LITE dey (Se CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY TTINAAPOY ETTINIKOI ISOMIONIKAIS. THE ISTHMIAN ODES OF PINDAR TINAAPOY ETTINIKO! ISOMIONIKAIS. THE ISTHMIAN ODES OF PINDAR EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY BY J. B. BURY, M.A, FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, EDITOR OF THE NEMEAN ODES OF PINDAR. Dondon: MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK. 1892 [The Right of Translation is reserved.] pera Ge Se Se ete / CORNELL "UNIVERE: TY} . LIBRARY : ivye : AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. Las TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Preface , : ‘ : i z ‘4 z ; . ; vii Introduction. ; ‘ , ; 5 3 : ; “ i xv Text and Notes . : 3 ‘ ‘ 2 2 ; : ‘ 1 Appendix A, péev—re . ‘ : ‘ ; 5 5 ‘ 153 » B, Thrasybulus and the Sixth Pythian . . . . 162 3 C, Note on Jsthmian ii. 8. ‘ : a ‘ ‘ 166 3 D, Jsthmian iii. (A and B) ‘ ‘ : : ‘ . 167: ‘ E, Dates of Jsthmians iv. and v. . ‘ : ‘ ; 173 5 F, dperd, Isthmian iv. 17 . ‘ : ; ‘ . - 176 3 G, Note on Lsthmian iv. 59 . : ‘ z : : 177 - H, The Preposition dva . : 4 : i ‘ - 178 5 I, The Battles of Salamis and Himera_. ‘ : 186 Index I. Greek . : j ; a; : : ‘ ‘ ‘ - 189 » II. English . . j ‘ . . ‘ . ‘ ; 193 ADDENDA. P. 11. In fourth line of note on v. 7, after ‘down’ insert ‘ is.’ P. 75. In note on zw. 55, at foot of first column, after the words *-yata is never found in the plural,’ insert ‘except in the genitive ya:dw» which occurs in Homer.’ PREFACE. i Biase cone critics who disapproved of the theory of verbal responsions, which formed an express feature in my edition of the Nemean Odes, may not be pleased at seeing that aid, as I conceive it, to interpretation reappearing in this edition of the Isthmian, which is planned on the same lines. But they will find that this “ perilous stuff” has been more seldom introduced into the commentary, in deference to the judgment both of those who are entirely deaf to the echoes, and of those who, though willing to allow that such echoes are sometimes audible, think that I have carried the method to extremes. While I readily admit that in many particular cases I may have pressed into the service of interpretation resemblances which may be no more than fortuitous coincidences, I still think that word-signals were used by Pindar and are often xpumtat «raises to the arguments of his hymns. The chief objections, which have been urged by some of my learned reviewers against the theory, were foreseen and therefore less disconcerting. On some future occasion I hope to consider them at length. But there is an important distinction touching these signals which I omitted to draw before and on which a few remarks will be in place here. The following question may be asked. Were the signals intended to be audible,—like the rhythm itself for example; or were they a secret writing, meant only for the interpreter, and to be discarded, like a scaffolding, when the riddle of the ode was read? Some responsions could hardly escape the notice of the most casual listener, and these were assuredly intended to be noticed. But in regard to the great number, it must be said B. IL b viii PREFACE. that they are invisible signals which the student discovers only by curious attention and which do not, and are not meant to, contribute to the artistic effect of the poem. If any one denies their existence, explaining them as freaks of chance, we have of course no absolute proof to offer. This lies in the nature of all questions of intention. Nothing short of an express declaration from Pindar himself or one of his contemporaries could settle the question definitively. The probability of the theory rests on the occurrence of echoes which might reasonably be intentional signals in every ode, and the fact that they have in many cases sug- gested satisfactory solutions of the difficulties which had hitherto beset the arguments. But it may be shewn further that the conditions under which Pindar’s lyric poetry was produced were not unfavourable to the employment of what might be called invisible signals. Readers of Pindar, puzzled to find their way through the “dedal” chambers, as he might have said himself, of an epinician palace, must have often wondered whether the Aeginetan or the Sicilian victor was able to trace the thought and comprehend the argument without a clew or a guide. The contemporary doubt- less could perceive at once special allusions which escape us ; but if we were told that the Greeks themselves did not find the same difference in difficulty as we between an ode of Pindar and, say, an ode of Euripides, the tale would pass our belief. We cannot imagine that the applications of the myths, in which Boeckh and his successors have found such serious difficulties, were obvious by the light of nature to the quires who sang the odes, or to the audience whom the music charmed. It would be perverse to suppose that, because hymns were sung at festive meetings and appreciated by the people, the trains of thought were therefore easy for a casual listener to follow. Even for a modern reader the charm of Pindar’s Odes does not depend on his comprehension of their arguments ; much less can it have been so for those who heard them sung to music by young men dancing. The cadences of the lofty rhyme, the succession of pictures which are called up before the eyes, the echoes of Delphic wisdom,—like some rich but temperate harmony of sound and colour,—may enchant one, at the first vision, into forgetting every curious question of argument and unity. But PREFACE. ix in the end one must come to analyse; and it may safely be held that the analysis was not, generally, self-evident to the contem- poraries of Pindar. The epinician odes required some exposition then as well as now. And the exposition of his hymns devolved upon the poet himself. It must not be forgotten that Pindar did not compose like a modern lyrist, who writes with regard only to the sense and sound of the words’. He might rather be compared to the ideal composer of operas, who should be at once a poet and a musician, and a master of orchestric effects. In building up his elaborate odes at Thebes, he had to combine, under the guidance of a sovran rhythm, the words, the music, and the motions of the dance. His fabric of song arose, like the Theban walls them- selves, stone by vocal stone, to the sound of lyres and flutes ; and the verses, as he set them, vibrated to the fall of dancers’ feet. And this harmony of the Arts, which was wrought out in his imagination, was to be realised under his direction. The poet was not merely required to compose the hymn; he was expected to train the chorus and preside at the performance. In the case of his own presence being rendered impossible by other engagements, it was incumbent on him to provide and instruct a competent chorodidaskalos and choregos to take his place. The chorus which performed the First Isthmian at Thebes probably studied their parts under the guidance of Pindar himself; but the Second Isthmian was sent to Thrasybulus by the hands of one Nicasippus. A full explanation of the argument of an ode, necessary to its intelligent performance, must have been one of the first things that the teacher of a chorus had to 1 The expression dvaiipdpuryyes tuvor (O/. 11. 1) is sometimes quoted to prove that the music was subordinate to the words. But the received rendering of this expression is erroneous. It assuredly does not mean “hymns lords of the lyre,” but “hymns that awaken the lyre.” According to the laws of Greek com- position dvatipépuryE can come from dvdyw just as well as from dvdoow, and that it does come from dvayw is confirmed by the only other compound of the kind, dva&ddpa, an epithet of Demeter preserved by Hesychius and explained 7 dvdyouca dpa. For dvayeuw “‘awaken,”’ it is enough to cite /s//. 111. (B) 22 éx Aexdwy dvdvye. Papay marhady, and Jsth. V. 62 dva 8 dyaryov és pdos olay potpay tuvwv. The figure of awakening the lyre is familiar; I need only refer to Mem, X. 21 @yerpe AUpay (suscita lyram). 2 Tn fact chorodidaskalos was almost equivalent to a lyric poet. Cp. the ad- mirable exposition of A. Croiset, Za poésie de Pindare, p. 96. 62 x PREFACE. impart. There was no difficulty in this, when the odes were sung under the direct supervision of Pindar or a substitute whom he instructed. But how was the key to those things which needed exposition to be handed down after the death of the composer? The same question met workers in another art, the painters of vases, whose pictures frequently required some explanation of the subject. They solved it by the device of introducing into the picture itself the names of the figures. We thus learn who each figure is, but once we have grasped the subject, we take no more thought of the letters and ignore their presence on the clay. The names are in the picture, but not of it. In the same way it might have seemed desirable to make provision for transmitting the interpretation of hymns, in which the bearings of the myth were not always evident even at the second glance,--nay were sometimes, one might think, scru- pulously concealed,—through some device of clews or hints, contained in the poem itself yet not belonging to it, like the names of the vase-figures. The echoes I suppose to have been such a device, intended to assist the study of the odes and as a technical aid to memory, yet not supposed to be there. It is as if the architect of some building of complicated structure inscribed clews to the symmetry of his design, small letters or signs on certain stones, only visible when you came quite close, and forming no part of the design itself. We are to set aside the invisible sign, when we have made use of it in close quarters, and, remembering only what we have learned from it, step back again to view the whole structure in the new light. For example in the ode to Herodotus (/sthmian 1.) the signal of d\ufepxéa (V.9) to ados in the same metrical place (V. 37) suggests that the victory of Herodotus in the games of the Sea-god is to be set beside the misfortune of his father’s ships on the ocean. Securing this idea, but discarding from our minds the signal which called our attention to it, we read the poem again; and its motive, the victory of the Theban charioteer, wins a new feature, as a compensation for the father’s calamity granted by Poseidon to the son. But these invisible signs must be distinguished from signs written large, which strike the eye at a distance, as pleasing details in the artistic structure. It requires no curious study to notice in the Sixth Isthmian that the same word is used of the ’ PREFACE. x1 death of Strepsiades at Tanagra—evav0é amémvevaoas adixiav— and of the garland which his nephew hoped to win at the Pythian games—otédavov evavOéa. Here the echo, suggesting a contrast between the “crown of death” and the “crown of victory,” as we might attempt to render it in English, is a distinct grace in the poem. But even if it be conceded that the signals are there and that they were put there as a help to tracing out the argument of the hymns,—as a technical help to chorodidaskaloi and chore- goi—it is impossible for a modern inquirer to be always sure that he spells them aright. The interpretations which Mezger or I have ventured to base on them are only first attempts to read the secret writing ; and, for my part, I am far indeed from supposing that the views which I put forward as to the arguments could be more than preliminary essays, full of defects. Nor is it likely that the question will ever be decided with certainty. But this is one of the charms in the study of Pindar, as in the study of Homer or of Plato ; nothing is final. There is another point on which I wish to make an obser- vation. Mr Morshead, my reviewer in the Academy, took me to task for misrepresenting the spirit of Pindar’s poetry. I am sorry if I failed to express my meaning. I certainly never meant that Pindar was not, like all the Greek poets, conscious of the pathos of life. On the contrary, I even spoke of “a resigned pessimism” in connexion with the Eleventh Nemean. One is driven to use the inappropriate terms “pessimism” or “melancholy,” which inevitably suggest moods of a spirit that is not Greek. In his recent work Some Aspects of the Greek Genius, Mr Butcher has a suggestive essay on “the Melan- choly of the Greeks.” But we must always remember that it was the “melancholy” of the Greeks. The words of Mimnermus GXN dduyoxpdvioy yixyverar woTep svap Hn Tysneroa are gloomy, but not with the intenser gloom of the reflection that “the world passeth away and the lust thereof”; nor is Pindar’s subtler refinement of the same figure, érdpepor' th bé tis; TiS ov Tis; oKias dvap dvOpwrros, xii PREFACE. touched with the modern pathos of Swinburne’s “His life is a watch or a vision Between a sleep and a sleep.” In Pindar’s verse, indeed, the shadow of the thought has no sooner fallen than it is effaced by a celestial radiance, aiy\a SidcSor0s, Pindar felt as deeply as the singer of “golden Aphrodite” the transience of life; he too had his fits of Suc@upia —of “melancholy” if you will. But what I wished to recognize and endeavoured to express was the note of dyAaia which distinguishes him, even among the poets of Greece. He seems to come always with the Graces, cheerfully,—avv Xdpiowy euorov as he once says. And he makes us fancy him as living in a bright place—the light reasonably tempered by thoughts of death coming in rarely, at pensive moments, and only making life seem the more precious,—and enjoying, as a being in full harmony with its environment, the daily transient pleasures, not spoiled for him by their brevity,—é re reprvdv épdpepov dudxwv, a natural, unconscious Cyrenaic. As I may not soon again have an opportunity of going back on the Memean Odes, 1 may note here some second thoughts which have since occurred or been suggested to me, In the epodes of Mem. 1. I should now give five verses instead of four, the second consisting in each case of the tri- syllabic word which now stands at the end of the first (15 apveais, 34. mpoppoves, 51 adOpdo, 69 ev cxep@). This change solves the difficulty of the lengthening of ov in &payuov and xpovey in 51 and 69. See Boehmer, Péndars Sicilische Oden (p. xi.) Similarly in VL, the first three syllables of the 5th line of each strophe and ant. should be printed as a separate verse ; we thus get rid of the difficulty (r7AoMEv dvoy’) in |. 49. (So Boehmer.)—On I. 54 I should have quoted Theognis 656 aAnd Tot GddOTpLov KHSos epnuéptov.—t. 72 I should now read Sdn with the Mss.—tI. 14 I believe that Mr Monro’s solution (after a scholium) is the right one (Classical Review, February, 1892). —IIL 22 In a new edition of the text I should adopt Mr Postgate’s jp» which seems to me certain.—IIl. 56 It is possible that ayaoxapvoy may be right, preserving an old form of xpdva (cp. kapa : kpds) as Dr E. Schmidt suggests in a paper on this PREFACE, xiii ode (de Pind. Carm. Nem. tertio, 1891). I am glad to see that Schmidt, unlike Boehmer, leaves the Myrmidons their ancient agora in 1. 14.—IV. 35 veownvia. Nissen conjectures a reference to a victory at the summer Heraea of Argos, held at the new moon of Panemos. The Heraea were a sort of “ Vorfeier” of the Nemea (Ueber Tempel-Orientirung, Rhein. Mus. N. F., XL. p. 367).—IV. 68 I have to thank Mr Sandys for the comparison of Catullus, 64, 303 sgq., in illustration of é&¥davay—v. 43 I must retract my approval of Mezger’s Ic@wot re founded on a scho- lium. See my note on Jsth. v. 61.—VvI. 18 I am inclined to think Mr Fennell’s conjecture éwdpxeo’ may be right. The word occurs also in 1. 60 of this ode, and not elsewhere in Pindar.— vil. 105 I should have cited Sappho’s pawurdKcav yNeocar, as Mr W. R. Hardie reminded me.—1x. 17 Boehmer has made an admirable correction in this passage. He reads Aavady ércav péyiotot. Kat rote + éo értamvnrovs OnBas dyayov atpatov avpav K.T.d. —23 I should have quoted in support of my explanation of vootov épecaduevor the Homeric expression tod ye Geol Kata vootov édnaav (E 61). épetodpevor is almost equivalent to cata- Snoapevot.—ib. Mr A. C. Pearson has given new point to the epithet AevxavOéa by referring it to the white shields of the Argives, cp. Soph. Azz. 106. (Class. Review, July 1891.)—x. 5 On the conjecture ’I@ in this verse, which I still hold to notwith- standing the objections which have been raised, I shall have something to say in the /z¢roduction p. xxxviii—x. 48 There is a mistake (due to myself, not to the press) in the text. I meant to print Ojxcev Sowo. Ofxe is unmetrical, as my reviewer in the Speaker pointed out, but he was hardly fair in stating that I objected to Spoue@ in itself; my objection was to wap Spouo. I am sorry, however, that I altered the text. Of works which have recently appeared on Pindar I have already referred to Boehmer’s excellent edition of Pindar’s Sicilian and Epizephyrian Odes, which contains a valuable preface on the laws of rhythm (to which I shall refer again in the [utroduction); and to Schmidt’s commentary on the Third Nemean. I had not consulted Christ’s paper Zur Chronologie xiv PREFACE. pindarischer Stegesgesiinge (in the Siteungsberichte of the Bava- rian Academy, 1889) until the commentary on the Isthmian Odes was printed, but I was able to make use of it for the Introduction. WHerbig’s tract, Zur Chronologie der pindarischen Siegesgesiinge, Isth, iii. iv. und Isth, vii., and Hiimmerich’s Dze Pindar-Handschriften B und D in Nem. und Isth., came too late. Hiimmerich’s results are in general accordance with the view expressed on p. xxxvi. of my Jutroduction. The most important point in Herbig’s paper is that both /sz/. I11. (B) and fsth, Vil. may belong to the same year 478, Cleander having been the victor in the boys’, Melissus in the men’s pancration. I believe that Signor Fraccaroli of Messina, an excellent Pindaric scholar (as I discovered from his very severe criticism of my Nemean Odes), has published some papers in some journal on Pyth, Vi. and Isth. . I regret that I have not seen them. I have again to thank Mr Tyrrell for his kind help in revising the proof sheets, Only those who have had books printed at the Cambridge Press can appreciate how much both this volume and my Nemean Odes are indebted to the accurate scholarship and scrupulous care of the learned staff of Messrs Clay. INTRODUCTION. THE collection of the seven or eight odes of Pindar which celebrate Isthmian victors,—on the whole perhaps not so striking as the Nemean, Olympian or Pythian groups, though certainly not less artistic in form than they,—possesses, accidentally of course, a special interest, from the fact that all the hymns with two exceptions point, as it were, beyond themselves, referring to other poems, already composed or destined in hope to be composed at a future time. Thus the First Isthmian took Pindar away, by its higher claim, from the composition of a Paean, com- pleted doubtless afterwards but lost along with his other works of that kind in the scattering of Greek literature, so that it only remains for us to wonder whether he will refer in the Paean backward to the ode of victory, as in it he refers forward to the Paean. The meaning of the curious hymn, which comes second in order, addressed to Thrasybulus of Acragas, is missed, if one does not hold the clew,—its connexion with another hymn, addressed long ago to the same person, then in his early youth, and luckily, being an epinician, preserved to us among the Pythians. Again the two odes in honour of Phylacidas look mutually toward each other,—the Fifth, first in date though second in the traditional arrangement, looking forward to the Fourth, the Fourth in turn looking back to the Fifth; while both look back further still to the Nemean ode which celebrated Pytheas. The Third Isthmian, which consists of two parts composed on different occasions but meant to be united and so skilfully fitted together that many will not recognize the seam, likewise affords a case of a poem which in some measure goes out beyond itself,—here however only to lose itself in a larger unity. Another point of interest in the Isthmians is that some of Pindar’s most striking references to contemporary events are to be found in them. The Second, connected with the history of Acragas and written just after “the light of the Acragantines” had set, derives an historical I xvi INTRODUCTION. interest from the fact that it was composed at that moment. In the Fourth are found the strong words,—strong in one sense, reserved in another,—about the battle of Salamis, which do not, indeed, stand alone in showing how Pindar regarded the repulse of Asia by the Greek “Sailors.” For the Seventh is inspired by a feeling of positive and unfeigned relief at the deliverance of Greece from that Eastern terror, imminent so long “like a stone of Tantalus.” The Third has been thought to contain an allusion to the battle of Plataea,—in a similar spirit of relief, as of one greeting the coming of a bright spring, with flowers, after the gloom of winter; but it is possible that some lesser deliverance, rather, a special deliverance of Thebes, is meant’. The Sixth records the memory of a Theban warrior who fell, fighting among the front fighters, on some Boeotian field of battle, which one would like to recognize under one of the familiar names of the battles in the middle of the fifth century. Interesting as all these hymns are in many ways, the three Aeginetan are perhaps more interesting than the rest. No less than eleven of the Epinician Odes celebrate Aeginetan victors, and of these, three are Isthmian and six Nemean. In con- nexion with this gallery of Aeginetan portraits, it may be well here to call to recollection the early history of Aegina; and the following pages may be regarded as also an appendix to my edition of the Nemeans. I. AEGINA. Passing over the mythical story of the island, called Oenone, as Pindar sometimes reminds us, until the nymph Aegina, settled there by Zeus to bring forth Aeacus, gave her home a new name, and begin- ning in the region of fact, we find that the Aeginetan polis owed its origin to colonists from “vineclad” Epidaurus on the opposite mainland. Both mother city and colony came under the empire of that early tyrant whose date is so uncertain, Phidon of Argos, but after his death gained the independence of free Dorian cities. Of the islands on the east coast of Greece the rocky and barren Aegina was marked out to play a prominent part, like Corcyra—her sister, according to one legend*— 1 Christ however holds that the allusion is to Plataea, in his recent investigation of Pindar’s chronology (Sésungsberichte of Munich Academy, 1889; p. 30). He accepts the view of Bulle as to the two odes for Melissus, which I put forward without knowledge of Bulle’s tracts ; and would place /s¢H. Iv. (111. B) in 476, Js¢h. IH. (UL A) in 475+ ? The men of Phlius said that Corcyra was the eldest daughter of the river-god Asopus, father of Aegina and Theba. INTRODUCTION. xvii among the islands on the west, in early Hellenic history. As Corcyra soon freed herself from the influence of Corinth, Aegina soon became independent of Epidaurus. The relations of the Argive city with her neighbouring daughter seem, for a time at least, to have been some- what like those of the city of the Isthmus with her distant daughter. Herodotus in relating the origin of the old feud between Aegina and Athens, brought about by an act of violence on the part of the Aeginetans towards the Epidaurians, notes the change in the piety of the colony as her power increased’. The power of Aegina over- shadowed Epidaurus; the power of Corcyra was never more than that of a dangerous rival to Corinth. But while that rivalry led to a bitter and constant enmity, Aegina seems, at a later period, to have been on good terms with her mother, the venerable city of Asclepius; and there may be some significance in the fact that the three victors, whom Pindar mentions, in the quadriennial games of Asclepius at Epidaurus, were Aeginetans’. It is to be observed that Aegina in old days naturally went with the southern mainland, Pausanias the traveller, for example, including it in his account of Argolis. But in later times it went with the northern mainland. Under the Eastern Roman Empire it belonged to the Theme of “Hellas,” not to the Theme of the Peloponnesus; and now under the Greek kingdom it goes with the northern mainland, being a nome in the eparchia of “Attica and Boeotia.” The sisters Theba and Aegina have been, in a fashion, united. The island under a Dorian constitution, which, especially perhaps in its Aeginetan form, Pindar regarded as the ideal shape of govern- ment, grew rapidly in wealth and power, and enjoyed apparently almost unbroken peace during the seventh and sixth centuries, so that it was in a true sense the special home of Hesychia, whom Pindar calls on— “ dirddpov ‘Acvxia”—as “mother of justice, queen of an exceeding great city,” to receive the glory of an Aeginetan who came home crowned from Pytho. The ships of Aegina went east and west, bearing bronze wares and vessels of pottery, to the furthest climes of those days, to the land of the Rhone and the land of the Nile, to the pillars of 1 v.83 ToOrov 0° ére Tov Xpdvov Kai Tov 2 Nem. il. 84, V- 52, Lsth. VIL. 75. mpd robrou Acywiras’ Eréaupluy jxovov rd —Nissen (Weber Tempel-Orientirung, in re ddKa kal Slkas SuaBalvovres és’Eridavpor Rhein. Afus., N. F., XL. p. 46) deter- ébldocdy Te Kal edduBavov map dddjAwv of mines that the Asclepiad festival was Alywira. 7d 8€ dad rode véas re wytd- held in the 2nd year of each Olympiad, pevor Kal dyvoportvn xpyoduevor dréory- nine days afler the Isthmia, on the 17th cay did Tov’ Emidavpiwv. of April. xviii INTRODUCTION. Heracles and the Phasis. The wide diffusion of her coins, stamped with the tortoise, still testifies to the extent of her trade. But the people of this rich city had their enemies. If their southern neighbours of Argolis were friendly, envious glances were cast at them by their neighbours on the north. There was an old feud between Athens and Aegina, destined in the curious ways of history to lead to the greatness of the Athenian state, perhaps to the salvation of Greece, and thereby even to affect the destinies of Europe. By that geographical necessity, which in politics is imperative, an ambitious city in Attica was doomed to collide with Aegina, just as, to compare a case on a larger scale, an ambitious city in Italy was doomed to interfere with Sicily. That homely, telling expression “the eye-sore of Piraeus” becomes more significant when one realizes “ the conspicuous island,” diarpeméa vaooy, as Pindar called it’, perhaps not only in a figurative sense but to suggest a physical feature, the preeminence of its high Mountain,—the "Opos—far seen in the bay and ranging above the other hills of the neighbouring coasts and islands. Towards the close of the sixth century Aegina was drawn into the war which was then being waged between Thebes and Athens. The men of Thebes sought the aid of the island. For receiving from the Delphic god the obscure counsel that they would do well to turn in their need to “those nearest to them,” they interpreted the oracle in the light of the myth that the nymphs Aegina and Theba were sisters, daughters of Asopus and Metopa. Pindar, very young at the time when these things befel, was afterwards fond of dwelling on the common origin of the two cities through the sisterhood of their eponymous foundresses, and would put it forward as a link binding a Theban in a friendly bond with Aeginetans. That historical occasion must have brought home to him the legend with a special force; and a man of Thebes or of Aegina would assuredly think of that passage in the history of his city when lines like these were sung to him: xp 8 év éxramvdos @yBas tpapevra Alyiva Xapitwv dwrov mpoveuew, matpos ovveka Sidvpat yévovto Oiyatpes Acwridwv omddérara, Zyvi re Fadov BacrAdi*. To the request of the Thebans, founded on myth, the answer which Aegina sent back was also of mythical kind, even “the Aeacid heroes,” ancient and precious images of them, no doubt,—wooden €eava, one may imagine, very rudely fashioned, but too sacred for the more 1 Jsth. WV. 44. ® sth. Vl. 19 sygs INTRODUCTION. xix developed, perhaps profaner, skill attained by newer artists, Smilis or Callon, to renew or improve. The virtue of these images, supposed to be an efficient aid in time of danger, securing the supernatural presence and power of the heroes themselves for those whom they chose to succour, was approved afterwards on a far more pressing occasion; but this time the divine warriors did not avail. In compliance with a second supplication, the Aeginetan government, then at peace with Athens, nevertheless began hostilities, without even a formal declaration of their intention, by plundering the Attic coast in their triremes, so as to divert part of the Athenian power from the operations in Boeotia. The dislike of oligarchs for a democracy, the disdain of Dorians for Tonians, doubtless made them willing enough to listen to the request of Thebes. The war seems to have been protracted in a desultory manner and without any important events—our historians at least have recorded no details—for about fifteen years, until in 492 the threat of the Persian invasion interrupted the current of Greek politics. It was a moment which claimed that the Greeks should look away from all smaller questions of jealousy and rivalry among themselves to consider the great question between Hellene and Barbarian—the eternal controversy before Europe and Asia, an issue which made them all more fully conscious of their own unity as Hellenic brethren. To this, her first opportunity to win a noble place in ecumenical history, Athens proved herself equal; her rival missed the chance. Aegina is conspicuous among the few who “betrayed Hellas,”—a significant expression, as Grote has well brought out, coming into use at that momentous time. When the envoys of the great king demanded earth and water, they assuredly did not forget to point out to the Aeginetan oligarchs that the hated city across the waters was the chief object of their master’s wrath. But if, in the first surprise, Aegina, like her sister Theba, forgot Hellas in her enmity to Athens, she was afterwards nobly and fully to redeem her fault. The recognized leaders of Greece, the Spartans, on the representa- tion of Athens that Aegina was “medizing,’’ interfered to hinder her from helping the Persians, if they could not force her to help the Greeks. The kings of Sparta, Cleomenes and Leotychides, invaded Aegina, and having secured ten citizens, delivered them to the Athenians as hostages, so that Athens had no fear of hostilities in her rear when she met the great enemy at Marathon. It was probably at this time that Pindar wrote a poem for a Nemean victory in the foot-race won by an Aeginetan, named Deinis, and took the opportunity of reminding the XX INTRODUCTION. islanders, at this moment of humiliation, of the mythical days of king Aeacus, when the princes of Sparta and the “host”—not then a democracy—of Athens hung upon his words. Parts have been changed since then. Aegina has to “obey the commands” of Athens and Sparta’. When the danger was over, the strife between Athens and Aegina was renewed and went on during the years intervening between the expedition sent by Darius and the invasion of Xerxes. This struggle was the making of Athens. It taught her and her statesman Themi- stocles the importance of the ships which were to prove her wooden wall. And in this way Aegina contributed, against her will, to the . salvation of Greece; “this war,” as Herodotus observed, “saved Hellas, compelling the Athenians to become a sea-power.” After the death of Cleomenes, under sad and discreditable circumstances, the Aeginetans complained at Sparta respecting the behaviour of him and his surviving colleague Leotychides in seizing the ten hostages. The complaint availed, as far as Sparta was concerned. Leotychides accompanied the Aeginetan ambassadors to Athens, in order to get the hostages restored. But the Athenians, glad to keep the hostages as a security against the aggression of Aegina, refused on the technical ground that, as the two kings had made the deposit, one alone could not claim it. Then the Aeginetans waiting their opportunity surprised a sacred vessel of the Athenians, and made captives of those on board. These proceedings began the war. In its course the constitution of Aegina was threatened by a domestic conspiracy formed by one Nicodromus, a citizen who had been banished by the government and wished to overthrow it, in order, doubtless, to establish a tyranny for himself. He excited a revolt among the people, and secured the cooperation of the enemy. The success of his attempt was frustrated by a delay which prevented the Athenians from arriving at the right time. Nicodromus and his partisans seized, as had been agreed beforehand, the “Old Town,” 7 waAasa zoAts. One wonders whether it was in this quarter that the ancient agora of the Myrmidons—adaigparov ayopay*,—mentioned by Pindar, lay. The conspirators could not maintain their position against the forces of the government, without the help of their foreign allies, and the end was 1 Christ however (Zr Chronologie pin- darischer Stegesgestinge, in the Munich Sitzungsberichte, 1889) objects (p. 40) to this view of Mezger on the. ground that Nem. Vil, must have been composed in the poet’s old age (cp. ll. 35—39). He would put it before the rising of Aegina against Athens (459), either in 461 or 463. 2 Nem. 111. 14. But metrical authorities wish to “amend” this bit of topography. See below p. xxxvii. INTRODUCTION. xxi that the leader fled from the island, and seven hundred of his supporters were executed. Nicodromus interests us as a candidate for the tyrannis in the woAus edvonos which never fell under the rule of despots. It is unnecessary to follow further the course of the war, in which if Athens had, on the whole, the advantage, no less did her adversary approve herself rich in men and ships— » ’ evavdpdv TE kat vavot kvTav— according to the prayer of the sons of Aeacus which they prayed by the altar of Zeus Hellanios, as we see them in a picture of Pindar, in his ode composed in some of those years for Pytheas the son of Lampon'. The war was interrupted by the second expedition of the Persians. When the heralds of the King came in 481 to demand the tokens of submission, Aegina did not betray Greece. She took part in that Panhellenic congress—a new departure in Greek history—which as- sembled at Isthmus to consult on common measures for resisting the common foe. This time, she did not hold her private quarrel of more account than the national welfare, but consented to become reconciled to her enemy; and Athenian and Aeginetan united zealously in taking measures for the safety of Greece. It is interesting to observe that the sacred precincts of the Isthmian god were chosen as the place for the Greek states to meet in a common council. Naturally marked out by its central position on the “sea bridge” which joins northern Greece with the Peloponnesus, it was, although in Corinthian territory—zpo Kopivov retxéwv—yet, as the seat of a national cult, more neutral ground than Corinth. To the renowned Dorian Isthmus, xAerdy "Iodpuov Awpiay, the Dorian cities might send their delegates without reluctance; while Athens had from the first a special connexion with the place, possessing the proedria or right of occupying front seats at the biennial festival ; a tradition even existing that Theseus had founded the games. There was a certain appropriateness too in making the pine grove of Poseidon the scene of deliberation on a resistance whose success was eminently to depend upon prowess on his special element. In the “ Medic” war, which brought out the best and the worst quali- ties both in states and individuals—some striving like Themistocles and Athens “in a general honest thought And common good to all,” others thinking only of their own city—Aegina distinguished herself conspicuously. The Sailors of Greece, as Pindar might still call them’, 1 Nem. V. 9- 2 [sth. iv. 48, see note. xxii INTRODUCTION. in compliment to their long supremacy at sea, although Athens had just begun to outdo them in naval craft, played no small part at Artemisium and at Salamis. Of the three triremes sent forward to reconnoitre the movements of the enemy’s fleet along the coast of Thessaly, one was an Aeginetan. It was captured by Persian vessels after a sore fight, and the name of one of the hoplites, Pythes, whose bravery was preeminent, has been preserved. In the story of Salamis Aegina’s name constantly recurs. She had so cast aside her enmity with Athens that she gave refuge to the inhabitants of Attica when they retreated before the invader. On the eve of the battle, the presence of her heroes Aeacus and the Aeacids was demanded, and the trireme’ which conveyed them arrived just in time to take its place in the line of the thirty Aeginetan vessels drawn up on the right wing. After the victory, when the spoils were divided, the Aeginetans were judged to have been bravest of all, and to them was assigned the best lot of the booty’; the Athenians took the second place. Athens had her poet to celebrate the drama in which “Salamis” was the great episode; but Aegina like Sparta was never productive of literary talent. She could go, however, to her sister Theba for a poet, always willing to come from Boeotia, with the Graces who also had their chief home there by the waters of Cephisus, to the hospitable island where he had many friends. The Theban “wizard,” though he loved Thebes, sympathized fully with the spirit of national patriotism evoked by the Persian danger*; and to express the sympathy without wounding his own city was a demand on his skill to which it was equal. In the second* of the two hymns in honour of Phylacidas the pancra- tiast, composed shortly after that memorable autumn, which thrilled the Greek world with a new experience, the part which Aegina played then is celebrated. The service of the ‘“ Sailors” at Salamis is openly 1 The Aeginetans said that this trireme 146. See also Croiset, La fpodsie de began the engagement, but the honour was disputed by the Athenians. 2 It is related that while many gifts of thanksgiving were sent to the Delphian god, Aegina omitted this duty, but after- wards, on the complaint of the god, made an offering of four golden stars on a brazen staff. 3 On Pindar’s attitude to the Persian war Mr Fennell has made some remarks in connexion with /yék. VI. and Pro- fessor Jebb in his essay on Piadar, p. Pindare, p. 271. 4 Jsth. wv. Christ (of. c7z., pp. 36, 45) places Mem. v. in 483 B.C., Zs/h. V. in 480, and /sth. Iv. as late as 476 (the Isthmian pancration in 478 having been won by Cleander, /s¢#. vi1.). It is clear of course that /s¢#. IV. was not composed immediately after the Isth. games of 480, as Salamis was fought in autumn; but there is no reason to hinder our supposing that the ode was composed for a late celebration of a victory won in 480. INTRODUCTION. xxiii referred to, but other expressions and the myth, which concerns Aegina far more than the victor personally, show that Pindar’s mind was full of the late achievements of his nation, in which his city had no share. No Aeginetan, assuredly, hearing this ode sung shortly after the Salaminian fight could fail at the emphatic words otk arep AiaxiSav to remember how their heroes had sailed at the last moment to aid the Greek squadron ;—‘‘not without the Aeacids” was the battle won! Such language as ei O€ Térpamtat Oeodétwv epywv Kéedevov av xabapay would come home with special force after the conduct of the island in the Persian invasion. The myth too was appropriate. The deeds of bravery which Aeginetan heroes had wrought long ago in the Trojan wars were the fitting parallel to the recent achievements of her warriors in the latest phase of the struggle between Europe and Asia. Pindar may not have been as fully alive as Herodotus to the continuity of history ; but with artistic instinct seizing the parallel, which perhaps indeed was ‘in the air” at the time, he has brought mythical deeds of the Aeacids into a new impressive relation with the things which he and his hearers had themselves witnessed. Each land has its own brave men, he says; but Oenone—the name, a relic of prae-Aeacid days, which he is fond of calling to mind—has Aeacus and his sons, heroes of valiant heart, peyadjropes dpyat, who twice sacked Troy’. dis wéAW Tpdwy mpdbov, éordpevor “HpaxAqe mporepov, wy kai odv “Atpeidats. eda viv por wedobev’ eye tives Kixvov, tives "Exropa, répvov kal orparapxov Aifidrwv adoBov Mépvova xadxodpayv; tis ap éodov TyAedov n tn 8 \ K fe > 9 6 " tpdcev €@ Sopt Kaixov rap’ oxGais ; “Who slew Cycnus? who slew Hector? who Memnon? Who, by the banks of the Caicus, wounded Telephus?” And the answer is “Those who have Aegina to their country.” The audience might be left to supply modern names,—the captains and sailors of valiant heart, among themselves, who had wrought this or that deed on the Salaminian waters. 1 Tsth. 1V. 36 sgg. XXiv INTRODUCTION. kal vdv év “Ape—the ode proceeds—poptypyoar xev mods Alavros opbubeioa vatrats év rodvpOdpw Yadrapis Arcs 6uBpw avapifpuv avipdv xadraldevre pove. The address too to the goddess Theia, with which the ode opens, on the ground that she inspires men with their esteem of gold—for the sake of which they undertake war by sea or land—-might also have a fitness in the minds of the Aeginetans who had received the choice lot of the Persian spoils. In this ode there was no place for a mention of the chief actors at Salamis, the Athenians. But Pindar has elsewhere’ shown that he appreciated their services to Greece, speaking of them as the heroes of Salamis—as the Spartans were the heroes of Plataea and the Syracusans of Himera. To Pindar, a lover of Dorian institutions, no friend of democracy, the city of Solon and Clisthenes was not dear like his Aegina, but he respected, if he did not love, Athens of the great “polis,” peyado- modes “A@Gvac*, in the Panhellenic spirit which inspires his poetry. Nor was there any place for a direct mention of the great contest of Punic spears—qoutxoordAwy éyyéwv*,—which was deciding the fate of western Greece, at the same moment when the fate of eastern Greece was in the hands of her sailors. We cannot even be sure that the dde was not written before the news of the defeat and death of Hamilcar had reached Thebes. But Pindar at least knew that the Carthaginians were expected in Sicily and that a momentous issue was to be decided there as well as in the mother country. And there does certainly seem to be an allusion to Carthaginian warfare in the choice of war chariots as the type of battles by land* To the final deliverance of Greece by the repulse of Mardonius, which was accomplished under the leadership of Pausanias at Plataea, the Aeginetans contributed five hundred hoplites. An ode, composed soon after this for Cleander of Aegina, commemorating his Isthmian victory and lamenting the death of his kinsman Nicocles who had fallen in battle—perhaps one of those five hundred, under the shadow of Cithaeron,—breathes a sigh of relief at the removal of the suspended “stone of Tantalus.” Here too the Trojan war is introduced, as a mythical illustration, and the death of Achilles after his exploits on the Mysian plain; with the suggestion of comfort to the mourners that, as 1 Pyth. 1.75 sqq. 2 Pyth. vu. 1. dpéouat * See note on Ven. 1x. 28. map pev Ladapivos AOnvalwv ydpw 4 [sth Iv. 5. See Appendix 1. pucOdv K.T.A, INTRODUCTION. XXV the maidens of Helicon stood round the tomb of the son of Thetis, chanting a dirge over him, so they are now hastening from that Boeo- tian mountain, bearing this ode to the sepulchre of the dead. If Aegina had not poets of her own, she had artists, original and distinguished, of another kind. If it fell to the lot of a Theban to weave her exploits into verse, it was an Aeginetan whom the Greeks called upon after the battle of Plataea to cast in bronze a colossal statue of Zeus for dedication at Olympia. Two other works were also executed from the tithe of the spoils, a colossal Poseidon for his temenos at Isthmus, and a snakewreathed tripod—still partly preserved —for Delphi; but it is not recorded to whom the making of these was entrusted. At this period the sculptors of Aegina were in high repute throughout all the Greek world, and received commissions for statues and other works of art from distant countries. The school of sculpture there begins with Smilis, who worked in the middle of the sixth century, being thus contemporary with Dipoenus and Scyllis the ‘“ Daedalids” of Crete, and bearing, like the legendary Daedalus, a name significant of his craft. The “ Chiseller” had a fame beyond his own island. The Samians called upon him to carve in wood a new statue of Hera for their great temple; and for Olympia he wrought in gold and ivory images of the #lorae— *. , > , > , eo tds xpvodprvKcas ayAaoxdprovs dAabéas “Opas, as Pindar described them, perhaps with this very work of Smilis, which adorned the Heraeum there, present tohis imagination. In the following period which witnessed the development and diffusion of the sculptor’s art, after the initial difficulties had been overcome, Callon and then Onatas were the chief representatives of the ‘“ Aeginetan school ”-— épyacia Aiywaia—which, in contrast with the straining at Athens after greater freedom, remained to the last correct, precise, archaic. Of Callon—whose style, ancient writers say, was “harder” than that of Athenian Calamis of a younger generation—we know only two works by name; a wooden statue of Athena Sthenias, made for the acropolis of Troezen, and an image of the Kora for Amyclae. Of a younger contemporary of Callon, Onatas son of Micon, we know more. His best work probably fell between the years 480 and 464—between those years in which the powers of Pindar were at their fullest, the greater number of the extant Odes of victory having been composed in that period. There is indeed no evidence pointing to a personal acquaintance between the poet and the sculptor, but it is a possibility which one likes to contemplate, and it is certainly anything c2 XXvVi INTRODUCTION. but improbable. There can be no doubt that Pindar often came “ with the Graces” to Aegina, to direct the performance of his hymns’, and was entertained there by his wealthy friends, of the Psalychiad, Theandrid and other houses. And he was interested, as words in his poems shew’, like all intelligent Greeks of the day, in the development of the art, which was just then developing so rapidly and which was so congenial to the fashions of Greek life and to the Greek spirit. For the epinician poet the statuary’s work must have had a special attraction, as both artists were engaged in the service of agonistic victors, fashioning for wrestler or racer an Olympian “palace” or a Neweatoy dyaApa, of music or metal or stone. If Pindar went himself to the Dorian island with his sea-song for Pytheas, he surely did not omit to visit the workshop of Glaucias and examine the works of the statue-maker, the images of athletes, perhaps the smooth-cheeked Pytheas himself passing into a marble form, destined, as the poet thought, “ever to stand on the selfsame base,” perpetually idle. There he could study the contrast between the arts which, in the opening verses of that poem, he has indicated. The statue, once made, keeps continual holiday; the song is constantly sung. The marble or the bronze can be transported to a foreign place,—as many a carven work by native craftsmen was shipped in the port of Aegina to Sicily and other distant lands. But Giaucias could not say to the statue which he wrought for Gelon of Syracuse, as Pindar said to the song which he made for Pytheas; “go forth from Aegina in every merchant ship and in every boat,”—éml wdoas oAKddos é 7 dxatw. The song can be, with ease, widely diffused, unlike the image’*. Different as the two arts are, from the nature of their material, yet they had things in common—not least, the expression of rhythmic motion, —so that they could mutually influence each other. The study of that exact precision of line which marks the sculptor’s art, teaching the poetic imagination a taste for singularly clear cut, unencumbered pic- tures—we can fancy that we perceive its traces in Pindar. One would like to imagine him in the workshop of Anaxagoras, watching that master modelling or casting the colossal image of Zeus, which was dedicated by the Greeks after the battle of Plataea. We may wonder whether the epithet ayAads, which about that time he applied to Poseidon*, was suggested by the bronze statue of the sea-god—the name of the caster 1 Compare the remarks of A. Croiset, ’ So Professor Jebb, 74. p. 175. La poésie de Pindare, p. 96. 4 Tsth. Vu. 30. 2 Cp. Professor Jebb, Pizdar, p. 179. INTRODUCTION. XXvii is not recorded—in honour of the same victory. By some work of art that epithet, no less than dyAaorp/awva, was assuredly suggested’. But the name of Onatas has a special interest for us in reading the Isthmian Odes. ‘The preservation of his fame, almost of his very name, he owes to the traveller Pausanias; but modern students of sculpture have shewn good reasons for believing that he was intimately connected with the design and execution of the greatest work of the Aeginetan School—the pediment sculptures of the Temple of Athena. Among the figures spared by time and now preserved at the Munich Glyptothek, may be some actually wrought by the hands of Onatas himself. The two pediments were parallel to each other in arrangement and alike in motive, representing each a battle-scene over the body of a fallen warrior in the presence of Athena’. The heroes of Aegina “twice sacked the city of the Trojans,” Sis réAw Tpwwv rpddov,—this is in brief the argument of the pediments. The western, a little more “archaic,” a little less finished than the other, and evidently the earlier work, deals with the second war, Achilles, the most famous Aeacid of that genera- tion, taking the chief part on the Greek side in the fray over the corpse of a slain hero. The eastern represents, probably, the moment after the death of Oicles, the comrade of Heracles in his expedition against Troy; and here the Aeacid Telamon holds the front position, cor- responding to Achilles. While this pediment points to a somewhat later stage in the development of technical skill, the sculptor of the western group was clearly the inventor, and it seems highly probable that he was no other than Onatas. Looking at those spare, correct figures chiselled with accurate skill, in their various attitudes, standing, kneeling or reclining, natural and yet all under a certain constraint—as though they were conscious themselves of their symmetrical grouping—, we may wonder what possibilities lay in the school of Aegina, what her sculpture would have come to, if the development of the island had not been arrested. Did any spiritual idea, waiting to come forth in its hour, lurk, like a dream, behind the unspeculative eyes or under the indifferent serenity of the mouths, not set into any character of smile or 1 dydaorplawva, Ol. 1. 41.—So too dpso- trident erect,” and doubtless refers to Tpicwva, which lexicographers and editors representations in art. For dpoés=6ép0és have misinterpreted as ‘‘trident shak- compare dpad@pié, dpoodoreiv. ing.” If that were the meaning, the 2 For Aeginetan sculpture I have made form would be épatrplawa, cp. dpowedys, use of Overbeck’s Gesch. der griechischen épcixrumos, duolrovos, &c. dpoorplawa Plastik and Mr Murray’s History of Greek means époay Tpiaway exwv (just as dyhao- Sculpture. tplawa means dy\ady Tplacvav exw) “ with XXVili INTRODUCTION. purpose, not betraying the pain of the wounded or the stern intention of the fighter,— Charis, at this stage of the art, finding it necessary, one might say, to veil all faces with a comely mask which told only of comeliness? But Aegina was not the place of her full revelation. It is generally allowed that these sculptures were begun after the Persian war and were a sort of Aeginetan monument commemorating the deliverance of Hellas from her dzdAparos poyOos. And thus it becomes very interesting to regard them in connexion with the second ode written by Pindar for Phylacidas, where, as we. have seen, the Trojan expeditions are likewise brought into connexion with the Persian war. We may suppose that Onatas was beginning to design his pediments about the same time that Pindar was writing this hymn, and the thought might occur that the poet had given the idea to the sculptor. But the idea of a comparison between the Trojan and the Persian episodes as being, both, trials of strength between Greek and barbarian—the idea worked out historically by Herodotus —was probably “in the air” at the time. In any case Pindar’s verses are a good com- mentary on the two groups of—was it Onatas and his son Calliteles >—: GAN év Oivavg peyadjropes dpyat Aiaxod waidwy re* Tol kal cuppaxors dis woAw Tpodwy rpafov, éomopevor “Hpaxdie mporepor, kal atv ’Azpeidats, But in another Aeginetan ode there is a passage which, I venture to suggest, may have been directly inspired by the western pediment of the temple of Athena. Achilles was the chief Aeacid hero in the second war as Telamon in the first, and there can be no doubt that on the pediment he occupied the front position on the Greek side. The scene was assuredly not the battle over his corpse, as Welcker and others have held. Nor is the other theory of a battle over the body of Patroclus satisfactory. It seems to me not insignificant that in the Aeginetan poems of Pindar the event which stands out as the most brilliant exploit of Achilles is the slaying of Memnon the son of the Morning. The battle of Achilles and Memnon was a frequent subject of art, and on old vases it is represented as fought over the body of Antilochus, whom Memnon had slain. The ’AxiAAdws povouayia mpos Mé¢yvova was wrought in relief on the throne of Amyclae’ and on the chest of Cypselus*. May not Onatas have chosen this episode for the 1 Paus, III. 18. 7. beside them, and this became a constant 2 Paus. v. 19. 1. Here the mothers feature in paintings of the scene. of the heroes, Thetis and Eos, stood INTRODUCTION. xxix subject of his sculptures? may not the dead warrior be Antilochus, and the two heroes, who fight over him, Achilles and Memnon? If this be so, Pindar may have had before his imagination the very figures, which we can see at Munich, when he wrote Bapi 8€ odw vetxos "Aytheds yopale kaBas dd’ dpyarwv gaevvas vidv ett’ evapiéev “Ados axe éyxeos Laxoroto.. The words “having descended from his chariot on the ground” sound as if he were describing a visible representation of the scene. About twenty years after the repulse of the Persians, a war broke out between Athens and Sparta,—an anticipation on a small scale of the greater war between the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians, which is generally, though not by Thucydides, called “the Peloponnesian War.” The chief powers of Greece took sides, Corinth joining Sparta, while Phocis, Thessaly and Megara, perhaps more by constraint than of free will, supported Athens. Aegina did not hesitate to help the Peloponnesians at sea with her powerful fleet, and the mother city Epidaurus was ranged on the same side. The chronology of this war is full of perplexity ; but this is not the place to consider how events are to be disposed in the archonships of Philocles and Bion, what is meant by the “year” in the Inscription of the Erechtheid Phyle’, how the evidence of the Constitution of the Athenians is to be reconciled with Thucydides. It seems likely that the hostilities began in the middle of 459 Bc. At Halieis the Athenians were defeated by the and ended in the following spring, and thus the Battle of Aegina must fall in 458. One of the most recent German works 1 Nem. V1. 50. Cp. Mem. Ill. 72. 2 C. L.A, 1. 433 EpexOntdos olde ev rg morguy amédavov év Kimpy év Alyirrw év Bowlky ev ‘ANetow ev Alylyy Meyapot rod avrod éviavrof. The question is whether the year is a civil or a natural year. If the chronology of Diodorus could be trusted—unluckily it cannot—, the civil year would be excluded, as he places the events mentioned in two diffe- rent archonships. But when the German investigators profess to tell us what Dio- dorus took from Ephorus, and what from some chronographer — Apollodorus or Castor—, one hardly feels safe in follow- ing them. It-seems clear, I think, that the siege of Aegina began about May 458 on the “ Fifty years” is a dissertation of J. Mosler, Chronologie der Pentekontaétie (1890), and his conclusions on this special point, although far from lucidly expressed, are perhaps near the truth. Both he and Christ (of. cét.) agree as to the beginning of the siege of Aegina; but while Christ would place Tanagra in Oct. or Nov., Mosler would have it in August, conse- quently Oenophyta in October.—I doubt the statement in the ’A@nvalwy modcrela that Themistocles was at Athens in the archonship of Conon (462—461 B.C.). XXX LNTRODUCTION. Corinthians and Epidaurians, but at Cecryphalea, shortly afterwards, they defeated, single-handed, the Peloponnesians at sea. This victory was probably won in the late autumn; and it seems—though one must speak diffidently—that it was in the following spring that the Athenians, along with their allies, sailed against Aegina. A great sea-battle was fought, and proved fatal to the islanders. They lost seventy ships, and the victors under Leocrates disembarked on the island and laid siege to the city. It may be regarded as well-nigh certain that the blockade began in May 458, and lasted nine months. The war meanwhile was carried on in other parts of Greece, and especially in Boeotia. The defeat of Tanagra was cancelled by the victory of Oenophyta two months later; this led to the submission of the Boeotians, the Locrians and the Phocians, and then to the surrender of Aegina (about February 457): Thus Aegina lost her freedom and became tributary to her northern neighbour. This was the decision of the old feud between Athens and Aegina. The conqueror compelled her to dismantle the fortifications of her city, which Pindar perhaps was thinking of when he wrote of her old wall of lofty excellences,— rereiXLoTaL 6& maXdae s e n > n > , 1 mupyos tWyAais aperais avaBaiverv'. She also lost her naval power; and it is probable that she was forced to make some change in her Dorian constitution. Six years later it happened that Aristomenes son of Xenarces was winner in the wrestling ‘match at the Pythian games, and Pindar, then about seventy years old, was called on for a hymn. This hymn is the latest dated work of the poet that has been preserved. It is a song of peacefulness; dedicating to Hesychia, who holds the “supreme keys of wars and counsels,” the honour of the victory. There was probably an altar of Hesychia at Aegina; one imagines the goddess represented with keys in her hands*. He does not refer openly to the humiliation of the island ; but he was surely thinking of the change in her estate when he wrote the last verses on the instability of human affairs: év & dd‘yw Bpordv 76 teprvov avéerar. “ Beings of a day!” he goes on, “what we are, what we are not, who shall say? Man is but a shadow’s dream. But whenever the heavenly gleam comes, then is life sweet and a shining 1 Tsth. WV. 44. along with the xAydas yduou of Hera, in 2 So Christ conjectures, of. cit..p. 10. support of his guess. Why did he not It is rather strange to find him quoting cite also the clava of Hercules? the clavos trabales of Necessity in Horace, INTRODUCTION. XXx1 light encompasseth it!” It is interesting to find in one of his latest poems these verses so characteristic of Pindar’s spirit, never cmmemor sepulchri, yet never descending into the valley of the shadow of death. He concludes the ode by commending the city to the Aeacids and their divine father. ‘Dear mother Aegina, recover this city for a free people’, with the aid of Zeus, and the lord Aeacus, of Peleus and gallant Telamon, and of Achilles.” But the city was not preserved to the Aeginetans: In the first year of the Peloponnesian war they were expelled from their home, and the island was occupied with Athenian cleruchs. The Lacedaemonians permitted the exiles to make a new habitation in the district of Thyrea; and there a still harder fate was to come upon them, at the hands of their old enemies, seven years later. The hymns of Pindar give us a vague picture of the wealthy society which he knew at Aegina. We meet in them men belonging to the aristocratic houses of the Bassids, the Blepsiads, the Midylids, the Psalychiads, the Chariads, the Theandrids, the Euxenids, some, no doubt, of great local importance and all wealthy. In this gallery of portraits we have the hospitable Lampon, with his heart set on the success of his son in the national games; the perhaps disappointed Thearion, whose hopes are centred on his late-born child Sogenes ; the musician Timocritus, who did not live to see his son’s victory at Nemea; a series of Bassids, who were strong and weak in alternate generations. Among athletes there is the broad-shouldered boy Pytheas, whose cheeks are not yet shaded by the grape-down; the comely young Alcimedon and his brother Timosthenes; Alcimidas another boy wrestler, who, victorious at Nemea, had narrowly missed an Olympian crown by the ill luck of a xAGpos mpo7erys. We see a Dorian cémus going forth to meet Aristomenes as he returns from Delphi crowned with a Parnassian wreath ; we see the dancers celebrating the victory of Sogenes in the Aeaceum. We suspect in the dim distance, though we cannot make it out with certainty, a statue of the fair form of the pancratiast Aristoclides near the agora of the Myrmidons*. We get a glimpse of the quiet street in which Thearion dwelled, flanked on either side by temples of Heracles, 1 Pyth, VIL. 95. emdpepor’ Th dé Tis; TEGO’ ov Tes; oKids Gvap dvOpwros. aAN Gray alyha didcdoros EXOy t+rapmpov erecre péyyos dvdpavt Kat jel- Aexos alu. Both metre and meaning demand a cor- rection of the obelized words. seems right. Bergk proposed dvédpi, émegte Aaumpov éreare péyyos. 2 Such I think is the natural meaning of édevddpw arddwy modw ravde Komce. I can see no reason to question the state- ment of the scholiast as to the date of the victory of Aristomenes (vixjoavre Thy de’ IIvaia6a). 2 Nem. Il. 14. Xxxii INTRODUCTION. in one of which, may we guess? was a representation of the battle with the Giants’. We get a glimpse too of the brilliant portal of the house of Telesarchus, dyAuév rpo$vpov—perhaps adorned with works of art— suggesting that Aegina had its palaces, as one might expect in a rich commercial town, like medieval Venice or Ghent. Some touches of “local colouring” too we find in these hymns of Pindar, who knew Aegina—that pillar of strangers—well. We have already seen the ancient agora of the Myrmidons, and imagined we detected in its vicinity the statue of a victor; one would like to think of it, like the agora of Athens, as wavéaiSadov’, with works of Aeginetan art. The Aeaceum, where victors used to dedicate their wreaths, was, we learn from Pausanias*, “a square peribolus of white stone, in the most prominent part of the city; and at the entrance were wrought figures of those who were sent to Aeacus by the Greeks” in a time of drought. If Pausanias had known his Pindar he might have remembered, when he saw those figures, the lines in the Ode for Deinis : aBoarl yap ypwduv dwrot mepwvateradvTwv yOcdrov Kelvov ye weiBeoP avakias Exovres, ol te Kpavaais év “Adavatow dppolov orpardv, ol 7 ava Sraprav TWedomniadar’, Within the peribolus were ancient olive trees and a low mysterious altar —the tomb of Aeacus, it was whispered. Not far away was the tomb of Phocus, “the son of the goddess, whom Psamathea bare by the beach of the sea,” slain by his brother Telamon and Peleus; and the verses of Pindar’ become more real when we think that he knew the rough stone of the sepulchre. In the opening words of that Ode for Pytheas, he takes us to the greater harbour, and points to the large merchant vessels and smaller craft ready to put to sea. In another hymn® he mentions the games of Hera, and we may guess that they were held near the lesser, called “the secret,” haven, where Pausanias saw a single-sided stadion’. For the situation of the ‘‘sacred Thearion,” the building in which the college of the Theori of Apollo held public festivals, we have no clew’. 1 Nem. Vit. go Vlyavras 8s édduacas. the Cretan goddess Dictynna or Brito- 2 Pindar, frag. 75. martis was worshipped in Aegina. Paus. 3 11 29. 6. Il. 30. 3. 4° Nem. Vil. g syy. Pausanias knew 5 Nem. Vv. 13. however that Pindar had written a song 6 Pyth. VI. 79. for the Aeginetans in honour of the god- * Paus. 11. 29. 8. dess Aphaea, whose temple lay on the 8 Nem. 111, 69. Cp. Miiller, degéned. way from Aegina to the mount of Zeus 134. Panhellenius. Under the name Aphaea, INTRODUCTION. XXxiil It is perhaps worth observing that if we had only the Aeginetan odes of Pindar, we should not be able to appreciate the full range of his art. We should know the architectural character of his poems— Ganra péyapa as he called them, with a just perception of the style ; we should know the “sculpturesque” expression, which he could give to figures and scenes, and his power of painting pictures in a word or two. We should be familiar with those rapid transitions, by which he affected to conceal his purpose, those sudden turns which sometimes render his odes bewildering,—oxvSivarou, to apply a word of his own; and with the music of those telling “‘nova verba,” composite words, fashioned almost, one might fancy, by the very motion of the rhythm, yet never without their full effect in the context of the sense. We should be able to appreciate his grace, the dyAata which is the “note” of all his poetry, apparent very clearly in that last Aeginetan ode—perhaps the latest of his surviving poems. And we should know his way of sobering, as it were, the bright works, the dyaAara, with echoes of oracular wisdom—gnomes from Hesiod or maxims from holy Pytho—, expressed with a certain Delphic emphasis. But from these odes alone, we could hardly surmise the variety of his powers as a teller of tales. We have in them such impressive pictures as Apollo and the Muses singing on Mount Pelion, The child Achilles before Chiron’s cave, Heracles in the hall of Telamon, The Muses at the tomb of Achilles, and divers renderings of the Marriage of Peleus. Yet even from these sketches one could not divine the possibility of such tales as Pindar has elsewhere told,—the epyllion, as one might call it, of the sailing of the Argo; the myth of Rhodes, the lot and land of the Sun ; the “leaf-fringed legend” of Iamus; the tale of Cyrena, the maiden of the woodland; or the history of the death of Castor. Nor are any of the Aeginetan odes composed in the paeonic rhythm; of which indeed, apart from a precious fragment of a hyporcheme, only three examples—avagipdputyyes vuvot may one call them in a special sense? —have come down to us. 2. IsTHMUS. The Isthmian games were said to have been founded in memory of Melicertes, who passed into the form of the sea-god Palaemon, or accord- ing to another legend by Theseus as a monument of his own exploits on that memorable journey from Troezen to Athens. The local feast of XXXIV INTRODUCTION. the Isthmian Poseidon was doubtless very old, but it did not become an event of Panhellenic importance until the year 590 or thereabouts, in the days of the tyrant Periander. From this time forward at least the Corinthians were the presidents of the festival, which was celebrated biennially in spring. The games included all the trials of strength and skill which were practised at Olympia, and the victors received wreaths of selinon—zAdxor cedivwv?—, perhaps the wild celery. The temenos of Poseidon, the ‘lord of Isthmus,” where the feast was held, lay near the eastern end of the ‘“‘sea-fenced neck®,” almost due west of Corinth. Here was Isthmus in its special sense. For when Pindar says “Io@moi, this does not mean ‘‘on the isthmus” but “at Isthmus”—that place on the sea-bridge with which the name was specially connected, where the house of its lord stood. Here it was that, when he came from Aegae to the renowned Dorian Isthmus, he was received by glad companies and the sound of flutes‘, The whole Isthmus indeed was regarded as sacred to the god, a sort of natural precinct,—fa6éa “IoOuds®. It is interesting to observe the variety of expressions which Pindar uses to designate the scene of the Isthmian games. We hear of victors crowned “by Corinthians in the folds of noble Pelops,” or ‘in the corner of the Bay of Greece,” or “on Corinth’s inmost gulf,” or “on the sea-bridge in front of Corinth’s walls” or on “the bridge of indefatigable ocean®.” The isthmus is called the “neck of Corinth,” “the gate of Corinth,” “the sea-fenced neck of Isthmus,” the “portal of Poseidon’.” The place, dominated by the Mount of Corinth on one side and the hills of the Megarid on the other, was probably often spoken of as the “IoOu0v vazos®. In later times, there was a pine-grove at Isthmus, and after the destruction of Corinth, when the presidency of the games was transferred to the 1 In the second year of each Olympiad ; or in every even year B.C. (480, 478, &c.). The mean date was April 9. See Nissen, Ueber Tempel-Orientirung, in Rheinisches Museum, Neve Folge, Xui1. p- +7-—It may be mentioned here that in his first article on this subject (2. XL. P- 351, 1885) Nissen lays down the fol- lowing rule for the date of the Olympian festival: All uneven Olympiads begin at the full moon in August; all even Olym- piads at the full moon in September. Thus Ol. 75=480 began on Aug. 19. 2 Ol. XIIL. 33; called “ Dorian selina” Zsth, Vil. 6g (see note). The Nemean wreath was also of selinon, but withered. * Tloceddviov dv réuevos Ment. VI. 40; "IcOpod décrora sth. Vv. 53 aAcfepxéa "IoOpot depdia, Jsth. 1. 9. 4 Nem. V. 37. 5 [sth. 1. 32. 5 See Mem. 11. 20, VI. 30 (uvx@ ‘ENAG- dos awdoas), X. 42 (Koplv@ou ev pvxois), Lsth. W11. B20, Ment. VI. 39. 7 Ol. VIII. §2, 1X. 86, Zsth. 1. g, Ol. XI, 4. The derivation of "Icués is obscure, but lcOuov, secklet, makes it probable that it meant neck. 8 Jsth. vi. 68, cp. Bdooaow "LoOpob, I. A II. INTRODUCTION. XXXV Sicyonians, victors were crowned with pine instead of selinon. But it is not known whether pines were a special feature of the place in the days of Pindar ; he certainly does not mention them. The temenos of Poseidon, the stadion of white stone, and a theatre were the chief things to see, when Pausanias visited Isthmus. With the theatre we have, in connexion with Pindar, nothing to do. The site of the sacred enclosure has been roughly defined, close to the Isthmic Wall; and the stadion, a little to the south, can still be clearly traced. Entering the peribolos one passed through an avenue of statues of Isthmian victors, and pine trees—at least in the days of Pausanias—up to the temple of Poseidon, which was guarded by bronze Tritons. It is impossible to know which of the statues which Pausanias saw were as old as the age of Pindar. We may suppose that the Nereids had their place within the temple of the lord of Isthmus: aA = 2 nw . vov atte “IoOuod dSeamdra oh Nypeideoot te mevtyKovta'. The appearance of Castor and Polydeuces in the First Isthmian Ode would be illustrated, if we knew that the Tyndaridae were to be seen on the base of a statue of Poseidon in the days of Herodotus of Thebes*. And it is interesting to observe, in connexion with a passage in the Sixth Isthmian’, that Pausanias saw statues of Bellerophon and his horse Pegasus, the son of Poseidon. Within the peribolos there was also a small temple of Palaemon, “on the left” as you entered‘. 1 Tsth. v. 6. 2 Pausanias 11. 1. 8 rod oceddvos 8é elow érepyacnéva TH BAO pw kal of Tuvda- pew matdes 8re Oy owrhpes Kal ofra ved 3, or in the English translation by Messrs Nettleship and Sandys of Seyffert’s Dic- tionary of Classical Antiquities, sab Isth- mian Games.—A local inscription of P. kal dvOpmrwy elol vauTiAdopevoy, 3]. 44. For the connexion of Belle- rophon and Pegasus with Poseidon and with Corinth see the article Bellerophon in Roscher’s Lexikon der gr. u. rom. Mythologie. 4 Its situation is marked in Leake’s plan of Isthmus which will be found in his Zravels in the Morea, vol. 11, plate Licinius Priscus Juventianus, copied by Leake (Zvavels in the Morea, 11. 294), mentions several buildings of which Pausanias says nothing: temples of De- meter, the Koré, Dionysus, Artemis and Euetéria; a Plutoneum : éyxpirapeoe olkoe, where the eligibility of the competitors was tested. XXXVI INTRODUCTION. 3. The Text, with some remarks on metrical canons, The text of the Isthmians, like that of the Nemeans, depends almost entirely on the Vatican (B, 12th cent.) and Florentine (D, 13th cent.) manuscripts, which alone contain all the epinician odes of Pindar’ and are derived from the same archetype. When these sources differ, the superiority is more frequently, but by no means always, on the side of B’. For example, in /st#. 1. 48, B has tpdpet (D rpépet), in 111. B 2 B preserves words omitted in D, in vi. 15 B preserves Aiyeidac (D aideio Aa). On the other hand D has preserved, for example, the Doric crasis in Il. B 25 Kyv youvois (B «eiy), the future kopagopar in IL B72 (A Kw- palopor), Sre in 111. B 18, wddae in IV. 44 (B wad). In 1. 21 I have accepted wevdpevor from D in preference to the generally received reading (yevdpevor) of B. On the other hand in 11. B 35, I prefer B’s téxva. to D’s réyva. Sometimes both mss err in different ways and enable us to deduce the original, as in 111. B 27, where B has dodév, D doday, and the inference is dowdy. Similarly in v. 12, éoxariis B, and éoxarids D, point to the Aeolic accusative éoyartais as the true reading. Cotn- pare V. 45. The textual difficulties in the Isthmians are perhaps fewer, propor- tionally to the number of verses, than in the Nemeans. I have adopted the following conjectures of my own: I. 9 kav for kai, IV. 35 cuppdxois, v. 59 Bat’, vi. 33 dud’, 50 év catow, Vil. 12 detypa, 13 Oéuev, 41 avdp,, 65 map, 68 yepapeyey 6. In 1. 17, 24, Il. 10, 11. B 12 I believe that I have improved the text by a change in punctuation. In 11. B 45 I have adopted @ypa (read by Thiersch, Boeckh, Dissen &c.), but explained it in a new way. In the following passages I have accepted corrections of Bergk: I. 41; Il. 10, 19; Iv. 53 v. 46; vi. 16, 23. In v. 36 I adopt the emendation of Mr Tyrrell, and in v. 72 that of Mommsen. There are of course many other cases, in which with previous editors I diverge from the mss, but they need not be specified here. In some cases where corruption is generally assumed I have defended the tradition of the Mss; as in I. 29, IL. 51, V. 31—33. 1 B however omits /s¢k. VII. 15—40 Vatican 1), and Ambrosian D. and 54—70; also Py¢h. 1, and parts of 2 The scribe of D was clearly a more Pyth, i1., OL 1. and O7 v.—The other careless copyist than the scribe of B. mss which contain the Isthmia have no Such mistakes as vdov for véov (IV. 63), independent value. They are, as marked crredbew for oréview (V. 9, so crovdaiow by Mommsen, Parisian D, Florentine D, 1. 37) are due to mere carelessness. INTRODUCTION. xxxvii In the textual criticism of Pindar we are sometimes brought face to face with delicate questions of metre and are required by metrical authorities to make serious alterations in the text in order to bring it into accordance with their canons. No one will deny that metre is an invaluable aid. It shews us, for instance, that in /s¢#. 111. B 53 we are to read Kadpeidv as a quadrisyllable, and in like wise OtvetSa: in Jsth. rv. 27. One can have no objection to writing odpe: for odpel in Zsth. v. 32, or ipdy for tepdv in OZ 111. 30, if metricians require it. Nor could we reasonably refuse to pronounce Starperéa as WU — in Lsth. IV. 445 one might even consent to write Siamperf. So in Mem. vit. 35 NeowtdAcpos is -vuv, though we need hardly write NevrroAcuos. But when it comes to reading edzpdrdors for edtparédows in Pyth. 1. 100, on the ground that a dactyl cannot take the place of a spondee, one feels that one is not on such safe ground. It seems to me that we know too little about metre to justify us in pressing Pindar with dogmatic canons. It is admitted, for there are too many examples to render a denial possible, that a tribrach may take the place of a trochee. The most uncompromising upholder of metrical regularity has not ventured to question xeipis &u&xous, Moicd répias, d& pedzrav in Isth. v. 41, 57, 66% On the other hand the possibility of resolving the thesis of a spondee is gainsaid, although there are several clear instances of oG— for+—. In Wem. 1. 14 radaldarov |@yopdv is condemned, and we are asked to read dAxéy (proposed by Pauw, and supported by Mr W. R. Hardie’), or dpyav (suggested by Boehmer*). In Jsth. 111. B 54 it is proposed to substitute cipyovra oxéGou for épegovra cxéo. In Mem. v. three instances of this scansion occur, and it seems highly arbitrary to alter them all‘. The resolution of the first syllable of a dactyl is admitted in the case of proper names. It is impossible to get out of the proceleusmatics in Eu gévi8a, mé,rpae, Vem. Vil. 70, or Tedéoté, da in Js¢th. 111. B 45. So too in Pyth. x1. 9, we find @€uw tepav, but when in the same ode the MSs present other cases of this scansion, where there is no proper name, it is proposed to emend*®. Thus it is admitted that proper names justify exceptions ; and Boehmer, although he rejects -uv for —— in 1 Cp. Mem. 111. 62, 83, Of. XIII. 81, palvwr; v. 12 Evégi,dos &plyyvdres, Boeh- 112, &c. x 2 Classical Review, July 1890. 3 Pindars Sicilische Oden, p. viii. of the valuable Introduction on Sz/benrhythmus, in which the metrical anomalies are con- veniently gathered together. 4 v6 yépdot palywv, Hermann yéru mer proposes ’EvdgéosevpuyyvGres; v. 10 majréposBA,Aavlov, Boehmer would trans- pose, “EAAavlov Oéocavro Tap Bwuoy marpos. 5 v, 41 70 8’ éredv or 7d Se redy (Boeh- mer 5} reév), and v. §7 which is otherwise corrupt. XXXviii INTRODUCTION. ordinary cases, actually proposes to read "AgapqtéSa: for *Adapyridar in iVem. X. 65 where we expect a spondee. Another canon is that a spondee cannot take the place of a dactyl. But against this we have OZ xiv. 21, ®epoepdvas EX “Axo, where it has been proposed to read 6: or éAv@’. Moreover in Zs. vii. 34, the MSS give Oeodatwy yxovoav, where the other strophes have —U-vu-v. As the sense leaves nothing to be desired, it seems to me very arbitrary to accept, as most editors do, éraxovoay from the Triclinian mss e, ¢. (Cookesley follows Kayser in reading 6éo¢ar’ diov- éverev ydp.) In any case, though it is a rule generally observed, there can be little doubt that it might be relaxed in the case of proper names. In OZ v. 18 (an ode whose Pindaric authorship has been questioned) we find eipd feovt “I datov te cemvoy avtpov where the corresponding verses have a dactyl’. I am therefore im- penitent as to the correction of Mem. x. 5 (moda & Aiytrrw “Id xrioev) which I put forward in my Memean Odes. The resolution of the trochaic thesis is, as we have seen, confessed to be admissible. It seems not unlikely that it occurs in Zsth. vi. 22 where the mss have dye. 7 dperdv ovx alaxuov vas. I have adopted in the text aicyiw (the reading of Triclinian mss): cp. sth, 1. 63, edOvpiav peilw péper. But I am not at all sure that aicxfova (so Bothe) implying a tribrach for a trochee is not the true reading. ' Boehmer, of. cit. 1xX.: ‘*O. 5. 24 Rechnung der Eigennamen.” kommt péovt’ *Téafoy, wenn es richtig, auf ETMINIKOIL ISOMIONIKAIS. ISTHMIAN I. ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN THE CHARIOT RACE AT ISTHMUS WON BY HERODOTUS OF THEBES. INTRODUCTION. WHEN Pindar was summoned to celebrate an Isthmian victory won by his countryman Herodotus, he was engaged on the composition of a paean to the Delian Apollo; but a sense of filial duty, as he says, prompted him to set aside the unfinished paean, for the sake of his ‘mother Theba’ to whose honour the success of Herodotus redounded. But for this preference he apologises in such a graceful way that Apollo could not possibly feel an offence. In fact he skilfully turns the matter so as to make it appear that Apollo is actually a gainer by the postponement of his own special song. Men of Ceos had entrusted to Pindar the task of composing the paean, and it was to be sung in their island. But now, owing to this delay, not so inopportune after all, the praises of Apollo will resound not only in Ceos, but also on the Isthmus; this accident affording an opportunity for introducing him into a work where Poseidon naturally claims the chief place. Apollo indeed was by no means out of place there, for, like Hermes, he was a god interested in contests (dydmos), and a guardian of strong young men}. After an address to Theba ‘of the golden shield’, and the graceful apology to Delos and Apollo for postponing the paean—which suggests a picture of 1 See Roscher Lexikon der gr. und gend”). Cp. the scholium quoted in note rim. Mythologie, pp. 442, 443, article onl. 11 of this ode. Apollon (‘‘als Ideal der mannlichen Ju- B, II. I 2 ISTHMIAN TI. “seaside men’ dancing on the shores of Ceos—Pindar declares triumphantly that six crowns had been won for Thebes}, the city in which Alcmena bare her undaunted son who once on a time sent a shudder through the dogs of Geryones. As Heracles was the most famous hero of Thebes, it is always appropriate to speak of it as the city of Heracles; but here the question forces itself upon one—why is the adventure with Geryones in the far west chosen as a characteristic labour of the great deliverer? We shall, in due course, discover an answer to this question in a later part of the ode. But it is not Heracles, but Herodotus, that Pindar has come to praise: Herodotus, who drove his own four-horsed chariot, depending on no charioteer as is stated with a certain emphasis. Clearly the car? of song, in which such prowess deserved to be borne, was no less than a nome in honour of Castor himself, a Kaorépeiov as the technical name went. Yet it was not to the deeds of a Spartan hero that a Theban poet would most gladly liken the deeds of a Theban victor. Thebes had her own mythical charioteer, Iolaus the companion and nephew of Heracles; none could be a more fitting prototype for the Theban Herodotus than he. But Iolaus never gave, like Castor, his name to a particular class of ‘equestrian nome’ ; and thus, for the sake of form’, Pindar links Castor and Iolaus together; a partnership in which the Spartan hero plays a formal, the Theban the real part. Yet when one reads, ‘for of heroes they were the best charioteers born at Lacedaemon and at Thebes’, one can hardly help thinking that if, when these words were written, there were some special bond between the city of Dirce and the city of the Eurotas, the collocation Aaxedaipou cai OnBats would have been impressive indeed‘. That Iolaus, and not Castor, is the true parallel to Herodotus, through- out a description in which the plural number is formally used, Pindar takes care to shew by verbal signals. We are told how they carried off prizes, tripods and cauldrons and plates of gold, and made their houses fair with such monuments of valour, won in all sorts of contests, not only chariot- races but foot-races both for unclad and for heavy-armed runners, trials in javelin-throwing and in quoit-throwing. But it is in the prizes of Iolaus rather than of Castor that the poet is interested, and to the curious who 1 Mezger thinks that the Grandgedanke of the hymn is abundance of crowns won for Thebes, as in mythical times by Iolaus, so recently by Herodotus. But he does not express this very lucidly (p. 312), and he introduces ‘the Tyndarids’, where- as only one Tyndarid is mentioned and his part is subordinate (only ‘formell’ as Mezger himself rightly pointed out). He divides the ode thus: dpxd, I—13, kaTa- tpord, 14—16, dudadds, 17—-31, meTa- kararpotd, 32—33, oppayls, 34—63, éddiov, 64—68. 2 évapudéat 1. 16, see note. 3 Mezger, p. 308: ‘Die Erwahnung Kastors ist also auf formelle Riicksichten zuriickzufiihren’. 4 This struck Dissen who therefore assigned the ode to 457 B.C. shortly before the battle of Tanagra. He also called attention to roAeulfwy 1. go, finding in it (needlessly) a reference to a war threatening Thebes. Mezger has pointed out the weakness of Dissen’s arguments. INTRODUCTION. 3 examine his signals he displays his intention thus. (a) In the 4th line of strophe 2 we have , , , Tevopevoe orebavov responding punctually to the 4th line of antistrophos 1 i Setpad’* eet rrepdvovs. This responsion suggests that the crowns in the second case, as in the first case, were won for Thebes, that is, by Iolaus. (4) diddauai re xpucoi, 1, 20, and (¢) domé8odovmoow, 1. 23, have the same intent, reminding us of xps- cam O7Ba, 1.1. And (d) xepoty, 1. 24, which by itself would prove nothing, may be connected with this group of signals; compare xepet, 1. 15, where it implies the hands of Herodotus himself. (¢) té\os 1. 27: Tédos 1. 6. Before we leave these heroes, in order to pass again to modern things, we have a picture of them shining, Castor on the banks of the Eurotas, Iolaus by the waters of Dirce, each crowned with leaves of victory, standing, as it were, in his place to receive the ‘ Farewell’ of the singers. The third part of the hymn, like the second, is ushered in by the poet himself ; an emphatic ‘I’: 1.14 GAN éyd ‘Hpodére 1.32 éyd be tovd’ dvdpos. In both cases Pindar’s suggestion seems to be that he has, chiefly at least, to do with modern events, not with ancient tales, which had their own poets. He affects to recall himself to his proper province. ‘Heracles slew Ge- ryones: but I am the poet of a modern Theban.’ ‘Farewell, O Castor and Iolaus; for I am the poet of Herodotus.’ A second time, however, he passes away from the present, but not to such a distant age as that of Iolaus. He passes away to a person and an event which interested and affected Herodotus very nearly. By the favour of Poseidon, Herodotus had won the greatest and latest of all his victories, that at the Isthmian games. But not always had Poseidon shewn such favour to the house of the victor. Asopodorus, his father, had little reason to bless the god of the ocean. It would seem that he was a trader, and that his ships venturing beyond the western straits into the ‘immeasurable’ Atlantic sea were wrecked: there, the loss of his worldly goods well-nigh proving his ruin. One might think from Pindar’s words that Asopodorus himself suffered. shipwreck and barely escaped with his life. However that may have been, the sea had not been his friend. And it was a happy thought of Pindar to work into his hymn the idea that the god of the sea had compensated to the son the injury which he had done the father. In an ode honouring Poseidon it would have been un- seemly openly to express this thought,—a reflexion on the god. But it was easy for Pindar, with a system of signals at his command, to suggest it. The 3rd verse of the 3rd strophe referring to the shipwreck, is 37 €& duerpyras adds ev Kpvoécoa, 4 ISTHMIAN I. accurately responding! to the 3rd verse of the Ist antistrophos, which refers to the celebration of the victory on the Isthmus: Q dvdpdow, Kdv ray ddt-Fepkéa "IoOpod. The sea which wrecked the ships of Asopodorus is the sea which was asso- ciated with the triumph of Herodotus. Asopodorus survived the shipwreck. He withdrew to Orchomenus his own city’, and there won back prosperity. The language of Pindar shews that he was a man of indomitable energy, who had performed great labours. This is a point on which the poet manifestly wished to lay stress; for the words ‘labour’ and ‘toil’ are repeated in almost consecutive lines: 40 6 Tomoas: 42 mévos: 46 podxdav ravrodaray. And here we approach the explanation of that difficulty which came up in the early part of the ode, the—intrusion, as it almost seemed, of Geryones. Let us bear in mind that Herodotus was compared to Iolaus, of whom Pindar (1. 30) speaks as ‘the son of Iphicles’. *Iduxdéos pév tats (in the 1st line of the 2nd epode) may signal to araide, (in the 1st line of the rst epode); if so, Iphicles signals to his brother Heracles; the point being to remind us that Heracles was the uncle of Iolaus. Iolaus is the prototype of Herodotus; the insinuation seems to be that Heracles is the prototype of Asopodorus. And so he proves to be*. Not only is Asopodorus, like Heracles, a man of labours; but the most remarkable event in his life finds a special parallel in the life of Heracles. The shipwreck of Asopodorus in the far west is compared to an adventure of Heracles on those distant shores. We can now answer the question which we asked above. We can see why the battle with Geryones was chosen for special mention out of all the deeds of the son of Alcmena, see, too, why the son of Alcmena is mentioned at all. The point of resemblance between the father of Herodotus and the uncle of Iolaus is that both laboured, and in the same perilous places, where stretches the ‘immeasurable sea’. Asopodorus is praised for his generosity in expending money on noble 1 This important responsion was not noticed by Mezger. 2 Herodotus was OnBaros, but it does not appear whether he was born so, or not. One may imagine that Asopodorus of Orchomenus had become a Theban citizen, retaining however property in the territory of Orchomenus, to which he retired in the day of his adversity. 3 Further indications of this train of thought may lie in dyaxNéa Trav ’Acwmo- dépov marpds aloay, which may suggest the second part of the names "I¢ixréa (mentioned a few lines before) and ‘H pa- kAéa; and in ovyyevhs méruos which may echo the description of Iolaus as ouddapos éov Zraprav yéves. INTRODUCTION. 5 objects of ambition, as well as for his manifold labours; for which praise in song, assuredly due, is paid in this hymn, which is a gift to Asopodorus as well as to Herodotus. And in connexion with the enthusiasm of the father and the son for the Hellenic games, Pindar meditates on the conditions of humanity. Different men have different occupations; and different occu- pations produce different pleasures as their results. But in the first instance, the end of all men is alike: merely to keep off ‘brute hunger’! from their bellies. When this first need is supplied, they advance from necessaries to luxuries ; and of all luxuries glory is regarded as the highest, the most refined. ‘Whosoever wins, in games or in war, the luxury of glory, he receives the highest prize, even the praises of fellow-citizens and of foreigners?’ The luxury of glory,—that is the meaning of kidos dBpov. It is to be observed that the poet speaks here of winning fame ‘in war’ (trodep(fwv) as well as in games. An unwarranted inference has been drawn by some, that some particular contemporary war, affecting Thebes, must be meant. But the introduction of war here is perfectly accounted for if we remember that these lines are meant for Asopodorus as well as for Herodotus, glory won ‘in war’ applying to the father; as glory won in games applies to the son. Not that Asopodorus fought battles. But Heracles, who did fight battles, is here the prototype of Asopodorus ; just as Iolaus is the prototype of Herodotus; ‘war’ being readily understood as typical of the harder labours of life. And now we have another transition, this time to the immediate cause of the hymn, Herodotus and his victories. Once more the transition is made with an emphatic first person: 52 Gppt & Zorke. Once more Poseidon is praised for the recent victory at Isthmus, and five other victories at other places are enumerated. Herodotus had been successful at the games in his own towns; at the Theban festival in honour of Heracles or Iolaus, and at the Orchomenian festival in honour of Minyas. He had also come home crowned with barley from the games of Demeter at Eleusis ; he had been victorious in Euboea, and he had been victorious too in remoter Phylace, on the gulf of Pagasae, where a contest was held in honour of Protesilaus. On these occasions the noble quality of the fortu- nate Theban was brilliantly proved; even as the valour of Iolaus was proved in the races which he ran whether simply or in armour. This comparison is brought out by a responsion. At the end of strophe 2 we read Aauaret 8€ cars dpera & re yupvoicr oradios opiow & 7 domidoSolmorw omdirats BSpdpors 1 Newdv alava. Pindar praising Theban Iolaus is a wohd- 2 The mention of foreigners as well as ras; praising Laconian Castor, he is a citizens may have been suggested by the —évos. mythical instances of the present hymn. 6 ISTHMTAN I. of Castor and Iolaus ; and at the end of strophe 4 kat To Aduarpos KAurov GAgos ’EXevoiva kat EvBouav év yvapmrois Spépos of Herodotus. Other victories, too, of less account, had fallen to the lot of Herodotus, by the favour of Hermes, ‘lord of games’; but Pindar declines to recount them, alleging the ‘short measure’ of his hymn. And, he adds, ‘that which is hidden in silence often brings a greater dole of joy’. Here we become aware of another and a stranger group of signals. The last word of the fourth antistrophos corresponds to the last word of the third strophe?: 40 ovyyerns edapepias. 6 movnoas 5€ vd@ kal mpopaberav déper. 63 duvos. 4 wav moAAdK Kal.rd cecwomapévov evOupiav pio déper. In the first passage it is implied that the renewed prosperity of Asopodorus was partly due to the ‘forethought’ which he had learned in adversity. Herodotus has not learned in that school himself; his labours have been crowned with success; but still higher successes may be in store for him —an Olympian or Pythian victory, for instance,—if he is moderate in his prosperity, appreciating the value of silence and reserve. In this way Pindar delicately hints at the principle of the Measure, which should de- termine life, as it actually determines art,—excluding, for example, from this hymn matters of which Herodotus might have wished to hear at large: ‘62 aaipetrar Bpayd pérpov exav duvos. And was not the import of the Measure indicated, figuratively, in the very calamity which happened to his father? For it was in the sea beyond the Atlantic limits, the sea which knows no measure, that the shipwreck took place. 37 e& dperpriras adds év xpvoéooa ovrtuxia. And if Asopodorus recovered after that blow, it was due to his prudence and moderation, a temper of which his name even might seem to contain an augury, as Pindar suggests in the words 34 tay ’A-cwro-ddépou marpos aicay, which he explains by a signal in 1. 63— TO wEerwmapevov. Silence, symbolic of a becoming reserve, is the omen of Asopodorus; it may not be ill, Pindar seems to hint, if the son too adopt it as a maxim. He hints at this before he goes on to pray that Herodotus may yet charge his hands with leaves of Pythian or Olympian wreaths, and appear crowned on the banks of Dirce,-even as Iolaus of old appeared: 29 Epveo. 66 epveor. The winning of such wreaths means considerable expense; but Herodotus snot ahoarder. He is not one of those who keep their wealth at home, and go down to the grave without glory. The way in which Pindar puts 1 This responsion was not observed by Mezger. INTRODUCTION. 7 this seems to imply that some of his fellow-citizens had criticized Herodotus for extravagance. The latter part of the fourth system contains a group of echoes answer- ing to the latter part of the first system. A comparison seems to be insti- tuted between the success of the victor which has led to the present hymn, and the possible successes which may cause a future hymn. (a) rysdv rebxovr’ 1. 67 echoes tetxw yépas 1.144 (8) The and which guided the reins of the victorious chariot at Isthmus may yet feel the touch of an olive crown at Olympia or a laurel wreath at Pytho; this is suggested by a metrically accurate responsion?. 15 advia + dddorpias ov xEpol vopdoarr ebédo. 66 ~AAdéod epveot Ppdka xelpa riyuav émramvdas. But there is another pair of echoes which seem to have some darker mean- ing. (y) In 1. 67 we have e 8 ris evdov véwer wrAovTov Kpudaioy, &dowwt 8” éurinrev yeda, Which seem to signal to dAAotpiats ov yepot vopdcavr’’, This may mean that the independence of Herodotus in driving his own chariot is of a piece with his indifference to the opinion of others in regard to the dispensing of his own wealth. But it crosses one’s mind that some hint may have been here intended for Herodotus himself. Can Pindar have wished to insinuate that it might be well for him not to drive his own chariot but to employ a charioteer? Can he have meant to say, ‘let those hands, which held the reins, henceforward handle only wreaths’? Was this a point in which Herodotus was asked to take a lesson from the ‘ prudence’ (apopadea) of his father? If so, the last words of the hymn would have a double edge; the second, darker signification being that Herodotus might do well if he were to go a little further in his outlay and pay the hands of others to guide the reins of his chariot in those dangerous contests. One might even wonder whether some accident had somewhere befallen the son of Asopodorus,— concealed and suggested by the poet in his 76 ceowmapevoy. 1 Not noticed by Mezger. ? yéuw is also significant in the Second 2 Jealousy is hinted at in 1. 44 @@ove- Isthmian (see Il. 22 and 47). patos yvopats. 8 ISTHMIAN I. METRICAL ANALYSIS. (Rhythm: dactyloepitritic.) STROPHE. evuryvynrr tes. suru: mV TtetmuynreYEnDS —vunrus Us vu | sure o mun: vw Sr ve es oO er ee emu neo M. Schmidt arranges this scheme in three parts, the first and third cor- responding in the number of feet. A (vv. 1 and 2)=A’ (v. 6); B=vv. 3, 4,5. In order to give A eleven feet (like A’), he interprets the third foot of the strophe as two; thus: parep éu- | a ro re- | ov: | xpvo-+ | aome | O7nBa. EPODE, vy = | meV r str om VU ry Her mr er eS sSyuyvrVyrrrMvrosceeEn = | SSS Ss Sy SS Svea U5. =e | sy r ss ty ry rr rr rr rere Here Schmidt’s scheme is epodic: A (vv. 1, 2), A’ (vu. 3, 4), B (vw. 5), and the number of feet is A, A’=(8+8)=16. B = 13. In order to obtain this, he interprets the syllables -va pig- in 1. 13 (similarly in the first verse of the other epodes) as each a trisémos (-.); and treats -ats ov (1. 15, etc.) in the same way. Inv. 5 he assumes a pause equivalent to a foot at the beginning. IS@MIONIKAI A’. HPOAOTQ OHBAIQ APMATI. Marep eua, To Teov, ypvoacmi O78a, Tpayua Kal adoyorias virépTepov Onoopar. Adnos, év & Kéxupas. 1. Mérep «.7.d.] Thy concern, O my mother, Theba of the golden shield, will I set above business itself. There was doubtless at Thebes a statue of Theba bearing a golden shield. That she was arrayed too in a robe of gold may be inferred from frag. 195, evdpuare xpuco- xitwy lepdrarov dyahua. Her statue at Olympia, a gift from Phlius, is men- tioned by Pausanias (V. 22, 5). xpboac- ais is applied to Ares in /sth, VI. 253 Euripides (Phoentssae, 1372) has it of Pallas.—Both the gold and the shdeld are meaning here, signalling to the second strophe (Il. 20, 23); see Ltroduction, Pp: 3- z kal doxodlas] ‘Even preoccupa- tion’ in plain prose. This phrase of Pindar became ‘a familiar quotation.’ We have it in Plato Phaedrus, 227 B ovK dy ole. pe xara IIlvdapov kal doxodlas biréprepov mparyua wojoerOar TO oiy Te kal Avotov SiarpiByy dxodoa. doxodos occurs in Pyth. VIII. 29 and oxoAd in Nem. X. 46.—The preoccupation referred to is the composition of a paean to the - otp. a’. fn bol Kpavad veweracar Delian Apollo: see Zetroduction and be- low 1. 6.—The comparative of Urép in Pindar is always tréprepos; for the super- lative he has both brépraros and dmepu- TATOS. 3. pa pou x7.) May craggy Delos, in whose service my soul has been shed, not be wroth with me. Kpavads, applied to Athens in Mem. XIII. 11, is equiva- lent to rpayds. veperdioar from veuerdu : in Pindar only here. 4. @vd&Kéxupor] This strange phrase, which has no parallel in early Greek writers, has been questioned. Hartung conjectured réraya, quoting Pyth. x1. 54 évvaior 8 dud’ dperats rérayo (ey- xeiuae being the scholiast’s paraphrase in both passages). This conjecture however does not explain the origin of xéxuua. If we take into account the later usage of xéyuuae with eds, pos, ‘to be all given to’ (for which see Liddell and Scott sub yéw), we may be ready to believe that, though this usage may not have yet come in, the verb was susceptible even in Pindar’s time of such 10 IZOMIONIKAI A’. Ti pivtepov Kedvav ToKéwv aryabois ; 5 elfov, & "roddwrids’ ddotepav tor xapitav adv Ocois fevéw TéXOS, an application, then perhaps bold even in poetry. A verse of the obscure (pro- bably Alexandrine) poet Lycophronides is quoted by Bergk in support of the text (P.L.G. p. 634, fr. 2, 3) émel woe vdos ddA kéxura. émt ray Xdpiow Pidav maida cat xadév.—Making up our minds to accept xéxuuac we may be sure that év is right and need not entertain Rauchenstein’s é@ (cp. schol. ép’ 9 viv was &yxemat). ev means ‘in the case of’, ‘in dealing with’. Herwerden (Pixdarica p. 30) proposed év dv, Boeotian for és a. 5. wl x.7..] This verse takes up Marep éud, and assigns a reason for the preference given to Theba. But it may also have a secondary bearing on the relations of Herodotus to Asopodorus. 6. eltov x.7.A.] Yield, thou that art Apollo’s, knowing that by the favour of the gods f shall yoke together the particular ends of both gracious works, quiring in honour of unshorn Phoebus both in water- girt Ceos, with seafaring men, and on the floor of Isthmus’ neck which severs seas. Mr Fennell rightly takes & “ao\Awvids of Delos personified (corresponding to Theba), not of the island.—dpugorépas is the reading of D, but B, offering the unmeaning dy@orépay, suggests the true reading dpdorepdy restored by Boeckh and confirmed by the scholium: dvo xapirwv. : Commentators seem not to have fully realised the difficulties of this passage; they certainly have not apprehended its meaning. In the first place, what are the two xdpires? On this point two explanations are offered in the scholia, (1) muds pév, Ste avrg 7d dovpmrepacrov ypdpe molnua, devrépas 5é bre weoOetoa brexuspynoe TH viv rob ‘Hpodérov éyxwuly. According to this note, ydpires means favours bestowed by Delos (or Ceos?), one being the original commission to write the poem, the other her courtesy in giving place to Theba. Thus when Pindar completes the poem he will have a double debt to pay. But this interpre- tation is not consistent with the tenor of the following lines, which are evidently an expansion of the clause under con- sideration. (2) dudorépwr rav xaplrwr 7d Tédos cugevtéw, Kad’ qv Te col xapioréov éorl cal cad’ wv TH warpldr. olovel dudé- TEepa Toijow, Kal Tov "Amdd\dAwva év @ bet Kap vuviow kal tov émlycxoy wAnpdcw. That is, ‘I shall fulfil both gracious tasks, that for Apollo and that for Theba, in due time’. This is the explanation given by Dissen and most generally received. But there is little point in such a statement. Moreover this explanation does not do justice to fevéw rédos. Mr Fennell rejects Dissen’s utriusgue hymni cum diis per- texam finent, but I cannot say that I quite understand his own view as conveyed in the translation ‘I shall combine the performance of both obligations’. How are they to be combined? It is clear that the two xdpires can be no other than the two poems in ques- tion: that which is before us and that which for its sake Pindar postponed. These two poems are in some manner to be yoked together; what is the {vyév? It must surely be the praise of Apollo, mentioned in the following participial clause. If Apollo is to be celebrated presently at Ceos and is also here, in these first lines, praised at Isthmus, the poet might regard the hymns as in a certain sense yoked. The praise of Apollo ts a tédos common to both. This explanation involves a slight change in 1. g (see note). ‘ot, ‘you know’, intro- duces a statement intended to overcome any reluctance on the part of Delos to ISTHMIAN I. II kai Tov axeipexcpav PoiBov yopevwv > % > , \ t év Kép audupita adv trovtious ’ ' avT. @. > a avipdcw, kav tay ddifepKéa “lo Opuod Seipad* érrel crehavous 10 && drracev Kaduou otpate é& déOrwr, yield.—xaplrov, sweet or gracious ser- vices, here the ode to Herodotus and the paean. Cp. Js¢h. 111. A 8.—The force of téXos is illustrated by the phrase in 1. 27 below, 颒 éxdory epymare xetro rédos, each event had its own end, was inde- pendent of the others. So the two poems were originally independent, had each a réXos of its own. Their accidental asso- ciation suggested to Pindar that he might make them, to some extent, interde- pendent by introducing into the first an anticipatory reference to the subject of the second. They might thus in some measure be considered a pair; for the paean, not yet completed, must be sup- plemented by these introductory verses. 7- Gketpexdpav] In Pindar only here and Pyth, 11. 14. In Homer (T 393 Hymn, to Apollo, 134) the form handed downyaxeprexduns, but the original Aeolic must have been dxeppexduas. Pausanias (Vv. 22, 2) gives a dedicatory distich on a gift sent to Olympia by the inhabitants of Apollonia : poduar’ Aro\wrlas avaxeluea, Tay évt TovTw "Tovly BoiBos @xio’ dxepoexduas. In early art Apollo is represented with long locks, sometimes plaited.—For xo- pedwv with an accusative of the deity honoured by the choros, compare Sopho- cles, Antigone, 1153 xopetovoe Tov Talay "Taxxov. In Euripides éMoow has the same construction; Heracles, 690 rév Aarots etrada yévov eldlocovoa. 8. év Kég] Perhaps at the temple of Apollo at Carthaea, one of the chief cities of Ceos (Dissen and Fennell).— dphipita (dudiptra D, dupippira B), only here in Pindar. For the declension of compound adjectives in Pindar see note on Memcan ul. 2. Cp. Aleman fr. 21 Tldgov mepipptray, and frag. adesp. 101 (Bergk 111. p. 722) Tévedds re mepippira (add Sappho’s @wvdy dxapdray, fr. 118, 2, ed. Bergk). seplppuros, frequent in poetry of islands (as in Phdloctetes, 1) is not found in Pindar.—ovriots dv8pacc, schol. rots vnowdsraus dv dpact. 9. Kav] For xal dvd.—mss. xal, not questioned by previous editors, But it is clear that rdy ddcfepxéa IoOuob Sepdd’ is parallel to Kéw dugipire not to BoiSov (to which Poseidon would correspond). The point is that Apollo will be praised at Isthmus as well as at Ceos; see note on 1. 6.—The reading of the mss. «al was a conscious correction of kav falsely interpreted as xal év. For dvd see Appendix H.—For ddvfepkéa,, cp. O2. VIE. 25, where it is used of an island (Aegina) and Pyth, 1.18 ral 0’ brép Kiuas adcfepxées bxOat, sea-fenced banks. Here too it is generally taken sea-hedged, but Mr Fennell translates ‘barring sea from sea’, thus making the Isthmus a épxos of the sea, not the sea of the Isthmus. Hermann reads adtepkéos, as the hiatus before Ie@pyo00, for which a digamma cannot be established, is certainly curious.—Sepd8a: cp. OZ. vit. 52 KoptvOov detpa6’, where schol. interprets 6 68 "IoOuds crevotra: ws éml owpare Tpa- xnés, rightly I believe, though commen- tators take depds=jugum. 1. &€ dmacev] Since he (Phoebus) bestowed six crowns from games on the host of Cadmus, u glory of fair victory to my country.—Phoebus is the subject of Omacey as Aristodemus of Alexandria pointed out, schol. (Abel, p. 359): 76 6é Gracey éml rod "Amé\Nwvos' mpoorarys yap Tuy dyavuar 6 Oeds, ef ody mpovola not rod Ged verixnxévat Tov ‘Hpddorov, ov 12 IZOMIONIKAI A. ? KaddiviKov tTatpior Kvdos. TéKev maida, Opaceias Tov Tote I'npvdva ppi€ay Kvves. "To Opixods dyGvas d\Na cuuplxrous (the six are enumerated 1. 52,sqq.).—According to the usual interpretation "Icdmés is subject of dracev and the six wreaths were won by various Thebans at the recent Isth- mian games. My view of the preceding lines implies that Phoebus was the giver ; the general é& dé@\wy does not define at what contests the crowns were won. The punctual enumeration of six victories in 1, 52 sqq. strongly confirms this expla- nation, which coincides with that of Aris- todemus. orparés (applied to the Thebans in Wem. 1. 61) here means specially those who presented themselves to take part in games ; the champions of Thebes. Cp. "Ed\ava orparév, Nem. X. 25. But Pin- dar often uses orparés for people, as in Pyth. 1. 86 vispa, Sixaly mndadly orpardy, just as Sophocles uses orédos, Oed. Tyr. 169 voret 5é wot mpdmras orbdos.—eé débdov, closely with orepdvovs, as the source of the wreaths. The de\a meant were (1) the Isthmian, (2) Iolaea or Heraclia at Thebes, (3) Minyea at Orchomenus, (4) Eleusinia, (5) perhaps Geraestia, in Eu- boea, (6) Protesilaea at Phylace; see elow 1. 52 sqq. 12. ‘warpl&.] My country (hence opebw). marpts occurs three times in indar (O2. xX. 36, Pyth. Iv. 98); warpa in the same sense is more frequent. The first syllable of arpa is generally short in Pindar, five times long, once common. In the declension of waryp, the vowel before rp is 21 times short, 18 times long, once eotmON: marpaderpeds, warporarwp, marpls, m&rpios, marpobey do not vary. mérpws is found once, and wdrpade like- wise. marputos is usual, but six times marpiuuos, twice marpuuos. év QJ scil. warplix. Ln which country ’ t év & kal Tov adeipavrov “AXkunva ? , €7. A. also Alcmena bare the intrepid child, who once on a time sent a shudder through the Jfierce dogs of Geryon.—xat suggests that Thebes has ancient as well as modern glories to be proud of.—aSelpavrov of the seed from which Heracles sprung in Vem. X. 17; an uncommon word, also found in Aeschylus (Persae, 162).—rékev, restored by Boeckh for réxe. 13. gplfav] With an object this word is rare in Pindar, elsewhere occurring only in O/. vit. 38 Ovpavds 5° Eppréé viv. The earliest mention of the myth of Geryonés is in Hesiod, 7heogony 287— 294, where we find the main features of the fuller story told by Apollodorus (Bibliotheca 11. 5, 10) as the tenth labour of Heracles. Geryonés lived in Erythea, an island of Ocean, near Gadira, and the herdman Eurytion with the dog Or- thros kept his dark red kine (gouexés Bas, Apollodorus). Geryonés had three heads (rpixépadov, lege tprxdpyvov, He- siod); according to Apollodorus, the dog had two. But in all the legends, only one dog is mentioned (Orthros, according to Pollux, v. 46, called Gargethos in Iberia), so that Pindar’s xvas is sur- prising. The scholiast suggests that Pin- dar is given to exaggeration (Abel, p. 360): 80s re Ilwddpy mpds 7d éavrod cuupépov kal ras loroplas BidfecOar. évds yap dvros Too T'ypvévov Kurds, ws ye Kal ‘Holodos aprupe?, “OpOov re xrelvas kal Bovxddov Evpurlwva, abrds TO TANOWwTiKG kaTaxpyoauevos Kives gnol. He adds that Pindar may have considered it unworthy of Heracles to confront him with a single dog. In the other passage where Pindar refers to Geryones he only mentions the oxen, Srag. 169, 5 éret U'npvova, Béas.,.dvairjras Te kal dmpidras jAacev.—If we remember ISTHMIAN I. 13 GN’ éyd “Hpodér@ tedyw 7d ev dppars teOpinmm yépas, ee > > t > \ / > AF avia T addoTpLats ov Yepol vwpLacavT 66H 15 Kaoropeip 7 “loddov évappokas viv tury. that Apollodorus gives the dog two heads (Sxépador) and that Orthros is represented on a Cyprian relief (printed in Roscher’s Lexikon der gr. und rim. Mythologie, p. 1635) with three heads, we can under- stand that Pindar might have regarded the dog as in a certain sense plural. T'npvéva from TIypudvys. The form in Hesiod is I'npvoveds, Inpvovq. On a Chalcidian vase (C. Z. G. 7582) we find Tapufovys. 14. GAN éyd «.7.4.] The mss, have redxwy 7d pev dpuare and avila 7. The scholia recognize 7d ev (p. 360: add éyh 7@ ‘Hpodérw karackevdgwy 7d pev Uuvov 8re TeOplrirm airds drywrirdpmevos b0 éavrod évixyoe’ 7d 5 bre Kal immorpo- gdnoev, abrov Bovdouat épappdca 7 Kac- topos 7} Toddou tuyy). As the text stands in the Mss. we cannot translate it fairly. uév is supposed to be answered by re; and the participle re’ywv to be coordinate with é0ékw. If we keep 7d pév, it is necessary to read Tevxw; then rT” may be explained as taking the place of ro 6é (see Appendix A), owing to a change of con- struction. If the sentence had continued according to its first purpose, it would have been something like this: dAN éyo ‘Hpodérw revxw, Td wey dpyare rep. yépas, 7d 5é Kaorépesov 7} lov. vuvov, (ws) avla dAX. ob xXepol vwudoayTs.—Various emen- dations have been proposed. Hartung conjectured redxwy pédos, dpuare replay yépas, awl? év n7d. which gives a simple construction, but ‘does not explain the corruption. Christ reads retyew (the construction being 20édw 7d wev—redyew, dvla 7—évapuoeat). M. Schmidt proposed ropév for 76 mer, while Bergk guesses reOudv dpuari—avl? ar’. Against Bergk’s suggestion it may be urged that reOudv is far from 7d pér, and, as he himself admits, that dre in Pindar always has a comparative sense. —I suggest déuev (which form occurs in Ol. vill. 85) involving the change of only a single letter. 7d puév however might have been a designed correction, not an accidental corruption, some one not apprehending that 7’ connects déuev with évapyota:, and that yépas depends on both revxwv and Séuev. For meaning cp. below 1. 45 déovs. We should then render: But Iam fain to frame a gift for Herodo- tus, an honour for his four-horsed chariot, and to harness him, for that he guided not the reins with the hands of others, to a strain worthy of Castor or TIolaos. But revxw is the simplest correction, and it preserves the idiomatic use of re. For tedxo of a hymn cp. Pyth. xi. 19 Tedxe Tduguvov pédos, and Pyth. 1. 4. Here it signals to revxovt’ below, 1. 67, just as in Vem. Iv. redxer in 1. 4 responds to revxe in 1. 84. See above, Lutroduc- tion, p. 7—In Pyth. Vv. 31 we have dpi Oapparov ‘yépas of a crown won in a chariot race (so Ol. 11. g yépas @Sexro). Here yépas means the gift of song which honours a victory. It is an honour in which the triumphant chariot is conceived to be interested. 15. vopdoavt] For ywpay with avla cp. Pyth. 1v. 18. vwyaw has the two meanings fly and guide (as in way 8 émt répua veya Agam. 781). A scholium has €dAelree 61d 7d vwAcOoL, which must not however lead us to suppose with Hartung that the scholiast had vwuéicOat in his text and explained it by the ellipse of 6€. We must rather believe that the note has been mutilated. Perhaps it began thus: éAdelree 7o 5€ and ended by ex- plaining voudoavra by did Td vopadoda. 16. Kac-ropelw] Observe that the long final diphthong is not shortened by the 14 IZOMIONIKAI A. kelvou yap npdwv Sippyratar Aaxedaiporr kal OnBais éréx- vobev KpatioToL, } > fF év 7 aéOro1or Oiyov TreiaTaV ayover, atp. B'. f kal Tpimrodecow éxoopnoav Sdpov hiatus. Hartung would insert 7’.—As Mr Fennell remarks, the nome of Cas- tor was a variety of the Utmmios vopos. The Castoreion is mentioned in Pyth, II. 69 7d Kaorépeov 8 év AlonlSerct xopdats dddwv dO pyoov. There is no reason to suppose that there was a special ‘nome of Iolaos’. "IoAdou’ is restored by Mommsen for ’Io\dou. évappétar] This word is chosen with reference to dpuart inl. 14. Cp. Mem. VII. 98 and my note there. As Herodo- tus himself drove his chariot, Pindar will now set him in the car of a hymn (cp. Moicatov dpua, Jsth. vit. 67). But it is also appropriate to Uuvos, suggesting, the particular dppovta (Dorian) to which the Castorean strain would be set. Cp. Awply puvay évapudéat redtXw in O/. 111.5. The schol. has épapudoa, but it does not follow, as Mommsen thinks, that he read épapudéa. Hartung’s vv apudfew év tuvy is not only wildly improbable but weak. Bergk’s suggestion cuvaputéac would preserve ‘Io\dov, but weaken the verb. 17. Kelvor x.7...] For those heroes (Castor and Iolaus) were born at Lace- daemon and Thebes to be the best chario- teers of all.—8vppnddtor, here ¢ but in Pyth, 1X. 81 dippnddrat.— erékvabev (rex- véw is not elsewhere in Pindar) kpdrio-ror =rexvadévres joay kpdricro: npwuv. We have both rékvov and réxvoy, each 3 times, in Pindar; here éréxvwOev. 18. &y 7° débdowwe «.7.d.] And they grasped the prizes of very many contests, and decked their halls with tripods and cauldrons and plates of gold. We have to choose between two interpretations of 1.18. (1) Dissen explains év dé0Xoue in ve ludicra, ‘in the matter of games’ and makes dydvwy depend on Olyov. (2) Mezger joins dydvwv d¢Odoror, and takes deOXa as the object of @lyov. Elsewhere in Pindar @cyydvw has the dative without a preposition. There can be little doubt that Mezger’s view is right. The objec- tions to (1) are, that Oryydvw is never found with the genitive in Pindar and that, if dé@Xout means contests (from deé- Ros), dywvwv is redundant. Such phrases as deON dydvew in a very difficult passage in the Zyachiniae (505), or Svcolcrwv movev Or’, Philoct. 507, or aydvev dusd- hav, Eurip. #. F. 812, cannot be fairly adduced here. éyv is used similarly with émexdpoos in O/. VI. 7 (év iweprats dodais), but Mr A. Palmer suggests that it might be adverbial here.—Bergk thinks there is some error in the text: ‘nam non de vic- toriis omnino sed de curulibus dicendum erat, reliqua genera deinceps singulatim percensentur’. He proposes rexvwhévres —etr’ dd0rowe Olyov, mreloTwy dydvur. Such a change is violent and needless. Granting that curule victories must be meant, this is fully expressed in the text. If we only appreciate the force of re in connecting sentences very closely, we must see that, as & 1° dé@Xoue Alyov comes immediately after SuppyAdray éréxvwOev kpdriorot, there is really no ambiguity. This point has been obscured by printing a colon instead of a comma after xpariorou. 19. ékéopynoav] This verb also oc- curs in Mem. 1. 22, VI. 53 and Pyth. Ix. 118.—Tripods and cauldrons were prizes in the Homeric contests (¥). On the words 6 7 “Apye: xadkds éyyw vw in Ol. vil. 83, there is the following scholium: AapBdvovor 5 évrelOev odk dpydy yadkdy ISTHMIAN TI. 15 kal NeBitecow hidratci Te ypvaod, cevopevoe otepavwv 20 vixaddpav' (Adurres Sé cadys apeTa a - é& Te yupvoice otadios cdicw & 7 domidodovTotcw srdiTals Spoposs, add tplrodas kat NByras kal dowldas Kal xpnrijpas. The tripods not meant for fire (darupot) were used for decorative purposes. —8dpov: in English we should use the plural. 20. ¢idAator] Silver phialae (dpyu- plées) were the prize at the games of Apollo at Sicyon (Vem. 1X. 51). Golden phialae (xpvoldes) were only in very wealthy houses. Such a phiala is de- scribed in O/. VII. 4 as mdyxpuvcov kopupay xredvwv. Cp. below Jsth. V. 40. Xpverod (genitive of material) echoes xpv- gvaome in line 1. 21. oevdpevor] rushing eagerly after crowns of victory.- This is a bold use of the present (imperfect) participle of cevo- wat in the same construction as the perfect ésovuevos (with retracted accent): cp. écovmevos Todeuov, etc. It happily sug- gests the swift motion in the chariot race. —Editors have universally adopted -yevé- vevot, the reading of BB. The Florentine Ms. has cevduevor. It is hard to see how yevduevor, if it were originally in the text, could have been altered to the difficult cevdmevor; whereas the reverse correction was most natural. If it be said that there is no other instance of cevduevos with a genitive, it may be replied that the same objection applies to the phrase év ¢ xéxuwac in 1. 4 above. The usage of écovevos seems to prove that such a construction was well within the limits of the Greek language. It is just the sort of unusual remodelling of a recognized usage that Pindar loved to venture on. orepdvwv indeed may be fairly regarded as genit. of mark. -yevdjmevor on the other hand is weak. The winning has been already expressed by év déOdovoe Olyov, ’ and it is more to the purpose to bring out another aspect in connexion with the crowns. Moreover ‘yevdmevor orepdvwy does not seem happy or in place, like the phrases, which are adduced to support it, movev eyevoavro in Nem, VI. 24 and 76 8’ éudv xéap tuvev yeverar in Lsth. IV. 20. cevopevot suggests the temper and conduct of the heroes throughout their career con- tinuously; they were ever speeding after victory.—The scholiasts seem to have read yevduevor, judging from the words Tov THs viens orepdvuw peradaBdyres (p. 363)._vikaddpev, dearing victory, that is, symbols of victory. I cannot agree with Mr Fennell in taking it from an assumed vixdpopos, ‘brought by victory’. orepdvey responds to oreddvous 1. 10 (Mezger). 22. oars] Predicate. Their (ool- ow) valour shineth true both in unarmea stadion races and in the hoplite courses where the clang of the shields falls heavy. 23. ‘yupvotor] Cp. Pyth, X1. 49 Tvd0t re yupvov éml orddioy KaraBdvres. "yume ordd.oy is opposed to drAtrddpopos.—dorme- 8d8ovr0s, doubtless coined by Pindar for this place. In D the word is corrupted to domtida racw, SrAlravs occurs only here in Pindar. émA(rats Spdpots, mazled races ; a close paraphrase of the technical dwAtrédpomos. With this phrase compare domioral uoxGo, Euripides, Electra 442 (Dissen). The Ninth Pythian, in honour of a Cyrenaean (Telesicrates) who won in such a race, opens with the words €6Aw xarkdomrda Ivdcovicay. —Spopors responds to Spdpots 1. 57 (Mez- ger). 16 old te yepalv, dxovrifovres aixpais, &. t x 4.3% > tf a Kat ABivows Orrdr év Siocxots tev. IZOMIONIKAI A’. avr. B’. 25 : > es ov yap qv tmevtdOdov, adr ed’ éxaoT@ &pyware xeiro TéXos)* 24,28. old rex.7.d.] There are three views as to the construction of these lines. (t) Dissen supplies @hayre oplow dpera with ofa (=ws), and dmére tev with dxov- rlgovres alxuats: ‘et quantopere fulge- bat eorum virtus quum manibus iacu- lantes iacula certarent et saxeis quum discis contenderent!’ (2) Mezger also regards the sentence as exclamatory (so too the scholiast: 7d d¢ ofa Qavpacrixas), but supplies tev with ofa. ‘And how they hurled with their hands, darting javelins and when they cast with stone quoits’. (3) Mr Fennell writes; ‘‘I prefer, ‘and as to the casts they made’; kai coupling é» dloxos to dkovrifovres” ; but I do not quite understand how he takes ordre. ' According to my view of the passage, ve shews that the whole sentence ola—vev is coordinate with the two clauses of the preceding line and depends on Adurre cagys dperd. The excellence of the heroes is conspicuous in three fields; (1) év yuuvoict oradlots, (2) év domdodovmoow érAlrats Spduots, (3) év Toovrots ofa Xepoly tev, a dxovtitovres alxpuats, b émore év AOlvors SioKors (tev). Observe that xepotv (as I have punctuated) goes with ofa tev, not with dxovrifovres, and that tev is understood with émére: the participle dxovrltovres being coordinate with the relative clause d7ére (tev). Bergk and Christ think that Pindar wrote alxuals, the Aeolic accusative; but the dative is idiomatic with verbs of casting, and, when we recognize that xepoly belongs to tev, there can be no objection to alxpats. Nor is it a certain inference from the words of a scholium dxovrlfovres Ta Sépara that the scholiast read alyuds (as Kayser, Hartung, and Mommsen suppose). The technical name of the javelin used in the pentathlon was daorouds (see schol. on alxpais: ds dao- roudéas Kadodot, Hesychius sab voce dao- toudda, and Pollux 111. 151).—The Mss. have omére dloxos. I have followed Boeckh and most editors in reading 6mér’ év, but would not explain é as instrumental (cp. dréwy év atdois, Ol. v. 19). év 8lokous means zx discus-matches. Mr Fennell well compares Pyth. x1. 46 & dpyact Kaddlixor, i chariot races. Bergk reads ém6ér’ ék (i.e. ex xepav tev), explaining \Olvos Sloxots as an Aeolic accusative—On AOlvos the Homeric verse (8 190) BouByoev 5é AlOos kard 8 errytay tort yaly is cited in a scholium (p. 363). 26. mevta@dvov] This form occurs also in Pyth. vi1l. 66.—In the days of Castor and Iolaus there was not yet a pentathlon, with a single reward for him who proved himself best in three out of the five trials; but there were special prizes for quoit throwing and for javelin throwing, exercises which in Pindar’s day no longer formed independent ‘events’.— qv, ed. Rom. and Boeckh; B 7 é, D qs. MSS, 7évraOAov, Boeckh wevrd@Xov. Hey in B was an attempt to restore the metre (Bergk). ON ef’ Exdorw «.7.4.] But cach ex- ploit had its own conclusion ; or for each achievement was set an end (that is, a prize) of its own. Schol.: 7d dé xetro Tédos avril rod Fw ldidtwy Kal 6 orédavos. TiGévat is the word for setting up a prize, cp. Mem. x. 48 xadxdv dv Ofxe; Ketro is the passive in this sense, cp. Js¢h. vi. 26. For té&os of a prize, cp. OL x1. 67 Adpukdos 8’ épepe aruyyas TéXos, ‘won the ISTHMIAN I. 17 a > Tav adOpdos dvdnoduevor Oapdnis vw rr . Epveriy yaitas feéOpoici te Aipxas épavev cal map’ Evpora TéXas, "Iduxréos wev trais oucdapos édv Saraprdv ryéves, ém. B’. 30 Tuvdapidas § dv ’Ayatois vpimedov @epdrvas oixéwy os. y > 3 . \ ae 2 a i Xaiper. eyed 5€ TocedSdaw Iobud te Cabea prize for boxing’.—With épypart (D ép- bart) cp. Mem. 1. 7 epypacw vicadépors. There is an echo below, I. 47. 28. tay x.7.X.] The antecedent of Tavis orepdywy 1.21. With multitudi- nous shoots whereof having many a time bound their lochs, they shone at the streams of Dirce and hard by Eurotas.—¥or dOpdas cp. Jsth. Iv. 8 dOpbor orépavor dvédnoay 20e:pay,—Oapaicis, also in Men. X. 38. 29. &pverw] Elsewhere épvea is used, without oreddvwy, in the sense of oréda- vot (cp. Mem, VI. 18, XI. 29) as below 1. 66. Here it is serviceable in making clear that ray refers to orepdvwy.— épavev (Schmid for mss. épave), Iolaus on the banks of Dirce, Castor on the Eurotas.—mss. Hupéra, Mingarelli Ev- pwrg. mapd is supplied with peéOporor from rap’ Etpwra (cp. Nem. 1X. 14), and on the other hand feé@poror is supplied with Evpdra. Mingarelli’s correction, adopted by editors, is unnecessary. A scholiast rightly explains: wrpds 7d Evpwra 7d pe€Opots dxovaréor. 30. “Idurdéos x.7.d.] Zhe son o7 Iphi- cles, being of one race with the Sown men there (at Dirce), but here (at the Eurotas) the son of Tyndareus, among Achaians, dwelling in the high-situate abode of Therapna.—By calling Iolaus son of Iphicles Pindar reminds us that he was nephew of Heracles, who was mentioned in the first line of the first epode. The force of pév and 8€ here is almost dis- tributive, apportioning Iolaus to Dirce and Castor to Eurotas.—6p08apos, pro- perly of the same deme, then of the same people, also occurs in O/. 1X. 44 of the B. II, stone race of Deucalion and Pyrrha.—yéver depends on the first part of 6u6dapos. 31. év "Axavots] Schol. ’Ayasods dé elpnxe Tods Drapridras éredh mpdrepov ol *"Axasol thy Xaapryv gkoww. The legend of Castor belonged to times before the Heraclidae.—vrplreBov is drat elpyuévor, cp. WWlBaro: médues (Mem. X. 47) of the cities in Achaia. The epithet is highly appropriate to Therapna, situated on the steep heights south-east of Sparta. Pindar probably knew the place, unlike the scholiasts who were much puzzled by the epithet. Schol. (p. 367) 7d &¢ bplredov 50s Soxel evavtlws elpiicba rp ‘Opnpirg. not yap [6 1] ot 8” Tov Koldnv Aakedalnova kyrdeccay. aXN drrodvabueba olTws* vWlredos 7 Aaxe- batuwv cad’ éauriy, xoldn 5é ws mpds ras tyaolov w6\es.—F or Castor at Therapna, compare Vem. X. 56 év yuadous Oeparvas. —TvvSaplSas is pointed, in the neigh- bourhood of Igixddos waits. For Castor was son of Tyndareus, while his twin brother Polydeuces was son of Zeus; even as Iphicles came of the seed of Amphitryon, while Zeus begat Heracles, 32. xalper’ «.7.d.] Rejoice, Castor and Iolaus. I pass from you—arraying a song for Poseidon and most holy Isth- mus and the shores of Onchestus,—to tell, amid the honours of this man (Hero- dotus), how high and noble was the omen of his father Asopodorus, and to celebrate his country, the glebe of Orchomenus. éyo 8€ marks the transition from the heroes to Asopodorus just as in the first epode adAX’ éyo (1. 14) marked the pas- sage from the prelude to Herodotus. —In view of the hiatus before "IcOyo00 in 2 18 IZOMIONIKAI A’. A "Oyynotiacty 7 aidverow TepiaTéd\rwv aoday £ “Ny > f yaptoouar To0S dvdpds év tiywaiow dyaxdéa tav ’Acwroddpov matpos alcay i @) at t wv voav. pxomevoto Te TaTp@ay apoupar, & viv épeddopevoy vavaryias 1. g above I do not venture to follow Mingarelli in reading Ioceddwrt 1’.— {a0éq, generally used of places sanctified by temples. 33- “Oyxyorlarow] Onchestus in Boe- otia, near lake Copais, was celebrated for its temple of Poseidon: compare B 506 ’Oyxnordy 8’ iepdv, TLootdjiov dydadv adoos. For the association of the Poseidon-wor- ship on the Isthmus and at Onchestus, see Jsth. 111. B 19, 20.—diéverou: not elsewhere in Pindar. Schol.; didveoo. 5¢ elrev érevdh rapdxerras TH OyxnoT@ monet Ths Bowrias 7 Kwrais Muvy. aepirré\Awv] This verb is found twice in Pindar (here and Mem. x1. 15), in both places implying a metaphor from dress. The scholiast interprets 0eparedwy tov Uuvov, rouréotiy émtpedelas kal orrovdys div. Cp. Philoctetes 447 GAN’ 66 ept- oréd\dovaw atta Saluoves, the gods cherish them. The poet spends care on the attiring of his Song. 34. yaptoopo.] For yaptw to cele- brate cp. Ol. XIII. 50. The middle of this verb is not found elsewhere in Pindar.—dyakhéa (also in Pyth, IX. 106 dyaxdéa kotpay) is predicate: Z will praise as distinguished.—aloa here has the sense of omen (compare my note on Nem. 11. 16) and alludes to the name *A-ownd-dwpos, implying sélence; see be- low, 1. 63 werwtrapévov, and above, /ztro- duction, p. 6, where the reasons for this interpretation are set forth. 35. @povpav] Cp. dpovpay marplay, Ol. 11. 14.—Schol. mpoelpyrar bri abrds pev OnBatos 6 Se marip’Opxopévios. § F ol wév Tod marpds ‘yovets ‘Opxoudror 6 dé otp. ¥. 35 marip OnBatos bia 7d éxet yevvnbjvat.— Mezger explains rarpway dpovpay as he- reditary landed property of Asopodorus (Zrbbesi¢z); but he does not tell us how to combine this meaning with the genitive *Opxopevoio, 36. & viv épeSdpevoy «.7.A.] There are two questions here which call for discussion. (1) Is the shipwreck literal or figurative? (2) What is the meaning of éperddevov ? (1) Didymus and the scholiasts re- garded vavayiats as metaphorical. Schol. (Abel p. 369) aAdnyope? 5¢ thy exrrwow Oardooy Kal yxeuuGve tapaBddd\wy, and again kal Aloxvdos tiv Sucruxlay xewova kal Tpixuplay Aéye. § owvrvyxla, TH PvYT- One note however (p. 368) : d\Aws* vava- yhoas 6’ Acwrddwpos év Opxomevep ékeppln, furnishes an indication that some favoured a literal interpretation. Most modern editors, including Mr Fennell, adopt the metaphorical explanation, with the ex- ception of Mezger who holds that Asopo- dorus had lost his fortune by a shipwreck in the most literal sense. With all de- ference to the general unanimity of critics, I do not hesitate to follow the dissentient view of Mezger. It is important to observe that there is not the least hint in Pindar’s words that he alludes to political troubles or that there is any metaphorical signifi- cance in his language. This being so it is unnecessary and unwarranted to press upon the sentence a meaning which it does not literally bear. And é& duerp7- Tas &dés would be infelicitous in a politi- cal metaphor. The natural sense is that Asopodorus, reduced to poverty by the wreck of ships in which he had ventured his wealth, retired from Thebes to Orcho- ISTHMIAN TI. 19 > > * €& awetpyras adds ev Kpvoécoa zx Pe déEaro cuvtuyia viv 8 attis dpyatias éméBace woTpos ovyyerns evapepias. > Ss > a > 7 a : t él QpETALS avaKELTaL TrAacaV opyay, menus (his birthplace or at least the home of his fathers) and there recruited his fortunes. In another sense however the words may be metaphorical, but, if so, it is a metaphor felicitous and transparent. The wreck of the man’s fortune is spoken of as if he had been wrecked himself. It would be rash to conclude from vw épe- déuevov that Asopodorus must have been on board the unlucky vessel. That this form of expression may be only figurative is suggested by 1. 39, dpxalas émréBace evapeplas (a phrase of which editors have missed the point) set him on board the ship of his old prosperity. (2) Holding with the minority of com- mentators that vavarylaus is literally meant, we cannot hesitate to hold with the majority that épe.déuevov means hard pressed (Dissen, aftictum, rather cum affiigeretur). If we adopted the metaphorical view we might be disposed to entertain Donald- son's explanation driven ashore (rather, hurled ashore). For épeldw premere, cp. Ol. IX. 30, dvix’ dul Tlvdov orafels qpede Mocedav, jpedev 5é viv dpyupéw TOkw medeulfwv PorBos. , Hartung and Christ read épecréuevov. For vavaylais Bergk accepts Schmid’s vav- ayluis. 37. dperpyras] Only here in Pindar (observe the feminine termination); in the Odyssey an epithet of mévos and wévOos; but in Aristophanes, Clouds 264, of djp. The ‘unmeasured sea’ clearly means (as Mezger saw) the sea beyond the straits of Gadira, the Weltmeer, the Atlantic. The Mediterranean had well- known limits and duérpyros would be a 6 Trovncais S& vow Kal Tpopaberav péper. 40 + t avT. ¥. most unsuitable epithet for the sea east of the Pillars. There is an interesting and close parallel in the first choral ode of the Oedifus Rex where Ares the god of death is sent in wish to ‘the great deep of Amphitrite’ or to the Euxine. 6dda- pov ’Augerpiras alone would mean the sea, but wéyav, as Professor Jebb says, ‘helps to localise it’ (cp. his note). de- tpjras here plays the same part as péyav there. The antepenult is short here; Pindar has usually pérpov but twice pér- pov.—kpvotooa, chilling, occurs also in Pyth, 1. 73, kpubev udvrevpa. In Homer (where the form éxpvéders is also found) it is an epithet of ¢6os and méAeyos, in Hesiod of wédeuos. Cp. Aesch., S.c. Zh. 834 Kaxéy pe Kapdlay te mepirlrver kpbos.— cuvrux(q, here of ill luck ; in Pyth. 1. 36 of a fortunate event. — 39. éméBace] For metaphor see above note on 1. 36.—1oTpos, cp. Ven. V. 40 morwos 6é Kplve avyyerys epywr epi TavTO. Pindar has rérjos six times, rdrpos eight times. 40. evapeplas] not elsewhere in Pindar. Its literal meaning good weather renders it specially appropriate here, coming after a storm.—6é toviymrats «7.4. But he who has suffered troubles gains for his soul prudence to balance them (xat).—This is the doctrine taught in the Ovesteia of Aeschylus ; dos comes by rdos. The scholiast quotes Aleman (/%. 63) meted Tou pabhovos dpxd, and Hesiod, Works and Days, 218 wader 5€ re vamos éyvw. 41. eb 8 dperats «.7.4.] B has dperat (and dperat) kardkerar, D dperg xard- Aristarchus read dperg (schol. *Aplorapxos obv TG t-ypdper Kal wepionG), 2—2 KELT QL. 20 IZOMIONIKAI A’. > J , ‘ ¥ auporepoy Samdvais TE Kai Tovoss, Xn viv evpovTecowy dydvopa KOmtrov others dperat explaining the construction as the schema Pindaricum (schol. 6rt dperal kardxerrae elpnxev, éemifevias mAn- Ouvrix@ évixdy pyua 7d kardKecrac). Mo- dern editors either accept dperg or emend the passage ; none have ventured to read dperat, which is indefensible both in point of syntax and in point of sense (though Hermann reads dperd, explaining sé cuz summo studio parata virtus est).—Those who accept dper¢ from D and Aristarchus explain kardxetras as zncumbit, ‘ expends his efforts on’ (=é@yxecrac). But there is no other instance of xardkeyuae in such a sense, ‘the nearest parallel’ that Mr Fennell can adduce being Xenophon, de Ven. X. 8 els rotrov riv épyiv Karébero, Of the various emendations which have been put forward Kayser’s dperd kard- Keira Taow dpyay may seem to involve least change, but it gives a weak and I think inappropriate sense (‘if virtue is proposed as a prize for all to desire’). Such wild changes as Hartung’s xara6q ris, Rauchenstein’s wrpocéyet Tis, need not be seriously considered. It is clear that the verse suffered cor- ruption at an early stage, as its explana- tion puzzled critics in the days of Aristar- chus. I believe that Bergk hit upon the original words of Pindar when he pro- posed dpetats dvdkerar, but he did not perceive how the corruption came in. The tendency to confuse tc with k in uncial Mss. explains it. We can conceive how easily APETAICANAKEITAL might have been read apeTakaNakelTal (i.e. kdvdxecra), and Kxardkerrac was an inevitable correction.—dvdkewra means zs devoted or dedicated, dperats to deeds of excellence, and waoav épydy defines the kind of dedication 5 7 every desire of his soul, in all his temper, he is devoted to the service of dperal. The subject of dvdxeiran is 6 rovyoais (not Asopodorus). The metaphor, from a votive statue, is perhaps suggested again in 1. 46.—For épydv cp. Mem. Vv. 32, Pyth. 1. 89 evarbe? & év dpya, and Jsth. v. 14 (see note). 42. aphdrepov] iz doth ways, cp. Ol, vi. 17 duddrepoy pavtw 7’ dyafoy Kal dovpl udpvacba. So plural, dupdrepa, O/. I. 104.—mévous takes up trovyoats 1. 40. 43. Xpy viv «.7.d.) Lt és meet for men, if they have discovered a magnificent Jashion of praise, to bear hin up thereon with no ungenerous sentiments. There are two views as to the construction of this sentence. (1) vtw is the object of edpbyrecow and refers to dperats (or dpera if dperd is retained), and dydvopa xbumrov is the object of pépew, ‘It is meet to bear praise to those who have won ex- cellence’ (compare mvé dperay etpdyra Ol. vil. 89). According to this view the singular subject of the protasis (6 rovjoats) becomes plural (eipdévrecowv) in the apo- dosis. This interpretation of Dissen (who reads dpera xardxetra) is adopted by Bergk in explaining dperais dvdxevrac. For vw plural in Pindar cp. frag. 7 ére kal vw raooerar emt trHOous* Soris 5} tpbros étextdioé vw. (2) According to Mezger, vw is the object of ¢épew and d-yavopa Kbutrov is the object of etpévrecow. The syntax is: xph ebpdvrecow dydvopa xoptrov dépew viv. The construction of xpr with the dative is not found elsewhere in Pindar, but it is frequent in tragedy. It is to be observed that Didymus ex- plained the words edpdvrecow dyavopa xéprrov in the same way ; BéAriov 5€é dyow 6 Aldupos 7d edpdyrecoty dydvopa Koumov emt ray érawovvrwr Tods vevixnkéras akovew, ty’ T° mpoojxer Tots ebpovrecar roy drydvopa Kéumov, Touréore Tov Uuvov els rods Samdvy kal epyw xextnuévous Thy dperhy uh POoveiv. For dépewy prj Oovepaion yvopats cp. Lsth. 11. A 8 xph b€ Kwpdfovr’ dyavats xaplrecow Baocrdoa. That Mezger’s interpretation is right, LISTHMIAN J. 21 L) POovepaicr dépeww yuepass. ere ovpa Soais avdpi cope 45 os , a avtt goxyOov ravtodarev éros eitrovt’ ayabov Evvoy dpOdcat Kanov. , em. y'. puaOds yap aAXois adros éf’ Epypacw avOpwrros yAvKUs, there seems little doubt. It is hard to believe that vi represents anything else than the subject of dvdxecras, and etpédv- Tecow aydvopa Kdurov are most naturally taken together (as the metre suggests). The meaning too is much more satisfactory than that obtained by Dissen’s construc- tion; for there is no point here in an opposition between (xaraxeto@a or) dva-. keloOar dperga and evpeiy dperdv. Once more, yvwuars has a forcible instrumental sense with dépev = Bacrdfev, whereas it is weak with Pépew =diddvar. The only objection that can be tirged against Mezger is the circumstance that xp7 with the dative is not elsewhere used by Pindar. But this may be merely accidental, and we must remember that yp with accusa- tive and infinitive is only found six times ‘in his extant odes. Moreover in the pre- sent passage (where he might easily have written xp) vu éfevpdvras) the dative renders the construction unambiguous (gace Dissen) and shews that vw is object not subject of gépew, It may be added that the idea here expressed by vw épew recurs more emphatically and stri- kingly in 1. 64 ely vw mrepiyerow aepOevr’ ayhaais KT. As dydvopa] With wAodros Pyth. x. 18, with wcOds Pyth, U1. 55.—kKdprov, Ven. VII. 49; Zsth. IV. 24, where the sentiment and language are curiously similar, though there is another metaphor : wy POdve Kbmmov Tov eoxdr’ dog Kipydpev dri mover. ‘ 44+ pA PPovepaion yvdpats] Compare ent. WV. 39: d POovepa 5 dAdos dvhp Bdérwy yropav Keveay oxorw KvAlvder Xapmal werotcav, . 45. kovda Sécrs] predicate; the subject is (70), eos elrévra dyabov, Evvdy xadov 6p0doa.—dvbpl code, wan of poetical skill, 46. toaytobatav] This word occurs in the literal sense in O/. VIII. 26 mavro- Samotcw gévos, strangers of all lands ; Srag. 88 Twavrodanay dvéuwv winds fron diverse homes. In Pyth. Wl 7 votowr navrodaray, maladies of all forms.—Evvov épOadcat Kaddv, fo exalt the glory of his country also. In Ol, Ul. 3, we have tpvov dpOdoas, of building a high hymn ; so xadév here is a fair monument, and fvvév means fertaining to the general as well as to individual honour. For é6p0ow cp. also Zsth, 111. B 38 wacav dpOwoats dperdy and v. 65. 47. peorOds «.7.0.] For the rewards which men win, to sweeten their totl, are divers for divers works, one for the grazer of sheep, another for the ploughman, for the birdsnarer one, and another for him whom ocean fostereth. —This verse presents a good example of the tendency of scribes to omit one of two similar words. B has puobds yap dddos éd’ epypaciw, ddAos being omitted owing to the close resemblance of the next word dAAO!COAAOC. Another scribe supplied the obvious missing word, but in the wrong place, at the expense of the metre; D has éA)os aos. The Triclinian mss. ¢ ¢ have the right restoration. ép épypacw signals to é’ éxdorw epypare l. 27. 22 IZOMIONIKAI A’. / > > oF > 9 , ,oa t f - bnroBoTg T apota T opviyod\ox@ TE Kal by TovTOS TpadeL yaotpt Sé was Tis Guvvwv ALpov aiavn rétatas ds 8 aud’ adOrows ) Tordeuifwv dpytar Kddos aBpdr, 50 evayopnbels Képdos trpictrov Séxerat, TomaTdy Kat Eévev yAwooas dwrov. dupe 8 gorxe Kpovov cevatyOov’ vidv o7p. 8. ¥ 7 X t > ft yetroy’ dweBopévors evepyéerav adpuatav immodpousoy Keradjoat, 48. pudoBdrqa] Also in Euripides, Cyclops 53. mndoBoryp is in Homer, 2 529. Pindar has wyddBoros grazed on by sheep in Pyth. X11. 2.—dpéTq, metapho- rical in Mem. VI. 37.—¢pvtxoddxos (= 6pv.800ypas) perhaps coined by Pindar. —4by movros tpdde, the fisherman. Schol. Xpvourros tov eEwropov, Alduuos dé tov édiéa pyot. rpdpw a collateral form of tpépu, as Tpaxw of rpéxw, Tau of réwyw. Cp. Lsth. vil. 44. Tpdper is preserved here by B (rpége D). 49. yaorpl 8& «.7.A.] Zvery man strains himself to the task of keeping importunate hunger from his belly.—For rérara. cp. Pyth. X. 34 Evvaio. & dud’ dperais réraua. Cp. also tmmowt raOn Spduos, LY 375. Schol. Epyos Kal xduve, and 7d 6 rérara dvi Tod omevder.—alavy, importunam. Here it has much the sense of gnawing. In Pyth, 1V. 236 xévtpov alavés is the merciless goad; in Pyth. 1. 83 xdpos alavas is in- tolerable disdain, cp. Isth. 11. A2. alavhs vécos in Aeschylus, Zumenides 479, is a wearisome malady, and vuxres alav is (vasty night) in the same play 1. 416 (from ala- vos; cp. Sophocles, 47ax 672) suggests the weary weight of a long night and a malign quality in Nvé herself. els rv alavj xpdvov suggests the exdless monotony of time. It is a favourite word of Aeschylus. 50. 6s 8 x,7.A.] But whosoever wins the luxury of honour in games or in war, the loftiest gain that can be his is speech of praise, the finest breath that the mouths of citizens and strangers can utter.—Cp. émlikecrac Tots GBpov dAd-yov Mem. vil. 31; see above, Introduction, p. 5. The phrase of Keats ‘some rich anger’ might be rendered by épya GBpd. For dud’ cp. audi ovos Nem, Vill. 42. 51. edayopnQels] drat elpnucvov (Mss. eU dyopnGels, emended by Pauw) ; having been spoken well of. edvnryopta, praise, is in Callimachus, Aoerpa& ITIaAdados 139.— tyuorov, cp. Pyth. 1. 100 orégavoy tro- tov dé5exrar.—mroAtatdav ; elsewhere Pin- dar has the form zroXras.—yAdooas dw- tov, fine effiuence of the tongue, with a sug- gestion of breath (anu): cp. the remarks in my Memean Odes, App. A, note 2. 52. @Gpp. 8] Thus Pindar passes to Herodotus, just as inl. 32 he passed with éya 5€ to Asopodorus.—But for us it is seemly in requital for the good deeds of the earthquaking son of Cronus, our neighbour (of Onchestus), 4o sound his praise as sovran of steeds and races. cecly@ov is not found elsewhere in Pindar.—yelrova, schol. 7dv OnBaiov ws mpds Tov OyxyoTdy. —dpeBopévors (agreeing with dum) =re- munerantibus. The immediate proximity of duerBouevors and evepyéray is pointed.— evepyéras is only here, and in Pyth. v. 44 (of Apollo)—trmis is common as an epithet of Poseidon. tmoSpdpios (only here in Pindar) is elsewhere used with piv as the name of the Boeotian month corresponding to Hecatombaeon. Mr Fennell is right in taking twmo8popiov as predicate with kehadfoar, but evepyérav is predicate too, and dpudrwy depends on evepyérav. ISTHMIAN I. Kal oéOev, “Auditpvar, 23 55 maidas tpocereiv, Tov Muvda te puxov \ ia z o kat To Adpatpos xdutov “ddAcos *EXevoiva yvaprrois Spopuors’ IIpwrecina, to Tedy § avdpdv “Ayatav kal EvBouav év avr. &. év Dvrdka Téwevos cupBadrropas. mavra & é£ereiv, 60° dryavios “Epuas ¢€ t yw Hpodét@ émopev 60 Fe a immots, apaipetrar Bpayd wérpov exwv 55. oé€0ev...mai8as] Heracles and Tolaus (cp. 1. 30), a mode of speech which the schol. describes as caraypyotixas cat kara oUAAnyw. A victory won at the Heraclea or Iolaea, games at Thebes, is referred to. 56. tov Muvia re puxév]. Zhe re- tiring valley of Minyas. This refers to Minyea at Orchomenus. ‘ Winding vales’ are mo\vyvaumrot wuxol (Ol. III. 27). 57. *HAevotva] Schol. 8c év “EXevoive Ajunrpés éorw drywv, Kal orépavos iv kpiOal. EbPovav] Schol. Xpdourmos* év HuBola dryera. TG “Atdy Ta Baothea. Cp. Ol. XIII. 112 @ 7 "Edevols...4 7 EBvBoa. éy. yvaparrots Spdpous] 27 che matter of bending racecourses; wenn wir namlsch mit den Rennbahnen beschiftigt sind (Mezger). The words are to be taken closely with xeAadfoat xal mpocerrety, They are set at the end of the sentence emphatically, that Spépots may signal to Spopors in 1. 23.—yvapmrds is an epithet of dyxtorpov, a fish hook, in the Odyssey, 5369. The shape of the d/avdos resembled that of a hook. Cp. O2. 111. 33 dwdexd- yvapmrov wept répua dpouov (the répua was to be ‘turned’ twelve times). 58. TIpwrectha «.7.A.] J add to the tale thy precinct, Protesilaus, belonging to Achaians at Phylace.—Phylace was a town on the Pagasaic Gulf. Schol.: 7e- Aetrar 6¢ TP Tpwreciddy xara Thy Puddxny émiraguos ayov. 59. oupBdddopar] Schol, ocuvyxar- apiOpoduat Tals roO ‘“Hpodérou vixas. The idea is that of adding as a contribution to a sum—here the six victories (mentioned above in 1. rz) gained at (1) Isthmus, (2) Thebes, (3) Orchomenus, (4) Eleusis, (5) in Euboea, and (6) at Phylace. It does not seem certain that the schol. is right in attributing all these victories to Hero- dotus. Cp. above 1. 11.—The middle of oupBddAdkw does not occur elsewhere in Pindar, and the active only in Mem. x1. 33 (=conzecture). 60. wovra x.7.d.] But to tell all the sum of what Hermes, god of Games, granted to the steeds of Herodotus, is precluded by the brief measure of the hymn.—For dydvvos see Ol. X. 63, Lsth. Iv. 7. For ‘Epuéds, a god of games, cp. OL. Vi. 79 ‘Epudy és dryavas exer motpdy 7’ dé0rkwv, and Pyth. 11. 10 6 7’ évayavvos “Eppds, see also Wem. X. 53.—€eumeiy depends on ddapefra: (lit. takes away Srom me the power of telling). 61. %ropev] B éuopery.—For the hia- tus after a dative termination cp. Wenz. VI. 23 “Aynomaxy vidwr, Ol. 111. 30 ’Op- Owolg éypawev iepay (an instance which I should have quoted in support of my conjecture in Vem, X. 5 modkd 8 Al- yorry “Id, where the hiatus is before a long syllable). The case in 1. 16 above is not the same, as the hiatus there follows a thesis. 62. tov] Zhe hymn having a short measure, means strictly the circumstance that the hymn has a brief compass, or 24 A Upvos. péper. eln viv evpaveov mrepiyecow daepbévt’ dydaais TleepiSwv ére cab v0a0ev ’Odupriddwr zr’ éEaupérors IZOMIONIKAL A’. ’ 3 } pay woddaK. Kal TO cecwmapévov evOupiay peiSo ém. 8. 65 "Ardeod Epvecs ppdkar xeipa timav érramvdous most simply Bpaxv uérpov Uuvov.—pérpov, cp. 1. 37. 63. W pav x7...) True it is that ‘often the thing hushed away bringeth even greater joyousness (than the tale told).— 7 way in Pindar occurs only here and Pyth. 1v. 40.—An old unreduplicated form of cwraw (=owwmdw) has been preserved (strange to say) by the Mss. here and in O/. XIII. gr: Siacwrdcoual of popor yw, where Triclinius ‘restored’ diacvydoouac (Hermann diacwwrdcoua) just as here Hermann wished to read ceovyapevov and has found some to follow him. It was probably not without a purpose that Pindar ‘chose this rare form; he wished to emphasize an etymology of the name of the victor’s father "A-owtrd-Swpos. See Jntroduction, p. 6.—The scholiasts record the view that Pindar alludes to a defeat experienced by Herodotus at Ne- mea. It is obvious that this is an in- vention because a Nemean is not in the list of victories. But they also record the right view that the other victories were (comparatively) dvdtco., and there- fore better omitted.—kal, what is not spoken as well as what is spoken bringeth joy; and not only joy, but it may be greater joy.—e0uplay occurs in O/. 11. 38, where evOuulas are opposed to mévor, and in frag. 55, Ev@uule re wédwv elyv (may I be a favourite of Euthymia). A scholium strangely paraphrases pelfova Tiv edKrecav péper.—téper responds to éper in 1. 40. : 64, 65. ely x.7.d.] May it be, that he, raised'up on the wings resplendent of the tuneful Pierides, may yet fence his hand with other (wal) leaves won from Pytho and choice leaves of Olympian games from the banks of Alpheus, and build up honour for seven-gated Thebes. For ey with accusative and infinitive to express a wish, cp. O/. I. 115.—etwvos occurs also in Pyth. 1. 38, wrépvyes in Pyth, 1. 6.—kal, in addition to the crowns which he has already won. +’ connects Tlv9GGev (Mss. [lv666ev), and’ Odupmriddwv ; but while gpveox is to be taken with both, é€atpérots belongs only to the leaves of Olympia. ééalperos occurs also in Mem, I. 7o and Of. 1X. 27.— Odvparidboy, from the substantive ’Ohupmias, the Olympic agon, cp. évGe’ ’Ohupmiddos Nem. Vi. 63, also Ol. X. 38, I. 97 Trav “Odvpmiddwy. The olive-leaves pertain to the Olympian games and belong to Alpheus (’AAgeoi) because they grow on his banks. 66. épvert] This word signals to . pverwy in 1. 29. So in Mem. vi. epvea, 1. 18 signals to &pveot, 1. 37.—opdgar. This verb (not elsewhere in Pindar’s epi- nicians) is generally translated cweplicare. Mr Fennell, comparing the cognate Latin Jarcio, suggests that it means ‘fill to the full’. But the ordinary signification of gpacow is not out of place: ¢o fortify or secure. (Cp. the schol. on Il. B 54.) Herodotus might fortify his hands with wreaths of victory, as a warrior fortifies his body with armour or his hands with gauntlets. Vet, to justify such an unusual phrase, we might expect that Pindar meant to suggest something beneath the surface. And, if we observe that it is closely followed by another unusual expression TevXovTa Tiuavy, we may be inclined to believe that the govea won by her child- ren are regarded as a sort of armour (revxea) for Thebes. tebdxovt’ is em- ISTHMIAN I. 25 if ’ n a @nBaror revyovt’. et Sé Tus ev8ov véuer wrodTov Kpudaior, v- cs = adroit 8 eurintav yeda, wuyav Aida tedéwv ov dpdteras Sofas dvevbev. phatic, for it signals to revyw in 1. 14, and xetpa is emphatic likewise, for it responds punctually to xepot in 1. 35. The hands which held the reins are to be charged with wreaths. The unusual gpata serves to emphasize xeipa and make the responsion more patent. 67. eb S€ ms K.7.A.] But whoever dispenses hidden wealth at home, and laughs when he lights on men of another Sort, considers not &c.—vépev mdodtov means ¢o dispense wealth; if a man is said véuew mdoirov kvbov, to dispense wealth at home, that is equivalent to saying that he does not dispense it at all. évdov is emphatic. Missing the point of the phrase, commentators have tried to force vévew into meaning fovere.—«pv- gaiov, only here in Pindar, who has elsewhere xptgios. He has both xpiga and xpug@ as the adverb. véper signals to vopdeavr’ 1. 15; see Introduction. 68. dddowwt] Oshers in a ‘pregnant’ sense, men different from himself, those namely who use their wealth (like Asopo- dorus and Herodotus) for noble purposes; cp. damdvacs 1. 42.—éparirev yedq. (1) The scholiast explains érepBalvwv xara- yedg, insults and ridicules, to which Dissen objects that Pindar would have written éumlarrec yed@v, if such was his meaning. (2) Dissen explains zxsultans videt, sibi placet insultans, ‘takes pleasure in insulting’. Mr Fennell and Mezger adopt the explanation of the scholiast. (3) We may hesitate to accept either interpretation. I can find no other ex- ample of éumirrw meaning verbal insult. When this verb means aétack, it implies physical violence. (For example it is a vox propria for disease, cp. Thucydides, If. 49 AUYE Tots wreloow évérirre KEvT, Soph. Zrach. 1253 mplv éurecety orapary- pév, Phil. 699.) In any case, the other signification of éumlrrw, light upon, fall in with, is quite adequate to the occasion. When the hoarder falls in with ‘other men’ (far other indeed than he) he laughs at the thought of their folly and his own superior wisdom.—Mr Tyrrell suggests that dAdouse might be taken as neuter, «77- Mace being supplied from mAodrov ; then the meaning would be ‘as he pounces on more’; cp. és év xrjuace mlrres, Soph. Ant. 782.—redéwy, present, not future (which in Pindar is redéow). The pre- sent includes the future and is more telling than a future tense would be; for the man’s conduct is continuous, and death, which may come at any moment, must always find him dééas dvevdev. He considers not that he is without glory,— whenever he has to render his soul to Hades. But the expression is still more speaking if it be recognized that reAéwy suggests further the notion of initiation: he considers not that Glory ts absent from the initiation of his soul for Hades; the experience of life being a sort of mystery. —ddAotoe signals to dAdorplats 1. 15 and dddots GANos 1. 47. ISTHMIAN II. ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN THE CHARIOT-RACE AT ISTHMUS WON BY XENOCRATES OF ACRAGAS. INTRODUCTION. FRoM this hymn, written soon after the death of Xenocrates of Acragas, the first impression that one gets is of a strong sweetness scattered in the air; meant, one might think, to overcome some bitter breath, lingering around Thrasybulus, the son of Xenocrates}4, to whom this ‘ Song with a soft voice’ is sent. Pindar has here tempered his voice to softness; he has mixed, as it were, a vessel of musical honey, to be offered to the dead. For us, there are some peculiar difficulties about the ode, though its general framework is simple enough. It falls into three parts. In the first, a contrast is drawn between poets past and present. In the second, the victories, won at Panhellenic games by Xenocrates and his house, are rehearsed. In the third, a picture is drawn of the personal character of Xenocrates. The chief difficulties which call for discussion are two. There is a difficulty about the date of the ode; and there is a difficulty about its interpretation. The first question is the less important, and one might be content with sparing it a note or an appendix, if one did not find that the second question soon leads to the same places of investigation. The difficulty in interpretation is to discover the connexion of the first eleven verses of the hymn with the rest. The argument of these verses may be summed thus: ‘The poets of former days used lightly, and without any mercenary bargain, to sing in praise of beautiful boys ; the Muse was not then a hirewoman ; she did not sell her 1 The scholiast is not certain whether But Pindar leaves us in no doubt: cp. Thrasybulus was the son of Xenocrates Pyth. VI. 15 warpt Teg, Opac’Boure, and or not (Abel, p. 379 6 6é ’Aplorapxos sth. 11. 44 which is clear enough.—Some ddedpov sielkype Tod Revoxpdrovs elyat actually thought that Thrasybulus was Tov OpacbBovdor, éviot dé vidv Hevoxpdrous). the father of Xenocrates (Abel, p. 380). INTRODUCTION. 27 songs for silver. But now it is different, and the old saying ‘“‘ Money makes the man” is as true in the world of poetry as elsewhere.’ Why should all this be said to Thrasybulus? What has the comparison of ancient and modern poets to do with the victories of the Emmenids or with’the poem in which Pindar celebrates them !? It is clear that this comparison must be closely connected with the subject of the ode or have an application to the circumstances under which it was composed, for otherwise it would be little better than nonsense. Thrasybulus is emphatically addressed in the first verse of the hymn; and we cannot doubt that the following reflexions conveyed some meaning which specially concerned him, and which he easily understood. It is also to be observed that Pindar accentuates the dedication of songs to comely boys, as characteristic of the men of old (of wdda ares). But in order to advance further we must study the earlier relations of Pindar with the house of Xenocrates. Xenocrates belonged to the noble Acragantine family of the Emmenids and was brother of the despot Theron. He and Theron are linked together by Pindar as the ‘sons of Aenesidamus’*. In the 24th Pythiad, that is, in 494.B.C., the horse of Xenocrates won in the chariot race at the Pythian games %, and the victory was celebrated by Simonides* But it-was also celebrated by Pindar, and luckily the ode which he composed for the occasion has come down to us as the Sixth Pythian ; which, in the chronological list of his extant works, should possibly stand second (after the Tenth Pythian which is the earliest of all). It certainly strikes one as strange that Xenocrates should have paid two poets to celebrate the same victory. It was natural that he should choose, for this office, Simonides, already a man of years and 1 The scholiasts thought that the ‘In- troduction’ (mpoolwov) was a gentle hint to Thrasybulus that Pindar wanted to be paid; (Abel, p. 381) é&epydoaro dé 70 mpooluov 6 IIlydapos wddw éauTr@ THs Too éxwikou ypapijs mic Odv wopisduevos, and in reference to L. 12 (p. 385) pavepdv yap ws pucbdv alr&y Tov OpacvBovdov 76 Te dird- Ppleyua mpojveyxe 7d sept TaV Xpnudrwr kal mpocemtdéye* odk dyvar’ deliv. But they also thought that dpyupwOcioa: mpdc- wma was aimed at the greed of Simo- nides. Such a weapon would have been indeed double-edged. Socrates might make allusions to the circumstance that Protagoras taught for fees; but such a taunt would come ill from Hippias or Prodicus. 2 y, 28, and O/. 11. 49. Yet Artemon, who made a special study of Sicilian history, thought that Xenocrates was only a kinsman (uovoy cuyyev}) of Theron (Abel, p. 379). For the Emmenid family see Pyth. V1. 5. 3 The date is given in the scholia on the authority of Aristotle: a@\Ad cal Tld0dca thy xd’ TlvOdda ws ’Apiororédys dva- ypiger (Abel, p. 379). See Aristotle Jrag. 674, ed. Rose. 4 Schol. Abel 2d., where we learn that both the Pythian and Isthmian victories were sung by Simonides. xal Zipwvldns dé érawav avdriv dudorépas airod ras vixas xarardooe. In the schol. on O/. IL 49 (kara 6&8 ri rod ’Apiororédous Tlu@sovixns pudvos Onpwv avayéypamrat) it seems clear (as Boeckh points out) that Oxpwy is a mistake for Zevoxpdrns. 28 LSTHMIAN Il. at the height of his fame, but it was not so much a matter of course that he should choose Pindar, who was yet very young and could hardly have attained so soon the world-wide renown of his older rival. The Sixth Pythian is in some ways a remarkable poem. It is addressed not to the victor Xenocrates but to his son Thrasybulus ; and it gives the impression that it is not quite an official ode of victory. One is tempted to suspect that the ‘ordinary’ epinician was that written by Simonides ; and that the ode of Pindar which has survived was ‘ extraordinary’. And the meaning of the argument of the hymn has always seemed strangely enigmatic. Thrasybulus is praised for some act of filial piety, which is illustrated by the famous deed of Antilochus who lost his own life in saving Nestor‘. It is generally assumed that the remarkable piety of Thrasybulus consisted in driving his father’s chariot at the Pythian games. Some words in the hymn have been taken to imply that he did so; but it may be shewn that such a sense cannot fairly be extracted from them, and there are other considerations which disprove this view (see Appendix B). The one thing that we know about the tastes of Thrasybulus, though not indeed incompatible with such excellence in guiding steeds as a successful charioteer must have possessed, is certainly not what we should expect to find in a compeer of Nicomachus and Phintis. Thrasybulus was devoted to the Muses: his’ skill in poetry is mentioned in both the odes which are addressed to him. Pyth, Vi. 49: copiay & ev pvyoior Tepidwr (Spézet). Isth. Ul. 12: éool yap dv copds. copia means, as constantly in Pindar, mastery of the technical rules of poetry and music, which were then closely combined. It is this fact about Thrasybulus, I believe, that furnishes the clew to the enigma. If we suppose that the piety of the young man stimulated him to apply his poetic craft to the praises of his father’s victory, the hymn of Pindar appears in a new light. The typical example of filial piety was Antilochus ; but the great act by which that hero displayed his dutiful affection was very different in kind from the less exacting proof given by Thrasybulus. We might therefore have expected that the poet would merely suggest a general likeness with the son of Nestor, and not record the details of the special incident. But the superficial circumstance that the same material object was connected with both acts of filial piety was tempting. The chariot of Nestor is set beside the chariot of Xenocrates (ll. 32 and 17). And Pindar reinforces the accidental point of likeness by another but artificial similitude. He has declared (1. 6 sqq.) that Xenocrates, by his victory, has set. up a treasure house for himself and Acragas in the glen of Apollo; a treasure house of hymns, which neither the wind nor the ‘cruel battle of the loud thundering cloud’ épiBpopov veéras orpards aueidArxos 1 Mr Gildersleeve (Introduction to Antilochus to Thrasybulus is too great Pyth. vi.) thinks that ‘the step from for sober art’. INTRODUCTION. 29 shall ever sweep away. If the chief treasure meant in this treasure house of hymns is, as I suppose, a song composed by Thrasybulus, the vocative case in the next sentence is pertinent and pointed : de dé mpdcwmov év kabape marpt ted, OpaovBovdre, Kowdy Te -yeved A6youot Ovaray eVdo£ov dppare vikav Kpuoaias evi mrvyais dmayyeXei. The song which Thrasybulus built up under a pious inspiration may, unlike a material edifice, defy wind and rain; and even so Antilochus, bent on his pious task, feared not the stormy onslaught of the Ethiopian chief, dvapeivats otpdtapxor Al@drep (1. 31)}. This parallel gives a new point toa word which has sometimes been suspected. The yetpépios ouBpos in 1. 10 is described as émaxrds éAddv, suggesting that ‘the army of the cloud’ came from a foreign land; and it may be observed that this expression would have been exactly appropriate to the Ethiopian ally of the Trojans. But, it may be asked, why should Pindar have written an ode for the purpose of praising the poetic essays of a young Sicilian? It was not a task that Xenocrates was likely to-set him; it must have been a spontaneous tribute which he would hardly have paid to any save a personal friend. And the whole tone of the ode suggests that Pindar knew Thrasybulus and had been filled with an almost ardent admiration for him. He is not quite sure whether his hymn is an ode of victory or a song of love, as he says in the opening verses: dxovcar, 4 yap édtkomidos "Adpodiras dpovpay 7} xapirey dvarroniCopev. In the last strophe he praises the mind and manners of Thrasybulus, who is like unto his father: vow S€ mdovTov, ayo ddixov ov6’ irépotdov nBav, dSpérer, copiav 8 év pvyoiot TWvepidwv- tiv + ’ENéALyOor... pada Faddvre vdg mpocéyerar’ yAukeia 3é phy kal Gupméraow oporeiv pedtooay dpeiBerat tpnrov mévov. One might infer from the last verses that Pindar had caroused in the company of Thrasybulus. As the Theban poet had not yet visited Sicily, we must suppose that Thrasybulus’ had visited elder Greece, where his 2 Mezger noticed this signal; but at- the untenable view that Thrasybulus was tempted to explain it in accordance with his father’s charioteer, 30 ISTHMIAN II. poetic tastes might easily have led him into communication with Pindar ‘in the retreats of the Pierides’. It is only a guess, of course, but it is a probable one, that Thrasybulus was in Greece at the time of his father’s victory, and witnessed those Pythian games. That Pindar was present too, there can be little doubt!; and though he does not call up the scene itself, he suggests the impression which it made on him in a few sounding words. He speaks of coming ‘to the stone navel of loud-thundering earth,’ €piBpopov xOoves and the same adjective recurs, in a later verse : : épiBpouov vepédas otparos dpeidtyos. Again, having occasion to speak of Zeus, he emphasizes the attributes of thunder and lightning : Bapvéray orepomay Kepavyay te mpvrave (24). It would seem that the sound of thunder was in the ears of the poet when after the festival he left the vale of Pytho, and épi8popos the word that came to his lips to describe the spectacle which he had witnessed. The deafening noise of the shouts of the onlookers, mixed with the rattling of the chariots in the terrible speed of the race, and echoed by the hills, might well have reminded Pindar of the roar of the storms which filled the valley in the inclement seasons of the year. We must now pass on from the days when Pindar and Thrasybulus were young together, to a later period. The next Panhellenic victory that fell to the lot of an Emmenid of Acragas was also won by the horses of Xenocrates, this time at Isthmus. The date of the Isthmian victory is not known. It may have been won in 476 B.C. or in an earlier year ; but we know that it was not later. For in that year, a still greater victory was won by the brother of Xenocrates, by the tyrant of Acragas himself, in the chariot race at Olympia and was celebrated by Pindar in the Second and Third Olympian odes. In the Second Olympian, the victories of Xenocrates at Pytho and at Isthmus? are mentioned together (vv. 49, 50) : Tlvéav. & opoxdapov és adeAdedy "IoOpuoi re Kowal Xapires GvOca teOpinmav Svwdexadpspov ayayor. 1 Tt was probably as much a matter of course for Pindar to be present at the great agonistic festivals, as it is now, in England, for sporting men to attend brated in Jsth. 11. But if this were the case, the earlier one would have been inevitably mentioned in Jsth. 11. There is no reason why many years should not the St Leger and the Derby. 2 Mr Freeman (History of Sicily, vol. 11., Appendix, Note XXvI. p. 534) thinks that there were two Isthmian victories, that mentioned in O/. 11., and that cele- have separated the winning of the victory and Pindar’s ode. Odes were sometimes composed for anniversaries; and Simo- nides may have written the ode for the immediate occasion, INTRODUCTION. 31 As the Isthmian games were celebrated in spring, the success of Xeno- crates might have been gained in the same year as the Olympian victory of Theron. But it might also have been gained much earlier. Pindar, in any case, was not called upon to celebrate it for the immediate occasion ; Simo- nides, doubtless, again performed that office, for it is recorded that he wrote an ode on the subject. Xenocrates was also successful at Athens, where his chariot was driven by one Nicomachus ; and that this victory was gained after 476 B.C., we may infer from the fact that it is not mentioned in the Second Olympian. Meanwhile the days of the Emmenid dynasty were drawing to a close. Theron died in 472 B.c., and his son Thrasydaeus was expelled, after a short and stormy reign, in the same year. Xenocrates died too about this time, but there is no evidence which of the brothers survived the other. And we know not what became of Thrasybulus. It was after the fall of the Emmenids or at least after the death of Theron as the whole tone of the ode shews}, it was certainly after the death of Xenocrates, that Pindar wrote the Second Isthmian. In all probability he was then in Sicily at the court of Hieron, and had thus been not far away from Acragas when the house of the Emmenids fell. The circumstances under which this Isthmian ode was written may be guessed. Xenocrates designed to celebrate in 472 B.c. the anniversary of the Isthmian victory which he had won at least four years previously ; and he called upon Pindar to write an ode for the occasion. Healso sent to Isthmus for a wreath of ‘ Dorian parsley’,—or wild celery, if this plant indeed be the céXtvov,—to renew the memory of his old victory. But before the wreath arrived, before the ode was written, before the anniversary came round, Xenocrates and Theron, too, were gathered to their fathers. The wreath ‘reached Thrasybulus, if it came at all; and to him the ode is addressed. There was thus a certain sadness in the circumstances, at which Pindar just hints: (v. 15) Aapiav adre orepdvesia xoya mépmev dvadeicba cedivor, where the emphatic pronoun and the imperfect tense are to be observed. And thus the hymn, which was to have been specially adapted to the Isthmian celebration, came to be something less special, rather a general encomium of Xenocrates than an epinician proper, although it retains so much of its original motive as to place the Isthmian victory first in order. The poet is really thinking less of the triumph on the Isthmus than of that earlier day of triumph, when he saw the comely youth Thrasybulus flushed with victory amid the din of the chariots and the multitude. The song, which that day had inspired twenty-two years ago, comes back to his memory; 1 So Mr Freeman (2d. p. 835): ‘Icer- 4727; and he notices ‘the absence of any tainly think that the whole tone of the such references as'would be looked for in ode shows that it was written a few years a poem addressed to one whose family later, after the overthrow of the Emmenid was still in power’. Mezger takes the dynasty, that is, not earlier than B,C. same view of the date, 32 ISTHMIAN II. the song sung when the Emmenids had a brilliant future, when Thrasybulds, little more than a boy, had life before him. Now Thrasybulus is at least forty years old ; and the Emmenid house has fallen. It was indeed natural that echoes of the old song should haunt the dimmer corridors of the new song ; just as memories of his youth might flit sadly through the brain of Thrasybulus, after the misfortune which must have so largely changed his life. (2) In the Pythian hymn, Pindar had told how the son trod in the footsteps of the father and had noticed some of his manners and pursuits. In the Isthmian hymn, he describes the character of the father, and the two descriptions suggest each other in language as well as in sense: Isth, i. 35, sqq. écov épyav Bewvoxpdrns vmép avopdrav yAuKetav Zoxev" aidoios pev qv dorois Spudeiv immorpodias Te vopitor év Tave\Advor rope. Pyth. Vi. 50, sqq. tiv 7 ENA Gov, opyds os tmmreadv eoodav!}, pada Fabdyre vow, Mooeidav,.mpowéxerat. yAukeia S€ ppyy kat oupméraoww Spideiv peAtcoay aueiBerar TpyToy movor. (4) In both odes codia is ascribed to Thrasybulus : I sth, 1. 12, éool yap av codds. Pyth. Vi. 49, coplay 8” év puxoiot Wepidev. In both places it clearly refers to poetic studies. (¢) Thrasybulus is bidden to celebrate his father’s excellence, Isth, Ul. 44, pnt’ dperdy more ovydro Tarpday, that excellence which was his own guide in his youth ; Pyth. Vi. 45, Tatpdav pddiora mpos ordbyav eBa, (2) In both odes the Pythian victory is called an dyAaia, Lsth. 11. 18, eS’ "AmoANwv vy rope 7 dyhatav. Pyth, Vi. 46, natp@ Tv” émepxopuevos dydatav edeker. No single one of these echoes, taken alone, would mean anything, but all taken together may well mean something. There are yet others, which I ? Reading uncertain; I give that of écodov. There is no reason to suspect Christ. Mss. dpyats wdoais 89 lamelay — dpyais or épyas. INTRODUCTION. 33 shall point out presently, but I must first shew that Pindar not only echoes but alludes to the earlier hymn. And in this connexion we come back to the problem with which we started: what is the meaning of the introductory verses concerning the mercenary Muse? In the light of what we have since learned the following explanation presents itself. I have already noticed that in the Sixth Pythian something of the express character of an epinician is lacking. The official ode was doubtless written by Simonides ; but did Xenocrates call upon Pindar too to celebrate the occasion? It is not necessary to suppose that he didso. Pindar was then a young man, he may not have had so many calls upon his time as in later years, and if his imagination was attracted by the personality of the young Acragantine, it is easy to suppose that he might have written the ode of his own accord, and presented it to Thrasybulus, for love and not for money: The circumstance that it is addressed to him and not to Xenocrates is then perfectly explained. Twenty years later, when Xenocrates asked Pindar to celebrate the anniversary of his Isthmian victory, the matter was a business-bargain. The Pythian Ode had been a maidevos Guvos. Like ‘the men of old’, Pindar had ascended the chariot of the Muses and lightly shot a honeyed song at the Sicilian boy, without thought of a reward. But when Xenocrates called upon him for a hymn, he was serving a mercenary Muse. Thus 1. 3 of our ode, pipda mawWelous éro€evov pedvydpvas Tuvous is an allusion to the Sixth Pythian; and Pindar indicates by an echo that this general statement has a special reference to hymns received by Thrasy- bulus : 1. 30 sqq. kai yap ovk dyvares dpiv évri Sdpor ovre Kopav, @ OpactBovdN’, éparav ovTe pedikopmrav doday. The Sixth Pythian might have been called képos épards. But the emphatic address to Thrasybulus here, as in 1. 1 oi pév madat, © OpactBovde, Hares, removes all doubt as to the reference intended. In the last lines of the ode, too, when the poet bids the son of Xenocrates not to ‘hush hese hymms in silence’, one may understand the Pythian ode as well as the Isthmian. And these last lines suggest another question. One might have expected that after the deaths of his father and uncle, amid the following troubles and confusion, Thrasybulus would have had little thought of celebrating the Isthmian victory. One might imagine that he would have been more likely to countermand the hymn which his father had commissioned Pindar to write. But if not, if he still wished for the hymn, then there was certainly little need for the exhortation not to ‘hush these hymns in silence’. My view is that, after the death of Xenocrates, all thought of the Isthmian B, IL 3 34 ISTHMIAN I. celebration was given up, and that Pindar at a later date sent this ‘ Isthmian’ hymn to Thrasybulus as a personal compliment, without seeking for payment, just as, under very different circumstances, he had sent the Pythian hymn more than twenty years before. Thrasybulus probably could not have afforded or would not have been disposed to pay the usual fee for an epinician ode. History does not record his fortunes after the fall of his house}, but it seems likely that his property was confiscated and that he had to flee from Acragas, as was the usual fate of the kinsmen of fallen despots. And now the first part of our hymn becomes intelligible. The ‘ wise’ Thrasybulus, seeing between the lines, might have read as follows : “You do not expect this ode, O Thrasybulus. But you cannot forget that, twenty years ago, inspired by a scene which also inspired you, a scene which you must still vividly remember, I wrought a song in your praise, seeking no hire for my work. You were a youth then, I was young too. Since then, my hymns have been indeed silvered ; I have written for money, that is my trade. That the world is mercenary you may have discovered by recent experience ; and I cannot except myself from that law. A man of Argos, when he lost his wealth and his friends deserted him, said bitter words which have passed into a proverb, “ Money is the man”. That is perfectly true. Your father asked me to write an epinician in memory of his Isthmian victory; and of course he would have paid me well and I should have expected him to do so, But a man of Acragas, when he has lost his wealth, can hardly afford the extravagance of an epinician: nor is he likely to get one for nothing. When wealth flies away, friends fly away too. But still,—for the sake of that disinterested maidetos duvos, which I made for you twenty years ago, when the prospect was brighter than now, accept, O Thrasybulus, as a gift from your mercenary friend, this, let us call it an Isthmian, hymn’. Such, I suggest, was the import of the first twelve verses to the ears of Thrasybulus. And it is possible that the Pythian ode may have been recalled to his mind by two verbal echoes, which may now be added to those which I have collected above. (e) The silvered faces of the songs Isth. U. 8, dpyupobcioa mpdowma padOaxdpwvor daordai, may suggest the curious expression in Pyth. VI. 14, that the face or front of the treasure-house of hymns will announce the Pythian victory. gaet Sé€ mpdcwmov ev xabapa maTpi re@, OpaciBoure, ...... islied dmayyedei. (/) The maxim emphasized in the Sixth Pythian was to honour 1 See Mr Freeman, History of Sicily, 11. p. 298. INTRODUCTION. 35 parents,—a maxim gloriously followed by Thrasybulus. The command was given by Chiron to Achilles: 20 at Tot...dyes ebypordvay. But now, twenty years after, it is a very different maxim that is brought most prominently before the notice of the exiled, or, at least, the fallen Emmenid: Isth, 1. 9, viv & éblyte ro répyeiou duddea... Xprpara xpypar’ dijp. This was the new experience of Thrasybulus. We may now turn to examine more carefully the second and third parts of the ode, and we shall find them more closely connected with the first than might have been suspected. The Isthmian victory which Poseidon gave to Xenocrates, evdpparoy adv8pa yepaipwy *Akpayavrivay ddos, is the original cause of the hymn and is mentioned first. Then comes the old triumph at Crisa, and a more recent victory at Athens, where Nicomachus drove the chariot of Xenocrates, deftly handling the reins. The same skilful driver won for Theron his victory at Olympia. We should like to know who this Nicomachus was ; whether he was a kinsman of those whose horses he drove so well. He must have been a person of some distinction, for he was in a position to offer hospitality to the Elean omovdoddpor who proclaimed the sacred truce; and in return for that hospitality they shewed him special honour, when he ‘fell upon the knees of golden victory’. The literal driving of Nicomachus reminded the poet, who composed the Sixth Pythian, of the figurative driving of Thrasybulus. As Nicomachus was saluted by the Eleans déuvmvém dava, so Thrasybulus was rewarded by a honeyed song. This is brought out by a group of verbal echoes, signalling back to the opening lines of the hymn. (@) 21 puciSipov : 2 Sldpov, (2) 21 hwrds: I dares, (c) 24 epyov: 6 épydris, (2) 25 d8umve@: 5 dSlorav, (2) 25 dwvg: 8 padOaxdhavor, (Jf) 26 xpucéas : 1 xpucapmricoy, (g) Songs and Thrasybulus are old friends, even as the Eleans and Nicomachus : : 23 dvéyvev : 30 dyvares (cp. 12). But to understand the full significance of these signals we must observe carefully the words ma6dvres mov rt puddgevov epyov. The sweet salutation of the Eleans was a return for the hospitality of Nicomachus. And so, Pindar sug- 3—2 36 ISTHMIAN II. gests, this unpaid hymn which he sends to Thrasybulus is a return for the hospitality which he experienced from the Emmenids. This is rendered clear by another echo at the end of the ode. In fact there is a line of signals : 6 épydris—24 didrdkevov epyov—46, 48 elipyaodpav—teivov. Pindar’s Muse is a hireling : but the hire for which she works here is the past hospitality which he received in the house of Xenocrates. That house is well acquainted with honeyed songs, as Thrasybulus knows ; let him receive yet one more, an Isthmian. This is what the echo of 1. 30 seems to say to Thrasybulus. , 30 Kal yap ovk dyvares div évri Sonos 12 éooi yap dv codes, ovk ayvar delBw a ¥ Lg , > 2 - 2 e oe f ovTe Kdpwvr, @ OpactPBoun’, éparav ToOpiay immouct vixav. 4 - s a oUre pedcxoumay doBay. In that former song the poet ascended into the chariot of the Muses and lightly aimed an arrow at Thrasybulus. In this ode the mark for shafts is not he, but Xenocrates. Yet this task too is a light one for the poet and the Muse. 33 ov yap mayos olde mpordyTys d Kédevos yiverat el ris edddEwv és dvdpdy Gyo Tiysas “EAcovddev. paxpa dioxyjoas dkovtrliccaip. trocov Saov épyay Eewvoxpatns vrep avOparev yhuKetav goxev. These lines recall the beginning of the ode 2 és dippov Moway EBawov krura Poppeyy: cvvayrspevor piwda, maidetous erégevov peAvydpvas Dyvous and 7 008 émépvavro yAuKetar pedupOdyyou mori Tepyrydpas where zori Tepexdpas responds metrically to (ris) ‘EAcconddeov. In praise of Xenocrates Pindar mentions his sweet temper, his relations with his fellow-citizens, his devotion to the breeding of horses, his piety in celebrating all the festivals of the gods; and above all his unstinting hospitality, wherein indeed he was true to his namel. The father of Thrasybulus was hospitable at all times and seasons. Like the merchant who makes a voyage in summer to the far recesses of the Euxine, in winter at least to the Nile, he never furled his sails. And - such hospitality, which Pindar had himself experienced, well deserves an ode ; let the merchant get that at least for his wares. This thought, which we have already found indicated by signals, Pindar perhaps hints at by yet another signal here : Al ddd’ érrépa mort pev Baow Oepelas 7 008 érépvavro yAuKeiai—doiWai 2, 1 fevla is quite a note of the ode: (36). observe 2? The ideas of traffic and crossing the 24 pirdgevov, 39 Eevlay, 48 tetvov sea were connected in the Homeric as well as Hevoxpdre: (14) and Rewoxpdrys repdw., - INTRODUCTION. 37 In the last verses of the ode Thrasybulus is encouraged not to hang his head under his changed circumstances. His house has fallen ; democracy has succeeded ‘tyranny’; but he has the memory and example of his father’s excellence to comfort him, and he has the hymns of a great poet—hymns which, as that poet had said twenty years before, the wind and the rain will not sweep into the sea. Let these hymns be sung openly; they are not made to be idle and silent ornaments. The ode is sent to Thrasybulus by the hands of a certain Nicasippus}, as we learn from the concluding lines : tadta, Nukdowrn’, dmdvepov drav Ecivoy éuov WOaiov @dOns. The words seem intended to suggest that Nicasippus-is to be the bearer of praise to Thrasybulus, as Nicomachus was to Theron and Xenocrates ; compare wv. 21, 22 xeipa mraklrmove ards tav Nucéyayos xara kaipov vel dracats dvias. We should like to know something of the later history of Thrasybulus. We should like to know, if it were nothing more, what message he sent to his guest-friend for this honey-scented song. I have already remarked that Pindar was resolved that the savour of it should be sweet indeed. Honey is mingled three times» The hospitality of Xenocrates, ‘the light of Acragas’, was certainly well repaid in ‘these hymns’ which have assured to him and his son immortal honours : aye , ~ ¥ aOavarots év Tysais eutyOev. leurs piéces. Céphisophon et Callistrate sont des yopyyol dramatiques, comme Enéas et Nikésippos sont des xopyyot lyriques. Le drame, sorti du lyrisme, 1 Compare A. Croiset, La poésie de Pindare, p. 97: ‘Plus tard, ce fut au tour de Pindare de se faire ainsi [as he had aided his own masters] aider. II nous a lui-méme transmis les noms de deux de ses auxiliaires: il les appelle Nikésippos et: Enéas’, He appends the following footnote : ‘L’emploi de ces choréges ressemble beaucoup 4 celui-de ces acteurs qui rem- placaient ou aidaient les Euripide et les Aristophane dans la représentation de avait hérité de lui nombre de ses usages’. 2 3 peduydpvas Uuvous, 7 pedlPOoyyor, 32 peAucdurwy. Besides, we meet 5 adlorav, 7 yAuKelat, 25 adumvdy, 36 yAukelay, not to speak of wah@axddwvor dowdal, and Tepyr-xdpas. 38 ISTHMIAN I. METRICAL ANALYSIS. (Rhythm : dactyloepitritéc.) STROPHE. —_— y — ovr Tor KTV. SS Se ey ee ee Se re se mM mm ur otmMY Tee DD jwVvyrVy Zoro Uo mummy rer H GS M. Schmidt divides the strophe into two parts, A (wv. 1, 2), A’ (vv. 3, 4, 5)s each of 18 feet. He counts the anacrusis of the first line as equivalent to an epitrite. EPODE. —_— wv ev myer rE ry Hor. HV Um U Une wy Spee ie yw mVvruryurrryY. U5. mum m mer. —_. meyuUUer reo M. Schmidt formulates thus : A (wv. 1)=(44+5=)9 feet B (vv. 2, 4)=(6+4+6=) 16 feet _ A’ (vv. 5, 6)=(§ +4=) 9 feet. According to this analysis the first two dactyls of v. 1 are followed by two trisemoi (—.—.) and the first two dactyls of v. 2 are also followed by two trisemoi. IS@MIONIKAI B’ BENOKPATEI AKPATANTING APMATI. Of pev Tarat, 6 O@paciBovre, Paes, of ypvcauTUKOY > oTp. a. és Sippov Motodyv eBawov kruTa hoppiyys cvvavTopevot, plupa tatdetous érd£evoy pwedtyapuvas buvous, 1. Ot pév wddorx.7.A.] Zhe men of old, O Thrasybulus, who stepped into the car of the gold/filleted Muses in concert with the sounding Lyre, used lightly to aim at boys shafts of honey-voiced hymns.— of pay médoe is taken up: by viv 8’ in 1. 9. —xpveaprixev, in the Iliad an epithet of steeds. Ol. vit. 64 and of the Hours in frag. 30; of the Muses also in Pyth. 111. 89. In Ol. XIII. 68 we find xpvoduruxa xadwdr. ot, Mss. doo, possibly a dittographia : oTECECO! read as PHres oo. 2. 8lhpov] The first syllable of dippos is four times long and four times short (as here) in Pindar. The car of the Muses is found in O/. Ix. 81 etnv etpyat- ews dvayetoOa. mpdcpopos év Moody dt- gp» where the ‘scholiast explains: dvrt Tod év Indy mromoe yy al Mofoa dwp- oivrat, also in Pyth. X. 65 dpua Ieptiwy rerpdopov, and Jsth. vil. 62 Mowatov dppa. cuvavrépevor] mecting with. This verb occurs twice in the Second Olympian Ode: 1. 39 Pindar has it of Lachesis in. €& ovrep exrewe Adov popiuos vids cuvavTopevos, and 1. 95 Képos, ov dixg cuvavrduevos, Envy not confederate with justice. Here the poets are supposed to meet Phorminx as they ascend the cars of song.—dédp- peyyt, half personified; see my note on Nem. V. 24.—«hutq, probably in a phy- sical sense audible, loud; most commen- tators however regard it as bearing its ordinary sense, glorious, noble, fair. 3. lwo] in an offhand way, without calculation (‘ohne langes Ueberlegen’, Mezger). The shade of meaning is ex- actly expressed by ¢emere ‘heedlessly’ in Horace’s ¢emere insecutae Orphea silvae. Compare Aeschylus Agam. 407 BéBaxev plupa dia muddy of Helen. Mr Tyrrell compares Tennyson’s line in Locksley fail ‘In the spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love’. The word occurs only here in Pindar, but we have piupdpyaros in O2. 111. 37.—madel- ous and érofevoy are also drat elpnudva in 40 IZOMIONIKAI B’. batts eov Kados eiyev “Adpoditas evOpovov pvdoteipay adiatav omoipav. 5 & Motca yap ov didoKepdys tw TOT’ Hv ovd' épyatis’ 2 , avT.a. ovs’ érépvavto yAuKeiar pcdipOoyyot roti Tepyrixopas apyupwbeicas mpocwra parOaxddwvor aoidai. Pindar. For the metaphor cp. /sth. Iv. 47 YAaood mot rogeduar’ exer K.7-A.— Tad Selous Spvous are love-songs addressed to boys. Schol. é7e 5é mwepl marduxob Zpwros qv rots Aupixois 4 Tv Townudrwr orovdy, Snuwdns 6 AOyos. Tabra dé relver kal els rods qepl Adxatoy kal “IBuxov kat "Avaxpéovra Kal ef ries dddoe TOY mpd adrod Soxodat wept Ta mardixd joxXorfoGae* ofrou yap madadrepoe Twddpov. peAvydpvas, this epithet occurs also in Nem. 111. 4, Ol. X1. 4 and Pyth, 111. 64. The note of Aoney recurs in 1. 7 and 1. 32. 4, 5. Sots] The antecedent is ratdes implied in radelovs. The construction of a singular relative after a plural con- ception is familiar: the meaning in plain prose is ‘hymns in honour of boys who were both fair and of fitting age’. "Adg- poSiras depends on pvdorepayv, which, as the feminine of uvaorip, means wooing. The season of ripeness, the summer of life, is said to woo Aphrodite. See note movéuou pvacripa, Nem. 1. 16. The schol. explains wvjyqv éuroodcay, and so most editors. It may be readily con- ceded that to the minds of Pindar’s con- temporaries the word suggested piuvaonw and its cognates as well as pvdouar, which they doubtless regarded as a cognate also. —eiOpévou suggests u statue of the god- dess sitting. Compare ev@pévov K)eoos in Nem. 111. 83, evOpdvors "Qparor, Pyth. 1X. 60, evOpovors Kdduoro xodpas, Ol. 11. 22. Homer has éi@povos Has.—démoipay, cp. Nem. Vv. 6. 6. a Moioa «.7.\.] Fox én those days the Muse was not yet mercenary nor hire- ling, nor did Terpsichora traffic in sweet honey-voiced warbling songs with silvered faces—The Muse mentioned in I. 6 is named in I. 7—Terpsichora who presides over lyric poetry.” Von Leutsch tried to make out that ‘the Muse’ is Erato, and Mr Fennell adopts this view. But there is no mention of Erato in the Ode, and there is nothing to suggest any opposition between the Muse who was not hireling and Terpsichora who did not traffic. On the contrary, both the clauses, connected by ovéé, are parts of the same thought. The opposition is between past and present, not between choral and erotic poetry.—dtAoxepS%s, in Pindar only here. The word is first found in Theognis 199 Prroxepdéi Ouuw.—épyaris, feminine of épyarns a day-labourer. The scholiast, who explains 6 ésrw alrofoa micbov éd’ ols érparrev, quotes Callimachus (/rag. 77) od yap épyarw tpépw thy Modoay ws 6 Keios “LAXLxou vérous, an allusion clearly to this verse of Pindar who was generally supposed to be aiming a shaft at Simonides. Compare the use of épyacia for gain, trade. 7. @mépvavro] mépynut is not found elsewhere in Pindar. The short final vowel is lengthened here, as usual, before y\uxts: there are three exceptions, Vem. IV. 45, VII. 52 and O2 1. 19.—pedt- P8oyyor, also in O/. vi. 21 (Mota) and Jsth. Iv. g (dotéais). Heyne and Boeckh, followed by Bergk, needlessly read weapOdyyou.—Teppixdpas, dak elp. in Pindar. , 8. dpyvpwletca. mpdcwmra] There is nothing bitter or even depreciatory in this phrase. It is not intended as a re- proach to the songs, on which caressing words, yAukelat, perlpOoyyor, padOax6- gwvo, are bestowed. The songs are compared to maidens; and for maidens ISTHMIAN II. 4l viv 8 édints 76 tépyeiov pura kau Pie adrabeias eras dyyicra Baivov' 10 dpytpeat mpdowma would be high praise. Alcman has 76 7’ dpytipiov rpdowroy of the fair face of Agesichora (/r. 23 p. 2, 1. 55), in contrast with her golden hair (xpucds ws dxjparos 1. 84). trast is intended between the dovdal with silver faces and the muses of golden fillets of 1.1 (xpvcammrixwv). And if Pindar had written dpyépea, the point—an allusion to dpyupos money,—would have been clear enough. Literally describing the fair faces of the maidens, it would have . suggested the silver paid for the poems. Cp. Anacreon /r. 33 (quoted in the schol.) 005’ apyupén kw ror’ é\aumre reds. But dpyupwheica is a happy hit; for it is literally appropriate both to the figure and to the thing figured. In regard to the girls of the metaphor, it means that their faces are painted, as they are for sale, to render them more attractive (so schol. mpocwmroy kexoounuévarc kal ap- mpuvOetoas Ort Ta Gia ws TOY TwdotyTwV Td Tpdowra Koopovvra); while in regard to the songs, it could mean rewarded with silver, as in Nem. X. 43 dpyupwbdrtes oly olyypais @iddats. It is possible that there is a further allusion; see Appendix C. It is to be noted that in Pyth, xi. 41 the vaice of Pindar’s Muse is conceived as stlver-tined: Motca, 7d 6é redv, el pic 000 ye (reading uncertain) cuwvé@ev wapéyew pw- vav badpyupov. There is an allusion to paid poems in Aeschylus, Agam. 978, payrurone 8° adxédevoros dutobos dod. padlaxddwvor, u Pindaric coinage, only here; perhaps an echo of Sappho’s eAuxépuvo. (Aristaenetus I. 10, Bergk Srag. 129). 9. viv 8’] opposed to maar of 1. 1.— The subject of éplyte (Doric for éplycr) is Terpsichora: ow she biddeth us ob- serve the saying of the Argive man. The Argive man was Aristodamus, as we learn from Alcaeus in a fragment quoted by the scholiast: And so here a con- |, Totrov dé Tov ’Aptorddnwov Tivdapos wey ob rlOnow ef dvduaros, ws mpodnAov dvros bs éorw 6 roto elrdy, povoy 5é éonme- caro Thy marplia, drt Apyetos’ ’AAKatos 62 kal 7d dvoua Kal rh trarplia rlOnow, odk “Apyos ddd, Lardpryv’ “Qs yap 54 aoré gacw ’Apisrrodnuov ev Xadpre dO-vyor ovk dmdahapvov elrety' xphuar’ dvip* mevixpos 5é ovdels éder’ eodds ode Tiutos. Thus for Alcaeus Aristodamus was a Spartan. The scholiast justifies Pindar for calling him an Argive by Homer’s ‘Edévyy “Apyelav, ‘Apyetios being practi- cally equivalent to Peloponnesian. Pin- dar however may have known that Aris- todamus was originally connected with Argos. He may have had a reason for thus designating the author of the proverb here; see next note.—For the verse of Alcaeus see also Diogenes Laert. 1. 31 and Suidas sad xpyuara. Bergk (frag. 49) restores thus: @s yap Shor’ ’Apiorddapdy dao’ odk« amddapvoy év Lrdpra byov elryv' xphuar’ dvnp, wévixpos 8 ovdels méder’ Exdros ovdé rhyos. —ovardéat, so in Ol. 111. 41 puAdooorTes pakdpwy Tederas. to. dAabelas érds] Bergk’s brilliant emendation for Mss. d\y@elas (the Tricli- nian € ¢ give dA\nOelas adds, ed. Rom. pijua THs ddnGelas). eras (accepted by E. Boehmer) easily fell out on account of its likeness to the last four letters of the foregoing word: dAdOEIACETAC. For this Pindaric word, whose traces were first found by Bergk, see Vem. vil. 25 (with my note) where we have the same expression érav d\d@eay. Cp. Mem. vil. 85, X. rz and 41. Of other pro- posals I may mention Hermann’s 6déy and Schnitzer’s ord8uas.—When it is said that the saying of Aristodamus ‘comes very near éra& dAdfeca’, the form of expression is not without its signifi- 42 IZOMIONIKAI B. 2 ' eT]. a. Xpijyara, ypijuar’ dvip, ds ba credveov O dua revOels Kat pirwv. éool ydp &v codes, ovK ayvaT deido cance. It is not the same as simply saying that the proverb is true (ddadés). Like éruwos and érirupos (see Verrall’s Appendix 11. to his edition of the S¢z. c. . Thebas), érds (see notes on passages cited above) may have the special force of ety- mological truth. Here the truth in ques- tion is xpyuar’ dvip, ‘money makes the man’. But what was the import of this in special relation to Aristodamus? To the Argive who had to do with Argives, xXphuara xphuar’ dvip was only a gene- ralisation of a particular conclusion which might have been expressed thus: dpyvpos dpyupos “Apyeios, ‘Argive, thy name is argent’, words to which Pindar’s description ‘coming very near verbal truth’ would be strictly ap- plicable. If the poet intended this verbal suggestion, he has taken care, as indeed was incumbent on him, to render it easy to penetrate by placing in close proximity the striking word dpyupwOeioa: and the, perhaps unusual, designation of Aristo- damus, ’Apyelov. This explains too his motive in choosing that designation. For dyxvora with genitive see Vem. IX. 55. 11. Xpypara x.r.rA.] ‘Money, money ts the man’, he said, when both money and friends had together failed him. Xpiipara is subject and dvip predicate.— 6s, demonstrative (cp. és 5 épy) as is shewn by the order of the words (so Mr Fennell takes it); we should there- fore punctuate after Baivov. The ordinary explanation makes és relative (to Twp- yelov). Bergk suggested 6 p& ‘admissa syl- laba ancipiti’.—@ &pa,so mss. Boeckh’s Gaya gives inferior sense (Bergk and Mr Fennell 6¢ua). The point is that when the man’s money deserted him, his friends deserted him too: dpa brings out this. There is no reason to suppose that in his case the experience was repeated several times.—AetpOels equivalent to crepnbels, but with the idea of being eft behind by, left in the lurch. etmowat with the geni- tive is not found elsewhere in Pindar. 12. érol yap ev copds] ‘I need say no more, for you are wise and can pene- trate my meaning; therefore I go on to your father’s Isthmian victory’. The cog¢ia imputed to Thrasybulus is clearly his knowledge of poetry ; mentioned in Pyth. VI. 49 codlay & év puxotoe Mcepliwv.—Of yap av (yap ovv), in explanation of some- thing which is understood but not ex- pressed, there is a good parallel instance in Herodotus v. 34 ol yap dy Naéor oddév tdvTws mpocedéxovro emt apéas Tov aTbdov roirov opuncecOar. Here yap ov explains the fact not expressed but implied (in the following sentence) that the Naxians had made no preparations for a siege. In most casés yap ofv is merely an emphatic yap, as in ed yap ody Adyers (Antig. 771), kal yap oby mpémre: (Agam. 524). otk dyvar’] So B; ovx dywr’, D. Ancient interpreters were divided between (x) odk ayvdr(t), ‘to a man not ignorant’ (dyvids active, as below 1. 30), and (2) ovk dyvwra (schol. od repl dyradrwr, poly, déw). There is no trace in the scholia of (3) dyvSr(a) adopted by modern interpre- ters (except Hartung, Christ, Boehmer, who read dyvwra, and Kayser who approves dyvGrt). obk ayvara vixav is a victory not obscure, dyves bearing its ordinary passive sense wzknown. The active sense is much rarer (though it appears in the two other passages in Pindar where the word occurs: below 1. 30 and Pyth. 1x. 58), and, as far as we can judge, was later; for we find the passive use in Homer (e 79), but not the active. So dyvdra gwvijv, Aesch. Avan. 1051. Sophocles has both the passive (Axt. 1001, Phil, 1008) and the active ISTHMIAN II. 43 . IoOpiav trmotce vixar, \ — tay Eevoxpate, Tloceddwy ordacais, f % a i i Awpiov avTe ctepavopa Koya > n méurrev avadeicbat oerivor, v7 wv t 2 t i evadppatoy avdpa yepaipwr, “Axpayavtivav dos. 15 atp. i’. év Kpiog & evpuabevns ciS ’AtroAAwy puv Tope 7’ ayAatay (Oecd. Rex, 681, 1133) dyvws. In his note on Oed. Rex, 681, Professor Jebb well illustrates the probability that the passive sense was the older by setting the Ho- meric dyvwres addjdotot beside Thucy- dides’ dyvGres ddAjdwv (III. §3).—In deference to the authority of B and to the consensus of modern opinion I have kept dyvGr’ in the text, but I am not sure that Gyvwr’ (as Christ reads) may not be right. The plural ov« dyvwra would be appro- priate in introducing the list of victories which are forthwith enumerated. ‘No unknown theme sing I:—even an Isth- mian victory, favour of Poseidon,—and a Pythian victory (1. 18)—and one at Athens (1. 19)’. In this case there would be a mild anacoluthon. Instead of pro- ceeding in 1, 18 Iv@lay 7’ dydatav, co- ordinate with "Ic@ulav vicay and in appo- sition with ob« dyvwra, the poet would stop short at ¢dos and give a new sen- tence to the Pythian victory. 13. armotor] Instrumental dative with vixa, corresponding to the phrase tamus ve- Kav. Cp. Pyth. vi. 17 ed8okov dppart vixav. 14. ‘evoxpdre] In the corresponding lines of the other epodes the second foot is a spondee; here it is a trochee. But there is no reason to doubt the mss. reading, even though D has the variant éracoos, and few will be disposed to entertain M. Schmidt’s transposition rdv Tlocedawy érdocois Rev foxpdre.—rdy goes only with the participle éracais.— Pindar has both Toceddéwv and Tocedav. 1g. Aaptov] schol. dad Kopi 6taxdv aire cedlvav crepavwy. Soin Mem. Iv. 88, the Isthmian ‘parsley’ is called Kopw- lows ceNvors, which explains Awplwv here. —aivr@ (so Mss. and schol.) in the same clause as Hevoxpdre, to whom it refers, may seem needless, as there is no ambi- guity. Hence Bergk proposed to read avwv or afov, as according to the scholia the Isthmian crown was of withered leaves, in distinction from the Nemean, which was of fresh leaves (schol. rozs ody Ta," lo Opa dry fouevors céduvov Enpdv 6 oré- gavos), It would be rash to touch the text. Editors have missed the point of ait@ and the point of the imperfect méyrev; both points are closely connected. If we apprehend that Xenocrates died before the wreath of his Isthmian victory reach- ed him, the meaning of the words is clear. Poseidon was sending the crown to Xe- nocrates himself and none other (air); it reached Acragas, but Xenocrates was not there to receive it. Thus airw ex- presses that Poseidon’s intention was that Xenocrates should himself wear the crown; méumrev expresses that the in- tention was not carried out.—orepdvopa képmq. (so Boeckh for Mss. kéua) a gar- land for his hair, dvoBeicbar to bind it with (MSS. dvde?eOa1, corrected by Schmid). 16. oedlvav] probably wild celery, not parsley (cp. Mr Sandys, Class. Review, Vv. p. 308). 17. ebdpparov] of Hiero Pyth. Iv. 5, of Theba /r. 198, of the city of Cyrene Pyth. 1. 7.—Axpayavrlvay, so ’Axpé- yas Ol. 11. 6 and 100, but "Axpdyas Pyth, XU. 2, Vi. 6, OL U1. 2.—delos is applied to Hiero in Pyth. ul. 75. 18. edpvoBevrjs] A favourite word of Pindar (epithet of Poseidon in O/, x11. 80, of Telamon Mem, 111. 36, &c.). Apollo of wide-reaching might regarded , 44. IZOMIONIKAI B’. kal TO Krewais 7 "EpexyOedav yapitecow dpapos tais Marapais év “AOavass, ovKn éueuhbn 20 pvoiSippov yeipa wrakimrmowo pwtés, \ t \ \ me ee Tav Nixopayos KATH KALPOV VElfp aTradals aviais. avr. ’. évte kal Kapuxes ‘Opav avéyvwv, arovdopopo. Kpovida him at Crisa and awarded him bright grace. Schol. evpevds 6 ’Aréd\wv €Ged- garo Tov Revoxpdryv, whence Kayser (Lect. Pind. p. go) proposed eippwv dvak for edpvoGerns, a good instance of the wrong method of using the scholia.—pwv, Boeckh vv.—For wépe in this sense cp. above, isth. 1. 61.—dyalay means ‘a splendid victory’. This victory is celebrated in the Sixth Pythian hymn. 19. +60] used by Pindar both as a demonstrative and as a relative.—t’ con- nects 766¢ and rats Aurapats év "APdvas dpapws, x.7.A. And, both there and in rich Athens where he secured the famous and gracious guerdon of the Erechthidae, he had no cause to blame, &°c. The MSs. omit t’, which has been happily restored by Bergk. The received reading, which makes 766: anticipate rats durapats év *AOdvass, is intolerable. The omission of 7 may have been designed; due to the erroneous idea that Thrasybulus, not Nicomachus, drove the chariot of Xeno- crates at the Pythian contest. Compare schol. on Pyth. V1. 15, OpacdBoude* Tod- tov dé ws pidomdropa Kai mpoecTOra THs imuxfjs ératvel, obx ws Twes EBovnOncar, iwloxov, 6 yap hvioxos Nixduaxss éorw ws éx rav loOmovixay fds €orw.—Observe that the last syllable of 760: is lengthened before Kh. xaplrerow] gracious victories, like dy\atay in the foregoing verse. dpapws] Schol. rais évddéas trav ’AQn- valwy xdpistvy tppoouévos. See note on Nem. Vv. ba, where the meaning of this generally misinterpreted word is eluci- dated. 20. Avrapats "APdvats] see note on Nem, 1V. 18.—ovK épéphOn, had no cause to blame. 21, 22. fpuol&ippov «.7..] Mezger explains satisfactorily: At the decisive moment (kara xaipdv) Nicomachus ‘gave his hand’ to all the reins, that is, let the team go at full speed, but at the same time applied the whip (Aagimmoo) and thus saved the chariot from a collision (bvetdippov),—puclStppoy, like puolBwuos, altar protecting (Aeschylus, Zum. 920), puolrods (Aesch. S. c. Zh. 130), formed by Pindar for this place, is not found elsewhere.—mAdfurmos occurs in O/. VI. 85 as an epithet of Theba. veip’ dardoats] Hermann’s emendation of MSS. vwua macas. The mistake or ‘correction’ of vu for vequ was natural, as vwudw was a vox propria for driving (cp. Zsth. 1.15 xepol vwuacart’). xetpa véwew dvlus is equivalent to dare or immuuttere habenas. The force of dmdoats (not the same as mdoas) is that the charioteer relaxed all the reins of the four horses by a single movement, at the same moment: all the separate reins being in his hand as one. kata Katpév, like Virgil’s ‘foedere certo et premere et laxas sciret dare iussus habenas’.—Bergk proposed (weakly) vetu’ érdocais avis. Hartung read ray Nikoudxou, xara karpoy ws évwpac’ dvlas (which departs far more from the mss. than Hermann’s simple and admirable restoration). 23. K«dpukes “Opav] ‘ Heralds of the seasons of the Olympian festivals’. Schol.; dvrwa tov vixnddpov of Kijpuxes, gnolv, of rov Katpoy Kal Thy wpay rod ’Odupmiakod dywvos knptooovres Kal crov- Sopédpar dvres Tob év "Hide Aubs, eyvdpioay mporabdvres te OU map’ abrod dia 7d gircEevov THs Yrodoxjs. The otrovSo- ISTHMIAN I. 45 Znvos ’Areior, wabdytes Tov te Pirdkevov épyov" © , aduTrvow Té viv domatovto dova 25 t , xpvaéas ev yovvaow titvovta Nixas a ’ yatav ava sperépav, tav 8) karéotow "Odvpriov Ards ér. B’. aroos' tv abavarows Aivnowddapov opor Zyvos, dearers of the truce of Zeus, proclaimed the Sacred Truce observed throughout Hellas during the days of the Olympian festival. The osmrovdopépor are mentioned by Pausanias (v. 15, 6).— dvéyvwy, recognized, as in Homer and Herod. (11. 91), but never in Attic (see Jebb’s note on Oed. Rex, 1348). Nico- machus, as explained in the next line, was already known to the Elean priests or fetials, or whatever we are to call them, as a guest-friend. dvarywdoxw occurs in one other passage in Pindar, O/ x. 1, where it has the additional suggestion of veading. The form @yvwy as 3rd plur. is also preserved in Pyth, 1X. 79, but éyvov occurs in Pyth, Iv. 120, and perhaps we should read with Ahrens dvéyvov here. 24. mov tt] restored by Schmid. B has rod te and D rou ror. Compare O/. 1. 28 xal mod Tt. tov, J trow.—Dissen speculates as to where it was that Nico- machus entertained the Elean ‘fetials’. He decides for Athens, supposing the occasion to have been the lesser Pana- thenaea at which Nicomachus drove a car for Xenocrates. But he seems to hold that the recognition was at Athens, not at Olympia; thus referring dvéyvwy and ma0évres to the same occasion. ing to my view madévres explains dvéy- vev; they recognized him, having on a previous occasion experienced his hospi- tality. Mr Fennell supposes that Nicoma- chus was ‘proxenos of Elis’.—uAdgevos, elsewhere an epithet of persons, em. I. 20 and OJ. III. 1. 25. adumvow te K.7.r.] And with sweet-breathing voice offered him greeting, when he fell at the knees of Golden Victory, in their own land, which men call the Accord- . Precinct of Olympian Zeus. It is clear that the greeting was given at Olympia; yaiav dvd oerépav goes with domdsovro as well as with wirvovra. On a former occasion they had been his guests in another land; he was now their guest z7 their land. It seems to me that Dissen, who places the greeting at Athens, gives a well-nigh impossible sense to murvwvra, (as he reads), ‘tanquam eum qui ante apud ipsos in Olympia vicisset’. The imperfect participle would hardly do here. —adimvdw ova (but in O/. x1II. 22 Mois’ ddtrvoos). Cp. Sappho /~ 61 rap- Oévov ddvguwvor, 26. év yotvacw miryovra Nlkas] In the Fifth Nemean, Euthymenes is said to fall in the arms of Victory; 1. 42 Nikxas év dyxdveoo. wirvwy. The idea of both figures is that Victory embraced the victor.—lryovra is the reading of B, and rightly preserved by Bergk. D has alrvovro, € § mirvGyro. Ceporinus, whom the editors have followed, read mrirvGvra (from mirvéw, a form rightly questioned by Elmsley). 27. dva} See Appendix H.—xadéororw Aeolic for xadéovow. The subject is ‘men’, not the omovdoddpot. 28. ddcos] Not only the Altis, but the whole of sacred Olympia. Villoi- son proposed to read “AATw.—dOavdrots év tipais epexOev for ddavdros ripais évémsxOev were charged with immortal honours ; compare O/. 1. go év aluaxouplas dydaator péutxrae (tmesis for éuméuexrar). Dissen explains d@avdrous as ‘consulto electum epitheton quum uterque frater iam defunctus esset’. But Pindar himself explains d@avdros (as Mezger has pointed out) in the following sentence which 46 IZOMIONIKAI B’. a > a wy maides ev Tipais EuryOev. Kal ydp ovK ayvartes vuiv évti ddopor 30 ote Kdpov, © Opac’Bovr’, éparar, ovTe peALKouTTOY aoLddy. ov yap mdryos, ovde TpocavTns & KédevOos yiverat, oTp. yy. yy Oe 2 > a“ y XN ¢ ¥ et tis evddEwy és avdpav dyow Tipds ‘“EXtxwviddav. paxpa Sioxnoas axovticcayut Toaod0’, bcov dpyav 35 begins with kal ydp.—AlvyoiBiipov mat- Ses, Theron and Xenocrates ; the victory was won by the chariot of Theron, and was celebrated by Pindar in the Second and Third Olympian Odes. The scholiast curiously says: Alynoéduou raises Ojpwv kat Aewvopuévns wv xuplus pynpoveter ws Zixedtwrav rupdvywy. What was he think- ing of ? 30. dyvares] active; see note on L. 12 above.—The acquaintance of the house of the tyrants of Akragas with song ensures immortality to their fame.—évrl Doric for ict. 31. épardv] Cp. Aleman, /. 45 dpx’ éparay éréwy. 32. peduKoprray] honey-ringing; a Pin- daric formation, only found here. This phrase signals to the meNlpOoyyor dordal of 1. 8. 33, 34. ov ydp «.7.A.] These verses are usually explained to mean that ‘ It is easy to utter praises of men of high renown’ (Fennell). So the scholiast : od Tpaxeia, pyalv, ) 68ds Tots rods évddtous érawvotow dvdpas. Similarly Dissen, Mez- ger, &c. According to this view the emphasis is on eddégwv, 71s means a poet, ‘EXtxwriddwy depends on riuds, and ef ris dyo. is equivalent to r@ dyovrt. Mr Fennell compares Py¢h. vitt. 14 Képdos 5é Pirrarov, éxdvros et ris ex Sbuwy Pépor. But another interpretation may be sug- gested which seems superior in point of sense. I hold that the road (a xédevOos) is not that trodden by poets to the houses of the renowned, but that trodden by the renowned and leading to immortality \ (d@dvaror riual). tisds takes up ripats in L. 29, and ‘EAccwyiddwy depends on tis. We may translate : For no hill rises nor does the way prove steep, if one of the. maids of Helicon import honours to the homes of glorious men. That is: by the power of the Muses the dvjp evdofos can easily secure rimal dOdvarot.—Observe that ts..." HAucwvid- Sv responds to Tepuxspas, last word of the second verse of the first antistrophos. There Terpsichora was said to traffic in songs; hence the Muse is conceived as importing praises; cp. olvoy dyew in Ho- mer. This parallelism supports my in- terpretation. xpoodvrys is not found elsewhere in Pindar, wéyos only in O/. x. 49. és dv8pav, for the ellipse of ofxous, cp. Aristophanes, Frogs 1362 és TAvcys. 35. paKpd Sirkioas] having hurled Jar, dicxéw being used here in the gene- ral sense of hurling (not the discus as dxovrlawatp. shews). So schol. paxpés kal peyddws Tov éudv dAéyor plyas. Com- pare Pyth. 1. 45 waxpa 6é plats (dxovra in foregoing line) duetoacd’ dyrlovs. So Donaldson and Mezger. Dissen on the other hand thought that dicxyoass retained and dxovrlccauu surrendered each its special meaning.—éoxéw is Homeric (y 188). For dxovritw see Jsth. 1. 24, and, metaphorically as here, Mem. IX. 55.— toro’ Scov, that is, may I surpass others in the excellence of my praises, as Xenocrates surpassed others in his dispo- sition.—dpydv yAuxetay, like evavbe? épya ISTHMTIAN JS. 47 Elewwoxpdrns vmép avOpdtav yAuKelav x EoXev. irrotpopias Te vouitwv év IavedXavav vouo' aidotos pev iv aorois opirely, > , avT. Y. \ a a ’ , bs 297 , kal Pedy Saitas mpocértuxto maaas’ ovdé Tote Eeviay - > , ¢ f x = i > f ovpos eurvevoas vréctesr (otiov audl tparrefav' 40 > a Gdn’ érrépa Toth pev Dadow Oepeiass, Pyth. 1. 893 a sweet temper. Thrasybulus, the son of Xenocrates, is described as endowed with like disposition in Pyth. v1. 52, yAukelta 6€ ppyy x.r.\.—Mommsen notes the sigmatism of this verse. 36. ‘evoxpdtys] The name is im- portant, as éevla was one of the spheres in which he revealed his sweet temper (cp. 1. 39). Band D have Hevoxpdrys.— trip dv@pdrav, above other men; for this use of brép cp. Vem. IX. 54.—Observe éorxev (not elyev) wor by practice. 37. alBotos piv «.7.A.] For the corre- sponding 6é clause see next note.—al8oios has been taken in two ways (1) wenerabi- is (Dissen), (2) verecundus (Mezger and Rumpel). Mezger says that aldofos is opposed to dvadijs; there was no UGpis in the nature of the man. But (1) is the usual meaning of the word, and it yields good sense here. doois is better taken as dative of the persons interested than as depending on 6utAelv. dprdety ‘to con- verse with’ depends on aléofos. An English prose writer would express 6ju- det by the adverb—‘ socially ’. 38. te] stands for aldotos dé fy. For this principle and examples of it see Appendix A.—iwmorpodlas the rear- ing and training of horses. The ad- jective, lraorpédos, occurs in Mem. x. 41 and Jsth, 111. B 14.—vopltwv, pZrac- tising ; properly, adopting as one’s habit. So often in Herodotus voulfew yroooar, épriv &c. Cp. Aeschylus Choephorot 1003 voulfew dpyupocrep Blov. This verb occurs in only one other place in Pindar, Zs¢h. Iv, 2.—év Tlaved\Advev vopnw according to the usage of the Pan- hellenes, or in modern language, after the custom of Hellenedom, according to the use of the Greek ‘world’. Schol. «at taaous Tpépuv Te Tay ‘EAAjvov vouw Kal ee. For the phrase cp. Wem. x. 28 év Abpac- relw vopw. .The use of éy is much the same in Avdiw év rporw deldwy Of. XIV. 17 and such phrases as év Sika justly, év rixg, vightly (Aesch. Agam. 685).— TIavéAdaves occurs also in /s¢h. 111. B 29, and in a similar connexion : IlaveAAdveoot & épifsuevor Samdvae xaipov trrwy. 39. Satras] Restored from the scholia (ras éopras and Oey mayyyupes). MSS. éalras.—mpooérrukro, lit. had clasped to his breast; welcomed. Not elsewhere in Pindar. ov8é «.7.A.] Pindar would say that, however numerous were the guests who poured into the halls of the prince of Acragas, he did not slacken or reduce his hospitality. He expresses this by a metaphor from a ship, whose crew we should expect to furl sails if the wind blew unusually strong. We may render; nor even did a wind, blowing on him at his hospitable board, cause him to furl a sail. This is the explanation of Mr Fennell and Mezger. The same metaphor is used of liberality in Pyth. 1. gt éfle.—iorlov. Band D preserve tevfav (so schol.); the unimportant Mss. have éevlos. For bméore\’, MSS. have tréorecAev, a common sort of error in the Mss. of Pindar, and due to the practice in old uncial mss. of writing elided words in full, leaving the elision to the reader (as in Latin). 40. dp rpdmeLav] Cp. frag. 187 jpwes aldolay éuiyvuvr’ aut tpawetay Oapc.. 41. GAN x.7r.d.] But he would cross 48 IZOMIONIKAI B’. év 8é yeyudve mrEéwy Neldou pds ayav. 5) , em. y. pn vov, OTe POovepat Ovaray pévas audixpéuavrar Fedrrides, pnt apetay Tote otyaTw TraTp@av bende TovcS buvovs: erred Tot the sea to the Phasis in summer seasons, and in winter to the beach of the Nile. The metaphor of the sailor is continued. The hospitality of Xenocrates was un- stinting at all seasons. Naturally, there were most guests in summer, just as men then take their longest voyages; but in winter too there were as many as possible, just as a voyage to Egypt would be a long journey then.—@epelars, understand dpas, Herodotus uses # Oepely for sum- mer, and in later Greek writers 7 Oepela is not uncommon.—héey (1. 42) must be taken with émrépa; though it stands in the second clause it belongs equally to both. 42. dydv] The mss. have dxrdy, which gives the right sense, but the scholia point to another reading: (Abel Pp. 391) 7d 5é Neldov wpds adyas twés bev ras TOO Neldou pioecs ries bé Ore dard dvatohav 7 pots abrod ylverac* 61d Kal Oepporarys Kal vyew hs kpdcews peréxer Td xwplov. That there is an error in the text of this note I do not believe. The writer was evidently struggling to explain the reading Netdou mpds atydv, which of course is inexplicable. Our data then for determining the text are dxrdy and avydv. It is clear that if derdv had stood in the original text, it could never, in the ordinary course of trans- mission, become avyav. So the problem is to find a word which might have been (t) correctly interpreted by dxrdy and (2) misread avyday, A word which satisfies these conditions is dydv, ‘place where the wave breaks’. (xtuaros) dy is used by Apollonius, and there is no ambiguity here as it is joined to NefNov. Schneidewin had already sagaciously conjectured das, from the scholiast’s av-yas, but dxrdy shews 45 that the lost word was singular, and that avyds is merely a paraphrase of avydy, Mommsen considers dydv improbable on account of f¥cecs in the scholium; but (with Boeckh) he admits it in Pyth. 11. 82 in a different sense. 43—45- BY vey «.7.A.) Wor, because envious thoughts hang round the minds of mortals, let him hush either the excellence of his father,—nay, or even these hymns. Pindar had hitherto addressed Thrasy- bulus in the second person (Il. 1 and 31). He now turns away and speaks of him in the third, in order to address Nicasippus (l. 47). It may seem odd that the subject of ovydrw is not expressed (Hartung wrote ovyaow, Bergk proposed the plural imperative ovydvrwy or Doric ovydvTw); we have to anticipate feivov e¢udy 7Oatov in 1. 48. So Dissen (‘Quod ne durum tibi videatur assume sequentia’, &c.), but he should have added that such sort of anticipation is only possible within certain limits. What makes it possible here is the adjective watp@av, which removes all ambiguity as to the subject of the im- perative. dpévas dudixpépavrar] A very similar phrase is found in OZ vil. 25 audi & avOpirwv gdpacly dyurdaxlar avaplOunrot xp€uavrat. Dissen thinks that the meta- phor in both cases is from nets which hang round what is ensnared.—6varov is pointed: ‘ordinary mortals’ as opposed to the Aenesidamids who took to them- selves ‘immortal honours’, d@dvarot rynal. —FeAml&es, in a wide sense, the zdeas and surmises of interested persons. pnBt rover8’ dpvous] prjrestrictly requires a pare (or at least re) to follow. pydé, where we should expect pre, isa designed anacoluthon, a trick of style, happily ISTHMIAN TI. 49 s ovk édvUcorTas avTovs eipyacdpap. nr t > ? f a taita, Nixdourm’, améverpov, Otay Ecivov éudv nOaiov édOns. used here, for an artistic effect. The poet beginning with sajr’ dperdy leads us to expect that something else is to be mentioned coordinate with dperdy. But when he comes to deprecate the hushing of his own hymns, it occurs to him that Thrasybulus would be more likely to leave the hymns unsung than to suppress his father’s memory, and he expresses this difference in the two objects of cvydrw by substituting pygé, zay, nor yet, for mire. Another instance of this trick of style is found in Pyth. viii. 83, where defeated competitors in games are thus spoken of : Tots ovre vocros opis | ém’ ddmvds ev Ilv- Odde KplOn | ovSt pordyvrwy wap parép’ dudl yews yhukds | dpoev xdpw. Here ov6é has rhetorical force, suggesting that the second clause is not quite on a level with the first. Not to receive a kind greeting from their mother would be a harder blow. So too in Thucyd. 1. 25 (ard re 7d Sixacoy...dua 8 cal ploer). 46. éAwieovtas] Zo rest idle; ‘to take holiday’. Cp. Wem. v. 1 éAwioovra, aydn- par’ éx’ abras Babuldos écraér’. Bergk P. L.G. 1. frag. adesp. 90, 4 (ascribed to Pindar by Schneidewin) doxds 8’ oddé Tis duopeds -édlyv’ ev 8dy01s.—adrovs, emphatic: ‘whatever may be the case with other hymns *, 47,48. Tatra x.7.d.] darévepov would have to mean ‘deal out to Thrasybulus as his share’; it could not mean merely ‘deliver to him this hymn’ or ‘execute these commands’, If there were in the context a figure such as a treasury of hymns, of which one could be dealt to Thrasybulus, déveuor would be intelli- gible. Moreover Nicasippus had a more important office than the mere delivery of the hymn. It is clear that he was not merely a friend taking charge of a packet but the chorégos who was to conduct the B, II, celebration of the hymn in Pindar’s place (see Introd. p. 37). We might expect a word referring either to the public per- formance or to a private recital of the hymn. Independently of the scholia, Mr Tyrrell suggested dvdveimov, rectta, and this finds support in the schol.: 7d yap améveryov dyrt rod dvd-yvwOe Dopoxdfs év *"Axaay ovddbyy, od 5° év Opbvotee ypap- Mare mruxas txwv dmrdévepov Trvéper rls ob wdapeore Ths Ewwpooev. Kal TapOévios év TH Aphry 7d dvveme dvrl rod dvdyvwht Kal dvvelun, Awpicrl 6 Bovxéddos. The frag- ment of Sophocles has been variously restored (read perhaps dvdvemov et ris od map’ bs Evduooev, Tyrrell). The note reads as if the scholiast found dvdvetuov. The Doric passage he refers to is Theo- critus, XVIII. 48, ws rapidy tis dvvelun. If raira dvdvetpov is right, the poet bids his deputy ‘read aloud’ this composition when he reaches Thrasybulus. It is how- ever just possible that drovéuw may have been «a technical expression for some function of the chorégos.—1@atov, Doric for 7Oefov, used in Homer by those who are of equal rank, but in some respect (especially in age) inferior. Paris uses it to Hector. etvov éudy Oatov might be rendered my honourable friend.—Observe €\ys with a simple accusative of the person. There is no other instance of this in Pindar (though he often has the accus. of place, ‘as O/. xIv. 21, Pyth. Iv. 52). ‘Out of Pindar it is extremely rare. The only example I know is Soph. Phz/. 141, o@ 8 & réxvov 755" €hjAvdev way Kpd- ros dryytov, on which see Professor Jebb’s note. We. have Balyw with accus. of person in Eur. Hipp. 1371. Professor Jebb observes that both the passage in Soph. and that in Eur. are lyric, and infers from the parody in Aristoph. (Clouds, 30) that ‘a lyric boldness was felt in them’. 4 ISTHMIAN III. INTRODUCTION. III. BY. ODE IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN THE PANCRATION AT ISTHMUS WON BY MELISSUS OF THEBES. THE Cleonymidae were a Theban family, noted for their wealth and for their devotion to the rearing of horses. They had also distinguished themselves in war, and by victories which their steeds won at some of the lesser or ‘local’ games, such as those at Sicyon and Athens. But there was one thing still lacking. There was one field in which they had sought but failed to win distinction. Their chariots had striven at some at least of the great Panhellenic games, but had never been successful. This was the ‘skeleton in the closet’? of the Cleonymids. Their prosperity needed only a Panhellenic wreath—Olympian, Pythian, Isthmian or Nemean—to be complete. Such a wreath would be the réAos. At length this desire was realized by Melissus, not however through the excellence of his steeds, but by his personal prowess in the pancration contest, at the Isthmian games. This success was welcome indeed to the Cleonymids, and Pindar their fellow-countryman was called upon to celebrate it in a fitting hymn. The note of this hymn is the idea that by the victory of Melissus the glory of the Cleonymids reached its perfection—rédos pov; and appro- priately, as it seemed to Pindar, Melissus was the son of Zelesiades?, In close connexion with this is the thought that the most important conse- quence of the victory is the Epinician hymn, to which it has led. 1 For my view of the Third Isthmian see Appendix D. I have printed the text of 111. A and 111. B in the order in which they appear in all editions; but as III. A, according to my view, is chrono- logically later than III. B, it is convenient to deal with them in reverse order in the Introduction. 2 This phrase is thus used by Professor Jebb in the preface to his ed. of the Ayax. 3 Compare rénos (1. 5), Tédos (1. 10), téXos dxpor (1. 32), gover TeXeordda, in an emphatic position (l. 45), and perhaps TéXos in 1. 67. INTRODUCTION. BI The ode falls into three parts!. The first part celebrates the Cleony- mids in their full glory,—as they are, after the recent victory. The second part deals with their past,—as they were before the recent victory. The third part celebrates Melissus, the successful, in contrast with his prede- cessors who failed. This contrast is pointed by the comparison of the Cleonymids, collectively, to Ajax—Pindar’s constant type for unrecognized merit ; and of Melissus to Heracles—his constant type for success. 1. The Cleonymids are an ancient family, and from the earliest times they are known to have been held in honour at Thebes; to have been the proxenoi of strangers from neighbouring cities, and to have been devoid of offence. But now at length their excellences, locally recognized always, are come forth from comparative obscurity; the victory of Melissus digh¢s them up by this epinician hymn to which it has given occasion. They have touched the pillars of Heracles; their glory has gained its rédos; there is no need to seek any excellence or meed of excellence beyond. The Isthmian crown of Melissus was especially welcome at the time when it was won. For the hearth of his race had recently lost four men, who had fallen in some battle—hardly at Plataea?—so that the joy of the victory came after the winter of their grief like the freshness of spring. This is Pindar’s metaphor: ‘as the earth blossoms with crimson roses after wintry darkness’. The darkness is now lit up by the exploit of Melissus on the ‘seabridge’. Poseidon, the earth mover, has granted a hymn. 2. This hymn is to awaken the ancient fame of the Cleonymids, which had fallen asleep; but will now be bright once more. They had gained victories in chariot races at Athens and at Sicyon, and had even been sung by former minstrels; and they had taken part in the ‘national games’ (wavayvpiav Evvay), not sparing expense on their horses. You can never win if you never try; yet you may try long without winning. Success (the réAos dxpov) is in a certain measure at the mercy of fortune; and fortune often wills that excellence shall not be 4¢ “p (dpdve.a, 1. 31). Sometimes, too, the strength of the better man is overcome by the art of the inferior. There was Ajax, for example, who fell on his sword zz the late night, and shed blame on the Greeks for their judgment in the matter of the arms. He was vanquished by the art of his rival. But the dpera of Ajax was honoured by Homer, even as the dperai of the 1 Mezger states the Grundgedanke of the hymn (following Friederichs and others) thus: ‘Wer Reichthum mit Sie- .gesruhm verbindet und sich dabei frei halt von Uebermuth, der hat wahres Gliick und ist wiirdig des Liedespreises’. —The significance of Ajax and Heracles in the ode has been generally recognized by commentators; but was best brought out by Perthes. 2 What the battle was which was so fatal to the Cleonymids, we cannot possibly know. Thiersch referred it to the passages of arms between Thebes and Athens after the expulsion of the Pisis- tratids. Dissen maintained that no other than the battle of Plataea is meant. On that occasion the Thebans took the wrong side, from Pindar’s point of view, and Mezger is disposed to see a hint of cen- sure in poupay éxe (III. B 36); but see note on that verse. 4—2 52 LSTHMIAN JI. Cleonymids were honoured in old days at Thebes. This parallel is brought out by signals. The ist verse of the 3rd strophe contains an accurate responsion to the Ist verse of the 1st antistrophos: 17 rol pév dv OnBaror tydevres dpyabev «.7.d. 1.37 GAN “Opnpos roe retlpaxev K.T.A. Further, 80 dvOpdémev (1. 37) echoes ém dv@pdrovs (1.9); and Il. 9, 10 contain the same notion of the diffusion of fame as Il. 40, 41. Something more will be said on this passage presently. 3. Yes, it is the poet who transmits the inextinguishable beam of glory over land and sea;—such as the torch of hymns which I am how lighting for Melissus. May no freak of fortune extinguish it! The return to Melissus here is marked by setting his name in the same emphatic position which it had occupied in the second line of the ode1. That line began with & Mae’, and the 2nd line of the 3rd antistrophos begins with kat MeXoow. And the idea expressed in these two passages is the same. The “ght of @ hymn illumines the family of Melissus, and the good fortune is due to Melissus. Il. 2,3 @& MéAtoo’, evpayaviay yap ehavas “IaOpiors vperépas dperds bpvw didkeww?, lL. 43, 44 mpoppdvev Moiwav rdyouey keivoy Gar twupodv tpvev kal Medioog. Pindar’s hymn will be a torch for the Cleonymids, though, until Melissus came, they were, like Ajax, unsuccessful; even as Homer’s verse spread the. dpera of that hero. Compare dperds (I. 3) of the Cleonymids celebrated by Pindar, with dperdv, 1. 38 of Ajax, celebrated by Homer. Fortune has changed; this family are no longer doomed to darkness: 1.31 éorw & dbdvea royas. 1. 43 mpoppdvevy Mowway tixowev k.r.A. The hymn to Melissus is their light (avas). And they not only shine, but they shine for ever; they have won immor- tality : 40 rolro yap dOdvarov deviiey Epes el tis e0 ely Th. And this explains the point (hitherto rather obscure) of that curious expres- sion in the early line of the ode, which represents the Cleonymids as walk- ing, in the flower of their excellences, through life to death: 1.4 aioe KrXewvupidae OddrAovres ated adv bed Ovardv diépyovrar Bidrov rédos. 1 This was observed by Mezger. ger) in v. 21: 2 There is an almost exact metrical rovde mopww yeved Oavpacrdv Buvov. responsion to tury (appreciated by Mez- INTRODUETION. 53 This expression becomes full of meaning when we put it side by side with 1. 40, Before the victory of Melissus, before the hymn of Pindar, the réXos of the Cleonymids was death, now, through the son of Telesiades (épvei TedeordSa 1. 45) they have won the rédos apo (1. 32), deathless fame, Once more, dkris kaddv doBeotos alel echoes alel in 1. 4. They have ever bloomed—in obscurity; now they will for ever shine. And all this is due to Melissus and his pancration crown. For he is not a man, like Ajax, of strength only. He is bold as a lion, but he is also artful as the fox, which can foil the attack of the eagle. The eagle (aierds) is typical of Ajax (as so often in Pindar) ; the fox naturally suggests Odysseus. Melissus has the qualities of both heroes. And the wiles of the fox are not to be deprecated: xpn dé wav epdovr’ duavpdcat tov éxOpov,— ‘all is fair in war’, And Melissus could not afford to despise the aid of art; for, though wiry, he was of small stature. In this he was like the man of Thebes—his own Thebes—who once on a time came to the house of Antaeus in Libya, to put an end to the savage practice of slaying strangers and roofing a temple of Poseidon with their skulls. This man was no other than the son of Alcmena, Hera- cles himself; who having explored earth and ocean ascended to Olympus and wedded Hebe. The tradition that Heracles was a man of small stature is interesting. This external resemblance to Melissus is used by the poet as an occasion for introducing the great hero of Thebes with a view to an ulterior and more important comparison. The adventure with Antaeus is fitly chosen, as the victory of a small man over a giant,—illustrating the victory of Melissus in the pancration. In another respect too, the strifes of the mythical and the historical Theban were alike; both were connected with the worship of Poseidon}. But the points of likeness between Heracles and Melissus, which Pindar has most at heart, are suggested in the fourth strophe and antistrophos. (1) In the strophe he describes the immortality won by Heracles, and the application is that Melissus will enjoy an immortality too,—the immortality coriferred by song. This application is marked by signals. (a) The man who went up to Olympus explored in his labours earth and sea: 55 yalas te mdoas kal Badupyyvov modias adds éLevpav Oévap at the beginning of the fourth strophe. At the beginning of the second 1 Heracles’ object in this labour was Cleonymid and they were good mpodéevore to protect the $évoc and to purify the (I. 8), and, unlike Antaeus, xedadervas temple of Poseidon. Melissus was a dppavol tBptos. 54 ISTHMIAN III. strophe, the scene of the exploits of the man who has now won the immor- talizing hymn is thus described: 1. 20 6 Kunrip dé yas "Oyynorov oikéov kal yépupay rovridSa mpd KopivOov rerxéov. (6) Heracles was honoured by the zmortals, of whom he became one, even as Ajax was honoured by Homer, whose verse can bestow zmmortality; and as Melissus (it is implied) is honoured by this hymn. Compare 1. 59 tert- para. moos ddavdroy with 1. 37 rerlyaxev and J. 40 d@dvarov. (c) Land and sea witnessed the works of Heracles, who then was transported to Olympus; even so land and sea witness the light of all noble works (like those of Melissus) immortalized by a hymn. 1.55 Gs OvAvpmrovd’ eBa yalas re mdoas kat Babuxpnpvov modias dds eLevpar Oévap. 141 kal mdyxaprov éri x8dva kai d1a mwovroy BéBakev épyparey axris x.7.d, (d) As Melissus and (through him) his kindred have reached the proverbial pillars of Heracles, so Heracles himself won the daughter of Hera. Com- pare the last line of strophe 4 with the last line of antistrophos 1: 60 xpvoéoy otkwv avat Kai yauBpos “pas. 12 otxodey orddaoww anrovd’ “Hpakreias. (2) In the fourth antistrophos a picture is given of the festival which was celebrated every year near the Electra gate of Thebes in honour of Heracles and the children of him and Megara. There were eight altars, one for each of the children who were slain, and fires blazed to heaven throughout a whole night. On the second day games were held; and at these Melissus had won the wreath of white myrtle three times, once as a boy, twice as a man. The reference to the children of Heracles has its special application to the case of Melissus. The greatness of Heracles has secured this yearly commemoration for them. Even so the deeds of Melissus have secured immortality for the memory of those four kinsmen of his who fell in war. As the warrior children of Heracles have a share in his festival, the warrior kinsfolk of Melissus have a share in his hymn. XaAkoapav dxrd Oavovreyv (1. 63) echoes xadkéw 7 “Ape. ddov (1. 15). The eight warriors of ancient days enjoy a yearly blaze of light: mrupa (63) and AoE dvareAAopéva ouveyés (65); just as the four warriors of yesterday are lit by a torch of song, rupadév dpvev (43), and dxris doBeoros (42). That gurvpa and mupcéy dpvoy are meant to signal one to the other is shewn by a second pair of signals in the same contexts (second verse of antistrophos 3 and antistrophos 4): mpoppovev Moway rdxotpev Ketvoy aya wuprdv Tpvev. 44 kal MeXioow mayxpariov orehdvap émdgsoy. 62 kai veoduata orepavdpata Bopav avEouer. Here there is, partially, a metrical responsion; and the signalling is facili- tated by the strange and striking character of the phrases mupadv tuvey and INTRODUCTION. 55 otehavdpara Bopav. The Cleonymids have obtained the fire of song and a wreath of praise, even as the Heraclids have obtained wreaths of altars and the fire of sacrifice. The word ravvvxife, applied to the sacrificial flames of this pervigilium, has its significance as a signal. It indicates the contrast intended between Heracles, whose light shines all night, and Ajax who went out in the dark. Ajax is said to have slain himself oyia ev vuxri (1. 36). Obscurity, ‘death’ in the late night, might have been the fate of the Cleonymids but for. the prowess of Melissus. TIT. A. The Isthmian victory of Melissus was followed, probably at no long interval, possibly in the next year, by a victory at Nemea. And the new victory was perhaps almost as welcome. If it had not the charm of being the first, it had a compensating advantage. For the crown which Melissus won ‘in the vale of the deep-chested lion’ was due to his steeds and not, like that on the Isthmus, to his sinews. A victory in the chariot race! was held of more account than a prize for personal strength, and it was for such a victory that the Cleonymids had long been striving in vain. Pindar was again called upon by Melissus for a poem,—not for a long ode like that which he had composed for the former occasion, but for a few verses to celebrate the new success which had been vouchsafed by Zeus. But instead of supplying a new hymn of short compass Pindar preferred to add a new system to the Isthmian ode—a preface, as it were, bringing it ‘up to date’. The result was an ode of really imposing length, of which Melissus, hearing it performed at his feast, might have well been proud. _ The composition, which I have numbered 111. a, might be called a Nemean proem to an Isthmian hymn? Its occasion was the Nemean vic- tory; yet it is so framed as to seem a suitable introduction to the ode com- posed for the Isthmian victory. In fact, if one did not pry closely, one might regard the whole five systems as the outcome of a single inspiration. For Pindar skilfully impressed his new prelude with the tone and thoughts of the old hymn; and there are many verbal resemblances which perform their part in hiding the seam. Among these may be specially mentioned the accurate metrical responsion observed by Mezger (and used by him as an argument for the unity of the five systems): III. A13 immodSpoula kparéwy-: dvdpay 8 dperdv. III. B13 kal pnkére paxporépay omeddey dperdv. But perhaps another echo (which Mezger has not observed) is more striking 1 On this principle, odes in honour of _ nicians. such victories, are always placed first in 2 These remarks must be supplemented order in our collection of Pindar’s Epi- by the general discussion in Appendix D. 56 ISTHMIAN II. (though it is not assisted by metre). The story of Ajax and the Isthmian hymn was introduced by the words, 1. 35 (2nd epode) tore pdv Atavros x.7.X. In the epode of the proem the same phrase introduces the name of the great ancestor of Melissus, from whom the family derived its name—Cleonymus. 1.15 (epode) tore pdv Krcwvipov «.7.A. This is significant; for, as we have seen, Ajax was brought in as a parallel to the Cleonymidae. The last lines of the prelude are a variation on the idea expressed in the first strophe of the hymn, that the breezes which blow across the sea of mortal life veer and vary; with special reference to the history of the Cleonymidae. Thus in III. B it is written: 4 aioe Krcovupidae Oaddovres aiet cesses StépXovTaL Bidrou réAos. GAdote 8’ dAXotos ovpos mavtas avOporous éralocwy edavvet. In 111, A 17, 18 the same thoughts are expressed in echoing language!: mAovTou Sierrexov Terpaopiay movots. aidy dé kvAwdopuévais dyepas GAN Gddor’ eédddakev, where kvAwdopévars suggests that aidy implies a breath of wind. The concluding words, drpwroi ye pav raides Oedv, howbeit sons of gods are woundproof, is clearly a reference to Heracles, the counterpart of Melissus in the following hymn. Hitherto the Cleonymids have been of merely mortal quality, doomed to die and be forgotten; but Melissus has achieved a fame, which, borne up by Pindar’s song, may defy the wounds of time, even as Heracles for his own person won immortality”. 1 The verbal resemblances in these verses have, of course, been often remarked. 2 The following echoes of thought or language in the prelude may also be noticed: Ill. A. III. B. 2 alav® xépov. 8 Kedadervas UBpros. 3 dévos evroylars meuty ar 44 oreddvuy’ emdgvov (i.e. a hymn). », eDNoylats do-rav (of Melissus). 61 daira ropabvovres aorot (of Heracles). 4, 5:6 Zed... Ovarots érovrae 4, 5, 6 OddAdovTes alei éx oé0ev... ody beg Oyarov K.7.d. eT GvTa Xpdvov AdAdwv Guire?. : 7 edkdéov 8 epyav drowa...tpvioror. 21, 23 (ropa) Upvov" (dvd-yer pduav) edkdéov epyov. 8 xpi 6 Kwopdtovr’ dyavais xaplreroiw | 72 Kkwpdtopar repay émuordfwv xdpwv. Bacrdoa. 12 &v Babvordpvov vdrg (place of the | 56 kat BaOuxpiurou (adds) (scene of ex- exploit of Melissus). ploits of Heracles). 16 (KAewvdpou) Sdtav 11 dwAérov 8éfas (of the Cleonymids). » (d0fav) twakaudy dpuaoiy, 22 pdmay madauty (ditto). The correspondence of ody Oeg and é« o¢Gev was noticed by Mezger. INTRODUCTION. 57 METRICAL ANALYSIS. (Rhythm: dactyloepitritic.) STROPHE. jweyvror er orvrrttaeE Oo mummy HoH: SU yey eee vy SWigmVGa— mame yY G0 RU mm er ee ey ey te ru vy Syma ya ye According to M. Schmidt this strophe is bipartite in construction, the point of division falling at the end of v. 3, where he assumes a pause of double time (equivalent to two feet). He also assumes two trisemoi after the first two dactyls in v. 4, and thus assigns to each half of the strophe, 22 feet. EPODE. — | eve ev eH He mevuyvrVvEnD -vr-oc-us oer or er ee ee ne ey ae ry ees eg y —_— mm mT ry mmm oY M. Schmidt gives an epodic scheme. Thus A (vv. I—3) =(11+4=) 15 feet A’ (wv. 4, 5)=(4+11=) 15 feet B (wv. 6)=13 feet. He regards the anacrusis of v. 1 as ‘Aé&is eines Doppeltakts’; or in plain language, as measuring the time of two feet. [IS@MIONIKAI] I” (a). MEAIZ2Q OHBAIQu INILOIs. Ei tis avipav edtuyncais 7 avy evddkos aéOdous o7Tp. 4 oOéver TrovTOU Katéxer Ppacly aiavi Képor, 1. e& mg «.7.A.] ‘If a man among men, having met with success by the winning either of glorious prizes qr of mightiness of wealth, suppress vast inso- lence in the depths of his soul, worthy is he to be crowned by the laudations of the citizens’. For edruxyoats ody evddkors déOdous cp. Nem. 1. 10 gore 8 ey edruxla mavboklas dKpov. The success of the man consists in the fact that prizes or wealth accompany him on his way. What accompanies is often an aid, and thus otv sometimes ap- proaches an instrumental meaning; but there is always a shade of difference. For example, Pyth. Iv. 221 ov 8 daly gappaxwoac’ dvrtrop’ (‘with olive oil in her hands’); Pyth. X11. 21 ody evrect put- pjoar’ épuxddyxray yéov (not the same as évreot, but ‘with the instruments in the hand’). In Pyth, 1X. 15 obv 8’ d€Odois éxéNeuoev Suaxpivac moda, the effect of the preposition is to represent the footrace as an attendant circumstance, as well as a decisive test. In Mem. x. 48 (xarxov) dvre Krelrwp nal Teyéa—Ofixe —ow Trodav xepov Te viKdou ofévet, the preposition is an important element in the phrase; ody o@éver is not the same as o0éver. There is no expressed subject of vxadoa: and otv helps to supply the want by suggesting ‘those who have strength, men with strength’. The at- tendant suggests the attended more di- rectly than the instrument its wielder. Still more clearly in the present case ovv defines attendant circumstances. We may compare ody ebdéEots déPdors on the one hand with Mem. x. 48, and on the other with Mem. X. 43 adv olvynpats gud- Aas dréBav. Compare /sth, VI. 20. 2. o@@éve. wAovrov] Not the same as twdovTou adOovia, but ‘mighty wealth’, referring to the power which wealth be- stows. Cp. Euripides’ rotee xpipace o0é- vow (Electra 939), and Pyth. v. 1 6 wodros evpvoberys. So in Ol. IX. 51 Bdaros oGévos is not merely vis aguae, but mighty water (which of course implies abundance), and the same principle ap- plies to frag. 107, 11 iperod oOdvos brép- garov, cOévos in all cases suggesting not quantity but power.—Karéxo, keep down, here figuratively but literally, of a sword ISTHMIAN TTI. 59 &Evos evrNoyiaus dotadv peux Oar. Zed, peyarat 8 adperat Ovarois érovrat éx o€0ev: dpéverouv fde 88 pacowv srBos omitouévav, Trayiais Se 5 ovX Ouds mavta xpovoy Oddrov cptrel. 2 t evxhéwv 8 gpywv drrowa yp wey tuvijoar Tov odor, ’ avT. xp} 5é Kwpudfovr dyavais xapitecow Bactaca. in a scabbard, Wem. x. 6 év kovkeg Kara- oxotca tpos.—alava Képov, ravening in- solence, occurs also in Pyth, 1. 83. For alayys see note on Jsth. 1. 49. xpos is due to the ‘satiety’ resulting from ev- Tuxla. 3+ pepix@ar] Compare Mem. IX. 31 dyratacw 8 dorwvdmos émpitac adv, Wem. 1. 18. For evdoylais see Lsth. v. 21. In Mem. iv. 8 eddovia is called dép- peyye ouvdopos. 4. Zeber.d.] But when great excel- lences attend mortals on their way, tis thou O Zeus who sendest them. ee wédev, at the beginning of 1. 5, is the emphatic word of the sentence. dperal, such as evdoka deOXa and aOévos wovrov. 5 (he x.7.A.] But the weal of men who fear the gods has a larger life. tae, cp. piua 8 épypdrwv xpovubrepov Brorever. Pindar does not use the form {4w.—pdo- oy, that is } rv wh dmefouevwy (who are characterized in the next clause). As Dissen well observes, the comparative is more ‘modest’ than the positive would be.—émufopévwv, here means roy Ala émigouevwv, those who have the fitting religious feelings towards Zeus, from whom come peydAat dperad. dmgdpevos is perhaps the nearest equivalent we can get for ‘religious’. émis is care and re- spect for sacred things. The participle occurs also in Pyth. 1v. 86, and II. 17.— tAraylas ppévercy, referring to pparly aay} Képov just mentioned. -Cp. Vem. 1. 64 Kal Twa ody TAayly dvdpav Kbpy orel- xovra, It is to be observed that ¢pact is the regular dative of ¢péves in Pindar, and that ¢pévecos here is exceptional (cp. wool, rédeco. &c.). I incline to think that it carried to a Greek ear a modula- tion of meaning slightly different from that of dpact. Did it suggest the thoughts which constitute the mind rather than the mind itself conceived as a unity? Or, whereas ¢pact is so often equivalent to gpevi (the mind of one person), did gpé- veoot define more unequivocally a true plural ‘the minds of a number of men’, namely rv wh drifoudvwy? Or are such differentiations too subtle, and is ¢pé- veoot used just as a modern English poet might now and again use ‘eyne’?—As Pindar doubtless associated émifouae with 3poua and its cognates (cp. Jsth. IV. 58 and note), it is possible that Aaylats may convey the special suggestion of looking sideways askance.—Observe that 8€ is lengthened here before ¢p. 6. otx 6pGs] Understand xal ppéveo- ow érigoudvwv. otx ouds is to be con- nected closely with mévra xpévov (cp. év mavrt xpovy Ol. VI. 36; equivalent to Tov wdyra xpovov) in the sense ‘only for a brief time’.—OciAAwv pide? must be taken closely together, being roughly equivalent to ouv@dAder (were there such a word). For @4\\w with 8dBos cp. frag. 129, 5 mapa d€ odiow evavOis das réOadev Gd- Bos, Pyth. Vil. 21 OdddAowav evdatmoviav. We may render: But not like these for all time do crooked souls walk with happi- ness in her blooming ways. 4,8. dwowa] As a price for noble deeds, almost with the force of a preposi- tion like xdpuw, but strictly explicable as 60 IZOMIONIKAIL I’. gore 8é Kal Sidvpov aéOr\ov Medricow potpa impos evppoovvay Tpérar yduKelay 10 Atop, ev Bdccaow “laOuod SeEapévm otepdvovs, Ta Sé NéovTos Koina év BaOvatépvov vara xapv&e OnBav e sf , > a > ’ x irmodpopia Kpatéwv. davdpav 8 aperay apposed to Uuvor, the unexpressed cognate object of buvjoa. For this meaning of drowa cp. {sth. VII. 3, Vem. VII. 15, but the flavour of the word is lost by any weaker rendering (e.g. ‘meed’) than frzce. ev- kAéov epyov takes up evddtors aéOXoxs (1. 1). —For xp1j pév corresponding to xpq €, where two aspects of the same thing, or two parts of the same process, or two things closely related, are enumerated, compare (Vem. XI. 3 sqq. ed piv’ Apiorayépay déEar redv és Odda- ov / eb 8° éralpous dyhag oxdarTy médas of ce ryepalpovres dp0dav puddocoow Tévedov, TOAAG piv AoiBatow dyafduevor mpwray Oeay moda St xvicg. This idiom of style is not infrequent in Pindar; cp. below /sth. IV. 30. Our corresponding idiom is ‘yea’ with the second clause: ‘It is meet to sing the brave, yea, meet is it to sustain him aloft in the kémos with the gentle hands of the graces’.—rév éoAsv, object of burijoa, but in the next verse xwudfovr’ agrees with the subject of Bacraoa (namely the poet and the singers of the k6mos). For Bacrdoo. cp. note on Mem, VIII. 33 and Ol. X11. 19 where Ergoteles is said ‘to bear up’ his native city Himera by his victories (Sepua Nuupav dovrp Baora- ¢ets).—Commentators explain xaplrecoww as hymns (cp. Jsth. 1. 6) and of course hymns are referred to; yet it is not synonymous with dodais. The figure suggested is the victor sustained in the air by the Charites themselves. 2 eT. 9. torvn.sr.rA.]) But Melissus has the portion of two prizes (no less!) to turn his soul to sweet Euphrosyne, for in the dells of [sthmus he received crowns, and also in the valley-glade of the deep-chested lion he proclaimed the name of Theba for victory in a race of steeds.—Kal §8ipov, ‘not one only but a pair’, ‘no less than two’. The scholiast understood that both victories were gained in lmzodpoula (p. 379): Tabra ody héyet ws Kal “IoOpea Kal Népea verxnxdros abrod iarmodpoutg. But the Isthmian victory meant is clearly that of the pancration; observe the change of construction.—dé0Awv, scan as a dissyllable. 10. ™pos] cp. mpds ‘Acuxiay rerpap- Kévov OL. Iv. 18, Tpévat mori orlyxas Nem. Ix. 38. 11, Bdoooww] of the vale of Olym- pia, O/, 11. 23. 7a meév is understood with év Bacoaow to correspond to td Sé (= ‘on the other hand’), for which, placed thus absolutely, cp. OZ. 1X. 95 7a 8& Hap- packy orpar@ Oavpacros edy pawn. 12. Badvorépvov] Bergk’s Padvorép- vy is perverse. év Babvorépyy vara (as the scholiast iterprets) may be meant, if we push the phrase into prose. The epithet is applied to the Earth, when she swallowed Amphitryon, in Vem. Ix. 25. vamwq, of the Napa at Delphi, Pyth. v1.9; vdaos of Isthmus /s¢k. VII. 63.—Kdpute (cp. above III. 25) OyBav, as the city of the victor. : 13. tmmoSpoula] The ancients felt a doubt whether these victories were xéAnre 4} reO@plrmw, in horse races or in chariot races (see schol., Abel p. 397). Several ISTHMIAN II. 61 , aupputoy ov KaTenéeyyet. wv ‘\ ¢ tore pav Krewvipov Sofav madardy Upwaci' 15 \ tf . kai patpobe AaBSaxidaiow cvvvopor mrovTou SsiécTevyov Te- Tpaoptay Tovoss. considerations concur to shew that chariot races are meant. (1) This is naturally suggested by 1. 16 dpyacw, and (2) by 111. B 25, 29, which proves that the Cleony- midae were accustomed to enter their chariots at the great games. (3) iarirodpo- wa refers to chariot racing where it occurs elsewhere in Pindar, Pyth. Iv. 67, and similarly lrmodpéucos in Zsth. 1. 84. dv8pav 8°] Vo (8€), he doth not dis- grace the manlihood inherited from his fathers. obpvrov inbred (only here in Pindar) shews what dydpes are meant. For katedéyxe cp. /sth. VIL. 65. dperdv answers the last word of 111. B 13, and ovpourov perhaps signals to ¢vow in III. B 49 (3rd epode). 15, 16. Yore pov] Echoes tore udy in II. B 35 (second epode), and KAcwovipou Sdfav madav echoes ddpav madady edkéwy épywr III. B 22.—dppacty, dative of the instrument whereby the fame was won; like Urmowt vixay sth. U1. 13. 17. parpd0e] The wife of Cleonymus was a Labdacid. kal, moreover. AaB- SaxlSaroww ovvvopor, (more than allied with) associated with the Labdacidae. civvopos means ‘having the same range or sphere as’, partner, joint-heir, mate; often of animals which herd together. The word is common; but is not found elsewhere in Pindar.—madovrov Sérre- Xov (MSS. didorixov, ec being often written tin Mss.), walked in the ways of wealth, like dcépxovrat Biérov (of which this phrase is an echo) in 111. B 5. So Dissen and most commentators explain, rightly as it seems to me, but Mr Fennell takes dé- oretxov absolutely ‘they walked consist- ently’, and mAodrov with odvvopo., for which he cites Liddell and Scott. But the Lexicon is inconsistent ; for, while under cévvopos his view is given, under diacrelyw, wdovrov is connected with the verb. It seems to me that we should do ill to narrow the sense of odvvouor by construing it with mAovrov, and that the meaning assigned by Mr Fennell to é&é- oretxov is extremely doubtful. We must remember that d:¢épyouau (apart from III. B 5, where my view differs from that of Mr Fennell) is never used absolutely except (1) where it means ‘to come to an end’, of time, and (2) where 64 has the force of Latin dzs-, in different directions (in Theocritus XXVII. 68, diéortxe = discessit). And we are bound to judge the rare éia- arelyw by the usage of the exemplar b:ép- Xomac, aévois] Dative of manner, according to Mr Fennell, who takes it with déore- xov. It is rather dative of sphere, and should be taken with ovvvoyor.—For Tétpacptav cp. Ol. Il. 5, for rerpadpla, Nem. 1v. 28. For the quantity rérpiopos see Vem. VII. 93. We may render the whole sense thus: Moreover, through their mother akin to the Labdacids, they walked with them in the ways of wealth, their associates in the labours of the four-horsed chariots. 18. ald Sé«.7.4.] Anechooflll.B5, 6.—But the blast of time causeth divers heavy (é&-) changes at various times to the days of life’s rolling sea. Commentators have missed the figure, a wind ruffling the sea, as three considerations shew; (1) kudwdopévars, cp. Ol. XII. 6, (2) alwy, connected with dnt, cp. my note on Mem. 11. 8; (3) these words are an echo of III. B 8, dAdore 8 dAdolos otpos—ératoowy. We are reminded of Swinburne’s line ‘And time is as wind and as waves are we’. Cp. also /s¢h. VII. 14, 15, where 62 IZOMIONIKAI I’. aidv 8& kuduwdopévas apépars GAN ardor éEdrAdraLev’ Atpwror ye pav traises Oedv. aldy is described as éAlcowv Blov wépov.— Gpépats, dative, as the changes concern the days. &rpwror) Howbeit, sons of the gods are wound-proof. ‘The point of the reflexion lies in what is implied rather than in what is said. The gods alone can take no hurt; in that they are distinguished from mortals. A mortal man must be content, if he is evdaiuwy, like Melissus; it would be irrational to repine that he isnot drpwros. (See troduction.) The same thought is stated directly in Pyth. vu. 16 sgg., where ye pav plays a similar part. 70 8 dxvupat POdvov dpeBouevoy ra Kara fepya. gayrl ye pay olrw Kev dydpt mapyorluay Odddowav evdatpovlay Ta Kal Ta péperOat. ‘I am distressed that you are assaulted by envy. Yet, though it may distress us, do not forget that memorable saying, that the most abiding happiness is not unmixed’. This parallel passage suggests strongly that the special application of the words before us, as addressed to Melis- sus, concerned envy and ill-will to which his family was exposed. This is confirmed, I think, by the use of drpwrot. For drpwros occurs in one other passage in Pindar, Mem. Xi. 10, where a wish is expressed that Aristagoras may pass through his year of office civ drpérw xpadlg. Comparing these two passages, may we not suspect that drpwros sug- gested especially unwounded by missiles of envy? (cp. Ol. VIII. 55, where envy is conceived as stoning, ui) Badérw pe Ow Tpaxet pOdvos).—For ye pav cf. Nem. vill. 50 (note); O/. XIII. 104, viv 8’ &ropa pév* év Beg ye wav rédos* ef dé K.7.d. ‘Howbeit, whatever my hopes be, the end lies with the god’; Pyth. 1. 50 viv "ye way ‘now, whatever were the events of the past’ (cp. 1. 17). —at8es Oeav, heroes schol. dvri roi of Geol, ws Kat maides ‘ED-. Aqvev ot”ENAnves. Cp. Plato, Laws, gog E, and Cratylus 398. IS@MIONIKAI I” (8). MEAI22Q OHBAIO: TATKPATIOu. : é Eore pot Oedv Exate pupia ravta KédevOos, oTp. a. 6 Ménoo’, evwayaviay yap épavas "ToOpious vpetépas aperdas buve SidKew* 1. tore poux.7.r.] LZ have by favour of gods a million ways to choose from, wherever I turn; that is, a million roads of song, countless themes for praise. The ground for this statement is given in the next line. We meet the Same figure in Jsth. v. 22, expressed partly in the same language, but with more particu- larity : buplat & épywy caddy rérunvé? éxarop- medor év oxepp KéXEvO oF KT Compare also Vem. vi. 45 whareias mdy- 700ev...mpbco50t,—For the singular pupla kéXev0os, many and many a way, compare the dvjpiOuov yé\acua of Aeschylus. mavrq (al. wayré), in every direction, quoquoversus. 2,3. edpaxavlay x.7.A.] For at the Isthmian games, O Melissus, you gave a bright abundant opportunity for a poet to chase in song the excellence of your race.— ebpaxavla, opportunitas (only here in Pindar). edyjxavos is the Greek for ‘ingenious’, or ‘full of resources’; evua- xavla here means abundance of material. The opposite is duaxavia which Pindar seems to associate with darkness (if the Fifth Olympian be genuine, 1. 14 dz’ dpayavlas dywv és dos), as here evpua- xavla with light (€pavas). The opposite of edpaxavlay tury diwdKew is cvyaddy dua- xaviav, Pyth. 1X. 92.—For “Io6plos (nom. “IcOyua, the Isthmian games) with- out the preposition (we have év IIv@los and év ’Odvptlots) compare Mem. v. § Nepeiors. tperépas ‘of you and your family’. So in Pyth. vill. 72, Révapkes -buerépars Tixas, cp. Wem. X. 37. For Sidkev in figurative use cp. Lsth. v. 713 OL II. 45 ob ph dubéw (7d wopow). Its appropriateness here has not been gene- rally perceived. The poet imagines that he is literally pursuing the brave qualities of the Cleonymidae along roads («é\evOos 1, 1).—#pavas is the correction of Tri- clinian «. The other mss. have égaves. The words "Ic@ulois duerépas have been preserved by B. In D they are omitted. Observe that @ Méuoo’ responds to kal MeXlcow 1. 44 and that tpve is answered by tpvoy in 1. 21 (Mezger). 64 alot Krewvupidar Oadrdovtes aied adv Oe Ovarev Siépyovtas Bidrou TéXos. IZOMIONIKAIL I’. adxote & adroios otpos 5 mavras avOperous éraiccwv édavver. To. wey av OnBaior Tiudevtes adpyabev réyovTat ’ , avT. a. mpotevol t audictidvav Kedadevvas Tt’ dpdpavot ot . & > 9 9 > , ow UBptos' baca 8 er’ dvOpwrovs dntat 4. alow x.7.d.] Whereby the Cleony- midae ever fair and blooming with the god's favour pass through life to the mortal end. ator defines OdAAovres. The gene- ral term eds often occurs (without article) in Pindar (e.g. Pyth. 11. 49 and 88, O/. XIII. 104). We have ody deg in Nem. VIII. 17. @vardv tédos, mortal end, that is ‘death’, is the Homeric phrase rédos. Oavdroo transformed. It is an ‘accu- sativus termini’ (so Mezger and Rum- pel), and fiérov depends on 6&-épxov- Tat (cp. wAovrou 61-éorerxov, III. A 17). Other editors make Ovardy Bibrou rédos mean ‘the span of mortal life’, and con- struct dcépyovrat with an accusative. But Biérov réXos would naturally mean the end or accomplishment of life, not life itself. épyouar is constantly used with an accusative of place by Pindar; see above, note on Js¢h. 11. 48.—Observe that réXos recurs in the same foot of the corresponding line of the first anti- strophos (1. 11). Budrov was restored by Donaldson for Mss. Blov. 6. éralororwy] rushing down on them ; ingruens. Used of the wind also in Homer, B 146. dv@pdaovs depends on éda’ver. At divers times divers winds rushing on drive all men before them. wdavras is emphatic; none are excepted. This general state- ment prepares the way for the sad event mentioned in 1. 17. Compare the echo in the concluding verse of II. A. See also Pyth. 111. 104 dddore 8” dddotae mvoal tyureray dvduwv. 7. vol piv dv] For pev dv cp. Pyth. Il. 82, ra wey dv od Sivarvrar vijrioe koopy épew, to which answers 1. 84 rly 6& poip’ eddatpovlas emerac.—According to Mr Fennell pév is taken up by dAda in |. 34. I do not think so. It seems clear that uéy is answered regularly by 8% inl. 18 viv 8 ad werd yetpépiov x.7.d. viv is opposed to dpxadev. And Mr Fennell’s own note helps to support this view. He cites two instances of yey obv: (1) Lysias, pro Callia, évburtov pev ofv— viv dé, (2) Thucydides, 1. 71, méxpe pev ofv rodde—viv 6. In both these cases Bev obv is followed by viv 6é.—OrParor, locative. tusdevres (only here in Pindar; tiyugs [doubtful in Ziad, 1. 605, where Professor Jebb proposes éufjs riufs; but Tipipra in Z 475], Tyunéorepos, Tywnéora- -ros in Homer) is predicate with Aéyovrat. dpxabev (also in OL. 1X. 55) from the begin- ning, ‘from the earliest times’, dvwOev. To tuysdevres responds rerlpaxey 1. 37 (a responsion unnoticed by Mezger). 8. dpdixtidvov] The neighbouring inhabitants of Boeotia (schol. rots repiol- kots).—keAaSeyvas T° 6pcavol UBpios, avd dispossessed of clamorous insolence. Keda- Sevvds here has much the same force as AdBpos loud, noisy (cp. my note on Mem, vill. 46). The insolent crows are AdSpou in O/. 11. 86. Conversely we might sub- stitute Kedadevydy, twice used by Pindar in a good sense (Pyth. 1X. 89 and 111. 113) for AdBpor (ALOov) in New. vit. 46. —éphavol, generally with genitive of something desirable; so Of. Ix. 61 (ye- veds), [sth. V1. 10 (€ralpwv). dppavés is the opposite of possessing. 9- 8roa 8 x.7.d.] And as for all testimonies that are wafted to the lands of men, touching immeasurable Glory won by ISTHMIAN III. 65 paptupia POipévav Cody Te garde 10 amnérov Sokas, érépavoay kata Tav Tédos' avopéats 8 éaxataiow olxodev atadatow amrov? “Hpaxdelass, \ t Kat pnKéte paxpotépay omedvdew aperar. émr. a’. Le heroes living and dead,—they (the Cleony- mids) perfected their wooing of her. For the construction and the sentiment, cp. Pyth. X. 28 dcais 6¢ Bpdreov @Ovos dyhatacs dmrdéuecOa, tepalve. mpds eoxarov.—em” advOpdrrous, fo men-ward, the way of men. So, in the same connexion, O/. III. 10 Oebuopo. viccovr’ em’ dvOpwrovs dovdal, As én’ dvOpdmovs is opposed to Oedpopor there, so here it is contrasted with dedv 1. 1 and Oe@ 1. 5.—papripia and drAérov are daaé elpnuéva in Pindar (in Pyth. 111. 106 daderos is a highly improbable guess of Hermann). mapripia are the testi- monies borne by poets.—yadw occurs three times in Pindar; émupadw here and Pyth. 1. 92 (rav év Swarge pidrordrwy émwpatew éparat). The present passage is illustrated by Mem. v. 42 moxlrov éPavoas Uuywy, on which I have pointed out that yasw suggests amorous touches. Here érépauoav, lazd gentle hands on, though grammatically its object is wapru- plwv, really applies to 8éfas, personally conceived. The Cleonymidae wooed Fame and made her their bride; kara wrdv T&os, according unto all perfection, keeps up the figure, suggesting the rédos yau7- duov. 11. dvopéats] deeds of manlihood: oc- curs in singular in Js¢#. vil. 26.—éoyd- rato, they could go no further; the idea is carried out in the next line. We may translate supreme, yet that does not quite suggest the figure. 12. olkodev] without leaving home, as in O/. 111. 44 where we have the same metaphor, and the same words: viv ye mpos eorxatidv Ojpwy dperaiow ixdvev dirrerar olkoey ‘Hpakdéos oraddy. In both these passages the force of ofkoOev, B. II. which moderates and mitigates the strong metaphor, has been misunderstood by commentators. Theron there, the Cleony- midae here, travel to the Pillars of Hera- cles, yet they never stir from Hellenic soil.—No difference seems to have been made by Pindar between the use of dar- Tou.at with the genitive and its use with the dative. We may defy the most pene- trating eye to discover a shade of differ- ence between ordAaow drov@’ here and darerat oraday in the Third Olympian. 13. kal«.7.A.] This is generally ex- plained as a sort of parenthetical injunc- tion, addressed to Melissus, orevdew being infinitive for imperative : ac 2oli maiorem affectare gloriam (Dissen). It has been felt however that kal is awkward and various emendations have been proposed, among which I may mention Bergk’s 79, and Christ’s rdv .ovx é (accepted by Mezger), both as improbable as Har- tung’s wy pnkére paxpdrep jv. Another difficulty has been found in paxporépay, which has been explained by some (1) greater, cp. paxpdy drBov Pyth. ul. 26, udooww BdBos sth. 111. A §, but (2) by Bulle as the comparative of the adverb paxpdy, scil. 666v, which seems to have been the view of the scholiast who wrote brép ‘“Hpaxdelas gyno orpdas py Svvacdar Thy dperhy wéupat None of these explanations recommend themselves. It may be observed, (1) that it is not in Pindar’s manner to introduce in the middle of his tale about the Cleo- nymidae an imperative address, in this parenthetical way; we should expect 7d mépovov 5 obk &Barov or something in that form; (2) that it is not probable that Melissus is addressed here; we have left him in the first strophe and he does not 5 66 IZOMIONIKAI F’. iarmotpopot 7’ éyévovTo, xarnép T° ”Aper Fador. GAN auépa yap év wig 15 a \ i , > a 2 7 , Tpaxeia vidas TodEMOLO TEeTTapwV dvipay épypwoey pmakapay éotiav’ viv 8 ab pera yxepeprov ovkikov pyvdv Copov xOdv dre gowixéorow dvOncev pado.s reappear till the third antistrophos; (3) that the introduction of this imperative by cal is very awkward, and is not ex- plained by Mr Fennell’s ‘verily’; (4) that paxporépay must not be separated from dperdv. It seems to me that if we remove the punctuation after ‘HpaxAelas, all difficulty disappears. Kat links together olkodev and the idea mpds ésxaridy, here express- ed in the form pykérte paxpotépay omev- Sew dperdv. ‘They touch the Heraclean Pillars, without leaving home and 7 such wise as (wore) to cease from the quest of excellence beyond that goal’. The truth about pakporépay is partly with Dissen and partly with Bulle. Grammatically it goes with dperdy, but its felicity here just lies in the fact that it may mean both (1) greater, ampler, and (2) more distant. The second meaning is appropriate to the figure (‘farther than the pillars’), while the first suits the thing figured (‘greater excellence than they have at- tained’). For omedSew with accusative cp. Pyth. II. 62 wh, pla puxd, Blov abdvarov omedoe, ‘speed not in quest of immortal life’. 14, 15. tarmorpépor tv” x.7.A.] Ob- serve the absence of a connecting particle; for ’ is doth (not and). Compare Mem. X. 61, 753 IX. 16. For lrmdrpédos cp. above, Jsth. 11. 38.—xaAnéo, Homeric epithet of Ares. Here perhaps it sug- gests a bronze statue. There is an echo in 1. 63 below, xaAkoapdv.—The Mss. have xadxelw. B alone preserves 7’. 16. GAN dpépa yop] d\Ad—ydp intro- duces a statement in support of an un- expressed but easily understood proposi- tion. The point to be noted is that dAAd really belongs to the sentence which would have conveyed the unexpressed thought, and ydp to the sentence which implies and supports it. Thus if we re- garded the origin of the idiom we should write GAG * dudpg yap K.7.d. In the present case the suppressed thought is: ‘but it has not always been fair weather; there has been a dark winter too, storms and snow’. For other in- stances of d\ka—vydp in Pindar, see en. VII. 30 (where understand ‘men must resign themselves’), O/. VI. 53 (understand ‘but they knew it not’), and below, Js¢h. vi. 16. From déAAad—ydp it was an easy step to ddd yap, for which see Vem. VII. 52, Pyth. Iv. 32 (sc. ‘but we declined’), Ol. 1. 55 (sc. ‘but he deserved it not’, or ‘he was ungrateful’). 17. vids] . Elsewhere Pindar asso- ciates war with hail and cloud; cp. Jsth. vi. 27; Mem. 1X. 38.—éprjpacey (for 47)- pwoev); with genitive also Pyth. 111. 97. 18. viv 8 ad «.7.2.] 8’ takes up pév in], 7.—ab zz turn, after the temporary obscuration, compared to wintry dark- ness.—Observe the position of oxthwy “nv av, which depends on {é¢ov as well as on pddos. The subject of dv@noev is ud- Kapa éorla: with dre xOév understand dvOci.—roulhov, many-coloured; they bring both winter’s darkness and spring’s roses. Many editors have assumed that the epithet zoxtdos, occurring in this ISTHMIAN If. Saspovev Bovrais. 6 kwwytip 86 yas "Oyynortor oixéwv 67 atp. 8’. Kal yépupay rovtiada mpd KopivOou teyéor, 20 , \ a \ of Tovde Tropdy yeved Oavpactiv buvov ¥ t 2. oh / ‘ éx Aeyewv avayes dayav Tadacay 2 a 7 ye or ; evKAewy epyov Adprret, *Awagdédpos Oantos ws dotpous év context, must refer to the earth (cp. for example, Bergk P. Z. G., frag. adesp. Tog A moxiANerat pey yata modvoréda- vos); hence Hartung’s motxlda (adopted by Bergk), Rauchenstein’s rouxtdws. Kay- ser proposed gowlwy, These conjectures seem unfortunate.— dowyikéovow crimson, only here in Pindar, but cp. frag. 129 powxopddas & évt Neyudveoor, and Pyth. IV. 64 powsxavOéuou pos (meaning clearly ‘roses’). It has been supposed that these poda are scarlet anemones.—For dv6y- cev, D has dvos, arising apparently from a wrong division, dv@ys év pbdocs.—Cp. médaryos Alyatov vexpots dv@odv, Aesch. Agam. 659; the sea blossoms—with corpses, in the morning after the storm. 19. _ 6 kwwytrip 8% yas] Equivalent to the epithets caclyOwv, évvoclyatos. Kiwy- tp (Hymn. Hom. XX1. 2) is daraé elp. in Pindar. For Poseidon at Onchestus, see above Js¢h. 1. 33. 20. yébupav royridda] sea-dridge, the Isthmus; like wévrou yédup’ dxdpavros bridge of indefatigable ocean, Nem. V1. 39. The feminine adjective rovrids, instead of movria, occurs also in Mem. Iv. 36.— apo local, 22 front of, as Ol. X11. 56 mpd Aapédvov retxéwv, and mostly in Pindar. Except (1) Zs¢#. V1. 247 on behalf of and (2) Ol. X. 23, Pyth. 1V. 140,=prae. Observe that the vowel preceding zpé is length- ened, rov7idda ; so in Jsth. VII. 13 7d dé apd mods (not so in Pyth. v. 96). 21. mwopdv] So B D; other mss. mwopav.—Compare Js¢h. I. 61 and II. 18. 22, dvdyer] raises up, transitive to dvépxouat (cp. dvirOe paos, Aesch. Agam. 658). In a somewhat similar context év imvm yap wécev' adn adveyerpouéva ypsra aAXots* Isth. v. 62 dva 8 dyaryov és pdos olay wotpay tuvwv.—ex dexéwy shews that odyua is personified. 23. év tmve ydp mérev] Commenta- tors have missed the meaning of this clause, through not attending to é« exéwy in the preceding line. The metaphor and the construction are the same as in év youvacw mirvovra Nixas [sth, 11. 36 (see note). Phama is conceived as embracing Hypnos. Cp. Eur. Hei. 1093 7 Alowow év A€xrpois wirves. ‘She fell on sleep’ means ‘she fell into the arms of Sleep’. The hymn of victory raises her up from those embraces ; she rises from the dark bed and enters into light once more. (Swinburne has ‘for youth’s high joy, that time has cast on sleep’).—For the construction cp. Jsth. vil. 7. For the figure of a sleep of Fame, cp. sth. VI. 17. twéoey has a pluperfect sense.—xpota Adpare. shineth in her bodily aspect. Xpta, meaning external bodily appear- ance, keeps up the personification of the goddess, dame: is intransitive. Cp. O/. 1. 23 Adwares O€ for «A€os.—The scholiast cites from Euripides e¥dovea 8’ Ivods cuupopd toddy xXpdvov viv opp’ éyelper (Nauck, frag. 402). 24. *Awodédpos] B dwoddpos, D éwo- depos. Bergk is doubtless right in hold- ing that neither of these forms is Pindaric, and it is very dubious whether dwodpépos is Greek. In any case it seems impossible that awopdpos could have been scanned as a dactyl. Bergk proposes to restore *Aoadopos, an hypothetical form for which we have no authority. I am inclined to 5—2 68 IZOMIONIKAL I. & re Kyiv youvois ’APavay appa xapvEaoa viKav ayt. B'. 25 év 7 ’Adpactetous adOrors Suxudvos dracev Towade TOV TOT édvTwY PUAN aoLday. IQy I a 2 a ovdé travayupiwy Evvdv arreiyov kapmvrov Sidpov, IlaveAddvecot 8 epifopmevor Sarrdva yxaipov Y, “LITTTT OV. a 2 i N v f TOV ATELPATMOY YAP GYyVWOTOL TLWTAL. - 30 believe that ’Ag@épos (cited by Bergk from Cyril and explained as a contraction of deopdpos) may have been the form used by Pindar. But as we have no data, we can only keep dwa@épos or éwo- gopos under protest. 25. & ve] who, namely Phama.—xiv is preserved by D (B xelv), so-called Doric crasis. kal means as well as the Isthmian victory of Melissus, referred to in Il. 19 sqq.—év youvois "A@avayv in the fertile fields of Athens (in arvis Athenarum). youvés is not found elsewhere in Pindar. —vukay, recognized in one scholium, is certainly right. The mss. B and D have vixév, and another scholium recognizes vixav (riv vixny évexelpicev), which reading implies punctuation after Gracey. The consideration that Phama does not give - the victory is decisive against vixay. dppa kapigaroa vikay is equivalent to cnpvéaca drt dpua, vixg, the present suggesting the word wg used in the herald’s actual pro- clamation. 26. dé@Aots] games in honour of Apollo, supposed to have been founded ‘by Adrastus. See Mem. 1X. 9.—The recipients implied by dace are the race of the Cleonymidae, understood from yeveg in 1. 21. 27. voud8e] ‘such as the present’, just as in Zsth. IV. 54 Kal rocalde tiwal, ‘such victories as that which I celebrate’. We may render, /eaves of song by men of those days, like this of mine. This, as Mr Fennell thinks, is an allusion to the shower of leaves flung over victors, a practice known as PvAdoBodla and refer- red to by Pindar in Pyth, 1X. 124, odAa pév xelvy Sixov PUAN’ ere Kal orepavous. This custom naturally suggested the figure of a flinging of verses like leaves, just as epinician poems are sometimes compared to ‘crowns’; cp. Pyth. VIII. 57 orepdvooe BddAw, and Nem. vil. 77.—dow8dv was read by Triclinius, and was adopted by Boeckh and Dissen. B has dowdy and D dodéay, a pair of variants which seem to point with almost mathematical cer- tainty to dodéy. Many editors however (e.g. Hartung, Bergk, Fennell) accept dodav poets, from B. does not require a substantive, whereas va seems to demand an explanatory qualification. The scholiast appears to have read do.ddr. 28. od88«.7.d.] Mor did they refrain the curved car from the universal festivals. The subject of dmetxov is the Cleony- midae, understood from the foregoing context, though not expressly mentioned since 1. 21 (yeved).—mavayvpts, also in Ol. 1x. 96. §vvav is added to shew that only the four great wavaryiptes are meant. The house of Cleonymus competed at the Olympia, Pythia, Nemea and Isthmia, as well as at smaller ravaryvpres like the Sicyonian and Athenian.—kapréAoy (not found elsewhere in Pindar) is an echo of the Homeric capavdov dpua. 29. TLavedAdveror] See Jsth. 11. 38. —épltw and épitopor are used by Pin- dar indifferently.—Samdvqa tarmwy, cp. damdve te xapels [sth. V. 10. See above 1. 14. 30. Tavdtepdtev] Those who make no trial inherit silences which know them not. The Cleonymidae, though they Tay Tor’ édvrww LSTHMIAN III. v > s coTw 8 addvea tixas Kal papvapévor, én. 8’. mplv Tédos dxpov ixésOar' a A: ‘\ im a Tov Te yap Kal Tov didol kat Kkpéccor dvdpav xeipdveav ? L . éogare téxyva Katapapaic. tote wav Alavtos ddxdv doivoy, tav orig won no chariot victories at the great games (had such been won, Pindar would have mentioned them), still have the merit of having taken part in the compe- tition; they are not daelparot. For dzrel- paros see note on Men. 1. 24.—dyvorror (al. dyvwror; so Cobet), best taken active, as in O/. VI. 67. 31. torw 8 «.7.d.] But obscurity is Fortune's portion to men even when they contend, until they reach the high end (that is, win the prize of victory).—ddd- veiw tixas, obscuritas quam Tixa affert (Dissen); cp. réxa méruou, Pyth. 11. 56. addvea is not found elsewhere in Pindar. —papvdpevoy (strictly genitive absolute, as Mr Fennell says) is equivalent to TepwvTwy, opposed to ray dretpdrwy.— dixpov, cp. Wem. V1. 24 mpos dkpov dperas 7AGor. 33. TavTEe Kal Tov] For she (Fortune) giveth of this and that, that is, of good and bad luck. For ta «al rd see note on Wem. 1. 30.—880t, cp. imperative dif. Pindar has also 6!6wo1.—The mss. (B and D) have rédos after d:d07 contrary to the metre; hence the reading of the editio Romana rdv re yap d:d07 tédos. Hartung conjectured rav re yap kal rév déo1s. In the scholia there is no trace pointing to réAos, which was clearly brought in from the preceding line with the idea of supplying a construction to the partitive genitive ray kal ray. 35. téxva] So B and scholiast (érol- noe KaraywricOjvar Téxvy), but D réxva. (1) It seems rather more likely that. réxva should have come from réxv¢ than that the dative should have been substi- tuted for the nominative. We can readily understand -that a scribe might have 35 failed to see that réya is the subject of éopade. (2) The passage gains by the carrying on of the same subject through- out. réxva is the instrument of réyxa, and we may render: ‘And she useth the art of worse men to clutch back and trip up a better man than they. The scholia point to a reading xara- Mapa, approved of by Mommsen. For this verb see Vem. U1. 38, Ol. VI. 14.— dvSpav responds to dvijp 1. 70. tore pdv «.7.A.] ‘Ve know, assuredly, of the blood-dyed valorous body of Aias, which at the late time of night he pierced with his own sword, and how the flesh encompassed the blade, and the blood: he shed was drops of blame for all the -Hellénes who went to Troy’.— The difficulties in this carefully elaborated sentence are: (1) Ajax is said ‘to cut his valour’, é\xdv being equivalent to ‘strong body’. A little reflection will shew that this curious usage was an artifice designed to suit the special circumstances of the case. If Ajax had been slain by another, the poet could have written quite simply tore way Alavros ddxdy polvov (or Alayra GAxipov polvioy), Tov Tapwy o Selva K.T.r, But it is a case of suicide, and Pindar dexterously took advantage of the idiom dhkay Alayros to evade an awkward identity of the subject and object of Tapwv, where the object is a relative pronoun (there being no reflexive’ rela- tive). The addition of dolvov helps to make d\xdévy more concrete. (2) The graphic wept 6 hacydve, round his own sword (@ emphasizing the suicide), has no exact parallel; but the same figure is applied to the same event in Mem. VIII. 70 IZOMIONIKAI T. f € / év vuxtl tawav Tept @ dacyave pouday exer TaiSecow ‘EXXa- ver, oo01 Tpdavd éBav. GAN “Opnpos Toe Teripaxev 50 avOparrav, ds avTod 23, pacydvy dudixvrtcas. The sword piercing the body, and the body enve- loping the sword, are two ways of ex- pressing the same fact; the second is the less usual, and by choosing it Pindar heightens the effect. (3) popddv exe, a strong Pindaric expression, as though every drop of blood were a drop of blame against those who preferred Odysseus. éxee and éxe are alternative forms ; Homer has both xée and -xe: as impera- tives—Commentators have found diffi- culties in these words because they all assumed that éye. was the present of éxw. There are three main views. (a) poupar éxet is active, ‘lays blame on’, ézvidiam facit, as in Aeschylus, Prometheus 444 pew otrw’ dvOpdros éxav (so Chry- sippus, Dissen, Mr Fennell, &c.). (4) The phrase is passive and means that the suicide was condemned by the Greeks. Schol. ovdk éAlynv péupw exe év rots ‘EAAjvev mal. Cp. Euripides, Aera- clidae 974 mwoddhv dp’ tes wéupw. To both these interpretations there is the same serious objection that a past tense is imperatively required. Christ’s éxev was an attempt to meet this. To (4) there is the special objection, urged by Mr Fennell, that the parallels produced do not warrant the construction of mop- pay éxew in a passive sense with the dative case. (c) Bergk avoids both ob- jections by reading éx’ év, which is ac- cepted by Mezger. The emendation is not convincing as there is no cause for the corruption; and it may be observed in regard to (6) and (¢), that there is no purpose in stating here that the Greeks blamed the act of Ajax. The point is that they were to blame for being im- posed on by his rival’s réxva (1. 35). golviov is generally taken as nothing orp. ¥. more than the epithet of a warrior, who sheds blood in battle; compare ¢olvtos "Apys. But it may well be predicate here (explained by the following relative clause) and refer to the blood of the hero’s death- wound, thus suiting the phrase éyer uop- pdv.—ola, év vuerl. Schol. rots dé rov bpOpov axovover kal ra do Ths toroplas owdde 6 yap Thy Al@omlda ypdpuy rept Tov pOpov yal Tov Alavra éauroy dyedely. —For tapov Mr Tyrrell has proposed Sixwv (or Baddv), comparing Aesch. Choeph. 576 roddke mepiBarov xadked- wart, and Nem. VIIl. 23. Herwerden has suggested werdv. 37. “Opnpos] It is probable, as Bergk thinks, that Arctinus the author of the Aethiopis, in which the story of the ér\wv xplows and death of Ajax was told, is meant, and not the Iliad or Odyssey. Pindar agrees with Arctinus in knowing nothing of the madness, which was ascribed to Ajax in the Little Iliad. Aeschylus, in his lost trilogy on the subject, also followed Arctinus, whereas Sophocles adopted (with modifications) the story of Lesches.—tot, as usual, introducing a well-known fact.—8v dv@pdawv, to the ends of the earth, lit. ‘through (the borders of) men’; dv@pwro being conceived locally as extending over the earth. Cp. Nem. Vi. 48 6a, Oaddooas wérerae Kdéos a’rav. It should be carefully observed - that Sv’ dv@pdiev is really the predicate of the sentence, which means: ‘the honour, which Homer has shed on Ajax, extends over the wide earth’. The point is not that Homer honoured him, but that his fame became world-wide through Homer’s song. verluaxev responds to Tusdevres, 1. 7, and 6’ dvOpwirwv echoes ér’ dvOpwrovus, 1. 9. ISTHMIAN III. 71 macav dp0wcats dpetav kata fpadov &ppacev Ocotreciov éréwv Aowtrois aOupe. TodTo yap a0dvarov pavdev éprret, 40 el tus eD Felay ti, Kal wdyxaprov él xOdva kal Sud wovtov BéBanev . re > \ * wv af épypatov axtis Kadka@v adoBeatos aici. mpoppovev Mody tiyotmer, Kelvoy arxrat rupady Uyvev > f avt.y. kal MeXicag, wayxpatiou otepavwp’ émd£vov, 38. dp0doats] having built up; cp. Isth. V. 65.—karta, pdBSov K.7.A. Set tt forth, by the wand of divine verses, for after poets to sing at their pleasure, Pro- fessor Jebb seized the true force of xara pdBdov when he translated ‘by the wand of his lays divine’ (Journal Hell. Studies, III. p. 158); the Ad86os being the symbol, primarily of Homerid, and then of poetic, tradition. Hesiod tells how the Muses gave him as a ‘sceptre’ ddgvns émiOndéos dbfov ( Theogony, 30). The scholiast inter- prets xara orlxov, and Mezger adopts this error, due to the inveterate associa- tion of Jd860s and pdarw, through their common association with rhapsodists. kara orlxov should’ be kept (‘nach der Reihe seiner Lieder’) for the pamrav éréwv of Mem. 11. 2.—Oermerlwy, com- pare Wem. 1x. 7 Oeorecla 5° éréwy Kav- xs doda mpdcpopos.—dOvpew, song being a sport. Compare Homeric Hymn XVIII. 15 pmodcay dOvpwr, Pyth. Vv. 23 K@pov— Amoddwviov aupua. 40. TovToK.T.d.| For whatever aman speak well, this advanceth, an immortal vocal thing; and over the fruitful earth and across ocean hath it gone, a beam of fair deeds, inextinguishable for ever.— —gwvaev, also in Ol. 11. 85 BéAn Pwvd- evra, and possibly in Ol. Ix. 2.—&pre (D ero) zncedit. Cp. tpéprw of the spreading of bad rumour, Sophocles ed. Rex 786 and Aeschylus Agamemnon 4503 and éwépxerat paris, Antigone 700. 41, 42. éml xOova «.7.A.] For the same idea expressed in nearly the same words compare Mem. vi. 48; but here the word of fame is not conceived as winged.—dyKkaprros also occurs in Pyth. Ix. 38.—doBeoros only here in Pindar ; an echo of Homer’s kAéos doBeorov. 43. Tpdoppovey «.7..] The bright- ness of song (dxrls, mupods turywv) is the only antidote to the dpdvea rixas; as the word rbxowev reminds us. May we find Muses with fain souls to light that beacon-fire of songs for Melissus also, as a crown worthy of his victory in the pan- cration,—even for the branch of Telesi- ades. As-the beacon-fire was a means of sending news, mupoevew meaning to announce by such signals, rupads tuywy is a felicitous expression, suggesting the noising abroad of the victory. Dissen thinks that there may also be an allusion to a torch celebration in honour of Me- lissus. 44. MeAloow responds to Métro” in 1. 2 (Mezger).—trayxparfov depends on émdéiov. For épvel (like 8fos used of off- spring) cp. Vem. v1. 37 &pveot Aarois. 45. TéApq ydp «.7.A.] The mss. have ToAuG yap elxads Oupdy éptBpewerav Onpay Aedvrwy év révy. Numerous emendations have been proposed, but it will be enough to state those views which might be seriously entertained. (1) Boeckh, Dissen and others accepted @npd@ (first proposed by Thiersch, but perhaps read by a scholiast). Dissen, who deprecates any further change, explains: audacia enim similis animum frementium conse- guitur leonum in certamine. Cp. schol. ; 72 IZOMIONIKAI T". épvet Tereordda. Toma yap clkads 45 Tov Tov AebyTwy Ouuov év rots mévors Onpg. Onpév Oupsv is a more than doubtful expression and would be a singularly infelicitous commendation. Boeckh made the further correction edkw» for elkws, quoting the Homeric Bly kal xdpret elxwv. (2) A scholium seems to indicate a variant O@ypav, which is adopted by Mommsen, Bergk, Christ, Mezger and others and explained in two ways. (a) Bergk takes @np@v and Aedvrwy as joined in apposition, quoting Epimenides (ap. Aelian, H. A. x11. 7) Ofjpa déovra, and Euripides, H. F. 463 crodnv re Onpds— Aéovros. (4) Mezger adopts the view of the scholiast who explained ofox of Adovres év Onpolv, thus making @npév a partitive genitive dependent on Aeéyrwv. It is to be observed that both (a) and (4) imply that éor. can be understood with the participle elkws, a doctrine which I should find it hard to accept. Nor have these explanations the advantage of preserving the reading of Mss.; @yp&v has only the doubtful support of a scholium. (3) Mr Fennell, who inadvertently gives Onpav as the reading of the mss., thinks that AedvTwy may have been a gloss on Onpaév and have usurped the place of a verb, ‘which may have been régavra:’ (thrown out by Kayser with several other rather wild proposals). In forming a judgment on this difficult passage, it may be well to observe the following points. (1) év mévw means 27 the pancration contest, just mentioned. (2) Melissus is said to be at once a lion and a fox in the pancration. Now the defensive tactics which justify the com- parison to a fox are described in the second clause (alerod dir’ dvamirvayéva popBov toxer); and it is therefore clearly demanded by both sense and art that the offensive tactics, characteristic of the bolder lion, should be indicated in the first clause. The general contrast is marked by rodug and pfrw; but the particular difference in the manner of warfare must have been mentioned in the case of the lion as well as in the case of the fox. Now a fitting word to describe a lion following prey (and not waiting to be attacked) was O@mpav, to chase, which, in the context of this meta- phor, might be appropriately applied to the offensive tactics of Melissus in boxing and wrestling. I have therefore printed @np@ in the text, and thus my reading coincides with that of Dissen, though in quite a different sense. I would render: In strife his spirit is bold as loud-roaring lions on the track of prey, literally ‘ For like in spirit to the boldness of loud- roaring lions, he chaseth (does not wait to be attacked) in the labour (of contest)’. ToApa. Aéovrwv elkds=Adovow edrdAmoes éorxws. Ovpdv defines eixas closely, so as to suggest the psychical contrast of spirit and intellect (ufjrts). In the passage in the Eleventh Olympian, where the fox and lion also appear, there is the same suggestion (l. 19 sqq.): dxpboogpoy d& kal alyparay ddlies- Oar. 7d yap éugues ovr’ alOwy addant ot’ éplBpouor éovres SuaddAdEawwTo HOos. Here is expressed the distinction of copla and dvépela, the virtues of paris and Oupss. Onpad is used (like @ypedw) with a general (cognate) object understood. Cp. ol @npwuevor ‘hunters’,—I may observe that this interpretation finds support in the scholia: § kal rH mév rO\un dyno atrov Aéovte Onpevovre éorxévar, xara Oe Thy par ddwrexe K.T.d. As for the restoration of @yp¢ (which has perhaps support in the scholia) for Onpav, Bergk has shewn that @ypay arose in consequence of a variant roAug. Thus our Mss. exhibit here a composition of two sets of readings (a) réAug—Oypd and (2) rokug—Onpav. elxds] Except here and frag. 81, 3 (where Boeckh unnecessarily read éo.cds) ISTHMIAN II]. Oupov épiBpeuerav Onpd redvtwv ia 2 , a I oF a f ev wove, pitw 8 adromnk, aierod Gr dvatitvapéva pouBov y lonNel. xen 5€ wav epdov7’ duavpdoa tov éyOpav. 3 \ ov yap piow ’Oapiovelay edayev' Pindar uses the forms douxus, éorxds, elxws is found in Homer.—épiPpeperav, an Homeric epithet of Zeus. Cp. épi- Bpouot déovres, Ol. XI. 21. 47- GAdané] For the contrast of lion and fox compare (besides O/. x1. 19—21, quoted in the foregoing note) frag. 237 OmicGe 5é Keiwar ddwméxwv ~EavOds éwv. For the temper of foxes compare Pyth. Il. 77 dpyats drevés dkwméxwy Uxehor. The caution of the fox might be interpreted as cowardice: cp. Aristophanes, Peace 1189, olkot Adovres ev waxy 8° dddrexes. Here the fox lies on her back and resists the eagle: schol. jis dvaxdwoudvy varla tpos TO éroluws dutverOar, éréxer Thy Tod derod dpujv, drav émippou Py adrhy Boudb- pevos Gprdca. oe d& Siddoxev avrod 7d mddacua, ws xaual Kecvov Kal Tov pelfova Téxvy vevixnxéros. Kal yap addbank batia rots rooly dubverat, Ta pev ovAdapBavouévyn [evdaBoupévyn, Herwer- den] ra 5€ dutooovoa. There is doubt- less a reference to some special wrestling trick.—dvamirvapéva, spreading herself on her back. We find this verb in two other passages of Pindar in the sense of throwing open doors; active in O/. v1. 27 mvdas Uuvev dvamirvdpev, and passive in Nem. 1X. 2 dvamenrapévar Ovpar. In both these cases there is the notion of throwing Jack.—pépBov, whirling or cir- cling swoop. Compare Ol. XIII. 94 dxév- tuv ievra pbuPov, shooting whirling jave- lins. In frag. 79, 4, the word is used of the giddy motion of cymbals, péuBor xupBdrwy.—toxe (in Pindar only here and Pyth. 11. 29) checks (Lat. cohibere). 48. xpi S«.7.A.] ‘It is right to use ém. y. any and every means to bring one’s enemy to nought’. médv &p8oyr’, com- pare tavoipyos, unscrupulous. We have the same ethical view, expressed even more clearly, in Pyth. U1. 84: mort & éyOpov dr’ éxOpds éwv vKowo Olkav brobetoouat, GAN dddore Taréwy 660s ckoArais. Cp. also Euripides Jon, 1046: Grav dé todeulous Spica Kaxds GéAy Tis, ovdels eumoday Kelrat vdpos, where the sentiment is of course in cha- racter (the radaywyés is the speaker).— This verse has little point in the context, unless we suppose that Melissus had employed in the contest some artifice, which aroused adverse comment. Cp. schol.: dia 6¢ rovrwy mraploryow ore Kud- arixds nv 6 Médooos kal éaurdv éfunridoas TepteyeveTo. dpavpacar, to dim, put out the light of. In Pyth. xu. 13, blinded. Cp. frag. 126 und duadpov tépyw ev Blw, and darken not pleasure. Simonides, frag. 4, o0@’ 6 Tavdaparwp dpavpwoe xpdvos. Aesch. Ag. 465 TiBeis’ duavpév. Hesiod used the form pavpsw (Works and Days, 327 peta 5é uy avpoder Oeol). It does not follow that Pindar also used it, yet Boeckh was perhaps right in introducing it, for though there is no direct Mss. authority in this passage, EPAONTAMAYPWCAI was am- biguous. 49. ob ydp x.7.r.] Mo, fate did not deal him the stature of an Orion; he is ill-favoured to outward view, but in battle grievous to encounter.—éhaxev suggests the lottery of Fate (Zachesis).— iow, growth, stature (cp. Mem. VI. 6).—Qapvevelav. The scholiast quotes A 309, 310, 74 GX’ dvoros pev idécOar, cupreceiv 8 aixua Bapvs. kalroe mor’ "Avratov Sémous OnBav dro Kadspeidv popdav mpootaraicwy iO avnp tay tTupopopov ArBvay, Kpavios épépovta axéGot, Tovds 5h pnklorous Opéve Seldwpos &poupa kal mod Kaddlous werd ye KAvTov ’Opl- wa. Melissus was a short man. 50. svords] contemptible. The usual form is dvoords (8voua), Compare the double forms @avyarés and davpacros. 51. atxpa] Pauw read dxug and al- most all editors have followed him. Dis- sen translates gravis robore, whereas Mr Fennell thinks it means ‘at the crisis of the struggle’, and refers to a scholiast’s kara Tovs dyGvas. But there is no reason to suppose that the scholiast had any other reading before him than that which the mss. have preserved. xara rods dy0- vas is an interpretation of alyu¢, a battle. Compare the use of udya in O/. VIII. 58 in reference to the pancration contest, tay 8 erect’ dvdpdv wdxav éx maryKpartov. The pancration resembled real war more than other contests. Christ’s view that aixug means temper here is untenable, and gives a hardly appropriate sense. For alxu= battle, see Liddell and Scott. 52. Kalrovn.7.rA.] And yet once on w time from Cadmean Thebes unto the house of Antaeus there came, with intent to wrestle, a man in stature short, in soul inflexible, even to wheat-rich Libya, in order to check him who roofed Poseidon’s temple with skulls of strangers,—the son of Alcmena, he.—The ss. have trot’, but editors have unanimously adopted mor (for mort) from Triclinius, or’ seems to me emphatically right. The sudden transition from the present to the remote past requires a mark of time. And a preposition is not wanted. Com- IZOMIONIKAI Mm 50 Bpaxts, wuydy 8 dxapmros ddpa Eévwov vadv Toceddovos pare OJ. XIV. 21 Sdmov Pepoepdvas 20" *Axol, Pyth. IV. 52 rdvde vacov éNOovtes. The fact that another accusative of place Tav mupopdpov ABiav follows 7\de makes no difference.—For Antaeus, son of Poseidon and Gé, see Plato Theaet., 169 B, Diodorus, Iv. 17. This adventure of Heracles was represented on a metope by Praxiteles in the Heracleion at Thebes; Pausanias, Ix. 11.6. It was the subject of a picture by the vase-painter Euphemius at the end of the 6th cent. (see Roscher, Lex. d. Myth. p. 2207). The Antaeus who lived in Irasa was a different person ; see Pyth. 1X. 106 “Ipaca, mpds wéduw ’Ay- talov. 53. G@kapmros] Compare Pyth. Iv. 72 Bovdrais axaurros (MSS. dxvdprrots). B gives dxoumwos. One might guess that these variants, dxowmos and dxapmros, point to dxapm7js as a common origin. — The words are chosen so as to make it plain that Melissus is compared to Hera- cles. joppav Bpax’s (Apollodorus says that Heracles was rerpamnxvaios) corre- sponds to évords ldécOa, Yuxdv dxapymros to alyug Bapis, while zpoorahalowy sug- gests the wrestling contest in which Melissus had been victorious [and oy éov echoes toxee in 1. 47].—mpoomahalw is also found in Pytk. Iv. 290. The object is ’Avralw understood from ’Avratov. 54. wWvpodpdpov] an Homeric word, only here in Pindar. The ancients dis- puted the justice of the application of this epithet to Libya.—épédpovra, garnish- ing the roof of. Antaeus used to orna- ment the frieze of the temple with .the skulls of strangers whom he had slain. ISTHMIAN II. 75 ye vids "AdKkunvas' ds OtNuprovs eBa, yalas re wacas aotp. 8. 55 kat BaOuxpnuvov tomas dros éEevpdy Oévap, vavtiriarcl Tre mopOudv awepdoass. vov 8€ rap’ Aiyioy@ Kaddotov bABov dpdérav vaier, teriwatal te mpos aOavdtov didros, “HBav 7 > t Orrulet, xXpvoéwy olkwv dvak Kab yauBpes “Hpas. Like stories were told of the Thracian Diomede, of Oenomaus and others. E. Boehmer, objecting to the substitution of ~~ in the thesis of a spondee, proposes elpyovra, and supports it by éuppdrrovra in one of the scholia. It is a clever sug- gestion (cp. Homeric yépupar éepyuévar), but (cp. Mem. U1. 14) the metrical canon seems doubtful. 55, 56. yalas «.7.A.] Heracles went to the extreme ledge of the earth where it descends steeply into the grey sea. He thus ‘discovered the palm-like hollow formed by earth and ocean’.—évap is the hollow of the hand or sole of the foot. It is found in Homer E 339 mpuuvov Umep Gévapos, which means the part where the hollow of the hand slopes up to the wrist, just as mpuuvds Bpaxiwy means the extremity of the arm where it joins the shoulder. In Aratus 718 we have Aatod 5é Oévap odds. Pindar has dévap twice, in both cases metaphorically. In Pyth, Iv, 206 kal vedxrisrov MOwv Bwyoio Gévap it means the hollow which received the sacrifices; schol. 7d ro Bwuod Kolhwua 7d Yrodexouevov Ta Oduara. In the pas- sage before us it means the basin of the sea (the Mediterranean) formed by the earth, Heracles first reached the extreme western limit and so discovered that it was really like a 0évap or hollow, in the earth. The full bearings of Pindar’s lan- guage have hardly been appreciated. Moreover yalas mdoas has been mis- understood, being taken as plural, govern- ed by éfevpwv. But in classical Greek yata is never found in the plural (yj hardly ever), and there is no necessity to 60 presume it here. The scholiast knew that yalas was genitive: mdoys Ths yiis Kal THs toAduBabobs Oardoons avepevvjoas kal KareL- Angws 7d Tédos. (Compare maou dds, the whole city, Nem. Vv. 447, wavtl orparg Nem. 1. 61, &c.) The dévap is formed by earth and sea conjointly—For Badvxpny- vos, with high hanging cliffs, cp. Nem. 1X. 40.—todtds adés, so Ol. 1. 71, Todds Oardooas Ol. vil. 61. For Heracles’ voyage of discovery, compare /Vem. III. 22 sq. 57- vauTirlavor] and having reclaimed for navigation the passage of the sea. mop0pés is the sea from a sailor’s point of view, water to be crossed.—apepdw and compounds were the regular words for expressing the work of Heracles and Theseus in clearing land and sea of robbers and pirates. Cp. Sophocles (frag. 819 Nauck, cited in the ‘Lédeots IoOulow ed. Abel p. 350) on Theseus : 6s mapaxrlay otelxuv dvynpépwoa Kvwidrwy dddv, and Euripides, Heracles 20 é&quepGoa yatay (cp. 1. 847), quoted by Dissen. 58. wap’ Alyx] zx the halls of the Aegis-bearery, that is, Zeus. Compare Nem. 1.71, 72 6AB lows ev didpaci—map Al Kpovldg.—cipdérav, experiencing, enjoy- ing, properly handling ; a favourite word of Pindar. See Mem. vil. 10, gt and compare Pyth., IV. 268 pbxOov dupéry dvoravoy, After Alyi6xw the Mss. insert the gloss out. 59 otros] as their friend—émvle (MSS. dive, Omer) has to wife.—rerlparar echoes reriuaxer 1. 37 (Mezger). 76 ISOMIONIKAI I. To wev “Arextpadv vrepOev daira TopavvovTes adoro. avr. &. Kat vedduata orepaveipara Bopadv avEopev gumrupa yadKoapay oxtad OavovTwr, \ f / % © Ff tovs Meydpa téxe Fos Kpesovtis vious: toiow év SuOpaiow avyav PrOE avatedropéva ovveyes Travyuy iver aidépa kuicdevts AaxTi~oica Kate, 66 61. TO pav x.7.r.] Zo him, that is Heracles, opposed to Melissus, who ap- pears in 1. 70 as 68€ dvyp—édé correspond- ing to wév.—The altars were stationed ‘and the sacrifice was celebrated outside the Electra gates, on rising ground (tzep- Oev). From these gates led the road to Plataea.—opoivovtes, apparantes.—ao- tol, we citizens of Thebes. 62. Kal ved8para x.7.A.] kal connects daira with orepaywpara. veddpara ore- hovdpara Bwopov are generally explained as fresh wreaths to crown the altars. But Mezger (after Friederichs) takes it of newly built altars, ‘neugebaute Altar- zierden d.h. die Zierde neugebauter Altaére’, vedduara seems decisive in favour of this interpretation. It is true that in such compounds the second part sometimes becomes deadened by use; but if we reflect that vedduaros is found nowhere_else in Greek literature and was probably invented by Pindar for the present passage, we cannot admit that -duaros had no significance or that vedduara is a mere synonym of véa. It would be an infelicitous coinage to apply to garlands ; whereas it would be highly appropriate to emphasize the unusual ptactice of using temporary altars at this yearly feast in celebration of the children of Heracles. There were clearly eight altars, and they were doubtless arranged in a circle: this is the force of oredave- para, which Pindar has chosen in order to signal to orepdvep’ in 1. 44. avgouev ewrrupa] we offer burnt sacrifice. The only parallel quoted is Euripides, Hippolytus 537 Bovravy dbvov ‘EAXas al’ déée. Greece offereth the blood of oxen. Dissen also refers to augere aram in Plautus, Mercator 1v.1.11. at&ev seems to have been a solemn euphemism for the slaying of victims. 63. xadkoapav x.7.r.] Lx memory of the death of eight bronze-mailed sons, born ie him by Megara daughter of Creon. Xa\kodpas (also in Zsth. 1V.41) = XaArKyjpys. It signals tol. 15. The neutral bavévrwv does not prove that Pindar was ignorant of the legend that the children of Heracles were slain by his own hand. He may have known it. But he did not accept it as part of the genuine Life of Heracles. 64. téke Fou] réxe of Mingarelli and subsequent editors ; Mss. ol réxe. 65. totow x.7.r.] Lz whose honour, what time the sunbeams sink, riseth another sunlike flame and blazeth all night long continuously, kicking the aether with savoury smoke——Notice the contrast of dvOpatow and dvarehAouéva. When the true sun sets, another light rises fo take its place.—ovvexés, only here in Pindar, goes closely with ravyuxife, rendering the wav- more emphatic. aavvuxlfw is the technical word for celebrating a mwavvuxis, pervigtlium.—avyal without definition, for szlight, is often found in such phrases as aiyas Bérew, Hippo- crates uses avvyal in the sense of days, : 66. Kvodevtt] Scan as a trisyllable: cp. pwvdevra Ol. 11. 93, dpydevra Ol, XIII. 69, alyhdera Pyth. 11. 10; Iliad, 3 475 xXpucov Tisfvra., The mss. have xvucdyri, and Mommsen restored the right form which also occurs in O/. VII. 80 uiwy TE kvicderoa woumd. Here aléépda before xv. —A scholiast criticises Aakrltoura as too harsh a metaphor (cxAnpordépg 5€ xéxpnrat ISTHMIAN III. 77 kal Sevtepov dwap ételwy tépw aéOrov yiverat, ioyvos epryov. évOa revKwbels Kapa puptous 88 avip Simdoav Merapopa’ éxpiy yap elreiv Vatovoa F Ovyydvovca Tob allépos 4 Kvica Tod Kar- vod) and prefers the Homeric line, A 317 kvlon 8 obpavdv ikev édooouevn rept KaTv@, Hecker proposed mhaxrlfora lashing. 67. Kal Sevrepov x.7.A.] And during the second day taketh place the celebra- tion of the yearly games, wu feat of strength. The MSs. give, in defiance of the metre, érelwy d€0\wv répua. I have, with some hesitation, followed my predecessors, who have unanimously accepted Schmid’s emendation érelwy répy’ déOrwyv, one of those transpositions which are superfici- ally so simple, yet oftenso doubtful. Be- sides the critical difficulty that the order of words in the MSS. is not accounted for, the phrase répy’ dé0dwyv is a difficult one. (a) Heyne explains a definite day of games; but, as Dissen remarks, that could not be called laxvos épyov, and devrepov duap is clearly accusative. (64) Granting that répp’ d€0Awv might possibly bear the meaning proposed by Dissen victoriarum reportatio (rather ‘prize of contests’, cp. rédos Jsth, 1. 27), it is inconceivable that Pindar would have written répy’ dé0\wv érelwy ylyveras in the sense ‘victories are won every year’. But vépua in such a sense is doubtful; for réos and répua are not synonymous, as is sometimes lightly assumed. (¢) Mr Fennell explains ‘the end consisting of annual games’, Thus the sentence would mean: on the second day the feast concluded with games. This is certainly possible, but it throws emphasis on an insignificant circumstance. If répu’ is right (and it may well be ém. 8. 70 so), the phrase is simply equivalent to deOa, Tépu’ erevov, or, more simply still, deOda ere. Any event which recurs at fixed intervals is a répua; it marks the completion of a zeplodos ; and an annual feast is a tépua erevcov. The point to be observed is that répua adds nothing to the sense; it merely emphasizes what is implied in érefwy, and is of subordinate importance to dé@\wv. We may com- pare such phrases as Bla Kdoropos, where an attribute takes grammatically the place of the subject. dé@\wv may be regarded as genitive of material. loxvos épyov is in apposition formally with répua, really with de@\q. 69. @v0a «.7.d.] ‘at which the head of this man was thrice made white with myrtle flowers, twice when he was de- clared victor as a man, the third time in the days of his boyhood ’.—The wreath of victory was of myrtle because the feast was in honour of the dead. Schol. rd 6¢# mUprows Ore pupolyys oreddvos ev OnBars orepavodyrat ol vixavres Ta Tohdera. pup- alvyy yap orepavodvra, bid TO elvar Trav vexpav orépos. The verb devxdw is, I believe, not found elsewhere in early poetry.—68’, see above, note on 1. 61. dvijp is emphatic, opposed to maléwy.— dvepdvaro, caused to be declared. The genitive maléwy depends on vixay, a victory over boys.—The Mss have rraldwy rplrav without a copulative conjunction. The choice is between kat maliwy rplray (Mommsen ‘de sententia Chrysippi’) and mwaldwy ré Tplray (Hermann, Bergk). I have adopted the first correction as it seems more likely that kai should have fallen out before Trai than that te should have disappeared before Tp. 78 vixav dvepdvato nat traldev otaxoaTpodou yudua memiOadv trodvBovro. Teprvav ériotatov yapw. 71. kvBepvaripos] The trainer Orseas is compared toa helmsman. In Mem. v1. 66 the trainer Melesias is compared to a charioteer. Pindar has xuBepvarip also in Lyth, WW. 274, but xvBepvdras in Pyth. 1. gt. Both forms are Homeric. 72. wendy] This instance of the strong aorist active of wel@w bearing an intransitive meaning stands alone, unless yvepe wiOev be right in that very uncer- tain passage, Pyth, U1. 28. The verbal resemblance of these two cases is decidedly remarkable. There the mss. vary be- tween young remOuv and yrduav memOuv (both readings are unmetrical, mOwv being required by the metre in either case). Hartung reads zremtOws here, but it would: be hazardous to deny that wer:@uv could have been used intransitively. We may remember that while wiOjow is intransi- tive, remiO4ow is transitive. IZOMIONIKAI Es tpitav mpoabev, KxuBepvatipos avy ’Opcéa 8é vw KopdFoua, kopdfopnat] Pindar has the form xwyd- couat in Pyth. 1X. 89. See my notes on Nem. UW. 24, IX. 1.—B has xwpdgouou, which is adopted by Donaldson.—/z company with Orseas will I celebrate him, shedding on him the delight of a gracious song of praise. The xGpos is called a xapis in Pyth. 11.72. Cp. sth. 1. 6 and Ill. A 8.—émordfov is preserved in the scholia and in the ss, of Triclinius. B has dwrocratwy and D émoroxagwy, and by combining these variants we might have deduced émiordg{wy without inde- pendent evidence. The scribe who wrote émisroxagwy (drat elp.) probably remem- bered in an unfortunate moment that Pindar sometimes speaks of shooting arrows of song and of the ‘aim of the Muses’; and, with this idea in his head, foisted on Pindar a spurious derivative from oréxos. ISTHMIAN IV. AND ISTHMIAN V. ODES IN HONOUR OF VICTORIES IN THE PANCRATION AT ISTHMUS WON BY PHYLACIDAS ,OF AEGINA. INTRODUCTION. In the ode, which Pindar composed for the Nemean victory of Py- theas, son of Lampon, a prospect was held out of a victory at Isthmus. In that hymn, perfumed with the scents of the sea, as a sort of offering to the Sea-god and the Nereids, a covert invitation to them to be gracious to the Aeginetan boy, Peleus, who became the yapuSpos of Poseidon, was the hero of the myth; and it was suggested that, as he won a bride from the sea, so Pytheas might win a wreath in the Sea-god’s games. We know not whether Pytheas ever competed for an Isthmian crown; if he did, he was not successful. But nevertheless the desired Isthmian victory came to his house; Poseidon and the ‘golden Nereids’ had not forgotten the persuasions of the poet. Phylacidas, the brother of Pytheas— a younger brother, we can hardly doubt—was successful in the Isthmian pancration, and Pindar was again called upon to sing the glory of Lampon’s son. In this ode (/sthmzan v.) he also looks forward to the future, and holds out the prospect of a still higher achievement, a victory at Olympia itself. He prays to Zeus that such a favour may be vouchsafed to Phyla- cidas, and illustrates his theme by the prayer of Heracles that zs friend Telamon should have the son which he desired. But Aeginetan Lampon was not as lucky as Aeginetan Telamon; nor was the prayer of Theban Pindar fulfilled like the prayer of Theban Hera- cles. Phylacidas did not carry off the olive wreath from Olympia; that he competed for it, we need not doubt. But other exploits, though not the crowning exploit of all, were wrought; he won a second victory at Isthmus, and also a Nemean crown to set beside his brother’s. These exploits demanded a third hymn, which has also come down to us as 1 Nemean v. 80 ISTHMIAN IV. Isthmian 1v., though it is meant at least as much for the Nemean as for the Isthmian victory! Thus we have a triad of odes composed for the house of Lampon; the first looking forward to the second, and the second looking forward to the third. That they are interdependent he tells us himself in the opening lines of the second, where he looks backward to the former poem and forward to alater. From the circumstances of the case, the earliest of the three was composed without any thought that it was to be one of a triplet. When Pindar framed the Fifth Nemean, he hoped that an Isthmian victory would be achieved, and expected doubtless that he would be requested to honour it by a song. But there is no sign that he deliberately looked further still, and contemplated yet a third victory in the more distant future. When how- ever the Isthmian success was actually gained, and it was known that Phy- lacidas intended to try his fortune on the banks of the Alpheus, the definite idea of a group of three odes celebrating Lampon’s sons entered Pindar’s mind. There was a certain religious sanctity about the number three; and thus it might seem appropriate to hymns dealing with religious festivals. Accordingly Pindar imagines three libations of song, poured by himself in the banquet-chamber of Lampon. It so chanced that the comparison was curiously precise in details. Of the regular three omovéai at a feast, the first was always to Zeus; the second might be to any lesser divinities or heroes; the third was invariably to Zeus Sétér. The musical libations exactly corre- sponded to this order. The first—the Nemean hymn—was to Zeus, in whose honour the Nemean festival was held. The second (/s¢hmzan Vv.) is an offering to Poseidon and the Nereids. May the third be to Zeus of Olympia, proving himself-a true Sétér!—and then the series of liba- tions will be perfect. Zeus of Olympia was indeed to receive no drink- offering from a son of Lampon; yet the third hymn came and, as it was partly at least in honour of Zeus of Nemea, it might be regarded technically as the third libation. As these three odes form explicitly an interdependent group, it is natural that there should be points of contact between them and cross-allusions from one to another. We should not be surprised to find references to the first in the second and third; and references in the third to the second. The connexion between /sthmian Iv. and Vv. is close indeed, as will be shewn in due course by a list of echoes. The links with Memean v. are fewer; but there are two striking expressions in that ode which recur in its later fellows. The feelings of Peleus, when Hippolyte tempted him to a flagrant violation of the rights of Zeus Xenios, are thus described (JVem. V. 32): tod & dm’ opydv kvllov aimervol Adyor. Neither épyd nor xvi¢w is common in Pindar, but both words occur again in each of the Isthmian Odes to Phylacidas, in reference to the ambitions and 1 Thus Mr Fennell is not far astrayin his Vemean and Isthmian Odes, p. viii.). regarding it as a Meneean ode (Preface to INTRODUCTION. 81 hospitality of Lampon or his prototypes the Aeacids. In the second ‘bowl of song’ we have 1.14 rotaow épyats edyerat of Lampon, and l. 50 ddcia 8 eydov my exviev yapes of Heracles, whose joy depends on his affection for his £eivos Telamon. In the rpiréamovdos vyuvos, we find 1. 34 peyadrropes dpyat Alaxot maidey re, and ov® omdca Samavat Aridov Revo’ bmw 1. 57 of the ambition of Lampon. At the end of Memean v. two victims of Themistius are designated by the remarkable phrase 8imddéav dperdy (1.62). This is applied, in /stkmdan IV., to the two Isthmian crowns of Phylacidas: 8imAéa Odddoww’ dperd (1. 17: with dadAaca cp. évv EavOais Xapioow, Nem. v. 54)}. We may now proceed to consider in detail the two Isthmian odes, taking them in their chronological order. ISTHMIAN V. This is distinctly a hymn which looks forward to the future rather than back to the past. The poet dwells less on the greatness of the things that have been achieved than on the prospect of achieving greater things still. The Isthmian wreath of Phylacidas, and the Nemean wreath of his brother, are regarded as the earnest of more glorious garlands. Their father Lampon, a keen enthusiast for the national agonzes, spared no expense in enabling his sons to compete; and we may suppose that few things gratified him more than their success. The one thing wanting, to crown his happiness, was a victory at the Olympian games. An Olympian wreath was the highest prize in the career of an athlete; and if either of his sons should win that glory, Lampon might feel prepared to die, having received the greatest satisfaction that life could bestow. 1 Further; Nypeldecor [sth. v. 6 was possibly suggested by the prominent part played by the Nereids in Mem. v.— Lsth. V. 25 Unddéos etdatuovos yauBpod Gedy: Nem. V. 37 youBpov Tocedduva metoas.—isth. V. 23 Kal wépavy Neldoo mayday kal 5.’ “YrepBopéovs: Mem. Vv. 21 kal wépay wovro.o waddovT’ alerol, of the fame of the Aeacids.—Compare also the assent of Zeus in the case of Peleus and in the case of Telamon: Mem. v. 34 B. II, xarévevodv Té for dpowedhs c& otpavod Leds dbavdrwv Bacire’s x7... Isth. V. 49 Tadr’ dpa for daydry péuypw Gels dpxdv olwvwy x.7.d.3; in both cases the divine grace is earned by respect for hospitality. —Tlsth. 1. 11 Kplverar 8 add did Saluovas dvdpav, is a repetition of aérpos dé xplver ouyyevhs eoywv wept mavrwy.—-Compare too the principle of silence in Vem. Vv. 18 and Jsth. IV. 51. 82 ISTHMITAN V. And Phylacidas was actually making ready to contend at Olympia— perhaps in the same year that he prospered at the Isthmus, perhaps two years later!, Pindar’s ode is a prayer that he may prosper in the greater trial, as he prospered in the lesser. In his Aeginetan odes Pindar always introduces the Aeacids, and usually tales of their deeds. These tales are generally worked into the web of the poem by means of a comparison between the victor who is celebrated and the legendary hero whose adventures are told. In the present instance, the poet found a suitable myth, ready to his hand, in an episode related in the Eoiai of Hesiod. Heracles comes to the house of Telamon, to call him to sail against Troy. He finds his friend feasting, and, as he pours the usual libation with the golden phiale offered to him, prays to his father Zeus that the dearest wish of Telamon may be accomplished, even that a son of strength and spirit may be born to him. Zeus sends an eagle in token that the prayer is granted, and Heracles bids his host call the promised son Aias after the eagle (aierds). The application is this. As Heracles prayed to Zeus for his friend Telamon, so Pindar prays to Zeus for his friend Lampon?. And the boon for which he supplicates is an Olympian victory. The parallel is skilfully worked out in details. (1) Zhe Libation.—The hymn opens with the prayer for an Olympian victory; and we are reminded that it is offered up at the festal board spread in honour of the Isthmian achievement of Phylacidas. Even so the prayer of Heracles was uttered at a banquet. I Odddovros avdpav ds Gre cvpmociov. 36 Ternary Kipnoev Sawipevov. The custom of three libations (the third to Zeus Sétér) is arbilly adapted to the purpose of the poet’s prayer. The first was poured out? after the victory of Pytheas at Nemea (a libation to Zeus); the second is now being offered, after the Isthmian victory, to Poseidon and the Nereids;—may we hereafter pour the third phiale of song to Zeus the Olympian! Thus Pindar, like Heracles, prays on the occasion of a drink-offering. 9 omévBew petipOdyyors dosdais. 37 vexrapéas orovdaiow dapat (2) The Prayer.—In the first antistrophos Pindar repeats his prayer in another form with special reference to Lampon. He beseeches Clotho and the Fates to accomplish the wishes of his friend. 16 eyd 8 tidpovoy Kr\oOd Kacvyyyjras te mpocervérw EorecOar Kdurais dv8pds dldov Molpas eerpais. 1 For the possible chronology see 4g- respectively to Lampon and Pindar; and pendix FE. that dvdpt r@de and porpldcov in v. 46 ° Mezger was the first to see the sig- signal to dvdpds pldov and Molpas]. 18. nificance of the myth. He points out * The libations are of course figurative, that Telamon and Heracles correspond —‘honeyed songs’. INTRODUCTION. 83 So too the influence of the Fates is remembered in the prayer of Heracles?: 45 Nlooopa maida Opaciy é& "EpiBotas dvBpl TH8e pouplSioy redeoat. dvdpés idov and dvdpi réde indicate that Telamon corresponds to Lampon. tehéoat echoes the idea expressed in mopcaivovras 1. 82, (3) Memea.—The first libation of song presented by Lampon’s sons to Zeus was in consequence of the victory of Pytheas at Memea. If Phylacidas win at Olympia’, Zeus will receive another libation. This thought is curiously worked out in the mythical parallel. Heracles prayed that the body of Telamon’s: future son might be as strong as the lion whose skin he wore. That lion was slain at Vemea and was the first of the hero’s labours. Thus in both cases a first success at Nemea is taken to shadow forth good fortune in the future. Here the signalling is emphatic : 3 xipvapey Adurovos evdOdov yeveds imep &v Nepea perv mpdrov db Zeo— 48 Sv wépmporov dé—\ov Kreivd mor’ év Nepéa. (4) The Omen.—Zeus sent the aieréds as a sign that a son should be born to Telamon; and the ominous name Afas was to commemorate the incident of the libation of Heracles. Even so the crown at Nemea, granted by Zeus, is regarded as an omen that the crown at Olympia will be granted too, (5) Glory for the city—The wish which Heracles expressed on behalf of Telamon was one whose fulfilment not only concerned the private happi- ness of his friend, but also affected the city. The citizens were interested in the birth of an heir to their ruler. This bearing of the event was, if I am not mistaken, expressed by the word fvvédapoy (1. 46). In the same way the victories of the sons of Lampon reflected glory on Aegina, and Lampon’s activity in encouraging their athletic tastes was a general benefit. An Olympian victory would be an occasion for joy in the city.” This is suggested by the description of Lampon as 69 viv dore: Kéopoy 6 mpocdyav. While the prayer is the main theme and purpose of the poem, there are other points worthy of notice in its setting. The fame won by Lampon and his sons in the sphere of athletic rivalry is compared to the fame of the Aeacid heroes,—Peleus, Ajax, and Telamon. Words are grouped in the eulogy of Lampon (at the beginning of antistr. 1) so as to signal to the expressions used in praise of the Aeacidae. 10 ed ydp tis dvOpdmrov Sandva re xapels kal wove mpaooet Oeodudrous dperds, ovv ré For Salpov urever Sdfay emrparov x.7.A. 1 These correspondences were noticed by Mezger from the metrical responsion and fully appreciated by Mezger. Bvraklda uxavros 1.7, Buraklde yap 2 Compare also edxais 44 and ebyerat FdOov |. 57. 143 érécOw 49 and éoréoOa 17. 4 For Lampon the alerés is the Nemean 3 That Phylacidas, not Pytheas, was wreath. the aspirant to the olive-wreath is inferred 6—2 84 ISTHMIAN V. The four ideas here emphasized—(1) delight in the outlay demanded by athletic competitions, (2) Zabour, (3) the prospering of dzvine prowess, (4) the prize of glory— are repeated in the verses which tell of Peleus and Telamon : 25 IInAéos Kdéos fpwos evSalpovos yauBpod Oedv, and 27. Tov yadkoxdppav és moAepov dye......cUppayov és Tpwiay, 7pwat pbx8ov. More than once in Pindar the quest of Troy is used as a type of athletic contests. Here it is described as ‘a weary quest for heroes’; but its capture brought fame. For the hero of this ode, his plain of Troy was the Isthmus!. And as it is on the occasion of the adventure of Troy that Heracles prays for the birth of Ajax, so it is on the occasion of the Isthmian contest that Pindar prays for an Olympian crown. And it is perhaps hinted in his language, that both Heracles and he perform a twofold function. Heracles takes Telamon to Troy, the place where glory is won, and also prays for offspring; Pindar composes an Isthmian hymn for the glory of Lampon’s house, and also prays for success at Olympia. The double part played by Heracles is suggested by the phrase yxeipas dpdxovs (41): reminding us that those hands slew Alcyoneus (xeporly 34), against whom he went with Telamon; and that Telamon and he had often fought side by side (mpéppova cippaxov 28). Heracles is thus represented as having much to do with the fame of Telamon even as Pindar has had much to do, by his songs, with the fame of Lampon?”. The tale of Heracles appearing in the house of Telamon and all that happened there is one of the most clearly drawn pictures that Pindar has left us. The war of Heracles and Telamon against Troy was the subject of the east pediment of the temple of Athene at Aegina; but the chronology hardly permits us to suppose that ‘the poet’s immediate theme may have occurred to his mind as he gazed on the sculptor’s work in the splendid entablature of the temple’ Many striking thoughts and phrases have been also shed in this libation from the golden phiale. Besides the comparison of the three victories to the three solemn drink-pourings, we have the casting anchor at the shore of luck; the high road to the ends of the world; the musical dews which water Aegina and the kinsfolk of the victor; the quotation from Hesiod to the effect that ‘practice makes perfect’; the whetstone of Naxos; the draught from a Dirce whose waters are spiritual. And there is a note of gold in the ode—-an omen, one is tempted to 1 This may be suggested by the em- phatic 30 év vavoly, responding to 5 vov ad rly, IcOuod déorora NnpetSecc! re. 2 The name ‘Hpakdéns suggests fame —the fame of heroes; and it is placed in a most prominent position at the begin- ning of a strophe, while its ‘etymology’ is introduced in 1. 25 KAéos H{pwos (ren- dered more emphatic by tjpao. coming shortly after, 1. 28). 3 Professor Jebb on Pindar, Fournal of Hell. Studies, Wi. p. 178. INTRODUCTION. 85 guess, of the golden olive leaves! which might one day, if Zeus were gra- cious to the poet’s prayer, shine on the head of Phylacidas. In each of the three metrical systems there is gold; the golden chariots of the Aeacidae, the golden phiale with which the guest made libation, the golden robe of Mnamosyna, mother of the Muses. ISTHMIAN IV. When we next hear of Phylacidas, he has won a second Isthmian vic- tory, and has also a Nemean wreath of his own to set beside that of his elder brother. We have no means of knowing for certain how many years elapsed between the two Isthmian successes, and between the two odes in which Pindar celebrated them. We know that the Second Ode was written after—and clearly not many years after—the Battle of Salamis. This seems to imply that the second Isthmian victory was won not earlier than 480; probably not later than 478. Greater precision than this we cannot attain as to the absolute date But as to the distance of time between the two odes there is one point which may be determined with certainty. A celebration of the Olympian games had taken place in the interval. This we can infer without any hesitation from the ode before us. We can infer that it had not seemed good to Zeus to fulfil the prayer of Pindar; Phylacidas had not won an Olympian wreath. That he had striven for it and failed is suggested by a delicate tone of consolation, and proved by abundant allusions to the hymn in which the unratified prayer was offered. In fact the two odes must be read in close connexion in order to understand the second. The invocation? to the strange goddess Theia, ‘mother of the sun’, who so rarely appears in our extant Greek literature, has always been a puzzle. Her connexion with the rest of the ode has never been quite clear. But the puzzle is solved and the presence of the ‘golden goddess’ as she was called (Chryse) is adequately explained if we recognize that a disappoint- ment at Olympia was fresh in Pindar’s mind, when he composed the ode, 1 This is the constant import of gold in Pindar. See my ed. of the Memean Odes. 2 See Appendix E. 3 Mezger thinks that the chief idea of the ode is ‘der hohe Werth der Kampf- spiele’. He points out that.games are compared with commerce in 1. 7 (dywvtos dé0dolot), and with war in 1. 55 (du¢’ aé0\o.cw). They are distinguished from mercantile pursuits in that glory, not gold, is their object; they resemble war in leading both to glory and to song. Gold is chased for the sake of Theia céo féxare 1, 23 glory for the sake of Zeus, Atos éxart, 1, 29, in the same position in the same verse of the strophe. This is as much as to say that Theia is merely introduced in order to be shown her place. It seems to me that the contrast of games with trade would not justify the prominent position given to Theia; nor explain the association of other things, besides gold, with the goddess.—For the historical significance of the Ode cp. general Introduction. 86 ISTHMIAN IV. and in fact that this disappointment determined the argument and character of the composition. a ‘It is for thy sake, O Theia, that men esteem gold preeminently’. The gold that concerned the son of Lampon was the symbolic gold, of which we so often read in the Epinician hymns,—the olive-wreath of Olympia. That was the gold which an athlete esteemed above all other things, mepud- cuv GArAwv. And that this is the significance of the lines addressed to Theia may be inferred not only from the last verse of the invocation - (7 sqg. & 7? dyoviors déOdowwt Kr.) but from a metrical responsion, which shows why the goddess is introduced: 6 dtd reav, & *vacoa, TYydy K.T.A. 54 pédere kal roade Tid KaAAiwKON K.T.A. But there are other things too (Pindar tells Phylacidas) which may be asso- ciated with Theia; success in battle, for example, or a quantity of Epini- “cian wreaths (Il. 4—10), And these things have been achieved by the sons of Lampon and by their country, Aegina played an illustrious part in the battle of Salamis; that was an example of ‘ships striving in the sea’ for the ‘honour’ of Theia. Phylacidas had won two Isthmian and two Nemean crowns before then; there was an example of ‘a group of wreaths’ (aépdéa orépavo). The poet bids the victor be content if he has the two things that really constitute a happy life; fame and prosperity: el tis €0 macxey Adyov échov dKxovon. And when the warning is given, ‘Seek not to become Zeus’,—that is as much as to say, it is not given to all to ascend Olympus: you must not be disappointed that the highest victory of all was not vouchsafed to you. Mortals must make up their minds to recognize the conditions of mortal life ; and one of these is that success is not always sure. 16 Ovara Ovaroiot mpére. Yes, the sons of Lampon are limited by mortality; but certainly their native island holds a conspicuous place in the world of mortals. 43 Toiow Alywav mpopepe ordua matpapy Stamperéa vacor. Recently Salamis can testify to her warlike prowess (48); in ancient days her heroes were sung by poets (26). Pindar places her three times in a very prominent position; at the beginning of strophe 2 rdvS’ és edvopoy modu, of epode 2 dA’ év Oiverg, and of strophe 3 totow Atywar. The central system of the hymn is occupied with the mythical Aeacids, and chiefly with the second expedition against Troy, which is always called ‘the Trojan war’. In the earlier hymn (/s¢hmian V.), on the other hand, the first expedition against Troy, that of Heracles and Telamon, was introduced; and we saw that the strife of the heroes at Troy was typical of the strife of the pancratiasts at the Isthmus. It seems possible that the second Trojan war may represent the second Isthmian victory of Phylacidas, just as the first Trojan war represented his first victory. This significance of the two INTRODUCTION. 87 wars is perhaps indicated by a signal. In the 1st epode we find the striking expression 17 tw & év "IoOud Sumdga Odddouw” dperd. In the 2nd epode we read, 36 Sls wodAw Tpdar mpdbov éomopevor “HpakAje mporepov kat ody ’Arpeidas. This comparison suggests that his earlier hymn was before the mind of Pindar when he composed the later. In fact, Surdéa dperd seems to mean the two Isthmian hymns as much as the two Isthmian wreaths. And the language of the first, echoing in the poet’s thought, influenced the language of the second. (1) The second hymn like the first is compared to a libation; IV. 24 yi) POover Kopmoy Tov eorxdr dowda Kipvdpev dtl mover, Vv. 2 Sevrepov kparipa Motoaioy pedéav k(pvapev, and, in the same connexion, the richness of the feast of song is suggested in the expression IV. 17. Oddo” dpera echoing V. 1 OdAXNovTos avdpayv—ovpmociov. (2) The hopes of Lampon are thus referred to— IV. 57 ovd omdca: Samava éAriday exvic” drew. His hopes were for an Olympian victory, which was not granted, notwith- standing the prayer of Pindar. The phrase recalls the description of the joy of Heracles when the eagle appeared after his prayer: v.50 adeia & evdov my exvikev yxdpes. In v. 14 the poet had used roiatow dépyais of the ambitions of Lampon and his sons; and this seems to be echoed in IV. 34 GAN ev Olvdva peyadnropes opyat of ‘Aeacus and his sons’}. (3) The observations on the career of the man who succeeds in athletic contests in the Ist antistrophos of /s‘Amdan Iv., resemble both in thought and in language verses in the 1st antistrophos of /sthmdax v. Iv.8 kdréos erpagkey dvrw dOpdoe orépavor seveceeeereeAVEONTOV. « : Il xpiverat & adxa dia Salpovas avdpar. dvo0 8€é Tor was dewrov podva moipaivorre Tov GvAmviorov evavbci civ d\Po 14. sececessseesesenreeM GT” EX ELS el ce rovTay poip edikoiro Kadav. 1 See above, p. 81. 88 ISTHMIAN IV. 16 ri & ev Iobud Sumdea Oadddo1o’ dperd.. Vv. 10 eb yap tis dvOperav Sardva te xapeis kal move mpdoce Oeoduarovs dperds, civ Té Fou Salpov dureves S0€av emyparov éoxarias 754 mpos ohPov Badder’ ayxvpay. 18 Molpas eperpais. ~~ The general idea of both these passages is the same: ‘If a man win splendid fame, through divine help, he has attained all that life can give’. . » The application is somewhat different, according to the circumstances of the case. In the earlier ode one felt that the 60£a émnparos would hardly be complete until it were crowned by an Olympian victory. In the later ode it is urged that Phylacidas, by his dperai, has already secured (was dwroy tov dmvorov,—let him be content. An Olympic crown is not indispens- able to happiness; py pareve Zebs yevéoOau. (4) Of Lampon’s sons it was said in Vv. 65 Tov Te Oewiotiou dpOdcavres oixov Tavde moAw OcopiAH vaiowe. Since then there had been a more famous ‘lifting up’, in which a city (for that matter, a nation), not merely a house was involved: Iv. 48 aptrupnoa Kev modus Alavros ép0wlcioa vavrais. (5) The paths of fair deeds which mark Aegina’s history are prominent in both hymns. We read in V. 21 rdv8 emioretxovra vacov parvépey eddoylats, pupla. o° tpyov Kahay rérunvO éxaropredor ev oxEepG KédcvOor. Similarly in IV, 21 ...€uodow.. tavd’ és evvouov modu. ef d€ rérpamrat Oeoddrav epyov KédevOov av xadapay py POdver xopsov... 25 Kipvapev... The chief difference here is that a million paths are mentioned in the earlier passage, and only one road in the later. But the greatness of the praises of the Aeacids is not forgotten; it is expressed somewhat differently but in an echoing phrase. Reading on a little, we find that the heroes "IV. 27) Nyov exépSavay, KAcovrat 8’... puplov xpavoy, (6) The striking expression quoted from Hesiod in Jst¢h. v. 66 Adurrav 6 pedéray pyots omatwy ‘Howdov pdda ryya tovr’ eros is echoed, in a different sense, in /sth. {v. 28, where it is said of the heroes pedérav d¢ codiorais Atbs ékate mpdoBadroyv oeBiCopevor. \ INTRODUCTION. 89 (7) The praise of the heroes in /s¢h. Iv. contains verbal echoes of the account of the Aeacids in Jstf. v. V. 27 Tov xadKoydppay és méAenov dye...mpoppova cippaxov és Tpwlav... 31 ...mépvev O€ ody Kev Mepdrov 7 eOvea... IV. 35 ...rol kai cvppdxots [see note] Sis modw Tpdwv mpdbov... 39 «tives "Exropa mépvov kal orpdrapyov... Méyvova xadkoapav. (8) The kdéos fjpwos (the etymon of ‘HpakAéys, in Pindar’s eyes), which was prominent in the first ode is echoed in the second: 26 kal yap rpdwv ayabot mokewioral aise sdaaer kéovrar. (9) The phrase used of Menander the trainer in v.73 (ev deOAjratowv) yadKo8dpavt’” akdvay may have suggested the unique word applied to Pytheas in Iv. 59 aivéw kal Ilvééav ev yuroddpats. , Any one of these verbal echoes or groups of echoes taken alone would mean nothing. In all Pindar’s odes there are resemblances of expression, and the same words and figures constantly recur. But the list just given seems too long to be merely accidental. Without attempting to attach a particular import to any particular echo, we may be disposed to recognize a general significance in the whole series. When Pindar made the second libation, he prayed that the day might come when he should pour a third, to Olympian Zeus. It was decreed that Olympian Zeus was to receive no offering on behalf of Phylacidas; nevertheless the prayer was so far answered that the poet was called upon to pour a third libation. And the significance of all the echoes is to emphasize that the hymn is really the third libation; Phylacidas must not think that he has missed that. Pindar has carefully sustained his figure. The third libation at a feast was always to Zeus Sétér. And accordingly no mention is made of Poseidon in this hymn; it is Zeus throughout, This was the more feasible, because the ode was intended to celebrate a Nemean, as well as the second Isthmian, victory of Phylacidas®. The family of Lampon may be well contented (Pindar would say) that it is their privilege to pour out song a third time, tptrov omevdew pedipOdyyos dowais, though not to Zeus Olympios, yet to Zeus as a true Saviour (cwrfjps) and as having shown his mercy very conspicuously of late, on the waters of Salamis, where the Aeginetans had been bravest of all, in the judgment of the Greeks. It might be thought that Zeus had granted the request of the poet really, if not literally. 1 Il. 14, 29, 49, 525 53 2 See above, p. 80. 90 ISTHMIAN IV. ISTHMIAN IV. METRICAL ANALYSIS. (Rhythm: dactyloepitritic.) STROPHE. BEE Res lt ef DBy-T-v-v-vev™- SSeS hw eye —Vvu-vV™. O35 -~VMr rr MV rye Duy eH VV eH ee er a ee rH M. Schmidt proposes a triple mesodic arrangement, in which the first and third groups correspond in the number of beats. Thus: A (vv. 1, 2)=12 feet B (vv. 3, 5)=13 feet A’ (uv. 6)=12 feet. It is to be observed that he interprets the last two syllables of the first verse as trisemoi. For example Marep | deAi- | ov wodvu- | dvupe | Oei- | a— — “wy —=wVwYy ee Ae — — EPODE. mur emu ru mur trMr oc: purr ru: —un-- mus: C5 eves Sve Dye vv eu eS eS eas es a NPE LS AS ERE LS PS St APS 4 mur rer M. Schmidt’s scheme is as follows: A (vv. I, 2)=5+6=11 B (wv. 3, 4)=5+5=10 C(v.5) =5 -5 ) B' (vv. 6, 7)=5 +5=10 A’ (uv. 8, 9) =64+5=11 Thus BCB’ may be considered a mesode which is itself mesodic. A pause equivalent to a beat is assumed after the final trisemos of v. 4. LNTRODUCTION. 9! ISTHMIAN V. METRICAL ANALYSIS. (Rhythm: dactyloepitritic.) STROPHE. 7 | We Se ee er ere * SS a SS wy ayn Sou rya y w5 ES ee SPS ey Ser ae -_~ y w Dv Ye] Vee SY ; yv mmm ee Ue a SS ge eye M. Schmidt divides the strophe into two parts after the first syllable of wv. 5, each part consisting of thirty beats. His scheme is: Aa A (uv. I—4) =7 +6+4+6+7=30 Al (vv. 5—9)=4+4+4 +6+ 4+4+4=30. He gets A’ by interpreting the third foot of v. 6, and also the fifth foot of v. 8, as two trisemoi. To get A he has to assume a pause equivalent to a foot at the beginning of v. 1, and a pause of the same kind at the end of vw. 4; so that in the first case the words @a\Xovros avdpoy represent four beats: (- v -) = é€v T aywviows aéOXorct robewvov ’ , avT. a. L Kréos Erpater, bvtw' aOpoor orépavor xepol vikacavr avédncay eepav n TaxvTate Today. where in Pindar. The phrase repidovop @\\wy occurs in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 363. 4 sqq.] Yes; for thy worth’s sake, O queen, both ships vying on the sea ap- prove themselves wonderful; and wonder- Sul, mares yoked to chariots in the swift- whirling ways of battle—«al—al, both —and; xat ydp is not equivalent to d\da ydp here, as there is no ellipse in the sense. For épltopar (=épltw) see E 172. The reference is to naval battles, not to competition of trading vessels, as is clear from the second clause of the sentence, which refers to battles by land. Wars are undertaken by land and sea, for treasure; and are thus due to the influence of Theia. Pindar’s language may seem to suggest battles in olden time when war-chariots were used; but he is probably thinking of contests of his own day, see Appendix J. 5. td dppacw] B éy dpyacw, D dppacwy. Bergk restored v¢’, which is probably right. Frag. 234 decided me to accept his restoration: bg’ dppacw trmos & 8 dpdbrpw Bods. This points to a subtle distinction by which év could be used with dporpov, but not with dpua, to express the relation of the yoked animal. We must remember that év apuaow was properly used of the charioteer. The omission of the preposi- tion in D is significant, showing that v¢’ accidentally fell out and that in B its place was supplied by év, suggested by év wovTq. 10 6. rvedv tysdyv] schol. rdv xpucdy.—a "yaooa, in Pindar only found here, and Srag. 205 8’ vaco ’AddGera.—akv8iwarors, coined probably for this place. It re- minds us of &xumérns, Homeric attri- bute of steeds, and «&kvopos, -Homeric attribute of ships.—@avpacral (mo as well as vées is feminine) wéXovrat, schol. Oavpacrol kal évdoko. ylvovrat. éde- ca, as often elsewhere in active and in middle, approaches the sense of yiveo@at. Compare as 5° dpavros éredes Ol. 1. 47. Oavpacrés here, as usually in Pindar, means worthy of all admiration. 7. & 0") ba Tedy Tydy is carried on. And it ts through thee that in agonistic games sweet glory is won by him, whose hair is bound with sheaves of garlands for victory with strength of hands or swiftness of feet.—moPavév, cp. mofewo- rdrav dékay Ol. VIII. 64.—émrpagev, used somewhat in the sense of émpdtaro. Dissen quotes Euripides, Orestes 355 Oed0ev rpdtas dep nixov. The difference between érpafe and érpdéaro is that the object of @rpate is conceived as more ex- ternal than that of éwpdtaro. mpdrrew is to effect, mparrecOa to win. Cp. Pyth. I. 40 Tov Se rerpdxvapov empate Seoudy, also Nem. 1X. 3, 11. 46.—For &péos in this context see /sth. 1.28. The active dva- 5éw is used by Pindar in three ways: 1, of the garlands (here); 2, of binding another’s hair (Py¢h. 11.6); 3, of binding one’s own hair, like dvaddouar (Pyth. X. 40). @@epa is not elsewhere found in Pindar. 94. IZOMIONIKAI ’. - Kpiverar & ada dia Saipovas avdpar. \ - 3 a 8u0 86 To Lwas dwrov podva Troatvorts Tov ddmvarov evavOel adv orBo, 3 , el tis eb macxywv Aoyov éoddv axovon. ém. a’. wv pa} pareve Leds yevécOar+ avr’ éyes, yw , a> 3 / of. el ce TovTw@y poip’ épixotTo Kadwr. 15 11. Kplverat «.7.d.] Zhe might of men is discerned on account of daemons. This admits of more than one interpreta- tion. Either (1), as scholiast explains, Soxipaterar f xwplferar 4 TOv dvdpiv GdKh TH Tay Gedy evpevela, and Dissen reportat victorias per deos; or (2) as Mezger pro- poses, ‘the trials of men’s strength are held on account of the gods’, that is the dyéaves, which test men, are celebrated in honour of the gods; or better (3) daluwy may be a personification of ré7pos avyyevis, cp. Mem. v. 40. For the Saluoves of individual men cp. Plato, Phaedo 104 A, Republic X, 617 e. 12. Sto x«.7.A.] Ves, assuredly two things alone, linked with the fair flower of wealth, cherish the most delectable bloom of life, even comfort and a fair name.—In this sentence the following points are to be observed. (1) S00 poiva is explained by the clause ef 7s x.7.X., instead of two substantives: this is an instance of the Greek preference for concrete expressions where we use an abstract. (2) oby connects evavOijs 6dBos with S¥o poiva. 7d ev macxew, as Mezger remarks, presupposes 6\fos. (3) motal- vovrt (schol. mapa@adrovor) is used, not moumalver, because the two things are distinguished. (4) The meaning of (was dwrov the fite gloss of life (cp. edtwis dwros Pyth. Iv. 131, and my note on Nem. 11. 8) is determined and emphasized by rév dAmvicrov ; standing alone it might suggest little more than ‘breath of life’. (5) €0 maoxwy does not mean res praeclaras gerens as Dissen says, but refers to bodily satisfaction. The same two elements of the ideal life are linked in Pyth. 1. 99, where 7d e& maoxew is given the prefer- ence: 7d 6& wabeiy ef mpwrov aéOhuv eb & dxobew Sevrépa poip’. —The reading d\mvcrov has been luck- ily preserved in the scholia, and this case is an instructive example of the principle that rare words were peculiarly exposed to corruption. The mss. B and D have dvédmoroy contrary to the metre. Schol.: ypdpovor 6é Gor tov GAavicTov, TouréoTt Tov Yiwrov Kal mpoonvéctarov’ ravry dé TH ypagy Kal Ta THs dvricrpbpov daciv cuvgdew. The rare adjective ddmvés oc- curs also in Pyth. vill. 84 in the com- pound form éradmvos (Bergk én’ admvés). mwowsatvoytt] suggests in this context a flowery pasture. Cp. the metaphorical use of Bovxodd, as in Agam. 669 éBovko- Nofuer Ppovriaiw véov maOos, which is ap- propriate to the picture of the sea as a flowering field (dvO0bv vexpois, 1. 659). Cp. also Theocritus, x1. 80 Iodv@apos éroluawer (was beguiling) éowra. 13. dkotey) B dodgy. 14. pareve] Compare O/. Vv. 24 mh pareton Beds yeréoOa.—tdvr’ exes, ‘it is enough, you have all that you can reasonably seek’. 15. potp’] In the scholia explained by wepls vis. Perhaps it is rather ‘a lot consisting in these fair things’; compare devrépa poip’ in Pyth. 1. 99 (quoted above on 1, 12).—é@ixvdéowat is not found else- where in Pindar, nor is it often found in this sense; cp. 196 xaderdy 6° emt vijpas ikdve. Usually it means reach, Ait, and takes the genitive. In Hero- ee ISTHMIAN IV. 95 Ovara Ovaroior mpéret. tiv © év “lcOu@ Semdoa Oddro1o’ apera, Pvraxisda, xelrar, Newéa 8& nal dudoiv f , Tlvéa tre trayxpartiov. ro 8 éwov ovx dtep Alaxidav xéap buvov yeveras: 20 adv Xapiow 8 éuorov Adurravos viois dotus vil. 35 we find a double accusative: érixéoOar pdoriye wAyyas Tov ‘EAAnoTov- TOV, 16. mpéwe] For mortals mortal life zs meet. Elsewhere in Pindar mpére (in this sense) is impersonal. Instructive ex- amples of the various ways in which this verb is used may be found in Aeschylus. Cp. Agam., 321, oluar Boty dyixrov év aéhe mpérewv, 389, mpére pis alvodayres alvos, 1310, Suowos druds Womrep ex Tapov mpémet, 483, ‘yuvouxds alyug mpémer mpd Tod pavévros xapi Evvarvécar. The Greek - for ‘prodigies are the order of the day’ would be répara mpéret. 17. TW8 «7.d.] For thee, O Phyla- cidas, at Isthmus hath been set a twofold unfading honour, and at Nemea victory Sor you both—even for Pytheas with thee—. in the pancration contest. Four victories are mentioned here; two Isthmian and one Nemean won by Phylacidas, and one Nemean (occasion of Pindar’s Fifth Ne- mean) won by Pytheas.—For dperd, not excellence but meed, recompense, see Ap- pendix F; here equivalent to the honour of victory. For @diAouvwa compare O/. IX. 16 Odddee 3” dperatow, and Jsth, Ill. B 4 dperds—atar Oéddovres, but it must not be inferred from these passages that @d)- Rowwa is ‘causative’. The dperd is re- garded as possessing ‘the quality which it causes. O@dddato’ dperd suggests the bloom of glory which fadeth not.—xetrat, schol. dvdxerrat. Compare O/. XIII. 36 én’ "Addeod peOporow alyha woday dydxevrat, - The victory is, figuratively, set up in the place where it was won (‘der Sieg haftet an dem Ort wo er errungen wurde’ Mez- ger). The expression suggests the dedi- cation of a statue of the victor. 18,19. Nepéq.8é] Compare Jsth. VIL. 3 for the dative as locative. The words dperd (not durdba dperd) xetras are carried on to this second clause. kal dpdotv, ‘even for both brothers’, ‘not for Phyla- cidas only.—IIv@éq re, equivalent to riv Tlvéég re in explanation of dugoty. tiv in the preceding line rendered a repetition of this pronoun unnecessary, as it can be supplied from the dual dudoi. But though the meaning is perfectly clear, this form of compendious construction is rare. Cp. Soph. Ajax, 1312 and Zi. 1416, ef yap AlyloOw 0’ duob (sc. coi re); also Aesch. Supp. 480: ad pev marep yepue ravde rapbéver, KAddous re TovTous aly’ év ayxddaus da- Bow Bwpods ém’ dddovs Sapdvav eyxwplov Oés, ws Uwor K.T.r. where re links kAddous with mapOévous understood from the preceding map0évwy. —raykpatlov depends on the notion of victory-crown implied in dperd. Compare Nem. V. 5 vikn maryxparlov crépavor, Lsth. Vi. 22 vixay maykpariov. The vic- tory in the contest and the wreath are conceived as belonging to it. 20. ovK drep Ataki8av] AZy soul is tasting hymns, sweet with the praise of the Aeacids; ‘as I am singing for Ae- ginetans, I have the pleasure of praising the Aeacidae’. For rd éudv xéap compare Nem. Vul.102, | 21. At the calling of Lampon's sons I came, with the Charites, to this well- governed city.—ebvopov is Pindar’s praise of a Doric constitution (Mezger). 96 Tavd és evyopov méduv. > * if eb 6€ rétpamtat IZOMIONIKAI A. otp. B. Oeodorwrv epywv KédrevOov av xabapar, \ f t A ’ a % ba Hn POdver Koprrov Tov éo.KdT aoa Kipvapev avtl mover. 25 Kal yap jpwwv dyabol rodeworal t a ? a Adyov éxépdavav, Kréovtar & & re Hoppvyyerow ev avrwv TE Tappavors opoKxrais pupiov ypdvovs perétay dé cogiotais 22. dkS8trérpamrat «.7.r.] But if she (the city) Aas turned her steps along a shining path of heavenly deeds, then grudge not thou to reward her labours by mixing with song the praise befitting. —The sub- ject of rérpamrrat is Ge mods. Mezger is alone in understanding ‘wo man wan- delt’. In the scholia a subject is derived from Adurwvos viois: ef 5¢ rovrwy 6 Blos kaOopG x.7.A. and Kayser (Lectiones Pind. Pp. 92) actually suggests to read Aduarwyvos otk. térpamrat expresses not motion, but direction: ‘has set her face’, Com- pare O/. Iv. 18 mpds ‘Aovytay piddwokw Kabapg ywoua Terpapypévoy. — kédevdov dy kaSapdv, so O/. VI. 23 KehetOy 7’ ev xaSapg. xafapds means ‘lit by a pure divine light’. Compare Pyth. vi. 14 pder év kabapy, 1X. go Xapirwv xabapdy géyyos (frag. 142 Kabapdy apépas oé- Ras). If we had to render in Greek the modern idea of ‘a light that never was on sea or land’, xadapdv éyyos might comein. Fordv see Appendix H, With QeoSérwv (elsewhere in Pindar we meet the form @ebcdoros) compare above 1. 11 dia daluovas. But the conjunction of rérpamro. with kaSapdav, compared with the similar collocation in the passage cited above from the Fourth Olympian, and the association of both with Qe08¢6- twv, suggest that all three words have mystical imports. I incline to think that the «éXev@os kafapd, mentioned here and in O/. v1., is an image borrowed from mysteries. 24. «éptov] See Jsth. 1. 43.—doS4 avt. B'. is to be taken with xipyduer, not with éouxéra, but there is no reason to regard it, with Mezger, as a dative of place. ‘Praise’ and ‘song’ are the two ingre- dients (corresponding to wine and water) for the mixing-bowl. The use of the dative with a verb of mixing needs no illustration.— Observe that Pindar always has the forms of xlpynu, never those of kepdvvusu.—The subject of p0dve is the poet, addressed by himself. 26. kal -ydp] ‘Yes, she has her face set that way, of old; for ix the heroic age, too, goodly warriors (of Aegina) won the guerdon of fame’. ai yap, as often, implies a suppressed sentence. pay is partitive genitive, depending on srode- puorat. é&xépSavav is only here in Pindar, and it is emphatic: the ‘gold’ which they gained was fame. Adyow resumes Adyor éodév of 1. £3. So KAgovrat resumes xAdos of 1. 8. And through uncounted time is their glory told on lyres and by the loud calls of full-toned flutes—«héw does not occur elsewhere in Pindar. Cp. v 299 prjrt kAdouac kat xépdecw. Perhaps the verb suggested the use of époxAd, which in Homer always means @ call, or a rebuke. It stands alone in Pindar, who evidently intended 6yo- to have its etymological force: concordant, wdpdhwvos omnisonus is elsewhere used of flutes, O/. vir. 12 popmeyye Tappdvorol 7’ ev evrecw adhav, Pyth. XM. 19 add\av rdudwvov wédos. 28. pedérav x.7.d.] And their divine honours, by grace of Zeus, set a theme jor ISTHMIAN IV. 97 Acs Eats mpdcBarov ceBifdpevos, év pev AitwrAdv Ovaoiatos haevvais 30 Olveisar xparepoi, év 8& OnBats immoaoas "ldXaos yépas ever, Ilepoeds § ev "Apyer, Kdatopos § aiypa Tovvdedxeos T én’ Evpora peéOpas' arr’ ev Olvadva peyadajropes dpyat ér. §'. Aliaxod raidwv te’ tol Kal cuppayors 35 craftsmen to work.—The subject of mpdo- Badov (addidere, procured, or caused) is the same as that of kAdovrac. For pedéra, studium, ‘subject’, cp. Mem. v1. 62.— copirrys, sage, wizard, has not yet got the sense which Gorgias and Protagoras won for it. Herodotus calls the Seven Sages cogioral. Aeschylus applies the word to a musician, the author of the Rhesus (924) to Orpheus. The Scholiast quotes Sophocles [fr. 820] pév’ els oo- giorqy éudv. It is hardly necessary to illustrate Pindar’s use of codés, which explains his use of cogiorys here. Cp. Ol. XIV. 7 ef copés, ei KaNés, eiris dryhads dynp, where codés means poverxds, Vem. Iv. 2, Pyth. Ul. 113, &c.—eeBlEw occurs also in Pyth. v. 80. Atés karte responds to véo Fékate |. 2 (Mezger). 31. OlvelSar] Supply yépas yous, from the next clause. The sons of Oeneus were Tydeus and Meleagros. Elsewhere (though where, we know not) Pindar told how Heracles, at the request of Melea- gros whom he met in Hades, went to Ae- tolia to woo the daughter of Oeneus and wrestled for her sake with her other wooer Acheloos. (Schol. Iliad ® 194.) 32. twmrooréas] a speeder, or driver of horses (Pyth. 11. 63). Artemis is lrmocda (fem. of ivmogéos) in O/. 111. 26. 33. Kdoropos x7...) the warrior spirit of Castor and Polydeukes on the streams of Eurotas. For éwl cp. Nem. 1X. 93 for alxpd see Vem. x. 23 alxuav ’Apdirpdwros, and cp. Terpander 6 (P. Z. B, II. G. IL p. 12) &6" alxud re véwy Oddret kai w@oa Abyea (at Lacedaemon). 34. GAN «.7...] But in Oenone the generous spirit of Aeacus and his sons (have honour). ddd contrasts the Aea- cids with the rest of the list, Il. 30—33, which is strung together by dé, the Ae- tolian heroes having gséy because they come first. —peyaArropes épyal is a trans- muted echo of Homer’s weyadyropa dupsv. 6pyal is perhaps chosen with a purpose; see Jntroduction, p. 81. For Ocenone cp. Mem. 1V. 47, VIII. 7 (and my remarks on these passages); also Js¢h, VII. 23. 35. Tol Kal] who assuredly, The demonstrative has the force of relative and is best translated so, but, in accord- ance with its regular Homeric usage, refers to an already defined antecedent, adding a further fact (kat).—The reading of the Mss. oly wdxats is translatable, but we may well feel doubts about it. If it is right, the force of ovv is that battles accompanied the taking of Troy; the Aeacids had to fight battles on both expeditions. We may illustrate the force of the preposition by éredvd for oly ddda- Aogovla yévos dpyiov (O2. 11. 42) on the one hand, and ov 8 ddOdots éxéAevoev Staxpivar moddv (Pyth. 1X. 115) on the other. We should not compare Py¢h. Iv. 203 (adv atpats) or Jsth, 111. A 1, where ovv must be differently explained.—But it might cross one’s mind that the ex- pression, though quite defensible, has little point; and the suspicion must as- sume a more serious form when we read 7 98 IZOMIONIKAI A. Sis wédw Tpadwov mpdbov éomopevor “Hpaxrje mpdorepov, Kal adv ’Arpeidats. in the scholia ofrwes rais éauray cup- paxlacs Thy Trav Touwy érdpOnoay rodw. This looks as if the commentator had had some part of cJupaxos before him. ovppaxor would have been really to the point; on both occasions the Aeacids were allies of others. The suspicions are confirmed when we turn to Jsth, v. 28, and read there mpég¢pova, otppaxov of Telamon accompanying Heracles to Troy. In this case emendation is simple and perhaps certain. Pindar wrote TOI Kal CYMMAXOIC ‘who twice sacked the city of the Troes for allies’, The construction of cuppd- Xxots (dative of interested persons) was not understood, and hence it was divided into CYM Maxolc, and regarded as a slip in writing for cym Mayaic. But the true reading was also preserved in the text which Didymus used. This is one of the clearest instances where the vestiges of a superior reading are pre- served in the scholia. (These vestiges led Friese, Pindarica, p. 15 to the un- lucky guess ouupdyas, an impossible word.) 36. éoeméevor] Pindar also uses the unreduplicated form omouévay. ls, cp. Propertius Ill. 1, 32 Troia bis Oetaei numine capta dei, Homer, E 638 sq. 37- Observe that the last syllable of "Hpdxd fi is lengthened before zp. 38. Kal odv ’ArtpelSats] Schol. réAw 6é 7 cudAnTTiKD TpbTw KexpyTaL’ od yap of avrot dis érépOncay rhv “Iktov dAdG Tedapov péev odv ‘Hpaxde?, Neowrddeuos 6é adv Arpeldais. In the actual sack of Troy the Aeacid concerned was Neopto- lemus; but Pindar does not exclude Achilles who helped so much to bring it about. #\a] For the imperative cp. above 1. 243 for éddw cp. Mem. 111. 74; for the éka viv pot meddber’ meaning (intransitive, move, drive) com- pare Tyrtaeus, 11, 10 dudorépuy 3 els képov Adoare, Plato Gorgias, 486 A &c. The usage has been variously explained as a metaphor from driving horses, or from ships (cp. schol. 7 é\a xara pera- gopay tiv dad Trav vedv), but it seems better to refer it to the same original meaning of é\atyw which made the verb applicable both to ships and to cars, and to other things as well.—1eSd@ev is gene- rally said to mean ‘from the beginning’, properly ‘from the ground’ (in one scholium we have é« pifav, radicitus, and also dpiduevos dvw0ev Kal é& dpxijs). It occurs in another passage in Pindar, Ol, VU. 62 opav évdov Oaddcoas aviouévay wedé0ev rodvBookoy yatay, where it clearly means ‘from the ground’ at the bottom of the sea. In Hesiod, Theogony 680 medddev 8 érwdaooero " paxpds *Oduptros means ‘Olympus was shaken from its base’. Inv. 295 we have ol ro reddéev glro. eioly, where wedé0ev is explained ‘from the bottom of the heart’. Compare some usages of German grzndlich, fun- ditus. But the present passage seems to demand a somewhat different meaning, and a different meaning is given to us by one of the scholiasts. We look for a word meaning ‘straight on’, and the longest scholium (doubtless derived from Didymus) begins thus: a viv wo, & Modca, én’ edOelas 6000 Kal dv duadod* Totro yap rd wedé0ev. This explanation points to some other use of edé0ev than that which belongs to it in the passages just quoted. But it certainly does not justify the interpretation of Mezger that é\a weddbev is to be taken like the Homeric edtoto duke. Such a use of a form in -@ev we may safely rule to be impossible. On the other hand one. is tempted to suspect that medé0ev may be ISTHMIAN IV. 99 réye, tives Kuxvov, tives "Extopa rédvor, kal otpdrapyov Aibidrrov ddoBov 40 Méyuvova yadkodpav’ tis dp’ éaddov THrehov Tpacev é@ Sopt Kaixov trap’ dyOais; a v z / , totow Aiyway mpopépe: ocroua Tatpav op. y’. 8 Z a i‘ y \ 1 vaTpeTréa vacov* Tereiytotat S¢ adat mupyos tpnrais dpetais dvaBalve. akin to Aeolic weddé, which, with the accusative, means after. Thus qedddev might have something of the force of é¢fs, ‘next in order’-—M. Schmidt proposed om.dd0ev (= uaxpdder). 39- Aé€ye] The Muse is bidden say, who slew Cycnus, Hector, Memnon, and wounded Telephus? The answer comes in v. 43, but in a general form; Achilles, the slayer or wounder of all four, is not mentioned by name, as he is in O7, 11. 79 sqq. where we have the same cata- logue, except Telephus.—Kvxvos, son of Poseidon. The penult is long here, but in O/. 1, 82 it is short. 40. otpd&tapxov] It is worthy of re- mark that this word which, as far as I know, is used by no other writer, occurs in Pindar twice as the title of the legend- ary chief of the Ethiopians. See Pyth. VI. 31 évapluBporov dvameivais orpdrapyov AlOtérwv Méuvova. In Mem. i. 62 Memnon is xolpavos. Herodotus has orpardpxns twice, once of the wily Zo- pyros who was elected by the men of Babylon to-be their orpardpyys and re- xopuraé in their revolt against Darius (111. 157), and once of Ion (viit. 44) where the word is clearly chosen to avoid the term Baotdeds, as the old Attic legend left no room for Ion among the kings who succeeded Cecrops. Pindar used orparapxos ‘leader of an army’ as a word free from technical associations, just as he sometimes has dpyés when a prose writer would use Baotdeds or rUpavvos, It is to be observed that o7parnyés is not found in his extant works, 45 41. yxadkodpav] The Homeric form is xahxjpys. See Lsth. 111 B 63.—Mss. rls ydép corrected by Schmid.—‘ The good Telephus’ was king of Mysia. Achilles wounded him, but he was healed. He also appears in O/. IX. 72. 42. Katsov] According to the metre of this passage the first syllable of the Mysian river is long; but it ought to be short, cp. Hesiod, 7heogony 343 TInvety re xat “Epyov éiippelrny re Kdikov. It would be rash however to meddle with the text; the quantities of proper names sometimes vary. Hermann proposed @ Sopt tpace tap’ bx Oatcw Katkov, but this is to rewrite Pindar. Bergk objects to éG (he would prefer éAdv); but compare below Vv. 33 operépas veupias. 43. Totow x.7.\.] The Muse makes answer: ‘They whose mouth utters “ Aigina”’ as the name of their land, the illustrious island’. totow, as Mr Fennell says, is to be taken both with oréua and . with warpav. mpodépe, eloyuitur. wa- tpav is the predicate; Stamperéa (here trisyllabic) vdorov qualifies Alyway. (In Ol. 1. 2 we have diampérw.) 44. TerelXtorat K.7.A.] mdAar is em- phatic. Yea, of old «a tower has been embattled with high excellences, for the Solk of that land to climb. In two other Pindaric passages we find recxitw figura- tively used, in Pyth. V1.9 of a treasure house of songs, turwv Onoaupds rerelxiorat, and /r. 194, v. 2 Texlfwuev Kdopoy avdd- evra Né-ywv.—dperais, such as the ‘god- built excellences’ of v. 11. 72 100 TONGA wey apTLeTrS IZOMIONIKAIL A. . / yAdaod pou tokevpat eyes mepl Keivov nr - i y Kedadéev' kal vov év "Aper paptupjca Kev mods AiayTos 6pOwbeica vatTats év todupOopm Zarapis Ards duBpo 2 i avT. ¥. avaplOuov avipav xarataevtse ove. 50 46. woddd pév] pév is taken up not by 5é but by the more emphatically ad- versative dA)d in 1. 51.—dprvemrs, speak- ing to the point, not inarticulately ; compare O/. vi. 61, dvtepOdytaro & dprierhs marpla bcoa. The force of dprios is seen in dpria Bdtew (% 92), of pec dpria H5n (E 326). In Hesiod (Theogony 29) the Muses are dpriéreiat. The word easily passed into a meaning which was hardly complimentary; see X 281 where a schol. explains dprios kat It strikes one that Pindar may have intended to suggest the artistic structure of his verses (érm), as well as the fitness of his diction. We read of smiths joining (d&puocay) én in ‘Pyth. Ill. 114. 48. KeAaSdev] Boeckh’s correction of xehadety (Mss.). We might expect a word of shooting or hurling with the meta- phorical rogevuara; but it was a Greek habit to soften metaphors by reverting to the literal fact. It would be quite in Pindar’s manner to write rofedwara Keda- Sevvd; but here he uses the infinitive in- stead of the adjective. Wany arrows hath my tongue, for loud utterance in song con- cerning them. Cp. Terpander, 5 émrarovpy poppeyy: véous Kedadjoouer Uuvovs. The infinitive gives the use to which the darts are to be put. Cp. Oecd. Rex, 198 redety yup, ef re vdé ay, TOOT’ én’ Fuap epyerat. —Bergk’s xedaptoa (adopted by Christ) has not the slightest probability.—depl kelvwy refers to the Aeginetans, implied in Alyway, 1. 43. kal voy «.7.A.] A recent event— one battlement more for the tower— ixavos elev wore micrever Oat. presents a new mark for an arrow. Even now in the matter of War the city of Ajax, Salamis, could testify that she was kept from falling by the Sailors, in the ruinous storm of Zeus, when the blood of countless men was shed like hail. wéMs. The town of Salamis was on the east side of the island. ép0@wQetoa, schol. dvop@wheica éx trav Kwitvwv Tos Alywhras xara Thy vavpaxlay dpiored- cacw.—Hartung has put forward ob- jections to vatrats, which, according to him, absolutely requires a predicate, either Aeginetan or brave, and he holds that one or both of these qualifications was read by the scholiast who wrote 77 tav Alywyray dpery. Accordingly he suggests dpelos for é “Ape. This is hardly a safe way of using the scholia. It seems to me that there is far more gained by the unqualified vadrais than if it had ever so many attributes or predi- cates. The men of Aegina are not merely ‘Aeginetan sailors’ or ‘warlike sailors’, but the Sailors of Greece,—the chief sea- _ power of older Hellas. 49. ™wodvp0spw] Compare Nem. vii. 31. Avds dpBpo, an Homeric expression (E 91) of a violent storm; here figurative of war (schol. 8ufSpov péev tov addemov elpnkev, olov tov wrod Tod eo Kara- mwenpbévra dia Td THs BapBapixhs oTparias wAfG0s). The metaphor is carried on and made more realistic by xoAataevre évm. Did Pindar coin xaAafdes? Em- pedocles uses xaAafddys. Compare xd\a- fav alwaros Zsth. VI. 27. ; 50. dvaplOyev] The following scho- lium points to a variant icaplOuwv : (Abel ISTHMIAN IV. IO! GAN’ buws Kavynua KaTdBpeye oud’ Zevs Ta Te Kal Ta véewet, 7, \ € ’ , 2 39 a evs 6 mavtwv Kipios. év 8 éepatew@ I HédLTE Kal ToLaide Tysal KaAriviKOY YapW ayaTrafovTL. papvacbw tus Epdwv P- 438) 6 5é voids’ ev @, ev TH TorAVPHOpw Tovguw, TO THY TeTTwKITWY TAOS lo- dpiOuov qv r@e xaralhevre Ards duBpyw. The construction implied in this note is év 7o- AuPOdpy Povw avdpay loapiOuwy xarafa- evrt Aids duBpy. Both Hermann and Hartung jumped at lodpi@uov. The former suggested both curaplOuwv and icdpOy’ dvépwy. Hartung proposed icaplOuwv, placing a comma after dvdpay, thus: Acds OuBpw loaplOuwy dvipwrv, xarafaevre povy. Kayser also approved of loapl@uwv. It will be generally agreed that the reading of the Mss. (supported by another scho- lium, Abel, p. 437) is far superior. The box-within-box-like expression which the reading icaplOuwy gives us may recom- mend itself to a German, as something familiar ; but it is not in Pindar’s style, and in any Greek author would be intoler- ably awkward. 51. @AN «.7.0.] ‘Yet, great though it be, whelm a boast in the waters of silence’: schol. Bpéxe cal éwixddutre TH oubmy dua Tov éEwlev POdvov. Compare Srag. 240, oryG BpexéoOw (also frag. 180). We read of a different sort of ‘whelm- ing’ in O/. X. 99, méAcre edavopa wékw xaraBpexwv.—kKkadxnpa, only here in classical Greek. kavxa occurs in Men. IX. 7. 52. Leds x.7.r.] of divers sorts are the dispensings of Zeus, Zeus who is lord of all, This consideration is a reason for silence. Cp. Pyth. v. 55, and Homer £ 188 véuoe dABov OdUpmios dvOpwmroiowv.— —For ta kal td these things and those, here ‘good and bad luck’, see my note on Mem. 1. 30. The mss. have 7dde kai rd, the restoration is due to Boeckh.— The parenthetical reference to Salamis, begun with kal viv 1. 48, closes at kvptos. 53. & 8 épareve «.7.A.] This 6’ balances wév in 1. 46. ‘I have many matters for praise; but among them, and specially claiming me now, are agonistic victories’.—The general meaning of this sentence is clear enough: ‘victors like an epinician hymn’; but it is an old question, as old at least as the scholiasts, whether To1aide TIMAl is dative singular or nominative plural. If the former (1) the words are explained: év rowtry médere kal Hdovy dvres Kal Todry Tiy TO émivixoy xdpua ayaraow, 6 este Tov tuvov. Bergk and Christ adopt this reading (rog@ée rig) and Hartung ap- proves. But it may be urged against this view that the absence of an expressed subject to d-yamdfovre is harsh, and that it is not in Pindar’s manner to set co- ordinate the metaphor and the literal phrase. (2) roalSe rywai, which other editors adopt from the mss., gives the required nominative to dyamdfovr., gives a pointed sense to «al, and brings the whole clause into fitting contrast with the né clause of 1. 46 sgg. & éparava péAcru is further contrasted with év "Ape l, 48; victory in war may be pleasant, but it would be unfitting to call it honey; that is for milder triumphs. The mean- ing is: ‘Passing from war to delights which are not bitter, such honours also as these of Lampon’s sons are fain of the glad song of victory’. For rovalSe compare /sth. III B. 27.— xdppa means simply joy; KadAlyixoy determines it to be the glad song of victory; cp. Jsth. 1. 2, Mem, Iv. 16. Dissen takes xdpua with é& pédurt, ex- plaining xdpya pedirbev. 54. papvdobw «.7.A.] For popvapar of strife in games compare Vem. v. 47 102 aud aéOrorow yevedav Kreovixou IZOMIONIKAI J. éxpabev' ovTo. TeTUpAWTAL waKpOS , > a 297 € OF f uoxOos avipav' ov& éirdcat Satravar edridwv exvio’ omrw. aivéw xat Ivdéav év yuioddpats xalpw & Ore éodoior pdpvarar mépt twice mous. The use of &p8oy without an object is illustrated by Mem. vir. 11 ed 6é rixyn tis Epdwy (and O/. X. gt el 5¢ Gedy dvip Tus Ehrerae NeAaGeuev Epdwv), where #pdew means to exert oneself to achieve agonistic exploits. Thus papyacdw épdwy aug’ dé0rovoe is ‘let a man work with a will in the field of athletic rivalry’,— éxpadev yevedy KXcovlkov ‘when he has fully learned the lesson of the race of Cleonicus’, that is, when he has ex- perienced in the pancration what manner of men the sons of Lampon are. One must exert oneself in sober truth to win a prize from them. It is not for nothing that Pindar chooses the name of the grandfather to designate the grand- children. ?eonikos is, as Dissen re- marked, ‘suaviter hic nominatus propter significationem victoriarum quae in no- mine inest’. There is, as it were, a second intention; the rival of Pytheas and Phylacidas must truly master the art of winning victories.—For dudl cp. Lsth. VII. 30- 56. otro. «.7.d.] Long has the strain been ; yet the labour of these men has assuredly never been dimmed. This is the force of paxpds (xalrep paxpds wv). The metaphor of dim sight seems to have been suggested by the name of Adurwy, Schol. ovdé 6 udxOos adray reriddwrat GANG dEvdepKel Kal exer Kara daoreddo- para. The same tense of rupdoby occurs in O/, xu. 9. dv8pav refers to yevedy Kyeovlkov. 57- 008? érdcat «.7.d.] Nor did the sum of all their outlay on hopes impair the view of their piety. The metaphor from vision is still carried on. daw, which means pious or religious care (here in regard to the festivals of the gods), is chosen for the sake of its supposed etymological connection with dyouar, dys, dra. kvltw suggests the irritation of the eye, to the hurt of its sight, schol. éd\vanoay.—lIn regard to the construction, we might look for éxvicay, and we may call éxvio’ a Tvdapixdy oxfua (with the scholiast) if we will; but we must recog- nise that it is not a pronounced case. The conception is pointedly singular, ‘the sum of the expenses’. Compare the defensible form of speech ‘two and three is five’—édwl8wv is pregnant; hopes that were never fulfilled. For the refer- ence see above /rtroduction, p. 85. The genitive is possessive; the expenses, caused by the hopes, are conceived as belonging to them. For érw Aristarchos strangely read dat and explained éxvo’ as first person: ovdé NrnTa TH Pw AAG Totvavrloy buynoa abrovs. 59. aivéw «.7.A.] In considering this passage, which has caused commentators a great deal of trouble, two points must be observed, to begin with. The first is that ev@vropfoa. cannot depend on aivéw, because neither alvéw nor érawéw is constructed with the accusative and infinitive; and the second that é yuo- ddyuars is not to be joined with xepot (as Hermann and Dissen thought), which comes so much later. These two pre- mises, if we hold fast to them, take us along way. It follows that (1) ev@umo- pijoae depends on deééy, as there is no- thing else for it to depend on; and (2) that xepol is instrumental with ev@umo- pijoa—giving us just the qualification that we should expect of the metaphor from running. It is easy to see the con- ISTHMIAN IV. 103 Duraxkida wraydv Spouov evOvrroppaas 60 \ \ f > i xepat SeEvov vow avtimadov. , t AapBavé Fou orépavov, pépe 8 evpadrrov pitpay, , kal wrepdevta véov avprrepurapov buvov. struction and the meaning now. mAayav Spépov evSuropicar xepol Sefiov vow is a highly elaborate expression for ‘skilful in the pancration’; the case of PuAaklég is determined by dyrlaadov, a match for ; and the compliment to Pytheas is that he is as skilful a pancratiast as his brother. éy yuuoSdipas, among limb-quellers, is a sought expression for év mwaryxpariagrais. The whole sentence may be reproduced thus: : Z praise Pytheas too (as well as his brother) among pancratiast heroes as peer of Phylacidas in science and skill to drive blows straight to the goal in the race with hands. The passage has been misconstrued - owing to the idea that Pytheas acted as trainer or ‘coach’ of his brother. Thus Budaxlig was taken as Dative of the person benefiting. I have given some of the various views in Appendix G.— For the form yuodSdpas cp. th. v. 73- For evévropyoat with cognate object cp. Ol. VII. g1 680v ebOumopet.—Puraxlda B; Pvdaxlday D; Pvdaxldg Schmid. 61. xepot] In the ‘race’ of the pan- cration hands take the place of feet.— D has véwr. 62, 63. AdpBave «.7.A.] Here again the imperative is addressed to the Muse (or the poet). Zake a crown for him, and take u headband of fair wool ; and with these send the new winged song. Fou for Pytheas; he is to be crowned too, in memory of his elder Nemean victory. The Muse, who bears the new hymn to Phylacidas, is to bear too, figuratively, a wreath and band for Py- theas; that is, without metaphor, the foregoing words of praise (1. 59--61).— etpaddov is dat elpyudvov. plrpay, the woollen band on which the leaves of a wreath are strung. Compare Vem. VIII. 15.—véov (D véov), in contrast with Isthmian v. For wrepéevta cp. above Lsth. 1. 64.—obprempov, with the ord: gavos and pirpa. IXSO@MIONIKAI E’. ®YAAKIAA: AITINHTH. NATKPATIOL. Oarrovtos avdpadv ws bTe cuptrociou oTp. a. z a t ‘ Sevtepov Kpatnpa Mocaiwy peréwv 1. @dAXovTos «.7.4.] ‘Like ban- queters at the height of the revel, we are blending a second blending-bow] of divine music (lit. zse-made lyrics), to celebrate Lampon’s prize-winning son; our first was mixed for thee, O Zeus, at Nemea, where we received the fairest of crowns, while now we mix for the lord of Isthmus and the fifty Nereids, Phylacidas, the youngest son, being victor’. QdNAovros cuproctov, a transfigured echo of the Homeric daira @dX\eav (or el\arlynv reOadviav). But @dddovros has its full participial meaning and is well explained by the scholiast domep dxud tov- tos oyol ouproclov Kal devrepov Kpnripa x.7.d. dvipov depends on cupmoolov.-- With ds Ore the verb is, as usual, sup- pressed, being easily understood from the correlative clause; here we supply xepav- vuol ris. Sevrepov xparfpa is the object both of this understood verb and of xlp- vayev. Thus the construction is ws ére, OdAXovTos custroctov dvipGy, Kepdvyval ris Sevrepov Kparipa, (ws Kal tmets) Sevrepor Kparfipa klpyauev, For this idiomatic use of ws 8recp, Vem. 1X. 16 Hpiptdar, Spxvoy ws dre muordv, Sévres, understand dldwol tis, Pyth. XI. 40 H mé Tis dvenos Ew mAdou éBarev, ws 67” dxarov eivadlay, understand BddrAXr\e Ew mddov, see also O/. VI. 2.— cuptootov occurs also in Vem. 1X. 48, Ol. VII. 5, but cvpmocia Pyth, Iv. 294. 2. Sevrepov kpariypa] In regard to the three libations, I cannot do better than quote the scholia (p. 445, ed. Abel). []. 3] 6 wp&ros ofy Kparnp Acés ’OAup- mlov, 6 dedrepos Ts cal jpdwy, 6 tplros Atés owrfpos. [l. 7] rév Se rpirov xparfipa Aids owrF- pos evo, Kaba Kal Zopoxdfs év Nav- try (fr. 389, Nauck) ZeG mavoldvre cal Avds swrnplov onovdy tplrov Kparipos. Tov wey yap mp&rov Ards ’Oduyrlou éxipva- cav, Tov dé Sevrepov jpwwv, rov 5é rplrov Ads cwrfpos. Kaba cat Aloxddos ev "Emt- yovas (fr. 54 Nauck) AowBas Aids mev mpOrov wpalov yduou "Hpas re. elra Thy Sevrépay ye kpaiow ypwow véww- elra, tplrov Aids qwrijpos edkratay Alba ia Sea @deyov 6€ abrov kal rédevoy dtd 7d Téhevov elvat tov tplrov dpiOudv dpxiy éxovra kat péocov Kal rédos. The scholiast clearly believed that the ISTHMIAN V. 105 J , A A kipvapev Naprwvos eddOrov yeveds Urep, ev Newéa uev mpetor, ® Zed, \ ot tiv awrov SeFduevor oTepavar, second libation was regularly offered to heroes or to the Earth and heroes. It seems more likely, that while the first and third libations were fixed by an in- variable custom, the nature of the second was decided by the occasion. Here, for example, the metaphorical xparjp is mixed for Poseidon and the Nereids. We may suspect that the scholiast gene- ralized from the passage of Aeschylus.— Cp. Agam. 245 tpiréomovdov maéva, and 1386 rplrynv érevdléwm Tod Kara xOovds AlSou vexpav owriipos evxralay xdpiv. Mowwratwy (Heyne; MSs. Mocéwr) ; cp. Mowoatoy NOov Nem. VIII. 47, Mowatov dppa Isth. Vu. 67 3. ebd0Aov] only here in Pindar. ye- veds, like progenies, ‘son’; cp. Pyth. Iv. 136 Tupois yeved=Pelias, ~ év Nepéa piv mparov, opposed to dev- tepoy aforegoing. This is an interesting instance of the inversion of the wév and 6é clauses, involving the omission of 6¢ altogether. év Neuég 6¢ might have been written, but ud is a kind of rectification, showing the poet’s consciousness that he is inverting the natural order. The dé clause is continued in 1. 5 with viv aire 5gqg- where "Ic0u00 corresponds to év Newéq, but it seems to be an incomplete view of the whole sentence to say that vov atre takes the place of viv 5¢.—mpa- rov, the victory won by Pytheas, and celebrated in the Fifth Nemean ode. (r) The scholiast understands xparfjpa with mparov: dekduevor 7d dvOos Trav crepdvwy év Neuég, col & Zed mparov xlpvauer xparfipa. We should have in this case to understand the participle kepdoavres from the foregoing xlpvayuev; ‘At Nemea, O Zeus, having mixed the first (bowl) in thy honour, having there received a wreath of victory’. (2) Modern commentators take mparov with dwrov and rly with deEdpevor, ‘At Nemea having received at thy hands, O Zeus, a first fair crown’.—Against (1) it may be urged that it is harsh to separate ap@rov from dwrov, when we have at the same time to understand both kparfpa and kepdoavres. Against (2) it may be objected that, as ’Ic@uoi Secmorg clearly depends on kipvayev (not on deédpevor), the figure is somewhat roughly interrupted if there is no mention or at least suggestion of the mixing bowl in the clause referring to the first ‘libation’. Thus we require the meaning of (1) and the construction of (2). Perhaps Pindar has combined these two requirements by his choice of the word &wros, which he seldom uses with- out some significance (see note on Vem. 11. 9, and Appendix A, notes 2, 3 in my ed. of the Wemean Odes). May it here suggest a bowl with ears or handles (odara), as if compounded of 4 (copulati- vum) and ofs; cp. dugwris? Thus the words would mean that at Nemea the poet received a bowl to mix in honour of Zeus —the first libation of Lampon’s house. 4. tly] Ln thy honour, not from thee. It is quite true that découat is often used by Pindar with the dative of the giver; but I would contend that in no case is the dative equivalent to wapdé with the genitive. In O/. XIII. 29 Xenophon offers the hymn of praise to Olympian Zeus: ddéar ré for orepdvav éyxduiov TeOpuov. In Pyth. Vil. 5, the glory of a Pythian victory is presented by Aristomenes to Hasychia: TlvOcdvixov riysav "Apioropever déxev. In Pyth. x11. Midas presents his wreath to Acragas: ddEar crepavwpa 708" éx TvOdvos ebddéq Midg. Now in all three cases the dative is clearly 106 viv avdre ‘IcOuod Seorota IZOMIONIKAI E. Nopeidecoi te Twevtyxovta taiiwy omdoTaTou Pvraxida vixwvtos. that of the person interested. The force of défac ré for is not ‘receive from him’ but ‘honour him by receiving’; défar Miég is ‘receive, to please Midas’, The dative of interest is obviously the right explanation in frag. 133, 1.1: oto. 6¢ Peprepiva rowdy wadaiod Iev- Oéos béferat, K.T.D. The last case is Pyth, Iv. 21 Beg dvept fedouevp yatay diddvre tela mpgpader Evpapos karaBas défar’. Here the point of the dative is to bring out the fact that Euphamos was complying with the wishes of the god, rendered emphatic by ddévre. than zapa Oe08.—Doubts have been felt about tiv in this place, for, though Theo- critus has riv (cp. rely), this form of the dative is short in the only other passages in Pindar where it precedes a vowel (Pyth. I. 29 ely Zed riy en avédvew, Nem. X. 30 may 5&8 rédos év tiv épywv. We may leave aside the very doubtful Pytk. vill. 68, where xata& tly is a correction of Pauw, the mss. having rw’). It seems to me that two cases of 7 are not strong enough to throw doubt on one case of Ty. The most reasonable view seems to be that riy was the usual quantity (cp. spir), and that in the numerous cases where rly occurs before consonants, (riv 5é, riv yap &c.) always emphatic, we should read it so. tiv was a variant like tty which might be employed when there was no special emphasis required. In the present case rly is strongly accentuated and placed in an emphatic position at the beginning of the verse. This stress by position enables us to dispense with Pauw’s in- sertion +’ (7lv y’), adopted by many edi- tors. 5. vovatre) MSS. viv abr’ év 'IcOuod 6e@ is much more eln 8€ tpitroy deorord (B, but D déorora). The accent preserved in B betrays the original form deomorg, which was read by the scholiasts. In the scholia we find evidence of two different readings, (1) Abel p. 445 (on this passage) viv 6é vixjoavros év Iodug, Touréort Ta "IoOuia, roo vewrépov Pudaxl- bov, Te decréTy adtod TocedGv Kal rais Nypetot kipvapev tov dedrepov xKparfipa. This points to the reading vov adr’ év "IoOu@ Seandrg. (2) p. 427 (Introduction to this Ode, v according to the scholiast’s numbering), this line is quoted (in D): viv aire "Io@uod Seororg. The mss. shew a confusion of both these readings; and it seems clear that év *IcOug is due to a desire for symmetry with év Newég. I therefore believe (with Hermann) that (2) is right; and indeed, even without the help of the scholia, this reading would have been the most reason- able inference from the text of the Mss. Boeckh read airis to avoid the hiatus. But this passage and Js¢h. 1. g aAcepxéa "Io6pvo6 mutually support each other; and the possibility that "Ic@ués may have been: originally digammated, though not proved, has not been disproved. In any case aéris (=mdhw, denuo) is not right, because it is not to the point. aire (=ad, vicissim) is just what is needed. Bergk gives vbv ad rly Ic0u08 déorora, of which few will approve. 6. émwdordrov] The first syllable is long here (so dmAérepos Pyth, Vi. 41), but in Jsth. vil. 20 Srdérara. Pindar has dmdov generally, twice &. Cp. Zsth. I. 23.—The form Napyléwy as well as Nypetiwy is found in Pindar; he has also Noypijos (O/. 11. 32) as well as Nupéos. For the mention of the Nereids here see above Jutroduction p. 81. 7. PvdaklSa] responds to SvAak(Sq ISTHMIAN V. 107 cwThipt wopcaivovtas Odvprio Alywav nate omévoewy pertpOoyyots dodais. ? ‘ 2 , f ‘ et yap Tis avOperwv Satrava Te yapels avt. a. 10 Kail wove mpacoe, Ocoduatous dperdas, , L 1 , ' 2 7 s 3 .. oo» ‘ avy Té Fou daiuwv ureter ddEav eriypatov' éoxatias 75n Tpos érBou 1. 57 (Mezger). Pindar does not say directly that it is for Phylacidas that he prays for an Olympian victory. His actual words only point to some member of the house .of Lampon. But Mezger concludes from this responsion, that Phy- lacidas is meant. ely] en ropcalvovras omévéew, stronger than ropoaivovres iyucts orévdower. The impersonal form of the prayer, really meant for Zeus (@ Zei 1. 3), is determined by the formal consideration that an ad- dress in the second person would be inconsistent with ’OAvurlw cwrfjpi.—rpl- tov, understand xparfjpa, that is tuvov. 8 wopratvovtas] preparing for pre- sentation, offering, equivalent, as far as we can judge, to ropovvovras (which Har- tung reads). Mss. often vary between wopoalyw and wopadvw, and our data are not sufficiently many or certain to enable us to differentiate the two forms. The MSS. are unanimous in this passage, and in O4. VI. 33 éxédevoev jpur mopcalvew Séuev El\arldg Bpépos, where the scholiast explains jyouv dvarpépew, attew, ‘to bring to ripeness’. Comparing these two Pin- daric passages, I think we may deduce the meaning ‘further to fulfilment’, man- hood being the fulfilment in O/. v1. 333 while in the passage before us an Olym- pian is conceived as the final achievement in a series of epinician Odes. But the felicity of ropoatvoyras lies in the circum- stance that, if it was not itself properly used in the sense of ropa’vw, ‘provide, prepare’, it was associated with that word, and was thus here appropriate to the figure, suggesting the presentation of the wine to Zeus. By rendering ‘fulfil’ we might keep up the double meaning. kata orévSew] That is, caraomévoew, preposition and verb being severed for the sake of the metre. karag7dvdw is usually found with accusative of the libation, but also with dative of the libation and accusa- tive of the recipient of the libation, here the soil of Aegina. Cp. Euripides, Orestes 1239 daxptos xaracmévdw o° (‘over thee’ namely Agamemnon underground. See Mr Fennell’s note). Others read kéra.— _ D has oevdew. omévBew does not occur elsewhere in Pindar. It is echoed by orovdaiow (also dr. elp. in Pindar) 1. 37-—pedrOdyyots, see above II. 7. 10. xapels] This tense of yalpw only here in Pindar. For damdvg yapels, refer- ring to expenditure on competition in the great games, cp. Pyth. 1. go wy kdpve Nav damdvais, Zsth. 1. 42, II. B 29, IV. 57- Ir. mpaooe] make, shape, in a literal material sense. So Pyth. 11. 40 rov dé Terpdxvayoyv émpate decudv. Men. IX. 3 Uuvov mpdocere (al. mpdooera), Ol. VII. 29 68’ éravréd\dwv xpbvos Tobro mpdcowy wh Kdpo.. Lsth. Iv. 8 (see note).—In rendering, the metaphor from building should be retained: Zf a man, taking pleasure in expense and in labour, builds up divine towers of excellence. Cp. Homer’s Geddunror mipyor, and Jsth. Iv. 45. Pin- dar uses @edduaros of Delos, freedom (Pyth. 1. 61), chariots, laws. mpdocovtl * we Oebduarov xpéos in Ol. 111. 7 must not mislead us into supposing that mpacoe dperds here means ‘demands the works of a poet’s genius’. 12. abv ré For] ef is carried on, and ovy is adverbial.—gureve. There is no change of metaphor. The conception is a 108 Badrer’ dryxupay Oeotipos éov. / a Toiatcwv dpyais evyeras dytidoas aiday yhpds te SéEacOat Trodsov IZOMIONIKAI E’. 15 6 Knyeovixou traits: eyo 8 typidpovov plantation or garden of glory, around the palace of manlihood (dperd). We might render, And tf heaven will too that a delightful garden of glory be planted for him. For gvredw used figuratively cp. Sophocles, 47ax 953 Iad\ds purever wijua, Oecd, Rex 347 Kal Evppuretoa rotpyov.— éryjpatov, amoenam. In Pindar only here, and Pyth. v. 73, also of fame érnparov xdéos. The figure of planting honour recurs in Pyth. 1v. 69 Gedropurrol opiow rial pdrevOev, cp. Nem. VII. 16. éoxatids] B and schol. éoxarcats (arpos tais ésxariais rob G\Bov); D éoxarids (so Boeckh, Bergk). I regard Bergk's éoxa- tials (Aeol. accus. cp. /sth. 1. 24, VI. 8) as probable, for it accounts for the two read- ings of the Mss. In sense the accusative is, I think, superior to the dative. pos écxariais would mean hard by the extreme shores he casts anchor, or he casts anchor on the extreme shores. It is to be observed that wpés with the dative is very rare in Pindar, there being only three certain instances Pyth. 1. 86, IV. 24 (aort in composition) and 1x. 118. In frag. 205 the Mss. have wore. Here the accusa- tive seems better: ‘reaching the furthest limits of weal, he casts anchor, being held in honour of the gods’. A verb of motion is unnecessary, being implied in Barrer’ &yxvpav. The reference is to the pillars of Heracles, Pindar’s ‘standing’ figure for supreme success. For éoxatud in this sense (‘the end of the world’) cp. Ol. III. 43: viv ye mpds écxariay Onpwv dperaiow ixdvev darrerat otkoBev ‘HpakXéos orahav. (éoxarié is also found in Pyth, xt. 56.) Cp. also vauriAlas éoxaras Ment. 11. 225 Lsth. 111. B 29; Pyth. X. 28, 13. Bodder’] For BadNerar.—Oedripos, only found here in early writers. 14. tolatow dpyats] roios, here and Pyth, WV. 157 (€couat rotos), refers to xapels, «.7.A. 1. 10. dpyats, ambitions. Generally of temper, mood of mind, but always subjective (not gzae quis appetit, as Dissen explains). Cp. Pyth. 11. 77, of the character of foxes, dpyats d\wréxwy ikedor, Pyth. 1X. 43 pmetdexos dpyd, Lsth. Il. 38, V. 34. Here épyats is defined by Tolasowv to mean the temper which delights in toil for the sake of distinction and fame. ebyerat x.7.4.] Lhe son of Cleonicus prays that having encountered such feelings he may receive death and gray eld; that is, ‘that he may not grow old and die until his highest ambition has been won ’. dyridgw (Homeric dvriaw) with the dative means to encounter, as friend or foe; in Nem. 1. 68, the hostile meaning is deter- mined by waxav (Tvydvrecow udxav dvri- dfwowv). So too the context determines the meaning in Soph. Oedigus Rex 191, préyee we mepiBbaros dvridgav ‘amid cries as of battle wraps me in the flame of his onset’ (Jebh). Dissen’s compos factus and Mr Fennell’s ‘attain’ would be suitable equivalents for avridcats, if it were constructed with the genitive; but with the dative it seems to signify a chance meeting. It is an example of - Greek irony that Lampon’s realisation of his dearest wishes is described as an accidental encounter. The épyal are, in some measure, personified.—Mezger’s in- terpretation ‘he boasts that having realised such a lot he awaits death’ is inconsistent with the context and would require déxeoOar. 16. tnpl@povov] The second syllable is long here but short Vem. 1v. 65 where it is an epithet of the Nereids. In both places it suggests a work of sculpture. ISTHMIAN V. 109 Ki@8e xacvyyntas te mpocevvérra éxrrécOar KAvTais avdpos pidov Moipas épetpais: ”? > 7+ f 2 i duwe 7, B ypvoedppato Aiaxidas, TEO tov pot haut cadéotatoy Eupev > ’ eT. a. 20 tavd émiateixovta vacov patvéuev evroryiass. pupiat 8 pyar xarav rérunvO” éxatdpredar ev oyep@ KédevOor kal mépav Neidrovwo trayav cal bv “CrepBopéovs: ovr grtw obtw BapBapos ote Tadiyykwooos TOS, 17. Kydd «.7.4.] Clotho is also spe- cially mentioned in O/. 1. 26.—mpooev- vérw, a neutral word equivalent neither to precor nor jubeo, but suggesting both; just as éowéoOa is more than zndulgere and less than odedire, éperuais less than mandates but more than entreaties. JZy word to Clotho high enthroned and her sister Moivai is to follow the noble wishes of the man, my friend.—With this ‘ preg- nant’ sense of mpocevyérw compare dapl ‘I bid’? Mem, 111. 28 and Aesch. Agam. 514 Tovs 7” dywvlovs Oeods wdvras mpoc- avdd—béxecOar. Spenser uses ‘areed’ in alike way. éoméoQa is Mr Fennell’s modification of Pauw’s éorec@a, for the MSS. owéoOat. Such a correction is re- quired by the metre; and I cannot see how ’micréo6a1, which Mr Fennell con- jectures in his note, would be metrically possible.—F or égerjats Mr Fennell quotes A 498 Oéris 8 ob AHGer’ Ederpais rasdds éod. 19. Upper’ «.7.d.] 7” is not equivalent to dé, but joins mpoocevvérw with pal, I have therefore removed the strong stop which editors always print after éperpais, and substituted the mark of a half pause.—The construction is: gal réOu.dv po. capéararoy elvat, (gue) ravd’ émiorec- xovra vacov, Uupe pawéuev evroylas. The epithet xpvodpuaros (found in no author earlier than Pindar) is applied to the moon in OJ. 111. 19, to Castor in Pyth. v. g, to Thebes in frag. 323. 20. Teépiov cadhderaroy] a writ most clear. Té0psov here, but in Mem. x1. 27 TeOpuov ; TEOuSs always. 21. emorelxovra] when J visit, only here in Pindar. In Aeschylus Zumen. go6 it is used with djuara, in Euripides Phoen. g with jyépav.—palvw is found in its literal sense in /s¢2. VII. 55; metaphori- cally, as here, of hymns in Pyth. VII. 57 Uurm, V. 100 dpdow padOaxd tuvewv. See below 1. 64. For evdoylats cp. Ssth. III. A 3. 22, poplar «.7.r.] For of fair deeds countless are the highroads which have been cut, measuring a hundred feet per- petual, beyond the springs of the Nile, through the borders of the Fyperboreans. Compare mupla «éXevOos Jsth. 111. B 1, and note there.—rérpyv0" for rérunvrat, like Barrer’ 1. 13 above.—éxaroumeSor, 100 feet wide. In Y 164 we have supi éxaroumedos &v0a kal &vOa. Boeckh no- tices that rpaxovramedos 666s occurs in the Zubulae Heracleenses. 23. 8v “Y¥mepBopéous] The preposition does not mean deyond, for the Hyper- boreans were the most northerly people known to myth, but ¢hroughout. mwépay Ne(Aovo mayday is equivalent to 6:’ Aldlo- dua means per, never zwltra. 24. ovr’ &rrw «.7..] An emphatic asyndeton. Editors weaken this verse by substituting (from the scholia) o¥6’ for ott’. There ts not a city either so barbarous or so recreant in tongue, that knows not of the fame of the hero Peleus, who wedded a daughter of the gods, or yet the fame of Ajax, Telamon’s son, and of hts stre.—BdpBapos (only here’ in Pindar) Tas. IIo IZOMIONEKAI E’. tis ov TIyAéos ates Kréos Hpwos, evdaiwovos yauBpod Oedv, 25 ovd’ aris Alavros TeXapwriada otp. B. Kal TaTpos* Tov Yadkoyapuay és TéAeuov aye ov TipvyOiotcr mpoppova cippayov és Tpoilav, Hpwar udxOor, Aaopedovrerdy virép dumaxiav év vavoly “AdXKpyvas Téxos. 30 elre 5 Tlepyapiav, répvev S¢ adv xeive Meporav 7 refers to non-Hellenic speech, mwadly- yAwooos (for which see note on Men, 1. 58) to local Hellenic dialects, 25. dle] mss. die. I have adopted Hermann’s emendation which has been generally accepted, and is supported by the schol. xaraxover. Yet one hardly sees why diet should have been so corrupted. In Anacreon, /*. 4 the mss. have dlfnuai ge, od 8 ovx ales, and Bergk proposes ov xoets. This suggests ot kodeu here. But Iam not sure that the reading of the Mss. isindefensible. diow and fvoa presuppose a present bbe, which would become avw, the form which we actually find in Homer (in other cases we find the original and the contracted forms side by side ; for instance wafis and ais). The form is not the difficulty, but the construction; and if there were an exact parallel in Homer to dave. kh€os ‘ring with the fame’, I should venture to preserve it. 26. dvs] understand die: kdéos. 27. Kal marpds* tov K.7.d.] and of his stre (Telamon) ; him the son of Alcmena led on a sea voydge to war which fighteth with brass, along with Tirynthian men a zealous ally, even unto Troy (that weary quest for heroes) to punish the wrongdoings of Laomedon.—réy, relative, but with de- monstrative force. yaAkoxdppas (also in Pyth. v. 82 of the Trojans) is formed like the Homeric larmoydpuns (and Pin- dar’s lrmoxdpuas) from xdpya Jattle. So too otdapoxdpuas (of steeds) in Pyth. 11. 2, and dxauavréxapuav Alay frag. 184, with which compare dxaparouayas. In view of these words it seems to me that Rumpel is wrong in translating aere actus. Although Pindar shared the misappre- hension of popular etymology. that xépya was closely connected with xdpui, xalpw &c., the notion of joy was still merely a suggested notion and not the proper meaning; as is obvious in mevexdpuys, immuoxdpuns and in most of the Homeric passages where xapum occurs.—Schol. els loxupéTarov médepov. 28. TrpvvOlovrr] At this time Hera- cles dwelled in Tiryns.—péy@ov in appo- sition with Tpwiav. Compare Kaxotdros ovx évouacry, and see also /sth, VII. 11 arddparov ‘EAAddt poxOov (of the Persian war). The scholiast takes uéx ov with ovppaxov and refers ypwoe to the Trojan warriors.—In the next line the Mss. have Aaouedovriav brép dumdaxtay. The schol. has rév rod Aaouddovros duaprioy xdpiv, whence Kayser restored the reading in the text. gi. éiNe x.7.d.] With him (Telamon) he (Heracles) conquered the land of Per- gamos, and slew both tribes of Meropes and the oxherd Alcyoneus whom he found at Phlegrae—MSS. Mepérwv 7’, but the scholiasts, as Mommsen pointed out, seem to have been unacquainted with the 7’. Boeckh and editors after him omit it, and likewise 5° in 1. 35. To me this double change seems arbitrary; the text of the MSS. leaves nothing to be desired. The expedition against the Meropes of Cos is referred to by Homer, © 255and O 28, kal pv erecta Kéwvd’ ev vatouévny daé- velkas. Compare also Nem. 1v. 26, where the ISTHMIAN V. Ill y”, eOvea cal tov BovBorav ovjper Ficov - € a Dréypaicw evpov ’AXxvovy, odetépas 8 ov deicato xepoiv Bapupboyyo.o veupas “Hpaknéns. GAN Aiaxiday xaréwv avr. B.. 35 > , 5 \. 7 - €s TNOOoV TETLOV Kupynoev Saivdpevov. same three exploits of Heracles (at Troy, Cos, and Phlegra) are mentioned together in the same order.—mépvev- here as usually; wépv- thrice (O/. 11. 46, X. 27, XIII. go). 32. tov BovBéray] The giant Alcyo- neus was a ‘cattle-lifter’, He drove the kine of the Sun from Erythea. The story is told as follows ‘by Apollodorus (Bzd/io- theca 1. 6, 1): Siépepe 5 mavrwv loppupluy re xal *"Adxvoveds Os Oh Kal aOdvaros jv év Hrep evyevvnOn yi waxduevos. odros 5& kal ras ‘H\lov Boas é& "EpuOelas wAace. ois de Beots oytov Fv vd Gedy pev pnddva Trav Teydvrev drodécba Sivacbat, ounpaxody- ros dé Ovnrod Tivds Tedevtjcev. alcdonevn 52TH rotro éfjre: Papyaxory iva pnd’ brd Ovnrod duvnddow drorécOar. Leds dé dremiv gatvew "Hot re cal Dedjvy Kal ‘HXig 7 nev Pdppaxov atros éraye POdoas, "Hpaxréa 5€ ctppaxov 60 ’AOnvas érexa- Nécaro. KdKeivos mp@rov pev érdtevoev "Arxvovda* 6 O€ él ris ys maddov dve- Oddmero* "AOnvas 5é brobeudvyns tw rhs Tladdjvys elAxvcey adrév. xdkelvos pev otrws éredevra.—In the pictures of this adventure of Heracles on vases, the giant is sometimes represented as asleep. On one black figured oinochoe (see Baumeis- ter's Denkmiler, p. 49) he is reclining against a tree, and seems to have just awaked; an enigmatic winged figure is de- scending, from the overhanging branches, upon his right arm; and Heracles in the lion skin advances upon him with drawn sword. Jahn interprets the winged figure as Sleep. With otpe Floov ‘as huge as a moun- tain’, compare « 113 of the wife of the Laestrygonian king ‘Thy 68 yuvatka efipov danv 7’ dpeos Kopupry. 33. oderépas 8 «.7.d.] But for his part Heracles spared not to handle his deeply-clanging bowstring.—Editors omit 8’, but see note above, 1. 31. Pindar uses opérepos in three senses: (1) ¢heir own, Lsth. UW. 27, (2) his or her own, as here; cp. Zsth. vit. 61, (3) cher, Pyth. X. 38. Here oderépas is emphatic. 34. BapvpOsyyoro] This adjective is found in the Hom. Hymn to Aphrodite, 1. 160; in Pindar only here. Compare the aaraé elpnuevov, Bapupbeyxrav (hedvTwv) in frag. 239. 35. ‘Hpaxdéns] a twelve times, & ten times, & once in Pindar.—kahéov. Of an errand the present participle seems quite correct. It is mentioned in the scholia that the following scene is taken from ‘the Great Eoiai,’ éx rav peyddwv "Hoar: éxel yap evploxerar émitevodpevos 6 ‘Hpa- KAfjs Te Tedapave cal éuBaivwy ri dopa kal evyduevos, kal odros 6 Sidroumos aleros, ag’ of Thy mpocwruplay 2aBev Alas. 36. és mwAdov x.7.\.] B has és rAdov, Kihpvoce Sawupevuv, D és mddov Kdbpnoe davuuévwv. Triclinius supplied the me- trical deficiency by wdvrwy after xipnoe, but, as the metre requires a long syllable after +\dov, Heyneand Hermann, adopting the Triclinian wdvrwy, read respectively xapuée and kdpuooe. Pauw proposed x7- putev dorGv. But the verb captoow (never, it may be observed, found in Pindar) is not to thé purpose here. In the scholia we read (Abel p. 481) dAAd tov Alaxod maida Tov Tedapadva els Tolrov Tov moby kal tadrny Thy cuppaxiay KadGv éervxev dvevpwy ebwxovpevov Tov TeXapava. Hence Mommsen inferred that rofrov was in the 112 IZOMIONIKAI E’. ‘ i a rov pev év Sud Aovros ardvTa KednoaTo vextapéass oTrovdaiow adp£ar kaptepaiypav ’Apuditpywriddar, avboxe 8 atte pépratos a f olvoddéKov didrav ypvo@ reppixviay Tedapor, 40 2 , 6 & dvareivats ovpav® xeipas apaxous ba f aiSace rovovrov Féros’ Ei wor éuadv, & Led watep, text and reads és w\dov roirov xipyoev Savupévwy. ‘Christ reads és wAbov éuvdy Kpynoev Satvipevov. Satvievov is sug- gested by thescholium. And Mr Tyrrell, thinking that érvxey dvevpiv points to something stronger than kvpncev, proposed Tetpav-Kupnoev Sawvipevoy, which I have adopted as highly probable. If the omis- sion of rerudy could be accounted for on palaeographical principles, I should re- gard it as certain. I had myself thought of pwrdv exuprev Savupévwy, compare the first line of the Ode, @4\XovTos dv8pav ouptroctov, 37. Tov pév] Telamon is the subject of xeAjoaro and rév is Heracles. ev, clad in; compare év Todeuaddxos “Apeos Ordos Pyth. X. 133 Mem. X. 14. Kedy- oaro: Pindar has also xcéA\erar xédovTo, and xék\ev (below 1. 53).—dpfa., auspz- cari. Liddell and Scott are wrong in saying that orovdatow dpta here is equi- valent to Thucydides, dpyew r&v crovddy (v. 19), which means to’ ‘pour the first libation’. omovdatcw is instrumental, ‘to begin by a libation’, that is to make a libation before sitting down to the feast; just as demdecow is instrumental in the Homeric phrase émdptacOa dewdecow. vextapéats; this adjective is also found in frag. 75 pura vexrdpea. In Homer it is applied only to raiment. 38. Kaprepalxpav] drat _elpnuévor. Observe that names of Heracles are placed three times in emphatic position at the end of clauses; (1) ’AAKuivas réxos 1. 30, (2) ‘Hpaxdéns 1. 35, (3) Au- gpirpywridday here. 39. dvSoKe) The preposition has its literal force ‘upward’ and expresses the passage of the f/7ala from the seated host to his guest who was still standing. So Dissen, obtulit sublatum. The verb oc- curs in one other Pindaric passage, frag. 133, where Persephone sends souls up to the sunlight (dvdido? wdduy), 40. oivodékov] This word seems to have been coined by Pindar on the ana- logy of fodéxos. It is not found elsewhere except in the Anthology.—xpvo@ tmedpt- kviay, in simple language ‘of embossed gold’. In the scholia we find the ex- planation of Aristarchus: ’Aplorapxos éx peragopas Tov Kdmpwv gdyow elpjoda: pptéas ev Aopinv [7 446] ws eEoxas éxov- ons Tis piddns Kai rerpaxuuérns TH Tot- Kidla Tol xpvood Kafamepavel medpixora xdmpov. Others explained ‘bright’: 2:01 dé THv Aaumpay AKoveay, We may com- pare the Latin expressions sgzalens auro, inaequalis. Mezger thinks that megpi- xviavy means hard.—The first syllable of megpptxviay is short here, but in Pyth, Iv. 183 we find ré¢plxovras. 41. 6 87] refers to ai’r@, Heracles. dvaretvais (Boeckh; Mss. dvrelvas), cp. Ol. vil. 64 xetpas dvretvar. Commen- tators call otpav@ a dativus termini; which means that it corresponds in sense to our towards. yeipas dpdxovs is an echo of the Homeric xetpas ddarous. 42. Fémos] Mss. ve mos, Triclinius 7 éros. Heyne saw that the mistake was due to the omission of the original digamma.—roofros in Pindar, as else- where, generally points backward; only here and in O/. vi. 16 (where there is the same error in the Mss.) forward. ISTHMIAN V. Oup@ Oérwv apdv dxovaas, i a a > a eA y viv ce viv evyais vid Ocomeciass Alcoowar taida Opacdy é£ ’EpiBotas 113 avdpit rade Evvddapmov poupisiov Tedéoat' éuav...dpav. A certain restoration of Mommsen and Bergk for mss. éudv... dpdv. The scholiast paraphrases thus: @ mwdrep Zed, eimore rv éuav edxav éxev kat mera mpoOuplas KarHKovcas K.T.A. 43 éd\ev] regularly used of the pro- pitious humour of a deity, Jf thou didst ever incline a favourable car to my prayers, now yield to the potency of earnest vows, now hear my supplication, that etc. —D has Oupédy. 44- %1é]) The force of the preposition is the same as in bapeioa xpucdors roto Um’ ’Apréuidos Pyth. 1. 10, or Bedéwy brd puraict Nem. 1.68. Zeus must yield to the assault of his son’s powerful prayers. The expression is softened by the substitution of ve Mocoua for a verb of yielding or hearkening with Zeus as subject.—@ermeofats is the correction of Ceporinus for Mss. Oeorectay, Schol. Gels edyais. Cp. Jsth. Il. B 39. 46. dv8pt «.7.4.] B has dvdpt roide tcivov dudv, D dvdpl révde Keivov dudv. From the reading of B, with the slight alteration of r@de for ro?de (so Triclinius), sense has been elicited in various ways. (1) The scholiast construes redéoa twice: (a) with waida and (3) with geivoy. His note is 7d redéoat KaTa Kowod* Tedéoa rede Taida Kal Mocoual ce Tov enor pldov Tedapava edruxf redéoat. This however may be regarded as impossible without a copula (feivéy 7” or Kal Eeivov). (2) Mo- gouat is sometimes found in Homer with an accusative of the thing requested as well as of the person. Thus ce Nocouar waida might mean ‘I ask thee for a son’, and in that case rehéoot might be the infinitive of consequence, ‘so as to-work the happiness of my friend’ (hospitem meum qui plane felicem reddat, Dissen). B, II, This explanation was adopted by Her- mann, Boeckh and Dissen. The decisive objection is that (like 1) it ascribes an impossible sense to wotp{diov, which means destined, marked out by Moira (cp. Eur. Bacch, 99), and could not mean happy. Various corrections have been sug- gested, of which may be mentioned, (1) Schnitzer’s dvdpt r@be Eelvidv pov (‘as a guest-gift from me’, in apposition with matéa), accepted by Christ and Mezger ; (2) Bergk’s dvépa révde tetvov dudv (‘that this man, my friend, may beget a son, in accordance with fate *, TedMoar=éxrot- etoOa). (3) Mr Fennell reads dvdpt TpbE, Relve’, duap potpldiov TeNéoat, where Relve takes up Zed mdvep, and duap mot- ptdvov is explained ‘on the destined day’ with a reference to /sth. 111.867. But in that passage dedrepov duap has the regular force of the accusative (see note); duap =dyart seems impossible. Mr Fen- nell however might preserve his reading and avoid this objection by rendering, ‘I beseech thee, O Zeus of guestplight, that a destined day may bring to fulness for this man a brave son by Eriboea’. In considering this passage the follow- ing points should be observed. (1) It seems almost certain that the construction is Mocoual ce redéoat, ‘I pray thee to bring to fulfilment’, reed being the verb suitable to Zeds réXevos (so Fennell). (2) The word after r@de began with a double consonant, as the second foot of the verse must be a spondee; and the reading of B getvov makes it certain that & was the first letter. (3) But geivoy itself can hardly be right, for it does not explain the reading of D, xetvov. And it must be remembered that in a passage like this, . where the story turns on the guestfriend- 8 114 IZOMIONIKAI E. Tav pev dppnxrov pudv, daomep Tode Sépwa pe viv TepuTAavaTaL Onpos, dv maumpwrov adOrwv Kteivd ror’ ev Nepéa- Oupcs 8 érécOw, taidr’ dpa rou papévm tréprpev Oeds 2 \ ? a ft 3 i c a > wy , adpxov oiwvav wéyay aierov: ddcia & evdov viv Exvi€ev-yapus, 50 ship between Telamon and Heracles, feivov was a most likely word to intrude itself. (4) If we place éeivov and xetvov side by side, we easily see that they may point back to fuvév : kowdvy. Hence we get Euvéy dudv which explains the readings of B and D, (5) guvdv dudv was a cor- ruption of fvvéSapov, a brilliant sug- gestion of Bergk, though he hardly ap- prehended its force. This compound puzzled a copyist and led to a corruption, which in turn led to further corruptions. A passage in OJ. 1x. (quoted by Bergk) illustrates fuvddapos. We read there of Deucalion and Pyrrha drep 5 edvas éuddapov krigadcbav AOwov yovov" Aaol 5° évbuacber, where 6uédapuos means congener (cp. Lsth. 1. 30). Evvédapyov, delonging to the same damos as Telamon, means that Ajax will be legitimate (cp. the emphatic é& ’Ep:- Bolas), and thereby a daud7as (not like Teucer). With dvSpt—porplStov compare |. 18 dv8pos—Molpas, and see Jutroduction. 47. tdv pév) That is ray mev duav dppynxrov, in bodily strength stalwart, dppykrov is simply in apposition with maida. The reading of the Mss. tov pév (corrected by Mezger; Rauchenstein rév és) is hardly possible. For the contrast is not between Ajax and someone else, but between his gua and his 6uuds; and Tov wer &ppnkrov dudy for dudy wev dppnk- toy roy (or Tobrov) is very curious. ray separated thus from pudv is Homeric and was exposed to corruption. dppykros is Homeric, but is only found here in Pindar. It is worth noticing, in illustra- tion of the context, that Herodotus uses it of the skin of a crocodile (11. 68). domep 1é8¢ x.7.A.] ‘Stalwart as the beast whose skin now strays loosely round my limbs’. The Greek idiom of di- vorcing the logical and the grammatical predicates of a sentence, in order to avoid a relative clause, is familiar, The verb, instead of expressing the true predi- cate, expresses an attribute of the subject. In the present instance the meaning is: domep Onp (eorw appykros) ob Tdd€ dépua we viv mepurdavarat, At 7é65¢ Heracles may be supposed to touch his skin.— mepiTAavarat suggests the loose fall and unstudied shape of the natural garment. It may have been chosen partly as suited to the skin of a roving beast.—wye viv is the correction of Stephanus, Mss. pluvo.. 48. «wdpmrpwrov] The grammar is waumpwrov deOdov aéO\wy, in apposition with év. The lion was an de@dos (as Troy is called a u6xOo0s, above, 1. 28). 49- Svpés] Understand @ypés (Mezger). ‘Let the spirit of the lion inform the lion- like body’; lit. accompany the pud. 49. apévw] We find the middle of gapé with an accusative here and Wem, 1X. 43, with infinitive Pyth. Iv. 33, with adverbs Pyth. 111. 43, IV. 120, cp. Lsth. VII. 48. 50. apxév] lord of birds. This phrase occurs also in Pyth. 1. 7. Pindar has dpxés of the sun, as lord of his horses, Ol. VII. 713 of Jason Pyth. Iv. 1943 of Hiero, ‘the Syracusan lord’, Pyth. 1. 733 of the lordship of the Adrastids, Wem. IX. 14.—tvSov viv exvekev, chrilled his soul (eum intus titillavit). xvitw is a favourite word with Pindar, to express an irritation of the emotions, whether plea- sant or unpleasant. Of the stimulus of all kinds of desires, Pyth, x. 60 érépos Erepwvlwy exit? pws ppévas. Of dis- agreeable sensations, cp. Mem. v. 32, Pyth, Vi, 32, Xt. 23. In OL v1. 44 ISTHMIAN V. elrrév te hovncais Ute pavtis avnp* 115 oTp. 9. U a "Eooetai tot tats dv aitets, & TeXapov: / ve kat viv dpviyos gavévtos Kéxdev érodvupov evpvBiav Alavta, Nady év movous éxtraydov *Evvaniov. a @s dpa reirody avrixa &€er’. kvigouéva is used of the throes of labour, ‘stung by pain’. See also note on Jsth. Iv. 58. In the present passage éxméey suggests that the portent moved Heracles to utter the prophetic words which follow. It is to be observed that in Pindar initial xv always lengthens a preceding short vowel. For xv in the middle of a word see note on /sth. 1. 17.—For the subjec- tive sense of xdpis, foy, compare Pyth. vill. 86 dpoev xdpw ‘made mothers glad’. SI. paves dvip] So udvries dvdpes Ol. VIII. 2, pdvris, originally adjectival, as these phrases indicate, ousted from use the substantive mayreds which is pre- supposed by pavyredw, and of which the genitive udyryos is preserved in the Odys- sey. 52. atrets] Pindar has both alréw and alrnus. 53. «ékAev] MSS. KékXer’. The cor- rection is due to Philip Melanchthon, though perhaps we should adopt the form xékhe’? (as Bergk suggests). Compare Hesychius xéxXeo* xddecov. The impera- tive is wanted, and it would be very daring to assume that xékNere existed as an active imperative, as there is no trace of active forms of xéNouat, xéxAero, as far as I can see, is impossible without an expressed subject. The scholiast sup- plied 7d Oeiov, Mr Fennell supplies Zeus and describes «ékXero as ‘idiomatic aorist’. This seems hardly possible. Hartung inserted @eés after "Eyvadlov, on the assumption that the scholiast must have had 6eés in his text. It seems to me that Melanchthon’s emendation is not 55 éuol S¢ pwaxpov macas dvaynoacé dperas: only brilliant but almost certain. The corruption of the uncommon imperative to the more usual indicative, at the ex- pense of the sense, was very natural. We shall. perhaps do best to regard spvixos avévros as genitive absolute, mentally supplying 8prycxos with éruvv- pov. The order of the words indicates this. ‘And him, as the bird has appear- ed, call in memory of its name Aias, of large might’ :—Altas after alerés.—Pindar has both érdvupos and érwrdmos. evpu- Blas is applied to Poseidon in O/. VI. 58 and Pyth, 11.12; to Periclymenus Py¢h. Iv. 175, to Hypseus Pyth. 1X. 13. He- siod has the word in Zheogony 931 (Tpl- twv edpuplys, so evpvaGevis of Poseidon). Aadv «.7.X.] Aady has been taken (1) as depending on év mévois "EvuaNlov, dz hominum laboribus bellicis, Dissen, (2) as determined by éxray)ov, ‘hervorragend vor den Vélkern’ Mezger; so schol. yevvatoy dvra év mace rots mévos Kal Kapd- Tos Too modéyou kal ékapxov Tay dd\\wy &xXwv. The latter interpretation is cer- tainly right. Ajax is to be distinguished among men, as the eagle among birds (dpxdv olwvdv).—We find ékmraydos of bodily strength in /sth. V1. 22; cp. Mem. Iv. 24 (of the giant Alcyoneus). 55. avr(ka] The hiatus at the end of this verse is remarkable. Possibly it was felt as less harsh before an aspi- rated than it would be before an unaspi- rated word. : 56. epol «.7.r.] Lt were long for me to rehearse all their excellences; for I came, O Muse, as a dispenser of hymns unto Phylacidas, Pytheas and Euthymenes. 8—2 116 IZOMIONIKAI E’. ®vraxida yap 7rOov, & Moica, rapias Tluéa re ndpov EvOupéves ce. eipjoetat Bat’ év Bpaxioras. dpayto yap vixas amo mayKxpatiov tov ’Apyelwv tpotrov avr. y'. 60 tpeis, am "IoOuod, tds 8 da edpidrdrov Neuéas, In the fashion of Argive men, it shall be a brief argument. The mss, have ayj- cac6’ dperas. Mingarelli restored dvayyj- cacé’. The genitive was a consequence of the accidental omission of the dv-. The scholia rightly explain dperds of the Aeacids: ras ray Alaxidav dperds. Others refer it to Ajax in particular; but Pindar is coming back here to where he started in 1. 19 sgg. Ajax is only one instance of Aeacid excellence. 57- toplas}] For metaphorical uses of this word cp. Mem. v1. 30, frag. 1, 1. 4. The poet is supposed to have a store of hymns, from which he dispenses like a treasurer or steward. Cp. Bergk P. Z. G. 11. p. 718, frag. adesp. 87 ort por miorov Taptcioy émt ydAdooas.—Schmid read ydp 7’ metri gratia, and so Boehmer. 58. ’Apyelwv] The Argives, as well as the Laconians, were noted for a brevity of speech which became proverbial. The scholiast quotes a couplet from the ‘Mad Odysseus’ of Sophocles : advr’ olaOa wayr’ eta Tavreradpéeva* 000s yap ’Apyodorl cuvréuvew Boaxds. Aeschylus refers to this characteristic in the ‘Suppliant Women’, 196 Maxpdy ye wer 8h pow ob orépyer wods. Dissen supposes that, when Pindar wrote the words in question, he remembered the tradition that Azgive Dorians settled in Aegina,—The scholiast seems to have punctuated after rpémrov; thus connecting the last three words of the verse with Taplas. 59. elpyoerat x.7.A.] D has ma x” ev Bpaxloros, B rrov xév Bpaxloros. Many editors accept the reading of D, with rg for ma, and explain the construction by the Homeric use of the future with xe. But when xe is used with the future in Homer, it has a particular force; whereas here it is quite out of place, a plain future being required. Mommsen read mq 3, Dissen tws, and other suggestions have been made; but Bergk has the credit of having seen that the subject of elpyoerau should be a word meaning ‘a few matters’. He therefore read maip’ év Bpaxloros, rightly in point of sense. Pindar says” that he can only select a few of the ex- cellences of Lampon’s family and dwell even on these very briefly. But the cor- ruption of zavp’ cannot be easily ex- plained. There is a somewhat similar passage in Pyth. IX. 76 sgg. where we read dperal 5° aled pweyddAar rrodvpvOor* Baca & év paxpoto. mroxt\\ew aKxo& codois. What Pindar is doing in this Isthmian Ode is exactly described by the words Baud év pwaxpotor morxthrew. With a large material at his disposal, he handles a small selection artistically. This suggests Bal? éy Bpaxlorots. With this reading the corruption can be accounted for with- out difficulty, fac might easily have puzzled a reader, and xal, connecting rév "Apyelwv rpdrov with év Bpaxlerors, was an obvious correction. xal as an adscript or interlinear correction was sure to in- trude itself into the text, either in place of Bat or beside it. Given eipHcetat Bal Ka! EN Bpayictoic, tral for Bat was a ready substitute. The readings of the Mss. naturally follow. 61. pets, dx’ *IoOpot x.7...] The punctuation after zpeis is due to Bergk. Three victories had been gained in all at the greater festival by Phylacidas, Pytheas ISTHMIAN V. 117 3 an ayhaot maidés te Kal pdtpws' avd 8 dyayov és dos olay a“ y potpav buvor, tav Varvyvadav 8&8 mdrpav Xapitev ie apSovtt Kadriota Spice, / Tov Te Oeusotiov opOcaavtes olxov tavde médv 65 DeogirH vaiorer. Adprrov 88 pedérav wv > / € A epyots omdtwy “Howddov pddra tyud Toit’ eros, vioici te podlwv maparyel, and Euthymenes: (1) an Isthmian by Phylacidas, celebrated in this hymn, (2) a Nemean by Pytheas, celebrated in Nemean V.and referred to above in 1. 3, (3) a Nemean by Euthymenes, referred to in Memean V. We may render: For the splendid sons of Lampon and their kinsman won three pancration victories, one at the Isthmus, two at leafy Nemea.— According to the usual interpretation Tpeis is taken with dm’ "IcQuod, and, as only one Isthmian victory is known, that of Phylacidas, the remaining two are attributed to Euthymenes. There is no authority for an Isthmian victory of Eu- thymenes except the schol. on Mem. v. 37, and that statement has no independent value, as it is merely a deduction from the passage before us. (My note on that passage must be corrected. I fell into the error of giving undue weight to the scholium.) But the decisive considera- tion is that, if pets qualifies vixas dm’ "IoOu08, the following ras 5€ is perfectly indefinite and may mean any number from two upward. If anything is cer- tain in such a matter, it is certain that Pindar told the exact number of such rare and important victories. It follows that ras &’ is determined by rpets. The full phrase would be zpets vixas, ray pev da’ IoOuob, ras & dar’ edpdddov Neuéas. —Mezger has gone wrong in inferring from 1. 3 that Phylacidas won a victory at Nemea. 62. patpws’ ava 8’) Correction of E. Schmid for Mss. parpwes: dy 8’.—They led up to light—what a share of hymns! -need cause no difficulty. Schol. 73 6 olay @aupacrinas dvri rod drolay elpnxev. ofos is used in the same way in O2. Ix. 89. 63. Wadrvxradav] I have kept the reading of the Mss. E. Schmid Vadux.dav, of which Mommsen and others approve. But the substitution of two short syllables for a long (especially in a proper name) There is an- other case, in this ode, of irregular cor- respondence, in the 7th verse of the first strophe.—Schol. Yarvyiddar dé pudy év Alyivy dg’ js 6 vixnpopos. riy dé rev Warvxiadav parplay rH rav Xaplrwv xad- Mery Spdcy xaraBpéxover, pyot 5 Trois Buvos. For the metaphor see 1. 21 above. For 8péow, cp. Pyth. v- 99, dperdv Spdow padOaxg pavdcicay vuvuv. For dp8ewv cp. O/. v. 23, dABov dpde. 65. dp@dcavres] See above, Lsth. Ill. B 38. Themistios was a kinsman of the victor, possibly his mother’s father. A needless attempt has been made to dis- tinguish this person from the Themistios who is mentioned in Mem. Vv. 50 as a boxer and pancratiast. QeopiAq, divinely favoured ; only here in Pindar, but else- where frequent. 66. Adprov x7...) Lampon, bestow- ing ‘study’ on his ‘works’, holds in high honour that saying of Hesiod, and point- ing the way exhorts his sons thereto. The saying of Hesiod is pedérn 5€ row épyov 6péd\ree (Works and Days, 382); Pindar’s expression echoes without quoting it. Lampon’s unwearying interest in ath- letics, though he was not a distinguished athlete himself, is meant. 118 A v f cn t Evvov date. Koopov é@ mpoaaywr, kal E€vov evepyeoiats ayaratat, pétpa pev yvodua SidKxwv, wétrpa be IZOMIONIKAI E. 2 , ew. y. 7O Kal Katéxov' yAdooa & ovx &w ppevdv: pains ce Mévavdpov év dOrntaiow eupev Nafiay wétpais év ddXais yadnoddwavt’ axovay. tmicw ope Aipxas dyvov tdwp, TO BabUSwvor xdpat 69. Evvov «.7..] Attaching public honour to his city. Schol. cowhy evdotlay 7H cavrod rarpid. mpocdrrwy. mpoodyw occurs only here in Pindar. It seems possible that the word may have been chosen to bring Lampon’s works into connexion with the exploits of his sons, of whom dvdyw is used in 1. 62. 70. dyamarat] Elsewhere Pindar has dyardtw.—tévev is the object of the verbal force in evepyealats (so-called ob- jective genitive). Ais hospitalities to strangers render him beloved. 71. pétpa K.7.A.] didKwv is opposed to xaréxwv as endeavour to accomplish- ment: ‘the aim of his judgment is measure, unto measure also he attaineth’. The doctrine of measure is thus stated by Hesiod (Works and Days, 639) wérpa pudrdccerOar* Katpes 6 éml maow dpioros, and xaréywv is equivalent to pudAacod- pevos. The subject was a favourite one with such poets as Theognis; and Pin- dar’s words almost sound as if they were extracted from an elegiac distich: thus, yopn pev pérpa Slwxev Bérpa dé Kal Karéxew. In Mem. Xi. 47 we have O@npevéuey with pérpov. 72, yAdoou x.7.\.] His tongue strays not outside the home of his wisdom, does not outrun his discretion. Schol. ovdev Gxoupov pdvapel GAN oO oxémrera...§ ov mpomeras POéyyerat, he does not speak at random. galyns Ke «.7.A.] The reading of the Mss. is vv dvdp’ év dOdnTalow (which only requires Schmid’s deOAyraisw to be metrical). This was apparently the reading of Didymos and the scholiasts, who refer vv to Lampon. Schol.: edzror & dy tis abrov tov Adurwva elvat rovofroy dvipa év rots dOdnrais olay év mérpas érepoyevéot Natiay dxdvyv Suvdpevov dOdy- Tas wddiora twapabjia. But dvdp’ has no force as a predicate and cannot be the subject of elva:. Hence Heyne emended dvipdow for dvip év and this has been very generally accepted. But the corrup- tion is a most unlikely one. There is a further objection to the text. It is odd to find Lampon thus described in words which are applicable to a professional trainer. Moreover, some years before, the trainer of Pytheas was Menandros (Mem. v. 48). Lampon encouraged his sons in their athletic exercises and spared no expense; but we are not to suppose that he ‘coached’ Phylacidas. Mommsen has rightly restored Mévavépov év for viv vip’ év (on the strength of the Triclinian- gloss rév dXelrrnv Mévavdpov elvar éEoxov). To explain the reading of the Mss. we have only to assume the corruption of the first M to N. viv and dvép’ were obvious corrections of vey and avdpor. Mommsen’s emendation is-.also accepted by Mezger. 73. Naglav) Not of Naxos the island, but of Naxos the town in Crete, as the scholiast tells us. xaAKoSdpavr’, dronze- subjugating, drat elpnuvov. D has xad- xodduav r’.—The simile reminds us of Horace’s fungar vice cotis. 74. whew «.7.d.] J will give them a draught of Dirce’s sacred water, which the deep-girdled maidens of golden-robed ISTHMIAN V. 119 xpvaoorémAov Mvapootvas dvéretdav rap’ evreryéow Kdduov TUNALS. Muamosyne raised up beside the gates of the fair-walled city of Cadmus.—nlow, future of wurlcxw, The prose word was morlg. Observe the double accusative (and compare my note on Mem. 1. 65). The Theban poet gives a draught of Theban song. For Mnemosyne, mother of the Muses, compare Terpander 3, orév- - dopey tais Mvduas maoly Mioas, and Nem. Vil. 5, where her epithet is Aurap- dunrvé. The golden peplos here was perhaps suggested by u work of art (so Mr Fennell). Pindar does not use i xpuodmemhos elsewhere in his extant poems, 78. dvéradav] drought to light. Cp. above, Jsth. 111 B 65, and below v1. 5. edreaxys means ‘provided with fair walls’ and is the proper epithet of a house or a city (cp. Mem. vii. 46 Geod map ebrerxéa Souov, Ol. Vi. 1 edretxel mpoOvpw). Here mvAats is used for the city so famous for its seven gates. Per- haps Pindar would not have used the phrase evretxéou wéAaus in the case of any other town than Thebes. ISTHMIAN VI. IN HONOUR OF A VICTORY IN THE PANCRATION AT ISTHMUS WON BY STREPSIADES OF THEBES. INTRODUCTION. THERE were clouds! on the political horizon of Greece when Pindar wrote this ode for his fellow-countryman Strepsiades. In the streets of Thebes indeed there was joy; for the Thebans had won the battle of Tanagra, and had not yet been defeated at Oenophyta®. Elated by their triumph they were beginning to dream of future greatness; and perhaps were not very eager for peace. Pindar, already an old man, did not enter into this temper, though he fully shared in the jubilation over the victory. He was in favour of counsels of moderation, and deprecated the ambitious dream which might lure his country to a precipice. Such is the mood of this ode which commemorates two events in a private family. Strepsiades had proved his powers as a pancratiast by gaining a victory in the Isthmian games. His uncle, Strepsiades also by name, had proved his valour and patriotism by fighting in the foremost rank at the recent battle, and fallen as he fought. This circumstance gave the poet an opportunity for saying what he felt in regard to the general situation of affairs. : The hymn may be divided into three parts, corresponding to the three 1 ey ratre vepérg, |. 27. * This is the view of Mezger. No other theory harmonizes with the tone of the ode. Boeckh (followed by Dissen etc.) placed the ode after Oenophyta, but Mezger’s objections are decisive. After a defeat 6 8 dOavdrwy wh Opaccérw ~Oovos (1. 39) would have been bitter mockery indeed.—The battle of Tanagra was fought in Nov. 457, and that of Oenophyta just two months later (begin- ning of 456). Thus the Isthmian victory of Strepsiades must have been gained in 458. The ode then was not composed until a year and a half had elapsed. We may take it that the death of Strepsiades the elder suggested a hymn in his memory, and it was then decided that the Isthmian achievement should be also celebrated by a xowdv Oados. INTRODUCTION. 121 metrical systems. The first deals with the ancient history of Thebes; the second with present events—the Isthmian victory, the war and the death of the victor’s kinsman; the third looks forward to the future, discouraging ambitious projects, and expressing a hope that a Pythian crown may fall to the lot of Strepsiades. 1. The Past.—The ode opens with a numbering of the glories of Theba, the blessed. The birth of Dionysus, described as yadxoxpérov mdpedpov Aapudrepos evpvxairav—the visit of Zeus to the house of Amphitryon, with the seed of Heracles in his loins, and coming perhaps, according to some rare legend, in a shower of golden snow—the wise counsels of Tiresias—the fame of the horseman [olaus, and of the mighty Sown Men,—the repulse of the Seven who came to sack her city,—the good help which her sons gave to Lacedaemon in their southern settlement and especially in taking Amyclae, —all these episodes in her history, Theba may remember with pleasure. But such events demand a poet, for what is not sung passes out of the minds of men. , 2. Zhe Present.—And therefore it is well that the recent exploit of Strepsiades on the Isthmus should be celebrated ina hymn. The Muses have twined a wreath of violets for him and his uncle of the same name. They are both to share the same wreath. For his uncle, to whom death was dealt by Ares of the brazen shield— XaAkaoms @ mortpov pev “Apns Epeevr— deserves a reward too. Praise is owed to all the patriots who in this dark crisis have taken part in the defence of their country so seriously menaced. The fallen Strepsiades, son of Diodotus, is likened to Meleager and Hector, and a remarkable expression is chosen, as it were to shed flowers over his corpse :— 34 ebav0é? dirémvevoas dAcKiav mpopaxev dy’ Gutdov. But now after the storm of war there is a calm. One Strepsiades has fallen ; but to another Strepsiades Poseidon has given an Isthmian victory. 3. The Future-——We must hope that Thebes exalted in her prosperity may not draw upon herself the envy of the immortals: so it is clearly meant, though no names are mentioned. It is better to make no far-reaching plans for the future, but to enjoy the pleasures that come to us from day to day. Such, Pindar professes, is his own ‘philosophy’ of life; and he states it in remarkable words which might be taken as a motto by a disciple of the Cyrenaic school ; 40 6 Tt repmvdv epdpepoy Sidkav xaos Eres yipas es Te Tov popotov aidva. He holds up the fate of Bellerophon as a warning against aiming too high. Sweetness may easily be turned into bitterness; and mortals must remember 122 ISTHMTIAN VI. what they are, the only sort of immortality which they may reach being that which song confers. This is brought out by a signal. 43 Ta paxpa 8 ef tis mrantaiver, Bpayvs eucéoOar yadkdredov Oewy eSpav 18 6 Te py codlas dwrov axpov kdurais éméwy poaiow e€lknrar Cuyev. A warning is also implied that Thebes must not be seduced into high- soaring hopes by recollections of her mythical glories, on the strength of the gods and heroes who were in olden time associated with her. Man is too small of stature to reach the abode of the gods XOAK6redov Oedv Spay, and Dionysus, though he was born at Thebes, is a god: XaAKoxporou mdpeSpov Aaparepos. Zeus came down to Theba, but Theba cannot go up to Zeus— Tov dépraroy Oeay. But there may be pleasures in store for her citizens. We may pray that Apollo, his godden hair wreathed with laurel, may be gracious to Strepsiades; though we cannot expect Zeus to come again in golden showers (cp. 5 and 49). We have strewn flowers over the grave of him who fell at Tanagra; let us hope that his younger kinsman may soon win another wreath, not in war, but at the Pythian games,— Teaiow dpiddas evav0ée, kal IvO0i orépavov'. 1 It is to be observed that the empha- Mezger. The same adjective edavdis tic epithet in the last line metrically cor- responds to the same epithet in 1. 34, the last line of the second epode. This re- sponsion was noticed and appreciated by occurs in Olymp. vi. 84 (last line of - epode 4), where it is also significant, responding to evrepmés dv@os, 105 (last line of epode 5). INTRODUCTION. 123 METRICAL ANALYSIS. STROPHE. (Rhythm: tambic.) Sal Sa al ap a re ee oes vryvyru run Ue yw en eM ev ev TaMvrVOV WS : y BQ mommy ty em ee Fe er ee i M. Schmidt has pointed out that the rhythm is iambic. He divides the strophe into two parts, each containing 18 feet, and the point of division being at the end of v. 3. EPODE. (Rhythm: dactyloepitritic.) murmur mm vyrVnrnrvuY Ho = UU KU vvervvuryvrN So vy O35 mot MyvnryvrocyynYs Smeg yoe eeu emus The construction is ‘mesodic-palinodic’, according to M. Schmidt, who gives the scheme ee 6+10*5+10*6 He adds ‘Dieses Epinikon ist iibrigens nach Pyth. x. das zweite, seiner Abfassungszeit nach sicher bestimmbare Gedicht, und fallt Ol. 70. 4 oder.2. Wir werden also diesen Bausty] als einen althergebrachten betrachten diirfen’. But the date of Heyne and Bergk (506) is very improbable. IZ@MIONIKAI ¢’. ZTPEVIAAH: OHBAIQu TIATKPATIO‘. Tin tov mapos, & paxaipa Ona, oTp. a. a > ¥ f ‘ A Karav erixywpiov pariota Oupoyv Teov eUppavas; 7 pa xadKoxpdrov Tapedpov Aaparepos dvix’ evpyyaitay | avretnas Audvucov, } xpvad pecovuntiov vidovta deEapéva tov L a héptatov Ocav, ‘a. rlye K7.d.) Le which of the past glories of thy city, O Theba, didst thou most blithely cheer thy soul ?—For Theba daughter of Asopos and Metopa cp. O/. vi. 85. See also Zsth. I. 1, and Ill. A 12. Tay mdpos ertxwploy, ‘the history of thy city’. 3. W pa x7r.d] Was it, when thou didst raise to fulfilment Dionysus of the broad-flowing tresses, who shareth the throne of Demeter queen of the ringing brass ?—For 4 fa in the first member of an alternative cp. Pyth. XI. 38. kpotos (used of a bronze-hoofed horse by Aristophanes) refers, according to Miiller, not to the xpérada cywbals, such as were used in the worship of Cybele, but to bronze instruments called #yxeta, which were sounded in the worship of Demeter. —dpedpos has always € in Pindar (O07. 11. 84, VIII. 22, Pyth. Iv. 4, Nem. VIL. 1). It is unnecessary to illustrate the associa- tion of Dionysus and Demeter.—evpuxal- Xarke- - 5 tay is drat elpnuévov. Lsth. V. 75» Be Wf Xpvoee «.7.A.] Or in the hour when the lord of the gods was thy guest in a midnight shower of gold.—¥For the dative xpvo@ a line of Nicophon is cited by Liddell and Scott (ag, Athenaeum, VI. 269) For dvreas cp. vidérw pev dddirors yaxagérw 8 dproow vérw 8 Erver. perovunriov, not adverbial as in Theo- critus, but adjective-—According to the text of the Mss., 6mdr’ in I. 6, this golden descent of Zeus took place on the occasion when he wooed Alcmena. But we never hear elsewhere of Zeus coming to Thebes as he came to Argos. A scholium sug- gests that Pindar has transferred to the tale of Alcmena the leading feature of the tale of Danaa. In O/. vil. 34 how- ever we find the king of the gods snowing gold at Rhodes, when Athena was born. We may infer that this phenomenon was ISTHMIAN VI. ort "Auditpvavos év Oupérpors 125 > ‘ avT.a. atabels droyov petrnrOev, ‘Hpaxretors yovais ; v3 > * aA x a qT api mu«vais Terpeciao Bovdais ; qv apd’ “Iodaov iamdunti ; ) Ymaprav dxapavroroyyav; Te Kaptepas "Adpactoy éf& Grads dumeprpas opdavov imagined to take place at critical mo- ments in the life of Zeus, and was not confined to the Argos episode, though that became the most celebrated instance. Still, it is odd that we should hear no- where else of gold in connexion with the famous story of the begetting of Heracles. It is quite possible that 667’ is corrupt, and that we should read 4 87’, as Mr Tyrrell proposes. In that case the shower of gold would be connected with a visit of Zeus to Theba herself. 6. év Gupérpois] Schol. cara 7a mpéd- Ovpa. é@i is the preposition in Wenz. I. 19 @oray & én’ atdelais Obpats.—orrabels. The moment is described when Zeus first appeared to Alcmene standing at the door, before entering. perndQe, sought (in love).—yovats has been explained in two ways, (1) as dative of purpose, equi- valent to él yovais, (2) as instrumental dative, like Mem. x. 69 épopuadels 8 dp’ dkovre Oog Hrace x.7.d. (Dissen). The second of these explanations is preferable, but not wholly satisfactory. In the passage in the Tenth Nemean the dative is determined by the following #\ace. The construction is far simpler. ‘Hpa- kdelos yovats depends on edppavas Oupdy, which is carried to each succeeding question. Was thy soul made glad by the seed of Heracles, when Zeus sought Amphitryon's wife? The dative with evppatvw is common : we have it in Pyth. Ix. 16. 8. wr] Mss. 4 67’. Bergk restored ar" for #ro. in this and in the following verse. The corruption was caused by 4 ére in 1. 10, where it is quite in place. —For dpebl with the dative after edppavas 10 Oupév, compare dul Bovol xo\wbels Nem. xX. 60.—Mss. Teipectao muxwwais BovAats, which does not scan. Heyne emended mukvais Teipectao Bovdais, and this trans- position has been generally accepted, but Mr Fennell reads Tetpecta muxwaior Bov- Aais, suggesting that Teipesla may be scanned as a molossus (-~-). Mr Fen- nell’s proposal seems to involve least change; he only adds one letter and strikes out another, whereas Heyne both struck out a letter and transposed two words. Transposition is indeed always hazardous. But one does not see why Tepeola should have become Tetpeotao. There would be more chance of Te:peclao becoming Te:pecta. g- Fr’ dp «.7.d.] MSS. # 87’. See last note.-—dpol with accusative as in Nem. 1. 54 ebOds & darjuwy Kpadla Kados aug’ addérpiov. There is a shade of difference between the uses of dudl with dative and with accusative, which is well illustrated by this and the foregoing line. dugt is used with the dative when the object is defined or narrowed, as it were, to a single point; it takes the accusative when the object expresses a sphere. dugl Bovot xodwGels suggests a perfectly de- fined cause of wrath; the wise counsels of Teiresias were definite and suggest nothing beyond themselves.‘ But dud’ *Ié\aov means ‘in the whole career of Tolaos’. And so xados aud’ dddébrpiovy means ‘27 the atmosphere of alien sorrow’. —trmopyrw, equivalent to larmrnhdrny, is not found elsewhere. 10. % Zwaprav x.7.d.] The genitive is used after e¥¢pavas, on the analogy of verbs of grief and anger. Pindar takes 126 IZOMIONIKAI ss”. ¥ ’ Huptov érdpwv és "Apyos tarmmiov; er. a. x QO? > f f > a 9 Awpid drrotkiay obvexev 6p0@ »” > Aa éotacas él opupad Aaxe8atpovlwv, cov & ’Awiedas AlyetSat céBev Exyovot, pavtevpact Tvbious ; 15 pleasure in using a new construction with each alternative. We have (1) dvlxa, (2) dative, (3) dul with dat., (4) dul with accus., (5) genitive, (6) dre, (7) otvexevy.—Zraprdv ‘the Sowed Men’, sprung from the seed of dragon’s teeth. dkapavrodoyyxay, with indefatigable lan- ces, coined by Pindar for this passage. He is fond of such coinages. We have dxapavroudyas (Pyth. Iv. 171), dkaugr- rérovs (O/. 111. 3), dkayavroydppas (77. 184). W Ste «.7.d.] Or when thou didst send back from the mighty noise of the wild Sray Adrastus, reft of countless comrades, to Argos rich in steeds —For the war of Adrastus, it is enough to refer to Pindar’s Ninth Nemean, the Seven against Thebes of Aeschylus, the first choral ode of Sophocles’ Antigone, and the Phoenissae of Euripides.—Pindar has other remark- able expressions which we may compare with kaprepds é£ dAaAds: in Vem. 111. 60 Soplkrurov ddadav Avktwv, in frag. 208 of dancers pavlais 7 ddadais 7” dpivdpevor prpatyerr odv Krddvy. "Adadd is the daughter of IléAeuos in frag. 78.—For xaprepés (B), D has xparepais.—dvrep- yas, B. 11. mmov] Pindar uses both this form and trmetos.—érdpwy és is the cor- rection of Schmid for Mss. éralpwy eds, 12. Awpl8’ darouxlav] Zhe Dorian colony of the Lacedaemonians means Sparta and her territory. The new settlement was not firmly established, until Amyclae, the stronghold of the Achaeans, which lay a little south of Lacedaemon, on Lacedaemon’s river, was taken. To capture this fortress the Spartans, by the advice of the Pythian oracle, sought the help of the Aegidae who were, according to Pindar, a Theban family. Others told other stories about the origin of the Aegids. Some said they were a fhyle of Aegina, and that their connexion with Thebes began after their work in the Peloponnesus. Others said that a Theban named Aegeus aided the Heraclidae and that his descendants lived on at Sparta. Others again brought the Aegidae, who took Amyclae, from Athens. The following scholium seems clearest: kal eloiy Alyeida: garpla On- Balwy ap? as abv twes els Drdpryv Aaxedatpovlors BonOjoovres ev Ty mpds *Apuedaeis trodéup ipyeudve xpynoduevor Tipoudxy 8s mpdros wev mdvra Toe pos morenov Siérate Aaxedatpovtos peyddwy 6€ rap’ abrois jin Tiuav. The story is said to be told in Aristotle’s lost Conséi- tution of the Laconians. But a further question arises as to the correctness of Pindar’s view that the taking of Amyclae by Aegidae was the last act in the Dorian settlement of Laconia. It does not con- cern us here; but it may be noted that according to Miiller (Orchom.) their cap- ture of Amyclae was before the Dorian Wandering. 6p0e érl oupo] Compare O/. x111. 72 dva & adr’ ép0p most. Dissen quotes Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, 128 émt ogupoy épOov dvéorn, and Horace’s recto stet talo. The phrase means no more than 6p0dv &oracas.—mss. olvexa, Thiersch ovvexey, Mommsen and Christ odvexev. 15, AlyetSar] For the connexion of the Theban Aegidae with the coloni- zation of Thera, see Pythian v. 40 Yxovro Oxjpavde POres AlyetSar x.7.4.—D has the strange reading aideto@a:. It is stated in the scholia that some wrote ’Apye?Sat.— For IIv@los Mss. have Iv@toiw:. ISTHMIAN VI. GN’ d Tadaid yap elder ydpis, duvdpuoves 88 Bporol, a \ 0 TL by copias dwrov axpov 127 orp. B. KAvtals éréwv poatow é&lantas Cuyév. , > a Kwpal” érerrey dduperel adv vuvo 20 kai Srpeidda: hépes yap "loOpot vikay Tayxpatiov: aOéver tT exrraryhos ideiv Te moppders: dryer T 2 ‘ > 2 , a apetay ovk aicyiw duas. 16. GAN & 47.0.) ‘Yes, the past -glories of Theba are many; but, if they be not sung, they sleep in the forgetful- ness of men.’ For the idiomatic ellipsis expressed by dA\& ydp compare Jsth. III, B 16.—The Mss. have d\dd. Bergk’s GAN a can hardly be called a change. Compare the corresponding lines of the second and third epodes, where corrup- tions have also crept into the text. madaud is to be scanned as an anapaest. 17. dpvdpoves x.7..] and whatsoever unlinked with sounding streams of verses reach not the crowning height of Wit, passeth out of the memory of men.—I con- jectured in the Introduction to my ed. of the Wemean Odes that there may be a set of second meanings behind these words; but the supposition is perhaps unnecessary. dwros means (1) fixe gloss, perfection, height and (2) breath. The first meaning, in conjunction with dxpov and élxyra:, suggested the lofty summit of wisdom’s hill, ascended in the car of the Muses ({vyév), and foatow did not seem to harmonize with this figure. All the other words seemed to lend themselves to a metaphor from streams and breezes, dwrov dxpov being a variation on the Homeric dxp-arjs, Luyév suggesting the {vyd of a ship, which, borne on the streams of verses, wins (with é&(knrat cp. tkpevos) a breeze to convey it. But it is unwise to press the metaphor underlying foatow and tuyd. In these words Aristarchus, as we learn from the scholia, found an allusion to disdain or neglect shewn to the Thebans by the Lacedaemonians (after Tanagra?): dxapioroupévuy te Tov OnBalwy bird Tay Aaxedapovlwy. The idea was taken up by Boeckh and modern editors who sup- pose that the hymn was written after the Theban defeat at Oenophyta. But, as Mezger has seen, the argument is quite intelligible without the hypothesis of any such allusion. 20. mevrev] restored by Pauw; Mss, érer’ év. The form é@etrev occurs in two other passages, and in both it has suffered corruption in most mss, In Nem. WW. 54 kal ererev "Aokd}miov all the ss. give érecr’ év or drew’ rép, ex- cept V and D, which have kept the true word. So in Pyt#. Iv. 211 érerev HdvOov, preserved in four Mss., has been altered in most to émer’ év#dvdov.— adupedet, see Ven, 11. 25 (pura). It qualifies Pépuryé in O2. Vl. 11, Kbopov in O/. XI. 14, Kwomy in Pyth. VII. 70.— Kopdto, used without an object here, takes the accusative in /s¢h. 111. B go and elsewhere. 21. kal) For Strepsiades as well as for the ancient worthies of Theban legend. éper] he is freighted with, is winner of; compare Mem. 111. 18 and Iv. 30. For taykpatlov, see above Iv. 19. 22. obéverx.t.d.] Both marvellous in strength and comely to look upon ; and he carries (as it were, on deck) excellence matching the favour of his form.—The figure in dye. is from the freight of a ship (cp. ¢épet in last line) as is clearly 128 IZOMIONIKAI s. > if préyeras Se Fromdoxosct Moicas, av. B. patpot 8 spodjim Sé5wxe Kody Oados, xadkaomis @ ToTHov pev "Apns eucker, 25 Tia & dyaboiow avtixerrat, shewn by Pyth. 11. 73, which commen- tators have strangely omitted to compare; el xaréBay vyleay dywv xpvoday. The naval term karéBay proves the exact meaning of dywy there; and it is by far the most appropriate meaning here. The scholium ¢@épec 5€ kal thy Tis puxijs- dperiy otk aloxuvovoay Thy Tol cuéparos edpopplay is not wrong, but it does not appear clearly that the writer grasped the metaphor. I have adopted aloxlw (the reading of «, £) for aicxiv (B, alox@iov D). The corruption perhaps arose through a substitution of the form alcxlova, at a later stage corrected to aioxiov for the sake of the metre. For forms in w cp. I. 63.—Mr Fennell, retain- ing atoxcov, explains dye ‘holds virtue to be as fair a possession’; Mezger translates ‘besitzt’; Bergk reading aloxlwy con- jectures \vAez ‘desires’. For poppdets (only here in Pindar) B has popdiecs’ and D poppdec’. Bergk observes: ‘corruptelae ansam dedit sop- odes ex antiqua scriptura residuum (cp. Cramer An. Ox. I. 174: Awptels dvev Too T mpopepovow ard olov darepses ai- parées,...), sed mirum accidit hoc criticos propagavisse vocali littera subsequente’ ; and he uses this consideration in favour of his guess \iAei.—For txmayAos see above V. 54. 23. cpréyerar] He burns bright, ‘is illuminated’, See my note on Mem. X. 2 préyera. 8 dperais, and Nem. vi. 38 Xaplrwv suddy préyev.—The Mss. have lowdoxduorot in defiance of metre. Schmid’s correction loBoorpixoi. has been generally accepted, but seems un- likely, as Bécrpuvxos was a too familiar word to be ousted by an interpretation. I therefore (like Christ) follow Bergk in reading FvowAékoot. The corruption was most natural. It was taken for granted that the word should refer to ' violet-hued tresses of the Muses and the change was a slight one. But the Muses were here represented as weaving the violets for violet crowns such as they wore themselves; cp. Theognis 1. 250, dyad Movodwy Sépa foorepdvwv. Here the wreath is for Strepsiades; see next line. 24. parpwl 0° x.7.d.] And to his like- named uncle he has given a share of their (violet) /oomz, that is a part of the hymn. kotvov @dXos (lit. ‘a wreath, common to both’) confirms to certainty the emenda- tion Aiomdéxotct.—Mss. mdrpy, but « ¢ rightly wdrpwt. 25. @ k.T.d.] to whom brazen-shielded Ares communicated doom ; yet honour is the prize of the.brave. The force of pév— 8’ is that what was death for Strepsiades also proved his glory; hence the place of wéy after wézrpov, not after g. Observe too the emphatic position of xdAkao-ms (sée Letroduction).—For “Apys D_ has dp’.—tprtev. We have the alternative construction (rid rive instead of rwl 7) in Nem. Iv. 21, Ol. 1. 22 (kpdres mpocé- puke Seomdrav). Mezger’s rendering ‘Ares mischte ‘ihm das Todesloos’ can hardly be right.—The lot of death came to Strepsiades at the battle of Tanagra 457 B.c. See Lntroduction, 26. dvrlkevrar] Compare xefro, sth, 1.27. Mr Fennell thinks that the force of dvri- is ‘in return for their life’, .It seems to me that it is more likely to be local; the prize is set opposite, as it were, to those who strive for it.—The scholia point to another reading rig. Bergk has conjectured that the two variants may come from an original rial, which would give a schema Pindaricum., ISTHMIAN VI. 129 y” \ iaTw yap cages boris ev ta’ta vepédra yadralay aiwatos mpo I a, > , pitas watpas apvverat, \ > f Aowyov avTipépwv evavtim oTpate, ér. B’. > nA aatay yeved péytctov Kréos av Ewv dav 7 amo kal Oavoy. \ 97 ' a < tv 8é, Avoddroto trai, wayardav 30 bd / aivéewy Meréaypov, aivéwy 8é kal “Exropa 297. Yorw x.t.d.] For let whoso in this cloud of war defendeth his dear land against the hailstorm of blood, and beareth ruin against the host of the adversaries, be cer- tified that he increaseth to greatness the glory of his fellow-citizens,—both living and when he is dead.—vepédq, schol. év 77, TOO” Apeos vedédy, TouTéoTww év TH To- eu. Somewhat otherwise in Vem. 1x. 37, 38, 4 passage which bears a striking resemblance to this; dpivew Aovysv "Evvadlov. madpor 5é Bovdefoa dédvov maprrodtov vepédav tpéwar tor duc- pevéwy dvdpav orlyas xepot kat yuye Svvarol. See my note there for Aovyév. For xa- Aafav cp. /sth. Iv. 50, and Oed. Rex 1279 duBpos Xaddins aluarods éréyyero. Cp. too Simonides 106 ofcery powloog Oodpos "Apys Waxadi.—mpo Schmid, mpds MSS. 28. dvtipépwy] MSS. dudvwy, which, one is tempted to think, came in from the parallel passage Mem. IX. 37 duvvewy Aovydv "Evvadlov. The schol. interprets évavrtov gpépwr OdeOpov ois odeutors. The chief emendations are: dyra pépwy Thiersch, dvripépwv Bergk, dvtirlywr Hermann, dumerahévy Mommsen, )ovydy almdv évaytiw otpar@ pépwy Kayser (Har- tung rewrites the whole passage). Of these Bergk’s dvripépwy (he compares Avypav ex’ Alrwrois dvtipépwy mrddepwov in an epigram of Damagétus Azthol. VII. 438) seems the most likely. But it is strange that such a simple expression, requiring no interpretation, should have B. II. disappeared so entirely in the Mss. in favour of a word obviously impossible owing to the preceding dutvera. The parallel passage in the Ninth Nemean, quoted in the last note, suggests that Pindar may have written dvra rpéruy. 29. ‘yeved] nation, as in OJ. XI. 15 tov ’Emifepuplwy Aoxpav yevedy ddéywr. For atgwv cp. Pyth. X. 10. péytorrov is predicate. 30. {téev] Pindar always uses fdw, never {dw.—The order dard kal @avav for kai dmodavwy is strange. It almost looks like a survival of days when xal, like its kinswords te, gue, Ssk. ca, might come after the word which it linked. Perhaps this passage indicates the origin of the phrase re kal. The original form may have been rarjp re wyrnp Kal, and the place of «al in the alternative ex- pression kal maryp kal uarnp have pro- duced the form rarip re kal wnrnp, which is curious when one comes to think of it. Mr Tyrrell suggests {wav 1’ dro, ‘both from the (mouths of the) living and after death’. 31. Aro86ro.o] The first syllable of the name, naturally short, is lengthened here in arsis. Bergk quotes Atopdvys from an epigram published in Rangabé’s Antig. Hell. . 988. Diodotus is the father of Strepsiades the elder.—For paxardy cp. Vem. 11. 13. Meleager is dpyldidos in I 550. 32. alvéwv] rivalling, imitating, ac- mulatus. See Appendix A, note 5 of my Nemean Odes.—Meleager, son of Aetolian Oeneus, met his death in the war be- 9 130 dud’ ’Audidpecov evav0é’? amémvevoas adtKiav mpouaywv av butrov, ev dpioroe tween the Aetolians and Curetes, Koup7- Tuy Te meonyd Kal Alrwr\v peyadtuwy (I 549). Phoenix, in his tale of Meleager, does not get so far as his death, and we must go to Apollodorus, &zbiotheca 1. 8, 3: £eNOdvros 5é MeNXed-ypov xai rivas tév Ocorlov raldwy govetcayros ’ANOalay dpdcacOa Kar’ abrot: Tov dé dpyifouevov otkot wévery, On 6& Tuy odeuluy Tors relxeot TpooTmehagovTww Kal TwY Todtray déotvrwy ped’ ixernplas BonOeiv pods meobévta bd ris ywvaKds éedGeiv Kal tovs Aourods xrelvavTa Tav Oecrlov maldwy dmobavely paxduevov. The point of the comparison of Strepsiades to Meleager and Hector is that all three warriors fell fighting for their country. 33. dpc’ Apdidperov] The mss. give *Apdidpady re which (not to speak of metrical difficulties) yields no sense. Amphiaraos did not fall fighting for his country, and, save so far as he was a warrior, has no claim to be admitted into the fellowship of Meleager, Hector and Strepsiades. He met his death taking part in an expedition, which did not con- cern him, against the very country which Strepsiades died for. One of the Seven who marched against Thebes would have been an infelicitous choice indeed as a model for the Theban patriot. The cor- ruption has given Bergk the opportunity of making one of his most brilliant emendations. He saw that ’Auqidpadv concealed an indication of the place where Strepsiades fell and read ’Audud- peov, ‘temple of Amphiaraus’, between Tanagra and Oropus, cp. Strabo Ix. 404 kal y [pata 5’ dort romos ’Qpwrod mdyolov kal 7d lepdy rod ’Audiapdou x.7.d. Cp. IX. 399 évTad0a dé rou kat 7d ’"Aupiapderdy éort TeTinuévov ore wayretov, Srou gu- yovra Tov "Audidpewy, ws pyar LopoxdFs IZOMIONIKAI s. oTp. y. 35 «.7.. In support of this restoration it is to be observed (1) that there is no mention of Amphiaraos in the scholia though Meleager and Hector are men- tioned (Abel, p. 472): od 6é, Atoddra.o mai, év émalyy ribeuevos Meddaypor re kat “Exropa kal ras totrwv fndav dpeTas Kard modeuov K.7.X.; and (2) that the rare *Audidpecov was inevitably exposed to corruption at the hands of late Pindaric copyists to whom ’Auguidpaos was familiar. —I have however modified Bergk’s resto- ration: he read dv’ ’Augidpecov, but dvd is not the right preposition here; though it occurs again in this very sentence with its right meaning: mpouaxwv dv’ Burov. See Appendix H. 1 have therefore restored AMOAMOIAPEION. augl is just what is required. Compare Pyth. xX. 56 dul IIyveidv, Iv. 180 dup Taryyatou béueOda. And dpe’ is confirmed by the circum- stance that the double ayu@ facilitated the corruption. amMam@lapeion became AM@IAPEION, which was naturally taken for the name of the hero, and the addition of the copula was necessary for the con- struction. aAAaTTaAalarap, the corre- sponding line in the first epode, caused no difficulty, and 1. 50 only required the addition of w to the dulAdas to make it suit.—Mezger accepts Bergk’s restoration. 34. evav0é’] Strepsiades was still in the spring of his life. Cp. Ol. 1. 67 apis evdvOewov 6 dre gudy dxvar vw wéday yévecov Epepov. See below 1. 51, where the word is echoed, but in a literal sense. For dménvevoas cp. Vem. 1. 47. Dissen compares Simonides 115 jvlk’ dd’ luep- Tip erveev Hruxlyv. 35+ mpopdxwv] Strepsiades fought év Tpoudxoutv, among the foremost fighters. For Sprdov cp. Ven. 1X. 21. WO" dpirro. «.7.d.] Where men most LSTHMIAN VI, 131 y , a > ‘ > , EoXOV TONEWOLO VELKOS eoyaTats EXrioeV. y unr ies aA érray S€ révO0s ov hardy: GANA viv pot TasaFoyos evdiay braccev x Yelmadvos. deicouat yairay otepavotcw appoctwr: 6 8 dbavd- tov py Opaccéto dOovos. 6 te teprrvov épapepov Siwxwv avr. y. 40 ae wy * mv + , 1 Exaos ETrelut ynpas és Te TOY mopatLov brave sustained the shock of war by the hopes of despair. For modéoto vetkos cp. N 271 émmore vetkos ‘dpipyra: rodeuovo. 36. For érxov Dissen quotes & 57 of 3” émivyvat Oojot waxny dNlacrov Exovgt vwre- ués. éoxadrats éAmrloty (instrumental) are the last hopes which a man has before he ceases to hope altogether; as it were, the straws at which a drowning man clutches. [Mr Tyrrell suggests, ‘with soaring spirit’, cp. Vem. X. 32.] érxov (the paronomasia toryov : érxdrats is perhaps intentional, cp. Mem. X. 33) expresses the tenacity of the Thebans in standing their ground: the battle was hardly won. —B gives éoxdras ém’ édmiow, and this was read by the scholiast who wrote dvri rod écxara éredritovres 8 éorw drodécbat kal py érl rodrwm vrocreddopevar. (So Mezger explains ‘auch auf den Tod gefasst’.) D has éoxdrocow én’ édrldw. The editio Romana has the reading in the text, which is required by the metre. émt was a natural insertion. 37. érhav x.7.d.] L bore grief not to be told. Schol. 6 7@ dwoBavovt. diapépwr éya 6 xopés, dyolv, érdav, but the poet speaks himself as a Theban and friend of the victor’s house. ov dardv, cp. O/. VI. 37 xX6dov ob pardv. 38. TatéFoxos] Poseidon is the giver of calm; but here the calm is figurative. He gave it through the victory won by Strepsiades at his games. 39. dppdotwv] Schmid corrected dp- pécas (cp. schol. thy éuavrod Kepadiv dpuocas); but unnecessarily. The syllable is common; cp. vigorra 1. 5. Opacrcérw}] The metaphor of the calm is continued. Let not envy of the im- mortals toss the calm waters. Compare Aeschylus, Prometheus 628 cas 8 dxvd Opdéa: ppévas. Ascholium ut} cvvOpavérw points to another reading @pavérw.—For Odvos cp. Aesch. Agan. go4 pOdvos & dméorw, Soph. Phil. 776 Tov POdvov dé mpsoxvoov. Also known as ’Adpaoreia (Nemesis). ® 40. 6 tt x.7..] ‘Each day pursuing the pleasure thereof’; lit. pursuzng what- ever thing of delight comes to me from day to day. The adjective épdepos (should we with Mommsen read édpe- pov? compare Pyth. VIII. 95) has the force of the common phrase 颒 ijuépay for the day (cp. rijs 6’ qudpay Bopas Eur. Electra 429). Cp. épapeplay ordbuav Nem. vi. 6. 4t. Srey) Z shall peacefully traverse old age and advance to the fatal hour of fife. Schol. wed hovxlas ert re rd yiipas kal Tov pepmowpapyévov xpbvov maparyevoluny. In O/. 1x. 58, the only other place where it occurs in Pindar, €«ados has the force of \afpa. Here it has the force of con- tented.—Homer’s mply pv cal yipas erec- ow (A 29) is echoed in érreuse yipas, but must not mislead as to the construction. vfipas is conceived as a space traversed and directly governed by éreiut, out of which eft is taken for és alova. For ale pdpowos as the fatal limit of life cp. O/. IX. 60 wh Kadédor vv ala mérpov epayats. In O21. 11. 10 alav pépounos is different. Cp. Bacchylides 3 modoxpérapoy yfjpas ixvetoOar.—For émeuut, D has éel pur. Q—2 132 tN ato@va, IZOMIONIKAI s". OvacKopev yap Suds aravres, Saiwov § aFucos: ta paxpa 8 et tis mamtaivet, Bpaxyvs eEixécOar yarxorredov Hedy ESpav* 6 ror mrepdets Eppirre Ilayacos Seométav é0érovt’ és ovpavod atabpuovs ém.y'. 45 eMeiy we? cpwdyup Bedrcpopovtrav Znvos+ +o S& map Sixav yAvKD TixpoTata péves TEdEUTA. app 8, o xpucéa Koa Oadrov, Tope, Aokia, Teaiow dwiddats ’ evavOéa nat IIv00t orépavor. 42. Ovdokopev x.7.d.] Schol. caddmrak yop mdvres dvOpwra évi cal To aire bromlrrouev Oavdrw, Ta 5€ Tod Saluovos kal THs Tuxns ovKére toa éorl Kal Spo Tots waot. This note enabled Benedictus to restore digos 1. 43 (drat elpypévor) for dioros which is in the mss. The di- gamma of ftcos (so in Pindar four times) explains the form, and we may write dFioros.— pas B, guws D.—The sense is: different as men’s fortunes are, they die alike; let each then have his pleasure. 43,44. TA poxpd] Zhe things which are afar off, not épduepa. tamralver, Sixes his eyes on, used in exactly the same way Ol. 1. 117 wnxére mawrawe Tépavov, Pyth, Wl. 22 wamralver 7a wépow. 44. Bpaxts x.7.d.] he és too small to veach the brazen-floored abode of the gods. Cp. Bpaxd por ordua avayjoacba Nem. X. 19.—Xadkdredos is darak elpnudvor. 6 tov B, 671 D.—For ales Pegasus and Bellerophon cp. O/. X111. 84 sqq. (86 troy mrepoevt’). The force of rot is ‘according to the well-known story’,— an exemplum grave. 45. orabpods] strictly of farmhonses 50 (ras Kar’ dypods erates), but Pindar here and elsewhere uses it more generally of an abode ; for example, of the last abode of all (O2. X. 92). Here perhaps it hints at the dpxata: gdrvat which receive Pegasos in O/. XIII. 92, though his master was not to see them. Cp. Vem. I. 72.—D has é0édovres ovpavods. 46. spayupw Znvds] the conclave of Zeus. Compare T 142 Oewy med’ durpyup awry. 47- 168% «.7.X.] Schol. 7d 6¢ éf dduxlas 70d yevouevov mixpdv Tédos KapBaver. 49. xpvoéq] The first syllable is short, as in Vem. v. 7 and eight other places in Pindar. xpio¢ds is found in Mem, vit. 78. The golden hair of Apollo suggests too the ddpva xpuodéa (see Pyth. X. 40) which was the prize at his games.—For sépe cp. Jsth. 1. 61. 50, aplAAats] so Bergk: Mss. éulh- daow. Heyne proposed catow for te- atow. Perhaps we should read 7aiow or év caiow. 51. evav0éa] Responds accurately to evavé’ 1. 34, as Mezger remarked. kal TIv0st (Er. Schmid, mss. xat IIv60t), at Pytho as well as at [sthmus, ISTHMIAN VII. ODE IN HONOR OF A VICTORY IN THE PANCRATION AT ISTHMUS WON BY CLEANDER OF AEGINA. INTRODUCTION. THE interest, which one would feel in any Greek poem written in the first flush of the victories over the Persian invaders, becomes more curious when directed to a work then composed by the poet of Thebes, whose sym- pathies were modified, at least in expression, by ties of birth and deep affection binding him to the city which had played such an unvaliant part in the great crisis of Hellas. To mingle in due measure his love of Thebes with his love of Greece, to reconcile patriotism in the narrower sense with patriotism in the wider, was a task demanding from the poet all his matchless dexterity in wielding words and pointing allusions. He had to sympathise with Hellas, without wounding Thebes; to remain a Theban, . and yet glory in the Panhellenic cause. An opportunity for displaying his skill in such delicate handling was soon afforded to Pindar by an invitation coming from a city which had distinguished itself highly in the war. Telesarchus of Aegina asked him to compose a hymn of victory, which at the same time should have another aspect,-as an ode in memory of the dead. It should celebrate a victory in the pancration gained by his son Cleander at the Isthmian games, while it should also serve as a monument in verse to his nephew Nicocles who had fallen in the war, he too an Isthmian victor. The conditions of such a task obviously rendered it impossible to pass over in silence the recent events which were filling the minds of men, of all men certainly in Aegina. The Aeginetans had reason to exult in the great deliverance, and Pindar has made deliverance the note of this epinician hymn. What may strike one as the most delightful thing about it is the manner in which the artist expresses the feeling of relief, the breathing again, now enjoyed by Hellas after the storm, without ever naming Salamis, Plataea or the ‘Medes’ His audience could readily understand that Troy is a type of Persia—the Trojan war being historically, as Herodotus knew, a link in the chain of 134 ISTHMIAN VII. the Eternal Question,—without any direct word to tell them so. At Aegina generalities were quite as speaking as particular references; for when one talked of 4640s and mévos, who could think of any trouble save that through which they had lately laboured? But at Thebes the particular names might well have been more painful than general words, these being less readily appreciated there than in the cities which had shared in the danger and shared also in the glory! In this ode (as elsewhere”) the winning of the sea-nymph, the daughter of Nereus, is happily used as a figure to represent the achieving of a victory in the games of the great Sea-god. It follows that Cleander is compared to Peleus; but, whereas in the other hymns where Peleus is introduced the exploits and excellences of that hero are made prominent, here the poet, being chiefly occupied with the circumstance that the marriage is a solution of difficulties, bestows less attention on him. It is related how Zeus and Poseidon desired Thetis, and how Themis revealed the secret of fate in the 1 Four chief views have been held in regard to the date of this ode. (1) That of Hartung who places it after the battle of Oenophyta may be at once set aside as inappropriate. (2) Boeckh and Dissen held that the hymn was composed for a victory at winter Nemea, in 479—478, just after the battle of Plataea. They think that the grief is too recent to admit of a later date. But, as Mr Fennell says, the ode is clearly an Isthmian, and Unger has proved that winter Nemea are a fiction. (3) Mezger thinks that the tone of the ode is incompatible with the period following the battle of Plataea and the humiliation of Thebes; and he holds that it was written after the battle of Salamis. The stone of Tantalus was removed, but there was still danger ahead. He seems to imply, though he does not distinctly state, that the Isthmian victory was gained in 480, and that the ode was not written till the close of the year. But it sounds as if it immediately followed the victory. (4) Mr Fennell’s date seems to me the right one; spring 478. But he thinks that the victory of Cleander was gained not at the Isthmian festival of 478, but at one of three preceding festi- vals, held in 484, 482, 480, ‘Phylakidas being the successful pankratiast on the other two of these three occasions’. The s cause of this assumption is his view that fsth. 1. was written soon after Plataea and that Melissus won his pancration victory in 478. But the evidence for the date of Zsth. 111. is very doubtful; it seems to me that the evidence for Cleander as the pancratiast in 478 is better. A poem, which is a AUrpov Kapydrwv, surely follows close after the hour of labour; for xayd- twy refers primarily to the toil of Clean- der, though it may have a secondary application to the death of Nicocles and the troubles of war. But in the main point I agree with Mr Fennell, and it seems to me that, even if Mezger’s objec- tions to the date of Boeckh, on the ground that a Theban poet could not have sung éx peyddwy mevOdwy dvOévres (in Ist plural) immediately after Plataea, be well founded, they do not apply a few months later, in April 478. Hopefulness (1. 16) was then the fitting temper for a Theban whose sympathies were on the right side in the Eternal Cause.—It crosses one’s mind that the reiteration ravodpevor 1. 8, éravee 1. 13, mavoare 1. 39 may be an allusion to Pewsanias, as the stayer of troubles. Pindar perhaps wished to be the herald of Theban overtures to Greece. 2 In the Fifth Nemean; see my /#- troduction. INTRODUCTION. 135 council of the gods. The son of Thetis was destined to be mightier than his father; and if Zeus or Poseidon begat him, he should wield a weapon more terrible than the thunderbolt or stronger than the trident. Let Thetis wed a mortal and bear a son, mighty indeed but of mortal estate; let her wed the pious Peleus. Such a union will solve the difficulty, and hinder strife among the immortal gods. So Themis persuaded and so the gods decreed. The application of this narrative (1. 30—50) is made clear by the phraseology. The winning of the Isthmian victory by Cleander has brought joy after grief, has stayed trouble, has delivered from dejection, just as the union of Thetis with Peleus wrought a deliverance from evils and stayed the approach of danger. the early verses of the hymn: Observe the emphasis on loosing and staying in p ; ' I Kveavdipo—dtbtpov—xkapdrov. > : ’ , 6 ek peyddov dé mevOéwv dvOévres. 8 mavedpevor 8? drpdkrwy Kakav. -I3 kapTepay travoe pepyuvay. These notes are echoed in the speech of Themis r 39 dAAd ra pev Twatoare. 48 dbov xev yadivov mapbevias. And Pindar regards this' legend as a lesson in practical wisdom and a pregnant criticism on life. 12 GAN epol Seiypa pev maporxopevev ss wv i ‘ A A * wa Le kaprepay emavoe pépivav: ro d€ mpo modes Gpetov del... xpiipa’ mavddAws yap aidy én’ dvdpdce Kkpéyarat, éXicowv Biov wépov' lara & gate Bpotois avy y eAevdepia . , Kal Ta. The example of accepting the decree of fate and dealing practically with facts was set by Themis!; and the healing was wrought by a condescension to the estate of mortality : 34 eime 8 eUBovdos ev pécorct Ours elvexey Tempapévov Wy K.T.A. 39 Bpotéwv dé Acyéwv ruxoica K.T.A. 1 Themis is the arranger; and if in 1. 13 we restore the missing disyllabic infinitive in the sense arrange TO Sé mpd odds dpeov del O€pev, it may signal to her name. Other echoes: may be noticed which are in harmony with this interpretation of the meaning of the myth. The success of Cleander is described in remarkable words at the end of the ode: 797 «TjBav yap ovk dreipov bwd xeug Ka- Ady Sdpacev (see note), suggesting the comparison of his victory with the marriage of Thetis. 47 Sopatopévav (Bergk’s admirable correction). Again, the young men who sang the comus for Cleander advanced 2 dydadv Tedeodpyou mapa mpddupor, and the marriage of Peleus was celebrated in the presence of the gods who accom- plish, and of the bright Poseidon, 30 ayAads Tocedav, 33 GAN od oi duBporo. Téderav KT, 136 ISTHMIAN VII. But this is only a part of the story. Achilles too has his place in the myth, just as Nicocles has a place along with Cleander in the hymn. At the marriage of Peleus the valour of Achilles, who was to be the issue of that union, was sung, and afterwards, when he lay dead, the maidens of Helicon stood by his pyre and lamented him. He too was a deliverer: 56 ‘Edévay 7 &tboaro, even as the dead Nicocles, now deplored by a poet, aided in the deliverance of Greece. Cleander and Nicocles have well maintained the glory of Aegina now, as in olden time the two Aeacids maintained it on the plain of Iolcos and on the plain of Mysia: 44 dvr edoeBéacrarov hpact FiodrKov rpader meStov. 55 aipak&e Tyrdpov pedave paivav povo wedlov (where the two plains are set together by the device of metre). Anda certain significance seems to be attached to a plain, as open to the view of men, in contrast with ‘holes and corners’, in which the deeds of Cleander, as is emphatically stated (1. 77), were ot performed. The contrast of the mortal condition of men with the immortal quality of the gods is a note of this hymn!; but without making it gloomy. The winners of sea-brides, the recoverers of Helen, must die. And in this connexion Pindar has expressed, in simple and striking words, one of his happiest and deepest criticisms on life,— Bporéwv d€ Aexewv Tvxoica vidv eiowWéerw Oavorr’ év modepo. 1 Observe: 15 Pporois, 33 duBporor, 51 ob KarépOive, 57 évapiuBpdrov, 65 da- 39 Bporéwr, 45 dpOirov, 50 abavdroow, vdrors, 66 Kal POipevov, 62 ob5e OavdvT INTRODUCTION. 137 METRICAL ANALYSIS (Rhythm: logaoedic.) STROPHE. Vr ry me EHUD HH ~~ y Sm MY FH mV mW HU re mM tM Vm mE rE ra ME ee NINE NS Rt Se Rap RP SG RS me RN BUS -yuruureruUr—uUn: — Ww YY ory rE SK Hr —_~ ur uunV- - OY =~ Syn VU Dv uve —~ — —~_— WYEmr—WY YW UO Y——-VvU-UTY VVryrVE mM Hm D, M. Schmidt divides this into three unequal groups, of which each falls into symmetrical parts. A (vv. I—3) is epodic, the scheme being a(v. 1)=6+4=10, a’ (v. 2)=4+6=1o, b(v. 3)=44+4=8. B (wv. 4—6) is mesodic: a (part of v. 4)=7, 6 (part of v. 4 and v. 5)=3+3+3=9, a’ (v. 6)=7. C (wv. 7—11) is tristichic with a short epodikon : 6°4°5+6+4+5 33 or a@=15, @=15, b=3. E. Boehmer proposes to make the last three feet of v. 6 a separate verse. This will do in every case except in the last strophe, where he has to transpose d8pov and read dBpdv r@ ddixwy ris, His principle is that ~~ and - cannot alternate in arsis (arsis, that is, in the Greek sense) within a verse. For the same reason he regards ‘Edévay in 1. 56 as an Axn/fangs- auftakt, and would therefore read dAAa in 1. 12 and begin a new line with éué, which he proposes for époi. IS@MIONIKAI Z’. KAEANAPQ AITINHTH: ITATKPATIOn. ' - c t z yo a ® Knredvdp@ tus adixia te AUTpov evdokor, @ véol, KauadTwv, oT. a’. 1. GAukla re] For Cleander, O young men, and in honour of the youth ‘that is his, come to the bright portal of his father Telesarchus, and awaken a fair conius- song, a thing to deliver from labours, and as the price of an Isthmian victory, and” for that he found the quest of victory in the games at Nemea.—Dissen is probably right in taking dAule as robori juvenilt ejus ; but his explanation of it as an ex- ample of poetical coordination of part and whole (for which he quotes Aleman —Kumpov iveprav Nrotca kal Iddov) is evidently not correct. Formally Kyedy- dpw aduxla re is a hendiadys, as Mezger recognizes (comparing Alywav oerépay re pljav 1. 61 infra, and Nem. VIII. 46), equivalent to che young Cleander. The usual way of expressing this would be KAedvdpou adtxlg, but the hendiadys gives adxla an independent grammatical posi- tion, as if she were a person linked with Cleander. It is possible however that the hymn is conceived as a )vrpov for the comrades of Cleander also, and that d&dcKcle is abstract for concrete, like Bay in 1. 77 and vedras in lL. 75. Mr Fennell takes a\cxlg in the sense of ‘youthful companions’, sodales (re- ferring to l. 72 dAtkwv ris), an inter- pretation which Dissen rejected. Of emendations I may mention ze for re adopted by Bergk, who explains dAcxia as in tempore. ATpov] A means for deliverance, as ¢tArpov is a means for loving. So in the only other passage in Pindar where it occurs, O/. VII. 77, 760t Abrpov cuppopas oixrpas yhuxd Trarodduy trata. Cp. Aeschylus, Choephoroe, 48 tl yap duTpov mecdvros atparos médoc; In fact Urpov is equivalent to the wnxavi Aurqpios of Aesch. Eumen. 646. In common use Nurpov has the special sense of ransont.— Cp. Horace’s faborum dulce lenimen ; Pyth, Vv. 106 7d KadXlyvixov AuTApLoy SaTravay bédos xaplev, the triumphal song, work of the Graces, that defrayeth the outlay. Cp. ubxduv duopdvy Mew. Vv. 48.—For evSofov cp. Isth. U1. Al, Pyth. Vi. 77 eddogov dpuare vixav.—For Kapdtev, of troubles to be allayed, see Mem. 1. 7o and VIII. §0- Words signifying trouble and travail] are mustered in the first thirteen lines: kaud- ISTHMIAN VII. 139 Tarpos dyNadv Tederdpyou wrap mpabupov | tov aveyepéTo K@ LOD, ‘ToOpuddos Te vikas drrowa, Kab Nepeg aOhwv bTL KpaTos eGelipe. TO Kal éya, Kalrep adyvipevos Oupov, abréopeans Xpvcéav Karécar ex peydhov 88 revOéwv AvOEevTeEs Moieap. , o> 9 2 f st 4 byt év ophavig récwpev otepdvor, , t A wnte xadea Oepdreves tavodpuevor 8 ampaxtav KaKkov Twv, peydhwv mevOdwv, xddea, darpdxrwy kaxay, wera mévov, Tayrddov AiGov, ardd- Maroy ubx0ov, Kaprepay pepivar. 2. dyhadv wpdbupov] Bright portal. The epithet suggests that the vestibule was adorned with fair pillars, and works of art (xaplevra dydAwara).—For the singers at the portal see Vem. 1. 19 éorav & én’ addelars Ovpats. dveyeipérw] Hermann’s restoration of the Mss. reading dyepérw. One of the scholia supports this correction: éyepérw tov tuvov (Abel, .p. 479), but another (%. p. 477) has xarayérw dUrpov Trav moveay Tov edogov KGuov, For dveyelow cp. O/. VIII. 74 and Jsth, U1. B 23. For sense (sescitare), Mem. X. 21 etxopdov éyetpe NUpay, and Ol. 1X.'47 éyeip’ éréwy otwov Avydv, ‘awaken clear-tuned lays’, For the construction ris dveyetpérw @ véor (= dveyelpere, & véor) cp. P 227 (Dissen). 3. darowa] Simply Avice, in apposi- tion with xduov. Cp. above note on Lsth. VW. A 7 edkAdwv epywy drowa,— There seems to be no objection to Te... connecting the genitive vixas with the construction é7rt é£efpe xpdéros, which is equivalent to xKpdrovs déOhwv Neuég (darowa). Bergk in his 4th ed. punctuates at Neuéeg (which he constructs with vixas); and in his notes he suggests 66: for 8rt, I see no reason for doubting the received reading.—Neuég, at Memea, see Lsth. V1. 18. 4. Kpdtos] superiority, victory; Ol. 1. 23 xpdree 6¢ mpocguke Seorébrav, 2b. 78 xpdres 6é méNacov.—égedpe Kpdros is an unusual kind of phrase. é£evploxw occurs , in Pindar of poetical invention (Upvov Kai Pyth. 1. 60, veapa Nent. vill. 20), of Heracles discovering the far west, /s¢/. 111. B 56; of finding a brave dog (veperive) Srag. 234, 3. In the present passage the point of cfeGpe is that the victory is con- ceived as a quest, and it is stronger than Pindar’s use of the simple verb (O72. VII. 89 dvdpa re rv dperav ebpiyra, Pyth. IL. 64 Tay daelpova Sdéav edpeiv, Pyth. IX. 113 eSpev yduov). For éfeupioxw, win, cp. Sophocles, Phzloctetes, 288 yaorpl uev Ta cbudopa Toor 768 eénipicke. 7@, therefore ; so below, 1. 72.—Gxv0- fevos, here and Pyth. vil. 16. Pindar is distressed overtly for the death of Nicocles, covertly for the fortunes of Thebes. 5. alréopat] Passive. Cp. Horace’s poscimur.—xpioéav, So Nika is golden in Js¢h. 11. 26, the KyAndéves in 7”. 53, the children of Themis in O/. x11. 8. The Muses are xpucduruxes, Pyth. 111. 89, and their mother is xpuodmremos (above /sth. Vv. 75).—For kahéorat, zzvoke, Ol. V1. 58, éxddeooe Iocedava. For the poet bring- ing the Muse, see Mem. UI. 28 Motcav pepe. 6. mevOdwv] Compare Mem. x. 77 rls 5 AUats Eooerat mevOéwv; dvdéevres takes up Avrpov, and qev@éwy refers chiefly to the Persian invasion. 7. Ophaviqa] only here in Pindar; widowhood, lack. For éumrlrrw, cp. Pyth. WU. 41, Lsth, WW. B 23. 8. pafre K.7..] Mor nurse sorrows. Tavodpevor x.7.r.] ceasing to deal with ills which profit not, we will, even after trouble, sing some sweet jollity. mwavod- uevot is a key-word in the Ode (see [tro- 140 IZOMIONIKAI Z’. yAuKU Te Sapwooueba Kat peta tovov: érreto) TOV UTép Kepadas 10 dre Taytddov didov mapa tis éTperev dupe Oeds atormatov ‘Eras pox Oov. vov duction, p. 135). ampdxrov, only here in Pindar, generally means unprofitable or wnsuccessful. Editors compare ov yap Tis mpniis wéAerat Kpvepoto ydoro, but we must remember that xax@v is objective. Q- Sapmodpe0a] Schol. yAud 7 ral- Ewuev Kab els Tov Shuov dydywpev pera tovs mévous. This verb occurs here and in Plato, Zheaetetus, 122 E, kal raidra TOs wh papev Snuotpevov Aéyev Tov Ipw- tayopav; That it meant Zo sfort, and that Sdwua meant a song, or other manifes- tation of mirth or jollity, is shewn by the scholium just quoted and by the following glosses: Hesychius, daywpara’ malyvia, Sapwmevos* dryaddomevos, ol Se matgav, Timaei Lexicon, dypotobar: dy- woxorely, malfer, etdpalyecda. The word Sdwua occurs in Stesichorus, /*. 343 rode xphy Kaplrwy Saummara Kad- Aco Mwy Umvety Bpdycov médos é€eupsvd’ aBpws Tjpos émepxouévou, where the suggestion seems to be a song of joy sung by the members of a dapos on the return of spring. These lines of Stesichorus are preserved by the scholiast on Aristophanes, Peace 797, where the first verse is quoted. The force of wat is that after trouble something more earnest than a ddéuwua might be expected. lo. éredy «7.A.] Since a god twice turned aside the threat, that like the stone of Tantalus hung over our head, of labour intolerable for Hellas. 11. dre] Mss. ve. Schol. on w% 12 gives ye, which is accepted by Boeckh, Dissen and others contrary to the metre, which requires -. Mommsen proposed Gdn éuol Seiya pev trapovyopé- atp. 8’. «al, Mr Fennell reads r6v, which is palae- ographically good (before Tav-réAov), but objections may be made to the repetition of the article. Bergk read dre (implying ~~ here for ~—), which is approved by E. Boehmer and seems very probable, Tavrddov AlGov] Of the stone which swung over Tantalus, Pindar tells in the First Olympian, 1. 57 sqq.: drav bréporov, av of warhp Umep Kpépace Kaprepov airy AlGov Tov alel pevowav Kepadds Barely ev- ppoctvas ddGrat. éxet 5’ amadapyov Blov roirov éuredo- pox Gov Mera Tpiav TérapTov jWovoy K.7T.A. Observe the remarkable likeness of the phraseology there and in the passage before us. This indicates that the image of the Tantalean stone was still before Pindar’s mind when he wrote caprepav Mépyvay (1. 13) and kpéwarac (1. 14). For the proverbial metaphor (whose place was usurped by the ‘sword of Damocles’ in later times) compare Archi- lochus /”. 53 (quoted in schol. O2. 1. 56) pn® 6 Tavrddov Aldos Thad brep vio Kpeuacbw, and Euripides, Ovest. 6, 7 Kopupijs brepréddovTa Serpatyww mérpov dép. morarar Kal river ravryy dixny. Note the quantity of érpeper; so maparporos (Pyth. 11. 35), dmorporos, drorpémw. maparpérw does not occur elsewhere in Pindar. 12. a@réAparov] Equivalent to drha- A scholium thus explains: mapé- Tpewe Tis Dewy Tov dvuroudvyTov Kal dewov TH ‘EAAdde mévov' pyol dé tov Héptov moheuor. Setypa] But for me, when I take the TOV. ISTHMIAN VII. 141 N ” KapTepav éravoe pépysvav’ TO S€ mpd Todds dpevov del Oéuev past as a sample, hard trouble is stayed. Setyua, documentum, example; cp. Euri- pides, Suppliants, 354, Aristophanes, Acharnians, 988.—The Mss. have detua. Most editors have sought the corruption elsewhere, and many have followed Pauw in reading maporxéuevoy and interpreting ‘the passing away of the terror dissolved my anxiety’, a somewhat contorted mode of expression. Oehlschlager and Mezger, reading deyudrwv for Setua ev, understand Geds as the subject of gravee, Bergk reads du’ od Setua wey traporxduevov Kap- Tepav éravce wepiyyvay, but this sentiment is out of keeping with the general tenor of the poem. It is true that the poet says xalrep dxvdmevos, but the stone of Tantalus, the xaprepd wépiuva, has been removed. Mommsen alone seeks the fault in defua, and bases his proposal xdpua on the scholium: éyuol 6¢ Trav Pbacdvrwy Kaxdv tov re PbBov Kal Tip wépyuvay al viv ris vikns edppootvar édv- gay. (Schnitzer’s idea that the scholiast read xaprepdv 7’ seems probable.)—I venture to think that my restoration of detyua for detua is simpler and more satisfactory than any of the suggested changes. The corruption has an exact parallel in the Agamemnon, 1. 976, where the Codex Farnesianus has dSefua for Setypa (de?yua probably being the true reading, see Verrall, ad Joc.). The recent deliverance of Greece is a proof or evidence of future safety, a sample of what is to come: the Se?yua consists in the maporxdueva. After the palpable in- tervention of ris es Pindar is no longer anxious. For ra mapouxdueva, the past, cp. Herodotus VII. 1203 20. 1. 209 4 map- ovxouévn vie. See also Vem. VI. 29. 13. &mavoe] The scholiast’s evcav combined with frag. 248: dvrirarrépevoy T@ Avoly beg AbovTt 7d TGV SuaPbpuw oXoL- vlov pepyv dv kare Ilvdapoy (Plut., de adel. ef amic. c. 27) almost induces us to be- lieve that Pindar wrote not etrayce but eAyce. There the Avowos Beds is Dio- nysus. Cp. also Sappho, I. 25 yaXerdv 5é NOoov éx pepiuvay, and a fragment of Thales (P. L. G. 111. p. 200) Aboes yap avipiv kwtiwv yrwooas drepavroddyous where Bergk reads rravces. Both ravw and \jw are key-words in this Ode, ravw occurring three times (here, ]. 8 and 1. 39); and only twice in the rest of Pindar (Mem, 111. 39 and VI. 20; but dvamravouar Nem. vi. 11 and dvdravows Nem. VI. 52). vd 8& apo mobos] what is present or instant, opposed to what is not so (here, to what is past). Compare Sophocles, Oedipus Rex, 130 q TouKiwdds BPdiyE 7d wpds roal cko- we meOévras Huds Tadavh mpooryero, where 7d pds ool is ‘the zzstant, press- ing trouble opp. to 7a ddav%, obscure ' questions of no present or practical inte- rest’ (Jebb). Tooly Kad. Gpeov «.7.\.] MSS. dpeov det | xphua, with defective metre. Two syllables, scanning ~ -, are wanted after or before del. Hermann read del ré\e, but Dissen concluded from the scholia that an in- finitive meaning regard had fallen out, and read del cxomrety. Bergk, on the same lines, prints épév def. The scholia in question are as follows (Abel, p. 484): may dé mpoohke: TO mapa mbdas mpaypya oxorety kal eB StariOévat, § det dé BéAridy €or. wav 7d Tapa modas mpayya mpoc- Pdérew.—It is quite possible that the lost word, which was not lost for Didymus, meant see; and if we write dpevov idety del in uncials, we see that iéetv might have disappeared : APEIONIAEINAE!. I venture to think however that Pindar wrote del Oéuev (cp. schol. ef SiariOévar) ; see above /ntroduction, p.135.—The scho- liasts remark that this was a fayourite thought of Pindar: 87: 7&v rapéyTwy Kat éveornxbrwy del now 6 Illydapos Sety dvré- Cp. Antigone 1327 Td 142 IZSOMIONIKAI Z. xphpwa. mavddr10s yap aidv én’ dvdpdou xpéuarat, édicowv Biov réopov: iard 8 gots Bporois civ vy édevOepia 15 kal ta. xpn 8 dyaOdv érxris’ avdpi pérc* xp & év érrarirovcs OnBais tpadévta Aiyiva Xapitwv dwrov mpovéuer, xecbar Kal ph dpéyeoOar r&v pweddbvTww. Cp. O/. 1. 99 7d 8 alet rapdmepov éordy Urarov épxerar ravtt Bpordy, and Pyth. xX, 62 tav 8 exacros dpovet Tuxwv Kev apradéav oxé0o. ppovrlda tay map Todds* Ta 8 els éviavrov ‘aréxwaproy mpovo- joa. A good comment on (éet», if it be pre- ferred, would be O/. x11. 9, ray dé med- Novrwy rerUmPrwyTat ppadal (here ex- pressed by avdéNos aid). dpeov) Understand éorw. Hartung writes xphud ’orw in the following line for xphua mwav.del, from moment to moment; cp. Horace’s dona praesentis cape laetus horae. 14, tav8dAvos] I follow Bergk in this correction of the MSS. xpijua may: déd0s. The expression 7d mpd rrodds xpijua does not need way, which is awkward and weak, as Hartung perceived. savdddr0s is an epithet thoroughly characteristic of the Pindaric mint; ‘cp. waszrolkidos, Tap- ddppakos, Taumpwros, Tapmbppupos. aldy émukpéparat] The figure is a wind hanging about the course of ma- -Yiners, but ésmixpéuara: is chosen with reference to the preceding metaphor of the Tantalean stone. For the connexion of aléy with dyue in Pindar’s mind see above, note on Jsth. 111. A 18. For éMoow compare Ol, x. 8 padov édoco- pévay dd Kiua xaraxdtoce péov. The phrase 7d mpd rodés lends itself to the metaphor (ots, @ sheet), compare Ven. VI. 55 7d O¢ map wodt vads éooduevoy det kuudrwv. 15. Blov wépov] The force of mépos here is fated course or crossing, with reference to the meaning of rempwuévos, Jated ; see below 1. 35 mempwyevov jv, and above Jxtreduction, p. 135.—For Blov the Mss. have Biérov. The error may have arisen from Sporod in some explana- tory note.—Schol. 6 yap 5h rijs fwijs xpbvos eviprnrar Tots dvOpdmos tov Tod Biou wépov kudiwy Kai mpoiwr. civ y Aevbepla] at least, if they have Freedom ; if Freedom minister unto them. *EXevOepia is conceived here as a looser or deliverer, and her name connected with \vev. This etymology was perhaps suggested by the aorist passive form €d0Onv, whose participle \vOévres occurred in 1.6 above. édev@epta is seldom used by Pindar; we have it in Pyth. 1. 61, of the constitution of Aetna (eodudry abv éXevOepia), and in frag. 77, of Athens. 16. Kal td] Even that case; namely, the lot implied in the foregoing words, mavdddos yap aldv «.7.d., the changes and chances of deceptive time, regarded in this clause as a disease. xe 8°) Lt ts meet that a man should set store by brave hope; yea, meet is it that one bred in seven-gated Thebes should offer above all to Aegina choice firstfruits of the Graces, because there were born to her father twin daughters, the youngest of the Asopides, and they found favour with Zeus the king. 17. tpadévra] born and bred. 18, Xaplrwv dwrov mpovépew] The scholia explain roy buvoy Tov dvTa Xaplrwy ardvOicua dddvat, or again 7d dvBos 7d dd rv Xaplrwv mpoovéwew. The phrase seems to mean /o give fair firstfruits from the garden of the Graces (Kapirwy kémos Ol. 1x. 27). For this suggestion of dwros compare the scholia on O/. III. 4 duvor, inrov dwrov (schol. drdvOicna Tay Kap- wav) and O/. VIII. 75 xetpav dwrop (schol. ISTHMIAN VI. 143 \ Tatpos obvexa Siduas yévovto Ovyatpes “Acwridwy fc t o omdétatat, Znvi te Fadov Bactnéi. 20 a ‘\ \ ‘ , 0 Tay mev Tapa KaddLpO@ Aipxa dihapparou Todos @xicoev dryeuova: aé & és vacov Oivoriay éveyxov xoipato, Siov &vOa téxes oT.’ Alaxov Bapvodapdyw tratpi Kxedvetatoy émeyOoviav: 8 Kal Saipdveror Sixas émeipaiwve’ Tod pev dvTibeos 25 kaproév dv x.7.d.).—mpovépew, prac aliis tribuere (Dissen and Rumpel), a rare word, 19. ‘™arpds} Asopus, the river of Boeotia. “Aowrldwv from ’Acwrls, femi- nine patronymic. 20. owddtarat] Theba and Aegina were younger than Metopa.—For quan- tity of the first syllable (6) see above Isth. v.6. The mss. have érdérara. te FdSov Baotddi] So Schmid for @’ ddov Bacthf, a mistake which naturally arose from the omission of the digamma. a1. 8 «.7.r.] Who set Theba to dwell by the banks of the fair stream of Dirca, as sovran of w chariot-loving city.—, masc. relative as below 1. 24 (properly of course demonstrative).—kadXlpoos, a Homeric epithet; elsewhere in Pindar only O/. v1. 83. 22. gtAappdrov] This epithet is also applied to Thebes by Euripides, who probably took it from Pindar, in Hercedes Furens, 467.—dkeooey, in Herodotus, not in Homer, and only here in Pindar. Mr Fennell remarks that d-yeusv is ‘only here used in the feminine gender’. We might bring this out by using a strange form like deaderess. 23. 08’) Thee, Aegina (cé depending on éveyxwv). Schol. (p. 492) o¢ 6¢, & Alywa, pyoly, els riv Olvortav diaxouloas Vijoov cvveroyjOy...edpryuws ody lire Td Kot~ Baro ws Kal"Ounpos* Th 8 és Séuvia Bavte xarébpadov (8 296).—The island of Aegina was called Oenopia as well as Oenona, Vineland, (Both names were connected with obscure legendary persons: schol. duewov b¢ dd Olvoros fpwbs Twos dé- yeoOa. adryv. Tzetzes on Lycophron, 1. 175, Olvevy édéyero dd Olvdvys rijs Bovilwvos Ovyarpés, Kaba pyor TWvOaiveros év 7@ wpdty Tov Alywyruav.) éveyxav] Bergk reads pépwv éxoruairo for the sake of the metre, comparing Pyth. Ill. 45, cal pd viv Mdyvynre pépwv mépe Kevratpy d:ddéat. Hermann read &eyxe koiuwg Te, Kayser éveyxwv koluace.—kor- padro=cuvexomato. . He bare thee to the asle of Oenopia and rested by thy side, The imperfect tense often takes the place of the aorist in epic narration.—Btov, as son of Zeus, 24. Papvrhapdye] Deep-rumbling (of the thunder of Zeus); dai elpnuévor. opapayifw is found in Hesiod, 7heogony 706 abv & dvewos evooly re xovlyv 7’ éopa- payivov. oaaparyeiobar is used in the Odyssey of the eye of the Cyclops hissing beneath the burning stake of Odysseus, t 390. keSydtarov] See note on sth. 1. 5.— Compare Nem. vit. 8, where after a like introduction (Aids Alylvas re Xéxrpov «.7.r.) Aeacus is called yerpt cal Bovdais dpioros, a phrase which fitly explains xedvorarov.—For 6 see above 1. 21. 25. Slkas emelpaive] Lites componebat, conficiebat ; a phrase which does not occur elsewhere. Old Mss. émépawe. metpalvw for mepalyw is Homeric.—This is the only passage in which there is mention of Aeacus as an arbitrator among deities. , dvr(0eo.] Pindar applies this Homeric epithet to Peleus, Cadmus, the children 144 IZOMIONIKAI Z’. 3 * dpiatevoy vides viéwv 7 dpnipirot traides avopég ’ > 2 L S uadov* XaXKEoY GToveErT adhere Suadov I oddpoves 7 eyévovtTo mivuTot Te Oupdr. , a ’ Taira nal pwaxadpwv éueuvavt ayopai, Zeds 87 dui @érios dydads 7” Eprcas, Tlocedav, yapo, Groyov everdé eOédwv Exatepos édyv Eupev' épws yap éxev. 30 > GXN’ ot ogi duBpotor térecay evvav Oewy mparrises, érel Oeaharwr jxoveav. ele 8 evBovdos év wécotos Meus, orp. 8. of Leto, the Argonauts; he never uses todOeos. 26. dpnldidov] Only here in Pindar. —dvopég (see /sth. 111. B 11) defines dpl- orevov, were best in manlthood, even for handling the rumbling din of brazen war. 24. orovéevta] A Homeric adjective (Bé\ea orovéevra are whizzing arrows), only here in Pindar. xaxeoy renders the reference to warfare unequivocal. In Homer Spa80s means (1) the noisy com- pany of fighters, and (2) the noise or din of many voices. Here it means battle, with stress on the noise, further defined by crovédevra. Cp. Simon. 143 o7ové- evra xara Kdédvov.—dpérev, manage, handle, order. Cp. Pyth. 1V. 268 0x Gov dugéry, discharge a laborious service. In Nem. Vu. gt, draddv dupéruv Oupov means ordering his soul so as to be gentle. If we wished to translate into Greek ‘so to number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom’, we might intro- duce Oupdy duérew ppdv mov. 28. oddpoves] cwdpwv does not occur in Pindar except here and Pyth. ul. 63 of Chiron. mvyurds only here in Pindar. 29. tatra x.7.r.] These things were remembered also in the council-chambers of heaven, when for the marriage of Thetis, Zeus strove, and thou O Poseidon, each wishing that her beauty should be his to wed. ratra, the origin and excellences of the Aeacids.—pépvavto; this verb is not found elsewhere with an accusative in Pindar. 30. dpht Oérrvos—ydpw] For dul with dative in this sense cp. Ol. IX. go pévey dryava mpecBurépwv du’ dpyupl- beoow, Pyth. 1X. 120 and Jsth. IV. §58.— épioas was altered by Heyne to épiwap, which most editors adopt. But Momm- sen pointed out that Toceday is vocative. The direct address to Poseidon is grace- ful in an Isthmian Ode.—For dyAads of the sea-god cp. dyhad«pavos of Thetis Vem. ut. 56, and dyAaorplaiva of Posei- don O/. 1. 41. 31. evetSéa] only here in Pindar.— For @é\ev Boeckh ¢@éAwv, holding that Pindar always used this form. Oérw is the subject of ¢upev, and dAoxov evaSéa (defined emphatically by édv, a wife for himself) the predicate. 32. &xev] Schmid’s emendation of Mss. éoxev. The two Triclinian mss, known as e’ and ¢' read ev. The im- perfect is demanded both by sense and by metre; cp. schol. duorépous xare?- xev. 33. GAN od oow «k.7.d.] But the deathless wisdom of the gods brought not their marriage to accomplishment, when they heard the import of the oracles— of cpw (B dogi) more generally than odd’ érépw (neither Zeus nor Poseidon), which we might expect.—dpBporov occurs only three times in Pindar; here, Vem. xX. 7 (of Diomede) and frag. 75 (xO6va). 34. Ykovrayv] So mss. (e’ ¢' éraxov- ISTHMIAN VII. 145 obvexev Trempaysévou ay Péprepov ryovoy Favaxra watpds texety 35 TrovTiay Gedy, 2 os Kepavvod TE Kpéacov GAXo Bédos Sich Ees xept tprodovres T duanuaxtrov, Ai dapatopévay 9 Aids map’ adeArdeoiow. aNd Ta pe mavaate Bpotéwv 8¢ Neyéwv Tuxoioa | ey : viov elawdétw Oavovr’ év Trodréuy, 40 Y 2 & a a dvdp’ “Apes xépas évariyxiov oteporraict + dxuav moddav. cay); Hermann én’ dkovoay, Boeckh ouvlewy, decrev, Bergk éouvijixay. Mr Fen- nell adopts émrdxoveayv.—The scholiast interprets (p. 497) émreidh Tay peporpa- Kévuv KariKovoay. émdxovcay does not occur elsewhere in Pindar, but it is not clear why it should have been cor- rupted here, if it stood in the original text. I prefer to keep the reading of B and D, and suppose that here corre- sponds to ~ ~. etBovAos] Compare O/. x111. 8 ratdes etBotdov Oduiros, and frag. 30 etBovdov O¢uw, Aesch. Prom. 18 dp80Bovdov. 35- otvexev] Donaldson for mss. ed- vexev.— héptepov yovov, Achilles is called yovov péprarov in Mem. 111. 57. As the text stands there is an irregularity in the metre. The second syllable of yovov, long before fivaxra, corresponds to ~ ~ in the answering lines of the other strophes. There is no insuperable ob- jection to this arrangement, but editors have been at pains to compass uniformity. Boeckh yévov of (but we expect fo), Kayser yévov é’, and Bergk xe -yévov. The last named scholar also proposes yévov é&v which would be palaeographi- cally preferable. Mommsen resorts to transpositions. If any change be thought necessary, I should rather read géprepév fe FONON, a son who will certainly be better than his father, whether god or man.—dvakta is happy, as it applies either to a eds or to a Bpords. 36. Gedv] goddess, Nem. v.13. rovrlay 6edv, Thetis, is the subject of rexety, and this act is stated as a sure consequence of the condition expressed by dapafo- B. II. Mévay (1. 37) = ay Sapatnrat. 37- Swe xepl] shall wield, agitabit. Cp. gopmryya Siubxwv, Nem. V. 24.— dpatpaxérov, here of Poseidon’s trident, as Pyth, 1. 14 of his realm (révrov). In Pyth. IW. 208 KuvnOudy merpay duaruaxe- tov, in Pyth. 111. 33 of Artemis pévec Ovocay dwawmaxérp, vresistiess. Pindar does not use rtplawa, though he has edrplaiva etc. as titles of Poseidon. Al Sapotopévav] Bergk’s emendation of Mss. dit suoryouévay, due to an ‘inter- pretamentum’, just as in Pyth. XI. 24 érépw Aéxet Sapafouévay the scholiast explains 7 érépw adrhy dvdpl puoryonevny. This correction is also supported, with regard to map’ ddeAgeoier in the following line, by P 421 ef kal potpa map’ dvépu T@de Saufvar mdvras owas, Finally da- pagouévay is confirmed by a signal, which I have pointed out in the Lytroduction, p- 135.—Schmid and many editors ac- cepted Znvi from e’ ¢’. Mr Fennell reads Att ye. For Al cp. Nem. 1. 72. 38. GAAd Ta piv «.7.d.] May, give up these thoughts (of a marriage between Thetis and an immortal); du¢ wedded to a mortal let her look upon a son slain in war, one like unto Ares in might of hands, and to lightning flashes in the speed and sheen of his feet.—For twatoate see Jn- troduction, p. 135.—tTvxotca, the Aeolic form, restored by Heyne for Mss. rv- xotca. 41. dv8p "Apa xépas] mss. “Ape xetpas évadlyxcov (e’ ¢ xépas). To re- store the metre which requires —“4 yy oy most editors adopt the transposition of 10 146 IZOMIONIKAI Z’. TO yey éuov, Ilnréi yépas Oedpopov ordcoa yapwov Aiaxisa, ovr’ evocBéctatov dpact, FrordKod rpdadet mrediov: oTp. €. lovrwy 8 és adpOurov dvtpov evOv0 Xeipwvos avrix’ dryyediae 45 Boeckh xefpas "Apet 7’ évadlyxiov, but as no cause is assigned for such an error, and as the insertion of 7’ is also involved in this restoration, I regard it as ex- tremely unlikely. Bergk was not satisfied, and conjectured ds “Ape xépas, but the possessive adjective is not wanted. I venture to read dv8p’, which is distinctly to the point. The son of Peleus and Thetis will be an dvip, not a Oeds, as would be the son of Zeus or Poseidon and Thetis. The word is placed em- phatically at the beginning of the verse. Its omission can be easily accounted for. The second two letters of dvdp’ were omitted owing to their likeness, in un- cials, to the first two letters of “Ape (anApapel) and the remnant dy was discarded as unmeaning.—For quantity of "Ape see note on Mem. X. 84. For akpedy see above /sth, Il. B 51. 42, 43. TO pev épdv x.7.r.] My counsel ts to give the divine marriage as a high guerdon to Peleus, son of Acacus. Cp. Nem, X1. 24. : yépas Oedpopov «.7.d.] Mss. Inde? Oed- Motpor édrdoat yduov Alaxidg yépas. It is clear that Geduopov (cp. O2. 111. 10, Pyth. v. 5) is the last word of 1. 42 and Alaxlég the last word of ]. 43. All editors follow Hermann in transposing yduou to 1. 42 and inserting yépas in its place after érdoca; thus TIndet yduou Gedjopov émdooa yépas Alaxldg. But why should both ydmov and yépas have thus been pushed out of their places? The reading which I have given in the text (where ydpov is in apposition to “yépas and is defined by Oeduopov) assumes that yduouv yépas was a marginal expla- nation, which may have led to the corruption of dor and the insertion of yépas after Alaxldg with its consequent omission after Ily\éi.—émdooar, Pindar uses both forms in goa and forms in oa of this verb: Wracas, Wace, 8raccer, @racay, érdoas. 44. paol] dpacly is Bergk’s excellent correction (adopted by Mezger) of ¢aclv which suits neither metre nor sense. This change necessitates a further change of rpageiv to some finite part of the verb, and this need cause no difficulty, for, when ¢pacly was falsely read gacty, the infinitive tpagety was inevitable. Bergk reads rpdgev, but see below. Bothe con- jectured g¢dris which Christ accepts.— FiwAxot, Mss. "lawdxod, vulg. paclv "Iwr- kod, Bergk gpaciy "Iwhkod, but we may presume that Pindar preferred the di- gamma to the finaly. For the conquest of Iolcus by Peleus see Mem. 111. 34 8s kai Fuwdxdv efde. Bergk’s reading rpdgev would imply that Peleus had been bred, if not born and bred, in the plain of Tolcus, which was only a recent conquest of the hero, I therefore read rpdde= alit, supports, nourishes, see Isth. 1. 48. Peleus lived in Iolcus, when Thetis was offered to him. Donaldson and Mr Fen- nell give pd7is and rpd@ew, but the read- ing in the text involves less change. 45. UWvrev «7.d.] Let the tidings speed anon, straight to Chiron to his im- mortal cave. Chiron’s cave is ceuvoy in Pyth, 1X. 30, and here d@@crov, as the abode of a seer. Cp. d@avdrov orduaros (Pyth. Iv. 10) of the mouth of Medea.— ev6U, Hermann’s emendation of Mss. 060s (which is not needed with adrixa), confirmed by the metre (but compare 1. 23). Xelpwvos depends on cvdv. ISTHMIAN VII. 147 bende Nypéos Ouyarnp veréov mérara Sis éyyvaditéro dppuv: év Svyounvidecow 88 Feorépats éparov Avos Kev xadwov UP Hpwr wapbevias. ds dato Kpovidais évvérrovaa Oecd Tol & eal yreddpors vedoav aOavdroow eméwv 8& xaptés 50 ov KkarépOive. gavti ydp Evv’ adéyew 46. pydé 7.0.) And let not the daughter of Nereus twice lay leaves of strife in the hollows of our hands.—wéra- Aa veixéwv, a strife to be decided by leaves, alludes to voting on olive leaves as in petalismos at Syracuse or the éxgvAX\ogopia at Athens. Cp. above dyopat, 1. 29. The form of expression suggests that the metaphor is intended to be significant. A scholiast quotes xAddoy "Eyvadlou from Ibycus (77. 29), cp. Homeric 8tov “Apros. —éyyvad(fey does not occur elsewhere in Pindar. It properly means to place in the hand hollowed to receive a gift. 47- SixopyvlSerow] There are three forms, dixdunvos, dixdunv, and dixdunvis, meaning month-dividing, that is at-the- Jullmoon. b«xdunvos is the prose form, occurring in Plutarch; d¢xéunv is used by Aratus. In O/ 111. 19 we have d&xdunns Xpucdpuaros Miva, For the good-luck of marriage at the full-moon see Euri- pides, Jphigeneia at Aulis 717, where Agamemnon fixes the union of Achilles and Iphigeneia, érav oehjvys ebruxis 2X0 KUKdos.—Feorépats, not digammated else- where in Pindar; for the plural cp. vixres. With épardy in this connexion compare Pyth. IX. 12 kal opw éml yuKe- pais edvats épardy Barer alda. 48. xaAwév rapSevlas] the maiden’s girdle, fwvy. Cp. ddce rapOevlnv Savnv, X 245, where the subject of \dce is the man, the middle Avec@a: being properly used of the maiden, here \voe exceptionally (cp. Eur. 4.177). Pindar has yaduvds meta- phorically of an anchor, dods’Apyods ya- Awév Pyth. v.25. Cp. Aesch. P.V. 562. —The condition implied by Avo Kev is readily understood ; ¢f you follow my coun- sel. Translate: But she might well undo the dear bridle that binds her maidenhead in the hero’s embrace on a midmonth eventide, Kpov(Sats] Literally the sons of Cro- nus, Zeus and Poseidon, who are specially interested ; not generally of the gods. 49. tol 8? emi x.r.d.] But they nodded assent with immortal eyelids; and the Sruit of her speech withered not to death. émi-vedoav (tmesis), only here in Pin- dar, who twice uses vedw in the sense of nodding yea. émwevew yAepdpots is a variation on the Homeric émvevew éppvor. 50. Kaptrés] Editors quote for the metaphor Aeschylus, Humenides, 684 Xpnopols—pnd’ axaprusrous krloa, Sept. c. Thebas, 614 el xapmds orate Oeoparoior Aoglov. Here perhaps the xapmés éréwy (of the counsel of Themis) is opposed ‘to the wérada veiéwy (of the quarrel which Themis allayed). 51. KarépOwe, not elsewhere in Pin- dar. £Jv’ ddéyev] Hermann’s emen- dation of cuvadhéyew. It seems best to take Eva Kal ydpov as a sort of hen- diadys (so Mezger), gud being the cog- nate and yduov the ordinary accusative after ddéyew. dvaxra is Zeus, and £uvd means the communion of Zeus and Themis. For éuvés of two associates cp. Jsth. v. 36, and Pyth. 1X. 13 Ewov ydpov.—For dvaxra (to which B has the gloss rév Ala) Christ reads dvaxre (Zeus and Poseidon) after two Triclinian Mss., Kayser dvaxri (Peleus), and Bergk dvax- tas (Cronidae; ‘dicunt ipsos deos The- tidis nuptias carminibus celebravisse’). I do not like to change the text, as I 10—2 148 kal yapov @érios dvaxta. IZOMIONIKAI Z. kai veapay Seay. copav oropar’ drelpocw dperdv ’Axidéos* 3 nal Mictov durredcev aiwake Tyrépov pérave palvav hove mredior, 55 oTp. Ss’. yepipwcé 7” ’ArpelSator voorov, ‘“EXévay 7 édvcaro, Tpolas ivas éxtauody Sopi, tai viv piovtd more pdyas évapyuBporou think it may well be right; but if dvaxra for Zeus be considered ambiguous, I would suggest Ziv’? ddéyerv in the preceding line. In any case I do not feel certain that £dy’ is final. 52. Kal veapdv] The chief mss. (B D) give kal vé dvédakav, but the reading of D and some Triclinian mss., also appearing as a lemma in D, is «al véav édetay. The difference is merely a matter of the division of words, and what the emendator has to deal with is KAINEANEAEIZAN. The scholia testify to both decipher- ments: cal 7a T&v copay véa oropara, gyal, rots darelpos derke Thy Tod ’AXiA- Aéws dperiy* ob yap povos “Ounpos dddd kal melovs dAdot vedrepor... § 7 otrws* del 5é @ddNew (D Baddrew) kal vewrépay elvat tots dmelpos Thy ’Axiddéws dperhy Ta Tay copay orduara merolnxeyv. The words of the latter scholium del Oda\\ew suggested to Bergk alivéay 1’ etav, a correction which he rashly introduced into his text. Schmid’s emendation xai veapdv involves very slight change and is generally accepted. The corruption may be explained by an intermediate stage NEANAN. For veapés, young, see Pyth. X. 25 (in Mem. VII. 20 it means xew). And the mouths of bards revealed to them that wotted not the youthful excellence of Achilles.—Observe the plural verb with orduara copGv= cool. 54. 8 Kal x.7.d.] Who also made the vine-clad plains of Mysia run red with the black blood of Telephus.—t, see above 1. 21. kal, not to mention other exploits (Dissen). dpareAdets and aipdoow occur only here in Pindar; and patvw else- where he only uses metaphorically.— meSlov responds metrically to medfov in 1. 44 (Mezger).—For the battle with Telephus, whom Achilles wounded, see Lsth. 1v. 41. Dionysus helped the Greeks in the conflict with Telephus, who was tripped up by a vine (whence the god was called ZPadrys); and this incident is suggested by dparedéev. 56. -yebbpwoe x.7.\.] And he made a bridge homeward for the sons of Atreus, and delivered Helen, having cut out with his spear the sinews of Troy, which were checking him in his course, as he mar- shalled the work of man-spoiling fight in the plain,—even proud Memnon and high valiant Hector and other princes. The usual construction of yegupody is with an accusat. of the thing bridged, as morapov yepipwoe, he made a bridge over u river. But it also takes, as here, an accusative of the bridge-passage; cp. = 357 ‘yedtpwoe xéXevfov.— With all editors I have adopted Heyne’s ’Arpet- Sato, but I am not sure that it is right. The mss. have ’Arpeddaiot, and there is something to be said for Bergk’s conjec- ture "Apyeddat, the Argives (see Ste- phanus Byz. sad voce "Apyos).—é\ioaro (6 before Tp), see Jntroduction, p. 136. 57. tvas ékrapév] The sinews are the Trojan heroes, Méuvovés re Blav x.7.d. in the following verses being in apposi- tion with fvas. For tvas éxrapety (=vev- poxorreiv) used figuratively, cp. Plato, Republic 411 B éxréuvew worep ra vetpa ex rfjs yuxfs (Donaldson).—péovro (éppi- caro Pyth, X11. 19, not elsewhere in Pin- LSTHMIAN VII. 149 f épyov év medip xopvccovta, Méuvoves te Biav UmépOvpov”Extopa tT adAXous 7 dpiaréas: ols Sdua Depaeddvas paviwy Axirevs, odpos Alaxiday, 60 Aiyiwav oderépay te pifay mpopauer. Tov pey ovde Oavévr’ dotdat edsToP, Gra For rapa te mupav tapov 0 ‘Edixwviat trapGévor atdy, él Opjvov te wodAvpapov exeav. dar) here means stayed, checked, inhibebant, a very strange use of pvouat, to which I am unable to find an accurate parallel. The usual sense is defend, preserve (as in Pyth, Xi. 19). If we did not look to the later part of the clause, we should naturally take ral wiv (or vw) pioyro to mean ‘which defended Troy’. It is possible that there is some deep-seated error in the text, but Bergk’s piov@’ érére .. .Kopdacotro is not likely.—worte padxas Schmid (and ¢’ ¢’) for mo7’ é« paxas (a very natural error).—évaplpBporos occurs also in Pyth. VI. 30, there of Memnon. 58. Koptocovta] Cp. Pyth. VII. 75 Blov xopvocéuer (armare) 6p00Bovdouee wy- xavats. Hesiod, Scut. Her. 198 waxy ; B 273 médeucr te koptocwv.—Note that Pindar will not have us forget that the valour of Achilles is shewn év aeStw. 59. tmrépOvpov “Exropd 7°] ="Exropa 0. brép@vpov. This Homeric adjective occurs also in Pyth. Iv. 13 brepOiuwy Te gwrév. In the present passage there is perhaps a suggestion of overweeningness. —Pepoepévas, Boeckh for Mss. Ilepce- povas, ois x.7.r.] Zo whom Achilles, warder of the Acacids, revealed the hail of Perse- phone and thereby lifted to heaven's light Aegina and the root of Acacus. 60. paviov] arxnouncing, making known (a solemn word used ironically). I conjecture that both paviwy and mpé- gawwev are borrowed from the language of the mysteries. Cp. Mem. IX. 4 avday pavier émérrais.—otpos, so Nestor is called in Homer. ofpos ’Ayaucv, 61. oderépav] = Alaxcdav.—pltav mpo- cbatvey reminds us of the passage in the choral ode of the Amtigone where a light is stretched over the root of the house of the Labdacidae. mpogpalyw, bring into light, occurs in frag. 42; cp. also mpépa- ros (Ol. vill. 16) and mpdgavros (O/. I. 120).—For the context Dissen well com- pares Tyhavyés péyyos Alaxidav, Men. Ilr. 61. 62. Tov piv K7..] And even after death songs failed him not, but the maids of Helicon stood beside his pyre and tomb, and poured over him a lament of many votces.—ov8é, Boeckh for Mss. ore.— Hermann reads dodal y’ éAurov to obviate the hiatus, which is of an uncommon kind. 63. “HAucdviat] In Zsth. 11. 34 the Muses are named ‘Edxwyiddes. Dissen notes the point of the designation here: ‘suaviter ut significet Boeotias fuisse Musas, quae Achillem canerent, quem- admodum nunc Boeotiae Musae Aeginam canunt virosque eius egregios’.—For the dirge of the Muses and Nereids over Achilles see w 60. 64. o@rdv] Mingarelli for mss. éorap. mwodvdapov] This word, not elsewhere occurring in Pindar, has two meanings in Homer: it is an epithet (1) of dyopd, 8 180, in the sense many-voiced, cp. Aleman, frag. 34 8xa Oeotow diy rodiga- pos éoprd, and (2) of dodds, x 376, having many tales to tell. A third possible mean- ing is (3) famous (cp. modvparos, a Pin- daric adjective), and it is thus explained by Rumpel here. Liddell and Scott place Opiivov rodvpauov in the same category as modtipapos dovdés. I have no doubt 150 é50& dpa trap abavarors, IZOMIONIKAI Z’. 65 éorov ye pata Kab POiwevov tuvows Oedv Sidouer, atp. ©. TO Kab viv héper AOyov, Eoovtat te Mooaiov dpya Nexoxdéos papa tuypaxou Kedadjoar yepatpéuev 0, Os “IaOusoy av vatros however that here Pindar used the word in sense (1), which is evidently most fitting. Perhaps he had the special in- tention of suggesting a rokdgapos d-yopd, and thus signalling to 1. 29 maxdpwv éu€uvavr’ dryopat, Achilles in death, like Peleus in life, was remembered by companies of immortals. That wodvda- “os would have immediately suggested an dyopd of speakers, we may with some confidence conclude from the phrase és Tonbgnmov é€evetkae (bring forth to a public assembly), which occurs in an oracle quoted by Pindar’s contemporary Hero- dotus, V. 79. éml—txeav (Mss. éxevay, emended by. Schmid); this compound is not found elsewhere in Pindar. 65. map’ dOavdrous] So it was resolved in the court-of heaven to deliver so good @ man, even after death, to the hymns of goddesses.—Most editors adopt the reading of D kal d@avdrors, but there are two objections. (1) It is impossible to explain the genesis of 5’ d@avdros the reading of B, if «al is right; (2) Kal ‘tribus versibus continuis repetitum dis- plicet’. Boeckh proposed 766’, Bergk rér’, but neither of these conjectures ‘carries with it an explanation of the corruption. On the other hand it is obvious how easily wap’, which I have restored, might have dropped out of the text: . EAOZAPATTAPABANATOIC kal and 6 were makeshifts to repair the line. apd is used half in a local sense (agud), partly in the figurative sense which it bears, for example, in Py¢h, 11. 92 Kadds Tor TlOwy Tapa rooly. 66. éorddv ye] That is dre éodov byra. The mss. have és Adyor ye. Bergk well shews how the mistake arose: ON ecAorre kal O(yevov lays stress again on the fact, already rendered prominent by o¥ dé Oavovra, that praise was given to one dead. Geav] So Triclinian Mss., and all editors. The old mss. have Oedv, which is cer- tainly translatable, as referring to Thetis (‘that the goddess should give’), but yields poor sense. 67. rd Kal K.7.A.] And their judgment herein ts right, now as then, and the car of the Muses speeds to sound memorial praises of the boxer Nicocles, and to honour him, who won Dorian selinon in the Isthmian glen.—6, which thing, the tenor of the preceding verse, 5 25ofe map’ davarous. —Kal, as well as on that oc- casion.—dépet Adyov, bears reason as its burden, is reasonable; a poetical recast- ing of xe Aé-yov.—Of cevouat Pindar has the following forms: ovro, rovrat, éc- oupéva, écobuevot, Eooupévws, The figure of the chariot of the Muses is worked out in O2. VI. 24 sqq. 68. pvdpa] Cognate object of Keda- doa; the ode is a funeral monument. yeparpépev O° Ss x.7.A.] MSS. yepatperat wu, Hermann -yéparpé 7é suv, Bothe and most editors yepalperé wv. To this, the usual reading, there are serious objections. (1) There is no apparent reason why yepalpere should have become the un- meaning ‘yepalperat. (2) The imperative is here out of place. Who are addressed? The ddcxes are not addressed until 1, 72. It seems evident that the sentence be- ginning with 7d «al voy in 1. 67 is not broken at xeAadfjoa:, but continues to cedlvwy, the antecedent to ds being Nixo- ISTHMIAN VII. 151 Awpiwy érayev cerivwv: eel mepixtiovas évixace 8 tote Kal Keivos avdpas apixt@ xept KAovéwy. 7O TOV pev OD KaTEAeyXEL KpLTOD ryeved Tmatpadedgeod: adixwv TO Tus aBpov dudl tayxpatiov Kredvipo mrexéto pupoivas orépavov. émet viv “AdKabdov 7 dyov adv TUXG kNéos muyuaxov. If this be so, and if the letters yepacp- are right (there is no reason to suspect them), it is obvious that the corruption conceals an infinitive coordinate with xedadfjoo. This reason- ing is strikingly confirmed by the evidence of a scholium (Abel, p. 509): 51d kat viv 6 Adyos Huas mapopua Kal 7d Tav Movowy dpya Tod mruxrixwrdrou Nixoxdéos 7d prijua Kal Thy Tay KaropOwudruy dperhy burfoat kal Tinea airov ws “Icuia atrod ven- KnxoTos To NixoxAdos pyat. The metre at once suggests yeparpéwev 0’ Ss (cp. 1. 35), and now we are in a position to explain the corruption, The original mistake arose in misdividing FEpaipemeNTE as -yépatpe wév Te, and the reading in our Mss. is a compound of two attempts at correction: (1) -yépaipé piv, (2) yepalperar uev, the re or &” having been naturally discarded at once as a blunder. dy vdtos] restored by Hermann for MSS. dvéaro, dvamt, dvam, Pindar has vawos in Pyth. v. 38 of a valley at Delphi, vara also of a part of Delphi (Pyth. V1. 9), and of Nemea (Zt. U1. A 12). Euripides, /oz 176, has vdaos”Io0- uov. For dv see Appendix H. 69. Awplov] See note on /sth, 11. 16. —tepiktlovas dvSpas, men from the sur- _rounding districts; cp. Vem. XI. 19. 70. évlkace 814] conquered indeed. dy goes with the verb, not with wore. So in Ol. IX. g Td 54 wore, connect 7d 54 closely.—kat Ketvos (Boeckh for Mss. kdxeivos), he as well as Cleander.— dpixra xepl (old Mss. dvxre xeupi) KAovéwv, tossing with resistless hand. d@uxros is often used of an arrow, w2- erring. «dovéw occurs in one other place in Pindar, of sands tossed by waves and winds (Pyth. 1X. 48).—Observe xept before xX. 71. Tov pev K.7.d.] Ox him (Nicocles) zs no shame laid by the offspring of his Sather’s noble brother.—Nicocles was the son of a brother of Telesarchus and therefore cousin of Cleander. d€yxw, in the sense of shaming by falling short of what is expected of one, is not uncommon in Pindar, occurring in three other places: Pyth. vil. 36, O/. VIII. 19 and Jsth. 111. A 14.—kptrod, distinguished, select, also in Pyth. 1v. 50. For yeved= son, cp. above Jsth. V. 3. (MSS. -yevedy, corrected by Triclinius.) KaTE- 72. warpadedeod] This form of ma- Tpaderpos only here. For a& see above Lsth. 1. 12. GXlkoy «.7.r.] Therefore let one of his comrades weave for Cleander a luxurious wreath of myrtle for the sake of the pan- cration.—t@, see above, l. 4. For the idiom with tis see note on 1. 2.—For dpol with genitive in this sense cp. Pyth. IV. 276 TAG Tas evdaluovos dud Kupavas omovday Oéwer. 74. prpolyas] In Js¢k. 111. B 70 Mbpros. *Adxaddov] The Alcathoeca were held at Megara in honour of Alcathous son of Pelops, who killed the lion of Cithaeron. Asclepiea were celebrated at Epidaurus. At one or both of these games the prize was a wreath of myrtle.—otv rixq, the emphatic words of the sentence; ‘and his coming thither was crowned with success’, So too (in Mem. x.) Theaeus is described as ruxg moduv to places 152 ISOMIONIKAI Z. év ’EniSavpp te mpiv eexto vedas. 75 A 2 a > A I TOV atvely ayab@ Tapéyxer- a \ 2 wv € X a A , nBav yap ovK arreipov vd yea Kadav Sapacev. where he won victories.—Observe that dyév with ’A\xa6dov, and vedras with év "Enidavpy, are mutually supplemental. Cleander was received in both places by the young men who took part in the games. vedras, abstract for concrete, is chosen in order to balance dydv. Translate: Since his quest was pros- perous when he was received by the young men who strove at Alcathous’ games, or, in former time, at Epidaurus. 75. mpl exro] MSS. re vedras mply Hermann emended ve veéras 6éxero mplv. The reading in the text is that of Bergk and Fennell. The trans- position of vedras seems to have been due to a wish to attach vedras closely to *Erdavpy. vedras] Elsewhere used in abstract sense by Pindar (as Wem. 1x. 44, O/. X. 87). 46. tmapéxev) For the impersonal usage edexTo. of mapéxw cp. Euripides, Electra, 1080 Kalrot Kad@s ye owppoveiy mapelxé cor (Mezger). Zo praise him a good man has occasion. 77. HPav ydp «.7.d.] Far, like vedras above, a company of youths, the com- petitors whom Cleander overcame. Cp. Aesch. Pers. 512. Cleander’s victory was conspicuous (ovx v2d yeg) and over skil- ful rivals (ov« dmretpov kadGv). odk negates both dzetpov and brd xeg.—iwd xag (‘in a corner’, we should say) has been preserved in the Triclinian mss. e’ ¢’. D has twd xla (or xéa) mw. The zw is mysterious, but it can hardly be doubted that the true reading is that of e’ ¢’. xeud occurs in the Odyssey of the hole of a serpent; it is otherwise extremely rare in literature. [Its possible signifi- cance here, as a contrast to edlov, has been noted in the Lytroduction.] APPENDIX A. poev—re (with reference to Jsth. 1. 14.) THERE are a score of passages in Pindar where it has been supposed that re takes the place of dé in correspondence. It is important to define the limits of this usage, which, at first sight, seems decidedly strange. It may be shewn, I think, that, accurately speaking, re never stands for 8. In certain cases it may stand for 6€ + another word ; or owing to a change in construction, a clause introduced by re may take the place of a clause introduced by 8é But it will be found that many of the alleged instances are not instances at all; the 8€ clause being in some cases actually present, and in others entirely suppressed. The general principle of course is that wéy always implies 6é, and dé always implies wév. When pe is expressed, dé as a rule is also ex- pressed ; the exceptions, in proportion to the total number of instances, being few indeed. On the other hand, 8 is regularly used as a connecting particle without wé&; but a standing ratra pev ovrws exe, sometimes expressed in Herodotus, is understood. The apparent exceptions to wév—8éé are : (1) Cases in which the opposition is emphasised by the substitution. of the stronger adversative aAAd for 5é’. (2) Cases in which the 8 clause is suppressed for the sake of rhetorical effect, from a motive of delicacy, &c. (3) Cases in which the clause which should have been introduced by d€ is, in consequence of a change of form or construction, annexed by ze. 1 In Sophocles, Axéig. 167, roUro pév is taken up by rofr aiés, equivalent to émeira €. 154 APPENDIX A. (1) pev—adAa. The following instances occur in Pindar : 1. O12 1X. 170 piv "Apyidoxou péAos (dpxece)—5 adda, viv—érivepar (where the change from indic. to imper. is to be observed). 2. Ol 1x. ge xbova piv xaraxdtco, pédavay vdaros oevos, dddd Znvos téxvais dvarrwrw ééaipvas aerhoy éAetv. The opposition could not well be stronger. 3. Ol. x. 85. 4. Pyth. 1, 22 dpépaow pev—drAN ev dppvaiow. 5. Pyth. 1. 55 dobeve pev xpwti Batvwv, ddda. poupiSiov Fv. 6,7. Lyth. wW. 139, and 273 (padiov pev—aAXa. Svomads). 8. Pyth. ui. 47 (uév—54 dAda). 9. JLsth. 1v. 46 (ee aAAd). Change from indic. to imper. as in 1 above. Vem. 11. 19. This case is different. There is no marked opposition between the various places where the Timodemids won their victories, and we must explain the passage as an intentional anacoluthon. It is as if Pindar had written: ‘And now I will enumerate the distinctions of the Timodemids. First, at Pytho four victories ;—but the first item is far from exhausting the list ; they won eight crowns at Isthmus, seven at Nemea, countless at home’. This case then really belongs to (2). In one case we find pév—oarap: Pyth. wv. 168. In Pyth. 1. 89 ds dvexer Tore pev To Keivwy, TOT avO érépois ewxev péya Kdos, the reading is not certain, the mss. having rote 5 av6’ which creates a metrical difficulty. There are however doubts about the text in the corresponding lines of some of the other epodes. (2) “pér— pev may have no 6€ formally answering to it, (4) owing to a change in the form of the sentence. This case is not infrequent in dialogue, as a speaker’s sentences are certain to be interrupted and altered in the process of conversation. Or, if the méy clause is long and rambling, an anacoluthon is a natural result. Or again, in some cases a point may be made by breaking the expected course of the sentence, and expressing the sense of the 8é clause in another form. (4) The cor- relative clause may be designedly omitted altogether and left to the understanding of the audience or the reader, with a view to some APPENDIX A. 188 rhetorical effect’. It may be sometimes convenient to say ‘the spirit is willing’ without making any explicit reference to the flesh. (2) 1. OL 11. 19 489 yep arg, warpl piv Bopdy dyoberruy, dixopyvis GAov xpvodpyaros éowépas dPOadpcv dvrépdefe Mrjva. Here the pév clause is placed, in participial form, in the middle of the clause which regularly would be introduced by 8é Strictly the sentence should consist of two members: arpi piv Bwpot dylcOycav, aire dé «7.4, There is a close parallel in the Odyssey, 0 405 o¥ te wepurdnOys Ain régov GAN aya) j gvvaiow 8 apd’ dperais térapat «.7.A. Dissen’s adissuadetur affectatio tyrannidis expresses the import of the implied 8€ clause. (3) pev—te. Sometimes the clause answering to pév is introduced by re in order to avoid the repetition of a word or phrase. Thus re takes the place of dé + some word or words. 1. OZ vil. t2 may be taken as a type. The expression ‘often with the lyre, often with the flute’, should regularly appear as @ayo Bev oppeyyt, Gaya 8x7. But if metrical or any other considerations prompt the poet to be concise, he may substitute 7e for Capa Se, Accordingly we find here Gopd pev doppryyt, rappavol + év &recw aiddv. Similarly in 2, Wem. U1. 9 Sopa pev “Iobpiddwv Spéemecbar xaddiorov awrov év TvOfowwé re vicar. Te=Oapa. Se. 3. OL IV. 16 pada pev tpodais éroipov iarmuy xaipovra re Zeviats. te = pada é, 4. Olviig & & ein pev ‘Odvpmovixas Bopd re pavteiy. te= ely 8é, 5. OL vit. 88 tipa pev duvov teOuov—avdpa Te. Te=Tipa O€. 6. Pyth. U. 31 7d pev Apws Ore K.7.A—OTe TE KT, te=te 8¢, 7. Wem, vil. 86 oéo 8& mpompedva piv Eeivov adeAdeov 7’. Te = mpompedva Se, APPENDIX A. 157 8. Nem. viii. 30 ta pev dud’ "Ayirei—ddAwv Te K.7.A, te=7a 06 9. Pyth. Iv. 249 kteive pev yAavkdra téyvais TotkiAdvwrov dp ® ’pkecira, krépev te Mydeay ctv adrg, tay Tedlao ddvov. (The Mss. have aira; but odv atta = ctv ri Mydela Gedovoy Kal evepyodon is intolerably harsh, and some mention of the winning of the fleece, the quest of the expedition, is imperatively demanded. The reading airé is mentioned in the scholia and is certainly right. It refers to the Séppa Aapmpov (1. 241) which is described (244) as lying in the thicket, xetro yap Adxpo, «7.4. The emphatic pronoun is not ambiguous; it could not refer to anything save the fleece.) khépey te otv atrd = kdapev' Sé aro Kal ov aird Krapey Mydeav. 10. O2. 11. 6 xalrourt pev Levybévres ert orépavor mpdccovri pe— xpéos—, di re ica pe yeywveiv. Te= mpdooe S& xpeos. 11. ZLsth, 11. 37: see note. Possibly also 12. Jsth. 1. 14, 15, where if we read redyw and keep ro pe (see note), 7° may represent 7d 5é (cp. above 6). A similar instance of a sentence, in which the verb precedes the pé clause, but the regular course of the construction is so altered that the d¢ clause is displaced, occurs in Sophocles, Antigone, 1161: Kpéwy ydp jv Sydurds, ws eno, tore, cdoas piv éxOpav tyvde Kodpeiav xOdva AaBdy te xdpas mavTeAH povapxiay niOuve OdrAAwV edyevel Téxvav cropa. Regularly the sentence should have run: Kpéwv ydp qv fnduros, owas ° wey xOdva, AaBav 82 povapxiav kai eOivwv, two participial clauses qualifying jv {pAwrds. But the construction is changed; the second clause becomes an independent sentence, coordinate with yv fydwrds ; hence 6¢ is no longer in place. In the Philoctetes there are three instances of re=a word mentally repeated from the ev clause + 8¢. l 1058 Tapeote pe Tedxpos rap yuiv Tyvd émotypyy éxwv eys 0’, Here 6” = rdpeyu 8. (Compare Professor Jebb’s note.) 158 APPENDIX A. 1. 1137 dpdv pev aicypas amdras, orvyvdv te par —. Te = opav 8é. 1. 1424 mparov pev vocov tavoe Avypas dpery te mparos éxxpiels otparevuaros. te = dreta 8é. But in the lines which immediately follow we can hardly see another example: : 1426 IIdpw pev os rav8 airios Kaxdv edu, ToEoit Tois epotor vordioas Biov mépoes te Tpolay, axdAd 7 els peAabpa od méempes apirret’ éxhaBav orparedpatos Tlofavr. ratpi pos ratpas Oirns mAdxa. 1431 & & dv AdBys ov oxdrAa Todde ToD oTpaToU tofwy éuav pynpeta mpos mupay env Kopule, Professor Jebb thinks that wépoes re answers to Idpw péy, but he adds (in reference to both 1425 and 1428): ‘Possibly re ought to be 8¢ in one of the two places or in both; but in each case the re may bea trace of the somewhat careless writing which appears in this speech’. I would suggest that the two cases are different. dpery te is normal; but perhaps it is not necessary to suppose that wépoets re Tpoiav answers to IIdpw pév. There was nothing to hinder Sophocles from writing Tpofay 8 wépoes. I suggest that the Sé clause comes in 1431; there is an opposition between the winning of the spoils by the sack of Troy and the use to which they are to be put’. The following cases which I have noticed in the tragedians are in accordance with the rule here formulated. Aeschylus, S. ¢. 7h. 925 moAAd pév woXiras é&wv te wdvrwv orixas. Te=TOAAG OE, Supp. 410 mpara pev mode atroioi 0” yuiv éxredeuTyoe: Kadds. te=éreta dé (as Phil. 1424). [ Supp. 197, Mr Tucker rightly explains as an anacoluthon. ] 1 In Oecd. Rex 497 6 pév ody Zeds 6 7 have been more fully expressed by dewp "Arédd\wv K.7.d., wey is answered by 62 in ev oby 6 Leds x.7.A. 499, dvdpav 6. The opposition might APPENDIX A. 159 Choeph. 975 ceuvol piv Yoav ev Opovors ToO Gyevor iro. te Kal viv. (pidor) te=(Giror) 8€ iow. Sophocles, Zvach. 1011 ToAda wey év movTw Kard te Spia mavra Kabaipwy. te= moda 88 (kara Spia wavra). Euripides, Hera. 337 , mpwrTda pev oKOTOUS méupw mpos airov, un AdOy pe tpooreruv:... pdvres 7 dOpoicas Oicopat. te=dreita 8é. Hippol. 996 mpata pev Oeots oeBew pirous te xpyoba. ve= Grreita, 8¢, Orestes. 22 @ twapbévor piv tpeis epupey ex puds Xprodbems “Idryevaud 7° "HYAéxrpa T ey, dpoyv vz” ’Opéorys. Here + may stand for eu dé, as épuyev does not include Orestes. But perhaps it is better explained as a slight anacoluthon. The double ve in the preceding line might lead Electra involuntarily to finish her enumeration of Agamemnon’s children with another re, though she had intended to mark off the male offspring by a 8é. There are two good instances in the Medea, 1. 430: woddd pev dperépay dvdpdy te poipay eimeiv (where te=oAAa 8), and 1. 125 mpita piv elreiv Tovvoua vikd, xpnoOai te poxpG AGora Bporoiow (re = Greta. 8é). It is interesting to observe that a difficult passage in Thucydides, 11. 65, 12, may be explained, without resorting to emendation, in accord- ance with the view here put forward of pév followed by re. Notwith- standing the disaster in Sicily, Thucydides says, and the factions in the city, the Athenians Gpws zpia piv ern dvretxov Tols Te mpdTEepov Umdpxover TodEpios Kal rols dard SuxeAias per’ avrav, kal rdv Evpydxywv ere trois wAcloow aeory- xoot, Kipw te vorepov Baciréws raidt rpooyevopeven, Os wapeixe xpypata IleXorovvycious és ro vautixdy’ Kal ob mpotepov evedocay 7 abrot év odiot kata tas idias Siadopds wepurecdvres eopadyoay. The mention of the ordow (kal xara tyv mwodAw yon ev crave évres) shews that Thucydides began his reckoning from the year 411. 160 APPENDIX A. ‘Three years’ brings us down to 408. Cyrus according to the ordinary chronology came down to the coast in spring 407. It would be strange if the historian, wishing to shew how long the Athenian power held out, should have reckoned only the first three years in figures and not indicated the whole number. Hence 8éka has been proposed for pia. But Séxa gives too long a period, even if we were to count from 413 in defiance of the express words 73 & orace. No emendation is necessary, nor is it needful to suppose with Kriiger that Cyrus came down to the coast in spring 408. The total number of years which Thucydides had in mind was six (spring 410'—spring 404). The appearance of Cyrus on the scene of Greek politics divides the period into two equal parts of three years each. The first triad was 410, 409, 408; the second triad 407, 406, 405. But instead of tpia pev érn—, tpia S& éry Kipw x«.7.A. Thucydides has used the abbreviation re and avoided the repetition of rpia éry. “I may now come to some passages in Pindar where it has been erroneously thought that re stands for 8é. Pyth. Vi. 39 mpiato piv Oavaroio Kopiday rarpés, 4o edanoey te trav mada yeved omAoreportev— 7a, piv mapixel: 44 Tov viv 8 Kal OpactBovdros «.7.2. This passage has been misapprehended. pév in 39 does not answer to tein 40. The opposition is between the piety of Antilochus in ancient times and the filial obedience of Thrasybulus in modern days. This might have been expressed simply zpiaro pev «.7.A. madat-—tav viv é, but Pindar expresses the incidental waAa: of 1. 40 more formally in 43. The second pév is simply a resumption of the first ; and there is only one contrast. Pyth. X1. 31 Oavev pév, opposed not to partw 7 ddcoce |. 33, but to o 8’ dpa |. 34. Ol. vi. 88 drpuvoy viv éraipovs Aivéa mpdrov piv “Hpay Tapbeviav keAadpoat, corresponds not to yvwvo. 7 éretr in the next line but to eimov 88 pepvacba. Svpaxooody in ]. 92. Strictly we should have followed ézpuvov, but the passage is easily explained as an anacoluthon. It begins as if two infinitives depending on dzpyvov were to be con- 1 It is to be observed that this period himself. His history closes with autumn of six years coincides with the part of the 411, war which Thucydides did not record APPENDIX A. 161 trasted by wév and 8¢—zpdérov and érera; but having come to the end of the pdrov pév clause, the poet unexpectedly annexes another infinitive clause, which was not in the original plan of the sentence. This new intruder, coming second in order, appropriates érevra; and when the clause, which ought to have begun with érecra 8, is introduced, it appears in a form independent of drpuvov. Nem, V. 44 & Nepeo piv—; 1. 45 dAtkas 8 —. Wem. x1. 11 dvipa & éyd paxapi~w piv mwarép’ «rd: 1 13 eb BE Tis KT, Ol. x. 52. The Mss, give mapéoray pev dpa Moipar cyxeddy, or efedeyyov povos addbeay éryrvpov xpdvos: 7d 8% cadaves idy mépow Karéppacer. If we could assume the personification of xpovos, the text might stand ; +’=qTapéora dé. Hartung plausibly conjectured 6 7 —xpdvos 1é8e cadaves K.7.d. If we accept this emendation, we must go further and read o 8’ for 6 7°. Frag. 75, 11 (Dithyramb cited by Dionysius Hal. de comp. verb. 22): 10 Tov Bpdpuov “EpiBoay re Bporot xadéoper yovov umdtwy pev maTépwy peATEeLEv yevaixav te Kadpedy éoXov. There is little doubt that there is some corruption in these lines. In 1. 11 the mss. of Dionysius vary between pey, re, and pév te. Usener proposed ‘viv re. In 1. 12 some MSS. omit ve. And in any case, even if the text, as I have given it, were certain the following line (13) is desperately corrupt, so that no conclusion could be drawn as to the consecution év—re. B, II. II APPENDIX B. THRASYBULUS AND THE SIXTH PYTHIAN (with reference to Pyth. vi. 19 and Js¢h. 1. 19). Since Boeckh, commentators have generally assumed that Thrasy- bulus was the charioteer of his father on the occasion of his Pythian victory. This view was also entertained by some ancient students of Pindar as we learn in a scholium (quoted in the commentary on Js¢h. uu. 19). But there is no ground for this opinion. On the contrary there is a distinct ground for believing that the horses of Xenocrates were driven at the Pythian race by the same charioteer who drove successfully at Athens, namely Nicomachus. There are no words in the Sixth Pythian which suggest that Thrasybulus acted as charioteer. It is suggested that he had con- spicuously displayed the virtue of filial obedience, which called to mind the pious self-sacrifice of Antilochus for the sake of his father Nestor ; but nothing is said which need lead us to suppose that he had shewn his piety by driving his father’s horses in the vale of Pytho. It is true that an allusion of this kind has been seen in v. 19; but I venture to think that anyone who reads the passage without prejudice will agree that such an interpretation is quite impossible. ae dé tpdcwrov ev Kabapd 15 marpt ted, OpacdBovdre, Kowdy Te yeved Adyoust Ovarav eVoogov appatt vixay Kpwoaias evi mrvxais drayyedel. 19 ot to cxdwv viv émdééia xeupos dpOav Gyas ebynpootvav x.7.A, (1) Dissen refers vw in 19 to vikav and renders 7u consecutus eam dexteritate manus (dextre quoad manum). This explanation of émidééa APPENDIX B. 163 xepds is most unnatural (I think, impossible); and ww should refer to matpi rather than to vixay. (2) B has viv for vw, whence Bergk infers vuv and interprets Zerite aurigae officio functus, apparently taking éridééia xeypds as it is taken by Dissen. For -.oxé#wy he compares Homer, W 466: He Tov yvioxov diyov qvia od? Suvacby ev oxebéev rept Tépya Kal ovx éerixnoe édigas. But I am unable to see how this passage proves that oxé0ew means aurigae officio fungi. Moreover what is the force of vey? It is just the word we should least expect. It would be better (3) to keep vw and, refer it to dpya; so Mr Fennell, who takes éméd. yepds ‘to the right’. But it is difficult to suppose that wv represents dpua, and a past participle is distinctly required, if the words refer to the driving of Thrasybulus. (4) Mr Gildersleeve holds that vw ‘anticipates éypo- ovvay’, the Commandment being personified. For the phrase émidééia (or as I should prefer to write éml deft) xetpds, we must (with Mezger) compare Odyssey « 277 tyv yap [“Apxrov] 84 pu dvwye Kadwpad dia Oecwv movroropevepevar em” aptotepa yeLpos éxovTa. Odysseus is to keep the Bear on his left. Thus Pindar’s words naturally mean, as Mezger takes them, ‘having your father on your right hand’. Thrasybulus sat on his father’s left hand at the epinician feast; or perhaps, as the monostrophic ode was intended to be sung during the triumphal procession, he stood beside him in the car of victory (Xenocrates ‘stand neben dem Sohn beim Einzug auf dem Siegeswagen’, Mezger): This is the only interpretation which does full justice to the words—oxOwv—vw—errdééta, xerpds. As far as the myth is concerned, the accident to Nestor’s chariot— 1.32 Neordpeioy yap tarros app éréda TIdpios éx Beddwv Saixbeis— would of course be appropriate if the piety of Thrasybulus had been also displayed in connexion with a chariot; but this circumstance cannot be adduced as an argument (though it might certainly be regarded as confirmatory of other evidence, if any such existed), especially as the incident may prove equally appropriate on other hypotheses (see Jztroduction). But the only evidence we have as to the driving of the Acragantine steeds at Pytho is decidedly against the assumption that the driver was Thrasybulus, The only intelligible interpretation of sth. m1. 18 sgg. 1I—2 164 APPENDIX B. is that Nicomachus was the charioteer on that occasion. The omission of 7° after xAewais was due to some one who held the view adopted by modern editors. (See Commentary.) It may be added that, if that view were true, Pindar could hardly have omitted to mention the circumstance in this passage, seeing that the Isthmian ode is addressed especially to Thrasybulus. It would have been strange if he had celebrated Nicomachus (who is not mentioned as having won the Isthmian victory) and neglected to recall the ‘skilful’ driving of Thrasybulus, which he is supposed to have lauded so highly in the Pythian hymn. No; there is no evidence that Thrasybulus was a charioteer. That he was present at the Pythian games and witnessed the victory of his father’s chariot, driven by Nicomachus, we should like to believe; but there is no direct evidence even for that. There would indeed seem to be a presumption that such was the case if Mezger were right in his interpretation of mpdowrov in 1. 14 (see the passage cited above)’. He explains it as the face of Thrasybulus, gladdened by the tidings he brings from Pytho. It seems to me impossible that rpécwmov here could mean ‘thy face’. Thrasybulus is addressed for the first time inl. 15. Pindar would have inevitably written zazpi ro odv or zarpi tedv, if that had been his meaning. Boeckh and Dissen were quite right in referring tpécwrov to the treasure-house of hymns mentioned in the preceding sentences. There is assuredly no ambiguity. One has only to read over the whole passage consecutively to see that mpéowrov cannot mean anything but the front of the figurative Oncaupes. kal pov Flevoxpare €rotj.os Uuvov Onocavpos ev Todvypiow *AroAAwvia. TeTeiyuoTaL vara’ Tov ovTE xeLpeptos duBpos— selec ovr dvepos... .. dour, Trappopw xepads Kpu@Tomevov (Or TurTdpevov). de S& mpdcwmov év xabape marpt Te@ K.T.A. The idea is that Xenocrates and the Eumenids will see written on the front of the musical treasure-house the proclamation of the victory. 1 But even if Mezger’s rendering were right, my hypothesis would account for the phrase. APPENDIX B. 165 The @ycavpos duvev, which neither rain nor wind can sweep away, and its fagade gleaming with light,—this is the most striking image in the whole ode. We have seen (cp. Jutroduction) that the first verses of the Second Isthmian refer to the hymn described under that image. The figure is changed. The songs are not compared to riches stored in a treasury, but to maidens. One is tempted, however, to fancy that the striking phrase in the later hymn dpyvpwhcioat tpécwra may be an echo of the striking phrase in the earlier, dae. mpécwmov év xadapd. APPENDIX C. Isthmian 11. 8, dpyvpwcioa: rpéowra. In the Classical Review for June, 1888, Mr W. R. Paton proposes to explain this phrase by a modern custom. He writes as follows: ‘We cannot conceive how gilding the faces of human merchandise can have made it more attractive to the buyer. I believe that the phrase is to be explained by a custom still prevalent in Greece and the East. At Greek open-air festivals the musician stands in the centre - of the circle of dancers. Only silver coins—no paper or copper—may be given him in payment of his services. When he receives them he does not put them by, but sticks them on his face, no doubt zz order to attract further contributions. The exertions by which he has earned them ensure their adhesion, if the weather also be fairly warm’. If there were any proof that this custom was practised in the time of Pindar, we should certainly be justified in assuming an allusion to it, and the phrase in question would gain additional point. Mr Paton’s suggestion was well worth making, but I cannot agree with him that apyvpwhcica mpoownra aotdai lacks significance without such an allusion. Let us suppose that Pindar personified songs as maidens, without any reference to money transactions. In that case ‘silver-faced’ (dpyipeat apoowra) would be a perfectly intelligible epithet (see Commentary). When the reference to sale comes in, apyvpeae naturally and happily becomes apyvpwOcica, and the maidens ‘with silver faces’ become maidens ‘with silvered faces’ (suggesting ypvOiov, used by girls for sale). The double sense of dpyvpos is enough for the point. But it may be readily admitted that the point would be sharper still if Mr Paton’s guess were confirmed. APPENDIX D. Isthmian ut. (A and B). In considering the question, whether the five metrical systems in honour of Melissus of Thebes (according to my numbering 111. a and 111. B) form one ode or two odes, we may estimate first the external and secondly the internal evidence. (1) The external evidence seems to be decidedly in favour of a division. (a2) The authority of the Vatican B cannot be lightly dismissed, and it exhibits mz. a and 111. 8 (11. and Iv.) as two separate poems. (4) The scholia support this separation. In the note on III. A (111) 15, these words occur: év 82 ry éfiis G85 Kaldrov Tos cuyyeveis aitrod KAcwvupidas KéxAnxer, and 7. 18 we have dpewvov d& cis ta ev vi effs G89 Acyomeva. In the preface to the commentary on Ode 11. B (1v.)—which of course is of less weight—the identity of metre of ‘the third’ and ‘the fourth’ poems is noted (rod reraprov eldous—r@ tpitw). (c) Against the evidence of B we have to set that of Florentine D, which recognizes only seven Isthmian hymns, 11. a and ul B being joined to form a single poem (111.). The later mss. agree with D, but they need not be taken into serious consideration. Let us assume—and the assumption -is not a certain one—that the testimony of D and the testimony of B are, each by itself, equally valuable. In the present case a consideration intervenes which strikes the balance in favour of B. If there was originally a single ode, it is hard to see why it should have come into the mind of anyone to separate the first metrical system from the rest. We cannot explain the testimony of B from that of D. On the other hand, if there were originally two poems, there was a very strong temptation to throw them into one. They were written in the same 168 APPENDIX D. metre, they were consecutive, and they fitted well together; that was a temptation indeed. On the assumption that the testimony of B is true, it is easy to explain the false testimony of D. . Thus the evidence of the mss. and scholia is in favour of separation. The editio Romana, following the Vatican, recognizes the two odes to Melissus; and consequently eight Isthmian odes. The editio Aldina on the other hand gives one ode to Melissus and seven Isthmians ; and this view was adopted by Boeckh in his edition and accepted by Hermann and Dissen. (2) Setting apart the question of metre, to which I shall return, the internal evidence does not conflict with the external. The first ode (111. a) celebrates a victory which the steeds of Melissus gained at Nemea and a victory which Melissus won at Isthmus. We must observe the way in which these victories are mentioned (1. 9 sgg.): gore 8¢ Kal Sidtpwv adPAwy Medr\icow potpa mpds edppootvay Tpépar yAvKelav hrop, év Bdooucw “Icbpod SeLapnéevw orepdvovs, ra Sé KoidAa Aéovros év Babvorépvov vdara, kdpuf OnBav immodpouia Kpatéwy. Now supposing that the second ode (I speak of the ‘first’ and ‘second’ odes for the sake of convenience, not with the intention of begging the question) had not come down to us, what conclusion should we draw from this passage as to the Isthmian victory? I venture to say, we should conclude that the Isthmian, as well as the Nemean, crown was won in a chariot-race. We should argue that if the victories had not been of the same kind, the poet must assuredly have mentioned in what particular ‘excellence Melissus distinguished himself in the dales of Isthmus. We should say that imodpouia xparéwy, grammatically restricted to the subject of xdpvée, logically belongs to the whole sentence, of which Melissus, although in the first clause he declines to the dative, is really the single subject. But when we come to the second ode, while we hear nothing more of the Nemean wreath, we find that Melissus had won an Isthmian victory in the pancration. This seems to offer an argument for the unity of the odes. For it is clear that in no case can there have been two Isthmian victories, one in the pancration, and one in the chariot-race. On the supposition that there were two distinct odes, the first (11. a) must have been the later; otherwise the Nemean victory would have been APPENDIX D. 169 referred to in the second (111. 8). And in that case the earlier victory in the pancration would certainly have been mentioned in the later ode as well as the later victory in the chariot-race. This consideration seems to tell in support of the view that there was only one ode. For on that theory, it is clear that as the kind of the Isthmian victory is specified in the fourth antistrophos (111. B, 44) there was no need to specify it in the first (111. a, 11). But while the theory of unity seems to make the question of the Isthmian victory clear, it involves a serious difficulty in regard to the Nemean victory. This victory, declared in 11. A, 11, 12, is not referred to again throughout the ode. The Isthmian on the other hand is specially mentioned three times (111. A, 11; III. B, 20, 44), as is natural and appropriate in a hymn written especially for the occasion of an Isthmian victory. In an ordinary case, we should not look for more than a single reference to a former victory. But this is not an ordinary case ; for the Nemean victory has even a more intimate relation to the argument of 111. B than the Isthmian. In fact, if we had only 11. B to go upon, we should certainly conclude that Melissus had never won in a chariot-race at any of the four great games. Yet such a victory won by Melissus was just what Pindar wanted for his argument. The ‘Cleonymids have long been striving without success in the chariot- races at the Panhellenic games. Notwithstanding all their outlay upon horses they have never secured a victory. Now, at length, Melissus has lit them up with glory by his victory in the—chariot-race, we expect; but no; in the—pancration at the Isthmus. Surely, when IIL B was written, no victory had been won at one of the great Festivals by the steeds of Melissus, any more than by those of other Cleonymids. Surely if such a victory had been won at Nemea or anywhere else, it must have been mentioned in the context of line 20 or in the neighbourhood of 1. 43. It would have had too intimate a bearing on the main argument of the ode to be dismissed in 1. 12 (11. A), before the argument begins’. It seems to me that this difficulty is a piece of internal evidence which tells against the original unity of the two poems. On the other hand, if we separate the poems we are met by other difficulties. In the first place (1) there is the point, already dwelt on, as to the indefinite mention of an Isthmian victory in 11. a, 11, which, in an 1 We can hardly follow Perthes in on the ground that both these places seeing an allusion to the Nemean victory were renowned for horse and chariot in the mention of Poseidon who dwelt at races, Onchestus and at Isthmus (111, B, 1. 19), 170 APPENDIX D. independent hymn, would imply a victory in a chariot contest. Then (2) there is the odd circumstance that the metres of both odes are identical. There is no other instance of such identity in Pindar’s epinicians. There is also (3) the fact that some similar ideas and - similar expressions occur in both 11. a and 1. B; and in particular there is a responsion, emphasised by Mezger as an argument for unity, in the first line of the epode of 11. a and the first line of the first epode of 111. B: Ill. A, 13 tamodpopia Kparéwv: avdpdy 8 dperdy. Il. B, 13 Kal pykére paxporépay omevdetv dperdy. If we hold that the two poems were originally distinct, we are bound to take account of and explain all these facts. The truth seems to be that those who maintain the unity and those who believe in the distinction of the two odes to Melissus are both to a certain extent right. The poems belong together, and yet were originally distinct. This is the view which I have adopted in my Introduction and indicated by the numbering (111. a and B). It appears to me to explain the data satisfactorily, and to reconcile the difficulties which meet those who hold either of the extreme views. We may advance to this conclusion thus: (1) As the assumption of the original unity of the two poems involves considerable difficulties (external and internal), which cannot be solved, we must start with the negative assumption that the poems were not a single ode composed for a pancration victory. (2) On this hypothesis, it is clear that 111 A is later than 111. B, inasmuch as there is no reference in the latter to the Nemean victory mentioned in the former. (3) The metrical identity of the two compositions shews that there was some special relation between them.. It was not Pindar’s habit to compose in the same metre merely because he was composing for the same victor. The first Olympian, and the first three Pythians, all in honour of Hiero, are all metrically distinct. (4) The only conceivable reason for this repetition of metrical structure is that both poems were meant to be sung together. In other words 111. A was an enlargement of the original poem 11. B. Instead of composing an independent hymn in honour of the Nemean victory which Melissus won, perhaps soon, after the Isthmian, Pindar chose to add a new system to the Isthmian ode. -And thus the Nemean and Isthmian victories could be sung together in a long hymn of five systems. We can imagine that Melissus, rich as he doubtless was, might not have been disposed to incur the expense of a new ode of four systems; especially if the victories APPENDIX D. 171 followed hard one on the other. The plan which was adopted econo- mised the labour of the poet and the purse of the victor, while a composition of noble measure was supplied to the chorus which sang at the epinician festival. The question whether the new system was intended as a post- script or a preface to the original poem’ can be easily decided. It is clearly a proeme. For |. 18 (111. a) need not form the ending of a hymn (though it must be admitted that as an ending it would be by no means unsuitable) ; whereas the formal conclusion, with the reference to Orseas the trainer, in |. 72 (111. B), does not admit of any continuation. The fact that so many have believed in the unity of the hymn, thus arranged, shews the dexterity of Pindar in fitting the new system to the old ode. It is only on close inspection, with discernment like. Mr Fennell’s, that we can detect the seam in the context of the work. The echoes of language which abound in the proeme have been pointed out in the Introduction. Pindar saw that the most effectual way of working the new matter into the unity of the ode would be to sound in advance some of the most striking notes of the poem. Yet he constructed the prelude in such a way that it could be sung, if there were need, by itself, independently of the Isthmian ode. And tradition preserved in successive Mss. the distinction between the original work and the addition that was afterwards miade to it. The view, for which I contend, was first put forward in its main features by Bulle in 1869/71. Without any knowledge of Bulle’s papers' (though I might have learned about them in Mezger), I came to similar conclusions and stated them in Hermathena (1890). The arguments of Perthes* and Mezger against the view of Bulle do not appear to me to be cogent. The responsion of aperdy, on which Mezger relied as a strong proof of unity, is equally in harmony with the theory which I have ventured to adopt. And as for the objection urged by Friederichs that the first lines of 111. B could not have formed the beginning of a Pindaric ode, I cannot agree with him. The openings of the Epinician hymns exhibit every possible variety. The Ninth and Tenth Olympians, the Ninth Pythian, and the Seventh Isthmian, introduce the victor’s name in the first lines, just in the same way as here; and the circumstance that elsewhere Pindar uses the 1 In a Programm (Bremen) 1869, and 2 In a Programm (Treptow) 1871, and in Fleckeisen’s ¥ahrbdcher, 1871 (s85— in Fleckeisen’s Fakrbicher, 1872 (217— 589). 226). 172 APPENDIX D. figure of a road («éAevfos) in the middle of a hymn does not prove that he might not have also used it at the beginning. Mr Fennell acutely recognized that the juncture between m1. a and Ill. B was not what we should expect. He saw that something was wanting to the unity of the ode, though the-want may not be evident to a superficial reader. At the same time he felt the difficulties which attend the theory that the two odes are quite independent. Accordingly he resorted to the conjecture that a system was lost between 111, a and 111. B, the ode having originally had five systems. The hypothesis of such a loss seems very hazardous; and the serious difficulties which tell against the unity are not solved. But Mr Fennell’s conviction that there is a certain hitch in the context has considerable importance for the view which I have been maintaining. It is thoroughly in accordance with the supposition that 111. a was an after- thought. Pindar, with all his art, could not absolutely hide the marks of the joining. How great was his skill is proved by the number of editors who have accepted the unity without a qualm. And it is even probable that Mr Fennell and the others who discerned that there was something odd would have suspected nothing if the tradition of the two independent hymns had not opened their eyes. APPENDIX E. Dates of /sthmians Iv. and v. The order of the three odes written for the sons of Lampon is perfectly clear. The Fifth Nemean contains no mention of the Isthmian victories of Phylacidas; while the Fifth Isthmian refers explicitly to the Fifth Nemean. And when the Fifth Isthmian was written, the Nemean and the second Isthmian victory of Phylacidas had not yet been won. The order of the odes lies on their surface; the chronology is not so clear. The only basis for determining their respective dates is the reference to the Battle of Salamis in the last of the three. When Jsthmian tv. was written, that event must have been recent. al viv ey "Ape paprv- pyjoa. kev wdAus Aiavros x.7.4. can hardly have been written more than a year or two after the battle; it might well have been written in the same year. Mezger argues that this passage could hardly have been written after the Battle of Plataea, in which Thebes took the Persian side ; especially in view of the statement of Pausanias (111. 4, 7) that Lampon distinguished himself by his ardour in that conflict. In that case he thinks that Pindar ‘wiirde sich iiber den Krieg gewiss anders gedussert oder vielmehr auf den Aegineten gar kein Gedicht verfertigt haben’. This argument is not conclusive. It would be rash to lay down that the hymn cannot date from 479 or even (though this is unlikely ; see below p. 175) from 478, Yet it seems not improbable that 480 is the true year. Let us take the three alternatives in order. (1) If Jsthmian 1v. was composed at the end of 480—for the Battle of Salamis was fought in autumn—, the Isthmian victory which it celebrates must have been won in spring 480; and the Nemean victory, which it also celebrates, was probably won at the Nemean 174 APPENDIX E. games held in the preceding year, 481.—In that case, the latest possible date for /sth. v., and the first Isthmian victory of Phylacidas, is 482. I have shewn in the Introduction to Js¢#. 1v. that Phylacidas almost certainly competed and failed at an Olympian contest. According to this calculation, his failure at Olympia must fall in 480, at those games which were held about the time of the battles of Thermopylae and Artemisium. This result harmonizes with the circumstance that the ode in honour of a victory won in the spring was not composed till the end of the year. Phylacidas hoped for an Olympian crown and an Olympian hymn. Failing to secure these, he fell back on the next best. Pindar was not called upon to sing the victory at Isthmus until it was found that he was not destined to sing a victory on the Alpheus. This reckoning is of course hypothetical; and other assumptions are possible. For example, the first Isthmian victory might have been gained in 484, and the Olympian disappointment might have fallen in the same year. The Nemean victory of Phylacidas might have been won either in 483 or in 481, and the second Isthmian in 480. But this is less likely. The presumption is that, if the crown at Nemea had been won affer the failure at Olympia, Pindar would then and there have been required to pour the third libation to Zeus Sétér. As for the date of the Fifth Nemean, it is of course out of the question to attempt to do more than determine a nearer limit. And even this is hardly possible, as we cannot be quite certain that Phylacidas was the younger of the two brothers. If he was the younger—as has always been assumed, and as is highly probable—, we can easily fix a limit. Let us suppose that the difference in age’was only one year. Phylacidas was a man when he won his first victory, which, as we have seen, cannot be placed later than 482. Pytheas was only a boy when he won his crown of selinon at Nemea. If Pytheas was barely young enough to compete as a boy at Nemea, and if Phylacidas was barely old enough not to be eligible in the boys’ pancration at the Isthmus—the two extreme cases—, it is clear that an interval of two years must be allowed between the two victories. But as 484 was not a Nemean year, the latest possible date for Vemean v. is 485. This is the limit. But as Mem. v. 6 rather suggests that Pytheas was not hazardously close to the age when he would no longer count as a vrais, and as it is hardly likely that Phylacidas was barely ‘out of his teens’ when he conquered all comers in the men’s pan- cration, we may conclude that at least five years elapsed between Nemean v. and Jsthmian v.; and that if the latter was composed in 482 the former was not later than 487. APPENDIX E. 175 This argument rests on the hypothesis that Phylacidas was the younger brother. This is an inference drawn from no positive evidence, and chiefly resting, as far as I can discover, on the circumstance that Phylacidas is not mentioned in the ode to Pytheas. Clearly such an inference is invalid. If Pytheas were the younger there is no reason that he might not have distinguished himself as a boy at an earlier date than when his elder brother Phylacidas won athletic’ successes as aman. And if so, there was no occasion for any reference to Phylacidas, as yet undistinguished, in the Nemean hymn. Nor does the passage in Jsth. 1v. (59 sqg.), aivéw kai TvOéav ev ywoddpais x.7.d., prove anything. It has been interpreted to mean, that Pytheas ‘coached’ Phylacidas,—this naturally implying the seniority of Pytheas. But this view is erroneous ; see commentary. I am inclined to agree with the general belief that Pytheas was the elder; but am compelled to own that I cannot regard it as absolutely certain. (2) If, as Mr Fennell thinks, 7:2. 1v. was written in 479, after a Nemean victory won by Phylacidas in that year, our conclusions remain the same as far as the two Isthmian victories, the failure at Olympia, and the Nemean victory of Pytheas, are concerned. (3) If the second Isthmian victory fell in 478, the Nemean might have fallen in 479, and the first Isthmian in 480 (the competition at Olympia falling in the same year). In this case the limit for LVvemean v. (assuming the juniority of Phylacidas) would be 483; (assuming his seniority) 481. But against this theory-it must be taken into account that the Isthmian victory in the pancration in 478 was probably won by Cleander of Aegina, who is celebrated in the Seventh Isthmian. APPENDIX F. dpera. Lsth. IV. 17. In view of some passages (Pindar Vem. x. 2 and v. 53, Jsth. Iv. 17, Sophocles, Phzloct. 1420, Plato, Sympos. 208 D), where apery cannot be explained in its ordinary sense but seems to mean ‘reward’ (of excellence), I put forward a conjecture as to the origin of this use in my Wemeans, Appendix A, note 9. I now believe that this conjecture is inadequate and unreservedly retract it. dperj, reward or pay, cannot be derived, as a secondary meaning, from dpery, virtus. In the three Pindaric passages mentioned above, the explanation of apera by ‘reputation for excellence’ is too harsh to be accepted. It is true that dper7 sometimes seems to bear the meaning which Plutarch ascribes to it in his essay Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat (c. 6): érel ydp 4 dpern Sdgas wepiToiel, Tapa TovTO ToLotvTaL THY Evdosiay dperiy ovopdtovres, Yet in Thucydides 1. 33, for example (pépovca és pty robs modXods aperyv), dperyv is not simply equivalent to eddogiav, but means ‘the name dperj’. So too in Eur. Med. 629, where it stands under the shadow of etdogiav; and cp. Odyssey € 402, where it is joined with evdkXelav. It seems possible that there were two words apery which we should distinguish. , (1) dperg = nrth (cp. Sanskrit sd@-n//@), connected with déporys, avyp, nvopén, dpetwy &c.; manilihood. (2) dpery (run), compensation, fee ; from dpvvpat, apécai, apécoopat, Compare middle (to receive or win a ti), A159 Tuysnv apvipevoe Meveddo, E 552 tyunv “Arpeidys—apvupév, Z 446 apvipevos xAéos, X 160 dpvicOnv (dé0\a), a5 dpvimevos qv te Yuxyv Kal voorov éraipwr, and active, 1120 dy 2édw dpéoar Sdpeval x” daepelo’ drowa (to compensate), cp. T 138. So in middle, of a mutual transaction, Z 526 and also, in the sense of the active, with accusative as 1 112 puw dpeo- odpevor.—For the forms dpvupot: apécor: dpery compare ordpvyps: (cropévvyju) : ctopéow: axdperos, APPENDIX G. Lsth. W. 59. aivéw kat TvOday ev yuioddpars Bvraxide trAayav Spdpov edOvropicat xepot Seéicv vow dvtiradov. The usual way of taking the words is that of Hermann and Dissen. The latter translates: Jaudo etiam Pytheam membrorum domitoribus in brachits Phylacidae plagarum cursim recta praeivisse, dextrum peritia adversarium. So Mezger, taking @vAaxi8a more strictly as dativus commodt. According to this explanation, xepoi is taken with yuodapars (from yvddayos), and we should have, as Mr Fennell remarks, ‘the most flagrant violation of usual order to be found in Pindar’. But those who demur to admitting this violent dislocation of adjective and substantive seem decided that we have here a part of yuddapos, and not, as the scholiast thought, a part of yvodayas. Mommsen alone ‘approves of the view of the scholiast ; but Hartung reads aAayais and Mr Fennell accepts it. The general meaning is the same, xepod being taken with deévov. Mr Fennell however goes further. He is of opinion that oi in 1. 62 ought to refer to Phylacidas, whereas with the usual reading it must refer to Pytheas, the subject of the preceding sentence, and the ayri- madov. He therefore takes ®vAaxiSavy from the Florentine ms. and reads IIv6éa instead of Ivéav, rendering ‘I declare in praise of Pytheas too that Phylakidas kept on a straight course amid crushing blows, an antagonist skilled in fight by-reason-of-his-intelligence ’. Against all these interpretations it may be urged that they attribute to aivéw with infinitive a meaning which neither it nor its compound ératwéw, in that construction, bears elsewhere. If ed@vmopjoo depends on aivéw, it can only mean ‘I recommend Pytheas to hold a straight course’. To express ‘I praise Pytheas for having held &c.’ we should require aivéw edOvropycarta.. a APPENDIX H. THE PREPOSITION avd (with reference to Isth. vi. 33; also 1. 9; 11. 27; Iv. 223; VII. 68). In order to understand the signification of dva with the accusative in Pindar, we must carefully examine its usage in Homer and attempt to define the limits which mark it off from other prepositions, especially from kata. «xara was originally the conjugate of ava, but it often appears to collide and sometimes almost coincides with it'. It is ‘important to determine the difference between ava péyapoy and xara péyapov, dva dory and Kard dotv, dva vaoov and Kata vijoov, av’ dptdov and xa6” dusrov &c. ; and,-in the first place, with verbs of motion. The result, to which an examination of all the instances in the Iliad and Odyssey leads, may be formulated thus : dvd, with the accusative expresses motion through or in a space; and implies method, or some definite aim governing the direction of the motion, For example, the guiding motive might be to reach the further side of the space indicated, or to traverse the whole space exhaustively. kara with the accusative also expresses motion through or in a space ; but the motion is not defined as continuous or methodical. Thus in describing the progress of heralds bent on business (I' 245, 1 In a few instances in Homer dvd. has its original form of w#fward motion. TI 349 dvd ordua kal xara pivas (a good example of the conjugate relation of avd, and card). X 452, B 250, € 456, x 18, w 318, With dvaBalyw, dvalcow, x 132, 143, 239. Kudv’ dv’ bWydhy epoca x 176, 193. dvd vOra Oéovoa of a vein (N 547). In y 492, 0 145, I90 dvd @’ dpuar’ éBawov may be taken as tmesis. In K 466 boo’ detpas Oijxer dvd puplxny, the accus. is determined by delpas; con- trast © 441 dpyara 5° du Bwpotoe ride, where the dative is in place. No instances of dvé in this sense are found in Pindar, though he has dva with the dative in the corresponding sense of rest zpon (as dvd oxdrrw, like Homeric dvd oximrpp; dvd Buus, dv’ tos &e.). Mr Monro is mistaken in stating (in his Homeric Grammar) that dvé with dat. is only found in Homer. , APPENDIX H. 179 H 183, 186, @ 517, v 276); or a marriage procession (A 539); or the solemn progress of a king (y 72, 6 173) through a city, dvd dorv is the expression. Whereas xara dorv is used of walking in the streets unofficially, irresponsibly, or without the suggestion of method or goal. If we were rendering into the Greek of Homer, ‘led in triumph through the streets of Rome’, we should have to use dvd dorv; but Sianer les rues would require xara dorv’. A beggar wandering about the town for alms would be said rrwxevew xard dorv?; but a beggar going his regular rounds, visiting house after house methodically throughout his district, would be said mrwxevew dva dory (7 73, 273). When a god, having appeared to a mortal in an island, departs to Olympus, he goes dva vicov; but when Odysseus and his companions wander about exploring the island of the Cyclops, the preposition is xara*, dvd is used when an object or a direction determines the course* (as in « 275, where Odysseus is making ava Byooos for the home of Circe; and in 2 where he follows the direction pointed out by Athena). «ard is used of grasshoppers singing (T 15 1) or of hunters hunting (¢ 120), or a wild beast moving (K 184) through a wood; of flies flitting about in a sheep-fold (B 470) or of a lion prowling (E 140), of animals feeding in a place (E 162, Y 221); of the move- ments of Artemis revelling along mountain heights (¢ 103), of the wild course of the mad Lycurgus (Z 133), or of a fish leaping in a wave (® 126). When the beans fly about the threshing-floor, it is car’ adwyv (N 588); the hunting and slaying of beasts here and ‘there in the mountains is kar’ ovpea (® 485). When Diomede rushes over the plain on his terrible course, rorapo mAnOovre éoixeds, the expression a wediov (E 87, 96) indicates that there was method—for the Trojans only too much method—in his fury. His’ course was onward and inevitable like a river; caw wedfov would express that he was now here, now there®’. The river-god bids Achilles, mediov Kata peppepa péle ; that is, anywhere in the plain, as opposed to the river®. In Z 71, dva signifies a methodical spoiling of the dead. In WY 464 dp weddov means that the search of the eyes, as they range over the plain, is exhaustive; on the other hand xa@’ éov dopoy (x 381) 1 Compare xard, E 495, Z 104, A212, sweep of the north wind over the ground B 383, 0 311, p 246, » 413, p 501, 767, is brought out by du edlov (€ 329, 330); I 463 &c. This distinction was rightly the thistles are borne straight on in its drawn by Hermann. course ; whereas of a wind strewing chaff 2 p 18, o 1, v 178, p 566. about a threshing-floor, we have kar’ 3 Contrast x 308, # 143 with 153. ddwds, E 499. 4 Compare pu 308, & 251. 6 217, cp. II 96. 5 Cp. w 449. So too the strong onward 12—2 180 APPENDIX H. does not suggest a thorough-going search. In describing flights, panics, &c. xara is the right word, not dva’. On the other hand when troops are marshalled, the place is indicated by ava’. But of troops in- voluntarily gathered in the city (by the pursuit of an enemy), xara dory is found’. To collect. people here and there in Achaia is «ar “Axotida‘; whereas ava Sjuov in 8 291 implies an exhaustive search throughout the démos for all the volunteers who could be got. In Z 287 xara dorv means that old women aré collected here and there in the city (not, all the old women throughout the city, which would be dvd dorv); and in I 329 xara Tpotyy means that the eleven cities were in various parts of the land of Troia. In regard to. the regular course of the ploughman through the field, along the straight furrows, we expect dva and find it (v 32 veoy dv’, cp. 3 546). But of mowers in different parts of a cornfield, we find Kat’ dpoupav (A 68). When the shade of Achilles stalks away after the meeting with Odysseus, it is not suggested that it makes for any particular point or that its steps are guided by an object. The expression is gofra xara Aexpdva (A 539). So too card Aepava (A 573) of Orion collecting beasts, which he had slain, ere and there in the meadow, wherever he found them. But when Atreides marches through the host searching for Alexander, it is av’ dutAov édotra (T 449)°*. The sphere of violent, or hasty, or involuntary movements is marked by xard®, as in the case of panics noted above. To move about pro- miscuously in the hall is xara péyapov, but the cup-bearer, who goes regularly from table to table émurtaddv, proceeds ava péyapov’. When a bow is carried deliberately from one place to another, it is ava Sopa®. Eumaeus hastens ava rpd6upov for the purpose of calling away the dogs; and Melanthius is led to his execution ava apoOvpov re kat aidjv’. When a man is described as coming or going through the house, without the suggestion of any particular errand, we find xara déua'°. . The bronze speeds on its fatal errand av’ é8évras in E 74. «até is quite in place of a child strolling adout a garden with his 1 A172, 167, ® 14, 25, x 299, a 116, 2 3 286, ® 225, Q 662. Uv 225. . 4 A 770, 716. 2 O55; so dvd udxny E 254. In 1156 5 Cp. E 528, ava kdtolas = throughout the camp, where 6 © 109, v 319, X 23, 307, 360. xard might also be used, but not in the 7 » 180, v 51. sense which is under discussion. It would 8 234, 378. be distributive, ‘according to the tents’; ® x 474, and & 34. not ‘here and there among the tents’. 10 8 7, p 329. APPENDIX H. 181 father (w 338), or of a shepherd keeping his flock vopov xéra (u 217). No purpose is attributed to a cloud when it spreads over the sea (A 276, 278); anda ship driven by random winds wanders xara mévtov (8 510, € 377). So too xara is used of a vessel, though on its due course, leaping from wave to wave’; the point being that it is now here, now there. We must carefully distinguish the use of this. prepo- sition in A 639 kar’ wKeavdy rorapov dépe where it has its original meaning of dovwn (stream ; as in xara pdov). The results of this induction may now be brought to bear on one or two passages, which in themselves could not be decisive, as the circum- stances do not define the meaning. When lions are described as carrying a goat ava fwryia (N 199), the suggestion seems to be that they are shaping their course towards their den*. In o 80 Menelaus _ proposes to Telemachus rpadOjva: dv’ “EAAdda Kol pecov “Apyos. In the light of our investigation we see that this means ‘to make the tour of’ Greece; whereas «af ‘E\\dda would mean to wander here and there in Greece,—visit parts of it at random. In cevar’ dvd dor Z 505 it is implied that Paris has a purpose. In p 418 eya 8€ Ké ce KAeiw Kar’ dmeipova yatay the speaker undertakes to spread the «Aéos, not throughout the world methodically, but in many and sundry places according as he may find opportunity. So in x 377 xara déua (rovjoouor) means here and there in the house; not suggesting (though not excluding) method or thoroughness. Thus xara is used when the action is confined to a certain space, ‘but (1) a point of operation is not fixed (if it were, év would be required) and (2) the space is not conceived as traversed in any fixed direction (else dvd). It will be easily understood that in many cases the same phenomenon might be described by either dvd or xard, according to the point of view. A spectator, who beheld Agamemnon hurrying through the host, but did not know that his steps were guided by a definite. aim, might describe what he saw in the words xa6’ dptdov édoira. But the poet who is initiated into the counsels of the king and is concerned with the object of his progress, says dv’ duudov. This is excellently illustrated by a comparison of v 367 with x 180. In the former passage Athena is seeking in a cave for a safe place to hide the treasures which Odysseus has brought home from Phaeacia. potopévy KevOudvas ave. oréos brings out the methodical manner of her 1 A 483, B 429. the same way, but it is to be observed 2 Perhaps we may explain K 362 in that this passage occurs in the Doloneia. 182 APPENDIX H. search. But in the second passage, which deals with Melanthius searching for arms in the storehouse, we find How 6 pev Oadrdporo pvxov Kara. Tevxe’ épevva, not dva puxev as we might expect. But the reason is perfectly clear. In the first case the poet’s concern is with the safe stowing away of the treasures. But in the second case, the search for the arms is subsidiary. The main point is that Melanthius is somewhere in the room; and that the oxherd and the swineherd lie in wait for him at the door (rd 5 éorav éxarepOe). What the goatherd was doing inside,—whether his search was thorough or not—is for the immediate purpose entirely subordinate. Hence xara is quite in place. If we apply this principle to x 484 , 7 XN . a , TACaS 8 OTpuvoy dpods KaTa dopa véec Oar (where xara 8dua is not to be taken with véeoOa, as Ebeling takes it), it appears that if this meant ‘bid throughout the house (i.e. go through the house bidding) all the maids to come’, ava ddua would be required. mucas is emphatic. It follows that xara Sepa is to be taken closely with duwas, ‘the maids in the palace’, as distinguished from the servants of Odysseus. in the country farms; and thus it is practically identical with év jseyapovot, which occurs elsewhere in a like connexion. It would be tedious to enumerate further instances of dva with verbs of motion. Enough has been ‘said to shew the idea which is attached to it; and to enable us to apply this in those cases where it is not joined with a verb signifying motion. We can discern, for example, a shade of difference between ava Sjpov dpioroe and xara djuov, though the phrases ultimatelv amount to the same thing. The former implies that the best men are singled out by a methodical search throughout the démos. The latter means ‘the best anywhere to be found in the démos’. The difference will be clearer if we substitute ayaoi for dpicrot. It is manifest that dyafot xara Spuov is a correct expression, ‘good men anywhere in the district’; but with ava Sijpov dyafot would be equivalent to of ayafot. In Q 166 Ovyarépes 8 ava Swpar ide wol wdvporro suggests that all the daughters, both by blood and by marriage, were mourning ; but there is no such suggestion of universality in O 512 arovaxy Kata Sduar opwpe. In fact dvd, even with verbs of rest, implies a motion in the imagination, a sweep of the mind over the whole space indicated. If we were speaking of certain gods as known ‘through all the bounds of Doric land’, we should have to say ava. yaiav. Here the suggestion of motion is evident. But it is also implied in such a phrase as ri xdéos éor’ ava dorv; the speaker suggests a mental APPENDIX H. 183 range over the whole city in search of news. i Kdéos éotl kar’ dor; is good Greek, but does not make this suggestion. On the other hand, «Aéos te ava dotrv; would not stand: «Aéos tt Kar dorv; would be right. We are now in a position to consider the instances of dva with the accusative in Pindar. 1. Pyth. uw. 60 «i 8€é ris-—déyer repov tw’ av “EdAdda rav wdpode yevéo Oar bréprepov. Here there is the mental sweep over the whole of Hellas. va is stronger than either xard or év. 2. Pyth. x1. 52 tov yap dva médw etpigxwy Ta péca paxporépy dABy teaddra. ava is appropriate to the idea of searching suggested by evpiokwy. 3. Mem. vil. 12 of 7 dvd Sadprav Tedoryiadat, Observe the article: all the Pelopids to be found in Sparta. Perhaps the contrast of év “A@avaiow (1. 11) and dva Swaprav (év Sardpra would have been sufficient for the general sense) is intended to suggest the difference between the compact city of Athens and the straggling group of villages which constituted Sparta—xara kwpas oixiobeica. 4. Mem. 1X. 35 Xpoplw xev tracritwv...éxpwas dv Kivduvoy ogeias autds, ovvexey «7.4, This combination is formed on the model of such Homeric phrases as dv re payyv kal dva «xddvov (E 167), ap movov (N 239), av’ twxpov (@ 89). d£eia duty is Homeric (O 312), though not found with ava. The phrase suggests the warrior ranging throughout the whole space where the battle was hottest and the jeopardy greatest (but perhaps it suggests time also,—while the battle lasted. Cp. avd vixta, & 80). In like manner, 5. Lsth, VI. 35 dwrérvevoas adixiay tpopaxwv av’ Guidov echoes two Homeric phrases, av’ opudov (often) and dvd. rpopaxous (N 760). These phrases occur with verbs signifying motion directly or indirectly (such as gordy, paxouot, &c.); and in this Pindaric passage one would certainly expect «af dp.dov, as at the instant of the warrior’s death, marked by arérvevoas, our attention is confined to a single spot some- where in the front rank. But avd forces our imagination to range over the whole zpopaxwv outrdos. In order to bring out this effect, we must, as we have no corresponding preposition in English, change the form of the sentence. We might render: ‘the front rank of the battle was the scene of thy death’. In fact the force of ava is to call up the scene, and Pindar employs this nuance elsewhere in other contexts. For example in 184 APPENDIX H. 6. ILsth. vu. 68 8s "IoOptov dv vdaros Aupiwy édaxev oedivwv, the surroundings of the victor, the huzzas of the spectators at the great Isthmian panegyris, the whole festive scene of which he was the centre when the wreath was placed upon his brow, are suggested by av. Similarly in 7. Nem. vi. 41 (Hocedaviov dv rénevos) the ‘precincts of Poseidon’ are the stage where Creontidas was the observed of the observers. 8. Lsth. U1. 27 Svre Kat xdpuxes “Adeior—aomalovro—yprvoéas év yowvacw mirvovra Nikas, yatav ava, oderépay, is another example of this use of ava to mark the scene of a great event. g. Nem. vil. 82 Bacdfa. 88 Gedy mpére Sdredov dv Tode yapvéper, is somewhat different. The floor is the scene of the celebration, but the movements of the chorus may be supposed to range over the whole space. Compare Euripides Or. 330 and Aristophanes Birds 1265 pndé tw iepdOvrov ava Sazmedov ert Tye Bporav Oeotor wéumev Karvov— and Frogs 326 : Tove dvo. epdva xopevour. Cp. also Eurip. Phoen. 348 and Asp. 336, 338. 10. Frag. 72 od IIndéos avriBéov pdxOors vedras évehapier pupiots ; mpGrov pev “AAKpyvas civ vig Tpwiov dp mediov kai pera Cworjpas “Apadvos 7AGev. Here we must supply, from #\Gev, a verb of slightly different meaning in 1. 2. We may render; ‘with Alcmena’s son he appeared on the Trojan plain, and went in quest of &c.’ The Trojan plain was the scene of the brightness of his rising. 11. Frag. 107 } mévrou Kevéwow ava (Scaliger’s correction for Add, but I should prefer du; AA was read for m) wéSov. Here ava is used in its normal sense of motion all over a surface. 12. Isth. v.22 térpamrar Oeoddtwv epywv Kédevov av xafapav. It seems possible that in this place ava may have its original force of wp. dy’ o8év occurs twice in Homer: K 339 By f av’ ody pepads (of Dolon going to the ships), and w 136 dy’ odov oreiywv. But xa6’ odov is more usual both in Homer (O 682, 6 444, p 204, kard @\ka N 707, Kar dpagitéy X 146, xard, KéAevba v'64, w 10, kar ataprév P 743, Kar’ dyvas Z 391), and in Pindar: xa6’ oddv fr. 30, 4, Mem. 11. 7, kat’ opvixwv odov Nem. 1X. 19, kar’ dywas fr. 194, 5, Kat’ duagitoy Pyth. Iv. 247, kar’ apevolropov tpiodoy Pyth. x1. 38. Thus xa’ odev is the regular idiom APPENDIX H. 185 for on the way, or along the road. It is clear that dvd KédevOov is stronger, and we are reminded of the Homeric expression, already discussed, rpapOqvat av” “EdAdSa kai péoov “Apyos. Thus xéAcevOov av xafapav means along an undefiled path, all the way. Yet we must at the same time admit that dv may here suggest that the path is an upward one. In Pyth. x1. 56 the mss, have dv écxariév, which is manifestly corrupt. In two passages Bergk has introduced avo where it is not found in.the mss.: (1) Mem. x. 41, he reads vixadopiass yap doaus IIpoiroe 7° dv’ immotpddpov dory Oadnoov «7.4. This conjecture is highly improbable (see my note ad versum), but is in accordance with Pindar’s use of dvd as illustrated above under 6, 7 &c. (2) Jsth. VI. 33 av *Apdudpevov, which would imply that Strepsiades was slain in the réuevos of Amphiaraus or was carried thither to die. But advo here is clearly improbable, as mpopaywv av’ dptdov which follows almost excludes another dva, nor is it likely that the dmAos wpoyaxwy was actually fighting inside the répevos. In Jsth. 1.9 I have proposed to read dvd, in a sense strictly the same as that explained above under 6, 7. It remains to notice two cases in which dva with the accusative has a temporal force. , 13. Vem. 111. 49 GAov av xpévoy presents no difficulty as it is exactly parallel to the local sense of ava. 14. OZ 1X. 85.duddrepor kparyoav piay epyov av auepav. uno die is not an accurate rendering; for that would be pud év apepa (see Js¢h. 111. B 16). It seems to me that the phrase piov dv apépay is closely parallel to “IoOpuov dv vdzos (see 6 above). We may perhaps bring out the point by rendering, the same day witnessed the victory of both ; or in the course. of the same day both, &c. APPENDIX I. THE BATTLES OF SALAMIS AND HIMERA IN PINDAR (with reference to /s¢h. Iv. 4 59q.). In one of the greatest odes in which he celebrates Hiero, Pindar has linked together in memorable verses the two great deliverances of Hellas from her barbarian invaders, wrought about the same time— men loved to imagine, on the very same day—in the east at Salamis, and in the west at Himera. dpéopat map pev Sadrapivos “Adavaiwy xapw pucOev, ev Xrdpta 8 épéw mpo KiBaipdvos paxay, Taio. Mydeou xaépov ayxvdcrogot: mapa St tay edvSpov dxrav ‘Ipépa waideoow tpvov Aevopéveos Tedeoats . tov édé£av7’ app dpera Toreuiwv avdpav Kapovrwr. (Pyth. 1. 76.) This is the only distinct reference that Pindar makes to the great exploit of Gelon. In the ninth Nemean he alludes to it when he prays that Sicily may be delivered from a Carthaginian invasion, and in this connexion extols the prowess of Chromius in battle. But there is, I believe, another allusion to Himera, and to Himera linked with Salamis, in a hymn earlier than either the Sicyonian ode to Chromius or the Pythian ode to Hiero. In the latest of the Isthmian odes to Phylacidas, composed not long after the year which was so memorable both in old and in new Greece, and containing the verses on the hail- storm of blood that was shed hard by the island of Ajax, occur the following lines : APPENDIX I. 187 m x 2 , kal yap épifopevat ~ 2 F ‘ eyo ? vées év wovTm Kal up appacw trot 5 ‘ - ” > A . , 3 = inn 6 5 Wa Teav, W ‘vagoa, Tiway wKUdIWaTos ev apiddrctor Oavpacrat meéXovTau. Battles by sea and land are clearly meant; and when he wrote of ships striving in the sea, the poet must have chiefly thought of that recent strife in the Saronic bay which he refers to afterwards in 1. 48. But the mention of war-chariots as a feature of land battles strikes one as strange. It might seem only appropriate to mythical times, but in these verses Pindar is speaking generally and is not referring to antiquity. In order to avoid the difficulty some commentators have thought that the ships meant are ships of merchandise, and the ‘cars’ waggons laden with wares. But dpyara could hardly bear such a sense. But though war-chariots were not used by the Greeks of Pindar’s day, they were used by the Carthaginians. They formed part of the equipment of the great army which sailed with Hamilcar from Carthage to Panormus. The appara of Pindar appear in Diodorus, who tells how the vessels which conveyed the cavalry and war-chariots were wrecked by a storm (XI. 20); améBade tiv axaddy ta Kopilovta Tods immets kal ta appara, The use of war-chariots, Mr Freeman observes (History of Sicily, u. 185), ‘Carthage would seem to have inherited from Jabin and the other warriors of the elder Canaan. Their mention now and in later times. is perhaps a little startling; but they were seemingly used in the earlier Carthaginian campaigns before the elephants had been brought into use, as the chief means of breaking the ranks of the enemy’. We are justified in supposing that to a Greek of Pindar’s time the mention of war-chariots would suggest the Punic manner of warfare. And Pindar’s lines are quite explained if we suppose that he was thinking—and what thought would more naturally come to a Greek singing of Salamis, soon after the victory ?-— of the Carthaginian invasion of Sicily which was repulsed at Himera. INDEX I. aBpds 5 3 dyd (beach) 48 aydvwp 21 a-yenwv (fem.) 143 dyads 139, 144 dyvibs 42, 46 dyrworos 69 dyw (naval) 127 adywvios 23 dbeluavros 12 BdVGwvos 45 dOUpw (of song) 71 alavis 22, 59 Alas (: alerés) 115 aldotos 47 alvéw 102, 129, 177 alxud 74, 97 aldy (dnt) 61 dxapavrodoyxas 126 dxerpekouas II dxéva 118 adufepKys 11 adexia 138 ddra—ydp 66, 127 adrvigros O4 Gdaos 45 ahomnt 73 duoupderos 145 dpaupbw 73 duérpyros 19 dppérw 75, 144 Gul 125, 130, 151 *Aududpetov 130 dppixpeuacbat 48 dudlpuros 11 GREEK. dvd 11, 96, 130, 151, 178 sqq. dvayryvibokw 45 dvadéw 93 dvdxerpat 20 dvavéuw 49 dvarlrvapat 73 dvridgw 108 dvrikerpat 128 darelpaos 69 Garowa 59, 139 dmrovénw 49 dmromvéw 130 dpapws 44 dpyupwbels 40 dperd. 95 dpriemy}s TOO dpxés 114 dpxw (auspicari) 112 doxodla 9 drpwros 12 abyal (sunlight) 76 aitw (of sacrificing) 76 are 106 die 110 *Awa pbpos.67 Gwros 22, 94, 105, 127, 142 B Babicrepvos 60 BdpBapos 109 Bapvopdparyos 143 BapipBoyyos 111 rE yaia 75; Addenda ye pay 62 yeved. (child) tos, 151 190 INDEX I. GREEK. yepupsw 148 yrégpapov 147 yrapmrds 23 youvds 68 yuodduas 103 dalpoves 94 Gapafopdvay 145 Sapwobueba 140 Oelypa 140 betpds 11 déxouac (and dative) 105 Stacrelyw 61 Srépyowae 61 Aiddoros 129 Sioxéw 47 Sloxos AlOvos 16 Stxounuls 14.7 Oubkw 145 éyyvarl{w 147 elxws 72 édevOepla 142 €dwdw 49 éurlrTw 25 & 47 évappdéat 14 éLeuploxw 139 étixvéouat 127 eet 131 émevrev 127 émyjpatos 108 émivevw 147 émtatelxw 109 éripatu 65 &pdw 102 épeldw 18 épépw 74 epvos 17, 24 éprw 71 épxouon (with acc. of person) 49 éomduevos 98; éamécOat 109 éoxarid 108 éaxaros 131 érés 41 evavOrs 122, 130, 132 eVOvpla 24 evOvropioat 103 edpaxavla 63 evpuBlas 115 evpuabevis 43 evpuxalras 124 épixvéopat 94 zxe (from xéw) 70 feowépa 147 fomdébxos 128 fiwdxés 146 §aw 129 H 78a (concrete) 152 HOaios 49 OddXW 59, 104 Oddos 128 Ocla g2 O€\wy (Lat. volens) 113 dévap 75 Oebduaros 107 Geddoros 96 Oépetos (sc. wpa) 48 Onpa (MSS. Onpav) 72 Opdoow 131 twas éxrapwv 148 immodpébptos 22 lrméuntis 125 "Io8ués (digammated ?) 106 K kadapbs 96 kal, postpositive, 129 Kdixos (quantity) 99 xapwés 147 Kaorépeov 13 kardKetpat 20 karagrévdw 107 kék\Xev 115 kedadevybs 64 Kéxupa 9 Kolo Tr4 kuadevre (trisyllable) 76 Kparip (rpiréomovdos) 104 Kptrés 151 Kpvdes 19 kwpdfoua 78 Kwpdtw 127 A Aaxrlf{w (of smoke) 76 Aelrouat (with gen.) 42 Aeukdw 77 Aovyds 129 Abrpov 138 -pdyris ayyp 115 Maviw 149 Havpby 73 mendéra. 97 pBéev—GANA 100, 154 pév—éé (special use of) 60 bev —re 153 sqq- pndé (for wre) 48 ebyoume 59 blrpa 103 pvacrip 40 potpldros 113 pupolva 151 vamos 151 vexTdpeos 112 véuw 7, 44 vedTas 152 vigw (with dat.) 124 vapdw 13 = tvyddapos 114 Euvds 118; Evvd 147 0 olxobev 65 olvodéxos 112 ofos (in exclamation) 117 *Oduptids (subst.) 24 6pddamos 17 éuoxdd, 96 INDEX I. GREEK. 191 érifouat 59 8mis 102 émXlrys 15 érdbraros 106 épyd 46, 80, 97 bpObw 71 6p0@ emt opupy 126 éppayds 64, 125 maides Oey 62 Tanlyywooos 110 téppuwvos 96 mavdddos 142 Tlavé\Aaves 47, 68 mavvuxliw 76 mavrodar bs 21 manralyw 132 mapéxer (impersonal) 152 medddev 98 meipalyw 143 mevrabrov 16 memOdy (intrans.) 78 tépayv 109 mepl 70 TEplisa ov Q2 tépynut 40 mérana verkéwy 147 meppucvia (pid) 112 mlaw 118 mitvw (of embracing) 67 motxtdos, (many coloured, of the months), 67 motpalyw 4 mohdtas 22 més (of Salamis) 100 Tohvpauos 149 ToAVavULOS 92 mopOuds 75 mopoalyw and mropotvw 107 mpdrrw and mpdrropat 93, 107 mpéTw 95 wpé (three meanings in Pindar) 67 wpo odds 141 mpovéuw 142 mpés (with dat., and accus.) 108 mpocevvéTw 109 mupods tuvwy 71 192 INDEX I GREEK. : P PaBsov, kard, 71 palyw 109 blga 149 luda 39 AbuBos 73 proldippos 44 z céXvov 31, 43, 150 cecwrapévoy 24 , cevoua (with gen.) 15 a6évos (rhobrov) 58 copiarys 97 oTabuds 132 orepavipara (Bwucy) 76 oTovéets 144 orpdrapxos 99 orparés 12 - abv 58, 97 cbvvopos 61 aérepos (three meanings) ri1, 149 T Ta kal Td 69, Tor Tayrddov AlOos 140 re after uév 13, 47 te with ellipse of first member, 95 TEO LOY 109 : tédos 11, 163 (@vardv) 64, 65 Tépua 77 TETMUWY I12 terpaopla (quantity) 61 Terpamrat 96 Tyders 64 tiv and tiv 106 Towodros 112 Tpadw 146 Tpibdovus 145 rt budrepos (of thee and thine) 63 bm (and é& &ppart) 93, 113 bylOpovos 108 tylredos 17 ® POdvos 131 préyw 128 ppdcow 24 ppéverat 59 guors (stature) 73 x xdraga (aluaros) 129 xarafders 100 xarwés (rapbevias) 147 XaAkacmis 128 xarKodpas 76, 99 Xarxodduas 118 XAAKbKporos 124 Xarkdredos 132 XaAKoxdpuas 110 xXapels 107 Xdpis 11, 44, 60 xed 152 xpuodumrvé 39 Xpicacms g Xpuceos 132 akvdivaros 93 ws 8re 104 INDEX II. A Acragas 36 sqq. Adrastus 125 Aegidae 126 Aegina 79sqq., 133 Aeneas (O/, VI.) 37 Ajax go, 115 Alcaeus, fragment of, 41 Alcathoea 151 Amphitryon 125 Amyclae 126 Antaeus 53, 74 Antilochus 28 Apollo, god of games, 1 Argive brevity 116 Aristodamos 41 Asopodorus 3 Asopus 143 Atlantic, the, 19 B Bellerophon 132 Cc Castor, name of, 2, 13, 97 Ceos 1, 11 Chryse, name of Theia, 85, 92 Cleander 133 sqq- Cleonicus 102 Cleonymids s0sqq. D Delos 9 Dionysius 124 Doric constitution, praised by Pindar, 95 B. IT. ENGLISH. E Electra gate of Thebes, 76 Eleusis, games at, 2 3 Epidaurus 131, 152 Euboea, games in, 23 G Geryones 2, 12 H Hector 129 Heracles 2, 53, 74, 82 sqq-, 98, 110 sqq- Herodotus of Thebes 1 sqq. Hesiod, reference of Pindar to, 117 ffiatus, instances of, 17, 23 Himera, battle of, 186 Homer, mentioned, 70 I Tolaus 2, 97, 125 Iphicles 4 L Lampon 79 sqq. Libya 74 M Meleager 129 Melissus 50sqq., 134 Menander (athletic trainer) 118 N Naxian whetstone 118 Nemea 83 13 194 INDEX J]. Nicasippus 37 Nicocles 133 8qq-, 150 Nicomachus 35 O Oeneus, sons of, 97 Oenone 97 Ocnopia 143 Onchestus 67 Orchomenus 18, 23 Orion, stature of, 73 Orseas, a trainer, 78 P Paean of Pindar 1 ‘Pegasus 132 Peleus 135 Perseus 97. Persian war 133 Phylace 5 Phylacidas 79 sqq. Plataea, battle of, 51, 134 Protesilaus 5 Psalychiads of Aegina, the, 117 Pytheas 79 sqq. S Salamis, battle of, 86, 100, 186 Sicyon, games at, 68 ENGLISH. Simonides 27, 28, 33 Sparta 124 Strepsiades 120 sqq. T Tanagra, battle of, 120 Telamon 82, 83, 111 sqq- Teleiades 50 Telesarchus 133, 139 Theba 1, 124 Thebes 133 Theia 85, 92 Themis 134 Themistius 81 Therapna 17 Thetis 134 Thrasybulus 26 sqq- Tiresias 125 Troy, siege of, 86, 98, 110. Ww War-chariots, 187 x Xenocrates 26 sqq. Zeus sdtér 80 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. MACMILLAN’S CLASSICAL TRANSLATIONS. ARISTOPHANES.—The Birds. Translated into English Verse. By B. H. Kennepy, D.D. Cr. 8vo. 6s. Help Notes to the Same, for the Use of Students, 1s. 6d. SURI ODES: .—The Metaphysics. Book I. Translated by a Cambridge Graduate. 8vo. Se The Politics. Translated by Rev. J. E. C. Wetupon, M.A., Headmaster of Harrow. Cr. 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Rhetoric. Translated by the same. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d, The Ethics. Translated by the same. Cr. 8vo. [In the press. CICERO.—The Academics. Trenalated by J. 8. Rerp, Litt.D., Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. 8vo. 5s. 6 HEEQDOTUR:——ahe History. Translated by G. C. Macaunay, M.A. 2 vols. YF. OVO, Se HOMER.—The Iliad. Translated into English prose by AnpRew Lane, M.A., Watrer Lear, Litt.D., and Ernest Myers, M.A., Cr. 8vo. 12s. 6d. The Odyssey. Done into English by 8. H. DorcHEn,. Me Ass Professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh, and ANDREW Lane, M.A. Cr. 8 6s. HORACE.—Translated by J. Lonspauz, M.A., and 8. Lee, M. A. Gl. 8vo. 3s. 6d. Studies, Literary and Historical, in the Odes of Horace. By A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D, 8vo. 8s. 6d. JUVENAL. —Thirteen Satires. Translated by Atzx. Lezrer, M.A., LL.D., Warden of Trinity College, Melbourne. Cr. 8vo. 3s. 6d. LIVY.—Books I-IV. Translated by Rev. H. M. Srepuenson, M.A. [In preparation. Books XXI.-XXV. Translated by A. J. Cuurnca, M.A., and W. J. Bropriss, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 78. 6d. LONGINUS.—On the Sublime. Translated by H. L. Haveiy, B.A. With Intro- duction by ANDREW Lane. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. MELEAGER.—Fifty Poems of Meleager. Translated by WautER Heapiam. Feap. sto. 7s, 6d. PAUSANIAS.—Description of Greece. Translated with Commentary by J. G. Frazer, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. [In preparation. PINDAR.—The Extant Odes of Pindar. Translated by Ernest Myers, M.A. Cr. 8vo. 5s. PLATO.—The Republic of Plato. Translated by J. Lu. Davies, M.A., and D. J. VaucHan, M.A. 18mo. 4s. 6d. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phedo. Translated by F. J. Cuurcu. 18mo. 4s. 6d. Phedrus, Lysis, and. Protagoras. Translated by J. Wricut, M.A. 18mo. 4s. 6d. POLYBIUS.—The Histories of Polybius. Translated by E. 8. Saucksuren, M.A. 2vols. Cr. 8vo. 24s. SALLUST.—Catiline and Jugurtha. Translated by A. W. Ponzarp, B.A. Cr. 8vo. 6s. The Catiline (separately). 3s. SOPHOCLES.—Cdipus the King. Translated into English Verse by E. D. A. MorsHEaD, M.A., Assistant Master at Winchester. Feap. 8vo. 35. 6 TACITUS.—The Annals. Translated by A, J. CuuncH, M. re and W. J. BropRiss, M.A. With Maps. Cr. 8vo. 1s. 6d. The History. Translated by A. J. Caurcu, M.A., and W. J. Bropriss, M.A. With Map. Cr. 8vo. 6s. The Agricola and Germany, with the Dialogue on Oratory. Translated by A. J. CuvgcH, M.A., and W. J. Broprisz, M.A. With Maps. Cr. 8vo. 4s. 6d. THEOCRITUS, BION, and MOSCHUS.—Translated by A. Lanc, M.A. 18mo. 4s. 6d. Also an Edition on Large Paper. Crown 8vo. 9s. VIRGIL.—Translated by J. Lonspauz, M.A., and 8. Lun, M.A. Gl. 8vo. 33. 6d. The £neid.—Translated by J. W. Macxaim, M.A., Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. Cr. 8vo. 78. 6d. XENOPHON. Translated by H. G. Daxyns, M.A. In four vols. Cr. 8vo. Vol. I, containing the “ Anabasis” and Books I. and II. of “The Hellenica.” 10s. 6d. With Maps . and Plans. Vol. IL (In the press. MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON. MACMILLAN’S CLASSICAL LIBRARY. i STANDARD GREEK AND LATIN TEXTS, EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES, FOR THE USE OF ADVANCED STUDENTS. 8vo. cloth. ZSCHYLUS.—The Supplices. A Revised Text, with Translation. By T. G. Tucker, M.A., Professor of Classical Philology in the University of Melbourne. 10s. 6d. The Seven against Thebes. With Translation. By A. W. Verraut, Litt.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 7s. 6d. : Agamemnon. With Translation. By A. W. VeRratt, Litt.D. 12s. Agamemnon, Choephoree, and Eumenides. By A. O. Pricxarp, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford. Un preparation. The Eumenides. With Verse Translation. By Bernarp Drake, M.A. 5s. ANTONINUS, MARCUS AURELIUS.—Book IV. of the Meditations. With Trans- lation. By Hastines CrossLey, M.A. 6s. ay ARISTOTLE.—The Politics. By R. D. Hicxs, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. : [In the press. An Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric. With Analysis, Notes and Appendices. By E. M. Corx, Fellow and late Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. 14s. The Sophistici Elenchi. With Translation. By HE. Posts, M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 8s. 6d. ATTIC ORATORS.—From Antiphon to Isaeos. By R. C. Jess, Litt.D., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. 2 vols. 25s. BABRIUS.—With Lexicon. By Rev. W. G. Ruruerrorp, M.A., LL.D., Headmaster of Westminster. 12s. 6d. CICERO.—The Academica. By J. S. Rew, Litt.D., Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. 15s. EURIPIDES.—Medea. Edited by A. W. Verrauu, Litt.D. 7s. 6d. Iphigenia in Aulis, Edited by E. B. Enaztanp, M.A. 7s. 6d. HERODOTUS.—Books I.-III. The Ancient Empires of the East. Edited by A. H. Saycz, Deputy-Professor of Comparative Philology, Oxford. 16s. Books IV.-IX. Edited by R. W. Macan, M.A., Reader in Ancient History in the University of Oxford. [In preparation. HOMER.—The Iliad. By Watrer Lear, Litt.D. Books I.-XII. 14s. Books XIIL—XXIV. 14s. HORACE.—Studies, Literary and Historical, in the Odes of Horace. By A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. 85. 6d. RTEAAS "The Fragments of the Persika of Ktesias. By Jonn Grumore, M.A. Se i. MARTIAL.—Books I. and II. of the Epigrams. By Professor Joun E. B. Mayor, MLA. [In the press. PHRYNICHUS.—The New Phrynichus; being a Revised Text of the Ecloga of the Grammarian Phrynichus. With Introduction and Commentary by Rev. W. G. RUTHERFORD, M.A., LL.D., Headmaster of Westminster. 185. PINDAR.—The Nemean Odes; By J. B. Bury, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. 8vo. 12s. The Isthmian Odes. By the same. PLATO.—Phedo. By R. D, Arcugr-Hinp, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8s. 6d. ear : By W. D. Geppes, LL.D., Principal of the University of Aberdeen. Ss ‘. Timaeus. With Translation. By R. D. Ancuer-Hinp, M.A. 16s. PLAUTUS.—The Mostellaria. By Wiiutam Ramsay, M.A. Edited by G. G. Ransay, M.A., Professor of Humanity in the University of Glasgow. 14s. : PLINY.—Correspondence with Trajan. C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi Epistule ad Traianum Imperatorem cum Eiusdem Responsis. By E. G. Harpy, M.A. 10s. 6d. TACITUS.—The Annals. By G. O, Honsrooxe, M.A., Professor of Latin in Trinity College,,Huartford, U.S.A. With Maps. 16s. The Histories. By Rev. W. A. Spooner, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford. With Introductions. 16s. aES eee ee Ty. o Revision of the Text, Illustrating the Principal uption in the ipts . i 5 . W. G. 5 LLD. Hendmaten Wee ees ot this Author, By Rev, W. G. RurHerrorp, M.A., Book VIII. By H. C. Goopmart, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Professor of Humanity in the University of Edinburgh. [In the press. MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON. Pleo