Pindar's eighth Nemean Ode

C. Carey

doi:10.1017/S0068673500003783

Pindar's eighth Nemean Ode

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013

C. Carey

Show author details

C. Carey: Affiliation:
Jesus College, Cambridge

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The Eighth Nemean has never been reckoned among Pindar's more difficult odes. It has its own problems, as does every other ode, yet beside the Seventh Nemean, for instance, or the Second Pythian, these problems pale into insignificance. But although the significance of the central myth has generally been recognized, scholars have failed, I believe, to appreciate the overall cohesion of the ode and the single-mindedness with which Pindar pursues his argument. I should like to offer a personal appreciation of this poem, to demonstrate its striking unity of design and its impressive economy. The text is based on that of A.Turyn.

Type: Research Article
Information: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 22 , 1976 , pp. 26 - 41

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068673500003783 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Turyn, A., Pindari carmina cum fragmentis (Cracow 1948, repr. Oxford 1952)Google Scholar.

2. Bury, J.B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London 1890) 150Google Scholar.

3. See also N.3.18, N.5.5f. Pindar stands in this respect close to plastic art; see Gardiner, E.N., Athletics of the ancient world (Oxford 1930) ch.VGoogle Scholar.

4. Either in the beloved, as Ibycus 287 PMG (cf. Hes., Th. 910f.Google Scholar, without personification), or of the lover, as Eur., Hipp. 525Google Scholar. Cf. (though of cheeks) Soph., Ant. 795Google Scholar. For eyes in general Anacreon 360 PMG, Aesch., Suppl. 1006Google Scholar, P.V. 654, Soph., Trach. 107Google Scholar.

5. See e.g. Sappho 130 L–P, Theogn. 1353, Eur., Hipp. 525–9Google Scholar, 347f.

6. Schol 1b, A.E.Drachmann, Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina vol.3 (Leipzig 1927) 140Google Scholar.

7. Puech, A., Pindare, Néméennes (Paris 1923) 110Google Scholar, Bowra, C.M., Pindar (Oxford 1964) 170Google Scholar.

8. See Burton, R.W.B., Pindar's Pythian Odes (Oxford 1962) 46f.Google Scholar, Fränkel, H., Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums, 2nd edn. (Munich 1962) 509 n.14Google Scholar.

9. See e.g. Od. 11.246, Solon fr.26.

10. The outward movement in these verses was observed by Fränkel, H., Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens (Munich 1955) 361Google Scholar; cf. also Finley, J.H., Pindar and Aeschylus (Harvard 1955) 152CrossRef Google Scholar.

11. O.9.91, P.8.84, P.9.95, N.8.49, I.3.7.

12. See e.g. P.4.92, P. 11.50b. Fränkel, , Wege l.c.Google Scholar, points to P.10.59f., where a similar outward movement in the meaning of occurs.

13. Thummer, E., Pindar: die isthmischen Gedichte Band 1 (Heidelberg 1968)Google Scholar, observes that an aspect of victory is occasionally raised to a divine power (as Hora here). ‘Indem der Dichter überdies dies Mächte als Spenderinnen … des Sieges bezeichnet, weckt er das beglückende Bewusstsein, dass der Siege durch die Gunst einer Gottheit zustandekam’

14. Schol.6, p.141 Drachmann.

15. Isoc. IX.14Google Scholar, Apollod., Bibl. 3.12.6Google Scholar, Paus. 2.29.7, cf. schol. N.5.17b, p.91 Drachmann, , schol.N 8.19a, p. 142Google ScholarDrachmann, , Farnell, L.R., The works of Pindar (London 1930) II.305Google Scholar, adds a further example of Aeacus' influence, Paus.1.39.6.

16. So schol. 14a, p. 141 Drachmann, . Dissen, L., Pindari carmina (Gotha 1830) 473Google Scholar, rendered ‘non vocati’ (cf. e.g. LSJ s.v.), but the emphatic position confirms the more forceful interpretation, which is in harmony with Pindar's usage elsewhere; cf. e.g. N.9.34 , P. 1.71.

17. See Nierhaus, R., Strophe und Inhalt im pindarischen Epinikion (Berlin 1936) 24Google Scholar.

18. Cf. Eur., H.F. 476ff.Google Scholar Allusions to contemporary political events, and consequently evidence for dating, have been discovered in these verses and in the myth of Ajax (see e.g. Bury 145, Bowra 412), but to read history into these verses is to sever the continuity of the passage and destroy the tenor of the ode as a whole. For a systematic refutation of the supposed historical allusions see Köhnken, A., Die Funktion des Mythos bet Pindar (Berlin 1971) 19–24CrossRef Google Scholar.

19. Quite typically, Pindar gives the content of the prayer, continued , in an explanatory clause, to preserve the fluency of the ode. Cf. P.3.77ff., where the content of the prayer is to be supplied from the preoccupation of the preceding verses and the echo of the opening prayer (vv.1ff.).

20. continues the metaphor of 17 and 7.

21. For the phthonos-theme in Pindar's poetry see Thummer 80f.

22. See Köhnken 32, Thummer 151.

23. I1.8.86, Pind. I.4.37, Soph., Ajax 828, 907Google Scholar, Ar., Vesp. 523Google Scholar, A.R.2.831.

24. Od. 11.543–7.

25. Schol., Ar. Eq. 1056Google Scholar.

26. Though of course Homer's Odysseus is an incorrigible liar, e.g. Od. 13.291ff.

27. Dissen 477.

28. Dissen I.c., Bury 154, Fennell, C.A.M., Pindar: the Nemean and Isthmian Odes, 2nd edn. (Cambridge 1899) 103, Farnell 306Google Scholar.

29. Cf. O.1.47, P. 1.84. So also Köhnken 27 n.29.

30. So Köhnken 26, who also notes (27 n.31) that is added here to aggravate the offence by stressing the value of the arms, in contrast to the bare N.7.25.

31. For N.8.28ff. see also Köhnken 29, for P.10.46ff. cf. Köhnken 177f.

32. Cf. Köhnken 29f.

33. Note the use of the single pathetic adjective to conjure up the slaughter. It is just this controlled use of adjectives which enables Pindar to present in his myths a three-dimensional situation rather than a bald account.

34. Sandys, J.E., Pindar (Loeb Classical Library, 1919) 399Google Scholar.

35. So Illig, L., Zur Form der pindarischen Erzählung (Berlin 1932) 23Google Scholar.

36. Pindar is perhaps thinking of Od. 13.291–5.

37. Cf. Köhnken 30.

38. Note the emphatic position of almost spat out at the end of sentence and stanza. For and see Duchemin, J., Pindare, poète et prophète (Paris 1955) 193ffGoogle Scholar. means not only obscure but rightly so; cf. N.3.39 , P.11.30 of the opposite extreme to the tyrant in a scheme in which the athlete is the golden mean (for P.11 in general see Young, D.C., Three Odes of Pindar [Leiden 1968] 10ff.)Google Scholar.

39. Cf. Bury 155, Köhnken 30. Norwood, G., Pindar (Berkeley 1945) 151ff.Google Scholar, may be right to explain and as plant-metaphors. Cf. the use of (see LSJ s.vv.). would be a term appropriate to vinekeeping (cf. h. Homn. Bacch. 38).

40. So Des Places, E., Le pronom chez Pindare (Paris 1947) 9Google Scholar. For this usage see in general Fränkel, Dichtung 543 n.12, Young 12Google Scholar.

41. This I prefer to the view of Bundy, E.L., Studia Pindarica (Berkeley 1962) 1.10, 31Google Scholar and Köhnken (32, 34) that all this refers to Pindar as composer of panegyric; with their interpretation the stanza is lost in vagueness and irrelevance, since none of the qualities praised is especially relevant to the encomiast.

42. The text I have given is substantially that of Snell. is Thiersch's conjecture; cf. N.6.24, Tyrt.12.43, Simon. PMG 597.7.

43. See N.9.32, P.8.91. Compare also Pindar's constant praise of expenditure on the games, e.g. P.5.106, N.1.31, I.6.9. At P.3.110f. wealth is inadequate without , and at P.1. 50 is the .

44. See e.g. O.7.92–5, P.11.56, I.1.46.

45. O.4.20, P.8.1–20.

46. For this type of superstition cf. Soph., El. 59ff.Google Scholar, Eur., I.T. 1161Google Scholar. Mrs Easterling draws my attention to Call. h. Dem. 116f., where a gloomy account is similarly succeeded by an impassioned cry before the hymn proceeds. For an earlier example see Alcman fr.1.36ff.

47. The usual punctuation (comma after compels us to give a unique meaning (‘rise’), which is hardly supported by Il. 18.506 (where may as easily mean ‘started forward’ as ‘rose’) or Od. 10.99 (where we have ); furthermore, the presence of the verb is itself surprising, for in similes Pindar usually omits the verb from the subordinate clause (exceptions are O.7.1, O. 10.90). The punctuation I have adopted avoids both difficulties. is governed by belongs both to and to ; its meaning in relation to is elucidated by represents an intensification of . For the vigorous plant-like growth in cf. Il. 18.56 .

48. Cf. Schroeder, O., Pindari carmina (Leipzig 1900) 323Google Scholar.

49. 42 picks up the idea of benefaction in the previous sentence.

50. So Dissen 479, Fennell 106; this is closer to Pindar's use of to denote athletics (e.g. O.6.11, O.11.4, N.4.1) than Bury's ‘distress’ (156, cf. e.g. Sandys 399).

51. Cf. O.10.97b, O.13.110b, P.8.97, P.10.19, N.7.74.

52. Cf. Mezger, F., Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig 1880) 330Google Scholar, Puech 113 (though he takes as masculine, not neuter).

53. It is difficult to follow those editors who retain in v.46, supplying from οὺ this is to emasculate Pindar's phraseology. Moreover, elsewhere in Pindar has a pejorative value, as elsewhere in Greek literature. The wealth-of-inspiration theme is so common in Pindar and Bacchylides (see Bundy 1.64, Young 63 n.1) that here is unavoidable. After the preceding confession of inadequacy, what we need is not (understood), ‘it is possible’, but ‘it is easy’; cf. I.1.45.