spvds ev oTedexer

[NEMEONIKAI] I.

avr. 8.

fy \ > / / / , ’ /
Kelvov yap erry Poviwv TTAVT@V YEVET o€vTaTov

npLeVvOS.
Ompa. Rawpnpots S€ Todecoww apap

Pauwius used to change to dxua, has been
rightly defended by Christ.

61. amd Tavyérov x.7.d.] Spying from
Taygetus Lynceus saw them sitting in the
trunk of an oak.—Asyndeton in narrative
is characteristic of Pindar; cf. below
1. 75.—The mss. have 768 ad’yagwv.
meSavyatwy is the excellent correction of
Triclinius. ed- has the same force as
pera in petapalouar: looking for them.
Mr Fennell ingeniously proposed wepav-
yafwv.

62. ‘pévos] MSS. Huevos, corrected by
Didymus. Thiersch attempted to improve
on this by writing 7uévw.—Aristarchus
read 7mevoyv (which Bergk accepted in his
latest ed.), in order, acc. to the schol.,
to make Pindar’s story agree with the
account in the Cyfria. But, as Didymus
pointed out, the tale in the Cyfv7a (see
below) represents both brothers in the
oak. It seems probable that the words
MrAVe Andas mats Subxwy misled Aristarchus
into the idea that Castor and Polydeukes
were not together, when the deadly stroke
was dealt. But 7AGe is relative to the
place which the assailants had reached in
their flight, not to the oak. From a
critical point of view juévos is impreg-
nable. 7uevov would never have become
huevos, whereas 7uévos could hardly have
avoided such a corruption without the
intervention of a miracle.—As_ the
scholia on this line are of considerable
interest and have excited much discus-
sion among German scholars, the space
required for their reproduction will not
Schol. 6 peév ’Aplo-
Tapxos daétot ypdpew juevov, aKodovOws
TH €v tots Kumplos Neyouévyn loropia’ 6
yap Ta Kimrpia oavyypdyas gynol ov
Kdoropa ev rH Sput Kpupbdvra opOjvac

be misexpended.

trod Avykéws’ ty dé ab’rn ypapy Kal
"AmodN65upos [see Bibliotheca W11. 11, 2]

KaTnkonovbnce. mpos ots yor Aidvpos*
dudotépuv brd 7H Sput oxdvTwv, Tod Te
Kdoropos xal tod ToXvdevxKous, pdvov o
Avykeds tov Kdoropa elée; pjmrore oty
ono. dey dvaywhoKew Thy mapadiyyovcay
ov\AaBiy déurévus 7MEVOS ws Tpyévos iva
kar dpudoty axo’nrar’ de AuvyKeds dpuds
év oTeNEXEL MMEVOS, avTL TOD Huévous, Snov-
6re Tos Atockotipous* ws adeddoros Kal
Tpliros* ovx eb0s eat, yeparé, avtl Tod ov~x
édous. § maparidevra [mapariberar?] dé
kal Tov Ta Kirrpia ypawavra otrw Né-yorra
aiva dé Avykeds
Tyiyerov mpocéBawe moaly raxéecct
memos *

dxpotatoy 5 dvaBas duedépxero vijcov

amacav

Tavradldov IléXoros, taxa 8 elovde

KUOLLOS TPWS

dtéow OpOadmotcw éow Koldns Spuds

aupw

Kdoropa 0° immddayov Kat aeP\opdpor

Ilodvdevcea.

vote 5° ap dyxe oTas pmeyadny Spidv
Kal Ta €&fs. 0 wey ov Kdorwp édoxa Tov
“ldav, pnoly [Didymus], év koldyn dput Kpu-
pels kai Tov Avyxéa* 6 dé Avykeds d&vdepKys
ov wore kal dia NlOwy kal dua ys Ta
ywoueva Brérew idav dia THs Spvds Tov
Kdoropa érpwoe doyx7-

kelyou yap «.7.\.] For of all men
on earth his eye was keenest; cf. Swin-
burne’s ‘keenest eye of Lynceus’ (A4Za-
lanta in Calydon, p. 52).

63. Aaupnpots x.7.r.] And with storm-
ing feet they arrived speedily, and con-
trived swiftly a great deed, and underwent
sore usage, those sons of Speed, by the
handlings of Zeus. There is a play on
the name ‘Adapevs, which Pindar con-
nected with dap, and interpreted Sudden
or Speedy. It will be observed that
words noting speed are mustered: NacW7-
pots, adap, wKéws, "Agapyriba, abrixa,

[VEMEAN] X.

Zur

> / \ / / > , > ] /

é&ixéa Oar, kai péya Fépyov éunoarvt’ oxéws,

kal wa0ov Sewov rardpas ’Adapntidar Avs’ avtixa yap 65
mrAOe Andas Tais dudxwv' tol 8 é&vavta orabev TULBw ayedov

TaTpwiw*

évOev aprakavtes dyad Aida, Eeatov rérpor,

ér. 0.

€uParov atépvm TlodvdevKeos' GAN ov vw ddrdcar,
>» es 3 b \ , TA ww lal
ovd avéyacoav’ époppabels & ap’ dxovte 006
w- / > tal ,
nrace AvyKéos ev mAEUpaion yarkov. 70
Zeds 8 én “Ida ruppopov mrAGEe Wordevta Kepavydy'

igs > > / ’ , lal
apa 8 éxaiovt éphwor.
/
Kpecoover.

For AaWnpots cf. Pyth. 1X. 121 Pye at-
Ynpov Spduov, and O/. XII. 4 awWnpol
moAeLoL, Storming wars.—The form ’Ada-
pyriSar is noticeable. It seems to imply
a nominative “Agdpys (Gen. -yTos) or
*Agdapnros, but of such forms there seems
to be notrace. From ’Adgapets we should
expect Agapeldns or’ Adapniadns.

épyoavr is Schmid’s correction of
éuvjoavr D, éuvjoar’ BB.—For the
responsion of aAdpats to the same word
in 1. 5 see Zntroduction, p. 194. The best
comment on zadduyn in this context is
Pindar’s own coinage mupmadapov
BéXos dpouxrdmou Ards, Ol. X. 80.

65. attlka ydp x.7.d.] For instantly
came the son of Leda (Polydeukes) zx
pursuit. But they were stationed over
against them, hard by their father’s tomb;
Srom thewhich having snatched a headstone
of Hades, a polished rock, they hurled it
at the chest of Polydeukes; but they did
not fell him nor force him to flinch; nay,
rushing upon them with rapid lance he
adrave home the brass in the sides of
Lynceus.

o xeS6v in Pindar is always used of local
proximity.

67. dyad Aisa] A stele in honour
of Hades. Schol. or#Anv évds THY Keimévev
apmdcayres amd Tov TUuBov Tov marpos
aitav Adapéws. Dissen compares pédos
"Aida (Apjvos) in Euripides, Vectra 143,

yarera 8 pis avOpatrois dpmiretv

and other similar phrases.

For the significance of this incident
see above, /itroduction, p. 194 sg.

68. ILodv8edKeos] This word occurs
in 1. 50, the second verse of 3rd epode,
and in the same position in the verse.

kal kaovyynrov ToXvdevKeos (50)

éuBarov arépyw ILohvdevxeos (68).
See Zutroduction, p. 195. pdrdw like #\dw
is a word appropriate to boxing.—The
active of xdfomac occurs in Xenophon,
Anabasis IV. 1, 12. dvéxacoay (schol.
Uroxwpncar els ToUTicw TeTojKaTW) Was
restored by Wakefield for dvésxacay D
(and mss. of Triclinius) and dvéyacav
B.

71. Leds 8 ew "I8q x.7.d.] And Zeus
whirled against Idas a fiery bolt of lurid
(or sooty) lightning ; and inthe lonely place
they were consumed together.—ruppopos
(tgnifer) and Wordets are daraé elpnuéva in
Pindar; and no part of wA7joow occurs
elsewhere in his extant The
sense of wAage here (not s¢vzke, but cast
or hurl for a stroke) is also unusual.

Schol. 6 6é Zeds ruppdpov Kai reppwdn
Kepauvoyv mpocéppniev auporépos, ood dé
éxalovTo épnuwhévtes,

72. xadera 8 epis x.7.d.] For men, a
strife with stronger than they is difficult
to encounter. Compare O/. XI. 39 vetkos
5é kpecobvwv amobéch’ dropor.

works,

14—2

[NEMEONIKAI] I.

OTp. €.

taxéws & ém adedAheod Biav marw yopnoev 6 Tuvdapisas,
Kal vi ovmTw TeOvact, acOuate b€ hpiccovta Todas Exuyxev.

Oeppa téyyov Saxpuy’ awa ortovayais yi:

opQov dovace’ Ilatep Kpoviwr, tis 81 Avous

»y” {2 \ 3 \ / A ap > i} ”

éooetar TrevOéwy; Kal euol Oavatov avy THOS Eritetdov, ava€.
a / \

olyetat Tina hitwv tatapévw hwti' tadpor 8 €v Tovm moTot

Bpotev

74. kalyy «.7.r.] And he found him
not yet dead, but with a gasp shuddering
through his jaws.

BB ¢plocovr’ dumvoas éxixye, D oppic-
Schmid read ¢pic-
covTa mvoas éxtxev. From the reading of
the scholium in D ras 6€ yovas [B rvods]
bropuxpouuevas bird THs ppikns, Mommsen
restores both in the scholium and in the
text yévus (or yévvas). Compare Nonnus,
Dionysiaca XXV. 534 kal Wuxpats yerverot
tariumvoov ac@ua titalywy (quoted by
Abel in note on scholia, p. 325). I fail
to see (1) why yévus should have been
corrupted to yovds (indeed ‘yovas has
rather the appearance of a blur) and (2)
why yévus should have been altered in
the text and left no trace-—The true
reading is clearly mvods, restored by
Schmid; dumvods was a very natural
gloss, subsequently regarded as a correc-
Just
as akoal was used in the sense of ears and

covT’ avamvoas EKLXe.

tion and introduced into the text.

owes in the sense of eyes, so mvods here
means the regions of breath; and this
meets the objection that ¢plocev can be
used only of parts of the body (¢plocev
de membris vel partibus corporis dict solet,
Bergk). a vowel short before zy
see Wem. 111. 41 adda rrvéwv.

75. Oeppa x.7.A.] BB Oepua 6é réyywr,
D depua 6é réywv. Various proposals
have been made for the restoration of the
metre. Schmid depua 67 Téeyywv, Schneid-

For

ewin Oepua 6€ ordgwv, Hermann depua
A J >
dé oreywv. Bergk saw that the corrup-
tion more probably lay in the latter part

of the line, 6é being an insertion, partly

to fill up the complement of sylla-
bles, partly to supply the usual transi-
tionary particle. He first proposed to
read ava orovaxais, avd belonging to
gedvace; but in his 4th ed. reads édxpu’
td otovaxais, tears falling to the sound
of groans. THe does not however explain
how 76 fell out.

In forming a judgment on the passage,
four points occur; (1) the effect is bet-
tered by the absence of dé; (2) crovayats
almost requires a preposition; (3) in the
two other places in Pindar where daxpu
occurs, Pyth. IV. 121, frag. 122, 3, the
first syllable is long ; (4) 64 is improbable
as it occurs in the following line. I there-
fore propose

Oepuda Téyywy Saxpy’ dua crovaxats
lacrimas inter gemitus fundens, shedding
warm tears and making moan.

AAKPYAMA
was probably read daxpuua or daxptmara
and afterwards corrected to daxpva.—oaro-
vaya does not occur elsewhere in Pindar.
Compare Soph. 7rach. 848 réyyew da-
Kpvwv axvar.

76. OpSov divace] Mifted up his voice,
or cried with a loud voice, ‘O father,
Cronos’ son, when, O when will there be
deliverance from my sorrows? Upon me
too, O lord, lay the charge of death along
with him. Honour clean forsakes a man
when he is reft of his friends. But in
the hour of need few mortals are true, to
take a share in the travail of a comrade’.

78. mavpor x.7-\.] For responsions cf.
ll. 24 and 54. The scholia explain zav-
pou as really meaning an absolute negative:

[VEMEAN | X. 213

VA /
Kapatou peTadauBavew.

> '
avVT. €.

ws évverre’ Leds 8 avtios HAvOE Foe
\ 7%? 9 Ul 2. oS. eS, , Cia. / > /
Kat TOO é€avdac’ Eros’ "Kook mou vids’ Tovde & Erretta Troats

/ \ a
omépwa Ovatov patpt Ted TeAadoaLs

oratev pws.

b] a of a , ” 7
avr aye TOVSE ToL EuTrav aipeouy

/ ee 5) \ , ' \ \ a > '
mapdiowm* ei pev Oavatov te puyov Kal yipas amex Oopevov
’ A nr a
autos oixety aitos OvAvurou Oéreus avy T 'APavaia Kedhaweyxet

x,”

Tt “Apeu'

dvtt rod obdé dAlyou* ws Kal map’ ‘Ou-
po"

Hj ONlyov of matda éorxora yelvaro Tu-

devs.
K.T.A.

79. avrlos mAvdé Fou] I have printed
the reading of D, but it is remarkable
that BB have avtia. I am inclined to
believe that Pindar wrote avril’ éX7j\vbé
for, the perfect tense vividly expressing
that Zeus has already drawn nigh while
Polydeukes is still speaking. eAeAyYOE
was liable to become 7Avée, and the
divergency of the Mss. would thus be
accounted for. The fact that éAjdAvba
(though occurring in Herodotus) is not
found elsewhere in Pindar makes me
hesitate.

80. é€avSac’] Observe that avdav is
used here and in 89g of the utterance of a
god.

éool por vids K.7.A.] AZy son thou art;
but after me the hero, her lord, approached
thy mother and begat him with drops of
mortal seed. mera is used as if 7 begat
thee had preceded. tévSe omépua ordéev
=rTovde éomepe (cl. Whpous &evro with
an object, = éWydpicavro, in Agamemnon,
1. 816, according to the usual explana-
tion).—omépwa Ovardéy contrasts with the
omépm ddeiwavrov of 1.17. ordgev is the
correction of Pauw for éoratey of the
MSS.

82. odAN—tprrav] Nothwithstanding
the fact that thy brother is a mortal.
aye has a consolatory force. r&vdé To
aiperw Trapdtowm, L place these courses at
the disposition of thy choice.

83. ‘yupas dmrex@opevov] Joathid eld,
a notion characteristically Greek.

84. avrds x.7.d.] The Mss. have

avros "ONuprov é0édes oly 7 “Abavalg

K.TA,

a line metrically defective. If we read
OvNupmov Oé\ers we require four addi-
tional syllables, either after 0éXecs (- -~-),
or before OvAuwrov (-—-—~); and the
sense demands a verb signifying /o dwell.
The scholiast shews that he had such an
infinitive in his text, by the paraphrase av-
Tos Bovder Tov odpavoy oiKety obv Euol Kal
*AOnva kal “Apert, words which have been
thought to point to €uol or some equivalent
before a’v. Benedictusaccordingly inserted
oixety €uol. Boeckh vate émot after #éNets.
Schmid read Ov\uprov Karoujoae Oédes,
Mommsen Ov’Auptrov véwew és €mol,
Kayser voets oikety €mol, Hartung ouvorceiy
poe €0é)dets.

Among all these conjectures there is
little to choose, for not one of them pre-
tends to account for the omission of the
words supplied, It is clear that a verb
meaning ¢o dwell is required after #éXets,
and it is safer to adopt okey from the
scholium than to guess a synonym. As
for €uoi, we may well believe that, as
Boeckh said, the scholiast added that
frigid ody éuot out of his own head.—My
restoration, printed in the text, explains
the corruption as an instance of para-
blepsia.
AYTOCOIKEINAITOCOYAYMTTOYOEAEIC.
When he had written a’ros, the scribe
glanced again at his ‘copy’, and his eye,
falling not on the word he had written

214

” \ / t im > \ t ,
éoTt Goi TOUTWY Aayos’ Et SE KacLYyYHTOU Téps

[NEMEONIKAI] |.

ém.€. 85

apvacat, TavtTwy Sé voeis aTodaccacbat Ficor,
Hyuucu pév Ke Tvéols yalas vrrévepbev eur,

@s ap avdacarTos ov yvoua Simdoav Oéto Bovrdv.

but on the almost identical atros, passed
on to Ovdvurov, so that the two words
oixety alros were omitted. Ov’dvumrou was
subsequently altered to Od\upmor, as the
object of Oé\es. (For “Od\vpurov in the
Mss., cf. O/. XIII. 92, where the MSS.
have ‘Od\umrw for OvAVuTY.)

The rare word airos occurs in O/. III.
17, where the reading of the best Mss.
has been rightly preserved by Bergk:

mtd ppovéwy Ards alter mavddxw

adoet.
The word is recognized as Pindaric and
explained by Eustathius 381, 27; déye
dé kal IIidapos év ‘ONvmriovikas Kaweas
airos TO évdvairnua, otov Ads aire mav-
d0xw. Pindar uses his rare words delibe-
rately, and part of my justification of afros
is a demonstration how it contributes to
render perspicuous the chain of thought.
Theaeus’ contention for Olympian honours
answers to Polydeukes’ contention for
his brother’s fellowship, as is indicated
by mepé (amiANGrar) in I. 31 answering
exactly to mépe (udpyacat) inl. 85, And
there is a further parallel. For Poly-
deukes it is possible to make two requests ;
he chooses that which involves hardship.
And so likewise Theaeus has a choice
of prayers; it is said in line 30 that he
does not ask amiss, but his heart has the
will to endure ¢vavail, if need be. Well,
Polydeukes would have asked amiss (7 a p-
awteiract) if he had chosen the atros
OvAUparov unreservedly, without the habi-
tation underground; just as Theaeus
would ask amiss if hé prayed for an
Olympian victory, his airos OvNurov,
with a heart unprepared for toil. atros
and maparetrac occur each in the last
line of an antistrophos. It is well to
observe that in the Third Olympian Ode

also, the introduction of this word airos is
the occasion of a paronomasia, there
Airwnos (as I pointed out in Hermathena,
1887, XIII. p. 187).

Kedauveyxet Tt ”Ape] Other epithets
applied by Pindar to Ares are Ba@u7rone-
fos, Biatds, xadxeos (as in Homer), yad-
kagmts. On this passage Dissen writes
‘h.e. vivere in consortio bellicosorum
deorum, ut ipse bella amas et gloriam
bellicam’. For the connexion of Ares
and Athena cf. Hymn. Hom. Xt. 2 dewhv
n adv “Apne wéder trodeunia epya. In the
Homeric hymn (really an Orphic hymn,
most probably) ¢o Aves, he is called
dopua beves Epxos ONvmrov (1. 3) and dixaco-
TaTw aye pwrav (l. 5).—Szwart applied
to the war god’s spear means bloody ; cf.
Kedauvedes aiuwa in I 36, wedavderov Povw
Elpos in Euripides, Orestes 821, xeAawov
ios in Sophocles, Ajax 231, &c.

85. tore xk.t.d.] 2 ts thine to inherit
this fot. Hermann gratuitously reads trav
wev for rovTwy, after wey TovTwy of the ed.
Romana.

el 8€ x.7.X.] But tf thou contendest for
thy brother, and it be thy purpose to im-
part to him a like share in all things,
thou must draw half thy breath in places
wnder earth and the other half in the
golden halls of heaven.

For pdpvauac with epi Dissen com-
pares II 497 atrap ére:ra Kal adros éued
Tépt “apvao XaAKw.

7. Hptov) Schol. 7d mev uucv Tod
xpovou ees bd Ti viv diarpiBwv, 7d dé
nuscv €v TQ ovpav@ kal Tots Tiulors Tay
Oewy olkas.

89. ov yvepa x.7-A.] Schol. od karewe-
ploOn rhv yvwounv 6 Ilo\vdevKns. Com-
pare Ol. VII. 85 evxouae dudl Kadov
polpa véuerw dtxoBovrov un Oéuev. Poly-

[(WEMEAN] X.

dva 8 édvoev pev opOadpor,
Kadotopos.

deukes divided not the bent of his judg-
ment, lit. set not two counsels in his
judgment.

go. dvax.t.A.] But he (Polydeukes—
not Zeus, as is wrongly suggested in a
scholium) znclosed the eye and then released

215

éreita O€ hovay yadKopitpa

the voice of brass-girdled Castor. ‘This is
the Avovs prayed for in 1. 76.—The pirpa
was a woollen girdle plated with bronze.
In Theocritus, xx. 136, Castor is ad-
dressed as TaxUmwAe dopvocde xadkeobu-
ps.

[NEMEAN] Xl.

ODE IN HONOUR OF ARISTAGORAS OF TENEDOS, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS INSTALLATION AS PRYTANIS.

INTRODUCTION.

THE island of Tenedos, noted for the beauty of its women—‘the most
beautiful in the world,’ an ancient writer said‘—was perhaps a land of
handsome men also; two handsome men at least, commemorated in
Pindar’s verses, have survived the despites of time. In a skolzon, admit-
ting us to a secret of his personal life, he records the masterful, perhaps
voluptuous, beauty of Theoxenus of Tenedos and its influence on his own
‘love-tost’ soul, here suffering a rapture and expressing itself in rapturous
words, which may be set beside the poem of Sappho, also fragmentary,
addressed to a young girl. The colder and maturer comeliness of Arista-
goras, nobly born in the same island, has been likewise thrown up from the
sea of lost beautiful things, and still lives, visible at least to the imagination,
through the accident that Pindar was invited to write a hymn for the
occasion of his investiture with the office of President of his native city”.

No man in Tenedos could have enjoyed a more enviable social position
than Aristagoras. Among the ancient families there was one which traced
its origin to the Peloponnesian city of Amyclae, from which at the time
of the Dorian invasion a noble named Pisander had gone forth in company
with Orestes himself, and sought a new home in the ‘Trojan island,’ at
the head of a party of Aeolians, whom he had enlisted in Boeotia. One
of the Theban adventurers who sailed to try his fortune with Pisander was
Melanippus, a hero who had won some fame in legend by wounding
Tydeus. The Melanippids and the Pisandrids were thus peers in claims
to ancient nobility, and at a date which cannot be more closely deter-
mined than as probably prior to 500 B.C. Arcesilaus a Pisandrid married
a Melanippid lady. Their son Aristagoras had inherited from this noble
ancestry a beauty of that lofty, physically intrepid type, which inspired Greek

1 Nymphodorus quoted by Athenaeus, * The ceremony was called elourjpia. —
Bk. X11. 609 E Kal Nuwdddwpos & év 7 For this Ode, the only complete extant
ris Aclas meplr\w kaddlovdas pyoryweoOa. work of Pindar which is not an Epinician,

Tay mavraxod yuwaKkav év Tevédiy ry see the general Ztroduction, section 2.
Tpwikn viow.

INTRODUCTION. 2Y7

sculpture, lending itself well to repose,—statuesque or ‘ moveless’ (drpeuys) !.
He had won sixteen triumphs in wrestling and that combination of wrestling
and boxing which was called the pancration, at games held in neighbouring
Asiatic cities, but had never contended in the greater Panhellenic festivals,
restrained through some diffidence, ill-judged in Pindar’s opinion, of his
parents.

Excelling in beauty, and distinguished by success, truly of a somewhat
provincial kind, the President (Pry¢amzs),—in the picture drawn by Pindar—
accompanied by the Senate, enters the Public Dining-hall of the city to pro-
pitiate Hestia with the sacrifices and libations, which were used to celebrate
the annual installation of a President. In her shrine there was a statue of
the goddess, with a golden sceptre in her hand, and here the chief citizens,
who were themselves her only priests, might feel drawn together as members
of a large family, standing round the public ‘hearth. A banquet was
prepared, and perhaps, while the senators and their guests feasted, the hymn
composed by Pindar was sung to the sound of lyres.

This hymn falls into three parts. Hestia is invoked to welcome her
worshippers, and to keep in glory and defend against perils during his year
of oftice the new Prytanis, who may perhaps have had grave cause to
fear the outbreak of some domestic faction*. The goddess is invoked to
defend; but the man himself—really blessed by nature and fortune—is
admonished that surpassing beauty, wealth and brave exploits cannot
deliver a mortal from the supreme shroud of clay. The terms in which
this gloomy fact is expressed suggest that Aristagoras was a ‘glass of
fashion’ as well as a ‘mould of form,’ somewhat of an ‘exquisite’ perhaps in
personal adornment, or studious at least to compose the folds of his tunic
and mantle for displaying most becomingly the graces of his limbs. ‘Ze¢
him remember that the limbs which he dresses are mortal and that the end
of all his dressings will be a shroud of earth,

This is the first part of the hymn. The second tells what Aristagoras has
done and what he has left undone. His brilliant victories deserve praise and
song; but a man of such quality might have confidently striven for crowns
at Olympia or Castalia. The ‘halting hopes of his parents’ held him back,
and Pindar, deprecating diffidence, as much as vain confidence, suggests
a picture of one denied grasping the prizes he might attain, by a hand
plucking him from behind—the hand of the faint heart, that, as we say,
‘never won fair lady.’

In the third part of the ode the ancestry of Aristagoras is mentioned, with
an implication that the blood of heroes, not perhaps perceptible in previous

1 Such is the impression made on me * The strong phrase ovv drpwrw xpadia
by Pindar’s @anrdv eidos drpeulav te inl. 10, combined with the significant
avyyovov, where the felicity of arpeuia is mention of good citizens in 1. 17, supports
its double intent, signifying both physical | Mezger’s assertion ‘dass es an unruhigen
and moral character.—The word moveless, _ Elementen in Tenedos nicht fehlte’
which I used above, served Wordsworth (p. 484).
in a description of a swan.

218 [VEMEAN] XI.

descendants, is at length reasserting its continued life in him. As in crops
and trees, so in the generations of men, nature reserves her forces. It was
strange (Pindar suggests) that his parents should be unaware of the heroic
powers indwelling in their son; for in his case the horoscope was super-
ficially patent; though generally such insight is hardly possible for mortals.
Errors in this kind of divination more frequently move in the path of extra-
vagant hopes, and in this connexion, by a subtle poetical enchantment there
rises before us, dim and unobtrusive, a vision of life, as a sea, and men
thereon sailing in ships, the which are great enterprises, bound on many
quests, and driven by the wind of Fate. They are unable to desist from
rowing, because they are chained to the oars of Hope; and in the heaven,
alas! Zeus has set no sure pilot-star. Moreover the rivers of foreknowledge
flow not into this sea, but have their course in other far regions. The
vision vanishes; and the conclusion is the doctrine of the Measure, the
principle of all Greek wisdom, which regarded excessive desires, sighs for
the unattainable, as a form of madness.

It will be observed that the thread—the logical thread, we may say—
round which this ode is spun, is curiously simple. In the first system we
are reminded that the strong and fair are mortal; this established, the
second and third systems deal with the two great errors to which such
mortals are exposed, undue diffidence and undue confidence,—the former, of
course, the rarer and less harmful!. To catch and hold the Measure is
really the problem of the art of life ; but the implied comparison of this art
to that of guiding a ship without charts or fixed stars suggests gloomy
forebodings touching the chances of the mariners. Here we have a glimpse
of what we may call a resigned pessimism, latent in the depths of the Greek
spirit, sometimes peering forth, ultimately proving an element of decay, but
never, in early days, troubling its cheerfulness or impairing its grace.

1 The consecution of thought is indi- 1. 48). I may add that Kevedppoves adxac
cated by Ovard 1. 15, Bporav 1.29, Ovarév (29) are opposed to the true ayy of
1. 42. Mezger has noticed that dxvnpé- Aristagoras implied in peyauxet may-

repat €\mides in 1.22 isthe counter-phrase — kparl (21).
to édmld in 1. 46 (followed by 6&drepac in

INTRODUCTION. 219

METRICAL ANALYSIS.

STROPHE.
A.
Oe We is tu HH SU Ve - ot A We
Dy Py. Che ty a a ae ee Fv rv
B
Yes Sy OB FuvyruyuH— Hsu HULA 6.
ud. OF. tu---u---e 6.
U5. tu H JF A 8.
EPODE.

Cvs T—2. a. Fs FU UU A |\4u-—-vu-uu--4u- A I

=
J

, /, la / /
BL a EN INI NI IN NINN NY me IN ee me A I3.
UU~. 5—6. b. tu—-- 5 N | tu - tu A 13.

The rhythm of 4, is so signally different from a, a’, that, although it has
the same péyeOos, it is clearly meant to be epodic. The rhythmical con-
struction of the first epode is adapted with singular felicity to the sense.

The rhythm is dactylo-epitritic.

[NEMEONIKAI] IA’.

APIS TALON Ac

TENEAIS

ITPYTANEI.

Ilat ‘Péas, @

lal ¢
Te mputavela AéAoyxas, Kortia,

OTp. a.

\ € ] f
Znvos triotov Kacvyynta Kat opoOpovov “Hopas,
ed pev “Apiotayopay déEau reov és Oadapor,
ed 8 étaipous dyad oKxaTT@ Tédas,

of oe yepatpovtes opOdv purdcaoiow Teévedor, 5

TodAd pev AovBatow ayafopwevor TpwTav Oewr,

, ,
avT. a.

\ \ / 4 , L L Wao) p.
moAru 8& kvica’ AUpa dé ods BpgweTar Kai aoa

I. mputaveta, déAoyxas] Schol. 7a
mputaverd pnot axel Ti “Kotiav, mapo-
gov ai Tav moNewy EoTiar ev Tots TpuTa-
velois apldpuvrac kal To iepdv Neydmevov
mip émi rovTwy aréxerrat. déoyxXas signi-
fies that the Prytanea are part of Hestia’s
sphere, assigned to her in the mythical
division of functions among the gods, see
Ol. VII. 55-

2. OpoOpdvov] shaver of his throne
(‘throno duas sedes habente’, Dissen).
For a throne of many seats, see Wem. IV.
66.

3. ev pev K.T.A.] Welcome Aristagoras
into thy chamber, yea welcome his com-
panions near thy shining sceptre. Wt is
impossible to reproduce the force of 0aa-
pos applied to the shrine of a goddess;
used of a woman’s habitation it can be
rendered Jower.—It was first pointed out
by Boeckh that the éralpous are not rods
gupmpuravevovras, as the schol. says, but
It is not known
what the official name of the senatorial

the senators of Tenedos.

body was; we may assume it to have
been Bovdj. We learn from this passage
that in Tenedos, as in Athens (see Pau-
sanias, I. 18. 3), a statue of Hestia hold-
ing a sceptre stood in the Prytaneum.

5. op0dv x.7.r.] Aeep Tenedos from
falling. ‘yepaipovres refers to the eloury-
pia or inaugural sacrifices. There were
no priests of Hestia; her worship was
maintained by the care of the prytanis
and senators.

6. modda peév x.7.d.] often worshipping
the first of the gods with libations, often
with sacrificial savour.

Schol. mparnv 6¢ ravrnv etre xabbcov
Kat LYopoxdAys* “Q

This note sug-
gested to Bergk the conjecture mp@pav
deSv, which might explain the accent
in D, mpdrav Oewr.

7. Avpa SEogux.7.r.] The lyre peals
for them and the song. For Bpéwerae of
the lyre see Mem. 1X. 8.

am’ avras 7pxovTo.
mpwpa AoiBAs ‘“Horia.

[WEMEAN\ XI. 221
kat Eeviov Avds aoxeitar Péuis aevaois
év tpatétais’ adda avy S0&q réXos
/ A \ ? , ,
duwdexapnvoy Tepdcar adv atpoTw Kpadia. 10
dvépa 8 eyo paxapifw pev tratép ‘“Apkecirar, eT. a

8. Kalfevlov Atds x.7.d.] Schol. kat
tov geviov Avos Oéuis doxetra kal droow-
ferat rap’ avrois Suamavrods év rats Tpareé-
fais’ avtt Tod giddgéevol eiow. Dissen
quotes Athenaeus Iv. p. 143, F joav dé
kal Eevcxol OGxou kat Tpdmega Tplrn dekas
elovoyTwy eis TH avipeta qv Eevlov Te Avds
Eeviay te mpoonyopevoy (cp. C). For the
expression doxetrac Oéus and for the
connexion of Themis with Zeds éévos,
compare OZ, VIII. 21

évOa Ddrecpa Aros Eeviov

madpedpos acKkeirar Oéus

diox’” avOpdrrwv.
Cp. also érackjow, Vem. IX. 10.

devaots] Perpetual, never running dry.

Compare aevdov mdovrov, inexhaustible
wealth (fr. 119), devdov mupds unguench-
able fire (Pyth. 1. 5), dévaov marpds ’Odvp-
mloto Tidy, the eternal honour (Ol. XIV.
12). I observe that Mr Fennell takes év
here in the sense of with, but I agree
with Rumpel that it has the more literal
meaning of place. The tables are not
only the instrument, they are also the
place of the doxnots.

g: aGAdAd odv 8dtq x.7.d.] No really
valid objection can be brought against
the repetition of ov. Mommsen has
appositely compared such expressions as
kar aloav ovd wep aloav, olos avevd’
d\\wv, where an idea is expressed both
positively and negatively. JZay he pass
with glory the twelve-month of office, yea
with heart unscathed. Sd&a is positive
and objective, drpwros kpadla is negative
and subjective. In my judgment the
repetition of ody is happy. Editors have
proposed many emendations (Kayser 7’
év dtpwr@, Rauchenstein cpu arpérw).—
B B have mepdoa, but Boeckh from

lemma D mepdoau read add\a vw doéa...
mepacat, and Dissen adda ody ofa...
mepacal vy. It is worth quoting the
scholia in full because they point to both
mepdoae and mepaca.

Schol. evxerar thy dapxiy pera doéns
a’tov diatedéoa. adv atpwrw kal addy
TH Kapdla, TovréoTw arratoTy Kat dBrafer,
d7jAov dé,

Kabws kal mpoelrouev, bia TovTwY, dTL ovK

Tiy éviavolay apxiv diavicece.
éoTw émivikos 7 won. § 6 6é vods' mapa-
cxou ovv avrots atv evdoklia e&eviauTjoa
Thy mpuravelay avy advtw Kapdila.

The last note clearly points to wepdcat
and also to the double atv. Now as
mepdoa is quite simple, it is difficult to
see why mepdoa should have been foisted
in; whereas, if mepGoac were in the
ancient MSS., mepdoac was an obvious
simplification. I believe therefore that
mepaoa: attested by D and by a scho-
lium is the right reading. The infinitive
depends on an imperative like 66s, which
is not expressed but can be easily under-
stood from the general notion of gracious-
ness implied in défa. The intervening
words Upa...Tpaméfais should be treated
as a parenthesis. In point of sense, it
will be conceded I think that the op-
tative is weak after the address to
Hestia, and that the context really
demands that Hestia’s protection for
the whole year should be expressly
invoked.

tr. dvdpa 8’ éyo x.7..] A goddess
was the centre of the first two strophes ;
here in the epode the transition to the
mortal is emphasized by the position of
dvdpa in a loose construction (‘oppositio-
nis causa praemissum’, Dissen). As for
the man—TI deem his father Arcesilaus

222

[NEMEONIKAI] 1A’.

\ \ \ lA ’ sy /
Kai TO Bantov déuas atpepiav te Edeyyovor.

el 6€ Tis OABov Eywv pwopha TEpapevoeTar Adror,

év T aéOXo.ow apiotevwy éméderEev Biav'
Ovata peuvacbw trepictérXrXov Médy 15

Kal TéXevTaY aTravTwY yav érLFeroouevos.

bd / ] ’ A > a \ bd a ,
év Aoyous 8 aatav ayabois péev errawvetcbar ypewr,

blessed, and I pratse his (the son’s) ad-
mirable body and the intrepidity which he
inherits. Dissen notes the Zeugma ‘quum
e waxaplfw eliciendum sit aivéw ad secun-
dum membrum’. Mezger takes it other-
wise ; ‘den Mann aber preise ich selig
wegen seines Vaters Arkesilaos und
seiner stattlichen Gestalt und der ihm
angebornen Unerschrockenheit’. But
pakapigw takes accusative and genitive,
the only example of two accusatives that
I can find being that quoted in Liddell
and Scott; Aristophanes, Wasps, 588
TouTl yap Tol ce movoy ToUTWY wy elpnKas
pakapl (wu,
where it seems to me that rov7i is ona
different footing, being a sort of cognate
object (as it were, TodTov pakapicpoy
fovoy paxapl{w).

Schneider and Bergk unnecessarily
read apreulav, which would almost imply
that Aristagoras had recovered from an
illness or been preserved from some
danger. Neither this word nor arpeutav
elsewhere occurs in Pindar. <A scholiast
had the silly notion that ’Arpeuiay was
the name of a sister of Aristagoras.—The
choice of dtpeplay is really a felicity.
It suggests the character of Aristagoras’
beauty, calm like that of a statue. In
Plato’s Phaedrus (250 E) atpeuis is used
of the ¢dcpara in Mysteries, 6\oxKAnpa
6é kat ama kal drpeun Kal evdaluova
pacpara. arpeuds in Homer is generally
used of fose.

13. € S€ Tis «.7.A.] The reading of
D is poppa mapapetcera ad\wv, B B have
Tapapewerar.— Trapamevomat, like mapapei-
Bopa (cf. Pyth. 11. 50) pracverto, must be
followed by an accusative ; accordingly

oTp: Be

Boeckh read soppdv, Hartung a) ous.
Bergk on the other hand reads rpoapetce-
Tat which he supports by glosses in Hesy-
chius. The question is: is it likely that apo-
would have been changed, by accident or
intention, to rap-? I am disposed to think
that Pindar wrote tepapetoetat, the
preposition (Aeolic for zrept, see below, 1.
40) having the same force as in 7repitoéedw,
mepiylvoua. This was much more ex-
posed to the chances of corruption. Cf.
the conjecture of Mr Postgate, 6 répad)or,
in Nem. 111. 33.

15. Ovara x.7.X.] Let him remember
that the limbs which he clothes are mortal,
and that the last vesture of al will be
@ shroud of earth. TedevTav awadvTwr is
adverbial, but it means the end of all his
dressing will be a dress of clay. See
Introduction, p. 217.

17. €v Adyous k.7.A.] Schol. év dé 77
Tuv ayadov youn émavetcOa Tods aya-
Bods mpoonket, pnoiv. § 7} otrw* Tovs
ToovTous Kal ToLavTa noKyKdTas dpxovTas
det bwd Ta dorav Tay dyabdy Kai Néyos
émaveioba kal Koomelabar Toijpacw.

The Mss. have dyaOots uev aivetobat.
The metre shews that a short syllable
has fallen out, and Triclinius emended
dyabotot. Mingarelli read ayadoict pw,
Mommsen and Bergk dyafotot vw. It
would be wrong to change the signifi-
cant pev, but I think that instead of
adding the « to ayaots we should read
érawetaAac (not contradicted by the
scholia). The omission of the syllable
was due to parablepsia ;

MENETTAINEICOAI
The scholia rightly separate dya0ots from
Novyous: Lr speech it is meet that he should

[WEMEAN] XI.

223

Kal peduySovTrotot SaLdarbévTa pédew €v aowdais.

> Nv / € / b eB t
éx O€ mepixtidvar éexKaidex ’Apiotayopay

> \ lal / ’ Shay:
ayhaat VLKAL TTATPQAV T E€EUMVUMLOV

éotepdvocay Tada Kal peyavyel TayKpaTio.

éedrrides 8 oxvnporepar yovéwy traidos Biav avr. B.

éoxyov év Uv0dv meipdcOar Kai ‘Odvprria aébrov.

val wa yap bpkov, éuav ddfav rapa Kacrandia

be praised by good citizens. ayabois pev
implies a xaxol 6é, which Pindar does
not express, the yév being sufficiently
eloquent.

18. S8a8adGévra] Compare O/. Vv.
21 aitjowy rodw evavoplaor Tavde KNUTALS
Savddd\New, and OZ. I.
E€vov Kdurator Satdadwoduev tuvwv mrv-
xats. Translate tricked out. With pe-
Alydouros (a7. elp.) cf. wedkousros and
peNppofos.— The MSS. give pmediféuev
aovdats, which cannot stand, as deldw and
do.dd do not suffer synizesis in Pindar.
Pauw proposed pedifev, Mommsen pe-
ply’ év, Christ wédXecor kdéecOa. After
considerable hesitation I have come to
the conclusion that Hermann’s péAewv év is
the true restoration of the passage. The
corruption, I believe, arose thus. In

105 mémoa oe

uncial mss. N, written a little crookedly,
tends to assume the appearance of Z, and

thus MEAEINEN might become ME-
AEIZEN, which would be read pedifev
(as ec and « were constantly confused in
MsS. owing to itacism, this interpretation
would be inevitable) and subsequently
corrected to pmedcféwer.—év dodats con-
trasts with év Adyo.s, and uédew means be
a theme.

19. €« S& mepuxtidvey K.7.r.] Weigh-
bouring states crowned Aristagoras and
his clan of auspicious name for sixteen
splendid victories in wrestling and in
the ennobling pancration. The force of
éx is that a stranger carried away prizes
or crowns from among the native inhabit-
Compare Pyth. Iv.

ants. 66 Kddos é&

Tsth.
VII. 64 €rrel mepixriovas évikace 64 Tore Kal

dudixriovav emopev lmrmodpaptas.

kelvos dvdpas.—TatTpav evodyupov means
the Peisandridae, a name of good omen.

21. peyavxel] The Mss.
have peyadavxe?, but Schmid’s correc-

glorioso.

tion peyavyxel, which restores the metre,
may be regarded as certain. The cor-
ruption was quite natural as composites
with the longer
common.

22. éAmlSes dxvnpotepar] Zhe halting
hopes of his parents refrained their power-
ful son from essaying contests at Pytho or
at Olympia. It is hardly necessary to
remark that éyw meipicOac and éxw pun
meipag0a are alternative expressions, the
Dissen
quotes ox7o0w ce ryday, Euripides, Orestes

267.

stem are far more

latter being the more common.

24. val pa yap Spkov] Zur as J live;
yap explains dxvnpérepa (unduly diffident).
See Hesiod 7heog. 231

épxov @ ds 6h mdetorov émxAovlous

avOpwmous

mnuatver, OTe Key TIS Ekwy é€mlopKoY

oudoon.
epav Sdofav, 72 my judgment, an adverbial
accusative (cf. 7d ody pépos), not to be
taken with vat wa as Mezger takes it.
Dissen is hardly correct in construing
mapa KaoraNia with wodwy ; it goes with
Had Aristagoras gone and
striven at Castalia or the hill of Cronos,
he would have returned more honourably
than his rivals.—In O/. x11. 44 Pindar
has the form 6nplowac; the Homeric

OnpiwovT wv.

224 [NEMEONIKAI] IA.
Kal trap evdévdpm porov bx8m Kpovov 25

KaAXLOV av dynpLbvTwY evocTHS avTLTado)?,

mevtaeTnpio éoptav ‘Hpaxréos TéOutov

ér. ’.

Kwpaoals avdnoamevos TE KOwav ev Troppupéots

yy > \ A \ s / 3
épvecw. adda Bpot@y Tov pev Keveodpoves avyat
€& ayabdv EBadov’ Tov & ad KkatapeppOérT’ ayav 30

> \ > / / An
lOYUY OLKELWY Tapeo panev KAN@V

\ e > / 0 \ 7 a,
yelpos EXKwV OTidaw FuUmCS aTOApos EwD.

ovpBareiv wav evpapés nv TO Te Hevcavdpov trarau

form is dypidowat. With 6x0 Kpédvov
cf. Ol. 1X. 3 Kpévov map’ 6x8ov.—Schol.
evdévSpw did Ta TOV ENaLaY puTd.

27, qmevraernpid’] <A festival which
we should call quadriennial the Greeks
called quinquennial. Té®p.ov, prescribed
according to fixed rules, has much the
same force as the Latin sodlennis; TeOuds
corresponds to zzstitutum. The first syl-
lable is short here; in /sth. V. 20 it is
long, TEOu6y por Paul capécraror elva.

28. vy tmophupéots epveriv] having
bound his hair in glistering branches.
The expression loses its strength if we
take évy as merely instrumental; the
victor’s locks are conceived as actually
zm the wreath of olive leaves. The poet
permits himself to apply to this wreath
the name of a colour, not literally appro-
priate to it, and intended altogether in a
figurative sense. Regal ‘purple’ might
be considered the queen of colours and
used as a metaphor for supreme excel-
lence; and in the same way Pindar
borrowed the most precious of the metals
to describe the badge of Olympian vic-
tory. See O/. XI. 13 émi orepavy xpvoéas
éNalas, and Mem. 1.17. (Cf. also Pyth.
Ill. 73 bylevav xpvoéav, golden health.)
For épveow see Nem. V1. 18.

30. é& dyaav EBadov] Cause him to
miss his desires (an aorist of generality) ;
the passive éxrlarw in this metaphorical
sense is more familiar. (BB have @\afBor,

oTp. Y’.

a not unfrequent confusion in Mss.)

Tov 8 ad x.7.d.] Whereas another,
underrating his strength, lets the honours,
that were within his reach, slip from his
hand, plucked back by an unadventurous
heart.—Mezger takes katayeupbévta in
a passive sense (comparing Diogenes
Laertius, VI. 47), Samed in point of
strength.—napacpadd\w has much the
same meaning as €xBd\\w, cause to fail
in, deprive of, but, appropriately to the
sense, is gentler. Over-confidence ex-
pels; over-diffidence leads astray.

33- oupPadrety x.7.d.] Serely it was
easy to compecture in him the ancient blood
of Pisander from Sparta—for he came
with Orestes from Amyclae, conducting
hither (to Tenedos) a bronze-mailed host
of Aeolians—mingled near the stream of
Ismenus with the blood of his mother’s
ancestor Melanippus. :

Schol. cuuBarety Nav eduapés jv Kal
onuemoacba Toy iddvTa “Apioraydpav ore

TO méAa airov alua kal To yévos Hv amd
Ilevcavdpov tod Xmapriarov* ws dd twos
Tlewsavdpov trav mada@v byvros Tov ’Apt-
otayébpov. ovros 6é, pyal, oiv ’Opésrn
amwknoey €x Xmaptns kal thy Tévedor
KarwKnoe. Tevédios yap 6 ’Aptorayépas.
mept 6€ rhs “Opéorov els tHv Alodléa
arotktas ‘EXdvixos €v TH TpwTw AloAukOv
isropnxey. 6 6€ Meddummos otros On-
Batos jv émi rod mod€uou svaras TH Tuber.

K:TeA.

[VEMEAN] XI. 225

> > \ / > / \ ” ‘\ > LA
aly’ ard Xaaptas—Apikrabev yap &Ba aiv ’Opéora

? D \ i lo eX) > /
AloXéwy otpatidy yadkevtéa Sedp’ avaywv— - 35
kai Tap “lopnvod pody Kexpapévov
> , , > A ae t) x
€x Medavirmoto patpwos. apyatar 8 aperal
’ / > > / lal > A / > /
audépovt adracoopeva yeveais avdpav abévos’ avT. ¥’.
év axep@ 8 ovT adv pédAawat KapTrov édwxKav apovpat,
dévdpea 7 ovK eOéder Tacas éTéwy TrEpddots 40
avOos evades pépew wRovTw Ficor,
’
arr’ éy apetBovtt. Kat Ovatov o’tws Ovos dyer

lal \ >] > \ >’ / \ ’ iA > /
Hotpa. 70 8 &x Awos avOpwrows capes ovy ereta em. yy’.

This scholium recognizes the reading
of the Mss, May. The metre requires a
long monosyllable here and most editors
read pav (due to Pauwius). The simi-
larity of Al and M accounts for the cor-
ruption.

36. podv] Bergk’s correction of poav;
compare schol. rapa ra "Iounvod pevuara.
The genitive is forcible and idiomatic
(corresponding to dad Zmdpras), and
scribes familiar with rapa morayor, etc.,
were tempted to alter the accent.

37- apxatar «.7.r.} This is the way
of men’s generations ; their original excel-
lences change and then win strength anew.
(yeveats is dative of those interested.)

Aristagoras, Pindar implies, is the suc-
cessor of Pisander and Melanippus; the
intermediate generations were obscured
(ray b€ weratd juavpwuévwr, schol.).

Schol. ai dpxatar rov mpoyovwy, poly,
aperal Varepov ExAdurovow...... § 7} otrws*
ai dé madatal dperal drodépovra obévos
évad\acoopmevar Tats Tov dvOpdmruwv e-
veats,

39. & aXEP] continuously, opp. to
adNacod wevat.—péAatvat is chosen with
the purpose of pointing the illustration
by a play on Medavuros.

40. Séviped tr x.7.d.] Neither are
trees fain to bear in each revolving year
an equal wealth of flowery fragrance, but
rather by turns. mepddors, Aeolic for

mepiodos. It is curious that B B omit

mdovTw before tcov (sic). Bergk reads
m\ouTwovov, formed like yapitwovov, a
Rhegine adjective, see Ibycus, fr. 51 (P.
Jo, (Cx (eas 2),

42. Kal Ovardv x.7..] On this wise
the race of mortals also ts driven by the
wind of Fate. The mss. have oirw
a0évos, which Heyne corrected, with the
help of the scholiast’s words 76 ray
avOpwmrwv yévos. The scribe had o@évos
in his mind from 1. 38, and when he came
to the words

OYTWCEBNOC

he unhesitatingly read otrwadévos, trans-
posing two letters and violating the metre.
A similar instance of contamination
from the general context is the familiar
Nvove’ av 7 'ddmrrovea in Sophocles’
Antigone, 1. 40, where a scribe wrote
Oamrovea, because his mind was full of
the idea of burial, the subject of the
context. In the present case, the occur-
rence of o6évos in 1. 38 would be a point
against it in l. 42, even if the metre
were not decisive.

aye. means drive, like a wind. Inter-
preters have missed the felicity of this
passage through not perceiving the meta-
phor from sailing.

43. 708’ &k Atos x.7..] And as for
Zeus, no clear signin heaven accompanieth
men on thetr course; but, albeit, we em-
bark in vessels of proud designs, devising
For our limbs have been

many works.

226

[NEMEONIKAI] 1A’.

Téxwap* adr éutrav peyaravopias é€uBaivoper,

épya Te ToANa pevowvayTes’ SédeTar yap avaidet 45

bs / a , 7, , / i¢ U
ermrids yuia’ mpouabeias 8 atroKewwtat poai.

Kepdéwy Sé ypn péTpov Onpevéuev"

> / Oe Day eT /
aT PpOOlLKT@V é EPWTOV o€UTEpat Paviat.

fettered by importunate Hope; and the
streams of foreknowledge are situate far
away. 7d 8 éx Aws is more emphatic
than é« Acés, pointing the antithesis be-
tween Zev’s and wotpa. Tékpap suggests a
guiding star; cf. réxkuwp of the moon in
Hom. Hymn. 32, 13 Téxuwp 6€ Bporotce
téruktat, The reading proposed by Christ
év Batvouev for éuBaivowey surrenders the
metaphor. For éuBaivw in this meta-
phorical sense Dissen compares Plato,
Phaedrus 252 E €dy ovvy pn mporepov
Mr Fennell
happily suggests that déderar yuta may
be ‘‘a metaphor from a slave chained to
the oar”.—dvaet, exceeding due measure,
corresponds to a common use of zmpro-
bus, as in Virgil’s labor omnia vincit
wmprobus.

45. épya te moda] B, D épya re,
B épya te, Bergk épya ye, Mommsen
épy dre, Hartung épya ra. Schol. d\d\a
peyadnyopodmev weyaa Te wevowwrres Kal
ppovrifovres vrép EauTous.

The reading of the Mss. is clearly
It is more difficult than any
of the corrections, and that it is more

€uBeBGor TH emeTnbevpate.

correct.

logical than either they or pevowwpev
(which might have been easily written)
would be, may be shewn by an analysis
of the thought. The (1) central notion
is, we are at sea; and our position is
defined by (2) the nature of our vessels
and (3) the object of our voyage.
The simplest grammatical connexion of
these three moments would be: mAéomev

éuBalvovrés Te
moA\Na pevowavTes, but

feyanavoplais epya TE
Pindar abbre-
viates it by making the first participle
do duty as a verb, €uBalvouer, we are
embarkers in.

pevovavres] seditantes.

46. poat] fod is used metaphorically
in OJ. Il. 33,

poat 6 a&dor’ &ddat
evOumidy Te era Kal movwy és avdpas
éBav.

Schol. rijs 6€ mpoyvwoews ai 660i darobev
nuaov Ketvrat. But 660f (another metaphor)
misses the point of foal. The rivers of
foreknowledge do not flow into the sea,
on which mortals sail.

47. Kepdéwy 8 x.7.A.] Lt zs good to
observe a measure in the chase for gain;
sharp are the fits of madness wrought by
unattainable longings. Bergk charac-
terises the last line by the words ‘“sin-
gularem audaciam sermonis Pindarici’’,
and adds ‘‘nam poeta dicere volebat
olrwes dmpoolktwy épwow, TovTwY O& [.,
qui cur ampociktwy 5 épwrytwy scribere
noluerit planum est”.

The comparative éfvrepat suggests,
more emphatically than deta, its op-
posite Bpad’repac or aduBd0Tepac; and
here, succeeding €Amldc at such a short
distance, it inevitably reminds us of the
lagging hopes, €wldes SKvynpdtepar, of
1, 22 (so Mezger). The use of the com-
parative to suggest a correlative may be
illustrated by @n\vrepos, erepos, Seétrepos
etc. See further Appendix A, note to.

APPENDIX A.

NoTeE rt. 1. 58, wadtyyAwocos.

In commenting on this word I omitted to refer to an Homeric
expression which throws some light on it. In A 357 we read

Tov 0 érmedyoas tpooéepy Kpetwy ’Ayapepvov
ws yvO xwopévoww+ maw 8 6 ye Adlero pdOov.

The most obvious meaning of the last words is ‘he withdrew his remarks.’
Agamemnon had chided Odysseus, and, when Odysseus replied angrily,
he retracted his injurious words. But this meaning will not suit the
passage in the Odyssey where the same phrase occurs, v 254. There it
is used of Odysseus telling a false tale of his own life to Eumaeus.
Commentators give no hint how the two passages are to be reconciled.
In order to reconcile them, we must get rid of the idea that AdLero
pd0ov means ‘took back his word’ in the 7Zad. Both there and in the
Odyssey it means ‘grasped’ or ‘laid hold of a word,’ in accordance
with the regular usage of AdZouat. In both cases, moreover, waAw has
the same sense : ‘reversely.’ The difference lies in the context. In the
Iliad wédw reverses what Agamemnon had said before, the rdw piOos
is a palinode; in the Odyssey wadw reverses the truth, the wad\w
pd0os is a falsehood.

This apparent difference in the meaning of waduw, owing to a real
difference in the things on which its sense operates, illustrates the two
uses of waAtyyAwooos in Pindar, as pointed out in the Commentary.

NOTE 2. II. 9, awros.

There are several passages in Pindar where the point obviously turns
on a supposed connexion of awros with anu, cf. the Homeric awréw
(awretre yAvKov Urvov). Indeed it is not impossible that dwros may have
actually meant dveath as well as gloss ; it is even conceivable that breath

15—2

228 APPENDIX A.

was the primary meaning, and that awros is cognate to awréw. In any
case the Greeks connected them. In the general /troduction (p. xix) I
pointed out a passage in the Sixth Isthmian where awros has a suggestion
of this kind, and here I may call attention to other instances.

Pyth. X. 51 sgg. Kwrav cxacov, taxv 8 ayxvpay epewov xGovi
mpwpabe, xoupados aAKap 7eéTpas.
eyKupiov yap autos vpVvwV

ér aAXor GaAAov wre pedicoa Odver doyov.

Here awros vuvwv, joined with @Jvec and in collocation with a sea-
metaphor, could not be justified, if it did not suggest gale of hymns, as
well as fairest of hymns. Again in Jsthm. 1. 51 the strange phrase
TodaTav Kat €évwv ykuooas awtov is justified by the suggestion breath of
the tongue; and unless he intended to convey this suggestion, I cannot
think that Pindar would have ventured on the expression yAwooas
GQwTov.

The phrases Cwas awrtos (/sth. tv. 12) and etfgas awtov (Pyth. Iv. 131)
obviously allude to the dreath of life, cf. aiwv, and perhaps povorkas év
awtw (Ol 1. 14) suggests the breathings (mvoai) of flutes. Another
instance of this secondary significance of awros will be found in JVo/e 3
of this Appendix.

In the present passage the argument seems to turn on a similar
allusion. It has been pointed out in the note on 1. 8 that aiov ed6v-
mopumos is metaphorical, a straight-wafting breeze of time (or life). Now
the strong verb odeiAe, and the strong conjunction etzep show that there
must be a definite inference, and I have no doubt that the inference is
from aivv to adwros. The Zimodemidae had a fair wind (aivv) ; we may
infer that Z%modemus will also have a fair wind (dwros). This
etymological, allusory argument is highly characteristic of Pindar.

A confirmation of this view is furnished by 1. 14. Atavros axovcev
responds to xa\Actov dwrov, and it has been pointed out (see note
on 14) that Aias is conceived as a mighty zd, and that this is the
justification and motive of axoveev, in which commentators have found so
much difficulty. If dwros also alludes to anu, there is greater significance
in the comparison of ‘Timodemus to Ajax.

APPENDIX A. 229

NOTE 3.

Ill. 26 sgq. Oupé, tiva pos adXodarav
” > ‘ / /
akpav €4ov wAOov mwapapeiBea ;
Aiaka oe hapi yéver te Moicav déepew.
o ‘A , , » > ‘ > ~
29 emerar de AOyw Sikas awtos, éodOs aiveiv:
23 , ” > \ , s
ov adXotpiwv epwres avdpl pepew Kxpécooves.
olkobev pareve.

Verse 29 is one of the most difficult in Pindar. There is a difficulty in
the mere translation, and there is a further difficulty in discerning its
connexion with the lines which precede and with the lines which follow.
That a close connexion must exist in both directions is obvious ; for if
we leave the line in question out of the context, the train of thought is
consecutive. Pindar supposes that the Muse is in a ship, steered by his
soul (6uzos). He charges the steersman to come back from the pillars
of Heracles, as it is for the sake of Aeacus and his race that the Muse is
sailing. ‘Then—if we omit the enigmatical line—he observes that we
should not resort to foreign tales, when there are good tales at home;
the cycle of Aeginetan legend is ample enough. Or, in the language
of the metaphor, desires of foreign things are not a good freight
(pepe). Thus the connexion of thought between line 28 and line
30 is close. According to all hitherto proposed interpretations
(criticised in note on 1. 29), the intervening words break this con-
nexion with a frigid commonplace. We may conclude that if the line
is sound dékas awros must bear some further significance than essence of
Justice.

Now we saw in (Vode 2 of this Appendix that in Pindar’s use awrtos
has frequently the secondary meanings of drveath or breeze. The present
passage is another instance. A blast of justice is just the expression
required by the metaphor in the preceding lines. The poet’s soul is
compared to a craft, bearing the Muse and his tale (Aoyos); its errand is
to praise noble men (the Aeacids and Aristoclides) ; and it is escorted
by a breeze of justice. Translate: JZy ¢ale, on its errand to praise noble
men, ts escorted by a wind that blows fair. The justice consists in
choosing the Aeacidae for the burden of the hymn, as explained in the
following lines—oikoev pareve. In aivety the original dative sense of
the infinitive comes out ; cf. Homer, v 33

agracins 8 apa Td Katédv aos Hediovo

doprov érotyer Oar.

230 APPENDIX A.

But it will be asked, Why should praise of the Aeacidae be called the
perfection of justice ?—for ‘breeze’ is only the less usual sense of dwros.
It may be explained as a conclusion from Aiaxds to dwros (cf. the
inference from aiwy to awros in It. 8, g).

This interpretation secures to the context a connected meaning.
But it is strikingly confirmed by a subsequent passage in the Ode.
The sailing of Achilles to Troy is introduced thus (1. 57 sgg.)—

yovov té Fou déprarov
7 Fy > , , ‘ + 2
atitaAXev év appevoicr TavTa Ovpoy avéwv

odpa Garaccias aveépwv purator weupbeis k.T.A.

These words are remarkable. In the metaphor of the ship, which we
have been considering, the idea of burden or freight was emphasized by
éepew (1. 28), depew (1. 30), toripopor (1. 31) occurring in rapid succession.
It is more than a coincidence that ¢éptaroy occupies the same position
in the 7th line of antistrophos 7 as dépew in the 7th line of strophe f,
The recurrence of 6vpos in the same connexion shows this. The soz of
Achilles, figuratively, is a ship bearing him to Troy, just as the soul
(@upé 1. 26) of the poet is a vessel of imagination, which dears the Muse.
And the unique phrase év appévoror points this allusion to the ship.
appeva was a vox propria for the rigging or gear of a ship, and could
not fail to suggest a naval metaphor. I suspect that there is a similar
double meaning in Theognis, 1. 695 :

ov dvvapar got, Ove, Tapacxety apweva TavTa:
téthafi: tav d&€ Kadcv oUTL ov podvos épas,
where the juxtaposition of xaAdvy and dppeva suggests ropes (kaAor) and
tackle.

Now just as the craft of the poet is wafted by a dreeze of justice on its
way, so the craft of Achilles is wafted by sea blasts, @aAacotas avepwv
puratoz. And the destinations of both voyages are similar,—to kindle
lights of glory.

At Troy Achilles slays Memnon and

TyAavyes apape héyyos Aiaxway adroler,
‘thereby a star of the Aeacidae shineth afar in the firmament.’ apape
shows that the Peyyos is a star. Cf. Aratus, Phaenomena, 453 ovpave eb
evapynpev ayaApata vuKtos iovans, 482 apypdtos “Hywxow, etc. And
Aristoclides, who is compared to Achilles, has his constellation too.
1. 83 tiv ye pev, evbpovov Kreots edoicas, deOLopopov AnpaTos
eveKev

Nepéas "Exidavpodev 7 aro kal Meyapwv dedopKev aos.

APPENDIX A. 231

There is a suggestion in these words of a star shining on a ship whose
burden is the prize of victory. For ae#Aodopov Ayparos is a phrase
intended to recall zor/fopov Koopov é€AaPes (1. 31). The play on Ajpa
and Ajppa would hardly be evident, if it were not more distinctly
suggested in the immediate vicinity of Ajparos ; but Pindar has provided
for this. Two lines before €AaBev aiWa (81) is used of the eagle, to
whom Achilles, Aristoclides and the poet himself are all likened.

And thus Pindar has indirectly insinuated that his own hymn of
victory has lit the light of fame for Aristoclides.

But the eagle too has some bearing on the words (d/kas awros) which
this note is intended to explain. ¢AaBev and perapadpevos in |. 81
recalling édaBes and pareve in 1. 31 make us bring the two passages into
connexion ; and we are reminded that aietos is the omen of the house
of Aiaxdés. These three words, Aiaxos, dwros and aieros are associated
together (just like aiwv, dwros and Atas in Vem. 11.), the link of meaning
being wéxd or breath; and this note of wud is struck in icoy avépots
(l. 45) of the flight of an Aeacid’s javelin. The quality of the eagle
which is emphasized is its swiftness,—that in which it resembles wind.

NOTE 4.
ll. 62, év dpact magad” ors.

This expression excites suspicion, because no parallel can be
adduced. But there are other reasons too for regarding the passage
as possibly corrupt. (1) émiifas Aifiorecor xeipas is a solecism.
eryuryvivat is used in this sense but not érywyvivar xetpas, to which our
familiarity with the Latin phrase conserere manus unconsciously reconciles
us. (2) The whole sentence may appear rather forced. We are told
that Chiron educated Achilles, to the intent that (é¢pa) he should
withstand the enemy at Troy and having engaged with the Ethiopians
should fix in his mind the resolve to prevent the return of Memnon.
It is certainly a strange way of putting the matter. We should rather
expect the clause of purpose to cease at Aapdavwy re, and a new
indicative clause, stating what Achilles did or resolved, to begin at Kat
eyxerpopots eripifas. (3) A stronger objection to the whole sentence
may be based on the circumstance that in the extant works of Pindar
there is no other case of ozws or orws py in a final clause. This
conjunction occurs only in two other places :

Ol. X. 57 Karéppacev—revraetypid’ oTws apa eotacev éoptay.
Frag. 61 ov yap &60 dws ta Oedv Bovreipar’ epevvace poten

ppevi.

232 APPENDIX A.

In reply to these objections it may be said that none of them is
conclusive ; and it may be urged in support of the text that the strange
form of expression is designedly chosen to emphasize the attribution of
the Fourth Virtue (ppovety to mapkeipevov |. 75) to Achilles. This has
been noted in the /ztroduction to the Ode.

NOTE 5.

IV. 93 otov aivéwy xe MeAnoiay epida orpépor,
ery, , aye ° , ¢
pynpata TA€Kwv, atadaoTtos ev Noyw EAKELY,
\ ‘\ / > a“
paraka pev ppovewy éadois,
Tpaxus dé TadiyKoToLs epedpos.

The current explanations of this difficult passage cannot be regarded
as satisfactory. It is generally supposed to mean nothing more than a
compliment to Melesias, couched in terms borrowed from the wrestling
school. If this was Pindar’s sole intention, he cannot be congratulated
on his language. ‘How one would wrestle in a word-contest, if one
were praising Melesias!’—this, if it has any meaning, implies that
Melesias cannot be fitly praised, except in verses of a pugnacious or
controversial character. But why not? Melesias doubtless had enemies ;
but it would surely be feasible to extol Melesias to the skies without
engaging in an encounter with his rivals. Nor is anything gained by
taking Euphanes as the subject of the sentence. The conceit that if
Euphanes were alive again his occupation would consist in fighting the
battles of the trainer Melesias against critics is frigid enough. But if
Pindar had meant this, he would have used very different language ; he
would not have used the present tenses aivéwv xe otpépor without some
introductory phrase to indicate that the dead singer was supposed to be
alive. For example, in the first part of this ode the idea of Timocritus
surviving to celebrate his son’s victory is expressed in the clearest
language («i 0° éru eOadreto...daya xe xeAddyoe). A reference to Eu-
phanes here seems to me to be both irrelevant and not countenanced
by the Greek. The subject of aivéwy and orpéfou is obviously tts,
understood from the preceding sentence.

There is another consideration which seems fatal to the received
view. The language in these last four lines is strikingly forcible; but
if the received view were correct it would be at the same time in-
expressibly weak. For nothing could be weaker than to use this strong
language of a hypothetical case. It is almost as if, after composing
eleven and a half strophes in honour of Timasarchus, the poet added,

APPENDIX A. 233

‘But if I were charged to praise Melesias, then would I put forth my
strength as a wrestler in verse.’

Now Pindar leaves us in no doubt that so far from meaning this he
regards the present hymn as a specimen of his skill in the art of poetic
wrestling. For each of these carefully chosen phrases is intended to
recall some phrase which occurred before. (1) pypara wAékwy answers
to énpo in 1. 6, according to the canon of Mezger; and this means that
‘the word’ which is to glorify Timasarchus is an instance of the
wrestler’s ‘word-twisting.’ (2) There can be no question that év Aoyw
refers to the mythical tale, which was the special feature of Pindaric art.
This, as we saw, was the meaning of Adyov in 1. 31 and Adyov in 1. 71.
But a danger threatens the teller of such tales. He is tempted to
exceed limits and give the myth an undue proportion. Into this fault
Pindar himself is said to have fallen in his youth, and to have been
warned against it by the counsels of Corinna. We saw that he referred
to the subject in |. 33 sgg. Professing to be unable to relate the story
of the Aeacids at length, he feels nevertheless that a charm draws him
to touch on it. The attractive power of the myth, to which the poet
must only yield in measure, is expressed by the word €Akw (€&kopar
1. 35). This explains the second edge of amadauros ev Aoyw Axew.
In relating a myth Pindar grips his subject, so to speak, and does not
let it grip him. ‘The point turns on the double meaning of €Axeuw, as a
term in wrestling and as a term in magic. (3) padakd (ppovewy eoAois)
is an echo of pad@axd in]. 4. And this clearly suggests that the hymn
which is to soothe Timasarchus after his labours is an instance of to
paraxa ppoveiv exdois. (4) We shall hardly be wrong in supposing
that édedpos, like €\xew, has a double signification. For otherwise
épedpos would have no point, and the simple zaAauor7s would be a more
suitable word. It is not fitter to compare a poet to a man who draws a
‘by,’ than to compare him to one of the paired wrestlers. But there is
fitness in using the technical word if it has a second implication which
is appropriate to the poet and not to the wrestler; and I think it may
be shown that éfedpos is used here for the sake of such an implication.
Pindar presented to us a picture of his Lyre weaving a song in honour
of Aegina (1. 45), and I pointed out in the /troduction to the Ode that
this picture is, so to speak, set by the side of another, in which the gods
weave gifts of might for Peleus and his descendants. The prominent
feature in the second picture is the evxuxXos édpa on which the lords of
heaven sat (épeCopevor). And from this we may supply a defect in the
first (a slighter sketch), and imagine the Phorminx and the poet himself
sitting on a €dpa, as the song is woven. Now épe8pos may mean ‘seated

234 APPENDIX A.

on’ as well as ‘lier-in-wait,’ and this secondary meaning justifies and
explains its use in the passage under consideration. It is clearly an
echo of @pav (ras) épefspevor, and suggests the poet seated at the
work of composing his song. This conclusion is strikingly confirmed by
yet another correspondence of words. (5) The song woven by
Phorminx is described thus :

Avdia civ appovig, pedos wepiAnp<vov

in the sth verse of the 6th strophe. It is no accident that MeAnctay
echoes péAos in the 5th verse of the last strophe. This pédAos is the
work of the poetical ‘wrestler,’ who is none other than Pindar
himself.

We shall now find it less difficult to answer the question: What is
the econ of aivéewvy Ke MeAnoiav orpecpor? We have only to remember
that atvéw does not always imply the praise conveyed by panegyric; it
may also express ‘the sincerest’ form of praise—imitation. ‘This is the
force of the word in /sthmian Vi. 32 paxatav aivewy Medcaypor, aivewy
8% xa “Exropa, where it differs little from ¢jAdv. And this signification
admirably suits the present passage. Pindar represents himself as
imitating in his own art Melesias the master of another science. Pindar
is the wrestling poet; Melesias is the wrestler with a poetic name.
‘What a master in words would he be who should excel in poetry as
Melesias excels in wrestling !’—this is, in effect, what Pindar says; but
he uses words which show that he meant to compare himself to Melesias,
and to designate this hymn as a specimen of poetic wrestling, not
without a glance at his rivals.

It is hardly necessary to refer to the explanation of ofov in the sense
‘for instance.’ There is no idea in the last four lines, however
interpreted, which can be regarded as an ‘instance’ of the preceding
idea.

Note 6. Lampon (Vemean V.).

In Herodotus (Book 1x. c. 78) we read of a certain Aeginetan,
Lampon the son of Pytheas, who proposed to Pausanias that Mardonius
should be impaled. It is clear that this Lampon (whom Herodotus
calls Alywytéwv ta mpdra) was a member of the same family as the
Lampon of whom we read in Pindar. For the father of Herodotus’
Lampon had the same name as one of the sons of Pindar’s Lampon—
Pytheas; and this can hardly be considered accidental. But Miller
went much too far when he proposed to identify the two Lampons.
The father of Pytheas and Phylacidas was the son of Cleonicus (/s¢#. Iv.

APPENDIX A. 235

55, V. 16), and it is quite gratuitous to suppose either that Cleonicus and
Pytheas were the same person or that Cleonicus was Lampon’s true
father and Pytheas his father by adoption. The only conclusion that
we are entitled to draw is that the two Lampons belonged to the same
mdtpa, namely that of the Psalychiadae, as we learn from /sth. v. 63.
At the utmost we might venture to suppose with Mr Fennell that the
Lampons were first cousins, called after their common grandfather.
See Mr Fennell’s judicious remarks in his /¢roduction to Nemea v.

NOTE 7. VI. 64 sgg.

The Introduction and Commentary on the Sixth Nemean had been
finally printed, when I discovered, as I believe, the solution of a problem,
which had hitherto baffled me, in connexion with that Ode. ‘This
solution, which I offer here, throws light simultaneously on some minor
difficulties, and I must request the reader to supplement the explana-
tions given in the Commentary by this additional note.

The chief difficulty is the abruptness of the last three lines of the
Ode, which seem to have no connexion with the remainder of the
composition. Melesias was the trainer of Pytheas, and of course it
was strictly appropriate to pay the trainer a compliment. But the
introduction of this compliment as an appendix, in three lines whose
absence would not detract from the artistic effect of the hymn, cannot
be regarded as happy, and is certainly not in the manner of Pindar.
In the Fourth Nemean Melesias was likewise referred to in the
concluding verses, but we saw how this reference was carefully woven
into the fibre of the whole work (above JVo‘e 5).

Our doubts increase when we consider the form which the compli-
ment to Melesias assumes. ‘The trainer in wrestling is compared to a
dolphin for széftness. This simile may indeed be illustrated by the
word deAgui~w which Lucian uses to express ducking in wrestling. But
still, if Pindar merely wanted a poetical image to express the qualities
of a consummate wrestler, his choice of a dolphin cannot be regarded as
specially appropriate. Perhaps we may conclude that the dolphin was
intended to suggest something more than the swift movements of a
wrestler’s limbs.

Now the two things for which the dolphin was chiefly noted were its
swiftness! and its love for music, exemplified in the story of Arion. The

1 Compare also Pyth. 11. 51 Oeds Oa- 234 Tapa vaiv O° lOve Taxrora dedGis.
Naccatoy mapapelBerat dedpiva, and Frag.

236 APPENDIX, A.

second quality is thus mentioned in a remarkable fragment of Pindar
(235):

adlov & épebiLopar deAdivos varoKpiow*

TOV pev akvpovos ev TOVTOV TeAayeEL

aidGv éxivyno épatov péXos.

It may be shown, I think, that the characteristic of the mythical
dolphin determined Pindar to employ the image now under con-
sideration. He regards che wrestler as playing the dolphin to his own
Arion; and the name Melesias (uédos) lent itself to the suggestion. The
poet comes

Kat avtos éxwv pedétay (1. 54),

—a strange phrase which arrests the attention,—and the pedera is for
the benefit of wrestlers typified by MeAnotas. For if Melesias is a
dolphin, it follows that the wrestlers whom he trains to excellence, are
as dolphins too.

In support of this explanation there are several points to be urged
(besides the fact that it solves the difficulty).

(1) It has been pointed out that in the Fourth Nemean there is a
similar play on the name of the Aeginetan trainer (MeAno(ay in 1. 93
responding to »éAos in |. 44).

(2) If pedéray (1. 54) is intended to prepare for the allusion in
MeAyoas, the introduction of the metaphor from the ship in Il. 55, 56
is explained. For this metaphor requires some explanation. It
interrupts the metaphor of the od0s5 apagiros, and it was difficult to see
for what purpose it was introduced. But if we recognise that it antici-
pates the simile of the deAdpiv dv adyas, the whole passage begins to
become intelligible. Pindar stands in the ship (like Arion) with his
pedéra, and the dolphins are in the circumfluent waves, which beat
against the vessel (1. 56).

(3) The expression sacred games occurs more than once in Pindar.
As it was an ordinary term, which required no apology or explanation,
one is rather surprised at the strange form of expression in l. 59

? , 4 , ‘
dywvev, Tos éverourw Lepous.

Why ‘games which men describe as sacred’? Why not aywvev Lepov ?
Unless Pindar intended to draw special attention to the epithet sacred,
the words tovs évérowww are an objectionable superfluity. There must
have been some purpose in introducing tepovs with such emphatic
formality. I believe that this purpose is closely connected with the
simile of the dolphin. It is worthy of observation that an extant

APPENDIX A: 237

fragment of a lost Isthmian Ode (/vag. 1) compares the Aeginetans to
dolphins and connects this comparison closely with song and games.
oto. 8 apetav
deAdives év TOvTw Tapiar TE Topot
Mowdv aywviov 7 adbduv.

These words are an excellent commentary on the passage before us.
In both places, Aeginetans are compared to dolphins; in both places
(according to my interpretation) the dolphins are associated with ayoves
and with song. Now the dolphin was sacred to Dionysus, and in this
circumstance may be found the explanation of that puzzling Homeric
expression fepds ix6vs, which should be taken as meaning the dolphin and
not a fish in general. This consideration seems to explain the purpose
of Pindar’s carefully chosen words. As the ddpa is the leaping ground
(Pindar probably connected it with GAAopo. rather than with ads) of
the sacred fish, so the sacred games are the element of the human
dolphins. And the association between the dolphin and the sacred
games is rendered unmistakable by a verbal echo, if my restoration of
1. 65 be correct; owotpe echoes évérotouv. ‘ Men call those games
sacred; and so it is not unfitting that I should ca// Melesias a dolphin
(the sacred fish).’

But we may go yet further. The simile is woven still more deeply
into the texture of the hymn. In 1. 28 we read of the odpos éréwv, and
in 1. 29 how songs and tales ‘waft home’ (éépicay) the fair exploits of
the Bassidae, and in 1. 31 of the ships which they have chartered. Now
the word éxéycav does not receive its due until we recognise that it
means gathering home to the storehouse of the Bassids,—their storehouse of
victories. This is suggested by the notable expression in the pre-
ceding lines

o »” cal > , , ,
érepov ov twa Fotkov amrepavato muypaxia Teovwv

/ ,
Tapiav otepavuv.

Here is a remarkable coincidence, if it be nothing more. The
Bassid house is called a rapéas orepavwv, in the immediate context of
a metaphor from the sea; and the Bassid wrestlers are afterwards
(through Melesias) likened to dolphins. In the /vagment of an
Isthmian Ode, cited above, the Aeginetans are called tapiar aywviwv
aé$\wv, and compared to dolphins in the same breath. Are we entitled
to infer that there is some link of connexion between the simile of the
dolphin and ‘the house dispenser of crowns’? If any such connexion
exists, it must lie in some technical use of tapéas in dithyrambic worship
or the mysteries of Dionysus. It is at least worth recalling that the god

238 APPENDIX A.

with whom dolphins were specially associated is described in the well-
known choral song in the Avtigone by the mysterious title tov tapiav
"Taxyov (1. 1154).

There are, I believe, similar allusions to the worship of Dionysus in
Isthmian v., and they may be briefly indicated here. ‘That Ode opens
with a simile from the wine-bowl :

OadXovtos avopav ws ote Tuprociov
devtepoy Kpatnpa Moiscaiwy pedéwv
Kipvapev K.T.A.

In l. 9 we read orévdety pedipOdyyors aovdais, in 1. 40 otvodcxov
didday, in |. 64 apdovte kadXdiora Spdcw. In 1. 73 the strange simile of
the axian whetstone was chosen, I believe, with the special purpose of
alluding to the Naxian god. But the phrase which concerns us at
present is that which occurs in 1. 57:

Pudakida yap 7AGov, & Motca, tapias

Tlv6éa te Kwpor.

The felicity of this phrase lies, I would suggest, in its harmony with the
Dionysiac undercurrent which runs through the Ode.

N@EE 62) 1k. 7, . 10:

Since the note on 1. 17 was printed, the difficulty in the text has
been discussed by Mr W. R. Hardie, of Balliol College, in the CZasszcal
Review (June 1890, p. 269)’. He holds with Kayser that éooav péyoror
is right, and that the lacuna is in 1. 18. In the Mss. a new line begins
with érramvdovs, and Kayser reads

Kal TOT és
érramtvAous eOedov x.T.A.

Mr Hardie compromises. He leaves xai wore in 1. 17, but carries

on és to l. 18, and proposes two alternative readings :

Kal Tore
Aextov és éxtamvAovs Onfas,

or
KL Tore

@nBas és émtamvAovs NexTov

(és as in Hesiod). The introduction of Aextov (Aexrdv) was suggested

1 It is satisfactory to me to observe coincides with mine.
that Mr Hardie’s view (7d.) of x. 61

APPENDIX A. 239

by E. Schmid’s érramvdovs kpitov és @yBas and Beck’s érramvaAovs
@7Bas Nextar.

The first conjecture of Mr Hardie may be right, though there is
nothing to confirm it, and the cause of the omission of Aexrdv is not
apparent’. But I find it difficult to believe that éscay (Mss. joav)
peéyurrou is genuine.

NOTE 9.

x2 peyerar 5 aperats

pupias epywv Oparéwy evexer.

Besides the meaning which it usually bears, aper# is occasionally,
though rarely, found in the sense prypyn mepi aperps. A passage in
Plato’s Symposion excellently illustrates this usage.

208 D: éret ole od, én, “AXAknotw imép “Adunrov azobavely ay, 7
*AyirXda LatpdkA\w évarobavely 7) tpoarobaveiy tov ty€repov Kodpov irép
tis Bacelas tGv Taldwv, pn oiopévovs abavarov mvynUNnVY apeTAS Tépt
éavtov éoecbar iv viv ypets Exopev; woddod ye Sel, Ey, GAN’ oipar vTEp
dpetHs adavartov kal Tovaitys Oo&ys edkAeods TaVTES TAVTA TOLOVOW K.T.X.

Here dperjs bears in the answer the same meaning that pryyjpnv
dperns mépe bears in the question. But it is well worthy of note that
both here and in the other passage where this meaning is most clearly
marked, P/iloctetes 1420, apern is accompanied by the same epithet.
Heracles says dbavarov dpernv éoxov, ws taperO opav,—Z won immortal
quality. These two passages suggest that this expression dper) a6a-
vatos is the link connecting the usual sense of apery with that which
belongs to it in the line of Pindar quoted above. In apety aGavaros
the word may be said to preserve still its proper force (excellent
quality), but it is on the road to a new meaning. apera, memorial of
excellence in Pindar, is, I am inclined to believe, the apet) aéavaros
clipped. Thus aperais pupiats are countless monuments, which im-
mortalise the glories of Argos.

There is another passage in Pindar which supports this explanation.
In J/sth. 1v. 17 we read

tw 8 év “Io6po durdoa Oaddowo’ apera,
PvAakida, xeirar Newéa d€ Kal mpéere

Ilvééa re mayxpariov.
‘

Here @dAXouw apera seems to be a resetting of the phrase afavaros

1 If I were convinced that ]. 17 ended __ prefer rpdocere to mpdocera in 1. 3.
with kai more I should be inclined to

240 APPENDIX A.

apeta. We may remember how @aAepos is used of the eternal youth
and beauty of the gods, and we may compare such passages as /s¢h.
Ill. 6 mAayias dé ppévecow ovx opas TavtTa xpovov BarAwv cure,
and 22 (Iv. 4) aperas—ator KAewvrpidar OadXAovres aici. We find
@adXev in conjunction with apera also in OZ. 1x. 16, OaAXeu 8 aperaiow
(4 *Orrods).

In any case, however apery acquired its secondary meaning, it is
clear that it might be applied as fitly to a monument in stone or bronze,
as to a record in writing or to fame in the mouths of men.

NOTE 10.

xI. 48, ofvrepa.

Mr Postgate has kindly allowed me to print the following note,
which however does not coincide with my own view.

‘ofvtepar means “ passing fierce.” The comparative here approxi-
mates to a superlative. ‘To understand this, it must be remembered
that the comparative simply asserts that something possesses a quality
in a greater degree than other things. So the extent to which this
quality is possessed will manifestly depend on the number of these
other things. oévtepos zavtwv, modddv, eviwv denote very different
degrees of ‘‘keenness.” Hence the comparative, besides its proper use
for the comparison of two things, has two absolute uses, one (a) “intensi-
fying,” and the other (0) “qualifying.” The context, of course, must decide
which is to be taken. (a) is the use here: so also in the well-known
meaning of vewrepos ‘out of the common,” whence vewrtepi€ev, although
this may be a euphemistic use. It is clear where a negative is added ;
ov xeipov “not very bad” &c.; though, had the negative been actually
compounded with the adjective, the meaning of the comparative would
have been “somewhat.” Compare Plato Zyeet. 177 ovx andecrépa
Aéyew (nearly = 7durépa). A good example of (4) is Herod. 11. 18, rhv de
AiBinv iiwev epvOpotépyny Te yqv kai vroWapportépyny tyv de ApaBinv
Te Kal Supinv apyttkwbeorepynv te Kal vroretpov éovoav, “reddish,
...Inclining to sand” &c. as is shown by vzozerpos.’

APPENDIX <B.

THE GRACES IN PINDAR.

THE poems of Pindar ‘burn bright,’ to use an expression of his own,
with the presence of the Graces. Xapus may sometimes be translated
the spirit of art, but the sphere of the Charites was wider and cannot be
better defined than Pindar has defined it himself:

ovv vppw

Ta TepTva Te Kat yAvKéa.

avatéAXetar mavta Bporots,

Kel goes, ei Kadds, et tis ayhaods avyp.
It was natural that they should be the sovran ladies in a world of art,
which was conversant mainly with ‘the delightful things in Hellas’ ;
and I propose to show here that in all his epinician hymns, except
three (possibly only one) of very small compass, Pindar either mentions
the Graces or alludes to their influence.

LNemean Odes.

I. xapw 1. 6 (see note); dyAaiay 1. 13; Oadros 1. 2; Oarepds |. 71.
Thus the presence of the Charites and especially of Aglaia and Thalia
is suggested’.

II. In this short Ode there is no mention of the Graces nor even
an allusion to them. (But see below p. 244.)

III. yxapéevra 1. 12; xatpe 1. 76; dyAaatar 1. 69; aydaoxpavor |. 56 ;
ayadpa |. 13.

1 Tt is worth observing that the as- Aemra Te Kal xaplevra Kal dyad epya.
sociation of the words xapiers and dy\ads = In Homer yaplevra épya means works
is as old as Homer: cf. « 223 of art, cf. § 234.

B. 16

242 APPENDIX &.

IV. The Xapires are mentioned in |. 7; and the note of the hymn
is evppoovva |. 1; but the other sisters are also alluded to in adyAadv |. 20,
and Oadyoe |. 88.

V. This Ode concludes with the words ovv éavOais Xapwrow. Aglaia
is suggested by dycApara 1. 1, and ayaAde 1. 43; Euphrosyne by evpoves
1. 38. Cf. xaipw 1. 46.

VI. The Xaprres appear in 1. 37 (Xapitwv opddw Preyer).

VII. xapw 1. 75; xdppa 1. 84; ayadywov 1. 4; evppov 1. 67.
Charis, Aglaia, and Euphrosyne are thus suggested.

VIII. In this hymn we have only ayadpa (1. 16) to suggest Aglaia.
But the very name of the clan to which the victor belonged, Xépuada,
might be considered a gracious one; and “Opa zdrva, who is invoked
in the opening lines, was a being of kindred to the Graces. Cf. also
xaipw |. 48.

IX. The Xdputes are confederate with the poet (I. 54) and Aglaia is
honoured by ayAataow in |. 31.

X. In this hymn the Graces are prepotent. In 1. 1 they are
invoked, Xdpures, and in 1. 38 their name recurs Xapireoou. yxapw 1. 30.
Aglaia is suggested by dyAaofpover |. 1; Thalia by Oadnoey, |. 42 and
Oareayr |. 53.

XI. This work is not an epinician, but Aglaia is not forgotten in it;
cf. dyad 1. 4, ayAaat 1. 20.

Isthmian Odes.

I. xapirwv |. 6; xalpere 1. 32.

II. yapirecow dpapws 1. 19. ayAaiay, |. 18.

II]. dyavats xapirecow |. 8. OadAwv |. 6. evppoovvay |. 10.

III". éruordwv yapw |. 90 (72); xaipov |. 47 (29). GadXovres |. 22 (4).
IV. ov Xdpwow 1. 21; xdppal. 54. Oddo |. 17.

V. Xapirwv |. 63; ddeia xapis 1. 50; xapeis 1. 10. OaddAovros |. 1.
VI. xdpisl 17. Oddosl. 24. evppavas |. 3.

VII. Xapirwv dwrov 1. 16. dyAadv 1. 3. ayAads 1. 27.

APPENDIX B. 243

Olympian Odes.
I. Xdpis 1. 31. ayAailerar 1. 14; ayAaorpiawwayr |. 41 ; ayAaaion |. 94 ;
aydAdwv 1. 89. etppootvas |. 60.

II. kowat Xapires 1.55; xapw 1. 11; xapis 1. 19; xappartwv |. 21;
exaipov 1. 72. ayAdadv 1. 80. GOadrosl. 49. evdpwv 1. 16; evdpova |. 4o.
mapadver dvodpovay |. 57.

ITI. yapparal. t09. ayAadxwpov 1.5. eadrev |. 23.
IV. Xapirwv 1. 10; xaipovra 1. 13. evppwv |. 11.
V. No mention or allusion.

VI. Xapis 1. 76. Oadros 1. 68. dtAodpoctvais ednparas (1. 98)
suggests Euphrosyne.

VII. Xapis CwOadApmios |. 11; xapirecow |. 93; xapw |. 5; xappara
1. 44. Oarias 1. 94. evdpova |. 63.

VIII. § xapu 1. 80; x¢pw 1. 8. aydaov 1. 11.

IX. Xapitwy 1. 27. adydaiaww 1. 98; dyacdevdpov 1. 20. Garret
1. 16. etppavOy |. 62.

X. yxapw |. 12; xapw 1. 17; xdpw 1. 94; xdppa 1. 22. Gadéias
176:

XI. No mention or allusion.

XII. No mention or allusion.

XIII. xapites 1. 19. ayAatay 1. 14; ayAadKovpov |. 43 dyAaobpdvas
1. 96.

XIV. This hymn is addressed tothe Graces. Xaputes ]. 4; Xapirwv
1. 8. Their names are mentioned I. 13:

® motve “AyAaia pidyoipodré 7 Eidpooiva
@aria te
epacipoXre.

Also ayAaés 1. 7.

Pythian Odes.
I. xapis 1. 33; xapw 1. 76; xdppa |. 59. dyAatas 1. 2. Oadéas
1. 38.
II. Xapirwv |. 42; yapis 1. 17; xapw |. 70; xalpe |. 67.
16—2

244 APPENDIX.*B,

III. didvpas xdpiras 1. 72; xapuwl. 95. edfpoovvas |. 98.

IV. xapures 1. 275; xaipew 1. 61. ayAaot 1. 82. Oadrre 1. 65.
edfppoorvvay |. 129; evdpova |. 196.

V. nvKopor Xdperes 1. 45; xapw 1. 102; pédos xapiev 1. 107. dyad
se:

VI. Xapirwv 1. 2. ayAatay 1. 46.
VII. yxalpw m1. 16. OaAXowwayv 1. 21.

VIII. Xapirwv 1. 21; ydépw |. 86; xapparov 1. 64; xalpwv 8€ Kat
aitds 1. 56. iAddpov ‘Aovyia |. 1.

IX. Xapitecor 1. 3; Xapirwv |. 89; xappa 1. 64. Oaddouway 1. 8.
edOarei 1. 72. evdpwv |. 73; eddpavOeica |. 16.

X. xapw |. 64; xalpel. 36. ayAatas l. 28. Oadrias 1. 34. eddpd-
vas |. 40.

XI. xapw 1. 58; xdpw 1. 12. teadoral. 53. eddpoovva |. 45.
XII. Xapirwv 1. 26. qrAaydAae |. 1.

Thus Pindar in all the odes in which he does not pay a direct
tribute to the Graces, makes us aware that the air is permeated by a
literally ‘gracious’ influence. There are four exceptions; but of these
it is possible that one is only apparent, as there are grave reasons for
suspecting that the Fifth Olympian is not a work of Pindar. The
Eleventh and Twelfth Olympians and the Second Nemean are such
short hymns that they cannot fairly be said to invalidate my generalisa-
tion. And even of these exceptions two may be only apparent. In the
Second Nemean, in honour of an Athenian victor, Pindar may have
considered that he had done due homage to Charis, by using a verb
(aéée 1. 13) which the Athenian Grace Avéa might take to herself. The
Twelfth Olympian, consisting of a single system, is possibly only a
fragment of a longer ode; on me, certainly, it has always produced the
impression of incompleteness. If it is a fragment, I have no doubt that
the Graces were mentioned or alluded to in the lost part.

ALE Ee NDEX

PINDAR'S VISIT TO SICILY.

IN connexion with the dates of the two odes to Chromius,
Nemean 1. and Nemean 1x., the question arises as to the chronology
of Pindar’s visit to Sicily. On this point no direct statement of any
ancient writer has been preserved to us. The work of Antiochus,
where there was some notice, no doubt, of the Theban poet’s presence
at the court of the Syracusan sovran, is lost, and Diodorus does not
help us. From the Zzves of Pindar we only learn the fact that Pindar
was at the court of Hiero. Boeckh and Dissen however have approxi-
mately determined from internal evidence the time of Pindar’s departure
for Sicily. The reasoning is based on data furnished by /Py¢hzan 111.
and Olympian 1.

Pythian wt. celebrates victories won by Hiero’s horse Pherenikos.
This horse won two victories at Delphi, according to a scholium on
Pyth, ut. (Dissen’s ed. of Boeckh, 1. p. 327), which gives us the dates
Ol. 73, 3 and Ol. 74, 3. But the ode was composed much later, not
only after the accession of Hiero to the sovranty of Syracuse (Ol. 75, 3)
but after the foundation of Aetna (Ol. 76, 1), cf. 1. 69. As it must
have been written for an anniversary of the victories, we get as the
earliest possible date Ol. 76, 3 (474). But in this year Hiero was
proclaimed victor in the Pythian chariot race (which Pindar soon after-
wards celebrated in the First Pythian ode), and as there is no allusion
to this brilliant success, it would seem that Py¢izan 111. was written
and dispatched to Sicily shortly before the celebration of the games
at Delphi in Ol. 76, 3 (ze July or August 474), so as to be sung at
Syracuse or Aetna on the day of commemoration.

Now when Pindar wrote this ode it is clear that he was in Thebes,
not in Sicily. This follows from 1. 68 sgq.:

246 APPENDIX C.

4 > ‘ , > , / ,
Kal Kev év vavolv poAdov “loviay téuvwv Padaccav
> / , > “~
Apbovcav éxi kpavay tap Airvatov &évov
# % * * * % %

76 e&uxopav xe Babiv rovrov mepacais.

Hence Pindar did not go to Sicily before the summer of 474.

The First Olympian celebrates a victory won by the same horse at
Olympia in Ol. 77 (July or August), 472 B.c. If it could be proved
that Pindar was in Sicily when this ode was written, it is clear that
we could fix the time of his going there between the limits of summer
474 and summer or autumn 472. Boeckh and Dissen infer from
Il. 8—11 and 1. 16 that Pindar was then with Hiero.

8 dbev 6 rodvdatos vyvos appiadderat
copav pytiecot, KeAadeiv
Kpdvov maid’ és adveav ixopévous
paxatpav “Iépwvos éotiav.

16 ova railopev pidray
avopes api Oapa tpamelav.

It cannot be denied that these verses go very near to proving that
Pindar was in Sicily when he wrote them. ofa zaiCowev are hardly the
words of a man who had not yet been on a visit to Hiero. They are
not quite as clear perhaps as ééxépav xe in the Third Pythian; but I
think we cannot fairly get out of Boeckh’s conclusion.

The going of Pindar to the west is thus narrowed down to the limits
of two years. We can hardly compress the limits more with anything
like certainty. If the chariot of Chromius was victorious at Nemea in
Ol. 76, 4 (July 473), and if the First Nemean ode was composed
immediately when the news reached Chromius, then it follows that
Pindar went to Sicily between summer 474 and summer 473. But
(1) Boeckh’s view assigning JVemean 1. to Ol. 76, 4 is not certain, for
the victory might have been gained in summer of 471 (beginning of
Ol. 77, 2), or (2) the ode might have been written for performance
on an anniversary of the original victory.

In any case (Vemean 1. was written either when Pindar was still
in Sicily, or after his visit. This follows from 1. 19 eorav x«.7.A. The
past tense rather suggests that he was not actually present at the
performance of the hymn, and is referring to previous hospitality
afforded to him by Chromius. But it does not follow that he was
not in Sicily at the time. I feel pretty certain that Boeckh, Dissen,
Mezger and most Pindaric commentators are right in teaching that
the Sicyonian ode to Chromius is later than the Nemean; though

APPENDIX C. 247

it is assuredly odd that in the hymn on the lesser victory at the
games of Apollo, no reference is made to the greater victory at the
games of Zeus. But it is by no means clear in what part of Greece,
proper or improper, Pindar was, when the Sicyonian ode was written.
It is generally assumed that he was still in Sicily, and present at the
festivities, which he encourages in the last strophes. But there is not a
word which really supports the assumption, and I own that the first
lines of the ode seem to me to suggest, if they suggest anything, that
they were written out of Sicily.

We can determine then approximately the date of Pindar’s going to
Sicily, but for the date of his return we cannot get anything nearer than
the likelihood that it took place before Ol. 78, 1. For that year is
probably, though not certainly, the date of Olympian vi., which was not
written in Sicily (the other possible date being Ol. 76, 1).

Perhaps this is all one is strictly entitled to say. The interpretation
however which I have given of Vemean 1. suggests a conjectural restora-
tion of the chronology. I have pointed out that Pindar holds out to
Chromius the prospect of an Olympian victory. This suggests that
Boeckh’s date is right, that the Nemean wreath was won in 473 and
that Chromius intended to compete for the Olympian olive in 472. If
he did actually take part in the chariot race then, he and his horses
were not as lucky as his sovran Hiero and the famous steed Pherenikos
at the same festival. A few years later, perhaps when Pindar has
returned to Greece, he is asked by Chromius, then «installed at Aetna,
to celebrate a victory gained years ago at Sicyon. ‘The poet writes
now in a different strain, no longer making allusions to a possible
Olympian victory, but speaking as if the active career of Chromius
were well-nigh over.

There is one thing about these two hymns to Chromius which has
always struck me as strange. That is the absence of all reference
to Hiero. This silence stands in marked contrast with the Sixth
Olympian hymn to Agesias, where the poet takes the opportunity to
sing the praises of the Syracusan sovran. But we shall doubtless be
in a better position to judge of the politics of Syracuse and Aetna, and
the relations of Hiero and Dinomenes to Chromius when Mr Freeman’s
work on Sicily appears.

Fe aad ge O's NSD

ORIGIN OF THE GREAT GAMES.

Ir has always been recognised as a patent fact that the great
games celebrated at Olympia, at Pytho, at Nemea and on the Isthmus,
were a most important bond of unity between Greek-speaking peoples.
But it has not been recognised that these Panhellenic festivals were
only an outcome of a fact more general still. In order to explain
this, it will be necessary to search for the origin of these festivals in the
obscurity of early Greek history. The clue to the ramifying history of
the centuries preceding the Persian War has always appeared to me to
be the struggle towards a Hellenic unity, which, politically at least,
was never destined to be realized. It was found impossible to blend
thoroughly the Ionian aAeupa and the Dorian d€os; or, in the metaphor
of a recent German writer, the Ionian horse and the Dorian ox would
not pull together. Yet the sum of Greek history was a series of attempts
to solve this insoluble problem, and sometimes the solution seemed not
far off. Delphic influence was exerted in this Panhellenic direction,
and the Delphic amphictyony did important work in promoting the
unity of Hellas.

But besides the religious authority of Delphi, there was another
power that represented the spirit of Panhellenism and furthered its
cause. This power was the rupavvis. Greece owed to the great
tyrants of the seventh and sixth centuries far more than she confessed
or knew. ‘The despots, doubtless, were not fully conscious of the great
historical meaning of their policy, even as Sparta was not conscious of
the significance of hers. But as Sparta represented the principle of
narrow provincial isolation, the despots were essentially the champions
of a wide and expansive Hellenedom. This, I conceive, and not
any minor differences as to the best form of political constitutions—
was the deepest cause of the eternal feud between Lacedaemon and
the ¢yrannis. The work of the tyrants was to tame the Dorian ox;

APPENDIX D. 249

and Sparta, herself untamable, tried to hinder the accomplishment of
such bold designs. It is well-known that the commercial and social
intercourse of Greek nations was encouraged and promoted under the
rule of the tyrants, in Hellas proper as well as in Hellas beyond the
seas, and that the courts of the despots were centres of Hellenic culture.
But one work of the ¢yvannis, a work of the highest importance for the
history of Greece, has not been recognized as such. I refer to the
founding of the Panhellenic Games.

The foundations of three of the great agonistic festivals are generally
admitted to fall in the early part of the sixth century.

(1) The Pythian dydv orepavitns was inaugurated by the Amphi-
ctyons in 586 after the conclusion of the Sacred War’. But the chief
promoter of this inauguration was Clisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, who
had been one of the leaders in the conquest of Cirrha. It was through
his influence? that the Amphictyons decided to introduce at Delphi
gymnic and curule games in honour of Apollo on the model of those
which were celebrated at Olympia in honour of Zeus. ‘The feast took
place at the beginning of the 3rd year of each Olympiad, that is in the
late summer of every even year (B.C.) which is not divisible by 4 (586,
582 &c.). The prize was a wreath of laurel.

(2) About the same time the Isthmia were founded by Periander,
the tyrant of Corinth. A panegyric in honour of Poseidon and some
local games, doubtless, existed already, but this provincial festivity was
now exalted by the great despot into an aywv orepavirns, which was
celebrated in April every second and fourth Olympiad (every even year
B.C. 586, 584, sgg.*). The victors were rewarded by wreaths of dry
parsley. Both Eusebius and Jerome testify that the Pythia and Isthmia
began in the same year. If this statement is correct the games of
Corinth were a few months older than the games of Pytho. Duncker,
however, who places the first Pythias in 590, assigns the foundation of
the Isthmian Games to 587. He thinks that Periander owed the idea
to Clisthenes. ‘Was Periander,’ he asks, ‘to remain behind the neigh-

1 The Pythia were renewed after the
war in 590, but the addition of curule and
gymnic contests was not made until 586,
which is rightly called by Pausanias the
first Pythias. It seems however that the
aywy did not become cregavirns until 582
(in which year Clisthenes was victor in
the chariot race). In 586 it was still an
dywv xpnuatirys.

2 This is amply admitted by Duncker,

History of Greece (Eng. Tr.) 11. 369,
370:

3 More precisely (Schomann, G7. 4/-
terthiimer, 1. 6g) ‘auf der Grenzscheide
zwischen dem vierten und ersten wie
zwischen dem zweiten und dritten Olym-
piadenjahre begangen, so dass es bald
in den letzten bald in den ersten Monat
des Olympiadenjahres fiel.—The Eleans
were excluded from the Isthmia.

250 APPENDIX D.

bouring king of so small a town as Sicyon'?’ I cordially concur with
Duncker’s view (at which indeed I had arrived independently), that
Periander? inaugurated the Isthmia, but I am not sure that he is right
in assigning the priority to the Sicyonian tyrant. He is certainly not
right in fixing the date of the first Isthmia as 587. This dating seems
due to a miscalculation. The end of 587 and the beginning of 586
belong to the same Olympiad, 48, 2; and if Duncker had named
Ol. 48, 2 as the date, he would have been right, for this would have
implied April 586. If we regard 586 as the first Pythias, we must
conclude that the first Isthmias was nearly four months older; and, in
any case, the Isthmia as an dyav orepavirys were older than the Pythia.
We can hardly, I think, draw any definite conclusion from the official
order of the games, in which the Pythia came second, the Isthmia
third ; for this may have been due to the circumstance that the Pythia
like the Olympia were a fentaeteris. And against this we have to place
the tradition that the Isthmia were even older than the Olympia. Grote
thought that the foundation of the Isthmia must be placed before 594
B.C., because it is recorded that Solon instituted valuable rewards for
Athenians who should win victories at Olympia or on the Isthmus.
But any date before 580 is compatible with this circumstance. In the
same connexion it is to be observed that the Athenians had a share
in the Isthmian sacrifice. ‘Theseus was supposed to have taken part
in the legendary foundation of the Isthmia.

(3) The first Nemead fell in 573 (Ol. 51, 4). The circumstances
of this inauguration can only be inferred indirectly. The agonothesta
or administration of these games was vested in the citizens of Cleonae.
But we cannot ascribe the transformation of local games, which may
have been celebrated in the vale of the lion, to the sole, unaided energy
of that little city, which never possessed independent political impor-
tance, at least since the days before Phidon. Now we know that
during the reign of Clisthenes, Cleonae was made subject to Sicyon; on
this fact, vouched for by Plutarch, Curtius has rightly insisted*. We
know also that Cleonae must have thrown off the yoke of Sicyon before
the death of Clisthenes, which probably took place about 565. For
Clisthenes would never have consented to the inauguration of the
Nemean festival, supposed to have been founded by Adrastus, the
hero whose memory he had treated with such marked contumely at
Sicyon. The natural conclusion is that Cleonae celebrated her de-
liverance from the rule of Sicyon by inaugurating the Nemean aywv.

ERY} ascertained —585.
2 The daté of Periander’s death is well 3 Curtius, Griechische Geschichte, °. 658.

APPENDIX D. 251

There was thus a certain element of truth in the theory of Hermann
(accepted by Curtius) that the Nemea were instituted in memory of the
fall of the Orthagorids. The fall of the Orthagorids had not yet taken
place, but an event had happened which marked the decline of the
Orthagorid power ; and this event led to the institution of the Nemea in
573. But in rebelling against Sicyon and in founding the new games,
Cleonae must clearly have been aided by some state stronger than
herself. This state can only have been Argos, to which she had been
formerly subject, in the days of Phidon, the despot. Argos and Sicyon
were rivals. The power of Argos had waned since the death of Phidon;
the power of Sicyon had waxed under the rule of Clisthenes. This
tyrant had shown his hatred for the Dorian spirit rudely enough in his
renaming of the Dorian tribes, and for Argos especially by his treatment
of the memory of Adrastus. We may be sure that the liberation of
Cleonae was wrought with the help and countenance of Argos, and that
the Argives were deeply interested in that event. It is certainly in
accordance with the historical probabilities of the case that the city of
Hera should have promoted the new inauguration, on a grand scale, of
the festival associated with Cleonae, and that the Nemean aywv oredpavirys
should have been first celebrated under the Argive shield.

But a record which has been fortunately preserved leaves us in little
doubt that this is the true combination. Eusebius states that the
Argives usurped the conduct of the Nemean games in the 53rd
Olympiad (567 B.c.). That the men of Cleonae were the presidents in
the days of Pindar we know from passages in his Odes; but they did
not retain this prerogative permanently, for Strabo’ speaks of the sacred
grove év ® kat ta Newea ovvtedeiv eos tots “Apyeious. Eusebius had got
hold of a fact, but he distorted it. His statement really proves the
close connexion of Argos with the Nemean games in the earliest stage
of their history. We may infer that the Cleonaeans administered the
agon under the patronage of Argos. But there is no reason to suppose
that Argos and Cleonae quarrelled for the presidency, like the men of
Pisa and Elis. This is confirmed by the argument, which Grote
adduced to overthrow the statement of Eusebius, and which really
supports a modified acceptance of it. Grote acutely observes that in
the Tenth Nemean Ode (not really a Nemean) in honour of the Argive
Theaeus, the Nemean prizes gained by ancestors of the victor are called
‘prizes received from Cleonaean men,’ and that if there had been a

1 Bk. VIL. 377. Pausanias Il. 15. belonged to Corinth (see introductory
Holm, Gr. Geschichte, 1. 291. In later — scholéa on the Nemean Odes of Pindar).
times the agonothesta seems to have

252 APPENDIX D.

standing dispute between Argos and Cleonae on the subject of the
administration of the games, such a designation would have been
conspicuously unhappy.

The question touching the successors of Phidon who ruled at Argos
is obscure, but it is perfectly certain that in the sixth century the
government was carried on by kings or despots who had inherited the
traditions and ambitions, though not the power, of the great tyrant of
the seventh century. Herodotus mentions among the suitors of
Agariste, Leocedes son of Phidon of Argos. This statement has
caused great perplexity. A son of the great Phidon could hardly have
been a suitor for the hand of Agariste, nor is it likely that any Argive
prince would have appeared for such a purpose at the court of
Clisthenes. It seems clear that there is a chronological mistake. In
order to make the visitors of Clisthenes completely representative of
Hellas, Herodotus (or rather his authority) introduced an Argive prince
who really lived in the preceding century. This is a more simple ex-
planation than to assume a second Phidon, confounded by Herodotus
with the more famous despot of the same name. I shall have some-
thing more to say on the Phidon question presently; but it appears
that we cannot attempt to identify the sovereign who governed Argos
in 573. It is however quite enough for the present purpose to establish
that the Nemean games were celebrated in 573 under the auspices of
an Argive ruler. The feast recurred every second year’, in summer,
and the victors were crowned with fresh parsley.

But in connexion with the Nemea a further question arises to which
we shall have to return presently. Was the event of 573 a new foun-
dation or a revival? Is it possible that an dywv orepavirys was
celebrated at Nemea before Cleonae passed under the power of Sicyon,
and that Clisthenes suppressed it, in accordance with the rest of his
policy? It will be convenient to reserve this problem for a later stage
in our discussion.

Before proceeding to consider whether any conclusion can be drawn

1 Scaliger started the idea of summer
and winter Nemea celebrated alternately,
basing his view on two passages in Pan-
sanias, where winter Nemea are men-
tioned (11. 15, 2 and vi. 16, 4).
he was followed by Boeckh, Hermann,
Schémann (Gr. Alterthiimer, 1. 68),
but Unger in two important papers in

In this

Philologus (‘Die zeit der nemeischen
spiele,’ XXXIV. 50 sgg., and ‘Die win-

ternemeen,’ XXXVII. 524 sgg.) showed
convincingly that the winter Nemea were
a late institution (in imperial times) ; and
also proved that the month Panemos, on
the 18th of which the summer Nemea
were celebrated, corresponds (not to
Metageitnion, as Boeckh thought, nor
to Boedromion, as Hermann held but)
to Hecatombaeon. Thus the Nemea

fell in July.

APPENDIX D. 25 3

as to the origin of the most ancient and august of all the agonistic
festivals, I would direct attention for a moment to the Panathenaea at
Athens. The foundation of the Great Panathenaea as a pentaeterid, on
the model of the Olympia and Pythia, belongs to the second half of the
sixth century and was due to Pisistratus. Gymnic games had been
introduced at Athens in 566 B.c., six years before the elevation of Pisis-
tratus, but this tyrant was the first to establish in his city games of
Panhellenic fame and importance. It is strange that Pisistratus did
not constitute this contest an dywv oredpavirns. In that case, the
Panathenaea would probably have ranked with the four great agonistic
festivals of Greece.

Thus all the states of Hellas, which were ever first-rate powers in
those early times, founded Panhellenic festivals,—with two remarkable
exceptions ; Sparta in the Peloponnese and Thebes in northern Greece,
the two great cities where, in that period, the ¢yrannis was never
introduced. The Isthmia, the Pythia, the Nemea, the Great Pana-
thenaea were all established under the influence or auspices of despots.
Thus the theory put forward by Hermann, rejected by Grote, and
revived by E. Curtius, that the games, at least the Nemea and Isthmia,
were a demonstration against the ¢yravnis, is so far from being true
that it exactly reverses the truth. Hermann thought that the Isthmia
celebrated the fall of the Cypselids, the Nemea the fall of the Orthagorids ;
that the Spartans had taken a leading part in pulling down both these
ruling houses ; and that Sparta’s influence was active in promoting the
institution of the agones. The chronological data alone suffice to
refute this theory. The hypothesis that Sparta intervened has no
foundation; the hypothesis that she helped to found the festivals is
contrary to all a priori probability. No Panhellenic agov was likely to
be inaugurated through the influence of that state; it was notorious
that the games on the Eurotas were never thrown open to the rest
of Hellas; and the sole exception which Sparta made in favour of
the Olympia was due to a political necessity. The Greek agoves were
truly the visible memorial of the beneficent effects of the Zyrannis.

(4) If these considerations are just, an important principle has been
established, and it remains to consider whether the Olympian games
form an exception to that principle. In examining this question we
must disregard the chronology of the Olympian register which was
compiled about 400 B.c. by Hippias of Elis on uncertain data’. Ina

1 The words of Plutarch (Mama, cap. xpévous ekaxpiBGoar xaderdv ear, Kal
1) are highly significant: rods mév of jddiaTra Tobs EK Trav “ONMTLoViKOY

254 APPENDIX D.

remarkable paper which appeared nine years ago in the /ournal of
Hellenic Studies (vol. ii.) Mr Mahaffy disputed the authenticity of
the Olympian register, bringing forward arguments which have never
been answered, and which to me appear cogent. ‘The arrange-
ment of events in the eighth century from 776 downwards was a
construction of the fancy and ingenuity of Hippias, based on @ priori
considerations ; and the reckoning by Olympiads did not come into
general use until the 3rd century B.c.’. It was always a tendency of
the Greek mind to assign an imaginary antiquity to the events of their
ancient history. Some accounts place Phidon of Argos in the ninth
century*: most modern historians have followed the statements which
place him in the eighth; but it has been shown beyond reasonable
doubt that he really lived in the middle of the seventh*. ‘This is an
instance of the tendency to push back events into an earlier epoch.
It may be affirmed with certainty that Greek chronology begins for us
in the seventh century ; and it is probable that almost all the historical
events which, according to the Register, took place in the first twenty
Olympiads, really belong to the following generations.

This is not the place to enter into the vexed question about
Phidon’s date, but as the most recent German historians, Busolt, Holm
and Duncker, have declared themselves for the old date in opposition
to the view first propounded by Weissenborn and made current by the
approval of K. F. Hermann and Ernst Curtius, it is necessary to say
a few words on the subject. As I cannot profess faith in the early
Olympiads, I am not going to contend with Weissenborn that there is a
mistake in the text of Pausanias and that in the passage where he
speaks of Phidon at Olympia, we should read the 28th for the 8th
Olympiad*. It would be hazardous in my opinion to suppose that

dvayomévous, av Thy avaypadny ope
g~acw ‘Inlay éxdodvar tov “Hdelov ar’
ovdEVOS Opmmmevovy avayKalov mpos
miativ. Two points strike one here.
(rt) Plutarch is not proving any theory of
his own, and therefore his scepticism in
respect to the early Olympiads is not
biassed. (2) There seems little doubt
that he echoes the censure of some much
older critic, perhaps of a contemporary
of Wippias.

can hardly have passed unchallenged at

The register of Hippias

the time of its publication.
' So Holm, Griechische Geschichte, 1.

285,‘ Die allgemeine Benutzung der Olym-
piaden fur die griechische Chronologie
ist aber viel spater, besonders durch
den Historiker Timaios von Tauromenion
im dritten Jahrh. v. Chr. gebrauchlich
geworden.’

2 The Parian Marble.

% Weissenborn, /edlen (Jena 1844).
This date is accepted by E. Curtius
(668—660 B.C.), I. 656, but rejected by
Duncker and Busolt (after Unger) and
by Mr Evelyn Abbott.

4 VI. 22, 2.

APPENDIX D. 255

Pausanias knew the right date. I shall confine myself to three remarks.
(1) The placement of Phidon in the eighth century (770—744, nearly)
was not due to any positive knowledge derived from records, but was
determined by the calculation that he was the tenth from the semi-
mythical Temenus. (2) According to Ephorus’, silver coinage was
introduced into Greece by Phidon. There seems no reason to question
the truth of the record, and here one may judge the champion of
Phidon’s early date out of his own mouth. Unger is supposed by those
who hold to the eighth century to have decided the whole question by his
elaborate arguments in Philologus*. Now Unger speaks of Ephorus with
the utmost respect as ‘eine autoritdt ersten ranges auf dem gebiete der
alteren hellenischen geschichte.’ There is therefore on his own showing
no reason to doubt the record of Ephorus. Now all the best authorities
on numismatics are agreed that money was not coined in Greece until
the beginning of the seventh century*. It follows that Phidon cannot
have lived so early as 770—745. (3) One of Weissenborn’s arguments
for the later date of Phidon was that Leocedes, Phidon’s son, appears at
the marriage of Agariste in Herodotus*. The argument, as Weissenborn
puts it, is worthless, and his opponents easily upset it, pointing out that
the marriage of Agariste is romance (perhaps Herodotus derived his
account of it from a poem) and adding that in any case, even with the
later date, Phidon’s son could hardly have been a suitor of Agariste®.
But Leocedes supplies us with an argument notwithstanding. If Phidon
lived in the first half of the eighth century, as Busolt and Holm believe,
it is perfectly incredible that Herodotus (or the sixth century poet from
whom he drew the story) would have made him the father of a
contemporary of Clisthenes. The discrepancy would haye been too
great and too obvious. If on the other hand he lived in the first half of
the seventh century and was perhaps really the grandfather of Leocedes,

1 Strabo vill. 376 (and 358). See also
Marm. Par. Ep. 30.

2 B. XXVIII. and XXIXx.

2 See Holm, Gr. Gesch. 1. 256 ‘die
griindlichsten Forscher sind sich gegen-
wartig dariiber einig, dass man sie nicht
wohl vor 7oo setzen kann’ (and Hultsch
therefore places Phidon in the seventh
century). Money was doubtless coined
in Lydia first, but there is no reason to
question the statement that Phidon first
introduced minting in Greece. Busolt
however rejects it and speaks of Ephorus

as ‘ein keineswegs zuverlissiger Zeuge,’
although in the same breath he accepts
the conclusions of Unger, in
arguments the statements of Ephorus
play a conspicuous part (see Busolt, G7.
Gesch. pp. 143, 144).

4 Herodotus VI. 127.

5 So Holm, I. 256 ‘Aber erstens hat
die Geschichte von den Freiern der
Agariste keinen Werth als Grundlage
chronologischer Forschungen, und zwei-

whose

tens wire fiir den Vater einer dieser

Freier Ol. 28 noch zu friih.’

256 APPENDIX D.

the apparition of ‘the son of Phidon’ at the court of Sicyon about
570 is less startling. We can understand Herodotus passing over
the difficulty in this case without comment. Herodotus was in a
position to have quite as trustworthy information touching the date of
Phidon as either Hippias of Elis or Pausanias, and if he had been
taught that Phidon lived two hundred years before Clisthenes he would
not have omitted to call attention to the glaring chronological inaccuracy
in the tale which he tells about the suitors of Agariste.

The revision of chronology—to which the first step was taken by
the recognition of Phidon’s true date—will clearly affect the received
view touching the foundation or revival of the Olympian festival in the
eighth century. If we look merely at the probabilities of the matter, it
is not easy to believe that any great Panhellenic institution was founded
in the eighth century. We may readily grant that there were local
games connected with the worship of Zeus on the banks of the
Alpheus as early as 776; but the received view that 776 meant for
the Olympia anything like what 586 meant for the Pythia, is, I
submit, incredible ; and even the cautious Duncker makes an admis-
sion which if logically carried out confirms my position. ‘The
Spartans, he says, ‘relying on their close connexion with Elis now
[end of seventh century] adopted a legend which ascribed the
institution of the common sacrifice at Olympia to Lycurgus and
Iphitus’.’. Thus the foundation of Iphitus is as legendary as that of
Heracles or those of Oxylus and the other mythical heroes to whom
revivals of the Olympia are ascribed by Pausanias’.

Now it appears to me of the highest significance that the jirst
historical personage (in the strict sense of the term historical—the
personality of ‘Lycurgus’ is doubtful) whose name has been associated
with the Olympian games is the despot Phidon of Argos. In the eighth
Olympiad, according to the text of Pausanias (in the twenty-eighth
according to the emendation which some accept) Phidon espoused the
cause of Pisa against Elis, and the Olympian games were celebrated
under his presidency. The Argive power was at this time at its
height. When we reflect that the personal names which Greek writers
connect with the administration of the festival in days earlier than
Phidon, are all mythical like Heracles or semi-mythical like Iphitus,
it seems a legitimate historical inference that Phidon did for the
Olympia what one of his successors did for the Nemea, what Clisthenes
did for the Pythia, and Periander for the Isthmia.

1 37, 246, TV Os

APPENDIX D. 257

There are special considerations which confirm this view. (1) It is
recognised that Phidon fixed the length of the stadion, the Olympic
race-course'. This seems to point to a complete remodelling of old
local games at Pisa. (2) If Phidon established the Olympic agon,
we have at once a definite explanation of the legend that Heracles
was the original founder. For Phidon, in pursuing the policy of
expanding the Argive power, posed as the successor of Heracles.
He professed to be reconquering lands and cities which had been
subdued of old by the great Dorian hero*. Thus the mythical con-
nexion of Heracles with the Olympian games accords with the theory
that Phidon was the original agonothete. It may be added that, as
Duncker properly points out, ‘the worship of Heracles was an addition
and not a very early one®.’ This is shown by the statement of
Pausanias that ‘Iphitus persuaded the Eleans to sacrifice to Heracles,
for the Eleans before deemed Heracles their enemy*.’ This was the
Elean way of putting it. According to my guess it was Phidon who
did what the Eleans attributed to Iphitus. In this connexion. the
conjecture that /Yeraclea, a town five miles west of Olympia, may have
been founded by Phidon is noticeable’.

The oldest building discovered by the Gernian excavations at
Olympia is the temple of Hera, which, according to Pausanias*®, was
built by men of Skillus about 8 years after the beginning of the reign of
Oxylus in Elis. The archaeologists agree that the remains point to an
earlier date than the oldest temple at Selinus; this brings us to 630 B.c.
as a minor limit. Greek architecture was not slow in developing, and
it would hardly be sober to assert that the Heraeum was necessarily
older than 660. Some omniscient Germans would fix the date at
1000 B.C., but few will be bold enough to venture without a light into
the ages before ‘Homer.’ It might be a safer guess that Phidon had
something to do with the Heraeum which men of Skillus built, and that
the cult of Hera came across to Olympia from Argos, her own special
city, in the middle of the seventh century.

It certainly seems to me impossible that the Olympian games, as a

1 Duncker, 1. 245. dort nicht etnmal ein Temenos gehabt cu
2 Strabo, VIII. 358. haben scheint [the Italics are mine], und
3 11. 252. Holm, Gr. Gesch. 1. 284; der wohl erst spit als Griinder des Festes
“Da Pelops der Ahnherr der durch die betrachtet worden ist.’ But Holm’s
Herakliden verdrangten Fiirsten eines ‘spit’ is too early.
grossen Theiles des Peloponnes war, Viena
muss auch in Olympia sein Kultus ilter 5 Duncker, Il. 252.
gewesen sein als der des Herakles, dev AGS OH Me
B, Lod

258 APPENDIX D.

Panhellenic festival, should have been started without the influence,
money and enterprise of a great power. And from the origins of the
other great aydves, we are perhaps justified in inferring that, in all
probability, the Olympia too were inaugurated by a ‘tyrant.’ It is clear
that the only possible tyrant who could have been associated with their
institution was the first and perhaps the greatest of all,—the earliest
pioneer of Panhellenism, the Argive Phidon. This is the a priori argu-
ment, and perhaps it is not too much to say that it is supported by the
scanty evidence of the records. Phidon, I repeat, is the first historical
person associated with the Olympian agon ; and Phidon identified his
exploits with the career of Heracles, to whom the institution of the
Olympia was attributed. Such a work was thoroughly worthy of the
enlightened policy and manifold activity of the Argive despot, of whose
acts indeed we know far too little. It would hardly have been achieved
by any man of less note. And it certainly would not have been either
achieved or conceived in an earlier period. Curtius justly observed
that what is recorded of Phidon ‘ passt nur in das siebente Jahrhundert
v. Chr.'’ I feel convinced that the same remark is true of the
institution of Panhellenic games.

It is not difficult to discern the general outline of the early history
of the Olympia. Perhaps in the year 668 B.c., perhaps earlier, perhaps
later, Pisa became dependent on Argos, which then, under the guidance
of Phidon, was pushing her power towards the west of the Pelopon-
nesus. It is probable that Pisa had been before subject to her Elean
neighbours, and that she gladly exchanged dependence on Elis for
dependence on more distant Argos. Struck by the situation of the
Altis—and of this there will be more to say presently—Phidon
conceived the idea of elevating the local games, which were cele-
brated there, into a Panhellenic a@gov, and, while the men of Pisa
were permitted to enjoy the privilege of the agonothesia (cvvredety tov
ayova), the festival was celebrated under Argive auspices and started
with Argive money. So it continued in the ‘days of Phidon and until
the power of Argos declined. Then the jealous men of Elis, when
Argos no longer held them in check, hastened to share or usurp the
privilege of their weaker neighbours, and were cordially supported by
Sparta, which was always interested in opposing Argive influence.

The tradition which recorded the existence of the Olympia in the
eighth century is a simple consequence of its history in the seventh. It
was the cue of the Elean usurpers to base their act of might on a plea
of right, and they pretended that they had been the agonothetes in

1 Griechische Geschichte, 1. 656.

APPENDIX D. 259

olden times, and were only recovering a privilege of which Argos had
forcibly deprived them. It need hardly be remarked that such an
invention was thoroughly characteristic of Greeks. The Elean kings,
Oxylus and Iphitus, were brought into connexion with the agon; while
at the same time the associations with Heracles, initiated by Phidon,
were not discarded. The struggle between Pisa and Elis for the
agonothesia in the seventh century was represented as the continuation
of a struggle which had taken place in the eighth, and thus it was
made to appear that the claims of Elis reached into remote antiquity.
The connexion of Lycurgus with the Elean king was merely a reflexion
of the bond between the Spartans and Eleans in the last years of the
seventh century.

There is a further consideration which may be adduced in favour of
the guess propounded in the foregoing pages as to the origin of the
Olympia. It has been observed" as a somewhat curious fact that the
games of the Olympic ago present no likeness to the contests described
in the 23rd Book of the “iad. One might have expected that the
Greeks, who had such a profound reverence for Homer, would have
framed their athletic contests on the Homeric model. Mr Mahaffy has
pointed out to me that if, according to the view put forward in these
pages, the Greek games of historic times were the creation of the
tyrannis, the anomaly is explained. The Homeric contests were only
intended for the nobles; whereas the tyrants were not concerned to
promote the interests of the nobles who were their political foes, but,
on the contrary, the interests of the démos. The sports of Olympia
were designed to be open to every Greek, whether of noble or of
vulgar birth; and therefore the agon of Homer could be no model for
the ago instituted by Phidon and copied by his imitators. Chariot
races were only for noble competitors, and it is significant that the early
contests at Olympia, according to our Greek authorities, were foot-races.

In the days of Pindar the Sicilian kings and nobles were frequent
competitors at the Olympic games, and it may well strike us that
Olympia was a remarkably convenient centre for a Panhellenic festival,
as far as Sicily was concerned. Situated near the coast of Greece, facing
the island of the west, the Altis seemed to invite the lords of Syracuse
and Acragas to cross the Ionian zépos and contend for olive leaves on
the banks of the Alpheus. If it was merely by accident that the most
important festival of Greece was celebrated on a spot whose geo-
graphical position rendered it so admirably suited to be a connecting
link with western Greece beyond the seas, it was by an accident

! By Mr Mahaffy, of. cit.
17—2

260 APPENDIX D.

which certainly had important results. The games at Pisa were
frequented by the Sicilian and Italian Greeks. Thus the Olympian
celebration was adapted, through geographical circumstances, to
promote intercourse between the Peloponnesus and the West, whereas
it did not tend, in the same measure, to encourage communication with
the East'. Of the ten treasure houses at Olympia, which we know of,
five belonged to Sicilian and Italian towns.

That this was the result of an accident I can hardly believe. I
would maintain that it was the result of design. The man who
conceived the idea of the Olympian dyov oredavirns and inaugu-
rated one of the most remarkable and permanent institutions of the
Hellenic world, was not likely to be blind to the geographical aspect of
the place which he selected; nor could he have failed to consider the
political bearings of his choice. We may be sure that Phidon of Argos
was wide awake to the probable results of a Panhellenic festival near
the western shores of the Peloponnesus; and that those results
harmonized with the rest of his policy. The choice of Olympia was
plainly the choice of a man whose eyes were turned to the west rather
than to the east ; and if it can be shown that Phidon had reasons for
desiring to promote intercourse with Sicily, it is clear that this will be
an additional confirmation of the view urged in the foregoing pages,
that Phidon was the founder of the Olympian games.

The great object of Phidon’s policy was to promote free traffic and
intercourse among the Greeks, in opposition to the narrow Dorian
principles so obstinately upheld at Sparta. Curtius has brought out
this feature in words which are worth quoting: ‘Statt der Concentration
im Binnenlande die Richtung auf das Meer, statt der Trennung der
Stinde Vermischung und Ausgleichung, statt des Abschlusses gegen
aussen freier Verkehr, und dieser Verkehr wird nun in demselben
Grade erleichtert wie Lykurg ihn erschwert hatte.’ Such was the
program of Phidon, and such the motive of his most famous measures.
‘To facilitate the traffic between the opposite coasts of the archipelago
was the essential aim of his legislation touching coins and weights.’

1 The westward aspect has of course kommt; im Westen, in Sicilien, hat die
been noticed by others, and, since writing | Freude an olympischen Siegen auf den
the remarks in the text, I have found it Miinzen mit den Viergespannen einen
well stated by Holm (Gv. Gesch. 1. 290): — charakteristischen Ausdruck gefunden.
‘Schaut doch Olympia, wie mit Recht So ist Olympia das vornehmste Band
gesagt worden ist, nach Westen. Nach das die westlichen Kolonien an Griechen-
Westen weist der Alpheios, der auf dem land kniipfte.’ Was all this the result
sicilischen Ortygia wieder zum Vorschein of chance ?

APPENDIX D. 261

But the cities in the west must have attracted the attention of
Phidon as well as the cities in the east. In his time the settle-
ments of the Greeks in Sicily had just begun and the colonisation
beyond the seas was progressing briskly. I find it hard to believe that
the foundations of the Greek cities in Sicily are more ancient than the
seventh century. It is difficult to give any credence to the chronology
which Thucydides derived from the history of Antiochus of Syracuse,
for all the dates depend on a preconceived numerical system’, and were
clearly invented for the purpose of exalting the age of Syracuse. The
antiquity of his native city was one of the great vanities of every Greek ;
and therefore, as Antiochus was’a Syracusan, we are compelled to be
distrustful. I strongly suspect that in the earlier part of his history,
Antiochus was as little trustworthy as Hajek for the history of
Bohemia, or the ‘nameless scribe’ of king Béla for the doings of his
Magyar forefathers. But as the work of Antiochus is lost, there is no
chance here for a Palacky or a Roesler. We may regard it as highly
probable that Archias of Corinth laid the foundations of Syracuse in
the seventh century, and it seems likely that he was a contemporary of
Phidon. Archias, like Phidon, was said to be the tenth from Temenus?,
and perhaps we may accept the synchronism, as long as it does not
commit us to a definite date. However this may be,—whether Phidon
was actually acquainted with the founder of Syracuse or not,—the
conclusion that Phidon, when he chose Olympia for the ayov oreda-
vitys, had his eyes on Sicily, is thoroughly in harmony with all that we
know of the aims of his policy. He doubtless regarded also other
western islands nearer home. We may well suppose that the enemy

' Cf, the remarks of Mr Mahaffy, 7%e
Olympic Register in Journal of Hellenic
Studies, vol. Il. p. 124. It is to be
observed that the sources of Antiochus
were confessedly oral; see Busolt, G7.
Gesch. 1. 224. Dionysius Hal., Arch.
I. 12, quotes Antiochus’ own words about
his history of Italy, ’Avrioxos Zevopdveos
Trade ouveypawe mept “IraNins é€x Tay
N6ywv Ta TigTbTATA Kal CapécTraTa
k.T.. Thus the credibility of Antiochus
depends on the validity of his conception
of 70 morév. For his Sicilian history,
from Kokalos king of the Sicanians to
424 B.C., see Diodorus xiI. 71.—Of
Hippys of Rhegium, who wrote on Si-

cilian affairs shortly before Antiochus,
we know nothing.

* See Ephorus, fr. 15.—The relations
of Phidon with Corinth are obscure. It
has been inferred from some statements
that Corinth was dependent on Argos in
his reign (Busolt, G7. Geschichte 1. 68).
For the tale of Abron and Phidon’s death
see Plutarch, dm. Narr. 2 (for Actaeon
and Archias, see Diodorus vi. 7),—
In Philologus XXvi1Il. Unger discusses
Phidon’s connexion with Corinth, and
argues that what is recorded of this con-
nexion does not square with 668 B.c.
This is true, but only on the assumption
that 734 is the date of Archias.

262 APPENDIX D.

of the Corinthian aristocracy took an interest in Corcyra, which was
then disputing the naval supremacy of her mother city (664 ?).

This effect of Sicilian colonisation on the origin of the Olympian
dywv is of course a theory which does not admit of proof by docu-
mentary evidence. But a curious legend has survived which may
be invoked in support of this theory. Just as the story that Heracles
founded the Olympian Games really supports the view that Phidon
was the true founder, so the strange fable of Alpheus travelling
under the sea to Ortygia points to an early historical link between
Olympia and Syracuse, and even suggests some more definite con-
nexion than a political design in the brain of Phidon, It suggests
at least that Sicilians were formally invited by the founder to take
part in the first celebrations of the Olympian panegyris. But we
cannot draw any conclusions as to early relations between Syracuse
and Olympia (or Arcadia) from that obscure passage in Pindar’s Sixth
Olympian Ode, where Agesias is called a ovvouxuoryp of the Sicilian city:

B cal , , A \ > thé
ORM TE PAVTELW TOPLLAS tos €V to~d.

/ a A
cvvoikioTnp Te TaV KAEWav Zvpakoccar.

Before we take leave of Phidon there is another question which
must be briefly touched on. There is a passage in Strabo which
seems to show that the Olympian was not the only agon founded by
him. Strabo professes to speak on the authority of Ephorus :

mpos Tovtos (Peidwva) emiBeabar Kai Tats vd “Hpakdéovs atpefetoas
moAeot Kal Tods aydvas aéodv THévar avTov ovs éxetvos €OnKe* ToUTwY dE
evar Tov OdvpTiaKov'.

Here the Olympian is mentioned as only one of certain agones, which
Phidon, as the successor of Heracles, administered (€yxe). The only
other ago in the Peloponnesus which had any associations with
Heracles was the Nemean. The Nemea were said to have been
founded by Adrastus, and afterwards celebrated by Heracles. Hence
we might venture to conjecture that Phidon founded the a@gon which
was conducted by the Cleonaeans, as well as that which was con-
ducted by the Pisatans. When Cleonae fell under the power of Sicyon,
Clisthenes would not have failed to suppress a festival which was
associated with Adrastus and owed its origin to Argos. In this case
the year 573 would mark, not the first foundation of the Nemean
Games, but their renewal after a temporary disuse.

If the conclusion, which I have endeavoured to establish, is well
founded, a new feature emerges in the history of the Greek Zyrannis.

Bk. Vill. 358.

APPENDIX PD. 263

(1) Phidon, the founder of the “yrannis, is also the founder of the
earliest Panhellenic games, the Olympia. (2) Periander ‘der System-
atiker der Tyrannis’ institutes the Isthmia. (3) Clisthenes, the despot
of Sicyon, initiates or promotes the institution of the Pythia by the
Delphic amphictyony. (4) The Nemea, whether originally founded
by Phidon or not, owed their first historical importance to an unknown
ruler of Argos, who plays the same part in relation to Cleonae that
Phidon had played in relation to Pisa. (5) Pisistratus, the last of the
great tyrants of Greece’s early period, institutes the quadriennial Pan-
athenaea, clearly in imitation of the Olympia and Pythia.

Thus the history of the origin of the great Games has more than
a merely external bearing on Pindar and his Epinician Odes. The
poet of this Panhellenic institution was filled with the spirit of Pan-
hellenism (or should we say Panhellenedom, and reserve Panhellenism
for the coming of Alexander ?), and he was a friend and admirer of the
potentates who preserved the traditions of the ¢yrannis, no longer
indeed in old Greece, but in Sicily and Cyrene. In the anecdote that
Alexander the Great spared the house of Pindar from the destruction
which befel Thebes, we may see a deeper meaning than admiration for
the memory of a great poet. For when we take a wide view of Greek
history, we must recognise that Alexander of Macedon was the true
successor of Phidon, Periander, Pisistratus and Pericles. Pericles,
who, though not a tyrant, really carried on the policy of the
Pisistratids, made Athens the school of Hellas; the work of Alexander
was to make Hellas the school of the world. In Pindar the Macedo-
nian conqueror might well have recognised a zpodyrys of Hellenedom
in a really wide sense,—one who looked beyond the needs and interests
of a single city, and who, while he glorified the Dorian hero, Heracles’,
was far from sharing that Dorian spirit of exclusiveness which animated
Sparta. We might say that Pindar exalted Heracles from a Dorian to
an Hellenic ideal.

1 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Euripides’ hat er es wenigstens nicht sein wollen,
Herakles, 1. 265) writes: ‘Pindaros ist und da sein name ausser auf Thera auch
dem herzen und dem glauben nach ein in Ephesos widerkehrt, so war sein blut
Boeoter gewesen; aber der abkunft nach — wol wirklich Kadmeisches.’

INDEX.

aBoart 152

iBp6s 133

dyahua 152, 211

ayavop 177

dyhaia 12, 178

dyad@povos 197

dryhadxaptros 56

dryadkpavos 56

dypav 60

dyxuoTa 184

ayov xaNKEosS 202

adedpeds 128

adver7s 10

aévaos 221

ddpodikas 25

Aidws 165, 178

aieros (emblem of Aeacids) 43, 60, 85,
Tit, 230

Aiwoves 74

almewds 93

aia 48, 106

alros 213, 214

aixwaras (Auuds) 179

aliy (spiretes) 33

akd 112, 209

axamas dxauavTos, see list of dddenda

aked 53, 70

GKOUTEV 35

dNekiuBporos 154

"AAKeyulda (nom.) 112

Gua 237

duBoradav 204

apmrvevpa

dutrohetv 144

IL. GREEK.

api 18 (dat.); 23 (accus.) ; 198

"Apdidpns 171, 176
avaBddomat 140
avaryopevw (avepec) 138
dvatiar 152

dvaxdtw 211

avdpodduwas 163, 172
avetoOa (avavetoOat) 30, 35
avehécbar 136

dvia (quantity) 22

avretvw 154, 155

dotdiuos 60

amdpxw 73

dmas 26, 107, 129, 136
dmetparos and ametparos 15
ametpouaxas 71
dmoB\aTTw 137

ambxeuar 226

dmpooukTos 226

dmrowat 152, 154, 155, 158
dipape 58, 96, 230

dpera (= memorial of dperd), 239

apiyvws go
apneva 56, 230
apwod.os 14
apuosw 143
apxd, dpxomar 11
agOuaiva 55
adoTepoma 174
aoTuvomos 178
airpemia 217, 222
aTpomos 144
avdd 169 sq.
avdders £70
avros (same) 89

atxya 22

266

adap 210

’Agapynridae 211

"Adpodiaos 123

*"Axads 137

diwros 33, 87, 227, 228, 229

Babvcpnuvos 180
Babvwara 55
Badvredos 48
Badvarepvos 177
Baoragw 151
BéXos 21

Biagw 172
Braras 183

Buaw 172

BX- (vowel short before) 151
BouBorns 74
Bpaxvatdapos 54
BpéuvetOa 220
Bpi8w 53, 152
Bpdmeos 170

Tr
yada 60
TE ais)
ye wav 158
yevérerpa 128
A

datdadOevra 22:
Aadddou waxaipa 75
daivum 176

ddoKwos 110

dédopKe 61

dewds (in Pindar) 172
dedpis 113, 235 Sqq.
Aevxadiwy (Acts) 48
OEXOMAL 33

Onpidw and dSnplowar 224
OvaTrEKW 143

diam piovos 74

Avos Képiv dos 144
OOKimos 4.7

dodoppadys 155
dovew 141

duvards (fem.) 35

INDEX. 1. GREEK.

éykKaTa- 20

éyKovnrt 51

éxpaivw 76

€XG 59

"EXelduia 128

ENeNLKH 174

ehuiw 89

€\kw 72, 80, 233
“EdAdvios, Zev’s go
€dmldes (hopes and fears) 19
evBaivw 226
éuTredoabev7s 143

év 133 (with accus.); 221

évdov (with dat. and gen.) 56, 13

évros (¢nstrument) 174
éEoxos 74, 80

ééupaivw 73, 76
émaXTo 111

émacKkew 171

émeoTt 131

EMNETAVOS 105

émiBaivw 49

emusleae (xelpas) 57, 231
€romat (uses of) 17
éwomTns 170
Epeodevor (al. Epvtcapevor) 1
€pvos 1060, 10g, 224
ésxaros (play on) 203
€repos (untoward) 151
ETHTUMLOS 137

€T6s 132, L41, 200, 206
éroace 100

e made 18

evavep 36

evOUTVOOS 134
evpvKo\Tos 134
evpyabevys 57, 89
evpwmdos 77

eUpopos 202

EeVUvULOS 135, 141, 158
Epedpos 80, 113, 233
épému 204

¢amevys (meaning of) 57, 690
fuydv 143

H
“HBa 128

‘Hpaxdéns (declension of) 49

8
O@adapos 20
baréw 78

Oddos g; Parepds 27, cf. 239, 240

Pad 13, 15

Gapuva 54

Ocdprov 59

Oédyw (charm forth) 68
béuev 69

OeuimdeKTos 183
OéscavTo 82, go
Oéris (etymology) go
Oyyurw 72
Opacvpaxavos 76
Opacuundns 172

iepounvia 45

iepos txOvs 237

imas (caestus) 34
"Todas 53

immacxmos 13 (a. ep.)
iof (toa) 79
lcodainwv 78

ivyé 67, 72

"Twdkds 52

K
kaBas 112
KakoTrovés 155
Kavaxnod 152
kamvés (of envy) 15
KapTos ppevav 200
KapXaovov Q7
KkaTaBaivw 50
KaTaBonra 32
KaTédpakev 70
KauXa 170
Kexpimeévos 68, 103
Kedaonres 66
KeNauvEeyXS 213
KNGpos 113
Krew (kdéos) 48
KuBeis 69

INDEX. J. GREEK. 267

kKNuréKaptos 77

Koéw 36

kowds 19

Kowvow 47

koulfw 108

Kéveos 181

Kopupal 4, 13

KoUgos 153

Kpayérat 61

Kpavads 152

KpaTjoummos 169

KpoxwTds 19

Kpoviwy (quantity) 13, 174
KuAWWOw 154

Kwpacw 37 (with acc.); 169

A
Na Bpos 157
ayxXavw gt
Nat pros 74
Aelptov 123, 141
ANevxavOns 164, 174
Aeupos 132
NOos Mowwatos 158
Aurapapmvé 130
Aurapos 70, 143
Novos 71, 153
Novyos 179
Ava 172
AUypos 154
Avxatov 207

M
patomar 46
padaKkoxerp 40
papyoupévous 174
poarpodokos 141
parpws 78
paxardas (Ouuos) 177
pawuddxas 126, 144 (see also Addenda)
MEeyaux7s 223
pebérw 106, 112
pédrea (dinebs) 21
peréra 112, 236
pedlyapus 46
beNlydouTos 223
pedippawv 129
wéNropae 14
pevowaw 226

268

pépyuva 58, 59
tweratéavrat 95

plyvuge (in Pindar) 13, 23
plrpa 152

pvacrip 13

boviwados 199
Muppudéves 47

buXOS 107

Newéa (véuw) 48
véwoua 61

vedyulos 176

véoTos 30

voo plow 113
voupnvios 72

ywduvos 158

Eway 92

oi (For) 12

oikobev 49

oiva 156

Oivava (oivos) 73
dpuados 109
oualusos 106
“Opunptiac 32
ou6kNapos 170
OudporTos 155
oupa 204
o&bTEpat 240
émados and é6ra¢(w 46
Orws 231

épye 93
OpOdpmavris 24
dpkov (val ua) 223
Opoorplawa 78
OTpvw 19

OpElLrAw 33

Il
marylws 57
madhalw 154
mahdpn 211
maNnlyy\wooos 23, 227
maNiyKoros 80
rap Bias 164, 176
maprokt\os 204
mavootla 12

INDEX. JI. GREEK.

macatto (€v ppact) 57

mapa.teioba 203
TapawelBowar 50
Tapaevouar 222
Tapatdavw 199
Tapacparrw 224
mappovos 153
mapmdd.os 179
Tappacis 154
TWAT Pa 157
medavyagw 210
mereulfw 154
IleXecades 3.4
IleXomniadac 152
mEéNOS 22
mepiobevys 48
TEPLOTEANW 222
mépodos 22
meptprecbar 26
TAYEVTES 134

mvoat (regions of breath) 212

Tony 151

Towd 27
moNlapxos 141
moNvéevav 45
mopos 180, 182
Toppipeos 224

mpacoev (agere) 17; (facere?) 169

MpoBas 140
mpomweTns 113
mpomoNos 78
Mpompewy 142
mpoopooos 158

mpoorlOnur (marry) 58

MpooTpeTm@ 74
mpotpépw 1o4
mpoppav O2

TpUTavEla 220

TUTE 25

‘Paddpavdus 17

parra €mea 32

Péas mépos 167, 180
pin 26

>)
adapitas Of
ometpw (ayAalav) 12, 27
omépxXouat 20
oot 113, 237
oTabua 104.
arabuos 27
aTodos 48
aTpépw 80
avpmerpos 129
ouveTace Q2
oxafw (meanings of) 76
oxeddv 211
oxep@ (ev) 26, 225

ra kal Ta 18
Taplas 237

TEOMLOS 224

TeOuds 72

TEKMaipw 105
Téxuap 226
TéxToves (Kaw) 45
TéNELos 201

Tevayn 50

Tépua 138
Tyravyns 58
rl@nue (of hymns) to
Timadpetv 184

ypos 156
bmép 137
vmépaddos 51
Urepetoa 158
bmépraros 107
drockarTw QI

INDEX. I. GREEK.

patdipos 26

paul 51

péyyos 161, 180
Peprepova 12
pépw (wen) 49
gidoTas 150
praoav 211
préyw 109, 197
powwikooToNos 165, 177
ppadatw 50

gua 16

pias 1o4
gurevw (met.) 75

XakevT7s 13
xaNkomlTpas 215
xadkos 188
apis 241 Sqq-
Xdpiutow 97
xapua 58
xXadvos 157
Xelpwv (xelp) 40
xépoos 181
Xpaomar 75
XPOLOS 5, 20, 21
XpvTahakaTos 93

xpvads (symbolic) 78, (0) 140

VY
Pato O4
pevdus 135
Wevorys 92
Wepyves 53, 54
Wonoets 211

wyvy.os 110
WKUS 20
"Qpa 150

iL ENGEISH:

Acastus 74, 93

Acharnae 36

Adrastus 158, 162 sqq., 171

Aegae 93

Aegina 69, 81; games at, 96; history,
145

Aetna, town, 2, 159, 169

Ageladas 185

Ajax 117, 118, 147, 154

Alcimidas 98 sqq.

Alcyoneus 71

Alpheus 9

Amphiaraus 162, 164 sqq.

Amphitryon 70, 200

Amyclae 216

Arethusa 9

Argos 185 sqq.

Aristagoras of Tenedos, 216 sqq.

Aristoclides of Aegina 38 sqq.

Artemis 10

Athens 152

Atlas 34

3acchylides, alluded to, 6
jassidae 100 sqq.

Callicles 78
Castor and Polydeukes 185 sqq.
Catana 159

Chiron 40, 41, 42, 75

Chromius, see Jztroductions to Odes i
and ix, and Appendix C

Cinyras 153

Cleonae 70, 206

Clitor 207

Corinth 107

Cos 71

Creontidas 110

Cyprus 73

Daedalus 75

Deinis 145 sqq.
Delphinius (month) 96
Diomede 199

Dioscori 187

Endais 90

Ephyra 120

Epidaurus (games at) 61, 97
Eriphyle 163, 172
Euphanes 79

Euthymenes 82 sqq.
Euxenids 139, 141

Gadira (Gades) 77
Gigantomachia 26

INDEX.

Haemones 74
Hector 179
Helenus 57
Helorus 2, 166, 167
Heracles, in Pindar, 1, 201, 208
Hermes 208
Hesiod 103

Hestia 220

Hiero 6, 162
Hippolyta 74, 92
Hypermnestra 199

I
Idas 192, 209
Io 198
Tolaus 53
Tolcus 52, 74
Ismenus £74

Korax and Tisias 17

Lampon 81, 234

Leuke 63, 73

Lynceus (brother of Idas) 192, 210
Lynceus (husband of Hypermnestra) 200

Machaereus 135

Medusa 198

Megara (games at) 61, 96
Megas (Meges) 145
Melanippids 216
Melesias 80, 113, 232 Sqq-, 235 Sqq.
Memnon 57

Menander (trainer) 96
Meropes 71

Molossia 134

Mycenae 186
Myrmidons, agora of, 47
Mysteries 160

I. ENGLISH.

271

N
Neoptolemus 114, 115, 118 sqq.

O
Oenone (Aegina) 73, 91, 151
Olympia, at Athens, 38
Olympic games, legends of, 1; gold sym-
bolic of, 2
Ortygia 2, 9

P
Pamphaes 185
Peleus 52, 74, 81 sqq.
Pellene 207
Periclymenus 177
Perseus 198
Philyra 54
Phlegra 26
Phlius roo
Phocus 84
Phorminx 85
Pindar, in Sicily, Appendix C
Pisandridae 216
Pleiads, Peleiads, 30, 34
Polytimidas 113
Praxidamas 106
Psamathea 84
Pytheas 81 sqq.

Rhea, passage of, 167

S
Salamis 35
Scyrus 119, 134
Sicyon 159, 169, 183, 207
Simonides, alluded to, 6
Soclides 107
Sogenes 114 sqq.
Sparta 152, 208

Talaus 172
Tegea 207
Telamon 84
Tenedos 216

272 INDEX. II. ENGLISH.

Theaeus 185 sqq. Timasarchus 62 sqq.

Theandridae 77 Timocritus 63, 69

Thearion r1q sqq. Timonous and the Timodemids 29
Thebes 174 Tyndaridae 187

Themis 221

Themistius 96

Therapna 209 U
Thero 162 Ulias 202

A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius
to Irene, a.p. 395—-800. By Joun B. Bury, M.A., Fellow and
Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.

The Edinburgh Review says: ‘‘ Mr Bury’s estimate of the different literary works
which come into his history is marked by adequate knowledge and sound critical
judgment. .... It only remains, before summing up our subject, to add a few words
on Mr Bury’s qualifications as an historian. His historical erudition and literary
equipment seem to us fairly adequate, and the importance of this remark will be best
recognised by those who are aware of the enormous scope of research which the
history of the later Roman Empire involves... . . His illustrative matter is, on the
whole, ample and correct..... With regard to Mr Bury’s style, the extracts we have
had occasion to make from his volumes will suffice to reveal its character. It is
almost invariably intelligible, unaffected, and perspicuous. .. . . A word of praise is
also due to Mr Bury’s generally shrewd insight into the causes which determine
political conjectures and events..... Summing up our subject, the importance of
which has carried us beyond the bounds we at first allotted for its consideration, we
can heartily congratulate Mr Bury on the creditable achievement of an arduous but
much-needed task. His erudite and carefully executed work has gone far to restore
the later Roman Empire to its true position and importance in European history.”

The Guardian says: ‘He has thoroughly grasped the great central fact of the
world’s history, which to so many, to all who talk about ‘Greek Emperors’ in the
eighth century, remains an impenetrable mystery. If Mr Bury will allow us to use
King Harry’s homely proverb, he has most distinctly ‘got the sow by the right ear.’
When Mr Bury sees an Emperor he really knows who he is. And to learn so to do
would seem to be, next to learning the alphabet, the hardest lesson that anybody can
be set to learn. .. . Mr Bury’s great merit lies in his wide and bold grasp of cecumen-
ical history. Nobody has better taken in the nature of that ‘eternal question,’ the
first stages of which are to be found recorded in the opening chapters of Herodotus,
and the latest (as yet) in the morning’s news from Armenia or from Crete. There is
no need for any one to teach Mr Bury the root of the matter. . . . Mr Bury shows else-
where that he has well grasped the cycles of Sicilian history.... Mr Bury has some
things to mend, perhaps some things to learn. But he has thoroughly grasped the
true substance and meaning of his vast subject. May he go on and prosper.”

The Saturday Review says: ‘Mr Bury is a loyal follower of Mr Freeman, and the
main object of his book is to enforce his master’s conclusions in detail by exhibiting
them in their full application as capable of giving unity to a period which was once
abandoned to confusion. ... Mr Bury’s merits are his grasp of the structural methods
of history and the copious erudition which a right knowledge of method is sure to call
to its equipment. . . . We recognise in Mr Bury a well-equipped student, with a firm
grasp upon the essential points of his subject. . . . His volumes are the fruit of diligent
and independent work amongst a mass of difficult materials, and will have to be
reckoned with by all who follow in his steps. Moreover, Mr Bury shows a commend-
able resolve not to accept traditional views as a way out of difficulties. He is the
first English writer who has tried to take a really critical view of the characters of

Justinian and Theodora, and has seen, without trying to shelve, the difficulties in the
way of reconciling the ‘Secret History’ of Procopius with his ‘History of the Gothic
War.’ . . . But he shows how the Empire, in spite of difficulties on every side, held to
its principles, and was capable of infinite readjustment to meet the needs of its
position. He has taken a larger view than any previous writer of the lives and
characters, the resources and dangers, of the later Emperors. He has followed them
into the details of their policy, and has not considered anything undeserving of his
attention. Still more, he has done his best to reproduce the life, the art, and the
learning of Byzantium. Perhaps his chapters on the literature of the times and his
estimates of the authorities whom he follows will have the most enduring influence on
English scholars. Anyone who looks into this book will recognise that, in spite of
obvious signs of immaturity, Mr Bury has in him the promise of a distinguished
future.”’

The Oxford Magazine says: ‘‘Mr Bury’s solid work—it consists of two stout
octavo volumes and 1000 pages—is a decided acquisition to our historical library. ...
the great merit of Mr Bury’s work is the clearness with which he brings the divergent
tendencies of the different centuries, which Gibbon and all his followers represented
as one monotonous time of barbarian invasions, theological wrangles, and successful
or unsuccessful usurpations of the imperial throne... .. The bright and attractive
chapters on literature and on social life, which are scattered among the more solid
matter, deserve a word of special praise.”

The Classical Review says: ‘‘Mr Bury’s volumes are an important and valuable
contribution to our knowledge of a period, the history of which has been too much
neglected by scholars. .... We conclude, as we began, by commending to the
attention of all historical students, but especially of those who may have been chiefly
occupied hitherto with the fortune of Athens and the Elder Rome, this careful and
patient survey of the history of the Roman Empire during a period which witnessed
changes of the most momentous import to the nations of Europe and Asia, the effects
of which we are continually feeling in the political controversies of our own day.”

The Academy says: ‘This is a most creditable piece of work, and fills a gap in
the cycle of English books dealing with the history of the Early Middle Ages.....
For the five chapters which deal with the literature of the time we have nothing but
praise. They are thorough and sound, without ceasing to be bright and interesting.
.... The sections dealing with the social life and manners are equally meritorious,
that treating of the rise and development of the Iconoclastic movement is particularly
worthy of notice.”’

The Journal of Education says: ‘‘Any chapter of the book is enough to give us
confidence ; we can feel that we are in the hands of a guide who knows his business,
a scholar who is at home in his authorities, and knows how to use them. .... Our
total impression of the book is one of intense admiration.”

MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.

a)
9
:
a

. ieiy, Me fey oe

aay os,

mi Ke wen ae ae a
i

Nae Cie Tine aa

a ty De Th itakst ah
ae) Wok hie wey aaa te

ae bi Ne ie ak! uy oi

AW Wii * Fay Sean Oe

nye s - Ls ; eu

qe ‘
ia ea All ea NE
Ly A talib Wietaas *
ee eae eh
al Ni
} te iy
¢
Walren
' LAW UR 1 ee
iy.
,
i pe nee
fecaa lated
i x

hex

Py)

ue
a

ra)

NV) S
Pui University of California Library
Los Angeles My,

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

1 310/82

ae Al Seo 1b-LR

ay JUN 1 51999)
AIND: Fi
ANCE! a
Cc ; 1993 i a
— iL 0 1993 -
Se | |=
INN | No
RAR} URL),
A”
| ae
1995) aE
<<
4 RL pe
|
LIFO, ( ja ’
a, fo WS
A B 0 Igy
| 415t 0 ] 994= iS
Tee Poxuvuanay
NE st UBRARYOe, AQEUBRARYO git UNIVER), lO ANGELES,
ha ae, = o Ss ta
Ls = 2 5 2 & S & =
= os = 2 = & = a ss
els glee sls EDs ESE
~ ~ ~ i] SO a
BINS “Auoanv-40% Awana’ %s eraonysors — “pyaar gus
|
LE Ri CALE R, go CALIFORy, itt UNIVER. ois ANGELES,
[-s & S & 5s 2 & § Fs
= 2 z 2 z & = 2 2
>| - a et i ees eave =z
$ =z ai & = 3 $
Tels YOAV HATS ZOAWWAAITAS® “S717 9Ny-SolNS USHIAIND IWS
RY.Oe <HE-UNIVERSyp, -LOS:ANCELES E-LIBRARY:
2 Z a. e RY Oe, xt BRA,
ee) a a ee ee

WON VIN

00753 0511

UC SOUTH

AA 000656 388.

7 Sor epee

Seti aiicndede ne aa

~
ere
Senate

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Nemean odes of Pindar"

See other formats