Page images

πολλά μεν έν κονία χέρσω, τα δε γείτονι πόντο φά

σομαι. .


43. Cf. OI. XII. 6, πόλλ' άνω...τα δ' αυ κάτω. Render, “And his honours won at other times, many mid the dry land's dust, others again on the neighbouring sea, will I proclaim.' The idea to be supplied with the neut. plur. pron. must surely be suggested by khéos ανθήσαι (υ. 39), δέδορκεν τούτο φέγyos (vv. 41, 42). Dissen understands πραχθέντα or πραχθήναι and compares Aristoph. Ran. 281, ás ούτος ο τόπος εστίν, ου τα θηρία τα δείν' έφασκ εκείνος, where an infinitive verb is obviously suppressed, or at least a participle. But I venture to say páo oual can take an accusative like κείνα κείνος αν είπoι έργα, , Ol. VΙΙΙ. 62, μήδαγώνα φέρτερον αυδάσομεν, Ο1. Ι. 7, τα δ' αυτός άν

* τύχη, έλπεται τις έκαστος εξοχώtata páolai, Nem. Iv. 91.

Kovlą.] L. and S. gives this as an adj. under kbvios, a subs. under xépoos. I prefer the latter view.

yeltovi TróvtW.] The sea off Cu. mae. For the battle cf, Pyth. I. 71–75.

páo oua..] Pindar also uses the middle forms φάτο, φάσθαι, which may in all five instances be well rendered 'in the second and more definite sense of onul, to affirm, declare, &c.' (Don.). He uses paMéVW, Isth. v. 49, of the utterance of a wish. This párojai then has a different shade of meaning from páow, and has no proper connection with the following theory which Don. propounds in this place. • Pindar uses a middle form for the future of active verbs signifying “ to utter a sound ;” as aŭdáσομαι ενόρκιον λόγον, «I will solemnly swear,” Ol. II. 92: kelaonσόμεθα βροντάν, , we will sing of the thunder,” Ο1. ΧΙ. 79: κωμάσομαι, “I will raise the comus-song," P.

IX. 89: and here páoopal, “I will affirm.” In all these cases of future assertions he uses the middle form of this tense, for the reason which I have given in the passages above referred to—namely, because when we speak of something which will make an impression upon our senses or feelings, or, in general, befall us, as future, we consider ourselves as merely the object of these outward impressions or accidents; but when we speak of their present effect we consider ourselves as an agent or inchoative in respect to them. If, however, we use the future in a deliberate or prohibitory sense, the idea of agency is not lost; and thus we find that Pindar not merely writes αυδάσομαι, “I will speak” (Ol. II. 92), but also un aŭddoojev, “let us not speak” (Ol. 1. 7); and not only Kwuáo ouai, "I will raise the comussong (P. ix. 89), but also kwuároMev, “let us sing the comus-song (supra, v. 1). Similarly, although βοήσομαι is the regular Attic future of Boaw, we have in Aeschyl. Pers. 640: παντάλαν' άχη διαβοάσω; “am I to go on proclaiming my woes?Now aúdásojai, Ol. II. 92, is distinctly reflexive, as the utterance of an oath binds the utterer. Kelaδήσομεθα is neutralized by κελαdñow, Ol. x. [xı.] 14. Don. should refer κωμάσομαι to his κωμάζομαι, Isth. 111. 90. This mid. is used causatively, 'I cause to be celebrated in (or .by') a kômos,' only used in the first person sing. in reference to the poet. Cf. also Nem. III. 12, 27, VI, 26. Perhaps kelad., Ol. XI. 79, is causative. Thus there is no instance in Pindar to which Dr Donaldson's ingenious explanation of middle futures to active verbs will fairly apply.

εκ πόνων δ', οι συν νεότατη γένωνται σύν τε δίκα, τελέθει προς γήρας αιών αμέρα.

105 45 ίστω λαχών προς δαιμόνων θαυμαστόν όλβον.

Στρ. ί'.

[ocr errors]


ει γαρ άμα κτείνους πολλούς επίδοξον άρηται
κύδος, ουκέτ' έστι πόρσω θνατόν έτι σκοπιάς άλλας

εφάψασθαι ποδούν.
άσυχία δε φιλεί μεν συμπόσιον" νεοθαλής δ' αύξε-

15 μαλθακά νικαφορία συν αοιδά: θαρσαλέα δε παρά κρα

τήρα φωνά γίνεται. 5ο έγκιρνάτω τίς μιν, γλυκύν κώμου προφάταν,

Στρ. ια'. αργυρέαισι δε νωμάτω φιάλαισι βιατάν αμπέλου παιδ', άς ποθ' ίπποι κτησάμεναι Χρομία πέμψαν θεμιπλέκτους άμα


[ocr errors]

=to pour

44. εκ πόνων τελέθει.] “Is the natural outcome of toil.'

οι γένωνται.] See Goodwin, 8 63.

νεότατι.] The classical youth includes our middle age. Pindar speaks, Pyth. II. 63, of Hiero's νεότας in connection with the battle of Himera (B.C. 480) and yet of his βουλαί πρεσβύτεραι, though the date of the ode is B. C. 477. .

αμέρα.] For αιων fem. cf. Ρyth.

ΙV. 186.

45. έστω λαχών.] Cf. Ol. VΙ. 8, Nem. XI. 15, Isth. I. 68, VΙ. 27.

46. For sentiment cf. Pyth. I. 99, Nem. Ι. 32, Isth. Ι. 50.

47. For metaphor cf. Ο1. 1. 115, Nem. Ι. 25, VIII. 36, Isth. IV. 23. For έτι cf. Εur. Med. 1077.

48. αύξεται.] Cf. Ρyth. Χ. 10. Render, a victor's honour (the status of a νικηφόρος) putteth forth fresh blossoms by aid of soothing minstrelsy.' For metaphor cf. Nem. VIII. 40.

50. έγκιρνάτω μιν.] For constr.

cf. εγχεϊν κρητηρα, Soph. Frag. 149, • To mix into the cup'=

in and mix. Cf. Isth. IV. 25.

προφάταν.] The bowl is the interpreter of the kwuos because it adds vigour to the performers and stimulates the faculties of the audience, raising both nearer to the level of the poet's inspired genius. It would appear that another ode was to be sung at or after the feast. The Schol. indicates a variant προηγητήν, which does not scan.

51. Cf. Nem. x. 43. Silver cups were also prizes at Marathôn, cf. Οι. ΙΧ. 90. Probably the wreath was universally given as a symbol of victory in games.

52. αμπέλου παιδ'.] “The masterful child of the vine.' Conversely (Aesch. Persae, 616), ακήρατόν τε μητρός αγρίας άπο | ποτόν, παλαιάς αμπέλου γάνος τόδε. In the Schol. the quotation from Nem. V. 6, ματέροίνάνθας οπώραν is misplaced and put under v. 48. It appears

Λατοίδα στεφάνοις εκ τας ιεράς Σικυώνος. Ζεύ πάτερ, εύχομαι ταύταν αρετάν κελαδήσαι συν Χαρίτεσσιν, υπέρ πολλών τε τιμαλφεϊν λόγοις

130 55 νίκαν, ακοντίζων σκοπούάγχιστα Μουσών.

that Chromios did not himself attend these games.

θεμιπλέκτους.] I prefer the inter. pretation of one Schol. νομίμως και καθηκόντως πεπλεγμένους, “twined with due ceremonial' to 'fairlytwined,' 'twined in justice to him,' i.e. 'fairly won' For crowns won by horses cf. Ol. 11, 50, vi. 26, Pyth. III. 73, 74. But the plural is used for the victor's crown for a single victory, e. g. Isth. 111. 11.

53. ιεράς.] The Schol. refers this epithet to the partition of the victims between gods and men at Mêkônê close to Sikyôn. Cf. Hes. Theog. 535, but the fact of Pythian games being held there is perhaps sufficient ground for the attribute.

54. εύχομαι.] I pray. Paley I flatter myself.

αρετάν.] “Glory (in games);' cf. Isth. Ι. 41, IV. 17.

συν Χαρίτεσσιν.] For the association of the Graces with Epinikian poetry and with Pythia cf. Pyth.

VI. 2, Nem. Χ. 1. For -σαι συν cf. Isth. III. 17.

υπέρ πολλών, κ.τ.λ.] “And that more than many (bards) I may make victory of great account by my verses. Notice the aorist κελαδήcal referring the poet's celebration of the particular achievement, the present Tiualpeiv referring to his general habit. For inf. cf. Goodw. 8 23, 2 note 2. A Schol. gives an unhappy υ. 1. πολλάν...νικάν which Christ gives as his own emendation. For υπέρ πολλών cf. Isth. II. 36.

55. ακοντίζων.] For the hurling of the javelin, one of the contests of the quinquertium, cf. 01. XIII. 93, Pyth. I. 44. For the metaphor cf. ΟΙ. Ι. 112.

σκοποί”.] Μss. give σκοπού, but cf. Pyth. XI. 41 (where I find Christ had anticipated my suggestion of μισθοίο), Ο1. ΧΙΙΙ. 35, πατρός δε θεσσάλοι' επ''Αλφέου ρείθροισιν αίγλα ποδών ανάκειται, Isth. Ι. 16.

[ NEMEA X. ]



This fine ode is proved by vv. 22, 23 and the thrice-repeated mention of Hêra to be composed for an anniversary of the Hekatombaea at Argos, in which Theiaeos son of Ulias of Argos had won the wrestling match twice. He had also won thrice at Nemea, thrice at the Isthmos, once at Pythô, but not yet at Olympia. Dissen argues from Amphitryôn being called an Argive that the date falls after the destruction of Mykênae by the Argives, Kleônaeans and Tegeaeans B.C. 468; he also fixes the later limit, B.C. 458, by the consideration that Argos joined in an invasion of Boeôtia in that year, after which Pindar would hardly compose an ode for an Argive.

It is probable from vv. 29—36 that an Olympian contest was at hand, that is that the date was either B.C. 464 or 460, as Mykênae was probably not taken till late in the year and the poet would hardly be likely to transfer the myths of Mykênae to Argos immediately after the destruction of the former. For such transference in the Tragedians cf. Aesch. Ag. 24, Porson on Eur. Heracl. 188 (Elmsley and Barnes). The confusion was made easy by the larger meaning of Argos = Argolis (see on v. 42).

As one of the victor's ancestors claimed intimate connexion, as their host, with the Dioskuroi (vv. 49, 50), and as these deities were patrons of athletic games, and as the poet has given the most beautiful episode of their legend, we need not suppose that the myth has reference to the victor any more than is the case with the allusion at the end of Pyth. XI. Perhaps from the relation of the favour with which Zeus entertained Polydeukês entreaty, Theiaeos might deduce encouragement as to the result of his own prayer v. 30; but I think Mezger refines a little too much in suggesting that the implication is that the Dioskuroi will intercede without stint for the mortal Theiaeos, even as Polydeukês gave up half his life as a god in intercession for his mortal brother Kastôr. The poet may possibly imply that as a friend of the Dioskuroi he has a second claim on the favour of Zeus, who is introduced in three important passages, vv. 11 ff., 29 ff., 75—end. The myth may incidentally contain a veiled allusion to the struggle between Sparta and the Helôts in Messênia which began B.C. 664 and lasted beyond B.C. 460. Leopold Schmidt considers that the myth inculcates the trustworthiness and good faith of the breed of gods (vv. 54; 78, 79); but the trustiness of the latter passage is that of a mortal comrade, and there is little analogy between Polydeukês' self-sacrifice for his brother and his good faith as a divine patron.

I think that either παύροι δ' εν πόνο πιστοι βροτών refers back rather to the general sense than the particular application of dev TOTÒv yévos, and is in fact almost a false echo, or else that the recurrence of TTLOTO- is a mere coincidence. It should be observed that Polydeukês distinctly avows a selfish grief at the loss of his brother, which is most pathetic and appropriate in a presentment of deep affection, but which would tend to mar an illustration of disinterested good faith. Mezger points out that vv. 37 f. form the middle point of the ode, referring the victories of the family to the Graces, who are invoked v. 1, and the Tyndaridae, who form the subject of the close of the ode.

Polydeukes is vividly presented as the ideal exemplar of brotherly love, and it is hard to believe that the poet wished a beautiful picture to be blurred by any occult references to Theiaeos. Dissen sees that the exaltation of Polydeukês' brotherly love is the point of the myth, but gratuitously proceeds to infer that Theiaeos' unselfish brotherly love is indirectly celebrated.

The poet implies, v. 54, that he is just; but beyond that no indication of his character can be traced.

The rhythm is Dôrian with a few Lydian measures.

« PreviousContinue »