¹ Oxford, 1936.

² In 1964 he wrote, ‘Textual criticism must always remain an essential part of the training of any literary scholar; and even the ordinary man who will never be a scholar ought to know something of the history of the texts he reads and the methods by which they were established. …It would be wrong in principle, even if it were possible in practice, to exclude textual criticism completely from the undergraduate course …’ (Proc. Class. Assn. 61, 1964, 19). Then as in 1936, Professor Dodds stressed most what most needed stressing at the time.

³ See below, p. 116.

⁴ The Literature of Ancient Greece, 1897 (reprinted 1956), 112.

^4a Why do people always mention organ-playing in connection with Pindar? Is it simply a reminiscence of Tennyson's famous line about Milton? Or is it because Jebb rendered Browning, 's Abt Vogler (Translations into Greek and Latin Verse, 2nd edn., 1907, 2 f.Google Scholar) into the metre of the Fourth Pythian Ode?

^4b See Essays and Addresses, 1907, 41 f. (=JHS 3, 1882, 144 f.).

⁵ See Highet, G., The Classical Tradition, 1949, 230 fGoogle Scholar. (with notes); Robinson, D. M., Pindar, a Poet of Eternal Ideas, 1936Google Scholar, is useful for its information about modern translations and imitations, if for nothing else. On Ronsard, see in particular Silver, I., The Pindaric Odes of Ronsard, 1937Google Scholar. Most Pindarising poetry since the Renaissance has less to do with the real Pindar than with the Pindar of Horace, , Odes 4,2Google Scholar; see Fraenkel, E., Horace, 1957, 435Google Scholar.

⁶ See Grumach, E., Goethe und die Antike, I, 1949, 226 f.Google Scholar; cf. Lesky, A., Gesammelte Schriften, 1966, 633 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷ See Benn, M. B., Hölderlin and Pindar, The Hague 1962Google Scholar, useful for its bibliography.

⁸ Charakterköpfe aus der antiken Literatur, 4th edn., 1956, 32.

⁹ P. 463; the opening words seem to echo Croiset, A., La poésie de Pindare, 1880Google Scholar, iii: ‘Ce monde dorien dont il est la dernière grande voix est bien plus loin de nous qu'Athènes et que ľIonie; le fond et la forme, les idées et ľart nous en sont étrangers.’ That Homer is ‘antipathetic’ to Pindar is evidently deduced from Nem. 7.20 f. The deduction is not justified; it is normal for a poet to say that other poets sometimes tell lies, whereas he himself tells the truth (cf. Hesiod, , Theog. 24–9Google Scholar, and see below, p. 130 f.) At Isthm. 4.37 f. Homer appears under a different aspect. The admiration and gratitude which we owe to Wilamowitz cannot prevent me from remarking that this passage shows all the arrogant and ponderous philistinism of a Berlin public monument of the Wilhelmine era.

¹⁰ Die Entdeckung des Geistes (3rd edn.), 1955, p. 137. Does tragedy demand that justice should be done in the world? In a sense, yes; but in that sense Pindar also does; see p. 126 below.

¹¹ See Aristophanes, , Lys. 1297 f.Google Scholar; Pax 798 f.; Thesm. 161.

¹² See frs. 76 f.; cf. Wilamowitz, , Pindaros 272 f.Google Scholar; Bowra, , Pindar 142–3Google Scholar.

¹³ Pyth. 7 is for Megacles, , Nem. 2Google Scholar for Timodemos of Acharnai.

¹⁴ Paean 9. 1 f.

¹⁵ Mueller, Imre, Quomodo Pindarus chori persona usus sit, Diss. Friburg, Darmstadt, 1914, 29 f.Google Scholar; Fränkel, H., Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums ², 1962, 485Google Scholar, n. 2 (neglected by Bowra, , Pindar, 100Google Scholar (cf. 152); Latte, K., GGA 207, 1953Google Scholar, 40 = Kl. Schr. 723 agreed with Fränkel. [But see Lefkowitz, M. R., HSCP 67, 1962, 230 fGoogle Scholar.]

¹⁶ See Young, David C., Three Odes of Pindar, Mnemosyne, Suppl. IX, 1968, 9 fGoogle Scholar. (on Pyth. 2. 53).

¹⁷ At Pyth. 2.87 ὁ λάβρος στρατὸς does not mean ‘the brute multitude’, as Bowra, , Pindar, 137Google Scholar says. The word λάβρος is applied by Homer to winds (Il. 2.148; Od. 15.625) and water (Il. 21.271; Od. 15.293), then to speech (Il. 23.474, 478–9); here it refers to the noise made by the assembly.

¹⁸ Isthm. 5.48; Nem. 2.13; Pyth. 1.75 f.; see Finley, J. H., HSCP 63, 1958, 121 fGoogle Scholar. (though I have doubts about his interpretation of Isthm. 8).

¹⁹ Pyth. 1.72; Nem. 9.27.

²⁰ See Bowra, , Pindar, 5 fGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Ol. 2.86 f.; cf. Pyth. 9.100 f.; Nem. 3.80 f.

²² Od. 22.347–8. For Hesiod, (Theog. 81 fGoogle Scholar.), the poet is he whom the Muses have honoured from his birth.

²³ See the index of Köhnken, A.'s book, Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar (see p. 117 below)Google Scholar, s.v. Mühe; cf. Bowra, , Pindar 172 fGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ See Nem. 6.9 f.; 11.39 f.

²⁵ See, e.g., Pyth. 1.41 f.; cf. Gundert, H., Pindar und sein Dichterberuf, 1935, 19Google Scholar; Bowra, , Pindar 67Google Scholar.

²⁶ For the views taken in this section, see my book The Justice of Zeus (Sather Lectures vol. 41, 1971).

²⁷ Cl. Rev. 43, 1929, 97 f. = The Ancient Concept of Progress, 1973, 78 f.

²⁸ A useful, though sometimes tendentious survey of the controversy is given by Young, David C., ‘Pindaric Criticism’, first published in the Minnesota Review 4, 1964, 584 f.Google Scholar, and later reprinted with some changes in Calder, W. M. and Stern, J., Pindar und Bakchylides (Wege der Forschung 134), 1970, 1 fGoogle Scholar. See also ch. i of Schadewaldt, W., Der Aufbau des pindarischen Epinikions (Schr, der Koenigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 5Google Scholar. Jahr, Heft 3, 1928, 259 f., reprinted Darmstadt, 1966, and van Groningen, B. A., La Composition Littéraire Grecque, 2nd edn., 1960, 331 fGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Moderne Pindarfortolkning, 1891.

^29a See Hölscher, U., Die Chance des Unbehagens, 1965Google Scholar.

³⁰ Op. cit. in n. 1, p. 16.

³¹ Horace, 1957; contrast the introduction of R. G. M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard to their commentary on Book 1 of the Odes, 1970, and see Williams, G. W., Proc. Brit. Acad. 56, 1972, 432–3Google Scholar.

³² See n. 28.

³³ Illig, L., Zur form der Pindarischen Erzählung, 1932Google Scholar.

³⁴ See the work quoted in n. 15, 483 f.; cf. ‘Pindars Religion’; Die Antike, 3, 1927, 39 f. = Calder and Stern, op. cit. in n. 28, 232 f., and his review of Schadewaldt, Gnomon 6, 1930, 1 f. = Wege und Formen des frühgriechischen Denkens, 2nd ed., 1960, 350 f.

³⁵ Op. cit. in n. 10, 118 f.

³⁶ Pindar (Sather Classical Lectures, vol. 19), 1945.

³⁷ Studia Pindarica: I, The Eleventh Olympian Ode; II, The First Isthmian Ode (Univ. of California Publications in Classical Philology, vol. 18, nos. 1 and 2, 1962).

³⁸ See n. 28. In passing, let me inform the learned author of something that will give him pleasure. He complains (see Calder and Stern, op. cit. in n. 28, p. 52) that only the Italian reviews of Dornseiff, F.'s Pindars Stil of 1921Google Scholar were unfavourable. He should see the review of Maas, P. in Zeitschrift fur Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 16, 1922, 407 fGoogle Scholar. for a judgment closely in accordance with his own.

³⁹ Three Odes of Pindar: A literary Study of Pythian 11, Pythian 3 and Olympian 7 (Mnemosyne, suppl. 9, 1968; admirably reviewed by Maehler, H., Gnomon 42, 1970, 441 fGoogle Scholar.); Pindar, Isthmian 7, Myth and Exempla (Mnemosyne, suppl. 15, 1971).

⁴⁰ Pindar: Die Isthmischen Gedichte, 2 vols., 1968; Willcock, M. M., Cl. Rev. 21, 1971, 336CrossRefGoogle Scholar, supplies an interesting review, though he might have pointed out more of the mistakes the book contains.

⁴¹ Cl. Quart. 19, 1969, 86 f.

⁴² Hermes 98, 1970, 1 f.

⁴³ Op. cit. in n. 23.

⁴⁴ The best statement of the problems is that of Von der Mühll, P., Mus. Helv. 15, fasc. 4, 1958, 215 fGoogle Scholar. ‘Dici vix potest quantum in eo expediendo laboraverint interpretes’, wrote Hermann of this poem in 1834 (Opuscula VII, 115).

⁴⁵ For the opinions of ancient scholars, see Drachmann, A. B., Scholia Velera in Pindari Carmina, vol. II (Scholia in Pythionicas), p. 31Google Scholar; for the contributions of the scholars named to Pindaric scholarship, see Irigoin, J., Histoire du texte de Pindare, 1952Google Scholar, chs. iv-vii and Pfeiffer, R., A History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the Hellenistic Age, 1968, svvGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ FGrH 566 F 141.

⁴⁷ Loc. cit. (in n. 44 above), 220.

⁴⁸ See his commentary, ad loc.

⁴⁹ II 119. Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1972, I 452Google Scholar, asserts as though it were a known fact that the ode was written to honour a success in local games.

⁵⁰ Pindaros, 1922, 285 f.

⁵¹ Op. cit. (in n. 1 above), 325 f. = 67 f.

⁵² Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 127–9, 1924, 35.

⁵³ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 48, 1937, 1 f. = Problems in Greek Poetry, 1953, 66 f.; cf. Pindar, 1964, 410.

⁵⁴ Pindars Pythien, 1922, 1–3.

⁵⁵ On the sense of πεισιχάλινα, see Robertson, D. S., Studi in onore di L. Castiglioni II, 1960, 801 fGoogle Scholar.

^55a I suspect that Robertson and Bowra are right about the occasion, but do not think their arguments amount to proof.

⁵⁶ Loc. cit. 326–8 = 68 = 70.

⁵⁷ Wilamowitz changed his mind over this question, as Fraenkel, Eduard, Horace, 1957, 172 n. 3 pointed outGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ See Bundy, , SP 1.7 fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ In an ingenious article (RCCM 2, 1960, 30 f.), Anna Morpurgo Davies argued that at 1.17 the word κτίλος meant not ‘pet’ or ‘favourite’, as is usually supposed, but ‘ram’, as in its earliest instances. A ram has a place in the cult of Carneian Apollo, but none in that of Paphian Aphrodite; a sacred animal in that cult would be, I regret to say, the pig. Even if Hesiod fr. 323 Merkelbach-West is regarded as a doubtful instance, the sense ‘tame’ is as early as Empedocles (B 130, 1. Diels-Kranz).

⁶⁰ ὀπιζόμένα is middle; see H. Gundert, op. cit. in n. 25, p. 141, n. 364.

⁶¹ Does πρὸ δόμων refer to the singer's house, or to Hieron's? and what kind of occasion is envisaged? Satyrus, , On the Demes of Alexandria, P. Oxy. 2465, r. 2, col. ii, 12 fGoogle Scholar.), giving directions for procedure on the occasion of a religious procession in honour of the goddess Arsinoe Philadelphos, writes: The restoration ἰδ[ίων οἴ|κ]ων is due to Morel, W. (ap. Lloyd-Jones, Gnomon 35, 1963, 453Google Scholar) who compares Chariton 3.2.15 (in a similar context) ἔθυεν ἕκαστος πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας οἰκίας; one might also compare Euripides, Bacch. 68–70, where Dodds is surely right to punctuate τίς ὁδῶι τίς ὁδῶι; τίς μελάθροις; (cf. Festugière, A. J., Mus. Helv. 9, 1952, 244, cited on p. 75Google Scholar of the second edition of Dodds' commentary). These passages seem to suggest that the house may be the singer's own, and that the occasion envisaged may be that of some kind of religious procession, perhaps resembling the performance of one of Pindar's own poems. The scholic have προελθοῦσα … τῶν οἴκων, rightly.

⁶² Il. 11.19 f.; cf. Tyrtaeus 9.6.

⁶³ Σ Theocritus 1.109. His connection with Apollo may have arisen from his name. Eustathius on Il. loc. cit. derives it from the Hebrew word for ‘harp’, but a Greek would naturally have thought of κινυρός, etc.

⁶⁴ Drachmann, op. cit. (in n. 29), p. 37.

⁶⁵ E.g., by Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, I, 1967, 150Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Op. cit. (in n. 52).

⁶⁷ Op. cit. (in n. 45), p. 18.

⁶⁸ See Ol. 10.14; fr. 140b, 1–6; for the alleged Locrian origin of Stesichorus, and for the Locrian poet Xenocritus, see Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry, 2nd edn., 1961, 82–4Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ We may notice in the passage the regular vocabulary of the concepts of Hybris and Ate: ἔμαθε (cf. Homer's παθὼν δέ τε νήπιος ἔγνω and Aeschylus πάθει μάθος; see, if documentation is needed, Dörrie, H., Abh. Mainz. Akad., 1936, no. 5, 307 fGoogle Scholar.): μαινομήναις φρασίν: ὕβρις drives Ixion to ἄτη: παθὼν ἐοικότα. As in Aeschylus' trilogy about him, Ixion figures as an example of ingratitude punished by the justice of Zeus.

⁷⁰ Kuijper, D., Mnemosyne 16, 1963, 162 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ On Virgil's knowledge of Pindar, see Lloyd-Jones, , Maia fasc. 3, anno 19, 1967, 229Google Scholar; Eduard Fraenkel pointed out to me that my warning against underestimating the width of Virgil's reading echoed his own at Philol. 87, 1932, 247–8 = Kleine Beiträge zur kl. Philologie II 178–9. See Seidel, A., De Vergilii studiis Pindaricis, Diss. Breslau, 1925Google Scholar; cf. Wilkinson, L. P., Forschungen zur römischen Literatur, Festschrift Büchner, 1970, 286 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷² Op. cit. (in n. 37), II 86–91.

⁷³ The passage has perplexed commentators; see, e.g., Tarditi, G., La Parola del Passato, II, 1956, 197Google Scholar (whose own suggestion does not convince). But Snell and Turyn rightly read ποτὶ καὶ τὸν ἵκοντ'. The iota is shortened by the omission of the augment, and the sense of ἵκοντ' is that listed under II 2 in LSJ s.v. ἱκνέομαι, in which anger, suffering and other undesirable things are said to ‘come upon’ or ‘visit’ people. The καὶ is like that in such phrases as οἶνος καὶ Κένταυρον (Od. 21.295); cf. Pyth. 3.55.

⁷⁴ Von der Mühll, P., Mus. Helv. 25, 1968, 221Google Scholar, showed that Pindar derived Κένταυρος from κεντεῑν and αὔρα. On the significance of the myth of the centaurs, see Kirk, G. S., Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient and Other Cultures (Sather Classical Lectures, vol. 40), 1970, 132 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ Op. cit. (in n. 28), 328–30 = 70–2; following Wilamowitz, , Pindaros 289Google Scholar, he draws attention to the echo of the prelude of Hesiod's Works and Days here; cf. Young, , Pindar, Isthmian 7 (cited in n. 39), 37, n. 125Google Scholar. Martin, J., REG 82, 1969Google Scholar, thinks that Pindar is urging Hieron not to behave like Ixion.

⁷⁶ See Bundy, , SP I 2–3, 9–11Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ κῦδος means rather more than ‘fame’; see Fränkel, H., Wege u. Formen (cited in n. 34), 71, n. 2Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Bundy, , SP 11.56 fGoogle Scholar. illustrates this common notion; with Isthm. 1.41–51 he compares Isthm. 5.24–32; see also Bacchylides 5.187–97 (cited by him on p. 60), Pyth. 9.96–9 and Nem. 7.61 f.

⁷⁹ Fr. 128 West; P. Friedländer ap. Gundert, op. cit. (in n. 25), 141, n. 367, thought Pindar had this in mind when he wrote these words.

⁸⁰ Ap. Schadewaldt, op. cit. (in n. 28), 72–3, n. 2. D. Gerber in a learned article has argued for this view (TAPA 91, 1960, 100f.). Burton, R. W. B., Pindar's Pythian Odes, 1962, 120Google Scholar, thinks that σοφία here must mean poetry; that would remove the point of contrast between Archilochus and Hieron. The same prejudice that ‘Pindar seldom, if ever, uses the word to mean wisdom in a general sense’ has been responsible for the repeated misinterpretation of Nem. 17.17, where σοφοὶ means not ‘poets’ but ‘wise men who are willing to pay poets to preserve their fame’; see n. 118 below.

⁸¹ A wrong interpretation of πιαινόμενον has often been defended by citing Bacchylides 3.68, where a pi was written by the second corrector against the verb in the clause ὅστις μὴ φθόνωι πιαίνεται. But there too it is presumably implied that the envious profit from their envy, unless H. Richards and J. Schöne were right to read Fιαίνεται.

⁸² In Bundy's terminology the ‘crescendo’; see SP I 17.

⁸³ To infer anything about the date of the poem from this manner of addressing Hieron strikes me as most unreasonable; but Burton, op. cit (n. 80), I 15 follows Wilamowitz, , Pindaros, 1922, 285Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ For this kind of solemn asseveration, see Bundy, , SP II, 59, n. 60Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Ships were, on festal occasions, decorated with flowers; see Deubner, L., ARW 30, 1933, 73Google Scholar, and Bömer, F., Ovids Fasten II, p. 42Google Scholar.

⁸⁶

⁸⁷ Cf. Nem. 5.3.

⁸⁸ Plutarch's statement (Vita Lycurgi 22) that a Kastoreion was a Spartan marching-song played on the aulos is not necessarily relevant to a Kastoreion as Pindar uses the term.

⁸⁹ See Henderson, M. I., Oxford History of Music, I, 1957, 382–4Google Scholar. We cannot know whether the linguistic Aeolisms detected in the poem (see Forssman, B., Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars, 1966, 13–20Google Scholar) have anything to do with its allegedly Aeolic character.

⁹⁰ Fr. 105 Snell = 121 Turyn.

⁹¹ Heyne, Boeckh, Christ and Schroeder in their commentaries, der Mühll, Von, Rh. Mus. 72, 1918, 307Google Scholar and art. cit. (in n. 44), 218, n. 13 and B. Forssman op. cit. (in n. 89), 19 f. are among those who have agreed with him.

⁹² Wilamowitz, took this view at SB Berlin 1901, 1313 f.Google Scholar, but retracted it at Pindaros, 1922, 291. See the excellent statement of it by Schadewaldt op. cit. (in n. 1), 331 = 73. So also Farnell, III 128 f., and des Places, E., Le pronom chez Pindare, 1947, 72Google Scholar.

^92a See Köhnken, Hermes 98, 1970, 1 fGoogle Scholar.

^92b With Tycho Mommsen I would put the comma after αἰεί.

⁹³ The word order suggests that the μάλα is part of the interrogation ; cf. πώμαλα.

⁹⁴ Huschke, I. G., in August Matthiae's Miscellanea Philologica, I, 1803, 30Google Scholar. Huschke was a pupil of Heyne at Göttingen, and later professor at Rostock; see Bursian, , Geschichte der classischen Philologie in Deutschland, 1883, 641 fGoogle Scholar.; cf. Schroeder, , Pindars Pythien, 1922, 119 fGoogle Scholar. Boeckh (II ii 250) calls him ‘vir elegantissimus et acutissimus’.

⁹⁵ Cf. Dithyramb 1.16 (fr. 70 a Snell) φυγόντα νιν καὶ μέλαν ἕρκος ἅλμας: not that this makes it quite certain that ἅλμας goes with ἕρκος and not with ἀβάπτιστος.

⁹⁶ See David C. Young, Three Odes (op. cit. in n. 39), 58 f. and Köhnken, Der Mythus (op. cit. in n. 23), 209 f.

⁹⁷ ἄγαν offends against sense and responsion, and no emendation is convincing. Boeckh's ἀγὰν, ‘bend’, is in the words of Burton (op. cit. in n. 80) ‘not very convincing of the movements of a fawning spaniel’; Heyne's ἄταν may derive some colour from the use of ὰντιδιαπλέκει at Aeschines 3.28 but gives the verb a most unusual object. J. G. Griffith ap. Burton (loc. cit. n. 3) suggests ἆμαρ: but then πάγχυ would stand oddly between this object and its verb.

⁹⁸ In early Greece it was part of standard morality to do good to one's friends and evil to one's enemies; see my book The Justice of Zeus, 1971, p. 40.

⁹⁹ Schadewaldt, op. cit. (n. 28), 68 = 326 wished to emend πατέων to πατέονθ': against, see H. Fränkel in his review (quoted in n. 34), 359.

^99a See above, p. 112.

¹⁰⁰ This translation is designed to bring out Pindar's play on the similarity of ἑλκόμενοι and ἕλκος. I agree with Gildersleeve and Farnell (both ad loc.) and with Pearson, A. C., Cl. Quart. 18, 1924, 156–7Google Scholar, in accepting the view stated in the scholia that στάθμας means not a balance but a measuring-line, and that ἑλκόμενοι means ‘drawing out for oneself’. The envious persons have just been mentioned, and it is easy to supply them as subject, so that it is wrong to change τινος to τινες. Pindar may well speak of ‘an excessive kind of measuring-line’.

¹⁰¹ The prayer at the end of Ol. 1 is obviously similar.

¹⁰² See Bowra, , Pindar 186–7Google Scholar; Thummer, op. cit. (in n. 40), I 80–1 ; Köhnken, op. cit. (in n. 23), Index s.v. ‘Neid’. I have not seen Steinlein, W., φθόνος und verwandte Begriffe in der älteren griechischen Literatur, Diss. Erlangen, 1944Google Scholar (cited by Thummer, loc. cit., p. 80, n. 56). Eitrem, S., ‘The Pindaric Phthonos’, Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, II, 1953, 531 fGoogle Scholar., has some useful references.

^102a That envy is not to be avoided by those who aim at greatness: κρέσσον γὰρ οἰκτιρμοῦ φθόνος (Pyth. 1.85; cf. Aeschylus, Agam. 939 ὁ δ'ἀφθόνητος οὐκ ἐπίζηλος πέλει). The scene of the tapestries in the Agamemnon well brings out the Greek religious attitude to φθόνος. The great man is bound to provoke the φθόνος of men; that does not matter, provided he does nothing to provoke that of the gods. Steinlein (op. cit. in n. 72), according to Thummer, loc. cit, ‘vom Neid als etwas Erwünschtem spricht’, while Milobenski, E., Der Neid in der griechischen Philosophie, 1964Google Scholar, argues that that view of it is not consistent with Pindar's. But Pindar, like Aeschylus, thought that φθόνος was both to be desired and to be avoided.

¹⁰³ Bowra, , Pindar, 1964, 135, believes thisGoogle Scholar.

^103a See, for example, Lefkowitz, Mary R., HSCP 73. 1968, p.55, n. 13Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ See, e.g., Burton, op. cit. (in n. 80), 126 f.

¹⁰⁵ Bergk's alteration of γαρύετον to γαρυέτων is accepted by Schroeder and Snell, though not by Farnell, Bowra or Turyn; for a doxography of the problem, see van Leeuwen, J., Pindarus' Tweede Olympische Ode, 1964, 245 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Mezger, F. (Pindars Siegeslieder, 1880Google Scholar) deserves honourable mention here. On p. 50 he writes, ‘Die Erklärung der Ode ist mit ganz besonderen Schwierigkeiten verknüpft, so dass es nicht zu verwundern ist, wenn hier die Ansichten der Ausleger noch mehr als sonst auseinander gehen. Nur darin stimmen sie alle überein, dass sie in dem Gedichte eine Reihe von Warnungen und Ermahnungen erblicken, welche der Dichter mit seinem gewohnten Freimuth an den zum Missbrauch seiner Macht hinneigenden Fürsten richt. Und gerade dies anzunehmen ist sehr bedenklich. Denn es hat sehr wenig Wahrscheinlichkeit für sich, dass sich ein Fürst, noch dazu von dem Stolze Hierons, dazu hergegeben haben sollte, dass ihm ein Dichter an seinem Ehrentage unter grösstem Pompe vor tausenden seiner Untertanen den Text lesen durfte, und dass er ihn dafür noch reichlich bezahlte. Hieron wollte von Pindar Lobgedichte und Siegesgesänge, und Siegesgesänge und Lobgedichte hat Pindar ihm auch gedichtet.’ As Young (ap. Calder and Stern, op. cit. in n. 28, 26) remarks, ‘Mezger often made remarkably perceptive and unique observations about what was happening in the poems’. But when he gets to the detailed interpretation of the final section, Mezger is led by the ‘ungewöhnliche Gemutserregung’ of 11 79–85 to conclude that Pindar is defending himself against his enemies.

Bundy, SP I 4, n. 15 has written, ‘I believe that this ode, on which I am preparing a monograph, contains nothing personal to Pindar’. I agree, and hope that this article will provide a statement that will do duty at least until Bundy's monograph appears. Every serious student of Pindar looks forward with keen expectancy to the resumption of Bundy's extremely valuable Pindaric studies.

¹⁰⁷ In correcting this tendency, we must resist the temptation to react too far in the opposite direction. Thus when Pindar writes in a poem for the Alcmaeonid Megacles, who was ostracised in 487/6 and won his Pythian victory in 486, that he feels sorry that the victor's great deeds have been requited with envy (Pyth. 7, 18 f.), it would be stupid not to acknowledge that the use made of the theme of envy had no relation to the actual fact. Thummer, op. cit. in n.40, p. 72, n. 48, after drawing attention to the facts, writes, ‘Wir halten es deshalb fur methodisch richtig, auch hier, wo eine konkrete historische Situation, auf die sich die Stelle beziehen konnte, vorhanden ist, die Aussage des Dichters aus der Topik, in die sie hineingehört, zu deuten und lediglich mit der Möglichkeit eines konkreten Bezuges zu rechnen’. That seems to me over-cautious.

¹⁰⁸ The dates given in the scholia (κδ´ = 547 and ιδ´ = 527) are impossible, and no certain emendation has been offered. Wilamowitz and other scholars argue for a date about 485; others, less numerous, follow Hermann in putting the poem in about 467. See Tugendhat, E., Hermes 88, 1960, 385Google Scholar, n. 1; S. Fogelmark, op. cit. in n. 115, notes 30 and 31. Fogelmark argues for a later date. I share his scepticism about the arguments for a later date advanced by Theiler, W., ‘Die zwei Zeitstufen in Pindars Stil und Vers’ (Schriften der Koenigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswissenschaftliche Klasse, 17.4, 1941, 255 fGoogle Scholar. = Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur, 1971, 148 f.). But I find his own arguments (derived from the incidence of colour words and from the nature of references to Zeus and Apollo) still less convincing than I find Theiler's. A style like Pindar's offers uncommonly few reliable indications of date, and few of the many attempts to date poems whose dates have not been preserved by means of the Olympian and Pythian victor lists can command great confidence. Any serious attack upon the problem would have to take into account far more factors than even Theiler, let alone Fogelmark, has considered.

¹⁰⁹ See Σ on 70 (Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, ed. A. B. Drachmann, iii, p. 126 (on Aristarchus); Σ on 94a (ib., p. 129.4); Σ on 123a (ib., p. 134. 6f.); Σ on 150a (ib., p. 137.3). See Fränkel, H., Hermes 89, 1961, 387 fGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁰ See Tugendhat, op. cit. in n. 108, 386, n. 1; Hermann, for instance, thought this explanation was an invention of the ancient commentators.

¹¹¹ SB Berlin, ph.-hist. kl., 1908, 328 f. = Calder and Stern, op. cit. (in n. 28), 127 f.; Pindaros, 159 f.

¹¹² Op. cit. in n. 28.

¹¹³ Op. cit. in n. 108.

¹¹⁴ SP I, p. 4; cf. 29, n. 70; and see Fontenrose, J., ‘The Cult and Myth of Pyrrhos at Delphi’ (University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology 4, no. 3, 1960, p. 223, n. 14)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Thummer, op. cit. in n. 40, I 94 f.; Slater, op. cit. in n. 41, 91 f.; Köhnken, op. cit., in n. 23, 37 f.; Gianotti, G. F., RFIC 94, 1966, 385 f.Google Scholar; Wüst, Ellen, Pindar als geschichtschreibender Dichter, Diss. Tübingen, 1967Google Scholar; Segal, C. P., TAPA 98, 1967, 431 fGoogle Scholar. (with bibliography); Fogelmark, S., Studies in Pindar, with particular reference to Paean VI and Nemean VII, 1972Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Op. cit. in n. 109, 391 f.

¹¹⁷ See Σ on I a quoted on p. 116 of Drachmann's third volume, 1.19: . Paul Maas drew Schadewaldt's attention to the possibility that Eleithyia might have been recalled to Pindar by the victor's name (Schadewaldt, loc. cit., 297 = 39, n. 2. He does not quote the scholion. Coppola, G., Introduzione a Pindaro, p. 51Google Scholar, who also takes this view, does quote it. The next scholion rejects the idea on the ground that Pindar plays on names only when an actual homonymy exists,as at fr. 105.2 (ζαθέων ἱερῶν ὁμώνυμε) or fr. 120.1, where Pindar alludes to the homonymy of Alexander of Macedon and Alexander or Paris, son of Priam. The argument is not a good one; note the opening of Bacchylides 6: Λάχων Αιὸς μεγίστου λάχε φέρτατον πόδεσσι | κῦδος…Some doubt attaches to the etymologies of Amenas from αἰεὶ μενειν at Pyth. 1.67 (cf. 1.64) and of the Kronion from χρόνος at Ol. 10.49 f. with which Pindar is credited by Quincey, J. H., Rh. Mus. 106, 1963, 144–5 and 146Google Scholar (in support of the second, Quincey might have quoted Pherecydes of Syros; see West, M. L., Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient, 10Google Scholar). For other etymologies in early poetry, see Pfeiffer, , SB Munich 1938, p. 9Google Scholar, n. 2 and Fraenkel, E. on Aeschylus, Agamemnon 682Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ E.g., by Thummer, op. cit. (in n. 40), I 97, n. 77. The right explanation was given by Fraccaroli, G., Le ode di Pindaro, 1894, 586Google Scholar; Schroeder, O., Sokrates, I, 1913, 532Google Scholar (cf. his Appendix of 1923, 522); by A. Puech in his Budé text of Pindar; by H. Fränkel in his review of Schadewaldt, cited in n. 34; by Méautis, G., Pindare le Dorien, 1962, 51Google Scholar; by Pavese, Carlo, Quaderni Urbinati 2, 1966, 109f.Google Scholar; by G. F. Gianotti, op. cit. (in n. 115), 388 f.; by Tugendhat, op. cit., 401, n. 5; by Setti, A., Studia Florentina A. Ronconi sexagenario oblata, 1969, 410–1Google Scholar; by Köhnken, op. cit., 44 with n. 41. There is no excuse whatever for anyone who gets it wrong; p. 468 of Slater's Lexicon to Pindar (1969) contain several instances of σοφός and σοφία in a general sense.

¹¹⁹ 472 A. τριταῖον ἄνεμον here must mean ‘the third wind’, not ‘the third day's wind’. For this sense of the adjective, see Barrett on Euripides, Hipp. 275; the context shows that this is the sense here.

¹²⁰ In l.22 a syllable is missing; most editions refer οἱ to Homer (see E. des Places, op. cit. in n. 92, 1947, 31; and follow Hermann in reading ψεύδεσί οἱ ποτανᾶι <τε> μαχανᾶι. Köhnken has argued for Erasmus Schmid's<γε> in preference to<τε> since he thinks the lies should be those of Odysseus and not those of Homer.

¹²¹ Thummer's belief that Pindar in this poem has to praise Neoptolemus with special emphasis because he is only a minor hero (op. cit., I 94) shows a total failure to understand what the Aiakidai mean for Pindar that I find amazing.

¹²² The point is well dealt with by Köhnken, p. 66 (with nn. 141–2;. For meaning ‘to be celebrated’, cf. Sophocles, O.T. 1191–2.

^122a The word order indicates that οἱ is attributive, not ethic-possessive; see Des Places, op. cit. in n. 92, 31–2.

¹²³ At Paean 6.119 we must read κτάνεν: see Radt, S. L., Pindars Zweiter und sechster Paian, 1958, 169Google Scholar. J. Fontenrose (op. cit. in n. 114, p. 223, n. 14), summarising Bundy's unpublished views, says that this passage does not show that Apollo killed Neoptolemus ‘directly’, because the Seventh Nemean ‘shows that for Apollo a temple attendant was the killer’. But even if we grant the highly questionable proposition that Pindar always believed in a single version of a mythical event and stuck to it throughout his works, it is perfectly clear that in the Paean Pindar made Apollo responsible for the hero's death.

¹²⁴ Farnell placed a full stop after the words and changed to Snell reads

^124a Fraccaroli (op. cit. in n. 118, p. 588, n. 2) read μόλον and took it as referring to Pindar; see his note.

¹²⁵ ‘Die Griechen gebrauchen ἐπεί sehr häufig auch da, wo der grundangebende Satz nicht einen untergeordneten Teil des Hauptsatzes bildet, sondern vielmehr die Geltung eines mit γάρ beigeordneten Hauptsatzes hat, in welchem Falle im Deutschen durch denn übersetzt wird’: Kühner-Gerth ii 461. So no one need find it odd that a sentence whose main verb is κεῖται is followed by an ἐπεί clause whose main verb is aorist. Cf. Ol. 6.27; at Ol. 1.26 the misunderstanding of a causal ἐπεί as temporal led to ludicrous results (see Kakridis, J. Th., Hermes 63, 1928, 475Google Scholar = Calder and Stern, op. cit. (in n. 28), 188 f. = Μελέτες καὶ ἄρθρα, 1971, 66 f., for the right interpretation).

¹²⁶ It is strange that Thummer (I 96, n. 72) has not seen this, although he too reads βοαθοῶν … μόλον.

¹²⁷ See Tugendhat 395, with n. 1.

¹²⁸ Frl. Wüst (op. cit. in n. 115, 146) seems to incline to this view. Although I know of no closely similar sentence involving a verb of saying with an expression like ὁδὸν λόγων as an internal accusative, I do not find the construction impossible. But see Wilamowitz (ap. Calder and Stern, op. cit. in n. 28, p. 138; cf. Pindaros, 1922, p. 163, n. 1) and Schadewaldt (op. cit. in n. 28, 313 = 55); cf. Becker, O., ‘Das Bild des Weges’, Hermes Einzelschrift 4, 1937, 74 fGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁹ See Σ on 95a (Drachmann, vol. iii, 129); Erasmus Schmid translated ‘Ionium supra mare habitans’. Heyne differed: ‘illum dixit Achivum e Sicilia et Italia, si adesset’, and also recognised the polar expression: ‘nemo nec in propinquis nec in remotis terris habitantium: pro his memorat Siculos et Italos’. Dissen (first in Boeckh's edition, II, ii, p. 430, and later in his own) argued that places on mountains near a sea can be said to be ‘above’ that sea; he quoted Strabo 324, 326 Cf. Thucydides I, 46.4 (of Chimerium) Against these we may consider the many places where ὑπέρ with a word for ‘sea’ means ‘beyond the sea’, as at Od. 13, 256–7 The latter is the commoner usage.

^129a Even Thummer (I 97, n.82) allows a personal allusion here, wrongly.

¹³⁰ Cf. Ol. I, 33; 10, 54; fr. 159.

¹³¹

¹³² Op. cit., 92 f.

¹³³ Il. 22. 33 cf. 17,557–8; just so Heracles says he will throw the head of Lycus to be κυνῶν ἕλκημα (Euripides, , Herocles 568Google Scholar; cf. Herodotus I, 140, Plato, , Rep. 539 B, Theocritus I, 135Google Scholar. Σ on 150 A (Drachmann iii, p. 137, 12) says

¹³⁴ On ἄτροπος, see H. Fränkel, art. cit. (in n. 109), 385; cf. Tugendhat 404.

¹³⁵ Slater's treatment of the passage is criticised by Fogelmark, op. cit. (in n. 115), 104 f. In dealing with Slater's complaint that it is odd that Pindar should defend ‘a supposed insult in a Paean commissioned for Delphians in Delphi against protests by Aeginetans’, Fogelmark might have mentioned that, since the Paean in question contains a long section in praise of Aegina, it would be very odd indeed if it was not known of in that island.

¹³⁶ On the gradual process through which heroes came to be credited with moral qualities, see Brelich, Angelo, Gli eroi greci: un problema storico-religioso, 1958, especially p. 225 fGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁷ Σ on Ol.9, 166. See Farnell, L. R., Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality, 1921, 293 fGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁸ Vit. Thes. 10. The growth of the Theseus saga has been traced by Herter, H., RL. Mus. 85, 1936, 177 fGoogle Scholar. and 193 f. and 88, 1939; 244 f. and 289 f.

¹³⁹ See Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry, 2nd. edn., 1961, 110 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ See Herodotus 5,79 f. and 8,64 and 83–4. Theseus, like the hero Echetlos or Echetlaios, fought at Marathon (Plutarch, , Vit. Thesei 35Google Scholar; Pausanias I,32,4). See Brelich, op. cit. (n. 28), 91; Rohde, , Psyche (English version) 136 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴¹ Nem. 5.13 f.; Nem. 3.34; ib., 45 f. See Robertson, D. S.'s article ‘The Food of Achilles’, Cl. Rev. 54, 1940, especially pp. 178 f.Google Scholar; more instances are given by van der Kolf, M. C., Quaeritur quomodo Pindarus fabulas tractaverit quidque in eis mutarit, 1933Google Scholar, also by Bowra, C. M., Pindar, 1964, ch. 2Google Scholar.

¹⁴² Much of the material included in this article formed part of lectures which I had the privilege of delivering as Alexander White Visiting Professor in the Humanities at the University of Chicago in the Fall Term of 1972. I profited greatly from discussing the problems in question with Professor Anne Burnett: and I have been greatly encouraged by learning that Professor Mary Lefkowitz, in a chapter of a forthcoming book which she kindly permitted me to read, has concluded, independently of me, that the generally held view that the end of the Second Pythian Ode contains a defence of the poet against slanderers is to be rejected. [Cf. now Thummer, E., Rh. Mus. 115, 1972, 293 fGoogle Scholar.]