ἔρνεσι Λατοῦς, παρὰ Κασταλίᾳ τε Χαρίτων

ἑσπέριος ὁμάδῳ φλέγεν

40 πόντου τε γέφυρ ̓ ἀκάμαντος ἐν ἀμφικτιόνων

ταυροφόνῳ τριετηρίδι Κρεοντίδαν

τίμασε Ποσειδάνιον ἂν τέμενος

Φλιοῦντος ὑπ ̓ ὠγυγίοις ὄρεσιν.

πλατείαι | πάντοθεν λογίοισιν ἐντὶ πρόσοδοι 75 νᾶσον εὐκλέα τάνδε κοσμεῖν· ἐπεί σφιν Αἰακίδαι ἔπορον ἔξοχον αἶσαν ἀρετὰς ἀποδεικνύμενοι μεγά

50 πέταται δ ̓ ἐπί τε χθόνα καὶ διὰ θαλάσσας | τηλόθεν ὄνυμ ̓ αὐτῶν· καὶ ἐς Αἰθίοπας Μέμνονος οὐκ ἀπονοστάσαντος ἐπᾶλτο βαρὺ δέ σφι | φράσσε νεῖκος

χαμαὶ καταβάς, ̓Αχιλεὺς ἀφ ̓ ἁρμάτων

φαεννᾶς | υἱὸν εὖτ ̓ ἐνάριξεν ̓Αόος ἀκμᾷ

Αντ. γ'.

90

55 ἔγχεος ζακότοιο. καὶ ταύταν μὲν παλαιότεροι ὁδὸν ἁμαξιτὸν εὗρον ἕπομαι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἔχων μελέταν

τὸ δὲ πὰρ ποδὶ ναὸς ἑλισσόμενον αἰεὶ | κυμάτων 95 λέγεται παντὶ μάλιστα δονεῖν

θυμόν. ἑκόντι δ ̓ ἐγὼ νώτῳ μεθέπων δίδυμον ἄχθος |

ἄγγελος βᾶν,

6ο πέμπτον ἐπὶ εἴκοσι τοῦτο γαρύων

εὖχος ἀγώνων ἄπο, τοὺς ἐνέποισιν ἱερούς,
̓Αλκιμίδ ̓, ὅ τοι ἐπάρκεσεν

κλειτᾷ γενεᾷ δύο μὲν Κρονίου πὰρ τεμένει,
παῖ, σέ τ ̓ ἐνόσφισε καὶ Πολυτιμίδαν
65 κλᾶρος προπετῆς ἄνθε ̓ Ὀλυμπιάδος.

Mezger β. δ' ἔμπεσέ σφι νεῖκος. Ag the Schol. gives ἐπέδειξε, I avoid it and choose φράσσε, which is suficiently near the sense of the Schol. and would be in danger after -pi.

54. For theme cf. Nem. III. 60, Isth. iv. 41, νιι. 54.

56. ἁμαξιτόν.] Elsewhere ὁδὸς is not expressed, but the adj. is used as a substantive.

57. πὰρ ποδὶ ναός.] ‘By the sheet of a vessel, i.e. close to the πρωρεύς. Others understand the keel' or 'the steering paddle.'

58. λέγεται.] It is a proverb that. For μάλιστα κυμ. cf. Theogn. 173 quoted supra, v. 25.

59. The double burden' is the praise of the clan and the praise of the victor.

62. Mss. 'Αλκιμίδας τό γ' ἐπάρκεσε | κλειτᾷ γενεᾷ.

That twenty-five victories were counted to the clan, not to Alkimi

ΙΟΟ

Ἐπ. γ'.

105

das, is proved by the succeeding δύο, of which only one refers to Alkimidas. ἐπάρκ. intrans.

65. ἄνθε'.] Crowns, cf. Ol. II. 50, Ισθμοί τε κοιναὶ χάριτες ἄνθεα τεθρίππων δυωδεκαδρόμων ἄγαγον. It seems hardly probable that the 'random lot' can refer to the pairing of the competitors; for to be drawn with antagonists who were too strong for them was to be defeated on their merits, and the poet was hardly likely to recall such unpleasant reminiscences. But if one of their antagonists drew one or two byes, they might well be too much exhausted to throw an acknowledged inferior, who was comparatively fresh. It is therefore manifestly quite possible that the honours of the wrestling match, especially of that for boys, did not always rest with the technical victor. Perhaps however the number of

τάχος δι ̓ ἅλμας

ἴσον εἴποιμι Μελησίαν χειρῶν τε καὶ ἰσχύος ἡνίοχον.

NEMEA VII.

ON THE VICTORY OF SOGENES OF AEGINA IN THE BOYS' PENTATHLON.

INTRODUCTION.

SôGENES, son of Theâriôn, of the family of the Euxenidae, of Aegina, won the victory commemorated in this ode in Ol. 79. 4, B.C. 461, according to Hermann's alteration of the impossible date Nem. d in the Schol. to Nem. vo', the 54th Nemead. The Schol. goes on to state that in the previous Nemead the pentathlon was introduced at Nemea. I do not think it right to alter this date as it is possible that to it the foregoing date was erroneously assimilated. Theâriôn, the victor's father, has been supposed to have been a priest of Hêrakles (vv. 90-94), but had this been the case he would scarcely have been called merely yeírov. As I have written a separate essay on the pentathlon I need only enumerate such results as bear on the interpretation of this ode. The competitors all contested at the same time and were placed in each kind of trial, only being paired for the wrestling, which came last; the order being-1. leaping, 2. discus-hurling, 3. spear-throwing, 4. running. The victor only had to beat his rivals in three contests out of the five. Generally the winner in the discus-throwing would not win in the running. The wrestling took place in the heat of the afternoon (vv. 72, 73). In the 2nd, 3rd and 4th contests there was a line which must not be overstepped before throwing or starting (v. 71). I think that Sôgenes had over-stepped this line and so lost the spear-throwing after winning in the leaping and discus-throwing. An allusion to this misadventure comes in well with one of the main ideas of the

ode, that the noble can afford to have their failures and errors mentioned as a relief to the monotony of praises. In the myth he takes occasion to give a complimentary turn to his version of the death of Neoptolemos, given according to the Schol. (v. 94 [65]) in a Dithyramb sung at Delphi, whereby the poet had given offence to Aeginêtans. He does not retract or apologise at all (unless Aristodêmos is right in saying that Pindar had seemed to represent Neoptolemos as having gone to Delphi ènì iepoovλía, Schol. v. 150 [103], in which case there is an explanation of his language); but rather defends his treatment of the hero, and illustrates it by a similar treatment of Sôgenes. This vindication of his supposed disparagement of the Aeakid whose tomb was at Delphi would be very appropriate to this ode if Theâriôn had to do with the Pythian theôri of Nem. III. 69, 70. That he occupied some prominent position is made probable by the mention of the blame which he had incurred1 (vv. 61, 62). The Schol. tells us that Aristarchos' pupil Aristodêmos explained the invocation of Eileithyia as referring to Sôgenes being the child of Theâriôn's old age, which view is said to be confirmed by an epigram by Simonides. The name Sôgenes suggests that the hope of offspring was small until he was born2. Hermann's supposition3 that Theâriôn had himself contended in games and failed, and that Sôgenes was the first victor in the family, is plausible, but he is not justified in the idea that he had been defeated in the Pythian games by an Achaean (v. 64)4. Pindar appeals to the Thesprôtian descendants of the Achaean Myrmidons from the censure of his Aeginêtan critics, which he notices in this ode as in Ol. VIII. 55, Nem. IV. 39. From vv. 61-68 it seems very probable that Pindar was himself present in Aegina at the recitation of the ode, which was sung before Theâriôn's house, perhaps before a shrine dedicated by him in gratitude for Sôgenes' birth to Eileithyia. From the words μαχανιᾶν and ἐμπεδοσθενέα, ν. 97, 98 (cf. also ἀποβλάπτει, ν. 60) in

1 So Dissen. To this he refers the mention of Aias, vv. 24-27.

2 Mr Holmes suggests that 'one of Theâriôn's family, perhaps a brother of Sôgenes, was afflicted with feeble health or some special physical infirmity, and thus appeared in mournful contrast to the blooming boyhood of the victor.' This idea he supports by vv. 95-101.

See

The Nemean Odes of Pindar with
especial reference to Nem. VII.
A thesis by the Rev. Arthur Holmes,
M.A. Rivingtons, 1867.

3 De Sogenis Aeginetae victoria quinquertio dissertatio. Leipsig,

1822.

4 Leop. Schmidt agrees that he had been defeated at the Pythian games.