Pindar’s ›First Pythian Ode‹: Text, Introduction and Commentary 9783111128368, 9783111126005

This is the first large-scale edition with introduction and commentary of Pindar’s First Pythian Ode. Composed for Hiero

172 54 2MB

English Pages 266 Year 2023

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
I Structure and Themes
II Pythian 1 in Context
III Performance Contexts
IV Metre
V The Transmission of the Text
VI The Present Edition
Text and Critical Apparatus
Conspectus Siglorum
Πινδάρου Ἱέρωνι Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι
Recommend Papers

Pindar’s ›First Pythian Ode‹: Text, Introduction and Commentary
 9783111128368, 9783111126005

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

Almut Fries Pindar’s First Pythian Ode

Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte

Herausgegeben von Marcus Deufert, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath und Peter Scholz

Band 151

Almut Fries

Pindar’s First Pythian Ode Text, Introduction and Commentary

ISBN 978-3-11-112600-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-112836-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-112957-0 ISSN 1862-1112 Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930480 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck

For Angus σὺν γάρ τοί τιν τά τε τερπνὰ καί τὰ γλυκέ᾽ ἄνεται πάντα

Contents Preface  IX Abbreviations  XI Introduction  1 I Structure and Themes  3 II Pythian 1 in Context  8 1 Historical Background  8 2 Date and Occasion  11 3 Pindar’s Strategy of Praise  14 4 Other Poetry on Hieron and Aitna  18 a) Bacchylides 4  19 b) Bacchylides fr. 20C  20 c) Pindar fr. 105a, b  22 d) Simonides  24 e) Aeschylus, Aitn(ai)ai  26 f) Aeschylus, Persai  28 III Performance Contexts  30 1 Performance and Reperformance  30 2 Text and Reperformance  35 IV Metre  38 1 Preliminary Remarks  38 2 Metrical Analysis and Commentary  39 3 Strophic Construction  43 V The Transmission of the Text  45 1 The Early History  45 2 Manuscripts  47 a) The Paris Recension (C)  48 b) The Laurentian Recension (ÅEF = μ)  50 c) The ‘Thessalonicensis’ Recension (GHỊ = θ)  51 d) PQTVi(UV) = ς  52 e) Triclinius  54 f) Pseudo-Moschopoulos  56 3 Papyri  59 4 Scholia  60 5 The Indirect Tradition  62 6 The First Printed Editions  63 7 Stemma Codicum  66 VI The Present Edition  67



Text and Critical Apparatus  69 Conspectus Siglorum  71 Πινδάρου Ἱέρωνι Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι  75 Commentary  81 Bibliography  219 Indexes  233

Preface A new edition of Pindar’s First Pythian Ode with a large-scale introduction and commentary requires no justification. The poem, written for Hieron of Syracuse in 470 BC, is not only a literary masterpiece, but also an invaluable document for the political, social and cultural history of Sicily in the first third of the fifth century BC. The book has been several years in the making and many debts have been incurred, both institutional and personal. By appointing me to a Lecturership in Classics The Queen’s College, Oxford, has enabled me to continue my research and provided support and the friendliest of surroundings for it. I also thank the librarians at the Bodleian, Sackler and The Queen’s College Libraries, Oxford, at Emmanuel College Library, Cambridge, as well as those in the manuscript and rare books departments at the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, and the Österreichische National­bibliothek, Vienna. Any editor of ancient texts, moreover, is deeply indebted to the funding bodies, library staff and technicians who cause digital images of ever more manuscripts to be publicly available online. And during the pandemic restrictions it would have been impossible to continue working without the large number of electronic books the Bodleian Libraries made accessible via their network. The Craven Committee of the Faculty of Classics, Oxford, has my gratitude for a travel grant that helped me to spread Pindarica to a wide audience at the SCS Annual Conference of 2016. In 2013, when the work was still in its early stages, I had the privilege of conducting a graduate seminar on Pythian 1 with Martin West. I learnt much from the participants, especially Laetitia Edwards (L. P. E. Parker) on metre and Robert S. Parker on Greek athletics, as well as from my distinguished co-convenor. It is my great regret that he did not live to read a draft of the book nor to see it completed. The entire work was read by Angus Bowie and Alan Woolley, each of whom improved it in many ways. They also, respectively, shared the burden of compiling the list of abbreviations and checking the bibliography. Simon Hornblower, at one point, provided both historical advice and much-needed moral support, while doing the editorial spadework would have been significantly harder without his kind gift of Irigoin’s Histoire du texte de Pindare (in a copy once owned and annotated by Spencer Barrett). Nigel Wilson scrutinised the critical apparatus and the chapter on the textual transmission. He also kindly collated for me the manuscript H in Rome and was ever ready to provide palaeographical advice, usually in combination with tea and cake. Enrico Emanuele Prodi and Thomas Coward also generously responded to collation requests in Venice. An earlier version of this book was accepted as a Habilitationsschrift by the University of Göttingen in the winter semester 2020. I thank my examiners HeinzGünther Nesselrath, Thomas Kuhn-Treichel and Patrick Finglass for undertaking



the task and suggesting various improvements. As general editors of the Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Marcus Deufert and Peter Scholz, have my gratitude for accepting the book into the series. Marcus Deufert in particular offered some perceptive last-minute suggestions. But above all I am grateful to my parents Wolfgang and Edelgard Fries and to my husband Angus Bowie for their continued moral, practical and financial support. The book is dedicated to Angus, who shared much of the trials and tribulations of its production. Scribebam ColmanoraeA. F. Mense Septembri MMXXII

Abbreviations Abbreviations of ancient authors, work titles and modern periodicals largely follow LSJ and L’Année Philologique, except that I omit ‘Pindar’ in quotations from the epinicia and ‘Homer’ in quotations from the Iliad and Odyssey. The fragments of Pindar are cited from B. Snell and H. Maehler (eds.), Pindarus. Pars II. Fragmenta. Indices (Munich and Leipzig 1989) and those of Bacchylides from H. Maehler (ed.), Bacchylides. Carmina cum Fragmentis (Munich and Leipzig 112003). Translations of Pindar (other than Pythian 1) and Bacchylides are taken from the Loeb editions of Race (1997) and Campbell (Greek Lyric IV. Bacchylides, Corinna, and Others, Cambridge, MA, and London 1992), both occasionally adapted. The following abbreviations are also used: Abel Adler Beekes Bergk Billerbeck BK

BMus.Inscr. Braswell

CA Calame Campbell CEG Chantry

Consbruch CTH

De Falco DELG

Di Gregorio

E. Abel (ed.), Scholia recentiora in Pindari Epinicia I. Scholia in Olympia et Pythia (Budapest and Berlin 1891) A. S. Adler (ed.), Suidae Lexicon, 5 vols. (Leipzig 1928–38) R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols. (Leiden and Boston 2010) Th. Bergk (ed.), Poetae Lyrici Graeci (Leipzig 41878–82) M. Billerbeck (ed.), Stephani Byzantii Ethnica. Recensuit, Germanice vertit adnotationibus indicibusque instruxit, 5 vols. (Berlin and Boston 2006–17) J. Latacz, A. Bierl et al. (eds.), Homers Ilias. Gesamtkommentar, auf der Grundlage der Ausgabe von Ameis–Hentze–Cauer (1868–1913), 14 vols. to date (Munich, Leipzig, Berlin, New York and Boston 2000–) = Basler Kommentar E. L. Hicks et al. (eds.), The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, 4 vols. (Oxford 1874–1916) B. K. Braswell (ed.), Didymos of Alexandria. Commentary on Pindar. Edited and Translated with Introduction, Explanatory Notes, and a Critical Catalogue of Didymos’ Works (Basel 2013) J. U. Powell (ed.), Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford 1925) C. Calame, Etymologicum genuinum. Les citations de poètes lyriques (Rome 1970) D. A. Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric II. Anacreon, Anacreontea, Early Choral Lyric (Cambridge, MA, and London 1988) P. A. Hansen (ed.), Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, 2 vols. (Berlin and New York 1983–9) M. Chantry (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars III: Scholia in Thesmophoriazusas, Ranas, Ecclesiazusas et Plutum. Fasc. Ia: continens Scholia vetera in Aristophanis Ranas (Groningen 1999) M. Consbruch (ed.), Hephaestionis Enchiridion cum commentariis veteribus (Leipzig 1906) E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites, Suppl. 1 Revue Hittite et Asianique 30, 94–133, Paris 1971; Suppl. 2 Revue Hittite et Asianique 33, 63–71, Paris 1975 (continued at V. De Falco (ed.), Demade Oratore. Testimonianze e Frammenti (Naples 21954) P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots, avec un Supplément sous la direction de A. Blanc, C. de Lamberterie, J.-L. Perpillou (Paris 1999) L. Di Gregorio (ed.), Scholia vetera in Hesiodi Theogoniam (Milan 1975)


Dr. Erbse FD 3.1 FGE FGrH Finglass GDI GEF GEW GG Gow GP Harder HE Heitsch Herington Hoffner Holwerda

Hordern IEG2 IG II2


H. Diels and W. Kranz (eds.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols. (Berlin 1951–2) H. Cancik, H. Schneider et al. (eds.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, 19 vols. (Stuttgart 1996–2003) = Brill’s New Pauly. Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World (Leiden 2002–) A. B. Drachmann (ed.), Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1903–27) H. Erbse (ed.), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera), 7 vols. (Berlin 1969–88) École Française d’Athènes. Fouilles de Delphes (1892–1903). Tome III. Épigraphie. Fascicule 1. Inscriptions de l’entrée du sanctuaire au trésor d’Athènes (Paris 1910) D. L. Page (ed.), Further Greek Epigrams, revised and prepared for publication by R. D. Dawe and J. Diggle (Cambridge 1981) F. Jacoby et al. (eds.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin, Leiden, Boston and Cologne 1923–) M. Davies and P. J. Finglass (eds.), Stesichorus. The Poems (Cambridge 2014) (introduction and fragments) F. Bechtel, H. Collitz et al. (eds.), Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, 4 vols. (Göttingen 1884–1915) M. L. West (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments (Cambridge, MA, and London 2003)1 H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg 1960–70) G. Uhlig, R. Schneider, A. Hilgard and A. Lentz (eds.), Grammatici Graeci, 4 vols. in 10 parts (Leipzig 1867–1910) A. S. F. Gow (ed.), The Greek Bucolic Poets (Cambridge 1953) J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, rev. K. J. Dover (Oxford 21954) A. Harder (ed.), Callimachus. Aetia, 2 vols. (Oxford 2012) A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page (eds.), The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1965) E. Heitsch (ed.), Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit, 2 vols. (Göttingen 21964) C. J. Herington (ed.), The Older Scholia on the Prometheus Bound (Leiden 1972) H. A. Hoffner, Hittite Myths. Second Edition, edited by G. M. Beckman (Atlanta 1998) D. Holwerda (ed.), Scholia in Aristophanem. Pars II: Scholia in Vespas, Pacem, Aves et Lysistratatam. Fasc. 3: Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves (Groningen 1992) J. H. Hordern (ed.), The Fragments of Timotheus of Miletus (Oxford 2002) M. L. West (ed.), Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati, 2 vols. (Oxford 2 1989–92) J. Kirchner (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae II et III. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Berlin 1913–40) 6

1 References to the editions of Davies (Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Göttingen 1988) and Bernabé (Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et Fragmenta I, Stuttgart and Leipzig 21996) can be found in West’s concordance (pp. 299–308).


IG IV2.1 IG V.1 IG V.2 IG IX.2 IG XIV Inscr. Cret. Kambylis KG KUB Kühn Latte–Cunningham


M.–W. M.–W.2 PCG Pf. PG PMG PMGF Poltera Radt Rose Roussou Schwyzer


F. Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae IV. Inscriptiones Argolidis. 2nd ed. Fasc. 1, Inscriptiones Epidauri (Berlin 1929) W. Kolbe (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae V.1. Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae (Berlin 1913) F. Hiller von Gaertringen (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae V.2. Inscriptiones Arcadiae (Berlin 1913) O. Kern (ed.) Inscriptiones Graecae IX.2. Inscriptiones Thessaliae (Berlin 1908) G. Kaibel (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae XIV. Inscriptiones Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus (Berlin 1890) M. Guarducci (ed.), Inscriptiones Creticae. Opera et consilio Friderici Halbherr collectae, 4 vols. (Rome 1935–50) A. Kambylis (ed.), Prooimion zum Pindarkommentar (Göttingen 1991) R. Kühner (rev. B. Gerth), Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 2 vols. (Hanover and Leipzig 31898–1904) Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköy, Berlin 1921–90 C. G. Kühn (ed.), Κλαυδίου Γαληνοῦ ἅπαντα. C. Galeni opera omnia, 22 vols. (Leipzig 1821–33) K. Latte and I. C. Cunningham (eds.), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Volumen I: Α–Δ, 2nd ed. (Berlin and Boston 2018), Volumen II.1: Ε–Ι, Volumen II.2: Κ–Ο (Berlin and Boston 2020) B. Snell et al. (eds.), Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen 1955–2010) H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. H. Stuart Jones et al. (Oxford 91940, with a revised Supplement 1996) R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis (eds.), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., rev. ed. (Oxford 1988) CEDOPAL: Base de données expérimentale Mertens–Pack3 en ligne = Mertens–Pack 3 Online Database ( R. Merkelbach and M. L. West (eds.), Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford 1967) ‘Appendix nova fragmentorum’, in F. Solmsen, R. Merkelbach and M. L. West (eds.), Hesiodi Opera (Oxford 21983) R. Kassel and C. F. L. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols. to date (Berlin and New York 1983–) R. Pfeiffer (ed.), Callimachus, 2 vols. (Oxford 21965) J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, 161 vols. (Paris 1857–66) D. L. Page (ed.), Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962) M. Davies (ed.), Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1 vol. to date (Oxford 1991–) O. Poltera (ed.), Simonides Lyricus. Testimonia und Fragmente (Basel 2008) S. L. Radt (ed.), Strabons Geographika. Mit Übersetzung und Kommentar, 10 vols. (Göttingen 2002–11) V. Rose (ed.), Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (Leipzig 1886) S. Roussou (ed.), Pseudo-Arcadius’ Epitome of Herodian’s De Prosodia Catholica (Oxford 2018) E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik. Erster Band. Allgemeiner Teil: Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion (Munich 1939)

XIV  SD SGDI SGO SH SIG3 Slater Slater Stallbaum Theiler Threatte TrGF Voigt Wehrli Wendel


E. Schwyzer and A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik. Zweiter Band. Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik (Munich 1950) F. Bechtel, H. Collitz et al. (eds.), Sammlung der griechischen Dialektinschriften, 4 vols. (Göttingen 1884–1915) R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber (eds.), Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 5 vols. (Stuttgart and Munich 1998–2004) P. H. J. Lloyd-Jones and P. J. Parsons (eds.), Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin and New York 1983) W. Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 4 vols. (Leipzig 31915) W. J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969) W. J. Slater (ed.), Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta (Berlin and New York 1986) J. G. Stallbaum (ed.), Eustathii … commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1825–6) W. Theiler (ed.), Poseidonios. Die Fragmente, 2 vols. (Berlin and New York 1982) L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, 2 vols. to date (Berlin and New York 1980–) B. Snell, R. Kannicht and S. L. Radt (eds.), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 vols. (Göttingen 21986–2004) E.-M. Voigt (ed.), Sappho et Alcaeus (Amsterdam 1971) F. Wehrli (ed.), Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar (Basel 21967–9) C. Wendel (ed.), Scholia in Theocritum vetera (Leipzig 1914)


I Structure and Themes Pindar’s Pythian 1 was composed for Hieron of Syracuse to celebrate his victory in the Delphic chariot-race of 470 BC and, at the same time, his foundation of the city of Aitna in place of Katane (modern Catania) in 476/5.1 It consists of five triads (T1–T5), in which a strophic pair of six dactylo-epitrite periods (S1–S6 ~ A1–A6) is followed by an epode of eight periods in the same metre (E1–E8).2 This straightforward external structure conceals a rich sequence of themes, intricately connected with each other by recurrent images, parallels, contrasts and ring-composition. The basic pattern can be seen in the following synopsis: 1–28 Proem (T1S1–T2A2)  1–12 Hymn to Music, with its effect on the Olympian gods (T1S + T1A)  13–28 Myth I: The enemies of the gods and music, specifically Typhos3 (T1E1–T2A2) 29–40 The glory of Aitna: Hieron’s foundation (I) and Pythian victory (T2A3–T2E8)  41–2a ‘Link verses’: all human talents come from the gods (T3S1–2a) 42b–50a Praise (I) and good wishes for Hieron (T3S2b–T3A4a) 50b–7 Myth II: Philoctetes (T3A4b–T3E5)  58–60 Invocation to the Muse: Deinomenes, regent of Aitna (T3E6–8) 61–70 Hieron’s foundation (II) and Dorian constitution of Aitna (T4S1–T4A4) 71–80 The battles of Himera and Kyme (T4A5–T4E8) 81–100 Praise (II) and ‘advice’ for Hieron (T5S1–T5E8)  81–4 Poetic self-restraint: κόρος and φθόνος (T5S1–4)  ~ 85–92a In defiance of φθόνος: how to be a good ruler (present) (T5S5–T5A6a)  ~ 89–100 Imperishable fame (future) (T5A3–T5E8)

It is evident that sections rarely coincide fully with strophic boundaries; the exceptions are the ‘Hymn to Music’ (1–12) and the final triad (81–100), if one treats Pindar’s laudatory adhortations to Hieron and their meaning for his posthumous fame as a thematic unity. Marking the opening and closure of the poem, these passages are not only structurally the most important (audiences tend to remember an impressive beginning and end), but they also echo each other in a way that raises Hieron’s acclaim (see further below, 5–6). Other sections either begin with a stanza and end in the middle of another, or vice versa. Examples are the Typhos-myth (13–28), Pindar’s first glorification of Hieron and Aitna (29–40), the city’s Dorian foundation (61–70) and the battles of Himera and Kyme (71–80). The last two episodes, which sum up Hieron’s political

1 All subsequent dates in the introduction and commentary are ‘BC’, unless otherwise indicated. 2 For details of the metrical design of the ode see ch. IV. 3 For the different forms of this name see 15–16a n. I use ‘Typhos’ throughout.



and military exploits, in fact share the entire fourth triad, whereas the initial praise of the honorand rounds off the second. Although the transition from one stanza or triad to the next did not necessarily create a strong break,4 it is likely that a corresponding sense pause would have been perceived as emphatic. By contrast, the remaining thematic moves within stanzas prevent Pindar’s composition from appearing static. It cannot be coincidence either that the frequent prayers in Pythian 1 concentrate on the boundaries of the four passages just mentioned.5 The deities invoked are Zeus, especially in his function as supreme protector of Aitna (Zeus Aitnaios) and Apollo, the god of music and patron of the Pythian Games. Both appear immediately in the proem – Apollo as Μουσαγέτας, leader of the divine chorus (1–2, 12), and Zeus in the remarkably lifelike description of the sleeping eagle on his sceptre, which recalls the iconography of Zeus Aitnaios on contemporary coins from Aitna (5–12n.). Most appropriately, therefore, the eulogy of Aitna and its founder Hieron, who increased the city’s fame with his Pythian triumph, is framed by an invocation to Zeus as lord of Mt. Etna (29–30a (n.)) and a prayer to Apollo that he may adorn Aitna with further horse victories and the accompanying celebrations (39–40).6 Given the threat of the homonymous volcano which looms over the city and whose recent eruption Pindar has just described in the most dramatic way (21–6), it is not surprising that the appeal for the favour of Zeus Aitnaios has since antiquity been interpreted as apotropaeic.7 Apollo does not feature again in the poem, but Zeus is appealed to twice more in quick succession in the fourth triad.8 As Zeus Accomplisher (τέλειος) he is asked to ensure that Aitna and its rulers always maintain its Dorian constitution as a guarantee of freedom and ‘harmonious peace’ among the people (67–70). And as supreme god of war it is hoped that Zeus will avert new attacks by the Carthagin-

4 In choral lyric sentences frequently run over stanza- and triad-boundaries. Usually these overlaps coincide with some syntactical division, as between main and subordinate clause or participle (cf. 21–2a n.). But there are cases in which grammar completely ignores the boundary: e.g. Ol. 9.28–9 ἀγαθοὶ δὲ καὶ σοφοὶ κατὰ δαίμον᾽ ἄνδρες ||| ἐγένοντ᾽, 84–5 (triad), Pyth. 1.32–3, 52–3, 92–3 (stanza). The strength or weakness of any break may have been reinforced by the music, but in the absence of scores it is impossible to be certain. 5 For prayers as a structural device in Pythian 1 see Race 1990: 136–40 and Fearn 2017: 194–8, 202–14. 6 Cf. Cingano 1995: 15. 7 Schol. Pyth. 1.56a (II 15.17–20 Dr.) ἐπειδὴ περὶ τοῦ Τυφῶνος λόγον ἐκίνησε καὶ τὰς τιμωρίας αὐτοῦ διεξῆλθεν, ὥσπερ φόβῳ διατεθεὶς πρὸς τὰ διηγήματα κατεύχεται τὸν Δία ἔχειν εὐμενῆ. Cf. Race 1990: 41–2, Fearn 2017: 197. For Typhos as the cause of Mt. Etna’s vulcanism see below, 5. 8 This eclipse of Apollo by Zeus could in part be accounted for by the fact that Zeus was the traditionally accepted patron of rulers (cf. 69–70n.).

Structure and Themes 


ians and Etruscans, who have exercised Hieron and his associates for the preceding decade (71–5). These two prayers in fact supplement the earlier invocation to Zeus Aitnaios because the prosperity of Aitna depends on internal and external stability. Foreign invasion remained a constant threat for Greek Sicily and Southern Italy, but Pindar must also have been aware that the status of Aitna was precarious. While he praised its young ruler, Deinomenes son of Hieron (58–60 (n.)), and was able to present the forcible replacement of Katane’s mainly Ionian population with Dorians as rooted in the Dorian migration (61–70 (n.); cf. II.1, 9), it is unlikely that his wish for ‘harmonious peace’ in the city was merely formal. By 470 Hieron had been ill for several years (46, 50b–7nn.), and a few years after his death in 467/6 Katane was restored to its original state.9 If divine invocations specifically mark Hieron’s achievements, ring-composition is the principal structural device in Pythian 1. Thematic responsions enclose not only individual sections, but also the entire poem, highlighting significant motifs and connections. The double reference to Apollo and the Muses at the beginning and end of the ‘Hymn to Music’ (1–2 ~ 12) separates this first part of the proem from the second, which deals with the enemies of the Olympian gods, notably Typhos. Even more importantly, it establishes the leitmotif of music as the symbol of order and peace, among gods and men. This carries through to the very end of the ode, where the evocation of sympotic scenes with choruses of boys singing to the lyre (φόρμιγγες, 96–7) harks back to the image of Apollo accompanying the Muses on his golden lyre (χρυσέα φόρμιγξ, 1–2a). Through the negative paradigm of the tyrant Phalaris, who will not be a subject of song at said symposia, Pindar implicitly associates Hieron, his current celebration and all future performances of Pythian 1 with the eternally recurrent festivities of the gods (cf. 95–8, 97–8nn.) Being anathema to music, Phalaris corresponds to Typhos, one of the monstrous enemies of Zeus, who cannot bear to hear ‘the song of the Pierians’ (13–14). For his insurgence Typhos was punished with confinement under Mt. Etna, which Pindar presents as the aition for the mountain’s volcanic activity (cf. 13–28n.). Two mutually reinforcing descriptions of Typhos’ discomfort (17b–20 ~ 27–8 (n.)) surround the extraordinarily vivid ecphrasis of an eruption (21–6), illustrating what happens to someone who challenges Zeus. This the audience is to remember when in the rest of the poem Pindar subtly aligns Hieron’s victory over the Carthaginians

9 On Hieron’s rule and the history of Aitna see further ch. II.1, and on Pindar’s encomiastic strategy, ch. II.3. The prayer to an unnamed god (θεός) for Hieron’s continued wellbeing (56–7) has been excluded from this discussion because it parallels the wish in 46 that time may be kind to him, and it is likely that Pindar regarded ‘time’ and ‘god’ as all but equivalent here (cf. 46, 56–7nn.).



and Etruscans to that of Zeus over Typhos and the peace he is to vouchsafe for Aitna to the harmony the Olympians enjoy after the monster’s defeat. This alignment begins when Pindar expresses reasonable hope that Aitna will remain famed for equestrian victories and ‘tuneful festivities’ (35b–8 (n.)) in the praise passage that is enclosed by prayers to Zeus Aitnaios and Apollo (cf. above, 4). Subsequently Hieron is celebrated for his military exploits, first in general terms (47–50a (n.)), then specifically for the battles of Himera and Kyme (71–80 (n.)). Both encomia are linked to the fate of Aitna. The former, which extends into the myth of Philoctetes (50b–5), is part of the most complex system of ring-composition in Pythian 1, placed as it is at the centre of the third triad, and indeed the whole ode, by two sets of responding statements (42b–5 ~ 58–60, 46 ~ 56–7; cf. 41–60, 46–57nn.). Their inner circle consists of a wish (46) and a prayer (56–7) for Hieron’s enduring prosperity and health, the latter an important factor for Aitna’s future.10 The second of these eulogies follows Pindar’s expectation that, with the help of Zeus, Hieron will lead his city ‘to harmonious peace’ (σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν, 69–70). This musical metaphor again evokes the divine concord of the proem (cf. 1–28, 69–70nn.), and it is probably significant that it stands at an equal distance from the verses in which Pindar offers a song of praise (ὕμνος) to Hieron’s son Deinomenes (the Younger) and the sons of Deinomenes (the Elder), that is Hieron and his brothers, respectively (58–60, 79–80 (nn.)). The fourth triad delivers both these internal encomia, and line 70 is the boundary between them. Finally, ring-composition repeatedly contributes to an effect of ‘false closure’, a poetic device apt to increase audience suspense. The ‘Hymn to Music’ (1–12) is self-contained, and listeners may have expected the main body of the ode to follow (cf. 12b n.). Instead Pindar makes a U-turn (ὅσσα δέ, 13), moving the scene from Olympus to the immediate surroundings of Mt. Etna.11 The account of the primeval creature which sends up fire from the depth of the earth must have been all the more captivating for its surprising position in the poem. By the end of the second triad Pindar has touched on all the regular motifs of epinician, and if a two-triad ode were not too short for the occasion, one might think that the prayer to Apollo, which mirrors that to Zeus in 29–30a, signalled completion (29–40, 39–40nn.). When Pindar continues, he does so with a sentence that arrests attention for being thematically and syntactically connected to the preceding one (41–2a ἐκ θεῶν γάρ …). The most playful example of ‘false closure’ occurs at the end of the fourth triad. At that point few, presumably, would have been surprised if the ode had reached

10 Cf. above, 5 and ch. II.1. 11 It is likely that Pythian 1 was first performed in Aitna, and thus in view of the volcano (ch. II.2).

Structure and Themes 


its conclusion, and some may actually have wished for it. Pindar picks up on precisely this sentiment as he opens the fifth triad with one of his favourite topoi: a self-exhortation to keep to the point in order to avoid audience dissatisfaction (μῶμος) from satiety (κόρος) and envy (φθόνος). Neither here nor elsewhere does this prevent him from further eulogy (cf. 81–4n.). Despite its immense variety of motifs, therefore, Pythian 1 does not lack unity. Thanks to Pindar’s masterful compositional technique, even seemingly disparate themes can be shown to be interrelated and to contribute to the encomiastic aim of the ode. Above them all stand Apollo’s golden lyre and the power of music to unite gods and men in ‘harmonious peace’.12

12 Cf. Cingano 1995: 20. This is not to say that the lyre constitutes the single unifying element of Pythian 1, because ‘the majority of verses cannot be explained in terms of it’ (Skulsky 1975: 8, who rightly rejects the notion, common in earlier Pindaric criticism, that his odes can be reduced to one dominant theme).

II Pythian 1 in Context 1 Historical Background Hieron of Syracuse (ca. 535–467/6) was the second son of Deinomenes the Elder from Gela, the others being Gelon, Polyzalos and Thrasyboulos. Together they formed the core of the Deinomenid dynasty, which in the first third of the fifth century ruled over Gela and Syracuse. In power and wealth the Deinomenids were matched only by the Emmenids of Akragas, with whom they forged marriage-alliances13 and competed for athletic prestige,14 but also repeatedly came into conflict, most notably in 472, when Thrasydaios of Akragas launched an army against Syracuse and was defeated by Hieron (D. S. 11.53.3–5).15 Since this brought the Akragantine tyranny to an end, Hieron was the most powerful tyrant in Sicily when Pythian 1 was performed. However, as quickly as the Deinomenids had risen, they fell victim to their own ruthless expansionist politics and the growing democratic tendencies in Sicily in the mid-to late 460s (see further below, 10). Hieron’s ‘career’ began as regent in Gela (485–78). He took over from his eldest brother Gelon, tyrant of Gela from ca. 491, after the latter had been summoned to help by the displaced oligarchic ‘land-owners’ (γαμόροι) of Syracuse and, in leading them back, ursurped the city (Hdt. 7.155–6). It was as regent of Gela that in 480 Hieron participated in the battle of Himera, where the combined forces of Theron of Akragas and Gelon of Syracuse defeated the Carthaginians, who had been invoked by Terillos of Himera against previous aggressions by Theron (Hdt. 7.165–6, D. S. 11.20–6).16

13 Gelon married Theron’s daughter Damarete, while Theron married the daughter of Polyzalos; after Gelon’s death Damarete became the wife of Polyzalos (schol. Ol.  2 inscr. (I 58.14–18 Dr.) = Timae. FGrH 566 F 93a, scholl. Ol. 2.29b, c (I 67.10–19, 68.1–2 Dr.), schol. Ol. 2.29d (I 69.1–8 Dr.) = Timae. FGrH 566 F 93b). Hieron first married a Syracusan, who bore him Deinomenes (probably in the late 480s), then the sister of Anaxilas of Rhegion (which did not prevent Hieron from protecting the Western Lokrians against Anaxilas’ agression: III.1, 34) and thirdly a niece or cousin of Theron (schol. Pyth. 1.112 (II 20.1–9 Dr.) = Philist. FGrH 556 F 50, Timae. FGrH 566 F 97; cf. schol. Ol. 2.29c (I 68.15–16 Dr.)). See Bonanno 2010: 115–16 (with Tav. 1), Morgan 2015: 60–1. 14 Between 490 and 468 the Emmenids and Deinomenids (including their associates Chromios and Hagesias) shared sixteen equestrian victories at mostly the great pan-Hellenic games. See Morgan 2015: 70–1. 15 Cf. II.3, 14 and 50–7b n. Previously, in 476, the inhabitants of Himera, then ruled by Thrasydaios, had attempted to implicate Hieron in a revolt (D. S. 11.48.6–49.4). 16 On Gelon’s take-over of Syracuse and the battle of Himera see Dunbabin 1948: 414–16, 420–6, Asheri 1988: 768–75, Luraghi 1994: 282–7, 304–21 and Morgan 2015: 23–30.

Pythian 1 in Context 


The spoils of Himera (cf. 48b–50a n. (πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον)) further increased the wealth of Syracuse, which Gelon had already enlarged by forced resettlements from Gela, Kamarina, Megara Hyblaia and Sicilian Euboia (Hdt. 7.156; cf. Thuc. 6.5.3). This flourishing city Hieron inherited upon Gelon’s death in 478, and he immediately strove to consolidate and extend the political influence of the Deinomenids. His most ambitious undertaking was the refoundation of Katane (Catania) as Aitna in 476/5. We cannot tell whether this was prompted by the eruption of Mt. Etna, not least because our sources variously date this to 479/8 or 475/4 (cf. 13–28n.). But if the earlier year is correct, the catastrophe probably helped, since the weakened community would have had less power to resist Hieron’s intervention and initially perhaps even welcomed it.17 This intervention consisted of removing the primarily Ionian inhabitants of Katane (and Naxos) to Leontinoi, after which Hieron repopulated the place with five thousand Peloponnesians and as many Syracusans (D. S. 11.49.1) or, according to schol. Pyth. 1.120b (II 21.1–3 Dr.), with people from Gela, Megara Hyblaia and Syracuse. Whatever the truth, Hieron evidently attempted to make Aitna a Dorian colony – witness the semi-mythical tale of the Dorian migration in Pyth. 1.61–618 – although it is perhaps unlikely that no Ionians at all remained.19 As ruler of Aitna Hieron installed his only son Deinomenes, initially with Hieron’s experienced general and brother-in-law Chromios as regent for the underage youth.20 To cement his rule further and to increase the reputation of his new city, Hieron established a sanctuary and annual festival in honour of Zeus Aitnaios (Aitnaia), which he administered himself as the high priest of the god.21 Other forms

17 Cf. Luraghi 1994: 340, Morgan 2015: 57, 320. 18 Cf. I, 5 and 61–70n. Schroeder (1922: on 61) suspected that the ‘Peloponnesians’ of Diodorus Siculus arose from a misunderstanding of this stanza (probably going back to Timaeus, who had recourse to Pindar’s epinicians: Neumann-Hartmann 2019: 34, 42). On the other hand, Pindar may reflect the actual events. Regarding the version of the scholion, Asheri (1992: 150 n. 1) notes that Megara Hyblaia had ceased to exist around 483. 19 Hornblower 2014: 201, who refers to the generally ‘mixed’ character of the Sicilian colonies (cf. Thuc. 6.17.2) and observes that ‘[p]opulation transfers and resettlements are rarely complete.’ In addition, the Peloponnesian settlers, if they came, need not all have been Dorians (Luraghi 1994: 338 n. 274; cf. Lewis 2019: 179). 20 Schol. Nem. 9 inscr. (III 149.22–150.1 Dr.) ὁ δὲ Χρόμιος οὗτος φίλος ἦν Ἱέρωνος, κατασταθεὶς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς Αἴτνης ἐπίτροπος. It is unclear when this arrangement ended. 21 Cf. Ol. 6.94–6 with scholl. 158a (I 191.14–15 Dr.) ἱεροσύνην ὁ Ἱέρων Δήμητρος καὶ Κόρης καὶ Διὸς Αἰτναίου, 162a (I 192.15–16 Dr.) ἐν τῇ Αἴτνῃ Διὸς Αἰτναίου ἄγαλμα ἵδρυται, καὶ ἐορτὴ Αἰτναῖα καλεῖται, 162c (I 192.18–19 Dr.) περιέπει δὲ καὶ θεραπεύει ὁ Ἱέρων καὶ τὸ κράτος τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Αἴτνην τιμωμένου, scholl. Pyth. 1.56b (II 15.23 Dr.), Nem. 1.4g, 7a, b (III 11.19–21, 11.22–



of propaganda were the issuing of two coins, a drachm and a tetradrachm, showing the image of the seated Zeus Aitnaios on their reverse (5–12n.), and not least Pythian 1 itself. With the foundation of Aitna Hieron was able to show himself on a par with Gelon and other Sicilian tyrants who had engaged in large-scale population transplants22 and to indulge his hopes of being posthumously honoured as a city-founder (30b–2a n.). But he still had no military success of his own to match Gelon’s and Theron’s victory at Himera. He achieved this in 474 when the Greek colony of Kyme on the Bay of Naples requested his assistance against the Etruscans, and his navy defeated them (D. S. 11.51). By that time, however, he was already ill with the disease which is alluded to in Pythian 1 (46, 50b–7nn.) and to which he succumbed in 467. His death did not immediately end Deinomenid rule in Syracuse and Aitna, but probably dealt a further blow to an already weakened regime. After less than a year, in 466/5, Hieron’s youngest brother and successor Thrasyboulos was deposed and forced into exile by a democratic uprising in Syracuse (D. S. 11.67.1–68.7), and the same happened to Deinomenes of Aitna in 461. The original inhabitants of Katane returned and established a democracy, while the expelled Dorians settled in Inessa, which they renamed ‘Aitna’ and to which they transferred the cult of Hieron as their oikist (D. S. 11.76.3–6, Str. 6.2.3). Deinomenes was murdered there in 451 (D. S. 11.91.1).23 Pythian 1 is our only contemporary written source for these events, with the exception of short allusions in other epinicians for Hieron and his associates. As a poet of praise, Pindar had the task of presenting his client in an unequivocally positive light, but it is nevertheless striking how hostile later historiography has been towards Hieron, especially compared to Gelon. This is particularly true of Diodorus Siculus (11.20–6, 49, 51, 66–8, 76), who probably drew on a combination of Ephorus and the Sicilian historians Timaeus and Philistus.24 But it would not be surprising if

12.1 Dr.), and see Lewis 2019: 143–9. Luraghi (1994: 339–40) plausibly suggests that the origin of the cult itself lay in the recent eruption of Mt. Etna and thus slightly preceded Hieron’s foundation. On its history after the fall of the Deinomenids see III.2, 34 n. 114. 22 See Luraghi 1994: 335–6, Morgan 2015: 55–6, 59–60. 23 On the successive fall of the Sicilian tyrannies, ending with that of the Deinomenids, see Asheri 1992: 154–61. 24 For a more positive fourth-century representation see Xenophon’s Hieron, a fictitious dialogue between Hieron and Simonides on the happiness of tyrants and their subjects. Plutarch (De sera 551f–52a) favourably compared Hieron and Peisistratos, and Aelian (VH 4.15) tells how Hieron became cultured during his illness, an anecdote doubtless prompted by the large number of poetic works he commissioned in his final years.

Pythian 1 in Context 


unrest had already been simmering in the last years of Hieron’s life.25 By an ironic turn of history, his defeat of Thrasydaios of Akragas in 472 had enabled a democratic revolution there and liberated Himera from Akragantine rule (above, 8). And by a remarkable poetic volte-face Pindar invoked ‘Saviour Fortune’, daughter of Zeus Eleutherios, at the beginning of Olympian 12 for Ergoteles of Himera, winner in the dolichos (long-distance race) of 466.26

2 Date and Occasion In contrast to several other Pindaric epinicians, there is no reasonable doubt about the date and/or occasion of Pythian 1. The scholia securely attest the 29th Pythiad (= 470) for Hieron’s victory with the four-horse chariot at Delphi, which prompted the composition of the ode.27 The source for this information will have been a Pythian victory list, similar to the catalogue of Olympic victors partially preserved in P. Oxy. 222 (III AD), which confirmed the dates of Olympians 1, 9, 10 and 11 as well as Bacch. 5. Given that the ancient commentators on the Pythians twice quote Aristotle in connection with dates and victories,28 it is probable that they followed the three-book Register of Victors in the Pythian Games (ἡ τῶν Πυθιονικῶν ἀναγραφή or Πυθιονίκαι) compiled around 330 by Aristotle and his younger relative Callisthenes (Arist. frr. 615–17 Rose). On our evidence, this authoritative work contained not only a complete list of athletic (and perhaps musical) victors, but also a wealth of information about the history of the Pythian festival and competitions.29 For reconstructing the performance context of Pindar’s (and Bacchylides’) epinicians we almost invariably have to rely on internal evidence.30 From Pythian 1 it is clear that the ode was intended for a major public celebration in Sicily, where

25 Cf. ch. II.3. Asheri (1992: 153) cautiously places in this context Aristotle’s description of a system of public surveillance in Syracuse (Pol. 1313b11–15). 26 Ol. 12.1–2 λίσσομαι, παῖ Ζηνὸς Ἐλευθερίου, / Ἱμέραν εὐρυσθενέ᾽ ἀμφιπόλει, σώτειρα Τύχα. Cf. Barrett 1973 = 2007: 78–97, Lloyd-Jones 1982: 141 = 1990: 59, Hornblower 2006: 156–7. 27 Schol. Pyth. 1 intr. (II 5.13–15 Dr.) ἐνίκησε δὲ ὁ Ἱέρων … τὴν … κθ´ ἅρματι, εἰς ἣν ὁ ὑποκείμενος ἐπίνικος τέτακται. Numbers tend to get corrupted in the manuscript tradition, but the present passage, which also dates Hieron’s Pythian victories with the race-horse to the 26th Pythiad (= 482) and 27th Pythiad (= 478) respectively, shows no variation. 28 Scholl. Ol. 2.87e (I 82.24–6 Dr.), Isth. 2 inscr. a (III 212.18–20 Dr.). 29 Christesen 2007: 179–202; cf. Hornblower 2004: 42, Neumann-Hartmann 2019: 47 with n. 105. Both Aristotle and Callisthenes are named in SIG3 275 = FD 3.1.400 (Callisth. FGrH 124 T 23), the fragment of a decree honouring them for producing the list. All other ancient sources only refer to Aristotle. 30 See Currie 2005: 17–18.



Hieron’s Delphic chariot victory, prestigious as is was, served as a mere pretext for extolling his military and political achievements, in particular the foundation of Aitna. Comparison with Bacch. 4, the other epinician written for Hieron on this occasion, highlights the unusual historical focus of Pythian 1. It is generally assumed that Bacch. 4 was first performed ‘on site’ in Delphi.31 The short song therefore concentrates on Hieron’s official status as ruler of Syracuse (1–3), and his multiple hippic triumphs at the Olympian and Pythian Games, including the present one (4–20). Any mention of Hieron’s battles or the foundation of Aitna would have been inappropriate at a victory celebration where the principal part of the audience was not Hieron’s associates and subjects, but the assembled free aristocracy of the Greek world, and it lay in the interest of the honorand to portray himself as one of their equals.32 Whether Pythian 1 and Bacch. 4 are otherwise related is a matter of speculation. We do not know how the ‘spontaneous’ epinicians were produced and rehearsed, but it is conceivable that a confident and immensely wealthy client like Hieron commissioned one in advance to be able to show himself in the best light should he win.33 Likewise Hieron may have had early talks with Pindar about a ‘big’ ode for Sicily and the shape it should take. In that case it is possible that Pythian 1 and Bacch. 4 were designed to complement each other. It has long been debated whether Pythian 1 saw its premiere in Syracuse or in Aitna, but the majority of scholars have always favoured the latter.34 The city of

31 Cf. Bacch. 4.4–6 τρίτον γὰρ παρ᾽ [ὀμφα]λὸν ὑψιδείρου χθονός  / Πυ̣[θ]ιόνικος ἀ[είδε]ται  / ὠ[κυ]πόδων ἀρ̣[ετᾷ] σὺν ἵππων, and see e.g. Maehler 1982: 64–5 ~ 2004: 100–1, Dougherty 1993: 100 n. 47, Neumann-Hartmann 2009: 38, 70. The seminal study of this type of epinician, which can only be identified by internal criteria, is Gelzer 1985. His influential approach has been severely criticised by Eckerman (2012), who rightly points out that the evidence for some odes is weak or indeed non-existent. Eckerman does not, however, succeed in eliminating the possibility of on-site performance. His arguments regarding Bacch. 4 in particular are unconvincing (pp. 345–50). 32 See Hose 2000: 163–8, who subtly analyses Bacch. 4 as both maintaining and transcending this convention. The poet mentions Hieron’s hometown, Syracuse, but marks him as of special status (3 ἀστύθεμιν); Hieron’s current victory continues not a family tradition (cf. e.g. Pyth. 7.13–16, of the Alcmeonids), but his own athletic history; and he is not primus inter pares, but ‘the only one of men’ (15 μοῦνον ἐπιχθονίων̣) who with the help of the gods (18–19 θ̣εο̣ῖσ̣ιν / φίλον ἐόντα) achieved such success (i.e. three equestrian victories at the Pythian Games). 33 Cf. Maehler 1982: 64–5 ~ 2004: 100–1 and Hose 2000: 162–4. Currie (2011: 304 n. 142) compares the story of Eubotas of Kyrene (fourth century BC), who pre-commissioned and immediately dedicated a victory statue at Olympia because an oracle had predicted his victory in the chariot-race (Paus. 6.8.3). 34 Firmly for Syracuse: e.g. Dissen 1830: 162, Fennell 1893: 142; Aitna: e.g. Boeckh 1821: II.2 226, Mezger 1880: 73, Burton 1962: 91, Neumann-Hartmann 2007: 68 and the authors quoted in n. 36.

Pythian 1 in Context 


Aitna and its environs dominate the geography of the ode. Mt. Etna is first named at the end of the first triad (20 νιφόεσσ᾽ Αἴτνα), and the ecphrasis of its eruption leads to a prayer to Zeus (Aitnaios) and the proclamation of Hieron as founder of, and victor from, Aitna (29–33). Later on Hieron’s son Deinomenes is referred to as ‘king of Aitna’ (58–60 Αἴτνας βασιλεῖ) before Pindar elaborates on the city’s Dorian roots (61–6) and prays to Zeus (τέλειος) for its future prosperity and good order (67–70). In this final mention Aitna is represented by the river Amenas (67 Ἀμένα παρ᾽ ὕδωρ), a periphrasis which presupposes some local knowledge on the part of the poet and his audience. Despite these strong indications, Morrison doubts a first performance in Aitna because of the deictic pronouns Pindar uses to designate the locality. Mt. Etna is τοῦτ᾽ … ὄρος (30) and Aitna itself πόλιν κείναν (61), both contrary to Pindar’s ‘usual way of denoting the immediate surroundings of the performance  … with ὅδε’.35 However, as Morrison himself admits, it is possible to understand these demonstratives ‘grammatically’, that is as referring back to something just mentioned, with an additional sense of prestige to κείναν (cf. 29–30a, 61–2a nn.). On this interpretation, the pronouns would not rule out an Aitnaian premiere, although Morrison is right to point out that one cannot be certain. Whether Pythian 1 was first performed in Syracuse or Aitna, the context will have been a public event aimed at affording maximal attention to Hieron and his political agenda. But in Aitna one particular occasion offered itself. It has plausibly been suggested that Pythian 1 was presented to the world at the Aitnaia festival.36 This possibility is envisaged for Nemean 1, written for Chromios of Aitna around the same time as Pythian 1, in an ancient note based on Didymus. Schol. Nem. 1.7b (III 11.25–12.4 Dr.) = Didym. fr. 37 Braswell states that ‘Hieron’s associates used to sing the epinicians which had been composed for the crown-bearing games at the contest and festival of Zeus Aitnaios. Hence Didymos says it is credible that the epinician for Chromios’ Nemean victory was composed for the reason that it was meant to be sung by the gathering at the festival.’37 We do not know the origin of

35 Morrison 2007: 66–7; cf. Athanassaki 2009: 250. 36 Thus e.g. Wilamowitz 1922: 298, Cingano 1995: 9, Hose 2000: 165, Currie 2005: 18, 2011: 274–5 with n. 25, Morgan 2015: 111, 115 with n. 107, Lewis 2019: 149–50. On the Aitnaia see II.1, 9–10 with n. 21. The evidence tells against Morrison (2007: 67) who surmised that the Aitnaia were celebrated in Syracuse, in an attempt to reconcile the idea of a premiere at the festival, which has some ancient support (below), with his doubts that Pythian 1 was first performed in Aitna (above). 37 Ζηνὸς Αἰτναίου χάριν: … παρόσον ἐν τῷ ἀγῶνι καὶ ἐν τῇ πανηγύρει τοῦ Αἰτναίου Διὸς ᾖδον οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἱέρωνα τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς στεφανίταις ἀγῶσι πεποιημένους ἐπινίκους [καὶ ᾖδον]. πιθανὸν οὖν φησιν ὁ Δίδυμος καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς Χρομίου Νεμεακῆς νίκης ἐπίνικον ἕνεκα τούτου συντετάχθαι, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μέλλειν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῆς πανηγύρεως ᾀσθήσεσθαι. Transl. Currie 2005: 17 (slightly adapted).



the information which led Didymus to his assumption, but it looks too detailed to be a mere inference from the ode (Nem. 1.4–7). The scholion therefore provides some support for the hypothesis that Pythian 1 was first performed at the Aitnaia of 470. This would lend particular poignancy not only to Pindar’s prayer to Zeus Aitnaios (29–30), but also to his description of Zeus in the proem, with thunderbolt and sceptre crowned by a (sleeping) eagle (5–10). A similar image found on contemporary Aitnaian coins has been thought to represent the appearance of the cult statue of Zeus Aitnaios mentioned in schol. Ol. 6.162a (n. 21), and one could hardly overestimate the impact Pindar’s poetry would have had on an audience which was in the process of honouring the god and perhaps even stood facing his image.38

3 Pindar’s Strategy of Praise In Pythian 1 Pindar goes far beyond traditional epinician motifs, such as praise of the victor and the glory he confers upon his family and community (the main purpose of the genre) or the danger of arousing public envy (cf. 81–100, 85–6a nn.). Even among victory odes for rulers (if one excludes Pythians 2 and 3, which are unusual in many other ways), Pythian 1 stands out for its emphasis on Hieron’s non-athletic achievements, that is his martial exploits at Himera and Kyme and his foundation of Aitna. Careful analysis of Pindar’s encomiastic strategy suggests that the aim of Pythian 1 was not only to extol Hieron, but also to legitimise his rule, and that of the Deinomenid dynasty, in the face of latent opposition.39 The thwarted attack by Thrasydaios of Akragas in 472, which Diodorus Siculus (11.53.5) says cost the lives of some two thousand Syracusans, will have reminded Hieron that military threats did not only come from non-Greeks (cf. II.1, 8). More­ over, his advanced age and prolonged illness (46, 50b–7nn.) must have posed questions of securing his rule. Given that neither the Deinomenids nor Aitna lasted long after Hieron’s death (II.1, 10), one wonders whether signs of instability were already visible in the late 470s and whether they were one reason why the foundation of Aitna was celebrated on such an unprecendented scale. Finally, it has been suggested that Hieron had to deal with charges from the mainland Greeks that the Deinomenids, especially Gelon, did not send military aid against the Per-

38 Cf. II.1, 9–10 and 5–12n. Apart from the coins, there is no archaeological evidence for the cult of Zeus Aitnaios in Aitna. Presumably the cult statue stood in his sanctuary (as the Phidias Zeus of Olympia) and was revealed to the public at the festival, either by opening the temple doors or, if its size permitted, by being carried outside (cf. Vonderstein 2006: 158–9). 39 Cf. Pfeijffer 2005: 37.

Pythian 1 in Context 


sians.40 While there is no hard evidence for this notion, the fact that Herodotus devotes considerable space to an abortive joint mission by Athens and Sparta to Gelon (7.153–67) shows that it may have a historical basis. It would provide a partial explanation for the Deinomenids’ eagerness to put themselves on the pan-Hellenic stage, for which Pythian 1 is the principal literary witness. Pindar’s double strategy of praise emerges gradually as the poem progresses. The theme of music and harmony, which dominates the first half of the proem (1–12), is later transferred to the political sphere when Pindar asks Zeus to assist Hieron in leading his people to ‘harmonious peace’ (69–70 (n.); cf. I, 5–6). Together these two passages depict Hieron not only as a divinely favoured ruler, but also as an exceptionally cultured one, whose appreciation for music and poetry translates into his style of government. This far supersedes the praise Pindar and Bacchylides lavish elsewhere on Hieron’s musical connoisseurship41 and accurately reflects his programme of political propaganda through the arts, especially poetry.42 The last point also applies to Pindar’s claim in 32–3 that the herald at Delphi announced Hieron as a victor from Aitna rather than Syracuse, as Bacch. 4.1–3 and P. Oxy. 222 suggest (II.2, 11–12). This small ‘correction of the truth’, if such it is, helps Pindar to subordinate the Pythian chariot victory to the foundation of Aitna (29–40, 30b–3a nn.). Hieron is in fact first mentioned as κλεινὸς οἰκιστήρ (31), a term that is associated with the worship of founder-heroes and probably resonated strongly with the ailing tyrant, who actually was so honoured for a time after his death (30b–2a n.; cf. II.1, 10). Another sign of Hieron’s desire for political stability in Syracuse and Aitna is Pindar’s attempt, in Pythian 1 and elsewhere, to portray the Deinomenid rule as a hereditary monarchy, with both Hieron and his son Deinomenes termed βασιλεύς (58–60, 60, 67–8 (βασιλεῦσιν) nn.). In accordance with this, Aitna is implicitly hailed as a new Sparta, the only contemporary monarchy in mainland Greece. The idealised picture of Aitna’s Dorian constitution in 61–70 elegantly glosses over the violence that was involved in its foundation and any lingering tensions, which led to the overthrow of the old regime in the late 460s (61–70, 67–8, 69–70 (δᾶμον γεραίρων) nn.; cf. I, 5, II.1, 9).

40 Hubbard 2004: 74–5. 41 Ol.  1.14–17 ἀγλαΐζεται δὲ καί  / μουσικᾶς ἐν ἀώτῳ,  / οἷα παίζομεν φίλαν  / ἄνδρες ἀμφὶ θαμὰ τράπεζαν, 103–5, 6.96–7 ἁδύλογοι δέ νιν / λύραι μολπαί τε γινώσκοντι, Bacch. 3.71 [ἰοπλό]κων τε μέρο[ς ἔχοντ]α Μουσᾶν, 85 φρονέοντι συνετὰ γαρύω (cf. Ol. 2.83–6, of Theron), 5.3–6 γνώσῃ μὲν [ἰ]οστεφάνω̣ ν / Μοισᾶν γλυκ[ύ]δωρον ἄγαλ̣μ̣α, τῶν γε νῦν / αἴ τις ἐπιχθονίων, / ὀρθῶς. Cf. Morgan 2015: 91–3. 42 For the poetic celebration of Aitna see ch. II.4.



Hieron’s military achievements occupy even more space than Aitna. Whereas the new city fits into epinician primarily as the place that gained kudos from Hieron’s victory,43 there is a closer link between martial and athletic triumphs, not least because many sporting disciplines, including chariot-racing, originate in military practice.44 It was thus easy for Pindar to merge the two spheres in Pythian 1 by applying the motif of the ‘victory crown’ to both: 37 (35b–8n.) στεφάνοισί ἵπποις τε κλυτάν, 50 (48b–50a n.) πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον, 100 (99–100n.) στέφανον ὕψιστον. Nevertheless, in order to accommodate Hieron’s military deeds to epinician, which only ever knows one victor, Pindar again had to bend the truth slightly by presenting him as more or less solely responsible not only for the success at Kyme, but also for that at Himera, which was largely due to Gelon (II.1, 8–9; cf. 47–50a, 79–80nn.). On this basis Hieron’s exploits are raised to new encomiastic heights. The comparison with Philoctetes (50–7) introduces the Trojan War as a paradigm for especially Kyme and casts Hieron in the light of an epic hero who made the decisive intervention, despite serious physical weakness (cf.  46–57, 54–5, 47–8a (τλάμονι ψυχᾷ παρέμειν᾽), 50b–7nn.). When subsequently Himera and Kyme are paralleled with Salamis and Plataea, Pindar taps into the contemporary political rhetoric of the mainland Greeks who justifiably saw their freedom preserved by their unexpected defeat of the Persians (71–80, 72b–5a, 75b–80nn.). Hieron thus emerges as the saviour of all Greece (75) at the mythical as well as the historical level.45 What better way to advertise one’s ambitions for pan-Hellenic recognition? In terms of sheer material for praise, the ode could have ended here, after the fourth triad, as Pindar himself appears to suggest (81–4n.; cf. I, 6–7). But he continues with a eulogy, masked as poetic advice, of Hieron as a ‘good ruler’ who

43 Cf. 31 (30b–2a) ἐκύδανεν πόλιν, 36–8 (35b–8n.) δόξαν φέρει / λοιπὸν ἔσσεσθαι στεφάνοισί ν (Aitna) ἵπποις τε κλυτάν / καὶ σὺν εὐφώνοις θαλίαις ὀνυμαστάν. 44 Cf. the praise of Hieron’s and Chromios’ valour in Pyth. 2.18–20, 63–5 and Nem. 9.34–43 respectively and the parallel mention of military and athletic prowess in Nem. 1.16–18 (of Sicily) ὤπασε δὲ Κρονίων πολέμου μναστῆρά οἱ χαλκεντέος / λαὸν ἵππαιχμον, θαμὰ δὴ καὶ Ὀλυμπιάδων φύλλοις ἐλαιᾶν χρυσέοις / μιχθέντα. The participation of eminent warriors in athletic contests has a long mythical tradition. To judge by the literary and pictorial evidence, the two best-known cases in Pindar’s time were the funeral games for Patroclus (Il. 23.262–897, where the largest part of the narrative is devoted to the chariot race) and those for Pelias, which were extensively treated by Stesichorus (frr. 1–4 Finglass), very probably after an epic source (see Davies–Finglass 2014: 209–29). The four pan-Hellenic crown games and many smaller competitions, were thought to have originated in funeral games (Roller 1981: 107–8 nn. 4, 5; cf. Davies–Finglass 2014: 217) 45 Pfeijffer 2005: 37. The correspondence between myth and history is underscored by Pindar’s use of epic forms and vocabulary not only in the story of Philoctetes (50b–1a (Φιλοκτήταο), 52b–3, 54–5nn.), but also in his description of Hieron’s battles (72–5a n.).

Pythian 1 in Context 


makes wise use of his status and wealth and therefore deserves ‘imperishable fame’ through song, as a primus inter pares at the aristocratic symposia of mainland Greece (cf. 81–100, 85–100, 86b, 89–90, 91–2a, 94b–100nn.). The positive example of Croesus of Lydia (94b–100, 94b nn.) and the negative one of Phalaris of Akragas (95–8n.) illustrate Pindar’s often abstract and highly metaphorical statements and adhortations. The story of Croesus’ rescue from the pyre by Apollo (and Zeus) is first extensively told in Bacch. 3, composed for Hieron’s Olympic chariot victory of 468. But it must be implied here, and one wonders whether the tyrant asked Bacchylides for a more elaborate treatment of a tale that is bound to have appealed to him for the public image it conveyed. It is only at the end of Pythian 1 that one can understand the full encomiastic import of the Typhos-episode (13–28). It is hardly coincidence that the subterranean extent of the monster, from Mt. Etna to the area of Kyme, corresponds to Hieron’s dominion, which thus receives a central position in the order of the world.46 And scholars regularly draw parallels between Zeus’ victory over Typhos and Hieron’s defeat of his enemies and the following reigns of peace and prosperity.47 Yet unlike in Nemeans 1 and 9, where Chromios is quite explicitly compared to Heracles (see 1–12, 46nn.), Pindar in Pythian 1 refrains from openly likening Hieron to Zeus; the tyrant still requires his support, as Pindar’s repeated invocations prove (29–30, 67–70, 71–5; cf. I, 4–5, 6). ‘The propagandistic potential inherent [here] is immense. Through the connection with the highest of gods, Hieron is portrayed as the most powerful human of his time, and questioning his authority emerges as an act of arrogance comparable to the transgressions of Tantalus [in Olympian 1] or Ixion [in Pythian 2]’.48 Occasionally a warning of future upheaval has been read into the ‘foundation myth’ of Aitna and their associated prayers (61–70),49 and the same could be said about the Typhos-episode. But such subversive undertones, appealing as they may be to modern political scepticism, are alien to panegyric of all times. It is true that Typhos persists in posing the risk of volcanic eruptions and that the Dorian migrations, like the establishment of Aitna, were not a peaceful process. Yet there is no

46 Lewis 2019: 162–3. 47 E.g. Schroeder 1922: on 70  ff., Burton 1962: 104–5, Köhnken 1970: 13 with n. 3, Cingano 1995: 14, 18–19, Pfeijffer 2005: 20, 37–40, Morgan 2015: 313–18 and Meister 2019: 367–8 (with further literature in n. 11). Cf. 1–28, 13–28, 50b–7, 69–70 (σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν), 71–80 (end), 72b–5a (τὰν πρὸ Κύμας), 79–80 (πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν καμόντων) nn. 48 Meister 2019: 369, who also notes that the association of Hieron with Zeus, i.e. of a mortal with a deity (rather than a hero like Heracles or Achilles), is unique in epinician. Meister has examined this relationship throughout Pindar’s odes for Hieron and his associates. 49 See Mezger 1880: on 67, Burton 1962: 104.



notion that Typhos will ever escape – such is the power of Zeus. And Sparta, the prototype Aitna’s ‘divinely-fashioned freedom’ (61 θεοδμάτῳ σὺν ἐλευθερίᾳ), remains firm and has recently played a decisive role in repelling the Persians. By the same token, Pindar implies, Hieron stands on the right side and will, with the help of Zeus, continue to keep his internal and external enemies at bay.50 The warning, if any was intended, was directed at the opponents of his rule.51

4 Other Poetry on Hieron and Aitna It has rightly been said that Aitna ‘may have been the most celebrated city foundation ever’,52 and the same is likely to be true, mutatis mutandis, of Hieron’s Pythian victory of 470. If one considers the literary productions alone,53 six poetic works, in addition to Pythian 1, can be certainly or with varying probability associated with one or both of these occasions.54 They include lyric and dramatic compositions by the most eminent poets of the time: Pindar, Bacchylides, Aeschylus and possibly also Simonides. All are interesting in their own right, but it will be particularly profitable to examine them in context for thematic overlaps, or indeed intertextual relationships, with each other and Pythian 1. The following discussions are arranged by

50 Cf. 71–80n. (end). Athanassaki (2003: 119–21) rightly concedes that the ‘colonial violence’ which shines through the Typhos-myth ‘is … sanctioned through its subordination to the cardinal cos­ mogo­nic issue, the victory of cosmos over chaos, thus minimizing mortal transgression’ (121). 51 Pindar employed a similar encomiastic technique in Nemean 9, where the myth of Adrastos and Amphiaraos (8–27) emphasises the dangers of civic dissension and external war. This is followed by a prayer to Zeus to prevent further Carthaginian attacks and grant perpetual good rule to the Aitnaians (28–33) and by praise of their and Chromios’ prowess (33–43). Since Chromios was almost certainly regent of Aitna at the time of the ode (474?), Pindar effectively presents him as the solution to the double threat (cf. Morgan 2015: 411–12). 52 Dougherty 1993: 84. 53 For Aitnaian coinage aimed at promoting the new city see I, 4, II.1, 9–10, II.2, 14 and 5–12n. 54 I exclude Pi. frr. 91 (= Porph. de abst. 3.16.5), 92, 93 (= Strab. 13.4.6 + schol. Il. 2.783 (I 168 Erbse) (fr. 92)), which refer to different versions and aspects of the Typhos-myth (cf. 13–28n. (105 n. 9)). Porphyrius cites a Pindaric prosodion as his source. Ever since Boeckh (1821: II.2 589, 618), frr. 92 and 93 have been attributed to the same poem because of their similar subject-matter (though Boeckh preferred a skolion for Hieron). But there are no compelling reasons for this, nor indeed for taking frr. 92 and 93 together (D’Alessio 1997: 39–40, who points out that Pindar mentions Typhos three times in his epinicians alone and that we should have been equally tempted to join the dactylo-epitrite frr. 92 and 93 with Pyth. 1.17–19, which Strabo also quotes, had the latter ode not survived complete). It is conceivable, however, that the prosodion represented by fr. 91 was composed for the Aitnaians after they were impressed by the Typhos-episode in Pythian 1.

Pythian 1 in Context 


poetic genre (lyric before drama) and internally, as far as possible, by decreasing likelihood that the work in question belongs to the Pythian victory and/or Aitna.

a) Bacchylides 4 Bacchylides’ Fourth Epinician has already been discussed for its most salient differences from Pythian 1, which are thought to derive from its likely performance immediately at Delphi (ch. II.2, 12). But one also needs to remember that, despite its brevity and consequent lack of a myth, Bacch. 4 is the more ‘normal’ epinician because it centres on the victory. In Pythian 1 any mention of Hieron’s Delphic cha­ riot-victory and hope of further such success serves the glorification of Aitna (30–3, 35–7, 58–60), whereas in Bacch. 4 his illustrious series of Pythian and Olympian horse victories (4–18) is a tribute to him alone. However, it is noteworthy that the two poems end on essentially the same sentiment: Bacch. 4.18–20 τί φέ̣ρτερον ἢ θ̣εο̣ῖσ̣ιν / φίλον ἔοντα παντο[δ]α̣πῶν / λαγχάνειν ἄπο μοῖρα[ν] ἐ̣σ̣θλῶν; ~ Pyth. 1.99– 100 τὸ δὲ παθεῖν εὖ πρῶτον ἀέθλων· εὖ δ᾽ ἀκούειν δευτέρα μοῖρ᾽· ἀμφοτέροισι δ᾽ ἀνήρ / ὃς ἂν ἐγκύρσῃ καὶ ἕλῃ, στέφανον ὕψιστον δέδεκται. It is as if Pindar consciously returned to ‘epinician mode’ at the end of his ode (cf. 99–100n.). Other resemblances between the poems are less obvious and probably coincidental. In Bacch. 4.7–8 Maas plausibly restored ἀ̣[ναξιφόρ]μιγγος Οὐρ[αν]ί ̣ας. The adjective is otherwise only attested in Ol. 2.1 ἀναξιφόρμιγγες ὕμνοι (for Theron of Akragas, 476). Whether or not Bacchylides alluded to this ode,55 it is interesting that Pindar expresses the opposite relationship between lyre and singer / song in Pyth. 1.2–3 (τᾶς …) πείθονται δ᾽ ἀοιδοὶ σάμασιν (cf. 2b–4n.). But Pindar more likely recalled his own earlier composition than the passage in Bacch. 4, which is less close in concept and which he may or may not have known (ch. II.2, 12). By the same token, Pyth. 1.79 παίδεσσιν … Δεινομένεος has a much lesser claim to being connected with Bacch. 4.13 Δεινομένεος … υἱόν than with Bacch. 5.35–6 Δεινομένευς … / παῖδες (for Hieron, 476), where the context is similar (79–80n.).

55 Maehler (1982: 72 n. 20) is sceptical on the ground that Hieron did not necessarily know the ­epinician for Theron. Yet if Bacchylides had in mind not only the honorand, but also potentially overlapping and indeed subsequent audiences, an intertextual reference is possible (Morrison 2007: 88).



b) Bacchylides fr. 20C The remains of this enkōmion for Hieron consist of four reasonably well-preserved single strophes in dactylo-epitrites and fragments of another four where little beyond the occasional word can be identified.56 It is a sympotic song (3–6 Ἱ]έρων[ί ⏑ –] (…) [κα]ὶ συμπόταις ἄνδρεσσι π[έμπειν]), which includes a current as well as two previous hippic victories among the praise for its honorand (4 ξα̣νθαῖσιν ἵπποις, 7–11), thus showing the fluidity between epinician and other types of encomiastic poetry. Since the plural ἵπποις points to a chariot-victory57 and the earlier triumphs are attributed to Hieron’s famed race-horse Pherenikos, which certainly won at Olympia in 476 (cf. 9–10 ἐπ᾽ Αλ-] / φ[ε]ῷ) and at Delphi in 478 (cf. 8 lacuna?),58 the only possible occasions for Pindar’s enkōmion are Hieron’s Delphic victory of 470 or his Olympian one of 468. Cingano (1991) convincingly argued for 470 on the ground that Pindar’s poetic announcement of his intention to send the song [Αἴ]τ̣ναν ἐς ἐΰκτιτον (7) would only suit a celebration in Aitna, which is likely to have taken place in 470/69.59 By contrast, there is no information about where Hieron marked his Olympian victory of 468, for which he commissioned Bacch. 3. If Bacch. fr. 20C was composed for the same victory as Pythian 1 and Bacch. 4, to be performed at a private symposium following the public celebration at Aitna, the similarities in wording and content between the poems would become intertextual links, once more raising the questions if and how far Pindar and Bacchylides collaborated for Hieron.60 Under this scenario, as Budelmann (n. 60) pointed out, Bacchylides’ enkōmion would be the first song to fulfil Pindar’s implicit promise at the end of Pythian 1 (95–8) of future sympotic praise for Hieron (cf. III.1, 29, 33–4). The same sense of

56 Restored from P. Oxy. 1361 + 2081e. The length of the song is uncertain, and Maehler tentatively posits the beginning of a new poem after the sixth stanza. The title ΕΓΚΩΜΙΑ for the book that covers Bacch. frr. 20, 20A–G, 21 goes back to Körte (1918: 137–40). It has become established as a better match for the type of song represented than ΣΚΟΛΙΑ or ΠΑΡΟΙΝΙΑ (Grenfell–Hunt 1915: 65, 66). No ancient evidence survives. 57 For ἵπποι meaning ‘horses and chariot’ or simply ‘chariot’ in epinician see e.g. Ol. 1.41, Pyth. 5.21, Isth. 1.62, Bacch. 3.4; Slater s.v. ἵππος, Cingano 1991: 32 with n. 6. 58 The connective τε following … ἐπ᾽ Αλ-] / φ[ε]ῷ in 10 shows that another victory of the horse, at a different location, must be mentioned in the preceding lines, and Delphi is the only candidate (cf. Bacch. 4.14–16). Whether Hieron’s race-horse victory at the Pythian Games of 482 was also already owed to Pherenikos is irrelevant here. 59 Cf. II.2, 13–14; Maehler 1997: 333–4 ~ 2004: 251–2, Morgan 2015: 248–50. 60 Budelmann 2012: 179 n. 18. For the possibility that Bacch. 4 and Pythian 1 represent co-ordinated efforts see II.2, 12.

Pythian 1 in Context 


continuation is evoked by the openings of the poems. Both Pythian 1 and Bacch. fr. 20C begin with a reference to the lyre. But while Pindar calls upon the instrument as an initiator of song and dance (1–4), Bacchylides starts ‘with the command not to stop the music yet’ (1–2 μήπω λιγυαχέ̣[α κοίμα] / βάρβιτον),61 as if a day of intense festivity was drawing to a close and he wished to add one more song. On a verbal level, the Homeric epithet ἐΰκτιτος applied to Aitna in Bacch. fr. 20C.7 resonates with the references to Hieron as the city’s founder in Pyth. 1.31 (30b–2a n.) κλεινὸς οἰκιστήρ and 61–2a (n.) τῷ πόλιν κείναν … / … ἔκτισσε and with his appellation as κτίστορ Αἴτνας in Pi. fr. 105a.3 (below). In addition, both Pythian 1 and the enkōmion honour Hieron with a ‘superlative vaunt’, a rhetorical trope often employed in eulogy to ‘assert the superiority of the subject over all others’:62 Pyth. 1.49–50 οἵαν οὔτις Ἑλλάνων δρέπει / πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον ~ Bacch. fr. 20C.21–4 [οὔτι]ν᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἕ̣[τερον καθορᾷ] / λε[ύκι]ππος Ἀώς / τόσσ̣[ο]ν ἐφ᾽ ἁλικία[ι] / φέγγος κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπ[ους φέρουσα].63 Here the shared use of the formula οὔτις + genitive, which occurs at least once more in Bacchylides (8.22–5),64 but nowhere else in Pindar, is worth noting. More importantly, however, both ‘vaunts’ are (indirectly in Pythian 1) preceded by a summary priamel emphasising the poet’s unique talent for praise: Pyth. 1.41–3 (41–2a n.) ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ μαχαναὶ πᾶσαι βροτέαις ἀρεταῖς, / καὶ σοφοὶ καὶ χερσὶ βιαταὶ περίγλωσσοί τ᾽ ἔφυν. ἄνδρα δ᾽ ἐγὼ κεῖνον / αἰνῆσαι μενοινῶν ~ Bacch. fr. 20C.19–20 [τέχν]αι γε μέν εἰσ̣[ι]ν ἅπα̣[σαι] / [μυρία]ι· σὺν θεῷ δὲ θ[α]ρ̣σή[σας ⏑ – –] (πιφαύσκω suppl. Maas, θροήσω Schadewaldt). If the poems were performed on the same day, these subtle parallels could have been perceived. Finally, the catalogues of Hieron’s equestrian victories in Bacch. 4.4–18 and fr. 20C.4, 7–11 can hardly be coincidental or due to lack of poetic imagination. And they stand out sufficiently in each case to be remembered, even after some interval

61 Morgan 2015: 350. On the supplement, and possible alternatives that would not change the meaning, see Maehler 1997 ~ 2004: on 1–2. Technically, the barbitos is a different type of lyre from the phorminx and particularly associated with sympotic performance (West 1992: 50–1, 57–9, 348). 62 Race 1987: 139 n. 23; cf. 47–50a n. 63 Despite the heavy supplementation, this must essentially be what Bacchylides wrote. For [οὔτι]ν᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἕ̣[τερον … (H. Fränkel, Schadewaldt) cf. Pyth. 2.58–60 εἰ δέ τις / … λέγει / ἕτερόν τιν᾽ ἀν᾽ Ἑλλάδα τῶν πάροιθε γενέσθαι ὑπέρτερον and Bacch. 8.22–5 οὔτις ἀνθρώπων κ[αθ᾽ Ἑλλά-] / νας … / … π[λεῦ-] / νας ἐδέξατο νίκας. In 24 Snell’s κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπ[ους φέρουσα] seems preferable to Maas’ κατ᾽ ἀνθρώπ[ων χέοντα], even though it requires, somewhat counter-intuitively, τόσσ̣[ο]ν to be taken of Hieron rather than with φέγγος. With χέοντα and metaphorical φέγγος ‘it seems difficult to see in what sense Hieron could have ‘showered mankind’ [rather than e.g. ‘his people’] with joy, glory or benefactions’ (Maehler 2004: on 23–4, against his text and note in 1997). 64 At the beginning of Bacch. fr. 20B.24, where a word shaped – ⏑ is missing, Maehler prints Snell’s [οὔτις] ἀνθρώπων, but the passage is too lacunose for one to be confident.



and without a copy of the earlier poem, which we can assume Hieron to have possessed (ch. V.1, 45). This thematic link tells us nothing about the order in which the epinician and the enkōmion were produced, but again it makes more sense if the latter also belonged to 470.65 Bacch. fr. 20C therefore is a fitting (last?) member in the chain of lyric praise poetry composed for Hieron’s Pythian chariot-victory and the foundation of Aitna. It sides with Bacch. 4 in putting more emphasis on Hieron’s athletic prowess (in fact it alludes to all his victories to date), while at the same time being firmly associated with Aitna. In other words, it is a local reprise of the Delphic eulogy, which underpins the hopes expressed for the city and its founder in Pythian 1.

c) Pindar fr. 105a, b (a)       (b)      


Σύνες ὅ τοι λέγω, ζαθέων ἱερῶν ἐπώνυμε, πάτερ, κτίστορ Αἴτνας·   νομάδεσσι γὰρ ἐν Σκύθαις ἀλᾶται στρατῶν, ὃς ἀμαξοφόρητον οἶκον οὐ πέπαται, νομάδεσσι γὰρ ἐν Σκύθαις ἀλᾶται στρατῶν, Understand what I tell you, | you whose name means holy temples, | father, founder of Aitna.   For among the nomadic Scythians the man is excluded from the folk, | who does not possess a house borne on a wagon, | and he goes without glory (transl. Race).

These two fragments ascribed to a hyporchēma for Hieron are transmitted in several Pindaric and Aristophanic scholia, and the first line of fr. 105a also acquired a substantial life of its own.66 Ancient scholars identified the poem as a ‘free extra’ to Pythian 2 (Schol. Pyth. 2.127 (II 52.7–10 Dr.)), whose date and occasion, unfortunately, are insecure, except that it was for a chariot-victory (4–5, 8, 10–12). Although a good case can be made for dating the epinician late in Hieron’s career, to 470 or even 468,67 this provides no firm evidence for the hyporchēma because we do not 65 Cf. Cingano 1991: 34 with n. 11. 66 See the testimonial apparatus in Snell–Maehler. 67 Cingano 1995: 43–7.

Pythian 1 in Context 


know on what grounds the Alexandrians connected the two works or whether they belong together at all.68 However, there is external evidence that Pindar in the hyporchēma not only used κτίστορ Αἴτνας as one appellation for Hieron that was possible after 476/5, but that the song was more closely associated with the city’s foundation. It is parodied in Ar. Av. 915–48, where a wandering poet offers to sing the praises of the newly-established Cloudcuckooland in exchange for new clothes. The context requires that a substantial part of the Athenian theatre audience was familiar with the idea of encomiastic poetry in honour of a city-foundation and that Pindar’s hyporchēma was known in precisely that way.69 This does not prove that the poem was composed together with Pythian 1, but it lends support to the possibility. In any case it is legitimate to interpret the song in conjunction with the other Aitna-poetry. For lack of context, it is difficult to make anything of the Scythian reference in Pi. fr. 105b, which need not even come from the same poem as fr. 105a.70 If the fragments do belong together, one may imagine a contrast between Aitna, which is expected to provide a stable home for its settlers and to be destined for fame (Pyth. 1.37 κλυτάν), and the migratory ways of the Scythians with their custom of denying κλέος those who did not possess a waggon-borne house of their own.71 By contrast, the opening address to Hieron (fr. 105a) recalls several contemporary themes. Its first line σύνες ὅ τοι λέγω may simply serve to arrest the audience’s attention, but it could also indicate that Pindar is about to adopt a tone that mixes praise with ‘advice’, similar to the fifth triad of Pythian 1 (81–100n.). This is followed by ζαθέων ἱερῶν ἐπώνυμε, an ingenious pun on Hieron’s name and his role(s) as priest of Demeter and Persephone and probably Zeus Aitnaios, which are also alluded to in Ol. 6.94–6 (cf. II.1, 9 with n. 21, 29-30a n. (εὐκάρποιο γαίας μέτωπον)). In the third line πάτερ is best understood ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with both ζαθέων ἱερῶν ἐπώνυμε and κτίστορ Αἴτνας. The title reinforces Hieron’s status as religious official and as ‘founder of Aitna’ by evoking the positive associations of paternal authority and care (cf. Pyth. 3.71 ξείνοις … θαυμαστὸς πατήρ).72 Similarly κτίστωρ, which echoes Pyth. 1.31 κλεινὸς οἰκιστήρ and related passages (above, 21), hints at 68 It is by no means certain that the hyporchēma represents the ‘Kastor-song’ (τὸ Καστόρειον) of Pyth. 2.69, as schol. Pyth. 2.127 (II 52.7–10 Dr.) indicates. See Cingano 1995: on Pyth. 2.69–71 for the possibilities that have been proposed. 69 Cf. Athanassaki 2016: 112, Hadjimichael 2019: 77–80, 83, 91. 70 Dunbar (1995: on Ar. Av. 941–3) points out that the introduction to the fragment in schol. Ar. Av. 941b Holwerda καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ἐκ Πινδάρου is ambiguous as to its provenance. 71 Cf. Morgan 2015: 323–4. There is no independent evidence for this snippet of Scythian life. The explanation in schol. Ar. Av. 942a Holwerda that, when the Scythians packed up to move for winter, those without a waggon were dishonoured may just be an inference from Pindar. 72 Morgan 2015: 323.



the posthumous honours as founder-hero which Hieron hoped to, and did, obtain (ch. II.1, 10, 30b–2a n.).

d) Simonides There is a host of anecdotal evidence that connects Simonides with Sicily and specifically with the court of Hieron (Sim. TT 55–61 Poltera). While the individual stories may not amount to much, their cumulative weight points to a strong tradition with a basis in fact.73 Relevant poems are harder to trace. Simonides composed a victory ode for the runner Astylos of Kroton and Syracuse (fr. 10 Poltera), and according to schol. Pi. Isth. 2 inscr. a (III 212.18–21 Dr.), he also wrote at least one epinician for Xenocrates of Akragas: οὗτος δὲ ὁ Ξενοκράτης οὐ μόνον Ἴσθμια νενίκηκεν ἵπποις [before 476: cf. Ol. 2.49–51], ἀλλὰ καὶ Πύθια κδ´ Πυθιάδα (490) … καὶ Σιμωνίδης δὲ ἐπαινῶν αὐτὸν ἀμφοτέρας αὐτοῦ τὰς νίκας κατατάσσει (Sim. fr. 513 PMG = fr. spur. 350 Poltera).74 However, it has been suggested that Σιμωνίδης here is an error for Πίνδαρος, since Pindar not only celebrated Xenocrates’ Delphic chariot-victory in Pythian 6 and the Isthmian one, posthumously, in Isthmian 2, but also mentions both victories together in the latter ode (Isth. 2.12–21, where he adds a third success at the Panathenaic Festival in Athens).75 As for the Deinomenids, there is nothing to support the idea that Simonides commemorated Gelon’s Olympic chariot-victory of 488.76 By contrast, the fourth-century-AD rhetor Himerius in a propemptic speech refers to a parting-song which

73 Molyneux 1992: 224–6, Morgan 2015: 93–4. Most of the sources are late, but some information goes back to at least the fourth century. Schol. Pi. Ol. 2.29d (I 68.23–69.22 Dr.) states that Didymus (= fr. 2b Braswell) relied on Timaeus (= FGrH 566 F 93b) for his account of how Simonides reconciled Hieron and Theron over a political conflict, and Xenophon’s choice of Simonides as Hieron’s interlocutor in his Hieron indicates an established association between the two men. 74 See Molyneux 1992: 233–5 (who favours the Isthmian victory as the occasion) and Morgan 2015: 94–5. 75 Cf. Podlecki 1979: 6–7, 1980: 388 n.  37 and Poltera 2008: 586–7, who therefore included the Pindar scholion among the spuria of Simonides. The double (or triple) victory listing in Isthmian 2 seems more pertinent to the argument than the one in Ol. 2.49–51, adduced by Podlecki and Poltera. Given that this passage immediately follows the famous comment on the ‘mercenary Muse’ (Isth. 2.6–11), which since antiquity has been taken as a slight against Simonides (cf. schol. Isth. 2.9a (III 214.10–17 Dr.)), the change of name would become less of what Molyneux (1992: 244 n. 113) called ‘a very odd lapse on the part of the scholiast’. 76 Molyneux 1992: 220–1, Morgan 2015: 94, against Severyns 1933: 75–6. On the pseudo-Simonidean epigram for the Deinomenid brothers see 71–80n.

Pythian 1 in Context 


the poet is to have written for Hieron (Him. Or. 31.2 = Sim. T 59 Poltera). There is a textual problem, which makes it unclear whether Hieron saw off Simonides or vice versa, but we have no reason to discredit the evidence entirely.77 The fact that Himerius repeatedly paraphrases Simonides (frr. 251, 265 Poltera) shows that he had access to his work, whether at first hand or via anthologies, and that he could have come accross a poem that fitted his description. Moreover, it is interesting that Simonides told the story of how the nymph Aitne settled a dispute between Hephaestus and Demeter over the possession of Mt. Etna (Sim. fr. 279 Poltera = schol. Theoc. 1.65/66a Wendel): ἡ δὲ Αἴτνη Σικελίας ὄρος ἀπὸ Αἴτνης τῆς Οὐρανοῦ καὶ Γῆς … Σιμωνίδης δὲ Αἴτνην φησὶ κρῖναι Ἥφαιστον καὶ Δήμητραν περὶ τῆς χώρας ἐρίσαντας. This would fit a poem for Hieron celebrating (among other things?) his foundation of Aitna.78 One only needs to remember the prominent role Mt. Etna plays in Pythian 1 – with Ἁφαίστοιο κρουνούς used for its volcanic fire in 25 (cf. 25–6a n.) – and the fact that in Aeschylus’ celebratory play Aitn(ai)ai the heroine Thaleia was a daughter of Hephaestus (cf. below, 26). Finally, we may speculate that Hieron asked Simonides to reperform the Plataea Elegy, as part of his public agenda of equating his military efforts with those of the Persian Wars (cf. II.3, 14–15, 16). This is evident from Pyth. 1.71–80 (where Himera and Kyme are aligned with Salamis and Plataea), as well as from his invitation to Aeschylus to put on Persai again in Sicily (below, 28–9). If Hieron and part of Pindar’s original audience were familiar with the Plataea Elegy, the numerous echoes of this poem in Pythian 1 acquire particular force.79 But even if they were seen only as expressions of a shared political rhetoric, they would have served the purpose of raising Hieron’s status by evoking the spirit of the Persian Wars and their joyful aftermath.

77 See Poltera 2008: 55 with n. 91, who is unduly critical, although he rightly notes that the ode in question need not have been a προπεμπτικὸς ὕμνος (Molyneux 1992: 231, Morgan 2015: 95). 78 E.g. Dougherty 1993: 91–3, Poltera 2008: 521–2, Morgan 2015: 95. Molyneux (1992: 229–31) also suggests that the song may have been addressed to Gelon (who would have held the priesthood of Demeter and Kore before Hieron) or Chromios. But since their associations with Simonides are much weaker or indeed unattested, Hieron is a safer bet. 79 Cf. 1–2a (καὶ ἰοπλοκάμων … Μοισᾶν), 54–5 (Πριάμοιο πόλιν πέρσεν), 61–70, 65b–6 (ὧν κλέος ἄνθησεν αἰχμᾶς), 72b–5a nn.



e) Aeschylus, Aitn(ai)ai According to the ancient Life of Aeschylus (T 1 § 9 TrGF), Aeschylus produced the play Aitn(ai)ai (Women of Aitna or Nymphs of Mt. Etna)80 in Sicily, when Hieron was founding Aitna, ‘predicting a good life for those who joined in settling the city’ (ἐλθὼν τοίνυν εἰς Σικελίαν Ἱέρωνος τότε τὴν Αἴτνην κτίζοντος ἐπεδείξατο τὰς Αἴτνας οἰωνιζόμενος βίον ἀγαθὸν τοῖς συνοικίζουσι τὴν πόλιν). This last formulation recalls Pindar’s account of the Dorian colonisation of Aitna in Pyth. 1.61–6, which reflects Hieron’s act of populating the city with Dorians from perhaps both Sicily and the Peloponnese (ch. II.1, 9), as well as the ensuing prayer that with the help of Zeus Hieron may ‘by honouring his people turn them towards harmonious peace’ (69–71). It is probable, therefore, that Aitn(ai)ai, like Pythian 1, expressed Hieron’s desire for pan-Sicilian, if not pan-Hellenic, recognition as a city-founder and guarantor of peace and good order for his citizens.81 How this might have happened is, unfortunately, largely a matter of speculation because very little of Aitn(ai)ai has survived. From a miscellaneous papyrus hypothesis (P. Oxy. 2257 fr. 1.5–14 = TrGF III, 126–7) we learn that the play was set in five different locations, all within Hieron’s sphere of influence: Aitna, Xouthia (a region near Leontinoi), Aitna again, Leontinoi, Syracuse and an unknown place.82 The dramatic time, however, to judge by our sources, was the mythical past.83 The action apparently evolved around the Sicilian nymph Thaleia, daughter of Heph­ aestus (Steph. Byz. π 1 (6.1–6 Billerbeck) = A. fr. 7 TrGF), who was impregnated by Zeus and swallowed by the earth to be safe from Hera’s jealousy. In due course she gave birth to twin sons, who were called Palikoi ‘because they have come back from the darkness to this realm of light’ (A. fr. 6.4 TrGF πάλιν γὰρ ἵκουσ᾽ ἐκ σκότου τόδ᾽ εἰς φάος).84 The Palikoi were subsequently worshipped as (originally Sikel) deities at a lake near Leontinoi (D. S. 11.88.6–89.8; cf. Macr. 5.19.26). The chorus probably

80 Both Αἰτναῖαι and Αἶτναι are attested as titles (TrGF III, 126). In favour of Αἰτναῖαι see recently Poli-Palladini 2001: 212–14, who also convincingly argues that the title refers to a chorus of nymphs, sisters or friends of the heroine Thaleia (below). Cf. Sommerstein 2008: III 6–7. 81 Fraenkel 1954: 68–71 = 1964: I 256–9. 82 The papyrus here reads καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ[     ]τ̣ηι δ(ια)περαίνετ(αι), and Pfeiffer (apud Lobel 1952: 67–8) proposed [ἐν τῷ Τεμενί]τῃ, i.e. the Temenite(s) Hill in Syracuse. This is also the location of the theatre, where Aitn(ai)ai may have been first performed (below). 83 This suggests that ‘Aitna’ in the hypothesis means the mountain, rather than the city, as does the fact that the bare name is likely to refer to the better-known entity. As for Leontinoi and Syracuse, it is possible that the names in the play referred to the sites of the future Greek colonies, unless we posit an unattested shift to historical times (Poli-Palladini 2001: 291–3). 84 Transl. Sommerstein 2008: III 9 (his emphasis).

Pythian 1 in Context 


consisted of local nymphs (cf. n. 80), who moved around Sicily in pursuit or search of the heroine.85 The most extensive information on this story and our only certain verse-fragment of the play (A. fr. 6 TrGF) come from Macrobius (Sat. 5.19.15–31). Whatever Aeschylus’ exact dramatisation of the events, their local focus is evident. Thaleia’s descent from Hephaestus connects her with Mt. Etna and may have been invented, or introduced, by Aeschylus to account for the volcano’s recent activity, analogous to Pindar’s epichoric version of the Typhos-myth in Pythian 1. It is then not far-fetched to surmise that the Zeus who visited Thaleia was Zeus Aitnaios, the patron god of Hieron’s Aitna, who is invoked in Pyth. 1.29–30. And the result of their union, the Palikoi, are important Sikel deities who have been invested with a Greek genealogy, presumably to legitimise the colonisation of the island.86 Finally, one can deduce from the above-mentioned note in the Life of Aeschylus that the play contained a prophecy of the foundation of Aitna and its success as a (Dorian?) colony. The obvious candidate for such a prediction, which may have come together with one on the cult of the Palikoi, would have been Zeus (Aitnaios), in order to compensate the land for Thaleia’s suffering.87 In this context it is worth noting that Pindar too, in Pythian 1, employs the idea of the omen when he states that Hieron’s Pythian chariot-victory bodes well for Aitna (35–8).88 This is as far as one can go without risking circular argumentation on the basis of Pythian 1 and the other Aitna-poetry. It is equally problematic to draw in the so-called ‘Dike Fragment’ (A. frr. 281a, b (+ fr. 451n?) TrGF), where Dike explains to a group of men (fr. 281a.14), perhaps the chorus, how she administers the justice of Zeus and how she reined in ‘the savage son’ of Zeus and Hera (fr. 281a.31–2), who is usually identified as Ares. If this belongs to Aitn(ai)ai, as many scholars since Fraenkel (1954 = 1964: I 229–62) have assumed, one could compare the references to Hieron’s just rule in Pythian 1, Bacch. 4 and elsewhere (cf. 69–70, 81–100, 85–100nn.), as well as the sleeping Ares in Pyth. 1.10–12, who symbolises the (temporary) absence of war among humans and especially the peace Hieron has created by conquering

85 See Poli-Palladini 2001: 304. 86 So Dougherty 1991 and 1993: 88–91; cf. e.g. Poli-Palladini 2001: 319–21, Morgan 2015: 102–3. Thatcher (2019) argues that Aitn(ai)ai presented a more sophisticated interplay between Greek and Sikel beliefs, reflecting the ‘mixed’ culture of the colonial territories. His main evidence comes from recent excavations at the sanctuary of the Palikoi, which revealed a strong Hellenic influence on its architecture, but it seems nevertheless likely that most of the original audience would have understood the play as promoting Greek, and specifically Deinomenid, hegemony. 87 Poli-Palladini 2001: 306, 308. 88 Morgan 2015: 101, who adds that the name of Aeschylus’ nymph, Thaleia, ‘bespeak[s] the festivity [θαλίαις] for which Pindar hopes the city will be famous’.



the Carthaginians and Etruscans (1–28, 5–12, 10b–12a nn.).89 Yet there are strong reasons for not assigning A. frr. 281a, b (and fr. 451n?) TrGF to Aitn(ai)ai,90 in which case the similarities with Pythian 1 become no more than generic. We do not know whether Aitn(ai)ai was first performed in Syracuse or Aitna, although Syracuse with its theatre rebuilt in stone by Hieron is perhaps more likely. Nor is there firm evidence as to when the play was produced. According to Eratosthenes (apud schol. Ar. Ran. 1028  f Chantry) Aeschylus staged a revival of Persai in Sicily ‘at the instigation of Hieron’ (σπουδάσαντος Ἱέρωνος), and the Life of Aeschylus (T 1 § 18 TrGF) adds, probably also after Eratosthenes, that he thus greatly increased his reputation (φασὶν ὑπὸ Ἱέρωνος ἀξιωθέντα ἀναδιδάξαι τοὺς Πέρσας ἐν Σικελίᾳ καὶ λίαν εὐδοκιμεῖν). It is commonly assumed that this reperformance of Persai came soon after its Athenian premiere in 472, that is in 471 or 470, which might also account for some interesting connections with Pythian 1 (below). Since no earlier visit of Aeschylus to Sicily is explicitly attested, Aitn(ai)ai is mostly dated to the same occasion,91 although the aorist participle ἀξιωθέντα in the Life of Aeschylus perhaps indicates that he had already impressed Hieron before. In any event, we can assume a significant overlap between the original audiences of Aitn(ai)ai and Pythian 1, and if the play was performed close to 470, it becomes all the more likely that Pindar knew it too.

f) Aeschylus, Persai There can be little doubt that Hieron’s principal motive for inviting a reperformance of Aeschylus’ Persai lay in his eagerness, attested by Pythian 1 (71–80), to promote his military victories against the Carthaginians and Etruscans as of equal importance to those of the mainland Greeks over the Persians (cf. II.3, 14–15, 16). Like the possible revival of Simonides’ Plataea Elegy (above, 25), putting on Persai in Syracuse would have been one step for Hieron towards associating himself publicly with

89 See, most recently, Morgan 2015: 100 with n. 60. 90 Poli-Palladini (2001: 313–15) emphasises the alleged satyric nature of A. frr. 281a, b TrGF, which Lobel (1952: 39, 40, 41) suspected on account of the otherwise non-tragic forms ὁτιή (fr. 281a.9) and ἐρρύθμιξα (fr. 281b.4). But even if this is questioned, other caveats apply. Dike’s male interlocutor in fr. 281a would have to be not the coryphaeus, as seems most natural, but an unknown character (cf. Sommerstein 2008: III 278–9). Even more importantly, as Poli-Palladini points out, Fraenkel’s hypothesis rests on his assumption that Aitn(ai)ai was an episodic Festspiel rather than a ‘proper’ tragedy. This is circular reasoning, since (as far as we can tell) the plot only becomes episodic by the inclusion of the ‘Dike Fragment’. 91 See e.g. Herington 1967: 75–6 and Fries 2017a: 65 with n. 14 (further literature).

Pythian 1 in Context 


the triumphal mood that followed the unexpected defeat of the eastern forces.92 Pindar’s poem, by contrast, also had the potential to spread this notion abroad, at a pan-Hellenic level, and to preserve it for posterity. While it is likely that the Sicilian revival of Persai roughly coincided with Pythian 1, there is no hard evidence to tell which came first. If Aeschylus preceded Pindar, the resonances between Pyth. 1.71–80 and Persai can, as in the case of the Plataea Elegy, be read as true intertextual links, which Pindar could expect at least part of the original audience to pick up (cf. 71–80, 72b–5a nn. and above, 25). If Persai was reperformed after Pythian 1, the similarities may again be no more than reflections of a shared historical and poetic milieu. But it is conceivable that Pindar knew Persai from its Athenian premiere, or indeed a reading copy, and that, as a form of delayed praise for Hieron’s achievements, he intended future audiences to make the relevant connections (71–80n.; cf. III.2, 36–7).93

92 Cf. Morgan 2015: 96–7. 93 We can neither prove nor disprove that Pindar was in Athens in 472. His dithyramb for the ­Athenians, which praises the city as ‘the bulwark of Greece’ (fr.  76.2 Ἑλλάδος ἔρεισμα) and its ­people for having ‘laid the shining foundation of freedom’ at Artemision (fr. 77 ὅθι παῖδες Ἀθαναίων ἐβάλοντο φαεννάν / κρηπῖδ᾽ ἐλευθερίας) is probably earlier, but clearly follows the discourse of ‘Persian Wars’ poetry (72b–5a (Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας), 75b–7a nn.). According to Isoc. 15.166, the Athenians rewarded Pindar with a προξενία and ten thousand drachmas, which would have increased the likelihood of future visits.

III Performance Contexts It is not enough to attempt to reconstruct the place and occasion where an epinician like Pythian 1 was first performed (cf. ch. II.2). We also need to consider the mode of that performance and the possibility and circumstances of later revivals. As a sub-category of Greek and ultimately Indo-European praise poetry, the purpose of which was to generate ‘imperishable fame’ (κλέος ἄφθιτον) for the honorand,94 ‘… the victory ode both predicts and invites reperformance … The ideal was to free the victor’s fame from the confines of his own polis by creating poetry of sufficient appeal to achieve reperformance in other cities’.95 How frequently, and in what form, this actually happened in any particular case we cannot know, but there are hints in fifth- and fourth-century literature that numerous works of Pindar, including Pythian 1, were well-known. The study of reperformance thus interacts with the early history of reception. Conversely, as in the case of location and event, we have to rely on the odes themselves for indications of how they were first performed and potentially reperformed, and how Pindar prepared his poetry for later consumption.96

1 Performance and Reperformance After some two decades of scholarly discussion on the performance of epinician the following broad consensus emerged in the early 2000s: (1) the premiere was generally choral, (2) some first performances may have been by soloists, and (3) any reperformance is likely to have been solo.97 That Pythian 1 was first performed by a kithara-accompanied chorus is suggested by its opening (1–4), where the golden

94 The locus classicus in early Greek lyric is Ibyc. fr. S151.46–8 PMGF καὶ σύ, Πολύκρατες, κλέος ἄφθιτον ἑξεῖς / ὡς κατ᾽ ἀοιδὰν καὶ ἐμὸν κλέος. West (2007: 63–7) explores the Indo-European background, with numerous parallels from Indo-Aryan to Celtic and Germanic. 95 Carey 2007: 209; cf. Hubbard 2004: 71. For hints at reperformance in epinician see e.g. Nem. 4.13–16 εἰ δ᾽ ἔτι ζαμενεῖ Τιμόκριτος ἁλίῳ / σὸς πατὴρ ἐθάλπετο, ποικίλον κιθαρίζων / θαμά κε, τῷδε μέλει κλιθείς,  / ὕμνον κελάδησε καλλίνικον, Isth. 2.44–6, 4.40–1, Bacch. 3.96–8 σὺν δ᾽ ἀλαθ[είᾳ] κ̣αλῶν / καὶ μελιγλώσσου τις ὑμνήσει χάριν / Κηΐας ἀηδόνος, 9.79–82 (Currie 2004: 49 n. 4, Hadjimichael 2019: 174). As in Ibyc. fr. S151.46–8 PMGF and Bacch. 3.96–8, poets frequently connect such chances with the prestige of their own name (cf. III.2, 35 and 92b–4a n.). 96 The contested question how far the initial dissemination of Pindar’s epinicians depended on written texts will be discussed in ch. V.1. But whatever conclusion one reaches, it is evident that fifth-century audiences largely experienced Pindar through performance. Nevertheless, what is said in ch. III.2 about Pindar’s strategy of ‘future-proofing’ his odes would also apply to a reading audience. 97 Cf. Currie 2004: 49.

Performance Contexts 


lyre, Apollo and the Muses, and the plural ἀοιδοί (3), evoke the Olympian chorus singing in unison with the one at Hieron’s victory celebration (cf. 1–28, 1–12nn.). At the same time, however, Pindar’s description is sufficiently general also to suit a solo rendition of the ode, a first sign of its adaptability to varying situations.98 Somewhat paradoxically, then, Pythian 1 also contains the only potential reference to choral reperformance of epinicians. In 97–8 the sympotic ‘songs of boys’ (παίδων ὀάροισι) that will not feature Phalaris, but by implication Hieron, have been understood in that way;99 yet it is more probable that the plural is generic, like φόρμιγγες in 97, and the passage therefore provides no firm evidence for choral revivals, at symposia or otherwise.100 But they cannot be categorically excluded. We are ill informed about the ‘logistics’ of epinician premieres. There is no evidence as to the size of a chorus, although this probably varied according to what the honorand wished and could afford.101 Hieron presumably went for maximum effect, perhaps as many as fifty singers (if he could find competence on such a scale), the size of an Athenian dithyrambic chorus. Likewise we know nothing about costume, except that garlands were worn (e.g. Isth. 7.39), and we may assume that the splendour of the attire again depended on the client’s desires and finances, as mutatis mutandis in the case of Athenian dramatic chorēgia.102 The odes quite often refer to their musical mode and/or rhythm (e.g. Ol. 1.102 Αἰοληΐδι μολπᾷ, Pyth. 2.69), but references to dance are rare compared to other genres of choral lyric, and non-specific. The proem of Pythian 1 once more is a case in point. The dancing step (βάσις) ‘listens to’ (ἀκούει) the lyre, just as the singers ‘obey’ (πείθονται) the ‘signals’ (σάμασιν) of its ‘chorus-leading preludes’ (ἁγησιχόρων … προοιμίων). This applies to all choral performance and tells us nothing about how the premiere of Pythian 1 might have differed from that of another epinician.103

98 Morrison 2007: 68, 99–100. 99 Loscalzo 2003: 101–2, Currie 2004: 58. Currie (2004: 56–62, 2017: 188–201) advanced the same interpretation for Nem. 4.13–16, but Carey (2007: 209 n. 38) rightly observes that nothing in these lines points to ‘plural voices’. 100 See Spelman 2018: 83 n. 7 and 97–8n. (κοινανίαν / μαλθακὰν παίδων ὀάροισι). Different possible reperformance contexts are further discussed below, 33–4. 101 Carey 2007: 205–8. 102 Cf. Carey 2007: 199, 208. 103 The passage has even been quoted in an argument for the absence of any formal dancing in epinician (Heath 1988: 184–8; cf. Hutchinson 2001: 365, 367 with n. 11). But while such an absence may be supported by the even more generic Ol. 14.16–17 ἰδοῖσα τόνδε κῶμον … / κοῦφα βιβῶντα, both Heath and Hutchinson are unsuccessful in explaining away the testimony of Isth. 1.7–10 καὶ τὸν ἀκερσικόμαν Φοῖβον χορεύων / … / … καὶ τὰν ἁλιερκέα Ἰσθμοῦ / δειράδ᾽, where epinician and paean, which always came with formal dance, are subsumed under the participle χορεύων. It is also relevant that Heath (though not Hutchinson) believes that epinician premieres were largely monodic.



One obvious reason for the reticence of epinician poets about such external matters is that the primary audience could see and hear the chorus.104 ‘Stage-directions’ embedded in the text, as in drama and perhaps certain types of ritual song,105 were not required and probably not even desired if the odes were intended to be suitable not only for their first performance, but also for potential reperformances in different settings, such as a solo rendition at a symposium. The same applies to overly precise references to the location of the premiere, if a pan-Hellenic appeal was to be achieved.106 Was Pindar present for the first performance of Pythian 1, training the chorus and leading it at the great occasion? Prima facie this is likely, since Hieron would have been keen to display openly his patronage of a poet of Pindar’s stature, and Pindar would have been equally eager to accept the hospitality of a wealthy and powerful ruler.107 But our only evidence that Pindar stayed with Hieron is inconclusive, at least as far as the date is concerned: Vita Ambrosiana (I 3.2–3 Dr.) ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀμφότεροι (i.e. Pindar and Simonides) παρὰ Ἱέρωνι τῷ Συρακοσίων τυράννῳ γεγένηνται. This is usually referred to 476/5, the year of Olympian 1 for Hieron and Olympians 2 and 3 for Theron of Akragas, but it could as well apply to another time or indeed repeated visits.108 Likewise, much effort has been expended on analysing the odes of Pindar and Bacchylides for hints of the poets’ presence or absence at the premiere. With some exceptions, the texts allow no firm conclusions,109 and

104 Cf. Strauss-Clay 1999: 32. 105 Note the Thesmophoria hymn to various gods in Ar. Thesm. 953–1000 with its strong reflection of dance movements in the words of the chorus. Part of this may have been for theatrical entertainment, but the song is essentially serious, and we would probably find more such examples, had Greek ritual lyric been better preserved (cf. the strong link between words and ritual proceedings in many hymns of the Rigveda). It is likely that reperformance scenarios for religious songs varied much less than for epinicians (cf. below). 106 Morgan 1993: 12; cf. Carey 2007: 199–200. 107 For Hieron as a patron of poets, notably Simonides, Pindar, Bacchylides and Aeschylus, see chs. II.1 and II.4. 108 For 476/5 see e.g. DNP/BNP s.v. Pindaros/Pindarus D.3 (Robbins), Bell 1995: 28, 29, Antonaccio 2007: 267, Gentili et al. 2013: XVI. The ‘nihilist’ view that the statement in the Vita is but an inference from Pindar’s Sicilian odes seems less plausible, given that it also mentions Simonides, for whose Sicilian travels there are independent witnesses (II.4, 24 n. 73). 109 Ol. 6.87–92 strongly indicates that the chorēgos of the ode was Aineias (cf. scholl. Ol. 6.148a, 149a (I 186.20–187.2, 188.6–9 Dr.)), and the same is probably true of Nikasippos at Isth. 2.47–8 (Hutchinson 2001: 414). Passages that generally speak of the poet ‘bringing’ or ‘sending’ the poem (e.g. Pyth. 2.3–4, 67–8, Nem. 3.76–80, Bacch. 5.9–12, 197, frr. 20B.3–5, 20C.2–7) can be interpreted either way. For the view that they imply the poet’s presence (πέμπω = ‘escort’) see especially Mullen 1982: 29–30 (endorsed by Hubbard 2004: 89 with n. 53), for the opposite Prauscello 2006: 41–5 (in particular 41 n. 123), Hadjimichael 2019: 194, 196.

Performance Contexts 


Pythian 1 does not even contain a relevant passage. Unsatisfactory as it may be, it is best not to press the question. We are both better and less well equipped to discuss reperformance contexts. Many epinicians contain sympotic overtones, which suggests that they were intended to be reperformed at such events. Thus at the end of Pythian 1 Pindar evokes a symposium scene and implicitly predicts that Hieron will continue to be the subject of song (97–8; cf. 81–100, 94b–100, 95–8, 97–8nn.). That epinicians were learnt and revived at private drinking parties in Athens is above all proved by Ar. Nub. 1354–8, where Strepsiades recounts how his son Pheidippides refused to perform Simonides’ ‘Krios’ (cf. Sim. fr. 16 Poltera) to the lyre on the ground that this was an antiquated practice.110 This does not mean that any Pindaric epinician received the same honour, but a strong case for Pythian 1 can be made by looking at the fifth- and fourth-century reception of this and related odes. Pythian 1 itself is well represented. Its initial invocation to the ‘golden lyre’, naturally the most memorable part of the poem, was adapted by Aristophanes in Thesm. 327–9 χρυσέα δὲ φόρμιγξ / ἰαχήσειεν ἐπ᾽ εὐχαῖς / ἡμετέραις (1–2a n.). The Typhos-episode (13–28), which impressed authors and literary critics throughout antiquity, almost certainly was a source of [A.] PV 351–72, while individual echoes of it may be found in E. Her. 637–40, Hel. 1323–4, Phoen. 802 and [E.] Rh.  72–3 (see 13–28, 19b–20, 27–8 (στρωμνὰ  … χαράσσοισ’) nn.). The gnomē κρέσσον γὰρ οἰκτιρμοῦ φθόνος (85) boasts a similarly long afterlife, beginning with Hdt. 3.52.5, unless the phrase was proverbial before Pindar (85–6a n.). Finally, there is verbal overlap between Pyth. 1.40 εὔανδρόν τε χώραν and E. Tro. 229 εὔανδρόν τ᾽ … γᾶν (of Bruttium). The adjective εὔανδρος is not unusual in archaic and classical Greek poetry, but it seems noteworthy that both passages are preceded by a praise of Sicily (39–40n. (εὔανδρόν τε χώραν)). This picture is supported by the reception history of Pindar’s hyporchēma for Hieron (frr. 105a, b), which is roughly contemporary with Pythian 1 and may even have been composed for the same occasion (ch. II.4). Aristophanes took the song as the basis for his extensive parody of wandering poets praising new city foundations (Av. 915–48), and it remained familiar enough in the fourth century for its opening line σύνες ὅ τοι λέγω (fr. 105a.1) to be casually quoted by Plato twice (Men. 76d3, Phdr. 236d2).

110 Cf. e.g. Currie 2004: 52, 2017: 192–4, Hadjimichael 2019: 65–70, 91. Pheidippides’ opinion is paralled in Eup. frr. 148.1–2 PCG τὰ Στησιχόρου τε καὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος Σιμωνίδου τε / ἀρχαῖον ἀείδειν, ὁ δὲ Γνήσιππος ἔστ᾽ ἀκούειν and 398 PCG (= Ath. 1.3a) ὡς τὰ Πινδάρου (add. cod. B) κωμῳδιοποιὸς Εὔπολίς φησιν, ἤδη κατασεσιγασμένα ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν πολλῶν ἀφιλοκαλίας.



In view of the well-documented change in poetic and musical taste towards the end of the fifth century, there will have been some truth in the comic passages stating that ‘old’ poets increasingly went out of fashion for sympotic (re)performance, at least in Athens. But they were not ‘passed over in silence’, as Eupolis apparently said of Pindar (n. 110), and it is worth remembering that Athenian conditions need not have obtained in other cultural centres of the Greek world.111 In addition to symposia, epinicians may have been revived on formal or semi-formal occasions, such as religious festivals and other publicly-funded events in the victor’s hometown, or private festivities arranged by the athlete and/or his family, for example on the anniversary of the victory or the premiere of the ode.112 Since in the case of a tyrant like Hieron the victor and his dynasty represented the state, public and private effectively become one for Pythian 1. If the ode had its premiere at the Aitnaia of 470 (cf. II.2, 13–14), one may imagine that Hieron arranged for it to be reperformed there annually, by a chorus rather than a soloist,113 and perhaps together with (some of) the other poetry celebrating the foundation of Aitna (e.g. the hyporchēma frr. 105a, b). There is no direct evidence to support this hypothesis, but a partial analogy is offered by the maiden choruses which Hieron is said to have received in Western Lokroi after he prevented Anaxilas of Rhegion from attacking the city (Pyth. 2.18–20, with scholl. 36c, 38 (II 37.22–38.5, 38.6–10 Dr.)). While we do not know how long this practice lasted, it is likely that any potential reperformance of Pythian 1 or other Deinomenid odes, in Syracuse or Aitna, ended with the fall of the dynasty.114 But Pindar’s strategy for spreading Hieron’s fame clearly paid off in other parts of Greece. 111 Hornblower 2004: 56–7. For the circulation of Pindar’s poetry in Athens see Irigoin 1952: 11–20 and Hubbard 2004: 71–2. His Sicilian victory odes seem to have been particularly popular there (cf. Meister 2019: 367 with n. 10). 112 Formal occasions: Loscalzo 2003: 103–6, Currie 2004: 63–9; semi-formal occasions: Loscalzo 2003: 116–18, Currie 2004: 55–63, Hubbard 2004: 75–80. Carey (2007: 209) notes that Nemean 3 was composed for an anniversary of the victory (2 ἐν ἱερομηνίᾳ Νεμεάδι; cf. 76–80, where Pindar admits that the ode is late) and that Isthmian 2 was for a posthumous celebration of Xenokrates of Akragas (44–5). Hornblower (2012) investigates the families of victors that remain attested after the fifth century and may have kept the memory of their illustrious ancestors alive. 113 As in the case of first performances, the mode of such revivals probably varied with the financial power or liberality of the sponsors and the availability of singers (cf. above, 31). There is no need to insist that they were either mainly choral (Morrison 2012: 112) or mainly monodic or by small groups (Carey 2007: 209, Budelmann 2017: 44 n. 5). 114 It is unclear what happened to the Aitnaia after Hieron’s death. Perhaps the inhabitants of Aitna, on their expulsion to Inessa in 461, not only transferred the name of their old city and the veneration of Hieron as oikist (cf. II.1, 10), but also the festival of Zeus Aitnaios (Cook 1914–40: II.2 908, Vonderstein 2006: 160–1). The god certainly continued to be honoured in Sicily after the fall of the Deinomenids (cf. Ol. 4.6–7) and into Roman times (D. S. 34.10.1).

Performance Contexts 


2 Text and Reperformance If epinician poets intended their works to be disseminated and revived, they needed to consider, at the point of composition, the possibility of other than the original mode of performance and the requirements of audiences who were not necessarily aware of the primary occasion and who often, presumably, would get to hear a memorable excerpt, such as a mythical or gnomic section, rather than a complete ode.115 Being aristocrats themselves, Simonides, Pindar and Bacchylides will have been familiar with the sympotic practice of reworking (parts of) well-known lyric poems as skolia, which we see in Alc. fr. 249.6–9 Voigt as against Carm. conv. 891 PMG.116 At the same time the praise poets are conscious that the survival of their odes depended as much, if not more, on their own fame as on that of their honor­ ands (Ibyc. fr. S151.46–8 PMGF, Ol. 9.21–7, Pyth. 3.110–15, Bacch. 3.96–8).117 Later evidence bears out this picture. It is likely that memory of Simonides’ ‘Krios’ (above, 33) was preserved mainly because of the status of its author and his clever pun on the name of the defeated contestant. And the opening sequence of Pindar’s νόμος ὁ πάντων βασιλεύς (fr. 169a), which is widely attested from Herodotus (3.38.4) on, offers a good example of a passage that probably circulated separately and thus out of context from an early stage.118 One issue the poets could not have anticipated is that epinician grew increasingly out of fashion in the second half of the fifth century.119 Later audiences therefore would have had little experience of genuine epinician performance, which must have affected their understanding of conventions and in turn increased the popularity of passages not related to the victor or occasion. What signs then are there in Pythian 1 that Pindar had subsequent reception in mind? We have already seen that nothing ties the ode to a particular perfor-

115 Morrison 2007: 22: ‘The interest of tertiary audiences was probably directed more at the mythic section of the odes, their gnomic content, and other passages likely to have been of wide appeal.’ Cf. Currie 2004: 53–4, Carey 2007: 210, Rutherford 2012: 95, Hadjimichael 2019: 175. 116 Currie 2004: 53. In this context note also Ar. fr. 235 PCG (Daitalēs) ᾆσον δή μοι σκόλιόν τι λαβὼν Αλκαίου κἀνακρέοντος. 117 Currie 2004: 53, Hubbard 2004: 82. Cf. above, 30 with n. 95. 118 See Hadjimichael 2019: 120–4, 128, 199. She also points out that when Plato cites passages from Pindar’s epinicians ‘the occasion for which the ode was composed … is not revealed in the Platonic context’ (175 with n. 13). 119 Only three epinicians are attested after Pindar: Euripides’ ode to celebrate Alcibiades’ triple Olympic chariot-victory in 416 (fr. 755 PMG), Diagoras of Melos in honour of the boxer Nikodoros of Mantineia (fr. 738 (2) PMG; cf. Ael. VH 2.23) and Callimachus’ elegiac poem for Berenike, who won an Olympic chariot-victory, probably in 284 (frr. 254–69 SH). See Hornblower 2004: 28.



mance context; the musical references in the proem (1–12) and the last epode (97–8) would not be out of place in either choral or monodic presentation (above, 31). This merging of the specific with the generic can be observed in other parts of the poem too. While the Typhos-episode is built on traditional epic motifs, Pindar adapted the narrative to the original Sicilian setting of Pythian 1 by having the monster imprisoned under Mt. Etna and recalling the eruption of the volcano in 479/8 or 475/4 (cf. 13–28n.). This would not, however, have made the story any less intelligible or impressive for non-Sicilians. On the contrary, ‘Pindar’s poetry has the power to evoke for distant secondary audiences even the magnificence of the flaming lava Typhos sends upwards from his prison.’120 And given the wide and early reception history of this episode (above, 33), it is conceivable that it was known independently from its poem soon after the first performance. Other sections of Pythian 1 that would have lent themselves to separate performance, with or without modification, are the ‘Hymn to Music’ (1–12) and the reflections on good government and lasting fame through poetry in the fifth triad (81–100). Peace and festivity as well as politics and survival in song are traditional topics of sympotic lyric, and it is easy to imagine a scene in which, analogous to Strepsiades and Pheidippides in Ar. Nub. 1354–6, one symposiast asked another for a rendition of Pindar’s Χρυσέα φόρμιγξ, accompanied by the lyre.121 The fact that Pythian 1 is richer in historical allusions than any other Pindaric ode might have impaired its appeal to future audiences. But Pindar again took care to diffuse their epichoric bias. Ever since antiquity scholars have debated which battle Pindar alludes to when he compares the martial achievements of the ageing and sick Hieron to those of Philoctetes who captured Troy despite his wounded foot (46–57). However, although strong arguments can be made in favour of Kyme (50b–7, 51b–2a nn.), in some ways the answer does not matter. The point is Hieron’s heroic defiance of his illness, and Pindar’s vagueness, together with the epic illustration, ensures that this is understood regardless of the actual historical circumstances.122 The same applies to other contemporary references in the ode. When Pindar describes the foundation of Aitna in terms of the Dorian migration (61–6), this serves the immediate encomiastic purpose of providing the new city with an illustrious

120 Morrison 2007: 101. 121 An intriguing parallel to both the proem and the sympotic end of Pythian 1 exists in Carm. conv. 900 PMG εἴθε λύρα καλὴ γενοίμην ἐλεφαντίνη / καί με καλοὶ παῖδες φέροιεν Διονύσιον ἐς χορόν. 122 Morrison 2007: 101. One may compare Pindar’s technique in Ol. 9.61–79, where he increases the pan-Hellenic appeal of an obscure local myth by connecting it with Homeric epic. The eponymous king of Lokrian Opous opens his city to foreigners, including Menoitios, the father of Patroclus (Hubbard 2004: 73).

Performance Contexts 


past (cf. ch. II.3). But it also means that later audiences could get a glimpse of the magnitude of Hieron’s enterprise through the familiar semi-mythical account. Likewise, the comparison of Himera and Kyme with the battles of Salamis and Plataea (71–80) reaches its full potential only with recipients in mainland Greece, for whom the Persian Wars had almost instantly become a matter of pan-Hellenic cultural identity. Athenians and Spartans in particular would have noticed the textual and conceptual parallels with Aeschylus’ Persai and Simonides’ Plataea Elegy (cf. II.4, 25, 28–9). Analysing Pythian 1 in this way shows that the epinician promise of ‘imperishable fame’ was not a mere poetic trope. Pindar attempted to anchor his odes in the emerging literary tradition with the aim of immortalising the reputation of his clients.123 The survival of his epinicians through antiquity and the middle ages proves the enduring value of this approach.

123 Cf. Pyth. 1.92–4 (92b–4a n.) ὀπιθόμβροτον αὔχημα δόξας / οἶον ἀποιχομένων ἀνδρῶν δίαιταν μανύει / καὶ λογίοις καὶ ἀοιδοῖς and Pyth. 3.110–15, where Pindar aligns his poetry with epic for its ability to perpetuate fame.

IV Metre 1 Preliminary Remarks The study of Pindaric metre goes back to antiquity. A necessary precondition was the division of the written text, which in Pindar’s time would have been arranged like prose,124 into metrical lines or cola. This happened in the Hellenistic era and is usually credited to Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 257–180). Whatever the truth of this ascription,125 the Alexandrian colometry of Pindar (as well as Aristophanes and the three tragedians) is substantially preserved in our papyri and medieval manuscripts. It also formed the basis of all ancient and Byzantine metrical scholarship, especially the rich collections of ‘old’ metrical scholia that survive for Pindar (and Aristophanes). It needs to be borne in mind, however, that active understanding of the classical lyric forms was waning when the Alexandrians undertook to divide the lines.126 If one adds to this the tendency of colometrists and scribes to commit and perpetuate errors, metrical as well as textual,127 it is evident that the transmitted evidence needs to be weighed very carefully and that often it will turn out to be of limited, or at best historical, value. Failure to take adequate account of these issues is the basic weakness of those who adhere to the ‘Urbino school’ of Greek metrics established by Bruno Gentili. Their undue belief in the superior insights of ancient metricians results in the acceptance of unorthodox verse forms and types of freedom of responsion and in an often radically different terminology.128 124 The practice can be observed, for example, in P. Berol. 9875 of Timotheus’ Persai, which is dated to the middle of the fourth century BC (description and digital images at http://berlpap.smb. museum/02776/), and P. Hibeh 24 and 25 of Euripides (ca. 280–240). See Parker 2001: 31. No Pindar papyrus of sufficient antiquity exists. 125 The statements to that effect by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (de comp. verb. 22.17, 26.14) are vague and need mean only that Aristophanes ‘lent his authority to the general adoption of a pre-existing system’ (Parker 2001: 31). Regarding Pindar, some scholars (e.g. Irigoin 1958: 18, D’Alessio 1997: 55–6) point to schol. Ol. 2.48c (I 73.5–6 Dr.) = Ar. Byz. fr. 380A Slater τὸ κῶλον τοῦτο ἀθετεῖ Ἀριστοφάνης· περιττεύειν γὰρ αὐτό φησι πρὸς ἀντιστρόφους. This suggest, but does not prove, that Aristophanes was the first colistes of Pindar (cf. Ucciardello 2012: 132 n. 170). 126 Parker 2001: 31–8. 127 Parker (2001: 24–5) identifies three common colometric mistakes: (1) running on to word-end when the colon-boundary fell within a word, (2) stopping short of the relevant word in the same circumstances and (3) writing up to two cola on the same line. 128 The first point is less relevant in dactylo-epitrite odes like Pythian 1, where the possibilities for colometric variation are limited. For freedom of responsion endorsed by Gentili et al. (1995) see 52b–3 (μεταβάσοντας) and 56–7 (†οὕτω δ᾽ Ἱέρωνι θεὸς ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι†) nn. and for their deviations in nomenclature Gentili et al. 1995: 24–5.



Pindar is indeed the prime example of the way in which modern metricians can supersede their ancient colleagues. It was Boeckh who in his first edition of the poet (1811) identified the period as ‘the fundamental self-contained unit in metrical composition’.129 Period-end always coincides with word-end and is further indicated by one or more of the following signs: (1) hiatus, (2) brevis in longo (i.e. a short syllable in a position that requires a long) and (3) anceps iuxta anceps (i.e. a metron or colon ending in an anceps abutting on one beginning with an anceps). Since none of these signs need to be present in every case, period-end can often be determined only by looking at strophic repetitions. Hence Pindar’s long odes provide much more scope for certainty than the generally shorter songs of Attic drama. Yet doubts often remain. In Pythian 1 even ten repetitions do not reveal unequivocally whether there is period-end after the fourth verse of strophe and antistrophe, and the same is true, at five repetitions, of the fifth and sixth verse of the epode. In both cases non-metrical criteria need to be applied (see below, 41, 42). Like nearly all editions of Pindar’s epinicians since Boeckh (1811), the present one has two sets of line-numerations. The one on the left follows Boeckh’s periods and is the modern vulgate; the one on the right, which leads to a higher figure, reflects the transmitted colometry and is retained to facilitate alignment with the metrical and exegetical scholia.

2 Metrical Analysis and Commentary Pythian 1 is written in pure dactylo-epitrite (D/e). This type of metre, an early form of which was employed by Stesichorus, combines dactylic and iambo-trochaic (‘epitrite’)130 rhythmical elements in periods of widely differing length and complexity. The following table lists the most important units relevant to Pythian 1, with the symbols devised for them by Maas (1923: 15–16) and updated by West (1982: 70) and Itsumi (2009: xii): ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒ ‒⏑⏑‒ ⏑⏑‒ ‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒⏑⏑‒

D  d  ‸d D2

‒⏑‒×‒⏑‒ ‒⏑‒ ‒‒  

E  e  ‘spondee’  

129 West 1982: 5. Cf. Boeckh 1811: I.2 82, 308–38. 130 The otherwise obsolete term ‘epitrite’ derives from ancient metrical theory, where ἐπίτριτοι πόδες were ‘feet’ of three longs and one short (⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒, ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒, ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒, ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑) in which a ratio of 4 : 3 between arsis and thesis was recognised (Heph. p. 12.11–21 Consbruch, schol. in Heph. p. 112.1–8 Consbruch). Cf. West 1982: 22–3, 70.



These metrical phrases are usually, though by no means always, connected by a ‘link-syllable’, which is anceps, but tends to be long.131 While structurally the concept of a link is wrong – ‘Greek poets compose with cola and need no mortar to join them’132 – it remains a useful analytical tool. It cannot be stressed enough, however, that Pindar would have viewed his D/e periods as single rhythmical systems, not as made up of smaller entities.133 The five triads of Pythian 1 (T1–T5) contain a strophic pair of six periods (S1–S6 ~ A1–A6) and an epode of eight periods (E1–E8). Strophic Pair


‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⸽ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ||

E ‒ D ||


‒ ⏑ ‒ ⸽ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ||

e ⸽ ‒ d e ‒ D ‒ ‒ ||


‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ||

‒ ‒ E ||


‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⸽ ⏓4 ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⸽ ⏑ ‒ ⸽ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ |⸽

‒ D ⸽ ⏓ e e ⸽ ‒ D |⸽


‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ||

E ‒ e ||





‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ |||

D e ‒ D ⏕? D e ‒ |||


‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ||

D ‒ E ||


‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏓14 ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ||

D ⏓ e ‒ D ||


‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⸽ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ⏖ ⏑ ‒ ||

e ‒ ⸽ E ⏖e ||


‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ||

‒ D ‒ e ||


⏕17 ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⸽ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ |⸽


‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ |⸽

e ‒ D ‒ |⸽


⏖ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ | ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⸽ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⸽ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ||


⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ | ⏖ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ |||

‸d ‒ d | ⏖E ‒ |||

e ‒ D ‒ e |⸽

E ‒ | E ‒ ⸽ D ||

131 Short anceps is most common in the first triad, especially in the strophe and epode, or in later responsion with such instances. It occurs occasionally in the first antistrophe (without responsion to the first strophe) or in responsion to it. Elsewhere short anceps is very rare and perhaps always involves a proper name (Barrett 2007: 119–73). There is no ready explanation for this. Barrett (2007: 119 n. 2) suggests audience expectations as a driving factor, but wonders how many listeners would have noticed such rhythmical refinements. In any event, all cases of single-occurrence of short anceps (and resolution) in Pythian 1 appear in the first strophe and epode (4, 14, 17). 132 West 1982: 70. 133 On D/e in general see further West 1982: 69–76 and Parker 1997: 85–90.



S1 Period-end: hiatus in T2S, T4S. S2 If one treats e ‒ d e as a ‘choriambic’ expansion of E (i.e. ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒), this verse can be considered a variation on the preceding one, with the hypermetric close ‒ ‒. The only certain parallel for a D/e verse ending in a ‘spondee’ (‒ ‒) is Pyth. 9 S2 (E ‒ ‒ ||).134 Itsumi (2009: 421) regards ‒ ‒ as ‘a substitute for e’, but it is probably not derived from it by syncopation (‒ (⏑) ‒; cf. West 1982: 73), which does not otherwise occur in D/e (Parker 1997: 87). Period end: hiatus in T2S, T2A, T5S, T5A; brevis in longo in T3S. S3 This is the only D/e period in Pindar that begins with ‒ ‒. Parker (1997: 87) points to the verse ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ||| (‒ ‒ e ‒ |||), which ends the epodes of Stesichorus’ Eriphyle (frr. 92–5 Finglass) and Thebaid (?) (fr. 97 Finglass) and is much more heavily clausular. Period-end: hiatus in T4S; brevis in longo in T1S, T5S. S4 Here two ‒ D-cola frame ⏓ e e (i.e. ⏓ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒), which has the same number of positions as E and may be considered a variation of it. Both regular word-ends before and after ⏓ e e are absent in T2A and T3A. The first is weakened by elision in T3S (44 ἄκονθ᾽ ⸽ ὡσείτ᾽), the second in T5S (84 μάλιστ᾽ ⸽ ἐσλοῖσιν). The second ‘link-anceps’ is short only in T1S (4 προ̆οιμίων). This conforms to the observation that most ‘single-variation’ short ancipitia in Pindar’s D/e occur in the first strophe or epode (above, 40 n. 131). Cf. T1E2 and, concerning resolution, T1E5 (below). There is no sign of period-end after this verse in any of its repetitions. Yet a break is likely, since together with S5 the period would run to the extreme length of thirty-four positions. While this is not impossible, it would disrupt the alternation of longer and shorter periods in this strophe and spoil the capping effect of the thirty-position S6 (cf. below, 43). S5 Period-end: brevis in longo in T4A. S6 At thirty positions, this is the longest clearly defined period in Pindar. It is also the only one containing three D-cola and one of just five Pindaric verses in

134 Another possible case is Sim. fr. 262.6 Poltera (= 581.4b PMG). The verse is transmitted (apud D. L. 1.90) as ἀντιθέντα μένος στάλας (– ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – –). However, Bergk emended the participle to ἀντία θέντα (printed by Page), while Schneidewin wrote ἀντιθέντα (accepted by West 1982: 71). Both conjectures produce D | – – |. Poltera (2008: 483) rejects them as ‘unnecessary’ and ‘merely metrically motivated’, but he wrongly analyses the paradosis as a glyconic (which does not have a long in the penultimate position) and fails to notice that Schneidewin’s present participle makes better sense in context. It is also worth noting that the metrical pattern resembles Pyth. 1 S2, where word-end is prevalent before ‒ ‒ (absent in T4S, T4A, T5S).



which a ‘link-anceps’ is absent in two places (cf. Nem. 10 (E6), 11 (S5), Isth. 1 (S6), 6 (E8)). See Itsumi 2009: 411–17. The replacement of the ‘link-anceps’ with a double short in T5A is doubtful. The text at 92 †κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέλοις† is problematic for other than metrical reasons (91–2a n.), and there is no certain parallel for a double-short ‘link’ in Pindar and Bacchylides (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.8a, 44a; contrast West 1982: 71 n. 88, who accepts the anomaly). However, responsion between ⏑, ‒ and ⏖ in the ‘link-position’ is found in the embryonic D/e of Stesichorus: Thebaid (?) fr. 97 Finglass (Parker 1997: 86, Finglass 2014: 129–34, 370–1). E1 The verse shows alternating word-end before and after the ‘link-anceps’. The early break is absent in T1E and T2E, the later one in T3E, T4E and T5E. Period-end: brevis in longo in T2E, T4E. E2 Up to the first short of the final D-colon, this line repeats the rhythm of the preceding one. Again word-end before the first ‘link-anceps’ goes hand in hand with a bridge after it (T2E, T3E) and vice versa (T1E, T4E, T5E). The same ‘link’ is short in T1E (14 Πιερίδων ἀίοντᾰ). Cf. above on S4. Period-end: brevis in longo in T1E. E3 Resolution of the first long in e is not unusual, but this is one of only two Pindaric periods where it occurs in mid-verse in all repetitions. The other is Ol. 7 (E5). See Itsumi 2009: 417–18. Period-end: brevis in longo in T5E. E4 Period-end: brevis in longo in T1E, T5E. E5 This verse is identical to E4, with e prefixed. Its first long is resolved in T1E to accommodate the proper name Κιλίκιον (17). Nothing indicates period-end, but the similarity to E4, which has a break, suggests that it was intended as a self-contained unit. See further on E6. E6 Pindar here repeats the pattern of E5, without the final e-colon. The result is an exact rhythmical mirror image of E4. The last point favours regarding the verse as a period, despite the absence of external signs. This in turn implies quasi-period-status for E5. It seems improbable, moreover, that Pindar would have run on from E4 to E6 in a single metrical scheme. E7 The resolved E at the beginning (for which cf. Nem. 1 (E1), Isth. 5 (S6/7), 6 (S7)) continues the dactylic rhythm of E6. Period-end: brevis in longo in T3E. E8 The rare acephalous d (⏑ ⏑ ‒) usually occurs, as here, verse-initially immediately after verse-final D (i.e. … ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ || ⏑ ⏑ ‒ …): also Ol. 7 (S6, E6), 8 (S6), 13 (E6), Nem. 8 (E3). The sequence resembles D2 (‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒), which regularly has word-end after the D-part (Itsumi 2009: 420).



The phrase ⏖E ‒ takes up the beginning of E7. The fact that both times it is separated off by word-end reinforces the effect.

3 Strophic Construction The metrical structure of Pythian 1 is one of the most complicated and elaborate in all of Pindar’s poetry, especially in the strophe/antistrophe. Its external pattern is simple enough. Longer periods alternate with shorter ones, subtly increasing until the movement culminates in S6. Internally too, we observe a relatively regular sequence of mainly E and ‒ D (or E ‒ and D, but the repeated word-ends in S4 favour ‒ D as a thematic unit). In fact, the entire strophe can be described as a variation on E and ‒ D. The phrases are introduced in S1 (E ‒ D). S2 formally expands on E and ‒ D, while the short S3 returns to E proper, with ‒ ‒ prefixed. In S4 D ‒ comes to the fore again, surrounding ⏓ e e (⏓ ‒ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ‒), a rhythmical variant of E. Another short period (S5) echoes the earlier E- and e-patterns (especially S1 and S3) in the ‘classic’ shape E ‒ e, before S6 reunites ‘dactylic’ and ‘epitrite’ in a period of unparalleled length. Here D e ‒ symmetrically frames D ‒ (⏖ in T5A?), creating a sequence which looks as if it was intended to rival, if not outdo, the epic hexameter. In detail, however, the strophe emerges as highly unusual. In part this is due to the far above-average length of the periods S2 (twenty-one positions), S4 (twentythree) and S6 (thirty). Itsumi (2009: 413–15) examined Pindaric verse-length based on the number of single- and double-short positions, and all of these lines have few or no equivalents.135 Other exceptional features are the ‘spondees’ (‒ ‒) at the end of S2 and the beginning of S3 and the frequent omission of the ‘link-anceps’ between D/e phrases. As Itsumi (2009: 417) notes, the strophe of Pythian 1 and the epode of Nemean 8 are the only Pindaric stanza forms with four such ‘missing links’. The verses of the epode are less extensive (except for S7 at twenty-one positions), but similarly remarkable in form.136 Of particular interest, however, is the rhythmical progression, which is founded on thematic development rather than repetition. Thus E2 expands on E1 with a final D-colon. After the pure ‘epitrite’ metre of E3, Pindar varies the D ⏓ e pattern at the beginning of E2. The resulting ‒ D ‒ e (E4) is extended with initial e in E5, while E6 can be analysed either as E5 short-

135 S2 is one of only seven verses with three ⏑ ⏑ and two ⏑, S4 one of eight with four ⏑ ⏑ and two ⏑. S6 with its six ⏑ ⏑ (and two ⏑) is unparalleled (cf. above, 41–2). 136 E2 is one of fourteen verses with four ⏑ ⏑ and one ⏑, E3 one of seven with no ⏑ ⏑ and four ⏑, and the long E7 has no more than three equivalents at two ⏑ ⏑ and four ⏑.



ened at the end or as a retrograde of E4. Its final dactylic rhythm runs smoothly into the initial ⏖E ‒ of E7. This colon, marked off by word-end, recurs at the end of E8, which starts with an anaclastic variation on D (⏑ ⏑ ‒ ‒ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ instead of ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒ ⏑ ⏑ ‒), again separated by word-end. E8 thus all but presents a mirror image of E7 (barring the intervening E ‒), with an effortless dactylic joint. From E4 to E8 therefore Pindar built his rhythm on two sets of forward and backward movements (E4–E6, E7–E8). How far this was also reflected in the melody we unfortunately cannot tell. Noteworthy individual elements are the relatively large number of resolutions, either running through all repetitions (E3, E7, E8) or in one position only (E5). In E3 this is connected with a ‘missing link’ (… ⁞ E ⏖e) and in E8 with acephalous d (⏑ ⏑ ‒) at the beginning of the period. In conclusion, Pindar seems to have gone out of his way to make the metrical and, one may presume, musical architecture of Pythian 1 a match for its highly unusual content. Both together will have served to mark the grandeur of Hieron and his victory celebration.137

137 Cf. ch. I. I refrain here from trying to analyse the ode in terms of interaction between metre and content, as Phillips (2018: 89–97) did for the first two triads. While this approach shows some impressive results, it cannot be generalised over the whole poem. A very extensive and detailed study would be required to determine how far Pindar (and other lyric poets) went in that direction. For echoes of wording and/or sense at corresponding verse-positions in Pythian 1 see 43b–5 (ἔλπομαι), 82b–4 (ταχείας ἐλπίδας), 82b–4 (ἀστῶν … ἀκοά) and 89–90 (παρμένων) nn.

V The Transmission of the Text 1 The Early History Of the pre-Alexandrian history of Pindar’s text nothing certain is known. Most scholars agree that from the beginning the dissemination of his poems relied, at least to some degree, on written copies. Despite the continuing importance of re­performance (ch. III.1), there is strong evidence for an emerging literary culture in Pindar’s lifetime.138 Presumably he presented the victors with a transcript of ‘their’ ode(s) for the family archive – Olympian 7 for Diagoras of Rhodes was even said to have been inscribed in golden letters in the temple of Athena at Lindos139 – and how would the singers at later revivals, symposiasts or school-boys have learnt the text, if not with a written copy somewhere down the line?140 Moreover, such occasional reperformances as we can deduce do not account for the survival of the entire Pindaric corpus into Hellenistic times,141 and in a state which, to judge by our extant evidence (after nearly two millennia of manual copying), must have been nearly free of Atticisation and other corruption. This last fact even presupposes a certain level of philological care. While the linguistic and metrical complexity of the Pindaric odes seems to have largely protected them from interpolation and other deliberate changes, such as many dramas suffered in reperformance,142 these same

138 See Spelman 2018: 39–43. 139 Ol. 7 tit. (I 195.13–14 Dr.) = Gorgon FGrH 515 F 18. The reference to survival through writing in schol. Nem. 4.10a (III 65.5–15 Dr.) is inconclusive, since it reflects Hellenistic conditions, as the comparison with Callimachus (Aet. fr. 7.13–14 Pf. = Harder) shows. 140 For possible reperformance scenarios see ch. III.1. Many symposiasts of the classical age would have learnt to sing Pindar to the kithara at school, in the way described for Athens by Aristophanes (Nub. 964–8) and Plato (Prt. 326a6–b6) and for Thebes by Aristoxenus (fr. 76 Wehrli = [Plut.] De mus. 1142b). There is no evidence for written copies here, but vase-paintings like the school scenes on the ‘Douris Cup’ (Berlin, Antikensammlung F 2285, ca. 480) or the ‘Stesichorus kylix’ (cf. 2b–4 n. (ἁγησιχόρων … τεύχῃς)) suggest that at least the master had one (cf. West 1992: 37–8 with plt. 11, and contrast Vedic practice, below n. 143). Plato also describes how in literature classes the works of non-lyric poets were set before the students to be read and committed to memory (Prt. 325e2–326a4). 141 Hornblower 2012: 103. 142 A notable example of early interpolation occurs in Ol. 2.25–7 ζώει μὲν ἐν Ὀλυμπίοις ἀποθανοῖσα βρόμῳ / κεραυνοῦ τανυέθειρα Σεμέλα, φιλεῖ δέ νιν Παλλὰς αἰεί / [φιλέοντι δὲ Μοῖσαι] / καὶ Ζεὺς πατήρ, where the colon φιλέοντι δὲ Μοῖσαι was athetised by Aristophanes of Byzantium as having no equivalent in the other stanzas (schol. Ol. 2.48c (I 73.5–6 Dr.) = Ar. Byz. fr. 380A Slater; cf. 38 n. 125). Nevertheless the phrase is found in all extant papyri and MSS, except those of Triclinius, who again recognised the metrical problem (schol.Tr Ol. 2.48 Abel). Since the addition would have



features would have made casual copying, or indeed purely oral transmission, ‘an unreliable instrument of preservation’.143 In Alexandria Pindar’s works were edited in seventeen books, four of epinicians and thirteen others, which have been partly retrieved from papyri. This arrangement of the poems according to lyric genres was credited to Aristophanes of Byzantium.144 At that time they also acquired their traditional colometry, perhaps again at the hands of Aristophanes of Byzantium (IV.1, 38), and the commentaries that were to be excerpted into the medieval scholia. If one considers the dates of the Pindar papyri that have come to light so far,145 the number of fragments from the epincians roughly equals that of the other poems until the third century AD; after that we only find the epinicians, with the latest papyri coming from the fifth or sixth century AD. This picture is supported by the indirect tradition, where quotations of non-epinician odes peter out in the late second century AD.146 Various reasons for this reduction of the Pindaric canon have been adduced: (1) the continued popularity of athletic competitions in late antiquity, (2) the richness of the epinicians in gnōmai and other pieces of general advice and (3) Eu­stathius’ much-quoted, if enigmatic, statement that the epinicians ‘… are most of all in circulation because they are more human in character, sparing in myth and otherwise too not entirely unclear’, which is likely to go back to a time when the different genres could still be compared.147 While modern readers may pause at Eustathius’

been immediately obvious in performance, it was probably made by a reader who was worried by the singular verb φιλεῖ followed by two personal subjects. 143 Hubbard 2004: 85; cf. Hadjimichael 2019: 244–5. However, the history of the Rigveda, which was composed orally and preserved thus with unmatched textual fidelity for nearly two millennia, proves that such statements cannot be generalised. But early Greek lyric was not handed down ‘in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on’ (Witzel 2003: 68). On the importance of the late-antique and Byzantine school-syllabus for the survival of Pindar’s epinicians see below. 144 There was one book each of Hymns, Paeans, Encomia and Threnoi, two of Dithyrambs, Prosodia and Hyporchemata and three of Partheneia. Two lists are transmitted in P. Oxy. 2438.35–9 (= Ar. Byz. fr. 381 Slater) and the Vita Ambrosiana (I 3.6–9 Dr.) respectively. They differ in order, but the overarching division is clearly between ‘songs for gods’ followed by ‘songs for humans’. On these lists see most recently Ercoles 2020, who concludes that P. Oxy. 2438 essentially reflects Aristophanes’ arrangement. 145 The MP3 database currently lists fifty-five fragments that have certainly been attributed to Pindar, including separate commentaries. Cf. Fries 2017b: 747 with n. 5. 146 Cf. Irigoin 1952: 94–6, Rutherford 2012: 100–1. 147 Eust. Prooem. Pind. 34 (III 303.9–11 Dr. = 28.13–15 Kambylis) οἳ καὶ περιάγονται μάλιστα διὰ τὸ ἀνθρωπικώτεροι εἶναι καὶ ὀλιγόμυθοι καὶ μηδὲ πάνυ ἔχειν ἀσαφῶς κατά γε τὰ ἄλλα. Cf. Wilamowitz 1889: 184, Irigoin 1952: 96–7, Rutherford 2012: 101–2, Ucciardello 2012: 108 with n. 19.

The Transmission of the Text 


last two points, it is evident that the epinicians have more to do with real-life humans than, for example, the Dithyrambs and most of the Paeans. At the same time they are grander than the symposiastic Encomia, which were often written for the same clients. These reasons for the growing popularity of Pindar’s epinicians will also lie behind their adoption as a school-text during the second or third century AD,148 which is arguably the single most important factor for their preservation. It ensured a regular need for new copies and aids to the reader, like ever more elementary commentaries and lexica,149 which in turn would have increased the circulation of the poems. Pindar’s status as a school author thus ensured the survival of the epinicians into the medieval tradition. And since the ancient syllabus remained all but unchanged throughout the Byzantine era, it is also the reason why we can read them today, in a comparatively uncorrupted text accompanied by rich ancient and medieval scholia.

2 Manuscripts Like most Byzantine school authors, Pindar is preserved in a large number of minuscule codices. However, none of them predates the later 12th century, and less than twenty are relevant for the constitution of the text of any given ode. The medieval tradition is essentially split into two branches, which go back to different uncial archetypes. The so-called Ambrosian branch is represented by a single manuscript, Ambr. C 222 inf. (A), which has recently been redated by Mazzucchi (2003, 2004) from ca. 1280 to the 1180s, making it one of the two oldest extant codices. Unfortunately, this most important witness only covers Olympians 2–12 (with Olympian 1 added from another source).

148 So first Wilamowitz 1889: 179, 184–6, partially anticipated by Barthold 1864: 29; cf. Irigoin 1952: 93–7. Wilamowitz’s theory that an individual was responsible for the selection of the schoolcanon was criticised by Barrett (1964: 50–3, with regard to Euripides). In favour of a self-reinforcing process of reduction, based on the popularity of texts and the availability of commentaries, see also Fries 2014: 43 and 2017b: 747–8 with n. 7. 149 One such commentary is exemplified by Π1 of the fifth or sixth century AD (below, 59–60). A fragmentary and badly disarranged basic glossary on Demosthenes, Pindar and Aristophanes, entitled Ῥητορικαὶ Λέξεις, is preserved in twelve manuscripts (the latest from the 18th century!) as part of a corpus of ‘minor lexica’ which accompany Cyril’s lexicon. It was edited by Naoumides (1975), who surmised that the poetic part of the collection was compiled from marginal notes in late-antique or early-medieval school-texts of Pindar and Aristophanes (33, 39–40, 47–8).



The second or ‘Vatican’ branch divides further into two families. One transmits all four books of epinicians and is therefore called ‘complete recension’, although only the composite codex Laur. 32.52 (D) of the early 14th century now comes close to completeness. Since for Olympian 14 and Pythians 1–12 D is a twin of Gotting. philol. 29 (G), it is of very limited evidential value.150 It is particularly regrettable that the oldest member of this family, Vat. gr. 1312 (B) of ca. 1180, has lost several portions of text through mutilation, including Pythian 1. The other family or ‘abbreviated recension’ comprises only the Olympians and Pythians, which probably represent a school-selection. The first two books of epinicians already produced more than twice as many papyrus finds as the Nemeans and Isthmians,151 and one suspects that this early popularity – owed to the prestige of the Olympian and Pythian Games, the grandeur of many of the odes and not least their position at the beginning of the corpus – led to a gradual reduction in the syllabus, comparable to the Byzantine triads of the three tragedians and Aristophanes. It is not surprising therefore that the vast majority of relevant manuscripts goes back to the ‘abbreviated recension’; for Pythian 1 only Par. gr. 2774 (C) derives from the ‘complete recension’ (despite the fact that it ends at Pyth. 5.51). Within these families smaller groups of closely related manuscripts have been identified by Turyn (1932) and Irigoin (1952), which are usually named after the current location of their most prominent representative(s) or the (putative) origin of their common ancestor. The following overview assesses their contributions to the text of Pythian 1, as well as those of two outstanding Byzantine philologists, Demetrius Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopoulos. All sigla are taken from Irigoin, apart from ‘Vi’ for the codex Vindob. suppl. gr. 64, which was described by Irigoin, but has not previously been used for editing Pindar. It is followed by a stemma relating to Pythian 1 only.152

a) The Paris Recension (C) The only member of the ‘Paris recension’ that transmits Pythian 1 is Par. gr. 2774 (C). The codex, which covers Ol. 1.1 to Pyth. 5.51, is written on Italian paper and securely dated to about 1300 by the watermark.153 Irigoin’s attribution of this recension to

150 In Pythian 1 it is free of some minor errors of G (e.g. 4 ἐλελιζομέναν G: -μένα G2D cett.), while sharing some (e.g. 32 ἀγγέλλων ὡς GD) and introducing others (e.g. 30 γαίας] γαίη D). I have therefore excluded it from the apparatus. 151 Nineteen as against seven, according to MP3. Cf. below, 60 with n. 192. 152 Adapted from Irigoin 1952 (between pp. 430 and 431). 153 Irigoin 1952: 263.

The Transmission of the Text 


Maximus Planudes (ca. 1255–1305), which was accepted by Hunger and, with some reservation, Wilson,154 was criticised by Günther on three grounds: (1) the text of this manuscript family shows no signs of systematic philological and metrical revision, (2) many correct readings in the Olympians are paralleled in A (Ambr. C 222 inf.) and so likely to be genuine tradition, and (3) there is no evidence in the form of a commentary that Planudes worked on Pindar in depth.155 However, the facts that his pupil Manuel Moschopoulos prepared an annotated edition of the Olympians and that Triclinius can also be associated with the Planudean circle (see below, 54–5 and 56–7), suggest that Pindar was seriously studied there. Further evidence in that direction comes from V, which in Pythian 2 to Nemean 6.44 (where it breaks off) is a relative of C and shows several Planudean characteristics, especially in its script.156 It is possible, therefore, that a text lightly (and perhaps incompletely) edited by Planudes entered circulation. In any case C is a first-rate witness for the text of Pythian 1. In over a dozen places it preserves the truth (or something very close to it) alone or together with very few other sources: 6 χαλάξαις (Cac + Π2, Et. Gen. s.v. κηληθμός (p. 33 Calame) cod. A), 8 κλᾶθρον (κλάϊθρον Wackernagel), 10 κατασχόμενος, 12 κώματι (+ Viac?), 23 αἴθων᾽, 26 προσιδέσθαι (+ Eγρ, Macr. 5.17.9; cf. Gell. 17.10.9), παρεόντων (+ Macr.), 35 καὶ τελευτᾷ (+ ρ), 39 δάλοι᾽ (Cpc), 52 ἔσανε, 69 ἁγητήρ, 70 δᾶμον [τε] (C1 + E), σύμφωνον ἡσυχίαν (+ Å εἰς), 81 συντανύσαις, 92 ὥσπερ. In addition, C is frequently right in conjunction with a larger part of the tradition (e.g. 8 γλεφάρων, 13 ἀτύζονται, 39 παρνασ(σ)οῦ (C1s), 72 τυρσανῶν). One particularly notes the faithful transmission of dialectal forms, such as Doric γλεφάρων, νιν for μιν (32) and the Aeolic nominative masculine aorist participle in -αις.157 On the other hand, C also presents a number of (mostly trivial) errors, some idiosyncratic, some shared: e.g. 20 τιθάνα, 34 ἐρχομένοις (+ Å, Σ Nem. 1.49c), 45 ἐναντίους (+ F), 82 μεῖον, 92 πετάσαις (+ Vpc). Here the hyperdorism τιθάνα and the Aeolic form of the interpolated πετάσας (cf. 91–2a n.) tie in with the tendency of C to preserve or introduce dialectal forms.

154 Hunger 1978: II 68–9, Wilson 1983: 238. 155 Günther 1998: 64–7, against Irigoin 1952: 247–69. 156 See below, 54 and in detail Fries 2020. 157 Cf. Irigoin 1952: 252. He attributes these readings in the ‘Paris recension’ to the corrector (i.e. Planudes), who ‘has sought to reinforce the dialectal colour of the text’ (‘Le correcteur a cherché à renforcer la couleur dialectale du texte.’). But agreements with papyri and secondary sources (as in Pyth. 1.6 χαλάξαις) or the entire medieval tradition (as in Pyth. 1.32 νιν) suggest that genuine transmission should be the explanation of choice. This does not exclude the possibility of (hyper-) correction, of which we see an almost certain example in Pyth. 1.92 πετάσαις (below).



The manuscript once belonged to Janus Lascaris (1445–1534), the foremost Greek humanist in Italy of his time. Several readings of C entered the edition of Callierges, either directly or through a related manuscript (see below, 64–5).

b) The Laurentian Recension (ÅEF = μ) For Pythian 1 this group is represented by three roughly contemporaneous manuscripts: Athous Iberorum 161 (Å),158 Laur. 32.37 (E), both of ca. 1300, and the slightly older Laur. 32.33 (F). Together they allow us to reconstruct the hyparchetype μ.159 A fourth member this family, Vat. gr. 902 (L) of the early 14th century, is descended from a tradition parallel to μ and therefore leads to an even earlier hyparchetype (λ), but it transmits only Olympians 1–10 and changes allegiance in the middle of Olympian 9.160 F derives from the same source as E, but via at least one intermediary. While the codices usually side with each other in truth (e.g. 42 βιαταί EF (+ CGr): βιητάν Å) or error (e.g. 80 καμνόντων EF: καμόντων cett.), it is worth quoting F consistently because it occasionally is correct against ÅE and the majority of other witnesses (e.g. 39 παρνασ(σ)οῦ Fs (+ C1sỊsP2s): -σ(σ)ω ÅE cett., 93 οἶον (+ E2HT): οἷον ÅE cett.).161 The most telling shared error of μ in Pythian 1 is the omission of τάν in 77, to which one can add 14 πιερίδαν (-ίδων cett.) and 62 παμφύλω (-ου cett.). On the other hand, the family alone has the correct μήδειοι at 78, and it comes close to the truth at 69 ἁγητήρ (Cac: ἀγητ- ÅE, ἀγιτ- F).162 On their own the manuscripts are less successful in our ode. F has no unique correct reading, but sometimes adds weight where other sources are scarce (cf. above). The same applies to Å, which shares the truth with C at 70 σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν (except for the minor error εἰς) and to E, which supports C in 70 δᾶμον [τε] γεραίρων and in 26 acquired προσιδέσθαι (C Macr. 5.17.9; cf. Gell. 17.10.9) as a γράφεται-variant. It is unclear whether the acute accents in 32 κάρυξ (+ V) and 72 Φοίνιξ (32b–3a, 71–2a nn.), also found in Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopou-

158 The codex bears the siglum Φ in Turyn (who first used it), followed by Gentili (1995). But this invites confusion with the custom of designating archetypes with Greek uncials. 159 See Irigoin 1952: 293–318, who provides detailed descriptions of the extant codices. 160 Irigoin 1952: 287–92. 161 Cf. Gentili 1995: LXXXVI–LXXXVII, Finglass 2007: 57. 162 Irigoin (1952: 296) considers both 77 [τάν] and 78 μήδειοι to be pre-Palaeologan metrical corrections. This is possible in the case of the omission, but it seems improbable that the rare μήδειοι would have occurred to a Byzantine scholar (77b–8 n.). Günther (1998: 68–9) remains undecided.

The Transmission of the Text 


los, should count as genuine paradosis or lucky slips. Even more doubtful are the smooth breathing on 75 αἰρέομαι (< ἀρέομαι Dawes) and the acute on 85 κρείσσον (< κρέσσον Stob. 3.38.22 cod. S).

c) The ‘Thessalonicensis’ Recension (GHỊ = θ) This group consists of the codices Gotting. philol. 29 (G) from the second half of the 13th century,163 Vat. gr. 41 (H) of the early 14th century and Marc. gr. 465 (Ị), dated by the watermark to 1310–20.164 The recension goes back to a hyparchetype which Irigoin (1952: 146) called ‘Thessalonicensis’ (θ) because several of its descendants were used by scholars who worked at Thessalonica, such as Demetrius Triclinius. Strictly speaking, the manuscript Ị, which was first employed by Gentili (1995), only leads back to a later hyparchetype (τ), but it is sufficiently close to G and H to merit inclusion in this group. The codices PQTVi(UV) are also ultimately derived from θ, but at several further intermediaries, so that they are better kept separate under Irigoin’s siglum ς for their nearest common ancestor (see below, 52–4). The group GHỊ = θ is never right or wrong on its own, but on several occasions it shares the correct text with other parts of the tradition: 8 γλεφάρων, κατεχεύας, 13 ἀτύζονται (HỊ), 45 ἀμεύσασθ᾽ (GỊ), 61 κείναν, 73 συρακοσίων (GH), 85 οἰκτιρμοῦ, 90 ἁδεῖαν. The same applies to mistakes: 65 δωριῆς (-ῇς), 72 ταρσανῶν, 79 τελεσσα(ι)ς. Individual manuscripts also support otherwise thinly attested readings (e.g. 38 ὀνυμαστάν (GpcỊac (?) + EF), 39 παρνασσοῦ (Ịs + C1sFsP2s), 42 βιαταί (Gr + CEF) or Byzantine conjectures: 58 πάρ (Ị + Tricl.), 90 αἰεί (H2 + Ps.-Mosch.).165 It is also worth noting that Ị has several idiosyncratic titles, including the longest and most informative one of Pythian 1: ἱέρωνι αἰτναίω ἢ συρρακουσίω ἅρματι νικήσαντι τὴν κθ´ πυθιάδα. Codex H once belonged to Marcus Musurus, the editor-in-chief of the Aldine Press,166 whereas G is otherwise interesting because it is the only pre-Palaeologan Pindar codex, except Vat. Gr.  1312 (B), that exhibits prosodical annotation. The signs – and ⏑, largely written in the purple ink of the rubricator (who is identical

163 On the basis of the script, Irigoin (1952: 172) places G in the middle of the 13th century, whereas Nigel Wilson (private communication) prefers a somewhat later date, after palaeographical comparison with dated manuscripts from the last quarter of the century. 164 Descriptions in Irigoin 1952: 170–6 (G), 176–80 (H), 205–8 (Ị). 165 At 6 ἀενάου is shared by H and Triclinius. But since Triclinius probably had access to this manuscript, the attestations are hardly independent (cf. below, 55). We do not know what sources Pseudo-Moschopoulos had. 166 Cf. the ex-libris Μουσούρου κτέαρ ἦν εὖτε τάδ᾽ ἐγράφετο (Irigoin 1952: 176, 401). On Musurus as the possible editor, or at least final corrector, of the Aldine Pindar see below, 64 with n. 204.



with the first hand), mark the quantity of the ambiguous vowels α, ι and υ in the ancient manner, as well as metrical licences, such as muta cum liquida making position. Since the annotation is inconsistent within and between poems, and the manu­ script generally gives the impression of being a school-copy, the best explanation for the marks is that they were intended as an aid for the rhythmical reading aloud of the odes. G thus provides valuable insights into the tradition of Byzantine literary education and its state in the second half of the 13th century, that is shortly after the return of the Imperial court from exile in 1261.167

d) PQTVi(UV) = ς This family represents a sub-group descended from the ‘Thessalonicensis’ (θ) with a varying number of intermediaries (cf. above, 51). Its main members are the closely related Palat. gr. 40 (P) and Laur. 32.35 (Q), both of the first quarter of the 14th century, and an earlier branch comprising Vat. gr. 121 (T) of ca. 1280 and Vindob. suppl. gr. 64 (Vi) of ca. 1260–1280.168 Two further manuscripts, Vindob. hist gr. 130 (U) and Par. gr. 2403 (V) of the early 14th and late 13th century respectively, have been found by Irigoin to be apographs of Vi.169 With few exceptions (below), they can therefore be eliminated from the apparatus. As would be expected, ς tends to agree with θ in truth (45 ἀμεύσασθ᾽ (GỊ + QPVi), 61 κείναν) and error (35 φερτέρα (GHacỊ + Qυ), 42 βιηταί, 72 ταρσανῶν). But when they do not agree, θ is usually correct against ς (e.g. 8 γλεφάρων, κατεχεύας, 85 οἰκτιρμοῦ). The exception in Pythian 1 is a simple case of ‘normalisation’ at 72 (ἀλαλατός ÅGς: ἀλαλητ- HỊ). PQ (= ρ) go together at 22 ἀμέραισι (with a smooth breathing: ἁμέραισιν Ps.Mosch.), 35 καὶ τελευτᾷ (ἐν καί codd. pler.) and 92 καύχημα (for αὔχημα). The first reading is probably a lucky slip, whereas καὶ τελευτᾷ was classed as a metrical correction by Irigoin (1952: 228), which Triclinius took over from his working copy related to ρ (cf. below, 55). However, the fact that it also occurs in Cac suggests that it may have been genuine paradosis. Codices T and Vi are school-texts from the same period as G. While T provides little external interest, Vi is a fascinating historical document. It is a palimpsest,

167 Fries 2017b. 168 Descriptions in Irigoin 1952: 212–16 (T), 216–19 (Vi), 226–36 (PQ = ρ). 169 Irigoin 1952: 216, 219–25, 264–6. Vi is mutilated after Pyth. 5.55. In U the entire Pindar section was copied from Vi (as far as we can tell before the gap), in V only the Olympians and Pythian 1. The remainder of its Pindar text (Pyth. 2 – Nem. 6.44) stems from a source close to C.

The Transmission of the Text 


of high-quality but extremely worn parchment, where Pindar stands on top of a 10th-century liturgical text. As such it testifies to the value attached to literary education at a time of political and economic crisis, when good writing material was hard to get and people were willing to sacrifice copies of Christian literature, however battered.170 This picture is underlined by the meticulous care with which the Pindar text was written and the extensive scholia, marginal and interlinear notes that accompany it. Among them are a set of annotations by the same hand, mainly on the Olympians, of which one bears the name of an otherwise unknown scholar, Germanos. Hence Irigoin (1952: 217) called the codex ‘manuscript of Germanos’, the name which it has borne so far. Textually, T presents a unique good reading at 79 τελέσαις (Tac + Ps.-Mosch.), though the single σ looks rather like an accident, and as the only member of the family ς it supports οἶον for οἷον at 93 (also E2FH). Vi has the wrong majority reading κώμῳ in 12, but in a space that appears to be an erasure and is wide enough to have originally accommodated κώματι (C + lΣC). In addition, it is the only member of ς that corrects the mistakes of the group at 54 πολλούς (πόνους Vigl) and 72 ταρσανῶν (τυρσ- Vi2s). Irigoin’s discovery that U and V are copies of Vi in the Olympians and part of the Pythians, for which he provided only scattered evidence, is confirmed by my collation of Pythian 1. Of particular interest is Vi’s idio­syncratic pattern of strophic indications, which is faithfully reproduced in U and with a few lapses also in V. No three scribes could have developed it independently.171 This also includes a colo­ metry which makes the third antistrophe begin at οἵαις (47). As Irigoin (1952: 222–3) already observed, U incorporates a few secondary readings in Vi, which V largely does not have. In Pythian 1 these are: 35 φερτέρα ViV: -ᾳ Vi2U, 48 εὑρίσκοντο ViV: -ετο Vi2U, 54 πολλούς ViV: πόνους ViglU, 58 περί ViacV: παρά VipcU, 72 ταρσανῶν Vi: τυρσ- Vi2sUV, 77 αἱρέω Vi: ἐρέω Vi1cUV. Of these only 48 is a clear error (or Verschlimmbesserung), prompted by the preceding singular verbs referring to Hieron; all other readings are either correct (54, 72) or improvements on Vi’s original (35, 58, 77). The scribe of U knew enough of Pindar’s Greek to re­cognise this.

170 See Fries 2017b: 766–7 (with n. 53 for parallels of classical school authors). 171 In Vi each ode begins with an anthropo- or zoomorphic initial. In Pythian 1 this is an Χ-shaped citharist, followed by no signs for the antistrophe and epode of the first triad. In triads two to four the strophe remains unmarked, while the other two stanzas are indicated by abbreviations of ἀντίστροφος and ἐπῳδός. The fifth triad provides a mirror image of the first, with strophe and antistrophe blank and the epode marked. The only difference in U is a far smaller and non-pictorial initial. V has a large ornate initial, indicates the second epode with a gap and omits the sign for the fourth.



However, V offers a few good, or at least interesting, readings that are alien to ς and so must have entered it from elsewhere: 8 γλεφάρων V (+ Cμθ): βλεφ- Csς, 26 ἰδέσθαι V (+ FglGγρHγρ): πυθέσθαι μθς, 85 οἰκτιρμοῦ V (+ CEFθ): -μῶν Åς, 92 πετάσαις Vpc (+ C): -ας Vac cett. Here one notices a certain convergence with the contemporary codex C, especially in the Aeolic form of the interpolated πετάσας at 92. This is not surprising, given that the second part of V’s Pindar text (Pyth. 2 – Nem. 6.44) was copied from a relative of C and that the two ‘halves’ show signs of having been corrected against each other’s sources.172 In this context it is also of particular interest that the principal script of V resembles the hands of several manuscripts produced in the circle of Planudes, whose flourishes were imitated and exaggerated by his students and ammanuenses.173 V may thus be the missing link which proves that C and the other members of the ‘Paris recension’ reflect Planudes’ work on Pindar, even if he did not curate a full edition (cf. above, 48-9). Further evidence for such a scholarly background of V comes from 59 χάρμα δ᾽ οὐκ, where the necessary elision is probably a ‘conjecture’ anticipating Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopoulos. V also shares with these philologists (+ E) the accent of κάρυξ at 32 and with only Triclinius (+ GH) the correct συρακοσίων at 73, although in both cases there remains the possibility of lucky slips. In conclusion, V does not have to be cited consistently in an apparatus of Olympian 1 to Pythian 1, but it needs to be examined for adopted readings and early Palaeologan conjectures. U, on the other hand, is primarily of historical interest.

e) Triclinius Demetrius Triclinius (ca. 1280–1335), who was probably a pupil of Thomas Magister in Thessalonica and for some time also moved in the circle of Planudes, has justly been described as the first modern textual critic and editor.174 He distinguished himself from his predecessors by his superior understanding of Greek lyric metre, including strophic responsion, and the confidence with which he applied his know­

172 See Fries 2020: 711, 714–17. 173 Fries 2020: 711–13 (with references to manuscript specimens and digital images). The main characteristics of this type of script are (1) large circular letters (e.g. β, ο, σ, υ, φ, ω and the ligatures for ερ or ος), (2) the frequent use of oversized uncial γ and minuscule δ and τ (often with extended and slightly curly horizontal strokes) and (3) a long wave for the abbreviation of -ων. All three features appear in Planudes’ own hand, albeit to a much lesser degree. 174 E.g. Wilamowitz 1889: 194–5, Irigoin 1952: 331 (‘un philologue moderne’), Wilson 1983: 249. Very little is known about Triclinius beyond his surviving work. For a concise account of his career see Wilson 1983: 249–56.

The Transmission of the Text 


ledge to emending and annotating the texts of Pindar, the three tragedians and Aristophanes. However, it seems that Pindar’s difficult poetry led to a certain editorial reluctance compared to the dramatists. Irigoin (1952: 331–4) argued, on account of differences in the commentary, that our Triclinian manuscripts represent two separate editions, one of all four books of epinicians and a second one of only the Olympians. While this has been contested,175 it is irrelevant for appreciating Triclinius’ impact on the text of Pythian 1. There is no autograph of Triclinius’ Pindar. The earliest extant manuscript of all the odes with commentary is the now mutilated codex Laur. conv. soppr. 94, dated by the watermark to ca. 1330. This is still within Triclinius’ lifetime, whence Irigoin named it as the authorised master-copy (exemplaire-type) of the recension.176 In the Olympians and Pythians Triclinius used a descendant of ρ, that is a close relative of PQ, as his base text.177 But he also compared other sources. Irigoin (1952: 335) cites ‘the edition of Thomas Magister, that of Manuel Moschopoulos, perhaps also that of Maximus Planudes, and finally a manuscript very close to the source of Thomas Magister, the Vaticanus gr. 41 (H)’. This means that readings shared by Triclinius and ρ or H, such as 6 ἀενάου (H: αἰενάου Schroeder), 26 ἰδέσθαι (Hγρ + FglGγρ), 35 καὶ τελευτᾷ (ρ + Cac) and 73 συρακοσίων (H + GV), are not conjectures but paradosis, although Triclinius still deserves the credit for having recognised their value. The same would apply to Triclinius and CV, if these manuscripts represent the text current in Planudes’ milieu: 32 κάρυξ with acute accent (V + E, Ps.-Mosch.),178 39 δάλοι᾽ (Cpc), 52 ἔσανε (C + Ps.-Mosch.), 59 δ᾽ (V), 70 δᾶμον [τε] (CE + Ps.-Mosch.), σύμφωνον ἡσυχίαν (CÅ). There is evidence for such a Planudean connection (above, 48-9, 54), but in the absence of certainty the argument for Triclinius’ use of Planudes remains circular, especially since none of the potential corrections would have been beyond his critical capacity. Like the above readings, Triclinius’ unquestionable conjectures in Pythian 1 mainly fall into the following categories: (1) lengthening or shortening of a syllable: 59 πιθεό μοι: πείθεό μοι codd., 62 ἔκτισσε· θέλοντι (+ Ps.-Mosch.): ἔκτισε· θέλοντι codd. pler.179 (cf. 6, 73).

175 Turyn 1957: 32 n. 49; cf. Wilson 1983: 251. 176 Description in Irigoin 1952: 228–40. 177 Irigoin 1952: 334, 343. 178 Cf. 72 φοίνιξ (E, Tricl. + Ps.-Mosch.). It is doubtful whether the morphologically correct accentuation of these two words (32b–3a, 71–2a nn.) can be attributed to any Byzantine scholar, or whether they should rather count as lucky survivals or slips. See further below, 59. 179 Since this includes PQ (=  ρ), Triclinius probably received ἔκτισε. θέλοντι. CÅ have ἔκτισεν. ἐθέλοντι, which would have required further adjustments. See below (57 with n. 187) on Pseudo-Moschopoulos.



(2) addition of ephelcystic ν: 68 βασιλεῦσι (+ FG, Ps.-Mosch.) (cf. 52 ἔσανε (C + Ps.-Mosch.)). (3) addition or omission of a syllable: 8 κλάϊστρον: κλαίστρον codd., 48 παλάμαις (+ Ps.-Mosch.): -αισι codd., 58 πάρ (+ Ị): παρά cett., 79 παρά: πάρ codd., 88 ἀμφοτέροις (+ Ps.-Mosch.): -οισι codd. (cf. 39, 59 δ᾽ (V): δέ codd. pler.). (4) addition or omission of one or more small words: 26 ἰδέσθαι: ἰδέσθαι Hγρ, 37 στεφάνοισί ἵπποις: στεφάνοισιν ἵπποις codd., 78 μῆδοι , 97 οὐδέ νιν (cf. 35 καὶ τελευτᾷ (Cacρ): ἐν καὶ τελευτᾷ cett., 70 (× 2)).180 With the exception of 37 (which was left to Heyne to heal) and 97 (where nothing is amiss in the paradosis), all his proposals are correct by the standards of modern metrics, if not always what editors would print (8, 26, 78). This is also true of 92, where he has ἵστιον ἀμπετάσας instead of the transmitted ἵστιον ἀνεμόεν πετάσα(ι)ς. Pseudo-Moschopoulos, who did not know Triclinius’ work (below, 57), apparently made the same conjecture, but the passage had to wait for Callierges to recognise that πετάσα(ι)ς was an interpolation. In conclusion it has to be said that Triclinius was most successful with the minor changes of categories (1)-(3), many of which were independently reiterated by Pseudo-Moschopoulos. But he also missed several opportunities for such simple corrections, which his anonymous successor took up (e.g. 23 ὀρφναῖσι, 75 δουλίας: -είας codd.). Both individually and together, however, these two pioneers in the metrical restoration of Pythian 1 hold an outstanding position in the critical apparatus.

f) Pseudo-Moschopoulos Manuel Moschopoulos (born ca. 1265) was a student of Planudes and followed him in becoming a teacher and scholar. He mainly worked on drama and other poets that were part of the Byzantine school-syllabus, including Pindar.181 His edition of the Olympians, which contains a number of metrical corrections that have stood

180 Cf. Irigoin 1952: 345–7, who also quotes instances of word-transposition and -replacement from other odes. All these types of correction are in the tradition of Moschopoulos on the Olympians (see Irigoin 1952: 275–6). 181 For a brief survey of Moschopoulos’ career (which included a spell in prison) and a critical appreciation of his work see Wilson 1983: 244–7.

The Transmission of the Text 


the test of time, enjoyed considerable success, to judge by its survival in over sixty manuscripts.182 It had long been assumed that Moschopoulos’ Pindar recension also comprised the Pythians and the first three Nemeans, but Irigoin argued that the édition moscho­ pulienne allongée (as he termed it) was the product of a later scholar working on the same principles. Irigoin himself located this man, who cannot be identified and is therefore called ‘Pseudo-Moschopoulos’, in the middle of the 15th century, on the grounds that the earliest of the ten complete or partial copies of his edition (Leiden, Voss. gr. Q 38) dates to ca. 1470 and that its basic text is close to that of the mid15th-century codex Marc. gr. 475 (Y).183 However, Günther has reasonably objected that metrical knowledge of the kind shown by Pseudo-Moschopoulos would have been very unusual in the 15th century. He proposes a date in the first half of the 14th century and ascribes the edition to one of Moschopoulos’ students, who was eager to extend the work of his master, but did not get beyond Nemean 3, which hampered the initial circulation of the text.184 This scenario also accounts much better for the fact that Pseudo-Moschopoulos did not use Triclinius,185 who was well known in the 15th century. If the two scholars were active roughly at the same time, perhaps in different places, they may have been unaware of each other’s work.186 In Pythian 1 Pseudo-Moschopoulos deserves a place in the apparatus for a number of successful interventions. Some are the type of trivial change set out for Triclinius above: (1) lengthening or shortening of a syllable: 62 ἔκτισε· θέλοντι,187 75a δουλίας: -είας, 75b ἁρέομαι: αἱρ- (?), 79 τελέσ[σ]αις, 90 αἰεί (also H2): ἀεί, 92 ὀπιθόμβροτον: ὀπισθ- fere codd.

182 Irigoin (1952: 272–86) provides a detailed analysis of the text and commentary. Moschopoulos’ approach to metrical emendation anticipated that of Triclinius (above, 56 with n. 180). 183 Irigoin 1952: 271–2, 390–4. 184 Günther 1998: 72–4. Since reading in schools was often confined to the Olympians, which were served by the genuine Moschopoulos edition, a metrically emended text of all Pindar’s epinicians would have appealed primarily to scholars. This restricted its potential from the start and would have made its incompleteness and lack of metrical annotation particularly problematic. On Günther’s hypothesis one has to assume that at least one copy survived into the later 15th century when the recension gained moderate popularity. Regarding the proximity of the text to Y, Günther suggests that the influence may have been the other way round. 185 This is evident from the numerous places where they identify the same problem, but come to different solutions. See below for examples from Pythian 1. 186 Cf. Günther 1998: 172–3. 187 This assumes the majority reading ἔκτισε. θέλοντι. But if Pseudo-Moschopoulos’ source text had ἔκτισεν. ἐθέλοντι (like CÅ), he would also have had to delete the ephelcystic ν and the initial ε of ἐθέλοντι. Triclinius independently came to the same solution (above, 55 with n. 179).



(2) addition of ephelcystic ν: 22 ἀμέραισι, 23 ὀρφναῖσι, 52 ἔσανε, 68 βασιλεῦσι. (3) omission of a syllable: 48 παλάμαισ[ι], 59 δ᾽[έ], 88 ἀμφοτέροισ[ι]. It is not surprising that the majority of these corrections are shared by Triclinius and/or at least one of the manuscripts, which are notoriously erratic in such matters. However, the possible ἁρέομαι at 75b is interesting. If this ghost form is not simply an error for the transmitted αἱρέομαι,188 it all but anticipates Dawes’ palmary ἀρέομαι (75b–7a n.). The rough breathing could itself be a scribal mistake. But other passages could not be treated so easily, as they required supplements, deletions or replacement of words. At 26 θαυμάσιον προσιδέσθαι Pseudo-Mos­ chopoulos, like Triclinius, received the variant ἰδέσθαι and restored the missing short syllable by inserting τε before the infinitive, which makes no sense (Triclinius was slightly more successful with ἰδέσθαι). This supplement falls into the final period of the strophic system, where Pseudo-Moschopoulos made two other interesting conjectures in the antistrophe of the fifth triad. At 92 he wrote ἱστίον ἀμπετάσας for ἱστίον ἀνεμόεν πετάσα(ι)ς, as had Triclinius (above, 56). Secondly, he changed κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέλοις to εὐτραπέλοις | κέρδεσσ᾽. With this he adjusted the rhythm to the traditional colometry of the period (D | e – D | – D | e – |||) and showed himself aware of a metrical problem that is still unsolved today. It cannot be held against him that the elision in κέρδεσσ᾽ goes against Pindaric practice (91–2a n. (†κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέλοις†)). In 70 σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν the correct preposition is found only in C and Triclinius (εἰς Å). Pseudo-Moschopoulos also noticed the omission, but added the semantically weaker ἐφ᾽ (‘towards’ rather than ‘into’). However, in 35 καὶ τελευτᾷ (Cacρ + Tricl.), where most codices read ἐν καὶ τελευτᾷ, he wrote κἀν, which one might accept, as several modern editors have done, if it did not look like a lectio facilior (cf. 33b–5a n.). His definitely correct readings of more advanced quality are 70 δᾶμον [τε] γεραίρων, 78 μήδειοι (for μῆδοι), 91 ὥσπερ (for ὥστε). Here 70 is shared by CE (and Triclinius), 78 by μ = ÅEF (μῆδοι μέν Triclinius) and 91 by C. This does not mean that they cannot be conjectures, but the parallel attestation opens up the possibility that Pseudo-Moschopoulos found at least some of them in his working copy or another

188 Of the five relevant Pseudo-Moschopoulos manuscripts I was able to consult, two have ἁρέομαι (Par. gr. 2834, Harl. 1752) and three αἱρ- (Barocc. 62, Vat. Ottob. gr. 327, Cambr. Emm. Coll. 33). Barocc. 46 is the first part of Cambr. Emm. Coll. 33 (up to Pyth. 1.41a ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ μαχαναὶ πα-). I have not seen Voss. gr. Q 38, Ambr. P 67 sup. and Laur. Ashb. 1144.

The Transmission of the Text 


source, as was almost certainly the case with the required but misplaced νιν in 37 (35b–8n.).189 The same applies, finally, to three variants involving diacritics. In 4 PseudoMos­chopoulos has ἁγησιχόρων, together with Ath. 180e (~ Eust. in Od. 1480.21 Stallbaum), instead of ἀγησι-. This may be a lucky survival, although it was probably not beyond Pseudo-Moschopoulos to connect the first part of the compound with Doric ἁγέομαι and emend accordingly (2b–4n.). One is more reluctant to ascribe to him the acute accents of 32 κάρυξ and 72 Φοίνιξ. Both are also found in E (+ 32 V) and Triclinius, where the same question of originality arises (above, 55 with n. 178). On the basis of this material and the examples from other odes collected by Irigoin (1952: 391), one has to rank Pseudo-Moschopoulos among the most competent Byzantine editors of Greek lyric poetry. In Pythian 1 he is even more successful than Triclinius, applying the limited resources of Byzantine textual criticism with greater care. And from the comparison with Triclinius especially, he looks to be a child of the early to mid-14th century rather than the later 15th.

3 Papyri In view of the sustained popularity of Pythian 1 in antiquity, it is sightly surprising that only two relatively late papyri relating to the ode have so far come to light. They are P. Rain. 1.23 = P. Vindob. inv. G 29817 (Π1), of the fifth or sixth century AD,190 and P. Oxy. 5039 (Π2), which has been dated to between the mid-second and mid-third century AD.191 Π1 is a leaf of a large-format papyrus codex containing marginalia to Pyth. 1.46–9, 50–2, 55–6 and 65–6. The elementary nature of these annotations, which mainly consist of periphrases, glosses and mythological explanations, and their overlaps with the medieval scholia suggest that Π1 was part of a school-edition of

189 If Pseudo-Moschopoulos belonged to the 15th century, it may be significant that none of his ‘advanced readings’ appear in Marc. gr. 475 = Y (reports of which were kindly conveyed to me by Thomas Coward). But if he was active in first half of the 14th century, he would have had easier access to good copies. 190 MP3 1356. The papyrus was first published by Oellacher 1932. For a detailed study of its nature and content, including a new edition, see McNamee 1994. Cf. Irigoin 1952: 119–21, McNamee 2007: 98, 177–9, 306–8 (with plt. XXXII) and Ucciardello 2012: 117–18. 191 MP3 1355.21. For the dates see Ucciardello 2012: 110, 116 and Prodi 2016: 1165 with n. 88 (both with earlier references). The attribution to the third century goes back to Lobel 1961: viii.



the Pythians, perhaps preceded by the Olympians.192 The text of the poem is not preserved, but some information about it can be gleaned from three partially surviving lemmata. At 56 οὕτω δ’ †Ἱέρωνι θεὸς ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι† the papyrus attests . δε ἱέρωνι θ(εὸ)ς ὀρθωτ[, meaning that the version of the line that requires θεός to be scanned as a single short in synizesis goes back at least to late antiquity, if not necessarily to Pindar himself (cf. 56–7n.). The second fairly complete lemma covers 66 λευκοπώλ(ων) Τυνδαριδ[ᾶν], which has never been problematic, whereas in the note on 48 [θεῶν παλάμαις τι]μ̣άν· θεῶν βουλ[ῇ] it is unfortunate that we cannot tell whether the papyrus read παλάμαισι, like all medieval manuscripts, or the correct παλάμαις, restored by Pseudo-Moschopoulos (above, 58). Nevertheless, despite the limited evidence, it seems that not only the marginalia but also the text of Π1 broadly corresponded to the medieval vulgate. Π2 belongs to group of papyrus rolls of early Greek lyric, which were written by the same scribe in an informal hand, probably for private scholarly purposes.193 It preserves fragments of Pyth. 1.6–9 and 32–5 (as well as Pyth. 3.101–3, 4.39–43, 58–66, 72–80, 134–7, 256–7, 6.9–16). Although hardly a single complete word in these lines can be read, the papyrus makes two important contributions to the history of the text. At 6 it confirms the otherwise thinly attested Aeolic ending of χαλάξαις (6b–7a n.), while at 32 it reads epic-Ionic μιν against Doric νιν as lectio difficilior in all medieval manuscripts (cf. 32b–3a n.). Another evident error is κ̣αταχ[̣ for κατέχευας in 8. Earlier in the same verse the first letter of γλεφάρων is unfortunately missing, so that we cannot tell whether Π2, like other Pindaric papyri, supported the Doric form. But one particularly regrets the lacuna that has deprived us of possible ancient evidence for Wackernagel’s κλάϊθρον, also in 8, which is all but attested as κλᾶθρον in C (7b–8a n.).

4 Scholia The old exegetical scholia to Pindar’s epinicians are generally of high quality. They preserve much of the best Hellenistic scholarship, ultimately going back to the com-

192 Such a partial collection would correspond to the Byzantine ‘abbreviated recension’, comprising only the Olympians and Pythians (cf. above, 48), whose archetype Irigoin (1952: 114–15, 121) places in in the sixth century. Our numerous papyri of the first two books of epinicians include a similar commentary on the Olympians (P. Oxy. 5201, I BC – I AD). 193 Ucciardello 2012: 115–17. Scholars disagree about the number of papyri that should be attributed to this hand (named ‘Pindar’s scribe’), but there is general consensus about P. Oxy. 1787 (Sappho) and 2442 (Pindar, Hymns, Paeans and Prosodia). On the latter see further Lobel 1961: 31, D’Alessio 1997: 35–7 and Prodi 2016: 1164–7.

The Transmission of the Text 


mentaries of Aristarchus and his successors. These were excerpted into the vast commentary of Didymus (first century AD), which was itself epitomised, probably in the second century AD. Extracts of this epitome, together with some notes by scholars contemporary with, or a little later than, Didymus (e.g Theon, Herodian) were eventually copied into the margins of manuscripts.194 Π1 (above, 59–60) is an early example of such an annotated edition. There are two classes of scholia, corresponding to the basic division in the textual tradition of the poems. The scholia of the ‘Ambrosian’ branch, transmitted in the codex unicus Ambr. C 222 inf. (A), are much more scholarly than those of the ‘Vatican’ branch, which probably represent a somewhat later stage and often consist of fairly elementary exegetical notes typical of school-use. However, A is deficient after Olympian 12.195 Since the textual history of the scholia is to some extent separate from that of the odes, they can bear witness, through their text or interpretation, to otherwise thinly supported or even unattested readings. In addition, they can prove the antiquity, or otherwise, of a corruption or interpolation. The same applies in principle to the lemmata. But as they are more likely to be aligned with the main text than the body of a note,196 only deviations from the paradosis in the poems have full evidential value. In the scholia of Pythian 1 there are no textual discussions or readings associated with famous scholars of antiquity.197 But (indications of) the truth survive in the notes at 26b (n.) παρεόντων, 39 (39–40n.) παρνασσοῦ, 45 (43b–5n.) ἀμεύσασθ᾽, 65 δωριεῖς and 93 οἶον. Moreover, in 37 (35b–8n.) λοιπὸν ἔσσεσθαι στεφάνοισί ἵπποις τε κλυτάν Heyne’s is confirmed not only by the manuscripts of Pseudo-Moschopoulos (above, 58–9), but also by τὴν Αἴτνην and αὐτήν in scholl. Pyth. 1.67, 69 (II 16.11–13, 14–17 Dr.). Similarly, at 77 (77b–8n.) ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾽ τᾶν πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μαχᾶν Stone’s (sc. ἀρέομαι, 75) perhaps gains support from ἀποδέχομαι in schol. Pyth. 1.149 (II 25.16–17 Dr.) αἱροῦμαι δὲ καὶ ἀποδέχομαι … τὴν πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχην. There is certainly no trace of ἐρέω (codd.) in this periphrasis nor in that of schol. Pyth. 1.152a (II 25.20–26.2 Dr.). 194 It is impossible to tell whether the non-Didymean additions were the work of the first epitomator or a later scholar. The end of a hypomnēma on the Pythians by Theon survives in P. Oxy. 2536 (cf. Hadjimichael 2019: 238 n. 69). 195 The most useful histories of the Pindaric scholia are still Deas 1931 and Irigoin 1952: 51–75, 102–5. For a brief overview see Dickey 2007: 38–40. The fragments of Didymus’ commentary on the epinicians have recently been re-edited by Braswell 2013. 196 Cf. e.g. Pyth. 1.61 τῷ πόλιν κείναν, where CEGF read κλείναν and this is also in the lemma of schol. Pyth. 1.118a (II 20.12 Dr.) in E. 197 Contrast e.g. scholl. Ol. 2.140a = 77 (I 95.16–96.3 Dr.), 177d = 97 (I 103.29–104.3 Dr.) κρύφιον· Ἀρίσταρχος χωρὶς τοῦ ῑ γράφει κρύφον … καὶ ἡ ἀντίστροφος δὲ οὕτως ἀπαιτεῖ, schol. Pyth. 5.33 = 26 (II 175.10 Dr.).



Conversely, in 75–7 the above scholia show that the corruption of ἀρέομαι (Dawes) into αἱρέομαι is ancient and that the commentator(s) already interpreted ΤΑΝ … ΜΑΧΑΝ as an accusative singular rather than a genitive plural (cf. 75b–7a, 77b–8n.). The same is true of the paradosis at 52 (52b–3n.) μεταλ(λ)άσ(σ)οντας, which schol. Pyth. 1.101a (II 19.5–6 Dr.) explains as derived from seaching metals (μέταλλα). The lemmata, finally, provide important, or indeed unique, evidence at 12 κώματι (lΣC + C κώμτι) and 51 σὺν δ᾽ ἀνάγκᾳ νιν (lΣQ + Mommsen). In both places the errors κώμῳ and μιν (a lectio facilior) have permeated the whole remaining tradition.

5 The Indirect Tradition The testimony of indirect sources, that is quotations in ancient and medieval literary and scholarly works, anthologies and lexica, often precedes the main manuscript tradition. They can thus add valuable support where other evidence is scarce and even reveal unique good readings. However, in using them one needs to remember the following pitfalls: (1) We do not know what kind of texts were available to the respective authors and compilers,198 how far they relied on anthologies or indeed quoted from memory. Depending on the quality of their editions (or recollection) and the care which they lavished on the excerpts, errors could have occurred at the very beginning. (2) The works of the ‘host authors’ have their own textual history, in the course of which any sort of modification or corruption could have been introduced. (3) Unattributed words or short non-distinctive phrases cited in grammatical studies or lexica need not come from the texts under discussion. Regarding (1) and (2), we cannot tell, for example, whether in the quotation of Pyth. 1.85 κρέσσον γὰρ οἰκτιρμοῦ φθόνος at Stob. 3.38.22 the neuter κρέσσον attested by one manuscript (S) is a genuine survival or a later corruption of κρέσσων (MA), which also has ancient support in Herodian (GG II 429.12, 946.10 Lentz). Since both are possible, one has to establish by individual merit which one is more likely to be what Pindar intended (cf. 85–6a n.). The same applies to 86 ἀψευδεῖ δὲ πρὸς ἄκμονι χάλκευε γλῶσσαν, where Galen (π. διαφ. σφυγμῶν 3 (VIII p. 682 Kühn)) has ἀψευδῆ. Even if we do not accept the accusative (cf. 86b n.), it is impossible to decide whether it is Galen’s mistake, that of his source or an error of transmission.

198 Cf. Ucciardello 2012: 105–6.

The Transmission of the Text 


An example of (3) is offered by Hsch. α 3623 Latte–Cunningham ἀμεύσασθαι· ἀμείβεσθαι. διελθεῖν. περαιώσασθαι. It is not certain whether this refers to Pyth. 1.45 (and so backs the aorist infinitive found in half the manuscripts and apparently the scholiast’s text) or Pi. fr. 23 (= Eust. Prooem. Pind. 21 (III 293.24 Dr. = 17.2 Kambylis)) ἀμεύσεσθαι Νάξιον Τίσανδρον, where the future could also be an error for the aorist.199 Since the fragment very probably comes from a lost Isthmian, the argument that Pythian 1 would have been more familiar becomes less strong. Whoever compiled the entry may of course have thought of both passages. The remaining cases in Pythian 1 where external witnesses are called upon present no problems because the quotations are clearly identified or identifiable and there is little or no doubt that the readings they support are correct: 4 (2b–4n.) ἁγησιχόρων (Ps.-Mosch. + Ath. 180e ~ Eust. in Od. 1480.21 Stallbaum),200 6 (6b–7a n.) χαλάξαις (Π2Cac + Et. Gen. s.v. κηληθμός (p. 33 Calame) cod. A (om. B)), 13 (13–14n.) ἀτύζονται (CÅEF1sHỊ + Plut. De superst. 167c, Quaest. conv. 746b, Non posse suav. vivi 1095e), 26 (26b n.) προσιδέσθαι (CEγρ + Macr. 5.17.9), παρεόντων (C + Macr. 5.17.9).201 All these come from the proem (1–28), the most frequently cited part of the ode in antiquity. The range of ‘host authors’ is correspondingly wide, although within the expected cohort of polymaths (Plutarch), encyclopaedists (Athenaeus, Gellius, Macrobius) and lexicographers (Etymologicum Genuinum). Galen is easily the most unusual of the textually relevant external sources.

6 The First Printed Editions The editio princeps of Pindar’s epinicians was published by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1513.202 The typical Aldine octavo ‘pocket’ book also contains Callimachus’ Hymns, Dionysius Periegetes and Lycophron’s Alexandra.203 Eccentric as this collection may appear to the modern observer, it united four standard works of the

199 Cf. Eustathius’ introduction to the quotation (III 293.23–4 Dr. = 17.1–2 Kambylis) καὶ τὸ ἀμεῦσαι, ὅ ἐστι παρελθεῖν καὶ νικῆσαι (= schol. Pyth. 1.86 (II 17.11 Dr.)), οἷον … Bergk (1866: 373 ~ 1878: 378) conjectured ἀμεύσασθαι in fr. 23, comparing Hesychius and observing that his entry is followed by that of ἀμευσιεπής· διαλάσσουσα καὶ ἀμειβομένη τοῖς λόγοις, just as Eustathius quotes ἀμευσιεπῆ φροντίδα (= Pi. fr. 24) immediately after fr. 23. The two must thus have the same origin. 200 On Pseudo-Moschopoulos’ conjecture see above, 59. 201 The manuscripts of Macrobius’ source Gellius (17.10.9) are nearly correct with προ(σ)ειδέσθαι and παρέντων. 202 On this book see in detail Irigoin 1952: 399–408 and Bauer 2015. 203 Dionysius Periegetes and Lycophron were also first editions, whereas Callimachus’ Hymns had previously appeared in Florence in 1494.



advanced Byzantine school-syllabus, a sign of its continued influence on Renaissance reading practices. The Pindar text is printed without the scholia  – a separate edition of them announced in the dedication never came to pass. It is reasonable to assume that Marcus Musurus, Aldus’ eminent Greek editor-in-chief, had a hand in the production of the book, but since he is not mentioned in the preface, except in one general remark, he probably did not curate the edition.204 The text of the Aldine is of a composite nature. In the Pythians the model seems to have been a descendant of V, into which some corrections of Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopoulos (and H?) were incorporated. Thus it reads, for example, Pyth. 1.6 ἀενάου (H + Tricl.: ἀενν- cett.), 75 δουλίας (Ps.-Mosch.: -είας codd.), 79 τελέσαις (Tac + Ps.-Mosch.), 90 αἰεί (H2 + Ps.-Mosch: ἀεί H cett.), but 59 πείθεό μοι (codd.: πιθεό μοι Tricl.) and 92 ἱστίον ἀνεμόεν πετάσας (codd.: ἱστίον ἀμπετάσας Tricl., Ps.-Mosch.). In total the Aldine has little importance for the constitution of the Pindar text and none at all for Pythian 1. This is not the case with the so-called editio Romana. In 1515 Zacharias Kalliergēs (Callierges), a Cretan like Musurus, published a new edition of Pindar in Rome, this time also with the ancient scholia. It was in fact the first entirely Greek book printed in Rome, and owing to the quality of its text, it remained the vulgate for Pindar until Boeckh’s ground-breaking edition of 1811. The ‘Callierges Pindar’ is likewise based on multiple manuscripts, primarily B (Vat. gr. 1312), and partially the Aldine.205 In the Pythians, where B is deficient at the beginning (above, 48), Irigoin identified Par. gr. 2709 (X) as the printer’s copy for the first four quires (Α–Δ), containing Pyth. 1.1–4.169. The respective folios of the codex are numbered, and they carry numerous additions and corrections (especially in Pythian 1) which correspond to the printed text, and even (preliminary) indications of the page-breaks.206 In addition to X, Callierges used C (Par. gr. 2774) or a closely related manuscript. Several correct readings come from there: Pyth. 1.6 χαλάξαις, 10 κατασχόμενος, 12 κώματι, 23 αἴθων᾽, 26 προσιδέσθαι, ἁγητήρ, 81 συντανύσαις (mostly already entered

204 Cf. Irigoin 1952: 400–1. The question of Musurus’ involvement in the production of the Aldine Pindar has been much discussed, but no definitive answer has been reached. See Galán Vioque 2022: 240 n. 5, with further literature on both sides. If Musurus had been the principal editor, one might have expected to see a greater influence of codex H, which he owned, apparently from about 1506 (Galán Vioque 2022: 246; cf. above, 51). 205 Despite some important qualifications reached by Fogelmark 2015 (cf. below), Irigoin 1952: 408–20 is still the most useful survey. 206 Irigoin 1952: 415–19. Cf. Fogelmark 2015: I 267–72.

The Transmission of the Text 


as corrections in X).207 Others could be intelligent conjectures, like 37 ἔσσεσθαι, 45 ῥίψαις and the metrically necessary deletion of πετάσα(ι)ς in 92. But the presence of wrong readings that do not make sense as corrections also points to one or more further manuscripts, now lost.208 It is this evidence of lost sources which makes the editio Romana very important for the history of the Pindaric text. Fogelmark’s study of 227 surviving copies reveals that hardly two of them are fully identical. In particular, he demonstrated that quires Α–Δ (above) exist in two settings. There are many, in part significant, textual differences between ‘Variant a’ and ‘Variant b’.209 Although objectively ‘b’ is rarely better than ‘a’, Fogelmark argues on philological and bibliographical grounds that ‘b’ is likely to be the later setting, following Callierges’ discovery of a new source or sources. However, D’Alessio (2017) observes that the superior text of ‘Variant a’ rather suggests the opposite, while none of the physical evidence absolutely contradicts this. It is certainly difficult to believe that a scholar-printer of Callierges’ calibre would have considered the unmetrical ‘Variant b’ εἴη ζεῦ εἴη τιν at Pyth. 1.29 an improvement on the otherwise universally transmitted and accepted εἴη ζεῦ τὶν εἴη of ‘Variant a’.210 The matter cannot be settled definitively on our current information, nor does it change the position of Callierges in the critical apparatus. But editors of the relevant odes need to be aware of the two settings and that the absence of a unique good reading in any given copy of the editio Romana is not a universal statement. Where readings differ, it will be worth reporting whether they belong to ‘Variant a’ or ‘Variant b’. No such case occurs in Pythian 1.

207 Contrary to Irigoin (1952: 416), τελέσαις in 79 cannot come from C, which has τελέσσαις. Callierges must have got it from Pseudo-Moschopoulos, via the Aldine (above). 208 Especially Pyth. 1.83 καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ, ταχείας ἀπάδις (ἐν ἄλλῳ, τραχείας ἐλπίδας Xac) instead of αἰανὴς ταχείας ἐλπίδας, on which Fogelmark (2015: I 269 n. 12) remarks: ‘The Greek word ἀπάδις is not only unknown to all the preserved Greek authors of antiquity but also withstood all attempts at decipherment known to me. Accordingly, it seems safe to declare that it cannot be the result of an emendation but must have been introduced from a manuscript source.’ The change of word order in Pyth. 1.29 εἴη ζεῦ τὶν εἴη to the unmetrical εἴη ζεῦ εἴη τιν in some copies, which Irigoin (1952: 416) classed as a ‘correction’, is another good candidate. See below and Fogelmark 2015: I 269. 209 See Fogelmark 2015: I 200–4 (Table 8), 211–12 (Table 10). 210 Contrast Fogelmark 2015: I 175–8, although he himself admits that the evidence for the priority of ‘Variant a’ here is not decisive. Cf. D’Alessio 2017.



7 Stemma Codicum Ω







θ τ

(Β) ς


μ υ G F 1300


Å E (L)

ρ (D)

Η Tricl.





VI The Present Edition This edition is based on fresh collations of all primary manuscripts and papyri, with the exception of Athous Iberorum 161 (Å), where readings have been taken from Turyn (1952) and Gentili et al. (1995). I have examined G and Vi by autopsy and CEFPQTUV, as well as Π1 and Π2, from digital images. H and Ị were kindly collated for me from the originals by, respectively, Nigel Wilson and Enrico Emanuele Prodi (supplemented by Thomas Coward). I have not been able to see the oldest copies of the editions of Triclinius (Laur. conv. soppr. 94) and Pseudo-Moschopoulos (Leiden, Voss. gr. Q 38), but I have consulted other apographs,211 in addition to the apparatuses of Turyn and Gentili. Vi has for the first time been used for establishing the text, while its copies U and V have largely been excluded, in accordance with the findings set out in ch. V.2 (d). In constituting my apparatus I have, like Gentili et al., sought a middle ground between the extreme sparseness of Snell and Maehler (criticised by Gerber 1985: 2–8) and the expansiveness of Schroeder (1900) and Turyn. I do not therefore report every minor error. However, I systematically record dialectal variants or emendations and the presence or absence of metrically necessary ephelcystic ν, which has usually been restored by Byzantine philologists. My apparatus is sparing with conjectures by modern scholars, listing only those that have been adopted in the text or are considered plausible alternatives. Others are discussed in the commentary, and even more can be found in the repertory of Gerber (1976) and its supplement (1985: 22–5). Secondary sources quoting Pythian 1 are mentioned in the critical apparatus when they attest or support an important reading and are discussed in the appropriate places if they are relevant to the ancient (mostly pre-Hellenistic) reception of the ode. A full history of the literary and scholarly reception of Pythian 1 in antiquity and Byzantium would fill another volume, and it did not seem necessary simply to copy the extensive testimonial apparatuses of Turyn and Gentili et al. On the whole I hope that this edition will be useful for those interested in the textual history of Pindar, while not overburdening readers who have other priorities.

211 Par. gr. 2882 for Triclinius. On Pseudo-Moschopoulos see V.2, 58 n. 188.

Text and Critical Apparatus

Conspectus Siglorum (An asterisk (*) marks manuscripts I have not seen.)

I Codices (1) Constanter citati C    Å  E  F  μ    G  H  Ị  θ    P  Q  T  Vi

ρ  υ  ς    Tricl.

Parisinus gr. 2774 (ca. 1300)   *Athous Iberorum 161 (ca. 1300) Laurentianus plut. 32.37 (ca. 1300) Laurentianus plut. 32.33 (saec. xiii ex.) consensus codicum ÅEF   Gottingensis philol. 29 (1250–1300) Vaticanus gr. 41 (saec. xiv in.) Marcianus gr. 465 (1310–1320) consensus codicum GHỊ   Palatinus gr. 40 (ca. 1325) Laurentianus plut. 32.35 (saec. xiv in.) Vaticanus gr. 121 (ca. 1280) Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 64 (ca. 1260–1280) order=1&view=SINGLE consensus codicum PQ consensus codicum TVi consensus codicum PQTVi   Demetrius Triclinius in *Laurentiano conv. soppr. 94 (ca. 1330) et al.


 Text and Critical Apparatus


Vir doctus saec. xiv potius quam xv, qui Moschopuli editionem Olympionicarum usque ad finem Nem. iii extendit, in *Leidensi Voss. gr. Q 38 (ca. 1470) et al.

(2) Raro memorantur U 


Vindobonensis hist gr. 130 (saec. xiv in.): codicis Vi apographum order=1&view=SINGLE Parisinus gr. 2403 (saec. xiii ex.): codicis Vi apographum

(3) Archetypi Ω ω1 ω2 * 

archetypus recensionis Vaticanae exemplar recensionis omnium Pindari epiniciorum exemplar recensionis truncatae, videlicet Olympionicarum et Pythionicarum exemplar nescioquod vel exemplaria nescioquot

II Papyri Π1


P. Rain. 1.23 = P. Vindob. inv. G 29817 (saec. v–vi p. C.): schol. ad Pyth. 1.46–8, 50–2, 55–6, 65–6 order=1&view=SINGLE P. Oxy. 5039 (saec. iii p. C.): Pyth. 1.6–9, 32–5 al. b92c5cfb.dir/POxy.v0075.n5039.a.01.hires.jpg

III Sigla Cetera Aac Apc A1c

A ante correctionem A post correctionem incertum qua manu factam A post correctionem a prima manu factam

Conspectus Siglorum 

As A1s A2 A2s Ar Aras Agl Aγρ Am Auv [A] Σ  ΣA l A Σ i A Σ *  α̣ [ ]

† † add. cf. coni. corr. inv. om. prob. secl. suppl. u.v. v.l.

lectio in A supra lineam incertum qua manu scripta lectio in A supra lineam a prima manu scripta codicis A manus altera in textu lectio in A supra lineam ab altera manu scripta lectio in A a rubricatore scripta A in rasura glossema in A varia lectio in A cum nota γρ(άφεται) vel sim. A in margine A ut videtur A non legibilis vel deest scholiasta, scholia lectio quam disertim testatur scholiasta codicis A lemma scholiastae codicis A lectio quam in textu invenisse scholiastam codicis A ex eius interpretatione colligitur littera obscura littera quae α videtur esse delenda censeo (sed in papyro supplementum significat) inserenda censeo corruptela nondum sanata addidit, addiderunt confer coniecit, coniecerunt correxit, correxerunt invenit, invenerunt omittit, omittunt probavit, probaverunt seclusit, secluserunt supplevit, suppleverunt ut videtur varia lectio

IV Canticorum Metra ⏑  –  ×  ⏓ 


syllaba brevis syllaba longa syllaba anceps syllaba longa, aliquando brevis

74  ⏖  ⏕  |  ⸽  || |⸽ ||| ~  D  d  ˰d e  E  ͜ ῥ̅

 Text and Critical Apparatus

duae syllabae breves ex resolutione in loco principi syllaba longa, aliquando duae breves finis vocabuli finis vocabuli non minus quam octies in decem strophis antistrophisque vel non minus quam quater in quinque epodis finis periodi finis periodi ut videtur finis strophae respondet stropha antistrophae – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – (in dactylo-epitritis) – ⏑ ⏑ – (in dactylo-epitritis) ⏑ ⏑ – (in dactylo-epitritis) – ⏑ – (in dactylo-epitritis) – ⏑ – × – ⏑ – (in dactylo-epitritis) synizesin vel mutam cum liquida ‘positionem’ non efficientem indicat rho in initio verbi locatum ‘positionem’ efficiens indicat

Πινδάρου Ἱέρωνι Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι Α´ Χρυσέα φόρμιγξ, Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ ἰοπλοκάμων

  σύνδικον Μοισᾶν κτέανον· τᾶς ἀκούει μὲν βάσις ἀγλαΐας ἀρχά,   πείθονται δ’ ἀοιδοὶ σάμασιν

  ἁγησιχόρων ὁπόταν προοιμίων ἀμβολὰς τεύχῃς ἐλελιζομένα.

5  καὶ τὸν αἰχματὰν κεραυνὸν σβεννύεις

  αἰενάου πυρός. εὕδει δ’ ἀνὰ σκάπτῳ Διὸς αἰετός, ὠκεῖ     

αν πτέρυγ’ ἀμφοτέρωθεν χαλάξαις,

  ἀρχὸς οἰωνῶν, κελαινῶπιν δ’ ἐπί οἱ νεφέλαν

  ἀγκύλῳ κρατί, γλεφάρων ἁδὺ κ͜ λάϊθρον, κατέχευας· ὁ δὲ κνώσσων   ὑγρὸν νῶτον αἰωρεῖ, τεαῖς

10 ῥιπαῖσι κατασχόμενος. καὶ γὰρ βιατὰς Ἄρης, τραχεῖαν ἄνευθε λιπών   ἐγχέων ἀκμάν, ἰαίνει καρδίαν

  κώματι, κῆλα δὲ καὶ δαιμόνων θέλγει φρένας ἀμφί τε Λατοί     

δα σοφίᾳ βαθυκόλπων τε Μοισᾶν.

  ὅσσα δὲ μὴ πεφίληκε Ζεύς, ἀτύζονται βοάν

  Πιερίδων ἀΐοντα, γᾶν τε καὶ πόντον κατ’ ἀμαιμάκετον,

15 ὅς τ’ ἐν αἰνᾷ Ταρτάρῳ κεῖται, θεῶν πολέμιος,   Τυφὼς ἑκατοντακάρανος· τόν ποτε

  Κιλίκιον θρέψεν πολυώνυμον ἄντρον· νῦν γε μάν   ταί θ’ ὑπὲρ Κύμας ἁλιερκέες ὄχθαι

  Σικελία τ’ αὐτοῦ πιέζει στέρνα λαχνάεντα· κίων δ’ οὐρανία συνέχει,

20 νιφόεσσ’ Αἴτνα, πάνετες χιόνος ὀξείας τιθήνα·    

    5      10       15     20       25   30       35    

Inscr. ἱέρωνι αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι Heyne: ἱέρωνι αἰτναίω(ι) ἢ συρ(ρ)ακο(υ)σίω(ι) ἅρματι πύθια CEGHP: ἱέρωνι αἰτναίω ἢ συρρακουσίω ἅρματι νικήσαντι τὴν κθ´ πυθιάδα Ị: om. ÅFQυ   2 Μοισᾶν] Μουσᾶν Ị   4 ἁγησιχόρων Ps.-Mosch. et Ath. 180e et Eust. in Od. 1480.21 Stallbaum: ἀγησιχόρων codd. (-χόρω Eac)  ἐλελιζομένα] -αν G (corr. G2)   6 αἰενάου Schroeder: ἀενάου H et Tricl.: ἀεννάου cett.  δ᾽ om. Ị  χαλάξαις Π2 (]α̣ις) Cac et Et. Gen. s.v. κηληθμός (p.  33 Calame) cod. A (om. B): -ας Cpc cett.   8 γλεφάρων CμθV: βλεφ- CsỊsς: [Π2] (]λ̣εφαρω̣ [)  κλάϊθρον Wackernagel: κλᾶθρον C (κλεῖθρον Cgl): κλαῖστρον fere cett. (καῖστρον Q): κλάϊστρον Tricl.  κατέχευας CEFθ: κατεχεύσας Åς: κατεχέσας C1c: κ̣αταχ[̣ Π2   10 κατασχόμενος C: καταγχ- cett.   12 κώμ- … καὶ om. P, add. P1m u.v.  κώματι lΣC 19b et fere C (κώμτι), fortasse Viac: κώμω(ι) Viras cett.   13 ὅσσα] ὅσα ÅFỊ  ἀτύζονται CÅEF1sHỊ et Plut. De superst. 167c, Quaest. conv. 746b, Non posse suav. vivi 1095e: ἀτύζεται Fς: ἀτύζηται G   14 πιερίδων] πιεριδᾶν F: -ίδαν ÅEFr   16 ἑκατοντακάρανος] ἑκατοντο- GH   17 θρέψεν Hς: θρέψε CEGỊ: θρέψαι ÅF et Σ [A.] PV 351a Herington (pars codd.)   20 πάνετες] πανέτης dubitanter Christ  τιθάνα C


 Text and Critical Apparatus

Β´ τᾶς ἐρεύγονται μὲν ἀπλάτου πυρὸς ἁγνόταται

  ἐκ μυχῶν παγαί· ποταμοὶ δ’ ἀμέραισιν μὲν προχέοντι ῥόον καπνοῦ   αἴθων’· ἀλλ’ ἐν ὄρφναισιν πέτ͜ρας

  φοίνισσα κυλινδομένα φλὸξ ἐς βαθεῖαν φέρει πόντου πλάκα σὺν πατάγῳ.

25 κεῖνο δ’ Ἁφαίστοιο κ͜ ρουνοὺς ἑρπετόν

  δεινοτάτους ἀναπέμπει· τέρας μὲν θαυμάσιον προσιδέσθαι,      

θαῦμα δὲ καὶ παρεόντων ἀκοῦσαι,

  οἷον Αἴτνας ἐν μελαμφύλλοις δέδεται κορυφαῖς

  καὶ πέδῳ, στρωμνὰ δὲ χαράσσοισ’ ἅπαν νῶτον ποτικεκλιμένον κεντεῖ.   εἴη, Ζεῦ, τὶν εἴη ἁνδάνειν,

30 ὃς τοῦτ’ ἐφέπεις ὄρος, εὐκάρποιο γαίας μέτωπον, τοῦ μὲν ἐπωνυμίαν   κλεινὸς οἰκιστὴρ ἐκύδανεν πόλιν

  γείτονα, Πυθιάδος δ’ ἐν δρόμῳ κάρυξ ἀνέειπέ νιν ἀγγέλ     

λων Ἱέρωνος ὑπὲρ καλλινίκου

  ἅρμασι. ναυσιφορήτοις δ’ ἀνδράσι πρώτα χάρις

  ἐς πλόον ἀρχομένοις πομπαῖον ἐλθεῖν οὖρον· ἐοικότα γάρ

35 καὶ τελευτᾷ φερτέρου νόστου τυχεῖν, ὁ δὲ λόγος   ταύταις ἐπὶ συντυχίαις δόξαν φέρει

  λοιπὸν ἔσσεσθαι στεφάνοισί ν ἵπποις τε κλυτάν   καὶ σὺν εὐφώνοις θαλίαις ὀνυμαστάν.

  Λύκιε καὶ Δάλοι’ ἀνάσσων Φοῖβε Παρνασσοῦ τε κ͜ ράναν Κασταλίαν φιλέων,

40 ἐθελήσαις ταῦτα νόῳ τιθέμεν εὔανδρόν τε χώραν.    

40     45     50     55       60     65     70     75    

22 ἀμέραισιν cum spiritu leni ut in ρ (ἀμέραισι) scripsi: ἁμέραισιν Ps.-Mosch.: ἁμέραισι cett.  παγαί] πηγαὶ EFP   23 αἴθων᾽ C: -ωνα μθVi et lΣC 41b: -ωνος Åsς  ὄρφναισιν Ps.-Mosch.: -αισι codd.  πέτρας om. Gell. 17.10.9 et Macr. 5.17.9   26 προσιδέσθαι CEγρ et Macr. et Gellii codd. (προ(σ)ειδέσθαι): εἰσιδέσθαι Pgl: ἰδέσθαι FglGγρHγρ (cf. Vigl *** ἰδεῖν): ἰδέσθαι Tricl.: ἰδέσθαι Ps.-Mosch.: πυθέσθαι cett.  παρεόντων C et Macr. et Gellii codd. recc. pauci: παρέντων Gellii codd. pler.: παρόντων G2 et ΣEFGQ 47c: [G]: παριόντων cett. (παρ᾽ ἰόντων Ị) et ΣC 47c   30 ἐφέπεις] -οις Ịυ   31 ἐκύδανεν ÅFH: ἐκύδανε cett.   32 κάρυξ EV et Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch., recte u.v. (cf. ad 72): κᾶρυξ cett.  νιν] μιν Π2  ἀγγέλ(λ)ων codd. pler.: ἀγγέλλων ὡς G   34 ἀρχομένοις] ἐρχ- CÅ et ΣBPU Nem. 1.49c (III 20.16 Dr.)   35 καὶ Cacρ et Tricl.: ἐν καὶ Cpc cett.: κἀν Ps.-Mosch.  φερτέρου CÅsEsHpcP: φερτέρα C2sμGHacỊQυ: -ᾳ GrVi2   37 ἔσσεσθαι Callierges: ἔσεσθαι codd.  στεφάνοισί ν ἵπποις Heyne, iΣΣ 67, 69: στεφάνοισιν ἵπποις codd.: νιν στεφάνοισιν ἵπποις Ps.-Mosch.: ἐν στεφάνοισί τε ἵπποις Tricl.   38 ὀνυμαστάν EFGpc, fortasse Ịac: ὀνομ- GacỊpc cett.   39 δάλοι᾽ Cpc et Tricl.: δάλι᾽Cac: δάλοιο cett.  παρνασ(σ)οῦ C1sFsỊsP2s et Σ 74: -σ(σ)ῶ CFỊP cett. (-σσῷ Vi2)  

Πινδάρου Ἱέρωνι Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι 


Γ´ ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ μαχαναὶ πᾶσαι βροτέαις ἀρεταῖς,

  καὶ σοφοὶ καὶ χερσὶ βιαταὶ περίγλωσσοί τ’ ἔφῠν. ἄνδρα δ’ ἐγὼ κεῖνον   αἰνῆσαι μενοινῶν ἔλπομαι

  μὴ χαλκοπάραον ἄκονθ’ ὡσείτ’ ἀγῶνος βαλεῖν ἔξω παλάμᾳ δονέων,

45 μακρὰ δὲ ῥ̅ ίψαις ἀμεύσασθ’ ἀντίους.

  εἰ γὰρ ὁ πᾶς χρόνος ὄλβον μὲν οὕτω καὶ κτεάνων δόσιν εὐθύ     

νοι, καμάτων δ’ ἐπίλασιν παράσχοι·

  ἦ κεν ἀμνάσειεν, οἵαις ἐν πολέμοισι μάχαις

  τλάμονι ψυχᾷ παρέμειν’, ἁνίχ’ εὑρίσκοντο θεῶν παλάμαις τιμάν   οἵαν οὔτις Ἑλλάνων δρέπει

50 πλούτου στεφάνωμ’ ἀγέρωχον. νῦν γε μὰν τὰν Φιλοκτήταο δίκαν ἐφέπων   ἐστρατεύθη· σὺν δ’ ἀνάγκᾳ νιν φίλον

  καί τις ἐὼν μεγαλάνωρ ἔσανεν. φαντὶ δὲ Λαμνόθεν ἕλκει      

τειρόμενον μεταβάσοντας ἐλθεῖν

  ἥρω̆ας ἀντιθέους Ποίαντος υἱὸν τοξόταν·

  ὃς Πριάμοιο πόλιν πέρσεν, τελεύτασέν τε πόνους Δαναοῖς,

55 ἀσθενεῖ μὲν χρωτὶ βαίνων, ἀλλὰ μοιρίδιον ἦν.   οὕτω δ’ †Ἱέρωνι θεὸς ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι†

  τὸν προσέρποντα χρόνον, ὧν ἔραται καιρὸν διδούς.   Μοῖσα, καὶ πὰρ Δεινομένει κελαδῆσαι

  πίθεό μοι ποινὰν τεθ͜ ρίππων· χάρμα δ’ οὐκ ἀλλότριον νικαφορία πατέρος.

60 ἄγ’ ἔπειτ’ Αἴτνας βασιλεῖ φίλιον ἐξεύρωμεν ὕμνον·    

41–2 βροτέαις … βιητὰν (sic) om. Å, add. Åm   42 καὶ σοφοὶ καὶ χερσὶ] καὶ χερσὶ καὶ σοφοὶ C  βιαταὶ CEFGr: βιηταὶ vel -ταί θς: βιητὰν Å   44 χαλκοπάραον codd. pler.: -πάρηον F2uv (sed -πάραον lΣF, ΣF 84) ỊsQs: -πάρειον ÅE et lΣE, ΣE 84   45 ῥίψαις Callierges: -ας codd. et lΣ 86  ἀμεύσασθ᾽ CpcÅGỊρVi et iΣ 86 et si huc trahendum Hsch. α 3623 Latte–Cunningham: ἀμεύσεσθ᾽CacÅsEFHỊsT  ἀντίους] ἐναντίους CF   46 χρόνος om. Ị   47 ἦ … -σειεν om. T  ἀμνάσειεν Boeckh post Schmid (ἀμμν-): ἀνμνάσειεν ÅE: ἂν μνάσειεν (-οιεν Ị) cett. et lΣ 91   48 εὑρίσκοντο] -ετο Vi2  παλάμαις Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch.: -αισι codd.   49 versum om. G, add. G2m   50 Φιλοκτήταο] -οιο Cac   51 νιν lΣQ 98, coni. Mommsen: μιν codd.   52 ἔσανεν C et Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch.: ἔσανε cett.  μεταβάσοντας Anonymus apud Boeckh: μεταλ(λ)άσ(σ)οντας codd. et lΣ, iΣ 101a   53 ἥρωας codd.: ἥροας Schroeder   54 πόνους CμGVigl: πόνον HỊQ2s: πολλοὺς ς   56 οὕτω δ’ Ἱέρωνι θεὸς ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι fere lΠ1 (. δε ἱέρωνι θ(εὸ)ς ὀρθωτ[) et codd. (θεὸν ÅH) et lΣ 109a; fortasse recte, sed θεός ut monosyllabum breve aliunde non notum: τις pro θεὸς vel σωτὴρ pro ὀρθωτὴρ Schmid (τις prob. Liberman): alii alia  ὀρθωτὴρ] -ὴς C   57 ἔραται … διδούς om. C, add. C1m   58 πὰρ Ị et Tricl.: παρὰ CEFGHVipcU περὶ C2Åς (Viac)   59 πίθεό μοι Tricl.: πείθεό μοι fere codd. (ποὶθέο Ị)  δ᾽ V et Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch.: δὲ cett.   60 ἐξεύρωμεν] ἐξεύρομεν CacPQ1s (sed εἴπωμεν P2gl)  

80     85     90       95     100       105     110   115    


 Text and Critical Apparatus

Δ´ τῷ πόλιν κείναν θεοδμάτῳ σὺν ἐλευθερίᾳ

  Ὑλλίδος στάθμας Ἱέρων ἐν νόμοις ἔκτισσε· θέλοντι δὲ Παμφύλου   καὶ μὰν Ἡρακ͜ λειδᾶν ἔκγονοι

  ὄχθαις ὕπο Ταϋγέτου ναίοντες αἰεὶ μένειν τεθμοῖσιν ἐν Αἰγιμιοῦ

65 Δωριεῖς. ἔσχον δ’ Ἀμύκλας ὄλβιοι

  Πινδόθεν ὀρνύμενοι, λευκοπώλων Τυνδαριδᾶν βαθύδοξοι      

γείτονες, ὧν κλέος ἄνθησεν αἰχμᾶς.

  Ζεῦ τέλει’, αἰεὶ δὲ τοιαύταν Ἀμένα παρ’ ὕδωρ

  αἶσαν ἀστοῖς καὶ βασιλεῦσιν διακρίνειν ἔτυμον λόγον ἀνθρώπων.   σύν τοι τίν κεν ἁγητὴρ ἀνήρ,

70 υἱῷ τ’ ἐπιτελλόμενος, δᾶμον γεραίρων τράποι σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν.   λίσσομαι νεῦσον, Κρονίων, ἅμερον

  ὄφρα κατ’ οἶκον ὁ Φοίνιξ ὁ Τυρσανῶν τ’ ἀλαλατὸς ἔχῃ, ναυ 

σίστονον ὕβριν ἰδὼν τὰν πρὸ Κύμας·

  οἷα Συρακοσίων ἀρχῷ δαμασθέντες πάθον,

  ὠκυπόρων ἀπὸ ναῶν ὅ σφιν ἐν πόντῳ βάλεθ’ ἁλικίαν,

75 Ἑλλάδ’ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας. ἀρέομαι   πὰρ μὲν Σαλαμῖνος Ἀθαναίων χάριν

  μισθόν, ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ’ τᾶν πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μαχᾶν,   ταῖσι Μήδειοι κάμον ἀγκυλότοξοι,

  120     125       130     135     140   145     150  

61 κείναν θς (κεῖναν T) et lΣFGQ 118a: κλείναν Cμ et lΣE 118a   62 ἔκτισσε· θέλοντι Tricl. et Ps.Mosch. (iterum coni. Ceporinus, Heyne): ἔκτισε. θέλοντι codd. pler. (cf. lΣ 120a ἔκτισε, lΣ 121c θέλοντι): ἔκτισεν. ἐθέλοντι CÅ (cf. lΣCEF 121a ἐθέλοντι)  Παμφύλου] -ω μ (corr. E1sF1s)   63 Ἡρακλειδᾶν] -ῶν G   65 δωριεῖς EF et ΣEFGQ 121c et ΣC 126: -ιῆς CGHQ1c(-ίης Q)PT: -ιῇς ÅỊVi   67 Ζεῦ] ζεῦ δὲ Ị  τέλει᾽] τέλει GPV (coni. de Pauw, Heyne)   68 βασιλεῦσιν FG et Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch.: -εῦσι cett.   69 τίν] τέ Cac u.v.  ἁγητὴρ Cac et fere μ (ἀγητ- ÅE, ἀγιτ- F): ἁγηστήρ CpcHpcỊ: ἀγιστὴρ CacHac cett.   70 δᾶμον CE et Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch.: δᾶμόν τε C2 cett.  ἐς C et Tricl. et fere Ås (εἰς): om. Å cett.: ἐφ᾽ Ps.-Mosch.   71 ἅμερον codd.: ἥμ- Schroeder   72 φοίνιξ E et Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch., recte u.v. (cf. ad 32): φοῖνιξ cett.  τυρσανῶν CμQsVi2s ταρσ- θς  ἀλαλατὸς ÅGς (ἀλαλαγ- T): ἀλαλητὸς CEFHỊ  ἔχῃ] ἔχοι CEF1c   73 συρακοσίων GHV et fere Pυ (συρρακοσ-) et Tricl.: συρ(ρ)ακουσ- CμỊQ   74 ὅ σφιν] ὅς σφιν C2E  βάλεθ᾽ ἁλικίαν Cpc et codd. pler.: βάλετ᾽ ἁλ- Cac: βάλετ᾽ ἀλ- EFQ   75 δουλίας Ps.-Mosch.: -είας codd.  ἀρέομαι Dawes (ἁρεομαι iam Ps.-Mosch.?): αἱρέομαι codd. (αἰρ- E) et lΣΣ 147a, c et iΣΣ 149, 152a   76 πὰρ] παρὰ G  Ἀθαναίων] ἀθην- CGP  χάριν] χάρις Cac   77  suppl. Stone (cf. Σ 149 ἀποδέχομαι … τὴν … μάχην) pro ἐρέω CμθTVi1c (αἱρέω C2sρVi), quod ΣΣ 149, 152a non legisse videntur  τᾶν  … μαχᾶν Wilamowitz: τὰν  … μάχαν codd. (τὰν om. μ): ΤΑΝ  … ΜΑΧΑΝ ut acc. sing. interpretatus est iam Σ 149 (τὴν … μάχην)   78 μήδειοι μ (μήδιοι F) et Ps.Mosch.: μῆδοι cett: μῆδοι μὲν Tricl.  

Πινδάρου Ἱέρωνι Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι 


  παρὰ δὲ τὰν εὔυδρον ἀκτὰν Ἱμέρα παίδεσσιν ὕμνον Δεινομένε͜ος τελέσαις,

80 τὸν ἐδέξαντ’ ἀμφ’ ἀρετᾷ, πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν καμόντων.    

Ε´ καιρὸν εἰ φθέγξαιο, πολλῶν πείρατα συντανύσαις

  ἐν βραχεῖ, μείων ἕπεται μῶμος ἀνθρώπων· ἀπὸ γὰρ κόρος ἀμβλύνει   αἰανὴς ταχείας ἐλπίδας,

  ἀστῶν δ’ ἀκοὰ κρύφιον θυμὸν βαρύνει μάλιστ’ ἐσλοῖσιν ἐπ’ ἀλλοτ͜ρίοις.

85 ἀλλ’ ὅμως, κρέσσον γὰρ οἰκτιρμοῦ φθόνος,

  μὴ παρίει καλά. νώμα δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ στρατόν· ἀψευ     

δεῖ δὲ π͜ ρὸς ἄκμονι χάλκευε γλῶσσαν.

  εἴ τι καὶ φλαῦρον παραιθύσσει, μέγα τοι φέρεται,

  πὰρ σέθεν. πολλῶν ταμίας ἐσσί· πολλοὶ μάρτυρες ἀμφοτέροις πιστοί.   εὐανθεῖ δ’ ἐν ὀργᾷ παρμένων,

90 εἴπερ τι φιλεῖς ἀκοὰν ἁδεῖαν αἰεὶ κλύειν, μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις·   ἐξίει δ’ ὥσπερ κυβερνάτας ἀνήρ

  ἱστίον ἀνεμόεν [πετάσαις]. μὴ δολωθῇς, ὦ φίλε, †κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέ  λοις†· ὀπιθόμβροτον αὔχημα δόξας    

  οἶον ἀποιχομένων ἀνδρῶν δίαιταν μανύ̆ει

  καὶ λογίοις καὶ ἀοιδοῖς. οὐ φθίνει Κροίσου φιλόφ͜ ρων ἀρετά.

95 τὸν δὲ ταύρῳ χαλκέῳ καυτῆρα νηλέα νόον   ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις,

  οὐδέ νιν φόρμιγγες ὑπωρόφιαι κοινανίαν   μαλθακὰν παίδων ὀάροισι δέκονται.

  τὸ δὲ παθεῖν εὖ πρῶτον ἀ͜ έθλων· εὖ δ’ ἀκούειν δευτέρα μοῖρ’· ἀμφοτέροισι δ’ ἀνήρ

100 ὃς ἂν ἐγκύρσῃ καὶ ἕλῃ, στέφανον ὕψιστον δέδεκται.

  155     160       165     170     175     180       185     190   195

79 παρὰ Tricl.: πὰρ vel παρ codd.  εὔυδρον Fras et codd. pler.: ἔνυδρον C (corr. C2): εὔανδρον E (corr. Es)  τελέσαις Tac et Ps.-Mosch: -σσαις CEFGHρTpcVi: -σ(σ)ας C2sE1cÅsH2Ị   80 καμόντων] καμνόντων EF   81 συντανύσαις C: -ας C2s cett. (-τανν- G)   82 μείων codd. pler.: μεῖον C: μείνων Ị   84 ἐσλοῖσιν] ἐσθλ- C   85 κρέσσον Stob. 3.38.22 (cod. S); cf. κρείσσον Eac cum accent. acut.: κρέσσων Åθς et Stob. (codd. MA) et inv. Hdn. GG II 429.12, 946.10 Lentz: κρεῖσσον CF et lΣF et fere lΣE 164a (κρεῖττ-): κρείσσων Epc  οἰκτιρμοῦ CEFθV: -μῶν Åς   86 ἀψευδεῖ] ἀψευδῆ Gal. π. διαφ. σφυγμῶν 3 (VIII p. 682 Kühn), prob. West   88 ἀμφοτέροις Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch.: -τέροισι codd.   89 παρμένων] παρα- G   90 ἀκοὰν] -ὴν EỊ  ἁδεῖαν Cθ: ἡδ- μς  αἰεὶ H2 et Ps.-Mosch.: ἀεὶ H cett.  κλύειν om. Ị   91 ὥσπερ C et Ps.-Mosch.: ὥστε cett.   92 πετάσας (-αις CVpc) quod scholiastae non novisse videntur secl. Callierges: ἀμπετάσας Tricl. et Ps.-Mosch.  εὐτραπέλοις CpcÅEς: ἐντραπέλοις CacFθ: εὐτράπλοις Bücheler: εὐτραπέλοις κέρδεσσ᾽ Ps.-Mosch. (iterum coni. Hermann)  ὀπιθόμβροτον Ps.-Mosch.: ὀπισθόμβρ- CÅE1cFθς (ὀπιστ- T): ὀπισθόβρ- E  αὔχημα] καύχ- ρ   93 οἶον E2FHT et lΣD, lΣCpc, iΣ 181a (cf. μόνον E2glHglTgl): οἷον E cett.   96 παντᾷ] πάντα EF   97 νιν Mommsen: μιν codd.  κοινανίαν Schroeder: κοινωνίαν codd.   98 δέκονται Boeckh: δέχονται codd.   100 δέδεκται] δέδοκται ÅsF


1–28. The proem to Pythian 1, the longest one of any extant Pindaric ode, unfolds in the shape of a magnificent diptych, which on a largely mythical plane introduces a central theme of the poem: peace and harmony as the ultimate reward for subduing one’s opponents. In the opening ‘Hymn to Music’ (1–12n.) Pindar creates a vivid image of the Olympian gods in carefree and relaxed celebration. Apollo plays his golden lyre (the formal ‘addressee’ of the hymn), the Muses sing and dance, and such is the charm of the tunes that not even Zeus (represented by his thunderbolt and the eagle that sits on his sceptre) and the notoriously unmusical war-god Ares can resist their calming influence. By contrast, the adversaries of Zeus ‘are terrified when they hear the song of the Pierians’ (13–14). Their prime example is the hundred-headed monster Typhos, who now lies confined in Tartaros, between Kyme and Mt. Etna, where his discomfort causes regular volcanic eruptions (13–28n.) The divine festivities have their equivalent in those on earth, where the chorēgos – Pindar himself or a deputy (Introduction, 32–3) – directs the chorus with his lyre-playing (Mezger 1880: 77, Carey 1991: 199–200; cf. 1–12n.), and Hieron can enjoy them because he rules over Syracusan territory and southern Italy, as far as Kyme, after defeating his enemies. This interdependence between victorious dominion, civic order and musical activity, which applies to gods as well as men, is a recurrent theme in Pythian 1. The proem sets the scene with Zeus, whose favour, according to Pindar, rests firmly on Hieron. Pindar seems to have looked back to Pythian 1 when he composed Pythian 8 for the wrestler Aristomenes of Aigina in 446 (his last surviving ode). This poem begins with an invocation to Hesychia, personified internal peace and daughter of Dike, which similarly moves from the benefits she bestows on those who obey her to the punishment she inflicts on her opponents, including Typhos (Pyth. 8.1–20). Cf. Skulsky 1975: 30, Krischer 1985b, Race 1990: 172–3, Morrison 2007: 116–17. 1–12. The opening hymn to Apollo’s lyre adapts several elements traditional to the genre: (1) an initial vocative (1 χρυσέα φόρμιγξ), (2) a ‘genealogy’ placed in apposition (1–2a Ἀπόλλωνος … κτέανον), (3) the functions of the lyre detailed in a relative clause (2b–4) and (4) examples of its power (5–12). A specific request or prayer is absent, since this could only be fufilled by a god (cf. Nem. 8.1–5, where the addressee, Hora, allowed for more choice). Yet the function of the hymn is clear. It presents Apollo’s lyre and its tunes, and by implication all music, including Pindar’s, as worthy of divine veneration. See Mezger 1880: 77,



Cingano 1995: on 1–12 and, on hymnic style generally, Norden 1913: 143–76, Race 1990: 85–117 (with many Pindaric case-studies), Furley–Bremer 2001: I 50–63. As a narrative vignette the passage is noteworthy for its consistent use of present tense verbs (e.g. 2 ἀκούει, 3 πείθονται, 4 ὁπόταν … τεύχῃς, 5 σβεννύεις). Pindar thus characterises the scene on Olympus as both ongoing and in principle eternally recurrent, an idealised background to any human performance of Pythian 1 (Athanassaki 2009: 248–9; cf. Morrison 2012: 128–9, Phillips 2016: 148). We find the same phenomenon in the comparable representation of divine Dionysiac revel in Pi. Dith. 2.6–23a (fr. 70b) (below). The image of the gods enjoying the music of Apollo and the Muses is as old as Il. 1.603–4. It is developed to great effect in h.Ap. 182–206 (at the beginning of the ‘Pythian Hymn’), where Apollo triumphantly ascends to Olympus, the Muses break into song at the sound of his lyre, female deities like Artemis, Aphrodite and the Graces dance, and even Hermes and Ares join in – another way of illustrating the irresistible force of melody and rhythm (Krischer 1985a: 491–4 goes so far as to see here the principal model for our passage). Pindar himself had already praised the Graces as facilitators of divine and human music and dance in Ol. 14.1–17 (cf. Race 1990: 100 with n. 37). This ode is commonly dated to 488 and also shares other elements with Pythian 1 (41–2a n.). Two related aspects are implicit here. The first is the archetypal connection between song and praise. According to Pi. fr. 31 = Aristid. Or. 2.470, which is attributed to Pindar’s First Hymn, now thought to have been addressed to Apollo rather than Zeus (see especially D’Alessio 2005 and 2009), Zeus created the Muses, at the suggestion of the other Olympians, as eulogists of his world order: Πίνδαρος … ἐν Διὸς γάμῳ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτούς φησιν ἐρομένου τοῦ Διός, εἴ του δέοιντο, αἰτῆσαι ποιήσασθαί τινας αὑτῷ θεούς, οἵτινες τὰ μεγάλα ταῦτ᾽ ἔργα καὶ πᾶσάν γε τὴν ἐκείνου κατασκευὴν [κατα]κοσμήσουσι λόγοις καὶ μουσικῇ. Epinician odes, especially when composed for royal victors like Hieron, are an obvious human equivalent. Secondly, Pindar re-imagines the traditional idea of music providing relief from cares to gods and men: cf. e.g. Hes. Th. 52–5, 98–103, Thgn. 343, 1325, Nem. 4.1–8 and especially Bacch. 5.6–16, where Hieron is asked to rest his mind and listen to Bacchylides’ song of praise. Thus Pindar can hope for his own music to have the same effect on Hieron and the rest of the audience as Apollo’s has on his fellow deities (short of being truly soporific, one presumes). This mirroring of divine and human celebration (cf. 1–28n.) is also exemplified in Ol. 14.1–17 (above) and in Nemean 1, where Chromios’ victory banquet (19–24) parallels the predicted wedding-feast of Heracles and Hebe among the gods (71–2) (cf. 46n.). But the closest parallel is provided by the proem of Pindar’s Second Dithyramb



(fr. 70b.6–23a), written for the Thebans probably after 470. It portrays the gods in the midst of Dionysiac revelry before Pindar abruptly shifts to his role as a poetic herald for Greece (Dith. 2.23b–6). Several verbal echoes support the connection with Pythian 1: see 2b–4 (βάσις, ἀγλαΐας ἀρχά), 5–6a, 6b–7a (ἀνὰ σκάπτῳ Διὸς αἰετός), 10b–12a nn. They also stress the opposing effects of Apolline and Dionysiac music. The latter rouses the gods to ecstasy, which leads to Zeus and Ares brandishing their respective weapons, thunderbolt and spear, and to violent sounds emanating from Athena’s aegis (Dith. 2.15–18). See Kranz 1919, Wilamowitz 1922: 341, 344–5, Fränkel 1962: 521–2 = 1975: 456–7, Kollmann 1989: on 1–12 (pp. 84–6). Horace took up the idea of the Muses refreshing the weary ruler and general in Carm. 3.4.37–40 vos Caesarem altum, militia simul / fessas cohortis abdidit oppidis / finire quaerentem labores / Pierio recreatis antro. Augustus, like Hieron, used poetry to promote his regime, and Carm. 3.4 is Horace’s great Pindaric tribute to the princeps, influenced in particular by Pythian 1. See Nisbet– Rudd 2004: 53–6, and cf.  1–2a (Χρυσέα φόρμιγξ), 13–28 (n. 6), 25–6a, 39–40, 81–100 (n. 46) nn. 1–4. ‘Golden lyre, possession by equal right of Apollo and the violet-haired Muses; to you the dancing step that begins the festivities listens, and the singers obey your signals whenever you strike up the first notes of the chorus-leading pre­ ludes with your vibrations.’ In addition to providing a hymnic opening (1–12n.), the invocation to the lyre and its capacity to initiate song and dance varies the common practice of beginning a poem with an appeal to the Muse(s) for help with the task at hand: e.g. Hes. Op.  1–2 Μοῦσαι Πιερίηθεν  …  / δεῦτε, Δί᾽ ἐννέπετε σφέτερον πατέρ᾽ ὑμνείουσαι, Stes. fr. 278 Finglass (= Ath. 5.180c) καλεῖ δὲ Στησίχορος μὲν τὴν Μοῦσαν ‘ἀρχεσίμολπον’, Alcm. frr. 14(a), 27 PMGF, Lyr. adesp. fr. 935.1–4 PMG. In general see Eust. in Od. 1480.22 (I 143.24–5 Stallbaum), Davies–Finglass 2014: on Stes. frr. 90.8–9, 277a, 278. 1–2a. Χρυσέα φόρμιγξ: Like other types of poetry, many victory odes begin with an address to capture the attention of both honorand and audience: e.g. Pyth. 2.1 μεγαλοπόλιες ὦ Συράκοσαι, 8.1 φιλόφρον Ἡσυχία, Nem. 8.1, Bacch. 1.1–3, 5.1–2 (cf. Kollmann 1989: on 1–2 (pp.  33, 35–8)). Musical instruments also feature in Nem. 4.44–5 ἐξύφαινε, γλυκεῖα, καὶ τόδ᾽ αὐτίκα, φόρμιγξ, / … μέλος (where the vocative signals a fresh start), Bacch. fr. 20B.1–3 ὦ βάρβιτε, μηκέτι πάσσαλον φυλ̣ά̣σ̣[σων] / ἑπτάτονον λ[ι]γυρὰν κάππαυε γᾶρυν· / δεῦρ᾽ ἐς ἐμὰς χέρας, Sapph. fr. 118 Voigt ἄγι δὴ χέλυ δῖα †μοι λέγε† / φωνάεσσα †δὲ γίνεο†, Hor. Carm. 1.32.1–4 (with Nisbet–Hubbard 1970 (p. 359)).



The early fame of the opening phrase is indicated by its quotation at Ar. Thesm. 327–9 χρυσέα δὲ φόρμιγξ / ἰαχήσειεν ἐπ᾽ εὐχαῖς / ἡμετέραις, towards the end of the women’s cletic prayer for the success of their assembly, where it recalls Apollo χρυσολύρα(ς) in 315–16 (cf. Introduction, 33). Later note particularly Horace’s invocation to Calliope in Carm. 3.4.1–4 to sing a song accompanied by – if she wishes – ‘the strings and lyre of Phoebus’ (4 seu fidibus citharaque Phoebi). Given its position in the poem and the generally Pindaric nature of Carm. 3.4, this is probably an allusion to our passage (Nisbet–Rudd 2004: 53; cf. 1–12, 13–28 (n. 6), 25–6a, 39–40, 81–100 (n. 46) nn.) Like Ol. 1.1 ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ, the words χρυσέα φόρμιγξ contain all five Greek vowel sounds, a rare phenomenon, which may have had the effect of ‘the master poet … announcing the theme of some great fugue … at the beginning of two major works’ (Stanford 1967: 83; cf. Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.1 (p. 9)). It can also be found in Greek prose (Thuc. 1.1.1 Θουκυδίδης Ἀθηναῖος ξυνέγραψε) and in Latin literature: e.g. Virg. Aen. 1.1 arma virumque cano, Cic. Fin. 1.1 non eram nescius (Pfister 1948, Alfonsi 1949). χρυσέα: Divine accoutrements are regularly ‘golden’ or ‘of gold’, both in Ancient Near Eastern and Indo-European myth (West 1997: 112, 2007: 153–4). Thus schol. Pyth. 1.1b (II 8.6–7 Dr.) χρυσῆ δὲ κιθάρα ἀντὶ τοῦ τιμία, ὡς χρυσῆ Ἀφροδίτη (Il. 22.470) was on the right track. Apollo also has a golden phorminx in [Hes.] Sc. 201–3 and Sim. fr. 7.3–4 Poltera; cf. Ar. Thesm. 315 χρυσολύρα (above), Tim. Pers. fr. 791.202–3 PMG = Hordern χρυσεοκίθαριν … Μοῦσαν, Hor. Carm. 4.3.17–18. He plays with a golden plectrum in h.Ap. 184–5, Nem. 5.23–5 (Apollo Μουσαγέτας, as here) and E. Her. 350–1. By referring to an element generally considered supreme, if not divine, the adjective makes a powerful beginning. Cf. Ol. 6.1–2 χρυσέας ὑποστάσαντες … / κίονας of the ‘palace’ that is Pindar’s poem. This ode, written for Hieron’s associate Hagesias of Syracuse and usually dated to 472 or 468, shows several overlaps with Pythian 1, especially in its encomium of Hieron at 93–7 (cf. 56–7, 69–70, 95–8nn.). φόρμιγξ: properly a variety of the box-lyre (κίθαρις; later κιθάρα), with a round-based sound-chest made of wood, as opposed to the tortoise-shell of a standard ‘bowl-lyre’ (λύρα or χέλυς). Archaic and classical poets, however, used φόρμιγξ, κίθαρις (κιθάρα) and λύρα all but synonymously (e.g. Il.  18.569–70 πάϊς φόρμιγγι λιγείῃ / … κιθάριζε, Od. 1.153–5, h.Ap. 514–15, [Hes.] Sc. 202–4, E. Phoen. 823–4). The difference lies in linguistic register, where φόρμιγξ ranks highest and is the term regularly applied to Apollo’s lyre (also e.g. Il.  1.603, 24.62–3, E. Ion 164, Ar. Av. 217–20). It is impossible to tell, therefore, whether Pindar here thought of the regular phorminx or the larger square-based ‘concert kithara’, the instrument



of the professional citharodes of his time (and probably himself), which classical vase-painters also regularly gave to Apollo. In craftsmanship and sound both were superior to the tortoise-shell lyre and from the seventh century on at least had seven strings (Pyth. 2.70–1 χάριν ἑπτακτύπου / φόρμιγγος, Nem. 5.24; cf. E. Ion 881–2). In general see Maas–McIntosh Snyder 1989: especially 4–5, 26–7, 54–5, 60, 79–80, West 1992: 49–56, Cingano 1995: on 1 (p. 328). καὶ ἰοπλοκάμων  … Μοισᾶν: Cf. Sim. fr.  20.3 Poltera ἰοπλοκάμων φιλᾶν θυγατρῶν (the Pleiades), Lyr. adesp. fr.  1001 PMG ἰοπλοκάμων Μοισᾶν and, if Parsons’ supplement is correct, Sim. fr.  11.16 IEG2 (Plataea Elegy) [– ⏑ ἰοπ]λοκάμων … Πιερίδ[ων]. The more common form of the epithet is ἰόπλοκος: Isth. 7.23 ἰοπλόκοισι Μοίσαις (Bergk: δ᾽ ἰοπλοκάμοισι codd.), Bacch. 3.71 [ἰοπλό]κων … Μουσᾶν (suppl. Blass), Alc. fr. 384 Voigt, Ol. 6.30 (Bergk: -πλόκαμον codd.), Bacch. 9.72, 17.37–8. Both ἰοπλόκαμος and ἰόπλοκος are usually rendered as ‘violet-haired’, but we should probably think more generally of a deep, shimmering dark colour (Dürbeck 1977: 137–9, Cingano 1995: on 1 (p. 328); cf. schol. Pyth. 1.3d (II 8.15–16 Dr.) τῶν μελανοπλοκάμων Μουσῶν, Hsch. ι 750, 751 Latte–Cunningham). Note also Pi. Pae. 6.83–4 (fr. 52f = D6 Rutherford) κυανοπλόκοιο … Θέτιος and κυανοπλόκαμος in Bacch. 5.33, 9.53, 11.83. In addition to the ancient explanations and the parallel compounds with colour-terms as their first element, the best argument against understanding ἰοπλόκαμος (-πλοκος) as ‘wreathed with violets’ (e.g. Dürbeck 1977: 138, Kollmann 1989: on 1 (pp. 48–50), Adorjáni 2014: on Ol.  6.30) is ἰοστέφανος in that sense (Thgn. 250 Μουσάων  … ἰοστεφάνων, Bacch. 5.3–4), for which -πλόκαμος at least cannot be a metrically motivated alternative. The lost initial digamma in ἰο- (< ϝιο-; cf. Latin viola) allows for hiatus here and at e.g. Ol. 6.30, Isth. 7.23, Bacch. 9.72 (above). Contrast 39 (39–40n.) Δάλοι᾽ ἀνάσσων. Μοισᾶν (cf.  12 and e.g. Ol.  6.91, 7.7, Sim. fr.  27.4 Poltera) is a dialectal hybrid. It shows Aeolic-Lesbian οι for ου, but the Doric feminine genitive plural ending -ᾶν, instead of Μοίσαν, with the recessive accent that operates in Aeolic (cf. Sapph. fr. 5.10 Voigt [ὀν]ίαν … λύγραν; Schwyzer 559, Probert 2006: 72–3). Μοῖσα is attested in Pindaric MSS and papyri with astonishing consistency (Μουσᾶν here only in Ị), while our text witnesses for Bacchylides are equally regular about the Ionic-Attic form, except for 5.3–4 [ἰ]οστεφάνω̣ ν  / Μοισᾶν (probably to be emended) and fr. dub. 55.2. Strictly speaking, this only carries us back to the Alexandrian editions, but since Μοῖσα apparently became established in lyric very early (cf. Eumel. fr. 696.1 PMG = Paus. 4.33.2), Pindar should be credited with a preference for it (Verdier 1972: 21–33, 124–7, Nöthiger 1971:



93, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.3a). Moreover, one fails to see why the Alexandrians should have treated Pindar and Bacchylides differently. σύνδικον is difficult to translate and interpret. Slater (s.v. b) gives ‘rightful’, which goes back to Farnell (1932: on 2) and Fränkel (1962: 521 n. 26 = 1975: 456 n. 26): ‘σύνδικον κτέανον is what [Apollo and the Muses] possess σὺν δίκᾳ (Pyth. 9.96 and Nem. 9.44)’. Both these scholars reject ‘joint by equal right’ as another possible meaning (cf. e.g. Schmid 1616: on 3, Mezger 1880 and Schroeder 1922: on 2; Wilamowitz 1922: 298 n. 1).1 It gains support, however, from A. Ag. 1601 (of Thyestes) λάκτισμα δείπνου ξυνδίκως τιθεὶς ἀρᾷ, where ξυν- governs ἀρᾷ: ‘while giving the table a kick as an associate in justice with his curse [sc. on the race of Pleisthenes]’ (Raeburn–Thomas 2011: on 1601–2), i.e. the family is to be overthrown with the same right as the table is after Thyestes’ cannibalistic meal. In our passage then σύνδικος would express the close connection and interdependence between Apollo and the Muses. Cf. scholl. Pyth. 1.3a, d (II 8.8–9, 14–18 Dr.) συνῳδόν … σύντροπον; Angeli Bernardini 1979: 82–3, Kollmann 1989: on 2 (pp. 51–2), Cingano 1995: on 2. A third possibility is ‘that which bears witness to / speaks on their behalf’ (LSJ s.v. σύνδικος Ι 1–3). This is endorsed by Ol. 9.98–9 σύνδικος δ᾽ αὐτῷ Ἰολάου / τύμβος ἐνναλία τ᾽ Ἐλευσὶς ἀγλαΐαισιν (Heyne 1798–9: I 184; cf. Fennell 1893: on 2, Hooker 1977) and has the advantage of leaving the spotlight on the lyre after the initial address. It is impossible to tell what exactly Pindar intended or how his audience understood the word. Perhaps all three connotations were felt. In any case ‘belonging jointly to’ (LSJ s.v. σύνδικος II) is far too weak (cf. Hooker 1977: ‘intolerably banal’). 2b–4. ‘In these verses a series of technical terms [βάσις, ἀοιδοί, σάμασιν, προοιμίων, ἀμβολάς] accurately describes the harmonious interaction on which the performance of the epinician was based: music, dance and song …’ (Cingano 1995: on 2: ‘In questi versi una serie di termini tecnici descrive con precisione l’armoniosa interazione su cui si fondava l’esecuzione dell’epinicio: musica, danza e canto …’). This interaction is emphasised by the almost complete elimination of any personal agent, to the point that the dancing step ‘hears’ and ‘obeys’ the lyre (2 τᾶς ἀκούει … βάσις), as if it was an automatic process (cf. Skulsky 1975: 9). In this way Pindar has made his sketch both specific and universal, an

1 This is how I understand Wilamowitz’s ambiguous statement ‘An der Phorminx haben Apollon und die Musen Anrecht’ (cf. Kollmann 1989: on 2 (p. 50)). If one puts the emphasis on ‘Anrecht’, like Hooker and Angeli Bernardini (below), it favours the sense ‘rightful’. The context does not help either.



effect that is underlined by the indefinite temporal clause in present sequence ὁπόταν … τεύχῃς (cf. 1–12n.). So for any audience, as they witness the performers (or performer, in the case of solo revivals) go through the process depicted, something of Apollo and the Muses is transferred to the earthly occasion. τᾶς ἀκούει μὲν … πείθονται δ᾽: In typical hymnic style (1–12n.) the powers of the lyre are praised in a relative clause, which here moves to the third person (2b–3: ‘Er-Stil’) before the attached temporal clause returns to the second (4: ‘Du-Stil’). See Norden 1913: 143–66, 168–76, Race 1990: 85–6. As often in Greek when two or more relative clauses are connected and the second verb governs a different case (here πείθομαι + dative), the relative pronoun is not repeated (KG II 431–2 a). βάσις, ἀγλαΐας ἀρχά: The dancing step leads off the festivities (ἀγλαΐας ἀρχά in apposition to βάσις), just as the sound of the tambourines does in Pi. Dith. 2.9–10 (fr. 70b) σεμνᾷ μὲν κατάρχει / Ματέρι πὰρ μεγάλᾳ ῥόμβοι τυπάνων (cf. 1–12n.). The closest contextual parallel for βάσις here is Ar. Thesm. 966–8 ἀλλὰ χρὴ / ὡς πρὸς ἔργον αὖ τι καινὸν / πρῶτον εὐκύκλου χορείας εὐφυᾶ στῆσαι βάσιν, upon which the women of the chorus perform a hymn to individual Olympian gods, accompanied by different sorts of dance (969–1000). For ἀγλαΐα, ‘festivities, celebration’, in connection with music cf. e.g. [Hes.] Sc. 272–3 τοὶ δ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐν ἀγλαΐας τε χοροῖς τε / τέρψιν ἔχον, 285, h.Merc. 475–7 (of Apollo), Nem. 1.13, 9.31, Pi. fr.  148 ἀγλαΐας ἀνάσσων  … Ἄπολλον, Bacch. fr.  4.56–7. Personified Aglaia, one of the three Charites (first Hes. Th.  909), appears in this function at Ol.  14.13, Pi. fr.  199.3 (with a Muse) and, regarding Hieron, Bacch. 3.5–6 (with Nike). Cf. also Ol.  1.14–15 ἀγλαΐζεται δὲ καί  / μουσικᾶς ἐν ἀώτῳ. πείθονται δ᾽ ἀοιδοὶ σάμασιν / … ἐλελιζομένα: This expresses the reciprocal relationship between song and instrumental accompaniment, reversing the hierarchy of Ol. 2.1 ἀναξιφόρμιγγες ὕμνοι (Cingano 1995: on 3–4). Schol. Ol. 2.1a (I 58.20–59.5 Dr.) already makes the connection in a slightly elliptical form, which may be due to abbreviation (see Phillips 2016: 144–5): ἀναξιφόρμιγγες· ἤτοι τῶν φορμίγγων ἀνάσσοντες· ἕπονται γὰρ τοῖς ὕμνοις καὶ φόρμιγγες, δι᾽ οὓς καὶ ἀπεδείχθησαν· ἢ οἱ ἀνασσόμενοι ὑπὸ φορμίγγων ὕμνοι· πρότερον γὰρ ἐνδίδωσι μέλος ὁ κιθαριστής, ἔπειτα ἡ ᾠδὴ λέγεται· ὡς καὶ ἐν Πυθιονίκαις· χρυσέα φόρμιγξ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ ἰοπλοκάμων σύνδικον Μοισᾶν κτέανον. Aristophanes perhaps took a lead from our passage (and 1–12, as a whole) in Thesm. 123–7 (Agathon, singing) σέβομαι  …  / κίθαρίν  … ματέρ᾽ ὕμνων /  …  / τᾷ φάος ἔσσυτο δαιμονίοις / ὄμμασιν. This would add a layer of irony to the parody of Agathon’s song, if an allusion to traditional choral lyric could be interpreted as hinting at the ‘tyranny of music over words’ in the style of the New Music (Austin–Olson 2004: on Thesm. 124; cf. Hadjimichael 2019: 90 with n. 87).



σάμασιν: the ‘sign[s] to do or begin something’ (LSJ s.v. σῆμα 2), i.e. the notes of the lyre preludes: schol. Pyth. 1.5c (II 9.11–12 Dr.) ἢ τοῖς κελεύσμασιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ σημῆναι διὰ τῆς προακρούσεως. ἁγησιχόρων ὁπόταν προοιμίων ἀμβολάς τεύχῃς: Cf. Lyr. adesp. 938c PMG στησίχορον ὕμνον ἄγοισαι (sc. Μοῖσαι? Hogarth: -χόρων ὕμνων Beazley), which appears on a papyrus scroll ‘depicted in a school scene on an Attic kylix … from the first half of the fifth century’ and could be the beginning of a poem by Stesichorus (Finglass 2014: 16 n. 98). Like adjectival στησίχορος (as opposed to the name, which is widespread: Finglass 2014: 15 n. 95), the identically formed ἁγησίχορος here is a hapax, apart from female Ἁγησιχόρα in Alcm. fr. 1.53, 57, 77, 79, 90 PMGF. The aspirated ἁγησιχόρων is attested in an allusion to this passage in Ath. 180e and Eust. in Od.  1480.21 Stallbaum (who seems to rely on Athenaeus). In the direct MSS tradition ἁγησι- appears to be a correction by Pseudo-Mos­ chopoulos for the transmitted ἀγησι- (cf. Introduction, 59). The ubiquity of the wrong breathing suggests that it goes back to the transcription from uncial to minuscule when the prefix was derived from ἄγω rather than the unfamiliar Doric ἁγέομαι. προοιμίων ἀμβολάς: The terms ἀμβολή (syncopated ἀνα-) and προοίμιον are all but synonymous. Both refer to the instrumental preludes to rhapsodic or choral singing and are often used as glosses for each other in the scholarly tradition (West 1981: 122 = 2011–13: I 135 with nn. 56, 57). Pindar here combined them to designate the very first notes of the lyre, which set the melody and rhythm for the ensuing song and dance. While ἀναβάλλομαι (‘set about, strike up’) is attested as early as Homer (Od.  1.155 ἤτοι ὃ φορμίζων ἀνεβάλλετο καλὸν ἀείδειν, 8.266, 17.261–3), the more technical noun ἀμβολή first occurs here. Cf. Nem. 7.77 ἀναβάλεο (‘strike up the prelude’), and ἀμβολάδην (-αν) (‘by way of a prelude’) in h.Merc. 426 and (metaphorically) in Nem. 10.33. On linguistic, thematic and compositional grounds the Homeric Hymn to Hermes is best dated to the first half of the fifth century, the terminus ante quem being Sophocles’ Ichneutai (see Thomas 2020: 1–23). Pindar also offers our first examples of προοίμιον, although the word must have been established for some time, given that both he and Aeschylus were already able to use it partly or entirely figuratively: Pyth. 7.1–3 κάλλιστον αἱ μεγαλοπόλιες Ἀθᾶναι  / προοίμιον, Nem. 2.1–3, Pi. fr.  78.1–2 κλῦθ᾽ Ἀλαλά  …  / ἐγχέων προοίμιον, A. Sept. 5–7 εἰ δ᾽ … / Ἐτεοκλέης ἂν … / ὑμνοῖθ᾽ … φροιμίοις πολυρρόθοις, Ag. 31, 829 (of a speech), 1216. On the history of ἀναβολή and προοίμιον see Koller 1956, especially 170–4, 187–95, and on ἀναβολή alone also Comotti 1989.



ἐλελιζομένα: the passive of Ol. 9.13 φόρμιγγ᾽ ἐλελίζων (‘cause to vibrate’) rather than intransitive middle, as in Pi. fr.  107a.2–3 ἀγωνίῳ  / ἐλελιζόμενος ποδί. Cf. LSJ s.v. ἐλελίζω (A) III, Slater s.v. b. 5–12. After extolling the creation of music, divine and human, Pindar proceeds to illustrate its positive effects on a cosmic level. Just as nearly all beings are subject to the power of love (e.g. Il. 14.198–9, Hes. Th. 120–2, h.Ven. 1–6), so even Zeus and Ares fall under the somniferous spell of Apollo’s lyre and the Muses’ song (cf. 1–28n.). On the idea of music helping both gods and humans to forget their troubles, and its implications for this ode, see 1–12n. A drachm and a tetradrachm from Aitna, datable to ca. 470, show on the reverse Zeus seated on his throne, holding his thunderbolt in the right hand and his sceptre, with the eagle on top, in the left. It has been suggested that they represent Zeus Aitnaios (29–30a n.) and were inspired by a cult statue of the god (cf. Introduction, 4, 9–10, 14). It is hard to see how Pindar’s bold poetic vision in 5–10a could not have interacted with this imagery (Cingano 1995: on 6, 30, Morgan 2015: 66–8 with fig. 2.6, 310–11, Meister 2019: 373, 378–9). Phidias’ statue of Zeus at Olympia, completed probably in the 430s, also displayed the eagle-crowned sceptre (Paus. 5.11.1). 5–6a. ‘And you extinguish the warlike thunderbolt of ever-flowing fire.’ τὸν αἰχματὰν κεραυνὸν … / αἰενάου πυρός: Cf. Pi. Dith. 2.15–16 (fr. 70b) ἐν δ᾽ ὁ παγκρατὴς κεραυνὸς ἀμπνέων / πῦρ κεκίν̣η̣[ται … (1–12n.), fr. 146 (of Athena) πῦρ πνέοντος ἅτε κεραυνοῦ / ἄγχιστα δεξιὰν κατὰ χεῖρα πατρός and [Α.] PV 359 καταιβάτης κεραυνὸς ἐκπνέων φλόγα, which may be an echo of our passage, coming as it does from the ‘Typhos episode’ (PV 351–72 ~ Pyth. 1.15–28; cf. 13–28n.). Zeus, the Greek instantiation of the Indo-European sky-god (< *D(i)yéus; cf. e.g. Vedic D(i)áus-, Latin Dies-piter, Iu-p(p)iter), has taken over the functions of an originally separate storm-god, who can still be seen in many other Indo-European traditions (West 2007: 238–55). According to Hesiod (Th. 140–1, 501–6), Zeus received his thunderbolt from the appropriately-named Cyclopes Brontes, Steropes and Arges. αἰχματὰν κεραυνόν: ‘warlike / violent thunderbolt’ (Slater s.v.; schol. Pyth. 1.10b (II 10.12–13 Dr.) τὸν ἰσχυρὸν καὶ πολεμικώτατον κεραυνόν). The epithet alludes to the martial aspect of Zeus, who wields his thunderbolt like a spear (cf. Ol. 13.77, Pyth. 4.194 Zeus ἐγχεικέραυνος, Bacch. 8.26 κεραυνεγχής), and foreshadows his punishment of Typhos (Pfeijffer 2005: 38). The sense ‘spear-like = pointed’ (LSJ s.v. αἰχμητής II 1; cf. Cingano 1995: on 5–6, Massetti 2019: 40) would be weak in the context and is not supported by our



parallels (below). ‘The missile shares the mood of the warrior, already in epic [Il. 4.126, 21.168] etc.’ (Schroeder 1922: on 5: ‘Das Geschoß teilt die Stimmung des Schützen …’). Cf. 10–11 (10b–12a n.) τραχεῖαν … / ἐγχέων ἀκμάν, Ol. 13.77, Pyth. 4.194 (Zeus ἐγχεικέραυνος), and see Griffin 1980: 33–4, for Homer and some oriental passages, and West 1997: 371, 2007: 462, for further oriental and Indo-European parallels. This is the only extant example of genuinely adjectival αἰχμητής, referring to a non-personal noun. Ol. 11.17–19 στρατόν / … / … αἰχματάν (‘a people of spearmen’; cf. E. Hec. 118) and Nem. 9.37 θυμὸν αἰχματάν (of Chromios) illustrate the development of the usage from the substantival apposition, already familar in Homer (KG I 271–3, SD 613–14): e.g. Il. 1.152 Τρώων … αἰχμητάων (~ Pae. 2.61–2 (fr. 52b = D2 Rutherford) Παιόνων αἰχματᾶν), 3.49 ἀνδρῶν αἰχμητάων (~ Ol. 6.86, Nem. 5.7), 11.739 Μούλιον αἰχμητήν (~ Pyth. 4.12 Ἰάσονος αἰχματᾶο). In view of similarly bold cases of nouns used as adjectives elsewhere (e.g. A. Pers. 613 παρθένου πηγῆς μέτα; SD 176), there is no need to regard κεραυνός as personified here (so Gildersleeve 1890 and Fennell 1893: on 5). σβεννύεις  / αἰενάου πυρός: a paradoxical juxtaposition. Music extinguishes Zeus’ thunderbolt, but only temporarily, it is implied, because the fire is ‘ever-flowing’ (Skulsky 1975: 9; cf. Morgan 2015: 310). The same adjective expresses the eternity associated with Zeus at Ol.  14.12 αἰέναον  … πατρὸς Ὀλυμπίοιο τιμάν, Nem. 11.8–9 ξενίου Διὸς … αἰενάοις / ἐν τραπέζαις (cf. Kollmann 1989: on 5–6 (p. 63)) and E. Or. 1299 ὦ Διὸς ὦ Διὸς ἀέναον κράτος (on the different spelling see below). αἰενάου is Schroeder’s correction (1900: 27) of the MSS’ ἀεν(ν)α-, which only Turyn, Gentili et al. (wrongly following Verdenius 1987–8: II on Ol. 14.12) and Liberman did not adopt. Attic inscriptions after 450 increasingly have ἀεί (with long or short alpha), and this is the only form attested there for compounds in classical and Hellenistic times (Threatte I 275–7, II 726). On this basis, ἀέναος (always ᾱ-) should be accepted as transmitted in fifth-century tragedy and comedy (e.g. A. Suppl. 553, E. Ion 1083, Ar. Nub. 275), but considered intrusive in early Greek epic and lyric: Od.  13.109 (codd. pler.), Hes. Op.  595, 737 (codd. pler.), Sim. frr. 261.9, 262.2 Poltera, Ol. 14.12, Nem. 11.8–9, Pi. ‘Pae.’ 21.14 (fr. 52v = S2 Rutherford), fr. 119.4. At Hes. Op. 550 all witnesses offer αἰενα-, and this also occurs in three non-Attic inscriptions from the fourth to the second century BC (CEG 822 = IG V.1 1119, Inscr. Cret. 2.12.31c.2,–10). Cf. Henry 2005: on Nem. 11.8–9, who also proposes to supplement Bacch. fr.  20E.16 as [αἰ]ενάῳ Σιμόε[ν]τι ([ἀ]εν- Lobel). The only other relevant epic compound, in the verse-end formula … θεῶν (-οῖς) αἰειγενετάων (-γενέτῃσιν), is consistently transmitted in the form αἰει- (e.g. Il. 2.400, Od. 2.432, Hes. Th. 548, h.Cer. 36).



Triclinius deserves credit for recognising that ἀεννάου here spoils the rhythm and writing ἀενάου instead. On the frequent, but invariably unmetrical, MSS spelling with double ν (in probably unintentional accordance with the word’s origin from *αἰϝεν + ναϝ-) see further Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980: on A. Suppl. 553. 6b–7a. ‘And the eagle sleeps on the sceptre of Zeus, dropping his swift wings on both sides, the king of birds …’ For the eagle’s movement schol. Pyth. 1.10a (II 10.8–11 Dr.) compares Sapph. fr. 42 Voigt ταῖσι ψῦχρος μὲν ἔγεντο θῦμος / πὰρ δ᾽ ἴεισι τὰ πτέρα, of a dying pigeon. In the context one can perhaps assume that the demise of the bird was more peaceful than that of the pigeon shot by Meriones at Il. 23.875–81 (especially 879–81 σὺν δὲ πτερὰ πυκνὰ λίασθεν, / ὠκὺς δ᾽ ἐκ μελέων θυμὸς πτάτο, τῆλε δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ / κάππεσε). But it is to be remembered that Zeus’ eagle was overcome by ‘volleys’ of music (9–10 τεαῖς / ῥιπαῖσι κατασχόμενος) and that the ‘black cloud’ (7 κελαινῶπιν … νεφέλαν) was a traditional image for ‘death’ (7b–8a n.). The ‘king of birds’ sleeps deeply indeed. ἀνὰ σκάπτῳ Διὸς αἰετός: similarly S. fr. 884 TrGF ὁ σκηπτοβάμων αἰετός, κύων Διός. In our passage Διός can go with both σκάπτῳ (Doric for σκήπτρῳ) and αἰετός in a way that cannot be translated into English. For the former cf. Pi. Dith. 2.7–8 (fr. 70b) καὶ παρὰ σκᾶ[πτ]ον Διὸς Οὐρανίδαι / … ἵσταντι (cf. 1–12n.), for the latter Ol. 2.88 Διὸς πρὸς ὄρνιχα θεῖον, 4.4 χρυσέων Διὸς αἰετῶν, [A.] PV 1021–2 Διὸς … / πτηνὸς κύων, δαφοινὸς αἰετός and S. Ant. 1040 οἱ Ζηνὸς αἰετοί. In performance the syntax could have been clarified by a pause before or after Διός, or it could have been left ambiguous. ὠκεῖαν πτέρυγ᾽ … χαλάξαις: The eagle was traditionally ‘swift’: Il. 21.252–3 αἰετοῦ … / ὅς θ᾽ ἅμα κάρτιστός τε καὶ ὤκιστος πετεηνῶν, Lesb. fr. inc. auct. 10 Voigt, Nem. 3.80. Here the sense of the epithet, transferred to the wing(s) (cf. e.g. Hes. Th. 269, h.Merc. 553, E. fr. 518.2 TrGF), pointedly contrasts with that of the participle, as the mighty bird falls asleep. χαλάξαις is the Aeolic nominative masculine aorist participle of χαλάω (cf. 45 ῥίψαις, 79 τελέσαις, 81 συντανύσαις). The forms are irregularly transmitted (here only Π2, Cac and codex A at Et. Gen. s.v. κηληθμός (p. 33 Calame) have it), but on the whole they outnumber those in -ας, especially in the papyri, where they are exclusively attested. This suggests that they are original and should be adopted or restored, as Turyn was the first to do consistently. See Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.22c (more up-to-date and precise than Verdier 1972: 73–99). ἀρχὸς οἰωνῶν: so already Isth. 6.49–50 πέμψεν θεός / ἀρχὸν οἰωνῶν μέγαν αἰετόν (dated to 480); later Ol. 13.21 οἰωνῶν βασιλέα δίδυμον and A. Ag. 114



οἰωνῶν βασιλεύς. The designation of the eagle as ‘leader of birds’ was also current in Babylonian (West 1997: 540). 7b–8a. ‘… for you have poured over his curved head a black cloud, a sweet seal for his eyelids.’ κελαινῶπιν δ᾽ ἐπί οἱ νεφέλαν /  … κατέχευας: The image is Homeric: Il.  14.164–5 (Hera to Zeus) τῷ δ᾽ ὕπνον ἀπήμονά τε λαιρόν τε  / χεύῃ ἐπὶ βλεφάροισιν ἰδὲ φρεσὶ πευκαλίμῃσιν, Od. 2.395 ἔνθα μνηστήρεσσιν ἐπὶ γλυκὺν ὕπνον ἔχευεν (sc. Athena), 18.188, 20.54. By according the lyre this power over the eagle of Zeus, reinforced by two strong metaphors for sleep (below), Pindar underlines the divine status of its music (cf. Cingano 1995: on 7–8). κελαινῶπιν … νεφέλαν: This is a variant of the ‘cloud of death’ (the brother of ‘sleep’), which again goes back to Homer: e.g. Il. 16.350 … θανάτου δὲ μέλαν νέφος ἀμφεκάλυψεν, Od. 4.180 ~ Thgn. 707, Nem. 9.37–8 (with Braswell 1998), ‘Sim.’ Ep. 9.2 FGE. The idea seems to be that of the cloud as a ‘bringer of darkness’ (Wilamowitz 1895: on E. Her. 1140). κελαινῶπις is not attested elsewhere, but cf. the cognates κελαινώψ at Pyth. 4.212 κελαινώπεσσι Κόλχοισιν (where Braswell 1988 argues for ‘grim’ rather than ‘dark-faced, swarthy’), κελαινώπης at S. Ai.  954/5 (i.e. Odysseus’ ‘dark’ soul) and κελαινωπός at Hdn. GG III.1 188.4 Lentz = 199.12 Roussou. Here, as in Sophocles, the second part of the word has been so weakened that it almost equals κελαινός. On this phenomenon see Lobeck 1866: on S. Ai. 955 (p. 341) and, more generally, Meyer 1923: 97–102, Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 226b–8, 713b–14. δ’: explanatory, as often in poetry from Homer on (GP 169–70). Cf. 12b (n.) κῆλα δὲ καὶ δαιμόνων θέλγει φρένας, 32, 59, 62. ἐπί οἱ … / ἀγκύλῳ κρατί … κατέχευας: This is ‘pregnant’ use of the dative with a verb of motion indicating the place where the object of the action comes to rest (KG I 540–2, SD 155–6, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.36d). Likewise 74 (72b–5a n.) ἐν πόντῳ βάλεθ᾽ ἁλικίαν. The ‘whole-and-part’ construction (σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος) adds another epic touch. In the dative cf. e.g. Il. 11.11–12 Ἀχαιοῖσιν δὲ μέγα σθένος ἔμβαλ᾽ ἑκάστῳ  / καρδίῃ, Hes. Op.  76 πάντα δέ οἱ χροῒ κόσμον ἐφήρμοσε Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη, Pyth. 9.120 ἀμφί οἱ ψαύσειε πέπλοις (where the dress replaces the usual body part), E. Ba. 619, [E.] Rh. 266, 344–5 (KG I 289–90, SD 189–90 n. 5). The ‘curved’ head of the eagle has a possible precedent in Od. 19.538 … μέγας αἰετός ἀγκυλοχείλης (‘with hooked beak’). Yet the paradosis there is not certain because elsewhere the adjective occurs only as a variant to ἀγκυλοχήλης (‘with crooked talons’): Il. 16.428 (= Od. 22.302) … ὥς τ᾽ αἰγυπιοὶ γαμψώνυχες



ἀγκυλοχεῖλαι (-χῆλαι pars codd.), [Hes.] Sc. 405, Batr. 294, Ar. Eq. 197 (Δη.) … βυρσαίετος ἀγκυλοχήλης (ΓMpc: -χείλης cett.) + 204–5 (Αλ.) τί δ᾽ ἀγκυλοχήλης ἐστίν; (Mpc: -χείλης cett.) (Δη.) αὐτό που λέγει, / ὅτι ἀγκύλαις ταῖς χερσὶν ἁρπάζων φέρει. In Aristophanes and at Batr. 294 (of crabs) -χήλης is clearly correct, but in Il.  16.428 (=  Od.  22.302) it would be tautological next to the synonymous γαμψώνυχες (West 2001: 238–9). So perhaps both epithets were in use and regu­ larly confused because of their graphic and later also phonetic similarity. Our passage may lend some support to this theory. Schol. Pyth. 1.15a (II 11.1–3 Dr.) reads ἀγκυλοχείλης in Od. 19.538. γλεφάρων ἁδὺ κλάϊθρον: After κελαινῶπιν … νεφέλαν Pindar has created another bold and unique image out of the common idea of sleep as ‘pleasant’ or ‘sweet’. In addition to Od. 2.395 and 18.188 (quoted under κελαινῶπιν (…) κατέχευας, above), cf. e.g. Od. 21.357–8 … ὄφρα οἱ ὕπνον / ἡδὺν ἐπὶ βλεφάροισι βάλε γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη, 23.16–17 and, specifically of early-morning sleep, Alcm. 3. fr. 1.7 PMGF [ὕπνον ἀ]πὸ γλεφάρων σκεδ[α]σεῖ γλυκύν, Pyth. 9.23–5, Bacch. fr. 4.76–8, [E.] Rh. 554–6 (with Fries 2014). γλεφάρων: Doric γλεφ- for Ionic-Attic βλεφ- (‘eyelids, brows’; by metonymy ‘eyes’) is original to Pindar, as particularly the papyrus evidence suggests (P. Oxy. 2444 fr. 4.8 = fr. 51  f (c).8,2 P. Oxy. 2446 fr. 25.1). The MSS are often divided, as here (cf. Ol. 3.12. Pyth. 4.121, 9.24), or give only (-)βλεφ- (Pyth. 4.172, Nem. 8.2, fr. 123.6), except at Isth. 8.45a, where γλεφ- is unanimously attested. Bacchylides, by contrast, seems to have preferred βλεφ- (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.121f, Henry 2005: on Nem. 8.2). Maehler (1982: on Bacch. 11.15–17) is wrong in saying that γλέφαρα never means ‘eyes’ in Pindar. While ‘eyelids’ is satisfactory here as well as in Pyth. 4.121 and 9.24, it is less so at Nem. 8.1–2 Ὥρα πότνια … / ἅ τε παρθενηίοις παίδων τ᾽ ἐφίζοισα γλεφάροις, and ‘eyes’ is required in the compound ἑλικογλέφαρος (Pyth. 4.172, fr. 123.6). κλάϊθρον: literally ‘bar for closing a door’ (LSJ s.v. κλεῖθρον I 1). On the basis of Latin clatratus (‘latticed, barred’; first Pl. Mil. 379) and clatri (‘lattices, bars’), Wackernagel (1907: 25–6 = 1953: 1056–7) here proposed κλάϊθρον, the Doric equivalent of Ionic κλήϊθρον (h.Merc. 146). This was adopted by all subsequent editors, except Turyn and Liberman, and has now found MSS support in C’s κλᾶθρον (not κλαῖθρον (Gentili et al.) or κλάϊθρον (Liberman)). The majority reading κλαῖστρον, metrically corrected to κλάϊστρον by Triclinius, is much less

2 The fragment is doubtfully attributed to Pindar, on the ground that P. Oxy. 2444 fr. 14 has been linked by Lobel (1961: 85) to a statement of Strabo on Pindar’s Hymns (7 fr. 22.17–19 Radt = Pi fr. 33a, apparatus).



likely, given that the word does not otherwise occur before the second century AD (Luc. Tox. 57 κλεῖστρον). 8b–10a. ‘And slumbering he raises his supple back, overcome by your volleys.’ κνώσσων: of deep sleep, often accompanied by dreams: Od.  4.809 ἡδὺ μάλα κνώσσουσ᾽ ἐν ὀνειρείῃσι πύλῃσιν, Sim. fr. 271.8–10 Poltera, Ol. 13.71–2, [Theoc.]? 21.65, A. R. 1.1083, 1096, 3.690 (κατα-, ‘fall asleep’). The epic-poetic verb, which is only attested in forms of the present stem, has no known etymology (Beekes s.v.). West (1992: 201) suggests that it is onomatopoeic, from the sound of snoring (cf. Hsch. κ 3161 Latte–Cunningham κνώσσειν· ὑπνοῦν … ῥέγχειν). ὑγρὸν νῶτον: ‘supple back’ (LSJ s.v. ὑγρός II 1; Slater s.v. b), perhaps with the additional notion of the eagle’s feathers rippling and glistening like waves on the water (Gildersleeve 1890: on 9), just as in Bacch. 17.107–8 χορῷ δ᾽ ἔτερ- / πον κέαρ ὑγροῖσι ποσσίν (of the Nereids) there may be a pun with the sense ‘moist, wet’ (Maehler 2004: on 108). But the adjective is generally well-established ‘of things which can move easily like water’ (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.40b), including the bodies of animals and humans: e.g. Xen. Eq. 1.6 τά γε μὴν γόνατα ἢν βαδίζων ὁ πῶλος ὑγρῶς κάμπτῃ, εἰκάζοις ἂν καὶ ἱππεύοντα ὑγρὰ ἕξειν τὰ σκέλη, 10.15, Cyn. 4.1 (of dogs), Arist. HA 580a31–2, Poll. 4.96 ὑγρὸς ὀρχηστής (LSJ s.v. ὑγρός II 1, Jebb 1905: on Bacch. 16(17).108). While the context suggests deep relaxation and Pindar employs death-related imagery for the eagle’s sleep (cf.  6b–7a, 7b–8a nn.), it seems unlikely that ὑγρός itself already bore such connotations here, as in S. Ant. 1236–7 ἐς δ᾽ ὑγρόν / ἀγκῶν᾽ ἔτ᾽ ἔμφρων παρθένῳ προσπτύσσεται and E. Phoen. 1439 κἀπιθεὶς ὑγρὰν χέρα (LSJ s.v. ὑγρός II 2 ‘languid, feeble, of one dying’; cf. Farnell 1932: on 9). More probably the tragedians (Sophocles?) extrapolated this sense from our passage. αἰωρεῖ (here first attested) describes the rhythmic rising and falling of the eagle’s back as he breathes steadily in his sleep (Mezger 1880: on 8). The verb forms an almost oxymoronic contrast with κατασχόμενος, as ‘someone who is held down cannot raise himself up’ (Kollmann 1989: on 8–10 (p. 71): ‘ein Nie­der­ ge­haltener vermag sich nicht zu erheben’). τεαῖς ῥιπαῖσι: The basic meaning of ῥιπή (< ῥίπτω) is ‘the swing or force with which anything is thrown’ (LSJ s.v. 1). Pindar is particularly fond of using the word for the ‘blast’ or ‘rushing’ of the wind or sea (Slater s.v. a), which would continue the ‘wavy’ image of ὑγρὸν νῶτον αἰωρεῖ. But we may also think of a ‘volley’ of missiles (e.g. Il. 12.462 λᾶος ὑπὸ ῥιπῆς, 16.589, Nem. 1.68 βελέων ὑπὸ ῥιπαῖσιν; cf. Pyth. 3.57–8 ῥίψαις of Zeus hurling his thunderbolt). This common metaphor for song is perhaps developed in 12b (n.) κῆλα δὲ καὶ δαιμόνων θέλγει



φρένας. It is introduced properly at 42b–45 (n.), of Pindar’s own poetry, where note especially 45 μακρὰ … ῥίψαις (cf. Skulsky 1975: 10–11). LSJ s.v. ῥιπή 2 take our passage together with A. Ag. 891–3 ἐν δ᾽ ὀνείρασιν / λεπταῖς ὑπαὶ κώνωπος ἐξηγειρόμην  / ῥιπῆσι θωΰσσοντος as referring to the undulating sound (‘buzz’) made by an obnoxious gnat (cf. also Fennell 1893: on 10). But perhaps there too ‘onslaught’ would be appropriate. κατασχόμενος: aorist middle-passive in passive sense, as in Od.  11.334 κηληθμῷ δ᾽ ἔσχοντο, Bacch. 26.14–15 ὁ δ᾽ ἐπεῖ μάθε μῦθο[ν αἰνᾷ]  / σχέτο φροντίδι (μῦθο[ν Lobel: αἰνᾷ dubitanter suppl. Maehler) and E. Hipp. 27–8 Φαίδρα καρδίαν κατέσχετο / ἔρωτι δεινῷ (with Barrett 1964). As a residue of the original lack of dedicated passive forms in Greek, this usage is still common in Homer (e.g. Il. 4.518 βλῆτο παρὰ σφυρόν, 5.28), but practically disappeared in Ionic prose and classical Attic, except for ἔχω and its compounds. Pindar also has it at Pyth. 4.243 ἔλπετο δ᾽ οὐκέτι οἱ κεῖνόν γε πράξασθαι πόνον (cf. Braswell 1988: on 243d, with further literature) and, arguably, in στεφανόω at Ol. 7.15, 81, 12.17 and Nem. 6.19. The correct reading is only found in C. All other MSS offer καταγχόμενος, ‘strangled’ (cf. Nem. 1.46 ἀγχομένοις, i.e. the two snakes throttled by young Heracles), which is out of place. The error, apparently by confusion of σ and γ (Young 1965: 248 = 1970: 97), must have arisen early, perhaps already at the uncial stage. Hsch. (+ Cyr.) κ 1041 Latte–Cunningham κατάγχει· πνίγει. *κωλύει. κατέχει. ἀνακρούει is irrelevant to our context (the Cyril part of the gloss (after the asterisk) may refer to a horse; cf. Xen. Eq. 11.3 ἢν οὖν τις … ἀνακρούῃ τῷ χαλινῷ (‘… checks with the bit’)). Otherwise the verb is only thinly attested in late-antique prose (LSJ s.vv. κατάγχουσα, κατάγχω with Suppl. 1996). 10b–12a. ‘For even mighty Ares leaves aside his savage spear-points and lets his heart dissolve in deep repose …’ Lulling Ares to sleep is arguably the greatest achievement of Apollo’s lyre. The war-god is intrinsically opposed to music and dance (A. Supp. 681–2 ἄχορον ἀκίθαριν … Ἄρη, E. Phoen. 784–5), pleasures characteristic of a civilised society at peace: e.g. Pyth. 10.37–9 (of the Hyperboreans, who live in perpetual ease), Bacch. fr. 4.61–70, E. frr. 369, 453.1–9 TrGF (West 1992: 13–14; cf. Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 360–7). But occasionally he is overcome. In h.Ap. 200–1 he dances together with his fellow gods, led by Apollo and the Muses, and in Pi. Dith. 2.15–17 (fr. 70b) his spear, representing the god himself, is shaken by Dionysiac music: ἐν δ᾽ ὁ παγκρατὴς κεραυνὸς … / … κεκίν̣η̣[ται τό τ᾽] Ἐ̣νυ ̣ αλίου / ἐγχος (cf. 1–12n.). The fact that Ares is temporarily paying no attention to human affairs means that Hieron and his court can enjoy the celebration of the recent military



and athletic victories, including the performance of Pythian 1 which embodies these (contrast, probably a few years earlier, Pyth. 2.1–2 μεγαλοπόλιες ὦ Συράκοσαι, βαθυπολέμου  / τέμενος Ἄρεος). Similarly, in Lucr. 1.29–43 Venus is asked to seduce Mars so that her favourite people, the Romans, can have a rest from war and inner strife and be ready for the reception of Lucretius’ poem. Music apart, the drowsy war-god has a parallel at the beginning of the late-Babylonian epic Erra and Ishum (I 15–20): ‘As for Erra, his arms were weary like those of an insomniac. / He was saying to his heart “I think I’ll get up – I think I’ll go back to sleep”. / He said to his weapons, “Stow yourself in the corners”, / (and) to the Seven, unrivalled warrior, “Go back home”. / Until you (Ishum) woke him, he was asleep in his bed; / with Mami his wife he was making joy.’ See West 1997: 539–40 and, for a characterisation and translation of the whole poem, Foster 2005: 880–911. καὶ γάρ (‘for even …’) introduces the crowning example of the power of music, implied in the preceding illustration, with connective γάρ and adverbial καί adding the sense of climax (GP 108–9). For similar uses of καὶ γάρ in Pindar see Ol. 7.27–30 (Humans are prone to errors of judgement) καὶ γὰρ … / … / … ἔκτανεν … Λικύμνιον … / τᾶσδέ ποτε χθονὸς οἰκιστὴρ χολωθείς (‘for even the founder of this land [Tlapolemos] once … killed Likymnios …’) and Isth. 5.26–7 (Do not be reluctant to praise a deserving men) καὶ γὰρ ἡρώων ἀγαθοὶ πολεμισταί / λόγον ἐκέρδαναν (‘for even among the heroes brave warriors also gained praise’). Unlike these two passages, ours could support the meaning ‘yes and’ / ‘and further’ (Slater s.v. γάρ 3 a γ; cf. Kirkwood 1982: on 10), but this is weaker and very dubious in non-dialogic speech (GP 110). βιατὰς Ἄρης: The adjective, first found in Alcm. fr.  1.4 PMGF (of an unknown hero), is a favourite of Pindar: also 42 χερσὶ βιαταὶ … ἔφυν and Ol. 9.75 Πατρόκλου βιατὰν νόον, Pyth. 4.236 (Jason), 6.28 (Antilochus), Pae. 6.84 (fr. 52f = D6 Rutherford) (Achilles) and, metaphorically, Nem. 9.51–2 βιατάν / ἀμπέλου παῖδ᾽. But the closest parallel is probably ‘Anyte’ Ep.  23 HE (AP 7.492.3–4) ὁ βιατάς / … Ἄρης (Jacobs: βιατός P: βιαστός Pl), where the Doric form in other­ wise pure Ionic(-Attic) suggests a reminiscence of our passage (cf. Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.236b). τραχεῖαν  … ἐγχέων ἀκμάν: Cf. Nem. 6.52–3 ἀκμᾷ  / ἔγχεος ζακότοιο (i.e. Achilles’ spear). As in 5 (5–6a n.) αἰχματὰν κεραυνόν, the weapon here shows a personality trait, or typical feeling, of its owner. With τραχύς (‘harsh, savage’) note also Pi. fr. 111.1–2 (Heracles) πολλὰ / δ᾽ ἕλκε᾽ ἔμβαλλε  ] . νωμῶν τραχὺ ῥόπαλον and Bacch. 5.81–2 (Meleager’s ghost to Heracles) μὴ ταΰσιον προΐει  / τραχὺν ἐκ χειρῶν ὀϊστόν. Similarly, the adjective occurs as a poetic epithet of battle and war ([Hes.] Sc. 119 ὑσμίνη τρηχεῖα, Isth. 4.17 τραχεῖα νιφὰς



πολέμοιο, ‘Sim.’ Ep.  2.4 FGE),3 while stones used as missiles in Il.  5.308 and 7.264–5 ~ 21.403–4 are literally ‘rough’. The ἔγχος (‘spear, lance’) is Ares’ standard weapon from Homer on (e.g. Il. 5.594, 15.605, [Hes.] Sc. 453, Nem. 10.84, Pi. Dith. 2.15–17 (fr. 70b)), matching that of the epic Greek heroes, in contrast to the eastern bow. ἰαίνει καρδίαν / κώματι: ‘lets his heart (…) dissolve in deep repose’ (Gilder­ sleeve 1890: on 11, without explanation). Over half a century later, Latacz (1966: 220–31) argued that the basic sense of ἰαίνω was not ‘warm (up)’, but ‘diffuse, relax’, based on (1) the supposed etymological relationship between the verb and Vedic īṣaṇyáti, ‘set into motion, stimulate’, (2) its Homeric use for both physical and psychological processes and (3) the regular ancient glossing with διαχέω, which from Plato on had the same semantic range (e.g. schol.bT Il. 15.103 (IV 31.44–8 Erbse), Hsch. ι 16, 56, 57 Latte–Cunningham). While point (1) continues to be disputed (see Beekes s.vv. ἰαίνω, ἰάομαι), it is perhaps more relevant that the proposed meaning also fits the application of ἰαίνω in later poetry to the effects of pleasurable external stimuli, including music: h.Cer. 435–6 πολλὰ μάλ᾽ ἀλλήλων κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἰαίνον / ἀμφαγαπαζόμεναι, Alcm. fr. 59a PMGF, Archil. fr. 25.2 IEG2, Thgn. 531–2 ἀεί μοι φίλον ἦτορ ἰαίνεται, ὁππότ᾽ ἀκούσω / αὐλῶν φθεγγομένων ἱμερόεσσαν ὄπα, Ol. 2.13, Bacch. 17.130–2. The meaning ‘warm (up)’, easily transferred to the soul, perhaps arose by misunderstanding of Od. 10.358–9 ἡ δὲ τετάρτη ὕδωρ ἐφόρει καὶ πῦρ ἀνέκαιεν / πολλὸν ὑπὸ τρίποδι μεγάλῳ· ἰαίνετο δ᾽ ὕδωρ (Latacz 1966: 225, 231; cf. Maehler 1997: on Bacch. 17.131). Liberman (2004: 40, 254–5) follows Bergk (1878: 144) in placing κώματι after κῆλα δέ – treating κῆλα δὲ κώματι … θέλγει φρένας as an explanatory parenthesis – on the grounds that (1) κώματι would go better with θέλγει, and (2) ἀμφί τε Λατοίδα σοφίᾳ βαθυκόλπων τε Μοισᾶν is preferably joined with ἰαίνει καρδίαν. But he does not give a compelling reason for either, just as Bergk simply stated ‘…  nam ἰαίνει καρδίαν iungendum cum verbis ἀμφί τε κτλ.’ In fact by removing κώματι from ἰαίνει καρδίαν we would lose the desired emphasis on Ares’ sleepiness, and κῆλα δὲ … Μοισᾶν can be explanatory as it stands (12b n.). κώματι resumes εὕδει (6) and κνώσσων (8). The word ‘denotes a magic sleep, caused by the gods for some special purpose’ (West 1966: on Hes. Th. 798) and so appropriately here refers to the effect of Apollo’s lyre upon Ares. Else-

3 In Tyrt. fr. 12.21–2 IEG2 αἶψα δὲ δυσμενέων ἀνδρῶν ἔτρεψε φάλαγγας / τρηχείας, also listed by LSJ s.v. τραχύς I 2 (and Maehler 1982: on Bacch. 5.82) we rather have a transferred epithet, properly qualifying the enemy warriors.



where e.g. Il. 14.358–9 ὄφρ᾽ ἔτι εὕδει / Ζεύς, ἐπεὶ αὐτῷ ἐγὼ μαλακὸν περὶ κῶμα κάλυψα (Hera as part of her deception of Zeus), Od. 18.201, Hes. Th. 798, Alcm. fr. 7.2–3 PMGF, Sapph. fr. 2.8 Voigt. The correct κώματι is only found in C (κώμτι) and the lemma of its scholion, from where directly or indirectly it entered Callierges’ edition (Introduction, 64). All other MSS have κώμω(ι), ‘revelry’, apparently an error by mental association. It spoils not only the sense, but also the metre, since Pindar does not allow contracted D- and d-cola (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.228c). 12b. ‘… as your enchantments bewitch the minds even of divinities, thanks to the skill of Leto’s son and of the deep-bosomed Muses.’ At the end of the ‘hymn to the lyre’ Pindar returns to Apollo and the Muses in a statement that sums up and explains (δέ, below) all that has been said about the effects of their music – on the gods and also on humans (see on καὶ δαιμόνων). The ring composition ‘raises the expectation that … the proem has come to a close and that a transition will be made to the occasion [of the ode]’ (Pfeijffer 2005: 17). Instead it continues with the enemies of the gods and music, notably Typhos. On false closures in Pythian 1 see further 39–40, 81–4nn. and Introduction, 6–7. κῆλα: perhaps ‘enchantments’ (cf. θέλγει, below) rather than ‘shafts’ (Slater s.v.). West (1966: on Hes. Th. 708) contested the traditional explanation of κῆλα, which is found only in the nominative and accusative plural, as ‘arrow shafts’ (e.g. Hsch. κ 2488 Latte–Cunningham; cf. LfgrE s.v.) on the grounds that the word ‘always refers to manifestations of divine power, usually by invisible means’ and that the assumption of metaphorical arrows nowhere yields satis­ factory results. While invisibility does not play as great a role as West suggests, the remaining two arguments are strong. Note Il. 1.53 ἐννῆμαρ μὲν ἀνὰ στρατὸν ᾤχετο κῆλα θεοῖο, 383 (i.e. Apollo inflicting the ‘plague’ on the Greeks),4 12.280 (referring to snowflakes), Hes. Th. 708 κῆλα Διὸς μεγάλοιο (Zeus’ thunderbolt, which bears greater resemblance to a spear than an arrow), ‘Hes.’ fr. 204.138 M.–W. (context unclear), h.Ap.  444 ἔνθ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὅ γε (sc. Apollo) φλόγα δαῖε πιφαυσκόμενος τὰ ἃ κῆλα, ‘Orph.’ Arg. 10 … φρικώδεα κῆλ᾽ ἐπίφασκον (of Apollo and Bacchus). The last passage is especially telling, given the late Imperial date of the poem, when influence from Alexandrian definitions of epic words might have been expected. See also LSJ Suppl. 1996 s.v. κῆλον and Nünlist 1998: 150.

4 Since both these lines are preceded by a description of Apollo shooting his evil ‘dart’ (βέλος), it is easy to see how κῆλα came to be understood as ‘arrow shafts’ (West (above); cf. schol.AbT Il. 1.53c (I 26.7–10 Erbse)).



The etymology of κῆλα is unknown (Beekes s.v.), but it may be that the ancients connected it with κηλέω, ‘enchant, bewitch’ (for good or ill). This is supported by our passage (κῆλα … θέλγει) and its scholia, which gloss κῆλα with κηλήματα or θέλγματα: scholl. Pyth. 1.21a–c (II 11.16–22 Dr.); cf. Cgl θελκτικά. The fact that κηλέω is regularly used of musical ‘enchantment’ (e.g. Archil. fr. 253 IEG2, Pi. Dith. 2.22 (fr. 70b); LSJ s.v.) tells against this being a mere inference from the text (cf. Schroeder 1922: on 11). The negative aspect would be acknowledged in schol.bT Il. 1.53c (I 26.8 Erbse) ἢ κῆλα καὶ τὰ δείματά φησιν, offered as an alternative explanation to ‘missiles’ (cf. n. 4). If this interpretation is correct, and the semantic equation of κῆλα and βέλη is Alexandrian, we do not have here a genuine instance of the poet or musician as archer, a traditional image already found in the Rigveda (West 2007: 45, Massetti 2019: 215–18, Meusel 2020: 484–5) and often used by Pindar (Ol. 1.111–12, 2.83–95, 9.5–12, Nem. 6.26–8, Isth. 2.3, 5.46–8; cf. Bacch. 10.42–3). In that case Morgan’s observation (2015: 311–12) that the passage metaphorically combines Apollo’s two aspects as god of the lyre and the bow (cf. h.Ap. 131) needs to be modified: it stresses the nature of music as an expression of Apollo’s divinity, especially perhaps by reminiscence of Il. 1.53 and 383, where the god sends his κῆλα to deleterious effect. Similarly, Zeus’ enemies will not be pleased by the sound of the lyre (13–16; cf. 1–28n.). On the other hand, it is conceivable that the no doubt well-known opening of the Iliad, as well as passages like Hes. Th.  708 (about Zeus’ thunderbolt), encouraged an early association of κῆλα with βέλη. Pindar could then have exploited the dual meaning of the word as ‘enchantments with a sting’, in the light of Apollo’s twin attributes and the old analogy between lyre and bow (cf. Od. 21.404–11, where Odysseus strings his bow like a singer would his lyre). A similar possibility has been observed for τεαῖς ῥιπαῖσι (8b–10a n.). δέ: explanatory (7b–8a n.) rather than merely connective (‘and …’), which only makes sense if δαιμόνων is understood as ‘the other deities’. The particle is glossed with γάρ in C and U. καὶ δαιμόνων introduces an implicit comparison. If music affects ‘even’ deities, how much greater will be its power over humans (cf. Skulsky 1975: 9, 11). θέλγει: ‘bewitch, enchant’, meaning ‘the alteration (usually temporary) of normal thought and consciousness’ (Heubeck 1989: on Od. 10.213). As the effect of song this is first found in Od. 12.39–40 Σειρῆνας … αἵ ῥά τε πάντας / ἀνθρώπους θέλγουσιν (cf. Heubeck 1989: on 40, who refers to the Delphic Κηληδόνες at Pi. Pae. 8.71 (fr. 52i = B2 Rutherford), whose song was as deleterious to humans as that of the Sirens); then e.g. h.Ap.  161 ὕμνον ἀείδουσιν, θέλγουσι δὲ φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων (of the Delian maidens), [A.] PV 172–3, Pl. Smp. 197e4–5. At Nem.



4.2–3 αἱ δὲ σοφαί / Μοισᾶν θύγατρες ἀοιδαὶ θέλξαν νιν ἁπτόμεναι (i.e. the πόνοι mentioned in 1) θέλγω acquires a medical connotation (Henry 2005: on 3; cf. Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980: on A. Suppl. 571–2). Krause’s θέλγεις (1918), reiterated by Fränkel (1962: 520 n. 24 = 1975: 456 n. 24), rests on the uncertain assumption that κῆλα means ‘missiles’ (above) and so ought to refer to Zeus’ thunderbolt and Ares’ spear, as an object parallel to δαιμόνων … φρένας. See also Kollmann 1989: on 12 (pp. 78–9), Cingano 1995: on 12 (p. 332). ἀμφὶ  … σοφίᾳ: Originally σοφία and its cognates denote ‘skill’ in any handicraft or art (LSJ s.v. 1), including music and poetry, a sense common in Pindar (e.g. Ol. 1.115b–16, Pyth. 4.248, Nem. 7.23, Isth. 7.18–19; cf. Bacch. 15.23– 4, fr.  14.3–4). Both the relevant gods and the Muses possess such σοφία and may impart it to humans: h.Merc. 483 (Apollo is advised on how to play the lyre), 511 (Hermes and the pan-pipes), Sol. fr. 13.51–2 IEG2 ἄλλος Ὀλυμπιάδων Μουσέων πάρα δῶρα διδαχθείς, / ἱμερτῆς σοφίης μέτρον ἐπιστάμενος, Pi. Pae. 7b.18–20 (fr. 52h = C2 Rutherford). More unusually, in Ibyc. fr. S151.23 PMGF the Muses are called σεσοφισμέναι, ‘practised in art’, which otherwise is only said of mortals (Hes. Op. ναυτιλίης σεσοφισμένος, Thgn. 19 σοφιζομένῳ … ἐμοί). See Woodbury 1985: 200, Wilkinson 2013: 73 and in general Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.248d, Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 890–2a (with further references). In the causal sense ‘owing to, thanks to’ ἀμφί + dative is mainly poetic. Pindar and Bacchylides in particular use it of the means by which something comes to pass: 80 τὸν (sc. ὕμνον) ἐδέξαντ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀρετᾷ, Ol. 8.42, Pyth. 8.32–4, Nem. 1.29–30, Isth. 7.8, Pi. Parth. 2.38–41 (fr. 94b), Bacch. 1.149–50. The dative is locative in origin (KG I 490; SD 437–8; cf. LSJ s.v. ἀμφί B III). Λατοίδα: the Doric (and Aeolic) genitive singular of epic-Ionic Λητοΐδης (e.g. [Hes.] Sc. 479, h.Merc. 253, 403; LfgrE s.v.). For metrical reasons Pindar here uses the form without diaeresis, as also in Pyth. 4.3, 259 and perhaps fr. 169b.3 Λατοίδ̣[α], to judge by the accentuation of the papyrus, as against Pi. Pae. 12a.4 (fr.  52m (a) = G2 Rutherford) Λ]ατοϊδαιν̣[; cf. Bacch. 3.39. With diaeresis e.g. Alcm. fr. 48 PMGF, Alc. fr. 67.3 Voigt, Pyth. 3.67, Nem. 9.53. Like matronymics generally, Λητοΐδης is non-existent in Homer. See Russo 1965: on [Hes.] Sc. 229 (Δαναΐδης) and Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.3b. βαθυκόλπων  … Μοισᾶν: ‘deep-bosomed’, i.e. wearing a garment that falls in deep folds, not ‘with full breasts’ (see Nawratil 1959, LfgrE s.v., BK on Il. 24.215). In Homer the epithet is restricted to Trojan and Dardanian women (Il.  18.122, 339, 24.215) and therefore, like βαθύζωνος (‘deep-girdled’) and ἑλκεσίπεπλος (‘with a trailing robe’), perhaps reflects an original difference in Greek and oriental dress-style (S. R. West 1988: on Od. 3.154). In subsequent poets βαθύκολπος and βαθύζωνος tend to mark larger-than-life female figures:



e.g. h.Cer. 5 … κούρῃσι σὺν Ὠκεανοῦ βαθυκόλποις, Pyth. 9.101–2 βαθυκόλπου / Γᾶς, Pi. Pae. 6.135–7 (fr. 52f = D6 Rutherford) (the nymph Aigina), Theoc. 17.55 (Thetis), Pyth. 9.2–3 σὺν βαθυζώνοισιν … / … Χαρίτεσσι, Bacch. 5.9, 11.16 (Leto).5 At Il. 2.484 ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ᾽ ἔχουσαι we learn from schol.A (I 285.37–286.28 Erbse) that Zenodotus read  … Μοῦσαι, Ὀλυμπιάδες βαθυκόλποι. But in view of the precedents quoted above, this need not mean that Pindar knew the Homeric line in that form (cf. Nickau 1977: 35–6). Note further Isth. 6.74–5 βαθύζωνοι κόραι / … Μναμοσύνας. On the form Μοισᾶν see 1–2a n. 13–28. With the first epode Pindar introduces a sharp antithesis to the picture of Olympian harmony so far created (cf. Fränkel 1962: 522 = 1975: 457, Kirkwood 1982: on 13–28). Far from being soothed by the tunes of Apollo and the Muses, the enemies of Zeus react to them with terror (13–14). Of all the creatures Zeus had to subdue in his struggle for hegemony (cf. Hes. Th. 617–819) Pindar singles out his last opponent, Typhos (Hes. Th.  820–80), whose disruptive force still manifests itself in volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, most recently a few years before Pythian 1 (below), and who could be shown to have a special relationship with the sphere of influence Hieron gained after defeating a succession of enemies (cf. 1–12n., Introduction, 17).6 Pindar’s ‘account of Typho[s] starts where Hesiod leaves off’ (Morgan 2015: 315; cf. Kollmann 1989: on 15 (p. 98), Lewis 2019: 151), that is after Zeus has flung him into Tartarus: Hes. Th. 868 ῥῖψε δέ μιν θυμῷ ἀκαχὼν ἐς τάρταρον εὐρύν (~ Pyth. 1.15 ὅς τ᾽ ἐν αἰνᾷ Ταρτάρῳ κεῖται). But unlike Hesiod (below), he clearly mentions the geographical location of Typhos’ confinement. The body of the monster stretches from Sicily across the Tyrrhenian Sea to Kyme on the Bay of Naples, and he has to be held down by Mt. Etna and, most likely, the island of Pithekoussai, modern Ischia (16b–19a, 19b–20nn.). Pindar is not the first author who placed Typhos’ imprisonment in the Western Mediterranean, since a tradition at least as old as Pherecydes (FGrH 3 F 54) had him buried under Pithekoussai (cf. e.g. Lyc. 688–90, Strab. 5.4.9 =

5 In the case of βαθύκολπος one wonders whether the frequent application to earth- and sea-goddesses is a variant on the Indo-European poetic concept of ‘broad earth’ (Homeric εὐρεῖα χθών) and ‘broad sea’ (e.g. Il. 18.140 θαλάσσης εὐρέα κόλπον). See Massetti 2019: 62–3. 6 By contrast, Horace, who had no poetic need for such restriction, treats the entire Titanomachy in Carm. 3.4.42–64, probably taking his cue from Pyth. 1.13–14 ὅσσα δὲ μὴ πεφίληκε Ζεύς … / … γᾶν τε καὶ πόντον κατ᾽ ἀμαιμάκετον. As Nisbet and Rudd (2004: 55) observe, Horace’s ‘description of Apollo (61–2) and Etna (76) confirms that he is still thinking of Pindar’. See further 1–12, 1–2a, 25–6a, 39–40, 81–100 (n. 46) nn.



Posidon. fr. 39 Theiler, Strab. 13.4.6, schol. Ol. 4.11c (I 132.8 Dr.)). Yet he may have been the first to connect him with Sicily and Mt. Etna, unless schol. Il. 2.783 (P. Oxy. 1086 ii.49–50 = I 168 Erbse) quotes Pindar as merely one in a list of ‘more recent poets’ that includes others before him: Ἄριμα τῆς Πισιδίας ̣ (ἐστίν), ὑφ᾽ οἷς δοκεῖ ὁ Τυφὼς (εἶναι) καθ᾽ Ὅμηρον. οἱ μ(έν)τοι γε νεώτεροι ὑπὸ τὴν Αἴτν̣[ην] τὸ ἐν Σικελίᾳ ὄρος φασὶν αὐτὸν (εἶναι), ὧν Πίνδαρος· ‘κείνῳ μ(ὲν) Αἴτνα δεσμὸς ὑπερφίαλος ἀμφίκειται’ (Pi. fr. 92; cf. also Ol. 4.6–7).7 An earlier reference to Mt. Etna has sometimes been detected in Hes. Th. 859–61 φλὸξ δὲ κεραυνωθέντος ἀπέσσυτο τοῖο ἄνακτος  / οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃσιν †ἀιδνῆς† παιπαλοέσσης  / πληγέντος. But West (1966: on 860) has raised strong arguments against interpreting †ἀιδνῆς† as Αἴτνης with Tzetzes (in Lyc. 688): (1) the metrically necessary prosody Ἀΐτνης would be unparalleled, (2) the corruption of such a familiar and contextually apt name would be hard to explain, and (3) Hesiod does not actually speak of Typhos as being put under the mountain where he collapsed. These objections have not been met by the extensive refutation of Debiasi (2008: 77–104).8 We do not know if Typhos was part of Eumelus’ Titanomachy (in favour of this idea see Tsagalis 2013) nor if Stesichorus (cf. fr. 273 Finglass) recounted his end. The Homeric Hymn to Apollo (300–74), which tells the same alternative story of his birth and rearing as Stesichorus (16b–17a n.), does not. Just as Typhos is associated with earthquakes and scorched ground in Hes. Th. 839–68, so his location under Sicily and along the coast of southern Italy is based on the volcanic nature of the region. This is exemplified by the eruption of Mt. Etna which Pindar describes in 21–8 as if it were ongoing. The event took place in 479/8 according to the Marmor Parium (FGrH 239 A 52) or 475/4 according to Thucydides, who records an eruption in 425, fifty years after the previous one (3.116). Scholars are divided about the reliability of these dates, but Thucydides is perhaps slightly favoured by the statement in scholl. [A.] PV 367a/368 Herington that Mt. Etna erupted κατὰ τοὺς Ἱέρωνος χρόνους (i.e. between 478 and 467). In any case, whether Pindar observed the spectacle himself or followed eyewitness accounts (cf. 26b n.), this is the nearest we get to a contempor­ ary description of a volcanic eruption until Plin. Ep. 25 on Vesuvius in 79 AD.

7 The same question arises in schol.A Il. 24.527–8a (V 607.2–5 Erbse), where ‘some of the younger poets’ are said to believe that Zeus had three jars (πίθοι), one of good and two of evil (τινὲς δὲ τῶν νεωτέρων ἕνα μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν, δύο δὲ τῶν κακῶν ἐδέξαντο). Pindar, who famously espoused this view in Pyth. 3.80–2, is mentioned in schol.A Il. 24.528a (V 608.19–27 Erbse), but it is not clear whether he was participating in a literary debate or reworked Homer independently. 8 Execept perhaps the unique prosody of Ἀΐτνης, which Debiasi (2008: 86–8) compared to inter alia Hes. Th. 696 ἀϋτμή as against 862 αὐτμῇ. The likely reading at ‘Hes.’ fr. 150.25 M.–W. … κ̣[αὶ Αἴτν]ην παιπαλόεσσαν (suppl. Grenfell–Hunt) tells us nothing about what Hesiod would have written.



In contrast to Typhos’ captivity in the West, Pindar for the first time expli­ citly has him originate in the East, notably Cilicia (16b–17a n.). In fact, while the ‘Typhonomachia’ shares some, probably inherited, motifs with the Vedic tale of the storm-god Indra killing the primeval serpent Vṛtra (West 2007: 256–8), it is the Greek ‘dragon-slaying narrative’ with the strongest claim to Near Eastern influence. A ruling storm-god fighting an insurgent sea-serpent is a recurrent pattern also in Ancient Anatolian and Semitic mythology: Hurrian Teššub against Hedammu, Hittite Tarḫunna against Illuyankaš, Canaanite BaalṢapōn against Yam(mu) or Litan(u)/Lotan (cf. Biblical Yahwe against Rahab or Leviathan). The Hittite story of Tarḫunna and Illuyankaš, transmitted in two forms, especially resembles versions of the Typhos myth in which Zeus had Hermes and/or Pan as helpers. Although these are only attested late (‘Apollod.’ 1.6.3, Opp. Hal. 3.15–25, Nonn. D. 1.140–320, 362–535, 2.1–712), they could be very old. See Watkins 1995: 448–59 (who on linguistic grounds argues for the Indo-European origin of the legend), Lane Fox 2008: 295–318, Tsagalis 2013, Ogden 2013: 11–15, 74–8. Nonnus’ narrative also shares a feature with the Hurro-Hittite tale of Teššub and Hedammu, which is especially interesting in contrast to Pythian 1. In Nonn. D.  1.409–88 Kadmos beguiles the music-loving Typhos (415 Γίγας φιλάοιδος) with his pan-pipes, as part of Zeus’ scheme to overthrow the monster, just as Teššub’s sister Šauška does to Hedammu (Song of Hedammu KUB 33.88+ = CTH 348.I.9 = fr. 11.3 Hoffner). Nonnus even alludes to our ode by having Kadmos offer Typhos, who is certain that he will vanquish Zeus, ‘a victory song on the seven-stringed harp’: D. 1.488 ἑπτατόνου κιθάρης ἐπινίκιον ὕμνον (cf. Rutherford 2012: 103–4 with n.  56). It is impossible to tell whether Pindar knew a similar version of the Typhos-myth; but if he did, and perhaps could expect the same also of part of the audience, his presentation of the defeated Typhos as the archetypal enemy of music would gain in poignancy. No wonder the creature grew to hate the art form that led to his downfall!9

9 That Pindar was familiar with different orientalising tales about Typhos is proved by one of his prosodia (fr. 91 = Porph. de abst. 3.16.5). There the gods are pursued by Typhos and turn themselves into various animals to escape him. The location was probably Egypt, as in later instantiations of the story (e.g. Ov. Met. 5.319–31, ‘Apollod.’ 1.6.3, Ant. Lib. 28, after Nicander). Animal metamorphosis is an Egyptian motif (cf. Proteus), and Typhos was syncretised with Seth, brother and antagonist of Osiris, already in Hecataeus (FGrH 1 F 300 = Hdt. 2.144; cf. A. Suppl. 559–61). See Gwyn Griffiths 1960, West 1966: on Hes. Th. 820–80 (p. 380), Ogden 2013: 78 with n. 56. It is unclear whether Pi. frr. 92 and 93, which refer to familiar themes of the myth (cf. 15–16a, 16b–17a, 19b–20, 21–2a, 27–8nn.), belong together, let alone whether they come from the same poem as fr. 91 (D’Alessio 1997: 39–40; cf. Introduction, 18 n. 54).



The Typhos episode was one of the most popular Pindar passages in antiquity. Within decades the poet of Prometheus Bound exploited it, alongside Hesiod, for his own account of the monster’s overthrow, as is shown by numerous overlaps between [A.] PV 351–72 and Pyth. 1.15–28 (15–16a, 16b– 17a, 17b–20, 19b–20, 21–2a, 25–6a (Ἁφαίστοιο κρουνούς), 26b, 27–8nn.; cf. also 5–6a (τὸν αἰχματὰν (…) πυρός), 29–30a (εὐκάρποιο γαίας) nn. and Introduction, 33). Later authors often looked to Pindar when describing vulcanism, especially that of Mt. Etna: Call. Del. 141–3 (27–8n.), with the giant Briareus for Typhos, [Longin.] De Subl. 35.4 οὐδὲ τῶν τῆς Αἴτνης κρατήρων ἀξιοθαυμαστότερον νομίζομεν, ἧς αἱ ἀναχοαὶ πέτρους τε ἐκ βυθοῦ καὶ ὅλους ὄχθους ἀναφέρουσι καὶ ποταμοὺς ἐνίοτε τοῦ γηγενοῦς (~ [A.] PV 351) ἐκείνου καὶ αὐτομάτου προχέουσι πυρός, Philostr. Mai. Im. 2.17.5 (of an unidentified volcanic island), Lucr. 1.722–5 (21–2a n.)10 and Virg. Aen. 3.570–87 (21–2a, 27–8nn.), where another giant, Enceladus, stands in for Typhos (cf. Call. Aet. fr. 1.36 Pf. = Harder, with schol. Ol. 4.11c (I 132.5–8 Dr.)). Virgil’s eruption of Mt. Etna (Aen. 3.570–7) was unfavourably compared to Pyth. 1.21–6 by Favorinus (apud Gell. 17.10.8–19; cf. Macr. 5.17.8–14). 13–14. ‘But all those whom Zeus does not love are terrified when they hear the song of the Pierians, over land and the stormy sea …’ ὅσσα … ἀτύζονται: Neuter plural subjects occasionally take plural verbs in Homer and later poetry and prose (before this construction became increasingly regular from Hellenistic times on, and standard in modern Greek). Metre apart, the purpose is often to emphasise the plurality of the subject, as here the many different creatures Zeus loathes. Cf. e.g. Il. 11.724 … τὰ δ᾽ ἐπέρρεον ἔθνεα πεζῶν, Pi. fr.  75.15 εὔοδμον ἐπάγοισιν ἔαρ φυτὰ νεκτάρεα, Hdt. 4.149.2 τοῖσι δὲ ἐν τῇ φύλῃ ταύτῃ ἀνδράσι οὐ γὰρ ὑπέμειναν τὰ τέκνα (KG I 64–6, SD 607–8, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.121c). The right reading survives in several MSS and in Plutarch (De superst. 167c, Quaest. conv. 746b, Non posse suav. vivi 1095e). The remaining witnesses waver between ἀτύζεται and ἀτύζηται (cf. schol. Pyth. 1.25b (II 12.2 Dr.) ἀποστρέφεται), an error by ‘normalisation’ (+ iotacism). ἀτύζομαι (passive) is an epic verb, which was taken over by lyric poets and tragedians (in lyrics only). It denotes distress, usually caused by fear: Il. 6.41 (~ 21.4) πρὸς πόλιν, ᾗ περ οἱ ἄλλοι ἀτυζόμενοι φοβέοντο, 6.468 (of baby

10 No certain allusions to Pythian 1 appear in the scientific explanation of Mt. Etna’s vulcanism at Lucr. 6.639–702, although like Pindar Lucretius doubly emphasises the ‘wondrous’ nature of the eruption in 6.654–5 mirari … miratur (cf. Pyth. 1.26 θαυμάσιον … θαῦμα). Likewise, Ov. Met. 15.340–55 and the pseudo-Virgilian didactic poem Aetna are free of obvious Pindaric influence.



Astyanax) … πατρὸς φίλου ὄψιν ἀτυχθείς, 15.90–1, Ol. 8.38–9, Bacch. 13.116–17 (LSJ s.v. I). μὴ πεφίληκε: resultative perfect, i.e. Zeus has stopped ‘loving’ and remains in that state. The tense thus emphasises the ongoing success of the divine order established by Zeus (cf. Fearn 2017: 179). βοὰν Πιερίδων: a skilfully ambiguous expression. βοή frequently refers to music, both vocal and instrumental, suggesting volume, but no unpleasantness: Il. 18.495 αὐλοὶ φόρμιγγές τε βοὴν ἔχον, Ol. 3.8, Pyth. 10.39, Nem. 3.67 βοὰ δὲ νικαφόρῳ σὺν Ἀριστοκλείδᾳ πρέπει, 5.38, Bacch. 9.68, E. El. 879. But here one is tempted to adopt the viewpoint of Zeus’ enemies, for whom the enchanting song of the Muses is dreadful noise. Kollmann (1989: on 13–14 (p. 94)) compares Athena’s battle-cry and the reaction of Uranus and Gaia at Ol. 7.36–8 Ἀθαναία κορυφὰν κατ᾽ ἄκραν / ἀνορούσαισ᾽ ἀλάλαξεν ὑπερμάκει βοᾷ. / Οὐρανὸς δ᾽ ἔφριξέ νιν καὶ Γαῖα μάτηρ. See also Skulsky 1975: 12 and Cingano 1995: on 13–14. γᾶν τε καὶ πόντον κατ᾽ ἀμαιμάκετον: Similarly Hes. Th.  582 κνώδαλ᾽ ὅσ᾽ ἤπειρος δεινὰ τρέφει ἠδὲ θάλασσα, h.Ven 4–5  … θηρία πάντα,  / ἠμὲν ὅσ᾽ ἤπειρος πολλὰ τρέφει ἠδ᾽ ὅσα πόντος. Of the usual triad ‘land, sea, air’, which in varying order and degrees of elaboration describes ‘all nature’ (see Barrett 1964: on E. Hipp. 1277–80), the last sphere is omitted here. It will be replaced with ‘dread Tartaros’ (15), the place of banishment for Zeus’ greatest enemy, Typhos. It is not rare in serious poetry for a preposition to stand only with the second of two parallel connected nouns. Often the adverbial force of the bare case can still be felt in the first member: e.g. Od. 12.26–7 ἵνα μή τι … / ἠ᾽ ἁλὸς ἠ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλγήσετε, Alcm. fr. 98 PMGF θοίναις δὲ καὶ ἐν θιάσοισιν, Ol. 6.54 σχοίνῳ βατιᾷ τ᾽ ἐν ἀπειρίτῳ, Nem. 10.38, E. Hipp. 1272–3 ποτᾶται δὲ γαῖαν εὐάχητόν θ᾽/ ἁλμυρὸν ἐπὶ πόντον (KG I 550, SD 433, Wilamowitz 1895: on E. Her. 237, Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980: on A. Suppl. 311). ἀμαιμάκετον: The meaning and etymology of this epic-poetic epithet were already disputed in antiquity and probably unknown to Homer and his successors themselves. But the general usage is consistent with either ‘stormy, raging’ (α copulativum / intensivum + *μαιμάκετος < μαιμάω / -άσσω, ‘to be very eager, to rage’) or ‘irrestistible, unconquerable’, as if from μάχομαι (with privative α). Cf. e.g. schol.T Il. 6.179 (II 162.87–8 Erbse) : τὴν ἄγαν μαιμῶσαν ἢ τὴν ἀκαταμάχητον and further LfgrE s.v. Σχ b α, BK on Il. 6.179, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.208b. The explanation in schol. Pyth. 1.25b (II 12.1 Dr.) κατὰ τὴν ἄπειρον θάλασσαν is clearly a guess from the context. The closest parallel to our passage is [Hes.] Sc. 207–8 ἐν δὲ λιμὴν εὔορμος ἀμαιμακέτοιο θαλάσσης  / κυκλοτερὴς ἐτέτυκτο. Elsewhere in early epic ἀμαιμάκετος is applied to the Chimaera or its fire (Il. 6.179, 16.329, Hes. Th. 319;



cf. S. OT 177 of fire generally) and to a ship’s mast tossed about in the sea (Od. 14.311). In Pindar and Bacchylides ἀμαιμάκετος also qualifies the μένος of Artemis (Pyth. 3.32–3), the movement of the clashing rocks (Pyth. 4.208–9) Poseidon’s trident (Isth. 8.35) and the strife between the brothers Proitos and Akrisios (Bacch. 11.64). 15–16a. ‘… and he who lies in dread Tartaros, enemy of the gods, Typhos the hundred-headed.’ ἐν αἰνᾷ Ταρτάρῳ: Tartaros is the traditional place of Typhos’ confinement (Hes. Th. 868 ῥῖψε δέ μιν … ἐς Τάρταρον εὐρύν), though in one peculiar tradition it is named as his father (Hes. Th. 821–2, with West 1966: on 822). On the geographical location of Tartaros see 13–28n. Here Τάρταρος is feminine, instead of masculine (or neuter plural Τάρταρα: e.g. Hes. Th. 119, 841, E. Hipp. 1290), without metrical need, unlike at Nic. Ther. 203 τάρταρον ἰλυόεσσαν (the muddy ground of a river), where ἰλυόεντα would have created a hiatus with the following word. Similarly, Pindar treats Ἰσθμός as feminine at Ol.  7.81, 8.48, Nem. 5.37 and Isth. 1.32. Cf. schol. Pyth. 1.29a (II 12.3–4 Dr.). At Pi. Pae. 4.44 (fr. 52d = D4 Rutherford) ἐς τὸν βαθὺν Τάρταρον metre perhaps prompted the standard form. κεῖται: likewise [A.] PV 363–5 καὶ νῦν … / κεῖται … / … ῥίζησιν Αἰτναίαις ὕπο (13–28n.). θεῶν πολέμιος: probably the model of [A.] PV 354 πᾶσιν ἀντέστη θεοῖς (Wellauer: πᾶσιν ὃς vel ὃς πᾶσιν codd.). Cf. 13–28n. Τυφὼς ἑκατοντακάρανος: Pindar also uses the ‘Attic’ o-stem nominative Τῡφώς (-ῶ, -ῷ, -ών) at Pyth. 8.16 Τυφὼς Κίλιξ ἑκατόγκρανος, which perhaps echoes our passage (Skulsky 1975: 30, Krischer 1985b: 115; cf.  1–28n.). Elsewhere he has the n-stem genitive and accusative Τῡφῶνος, -ῶνα (< Τῡφῶν): Ol. 4.7 ἑκατογκεφάλα Τυφῶνος ὀβρίμου (cf. fr. 91) and fr. 93.2 (below). The same ‘inconsistency’ occurs in [A.] PV 354 Τυφῶνα and 370 Τυφώς, while epic wavers between Τῠφωεύς (Il. 2.782–3, Hes. Th. 821, h.Ap. 367) and Τῠφάων (Hes. Th. 306, h.Ap. 306, 352). The true origins of the creature and its name are unknown, but the latter was usually derived from τύ̄ φω (‘to smoke, burn’), although the quantity of the υ in the oldest forms tells against this. See West 1966: on Hes. Th. 306 (p. 252), 820–80 (p. 381), and above, 13–28n. Typhos is traditionally a hundred-header: e.g. Hes. Th. 824–5 ἐκ δέ οἱ ὤμων / ἦν ἑκατὸν κεφαλαὶ ὄφιος δεινοῖο δράκοντος, Ol. 4.7, Pyth. 8.16 (above), [A.] PV 353–4, Ar. Nub. 336. However, in Pi. fr. 93.2 he has ‘only’ fifty heads (Τυφῶνα πεντηκοντοκέφαλον). This figure may be equally ancient if Pindar took it from the same tradition as Typhos’ placement ἐν Ἀρίμοις (fr. 93.3; cf. Il. 2.782–3, on which see 16b–17a n.). The number of heads ascribed to ‘polycephalic mon-



sters’ often varies (West 1966: on Hes. Th. 312, of Cerberus),11 and maybe they were seen as by schol. Pyth. 1.31a (II 12.9–10 Dr.) οὐκ ἀριθμητικῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ πολυκέφαλος (cf. Kollmann 1989: on 16 (pp. 104–5)). Owing to artistic practicalities, Typhos breathes fire through a single mouth in Hippomedon’s shield-device at A. Sept. 493 (Hutchinson 1985: on 493; cf. West on Hes. Th. 312, Cingano 1995: on 16). ἑκατοντα- is regular in composition (after the older ἑκατον-), by analogy with the tens in -κοντα- (Schwyzer 437, 593–4). The latter also occasionally have -κοντο- as if they were o-stems (apparently already Il. 9.579 πεντεκοντόγυον: -κοντα- Nauck), whence the variant ἑκατοντο- here (GH) and at [A.] PV 353 (MB: ἑκατογκάρανον recte Blomfield). At Pi. fr. 93.2 (above) = Strab. 13.4.6 we should probably read πεντηκοντακέφαλον (Tzschucke) instead of the transmitted -κοντο-, as in Hes. Th. 312, where the codices again waver (see West 1966, where add A. Suppl. 321). 16b–17a. ‘The celebrated Cilician cave once nurtured him …’ As far as we can tell, Pindar is the earliest author who clearly had Typhos originate in Cilicia (cf. Pyth. 8.16 Τυφὼς Κίλιξ). In this he was followed by [A.] PV 351–2 τὸν γηγενῆ τε Κιλικίων οἰκήτορα  / ἄντρων and later writers who connected him specifically with the Corycian cave (e.g. ‘Apollod.’ 1.6.3, Nonn. D. 1.155, 510). But it is possible that Typhos’ association with that part of the world is older. Il. 2.782–3 states that allegedly he had his lair εἰν Ἀρίμοις (cf. Hes. Th. 304 (of Echidna, his consort), Pi. fr. 93.3) – a people or mountainous region which may have been entirely mythical, but which many ancient authorities located in Asia Minor, including Cilicia: Callisth. FGrH 124 F 33, schol.b Il. 2.783 (I 337.43 Erbse), schol. Pyth. 1.31c (II 13.1–5 Dr.), Mela 1.13; cf. West 1966: on Hes. Th. 304. Watkins (1995: 450–1) suggests that ‘Arima’ reflects the names of either or both the southern Anatolian cities Attarimma or Arimmatta, of which the latter was associated with an underground watercourse, to the Hittites an entrance to the underworld. Even more probably, Lane Fox (2008: 304–18), endorsed by Ogden (2013: 76), identifies the epic name with the Hittite toponym Erimma near the Corycian cave. Hesiod does not mention the place of Typhos’ birth, but in h.Ap. 300–74 he is the progeny of Hera, who gave him to the Pythian serpent to rear, a version perhaps found also in Stesichorus (fr. 273 Finglass, with note). Cf. 13–28n.

11 Cerberus was the offspring of Typhos and Echidna (Hes. Th. 304–7 + 310–12), as was the Hydra (Hes. Th. 313–14), which has nine heads in Alcaeus (fr. 443 Voigt), fifty in Sim. fr. 283 Poltera (cf. Virg. Aen. 6.576) and hundred in E. Her. 1188 (cf. Hor. Carm. 2.13.34).



τόν ποτε, taken up by 17 νῦν γε μάν (17b–19a n.), effects a brief transition to an earlier stage in the myth. The closest Pindaric parallels, also giving details of a character’s birth or rearing, are Pyth. 4.44–6 Εὔφαμος  …  / υἱὸς ἱππάρχου Ποσειδάωνος ἄναξ, / τόν ποτ᾽ Εὐρώπα Τιτυοῦ θυγάτηρ τίκτε Καφισοῦ παρ᾽ ὄχθαις and 9.15–17 (Hypseus) ὅν ποτε Πίνδου κλεενναῖς ἐν πτυχαῖς / Ναῒς εὐφρανθεῖσα Πηνειοῦ λέχει Κρέοισ᾽ ἔτικτεν, / Γαίας θυγάτηρ. It is a variant of the traditional poetic device of opening a narrative with a relative clause: e.g. Ol. 1.25, Pyth. 9.5, Nem. 4.25, Bacch. 11.40. See Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.4a and Rutherford 2001: 431 with n. 2. πολυώνυμον: here ‘much-famed, celebrated’, as of Styx at Hes. Th.  785 (θεῶν μέγαν ὅρκον …) πολυώνυμον ὕδωρ; cf. schol. Hes. Th. 785b (102.7–8 Di Gregorio) ἤτοι ἔνδοξον ἢ πολλάκις ὑπὸ πολλῶν ὀνομαζόμενον διὰ τοὺς ὅρκους, scholl. Pyth. 1.31b (II 12.12 Dr.) τὸ ἐν Κιλικίᾳ πολυθρύλλητον σπήλαιον, 32 (II 13.7–8 Dr.). In both places, however, the epithet probably adds a connotation of the divine, since elsewhere is mostly applied to deities, meaning ‘worshipped under many names’: e.g. h.Cer. 18, 32 (Hades), h.Ap. 82 (Apollo), Isth. 5.1 (Theia), S. Ant. 1115 (Dionysus), Ar. Thesm. 320 (Artemis). See LSJ s.v. I 2 and Rutherford 2001: 428 n. 2. Given that Vedic has a formally and semantically exact equi­ valent in púruṇāman- (e.g. RV 8.93.17, of Indra), this latter use is likely to be inherited (Schmitt 1967: 183–4, Massetti 2019: 94). 17b–19a. ‘… but now the sea-girt cliffs off Kyme as well as Sicily press down on his hoary chest …’ νῦν γε μάν: strongly adversative, returning the narrative from Typhos’ past (16b–17a (n.) τόν ποτε …) to his present fate. The juncture recurs in 50, where the contrast is less pronounced (50b–1a n.). On this use of γε μήν and its near-equivalent γε μέν see GP 348–9, 387. ταί θ᾽ ὑπὲρ Κύμας ἁλιερκέες ὄχθαι: It is not entirely clear what place is designated by this. The ambiguity lies in ὑπέρ (+ genitive), which is most naturally understood here as ‘above’, i.e. ‘further inland’ (cf. Hdt. 1.175 Πηδασέες οἰκέοντες ὑπὲρ Ἁλικαρνησσοῦ μεσόγαιαν, Xen. An. 2.6.2 τοῖς ὑπὲρ Χερρονήσου Θρᾳξίν). Yet some scholars, notably Kirkwood, Kollmann and Cingano, have pointed out that the hinterland of Kyme, where the heavily volcanic Phlegraean Fields rise to a modest hight, can hardly be called ἁλιερκέες (‘sea-girt, seaflanked’), whereas the coast is too flat to qualify as ὄχθαι (‘cliffs’; cf. Od. 9.132 ἁλὸς … παρ᾽ ὄχθας). Following Fränkel (1962: 522 with n. 28 = 1975: 457–8 with n.  28), they take ὑπέρ to mean ‘beyond’, i.e. ‘off the coast’, comparing Nem. 3.21 ἀβάταν ἅλα κιόνων ὕπερ Ἡρακλέος περᾶν, 7.64–5 ἀνήρ / Ἰονίας ὑπὲρ ἁλὸς οἰκέων and Pi. fr. 140b.6 ν[. . . ὑπὲ]ρ Αὐσονία[ς ἁλός] (cf. Slater s.v. ὑπέρ 1 γ; note also Od. 13.256–7 ἐν Κρήτῃ εὐρείῃ, / τηλοῦ ὑπὲρ πόντου). The reference would



then be to the equally volcanic island of Pithekoussai (Ischia), as already envisaged by schol. Pyth. 1.34a (II 13.11–15 Dr.) and, without argument, Schroeder (1922: on 16) and Wilamowitz (1922: 299). This not only matches Pindar’s description of ἁλιερκέες ὄχθαι, but also the idea of Pherecydes and several later authors that Typhos was lying under Pithekoussai (13–28n.). Yet it is doubtful whether the passages quoted support this interpretation of ὑπέρ (rather than that of ‘further inland’), since in each of them the genitive governed by the preposition denotes the space to be traversed, not that from which one looks out. Better parallels for the sense ‘off the coast’ are provided by historiographers regarding sea-battles: Hdt. 6.25.1 μετὰ  … τὴν ναυμαχίην τὴν ὑπὲρ Μιλήτου γενομένην, Thuc. 8.95.5 ναυμαχήσαντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ λιμένος τῶν Ἐρετρίων (LSJ s.v. ὑπέρ A I 1 b). This usage could as well apply to natural features. See Lane Fox 2008: 315, 441 n. 55, and cf. πρό at 72 ναυσίστονον ὕβριν ἰδὼν τὰν πρὸ Κύμας and Thuc. 7.22.2 πρὸ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ μεγάλου λιμένος ἐναυμάχουν as against Thuc. 3.75.5 ἐς τὴν πρὸ τοῦ Ἡραίου νῆσον. But perhaps this modern (and, to some degree, ancient) discussion goes too far. Pindar may not have had a very good idea of the area surrounding Kyme, beyond the crucial fact that it was volcanic, or he was being intentionally vague. The most important thing to him will have been to mention Kyme in the mythical context of Typhos’ defeat as the place where Hieron won his decisive sea-battle over the Etruscans (71–5; cf. Kollmann 1989: on 18 (pp. 110–11)). ἁλιερκέες: ‘sea-girt, sea-flanked,’ (LSJ, Slater s.v.). The adjective looks epic, but is first attested in Pindar (also Ol. 8.25 τάνδ᾽ ἁλιερκέα χώραν (Aigina), Isth. 1.9–10 τὰν ἁλιερκέα Ἰσθμοῦ / δειράδ’) and only once otherwise in Opp. Hal. 3.175 γαίης ἁλιερκέος ἄγχι. Pindar also has a comparable noun + defining genitive phrase in Pyth. 2.80 ἀβάπτιστος εἶμι φελλὸς ὣς ὑπὲρ ἕρκος ἅλμας (‘like a cork I shall go undipped over the enclosure of the brine’) and Dith. 1.16 (= fr. 70a) μέλαν ἕρκος ἅλμας. He may thus have coined ἁλιερκής, on the model of ἁλιστέφανος in h.Ap.  410 ἁλιστέφανον πτολίεθρον. Hellenistic and later poets have ἁλίζωνος: Call. Sos. 9–10, Ant. Sid. Ep. 23.3 HE (= AP 7.218.3), Nonn. D. 37.152, 48.37, 199 (all of the Isthmus or of Corinth). πιέζει: The singular agrees with Σικελία, although the verb also goes with ταί … ὄχθαι. See KG I 79–80 (2 b β), SD 610–11 (1 c). στέρνα λαχνάεντα recalls Il.  18.415  … στήθεα λαχνήεντα, of Hephaestus. Two types of ‘monsters’, the Centaurs and the Calydonian Boar, are also λαχνήεις (-εντες) in Homer (Il. 2.743, 9.548). 19b–20. ‘… and a heaven-high column constrains him, snow-capped Etna, nurse of biting snow all year round.’



The closest parallel for Typhos’ ‘bondage’ underneath Mt. Etna is Pi. fr. 92 κείνῳ μὲν Αἴτνα δεσμὸς ὑπερφίαλος / ἀμφίκειται. The image of a mouse-trap is used in Ol. 4.6–7 Αἴτναν … / ἶπον ἀνεμόεσσαν ἑκατογκεφάλα Τυφῶνος ὀβρίμου, the model of [A.] PV 365 ἰπούμενος ῥίζησιν Αἰτναίαις ὕπο. It is possible that E. Her. 637–40 ἄ-  / χθος δὲ τὸ γῆρας αἰεί  / βαρύτερον Αἴτνας σκοπέλων / ἐπὶ κρατὶ κεῖται was inspired by our passage (Fennell 1893: on 19; cf. Introduction, 33). κίων … οὐρανία: an apt metaphor for a free-standing mountain as high as Mt. Etna (today ca. 3.300 m), whose summit can reach above the clouds and was believed to be the seat of Zeus Aitnaios (Kollmann 1989: on 19–20 (pp. 113–14); cf. 29–30a n.). But the phrase also evokes the image of the pillar(s) that support the sky, which the Greeks associated with Atlas: Hes. Th. 517–20, 746–8 (where he himself acts as the prop), Od.  1.52–4 Ἄτλαντος  … ὅς  … /  … ἔχει  … κίονας αὐτός / μακράς, αἳ γαῖάν τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀμφὶς ἔχουσι, Ibyc. fr. 336 PMGF, [A.] PV 348–50 Ἄτλαντος, ὃς πρὸς ἑσπέρους τόπους / ἕστηκε κίον᾽ οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ χθονός / ὤμοις ἐρείδων (immediately before the Typhos-episode) and, rationalised as the African mountain, Hdt. 4.184.3 τὸν κίονα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (‘so high, they say, that its peaks cannot be seen’). See West 1966: on Hes. Th. 517 and, for Near-Eastern and Indo-European parallels, West 1997: 148–9, 2007: 345–6. νιφόεσσ᾽ Αἴτνα: slightly tautological with πάνετες χιόνος ὀξείας τιθήνα. But νιφόεις is formulaic of mountains in epic (e.g. Il. 13.754 … ὄρεϊ νιφόεντι ἐοικώς, 18.616 … κατ᾽ Οὐλύμπου νιφόεντος (~ Hes. Th. 42, 62, 118, 794, 953), h.Ap. 282 … ὑπὸ Παρνησὸν νιφόεντα) and was adopted by other poetry: cf. Pi. fr. dub. 334a.8 νιφόεντα . σε[ (sc. Olympum?, Snell), S. OT 473–5 (Parnassus), Ar. Nub. 273 (Mimas). The double emphasis on Mt. Etna’s snowiness ‘presents a contrast … with [the following description of] the flames which have recently spouted from her’ (Bowra 1964: 258). πάνετες χιόνος ὀξείας τιθήνα: almost certainly a literary exaggeration, which combines with κίων … οὐρανία to make Mt. Etna appear even more forbidding. Cf. schol. Pyth. 1.38b (II 14.2–3 Dr.) … ἵνα εἰς ὑπερβολὴν ἄρῃ τὸν λόγον, λέγων καὶ χειμῶνι καὶ θέρει χιονίζεσθαι τὴν Αἴτνην, and see Kannicht 1969: on E. Hel. 1323–4 for the poetic motif of mountains clad in ‘eternal snow’. Today Mt. Etna is usually snow-free in summer and early autumn, and this is unlikely to have been different in antiquity (Strab. 6.2.8 ἔστι δὲ ψιλὰ τὰ ἄνω χωρία καὶ τεφρώδη καὶ χιόνος μεστὰ τοῦ χειμῶνος; otherwise Sen. Ep. 79.4 quantum ab ipso ore montis nives absint, quas ne aestas quidem solvit). However, depending on Hieron’s victory celebrations took place, it may have had a white cap, which would have lent special force to Pindar’s words at the first performance. πάνετες (a hapax) is an adverbial accusative from *πανέτης. Schol. Pyth. 1.38a (II 13.24–14.1 Dr.) debates whether it goes with συνέχει or χιόνος ὀξείας



τιθήνα, but the former is ruled out by the word order as well as the impossibly flat sense it would yield. ‘τ[ιθήνα] is adjective enough to take an adverb’ (Gilder­ sleeve 1890: on 20; cf. Schwyzer 489). By the same token, we do not require Christ’s tentative πανέτης (1869: 62), which was adopted by Schroeder, Farnell, Turyn and Liberman, to cure the alleged contradiction with nature (above). To ascribe to Pindar the simple notion of πανέτης … τιθήνα ‘that any time of the year it might snow on Etna’ (Farnell 1932: on 20) would spoil the power of his poetry (cf. Kollmann 1989: on 20 (pp. 114–15)). Yet it is worth recording that Pindar only knew the spelling ΠΑΝΕΤΕΣ for both forms. χιόνος ὀξείας τιθήνα: The bold metaphor personifies Mt. Etna, just as θρέψεν (17) personified the Cilician cave. This creates a poignant opposition between the place where Typhos grew up and the harshness of his eventual confinement (Kollmann 1989: on 20 (pp.  116–17)) by turning the frequent image of the land or a location as a nurse (e.g. Pyth. 2.2, of Syracuse) into something unfavourable (Morgan 2015: 319, Lewis 2019: 167). By contrast, as the seat of Zeus (Aitnaios), the volcano becomes ‘the brow of the fruitful land’, 30 (cf. 29–40, 29–30a nn.). Pindar’s image perhaps also lies behind the two unique compound adjectives at E. Hel. 1323–4 χιονοθρέμμονάς τ᾽ … / Ἰδαιᾶν Νυμφᾶν σκοπιάς and Phoen. 802 Ἀρτέμιδος χιονοτρόφον ὄμμα Κιθαιρών (cf. Introduction, 33). The snow is ὀξεῖα, ‘biting’, because of the sensation it leaves on the skin when touched: schol. Pyth. 1.39 (II 14.5–6 Dr.) παρὰ τὴν ψυχρότητα, ὅτι οἱ ἐφαπτόμενοι ὅμοιόν τι πάσχουσι τοῖς κεντουμένοις; cf. Hor. Carm. 1.9.3 gelu acutum, 1.4.1 acris hiems. More often ὀξύς is used of the ‘piercing’ sun (h.Ap. 374, Thgn. 426, Ol. 3.24, 7.70), describing both heat and light, to judge by Archil. fr. 107 IEG2 ἔλπομαι, πολλοὺς μὲν αὐτῶν Σείριος καθαυανεῖ / ὀξὺς ἐλλάμπων and Anaxipp. fr. 1.12 PCG πῦρ … ὀξύ. 21–2a. ‘From its depths the most awe-inspiring streams of unapproachable fire belch forth.’ τᾶς refers back to Αἴτνα, with the genitive depending on ἐκ μυχῶν. It is very common in Pindar and Bacchylides for sentences to run on between triads, especially in the form of relative and other subordinate clauses: cf. 61 τῷ πόλιν κείναν and also e.g. Ol. 2.21, 81, Pyth. 4.24, Nem. 8.18, Isth. 7.18, Bacch. 11.43, 13.100. The emphatic effect of the pronoun could be heightened by a brief pause in performance before the new stanza (cf. Introduction, 4 n. 4). ἐρεύγονται: There are two homonymous, but etymologically distinct, verbs ἐρεύγομαι: (1) ‘spew, belch out, disgorge’ (cf. Latin erugo), and (2) ‘bellow, roar’ (cf. Latin rugio); see Beekes s.vv. But in forms of the present stem the meanings



are not always much differentiated, especially in the early poets, who applied ἐρεύγομαι to surging waters: Il. 15.621 κύματά … τά τε προσερεύγεται ἀκτῇ, 17.264–5 (where the context emphasises the noise of the sea; cf. Od. 5.402–3), Od. 5.438, Alc. fr. 45.3 Voigt (the river Hebrus), Pi. fr. 130 τὸν ἄπειρον ἐρεύγονται σκότον / βληχροὶ … νυκτὸς ποταμοί (the rivers of Erebus). In the last passage ‘belch forth’ is clearly intended, and it yields far stronger sense here too, although the mighty noise of the eruption (24 σὺν πατάγῳ) probably remains implied. So also Lucr. 1.722–4 … et hic Aetnaea minantur / murmura flammarum rursum se colligere iras, / faucibus eruptos iterum vis ut vomat ignis and Virg. Aen. 3.575–7 interdum scopulos avulsaque viscera montis  / erigit eructans, ­liquefactaque saxa sub auras / cum gemitu glomerat, fundoque exaestuat imo (~ ἐκ μυχῶν), on which see 13–28n. ἀπλάτου πυρός: Far from just stating that one cannot go near red-hot lava, ἄπλατος here evokes the monster that is the source of Mt. Etna’s fire. The adjective qualifies Typhos himself in Pi. fr. 93.1–2, the Gorgon’s heads in Pyth. 12.9, Echidna in Bacch. 5.62 and the Nemean Lion in Bacch. 13.51 (cf. S. Tr. 1093). At [A.] PV 370–1 τοιόνδε Τυφῶς ἐξαναζέσει χόλον  / θερμοῖς ἀπλάτου βέλεσι πυρπνόου ζάλης Blomfield (1810: 124) rightly suggested ἀπλάτου for the transmitted ἀπλάστου or ἀπλήστου,12 on the model of our passage (cf. 13–28n.). πυρὸς … παγαί: ‘flows / streams … of fire’ (LSJ s.v. πηγή I 2), not ‘springs …’ (Race; cf. LSJ s.v. πηγή II, Slater), which cannot well ‘belch forth’. These streams then grow into ‘rivers’ (22b ποταμοί; cf.  25–6a (n.) Ἁφαίστοιο κρουνοὺς  …  / δεινοτάτους); hence also [A.] PV 367–8 ἔνθεν ἐκραγήσονταί ποτε  / ποταμοὶ πυρός. At [A.] PV 109–10 πυρός / πηγήν signifies the ‘source of fire’ Prometheus stole for mankind, but it is possible that the poet already had our passage in mind. ἁγνόταται: ‘most awe-inspiring’ (< ἅζομαι, ‘stand in awe of, feel or display reverence / respect’; Parker 1983: 147–51). The epithet, which regularly refers to things associated with or administered by the gods, hints at the divine origin of Mt. Etna’s lava-flows, both in Typhos and his conqueror Zeus. The common identification of (volcanic) fire with Hephaestus is also relevant (cf. 25–6a n.). In the same way other ‘venerable’ natural phenomena are called ἁγνός: Bacch. 19.28 (κατ᾽ …) νύκτας ἁγν̣[άς], [A.] PV 280 αἰθέρα θ᾽ ἁγνὸν πόρον οἰωνῶν,

12 A frequent corruption in both directions. LSJ s.v. ἄπλατος 1 wrongly include Hes. Th. 151 and Op. 148, where ἄπλαστοι (‘unformed, rough’) needs to be written. ‘The variant ἄπλατοι … is not an epic form’ (West 1966: on Hes. Th. 150–2; cf. 1978: on Op. 148–9). The mistake is acknowledged in LSJ Suppl. 1996 s.v. ἄπλαστος II, which seems to envisage a separate form, synonymous with ἄπλατος.



S. El.  86 ὦ φάος ἁγνόν, E. fr.  443.1 TrGF. For the rare superlative (matching δεινοτάτους in 26) cf. Tim. Pers. fr. 791.196–7 PMG = Hordern Διός / ἁγνότατον τέμενος. 22b–4. ‘By day rivers pour forth a blazing flow of smoke, but at night a rolling red flame carries rocks into the deep expanse of the sea with a crash.’ In a carefully composed sentence the eruption of Etna is described both in terms of what can be seen and what can be heard (Race 1990: 165–6). During the day the visual aspects predominate, especially the emanation of smoke and ash (cf. Sen. Ep. 79.2 fumo … per diem), which would largely be obscured by darkness (Cingano 1995: on 22–3). At night the glowing lava streams stand out (cf. Ol. 1.1–2 αἰθόμενον πῦρ / … διαπρέπει νυκτί), but one also becomes more sensitive to sound, and so Pindar emphasises the clatter of volcanic rocks – with an extraordinary alliteration (below). The constrast between the two clauses is underlined by their structure. While ἀμέραισι μέν and ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὄφναισιν balance each other, the positions of the objects (ῥόον καπνοῦ αἴθων᾽ – πέτρας) and verbs (προχέοντι – φέρει) are inverted. Moreover, the addition of two adverbial indications, one of place (ἐς βαθεῖαν … πόντου πλάκα) and one of attendant circumstances (σὺν πατάγῳ), expands the second leg, in conformity with Behaghel’s Law of Increasing Terms. ποταμοί: See 21–2a n. (πυρὸς … παγαί). ἀμέραισιν μὲν … ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὄρφναισιν: Cf. Ol. 1.2–6 νυκτὶ … ἐν ἀμέρᾳ, with the same variation in the use of ἐν, which usually accompanies local-temporal datives in Pindar and Bacchylides (cf. Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.2 (p. 13), who rightly suggests taking ἐν at Pyth. 4.130 ἀθρόαις πέντε … νύκτεσσιν ἔν τ᾽ ἀμέραις as ἀπὸ κοινοῦ; but note Bacch. 1.112–13 τριτάτᾳ … / [ἀμ]έρᾳ). The opposition is strengthened here by μέν … ἀλλά, which differs from μέν … δέ in that it puts more emphasis on the second clause (‘By day …, but at night …’). Cf. Ol. 9.49–53 λέγοντι μάν / χθόνα μὲν κατακλύσαι μέλαιναν / ὕδατος σθένος, ἀλλά / Ζηνὸς τέχναις ἀνάπωτιν ἐξαίφνας ἄντλον ἑλεῖν (‘Indeed they say that a mighty flood …, but through Zeus’ contriving …’), and see GP 5–6, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.293a. ἀμέραισιν should be unaspirated (as in ρ). The psilotic form is regular in Doric, and even in Attic ἡμερ- did not appear until after 450 (Threatte I 500, II 758; cf. Forssman 1966: 11–12, 33 nn. 1, 3, Henry 2005: on Nem. 6.6 and, for Aeschylus, West 1998: XXX). The linguistic evidence is corroborated by palaeo­ graphic considerations. The MSS and papyri of Pindar and Bacchylides have both aspirates and non-aspirates (see Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.130d θ᾽ ἁμέραις as against τ᾽ ἀμ-); and while the latter are generally less well attested (universally only in Pyth. 8.95 ἐπάμεροι), they are too numerous for each case be to



attributed to scribal corruption, ‘perhaps under the influence of ἆμαρ’ (Braswell (above), p. 215). Far more likely the unaspirated forms of early choral lyric were ‘normalised’ in the textual tradition, beginning in antiquity. προχέοντι ῥόον looks like a verbal echo of Scamander’s complaint to the raging Achilles at Il. 21.219–20 οὐδέ τί πῃ δύναμαι προχέειν ῥόον εἰς ἅλα δῖαν / στεινόμενος νεκύεσσι (no doubt a well-known episode). For the Doric ending of the third person plural active of thematic verbs cf. 62 θέλοντι. Pindar also employs Aeolic -οισιν as a rarer metrical alternative (e.g. Ol. 2.72, Pyth. 3.18, Nem. 11.5), but scholars debate whether cases of transmitted -οισι (prosodically equivalent to -οντι), let alone Ionic -ουσι(ν), should be allowed to stand. See Verdier 1972: 58–64, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.18d. αἴθων᾽ (‘fiery, burning’) with ῥόον καπνοῦ describes ‘smoke mixed with flame’, as in Od. 10.152 αἴθοπα καπνόν (LSJ s.v. αἶθοψ I 2). Similarly, in Ol. 10.83 and Pyth. 3.58 Pindar refers αἴθων to Zeus’ thunderbolt (which is ψολόεις, ‘smoky’, at Nem. 10.71, after e.g. Od. 23.330, 24.539, Hes. Th. 515) and to the sun at Nem. 7.73. The various metaphorical uses of αἴθων (LSJ s.v. II–IV) all derive from its basic sense (< αἴθομαι / αἴθω, ‘to burn’). See Levaniouk 2000: 26–36, against LSJ Suppl. 1996 s.v. I–IV, which follows Edgeworth’s (1983) unconvincing interpretation of αἴθων as primarily a colour term, ‘brown’. ἐν ὄρφναισιν πέτρας / φοίνισσα … φλὸξ ἐς βαθεῖαν φέρει πόντου πλάκα σὺν πατάγῳ: Τhe extended π/φ/β-alliteration onomatopoeically illustrates the repeated explosive bursts of the eruption and the noisy train of rocks tumbling down into the sea (cf. Race 1997: I 28). In A. Ag.  819–20 Ἄτης θύελλαι ζῶσι· δυσθνῄσκουσα (Enger: συν- codd.) δέ / σποδὸς προπέμπει πίονας πλούτου πνοάς the same stylistic device expresses Agamemnon’s glee at the slow dying of Troy, where puffs of ash keep emanating from its former riches. Euripides too exploited the effect when describing Heracles’ sack of Troy at Tro. 815 πυρὸς φοίνικι πνοᾷ καθελών. In addition, Race (above) suggests that the sigmatic sounds in this sentence imitate the hissing of the flames. But perhaps we are rather to think of the hissing water as the glowing rocks hit the cool sea. ἐν ὄρφναισιν: literally ‘in times of darkness’. ὄρφνη is a poetic choice word, first found in Thgn. (?) 1077 and Pindar (also Ol. 1.71, 13.70 ἐν ὄρφνᾳ), although early epic has ὀρφναῖος as an epithet of νύξ (Il. 10.83, 276, 386, Od. 9.143, h.Merc. 97, 578). It occurs in the plural only here, to match ἀμέραισιν (22). Both express the continuous action of the volcano over several days and nights. φοίνισσα  … φλόξ: Cf. E. Tro. 815 πυρὸς φοίνικι πνοᾷ (above). In both passages φοίνῑξ (for the acute accent see 32b–3a, 71–2a nn.) denotes the lurid yellow-red of fire, one shade on a spectrum that ranges from bay (Il. 23.454, of a horse) to crimson or purple red, ‘all … characterized by a high



degree of light intensity’ (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.64e; cf. Gipper 1964: 53–6, who notes that the Latin equivalent of φοινικοῦς for the long-wave red band of the rainbow is igneus, Handschur 1970: 125, Hoekstra 1989: on Od. 15.500). Feminine φοίνισσα as a colour term recurs in Pyth. 4.205 φοίνισσα … ἀγέλα ταύρων. κυλινδομένα: At first κυλινδομένας (Thiersch 1820: I 160), adopted by Liberman, looks attractive, as accompanying the otherwise ‘naked’ πέτρας. But the participle makes more sense with φοίνισσα … φλόξ: the stream of lava carries along (φέρει) the rocks as it ‘rolls down’ the slope. πόντου πλάκα: While πλάξ, of any flat surface, is not attested before the fifth century, it was apparently already well enough established of the sea to refer to it by itself at A. Pers. 951–4 Ἰάων ναύφαρκτος ἄρης … / νυχίαν πλάκα κερσάμενος  / δυσδαίμονά τ᾽ ἀκτάν (see Garvie 2009: on 950–3). Later e.g. E. fr. 578.4 TrGF … ποντίας ὑπὲρ πλακός and Ar. Ran. 1438 … πελαγίαν ὑπὲρ πλάκα (‘Euripides’ speaking). ‘Anon.’ Ep.  70.5 FGE (=  SGO II 09/07/01 = BMus.Inscr. 1012) κατ᾽ Αἰγαίην πόντου πλάκα may be an echo of our phrase. The inscription from Chalcedon is of uncertain date, possibly mid- to late-Hellenistic (see Lewis 1984: 180). 25–6a. ‘That monster sends up the most dreadful springs of Hephaestian fire …’ After drawing a naturalistic picture of the eruption of Mt. Etna (21–4), Pindar returns to Typhos as its mythical cause (cf.  13–28n.). Comparison with 21–2a is instructive. Instead of unspecified depths (τᾶς … ἐκ μυχῶν), we now have the monster (κεῖνο … ἑρπετόν) under the mountain. He ‘sends up’ (ἀναπέμπει) the volcanic ‘springs’ (κρουνούς ~ παγαί) that were previously said to ‘belch forth’ (ἐρεύγονται), and the god Hephaestus stands in for the ‘unapproachable fire’ (ἀπλάτου πυρός). Finally, δεινοτάτους surpasses ἁγνόταται, since it highlights the destructive power of an otherwise ‘most awe-inspiring’ natural spectacle (cf. Kollmann 1989: on 25–6 (pp. 128–9, 130–1)). Horace points out that – paradoxically, but truthfully – Mt. Etna is not consumed by the ‘swift fire’ which is produced by the earth-born monsters that lie confined underground: Carm. 3.4.75–6 nec peredit / impositam celer ignis Aetnen (with Nisbet–Rudd 2004). For other echoes of Pythian 1 in this poem see 1–12, 1–2a, 13–28 (n. 5), 39–40, 81–100 (n. 46) nn. κεῖνο  … ἑρπετόν: A ἑρπετόν can be any creature that does not walk upright (e.g. Pi. fr.  106.2–3, of a hunting-dog), but it particularly refers to snakes and other reptiles (< ἕρπω, ‘creep, glide’; cf. Latin serpens, Vedic sarpá-, ‘snake’): e.g. Hdt. 4.183.4 ὄφις καὶ σαύρας καὶ τοιαῦτα τῶν ἑρπετῶν, E. Andr. 269, Theoc. 24.56–7 (the two supernatural snakes throttled by baby Heracles). Here ἑρπετόν suggests the partly snake-like anatomy of Typhos. In view of



16 ἑκατοντακάρανος, Pindar probably wished to evoke Hesiod’s image of an anthropomorphic Typhos with a hundred serpent-heads (Th. 824–6), while ‘in artistic representations … the distribution is reversed, and he is anthropomorphic above the waist, winged, dividing into two or more large serpent tails or heads below’ (West 1966: on Hes. Th. 306; cf. Ogden 2013: 70–1). The reason for this change was most likely practical, for ease and speed of painting. Ἁφαίστοιο κρουνούς continues the imagery of 21–2 πυρὸς  …  / παγαί· ποταμοί δ᾽…  ῥόον καπνοῦ. So of real springs Il.  4.452–4 ὡς δ’ ὅτε χείμαρροι ποταμοὶ κατ’ ὄρεσφι ῥέοντες / … / κρουνῶν ἐκ μεγάλων, 22.147–8 κρουνὼ δ’ ἵκανον καλλιρρόω· ἔνθα δὲ πηγαί / δοιαὶ ἀναΐσσουσι Σκαμάνδρου δινήεντος. The name of Hephaestus has been used for ‘fire’ from Homer on (Il. 2.426), as those of other gods were for their respective spheres of influence (BK on Il. 2.426). Likewise e.g. Pyth. 3.39–40 σέλας … Ἁφαίστου, S. Ant. 123, Pae.Delph. 1.9–11 (CA 141 = Furley–Bremer II 85). The metonymy is all the more appropriate here because of Hephaestus’ association with vulcanism, especially Mt. Etna: e.g. Sim. fr.  279 Poltera (which may refer to an ode praising Hieron’s foundation of Aitna: Introduction, 25), [A.] PV 366–7 (where Typhos supplies the fire for Hephaestus’ forge), E. Cyc. 599, Tro. 220–1 (Cingano 1995: on 25). In Hes. Th.  861–7 the earth burnt by Typhos is compared to tin or iron melted in the mountains ‘by the craft of Hephaestus’ (Debiasi 2008: 91, Ogden 2013: 73). 26b. ‘… a marvel wondrous to behold, a wonder even to hear about from those who were present.’ Bundy (1962: 2–3) first observed that Pindar and Bacchylides often draw their myths to a close with a comment on the extraordinary nature of their subject matter: Ol. 13.83, Pyth. 2.49 θεὸς ἅπαν ἐπὶ ἐλπίδεσσι τέκμαρ ἀνύεται (cf. 46–7 στρατός / θαυμαστός, of the Centaurs), 9.67–8, 10.48–50, Bacch. 3.57–8, 17.117–18. ‘[T]hese passages … intensify, and sometimes also signal, the climax of a story or long description by calling attention to the marvel[l]ous powers of the divinity or supernatural agency that directs or determines the events or phenomena described’. τέρας refers to the eruption, a physical reality associated with the supernatural (and hence to be marvelled at), like Delos at Pi. fr.  33c.3–4 χθονὸς εὐρεί- / ας ἀκίνητον τέρας (since the island stopped floating after the birth of Apollo and Artemis: Pi. fr. 33d; cf. Pae. 7b.49–52 (fr. 52h = C2 Rutherford), Call. Del. 30–54). Typhos, who in [A.] PV 352 is called a δάϊον τέρας (cf. LSJ s.v. τέρας II 1, of various monsters), remains invisible. θαυμάσιον προσιδέσθαι: a novel variant on the epic … θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι (e.g. Il. 5.725, Od. 7.45, Hes. Th. 575, h.Cer. 427, h.Ven. 90), as later Choeril. fr. 320.1



SH … γένος θαυμαστὸν ἰδέσθαι (perhaps after h.Cer. 10 θαυμαστὸν γανόωντα, σέβας τό γε πᾶσιν ἰδέσθαι). These parallels tell against joining θαυμάσιον attributively with τέρας, ‘a wondrous portent to behold’ (cf. also Isth. 4.50 ἀλλ᾽ ὀνοτὸς μὲν ἰδέσθαι, 7.22 ἰδεῖν τε μορφάεις). For Pindar’s use of θαυμάσιος, θαυμαστός and perhaps θαυματός as metrical alternatives see Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.241c. προσιδέσθαι is only attested in CEγρ and in the indirect tradition (Macr. 5.17.9; cf. Gell. 17.10.9 προ(σ)ειδέσθαι). The majority reading πυθέσθαι may come from a gloss on ἀκοῦσαι. Both Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopoulos received the variant ἰδέσθαι (FglGglHgl; cf. Pgl εἰσιδέσθαι, Vi2gl *** ἰδεῖν) and tried to correct the metre, with supplements that technically presuppose lost digamma ( ἰδ- Tricl.: ἰδ- Ps.-Mosch.).13 Several modern conjectures also retain ἰδέσθαι, out of a mistaken concern for closer analogy with θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι (above) and/or paralleling ἀκοῦσαι with another simplex. See Gerber’s list (1976: 61), to which add Liberman’s tentative θαυμάσιόν περ ἰδέσθαι (2004: 255–6). θαῦμα δὲ καὶ παρεόντων ἀκοῦσαι: For θαῦμα … ἀκοῦσαι cf. Hes. Th. 834 … θαύματ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι, of Typhos’ variable voices. Here καί goes with ἀκοῦσαι (‘even  …’), not as part of μέν  … δὲ καί, which would merely strengthen the opposition: ‘but also / in turn …’ (GP 305). The difficulty lies in παρεόντων. Several modern scholars, e.g. Gildersleeve, Schroeder, Kirkwood and Burton (1962: 99), have taken the participle as a single-word genitive absolute, but this renders it all but pointless: ‘a marvel wondrous to behold, a wonder even to hear when one is present’ (obviously one needs to be there to see, and the noise is more impressive from close by). It is much better to follow the ancient and medieval commentators who regarded παρεόντων as a genitive of source with ἀκοῦσαι: schol. Pyth. 1.47c (II 15.1–2 Dr.) θαυμαστὸν δὲ καὶ τῶν παρόντων καὶ ἑωρακότων ἀκοῦσαι and the unpublished interlinear gloss in Vi (fol. 57r) ἐκ τῶν ἀπεκεῖσε ἐρχομένων καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐκεῖσε διαβάντων καὶ ἀπεκεῖσε ἐπιδομένων. The idea that hearing an eyewitness account is almost as good as autopsy has a precedent in Od. 8.491 ὥς τέ που ἠ᾽ αὐτὸς παρεὼν ἠ᾽ ἄλλου ἀκούσας, where Odysseus praises Demo­

13 It is unlikely that Triclinius or Pseudo-Moschopoulos understood the prosodic effects of lost digamma, when even ancient grammarians had at best a patchy notion of how the letter and its sound-value operated in Doric and Aeolic, where it survived in writing into the third century AD (see Camagni 2020: 3–7). However, it is possible that competent Byzantine metricians acquired a sense that, for example, hiatus was permitted in certain positions (such as before ἰδ-) without exactly knowing why.



docus’ ability to sing about the Trojan War.14 Likewise Pindar here validates his description of Mt. Etna’s eruption to those in the original audience who had not observed it, as well as all future listeners or readers, regardless of whether he himself was an eyewitness (13–28n.; cf. Kollmann 1989: on 26 (p. 137), Morrison 2012: 131). The imperfect use of the present participle is also paralleled in Od. 8.491. Braswell (1976: 235) further compares Ol. 7.1–4 φιάλαν ὡς εἴ τις ἀφνειᾶς ἀπὸ χειρὸς ἑλών / … / δωρήσεται / νεανίᾳ γαμβρῷ προπίνων (‘after drinking a toast’). Uncontracted παρεόντων is transmitted only in C and Macr. 5.17.9. The MSS at Gell. 17.10.9 show traces of it in παρέντων, while schol. Pyth. 1.47c (above) has παρόντων, except that in C the majority reading παριόντων has intruded. This makes no sense and is easily explicable by iotacism. Liberman (2004: 255–6) takes no account of Od. 8.491 (above) when he suggests replacing παρεόντων with παρ᾽ ἰδόντων, conjectured independently by Koraes (1792/1877: 38) and Cobet (1858: 144), to balance (προσ)ιδέσθαι. But as in the case of this infinitive and ἀκοῦσαι (above), such rigid symmetry is, by Liberman’s own admission, not to be expected in Pindar. 27–8. ‘Such a one is confined within the peaks of Etna, dark with foliage, and the plain, and a gouging bed goads his entire back leaning against it.’ Pindar completes the Typhos-myth by referring again to Mt. Etna as the site of the monster’s confinement (17b–20). As before he draws attention to Typhos’ physical discomfort, the reason he causes the volcano to erupt: in 17b–19a ‘the sea-girt cliffs off Kyme as well as Sicily’ were weighing down on his ‘shaggy chest’, now the rocky bottom of his prison pierces his back (Burton 1962: 98; cf. Introduction, 5–6). The connection was already made by schol. Pyth. 1.54b (II 15.13–14 Dr.) τὸ δὲ κεντρώσεως αἴτιόν ἐστι τὸ τῆς Αἴτνης ἐπικειμένον βάρος and is implied in Call. Del. 141–3 ὡς δ᾽ ὁπότ᾽ Αἰτναίου ὄρεος πυρὶ τυφομένοιο / σείονται μυχὰ πάντα, κατουδαίοιο γίγαντος  / εἰς ἑτέρην Βριαρῆος ἐπωμίδα κινυμένοιο (where τυφομένοιο recalls Typhos and μυχὰ πάντα echoes Pyth. 1.22 ἐκ μυχῶν) and Virg. Aen. 3.581–2 (of Enceladus) et fessum quotiens mutet latus, intremere omnem / murmure Trinaciam et caelum subtexere fumo (cf. 13–28n.). It is odd, therefore, that some modern interpreters saw Typhos here in vertical

14 More often the superiority of autopsy over hearsay is asserted; so already Heraclit. fr. 101a DK (= Plb. 12.27) ὀφθαλμοὶ γὰρ τῶν ὤτων ἀκριβέστεροι μάρτυρες and particularly in tragedy to profess the veracity of a messenger’s report: e.g. A. Pers. 266–7 καὶ μὴν παρών γε κοὐ λόγους ἄλλων κλυών / … φράσαιμ᾽ ἄν, Sept. 40–1, S. OT 6–7, E. Suppl. 684–7. The Gyges episode in Hdt. 1.8–14 rests on this principle.



bondage, from the peak of Mt. Etna to its base (see Kollmann 1989: on 27–8 (pp. 139–40), 28 (p. 142)). οἷον: exclamatory; cf. e.g. Ol. 9.89–90 οἷον δ᾽ ἐν Μαραθῶνι … / μένεν ἀγῶνα, Pyth. 9.30–1 θυμὸν γυναικὸς καὶ μεγάλαν δύνασιν  / θαύμασον, οἷον ἀταρβεῖ νεῖκος ἄγει κεφαλᾷ and Pi. fr. 182 ὢ πόποι, οἷ᾽ ἀπατᾶται φροντὶς ἐπαμερίων / οὐκ ἰδυῖα (Slater s.v. οἷος 2). Αἴτνας ἐν μελαμφύλλοις … κορυφαῖς / καὶ πέδῳ: ‘within, surrounded by …’, as in Il. 15.192 Ζεὺς δ᾽ ἔλαχ᾽ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἐν αἰθέρι καὶ νεφέλῃσιν (LSJ s.v. ἐν A I 3; cf. Slater s.v. A 5 b), although with δέδεται (below) the preposition verges towards the instrumental: Il. 5.385–6 τλῆ μὲν Ἄρης, ὅτε μιν … / … δῆσαν κρατερῷ ἐνὶ δεσμῷ, Od. 12.54 (LSJ s.v. ἐν A III 1). After a somewhat pedantic discussion schol. Pyth. 1.52b (II 15.5–10 Dr.), which Irigoin (1952: 73) traces back to Didymus, comes to the same conclusion: Typhos is held ‘in between’ (ἐν μέσῳ) Mt. Etna and its base (τὸ ἔδαφος, not to be confused with Pindar’s πέδῳ; see below);15 similarly scholl. Pyth. 1.54b, c (II 15.11–16 Dr.). Braswell (1988: on Pyth. 4.71d) ignores the locative force of ἐν here. Αἴτνας ἐν … κορυφαῖς: ‘peak(s) …’, by synecdoche for all of Mt. Etna. Of κορυφή (literally ‘head’) the plural as well as the singular are applied to the summit of a single mountain in poetry from Homer on: e.g. Il. 2.456 οὔρεος ἐν κορυφῇς, Pi. Pae. 6.92–4 (fr.  52f = D6 Rutherford) νέφεσσι δ᾽ ἐν χρυσέοις ̣ Ὀλύμποι- / ο καὶ κορυφα[ῖσι]ν ἵζων / … Ζεύς, Pae. 12.10–11 (fr. 52m = G1 Rutherford), [A.] PV 366–7 κορυφαῖς δ᾽ ἐν ἄκραις ἥμενος μυδροκτυπεῖ / Ἥφαιστος (i.e. Mt. Etna, possibly after our passage). For other body parts applied figuratively to marks of the landscape see 29–30a n. μελαμφύλλοις: This adjective is first attested in Anacr. fr. 443 PMG (‘darkleaved’, of the laurel) and Sim. fr. 182.3 Poltera με̣λαμφυλ[λ- (context uncertain). The closest parallels for its use here, of a place ‘dark with foliage’, are Ar. Thesm. 997–8 μελάμφυλλά τ᾽ ὄρη / δάσκια … βρέμονται and S. OC 482 γῆ μελάμφυλλος. Since κορυφαῖς stands pars pro toto (above), there is no discrepancy with Pindar’s earlier statement that Mt. Etna is covered in eternal snow (19b–20n.). Cf. Theoc. 11.47–8 ἔστι ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ, τό μοι ἁ πολυδένδρεος Αἴτνα  / λευκᾶς ἐκ χιόνος ποτὸν ἀμβρόσιον προΐητι and Strab. 6.2.8 ἔστι δὲ ψιλὰ τὰ ἄνω χωρία καὶ τεφρώδη καὶ χιόνος μεστὰ τοῦ χειμῶνος, τὰ κάτω δὲ δρυμοῖς καὶ φυτείαις διείληπται παντοδαπαῖς. δέδεται: similarly, of Typhos, Pi. fr. 92 κείνῳ μὲν Αἴτνα δεσμὸς ὑπερφίαλος / ἀμφίκειται.

15 At schol. Pyth. 1.52b (II 15.6 Dr.) read τὸν Τυφῶνα for τὸν Πυθῶνα, a misprint. All relevant MSS have the right text.



πέδῳ: the flat ground surrounding Mt. Etna and along the vast expanse of Typhos (17b–19a n.), not the base (τὸ ἔδαφος) of the mountain, as scholl. Pyth. 1.52b, 54b, c (above) seem to take it. στρωμνὰ  … χαράσσοισ’ is an ironic contradiction in terms because στρωμνή normally signifies something comfortable spread out (< στόρνυμι) to sleep on: Sapph. fr.  94.21 Voigt καὶ στρώμν[αν ἐ]πὶ μολθάκαν, Pyth. 4.230 ἄφθιτον στρωμνάν (the Golden Fleece, which in A. R. 4.1141–8 covers Jason’s and Medea’s marriage-bed), Nem. 1.50 (Alcmena’s bedding), A. Cho. 670–1. Pindar may also have been the first to refer χαράσσω in the sense ‘furrow, scratch’ (cf. A. Pers. 683 κέκοπται καὶ χαράσσεται πέδον) to a living body, creating a particularly strong expression of Typhos’ pain. Later we find S. Phil. 267 ἀγρίῳ χαράγματι (Philoctetes’ wound) and [E.] Rh. 73 νῶτον χαραχθείς, which could be a reminiscence of our passage (Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 72–3). As in the case of Μοῖσα (1–2a n.), the Aeolic ending of the feminine present active participle -οισα is regularly attested in Pindar (cf. Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.31 ἐπιφέροισα), but found only once in Bacchylides (19.13–14 λαχοῖσαν). ἅπαν νῶτον (again Pyth. 4.83) here echoes and contrasts with 9 ὑγρὸν νῶτον, standing almost at the same metrical position. The ‘supple’ back of Zeus’ eagle ripples gently in the relaxation of sleep, whereas Typhos, one may infer, tosses and turns in the attempt to avoid the sharp rocks (Gantz 1974: 150 n. 8, Skulsky 1975: 13, Lewis 2019: 168; cf. 21–2a n. (ἀπλάτου πυρός)). ποτικεκλιμένον: With ἅπαν νῶτον the participle further accentuates Typhos’ pain: his entire back presses against his ‘gouging bed’. Part of this force would be lost with Bornemann’s ποτικεκλιμένου (1903: 131), transferring the action to the logical subject. κεντεῖ: The last word of the myth, which sums up Typhos’ predicament, is emphasised by its rhythmical shape (– –), followed by strong syntactical pause and period-end (cf. Race 1990: 42). 29–40. The next part of the poem, filling the rest of the second triad, begins with a prayer to Zeus in his capacity as Zeus Aitnaios (29–33a), which effects the transition from the negative example of Typhos to the positive subject of Hieron’s victory (Race 1990: 41–2, 127–9, 136). ‘Predictably, given his victory over Typhon, Zeus rules over Mt. Aitna’ (Morgan 2015: 321); yet the mountain is no more the forbidding prison of a primeval monster, but a source of human prosperity owing to its fertile volcanic ground (29–30a n.; cf. Lewis 2019: 167, 169). This praise of the land leads – with ‘spectacular delay’ (Pfeijffer 1999: 43 n. 82) – to the first mention of Hieron as distinguished city-founder (κλεινὸς οἰκιστήρ) and Pythian victor (Ἱέρωνος … καλλινίκου / ἅρμασι), who was allegedly announced as a citizen of Aitna after his triumph (30b–3a n.). For the



understanding of Pindar’s strategy of praise in Pythian 1 (cf. Introduction, 14–18), it is important to note that Hieron’s twin achievements are placed on the same syntactical level (30b μὲν … 32b δ᾽ …), but that the city foundation precedes and informs the narrative of the victory and that both are subordinated to the authority and blessing of Zeus (cf. Skulsky 1975: 14). This hierarchical nexus between human and divine, and athletics and politics, is reinforced in the second half of the section (33b–40). With an initially riddling comparison, based on a piece of nautical wisdom, the recent victory is presented as a good omen for further sporting success and, implicitly, the prosperity of the new city, which again stands in the centre as the recipient of the anticipated glory (33b–8n.; cf. 30b–2a (end), 33b–5a, 35b–8nn.). Pindar then adds a prayer to Apollo, the patron god of Delphi and the Pythian Games, to grant such double good fortune and make Aitna abound with ‘good men’ (39– 40n.). This invocation not only concludes the first eulogy of the honorand and his city, by way of ring-composition, but also effects a transition to the personal praise of Hieron, largely for his martial exploits, in the third triad. The formal link is the maxim in 41–2a (n.) that all human attainment comes from the gods. 29–30a. ‘Grant, Zeus, grant that I may please you, who cherish this mountain, the brow of a fruitful land …’ εἴη, Ζεῦ, τὶν εἴη ἁνδάνειν: A similar prayer to Zeus, for favour and absence of divine indignation (φθόνος), introduces the first section praising the victor and his family in Olympian 13, which also follows the proem: Ol. 13.24–6 ὕπατ᾽ εὐρὺ ἀνάσσων  / Ὀλυμπίας, ἀφθόνητος ἔπεσσιν  / γένοιο χρόνον ἅπαντα, Ζεῦ πάτερ. ‘Transitional asyndeton’ is common in prayers and wishes: also e.g. 39, 58, 71, Ol. 5.17, 13.115, Nem. 9.28 (with Braswell 1998 (pp. 98–9)). Since the dative τίν (Doric for σοί) is governed by ἁνδάνειν, a dative or accusative pronoun referring to the speaker needs to be supplied with εἴη … εἴη, as in Pyth. 2.83 φίλον εἴη φιλεῖν and Pi. fr. 127.1–2 εἴη καὶ ἐρᾶν καὶ ἔρωτι / χαρίζεσθαι κατὰ καιρόν. In full note e.g. Nem. 4.9–11 (ῥῆμα …) τό μοι θέμεν … / … / ὕμνου προκώμιον εἴη and Pyth. 2.96 ἁδόντα δ᾽ εἴη με τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ὁμιλεῖν, where Pindar’s choice of the accusative appears to depend on the metre (see Slater s.v. εἰμί C a (p. 155)). Ζεῦ … / ὃς τοῦτ᾽ ἐφέπεις ὄρος, εὐκάρποιο γαίας μέτωπον: Divine invocations usually name the god’s current or favourite abode(s) in a relative or participial clause to ensure that the prayer (or hymn) is heard. If the habitat is local, as here, mentioning it also increases the sense of those attending that the deity is present (Furley–Bremer 2001: I 54–5; cf. Norden 1913: 166–76, Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 224–6a, 224–5). Pindar directs his audience’s thoughts and, presumably, their gaze with the strongly deictic τοῦτ᾽ … ὄρος (cf. below).



The closest parallel in content and syntactical structure is Ol. 4.6–7 ἀλλὰ Κρόνου παῖ, ὃς Αἴτναν ἔχεις / ἶπον ἀνεμόεσσαν ἑκατογκεφάλα Τυφῶνος ὀβρίμου. In both passages Zeus is addressed as Ζεὺς Αἰτναῖος (cf. Ol. 6.96, Nem. 1.6), who was honoured in Aitna with a cult said to have been founded by Hieron (cf. Introduction, 9). τοῦτ᾽ … ὄρος: The demonstrative οὗτος is employed here in the sense ‘that which has just been mentioned’ (Slater s.v. 1 a), referring back to the account of Mt. Etna in 17–28. So it is possible that Pythian 1 was first performed in Aitna, although Pindar usually marks the location of the premiere with the more immediate ὅδε: e.g. Ol. 5.20 πόλιν … τάνδε (Kamarina), Nem. 6.46 νᾶσον εὐκλέα τάνδε (Aigina). Cf. 61 (61–2a n.) πόλιν κείναν, and see Introduction, 12–14. ἐφέπεις: ‘devote yourself to, cherish, honour’, rather than ‘govern’ or ‘haunt’, which are the usual translations of ἐφέπω in this context (LSJ s.v. II 2, 3). Cf. the periphrasis in schol. Pyth. 1.56b (II 15.21 Dr.) ὅστις τοῦτο τὸ ὄρος περιέπεις τὴν Αἴτνην (‘treat well, honour’; LSJ s.v. περιέπω 1) and e.g. Ar. Thesm. 675 δικαίως τ᾽ ἐφέπειν ὅσια καὶ νόμιμα (with Austin–Olson 2004: on 675–8). *ἕπω is cognate with Vedic sap- (sápati, 3rd pers. sg. pres. active), ‘care for, cherish, honour’, while ἕπομαι is related to sac- (sácate, 3rd pers. sg. pres. middle), ‘follow’ (cf. e.g. Latin sequor). Already in Homer compounds of *ἕπω could be used in the sense of ἕπομαι, and so Pindar has ἐφέπω, ‘follow’, at 50 τὰν Φιλοκτήταο δίκαν ἐφέπων and Ol. 2.10 αἰὼν δ᾽ ἔφεπε μόρσιμος (‘their allotted time followed them’, i.e. ‘drew on’). See Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.133d, where add Beekes s.vv. ἕπω, ἕπομαι to the etymological references. εὐκάρποιο γαίας μέτωπον: Sicily’s fertility, primarily owed to the rich volcanic soil of the Etna region, was much praised in antiquity: e.g. Nem. 1.14–15 ἀριστεύοισαν εὐκάρπου χθονός / Σικελίαν πίειραν (as part of an extensive eulogy of Sicily, Nem. 1.13–18; see also 39–40n. (εὔανδρόν τε χώραν)), Pi. fr. 106.5–6 ἀπὸ τᾶς ἀγλαοκάρπου / Σικελίας, Bacch. 3.1, [A.] PV 369, Carc. II 70 F 5.6–7 TrGF, Strab. 6.2.3, Cic. Verr. 3.226 Siciliam fructuosissimam … provinciam, Ov. Met. 5.481.16 Unsurprisingly, then, the island was a major cult centre of Demeter and Persephone (cf. Pyth. 12.1–3, Nem. 1.13–14, Bacch. 3.1–3), with the Deinomenids holding the hereditary priesthood of the goddesses (Ol. 6.94–6, Pi.

16 At Ol.  1.12–13 most MSS read ἐν πολυμάλῳ  / Σικελίᾳ (‘rich in tree-fruit’; cf. schol. Ol.  1.19d (I 24.4–6 Dr.), quoting Il. 9.542 (δένδρεα …) … αὐτοῖς ἄνθεσι μήλων). A variant πολυμήλῳ, ‘rich in flocks’, is preserved in HASCS. The choice is a matter of sense and deciding whether -μάλῳ represents an early hyperdorism or -μήλῳ the intrusion of a familiar epic word. Gerber 1982 and Catenacci–Giannini–Lomiento 2013 (both on Ol. 1.12) make a good case for keeping the majority reading against, recently, Snell–Maehler and Race. On the other hand, Akragas is μηλόβοτος in Pyth. 12.2–3, and Strabo (6.2.3) mentions the extraordinary fatness of Sicilian sheep.



fr. 105a.2–3, of Hieron; cf. Morgan 2015: 24, 83–5, 322–3, 353, Introduction, 9 with n. 21, 23, 25 with n. 78). For εὔκαρπος of fruitful land see also Pi. Pae. 2.25–6 (fr. 52b = D2 Rutherford) Θ[ρ]αϊκίαν γ[αῖ]αν ἀμπελό[εσ]σάν τε καί  / εὔκαρπον, fr.  215b.12 and S. fr. 847 TrGF. Mt. Etna is called γαίας μέτωπον because ‘[t]he mountain rises from the plain as the forehead from the face’ (Gildersleeve 1890: on 30; cf. schol. Pyth. 1.57 (II 15.24–6 Dr.) μεταφορικῶς ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων, ἤτοι διὰ τὸ ἐπίσημον αὐτὴν εἶναι ἢ διὰ τὸ ὕψος καὶ τὴν ἀνάβασιν). The metaphorical use of body parts for geographical features is common in poetry. Closest to the unique μέτωπον here are Ol. 13.106 ὑπ᾽ ὀφρύι Παρνασσίᾳ (‘brow’) and Bacch. 17.30 ὑπὸ κρόταφον Ἴδας (‘temple’); otherwise ‘head’ (27–8n. (Αἴτνας ἐν  … κορυφαῖς); LSJ s.v. κορυφή I 2, 3); ‘ankle’: Pyth. 2.45–6 ἐν Παλίου / σφυροῖς (more elevated than ‘foot’, e.g. Il. 2.824, Pyth. 11.36); ‘chest’: Pi. Pae. 4.14 (fr. 52d = D4 Rutherford) ἐλα]χύνωτον στέρνον χθονός (i.e. Keos), S. OC 691; ‘back’: e.g. Ol. 7.87 νώτοισιν Ἀταβυρίου (‘ridge’, of the highest mountain on Rhodes; cf. Archil. fr. 21 IEG2), Pyth. 4.26, 228–9 νῶτον / γᾶς (‘flat surface’; cf. epic … εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης). See Radt 1958: on Pi. Pae. 6.139 (where the nymph and island Aigina are fused) and Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.26d. By contrast, μαστός for a hill is an image based on (perceived) similarity rather than a metaphor (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.8b). 30b–3a. ‘… whose neighbouring city that bears its name was glorified by its famous founder, for at the racecourse of the Pythian festival the herald proclaimed it as he made his announcement on behalf of Hieron, splendidly victorious with the chariot.’ Hieron’s proclamation as a victor from Aitna has rightly been called into question. First, Bacch. 4 praises him as righteous ruler of Syracuse for the same victory (1–3), and if this short ode was performed immediately at Delphi (Introduction, 12), it could hardly have contradicted the official declaration. Secondly, Hieron is always called Συρακόσιος in the Olympic victor list of P. Oxy. 222, both before and after the foundation of Aitna: col. i 19 (476; cf. Ol. 1.23 Συρακόσιον ἱπποχάρμαν βασιλῆα),17 32 (472), 44 (468). Probably, therefore, Hieron was announced as Syracusan for his Pythian chariot victory as well, but Pindar, writing for the celebration at Aitna, bent the truth slightly in

17 A scholion on this passage testifies to an ancient discussion of whether Hieron was a Syracusan or an Aitnaian when he won the victory celebrated in Olympian 1 (schol. Ol. 1.35c (I 28.12–21 Dr.) = Didym. fr. 1 Braswell).



order to present the triumph as a good omen for the new city (33b–40). See Maehler 1982: II 64–5 ~ 2004: 101, Morrison 2012: 127–8, Morgan 2015: 321–2, 347–8. The syntax and partly the content resemble 61–65a τῷ πόλιν κείναν … / … Ἱέρων … ἔκτισσε· θέλοντι δὲ Παμφύλου / καὶ μὰν Ἡρακλειδᾶν ἔκγονοι / ὄχθαις ὕπο Ταϋγέτου ναίοντες αἰεὶ μένειν τεθμοῖσιν ἐν Αἰγιμιοῦ / Δωριεῖς (‘For whom Hieron founded that city … For the descendants of Pamphylos and indeed the sons of Heracles, who dwell under the heights of Taÿgetos, wish to remain forever in the institutions of Aigimios as Dorians’). There too a relative clause naming Hieron as city founder is followed by an explanatory δέ-clause, with participial expansion and a strong enjambment at the end. 30b–2a. τοῦ … ἐπωνυμίαν / … πόλιν γείτονα: The relative pronoun in the genitive goes with ἐπωνυμίαν (literally ‘called by the name of’; Slater s.v.), since adjectival γείτων takes the dative (e.g. E. Ion 294 Ἀθήναις … γείτων πόλις; LSJ s.v. II). The adjective ἐπωνύμιος as, presumably, a metrical alternative to ἐπώνυμος is unique to Pindar (also Ol. 10.78), apart from a variant in Hdt. 2.112 ὅτι ξείνης Ἀφροδίτης ἐπώνυμόν ἐστι (codd. pler.: ἐπωνύμιόν A). μέν stands not in anticipation of 32 δ᾽, which is causal (32b–3a n.), but in the old emphatic sense, stressing the relative pronoun τοῦ (GP 359, 361). In that way Pindar produces a subtle nexus between the grandeur of Mt. Etna (τοῦτ᾽ … ὄρος), its homonymous city and Hieron, who not only (re-)founded and (re-) named it, but also now added to its glory by winning the Pythian chariot race (cf. below). οἰκιστήρ: In addition to 61–2a (quoted in 30b–3a n.), Hieron is praised as ‘founder of Aitna’ in Pi. fr. 105a.3 κτίστορ Αἴτνας. Similarly also Nem. 9.2 τὰν νεοκτίσταν ἐς Αἴτναν and Bacch. fr. 20C.7 [Αἴ]τ̣ναν ἐς ἐΰκτιτον, from an enkōmion for Hieron that was probably contemporary with Pythian 1 (cf. Introduction, 20-2). Terms like οἰκιστήρ and κτίστωρ evoke the idea of posthumous cult as a founder-hero, which we hear Hieron aspired to and indeed temporarily received in Aitna: schol. Nem. 1 inscr. (III 6.13–16 Dr.) Ἱερων γὰρ οἰκιστὴς ἀντὶ τυράννου βουλόμενος εἶναι, Κατάνην ἐξελὼν Αἴτνην μετωνόμασε τὴν πόλιν, ἑαυτὸν οἰκιστὴν προσαγορεύσας, D. S. 11.49.2, 66.4, Strab. 6.2.3 (cf. Currie 2005: 3, 7, 153, 410 + General Index s.v. ‘Hieron’, Morgan 2015: 22, 58–9; Introduction, 10). Both these nouns are first attested in Pindar. For οἰκιστήρ note especially also Pyth. 4.6 οἰκτιστῆρα Βάττον καρποφόρου Λιβύας, of Battus I, the founder of Kyrene, who was likewise elevated to heroic status after his death. Doric retained the original ending -τήρ (alongside -τωρ) even for newlyformed agent nouns, while Ionic-Attic almost always has -της (Braswell 1988:



on Pyth. 4.6b, with earlier literature; for tragedy add Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 817– 18a). ἐκύδανεν πόλιν: Cf. Nem. 9.11–12 (Adrastus) ὃς … νεαισί θ᾽ ἑορταῖς / ἰσχύος τ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἁμίλλαις ἅρμασί τε γλαφυροῖς ἄμφαινε κυδαίνων πόλιν (‘who … made the city (sc. Sikyon) famous by glorifying it with new festivals and contests for men’s strength and with polished chariots’) and Ol.  10.66 πάλᾳ κυδαίνων  … Τεγέαν. The latter passage again concerns glory through athletic victory, a regular motif in epinician. Note also, with κῦδος, Ol. 4.11–12 (Psaumis) ὃς ἐλαίᾳ στεφανωθεὶς Πισάτιδι κῦδος ὄρσαι  / σπεύδει Καμαρίνᾳ, 5.7–8, Isth. 1.10–12, Bacch. 10.17–18; with τιμά, Isth. 1.64–7; with γεραίρω, Nem. 5.8. The juxtapposition of οἰκιστήρ and ἐκύδανεν πόλιν may have had special resonances for Pindar’s first audience. According to Benveniste (1969: II 60), κῦδος in Homer is not simply a synonym of κλέος, but a divine gift to the hero that ‘acts as a talisman of supremacy’ (‘il agit come un talisman de suprématie’; similarly Fränkel 1962: 88 n. 14 = 1975: 80 n. 14). Kurke (1993) transfers this analysis to κῦδος in epinician poetry by combining it with historical evidence for the talismanic power of victors in the crown games, especially in war and as colonial founders (cf. Lattmann 2010: 72–5). Epinician κῦδος, she argues, is ‘the civic adaptation of its Homeric precursor’ (137). Transferred to our passage this means that Hieron, by returning victorious to Aitna, not only transfers his κῦδος to the city as a good omen for the future (33b–8 (n.)), but also retrospectively becomes its ideal, since unusually propitious, founder. 32b–3a. On the alleged announcement of Hieron as being from Aitna see 30b–3a n. The official victory proclamation by the κήρυξ (κάρυξ), which contained the victor’s name, his patronymic and his city of origin, is often mentioned in epinician, with a similar set of expressions: e.g. Ol. 5.8, Pyth. 10.8–9, Isth. 3.11–13, Bacch. 10.26–30 (Cingano 1995: on 32–3). The respective charioteer or jockey had no share in this glory, but Pindar sometimes praises him alongside his client: Ol. 6.22–8 (Phintis, driver of Hagesias’ mule-car), Pyth. 5.26–53 (Karrhotos, charioteer and brother-in-law of Arkesilaos), Isth. 2.20–9 (Nikomachos, charioteer of Theron and Xenokrates). Herodotos of Thebes, the dedicatee of Isthmian 1, unusually drove his own chariot Πυθιάδος … ἐν δρόμῳ: not equivalent to Ol. 1.93–5 τὸ δὲ κλέος / τηλόθεν δέδορκε τᾶν Ὀλυμπιάδων ἐν δρόμοις  / Πέλοπος, where τᾶν Ὀλυμπιάδων depends on κλέος and ἐν δρόμοις Πέλοπος go together: ‘and far shines that fame of the Olympic festivals gained in the racecourses of Pelops’. For δρόμος, ‘racecourse’ (for animals or humans), cf. also Ol. 3.33–4, δωδεκάγναμπτον περὶ τέρμα δρόμου / ἵππων, Nem. 10.48 Isth. 1.57, Bacch. 10.25–6, E. Andr. 599, Hdt. 6.126.3.



δ᾽: explanatory (7b–8a n.). κάρυξ: The acute accent, as in EV, Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopulos, is probably required (against Hdn. GG III.1 44.10–15, 525.6–16 Lentz ~ 130.13–14, 300.6–9 Roussou) because there is no reason why the long υ of the oblique cases should have been shortened in the nominative singular. Herodian’s rule (GG  III.2 9.19–26 Lentz) that in the declension of disyllabic nouns in -υξ the originally short υ of the nominative singular is occasionally lengthened when κ follows (as in κῆρῠξ, κήρῡκος) seems arbitrary. See already Hermann 1801: 71 and recently West 1998: XLVIII, Barrett 2007: 285 n. 1, against Probert 2003: 84 § 156. Likewise Φοίνιξ (Φοίνῑκος) in 72 (71–2a n.). νιν: the city of Aitna, as in 37. Here all medieval MSS attest Doric νιν (which in 37 is mutilated by haplography; see 35b–8n.); only Π2 has epic-Ionic μιν, the near-universal reading in 51 (51b–2a n.) and 97, where Mommsen wrote νιν. While the forms were already variants in antiquity, it is likely that Pindar used νιν throughout and μιν intruded by its greater familiarity. The Doric pronoun dominates in Bacchylides, though it is worth remembering with Barrett (1978: 19–20 n. 29) that most of the evidence comes from a single papyrus. In Simonides, where Page and Poltera follow the paradosis in each case, the much less frequent νιν should perhaps also be restored consistently. See in general Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.79e. ἀγγέλλων: absolute, ‘make an announcement’, as in Pyth. 9.1–3 χαλκάσπιδα Πυθιονίκαν /  … ἀγγέλλων  / Τελεσικράτη (where Pindar acts, as it were, as a second herald). For the addition of a prepositional phrase with ὑπέρ (‘about, on behalf of’) cf. S. El. 1111 Ὀρέστου Στροφίος ἀγγεῖλαι πέρι (‘bring a message about …’). Ἱέρωνος ὑπὲρ καλλινίκου  / ἅρμασι: the phrase to which the long sentence, beginning in 29, built up. So retrospectively we connect Hieron and his Pythian chariot victory not only with the city of Aitna, but also with Zeus who rules over the eponymous mountain and bestows his blessing on the surrounding land (29–40n.). The prestigious ἅρμασι is further emphasised by enjambment over the strophic boundary, a rhetorical technique Pindar often employs for the mention of the contest: also e.g. Ol. 1.110 ||| σὺν ἅρματι (anticipating a chariot victory for Hieron), Isth. 2.17 ||| εὐάρματον ἄνδρα, Ol. 8.59 ||| ἐκ παγκρατίου (Race 1990: 157 with n. 35). See also 65 (62b–5a n.) Δωριεῖς. For the expression cf. Pyth. 11.46 τὰ μὲν ἅρμασι καλλίνικοι πάλαι, where Triclinius supplied the metrically necessary preposition that had been lost to haplography.



33b–8. The statement that for sailors a fair wind at the outset bodes well for a safe return (33b–5a n.) comes as a surprise. However, Pindar immediately relates this to his hopes for the future of Aitna (35b–8n.). In that way he effectively extends the ‘ship-of-state’ metaphor, which is at least as old as Archilochus (frr. 105, 106 IEG2) and appears in a more conventional context at 86b and 91–2a (nn.), from an established community to the foundation of a new one. Formally, we may compare Pyth. 10.10–18, where Apollo’s favour (cf. 33b–5a, 39–40nn.) and an illustrious sporting ancestry account for the present success of the honorand (Hippokleas, winner of the boys’ diaulos, 498) and inspires hopes for his future. 33b–5a. ‘For seafaring men the first blessing is for a favourable wind to come when they set out on a voyage; for it is likely that in the end they will also attain a better homecoming.’ The sentiment resembles Pyth. 10.10 Ἄπολλον, γλυκὺ δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων τέλος ἀρχά τε δαίμονος ὀρνύντος αὔξεται (cf. 33b–8n.) and Pi. fr. 108a θεοῦ δὲ δείξαντος ἀρχάν  / ἕκαστον ἐν πρᾶγος, εὐθεῖα δή  / κέλευθος ἀρετὰν ἑλεῖν,  / τελευταί τε καλλίονες. This is true particularly if one ascribes a propitious beginning, and end, of a sea-journey to divine favour, as Jason prays for at Pyth. 4.193–6. ναυσιφορήτοις: only here, as ναυσίστονος (with ὕβρις) in 72 (72b–5a n.). Both adjectives retain the proper dative  / instrumental force of the first element, like epic ναυσίκλειτος, -κλυτος (the latter in Nem. 5.9, Isth. 9.1). Later this could fade into a mere poetic prefix (Mastronarde 1994: on E. Phoen. 1712 ὥστε ναυσιπομπὸν αὔραν, ‘like a ship-escorting breeze’). ἐς πλόον ἀρχομένοις: Sense, word order and the opposition with τελευτᾷ … νόστου suggest that ἐς πλόον goes with absolute ἀρχομένοις (‘begin, start upon’; Slater s.v. ἄρχω 2 e). Hence schol. Pyth. 1.64 (II 16.6 Dr.) paraphrases πρώτοις φερομένοις διὰ θαλάσσης, and a simplifying variant ἐρχομένοις (cf. Ol. 6.73 ἐς φανερὰν ὁδὸν ἔρχονται) occurs in CÅ and most MSS at schol. Nem. 1.49c (III 20.15–16 Dr.), where ναυσιφορήτοις … οὖρον is quoted. Attaching ἐς πλόον to πρώτα χάρις (Cingano 1995: on 34, after Heyne and Fennell) or to πομπαῖον … οὖρον (Mezger 1880: on 34) leaves ἀρχομένοις curiously isolated. The latter, moreover, is not supported by E. Hec. 1289–90 πνοάς / πρὸς οἶκον … πομπίμους, IA 1321–2 †ἐς Τροίαν / … ἐλάταν πομπαίαν† or Nem. 3.59–60 θαλασσίαις ἀνέμων ῥιπαῖσι πεμφθείς / ὑπὸ Τροΐαν, where each time the prepositional phrase denotes a proper physical destination. πομπαῖον … οὖρον: literally ‘sending, conducting …’. In addition to E. Hec. 1289–90, IA 1321–2 and Nem. 3.59–60 (above), cf. Pyth. 4.203 σὺν Νότου δ᾽ αὔραις … πεμπόμενοι, Nem. 7.29 εὐθυπνόου Ζεφύροιο πομπαί, E. Hel. 1073–4 πόμπιμοι … / … πνοαί, Phoen. [1712]? ναυσιπομπὸν αὔραν.



ἐοικότα … τυχεῖν: The neuter predicate qualifying a subject infinitive or other clause can stand in the plural as well as the singular, a useful metrical alternative for poets. Cf. e.g. Ol.  1.52 ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ἄπορα γαστρίμαργον μακάρων τιν᾽ εἰπεῖν, Pyth. 2.81–2, 4.247, Nem. 8.4–5, [A.] PV 216–18, Hdt. 1.91.1, Thuc. 4.1.3 (KG I 66–8, SD 606). The aorist or present infinitive (depending on aspect), instead of the future, is common with governing verbs or verbal expressions which, like εἰκός (ἐστιν), look into the future themselves (KG I 195 n. 7 a, SD 296). καὶ τελευτᾷ: so Cacρ and Triclinius. All others read the unmetrical ἐν καὶ, which was clearly meant to restore the supposedly missing preposition. Pseudo-Moschopoulos did better with κἀν, which several modern editors adopted by analogy with Ol. 7.26 ὅτι νῦν ἐν καὶ τελευτᾷ φέρτατον ἀνδρὶ τυχεῖν (Heyne 1798, Bowra, Gentili–Cingano, Liberman). Yet while the corruption from κἀν to καί is easy, there is no reason why Pindar should not have used the pure dative here and the prepositional phrase where an extra syllable was needed. φερτέρου νόστου: i.e. ‘better’ than if the departure had been inauspicious, with the same force to the comparative as in Pi. fr. 108a.4 (above) τελευταί … καλλίονες (‘more noble …’ than if the god had not led the way). Again φερτέρου is the minority reading. Most codices have φερτέρα, which is a feminine dative singular, to judge by the accent and the occasional addition of a iota subscript. It thus probably arose by assimilation to τελευτᾷ, although ἐοικότα may also have played a part (Cingano 1995: on 35). The reverse corruption, from φερτέρα to -ου before νόστου, is rendered improbable by the much inferior sense which the dative creates. 35b–8. ‘And given the present success, this saying conveys the expectation that in future the city will be renowned for crowns and horses and its name famed through tuneful festivities.’ When Pindar envisages further equestrian victories, and their celebrations, to add to the fame of Aitna, we are probably meant to think primarily of the Olympic four-horse chariot race, which Hieron aspired to win (Ol. 1.108–10) and eventually did in 468 (though this was commemorated by Bacch. 3). The presentation of an athletic triumph as an ornament to the city was interpreted by Kurke (1991: 163–224) as a way to share the blessings of glory with the wider community. Cf. Morgan 2015: 324–5, who fails to note Kurke’s caveat (222–4) that the diffusion of φθόνος does not apply to tyrants (see 81–100n.). Similarly, in Nem. 9.28–33 Pindar prays to Zeus that the ‘horse-loving’ (φίλιπποι) citizens of Aitna may continue to enjoy ‘good rule’ and ‘public festivities’. ὁ  … λόγος: ‘saying, precept’, as in e.g. Nem. 9.6–7 ἔστι δέ τις λόγος ἀνθρώπων, τετελεσμένον ἐσλόν / μὴ χαμαὶ σιγᾷ καλύψαι and Ol. 2.22–3 ἕπεται



δὲ λόγος εὐθρόνοις / Κάδμοιο κούραις, where, as here, a longer maxim precedes (15–22a). But Farnell (1932: on 35) was right in sensing that this particular use of λόγος is not far from the ‘philosophical’ one as ‘(product of) reasoning’, which goes back to Pindar’s contemporaries Heraclitus and Parmenides (LSJ s.v. λόγος IV 1) and has a Pindaric example in Isth. 8.61 τὸ καὶ νῦν φέρει λόγον (‘conveys reason’). ταύταις ἐπὶ συντυχίαις: of attendant circumstances, with an admixture of the causal, as often in this use of ἐπί + dative (LSJ s.v. B I 1 i, KG I 501–2, SD 468–9). Cf. e.g. 84 (82b–4n.) ἀστῶν δ᾽ ἀκοὰ κρύφιον θυμὸν βαρύνει μάλιστ᾽ ἐσλοῖσιν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις, Ol.  14.16–17 τόνδε κῶμον ἐπ᾽ εὐμενεῖ τύχᾳ  / κοῦφα βιβῶντα, Pi. Parth. 2.41–5 (fr. 94b), S. Ant. 157 νεαραῖσι θεῶν ἐπὶ συντυχίαις. δόξαν: here ‘expectation’, in the old Homeric sense: Il. 10.324 σοὶ δ᾽ ἐγὼ οὐχ ἅλιος σκοπὸς ἔσσομαι οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ δόξης, Od. 11.344–5 (LSJ s.v. I); similarly Ol. 10.63 ἀγώνιον ἐν δόξᾳ θέμενος εὖχος (‘in his thoughts’), Nem. 11.24 ἐμὰν δόξαν (‘in my opinion’). Ol. 6.82 δόξαν ἔχω τιν᾽ ἐπὶ γλώσσᾳ λιγυρᾶς ἀκόνας is much debated, but contrary to Adorjáni (2014: 86–92, 259–61), ‘expectation’ seems to be the least appropriate meaning for δόξαν there. λοιπόν: For adverbial λοιπόν (‘in future’) cf. Pyth. 4.256–7 τόθι γὰρ γένος Εὐφάμου φυτευθὲν λοιπὸν αἰεί  / τέλλετο. The usual expression (singular or plural) is with the article: e.g. Pyth. 5.117–18 τὸ νῦν τε … / καὶ τὸ λοιπόν, Nem. 7.45, A. Sept. 66 τὰ λοιπά. στεφάνοισί ν ἵπποις τε κλυτάν: Heyne (1817: 192) supplied ν (i.e. Aitna), which is required by metre and syntax, from the transmitted στεφάνοισιν ἵπποις τε. However, the loss of the pronoun by haplography was probably not universal because it occurs at the wrong position in the MSS connected with Pseudo-Moschopoulos, where verse 37 reads λοιπὸν ἔσεσθαί νιν στεφάνοισιν ἵπποισίν τε κλυτάν. Since this is unlikely to be one of his conjectures (Introduction, 58–9), he must have found it in his working copy or elsewhere, either in the text or as a suprascript note. Boeckh (1811: I.2 436) further observed that the scholia presuppose the pronoun: scholl. Pyth. 1.67 (II 16.11– 13 Dr.) οὕτως οὖν καὶ τὴν Αἴτνην … ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσιν ἐπίδοξον εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνω καὶ διηνεκῶς εὐπραγήσειν, 69 (II 16.14–17 Dr.). Cf. Introduction, 61. On Doric νιν as against epic-Ionic μιν in Pindar see 32b–3a n. Victory crowns and horses – the plural in the special sense of ‘four-horse chariot (team)’ – are epinician commonplaces (Cingano 1995: on 37) and also mentioned together at Nem. 9.52–3 and Pi. fr. 221.1–2 ἀελλοπόδων μέν τιν᾽ εὐφραίνοισιν ἵππων / τιμαὶ καὶ στέφανοι (of an unknown genre). Through the prestige of the pan-Hellenic games Aitna can hope to join cities like Argos or Thebes, which have long attracted the epithet κλυτός in poetry. The frequent association of κλυτός with the divine (LSJ s.v.  1; Slater s.v.) supports Kurke’s



opinion (above) that, at least in epinician rhetoric, athletic victory bestows lasting fortune upon the city. κλυτάν  … ὀνυμαστάν: As Massetti (2019: 85–6) observed, the near-synonymous adjectives at the end of two successive verses seem to develop the inherited poetic collocation ὄνομα + κλύτος, which itself appears in various forms: e.g. Od. 9.364, 19.183 ὄνομα κλυτόν = ‘famed name’ (~ RV 5.30.5 śrútiyaṃ nā́ma), Il. 22.51, h.Merc. 59 ὄνομα κλυτός (v.l. ὀνομάκλυτος), Ibyc. fr. 306 PMGF, Pi. Pae. 6.123 (fr. 52f = D6 Rutherford) ὀνομάκλυτος = ‘famed by name’ (~ RV 8.46.14 Índraṃ nā́ma śrútiyaṃ); cf. West 2007: 398 (with further literature). For Pindar’s technique here Massetti compares ‘Sim.’ Ep. 71.3–4 FGE πατρὸς δὲ κλεεννόν / Διφίλου αἰχμητὴς υἱὸς ἔθηκ’ ὄνομα. The vocalism of ὀνυμαστός belongs to Doric and most, if not all, other dialects except Ionic-Attic (Buck 1955: 27). Predictably, the form, which is attested only here, has been corrupted into ὀνομαστ- in several MSS, like ὄνυμα at Ol. 6.57, Nem. 6.49 and ὀνυμάζω at e.g. Ol. 9.46, Pyth. 12.23. σὺν εὐφώνοις θαλίαις: This is the first explicit indication in Pythian 1 that the divine festivities of the proem (note especially 2 ἀγλαΐας ἀρχά) have their human counterpart in Hieron’s Aitna (1–28, 1–12nn.). (Victory) feasts accompanied by song are to be part of the city’s ‘harmonious peace’: 70 (69–70n.) σύμφωνον … ἡσυχίαν. For instrumental σύν (‘through, thanks to’) cf. Bacch. 4.4–6 τρίτον γὰρ παρ᾽ [ὀμφα]λὸν ὑψιδείρου χθονός / Πυ̣[θ]ιόνικος ἀ[είδε]ται (sc. Hieron) / ὠ[κυ]πόδων ἀρ̣[ετᾷ] σὺν ἵππων, Pyth. 10.57, Nem. 9.48–9, Bacch. 12.36–7. 39–40. ‘Lord of Lycia, Phoebus, you who rule over Delos and love the Kastalian spring of Parnassus, be willing to take this to heart and make the land abounding in good men.’ This prayer to Apollo, coming as it does after the outline of Hieron’s victory (30b–3a), a wish for future athletic success (33b–8) and indeed a mythical section (Typhos, 15–28), seems to play with the idea that not only the second triad, but also the entire ode might end (Morrison 2007: 69–70). Such a ‘false closure’ (cf.  12b, 81–4nn., Introduction, 6-7) creates a natural climax and emphasises what follows (here further praise of Hieron) by the surprise effect of the unexpected continuation. The invocation again conforms to the traditional hymnic style (cf. 1–12, 29–30a nn.). The god’s name in the vocative (Φοῖβε) is surrounded by a cult epithet (Λύκιε) and a twofold participial construction (Δάλοι᾽ ἀνάσσων  … Παρνασσοῦ τε κράναν Κασταλίαν φιλέων), which together follow Behaghel’s Law of Increasing Terms. They mention the three most important places of Apolline worship, with increasing geographic precision: (1) Lycia, with the



oracle in Patara, which in the winter months took over from Delos (Hdt. 1.182.2, Virg. Aen. 4.143–4), (2) Delos, Apollo’s birth place and (3) Delphi, defined by Mt. Parnassus and the Kastalian spring (cf. Race 1990: 17–18). As Typhos spanned the nexus from Asia Minor to Sicily and Southern Italy (13–28n.), the locations here move from east to west, arriving at the scene of Hieron’s victory under the auspices of Pythian Apollo (Morgan 2015: 325–6). A similar progression can already be seen in h.Ap.  179–81 ὦ ἄνα, καὶ Λυκίην καὶ Μῃονίην ἐρατεινήν  / καὶ Μίλητον ἔχεις ἔναλον πόλιν ἱμερόεσσαν, / αὐτὸς δ᾽ αὖ Δήλοιο περικλύστου μέγ᾽ ἀνάσσεις, the opening of the ‘Pythian’ hymn to Apollo, which proceeds to describe the god’s musical journey to Delphi and Olympus (182–206; cf. 514–26). No such sequence is observed in [E.] Rh. 224–6 Θυμβραῖε καὶ Δάλιε καὶ Λυκίας / ναὸν ἐμβατεύων / Ἄπολλον (except that the poet put Trojan Thymbra first) and Hor. Carm. 3.4.61–4 qui rore puro Castaliae lavit / crinis solutos, qui Lyciae tenet / dumeta natalemque silvam,  / Delius et Patareus Apollo, which concludes the ‘Titanomachy’ of Horace’s great adaptation of Pythian 1 (cf. 1–12, 1–2a, 13–28 (n. 6), 25–6a, 81–100 (n. 46) nn.). Λύκιε: here ‘Lycian’ (above), as also e.g. S. OT 203–8 and apparently Sim. fr. 103.1 Poltera, where the text is defective. But in Pindar’s time already Λύκ(ε)ιος could also be interpreted as ‘wolfish’, a connotation that is often exploited in tragedy: e.g. A. Sept. 146–7 καὶ σὺ Λύκει᾽ ἄναξ, Λύκειος γενοῦ / στρατῷ δαΐῳ, Ag. 1257–60, S. El. 6–7 (see Friis Johansen–Whittle 1980: on A. Suppl. 686, Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 224–5). The true etymology of the epithet remains contested (Graf 1985: 220–1). For the ‘transitional asyndeton’ in divine invocation see 29-30a n. (εἴη, Ζεῦ, τὶν εἴη ἁνδάνειν). Δάλοι᾽ ἀνάσσων: Cf. h.Ap. 181 … Δήλοιο περικλύστου μέγ᾽ ἀνάσσεις, which may have been Pindar’s source, given the above-mentioned resemblance in geographical outlook between our passage and h.Ap. 179–81 (+ 182–206). For ἀνάσσω with a place name in the genitive, expressing a god’s local power, note also Il. 1.38 … Τενέδοιό τε ἶφι ἀνάσσεις (Apollo again) and S. OT 1104 ὁ Κυλλάνας ἀνάσσων (Hermes). Otherwise μέδω is more common in this use (LSJ s.v. I; Furley–Bremer 2001: I 54–5); so Pi. fr. 95.1 ὦ Πάν, Ἀρκαδίας μεδέων. In eliding Δάλοι᾽ Pindar ignored the initial digamma of ἀνάσσων, unlike at e.g. Ol. 13.24 ὕπατ᾽ εὐρὺ ἀνάσσων and Pyth. 4.89 Ἐπιάλτα ἄναξ (Slater s.vv. ἄναξ, ἀνάσσω). The practice already varied in epic, as metre required (contrast Il. 1.38 with h.Ap. 181 (above), and see LfgrE s.v. ἀνάσσω M (end)). The elided genitive singular in -οιο often fell victim to scriptio plena (as here except in Cpc) or to ‘normalisation’ to -ου (see Braswell 1998: on Nem. 9.55). Παρνασσοῦ τε κράναν Κασταλίαν φιλέων: The verb φιλέω expresses Apollo’s special favour for Delphi; cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 240.6 M.–W. (of Dodone) τὴν δὲ



Ζεὺς ἐφίλησε, h.Ap.  138 (Apollo of Delos)  … φίλησε δὲ κηρόθι μᾶλλον. From these Bacch. 4.1–2 ἔτι Συρακοσίαν φιλεῖ / πόλιν ὁ χρυσοκόμας Ἀπόλλων differs in that Syracuse is cherished by Apollo not as one of his major cult centres, but as the city of the victorious Hieron (Maehler 1982 ~ 2004: on 1–2). The genitive Παρνασσοῦ is only attested as a suprascript correction in CFỊP and in the periphrasis of schol. Pyth. 1.74 (II 16.19–20 Dr.). The majority reading Παρνασ(σ)ῶ (with a iota subscript added by a second hand in Vi) is an easy minuscule error, but was retained by Mommsen and Turyn, presumably as a locative dative. ἐθελήσαις ταῦτα νόῳ τιθέμεν εὔανδρόν τε χώραν: The simultaneous use of τίθημι here as ‘place in’ (with a locative dative) and ‘make, render’ (with a double accusative) was already recognised by schol. Pyth. 1.74 (II 16.20–2 Dr.) ἐθελήσαις ταῦτα τῷ σῷ νῷ πράττειν καὶ συμπεραίνειν καὶ εὔανδρον ἀποτελεῖν τὴν χώραν. Its nearest parallel is Hes. Op. 18–19 θῆκε δέ μιν (Eris) Κρονίδης … / γαίης τ᾽ ἐν ῥίζῃσι καὶ ἀνδράσι πολλὸν ἀμείνω, quoted by Braswell (1988: on Pyth. 4.18d) among other cases of zeugma that lie ‘not so much in the original language as in that into which they are to be translated’ (for which see also Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.88). Commentators usually compare S. OC 1356–7 τὸν … πατέρα τόνδ᾽ … / κἄθηκας ἄπολιν καὶ στολὰς ταύτας φορεῖν and E. Phoen. 949–51 πικρὸν δ᾽ Ἀδράστῳ νόστον Ἀργείοισί τε / θήσει … / κλεινάς τε Θήβας, but there the applications of τίθημι are much more closely related. ταῦτα νόῳ τιθέμεν: The pure locative dative also appears in Nem. 10.89 οὐ γνώμᾳ διπλόαν θέτο βουλάν, while at Pyth. 3.63–5 (εἰ δὲ …) καί τί οἱ / φίλτρον θυμῷ μελιγάρυες ὕμνοι / ἁμέτεροι τίθεν metre required the addition of ἐν (Pseudo-Moschopoulos). This is the regular form of this idiom, which goes back to Homer: e.g. Il. 17.469–70 Αὐτόμεδον, τίς τοί νυ θεῶν νηκερδέα βουλήν / ἐν στήθεσσιν ἔθηκε …; (LSJ s.v. τίθημι A II 6, LfgrE s.v. τίθημι, τιθέω B I 1b β). εὔανδρόν τε χώραν: a common wish for, or praise of, a land or city: e.g. Nem. 5.9–10 τάν (Aigina) ποτ᾽ εὔανδρόν τε καὶ ναυσικλυτάν  / θέσσαντο (i.e. Peleus and Telamon, praying for the island’s future, as Pindar does for Aitna here), E. Tro. 229 εὔανδρόν τ᾽ ὀλβίζων γᾶν (proleptic, of the river Krathis in Bruttium), Ar. Nub. 300–1, Carm. Pop. fr. 856.1 PMG Σπάρτας εὐάνδρου (listed as Tyrt. fr. 15.1 (Bergk) in LSJ s.v. εὔανδρος). In a similar spirit, at Nem. 1.16–18 Zeus is said to have granted Sicily a population of warlike men and many Olympic victors. Of the latter we know twenty-three between 648 and 468, including Hieron and Theron (Braswell 1992: on Nem. 1.17, Morrison 2012: 118). It may not be coincidence either that E. Tro. 229 (above) is preceded by a very ‘Pindaric’ praise of Sicily: 220–4 καὶ τὰν Αἰτναίαν Ἡφαίστου / … χώραν, / … ἀκούω / καρύσσεσθαι στεφάνοις ἀρετᾶς (cf. Introduction, 33).



41–60. The third and central triad is very carefully contructed, both in itself and within the poem as a whole. At either end it is interlaced with the preceding and following triads: the opening gnomē (41–2a (n.) ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ … ἔφυν) provides the ultimate reason for the prayers to Zeus and especially Apollo in 29–40, whereas the concluding invocation to the Muse (58–60n.) begins a new section which continues over the entire fourth triad. Thematically, we observe an intricate pattern of ring-composition. Pindar’s stated desire to praise Hieron with the skill of an accomplished athlete (42b– 5n.) corresponds to 58–60, where he extends his encomiastic ambition to Hieron’s son Deinomenes. Likewise, the wish for his client’s continued good fortune at 46 has an equivalent in the similarly-phrased prayer of 56–7 (cf. 46–57, 46, 56–7nn.). In the middle of these two ‘concentric circles’, and indeed the entire ode, stands the first encomium proper of Hieron (47–55). Its central status is justified by its content: Hieron’s ability to endure the toils of war and illness, encapsulated in the comparison with Philoctetes at Troy (47–55; cf.  47–50a, 50b–55nn.), advertises the strength of character which lies behind all his achievements. It is thus unsurprising that at the end of the triad Pindar returns to Hieron’s Pythian victory (58–9) and to the foundation of Aitna in the subsequent stanza (61–6, 67–70nn.), reversing the order in which these events had first been mentioned (30b–3a). When he finally breaks the ring structure, it is to fill the praise of Hieron’s military efforts with details of the battles he and his brothers fought (72–80n.). 41–2a. ‘For all resources for human achievement come from the gods, and men are born wise, strong of hand or eloquent.’ Pindar often points to the gods as the source of human excellence, intellectual and physical. Here the sentiment explains the invocations to Zeus and Apollo in the second triad (41–60n.; cf. schol. Pyth. 1.74 (II 16.18–17.3 Dr.)), while at the same time it looks forward to what follows: Pindar’s intention to praise Hieron in 42b–5 (n.) and the eulogy itself where references to the will of the gods are made in 48 θεῶν παλάμαις and 55 μοιρίδιον + 56–7 (n.) (Burton 1962: 100, Kirkwood 1982: on 41, Cingano 1995: 15, Morgan 2015: 326). The nearest parallels for the first, explanatory, function are Ol. 14.5–7 σὺν γὰρ ὑμῖν τά τερπνὰ καί / τὰ γλυκέ᾽ ἄνεται πάντα βροτοῖς, / εἰ σοφός, εἰ καλός, εἴ τις ἀγλαὸς ἀνήρ (following an invocation to the Charites; cf. 1–12n.) and Isth. 3.4–5 Ζεῦ, μεγάλαι δ᾽ ἀρεταὶ θνατοῖς ἕπονται / ἐκ σέθεν (with causal δέ). Note also Ol. 9.28–9 ἀγαθοὶ δὲ καὶ σοφοὶ κατὰ δαίμον᾽ ἄνδρες / ἐγένοντ᾽ (illustrated by Heracles’ prowess: 29b–30a), 11.10 ἐκ θεοῦ δ᾽ ἀνὴρ σοφαῖς ἀνθεῖ πραπίδεσσιν ὁμοίως and Pi. fr.  141 θεὸς ὁ πάντα τεύχων βροτοῖς  / καὶ χάριν ἀοιδᾷ φυτεύει.



The second, anticipatory, function implies a contrast between a universal maxim and Pindar’s role as a praise poet; similarly Bacch. fr. 20C.19–20 [τέχν]αι γε μέν εἰσ̣[ι]ν ἅπα̣[σαι]  / [μυρία]ι· σὺν θεῷ δὲ θ[α]ρ̣σή[σας ⏑  – –] (πιφαύσκω suppl. Maas, θροήσω Schadewaldt) … (Introduction, 21), Ol. 1.99–103 τὸ δ᾽ αἰεὶ παράμερον ἐσλόν / ὕπατον ἔρχεται παντὶ βροτῶν. ἐμὲ δὲ στεφανῶσαι / κεῖνον ἱππίῳ νόμῳ  / Αἰοληΐδι μολπᾷ  / χρή (see Gerber 1982: on 100–103) and Nem. 6.53–61. Both functions are again combined in Nem. 1.8–12 ἀρχαὶ δὲ βέβληνται θεῶν / κείνου σὺν ἀνδρὸς δαιμονίαις ἀρεταῖς. / ἔστι δ᾽ ἐν εὐτυχίᾳ / πανδοξίας ἄκρον· μεγάλων δ᾽ ἀέθλων / Μοῖσα μεμνᾶσθαι φιλεῖ, where the general statement is replaced with a personal reference to Chromios’ excellence (‘The beginnings have been laid by the gods with that man’s divine abilities …’). ἐκ θεῶν: Cf. Ol. 11.10 ἐκ θεοῦ and Isth. 3.4–5 Ζεῦ … / ἐκ σέθεν (above). μαχαναὶ … βροτέαις ἀρεταῖς: ‘means, resources …’, as in Pyth. 3.62 τὰν δ᾽ ἔμπρακτον ἄντλει μαχανάν, 109 κατ᾽ ἐμὰν … μαχανάν, 8.34 (‘resourcefulness’, Pyth. 8.75, Nem. 7.22). The dative of purpose here is equivalent to the object genitive at e.g. A. Sept. 209 (ὁ ναύτης) … ηὗρε μηχανὴν σωτηρίας (LSJ s.v. μηχανή II 1 c). καὶ … καὶ … τ᾽: Kirkwood (1982: on 41–2) rightly points out that the first καί ‘is a connective rather than correlative with the following καί and τε’. The enumeration itself is a case of καί and τε acting on an equal level (cf. Slater s.v. καί A 3 b, GP 500). It makes no sense to take χερσὶ βιαταί and περίγλωσσοι as more closely linked by τε and oppose them to σοφοί, as Race translates: ‘and men are born wise, or strong of hand and eloquent’ (cf. Fennell 1893: on 42). As the three predicates are strictly alternatives, the use of καὶ … τ᾽ here comes close to that of ἤ … ἤ (GP 292). σοφοὶ καὶ χερσὶ βιαταὶ περίγλωσσοί τ᾽: If σοφός is understood as denoting general ‘wisdom’, rather than specifically poetic skill (below), we have here the three qualities that from Homer on were considered to make the ‘ideal man’: good counsel, physical valour and the ability to speak publicly (often coupled with, or standing in for, the first). But Pindar takes them separately (see on καὶ … καὶ … τ᾽, above), acknowledging that people differ in their talents (cf. Nem. 1.25–8), just as in Homer it is recognised that supreme intellectual and martial powers do not usually combine in one person, at least not at the same age: e.g. Il. 4.318–25, 13.726–34, Od. 8.167–77 (Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 105–8, 105, 106–7a, 107b–8, with further literature). In passages of praise, however, Pindar regularly ascribes to heroes and honorands excellence in both λόγος and ἔργον: Pyth. 5.109–20, Nem. 8.7–8, 9.37–9, Isth. 5.59–61, fr. 133.3–5. See Cingano 1995: on 42 (p. 342) and Kemper 1960: 34–6, who stresses Pindar’s adherence to the old aristocratic values.



σοφοί: ‘wise, expert’ (Slater s.v. a, LSJ s.v. I 1–2), not ‘skilled in poetry and music’ (cf. 12b n. (ἀμφὶ … σοφίᾳ)). This improves the balance of the tricolon, since περίγλωσσος can be seen as complementing σοφός (eloquence coupled with good counsel; cf. above) rather than standing in opposition to it (i.e. rhetoricians vs poets). Yet in context the two words together also suggest poetic activity (see on περίγλωσσος below), in the same way as at Ol. 9.28–9 and 14.5–7 (above) generic σοφός acquires a touch of this sense by the preceding mention of the Charites. χερσὶ βιαταί: Cf. Nem. 8.8 χειρὶ καὶ βουλαῖς ἄριστος and 9.39 χερσὶ καὶ ψυχᾷ δυνατοί, although the datives there are perhaps not instrumental, but locative. For βιατάς, especially in Pindar, see 10b–12a n. (βιατὰς Ἄρης). περίγλωσσοι: ‘(very) ready of tongue, eloquent’, without the negative connotation of the simplex γλωσσός, which is attested by Herodian and glossed with λάλος, ‘loquacious, babbling’ (GG III.1 208.17–18 Lentz = 210.1–2 Roussou; cf. GG III.2 855.8 Lentz). The compound is a hapax, but adjectives with the intensifying prefix περι- (cf. Latin per-) could be formed at any time. So e.g. περικλυτός (Il. 1.607 and often in epic) and περικλειτός (first in Bacchylides: 5.120, 9.8, 10.19, 11.81), περισθενής (first Nem. 3.16, Pi. fr.  131b.1; though cf. Od.  22.368 περισθενέων) and the equally unique περίβαρυς (A. Eum. 161, in lyrics). περίγλωσσος mainly refers to public speaking,18 but with σοφός and a prayer to Apollo preceding, one can hardly fail to think of poets too (cf. Cingano 1995: on 42 (p. 342)). The juxtaposition of physical ability and poetic proficiency is developed in the following sentence where Pindar likens his art to athletic endeavours (42b–5n.). ἔφυν: gnomic aorist, like ἐγένοντ᾽ in Ol. 9.29 (quoted at the beginning of this note). 42b–5. ‘But yearning to praise that man, I hope that I will not, as it were, throw the bronze-cheeked javelin I brandish in my hand off the field, but hurl it far and surpass my competitors.’ In advertising his poetic prowess Pindar, unlike Bacchylides, regularly compares himself to a successful athlete, often complimenting his honorand by matching (one of) his discipline(s). So besides Nem. 4.36–43, 93–6 (wres-

18 Pythian 1 is probably slightly too early to see here an allusion to the Sicilian ‘fathers of rhetoric’, Korax and Teisias. Their career is likely to have started only when democracy was reintroduced after the fall of the Deinomenids (Cic. Brut. 46 = Arist. fr. 137 Rose). Cf. Schroeder 1922: on 42.



tling, for a wrestler) and 8.19–21 (running, for a diaulos winner),19 there are two passages from odes to pentathletes, where he portrays his craft as javelin-throwing: Ol. 13.93–5 ἐμὲ δ᾽ εὐθὺν ἀκόντων / ἱέντα ῥόμβον παρὰ σκοπὸν οὐ χρή / τὰ πολλὰ βέλεα καρτύνειν χεροῖν (‘But I, in casting whirling javelins on their straight path, must not hurl those many shafts from my hands beside the mark’), Nem. 7.70–3 ἀπομνύω / μὴ τέρμα προβαὶς ἄκονθ᾽ ὥτε χαλκοπάραον ὄρσαι / θοὰν γλῶσσαν, ὃς ἐξέπεμψεν παλαισμάτων / αὐχένα καὶ σθένος ἀδίαντον, αἴθωνι πρὶν ἁλίῳ γυῖον ἐμπεσεῖν (‘… I swear that I have not stepped up to the line and sent my tongue speeding like a bronze-cheeked javelin, which releases the strong neck from wrestling without sweat, before the body falls under the blazing sun’).20 Owing, presumably, to the similarity of this image to the traditional meta­phor of poesy as archery (e.g. Ol. 2.83–90, Nem. 6.26–8; cf. West 2007: 44–5), the javelin also appears in epinicians for winners in other contests. In addition to our lines, note Nem. 9.54–5 (εὔχομαι …) ὑπὲρ πολλῶν τε τιμαλφεῖν λόγος / νίκαν, ἀκοντίζων σκοποῖ᾽ ἄγχιστα Μοισᾶν (Chromios of Aitna, chariot race) and, mixing discus and javelin, Isth. 2.35–7 μακρὰ δισκήσαις ἀκοντίσσαιμι τοσοῦθ᾽, ὅσον ὀργάν / Ξεινοκράτης ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων γλυκεῖαν / ἔσχεν (Xenokrates of Akragas, chariot race). According to Kirichenko (2016, especially 10–11), the sporting metaphors serve the additional purpose of ‘visualising’ the athletic contest and/or the quasi-heroic effort of the victor for the audience at home. Lefkowitz 1984 (~ 1991: 161–8) observes that ‘these statements, like all references to poetry or poet in hymns or victory odes, mark a transition from one topic to another’ (or, in the case of Nem. 4.93–6 and 9.54–5, the end of the poem). Often, as here, praise of the client, his family and/or his city follows (46–80).

19 Cf. also Ol. 6.22–7, where Hagesias’ winning mules are yoked to the ‘chariot of song’ (cf. West 2007: 41–3). At Nem. 5.19–21 (for a pancratiast) Pindar, in a form of praeteritio, wishes to perform a ‘long-jump’ to the most important part of his myth (Lefkowitz 1984: 7–8 = 1991: 164). 20 This passage is very hard to understand. But Race seems to be on the right track in referring τέρμα προβαίς to the athlete’s action of stepping (or rather running) up to the starting-line, from which he would throw the javelin so far that it sealed his victory in the pentathlon and exempted him from wrestling in great heat. By denying himself such a feat (and going through the whole metaphorical pentathlon), Pindar claims that he ‘will spare no effort in praising the victor’ (Race 1997: II 79 n. 2), a clever twist on the usual rhetoric of these ‘agonistic’ comparisons. Segal (1968) rightly rejects the common notion that τέρμα προβαίς signifies a ‘foul’ by overstepping the line, a sense προβαίνω cannot bear. But his own suggestion (following Hermann 1823: 12–14 = 1827–77: III 32–5) that τέρμα denotes the end-point of the throw marked by a peg in the ground (cf. Od. 8.193, below) creates other complications. It would have to be the widest mark set by a rival, and Pindar would be saying that he did not make a (weak) throw that disqualified him from the wrestling (and so the pentathlon as a whole). Such an entirely negative way of expressing his poetic skill in terms of athletics has no parallel.



The interpretation of this passage has been riddled with confusion. The ancient commentators already contradict each other as to whether distance or accuracy in hitting a target was the point of the javelin-throwing here (scholl. Pyth. 1.82 (II 17.5 Dr.) ἐλπίζω παρὰ σκοπὸν μὴ τὸν ὕμνον ῥίψειν, 1.86 (II 17.10– 11 Dr.) ἐλπίζω μακρῶς καὶ δυνατῶς ἀκοντίσας παρελθεῖν καὶ νικῆσαι τοὺς ὑπεναντίους), and the debate has lasted among modern scholars (see Ellsworth 1973: 293–4). But Pindar clearly speaks of hurling his javelin as far as possible in 45, as well as in Nem. 7.70–3 and Isth. 2.35–7 (above). In the historical pent­ athlon the winner in the javelin-contest was likewise ‘determined by the length of the throw, as we see from images showing athletes using a marker (semeion), just as they did in the diskos throw’ (Miller 2004: 71–2, with fig. 142; cf. already Il. 23.826–94, Od. 8.186–98 (discus), Od. 8.229 (javelin) and later Luc. Anach. 27 περὶ ἀκοντίου βολῆς ἐς μῆκος ἁμίλλωνται). The root of the problem will have been Pindar’s mention of javelin-throws at a target in Ol. 10.71, 13.93–5 and Nem. 9.54–5, which caused the scholiast on Pyth. 1.82 (= 43) to ‘translate’ the ambiguous ἀγῶνος  … ἔξω (44) as παρὰ σκοπόν rather than another form of failed attempt (43b–5n.). However, Ol. 10.71 describes the contest (envisaged differently from Od. 8.229) at the mythical first Olympics founded by Heracles, while Ol. 13.93–5 and Nem. 9.54–5 (quoted above) may be mixed metaphors or refer to military exercise or practice in the gymnasium (cf. Miller 2004: 72–3, 139). Pindar, therefore, expresses his confidence as a ‘poetic athlete’ cautiously, yet forcefully, in both negative and positive terms. He hopes not to send his song astray (ἐξω … ἀγῶνος, 43b–5n.), and so to spoil its encomiastic purpose, but to surpass all his rivals (ἀντίους, 43b–5n.) in bestowing praise on Hieron. 42b–3a. ἄνδρα δ᾽ ἐγὼ κεῖνον: Cingano (1995: on 42) notes how this juxtaposition of subject and object to αἰνῆσαι (μενοινῶν) encapsulates the relationship between the epinician poet and his client. The closest parallels are Pyth. 4.67 ἀπὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸν (= Arkesilaos) ἐγὼ Μοίσαισι δώσω and Isth. 1.14 ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ Ἡροδότῳ τεύχων  … γέρας. These further resemble our passage, as well as Ol.  13.93–5 (42b–5n.), in that the first-person pronoun, set off by an adversative particle, signals the beginning of a new section, in which Pindar calls himself back to his primary task of praising his honorand (Thummer 1968–9: I 125–7; cf. Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.67d). The ‘third-person’ deictic pronoun κεῖνον here expresses Hieron’s status and fame (‘that great man over there’); cf. 61 (61–2a n.) πόλιν κείναν. αἰνῆσαι is echoed by 58 κελαδῆσαι, with regard to Hieron’s son Deinomenes. μενοινῶν: ‘desire eagerly, yearn’ (< μένος; cf. μενεαίνω). The verb is rare outside epic. It also occurs in Ol.  1.58 τὸν (sc. λίθον) αἰεὶ μενοινῶν κεφαλᾶς



βαλεῖν (of Tantalus) and, with an accusative object, Nem. 11.45 ἔργα … πολλὰ μενοινῶντες, but nowhere else in extant lyric poetry. In elegy note Thgn. 461, in iambus perhaps Archil. fr. 67.10 IEG2 ]ν †μενοινιω[ (μενοινέων Peek) and in drama A. fr. dub. 486 TrGF, S. Ai. 341, E. Cyc. 448 and Ar. Vesp. 1080 (paratragic). 43b–5. ἔλπομαι: ‘hope’ (LSJ s.v. ἔλπω II 1), as in Ol. 1.108–10 εἰ δὲ μὴ τάχυ λίποι, / ἔτι γλυκυτέραν κεν ἔλπομαι / σὺν ἅρματι θοῷ κλεΐξειν (v.l. κλεΐζειν), 13.104, Pyth. 10.55–9 and Nem. 6.26–8 ἔλπομαι / μέγα εἰπὼν σκοποῦ ἄντα τυχεῖν / ὥτ᾽ ἀπὸ τόξου ἱείς. There ἔλπομαι has an aorist infinitive, as here, since the verb itself refers to the future (KG I 195–7, SD 296; cf. 33b–5a n. (ἐοικότα … τυχεῖν)), and the phrase is also followed by a circumstantial present participle (ἱείς ~ δονέων). Slater (s.v. ἔλπομαι) is wrong only to give the meanings ‘expect, imagine’. The cognate noun ἐλπίδας, ‘(audience) expectations’, occupies the same metrical position in the fifth triad (Cingano 1995: on 43, 82–4). For a possible explanation of this as well as the phonetic similarity between 43 αἰνῆσαι and 83 αἰανής (Schroeder 1922: on 83) see 82b–4 n. (ταχείας ἐλπίδας). χαλκοπάραον ἄκονθ᾽: Cf. Nem. 7.71 ἄκονθ᾽ … χαλκοπάραον (42b–5n.). In both places χαλκοπάραον (‘bronze-cheeked’) describes the bronze point of the athletic javelin (for which see Miller 2004: 69 with fig. 132), but as this stands metaphorically for the tongue, or the song of praise coming from it, there may also be an allusion to the poet’s actual cheeks. A similar concept seems to lie behind Pindar’s ‘advice’ to Hieron in 86b (n.) ἀψευδεῖ δὲ πρὸς ἄκμονι χάλκευε γλῶσσαν. χαλκοπάραος is a borrowing from Homer, where in a variable verse-end formula it refers to the cheek-pieces of a helmet (Il.  12.183, 17.294, 20.397, Od. 24.523 κυνέης / κόρυθος διὰ χαλκοπαρή(ι)ου). As to its form, ‘[i]t is almost impossible to decide between -η- and -ῃ(ηι)-; either παρειαί (< *παρᾱϝαί), ‘cheeks’, or παρήϊον, ‘cheekpiece’ (Myc. pa-ra-wa-jo / parāwaiō / dual) could have served as the final element of the compound’ (Heubeck 1992: on Od. 24.523). In Pindar -πάραος is universal where the Doric vocalism is preserved (cf. Pyth. 12.16 εὐπαράου … Μεδοίσας), and although it is unlikely that he was aware of its etymological appropriateness for ‘cheeks’, there seems little reason to write χαλκοπάρᾳον with Hermann (1817: 383–4) and εὐπαρᾴου with Bergk (1853: 149); cf. Forssman 1966: 152–3. The same question applies to Carm. Pop. 955.4 PMG κρέμβαλα χαλκοπάρα(ι)α (-α- cod. Ath. 636d: -αι- Schweighäuser) and Bacch. 20.4 καλλιπά[ρᾱ(ι)ον] (Blass, Platt). ὡσείτ᾽ (‘as it were’) qualifies as a metaphor not only ἀγῶνος … ἔξω (like ὥτε in Nem. 6.28 ὥτ᾽ ἀπὸ τόξου ἱείς and 7.71 ἄκονθ᾽ ὥτε χαλκοπάραον), but the entire infinitive clause dependent on ἔλπομαι (cf. schol. Pyth. 1.84 (II 17.8–9 Dr.) τὸ ὑπερβατόν· μὴ ὥσπερ χαλκοπάραον ἄκοντα παλάμᾳ δονέων ἀγῶνος ἔξω



βαλεῖν). This use of ὡσείτε (= ὡς εἴ τε), in which the abbreviated conditional protasis cannot be supplemented with a verb from the context, appears to be unique (LSJ s.v. ὡσεί II 2). Contrast the only other Pindaric, and indeed lyric, occurrence at Pyth. 4.112–13 κᾶδος ὡσείτε φθιμένου δνοφερόν / … θηκάμενοι (i.e. ὡσείτε φθιμένου κᾶδος ἔθεντο). ἀγῶνος … ἔξω: ‘off the field’, i.e. outside the (lateral) limits of the space designated for javelin- or discus-throwing, which (as in modern competitions) would result in an invalid attempt (Cingano 1995: on 44–5, where add Gildersleeve, Farnell and Kirkwood to the list of earlier literature). This is the easiest explanation of the phrase, which the context suggests to be a metaphor for bestowing ill-fitting, and thus abortive, praise (42b–5n.). Significantly, perhaps, Lucian used ἔξω τοῦ ἀγῶνος in the sense ‘out of place, irrelevant’ in a dialogue about ancient athletics (Anach. 21; cf. 19 ἐξαγώνια). For Ellsworth (1973: 293–4) any reference to the side-boundaries of the throwing-field was ‘entirely a matter of conjecture’, but common sense alone dictates their presence. He compared ἀγῶνος … ἔξω to Il. 23.847 παντὸς ἀγῶνος ὑπέρβαλε of Polypoites’ winning discus-throw at the funeral games of Patroclus, where he took ἀγῶνος as the area occupied by the spectators (cf. Od. 8.190–2). But in Pythian 1 such a sense of ἀγῶνος … ἔξω (~ ‘beyond the stadium’) would sit ill with 45 μακρὰ δὲ ῥίψαις ἀμεύσασθ᾽ ἀντίους, unless it again signified a flaw equivalent to excessive praise, at which point the Homeric analogy would break down. For ἀγών, ‘place of contest’, cf. e.g. Il. 23.847 (above), Od. 8.380, Pyth. 9.114 (–14a) ἔστασεν γὰρ ἅπαντα χορόν  / ἐν τέρμασιν αὐτίκ᾽ ἀγῶνος, Thuc. 5.50.4 (LSJ s.v. I 2).21 This use is derived either from the ‘assembly met to see games’ (LSJ s.v. I 1) or the ‘assembly of contestants’ (LfgrE s.v. B 2). βαλεῖν: In view of ἀμεύσασθ᾽ (below), this must be an aorist rather than a future infinitive. For the construction see on ἔλπομαι, above. παλάμᾳ δονέων refers to the poising of the javelin immediately before the throw. The verb δονέω, literally ‘shake’ (LSJ s.v. I 1) or ‘make  … quiver’ (Fennell 1893: on 44), captures this moment of tension, whether or not Pindar here thought of the usual technique in the pentathlon of hurling the javelin by means of a leather thong (ἀγκύλη). This was wrapped around the shaft so as to form a loop for the index- and middle-finger and increased the length of the throw by providing further leverage and creating a ‘rifling effect’ as it unwound

21 Their explanation of ἔξω ἀγῶνος as ‘out of the lists or course, i.e. beside the mark’ repeats the error of schol. Pyth. 1.82 (II 17.5 Dr.) that the javelin-throwing contest Pindar envisaged here was about hitting a mark (cf. 42b–5n.).



upon release (cf. Ol. 13.93–4 εὐθὺν ἀκόντων / … ῥόμβον, ‘the straight whirl of the javelins’; 42b–5n.). Classical vase-paintings show athletes, before or during the run-up, balancing the ‘primed’ javelin by holding its tip with the fingers of their left hand (Miller 2004: 69–71 with figs. 135–41). μακρὰ δὲ ῥίψαις: similarly Isth. 2.35 μακρὰ δισκήσαις (42b–5n.); also Pyth. 4.247 μακρά … νεῖσθαι and e.g. Il. 3.22 μακρὰ βιβάντα. Callierges wrote ῥίψαις for ῥίψας (codd.). On the Aeolic form of the aorist participle in Pindar, and its distribution in the papyri and manuscripts, see 6b–7a n. This is one of the very few instances where -αις (-αισα) it is not transmitted at all. ἀμεύσασθ᾽: Doric for ἀμείψασθ(αι); cf. Hsch. α 3623 Latte–Cunningham ἀμεύσασθαι· ἀμείβεσθαι. διελθεῖν, περαιώσασθαι, Eust. Prooem. Pind. 21 (III 293.19, 23–7 Dr.  = 16.18–19, 17.1–5 Kambylis), GDI 4964.1 (Gortyn) ἀμεϝύσασθαι. Pindar was fond of this dialectal variant of the stem: Pyth. 11.38 κατ᾽ ἀμευσίπορον τρίοδον, Nem. 11.13 παραμεύσεται, frr. 23 ἀμεύσεσθαι Νάξιον Τείσανδρον (Eust. (above): ἀμεύσασθαι Bergk; cf. Introduction, 63 with n. 199), 24 ἀμευσιεπῆ φροντίδα (Eust. (above); cf. Hsch. α 3624 Latte–Cunningham). Its only other possible attestation in early Greek lyric is Alcm. 3 fr. 11.4 PMGF ] τοναμευσα[. The aorist infinitive ἀμεύσασθ᾽ is solidly attested in MSS and presupposed by schol. Pyth. 1.86 (II 17.10–11 Dr.) ἐλπίζω μακρῶς καὶ δυνατῶς ἀκοντίσας παρελθεῖν καὶ νικῆσαι τοὺς ὑπεναντίους (Boeckh 1811: I.2 437). However, several codices have ἀμεύσεσθ᾽, either in the main text or between the lines. As the future would be regular with ἔλπομαι (cf. above), it is to be considered lectio facilior. ἀντίους: Pindar may be hinting at Simonides and Bacchylides here, who probably both wrote for Hieron (on Simonides see Introduction, 24–5). But Pindar often, directly or indirectly, refers to competitors, suggesting a lively contemporary culture of epinician (e.g. Ol. 13.44–6, Pyth. 4.248, Nem. 9.54–5; Spelman 2018: 236–43). See also 92b–4a n. on the λόγιοι καὶ ἀοιδοί. This is the only example of substantival ἄντιος (‘opponent, competitor, rival’) in archaic and classical Greek (LSJ s.v. I 2). Somewhat surprisingly, only C(F) slipped into the ordinary ἐναντίους, which does not scan. 46–57. Pindar’s central eulogy of Hieron (cf. 41–60n.) begins with high hopes for his future, which are expressed both positively, through lasting happiness and prosperity, and negatively, through the absence of further toil and pain (46n.). These themes are elaborated on, in reverse order, in 47–50a (n.) and collectively resumed in the final prayer of 56–7 (n.), where ‘god’ replaces semi-divine ‘time’ (46n.) as the force implored. The ring-composition frames the Philoctetes-myth



(50b–7n.), which praises Hieron’s endurance in war, despite his crippling illness, by relating him to the hero who was instrumental in the sack of Troy, although he still suffered from the festering wound that had retained him on the island of Lemnos for the preceding ten years. 46. ‘May all time keep on a straight path, even as now, his happiness and the gift of riches, and grant him forgetfulness of his troubles.’ The closest parallels, in expression as well as content, for Pindar’s wish here are Ol.  2.18–22 λάθα δὲ πότμῳ σὺν εὐδαίμονι γένοιτ᾽ ἄν.  / ἐσλῶν γὰρ ὑπὸ χαρμάτων πῆμα θνᾷσκει  / παλίγκοτον δαμασθέν,  / ὅταν θεοῦ Μοῖρα πέμπῃ / ἀνεκὰς ὄλβον ὑψηλόν (‘But with a fortunate destiny forgetfulness may result, for under the force of noble joys the pain dies and its malignancy is suppressed, whenever divine Fate sends happiness towering upwards’) and Nem. 1.69–72 αὐτὸν μὰν ἐν εἰρήνᾳ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον σχερῷ / ἡσυχίαν καμάτων μεγάλων ποινὰν λαχόντ᾽ ἐξαίρετον / ὀλβίοις ἐν δώμασι … / … σεμνὸν αἰνήσειν νόμον (‘… but that he himself in continual peace for all time would be allotted tranquillity as the choicest recompense for his great labours in a blissful home and  … would praise his (Zeus’) hallowed rule’). The former is addressed to Theron of Akragas, the latter is Teiresias’ prediction for Heracles, to whom the honorand, Chromios of Aitna, is implicitly compared (cf. 1–12n.). Similarly, in Nem. 9.42–7 Chromios can look forward to a life of peace and prosperous tranquillity after his many efforts in war, while at Ol. 1.97–9 success in the games is said to have the same effect for Hieron (cf. Gildersleeve 1890: on 46). The scholia see in Hieron’s ‘troubles’ (καμάτων) a reference to his illness, which they define as λιθουρία (kidney- or bladder-stones), apparently after Aristotle (scholl. Pyth. 1.87, 89a, b (II 17.14–15, 17.24–18.5 Dr.), Arist. frr. 486, 587 Rose; cf. scholl. Pyth. 3 inscr. a, 158b (II 62.13–16, 85.8–9 Dr.), Plut. De Pyth. Or. 403c). Whatever the nature of the disease (schol. Pyth. 3.117 (II 78.1–3 Dr.) also offers ‘fever’ or gout), the Philoctetes-myth shows, retrospectively at least, that it was indeed part of the difficulties alluded to. ὁ πᾶς χρόνος: For the sense ‘all time (to come)’ cf. Ol.  6.56–7 τὸ καὶ κατεφάμιξεν καλεῖσθαί νιν χρόνῳ σύμπαντι μάτηρ / τοῦτ᾽ ὄνυμ᾽ ἀθάνατον, Nem. 1.69–72 (above), A. Eum. 898 καί μοι πρὸ παντὸς ἐγγύην θήσῃ χρόνου; (~ 484). As the subject of the wish εἰ γὰρ … εὐθύνοι … παράσχοι, where both verbs carry associations of prayer (below), χρόνος here acquires something of the divine power it is accorded elsewhere: e.g. Ol. 2.17, 10.53–5, Pi. frr. 33, 159, Bacch. 7.1, E. Suppl. 786–8. This notion is balanced and reinforced by 56–7 (n.) οὕτω δ᾽ †Ἱέρωνι θεὸς ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι† / τὸν προσέρποντα χρόνον, where ‘god’ and ‘time’ are separated.



ὄλβον … καὶ κτεάνων δόσιν: The pairing expresses the epitome of human prosperity, with ὄλβος referring to general happiness, which can result from athletic or martial success (Cingano 1995: on 46), and κτεάνων δόσιν more specifically to material wealth (cf. 50 πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον). Both are regu­ larly attributed to Hieron, either separately or together: Ol. 1.10–11 ἐς ἀφνεὰν ἱκομένους  / μάκαιραν Ἱέρωνος ἑστίαν, Pyth. 2.56–61, 3.84–5, Bacch. 3.7–14 + 92–4, 5.50–3 ὄλβιος ᾧτινι θεός / μοῖράν τε καλῶν ἔπορεν / σύν τ᾽ ἐπιζήλῳ τύχᾳ / ἀφνεὸν βιοτὰν διάγειν. οὕτω: The required meaning ‘(even) as now’ (Slater s.v. a γ) does not seem to be paralleled, but it can easily be inferred from the context. εὐθύνοι ‘takes up the nautical metaphor of the wind in the gnōmē of [33–4]’ (Cingano 1995: on 46: ‘riprende la metafora nautica del vento nella gnome del v. 33 sg.’). The best parallels come from divine invocations: Ol.  13.28 (Ζεῦ πάτερ …) Ξενοφῶντος εὔθυνε δαίμονος οὖρον, Nem. 6.28a/b–9, Bacch. 12.1–3. Note further Nem. 2.7–8 εὐθυπομπός / αἰών. καμάτων ἐπίλασιν: On Hieron’s illness see above. But καμάτων also suggests the efforts incurred in the games (e.g. Pyth. 5.47, Isth. 8.1) and here especially the toils of war (cf. 78, 80, Pyth. 2.19, Nem. 1.69–72 (above); scholl. Pyth. 1.87, 91 (II 17.16–23, 18.6–8 Dr.)). παράσχοι: Like εὐθύνοι (above), this evokes the language of prayer: Ol.  6.101–2 θεός  / τῶνδε κείνων τε κλυτὰν αἶσαν παρέχοι φιλέων, E. Hipp. 1111–12 εἴθε μοι εὐξαμένᾳ θεόθεν τάδε μοῖρα / παράσχοι. A deity is again the subject at Pyth. 8.76 τὰ δ’ οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀνδράσι κεῖται· δαίμων δὲ παρίσχει. 47–50a. ‘Surely time would remind him in what battles in the course of wars he endured with steadfast soul, when by divine contrivance they won such honour as none of the Greeks reaps as a lordly crown of wealth.’ The wish that Hieron may forget his troubles (46) is complemented by a rather more confident statement (note that κεν marks ἀμνάσειεν as a potential rather than a voluntative optative) about the power of time also to remind him of his past achievements. Whether martial or athletic, these can themselves act as an antidote to toil, especially if they are celebrated in song: cf. Ol. 2.18–22 (quoted in 46n.), 11.4–5, Nem. 4.1–8, 8.49–50, 10.24 (Morgan 2015: 327). This idea, though not put into words here, is nonetheless present through the very performance of the ode. In referring to Hieron’s exploits, Pindar moves from the general (οἵαις ἐν πολέμοισι μάχαις, 47–8a n.) to the more specific, but without giving details of any particular battle. The turning-point is the switch from the third person singular (παρέμειν᾽) to the third person plural (εὑρίσκοντο … τιμάν), which is usually taken to include Hieron’s brothers, notably Gelon, and thus to allude



to the battle of Himera (e.g. Schroeder 1922: on 48, Carey 1978: 21, 25, Cingano 1995: on 48–50, Morgan 2015: 326–7; cf. 48b–50a).22 By naming Gelon and the other allies neither here nor in 79–80, where the victory at Himera is collectively attributed to the ‘sons of Deinomenes’ (παίδεσσιν … Δεινομένεος), Pindar shifts the main credit for the success to Hieron while avoiding a claim of sole responsibility that would have rung untrue to the original audience. But as Cummins (2010: 17 n. 47) observes, he may have anticipated the ode to be ‘re­performed or read years later and/or in other parts of Greece’, in which case Hieron might stand out even further, as the only one presumed to have been involved. Morgan (2015: 329–30; cf. 137, 143) compares the lavish appreciation of Pausanias at Plataea in Hdt. 9.64.1 καὶ νίκην ἀναιρέεται καλλίστην ἁπασέων τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν Παυσανίης and that of Themistocles at Salamis in Plut. Them. 15.2. If these passages reflect contemporary attitudes, Pindar may be seen as entering Hieron into the pan-Hellenic competition for the most important defeat of barbarian forces. Gelon (and Theron) did not live to contest the claim (Morrison 2007: 102). Accordingly, Pindar’s praise of Hieron’s martial prowess and the status and wealth he and his family gained from it takes the form of the ‘superlative vaunt’ (Introduction, 21). Of Hieron cf. especially Pyth. 2.58–61 εἰ δέ τις / ἤδη κτεάτεσσί τε καὶ περὶ τιμᾷ λέγει / ἕτερόν τιν᾽ ἀν᾽ Ἑλλάδα τῶν πάροιθε γενέσθαι ὑπέρτερον, / χαύνᾳ πραπίδι παλαιμονεῖ κενεά (‘If anyone at this time claims that in point of wealth and honour any other man in Hellas from the past is your superior, with an empty mind he wrestles in vain’) and Bacch. 3.11–14 ὃς παρὰ Ζηνὸς λαχὼν / πλείσταρχον Ἑλλάνων γέρας / οἶδε πυργωθέντα πλοῦτον μὴ μελαμ- / φαρέϊ κρύπτειν σκότῳ (‘… who received from Zeus the privilege of ruling over the greatest number of Greeks and knows how not to hide his towering wealth in black-cloaked darkness’), where, as here, divine favour is emphasised. In addition to power and riches (cf. also 46n.), Hieron is celebrated for his hospitality and good taste (Ol. 1.103–5), his piety (Bacch. 3.63–6) and benevolence (Bacch. fr.  20C.21–4), while Bacch. 4.16–18 asserts the properly epinician quality of athletic success. See Cummins 2010: 17 with n. 48, Morgan 2015: 413–14 and, in general, Young 1968: 52 n. 2.

22 Hieron and Gelon are already joined in scholl. Pyth. 1.87 and 94 (II 17.16–21, 18.9–12 Dr.), but their account of internal power-struggles is unclear and seems irrelevant here. Morrison (2007: 101–2) suggests that Pindar and/or his audience may also have though of Theron of Akragas, ‘who joined with Gelon to fight at Himera, and was related to Hieron by marriage’ (cf. Nicholson 2016: 250).



47–8a. ἦ κεν ἀμνάσειεν: sc. ὁ πᾶς χρόνος (46). By retaining ‘time’ as the subject, Pindar continues to assert its power over human affairs, including those of tyrants (cf. 46n.). The paradoxical idea that it causes memory (of past achievements) as well as forgetfulness (of past miseries) is underlined by the chiastic juxtaposition of ἦ κεν ἀμνάσειεν and καμάτων ἐπίλασιν παράσχοι across the boundary between strophe and antistrophe (cf. Morgan 2015: 327). ἦ: strongly affirmative (‘There is no denying  …’) and mainly restricted to poetry (Wakker 1997: 209–10, 218–23, 229–30, updating GP 279–80). In lyric cf. e.g. Ol.  1.28 ἦ θαύματα πολλά, Pyth. 9.22–3, Nem. 8.24–5, Bacch. 5.9–14, 9.36–9. ἀμνάσειεν: Cf. Pyth. 4.53–4 τὸν … / Φοῖβος ἀμνάσει (‘will admonish’). In both places the apocope (for ἀναμν-) confused scribes. Here the codices transmit ἀνμνάσειεν (EÅ) or ἂν μνάσειεν (cett. (-οιεν Ị), lΣ). Schmid (1616: II 24, 47) had already written ἀμμνάσειεν, which Boeckh (1811: I.1 67, I.2 437) amended to ἀμνάσειεν. To judge by Sapph. fr.  94.10 Voigt ὄμναισαι and Theoc. 29.26 ὀμνάσθην, ‘the gemination [of μ] is probably a secondary development in the MS tradition rather than a reflection of Pindar’s orthography’ (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.54b). οἵαις ἐν πολέμοισι μάχαις: The word order suggests that οἵαις … μάχαις go together as a locative dative, and ἐν πολέμοισι qualifies μάχαις, indicating the ‘outward circumstances’ (LSJ s.v. ἐν A II 1). The two plural nouns have exercised many critics. Of the conjectures listed by Gerber (1976: 62) Bergk’s οἵαις ἐν πολέμοιο μάχαις (1853: 83) is the most appealing. But as Wilamowitz (1922: 300 n. 1) pointed out, there is no reason why one should not speak of ‘battles’ during the ‘campaigns’. As in Thebaid fr. 2.10 GEF … ἀμφοτέροισι δ᾽ ἀεὶ πολέμοί τε μάχαι τε, ‘the double plural recalls emphatically … the numerous battles sustained by Hieron over the course of several campaigns’ (Cingano 1995: on 47: ‘il doppio plurale rievoca enfaticamente … le numerose battaglie sostenute da Ierone nel corso di varie campagne’). Moreover, the corruption of the familiar genitive ending -οιο to -οισι rather than -οις (with confusion of ο and final σ) would be difficult to explain. The same objection applies to Hecker’s earlier οἵαισιν πολέμοιο μάχαισι (1850: 443). τλάμονι ψυχᾷ παρέμειν᾽: These words ascribe to Hieron semi-legendary courage in war. Cf. Il.  5.669–70 Ὀδυσσεύς  / τλήμονα θυμὸν ἔχων, Pyth. 8.40 υἱοὺς … παρμένοντας αἰχμᾷ (of the Seven against Thebes) and also Tyrt. fr. 12.16–18 IEG2 ὅστις ἀνὴρ … ἐν προμάχοισι μένῃ / … / ψυχὴν καὶ θυμὸν τλήμονα παρθέμενος, A. Pers. 27–8 δεινοὶ δὲ μάχην / ψυχῆς εὐτλήμονι δόξῃ. The epithet τλάμων (τλήμων) is particularly appropriate here, in view of Hieron’s illness and the Philoctetes-myth (50b–7), since it means both ‘enduring’ and ‘bold’ (cf. Morgan 2015: 327–8).



While Hieron’s martial prowess, one may infer, is a thing of the past, Pindar later encourages him to ‘stand fast in [his] flourishing noble impulse’ regarding all matters of civilian governance: 89 (89–90n.) εὐανθεῖ δ᾽ ἐν ὀργᾷ παρμένων. 48b–50a. ἁνίχ᾽ εὑρίσκοντο θεῶν παλάμαις τιμάν … ἀγέρωχον: For the ‘superlative vaunt’ see 47–50a n. and for Hieron’s wealth also 46n. The third-person plural verb εὑρίσκοντο has been accepted all but universally as a reference to the collective military success of the Deinomenid brothers, especially at Himera (47–50a n.). Yet Liberman (2004: 46, 256), wishing to retain Hieron as the sole subject of the praise, has revived Boeckh’s εὕρισκεν παλάμαισι θεῶν (1811: I.2 437). This preserves the transmitted παλάμαισι, but otherwise presupposes corruptions that would be hard to explain here, in particular the change from the singular to the plural, which is lectio difficilior and goes back to antiquity (schol. Pyth. 1.87, 94 (II 17.16–21, 18.9–12 Dr.)).23 It also ignores Pindar’s subtlety in historical allusion. εὑρίσκοντο: There is no great difference between the active and middle of εὑρίσκω in the sense ‘win, gain (for oneself)’. Cf. Ol. 7.89 ἄνδρα … πὺξ ἀρετὰν εὑρόντα, Pyth. 2.64 ὅθεν φαμὶ καὶ σὲ τὰν ἀπείρονα δόξαν εὑρεῖν (again of Hieron and his martial exploits), 3.110–11 εἰ δέ μοι πλοῦτον θεὸς ἁβρὸν ὀρέξαι, / ἐλπίδ᾽ ἔχω κλέος εὑρέσθαι κεν ὑψηλὸν πρόσω, Pi. fr. 227.1–2, E. Ba. 972 (LSJ s.v. IV, SD 234; cf. Gildersleeve 1890: on 48). For the concept of ‘finding’ glory in Pindar and the Rigveda see Massetti 2019: 130–1 and Meusel 2020: 238, 338–47, 658–9. If the juncture is inherited, it experienced lexical replacement in Greek, since in Indo-Iranian the words for ‘find’ are derived from the PIE root *veid-, ‘see’. θεῶν παλάμαις: ‘by the hands of the gods’, and thus ‘by divine contrivance’ (cf. 41–2a n.). The intervention can be for good or ill (LSJ s.v. παλάμη II). For the former add Ol. 10.20–1 θάξαις δέ κε φύντ᾽ ἀρετᾷ ποτί / πελώριον ὁρμάσαι κλέος ἀνὴρ θεοῦ σὺν παλάμαις (v.l. παλάμᾳ; cf. Ol. 9.25 σύν τινι μοιριδίῳ παλάμᾳ), for the latter see Nem. 10.65 καὶ πάθον δεινὸν παλάμαις Ἀφαρητίδαι Διός, S. Phil. 177 ὦ παλάμαι θεῶν. Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopoulos corrected the unmetrical παλάμαισι of earlier MSS, which may have arisen under the influence of πολέμοισι in 47. τιμάν  / οἵαν οὔτις Ἑλλάνων δρέπει: Pindar was fond of metaphorical δρέπω (literally ‘pluck, cull’) for the enjoyment of pleasures and rewards in life,

23 The same objection applies to εὑρίσκοιτο, which Boeckh prints in the text (1811: I.1 67; cf. I.2 437). Confusion of iota and nu is simple and common in minuscule, less so in uncial script. More­ over, the isolated oblique optative is odd. A corrector of Vi wrote εὑρίσκετο, which U copied.



which are thus implicitly or explicitly likened to fruits or flowers (cf. Gildersleeve 1890: on Ol. 12.15 ἀκλεὴς τιμὰ κατεφυλλορόησε(ν), McCracken 1934): e.g. Ol. 1.13 δρέπων … κορυφὰς ἀρετᾶν ἄπο πασᾶν (also of Hieron), Pyth. 4.130–1 δραπὼν … / ἱερὸν εὐζοίας ἄωτον, Nem. 2.9, fr. 122.8 μαλθακᾶς ὥρας ἀπὸ καρπὸν δρέπεσθαι (Slater s.v. δρέπω). Flowers alone occur in Bacch. 3.92–4 Ἱέρων, σὺ δ᾽ ὄλβου / κάλλιστ᾽ ἐπεδ[είξ]αο θνατοῖς / ἄνθεα. The image has a lasting history in Greek and especially Latin poetry, where the prime example is Hor. Carm. 1.11.8 carpe diem (cf. Nisbet–Hubbard 1970 for further examples). πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον harks back to 46 (n.) κτεάνων δόσιν. With the metaphor of the (victory) crown Pindar accommodates Hieron’s martial exploits within the epinician sphere. Cf.  35b–8 (στεφάνοισί ν ἵπποις τε κλυτάν), 99–100nn. The genitive πλούτου can be either objective or defining. In the first case τιμά would be ‘a lordly crown of wealth’ that has been expended (on the war effort), in the second it would consist of the wealth that has been gained through defeating the Carthaginians at Himera (Morgan 2015: 328–9). Both constructions are paralleled in Pindar, respectively at Isth. 4.43–4 κεῖνον … πυρσὸν ὕμνων / … παγκρατίου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἐπάξιον (‘that beacon-fire of hymns … as a worthy crown of (the victory in) the pancratium’)24 and Isth. 4.62 νεόδματα στεφανώματα βωμῶν (‘adornments (a circle?) consisting of newly-built altars’).25 In the present context the defining genitive seems more likely; cf. D. S. 11.26.2–3 for the vast indemnity the Carthaginians had to pay (Kurke 1999: 133). But Pindar may have intended the phrase to be ambiguous. For Homeric ἀγέρωχος (‘lordly, proud’) as a transferred epithet with πλούτου cf. Ol. 1.2 μεγάνορος … πλούτου, Pyth. 10.18 ἀγάνορα πλοῦτον and Bacch. fr. 4.62 μεγαλάνορα πλοῦτον (Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.2 (pp. 13–14); cf. 51b–2a n.). The use of the adjective here has a remarkable precedent in Bacch. 5.35–6 Δεινομένευς ἀγέρωχοι / παῖδες, where Hieron and his brothers are likewise praised for their victory at Himera (Bacch. 5.31–6, quoted in 79–80n.). An allusion to this ode for Hieron’s victory in the Olympic horse race of 476 is rendered even more

24 This seems to be the natural way to understand Pindar’s words. Taking παγκρατίου as a genitive of value with ἐπάξιον (e.g. Race: ‘a crown worthy of the pancratium’) creates the peculiar implication that different songs are appropriate for different athletic disciplines. 25 It is unclear whether στεφανώματα here is a purely ornamental metaphor (‘crowns’ = ‘adornments’) or whether it refers to the circular positioning of the altars (cf. Ol.  8.32, S. Ant. 122 στεφάνωμα πύργων, E. Hec. 910–11). Perhaps both is the case. The alternative notion of ‘wreaths for the altars’ has rightly been rejected, since it clashes with νεόδματα. See, most recently, Privitera 1982: on Isth. 4.61–4 (p. 185).



probable by Pindar’s ascription of the naval battle to παίδεσσιν … Δεινομένεος at 79 (47–50a, 79–80nn.). The exact meaning and etymology of ἀγέρωχος are uncertain. The usual rendering is based on ancient explanations (e.g. schol.BCE Il.  2.654 (I 318.89 Erbse) ἄγαν γέρας ἐχόντων, ἐντίμων, Hsch. α 462 Latte–Cunningham οἱ ἄγαν ἔνδοξοι καὶ ἔντιμοι), which evidently influenced the modern derivation from copulative α + γέρας + ἔχω (GEW, DELG s.v., after Schwyzer 1922: 9 (~ Schwyzer 218 n. 1); contrast Beekes s.v.: ‘no etymology’). In epic ἀγέρωχος always qualifies humans in a complimentary way (e.g. Il. 2.654, 3.36, Od. 11.286 = ‘Hes.’ fr. 33a.12 M.–W.). Pindar may have been the first to transfer the epithet to abstract concepts (also Ol. 10.79 νίκας ἀγερώχου, Nem. 6.33 ἀγερώχων ἐργμάτων), just as Archilochus (fr. 261 IEG2) and Alcaeus (fr. 402 Voigt) apparently innovated by giving it the negative sense ‘arrogant’, which survives in modern Greek. 50b–7. The second myth of Pythian 1 stands almost exactly at the centre of the ode, where it looks both backward and forward. While the battle of Zeus and Typhos in 13–28 (n.) reflected Hieron’s success as a ruler and general at a transcendental level, Pindar now becomes more concrete in accordance with his increasing focus on historical reference as a vehicle for praise. He compares the ailing tyrant (for Hieron’s illness see 46n.) to Philoctetes, who on the way to Troy was bitten by a water snake. As the Greeks could not bear the stench of the festering wound, Odysseus, by the order of Agamemnon, abandoned him on the island of Lemnos. When after ten years the Trojan seer Helenos revealed to the Greeks that, among other conditions, Troy could only be taken with the help of Philoctetes and the bow of Heracles he possessed, they sent Odysseus and/or Diomedes to fetch him.26 His refusal to accompany them was overcome by a combination of persuasion, deceit and force. At Troy he was cured by Machaon or Podaleirios, killed Paris in a duel and took part in the sacking of the city. In Pindar’s time the story of Philoctetes would have been known from various epic and perhaps other poetic sources. It is outlined at Il.  2.716–25, Od. 3.188–90 and 8.219–20 and was told in full in the Cypria and the Little Iliad (Arg. p. 76 (9) and pp. 120–2 (2) GEF; cf. ‘Apollod.’ 3.27, 5.8). Aeschylus wrote a tragedy Philoctetes covering the same ground as the extant play of Sophocles

26 Neoptolemos as the conscientious companion of Odysseus is an innovation by Sophocles. In the Little Iliad Odysseus brought him from Skyros at the same time as or after Philoctetes rejoined the Greeks at Troy (Arg. p. 122 (3) GEF; cf. West 2013: 181–5, with the caveat expressed in 52b–5n.).



(A. frr. 249–57 TrGF),27 and according to schol. Pyth. 1.100 (II 18.28–19.4 Dr.) the story was also treated in a dithyramb by Bacchylides, possibly the one in which Cassandra predicts the future of Troy (Bacch. fr. 23; cf. Maehler 1997: 271). But we cannot tell if these non-epic versions predate Pythian 1. Of particular interest to a Sicilian audience may have been Epicharmus’ comedy Philoctetas, of which only two lines survive (Epich. frr. 131–2 PCG). The familiarity of the Philoctetes-myth allowed Pindar to summarise it in a single syntactical period (52b–55), leaving the details to be supplied by the listeners (and later readers). But there is one significant deviation from the standard narrative: Philoctetes was not healed before he entered the action at Troy (54–5). This reinforces the analogy with Hieron, who had no sons of Asclepius to cure him and reportedly was carried into battle on a litter (scholl. Pyth. 1.89b, 97 (II 18.3–4, 15–16 Dr.); cf. Farnell 1932: on 47–57, Cingano 1995: 16 and on 54–5). But the prayer in 56–7 (n.) οὕτω δ᾽ †Ἱέρωνι θεὸς ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι† / τὸν προσέρποντα χρόνον, ὧν ἔραται καιρὸν διδούς alludes to the healing of Hieron and implies that of Philoctetes (scholl. Pyth. 1.109a–c (II 19.16–27 Dr.); cf. Mezger 1880: on 57, Kirkwood 1982: on 50). There has been much discussion about which campaign Pindar alludes to in this passage. The ancient commentators propose the case of Anaxilas of Rhegion, who in 477 was prevented from attacking the Epizephyrian Locrians by Hieron’s threat of intervention, or some unspecific action against Theron of Akragas (scholl. Pyth. 1.99a, b, 2.36c (II 18.21–7, 37.22–38.3 Dr.)). But neither does justice to the analogy with Philoctetes’ decisive role in the Trojan War. Modern scholars from the 19th century on have offered two more likely alternatives: (1) Hieron’s clash with Theron’s son Thrasydaios of Akragas in 472 (D. S. 11.53.3–6)28 and (2) the sea-battle at Kyme against the Etruscans in 474 (D. S. 11.51). The former accords well with Pindar’s relative indication of time, νῦν γε μάν (50), and has found its latest advocates in Cingano (1995: 15–16 and on 46–50) and Liberman (2004: 47 n. 18). However, stronger arguments can be raised in favour of Kyme. As Carey (1978: 21–7) has shown, the objection that νῦν γε μάν cannot well apply to the campaign of 474 when Hieron has since fought Thrasydaios loses significance once the wider structure of Pythian 1 is

27 For other theatrical realisations of the Philoctetes-myth, both tragic and comic, see Schein 2013: 3–7. Euripides again dramatised Philoctetes on Lemnos (E. frr. 787–803 TrGF), while Sophocles also had a Philoctetes at Troy (S. frr. 697–703 TrGF). Dio Chrysostom in Discourse 52 compares the plays about Philoctetes on Lemnos by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. 28 Cf. Introduction, 8 with n. 15, 11. Barrett (1973: 29 = 2007: 87) dates the event to 470 or 471 at the earliest, but his argumentation is circular insofar as he supposes that it lies behind our passage and wishes to create greater coherence with νῦν γε μάν (50).



taken into account. If the lines immediately preceding our passage reflect the battle of Himera (47–50a n.), their combination with Kyme here would chiastically balance the more detailed description of the two confrontations with non-Greek forces in 71–80 (n.), which in turn gives full meaning to the earlier references (cf. below). Moreover, the battle of Kyme best fits Pindar’s mythical exemplum. As Philoctetes left his island to follow a Greek embassy to Troy, so the islander Hieron responded to a request for military aid from the citizens of Kyme (D. S. 11.51.1; cf. 51b–2a n.). And as the suffering hero helped the Greeks to capture the foreign city, so the suffering tyrant of Syracuse defended his fellow-countrymen, and indeed all Greece (75), against a barbarian onslaught (Pfeijffer 2005: 26–7, partially anticipated by Skulsky 1975: 18). The comparison of Hieron with Philoctetes also ties in with the increasing tendency to treat the Trojan War as a precursor of the Persian Wars (Morgan 2015: 330–1; cf. Pfeijffer 2005: 26–7 with n. 41). To our knowledge, this began with the ‘Achilles’ proem to Simonides’ Plataea Elegy (frr. 10 + 11.1–20 IEG2), which Pindar may even be alluding to here (54–5n. (Πριάμοιο πόλιν πέρσεν)), and in the fifth century culminated in the introduction to Herodotus’ Histories (1.1–5). Thus Pindar here foreshadows his alignment of the battles of Himera and Kyme with those of Salamis and Plataea in 71–80 (n.), while supporting the epic dimension of Hieron’s achievement with several linguistic Homerisms (50b–1a (Φιλοκτήταο), 52b–3, 54–55nn.). In a similar way he had already used the Trojan War paradigm in Nem. 9.39–42, where Chromios’ youthful action against Hippokrates of Gela at the river Heloros (in 492 or 491) is likened to Hector’s exploits at the Scamander. 50b–1a. ‘Now, in fact, he has gone to war, after the manner of Philoctetes …’ νῦν γε μάν: 17b–19a n. The very mild opposition which γε μάν expresses here (cf. GP 348) lies between the general statement of Hieron’s endurance in battle (47–8) and the particular example referred to by the Philoctetes-myth. τὰν  … δίκαν ἐφέπων: In the neutral sense ‘custom, manner, way’ δίκη is first found in the Odyssey (e.g. 4.691 … ἥ τ᾽ ἐστὶ δίκη θείων βασιλήων, 11.218, 19.168–70; cf. h.Ap. 458). Unlike adverbial δίκην + genitive (‘in the way of …’), this usage remains largely restricted to poetry (LSJ s.v. I 1, 2); in Pindar also fr.  215.2–3 ἄλλα δ᾽ ἄλλοισιν νόμιμα, σφετέραν  / δ᾽ αἰνεῖ δίκαν ἀνδρῶν ἕκαστος. For ἐφέπω instead of ἐφέπομαι (‘follow’) see 29–30a n. Φιλοκτήταο: For masculine a-stem nouns Pindar occasionally employs the epic (and Aeolic / Boeotian) genitive singular in -ᾱο: also Pyth. 4.12, 171, Nem. 4.60, Isth. 7.8. The rarity of this form, compared to some fifty instances of Doric (and Aeolic) -ᾱ, suggests that metre was the principal factor (Braswell 1988: on



Pyth. 4.12c), but in some passages, as here, its epic flavour may also have been welcome. Cf. Stes. fr. 183.9 Finglass Εἰλατίδαο δαΐφρονος (~ ‘Hes.’ fr. 60.4 M.–W.) and perhaps Alc. fr. 48.15 Voigt ]ς Ἀίδαο δῶμα (~ e.g. Il. 15.251, Od. 10.175; A. M. Bowie 1981: 112), Bacch. fr. dub. 60.20 Ἀΐδαο. ἐστρατεύθη: The passive aorist stands in for the middle, again perhaps for metrical reasons. There is no classical or Hellenistic parallel for this use, which may have been helped by the analogy of πορεύομαι, ἐπορεύθην (Gildersleeve 1890 and Schroeder 1922: on 51), but it recurs several times in later prose, e.g. ‘Apollod.’ 1.9.13 Πρόμαχος … ὃς μετὰ τῶν ἐπιγόνων ἐπὶ Θήβας ἐστρατεύθη. The verb need not mean that Hieron personally took part in any campaign, which would rule out the battle of Kyme, if Diodorus Siculus (11.51) is right in reporting that he merely sent a fleet to fight the Etruscans (50b–7n.). As Carey (1978: 23) points out, ‘[w]e have to remember that this is encomiastic poetry’. He compares the epinician custom of attributing equestrian victories not to the charioteer or jockey, but to the owner of the horse(s). 51b–2a. ‘… and under compulsion even someone who was haughty fawned on him as a friend.’ The identity of the haughty person who ‘fawned on’ Hieron has been the subject of speculation since antiquity, depending on which battle the Philoctetes-myth was taken to refer to (50b–7n.). Scholl. Pyth. 1.99a, b (II 18.21–7 Dr.) respectively suggest Anaxilas of Rhegion and Theron of Akragas. But the former did nothing to flatter Hieron, whereas the latter has no obvious connection to his recent exploits and was clearly adduced as a stopgap. Thrasydaios of Akragas (D. S. 11.53), who was proposed by e.g. Schroeder (1922: on 48), Burton (1962: 102) and Barrett (1973: 29 = 2007: 87), does not fit the circumstances either. As often, Pindar’s formulation is vague enough not to require a historicist interpretation at all and thus remains relevant, as an indication of Hieron’s supreme status, to changing audiences over time (Introduction, 36). On the other hand, the Philoctetes paradigm can be applied to the call for military aid against the Etruscans which the citizens of Kyme sent to Hieron (D. S. 11.51.1; cf. e.g. Mezger 1880 and Fennell 1893: on 51). The fact that we have no other record of their ‘haughtiness’ is no objection. Just as Homeric similes do not always offer complete comparisons, this characteristic may primarily pertain to the Greeks who came to fetch Philoctetes. σὺν δ᾽ ἀνάγκᾳ: The same phrase occurs in Pi. fr. 122.9 σὺν δ᾽ ἀνάγκᾳ πὰν καλόν, regarding erotic compulsion. Schol. Pyth. 1.98 (II 18.17–20 Dr.) wrongly identifies ἀνάγκα with Hieron’s illness.



νιν: Mommsen (1866: 63) for μιν, from the lemma of schol. Pyth. 1.98 (II 18.17 Dr.), where Q alone preserves νιν. On Doric νιν as against epic μιν in Pindar and other choral lyric see 32b–3a n. μεγαλάνωρ: The adjective and its noun μεγαλανορία are rare and first attested in Pindar and Bacchylides, but μεγαλάνωρ at least may have featured in lost epic, to judge by the occurrence of the Ionic form in Opp. Cyn. 4.179 … μεγαλήνωρ ἠΰκομος λῖς (cf. Greg. Naz. Carm. 37.526.7 PG). The sense ‘proud, haughty’ is reflected by μεγαλανορία at Nem. 11.44 ἀλλ᾽ ἔμπαν μεγαλανορίαις ἐμβαίνομεν (‘ambitious deeds’) and Mesom. fr. 3 Heitsch (Νέμεσιν  …) ἃ τὰν μεγαλανορίαν βροτῶν  / νεμεσῶσα φέρεις κατὰ ταρτάρου (‘haughtiness’). But a more positive rendering is required at Pi. fr.  109.2 μεγαλάνορος Ἡσυχίας τὸ φαιδρὸν φάος (contrasted with 3–4 στάσιν … / πενίας δότειραν) and Bacch. Pae. 4.61–2 τίκτει δέ τε θνατοῖσιν εἰ- / ρήνα μεγαλάνορα πλοῦτον (~ Ol. 1.2 μεγάνορος … πλούτου). While ‘lordly, noble’ would fit, the context of Pi. fr. 109 especially suggests causative ‘making a man great’ (Maehler 1997 ~ 2004: on Bacch. frr. 22 + 4.62). ἔσανεν: Properly of a dog wagging its tail, (προσ)σαίνω ‘is used metaphorically of behaviour designed to placate, to entice or to deceive’ (Harriott 1982: 12; cf. LSJ s.v. σαίνω I–III.2). The first two connotations are relevant here, as also in e.g. A. Ag. 1665 οὐκ ἂν Ἀργείων τόδ᾽ εἴη, φῶτα προσσαίνειν κακόν and, apparently, Bacch. 1.76–7 προσφώνει τέ νιν / [– ⏑ –] σαίνουσ᾽ ὀπί. Deception comes in at Pyth. 2.82 ὅμως μὰν σαίνων ποτὶ πάντας ἄταν πάγχυ διαπλέκει (sc. δόλιος ἀστός) and e.g. A. Ag. 796–8 ὄμματα φωτός / τὰ δοκοῦντ᾽εὔφρονος ἐκ διανοίας / ὑδαρεῖ σαίνειν φιλότητι, Cho. 420. 52b–5. Pindar’s summary of the fetching of Philoctetes strongly resembles the ana­logous episode in the tale of Neoptolemos at Pae. 6.100–4 (fr.  52f = D6 Rutherford) ἁλὸς ἐπὶ κῦμα βάντες [ἦ]λ- / θον ἄγγελο[ι] ὀπίσω / Σκυρόθεν Ν̣ [ε] οπτόλεμο̣[ν] / εὐρυβίαν ἄγοντες, / ὃς διέπερσεν Ἰλίου πόλ[ιν] (‘… messengers went over the wave of the sea and returned bringing from Skyros Neoptolemos broad in force, who sacked the city of Ilion’). For the last point cf. also Nem. 7.35–6 Πριάμου πόλιν Νεοπτόλεμος ἐπεὶ πράθεν, / τᾷ καὶ Δαναοὶ πόνησαν. Likewise, the notion that Troy was destined to fall (55 ἀλλὰ μοιρίδιον ἦν) is more elaborately expressed in Pae. 6.92–8; cf. especially 94–5 μόρσιμ᾽ ἀνα[λ] ύ̣εν Ζεὺς … οὐ τόλ- / μα. It is not known when Paean 6 and Nemean 7 were first performed (the date given by the scholia for the latter is corrupt), but for both the period around 470 has been proposed (see Rutherford 2001: 331 with n. 95). Whether or not the two odes are related, the overlap with Pythian 1 seems to to reinforce this time-frame.



The Philoctetes-myth here is also the first explicit attestation of more than one hero going to Lemnos (52–3 μεταβάσοντας ἐλθεῖν  / ἥρωας ἀντιθέους). Proclus’ summary of the Little Iliad mentions only Diomedes (Arg. p. 120 (2) GEF), and although ‘Apollodorus’ (5.8) adds Odysseus, West (2013: 182–3 with n. 19) argued that this is merely an adaptation of Euripides’ Philoctetes (T iv c TrGF = D. Chr. 52.14; cf. S. Phil. 570–1, 591–4, Hyg. Fab. 102).29 It would certainly make sense if in the Little Iliad Diomedes had sailed to Lemnos, while simultaneously Odysseus went to fetch Neoptolemos from Skyros (cf. Schneidewin 1849: 648). Yet the anonymity of Pindar’s envoys may suggest that he followed an established version. 52b–3. ‘They say that the god-like heroes went to fetch from Lemnos the archer son of Poias, worn out by his wound …’ φάντι at the beginning of the account ‘alludes to the epic tradition’ (Cingano 1995: on 52–3: ‘alluda alla tradizione epica’). ἕλκει τειρόμενον recalls the description of Philoctetes at Il. 2.723 ἕλκει μοχθίζοντα κακῷ and that of Glaukon at Il. 16.510–11 τεῖρε γὰρ αὐτόν / ἕλκος. The verb τείρω (‘distress, wear out’) is common in early epic for the effects of pain, strong effort and emotions on the body and mind and was readily taken over by lyric and drama; in Pindar also fr. 169a.29–32 τεῖρε δὲ στερ̣εῶ / ἄλλαν [μ]ὲν σκέλος, ἄλλαν δὲ πᾶχ[υν,]  / τὰν δὲ πρυμνὸν κεφαλᾶς  / ὀδ[ὰ]ξ α[ὐ]χένα φέροισαν (i.e. Heracles chastising the flesh-eating horses of Diomedes). μεταβάσοντας: The anonymous conjecture quoted by Boeckh (1811: I.2 437–8) for the transmitted μεταλ(λ)άσ(σ)οντας has won the favour of most recent editors. Spelled correctly, μεταλλάσοντας (< μεταλλάω, ‘to seek out’; cf. Ol. 6.62, Pyth. 4.164 μετάλλατος) does not scan. Despite Gentili (1991: 8–10; cf. Cingano 1995: on 52–3), responsion between – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – (τειρόμενον μεταλλα-) and a D-colon elsewhere in this position cannot be accepted.30 Among the many remedies proposed to cure the metrical anomaly (see Gerber 1976: 62), trans­ itive-causative μεταβαίνω, ‘transfer, remove’, has three advantages: (1) it makes good sense, (2) it is close enough to the paradosis for the corruption to be expli-

29 Dio Chrysostom’s claim that the joint expedition of Odysseus and Diomedes in Euripides is ‘Homeric’ (Ὁμηρικῶς καὶ τοῦτο) need not mean more than that in the Epic Cycle (as in Iliad 10) the two heroes regularly acted together. 30 The same issue arises at Pyth. 9.113–14 (Δαναόν  …) οἷον εὗρεν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ παρθένοισι, πρὶν μέσον ἆμαρ, ἑλεῖν (v.l. ἐλθεῖν)  / ὠκύτατον γάμον, where ἑλεῖν is not only metrically regular, but also lectio difficilior. After the elliptical temporal clause πρὶν μέσον ἆμαρ (cf. Od. 15.393–4 οὐδέ τί σε χρή, / πρὶν ὥρη, καταλέχθαι) the infinitive could easily become ἐλθεῖν. See also 56–7n. (θεός).



cable (below), and (3) it has a Pindaric parallel at Ol. 1.42 (τότε Ἀγλαοτρίαιναν …) ὕπατον εὐρυτίμου ποτὶ δῶμα Διὸς μεταβᾶσαι (sc. τὸν Πέλοπα). That the MSS reading is ancient is proved by schol. Pyth. 1.101a (II 19.5–6 Dr.) μεταλλάσοντας ἐλθεῖν: ἐπιζητήσοντας· ἡ δὲ μεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ μέταλλα ἐπιζητούντων.31 One cannot therefore invoke the common minuscule confusion of λλ and β (written ϻ) to explain the presumed change from μεταβάσοντας to μεταλλάσοντας. But it is easy to see how a scribe or reader, puzzled by the Doric future participle of transitive μεταβαίνω, could have been prompted by the context to supply the equivalent form of the common epic verb μεταλλάω. ἥρωας ἀντιθέους: The same collocation is applied to the Argonauts in Pyth. 4.58 and to the mythical inhabitants of Tiryns in Bacch. 11.79–81; cf. also Corinn. fr. 654 col. iii.22–3 PMG εἱρώων … / … εἱμ[ιθί]ων. With nearly eighty attestations ἀντίθεος is a quintessential ‘heroic’ epithet in early epic; elsewhere in lyric Ibyc. fr. S166.18 PMGF, Ol. 3.34–5, Pyth. 3.88, Isth. 8.24–5, Pi. fr. 172.1, Bacch. 15.1. The MSS consistently read ἥρωας, which Schroeder (1900: 26) changed to ἥροας (cf. Ol. 13.51 Pyth. 3.7, 4.58, Nem. 4.29, 7.46, Pi. fr. 133.5).32 Bowra, Turyn, Snell–Maehler and Race accepted this, but as Pindar would have written Ο for both ο and ω, it seems preferable to print ἡρω- throughout and assume correption where necessary. The evidence of papyri also points that way: ἡρωbefore vowel is attested at Pi. Pae. 7b.9 (fr. 52h = C2 Rutherford), *13a.1 (fr. 52n = S5 Rutherford), *14.36 (fr. 52o = S3 Rutherford), Bacch. 11.81 (above) and Ibyc. fr. S151.19. See further Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.58a, who sees the origin of the licence in Od. 8.483 ἥρῳ Δημοδόκῳ, where ΗΡΩΙ could be di- or trisyllabic (cf. Od.  6.302–3 Ἀλκινόοιο  / ἥρως (ἥρω̆ος Barnes)). He adds Tyrt. fr.  17 IEG2 (= Choerob. in Heph. p. 196.6–8 Consbruch) εὑρίσκεται δὲ ἁπλῶς ἐν μέσῳ λέξεως κοινὴ καὶ ἐν παλιμβακχείῳ ὡς καὶ παρὰ Τυρταίῳ ἥρω̆ες οὕτω γὰρ ἔλαβε τὸν δεύτερον πόδα τοῦ στίχου. Ποίαντος υἱὸν τοξόταν: Although a specific origin is hardly needed for a phrase like υἱὸν τοξόταν, it is conceivable that Pindar here conflated Il. 2.718 Φιλοκτήτης  … τόξων εὖ εἰδώς (cf. Od.  8.219–20) and Od.  3.190 Φιλοκτήτην, Ποιάντιον ἀγλαὸν υἱόν. The bow is that of Heracles (50b–7n.).

31 For the derivation of μεταλλάω from μέταλλον cf. scholl. Ol. 6.106a, d, e (I 176.16–17, 177.4–5, 7 Dr.) It is still entertained by modern etymologists (GEW, DELG, Beekes s.v. μέταλλον). 32 Schroeder did not change Pi. fr. 187 (= Plut. Quaest. Conv. 643d) ἥρωες αἰδοίαν ἐμείγνυντ᾽ ἀμφὶ τράπεζαν θαμά (Stephanus: ἥρως … ἐμίγνυτο codd. Plut.), which he scanned as – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – ⸽ – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ – (– E – ⸽ d e), and all later editors have followed him. Yet out of (metrical) context one cannot be certain about the verse beginning. The overall shape produced by ἥρωες with correption (d – e – ⸽ d e) seems less attractive, but would not be impossible.



54–5. ‘… who sacked the city of Priam and ended the toils for the Danaans, walking with flesh infirm, but it was fated.’ The relative clause that forms the second half of the mythical account consists of two carefully constructed syntactical and metrical periods, which encapsulate Philoctetes’ crucial intervention at Troy. In 54 ὃς Πριάμοιο πόλιν πέρσεν, τελεύτασέν τε πόνους Δαναοῖς the sentence structure is ‘[c]hiastic not only in position, but also in sense’ (Gildersleeve 1890: on 54), whereas in 55 ἀσθενεῖ μὲν χρωτὶ βαίνων, ἀλλὰ μοιρίδιον ἦν the juxtaposition of a participial and a finite clause (cf. below) disrupts the balance, to emphasise the crowning statement that it was all preordained. Strictly speaking, Philoctetes only contributed to the fall of Troy, but since his involvement was one of the necessary preconditions, he could be said to have ‘sacked the city of Priam and ended the toils for the Danaans’ (cf. Neoptolemos in Paean 6 and Nemean 7, below). Moreover, this way of recounting the story strengthens the analogy with Hieron, as does the unique postponement of Philoctetes’ healing until after the fighting (50b–7n.). Πριάμοιο πόλιν πέρσεν: Almost the same phrase is used by Pindar of Neoptolemos at Pae. 6.104 (fr. 52f = D6 Rutherford) ὃς διέπερσεν Ἰλίου πόλι[ν] and Nem. 7.35 Πριάμου πόλιν … ἐπεὶ πράθεν (cf. 52b–5n.); also Isth. 5.35–6 τοὶ καὶ σὺν μάχαις / δὶς πόλιν Τρώων πράθον (sc. Aiakos and his sons) and Bacch. 11.120–2 Πριάμοι᾽ ἐπεὶ  … /  …  / πέρσαν πόλιν εὐκτιμέναν (sc. the Achaeans). The ultimate model of all these passages will have been Il.  12.15 πέρθετο  … Πριάμοιο πόλις. Spelman (2018: 266) sees here an intertextual reference to Sim. fr. 11.13 IEG2 (Plataea Elegy) [τοὶ δὲ πόλι]ν πέρσαντες ἀοίδιμον [οἴκαδ᾽ ἵ]κοντο ([τοὶ δὲ πολι]ν suppl. West: [οἱ δὲ … Parsons: [καὶ Τροίη]ν Luppe). ‘Simonides, commemorating the Spartans as a group, makes the fall of Troy a corporate endeavour … Pindar, commissioned by a monarch, makes it the accomplishment of one individual favoured by fate’ (cf. 50b–7n.). τελεύτασέν τε πόνους Δαναοῖς poignantly inverts the standard language for the Trojan War: e.g. Il. 7.442 ὣς οἳ μὲν πονέοντο κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί, 15.235, Nem. 7.36 τᾷ καὶ Δαναοὶ πόνησαν (52b–5n.), E. Tro. 1040. ἀσθενεῖ μὲν χρωτὶ βαίνων, ἀλλὰ μοιρίδιον ἦν: ‘[I]t is not uncommon for a main clause to be followed … by appositional clauses, the first of which contains a participle as predicate and the second a finite verb’ (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.79–81). With an antithesis and change of subject, as here, cf. Pi. fr. 119.2–4 ὑψηλὰν πόλιν ἀμφινέμονται, / πλεῖστα μὲν δῶρ᾽ ἀθανάτοις ἀνέχοντες, / ἕσπετο δ᾽ αἰενάου πλούτου νέφος; otherwise e.g. Il.  3.79–80 τῷ δ᾽ ἐπετοξάζοντο  … Ἀχαιοί  / ἰοῖσίν τε τιτυσκόμενοι λάεσσί τ᾽ ἔβαλλον, Ol.  1.12–15 θεμιστεῖον ὃς ἀμφέπει σκᾶπτον (sc. Hieron) … / … δρέπων μὲν κορυφὰς ἀρετᾶν ἄπο πασᾶν, /



ἀγλαΐζεται δὲ καί / μουσικᾶς ἐν ἀώτῳ, Pyth. 3.50–3, Hdt. 1.85.1 ὁ Κροῖσος τὸ πᾶν ἐς αὐτὸν ἐπεποιήκεε ἄλλα τε ἐπιφραζόμενος καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐς Δελφοὺς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπεπόμφεε χρησομένους (KG II 100, SD 406). ἀσθενεῖ … χρωτὶ βαίνων: like Hieron (above). The expression is slightly unusual insofar as ἀσθενεῖ … χρωτί hovers between a strict instrumental dative (e.g. Il. 5.745 ποσὶ βήσετο, E. Med. 1164 βαίνουσα … ποδί, Pi. Parth. 2.70 (fr. 94b) βαίνοισα πεδίλο̣ις) and a dative of attendant circumstances (e.g. Il. 3.2 Τρῶες … κλαγγῇ τ᾽ ἐνοπῇ τ᾽ ἴσαν, 11.555 ἀπόνοσφιν ἔβη τετιηότι θυμῷ, Xen. Cyr. 4.2.21 ἴωμεν ῥώμῃ καὶ θυμῷ ἐπὶ τοὺς πολέμους; KG I 435, SD 162). μοιρίδιον (‘fated, destined’) alludes to Helenos’ prophecy that the Greeks could only take Troy if assisted by Philoctetes: Il. Parv. Arg. p. 120 (2) GEF, Hyp. E. Phil. 9–13 (T iiia TrGF), S. Phil. 113–15, 610–13 (cf. 50b–7n.). The adjective is first attested in Pindar: also Ol. 9.25 (‘given by destiny’), Pyth. 4.255–6, Isth. 6.46. According to Thummer (1957: 101 n. 1), he distinguishes its use from μόρσιμος (Ol. 2.10, Pyth. 12.30, Nem. 4.61, 7.44, Isth. 7.41, Pae. 6.94) insofar as ‘μόρσιμον is what has been determined by god to be an irrevocable event in the future, μοιρίδιον [is] what contributes to the fulfilment of the μόρσιμον. While the fall of Troy is μόρσιμον (Pae. 6.94), the involvement of Philoctetes is μοιρίδιον (Pyth. 1.55)’ (‘μόρσιμον ist, was von Gott als unabänderliches Geschehen für die Zukunft festgelegt wurde, μοιρίδιον, was dazu beiträgt, daß das μόρσιμον in Erfüllung gehe. Während der Fall Troias μόρσιμον ist …, ist der Einsatz des Philoktet μοιρίδιον …’). The difference is even clearer between Pyth. 4.255–6 μοιρίδιον  / ἆμαρ ἢ νύκτες (the ‘fated days or nights’ in which Arkesilaos’ mythical ancestors were conceived) and Ol. 2.10 αἰὼν … μόρσιμος (‘their allotted time’; cf. Isth. 7.41), though it is is blurred in Isth. 6.46 ξεῖνον … μοιρίδιον (i.e. unborn Aias, the ‘destined guest-friend’ of Heracles). In Sophocles the two adjectives seem merely to be metrical alternatives (μοιρίδιος: Ant. 951, OC 228 (both lyric); μόρσιμος: Ant. 236, fr. 953.2 TrGF (3ia)). 56–7. ‘And so may god set matters right for Hieron in the time to come, providing fitting opportunity for what he desires.’ Pindar concludes his encomium of Hieron with a prayer that in words and content harks back to the gnomē of 41–2a (n.) and especially to the wish which introduced this section (46): 56 οὕτω δ᾽†… ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι† ~ 46 οὕτω … εὐθύνοι, 57 τὸν προσέρποντα χρόνον ~ 46 ὁ πᾶς χρόνος, 57 διδούς ~ 46 δόσιν (Race 1990: 138 with n. 52, Cingano 1995: on 56–7; cf. 46–57, 46nn.). The desire for good fortune to continue undisturbed is an epinician topos with its own set of expressions (Young 1968: 93 n. 3), to which Pindar here adheres more closely than in 46. Cf. Ol. 1.106–11, 6.97 μὴ θράσσοι χρόνος ὄλβον ἐφέρπων, Bacch. 5.36 εὖ ἔρδων δὲ μὴ κάμοι θεός (all directed at Hieron), Ol. 8.28–9 ὁ δ᾽ ἐπαντέλλων



χρόνος / τοῦτο πράσσων μὴ κάμοι, Nem. 7.67–8 ὁ δὲ λοιπὸς εὔφρων / ποτὶ χρόνος ἕρποι, Pae. 2.26–7 (fr. 52b = D2 Rutherford) μή μοι μέγας ἕρπων / κάμοι ἐξοπίσω χρόνος ἔμπεδος. The interchangeability of ‘god’ and ‘time’ as agent subjects is helped by the semi-divine status of time in Greek thought (46n.). Following the Philoctetes-myth, scholl. Pyth. 1.109a–c (II 19.16–27 Dr.) see the main point of Pindar’s wish for Hieron in recovery from his illness. This will indeed be implied in οὕτω δ᾽ †… ὀρθωτήρ πέλοι†, but the final participial clause (ὧν ἔραται καιρὸν διδούς) allows for a more general import. In 46 Hieron’s ‘prosperity’ is clearly divided from ‘forgetfulness of his troubles’, which attracted the same scholiastic interpretation as the wish here (46n.). οὕτω δ᾽ †Ἱέρωνι θεὸς ὀρθωτὴρ πέλοι†: The text is securely attested since late antiquity (lΠ1 . δε Ἱέρωνι θ(εὸ)ς ὀρθωτ[ὴρ …; cf. Ἱέρωνι, (ὁ) θεός and ὀρθωτήρ in scholl. Pyth. 1.109a–c (II 19.16–27 Dr.)). But it is problematic because θεός (θεόν ÅH) only fits the metre if scanned as a short monosyllable. Synizesis of θεός / θεόν, though much rarer than that of forms ending in a syllable with long vowel or diphthong (e.g. θεοῦ, θεῶν), occurs in archaic Greek poetry (Archil. fr. 24.15 IEG2, Sem. fr. 7.1, 8 IEG2, Bacch. 5.36 (above)) and becomes more frequent in classical drama. Yet nowhere else does it produce a single short syllable (cf. also e.g. Ol. 3.10 θε͡όμοροι = – ⏑ –), a restriction which Battezzato (2000: 49 n. 40, 63, 69) explains as related to the Greek (and Indo-European) ‘word weight’ rule that ‘lexicals [i.e. content words, like nouns and adjectives] cannot be monosyllables ending in a short vowel’ (69).33 Rightly rejecting the freedom of responsion that would allow θε͡ός here to be long (Gentili 1991: 10, Cingano 1995: on 56–7; cf. 52b–3n.), Battezzato (63) therefore suspects corruption. He briefly discusses Pavese’s impossible short-vocalic Δίς (1990: 56–7), which is attested for Rhinthon (fr. 11 PCG) with a long ῑ (Choerob. Can. GG IV.1 191.19–25 Hilgard = Hdn. GG III.2 698.4–10 Lentz), but he does not mention any of the other conjectures our passage has attracted since the early 17th century (Gerber 1976: 63).34 None, admittedly, is very convincing. Of the better ones, Schmid’s (n. 34) τις for θεός, which was recently accepted by Liberman (2004: 46, 257–8), removes a desirable subject (cf. again Bacch. 5.36 (above) and e.g. Ol. 6.101–2), and his σωτήρ for ὀρθωτήρ does the same for the predicate, which is a con-

33 The rule does not cover short τε͡όν in Praxill. fr. 748 PMG ἀλλὰ τεὸν οὔποτε θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔπειθον because pronouns are non-lexicals. Both West (1970: 211 n. 3) and Battezzato (2000: 63) doubt the same phenomenon in CA 160.9–10 = II 2.9–10 Furley–Bremer καὶ στάντες ἀείδομεν τεὸν / ἀμφὶ βωμὸν οὐερκῆ (fourth century BC?). 34 Gerber ascribes οὕτω δ᾽ Ἱέρωνί τις … to Hermann (1834: 16 = 1827–77: VII 113) and θεὸς σωτήρ to Hartung (1855–6: II 10–11, 200–1). But both conjectures were anticipated by Schmid (1616: II 26, 49).



textually appropriate near-hapax (see further below). West (1970: 211), on the other hand, assumes that the proper name Ἱέρωνι has ousted a pronoun (a type of corruption common in all periods) and proposes ἐπὶ τῷ. But pronominal ὅ usually has a clear antecedent (see Slater s.v. ὁ, ὅ, ὅς B 2), so Hieron needs to be named to make a contrast with Philoctetes (cf. Pavese 1990: 57). In addition, ἐπί + dative (‘in respect / consideration of’) is an odd replacement for a dative of advantage. There may still be something wrong with the paradosis; hence the cruces. On present evidence, however, accepting θε͡ός (= ⏑) seems to be the lesser evil (cf. Schroeder 1922: on 56). It is not after all a lexical that ends in a short vowel, and we must not forget how much of early Greek poetry is lost. οὕτω bears the conventional sense of ‘(even) so, in this way’, in contrast to the probably unique ‘(even) as now’ at 46 (n.). ὀρθωτήρ: a hapax in classical antiquity, not found again until the fourth century AD (Epiph. Anc. 76.3). Its reference to someone (a god) who can restore Hieron’s health (literally ‘put him back on his feet’) is confirmed by Pyth. 3.53 τοὺς δὲ … ἔστασεν ὀρθούς (sc. Asclepius) and 95–6 Διὸς δὲ χάριν / ἐκ προτέρων μεταμειψάμενοι καμάτων ἔστασαν ὀρθὰν καρδίαν (sc. Peleus and Kadmos); cf. also IG IV2.1 122.52–3 (Epidaurus, IV BC) ἐδόκει αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς ἰασάμε̣νος τὸ τᾶς κεφαλᾶς ἄλγος ὀρθὸν ἀστάσας γυμνὸν παγκρατίου προβολὰν διδάξαι. For the Doric ending of the agent noun (-τήρ: -τής C ) see 30b–2a n. τὸν προσέρποντα χρόνον: With some variation this is a favourite expression of Pindar. Apart from Ol. 6.97 χρόνος … ἐφέρπων, Nem. 7.67–8 ὁ δὲ λοιπὸς εὔφρων / ποτὶ χρόνος ἕρποι and Pae. 2.26–7 (fr. 52b = D2 Rutherford) μέγας ἕρπων / … χρόνος (above, 158), note Nem. 4.43 εὖ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι χρόνος ἕρπων πεπρωμέναν τελέσει; elsewhere E. fr. 441 TrGF χρόνος διέρπων πάντ’ ἀληθεύειν φιλεῖ. ὧν ἔραται καιρὸν διδούς: For καιρός with an object genitive, ‘(fitting) opportunity for’, cf. Ol. 2.53–4 ὁ μὰν πλοῦτος ἀρεταῖς δεδαιδαλμένος φέρει τῶν τε καὶ τῶν / καιρόν, Nem. 1.18 πολλῶν ἐπέβαν καιρὸν οὐ ψεύδει βαλών, 7.58–9 Θεαρίων, τὶν δ᾽ ἐοίκοτα καιρὸν ὄλβου / δίδωσι (Slater s.v. καιρός a). 58–60. ‘Muse, sing, I bid you, by the side of Deinomenes too a reward for the fourhorse chariot; for a father’s victory is no alien joy. Come then, let us devise a friendly song for the king of Aitna …’ In epic fashion the invocation to the Muse introduces a new section (cf. e.g. Il. 2.484–5, Hes. Th. 963–8), an encomium of the Deinomenids which will cover the entire fourth triad. Pindar begins by asking the Muse to extend the song to Hieron’s son Deinomenes, on the ground that he has a shared interest in his father’s victory. This association goes beyond ordinary family ties



because Deinomenes had been installed as the official ruler of Aitna (Introduction, 9; cf. 60n.). He is thus a direct beneficiary of the prestige which, according to Pindar, the city will gain from Hieron’s equestrian triumph. Cf. 30b–2a (ἐκύδανεν πόλιν), 35b–8nn. Formally, Pindar here inverts his practice of calling on the Muse(s) when he extends the praise of boy victors to their relatives and/or ancestors: Pyth. 11.41–50, Nem. 6.28–44, Isth. 6.57–73. In those cases the success of the young athletes becomes a ‘family affair’, and the same can be said  – on a much grander scale – about Pindar’s representation of the Deinomenid and Emmenid victories (Morgan 2015: 414–18). In Pythian 1 this includes Hieron’s military and political achievements; yet while his brothers remain anonymous in the context of his battles (47–50a, 79–80nn.), his son is not only mentioned by his dynastically significant name, but is also called ‘king of Aitna’ (60n.), as Hieron is βασιλεύς (of Syracuse) in 68 (cf. Ol. 1.23, Pyth. 3.70 and, implicitly, Ol. 1.114, Pyth. 2.14). This and the emphasis on Hieron’s role as Deinomenes’ advisor (70 υἱῷ … ἐπιτελλόμενος) are signs that Pindar was trying to portray his client as a hereditary monarch, a status Hieron was not yet able to claim officially and would never obtain (cf. Introduction, 15). As the fourth triad actually delivers the eulogy Pindar is promising to create for Deinomenes, it can be defined as a ‘song within a song’. The words κελαδῆσαι and φίλιον  … ὕμνον therefore become strongly self-referential, describing the process which the poet is representing himself as currently engaged in (cf. Spelman 2018: 266 n. 31). We find the same technique employed, by means of ring-composition, in 79–80 (n.), where Pindar’s ‘tribute of a song’ (ὕμνον  … τελέσαις) is the martial part of the encomium that is being performed (71–80). Interpreted thus, both passages together hark back to, and contrast with, 13–14 βοάν / Πιερίδων. This is how Zeus’ enemies perceive the music of Apollo and the Muses which has just been described as ongoing, in a way that invited comparison with the performance of Pindar’s chorus (1–28, 1–12nn.). 58–9. Μοῖσα: For Aeolic Μοῖσα in Pindar see 1–2a n. As often, the divine invocation begins abruptly, by asyndeton (29–30a, 39–40nn.). πὰρ Δεινομένει: ‘by the side of  …’, implying both simple presence and assistance (with the task of magnifying Hieron’s victory). The latter aspect is even stronger when παρά + dative is combined with ἵστημι, or in παρίσταμαι + dative. Cf. Ol. 3.4–6 Μοῖσα δ᾽ οὕτω ποι παρέστα μοι νεοσίγαλον εὑρόντι τρόπον / Δωρίῳ φωνὰν ἐναρμόξαι πεδίλῳ / ἀγλαόκωμον and Pyth. 4.1–3 σάμερον μὲν χρή σε παρ᾽ ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ / στᾶμεν, εὐίππου βασιλῇ Κυράνας … / Μοῖσα (with Braswell 1988: on 1–2).



Cingano (1995: on 58–60a) sees here an allusion to the common image of the poet’s journey in the chariot of the Muse(s). But this tends to be articulated more explicitly (e.g. Ol. 9.80–1, Isth. 2.1–2, Bacch. 5.176–8) and does not include other persons. Moreover, the standard verb for riding in a chariot is not παρίσταμαι (above), but παραβαίνω (Il. 11.104, 522; cf. παραβάτης of the warrior who ‘stands beside’ the charioteer). Triclinius rightly wrote πάρ for the unmetrical paradosis παρά (v.l. περί). On the whole, the form with apocope (for which see Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.74) is well preserved in the Pindaric MSS, probably because it was familiar from Homer. Of twenty-three further instances in the Epinicians only two show corruption into παρά: Ol. 8.17 (codd.: corr. Tricl.), Pyth. 1.76 (G). For the reverse error, again emended by Triclinius, see 79 (79–80n.). κελαδῆσαι: literally ‘to make a (loud) noise’, but frequently of music, i.e. ‘sing, resound’. For its use with an internal accusative, signifying the (type of) song, cf. e.g. Ol. 11.13–14 κόσμον … / ἁδυμελῆ κελαδήσω, Isth. 8.61–2 ἔσσυταί τε Μοισαῖον ἅρμα Νικοκλέος / μνᾶμα πυγμάχου κελαδῆσαι, Pae. 7b.10 (fr. 52h = C2 Rutherford) κελαδήσαθ᾽ ὕμνους, Bacch. 16.11–12. πίθεό μοι is Triclinius’ correction for the universally transmitted πείθεό μοι. The itacistic corruption does not scan. ποινὰν τεθρίππων: ‘reward for …’ (+ genitive of exchange). This positive sense of ποινά (-ή) has parallels at Nem. 1.70 ἡσυχίαν καμάτων μεγάλων ποινὰν λαχόντ᾽ ἐξαίρετον, A. Suppl. 626 εὐχὰς ἀγαθάς, ἀγαθῶν ποινάς and IG XIV 1437.2 (Rome) ποινὴν εὐσεβίης (LSJ s.v. I 3). More commonly ἄποινα (neuter plural) is used in this way: e.g. Ol. 7.15–16 ἄνδρα … / αἰνέσω πυγμᾶς ἄποινα (adverbial: ‘in recompense for’), Pyth. 2.13–14 ἄλλοις δέ τις ἐτέλεσσεν ἄλλος ἀνήρ / εὐαχέα βασιλεῦσιν ὕμνον ἄποιν᾽ ἀρετᾶς, Nem. 7.15–16 εἰ  …  / εὕρηται [τις] ἄποινα μόχθων κλυταῖς ἐπέων ἀοιδαῖς (LSJ s.v. II 2, Slater s.v. 1, Nünlist 1998: 287–9). The opposing meanings of ποινή and ἄποινα as positive ‘reward, recompense’ and negative ‘penalty, vengeance’ are explicable from an originally neutral ‘requital’, which can be ‘(1) requital for a wrong or injury done … which is paid by the doer to the person wronged … or (2) requital for service or meritorious action, which is paid to the doer by the person benefited or approving …’ (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.63d). This idea is supported by similar divergences in other derivatives of PIE *kwei- and *kwoi-neh2–: e.g. Greek τίνω, ‘pay the price (good or bad)’, Vedic ci-, cáyate (middle), ‘take payment, punish’, Avestan kaēnā(f.), ‘punishment, vengeance’, Lithuanian káina (f.), ‘price’ (DELG, Beekes s.v. ποινή). The legal connotations of ποινή and ἄποινα still shine through in Pindar. His songs are the compensation due to the honorands for their expediture of physical effort and/or money prior to the victory. A related idea is that of epini-



cian as ‘tribute’ or ‘debt’ (79–80n. (τελέσαις)). Both are variations on the theme of aristocratic gift-exchange between laudator and laudandus, from which the poet also stands to profit (75–7a n. (χάριν μισθόν)). See Kurke 1991: 108–17. τεθρίππων: sc. ἁρμάτων (plural for singular). Cf. e.g. Ol.  2.50 ἄνθεα τεθρίππων δυωδεκαδρόμων, E. Her. 177–8, 380 and in full e.g. E. Hcld. 802 ἐκβὰς τεθρίππων … ἁρμάτων. χάρμα … οὐκ ἀλλότριον νικαφορία πατέρος: The juxtaposition of χάρμα and νικαφορία emphasises the ‘joy of agonistic victory’. Cf. Nem. 3.65–7 ἀγών, τὸν ὕμνος ἔβαλεν /  … ἐπιχώριον χάρμα κελαδέων.  / βοὰ δὲ νικαφόρῳ σὺν Ἀριστοκλείδᾳ πρέπει, Isth. 5.54 καλλίνικον χάρμ᾽ and, for χάρμα on its own in this context, Ol. 10.22; likewise χάρμη (properly ‘joy of battle’) in Ol. 9.86 ἄλλαι δὲ δύ᾽ ἐν Κορίνθου πύλαις ἐγένοντ᾽ ἔπειτα χάρμαι. Deinomenes’ pleasure in his father’s achievements is diametrically opposed to the resentment ascribed to unrelated citizens in 84 (82b–4n.) ἀστῶν δ᾽ ἀκοὰ κρύφιον θυμὸν βαρύνει μάλιστ᾽ ἐσλοῖσιν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις (cf. Skulsky 1975: 25). This ‘kinship factor’ (and indeed our passage) may also lie behind the explanation of Thucydides (4.72.1) why the Boeotians came to the aid of Megara in 424: ὡς οὐκ ἀλλοτρίου ὄντος τοῦ κινδύνου. In addition to the military aspect of a danger ‘close to home’, Hornblower (1991–2008: II 67–9, 240, 2004: 117) sees there an allusion to the myth that Megara was a Boeotian foundation and the two thus related. Cf. Thuc. 6.16.5 (Hornblower 2004: 117 n. 111). δ᾽: causal (7b–8a n.). 60. ἄγ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ Αἴτνας βασιλεῖ φίλιον ἐξεύρωμεν ὕμνον: The archaic lyric poet ‘finds (out)’ the song or melody, that is new ways of handling traditional themes and modes of expression, which was an integral part of the art, and the pride of its practitioners from Indo-European times on (West 2007: 27–31; cf. Bacch. fr. 5 ἕτερος ἐξ ἑτέρων σοφός (a poet) / τό τε πάλαι τό τε νῦν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ῥᾷστον / ἀρρήτων ἐπέων πύλας / ἐξευρεῖν). Programmatic statements to this effect are absent from Greek epic, which focuses on memory rather than creation (cf. West 1999: 365 = 2011–13: I 410). We first meet them in Alcm. fr. 39 PMGF ϝέπη τάδε καὶ μέλος Ἀλκμάν / εὗρε γεγλωσσαμέναν / κακκαβίδων ὄπα συνθέμενος (‘These words and melody Alcman invented by putting together the tuneful cry of partridges’) and Stes. fr.  173.1–2 Finglass τοιάδε χρὴ  … δαμώματα  …  / ὑμνεῖν Φρύγιον μέλος ἐξευρόντα ἁβρῶς (cf. their note (p. 496)). They frequently occur in Pindar’s epinicians, perhaps because he felt a particular need to emphasise his inventiveness towards his clients: Ol. 1.110 ἐπίκουρον εὑρὼν ὁδὸν λόγων (with Gerber 1982), 3.4–5, 9.80 εἴην εὑρησιεπής (cf. Ar. Nub. 447), Pyth. 4.298–9, Nem. 6.53–4, 8.20–1; also Pi. fr. 122.13–15 (classed as an enkō­ mion). Vedic has semantic parallels in the phrase vā́cam … ved-, ‘find (poetic)



speech’ (e.g. RV 1.92.9, 8.19.12), and in the compound adjective vacovíd-, ‘skilled in (finding) song’ (e.g. RV 1.91.11, 8.101.16), which shows the Indo-European origin of the concept. See Massetti 2019: 56–9, Meusel 2020: 343–4, 659–65. Αἴτνας βασιλεῖ … ἐξεύρωμεν ὕμνον: On the verbal echoing between this and 79 παίδεσσιν ὕμνον Δεινομένεος τελέσαις see 58–60, 79–80nn. Pindar is the only one who calls Deinomenes ‘king’ (cf. 68), and the same applies to Hieron (58–60n.). Most scholars agree that these appellations are not to be accepted at face value, as proof that the Deinomenids had established a hereditary monarchy in Syracuse and Aitna, like the Battiads in Kyrene (cf. Pyth. 4.2 βασιλῆι Κυράνας, 5.15), but as part of a political ‘programme’ to cement their rule. See e.g. Dunbabin 1948: 426–8, Luraghi 1994: 341–2, 358–60, 2011: 35, Harrell 2002: 439–50, Morgan 2015: 415–18 (against e.g. Wilamowitz 1922: 297, 300–1, Oost 1976). In schol. Pyth. 1.118c (II 20.19 Dr.) Deinomenes is called στρατηγός (‘governor’), which may not have been his official title, but reflect lost evidence about his status. Whether this was still nominal, because he was still under Chromios’ regentship (Introduction, 9 with n. 20), when Pythian 1 was performed, or whether he had come of age by then, cannot be deduced from Pindar’s words or the scholia either (Carey 1993: 97; contrast Luraghi 1994: 338–9). With βασιλεύς (and the like) the genitive of place is used interchangeably with the genitive of the people, for variation and in poetry no doubt for metrical reasons too. Contrast e.g. Il. 7.180 (= 11.46) βασιλῆα … Μυκήνης, Pyth. 4.2 (above), A. Pers. 73 Ἀσίας … ἄρχων with e.g. Il. 20.84 Τρώων βασιλεῦσιν, Pyth. 1.73 Συρακοσίων ἀρχῷ. In particular Braswell (1988: on Pyth. 4.2c) quotes Thuc. 2.95.1 Σιτάλκης … Θρᾳκῶν βασιλεὺς ἐστράτευσεν ἐπὶ Περδίκκαν … Μακεδονίας βασιλέα (cf. 2.95.3 ἐπὶ βασιλείᾳ Μακεδόνων). Add Bacch. 18.1–2 βασιλεῦ τᾶν ἱερᾶν Ἀθανᾶν, / τῶν ἁβροβίων ἄναξ Ἰώνων. φίλιον: See 91–2b n. (ὦ φίλε). 61–70. Pindar’s narrative of the Dorian ‘colonisation’ of Aitna elaborates on the first mention of the city’s foundation at 30–2 (30b–3a, 30b–2a nn.). But he does not refer directly to the violent reality behind the institution of Aitna, which involved the replacement of its mainly Ionian population with Dorians from Sicily and perhaps also the Peloponnese (Introduction, 9). Instead in 62–6 Pindar invokes the by no means peaceful myth of the Dorian migration into the Peloponnese under the Herakleidai (62–6; cf. e.g. Hdt. 9.26.2–5, D. S. 4.57–8, ‘Apollod.’ 2.8.2–5, schol. Pyth. 1.121c (II 21.10–16 Dr.)). The lasting and glorious presence of their descendants in this part of Greece, under a firmly-established ‘Dorian’ constitution, is to act as a paradigm for Aitna, in terms of ethnic identity (Lewis 2019: 138, 171–7) as well as political and genealogical stability, if



Zeus grants his support (Morgan 2015: 334–5). Cf. 67–8, 69–70nn. and Introduction, 15. At the same time, the passage associates Aitna with Sparta (cf. 62b–5a n. (ὄχθαις ὕπο Ταϋγέτου)), the only mainland Greek state which was then ruled by a legitimate monarchy (Luraghi 1994: 358–9) and ‘a major mainland power that has just played a leading role in defeating the Persians’ (Morgan 2015: 335). This allows Pindar to fulfil two encomiastic aims at once. Politically, he can present Aitna as governed by an enlightened royal constitution, thereby strengthening the Deinomenids’ claim to hereditary kingship (cf. 60n. and Pyth. 10.1–3, where the Spartan model is used to legitimise the monarchic aspirations of the Aleuadai). And from the military point of view the implicit parallel fore­shadows the alignment of the battles of Himera and Kyme with those of Salamis and Plataea in 71–80 (n.). Here it may be significant that Sparta’s role in the Persian Wars was praised in similar mythological terms in Simonides’ Plataea Elegy: frr. 11.29–34 (claiming the support of the Tyndaridai), 13.9–10 IEG2 (calling the Spartans the ‘sons of Doros and Heracles’). Cf. 65b–6n. and Fries 2017a: 69–71. The three Dorian tribes are first mentioned in Tyrt. fr.  19.8 IEG2 χωρὶς Πάμφυλοί τε καὶ Ὑλλεῖς ἠδ̣[ὲ Δυμᾶνες] (suppl. Wilamowitz), but there are earlier traces of their genealogy. Dymas and Pamphylos are the sons of Aigimios (‘Hes.’ fr. 10a.6–7 M.–W.2), one of the original Dorian kings. Hyllos, by contrast, entered the family by adoption. Aigimios took him in as a son and heir after the death of his father Heracles, who had helped him to ward off the threat to his reign posed by the Lapiths (Ephor. FGrH 70 F 15; cf. Strab. 9.4.10). The different branches in the royal lineage are reflected here in the mention of Hyllos (62) and the Herakleidai (63) on the one hand, and that of Pamphylos (62), on the other (Cingano 1995: on 61–70; cf. 62b–5a n.). The same applies to two Pindar passages describing, respectively, the Dorian settlement of Aigina and the Peloponnese: Isth. 9.1–6 σὺν θεῶν δέ νιν αἴσᾳ / Ὕλλου τε καὶ Αἰγιμιοῦ / Δωριεὺς ἐλθὼν στρατός / ἐκτίσσατο· τῶν μὲν ὑπὸ στάθμᾳ νέμονται / οὐ θέμιν οὐδὲ δίκαν / ξείνων ὑπερβαίνοντες (‘By the destiny of the gods the Dorian army of Hyllos and of Aigimios came and founded her. Her citizens live in obedience to their rule, transgressing neither divine law nor justice due to strangers’) and Pyth. 5.69–72a (μαντήιον) τῷ [καὶ] Λακεδαίμονι / ἐν Ἄργει τε καὶ ζαθέᾳ Πύλῳ / ἔνασσεν ἀλκάεντας Ἡρακλέος / ἐκγόνους Αἰγιμιοῦ τε (‘… his oracular shrine, through which he settled in Lakedaimon and in Argos and holy Pylos the valiant descendants of Herakles and Aigimios’). The first section shares a particularly large number of expressions with Pyth. 1.61–5 (τῷ πόλιν … Δωριεῖς); the second one is relevant because, as mutatis mutandis in Pythian 1, it serves as a foil for the following account of the Spartan colonisation of Thera (Pyth. 5.72b–6).



61–2a. ‘… for whom Hieron founded that city with the aid of divinely-fashioned freedom in keeping with the laws of Hyllos’ rule. The connecting relative clause echoes 30b–2a (n.) τοῦ μὲν ἐπωνυμίαν  / κλεινὸς οἰκιστὴρ ἐκύδανεν πόλιν / γείτονα. Its conspicuous position, bridging the transition between the triads (cf.  21–2a n.), lends additional force to its purpose of identifying the praise of Hieron’s foundation with the ‘friendly song’ promised to Deinomenes. τῷ πόλιν κείναν … ἔκτισσε: For Hieron as city founder in Pindar and Bacchylides and his short-lived status as a hero οἰκιστής in Aitna see 30b–2a n. and Introduction, 9–10. A close verbal parallel exists in Pyth. 4.7–8 ὡς … κτίσσειεν εὐάρματον  / πόλιν (of Battos  I, the founder of Kyrene), which continues the resemblance between the appeals to the Muse in 58–9 (n.) and Pyth. 4.1–3. The unmetrical ἔκτισε(ν) (cf.  62b–5a n.) of the paradosis was corrected by Triclinius and Pseudo-Moschopoulos (cf. Introduction, 55, 57). ‘Pindar, like Homer … uses the metrically convenient alternatives, -ισσ- (5×) and -ῐσ- (4×)’ (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.7d; cf. Slater s.v. κτίζω a, b). πόλιν κείναν: As in 42 (42b–3a n.) ἄνδρα … κεῖνον, the third-person deictic pronoun is anaphoric and expresses prestige (‘that (wonderful) city just mentioned’), rather than pointing to a distant locale (‘that city over there’). It still therefore allows a first performance in Aitna (Cingano 1995: on 61, Introduction, 12–14). Cf. 30 (29–30a n.) τοῦτ’ … ὄρος. Instead of κείναν some sources read κλεινάν (ÅCEF + lΣE), which lacks the anaphoric effect of the deictic and seems altogether too strong. The error is easy, both palaeographically and in sense, and may have been aided here by scribal reminiscence of 31 κλεινὸς οἰκιστήρ. θεοδμάτῳ σὺν ἐλευθερίᾳ has usually been explained as a reference to the freedom promised by Aitna’s Dorian constitution, with θεόδματος (literally ‘god-built’) in the metaphorical sense of ‘divinely-inspired’, i.e. sanctioned by the gods (e.g. Dissen 1830: II 174, Schroeder 1922: on 61, Skulsky 1975: 19; cf. Slater s.v. θεόδματος b). And this is probably how the majority of the first-time audience would have understood the phrase. However, Carey (1978: 26–7), followed by Cingano (1995: on 56–7), has argued that ἐλευθερία here could also refer to the freedom from foreign aggression for which Pindar is about to pray (71–80 (n.), especially 75 Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας) and which he also presented as a precondition for the prosperity of Aitna in Nem. 9.28–33 (cf. below and 69–70, 71–2a nn.). The epithet θεόδματος then keeps its literal meaning ‘god-built’, i.e. ‘created by god(s)’ (e.g. Il. 8.519, Ol. 6.59, Bacch. 1.14, E. Hipp. 974), as possibly also with an abstract at Pi. fr. 35c νόμων … θεόδματον κέλαδον (‘the divinely-fashioned sound of melodies’ (Race); context unknown). For a similar usage of σύν, ‘with



the aid of’ (LSJ s.v. A 2), Carey quotes Isth. 8.15 ἰατὰ δ᾽ ἔστι βροτοῖς σύν γ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ. The objection that the context and wording do not suggest this particular freedom can be countered in three ways. First, ἐλευθερία was a political catchword in the aftermath of the Persian Wars, frequently invoked in celebratory poetry (e.g. ‘Sim.’ Ep. 10, 15.3–4, 16.1–2 FGE; cf. 72b–5a n.). Secondly, Pindar himself had employed the ‘building’-metaphor in a dithyramb for the Athenians praising their contribution to the battle of Artemision: fr. 77 ὅθι παῖδες Ἀθαναίων ἐβάλοντο φαεννάν / κρηπῖδ᾽ ἐλευθερίας (‘where the sons of the Athenians laid the bright foundation of freedom’). And thirdly, Pindar may not have intended this as the primary meaning of the expression, but as an additional nuance to be picked up by later audiences. Ὑλλίδος στάθμας … ἐν νόμοις: Hyllos is mentioned as the mythical ancestor of the Dorian tribe Hylleis (61–70n.). The phrase is syntactically and semantically equivalent to 64 τεθμοῖσιν ἐν Αἰγιμιοῦ (62b–5a n.). This parallel and the combined presence of three nouns from the lexical field of ‘rules and regulations’ (στάθμας, νόμοις, τεθμοῖσιν) strengthen the rhetorical nexus between the ancient laws of the Peloponnesian Dorians and the new constitution of Aitna. The same ‘rule’ or στάθμα  – literally ‘carpenter’s (measuring) line’ (LSJ s.v. στάθμη I 1) and so perhaps one of Pindar’s building-metaphors – is invoked for the colonisation of Aigina at Isth. 9.2–4 Ὕλλου τε καὶ Αἰγιμιοῦ / … / … τῶν μὲν ὑπὸ στάθμᾳ νέμονται (cf. 61–70n.), whereas in Nem. 9.29–30 Pindar asks Zeus for Aitna to be imbued with lasting εὐνομία (‘good order’). For Ὑλλίς as a feminine adjective derived from Hyllos cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 71a.9– 10 M.–W.2 κού̣[ρας … ] / Ὑλλίδα̣[ς and for ἐν, ‘within (= in keeping with)’, e.g. Ol. 2.16 ἐν δίκᾳ τε καὶ παρὰ δίκαν, 75 βουλαῖς ἐν ὀρθαῖσι Ῥαδαμάνθυος, Pyth. 2.43 (γόνον  …) οὔτ᾽ ἐν ἀνδράσι γερασφόρον οὔτ᾽ ἐν θεῶν νόμοις, Isth. 2.38 (Slater s.v. ἐν A 6 a,35 Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.59e). 62b–5a. ‘For the descendants of Pamphylos and indeed the sons of Heracles, who dwell under the heights of Taÿgetos, wish to remain forever in the institutions of Aigimios as Dorians.’ θέλοντι: so rightly the majority of the MSS, after ἔκτισε (61–2a n.) followed by a stop. ÅC have ἔκτισεν. ἐθέλοντι (cf. lΣEF ἐθέλοντι), where at least two stages

35 Three passages quoted there belong rather under A 2 a (of place): Nem. 10.28 τρὶς δὲ καὶ σεμνοῖς δαπέδοις ἐν Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ (sc. λαχών), where ἐν Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ refers to the Nemean Games, Ol. 13.49 ἐγὼ δὲ ἴδιος ἐν κοινῷ σταλείς (‘in a public position’), Pi. fr. 124ab.2–4 ἐν ξυνῷ κεν εἴη / … γλυκερὸν … / … κέντρον (‘amid the company …’).



of corruption were at work: (1) wrong word-division and (perhaps corrective) dittography of ε after ἔκτισε and (2) elimination of the hiatus with ephelcystic ν. Both could have happened independently in the different branches of the tradition represented by μ and C. Liberman (2004: 48), following e.g. Mommsen, accepts Boeckh’s ἔκτισσ᾽· ἐθέλοντι (1811: I.1 68, I.2 438–9) on the ground that it observes one of the regular word breaks in this period, after the first longum of the D-colon (for a similarly weak divisions in this position cf. 41, again with elision).36 However, Pindar deviates from this pattern at 48 (εὑρί-)σκοντο | θεῶν παλάμαις and 88 μάρτυρες | ἀμφοτέροις, of which the former exactly matches (ἔ-)κτισσε· | θέλοντι δὲ Πάμ(φύλου). On the Doric third-person plural ending see 22b–4n. (προχέοντι ῥόον). δέ: causal (7b–8a n.). Παμφύλου / καὶ μὰν Ἡρακλειδᾶν ἔκγονοι: For καὶ μάν, ‘where καὶ connects individual words, while μὰν emphasises the last member in a series’, cf. Pyth. 6.5–9 ἔνθ᾽ ὀλβίοισιν Ἐμμενίδαις  / ποταμίᾳ τ᾽ Ἀκράγαντι καὶ μὰν Ξενοκράτει  / ἑτοῖμος ὕμνων θησαυρὸς  … /  … τετείχισται (Slater s.v. μάν 2 a; cf. GP 351–2). Here the combination of particles distinguishes the descendants of the Herakleidai (i.e. the Hylleis) from those of Pamphylos (the Pamphyloi), alluding to the fact that Hyllos was an adopted son of Aigimios and thus represents a different line (61–70n.; Fennell 1893: on 62, Cingano 1995: on 62–3). The clear and simple etymology of Pamphylos and the Pamphyloi (< πᾶσαι φῦλαι) suggests that the name was a relatively late invention. It suits Aitna, given the varied origin of its new Dorian population (Introduction, 9; cf. Wilamo­witz 1922: 301). ὄχθαις ὕπο Ταϋγέτου: The location ‘under the heights of Taÿgetos’ points to Sparta, the principal Dorian city, as do the following names of Amyklai and the Tyndaridai (65b–6n.). Usually ὄχθη designates a height rising by the water, i.e. a river-bank or sea-cliff (cf. 18 (17b–19a n.) ταί θ᾽ ὑπὲρ Κύμας ἁλιερκέες ὄχθαι), while ὄχθος refers to a hill. But the distinction is not absolute. Note S. Ant. 1131–2 Νυσαίων ὀρέων / κισσήρεις ὄχθαι (lyric) as against E. Suppl. 655 Ἰσμήνιον πρὸς ὄχθον, where emendation to ὄχθην would be metrically impossible. τεθμοῖσιν ἐν Αἰγιμιοῦ (with Doric τεθμός for θεσμός) harks back to 62 (61–2a n.) Ὑλλίδος στάθμας … ἐν νόμοις. For Aigimios as the primeval king of the Dorians see 61–70n.

36 Boeckh’s own motive for making the conjecture was his mistaken belief that Pindar only wrote θέλω instead of ‘Homeric’ ἐθέλω when absolutely metrically necessary.



Δωριεῖς: The all-important ethnic name is highlighted by the enjambment and its position at the end of a syntactical period and at the beginning of a metrical one. Cf. 33 ἅρμασι (32b–3a n.). Liberman (2004: 48) prints Hermann’s Δωρίοις (1809: XII = 1827–77: I 255), because ‘the poet puts the emphasis on the Dorian character of the laws’ (‘[l]e poète met l’accent sur le caractère dorien des lois’). But Pindar has already achieved this with the allusions to Hyllos (62) and Aigimios (above). In addition, the dative adjective agreeing with τεθμοῖσιν destroys the ring-composition between Παμφύλου / καὶ μὰν Ἡρακλειδᾶν ἔκγονοι and its long-delayed predicate Δωριεῖς. 65b–6. ‘Blessed with prosperity, they set out from Pindos and took Amyklai, (to be) the highly-renowned neighbours of the Tyndaridai with white horses, whose fame in battle blossomed.’ ἔσχον δ᾽ Ἀμύκλας: In myth at least ‘[t]he Dorian conquest of Lakedaimon was accomplished with the taking of Amyklai, a few miles south of Sparta’ (Race 1997: II 199 n.  1; see further below). The same story is told, from a Theban angle, in Isth. 7.12–15 ἢ Δωρίδ’ ἀποικίαν οὕνεκεν ὀρθῷ / ἔστασας ἐπὶ σφυρῷ / Λακεδαιμονίων, ἕλον δ’ Ἀμύκλας / Αἰγεῖδαι σέθεν ἔκγονοι, μαντεύμασι Πυθίοις; (‘Or because you established on firm footing the Dorian colony of the Lakedaimonians, and your offspring, the Aigeidai, took Amyklai in accordance with the Pythian oracles?’). Cf. Arist. fr. 532 Rose = schol. Isth. 7.18c (III 263.19–26, 264.10–16 Dr.), Ephor. FGrH 70 F 16 = schol. Pyth. 5.101b (II 184.12–185.10 Dr.). Here, by contrast, the tale resonates with historical reality. ‘Like the Aitnaians who recently expelled the former inhabitants of Katane before founding their city, the sons of Pamphylos and the Herakleidai once took Amyklai from its previous inhabitants’ (Lewis 2019: 175). The town of Amyklai near Sparta was an important Bronze-Age settlement, mentioned in the Homeric catalogue of ships (Il. 2.584) and apparently already in a 14th-century Egyptian list of Aegean place names (Lehmann 1991: 107–9). It fell to Sparta ca. 750 – for differing accounts see Ephor. FGrH 70 F 117 (treachery) and e.g. Arist. fr. 532 Rose (above), Paus. 3.2.6, 19.6 (prolonged fighting) – and was incorporated into the city territory. Amyklai remained well-known, however, for its cults of Apollo-Hyakinthos and Agamemnon and Alexandra (Cassandra). The latter, which certainly existed in the fifth century and may go back to the late seventh, will have been the reason why Pindar, perhaps following Stesichorus (fr. 177 Finglass) and Simonides (fr. 276 Poltera), made Amyklai the home of Agamemnon: Pyth. 11.31–2 (with Finglass 2007: on 16, 32), Nem. 11.34.



For the ingressive aorist ἔσχον, ‘took (possession of)’ cf. Isth. 7.14 ἕλον δ’ Ἀμύκλας (above) and of colonisation also Ol. 2.8–9 οἳ … / ἱερὸν ἔσχον οἴκημα ποταμοῦ (of Theron’s ancestors who ‘won’ the site of Akragas) and Pi. Pae. 5.38–40 (fr. 52e = D5 Rutherford) καὶ σποράδας φερεμήλους / ἔκτισαν νάσους ἐρικυδέα τ᾽ ἔσχον / Δᾶλον (i.e. settlers from Athens: schol.ε1 35 (p. 294 Rutherford) [ < 20 ] ἀπὸ Ἀθηναίων). Πινδόθεν ὀρνύμενοι: It is not entirely clear whether this refers to the Pindos mountains, which separate Thessaly and Epirus in the north of central Greece, or to the city of Pindos on the banks of the homonymous river in Doris. Both regions are named, and occasionally confused, as the original homeland of the Dorians: e.g. Hdt. 1.56.3, 8.43, Andron FGrH 10 F 16a = Strab. 10.4.6 (≠ Strab. 9.4.10), scholl. Pyth. 1.121c, 126 (II 21.10–16, 22.6–7 Dr.). Yet early sources favour Pindos in Doris. According to the mythographer Konon, the nearby towns of Boion, Erineos and Kytinion, which were associated with Pindos as the ‘Dorian tetrapolis’, were founded by Doros (FGrH 26 F 1.27). While Konon belongs to the first century AD, this tradition probably goes back to at least the seventh century BC. In Tyrt. fr. 2.12–15 IEG2 the Dorians, together with the Herakleidai, set out from Erineos to invade the Peloponnese. λευκοπώλων Τυνδαριδᾶν … γείτονες: i.e. of the Dioskouroi (Kastor and Polydeukes). They were the twin sons of Zeus (Διὸς κοῦροι/κόροι) and Leda and thus brothers of Helen. Leda’s husband, the Spartan king Tyndareos, gave them their ‘mortal’ patronym Tyndaridai and in some sources is the genuine father of both (Od. 11.298–300; cf. Il. 3.243–4) or of Kastor only (Cypria fr. 9 GEF, Nem. 10.79–82; cf. West 2013: 79–80). In accordance with their dual nature, Zeus granted them immortality on alternate days (so already Od. 11.301–4). In between they were believed to go below the earth at Therapne, their principal cult centre near Sparta: e.g. Alcm. fr. 7.6–9 (+ 12–13?) PMGF, Pyth. 11.61–4 (with Finglass 2007: on 63), Nem. 10.55–7, Isth. 1.31. Hence the Dorians here are called their ‘neighbours’ (Cingano 1995: on 66). The Dioskouroi (Tyndaridai) are firmly associated with horses, like other divine twins in Indo-European mythology, especially the Vedic Aśvins, whose name means ‘having (to do with) horses’ (West 2007: 186–91). The possession of white horses in particular is significant in two ways. Since it was rare in real life even among the very wealthy (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.117a), it emphasises the superior status of the Dioskouroi (cf. e.g. E. Hel. 639 κόροι λεύκιπποι, IA 1153–4, Luc. DDeor. 26.1, Ov. Met. 8.373–4) and similar heroic figures, such as their Theban counterparts Amphion and Zethos (E. Her. 29–30, Phoen. 606, E. fr. 223.127 TrGF), the siamese twins Kteatos and Eurytos, the Molione (Ibyc. fr.  285 PMGF) and Rhesus (Il.  10.435–7, Hippon. fr.  72.5–7 IEG2, [E.] Rh.  304, 616–18). By the same token, ‘the Aśvins … gave a white horse to the hero Pedu,



who won ninety-nine victories with it’: RV 1.116.6, 118.9, 119.10, 7.71.5, 10.39.10 (West 2007: 188 with n. 77). Secondly, both the Dioskouroi and the Aśvins are radiant bringers of light (e.g. Alc. fr. 34.11–12 Voigt ἀργαλέᾳ δ’ ἐν νύκτι φ[άος φέ]ροντες / νᾶϊ μ[ε]λαίνᾳ, RV 1.92.17). This associates them with Dawn and Day, whose horses are also traditionally white (e.g. Bacch. fr. 20C.22 λε[ύκι]ππος Ἀώς, A. Pers. 386 λευκόπωλος ἡμέρα, S. Ai. 673; cf. RV 7.77.3 of Dawn leading the white horse, that is the sun). See West 2007: 188, Massetti 2019: 74–5. The Dioskouroi have a female equivalent in the daughters of Leukippos, Hilaeira and Phoibe (the Leukippides), who had their own cult in Sparta and in myth became known as the (abducted) wives of Kastor and Polydeukes (DNP/ BNP s.v. Leukippides / Leucippids, Kannicht 1969: on E. Hel. 1465–7 κόρας … Λευκιππίδας, West 2013: 87). On the Dioskouroi as helpers in battle see below (ὧν κλέος ἄνθησεν αἰχμᾶς). βαθύδοξοι: The epithet is attested only here and at Pi. Pae. 2.57–8 (fr. 52b = D2 Rutherford) χρὴ δ᾽ ἄνδρα τοκεῦσι φέρειν / βαθ̣ύδοξον αἶσαν, but the same image occurs at Ol.  7.53 ἦν δὲ κλέος βαθύ and in the personal name Βαθυκλῆς, attested in Homer (Il. 16.594) and later non-Attic inscriptions (e.g. IG V.2 38.39 (Tegea, IV/III BC); cf. Massetti 2019: 31 n. 169). Like altus in Latin, βαθύς can mean ‘deep’ or ‘high’, depending on one’s standpoint (LSJ s.v. I 1), so both ‘high’ (renown) and ‘profound’ (glory, fame) would be appropriate. For possible Indo-Iranian parallels see Schmitt 1967: 75–7, Massetti 2019: 31–2, Meusel 2020: 253–9. ὧν κλέος ἄνθησεν αἰχμᾶς: Cf. Nem. 9.39 λέγεται … Ἕκτορι … κλέος ἀνθῆσαι and the personal name ‘Kleanthes’. Braswell (1998: on Nem. 9.23, 39) understands ἀνθέω here in its presumed original sense ‘sprout, grow’ (Aitchison 1963). He compares Ol. 10.95–6 τρέφοντι δ᾽ εὐρὺ κλέος / κόραι Πιερίδες Διός, Isth. 7.29 μέγιστον κλέος αὔξων and Hor. Carm. 1.12.45–6 crescit … velut arbor … / fama Marcelli (-is Peerlkamp), to which one can add Nem. 8.40 †αὔξεται† δ᾽ ἀρετά, χλωραῖς ἐέρσαις ὡς ὅτε δένδρεον ᾄσσει.37 But ‘blossom’ is an equally fitting metaphor: cf. Ol. 13.23 ἐν δ᾽ Ἄρης ἀνθεῖ νέων οὐλίαις αἰχμαῖσιν ἀνδρῶν, ‘Terp.’ fr. 6 Bergk = 7 Campbell (Plut. Lyc. 21.3, Arr. Tact. 44.3) ἔνθ’ αἰχμά τε νέων θάλλει as well as Isth. 5.17–18 τὶν δ᾽ ἐν Ἰσθμῷ διπλόα θάλλοισ᾽ ἀρετά / … ἄγκειται and the real flowers which mark the glory of victory at Bacch. 10.15–18 and 13.58– 66. See also 89–90n. (εὐανθεῖ δ᾽ ἐν ὀργᾷ) and Meusel 2020: 415–18.

37 The initial αὔξεται does not scan. For various possible solutions, which do not affect the general sense, see Henry 2005: on Nem. 8.40.



The relative pronoun ὧν can refer both to the Tyndaridai and to the Dorians; cf. respectively Isth. 5.33 γέρας ἔχει … Κάστορος δ᾽ αἰχμὰ Πολυδεύκεός τ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Εὐρώτα ῥεέθροις and Pi. fr.  199.2 (of the Lakedaimonians) καὶ νέων ἀνδρῶν ἀριστεύοισιν αἰχμαί. In that way Pindar blurs the line between the two, anticipating the use of the battle of Plataea as one foil for Hieron’s wars in 77–8 (cf. 61–70, 71–80nn.). In the Plataea Elegy the Spartans are also presented as valiant fighters (Sim. fr. 11.25–8 IEG2), marching into battle accompanied by the Tyndaridai and Menelaus: Sim. fr. 11.29–31 IEG2 [οἳ μὲν ἄρ᾽ Εὐ]ρώτ̣αν κα[ὶ Σπάρτη]ς ἄστυ λιπόντ[ες] / [ὥρμησαν] Ζηνὸς παισὶ σὺν ἱπποδάμοις / [Τυνδαρίδα]ι ̣ς ἥρωσι καὶ εὐρυβίῃ Μενελάω[ι] (31 [Τυνδαρίδα]ι ̣ς West: [ἁγνοτάτο]ι ̣ς Parsons; see Fries 2017a: 71 n. 31 for a literary argument in favour of the former). Hero­ dotus (5.75.2) reports that the Tyndaridai regularly joined the Spartans in the field – or one of them after in 506 a law was passed that the two Spartan kings should not campaign together (Pritchett 1979: 14–15; cf. Hornblower 2013: on Hdt. 5.75.2 on whether statues or actual epiphanies were meant: ‘the difference is not great because, in a real sense, a statue was the god’). For other supposed apparitions of the Dioskouroi in sixth- and fifth-century battles see Pritchett 1979: 21–2, 25–6, 27. 67–8. ‘Zeus Accomplisher, determine such a fate always for the citizens and their kings by the water of the Amenas to be the true account of men.’ While the sense of this prayer is clear – Dorian Aitna is to enjoy the same lasting good fortune as Sparta (61–70n.) – its syntax can be construed in different ways. The most natural interpretation seems to be to take διακρίνειν as an infinitive of command (KG II 20–2, SD 380–2), with Zeus as its subject, τοιαύταν … αἶσαν as object and ἔτυμον λόγον ἀνθρώπων as a predicate complementing the latter. This is presupposed in scholl. Pyth. 1.130a and 132 (II 22.16–20, 23.1–2 Dr.) and in modern times has found advocates in e.g. Mezger (1880: on 68), Schroeder (1900: 180 ≠ 1922: 10 (below)), Burton (1962: 104), Slater (s.v. διακρίνω b), Kirkwood (1982: on 68) and Race (1997: I 221). Literary arguments in its favour are the equally direct appeal to Zeus in 71 λίσσομαι νεῦσον, Κρονίων and the fact that Zeus or other gods are usually the dispensers of αἶσα: e.g. Il.  9.608 φρονέω δὲ τετιμῆσθαι Διὸς αἴσῃ, Ol.  6.101–2 θεός  / τῶνδε κείνων τε κλυτὰν αἶσαν παρέχοι φιλέων, Nem. 3.15–16, 6.13a, E. Andr. 1203. Alternatively, scholars have understood the sentence as an accusative and infinitive expressing a wish (KG II 22–3, SD 382–3). In that case the subject of διακρίνειν could be either τοιαύταν … αἶσαν (Hermann 1817: 322; cf. Liber­man 2004: 49, 258–9) or ἔτυμον λόγον ἀνθρώπων (Boeckh 1821: II.2 50 (trans­lation), 237); cf. e.g. Gildersleeve 1890, Schroeder 1922 and Farnell 1932: on 67, Cingano



1995: on 67–8).38 The former preserves part of the idea that αἶσα comes from Zeus, although its abstract nature as the fate of a city here would make it a peculiar subject for διακρίνειν, ‘decide judge’ (contrast the personi­fication of Time at Ol. 10.53–5 ὅ τ᾽ ἐξελέγχων μόνος / ἀλάθειαν ἐτήτυμον / Χρόνος). The latter implausibly makes public opinion, however truthful, the arbiter of Aitna’s fate. Ζεῦ τέλει᾽: Zeus is invoked here as the fulfiller of prayers, which is expressed most clearly in A. Ag. 973 Ζεῦ Ζεῦ τέλειε, τὰς ἐμὰς εὐχὰς τέλει (cf. Thgn. 341; LSJ s.v. τέλειος II). A similar appeal for good fortune (of the honorand and his family) comes in Ol. 13.115 Ζεῦ τέλει᾽, αἰδῶ δίδοι καὶ τύχαν τερπνῶν γλυκεῖαν, poignantly at the end of the ode. ἀεὶ δέ: ‘[W]hen a sentence opens with a vocative, δέ is often postponed, and follows the first word in the main body of the sentence’ (GP 189; cf. Slater s.v. δέ 4 α). Its force here is continuative (‘And now …’); likewise, in divine invocations, e.g. Ol. 6.103–5 δέσποτα ποντόμεδον, εὐθὺν δὲ πλόον καμάτων / ἐκτὸς ἐόντα δίδοι … / … ἐμῶν δ᾽ ὕμνων ἄεξ᾽ εὐτερπὲς ἄνθος, S. OT 1096–7 ἰήιε Φοῖβε, σοὶ δέ / ταῦτ᾽ ἀρέστ᾽ εἴη. Ἀμένα παρ᾽ ὕδωρ: The Amenas is the river flowing through Aitna-Katane. In later sources it is called Ἀμένανος (Strab. 5.3.13) or Ἀμενανός (Hdn. GG III.1 179.30–1, 328.18–19 Lentz), and that name has survived into modern Italian Amenano. For the Doric (and Aeolic) genitive singular ending -α see 12b n. (Λατοίδα). βασιλεῦσιν: i.e. Deinomenes and, by implication, Hieron (58–60, 60nn.). In view of the Dorian paradigm (61–6), ‘Pindar’s generalizing plural … covers the discrepancy that the royal tradition at Sparta was for dual kingship, while only one (hereditary) king was envisioned at Aitna’ (Morgan 2015: 335). See further 69–70n. (υἱῷ τ᾽ ἐπιτελλόμενος). διακρίνειν: literally ‘decide, judge’ (LSJ s.v. III), from which it is a short step to ‘make up one’s mind, determine, ordain (of a god)’. It therefore may be coincidence that the verb is not otherwise attested in this sense. ἔτυμον λόγον ἀνθρώπων is perhaps a nod to the powerful recantation in Stesichorus’ Palinode fr. 91a.1 Finglass οὐκ ἔστ’ ἔτυμος λόγος οὗτος, which itself has a verbal precedent in Od. 23.62 (Penelope to Eurykleia) ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔσθ᾽

38 Farnell maintains that scholl. Pyth. 1.130a and 132 (above) support this view. But both consider Zeus to be the subject of τοιαύταν … αἶσαν … διακρίνειν, rendered as τοιαύτην μερίδα … παράσχου and δίδου … μερίδα εὐτυχίας respectively. And the concluding consecutive clause in 130a ὥστε τὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λόγον διακρίνειν τοῦτο καὶ ἀληθὲς ἀποφαίνειν, ὅτι ἐν ἐλευθερίᾳ εἰσίν could as well reflect predicative ἔτυμον λόγον ἀνθρώπων.



ὅδε μῦθος ἐτήτυμος, ὡς ἀγορεύεις. By contrast, Pindar prays that the talk about Aitna’s good fortune will always be true. Cf. Nem. 7.62–3 φίλον ἐς ἄνδρ᾽ ἄγων / κλέος ἐτήτυμον αἰνέσω, E. El.  818 δεῖξόν τε φήμην ἔτυμον ἀμφὶ Θεσσαλῶν (Cingano 1995: on 68). 69–70. ‘For with your help a man who is leader and instructs his son could by honouring his people turn them towards harmonious peace.’ Both Pindar and Bacchylides present Hieron’s regime as just and therefore divinely blessed, an idea that is as old as Homer and Hesiod (Gerber 1982: on Ol.  1.12 θεμιστεῖον (…  σκᾶπτον), where add Od.  19.109–14, Hes. Op.  225–47; cf. 86b n.). Zeus is the principal patron of kings (Hes. Th. 96 ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες), and so Hieron, the fair ruler of Syracuse (and founder of Aitna), is associated with Zeus Aitnaios in Ol.  6.93–6 τὰν Ἱέρων καθαρῷ σκάπτῳ διέπων,  / ἄρτια μηδόμενος  …  / ἀμφέπει  … /  … Ζηνὸς Αἰτναίου κράτος (cf.  29–30a n.). But note also Bacch. 4.1–3 ἔτι Συρακοσίαν φιλεῖ / πόλιν ὁ χρυσοκόμας Ἀπόλλων, / ἀστύθεμίν θ᾽ Ἱέ[ρω]να γεραίρει, where Hieron’s third hippic victory at Delphi (4–6) becomes Apollo’s reward for his being ἀστύθεμις (a ‘just ruler of cities’), and Pyth. 2.13–17, where Hieron is connected with Kinyras, the mythical king of Cyprus favoured by Apollo and Aphrodite (see Kirkwood 1982: on 15–17). Such a ruler is also in an ideal position to free a city from internal strife, as Pindar assures Battos of Kyrene in Pyth. 4.272–6 ῥᾴδιον μὲν γὰρ πόλιν σεῖσαι καὶ ἀφαυροτέροις· / ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ χώρας αὖτις ἕσσαι δυσπαλὲς δὴ γίνεται, ἐξαπίνας / εἰ μὴ θεὸς ἁγεμόνεσσι κυβερνατὴρ γένηται. / τὶν δὲ τούτων ἐξυφαίνονται χάριτες. / τλᾶθι τᾶς εὐδαίμονος ἀμφὶ Κυράνας θέμεν σπουδὰν ἅπασαν (‘For easily can even weaklings shake a city; but to set it back in place again is a difficult struggle indeed, unless suddenly a god becomes a helmsman for the leaders. But for you the blessings of such things are unfolding. Dare to devote all your serious effort to the cause of blessed Cyrene’). Likewise, Hieron here is shown his chance to direct Aitna towards ‘harmonious peace’ (σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν) by instructing his young son in the art of government (υἱῷ … ἐπιτελλόμενος) and respecting the prerogatives of the people (δᾶμον γεραίρων). The inversion of terms – the (nominal) ruler is to receive orders, while the subjects are being ‘honoured’ – reinforces the idealistic portrayal of Dorian freedom in Aitna (cf. Morgan 2015: 335–6). σύν τοι τίν: The particle τοι (a weakened and fossilised form of the DoricLesbian-Ionic ethic dative τοι/τοί from σύ) ‘implies that the point of a statement should be familiar to the listener’ (Slater s.v.; cf. GP 537), i.e. ‘you know, indeed, truly’. But often, as here, it is best translated by stressing the word it modifies: ‘For with your help  …’. Since the potential clause all but equals a wish, one may compare A. Ag. 973–4 Ζεῦ Ζεῦ τέλειε … / μέλοι δέ τοί σοι τῶνπερ ἂν μέλλῃς



τελεῖν (cf. 67–8n. (Ζεῦ τέλει᾽)) and also Suppl. 688–90 καρποτελῆ δέ τοι / Ζεῦς ἐπικραινέτω / … γᾶν (GP 545). For Doric τίν (= σοί) cf. 29 εἴη, Ζεῦ, τὶν εἴη ἁνδάνειν. The asyndeton here is explanatory (KG II 344–5, SD 701–2). Cf. 87–8n. ἁγητὴρ ἀνήρ, / υἱῷ τ᾽ ἐπιτελλόμενος: The participial phrase is somewhat irregularly connected with τε, unless one takes ἐπιτελλόμενος as a substantival adjective parallel to ἁγητὴρ ἀνήρ (‘a leader and one who instructs his son’). While this construction is found in Isth. 2.37–8 αἰδοῖος μὲν ἦν ἀστοῖς ὁμιλεῖν, / ἱπποτροφίας τε νομίζων ἐν Πανελλάνων νόμῳ, other passages suggest that ἁγητὴρ ἀνήρ carries a more verbal force – either by being an agent noun or because it is easy to supply ὤν – and ἐπιτελλόμενος follows as a proper participle, with τε equivalent to καὶ ταῦτα (‘and indeed, and at the same time’): Pyth. 6.45–6 πατρῴαν μάλιστα πρὸς στάθμαν ἔβα, / πάτρῳ τ᾽ ἐπερχόμενος ἀγλαΐαν [ἔδειξεν] ἅπασαν, Nem. 11.44–5 ἀλλ᾽ ἔμπαν μεγαλανορίαις ἐμβαίνομεν, / ἔργα τε πολλὰ μενοινῶντες and, in prose, Lys. 13.40 πυθομένη δ᾽ ἐκείνη ἀφικνεῖται, μέλαν τε ἱμάτιον ἠμφιεσμένη (Schroeder 1922: on 75–80 (p. 11), GP 502, Slater s.v. τε 4 a).39 ἁγητήρ: ‘leader, commander, ruler’ (cf. 73 Συρακοσίων ἀρχῷ). In this sense, as opposed to ‘guide’ (A. Suppl. 239, S. OC 1521), ἁγητήρ is clearly paralleled only in a third-century-BC (?) honorary inscription from Latyia (Ainis, central Greece), written in a mixture of Doric and the epic-Ionic literary dialect: IG IX.2 59.8–9 = SGDI II 1438.8–9 τόνδε (sc. τὸν Σώσανδρον) γὰρ ἁγητῆρα … / σωτῆρα, κτίστην, ἄλλον ἔδεκτο Δία (cf. Fraenkel 1910–12: I 160–1). The context of Pi. fr. dub. 346a.2 [σο]φὸν ἁγη[τ]ῆρα is too broken to permit a conclusion about the meaning of the word. Elsewhere choral and tragic lyric has taken over epic ἡγήτωρ for ‘leader’, with the appropriate vocalism: Terp.(?) fr. 698.1 PMG Ζεῦ … πάντων ἁγήτωρ (perhaps an old cult title: Xen. Lac. 13.2), Ibyc. fr. S165.5 PMGF, E. Med. 426. But Pindar may have preferred ἁγητήρ for the homoioteleuton with ἀνήρ, while in the inscription ἁγήτορα would not scan. On Doric verbal nouns in -τήρ see 30b–2a n. The correct ἁγητήρ is only preserved in Cac (ἀγητ- ÅE: ἀγιτ- F). All other witnesses offer ἁγηστήρ or ἀγιστήρ, which look like itacistic variants on deriv-

39 Ol. 7.80–2 τῶν ἄνθεσι Διαγόρας / ἐστεφανώσατο δίς, κλεινᾷ τ᾽ ἐν Ἰσθμῷ τετράκις εὐτυχέων, / Νεμεᾷ τ᾽ ἄλλαν ἐπ᾽ ἄλλᾳ and Nem. 8.19 ἵσταμαι δὴ ποσσὶ κούφοις, ἀμπνέων τε πρίν τι φάμεν do not in fact exemplify this idiom. In the former εὐτυχέων is an ordinary conjunct participle, adversative in sense, and τ᾽ … τ᾽ correspond to each other; in the latter ἀμπνέων is linked to ποσσὶ κουφοῖς, both qualifying ἵσταμαι (cf. Henry 2005: on Nem. 8.19).



atives of ἁγίζω (ἁγισ(τ)-), ‘consecrate, hallow’, a lexical field arguably close to the minds of monks. υἱῷ τ᾽ ἐπιτελλόμενος: the last mention of Hieron’s son Deinomenes in this ode (cf. 81–100n.). The mainly epic verb ἐπιτέλλω (-ομαι) basically means ‘to give an instruction’ (LfgrE s.v. τέλλω B I). Depending on the degree of strictness involved, the actual sense ranges from ‘impose, command’ (e.g. Il. 4.301 ἱππεῦσιν … ἐπετέλλετο· τοὺς μὲν ἀνώγει) to ‘instruct, advise’ (e.g. Il. 9.252 ὦ πέπον, ἦ μὲν σοί γε πατὴρ ἐπετέλλετο Πηλεύς, 24.112 (Zeus to Thetis) … υἱέϊ σῷ ἐπίτειλον), which is preferable here. The verb continues the tone set by ἁγητήρ (= ἡγήτωρ, above), associating Hieron with the great Homeric figures of authority. Active and middle appear to be synonymous. δᾶμον γεραίρων: Placed in parallel position to υἱῷ τ᾽ ἐπιτελλόμενος, yet antithetical to it in sense, this phrase names the second pillar on which the ‘harmonious (internal) peace’ of Aitna is to stand: the ruler’s concern for the privileges (γέρα) of his people. Both the concept and the expression are unique. Usually γέρας denotes the privilege or prerogative ‘conferred on kings or nobles’ (LSJ s.v. 1; cf. especially Od. 7.150 γέρας θ᾽ ὅ τι δῆμος ἔδωκεν and, of Hieron, Bacch. 3.11–12 παρὰ Ζηνὸς λαχὼν / πλείσταρχον Ἑλλάνων γέρας). Elsewhere in epinician, moreover, it is the victor who honours his city (Nem. 5.8 Αἰακίδας ἐγέραιρεν ματρόπολίν τε; cf. Ol.  3.2–4) or is honoured himself (e.g. Isth. 2.17, 8.62–4, Bacch. 2.11–14 and, of Hieron again, 4.3, 11–13). Pfeijffer (2005: 29 with n. 48), therefore, refers γεραίρω here to Hieron’s athletic and military triumphs, but nothing in the context suggests the former, and very little the latter. Of the pre-Palaeologan MSS only CE preserve the correct text. All others (including C2) read δᾶμόν τε, which no doubt goes back to a reader or scribe who misunderstood the ‘epexegetic’ use of τε in υἱῷ τ᾽ ἐπιτελλόμενος (above). The same intention to make τε properly connective lies behind the interpolation of ἔδειξεν in Pyth. 6.45–6 (quoted under ἁγητὴρ ἀνήρ, / υἱῷ τ᾽ ἐπιτελλόμενος), which is ancient, to judge by its presence in all extant witnesses. σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν: The noun and its epithet resonate on several levels within Pythian 1 and in the wider socio-political cosmos of epinician and sympotic poetry. In this context ἡσυχία (or personified Ἡσυχία) signifies, in the first instance, ‘peaceful concord within the state’ (Race 1997: II 343 n. 1), as opposed to civic discord (στάσις), but also the absence of external war (πόλεμος). See Thgn. 47–52, Pyth. 8.1–4 φιλόφρον Ἡσυχία, Δίκας / ὦ μεγιστόπολι θύγατερ, / βουλᾶν τε καὶ πολέμων / ἔχοισα κλαῗδας ὑπερτάτας (cf. 94b n.), Pi. Pae. 2.31–4 (fr.  52b = D2 Rutherford), fr.  109.1–3 τὸ κοινόν τις ἀστῶν ἐν εὐδίᾳ  / τιθεὶς ἐρευνασάτω μεγαλάνορος Ἡσυχίας τὸ φαιδρὸν φάος,  / στάσιν ἀπὸ πραπίδος ἐπίκοτον ἀνελών (‘Let any townsman who would put the public good in fair



weather seek out the shining light of proud Peace, having plucked from his mind wrathful discord’). In both senses, moreover, ἡσυχία is a precondition for music and festivities, as already illustrated by the images of the city at peace and the city at war on the shield of Achilles (Il. 18.490–6, 509–40). The opposition of social pleasures and the bleakness of civil strife and war became a literary topos (cf. Fries 2014: on [E.] Rh. 360–7), which Pindar repeatedly applied to places ruled or otherwise affected by tyrants: Pyth. 4.293–7 (Kyrene), Nem. 9.28–33 + 48 ἡσυχία δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν συμπόσιον (Aitna; cf. 61–2a, 71–2a nn.) and Ol. 4.16 καὶ πρὸς Ἡσυχίαν φιλόπολιν καθαρᾷ γνώμᾳ τετραμμένον, referring to Psaumis of Kamarina, who apparently helped to rebuild his city after it was destroyed by Gelon in the 480s. See further Burton 1962: 174–80, Slater 1981, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.296g, Hornblower 2004: 60–4, 2006: 154–5. In relation to Pythian 1 itself, σύμφωνον … ἡσυχίαν recalls in two words the sweeping expanse of the proem, 1–28 (n.), with its clear correlation between the cosmic order created by Zeus (through the defeat of his enemies, especially Typhos) and the musical conviviality the gods have since been able to enjoy. The same good fortune of being filled with ‘tuneful festivities’ (38) lies in store for Aitna, if the supreme god supports Hieron in his efforts to keep internal and external conflicts at bay. The latter have already been alluded to in 46–57 (46–57, 47–50a, 50b–7nn.) and receive more detailed treatment in the following section (71–80n.). In that respect σύμφωνον … ἡσυχίαν looks forward as well, about to clash with the ‘unmusical’ war-cry (ἀλαλατός) of the Phoenicians and Etruscans (cf. e.g. Schroeder 1922: on 70  ff., Cingano 1995: on 70, 71–80a, Morgan 2015: 336–7). The syntactically essential ἐς survives only in C and Å (εἰς) and as a Triclinian restoration. Its widespread omission is peculiar, but perhaps explicable by haplography before ἡσυχίαν. 71–80. Pindar’s appeal to Zeus that Aitna may be blessed with lasting prosperity and internal peace (67–70) is followed by another prayer for the absence of external ­ evelops into a threats – from the Carthaginians and Etruscans (71–72a). This d graphic sketch of the sea-battle of Kyme (72b–75a), before an elaborate priamel introduces the recent triumphs of the mainland Greeks over the Persians, in the battles of Salamis and Plataea, which function as paradigms for the successful Sicilian strikes against foreign aggressors at Kyme and Himera (75b–80). The passage is very carefully constructed and replete with resonances of the patriotic topoi that informed contemporary poetic celebrations of the Persian Wars. The four battles  – Kyme, Salamis, Plataea and Himera  – are arranged both chiastically and in parallel: western and mainland Greek settings are presented in the order A·B·B·A, while sea- and land-battles appear in



pairs (Schroeder 1922: on 75–80, Morgan 2015: 339–40). Pindar’s verbal association of the battles of Kyme and Himera in 71–2a (n.) aids the later equation of Himera with Plataea, since the Carthaginian challenge has already been put into the audience’s mind. It also allows the claim that Hieron’s efforts ‘delivered Greece from grievous slavery’ (75) to be referred to Himera as well as Kyme. Our passage is the earliest independent evidence for the strong association of the victory at Salamis with the Athenians and that at Plataea with the Spartans: Aeschylus’ Persai certainly and Simonides’ Plataea Elegy probably show local bias.40 At the same time, Pindar was the first to align Himera and Salamis, if only indirectly. Ever since Herodotus (7.166) the two battles have been synchronised to the day, and Ephorus (FGrH 70 F 186 = schol. Pyth. 1.146b (II 24.15–25.5 Dr.); cf. D. S. 11.20.1) even talks of a Persian-Carthaginian conspiracy for a two-pronged attack on Greece (see Feeney 2007: 43–7, Osborne 2010: 327–8).41 Pindar’s encomiastic aim here is evident: he strove to raise Hieron’s pan-Hellenic reputation by suggesting that the Sicilian victories contributed as much to the freedom of the Greek world as the two mainland battles which, against all odds, kept the Persians out of Europe (cf. Introduction, 16). This ties in with the Deinomenids’ own progamme of self-promoting dedications at Olympia and Delphi, particularly Gelon’s (and Hieron’s?) tripod monument for Himera (D. S. 11.26.7; cf. Bacch. 3.17–21), which stood opposite the Greek Plataea memorial on the Sacred Way at Delphi, although we do not know which was erected first (Harrell 2002: 452–4, Cummins 2010: 4–9, Morgan 2015: 30–45, 155–7). Further validation of Pindar’s poetic purpose may be found in possible intertextual links especially with Aeschylus’ Persai and Simonides’ Plataea Elegy, which go beyond the widely-used proposition that the defeat of the Persians narrowly preserved Hellenic autonomy (72b–5a n.; cf. Introduction, 25 with n. 79, 28–9). If Pindar indeed competed on a literary level with the foremost exponents of ‘Persian Wars’ poetry (Fries 2017a; cf. Spelman 2018: 264–8), this may be an indication not only of what he knew and could assume his ori­ ginal audience would recognise, but also that he expected Pythian 1 to be re­performed, on the mainland and for many years to come (cf. 92b–4a, 97–8nn.). 40 It is not known who commissioned the Plataea Elegy and on what occasion it was first performed, but it may have been at a public ceremony to celebrate the victory and commemorate the fallen of Plataea under Spartan leadership. See Fries 2017a: 69 with n. 28 (bibliography) and, for other suggestions, Spelman 2018: 4 with n. 5. 41 An alternative tradition held that the battle of Himera took place on the same day as that of Thermopylai (D. S. 11.24.1).



In this context we must also consider the epigram quoted in schol. Pyth. 1.152b (II 26.2–8 Dr.) as coming from Gelon’s tripod memorial at Delphi: Φημὶ Γέλων᾽, Ἱέρωνα, Πολύζηλον, Θρασύβουλον, / παῖδας Δεινομένευς τοὺς τρίποδας θέμεναι, / βάρβαρα νικήσαντας ἔθνη, πολλὴν δὲ παρασχεῖν / σύμμαχον Ἕλλησιν χεῖρ᾽ ἐς ἐλευθερίην. Neither this version nor that transmitted as AP 6.214 (= ‘Sim.’ Ep. 34 FGE), which speaks of a single tripod and has a different (and incomprehensible) second couplet specifying its weight, can have been part of the original monument. While this consisted of only one tripod (as in AP 6.214 = ‘Sim.’ Ep. 34 FGE), its surviving base bears an inscription, naming Gelon as the sole dedicator (ML 28). Scholars debate whether the epigram in the scholia belonged to Hieron’s extension of the memorial after Kyme, if that is what he did (see above). In that case it would stem from the same ideological environment as Pythian 1. But in view of the archaeological uncertainties, it may be preferable to regard the epigram as ‘a relatively late literary exercise’ (FGE 248; cf. 249, 250), inspired by the monument and perhaps Pythian 1. The scholiast already must have noticed its similarities to our passage in both sentiment and wording. Finally, within Pythian 1, the account of Hieron’s martial achievements harks back to Zeus’ defeat of Typhos in 13–28 (n.), who came to lie between Mt. Etna and Kyme, spanning the area of Hieron’s political and military influence (cf. 71–2a (ὁ Φοίνιξ), 72b–5a (τὰν πρὸ Κύμας) nn.). Pindar thus completes the nexus between the cosmic struggles that secured the orderly reign of the Olympians and those on earth which brought ‘harmonious peace’ (70) and festivities to Aitna (cf. 1–28n.). Yet there is a note of caution. Just as Typhos retains his power, periodically causing Mt. Etna to erupt, so the Carthaginians and Etruscans will never be fully pacified. ‘[T]he best that can be expected is that they will confine their bellicose nature (cf. ἀλαλατός, 72) at home, where it will not be bothersome (ἥμερον, 71)’ (Race 1990: 140 n. 54: cf. 71–2a n.). 71–2a. ‘I entreat you, son of Kronos, grant that the Phoenician and the Etruscan war-cry remain quietly at home …’ The present invocation has a near-equivalent in Nem. 9.28–9 εἰ δυνατόν, Κρονίων, πεῖραν μὲν ἀγάνορα Φοινικοστόλων / ἐγχέων ταύταν θανάτου πέρι καὶ ζωᾶς ἀναβάλλομαι ὡς πόρσιστα (‘If possible, son of Kronos, I would put off as long as can be this lordly trial of life and death against the spears of a Phoenician host’), the first part of a section of prayer and praise for Aitna, which has several other points of contact with Pythian 1 (35b–8, 61–2a, 69–70 (σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν), 71–80nn.; cf. Carey 1993: 106). The two odes are roughly contemporary, and Braswell (1998: on Nem. 9.28–9) rightly points out that a genuine threat of at least a Carthaginian invasion of Sicily must still have been felt



for Pindar’s repeated apotropaeic prayers to be relevant (cf.  71–80n. (end)). The same sentiment probably also lies behind Bacch. 5.199–200 (πυθμένες … ἐσθλ[ῶν]) τοὺς ὁ μεγιστοπάτωρ / Ζεὺς ἀκινήτους ἐν εἰρήν[ᾷ φυλάσσοι] (suppl. Blass), the end of the ode for Hieron’s Olympic racehorse victory of 476, which alludes to Himera in 31–6 (cf.  79–80n.). Almost exactly three centuries later Theocritus (16.82–97) prays in a similar vein for Hieron II about to engage the Carthaginians (cf. Morrison 2007: 105 n. 104). By naming the Carthaginians alongside the Etruscans here (ὁ Φοίνιξ ὁ Τυρσανῶν τ᾽ ἀλαλατός), Pindar prompts his audience to refer the following description of the battle of Kyme (72b–5a n.) to that of Himera as well, foreshadowing its comparison with Plataea in 77–9 (cf. 71–80n.). His verbal subtlety already confused ancient scholars. Schol. Pyth. 1.137c (II 23.15–20 Dr.) speaks as if both Etruscans and Carthaginians attacked Kyme, but only the former are said to have been defeated by Hieron (Morgan 2015: 336–7 with n. 69; cf. Fries 2017a: 63 with n. 9). λίσσομαι: With the first-person entreaty, in asyndetic position (cf. 29–30n.), Pindar effects a powerful start to the new section, while also associating himself more intimately with his patron (Morrison 2007: 121). Compare the use of λίσσομαι in prayers beginning whole poems: Ol.  12.1–2 λίσσομαι, παῖ Ζηνὸς Ἐλευθερίου, / Ἱμέραν εὐρυσθενέ᾽ ἀμφιπόλει, σώτειρα Τύχα and, in parenthesis, Nem. 3.1–3 ὦ πότνια Μοῖσα, μᾶτερ ἁμετέρα, λίσσομαι, / … / ἵκεο Δωρίδα νᾶσον Αἴγιναν. νεῦσον, Κρονίων: The juxtaposition recalls the epic formulaic verse ἦ, καὶ κυανέῃσιν ἐπ’ ὀφρύσι νεῦσε Κρονίων (Il. 1.528, 17.209, h.Bacch. 13; cf. h.Merc. 395 νεῦσεν δὲ Κρονίδης). In Pindar note further Dith. 4.17 (fr. 70d) [Κρ]ο̣νίων νεῦσεν ἀνάγκᾳ[ and Helios’ order to Lachesis at Ol. 7.67 ἀλλὰ Κρόνου σὺν παιδὶ νεῦσαι. The vocative Κρονίων here has a long iota, as does the nominative in Nem. 9.19 (not 9.28, Slater s.v. Κρονίων), following the regular epic scansion of this case (and the genitive Κρονίονος: Il. 14.247, Od. 11.620). Elsewhere in the complete odes (where we can tell beyond doubt) Pindar writes Κρονί̆ων (Pyth. 3.57, 4.23, Nem. 1.16, 9.28, 10.76). This metrically convenient alternative, first found in Tyrt. fr. 2.12 IEG2, almost certainly arose from ‘the common epic use of a short iota in the oblique cases’ (Braswell 1998: on Nem. 9.19). ἅμερον / ὄφρα κατ᾽ οἶκον ὁ Φοίνιξ ὁ Τυρσανῶν τ᾽ ἀλαλατὸς ἔχῃ: The purpose clause, governed by νεῦσον (cf. Il.  1.558–9 τῇ σ’ ὀΐω κατανεῦσαι ἐτήτυμον, ὡς Ἀχιλῆα  / τιμήσῃς, ὀλέσῃς δὲ πολέας ἐπὶ νηυσὶν Ἀχαιῶν) bears some verbal similarity to Nem. 3.59–61 (Cheiron raised Achilles) ὄφρα … / ὑπὸ Τροΐαν δορίκτυπον ἀλαλὰν Λυκίων τε προσμένοι καὶ Φρυγῶν / Δαρδάνων τε (for Aristokleides of Aigina, late 470s?). However, the fact that Pindar described



the battles of Kyme and Himera in his own poetic language, does not mean that this could not also be the beginning of a series of allusions to the account of the battle of Salamis in Aeschylus’ Persai (cf. 71–80n.). For the Persian war-cry see A. Pers. 406–7 καὶ μὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν Περσίδος γλώσσης ῥόθος / ὑπηντίαζε. ἅμερον: ‘quietly, peacefully’; cf. Isth. 4.57 ναυτιλίαισί τ᾽ πορθμὸν ἁμερώσαις (i.e. Heracles). The transmitted ἅμερον (on the ‘Doric’ vocalism see below) is best explained as an internal accusative with the intransitive κατ᾽ οἶκον … ἔχῃ (cf. Hdt. 6.39.2 Μιλτιάδης … εἶχε κατ᾽ οἴκους, 6.42.2 κατὰ χώρην … ἔχοντες, Ar. Ran. 792–3). Taking it proleptically with οἶκον would produce a case of res ponitur pro defectu rei (KG II 569–70) more complicated than usual: the war-cry stays at home, which is ‘quiet’ because of its absence. Liberman (2004: 50) thinks both these constructions ‘awkward’ (gauche) and prints ἥμερος (sic) after Hartung (1855–6: II 12–13, 203 ἅμερος), who compared ἔχ’ ἥσυχος (e.g. E. Med. 550, Ar. Nub. 1244, Hdt. 8.65.5). At first sight this proposal is attractive, since ἅμερον could be an error of assimilation between νεῦσον Κρονίων and κατ᾽ οἶκον. However, it would complete the idea (although not the grammar) of the clause at ὁ Φοίνιξ and make the near-personified ἀλαλατός a somewhat lame afterthought rather than the surprising principal subject. Another problem concerns the dialectal form of the adjective, which has no known etymology (Beekes s.v. ἥμερος). The Pindar MSS all but consistently attest ἁμ- (Ol. 13.2, Pyth. 3.6, Nem. 7.83 (θαμερᾶ B: θεμερᾶ D), 9.44; cf. Isth. 4.57 ἁμερώσαις). Based on inscriptional evidence from the Doric language area, Schroeder (1923: 498, 515) eliminated this as a hyperdorism and was followed by most later editors. The inscriptions, which go back to the archaic age (IG V.2 403), indeed suggest that ἡμ- was the pan-Greek original (Forssman 1966: 41–2). On the other hand, the MSS of other Doric or Doricising poets also point to the use of ἁμ- in literature (A. Ag. 721, [Theoc.] 23.3, Bion fr. 14.1 Gow, Mosch. 1.10, [Mosch.] 3.111).42 Given how easy it was for the Attic form of such a common word to intrude, their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly; and while one would like to have a papyrus attestation for a genuine early Doric poet (e.g. Alcman), the paradosis at Nem. 9.44 ἐκ πόνων δ᾽ … τελέθει πρὸς γῆρας αἰὼν

42 The text of S. Tr. 660–2 ὅθεν μόλοι †πανάμερος (πανίμερος Mudge), / τᾶς Πειθοῦς παγχρίστῳ / συγκραθεὶς ἐπὶ προφάσει θηρός† is too corrupt to serve as evidence (Lloyd-Jones–Wilson 1990: 165). Examples of ἡμ- where ex hypothesi one would expect ἁμ- are few and uncertain: E. Hec. 1077–8 (lyric) ἀνήμερον could have been influenced by Attic, Isyll. 20 (CA 133 = Furley–Bremer II 181) ἡμεροφύλλου stands in a poem of mixed dialect, and Blass’ supplement in Bacch. 11.37–9 Ἄρτεμις … [Ἡμ]έ̣ρα, if correct ([Ἁμ]- Purser) represents a fixed cult title (IG V.2 403, Call. Dian. 236, Paus. 8.18.8). See Forssman 1966: 41–2, 43 and Braswell 1998: on Nem. 9.44.



ἁμέρα is proved ancient by the debate in the scholia (104a, b (III 161.3–18 Dr.)) whether ἁμέρα meant ‘tranquil’ or ‘day’ (Braswell 1998: on Nem. 9.44, whose argument needs to be modified insofar as Pindar probably wrote proper Doric ἀμέρα for ‘day’, and the psilosis was partially lost in transmission; 22b–4n.). In addition, Aeschylus may be called in for support: if he did write ἅμερον in Ag. 721, he would have been more likely to do so if there had been a precedent (cf. West 1998: XXV–XXVII). It seems preferable, therefore, to accept ἁμ- as regular in Doric poetry at least from Pindar on, although one cannot be entirely sure. In particular, it is difficult to explain how the hyperdoric form evolved. Forssman’s theory (1966: 44–5) that the poets misunderstood εὐήμερος (-άμερος), ‘of a fine day’ and so ‘bright, happy’ (LSJ s.v. 1, 2), as a compound of ἥμερος (*ἅμερος) seems too complex and has rightly been rejected by Henry (2005: on Nem. 8.3). But perhaps no such history is required. One of them (a non-native-speaker of Doric like Pindar?) may simply have wished to add colour to an ordinary word and its derivatives, and the forms caught on. The language of choral lyric was after all a literary creation. ὁ Φοίνιξ is verbally reminiscent of the φοίνισσα … φλόξ (24) which Typhos sent forth from under Mt. Etna (Skulsky 1975: 21). In other words, Pindar is praying to Zeus that Hieron’s enemy is kept at bay even more sucessfully (ὄφρα κατ᾽ οἶκον … ἔχῃ) than the god’s own. It makes little difference whether (ὁ) Φοίνιξ is interpreted as a noun (‘the Carthaginian’) or as an adjective, but in the light of the following ὁ Τυρσανῶν τ᾽ ἀλαλατός the latter seems more likely. For the acute accent see 32b–3a n. (κάρυξ), against Hdn. GG III.1 43.18–20, 524.31–525.5 Lentz ~ 130.13–14, 300.6–9 Roussou. Again Herodian’s idea that the (final) ι of disyllabic nouns in -ιξ is short, but can get lengthened in the oblique cases (GG III.2 9.5–10 Lentz) seems erratic. ἀλαλατός: Pindar’s near-personification of the war-cry here has an even bolder parallel in the opening of one of his dithyrambs: fr.  78 κλῦθ᾽ Ἀλαλά, Πολέμου θύγατερ,  / ἐγχέων προοίμιον, ᾇ θύεται  / ἄνδρες ὑπὲρ πόλιος τὸν ἱρόθυτον θάνατον (cf. Farnell 1932: on 71–2). 72b–5a. ‘… now that they have seen their aggression fill their fleet with lamentation before Kyme; such things they suffered when overcome by the leader of the Syracusans, who cast their youth from the swift-moving ships into the sea, delivering Greece from grievous slavery.’ Pindar’s brief account of the sea-battle of Kyme is rich in potential connections, verbal as well as thematic, with the Persian Messenger’s description of the battle of Salamis at A. Pers. 386–432, to the point that Pindar’s version



almost reads like a summary of the speech (cf. 71–80n.). Whether or not there is a genuine intertextual relationship, the two battle narratives are worth comparing on a broader level too. While Aeschylus proceeds in a linear fashion, Pindar begins with the disastrous aftermath for the Etruscans (72 ναυσίστονον ὕβριν ἰδὼν τὰν πρὸ Κύμας), before describing the battle through their eyes (73–4) and recurring to its result, but this time for the victorious Greeks (75). Pindar also differs from Aeschylus in that he delivers a moral judgement on the conflict, labelling the Etruscan attack on Kyme an act of hybris. These similarities with (and differences from) Persai are part of a wider rhetorical nexus that links Pythian 1 with the literary celebrations of the Persian Wars, especially their portrayal as a supreme struggle for Greek freedom, which Pindar appropriated in 75 Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας. And given that the Trojan War already served as a mythical paradigm in Simonides’ Plataea Elegy (cf. 50b–7n.), it is not surprising that Pindar colours Hieron’s battle with two Homeric expressions (73 Συρακοσίων ἀρχῷ δαμασθέντες, 74 ὠκυπόρων ἀπὸ ναῶν) and that of Plataea with another one at 78 (77b–8n.) Μήδειοι … ἀγκυλότοξοι. See Fries 2017a: 68 with nn. 25, 27. ναυσίστονον ὕβριν: similarly Bacch. 17.40–1 πολύστονον / … ὕβριν (‘insolence which causes much grief’). In Pyth. 8.8–12 personified Ἡσυχία (cf. 69–70n.) ‘oppose[s] the might of enemies and put[s] their insolence [ὕβριν] in the bilge’ (Race). See Skulsky 1975: 30, Krischer 1985b: 115–16. The adjective ναυσίστονος (‘filling the fleet with lamentation’) subsumes the sentiment of A. Pers. 426–7 οἰμωγὴ δ᾽ ὁμοῦ / κωκύμασιν κατεῖχε πελαγίαν ἅλα. It is a hapax and one of only two attested compounds in -στονος, where the first member is derived from a noun (cf. E. fr. 669.3 TrGF κλύδωνι … βροτοστόνῳ (which need not be suspected); Burton 1962: 105, Cingano 1995: on 72). ἰδών strictly agrees with ἀλαλατός, though its logical subject is the Cartha­ gin­ians and Etruscans named in the attributes (ὁ Φοίνιξ ὁ Τυρσανῶν τ᾽). Cf. Thuc. 1.110.1 οὕτω μὲν τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων πράγματα ἐφθάρη ἓξ ἔτη πολεμήσαντα. Elsewhere we find construction ‘according to the sense’, by which the participle adopts the case of the grammatical subject, but the gender and number of the (genitive) attribute: e.g. Il. 17.755–6 ψαρῶν νέφος … ἠὲ κολοιῶν, / οὖλον κεκληγόντες, S. Ant. 1001–2 ἀγνῶτ᾽ ἀκούω φθόγγον ὀρνίθων, κακῷ / κλάζοντας οἴστρῳ (KG I 58, SD 603). τὰν πρὸ Κύμας harks back to 18 ταί θ᾽ ὑπὲρ Κύμας … ὄχθαι. In that way Pindar aligns the ὕβρις of the Etruscans, for which they suffered at the hands of Hieron, with that of Typhos, punished by Zeus (Rauchenstein 1843: 150; cf. Mezger 1880: 81, Skulsky 1975: 21). Putting a colon after Κύμας (as in several MSS and editions, most recently Liberman) gives full demonstrative force to οἷα at the beginning of the epode.



Συρακοσίων ἀρχῷ δαμασθέντες: Cf. Il. 22.55 … ἢν μὴ καὶ σὺ θάνῃς Ἀχιλῆϊ δαμασθείς (likewise with a dative of agent accompanying the passive participle; see Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.243d) and, of the Persian fleet at Salamis, A. Pers. 278–9 πᾶς δ’ ἀπώλλυτο / λεὼς δαμασθεὶς ναΐοισιν ἐμβολαῖς. The epic tone is reinforced by Hieron’s designation as Συρακοσίων ἀρχός, as if he was a Homeric hero: e.g. Il. 4.195, 205 Μενέλαον … ἀρχὸν Ἀχαιῶν, 14.426 Σαρπηδών τ᾽ ἀρχὸς Λυκίων. ὠκυπόρων ἀπὸ ναῶν: another reminiscence of Homer, who uses ὠκύπορος exclusively of ships. The nearest parallel is Il. 13.57–8 τώ κε καὶ ἐσσυμενόν περ ἐρωήσαιτ᾽ ἀπὸ νηῶν / ὠκυπόρων. In the genitive note also the verse-opening formula νηῶν (τ᾽) ὠκυπόρων (Il. 10.308, 320, 12.156, 13.110, Od. 4.708, h.Hom. 33.7). The same phrase was restored by Hiller von Gaertringen (1934: 205) at ‘Sim.’ Ep. 20(a).3–4 FGE (IG I.3 503/4 = CEG 2 (lapis A, 1)) ἔσχον γὰρ πεζοί τε [καὶ] ⌊ὀ̄ κυπόρο̄ ν ἐπὶ νε̄ ο̄ ⌋ν / hελλά[δα μ]ὲ̄ πᾶσαν δούλιο⌊ν ἐ̄ μαρ ἰδε̄ ν⌋, for which he compared ‘Sim.’ Ep. 46.3 FGE (AP 7.258.3) αἰχμηταί, πεζοί τε καὶ ὠκυπόρων ἐπὶ νηῶν, in memory of the Greek victory over the Persians at the river Eurymedon (early 460s). If this is correct and the inscription is rightly attributed to the period just after the Persian Wars, if not perhaps to Simonides, it is possible that Pindar paraphrased it here and at 75 Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας (Barron 1990: 141; cf. Morgan 2015: 155–6, 338–9, Fries 2017a: 66–8). ὅ σφιν: The relative pronoun is frequently postponed in Pindar, mostly to second position in the clause (e.g. Ol. 2.8–9 καμόντες οἳ πολλὰ θυμῷ / ἱερὸν ἔσχον οἴκημα ποταμοῦ). When it comes later, the words preceding it tend to form a syntactical unit, like ὠκυπόρων ἀπὸ ναῶν. Cf. Ol. 9.33–5 οὐδ᾽ Ἀίδας … ἔχε ῥάβδον, / βρότεα σώμαθ᾽ ᾇ κατάγει … / θνᾳσκόντων, Pyth. 2.5–6 (τετραορίας …) εὐάρματος Ἱέρων ἐν ᾇ κρατέων  / τηλαυγέσιν ἀνέδησεν Ὀρτυγίαν στεφάνοις, Nem. 3.22–3 and also Bacch. 14B.1–3. A more extreme case is Nem. 1.28–9 ἐσσόμενον προϊδεῖν / συγγενὲς οἷς ἕπεται. Apart from its metrical utility, this type of hyperbaton emphasises the word(-group) before the pronoun (Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.12 (p. 33), Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.246b). The masculine singular of the epic-poetic relatives ὅ, ἥ, τό is already rare in Homer (KG I 587–8, SD 642–3). Pindar alternates between ὅ and ὅς mainly for metrical reasons. Here both forms would scan, but ὅς (C2E) is lectio facilior. Cf. Pyth. 2.50 θεός, ὃ καὶ πτερόεντ᾽ αἰετὸν κίχε, where ὃς (Å) would not fit. ἐν πόντῳ βάλεθ᾽ ἁλικίαν: For the ‘pregnant’ use of the locative dative cf. e.g. Ol. 13.16–17 πολλὰ δ᾽ ἐν καρδίαις ἀνδρῶν ἔβαλον / Ὧραι πολυάνθεμοι ἀρχαῖα σοφίσμαθ᾽, Pi. fr.  169a.21 [φά]τναις ἐν λιθίναις βάλ[⏑  – ⏑ ⏑  –] (βάλ[ε(ν)] vel βάλ[ετο] suppl. Lobel), and see 7b–8n. (ἐπί οἱ … / ἀγκύλῳ κρατί … κατέχευας).



Hecker’s βάλεν (1850: 439; cf. Hartung 1855–6: II 14, 203, Blaydes 1898: 55) was recently adopted by Liberman (2004: 50). It is true that Pindar elsewhere employs the active in the sense ‘throw, cast’ (Slater s.v. βάλλω a) and that the middle has little force here, except insofar as the action is to Hieron’s advantage (cf. Isth. 6.12–13 ἐσχατιαῖς ἤδη πρὸς ὄλβου  / βάλλετ᾽ ἄγκυραν θεότιμος ἐών, where this sense is stronger). But the change from βάλεν to βάλεθ᾽ (βάλετ᾽ ἀλvel ἁλ- CacEFQ) would be hard to explain. The use of ἐνέβαλε in the periphrasis at schol. Pyth. 1.142 (II 24.1–2 Dr.) ὅστις ὁ Ἱέρων ἀπὸ τῶν ταχειῶν νεῶν ἐνέβαλε τῇ θαλάσσῃ πᾶσαν τὴν ἡλικίαν may be due to normalisation. Ἑλλάδ᾽ ἐξέλκων βαρείας δουλίας: With this phrase ‘Pindar makes explicit what had been implicit in the comparison with Philoctetes, presenting Hieron as the saviour of Greece’ (Pfeijffer 2005: 30). In particular, he transfers to the battles of Kyme and Himera the ‘rhetoric of freedom’ which was prevalent in commemorations of the Persian Wars from the very beginning: Pi. fr.  77 ὅθι παῖδες Ἀθαναίων ἐβάλοντο φαεννάν  / κρηπῖδ᾽ ἐλευθερίας (cf.  61–2a n. (θεοδμάτῳ σὺν ἐλευθερίᾳ)), ‘Sim.’ Ep.  10, 15, 16, 18, 20(a) FGE (see above, on ὠκυπόρων ἀπὸ ναῶν) and the Greek rally at A. Pers. 402–5 ὦ παῖδες Ἑλλήνων, ἴτε, / ἐλευθεροῦτε πατρίδ’, ἐλευθεροῦτε δέ / παῖδας γυναῖκας θεῶν τε πατρῴων ἕδη  / θήκας τε προγόνων· νῦν ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀγών (+ e.g. 194–196, 234, 242). Corresponding supplements have been suggested at Sim. fr. 11.25–6 IEG2 (Plataea Elegy) [ἀνδρῶ]ν, οἳ Σπάρτ[ῃ ⏕ – ⏕ δούλιον ἦμ]αρ / [. . . . .] ἀμ̣υν[ ] . . [    ]ω̣ [ ] (e.g. [ἀνδρῶ]ν, οἳ Σπάρτ[ῃ τε καὶ Ἑλλάδι δούλιον ἦμ] αρ  / [ἔσχον] ἀμυνό̣μ̣[ενοι μή τιν᾽ ἰδεῖν φανερ]ῶ̣ [ς] West prob. Spelman 2018: 264 with n. 24); but the text is too lacunose for one to be sure (Parson’s proposal for 25 is [ἀνδρῶ]ν, οἳ Σπάρτ[ης ὥρμησαν καρτερὸν ἄλκ]αρ). Before the actual mention of Salamis and Plataea in 75b–8, this is the clearest indication that Pindar attempted to put Hieron’s campaigns on an equal footing with the historic success of the mainland Greeks (71–80n. and, in detail, Fries 2017a: 63–4, 65–9). 75b–80. ‘I shall win from Salamis the gratitude of the Athenians as my reward, at Sparta for the battles under Mt. Kithairon, in which the curved-bowed Medes were defeated, and by the well-watered bank of the Himeras for paying the tribute of my song to Deinomenes’ sons, which they received on account of their valour, as their enemies were defeated.’ The triad concludes with a magnificent syntactical period, which casts the poetic trope of the priamel in the form of a rising tricolon (cf. Burton 1962: 106–7, Race 1990: 15–16, Cummins 2010: 3–4). The battles of Salamis (75b–7a) and Plataea (77b–8) serve as foils for the Deinomenids’ defeat of the Carthaginians at Himera (79–80), and each item receives more space than the preceding



one, throwing into relief the last and most important statement (cf. Ol. 1.1–7). In contrast to other priamels, however, the implicit comparison works in two directions because, even more than Himera, the battle of Salamis illustrates that of Kyme, also fought at sea and extensively described in the preceding sentence (72b–5a). And just as this passage began as a prayer to Zeus (71–2a), so Pindar does not extol Hieron directly here. Assuming the voice of a praise poet confident of the services he renders, he merely points the way for the audience’s judgement by insinuating that ‘[Hieron] and his brother[s] alone match the joined armies of the Athenians and the Spartans’ (Pfeijffer 2005: 30). The structural analysis of the passage depends to some extent on the solution adopted to the textual problem in 77b. The above interpretation presupposes that the initial ἀρέομαι (75b–7a n.) governs the entire sentence, and the elegance of the resulting sequence is another argument against retaining the main paradosis ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾽ ἐρέω [τὰν] (om. μ) πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχαν. A second finite verb creates the expectation that each clause will have its own, which is proved wrong by 79–80 (n.). But even more importantly, the accusative singular μάχαν makes it necessary to refer ταῖσι Μήδειοι κάμον ἀγκυλότοξοι (78) to the battle of Salamis as well as that of Plataea, which (apart from being grammatically harsh) destroys the balance of the rising tricolon. For a full discussion of the question see 77b–8n. 75b–7a. ἀρέομαι  / πὰρ μὲν Σαλαμῖνος Ἀθαναίων χάριν  / μισθόν: There is no known poetry by Pindar on Salamis, but in a dithyramb for the Athenians he praised the city as the ‘bulwark of Greece’ (fr. 76.2 Ἑλλάδος ἔρεισμα), probably in connection with the battle of Artemision (fr. 77), not long after the Persian Wars (cf. Introduction, 29 n. 93). If it is true that he received a προξενία and ten thousand drachmas as a reward for this (Isoc. 15.166), he will already have reaped his prize from the Athenians by the time he wrote Pythian 1. ἀρέομαι: The uncontracted future of ἄρνυμαι is the palmary conjecture of Dawes (1745: 52–4) for the unmetrical αἱρέομαι of the MSS (αἰρ- E, where the smooth breathing is probably a lucky slip) and the lemmata of scholl. Pyth. 1.147a, c (II 25.6, 10 Dr.). Cf. the similar corruption at Ol.  9.101–2 κλέος /  … ἀρέσθαι (A: αἱρεῖσθαι Aristid. Or. 2.110: ἀνελέσθαι rell.). It is unclear whether ἁρέομαι in some MSS of Pseudo-Moschopoulos’ edition partially anticipates Dawes or is a scribal mistake (Introduction, 58). The tense of ἀρέομαι is not strictly an example of the ‘encomiastic future’, which Bundy (1962: 21–2) characterised as ‘never point[ing] beyond the ode itself, and [whose] promise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the word’ (cf. Slater 1969: 86–8, Cingano 1995: on 75). Whether or not Pindar was (already) rewarded for his praise of the Athenians (cf. above), he may reason­



ably have hoped for lasting gratitude from them, the Spartans and especially the Deinomenids. The verb governs (Ἀθαναίων) χάριν as the direct object and μισθόν as its predicate, illustrating both sides of the traditional poet-patron relationship (below). Both χάρις and μισθός have parallels with ἄρνυμαι: e.g. Il. 4.95 πᾶσι δέ κε Τρώεσσι χάριν καὶ κῦδος ἄροιο, Arat. Phaen. 1.640 θήρης ἀρνύμενος … χάριν, Il. 12.435 … ἵνα παισὶν ἀεικέα μισθὸν ἄρηται, Pl. Prt. 349a3–4; cf. the compound verb μισθαρνέω, ‘work for hire’ (e.g. S. Ant. 302, D. 18.49, 138, 236; LSJ s.v., Benveniste 1969: I 165–6, Meusel 2020: 349–50). πὰρ  … Σαλαμῖνος: For the apocope see 58–9n. (πὰρ Δεινομένει). Our passage is one of the majority of cases in Pindar where πάρ is correctly transmitted (apart from παρά G). χάριν μισθόν: The two nouns, especially so juxtaposed, evoke the close reciprocal relationship that obtained between the professional singer of praise and his patron – but with a rhetorical twist. The epinician poets were not shy of reminding their clients that they expected a suitable reward for their services, which produced the image of the ‘mercenary Muse’ and the false tradition that Simonides was the first to ‘sell’ his art: cf. Pyth. 11.41–2 Μοῖσα … εἰ μισθοῖο συνέθευ παρέχειν / φωνὰν ὑπάργυρον, Isth. 2.6–8 ἁ Μοῖσα γὰρ οὐ φιλοκερδής πω τότ᾽ ἦν οὐδ̓ ἐργάτις· / οὐδ᾽ ἐπέρναντο γλυκεῖαι μελιφθόγγου ποτὶ Τερψιχόρας / ἀργυρωθεῖσαι πρόσωπα μαλθακόφωνοι ἀοιδαί (‘For at that time the Muse was not yet greedy for gain nor up for hire, nor were sweet, softvoiced songs with their faces silvered over being sold from the hand of honey-voiced Terpsichore’) + scholl. Isth. 2.9a, b (III 214.10–17 Dr.), citing Call. fr. 222 Pf. οὐ γὰρ ἐργάτιν τρέφω / τὴν Μοῦσαν ὡς ὁ Κεῖος (Scaliger: Χῖος codd.) Ὑλλίχου νέπους; cf. Ar. Pax 698–9, Stob. 3.10.38, Suda σ 440 Adler. In fact, Greek poets had long worked for material benefit; cf. e.g. h.Merc. 437 (Apollo to Hermes) πεντήκοντα βοῶν ἀντάξια ταῦτα μέμηδας (i.e. the lyre) and Hdt. 1.24.1 on the riches amassed by the citharode Arion (though see E. L. Bowie 2012, on the difference between aristocratic gift-exchange and receiving a monetary fee). The same is true of their colleagues in other ancient Indo-European societies, particularly Vedic India, which developed the poetic trope of dānastuti or ‘praise of (the patron’s) generosity’ (e.g. RV 1.126, 6.27.8, 7.18.22–5; Patel 1929, Gonda 1975: 170–1; cf. West 2007: 29–31). In this context one should note that the ori­ ginal meaning of μισθός (< PIE *misdho-) is ‘honorific payment for a deed’ (Benveniste 1969: I 163–9, Watkins 1995: 71; cf. Il. 10.304–5 and e.g. Vedic mīḍhá-, ‘reward, prize in a contest’). Here, however, the true relevance of the term only becomes clear in 79–80. Since the Athenians and Spartans did not ask Pindar to celebrate Salamis and Plataea, all the μισθός he could reasonably hope to get from them was immaterial χάρις, ‘gratitude’ (although the Athenians may have



heaped him with riches; above). But Hieron did hire him to compose Pythian 1 and so could be expected to show his appreciation in a more tangible way. His eternal reputation depended on it (85–100, 89–90nn.). 77b–8. ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾽ τᾶν πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μαχᾶν: sc. ἀρέομαι (Λακεδαιμονίων) χάριν μισθόν, with ἀπό taking the place of the usual πάρ (παρά) with a verb of receiving (KG I 458, SD 446). This is the reading adopted by Snell–Maehler, Kirkwood and Liberman for the transmitted ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾽ ἐρέω τὰν πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχαν (αἱρέω C2sQPViac; cf. 75 αἱρέομαι (αἰρ-) codd.), which does not scan, unless τάν is omitted with μ, and which has no authority in ancient sources (below). The conjectural text combines Stone’s (1935: 123–4), assumed to have been supplanted by a gloss ἐρέω, and Wilamowitz’s reinterpretation of ΤΑΝ … ΜΑΧΑΝ as the Doric genitive plural (1901: 1306–8). The result is a clause that seamlessly carries on from the preceding one and forms a self-contained unit with the relative ταῖσι Μήδειοι κάμον ἀγκυλότοξοι (75b–80n.). Objections have been raised to the use of the plural for the battle of Plataea. Βut it can be explained as a ‘poetic’ plural, hinting at the many individual clashes that make up a major battle, to lend extra weight to the event as a whole (KG I 16, 18–19, SD 43–4). Moreover, as Kirkwood (1982: on 77) pointed out, the epithet ἀγκυλότοξοι has more force with regard to fighting on land. In any case, the unmetrical paradosis cannot stand. However, several editors have accepted … ἐρέω [τὰν] πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχαν (μ), most recently Gentili et al. (see Cingano 1995: on 77). The use of a prepositional phrase as attribute to a noun without article is unproblematic (cf. e.g. S. El. 61 οὐδὲν ῥῆμα σὺν κέρδει κακόν, Thuc. 6.90.3 ἐκ γῆς ἐφορμαῖς; KG I 610). But the text runs up against several other difficulties, in addition to damaging the fine tricolon structure of the passage (75b–80n.). These are related to grammar (1, 2), style (3) and transmission (4): (1) With the accusative singular μάχαν the relative pronoun ταῖσι (78) has to refer not only to the battle of Plataea (above), but also to that of Salamis; yet it seems awkward to extract an antecedent μάχαν (or ναυμαχίαν: e.g. Hdt. 8.122 τῆς ἐν Σαλαμῖνι ναυμαχίης) from the synecdoche πὰρ … Σαλαμῖνος (76), especially after another verb (ἐρέω) has intervened. (2) The position of μὲν … δέ in ἀρέομαι / πὰρ μὲν Σαλαμῖνος … / … ἐν Σπαρτᾷ δέ  … suggests that the two prepositional phrases are opposed to each other under the same verb. (3) If ἐρέω is retained, it must also govern ὕμνον in 79. This would take away much of the force of τελέσαις (‘pay as tribute’) at the climax of the priamel: ‘and by the well-watered bank of the Himeras  I shall sing a song for the sons of Deinomenes as my tribute, a song which they …’ Given that τελέσαις is aorist,



the sense ‘after completing it’ (cf. Bacch. fr. 20C.5) might even be more natural, which would create intolerable bathos. (4) There is no trace of ἐρέω in the ancient commentaries. Both schol. Pyth. 1.149 (II 25.16–17 Dr.) αἱροῦμαι δὲ καὶ ἀποδέχομαι, φησί, τὴν πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχην τῶν Σπαρτιαδῶν and schol. Pyth. 1.152a (II 25.20–2 Dr.) πὰρ δὲ τὰν εὔυδρον ἀκτάν: ὁ νοῦς· καὶ παρὰ τὴν εὔυδρον ἀκτὴν τοῦ Ἱμέρα ποταμοῦ τὸν ὕμνον τοῖς τοῦ Δεινομένεος παισὶ τελέσας, ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τὸ αἱρέομαι already presuppose the corruption of ἀρέομαι into αἱρέομαι (75b–7a n.), but they make the entire period dependent on this verb. The genesis of ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾽ ἐρέω (τὰν) πρὸ Κιθαιρῶνος μάχαν is easy to explain. In uncial script with at best sporadic lectional signs ΤΑΝ … ΜΑΧΑΝ could be mistaken for an accusative singular, as shown by schol. 149. Once that had happened, an appropriate verb to govern it was required, and somebody inserted ἐρέω, perhaps thinking of Homeric ἀπ(ο)εῖπον, ‘speak of, declare’ (LSJ s.v. ἀπεῖπον I). Eventually the preposition ‘was displaced to provide (inad­ equate) metrical correction’ (Kirkwood 1982: on 77), before a better metrician deleted τάν in an ancestor of μ.43 A possible trace of ἀπό can be found in the periphrasis of schol. 149 αἱροῦμαι δὲ καὶ ἀποδέχομαι … τὴν … μάχην. See also Introduction, 61. This last point tells against the only other viable emendation that has been proposed, namely Wilamowitz’s ἐν Σπάρτᾳ δ᾽ ἄρα τᾶν … μαχᾶν (1901: 1306–8), which was adopted by Bowra, Turyn and Burton (1962: 106–7). Wilamowitz also fails to clarify the force of ἄρα. From its primary use, which is to express ‘a lively feeling of interest’ (GP 33), follows that of emphasising the second member of an opposition, however mild (e.g. Il.  24.454–6, Pyth. 4.120–1 τὸν μὲν ἐσελθόντ᾽ ἔγνον ὀφθαλμοὶ πατρός· / ἐκ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ αὐτοῦ πομφόλυξαν δάκρυα γηραλέων γλεφάρων). But this has no purpose here where Salamis and Plataea stand on the same level. The pure genitive of exchange with implied χάριν or μισθός, by contrast, would be straightforward. Μήδειοι  … ἀγκυλότοξοι: Pindar here conforms to the strong tendency in Greek sources from the late sixth to the fourth century BC to designate the Persians as ‘Medes’ in contexts where they were regarded as a collective threat from the east. The origin of this can be traced to the Greeks of Asia Minor, who had little reason (and probably insufficient knowledge) to distinguish between the two peoples when in the 540s their Lydian overlord Croesus provoked the devastating attack of Cyrus II, not long after the latter had created

43 This scenario seems more likely than accidental omission of the article, given the comparative rarity of attributive prepositional phrases with non-articular nouns (above).



his Persian empire by subjugating the Medes. Cf. Xenoph. fr. 22.7 DK πηλίκος ἦσθ’, ὅθ’ ὁ Μῆδος ἀφίκετο, and see Tuplin 1994, especially 238–51, where add Sim. fr. 13.8–9 IEG2 (Plataea Elegy) to the evidence for Persians and Medes mentioned separately in the aftermath of the Persian Wars. Like other peoples of the Asiatic steppes, the Persians and Medes were known for archery, and so appropriately receive the Homeric epithet ἀγκυλότοξος (Il. 2.848 … Παίονας ἀγκυλοτόξους, 10.428, Stes. fr. 103.9 Finglass (Iliou Persis), Anacr. Eleg. fr. 3 IEG2, Dion. Per. 857, 1040; cf. e.g. Il. 5.209 ἀγκύλα τόξα), which adds to the epic flavour of the passage (cf. 72b–5a n.). The word describes the Asiatic ‘composite’ bow of wood reinforced with horn and sinew, which bends outward at the tips when drawn (A. M. Bowie 2019: on Il. 3.17). While modern scholars believe τόξον to be an Iranian loan word (DELG s.v.; cf. Old Persian taχš),44 the Greeks, from Homer on, saw a strong moral opposition between ‘western’ close-combat warfare and ‘eastern’ archery (A.  M. Bowie 2019: 16–18; for Greeks and Persians see especially A. Pers. 85, 147–9, 239–40, with Garvie 2009: on 26, Goldhill 1988, especially 190–1). As to the text, it is no surprise that the rare Μήδειοι (cf. Ibyc. fr. 320 PMGF οὐδὲ Κυάρας (Cyrus?) ὁ Μηδείων στρατηγός, Call. Aet. fr. 110.46 Pf. = Harder, AP 7.301.4 (= ‘Sim.’ fr. 7.4 FGE)) was corrupted into the regular Μῆδοι (< Old Persian Māda-) in all MSS except the group μ (μήδιοι F). For the same difference in the name of the eponymous king of the Medes, Μήδειος or Μῆδος, see West 1966: on Hes. Th. 1001. κάμον: See 79–80n. 79–80. The victory over the Carthaginians at Himera was the greatest military success of Hieron’s older brother and predecessor Gelon, while Hieron himself (as well as his younger brothers Polyzalos and Thrasyboulos) played at best a subsidiary role, their names mentioned neither in the main historiograph-

44 Beekes (s.v. τόξον) states that the attestation of related nouns already in Mycenaean (to-ko-so-ta = τοξότας, ‘archer’; to-ko-so-wo-ko = τοξοϝοργός, ‘bowmaker’) tells against such borrowing. He does not give a reason, but presumably he considers it unlikely that the Greeks encountered an Iranian term (as opposed to an Anatolian or Semitic one) when they interacted with the Ancient Near East from the 14th century BC on and, one may assume, adopted the composite bow from there (on the composite bow in Minoan and Mycenaean Greece see Bakas 2016). However, our evidence is too patchy to allow a firm conclusion. For a start, we do not know the word for ‘bow’ in Hittite or (Cuneiform) Luwian, since it is only attested as a Sumerogram (GIŠPAN read as Hittite and Luwian respectively). A possible Indo-European cognate for τόξον and taχš is Latin taxus, ‘yew-tree’, which in the Near East is native to northern Iran and provides a hard but highly elastic wood, ideal for bowmaking.



ical sources for the battle (Hdt. 7.165–7, D. S. 11.20–2), nor probably in connection with the original thank-offerings Gelon dedicated at Olympia and Delphi (cf. 71–80n.). So in order to claim the event for his client, Pindar praises it as the joint effort of the ‘sons of Deinomenes’ (cf.  47–50a n.). Bacchylides uses the same strategy, and similar words, at 5.31–6 τὼς νῦν καὶ μοὶ μυρία πάντᾳ κέλευθος / ὑμετέραν ἀρετάν / ὑμνεῖν, κυανοπλοκάμου θ᾽ ἕκατι Νίκας / χαλκεοστέρνου τ᾽ Ἄρηος, / Δεινομένευς ἀγέρωχοι / παῖδες (‘Even so I have countless paths in all directions for singing the praises of your excellence, noble sons of Deinomenes, thanks both to dark-haired Victory and to bronze-breasted Ares’). The passage is likely to refer mainly to Himera (Maehler 1982 ~ 2004: on 35–6; cf. Cummins 2010: 11–15). παρὰ δὲ τὰν εὔυδρον ἀκτὰν Ἱμέρα recalls 67 Ἀμένα παρ᾽ ὕδωρ. More immediately, however, the phrase answers 76 πὰρ μὲν Σαλαμῖνος, despite its different syntactical function (Burton 1962: 107). The apocope in the preposition there (rather than its general frequency in Pindar) will have caused the universal corruption of παρά into πάρ here, which was corrected by Triclinius. The same error occurred in Pyth. 12.26 and Nem. 2.19; for the reverse see 58–9n. εὔυδρον: ‘well-watered, abounding in water’ (LSJ s.v. 1). The transferred epithet is appropriate for the Himeras (modern Imera Settentrionale or Fiume Grande), which does not run dry in summer and carries ample water during the other seasons. The same meaning, rather than ‘with beautiful water’ (LSJ s.v. 2), should perhaps be assumed at Bacch. 11.119 Κάσαν παρ᾽ εὔυδρον, E. IT 399–400 τὸν εὔυδρον δονακόχλοον / … Εὐρώταν and [E.] Rh. 927–8 ἐς εὐύδρου πατρὸς / δίνας (i.e. the Strymon). Instead of εὔυδρον two MSS offer ἔνυδρον (C1) or εὔανδρον (E: -υδρ- Es). The former is a simple palaeographical mistake (cf. e.g. Hdt. 4.47.1), the latter may have been influenced by 40 εὔανδρον … χώραν. ἀκτάν: Usually ἀκτή denotes land running along or jutting out into the sea, i.e. ‘coast, headland’. Of river-banks cf. Pyth. 11.21 Ἀχέροντος ἀκτὰν παρ᾽ εὔσκιον (~ S. Ant. 812–13), Nem. 9.40 βαθυκρήμνοισι δ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀκταῖς Ἑλώρου, A. Ag. 696–7. Ἱμέρα: Doric(-Aeolic) genitive singular, as in 12b (n.) Λατοίδα and 67 Ἀμένα. For the Himeras schol. Pyth. 1.153 (II 26.9–12 Dr.) quotes A. fr. 25a TrGF καλοῖσι λουτροῖς †ἐκλέλουμαι† δέμας / εἰς ὑψίκρημνον Ἱμέραν δ᾽ ἀφικόμην from Glaucus (Pontius or Potnieus). The text is faulty, but one should probably trust the scholiast’s remark that Aeschylus meant the river and not the city of Himera (so Welcker 1824: 473 with n. 762 on the ground that ὑψίκρημνος would not fit a river; but it could refer to the ‘high crags’ that line the upper stream of the Himeras).



παίδεσσιν ὕμνον Δεινομένεος τελέσαις, / τὸν ἐδέξαντ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀρετᾷ: In structure and wording this resembles Pyth. 2.13–14 ἄλλοις δέ τις ἐτέλεσσεν ἄλλος ἀνήρ / εὐαχέα βασιλεῦσιν ὕμνον ἄποιν᾽ ἀρετᾶς, which is also indirectly addressed to Hieron. The participial phrase depends on ἀρέομαι (παίδων Δεινομένεος) χάριν μισθόν, implied from 75b–7a (cf. 77b–8n.). Like the ‘friendly song’ (φίλιον … ὕμνον) for Deinomenes in 58–60 (n.), ὕμνον … τελέσαις signals a ‘poem within a poem’, since ‘[t]his passage in a sense delivers the poem for the battle[s] of Himera [and Kyme] which it talks about’ (Spelman 2018: 266). Commenting on the ring-composition, Cingano (1995: on 79a) observes how ‘the encomium for Deinomenes has developed into an encomium for the Deinomenids’ (‘… l’encomio per Dinomene si è ampliato fino a diventare encomio dei Dinomenidi’). τελέσαις: ‘pay as tribute’, as in Pyth. 2.13–14 (quoted in the last note). The idea of praise as a ‘tribute’ or ‘debt’ belongs to the reciprocal relationship of gift-exchange between laudator and laudandus (cf. 58–9 (ποινὰν τεθρίππων), 75b–7a nn.) and is frequently expressed in epinician: also e.g. Ol. 3.6–9, 10.1–12, Pyth. 8.32–4, 9.103–5, Bacch. 14.19–22. See Nünlist 1998: 284–7. Unlike elsewhere in Pythian 1, the Aeolic aorist participle in -αις (cf. 6b–7a n.) is well-attested here, though largely with epic doubling of the sigma. ἀμφ᾽ ἀρετᾷ: Cf. Pyth. 2.14 ἄποιν᾽ ἀρετᾶς. For causal ἀμφί with dative, ‘thanks to, owing to’ see 12b n. (ἀμφὶ … σοφίᾳ). πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν καμόντων echoes 78 ταῖσι Μήδειοι κάμον ἀγκυλότοξοι and 73 οἷα … δαμασθέντες πάθον. In that way the battle of Himera is linguistically linked with that of Kyme and both together with the Persian Wars. In addition, πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν mirrors 15 θεῶν πολέμιος (i.e. Typhos), giving the audience the chance to remember the parallelism between Zeus and Hieron in defeating their respective enemies (cf. Skulsky 1975: 24, Cingano 1995: on 80a, Morgan 2015: 340). 81–100. Dio Chrysostom has a rather precocious young Alexander explain to his father Philip II that a king should sing not the songs of Sappho or Anacreon, but those of Stesichorus or Pindar: Or.  2.28–9 οὐδέ γε ᾄδειν τὰ Σαπφοῦς ἢ Ἀνακρέοντος [ἐρωτικὰ μέλη] πρέπον ἂν εἴη τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, ἀλλ’, εἴπερ ἄρα, τῶν Στησιχόρου μελῶν ἢ Πινδάρου, [ἐὰν ᾖ τις ἀνάγκη].45 While the moral behind this statement is obvious (with or without ἐρωτικὰ μέλη), it is impossible to

45 Alexander’s appreciation for Pindar is also evident from Arrian’s account (An. 1.9.10) that when he destroyed Thebes in 335 he spared the house of Pindar because of his enkōmion for Alexander son of Amyntas, king of Macedon (Pi. frr. 120, 121). Cf. Hornblower 2004: 180–1, 2006: 162.



tell which, if any, specific Pindar passage(s) Dio had in mind. In any case, the final triad of Pythian 1 has often been interpreted as a Fürstenspiegel (‘Mirror for Princes’), a literary genre with roots in Ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature, offering advice to a ruler or his son on good governance and other aspects of behaviour (e.g. Wilamowitz 1922: 302–4, Farnell 1932: on 81 (p. 116), Burton 1962: 91, 103, 108–10).46 Yet it is far from that. As Köhnken (1970: 7) observed, the adhortations Pindar addresses to Hieron (not Deinomenes, as has often been assumed) in 85–100 (n.) are a variation of the ‘εὐεργεσία motif’, a form of praise that involves encouragement to ‘good deeds’ and liberality, with a view to securing lasting fame (Bundy 1962: 85–90, especially 85–6; cf. Arist. Rh. 1367b36–1368a8 on the affinity between laudatory and paraenetic speech). Indeed the sequence of present imperatives in 85–92 (86 μὴ παρίει, νώμα, χάλκευε, 90 μὴ κάμνε, 91 ἐξίει) suggests that Hieron already possesses the requisite qualities and only needs to keep applying them (cf. 89 εὐανθεῖ δ᾽ ἐν ὀργᾷ παρμένων; Race 1986: 48, Miller 1989: 482 with n. 56, Pfeijffer 2005: 33 with n. 56).47 This is a subtle way of telling Hieron that he must not rest on his laurels. It is comparable to Ol. 1.97–100 ὁ νικῶν δὲ λοιπὸν ἀμφὶ βίοτον / ἔχει μελιτόεσσαν εὐδίαν / ἀέθλων γ᾽ ἕνεκεν· τὸ δ᾽ αἰεὶ παράμερον ἐσλόν / ὕπατον ἔρχεται παντὶ βροτῶν, where the familiar gnomē that one needs to look for the good each day brings (first Alcm. fr. 1.37–9 PMGF) balances the idea of eternal bliss through victory. At the end of his last epinician for Hieron Bacchylides combines the same sentiment with the advice to act righteously (thinly veiled in a mythological tale) and acclaim for the tyrant’s wealth and achievements (3.63–98). This poem shows another important connection with Pythian 1 in replacing the myth with the tale of the ‘good king Croesus’ (cf. 94b–100, 94b nn.). The triad begins with a reflection on audience ‘surfeit’ (κόρος) and the consequent need for the poet to speak to the point, a common pair of epinician

46 The view of Pyth. 1.81–100 may go back to Horace, if this is the sense of Carm. 3.4.41–2 vos (Camenae) lene consilium et datis et dato / gaudetis almae. Among the many reminiscences of Pythian 1 in that ode (cf. 1–12, 1–2a, 13–28 (n. 6), 25–6a, 39–40nn.), the present statement follows one about the Muses reviving the tired princeps, just as Pindar’s poem is meant to reward Hieron for his athletic and martial efforts (1–2a n.). And towards the end of Carm. 3.4 Horace offers advice not unlike that ostensibly given by Pindar here: 65–8 vis consili expers mole ruit sua: / vim temperatam di quoque provehunt / in maius; idem odere viris / omne nefas animo moventis. Negative examples, equivalent to Phalaris in Pyth. 1.95–8, are added (Carm. 3.4.69–80). 47 The negative aorist imperative in 92 μὴ δολωθῇς … †κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέλοις† breaks the pattern, but it is explicable as a single action by the sense of the verb. Once Hieron has been deceived by ‘precarious gains’, he would remain so and act accordingly, while μὴ παρίει καλά (86) and μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις (91) can refer to numerous individual situations.



motifs, which add to the praise by implying that there is potentially no end to it (81–4n.; cf. Race 1986: 46, Pfeijffer 2005: 33, Athanassaki 2009: 256 n. 33). The same function belongs to the related theme of civic ‘envy’ (φθόνος) because only the illustrious are at risk of incurring it (85–6a n.). Hieron’s own eminence is stressed again in 88 πολλῶν ταμίας ἐσσί, almost exactly in the middle of the section that reminds him of the obligations that come with it (86–92). Towards the end of his paraenesis Pindar subtly introduces the topic of ‘eternal glory’ (90 (89–90n.) εἴπερ τι φιλεῖς ἀκοὰν ἁδεῖαν αἰεὶ κλύειν), which is to occupy the entire epode with the opposing paradigms of Croesus and Phalaris (85–100, 94b–100, 94b, 95–8nn.). Here we also observe an increasing focus on the symposium and its role in perpetuating fame, mirroring on the human level the Olympian festivities of the proem (95–8n.). As Croesus’ reputation does not perish (94), so Hieron will continue to be sung about if he follows Pindar’s counsel and avoids the mistakes of the wicked Phalaris (cf. 94b–100n.). Retrospectively, therefore, the last triad of Pythian 1 emerges as a clever encomiastic move. Its ostensible emphasis on political exhortation, which picks up the prayer to Zeus τέλειος ‘on the prospects of good governance for A[i]tna’ (Fearn 2017: 2014), ties in with the sympotic traditions of Theognis and Alcaeus, while Hieron himself is cast ‘in the role of affable statesman’, acceptable to the aristocratic symposiasts on whose tastes depended the early reception of epinician poetry (Athanassaki 2009: 264–5, 272–3; 2016: 111–12; cf. Introduction, 33–4). One wonders if Xenophon had our passage in mind when at the end of his Hieron (9–11) he has Simonides (not Pindar!) advise the ruler that he can return to the sympotic companionship enjoyed by private citizens if he ‘transforms into a mild, generous, and moderate ruler who invests his money, power, and energy in the city and the citizens’ (Athanassaki 2009: 263; cf. 85–100n.). 81–4. These lines form a transitional statement that allows Pindar to conclude the preceding narrative about Himera and Kyme (71–80) and to move on to the praise of Hieron as ‘good king’ (85–100). Its opening sentence (καιρὸν εἰ φθέγξαιο … μείων ἕπεται μῶμος ἀνθρώπων) begins with a second person singular, which can be understood both as an authorial self-address and as an expression of general encomiastic etiquette. This literary device, often referred to by the rather too narrow term Abbruchsformel (‘break-off formula’), is frequent in lyric, where the poet ‘can seldom develop a point with the fullness of epic’ (Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.247– 8; cf. Race 1990: 41–57, H. Mackie 2003: 9–37). Here indeed Pindar does not so much ‘break off’ as effect a conscious continuation after the fourth triad, which ends in a climax and so gives the impression of a ‘false close’ (12b, 39–40nn.). He seems to wish to catch out those audience members who were getting bored



and/or envious and waiting for the eulogy to finish (Morrison 2007: 70, 102; cf. Athanassaki 2009: 254), while indicating playfully that he could go on much longer (81–100n.). At the same time, Pindar adopts a didactic tone. By looking at the current ode, and his art in general, from a broader perspective, he offers advice to anyone who intends to engage in encomiastic poetry and rhetoric (Athanassaki 2009: 254; cf. Spelman 2018: 216 with n. 4). Thematically similar passages are Ol. 2.95–8 ἀλλ᾽ αἶνον ἐπέβα κόρος / οὐ δίκᾳ συναντόμενος, ἀλλὰ μάργων ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν, / τὸ λαλαγῆσαι θέλων κρυφὸν τιθέμεν ἐσλῶν καλοῖς / ἔργοις (‘But enough: upon praise comes tedious excess, which does not keep to just limits, but at the instigation of greedy men is eager to prattle on and obscure noble men’s good deeds’), 13.47–8 ἕπεται δ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστῳ / μέτρον· νοῆσαι δὲ καιρὸς ἄριστος, Pyth. 4.247–8, 8.29–32, 9.76–9, Nem. 7.52–3, 10.19–20 (cf. Pfeijffer 2005: 24 n. 31). 81–2a. ‘If you were to speak to the point, combining the strands of many themes in brief, less reproach from men follows …’ καιρὸν εἰ φθέγξαιο: Ever since antiquity (cf. schol. Pyth. 1.157a–d (II 26.16–25 Dr.)) καιρόν has been taken either as an adverbial accusative (= κατὰ / εἰς καιρόν) or as an internal object (= τὰ καίρια). The first interpretation, which is endorsed by e.g. Gildersleeve (1890: on 81), Schroeder (1922: on 81), Cingano (1995: on 81–4) and Liberman (2004: 52), gains support from passages like S. Ai. 34 καιρὸν δ᾽ ἐφήκεις and Hdt. 9.87.2 ἔδοξε εὖ λέγειν καὶ ἐς καιρόν (LSJ s.v. καιρός III b, Lobeck 1866: on S. Ai.  34 (pp.  70–1)). By contrast, καιρόν as an internal accusative (e.g. Mezger 1880 and Farnell 1932: on 81, Slater s.v. καιρός b), has no direct parallel with a verb of speaking, but (τὰ) καίρια or καίριον are frequent in this use: A. Sept. 1 χρὴ λέγειν τὰ καίρια, 619, Cho. 582, A. fr. 208 TrGF, S. Ant. 724 εἴ τι καίριον λέγει, Phil. 862–3 βλέπ᾽ εἰ καίρια / φθέγγῃ, OC 808. Pindar’s expression is unusual in any case. The fact that it introduces a new triad, after a strong pause and with καιρόν as the first word (mirrored by ἐν βραχεῖ at the end of the protasis), perhaps favours the more forceful sense of the adverbial accusative: ‘opportunely, to the point’, as opposed to τὰ καίρια, ‘what is timely’. For the postponement of εἰ by one word or phrase in emphatic position cf. Ol. 1.75–6 φίλια δῶρα Κυπρίας ἄγ᾽ εἴ τι, Ποσειδάον, ἐς χάριν τέλλεται, 6.11, Pyth. 8.13–14 κέρδος δὲ φίλτατον, / ἑκόντος εἴ τις ἐκ δόμων φέροι, Isth. 7.43–4, Bacch. 11.26–7. πολλῶν πείρατα συντανύσαις / ἐν βραχεῖ: The participial construction elaborates on the preceding καιρὸν εἰ φθέγξαιο, with πολλῶν antithetically corresponding to ἐν βραχεῖ and both together explaining καιρόν (Bergren 1975: 151–2).



The force of the metaphor in πολλῶν πείρατα συντανύσαις has been much debated. It depends on the interpretation of πεῖραρ (or πεῖρας in Pindar; cf. Ol. 2.31), which mainly occurs in the plural and basically denotes the ‘limit’ or ‘boundary’ of anything (< PIE *per-, ‘cross, pass through’); hence such figurative meanings as ‘result, outcome, product(s)’ (see Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.220b). In addition to these, however, several Homeric passages presuppose the sense ‘bonds’ (a particular form of ‘boundary’): Od. 12.51, 162, 179 (the ties that secure Odysseus to his ship’s mast against the song of the Sirens), h.Ap. 129 … λύοντο δὲ πείρατα πάντα, Il. 7.402 … Τρώεσσιν ὀλέθρου πείρατ᾽ ἐφῆπται (~ Il. 12.79, Od. 22.33, 41) and Il. 13.358–60 τὼ δ᾽ ἔριδος κρατερῆς καὶ ὁμοιΐοο πολέμοιο / πεῖραρ … τάνυσσαν / ἄρρηκτόν τ᾽ ἄλυτόν τε, where πεῖραρ comes closest to a concrete, if metaphorically applied, ‘rope’ (see the note of Janko 1994). Given the combination of πεῖραρ with an aorist form of τανύω in Il. 13.358– 60, this may be the origin of Pindar’s expression. The step from a figurative ‘rope’ to finer ‘strands’ is not far, and since τανύω can also refer to ‘stretching across’ the warp-thread in weaving (Il. 23.761–2), it is unsurprising that ancient commentators saw here a metaphor from net-making: schol. Pyth. 1.157b (II 26.18–20 Dr.) τῆς πολυλογίας τὰ πέρατα εἰς ἓν συντείνας καὶ συμπλέξας … ἡ δὲ μεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν δικτύων (cf. schol. Pyth. 1.157d (II 26.23–4 Dr.)). This image is most appropriate to the context. ‘Intertwining the strands of many things (πολλῶν) but in a short space (ἐν βραχεῖ)  … would produce a fabric small in size but very closely-knit, apt adjectives for a style we often feel to be challengingly dense’ (Bergren 1975: 151). It is also consistent with Pindar’s use elsewhere of the traditional Indo-European concept of poesy as weaving (West 2007: 36–8 with n. 35, Massetti 2019: 185–8, Meusel 2020: 458–65, 595– 601). Other interpretations of the metaphor are more problematic. Nünlist (1998: 115–16) derived it from rope-making. But while this accounts for πολλῶν πείρατα συντανύσαις (especially in the light of the Homeric passages quoted above), the reference of ἐν βραχεῖ becomes less clear. Does it mean that the rope is tightly-twisted? Or short? Nünlist imagines the latter, adducing Pi. Dith. 2.1 (fr. 70b) π̣ρὶν μὲν ἕρπε σχοινοτένειά τ᾽ ἀοιδὰ δ̣ι ̣θ̣υράμβων and Ar. Ran. 1296–7 τί τὸ ῾φλαττοτρατ᾽ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστίν; ἐκ Μαραθῶνος ἢ / πόθεν συνέλεξας ἱμονιοστρόφου μέλη; as alleged examples of the rope-image being used to criticise longwinded song. Yet D’Angour (1997) has shown persuasively that σχοινοτένεια in Pi. Dith. 2.1 refers to the formation of the chorus ‘stretched out like a rope’, i.e. in a straight line as opposed to a circle; and the main point of Aristophanes’ ‘rope-winders’ songs’ seems to be their repetitiveness rather than excessive length (Dover 1993 and Sommerstein 1996: on Ar. Ran. 1296–7). And, one may ask, what is the real-life benefit of a short rope?



Finally, there is no need to push the sense of πείρατα to ‘main points’ (e.g. Mezger 1880: on 81, Cingano 1995: on 81–2, who compare Virg. Aen. 1.342 summa sequar fastigia rerum),48 nor to strain the whole metaphor towards ‘bringing together (by stretching) the (due) limits of many subjects’ (Fennell 1893: on 81) or ‘demarcating (by stretching and joining) the (ideal) limits of many things’ (Bergren 1975: 151–62, who improbably thinks of the boundaries of a new city, i.e. Aitna). συντανύσαις: This compound of τανύω is an overall hapax. By Pindar’s time the old epic(-Ionic) form of τείνω (< PIE *tn̥h2ú-, ‘thin’; cf. e.g. Greek τανυ-, Vedic tan-, tanóti, ‘stretch’) was becoming rare, and he himself often seems to have treated (-)τανύω and (-)τείνω as metrical variants. Cf. Pae. 9.49 (= A1 Rutherford) συνέτεινε and the respective simplicia at Ol. 2.91, 8.49, Pyth. 4.129 (τανύω) and Ol. 13.85, Pyth. 11.54, Isth. 1.49, Parth. 1.13 (fr. 94a) (τείνω). It may be coincidence or an accident of transmission that Pindar has only ἐκτανύω and ἐντανύω (once each; the latter, alongside ἐντείνω, also occurs in Herodotus: 2.173.3, 5.25.2), but ἀνατείνω (six times). While the ‘epic’ variant ἀνατανύω is not found before Hellenistic times (A. R. 1.344, Call. Jov. 30), Pindar could no doubt have formed it, had he felt the (metrical) need. See further Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.227f, 242d. The correct Aeolic ending of the participle (-αις) is here attested only in C (glossed with -ας by C2s). The situation is similar for χαλάξαις (6b–7a n.), ῥίψαις (Callierges: 43b–5n.) and [πετάσαις] (91–2a n.), but not for τελέσαις (79–80n.). μείων ἕπεται μῶμος ἀνθρώπων: For the public ‘censure’ (μῶμος), born out of ‘envy’ (φθόνος, 85–6a n.), which attends conspicuous success and/or its excessive praise cf. Ol. 6.74–6 μῶμος ἐξ ἄλλων κρέμαται φθονεόντων / τοῖς, οἷς ποτε πρώτοις περὶ δωδέκατον δρόμον / ἐλαυνόντεσσιν αἰδοία ποτιστάξῃ Χάρις εὐκλέα μορφάν (‘But blame coming from others who are envious hangs over those who ever drive first around the twelve-lap course and on whom revered Charis sheds a glorious appearance’), Pi. fr. 181 and Bacch. 13.199–203 ε̣ἰ μή τινα θερσι ̣[ε]πὴς / φθόνος βιᾶται, / α̣ἰνείτω σοφὸν ἄνδρα / σ̣ὺν δίκᾳ. βροτῶν δὲ μῶμος / πάντεσσι μέν ἐστιν ἐπ᾽ ἔργοις (‘Let those who are not mastered by boldtongued envy praise the skilled man as is his due. Fault is found by mortals in all achievements’). See also Köhnken 1981: 420–2 and Adorjáni 2014: on Ol. 6.74 (p. 247), who well explains μῶμος as the verbal expression of φθόνος and thus the natural antagonist of praise. 48 Cingano favours the ‘weaving’ metaphor (above), but nevertheless quotes Virgil and several early Greek passages, where πείρατα has been taken to mean ‘main points’: Il. 23.350 (on which see Nothdurft 1978: 31–2), Thgn. 1172, Sol. fr. 16.2 IEG2, Emped. fr. 17B.24 DK. However, in Theognis and Solon at least, ‘outcome’ (above) would be equally fitting.



The clause itself has a syntactical parallel in Ol. 1.35 ἔστι δ᾽ ἀνδρὶ φάμεν ἐοικὸς ἀμφὶ δαιμόνων καλά· μείων γὰρ αἰτία, on which Gerber (1982: 71) observes that ‘the comparative seems to strike a note of caution, to indicate a reluctance on the part of the poet to introduce absolutes’. The blame is less, but a certain risk of incurring it always remains. 82b–4. ‘For cloying surfeit dulls impatient expectations, and what citizens hear lies heavy upon their secret hearts, particularly regarding the success of others.’ ἀπὸ … ἀμβλύνει: literarally ‘blunt (a sharp or pointed instrument)’: e.g. Demad. fr. 112 De Falco (λόγχας), Plut. De soll. an. 966c (a lion’s claws), D. C. 40.24.1 (τὰ ξίφη). But most often the verb is used metaphorically (LSJ s.v. I 2). From the fifth century note also A. Sept. 715 τεθηγμένον τοί μ’ οὐκ ἀπαμβλυνεῖς λόγῳ, [A.] PV 866–7 ἀλλ’ ἀπαμβλυνθήσεται  / γνώμην and Hdt. 3.134.3 αἱ φρένες … ἀπαμβλύνονται. κόρος  … αἰανής: In a similar context cf. Isth. 3.1–3 εἴ τις ἀνδρῶν εὐτυχήσαις … / … κατέχει φρασὶν αἰανῆ κόρον, / ἄξιος εὐλογίαις ἀστῶν μεμίχθαι. Pindar also uses αἰανής in Pyth. 4.236 (κέντρον αἰανές) and Isth. 1.49 (λιμὸν αἰανῆ). The adjective, first attested in Archil. fr.  179 IEG2 προύθηκε παισὶ δεῖπνον αἰηνὲς φέρων (= Et. Gen. α 187 (cod. B) et al.), is exclusively poetic and of uncertain sense and etymology. Ancient scholars explained it as either ‘painful, grim’ (< αἲ αἴ, αἰαγμός) or as referring to extention, whether temporal (< αἰεί, αἰώνιος) or physical (schol. Pyth. 4.420 (II 155.17–18 Dr.) ἢ παρὰ τὴν αἶαν, τὸ μέγα· τὰ γὰρ μεγάλα τῇ γῇ εἰκάζομεν). Both ‘painful’ and ‘long-lasting’ would suit Pindar and most other early occurrences (A. Pers. 636, 941, Eum. 416, 479, 942, S. Ai. 672, El. 504), whereas Archilochus seems to require the first meaning (cf. A. Pers. 280–1 βοάν / δυσαιανῆ), and only the second (which became standard in Hellenistic times) can stand at A. Eum. 572 εἰς τὸν αἰανῆ χρόνον and 672 καὶ τάδ᾽ αἰανῶς μένοι. For our passage (and Isth. 3.2) the two connotations are well combined in Race’s ‘cloying’ (1997: I 223), i.e. ‘blunting people’s appetite for more’. See further Degani 1962 = 2004: II 817–36, DELG s.v. and Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.236a. ταχείας ἐλπίδας refers to the eagerness, or indeed impatience, of the audience to hear new themes in quick succession. Wilamowitz (1922: 302 with n. 2) compares Ar. Eccl. 582 ὡς τὸ ταχύνειν χαρίτων μετέχει πλεῖστον παρὰ τοῖσι θεαταῖς. Schroeder (1922: on 83) observed the (isometric) assonance between 43 αἰνῆσαι  … ἔλπομαι and αἰανὴς  … ἐλπίδας here (cf.  43b–5n.). He offered no explanation, but perhaps Pindar wished to stress, for his own poetic amusement and that of the most attentive recipients, the potential conflict between his desire to praise and the average attention span of the audience (above).



ἀστῶν δ᾽ ἀκοὰ κρύφιον θυμὸν βαρύνει μάλιστ᾽ ἐσλοῖσιν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις describes the mechanism of civic envy (φθόνος, 85–6a n.) that can befall any successful individual; cf. Hdt. 7.237.2 πολιήτης μὲν πολιήτῃ εὖ πρήσσοντι φθονέει, Xen. Mem. 3.9.8, Plut. De inv. 537a (Cingano 1995: on 82–4). The absence of φθόνος is a precondition for effective praise at Ol. 6.6–7 τίνα κεν φύγοι ὕμνον  / κεῖνος ἀνήρ, ἐπικύρσαις ἀφθόνων ἀστῶν ἐν ἱμερταῖς ἀοιδαῖς; Pindar had assumed it in Hieron’s son Deinomenes: 59 (59–60n.) χάρμα δ᾽ οὐκ ἀλλότριον νικαφορία πατέρος. ἀστῶν … ἀκοά: ‘What citizens hear’ or ‘what is heard by citizens’ about the laudandus, i.e. passive ἀκοά, with ἀστῶν as a subject genitive. This general statement is mirrored, for the specific case of Hieron, in the corresponding verse of the antistrophe: 90 (89–90n.) εἴπερ τι φιλεῖς ἀκοὰν ἁδεῖαν αἰεὶ κλύειν. Pindar also employed ἀκοά, in the same sense and in a similar context, at Pyth. 9.77–8 βαιὰ δ᾽ ἐν μακροῖσι ποικίλλειν / ἀκοὰ σοφοῖς (81–4n.). κρύφιον θυμόν: People rarely admit to feeling envy. It operates in secret and can be all the more damaging for that. Cf. Ol. 1.47 ἔννεπε κρυφᾷ τις αὐτίκα φθονερῶν γειτόνων (with Gerber 1982) and Nem. 4.39–41 φθονερὰ δ᾽ ἆλλος ἀνὴρ βλέπων / γνώμαν κενεὰν σκότῳ κυλίνδει / χαμαὶ πετοῖσαν. ἐσλοῖσιν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις gives the cause of the people’s aggravation. For this use of ἐπί + dative, with a verb or verbal expression of mental affection, see LSJ s.v. ἐπί B III 1, KG I 502, SD 468–9. 85–100. In a series of largely asyndetic exhortations, with present tenses indicating linear action, Pindar casts Hieron as an equitable, sincere and generous ruler who only needs to persevere on this road to win ‘imperishable fame’ through song. In other words, Pindar’s ‘advice’ conforms to the intentions which, one may assume, Hieron wishes to present to the world and thus constitutes a subtle form of praise (cf. 81–100n.). As a parallel for Hieron Bacch. 3.63–98 has already been quoted (81–100n.). But Pindar employed the same encomiastic technique for Arkesilaos of Kyrene in Pyth. 4.270–6, whereas in Pyth. 5.1–23 he praises Arkesilaos for precisely the personal qualities Hieron is supposed to continue nurturing: being a fair sovereign and using his riches to acquire friends and seek glory. The ‘proper’ use of wealth in the above sense is a common theme in epinicians for non-royal victors as well, especially those in the equestrian disciplines (e.g. Ol.  5.15–16, Nem. 1.31–3, Isth. 1.41–2, 67–8, 3.15–17b). There the praise of expenditure, which alone does not guarantee success, ‘is the counterpart to the praise of effort in odes to victors in those disciplines in which  … the competitor usually participated personally’ (Carey 1993: 103; cf. Pfeijffer 2005: 24–5, Morrison 2007: 3 n. 21). This goes hand in hand with openly expressed or



implied encouragement to further spending in order to maximise one’s fame (cf. 90 (89–90n.) μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις). For a tyrant, and other politically prominent figures, gaining a reputation as a public benefactor was particularly important. Keeping a racing-stable could be construed as part of this, since the prestige of a pan-Hellenic victory would be shared by the whole community. Epinician poets were understand­ ably fond of this argument (cf. 30b–2a, 35b–8, 89–90nn.), and Alcibiades could still use it when he claimed that the extravagance of entering seven chariots at the Olympics of 416, in which he came first, second and third or fourth, was for the glory of Athens (Thuc. 6.16; cf. Euripides’ epinician for the occasion, fr. 755 PMG). In addition, tyrants could be expected to adorn their city with temples and monuments, to make lavish sacrifices and send expensive votive gifts to pan-Hellenic sanctuaries and to contribute to the maintenance or re­novation of these shrines. The Deinomenids were highly engaged in all but the last of these activities (Pfeijffer 2005: 34, Morgan 2015: 30–52; cf. Pyth. 5.89–93 of Battos I). But unlike Bacchylides, who mentions Hieron’s sacrifices and dedications (3.10–21, 63–6) and presents Croesus, who is rescued by Zeus and Apollo on account of his generous gifts to Delphi, as an example to follow (3.23–62), Pindar remains vague here, regarding both Hieron and Croesus.49 In some way, this is more effective as praise because any audience can supply their own knowledge or let their imagination roam. Hieron’s fame is thus not bound to a particular historical context and all the more likely to become ‘imperishable’. 85–6a. ‘But nevertheless, for envy is superior to pity, keep refusing to pass over anything noble.’ After the half personal, half generic second person singular φθέγξαιο in 81 (81–4n.), Pindar shifts to a similarly ambiguous negative command. On one interpretation it is a poetic self-exhortation (Pfeijffer 2005: 32–3). Despite the risk of arousing envy (φθόνος) against Hieron, Pindar must keep praising him because, it is implied, his achievements are not to fall into oblivion: cf. Nem. 9.6–7 ἔστι δέ τις λόγος ἀνθρώπων, τετελεσμένον ἐσλόν / μὴ χαμαὶ σιγᾷ καλύψαι· θεσπεσία δ᾽ ἐπέων καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος (‘Men have a saying: do not hide a noble accomplishment on the ground in silence. Rather, a divine song with verses of acclaim is called for’), Isth. 2.43–5 and, for Hieron again, Bacch. 3.67–71 and 5.187–90 (cf. 13.199–203, quoted in 81–2a n. (μείων … ἀνθρώπων)). But in view of the following second-person imperatives, which clearly address Hieron

49 The same applies to the benefactions of Theron (and Xenocrates?) in Ol. 2.53–4 ὁ μὰν πλοῦτος ἀρεταῖς δεδαιδαλμένος φέρει τῶν τε καὶ τῶν / καιρὸν βαθεῖαν ὑπέχων μέριμναν †ἀγροτέραν†.



(86, 90–2), the sentence can also be taken as the first of Pindar’s exhortations to his patron (e.g. Kirkwood 1982: on 85–92, Morgan 2015: 342–3): if Hieron wishes to ensure a lasting reputation as a ‘good king’ (81–100, 85–100nn.), he has to use his position accordingly, thereby risking the envy of his citizens. In any case the mention of φθόνος here, as elsewhere in epinician, serves as indirect praise, since it presupposes a social status and/or achievements likely to elicit it (e.g. Pyth. 11.29–30, Nem. 8.21–2; cf. A. Ag. 939 ὁ δ’ ἀφθόνητός γ’ οὐκ ἐπίζηλος πέλει). See Cingano 1995: on 85, Gerber 1982: on Ol. 1.47 (φθονερῶν γειτόνων), both with further literature, and also 81–100n. κρέσσον γὰρ οἰκτιρμοῦ φθόνος: This sentiment recurs in Hdt. 3.52.5 σὺ δὲ μαθὼν ὅσῳ φθονέεσθαι κρέσσον ἐστὶ ἢ οἰκτίρεσθαι … ἄπιθι ἐς τὰ οἰκία (Peri­ander of Corinth advising his son), Sept. Sap. 10 δ 17 DK φθονοῦ μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκτίρου and, conversely, in Thuc. 7.77.4 οἴκτου γὰρ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν θεῶν) ἀξιώτεροι ἤδη ἐσμὲν ἢ φθόνου. While envy (for the successful) and pity (for the unsuccessful) are natural opposites, it is impossible to tell whether Pindar’s formulation was already proverbial in his time (e.g. Gildersleeve 1890 and Cingano 1995: on 85) or whether the later instantiations, especially Herodotus and the ‘Seven Sages’, depend on him (Schroeder 1922: on 85). In favour of the first alternative note λόγος ἀνθρώπων in the analogous context of Nem. 9.6–7 (above). On the other hand, Pindar’s exact phrase had a long life in the anthological and scholarly tradition (Hdn. GG II 429.12, 946.10 Lentz, Stob. 3.38.22; cf. Pallad. AP 10.51.1), and given the similarity of situation and wording in Herodotus, he may have begun the tradition of alluding to or quoting the passage. κρέσσον: Both κρέσσον (Stob. 3.38.22 (cod. S); cf. κρείσσον (accent) Eac) and κρέσσων (codd. pler., Stob. (codd. MA); cf. Hdn. GG II 429.12, 946.10 Lentz) are grammatically correct and could be either corruptions of each other or separate descendants of Pindar’s spelling ΚΡΕΣ(Σ)ΟΝ (on which see Young 1965: 258 = 1970: 108, Braswell 1998: on Nem. 9.15 (p. 73) and 1988: on Pyth. 4.14d). Each reading has found wide editorial support, but the neuter (e.g. Snell–Maehler, Race, Liberman) is lectio difficilior. For its use as a nominal predicate (‘a better thing’) in a proverbial expression cf. E. Suppl. 488 ὅσῳ τε πολέμου κρεῖσσον εἰρήνη βροτοῖς, Or. 1155 οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν κρεῖσσον ἢ φίλος σαφής and fr. 7 TrGF. On the textual choice see also Introduction, 62. The form κρεσσ- (< *κρέτj-) is almost certainly what Pindar intended, not κρεισσ- as in early Attic, where -ει- is the result of secondary lengthening (Schwyzer 320). The latter spelling entered our manuscripts (here CEF) by way of normalisation. See Braswell (above) and West (1998–2000: I XX) in favour of -εσσ- rather than -εισσ- in Homer.



86b. ‘Steer your people with a rudder of justice, and forge the bronze of your tongue on an anvil of truth.’ Pindar’s laudatory ‘advice’ to Hieron on how to be a ‘good king’ begins – or is continued (85–6a n.) – with two striking images which illustrate characteristics that go back to epic: just rule and fair speech (cf. especially Il. 9.96–102 and Hes. Th. 80–96; Morgan 2015: 225–8, 229–31, commenting on Ol. 1.12–13 θεμιστεῖον ὃς ἀμφέπει σκᾶπτον ἐν πολυμήλῳ / Σικελίᾳ). For Hieron’s righteousness in epinician see also Bacch. 3.70–1 . . . .]ίου σκᾶπτρον Διός /  … ἔχοντα (70 [τεθμ]ίου vel [δαμ]ίου Blass: [ξειν]ίου Nairn), 5.6 φρένα … εὐθύδικον (with Maehler 1982: on 6 ~ 2004: on 6–7) and 69–70n. νώμα δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ στρατόν: The ship-of-state metaphor recalls not only the seafaring imagery at 33–5, where Hieron’s chariot victory at Delphi is presented as a good omen for Aitna (33b–8n.), but also his recent naval triumph at Kyme, 71–80 (Kirkwood 1982: on 85–92, Morgan 2015: 341–2). The trope is taken up again at 91–2a (n.) in the context of proper spending. The same concept as here lies behind Pindar’s designation of Hieron as ‘people-guiding ruler’ (λαγέταν … τύραννον, Pyth. 3.85), which looks back to the Homeric ποίμενα (-ι) λαῶν, especially with regard to Agamemnon and Menelaus (cf. Hornblower 2004: 64, 2006: 155). Bacch. 5.1–2 εὔμοιρε [Σ]υρακ[οσίω]ν / …  στρατα[γ]έ (with Maehler 1982 ~ 2004) addresses Hieron both as civilian ruler and as ‘war-lord’ (cf. on στρατόν, below). πηδαλίῳ: ‘steering oar, rudder’. The word is used in a similar metaphorical fashion at Pi. fr. 40 (= Plut. De fort. Rom. 318a) (Τύχα) ἀπειθὴς … δίδυμον στρέφοισα πηδάλιον (where δίδυμον presumably refers to the fact that Greek ships had a pair of steering oars). στρατόν: The meaning ‘people’, which is first attested (with an inbuilt gloss) at Alcm. fr. 3.73–4 PMGF Ἀ]στυμέλοισα κατὰ στρατόν / ] μ̣έλημα δάμῳ, is frequent in Pindar (Slater s.v. a; cf. Bacch. 15.43 δεξίστρατον εἰς ἀγοράν). Here it may be ‘calculated to evoke the realization that the citizens ruled by Hieron are also his fighting force (by which he has defeated the barbarians) and that as “host” they in fact need a commander’ (Morgan 2015: 343). Cf. Pyth. 2.58 πρύτανι κύριε πολλᾶν μὲν εὐστεφάνων ἀγυιᾶν καὶ στρατοῦ and Bacch. 5.1–2 (above). ἀψευδεῖ δὲ πρὸς ἄκμονι χάλκευε γλῶσσαν: If straightforward and honest speech is the mark of a good citizen (Pyth. 2.81 ἀδύνατα δ᾽ ἔπος ἐκβαλεῖν κραταιὸν ἐν ἀγαθοῖς / δόλιον ἀστόν + 86 ἐν πάντα δὲ νόμον εὐθύγλωσσος ἀνὴρ προφέρει, Isth. 6.72 γλῶσσα δ᾽ οὐκ ἔξω φρενῶν), it is all the more important for a ruler, since every remark of his will be judged, 87 (87–8n.). Pindar’s extraordinary image here is probably related to the idea of the tongue as an arrow or javelin with a bronze tip (42b–5, 43b–5nn.), which needs to be forged and later kept effective by whetting: Ol.  6.82 δόξαν ἔχω τιν᾽ ἐπὶ γλώσσᾳ λιγυρᾶς



ἀκόνας, Ach. Tat. 8.9.5. Cicero applied the forging metaphor to rhetorical training: De Or. 3.121 non enim solum acuenda nobis neque procudenda lingua est (cf. Tac. Dial. 20.4). By contrast, Hor. Ars P. 440–1 delere iubebat / et male tornatos incudi reddere versus (also quoted by Cingano 1995: on 86) rather belongs to the Indo-European set of images that describe poesy as various types of craftsmanship (Nünlist 1998: 107–9 (metal-working), West 2007: 35–43, Meusel 2020: 610–11; cf. especially Old Norse lióðasmiðr, ‘songsmith’). Within Pythian 1 the image recalls the Typhos-episode, via Mt. Etna as the site of Hephaestus’ smithy (25–6a n.),50 especially if the ode was first performed in Aitna in sight of the volcano (Introduction, 12–14). By the same token, the ‘bronze element’ of χάλκευε is resumed in Phalaris, who roasted his enemies in a bronze bull, 95–8 (n.) (cf. Skulsky 1975: 26, Hornblower 2004: 63–5 with n. 26, 2006: 156). Hieron is thus implicitly contrasted with the negative counterparts of Zeus’ rule and his own, both locally relevant. ἀψευδεῖ: West (1970: 211) prefers the variant ἀψευδῆ (to go proleptically with γλῶσσαν), which is attested only in a (near-)quotation in Gal. π. διαφ. σφυγμῶν 3 (VIII p. 682 Kühn). But this is clearly a simplification, which impairs the power of the image (Cingano 1995: on 86) and destroys the syntactical parallel with δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ as the other ‘tool’ Hieron is to use (Liberman 2004: 52). See also Introduction, 62. χάλκευε: For figurative χαλκεύω cf. Pi. fr. 123.4–6 ἐξ ἀδάμαντος / ἢ σιδάρου κεχάλκευται μέλαιναν καρδίαν / ψυχρᾷ φλογί. 87–8. ‘For even something trivial is taken as a great matter, if it sparks off from you. You are the steward of many, and many are the trustworthy witnesses to deeds of both kinds.’ This series of statements explains and elaborates on the preceding injunctions. The connection is reinforced syntactically, by asyndeton, and by verbal correspondence. The ‘people’ (στρατόν) recur in πολλῶν  … πολλοί, whereas παραιθύσσει continues the forging image by suggesting that words fly from Hieron’s mouth like sparks from a piece of bronze on the anvil. Phillips (2016: 153) observes that Pindar here ‘dramatizes the audience, and the wider citizen body, as ‘witnesses’ who hold their ruler to account.’ In other words, Hieron is subtly reminded that part of his subjects are present to judge him against Pindar’s poetic advice.

50 This function of Mt. Etna is first explicitly mentioned in [A.] PV 366–7, but it must be older. In Sim. fr. 279 Poltera Hephaestus is associated with the mountain (cf. Introduction, 25 and 25–6a n.).



εἴ τι καὶ  … παραιθύσσει: explanatory asyndeton, as already noted by schol. Pyth. 1.169 (II 27.20 Dr.) λείπει ὁ γάρ. Cf. 69–70n. (σύν τοι τίν) and below. φλαῦρον is a quasi-synonym of φαῦλον, although their etymology and possible connection are uncertain (DELG, Beekes s.vv.). The adjective and its derivatives are common in Ionic-Attic, both poetry (first Sol. fr. 13.15 IEG2) and prose, but very rare in other dialects. Cf. Alc. fr. 59a.3 Voigt ]φλαῦρος ὐ[ and Pyth. 3.12–13 ἁ δ’ ἀποφλαυρίξαισά νιν / ἀμπλακίαισι φρενῶν. παραιθύσσει: Pindar was fond of using compounds of αἰθύσσω (see Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.83b). The semantic range of the verb, which is commonly related to αἴθω (GEW, DELG and, more cautiously, Beekes s.v. αἴθω), is well explained by Stanford (1939: 134): ‘[t]he word  … combines two distinct perceptions, movement and light, quivering and glistening’. Some passages privilege movement over light (e.g. Sapph. fr. 2.7 Voigt αἰθυσσομένων … φύλλων, Ol. 7.94–5, 10.72–3 καὶ συμμαχία θόρυβον / παραίθυξε μέγαν) or vice versa (e.g. E. Tro. 344 λυγράν γε τήνδ’ ἀναιθύσσεις φλόγα, Arat. Phaen. 1.1934), but elsewhere both connotations are present, as here in the metaphorical sparks: Pyth. 4.82–3 κομᾶν πλόκαμοι … / … ἅπαν νῶτον καταίθυσσον (Jason’s ‘(shining) locks of hair … rippled down …’), 5.10–11 εὐδίαν ὃς … τεάν / καταιθύσσει μάκαιραν ἑστίαν, Bacch. fr. 20B.8 Κύπριδός τ’ ἐλπ̣ὶς δαιθύσσῃ φρένας (with Maehler 1997 ~ 2004). τοι emphasises the apodosis, implying that Hieron is or ought to be aware that Pindar is stating the truth. See GP 547 and 69–70n. (σύν τοι τίν). πολλῶν ταμίας ἐσσί: The periphrasis in schol. Pyth. 1.171 (II 28.1–2 Dr.) πολλῶν γὰρ δεσπότης καὶ βασιλεὺς τυγχάνεις καὶ διοικητής not only recognises the explanatory asyndeton (cf. above), but is also probably correct in (impli­ citly) identifying πολλῶν as a generic masculine rather than neuter. A reference to the people ruled by Hieron not only seems more natural than declaring him ‘the steward of many things’ (Race 1997: I 225; cf. Liberman 2004: 53), but it also accords better with the strong syntactical parallel in πολλοὶ μάρτυρες … πιστοί. For ταμίας, ‘steward’ (< τέμνω, ταμεῖν, ‘cut up, divide (food)’) of a human overlord cf. Pyth. 5.62 ταμίᾳ Κυράνας (Battos  I); similarly the Dioskouroi at Nem. 10.52 εὐρυχόρου ταμίαι Σπάρτας. πολλοὶ μάρτυρες ἀμφοτέροις πιστοί: another asyndeton, which functions in two ways. In relation to πολλῶν ταμίας ἐσσί the statement is consecutive, ‘and so …’ (cf. Ol. 3.44–5 τὸ πόρσω δ᾽ ἐστὶ σοφοῖς ἄβατον / κἀσοφοῖς. οὐ νιν διώξω; GP xlvi). But it can also be taken as a further explanation of μέγα τοι φέρεται πὰρ σέθεν. ἀμφοτέροις: i.e. good and evil; cf. schol. Pyth. 1.172 (II 28.3–4 Dr.) τῷ τε ἀληθεῖ καὶ τῷ ψευδεῖ and elsewhere Thuc. 2.11.9 μεγίστην δόξαν οἰσόμενοι



τοῖς τε προγόνοις καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ἐπ᾽ ἀμφότερα (‘for good or ill’) ἐκ τῶν ἀποβαινόντων. This opposition will be resumed in the paradigms of Croesus and Phalaris at 94b–8 (n.) (Cingano 1995: on 88). A second suggestion by the scholiast, namely Hieron and Deinomenes, is rendered unlikely by the complete absence of Hieron’s son in the ode after 70 υἱῷ τ᾽ ἐπιτελλόμενος (cf. 81–100n.). Thirdly, Dionysius of Sidon, a pupil of Arist­ archus, is cited for the impossible view that ἀμφοτέροις conceals Hieron and his subjects (schol. Pyth. 1.172 (II 28.4–5 Dr.)). 89–90. ‘Stand fast in your blossoming noble impulse, and if indeed you love always to hear pleasant tidings (about yourself), do not grow too tired in spending.’ The the encomiastic nature of Pindar’s advice is revealed by comparison with Isth. 1.41–5 εἰ δ᾽ ἀρετᾷ κατάκειται πᾶσαν ὀργάν, / ἀμφότερον δαπάναις τε καὶ πόνοις, / χρή νιν εὑρόντεσσιν ἀγάνορα κόμπον / μὴ φθονεραῖσι φέρειν / γνώμαις (‘If someone is devoted wholeheartedly to excellence with both expenses and hard work, it is necessary to give those who achieve it a lordly vaunt with no begrudging thoughts’) and 6.10–16. The passages illustrate Aristotle’s statement that praise and counsel are related and a change of phrasing can turn one into the other: Rh. 1367b37–1368a1 ἔχει δὲ κοινὸν εἶδος ὁ ἔπαινος καὶ αἱ συμβουλαί. ἃ γὰρ ἐν τῷ συμβουλεύειν ὑπόθοιο ἄν, ταῦτα μετατεθέντα τῇ λέξει ἐγκώμια γίγνεται (cf. 81–100n.). εὐανθεῖ δ᾽ ἐν ὀργᾷ: Cf. Isth. 5.12 εὐανθεῖ σὺν ὄλβῳ and fr. 129.7 εὐανθὴς … τέθαλεν ὄλβος. The second element of εὐανθής can be understood here either as primarily referring to growth, which Aitchison (1963) identified as the ori­ ginal sense of ἄνθος and its derivatives (cf. Braswell 1998: on Nem. 9.23, 39), or as a variant of the common figurative use of ἄνθος, ‘flower’, for something that has reached the height of its development (LSJ s.vv. ἄνθος A II 2, εὐανθής III). As in 66 (65b–6n.) ὧν κλέος ἄνθησεν αἰχμᾶς, the English metaphor of ‘blossoming’ (German ‘Blüten treiben’; Wilamowitz 1922: 303 n. 1) keeps the ambiguity, which was already recognised by schol. Pyth. 1.173 (II 28.6–7 Dr.) εὐγενεῖ. ἡ δὲ μεταφορὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εὐγενῶν φυτῶν. παρμένων recalls 47–8a (n.) ἦ κεν ἀμνάσειεν, οἵαις ἐν πολέμοισι μάχαις / τλάμονι ψυχᾷ παρέμειν᾽ (at a near-corresponding position). ‘In wartime a tyrant wins glory by defeating formidable enemies  … The typical way for [him] to win good repute in peacetime is, apart from adher[e]nce to justice and truth, expenditure’ (Pfeijffer 2005: 33–4). Hieron is supposed to apply the same perseverance to both efforts. ἀκοὰν ἁδεῖαν αἰεὶ κλύειν: In the first instance this refers to the praise Hieron can hope to enjoy in his lifetime (Spelman 2018: 82; cf. 99 εὖ δ᾽ ἀκούειν δευτέρα μοῖρ᾽ and Isth. 1.41–5, quoted above), as a positive counterpart to the



ἀστῶν … ἀκοά of 84 (82b–4n.). But αἰεὶ κλύειν also foreshadows the notion of eternal fame through song which Pindar explores in 92–100 (81–100, 92b–94a, 94b–100, 94b nn.). This much depends on the reputation of the living man, as the contrasting examples of Croesus and Phalaris show (Cingano 1995: on 90). μὴ κάμνε λίαν δαπάναις: In Pindar δαπάνα invariably implies ‘expenditure upon the training of athletes and horses’ (Slater s.v.). Hieron’s racing-stable is an important aspect of his quest for further prestige; cf. Isth. 1.41–5 (above), 4.29–30 Πανελλάνεσσι δ᾽ ἐριζόμενοι δαπάνᾳ χαῖρον ἵππων. / τῶν ἀπειράτων γὰρ ἄγνωτοι σιωπαί and especially Pyth. 5.105–7 ἔχοντα Πυθωνόθεν / τὸ καλλίνικον λυτήριον δαπανᾶν / μέλος χαριέν, where Arkesilaos of Kyrene receives Pindar’s ode, which promises lasting fame, as a reward for his expenses. But the present passage is sufficiently general that one may also think of the vast sums Hieron (and his brothers) spent on public monuments and pan-Hellenic dedications (cf. 85–100n.) as well as on victory celebrations and epinician poetry (cf. 75b–7a n. (χάριν μισθόν); Carey 2007: 203–4 with n. 18). Liberman (2004: 259–60) objects to the unique construction of κάμνω, ‘to be weary’, with the dative rather than a participle (cf. LSJ s.v. II 1) and wonders whether δαπάναις might be the Aeolic present active participle of δαπάναμι (-ημι) = δαπανάω. However, this collateral form of δαπανάω is otherwise unattested, and the substitution of an instrumental / causal dative for a supplement­ ary participle expressing attendant circumstances can be paralleled. Note e.g. Xen. Cyr. 5.4.32 ἔστ᾽ ἂν ἐμὲ ἴδῃς ἔχοντα ὥστε σοῦ μὴ ἡττᾶσθαι ἀντιδορούμενον as against 8.2.13 ἐκεῖνος τοίνυν λέγεται κατάδηλος εἶναι μηδενὶ ἂν οὕτως αἰσχυνθεὶς ἡττώμενος ὡς φίλων θεραπείᾳ. 91–2a. ‘Let out your sail to the wind, like a helmsman. Do not be deceived, my friend, by precarious (?) gains.’ ἐξίει δ᾽ ὥσπερ κυβερνάτας ἀνήρ  / ἱστίον ἀνεμόεν: A more elaborate version of this image illustrates the hospitality of the late Xenokrates of Akragas in Isth. 2.39–42 οὐδέ ποτε ξενίαν  / οὖρος ἐμπνεύσαις ὑπέστειλ᾽ ἱστίον ἀμφὶ τράπεζαν· / ἀλλ᾽ ἐπέρα ποτὶ μὲν Φᾶσιν θερείαις, / ἐν δὲ χειμῶνι πλέων Νείλου πρὸς ἀκτάν (‘And never did an oncoming wind cause him to furl the sails at his hospitable table, but he would travel to Phasis in summer seasons, while in winter he would sail to the shore of the Nile’). The poem, which is tentatively dated to 470, continues with an appeal to Xenokrates’ son Thrasyboulos to ensure that his father’s excellence is remembered, not least with the help of Pindar’s song (44–6). Conversely, Pindar exhorts himself to go ‘under full canvas’ in his praise at Nem. 5.50–1 δίδοι / φωνάν, ἀνὰ δ᾽ ἱστία τεῖνον πρὸς ζυγὸν καρχασίου.



Within Pythian 1 the sailing metaphor harks back to 33–5 ναυσιφορήτοις δ᾽ ἀνδράσι πρώτα χάρις / ἐς πλόον ἀρχομένοις πομπαῖον ἐλθεῖν οὖρον· ἐοικότα γάρ  / καὶ τελευτᾷ φερτέρου τυχεῖν, which illustrates the hope that Hieron’s victory will inaugurate a prosperous and festive period for Aitna (33b–8, 33b–5a nn.), as well as to his naval exploits (71–80) and the ‘ship-of-state’ at 86b (n.) νώμα δικαίῳ πηδαλίῳ στρατόν. Hieron thus emerges as in full control of his private and political affairs, which intersect insofar as Aitna’s good fortune depends on his continued generosity. ἀνεμόεν: ‘exposed to the wind, windy’; here used proleptically, analogous to the dative in Od. 5.269 γηθόσυνος δ’ οὔρῳ πέτασ’ ἱστία δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς. The epic adjective ἠνεμόεις is usually applied to high-rising places (e.g. Il. 3.305 et al. … προτὶ Ἴλιον ἠνεμόεσσαν, Ol. 4.6–7 Αἴτναν … / ἶπον ἀνεμόεσσαν) or ‘areas (οὐρανός, πτύχες) in which winds are active’ (LfgrE s.v. B). But Pindar here follows the precedent of Il. 22.145 ἐρινεὸν ἠνεμόεντα in applying the word to a tall non-geographical feature, i.e. the mast with the sail. [πετάσαις]: The participle, which is transmitted in all extant MSS, but was apparently unknown to the ancient commentators (cf. schol. Pyth. 1.176 (II 28.11–12 Dr.) ὥσπερ δὲ κυβερνήτης ἄριστος, ἔα πρὸς πνεῦμα τὸ ἱστίον), spoils the metre and was excised by Callierges. It probably entered the text as a gloss supplementing ἐξίει, on the model of e.g. Il. 1.480 οἳ δ’ ἱστὸν στήσαντ’ ἀνά θ’ ἱστία λευκὰ πέτασσαν, Od.  5.269 (above), 10.506. Triclinius and Pseudo-Mos­ chopoulos, who had already noticed the metrical problem, may likewise have been prompted by the Homeric precedents to write ἱστίον ἀμπετάσας (cf. Introduction, 56, 58). Aeolic πετάσαις occurs only in CVpc; all other MSS have πετάσας. The latter is likely to be original, given the absence of dialect glosses elsewhere in Pindar (see Maehler 1997 ~ 2004: on Bacch. 16.34). The text of CVpc will then be due to what Irigoin (1952) called contre-normalisation (‘inverse normalisation’, i.e. the introduction of dialect forms during transmission as opposed to their elimination). C is particularly faithful in preserving -αις (6b–7a, 79–80, 81–2a nn.), whereas V shares several readings, good and bad, with MSS other than its exemplar Vi, especially C (cf. Introduction, 54). ὦ φίλε: Pindar often addresses a victor as ‘friend’ without necessarily implying more than that he has received a commission from someone favourably disposed towards him. Cf. e.g. 60 φίλιον … ὕμνον (to Deinomenes), Pyth. 4.1 ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ (Arkesilaos), Nem. 3.76 χαῖρε, φίλος. In a related idiom the epinician poet portrays his relationship with the client as ξενία: Pyth. 3.69, Bacch. 5.11 (Hieron), Isth. 2.48, Bacch. 12.5. See Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.1e, Cingano 1995: on 1995: 92, Morrison 2007: 121 with n. 41.



†κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέλοις† is a problem, both textually and in metre. The paradosis varies between εὐτραπέλοις, literally ‘easily changing’, and ἐντραπέλοις, ‘shameful’ (?). The same simple minuscule error, i.e. confusion between υ, ν (and κ), occurred at Pyth. 4.104–5 οὔτε ἔργον  / οὔτ᾽ ἔπος ἐκτράπελον (de Pauw, Heyne e Σ: ἐντρ- codd. pler.: εὐτρ- M). There the sense clearly points to ἐκτράπελον, ‘devious’ (basically ‘deviating’), which must also be the word annotated by schol. Pyth. 4.186a (II 124.9–10 Dr.) ἐντράπελον (sic): ἀπαίδευτον, αἰσχρόν, ὃ ἐκτρέψαιτο ἄν τις (Braswell 1982: 310–12 and 1988: on Pyth. 4.105a). Here, however, the context does not permit an easy decision. The majority reading εὐτραπέλοις, which most modern editors print with variations in detail, has three arguments in its favour: (1) It is supported by the lemma, if not unequivocally the note, of schol. Pyth. 1.178 (II 28.14–16 Dr.) μὴ δολωθῇς κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέλοις: ὁ νοῦς· μὴ δολωθῇς … τῇ ἐχθροτάτῃ φιλοκερδείᾳ (though see Introduction, 61 with n. 196). (2) The adjective εὐτράπελος is firmly attested from the fifth century on, although ours would be the earliest instance. (3) The presumed sense of εὐτραπέλοις here (‘uncertain, precarious’) is paralleled with κέρδος in Pyth. 4.139–40 ἐντὶ μὲν θνατῶν φρένες ὠκύτεραι / κέρδος αἰνῆσαι πρὸ δίκας δόλιον and especially Bacch. 15.57–9 ἁ δ᾽ αἰόλοις κ̣έρ̣ δεσσι  … /  …  / Ὕβρις, referring to Paris’ behaviour towards Menelaus in taking his treasures and wife (for the general sentiment cf. Thgn. 197–20). Pindar, therefore, would be warning Hieron against the dangers of enriching himself unlawfully or at the expense of others (cf. Thgn. 197–208, Pyth. 8. 13–15). Apart from the moral issues, there could be practical consequences for a tyrant who fails to use his wealth for public benefit: he might be deposed, or indeed killed, and at best remembered as a paradigm of evil, like Phalaris (94b–100, 95–8nn.). But if Hieron invests in his good reputation, he will win the true κέρδος of lasting fame: cf. Nem. 7.11–20, Isth. 1.50–1 ὃς δ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀέθλοις ἢ πολεμίζων ἄρηται κῦδος ἁβρόν,  / εὐαγορηθεὶς κέρδος ὕψιστον δέκεται, πολιατᾶν καὶ ξένων γλώσσας ἄωτον (Köhnken 1970: 8–10). By contrast, ἐντραπέλοις, ‘shameful’, which is read by Turyn, Snell– Maehler, Kirkwood and Race, would be one-dimensional in sense (cf. Thgn. 85–6 οἷσιν … / … οὐδ᾽ αἰσχρὸν χρῆμ᾽ ἔπι κέρδος ἄγει). Moreover, its credentials are doubtful, as Braswell (1982: 311–12 ~ 1988: on Pyth. 4.105a) observed: ‘The evidence for ἐντράπελος elsewhere in early Greek is almost non-existent. At Thgn. 400 MS A has ἐντράπελ᾽, but the text there is too uncertain … to support the reading ἐντρ- in Pindar. Here [i.e. Pyth. 4.104–5 (above)] it is alleged by the scholia … to mean “shameful”, but the meaning “to feel shame” is not attested for ἐντρέπεσθαι before the second century B.C.’ (cf. LSJ s.v. ἐντρέπω II 4).



The same semantic restriction would be felt in the case of ἐκτραπέλοις (‘perverse, odious’), which Pearson (1924: 152–3) wished to read here on the ground that ‘there is no evidence that εὐτράπελος meant anything but witty or versatile’. Yet this is only true of early Greek (see LSJ s.v. εὐτράπελος 1), and there is no reason why the primary sense ‘easily changing’ should not have yielded ‘uncertain, precarious’ at any time. Nevertheless, emendation may be required for metrical reasons, since the transmitted κέρδεσιν εὐτραπέλοις (ἐντρ-) produces a D/e-sequence with a resolved ‘link-anceps’ (⏕), which is dubious in the developed metre (Introduction, 42). If one wishes to keep εὐτρ-, the best option is Bücheler’s κέρδεσιν εὐτράπλοις (apud Boehmer 1891: 56), which found favour with Schroeder (1900 = 1923),51 Sandys, Puech, Farnell, Bowra and Liberman. For the syncope Schroeder (1900: 182) compared A. Pers. 303 στύφλους παρ᾽ ἀκτάς as against Pers. 965–6 στυφέλου / … ἐπ᾽ ἀκτᾶς (cf. Braswell 1982: 311 n. 11). He also objected to ὦ φίλος, εὐτραπέλοις κέρδεσσ᾽ (Hermann 1809: VII = 1827–77: I 250, anticipated by Pseudo-Moschopoulos), which e.g. Mommsen, Gildersleeve and Fennell accepted, that Pindar never elides ι in the dative plural of s-stem nouns. 92b–4a. ‘The posthumous acclaim of glory alone reveals the life-style of men who are gone through (and to) both story-tellers and poets.’ It is common for praise poets, especially towards the end of an ode, to refer to their own role in perpetuating fame: Ibyc. fr. S151.47–8 PMGF καὶ σύ, Πολύκρατες, κλέος ἄφθιτον ἑξεῖς / ὡς κατ᾽ ἀοιδὰν καὶ ἐμὸν κλέος, Ol. 9.21–7, 10.91–6, Pyth. 3.110–15 (where the theme of the whole poem is immortality through song), Isth. 4.37–42, 7.16–19, Bacch. 3.96–8, 9.78–87 (cf. Introduction, 30 n. 95, 35). But Pindar also shows himself aware of a wider oral tradition commemorating men and their deeds when, as here, he mentions λόγιοι, ‘story-tellers’, and their products alongside poets and poetry (Scodel 2001: 125–6, Luraghi 2009: 453–4; cf.  43b–5n. (ἀντίους)). The nearest parallels are Nem. 6.29–30 παροιχομένων γὰρ ἀνέρων,  / ἀοιδαὶ καὶ λόγοι τὰ καλά σφιν ἔργ᾽ ἐκόμισαν (ἀοιδοὶ καὶ λόγιοι BD et fere Π41; cf. Σ: corr. de Pauw) and 45–6 πλατεῖαι πάντοθεν λογίοισιν ἐντὶ πρόσοδοι  / νᾶσον εὐκλέα τάνδε κοσμεῖν. At Nem. 11.17–18 ἐν λόγοις δ᾽ ἀστῶν ἀγαθοῖσιν ἐπαινεῖσθαι χρεών, / καὶ μελιγδούποισι … μελίζειν ἀοιδαῖς the ‘kindly words of townsmen’ are of an informal nature. ὀπιθόμβροτον: a hapax, which is generally interpreted as ‘that lives after a man’ (LSJ, Slater s.v.; cf. Hor. Carm. 2.2.8 Fama superstes). But it could also mean

51 In his commentary (1922) Schroeder advocates κέρδεσιν ἐντράπλοις.



‘existing among men hereafter’, as is assumed by schol. Pyth. 1.179a (II 28.17– 19 Dr.) τὸ … ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ μετὰ θάνατον λεγόμενον ἐγκώμιον. See Spelman 2018: 82 n. 3, who for the latter compares Il. 6.357–8 ὡς καὶ ὀπίσσω / ἀνθρώποισι πελώμεθ᾽ ἀοίδιμοι ἐσσομένοισιν and adds that ‘the ὀπισθο- prefix is usually spatial’. However, ὄπι(σ)θεν itself can be temporal, and note ὀπισθοχείμων, ‘late in winter’ (e.g. Hp. Epid. 1.2.4, Thphr. CP 2.1.6). Pseudo-Moschopoulos wrote ὀπιθόμβροτον for the transmitted ὀπισθ(ὄπιστ- T), which does not scan. The form ὀπιθ- is frequent in early epic as a metrical alternative to ὀπισθ- and occasionally so used by later poets. Cf. e.g. Ol.  3.31, 10.3, Nem. 7.101, A. Pers. 1001 ὄπιθεν as against Ol.  6.63, Pi. fr.  237 ὄπισθεν, A. Cho. 713 ὀπισθόπους, fr. 338 TrGF ὀπισθοβριθὲς ἔγχος. Normalisation to ὀπισθ- regularly occurs in the MSS. αὔχημα: ‘acclaim’ (Slater s.v., Race 1997: I 225), as for the semantically equivalent καύχα in Nem. 9.7 θεσπεσία δ᾽ ἐπέων καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος. The stronger ‘vaunt’ is appropriate where the poet refers to a direct utterance of praise: Ibyc. fr. S221.4–5 PMGF ἐγὼν δ᾽ ἔτι μ[είζο]ν᾽ αὔχαν / τίθεμαι περὶ τούτων, Ol. 9.38–9 καὶ τὸ καυχᾶσθαι παρὰ καιρόν / μανίαισιν ὑποκρέκει. μανύει: Pindar always shortens the long υ of μανύω; cf. Ol. 6.52, Nem. 9.4, Isth. 8.55a. This metrical licence, confined to forms of the present stem (LSJ s.v. μηνύω (end)), goes back to the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (254 … μήνῠέ μοι βοῦς as against 373 μηνύ̄ ειν), which probably predates Pindar slightly (Richardson 2010: 24–5). Its exclusive presence in Pindar is most likely coincidental, given that Bacchylides has both μανῦον (10.13–14 τεὰν ἀρετὰν / μανῦον ἐπιχθονίοισιν) and μανύ̆ει (fr. 14.2). See also Braswell 1998: on Nem. 9.4 (pp. 52–3). καὶ λογίοις καὶ ἀοιδοῖς: The datives could be either instrumental or indirect objects with μανύω. The former interpretation, which now predominates, retains the time-honoured role of the praise poet, and purveyors of alternative oral traditions, to spread and immortalise the glory of their subject (cf. Ol. 11.4–5 εἰ δὲ σὺν πόνῳ τις εὖ πράσσοι, μελιγάρυες ὕμνοι / ὑστέρων ἀρχὰ λόγων). Our phrase thus becomes the passive version of Nem. 6.29–30 παροιχομένων γὰρ ἀνέρων,  / ἀοιδαὶ καὶ λόγοι τὰ καλά σφιν ἔργ᾽ ἐκόμισαν (above). See Cingano 1995: on 94 (with further literature), Morrison 2007: 99, Athanassaki 2009: 256–7, Luraghi 2009: 452 n. 62. Spelman (2018: 82 n. 4) revived the analysis of λογίοις καὶ ἀοιδοῖς as indirect objects, comparing Isth. 8.55–5a οἷς δῶμα Φερσεφόνας / μανύων Ἀχιλεύς. Closer in context is Bacch. 10.13–14 χάρμα, τεὰν ἀρετὰν / μανῦον ἐπιχθονίοισιν, of the poet’s song. It may be that Pindar here is intentionally ambiguous. If the datives designate the λόγιοι and ἀοιδοί as both the ‘transmitters’ of fame (as in Nem. 6.29–30) and as its recipients (as in Bacch. 10.14), one can envisage a never-ending chain



of poetic and literary memory that guarantees κλέος ἄφθιτον for its subject (cf. Fearn 2017: 219–21).52 Another point at issue is the identity of the λόγιοι here and at Nem. 6.45–6 πλατεῖαι πάντοθεν λογίοισιν ἐντὶ πρόσοδοι / νᾶσον εὐκλέα τάνδε κοσμεῖν (the context of Pi. Dith. 4e.6 (fr. 70d) λογίων cannot be determined). Since antiquity the opposition with ἀοιδοί has prompted scholars to see in them representatives of a prose tradition, written or oral (schol. Pyth. 1.181b (II 28.26–7 Dr.) ἀοιδοῖς μὲν τοῖς ποιηταῖς, λογίοις δὲ τοῖς πεζογράφοις; cf. e.g. scholl. Ol. 7.42b, 100a, 101, Nem. 6.50). However, modern studies of the term λόγιος in fifth- and fourth-century literature, especially Herodotus (1.1.1, 2.3.1, 2.77.1, 4.46.1), have shown that they are rather ‘authoritative people, wise and knowledgeable about the past’ (Luraghi 2009: 454; cf. Henry 2005: on Nem. 6.45, Nicholson 2016: 6–7). Their activity may include public performance (Ion fr. 26 IEG2), and they can subsume poets as a sub-category or be opposed to them, as here and at Nem. 6.29–30 + 45 (above). For the first clear distinction between prose and verse literature we have to wait for Thucydides: 1.21.1 καὶ οὔτε ὡς ποιηταὶ ὑμνήκασι περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον κοσμοῦντες … οὔτε ὡς λογογράφοι ξυνέθεσαν ἐπὶ τὸ προσαγωγότερον τῇ ἀκροάσει ἢ ἀληθέστερον (cf. Hornblower 1991–2008: I on 1.21.1 and 2004: 94, 292). 94b–100. The end of Pythian 1 resembles that of Pythian 3, where Nestor and Sarpedon are proferred as examples of fame gained through poetry and song: 112–15 Νέστορα καὶ Λύκιον Σαρπηδόν᾽, ἀνθρώπων φάτις,  / ἐξ ἐπέων κελαδεννῶν, τέκτονες οἷα σοφοί / ἅρμοσαν, γινώσκομεν· ἁ δ᾽ ἀρετὰ κλειναῖς ἀοιδαῖς / χρονία τελέθει· παύροις δὲ πράξασθ᾽ εὐμαρές (‘We know of Nestor and Lykian Sarpedon, still the talk of men, from such echoing verses as wise craftsmen constructed. Excellence endures in glorious songs for a long time. But few can win them easily’). In our ode the Lydian king Croesus (ruled ca. 560–47) fulfils the role of the epic heroes, whereas his contemporary Phalaris, tyrant of Akragas from ca. 570 to 555, is universally held in bad repute (96 ἐχθρὰ … κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις; contrast Pyth. 3.112) and thus excluded from any performance at symposia (Köhnken 1970: 12 n. 1, Morrison 2007: 99, Athanassaki 2009: 257).

52 Fearn’s approach is slightly different in that he takes ‘poetic inspiration’ as the agent of μανύει with an indirect object. This interpretation is based on the rather farfetched comparison with Il. 2.484–6 ἔσπετε νῦν μοι, Μοῦσαι Ὀλύμπια δώματ’ ἔχουσαι – / ὑμεῖς γὰρ θεαί ἐστε, πάρεστέ τε, ἴστέ τε πάντα, / ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν, οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν, which only shares οἶον with our passage, and in a different context too.



Pindar’s theme here of ‘survival in song through commemoration at feasts by means of voice and accompaniment’ (Carey 1989: 554–5) hints at sympotic (re)performance of Pythian 1 and other praise poetry for Hieron (cf. Budelmann 2012: 179 n. 18, who envisages a link with Bacch. fr. 20C, if this enkōmion celebrates the same victory (see Introduction, 20-1), and more generally Currie 2004: 52–4, Athanassaki 2012: 148–57). In this context our passage has aptly been compared to Thgn. 237–52, which assures Kyrnos and his family that they will find eternal life in poetry through the reperformance of Theognis’ elegies (Carey (above); cf. Morrison 2007: 15–16, Athanassaki 2009: 257–9, Spelman 2018: 82–4). Spelman in particular points out the parallels between the two texts in the evocation of a sympotic occasion, graced by young performers, and the unusual idea that a deceased person revisits the feast by being the subject of song: Pyth. 1.97–8 (n.) ~ Thgn. 239–41. However, Pindar expresses himself much more indirectly than Theognis. Hieron’s ‘survival in song’ is never promised openly, but suggested by his implicit opposition to Phalaris (cf. 95–8, 97–8nn.). This fits in with Pindar’s generally cautious praise of Hieron in the fifth triad, avoiding the kind of straightforward flattery that would induce tedium and envy on the audience’s part (Race 1990: 166–8; cf. 81–100, 85–100nn.). By contrasting Phalaris with Croesus Pindar inverts the usual opposition between good Greeks and bad barbarians (Hornblower 2004: 64–5, 2006: 156, 158, who for ‘good king’ versus ‘bad king’ compares Cyrus and Cambyses in Hero­ dotus). The rationale of these juxtapositions is probably analogous to Tac. Ann. 3.65 quod praecipuum munus annalium reor, ne virtutes sileantur utque pravis dictis factisque ex posteritate et infamia metus sit (Hornblower 2004: 95), which ­ erpetuate Phalaris’ would also explain the paradox that Pindar does help to p reputation by mentioning him in his ode (cf. 95–8n.). In addition, the two paradigmatic kings span the Mediterranean world, from Sicily to Asia Minor, and so illustrate the extent in space, as well as time, of Hieron’s future glory (Spelman 2018: 82; cf. Hornblower 2004: 34 on Croesus in Bacch. 3). Pindar employed a similar technique when he had Typhos, who in some ways is the divine prototype of Phalaris in Pythian 1 (95–8n.), cross the sea from his birthplace in Cilicia to his imprisonment under Mt. Etna (cf. 13–28, 16b–17a nn.). 94b. ‘The kindly excellence of Croesus does not perish.’ In the context of perpetual fame through poetry Pindar’s statement becomes, as it were, the guarantor of its own truth: ‘the kindly excellence of Croesus does not perish’ because it is made the subject of song (cf. Morgan 2015: 355). This is even truer of Bacch. 3, where the tale of Croesus’ rescue from the pyre stands in place of the usual myth (23–62; for background information see Maehler 1982: II 33–7 ~ 2004: 80–3). Whether or not Bacchylides was inspired



by Pindar’s brief mention here or prompted by Hieron to elaborate on it (Introduction, 17), his account helps us to understand how Croesus can be construed as a positive paradigm for Hieron. One of the details Bacchylides’ version shares with that of Herodotus (1.86–7), which became the vulgate (e.g. Xen. Cyr. 7.2, Ctes. FGrH 688 F 9, D. S. 9.2, 34), is that Croesus was saved by Apollo (and Zeus in Bacch. 3) because he sent ample gifts to Delphi (58–62; cf. Hdt. 1.50–2, 1.54.1). The Lydian king thus provides an example of pious generosity (cf. 85–100n.), which is rewarded in life and after death (Kurke 1999: 131–42). Bacchylides goes so far as to imply that Hieron might enjoy a blessed afterlife, like Croesus, who was taken to the land of the Hyperboreans (59–60; cf. Maehler 1982: II 37 ~ 2004: 82–3). In Pindar immortality comes through song and story alone. οὐ φθίνει ‘evokes and varies the traditional phrase κλέος ἄφθιτον’ (Spelman 2018: 82; cf. Nagy 1990: 222–4, Cingano 1995: on 94–8, Meusel 2020: 419–20, 433, 715). φιλόφρων: In Pyth. 8.1 the same adjective is applied to personified Ἡσυχία (‘Peace’). The parallel is instructive insofar as ‘good king’ Croesus, like Hieron, can be regarded as a guarantor of ἡσυχία (Krischer 1985b: 118; cf.  69–70n. (σύμφωνον ἐς ἡσυχίαν)). 95–8. ‘But the man who burnt in a bronze bull, pitiless of mind, Phalaris, is encompassed everywhere by hateful speech, and no lyres under the roof receive him into gentle fellowship with the songs of boys.’ Pindar is the earliest extant author who refers to Phalaris of Akragas as the archetypical evil tyrant who roasted his enemies in a bronze bull so that their cries of pain would sound as if the animal roared. However, the allusive way in which he recounts the story suggests that it was already well known, at least in Sicily (cf. Morgan 2015: 120). Schol. Pyth. 1.185 (II 29.3–12 Dr.), which may go back to Didymus (Irigoin 1952: 73), quotes Callimachus (Aet. fr. 46 Pf. = Harder) for Perilaos as the builder and first victim of the bull and Timaeus (FGrH 566 F 28c) for the information that after Phalaris’ death the Akragantines cast the contraption into the sea. Phalaris also attracted stories of other cruelties, including cannibalism of adults and children (Arist. fr.  611.69 Rose, EN 1148b21–4, 1149a13–15; cf. Morgan 2015: 119–21, 237–9 and for further references Cingano 1995: on 95–8). Unsurprisingly, therefore, Pindar did not remain alone in using him as a negative role model for tyrants. Hornblower (2004: 83, 2006: 156) compares Cicero’s doubts as to whether Caesar would turn out a Phalaris or a Peisistratos (Att. 7.20; cf. 8.16.2). With four complete verses Pindar gives Phalaris substantially more room than Croesus. This not only increases the force of the passage as praise by con-



trast for Hieron (cf. Tantalus in Olympian 1 and Ixion in Pythian 2), but also strengthens Croesus’ status as a positive example by suggesting that his virtue does not require as many words as Phalaris’ wickedness. The same applies to the consequences of their behaviour. Phalaris cannot expect to be remembered in song and dance accompanied by the lyre (97–8), whereas Croesus, it is understood, and Hieron can (cf. Ol. 6.96–7 ἁδύλογοι δέ νιν (Hieron) / λύραι μολπαί τε γινώσκοντι). In that respect our lines are diametrically opposed to the proem of Pythian 1 with its implied analogy between Hieron’s current celebration and the divine revelries led by Apollo’s lyre, which Pindar describes in so much detail (1–28, 1–12nn.; cf. Morrison 2007: 68 n. 183). By using fire and the work of smiths (the bronze bull) Phalaris also recalls Typhos under Mt. Etna (the smithy of Hephaestus; cf.  86b n. with n.  50), who represents the enemies of music on the cosmic level (1–28, 13–28, 13–14nn.; cf. Cingano 1995: 19 and on 97–8, Morgan 2015: 343, 345). There is considerable irony in that, although their fame is negative, both Typhos and Phalaris are commemorated in song and that Phalaris, who is explicitly denied posthumous presence at symposia, would have received that honour whenever Pindar’s ode was reperformed in such a setting. 95–6. ταύρῳ χαλκέῳ καυτῆρα: The nominal phrase sums up Phalaris’ atrocity as succinctly as possible. Pindar may have coined καυτήρ for the occasion. The word is not attested earlier, nor later in the same sense (LSJ s.vv. καυτήρ, καυστήρ), although note μαριλοκαυτῶν, ‘charcoal-burners’, in S. fr. 314.40 TrGF (Ichneutai). The instrumental dative here easily attaches to the verbal force of the agent noun (KG I 426, 428, SD 166), as does the indirect object at [A.] PV 612 πυρὸς βροτοῖς δοτῆρ’ ὁρᾷς Προμηθέα. For the Doric ending -τήρ see 30b–2a n. νηλέα νόον contrasts with Croesus’ φιλόφρων ἀρετά (Cingano 1995: on 96). Within the phrase νηλέα agrees with τὸν δὲ … Φάλαριν (cf. Pyth. 11.22 νηλὴς γυνά, of Clytaemestra), while νόον is an accusative of respect. This is different from Pi. fr. 177e νηλεεῖ νόῳ (unclear context) and e.g. Il. 9.496–7 (Phoinix to Achilles) οὐδέ τί σε χρή / νηλεὲς ἦτορ ἔχειν, which may have been Pindar’s epic model. The construction of νηλής with an accusative of respect is unparalleled, but hardly problematic. Neither Hermann (1817: 323) nor Liberman (2004: 54) explain why they wish to emend to the unattested νηλεονόαν and νηλεόνοον respectively. Liberman compares νηλεόθυμος, but this is not found before the Imperial period (e.g. IG II2 11157.3, XIV 1648.8, 2012 C 13). ἐχθρὰ Φάλαριν κατέχει παντᾷ φάτις: similarly Mimn. fr. 15 IEG2 καί μιν ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους βάξις ἔχει χαλεπή. For the opposite cf. Ol. 7.10 ὁ δ᾽ ὄλβιος, ὃν



φᾶμαι κατέχωντ᾽ ἀγαθαί and, presumably, Ibyc. fr. 303(a) PMGF Κασσάνδραν / … / φᾶμις ἔχησι βροτῶν. The nouns φάτις, φάμα (φᾶμις) and βάξις suggest popular oral tradition, but a potential connection with poetry is indicated by Pyth. 2.13–16 ἄλλοις δέ τις ἐτέλεσσεν ἄλλος ἀνήρ / εὐαχέα βασιλεῦσιν ὕμνον ἄποιν᾽ ἀρετᾶς. / κελαδέοντι μὲν ἀμφὶ Κινύραν πολλάκις / φᾶμαι Κυπρίων and 3.112–14 Νέστορα καὶ Λύκιον Σαρπηδόν᾽, ἀνθρώπων φάτις, / ἐξ ἐπέων κελαδεννῶν … / … γινώσκομεν (cf. Morgan 2015: 177–8). If so far Phalaris’ bad reputation has spread mainly or entirely through ‘talk’, Pindar has given it a place in song. The verb κατέχει echoes 19 συνέχει of Typhos’ imprisonment under Mt. Etna, strengthening the link between the mythical and the human monster Phalaris (Kirkwood 1982: on 84–8; cf. 95–8n.). 97–8. Schol. Pyth. 1.188 (II 29.18–22 Dr.) offers a competent periphrasis and interpretation of this highly condensed sentence: οὐδὲ αὐτὸν αἱ ὑποικίδιοι κιθάραι παρὰ συμποσίοις καὶ δείπνοις εἰς κοινωνίαν ἡδεῖαν δέχονται ταῖς τῶν παίδων ὁμιλίαις καὶ τοῖς ὕμνοις. τουτέστιν οὐδέποτε τὸν Φάλαριν ἐν συμποσίοις παῖδες ὑμνοῦσιν. λείπει δὲ τῷ λόγῳ ἡ εἴς πρόθεσις (‘Nor do the lyres in the house at symposia and feasts receive him into pleasant fellowship with the company and songs of boys. This means: boys never sing about Phalaris at symposia. The phrase lacks the preposition εἰς’). In epinician and other encomiastic poetry not to live on in song is the ultimate condemnation. For Phalaris Pindar makes this clear by using much the same words as when promising poetic fame and immortality to a client, only in a negative form. Cf. Pyth. 8.29–31 εἰμὶ δ᾽ ἄσχολος ἀναθέμεν  / πᾶσαν μακραγορίαν / λύρᾳ τε καὶ φθέγματι μαλθακῷ (Krischer 1985b: 118, Morrison 2007: 117) and Nem. 3.11–12 ἐγὼ δὲ κείνων τέ νιν ὀάροις / λύρᾳ τε κοινάσομαι. It may also be that the first and later audiences were meant to recall the sympotic tone of Hieron’s praise at Ol. 1.13–17 δρέπων μὲν κορυφὰς ἀρετᾶν ἄπο πασᾶν, / ἀγλαΐζεται δὲ καί / μουσικᾶς ἐν ἀώτῳ, / οἷα παίζομεν φίλαν / ἄνδρες ἀμφὶ θαμὰ τράπεζαν (‘He culls the summits of all achievements and is also glorified in the finest songs, such as those we men often perform in play about the friendly table’). νιν … κοινανίαν / μαλθακὰν … δέκονται: The double accusative is perfectly comprehensible, but difficult to analyse grammatically. The easiest solution is to take κοινανίαν μαλθακάν as an internal accusative denoting result (‘receive him into gentle fellowship …’; cf. West apud Spelman 2018: 83 n. 7), which also seems to lie behind the comment in schol. Pyth. 1.188 (above) that εἰς is missing. Commentators often compare E. IA 1181–2 (προφάσεως …) ἐφ᾽ ᾗ σ᾽ … / δεξόμεθα δέξιν ἥν σε δέξασθαι χρεών. While δέξις (‘reception’) is not found before and looks as if Euripides had coined it for the occasion, Pindar



would have had sufficient precedent for the replacement of a cognate internal accusative with a noun indicating the specific type or mode of the action. Note e.g. Il. 19.299 δαίσειν … γάμον (~ δαῖτα γάμου) as against 9.70 δαίνυ δαῖτα γέρουσιν and, without attestation of the ‘basic’ form, Il. 3.94 οἳ δ’ ἄλλοι φιλότητα καὶ ὅρκια πιστὰ τάμωμεν (~ *φιλότητος … τομὴν τάμωμεν). For the resultative sense of the accusative cf. Thuc. 2.83.5 ἐτάξαντο κύκλον τῶν νεῶν (‘arranged themselves in a circle of ships’), 3.78.1 κύκλον ταξαμένων αὐτῶν (KG I 305–11, 318–22, SD 74–80). Cingano (1995: on 97–8) follows Kirkwood (and ultimately Heyne 1798–9: I 206) in regarding κοινανίαν μαλθακάν as a predicative accusative in place of κοινανὸν μαλθακόν (‘receive him as a gentle companion …’). Such use of the abstract for concrete is common in Greek, especially poetry, but when applied to people these terms tend to express characteristics that are (or are perceived as) lasting, not a passing state of affairs (KG I 10–13). The accusative cannot be an apposition to the sentence (Farnell 1932: on 98, comparing E. Or. 1105 Ἑλένην κτάνωμεν, Μενελέῳ λύπην πικράν), since it does not illustrate δέκονται as well as νιν. All MSS offer κοινωνίαν, by ‘normalisation’. Schroeder (1900: 182–3) restored Doric κοινανίαν, on the analogy of κοινᾶνι (~ κοινῶνι) in Pyth. 3.28. A fifth-century inscription from Lokroi has ϙοινάνων (IG IX.1 334.4). νιν: Mommsen (1866: 66) for epic-Ionic μιν, which all witnesses have here. See further 32b–3a, 51b–2a nn. φόρμιγγες ὑπωρόφιαι: In the widest possible ring-composition the φόρμιγγες echo the invocation to Apollo’s golden lyre at the beginning of Pythian 1 (1–4, 1–2a nn.; cf. Introduction, 5). There is a contrast between the idealised description of the lyre’s function in 1–4, which evokes Hieron’s own formal celebration (95–8n.), and the private setting of the symposium, reinforced by ὑπωρόφιαι, here (Cingano 1995: on 97–8). But this breaks down as soon as one thinks of the carefree conviviality of the gods in 5–12. What remains is an opposition between the divine and human levels. Pythian 1 opens with the former and concludes with the latter. The epic-poetic adjective ὑπωρόφιος, ‘under the roof’ (ὑπό + ὀροφή, ὄροφος), is rare, particularly in the archaic and classical period. Pindar is the first who uses it after Il. 9.640 … ὑπωρόφιοι δέ τοί εἰμεν,53 and uniquely as of three terminations (if one excludes the technical term ὑπωροφία for ‘the woodwork of a tiled roof’, LSJ s.v. ὑπωρόφιος 2).

53 ‘Sim.’ Ep. 19 FGE (1–2 τόξα τάδε … / νηῷ Ἀθηναίης κεῖται ὑπωρόφια) is mostly regarded as a Hellenistic literary exercise (cf. FGE 218).



κοινανίαν  / μαλθακὰν παίδων ὀάροισι: For the syntax and form of κοινανίαν μαλθακάν see above. The dative (παίδων) ὀάροισι attaches to κοινανίαν, as it does to its verb in Nem. 3.11–12 ἐγὼ δὲ κείνων (sc. νεανιῶν, 5) τέ νιν ὀάροις / λύρᾳ τε κοινάσομαι (above). In both places ὄαρος, originally ‘intimate conversation, utterance’ (cf. ὄαρ, ‘wife’),54 denotes the ‘voices’ or ‘songs’ of youths, but whereas Nemean 3 refers to the ‘official’ chorus of the first performance, our passage suggests more informal recitals by boy singers at symposia. Cf. Thgn. 241–3 καί σε σὺν αὐλίσκοισι λιγυφθόγγοις νέοι ἄνδρες / εὐκόσμως ἐρατοὶ καλά τε καὶ λιγέα / ᾄσονται (94b–100n.) and, for the practice in general, Ar. Pax 1265–1301, Xen. Smp. 3.1 (Carey 1989: 554 and Spelman 2018: 83 n. 7, who observes that ‘[n]o other description of epinician reperformance involves a chorus’; cf. Introduction, 31). The adjective μαλθακάν (‘mild, gentle’) transfers part of its meaning to παίδων ὀάροισι. Song is described as such also in Pyth. 8.31 (above), Nem. 9.49 μαλθακᾷ  … σὺν ἀοιδᾷ (another sympotic scene) and Isth. 2.8 μαλθακόφωνοι ἀοιδαί. With the synonymous but etymologically unrelated μαλακός note Pyth. 3.51 μαλακαῖς ἐπαοιδαῖς ἀμφέπων. δέκονται: Boeckh (1811: I.1 70, I.2 441) for δέχονται (codd.). The Ionic-Aeolic-Cretan form of the verb, which preserves original -κ- (< *deḱ-) in the present stem, is sufficiently widely attested in Pindar to allow the conclusion that he used it consistently. Cf. Pae. 6.129 (fr. 52f = D6 Rutherford) and from the medieval tradition e.g. Ol. 2.63 δέκονται (AÅ), Pyth. 5.86, Nem. 5.38. The same corruption as here is found in some or all MSS at Ol. 13.68, 92 and Isth. 1.51 (corr. Boeckh). 99–100. ‘To enjoy success is the first of prizes, to be spoken of well is the second portion. The man who attains and takes both has received the ultimate crown.’ Pindar ends his ode with a gnomē, as often (Bundy 1962: 28–9; cf. Bacch. 1.161–84, 3.94–6). The statement here, couched in the form of a priamel, that the height of human achievement is a combination of worldly success and good repute applies to Croesus and Phalaris, but particularly to Hieron himself. As the wealthy tyrant of Akragas Phalaris could be said to ‘fare well’ (τὸ … παθεῖν εὖ), but his notorious cruelty has ensured that he is not ‘spoken of well’ (εὖ … ἀκούειν). Croesus, by contrast, has it all, and so does Hieron. Throughout

54 The etymology of this word-family is unclear (Beekes s.v. ὄαρ, ὄαρος). Dyer (1964: 129–31) even assumes two different roots for ὄαρ, ‘wife’, and ὄαρος and its cognates. He derives the latter group from *verH1–, ‘speak’ (> (ϝ)είρω), assuming that they were initially ὄ(ϝ)ερος etc. and acquired the α by analogy with ὄαρ. If true, this would explain the semantic divergence between the two.



Pythian 1 Pindar has emphasised his athletic, military and political triumphs (31–3, 46–57, 71–80, 88; cf. Introduction, 14–18), and it is this praise which is intended to secure Hieron’s reputation among his contemporaries and men to come (cf. 92b–4a n.). As Pfeijffer (2005: 34–5) pointed out, the prime example of Pindar’s maxim was standing right before the eyes of the original audience. Bacch. 4.18–20 τί φέ̣ρτερον ἢ θ̣εο̣ῖσ̣ιν / φίλον ἔοντα παντο[δ]α̣πῶν / λαγχάνειν ἄπο μοῖρα[ν] ἐ̣σ̣θλῶν; will have created a similar effect. After the extensive focus on Hieron’s non-athletic exploits in the third to fifth triads a series of epinician metaphors (99 πρῶτον ἀέθλων … δευτέρα μοῖρ᾽, 100 στέφανον) act as reminders that the principal occasion for the ode is his Pythian chariot victory (cf. Cingano 1995: on 99–100a and below on δευτέρα μοῖρ᾽). The gnomē thus acquires a double thrust as, more explicitly, Isth. 1.50–1 ὃς δ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ ἀέθλοις ἢ πολεμίζων ἄρηται κῦδος ἁβρόν,  / εὐαγορηθεὶς κέρδος ὕψιστον δέκεται, πολιατᾶν καὶ ξένων γλώσσας ἄωτον (‘But he who wins luxurious glory in games or as a soldier by being praised gains the highest profit, the finest words from tongues of citizens and foreigners’). Τhe idea that acclaim is a prerequisite of supreme prosperity (ὄλβος) is first touched on in Sol. fr. 13.3–4 IEG2. In Pindar note also especially Nem. 1.31–2 οὐκ ἔραμαι πολὺν ἐν μεγάρῳ πλοῦτον κατακρύψαις ἔχειν,  / ἀλλ᾽ ἐόντων εὖ τε παθεῖν καὶ ἀκοῦσαι φίλοις ἐξαρκέων, Isth. 5.12–15 and, expressly including the praise poet, Bacch. 3.94–8 πράξα[ντι] δ᾽ εὖ  / οὐ φέρει κόσμ[ον σι]ω-  / πά· σὺν δ᾽ ἀλαθ[είᾳ] κ̣αλῶν  / καὶ μελιγλώσσου τις ὑμνήσει χάριν / Κηΐας ἀηδόνος (cf. Young 1968: 53–4 with n. 1, Cingano 1995: on 99–9a). τὸ δὲ παθεῖν εὖ … εὖ δ᾽ ἀκούειν: The same thought is put in similar words at Nem. 1.32 εὖ τε παθεῖν καὶ ἀκοῦσαι and Isth. 5.13 εἴ τις εὖ πάσχων λόγον ἐσλὸν ἀκούῃ (above). The chiastic expression here combines an articular with a non-articular infinitive. This use of the article is a secondary development and first securely attested in lyric and elegy, always in the nominative: Alcm. fr. 41 PMGF ἕρπει γὰρ ἄντα τῶ σιδάρω τὸ καλῶς κιθαρίσδην, Alc. fr. 400 Voigt, Thgn. 255–6 (KG II 37–43, SD 368–72, especially 370). Pindar still conforms to this pattern (cf. e.g. Ol.  2.51–2 τὸ δὲ τυχεῖν  / πειρώμενον ἀγωνίας δυσφρονᾶν παραλύει, 8.59–60, Pyth. 2.56, Nem. 5.18), with the possible exception of the accusative in Ol. 2.97 τὸ λαλαγῆσαι θέλων, where, however, the text is uncertain (θέλων codd.: θέλον Coppola: θέλει Wilamowitz). See Erdmann 1867: 75–6, Gildersleeve 1878: 11, Braswell 1988: on Pyth. 4.165–66. εὖ … ἀκούειν takes up 90 (89–90n.) ἀκοὰν ἁδεῖαν ἀεὶ κλύειν. δευτέρα μοῖρ᾽: In S. OC 144–5 Oedipus calls himself οὐ πάνυ μοίρας … / πρώτης (‘not wholly of the best fortune’). Despite the difference in context, Jebb’s comment (31900: on 144  f.) that the sense of πρῶτος there ‘is associated



with the idea of first prize (Il. 23.275 τὰ πρῶτα λαβών)’ can be transferred to our passage, where πρῶτον ἀέθλων has a clear agonistic flavour (above). For δευτερ- of carrying the second prize see especially Il.  23.537–8 ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή οἱ δῶμεν ἀέθλιον … / δεύτερ᾽· ἀτὰρ τὰ πρῶτα φερέσθω Τυδέος υἱός (LSJ s.vv. δεύτερος I 1, III 1, δευτερεῖος II 1). For obvious reasons this use of the word­ (-field) does not loom large in epinician,55 but it has its place here as part of the priamel (above). ἐγκύρσῃ καὶ ἕλῃ: ‘The two verbs show a combination of luck and will’ (Gildersleeve 1890: on 100). In other words, one has to be given an opportunity and seize it. For ἐγκύρω (+ dative), ‘happen upon, attain’ (something positive or negative) in lyric cf. Pyth. 4.282 πρέσβυς ἐγκύρσαις ἑκατονταετεῖ βιοτᾷ and Bacch. fr. 25.4 πρὶν ἐγκύρσαι δυᾷ. στέφανον ὕψιστον δέδεκται: Cf. Isth. 1.51 κέρδος ὕψιστον δέκεται (above). The crown image recalls Pindar’s hope that Hieron may decorate Aitna with further equestrian victories (37 (35b–8n.) λοιπὸν ἔσεσθαι στεφάνοισί ν ἵπποις τε κλυτάν) as well as the reward he is said to have reaped for his efforts in war (50 (48b–50a n.) πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον). By the same token, δέδεκται harks back to 79–80 ὕμνον … / τὸν ἐδέξαντ᾽ while at the same time contrasting with Phalaris’ fate in 97–8 οὐδέ νιν φόρμιγγες … / … δέκονται. The final phrase of Pythian 1 therefore unites the two spheres – athletic and military / political – which through Pindar’s praise are to be the sources of Hieron’s ‘imperishable fame’.

55 The only exception occurs in Euripides’ epinician for Alcibiades (fr. 755.3 PMG ἅρματι πρῶτα δραμεῖν καὶ δεύτερα καὶ τρίτα), which celebrates the unique feat of entering seven chariots at the Olympics of 416 and coming first, second and third (or fourth, according to Thuc. 6.16). See 85–100n.


I Notable Editions (E), Translations (T) and Commentaries (C) on Pindar, Pythian 1 (in chronological order) Aldus Manutius (Venice 1513) E Kalliergēs (Callierges), Z. (Rome 1515) E Ceporinus, I. (Basel 1526) E Stephanus, H. (Geneva 1560, 21566, 31586 (with notes by I. Casaubon), 41600, 51612, 61624) E, T, (C) Schmid, E. (Wittenberg 1616) E, T, C Heyne, C. G. (Göttingen 1773, 21798–9, Leipzig 31817) E, T, C Boeckh, F. A. (Leipzig 1811–21, ed. min. 1825) E, T, C Thiersch, F. (Leipzig 1820) E, T, C Dissen, L. (Gotha and Erfurt 1830) E, C Schneidewin, F. W. (Gotha 1843 (edition), Gotha and Erfurt 1947 (commentary)) E, C [revision of Dissen] Bergk, Th. (Leipzig 11843, 21853, 31866, 41878) E Hartung, J. A. (Leipzig 1855–6) E, T, C Mommsen, C. J. T. (Berlin 1864, ed. min. 1866) E Christ, W. von (Leipzig 11869, 21882, 31891, 41896) E, C Fennell, C. M. A. (1879, 21893) Pindar. The Olympian and Pythian Odes (Cambridge) E, C Mezger, F. (1880) Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig) C Gildersleeve, B. L. (1885, 21890) Pindar. The Olympian and Pythian Odes (New York, Cincinnati and Chicago) E, C Boehmer, E. (1891) (ed.), Pindars sicilische Oden nebst den epizephyrischen, mit Prosaübersetzung und Erläuterungen (Bonn) E, T, C Schroeder, O. (Leipzig 1900, 21923, ed. min. 1908, 21914, 31930) E Sandys, J. E. (London 1915, 21919) E, T Schroeder, O. (1922) Pindars Pythien (Leipzig and Berlin) C Puech, A. (Paris 1923, 21931–52, 31949–58, 41958–61) E, T, C Farnell, L. R. (London 1930–2) E, T, C Bowra, C. M. (Oxford 1935, 21947) E Turyn, A. (New York 1944, Cracow 1948, Oxford 1952) E Snell, B. (Leipzig 1953, 21955, 31959, 41964) E Maehler, H. (Leipzig 51971, 61980, 71984, 81987) E [revision of Snell] Kirkwood, G. M. (1982) Selections from Pindar (Chico) E, C Kollmann, O. (1989) Das Prooimion der ersten Pythischen Ode Pindars (Vienna and Berlin) C Gentili, B. et al. (1995) Pindaro. Le Pitiche (Rome and Milan) E, T, C [commentary on Pythian 1 by E. Cingano] Race, W. H. (Cambridge, MA, and London 1997) E, T Liberman, G. (2004) Pindare. Pythiques (Paris) E, T, C



II Scholia Abel, E. (1891) Scholia recentiora in Pindari Epinicia I. Scholia in Olympia et Pythia (Budapest and Berlin) Drachmann, A. B. (1903–27) Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, 3 vols. (Leipzig) Irigoin, J. (1958) Les scholies métriques de Pindare (Paris) Tessier, A. (1989) Scholia metrica vetera in Pindari carmina (Leipzig)

III Secondary Literature Adorjáni, Z. (2014) (ed.) Pindars sechste olympische Siegesode. Text, Einleitung und Kommentar (Leiden and Boston) Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (2012a) (eds.) Reading the Victory Ode (Cambridge) Agócs, P., Carey, C. and Rawles, R. (2012b) (eds.) Receiving the Komos. Ancient and Modern Reception of the Victory Ode (London) Aitchison, J. M. (1963) ‘Homeric ἄνϑος’, Glotta 41, 271–8 Alfonsi, L. (1949) ‘Le cinque vocali come inicio’, WJA 4, 381–3 Angeli Bernardini, P. (1979) ‘La dike della lira e la dike dell’ atleta (Pindaro P. 1, 1–2; O. 9, 98)’, QUCC n.s. 3, 79–85 Antonaccio, C. M. (2007) ‘Elite Mobility in the West’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.), 265–85 Asheri, D. (1988) ‘Carthaginians and Greeks’, in J. Boardman (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 4. Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c. 525 to 479 BC, 2nd ed. (Cambridge), 739–90 Asheri, D. (1992) ‘Sicily, 478–431 B.C.’, in D. Lewis, J. Boardman, J. K. Davies and M. Ostwald (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 5. The Fifth Century BC, 2nd ed. (Cambridge), 147–70 Athanassaki, L. (2009) ‘Narratology, Deixis, and the Performance of Choral Lyric. On Pindar’s First Pythian Ode’, in J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos (eds.), Narratology and Interpretation. The Content of Narrative Form in Ancient Literature (Berlin and New York), 241–73 Athanassaki, L. (2012) ‘Performance and Re-performance. The Siphnian Treasury Evoked (Pindar’s Pythian 6, Olympian 2 and Isthmian 2)’, in Agócs, Carey and Rawles (2012a) (eds.), 134–57 Athanassaki, L. (2016) ‘The Symposion as Theme and Performance Context in Pindar’s Epinicians’, in Cazzato, Obbink and Prodi (eds.), 85–112 Austin, C. and Olson, S. D. (2004) (eds.) Aristophanes. Thesmophoriazusae (Oxford) Bagordo, A. and Zimmermann, B. (2000) (eds.) Bakchylides. 100 Jahre nach seiner Wiederentdeckung (Munich) Bakas, S. (2016) ‘Composite Bows in Minoan and Mycenaean Warfare’, in P. Militello and K. Żebrowska (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Students’ Conference in Aegean Archaeology: Methods – Researches – Perspectives’, Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Poland, April 25th, 2014 (Catania), 9–15 Barrett, W. S. (1964) (ed.) Euripides. Hippolytos (Oxford) Barrett, W. S. (1973) ‘Pindar’s Twelfth Olympian and the Fall of the Deinomenidai’, JHS 93, 23–35 (= Barrett 2007: 78–97) Barrett, W. S. (1978) ‘The Oligathidai and their Victories (Pindar, Olympian 13; SLG 339, 340)’, in Dawe, Diggle and Easterling (eds.), 1–20 Barrett, W. S. (2007) Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism. Colleced Papers, assembled and edited by M. L. West (Oxford) Barron, J. (1990) ‘All for Salamis’, in E. M. Craik (ed.), ‘Owls to Athens’: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford), 133–44

Secondary Literature 


Barthold, Th. (1864) De scholiorum in Euripidem veterum fontibus (diss. Bonn) Battezzato, L. (2000) ‘Synizesis in Euripides and the Structure of the Iambic Trimeter – The Case of θεός’, BICS 44, 41–80 Bauer, D. F. (2015), ‘Problems in the Aldine Pindar’, Princeton University Library Chronicle 7, 419–46 Bell, M. (1995) ‘The Motya Charioteer and Pindar’s Isthmian 2’, MAAR 40, 1–42 Benveniste, É. (1969) Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, 2 vols. (Paris) Bergren, A. L. T. (1975) The Etymology and Usage of πεῖραρ in Early Greek Poetry (New York) Blaydes, F. H. M. (1898) Adversaria in varios poetas Graecos et Latinos (Halle) Blomfield, C. J. (1810) (ed.) Αἰσχύλου Προμηθεὺς δεσμώτης. Æschyli Prometheus Vinctus (Cambridge) Bonanno, D. (2010) Ierone il Dinomenide. Storia e rappresentazione (Pisa and Rome) Bornemann, L. (1903) ‘Jahresbericht über Pindar 1901–1902’, JAW 117, 110–37 Bowie, A. M. (1981) The Poetic Dialect of Sappho and Alcaeus (New York) Bowie, A. M. (2019) Homer, Iliad. Book III (Cambridge) Bowie, E. L. (2012) ‘Epinicians and ‘Patrons’, in Agócs, Carey and Rawles (2012a) (eds.), 83–92 Bowie, E. L. and Athanassaki, L. (2011) (eds.) Archaic and Classical Choral Song. Performance, Politics and Dissemination (Berlin and Boston) Bowra, C. M. (1964) Pindar (Oxford) Braswell, B. K. (1976) ‘Notes on the Prooemium to Pindar’s Seventh Olympian Ode’, Mnemosyne IV 29, 233–42 Braswell, B. K. (1982) ‘Two Supplementary Notes on Pindar’, Philologus 126, 310–13 Braswell, B. K. (1988) (ed.) A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Berlin and New York) Braswell, B. K. (1992) (ed.) A Commentary on Pindar, Nemean One (Fribourg) Braswell, B. K. (1998) (ed.) A Commentary on Pindar, Nemean Nine (Berlin and New York) Braswell, B. K. (2013) (ed.) Didymos of Alexandria. Commentary on Pindar (Basel) Buck, C. D. (1955) The Greek Dialects (Chicago) Budelmann, F. (2012) ‘Epinician and the symposion. A Comparison with the enkomia’, in Agócs, Carey and Rawles (2012a) (eds.), 173–90 Budelmann, F. (2017) ‘Performance, Reperformance, Preperformance. The Paradox of Repeating the Unique in Pindaric Epinician and Beyond’, in Hunter and Uhlig (eds.), 42–62 Bundy, E. L. (1962) Studia Pindarica (Berkeley) Burton, R. W. B. (1962) Pindar’s Pythians. Essays in Interpretation (London) Calder, W. M. III and Stern, J. (1970) (eds.) Pindaros und Bakchylides (Darmstadt) Camagni, F. (2020) ‘The Use of Gamma in Place of Digamma in Ancient Greek’, Mnemosyne IV 73, 1–22 Carey, C. (1978) ‘Pindarica’, in Dawe, Diggle and Easterling (eds.), 21–44 Carey, C. (1989) ‘The Performance of the Victory Ode’, AJPh 110, 545–65 Carey, C. (1991) ‘The Victory Ode in Performance: The Case for the Chorus’, CPh 86, 192–200 Carey, C. (1993) ‘Pindar’s Ninth Nemean Ode’, in H. D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt (ed.) Tria Lustra. Essays and Notes presented to John Pinsent, Founder and Editor of Liverpool Classical Monthly by Some of its Contributors on the Occasion of the 150th Issue (Liverpool), 97–107 Carey, C. (2007) ‘Pindar, Place, and Performance’, in Hornblower and Morgan (eds.), 199–210 Catenacci, C., Giannini, P. and Lomiento, L. (2013) (eds.) Pindaro. Le Olimpiche (Milan) Cazzato, V., Obbink, D. and Prodi, E. E. (2016) (eds.) The Cup of Song. Studies on Poetry and the Symposion (Oxford) Christesen, P. (2007) Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History (Cambridge) Cingano, E. (1991) ‘La data e l’occasione dell’encomio bacchilideo per Ierone (Bacchyl. fr. 20 C Sn.–M.)’, QUCC n.s. 38, 31–4 Cobet, C. G. (1858) Novae lectiones quibus continentur observationes criticae in scriptores Graecos (Leiden)



Comotti, G. (1989) ‘L’anabolé e il ditirambo’, QUCC n.s. 31, 107–17 Cook, A. B. (1914–40) Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion, 3 vols. (Cambridge) Cummins, M. F. (2010) ‘Sicilian Tyrants and their Victorious Brothers II: The Deinomenids’, CJ 106, 1–20 Currie, B. (2004) ‘Reperformance Scenarios for Pindar’s Odes’, in C. J. Mackie (ed.), 49–69 Currie, B. (2005) Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford) Currie, B. (2011) ‘Epinician Choregia. Funding a Pindaric Chorus’, in Bowie and Athanassaki (eds.), 269–310 Currie, B. (2017) ‘Festival, Symposium, and Epinician (Re)performance: The Case of Nemean 4 and Others’, in Hunter and Uhlig (eds.), 187–208 D’Alessio, G. B. (1997) ‘Pindar’s Prosodia and the Classification of Pindaric Papyrus Fragments’, ZPE 118, 23–60 D’Alessio, G. B. (2005) ‘Il primo Inno di Pindaro’, in S. Grandolini (ed.), Lirica e Teatro in Grecia. Il testo e la sua ricezione. Atti del II Incontro di Studi, Perugia, 23–24 gennaio 2003 (Naples), 113–49 D’Alessio, G. B. (2009) ‘Re-constructing Pindar’s First Hymn: the Theban “Theogony” and the Birth of Apollo’, in L. Athanassaki, R. P. Martin and J. F. Miller (eds.), Apolline Politics and Poetics (Athens), 128–47 D’Alessio, G. B. (2017) Review of Fogelmark (2015), BMCR 2017.07.27 D’Angour, A. (1997) ‘How the Dithyramb got its Shape’, CQ n.s. 47, 331–51 Davies, M. and Finglass, P. J. (2014) (eds.) Stesichorus. The Poems (Cambridge) Dawe, R. D., Diggle J. and Easterling, P. E. (1978) (eds.), Dionysiaca. Nine Studies in Greek Poetry by Former Pupils Presented to Sir Denys Page on his Seventieth Birthday (Cambridge) Dawes, R. (1745) ‘Oxoniensium Pindari editorum desideratae ἀκριβείας specimen’, in Miscellanea critica in sectiones quinque disperdita (Cambridge), 33–68 Deas, H. T. (1931) ‘The Scholia Vetera to Pindar’, HSCP 42, 1–78 Debiasi, A. (2008) Esiodo e l’occidente (Rome) Degani, E. (1962) ‘ΑΙΑΝΗΣ’, Helikon 2, 37–56 (= Degani 2004: 817–36) Degani, E. (2004) Filologia e Storia. Scitti di Enzo Degani (edd. M. G. Albiani et al.), 2 vols. (Hildesheim, Zurich and New York) Dickey, E. (2007) Ancient Greek Scholarship. A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period (Oxford and New York) Dougherty, C. (1991) ‘Linguistic Colonialism in Aeschylus’ Aetnaeae’, GRBS 32, 119–21 Dougherty, C. (1993) The Poetics of Colonization. From City to Text in Archaic Greece (New York) Dover, K. J. (1993) (ed.) Aristophanes. Frogs (Oxford) Dunbabin, T. J. (1948) The Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 B. C. (Oxford) Dunbar, N. (1995) (ed.) Aristophanes. Birds (Oxford) Dürbeck, H. (1977) Zur Charakteristik der griechischen Farbenbezeichnungen (Bonn) Dyer, R. R. (1964) ‘On Describing some Homeric Glosses’, Glotta 42, 121–31 Eckerman, C. (2012) ‘Was Epinician Poetry Performed at Panhellenic Sanctuaries?’, GRBS 52, 338–60 Edgeworth, R. J. (1983) ‘Terms for “Brown” in Ancient Greek’, Glotta 61, 31–40 Ellsworth, J. D. (1973), ‘Pindar’s Pythian 1.44: ἀγῶνος βαλεῖν ἔξω. A New Suggestion’, AJPh 94, 293–6 Ercoles, M. (2020), ‘P. Oxy. 2438 and the Order of Books in Aristophanes Byzantius’ Edition of Pindar’, CQ n.s. 70, 822–6 Erdmann, O. (1867) De Pindari usu syntactico (diss. Halle) Fearn, D. (2017) Pindar’s Eyes. Visual and Material Culture in Epinician Poetry (Oxford)

Secondary Literature 


Feeney, D. C. (2007) Caesar’s Calendar. Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Finglass, P. J. (2007) (ed.) Pindar. Pythian Eleven (Cambridge) Fogelmark, S. (2015) The Kallierges Pindar. A Study in Renaissance Greek Scholarship and Printing, 2 vols. (Cologne) Forssman, B. (1966) Untersuchungen zur Sprache Pindars (Erlangen) Foster, B. R. (2005) Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. (Bethesda) Fraenkel, Ernst (1910–12) Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agentis auf -τήρ, -τωρ, -της (-τ-), 2 vols. (Strasbourg) Fraenkel, Eduard (1954) ‘Vermutungen zum Aetna-Festspiel des Aeschylus’, Eranos 52, 61–75 (= Fraenkel 1964: I 229–62) Fraenkel, Eduard (1964) Kleine Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie, 2 vols. (Rome) Fränkel, H. (1962) Dichtung und Philosophie des frühen Griechentums. Eine Geschichte der griechischen Epik, Lyrik und Prosa bis zur Mitte des fünften Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed. (Munich) Fränkel, H. (1975) Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy. A History of Greek Epic, Lyric and Prose to the Middle of the Fifth Century, translated by M. Hadas and J. Willis (Oxford) Fries, A. (2014) (ed.) Pseudo-Euripides, Rhesus. Edited with Introduction and Commentary (Berlin and Boston) Fries, A. (2017a) ‘Pindar, Hieron and the Persian Wars: History and Poetic Competition in Pythian 1.71–80’, WS 130, 59–72 Fries, A. (2017b) ‘For Use in Schools. Prosodical Marks in Two Pre-Palaeologan Manuscripts of Pindar’, GRBS 57, 745–70 Fries, A. (2020) ‘A Planudean Edition of Pindar? The Evidence of Parisinus gr. 2403’, GRBS 60, 708–17 Friis Johansen, H. and Whittle, E. W. (1980) (eds.) Aeschylus. The Suppliants, 3 vols. (Copenhagen) Furley, W. D. and Bremer, J. M. (2001) (eds.) Greek Hymns. Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. (Tübingen) Galán Vioque, G. (2022), ‘Marcus Musurus and Pindar’, GRBS 62, 239–54 Gantz, T. N. (1974) ‘Pindar’s First Pythian: the Fire Within’, Ramus 3.2, 143–51 Garvie, A. F. (2009) (ed.) Aeschylus. Persae (Oxford) Gentili, B. (1991) ‘Pindarica I’, QUCC n.s. 38, 7–13 Gerber, D. E. (1976) Emendations in Pindar: 1513–1972 (Amsterdam) Gerber, D. E. (1982) Pindar’s Olympian One. A Commentary (Toronto, Buffalo and London) Gerber, D. E. (1985) ‘Emendations in the Odes of Pindar. An Historical Analysis’, in O. Reverdin and B. Grange (eds.), Pindare (Geneva), 1–25 Gelzer, Th. (1985) ‘Μοῦσα αὐθιγενής: Bemerkungen zu einem Typ Pindarischer und Bacchylideischer Epinikien’, MH 42, 95–120 Gildersleeve, B. L. (1878) ‘Contributions to the History of the Articular Infinitive’, TAPA 9, 5–19 Gipper, H. (1964) ‘Purpur’, Glotta 42, 39–69 Goldhill, S. (1988) ‘Battle Narrative and Politics in Aeschylus’ Persae’, JHS 108, 189–93 Gonda, J. (1975) Vedic Literature (Wiesbaden) Graf, F. (1985) Nordionische Kulte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia (Rome) Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S. (1915) (eds.) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XI (London) Griffin, J. (1980) Homer on Life and Death (Oxford) Günther, H.-Chr. (1998) Ein neuer metrischer Traktat und das Studium der pindarischen Metrik in der Philologie der Paläologenzeit (Leiden, Boston and Cologne)



Gwyn Griffiths, J. (1960) ‘The Flight of the Gods before Typhon: An Unrecognized Myth’, Hermes 88, 374–6 Hadjimichael, Th. A. (2019) The Emergence of the Lyric Canon (Oxford) Handschur, E. (1970) Die Farb- und Glanzwörter bei Homer und Hesiod, in den homerischen Hymnen und den Fragmenten des epischen Kyklos (diss. Vienna) Harrell, S. E. (2002) ‘King or Private Citizen. Fifth-Century Sicilian Tyrants at Olympia and Delphi’, Mnemosyne IV 55, 439–64 Harriott, R. M. (1982) ‘The Argive Elders, the Discerning Shepherd and the Fawning Dog: Misleading Communication in the Agamemnon’, CQ n.s. 32, 9–17 Heath, M. (1988) ‘Receiving the κῶμος. The Context and Performance of Epinician’, AJPh 109, 180–95 Hecker, A. (1850) ‘Epistolae criticae ad F. G. Schneidewinum V. Cl. pars secunda’, Philologus 5, 414–512 Henry, W. B. (2005) (ed.) Pindar’s Nemeans. A Selection (Munich and Leipzig) Herington, C. J. (1967) ‘Aeschylus in Sicily’, JHS 87, 74–85 Hermann, G. (1801) De emendanda ratione Graecae grammaticae (Leipzig) Hermann, G. (1809) De dialecto Pindari observationes (Leipzig) (= Hermann 1827–77: I 245–68) Hermann, G. (1817) ‘Notae ad Pindarum’, in C. G. Heyne (ed.), Pindari Carmina cum lectionis varietate et adnotationibus: accedunt interpretatio Latina emendatior, scholia, et fragmenta, necnon Godofredi Hermanni Dissertationes Pindaricae, et indices tres, vol. 3 (Leipzig), 276–410 Hermann, G. (1823) De Sogenis Aeginetae victoria quinquertii dissertatio (Leipzig) (= Hermann 1827–77: III 22–36) Hermann, G. (1827–77) Godofredi Hermanni Opuscula, 8 vols. (Leipzig) Hermann, G. (1834) De officio interpretis (Leipzig) (= Hermann 1827–77: VII 97–128) Heubeck, A., West, S. R., Hainsworth, J. B., Hoekstra, A., Russo, J. and Fernández-Galiano, M. (1988–92) A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, 3 vols. (Oxford) Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (1934) ‘Perserepigramme von der Athenischen Agora’, Hermes 69, 204–6 Hooker, J. T. (1977) ‘Σύνδικος in Greek’, Philologus 121, 300 Hornblower, S. (1991–2008) A Commentary on Thucydides, 3 vols. (Oxford) Hornblower, S. (2004) Thucydides and Pindar. Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry (Oxford) Hornblower, S. (2006) ‘Pindar on Kingship Theory’, in S. Lewis (ed.) Ancient Tyranny (Edinburgh), 151–63 Hornblower, S. (2012) ‘What Happened Later to the Families of Pindaric Patrons – and to Epinician Poetry?’, in Agócs, Carey and Rawles (2012a) (eds.), 93–107 Hornblower, S. (2013) (ed.) Herodotus. Histories, Book V (Cambridge) Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (2007) (eds.) Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals. From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire (Oxford) Hose, M. (2000) ‘Bermerkungen zum 4. Epinikion des Bakchylides’, in Bagordo and Zimmermann (eds.), 161–8 Hubbard, Th. K. (2004) ‘The Dissemination of Epinician Lyric. Pan-Hellenism, Reperformance, Written Texts’, in C. J. Mackie (ed.), 71–93 Hunger, H. (1978) Die hochsprachliche profane Literature der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Munich) Hunter, R. and Uhlig, A. (2017) (eds.) Imagining Reperformance in Ancient Culture. Studies in the Traditions of Drama and Lyric (Cambridge) Hutchinson, G. O. (1985) (ed.) Aeschylus. Septem contra Thebas (Oxford) Hutchinson, G. O. (2001) (ed.) Greek Lyric Poetry. A Commentary on Selected Larger Pieces (Oxford) Irigoin, J. (1952) Histoire du texte de Pindare (Paris) Itsumi, K. (2009) Pindaric Metre. The ‘Other Half’ (Oxford) Janko, R. (1994), The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume IV: Books 13–16 (Cambridge)

Secondary Literature 


Jebb, R. C. (31900) (ed.) Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part II: The Oedipus Coloneus (Cambridge) Jebb, R. C. (1905) (ed.) Bacchylides. The Poems and Fragments (Cambridge) Kannicht, R. (1969) (ed.) Euripides. Helena, 2 vols. (Heidelberg) Kemper, H. D. (1960) Rat und Tat. Studien zur Darstellung eines antithetischen Begriffspaares in der klassischen Periode der Griechischen Literatur (diss. Bonn) Kirichenko, A. (2016) ‘The Art of Transference. Metaphor and Iconicity in Pindar’s Olympian 6 and Nemean 5’, Mnemosyne IV 69, 1–28 Köhnken, A. (1970) ‘Hieron und Deinomenes in Pindars Erstem Pythischen Gedicht’, Hermes 98, 1–13 Köhnken, A. (1981) ‘Apollo’s Retort to Envy’s Criticism (Two Questions of Relevance in Callimachus, Hymn 2, 105  ff.), AJPh 102, 411–22 Körte, A. (1918) ‘Bacchylidea’, Hermes 53, 113–47 Koller, H. (1956) ‘Das kitharodische Prooimion. Eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, Philologus 100, 159–206 Koraes, A. (1877) Lettres inédites de Coray à Chardon de la Rochette (1790–1796) (Paris) Kranz, W. (1919) ‘Der Eingang des ersten Pythischen Siegesliedes’, Sokrates N. F. 7, 252–4 Krause, H. (1918) ‘Zu Pind. Pyth. 1’, Philologus 75, 237 Krischer, T. (1985a) ‘Pindars erste Pythische Ode und ihre Vorlage’, Hermes 113, 491–4 Krischer, T. (1985b) ‘Pindars achte Pythische Ode in ihrem Verhältnis zur ersten’, WS 19, 115–24 Kurke, L. (1991) The Traffic in Praise. Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (Ithaca and London) Kurke, L. (1993) ‘The Economy of Kudos’, in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece. Cult, Performance, Politics (Cambridge), 131–63 Kurke, L. (1999) Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold. The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece (Princeton, NJ) Lane Fox, R. (2008) Travelling Heroes. Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer (London) Latacz, J. (1966) Zum Wortfeld “Freude” in der Sprache Homers (Heidelberg) Lattmann, C. (2010) Das Gleiche im Verschiedenen. Metapher des Sports und Lob des Siegers in Pindars Epinikien (Berlin and New York) Lefkowitz, M. R. (1984), ‘The Poet as Athlete’, SIFC 3rd ser. 2, 5–12 (~ Lefkowitz 1991: 161–8) Lefkowitz, M. R. (1991) First-Person Fictions. Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’ (Oxford) Lehmann, G. A. (1991) ‘Die ‘politisch-historischen’ Beziehungen der Ägäis-West des 15.–13. Jh.s v. Chr. zu Ägypten und Vorderasien: einige Hinweise’, in J. Latacz (ed.), Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Rückblick und Ausblick (Stuttgart and Leipzig) Levaniouk, O. (2000) ‘Aithōn, Aithon, and Odysseus’, HSPh 100, 25–51 Lewis, D. M. (1984) ‘Further Notes on Page, Further Greek Epigrams’, JHS 104, 179–80 Lewis, V. M. (2019) Myth, Locality, and Indentity in Pindar’s Sicilian Odes (Oxford) Lloyd-Jones, P. H. J. (1982) ‘Pindar’, Proceedings of the British Academy 68, 139–63 (= Lloyd-Jones 1990: 57–79) Lloyd-Jones, P. H. J. (1990) Greek Epic, Lyric, and Tragedy. The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford) Lloyd-Jones, P. H. J. and Wilson, N. G. (1990) Sophoclea. Studies on the Text of Sophocles (Oxford) Lobeck, C. A. (1866) (ed.) Sophoclis Aiax. Commentario perpetuo illustravit (Berlin) Lobel, E. (1952) (ed.) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XX (London) Lobel, E. (1961) (ed.) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXVI (London) Loscalzo, D. (2003) La parola inestinguibile. Studi sull’ epinicio pindarico (Rome) Luraghi, N. (1994) Tirannidi arcaiche in Sicilia e Magna Grecia: da Panezio di Leontini alla caduta dei Dinomenidi (Florence) Luraghi, N. (2009) ‘The Importance of Being λόγιος’, CW 102, 439–56



Luraghi, N. (2011) ‘Hieron Agonistes or the Masks of the Tyrant’; in G. Urso (ed.) Dicere laudes: elogio, comunicazione, creazione del consenso. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 23–25 Settembre 2010 (Pisa), 27–47 Maas, M. and McIntosh Snyder, J. (1989) Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece (New Haven and London) Mackie, C. J. (2004) (ed.) Oral Performance and its Context (Leiden and Boston) Mackie, H. (2003) Graceful Errors. Pindar and the Performance of Praise (Ann Arbor) Maehler, H. (1982) (ed.) Die Lieder des Bakchylides I. Die Siegeslieder (Leiden) Maehler, H. (1997) (ed.) Die Lieder des Bakchylides. II. Die Dithyramben und Fragmente (Leiden, New York and Cologne) Maehler, H. (2004) (ed.) Bacchylides. A Selection (Cambridge) Massetti, L. (2019) Phraseologie und indogermanische Dichtersprache in der Sprache der griechischen Chorlyrik: Pindar und Bakchylides (diss. Cologne, revised version published online at https://chs. Mastronarde, D. J. (1994) (ed.) Euripides. Phoenissae (Cambridge) Mazzucchi, C. M. (2003, 2004) ‘Ambrosianus C 222 inf. (Graecus 886): Il codice e il suo autore’, Aevum 77, 263–75, Aevum 79, 411–40 McCracken, G. (1934) ‘Pindar’s Figurative Use of Plants’, AJPh 55, 340–5 McNamee, K. (1994) ‘School Notes’, in A. Bülow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen 23–29 August 1992 (Copenhagen), 177–84 McNamee, K. (2007) Annotations in Greek and Latin Texts from Egypt (New Haven, CN) Meister, F. J. (2019) ‘Hieron and Zeus in Pindar’, CP 114, 366–82 Meusel, E. (2020) Pindarus Indogermanicus. Untersuchungen zum Erbe dichtersprachlicher Phraseologie bei Pindar (Berlin and Boston) Meyer, G. (1923), Die stilistische Verwendung der Nominalkomposition im Griechischen (Leipzig) Miller, A. M. (1989) ‘Apolline Ethics and Olympian Victory in Pindar’s Eighth Pythian 67–78’, GRBS 30, 461–84 Miller, S. G. (2004) Ancient Greek Athletics (New Haven and London) Molyneux, J. H. (1992) Simonides. A Historical Study (Wauconda) Morgan, K. A. (1993) ‘Pindar the Professional and the Rhetoric of the ΚΟΜΟΣ’, CPh 88, 1–15 Morgan, K. A. (2015) Pindar and the Construction of Syracusan Monarchy in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford and New York) Morrison, A. D. (2007) Performances and Audiences in Pindar’s Sicilian Victory Odes (London) Morrison, A. D. (2012) ‘Performance, Re-performance and Pindar’s Audiences’, in Agócs, Carey and Rawles (2012a) (eds.), 111–33 Mullen, C. (1982) Choreia. Pindar and Dance (Princeton) Nagy, G. (1990) Pindar’s Homer. The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore and London) Naoumides, M. N. (1975) (ed.) Ῥητορικαὶ Λέξεις. Editio Princeps (Athens) Nawratil, K. (1959) ‘Βαθύκολπος’, WS 72, 165–8 Neumann-Hartmann, A. (2007) ‘Der Aufführungsrahmen von Epinikien. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag’, Nikephoros 20, 49–112 Neumann-Hartmann, A. (2009) Epinikien und ihr Aufführungsrahmen (Hildesheim) Neumann-Hartmann, A. (2019) ‘Belege griechischer Historiker in den Pindar-Scholien und ihre Bedeutung für die Pindar-Exegese’, MH 76, 30–51 Nicholson, N. (2016) The Poetics of Victory in the Greek West. Epinician, Oral Tradition, and the Deinomenid Empire (Oxford)

Secondary Literature 


Nickau, K. (1977) Untersuchungen zur textkritischen Methode des Zenodotos von Ephesos (Berlin and New York) Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. (1970) A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book I (Oxford) Nisbet, R. G. M. and Rudd, N. (2004) A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book III (Oxford) Norden, E. (1913) Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig and Berlin) Nothdurft, W. (1978) ‘Noch einmal Πεῖραρ/Πείρατα bei Homer’, Glotta 56, 25–40 Nöthiger, M. (1971) Die Sprache des Stesichorus und des Ibycus (Zurich) Nünlist, R. (1998) Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung (Stuttgart and Leipzig) Oellacher, H. (1932) ‘Scholien zu Pindars Pythionikai I 87’, MPER n.s. 1, 145–6 Ogden, D. (2013) Drakōn. Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford) Oost, S. I. (1976) ‘The Tyrant Kings of Syracuse’, CPh 71, 224–36 Osborne, R. (2010) Greece in the Making: 1200–479 B.C., 2nd ed. (London and New York) Parker, L. P. E. (1997) The Songs of Aristophanes (Oxford) Parker, L. P. E. (2001) ‘Consilium et Ratio? Papyrus A of Bacchylides and Alexandrian Metrical Scholarship’, CQ n.s. 51, 23–52. Parker, R. (1983) Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford) Patel, M. (1929) Die Dānastutis des Rigveda (Marburg) Pauw, J. C. de (1747) Notae in Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia (Utrecht) Pavese, C. O. (1990) ‘Pindarica II: Note critiche al testo delle “Olimpiche” e delle “Pitiche”’, Eikasmos 1, 37–82 Pearson, A. C. (1924) ‘Pindarica’, CQ 18, 151–7 Pfeijffer, I. L. (1999) Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar. A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, and Pythian VIII (Leiden) Pfeijffer, I. L. (2005) ‘Propaganda in Pindar’s First Pythian Ode’, in K. A. E. Enenkel and I. L. Pfeijffer (eds.), The Manipulative Mode. Political Propaganda in Antiquity. A Collection of Case Studies (Leiden and Boston), 13–42 Pfister, F. (1948) ‘Die fünf Vokale als Anfang’, WJA 3, 196–7 Phillips, T. (2016) Pindar’s Library. Performance Poetry and Material Texts (Oxford) Podlecki, A. J. (1979) ‘Simonides in Sicily’, PP 34, 5–16 Podlecki, A. J. (1980) ‘Festivals and Flattery. The Early Greek Tyrants as Patrons of Poetry’, Athenaeum 58, 371–95 Poli-Palladini, L. (2001) ‘Some Reflections on Aeschylus’ Aetnae(ae), RhM 144, 287–325 Prauscello, L. (2006) Singing Alexandria. Music Between Practice and Textual Transmission (Leiden and Boston) Pritchett, W. K. (1979) The Greek State at War. Part III: Religion (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London) Privitera, G. A. (1982) (ed.) Pindaro. Le Istmiche (Milan) Probert, P. (2003) A New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek (London) Probert, P. (2006) Ancient Greek Accentuation. Synchronic Patterns, Frequency Effects, and Prehistory (Oxford) Prodi, E. E. (2016) ‘Titles and Markers of Poem-End in the Papyri of Greek Choral Lyric’, in T. Derda, A. Łajtar and J. Urbanik (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology, Warsaw 29 July – 3 August 2013 (Warsaw), 1137–84 Race, W. H. (1986) Pindar (Boston) Race, W. H. (1987) ‘Pindaric Encomium and Isokrates’ Evagoras’, TAPA 117, 131–55 Race, W. H. (1990) Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes (Atlanta) Radt, S. L. (1958) (ed.) Pindars zweiter und sechster Paian (Amsterdam)



Raeburn, D. A. and Thomas, O. R. H. (2011) The Agamemnon of Aeschylus. A Commentary for Students (Oxford) Rauchenstein, R. (1843) Zur Einleitung in Pindar’s Siegeslieder (Aarau) Richardson, N. J. (2010) (ed.) Three Homeric Hymns. To Apollo, Hermes and Aphrodite (Cambridge) Roller, L. E. (1981) ‘Funeral Games in Greek Art’, AJA 85, 107–19 Russo, C. F. (1950, 21965) (ed.) Hesiodi Scutum (Florence) Rutherford, I. C. (2001) (ed.) Pindar’s Paeans. A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre (Oxford) Rutherford, I. C. (2012) ‘On the Impossibility of Centaurs. The Reception of Pindar in the Roman Empire’, in Agócs, Carey and Rawles (2012b) (eds.), 93–104 Schein, S. L. (2013) (ed.) Sophocles. Philoctetes (Cambridge) Schneidewin, F. W. (1849) ‘Sophokleische Studien’, Philologus 4, 645–72 Schwyzer, E. (1922) ‘Deutungsversuche griechischer, besonders homerischer Wörter’, Glotta 12, 8–29 Scodel, R. (2001) ‘Poetic Authority and Oral Tradition in Hesiod and Pindar’, in J. Watson (ed.) Speaking Volumes. Orality and Literacy in the Greek and Roman World (Leiden, Boston and Cologne), 109–37 Segal, C. (1968) ‘Two Agonistic Problems in Pindar, Nemean 7.70–74 and Pythian 1.42–45’, GRBS 9, 31–45 Severyns, A. (1933) Bacchylide. Essai biographique (Liège) Skulsky, S. D. (1975) ‘Πολλῶν πείρατα συντανύσαις. Language and Meaning in Pythian 1’, CPh 40, 8–31 Slater, W. H. (1969) ‘Futures in Pindar’, CQ n.s. 19, 86–94 Slater, W. H. (1981) ‘Peace, the Symposium and the Poet’, ICS 6, 206–14 Sommerstein, A. H. (1996) (ed.) Aristophanes. Frogs (Warminster) Spelman, H. L. (2018) Pindar and the Poetics of Permanence (Oxford) Stanford, W. B. (1939) Ambiguity in Greek Literature. Studies in Theory and Practice (Oxford) Stanford, W. B. (1967) The Sound of Greek. Studies in the Greek Theory and Practice of Euphony (Berkeley and Los Angeles) Stone, W. A. (1935) ‘Notes on Pindar’, CR 49, 123–5 Strauss Clay, J. (1999) ‘Pindar’s Sympotic “Epinicia”’, QUCC n.s. 62, 25–34 Thatcher, M. (2019) ‘Aeschylus’ Aetnaeans, the Palici and Cultural Politics in Deinomenid Sicily’, JHS 139, 67–82 Thomas, O. R. H. (2020) (ed.) The Homeric Hymn to Hermes (Cambridge) Thummer, E. (1957) Die Religiosität Pindars (Innsbruck) Thummer, E. (1968–9) (ed.) Pindar. Die Isthmischen Gedichte. Textkritisch herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert, mit einer Analyse der pindarischen Epinikien, 2 vols. (Heidelberg) Tsagalis, C. (2013) ‘Typhon and Eumelus’ Titanomachy’, TC 5, 19–48 Tuplin, C. (1994) ‘Persians as Medes’, in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt and M. Cool Root (eds.), Achaemenid History VIII. Continuity and Change. Proceedings of the Last Achaemenid History Workshop April 6–8, 1990 – Ann Arbor, Michigan (Leiden), 235–56 Turyn, A. (1932) De codicibus Pindaricis (Cracow) Ucciardello, G. (2012) ‘Ancient Readers of Pindar’s Epinicians in Egypt. Evidence from Papyri’, in Agócs, Carey and Rawles (2012b) (eds.), 105–40 Verdenius, W. J. (1987–8) Commentaries on Pindar, 2 vols. (Leiden) Verdier, C. (1972) Les éolismes non-épiques de la langue de Pindare (Innsbruck) Wackernagel, J. (1907) ‘Hellenistica’, Programm zur akademischen Preisverleihung, Göttingen, 3–27 (= Wackernagel 1953: 1034–58) Wackernagel, J. (1953) Kleine Schriften, vol. 2 (Göttingen)

Secondary Literature 


Wakker, G. (1997) ‘Emphasis and Affirmation. Some Aspects of μήν in Tragedy’, in A. Rijksbaron (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles (Amsterdam), 209–31 Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics (Oxford) Welcker, F. G. (1824) Die Aeschylische Trilogie Prometheus und die Kabirenweihe zu Lemnos nebst Winken über die Trilogie des Aeschylus überhaupt (Darmstadt) West, M. L. (1966) (ed.) Hesiod. Theogony (Oxford) West, M. L. (1970) ‘Melica’, CQ n.s. 20, 205–15 West, M. L. (1978) (ed.) Hesiod. Works and Days (Oxford) West, M. L. (1981) ‘The Singing of Homer and the Modes of Early Greek Music’, JHS 101, 113–29 (~ West 2011–13: I 128–40) West, M. L. (1992) Ancient Greek Music (Oxford) West, M. L. (1997) The East Face of Helicon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford) West, M. L. (1998) (ed.) Aeschyli Tragoediae cum incerti poetae Prometheo, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart and Leipzig) West, M. L. (1998–2000) (ed.) Homerus. Ilias (Stuttgart, Leipzig and Munich) West, M. L. (1999) ‘The Invention of Homer’, CQ n.s. 49, 364–82 (= West 2011–13: I 408–36) West, M. L. (2001) Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (Munich and Leipzig) West, M. L. (2007) Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford) West, M. L. (2011–13) Hellenica. Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought, 3 vols. (Oxford) West, M. L. (2013) The Epic Cycle. A Commentary on the Lost Troy Epics (Oxford) Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1889) Einleitung in die attische Tragödie (Berlin) Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (11889, 21895) (ed.) Euripides. Herakles, 2 vols. (Berlin) Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1901) ‘Hieron und Pindaros’, SPAW 1901.2, 1273–1318 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1922), Pindaros (Berlin) Wilkinson, C. L. (2013) (ed.) The Lyric of Ibycus. Introduction, Text and Commentary (Berlin and Boston) Witzel, M. (2003). ‘Vedas and Upaniṣads’, in G. D. Flood (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Malden, MA), 68–101 Woodbury, L. (1985) ‘Ibycus and Polycrates’, Phoenix 39, 193–220 Young, David C. (1968) Three Odes of Pindar. A Literary Study of Pythian 11, Pythian 3, and Olympian 7 (Leiden) Young, Douglas C. C. (1965) ‘Some Types of Scribal Error in Manuscripts of Pindar’, GRBS 6, 247–73 (repr. in Calder and Stern 1970: 96–126)


I General Index address 23–4, 85 – see also self-address; invocation; prayer(s) Aeschylus 18, 25, 149–50 – Aitn(ai)ai 25, 26–8 – Persai 25, 28–9, 37, 177, 180, 181–2 Aitna (city) 3, 4–6, 10, 14–16, 17–18 – coinage 4, 9–10, 14, 91 – Dorian population 5, 9, 10, 26, 163–4, 167, 173 – see also Dorian migration; Sparta, Spartans – foundation 3, 9–10, 11–12, 14, 25, 27, 36–7, 135 – see also Hieron, city-founder (oikist) – poetry for 18–28 – premiere of Pythian 1 in 12–14, 34, 124, 125–6, 165, 202 – see also Chromios, regent of Aitna; Katane (Catania) Aitna (volcano), see Etna, Mt. Aitnaia (festival) 9, 13–14, 34 (with n. 114), 124 Aldine 51 n. 166, 63–4, 65 n. 207 Amyklai 167, 168 – see also Dorian migration; Herakleidai; Sparta, Spartans Anaxilas of Rhegion 8 n. 13, 34, 150, 152 Ancient Near East 92, 102, 189 n. 44 – divine gold 86 – eagle 94 – pillar(s) of the sky 112 – sleeping war-god 98 – wisdom literature 192 – see also Indo-European, mythology; Typhos, Near-Eastern parallels Apollo 17, 132–3, 199, 212 – god of bow 101 – god of lyre 86–7, 101 – god of Pythian Games 4, 123, 133 – leader of Muses (Μουσαγέτας) 4, 30–1, 83, 84, 86, 88, 97 Ares 27–8, 83, 84, 85, 91, 97–8, 99 (tris) Aristophanes of Byzantium 38, 45 n. 142, 46 Arkesilaos of Kyrene 198, 205 athletics 16 (with n. 44) – javelin-throwing 137–9, 141–2 Bacchylides 18, 19–22, 35, 87–8, 95, 128, 137, 142, 150, 173, 192, 199, 209, 211–12

Callierges 50, 56, 64–5, 100, 142, 196, 206 chorus 5, 30–2, 34, 216 Chromios 8 n. 14, 13–14, 16 n. 44, 17, 84, 143, 151 – regent of Aitna 9, 18 n. 51, 163 closure, false 6–7, 100, 132, 193–4 Croesus 17, 188–9, 192–3, 199, 210–13, 216 – see also Phalaris dānastuti 186 – see also gift-exchange; Rigveda; Vedic dance 31 (with n. 103), 32 n. 105, 89, 97 Deinomenes – the Elder 6, 8, 145 – the Younger 5, 6, 8 n. 13, 9, 10, 13, 15, 135, 159–60, 162, 163, 175, 191, 192, 198, 204 Deinomenids 8, 9, 14–15, 24–5, 27 n. 86, 147, 159–60, 184–5, 185–6, 191 – fall of 10, 34 (with n. 114), 137 n. 18 – heredetary monarchy 15, 160, 163, 164, 172 – priests of Demeter and Persephone 23, 25 n. 78, 124–5 – victory dedications 177, 190, 199, 205 – see also Deinomenes; Gelon; Hieron; Polyzalos; Thrasyboulos Didymus 13–14, 24 n. 73, 61, 121, 125 n. 17, 212 digamma – ignored 133 – observed 87, 119 (with n. 13) Dioskouroi 169–70, 171 – see also Sparta, Spartans Dorian migration 5, 9, 17, 36–7, 163–4, 168, 169 – see also Aitna (city), Dorian population; Amyklai; Herakleidai eagle 4, 14, 83, 91, 93–5, 96, 122 Emmenids 8, 160 enkōmion 20–2, 126, 162, 191 n. 45, 211 envy, see phthonos epinician 84, 142 – after Pindar 35 n. 119, 199, 218 n. 55 – first performance 30, 31–2 – see also Pythian 1, first performance



– reperformance 30–1, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45–6 – see also Pythian 1, reperformance; symposium, sympotic – tropes 14, 20 n. 57, 37, 127, 131–2, 157–8, 192–3, 198–9, 206, 214, 217 – see also dānastuti; gift-exchange; Indo-European, poetic imagery and phraseology; style, metaphor – see also Indo-European, praise poetry Etna, Mt. 13, 17, 112–13 – and Hephaestus 25, 27, 114, 117–18, 202 (with n. 50), 213 – eruption 4, 5, 9, 10 n. 21 (cont.), 36, 103–4, 106 (with n. 10), 114, 115–18, 120, 178 – fertility 122, 124–5 – Typhos’ prison 5, 36, 83, 103, 111–12, 120–1, 178, 211, 214 Eustathius 46–7, 63 (with n. 199) Gela 8–9 Gelon 8–9, 10, 14–15, 16, 24, 25 n. 78, 144–5, 176, 177, 178, 189–90 Germanos 53 gift-exchange 161–2, 186–7, 191 – see also dānastuti; Rigveda; Vedic gnōme 33, 35, 46, 129, 130–1, 135, 136, 192, 216–17 Hephaestus, see Etna, Mt. Herakleidai 163–4, 167, 168, 169 – see also Dorian migration Hieron – city-founder (oikist) 10, 15, 21, 23–4, 26, 34 n. 114, 122, 126–7, 165 – see also Aitna (city), foundation – ‘good ruler’ 27, 192–3, 198–200, 201–2 – see also Croesus – illness 5, 10 (with n. 24), 14, 36, 135, 142–4, 146, 149, 150, 158 – see also Philoctetes – military achievements 3–4, 6, 8–9, 10, 12, 14–15, 16, 83, 144–5, 150–1, 152, 177–8, 184–5, 189–90 – see also Himera, battle of; Kyme, battle of – priest of Zeus Aitnaios 9, 23 – see also Deinomenids, priests of Demeter and Persephone

– victor – Olympic 12, 17, 19, 20, 130, 134, 148–9 – Pythian 11 n. 27, 12 (with n. 32), 19, 20, 122–3, 125–6, 173 Himera 8 n. 15, 11 – battle of 3–4, 8–9, 14, 16, 37, 144–5, 148–9, 176–7, 178–9, 184–5, 189–91 – see also Kyme, battle of; Persian Wars; Plataea, battle of; Salamis, battle of hymnic elements 83–4, 89, 123, 132–3 Indo-European – mythology – divine gold 86 – divine twins 169–70 – pillar(s) of the sky 112 – sky-god 91 – storm-god killing serpent 105 – poetic imagery and phraseology – broad earth 103 n. 5 – chariot of song 138 n. 19 – see also Muse(s), chariot of – famed name 110, 132 – find glory 147 – find song 162–3 – imperishable fame 3, 16–17, 30, 37, 198, 199, 205, 209–10, 211–12, 218 – poesy as metal-working 202 – poesy as weaving 195, 196 n. 48 – poet as archer 101, 138 – praise poetry 30 – see also dānastuti; gift-exchange; Rigveda; Vedic invocation – to gods 4, 5, 17, 123 (bis), 132–3, 144, 172, 178–9 – to lyre 33, 85, 215 – to Muse(s) 85–6, 135, 159–60 – see also address; prayer(s) Kalliergēs, Zacharias, see Callierges Katane (Catania) 3, 5, 9, 10, 172 – see also Aitna (city) Kyme 17, 83, 110–11, 152, 178 – battle of 3–4, 10, 14, 16, 37, 150–1, 152, 176–8, 179, 181–2, 184–5, 191, 201

General Index 

– see also Himera, battle of; Persian Wars; Plataea, battle of; Salamis, battle of language – Aeolic forms -α (gen. sg. m.) 102, 151, 172, 190; -αις (aor. part. act. nom. sg. m.) 49, 54, 60, 93, 142, 191, 196, 205, 206; -αο (gen. sg. m.) 151–2; Μοῖσα 87–8; -οισα (pres. part. act. f.) 122; -οισι(ν) (3rd pers. pl. act.) 116 – deictics 13, 123–4, 139, 165 – Doric forms -α (gen. sg. m.) 102, 151, 172, 190; ἁγ- 59, 90, 174–5; ἀμερ- 115–16; ἁμερ- 180–1; ἀμευσ- 142; -ᾶν (gen. pl. f.) 87, 187; γλεφ- 49, 60, 95; κλαϊθρ- 95–6; κοιναν- 215; νιν 49, 60, 128, 131, 153, 215; -οντι (3rd pers. pl. act.) 116, 166–7; ὀνυμ- 132; σκαπτ- 93; τεθμ- 167; -τήρ 126–7, 159, 174–5, 213; τίν 123, 173–4 – epicisms 16 n. 45, 94, 118–19, 151, 182, 183, 189 – middle for passive 97 – passive for middle aorist 152 lyre 21, 36, 83, 213 – of Apollo 5, 7, 30–1, 33, 83–4, 85–6, 91, 97, 101, 213, 215 – see also invocation, to lyre; phorminx Magister, Thomas 54, 55 manuscripts – abbreviated recension 48, 60 n. 192 – Ambrosian branch 47, 61 – complete recension 48 – errors (real or alleged) – assimilation 130, 180 – confusion of letters ι / ν 147 n. 23; λλ / β 155; ο / σ 146; -ου / -ω 134; σ / γ 97; υ / ν / κ 190, 207 – confusion of forms and words δεκ- / δεχ- 216; καί / κἀν 130; κειν- / κλειν- 165; μιν / νιν 60, 128, 153, 215; ὀνυμ- / ὀνομ- 132; πάρ / παρά 161, 190 – dittography 166–7 – ephelcystic ν added or omitted 56, 57 n. 187, 58, 67, 167 – haplography 128 (bis), 131, 176 – hyperdorism 49, 54, 180–1 – interpolation 45–6 (with n. 142), 61


– gloss 119, 187, 188, 206 – proper name 159 – τε 175 – inverse normalisation 206 – iotacism 106, 120, 161, 174–5 – normalisation 52, 106, 116, 133, 142, 184, 200, 209, 215 – scriptio plena 133 – word-division 167 – individual manuscripts – A (Ambr. C 222 inf.) 47, 61 – Å (Athous Iberorum 161) 50–1 – B (Vat. gr. 1312) 48, 64 – C (Par. gr. 2774) 48–50, 54, 55, 64–5, 206 – D (Laur. plut. 32.52) 48 – E (Laur. plut. 32.37) 50–1 – F (Laur. plut. 32.33) 50–1 – G (Gotting. philol. 29) 48, 51–2 – H (Vat. gr. 41) 51, 55, 64 – Ị (Marc. gr. 465) 51 – L (Vat. gr. 902) 50 – P (Palat. gr. 40) 51, 52, 55 – Q (Laur. plut. 32.35) 51, 52, 55 – T (Vat. gr. 121) 51, 52, 53 – U (Vindob. hist. gr. 130) 51, 52, 53–4 – V (Par. gr. 2403) 51, 52, 53–4, 55, 64, 206 – Vi (Vindob. suppl. gr. 64) 48, 51, 52–3, 206 – X (Par. gr. 2774) 64–5 – Y (Marc. gr. 475) 57 – prosodical annotation 51–2 – school-texts 47 n. 149, 52–3, 59–60 – see also Pindar, school author; schools – Vatican branch 48, 61 maxim, see gnōme metre – colometry 38–9, 46, 53, 58 – dactylo-epitrite – contraction 100 – ‘link-anceps’ 40 – omitted 41–2, 43, 44 – replaced by double-short 42, 208 – word-end before or after 42 – resolution 40 n. 131, 41, 42, 44, 208 – spondee, verse-final or -initial 41, 43



– diaeresis 102 – period(s) 39–40, 58, 167 – unusual length of 41, 43 – period-end 39, 41–2 – responsion 40 n. 131, 42, 54 – freedom of 38, 154, 158 – see also prosody Moschopoulos, Manuel 49, 55, 56–7 Muse(s) 5, 83–5, 88, 89, 91, 97, 100, 102, 103, 192 n. 46 – chariot of 161 – mercenary 24 n. 75, 186 – see also invocation, to Muse(s) music 4 n. 4, 15, 31, 44, 83–5, 89 – power of 83, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97–8, 101, 105 – symbol of harmony 5, 6, 7, 15, 83, 175–6 Musurus, Marcus 51, 64 Olympian Games 48, 139, 199, 218 n. 55 – victory list 11, 125 papyri 38, 46, 48, 59–60, 87, 93, 95, 115–16, 155 – Π1 (P. Rain. 1.23 = P. Vindob. inv. G 29817) 59–60, 61 – Π2 (P. Oxy. 5039) 60, 128 Persian Wars 16, 25, 37, 151, 164, 166, 176–7, 181–5, 188–9, 191 – see also Aeschylus, Persai; Himera, battle of; Kyme, battle of; Plataea, battle of; Salamis, battle of Phalaris 5, 17, 31, 192 n. 46, 193, 202, 204, 205, 207, 210–11, 212–14, 216, 218 – see also Croesus Philoctetes 6, 16, 36, 135, 142–3, 149–51, 152, 153–4, 156, 157, 158, 184 phthonos 7, 14, 123, 130, 193, 196, 198 (bis), 199–200, 211 Pindar – chorēgos 32–3, 83 – school author 47, 48, 56, 63–4 – see also manuscripts, school-texts; schools Pithekoussai (Ischia) 103–4, 110–11 Planudes, Maximus 48–9 (with n. 157), 54, 55, 56

Plataea, battle of 16, 37, 145, 176–7, 184–5 – see also Himera, battle of; Kyme, battle of; Persian Wars; Salamis, battle of; Simonides, Plataea Elegy Polyzalos 8 (with n. 13), 189–90 phorminx 5, 21 n. 61, 86–7, 215 – see also lyre prayer(s) 17–18 (with n. 51), 26, 84, 122–4, 132–3, 135, 142, 143–4, 150, 157–8, 171–2, 176, 178–9 – structural function 4–6 – see also Pythian 1, structure; ring-­ composition – see also address; invocation prosody – correption 155 (with n. 32) – synizesis 60, 158–9 – see also metre Pseudo-Moschopoulos 56–9, 64, 67, 90, 119 (with n. 13), 130, 131, 206, 208 Pythian 1 – date 11 – first performance 11–14, 30–1, 32–3, 98, 124, 165, 202 – see also epinician, first performance – historical background 8–11, 14–15 – reception in antiquity 30, 33, 36, 67, 85, 106, 178, 192 n. 46 – reperformance 31, 33–4, 35–7, 177, 211, 213, 216 – see also epinician, reperformance; symposium, sympotic – strategy of praise 14–18, 31 n. 96, 34, 122–3, 149, 164, 177, 193 – structure 3–7, 150–1, 176, 213 – see also prayer(s), structural function; ring-composition Pythian Games 4, 48 – victory list 11 – see also Apollo, god of Pythian Games Rigveda 32 n. 105, 36 n. 143, 101, 147 – see also Indo-European; Vedic ring-composition 3, 5–6, 123, 135, 142–3, 160, 168, 191, 215 – see also prayer(s), structural function; Pythian 1, structure

General Index 

Salamis, battle of 16, 37, 145, 176–7, 180, 181–2, 184–5 – see also Aeschylus, Persai; Himera, battle of; Kyme, battle of; Persian Wars; Plataea, battle of schools 45 (with n. 140), 57 n. 184, 90 – see also manuscripts, school-texts; Pindar, school author scholia 39, 46, 47, 59, 60–2, 64 – metrical 38, 39 self-address 193 – see also address Simonides 18, 24–5, 33, 35, 128, 186 – and Hieron 24–5 (with n. 73) – see also Xenophon, Hieron – Plataea Elegy 25, 37, 151, 164, 171, 177, 182 – see also Aeschylus, Persai; Plataea, battle of Sparta, Spartans 15, 18, 37, 164, 167, 171, 172, 177, 184–5, 186–7 – see also Aitna (city); Amyklai; Dioskouroi; Dorian migration; Simonides, Plataea Elegy stanza(s) / strophe(s) 43 – no sense-pause between 4 (with n. 4), 128 – see also triad(s) style – alliteration 116 – asyndeton, asyndetic 198, – explanatory 174, 202, 203 – transitional 123, 179 – Behaghel’s Law of Increasing Terms 115, 132 – see also rising tricolon – chiasm 115, 146, 151, 156, 176–7, 217 – enjambment 126, 128, 168 – isometric echoes 44 n. 137, 122, 140, 197, 198, 204 – metaphor – building 165–6 – geographical feature as body part 125 – poet as athlete 135, 137–8, 139, 140 – ship of state 129, 201, 206 – tongue as arrow or javelin 137–8, 140–2, 201–2 – see also Indo-European, poetic imagery and phraseology – parallelism 175, 176–7, 203


– priamel 21, 176, 184–5, 187–8, 216–17, 218 – res ponitur pro defectu rei 180 – rising tricolon 184–5 – see also Behaghel’s Law of Increasing Terms – ‘whole-and-part’ construction (σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος) 94 – zeugma 134 superlative vaunt 21, 145 symposium, sympotic 5, 16–17, 20–1 (with n. 61), 31, 33–4, 35, 36 (with n. 121), 45 n. 140, 193, 210–11, 214, 215–16 Syracuse, Syracusans 8–9, 10, 11 n. 25, 14, 15, 26, 28–9, 125–6, 134, 163 – premiere of Pythian 1 in 12–13, 34 – see also Aitna (city), premiere of Pythian 1 in; Deinomenids; Hieron Tartaros 83, 107, 108 Thrasyboulos 8, 10, 189–90 Thrasydaios of Akragas 8 (with n. 15), 11, 14, 150–1, 152 Theron of Akragas 8 (with n. 13), 19 (with n. 55), 24 n. 73, 32, 134, 143, 145 (with n. 22), 150, 152, 199 n. 49 Timaeus 9 n. 18, 10, 24 n. 73, 212 triad(s) 3, 40 (with n. 131) – no sense-pause between 4 (with n. 4), 113, 165 – see also stanza(s) / strophe(s) Triclinius, Demetrius 54–6, 57, 58–9, 64, 67, 93, 119 (with n. 13), 128, 161, 176, 206 Trojan War 16, 149–51, 182 Tyndaridai, see Dioskouroi Typhos – and Cilicia 105, 109, 113, 211 – forms of name 108 – Near-Eastern parallels 105 (with n. 9) – number of heads 108–9, 118 – see also Etna, Mt., Typhos’ prison; Tartaros Vedic 91, 99, 105, 110, 117, 124, 161, 162–3, 170, 186, 196 – see also Indo-European; Rigveda writing, use of 30 n. 96, 45–6 Xenophon, Hieron 10 n. 24, 24 n. 73, 193



Zeus 17, 26–7, 84–5, 103–5, 169, 173, 199, 212 – Aitnaios 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 n. 38, 27, 91, 112, 113, 122, 124, – see also Aitna, coinage; Aitnaia (festival)

– Eleutherios 11 (with n. 26) – patron of kings 4 n. 8, 173 – τέλειος 4, 13, 172, 173–4, 193 – see also Indo-European, mythology, sky-god

II Index Of Passages (a) Greek and Latin Achilles Tatius 8.9.5: 201–2 Aelian VH 4.15: 10 n. 24 Aeschylus Ag. 31: 90 721: 180, 181 819–20: 116 829: 90 891–3: 97 1216: 90 1601: 88 Pers. 278–9: 183 386–432: 181–2 386: 170 402–5: 184 406–7: 180 426–7: 182 Sept. 5–7: 90 493: 109 Suppl. 626: 161 fr. 25a TrGF (Glaucus): 190 frr. 249–57 TrGF (Philoctetes): 149–50 281a, b TrGF (inc. fab.): 27–8 (with n. 90) [Aeschylus] PV 109–10: 114

348–50: 112 351–72: 33, 91, 106 351–2: 109 352: 118 353–4: 108 353: 109 354: 108 (bis) 359: 91 363–5: 108 365: 112 366–7: 118, 121, 202 n. 50 367–8: 114 369: 124 370–1: 114 [Aeschylus], scholia on (Herington) PV 367a: 104 368: 104 Alcaeus (Voigt) fr. 48.15: 152 59a.3: 203 249.6–9: 35 400: 217 402: 149 Alcman (PMGF) fr. 1.4: 98 1.37–9: 192 3.73–4: 201 3 fr. 11.4: 142 34.11–12: 170 39: 162 41: 217 98: 107

Index Of Passages 

Anacreon (PMG) fr. 443: 121 ‘Anonymus’ (FGE) Ep. 70.5: 117 ‘Anyte’ (HE) Ep. 23: 98 ‘Apollodorus’ 1.6.3: 105 (with n. 9), 109 3.27: 149 5.8: 149, 154 Archilochus (IEG2) fr. 105: 129 106: 129 107: 113 179: 197 261: 149 Aristophanes Av. 915–48: 23, 33 Eccl. 582: 197 Eq. 197: 95 Nub. 336: 108 964–8: 45 n. 140 1354–8: 33, 36 Pax 698–9: 186 1265–1301: 216 Ran. 1296–7: 195 Thesm. 123–7: 89 315: 86 (bis) 327–9: 33, 86 675: 124 953–1000: 32 n. 105 966–8: 89 997–8: 121 fr. 235 PCG: 35 n. 116


Aristotle Pol. 1313b11–15: 11 n. 15 Rh. 1367b37–1368a1: 192, 204 fr. 486 Rose: 143 587 Rose: 143 frr. 615–17 Rose: 11 Aristoxenus fr. 76 Wehrli: 45 n. 140 Arrian An. 1.9.10: 191 n. 45 Athenaeus 180e: 59, 63, 90 Bacchylides 3: 17, 20, 130, 211–12 3.5–6: 89 3.7–14: 144 3.10–21: 199 3.11–12: 175 3.11–14: 145 3.17–21: 177 3.23–62: 199, 211 3.58–62: 212 3.59–60: 212 3.63–6: 145, 199 3.63–98: 198 3.67–71: 199 3.70–1: 201 3.71: 15 n. 41 3.92–4: 144, 148 3.94–8: 217 3.96–8: 30 n. 95, 35, 208 4: 12 (with nn. 31, 32), 19, 20 (with n. 20), 27, 125 4.1–2: 134 4.1–3: 15, 173 4.3: 175 4.4–6: 12 n. 31 4.4–18: 21–2 4.7–8: 19 4.11–13: 175



4.13: 19 4.16–18: 145 4.18–20: 19, 217 5.1–2: 201 (bis) 5.3–4: 87 5.3–6: 15 n. 41 5.6: 201 5.6–16: 84 5.31–6: 148, 179, 190 5.35–6: 19, 148 5.36: 157, 158 (bis) 5.187–90: 199 5.199–200: 179 8.22–5: 21 (with n. 63) 9.78–87: 208 10.13–14: 209 11.119: 190 11.120–2: 156 13.199–203: 196, 199 15.57–61: 207 20.4: 140 fr. 5: 162 14.2: 209 20B.1–3: 85 20B.24: 21 n. 64 20C: 20–2, 211 20C.1–2: 21 20C.4: 21–2 20C.7: 21, 126 20C.7–11: 21–2 20C.19–20: 21, 136 20C.21–4: 21 (with n. 63), 145 20C.22: 170 20E.16: 92 23: 150 dub. 60.20: 152 Batrachomyomachia 294: 95 (bis) Callimachus Aet. fr. 1.36 Pf. = Harder: 106 46 Pf. = Harder: 212 Del. 141–3: 106, 120

fr. 222 Pf.: 186 frr. 254–69 SH: 35 n. 119 Carmina convivalia (PMG) fr. 891: 35 900: 36 n. 121 Carmina popularia (PMG) fr. 955.4: 140 Cicero Att. 7.20: 212 8.16.2: 212 De Or. 3.121: 202 Fin. 1.1: 86 Collectanea Alexandrina 133: 180 n. 42 160.9: 158 n. 33 Diagoras (PMG) fr. 738 (2): 35 n. 119 Dio Chrysostom Or. 2.28–9: 191–2 52: 150 n. 27 52.14: 154 (with n. 29) Diodorus Siculus 11.20: 177 11.20–2: 10, 190 11.20–6: 8 11.24: 177 n. 41 11.26: 148, 177 11.49: 9, 10, 126 11.51: 10 (bis), 150, 151, 152 11.53: 8, 150, 152 11.66: 126 11.66–8: 10 11.67–8: 10 11.76: 10 11.91: 10

Index Of Passages 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus De comp. verb. 22.17: 38 n. 125 26.14: 38 n. 125 Ephorus (FGrH) 70 F 186: 177 Epic Cycle (GEF) Cypria Arg. p. 76 (9): 149 Ilias Parva Arg. pp. 120–2 (2): 149 p. 120 (2): 154, 157 p. 122 (3): 149 n. 26 Epicharmus (PCG) frr. 131–2 (Philoctetas): 150 Etymologicum Genuinum s.v. κηληθμός (p. 33 Calame): 49, 63, 93 Eupolis (PCG) fr. 148.1–2: 33 n. 110 398: 33 n. 110 Euripides Cyc. 599: 118 Hec. 1077–8: 180 n. 42 Hel. 1323–4: 33, 113 Her. 637–40: 33, 112 Hipp. 1272–3: 107 IA 1181–2: 214 IT 399–400: 190 Phoen. 802: 33, 113 949–51: 134 1439: 96 Tro. 220–1: 118 220–4: 134 229: 33, 134 (bis) 815: 116 (bis)


fr. 669.3 TrGF (Stheneboea): 182 frr. 787–803 TrGF (Philoctetes): 150 n. 27 fr. 755 PMG:  35 n. 119, 199, 218 n. 55 [Euripides] Rh. 72–3: 33, 122 224–6: 133 927–8: 190 Eustathius in Od. 1480.21 Stallbaum: 59, 63 (with n. 199), 90 Prooem. Pind. 21: 63 (with n. 199), 142 34: 46–7 (with n. 147) Galen π. διαφ. σφυγμῶν 3: 62, 202 Gellius 17.10.8–19: 106 17.10.9: 49, 50, 63 n. 201, 119, 120 Herodian (GG Lentz) II 429.12: 62, 200 (bis) II 946.10: 62, 200 (bis) III.1 43.18–20: 181 III.1 44.10–15: 128 III.1 524.31–525.5: 181 III.1 525.6–16: 128 III.2 9.5–10: 181 III.2 9.19–26: 128 Herodotus 1.1–5: 151 1.24.1: 186 1.50–2: 212 1.54.1: 212 1.86–7: 212 3.38.4: 35 3.52.5: 33, 200 5.75.2: 171 7.153–67: 15 7.155–6: 8 7.156: 9 7.165–6: 8 7.165–7: 189–90



7.166: 177 9.64.1: 145 Hesiod Op. 18–19: 134 Th. 304: 109 304–7: 109 n. 11 310–12: 109 n. 11 312: 109 313–14: 109 n. 11 820–80: 103 821–2: 108 824–5: 108 824–6: 118 834: 119 839–68: 104 859–61: 104 861–7: 118 868: 103, 108 [Hesiod] Sc. 207–8: 107 405: 95 Hesychius (Latte–Cunningham) α 3623: 63 (with n. 199), 142 α 3624: 63 n. 199, 142 Homer Il. 1.53: 100, 101 1.383: 100, 101 1.603–4: 84 2.484: 103 2.716–25: 149 2.718: 155 2.723: 154 2.782–3: 108 (bis), 109 6.357–8: 209 12.15: 156 13.57–8: 183 13.358–60: 195 (bis) 16.428: 94–5 16.510–11: 154 18.415: 111 21.219–20: 116 22.55: 183 23.537–8: 218

Od. 3.188–90: 149 3.190: 155 6.302–3: 155 8.219–20: 149, 155 8.483: 155 8.491: 119–20 12.26–7: 107 19.538: 94, 95 21.404–11: 101 22.145: 206 22.302: 94–5 Homer, scholia on (Erbse) Il. 2.484: 103 2.783: 18 n. 54, 104, 109 24.527–8a: 104 n. 7 24.528a: 104 n. 7 Homeric Hymns h.Ap. 131: 101 179–81: 133 (bis) 181: 133 (bis) 182–206: 84, 133 200–1: 97 300–74: 109 h.Merc. 437: 186 Horace Ars P. 440–1: 202 Carm. 1.11.8: 148 1.12.45–6: 170 1.32.1–4: 85 2.2.8: 208 3.4: 85, 86 3.4.1–4: 86 3.4.37–40: 85 3.4.41–2: 192 n. 46 3.4.42–64: 103 n. 6 3.4.61–4: 133 3.4.65–8: 192 n. 46 3.4.75–6: 117 3.4.76: 103 n. 6

Index Of Passages 

Ibycus (PMGF) fr. S151.23: 102 S151.46–8: 30 nn. 94, 95, 35, 208 S221.4–5: 209 Inscriptions BMus.Inscr. 1012: 117 CEG 2 (lapis A, 1): 183 GDI 4964.1: 142 IG I.3 503/4: 183 V.2 403: 180 (with n. 42) IX.1 334.4: 215 IX.2 59.8–9: 174 XIV.1437.2: 161 SGDI II 1438.8–9: 174 SGO II 09/07/01: 117 Isocrates 15.166: 29 n. 93, 185 [Longinus] De Subl. 35.4: 106 Lucian Anach. 19: 141 21: 141 27: 139 Lucretius 1.29–43: 98 1.722–5: 106, 114 6.639–702: 106 n. 10 Lyrica adespota (PMG) fr. 938c: 90 Macrobius 5.17.8–14: 106 5.17.9: 49 (bis), 50, 63 (bis), 119, 120 Marmor Parium (FGrH) 239 A 52: 104 Nicander Ther. 203: 108

Nonnus D. 1.140–320: 105 1.155: 109 1.362–535: 105 1.409–88: 105 1.510: 109 2.1–712: 105 Oppian Cyn. 4.179: 153 Hal. 3.15–25: 105 Pherecydes (FGrH) 3 F 54: 103–4 Philostratus the Elder Im. 2.17.5: 106 Pindar Ol. 1.1: 86 1.1–2: 115 1.2–6: 115 1.10–11: 144 1.12–13: 124 n. 16, 201 1.13–17: 214 1.14–15: 89 1.14–17: 15 n. 41 1.23: 125 1.35: 197 1.42: 155 1.47: 198 1.93–5: 127 1.97–9: 143 1.97–100: 192 1.99–103: 136 1.103–5: 15 n. 41, 145 1.106–11: 157 1.108–10: 130, 140 2.1: 19, 89 2.18–22: 143, 144 2.22–3: 130–1 2.25–7: 45–6 n. 142 2.53–4: 199 n. 49 2.83–6: 15 n. 41




2.95–8: 194 4.6–7: 34 n. 114, 104, 112, 124, 206 4.16: 176 6: 86 6.1–2: 86 6.6–7: 198 6.54: 107 6.74–6: 196 6.82: 131, 201–2 6.87–92: 32 n. 109 6.93–6: 173 6.94–6: 9 n. 21, 23, 124 6.96: 124 6.96–7: 15 n. 41, 213 6.97: 157, 159 7.1–4: 120 7.27–30: 98 7.53: 170 8.25: 111 9.21–7: 35, 208 9.28–9: 135, 137 (bis) 9.38–9: 209 9.49–53: 115 9.61–79: 36 n. 122 9.98–9: 88 10.71: 139 (bis) 10.91–6: 208 11.4–5: 209 11.10: 135, 136 12.1–2: 11 n. 26, 179 13.24–6: 123 13.47–8: 194 13.93–4: 142 13.93–5: 138, 139 (tris) 14.1–17: 84 (bis) 14.5–7: 135, 137 14.13: 89 14.16–17: 31 n. 103, 131 Pyth. 2.1: 85 2.1–2: 98 2.13–14: 191 (tris) 2.13–16: 214 2.13–17: 173 2.18–20: 16 n. 44, 34 2.56–61: 144

2.58–61: 145 2.63–5: 16 n. 44 2.80: 111 2.83: 123 3.12–13: 203 3.28: 215 3.71: 23 3.80–2: 104 n. 7 3.84–5: 144 3.85: 201 3.110–15: 35, 37 n. 123, 208 3.112–14: 214 3.112–15: 210 4.1–3: 165 4.6: 126 4.7–8: 165 4.44–6: 110 4.67: 139 4.104–5: 207 (bis) 4.130: 115 4.139–40: 207 4.247–8: 194 4.270–6: 198 4.272–6: 173 4.293–7: 176 5.1–23: 198 5.69–72a: 164 5.89–93: 199 5.105–7: 205 7.1–3: 90 8: 83 8.1: 85, 212 8.1–4: 175 8.1–20: 83 8.8–12: 182 8.16: 108 (bis), 109 8.29–31: 214 8.29–32: 194 9.76–9: 194 9.77–8: 198 9.113–14: 154 n. 30 11.41–2: 186 Nem. 1: 13–14, 17, 84 1.6: 124 1.8–12: 136 1.16–18: 16 n. 44, 134

Index Of Passages 

1.31–2: 217 1.32: 217 1.69–72: 143 (bis), 144 1.70: 161 2.1–3: 90 3.11–12: 214, 216 3.59–61: 179–80 4.13–16: 30 n. 95, 31 n. 99 4.39–41: 198 4.44–5: 85 5.50–1: 205 6.29–30: 208, 209 (bis), 210 6.45–6: 208, 210 6.53–61: 136 7: 153 7.35: 156 7.35–6: 153 7.36: 156 7.52–3: 194 7.70–3: 138, 139 7.71: 140 (bis) 8.1–2: 95 9: 17, 18 n. 51 9.2: 126 9.6–7: 130, 199, 200 9.11–12: 127 9.19: 179 9.28–9: 178 9.28–33: 18 n. 51, 130, 165, 176 9.29–30: 166 9.34–43: 16 n. 44 9.39: 170 9.39–42: 151 9.42–7: 143 9.44: 180–1 9.48: 176 9.54–5: 138 (bis), 139 (bis), 142 10.19–20: 194 10.38: 107 11.17–18: 208 Isth. 1.7–10: 31 n. 103 1.9–10: 111 1.14: 139

1.41–5: 204 (bis), 205 1.50–1: 217 1.51: 218 2.6–8: 186 2.6–11: 24 n. 75 2.12–21: 24 (with n. 75) 2.35: 142 2.35–7: 138, 139 2.39–42: 205 2.43–5: 199 2.44–6: 30 n. 95 2.47–8: 32 n. 109 3.1–3: 197 3.4–5: 135, 136 4.29–30: 205 4.37–42: 208 4.40–1: 30 n. 95 4.43–4: 148 (with n. 24) 4.62: 148 (with n. 25) 5.12–15: 217 5.13: 217 5.26–8: 98 5.35–6: 156 6.10–16: 204 7.12–15: 168 7.16–19: 208 9.1–6: 164 9.2–4: 166 Dith. 1.16: 111 2.1: 195 2.6–23a: 84, 84–5 2.7–8: 93 2.9–10: 89 2.15–16: 91 2.15–17: 97, 99 2.15–18: 85 2.22: 101 2.23b–6: 85 Pae. 2.31–4: 175 2.57–8: 170 6: 153 6.92–8: 153 6.94: 157 6.100–4: 153 6.104: 156




fr. 23: 63 (with n. 199), 142 24: 63 n. 199, 142 31: 84 76.2: 29 n. 93, 185 77: 29 n. 93, 166, 184, 185 78: 181 78.1–2: 90 91: 18 n. 54, 105 n. 9, 108 92: 18 n. 54, 104, 105 n. 9, 121 93: 18 n. 54, 105 n. 9 93.1–2: 114 93.2: 108 (bis), 109 93.3: 108, 109 105a, b: 22–4, 33, 34 105a.1: 22, 23, 33 105a.2: 23 105a.2–3: 124–5 105a.3: 21, 23–4, 126 109.1–3: 175–6 127.1–2: 123 141: 135 169a: 35 181: 196 187: 155 n. 32 199.3: 89 dub. 346a.2: 174 Pindar, scholia on (Drachmann) Ol. 1.35c: 125 n. 17 2.1a: 89 2.48c: 38 n. 125, 45 n. 142 6.106a, d, e: 155 n. 31 Pyth. 1 intr.: 11 n. 27 1.34a: 110–11 1.47c: 119, 120 1.56b: 124 1.67: 61, 131 1.69: 61, 131 1.74: 134 (bis), 135 1.86: 142 1.87: 147 1.94: 147 1.98: 152, 153 1.100: 150

1.101a: 62, 155 1.109a–c: 158 1.118c: 163 1.120b: 9 (with n. 18) 1.130a: 171, 172 n. 38 1.132: 171, 172 n. 38 1.142: 184 1.146b: 177 1.149: 61–2, 188 1.152a: 61–2, 188 1.152b: 178 1.153: 190 1.157b, d: 195 1.171: 203 1.172: 203–4 1.176: 206 1.178: 207 1.179a: 208–9 1.185: 212 1.188: 214 (bis) 4.186a: 207 Nem. 1 inscr.: 126 1.7b: 13–14 (with n. 37) 1.49c: 49, 129 104a, b: 180–1 Isth. 2 inscr. a: 24 (with n. 75) 2.9a, b: 24 n. 75, 186 Plato Men. 76d3: 33 Phdr. 236d2: 33 Prt. 325e2–326a4: 45 n. 140 326a6–b6: 45 n. 140 Pliny the Younger Ep. 25: 104 Plutarch De sera 551f–52a: 10 n. 24 De superst. 167c: 63, 106 Non posse suav. vivi 1095e: 63, 106

Index Of Passages 

Quaest. conv. 746b: 63, 106 Them. 15.2: 145 Praxilla (PMG) fr. 748: 159 n. 33 Sappho (Voigt) fr. 42: 93 118: 85 Seneca the Younger Ep. 79.2: 115 79.4: 112 Simonides fr. 16 Poltera: 33 182.3 Poltera: 121 262.6 Poltera: 41 n. 134 279 Poltera: 25, 118, 202 n. 50 spur. 350 Poltera: 24 Plataea Elegy (IEG2) fr. 10: 151 11. 1–20: 151 11.13: 156 11.16: 87 11.25–6: 184 11.25–8: 171 11.29–31: 171 11.29–34: 164 13.8–9: 189 13.9–10: 164 ‘Simonides’ (FGE) Ep. 10: 166, 184 15: 184 15.3–4: 166 16: 184 16.1–2: 166 18: 184 20(a): 184 20(a).3–4: 183 34: 178

46.3: 183 71.3–4: 132 Solon (IEG2) fr. 13.3–4: 217 13.15: 203 Sophocles Ai. 673: 170 Ant. 1236–7: 96 OC 144–5: 217–18 482: 121 1356–7: 134 Tr. 660–2: 180 n. 42 frr. 697–703 TrGF (Philoctetes at Troy):  150 n. 27 Stesichorus (Finglass) fr. 91a.1: 172 173.1–2: 162 183.9: 152 273: 104, 109 Stobaeus 3.10.38: 186 3.38.22: 51, 62, 200 (bis) Strabo 6.2.3: 124 (with n. 16), 126 6.2.8: 112, 121 13.4.6: 18 n. 54, 104, 109 Suda (Adler) σ 440: 186 Tacitus Ann. 3.65: 211 Dial. 20.4: 202 Theocritus 11.47–8: 121 16.82–97: 179 Theognis and Theognidea (IEG2) 47–52: 175 237–52: 211




241–3: 216 255–6: 217 Thucydides 1.1.1: 86 1.21.1: 210 3.116: 104 4.72.1: 162 6.5.3: 9 6.16: 199, 218 n. 55 7.77.4: 200 Timaeus (FGrH) 566 F 28c: 212 566 F 93b: 24 n. 73 Tyrtaeus (IEG2) fr. 2.12: 179 2.12–15: 169

12.21–2: 99 n. 3 17: 155 19.8: 164 Virgil Aen. 1.1: 86 1.342: 196 (with n. 48) 3.570–87: 106 3.575–7: 114 3.581–2: 120 Xenophon Hier. 9–11: 193 Smp. 3.1: 216

(b) Other Erra and Ishum I 15–20: 98 Song of Hedammu CTH 348.I.9: 105 Rigveda 1.91.11: 163 1.92.9: 162–3 1.92.17: 170 1.116.6: 169–70 1.118.9: 169–70

1.119.10: 169–70 1.126: 186 5.30.5: 132 6.27.8: 186 7.18.22–5: 186 7.71.5: 169–70 7.77.3: 170 8.19.12: 162–3 8.46.14: 132 8.93.17: 110 8.101.16: 163 10.39.10: 169–70

III Index Of Greek Words ἀγέρωχος 148–9 ἁγησίχορος 90 ἁγητήρ 174–5 αἰανής 197 αἰέναος 92–3 αἴθων 116 αἰχματάς 91–2 ἁλιερκής 111 ἀμαιμάκετος 107–8

ἀμβολή 90 ἀμέρα 115–16 ἅμερος 180–1 ἀμεύομαι 142 ἀνθέω 170, 204 βαθύδοξος 170 βαθύκολπος 102–3

Index Of Greek Words  γλέφαρα 95 ἐντράπελος 207–8 ἐρεύγομαι 113–14 ἑρπετόν 117–18 εὐανθής 204 – see also ἀνθέω εὐτράπελος 207–8 εὔυδρος 190 ἐφέπω 124 θεόδματος 165–6 ἰαίνω 99 ἰοπλόκαμος 87 κάρυξ 50–1, 54, 55, 59, 128 καυτήρ 213 κελαινῶπις 94 κῆλα 100–1, 102 κλάϊθρον 95–6 κνώσσω 96 κῦδος 127 λόγιος 209–10 μεγαλάνωρ 153 μενοινάω 139–40

μισθός 186–7 μοιρίδιος 157 Μοῖσα 87–8 ναυσίστονος 129, 182 ναυσιφόρητος 129 ὄαρος 216 ὀπιθόμβροτος 208–9 ὀρθωτήρ 158, 159 παραιθύσσω 203 πεῖραρ 195–6 περίγλωσσος 137 ποινά 161–2 προοίμιον 90 σύνδικος 88 συντανύω 196 τόξον 189 ὑπωρόφιος 215 φοίνιξ 50–1, 55 n. 178, 59, 116–17, 181 χαλκοπάραος 140 ὡσείτε 140–1