Pindar: Pythian Eleven (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries)

This page intentionally left blank

CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TEXTS A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S

 J. D I G G L E N. H O P K I N S O N M . D. R E E V E D. N. S E D L E Y

J. G. F. P O W E L L R . J. TA R R A N T

 P I N DA R : P Y T H I A N E L E V E N

P I N DA R PYTHIAN ELEVEN E D I T E D W I T H I N T RO D U C T I O N, T R A N S L AT I O N, A N D C O M M E N TA RY BY

P. J. F I N G L A S S Lecturer in Classical Studies, University of Nottingham Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521884815 © Cambridge University Press 2007 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2007

ISBN-13 978-0-511-37930-7

eBook (NetLibrary)

ISBN-13 978-0-521-88481-5

hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

For SFO, GAW, and PHSL

CONTENTS Preface

page ix

            Thrasydaeus’ victory  Date i The scholia ii Can Aeschylus help? iii Contemporary politics and style iv Other methods of dating Appendix: The Pythian chronological system  Performance context i Thrasydaeus daphnephoros? ii Corinna’s Orestas  Myth i Structure ii Function  Metrical analysis  Text

               

                      Testimonia Synopsis of readings Index siglorum
  
  


    

       



  Abbreviations: standard reference works  Editions of Pindar’s Pythian Eleven  Works cited by author’s name  Works cited by author’s name with date vii

    

CONTENTS

   

Indexes Index of subjects Index of Greek Index locorum

viii

P R E FA C E I am grateful to Malcolm Davies, James Diggle, Michael Reeve, Alan Sommerstein, and Martin West for reading the completed typescript and recommending improvements. Professor West also allowed me to see some unpublished work of the late W. S. Barrett which he is preparing for publication; while Almut Fries examined microfilms of the manuscript G in G¨ottingen, and Ranja Kn¨obl and Helmut Hofbauer made accessible other material available only in Germany. Malcolm Davies and Barbara Kowalzig gave me permission to cite their unpublished Oxford DPhil theses. My commissioning editor, Michael Sharp, and my copy-editor, Muriel Hall, have been of invaluable assistance in bringing the book to publication. I would also like to thank the staff of the Bodleian, Sackler, and Taylorian libraries in Oxford, the British Library in London, the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana in Rome, and the Biblioteca Laurenziana and Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence. Once again, it is a pleasure to record my gratitude to All Souls College, Oxford, where this book was written, for providing me with excellent working conditions and stimulating colleagues. Scribebam in urbe Snotengaham Die Cinerum, Anno Domini MMVII

ix

P. J. F. F.

I N T RO D U C T I O N  THRASYDAEUS’ VICTORY Pindar’s Pythian Eleven celebrates the victory of Thrasydaeus of Thebes at the Pythian games. The contest in which he was successful must, if possible, be recovered from the ode. The key passage is at lines –. Having just mentioned Thrasydaeus and his father Pythonicus, the poet says:

      !  "#$% & % '( ) " * + ,-.
)* / #0 1  2  3 /- 4/#5 672    89  .

Three different sets of honours are mentioned: (i) chariot victories ‘of old’ or ‘in the past’ (), (ii) victories involving horses at Olympia, and (iii) victories at Pytho in the ‘naked stadion’. The victory celebrated by Pindar was neither ‘in the past’ nor at Olympia, so it cannot be denoted by either (i) or (ii). That leaves (iii), which is conveniently specified as a Pythian victory. Rhetoric also supports the idea that (iii) is the subject of the ode: it comes climactically at the end of the catalogue of victories, and is accorded the lengthiest, most impressive description. The reference to Thrasydaeus’ victory as the ‘third crown’ cast on his ancestral hearth () clinches the argument. Thrasydaeus won the #0  2, a fact which would have been as apparent to ancient commentators as it is to us. Could  2 refer not to the stadion event, but to any running contest? Farnell (his edition, ii. ) believed that it could: but Pindar’s usage tells strongly against such an idea. He 

I deliberately exclude the scholia from consideration at this point, as information which they contain may have been taken from the ode rather than from external evidence.



I N T RO D U C T I O N

distinguishes between the stadion and the diaulos at O. .
)*  '(/  2  29 ) :%; "& - to secure this identification. Farnell ii.  and Theiler ( )  (= ) claim that at I. . ' / #*  2- . . . '  "? 229 @ - 2>- there is a contrast between races in armour and races without armour, the latter being denoted by the phrase #*  2- without a distinction between the stadion and the diaulos. But in this passage the poet refers to a succession of different, discrete contests (despite the plurals, which continue throughout): the hoplitodromos, the javelin, the discus. The default hypothesis must be that the #  2 denote a single kind of contest too. The stadion, then – but was it in the boys’ or the men’s competition? Here too the evidence of the ode must be carefully sifted. Nowhere is Thrasydaeus explicitly said to be a boy, or to be young. There is quite an emphasis on his father, however. This is foreshadowed at –, where Thrasydaeus '/ #A  B 2!%;. | = /C&9 / 1 2>5 &A#/. The poem spends little time on the victor: the stress on his paternity is thus all the more noticeable. This is significant because odes for victorious boys and youths typically emphasise their father. We often hear the father’s name before that of the son (O. ., . –, N. ., ., I. .), or 



The other poems for boys in the epinician corpus are O. , , , P. , N. , , Bacchyl. , , , , . There are two poems for adolescents: N. , Bacchyl. . Six further odes are of disputed status: O. , P. , N. , I. , , . For boy victors in antiquity more generally see Papalas ( ). Cf. Most (b)  ‘niemals wird Thrasydaios ohne seinen Vater erw¨ahnt’; Gaspar () – ‘la fa¸con intime dont Pindare unit les succ`es du fils et du p`ere [in – and –] indique un vainqueur tout jeune qui n’a pas encore quitt´e la maison de son p`ere’.



 THRASYDAEUS’ VICTORY

else shortly after it (I. .–). At P. .– the victorious son follows in his father’s footsteps. When the father is dead, the poet imagines him in the underworld receiving the news of his son’s success (cf. O. . –, .–), or celebrating the victory on the lyre as if alive (N. .–). Odes to young victors can suggest the joy which a son brings to a father (O. .–), the courage which is a son’s paternal inheritance (P. .–), or the wise advice which a father gives his son (I. .–). Fathers are sometimes mentioned in poems for success in the adult competitions (cf. Mader on O. .–, pp. –), but with nothing like the frequency and emphasis which we find in odes for younger victors. In our case we can deduce that the father probably had no athletic successes to his credit (see further below). His mention is thus especially remarkable, and it is fair to conclude that he is present because he commissioned the ode in honour of his young son. The myth may also reflect this, celebrating as it does the success of the young Orestes who acts on behalf of his father Agamemnon (see section (ii) below). Pfeijffer () – claims that Thrasydaeus was not a boy victor. He believes that a scholium stating that he was is based on a false inference from –, which (he presumes) an ancient commentator took as the statement of a young victor. That would be a wild inference indeed; but as we have seen, the view that Thrasydaeus was a boy victor does not rely on the scholium. Pfeijffer’s one substantive argument (p. ) is that ‘conventions of the genre demand that Pindar and Bacchylides make clear explicitly if the victory they celebrate was won in any category other than the D2/-’. But as he notes, P.Oxy.  tells us that O.  and Bacchyl.  were written for boy victors, even though no internal evidence suggests this. Pfeijffer ()  is thus forced to formulate an exception to his rule, according to which ‘epinician 

For first-person statements in Pindar taken by ancient commentators as the statements of the victor see P. . (ii. . Drachmann), D’Alessio () – with n. , Currie ()  n. .



I N T RO D U C T I O N

poets need not refer to the age category in short odes’. But the sample is not large enough to prove this, even if we could define ‘short’ in this context. The ode also offers information about other victories in Thrasydaeus’ family. Van Groningen’s seminal account of this () proceeds as follows. Thrasydaeus’ victory is described as the third of the house (line ); the ode speaks of previous victories at  –; the scholia provide no information beyond what is contained in the ode. The information at  – vaguely associates victories (with chariots , with horses at Olympia, in the stadion at Delphi) with Thrasydaeus and his father Pythonicus, but without directly attributing any specific victory to either. Pindar is vague because Pythonicus did not win any victories: if he had, Pindar would have been only too glad to make this clear. Rather, his father (Thrasydaeus’ grandfather) won a chariot victory at the Pythian games, leading him to name his new-born son Pythonicus. The grandfather then won a hippic victory at Olympia. Pindar needed to bring in these victories to glorify Thrasydaeus’ house; but he could not directly attribute them to the grandfather without making it clear that Pythonicus, who in all likelihood commissioned the ode, had been unsuccessful. 



Von der M¨uhll ()  n.  = ()  n.  claims that line  shows that Pythonicus won a competition. This line associates Pythonicus with his son’s success: it tells us nothing about his own athletic victories. Cole () – assumes that the first and second victories were won by Pythonicus and Thrasydaeus, thus neglecting  and the significance of the father’s name, as well as the vagueness of the reference to his alleged victory. For the practice of naming a son after a victory (sporting or otherwise) cf. Hdt. .., Hirzel () , West () , Hornblower on Thuc. ..  )>-; also Proclus, In Platonis Cratylum Comment.  ( Pasquali) E  #  A/- 0- FG B 2 4  H  3A /- I> 

)/  *-  (cited by Sulzberger () ); Kurke ( b)  ‘in myth and epic a child is often named after a salient characteristic of one of his parents or grandparents’. According to Von der M¨uhll ()  = () , the victor after whom Pythonicus was named is more likely to have been his grandfather or great-grandfather than his father, ‘da wir uns den Besitzer eines Rennstalls nicht als jung und ohne Kinder vorstellen’. He may be right: but sons are sometimes born to fathers well into maturity (cf. O. .–).



 DAT E

He thus introduced the father’s name while describing some of these successes. The above analysis needs qualification as follows: we cannot tell that it was the grandfather who won the hippic victory at Olympia, nor that his Pythian victory was the chariot race  described in . Occam’s Razor gives some slight support to van Groningen’s assertions. But it is not improbable that the family had more than one successful contestant before Thrasydaeus; and the vagueness of the reference in  suggests that the victory was in a minor competition rather than in one of the crown games. Moreover, van Groningen’s ‘grandfather’ could have been a more distant relative still (n. ).  DAT E i The scholia A pair of scholia present two possible dates for Pythian Eleven: the th Pythiad () or the rd (). Each has found its supporters. Unfortunately, neither scholium has a secure text. They read as follows: A ( Inscr. a = ii. . – Drachmann): #A#  J 2K 2%; 21 F  GL
)2 () 1 #L () 2 B  2 D2-.  



The conversion of Pythiads into the Julian calendar is discussed in an appendix to this section. The th is supported by Wilamowitz () , Dornseiff ( ) , Norwood () , Von der M¨uhll () = () –, Bergmann () ; see further P´eron (–)  n. . The rd is supported by D¨uring (), Mommsen () –, Christ () –, Farnell ii.  –, Finley () , Bowra () –, () –, Hubbard ()  n. . For the triple accusative in A, where the participle F  governs three different objects (GL
)2 1 #L (the occasion of the victories), 2 B  2 (the races in which the victories may have been won), and D2- (the competitors whom the victor defeated – in this case, presumably ‘adult men rather than boys’)) cf. Ant. Thess. A.P. ..–  = – GP D2- J | #  &= 9 (Gow



I N T RO D U C T I O N

B ( Inscr. b = ii. .– Drachmann): D%-· 2%; G3%;  2/*. #A#   J 2K  /A%; F  K #L
)2 () 29%;. C /M- K H 29 2 G #&/. "  /M- K H  2.

In A the prominent placing of 2 after Thrasydaeus’ name (and before the participle F ) means that we must translate ‘The ode was written for the boy Thrasydaeus, victorious in . . .’, and not ‘The ode was written for Thrasydaeus, victorious in . . . as a boy . . .’. In other words, 2 so placed goes with both the victories mentioned. Yet as pointed out above, they are twenty years apart. Even apart from the physical impossibility of such a prolonged career as boy athlete, there is a further problem in the apparent claim that the ode was written for two victories. The only possible parallel for the ambiguity is P.  Inscr. (ii. .– Drachmann) #A#  J 2K N2! # %;. O - G/ K 2L
)2 1 /L. But here the commentator first informs us that the ode was written for Midas, and then in a separate statement announces that he was successful in two different sets of games. In our case, the closeness of the participle to the victor’s name means that, according to the transmitted scholium, the ode was written for Thrasydaeus’ victory in the games in  and . This is a further sign of corruption. Bulle ( )  n.  provides a possible solution to these problems by suggesting that has fallen out before  in the scholium. This would make it clear that the later



and Page ad loc. remark ‘After P accusatives of the opponent, the festival, and the competition are separately common, and two in conjunction occur elsewhere . . . We do not know all three together elsewhere.’). After 2 A has G3%;  2/*  /A%; in a single manuscript (B). This will be an interpolation from B. A supposed third scholium can be found in Laurentianus conv. sopp.  (noted by Mommsen () ; this manuscript (dated c. : cf. Irigoin () ) then bore the number Laurentianus .): #A#  J 2K 2%; G3%; 21 F  GL
)2 1 #L 2 1  2. C /M- K H 29 2 G #&/, "  /M- K H  2. This is a conflation of A and B.



 DAT E

victory is not the occasion of the ode. The supplement parallels the language of the scholia, where we find a similar expression (G/ A  ) in P.  Inscr. a (ii. . Drachmann) used for this very purpose; cf. also O.  Inscr. a (i. . Drachmann) and O.  Inscr. b (i. .– Drachmann). This would give #A#  J 2K 2%; 21 F  GL
)2 ()· 1 #L () 2 B  2 D2-.

Such a supplement is hardly a radical change, as G/ could easily have dropped out after F . It yields a text which makes sense and corresponds to idioms found elsewhere in the Pindaric scholia. It also has the effect of clearly dating Pindar’s poem to . It could be objected that we ought not to rely on emendations in our attempts to solve this problem. On the other hand, for all its incoherence, the unemended scholium does appear to claim that the ode was written for Thrasydaeus’ victory as a boy in , and that the same athlete won a further victory as a man twenty years later. The two words added to the text aim to show how this may actually have been expressed: they do not interfere with the basic sense. The phrase 2 B  2 also requires comment. According to Bowra () , the order of the phrase indicates that the  victory was in the diaulos, and the  one in the stadion. But such a view is not permitted by the syntax; nor does it agree with one of the few clear pieces of information in B, which states that the  victory was in the diaulos. Before we can understand the phrase, we must take account of this second scholium. B begins by saying that the ode was written ‘For Thrasydaeus of Thebes, winner of the stadion’. It then contradicts itself, declaring instead that the honorand was the victor in the diaulos in the games of . It then goes back on itself once more, protesting that Pindar is celebrating the victory not in the diaulos, but in the stadion (cf. Bowra () ). Such 

I N T RO D U C T I O N

confusion means that the text of this scholium must also be unsound. Bulle’s response to this (( ) ) is a further supplement. By inserting < K GL
)2  2%; 1> between F  and F, he removed the two contradictions described above. Although ingenious, this does not command the same assent as his supplement in A. It yields the sense ‘the ode was written for the honorand when he was victorious in the stadion in  and in the diaulos in . But he writes for the victory not in the diaulos, but in the stadion’. This is a convoluted way of saying ‘the ode was written for Thrasydaeus’ victory in the stadion of . He also won in the diaulos of ’. There was no need for the ancient commentator to begin with a sentence apparently stating that the ode was written for two victories twenty years apart, only to go on to make it clear that it was written for the first and not the second. No other supplement commends itself, and only extreme textual alteration would remove the contradictions. This leads me to believe that none of the sentences is itself corrupt: what is unsound is the connexion between them. The first sentence originally stood alone. The second was written by someone with a different view of the victory. The third was tagged on to contradict the second. Such a combination of different viewpoints in a single unit is regular in scholia, which frequently rely on more than one ancient source. Perhaps the third sentence was originally a comment added in the margin of a working copy of a Pindaric commentary; perhaps a scholar quoted the second sentence and added C . . .  2 to express his reaction to it. When the contents of such volumes were transferred to the margins of Pindaric manuscripts, it would be easy for distinctions of authorship to be neglected. There is some linguistic evidence for this analysis: the shift from #A#?

 to #&/ is uncomfortable, especially given that the subject of the latter (@
2-) is unexpressed. The presence of a A in the second sentence and a 2A in the third, on the other hand, is not evidence against it: such particles could have 

 DAT E

been added after the original two sentences had erroneously coalesced. B thus gives two possible occasions for the ode: (i) an undated victory in the stadion and (ii) a victory in the diaulos of . It also contains an explicit rejection of (ii) in favour of (i); the rejection only refers to the race, however, and leaves open the possibility that the stadion victory was also in . At this point we may reconsider 2 B  2 in A. In more recent manuscripts 4 is emended to , an easy alteration (cf. my note on Soph. El. n.). This would mean that Thrasydaeus won both these contests in , as Xenophanes of Corinth did in the Pythian games sometime before  (cf. O. .), a possibility which, as just noted, is left open by the wording of B. But a double victory seems unlikely on other grounds. If the ode were from , Pindar would have pointed to this remarkable double success (as he had for Xenophon, even though those victories were not the formal occasion for the ode). Hence the poem would have to date from the alternative year, . This point would have been as apparent to ancient scholars as it is to us, and so there would never have been a controversy over the date. The second sentence of B makes it clear that the  victory was in the diaulos, not the stadion. Hence we would do better to delete B  2 in A with Schroeder ( ed., p. ), as supported by Von der M¨uhll ()  n.  = ()  n. . The insertion of the offending phrase may have arisen from the apparent confusion between diaulos and stadion in the third sentence of B. When we add this to the previous change proposed above, we get #A#  J 2K 2%; 21 F  GL
)2 ()· 1 #L () 2 [B  2] D2-. 

According to Farnell ii.  and Von der M¨uhll ()  = () , the second and third sentences make up a single unit. Its author is supposed to be saying that Pindar wrote the ode for Thrasydaeus’ diaulos victory of , but that he wrote with reference to his success in the stadion rather than in the diaulos. It would be unfair to foist this absurdity on an ancient commentator when an alternative explanation is available.



I N T RO D U C T I O N

What, then, can we conclude from the scholia? A points towards an ode written in  for a victory in a boys’ competition, while also mentioning a victory in the men’s diaulos of . B contains contrasting views: one supports a stadion victory (not in ), the other a diaulos victory in . Putting A and B together, we have a choice between wins in the boys’ stadion of  and the men’s diaulos of . It should be clear by now that the  victory corresponds to the facts deduced earlier from the ode itself. An ancient scholar made the same deductions and looked in the lists of Pythian victors (first composed by Aristotle with the assistance of Callisthenes: cf. S. G. Miller () –, Hornblower () ) for a victory by a Thrasydaeus of Thebes in the boys’ stadion. The only year with such a victory was , and so he assigned that date to the ode. But whence the confusion over the  victory? This was in the diaulos (as explicitly stated in B and probably also in A), most likely the men’s diaulos (as implied in A and not denied in B). Given the evidence of the poem, why was there room for error? A possible solution to this problem runs as follows. Pythian Eleven does not explicitly declare that Thrasydaeus’ victory was in the stadion and not the diaulos, or that he took part in the boys’ competition and not the men’s. It contains the evidence 

Whether the Thrasydaeus who won in  as a boy could also win again in  as a man is unprovable and, for our purposes, irrelevant. The balance of probabilities suggests that he could not: as Bergmann ()  notes, ‘es ist unwahrscheinlich, daß ein -j¨ahriger Mann noch eine a¨ hnlich athletische Kraft besitzt wie als -j¨ahriger Knabe’. Von der M¨uhll ()  = ()  counters by pointing to Philinus of Cos, a third-century sprinter who won  Olympic victories,  Pythian,  Nemean, and  Isthmian (cf. Paus. .., Knab () ). But if we assume that Philinus competed in both the stadion and the diaulos, his Olympic career (for example) need not be longer than eight years (cf. Moretti () ). Hippocleas of Pelinna, who won the boys’ diaulos at the Pythian games in , and then the men’s competition in  and  ( P.  inscr. = ii. .–. Drachmann), provides a more reasonable career chronology. For athletes with a documented career of ten years or more see S. G. Miller () – n. .



 DAT E

for these assertions; but to tease them out we must pay careful attention to the text and to Pindar’s general usage. Otherwise, it would be possible to connect the poem with an attested victory in the men’s diaulos in  by a Thrasydaeus of Thebes, whether or not this was the same Thrasydaeus who won the stadion in . Crucially, the motive for preferring  over  was also present, as we shall see below. ii Can Aeschylus help? Aeschylus’ Oresteia was first performed in . This fact gives the question of the date of Pindar’s ode a special significance: did it come before or after the tragedian’s famous handling of the same myth? But some scholars go further, and claim that the relationship between the two works can illuminate their relative dating. Herington ()  goes so far as to claim that ‘our best hope of determining with a fair certainty the date of the Eleventh Pythian ode’ lies in its relationship with Aeschylus’ Oresteia. The most frequently cited modern comparison of the Oresteia and Pythian Eleven is D¨uring (), which lists many motifs supposedly shared by the two works (pp. –; cf. also Herington () ). These include the praise of /> G- (– / Eum. –), criticism of tyranny ( / Ag. ), the complaints of the people against their leaders ( / Ag. –), and the link between &)>- and Q3- ( / Ag. , –). On the basis of these similarities D¨uring asserts priority for the Oresteia. But many are conventional and not proof of imitation, as Herington () 



Von der M¨uhll ()  = ()  fails to take account of the possible ambiguities, and attempts to account for the confusion of the scholia by saying that a Thrasydaeus of Thebes won the boys’ stadion in  and . But the scholia indicate that the  victory was in the men’s diaulos, not the boys’ stadion. On this link see further Theiler ( )  (= ) and Bagordo () –.



I N T RO D U C T I O N

 n.  acknowledges. A small number are more impressive: in particular,  GK- # and Cho.  29)/- #, each referring to Clytemnestra and each coming as a final, taut phrase at the end of a much longer sense unit, seem too similar to be the product of chance. But there is no indication of which came first. Herington () gives a more focussed case in favour of the later date, with two specific arguments. First, he claims (p. ) that the alternative questions in lines – of the ode are ‘unique not merely in Pindar, but also in all Greek non-dramatic poetry’ (cf. Farnell ii. –, F¨ollinger () ), and (p. ) that ‘non-dramatic poetry seem[s] nowhere to contain an unanswered question about the motive for a given individual’s action; still less, two such questions juxtaposed, each of them implying a motive which, at least on the surface, was irreconcilable with that implied in the other’. His second argument is that the two motives for the killing of Agamemnon which Pindar mentions, the ‘Iphigenia-motive’ and the ‘adultery-motive’, taken in this order, ‘constitute a major structural principle of Aeschylus’ Agamemnon’ (p. ). This, he maintains, implies that Pindar came second, as ‘the possibility that Aeschylus might have structured his greatest masterpiece around a couple of totally uncharacteristic lines thrown out for some inexplicable reason by Pindar in or shortly after   seems, to put it temperately, remote’ (p. ). The first point would be interesting if true, although it would hardly prove Herington’s case. Such innovation on the part of a poet may be a sign of originality rather than dependence on another source. But it is not even clear that Herington’s premise is correct. Pavese ()  compares Bacchyl. 

Cf. D. C. Young ()  n.  ‘the many parallels collected by Duering, while interesting, are not sufficiently close or unusual to prove borrowing of any kind or to exclude a common source; surely they will not prove any choice of priority, such as Duering forces from them’. Fraccaroli’s argument (() –) that Pindar’s poem must have predated the Oresteia on the basis of parallel passages meets with the same objection.



 DAT E

.–, where the narrator wonders who was responsible for overcoming Argos: was it Hermes, or the Muses? In his English commentary on this passage Maehler suggests that ‘by offering alternative speculative explanations of Argos’ death, the dithyrambic chorus in B. seem to adopt the attitude of ignorance often displayed by choruses in tragedy’ (on .–). Yet there is no reason to suppose a tragic source for this passage in Bacchylides. We may conclude that while we are more familiar with such features in a tragic context, they are also acceptable in lyric. Herington’s other argument is also unsatisfactory. His view that there is a progression in the Oresteia from the sacrifice of Iphigenia to Clytemnestra’s adultery with Aegisthus as reasons for the killing of Agamemnon fails to take account of the continuing importance of the former motive (cf. Ag.  –, –), as well as other reasons for his death (e.g. Agamemnon’s adultery with Cassandra and Chryseis (Ag. –), or the quarrel between his father and Thyestes (–)). But even if he were right about the Oresteia, he would still be wrong to claim that this ordering has no relevance in Pindar’s poem. Rather, by placing the adultery motive second and spending more time describing it, Pindar gives it greater emphasis (–n.). To have concluded with the sacrifice of Iphigenia might have created too much sympathy for Clytemnestra, and, correspondingly, a negative portrayal of Orestes, which the poet is keen to avoid. As we might have expected from a great poet, Pindar places the possibilities in an order which makes sense within the context of his poem and its representation of the myth. It might still have been influenced by Aeschylus or another source. But we do not need to postulate such influence to explain this passage if there are no other grounds to support it. Pindar’s decision to include more than one possible reason for Clytemnestra’s action can also be explained within the context of the poem. The narrator has described the horrific killing of Agamemnon and Cassandra, culminating in the memorable and terrible phrase GK- #. Pindar presents the narrator as so overcome by the crime that he must search for motives to 

I N T RO D U C T I O N

account for it. Instead of authoritatively stating a single cause, he clutches at possibilities that might go some way towards an explanation. His questioning thus underlines the gravity of the killings. Herington’s approach tends to denigrate Pindar’s artistry. He argues that elements of his poem are strange, unexplained, or just plain inferior (cf. his description above of .– as ‘a couple of totally uncharacteristic lines thrown out for some inexplicable reason’, () ), and concludes that they must have been taken from another source, in this case Aeschylus (cf. Christ () ). His argument requires such severe judgments – a subtle Pindar who skilfully employed elements of other works would not have left such clear signs of incompetence to be exploited by modern scholars. D¨uring goes even further, saying that in Pindar ‘we meet the saga as a paradeigm [sic] wholly irrelevant to the ode in which it is occasionally inserted’ (() ; for ‘occasionally’ read ‘casually’). Yet many will not be convinced by an approach which relies on the claim that Pindar was a bungler and his Pythian Eleven a failure. More generally, scholarship over the past few decades has stressed how classical poets show considerable creativity and artistry as they interact with the work of their predecessors. Why, then, should we regard incompetence as a secure indication of imitation? Our focus on similarities should not distract us from the significant differences between the myth in Pindar and Aeschylus. The name of the Nurse (–n.), the presence of Orestes at the killing of his father (n.), and the location of the Atreids in Laconia (n.) all go against Aeschylus’ version (cf. Von der M¨uhll ()  with n.  = ()  with n. , Lesky () –, Davies () ii. , Robbins () –). In each of these cases the account preferred by Aeschylus may be an innovation. Pindar’s failure to use the same innovations does not prove that he must 

Cf. Sevieri’s criticism of scholars who seek to assimilate Pindar’s work to that of Aeschylus, ‘forzandolo proprio nella direzione dalla quale l’autore tende invece costantemente ad allontanarsi’ (() ).



 DAT E

have preceded Aeschylus. But it should finally debunk the idea that Pythian Eleven contains passages which are simple reflexes of elements in the Oresteia. It is hard to see how Pindar could have unthinkingly copied complicated aspects of the Oresteia, such as motivation and structure, while displaying independence on relatively unimportant matters such as the name of the Nurse. Behind the arguments for Aeschylean priority lurks the feeling that the great tragedian’s greatest work must have influenced Pindar’s much smaller, less famous poem, and not vice versa. So D¨uring ()  argues that ‘to the unprejudiced reader it is nearest at hand to believe, that these lines [–] were written by Pindar under the dominating and immediate influence of the Aeschylean drama’. But who are these ‘unprejudiced readers’? Most classicists are highly prejudiced on this question. We become familiar with the Oresteia long before we read Pindar’s ode. Our instinct is to see the epinician in the light of its bigger, more impressive, and more familiar counterpart. Even the nomenclature of the two works is revealing. Pythian Eleven is sometimes called the ‘Little Oresteia’ (Race), ‘Pindar’s Oresteia’ (Robbins ()), or ‘Pindar’s miniature “Oresteia”’ (Hornblower () ): but the Oresteia could never be referred to as ‘Aeschylus’ Pythian Eleven’. In other words, we start from a position which already regards Aeschylus as primary, Pindar as secondary. Far from overcoming that prejudice, D¨uring exalts it into the status of an argument. Yet its intellectual underpinning is weak, as in general terms there is no reason to suppose that Aeschylus could not have been influenced by Pindar. As Robbins ()  points out, ‘the art of the tragedians is the legatee of choral lyric, without which it is inconceivable. Aeschylus . . . will surely have known the work of the supreme practitioner of the choral art.’ In a different context, Hubbard ()  notes that ‘it is entirely possible that Aeschylus could have been familiar with at least some of Pindar’s odes and was inspired by the dramatic possibilities of the lyric poet’s mythical variations’. Even Bowra, who prefers  on other grounds, stresses that ‘in principle 

I N T RO D U C T I O N

either poet might learn something from the other’ (() ). In  Pindar is familiar enough to an Athenian audience for Aristophanes to satirise the style of a fictitious epigone (Av. – ): it seems unlikely that only fifty years earlier Aeschylus could so have lacked intellectual and creative curiosity that he did not take note of his poetry. But even if we persist in the baseless belief that Pythian Eleven could not have influenced Aeschylus, it still does not follow that the tragedian must have come first. The great unknown in any discussion of the Atreid myth is Stesichorus’ Oresteia. Its exiguous fragments provide the earliest occurrences of several motifs which feature prominently in later accounts, such as Clytemnestra’s dream (Soph. El. –n.) and the recognition of Orestes by a lock of his hair (ibid.  n.). Hence elements common to Aeschylus and Pindar, such as the sacrifice of Iphigenia as a motive for Agamemnon’s killing, may go back to Stesichorus (whose poem featured Iphigenia: –n.). This can only be speculation, since Pindar’s handling of the myth shows little, if anything, which we can connect with Stesichorus. But the possibility remains open, and further weakens the position of those who support a late date for Pindar’s poem on the grounds that Aeschylus could not have imitated it. We may thus conclude, with Bernardini (Gentili’s edition, p. ), that we cannot date the ode by its relationship with Aeschylus. But the very fact that some modern scholars have attempted to do so may possibly shed light on an earlier problem. 



Finley () is surprisingly unhelpful on this topic, given the title of the book. For the familiarity of Pindar in Athens (despite Eupolis fr.  PCG) see Currie ()  n. ; also Kugelmeier (). Both Stesichorus and Pindar put Agamemnon’s home in Laconia (n.), but as Davies () ii.  points out, the latter may well have ‘independently adapted the same local tradition which S[tesichorus] had plundered’. The name of the Nurse (n.) and the absence of Erinyes (n.) also differentiate Pindar’s poem from his predecessor’s (Davies p. ). Fraenkel ()  argues that the choice of Clytemnestra as the killer goes back to Stesichorus. But she is involved in the homicide as early as Hom. Od. .–, and we cannot tell that it was Stesichorus who first made her the main killer.



 DAT E

As noted above, an important part of the emotional, if not the intellectual, support for the  dating is the feeling that Aeschylus could not have imitated Pindar in his treatment of the Atreid myth. Such a feeling could have occurred to an ancient scholar too: especially, perhaps, a scholar with Athenian connexions, unwilling to accept that the great Attic tragedian should have drawn aspects of his finest opus from the work of a Boeotian pig. Someone so determined to place Pindar’s poem after Aeschylus could have exploited the apparent ambiguities regarding the occasion of the ode so as to tie it to the victory of another Thrasydaeus in the men’s diaulos of . Such a motive is speculative: but at least it explains economically why someone could do this when, all other things being equal, the  date was so much more attractive. iii Contemporary politics and style Some scholars have believed that lines – of the ode are a condemnation of a specific tyranny, and can thus be used to date the ode. According to Wilamowitz, Pindar became an object of suspicion to his fellow Thebans as a result of his sojourn at the court of Hieron in Sicily in the early s. In , therefore, he states his political credo: = # " > /R%  A  A%; | Q3%; /)> . A& S 2%. The M T3- of line  denotes the envy felt for Pindar’s success by the Thebans, represented by the ># *  of line . The lines thus refer specifically to Pindar and his position within the city: ‘wie er steht und in Theben stehen will, sollen die B¨urger h¨oren’ (() ; cf. his earlier discussion at ( ) – = (–) vi. –). Others prefer the earlier date, but take the reference to tyranny as something closer to home. They point to Thuc.  

For ancient comments on the alleged stupidity of the Boeotians see Vott´ero () –. Pindar himself refers to this tradition at O. .–. This idea was first put forward by Rauchenstein (); cf. Burton () , M´eautis () .



I N T RO D U C T I O N

.., where the Thebans claim that at the time of the Persian invasion Thebes was under an oligarchy, which is of all systems ##  % . . . . The idea that Pindar is referring here to an earlier Theban tyranny was common before Wilamowitz (see below, section (ii)), but has also found favour more recently (cf. Gentili (), Robbins () ). The evidence for such a tyranny is remarkably slim, however (see below, n. ). Bowra ()  sets out objections to this approach. The key problem is that the poem itself gives no indication of these hidden meanings. Such an interpretation turns the ode into a po`eme a` cl´e, a work whose meaning would not have been apparent even to a contemporary Theban audience, unless they had been primed before its performance as to its real significance. But Bowra’s own attempts (() – and () –; cf. also Farnell ii. –) to use the same argument from political context to arrive at the later date are equally unsuccessful. Noting the stress on Iolaus and the Dioscuri, he concludes that ‘the obvious assumption is that Sparta may yet come to the help of Boeotia’ (() ), which suits  (when Boeotia was under Athenian occupation). If the ode was performed at the earlier date, however, ‘the final words . . . have no very clear purpose’ (() ; cf. () –). Moreover, ‘in  the myth of a just vengeance would be entirely appropriate in Thebes which had recently been defeated by Athens, and might well put its hopes in some coming deliverance through force’ (() ; cf. () –). But there is no indication that these mythological descriptions are coded references to politics. Moreover, our scepticism about this method may be heightened by the fact that ‘the two supreme exponents of this method of dating, Wilamowitz and Bowra, are led by it to opposite conclusions about the date of the ode’ (Herington ()  n. ). iv Other methods of dating These can be passed over more quickly. Mac´ıa () – puts the poem in , on the grounds that it ‘est´a construida con la 

 DAT E

sencillez de los poemas m´as tempranos, pero con la seguridad que proporcionan al poeta el paso del tiempo y su dominio de la t´ecnica’ (p. ). This approach is too subjective to need refutation. Alsina () – prefers  on the grounds that Pindaric priority is required by ‘el desarrollo interno de la evoluci´on de Clitemestra’ (p. ). But why should we expect a linear development in Clytemnestra’s character, even supposing that we could identify one? Bergmann ()  argues for  on the grounds of similarities with P.  and ; Theiler ( )  (= ) prefers  on the grounds of parallels with I. , which he dates to  (in fact, the ode is of unknown date). But even if we accept the similarities for which these and other scholars argue, there is no reason to suppose that they can help us to place an ode in time. ‘Little faith can be placed in the dating by means of stylistic criteria: these tend to be highly subjective’ (Currie () ). K¨ohnken ( ) – notes interesting connexions with P. , but sensibly refuses to use them as chronological evidence.

Appendix: The Pythian chronological system The scholia use Pythiad numbers, not years, for dating the ode. Rather than repeat ‘th Pythiad’ and ‘rd Pythiad’ throughout, I have referred to  and  . This requires justification. The earliest modern accounts placed the first Pythiad used for chronological calculations in  (the third year of the th Olympiad). Hence the date of the th and rd Pythiads in  and  respectively. They did this largely on the basis of the scholia. So in his Opus Novum de Emendatione Temporum, Scaliger ()  pointed to evidence provided by P.  and P. , which, because they used both the Olympic and Pythiad chronologies, allow us to draw conclusions about the value of the latter. By the third edition of this book (() , published after his death 

I N T RO D U C T I O N

in ), he had added references to Eusebius and O. . Scaliger’s work led to a consensus which lasted almost unchallenged until , when Boeckh (in his commentary, vol. ii/, pp. –) argued that the dating should begin in  (or the third year of the th Olympiad). He took this date from a passage in Pausanias (..–), who explicitly says that  was the first Pythiad. Other passages in the same author (e.g. ..) confirm that Pausanias does indeed begin counting from . According to this system, the th and rd Pythiads fall in  and  respectively. Boeckh’s view was generally accepted, although a number of scholars argued on the basis of connexions between Pindar’s poems and contemporary history that these dates were four years too early. This debate came to a head in . That year saw the publication of P.Oxy. , which, among other important contributions to Pindaric chronology, appeared to support the Scaligerian chronology, which put the first Pythiad in  (cf. Grenfell and Hunt () –). This publication was followed up and expanded by Gaspar (), which provided influential  

 





The text of Georgius Syncellus, which contains the relevant reference from Eusebius, was discovered in : see the preface to Mosshammer’s edition. Cf. Lloyd () (no page number; on the second side of the section headed ‘Notae quaedam chronologicae de ludis’), Dodwell ( ) , Corsinus () –, ( ) , Gedike p. , Clinton ()  (writing just after Boeckh, but showing no knowledge of his work). Meursius ()  (II.ix) adopts  as the starting date, but without argument or indeed acknowledgment of Scaliger’s dating. He may simply have taken the year from Pausanias without further investigation. Boeckh mentions his new chronology in a letter to Dissen dated  st December : see Hoffmann () –. Cf. e.g. Dissen (his edition, vol. ii. p. ), Donaldson (his first edition, p. ), Cookesley (his edition, p. ), Mommsen () , , Paley p. , Schmidt (), Mezger () –, Gildersleeve, L¨ubbert () . Cf. especially Wilamowitz () ii. ; also Bergk ()  and in his third edition (), pp. –, Bornemann ( ) –, Fraccaroli (), () . Fraccaroli ( ) was also written in response to the papyrus and supported the  dating (as Fraccaroli had done before the papyrus was discovered: see the previous footnote).



 DAT E

support for the new dating. It remained largely unquestioned for some time (cf. Farnell ii. ), until Bennett (), Simpson ()  n.  and S. G. Miller () claimed that the papyrus evidence supporting  was not compelling, and that Pausanias’ date of  should be trusted after all. Subsequent studies have argued on both sides, with Mosshammer () supporting  and Brodersen () supporting . The most recent account is non-committal, albeit with a mild preference: ‘[] at least has the unambiguous support of Pausanias . . . , while the support for the later date is more ambiguous. The issue cannot yet be said to have been finally resolved’ (Currie () ). Historical sources for the beginning of the Pythian games do not give a clear or consistent picture. According to Paus. ..–, the first games in  involved the awarding of U) to the competitors, who included athletes, citharodes, aulodes, and auletes.  saw the first ‘stephanitic’ games, or games for which crowns (of laurel) were awarded. An earlier source, the Marmor Parium (IG xii./ , with IG xii. suppl. p.  = FGrHist B ), agrees in putting the first stephanitic games in . But it dates an earlier set of games, involving a #0- "#$, to . These, it says, were ‘chrematitic’ competitions, or games involving prizes of monetary value. The Pindaric scholia give yet another account of the early Pythiads (cf. Mosshammer () –). According to them, the chrematitic games fell in , at the end of what we call the First Sacred War, and the first 

 

As well as considering the papyrus, Gaspar attempted to determine at which date the contents of an ode better fitted contemporary historical circumstances. So with reference to our poem, he believed that  would be too soon after Plataea (where Sparta and Thebes were on opposite sides) for Iolaus to be associated with the Dioscuri, and for the Spartan colouring of the poem more generally (p. ). There may be something in this argument, although I would not want to place much weight upon it. Mommsen () , Rauchenstein ()  and Watkiss Lloyd ()  advanced a similar case, although since they did not question the Boeckhian dating of Pythiads this led them to prefer , rather than , over . For more on the history of the question up to the end of the nineteenth century see Gaspar ()  –. On this conflict and its historicity see J. K. Davies (), V. Parker ().



I N T RO D U C T I O N

stephanitic games followed six years later, which by inclusive counting brings us to . What can we make of this confusion? The coincidence of Pausanias and the Marmor Parium over the first stephanitic contests, despite their disagreement over the preceding games, suggests that  is a correct date (cf. Gebhard ()  n. ). As for their disagreement, there are two possible solutions: either there was one set of chrematitic games in  or , or there were games in both of these years. Brodersen ()  supports the latter view, pointing to the different accounts of the  and  games in the Marmor and Pausanias. The differences are not significant, however: for while the Marmor does not specifically mention the musical contests, there is no reason why it should have mentioned this detail. What is important is that both games involve the awarding of prizes of value. In the absence of evidence saying that there were two such chrematitic games (and there is none), we should assume that the two sources are describing the same event. This is in general sound historical method when dealing with similar events from the ancient world which are assigned two different dates. Our presumption should be that a single event has been double-dated, rather than that our sources are blameless and the same event occurred twice. Of the two possible dates it is  which has the ring of authenticity. As Mosshammer ()  points out (citing Jacoby), ‘the fact that the two dates [i.e.  and ] are not related by the four- or eight-year cycle of repetition is in itself an argument for their historicity’. Mosshammer ()  claims that Pausanias arrived at  for the date of the chrematitic games since ‘most likely, this was Callisthenes’ date for the end of the Sacred War’. This assumes too much, however. It is easier to suppose that Pausanias was aware of the existence of the chrematitic games before the stephanitic ones in , and simply counted four years back to . The practice of dating by Pythiads was so rare that he was then free to claim that the first Pythiad for chronological purposes took place in . The accounts of the founding of the games in the Pindaric scholia reflect a situation in which both 

 DAT E

 and  have been established as the date of the very first Pythiad. They apply to this the known fact that the first games were chrematitic, and the second stephanitic, and they end up with stephanitic games four years earlier than they should be. The first Pythiad took place in  and involved prizes of value; the first stephanitic Pythiad took place in . But even if Pausanias was wrong about dating a set of games to , it is still possible that the scholia were using his dating system. As Bennett () – notes, the issue in hand is not when the games began, but when the scholiasts’ chronology says they began. Our only way of determining this is to look at scholia which date events or clusters of events by both Pythiad numbers and some other system, such as Olympiads. Some scholars have despaired of such a task: J. K. Davies ()  refers to ‘repeated, but I suspect unavailing, attempts to wrest consistent chronological sense out of the Pindaric scholia’. We shall see whether or not such an attitude is too pessimistic. The key discussions are found in Miller () – and Mosshammer (). Miller cites all the relevant scholiastic texts and attempts to show that collectively they point to a chronology beginning in . Mosshammer denies this, but does not believe that the scholia supply positive evidence in favour of the later date. I will discuss the passages which provide the most telling information on the question. The other passages all provide information consistent with my eventual conclusion, but with a certain amount of goodwill could be consistent with the alternative too. I have chosen to focus on three passages because I believe that they fit only my preferred dating. (i) O. .c (i. .–.) tells us G/ 2 @ ’7&?  - 1 9 V- /* 1
9) G; [Hermann;  G; codd.] 2. Hermann’s emendation, printed by Drachmann, is confirmed by P.Oxy.  

Brodersen () does not attempt to discuss most of the scholia analysed by Miller and Mosshammer, dismissing the evidence offered by O.  without argument (p. ).



I N T RO D U C T I O N

(ap. Grenfell and Hunt () ), which shows that Epharmostus won in the th Olympics (), not the rd. This scholium says that Epharmostus also won in the Pythian games which fell within the th Olympiad, that is, the games of . These would be the th or  st games, depending on whether the starting date is  or  respectively. O. .b (i. .) says that Epharmostus won the th games, which supports a starting date of . O. .a (i. .) erroneously dates the Pythian victory to the rd games, but this is an easy corruption: #L instead of L. In his analysis (pp. –) Miller is forced to use a highly artificial punctuation to claim that Epharmostus’ Pythian victory did not fall within the th Olympiad. He does this by following Drachmann in punctuating after 9, /*, and
9). In this he persuades Mosshammer (p. ), who is led to conclude that ‘the evidence of c is moot’. In fact, his interpretation is linguistically impossible. The position of G; 2 shows that it must be taken either with both victories, or with the Pythian victory alone. To give an English parallel, in the sentence ‘He was elected to Parliament and became a Cabinet Minister in the s’ it would not be possible to separate off the words ‘and became a Cabinet Minister’ with commas and so detach it from the temporal phrase which follows. However we punctuate, the entry into the Cabinet must have occurred in the s. Miller’s commas give unnatural sense to the Greek, and must be rejected. (ii) O. inscr. b (i. .–) says of the victor Ergoteles X#%   | 2&- (lines –) and singing. Later in the poem we learn that the procession is being led by the son or father of one Damaena (–), who is followed by his daughter [@2H] 2&- /C/  (/2[>] | 

Cf. Brelich () –. For further bibliography on the Daphnephoria see Brelich ()  n. , Sevieri ()  n. , ()  n. , Schachter () passim.



 PE R F O R M A N C E C O N T E X T

3 /2- (–). The presence of a female in second position does not correspond with either Proclus’ or Pausanias’ account of the ritual. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the carrying of laurel makes it overwhelmingly likely that the poem is describing the ritual of Daphnephoria (see further Lehnus (); also Brelich () –). Pindar also wrote a Daphnephorikon for his son Da¨ıphantus, of which only a line survives (fr. c S–M). As noted above, it was Boeckh who first connected Pythian Eleven with the Theban ritual. Mezger ()  says that it is possible that Thrasydaeus was a daphnephoros (cf. Burton () ), while the discussion following a paper by Vivante also suggested this link (ap. Vivante () , although no details are given). More recently the connexion has been supported and elaborated by Pavese (), Bernardini (), and Sevieri (). This is now the dominant view, and is accepted (without argument) by the most recent substantial monograph on Pindar (Currie ()  with nn. , ). Bernardini sets out the case most fully, as follows: (i) Thrasydaeus ‘potrebbe . . . essere identificato come il protagonista della seconda fase della cerimonia, cio`e il destinatario del dafneforico’ (her  commentary, p. ). This ‘protagonista’ she defines as ‘un ragazzo di nobile famiglia, bello e forte (daphnephoros)’: that is, the priest from Pausanias’ account. At () – she identifies this daphnephoros with the *- "&)F- (a figure taken from Proclus), even though Proclus distinguishes the two (cf. Schachter ()  with n. ). Her account is thus a conflation of the two sources, although she does not point this out in so many words. 

See further Schachter () –, Anastase () –. Grenfell and Hunt () , ,  suggested that fr.  (Paean  = D Rutherford) and fr. l (Paean  = A– Rutherford) were written for the Daphnephoria, but there are no good grounds for this in either case (cf. Rutherford ( )  and  –).



I N T RO D U C T I O N

(ii) The tripods in the treasury mentioned in lines – are taken to support her case: ‘si tratta della cella pi`u impenetrabile del tempio dove erano conservati i tripodi dedicati dai daphnephoroi’ (()  ; cf. Pavese ()  ‘sono nominati i tripodi che i daphnephoroi dedicavano’, Sevieri () ). (iii) She identifies the Theban heroines with the chorus of the Daphnephoria: ‘le eroine non sono altro che la proiezione mitica di queste ragazze che intoneranno il loro canto in onore di Apollo, del daphnephoros e della sua famiglia’ (() ; cf. her commentary, p. , Pavese () , Sevieri () ). (iv) She acknowledges that there is no evidence for the time of day when the Theban Daphnephoria was performed, but argues on the basis of other, similar ceremonies that it took place at nightfall, which is the dramatic time of Pindar’s poem (() –). None of these arguments stands up to scrutiny. (i) Thrasydaeus has no connexion with the daphnephoros. Nothing in the poem associates him with logs or with laurel. We cannot even be sure whether or not he is a *- "&)F-, as we do not know if his mother was still alive: pace Bernardini () , the argumentum ex silentio tells us nothing on this point. Sevieri ()  with n.  claims that during the performance of the poem Thrasydaeus would be about to dedicate to Apollo the crown of laurel which he won at Delphi; this crown was cut by a *- "&)F- in the valley of Tempe (cf. Hyp. P. c = ii. .– Drachmann). But there is no mention of laurel in the poem (despite the opportunity presented by –), nor of the manufacture of the Delphic crown. We cannot interpret the ode in terms of things to which it makes no reference. (ii) The reference to tripods is also unhelpful: daphnephoroi were not the only people who dedicated them (n.). Moreover, there is no reference to the dedication of tripods in Proclus’ 

 PE R F O R M A N C E C O N T E X T

account: only in Pausanias and the Tabula Albani. Both mention a tripod dedicated by Amphitryon on the occasion of Heracles’ daphnephoria: it may be significant that when Herodotus tells of a tripod dedicated by the same man in the same shrine (.), he associates it not with the daphnephoria, but with spoils taken from the Teleboans. The version offered by Pausanias and the Tabula ‘might reflect a true tradition, or it might have resulted from an attempt to account for the presence of tripods in the sanctuary after the practice of dedicating them had died out’ (Schachter ( –) i. ; cf. () , where he is still more sceptical). (iii) The alleged connexion between the group of heroines of the early part of the ode and the daphnephoric chorus is arbitrary. They have nothing in common beyond the fact that both consist of a plurality of singing females: for example, nothing suggests that the heroines are to be imagined as carrying suppliant branches. (iv) It is not licit to argue from other, foreign, festivals as to the time of day at which the Theban Daphnephoria was performed. Bernardini assumes from the beginning that this poem must be set in a ritual context. This is not a compelling assumption. Pindar sometimes sets his epinicia at the performance of a festival (cf. Currie () – n. , ()  nn. , , Loscalzo () –). But there is no reason to suppose that he does so in every ode. The scholars who would connect this ode with the Theban Daphnephoria have failed to demonstrate that their hypothesis is worth taking seriously. The ode may well have been first performed in the Ismenium (cf. Currie ()  n.  for Pindaric 

Cf. her questions at ()  ‘quali le modalit`a della festa cui il poeta allude? . . . Quale, infine, il ruolo di Trasideo nel corso di questa cerimonia?’ Nothing so far in her article has shown that a festival or ceremony is at issue, and yet the reference is to ‘la festa’, ‘questa cerimonia’.



I N T RO D U C T I O N

odes set in a sanctuary); then again, it may not. Indeed, the very vividness of the description of the Ismenium at the opening may suggest that the ode was sung elsewhere. Guillon ()  n.  points out how ‘dans . . . une s´erie de br`eves et saisissantes allusions concr`etes . . . Pindare e´ voque l`a . . . la splendeur et le caract`ere sacr´e de l’Hism´enion, l’autorit´e de son oracle et la richesse de ses tr´epieds’. But why would the poet need to evoke the place with such insistence if his audience could see it for themselves? ii Corinna’s Orestas The story of the house of Atreus is not an obviously suitable myth for a poem performed at Thebes for a Theban victor. But a papyrus discovered early in the twentieth century seemed to provide evidence for a connexion between myth and performance context. A fragment in the Boeotian dialect plausibly attributed to Corinna was published by Coppola ( )  – . After seven (incomplete) lines from the end of a poem, it contained the title 7 \ followed by five further lines of Greek. Given Corinna’s fondness for writing about myths with a Theban connexion, and given that (0- "  is long. The same applies at the end of lines , , , , , , , and  (S, S, S, S, S, S, S, E). Fortunately, there are enough instances of hiatus to give a secure framework for the colometry even without the evidence of synapheia. This still leaves us with three posited period ends which are not shown up by hiatus (excluding the end of E, which must mark period end as it concludes the epode and, at , the poem). Snell does not accept period end between S and S, which he regards instead as a single long period of up to  syllables. Barrett (b)  n.  cites parallels for periods of this length: but neither he nor West () – accepts such a long period here. I have printed two periods because of the strong syntactic 

Snell’s metrical scheme is taken over unchanged by Maehler in his revisions of Snell. I thus refer to it under Snell’s name alone.



I N T RO D U C T I O N

break in  and  (cf. also the weaker breaks at  and ), coupled with the relative rarity of such long periods in Pindar. But the evidence does not allow a definite conclusion. The other two posited periods ends, E and E, coincide with only one syntactic break between them (at line , for E). We can thus be even less certain that metrical pauses occurred here. But a break at the end of E means that the opening three periods of the epode all begin with an aeolo-choriambic colon. In E the dodrans (– – –) is extended by one long syllable; in E we ˘˘ ˘ find the same extended dodrans, this time with an aeolic base of one long syllable on the front. Then in E the dodrans loses its extension, but its base grows from one long to three shorts. We can thus identify a patterned progression which suggests that period end did indeed occur between E and E. The posited pause between E and E gives a less immediately apparent pattern. It leaves us with two successive periods beginning with a full iambic metron (E–) and ending with a syncopated one (E–). It also means that the length of the periods in the epode stays within certain limits (– syllables), rather than creating a monster of  or  syllables. The metrical patterning of the resulting colometry is eloquently analysed by West () , who sees the ode as ‘a kind of meditation on the phrase tel.. ’. Each of the five periods in the strophe contain this phrase: S, , and  at the beginning, S and  at the end. S and  follow their tel.. with another aeolo-choriambic colon, and then a syncopated iambic metron. Syncopated iambics are also found in S and , before an unsyncopated metron marks the conclusion of the strophe. The opening colon of the epode, ar, is a tel.. in reverse. This is then followed by the patterning which we identified earlier, when considering what colometry to adopt. The organisation of the strophe, where each colon is carefully chosen and positioned, may support our previous decision to use structural criteria in deciding on the likely period breaks in the epode.



 METRICAL ANALYSIS

Inthis ode strictness of patterning is accompanied by strictness of responsion, as is normally the case in Pindar (cf. West () –). We find resolution in the same nine places throughout, with a single exception. This is the pherecratean which opens S, whose third element is resolved four times and unresolved four times (, , , ). Two of the unresolved instances involve proper names, however ( Y2, 
? H), which frequently cause metrical rules to be bent so that they can be accommodated (cf. West () –). Having allowed himself this licence, Pindar must have decided that he could afford it at least once more in the same position (reading  in place of  at  would regularise that period, but there is no easy emendation at ). A further possible irregularity in S (line ) is removed by a small emendation which also significantly improves the sense: see below, in my discussion of s of Gentili’s analysis. Corresponding anceps syllables are all either long or short throughout, with two exceptions: in E, we find a short syllable in place of a long in first position in line , and a long in place of a short in fifth position in line . In both cases the text is certain. There is a further possible exception in S, where at line  transmitted '/&/ gives an initial short in place of a long. In common with most editors, I accept Moschopulus’ emendation A&/ / (V’s '/&A / may have preserved a trace of this): for a Pindaric parallel for the corruption see ad loc. Given that there are two certain exceptions to the metrical rule we cannot be sure that this was not an exception too. But the emendation is so small that the balance of probabilities suggests that it is right. The names given to the individual cola in my scheme are the same as those found in West () –, with one exception. West refers to the first colon of the epode as .. pher: but while it is aeolo-choriambic, it has no especial affinity to the pherecratean, and indeed it contains the phrase – – –, which is never found ˘˘ ˘ in that colon. Snell’s description of the cola is more at variance with mine, but some differences are only superficial. Throughout 

I N T RO D U C T I O N

he prefers ∧ cho dim rather than tel.. , but this is largely a matter of preference. My choice is influenced by the desire to indicate that this colon is related to the other aeolo-choriambic metra of which the ode is made up. I have preferred ∧ ia∧ , ∧ ia and ia∧ to Snell’s sp, cr and ba (spondee, cretic, and bacchiac) for the same reason: to make it visually apparent that these metra are forms of ia. Snell interprets E as cho ba pher: I prefer ar pher, as we also find an aeolo-choriambic metron extended by a long syllable in the following line (hag). This next period (E) is taken by Snell as ∧ gl (pher): his ∧ gl is simply another way of writing tel, while (pher) means a colon related to a pherecratean, in this case – – –. But ˘˘ it is hard to see why – – – should be taken as an independent ˘˘ colon when an alternative division is available; and harder still to see what such a shape has to do with a pherecratean. For E Snell offers the interpretation (∧ gl) ia, but again – – – does not ˘˘˘ appear particularly close to a telesillean, or indeed particularly attractive as an independent colon. Gentili’s edition (p. ) prefers a quite different metrical scheme. Rather than refer to it piecemeal, I reproduce it in full below. In the discussion which follows, s and e (etc.) refer to Gentili’s colometry, S and E (etc.) to mine. Strophic pair s –– – – – – – –˘||H ˘ ˘˘ ˘˘ ˘˘ ˘ s ˘– – –| ˘ ˘˘ s – – – – ˘||H ˘ ˘ ˘˘˘˘ ˘ s ˘˘˘– ˘˘˘˘–˘˘˘|| H s – ˘˘˘˘˘– –– ˘˘˘–˘˘–|| s ˘– – – –– – ˘|||

˘ ˘˘

˘

˘˘

pros (∧ dimp ) glyc sp pros (∧ dimp ) tr cho cr cr ∧ cho hemiascl dimp pros (∧ dimp ) ba ia

Epode e – – ––| ˘˘ ˘ H e – –˘||

˘˘˘ ˘˘

ar (dimp ∧ ) pher



 METRICAL ANALYSIS

e –– – |– – – ˘|| ˘˘ ˘ ˘˘ e – – – – –||H ˘˘˘ ˘˘ ˘ ˘–| e – – –– ˘ ˘ ˘ ˘˘˘ e ˘– – – ––||

˘

˘ ˘˘

tel h2 (or reiz prosdo ) glyc cr ia ia∧ cr ia reiz

Gentili’s ∧ dimp (‘dimeter polyschematistos’: see p.  of his edition) is another way of representing the colon –– – – or tel.. . ˘ ˘˘ After such a colon in s, Gentili identifies the following colon – – – as a glyconic. This is a simple mistake. In Sappho and ˘˘ ˘˘ ˘ Alcaeus Aeolic base may consist of two shorts (though rarely: cf. Itsumi ()  n. ). In Pindar and the tragedians, however, this is not possible (cf. West () , Itsumi () ). If it were, we would expect to find in a base corresponding with ˘˘ ˘–, –˘, or ––. Since we do not, it is better to take ˘˘–˘˘–˘– as a telesillean with resolved base (cf. L. P. E. Parker () –). At e Gentili’s scheme incorrectly states that the final syllable is ˘. In fact, it is long each time in this position ("#P -, )=, Y F -, 7C%;, %)A - (or –% in his text), 2)G, 4/#5, "9 ). Perhaps Gentili believes that syllables made up of a short syllable followed by a consonant should be regarded as short even when not immediately followed by a syllable beginning with a vowel. They should in fact be classed as long: as West ()  points out, ‘such syllables are admitted in certain places where short open syllables are avoided’ (with a cross-reference to p. , which deals with Pindaric examples). See further  n. In s Gentili retains the manuscript reading (/= in line  and so believes that the first syllable of this colon is short in this one place. Most editors print Schmid’s (/=, which gives the expected long syllable. Pindar would have written a7 for both forms, and hence neither has greater ancient authority than the other. Everywhere else in the ode the first syllable of this period is long, and so (/= is preferable. As we have a free choice, it would be senseless to adopt the alternative which gives even a slight metrical irregularity without any compensating 

I N T RO D U C T I O N

gain. Cf. D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () : ‘it is of little interest to detail such variants as those at P. . A%, /*, /%, representing different attempts to interpret Pindar’s original Y7

’; Christ () p. vi: ‘his . . . in rebus qui ullam codicibus auctoritatem tribuit, is fortunae temeritati scribarumque inscitiae plus quam rationis lumini se confidere fatetur’ (see further his  article, especially pp. –, ). Gentili makes a similar error in his analysis at the end of s, s, s, and e. Gentili prints a colon break between s and s, and between e and e. I do not understand his reasons. In the latter case (but not the former) there is a line break at that point in the manuscripts. If that is Gentili’s reason for his colometry, it cannot hold, since, as noted above, the manuscripts have no authority on such questions. The colon breaks posited by Gentili wreck the careful balance which we observed above in the cola S – and E –, without any compensating benefit. We should therefore reject them. In s Gentili is determined to retain the H of the manuscripts in line  rather than print , apparently unaware that accentuation in Pindaric manuscripts has no authority and is not part of the paradosis. He is thus forced to abandon the ∧ ia tel.. analysis which accords so well with the surrounding cola, and introduces instead a lonely trochaic metron with no fellows to support it. See further my n. ad loc. In s, at line , Gentili prints A- 2 (  where most editors print A- b ( . This gives us the metrical shape –– –, whereas everywhere else we find – – in ˘˘ ˘˘ ˘˘˘˘ ˘˘ this position. Gentili interprets the metre as two choriambs, with the first ( ˘˘˘˘) as a choriamb with its first longum missing and its second resolved. But as Parker ()  points out, ‘resolution in a choriamb is a rarity anywhere’. Gentili (p. ) compares the resolved choriamb in s, but even if we accepted his analysis in that place (and there is no good reason to do so), that still does not account for the missing initial longum in this instance. Moreover, his decision renders the meaning of the sentence more difficult. 

 METRICAL ANALYSIS

Instead of A- . . . $ making up the apodosis to the protasis %;, this gives the metrical form ––– – –. Although this is a wilamowitzianus, ˘ ˘˘ all the other instances show a resolved pair of short syllables in the third element, so we would prefer to have the same in this line too. Moreover, the phrase (%; + _/ (‘with Ares’ eventual help’) gives more powerful sense than the lame (>%; + _/ (‘after a time, with Ares’ help’). Such a slight emendation, which gives better sense and better metre, should not be resisted even against a unanimous manuscript tradition. It is neverthe

I N T RO D U C T I O N

less pleasing that (% (with raised omega) is found in G (not B, as some editors report). At s Gentili keeps '/&/ in , while most editors accept Moschopulus’ emendation A&/ /. As I have already acknowledged (above), he may be right about this, but the balance of probabilities suggests that he is not. In his analysis of e Gentili has recourse to the hypodochmiac (which is also countenanced by West () ). This colon is found in Pindar (cf. West () ), though normally in association with iambic metra. It is odd to include an isolated colon such as this here, surrounded by aeolo-choriambic metra, when the block of iambics does not begin until the following period, and when there are no other dochmiacs to go with it. His alternative analysis involves what he calls a prosdo and what I would call a dochmius kaibelianus (i.e. ×– – –). This is problematic for the same ˘˘ reason: it introduces an unnecessary and isolated dochmiac. As we have seen, Gentili is hostile to conjectures aimed at eliminating metrical irregularities, and he says as much in the preface to his edition (pp. xciii–xciv). Unfortunately, he is often unaware what constitutes a conjecture as opposed to a reinterpretation of the paradosis. It is senseless to prefer metrically problematic forms when other, unproblematic forms enjoy exactly the same authority. But it is only slightly less senseless to prefer grossly problematic forms when a small, simple emendation will remove them, especially when that emendation can be supported on other grounds. Gentili’s approach involves him in ever more complicated and undignified metrical contortions, as he desperately attempts to come up with something, anything, which will account for accents, vowel combinations, and line breaks which Pindar never wrote.  TEXT The manuscripts reported are listed in the Index Siglorum. Reports of B, D, E, F, H, Q , T, and Laurentianus conv. sopp.  

 TEXT

are taken from autopsy. Reports of G were kindly conveyed to me by Miss Almut Fries, who inspected microfilms of the manuscript in August . Other reports are taken from previous editors, especially Snell and Mommsen; readings of I. are taken from Gentili. Turyn ()  (supported by Irigoin () –) argues that D is a twin of G in the Pythians, and my collation was consistent with this. I have thus cited it only when it differs from G (at line ). Brillante () – doubts Gentili’s decision (pp. lxxxvi– lxxxvii of his edition) to cite F consistently as well as E. But although these manuscripts are related, they differ enough for Gentili’s policy to make sense. I do not normally specify absence of iota subscript in the apparatus. I have been sparing with reports of conjectures, since those in need of more may consult Gerber (), supplemented by Gerber (). For conjectures attributed to Byzantine scholars see G¨unther ().



TEXT AND CRITICAL APPARATUS

TESTIMONIA  Tz. Lyc. Alex.  = ii. . Scheer 5  &#//- 1 (A%- #/F)G @ / >/-. /  2 K  7C%;  &#//- ) d- &G
2- *  &#A/  7C%; &()/** A)/ . d- * /-* &. (/+- 0 *2 G!2/!  9%; W; F%;. The asterisks are added by Scheer to denote material not found in the main manuscript for Tzetzes (Parisinus : see p. ix of his second volume). This does not mean that it must be spurious. In this case, however, the Pindaric quotation in asterisks is very likely a later addition. There is little point in Tzetzes citing part of Pindar’s phrase ( 7C%;) and alluding to another part () reflects the sacrificial terminology in &()/*), only then to go on and cite the same phrase verbatim from Pindar. Gentili also cites Pseudo-Eudocia Violarium  (p. . – Flach), which quotes the same passage in the same context. This work is a Renaissance forgery and can be ignored. 
    Eust. Prooem. Pind.  (.– Kambylis = iii. . Drachmann)  Tzetzes Hist. . e  e, . d-  &G1 1
2- (pp. – Leone).



SYNOPSIS OF READINGS

                   

Finglass

Snell-Maehler

Gentili

"#P 6F   )A 1 (/= >/ 2 %)A f

& A /& (%; A&/ / g /M . /A  2% "#P -.  j 2 k/)A  P @)/ GGZ2%. c / + 6 A- " #>%;  1  N/ (A% - D2  >2% )G>. f /  / k5-. 6F 2 I95/. ")A  % )=. l *2/- m-. ')    J%Z2%   0 @#/A /* /. Q& )A E/
)= / 1 I)2 #P- I&0 /2F/  D! + />  D  &#A/  7C%;  "#P -] –  Christ  2] / Boeckh GGZ2% Byz.: G/Z2% codd.  " #>%;] –> Mommsene schol. - Tric.: /M- codd.  6F ? Schroeder:  F BFGHUV:  F/ EI.QT I95/] I>– Hpc pc ac

% Hermann: –/% BFGH QU: –/* EH TV: –/= fort. schol.    Schmid: 1 H codd.: H 1 Tric.  @#/A Mommsen: @G#/A BEF: @G#A GHQTU: @#/A V: @#A Boeckh  /2F/  Heyne: /2W / codd.  2P!- Schroeder: –*- codd.  – /  EFV: >/  B: >// GQTU  #] –F F



Pindar For Thrasydaeus of Thebes, victor in the boys’ stadion Daughters of Cadmus – Semele, neighbour of the Olympian goddesses, and Ino Leucothea, you who share the chambers of the sea Nereids – come with the mother of Heracles, with her who gave birth to the best of offspring, to join Melia at the inviolate treasury of gold tripods, which Loxias has especially honoured, and named the Ismenium, the true seat of prophets. O children of Harmonia, there even now he calls the local host of heroines to gather together in assembly, so that you may celebrate holy righteousness, Pytho, and the straight-judging navel of the earth at the end of evening, in honour of seven-gated Thebes and the competition at Cirrha, in which Thrasydaeus caused his ancestral hearth to be remembered by casting a third wreath upon it, as a victor in the rich fields of Pylades, guestfriend of Laconian Orestes.

As his father was being slaughtered by the mighty hands of Clytemnestra, the nurse Arsinoa snatched him away from her baneful treachery, when with the grey bronze Clytemnestra dispatched Dardanid Priam’s daughter, the girl Cassandra, to the shady shore of Acheron along with the soul of Agamemnon – the pitiless woman. So was it that the sacrifice of Iphigenia at the Euripus




  i  i

&()/* W/  - '/ 3 Q (>g B < A%; A(/p 2qA '( # * g 0 2 A- ">( '()  " 9n  "( ––– "  #$-h ># 2 * . / c(/ / # Q3- C / &)>h @ 2 (G A% D&  3A/.  )/  C 0- ^%-  /Z2,% (>%;  *-  9-.    Q// >. /1 "& 67A! %)A [r] \$% '/ 2>- :3>  -. f 2 D #A  5A

& 5/ . A /&. 
H >2  h " (%; + _/ A&/ /  A )WA  c#)  &*-. ––– e. l &.   "/ 2 2)G. I) A/) Mj 0 g 4 A - D/- '5% > '3/. V- [  D  /Mg  N*. 0 2 />. /M )* A)/ A(/ &% R#. D  D! A/ ––– B  1
)%; > #A  B 2P!%;. /

= /C&9 / 1 2>5 &A#/. 

 '/ Byz. et Tric.: '/ codd.: '5/ Schroeder (>] >( V  A(/p Tric.: A(/ codd. 2qA BEF: 2qA GHQTUV  '(] 9( B, coni. Schmid: '( V 0 2 Byz.: 0 2K codd.: >2/ Tric.  2] / G  )/ Tric.: )/ codd. " /Z2- Byz. et Tric.: " /2- codd.  ,% codd. plerique et schol.: ^% U et Tric.  *- FQTV: / *- BEGH  ] 2  Hartung Q//] s// I.QV 67A!] –G! B: – Q %)A - Bergk: –A % codd. et schol.  #A  5A Byz. et Tric.: inverso ordine codd. 

? & F:

>& cett. A /& Heyne: A! /&P! codd. sic interpunxit Heyne %;  (%; Tric.: ( G: (>%; cett. (etiam B)  A&/ / Mos.: '/&A / V: '/&/ cett.: '/&/ Tric.  "/ 2] –>- –>2- Hermann 2)G] 2F)G B  /M Byz. et Tric.: – codd.: – Schroeder 

0 2 A Mos.: 0 2   /> codd. et schol. )* Christ (noluit Bergk): – codd.: )* Bothe  R#] – Schneider D! G, coni. Heyne: D cett.

A/ schol. et Schmid: (K A/ codd.  )%; Tric.: )– codd.  #A  Schmid, #/  Tric.: #/ H codd. 2!L%; Schroeder: –%; codd.



P I N D A R : FO R T H R A S Y D A E U S O F T H E B E S

far from her fatherland, provoked her to raise her heavyhanded anger? Or were her nightly couplings leading her astray, enthralled as she was to another man’s bed? That offence is most hateful in young wives and impossible to conceal because of other people’s tongues: one’s fellow-townsmen are scandalmongers. For wealth incurs an envy no less than itself, whereas the lowly man blusters unheard. The very son of Atreus, the warrior, was killed in famous Amyclae when at last he returned, and he brought destruction on the prophetic maiden, when he despoiled the houses of the Trojans of their luxury, set on fire because of Helen. But Orestes, the young lad, came to the old man Strophius, his family friend, who dwelt at the foot of Parnassus. With Ares’ eventual help, he slew his mother and laid Aegisthus in gore. My friends, did I become confused at the place where three roads meet, despite travelling on a straight path beforehand? Or did some wind throw me off course, as if I were a small boat at sea? Muse, it is your task, since you have contracted to provide your mercenary voice for a price, to stir it this way and that, either now for his father Pythonicus, or for Thrasydaeus, whose celebration and glory blaze forth.




  i  i

     !  "#$% & % '( ) " * + ,-.
)* / #0 1  2  3 /- 4/#5 [] 672    89  . )/>)/  =.  2  >/-  :!.

= # " > /R%  A  A%; Q3%; /)> . A& S 2%h ––– 5* 2 "& "/ *- A h &)/1 2 "9 .  / RG 0 > . 1 Y - 3. A /. D5
92//-. E1 )/=.

0   U t2 /-.

0 2 MA - '2 9.

 Tric.: H´oman  ! ] )’ Maas   A%; BV: –  %; cett.  Q3%; Tric.: + Q3%; codd.  5* 2 ] 5* Byz.: 5* V et schol. V "9  Byz.: "9  codd. et Tric.  Thiersch J(P! Mommsen post Hermann: –! codd.: J9(%- Tric.  "A&#/ Tric.: –/ codd. [B] A- Schmid: A2  codd.: A 2  Hermann b] om. B  )  B, Egl : )  cett. Wilamowitz:  codd.: '(/  D: '(/ Hs : '(/ Tric.: #  '(/ Boeckh: (F/ Thiersch: (/ Hartung    ]    B   / sic scribendum monuit Ruijgh: aut hoc aut  / codd.  / D5 Tric.:  D5 codd.



P I N D A R : FO R T H R A S Y D A E U S O F T H E B E S

Gloriously victorious with chariots of old, at Olympia they captured swift radiance from the much-famed games with their horses, and at Pytho they entered the naked foot-race and put the Greek host to shame with their speed. May I desire good things from the gods, as I seek what is possible for my age. For since among the people of the city I find the middle estate flourishing with more enduring prosperity, I find fault with the lot of tyrannies. I am enthusiastic about achievements which benefit the community, while the envious are warded off. But if someone obtains the peak, lives there in peace and avoids committing dread violence, he would go to a fairer bourn of black death, having given his sweetest offspring the best of possessions, the grace of a good name. That is what marks out Iolaus, son of Iphicles, as the subject of hymns, and mighty Castor and you, lord Polydeuces, sons of the gods, you who dwell one day in your seats at Therapne, and the next in Olympus.



COMMENTARY

C O M M E N TA RY – Pindar’s odes often begin with an apostrophe, which ‘generally . . . has a clearly perceptible relationship to the victor or to the poet’s celebration of the victory’ (Henry on N. . –, providing an annotated list). In this case the poet calls upon local divinities from the victor’s homeland, as at O. , where he invokes the Charites for a victor from Orchomenus. We hear of Cadmus, Semele, Ino, Alcmene, Heracles, and Ismenus (or rather, the Ismenium). Several of these are also found in the two other Pindaric poems which open with a strongly Theban theme: fr.  S–M (Hymn ), which suggests Ismenus, Melia, Cadmus, the Spartoi, Thebe, Heracles, Dionysus, and Harmonia as possible subjects for song; and I. , which asks Thebe whether she delighted most in Dionysus, Alcmena, Heracles, Tiresias, Iolaus, the Spartoi, the defeat of the Seven against Thebes, or the Theban colonisation of part of the Peloponnese. But Pythian Eleven avoids the list effect found in these other openings, owing to the greater variety with which it introduces these Theban figures (see further below). The invocation shows various features of a cletic hymn, or one which summons a divinity to come to the worshipper (cf.  n. bis, n., –n.). This too is often found at the beginning of Pindaric odes (cf. Meyer () –, Race () – n. , ()  n. , Sevieri () –). But here the form is applied with only a light touch. There is no elaborate praise of Semele and Ino, and only the barest recollection of their attributes. Nor are the heroines asked to give assistance to Thrasydaeus (or the poet), but simply to celebrate his victory. The nod to hymnic form lends grandeur to the opening; but its brevity and unobtrusiveness allow the focus to move quickly to Thrasydaeus himself. The opening as a whole is carefully organised. The three invocations in  – gradually increase in length, before we reach the climactic c / (n.), which itself begins a still longer fourth clause containing the actual request. As often, Pindar here ‘welds together syntactical units with ever-increasing weight and emphasis’ (Race (a) ). This fourth clause introduces a further figure, Alcmene, but in the dative rather than through another vocative: cf. how elsewhere ‘characteristically, Pindar avoids a list-effect by introducing the third god in a participial clause’ (Carey on P. .). Lines – describe the Ismenium, thereby stressing its importance and sanctity (n.), while also delaying the revelation of the reason for this gathering of heroines. For that we must wait until –, where the purpose clause is split into three parts, the longest last; and even then it is not until  that we learn the name of the victor. At this point the pace accelerates, and there is barely any retardation as the poet effects a swift transition from Thrasydaeus to Orestes (–). The introduction is thus



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   a grand and elaborate way of conveying simple information, which nevertheless manages to appear at times almost breathlessly quick. For more on the structure of the opening see Greengard () – ; for a visual guide to its phrasing and articulation see Sulzer ( ) . Some scholars see special significance in the mythological background of the Theban heroines who open the poem. Most (b)  points to O. .– , where the terrible fates of Semele and Ino are cancelled out by their deification after death (cf. Prop. ..–): hence (he argues) in our poem they represent the gods’ ability to bring good from ill, the ‘g¨ottliche Gunst’ conspicuously absent from the subsequent story of the Atreids. Most admits that this is not mentioned (‘dieser d¨ustere Hintergrund wird hier nicht direkt angesprochen, schwingt aber f¨ur Pindars Zuh¨orer mit und wirft ein anderes Licht auf den Mythos’). But if the darker side of the history of Semele and Ino were relevant here, Pindar would have included it, just as he does in O. .– or P. .–. We cannot interpret the poem in terms of matters which lie outside it and to which no allusion is made. A less subtle variant of Most’s argument, according to which the evil fates of daughters of Cadmus lead into the story of Clytemnestra (so M´eautis () –), meets with the same objection. What is relevant for the poem is their status as mortals (Y2 >) who now live among immortals ( 2% "#P -, @)/ GGZ2%). This will be taken up and balanced by the figures of Castor and Pollux at the poem’s end (–n.). And as pointed out above, their Theban origin (again, stressed in the opening two words) allows a parallel with the Theban Thrasydaeus, who, although not undergoing apotheosis, has nevertheless gained the kind of glory which sets him apart from his fellow men. In Bernardini’s words, ‘Ino, Semele, Alcmena non sono viste come le protagoniste delle loro storie dai risvolti tragici, ma nella loro gloriosa dimensione tebana’ (() ; cf. Vivante () ). For more on Theban heroes in Pindar see Currie () –; for his portrayal of mortals who become immortal see ibid.  –. According to Sevieri () , Semele and Alcmene are chosen in part for their topographical associations (for a convenient plan of ancient Thebes see e.g. Krummen () ). In her view, the poem moves from the Cadmeia (where the G>- of Semele was located, in the sanctuary of Dionysus: cf. Schachter ( –) iii. ), to the Heracleum (outside the Electran gate), to the Ismenium (to the south-east of the city). But there is no mention of any of these locations in the ode except the last. Moreover, Semele and Ino (the latter of whom does not fit Sevieri’s schema) are expressly invoked from their dwellings on Olympus and in the sea, not from their Theban sanctuaries.    : picked up in  (n.) by l *2/- m-. Hes. Th. –  lists the daughters of Cadmus and Harmonia as Ino, Semele, Agaue, and Autonoe. For Cadmus’ family in Pindar see further Fehr () – and



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   Giannini () –; for Cadmus’ marriage to Harmonia see Rocchi (); for Harmonia see Hutchinson on Aesch. Sept. –, Mastronarde on Eur. Phoen. . Pindar uses both > and 9 as metre dictates: see Braswell on P. .(d). : the apotheosis of Semele, mother of Dionysus by Zeus, is first alluded to at Hes. Th.  (H 2  "&> / )/ /M, of Semele and Dionysus). According to the most common account, her apotheosis followed on from the bolt of lightning which killed her, while another version had her taken up into heaven by her grown son Dionysus (see West on Hes., ibid.). At O. .– Pindar says of her q$/   - ")* 3>%; | /H A)/

/A. &/* 2A 
- M/ | 1 u/+-  F.  &/* 2 *- @ &>-. For the early mention of the name of the divinity in a hymn cf. Furley and Bremer ( ) i. .  
: many editors have adopted Christ’s "#P , presumably out of a desire to parallel the vocative adjective @)/ in the following line. But Pindar is extremely reluctant to end a period with a short open vowel (cf. Barrett (b) , referred to by West () ). For the nominative in –- used as a vocative cf. O. ., Theodoridas A.P. .. =  HE (both metrically guaranteed; cited by Loewe ()  n. ); in general see West on Hes. Th. , Richardson on Hom. Hym. .. "#P - is also read by the scholia ( Inscr. a() = ii. .– Drachmann). Hymns often refer to the location of the divinity addressed (cf. Furley and Bremer ( ) i. –). Moreover, ‘it is a common usage in hymns and prayers to combine the vocative with an attribute in apposition’ (Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. C. ..). Usually this attribute gives the ancestry of the divinity (cf. Norden ()  ≈ () ), but given the preceding Y2 > that would be unnecessary here.     . . . : Ino’s transformation into a goddess is first found at Hom. Od. .– 0 2 c2/ Y2 )# G. &-  $. | k/)AG. v 1  'G 3 0- C2F/. | H 2  :0-  /#/ )/= w5 '/ W(where see Hainsworth). The apotheosis is not mentioned in Hesiod’s Theogony (although Ino herself appears at , simply as a daughter of Cadmus), but [Hes.] fr. .– M–W could refer to it if we adopt Merkelbach’s supplements; [Hes.] fr.  may also deal with the apotheosis (see West ()  n. ). Alcman fr. b PMGF =  Calame refers to Ino as  j A2. At O. .–  Pindar says of her A#  2   1 )! | /  > GW- :3  D&)  |  * / () 0 [ "&1 (>. Although fragmentary, fr. d.– S–M =  a.– Cannat`a Fera refers to Ino snatching her [son] from a fire and casting [him, together with herself] into the sea; the subsequent mention of the ‘fifty daughters of Doris’ suggests that she is turned into a



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   Nereid. Her son Melicertes is also mentioned at fr. ; while fr. e(c). = . Cannat`a Fera refers to k/)[A]. Her sufferings were proverbial (see Cannat`a Fera p.  n. ), but they are not at issue here. See further Burkert ()  n.  ≈ ()  n. , Barringer ()  n. ,  n. . There is no good evidence for a Theban cult of Ino-Leucothea (cf. Schachter ( –) ii. –). Hainsworth on Hom. Od. .– claims that Paus. .. mentions one: in fact this passage refers to a Laconian cult. : Boeckh conjectured /, on the grounds that / should be used ‘ubi orationis articuli coniunguntur, 2 vero, ubi disiunguntur et opponuntur’; for  . . . / see Denniston –, while for the corruption see Diggle ( a) , D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () . But as Denniston notes (), ‘the strength of the antithesis [conveyed by  . . . 2A] varies within wide limits. Sometimes  . . . 2A conveys little more than / . . . .’ In this case there is an antithesis between Semele in heaven and Ino in the sea.     !" "# : for the Nereids, the sea-nymph daughters of Nereus and Doris, see West on Hes. Th. – and Barringer (). For Ino and the Nereids cf. Philip A.P. .. – = – GP. GGZ2% corresponds with J%Z2% in line , a word of similar shape and termination. For other such correspondences in the ode see Brennan () . There are enough to suggest that Pindar may have deliberately aimed for such an effect, but (as here) individual combinations are not significant for the interpretation of the poems.  $: for the command ‘come’ (cf. )A vel sim.) in a cletic hymn see Norden ()  ≈ () . For ‘examples of climactic items introduced at the beginning of a line and preceded by two rising elements linked at mid-line’ see Race (a)  n.  (also ()  n. ); his ‘rising elements’ denotes two clauses of increasing length. For the cletic hymn in general see Pfister () –, Meyer ()  n. , Tarrant’s edition of Seneca’s Agamemnon, p. . % : ‘often in prayers a god is asked to bring his retinue’ (Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. C. ..); cf. Fraenkel ()  n. . Malcolm Davies (per litteras) compares Milton, L’Allegro  and Il Penseroso . – & '  . . . |  : rather than being invoked by name like Semele and Ino, Alcmene makes her entrance in a dative periphrasis. She appears elsewhere in Pindar in N.  (cf. Davidson ()). She was worshipped in Thebes in the form of a stone, supposedly placed in her coffin by Hermes when he stole her away to the Isles of the Blessed as wife to Rhadamanthys (Pher. Ath. FGrHist  F  = fr.  EGM). Schachter ( –) i.  suggests that her heroon was in the Heracleum. For Heracles in Pindar see Fehr () –, Nieto Hern´andez () –; for his cult in Thebes see Schachter ( –) ii. –.



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   
 (: ‘she who has given birth to the best of men’, not ‘most nobly born’ (Race) or @ R0 H "  )/H #/G)/- (Mommsen , p. ). The adjective may be modelled on Thetis’ 2  >/ at Hom. Il. . (‘unhappy in having given birth to the best of men’); cf. also Gow on Theocr. . "  >/. For " – compounds in Pindar see Hummel () –.   : apocope is common in Pindar: see Gerber on O. .. For the metrical irregularity see the Metrical Analysis (under S). ) : the myth of Melia, at least as second-century  Thebes knew it, is found in Paus. ... The daughter of Oceanus, she was abducted by Apollo and taken to what was to become the Ismenium. Her father ordered her brother Caanthus to find her; on doing so, he attempted to rescue her, but without success. He then set fire to the sanctuary, and was killed by Apollo with an arrow. The god and Melia had two children: Tenerus, who became a prophet (cf. Paus. ..), and Ismenus, who gave his name to the river Ismenus and thus to the sanctuary. Schachter ( –) i.  n.  tentatively suggests that Melia was the original presiding deity of the Ismenium; in that case she would later have been reduced to the status of a consort of Apollo. According to  (ii. . Drachmann) there was a spring at the Ismenium named after her ('  2 1 G#K @$- W; J%Z2). Apart from the present passage, Pindar mentions Melia three times. (i) At fr.  S–M (Hymn ) she is second (after her son Ismenus) in a list of Theban topics which the poet contemplates as possible subjects of his song. (ii) In fr. k.– S–M (Paean  = A Rutherford) Pindar declares that he is singing A(/ A"3%; N/- () in celebration of the (G F of Apollo, where Melia, daughter of Oceanus, gave birth to Apollo’s son Tenerus. A scholium above line  declares  [  ]G%; A#/. (iii) Fr. g. S–M (Paean  = D Rutherford) mentions N/- followed by >% in the following line. The text is fragmentary, but it appears that a summons is being issued to the )/H D2  . . . "#  - C (). Later in the text the poet declares ^% \F/ A#/ (), while a (G F is also mentioned (). The apparent references to mountains (, ) have led some scholars to assume that the D2  in question here is the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoeus (for which see Schachter ( –) i. –, Paus. ..), which was in a rocky area (frr.  a,  b) and was associated with Tenerus (cf. fr.  b S–M, Strabo .., Schachter ( –) i. ). He may have been exported from the Ismenium to the Ptoean sanctuary as a means of demonstrating Theban control over the region to the north of the city by lake Copais (cf. Schachter () ). On the other hand, the Ismenium was on a >&- (n.), and could still be the temple meant here (cf. Rutherford ( ) –): Tenerus is said to have had a  /* there too (  = ii. .– Drachmann). Moreover, nothing outside this passage



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   associates Melia with the Ptoean sanctuary. She is, however, closely associated with the Ismenium (cf. (i) and (ii), as well as P. ). Other traditions about Melia can be stated briefly. P.Oxy.  col. iv. – (nd c. ) says that fratricide first took place in Thebes, when Ismenus and Claaetus, sons of Oceanus, fought over their sister Melia. Another account, probably from the Epic Cycle, features Melia as the daughter of Oceanus, while also making her the mother of Mycene by the river-god Inachus (fr. incert. loc.  (p. ) EGF = Nostoi fr.  PEG = fr.  GEF). Pher. Ath. FGrHist  F  = fr.  EGM lists a Melia among the daughters of Amphion and Niobe. See further Kruse ( ) , Anastase () –. – ‘The hymnist often seeks to entice the god to come to a place or community by describing its amenities and assuring the god of a friendly reception’ (Race () –; cf. especially Sappho fr.  Voigt = PLF). So here the wealth of the shrine ((A% . . . >2%), the special divine favour which it enjoys (f /   / k5-), and the veracity of its prophecies (")A  % )=) all suggest a location which is well worth a visit. Defradas ()  notes that these attributes also apply to the more famous oracle of Apollo at Delphi: they thus lead into the subsequent mention of Pytho in line . Pindar fr. g.– S–M (Paean  = D Rutherford) )/H D2  [ ] "#

 - C | 
/* [ ] N/- | >% # [ ] contains a similar request at the beginning of the poem for an unknown addressee to come to a Theban shrine (D2 ) of Apollo, either the Ptoeum or the Ismenium (n., above).  *  . . .   : in a commentary on the Paeans of Pindar, Didymus referred to the sending of golden tripods to the Ismenium by Thebageneis (1

0 2 "0 9  G3#//*- A 0 (9/ /M-  F = , pp. – Schmidt (ap. [Ammon.] Diff.  = p. – Nickau) = Pindar fr.  S–M; cf.  = ii. . Drachmann E # G3#//*-  2? &> /*/ (sc. to the Ismenium)). This suggests that Pindar’s paean (now lost) may have referred to golden tripods at the Ismenium as well. According to Hdt. .. Croesus dedicated a - (9/- to Ismenian Apollo. More generally, gold is often associated with the gods (cf. Soph. El.  n.), and often found near the beginning of epinicia (cf. O. ., ., ., P. ., I. .). Hdt. .– also mentions tripods at the Ismenium (though without specifying their material), which purport to be from the heroic age (including one from Amphitryon), and are inscribed with Y2Fp # . Pausanias saw tripods at the shrine, supposedly dedicated by daphnephoroi (including Amphitryon on behalf of Heracles), although he was surprised that they were so few in number (..). IG xiv b is inscribed on a tripod purporting to have been set up by Amphitryon on behalf of his son Heracles when the latter was a daphnephoros, but its provenance is unknown. Cf. also the Tabula Albani cited in the Introduction, section /i. For tripods at the other Apolline shrine at



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   Thebes, the Ptoeon (n., above, s.v. N/), see Guillon (); in general, ‘Boiotia was the place where tripods were most at home’ (Kowalzig ()  with n. ). (A% is scanned as two long syllables: for the synizesis of adjectives ending in –A- in Pindar see Peter () . + ‘inviolate’ (Rutherford ( )  ; cf. DGE I , LSJ I  s.v. D2 -, which compare Strab. ..). Race translates it as a noun, giving ‘the treasury of the golden tripods, the sanctuary which Loxias especially honored’; for D2  (or D2 -) in this sense see Lehnus ()  n. . But the word order makes it impossible to take D2  and )G> in apposition. The preferred interpretation is more natural, and gives a pleasing word order: Adjective Adjective Noun Noun .  ,   - . /: cf. fr. k.– S–M (Paean  = A Rutherford) @ > - [ ]  | / 3 = /. The form / is found elsewhere in classical Greek at Soph. OR , fr. . TrGF, Hom. Hym. ., Ar. Thesm. , Eur. fr. . TrGF; cf. also the name
/- (Hdt. .., , LGPN i. , iii/a ), used as the title of a play by Epicharmus (PCG i. ), and Gow on Theocr. ..  60  : the Ismenium was one of two shrines of Apollo at Thebes, the other being the Ptoeon. It was located on the right of the Electran gates, on a hill, beside the river Ismenus, south-east of the Cadmeia (Paus. ..–). The first temple on the site was burned down in about ; this was then replaced by a seventh-century temple which would have been there in Pindar’s day (Schachter ( –) i. ). For the Ismenian oracle in literature cf. Soph. OR  &  6GH . . .  /! 2 and Hdt. .. (where we learn that it worked in the same way as the oracle at Olympia). Pindar fr. g.–  S–M (Paean  = D Rutherford) may refer to either the Ptoeon or the Ismenium (n.); while Soph. Ant. – describes a Theban oracle without identifying it. Snell gave fr. a (Paean  = D Rutherford) the title  

7  N, but nothing in the poem refers to the Ismenium. For more on the cult of Apollo Ismenius see Anastase () –, Schachter ( –) i. –, Kowalzig ()  – (especially  with n.  on the excavations). The aspirate was regular in this word between the sixth and fourth centuries (cf. IG vii , , Hutchinson on Aesch. Sept. , Mastronarde on Eur. Phoen. ). Manuscripts spell it without the aspirate, and Braswell (on N. .) claims that this reflects Pindar’s practice: but the inscriptions are a surer guide. 1 %/ : Paus. .. suggests that before the birth of Ismenus the river was known as the Ladon. For the vocalism cf. Buck ()  (‘Q = Q is common to nearly all, perhaps all, dialects except Attic-Ionic’). For the aorist in –5– see Braswell on P. .(e) (‘the extended use of –5– in the aorist of verbs in –q% (–q%, –5 originally restricted to guttural stems) is occasionally found



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   in Homer . . . but is also a general phenomenon of West Greek dialects’); also Molinos Tejada () –.
: the adjective qualifies )=, even though it would more naturally go with  % (cf. West on Hes. Th. ): for the enallage see Bers () –, Hummel () –. For a bibliography on the idea of truth in archaic poetry see Gerber on O. .b; for truth in Pindar see Bremer ()  –. For the uncontracted –A (short alpha) in the accusative singular to an s-stem adjective cf. @#/A in , O. ., P. ., K–B i. .   : so Hermann ap. Heyne p.  for transmitted –/% or –/*; the slight change restores the metre. The tendency of ancient and mediaeval manuscripts to interchange 7 and  (cf. Diggle ( a) ) means that manuscript evidence is of little use in deciding between the forms; omicron and omega are also easily interchanged. Bernardini ()  n.  prefers ?

/*, but offers no argument; in ()  with n.  she switches to  %, again without saying why. Gentili prints  %.  (ii. .– Drachmann) "G)W =  / % )A2 may mean that the scholiast read  /= (so West, per litteras). 2 refers to a ‘seat’ in the broadest sense, that is, the shrine as a whole. But Schachter ( –) i.  n.  plausibly suggests that passages like this and Soph. Ant.  0 )P I)> may have encouraged the establishment of an actual ‘seat’ for the observation of omens, the N H2&- seen by Pausanias (..) in front of the temple of the Ismenium. Outside Attic this word always shows –%– vocalism, from Homer (Il. . etc.; )>%- Od. . (< * )>
-: DEG s.v. )P-)). Attic (including tragedy) has )P- (< * )
-: DEG s.v. )P-) from at least the sixth century (Threatte i. ). See further Bj¨orck () –. Occasional corruptions in one direction or another do not affect this distinction.  3 4 6   picks up Y2 > at the start, and thus marks an end to the first section of the invocation. For the reinvocation see Greengard () –, who compares O. , where the opening invocation NP / l ( /&% "A)%. C is picked up in line  by "  l
/o2/2   &/ D-; cf. also O. . – 7 K RA  / 3 P" >2- u/H . . . " Y> *, Anacr. fr. . – PMG. For Harmonia, wife of Cadmus, see  n. The prefacing of this vocative with l is unlikely to be significant: ‘there is no adequate evidence for the view of [Kambylis () –] and others that it indicates the presence of emotion’ (Henry on N. ., citing Dickey () –). – 5  . . . | . . .   : after the reinvocation comes an intensification of an earlier motif. It is not merely the poet who is calling these three Theban deities: Apollo himself is summoning a whole host (  >-) of local heroines. For the



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   continuing stress on place in a cletic hymn cf. –n. Similar recapitulation of this theme is found at Sappho fr. . Voigt = PLF '); cf. also Braswell on P. .(a).    : Schmid’s reinterpretation of the paradosis (the manuscripts read 1 H) is required by the metre, since a long syllable cannot stand in this position in a glyconic. For  = ‘now’ with a metrically guaranteed short upsilon cf. O. ., ., P. ., ., ., ., N. ., and probably O. .. Of these, all except P. . occur in the phrase  . Examples outside Pindar occur at Hom. Il. [.], Sappho fr.  Voigt = PLF, fr. . Voigt = . PLF (suppl. Lobel), Parmenides  B . D–K (i. .), and [Epicharmus] frr. ., . PCG (cited by Ruijgh () –). Gentili retains the H of the manuscripts, and Bernardini ad loc. defends the resulting metre by claiming ‘metricamente la lunga al posto della breve non crea difficolt`a perch´e si ha una responsione tra epitrito –˘–– e ditrocheo –˘–˘’. There are no other trochees in the ode, however, and it makes little sense to introduce them here to retain something which carries with it no ancient authority. For the accents in our manuscripts do not go back to Pindar, and hence the decision to print  where the manuscripts read H constitutes not an emendation, but a reinterpretation of the paradosis (pace Bernardini ()  n.  and ad loc., and Calabrese de Feo () , who speaks of  as an ‘emendamento’ to ‘il testo tradito’). As Barrett (b)  n.  points out (also of a passage of Pindar), ‘an accent added at earliest some  years after the poem was written is evidence for nothing at all’. Further discussion of this problem can be found in Finglass (). According to Burton () , the phrase ‘indicates that the ceremony, whatever its exact nature, was a regular performance to which is attached the present celebration of the victory’. But it could just as easily imply ‘assemble now, for the performance of the ode in honour of Thrasydaeus, in addition to the times when you assemble here for your regular rituals’. For ‘particularising’ , which singles out one instance from others, see Race ()  n.  and  n. . .  : literally ‘with adjoining pasture’ and hence ‘local’ (Race; cf. Gentili ‘della nostra terra’). A% has two broad senses (cf. LS , LSJ s.v. and Laroche () –): ‘distribute’ and ‘pasture on a neighbour’s land’. The latter meaning is relevant here. The heroines are metaphorically said to have their pasture (>-) adjoining () the city: in other words, their regular haunts are imagined to be close by, and hence they fit into this distinctively Theban gathering. Cf. d (ii. .– Drachmann)  0 9 * F3-. 0 1 H C H H 1 W- C W- W-. This latter sense of the verb develops early on into a more general sense of ‘encroach’, ‘spread’, predicated of fire, disease, and so forth (Thuc. ..,



C O M M E N TA RY:  –   middle voice; cf. Soph. El. n.). Laroche ()  argues for a similar meaning in this ode (‘qui envahit, qui occupe’), translating the whole phrase ‘une arm´ee d’invasion h´ero¨ıque’. But the menacing overtones inherent in this meaning hardly fit a passage where heroines are being encouraged to come to a celebration. Other translations offered (none with any argument) include ‘native’ (Slater; but their place of birth is not at issue), ‘visiting the land’ (LSJ s.v. - I, the only example cited of this sense; cf. Slater’s alternative ‘to visit the shrine’), ‘dwelling in the country, like ($-’ (LS s.v. I, the only example cited of this sense); also c (ii. .– Drachmann)  2   0 /S/ - /A- 1  /9- - F3- (the sense fits the context, but not the word). 6 # : this is the first attestation of the noun J%Z-. Larson ()  – cites other instances of this rare word: the only other from the first half of the fifth century is in IG i A. (– ), since Corinna fr. b PMG is Hellenistic (see the Introduction, section /ii). According to Plut. Quaest. Grec. c–d, a festival called J%Z- representing the /AG- "#%#F took place every eight years at Delphi (cf. perhaps Hesych.   = p.  Hansen /AGh /q.  2 x(%; [ F  TrGF] )  G- (Thetis, bewailing the imminent fate of her son Achilles). For W/ with the genitive see S–D ii. –. 5  ‘provoked’: cf. N. . * 2  I# q M/1 >#, LSJ s.v. q% II  (the lexicon wrongly separates off this instance in an unnecessary II b section). The (metrically-guaranteed) aorist is surprising, as we might have expected an imperfect to denote long-lasting provocation (cf. Soph. OR  'qA   "/1 H) h R&/*/ # 9). It probably reflects the single, individual act which is suggested as a cause of Clytemnestra’s anger (contrast n. on #). The printed text is a Byzantine conjecture for transmitted '/, to heal the metre: for adscript nu added by Byzantine scholars (especially Triclinius) cf. , Diggle ()  n.  = ()  n. . ?   : G can denote either ‘(palm of the) hand’ (cf. P. ., LSJ s.v. I) or ‘device, plan, contrivance’ (cf. O. ., LSJ s.v. II). Here both senses are felt: it is describing, after all, the wrath of a woman who achieves her aims through sheer force ((/= T  /P) and treacherous cunning ( 2> . . . 2/)A-). For similar expressions see Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Suppl.  2%-. L : for Q used of rousing passion see LSJ s.v. b. * : the noun occurs four times in Pindar, with four instances of the verb (> (Slater ). Yet while (>- is a standard word for ‘anger’



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  in Homer (cf. Cairns () –), it is rare in Herodotus (four instances), and absent from Thucydides, Xenophon, and Plato. Fifth- and fourth-century prose writers prefer I#F (cf. Harris () –), a word absent from Homer which in Pindar always means ‘temperament’ (see Braswell on P. . b, Slater –). For the anagrammatisation in V’s >( see D. C. C. Young () – = Calder and Stern () –.  = ( *M N  : for 2q% in an erotic sense cf. Hom. Il. ., ., ., Od. ., Archil. fr.  IEG, Sappho . Voigt = PLF, Martinez (). For A(- qualified to denote an illicit union see Davies on Soph. Tr.  9& V- '( A(-. For the tense of the participle see n. Bergk’s 2qA (in his third edition, rejected in his fourth) would mean that Clytemnestra was humiliated (‘bitten’) by Agamemnon’s affair with Cassandra (cf. Aesch. Ag. –, Herington ()  n. ), and turned to adultery (now conveyed solely in the phrase '( # * ) as a means of revenge. But the expression seems elliptical to the point of obscurity, so that even if transmitted, 2qA would be suspicious. As it is, there is no reason to introduce it by emendation.  5

*   4 ‘nocturnal lyings were leading her astray’: the choice of adjective and use of the plural mean that *  has its original sense as a nomen actionis (for which see Barrett on Eur. Hipp.  –), and thus suggests the act of intercourse even more forcefully than A(/p in the preceding line. The imperfect tense, together with the plural, emphasises the durative nature of Clytemnestra’s adultery already implied in the imperfect participle 2qA (cf. Bergmann () ). The phrase also contrasts with the single, punctual action of the sacrifice of Iphigenia (n., on '/). The – prefix to the verb often expresses the idea of a diversion from the right path (cf. Archil. fr. (b). IEG, Theogn. , , Sappho fr. . Voigt = PLF, LSJ s.v. G IV , Becker ()  n. ). For '(- in an erotic context cf. Soph. Aj.  ( An M9/. – ‘Sometimes in the centre of a mythic narrative, when the outlines of the tale have been given and before the details are added, the poet places a gnome, a moral drawn from what precedes and colouring what follows’ (Carey on P. ., comparing P. . –, N. .–, .–; cf. Illig () ). As in the passages cited by Carey, the gnomic reflections here both proceed in a logical fashion and are relevant to the presentation of the myth (–n.) and the victor (–n.). Far from being ‘practically nothing to do with the rest of the myth, and nothing at all to do with the main point of the myth’ (Slater () ), they rather correspond to West’s description of ‘Pindar’s technique of passing into or out of a myth by means of a generalization’ as ‘a conscious principle of composition’ (on Hes. Th. –). For Pindar’s



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  use of gnomai more generally see Bischoff (), Lardinois () –, –. – The gnomic reflections on adultery and the difficulty of concealing it perform three important functions. First, the very fact that the adultery motive attracts these comments lends it greater weight, and allows Pindar to emphasise it at the expense of the earlier sacrifice motive (cf. –n.). Second, the description of adultery as an '()  " stresses the immorality of the act and reinforces the negative portrayal of Clytemnestra. Third, the reference to the impossibility of concealing adultery helps to explain why adultery constitutes a reason for the killing of Agamemnon. Clytemnestra cannot hide her offence from the citizens; as a result, by committing adultery she has, as it were, crossed a moral Rubicon, and can preserve herself only by killing her husband before he learns the truth and punishes her. These reflections are therefore significant for a passage which is exploring the nature of her motivation; and we may reject A. M. Miller’s condemnation of them as irrelevant to Clytemnestra’s situation (() ).   is found in Guelferbytanus Aug.   . . (teste Gentili), a th century manuscript with no independent authority (cf. Irigoin () –), and is thus likely to be a Byzantine correction (or a lucky slip) for transmitted 2F. For the confusion of connectives see D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () –; for the confusion of / and G (both of which Pindar would have written as 7) see Christ () –, and for confusion of 0 2A and

0 2F see Friis Johansen and Whittle on Aesch. Suppl. . Gentili prints 2F, a form which has no greater authority than 2A, but which makes the metre a good deal more troublesome (see the Metrical Analysis). – 
* | 5*
  : Greek men tended to view women as ‘belonging to the untamed, animal world, subject to strong desires, morally weak’ (Kaimio () –), and hence highly susceptible to the temptations of adultery. Young wives would be particularly at risk, on the grounds that they lacked the maturity of judgment required to restrain their passions (cf. Dover ()  on ‘the growing competence of reason in the light of continuously increasing experience . . . [which was] regarded as common to boys and girls’), and were more likely to draw an illicit admirer through the attractiveness of youth. So the speaker at Lys. . keeps an especially close watch on his wife during the early part of his marriage; while Catullus attacks an older man for failing to guard a viridissimo nupta flore puella | et puella tenellulo delicatior haedo, | adservanda nigerrimis diligentius uvis (.–). The special hostility expressed in '()  " will reflect the rˆole of young wives in preserving the family line (cf. Sevieri ()  ‘debbono garantire alla famiglia di sopravvivere e perpetuarsi nel tempo’): their transgressions thus merit particular condemnation,



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   especially in an ode which lays such emphasis on the continuity of the family (ibid. –). The double standard applies: Agamemnon’s adultery with Cassandra does not attract the poet’s censure or, we may imagine, that of the audience. For Fraenkel ()  = () , ‘“giovani spose” e` una scusa’, but this hardly suits the emphatic '()  ", or indeed the hostile presentation of Clytemnestra. Norwood () – n.  (supported by Burton () ) claims that since Clytemnestra already had children by the time of her adultery, she cannot be referred to here; instead, Pindar means ‘the chaste indignation of a young wife or wives’ (see K–G i.  – for dative in this sense). But this takes an unnecessarily strict view of A-; nor is it clear why a young wife should be more upset by adultery than an older one. Kyriakou ()  tries a different explanation for the alleged incongruity in A-, arguing that ‘for the evil-speaking citizens Clytaemnestra is always considered a young, naughty wife who engages in amorous escapades. She never reaches full maturity and the full responsibility she bears for her crimes is incongruously masqueraded as the result of the seduction of a young wife’: but this also probably presses the adjective too hard. – %F 
 *  |
  B ‘impossible to conceal because of others’ tongues’ (Race). For the dative of cause cf. K–G i. –. Sevieri () – prefers ‘impossible for other people’s tongues to conceal’, but the attempted concealing should be Clytemnestra’s: she cannot hide her affair, and thus is driven to desperate measures to protect herself (–n.). The phrase is commonly translated ‘conceal from other people’s tongues’ (doxography at Sevieri () – n. ), but there is no parallel for the dative in this sense.   . . . 4: for scandalmongering townsmen cf. Hom. Od. .– (Nausicaa to Odysseus) = "//% &W "2/A. F - I% | %/9Gyh  2  /M1 R/&   2W. The fondness of such people for &)>- (cf. P. . " = 2  " 9& )0 39/   *   " -, Hdt. .. F G- . . . F Gy /| F  &)A/) gives an easy link to the next thought. At Aesch. Ag.  Clytemnestra disclaims the n# &  which would be the result of infidelity. >#- stands between ‘talking about evil’ and ‘evil in their talk’: the former fits better with what precedes, the latter with what follows.  here has the sense of # (cf. the examples gathered at Denniston –; pace Fraenkel ()  = () ). – The prosperous man attracts envy commensurate with his prosperity, while the lowly man blusters unnoticed. This statement provides an additional reason why Clytemnestra’s adultery was impossible to conceal (cf. –n.), and



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   hence strengthens the idea that it drove her to kill her husband. But as A. M. Miller ()  – points out, the lines also ‘directly address the condition of anyone who, like a victorious athlete, has attained a position of conspicuous visibility’. They are taken up later in the poem (–n.).  $* . . . L? J   :  : for the idea cf. N. . – Qn 2 ># &)/*. |  /  2  = "/. (/>/ 2  C q/. For &)>- in Pindar more generally see P´eron (–), () –, Vallozza (), Bulman (), Most () –. The scholia see a specific reference to Agamemnon ( a = ii. .– Drachmann H  2 0- 0 #A. [  &K- } &)F)G), an idea supported by Most (‘sein Tod wird unmittelbar danach berichtet, und sein Gl¨uck wird in der Eroberung von Troja konkretisiert’, (b) ). But there is no suggestion elsewhere in the poem that his death was the result of &)>-. Maehler ()  sees a reference to the people’s loud but powerless protests against the rule of Aegisthus and Clytemnestra, but the status of the Pelopids as rulers is never at issue in the poem.  . . . | . . . : ‘the idea of contrast is added to the original idea of addition’ (Denniston ; cf. Sevieri ()  n. ).   . . . *"8   ‘the lowly man’. For A% with a neuter plural (or singular) cf. O. . // /9-, N. ., Eur. Andr.  E . . . A //#, Bacch.  b A% ')Gy A#, Aesch. Ag.  /> % /*q B 2%-, van der Valk ()  –. Pindar often associates what is high up with success, and what is on the ground with failure: cf. O. . o  (/ A% >#% &n/, P. . (/ - 2  D  '- C "An/, O. . (Pindar wishes that Hieron may) RnH . . .  /*, Gerber () . According to Hubbard () , the phrase refers to ‘the poor and envious man’. But the passages which he cites (p. ) associating unseen envy with the citizenry (e.g. N. .– &)/ 2  D- "K 3A% | #$ // > %; 2/ | (1 / *, Aesch. Ag. – 2/ *# - 3~q/. | &)/0 2  R  D#- t/ | 2-  /2-) are not relevant, precisely because there is no such association in our passage. Hubbard appears to be erroneously conflating the (G A /- with the ># *  of . A. M. Miller ()  (with doxography at  n. ) prefers ‘the man who aspires to lowly things’, but there is no evidence for A% in this sense. Some scholars have taken the phrase to refer to &)>- rather than the lowly man (doxography in Maehler ()  n. , Gerber ()  – n. ), but the parallelism of the other interpretation, with Q3- opposed to @ . . . (G A%, makes it much more natural. The poor, unseen person should not be taken as a comparison for Thrasydaeus, or connected with the praise of moderation in –. The successful Thrasydaeus can hardly be associated with words like (G>- and D& -,



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   inappropriate as they are to a glorious victor (cf. Miller p. ). Moreover, the man who (G /* has ex hypothesi failed to reach the level of  A: poverty is not moderation. Neither here nor elsewhere does Pindar criticise Q3- or advocate a life free from &)>- (cf. rather e.g. P. .– "  [%-. A # M H &)>-. | K / ). Indeed, at – he credits

 A with Q3- > /-. Rather, ‘envy is the necessary concomitant to great deeds . . . its presence is a proof of the greatness of outstanding success’ (Most () ). +:  ‘unnoticed’ (e.g. Gerber () ). This absence of fame is the opposite of the goal of the athlete: contrast the [(A] 2>5 9&  associated with the victor (at Bacchyl. . ; cf. also N. ., cited below). Pindar himself prays to be >& - at O. .. Contrast the auditory display of the victor analysed by Race () . The translation ‘in secret’ (LSJ s.v. , the only instance cited with this sense) wrongly suggests that the poor man deliberately conceals his roar, when in fact it is his status as a poor man which ensures that no-one hears it. Hubbard ()  takes the word to mean ‘unseen’, claiming that since the adjective is ‘derived from &% . . . its associations are properly with the realm of vision, not of hearing’. But LSJ s.v. &% A I  provides two counterexamples: Hom. Od. . &*/ 2  "2F and Aesch. Eum. – #5 3 / /9 - GAG | RA  #F &A %   . In Pindar cf. N. . = 2  "& % H2- " // )> (‘[deception] holds up the rotten glory of obscure men’), where E D&  are not the invisible, nor even the disappeared, but inglorious men who do not deserve to be noticed. See further Lobeck () –, Diggle ()  = () , Segal (), Braswell on P. .(c) (‘adjectives which originally describe (or were thought to describe) visual phenomena are sometimes used to describe sound’, with examples), Arnott on Alexis fr. . PCG. Moreover, we would expect ‘roars unseen’ to be rendered not as D&  3A/, but as D& - 3A/. Hubbard’s interpretation can be paraphrased ‘remains unseen as he roars’, and hence we would require not an internal accusative, but an adjective agreeing with the subject. ?  ‘roars’, ‘blusters’ (so Gerber () , Hubbard () , Sevieri ()  n. ). For the verb in this sense cf. [Hdt.] Vit. Hom.  (p.  West; the poem dates to the sixth or fifth century, as West points out on p. ) 2= / >/)  "20- A# 2A. | f- A#  29 . A# 2 3A/. Q3- M/, Rhianus fr. .– CA (the arrogant man) S 1 3A/. /&K 2  RA( "(/. | / j I#-; also Eust. Il. Comm. . (i. .– van der Valk) =- 2A  / 1 @ "qj 1 @ "/G K 3+ 3A/ A# . The popular alternative translation ‘grumbles’ or ‘mutters’ (cf. Maehler ()  n.  for a list of such interpretations, adding Fraccaroli () , Paley p. ) is not paralleled elsewhere.



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  –   . . . | . . . || . . . L: for two verbs with the same subject separated by change of strophe cf. I. .–, P. . –, Nierhaus () –.   goes with / in  (a usage illustrated at Denniston –), linking the two verbs ( –n.). As a result the sentence is in asyndeton (so Nierhaus () ), which is probably explanatory (on this phenomenon in Pindar see Maehler () –). Connecting words offered by translators, such as ‘igitur’ (Melanchthon, Dissen ii. p. , in a paraphrase) and ‘thus’ (Paley p. ), reflect the asyndeton rather than translate the particle. The scholia (a = ii. . Drachmann) paraphrase  |, or ‘however that may be’ (for this combination cf. Denniston –, citing e.g. O. ., P. .), a sense supported by Wilamowitz ()  (‘wie dem auch war’) and Fraenkel ()  (‘con il A del verso  si e` ritornati alla storia’). But none of these scholars cites a parallel for A in this sense. O  ‘emphatic, protesting, not factual’ (Carey on P. .). In Carey’s passage the term contrasts with the unheroic actions of Ixion; here it encourages our revulsion towards the killing of Agamemnon. The whole sentence thus becomes ‘not a statement but a protest, underlining the enormity of the crime’ (Carey on P. .–). For ^%- used of a living human in Pindar see Currie ()  : it is used elsewhere with a proper name at O. ., ., and P. ..  P : U’s ^% involves an easy error (cf. Diggle ( a) , D. C. C. Young () – = Calder and Stern () ).  (ii. . Drachmann) has ,%. *  ( encourages further indignation at the killing: after all his years away from home, Agamemnon returns at last only to be slain by his wife (Bergmann () , Schroeder () ; cf. Soph. El. n.). This word and (%; in  ‘point up the lyric compression of Cyclic time-scales’ (West, per litteras). 4 . -C%: Amyclae was a town five miles to the south-east of Sparta. It appears to be mentioned on Egyptian texts of the fourteenth century  (Lehmann ( ) ), and was conquered by the Spartans in about   (cf. Calligas () –, Pettersson () ). For Homer, it is just one of a number of unremarkable Laconian towns (Il. .). Pindar, however, refers to it four times, and appears to have regarded it (correctly) as an important settlement in the heroic (Bronze) age (P. . '( 2  9- Q3 |
2>)/ I9/, N. . 9)/ # '3 + A !, I. .– (in an address to Thebe) %2  " . . . I) | ' - 1 & | k/2%. t 2  9- | M#/*2 A)/ '#.  /9
)-). Amyclae was the site of a cult of Agamemnon and Alexandra, near what is today the church of Ayia Paraskevi. This latter figure was identified with Cassandra: cf. Lycophron’s Alexandra, Paus. .., Hesych.   (ii. 



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  Latte) Y2h /52  k/2!. According to Pausanias (..), the shrine had a statue of Cassandra and what was thought to be the tomb of Agamemnon (cf. Larson () ). Dedications have been found at the shrine which date from the early seventh century, with fragments of Agamemnon’s name from the early fifth (cf. Christou (), Hooker () –, Antonaccio ()  –). From the earliest period the deposit also contains terracotta plaques and reliefs, on which ‘the preponderance of the male figure . . . suggests the firm presence of a male figure in the cult’ (Larson () ). Cartledge ()  associates Alexandra with a new cult established at Amyclae in the late Geometric period. Agamemnon, he speculates (ibid. p. ), was first associated with the cult c. , when Sparta was beginning its appropriation of the Atreid heritage (n.). At the same time Alexandra was identified with Cassandra (cf. Antonaccio () , Salapata () – n. ); the alternative name Alexandros of her brother Paris made such a connexion especially easy (cf. Farnell ( ) , Harrie () –). The original cult may have been in honour of Zeus and Alexandra, with Agamemnon taking the place of the former and Cassandra of the latter. This would explain why Lycophron three times identifies Agamemnon with Zeus (Alex. , –, and especially – u/+-   - E9- G)F/ . | - /#?

- M3 A- ($); cf. also Clem. Alex. Protr. .. (i. .– St¨ahlin) #A #H     Gy P)

&- [FGrHist  F ] E /*, Athenag. Suppl. pro Christ. . (p.  Schwartz = p.  Pouderon) @ 2 k/2>- #A  . . . A3/. On the cult see further Mazzoldi ( ) –; for heroisation in Sparta more generally see Currie () . Pindar’s choice of Amyclae for Agamemnon’s home reflects the importance of this cult (so rightly Wilamowitz, in his edition of Choephori, pp. –). It would be unwise to go further, and posit an implied reference to future heroic status for Agamemnon. If there were such a reference, this would be found in the poem, just as at e.g. O. .– Pelops’ heroisation is made explicit. Rather, having decided to set his story in Laconia (n.), Pindar picks the place in Laconia associated with Agamemnon’s death. Amyclae was also famous for its festival of Apollo, the Hyacinthia (cf. Pettersson () –, Antonaccio () –, Sevieri () – n. ), although Wilamowitz (as cited above) is wrong to claim that this is relevant here. Apollo plays no part in Pindar’s account of the Oresteia myth. The phrase should be taken closely with )/ rather than with ,%, given the dative. On the other hand,  + accusative denoting motion towards is established for Pindar (cf. Braswell on P. .–(a), Bossler () –), and the slightest of changes would give us  -  9-. This would allow the phrase to go with ,%, which is, after all, closer to it than )/.



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  If Pindar had written this, corruption to the dative would have been almost inevitable. For  >- describing towns see Kienzle () . For the error which gives rise to the alternative form / *- see D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () .    : for Cassandra as prophetess see Neblung () –, Mazzoldi ( ) –. L ‘brought death on’ (Race) captures the ambiguity of the verb. It could mean ‘destroyed’ (so a = ii. . – Drachmann c - # C 0 H R0 Y F - ")/* C K #A#/; doxography in Sevieri ()  n. ) or ‘lost’ (so Robbins () , citing Hom. Od. ., Anacr. A.P. .. = fr. . PMG, Eur. Andr. ). A similar problem is presented by Achilles’ words on Patroclus at Hom. Il. ., 0 "$/ (‘the ambiguity may of course be intentional’: Edwards ad loc.). In each passage the verb’s subject has not killed its object, but bears some responsibility for the death. In each case this responsibility is paradoxical: Achilles had given strict orders to Patroclus to ensure his safety (.–), while Cassandra is evidently not one of the Trojans who perished in the sack led by Agamemnon (mentioned immediately after this passage, –). It may not be completely fanciful to suggest that Pindar was influenced by the Homeric passage, although since the parallel is limited to a single word it seems doubtful whether an audience could have made the connexion.   : for Cassandra as >G see n.
: - &I ;: Helen is the archetypal cause of the Trojan war (Soph. El.  n.). The deaths for which she is responsible at Troy balance the killings effected by her sister Clytemnestra back home: for the association of this pair in villainy cf. Hom. Od. .– (Odysseus to Agamemnon) 67AG-  "%>/)  /,/ . | 1 2 Y F G 2> 4 / G>)  > , [Hes.] fr.  M–W, Stes. fr.  PMGF. For causal "& see K–G i.  and (with reference to Helen’s responsibility) Hom. Il. .– C A/- \=1 F2- (+- | Wy2  "&1 #1 + (> D#/ (/, Lyr. fr. adesp.  PMG (cited next n.).   : so Bergk for transmitted %)A %. The sackers of a city burn its buildings, not its inhabitants (houses being more flammable than humans). For the destruction of Troy by fire see Finglass (a)  with n. . The corruption would have been encouraged by \$% immediately after the participle. The scholium /2K /1 Wy 67AGy (>/- &/()/G- W\- 1 = 9 % \$%. 2A/ +- c- W- /C2-. " 1 H +- - c-  / An  ( b = ii. .– Drachmann) indicates that its writer had a text containing –%, which means that the corruption is probably ancient (Fraenkel () ). Gentili keeps %)A %,



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  which Bernardini ad loc. supports by citing Lyr. fr. adesp.  PMG €  "&  67AGy /%A s/ . But as this describes the burning of the city, not its inhabitants, it supports not the paradosis, but the conjecture.  Q B 5  R?  ‘despoiled the houses of the Trojans of their luxury’ (cf. Paley p.  ‘loosed from their luxury’, Fraenkel ()  = () ). Some scholars (e.g. Dissen, vol. ii. p. ) have objected to this interpretation on the grounds that 9%  - denotes freeing from pain, sorrow, and so on (cf. P. . 9- D "% "(A%, frr. m.–,  S–M (Paean  = G Rutherford); so too with , as at O. . '/ 5 " -, I. .), not merely the separation of one thing from another. They prefer to take :3>  - with 2>-, which gives ‘houses of luxury’ (so , cited previous n., prob. Schneidewin ii. ). These strictures on the sense of 9% do seem to hold for the classical period (though LSJ s.v. I b cite Diod. Sic. .. +-  '/ W- "(W-): but the meaning postulated here is hardly a great extension of the usual sense, and can be paralleled by constructions such as "& G

 -. The choice of verb may even contain some irony: :3> G- in the fifth century is a notorious vice (see next n.), and Agamemnon has ‘freed’ the Trojans from it – by destroying them. Moreover, the alternative explanation is more problematic than the one it seeks to replace. For while the genitive of quality does exist in Greek (see Soph. El. n.), it is very rare. No classical Greek poet would have written 2> :3> G - rather than just 2> :3. Under this interpretation 2>becomes uncomfortably loaded with genitives, both possessive (\$%) and qualitative (:3>  -). The use of the verb is also difficult. When 9% means ‘destroy’ its object is normally an abstract or intangible noun (e.g. >); there is nothing in LSJ s.v. II a which parallels 9% 2>- = ‘I destroy houses’. At Hom. Od. . \G- 9/  F2/ the image is of the loosening of head-bands (see Hoekstra ad loc.), and so is not comparable (cf. Il. ., with Schroeder () ). R? ": :3> G- is ‘an untranslatable term combining the senses of “softness”, “delicacy”, and “lack of restraint”’ (E. M. Hall () ); see further her General Index s.v. habros and Verdenius (). For its use in Pindar to denote sensual luxuriance see Nagy () –; for its association with tyrannies and barbarians see respectively Xenophanes fr. . – IEG and Hall ()  with nn. –. For &F as the ruin of cities see Fraenkel ()  –, Knox ()  n. ; for the wealth of the Trojans see Eur. Hel.  x#= sG ; (9- 2>-, Hec. –, Eur. IA [ –], [–]. – Pindar characteristically accelerates the narrative as it approaches its conclusion. Cf. Gerber on O. .: ‘Pindar devotes eleven verses to Pelops’ prayer, but in only five verses we are told that the prayer was granted, he



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  received a chariot and horses from Poseidon, defeated Oenomaus, married Hippodameia, and begat six sons.’ – Orestes’ escape to Strophius brings us back to the action with which the myth began, although now the emphasis is on his destination rather than the threat to his life. The ring composition (cf. Sevieri ()  n. ) suggests the imminent end of the story.  ,   + : the shift back to Orestes is sudden, and it is not until we reach

& that we can be sure who is meant. For 2  D in lyric narrative see Denniston – (‘expressing a lively feeling of interest’). The demonstrative keeps the accent (found, incidentally, in the manuscripts).    /  : nicely juxtaposed with A /&. There is a similar effect at N. . 0 7C&G- )A% #/0-  % | 0- D/A  /. * (Henry ad loc. makes the comparison). The correct order is the result of a Byzantine correction: for the error see D. C. C. Young () – = Calder and Stern () . For 5/ in Pindar see n.   : : so F, and conjectured by Schroeder ( ed.). The other manuscripts have

>&, although as usual they have no authority in such matters. According to ancient grammarians (cited by Lehrs () –), names made up of three short syllables ending in –- have an acute accent on the iota. They list a small number of exceptions, which never include

&- (cf. ibid.  n. ), and so we may tentatively conclude that this name went along with the majority. The grammarians’ rule is supported by the manuscripts of Homer, the oldest of which have –- where we would expect it (cf. Allen, in his edition of the Iliad, i. ). Unfortunately,

&does not itself appear in Homer except once as

& (Il. .), which does not help us to determine the accentuation of the nominative. (Homeric manuscripts, unlike those of most other pre-Alexandrian authors, may be cautiously used as evidence for the ancient accent, as there is some evidence that a tradition of pronouncing words with the correct accent survived from the composition of the poems until the early second century, when accent marks were first introduced: cf. Probert () –.) The most ancient manuscript of Aeschylus and Sophocles (Laurentianus ., c. ) has

&-. This codex does not enjoy authority in itself, but on several occasions displays what we can tell from other sources must be the correct accentuation, when most manuscripts give an incorrect form (e.g. Soph. El. , ). It thus may reflect an ancient grammatical tradition which included

&- among the names accented in –-. Chandler ( )  prefers

>&-, citing Eust. Il. Comm. . – (iii. .–. van der Valk) (/2- . . . [ /-  59 V- 0

>&-, and Gentili adopts this accentuation for the same reason. Eustathius’



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  testimony is probably not sufficient to stand against the absence of

&from the lists of exceptions: ‘certo crederem si Eustathii negligentem brevitatem in exscribendis aliis minus saepe expertus essem’ (Lehrs ()  n. ). But it does mean that it is not enough to dismiss the possibility of

>&- with a bare reference to Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag.  (as I did at Soph. El.  n.).

 : has a gentle pathos (cf. Illig () ); see also n. Heyne’s reinterpretation of the paradosis (( ) ) is required for the sense. For the incorrect addition of iota to these words in some manuscripts see D. C. C. Young () – = Calder and Stern () . Gentili prints A! /&P;. translating ‘ma il giovane figlio giunse presso Strofio’ (p. ). But it is not clear how the dative fits the Greek, or how the Greek fits the Italian. In her commentary Bernardini claims ‘l’uso dello strumentale . . . si spiega come una forma di sineddoche’, citing O. . M A%  >&    2%; 2  t Gh 29  /M1 0 >)/ @2 h | & q% 9 % ^   c%  AG, where the metaphorical turning has not yet occurred. Some scholars have accepted Pindar’s ‘apology’ at face value (D. C. Young ()  n.  lists a few). But if the myth really was a mistake, why did he not rewrite the offending section before the performance? Rather, Pindar presents himself as so keen to get back to explicit praise of the victor and his family that he describes his preceding material as the result of a wrong turning. His aim is not to denigrate the myth, but to exalt the section which follows it. But he also implicitly challenges the audience to see if it can improve on the ill-judged (or perhaps over-modest) condemnation of the myth given by the poem’s narrator. More generally, the self-correction also lends intense spontaneity and liveliness to the poem. As Carey notes, ‘although Pindar works with conscious artistry, he deliberately creates and sustains the impression of informal, extempore composition’ (his commentary, p. ); as a result, ‘the poem can thus manipulate audience response while appearing to proceed entirely by a spontaneous and thus authentic process of thought’ (Scodel () ). Cf. further Bundy ()  n. , Race (b) , () , H. Mackie () –, Currie () . Other interpretations are less satisfactory. Some scholars argue that Pindar is motivated by the need to get on with the poem because time is pressing (cf. Kyriakou ()  n. ). But in contrast to e.g. P. . d #  /, there is no mention of time. Pindar does not say ‘I must speed up my story’,



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   but ‘I must get back on the right course’. According to Mackie, ‘the poet is also, as so often, avoiding the temptation to tell a story that would be morally excessive’ (()  n. ). There are indeed passages where ‘the poet refuses to tell or continue a particular tale that he judges unacceptable on moral / religious grounds’ (Kyriakou ()  with n. ; cf. e.g. O. ., ., Mackie () –). But this is not one of them: Pindar does not interrupt his story, but brings it to a full and fitting conclusion (n.) before commenting on its alleged irrelevance. For the move out of the myth at the start of new strophe Nierhaus ()  compares O. ., P. .. See further Race () –, Sevieri ()  n. ; for Pindaric ‘digressions’ in general see Stoneman ( a) –, Hutchinson’s commentary on Greek lyric poetry, pp. –, Mackie () –. P´eron ()  compares N. .– for the switch from a terrestrial image to a maritime one; cf. ibid.  for the image at the end of a myth. For other references to sea and land together in Pindar cf. Rutherford ( )  n. . For series of two or more metaphors in Pindar see Stoneman ( b)  n. .  U  is the non-Attic (and non-Koine) form of the particle U, which is used to introduce a question. Both derive from e D by crasis (cf. Apollonius Dyscolus i/ .– Schneider and Uhlig, followed by Denniston , ; cf. Molinos Tejada () –). Where U is transmitted in Pindar editors usually change it to e, but Braswell on P. .(b) argues that Pindar uses both forms. 3 :: the address (not found elsewhere in Pindar) is probably aimed at the Theban audience (so van Groningen () ) rather than Thrasydaeus and his father (so Instone () ) – the poet, after all, is at home.
    : Greek refers to a ‘place where three roads meet’ where English more naturally speaks of a fork in the road. The dialectal variant "/– for "/3– is found elsewhere in Pindar at P. . "/9) and fr.  S–M "//W & 2, and then not in literature until Euphorion fr.  CA and Ap. Rh. .. The final syllable of 2 is long, even though it is composed of a short vowel followed by a single consonant. This is not uncommon with resonant consonants, however (cf. Christ () –, Maas () – = () –, Braswell on P. .(d); also West () –  for the phenomenon in epic). Hermann’s "/>- >2- (()  = () ) thus has nothing to recommend it. .

" : the regular verb 2A% would yield a passive 2F)G (which is in fact found in B, an easy error). Pindar’s verb is a denominative formed from Doric 2 (∼ Attic-Ionic 2G): cf. Strunk () –, Forssman () . We find the same vocalism in 82 - (I. .), 2/ (fr. u. S–M (Paean  = S Rutherford)), and 2[]/ (Bacchyl. .). The only possible



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   Pindaric instance of the other vocalism is fr.  f(c). S–M [3])+ 2 2G[ ]; in Bacchylides cf. . E2F %, . 2G  (but . 2[]/). The picture is also confused in Theocritus: see Gow on Theocr. ..  1 8  : the ‘path’ of Pindar’s song (‘der Weg des Programms, in das ja an sich auch der Mythos geh¨ort’: Becker () ). For references to song as a path (from Homer on) see Lefkowitz ()  n.  = ( )  n. .   V Many editors punctuate with a raised point here, but this is a question, not a statement. Instone ()  reports that Maehler intends his text to be read as two questions, but it is not clear why he then punctuates as he does. Instone himself prefers a comma, but the sense is more lively with the double question.  For W X - in comparisons as equivalent to V- see Braswell on N. .. + Y  : the term D - covers a range of vessels of different sizes, but generally with an emphasis on speed (cf. Kurt () , Pfeijffer on N. .–). In its other appearance in Pindar (N. .), it is mentioned alongside the @-: the poet may envisage his songs travelling abroad in both light and bulky craft. The term in our passage perhaps thus ‘sugg`ere . . . la l´eg`eret´e de l’esquif, a` la merci du moindre vent’ (P´eron () ). For metaphors taken from the sea in Pindar more generally see D. C. Young ()  n.  = Calder and Stern ()  n. . /M is a Byzantine reinterpretation of the paradosis –: Pindar would have written 7k for both forms, and hence they have equal ancient authority. Schroeder ( ed.) conjectured  here and in five other places in Pindar. Although not found elsewhere, it is a likely supplement at Alcaeus fr. . Voigt = PLF ([]); for such forms in Lesbian see e.g. Bowie ( ) . But it is more likely that Pindar used the form /M-, found in Homer (Od. ., ., .), than that he chose a distinctively Lesbian form (so Braswell on P. .(b)). Byzantine or modern editors restore /Mfor transmitted - at Soph. Ant. , Eur. El. , Tro. , Hel. , , and Ar. Thesm. . Metrically guaranteed - has been corrupted to /M- in some manuscripts at Soph. Aj. , Eur. Hec. , and Phoen. ; we also find metrically guaranteed - at Archil. fr. . IEG and Aesch. Pers. . Braswell on P. .(d) claims that Pindar did not write double consonants: this would mean that Pindar’s 7 could also have represented –, and hence that Schroeder’s  should be regarded as a reinterpretation of the paradosis rather than as an emendation. But double consonants are found in some archaic inscriptions from the late sixth century (cf. S–D i. ), and so we cannot be sure that Pindar did not use them. Irigoin ()  acknowledges the uncertainty.



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  – Pindar points out to the Muse that she has contracted her voice out for a price. The closest parallel is with the opening of Isthmian Two, where Pindar declares that poets of the past shot their poetic arrows at anyone who was beautiful: : N* # C &/2F- % >  e C2  # -h | C2  A  #/* /&)>##  1 \/n(>- | "#%)/* >% )>&% "2 (–). Hubbard ()  refers to the Isthmian passage as ‘self-deprecatory and ironic’, and sees the ‘same flippancy’ in our poem (ibid.  n. ). But it is more than this: it ‘does not refer to the poet’s inferior economic position but suggests that the immortality of the victor – that is, his kleos dependent on the poet’s praise – is the result of conspicuous expenditure culminating in the payment for celebratory song’ (von Reden () –). On the whole question of payment for song and Pindar’s references to it see Kurke ( a). For the ‘laudator’s obligation’ see Bundy () . Krummen () – n.  translates the passage ‘. . . you have agreed to provide your tongue as a reward . . .’, with )* presumably as a sort of genitive of aim (cf. ‘Pindars Lied ist “Lohn” f¨ur den Sieger, sozusagen aufgrund des (epinikienspezifischen) Kontraktes, daß die gute Leistung mit einem Lied (Ruhm) entlohnt werden muß’). This sense is most unlikely, however: such genitives are normally restricted to certain verbs, and here R# (whatever its exact sense) protects )* as a genitive of price. For the different senses of )>- see Will ().  )4: ‘such sudden shifts of address in Pindaric odes give the impression of spontaneity and impulsiveness, but are carefully integrated into the progressive argument’ (Race ()  n. , on O. . –). For the address as the poet returns to the programme of the ode cf. Race (b) , van der Weiden on fr. a.– S–M; for the address to the Muses at this point see Bundy ()  n. . Pindar uses the Aeolic form, instead of the H or = found in other dialects: cf. Verdier ()  –, N¨othiger ( ) . Z [  : thus Moschopulus reinterprets the 0 2   /> of the manuscripts: for erroneous division of words in manuscripts see D. C. C. Young () – = Calder and Stern () . For the sense cf. Soph. El. n. 4: for the sense see  –n. The genitive (for transmitted )) is owed to Christ , although Bergk had previously rejected it. It gives better sense than Bothe’s )* (() ii. –).    * : for  )G in Pindar denoting the contract between poet and patron see Gentili ( ) . Original A)/, which contracts to A) in Attic, becomes A)/ in several other dialects, including Doric (cf. Molinos Tejada () –).  : 8 \   ‘your mercenary voice’. R#- should mean ‘with silver underneath’, but it is not clear how we get from this to the sense necessary



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  here. In advocating the translation ‘sold / hired for silver, mercenary’, LSJ s.v. R#- II  refer to the sense ‘bribed’ of  #>% (s.v. II, where they cite Soph. Ant. ): but the different prefix means that this is not comparable. Citing R/9)- and R>2- (Michael Reeve per litteras adds R>(/%-), Schroeder ()  argues that the formation means '(- "# 1 )H. But ‘subject to scrutiny’, ‘subject to justice’, or even ‘subject to a debt’ are very different from ‘subject to [a fee paid in] silver’ (the translation offered by Burton () ). According to Wilamowitz ( )  n.  = (–) vi.  n.  (supported by Schadewaldt () – n. ), there is a contrast between the gold of truth and the silver of praise acquired for money (‘die Zunge, die Silber unter sich hat, redet nicht das Gold der Wahrheit, sondern das plattierte Silber des erkauften Lobes’); cf. LSJ s.v. I , S–D ii. , Eitrem () . But while Pindar allows himself references to the monetary aspect of epinician composition ( –n.), it would be fatal to his encomiastic intention to state or even imply that his praises were insincere or untrue. Silver stands here for monetary compensation in general: it is not opposed to gold. Perhaps the best we can do is to assign the prefix the sense ‘somewhat, partially’ as often with R>: but this hardly seems satisfactory. Schneider emended to #, which may be supported by Hesych. /  (ii.  Latte) #h )% F. This would give us silver on top of the voice rather than beneath it, but it is not clear that this makes things easier. This difficult expression must be set closely alongside I. .– (cited above,  –n.), which refers to songs as girls ‘with their faces silvered over’ ("#? %)/* >%, transl. Race) being sold (i.e. as prostitutes) by the Muse Terpsichore. Their faces are whitened with cosmetics because a silver face was a sign of beauty, and hence would make them more attractive to potential customers (cf. Alcman fr. . PMGF "#9 >%, Sappho fr. . Voigt = PLF, Ar. Eccl. , Plut. , Lys. . >% n)=)). But the emphatic reference to silver in the context of selling songs must also reinforce the idea of monetary transaction already present in the description (cf. N. .

%>)/ 2  "#%)A /- + MG*- &- "A3 for the passive of the verb meaning ‘paid in silver’). Could the reference to the &% R? # have a similarly double function? That is, the basic sense was ‘silvery voice’ in the sense of ‘attractive to listen to’ (elsewhere ‘golden’ is the adjective used (Lucr. . aurea dicta, Cic. Acad. . flumen orationis aureum, Men. Rhet.  (> -), but note the English ‘silver-tongued’), alongside which the context encouraged the additional sense of ‘mercenary’. Perhaps Anacreon fr.  PMG C2  "#W % >  '/
/)$ shows a similar double sense. Another possible instance, Pind. fr.  S–M N* "#9/ (cited by Julian the Apostate), is more likely an inaccurate reminiscence of I. .– and our passage (cf. Woodbury ()  n.  = ( )  n. ).



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  +  +;: for repeated D- used to ‘tease audience expectation by opening up boundless possibilities, by presenting the illusion of an open-ended composition’ (Carey () ) cf. P. .– #%% # D% - T% |   D  D d / A )9/ >#, O. . D / 2  D  /9/ a- q%)- :2//* | )  &>## &$   ' / C=. As Carey notes, such passages (and others without D-) stress the variety of themes in the epinician, together with Pindar’s skill in controlling them. For repeated D- in Pindar in general see Des Places () –, Krause ()  –. (F appears in manuscripts before A/, and must be deleted to secure responsion. For the intrusion of a gloss see D. C. C. Young () –  = Calder and Stern () . The error was almost inevitable after the correct division of 0 2 /> had been lost ( n.).   : transitive, with &% as its object (so LSJ s.v. % I , Garvie on Aesch. Cho. – (p. )). Wilamowitz ( )  = (–) vi. , ()  n.  (followed by Schadewaldt () – Anm. ) argues for an intransitive sense (‘to stir’), but this would require the middle, not the active. Wilamowitz cites Aesch. Cho.  and Eur. Suppl. : but his text of these two passages is probably wrong (see Garvie’s n. on the former and Diggle () – = () – on the latter). For the infinitive in –/ in Pindar see Braswell on P. .(a).   A 9 (: ‘for immortality the naming is essential. To be preserved in song as an anonymous father, uncle or grandfather is not to be preserved at all’ (Carey () ). Pindar always names the father in odes to boy victors (ibid.  n. ); the one exception, O. , takes as a theme the presence of athletic success in alternate generations. By closely associating father and son, ‘the poet suggests by his syntax that the athlete has lived up to the expectations of his father and bestows on him the highest praise – complete identification with the patriline’ (Kurke ( b) , on another passage). The name Pythonicus implies a victory by the grandfather (see the Introduction, section  ). Triclinius’ emendation (
)– for
)–) is required by the metre. See D. C. C. Young () – = Calder and Stern ()  for places where a scribe has added ‘iota to a form or word where it is metrically or otherwise incorrect’ (his italics). The name Pythonicus is widely attested (cf. LGPN i. –, ii. , iii/a. , iii/b. , iv. ); for the name Pythionicus cf. LGPN i. , ii. .   : for the short upsilon see n. >  ((: for the name see n.  2 J: %   A / - .:: here /C&9G denotes ‘celebration’ in the abstract; elsewhere in Pindar it often has the concrete sense ‘victory



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   revel’ (cf. Bundy () ), but the coordination with 2>5 rules that out in our case. For ‘light as a metaphor of fame’ see Lefkowitz ()  n.  = ( )  n. , Bremer () –, Race () , Hummel () , Parisinou () –. For &A#/ denoting a blaze of glory (‘exclusively Pindaric’) see Henry on N. .–; also Gerber on O. .. For 2>5 in Pindar see Steinkopf () –. – For the catalogue of victories see the Introduction, section  . Pindar uses plurals even though single victories are probably meant throughout: ‘four or more victories are thus suggested, though a figure as low as two is not excluded’ (Cole () ). See further Cole’s article for Pindar’s free use of the plural in such descriptions. The effect is to glorify the family (cf. Von der M¨uhll ()  = ()  ‘alle drei großen panhellenischen Erfolge sind da prachtvoll im Plural, der das jeweilige Einzelne vergr¨oßert’, D¨uring () ). For accounts of the successes of the victor’s family in epinician see Kurke ( a)  n. .   : Denniston  cites this instance as an example of A going with

/ (in  and ; cf.  n.). The particle is not a connector, and the resulting asyndeton is probably explanatory ( n.). is omitted from the manuscripts by haplography after A; for this type of error cf. Diggle ( a) – n. , ()  = () , ()  with n.  (D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern ()  wrongly claims that the mistake is ‘unmotivated’ here).  : used of persons elsewhere in Pindar at P. .; for further occurrences see Pfeijffer’s commentary, pp. –.  ;  -: Maas () – = () – conjectured ) , citing N. . M#)/ (Schwartz; –)/- codd.). The change is only of a single letter, as word-final iota in long diphthongs is omitted so often (as in this word in DEF, at least) that it has practically no authority. For confusion between theta and tau see Diggle ()  = ()  and () ; for the formation see Lejeune () . This would mean that A in  corresponded with

/ in  (cf. Hajd´u () – n. ). But the balance of !  with
)* / in  (also at the start of a line) protects the former.
B  :  : the genitive is ablatival: Thrasydaeus and his father ‘capture’ swift radiance ( '( ) " *) from the games at Olympia. The adjective means ‘much spoken about’, or ‘spoken about by many’, and hence ‘glorious’ (Gerber on O. .).  8
4  ‘swift radiance’: for this sense of " - cf. P. . with Braswell, I. . –. For praise of speed in Pindar see Mader on O. . (pp. –). For the brightness or radiance of the victor cf. O. . &> "#Z, . c# 2=, Carey on P. ., Gerber on O. ..



C O M M E N TA RY:   –     Z .A   : for nakedness in Greek athletics see Golden () – and (for bibliography) Christesen () – n. , S. G. Miller () –. For the sense of  2 see the Introduction, section  . For  used of approaching a task or contest see Braswell on Pind. P. .(d). ? : for  3% = ‘enter a contest’ cf. N. . –, .–, LSJ s.v. I , Nisbet and Rudd on Hor. C. ..– (descendat). – ]/ | & I   8 ^%: the closing expression emphasises the magnitude of their achievements: their adversaries are no mere group of athletes, but ‘the host of Hellas’ (cf. P. . 672   A(!). The word denoting the key to their success is saved until last: cf. O. . O - #j

( P . – A life which avoids tyrannical excess and is devoted to civic virtue can still flourish in prosperity and keep envy at bay, if not avoid it altogether. This sentiment corresponds to the gnomic passage at –: Q3- and &)>() are balanced by Q3%; /)>  () and &)/1 2  "9  (), while (G A% () will be reversed in D -, and poverty to obscurity, yields here to an account consistent with it and yet more optimistic in tone. The victor, it is implied, does possess Q3- and encounters &)>-, but through his moderate behaviour holds on to the former for longer and can deal with the latter. The new section has no connecting particle: ‘asyndeton is common with first-person utterances, and increases their trenchancy’ (Hutchinson on O. .–, comparing O. ., ., N. ., ., .; add O. .). Pindar’s use of the first person tends to be more restrained in Theban odes than elsewhere: ‘in the victory odes composed for his native city we would look in vain for all the features of the prominent praiser we have met in other poems. In Thebes . . . he is very careful not to appear as a personally outstanding figure’ (D’Alessio () ).   .  2 : ‘la prima persona non esprime una opinione personale del cantore, ma e` un modo pi`u affettivo e vivace di presentare una massima di valore generale’ (Pavese () ); ‘the speaker offers himself as an example of a whole group, the representative of decent or typical opinion’ (Carey on P. .–). Cf. Von der M¨uhll ()  with n.  = ()  with n. , D. C. Young () , Lefkowitz () – = ( ) –, D’Alessio () ; also Servius on Virg. Georg. . (iii. .– Thilo and Hagen) suam autem personam pro quocumque posuit. For recent bibliography on ‘I’ in Pindar see Sullivan () – n. ,  nn. –. For more on Pindaric prayers see H. Mackie () – n. .



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  The verb exhibits what Carey on P. . calls ‘the familiar Greek use of '%and its cognates with reference to strong drives other than sexual desire, a use especially familiar in Pindar’, citing e.g. N. .; cf. LSJ s.v. % II. For the combination with = cf. Theogn.  = 2 = o  + H- P;-. For the formation of the adverb see Lejeune () –.   8   . R;: ‘each time of life has characteristics especially appropriate to it’ (Braswell on P. . –(a)): cf. N. .–  2 /! A- | 2&/   - 5($ /- #AG . |  1 A *-.  "2 "F.   |   A. A- t  ‚ '(/ | 3> / ')-. The verb  is found in epic, lyric, and tragedy, but not prose. – ‘Moderation was a persistent ideal of poets’ (Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. C. ..); cf. e.g. Theogn.   % A  D , Phocyl. fr.  West  A D h A- )A%  >/ /S, Bassus A.P. ..– = – GP, Collard on Eur. Suppl. –. On alleged connexions between these lines and Aesch. Eum. – see the Introduction, section /ii. J. K. Newman ()  sees a direct link with Solon, but there is nothing especially Solonian about the lines. His claim (p. ) that the passage shows language which our poet ‘had obviously heard during his student days in Athens’ appears to confuse Pindar with Horace.  2 . . .
8  : the article represents either an original  (‘among the affairs of the city’) or E (‘ . . . the people . . .’); the subsequent  A may suggest that the neuter is more likely. –   ( | L?(: both the comparative and superlative are metrically possible and attested in the manuscripts. The comparative gives better sense: ‘Q3- is transient, but may abide longer under certain circumstances’ (Carey on P. . 0 C( RA// Q3, comparing N. ., I. .–); it ‘refers . . . to time, not extent’ (Carey, ibid.). For the corruption of comparative to superlative see D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () , Davies on Soph. Tr.  ff. For the significance of attributing longer-lasting Q3- to  A see –n. 9 before Q3%; was deleted by Triclinius to secure responsion.  : for the metaphorical use of )% cf. Salvador Castillo () –, Thren. fr. . S–M = . Cannat`a Fera, Hes. Op. . : - _  

 : as in  (n.), the first person expresses a general view rather than something unique to the poet. For ‘disclaimers preceded or followed by the expression of the speaker’s /-’ see Bundy ()  n. . Disclaiming tyranny is a familiar poetic motif: cf. Archil. fr.  IEG o 

 r9#/% H (9 A/ | . . . | . . . /#G- 2  C A% 2-,



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  Anacr. fr.  PMG #j 2  o  b )G- | 3G A- o  ' / | / F  / " 0 | \ GH 3/H, Simon. fr.  PMG # :2P- D / ) = 3- )/0- B  -g | P2  D / C2 )/= qG% 0- M$ with Poltera ()  (cf. Young () –, prob. e.g. Hornblower () ). Xen. Hier. . /% + /C&  E 9

= / %- 2#> % M2% =. Sol. fr.  IEG, where the poet does disclaim a tyranny which was offered to him, is a special case: it would be a brave historian who argued on the basis of our passage that the Thebans had tried to set up Pindar (or even Thrasydaeus) as their tyrant. Attempts to connect this statement with contemporary tyrannies, whether in  or , have been unsuccessful: see the Introduction, section /iii. As Pavese ()  points out, the statement is expressed as a comment on the tyrant’s quality of life rather than as a political judgment. There were precedents for athletic success leading to attempts at setting up a tyranny (cf. Catenacci (), especially  with nn. –), but Kurke ( a)  goes too far in claiming that ‘the suspicion of tyrannical aspirations is . . . the specter that haunts the athletic successes of [the victor’s] family until it is resolutely exorcised by the poet’. Rather, such statements in Pindar reaffirm the commitment of poet and victor to the values of their society by stressing that, while the victor is glorified by his success, it does not lead him into the sort of excesses which characterise the life of the tyrant. Nagy’s claim that ‘the function of Pindar’s epinician lyric poetry was to praise the reality of victory and to warn against the potential of tyranny’ (() ) is also unbalanced (cf. Carey () ). Pindar’s purpose is to praise the victor: any warnings against tyranny contribute to this, and are not an end in themselves.  / 4 . . .
4: like >-, 5>- often describes actions or virtues which benefit the wider community (cf. I. ., ., Archil. fr. a. IEG, Bundy () –). Sevieri ()  n.  compares K "/ F as an admired characteristic of benefactors at Xen. Hier. .. Such behaviour stands opposed to that of the &)/, who follow on from this phrase.   is omitted by V: for the loss of this word in Pindaric manuscripts see D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () . : for the perfect of /% in this sense cf. I. . # 1 2 P- "9% 0 MW A  ; also Xenophanes fr. B. IEG >- (Koraes:

0 f- codd.) "&  "/ W-. For the first person see n. – :  A  -
%  . | : the manuscripts read &)/1 2  "9  D (). This gives one too many syllables to the period which makes up line . Scholars who retain some form of D G in the text thus assume that the elision is incorrect, which gives us &)/1 2  "9 h | D (). Since accents are not part of the paradosis, the final word could just as well be U  as D ! (pace Bernardini, p. ).



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  Whichever case we adopt, the following /M is problematic. For the line to scan, the second syllable of D ! (or U ) must form a single syllable with /M through synizesis. There are no good examples of this in Pindar. Boeckh ()  = (–) v. – claims that there are, but most of his alleged parallels are from Homer and thus irrelevant for Pindaric prosody, while his Pindaric examples can all be regularised by the lightest of emendations. So at O. . Snell prints Moschopulus’   "2 for transmitted  "2; at N. . Henry prints  2  Qn instead of  ‚ Qn (  Qn iam Mingarelli, prob. Snell); while at I. .– transmitted B [ / has in each case had its [ / interpolated by comparison with B [ / in line , and Erasmus Schmid consequently deleted them. H´oman deleted /M to remove the synizesis; keeping D !, he reinterpreted the following word as -, giving a question ending at "A&#/ (prob. Bundy ()  n. ). Van Groningen ()  (supported by Newman () ) adopts the same approach, except that he prefers U ; this would require &)/ as well. But we should not be quick to abandon the conditional format. The structure, whereby the protasis expresses the actions of the good or successful man and the apodosis the rewards which he will gain as a result, is paralleled at I. . – /c - "2= /C (F- B + /C2>5- "A)| B )A/ 9   A(/ &1 MW >. | D5- /C#- " = /(), .– /M # - ")$% 2! / (/- | 1 >%; / )/2 - "/ - | 9 A E 2% & /9/ 2>5 F . ( *42G 0- Q3 | 3/  D# )/> - $, N. . –. The same format is applied to the deeds of bad men and their consequences at I. .– /M 2A

- '2 A/ H  &*. | D 2   % #/P;. n( Z2!

/A% C &q/  2>5- D/)/ and .–   2  /c - |  /. 3(+- 5A) (>/2 )/= t2. (Bernardini ad loc. and Pini ()  n.  cite O. .–, P. .–, .–, N. .– as further parallels, but while these all have /c -, they contain moral advice in the apodosis, rather than the consequence of the actions detailed in the protasis, and are therefore not comparable.) As Pini ()  well objects, ‘ad un avvio cos`ı tipico della gnome pindarica come /c - malvolentieri si renuncia’. No such parallels exist for the rhetorical question. Whether or not we eliminate /M, neither &)/1 2  "9  D ! nor &)? /1 2  "9  U  gives satisfactory sense. With D !, various translations have been suggested. The sense could be ‘the envious fight back with ruin’: but "9 is not the word for the hostile assault of the envious. An alternative, ‘the envious are warded off to their destruction’, is intolerably compressed, with the dative working very hard. Others take the dative as instrumental, including Boeckh ()  (‘invidi coercentur damno’), Wilamowitz () , Schroeder () , and Gentili (‘sono puniti gli invidiosi dal loro stesso delirio’). Bernardini ad loc. compares P. .– "  C2 H  > | M/



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  &)/=h  )- 2A - / | /P- A5 t- I20 )/ 2!. | 1 [ & 2 G   (/*. But there the paradox that the envious end up hurting themselves is appropriately stressed by the phrase (in his  edition, p. ; attributed by D¨uring ()  to Wackernagel, which is presumably a slip), which is printed by Snell and approved by D. C. Young ()  n. . We need a connecting particle, and there is no other candidate; " also provides a break from the preceding reference to 2/- and &)/, as the poet moves to describe the lot of the modest but successful man. The preceding phrase should be translated ‘the envious are warded off’ (cf. e.g. Bulman () , Race). For "9% ‘ward off’ see LSJ s.v. A I; for the passive DGE s.v. "9% I  cites this passage, together with Thuc. .. "#G #. /M c / /  C =. 1 "9/) K D/ R=

9 - (‘if you join in their attack, you must share the punishment which the defenders inflict on them’, Crawley’s translation) and Pl. Leg. c @ 2 G&)/1 0-    = #/#j-  A)% 1 "A)%. Dickie ()  prefers the middle, but the resulting sense ‘phthoneroi punish themselves’ is obscure and unexpected. – For victory as an antidote to death and old age see Mader on O. .–  (p. ). For the protasis describing the actions of the victor see –n. The statement has two stages: ‘men should pursue goals that are in keeping



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  with their mortal status and once they have achieved these goals, they should avoid hybris by handling their success with hˆesychia’ (Dickie () ). Dickie compares Sol. fr. .– IEG 2F )  J#/>% D2- >-. ‚ < * | T3-  /#G- D#/  )/*h | C #     A(/ > C2 9- | /C&9- /* 2 0-  J(Wy.  +  =B : for the D as the summit of the athlete’s achievements cf. N. .– '  2   /C (! | 25- D, I. . – '  2  "&/

9(- 1 A%. | 1 A- D EA). 6*(: so Mommsen, after Hermann ()  = ()  :(P. The manuscript reading J(() could only stand if it scanned –˘–, which would require consonantalised iota. The evidence for this in Pindar and Bacchylides is set out by Radermacher ()  and Scheller ( ) . Of the passages which they cite, P. ., ., N. . can be regularised by a simple emendation, while the alleged example at fr. k. S–M (Paean  = A Rutherford) is itself an (uncompelling) emendation. Only Bacchyl. . is a plausible case, but as that involves a proper name (Y%%) it is not comparable. Radermacher and Scheller do not mention our passage. Consonantalised iota in our passage would also presumably lengthen the middle syllable: since this is in the aeolic base of a glyconic a long would be possible, but undesirable as elsewhere we have a short in this position throughout. Mommsen’s small emendation should therefore be welcomed. For the vocalism J– see Forssman () –. J( denotes ‘quiet restraint in the face of the good things of life’ (Dickie () ; cf. Hornblower () –). For ‘the peace won by the successful athlete’ see Carey on N. ..

 : for A with the sense ‘live, dwell’ Slater s.v. A% a3 compares I. .. – Y 8 D?  |
: : the T3- is that of the athlete, not the phthoneroi (so rightly Dickie () ; at ibid. n.  he lists some supporters of the contrary view). The reputation one leaves to one’s offspring (–) is not dependent on whether one has been affected by the T3- of others, but whether one has avoided it oneself. The close connexion between T3- and J( (– n.) means that they most naturally both refer to the same thing: that is, the behaviour of the athlete. For the sense of the word cf. Fisher () , for whom T3- in Pindar ‘predominantly . . . denotes humans who unjustly and deliberately infringe the obligations of xenia, charis and aidos towards others, and endanger the peace and stability of harmonious social relations and settings inside a community’. It would thus be a remarkably strong way of referring to the behaviour of the envious (cf. Fisher () ). For Dickie ()  T3- denotes ‘an arrogant and over-confident state of mind’, but again, the reputation left to one’s offspring will be affected by one’s internal mental state only insofar as it affects one’s actions.



C O M M E N TA RY:   –  –   ` .*8 |   

: the interlacing word order stresses the paradox of the ‘fairer bourn of black death’ towards which the good man tends. Rauchenstein ()  compares the Homeric )  Aand A- )  (Il. ., ., Clarke () – n. ); also at Hes. Op.  (perhaps spurious), Theogn. , Aesch. Sept. . LSJ s.v. (  II  bizarrely take "  (  to mean ‘at last’, citing only a passage of Nicander as a parallel for this sense. For ‘black death’ cf. Hom. Il. ., Clarke () General Index s.v. ‘death as darkness’, Davies on Soph. Tr.  ff. For enduring fame after death in Pindar cf. Bundy () –. Whether we take D as a preposition or a particle (as here) depends on the verb supplemented in  (n.).  For the erroneous addition of 2A see D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () . For Gentili’s text see the Metrical Analysis.  : so Wilamowitz ap. Schroeder ( edn.). Two long syllables are missing after )  and before #  !. The missing syllables must consist of a verb, as otherwise the apodosis to the protasis begun with /M in  would lack one. Most manuscripts have  in the gap, while D has '(/ . The scholia to H read '(/, while the scholia to E have 5/H/. Triclinius has '(/. But neither '(/ nor 5/H/ would fit the gap because the immediately preceding word ends with a vowel, and would thus create an impossible hiatus with the former and impossible synizesis with the other (–n.). The verbs are probably no more than makeshifts to plug the gap (which would have been visually apparent to scribes, as it occurred at the end of a manuscript colon which would consequently have looked too short).  is an even worse attempt at the same, from someone who did not understand how #  ! #//P y fitted the sentence. The missing verb will have been one of ‘getting’ or ‘travelling’. The former would take (  as a direct object, and hence D in  would be a particle. The latter could take (  as an accusative of motion towards (K–G i.  –), and hence D as a particle; or else "  could be a preposition governing the noun (cf. Archil. fr. . IEG H- "  ( F). Whichever we adopt, the tense is crucial. A past tense would be inappropriate, because the prospect of death lies in the future. A present would be passable, but still inferior to a future, or an optative with D. The latter is the only possibility with a verb of getting, since in that case D must be a particle: but none readily springs to mind. With a verb of travelling, however, Wilamowitz’s fulfils our need exactly. For the ‘journey of death’ see Davies on Soph. Tr. –, Sourvinou-Inwood () index s.v. ‘journey to Hades’. Words easily drop out at the end of a manuscript colon: see Henry on N. .–, Barrett (b)  n. . For the loss of a disyllable see D. C. C. Young ()  = Calder and Stern () . For the erroneous addition of  see ibid.  = .



C O M M E N TA RY:   –    ;   @: for #9- of persons see LSJ s.v. I ; the usage is not found elsewhere in Pindar (pace Slater s.v. a, who cites O. .).  JB  . . . *  ‘is (- that consists in a good Q: the victor bequeathes to his family a good name, which they will take pleasure in ((/)’ (Instone ()  n. ). For the importance of (- for the victor see Gerber on O. ., MacLachlan () –.     : for the association of glory with possessions cf. P. ., N. .–, Mader on O. .– (p. ). B’s    will have been caused by the ending of the preceding /C$. – The end of the ode is dominated by Iolaus, Castor, and Pollux, figures who occur several times elsewhere in Pindar. He cites the trio as supreme examples of valour from their respective cities at I. .–  2 F3- E> >- | #A- '(/.
//+- 2   _#/. Y - 2  M(
2/9/>    7C$  {/A)-. Castor and Iolaus are closely connected in Isthmian One, where after mentioning the victory of Herodotus (like Thrasydaeus, a Theban), Pindar declares )A% | B Y /%; B    >5  T%;. | /* # J$% 2&G  k/2 1 F3-  A%)/  ?

 (–). There follows an account of their sporting triumphs, before the pair are invoked again as  &A-  *- @>2- j  = #A/. | \22- 2   (*- Rn/2 /- MA% t2- (–). Castor and Pollux are frequently found together in Pindar: cf. O. . – and – (associated with Theron), P. .– (warriors and neighbours of the Dorians), P. . – (crew of the Argo, with Heracles), fr. c S–M (calmers of wind and wave), fr. s S–M (Paean  = S Rutherford, which opens with a reference to a temple of the Tyndarids, and may have gone on to the subject of Heracles: cf. Rutherford ( ) –). The narrative in N. .– describes Pollux’ decision to share his immortality with his mortal brother after the latter is fatally wounded. Castor alone is mentioned at fr.  S–M (inventor of the %-); P. . refers to 0 Y >/, a ‘Castor-song’ (cf. I. ., cited above). Pindar cites these three here as examples of people made famous by the (- which comes from moderation. Such a capacious characteristic includes many other heroes, so it is natural to ask what else connects them with the poem. The Tyndarids are closely associated with Sparta (cf. Thommen () –), and this association is brought out by the reference to Therapnae in . Given that Iolaus is a specifically Theban hero (cf. I. .–), this makes the trio especially appropriate in an ode for a Theban victor which contains a myth set prominently at Sparta. Moreover, ‘the mention of the cult site Therapne and the divided life of the Tyndaridai on earth and in Olympos parallels the identification of the heroines with the Ismenion shrine cult and the sisters’ separate homes among the Olympians and Nereids’ (Greengard () –).



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   The balance goes further: the sisters Ino and Semele are followed by Alcmene, while the brothers Castor and Pollux are preceded by Iolaus. The heroes thus fit with a significant theme as well as playing a firm but unobtrusive structural function. The ordering of the three heroes is significant: ‘Iolaus (the model relevant to the Theban victor Thrasydaeus) yields to Castor and Polydeuces, E1 )/=’ (Race (c) – n. , comparing I. .–, where Iolaus is climactically followed by Castor). Other possible connexions are not as compelling. The Tyndarids are often associated with athletics and horsemanship (cf. O. ., Hom. Il. ., Od. ., Cypria fr. . EGF = . PEG = . GEF Y  )  E>2 1 "/)&>
2/9/, K¨ohnken ()  = () , Race (c)  (‘traditional models for all-round athletic ability’)), and this would be an obvious link to exploit in an epinician poem. In this instance it must have been too obvious, as Pindar makes no reference to that aspect of the Tyndarids in this ode. For Rauchenstein () , the alternation of states which the Dioscuri undergo fits with the theme of /> G-, because it is the consequence of their being ‘modest and moderate in their desires’ (‘bescheiden und m¨assig in ihrem w¨unschen’, referring to the end of N. ). But Pollux’s decision to share immortality with his brother (which in any case is not mentioned in our poem) is an act of generosity, not of modesty or moderation. Van Groningen ()  tries a different approach on the same point: he claims that in their perpetually changing state ‘l’exaltation est constamment contrebalanc´ee par l’humiliation’, and hence they form an appropriate end to a poem which glorifies /> G-. But alternation from one extreme to the other, from death to life on Olympus, can hardly be described as /> G-: the middle, indeed, is the one place where we never find them. F. S. Newman ()  and Most (b)  see a reference to Heracles via Iolaus (who was the former’s close companion during his labours), which would thus balance the reference to Heracles via Alcmene near the start of the ode. But the bare reference to Iolaus, with no mention of Heracles, is hardly enough to encourage such a connexion.  a: for [ / in Pindar see Ruijgh ( ) –, who rightly advocates printing instances as a single word. ‘Whether we write  / or  / is a matter of indifference; the former has, however, the advantage of showing that it functions as one word and of clearly distinguishing it from  / “and which”’ (Braswell on P. .(c)). – Z  : | . . .   : Iphicles was Heracles’ half-brother, the son of Alcmene by Amphitryon. His son Iolaus was Heracles’ close companion and assistant in some of his labours. For Iolaus in Thebes see further Schachter ( –) ii. –, Olson on Ar. Ach. –, Henry on N. . (the Theban



C O M M E N TA RY:   –   Heraclea were held at the Iolaeum); in Pindar see Fehr ()  –, Bernardini ().  :  ‘carries abroad’ (sc. the fame of) (Slater s.v. 2&A% a; cf. LSJ s.v. II ). – The Iliad emphatically proclaims the mortality of the Dioscuri (.– ). According to the Odyssey (.–), while they are both children of Tyndareus and Lede (so not of Zeus), and both are held by the &q- S, nevertheless 1 A)/ #W- K 0- uG0- '( /- | D /  q$  < /F/. D / 2  | / | /)Ph K 2 />#( S )/*. In the Cypria (p. .– EGF = p. . – PEG = p.  GEF), after Paris takes Helen to Troy, Castor and Pollux are caught trying to steal the cattle of Idas and Lynceus. Castor is killed by Idas; Idas and Lynceus are then killed by Pollux. Then u/+- C *- < /F/ A/ K "). Castor is mortal, Pollux immortal (fr.  EGF =  PEG =  GEF). The story is retold by Pindar in Nemean Ten, a poem of uncertain date. Cf. especially N. .– / /3>/ 2  5 :A     1 &%; | 1 A .  2  R0 /9)/ #-  #- /-. | >  " /- @*, ibid. – ^ A / A- #- RA/)/ $. | ^ 2  CH  (A- 2>. The tradition may also have been known to Alcman (n.). There is no reliable evidence for a cult of the Dioscuri in Thebes (so Schachter ( –) i. –). For the Dioscuri in Pindar see further Fehr () –. For myths in Pindar ‘concerning heroes who are “betwixt and between” mortality and immortality’ see Bouvrie (a) .  \ " : elsewhere in Pindar only at P. ., of the successful athlete.   ? ‘mighty Castor’: for other such periphrases in Pindar cf. O. . (Oenomaus), N. . (Phocus), . (Castor), . (Aristagoras), I. . (Memnon); cf. also Maehler on Bacchyl. .. For similar expressions involving 3G in Homer see K–G i. , Wackernagel (–) ii. , Ruijgh () –.   + /: some manuscripts have  D5, which as Pindar probably used scriptio plena is a possible interpretation of the paradosis rather than a manuscript reading proper. For false elision in Pindaric manuscripts see D. C. C. Young () – = Calder and Stern () . With this word Pindar observes or fails to observe the digamma at will (Heimer (–) –, Braswell on P. .(d)); in general see Braswell on P. .(d), N¨othiger ( ) . + / 9%: ‘Pindar . . . enlivens the style by addressing one of a pair directly, but usually the second’ (Gerber on O. .–). For D5 as a title of Castor or Pollux see Hemberg () –. 7A 2 : cf. N. . )/= . . . #A-, also of Castor and Pollux (where see Henry).



C O M M E N TA RY:   –    b    : Therapne was c. . km. south-east of Sparta. Alcman fr.  PMGF =  Calame places their cult there (lines – ]C 0 (sc. N/A) P[)  *- /]- /  = 0- 9[%]; cf. also –  /- [ ]- '( and – " - //[ - . . .]  &)/ &A[(-)], although the plurals here may refer to Menelaus and Helen rather than the Dioscuri). Cf. also Eur. Tro.  (ii. .– Schwartz) MG F> & - /- = 9% > R0 K #W W- /G/S A#  q= /-. V-  (p.  PMGF) &G. Apart from N. .– (cited above,  –n.), Pindar associates the Dioscuri with Therapne at I. . \22- (i.e. Castor) 2   (*- Rn/2 /- MA% t2-. See further Wide () –, B¨olte () –. Therapne was also the site of the ‘Menelaeum’, built around  (cf. Antonaccio () –, Cartledge ()  n. , () , , McCauley ()  n. ), although this may not have been associated with Menelaus as opposed to Helen until rather after it was built ( J. M. Hall () ). Certainly by the early fifth century both Menelaus and Helen were receiving dedications separately there (Antonaccio () ). See further B¨olte (). For t2 of the seat of a divinity cf. O. . AG  2A & t2, ., I. ., Aesch. Ag. , LSJ s.v. I .  - c : for  with the accusative meaning ‘during’ see S–D ii. ; there may also be the idea of a succession of days, as at Soph. Aj. . It is only found in one of the coordinated A . . . 2A clauses; Moorhouse ()  compares Soph. OC –  A&%  t /. |  2   e |)o5% D%.  Y : for MA% in this context cf. I. . (cited above, –n.), N. .  )/0- '/ M/*  C. 5  %: cf. Hes. Th.   0- 9, with West’s n. (‘“Olympus” is here the gods’ settlement at the top of the mountain, not the mountain itself’). For '2 with the genitive in Pindar cf. O. ., .; it takes the dative at N. . and .. According to LSJ s.v. I , Pindar uses it as a strengthened form of , but it is not clear where this extra strength lies.



BIBLIOGRAPHY  ABBREVIATIONS: STANDARD REFERENCE WORKS CA CEG DEG Denniston DGE D–K Drachmann EGF EGM FGE

FGrHist GEF GP

HE IEG IG i IG v/ IG vii

J. U. Powell (ed.) Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford ). P. A. Hansen (ed.) Carmina Epigraphica Graeca,  vols. (Texte und Kommentare ,; Berlin and New York –). P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire ´etymologique de la langue grecque (Paris ). [ st edn. –] J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles , rev. K. J. Dover (Oxford ). [ st edn. ] F. R. Adrados et al. (eds.) Diccionario Griego-Espa˜nol,  vols. to date (Madrid –). H. Diels (ed.) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker ,  vols., rev. W. Kranz (Berlin  –). A. B. Drachmann (ed.) Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina,  vols. (Leipzig –). [Reprinted Stuttgart ] M. Davies (ed.) Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (G¨ottingen ). R. L. Fowler (ed.) Early Greek Mythography,  vol. to date (Oxford –). D. L. Page (ed.) Further Greek Epigrams (revised and prepared for publication by R. D. Dawe and J. Diggle; Cambridge ). F. Jacoby et al. (eds.) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin et al. –). M. L. West (ed.) Greek Epic Fragments. From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC (London and Cambridge, Mass. ). A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (eds.) The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams,  vols. (Cambridge ). A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (eds.) The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams,  vols. (Cambridge ). M. L. West (ed.) Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati (Oxford –). [ st edn.  –] D. M. Lewis et al. (eds.) Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores,  vols. (Berlin and New York  –). G. Kolbe (ed.) Inscriptiones Laconiae Messeniae Arcadiae. Fasciculus Prior: Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae (Berlin ). W. Dittenberger (ed.) Inscriptiones Graecae Megaridis Oropiae Boeotiae (Berlin ).



BIBLIOGRAPHY IG xii./

IG xii. suppl. IG xiv

K–B

K–G

LGPN

LS LSJ M–W PCG PEG PLF PMG PMGF P.Oxy. S–D

Slater

F. Hiller de Gaertringen (ed.) Inscriptiones Insularum Maris Aegaei praeter Delum. Fasciculi V Pars Prior: Inscriptiones Cycladum praeter Tenum (Berlin ). F. Hiller de Gaertringen (ed.) Inscriptiones Insularum Maris Aegaei. Supplementum (Berlin ). G. Kaibel (ed.) Inscriptiones Graecae Siciliae et Italiae additis Graecis Galliae Hispaniae Britanniae Germaniae inscriptionibus (Berlin ). R. K¨uhner, Ausf¨uhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Erster Teil: Elementar- und Formenlehre ,  vols., rev. F. Blass (Hannover –). R. K¨uhner, Ausf¨uhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre ,  vols., rev. B. Gerth (Hannover and Leipzig –). P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.) A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Volume : The Aegean Islands. Cyprus. Cyrenaica (Oxford ). Volume : Attica (Oxford ). Volume : The Peloponnese. Western Greece. Sicily and Magna Graecia (Oxford ). Volume : Central Greece from the Megarid to Thessaly (Oxford ). Volume : Macedonia. Thrace. Northern Regions of the Black Sea (Oxford ). H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford ). H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon , rev. H. Stuart-Jones et al. (Oxford ). R. Merkelbach and M. L. West (eds.) Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford ). R. Kassel and C. F. L. Austin (eds.) Poetae Comici Graeci,  vols. to date (Berlin and New York –). A. Bernab´e (ed.) Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta: Pars   (Stuttgart and Leipzig ). E. Lobel and D. L. Page (eds.) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta (Oxford ). [ st edn. ] D. L. Page (ed.) Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford ). M. Davies (ed.) Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta,  vol. to date (Oxford  –). B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt et al. (eds.) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London –). E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik. Auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns griechischer Grammatik,  vols., rev. A. Debrunner (Munich –). W. J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin ).



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E S–M Threatte

B. Snell and H. Maehler (eds.) Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis,  vols. (Leipzig –). L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions,  vols. to date (Berlin and New York –).

 E D I T I O N S O F P I N D A R ’S P Y T H I A N E L E V E N E. Schmid, Wittenberg . C. G. Heyne, G¨ottingen   , – , Leipzig   . J. G. Schneider, Strasburg . F. Gedike, Berlin . A. Boeckh, Leipzig   (with commentary, Leipzig ), Leipzig and Leiden   . F. Thiersch, Leipzig . L. Dissen, Gotha and Erfurt . J. W. Donaldson, London   ,  . F. W. Schneidewin, Gotha  (text), Gotha and Erfurt  (commentary). [Revision of Dissen] T. Bergk, Leipzig   ,   ,  ,  . W.(=G.) G. Cookesley, Eton . J. A. Hartung, Leipzig . C. J. T. Mommsen, Berlin  ,  . F. A. Paley, Cambridge . W. von Christ, Leipzig  ,   ,   ,  . O. H´oman, Leipzig . B. L. Gildersleeve, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago   ,  . O. Schroeder, Leipzig ,  ,   , ,  . L. R. Farnell, London –. B. Snell, Leipzig   ,   ,  ,   . H. Maehler, Leipzig   ,  ,   ,   . [Revision of Snell] B. Gentili, Rome and Milan  (first published as Gentili (); with commentary by P. A. Bernardini). W. H. Race, London and Cambridge, Mass. .

 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E Allen, T. W. Homeri Ilias,  vols. (Oxford  ). Arnott, W. G. Alexis. The Fragments (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries  ; Cambridge ). Austin, C. F. L., and Olson, S. D. Aristophanes. Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford ). Barrett, W. S. Euripides. Hippolytos (Oxford ).



BIBLIOGRAPHY Braswell, B. K. A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Texte und Kommentare ; Berlin and New York ). A Commentary on Pindar Nemean One. With an iconographical appendix by Jean-Marc Moret (Fribourg ). A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine (Texte und Kommentare ; Berlin and New York ). Calame, C. Alcman (Lyricorum Graecorum quae exstant ; Rome ). Campbell, D. A. Greek Lyric Poetry. A Selection of Early Greek Lyric, Elegiac and Iambic Poetry (London, Melbourne, Toronto, New York ). Greek Lyric IV. Bacchylides, Corinna, and others (London and Cambridge, Mass. ). Cannat`a Fera, M. Pindarus. Threnorum Fragmenta (Lyricorum Graecorum quae exstant ; Rome ). Carey, C. A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar. Pythian , Pythian , Nemean , Nemean , Isthmian  (New York  ). Collard, C. Euripides. Supplices,  vols. (Groningen ). Crawley, R. Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War (Everyman’s Library ; London ). Edwards, M. W. The Iliad: a Commentary. Volume V: Books – (Cambridge  ). Erbse, H. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem,  vols. (Berlin –). Finglass, P. J. Sophocles. Electra (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries ; Cambridge ). Flach, J. L. M. Eudociae Augustae Violarium (Leipzig ). Fraenkel, E. D. M. Aeschylus. Agamemnon,  vols. (Oxford ). Friis Johansen, H., and Whittle, E. W. Aeschylus. The Suppliants,  vols. (Copenhagen ). Garvie, A. F. Aeschylus. Choephori (Oxford ). Gerber, D. E. Pindar’s Olympian One. A Commentary (Phoenix Suppl. ; Toronto, Buffalo, London ). A Commentary on Pindar Olympian Nine (Hermes Einzelschriften ; Stuttgart ). Gomme, A. W., and Sandbach, F. H. Menander. A Commentary (Oxford ). Gow, A. S. F. Theocritus,  vols. (Cambridge ). Hainsworth, J. B.: see Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth. Hansen, P. A. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Volumen III.
– (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker  /; Berlin and New York ). Henry, W. B. Pindar’s Nemeans. A Selection (Munich and Leipzig ). Heubeck, A., and Hoekstra, A. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Volume II. Books IX–XVI (Oxford ). Heubeck, A., West, S. R., Hainsworth, J. B. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey. Volume I. Introduction and Books I–VIII (Oxford ).



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E Hoekstra: see Heubeck and Hoekstra. Hornblower, S. A Commentary on Thucydides,  vols. to date (Oxford  –). Hude, C. Herodoti Historiae ,  vols. (Oxford ). Hutchinson, G. O. Aeschylus. Septem contra Thebas (Oxford ). Greek Lyric Poetry. A Commentary on Selected Larger Pieces (Oxford  ). Jebb, R. C. Bacchylides. The Poems and Fragments (Cambridge ). Kambylis, A. Eustathios von Thessalonike Prooimion zum Pindarkommentar (G¨ottingen  ). Lamagna, M. La Donna di Samo (Hellenica et Byzantina Neapolitana ; Naples ). Latte, K. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon [ –  only],  vols. (Copenhagen – ). Leone, P. A. M. Ioannis Tzetzae Historiae (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di filologia classica  ; Naples ). Mader, W. Die Psaumis-Oden Pindars (O.  und O. ). Ein Kommentar (Commentationes Aenipontanae ; Innsbruck ). Maehler, H. Die Lieder des Bakchylides,  vols. (Mnem. Suppl. , ; Leiden, New York, Cologne –). Bacchylides. A Selection (Cambridge ). Mastronarde, D. J. Euripides. Phoenissae (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries ; Cambridge ). Mosshammer, A. A. Georgii Syncelli Ecloga Chronographica (Leipzig ). Nauck, A. Homeri Ilias,  vols. (Berlin –). Nickau, K. Ammonii qui dicitur liber de adfinium vocabulorum differentia (Leipzig ). Nisbet, R. G. M., and Hubbard, M. A Commentary on Horace. Odes Book I (Oxford ). A Commentary on Horace. Odes Book II (Oxford ). Nisbet, R. G. M., and Rudd, N. A Commentary on Horace. Odes Book III (Oxford ). Olson, S. D. Aristophanes. Acharnians (Oxford ). Page, D. L. Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoediae (Oxford ). Pasquali, G. Procli Diadochi in Platonis Cratylum commentaria (Leipzig ). Pfeijffer, I. L. Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar. A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, & Pythian VIII (Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden, Boston, Cologne ). Pouderon, B. Ath´enagore. Supplique au sujet des chr´etiens et sur la r´esurrection des morts (Paris ). Richardson, N. J. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford ). Ros´en, H. B. Herodoti Historiae,  vols. (Stuttgart and Leipzig –). Sandin, P. Aeschylus’ Supplices. Introduction and Commentary on vv.  – (G¨oteborg ). Scheer, E. Lycophronis Alexandra,  vols. (Berlin  –).



BIBLIOGRAPHY Schmidt, M(oritz) Didymi Chalcenteri Grammatici Alexandrini Fragmenta quae supersunt omnia (Leipzig ). Schneider, R., and Uhlig, G. Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt (Grammatici Graeci  ; Leipzig –). Schwartz, E. Scholia in Euripidem,  vols. (Berlin – ). Athenagorae Libellus pro Christianis. Oratio de Resurrectione Cadaverum (Leipzig  ). Severyns, A. Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos (Biblioth`eque de la Facult´e de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Universit´e de Li´ege fascicules , , , ; Li´ege and Paris –). Sier, K. Die lyrischen Partien der Choephoren des Aischylos (Palingenesia ; Stuttgart ). St¨ahlin, O. Clemens Alexandrinus,  vols. (Leipzig –). Tarrant, R. J. Seneca. Agamemnon (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries ; Cambridge ). Thilo, G., and Hagen, H. Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Carmina Commentarii,  vols. (Leipzig –). Valk, M. van der, Eustathii Archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes,  vols. (Leiden  –). Voigt, E.-M. Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta (Amsterdam  ). Weiden, M. J. H. van der, The Dithyrambs of Pindar (Amsterdam  ). West, M. L. Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford ). Hesiod. Works and Days (Oxford ). Theognidis et Phocylidis Fragmenta et adespota quaedam gnomica (Kleine Texte f¨ur ¨ Vorlesungen und Ubungen ; Berlin and New York ). Aeschylus. Tragoediae, corrected version of  edn. (Stuttgart and Leipzig ). Homerus. Ilias,  vols. (Stuttgart, Leipzig, Munich –). Homeric Hymns. Homeric Apocrypha. Lives of Homer (London and Cambridge, Mass. ). West, S. R.: see Heubeck, West, and Hainsworth. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. Aischylos Orestie. Griechisch und Deutsch. Zweites St¨uck. Das Opfer am Grabe (Berlin ).

 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E WITH DATE Ahlert, P. () M¨adchen und Frauen in Pindars Dichtung (Philologus Supplementband , Heft  ; Leipzig). Allen, W. S. () Vox Graeca. The Pronunciation of Classical Greek (Cambridge). [ st edn. ]



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E Alsina, J. () ‘Observaciones sobre la figura de Clitemestra’, Emerita : – . Anastase, S. () Apollon dans Pindare (Athens). Anastasiou, A. A., Skiadas, A. D., and Kambylis, A. () (eds.) a- Y%?   %; . 3AGy. &A% = )G = H 1 W; -’, CQ .. : –. () Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer. A Study of Words and Myths (Oxford). Clayman, D. L. () ‘Corinna and Pindar’, in Rosen and Farrell () (eds.) –.



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E Clinton, H. F. () Fasti Hellenici. The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece from the LVth to the CXXIVth Olympiad  (Oxford). [ st edn. ] Cole, T. () ‘ +  = : Studies in Pindar’s arithmetic’, AJP : –. Conti, M. C. () Il pi`u antico fregio dallo Heraion del Sele. Scultura architettonica e comunicazione visiva (Universit`a degli Studi di Torino, Fondo di Studi Parini-Chirio, Studi e materiali di archeologia ; Florence). Coppola, G. ( ) Introduzione a Pindaro. In appendice: L’Orestas di Corinna in un papiro inedito della societ`a italiana (Scuola di filologia classica dell’universit`a di Roma II.; Rome). Corsano, M. () Themis. La norma e l’oracolo nella Grecia antica (Universit`a degli studi di Lecce Dipartimento di Filologia Classica e Medioevale Supplementi  ; Galatina, Lecce). Corsinus, E. () Dissertationes IV. Agonisticae quibus Olympiorum Pythiorum Nemeorum atque Isthmiorum tempus inquiritur ac demonstratur. Accedit Hieronicarum Catalogus editis longe uberior et accuratior (Florence). ( ) Fasti Attici in quibus Archontum Atheniensium Series Philosophorum aliorumque illustriorum Virorum Aetas atque praecipua Atticae Historiae Capita per Olympicos Annos disposita describuntur novisque observationibus illustrantur. Volumen III (Florence). Crielaard, J. P. () (ed.) Homeric Questions. Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology, including the Papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens ( May ) (Publications of the Netherlands Institute at Athens ; Amsterdam). Cropp, M., Fantham, E., and Scully, S. E. () (eds.) Greek Tragedy and its Legacy. Essays presented to D. J. Conacher (Calgary). Crotty, K. () Song and Action. The Victory Odes of Pindar (Baltimore and London). Currie, B. G. F. () ‘Reperformance scenarios for Pindar’s odes’, in C. J. Mackie () (ed.) –. () Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford). D’Alessio, G. B. () ‘First-person problems in Pindar’, BICS : –. Davidson, J. () ‘Alkmene: mother of a child prodigy’, Scholia : – . Davies, J. K. () ‘The tradition about the First Sacred War’, in Hornblower () (ed.) –. Davies, M. () A Commentary on Stesichorus,  vols. (diss. Oxford). () ‘Aeschylus’ Clytemnestra – sword or axe?’, CQ .. : –. () ‘Corinna’s date revisited’, SIFC  ◦ ser. : –. Defradas, J. () Les th`emes de la propagande Delphique (Paris). [ st edn. ] ´ () Le pronom chez Pindare. Recherches philologiques et critiques Des Places, E. ´ (Etudes et commentaires ; Paris). Devlin, N. G. () The Hymn in Greek Literature: Studies in Form and Content (diss. Oxford).



BIBLIOGRAPHY Dickey, E. () Greek Forms of Address. From Herodotus to Lucian (Oxford). Dickie, M. W. () ‘Hˆesychia and hybris in Pindar’, in Gerber () (ed.) –. Diggle, J. () ‘Marginalia Euripidea’, PCPS .. : –. [= () –] () ‘The Supplices of Euripides’, GRBS :  –. [= () –] () ‘On the Heracles and Ion of Euripides’, PCPS .. : –. [= () –] ( a) Studies on the Text of Euripides (Oxford). ( b) ‘On the Alcestis and Andromache of Euripides’, ICS : – . [= () –] () ‘On the Orestes of Euripides’, CQ .. : –. [= () – ] () Euripidea. Collected Essays (Oxford). Dodwell, H. ( ) De veteribus Graecorum Romanorumque Cyclis, obiterque De Cyclo Judaeorum Aetate Christi, Dissertationes Decem, cum Tabulis Necessariis (Oxford). Dornseiff, F. ( ) Pindars Stil (Berlin). Dougherty, C., and Kurke, L. () (eds.) Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece. Cult, Performance, Politics (Oxford and New York). Dover, K. J. () Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford). D¨urbeck, H. () Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeichnungen (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke Reihe klassische Philologie ; Bonn). D¨uring, I. () ‘Pindarica’, Eranos  :  –. () ‘Klutaimestra – GK- #. A study of the development of a literary motif’, Eranos  :  –. Edwards, M. W. () ‘Convention and individuality in Iliad  ’, HSCP :  –. Egan, R. B. () ‘On the relevance of Orestes in Pindar’s Eleventh Pythian’, Phoenix : –. Eitrem, S. () ‘Varia’, SO : – . ¨ Erbse, H. () ‘Uber Pindars Umgang mit dem Mythos’, Hermes : –. [= () –] () Studien zur griechischen Dichtung (Stuttgart). Farnell, L. R. ( ) Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford). Fehr, K. () Die Mythen bei Pindar (diss. Z¨urich). Figueira, T. J. () (ed.) Spartan Society (Swansea). Finglass, P. J. (a) ‘Erinys or Hundred-hander? Pindar, fr. i(A).– Snell–Maehler = B.– Rutherford (Paean a)’, ZPE : –. (b) ‘Is there a polis in Sophocles’ Electra?’, Phoenix : –. () ‘H and  in Pindar’, Mnemosyne th ser. : –. Finley, J. H. Jr () Pindar and Aeschylus (Martin Classical Lectures ; Cambridge, Mass.).



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E Fisher, N. R. E. () Hybris. A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster). F¨ollinger, S. () Genosdependenzen. Studien zur Arbeit am Mythos bei Aischylos (Hypomnemata ; G¨ottingen). Forsdyke, S. () Exile, Ostracism, and Democracy. The Politics of Expulsion in Ancient Greece (Princeton and Oxford). Forssman, B. () Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars (Klassisch-philologische Studien , Wiesbaden). Fossey, J. M., and Schachter, A. () (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Boiotian Antiquities (Teiresias Supplement  ; Montreal). Fraccaroli, G. () ‘Per la cronologia delle Odi di Pindaro’, Museo Italiano di Antichit`a Classica : –. () Le odi di Pindaro (Verona). ( ) ‘La cronologia di Pindaro’, RFIC : –. Fraenkel, E. D. M. () Horace (Oxford). () ‘“Pindaro senza lacrime”. Dalle esercitazioni di Eduard Fraenkel, Bari ’, Belfagor : –. [ed. R. Roncali; = () –] () Pindaro Sofocle Terenzio Catullo Petronio. Corsi seminariali di Eduard Fraenkel, Bari – (ed. R. Roncali; Sussidi Eruditi ; Rome). Furley, W. D., and Bremer, J. M. ( ) Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum –; T¨ubingen). Gagnepain, J. () Les Noms grecs en –- et en –. Contribution a` l’´etude du genre ´ en indo-europ´een (Etudes et commentaires  , Paris). Gaspar, C. () Essai de chronologie Pindarique (Brussels). Gebhard, E. R. () ‘The beginnings of Panhellenic games at the Isthmus’, in Kyrieleis () (ed.)  –. Gentili, B. () ‘Polemica antitirannica (Pind. Pyth.  ; Aesch. Prom.; Herodt. ,– ; Thuc. ,,)’, QUCC ..  : –. ( ) ‘Verit`a e accordo contrattuale (9)/-) in Pindaro, fr.  Sn.–Maehl.’, ICS : –. (), Poesia e pubblico nella Grecia antica da Omero al V secolo (Rome and Bari). () Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece. From Homer to the Fifth Century, transl. A. T. Cole (Baltimore and London). () ‘La Pitica XI di Pindaro. Testo critico e traduzione’, in Anceschi et al. ()  –. George, C. H. () Expressions of Agency in Ancient Greek (Cambridge). Gerber, D. E. () Emendations in Pindar – (Amsterdam). () ‘Pindar, Pythian .’, GRBS :  –. () (ed.) Greek Poetry and Philosophy. Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury (Chico, Calif.).



BIBLIOGRAPHY () ‘Emendations in the Odes of Pindar: an historical analysis’, in Reverdin and Grange () (eds.)  –. () ‘Short-vowel subjunctives in Pindar’, HSCP  : –. Giannini, P. () ‘Le antiche tradizioni tebane negli epinici di Pindaro’, in Bernardini () (ed.) –. Gloy, K., and Rudolph, E. () (eds.) Einheit als Grundfrage der Philosophie (Darmstadt). Golden, M. () Sport and Society in Ancient Greece (Cambridge). Gorman, V. B., and Robinson, E. W. () (eds.) Oikistes. Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World. Offered in honor of A. J. Graham (Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden, Boston, Cologne). Greengard, C. () The Structure of Pindar’s Epinician Odes (Amsterdam). Grenfell, B. P., and Hunt, A. S. () ‘List of Olympic victors’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri : –. () ‘Pindar, Paeans’, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri :  –. Griffin, J. () ‘Homeric pathos and objectivity’, CQ .. :  –. [≈ () –] () Homer on Life and Death (Oxford). (a) (ed.) Sophocles Revisited. Essays Presented to Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford). (b) ‘Sophocles and the democratic city’, in id. (a) (ed.) –. Groningen, B. A. van () ‘De Pindari carmine Pythio XI◦ ’, Mnemosyne .. : –. () ‘Ad Pindari Pyth. XI VS. ’, Mnemosyne rd ser. : –. () La composition litt´eraire archa¨ıque grecque. Proc´ed´es et r´ealisations (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde. .. .; Amsterdam). G¨unther, H.-C. () Ein neuer metrischer Traktat und das Studium der Pindarischen Metrik in der Philologie der Pal¨aologenzeit (Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden, Boston, Cologne). Guillon, P. () Les tr´epieds du Ptoion (Biblioth`eque des e´ coles fran¸caises d’Ath`enes et de Rome ; Paris). ´ () Etudes b´eotiennes. Le Bouclier d’H´eracl`es et l’histoire de la Gr`ece centrale dans la p´eriode de la premi`ere guerre sacr´ee (Publications des Annales de la Facult´e des Lettres Aix-en-Provence .. ; Aix-en-Provence). H¨agg, R. () (ed.) Ancient Greek Hero Cult. Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, G¨oteborg University,  – April  (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae .; Stockholm). ¨ die Stellung der Enklitika und Quasi-Enklitika bei Pindar und Hajd´u, I. () Uber Bakchylides (Lund). Hall, E. M. () Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy (Oxford).



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E Hall, J. M. () ‘How Argive was the “Argive” Heraion? The political and cultic geography of the Argive plain, – B.C.’, AJA : –. () Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge). Harlfinger, D. () (ed.) x&>G. Festschrift f¨ur Martin Sicherl zum . Geburtstag (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums n.. . Reihe, . Band; Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Z¨urich). Harrie, I. () ‘Zeus Agamemnon in Sparta’, Archiv f¨ur Religionswissenschaft : –. Harris, W. V. () ‘The rage of women’, in Braund and Most () (eds.)  –. Heath, M. () Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford). Heimer, A. (–) ‘Studia Pindarica’, Acta Universitatis Lundensis /:  –. Heimsoeth, F. () ‘Erkl¨arungen zu Pindar’, RhM n.. :  –. Hemberg, B. () _5. D und D/- als G¨otternamen unter besonderer Ber¨ucksichtigung der attischen Kulte (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis ; Uppsala and Wiesbaden). Herington, J. () ‘Pindar’s Eleventh Pythian Ode and Aeschylus’ Agamemnon’, in Gerber () (ed.) –. Hermann, J. G. J. () Emendationes Pindaricae (Leipzig). [= () –] () Opuscula vol. vii (Leipzig). Herring, E., Lemos, I., Lo Schiavo, F., Vagnelti, L., Whitehouse, R., and Wilkins, J. () (eds.) Across Frontiers. Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians & Cypriots. Studies in Honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway (Accordia Specialist Studies on the Mediteranean ; London). Herrmann, H.-V. () Omphalos (Orbis Antiquus ; M¨unster). Hettrich, H. () (ed.) Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektiven (Wiesbaden). Heyne, C. G. ( ) Additamenta ad lectionis varietatem in Pindari carminum editione Gottingensi MDCCLXXIII. notatam (G¨ottingen). Hirzel, R. () Der Name. Ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte im Altertum und besonders bei den Griechen (Abhandlungen der Philologisch-historischen Klasse der S¨achsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften .; Leipzig). [Reprinted Amsterdam ] Hoffmann, M. () (ed.) Briefwechsel zwischen August B¨ockh und Ludolf Dissen Pindar und anderes betreffend (Leipzig). Hooker, J. T. () The Ancient Spartans (London, Toronto, Melbourne). Hornblower, S. () ‘Thucydides’ use of Herodotus’, in Sanders () (ed.)  –. [= his commentary on Thucydides, ii. –] () (ed.) Greek Historiography (Oxford). () Thucydides and Pindar. Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry (Oxford). () ‘Pindar and kingship theory’, in Lewis () (ed.)  –.



BIBLIOGRAPHY Hubbard, T. K. () The Pindaric Mind. A Study of Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry (Mnem. Suppl. , Leiden). () ‘Two notes on the myth of Aeacus in Pindar’, GRBS : –. () ‘Envy and the invisible roar: Pindar, Pythian .’, GRBS  : –  . Hummel, P. () ‘9& - / 9& -. Morphologie e´ tymologique et morphologie formulaire’, RPh  e s´er. : –. () La Syntaxe de Pindar (Biblioth`eque de l’Information grammaticale ; Paris). () ‘Connivence binaire et cr´eativit´e s´erielle: les compos´es a` premier terme superlatif chez Pindare et Bacchylide’, QUCC .. :  –. ´ () L’´epith`ete pindarique. Etude historique et philologique (Sapheneia ; Bern etc.). Hunter, R. L. () ‘Medea’s flight: the fourth book of the Argonautica’, CQ .. : –. Huxley, G. () Pindar’s Vision of the Past (Belfast). Illig, L. () Zur Form der pindarischen Erz¨ahlung. Interpretationen und Untersuchungen (Berlin). Instone, S. J. () ‘Pythian  : did Pindar err?’, CQ .. : –. ´ Irigoin, J. () Histoire du texte de Pindare (Etudes et commentaires ; Paris). Itsumi, K. () ‘The glyconic in tragedy’, CQ .. : –. Jones, F. P. () The Ab Urbe Condita Construction in Greek. A Study in the Classification of the Participle (Supplements to Language vol.  no.  ; Language dissertations no. ; Baltimore). Junker, K. () Der a¨ ltere Tempel im Heraion am Sele. Verzierte Metopen im architektonischen Kontext (Cologne, Weimar, Vienna). Kaimio, M. () ‘Erotic experience in the conjugal bed: good wives in Greek tragedy’, in Nussbaum and Sihvola () (eds.) –. Kambylis, A. () ‘Anredeformen bei Pindar’, in Anastasiou et al. () (eds.) –. Kayser, C. L. () Lectiones Pindaricae (Heidelberg). Keuren, F. van () The Frieze from the Hera I Temple at Foce del Sele (Archaeologica ; Rome). Kienzle, E. () Der Lobpreis von St¨adten und L¨andern in der a¨ lteren griechischen Dichtung (diss. Kallm¨unz). Knab, R. () Die Periodoniken. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agone an den  griechischen Hauptfesten (diss. Gießen). Knox, P. E. () ‘Sappho, fr.  LP and Catullus  : a suggestion’, QUCC .. : –. K¨ohnken, A. ( ) Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar. Interpretationen zu sechs Pindargedichten (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte ; Berlin and New York).



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E () ‘Mythical chronology and thematic coherence in Pindar’s Third Olympian Ode’, HSCP : –. [= () –] () Darstellungsziele und Erz¨ahlungstrategien in antiken Texten (ed. A. Bettenworth; Berlin and New York). Konstan, D., and Rutter, N. K. () (eds.) Envy, Spite and Jealousy. The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh Leventis Studies ; Edinburgh). Kowalzig, B. () Singing for the Gods. Aetiological Myth, Ritual and Locality in Greek Choral Poetry of the Late Archaic Period (diss. Oxford). Krause, J. () kk\7 kk . Untersuchungen zum Motiv des Schicksalswechsels in der griechischen Dichtung bis Euripides (Tuduv Studien ; Munich). Krummen, E. () Pyrsos Hymnon. Festliche Gegenwart und mythisch-rituelle Tradition als Voraussetzung einer Pindarinterpretation (Isthmie , Pythie , Olympie  und ) (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte ; Berlin and New York). Kruse, G. ( ) ‘Melia’, RE / : –. Kugelmeier, C. () Reflexe fr¨uher und zeitgen¨ossischer Lyrik in der alten attischen Kom¨odie (Beitr¨age zur Altertumskunde ; Stuttgart and Leipzig). Kurke, L. ( a) The Traffic in Praise. Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (Ithaca and London). ( b) ‘Fathers and sons: a note on Pindaric ambiguity’, AJP : –. () ‘The economy of kudos’, in Dougherty and Kurke () (eds.)  – . Kurt, C. () Seem¨annische Fachausdr¨ucke bei Homer. Unter Ber¨ucksichtigung Hesiods und der Lyriker bis Bakchylides (Erg¨anzungsheft zur Zeitschrift f¨ur vergleichende Sprachforschung ; G¨ottingen). Kyriakou, P. () ‘Images of women in Pindar’, MD :  –. () ‘A variation of the Pindaric break-off in Nemean ’, AJP : –. Kyrieleis, H. () (ed.) Olympia –.  Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen. Internationales Symposion, Berlin .–. November  (Mainz). Lardinois, A. P. M. H. () Wisdom in Context. The Use of Gnomic Statements in Archaic Greek Poetry (diss. Princeton). ´ Laroche, E. () Histoire de la racine NEM– en grec ancien (Etudes et commentaires ; Paris). Larson, J. () Greek Heroine Cults (Madison, Wis.). Latacz, J. ( ) (ed.) Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. R¨uckblick und Ausblick (Colloquium Rauricum ; Stuttgart and Leipzig). Lefkowitz, M. R. () ‘\
Y 7r
: The first person in Pindar’, HSCP : –. [≈ ( )  – ] () ‘Autobiographical fiction in Pindar’, HSCP : –. [≈ ( ) – ] () ‘The Pindar scholia’, AJP : –. [≈ ( ) –] ( ) First-Person Fictions. Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’ (Oxford).



BIBLIOGRAPHY ¨ aisLehmann, G. A. () ‘Die “politisch-historischen” Beziehungen der Ag¨ ¨ Welt des .–. Jh.s v. Chr. zu Agypten und Vorderasien: einige Hinweise’, in Latacz () (ed.) –. Lehnus, L. () L’inno a Pan di Pindaro (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichit`a ; Milan). () ‘Pindaro: il dafneforico per Agasicle (fr. b Sn.–M.)’, BICS  :  – . Lehrs, K. () De Aristarchi studiis Homericis (Leipzig). Lejeune, M. () Les adverbes grecs en –)/ (Bordeaux). Lesky, A. () ‘Die Schuld der Klytaimestra’, WS ..  : – . Lewis, S. () (ed.) Ancient Tyranny (Edinburgh). Lloyd, W. () Series chronologica, Olympiadum, Pythiadum, Isthmiadum, Nemeadum, quibus veteres Graeci tempora sua metiebantur (Oxford). Lloyd-Jones, P. H. J. () ‘Artemis and Iphigeneia’, JHS : –. [= () –] () Greek Comedy, Hellenistic Literature, Greek Religion, and Miscellanea. The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford). Lloyd-Jones, P. H. J., and Wilson, N. G. () Sophoclea. Studies on the Text of Sophocles (Oxford). Lobeck, C. A. () N\Y sive verborum graecorum et nominum verbalium technologia (K¨onigsberg). Lobel, E. () ‘Corinna’, Hermes : –. Locher, J. P. () Untersuchungen zu E/>- haupts¨achlich bei Homer (Bern). Loewe, R. () ‘Der Nominativ f¨ur den Vokativ im Indogermanischen’, KZ : –. Loscalzo, D. () La parola inestinguibile. Studi sull’epinicio pindarico (Filologia e critica ; Rome). L¨ubbert, F. W. E. () Commentatio de Pindari studiis chronologicis (Bonn). Lyons, D. () Gender and Immortality. Heroines in Ancient Greek Myth and Cult (Princeton). Maas, P. () ‘Die neuen Responsionsfreiheiten bei Bakchylides und Pindar’, Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin : –. () Die neuen Responsionsfreiheiten bei Bakchylides und Pindar (Berlin). Mac´ıa, L. M. () ‘Cronolog´ıa de dos poemas pind´aricos: Nemea VII y P´ıtica XI’, EC vol.  (no. ):  –. Mackie, C. J. () (ed.) Oral Performance and its Context (Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece ; Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden and Boston). Mackie, H. () Graceful Errors. Pindar and the Performance of Praise (Ann Arbor). MacLachlan, B. () The Age of Grace. Charis in Early Greek Poetry (Princeton). Maehler, H. () ‘Bemerkungen zu Pindar’, Hermes : –. () ‘Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch des Satz-Asyndetons bei Bakchylides und Pindar’, in Cannat`a Fera and Grandolini () (eds.) ii.  –.



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E Mann, C. ( ) Athlet und Polis im archaischen und fr¨uhklassischen Griechenland (Hypomnemata ; G¨ottingen). March, J. R. () The Creative Poet. Studies on the Treatment of Myths in Greek Poetry (BICS Suppl. ; London). Martinez, D. G. () ‘T. K¨oln inv. . and erotic 2q/’, ZPE : –. Mazzoldi, S. ( ) Cassandra, la vergine e l’indovina. Identit`a di un personaggio da Omero all’Ellenismo (Filologia e critica ; Pisa and Rome). McCauley, B. () ‘Heroes and power: the politics of bone transferal’, in H¨agg () (ed.) –. M´eautis, G. () Pindare le Dorien (Neuchˆatel). Meursius, J. () Archontes Athenienses, sive de iis, qui Athenis summum istum magistratum obierunt, libri IV (Leiden). Meyer, H. () Hymnische Stilelemente in der fr¨uhgriechischen Dichtung (W¨urzburg). Mezger, F. () Disputationes Pindaricae (Hof). () Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig). Miller, A. M. () ‘Pindaric mimesis: the associative mode’, CJ :  –. Miller, S. G. () ‘The date of the first Pythiad’, Calif. Stds. in Class. Phil.  : –. () Ancient Greek Athletics (New Haven and London). Molinos Tejada, T. () Los Dorismos del Corpus Bucolicorum (Classical and Byzantine Monographs ; Amsterdam). Mommsen, C. J. T. () Pindaros. Zur Geschichte des Dichters und der Parteik¨ampfe seiner Zeit (Kiel). () Scholia Thomana-Tricliniana in Pindari Pythia V–XII ex cod. Florentino edita (Frankfurt am Main). Moorhouse, A. C. () The Syntax of Sophocles (Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden). Moretti, L. () Olympionikai. I vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche ◦ ser. ; Rome). Morwood, J. ( ) ‘A note on the Euripus in Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis’, CQ ..  : –. Mosshammer, A. A. () ‘The date of the first Pythiad – again’, GRBS : –. Most, G. W. (a) The Measures of Praise. Structure and Function in Pindar’s Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes (Hypomnemata ; G¨ottingen). (b) ‘Der verschieden gesinnten Sinnesverbindung: zur poetischen Einheit der Alten’, in Gloy and Rudolph () (eds.)  –. () ‘Epinician envies’, in Konstan and Rutter () (eds.) –. Nagy, G. () Pindar’s Homer. The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore and London). Neblung, D. () Die Gestalt der Kassandra in der antiken Literatur (Beitr¨age zur Altertumskunde ; Stuttgart and Leipzig).



BIBLIOGRAPHY Neschke, A. () ‘L’Orestie de St´esichore et la tradition litt´eraire du myth des Atrides avant Eschyle’, AC : – . Newman, F. S. () ‘The relevance of the myth in Pindar’s eleventh Pythian’, Hellenika  : –. Newman, J. K. () ‘Pindar, Solon and jealousy: political vocabulary in the Eleventh Pythian’, ICS : –. Nierhaus, R. () Strophe und Inhalt im Pindarischen Epinikion (Neue Deutsche Forschungen  (Abteilung klassische Philologie ); Berlin). Nieto Hern´andez, M. P. () ‘Heracles and Pindar’, Metis : –. Nisetich, F. J. () ‘Olympian .– : an epinician metaphor’, HSCP : –. Norden, E. () Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formen-Geschichte religi¨oser Rede (Leipzig and Berlin). () Dio Ignoto. Ricerche sulla storia della forma del discorso religioso, transl. C. O. Tommasi Moreschini (Brescia). Norwood, G. () Pindar (Sather Classical Lectures ; Berkeley and Los Angeles). N¨othiger, M. ( ) Die Sprache des Stesichorus und des Ibycus (Z¨urich). Nussbaum, M. C., and Sihvola, J. () (eds.) The Sleep of Reason. Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome (Chicago and London). Page, D. L. () Corinna (London). Papalas, A. J. ( ) ‘Boy athletes in ancient Greece’, Stadion : –. Parisinou, E. () The Light of the Gods. The Role of Light in Archaic and Classical Greek Cult (London). Parker, L. P. E. () The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford). ( ) ‘Consilium et ratio? Papyrus A of Bacchylides and Alexandrian metrical scholarship’, CQ ..  : –. Parker, V. () ‘Bemerkungen zum ersten Heiligen Kriege’, RhM n.. : –. Pauw, J. C. de () Notae in Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia (Utrecht). Pavese, C. O. () ‘La decima e la undecima Pitica di Pindaro’, in Balanza and C`assola Guida () (eds.) –. () I temi e i motivi della lirica corale ellenica (Filologia e critica ; Pisa and Rome). Pearce, M. () ‘On Acheron’s shore? Echoes of Greek belief and practice in the north Italian Final Bronze and Early Iron Ages’, in Herring et al. () (eds.)  –. ´ P´eron, J. () Les images maritimes de Pindare (Etudes et commentaires ; Paris). (–) ‘Le th`eme du phthonos dans la XIe Pythique de Pindare (v. –, v. –)’, REA –: –. () ‘Pindare et la tyrannie d’apr`es la XIe Pythique’, REG :  – . Perrotta, G. () Saffo e Pindaro. Due Saggi Critici (Bari). Peter, G.(W.) A. () De Dialecto Pindari (Halle).



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E Pettersson, M. () Cults of Apollo at Sparta. The Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae .; Stockholm). Pfeijffer, I. L. () ‘Athletic age categories in victory odes’, Nikephoros  :  –. Pfister, F. () ‘Epiphanie’, RE Supplementband : –. Pini, G. () ‘Osservazioni sulla Pitica XI’, SIFC .. : –. ´ Poltera, O. () Le langage de Simonide. Etude sur la tradition po´etique et son renouvellement (Sapheneia  ; Bern). Poultney, J. W. () ‘Non-concinnity in Pindar’, AJP :  –. Pretagostini, R. () (ed.) Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’et`a ellenistica. Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili,  vols. (Rome). Race, W. H. () ‘Some digressions and returns in Greek authors’, CJ :  –. () ‘Aspects of rhetoric and form in Greek hymns’, GRBS : –. () ‘Negative expressions and Pindaric ’, TAPA : –. (a) ‘Climactic elements in Pindar’s verse’, HSCP : –. (b) ‘Elements of style in Pindaric break-offs’, AJP : –. (c) ‘The six crowns at Pindar, Isthmian .–’, GRBS : –. () Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes (American Classical Studies ; Atlanta). () ‘How Greek poems begin’, YCS : –. () ‘Framing hyperbata in Pindar’s Odes’, CJ :  –. () ‘Pindar’s Olympian  revisited post Bundy’, HSCP : –. Radermacher, L. () ‘Synizese von Iota’, Philologus : –. Rauchenstein, R. () ‘Ueber die tendenz und die zeit der elften pythischen ode Pindars’, Philologus : – . () ‘Zu Pindaros’, Philologus : – . () ‘Zu Pindar’, Philologus : –. Reden, S. von () ‘Deceptive readings: poetry and its value reconsidered’, CQ .. : –. Redfield, J. () ‘The proem of the Iliad: Homer’s art’, CP : –. Reichel, M., and Rengakos, A. () (eds.) EPEA PTEROENTA. Beitr¨age zur Homerforschung. Festschrift f¨ur Wolfgang Kullmann zum . Geburtstag (Stuttgart). Reiter, G. () Die griechischen Bezeichnungen der Farben Weiss, Grau und Braun. Eine Bedeutungsuntersuchung (Commentationes Aenipontanae ; Innsbruck). Reverdin, O., and Grange, B. () (eds.) Pindare (Fondation Hardt Entr´etiens  ; Geneva). Robbins, E. () ‘Pindar’s Oresteia and the tragedians’, in Cropp et al. () (eds.)  –. Rocchi, M. () Kadmos e Harmonia: un matrimonio problematico (Storia della Religioni ; Rome). Rosen, R. M., and Farrell, J. () (eds.) Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald (Ann Arbor).



BIBLIOGRAPHY R¨uedi, E. H. () Vom 672- zum " $G-. Eine Studie zu den verbalen Rektionscomposita auf –- / –G- (Z¨urich). ´ ement ach´een dans la langue ´epique (Bibliotheca classica Ruijgh, C. J. () L’El´ Vangorcumiana ; Assen). ´ ( ) Autour de “ / ´epique”. Etudes sur la syntaxe grecque (Amsterdam). () ‘D’Hom`ere aux origines proto-myc´eniennes de la tradition e´ pique. Analyse dialectologique du langage hom´erique, avec un excursus sur la cr´eation de l’alphabet grec’, in Crielaard () (ed.)  –. Rutherford, I. ( ) Pindar’s Paeans. A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre (Oxford). Sadurska, A. () Les Tables Iliaques (Warsaw). Salapata, G. () ‘Myth into cult: Alexandra / Kassandra in Lakonia’, in Gorman and Robinson () (eds.)  –. Salvador Castillo, J. A. () k. Un estudio del l´exico vegetal en P´ındaro (Zaragoza). Sanders, J. M. () (ed.) xkkY
. Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (London). Scaliger, J. J. () Opus Novum de Emendatione Temporum in Octo Libros Tributum (Paris). () Opus de Emendatione Temporum (Geneva). Schachter, A. () ‘A Boeotian cult type’, BICS :  –. ( –) Cults of Boiotia,  vols. (BICS Suppl. ; London). () (ed.) Essays in the Topography, History and Culture of Boiotia (Teiresias Suppl. ; Montreal) () ‘The Daphnephoria of Thebes’, in Bernardini () (ed.) –. Schadewaldt, W. () Der Aufbau des Pindarischen Epinikion (Schriften der K¨onigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse . Jahr, Heft ; Halle). Scheller, M. ( ) Die Oxytonierung der griechischen Substantiva auf –¯α (Z¨urich). Schmidt, E. G. ( ) (ed.) Aischylos und Pindar. Studien zu Werk und Nachwirkung (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike ; Berlin). Schmidt, L. () ‘Zur Chronologie der pindarischen Gedichte’, in Bardt et al. () –. Sch¨onberger, J. K. () ‘%$’, Glotta : –. Schroeder, O. () Pindars Pythien (Berlin and Leipzig). Scodel, R. () ‘Self-correction, spontaneity, and orality in archaic poetry’, in Worthington () (ed.) –. Segal, C. P. () ‘Synaesthesia in Sophocles’, ICS : –. Sevieri, R. () ‘Un canto sul far della sera. Autoreferenzialit`a e mimesi culturale nella Pitica XI di Pindaro per Trasideo di Tebe’, Aevum Antiquum : –.



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E () ‘Un eroe in cerca d’identit`a: Oreste nella Pitica XI di Pindaro per Trasideo di Tebe’, MD : –. () ‘The imperfect hero: Xenophon’s Hiero as the (self-)taming of a tyrant’, in Tuplin () (ed.) –. Siewart, P. () (ed.) Ostrakismos–Testimonien I. Die Zeugnisse antiker Autoren, der Inschriften und Ostraka u¨ ber das athenische Scherbengericht aus vorhellenistischer Zeit (– v. Chr.) (Historia Einzelschriften ; Stuttgart). Simpson, M. () ‘Pindar’s Ninth Olympian’, GRBS : –. Singor, H. W. () ‘The Achaean wall and the seven gates of Thebes’, Hermes :  – . Slater, W. J. () ‘Doubts about Pindaric interpretation’, CJ : – . () ‘Pindar’s myths: two pragmatic explanations’, in Bowersock et al. () (eds.) –. Smith, B. H. () Poetic Closure. A Study of How Poems End (Chicago and London). Sourvinou-Inwood, C. () ‘Reading’ Greek Death. To the End of the Classical Period (Oxford). Steiger, H. () ‘Warum schrieb Euripides seine Elektra?’, Philologus :  – . Steiner, D. () The Crown of Song. Metaphor in Pindar (London). Steinkopf, G. () Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Ruhmes bei den Griechen (W¨urzburg). Stockert, W. () Klangfiguren und Wortresponsion bei Pindar (Dissertationen der Universit¨at Wien ; Vienna). Stoneman, R. ( a) ‘Fidele silentium. A Pindaric motif in Horace’, in Schmidt () (ed.) –. ( b) ‘Ploughing a garland: metaphor and metonymy in Pindar’, Maia .. : –. Strunk, K. () ‘Dorisches und Hyperdorisches’, Glotta : –. Suerbaum, W., Maier, F., and Thome, G. () (eds.) Festschrift f¨ur Franz Egermann zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Februar  (Munich). Sullivan, S. D. ( ) ‘The wider meaning of psyche in Pindar and Bacchylides’, SIFC  o ser. : –. () ‘Aspects of the “fictive I” in Pindar: address to psychic entities’, Emerita : –. Sulzberger, M. () € $. Les noms propres chez Hom`ere et dans la mythologie grecque’, REG :  –. Sulzer, A.-I. ( ) Yk\  k
7N7 N

\a . Zur Wortstellung und Satzbildung bei Pindar (Z¨urich). Tafel, T. L. F. (–) Dilucidationum Pindaricarum Volumina Duo (Berlin).



BIBLIOGRAPHY Theiler, W. ( ) Die zwei Zeitstufen in Pindars Stil und Vers, Schriften der K¨onigsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, . Jahr Heft  (Halle (Saale)) –. Thommen, L. () ‘Spartas Umgang mit der Vergangenheit’, Historia : –. Thomson, G. () ‘Bad bronze’, CR : –. Tuplin, C. () (ed.) Xenophon and his World. Papers from a Conference held in Liverpool in July  (Historia Einzelschriften ; Stuttgart). Turyn, A. () De Codicibus Pindaricis (Polska Akademja Umieje tno´sci Archiwum Filologiczne  ; Cracow). Valk, M. van der () ‘Observations in connection with Aristophanes’, in Cantarella et al. () –. Vallozza, M. () ‘Il motivo dell’invidia in Pindaro’, QUCC ..  : –. Verdenius, W. J. () ‘  ’, Mnemosyne th ser. : –. Verdier, C. () Les ´eolismes non-´epiques de la langue de Pindare (Innsbrucker Beitr¨age zur Sprachwissenschaft ; Innsbruck). Visser, E. () Homers Katalog der Schiffe (Stuttgart and Leipzig). Vivante, P. () ‘Pindar, Pythian XI,  – ’, in Fossey and Schachter () (eds.)  –. Von der M¨uhll, P. () ‘Wurde die elfte Pythie Pindars  oder  gedichtet?’, MH :  –. [= () – ] () Ausgew¨ahlte Kleine Schriften, ed. B. Wyss (Schweizerische Beitr¨age zur Altertumswissenschaft Heft ; Basel). Vott´ero, G. () Le dialecte b´eotien ( e s.– e s. av. J.-C.). I. L’´ecologie du dialecte ´ (Etudes anciennes ; Nancy). Wackernagel, J. () ‘Genetiv und Adjektiv’, in Bally et al. () –. [= (–) ii. –] (–) Vorlesungen u¨ ber Syntax: mit besonderer Ber¨ucksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch,  vols. (Basel). (–) Kleine Schriften,  vols. (G¨ottingen). Wærn, I. ( ) r  \7. The Kenning in Pre-Christian Poetry (Uppsala). Wathelet, P. () Les traits ´eoliens dans la langue de l’´epop´ee grecque (Incunabula Graeca ; Rome). Watkins, C. () How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics (Oxford and New York). () ‘7
7
 7  . Poetic grammar: word order and metrical structure in the odes of Pindar’, in Hettrich () (ed.) –. Watkiss Lloyd, W. () ‘On the eleventh of Pindar’s Pythian Odes’, Classical Museum : –. West, M. L. () ‘Corinna’, CQ .. : –. () Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte ; Berlin and New York).



 WO R K S C I T E D B Y A U T H O R ’ S N A M E W I T H D A T E () Greek Metre (Oxford). () The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women. Its Nature, Structure, and Origins (Oxford). () ‘Dating Corinna’, CQ .. : –. () The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford). () ‘The view from Lesbos’, in Reichel and Rengakos () (eds.) – . Wide, S. C. A. () Lakonische Culte (Leipzig). Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von ( ) ‘Die sieben Tore Thebens’, Hermes :  –. [= (–) v/ –] () Aristoteles und Athen,  vols. (Berlin). ( ) Hieron und Pindar (Sitzungsberichte der k¨oniglich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften : –; Berlin). [= (–) vi. –] () Pindaros (Berlin). (–) Kleine Schriften,  vols. (Berlin and Amsterdam). Will, E. () ‘Notes sur )>-’, in Bingen et al. () (eds.) –. Woodbury, L. E. () ‘Pindar and the mercenary Muse: Isthm. . –’, TAPA : –. [= ( ) –] () ‘The gratitude of the Locrian maiden: Pindar, Pyth. .–’, TAPA : –. [= ( )  –] ( ) Collected Writings, ed. C. G. Brown et al. (Atlanta). Worthington, I. () (ed.) Voice into Text. Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece (Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden, New York, Cologne). W¨ust, E. () Pindar als geschichtschreibender Dichter. Interpretationen der  vorsizilischen Siegeslieder des sechsten Paians und der zehnten olympischen Ode (diss. T¨ubingen). Young, D(ouglas) C. C. () ‘Some types of scribal error in manuscripts of Pindar’, GRBS : – [= Calder and Stern () (eds.) –] Young, D(avid). C. () ‘Pindaric criticism’, The Minnesota Review : – . [Reprinted and revised in Calder and Stern () (eds.)  –] () Three Odes of Pindar. A Literary Study of Pythian  , Pythian , and Olympian  (Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden). ( ) Pindar Isthmian , Myth and Exempla (Mnem. Suppl. ; Leiden).



INDEX OF SUBJECTS ab urbe condita construction:  accentuation not part of paradosis: ,  , ,  H, : 

&-: – with demonstrative:  Acheron:  adjective, in place of genitive:  Aeschylus, Oresteia relationship with Pindar, Pythian Eleven:  –, – Agamemnon cult of: – reasons for death: – returns home only to be killed:  weapon used in killing:  Alcmene: , ,  Amyclae: – apocope:  Ares:  Boeotians and tripods: – stupid:  Cadmus: – Cassandra:  , , –,  Castor and Pollux: –,  Cirrha:  Clytemnestra adultery of: , ,  associated with Helen:  death briefly described:  identified with snake?  motivation for killing Agamemnon: –, ,  tries to kill Orestes: – weapon used to kill Agamemnon: 

Corinna date of:  Orestas: – crown as metaphor:  as prize:  Daphnephoria: – Dardanus, Dardanians:  death black:  far from home:  journey of:  Delphi, navel of earth:  envy: –,  Erinyes:  Euripus:  Foce del Sele, temple at: – gnomai: – gold, associated with gods:  Harmonia:  hearth:  Helen:  Hippocleas of Pelinna:  hospitality: ,  hymnic features: , , ,  begin Pindaric odes:  imitation:  Ino: , –,  Iolaus: – Iphicles:  Iphigenia, sacrifice of: , , ,  Ismenium: ,  Laconia home of Atreids: , , –



INDEX OF SUBJECTS manuscripts: –,  and paradosis: –, , , ,  errors (real or alleged) anagrammatisation:  confusion of: case: , : comparative/ superlative: : gender: : letters: //G: : //: : G/: : G/: : )/ : : tense: , : word division: : word order: : words: 2A/2F: : 4/: :  >-// >-:  dittography:  false elision:  haplography:  intrusion of: augment: : 2A: : : : gloss: , , : iota: added: , : lost: : omission of: 2A: : Doric alpha: : final nu: , , : word: ,  Megacles of Athens: – Melia: – metre etc. aeolic base:  colometry: – dochmius kaibelianus:  hypodochmiac:  iota, consonantalised:  metrical licence with proper names:  , ,  names of cola:  – patterning:  prosody:  resolution, rare in choriamb:  responsion, strictness of: – synizesis: , –,  moderation: , 

Nereids:  nouns accusative in –A:  triple: – dative of cause:  genitive ablatival:  after 9%:  of aim:  of price:  of quality:  nominative in –- as vocative:  vocative with attribute:  with l:  Olympus:  Orestes killing of Clytemnestra: ,  links with Thrasydaeus: – nurse of: , , –,  present at death of father: , , ,  presentation of: – orthography etc. /M-:  )=-:  2P!-:  Y2:  Y F :   />-: 
>-: 

&-: – papyri: ,  path of song:  periphrasis:  Philinus of Cos:  Pindar a bungler?  familiar to Aeschylus, Athens: – first-person, use of: , , 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS names father of boy victor:  Pythian Eleven and contemporary history: –,  , –,  date: – Grundgedanke? – myth:–: begins strophe: : begins with crucial point: : begins with relative pronoun: –: ends with death: : function: –: gnomai in: –: ring composition in: , –: speeds up towards end: –: structure: –,  : transitions: , , – occasion:  – performance context: – plurals, use of:  praises speed:  relationship with Aeschylus’ Oresteia:  –, – relationship with Stesichorus’ Oresteia:  result of conspicuous expenditure: – spontaneity, apparent: , ,  structure: –, – tyranny in: – negative exemplum, use of:  – prayers in:  restained persona in Thebes:  Pollux: see Castor and Pollux punctuation:  Pylades:  Pythian games chronology: – victor lists:  Pythonicus associated with son:  attestation of name:  commissioned ode? –

named after father’s victory:  named in ode:  won no victories:  races, competitions boys’:  diaulos:  – nakedness in:  stadion:  – victory in by older man:  son named after:  Semele: , ,  soul, journey of to Underworld:  – Stesichorus, Oresteia relationship with Pindar, Pythian Eleven:  style alliteration:  ambiguity:  apostrophe:  ascending tricolon:  asyndeton explanatory: ,  with first-person utterances:  climax:  ,  compression: , , – enallage:  hyperbaton: , ,  imagery: , ,  ,  juxtaposition:  kenning:  questions, frantic: –, – recapitulation: ,  tmesis:  variety: ,  word-order, effective: , , , , ,  Thrasydaeus: and Daphnephoria: – boy victor: – father: see Pythonicus



INDEX OF SUBJECTS Thrasydaeus: (cont.) from victorious family: – links with Orestes: – Thebes cults: , –, , ,  heroes, heroines:  seven-gated:  Therapnae: ,  tripods: – Troy destroyed by fire:  wealthy:  truth, in archaic poetry:  tyranny and athletics:  disclaimed by poets: –

verb aorist of punctual action: ,  in –5–: – imperfect, durative:  subjunctive, with short vowel:  victor attracts envy: – crowns hearth, homeland:  desires fame:  family glorified:  name delayed in ode:  overcomes old age:  radiance of:  T3- of:  (- of: 

Underworld journey to:  – rivers of:  well-shadowed: –

women, young ought to preserve family line: – prone to adultery: 



INDEX OF GREEK :3> G-:  D2 -:  D -:  D-: ,  " -:  D-, repeated:  "/–:  "9%:  "&:  "A%:  D5:  D: ,  U:  " #>-:  D G: – D& -:  3:  3A%:  #9-: – 2q%:  2A equivalent to #:  followed by D:  preceded by /:  versus /:  2F:  2&A%:  2%: – 2>-:  2>5:  t2:  /M-:   + acc.: – '2:  '(-:  :  -:  –

%: – /C&9: – e:  J%Z-:  ^%-:  )%:  2P!-:  )=-:  E/>-: – ƒF:  >#-:  -:   3%:  Y:   >-:  q%:  >-:   G:  >, 9: ,   />-:  %$: – A(-:  9%:  :  A, with /: ,  )>-:  N*:  A:  H, :  5>-:  MA%:  Q: 



INDEX OF GREEK @#/F-:  Q, Q:  I#F:  Q:  [ /: 

position of:  versus 2A:  with A: , 

/%: 

W/, G>): 

G:  : ,  –:  /:  A%:  >-: – 9& -:  > /:  9-: 

T3-:  R#-, R–: – R>: –

 2:  –   >-:  9: ,   )G:  &q%: 

%: 

/ followed by 2A: 

&%:  &)>-: –, ,  &A#/:  &:  (>-: – (-: ,  (>-: – (>-:  n(F:  V- [ /: 



INDEX LOCORUM Aeschylus Cho. : ,  Suppl. –:  Anacreon fr.  PMG:  Apollonius Rhodius .–:  Bacchylides .:  .–:  Corinna fr.  PMG: – Homer, Il. .: 

Pausanias ..:  ..–: ,  Pindar O. .–:  O. . :  N. .:  N. :  I. .–: ,  Proclus Chrest. – = i.  – Severyns: – Solon fr.  IEG:  Thucydides ..:  Tzetzes on Lyc. Alex.  = ii. . Scheer: 

