¹ The text of Nem. 11 printed in these notes is that of Henry, W.B., Pindar's Nemeans: A Selection (Leipzig, 2005), 19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Otherwise, citations of Pindar are from Snell, B. and Maehler, H., Pindarus, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1987 ⁸–9)Google Scholar.

² Race, W.H., Pindar: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments (Cambridge, MA and London, 1997), 127Google Scholar.

³ So e.g. Fennell, C.A.M., Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes (Cambridge, 1899 ²), 138Google Scholar (on 16, τελευτάν); Bury, J.B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London and New York, 1890), 222Google Scholar (on 15); Henry (n. 1), 126 (on 16, τελευτὰν ἁπάντων). Clapp, E.B., ʻPindar's accusative constructions', TAPhA 32 (1901), 16–42, at 35Google Scholar treats this instance as an adverbial accusative where the apposition is still felt.

⁴ So Verdenius, W.J., Commentaries on Pindar, 2 vols. (Leiden / New York / Copenhagen / Cologne, 1987–8), 2.103–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on 16, τελευτάν), citing Isthm. 3.7 as an example of such ʻemphatic' nominal apposition. To that instance may be added Pyth. 9.23–5 τὸν ϲύγκοιτον γλυκύν | … | ὕπνον, Nem. 1.70 ἡϲυχίαν καμάτων μεγάλων ποινὰν … ἐξαίρετον and Isthm. 8.1–4 λύτρον εὔδοξον καμάτων | … | κῶμον.

⁵ Cf. especially H. Lloyd-Jones, ʻPindar and the after-life', in O. Reverdin and B. Grange (edd.), Pindare (Entretiens sur L'Antiquité Classique 31) (Geneva, 1985), 245–83 (= The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones: Greek Epic, Lyric and Tragedy [Oxford, 1990], 80–105, with an addendum at 105–9).

⁶ For song conferring immortality in Pindar, cf. Verdenius (n. 4), 1.51 (on 11, ζωθάλμιοϲ) and add to his examples Ol. 11.4–6, 6.56–7, Pyth. 1.92–4, 3.110–15, 5.46–9, Isthm. 2.28–9, 5.24–8, 8.56a–8 and fr. 121 Maehler; for discussion, cf. G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans (rev. ed., Baltimore and London, 1999), ch. 10; Currie, B., Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford, 2005), 344–405Google Scholar, especially 345–8 and 403–5; and Sigelman, A.C., Pindar's Poetics of Immortality (Cambridge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Pindar uses ἄφαντοϲ three times elsewhere (Ol. 1.46, Pyth. 11.30, Nem. 8.34). For the meaning ʻobscure', cf. Finglass, P.J., Pindar: Pythian Eleven (Cambridge, 2007), 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on 30, ἄφαντον). For the association of Ἀΐδαϲ and ἰδεῖν, cf. Gazis, G.A., Homer and the Poetics of Hades (Oxford, 2018), 36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Pindar describes Tartarus as ἀφανήϲ at fr. 207 Maehler, perhaps with the same association of death and invisibility in mind.

⁸ This recurring Pindaric motif is sometimes joined with approbation of leaving a good reputation for one's offspring: cf. e.g. Ol. 5.22–3, 10.91–6, Pyth. 11.55–8, Nem. 7.98–101, 8.35–9, Isthm. 6.10–16. On the close link between lines 15–16 and 17–18, highlighted by δέ (17), cf. Verdenius (n. 4), 2.103 and 2.104 (nn. on 15, θνατά and on 17, δέ).

⁹ Gedike, F., Pindari carmina selecta cum scholiis selectis suisque notis (Berlin, 1786), 259Google Scholar (on 40 [= 30]) is an exception: ʻτὸν δ᾽ αὖ, καταμεμφθέντ᾽ ἄγαν ἰϲχὺν (sc. ἑαυτοῦ)'.

¹⁰ Cf. LSJ s.v. οἰκεῖοϲ III. This is the only sense in which Pindar seems to use this adjective: cf. Slater, W.J., Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin, 1969), 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar s.v. οἰκεῖοϲ (citing three instances including the present one).

¹¹ For similar separation of possessive adjectives from their noun, cf. e.g. Isthm. 8.28–9 ἄλοχον εὐειδέα θέλων ἑκάτεροϲ | ἑὰν ἔμμεν (another example where the separation and position of noun and adjective are emphatic), Ol. 9.112 Αἶαν, τεόν τ᾽ ἐν δαιτί, Ἰλιάδα, νικῶν ἐπεϲτεφάνωϲε βωμόν, Isthm. 1.58–9 Πρωτεϲίλα, τὸ τεὸν δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν Ἀχαιῶν | ἐν Φυλάκᾳ τέμενοϲ ϲυμβάλλομαι, 6.33–5 ϲφετέραϲ δ᾽ οὐ φείϲατο | χερϲὶν βαρυφθόγγοιο νευρᾶϲ | Ἡρακλεήϲ, 6.42–3 εἴ ποτ᾽ ἐμᾶν, ὦ Zεῦ πάτερ, | θυμῷ θέλων ἀρᾶν ἄκουϲαϲ.

¹² As CQ's anonymous referee points out, the Alexandrian colometry would have been more conducive to the corruption envisaged with all three words standing second in line.

¹³ Race (n. 2), 129.

¹⁴ For discussion of Pindar's ʻdefinite' ideas on ἀρετά, cf. Sullivan, S.D., Psychological and Ethical Ideas: What Early Greeks Say (Leiden / New York / Cologne, 1995), 163–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Pfeijffer, I.L., Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar: A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III & Pythian VIII (Leiden / Boston / Cologne, 1999), 188–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on 53, ἀρετάν).

¹⁵ The use of ἀναφέρω could also indicate that the ἀρεταί are the same here since the verb can mean ʻrepeat', implying that the object is the same. LSJ s.v. II.10 gives Pl. Ti. 26a as the earliest instance of this meaning, but perhaps this represents an earlier example. On the voice of ἀμφέροντ᾽, cf. Verdenius (n. 4), 2.110 (on 38, ἀμφέροντι), who argues cogently that it is active. If, however, it is passive (i.e. ἀμφέρονται elided), that can mean ʻrevive' (cf. LSJ s.v. II.7) and this would still indicate that the virtues are the same old virtues coming back to life.

¹⁶ Pindar frequently depicts grandfathers, fathers and sons displaying the same ἀρεταί and the great heroes are depicted as children with the same ἀρεταί that they display in adulthood: e.g. Nem. 1.43–7 (Heracles); Pyth. 9.84–7, Nem. 3.43–52 (Achilles). These factors contribute further to the picture of ἀρεταί as unchanging.

¹⁷ Pfeijffer (n. 14), 639–43.

¹⁸ Cf. North, H., ʻPindar, Isthmian, 8, 24–28', AJPh 69 (1948), 304–8Google Scholar and Burnett, A.P., Pindar's Songs for Young Athletes of Aigina (Oxford, 2005), 149–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 150 n. 40 (ʻthe notion of four cardinal virtues was becoming popular, as evidenced by Pindar's play between the numbers three and four'). The finale of Pyth. 6 involves three of the traditional canon of four, but replaces bravery with piety: prudence (47); justice and temperance (48); piety (50–1).

¹⁹ For the metaphor in tragedy, cf. Diggle, J., Euripides: Phaethon (Cambridge, 1970), 123Google Scholar (on 154); on the human reproductive process compared to ploughing and planting fields more generally, cf. Braswell, B.K., A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Berlin and New York, 1988), 352Google Scholar (on 255[b], ἀρούραιϲ).

²⁰ So e.g. Farnell, L.R., The Works of Pindar, 3 vols. (London, 1930–2), 2.328Google Scholar (on 38–42). At Nem. 6.8–11 τεκμαίρει {δὲ} καί νυν Ἀλκιμίδαϲ τὸ ϲυγγενὲϲ ἰδεῖν | ἄγχι καρποφόροιϲ ἀρούραιϲιν, αἵ τ᾽ ἀμειβόμεναι | τόκα μὲν ὦν βίον ἀνδράϲιν ἐπηετανὸν ἐκ πεδίων ἔδοϲαν, | τόκα δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ἀναπαυϲάμεναι ϲθένοϲ ἔμαρψαν the participles both clearly refer to ἄρουραι and are envisaged as the generations of Alcimidas' family: cf. Gerber, D.E., ʻPindar, Nemean Six: a commentary', HSPh 99 (1999), 33–91, 52Google Scholar (on 9–11) (ʻWhat distinguishes both these passages [sc. Nem. 6.9–11, 11.37–43] from the multitude whose theme is the fluctuation of success and failure, happiness and grief, etc., is that here the fluctuation occurs by generations') and Henry (n. 1), 57 (on 9–11).

²¹ Some translate as if ἀλλαϲϲομέναιϲ were in the text: e.g. J. Sandys, The Odes of Pindar (rev. ed., London, 1937²), 433 (‘But the virtues of olden time yield strong men, as their progeny, in alternate generations’); Nisetich, F., Pindar's Victory Songs (Baltimore, 1980), 289Google Scholar (ʻBut ancient qualities put forth their strength in alternate generations of men'); Race (n. 13, quoted above).

²² Cf. Young, D., ʻSome types of scribal error in manuscripts of Pindar', GRBS 6 (1965), 247–73, at 261Google Scholar (= W.M. Calder III and J. Stern [edd.], Pindaros und Bakchylides [Darmstadt, 1970], 96–126, at 112) on the liability of inflectional endings to corruption as a result of context or for no apparent reason.