Commentaries on Pindar, vol. II: Olympian Odes 1, 10, 11, Nemean 11, Isthmian 2 9004085351, 9789004085350

Citation preview

COMMENTARIES ON PINDAR

MNEMOSYNE BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BA TA VA COLLEGERUNT A. D. LEEMAN · H. W. PLEKET · C. J. RUIJGH BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT C. J. RUIJGH, KLASSIEK SEMINARIUM, OUDE TURFMARKT 129, AMSTERDAM

SUPPLEMENTUM CENTESIMUM PRIMUM

W.

J. VERDENIUS

COMMENTARIES ON PINDAR VOLUME II

COMMENTARIES ON PINDAR VOLUME II, OLYMPIAN ODES 1, 10, 11, NEMEAN 11, ISTHMIAN 2

BY

W.

J. VERDENIUS

Emeritus Professor of Greek Language and Literature in the University of Utrecht

E.J. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • K0BENHA VN • KOLN 1988

The publication of this book has been made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for the Advancement of Pure Research

(Z.W.O.)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (Revised for volume 2) Vcrdenius, W. J. (Willem Jacob) Commentaries on Pindar. (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum, ISSN 0169-8958; 97, ) Vol. has imprint: Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Contents: v. I. Olympian odes 3, 7, 12, 14 - v. 2. Olympian odes 1, 10, 11, Nemean 11, Isthmian 2. I. Pindar-Criticism and interpretation. I. Pindar. Selections. 1987. II. Title. III. Series: Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum; 97, etc. PA4276.V4 1987 884'.01 87-138334 ISBN 90-04-08126- 7 (pbk. : v. 1) ISBN 90-04-08535-1 (pbk. : v. 2)

ISSN 0169-8958 ISBN 90 04 08535 1 ©Copyright 1988 by E.j. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS BY E.J. BRILL

CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vu

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

Olympian 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Olympian 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .

53

Olympian 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

Nemean 11 ... ..... ..... .......................................... .. . ..........

96

Isthmian 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119

Index of Subjects.............................................................

148

Index of Greek Words......................................................

152

PREFACE The choice of the odes commented upon in this volume has been determined by outward circumstances, just as that made in Volume I. When I was preparing a review of Gerber's edition of Olympian 1, it soon appeared that my notes would be too numerous and extensive to be published as an article. Accordingly, my comments on this ode are intended to form a supplement to Gerber's work 1 • Olympians 10 and 11 have been studied thoroughly by Viljoen, but his views have to be revised in the light of recent research. The commentaries on N. 11 and /. 2 have been reprinted (with a number of modifications and additions) from ICS 7, 1 (1982), 16-40, and Mnem. IV 35 (1982), 1-37. Still more than in volume I, I have pointed out peculiarities of grammar and nuances of meaning, and I have not shrunk from dwelling on things which might seem rather obvious or elementary. On the other hand, I have not lost my suspicion when looking at modern constructions of unified composition. It is true that Pindar's language should be pressed "until the blood comes" (see note on /. 2, 2 cru110t11't6µ&110L), but the details should not be pressed so as to form a network of formal parallels and analogies. It is also true that the meaning of a poem is closely connected with its form, but the interpreter should not sacrifice verbal accuracy to aesthetic feeling. I am indebted to Professor S. L. Radt for a number of useful remarks and additional references concerning 0. 1. W.J.V.

1 I have paid special attention to Fennell's second edition, because this has not been used by Gerber.

ABBREVIATIONS Ang. Bern. Barkhuizen Becker Bernard Bo. Bo. Bowra Bruhn Bundy Bury Bury Burz. Conw. Denn. Doms. Dorns. Dorns., P.S. ·Duchemin Erbse Fam. Fehling Fenn. Fenn. Fogelmark Forssman Frankel Frankel, W. u. F. Gal. Ge. Gianotti Gild. Gund. Gund., Mnem. Howie Hubbard Illig

P. Angeli Bernardini, Eracle, i Molioni e Augia nell' Olimpica JO di Pindaro, QUCC 11 (1982), 55-68. J. H. Barkhuizen, Etymologisering by Pindaros (Diss. Pretoria 1975). · 0. Becker, Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen 1m frii.hgriechischen Denlcen (Hermes Einzelschr. 4, Berlin 1937). M. Bernard, Pindars Denlcen in Bild.em (Pfullingen 1963). C. M. Bowra, Pindari carmina (Oxford 1935). C. M. Bowra, The Odes of Pindar (Harmondsworth 1969). C. M. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford 1964). E. Bruhn, Sophokles, Anhang (Berlin 1899). E. L. Bundy, Studia Pindarica (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1962). J. B. Bury, The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London 1890). J. B. Bury, The Isthmian Odes of Pindar (London 1892). G. Burzacchini-E. Degani, Lirici greci (Florence 1977). G. S. Conway, The Odes of Pindar (London 1972). J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (1Oxford 1954). F. Domseiff, Pindar ubersetzt under/ii.uteri (Leipzig 1921). F. Domseiff, Pindars olympische Hymnen (Leipzig 1938). F. Domseiff, Pindars Stil (Berlin 1921). J. Duchemin, Pindare, poete et prophete (Paris 1955). H. Erbse, Bemerkungen zu Pindars 10. olympischer Ode, in Kleine Schriften (Berlin 1979), 92-103. L. R. Farnell, The Works of Pindar (London 1930-2). D. Fehling, Die Wiederholungsfiguren und ihr Gebrauch bei den Griechen vor Gorgias (Berlin 1969). C. A. M. Fennell, Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes (2Cambridge 1893). C. A. M. Fennell, Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes (Cambridge 1883). S. Fogelmark, Studies in Pindar (Lund 1972). B. Forssman, Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars (Wiesbaden 1966). H. Frankel, Dichtung und Philosophie des frii.hen Griechentums ( 2 Munich 1962). H. Frankel, Wege und Formen .fruhgriechischen Denkens (1Munich 1960). M. Fernandez-Galiano, Pindaro, Olimpicas (Madrid 1956). D. E. Gerber, Pindar's Olympian One: A Commentary (TorontoBuffalo-London 1982). G. F. Gianotti, Per una poetica pindarica (Turin 1975). B. L. Gildersleeve, Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes (London 1907). H. Gundert, Pindar und sein Dichterberuf (Frankfurt 1935). H. Gundert, Der alte Pindar, in Mnemosynon Th. Wiegand (Munich 1938), 1-13. J. G. Howie, The Revision of Myth in Pindar, Ol. 1, Pap. Liverp. Latin Semin. 4 (1983), 277-313. Th. K. Hubbard, The Pindaric Mind (Leiden 1985). L. Illig, Zur Form der pindarischen Erzii.hlung (Berlin 1932).

X

Jur. Kaimio Kohnken Kohnken, Mythos Kohnken, Time Kromer

K.G.

KP Latt. Le. Lefkowitz LSJ Luther Maehler Me. Nassen Nis. Nisetich Norwood Pavese Peron Priv. Pu. Pu. Race Radt Rumpel Ruijgh Sand. Schad. Schadewaldt Schadewaldt, Bern. Schmid Sehr. Schwenn Schw. Segal

ABBREVIATIONS

H. Jurenka, Pindars erste und dritte olympische Ode, Jahresber. Gymn. Wien 1893-94, 1-24. M. Kaimio, Characterization of Sound in Early Greek Literature (Helsinki 1977). A. Kohnken, Pindar as Innovator: Poseidon Hippios and the Relevance of the Pelops Story in Olympian 1, CQ 24 (1974), 199-206. A. Kohnken, Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar (Berlin-New York 1971 ). A. Kohnken, Time and Event in Pindar 0.1. 25-53, Class.Ant. 2 (1983), 66-76. G. Kromer, The Value of Time in Pindar's Olympian 10, Hermes 104 ( 1976), 420-36. R. Kiihner-B. Gerth, Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II: Satzlehre (Hannover 1898-1904). K. Ziegler-W. Sontheimer (edd.), Der kleine Pauly (Stuttgart 1964-75). R. Lattimore, The Odes of Pindar (Chicago 1947). L. Lehnus, Pindaro, Olimpiche (Milan 1981 ). M. Lefkowitz, Pindar's Nemean XI, JHS 99 (1979), 49-56. H. G. Liddell-R. Scott-H. Stuart Jones-R. McKenzie, GreekEnglish Lexicon (Oxford 1925-40). W. Luther, Wahrheit und Luge im iiltesten Griechentum (BornaLeipzig 1935). H. Maehler, Die Auffassung des Dichterberufs im friihen Griechentum (Gottingen 1963). F. Mezger, Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig 1880). P. J. Nassen, A Literary Study of Pindar's Olympian JO, TAPA 105 (1975), 219-40. F. J. Nisetich, Pindar's Victory Songs (Baltimore-London 1980). F. J. Nisetich, Convention and Occasion in Isthmian 2, Calif. St. Class. Phil. 10 (1977), 133-56. G. Norwood, Pindar (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1945). C. Pavese, Xp~µomx, x,p~µa-r' &v~p ed it motivo delta liberalita nella seconda Istmia di Pindaro, QUCC 2 (1966), 103-112. J. Peron, Les images maritimes de Pindare (Paris 1974). C. A. Privitera, Pindaro. Le Istmiche (Milan 1982). A. Puech, Pindare, Olympiques (2Paris 1931). A. Puech, Pindare, Nemiennes, Isthmiques (Paris 1923). W. H. Race, Negative Expressions and Pindaric 1ro1x1..1.{a, TAPA 113 (1983), 95-122. S. L. Radt, Pindars zweiter und sechster Paian (Amsterdam 1958). J. Rumpel, Lexicon Pindaricum (Leipzig 1883). C. J. Ruijgh, Autour de 'TE ipique' (Amsterdam 1971). J. Sandys, The Odes of Pindar (London-New York 1915). W. Schadewaldt, Pindars Olympische Oden (Frankfurt 1972). W. Schadewaldt, Der Aufbau des Pindarischen Epinikion (Halle 1928). W. Schadewaldt, Bemerkungen zu Pindars 10. olympischer Ode, in Hellas und Hesperien, I (Berlin 1979), 92-103. W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, I (Munich 1929). 0. Schroeder, Pindari carmina (Leipzig 1900). F. Schwenn, Der junge Pindar (Greifswald 1940). E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik (Munich 1939-50). C. P. Segal, God and Man in Pindar's First and Third Olympian Odes, HSCP 68 (1964), 211-67.

ABRREVIATIONS

Simpson Sitzler Slater Snell Sn.M. Strohm Thummer Thu. Thummer, Religiositiit Tur. Vilj. de Vries W ackernagel We. Wil. Wil., GI. Woodbury Wiist

XI

M. Simpson, The Chariot and the Bow as Metaphors for Poetry in Pindar's Odes, TAPA 100 (1969), 437-73. E. Buchholz-]. Sitzler, Anthologie aus den Lyrikern der Griechen, II ('Leipzig-Berlin 1909). W. J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969). B. Snell, Die Entdeckung des Geistes ( 4 Giittingen 1975). B. Snell-H. Maehler, Pindarus, Epinicia (6 Leipzig 1980). H. Strohm, Tyche. Zur Schicksalsau.ffassung bei Pindar und den frii.hgriechischen Dichtern (Stuttgart 1944). E. Thummer, Pindar. Die isthmischen Gedichte, I (Heidelberg 1968). Id., vol. II.

E. Thummer, Die Religiositiit Pindars (Innsbruck 1957). A. Turyn, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis (Oxford 1952). G. van N. Viljoen, Pindaros se tiende en elfde Olympiese odes (Leiden 1955). G. J. de Vries, Het feest van Aristagoras, Hermeneus 36 (1965), 149-57 = De zang der Sirenen (Baarn-Amsterdam 1986), 97-106. J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen ii.her Syntax (2 Basel 1926-28). 0. Werner, Pindar. Siegesgesiinge und Fragmente (3 Zurich-Munich 1968). U. von Wilamowitz, Pindaros (Berlin 1922). U. von Wilamowitz, Der Glaube der Hellenen (Berlin 1931-2). L. Woodbury, Pindar and the Mercenary Muse, TAPA 99 (1968), 527-42. E. Wiist, Pindar als geschichtschreibender Dichter (Tiibingen 1967).

OLYMPIAN 1 Metre Ge. abstains from giving names to the various cola, because "there is little agreement on the metrical analysis of the ode" (p. VIII). The following scheme, mainly based on Wilamowitz, Grieehisehe Verskunst, 415-6, seems to me the most satisfactory, i.e., the most simple and unitary: gl pher do 2 da lee' pher 5 lee 3 tr eho do 2 tr eho er 2 3 ia do er 10 2 do 3 do ia 23 ia er+ 2 do pher do 5 25 er ehodim er 6 2 do reiz ehodim do gl do 28b dodr er 2 do eho ba For the irregular responsion at 89 and 104 see notes ad loe.

Composition Ge. (XI-XV) argues that the unity of the ode is based on a number of analogies between Hiero and Pelops, and even concludes that "the Sn.M. er ia, but a trochaic rhythm is more natural after the dactyls. The ambivalent character of the cretic forms a suitable transition to the iambics, the resolved form of which facilitates the transition. 3 Tur. and Sn.M. propose ha ia er, but a bacchius preceding a iambus seems unusual. Similarly, I do not accept an initial bacchius at 29 (Sn.M.). • W. J. W. Koster, Traiti de mitrique grecque (3Leiden 1962), 281-2, implausibly assumes a lee with anaclasis. ~ Koster's suggestion (loc. cit.) ia cho lee makes an unnatural combination. 6 Koster's ityph chodim is certainly to be rejected. 1

2

2

OLYMPIAN

1

myth's real significance rests in the praise it confers upon Hieron" through these analogies, and that "it is no doubt implied that after his death Hieron too will receive similar worship as a hero". Such an implication seems to me improbable because Pindar's final blessing refers to Hiero's earthly life (see below, note on 115 'tOU'tOY). But the alleged analogies do not stand a critical examination either. It is true that Pelops enjoys divine favour and that Pindar wishes Hiero divine favour, but such a wish is a topos in his poetry (cf. Thummer, 103-4) and in its present form is not specific enough to have structural significance 7 • Ge. further thinks that the banquet given by Tantalus has parallels at 17, 61, 90, 98, so that 'banquet' is "a theme which ... contributes to the unity of the ode as a whole". But (1) sympotic entertainment (17, 61) is different from a banquet (N.B. 15 µouatxAtL'tO(L 8t 1t(X\I µ&Aot8pov 'is be-fluted') does not explain the construction. K.G. (I, 126-7) observe that the internal object of intransitive verbs can be made the subject of the sentence (e.g. Xen. HG V 2, 34 wcrn lxtr8tv 1t. 101: 'O)..uµntov. 'At Olympia': cf. N. 1, 17 'O)..uµ.mciowv cpuUot~ l)..cxtcxv, and the use of adjectives equivalent to the genitive of a substantive (15 Kuxvucx, etc.). Similarly/. 2, 27. 102: xetvov. Vilj. (87-8) rightly argues that this does not belong to loli ... xtxpcxµ.tvov (e.g. Wil., 220, Wiist, 266), but his objection that the common interpretation, 'at the time of the games', would tactlessly recall the delay is as futile as his remark that XCX't..oµotL primarily refers to "