Two Studies on Pindar: edited by Arlette Neumann-Hartmann [New ed.] 9783034316767, 3034316763, 9783035108828

Citation preview

P

H

E

N

E

I

A

18 The late Bruce Karl Braswell worked on Pindar for decades. Besides many smaller contributions, his research resulted in fundamental commentaries on Pythian Four (1988), Nemean One (1992), and Nemean Nine (1998), and his last monograph, dedicated to Didymos of Alexandria and his ancient commentary on Pindar (2013). Two substantial, self-contained manuscript fragments were found in his papers after his death. Their originality and innovative methodological approach justify their posthumous publication. Part I of the present volume contains the fragment of Braswell’s planned study, A Contribution to the History of Pindaric Scholarship. Using the example of Nemean Nine, Braswell traces

18 Two Studies on Pindar

A

the history of Pindar interpretation from Antiquity to the end of the 16th century. The source

S

A

P

H

E

N

E

I

18

A

Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie

Bruce Karl Braswell

texts for his exegesis appear as an appendix to the study. Part II contains the completed fragment of A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Ten. Alongside

Two Studies on Pindar

the original text and translation of the first two triads of this ode, this section includes a detailed verse-by-verse commentary and the text and translation of the relevant scholia. The commentary on the first triad is supplemented by an extensive appendix on the Argive

edited by Arlette Neumann-Hartmann

legends and monuments reported by Pausanias. In brief introductions, the editor recounts the origins of the manuscripts and their preparation for print.

Dr. Arlette Neumann-Hartmann is a Research Fellow in the Classics Department of the University of Fribourg and Editor for Classical Studies at Schwabe publishing house. Interested in ancient Greek poetry, she has published a monograph on the epinician poetry

Bruce Karl Braswell

S

of Pindar and Bacchylides (Epinikien und ihr Aufführungsrahmen, Hildesheim 2009) and a bibliographical report on Pindar and Bacchylides (1988–2007) for the journal Lustrum: Internationale Forschungsberichte aus dem Bereich des klassischen Altertums (vol. 52, 2010).

P E T E R

www.peterlang.com

L A N G

Two Studies on Pindar

Sapheneia Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie Herausgegeben von David Amherdt, Margarethe Billerbeck, Thomas Schmidt

Band 18

PETER LANG Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien

Bruce Karl Braswell

Two Studies on Pindar edited by Arlette Neumann-Hartmann

PETER LANG Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien

Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at ‹http://dnb.d-nb.de›. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library, Great Britain. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available.

Publié avec l’appui du Fond national Suisse de la recherche scientifique. Printed with the generous support of the „Fonds für Altertumswissenschaften, Zürich“ and the „Institut für Antike und Byzanz, Fribourg“. ISSN 1421-7899 br. ISBN 978-3-0343-1676-7 br.

ISSN 2235-7297 eBook ISBN 978-3-0351-0882-8 eBook

This publication has been peer reviewed. © Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2015 Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................. 7 Part I A Contribution to the History of Pindaric Scholarship The Study and Interpretation of Nemean Nine from Antiquity to the End of the Eighteenth Century............. 9 Part II A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Ten with an Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments..................................................................... 215

Foreword

When B. K. Braswell died of complications from an emergency operation in September 2013 during a summer visit to the Ozarks (NW Arkansas, USA), he left behind two manuscripts he had been working on in the last days before he was brought to the hospital. We only have fragments of the two books he planned to publish, a history of research on Pindar and a commentary on the Tenth Nemean, but they are extensive, complete sections. Braswell often worked on several projects simultaneously, finishing them according to current scholarly interest in the subject or his own personal inspiration. He thus had prioritized the unfinished study A Contribution to the History of Pindaric Scholarship; it indeed was thematically connected to his previously published monograph on Didymos of Alexandria and his ancient commentary on Pindar (2013). Yet Braswell also valued the methodological variety that the other project, A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Ten, offered him, especially the work on the historical-archaeological evidence for the Argive foundation legend. It is thanks to Dr. Arlette Neumann-Hartmann that Braswell’s last contributions are now accessible to the community of Pindar scholars. Intimately familiar with the material from her own scholarly work, after critically examining Braswell’s papers, she found that the originality and innovative methodological approach of the two manuscript fragments more than justified their publication. With diligence, she personally oversaw the task of preparing the text for print, which required her to add some supplements to the text and to harmonize formal aspects throughout. I am sincerely grateful to her, also on behalf of the deceased. Dr. Tanja Ruben lent her energetic support to editorial tasks, and our colleague Dr. David Amherdt took the trouble to cast a critical eye over the neo-Latin texts in the source appendix. The extensive proofreading of the manuscript was undertaken with patience and dedication by Céline Leuenberger, Didier Clerc, and Didier Follin, who are assistants to the Chair for Classical Philology. I am happy to give them all my sincere thanks.

8

Foreword

It is my pleasure to thank the “Fonds für Altertumswissen­schaft, Zürich” and the “Institut für Antike und Byzanz” of our own university for subsidizing the printing costs. We consider the publication of Two Studies on Pindar in the volumes of “Sapheneia” as a posthumous homage to the cofounder of the series and long-time friend of Classical Philology in Fribourg. Fribourg, February 2015

Margarethe Billerbeck

9

I A Contribution to the History of Pindaric Scholarship The Study and Interpretation of Nemean Nine from Antiquity to the End of the Eighteenth Century

Editor’s Note

A history of Pindaric scholarship was a long-term project of Bruce Karl Braswell. As explained in the preface to this study (v. pp. 15f. below), it arose from his Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine, published in 1998, where a full account of the history of interpreta­tion of Nemean Nine would have been beyond the scope of the book. Initially, Braswell envisaged publishing the results of his study in two volumes: one volume on the history of Pindaric scholarship from antiquity to the twentieth century and another consisting of a collection of texts, with translation and commentary, that are particularly important for the study and interpretation of Nemean Nine in the history of Pindaric scholarship. In March 1996 he submitted the project to the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) which subsidized it from 1997 to 2000. At that time he had already been working on the subject for three years and had written a draft of chapters 1 to 11 (“The Scholia Vetera” to “The enarrationes Loniceri”). Thanks to the support of the SNSF, he was able to employ Dr. Simonetta Marchitelli to collect the necessary material and to transcribe and translate the Latin texts intended for the second volume. Several years later, however, Braswell decided to limit his history of Pindaric scholarship to the period from antiquity to the end of the eighteenth century. A sketch of the history of Pindaric scholarship and the interpretation of Nemean Nine since Boeckh already existed, as Braswell explains in his preface (v. pp. 15f. below). The last version of the manuscript we have ends at the beginning of chapter 20 where Braswell discusses Benedictus Aretius’ commentary on Pindar (1587). Apart from chapter 17, which breaks off after a short discussion of Le Sueur’s translation of the first strophe of Nemean Nine, the manuscript appears finished and ready for press. As for the rest of the book, the original table of contents reveals the subjects Braswell intended to discuss: 21. The editio Raphelengi (1590) 22. The editio Aemilii Porti (1598) 23. The editio Pauli Stephani (1599)

12 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

The Pindaricum Lexicum of Emilius Portus (1606) The editio Lectii (1614) The editio Erasmi Schmidii (1616) The editio Benedicti (1620) The editio C. Morelii (1623) The editio Oxoniensis of West and Welsted (1697) The Notae in Pindari Ol., Py., Ne., Is. of J.  C. de Pauw (1747) Mingarelli (1772) Heyne (1773–1774) Beck (1792–1795) Heyne (1798–1799)

The earliest files we have from Braswell’s project date to November 2000. In a file from June 2007, his manuscript extends to chapter 17. Another file dated to December 2012 contains his history of Pindaric scholarship up to chapter 20. In the first half of 2013, Braswell revised the manuscript and began to compile the biblio­graphy. In July 2013, he saved the file containing his history of Pindaric scholarship for the last time. Working jointly on the basis of this file, Céline Leuenberger, Dr. Tanja Ruben, and I completed the bibliography. After discovering Braswell’s original project application, it seemed reasonable to me to add an appendix containing the texts Braswell intended to publish in the second volume of sources. I established the text of document no. 4, the recensio Tricliniana, by consulting the editions of Mommsen (1864) and Braswell (1998). Regarding the texts of the editio Aldina (no. 5) and the editio Romana (no. 6) I opted for a diplomatic transcription. As for the Latin texts (nos. 7–12) I made a selection based on Braswell’s original project for which I could use Dr. Simonetta Marchitelli’s annotated diplomatic transcriptions. All these texts missing in Braswell’s manuscript are marked by an asterisk (*). As in Braswell’s previous publications, Greek authors are normally cited according to the abbreviations used in the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell/Scott/Stuart Jones (Oxford, 1925–1940; Supplement, 1968) and Latin authors according to the index volume of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Munich, 21990). In some cases, notably with Pindar, Braswell uses an extended form for greater clarity (for example, Ol. not O. for Olympians and Py. not P. for Pythians).

13

Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................ 15 The Study and Interpretation of Nemean Nine.................................. 17 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

The Scholia Vetera..................................................................... 17 1.1 Didymos of Alexandria...................................................... 18 1.2 The Anonymous Scholia..................................................... 20 1.3 The Ancient Metrical Scholia............................................. 30 From Alexandria to Byzantium.................................................. 33 Demetrios Triklinios.................................................................. 34 From Thessalonike to Venice..................................................... 39 The editio Aldina (1513)............................................................. 42 The editio Romana (1515).......................................................... 48 The praefatio of Stefano Negri (1521)........................................ 56 Over the Alps.............................................................................. 61 The editio Basileensis (1526)..................................................... 63 The interpretatio Loniceri (1528)............................................... 71 The enarrationes Loniceri (1535).............................................. 80 The editio Brubacchii (1542)..................................................... 96 The Aristologia Pindarica of Michael Neander (1556).............. 97 The editio Moreliana (1558)....................................................... 102 The interpretatio Philippi (1558)................................................ 104 The editio prima Stephani (1560).............................................. 106 The interpretatio and commentarius in Nemea Sudorii (1582)............................................................. 108 The commentarii Francisci Porti (1583).................................... 110 The editio tertia Stephani (1586)............................................... 112 The commentarii Aretii (1587)................................................... 113

14

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

*Appendix: Documents for the Study and Interpretation of Nemean Nine ................................................................................. 114 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine.................................. 114 The Vita Pindari of the Souda........................................... 126 The Vita Thomana.............................................................. 127 The recensio Tricliniana.................................................... 129 The editio Aldina................................................................133 The editio Romana............................................................. 137 The praefatio of Stefano Negri........................................... 141 The first epistola of Huldrych Zwingli (editio Basileensis).............................................................. 150 The interpretatio Loniceri.................................................. 155 The enarrationes Loniceri................................................. 159 The Aristologia of Michael Neander.................................. 180 The interpretatio Philippi................................................... 192

Bibliography.......................................................................................199

15

Preface

The systematic study and interpretation of Pindar’s poetry began less than two centuries after his death. Although none of the special works devoted to him in antiquity has survived in its original form, the extensive scholia vetera to the odes supplemented by occasional papyrus finds provide enough evidence to allow us some insight into the activities of the ancient Pindaric scholars. These established a tradition which, despite all vicissitudes of fortune, has continued to present day. The scholia supplied an important aid to the Greek scholars of the Palaeologan revival and, to an even greater extent, to the first Latin interpreters of Pindar in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. They remain in fact an invaluable guide to Pindaric interpretation which later students have often neglected much to their own loss. Similarly, few Pindarists seem to be aware that the first modern century of Pindaric scholarship from Aldus (1513) to Benedictus (1620) not only established the vulgate tradition of the text, but also provided the intellectual framework within which the poet has been subsequently read and judged. Just as the educational programmes of the reformers Zwingli and Melanchthon have left their mark on the basic direction of Pindaric studies, so too have the commentaries of Lonicer, Franciscus Portus, Aretius, Erasmus Schmid, and Benedictus supplied the fundamental stock of knowledge and many of the important lines of interpretation which, with the upsurge of interest in the poet in the age of romantic Hellenism, served as a point of departure for Boeckh and Dissen as well as Heyne and Hermann. With the nineteenth century the main lines of Pindaric interpretation become more familiar, although the technical details often remain unnoticed. The twentieth century, especially the second half, produced a plethora of studies which would daunt even the most intrepid attempt at close analysis of the whole. A history of Pindaric scholarship thus presents itself both as a challenge promising considerable reward and as an intimidating reminder of the inevitable limitations imposed by time and circumstance. In the course of preparing my commentary on the Ninth Nemean (1998) I was repeatedly reminded of the intrinsic interest of much of the

16

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

work of my predecessors which at best could only be mentioned sporadically. A systematic account of it would have gone far beyond what the introduction to that volume could accommodate, where however I did attempt to sketch the principal aids to the understanding of the ode published since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Since a full-scale history of Pindaric scholarship is likely to remain a desideratum for the indefinite future which, if ever achieved, could only be produced by the collective enterprise of many scholars, I resolved to take the Ninth Nemean as the basis for an enquiry into the editorial techniques and exegetical practice of Pindarists from antiquity to the end of the early modern period. Restriction to a single representative ode which has received the attention of most of the major works of Pindaric scholarship in the past but which has not been excessively overlaid with recent literary approaches was a natural dictate of reason. Likewise, the decision not to follow the study of the ode beyond the end of the eighteenth century was a logical correlate, since the history of Pindaric scholarship since Boeckh has been admirably outlined by David C. Young (1970), and in the preface to my commentary on the Ninth Nemean I have sketched (pp. VIII–XIV) the main lines of interpretation of the ode which have been followed since the epoch-making commentary of Boeckh and Dissen (1811–1821/22). Although the account which follows concentrates on the technical details of text constitution and interpretation, I have tried to place each contribution in its historical and cultural context. While the present work is designed in the first instance to complement my commentary on Nemean Nine, it is hoped that it may not only prove a welcome contribution to the history of Pindaric scholarship but also open new perspectives for future research. It is with pleasure that I acknowledge the generous support provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation which has greatly aided the realization of the project. In particular, I am much indebted to the participation of Dr. Simonetta Marchitelli whose diligence repeatedly sustained my work at the critical stage.

17

The Study and Interpretation of Nemean Nine

1. The Scholia Vetera Once the epinikia of Pindar were no longer performed but had become a text for reading, with the passage of time they increasingly required study and interpretation in order to be understood even by the well educated.1 The extensive scholia written in the margins of the oldest Pindaric manuscripts have preserved some of the help which was available to ancient readers of the odes.2 This ranges from simple paraphrase and elementary explanation to learned extracts ultimately deriving from special treatises and commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) of Hellenistic scholars.3 Although the 1

2

3

For his first readers Pindar will have been his own interpreter; v. Pfeiffer (1968) 1–15. On authors as their own interpreter; v. further Richardson (1985), esp. 399, and Wilson (1980), esp. 110. On the transition from performance to the earliest texts for readers v. Irigoin (1952) 5–28. The manuscripts are conveniently listed in tabular form by Mommsen (1864) xii–xxi. The only codices veteres originally containing scholia on all the odes (now with a few losses, e.g. Py. 1 in B) are B and D. These are the primary manuscripts on which the text of the scholia of Ne. 9 is based; v. Braswell (1998) 7–8. The standard edition of the scholia vetera by Drachmann (1903–1927) provides a generally reliable text and critical apparatus, while additional information on the scholia to the Nemeans and Isthmians can be found in the apparatus to the edition of Abel (1884). The concordances and indices of Arrighetti/Calvani Mariotti/Montanari (1991) make the information contained in the scholia more readily accessible. For a list of fragments of scholia and commentaries on Pindar in papyri v. Pack (21965) 80–81, Uebel (1976), esp. 229–33, 246–47, Maehler (1986), and now Mertens/Pack3 (online). The sole text of Ne. 9 found thus far in a papyrus is that of vv. 100–1 in P.Oxy. 75.5043 (Mertens/Pack3 1355.121). The first critical edition of the Pindar scholia was that of Boeckh (1819), while the modern systematic study of the scholia began with Lehrs (1873). The scholia were briefly surveyed by A. Gudemann, RE II A 1 (1921) 647,25–652,6 and discussed in more detail by Deas (1931) and Irigoin (1952). More recent studies by Wilson (1967), (1984), (2007), Arrighetti (1977) and others correct some earlier interpretations of the formation and use of scholia. For a list of other studies v. Gerber (1989–90) 108–13, and Neumann-Hartmann (2010) 192–95.

18

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

scholia were used extensively by Renaissance commentators on Pindar4 and, indirectly through them, have continued to influence later interpretations of the text, recent scholars have rightly emphasized the fact that some of the supposed information reported in the scholia is merely a more or, sometimes, less plausible conclusion drawn from Pindar himself.5 That the scholia should contain a fair amount of dross is hardly surprising considering their heterogeneous origin.6 Nevertheless, even the simple paraphrases and syntactical observations found in them are of considerable interest in showing how native speakers of Greek understood the text in antiquity.7 A general assessment of the value of the scholia for the study and interpretation of the Pindaric text is, however, a special study in itself far exceeding our immediate purpose, which is to review briefly the treatment of a single ode, the Ninth Nemean, in antiquity. Thereafter we shall attempt to trace the fortune of the ode through the Middle Ages and Renaissance down to the end of the eighteenth century.8 The intention of our survey is not, in the first instance, to deal with general problems of Pindaric scholarship, and even less with those of the poet’s influence, but to contribute to the reader’s understanding of the Ninth Nemean by showing how our comprehension of it has developed over the centuries.

1.1 Didymos of Alexandria In the scholia vetera to Nemean Nine the only ancient Pindaric scholar cited by name is Didymos who was active in the last phase of Ptolemaic Alexandria [cf. App., pp. 114–26 below].9 Scholion 95a (III 159,13– 160,6 Dr. = fr. 59 Braswell) has preserved an excerpt from his Pindar 4 5 6 7

8 9

See pp. 71–95 below. See e.g. Fraenkel (1961), Slater (1971), and esp. Lefkowitz (1975) and (1985a). See Irigoin (1952), esp. 102–21. Young (1971) 30, n. 99, rightly objected to the dismissal of scholiastic help in matters of language, while Slater (1989), in turn, warned of some of the pitfalls in the use of scholia. Dickey (2007) has now provided an excellent introduction to scholiastic language. For an account of the general problems of philological scholarship devoted to the lyric poets from antiquity through the Renaissance v. Hummel (1997). On Didymos and his commentary on Pindar v. the edition and translation of the fragments by Braswell (2013).

1. The Scholia Vetera

19

commentary which nicely illustrates his method of argumentation with its characteristic citation of historical sources.10 The scholion explains v. 40 βαθυκρήμνοισι δ᾿ ἀμφ᾿ ἀκταῖς Ἑλώρου “and by the steep banks of the Heloros” as follows: Around this river Hippokrates, the tyrant of Gela, fought a battle against the Syracusans, and Gelon, whose comrade-in-arms this man (sc. Chromios) was, commanded the cavalry for Hippokrates on that occasion. He (sc. Pindar) says that it was in this battle that Chromios displayed many feats of arms during the fighting. In book ten Timaios (FGrHist 566 F 18,6–10) has given an account of this battle. “For”, says Didymos (fr. 59 Braswell), “we cannot find any other fight at all around the Heloros of tyrants who were contemporary with Chromios except that of Gelon to­gether with Hippokrates against the Syracusans. That Hippokrates did in fact appoint Gelon to command the cavalry is made clear by Timaios (FGrHist 566 F 18,10–14) when he writes as follows: ‘After the death of Kleandros, because Gelon had stayed at his post and also because Hippokrates wished to please people of Gela, he sent for Gelon and urged him to action, handing over to him the command of all his cavalry.’ And that also Gelon associated Chromios with himself as a comrade-in-arms is clear again from what Timaios says when he writes as follows in book twelve11 (FGrHist 566 F 21,6–8): ‘After him he12 appointed his brothers-in-law Aristonous and Chromios guardians of his son. For Gelon had given his sisters to them in marriage.’” περὶ τοῦτον τὸν ποταμὸν συνέστη Ἱπποκράτει τῷ Γελώων τυράννῳ πρὸς Συρακουσίους πόλεμος· ὁ δὲ Γέλων, οὗτος ἑταῖρος, ἱππάρχει τότε Ἱπποκράτει. ἐν δὴ τούτῳ φησὶ τῷ πολέμῳ Χρόμιον ἐπιδείξασθαι πολλὰ ἔργα κατὰ τὴν μάχην. περὶ δὲ τούτου τοῦ πολέμου Τίμαιος ἐν τῇ ι´ (FGrHist 566 F 18,6–10) δεδήλωκε. «καθάπαξ γάρ», φησὶν ὁ Δίδυμος (fr. 59 Braswell), 10 11

12

On Didymos’ use of historians in his Pindar commentary v. Braswell (2013) 113–16. For a largely negative assessment of Didymos’ use of historical sources v. West (1970), and Harris (1989); Harding (2006) 31–39, is more positive. To account for the sequence of events, which Timaios presumably told in chronological order, Schwartz’s correction of ἐν τῇ β´ (III 160,3 Dr.) to ἐν τῇ ιβ´, seems inevitable; v. further Jacoby’s introduction to FGrHist 566, pp. 538–46. We need not, however, accept Jacoby’s interpretation of fr. 21, on which v. n. 12 below. For Didymos’ citations of Timaios in his Pindar commentary cf. besides fr. 59 also sch. Ol. 2.29d (fr. 2 Braswell), sch. Ol. 7.160c (fr. 14 Braswell), and sch. Ol. 13.29b (fr. 24 Braswell). “After him” (i.e. in rank, not in time) will presumably refer to Gelon’s brother Polyzelos who eventually married his widow and did in fact assume the active guardianship of his nephew; v. Berve (1967) 148. The subject of the sentence is probably Gelon (so Berve, 604) and not Hieron (so Jacoby ad loc.), since the context of the scholion is the explanation of the relation of Chromios to Gelon.

20

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship «οὐδεμίαν ἄλλην μάχην ἔχομεν εὑρεῖν περὶ τὸν Ἕλωρον τῶν συνηκμακότων τῷ Χρομίῳ τυράννων, ὅτι μὴ σὺν Ἱπποκράτει τοῦ Γέλωνος πρὸς Συρακουσίους. ὅτι μὲν οὖν Γέλωνα ἱππαρχεῖν κατέστησεν Ἱπποκράτης, σαφὲς ὁ Τίμαιος (FGrHist 566 F 18,10–14) ποιήσει γράφων οὕτως· “Ἱπποκράτης δὲ μετὰ τὴν Κλεάνδρου τελευτὴν ἅμα μὲν τοῦ Γέλωνος ἐν τῇ τεταγμένῃ μεμενηκότος, ἅμα δὲ τοῖς Γελώοις χαρίσασθαι βουλόμενος, μεταπεμψάμενος αὐτὸν καὶ παρακαλέσας ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις, ἁπάντων τῶν ἱππέων τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἐκείνῳ παρέδωκεν”. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ὁ Γέλων τῷ Χρομίῳ ἐχρῆτο ἑταίρῳ, δῆλον πάλιν ἐξ ὧν φησι Τίμαιος ἐν τῇ β´ (FGrHist 566 F 21,6–8) γράφων οὕτως· “ἐπιτρόπους δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνον κατέστησεν Ἀριστόνουν καὶ Χρόμιον τοὺς κηδεστάς· τούτοις γὰρ ὁ Γέλων δέδωκε τὰς ἀδελφάς”».

Clearly Didymos took the trouble to look up and cite relevant texts in order to explain historical references in Pindar.13 In this respect his method is basically no different from that of a modern scholar, and in the case of his comment on Ne. 9.40 we may be sure he was right.

1.2 The Anonymous Scholia In the otherwise anonymous scholia to Ne. 9 historical authorities are likewise cited on occasion to explain both details of the text and general background.14 An example of the latter is provided by the inscriptio to the ode (III 149,14–22 Dr.) which in an evidently abbreviated form gives, on the authority of ὁ Ἁλικαρνασεύς, an account of how Kleisthenes first established the Pythian games at Sikyon from the spoils he received for his help in the First Sacred War.15 This in­formation is then used in turn by 13 14 15

See n. 10 above. Some of the examples which follow were discussed and translated in Braswell (2012). The identity of the Halikarnassian remains uncertain. Boeckh (1811–1821/22) II 1,491f., n. 2, assumed it was Herodotos (who is in fact quoted by name in sch. 30a, on which see below) and posited a lacuna between οὕτω γράφει and φησὶ δὲ (so too Abel, p. 255,2, and Drachmann III 149,15) arguing that the latter phrase introduces the account of another historian, probably Menaichmos of Sikyon (see below). Wilamowitz (1889) 185, n. 125, more plausibly identified the Halikarnassian as Dionysios ὁ μουσικός (RE, s.v. [142], V 1 [1903] 986,18–991,10), a contemporary of Hadrian, an identification with which Deas (1931) 29, was inclined to agree. More recently Griffin (1979), without mention of Wilamowitz or Deas, proposed the same identification and argued that Dionysios is probably quoting Menaichmos

1. The Scholia Vetera

21

sch. 20 (cf. also sch. 25b) to ex­plain the reason for Pindar’s historical inaccuracy in attributing the foundation of the games in v. 9 to Adrastos, namely “in order to make the contest appear more distinguished”. Historical knowledge16 has thus effectively contributed to an understanding of the poet’s encomiastic technique. The use of historical authority in the anonymous scholia to explain a detail of the text is well illustrated in sch. 30a where three historians are successively cited on v. 13 as an explanation of how the Argive Adrastos came to be king in Sikyon. First, Herodotos (5.67.4) is quoted to the effect that Adrastos inherited the kingship through his mother from his grandfather Polybos who died without male issue. Then a more detailed account is cited from the fourth-century Sikyonian historian Menaichmos17 (FGrHist 131 F 10) in which the background of the stasis18 is explained which drove Adrastos to his maternal grandfather in Sikyon where he eventually inherited the kingship. Menaichmos continues with a bit of antiquarian lore about the sanctuary of Hera Alea in Sikyon supposedly founded by Adrastos19 and with an etymology of its name.20 In the same vein a third historian, Dieuchidas of Megara,21 is cited (FGrHist

16

17 18 19 20 21

as his source for Kleisthenes’ participation in the Sacred War. While Griffin’s argument has some probability, there is no corroborative proof. Accordingly, the question of the identification of ὁ Ἁλικαρνασεύς and his source should be left open as does Hubbard (1992) 82, n. 9. In any case, although the scholion is clearly abbreviated, it does provide useful historical information (see below). The second part of the inscriptio (III 149,22–150,3 Dr.) obviously has nothing to do with the section on Kleisthenes, but it does contain information about Chromios, on which v. Braswell (1998) 113 ad Ne. 9.34 ἵπποις. It also correctly observes that the ode does not really belong to the Nemeans; v. Braswell (1992) 26 ad Ne. 1. Whatever value the details of Kleisthenes’ participation in the so-called Sacred War may have, the point that the 6th-cent. tyrant and not Adrastos founded the Pythian games at Sikyon is surely correct; v. Braswell (1998) 59 ad Ne. 9.9 ἅτε – ῥεέθροις. On Menaichmos v. esp. R. Laqueur, RE XV 1 (1931) 698,56–699,43, to whose basic bibliography add Mommsen (1877), esp. 6–10, and now Meissner (1992) 206f. See Braswell (1998) 68 ad Ne. 9.13 στάσιν. On the temple v. Paus. 2.11.1f. Cf. III 153,5–7 Dr. τὴν δὲ ἐπωνυμίαν ἔλαβε ταύτην τὸ ἱερὸν διὰ τὸ φεύγοντα τὸν Ἄδραστον ἱδρύσασθαι καὶ καλέσαι ἱερὸν Ἥρας Ἀλέας. τὸ δὲ φυγεῖν τινες ἀλᾶσθαι ὠνόμαζον, and see G. Wentzel, RE I 1 (1894), esp. 1358,24–31. On Dieuchidas v. E. Schwartz, RE V 1 (1903) 480,31–481,3, and now P. Liddel, BNJ, s.v. Dieuchidas of Megara (485), esp. F 3.

22

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

485 F 3) to tell us that the grave of Adrastos in Sikyon is a cenotaph and that he was in fact buried in Megara.22 All that was needed to explain the immediate point in v. 13 was contained in the citation from Herodotos and the first part of that from Menaichmos, but the original compiler of this information was not necessarily guilty of irrelevance, since we do not know from what context it was derived. The scribe responsible for the archetype of our scholion could profitably have excised more, but in doing so he would have deprived scholars interested in the local history and cults of Sikyon and Megara of information which supplements what we read in Pausanias. After the direct citation of historians to explain the reference to Adrastos in v. 13 the second part of the scholion (30b) continues with an anonymous account introduced by οἱ δέ φασι which gives a fuller and slightly different version of the Argive stasis. In it an unspecified division of royal power between three clans provides the background to the dispute in which Adrastos flees to Sikyon not after the death of his brother Pronax as in Menaichmos but after the murder of his father Talos by Amphiaraos. At Sikyon he inherits the kingdom from Polybos as his son-in-law and not as his grandson as in Herodotos and Menaichmos. The versions of sch. 30a and 30b need not be mutually incompatible since Pronax might have succeeded Talos and then died before Adrastos fled, although the mention of Pronax’ long reign in Menaichmos speaks against this.23 That Adrastos could be both grandson and son-in-law is plausible.24 The form in which the account of Adrastos’ exile is presented in sch. 30b is reminiscent of mythological handbooks such as the 22

23 24

Cf. also Paus. 1.43.1. The periegete is possibly reporting local Megarian authority rather than consulting Dieuchidas; pace Beschi/Musti (31990) 432, Chamoux (1992) 264. The cenotaph of Adrastos at Sikyon mentioned by Dieuchidas was certainly the ἡρῷον in the agora which survived the machinations of Kleisthenes and was still there in Herodotos’ time (5.67.1). That Pausanias makes no mention of it is not surprising since it had presumably been replaced by that of the 3rd-cent. civic champion Aratos (Paus. 2.8.1) who, according to Plutarch (Arat. 53.3–5), received heroic honours comparable to those which had been accorded to Adrastos before the time of Kleisthenes (Hdt. 5.67), or possibly even earlier by that of the elder Euphron (X. HG 7.3.12). On the doubling of the graves of individual heroes v. Pfister (1909–12) I 218–23, esp. 219 (Adrastos). See Braswell (1998) 68 ad Ne. 9.13 στάσιν. See Braswell (1998) 64 ad Ne. 9.11 βασιλεύων, but cf. also n. 25 below.

1. The Scholia Vetera

23

Bibliotheke of Pseudo-Apollodoros.25 This account could conceivably have been drawn from a handbook which in turn was based on an early epic, but our evidence is too scanty to support such an assumption.26 After the two long sections (a and b) reporting information obviously derived from learned ὑπομνήματα, sch. 30 concludes with a third section (c) containing a simple paraphrase of vv. 13f. introduced by the standard formula ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὕτως (III 154,5f. Dr.).27 Although this is an exegetical device which does not draw upon the resources of scholarship, it occasionally helps us to confirm a doubtful manuscript reading28 and is in any case of some interest in showing how an ancient 25

26

27

28

Cf. e.g. 1.9.13 (§103 Wagner), where however the genealogical relationships of Adrastos are presented in a different context. Since sch. 30b mentions Adrastos’ relation to Polybos only as that of son-in-law, it may in fact presuppose the version of Ps.-Apollod. in which Adrastos’ mother Lysimache is a daughter of Abas and not of his grandfather Polybos as in sch. 30a (= Menaechm. FGrHist 131 F 10). On Pseudo-Apollodoros, the character of the work and its sources, v. van der Valk (1958), and cf. further n. 26 below. Following Dissen (1821) 455 ad Ne. 9.8–27, Drachmann (1903–27) III 153 (apparatus) compares sch. 30b, p. 153,10–15, to Eust. ad Il. 2.566 (I 445,4ff. van der Valk), part of a section in Eustathios (I 445,1–16 van der Valk) which van der Valk (I 445, apparatus ad loc.) considers to be drawn from a single source, possibly an exegetical scholion not included in our b-scholia to the Iliad. The source of both the Pindaric and the postulated Homeric scholion could possibly be a handbook. That the ultimate source of such a handbook could have been an epic might be suggested by the occurrence of a hexameter fragment in sch. 30b (III 154,4–5 Dr.) μέγ᾿ ἔρισμα μετ᾿ ἀμφοτέροισι γένηται (cf. Il. 4.38). Bener (1945) 24, less plausibly postulates as a direct source of the quotation in the Pindaric scholion an epic which has in turn drawn on the Iliad. However, in a basically oral tradition such a fragment need not be the property of any one epic. On the use of epic poems as sources in the Bibliotheke of Pseudo-Apollodoros v. van der Valk (1958) 109, 114–17, 154–62. For the example of the formula in the scholia to Ne. 9 cf. 1b, 16c, 18b, 35d, 53c, 57b, 93b, 109b, 119b. Alternative explanations are regularly introduced by the formula ἢ οὕτω(ς) as at sch. Ne. 9.16b, 67e, 73b, 102b, 104b, 114b or occasionally by ἢ δεκτέον (35b) or ἢ ἄλλως (117b). At sch. Ne. 9.104c the formula τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς “the normal word-order is” (cf. Bécares Botas [1985] 169, s.v. ἑξῆς, Dickey [2007] 120) is used to introduce a paraphrase which eliminates the hyperbaton of the original. On the technique of paraphrase in the Pindaric scholia and in particular on the formulas used v. Lehrs (1873) 37–45, esp. 44f. (formulas), and Deas (1931) 65–72, esp. 66 (formulas). Cf. e.g. Ne. 9.55 νίκαν (< sch. 127a, b).

24

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

speaker of Greek understood a given passage.29 Both extremes found in the scholia, the extracts from learned commentaries and the straightforward paraphrases, can contribute much to our understanding of Pindar and should never be dismissed without critical scrutiny. Another type of exegetical aid found in the scholia is the citation of parallels from Pindar himself as well as from other poets. Of the eleven poetical citations in the scholia to Nemean Nine no less than six come from the Homeric corpus, two from the Iliad and four from the Odyssey.30 To illustrate v. 27 ἐν γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις (sc. φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες θεῶν) sch. 63, after explicitly stating what Pindar only implies, viz. that it was pardonable for Amphiaraos to turn and flee at Thebes, and explaining why, viz. that Zeus was then aiding the Thebans, adduces the memorable example of Aias who fled “ἐντροπαλιζόμενος, ὀλίγον γόνυ γουνὸς ἀμείβων”, citing the well-known verse31 Il. 11.547 without mention of the source.32 Similarly, sch. 85a, explaining vv. 36f. “(you could have discerned) that in war that goddess (sc. Αἰδώς) urged on his (sc. Chromios’) warrior spirit to ward off the havoc of Enyalios”, adds after a paraphrase of the verses: Ὅμηρος “αἰδομένων δ᾿ (del. Aristarchus) ἀνδρῶν πλέονες σόοι ἠὲ πέφανται” (Il. 5.531 = 15.563), part of Agamemnon’s short appeal (later repeated by Aias) to the αἰδώς of the Greeks to stand their ground. Both citations from the Iliad well illustrate the relative nearness of the basic moral (and intellectual) presuppositions of Pindar’s poetry to those of the Homeric world. The four citations from the Odyssey serve other functions. Sch. 1a notes the similarity of the syntactical construction in vv. 1–3 Κωμάσομεν … ἐς Αἴτναν … ἐς Χρομίου δῶμ(α) to that in Od. 8.362f. ἣ δ᾿ ἐς (ἄρα codd. Od.) Κύπρον ἵκανε φιλομμειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη, | ἐς Πάφον, where 29 30 31 32

Cf. p. 18 with n. 7 above. On Didymos’ citation of earlier poets in his Pindar commentary v. Braswell (2013) 116–18. Cf. Plu. Moralia 449d–e with Babut (1969) 165, n. 184 ad loc., Ps.-Plu. De Homero 2.135.4 (p. 71,1590–92 Kindstrand). In turn, sch. (bT) Il. 8.97b explaining Odysseus’ failure to respond to Nestor’s exhortation to stand fast remarks that Odysseus was in fact fleeing together with Aias since he was unwilling θεομαχεῖν, to which remark sch. T alone adds (without indication of source) a citation from Ne. 9.27; cf. Braswell (1998) 12 on Ne. 9, Testimonia, v. 27.

1. The Scholia Vetera

25

a preposition referring to a part is repeated after its use to refer to the whole.33 Sch. 18a offers two explanations why the φόρμιγξ is called βρομία in v. 8 ἤτοι παρὰ τὸν βρόμον καὶ τὸν ἦχον τὸν ἀποτελούμενον κατὰ τὸν κιθαρισμόν, ἢ βρομίαν τὴν συναναστρεφομένην τῷ Διονύσῳ. The first explanation represents the literal meaning, which we may be sure was what Pindar in fact meant, while the second presumably reflects an attempt to find “deeper” significance in the use of the adjective. The author of the second explanation was aware that βρόμιος is also an epithet of Dionysos,34 and, reflecting on the association of music with banquets at which the drinking of wine (= Dionysos)35 was an essential part, added: Ὅμηρος· “φόρμιγγός θ᾿ ἣν δαιτὶ θεοὶ ποίησαν ἑταίρην”, a conflation of Od. 8.99 and 17.271 which is also quoted at Ath. 14,627e.36 This explanation is not allegorical37 but simply a misguided attempt to discover more in the text than is in fact there.38 Sch. 35c explains the epithet ἀνδροδάμαν in v. 16 first with a paraphrase: τὴν τὸν ἄνδρα ἀνελοῦσαν, and then with an explanation: ἡ γὰρ Ἐριφύλη τὸν ἑαυτῆς ἄνδρα Ἀμφιάραον προὔδωκεν εἰς 33 34

35

36

37 38

The text quoted by the scholia has been influenced by h. Ven. 58f., where we do in fact have ἐς Κύπρον … ἐς Πάφον; cf. Braswell (1998) 49 ad Ne. 9.3 ἐς … δῶμ᾿. For examples v. Bruchmann (1893) 81f., and cf. O. Jessen, RE, s.v. Bromios, III 1 (1897) 888,48–889,4. Βρόμιος is mostly used as a name of Dionysios and only occasionally as an adjective meaning “Dionysian”, “Bacchic” as at Ar. Nu. 311 (χάρις); v. Wilamowitz (21895) II 157 ad E. HF 683, and cf. n. 38 below. On the metonymic use of the name of the god for wine cf. Procl. in Cra. 85 (p. 41 Pasquali) τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν εὑρόντων, ὡς ὁ οἶνος Διόνυσος, τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν εὑρημάτων, ὡς ὁ Ἥφαιστος πῦρ, and for examples (none before the 5th cent.) v. Reichenberger (1891) 40–42, and esp. 79f. (Euripides). A full bibliography on the identification of Dionysos and wine is given by Pease (1958) 690–92 ad Cic. nat. deor. 2.23.60; for later bibliography v. Seaford (1984) 203 ad E. Cyc. 519–28. Cf. also Ps.-Plu. De Homero 2.147.2 (p. 80,1816f. Kindstrand) φόρμιγξ | ἣν ἄρα δαιτὶ θεοὶ ποίησαν ἑταίρην, where however we have simply a syntactical adaptation of Od. 17.271. The “Homeric” verse which is cited by both the author of the Pindaric scholia and Athenaios may well have been taken from an anthology. On the problems presented by Homeric quotations in later authors v. van der Valk (1963–1964) II 264–369. For an ancient definition of allegory cf. Heraclit. All. 5.2 (p. 4 Buffière) ὁ γὰρ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος, ἕτερα δὲ ὧν λέγει σημαίνων, ἐπωνύμως ἀλληγορία καλεῖται, and v. further Whitman (1987), esp. 263–68. See further Braswell (2012) 21f.

26

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

φόνον to which a reference to the well-known passage in the Nekyia is added: μέμνηται τούτου καὶ Ὅμηρος· “στυγερήν τ᾿ Ἐριφύλην, | ἣ χρυσὸν φίλου ἀνδρὸς ἐδέξατο τιμήεντα” (Od. 11.326f.).39 No mention is made of the other passage of the Odyssey which alludes to the same event: ἀλλ᾿ ὄλετ᾿ (sc. Amphiaraos) ἐν Θήβῃσι γυναίων εἵνεκα δώρων (15.247). Presumably for the writer of the scholion the explicit reference to Eriphyle with her epithet στυγερή was deemed more appropriate as an explanation of Pindar’s ἀνδροδάμαν … Ἐριφύλαν than the allusive reference in the later passage. Apposite illustration, not the collection of parallels, was clearly the intention behind the scholia. Sch. 104c first paraphrases40 v. 44 ἐκ πόνων δ᾿, οἳ σὺν νεότατι γένωνται σύν τε δίκᾳ, τελέθει πρὸς γῆρας αἰὼν ἁμέρα “but from toils which are accomplished in youth with right there comes a gentle life toward the time of old age” with ὁ δὲ αἰὼν πρὸς τὸ γῆρας τούτοις τελέθει ἀεὶ φῶς41 τοῖς πόνοις, οἳ ἂν ἐν νεότητι γένωνται καὶ σὺν δίκῃ and then adds ἔστι δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου τῷ Ὁμήρου· “αἶψα γὰρ ἐν κακότητι βρότοι καταγηράσκουσιν” (Od. 19.360). The sententious character of the verse made it popular enough to be quoted not only here but in seven other places as well.42 The writer of the scholion obviously felt that Pindar’s positive maxim, which he partially misunderstood (see n. 41 above), could be well illustrated by a negative counterpart drawn from Homer.43 39

40 41 42

43

Calvani Mariotti (1987) 96f. duly notes the Homer quotation here as an illustration of mythological explanation in the Pindaric scholia and calls attention to the fact that “lo scolio relativo a questi versi (sc. sch. V [= D], p. 508,1–16 Dind.) narra l’historia di Erifile ed Anfiarao, offrendo anche particolari del tradimento”; on which see further Braswell (1998) 75 ad Ne. 9.16 Ἐριφύλαν. The paraphrase is introduced by τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς; on this formula v. note 27 above. The false paraphrase with φῶς arose from a confusion of the feminine adjective ἁμέρα “gentle” with the noun ἁμέρα “day”; see Braswell (1998) 132 ad Ne. 9.44 ἁμέρα. Cf. Plu. Moralia 24f, sch. Ol. 8.93a, sch. Ar. Ra. 18, Suid. α 393 (II 187,16 Adler), π 1733 (IV 146,13 Adler) – in all cases identified as Homeric –, and ‘Zonar.’ Lex., s.v. αἶψα (col. 97 Tittmann = An. Par. IV 103,30), where it is anonymous. To these six a further instance can be adduced, viz. its use as a gloss in some Hesiodic MSS from where it eventually found its way into the text of a few others as the spurious verse Op. 93 (for two different explanations of the process v. West [1978] 168 and Verdenius [1985] 64 ad loc.). For another example of a Homeric citation ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου cf. sch. Ol. 8.25a (Ol. 8.19f. ~ Od. 17.454).

1. The Scholia Vetera

27

Of the five remaining poetical citations in the scholia to Nemean Nine three come from Pindar himself and one each from Hesiod and Kallimachos, the latter two, which we will consider first, are quoted in the same context. Sch. 123b in commenting on vv. 52f. “(the silver bowls) which the horses once won for Chromios and sent to him from holy Sikyon together with the crowns of Leto’s son which have been woven in accordance with justice” offers no less than three explanations of the hapax legomenon θεμιπλέκτοις “he (sc. Pindar) calls the crowns θεμιπλέκτους either44 (1) as woven according to custom and appropriately, or (2) in so far as Themis is an assessor (πάρεδρος) of Apollo on account of the oracle, for she was also a prophetess,45 or (3) because he (sc. Chromios) was crowned justly and without bribery”.46 The scholion then goes on to offer supporting evidence for the last interpretation: “it is stated that the Pythian games47 in Phokis were won(?)48 by money, for which reason those in Sikyon were then also added. And he (sc. Pindar) fittingly called Sikyon ‘holy’, for Mekone49 is near it (sc. Sikyon), near which the gods divided amongst themselves their prerogatives. Hesiod (Th. 535f.): ‘when the gods and mortal men were coming to a settle44

45 46 47 48 49

In the combination ἤτοι … ἤ the first disjunctive usually contains the more probable choice according to Smyth (1956) §2858. This is true for classical Attic writers and Herodotos (cf. Kühner/Gerth [31898–1904] II 298), but in Hellenistic Greek this distinction is lost (cf. Mayser [1934] 140). The formula ἤτοι … ἤ is very common in the Pindar scholia as a glance at the concordance of Arrighetti/ Calvani Mariotti/Montanari (1991) 472f., shows. In the instances which I have controlled the alternatives are all presented as possible explanations without a clear indication of preference. In other words, ἤτοι … ἤ is normally used in the scholia as a neutral formula to present genuine alternatives. The reference is to Themis as a former proprietress of the oracle at Delphi, on which v. Vos (1956) 62–65, and cf. Fontenrose (1978) 1 with nn. 1–2. The third one is in fact the correct one; v. Braswell (1998) 144 ad Ne. 9.52 θεμιπλέκτοις. With τὰ ἐν Φωκίδι we must supply Πύθια (sc. ἱερά) cf. sch. Ol. 13.150a τὰ ἐν Δελφοῖς Πύθια. If χρήμασιν ἀνύεσθαι is correct, which editors of the scholia since Heyne (including Drachmann) have generally doubted, it must mean “accomplished”, “obtained”, i.e. “won by money”. According to Str. 8.6.25 (C. 382,26 Radt) an earlier name of Sikyon; cf. also St.  Byz., s.v. Σικυών (σ 158 Billerbeck = p. 569,3–5 Meineke), and sch. Ptol. Geog. 3.16.6 (p. 211,23f. Nobbe). According to EM, codex V, s.v. Μηκώνη (in Gaisford’s apparatus to 583,57), Mekone was a quarter (κώμη) of Sikyon.

28

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

ment at Mekone’,50 and Kallimachos (fr. 119.1 Pfeiffer): ‘to see again Mekone, the seat of the blessed one’.”51 This supporting evidence for the third explanation is not helpful. First, since we hear nothing elsewhere of alleged corruption in the Pythian games at Delphi which led to the establishment of new ones at Sikyon, this statement is probably a mere guess. The Sicyonian games were in fact almost certainly founded for other reasons.52 Secondly, the attempt to explain Pindar’s epithet ἱερά for Sikyon by reference to the doings of the gods at Mekone overlooks the common use of the word as an epithet for cities.53 Thirdly, the Hesiodic quotation has apparently been misinterpreted in the light of the Callimachean one.54 In short, the scholion while providing the correct interpretation of θεμιπλέκτοις does not succeed in proving it or in eliminating the other two explanations either. The three last poetic citations to be considered illustrate the principle Πίνδαρον ἐκ Πινδάρου σαφηνίζειν, abundant evidence for which we find elsewhere in the Pindar scholia. I note a total of 138 citations of 50

51

52

53 54

This refers not to the division of τιμαί amongst the gods as apparently implied by the Pindar scholion, but to an arrangement between gods and men which provides the immediate background for Prometheus’ trick and the resultant establishment of the sacrificial relations between the two groups who had previously lived and dined together; v. West (1966) 318 ad Hes. Th. 536. The fragment continues (vv. 2f., not quoted by the scholion): “where the gods drew lots and first distributed the prerogatives after the war with the Giants”. For Sikyon as the site of the division of lots amongst the gods cf. also Heraclit. All. 41.5 (p. 50 Buffière). There were doubtless cases of corruption at all of the great games (v. Gardiner [1930] 103f., and cf. Braswell [1998] 144 ad Ne. 9.52 θεμιπλέκτοις), but corruption would hardly have been used as a reason for founding new games. On “gift-giving”, both “good” and “bad”, as a normal feature of ancient Greek life v. Herman (1987), esp. 75–81. See Braswell (1998) 146 ad Ne. 9.53 ἱερᾶς. See n. 50 above. If Reinsch-Werner (1976) 343–46, is right in claiming that Kallimachos in fr. 119 Pfeiffer at first alludes to Hes. Th. 535–37 in order to mislead the reader and then presents him with a different myth, the apparent misinterpretation of the writer of the Pindar scholion would perhaps be excusable. We may however be justly sceptical that Kallimachos was intent on creating such misleading associations, which would in fact have little point. If the writer of the Pindar scholion falsely or misleadingly combined the two quotations, it was presumably because the rare name Mekone occurred in both. Possibly he meant the reference to τιμαί to refer only to Kallimachos whom he does not quote fully.

1. The Scholia Vetera

29

Pindar himself in the scholia to the epinikia. The only odes not quoted are Ol. 6, 8, 11–13, Py. 7, 9–12, Ne. 6–8, Is. 4, 9 (incomplete). The origin of the maxim that each author is his own best interpreter is usually attributed to Aristarchos with reference to Homer.55 On vv. 46f. “For if together with many possessions (he wins renowned glory, it is not possible for a mortal to reach with his feet still farther another peak)” sch. 109b comments: “the sense is: ‘for he who has reaped as his reward glorious fame together with abundant wealth ought, since he is mortal, to look around no further nor to seek with his feet paths of other good fortune’. For this excellence, he says, is not to be surpassed. It is something like the thought above (Ne. 3.19–21): ‘But if being handsome and performing deeds befitting his form, not now56 still further’ et cetera.”57 As the writer of the scholion has correctly remarked, both statements are examples of the ne plus ultra motif.58 The victor’s possession of a desirable quality such as wealth or physical beauty in addition to his victory and its resultant glory is said by the poet to bring him to the limit of human achievement. Clearly the ancient critic was aware of the encomiastic function of such statements. Sch. 114a after paraphrasing v. 48 “but peace loves a drinkingparty” goes on (114b) to mention an alternative version which reverses the relationship: “a drinking-party loves peace”.59 The scholion adds 55

56 57

58 59

See Pfeiffer (1968) 225–27, who identifies Porphyry ad Il. 6.201 (Qu. Hom., p. 297,16 Schrader = p. 56,3–4 Sodano), as the actual source. Subsequent discussion of the principle has revealed more clearly its origin in both theory and practice; v. Wilson (1971) and (1976), Schäublin (1977), Porter (1992) 70–84, Montanari (1997) 285–86. It is likely that Porphyry was the first to formulate explicitly what had long been practised implicitly by philologists. Ultimately the principle may well go back to Aristarchos; v. MacPhail (2011) 3–4. On οὐκέτι in the sense “not now” v. Braswell (1988) 332 ad Py. 4.243(c). The full text of vv. 19–21 is “but if being handsome and performing deeds befitting his form the son of Aristophanes has embarked on utmost manliness, traversing the untracked sea still further beyond the pillars of Herakles is not now an easy task”. For other examples of the motif v. Braswell (1998) 133 ad Ne. 9.46–47 εἰ – ποδοῖν. For an excellent discussion of it v. Race (1990) 191–95, who observes (p. 195) that “this particular topic seems to have been a trademark of Pindar”. This was in fact adopted as a reading by Triklinios against BD (cf. p. 37 below) and generally held the field until Bergk’s 2nd ed. of 1853; v. Braswell (1998) 138 ad Ne. 9.48 ἡσυχία.

30

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

that the thought is similar to that in Ne. 5.6 “high summer, the mother of the down on the grape”.60 The similarity is not immediately obvious, but sch. Ne. 5.10a (ad v. 6) makes it clear that the writer is thinking of the causal sequence of events: “high summer is not the mother of the down on the grape, but the contrary. For first it blooms before its season, and then it becomes high summer.”61 Sch. Ne. 9.114b, after noting the similarity to Ne. 5.6, then dismisses the alternative with the remark “victory does not love peace, but songs of praise”. Few modern readers would, I suspect, regard sch. 114b as particularly helpful, but it does illustrate the kind of pedantic logic which was sometimes employed in the exegesis of poetic texts in antiquity. In this case the critic does not go so far as to change the text to fit it as Triklinios was to do later (cf. n. 59 above). Finally, sch. 35a, commenting on v. 15 “for the stronger man puts an end to the right that existed before”, not only correctly paraphrases κρέσσων ἀνήρ with ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἀνήρ, but also aptly quotes the notorious fragment 169a.1–4 “law, the ruler of all, both of mortals and immortals, conducts with highest hand what is most violent making it just”. The writer of the scholion, like Kallikles in Pl. Grg. 484b, has understood Pindar’s simple realism better than many of his modern critics.62

1.3 The Ancient Metrical Scholia We have now considered the most interesting examples of exegesis in the scholia to Ne. 9. No discussion of the scholia vetera to the ode would however be complete without mention of the metrical scholia which precede the exegetical part.63 The scholia note that the ode is monostrophic 60 61

62 63

Used metaphorically of the “bloom” on a youth’s cheeks. The scholion continues: “he (sc. Pindar) frequently uses such an inversion: ‘peace loves a drinking-party’ (Ne. 9.48). For peace does not love the drinking-party, but the drinking-party loves peace.” Clearly Triklinios’ reading ἡσυχίαν δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν συμπόσιον was never found as such in the ancient text of v. 48, but represents what an ancient reader thought Pindar should have written if he had been completely logical. See Braswell (1998) 73 ad Ne. 9.15 κρέσσων – ἀνήρ. For which see III 149,5–13 Drachmann and the separate editions of Irigoin (1958) 156,11–18, and Tessier (1989) 26,18–25.

1. The Scholia Vetera

31

and consists of twelve cola.64 The first and second cola each form a dactylic trimeter catalectic, i.e. – ⏑⏑ – ⏑⏑ – –.65 The third colon is a trochaic dimeter acatalectic, i.e. – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – –.66 The fourth colon is a dactylic penthemimeres, i.e. – ⏑⏑ – ⏑⏑ –.67 The fifth colon is an iambic dimeter acatalectic, i.e. ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ –.68 The sixth colon is a dactylic penthemimeres like the fourth. The seventh colon is an encomiologic with the final syllable transposed to the beginning, i.e. ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ –.69 The eighth colon is an iambelegus with the first syllable transposed to the end 64 65

66 67

68 69



On the Alexandrian colometry v. Irigoin (1958) 17–34, Santé (2008) 15f., and Steinrück (2009). The designation of this metre as catalectic corresponds to the Hephaestian doctrine of “catalectic into two-syllable foot” (Heph. Ench. 7.1, p. 21,3f. Consbruch), i.e. a dactyl (– ⏑ ⏑) is reduced to either – ⏑ or – – (the latter being considered not a spondee but a trochee with a lengthened last syllable); v. further van Ophuijsen (1987) 76–78. Cf. Heph. Ench. 4.1 (p. 13,3f. Consbruch) ἀκατάληκτα καλεῖται μέτρα, ὅσα τὸν τελευταῖον πόδα ὁλόκληρον ἔχει (“all those metra the last foot of which is complete are called ‘acatalectic’”). Heph. Ench. 7.3 (p. 22,1–4 Consbruch), remarks that Archilochos has used this metre in an epode (fr. 182.2 West2 ἐν δὲ Βατουσιάδης); cf. also 4.2 (p. 13,10–15 Consbruch), where Hephaistion notes that this metre is “catalectic by two syl­ lables”. The usual designation “hemiepes” is attested only later; cf. e.g. Appendix Dionys., p. 314,24 Consbruch; Sacerd. gramm., Grammatici Latini VI 544,11 Keil. Heph. Ench. 5.2 (p. 16,8–11 Consbruch), observes that Anakreon has written whole songs in this metre; cf. PMG 428 = fr. 46 Gentili. Heph. Ench. 15.10 (p. 50,18–51,2 Consbruch), calls the encomiologic (– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – | x – ⏑ – x) a well-known episynthetic metron (i.e. one which is composed of different feet at variance with each other as to their quantity, being disyllabic and trisyllabic; cf. sch. ad loc., p. 157,7–10 Consbruch with van Ophuijsen [1987] 150f. for discussion). It is “dipenthemimeric”, i.e. it consists of a dactylic penthemimeres and an iambic metron of the same length. The metrician adds that it has been used by Alkaios in a song (fr. 383 Voigt = fr. 383 Lobel/Page) and by Anakreon in several songs (e.g. PMG 393 = fr. 97 Gentili). It should be noted that the scholia (III 149,9–11 Drachmann; 156,15–17 Irigoin; 26,21–24 Tessier) give an incorrect description of cola 7 and 8, as Drachmann observed in his apparatus, in that the qualifying participial phrases are interchanged. To fit the metrical facts the text should read as follows: τὸ ζ´ ἐγκωμιολογικόν, μετατιθεμένης τῆς τελευταίας ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν. τὸ η´ ἰαμβέλεγος, μετατεθείσης τῆς πρώτης ἐπὶ τὴν ἐσχάτην. Although the confusion is probably not due to a scribe, I translate the correct formulation.

32

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

i.e. – ⏑ – – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –.70 The ninth colon is a dactylic penthemimeres like the fourth and sixth cola. The tenth and eleventh cola each form an iambic dimeter acatalectic like the fifth colon. The twelfth colon is an iambic penthemimeres, i.e. – – ⏑ – –.71 We may now summarize the results of this analysis with reference to the ode itself as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

– ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ – ⏓ –⏑⏑–⏑⏑– – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏓ – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ – ⏓13 – ⏑ – – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – – – ⏑ – –

D— D—| e ⏓32.47 e – ¦-22 D ¦-22 — e — e || D ¦-48 D — e || e — D — ¦-29.34 D — e — e || —e—e — e — |||

What emerges is that the ancient colometry in fact respected the basic dactylo­epitritic cola but failed to recognize the larger units, the periods. Nowhere however was period-end placed within a colon. While the names given to the cola are highly artificial, the cola themselves roughly correspond to the basic form of the metre. This was the colometry which was adopted in the medieval manuscripts of Pindar and from there into the first printed editions. It held the field through the second edition of Heyne 70

71

Heph. Ench. 15.11 (p. 51,3–7 Consbruch), calls the iambelegus (x – ⏑ – x  | – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ –) an inversion of the encomiologic, i.e. the iambic element precedes the dactylic. He remarks that he knows of no one who has employed it continuously, but then gives two examples from Pindar (fr. 30.1 and 35 Maehler) of its sporadic use. Both in fact come from the Hymn to Zeus and from the first colon at that, though neither from the actual beginning of the hymn, which might suggest that Hephaistion, who often takes his examples from the beginning, is quoting from an intermediate source. Cf. Aristid. Quint. 1.25 (p. 48,27–49,2 Winnington-Ingram) ἐπιδέχεται (sc. the iambic metre) δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν καταλήξεων εἴδη πάντα καὶ τομὰς εὐπρεπεῖς τήν τε μετὰ δύο πόδας εἰς συλλαβήν, ἣ πενθημιμερὴς καλεῖται … (“it admits all varieties of catalexis, and has the following as its proper caesurae: a syllable beyond two feet, which is called ‘penthemimeres’ …”).

2. From Alexandria to Byzantium

33

(1798–1799) only to be replaced by that of Boeckh (1811). Moreover, we should keep in mind when we judge the critical interventions of pre-Boeckhian scholars that this was the colometry which provided the metrical framework within which they attempted to correct the text.

2. From Alexandria to Byzantium Pindar continued to be read and studied in the later Roman empire and the early Middle Ages. Most attention was devoted to the Olympians which were apparently read in school.72 These are far better repre­sented in papyri73 and medieval manuscripts74 than are the other books of the odes. Few will have been as fortunate as Joannes Tzetzes (ca. 1110–1180/85) to have had access to a complete manuscript of the epinikia with scholia.75 Isaac Tzetzes, probably the brother of Joannes, wrote a treatise on Pindaric metre.76 Their contemporary Eustathios, archbishop of Thessalonike and indefatigable Homer commentator (ca.  1115–1195/96), apparently had a copy of the odes.77 Although he did not treat Ne. 9 specifically, he wrote a short introduction to Pindar which has been partly preserved. His treatise on the poet has been edited and studied by Kambylis (1991a, 1991b) and subsequently edited and translated by Negri (2000). Maximos Planudes (1255–1305) may have produced a recension of Pindar,78 but there is no evidence that he dealt with Ne. 9. Continuing interest in Pindaric metre is evinced by an anonymous metrical treatise in codex Vat. gr. 896 which has been edited and studied in some detail by Günther (1998). The brief survey of Pindar’s influence in the medieval Greek world by Irmscher (1981) scarcely deals with the pre-Palaeologan scholarship on the poet. 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

See Treadgold (1980) 6. See Pack (21965) 80, and Mertens/Pack3 s.v. Pindarus. See Irigoin (1952) 432–42. See Scheer (1881–1908) II p. xv. Edited by Drachmann (1925). See Irigoin (1952) 242 with n. 1. See Irigoin (1952) 139–40, 247–69, but cf. also the reservation of Wilson (1983) 238.

34

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

3. Demetrios Triklinios The first scholar after antiquity whose work on Nemean Nine can be definitely identified is Demetrios Triklinios of Thessalonike (ca. 1280– ca. 1340).79 Twelve surviving manuscripts80 allow us to reconstruct his text of Ne. 9 which was based on a manuscript very close to D [cf. App., pp. 129–32 below].81 In addition, we have his own scholia to the ode which were derived, as he himself states, ἐκ τῶν παλαιῶν σχολίων.82 The superscription to the ode, which is lacking in B and D, was first supplied by Triklinios: Χρομίῳ Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι, which is a reasonable inference from vv. 1–4 and sch. inscr. (III 150,1f. Dr.) ὅθεν καὶ Αἰτναῖος ἐκηρύχθη. In v. 1 Triklinios rightly corrected Σικυωνόθεν, the reading of BD, to Σικυωνόθε metri gratia. On the other hand, he failed to make the obvious correction of εἰς to ἐς in v. 2 which would have restored responsion.83 In v. 4 we find him reading μηνύει in agreement with D as opposed to B’s dialectally correct μανύει. Likewise in v. 13 he reads D’s Ἀμφιάρηόν τε, which is correct metrically, where B’s unmetrical Ἀμφιάρηόν ποτε is however closer to the truth. In v. 14 Triklinios attempted to correct the apparently unmetrical reading of the paradosis πατρώων (metrically possible with internal correption) by changing it to a certainly unmetrical πατέρων (which he glossed with τῶν πατρικῶν), where Erasmus Schmid’s πατρίων is almost certainly correct (v. Braswell [1998] ad 14 πατρίων). At v. 16 his ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿, which he took as a proper name and glossed with τὴν τοῦ ταλαοῦ θυγατέρα, is simply a bad guess which tried to make sense out of D’s meaningless ἀνδρομάδαν τ’. At v.  17 Triklinios may well have supplied a clarifying iota subscript in Οἰκλείδᾳ, which he presumably 79 80 81 82

83

On Triklinios see further Braswell (1998) 8–10 with nn. 5–8 and Günther (1998), esp. 71–185. For a list of which v. Braswell (1998) 9–10. See Braswell (1998) 9 with n. 6. See Mommsen (1865) 24f. The nine short scholia to Ne. 9 (pp. 24–25 Mommsen) reveal nothing regarding his choice of readings discussed below. On Triklinios’ scholia compilations from older Byzantine scholia v. Hopfner (1912) 30–33, esp. 59–62. Triklinios’ use of εἰς/ἐς has been studied by Koster (1957) 240–42.

3. Demetrios Triklinios

35

read as trisyllabic.84 The loss of three syllables in the text of vv. 17–18 elicited no direct response from Triklinios except that it apparently led him to transpose the word-order in the second half of v. 18 so that his seventh colon in that strophe reads ἄγαγον ἀνδρῶν στρατὸν αἰσιᾶν οὐ κα-, i.e. – ⏑ ⏑ – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ – – ⏑, where in fact he should have read, Θήβας ἄγαγον στρατὸν ἀνδρῶν αἰσιᾶν, i.e. – – ⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – – – ⏑ –, according to the correct formulation of the ancient metrical scholia (cf. p. 31 above with n. 69). At the end of v. 18 he did however supply the dialectally correct form αἰσιᾶν where B has αἰσιῶν (omitted in D). In v.  23 Triklinios has D’s itacistic variant ἐρυσάμενοι (cf. Braswell [1998] ad 23 ἐρεισάμενοι) where B correctly reads ἐρεισάμενοι. In the same verse the acc. sg. λευκανθέα may have been correctly read by Triklinios with B and D, but in some of the manuscripts deriving from his edition (ε´, ζ´) it was written as λευκοθέαν, which is presumably the source of the superscript reading λευκὸν θέαν in others (α´, δ´, δ´) and the corresponding gloss λευκὸν τὴν θέαν – a confusion which as we shall see (cf. p. 46 below) was to influence the Aldine and Roman editions later. In v. 23 Triklinios presumably found σώμασι ἐπίαναν, the reading of D (B has σώμασιν ἐπίαναν) in his text which he attempted to bring into unambiguous metrical responsion85 by reading σώμασ᾿ ἐπίαναν; however, the elision of -ι, while acceptable in epic, is not used by Pindar (v. Braswell [1998] ad 23 σώμασι πίαναν). In v. 24 Triklinios writes ὁ δ᾿ where B and D have ὁ δὲ (scriptio plena as in v. 32 below). In v. 25 Triklinios is responsible for adding the so-called nu ephelkustikon

84

85

The name is here spelled ὀϊκλειδ- in both D and the Triclinian MSS (B has an anagrammatic ἰοκλείδα). In Ol. 6.13 and Ne. 10.9 we find the spelling ὀϊκλειδin both the older and the Triclinian MSS, but in these two instances Triklinios has taken the trouble to gloss the name with συνίζησις thus making the correct scansion clear. In ancient MSS texts were often written out in full (scriptio plena) with the task of reading them metrically (or in the case of prose texts of avoiding hiatus), i.e. observing the required elisions, left to the reader; v. Turner (1987) 8, and Kannicht (1969) I 106f. Some of Triklinios’ “corrections” are no more than his making explicit what would have been done more or less automatically by an educated ancient reader. Here the task was made more complicated by the intrusion of a superfluous augment which Triklinios failed to recognize.

36

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

to κρύψε (BD) which provides exact metrical responsion.86 In v. 30 Triklinios calls the reader’s attention to the fact that αἰτέω is to be read as disyllabic by glossing it with “συνίζησις”. In the same verse he adds a movable nu to παισὶ (BD) as he does to ἀγλαΐαισι (BD) in v. 31.87 In v. 32 Triklinios writes τ᾿ where B and D have τε (scriptio plena).88 In v. 34 he reads ὃ for ἃ realistically making δόξα a product of κέρδος and thereby not only disturbing the metre but also revealing how little he really understood of Pindar’s professed stance. In v. 36 he correctly aspirates οὕνεκεν.89 In v. 38 Triklinios reads ποδὶ for ποτὶ and glosses it with ταχυτῆτι, σπουδῇ, influenced perhaps by the common use of τρέπειν with φάλαγγας, etc. rather than by the presence of χερσὶ in v. 39. In v. 41 he added a movable nu to δέδορκε.90 In v. 42 he corrects ἡμέραις (BD) to ἁμέραις, a form he would have been familiar with from Byzantine treatises on Doric dialect.91 In v. 44 Triklinios writes δ᾿ where B and D have δὲ (scriptio plena).92 At v. 46 he writes κτεάνοις where B and D have a hypermetric κτεάνοισι before an initial consonant. In v. 47 he was confronted with an obviously unmetrical text. D, the tradition of which he certainly knew,93 has κῦδος, οὐκ ἔστι πρόσω (– ⏑ – – – ⏑ –), and B κῦδος, οὐκέτι πόρσω (– ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑ – –), both heptasyllabic, where an octosyllabic – ⏑ – x – ⏑ – – (e x e –) is required. Triklinios produced a sequence of eight syllables, presumably by combining the text of B and D: κῦδος, οὐκέτ᾿ ἐστὶ πρόσω (– ⏑ – ⏑ – – ⏑ –), but not of the required pattern. If Triklinios had followed the scholia metrica vetera, he would not have needed much imagination to turn the third 86

87 88 89 90 91 92 93

As with elision (cf. n. 85 above) ancient MSS were inconsistent in the use of movable nu where it is required for metrical or euphonic reasons; v. Meyer (31896) 398–400, esp. 399, and Kannicht (1969) I 107. For other examples of Triklinios adding a movable nu for metrical reasons cf. Ne. 3.46 ἔπρασσεν, 84 δέδορκεν, 5.8 ἐγέραιρεν, 44 ἄρηρεν (recte ἄραρεν), 9.30 παισὶν, 31 ἀγλαΐαισιν, 41 δέδορκεν, Is. 3/4.49 ἔστιν, 6.34 χερσὶν. On Triklinios’ use of nu ephelkustikon v. further Koster (1957) 218–25. On Triklinios’ addition of a movable nu v. n. 86 above. Cf. n. 85 above. Cf. Kühner/Gerth (31898–1904) I 251f. See n. 86 above. Cf. e.g. Greg. Cor. De dial. dorica, §87 (p. 270 Schaefer). Cf. n. 85 above. Cf. p. 34 above and v. Braswell (1998) 9 with n. 6.

3. Demetrios Triklinios

37

colon of the tenth strophe into a “trochaic dimeter acatalectic”94 by adopting B’s πόρσω for D’s πρόσω.95 In v. 48 Triklinios took up a suggestion mentioned but rejected by the scholia vetera ad loc. (114b) and read ἡσυχίαν … φιλεῖ … συμπόσιον instead of ἡσυχία … φιλεῖ … συμπόσιον with B and D.96 Presumably he was more impressed by the misplaced ingenuity of the ancient reader who had originally suggested what he thought Pindar should have written than by the received text. Even if he was unsuccessful in this instance, Triklinios at least showed that he was prepared to exercise his thought in order to improve the text. At v. 49 we again find him supplying a clarifying iota subscript in ἀοιδᾷ as he may have done in v. 17 Οἰκλείδᾳ.97 Finally, before we attempt to assess Triklinios’ scholarship on Ne. 9 more generally, we should note that when he produced his recension of the scholia to Aristophanes’ Acharnians he encountered a badly jumbled quotation of Ne. 9.2 in the scholia vetera (EG) on 127a: Πίνδαρος “ἔνθ᾿ ἄρα πεπταμέναιν ξείνων ἕνεκεν τῇ θύρᾳ”.98 For whatever reason he failed to recognize it99 and 94 95

96 97 98 99

Cf. p. 31 above. This was first done by the editio Romana; see p. 55 below. It should be noted that Triklinios would have been familiar with the form πόρσω from the text e.g. at Ol. 3.44 and Py. 3.22. Indeed at Ol. 10.55 πόρσω is a Byzantine correction for πρόσω. Cf. pp. 29f. with nn. 59 and 61 above. See p. 34 above. See Braswell (1998) 11. The most charitable explanation would be that Triklinios’ work on Aristophanes preceded that on Pindar, but see Aubreton (1949) 23, who prefers a date after his Pindaric studies: “1316–1319, Hésiode; 1320, Pindare; 1332, Eschyle; après 1332, Sophocle. Aristophane et Euripide seraient à placer soit avant Hésiode, soit plutôt entre 1320 et 1332.” This is basically the chronology of Triklinios’ work accepted by Irigoin (1952) 331 with n. 1, who however in Irigoin (1958) 93, sets 1320 to 1330 as the possible limits for Triklinios’ edition of the epinikians. There is thus a possibility that Triklinios came to Pindar after Aristophanes who was not only more read in Byzantine schools than Pindar but was also normally studied before him; see Wilson (1983) 22, 24, and cf. n. 72 above. We may add that it has been observed by Hopfner (1912) 17f., that Triklinios generally makes sparing use of parallel passages (as opposed e.g. to Thomas Magister) citing from a small canon of authors among whom Aristophanes is prominent but Pindar does not appear at all. This too would suggest that his knowledge of Pindar, such as it was, came rather later.

38

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

simply contented himself with changing τῇ θύρᾳ (an obvious corruption of -ται θύραι) to ταῖν θύραιν (Lh) to agree with πεπταμέναιν with the result that the original text was obscured even more. The name Triklinios appears no less than twenty times (fourteen times as the source of the correct reading) in the critical apparatus to the Greek text of Nemean Nine in my commentary to the ode (pp. 16, 18, 20, 22), far more often in fact than any later Pindarist. On the fashionable modern theory of judging the importance of a scholar by the frequency with which he is quoted Triklinios would rank at the top for the textual criticism of the ode. But quantity and quality are distinct categories, and with respect to the latter Triklinios’ claim to recognition is very modest. Most of his successful interventions in Ne. 9 involve little more than making explicit what was ambiguous in the ancient conventions of orthography, e.g. in v. 17, 25, 30 (bis), 31, 32, 41, 44, 49. Twice (at v. 18 and 42) he provided the correct dialect form, but failed to recognize it in one instance (at v. 4). Occasionally he went badly wrong as in v. 16 and, more pardonably so, in v. 48. The relatively high reputation which Triklinios generally enjoys in the field of metrics100 is doubtless justified when he is compared to other medieval scholars,101 but the limits of his knowledge or perhaps his occasional lack of attention emerge clearly in our ode. That he missed an obvious metrical correction in v. 2 may be no more than evidence of a certain haste. That he had no solution for the loss of three syllables in vv. 17–18 is hardly reprehensible, but his weak attempt to improve the text by transposition in the second half of v. 18 reveals all too clearly the limits of his awareness of metrical responsion. More serious, however, is his failure to restore responsion in v. 42 since it can hardly be ascribed to anything but neglect of the ancient metrical scholia which could easily have provided him with a solution.102 Equally 100 See Braswell (1998) 10, n. 8. Triklinios presumably derived much of his know­ ledge of metrics from a collection of texts on this subject annotated in his own hand (codex Marcianus graecus 483) which includes, most importantly, Hephaistion’s handbook; v. further Wilson (1983) 253 with n. 18. 101 In Ne. 9 he insured correct responsion in 1, 13, 23, 25, 30, 31, 41, 44, 46, although in two instances (13, 23) his text is not satisfactory for other reasons. 102 According to Irigoin (1958) 96, “Triclinius s’y est livré à une révision métrique sérieuse, dont témoignent de nombreuses corrections et surtout des différences de colométrie, notamment pour les Néméennes”. As evidence of the latter he notes Triklinios’ division of the epode of Ne. 3 into 11 instead of 8 cola and

4. From Thessalonike to Venice

39

serious is his disturbance of correct metrical responsion in v. 34 with an unfortunate emendation. In short, Triklinios’ contribution to the improvement of the text and to the understanding of Ne. 9, while deserving of our respect considering the conditions under which he worked, is not of sufficient quality to guarantee him more than honourable mention in the history of Pindaric scholarship. Indeed, when his contribution is weighed against his obvious insufficiencies, we can only conclude that his performance in the case of this one ode at least was very mediocre.

4. From Thessalonike to Venice The only evidence of interest in Ne. 9 in the period between Triklinios and the publication in Venice of the editio princeps of Pindar in 1513 by Aldus Manutius are thirteen extant manuscripts containing the ode which were written after B and D, our primary witnesses to the text.103 the division of the second colon of Ne. 11 into two, on which v. also Irigoin (1952) 349. With regard to the colometry Triklinios obviously did not devote the same attention to Ne. 9 which Irigoin supposes for the other Nemeans; cf. also Tessier (1987) 69–76, who, after discussing inter alia Triklinios’ colometry of Ne. 7 and 8, concludes “che nel campo della teoria metrica l’esegesi tricliniana possa risultare fuorviante” (p. 76). His line-endings in Ne. 9 in fact correspond exactly to those of the medieval paradosis including the faulty divisions of cola 6–7 in strophe 4 (= vv. 17–18). It should also be noted that Triklinios did not write introductory notes on the metre for each of the Pindaric odes, but only for the Olympians and the Pythians; pace Wilson (1983) 251; cf. Irigoin (1958) 96. Triklinios’ metrical scholia for the Olympians and the first two Pythians were published by Abel (1891), while those on Py. 2–12 have been published by Irigoin (1958) 167–77. 103 On the MSS mentioned here v. Braswell (1998) 7–10. Both B and D were written in Greece, the former probably in Constantinople, v. Irigoin (1974) 15, and the latter perhaps in the region of Thessalonike, v. Irigoin (1952) 321–30, esp. 322, 330. We do not know when they were brought to Italy, but B must have been in Venice ca. 1500 from where it eventually passed into the hands of Pietro Bembo (1470–1547) and was acquired in 1579 from his son by Fulvio Orsini (1529– 1600) who left it to the Vatican Library on his death; v. Irigoin (1974) 16–18. When D came to the Laurentian Library is unknown, but its 16th-cent. binding is typical for the early collection of that institution; v. Irigoin (1952) 321.

40

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Of these twelve are copies of Triklinios’ edition and range in date from ca. 1330 (α´) to ca. 1500 (β´, γ´´) with remaining nine to be dated in the fifteenth century (mostly middle or later). The solitary non-Triclinian manuscript of this period is a copy of B (designated as Ḅ) made ca. 1500 presumably in Venice.104 The only Triclinian manuscript dating to the editor’s lifetime (α´), although written on Italian paper and known to have been in Italy at the beginning of the fifteenth century, was copied by a professional scribe in Greece (probably in Thessalonike) and corrected by Triklinios himself.105 MS β´ is a copy of α´ apparently made by Janos Laskaris ca. 1500 in Italy.106 Two other descendants of α´ are γ´ and γ´´, both copied in Italy at the end of the fifteenth century.107 Doubtless the eight other Triclinian manuscripts containing Ne. 9 (δ̱´, ´, δ̤´, δ´, ´´, δ´̤ ´, ε´, ζ´) were also written in Italy even if the scribe, as in the case of ζ´, was a Greek.108 The great translatio studiorum Graecorum which took place from Greece to Italy in the fifteenth century was a slow process with elemen104 See Irigoin (1952) 367. 105 See Irigoin (1952) 338f. The MS was owned by Antonio Corbinelli (1376–1425) who left it together with his considerable collection of Greek and Latin MSS to the Benedictine abbey of Santa Maria in Florence; v. further Blum (1951), esp. 102. 106 See Irigoin (1952) 372f. On Laskaris (1445–1535) v. Knös (1945), and Wilson (1992) 98–100. 107 See Irigoin (1952) 362. 108 Joannes Rhosos, a priest originally from Crete, who completed the MS on 5 December 1485, ἀναλώμασι Λαυρεντίου Λαυρεντάνου; v. Vogel/Gardthausen (1909) 187–93, esp. 189. According to Irigoin (1952) 387, n. 3, Rhosos’ patron was Lorenzo Lorenzano, a professor of medicine at Pisa who died in 1502, while Lowry (1979) 187, who wrongly dates the Modena MS to 1487, identifies him as Lorenzo Loredan, the son of the doge Leonardo. Unfortunately the scribe did not indicate where he was working, but we know that he had previously completed a Pausanias in Rome on 10 September 1485 and that he later completed a copy of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on Aristotle’s Topics in Venice on 20 May 1486; v. Vogel/Gardthausen (1909) 189, and, further on the Pausanias, Diller (1956) 95 with n. 51 (= 1980, 493 with n. 51 = 1983, 160 with n. 51) and Diller (1957) 174f. (= 1980, 505f. = 1983, 168f.). Rhosos was at one time associated with Aldus, but died in Venice early in 1498 well before the founding of the Neakademia with which Lowry (1979) 196, considers he could have been associated; v. Geanakoplos (1962) 55, n. 5. For more recent bibliography on Rhosos v. Gamillscheg/Harlfinger (1981) 104 (no. 178), Gamillscheg/Harlfinger (1989) 101 (no. 237), and Gamillscheg (1997) 115 (no. 298).

4. From Thessalonike to Venice

41

tary language learning, manuscript collecting, and the rendering of an increasing number of texts into Latin preceding any serious attempt at philological scholarship on the part of native Italians.109 Until well into the sixteenth century, by which time a new translatio had long since set in over the Alps, Italian scholarship was in no small measure dependent on the contributions of expatriate Greeks.110 The only Italian of the Quattrocento who might conceivably have made a genuine contribution to Pindaric studies was Angelo Ambrogini Poliziano (1454–1494), but he never chose Pindar (nor for that matter any of the poets of the fifth century) as a special object of study.111 Poliziano’s brief sketch of the Theban poet in his Silva Nutricia (“De Poetica et Poetis”), vv. 558–84, is little more than a poetic reworking of anecdotes from biographies of the poet by Thomas Magister (I 4,9–7,13 Drachmann) and in the Souda (π 1617 [IV 132,26–133,9 Adler]). However, in Italy there was a continuing interest in the Theban poet, whose inimitable qualities had been so memorably commended by Horace. It was this interest which necessarily preceded the study and dissemination of his texts.112 The earliest known reference to formal classes on Pindar are those of Andronikos 109 For an account of this process v. Wilson (1992). 110 The standard study remains that of Geanakoplos (1962). See also Geanakoplos (1984). 111 On this latter point v. Wilson (1992) 101. On Poliziano’s classical studies and philological method generally v. Grafton (1991) 47–75, 258–69 (repr. from Grafton [1977]). For Poliziano the two studies of Maïer (1965) and (1966) remain fundamental. For a recent attempt to interpret Poliziano’s own writings in the context of his life, v. Leuker (1997). 112 It is significant that among the earliest Italians interested in Pindar we find the two most influential educators Vittorino de’ Rambaldoni da Feltre (1378–1476) and Guarino de’ Guarini Veronese (1374–1460); see Wilson (1992) 36, 45f. We might expect to find this interest also expressed in the form of attempts at translation into Latin long before the publication of the editio princeps of the Greek text as in the case of Homer and a few other poetic texts (most often into Latin prose). The translation of the fourth book of the Odes of Pindar reported by Maïer (1965) 295f. and Kristeller (1969) 383 is none other than part of the Ilias Latina (vv. 344–1070), which circulated under the name “Pindarus Thebanus”; v. Speyer (1993) 16f., 36. Pindar was indeed translated into Latin long before the publication of Lonicer’s complete translation in 1528, on which see pp. 71–80 below, but only relatively late in the 15th century. The earliest known Latin translation has been published by Fera (1997).

42

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Kallistos ca. 1465 in Bologna.113 In 1509 on the eve of the publication of the editio princeps we find Markos Mousouros (ca. 1470–1517) lecturing on the first five Olympians in Padua.114 It is hardly accidental that both were of Greek origin. In fact, it was the combination of Italian enterprise and native Greek scholarship which finally made the text of Pindar easily accessible and thus laid the foundation for the future study and interpretation of Nemean Nine. This was done in two stages and within three years.

5. The editio Aldina (1513) Books in Greek had been printed for some forty years before the first edition of Pindar appeared in January, 1513, by which time a considerable number of Greek texts were already available in print.115 That it should have appeared in Venice and that Aldus Manutius (ca. 1450–1515) was the publisher is hardly a matter for surprise.116 We have already noted the presence of Pindaric manuscripts in the city,117 but equally important was the interest in the diffusion of Greek books and the enterprise required to undertake it. Aldus possessed both prerequisites in a high 113 On Kallistos, Poliziano’s Greek teacher, v. Cammelli (1942), and Wilson (1992) 95, 111f., 116–18. 114 See Sicherl (1978a) 100f. Mousouros’ lectures were taken down by his pupil J. Cuno (1462/63–1513) whose notebook was in turn copied by Beatus Rhenanus (1485–1547) in what is now MS Sélestat, Bibl. Humaniste 102, fol. 167–74. A brief account of the lectures is given by Irigoin/Mondrain (1990). On two MSS of Mousouros containing the Olympians and Pythians (Vat. gr. 41 [H] and Marc. gr. IX 8 [W]) v. Sicherl (1974) 566, 591. On Mousouros v. Geanakoplos (1962), esp. 111–66. For Mousouros the study of Menge (1868) remains important. 115 On the printing of Greek see the convenient account in Wilson (1992) 95–100, esp. 96. The standard study for the early period remains that of Proctor (1900). 116 In fact, as the colophon “In aedibus Aldi, et Andreae Asulani Soceri” makes clear, Aldus was in partnership with his father-in-law Andrea Torresani of Asola (1451–1528), the butt of Erasmus’ colloquium familiare of 1531 “Opulentia sordida”, which apparently reflected his unpleasant experience in Asulanus’ house in 1508. On the partnership v. Lowry (1979), esp. 76–86. 117 See p. 39 with n. 103 above.

5. The editio Aldina (1513)

43

degree.118 Nevertheless his initiative in this instance did not go much beyond making a rough-and-ready text of the odes available in print. To whom the responsibility for the edition should be assigned has been a matter of some discussion. Turyn was certain that Mousouros was the editor.119 Subsequently Irigoin remarked that, while we can be sure that Mousouros at least revised the text, he may not have established it himself.120 More recently Sicherl has expressed his doubt that Mousouros was involved in the edition beyond perhaps encouraging its publication.121 Opinion remains divided,122 which is hardly surprising considering the nature of the evidence. Circumstantially we may adduce Mousouros’ Paduan lectures on Pindar123 and his known involvement in Aldus’ publication of other Greek texts.124 Concretely we have only the preface to the edition which Aldus composed in the form of a dedicatory epistle to Andrea Navagero (1483–1529) who was then working with him on the edition of Latin texts.125 In it Aldus explains that his decision to return to Venice after his long absence occasioned by war126 and to resume his work as publisher was due to the encouragement of Mousouros, Navagero himself, Giocondo,127 and others. He goes on to 118 From the extensive literature on Aldus and his press see besides Lowry (1979) (with an ample bibliography of earlier literature), Barker (21992), Fletcher (1988) (with corrections to Lowry), and Sicherl (1997) (who however does not discuss the collective volume of 1513 containing Pindar); cf. also Wilson (1992) 127–56. 119 See Turyn (1932) 36, n. 1. Accordingly, in the critical apparatus to his editions (1944, 1948) Turyn assigned distinctive readings of the Aldina to “Musurus”; cf. e.g. Ol. 5.11, 6.19, 23, 8.54, Py. 6.19, Ne. 11.42. 120 Irigoin (1952) 400f. 121 See Sicherl (1974) 566, and (1978a) 101 with n. 73, and (1978b) 144. 122 Cf. Irigoin/Mondrain (1990) 254. In fact, the assumption that Mousouros was probably the editor is still made without qualification; cf. e.g. Gerber (1985) 8f. 123 See p. 42 above with note 114. 124 See Lowry (1979) 114 (Aristophanes), 242 (Athenaios), 246f. (Hesychios), and cf. Wilson (1992) 149–53. 125 For the preface see fol. 1v–2v, now conveniently accessible in Orlandi (1975) I 106–8 (Latin text), II 275–76 (Italian transl.), 363 (explanatory notes). On Navagero v. Hutton (1935) 189–92, and Wilson (1973), esp. 7. 126 Following the defeat of the Venetian army at Agnadello by the forces of the League of Cambrai on 9 May 1508, Aldus left the city, not to return until the first half of 1512; v. Lowry (1979) 159–61. 127 On Fra Giovanni Giocondo (1433/34–1515) see Orlandi (1975) II 358f., n. 6, and, in more detail, Brenzoni (1960).

44

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

express the wish to his addressee “ut sub tuo nomine exiret Pindarus ex Academia nostra, quia sic delectaris hoc poeta, ut saepe eum tua manu accurate descripseris”.128 This is all far too general to allow us to conclude that Mousouros or Navagero or any one else of Aldus’ associates was directly involved in the preparation of the Pindar edition. One or more may well have been, but we have no concrete evidence for it. In any case, when the complete text of the odes finally appeared it was in a modest octavo volume shared by texts of Kallimachos’ Hymns, Dionysios Periegetes, and Lykophron.129 The manuscript basis of the Aldine Pindar has never been fully investigated.130 Tycho Mommsen, who was the first to examine the full range of Pindaric manuscripts known to him, concluded that for the Olympians the edition was based on his third family of Thoman manu128 The emphasis on “accurate describere” suggests an attitude of conservative respect for the transmitted text rather than a determined aim to discover and correct faults in it. This, as we shall see, is clearly reflected in the Aldine text of Ne. 9. 129 For Lykophron as for Pindar Aldus’ publication was the editio princeps, but the Hymns of Kallimachos had already been published by Janos Laskaris in Florence between 1494 and 1496, having been anticipated for the 5th hymn by Poliziano in his Miscellanea (Firenze, 1489); v. Pfeiffer (1949–53) II, pp. lxviff. Both Irigoin (1952) 399, and Sicherl (1978b) 144, imply that Aldus’ collective volume of 1513 was also the editio princeps for Dionysios Periegetes, but in fact the Greek text of this author, who had been much read in Byzantium, had already been published in Ferrara in 1512; v. Parks/Cranz (1976) 24, and Tsavari (1990) 425f. As already noted above (p. 43, n. 118), Sicherl (1997) in his later work on Aldus’ editiones principes does not discuss the collective volume of 1513. Wilson (1992) 187, n. 48, questions the ethics of “Aldus’ decision to reprint a text [sc. of Dionysios Periegetes] which had only just been issued”. In his defence we might note that all these works were in one combination or another often found together in medieval manuscripts, e.g. we find Pindar and Kallimachos in Wien gr. 318, Dionysios and Kallimachos in Ven. Marc. gr. 480, Lykophron, Pindar, and Dionysios in Laur. Plut. 32,36 and Heidelberg, Pal. gr. 40, while Dionysios is preserved with Pindar in 13 other MSS and with Lykophron in no less than 14; v. Tsavari (1990) 41, n. 58. Aldus’ potential customers may well have wished to have such a collection of texts in convenient pocket-size format; on the aims of the Aldine literary octavo v. Lowry (1979) 142–47, and cf. p. 48, n. 156 below. 130 Heyne in his 1st ed., I (1773), p. ix, II (1774) 106f. = 2nd ed., I (1798) 27, 37f. = London reprint, I (1824), pp. xvii, xxv, made the first attempt to provide a rough characterization of the Aldina; with this Boeckh (1811) expressed his disagreement, cf. I, pp. xiiif.

5. The editio Aldina (1513)

45

scripts with some contamination from later sources, for the Pythians and Nemeans 1–3 on his first family of Moschopoulean manuscripts with some influence of Triklinios, and for Nemean 4 to the end of the Isthmians on the Triclinian codices ε´ and ζ´.131 After a more detailed study Irigoin confirmed the heterogeneous character of Aldus’ edition, but questioned Mommsen’s attempt to identify individual manuscripts which may have been used.132 For Ne. 9 we may be certain that Aldus used one (or, less likely, more) manuscripts of the complete Triclinian recension.133 In other words, the primary codex B, which was presumably in Venice ca. 1500, did not influence the text either directly or through its apograph Ḅ, which itself was probably copied in Venice.134 What in fact did Aldus do with the text of Ne. 9? Generally speaking, not much more than to transcribe what he or his assistant presumably had in front of him. We may now turn to the text of the Aldina for some examples of the editorial practice [cf. App., pp. 133–36 below]. In v. 4 the dialectally false form μηνύει is retained with Triklinios where, as we shall see, the editio Romana has the correct form μανύει.135 At v. 7 θεσπεσία δ᾿ ἐπέων καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος where Triklinios has no internal punctuation the Aldina places a comma after ἐπέων,136 doubtless to indicate that καύχας is dependent on ἀοιδά (so sch. 16a).137 At v. 14 the Aldina uncritically accepts Triklinios’ unmetrical change of πατρώων to πατέρων.138 Likewise in v. 16 Triklinios’ bad guess ἀνδρομέδαν is left untouched.139 At v. 17 the clarifying iota subscript in ὀϊκλείδᾳ pre131 See Mommsen (1864), p. xliii, n. *. See further n. 144 below. 132 Irigoin (1952) 399–408, esp. 402. 133 See p. 34 above and Braswell (1998) 8–10. For a general assessment of Aldus’ practice as editor see chapter 6 “Autorship and Editorship” in Lowry (1979) 217–56, which should serve as a warning not to expect anything approaching the rigour of modern standards in his pioneering efforts. The later assessment of Sicherl (1997) 1–10, is in basic agreement. 134 See pp. 39f. with nn. 103 and 104 above. 135 See p. 55 below. 136 Not after ἀοιδὰ as Mommsen (1864) ad loc. wrongly claims for both the Aldina and Romana. 137 In fact, καύχας is dependent on ἐπέων and ἐπέων on ἀοιδὰ; v. Braswell (1998) 56 ad Ne. 9.7 θεσπεσία … πρόσφορος. 138 On which see p. 34 above. 139 See p. 34 above.

46

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

sumably derives from Triklinios.140 In vv. 17–18 the Aldina slavishly follows Triklinios in ignoring the loss of three syllables and adopting his unnecessary transposition.141 In v. 21 ἄρεσ᾿ is a mistaken interpretation of ἄρ᾿ ἐς which was accepted by the Romana. In v. 23 the Aldina has Triklinios’ itacistic ἐρυσάμενοι,142 which the Romana retained ignoring B’s correct form ἐρεισάμενοι.143 In the same verse both the Aldina and the Romana have the false reading λευκανθέαν which presumably derives from a confusion found in some of the Triclinian manuscripts.144 Likewise in v. 23 the Aldina follows Triklinios in reading σώμασ᾿ ἐπίαναν.145 At v. 28 the false iota subscript of ἀγάνορᾳ is a misprint (as the accent shows). In v. 34 the Aldina adopts Triklinios’ unmetrical reading ὃ (ἃ BD) which makes κέρδος rather than αἰδώς produce δόξα.146 In v. 36 οὕνεκεν is correctly aspirated as in Triklinios.147 At v. 38 the Aldina has a misprint παρποδέου for παρποδίου and also wrongly reads ποδὶ with Triklinios for the correct ποτὶ.148 The semicolon after χεύμασιν at the end of v. 39 in the Aldina, where Triklinios does not punctuate, is presumably a mistake. In v. 41 the edition follows Triklinios in reading δέδορκεν as it does in v. 42 with the reading ἁμέραις. In v. 44 ἐὼν for αἰὼν of the codices (including the Triclinian) is a simple phonetic confusion which was copied by the Romana as we shall see.149 The iota subscript of ἁμέρᾳ in the same verse is a mistake which the Aldina shares with the Triclinian codex α´, which however is

140 141 142 143 144

145 146 147 148 149

See pp. 35f. above, and for the presumed scansion n. 84. On which v. p. 35 above. See p. 35 above. See p. 53 below. See p. 35 above. This example might seem to support Mommsen’s claim that the Aldina in this part was based on the Triclinian MSS ε´ and ζ´, on which see pp. 44f. above, since these two have the reading λευκοθέαν which Aldus might have changed to λευκανθέαν, but the truth may well be more complicated; cf. p. 47 below with n. 150. See p. 35 above. On this pardonable realism v. p. 36 above. Cf. p. 36 above with n. 89. See p. 36 above. On the confusion of αι and ε v. Jannaris (1897) §49.2. On its significance in the Romana v. p. 54 below with n. 197.

5. The editio Aldina (1513)

47

correctly glossed in the latter with ἡ ἡμέρα αἰών.150 In v. 46 the Aldina rightly reads κτεάνοις with Triklinios where the paradosis has an unmetrical κτεάνοισι.151 Likewise, in v. 47 the Aldina accepts Triklinios’ reading κῦδος οὐκ ἔτ᾿ ἐστὶ πρόσω, an improvement on the defective texts of B and D, but still not the reading which would have restored metrical responsion.152 In v. 48 the Aldina adopts Triklinios’ mistaken change of ἡσυχία to ἡσυχίαν which makes it the object instead of the subject of φιλεῖ … συμπόσιον.153 As a final example we may note that in v. 49 the Aldine edition reads ἀοιδᾷ with an iota subscript, as Triklinios did, where it was lacking, though implied, in the paradosis.154 It is now clear that for Ne. 9 the Aldina simply copied a text of Triklinios without offering a single improvement. Indeed the only variant readings are either typographical mistakes (in v. 28 and 38) or else a false interpretation of the letters as in v. 21. The occasional punctuation which was added proves to be either unhelpful as in v. 7 or probably a mistake as at the end of v. 39. Nevertheless contemporary readers of the Greek classics were doubtless grateful to Aldus for at least supplying an accessible text of Pindar which could intrigue their curiosity to read the poet, even if it could only partially satisfy their wish to understand him. In his preface Aldus promised that “commentaria” on Pindar and other Greek poets would soon appear in a single volume.155 This would have provided the first real help in the comprehension of the text, but the volume was never published by the Aldine press. Nonetheless, the need was soon supplied by the second edition of Pindar which appeared shortly afterwards in the year of Aldus’ death.

150 The mistake could have arisen independently and need not suggest a dependence on this particular MS or one similar to it; cf. pp. 44–46 above with nn. 131, 132, and 144. 151 Cf. p. 36 above. 152 Cf. pp. 36f. above with n. 95. 153 See pp. 29f. above with nn. 59 and 61. 154 Cf. p. 37 above. 155 From the authors mentioned: Pindar, the Hymns of Kallimachos, Dionysios Periegetes, Lykophron, Hesiod, Sophokles, Euripides, Aischylos, Theokritos, and Euripides; it is obvious that Aldus meant the Greek scholia found in many of their MSS, v. Orlandi (1975) I 105.

48

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

6. The editio Romana (1515) Whereas the editio princeps of Pindar appeared in a handy pocket-size format that was more appropriate for the familiar Latin classics which could be enjoyed by contemporary readers without notes,156 the editio Romana of 1515 quite reasonably adopted the quarto form which allowed ample space for the much needed annotation provided by the Greek scholia.157 The publisher was the expatriate Cretan scribe and scholar Zacharias Kallierges (ca. 1473–ca. 1524) who had left, apparently at a comparatively early age, his native Rethymnon for Venice where he inaugurated his publishing career with an ambitious edition of the Etymologicum Magnum. This appeared in 1499 with the backing of the Cretan aristocrat Nicholas Vlastos.158 However, Kallierges failed to establish his press on a permanent basis159 and eventually moved to Rome in 1515 where a Greek college was then being founded by the Medici pope Leo X which would soon include Markos Mousouros and 156 Lowry (1979) 147, observes that the Aldine octavo was especially appreciated (and bought) by educated men of affairs who wished to occupy their moments of leisure with reading. Aldus’ deliberate policy of printing plain texts (cf. Lowry, esp. 299, n. 133) corresponded to the interests of such readers. 157 The printed scholia often take up three-quarters of the page or more as in the medieval codices which ultimately served as the model. Besides the scholia, the Romana also offered the reader help in the form of the ancient prolegomena which are prefaced to the edition and which are now conveniently reprinted in the 3rd vol. of Drachmann’s edition of the scholia vetera (1927) 306–11. These contain, among other information, an elementary guide to metre. 158 On Kallierges see Geanakoplos (1962) 201–22, E. Mioni in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 16 (1973) 750–53, and on Vlastos, Geanakoplos (1962) 124f., 205, 207–10. Both men were active in copying Greek manuscripts, on which v. Vogel/Gardthausen (1909) 125f. (Kallierges), 346 (Vlastos), and now Gamillscheg/Harlfinger (1981) 80f. (no. 119 Kallierges), Gamillscheg/Harlfinger (1989) 75f. (no. 156 Kallierges) and 158 (no. 424 Vlastos), Gamillscheg (1997) 83 (no. 197 Kallierges), and presumably shared common cultural and ethnic ideals which may well have inspired their partnership in publishing. 159 On the involvement of the Kallierges-Vlastos partnership in the Venetian bank crash of 1499 see Lowry (1979) 126–29. After the publication of an edition of Galen’s Therapeutics in 1500 under the name of Vlastos, Kallierges seems to have taken up his earlier profession as scribe, but resumed publishing briefly in 1508; v. Geanakoplos (1962) 209–12.

6. The editio Romana (1515)

49

Janos Laskaris on its staff.160 The Pindar which appeared on 13 August 1515, was published “at the expense” of the wealthy banker Agostino Chigi “on the recommendation” of the scholarly Cornelio Benigno of Viterbo.161 It was in fact the first Greek book printed in Rome, and as such represented a promising beginning.162 The manuscript basis of the editio Romana has been investigated more extensively than that of the Aldine Pindar,163 which is understandable considering its greater importance in the subsequent history of 160 On the establishment of the Greek college, which did not survive Leo’s death in 1521, and the Greek press, which may have formed part of the scheme, v. Geanakoplos (1962) 213–21, and Lowry (1979) 204–6. On Laskaris see n. 106 and on Mousouros see n. 114 above. 161 The details are given in the Greek colophon conveniently reprinted by Turyn (1932) 68, and Irigoin (1952) 409, and discussed by Geanakoplos (1962) 213–15. The considerable subsidy of 400 ducats provided by Chigi was not à fonds perdu but evidently a short-term loan to Benigno who had to repay it in full. This presumably accounts for Kallierges’ having to dispose of all unsold copies of the Pindar just over a year after its publication; v. Ruysschaert (1971), and cf. Lowry (1979) 216, n. 124, and Wilson (1992) 188, n. 76. The 778 copies which were still unsold on 25 September 1516, might imply an edition of ca. 1000 copies, which was the normal Aldine press-run, on which see Lowry (1979) 257. These remaining copies were disposed of for 450 ducats. From the 50 ducats remaining after repayment of Chigi’s loan Kallierges received 20. The 200 odd copies presumably sold in the first year will doubtless have helped Kallierges stay in business until 1523, the date of his last publication. As earlier in Venice, he seems then to have gone back to his former profession as scribe only to disappear a year later. 162 For the immediate future the prospects for Greek publishing in Rome seemed bright with the appearance of Kallierges’ Theokritos in 1516, which included the scholia for the first time, followed by Laskaris’ editiones principes of the so-called Didymos scholia on the Iliad in 1517, which have been reprinted, e.g. by Andrea Asulanus (Venice, 1521) and, for the last time, by Josua Barnes (Cambridge, 1711), but only partially replaced by the electronic edition of van Thiel (2002), and of the essential Laurentian scholia on Sophokles in 1518, both with the press of Angelo Colocci (1467–1549) on Monte Cavallo, on which v. Geanakoplos (1962) 216 with nn. 59f., and further, on Colocci, Lowry (1979) 195, 204f., and Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 27 (1982) 105–11. However, prospects quickly darkened with the advent of the antihumanist pope Adrian VI in 1521. 163 On the Aldina see above pp. 44f. with nn. 131–34. As with the Aldina, Heyne in his 1st ed., I (1773), p. vi, II (1774) 107 = 2nd ed., I (1798) 23f., 38 = London reprint, I (1824), pp. xiv, xxv, was the first to give a rough characterization of the Romana; again Boeckh (1811) disagreed, cf. I, p. xiv.

50

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Pindaric scholarship.164 Tycho Mommsen, who was the first to make full use of B and D as well as the other important manuscripts known to him, concluded that for the Olympians the Romana was based on the Triclinian recension but had often been contaminated with the readings from other sources including the scholia of B and H as well as from the Aldina. For the rest of the odes, according to him, Kallierges will generally have used the Vatican recension (B) with some influence apparent from the Moschopoulean and Triclinian recensions as well as, very likely, from the Aldine edition as corrected by Kallierges himself.165 Turyn, who devoted a section of his study of the manuscript tradition to the editio Romana,166 reported that the scholia were based on B with gaps in the Olympians supplied from a manuscript of the Viennese recension and those in Py. 1–2, supplied from a manuscript of the contaminated (or Parisian) recension. As for the text of the odes, according to him, B will have served as the basis of the edition: in the case of the Olympians the influence of the Triclinian recension appears passim, and that of the Parisian recension in Py. 1–2, while the remaining odes have been subject to metrical corrections from the contaminated recension and from recentiores. Subsequently, Drachmann argued that the Romana is basically Triclinian in the Olympians, but used two older manuscripts as a basis beginning with the Pythians, one from the so-called Ambrosian recension and the other B, which had already been much used in the scholia to the Olympians. According to him, the use of a third manuscript in this part is probable only in a few isolated instances.167 More recently, Irigoin made the Romana the object of a still more detailed study.168 According to him, Kallierges used a manuscript of the second Triclinian edition as the basis of his text of the Olympians and manuscript B supplemented by the manuscript X for the scholia to those odes. For the text of Py. 1–4.169 (301 in the older colometry) and that of the scholia of Py. 1–4.299 (II 137,15 Dr.) Kallierges used Parisinus gr. 2706 (X) as a basis supplemented occasionally for the scholia by C and B. For 164 165 166 167 168

See below esp. pp. 67–71, 79f., and 96f. Mommsen (1864), p. xliii, n. *. Turyn (1932) 67–69. Drachmann (1934), esp. 332, 337. Irigoin (1952) 408–20.

6. The editio Romana (1515)

51

the remainder of the Pythians Kallierges used a copy of the Aldina to which he had added readings from B. The corresponding scholia derive almost entirely from B with a few additions from C. In the Nemeans and Isthmians, according to Irigoin, we again find a contamination of manuscript B and the Aldine edition, while the scholia to those odes are those of B. Subsequently, the sources of the Romana, in particular for the Olympians, have been discussed by F. Tissoni who argues that both Triclinian recensions have influenced the text of those odes.169 In the light of these general assessments of the origin of the text found in the Romana, we may now examine the text of Ne. 9 in detail [cf. App., pp. 137–40 below]. Three main questions are to be borne in mind. First, what is the relation of the Romana to the Aldina and to B? Second, have other manuscripts (either Triclinian or D) influenced the text? Third, what did Kallierges himself contribute? To begin with, we note that the Triclinian inscription of the Aldina, Χρομίῳ Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι, is reproduced by the Romana,170 which adds εἶδος θ´ where the Aldina has μέλος θ´.171 However, whereas the Aldina gave the ode a false triadic structure, the Romana rightly follows the metrical scholia172 in treating it as monostrophic. The colometry of both editions is almost completely identical.173 On the other hand, the punctuation of the 169 Tissoni (1992), esp. 175. The article also usefully discusses some of Kallierges’ emendations (pp. 176–81). A comprehensive study of the editio Romana is promised by Staffan Fogelmark; v. his preliminary report (2006). Users of the Romana should note Fogelmark’s report (p. 39) that copies of the edition may differ in at least 32 ways. In the case of Nemean Nine he has kindly informed me that he has not found any variant readings. 170 Without, however, the iota subscripts. Since the Romana employs neither adscript nor subscript, the absence will not be noted hereafter. 171 Irigoin (1952) 420, observed that the titles of the Nemeans and Isthmians in the Romana were taken from the Aldina with some corrections. The term εἶδος introduced by Kallierges, which was subsequently much used in the Renaissance (v. Schmitz [1993] 128, n. 206), reveals his use of the scholia from which it is drawn; cf. I 104,13 Dr.; 128,6; 152,13; 195,16; 236,8; 265,2; 306,21; 342,2; 348,9; 356,4; 388,3, etc., where it is the regular term for a single ode; v. further Bickel (1942), esp. 36–41. 172 See pp. 30–32 with n. 64 above. 173 The only exception is found in v. 47 where the Romana succeeded in restoring responsion by adopting B’s πόρσω instead of the Aldina’s πρόσω (ultimately deriving from D through Triklinios), on which see p. 55 with n. 207 below. The line endings are in any case identical in the two editions.

52

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Romana is markedly heavier than that of the Aldina.174 The results of a comparison of the individual readings of the Romana with those of the Aldina and B can be conveniently summarized in two sections.175 Romana with the Aldina against B

(* indicates that the Romana has a superior reading to that of the opposite column)

Romana / Aldina 1 *σικυωνόθε 13 *ἀμφιάρηόν τε 16 ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿

B σικυωνόθεν176 ἀμφιάρηόν ποτε177 ἀνδροδάμαν τ᾿178

174 Where the Aldina has no punctuation the Romana has a full stop in 11 places: after ἐπόπταις (5), καλύψαι (7), πόλιν (12), Ἄργεος (14), λύᾳ (14), ἔντεσιν (22), καπνόν (23), Ἑλώρου (40), συμπόσιον (48), γίνεται (49), Σικυῶνος (53). Where the Aldina has no punctuation the Romana has a comma in 15 places: after θύραι (2), μανύει (4), ἐσλὸν (6), ἁμίλλαις (12), ἵπποις (25), μαχατὰν (26), φόβοις (27), ἐγχέων (29), κρέσσονας (32), φόνου (37), δέδορκεν (41), δίκᾳ (44), λαχὼν (45), σκοπιᾶς (47), λόγοις (54). Where the Aldina has a comma, the Romana has a full stop in two places: after ἀνήρ (15), φῶτας (24). 175 No influence of Triklinios on the Romana except through the Aldina (nor of D directly) was found. Confirmation of the fact that the Romana made no use of Triclinian MSS in this ode is found in v. 44 where Kallierges uncritically followed the Aldina against all MSS including the Triclinian; v. n. 197 below. Further, it should be noted that the only reading of the Romana in Ne. 9 which is not found in either the Aldina or MS B is μέγιστον in v. 17 where the Aldina and B (and all other MSS) have μέγιστοι. It is obviously a typographical mistake and was accordingly ignored by subsequent editors. 176 The lemma Σικυωνόθεν μοῖσαι in line 22 of Kallierges’ (unpaginated) edition of the scholia has no MS authority being an addition of the editor which was placed before the inscriptio περὶ τῶν ἐν σικυῶνι πυθίων … (III 149,14 Dr.); this was taken over in later editions of the scholia including those of Heyne and Boeckh until Abel (1891) 254 expelled it. It should also be noted that while Kallierges follows Aldus’ practice of using only minuscule letters for the text of the odes (including for the beginning of proper names), he employs capitals to indicate the beginning of a lemma in the scholia. 177 The reading of B is unmetrical; v. Braswell (1998) 66 ad Ne. 9.13 Ἀμφιάρην ποτὲ. 178 Significantly, the Romana accepts Triklinios’ bad guess ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿ from the Aldina, although the scholia (35c, III 154,22–27 Dr.) printed in the last line of the passage (ἀνδροδάμαν δὲ, τὴν τὸν ἄνδρα ἀνελοῦσαν φησίν· …) should have been enough to alert the editor to B’s superior reading ἀνδροδάμαν τ᾿ which subsequently pointed the way to Ceporinus’ convincing correction ἀνδροδάμαντ᾿, on which v. Braswell (1998) 71 ad Ne. 9.15–17 κρέσσων – μέγιστοι and 74 ad Ne. 9.16 ἀνδροδάμαντ᾿.

53

6. The editio Romana (1515)

17 18 18 21 23 23 23 24 24

*ὀϊκλείδᾳ ἀνδρῶν στρατὸν *αἰσιᾶν ἄρεσ᾿ ἐρυσάμενοι λευκανθέαν *σώμασ᾿ ἐπίαναν *ὅ δ᾿ *σχίσεν

ἰοκλείδα179 στρατὸν ἀνδρῶν180 αἰσιῶν181 ἄρ᾿ ἐς182 ἐρεισάμενοι183 λευκανθέα184 σώμασιν ἐπίαναν185 ὁ δὲ186 σχίσε187

179 Confirmation of the correct reading of the Aldina is found in the scholia (35d, III 155,5 Dr.) τῷ ὀϊκλέος παιδὶ ἀμφιαράῳ which Kallierges printed in lines 11–12 of the page. 180 Although the ancient metrical scholia, which he printed in lines 9–11 (III 149,8– 11 Dr.) at the beginning of the ode, would have told the editor of the Romana that three syllables were missing in verses 17–18, his colometry here simply follows the Aldina which not only ignored the loss but adopted Triklinios’ unnecessary transposition in v. 18 where B has the correct order στρατὸν ἀνδρῶν. 181 That Kallierges followed the Aldina in accepting Triklinios’ certain correction αἰσιᾶν against B’s αἰσιῶν (cf. also v. 42 ἁμέραις Rom./Ald./Trikl., B; v. 53 τᾶς Rom./Ald./Trikl., τῆς B) may be no more than editorial inertia, but in light of his acceptance of B’s correct μανύει in v. 4 against the Aldina’s (and Triklinios’) μηνύει suggests an awareness of Pindar’s Doric dialect, which however was not strong enough to induce him to adopt B’s κρατῆρα in v. 49 against the Aldina’s (and Triklinios’) κρητῆρα. 182 On the false interpretation of ἄρ᾿ ἐς adopted by the Romana from the Aldina see p. 46 above. 183 The itacistic variant of D perpetuated by Triklinios and the Aldina passed unnoticed in the Romana, although the editor will have known B’s correct reading ἐρεισάμενοι. It remained in the texts of Pindar until Mommsen (1864) at last restored the reading of B. 184 The uncertainty evident from the scholia (53b, III 155,19–23 Dr.) may well have made it more difficult for Kallierges to recognize the correctness of B’s reading λευκανθέα against the Aldina’s λευκανθέαν. 185 Kallierges rightly preferred the reading of the Aldina against the unmetrical reading of B. 186 Here as in v. 32 (τ᾿) and 44 (δ᾿) the editor of the Romana follows the Aldina (and Triklinios) in avoiding the scriptio plena of B, on which see n. 85 above. 187 Where B has σχίσσαις in linea and σχίσε supra lineam Kallierges rightly preferred the Aldina’s σχίσεν. The Romana is consistent in adopting from the Aldina Triklinios’ addition of a nu ephelkustikon where B has none (on which see n. 86 above): here, 25, 30, 31, 41.

54

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

25 30 31 32 38 40 41 42 44 44 46 48 49 53

*κρύψεν *παισὶν *ἀγλαΐαισιν *τ᾿ ποδὶ *ἑλώρου *δέδορκεν *ἁμέραις *δ᾿ ἐὼν *κτεάνοις ἡσυχίαν κρητῆρα *τᾶς

188 189 190 191 192

See n. 187 above. See n. 187 above. See n. 187 above. See n. 186 above. On Triklinios’ unfortunate change of the paradosis to ποδὶ, which was adopted by the Aldina, see p. 36 above. That the Romana did not adopt B’s psilotic form is one of the indications that the MS was not automatically regarded as a better authority. On the reasons for preferring the aspirated form of the name v. Braswell (1998) 125 ad Ne. 9.40 Ἑλώρου. See n. 187 above. See n. 181 above. See n. 186 above. The reading ἐὼν in the Romana at v. 44 is significant in that it shows how Kallierges uncritically followed the Aldina where all MSS including the Triclinian and the scholia (104a–c, III 161,3–22 Dr.) clearly have the superior reading αἰὼν. On the mistake in the Aldina see p. 46 with n. 149 above. The Romana rightly follows the Aldina here in adopting a typical correction of Triklinios made metri gratia. The adoption by the Romana from the Aldina of Triklinios’ mistaken correction ἡσυχίαν against B’s (and D’s) correct ἡσυχία ensured that it held the field until Bergk’s 2nd ed. of 1853 (on Ceporinus’ ἡσυχία in margine see n. 285 below); cf. n. 59 above. See n. 181 above. See n. 181 above.

193

194 195 196 197

198 199

200 201

κρύψε188 παισὶ189 ἀγλαΐαισι190 τε191 ποτὶ192 ἐλώρου193 δέδορκε194 ἡμέραις195 δὲ196 αἰὼν197 κτεάνοισι198 ἡσυχία199 κρατῆρα200 τῆς201

55

6. The editio Romana (1515)

Romana with B against the Aldina

4 9 14 34 36 47

Romana / B *μανύει ἅ τε *πατρώων *ἃ οὔνεκεν *πόρσω

Aldina μηνύει202 ἅτε203 πατέρων204 ὃ205 οὕνεκεν206 πρόσω207

We can now answer the three questions posed above. First, the Romana in Ne. 9 is clearly based on the Aldina with six changes introduced from B, of which three are definitely right, one an improvement, one indifferent, while only the unaspirated form οὔνεκεν represents a minor step backwards.208 In 26 instances the Romana retained the reading of the Aldina against B, and of these 17 are superior. Second, no manuscript 202 See n. 181 above. 203 Why Kallierges preferred to follow B in writing ἅ τε separatim where the Aldine following Triklinios (and ultimately D) has ἅτε would be difficult to determine; on the advantage of writing it as one word v. Braswell (1988) 108 ad Py. 4.30(c). 204 Presumably Kallierges returned to B’s πατρώων (with internal correption?) because he was aware that the Aldine reading πατέρων was unmetrical. 205 Kallierges’ understanding of metre and dialect (on the latter see n. 181 above) may have induced him to return to B’s ἃ where the Aldina prints Triklinios’ unmetrical ὃ. 206 Kallierges may have preferred B’s psilotic form to the Aldina’s correct οὕνεκεν because of the absence of aspiration in his own pronunciation of Greek; on its loss by the 10th cent. v. Thumb (1888) 73–88. 207 The ancient metrical scholia (III 149,6f. Dr.) which describe the third colon as a “trochaic dimeter acatalectic” may have suggested Kallierges’ return to B’s πόρσω where the Aldina accepts Triklinios’ πρόσω. In any case, Kallierges’ text οὐκ ἔτ᾿ ἐστὶ πόρσω puts the unmetrical readings of B (οὐκέτι πόρσω) and the Aldina (οὐκ ἔτ᾿ ἐστὶ πρόσω) basically right, and hence is properly listed as an emendation by Gerber (1976) 121; cf. also Tissoni (1992) 176, n. 23. 208 Presumably Kallierges simply took a copy of the Aldina and entered his corrections in it from MS B, which must have been in Venice ca. 1500 (see n. 103 above) from where he had come to Rome in 1515, the same year that his Pindar appeared. As usual in early printing, the corrected printed text would then have served as the compositor’s copy for the text of the new edition, in this case with the scholia added.

56

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

other than B has directly influenced the text of the Romana.209 Third, Kallierges’ own contribution consists, first of all, in the improvement of the text of the Aldina with the help of B. Against the four improvements to Ne. 9 which he introduced from B we must weigh the nine instances in which he wrongly preferred the reading of the Aldina to that of B. Whereas Aldus, as we saw,210 simply copied a Triclinian text and made it available in print, Kallierges made intelligent, if limited, use of B, the value of which he only partially realized. More important, however, was the fact that he printed the scholia vetera from B211 which not only guided him to some extent in his choice between the readings of the Aldina and B,212 but was to provide subsequent editors and commentators with a substantial foundation for their decisions.213

7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri (1521) Six years after the publication of the second edition of Pindar a first general appreciation of the Theban poet appeared in a volume of collective works published in Milan by the Northern Italian humanist Stefano Negri (ca. 1475–1540).214 Although Negri does not deal specifically 209 See n. 175 above. 210 See pp. 44–47 above. 211 Kallierges’ text of the scholia can be conveniently consulted in the editions of Heyne and Boeckh who reprinted it with minimal change. A comparison of the scholia on Ne. 9 in the Romana (now practically illegible at least in micro­film) with Drachmann’s edition of B, confirms Irigoin’s observation (see pp. 50f. above) that Kallierges drew the scholia entirely from B. The few differences between the text of the Romana and that reported by Drachmann represent editorial interventions of Kallierges; see n. 176 above. 212 Kallierges, it should be stressed, made no attempt to produce a better text of Ne. 9 than what he found in the Aldina and B, i.e. he offered no conjectures of his own in this ode except in v. 47 (see n. 207 above), although the scholia which he printed could have helped him far more than the actual help he derived from them. 213 On the subsequent influence of the editio Romana see pp. 67–71, 79f., and 96f. below. 214 The Praefatio in Pindarum Poetam Eminentissimum a Stephano Nigro in Publico Gymnasio Mediolani habita occupies fol. lxxixr–lxxxviiir of the volume entitled Stephani Nigri elegantissime e graeco Authorum subditorum

7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri (1521)

57

with the Ninth Nemean in his Praefatio in Pindarum, it is not without interest for an understanding of Pindaric scholarship in the early decades of the sixteenth century to note briefly the contents of this neglected opusculum of some eighteen pages [cf. App., pp. 141–49 below]. Negri begins with an account of the ancient notion of poetry as a kind of primitive philosophy (prima philosophia) which has the ethical function of forming character beginning with childhood through the pleasurable use of song with a view to teaching us to recognize which actions should be undertaken and which should be avoided.215 Next Negri repeats the claim that poetry is not the result of a rational process of thinking but of divine inspiration.216 A third topos taken up by Negri is that of poetry as an imitative art analogous to painting.217 There follows a list of the earliest poets which includes Homer, Hesiod, Simonides, Orpheus, and Mousaios, who on the authority of Plato are said to have all been sophists whose art was disguised under the aspect of poetry or religion.218 That poets can contribute significantly to the positive or negative reputation of a person is illustrated by the example of Minos who unwisely drew the wrath of later Athenian poets upon himself because of his war against their city.219 The mention of the encomiastic function of poetry brings Negri to his immediate subject,

215

216 217 218 219

Translationes, for a description of which see Schmitz (1993) 270. Negri, who was born ca. 1475 in Casalmaggiore on the Po south-east of Cremona, studied under Demetrios Chalkokondyles in Milan. The fullest account of Negri’s life and works is to be found in Romani (1830) 71–92. On Chalkokondyles see Staikos (1998) 225–55 with further bibliography p. 242, n. 1. Fol. lxxixr–v where Strabo is quoted as the source; cf. Str. 1.2.3 (C. 15,27–29 Radt) οἱ παλαιοὶ φιλοσοφίαν τινὰ λέγουσι πρώτην τὴν ποιητικήν, εἰσάγουσαν εἰς τὸν βίον ἡμᾶς ἐκ νέων καὶ διδάσκουσαν ἤθη καὶ πάθη καὶ πράξεις μεθ᾿ ἡδονῆς. Strabon’s remark is a direct contradiction (τοὐναντίον) of Eratosthenes’ assertion (fr. I A 20, p. 37 Berger) that every poet aims at moving the emotions, and not instruction (ποιητὴν γὰρ ἔφη πάντα στοχάζεσθαι ψυχαγωγίας, οὐ διδασκαλίας). Fol. lxxixv where Plato and Demokritos are cited as sources; cf. Pl. Ion 533dff. and Democr. Vorsokr. 68 B 17 (= Cic. de orat. 2.46.194, div. 1.37.80). Fol. lxxixv–lxxxr where Plutarch, Moralia 17f–18a is quoted in the form μιμητικὴ τέχνη καὶ δύναμις ἀντίστροφος τῇ ζῳγραφίᾳ. ποίησις μὲν γὰρ φθεγγομένη ἐστὶ ζῳγραφία· ζῳγραφία δὲ σιγῶσα ποίησις. Fol. lxxxr; cf. Pl. Prt. 316d. Fol. lxxxr–v where Plato is cited for this notion; cf. ‘Pl.’ Min. 320e–321a.

58

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Pindar ὁ μεγαλοφωνότατος220 and his poetry. There follows a pastiche from Horace and Quintilian which was long to characterize the poet.221 At the end of the section Negri announces that he will interpret his author according to the six praecepta grammaticorum: (1) the life of the poet, (2) the title of the work, (3) the character of the poem, (4) the intention of the author, (5) the number of books, and (6) the explanation of the work.222 In this Negri is following the expositio of Servius in his life of Vergil223 rather than, for example, the sixfold division of grammar presented in the introductory chapter of Dionysios Thrax where only the last, the appreciation of poems (κρίσις ποιημάτων), is in any way comparable.224 In accordance with his proposed plan the Milan humanist treats first the life of Pindar for which he draws his information principally from the Souda which is mentioned by name.225 Secondly the title of Pindar’s work provides the starting-point for a long excursus on the Olympian, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games.226 Here Negri, using a variety of sources,227 treats the mythological origins of the games and 220 An epithet used of the poet at Ath. 13,564d, almost certainly Negri’s source. For the epithet used of Homer and others v. Billerbeck/Zubler (2000) 93 ad Luc. Musc. Enc. 5. 221 Fol. lxxxv [= App., p. 141 below] where Hor. ars 83–85 are quoted followed by a citation from Quint. inst. 10.1.61 which itself includes an allusion to Hor. carm. 4.2 (Pindarum quisque studet aemulari …). On the influence of Horace and Quintilian on the interpretation of Pindar in the early modern era see Wilson (1974), esp. 131–49. 222 Fol. lxxxv [= App., pp. 141f. below]. 223 Cf. the ‘Vita Servii’ in Vitae Vergilianae Antiquae (p. 21,1–3 Hardie): In exponendis auctoribus haec consideranda sunt: poetae uita, titulus operis, qualitas carminis, scribentis intentio, numerus librorum, ordo librorum, explanatio. 224 Cf. GG I,1 p. 5,1–6,3 Uhlig. 225 Fol. lxxxir–v [= App., pp. 141f. below]. Negri might well have used the editio princeps of the Souda published in Milan by his own teacher Demetrios Chalkokondyles in 1499 or the Aldina published in 1514, but in fact he need have looked no further than the editio Romana of Pindar where the Vita is printed in full (fol. 2r); cf. Suid. π 1617 (IV 132,26–133,9 Adler [= App., p. 126 below]). 226 Fol. lxxxiv–lxxxiiiir. 227 These include Pausanias, Athenaios, Lukian, Pollux, the scholia on Lykophron (first printed 1546) and Pindar, the Heroikos of Philostratos, a translation of which Negri had published in 1517, and Eustathios (first printed 1542–1550).

7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri (1521)

59

the several types of contests. The third praeceptum, the character of the poem (carminis qualitas) is dealt with the most extensively.228 Under the heading, the character of the poem, Negri begins with a list of different types of lyric poetry drawn from Pollux:229 odes or hymns, paeans, prosodia, and dithyrambs along with minor genres such as the οὔπιγγος (for Artemis) and the ἴουλος (Demeter). Hymns which are addressed to the gods are then further divided, following Menander Rhetor,230 into cletic, apopemptic, scientific (φυσικοί), mythical, genealogical, fictitious (πεπλασμένοι), precatory (εὐκτικοί), and deprecatory (ἀπευκτικοί). Negri continues with a citation from Eustathios for five types of odes for heroes.231 Next the author explains the triadic structure of the odes and then illustrates the different metrical feet, twenty-eight in number, with Greek examples.232 Although Negri is aware that the strophe, antistrophe, and epode of a triad all consist of individual cola, he does not attempt to explain the relation of feet to cola.233 After his list of metrical feet Negri turns to an account of the other canonical nine lyric poets: first Stesichoros, then Bakchylides, Ibykos, Anakreon, Simonides, Alkman, Alkaios, and lastly Sappho.234 The fourth praeceptum, the intention of the author (scribentis intentio), is dismissed in a single sentence: “to immortalize himself as 228 229 230 231 232

Fol. lxxxiiiir–lxxxviir [cf. App., pp. 143–47 below]. Onom. 1.38 (I 11,11–14 Bethe). Men. Rh. 333,1–344,14 (pp. 6–28 Russell/Wilson). Eust. ad Il. 1.472–74 (137,36–39 = I 211,25–212,1 van der Valk). Fol. lxxxvv–lxxxvir. As his source Negri cites Hephaistion whose work was first printed in 1526. In fact however the catalogue of pedes was not taken directly from the Enchiridion of which the comparable list shows considerable divergences (cf. 10,11–12,23 Consbruch), but from the prolegomena to the editio Romana of Pindar, where Kallierges prints without naming his source a chapter Περὶ τῶν εἰκοσιοκτὼ ποδῶν. This was in turn taken from a list of metrical feet in the Pindar manuscript Parisinus graecus 2709 (X); v. Irigoin (1952) 410f. and 415–19. For a similar list in the MSS Q (Laurentianus 32,35) and Y (Venetus Marcianus graecus 475) v. Drachmann (1903–27) III 307,21–309,19. 233 Fol. lxxxvr–v [= App., pp. 145–47 below]. He of course had no notion of the periods formed by the combination of cola. 234 Fol. lxxxvir–lxxxviir. For Stesichoros the author names the Souda as his source, which he in fact briefly summarizes; cf. σ 1095 (IV 433,16–23 Adler). For the other six poets he likewise draws his information from the Souda.

60

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

well as those whom he praises and to urge the rest to virtue”.235 The same is true of the fifth: “the number of books corresponds to the number of contests”.236 For the sixth and final section Negri had promised an interpretation (explanatio) of Pindar’s work. We should not however expect a commentary on the epinikia to follow. Indeed what we receive is a brief historical introduction to the First Olympian consisting of a mention of Hieron and his victory at Olympia along with a quotation of the dedicatory epigram found in Pausanias (8.42.8–9 = No. 126 Preger).237 This is followed by a solitary lemma ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ which leads Negri to a discussion of philosophical opinions on the origin of matter.238 These extend from Thales to Zeno.239 Finally Negri returns to Pindar whose statement he interprets to mean that water is the best of the elements and principles of things.240 After mentioning Plutarch’s treatise Aquane an ignis sit utilior, which itself begins (955d) with a quotation of Ol. 1.1, Negri ends the Praefatio with a discussion of Homer’s notion of water.241 Clearly a reader of Pindar could not advance very far with the help of Negri’s introduction, but it did at least make some information from ancient sources available in a Latin translation which was previously 235 Fol. lxxxviir [= App., p. 147 below]: Scribentis intentio eo spectat ut et se et quos laude prosequitur immortaleis reddat, reliquosque ad uirtutem exhortetur. 236 Fol. lxxxviir [= App., p. 147 below]: Librorum numerus certaminum numero continetur. Negri does not seem to have been aware that Pindar wrote victory odes for winners in contests other than the four Panhellenic games. The inclusion of Ne. 9, 10, and 11 as an appendix to the Nemean collection (cf. sch. Ne. 9, inscr. [III 150,2–3 Dr.]), originally the final book of the odes, doubtless contributed to this misapprehension. 237 Fol. lxxxviir [= App., p. 147 below]. 238 Fol. lxxxviir–lxxxviiir [= App., pp. 148f. below]. As source Negri cites Plutarch, i.e. the pseudepigraphical De placitis philosophorum from which he takes book 1, chapter 3 περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν τί εἰσιν (875d–878c) as the basis of his exposition. 239 Amongst the other opinions mentioned are those of Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaos, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, Hippasos, Epikouros, Demo­ kritos, Empedokles, Sokrates, and Plato. The brief mention of Aristotle in the Placita (878b) is passed over by Negri. 240 Fol. lxxxviiv [= App., p. 148 below]: Pindarus inter elementa ac rerum principia optimam esse aquam ait. 241 Fol. lxxxviiir [= App., p. 149 below]. Negri cites or alludes to Od. 17.208, 5.70, Il. 2.751–54, 11.828–30, 845f., and concludes with a Latin translation of Il. 22.151f.

8. Over the Alps

61

accessible only in Greek. In any event it was reprinted along with other works of Negri in 1532 at Basel.242 With Negri’s Praefatio of 1521 we have reached the end of the first phase of Pindaric studies which developed entirely south of the Alps. The collection and copying of manuscripts, which bore first fruit in the editio Aldina of 1513 and the still more important editio Romana of 1515 along with the modest attempt of Negri to make Pindar more generally accessible, provided a basis for later Pindaric scholarship. The following hundred years were to witness a lively interest in the poetry of Pindar both in literature and scholarship. Now however it was no longer Italian humanists and Greek exiles who were to contribute to the study, interpretation, and appreciation of the Theban poet but northerners, notably among the first generation of Protestant reformers. Understandably these were to seek other values in Pindar’s poetry than did their Mediterranean predecessors.

8. Over the Alps The translatio studiorum Graecorum from the lands of the Medi­ terranean to those north of the Alps began half a century or so after the great translatio from Greece to Italy.243 A valuable foundation for 242 By Henricus Petrus. The “Praefatio in Pindarum” occupies pp. 203–26. On this edition see Hieronymus (1997) I 796 (no. 245). 243 On the translatio to Italy cf. pp. 39–42 above and see the studies of Geanakoplos (1962) and Wilson (1992). A comprehensive history of early Greek studies in northern Europe remains to be written. For France a promising beginning was made by Egger (1869) and continued in special studies such as those of Knös (1945) on Janos Laskaris and, most recently with special reference to Pindar, of Schmitz (1993) (with a valuable bibliography of Pindar editions, translations, and commentaries published before 1630, pp. 264–308). For the German-speaking lands the study of Bursian (1883), has never been fully replaced. A good, short introduction to the early development of Greek studies in Germany is given by Sicherl (1978a) 23–33. See further Harlfinger (1989), and Ludwig (1998). For a broad survey of the study of Greek lyric poetry in the Renaissance v. now Hummel (1997) 155–251 (with a chronological list of editions, translations, and commentaries of the Greek lyric poets, pp. 237–51).

62

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

future Greek studies was laid as early as 1443 by the Dominican cardinal John Stojkovič of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) who on his death in that year at Lausanne left his collection of some sixty Greek manuscripts to the house of his order in Basel where he had attended the Council (1431–1439).244 The central figure in promoting the first systematic study of Greek in Germany is Johannes Reuchlin (1454/55–1522) who had acquired the elements of the language from Greek émigrés in Paris and Basel and went on to improve his knowledge of it in the course of several trips to Italy beginning in 1482.245 Reuchlin taught Greek (and Hebrew) with interruptions in a number of German cities, notably in Heidelberg (1496–1498) and Ingolstadt (1520–1521), where we shall meet him again shortly, as well as in Tübingen (1481, 1521– 1522). Amongst his pupils in Heidelberg was Johannes Cuno (1462/63– 1513) who as we have seen,246 later attended lectures of Markos Mousouros on Pindar in Padua in 1509 and was closely associated with Aldus Manutius in Venice before settling in Basel in 1510. From then until his premature death in 1513 he lived in the house of the humanist printer Johann Amerbach (ca. 1443–1513) as corrector and tutor in Greek to his three sons.247 Although other German-speaking cities of the time, notably Cuno’s native Nürnberg, could boast a lively 244 On Stojkovič (born ca. 1390) see Krchňák (1960), and on his MSS, which were later used by Reuchlin, Erasmus, and others, Vernet (1961). Many of the MSS, the majority of which are now in the University Library of Basel, contain theological works, but classical prose authors are well represented. The Basel codex F. VIII. 4 (Vernet, no. 45) includes a title “Pindarice Mensure”. 245 The basic study on Reuchlin remains that of Geiger (1871). The commemoration of the quincentenary of his birth by his native city Pforzheim produced a number of valuable studies such as those of Preisendanz (1955) and Rupprich (1955). For a short account of Reuchlin with more recent bibliography see H. Scheible in Bietenholz (1985–87) III 145–50. For a recent biographical sketch see Rhein (1993). 246 Cf. note 114 above. On Cuno see besides the fundamental study of Sicherl (1978a) cited there the short account of P. G. Bietenholz in Bietenholz (1985–1987) I 333f. 247 On the Amerbach family and their role in humanistic publishing in Basel see the several articles in Bietenholz (1985–1987) I 42–48 (with further bibliography). For the correspondance of the Amerbach family between the years 1481 and 1558 v. the eleven-volume edition by Hartmann/Jenny/Dill (1942–2010). See further Dill/Jenny (2000).

9. The editio Basileensis (1526)

63

interest in Greek,248 it was in Basel that the first edition of Pindar to be printed north of the Alps appeared.

9. The editio Basileensis (1526) Although only a decade separates the Rome and Basel editions of Pindar, there is a world of difference between them – not so much in the text, as we shall see, but in the intellectual climate in which they were produced. The editor of the Basel edition was the young Swiss scholar Jakob Wiesendanger (1500–1525) from Dinhard near Winterthur whose name was classicized, in accordance with contemporary custom, as Jacobus Ceporinus.249 After study in Cologne and Vienna Ceporinus spent the summer semester of 1520 in Ingolstadt with Reuchlin who that term devoted his morning lectures to Hebrew grammar and his evening ones to Aristophanes’ Ploutos, traditionally the first play of the comic poet read in Byzantine schools and later in their Italian equivalents.250 After 248 On Greek humanism in Nürnberg and its close contacts to northern Italy see Sicherl (1978a) 29–33, and esp. Holzberg (1981) 41–48. On the study of Greek in other German cities see, for Heidelberg, Sicherl (1978a) 27f. with n. 14 (for further bibliography), and, for humanistic studies more generally in Wittenberg, Grossmann (1975). 249 On Ceporinus the basic study is that of Egli (1901) 145–60. See now also Riedweg (2000). With regard to the learned names of the Renaissance it should be observed that their adoption is not necessarily a sign of personal affectation, as it might now be assumed, but rather an attempt e.g. in the case of German names, esp. the compound ones, to make them more or less intelligible to nonspeakers of the language and therewith memorable as well as adaptable to the needs of Latin syntax. 250 On Reuchlin’s lectures see Egli (1901) 147. On Aristophanes’ Ploutos as introductory reading see Wilson (1992) 30f., 115, and Ludwig (1975) 9–32, esp. 9–16. Some ten years later the play was performed in Greek at Zürich where Ceporinus had last taught; on the performance v. the short account in the pamphlet of Hug (1874). This need not, however, be a belated influence of Reuchlin through his pupil considering the popularity of the work which had already been performed in Greek at Florence in 1488, on which v. Stäuble (1968) 200, and Gelzer (1967). On the other hand, the direct influence of Reuchlin can be seen in Ceporinus’ decision to edit Rabbi Moses Kimchi’s Hebrew grammar on which his teacher had

64

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

spending the next two years in Basel,251 working perhaps as corrector in a printing house, at the end of October, 1522 he received a teaching position for Greek and Hebrew in Zürich on the recommendation of the reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), who, though much his senior, did not hesitate to study Hebrew with him.252 This first Zürich appointment, however, proved short-term with Ceporinus returning to Basel to work as corrector with Andreas Cratander (Hartmann).253 In June, 1525 Ceporinus finally received a permanent teaching position in Zürich which was financially secured by a prebend on the Grossmünster and immediately began his instruction in Hebrew and Greek.254 By this time his edition of Pindar must have been virtually completed. Cratander duly published it in Basel with a title-page dated 1526, by which time the young editor was dead.255 The edition was prefaced by a letter of Zwingli addressed to “linguarum candidati”256 dated 24  February

251

252 253

254 255 256

based his lectures in Ingolstadt. Ceporinus’ edition, which was unfinished at the time of his death, was eventually completed by Sebastian Münster and published in 1531, on which v. Egli (1901) 155 with n. 2. During his stay in Basel Ceporinus prepared a Greek grammar which gave special attention to the dialects. This work, first published in December, 1522 in Basel, went through at least 16 editions or reprints (the latest in 1688) and was still being used in Zürich schools as late as 1724; v. Egli (1901) 148f., 157f. As an appendix to his grammar Ceporinus added an annotated edition of Hesiod’s Erga. He then continued his editorial work with an edition containing the texts of Dionysios Periegetes, Aratos, and Proklos’ Sphaira which appeared in Basel in 1523, on which v. Parks/Cranz (1976) 39–41, and Tsavari (1990) 428f., who shows that Ceporinus’ edition of Dionysios was not based directly on the Aldina of 1513, which was at the same time the editio princeps of Pindar (v. p. 44 with n. 129 above), but on the edition of Valentinus Curio (on whom v. P. G. Bietenholz in Bietenholz [1985–87] I 371f.) which had appeared in Basel the year before in 1522. See Egli (1901) 148. For a concise account of Zwingli’s religious humanism v. F. Büsser in Bietenholz (1985–87) III 481–86 (with good bibliography). On Cratander of Strasbourg who had settled in Basel by 1505, after having taken his B.A. in Heidelberg in 1503, and who died ca. 1540, see Meier/ Pfister-Burkhalter/Schmid (1966), and, for a short account, P. G. Bieten­holz in Bietenholz (1985–87) I 357f. See Egli (1901) 152f. Ceporinus died on or, possibly, just before 20 December 1525; v. Egli (1901) 155 with n. 3. I.e., in the first instance, students of Greek and Hebrew as the contents of the epistolary preface make clear.

9. The editio Basileensis (1526)

65

1526, in which no mention of Ceporinus’ death is made, and followed by a second letter of the reformer with a conventional address to the “candidus lector” dated 1 March 1526, in which he explains that he did not wish to overshadow the preface with the news of the editor’s death.257 The two letters of Zwingli are of capital importance in understanding the intellectual background to the main stream of Pindaric scholarship for the next two centuries [cf. App., pp. 150–54 below].258 The first letter begins conventionally with an allusion to Horace (carm. 4.2) and the inimitable qualities of Pindar which the Roman poet claimed for his Greek predecessor while tacitly imitating them. There follows an allu257 The date of the publication would seem unproblematical, but there is a copy of the Pindar edition in the Universitätsbibliothek in Basel (shelf mark Bc VII 143) with the dedication on the title-page: Jacobus Ceporinus Albano Torino dono dedit MDXXV. Whether the dedication was written by Ceporinus himself, as Egli (1901) 154, implies, or was added later by Torinus, as Hieronymus (1992) 291, assumes, the problem remains how Ceporinus could have presented his compatriot Albanus Torinus (1489–1550) of Winterthur (on whom v. P. G. Bietenholz in Bietenholz [1985–87] III 331), who was then teaching in the Arts Faculty at Basel, with a book dated in the year following his death and, moreover, containing a letter announcing it. Since the edition itself (for a bibliographical description of which v. Schmitz [1993] 270f.) is printed on pages numbered 1 to 312 (signatures A4B-T8Y6) and the two letters of Zwingli on unnumbered pages (signatures *8 and F4), the Greek text was probably completed in 1525 and postdated to 1526 (possibly with a view to the impending introductory letter of the editor’s patron and also perhaps with a view to the spring book fair in Frankfurt). This is presumably what Ceporinus presented to Torinus who could then have added the gatherings containing the two letters when he had his copy bound. These are missing in a copy in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (signature Yb 4279; v. Schmitz [1993] 271) and also in another copy in Basel (signature Bc VII 648 Nr. 1), which might indicate censorship in Catholic areas (so Hieronymus [1992] 291), but possibly they were bound without them. Be that as it may, the publication date of the complete volume is 1526. 258 Their continuing importance is shown not only by the fact that Erasmus Schmid chose to reprint them in his great edition of 1616 (Ne., fol. ):( 1v–3v; Is., fol. Δ 1v–3v), but more subtly in the influence which they exerted on translations and commentaries well into the 18th century. The text of the letters is also to be found with modernized orthography and punctuation in Egli/Finsler/Köhler/Farner (1927) 867–79; for the following discussion, however, I have used the original edition. The letters have been treated briefly by Gelzer (1981) 94–96, and Hieronymus (1992) 291, and in detail Schmitt (1981), who provides a valuable commentary on their background. In my own account which follows I have especially emphasized those aspects which were to have a continuing influence on Pindaric scholarship.

66

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

sion to Quintilian’s judgement (inst. 10.1.61) of Pindar as longe princeps of the nine lyric poets, which Zwingli outdoes by elevating him to the princeps of all poets. Next Ceporinus is praised as a talent born for the exposition of the earliest and most learned authors. Afterwards comes a sketch of Pindar’s life drawn from the Souda culminating in his death “reclinatus in amantissimi Theoxeni genua”.259 There follows a laudatory characterization of the poet’s ingenium which manifests itself in a number of qualities. First, his eruditio which is revealed in his use of sublime language, his docta compositio, tersa contrectatio, and mundities. Secondly, the amoenitas of his language is shown in his balanced use of obsolete, current, and old-fashioned words, in his skilful employment of the figures of speech, and in his choice of maxims (sententiae) which possess auctoritas, familiaritas, and τὸ ἐπιεικές, i.e. express what is obviously right and proper in an impressive way. These are all qualities which Quintilian (inst. 10.1.27) regarded as useful in the orator. Mention of Pindar’s sententiae serves as a transition from Zwingli’s rhetorical poetics to his commendation of the poet’s high moral qualities. First, his dexteritas, his skill and tact in working toward moral improvement by combining praise with blame and admonition where the latter is required. Secondly, his sanctitas which is shown in the absence of petulantia and procacitas linguae, hence no lechery or wantonness, the signs of hidden moral corruption. In short, the virtues of Pindar are truth, holiness, and probity. Returning to the Horatian imagery of the beginning of the letter, Zwingli ends this section with an allusion to the Pindaric description (fr. 274 Maehler = Quint. inst. 10.1.109) of eloquentiae flumen followed by a summary of the aesthetic and moral qualities which the humanist reformer claims to have found in his poetry. Next Zwingli takes up the objection of Christian fundamentalism that the plurality of gods of which Pindar and other poets speak is dangerous for the faith. He is convinced that Pindar was a monotheist at heart260 259 A euphemistic translation of ἀνακεκλιμένον εἰς τὰ τοῦ ἐρωμένου Θεοξένου αὐτοῦ γόνατα (π 1617 [IV 133,4f. Adler]) [= App., p. 126 below]. A life of Pindar extracted from the Souda was conveniently included in the prolegomena to both the Aldina and Romana. 260 So great is Zwingli’s admiration for Pindar that elsewhere he includes him along with Plato and Seneca in that specially privileged class of “gentiles salvati”, on which v. Schmitt (1981) 313f. with n. 76, and further Pfister (1952).

9. The editio Basileensis (1526)

67

and invokes the authority of Augustine and Origen in his defence. Even the Hebrews, he adds, spoke of God in the plural as elohim. Such plural expressions are, according to him, only figures of speech used “ornatus gratia, amplitudinis ac uetustatis”. The reference to the Hebrews not only allows Zwingli to dispose of a traditional objection to Pindar’s poetry but also to provide a further recommendation of it as a help to understanding the poetry of the Hebrews themselves. The rest of the letter is devoted to a defence of the study of classical writings as an aid to biblical exegesis upon which depends knowledge of the supreme truth. Pindar, it would appear, has crossed the Alps to find employment as a Protestant pastor’s assistant. The second letter begins appropriately with an obituary notice of Ceporinus “homo monstrose laboriosus” in which is especially mentioned his mastery of mathematics drawn from Greek sources and of Hebrew which he learnt from Capnio (Reuchlin). There follows his bibliography261 and praise of his moral and intellectual qualities. Then Zwingli returns to the themes of his first letter to develop them more fully. These need not detain us further here.262 We may now turn from the spirit of the Basel edition to the text of Ne. 9. The spirit, we note at once, has left a visible sign in the form of a pair of inverted commas in the left-hand margin opposite the sententiae.263 Elsewhere, however, the edition optically bears a close re261 “Dionysium restituit Graecis suis: Pindarum correxit: Grammaticas praeceptiones adeo probe tradidit, ut qui diligenter legerunt, palmam ei offerant, praesertim quod ad διαλέκτους attinet.” 262 One of the topics implied in Zwingli’s discussion should, however, be noted here: “Das Alter einer Lehre oder einer Schrift verbürgte nach damaliger Auffassung die Nähe zum göttlichen Ursprung und sicherte ein Höchtsmaß an Wahrheit”, Schmitt (1981) 315. This is an assumption which was later to exercise an enormous influence on German romantic Hellenism and indirectly long afterwards, especially in the wide-spread disdain for Greek literature of the Hellenistic and imperial periods. 263 They are turned outwards („) as with modern German quotation marks. In Ne. 9 Ceporinus has marked the following verses as maxims: 6f. ἔστι – καλύψαι, 33f. αἰδὼς – δόξαν, 37–39 παῦροι – δυνατοί, 44 ἐκ – ἁμέρα, 46f. εἰ – ποδοῖν, 49 θαρσαλέα – γίνεται. These were meant as practical help for the reader who might wish to employ Pindar’s gnomai in his own works or at least derive moral edification from them. As we shall see (cf. pp. 73 and 97 below), this need of the reader was soon to be met more systematically.

68

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

semblance to the Aldina: octavo format, text occupying the whole page without scholia, cursive letter forms showing an undeniable affinity to Aldus’ Greek fount. In fact, it has been asserted by Wolfgang O. Schmitt without discussion that Ceporinus’ edition is based on the Aldina and represents “gegenüber dem Text des Zacharias Kallierges einen philo­ logischen Rückschritt”.264 Heyne, however, judged it quite differently: “Emendatissima editio, ad exemplar Romanum Jac. Ceporini opera emendatum, comparata quoque Aldina editione.”265 Considering the influence the text of the Basel edition was to exert on later editions,266 we may profitably compare it with its two predecessors to determine, for the Ninth Nemean at least, its exact relationship to them. We note at once that the ode is rightly treated as monostrophic as in the Romana and not triadic as in the Aldina.267 The colometry is exactly identical with that of the Romana.268 In punctuation Ceporinus shows great independence differing from Aldus in 70 and from Kallierges in 66 places.269 The results of a comparison of the individual readings of the Basel edition with those of the Romana and Aldina can best be summarized in a comparative table showing their differences from the Basileensis (* indicates that the Basileensis has a reading superior to both). Basileensis Inscr. εἶδος 1 σικυώνοθε

Romana εἶδος σικυωνόθε

Aldina μέλος270 σικυωνόθε271

264 Schmitt (1981) 303f. with n. 3. 265 1st ed., II (1774) 107f. = 2nd ed., I (1798) 39 = London reprint, I (1824), p. xxvi. Schweiger (1830–34) I 234, repeats Heyne’s judgement. 266 See pp. 96f. below. 267 Each strophe is headed δυωδεκάς (i.e. consisting of 12 cola) followed by the appropriate number as in the Romana. 268 In v. 47 (= strophe 10, colon 3 of the Romana) the Basileensis rightly reads πόρσω with the Romana against the Aldina’s πρόσω, which disturbs the responsion; v. nn. 173 and 207 above. 269 Generally speaking, Ceporinus punctuates more heavily than both, the difference from the Aldina being most marked. Although his punctuation is far too heavy by modern standards, it is a genuine help to the reader in discerning the basic syntactical patterns. 270 See n. 171 above. 271 Cf. n. 176 above. Ceporinus’ change of the accent has no authority either in the MSS of the text or in the scholia. Since he treats the same form in Ne. 10.43

69

9. The editio Basileensis (1526)

4 8 9 14 16 17 21 28 34 36 38 44 47

272 273 274 275 276 277 278

279

280 281 282 283 284

μανύει *αὐτὰν ἅτε πατρώων *ἀνδροδάμαντ᾿ μέγιστοι *ἄρ᾿ ἐς ἀγάνορα ἃ οὕνεκεν παρποδίου *αἰὼν πόρσω

μανύει αὐτὸν ἅ τε πατρώων ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿ μέγιστον277 ἄρεσ᾿ ἀγάνορα ἃ οὔνεκεν παρποδίου ἐὼν πόρσω

μηνύει272 αὐτὸν273 ἅτε274 πατέρων275 ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿276 μέγιστοι ἄρεσ᾿278 ἀγάνορᾳ279 ὃ280 οὕνεκεν281 παρποδέου282 ἐὼν283 πρόσω284

as paroxytone and, moreover, since adverbs in -θε(ν) formed from place-names with a naturally short penultimate are regularly paroxytone (cf. Chandler [21881] §§841f.), his reading here may well be a typographical error. Cf. n. 181 above. See Braswell (1998) 57 ad Ne. 9.8 αὐτὰν. See n. 203 above. Cf. n. 204 above. Presumably Ceporinus made his correction without knowledge of B or its apograph Ḅ (ἀνδροδάμαν τ᾿), but rather by putting the scholia ad loc. to good use, which their editor Kallierges did not; v. n. 178 above. See n. 175 above. Ceporinus’ correction of the false interpretation of the letters by the Aldina and the Romana (cf. p. 46 as well as n. 182 above) will have owed nothing to the MSS, which all have the correct division, since he almost certainly consulted none, but either to his divination of the sense or to the scholia (cf. 41 εἰς δὲ φανερὰν ἄτην) or rather to both. Since Ceporinus like Kallierges did not employ an iota subscript, we cannot be fully certain whether he noticed the typographical error in the Aldina (cf. p. 46 as well as n. 170 above). It is most likely, however, that he was aware of the syntactically correct reading. Cf. n. 205 above. See n. 206 above. See p. 46 above. Here again Ceporinus’ correction is almost certainly due to his use of the scholia; v. n. 197 above. See n. 207 above.

70 48 55

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

*ἡσυχία (in marg.) *νίκαν

ἡσυχίαν νικᾶν

ἡσυχίαν285 νικᾶν286

From the comparison presented above it is at once obvious that Heyne was right in stating that Ceporinus used the Romana as the basis for his edition but also consulted the Aldina which both helped him to avoid the printing mistake of the Romana in v. 17 and also suggested to him the preferable form in v. 36. That Ceporinus rightly preferred the reading of the Romana in v. 4, 14, 28, 34, 38, and 47 speaks for his philological judgement. In restoring the correct reading at v. 16, 21, 44, 48 (dubitanter), and 55 from the scholia alone the young Swiss editor clearly surpassed his Greek predecessor who had both the scholia and the primary codex B at his disposal. The highest testimony of Ceporinus’ philological acumen is seen in his correction of αὐτὸν in v. 8 to αὐτὰν without external aid so that it refers, as it should, to κορυφάν and not to αὐλόν.287 In short, the Basel edition definitely does not represent a backward step philologically as Wolfgang O. Schmitt claimed, but fully deserves Heyne’s praise as an “editio emendatissima”.288 285 Although Ceporinus prints ἡσυχίαν in his text, he notes the variant reading ἡσυχία (indicated by a cross) in the margin. This he will not have had from B or D, but deduced from the scholia ad loc. (114a, b). However, since sch. 114b knows the reading ἡσυχίαν, which it in fact rejects, Ceporinus apparently was not certain enough of his own judgement to adopt the right reading; see further n. 199 above. 286 Ceporinus made his correction from the scholia ad loc. (127a, b), this time without being diverted by a contrary opinion expressed there (127b … τινὲς δὲ ἀνέγνωσαν περισπωμένως νικᾶν …). 287 That Bury should reject this palmary conjecture, which vastly improves metre and sense, for his makeshift αὐτῶν says more about his own qualities as editor than about those of Ceporinus. 288 In the apparatus to the text of Ne. 9 printed in Braswell (1998) Ceporinus appears as the source of two readings (v. 8 αὐτὰν, 55 νίκαν), which, as we have seen, only partially represents his achievement in this ode. Gerber (1985) 9, notes that Ceporinus’ edition “contains 33 emendations, 4 of which are printed in the Teubner text [1980] and assigned to him, together with a further 4 tacitly printed”. Acceptance of a quarter of the emendations proposed is a very good average, though surpassed by those of Boeckh (36.8%), Otto Schroeder (36%), and Erasmus Schmid (30%), but exceeding those of Gottfried Hermann (19.6%), Tycho Mommsen (15%), Heyne (14.2%), and de Pauw (7.6%), all of whom, it should be added, proposed more than 100 conjectures (v. Gerber [1985] 3).

10. The interpretatio Loniceri (1528)

71

Although only a decade separates the editions of Kallierges and Ceporinus, the difference between an émigré Greek scholar working in the Rome of the Medicean pope Leo X and a German-speaking Protestant scholar working in the Switzerland of Zwingli could hardly be greater. The intellectual climate implied in the reformer’s letters added to the Basel edition is far more remote from the world of Pindar than was that of Renaissance Rome or Venice. Paradoxically Ceporinus, who was culturally much more distant from Pindar, came closer to restoring the original form of his text than did his two Mediterranean predecessors. This paradox of spirit and letter continued long in Pindaric scholarship – almost, some might say, down to the present day.

10. The interpretatio Loniceri (1528) Although the first decades of the sixteenth century were a time of rapidly expanding knowledge of Greek,289 the number of those who could read the text of Pindar with no more help than the Greek scholia was doubt­less limited. For most readers the most pressing need was obviously that of a serviceable Latin translation.290 In 1528, two years after the appearance of the Basel edition, the same publisher Andreas Cratander filled this need by bringing out the complete translation of the odes begun by Johannes Lonicerus (Lonitzer) in 1526 and completed in the following year in Frankfurt [cf. App., pp. 155–58 below].291 Lonicer is very much 289 On the expansion of Greek studies in this era v. pp. 61–63 above. 290 Translations of Ol. 1, 2, and 14 had already appeared in print; v. Schmitz (1993) 269, 271f. (nos. 3, 6, 7). 291 Details given in the preface to the translation; v. n. 293 below. Lonicer (ca. 1499–1569) was born in Artern southwest of Eisleben, the birthplace of his older contemporary Martin Luther (1483–1546). Like Luther he entered the order of Augustinian hermits (Austin friars) and then went on to study at the University of Wittenberg where Luther held a chair of biblical studies. By the time Lonicer received his B.A. degree in 1519 Luther had already launched his programme of church reform with which the young graduate soon became associated. After taking his M.A. at the beginning of 1521 Lonicer left for Freiburg im Br. at the end of that year to take up an appointment in Hebrew. In 1523 he was in

72

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

in the line of Protestant theologians who combined Pindaric and biblical stu­dies.292 In the preface293 to his Pindar translation Lonicer first follows Zwingli in attributing moral and religious virtues to the poet which can be emulated in word and deed.294 Specifically, in the case of the former he is useful to writers of declamationes: “continent enim in uniuersum ii certaminum hymni aliud nihil atque genus laudis ἐπιδεικτικόν.”295 This reads almost like a Latin version of Elroy Bundy’s well-known con­ clusion about the epinikion reached over four centuries later: “there is no passage in Pindar … that is not in its primary intent en­komiastic.”296

292 293

294 295

296

Strasbourg where he published editions of Homer and the Septuagint as well as Latin translations of Luther’s works. In 1527 he received an appointment as professor of Greek at the new University of Marburg where he also later taught Hebrew, medicine, and theology; on Lonicer’s academic career in Marburg (1527–1569) v. Gundlach (1927) 307. After his Pindar of 1528 Lonicer contin­ ued editing and translating Greek texts, both classical and patristic, as well as writing textbooks on rhetoric and Greek grammar and treatises on Dioskorides and one of Galen’s works, which reflect his later interest in medicine. On his re­vised translation of Pindar which was issued by Cratander in 1535 with extensive annotation amounting to a commentary (a prospect already mentioned in the preface to the original edition of 1528) v. pp. 80–95 below. On Lonicer see further the article of A. Horawitz in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 19 (1884) 158–63, and, for a brief account, I. Guenther in Bietenholz (1985–87) II 345f. On Lonicer’s Basel publisher, Andreas Cratander see n. 253 above. This tradition which we saw taking shape in the work of Zwingli and Ceporinus (cf. pp. 65–67 above) was continued among others by Melanchthon (cf. pp. 104– 106 below) and Aretius (cf. p. 113 below). The preface (fol. A 2r–v) is composed in the form of a letter addressed not to “M.  Adamus, Fürst von Hessen” (so Schmitz [1993] 272, no. 8), but to Magister Adam Krafft of Fulda, the court chaplain (Hofprediger) of Philip the Magnanimous, Landgraf of Hessen. Krafft, who was also a foundation professor of theology in Marburg, had become Lonicer’s colleague in the university the year before (1527). On Adam Krafft v. W. Zeller in Neue Deutsche Biographie 12 (1980) 646f. On Philipp I, der Großmütige (1504–1567), Landgraf von Hessen (1509–1567) and founder of the University of Marburg, see W. Friedensburg in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 25 (1887) 765–83. Cf. pp. 66f. above. Lonicer goes on to explain: “Quandoquidem perpetuo uictores a genealogia, ab educatione, a patria, ab affinibus adeoque locis eo pertinentibus euehit ad sydera.” These are all topoi which could be employed in contemporary encomiastic declamations addressed to princes and other notables. Bundy (1962) 3. Bundy continues: “that is, designed to enhance the glory of a particular patron” (= uictores … euehit ad sydera [n. 295 above]).

10. The interpretatio Loniceri (1528)

73

Clearly Lonicer grasped the essentially panegyric nature of the Pindaric victory ode.297 The only other point made in the preface which need detain us here is the apology for translating the poet into prose.298 This is justified by reference to the precedent set by the Homeric translations of Valla (Iliad 1474) and Volaterranus (Odyssey 1497). Lonicer’s apology for a prose translation (soluta oratione Latio) shows, incidentally, that the Horatian description (carm. 4.2.11f.) of Pindar’s verse as “numeris … lege solutis” was not understood to mean that it was equivalent to prose.299 No one, to my knowledge, has discussed the Greek text which Lonicer used for his translation.300 Considering that Cratander was its publisher, we might suspect that the translator took the same publisher’s Greek text as a basis. We may now test the assumption that it was Ceporinus’ edition which Lonicer translated. The Ninth Nemean carries the title: Chromio Aethnaeo curru, ode nona.301 Then follows a division of the ode into eleven strophes each headed by “Dyodecas” which corresponds to the divisions in both the Romana and Basileensis but not the Aldina.302 On the other hand, the probable influence of Ceporinus’ edition is seen in the use of inverted commas in the margin to indicate sententiae.303 297 As we shall see, this insight was not only preserved but further developed, not always successfully, down to Erasmus Schmid. 298 In 1533 Lonicer published an edition of Sophokles’ Aias with a metrical Latin translation. 299 On Zwingli’s use of Horace, carm. 4.2 (also alluded in Lonicer’s preface) v. p. 65 above. That Horace’s mistaken notion of Pindaric metre did in fact have a certain influence on Lonicer can be seen from the preface to his revised edition in which he asserts that lyric poems are not remote from prose, on which v. pp. 82f. below. 300 Schmitz (1993) 265, deliberately decided not to trace the filiations of the early editions and translations described by him (264–308). 301 Ne. 9 occupies fol. 68r–69v of the translation. It may be noted in passing that “Aethnaeo” in the title is a simple typographical error as the correct spelling of the place-name in the body of the text shows. Like many early editions Lonicer’s translation has a fair number of printing mistakes, some of which are noted below. 302 See pp. 51 and 68 above. 303 See p. 67 with n. 263 above. Lonicer, however, is more restrained in his identification of these and marks only vv. 6f., 27, and 44, which, moreover, do not completely coincide with Ceporinus’ identifications in these verses.

74

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Likewise, the use of a cross with a marginal gloss resembles Ceporinus’ indication of an alternative reading.304 Since Lonicer’s translation of Ne. 9 was the first ever published, it will be useful to give his version of the first strophe in order to illustrate his style before we go on to discuss individual points in his rendering:

Cum tripudio procedamus ab Apolline e Sicyone Musae, ad recens conditam Aetnam, ubi apertae reuolutaeue hospitibus uincuntur ianuae, ad fortunatas Chromii aedes. Caeterum dulcem carminum hymnum pangite. Siquidem ad equis regendum currum conscendens, matri et geminis liberis carmen nunciat eximiae Pythonis aequalibus inspectoribus.

A comparison with the Greek text reveals at once that Lonicer has tried to render not only the sense as faithfully as possible but also, generally, to preserve the word-order of the original. The translation would have been most useful to readers not entirely certain of their Greek who wanted help in the form of a crib, but even those with little or no know­ledge of the original language could derive value from the moral precepts and the variety of rhetorical strategies evident even in the translation. Lonicer wisely did not attempt to reproduce Pindar’s poetic qualities, of which he was very much aware as his preface shows. We may now consider some of the details of the translation. In v. 1 the short-vowel subjunctive κωμάσομεν is correctly rendered not as a future as in some later translations (e.g. Sandys, Bowra) but with the subjunctive procedamus which is further elucidated by the addi304 Cf. n. 285 above. In Ne. 9 four words are glossed by Lonicer and, in a further case, an alternative version is given (without the use of a cross) in the margin, on which see below.

10. The interpretatio Loniceri (1528)

75

tion of cum tripudio. “Tripudium” (‘solemn dancing’) is a bit too specific, but “comissatio” (‘revelry’), for example, might have been taken to suggest behaviour unseemly for a pious poet such as Pindar. Ab Apolline adequately represents παρ᾿ Ἀπόλλωνος, since Latin like Greek uses the name of the god for his temple.305 In v. 2 the difficult phrase ἀναπεπταμέναι ξείνων νενίκανται θύραι is translated by apertae re­ uolutaeue hospitibus uincuntur ianuae in which hospitibus is a dat. commodi dependent on apertae and not an abl. auctoris (with which we would expect the use of ab) dependent on uincuntur. Just what a reader could make out of uincuntur in this context would be hard to say. Moreover, the glossing of apertae with reuolutaeue within the text of the translation is unnecessarily cumbrous. Still, in fairness to Lonicer it must be admitted that most subsequent translators have not done much better with the phrase. Verse 3, on the other hand, is adequately translated. In v. 4 the epithet κρατήσιππον is translated by ad equis regendum which represents the first explanation of the scholia (8): τὸ συνέχον ἐν τάξει τοὺς ἵππους, where, however, the second explanation (τὸ κρατοῦν καὶ νικῶν τοὺς ἐναντίους) is certainly the right one. In v. 4 Lonicer understands αὐδὰν as the song (carmen) itself (so also e.g. Sandys, Bowra), but what is in fact meant is the proclama­tion of Chromios as victor.306 In v. 5 the epithet of Pytho αἰπεινᾶς is not understood in its (correct) literal sense (excelsae, rightly Boeckh), but figuratively as eximiae, which is pardonable for one who almost certainly had no knowledge of Delphic topography. Finally, in the first strophe, the use of the uncommon and late inspectoribus to translate ἐπόπταις represents a too literal rendering of the Greek word where, e.g., custodibus (Boeckh) would have been preferable. For the rest of the ode it will be sufficient to restrict our attention to those passages in which Lonicer’s translation reveals his understanding of the several difficulties inherent in the Greek text or else provides a clue to the edition he used as a basis for his Latin version. In v. 6 λόγος is not translated generally with dictum (Heyne, Boeckh) or the like but with prudentia, and the corresponding verses duly noted as sententiae in the margin. In the same verse τετελεσμένον ἐσλόν is first rendered 305 Cf. ThLL II 246,81–247,4. 306 See Braswell (1998) 52 ad Ne. 9.4 ματέρι … αὐδὰν μανύει.

76

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

with rem insigniter gestam and then glossed within the text by adeoque absolutum bonum. In v. 7 recodnere is of course a printing mistake for recondere (= καλύψαι). In the same verse Lonicer rightly renders δ᾿ with enim and not with et.307 The difficult phrase ἐπέων καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος is translated by carmina commodam uictori laudem praebent which shows that Lonicer (1) understood the encomiastic connotation of καύχας (laudem) and (2) was influenced, unnecessarily, by the scholiastic paraphrase (16a) in adding uictori (= τοῖς νενικηκόσι). In v. 8 tibiam ipsam represents αὐλὸν … αὐτὸν of the Aldina and Romana and not Ceporinus’ palmary correction (αὐλὸν …) αὐτὰν (to be construed with the following κορυφάν). In v. 12 fulgebat administrans urbem will not do as a translation of ἄμφαινε κυδαίνων πόλιν (illustravit decorans urbem, rightly Boeckh). In v. 14 Lonicer rightly follows the Romana and Ceporinus in reading πατρώων (implied by his paternarum, sc. aedium) where the Aldina has πατέρων (patrum); however, he wrongly makes the phrase dependent on statum (so also Boehmer) rather than taking it ἀπὸ κοινοῦ with ἀπό τ᾿ Ἄργεος (so sch. 30c). In v. 15 the difficult phrase κρέσσων δὲ καππαύει δίκαν τὰν πρόσθεν ἀνήρ is rendered as quanquam meliore uiro lis componatur prior, which would seem to reflect the interpretation of sch. 35d, where, however, sch. 35a provides the right explanation.308 Two points in the translation of vv. 16–17 are of particular interest. First, Eriphyle’s expanded epithet prioris mariti sui domitricem can only reflect Ceporinus’ ἀνδροδάμαντ᾿ (implied by, but hardly derived in this case direct from the scholia)309 and not the impossible reading of the Aldina and Romana ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿. Secondly, maximum (v. 17) certainly implies the Romana’s mistaken μέγιστον where Ceporinus and the Aldina rightly have μέγιστοι.310 In v. 23 libe­ rantes translates ἐρυσάμενοι, the itacistic mistake of D which was perpetuated by Triklinios and the three editions available to Lonicer.311 However, in this case the translator gives a variant deponentes which reflects the paraphrase of sch. 53c ἀπέθεντο. This might be taken to show 307 308 309 310 311

See Braswell (1998) 56 ad Ne. 9.7 θεσπεσία δ᾿ ἐπέων καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος. See Braswell (1998) 73 ad Ne. 9.15 κρέσσων – ἀνήρ. See n. 276 above. See n. 175 above. See above pp. 35, 46, and 53 with n. 183.

10. The interpretatio Loniceri (1528)

77

his suspicion of what is in fact a better reading: ἐρεισάμενοι.312 In v. 24 corruperunt is a rather weak translation of δαίσαντο, which Lonicer slightly improved with absumpserunt in his second edition.313 On the other hand, absorbuit in v. 25 is more graphic than the neutral κρύψεν. In vv. 26f. priusquam animo confunderetur, bellaci dorso, Periclymenis hasta percussus imply that μαχατάν was (wrongly) taken with νῶτα. In passing we may also note that Lonicer’s sense of classical style was not strong enough to induce him to use tergo instead of dorso. In vv. 28f. eximie peritas hastas a Phoenicibus missas, while representing a correct rendering of the epithet Φοινικοστόλων, imply in the use of eximie the faulty reading of the Aldina ἀγάνορᾳ.314 Moreover, peritas mistranslates the noun πεῖραν (experimentum, Boeckh) which is better, if not exactly, rendered with conflictationem in the second edition.315 In v. 29 Lonicer also mistranslates ἀναβάλλομαι as deuouerim, which makes little sense here. In the second edition this too was improved.316 In vv. 31f. ac urbis uirtutibus uulgus admoue misses the point of ἀγλαΐαισιν “festivities”.317 On the other hand, Lonicer appropriately glosses uiri equorum gerentes curam (φίλιπποι) with diuites in the margin. In v. 34 Lonicer correctly read ἃ with the Romana and Ceporinus (quae uerecund[i]a inquam), but then went on to ignore the full stop after δόξαν, so that he construed gloriam adfert with Chromio.318 In v. 35 ἔκρινας is ignored in the translation with the result that οὕνεκεν in v. 36 is wrongly translated by ergo which then is used to introduce an independent sentence. In v. 36 dea illa (κείνα θεὸς) is rightly glossed in the margin with Pudicitia, reuerentia (cf. sch. 85a ἐκείνη ἡ θεὸς, δηλονότι ἡ Αἰδώς). In v. 37 ut sese de Martis peste ulcisceretur misses the point of ἀμύνειν λοιγὸν. With vv. 37–39 παῦροι – δυνατοί Lonicer did his best to translate a text which was defective in the three editions available to him, which all printed Triklinios’ unfortunate change of ποτὶ (πρὸς) to ποδὶ.319 Although he rightly did not 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319

See Braswell (1998) 88 ad Ne. 9.23 ἐρεισάμενοι. See p. 90 below. See p. 46 above. See p. 92 below. By translating it as reiecero; v. p. 92 below. See Braswell (1998) 104 ad Ne. 9.31 ἀγλαΐαισιν. Falsely printed as Chronio. On which v. pp. 36, 46, and 54 with n. 192 above.

78

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

translate ποδὶ, he was led by the lack of a preposition in the printed text to take hostium ordines in apposition to nubem and to understand τρέψαι as a se … uertere.320 The genitive phrase φόνου παρποδίου is rendered with the ablative instante pugna, which destroys the image of the “cloud of slaughter”. In vv. 41f. δέδορκεν παιδὶ τοῦθ᾿ Ἁγησιδάμου φέγγος the forceful image is lost in the rendering haec Agesidemi filio lux uisa est, which, however, was improved (… filio lux emicuit) in the second edition.321 In v. 43 Lonicer was misled in his translation by the gloss of sch. 102a χέρσῳ τῆς ἠπείρου φησί on ἐν κονίᾳ χέρσῳ, which, moreover, he took as a reference to a proper name: in Epyri terra. Likewise, the same scholion with its gloss explaining γείτονι πόντῳ by ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις has suggested the translation in insulis. In the second edition the former was improved, but the latter was left virtually unchanged.322 With v. 44 we come to a passage critical for judging Lonicer’s use of the three editions available to him. The verse, duly marked as a sententia as it was in the Basel edition, is translated: porro e laboribus, qui iuste in iuuentute peracti fuerint, senii tempore dies ipsa trans­igitur, which shows that Ceporinus’ text with the correct reading αἰὼν was ignored and the mistaken ἐὼν of the Romana and Aldina preferred.323 Consequently, the adjective ἁμέρα324 was understood as a noun and duly translated by dies. What Lonicer meant by senii tempore dies ipsa transigitur is shown by the annotation to his second edition: est autem sententia generalis, qua iuuentutis uirtutes et commoda senii dicit esse releuamina.325 While not exact, the thought is not too far removed from the original except that Pindar meant the practical advantages, while the Protestant theologian is presumably thinking of the moral satisfaction 320 The paraphrase of sch. 89 (III 158,23 Dr.) τρέψαι πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους could have helped him find the correct sense and, by implication, restore the right reading. 321 See p. 93 below. 322 In the second edition Lonicer translates: in puluerulenta terra, aliaque in insulis, v. p. 93 below. As with his translation of Πυθῶνος αἰπεινᾶς in v. 5 (cf. p. 75 above) we should not be surprised at the limitations of Lonicer’s geographical knowledge. 323 See pp. 46, 54 and 69 above. 324 The reading of the Romana (and Basileensis). The Aldina has ἁμέρᾳ, on which v. pp. 46f. with n. 150 above. 325 Cf. p. 383 adn. h [= App., p. 179 below], on which see pp. 93f. below.

10. The interpretatio Loniceri (1528)

79

felt by a good conscience. In vv. 45–47 ἴστω – ὄλβον is wrongly made the apodosis of εἰ – κῦδος, although all three available editions place a stop after ὄλβον. Moreover, v. 45 is translated: sit uero nactus a diis admirandam felicitatem, as though ἔστω, not ἴστω, stood in the text. That Lonicer confused the two because of an itacistic pronunciation is unlikely, since the correct translation sciat se nactum is given (without the use of a sign) in the margin. Even with the correct translation of v. 45 the sense of the whole is distorted by the wrong punctuation. In the critical verse 48 Lonicer simply translates the text he found in all editions ἡσυχίαν δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν συμπόσιον (symposium uero quietem amat) without taking note of Ceporinus’ correct suggestion ἡσυχία (recorded in the margin), confirmation of which he could have found in the scholia.326 In v. 52 Lonicer rightly follows the third explanation of the hapax legomenon θεμιπλέκτοις given by sch. 123b ὅτι δικαίως … ἐστέφθη and translates it cum iuste plicatis … coronis. Finally, in the critical verses 54–55 Lonicer follows the Romana in reading νικᾶν and taking it with what follows rather than adopting Ceporinus’ excellent correction νίκαν, derived from the scholia,327 which is to be taken with what precedes as the punctuation of the Basel edition shows.328 It is now clear that our original suspicion that Lonicer may have based his translation of Ne. 9 on the Basileensis of his own publisher Cratander does not correspond to the evidence. The basis text was obviously the Romana. However, Lonicer has indubitably made use of all three editions of Pindar available at that time. In v. 28 eximie could only come from ἀγάνορᾳ of the Aldina, in v. 17 maximum from μέγιστον of the Romana, and in v. 16 prioris mariti sui domitricem from ἀνδροδάμαντ᾿ of the Basileensis. That the Romana should have served as the basis text is presumably to be ascribed to its in­ clusion of the scholia essential for interpretation and perhaps in some measure to its professional format.329 Lonicer’s limitations as 326 See p. 70 with n. 285 above. 327 See p. 70 with n. 286 above. 328 The Aldina reads λόγοις νικᾶν ἀκοντίζων, the Romana λόγοις, νικᾶν ἀκοντίζων, and the Basileensis λόγοις νίκαν, ἀκοντίζων, which leaves no doubt that Lonicer is following the Romana here. 329 Cf. p. 48 with n. 157 above.

80

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

a scholar can be seen in his failure to make full use of the scholia and, no less, in his failure to recognize all but one of the improvements made to the text by Ceporinus. Nevertheless he did produce a serviceable translation which was far more often right than wrong or misleading. Contemporary users seem to have appreciated Lonicer’s efforts, since the commentary held in prospect by the preface330 if the translation received a favourable reception duly appeared seven years later.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535) In the years between the appearance of Lonicer’s Latin translation in 1528 and the publication of his revised translation with commentary in 1535 no further contributions were made in print to the study of Pindar.331 Lonicer’s new work was issued by the same Basel publisher, Andreas Cratander,332 but this time not in the handy octavo form appropriate for a bare translation but in the more spacious quarto format which allowed ample space for his extensive annotation, the enarrationes “e Graecis scholiis”, which may justly be regarded as the first modern Pindar commentary.333 330 Cf. n. 291 above. 331 In 1535, however, the Parisian printer Chrestien Wechel, who had earlier been the agent of the Basel publisher Konrad Resch, brought out a plain text of the Olympians and Pythians; v. Schmitz (1993) 273f. (no.  10). On Wechel’s business relations with Resch v. Renouard (1965) 434f. On Resch’s personal relations to Andreas Cratander v. P. G. Bietenholz in Bietenholz (1985–87) III 142. 332 On Cratander see n. 253 above. 333 The unqualified statement of Gerber (1985) 8, “the first commentary on Pindar was by Erasmus Schmid in 1616” ignores the exegetical work not only of Lonicer but also of Franciscus Portus (1583) and Aretius (1587), all three of whom are regularly quoted by Schmid himself. The superficial and sometimes misleading account of Revard (1985), at least calls attention to the existence of the earliest commentaries. On the Greek scholia as an important source of information for the Renaissance commentaries cf. above pp. 17f. with n. 4.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

81

Whereas Lonicer had prefaced his first edition only with a dedicatory letter, his new volume was introduced more elaborately [cf. App., pp. 159–80 below]. First, two Latin epigrams on Pindar,334 then a new dedication addressed, also in the form of a letter, to the Hessian privy councillor (Hofrat) Jakob von Tubenheym,335 and finally an encomium on Pindar which had been delivered by Lonicer himself before the University of Marburg. The dedicatory letter begins with a short sermon on riches and virtue taking as its theme a gnome drawn from that “minime uulgaris poeta”336 Kallimachos: “Diuitiae sine uirtutibus haudquaquam ali­ quem felicem constituunt.”337 After illustrating the vanity and use­ lessness of possessions where moral values are absent, Lonicer observes that Sappho expresses a sentiment similar to Kallimachos’ sententia:

Opes citra uirtutis eximium decus Domum male incolunt, sin has commisceas Felicitas hinc summa belle nascitur.338

Similar too, he adds, is the statement of Isokrates: “Sola uirtutis possessio immortalis.”339 After this learned display of moral fervour Lonicer returns to his addressee in whom he professes to find the de334 The first epigram is by the humanist physician Euricius Cordus (Heinrich Ritze Solden) (1484–1535) who had become professor of medicine in Marburg in 1527, on whom v. I. Guenther in Bietenholz (1985–87) I 339. The second epigram is by Jacobus Micyllus (Jakob Moltzer, or rather Molsheim) (1503–1558), who had recently moved from the directorship of the Latin school in nearby Frankfurt to a professorship of Greek in Heidelberg, on whom v. Bursian (1883) I 192–96. 335 The letter is dated (from Marburg) 1532, three years before the publication of the work. 336 Subsequently called “elegantissimus Musarum sacerdos”; cf. Hor. carm. 3.1.3 and Prop. 3.1.1–4 with Camps (1966) 53 and Fedeli (1985) 49 ad loc. 337 Cf. Call. Jov. 95 οὔτ᾿ ἀρετῆς ἄτερ ὄλβος ἐπίσταται ἄνδρας ἀέξειν. It is not surprising that as a Christian theologian Lonicer discreetly ignores the continuation in v. 96: οὔτ᾿ ἀρετὴ ἀφένοιο. 338 Cf. PLF 148 (= fr. 148 Voigt) ὀ πλοῦτος ἄνευ † ἀρέτας οὐκ ἀσίνης πάροικος | ἀ δ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων κρᾶσις †εὐδαιμονίας ἔχει τὸ ἄκρον†. 339 Cf. Isoc. 1.5 ἧς (sc. ἀρετή) οὐδὲν κτῆμα σεμνότερον οὐδὲ βεβαιότερόν ἐστι.

82

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

sired union of wealth and virtue. For this reason, he explains, he has chosen him as patron for his new work on Pindar.340 Having come at last to Pindar, Lonicer states that he has revised his earlier edition, which has now been published “correctior et lucidior”, in accordance with the proverb δευτέρων ἀμεινόνων.341 He has added enarrationes culled from the Greek scholia and all the best authors of both languages with the help of which he hopes that Pindar will be more accessible than before. Then returning to a point raised in the preface to the first edition of his translation, Lonicer again excuses his use of prose to render Pindar’s poetry on the grounds of the immense difficulty entailed by a metrical version which in any case could scarcely match the majesty and sublimity of the original. As a further justification he asserts that “lyrica carmina non multum a soluta loquendi formula discedant”.342 In support of this view Lonicer cites the authority of Cicero who claims that if you take away the musical accompaniment from the verses of all the best poets whom the Greek call λυρικοί, what 340 It is worth noting from what sources Lonicer drew in developing his little sermon. Two passages in Pindar may well have suggested the theme of wealth combined with virtue: (1) Ol. 2.53f. ὁ μὰν πλοῦτος ἀρεταῖς δεδαιδαλμένος φέρει τῶν τε καὶ τῶν | καιρὸν, and (2) Py. 5.1–4 ὁ πλοῦτος εὐρυσθενής, | ὅταν τις ἀρετᾷ κεκραμένον καθαρᾷ | βροτήσιος ἀνὴρ πότμου παραδόντος αὐτὸν ἀνάγῃ | πολύφιλον ἑπέταν. The scholia vetera to both passages (Ol. 2.96f and Py. 5.1a), which Lonicer certainly knew, quote Call. Jov. 95f. and Sapph. PLF 148. That Lonicer would have known his Kallimachos in any case is shown by his translation of the Hymns to Zeus and Apollo which appeared in 1533 together with his edition and translation of Sophokles’ Aias (cf. n. 298 above). Likewise, Lonicer’s direct knowledge of Isokrates is attested by his Latin translation of the orator published in 1529. Since the first verse of the Sappho fragment was not published in a collection until 1560 by Henri Estienne and the second verse until 1568 by Fulvio Orsini (cf. Voigt, p. 139), the Pindar scholia might seem to be the only source from which Lonicer could have drawn it. However, his Latin citation corresponds exactly with the version found in Ps.-Plutarch, De nobilitate (Ὑπὲρ or Περὶ εὐγενείας) 5 (VII 212 Bernardakis) which was first published in a Latin version by Arnoldus Ferronus in 1556 and only in 1724 in Greek by Joh. Chr. Wolf (cf. K. Ziegler, RE XXI 1 [1951] 812,55–813,24). Whatever the source of Lonicer’s Latin version of the Sappho fragment may have been, the linking of her verses to Kallimachos’ gnome almost certainly implies the influence of the Pindar scholia. 341 Cf. Zen. 3.15 (I 62,9–11 Leutsch/Schneidewin). 342 Cf. p. 73 with n. 299 above.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

83

remains is bare prose, and unless the piper provides an accompaniment, the verses are very like prose.343 Clearly the Horatian notion of Pindar’s verse as devoid of metrical regularity has triumphed in the end,344 and its influence on Pindaric interpretation was to continue down to the late eighteenth century.345 Lonicer’s Pindari encomium may be regarded as the first systematic attempt to present the poet and his work to a Latin audience.346 This published lecture “et uitam et insignia uatis decora complectens”, which fills over seven closely printed pages of the prolegomena, well

343 Fol. α2v [= App., pp. 160f. below]: Si enim, ut Cicero inquit, optimorum quorumque poetarum, qui λυρικοὶ a Graecis appellantur, uersus cantu spoliaueris, nuda remanebit oratio et nisi tibicen accesserit, orationi sunt solutae simillimi. Cicero in fact expressed himself (orat. 183f.) somewhat more cautiously: sed in uersibus res est apertior, quamquam etiam a modis quibusdam cantu remoto soluta esse uideatur oratio, maximeque id in optimo quoque eorum poetarum qui λυρικοὶ a Graecis nominantur; quos cum cantu spoliaueris, nuda paene remanet oratio. … quae, nisi cum tibicen accessit, orationis sunt solutae simillima. 344 The attempt to discover the principles of Pindaric metre would not have been encouraged by the complaint expressed by another eminent Roman authority Quintilian (inst. 9.4.53): in adeo molestos incidimus grammaticos, quam fuerunt, qui lyricorum quorundam carmina in uarias mensuras coegerunt, a version of the uncertain text which circulated e.g. in the edition of Jodocus Badius Ascensius (Paris, 1519, etc.) and the Basel edition published by Johann Bebel in 1529. 345 This influence was to some extent countered by that of the ancient metrical scholia and Hephaistion’s metrical handbook (first published in 1526). Thus we find a regular metrical analysis provided for each ode in the editions of Erasmus Schmid (1616) and West/Welsted (1697). Even outside the narrow circle of Pindaric editors and commentators there were those who like William Congreve were convinced that “there is nothing more regular than the Odes of Pindar, both as to the exact observation of the Measures and Numbers of his Stanzas and Verses, and the perpetual Coherence of his Thoughts” (“A Discourse on the Pindarique Ode” [1706] in Complete Works, ed. by Montague Summers [1923] IV 83); v. further Wilson (1974) 138, n. 2, 144f., who notes the influence of Schmid on Congreve, and cf. also Heath (1986) 91, n. 18, and Revard (2001) 5. 346 On the Praefatio ad Pindarum of Stefano Negri v. pp. 56–61 above. On the more informal account of Zwingli in the editio Basileensis v. pp. 65–67 above. On the preface to Lonicer’s first edition of his translation v. pp. 71–73 above.

84

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

reflects the knowledge and understanding of Pindar at the time.347 Lonicer begins by noting that his subject is “Latinis auribus … fere incognitum”,348 but Pindar, “Lyricorum omnium facile princeps”,349 notable too for his uetustas and pietas,350 well deserves “et laudum et uirtutum catalogum”. A vision of the immortality of Pindar’s poetry is followed by the wish that studiosi should hear the “coelestis Pindaricae lyrae sonitus” which lulls to sleep “prae nimia dulcedine” the eagle resting on Jove’s sceptre.351 After further rhetorical flourishes Lonicer settles down to some elementary remarks on lyric poetry being sung to the lyre which Pindar calls indifferently κιθάρα and φόρμιγξ.352 Having returned to Pindar as a lyric poet, Lonicer cites in Greek353 the three “senarii” on the nine lyric poets which he found in the Romana.354 This is followed by an anonymous epigram on the same subject (AP 9.571) first in Greek and then in a metrical Latin version.355 Time (una horula) would not permit him to deal with all the nine lyric poets who are gen347 The encomium has been briefly discussed by Gelzer (1981) 96f. In what follows I have chosen to discuss it in detail because of its importance in understanding the presuppositions and expectations of the Protestant theologian-philologists who were the principal interpreters of Pindar throughout the 16th century. Unless we understand the intellectual climate in which they lived and worked much in the exegesis of Pindar from Lonicer to Erasmus Schmid and Benedictus will not be fully comprehensible to us. On Zwingli and the beginning of the Protestant tradition of Pindaric scholarship see pp. 65–67 above. 348 A good rhetorical point; cf. Quint. inst. 4.1.33 plerumque attentum iudicem facit, si res agi uidetur noua. 349 Cf. Quint. inst. 10.1.61, and, for Zwingli’s version, pp. 65f. above. 350 Qualities which had been mentioned earlier by Zwingli; for uetustas and pietas (= sanctitas) v. p. 66 above. 351 What the studiosi who are presumed hardly to know the name of Pindar were supposed to make of this allusion to the proemium of Py. 1 is a question which obviously did not trouble Lonicer. 352 A marginal note refers the reader to a fuller discussion of the difference between the lyra and the cithara in the commentary to Ol. 2. 353 To which he apparently felt it necessary to add a Latin translation, presumably for those unable even to read the names of the poets in the Greek alphabet. 354 Cf. Drachmann (1903–27) I 11,12f., where they are properly printed as prose (so too in the Aldina); in the Romana they are arranged as three separate verses as in Lonicer’s encomium. 355 The Greek text had been available since J. Laskaris’ edition of the Planudean anthology (1494), on which v. Cameron (1993) 164, 175–77. Lonicer’s translation seems to be the first published Latin version of the epigram.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

85

erally accepted as the best. Of these Pindar is, as Quintilian claimed, longe princeps,356 characterized by his spiritus magnificentia, senten­ tiae, figurae, beatissima rerum uerborumque copia, which, taken together, produce the effect of quoddam eloquentiae flumen. For this reason Horace rightly called him “inimitable”. Here as in much else Lonicer is obviously indebted to Zwingli.357 Before going on to treat Pindar’s qualities in greater detail, Lonicer presents a sketch of the poet’s life “perinde ac Thomas Magister digessit”.358 Although he closely paraphrases the Vita Thomana, Lonicer occasionally supplements it with information drawn from other sources. For example, where Thomas gives Myrto as the name of Pindar’s mother, Lonicer adds: “Heroici tamen uersus in scholiis matri huius Clidice nomen fuisse tradunt.”359 Before mentioning Pindar’s two daughters Polymetis360 and Promache, Lonicer treats his young listeners to a short sermon on chastity which he illustrates by the example of Pindar whom he supposes “matrimonii toro frui maluit quam illicita nefariaque”.361 Afterwards Lonicer returns to Thomas’ Vita beginning with Pindar’s residence “proxime templum Rheae matris deorum”362 and continues with a literal transla356 This time (cf. p. 84 with n. 349 above) Lonicer uses the exact formulation of inst. 10.1.61. 357 Cf. pp. 65–67 above. 358 The Vita Thomana (I 4–8 Drachmann) [= App., pp. 127f. below] was included in both the Aldina and Romana; on Thomas Magister of Thessalonike (before 1275–after 1346), the teacher of Demetrios Triklinios, v. Hunger (1978) II 71– 73, Wilson (1983) 247–49, and Skalistes (1984). The Vita Ambrosiana (I 1–3 Drachmann) was first published by Johann Gottlob Schneider (1750–1822) in his Nicandri Theriaca (Leipzig 1816), pp. xv–xviii; on this, the earlier of the two lives, v. Lefkowitz (22012) 61–69 (discussion), 145–47 (translation). 359 Cf. I 8,6–8 Drachmann: Πίνδαρον … | Κλειδίκη εὐνηθεῖσα … Δαιφάντῳ | γείνατο. The Vita Ambrosiana (I 1,5 Drachmann) mentions only Κλεοδίκης or Κληδίκης. 360 Lonicer adopts the form of the name he found in the Romana. Drachmann (I 5,1) prints the better attested Eumetis. 361 No collection of the Pindar fragments had yet been published, so Lonicer presumably did not know the compromising fr. 122 Maehler on the sacred prostitutes of Corinth, although Athenaios, who preserves it (13.33, pp. 573f–574b), had been published by Aldus in 1514. 362 Cf. Vita Thomana, I 5,1f. Drachmann [= App., p. 127 below]; on this legend v. Slater (1971).

86

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

tion down to a catalogue of his works363 which he supplements from the Souda.364 Lonicer then passes over the section on the foundation of the four major games365 and ends his account of the poet’s biography with his death at the age of sixty-six or, according to others, eighty.366 Brief mention of Pindar’s magnitudo and pietas together with the divine favour accorded to him suggests to Lonicer Philostratos’ portrait of the poet,367 a translation of which he inserts into his account. This leads him to further praise of Pindar’s eloquence and, above all, his moral integrity. Next Lonicer mentions the difficulty of interpreting Pindar’s poetry and quotes Ol. 2.83–86, first in Greek and then translation,368 to show that it was the poet’s intention not to make his verse intelligible to all and sundry. The universality of his poetry is illustrated by Ne. 5.1–3, which contrast the static nature of sculpture with the mobility of Pindaric song that can be carried abroad.369 Finally, Lonicer discusses the poet’s usefulness as an example of the Epidicticum genus. This is a subject which can be learned from the rhetoricians, but Pindar, so far as the lyric genre permits, “pulchre … et scite … ad epidictici filum omneis odas suas tractauit, una et altera generis suasorii demptis”. If

363 Cf. Vita Thomana, I 6,5 Drachmann [= App., p. 127 below]. 364 Cf. s.v. Πίνδαρος (π 1617 [IV 133,6–9 Adler]) [= App., p. 126 below]. Lonicer reproduces in Greek but does not discuss the δράματα τραγικά and ἐπιγράμματα ἐπικά which he found listed there along with other extraneous matter. 365 Cf. Vita Thomana, I 6,5–7,10 Drachmann [= App., pp. 127f. below]. This section was in fact included in the Aldina and Romana. 366 Cf. Vita Thomana, I 7,11–13 Drachmann [= App., p. 128 below]. 367 Im. 2.12. The Greek text of the Eikones was first published by Aldus as an appendix to his Lukian of 1501. A Latin translation by Stefano Negri appeared in Milan in 1521 together with his Praefatio in Pindarum (cf. Schmitz [1993] 270, no. 4); this miscellaneous volume was reprinted in Basel in 1532, the year Lonicer finished his second edition of Pindar. 368 πολλά μοι ὑπ᾿ ἀγκῶνος ὠκέα βέλη | ἔνδον ἐντὶ φαρέτρας | φωνάεντα (φωνᾶντα Aldina, Romana, Lonicer) συνετοῖσιν, ἐς δὲ τὸ πὰν (πᾶν Ald., Rom., Lon.) ἑρμανέων | χατίζει. Id est, multae sunt mihi sub cubito in pharetra sagittae, quae intelligentibus tantummodo sonant et omnino interpretatione egent. 369 Οὐκ ἀνδριαντοποιός εἰμ᾿, ὥστ᾿ (ὥς᾿ Lon. perperam) ἐλινύσοντα (ἐλλινύσοντ᾿ Ald., Rom., Lon.) ἐργάζεσθαι ἀγάλματ᾿ ἐπ᾿ αὐτᾶς βαθμίδος | ἑσταότ᾿. Non sum, inquit, statuarius ut inertia fabricem simulacra, in uno solo loco stantia.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

87

we observe the oeconomia370 of the hymns, it is easy to see their abundant use of rhetorical figures, tropes,371 comparisons, allegories, and metaphors.372 Although the value of Pindar as a source for rhetorical figurae and colores of every kind is beyond doubt, still it is his uirtutes, namely his pietas, iustitia, temperantia, and fortitudo, only to mention a few, which recommend him as a model for imitation. His pietas is illustrated by Ol. 1.64: “if any man supposes that he escapes the notice of God in anything he does, he is wrong.”373 To this is added a Latin version of Py. 1.41f.: “A deo omnes humanarum uirtutum conatus sunt: sapientes praeterea, quique potentia et eloquentia magni habentur.”374 No example is offered for Pindar’s iustitia, but his self-restraint (temperantia) is illustrated by Ol. 5.23f.: ὑγίεντα δ᾿ εἴ τις ὄλβον ἄρδει, | ἐξαρκέων κτεάτεσσι καὶ εὐλογίαν προστιθείς, μὴ ματεύσῃ θεὸς γενέσθαι, which is followed by a translation: “Si quis sanitati diuitias coniunctas375 uel mediocres habuerit, ac bonum nomen, ne porro Deus fieri laboret.” Finally, his fortitudo is illustrated by Ol. 6.9–11: “deeds of prowess that involve no danger are not held in esteem either amongst warriors or in the hollow ships.”376 Then in good Pindaric style the encomiast employs a break-off377 to signal that he has reached the end of 370 Cf. Quint. inst. 3.3.9: Hermagoras (fr. 1, p. 3,23–26 Matthes) iudicium partitionem ordinem quaeque sunt elocutionis subicit oeconomiae, quae Graece appellata ex cura rerum domesticarum et hic per abusionem posita nomine Latino caret. 371 In his chapter on tropes (inst. 8.6) Quintilian exemplifies the use of one of these, the hyperbole, by reference to a hymn (1) of Pindar, a relevant fragment (33a) of which was published in 1961 as P.Oxy. 26, fr. 1, col. 1,1–5. 372 Gelzer (1981) 109, n. 55, has aptly noted that the usefulness of the poets for the orator and the affinity of poetry to epideictic oratory is discussed by Quint. inst. 10.1.27–30. 373 εἰ δὲ θεὸν ἀνήρ (om. Lon.) τις ἔλπεταί τι λαθέμεν ἔρδων (Ald.; ἕρδων Rom., Lon.), ἁμαρτάνει. For this sententia no Latin translation was provided. 374 Lonicer does not cite the Greek text: ἐκ θεῶν γὰρ μαχαναὶ πᾶσαι βροτέαις ἀρεταῖς, | καὶ σοφοὶ καὶ χερσὶ βιαταὶ περίγλωσσοί τ᾿ ἔφυν. 375 In his translation Lonicer is following the interpretation of sch. 54c (I 151,20–22 Dr.): εἰ δὲ πλοῦτον ἔχει τις μεθ᾿ ὑγιείας. 376 ἀκίνδυνοι δ᾿ ἀρεταί | οὔτε παρ᾿ ἀνδράσιν οὔτ᾿ ἐν ναυσὶ κοίλαις | τίμιαι. Lonicer does not provide a translation of the Greek text. 377 Fol. α6r [= App., p. 170 below]: Omnium uirtutum et eximiarum rerum genera si percensere debeam, dies me citius defecerit, tantum abest, ut unius horae spacio perficiam.

88

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

his exposition. The rest of the poet’s virtues, Lonicer adds, will be duly noted in the commentary which follows. The encomium ends with the fervent wish that Christians may prove themselves in no way inferior to the virtues exemplied by the pagan poet Pindar. For Lonicer like Zwingli earlier what recommends Pindar as an author to be read and studied especially by young students is his practical value as a source of moral and rhetorical examples. Whereas Zwingli would seem at times to place greater emphasis on the poet’s eloquentia, Lonicer is evidently more impressed by his usefulness as a moralist.378 Although Zwingli, the militant Leutpriester, remained a theologian and biblical scholar at heart, his devotion to humanist studies gave him insight into poetic qualities of Pindar which found little resonance in the more pedestrian approach of the Marburg Lutheran. It is against this background that we may now examine Lonicer’s commentary to Nemean Nine. The commentary (enarratio) is arranged as a series of notes printed in smaller type at intervals after the part of the translation which they are meant to explain.379 Title, division of the ode, and the translation of the first two strophes are virtually unchanged from the first edition.380 The enarratio begins with an argumentum which first draws on the latter part of the inscriptio to the ode in the scholia vetera.381 Lonicer’s own contribution is a primitive outline of the ode, which he rightly regards as an encomium on Chromios; however, he adopts the view often found in the ancient scholia that the myth, in this case Adrastos’ expedition against Thebes, is a digression.382 The first seven notes (a–g) are 378 Lonicer’s interest in ancient moralistic literature is reflected, as we have seen, in his translation of Isokrates (v. n. 340 above) and, in particular, in his use of a typical gnome from the Oration to Demonikos (v. p. 81 with n. 339 above). 379 Letters of the alphabet preceding a word alert the reader to an explanation, headed by a lemma, in the commentary. 380 In the revised translation denunciat for nunciat (v. 4 μανύει) suggests better the proclamation of the herald, while quae for quorum recordatus (vv. 9f. ὧν … μνασθεὶς) is more in accordance with classical usage. 381 Cf. Hieroni Siciliae regi – non est adscribenda with III 149,22–150,3 Dr. 382 On Lonicer’s notion of a digressio in an encomium and the παρεκβάσεις alleged by the scholia vetera see Gelzer (1981) 97 with n. 56. The terms παρέκβασις and παρεκβαίνω which occur some 30 times in the Pindar scholia (cf. Arrighetti/ Calvani Mariotti/Montanari [1991] 818), are not, however, used in the sch. vet. to Ne. 9.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

89

little more than simple paraphrases of the text. Notes eight and nine (h and i), however, explain “matri et geminis liberis” as “Latonae et filiis eius duobus, Apollini et Mercurio”. This unexpected genealogy of Mercury does not reflect some piece of recondite learning383 but is merely a mistake which well reveals the limits of the commentator’s knowledge.384 Note nine (i) referring to eximiae (v. 5 αἰπεινᾶς) in the translation is provided with a lemma Altae Pythonis, which suggests that Lonicer intended to correct his rendering but then neglected to change the text printed above his annotation. After two further simple explanations the commentator comes to the foundation of the Pythian games at Sikyon (note m Quae Phoebo posuit = v. 9 ἅ τε Φοίβῳ). Here he does little more than translate the section of the inscriptio to the scholia vetera (III 149,14–22 Dr.) which explains on the authority of ὁ Ἁλικαρνασεύς how Kleisthenes established the Pythian games at Sikyon from the spoils he received for his help in the Sacred War.385 Then after quoting Stephanos of Byzantium for the fact that Sikyon is a city of the Peloponnesos, while Krisa is in Phokis,386 he returns to the scholia (20) to explain that Pindar attributes the foundation of the games to Adrastos rather than Kleisthenes by poetica licentia.387 However, Lonicer apparently failed to grasp Pindar’s motives in indulging in this poetic licence, namely to enhance the prestige of the games and thereby that of the victory of his patron, the first of which is clearly stated in the scholia.388 More serious than this omission is the commentator’s final remark in the note: “Quanquam Pindarum rectius hac defenderim 383 Neither the distinction of several Mercurii (Cic. nat. deor. 3.56 with Pease [1958] 1107f. ad loc. for further references), none of whom is given Latona as mother, nor the identification of Apollo and Mercury (Macr. Sat. 1.19.7) is implied here. 384 It was repeated by Aretius (1587) 452f. Erasmus Schmid (1616) 209 ad loc. corrected them both. Franciscus Portus (1583), whom Schmid does not mention in this context, had however already explained the reference to Leto’s children correctly (without reference to Lonicer); v. p. 112 below. 385 See p. 20 with n. 15 above. 386 Cf. St. Byz., s.v. Σικυών (σ 158 Billerbeck = p. 569,3 Meineke) and s.v. Κρῖσα (κ 221 Billerbeck = p. 385,4 Meineke). Stephanos’ Ethnika had been published by Aldus in 1502 and again by Filippo Giunti in Florence in 1521. 387 Cf. sch. 20 (III 152,5 Dr.) ποιητικὴν ἄγων ἄδειαν. 388 Cf. sch. 20 (III 152,6–9 Dr.) and 25b (III 152,16–18 Dr.).

90

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

ratione, a Clisthene quidem instituta Pythia, sed ab Adrasto in melius redacta”, which clearly reveals Lonicer’s hopelessly confused notion of historical and mythological chronology which placed Adrastos after Kleisthenes. After the commentary on the first two strophes comes the translation of verses 11–17 which occupy strophe three and the first part of strophe four. Except for some slight changes in punctuation and the substitution of ultra for porro (v. 14 ἔτ᾿)389 the translation remains the same in both editions. To explain Adrastos’ flight from Argos to Sikyon (note b on vv. 12ff.) Lonicer gives a slightly abridged translation of sch. 30a and b without commenting on the differing versions. The remaining notes (c–h) of this section are mere paraphrases of the text. The next section of the translation extends from v. 18 to v. 27 and includes the second part of strophe four, strophe five, and the first part of strophe six. Here again Lonicer has modified his translation slightly. In vv. 22f. the change of dulcem reditum liberantes to dulci reditu liberati was presumably meant to render the (faulty) Greek text more closely, but the omission of the marginal variant deponentes represents a step backwards.390 The change of corruperunt to absumpserunt in v. 24 (δαίσαντο) has already been noted.391 In v. 25 the substitution of absorberi curauit for absorbuit (κρύψεν) represents a striving for logical precision.392 The commentary on vv. 18–27 begins with general observations on the expedition of Adrastos and Amphiaraos against Thebes (note a). Lonicer remarks that it had often been mentioned in the preceding odes.393 He then adduces references to it in other authors: Aischylos in the Septem,394 Aristophanes in the Frogs,395 and, above all, Isokrates in 389 The lemma of the corresponding note (c), however, retains porro of the first edition. 390 See pp. 76f. with n. 312 above. In the note (f) on the phrase Lonicer gives the text of the first edition as lemma, but then the text of the second edition as explanation. 391 See p. 77 above. 392 On the use of the verb here see p. 77 above. 393 Namely in Ol. 6, Py. 8, and Ne. 8, and also, we may add, in the following odes, Ne. 10 and Is. 7. 394 On Amphiaraos in the Septem v. Braswell (1998) 37f. 395 Cf. Ra. 1021ff.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

91

no less than five works.396 The difficult verses 18–20 are wrongly taken (note b) to mean that the Argive expedition on its departure received unfavourable omens in the form of a bolt of lightning from Zeus.397 Notes c to h offer only paraphrase and elementary explanation.398 In note i we are given the parentage of Periklymenos as found in sch. 57a.399 In the final note (k) of this section Lonicer remarks on Pindar’s apology for the flight of Adrastos and Amphiaraos. In their case it was pardonable since they were fighting not against men but against Zeus who, as Lonicer observed in note e above, was defending a city especially dear to him. The section of the translation which follows extends from v. 28 to v. 35 and includes the second part of strophe six and the whole of strophe seven. While the latter has been only slightly modified, the former (vv. 28–30) has been partially rewritten. In v. 28 εἰ δυνατόν, which was wrongly translated as irrealis (si fieri posset) in the first edition, is rendered in the second by a potentialis, namely by the so-called future less vivid condition (si fieri possit), which comes closer to what Pindar meant.400 In the apodosis of the condition Lonicer, as we have already 396 Lonicer (p. 379 [= App., p. 175 below]) mentions Encomium Helenae (cf. Or. 10.31), Panegyricus (cf. Or. 4.54f.), Panathenaicus (cf. Or. 12.168f.), Plataicus (cf. Or. 14.53), and Archidamus (cf. Or. 6.99 for the Argive defeat ἐν Θυρέαις [θυραιαῖς v.l.] which Lonicer may have [falsely] understood to refer to Thebes with its seven θύραι [= πύλαι]). The references to Isokrates reflect the close knowledge of this author which Lonicer gained from his translation of the orations, on which v. n. 340 above. 397 For an interpretation of these verses v. Braswell (1998) 79–82 ad Ne. 9.17–20. 398 At the end of note h the explanation: πεῖραν pro ἐπειρατία (sic), fraude et dolo accipit, qualis est piratarum et marinorum praedonum, refers to πεῖραν in v. 28 and should have been placed in note a on the following page (381), as Erasmus Schmid (1616) 213b noted. It is based on sch. 67a supplemented probably by Hesychios (available in Aldus’ edition of 1514), s.v. πεῖραι (π 1238 Hansen), as the use of the rare word πειρατ(ε)ία suggests. On this (false) explanation of πεῖραν see Braswell (1998) 99 ad Ne. 9.28 πεῖραν (with references to the Greek lexica). 399 Namely Poseidon and Chloris, the daughter of Teiresias. 400 In note a Lonicer correctly observes (p. 381 [= App., p. 177 below]): “haec Pindari mens est: si possibile est”; cf. sch. 67c εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν ἀναβαλέσθαι. Erasmus Schmid in fact translates εἰ δυνατόν with si possibile est, while Heyne and Boeckh render it stylistically better with si fieri potest.

92

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

noted,401 not only corrects the mistranslation of ἀναβάλλομαι in v. 29 (deuouerim1, reiecero2) but also that of πεῖραν … ἀγάνορα … ἐγχέων in vv. 28f. (eximie peritas hastas1, contumacem et arduam conflictationem per hastas2), although in neither case is the improved rendering very accurate. In v. 30 quaeso is substituted for obsecro as a translation of αἰτέω.402 In the first edition vv. 34f. were confusedly translated: quae, uerecunda inquam, gloriam adfert Chromio,403defendens ipsum tum in pedestri et equestri, tum navali quoque pugnis ubi periculum eius acris uirtutis fecisti, with the result that οὕνεκεν in v. 36 is wrongly taken to introduce an independent sentence.404 In the second edition the only improvement made is the change of eius acris uirtutis to acris conflictus, but Lonicer’s note f reveals the source of the misunderstanding: the whole was taken as an apostrophe to Chromios himself. Clearly the translator did not understand that ὑπασπίζων in v. 34 means “acting as attendant” and that the participle serves as the protasis to a past unreal condition: “if you had been Chromios’ attendant …, you could have discerned …”.405 The commentary on vv. 28–35 begins with a long note (a) on the conditional sentence (vv. 28–32) introduced in the second edition by “Si fieri possit”. Lonicer comments: “he (sc. Pindar) returns from Adrastos’ exploits to the victor (sc. Chromios) and praises him in relation to his fatherland. Moreover, he mentions the war which Hieron and Gelon waged with the invading Phoenicians both in Italy406 and in Sicily.”407 Lonicer then notes that the verb ἀναβάλλομαι (v. 29) can mean either “put off” (reiicere, i.e. reicere) or “strike up a song with the cithara” and 401 See p. 77 above. 402 Possibly because in the case of the former the construction with a simple subjunctive without ut is more in accordance with classical usage. In the lemma to note b obsecro is, however, retained. 403 Cf. p. 77 with n. 318 above. 404 See p. 77 above. 405 If Lonicer had attended closely to sch. 80 (III 158,6–8 Dr.), he could probably have found the right interpretation of the construction. On the other hand, that he apparently took ἂν in v. 35 as a modal particle used with ἔκρινας, as did sch. 80, is hardly culpable; see Braswell (1998) 114 ad Ne. 9.35 ἂν. 406 Lonicer presumably understood Py. 1.72 to mean that the Carthaginians participated in the battle of Kyme in 474 (so also sch. Py. 1.137 and 142), but v. Huss (1985) 100f. 407 Cf. Py. 1.79, and v. Braswell (1998) 98 ad Ne. 9.28–29.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

93

decides rightly for the first meaning. Except for note f discussed above the rest of this section of the commentary contains little more than a paraphrase of the corresponding translation. The translation of the eighth strophe (vv. 36–40) is virtually unchanged in the second edition. In the commentary on these verses Lonicer repeats the observation found in the scholia (93a) that Chromios is compared to Hektor rather than, for example, to Aias or Achilles because both are fighting on behalf of their native country. In explaining the name of the Heloros the commentator cites Stephanos of Byzantium, s.v. Ἕλωρος (ε 76 Billerbeck = 270,3–7 Meineke) and notes that the scholia ad loc. (95c) also mention the (sacred) fish in the river which are fed by those crossing it. In the second edition Lonicer changes the translation of the ninth strophe (vv. 41–45) in four places: v. 41 δέδορκεν: uisa est1 – emicuit2; v. 43 ἐν κονίᾳ: in Epyri terra1 – in puluerulenta terra2; v. 44 ἐκ πόνων δ᾿, οἳ σὺν νεότατι γένωνται σύν τε δίκᾳ: porro e laboribus, qui iuste in iuuentute peracti fuerint1 – e laboribus quidem, in iuuentute iuste peractis2; v. 45 ἴστω λαχὼν: sit uero nactus1 – sciat autem se nactum2. The commentary on the strophe begins (note e) with a discussion of the vulgate reading ἔνθ᾿ ἀρείας πόρον in v. 41. Lonicer duly notes that the scholia ad loc. (95c) are uncertain whether one should read ἀρείας πόρον or ῥείας πόρον or a compound ἀρειάσπορον and justifies his translation Martis transitum (retained from the first edition) with the remark that the river is referred to as ἀρείας πόρον either from Mars or from the battle fought there ueluti belli fluxum seu transitum, the latter of which he regards as probable, i.e. πόρον is taken in an allegorical rather than in its obvious literal sense. The commentary then mentions Timaios (sch. Ne. 9.95a = FGrHist 566 F 18 and F 21) as a source of information on the battle at the Heloros, but then declines to give the text in full on the grounds that it would be tedious. The enumeration of Chromios’ deeds of prowess by the Heloros are labelled (note g) as “apodioxis”, a kind of praeteritio.408 Now we would describe it rather as a type of encomiastic future in which the promise is its own fulfil408 Ἀποδίωξις is defined by Ernesti (1795) 36 as “reiectio vel reprobatio quarundam rerum, quasi in quaestionem venire non dignarum, neque oportuisse aut ab adversariis poni, aut a nobis quaeri, aut ab indice postulari”.

94

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

ment.409 The commentary on vv. 44f. simply notes the gnomic character of v. 44 and observes that v. 45 is an example of προσαπόδοσις, a type of enthymeme.410 The translation of the tenth strophe (vv. 46–50) is changed in several places in the second edition, largely for stylistic reasons: vv.  48f. νεοθαλὴς δ᾿ αὔξεται μαλθακᾷ νικαφορία σὺν ἀοιδᾷ: et nuper uictoria parta, cum dulci augustior fit encomio1 – et recenter comparata quidem uictoria, dulci encomio augustior fit2; v. 49 θαρσαλέα δὲ παρὰ κρατῆρα φωνὰ γίνεται: porro confidens uox iuxta craterem editur1 – atqui confidens et alacris uox apud craterem aeditur2; v. 50 ἐγκιρνάτω τίς νιν, γλυκὺν κώμου προφάταν: quem quidem craterem non iniucundum hymni praecentorem quisquam nunc misceat, temperet1 – quem haud iniucundum hymni praecentorem quisquam nunc misceat2. Except for the use of two adjectives (confidens and alacris) to render θαρσαλέα in v. 49 the translation in the second edition re­ presents a certain improvement. As in the first edition (v. p. 79 above) Lonicer retains ἡσυχίαν in v. 48. In his commentary he attempts to explain, not very convincingly, the sentence symposium quietem amat, while ignoring the correct explanation found in the scholia (114a, b). The commentary continues with an explanation (note l) of the metaphor of the krater: quo uictorem suae uictoriae nomine celebremus. Then follows a note (m) explaining the use of προφάταν in v. 50: pro prooemio et principio conuiuii et laudis accipit. In the eleventh and final strophe the translation of the second edition differs from that of the first in three places: v. 52 Χρομίῳ: hero suo Chromio1 – domino suo Chromio2; v. 52 θεμιπλέκτοις: iuste plicatis1 – recte textis2; v. 54 εὔχομαι: exoptarim1 – equidem ardeo2. In the first example the substitution of domino for hero is a slight improvement. On the other hand, the translation of θεμιπλέκτοις in the second edition, reflecting the first of three explanations in the scholia (123b), 409 See Braswell (1998) 130 ad Ne. 9.43 φάσομαι. The very existence of an encomiastic future has subsequently been denied by Pfeijffer (1999); see esp. pp. 28–29 (on Ne. 9.39–47), but see also my short review in MH 57 (2000) 275–76. 410 The translation of these verses in both editions has been discussed above, pp. 78f. Προσαπόδοσις is defined by Ernesti (1795) 294 as a “figura qua sententiis duabus aut pluribus propositis, sua cuique ratio vel posterius redditur, vel statim sub unaquaque sententia subiungitur”.

11. The enarrationes Loniceri (1535)

95

represents a step backwards.411 In the third instance the change is no improvement, since the element of prayer, which is dominant in the use of εὔχομαι here, has not been rendered in the translation. The commentary on this last strophe first points out (note n) that “Violentem uitis filium” (vv. 51f.) is a periphrasis, or as we would now call a kenning, for Bacchus, i.e. wine. In note p (on Equi hero suo) Lonicer aptly remarks: “Hic Chromius ipse uictoriae non interfuit, sed currum misit, cuius gubernator domino suo Chromio honorem et decorem attulit.”412 The use of sacra as an epithet of Sikyon is explained in note q by a reference to the scholia (123b) which see in it an allusion to the presence of the gods at Mekone near Sikyon when they were dividing their prerogatives amongst themselves.413 As was already noted, this overlooks the common use of ἱερός as a common epithet of cities.414 In short, the second edition of Lonicer’s Pindar may justly be regarded as a minor milestone in the developing process of making the poet accessible to western readers. The serviceable Latin translation of the first edition is generally improved, although the improvements seldom go beyond stylistic changes. More important however was the rudimentary commentary on the text of the translation, the enarrationes, which offered help drawn largely, as the author indicates, from the Greek scholia. Both translation and commentary were doubtless welcome aids to those readers more familiar with Latin than Greek. Even if Lonicer never displays exceptional philological acumen, he nevertheless merits a respectable place in the long tradition of Pindaric scholarship.

411 See Braswell (1998) 144 ad Ne. 9.52 θεμιπλέκτοις for a defence of the translation in the first edition based on the third explanation of the scholia ad loc. 412 For the (unlikely) contrary opinion asserted without argument v. Lefkowitz (1985b) 41 (= 1991, 176). 413 In fact a misinterpretation of Hes. Th. 535–36 quoted by the scholia; v. p. 28, n. 54 above. 414 See p. 28 above, and further Braswell (1998) 146 ad Ne. 9.53 ἱερᾶς.

96

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

12. The editio Brubacchii (1542) The Basel edition of the Greek text (1526) by Ceporinus and the Latin translation (1528, 21535) and commentary (1535) by Lonicer had provided readers of Pindar north of the Alps with all of the essential instruments then available for reading the poet except the Greek scholia which had been printed in the Rome edition of 1515. Seven years after Lonicer’s enarrationes the scholarly printer and publisher Peter Braubach (Brubach) filled the gap with a new edition of the Greek text and the scholia vetera published at Frankfurt am Main.415 The source of Braubach’s text of Nemean Nine is obvious at a glance. As with the scholia he has basically reprinted the text of the editio Romana, though with some important corrections to the Pindar text as we shall see. Where Kallierges consistently ignored the iota subscript Braubach has occasionally added it while neglecting it elsewhere. More interestingly he has adopted the correct reading of Ceporinus’ Basel edition against that of the Romana in five places and mentioned it in a sixth.

8 17 21 36 44 55

Romana αὐτὸν μέγιστον416 ἄρεσ᾿ οὔνεκεν ἐὼν νικᾶν

Basileensis αὐτὰν μέγιστοι ἄρ᾿ ἐς οὕνεκεν αἰὼν νίκαν

Brubacchiana αὐτὰν μέγιστοι ἄρ’ ἐς οὕνεκεν αἰὼν (ἐὼν alias in marg.) νικᾶν (νίκαν alias in marg.)

415 Peter Braubach was born ca. 1500 in Braubach (Hessen-Nassau) and presumably studied in Wittenberg where he matriculated at the University on 28 December 1528. He began his career as printer in Strasbourg with Wolfgang Köpfel which he continued in Hanau under Johann Setzer and in 1536 with his own press in Schwäbisch Hall. After being granted citizenship of Frankfurt am Main in April 1540 he established his press there where he remained until his death on 31 May 1567. His publishing house was notable for the number of classical Greek texts published in his lifetime. Braubach’s humanistic interests and his strong Lutheran associations doubtless reflect the influence of Melanchthon and his friends with whom Braubach maintained close contacts. On Braubach v. further J. Benzing in Neue Deutsche Biographie 2 (1955) 539. The short chapter “Buchdruck, Biblio­ theken und Kunstsammlungen” in Bursian (1883) I 253–59, is still worth reading. 416 A typographical mistake; see p. 52, n. 175 above.

13. The Aristologia Pindarica of Michael Neander (1556)

97

In v. 1 however Braubach adopts Ceporinus’ σικυώνοθε against the Romana’s correct reading,417 while in v. 16 he ignores Ceporinus’ correct reading ἀνδροδάμαντ᾿ and retains the Triclinian reading ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿ of the Romana. In v. 9 Braubach prints ἄτε418 rather than the correct form ἅ τε found in both the Romana and Basileensis. For the Ninth Nemean Braubach can claim one improvement of his own. In the margin of his text he suggested in v. 2 the correct reading (metri gratia) ἐς for the vulgate εἰς and has thus earned a place in the modern critical apparatus along with Erasmus Schmid who finally adopted it in his text. In short, Braubach’s edition represents a positive step toward the improvement of the text, largely, we may add, through his recognition of the superiority of Ceporinus’ text used by him to correct the Romana which provided the base for his own text.419

13. The Aristologia Pindarica of Michael Neander (1556) In the introductory letter of Zwingli prefixed to the editio Basileensis the humanist theologian had praised Pindar for his sententiae.420 These were in fact identified in the Basel edition by inverted commas placed in the left margin opposite the sententiae,421 a practice which Lonicer continued in his Latin translation.422 This undoubtedly reflected a genuine contemporary interest, since an annotated collection of Pindaric gnomai with Latin translation was subsequently published by the Protestant 417 On the correct accentuation of Σικυωνόθε v. Braswell (1998) 47 ad Ne. 9.1 Σικυωνόθε. 418 Presumably a typographical mistake not necessarily influenced by the reading of the Aldina ἅτε. 419 The remark of Hummel (1997) 187, that Braubach’s edition “semble presque anachronique au milieu du siècle, dans la mesure où elle renouait servilement avec les éditions d’Alde et de Calliergi au moment où les humanistes du nord publiaient des travaux de plus en plus complexes” clearly needs revision in the light of the evidence presented above. 420 See p. 66 above. 421 See p. 67 with n. 263 above. 422 See p. 73 with n. 303 above.

98

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

educator Michael Neander (Neumann) [cf. App., pp. 180–92 below].423 This was to be the first of similar collections published throughout the century and afterwards.424 Neander prefaces his collection of Pindaric sententiae with an open letter (epistola nuncupatoria) addressed to the public authorities of the Silesian city of Liegnitz (now the Polish Legnica). He begins by explaining that no one can understand Pindar without a knowledge of what the ancient authors report about the competitions of the Greeks. Then follows a list of the local competitions as well as the four Panhellenic games. These, we are told, attracted the most distinguished men of the time as spectators. Next the victory prizes are mentioned with special emphasis on the symbolic value of the crowns: excellence and fame meant more to the competitors than riches. The use of the Olympiads for reckoning time is mentioned along with the observation that Greek history begins much later than Jewish history. Then Neander returns to Pindar as the celebrator of the victors in the four great games. The qualities of the poet which Neander especially praises are the greatness of his inspiration (spiritus magnificentia), the weightiness of his maxims (sententiarum grauitas), his use of figures of speech, and an eloquence which revels in an abundance of thought and expressions. 423 Neander was born in 1525 in Sorau (now the Polish Żary) in the Niederlausitz and matriculated at the University of Wittenberg in April 1543 where he studied under Melanchthon whose influence was to be dominant in his subsequent career. After leaving Wittenberg in 1547 in the wake of the disturbances there following the death of Luther in the previous year, Neander first found employment as collaborator and later as conrector at the school of Basilius Faber in Nordhausen (Harz) where he lived in the house of the Bürgermeister as private tutor. In 1550 he accepted a teaching post at the Klosterschule at Ilfeld (north of Nordhausen) where he was to remain for the rest of his life. From 1559 until his death on 26 April 1595, he held the office of rector and administrator of the school to the reputation of which he much contributed. His pedagogical skill was displayed not only in his teaching but also in his numerous publications which enjoyed wide circulation. On Neander v. G. Baur in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 23 (1886) 341–45, and F. Cohrs in Realencyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 24 (31913) 235–38. 424 See further Hummel (1997) 226–31. While Neander was the first to publish a collection of Pindaric sententiae as such, he was not however the first to publish a collection of gnomai from Greek authors. This practice had been inaugurated by H. Aleander, Gnomologia, Paris, 1512; see Hummel (1997) 185–87.

13. The Aristologia Pindarica of Michael Neander (1556)

99

Moreover, he notes with approval the practice of the poet to praise the victors by placing their achievement in the tradition of their ancestors rather than stressing their individual accomplishments. Pindar’s use of myths is explained as either a deliberate avoidance on the poet’s part of matters which the political leaders of the time wished to keep secret from the general public or else as the ancient poetic tradition which employs a pleasant fiction beneath which some truth is concealed in order to attract and hold the attention of the listeners with a view to their instruction, i.e. “aut prodesse uolunt aut delectare poetae”.425 In the case of Pindar however it is not the dulce but the utile which Neander chooses to mention: God, providence, piety, punishment of the wicked in the Underworld, and the joy of the pious in the Elysian fields or on the islands of the Blessed. Marginal notes refer the reader to the appropriate Pindaric passage: Achilles, Kadmos et al. – Ol. 2 (78f.); Tantalos – Ol. 1 (55–63); Ixion – Py. 2 (21–41);426 Bellerophontes – Ol. 13 (84–92); the Giants – Ne. 1 (67–69); Peleus and Kadmos – Py. 3 (86–88); Asklepios – Py. 3 (57f.); Iason et al. – Py. 4. The several mythological figures are thus interpreted as illustrations of various moral principles. Neander’s pragmatic cast of mind reveals itself in the last example, Iason and the Argonauts, which is used to illustrate how after danger and enormous effort the heroes acquire riches and fame. There follows a list of other odes, Ol. 10, 7, 6, Py. 11, Ne. 10, Is. 6, Py. 9, Ne. 8, Py. 11, Ne. 3, in which Neander finds still other examples of moral principles. Clearly he has studied his author more closely than had, for example, Stefano Negri who does not seem to have gone much beyond the First Olympian.427 After this review of the ethical content of Pindar’s odes Neander launches into a full-scale laudatio of the poet. Pindar, he claims, can be read by everyone, the powerful and the obscure, the rich and poor, the learned and the ignorant, the old and the young, for Pindar was wont to adapt himself to all men: “among young children a child, among men a 425 Hor. ars 333, quoted by Neander, fol. α6v [= App., p. 181 below]. 426 Neander mentions Ixion as murderer but only alludes to his attempted rape of Hera, presumably not a subject to be discussed with pupils. The mention of Ixion is concluded with a quotation of Vergil’s description of the sinner in Aen. 6.618– 20, where v. 620 discite iustitiam moniti et non temnere diuos represents a version of Py. 2.24 τὸν εὐεργέταν ἀγαναῖς ἀμοιβαῖς ἐποιχομένους τίνεσθαι. 427 On Negri v. pp. 56–61, esp. 60 above.

100

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

man, and, third, among the elder”.428 His works are “plena uoluptatis, gratiae et doctrinae utilis de totius uitae pia et honesta gubernatione” and may be favourably contrasted with all the “prolixa simul et morosa cum obscuritate intricata commentaria” of certain unnamed phi­losophers.429 Like Negri, whom he does not mention, our author applies Athenaios’ epithet μεγαλοφωνότατος to Pindar.430 Since Neander goes on to inter­ pret the epithet in a moral sense “most sublime” rather than in the obviously correct sense “most grandiloquent” as Athenaios meant it and Negri understood it, we may be reasonably sure that Neander owes nothing to his Italian predecessor here. On the other hand, what follows reveals the influence of Lonicer’s “Pindari encomium” which was included in his enarrationes of 1535. Neander’s description of Pindar’s verse in which “nihil fellis, nihil aloes, nihil ueneni, sed mella purissi­ma inessent, referta saluberrimis Alexipharmacis, optimis paraenesi­bus” echoes almost word for word that of Lonicer.431 Neander does not hesitate to compare Pindar favourably with David, a relatively bold step considering the prestige which the Psalms enjoyed amongst the Reformers. As schoolmaster Neander finds that Pindar has a certain use in the schools as part of the preparation of youths for service in church and state. Finally, Neander states his purpose in publishing the collection of Pindaric sententiae. Realizing that young pupils could hardly read the poet without aid, he began excerpting passages of Pindar which he considered remarkable, outstanding, and noteworthy (illustria, insignia, notatu quoque digna) and which he thought could be applied to various situations and events of ordinary life. To these excerpts he added a Latin translation and indicated in the margin the reason and occasion of the individual stories, fables, or the weightiest sententiae thus selected, and to these he added still other sententiae which illustrate the Pindaric ones or are similarly applicable for the instruction of the youth. For his sources Neander mentions that he not only consulted the ancient Greek 428 Ne. 3.73–74, to which Neander adds παλαίτερος γενόμενος. 429 Doubtless the humanist schoolmaster meant the late scholastic commentaries which continued to be read even in Protestant lands long after the Reformation. 430 Cf. Ath. 13,564d and v. p. 58 with n. 220 above. 431 Cf. Loniceri encomium fol. α5r [= App., p. 166 below]: “nihil fellis, nihil aloes, nihil ueneni, sed mella potius, sed meliphylla, sed saluberrima cunctis mortalibus alexipharmaca necque optimas non paraeneses contineant”.

13. The Aristologia Pindarica of Michael Neander (1556)

101

and Latin authors but also Erasmus whose Chiliades (sc. Adagiorum) he found of great value. He then acknowledges his debt to his teacher Philipp Melanchthon and his predecessor in Pindaric studies Johannes Lonicer. Neander envisages that his collection will be used to ornament a speech or to provide “uiuendi praecepta”. Having completed his collection of Pindaric sententiae to which a second part containing extracts of other lyric poets was added, Neander was well aware, as he himself states (fol. β5r), that other fragments of Pindar as well as of Simonides, Sappho, and Stesichoros were to be found in the texts of Plato and other ancient Greek authors. Lack of time has prevented him from collecting them, but he hopes, so he says, to publish them some time or other. In fact, such a collection was to appear some four years later as part of the Pindar edition of Henri Estienne.432 The letter ends with the customary compliments to the public authorities to whom it was addressed. To the Ninth Nemean Neander devotes a mere four pages (pp. 314–17) of the Aristologia. In a brief argumentum he explains correctly that the ode should not properly be included among the Nemeans since Chromios is not in any way praised because of Nemea.433 Then follow nine sententiae from the ode: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

6f. 15 27 33f. 37–39 44 45–47 48f. 49

ἔστι – πρόσφορος κρέσσων – ἀνήρ ἐν γὰρ – θεῶν αἰδὼς – δόξαν παῦροι – δυνατοί ἐκ – ἁμέρα ἴστω – ποδοῖν ἡσυχίαν – ἀοιδᾷ θαρσαλέα – γίνεται

In the editio Basileensis all except 2, 3, and 8 are indicated as sententiae, while Lonicer is more restrained in indicating only 1, 3, and 4 as 432 See p. 107 below. 433 A point already mentioned in sch. Ne. 9, inscr. (III 150,2–3 Dr.), and taken up by Lonicer in his commentary (enarratio) on the ode. Here, as often, Neander simply repeats Lonicer almost literally; v. p. 100 with n. 431 above.

102

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

such, i.e. 2 and 8 alone were not already marked before Neander. For his Greek text of Nemean Nine the author of the Aristologia used either the Basel or Braubach edition as is made clear from the adoption of αἰὼν in v. 44 where both the Aldina and the Romana have the false reading ἐὼν. Neander’s grammatical notes are very elementary explaining e.g. καύχας in v. 7 as a Doric genitive for καύχης and καππαύει in v. 15 as syncope for καταπαύει. The remaining annotation consists largely of Latin paraphrases of the text and the occasional citation of more or less relevant parallels. The Latin translation of the Greek text is markedly independent of Lonicer’s being in general considerably more literal. Leaving aside the question of how much help Neander’s collection provided those looking for rhetorical ornament or precepts for the conduct of life, we may conclude that, while he did not advance the study of Nemean Nine, he did at least offer some practical aid to beginners of the time who wished to read bits and snippets of the Greek text.

14. The editio Moreliana (1558) Sixteen years after the appearance of Braubach’s Pindar edition in Frankfurt the Greek text of the poet was published in Paris by the learned printer Guillaume Morel (1505–1564).434 Except for the Greek life of Pindar taken from the Souda and verses 1–27 of Horace’s Ode 4.2 the edition contains nothing else other than the Greek text of the Pindaric odes.435 According to Hummel436 the text follows that of the 434 On Morel, who was born in Tilleul (Normandy) and began his career as corrector with the press of Jean Loys in Paris ca. 1540 eventually becoming printer to the king for Greek, see A. Franklin in Nouvelle Biographie Générale 36 (1865) 515–17, and Renouard (1965) 314f., E. Langevin in Dictionnaire des Lettres françaises. Le seizième siècle (22001) 863. Beginning in 1551 Morel was associated in his work with Adrien Turnèbe (1512–1565), but whether his distinguished Norman friend (from Les Andelys) had any influence on Morel’s edition of Pindar is uncertain. For a list of his many other publications of classical and patristic authors v. Maillard/Kecskeméti/Portalier (1995) 313. 435 For a description of the edition v. Schmitz (1993) 279f. 436 Hummel (1997) 242.

103

14. The editio Moreliana (1558)

Frankfurt edition. For the Ninth Nemean we may compare the two editions where they differ in seven places.

2 8 9 35 41 50 55

Moreliana εἰς ὄρσομεν ἅτε ἀυτᾶς δέδορκε τις νικᾶν

Brubacchiana εἰς (ἐς in marg.) ὄρσωμεν ἄτε αὐτᾶς δέδορκεν τίς νικᾶν (νίκαν in marg.)

Morel’s edition represents a minor step backwards in that he failed to take note of the better readings given in the margin of the Brubacchiana in verses 2 and 55. The omission of the accent on the τις in v. 50 is probably an oversight. In v. 9 Morel corrects what was presumably a typographical mistake of Braubach.437 More interestingly he prints δέδορκε, the reading of the codices veteres B and D in v. 41 which he could hardly have known. Was the omission of the nu ephelkustikon, which Triklinios had supplied and all four previous editions adopted, intentional or possibly a happy accident which subsequent editors have not in fact followed?438 In v. 35 Morel corrects the vulgate reading αὐτᾶς to ἀυτᾶς required by the metre. The most interesting improvement of Morel to the text of Ne. 9 is the restoration of the short-vowel subjunctive ὄρσομεν (ὄρσωμεν codices) in v. 8, which is required by metre and guaranteed by the mood used in the scholiastic paraphrase.439 It has rightly been adopted by editors since Erasmus Schmid and has thus secured Morel a place in the critical apparatus of modern editions. In short, for the text of the Ninth Nemean there is no evidence that Morel did not follow the Braubach edition with the changes noted above. However, the marking of sententiae, which were not indicated by Braubach, in vv. 6f., 27, 33f., 37–39, 44, 45–47, and 48f. strongly suggests the influence of either Ceporinus’ Basel edition or Lonicer’s translation or, more likely, 437 See n. 418 above. 438 See n. 86 above. 439 See Braswell (1998) 58 ad Ne. 9.8 ὄρσομεν.

104

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Neander’s recently published Aristologia which marked all of these passages.440 Although Morel’s contribution to the improvement of the text of the Ninth Nemean was very modest, he nevertheless provided the French market with what for its time may be considered a reliable edition of the whole corpus of Pindaric odes.

15. The interpretatio Philippi (1558) In the same year in which Morel’s edition of the Greek text of Pindar appeared Johannes Oporinus (Herbst) published a Latin translation of the odes in Basel by the leading contemporary German reformer Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560) with a prefatory letter of Melanchthon’s son-in-law Caspar Peucer (1525–1602) [cf. App., pp. 192–97 below].441 Peucer begins his letter by distinguishing human learning which is natural to all mankind and divine learning which is the prerogative of Christianity. To illustrate this the reformer quotes Poliziano on Pindar and David.442 According to the Italian humanist the Psalms of David are full of wisdom in that they contain precepts of all the virtues, admonishment regarding providence, threats of punishments for criminals, promises of rewards and protection for the just. To this has been added stories of the Jewish people so that a memory of the past might be transmitted to their descendants along with examples of punishments 440 See pp. 101f. above. 441 According to the subtitle of the Olympians (p. 11) the translation derives “ex praelectione Philippi Melanchthonis”, i.e. from a manuscript used for his lectures; v. Hieronymus (1992) 296 (no. 212). On Johannes Oporinus (1507–1568), who resigned a professorship of Greek and Latin at the University of Basel to become a full-time printer, see Steinmann (1967) and, more briefly with later bibliography, H. Clark in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (1996) III 175. Among the many publications on Melanchthon (Schwartzerdt) the study of Hartfelder (1889) remains fundamental; on Melanchthon’s Pindar lectures given in 1545 and 1553 see pp. 363–64. For a brief account of the reformer with recent bibliography v. H. Scheible in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (1996) III 41–45. 442 The comparison of the Pindaric odes with the Hebrew Psalms had already been made by patristic writers; cf. e.g. St. Jerome’s introduction to his translation of Eusebios’ Chronicon, p. 3,20 Helm with the editor’s note to lines 19ff.

15. The interpretatio Philippi (1558)

105

and protection. Poliziano finds such wisdom useful for the conduct of life and the formation of character and, moreover, the form in which it is expressed elegant. In Pindar, however, not only are the same matters to be found but more agreeably expressed and more brilliantly illustrated with examples. That Peucer should not contradict the humanist’s ranking of the two authors is a remarkable testimony to the authority the pagan poet enjoyed in Protestant circles. After giving a number of examples of how the study of Pindar can be useful Peucer explains that in the translation which follows the epithets have occasionally been omitted since these could prove obscure in Latin, which, it is implied, could detract from the sententious text. A comparison of Melanchthon’s version of the first strophe of Nemean Nine with that of Lonicer is revealing:443 Ibimus cantatum ab Apolline Sicyonio, Musae, ad instauratam Aetnam, ubi patent fores hospitibus completae, ad domum Chromii. Exigite igitur dulcem hymnum carminum, propter uictorem matri et geminis fratribus et spectatoribus altae Pythonis. Where Lonicer correctly rendered κωμάσομεν in v. 1 as a short-vowel subjunctive, Melanchthon translates it as a future. His cantatum brings out the aspect of singing implicit in the verb which Lonicer’s cum tripudio neglected, but, correspondingly, omits the aspect of dancing equally implicit in it; cf. sch. ad loc. (1b) χορεύσωμεν … καὶ ὑμνήσωμεν, which provides the right sense and mood. The freer style of Melanchthon’s translation is illustrated by his turning the adverb Σικυωνόθε into an adjective modifying Apollo. The difficult phrase in v. 2 is translated in a way which avoids the syntactical problem presented by the verb νενίκανται, translated literally by Lonicer (uincuntur), but hardly re­ presents what Pindar meant.444 As Peucer warned, the epithets ὄλβιον in v. 3 and ὁμοκλάροις in v. 5 are not translated, while the compound 443 For the text of Lonicer’s translation v. p. 74 above. 444 The basic notion is that the doors of Chromios’ house stand open to the guests. The implication that they are crowded is an interpretation not justified by the text; see further Braswell (1998) 48 ad Ne. 9.2 ἀναπεπταμέναι ξείνων νενίκανται θύραι. Moreover, according to Erasmus Schmid (1616) 209 ad loc., Melanchthon read ἀναπεπλαμέναι for ἀναπεπταμέναι, but as Heyne (1773) 300, pointed out the alpha in -πλα- (Doric for -πλη-) would give a false quantity.

106

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

epithet κρατήσιππον in v. 4 is simplified to “propter uictorem”. An even greater simplification is the omission of the image of Chromios’ mounting his chariot. The rendering of παίδεσσιν in v. 4 by “fratribus”, where Lonicer has the more literal “liberis”, might suggest that Melanchthon was thinking of the German collective “Geschwister”. Presumably the et in “et spectatoribus” is explanatory rather than additive. Finally we may note that the epithet of Pytho αἰπεινᾶς in v. 5 is rightly rendered by altae where Lonicer has eximiae. The general tendency of the translation is already clear enough, so that we need only note a few points in what follows. In v. 6 Melanchthon’s sermo is a better translation of λόγος than Lonicer’s prudentia, whereas his version of the second half of v. 7, “sed congruit carmen honestis argumentis”, is a very free paraphrase where Lonicer was more literal. In v. 8 Melanchthon’s “moueamus” obviously translates the vulgate ὄρσωμεν and not Morel’s correction ὄρσομεν, which in the light of the rendering of κωμάσομεν in v. 1 as a future would almost certainly have been translated similarly here. In v. 15 Melanchthon predictably takes κρέσσων to mean melior as did Lonicer, but what follows, cui dedit Eriphylen, has in the context been simplified to the point of unintelligibility, since without the Greek text it would be unclear who gave Eriphyle to whom. In short, Melanchthon’s translation might have served some purpose in the lecture hall where he was trying to bring out the moral content of the poet, but can hardly be regarded as a genuine contribution to the understanding of the Pindaric text.

16. The editio prima Stephani (1560) However inadequate Melanchthon’s Pindar translation may have been as a work of scholarship it nevertheless did not pass unnoticed by subsequent editors and translators. An immediate response came from Henri Estienne (Henricus Stephanus) in the edition of Pindar and the other lyric poets which he published in Geneva two years later.445 445 On Henri Estienne, the second of that name, son of the royal printer Robert Estienne I, born in Paris ca. 1531 and died in Lyon 1598, see Renouard (21843)

16. The editio prima Stephani (1560)

107

The edition is prefaced by a letter formally addressed by Estienne to Melanchthon as an answer to one from the reformer in which he was urged to continue his great Thesaurus of the Greek language. Progress on this work, he says, has been retarded by his publication of Greek authors including now Pindar. Melanchthon’s translation arrived just as Estienne was considering whether he should add a Latin translation “as a favour to beginners”. In contrast to Melanchthon’s free translation, Estienne opts for a literal one which elementary students could use as a kind of crib. Besides the bilingual Pindar the new edition includes the fragments of the other canonical eight lyrical poets which Estienne has collected from various authors, a project which Neander had envisaged some four years before.446 Estienne’s Latin translation of Pindar is indeed very literal as can be seen from his version of the first strophe of Nemean Nine: Hymnum chorealem [allatum] ab Apolline, ex Sicyone, [ô] Musae decantabimus apud Aetnam nuper instauratam, apud beatam Chromii domum, ubi reseratae fores uictae sunt [multitudine] hospitum. carminum igitur dulcem hymnum perficite. nam in currum equis uictoriosis [iunctum] conscendens, matri et geminis filiis Pythonis altae consortibus praesidibus cantum denuntiat. Words added to bring out what Estienne thought was the implied meaning are printed in square brackets, a convenient convention still employed in some texts. Like Melanchthon’s, the new translation renders κωμάσομεν as a future.447 The addition of “multi­ tudine” in v. 2 is reasonable enough in itself, but is not necessarily implied in the verb νενίκανται.448 In general, however, the translation 364–477 (life), 115–58 (catalogue), A. Firmin-Didot in Nouvelle Biographie Générale 16 (1858) 517–53, Haag/Haag (21877–88) VI 129–60, Renouard (1965) 143f., Widmann (1970) and the collective volume Henri Estienne (1988). On the correct birth date of Estienne v. Schreiber (1988). On the Pindar edition of 1560 published not in Paris, as Hummel (1997) 243, states, but in Geneva, see Schmitz (1993) 281f., as well as Chaix/Dufour/Moeckli (21966) 44. 446 See p. 101 above. 447 Cf. p. 105 above. 448 See Braswell (1998) 48 ad Ne. 9.2 ἀναπεπταμέναι ξείνων νενίκανται θύραι.

108

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

would prove a better guide in understanding the Greek text than does Melanchthon’s.449 More interesting for judging Estienne’s contribution to Pindaric scholarship is his Greek text. In v. 2 he prints the vulgate εἰς ignoring Braubach’s correction ἐς (in the margin). In v. 8 he adopts Ceporinus’ correction αὐτὰν as did Braubach and Morel, but fails to adopt Morel’s correction ὄρσομεν in the same verse retaining ὄρσωμεν with Braubach. In v. 9 Estienne prints ἅ, τε where Morel has ἅτε and Braubach ἄτε. In v. 16 he adopts Ceporinus’ correct reading ἀνδροδάμαντ᾿ where Braubach and Morel repeat the mistaken Triclinian reading ἀνδρομέδαν τ᾿ of the Romana. In v. 35 Estienne rightly prints Morel’s ἀυτᾶς where Braubach and the vulgate tradition have αὐτᾶς. In v. 41 he adopts Morel’s δέδορκε against Braubach’s Triclinian reading accepted by the three earliest editions. Finally, in v. 55 Estienne prints Ceporinus’ correction νίκαν which Braubach only noted in the margin, while adopting νικᾶν in his text as did Morel. Clearly Estienne shows considerable independence in constituting his text of Nemean Nine which generally represents an improvement on those of Braubach and Morel.

17. The interpretatio and commentarius in Nemea Sudorii (1582) In the course of the sixteenth century three Latin prose translations of the whole of the Pindar then known, those of Lonicer, Melanchthon, and Estienne, had already appeared when the Parisian jurist Nicolas Le Sueur or Lesueur (Sudorius)450 published in Paris in 1582 a verse 449 In the following strophes Estienne has marked both the Greek and Latin texts with inverted commas indicating the sententiae. 450 Nicolaus Sudorius (Nicolas Le Sueur) was born ca. 1545 in a family with a legal tradition which he himself combined with humanist interests becoming first a conseiller and then president of the Chambre des Enquêtes of the Parlement of Paris. A first edition of his Pindar translation containing only the Olympians and Pythians appeared in Paris in 1575–1576. Sudorius’ translation of all the odes along with his commentary on the Nemeans was apparently first published in Paris Ex Officina Federici Morelli in 1575 and reprinted there in 1582; on the

17. The interpretatio and commentarius in Nemea Sudorii (1582)

109

rendering of all the odes together with a commentary on the Nemeans, an edition which was reprinted in Venice in the same year. The lyric metres employed by Horace furnish the models adopted by Le Sueur. For the Ninth Nemean he uses the metre of Carmina 1.6 (Scriberis Vario fortis et hostium), i.e. in stanzas consisting of three lesser asclepiads followed by a glyconic. To judge the results we need quote no more than Le Sueur’s translation of the first strophe of Nemean Nine: Charae Pegasides e Sicyonia Tellure atque adyto laeuis Apollinis, Mecum Aethnam lapidum mole recentium Constructam petite, et domum Felicis Chromii, cuius hiant fores Utrinque, et faciles ingredientibus Cedunt hospitibus, sed precor in uia. Hymnum texite uirgines Namque olim Chromius puluereas rotas Conuertens spatiis in Sicyoniis Latonam attonitam reddidit, et duos Delphorum uigiles Deos. Although the twelve lines of the translation neatly correspond to the twelve lines of the traditional colometry of the Greek text, the spirit of the Pindaric lyric, as Le Sueur imagined it, was clearly more important than was the letter. However little a Pindarus togatus may appeal to modern readers, Le Sueur’s version was nevertheless much admired by his contemporaries and reprinted as late as 1697 in the Oxford edition of West and Welsted. On the other hand, the Oxford editors declined to reprint his comments on the Nemeans, “cum nihil fere habeant non prius in Scholiis”.451 It is there, however, where we should look for Le Sueur’s contribution to the study of the Ninth Nemean. [lacuna] latter edition v. Schmitz (1993) 287f. Le Sueur’s career was abruptly ended in 1591 when he was murdered by robbers near Paris. On Le Sueur v. further A. de Lacaze in Nouvelle Biographie Générale 30 (1862) 985. 451 West/Welsted (1697) fol. bv.

110

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

18. The commentarii Francisci Porti (1583) A year after the publication of Sudorius’ contribution there appeared in Geneva a commentary on Pindar presented in a form recognizably modern with lemmata in Greek followed by brief comments in Latin.452 The author was the Greek Protestant Franciscus Portus (Francesco Porto), a refugee from Italy who had died two years before.453 The work was published by his son Aemilius Portus (Emilio Porto) who prefaced it with a dedicatory letter to the political authorities of the Bernese Republic.454 After a long introduction replete with fulsome praise Portus fils develops the theme of the importance of learning for the greatness of a state taking Athens and Rome as examples. Because of their passionate devotion to the furtherance of learning the younger Portus has dared, he says, 452 Some copies of the volume do not indicate the place of publication (a measure taken against possible confiscation in Roman Catholic areas), e.g. the one of which the title page is illustrated in Reverdin (1991) 37, cf. also Moeckli in Chaix/Dufour/Moeckli (21966) 108, who notes that it was published “sans lieu”. However, others, e.g. the copy in the University Library at Basel, do indicate Geneva as the place of publication. In any event, Joannes Sylvius (Jean Du Bois or Des Bois), the printer, was active in Geneva at the time; v. Bremme (1969) 151. 453 Portus was born in 1511 in Crete in what seems to have been a Hellenized family of Italian (and thus Roman Catholic) origin. He became a pupil of Arsenius Apostolis, the Latin archbishop of Monemvasia, first in the Morea (1524–1525) and then later in Venice after 1527. In 1536 he was appointed professor of Greek in Modena where he remained until 1545 when he accepted a similar post at the ducal court of Ercole II d’Este at Ferrara. Portus, who in Modena had already moved in circles favourable to the Reformation and experienced the pressure of the Catholic reaction, at first could count on the protection of the duchess Renée, but was eventually forced to leave Ferrara in 1554. After spending four precarious years in Venice he was eventually arrested, put on trial, and condemned by the Inquisition in 1558. There followed three years of wandering in exile until he arrived in Geneva on his way to France, the homeland of his protectress in Ferrara. By chance the chair of Greek at the Genevan Academy has become vacant, and Calvin was quick to propose Portus after rejecting the candidacy of Henri Estienne. The following year Portus was granted Genevan citizenship. During his twenty years in Geneva he published a number of editions, translations, and commentaries as well as writing other works which were published after his death in 1581. Some of his works such as his commentaries on Demosthenes, Sophokles, and Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis remain unpublished. On Franciscus Portus v. further Manoussakas/Staïkos (1988) 164–81. 454 The younger Portus was at that time professor in Lausanne, then Bernese territory.

18. The commentarii Francisci Porti (1583)

111

to dedicate his father’s commentary to the “benignissimi domini”455 in whose territory he was residing. According to him Pindar deserves to be read and studied because of his honest praise of great deeds and his genuine religiosity as well as the importance he attached to literary culture. Besides the introductory letter of the younger Portus and the commentary itself the edition contains only a short Latin life of Pindar and a Greek epigram contributed by Isaac Casaubon (Hortusbonus),456 the elder Portus’ successor to the chair of Greek at Geneva. The text of the commentary on the first strophe of Nemean Nine will serve to illustrate the kind of exegesis which Portus offered: Κωμάσομεν, Chromium Aethnaeum laudat, qui curru uicerat, uicerat autem non Delphis in ludis Pythiis, sed in urbe Sicyone: ubi etiam ludi Pythii celebrabantur. Laudes a patria, ab hospitalitate, ac liberalitate, ab Adrasto, qui ludos hos instituit, in quo laudando longius digreditur. Inducit Chorum hortantem musas, ut se sequantur ad Chromium, eiusque aedes, et secum uictorem concelebrent. hortatur autem Chorus musas quasi esset iam iter ingressus, ut in Siciliam traiiceret.457 Κωμάσομεν ἀνθυπότακτον, sed correpta est penultima metri gratia.458 Ξείνων νενίκανται, patent, frequentantur hospitibus.459 ᾿Αλλ᾿ ἐπέων, pangite ergo, et parate dulce carmen.460 455 This was the standard formula used to address the authorities of the Bernese Republic during the Ancien Régime. It corresponds to the German “gnädige Herren”. 456 The name was more often Latinized as Hortibonus. 457 Portus’ explanation is a reasonable paraphrase of the text supplemented by information provided by the scholia ad loc. (inscr.) on the existence of the Pythian games at Sicyon. 458 As Portus rightly saw κωμάσομεν is a subjunctive, although he was apparently unaware of the use of short-vowel subjunctives, hence his assumption that the form here has been correpted for metrical reasons. The term ἀνθυπότακτον, which is apparently unattested elsewhere (no examples in the TLG), is presumably Portus’ own creation; the meaning clearly “a form used in place of (ἀντ-) a subjunctive (-υπότακτον)”. 459 Cf. Melanchthon’s translation “patent fores hospitibus completae”, on which v. p. 105 above. 460 Cf. Lonicer’s translation “Caeterum dulcem carminum hymnum pangite”, on which v. p. 75 above.

112

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Τὸ κρατήσιππον, Chromius enim curru uictore uectus carmen denuntiat. i[d est] facit, ut dum ipse uictor celebratur, laudetur etiam Latona, et Diana, atque Apollo. inducit Chromium curru uectum, quasi triumphantem, habentem comitatum ouantem, et carmina canentem.461 ῾Ομοκλάροις, consortibus, i[d est] qui etiam Delphis participes honorum istiusmodi sunt. 462 However inadequate Portus’ commentary might seem by modern standards it does at least represent a positive stem forward in making the text of Pindar more accessible to contemporary readers. Moreover, it deserves closer attention in that it represents the first contribution in the West to the study of the poet by a native speaker of Greek who, it would appear, was often more sensitive to the nuances of the language than his western colleagues.

19. The editio tertia Stephani (1586) A quarter of a century after his first edition463 a third edition was published by Henri Estienne in Geneva, again without an indication of the place of publication. The inclusion of “Observationes”464 of Isaac Casaubonus raises expectations which are not fulfilled.465 The presentation of the new edition which replaces the square brackets used in the Latin translation with cursive script and substitutes Roman font for cursive elsewhere is hardly an improvement. In both the Greek text and the translation no changes to the first edition are introduced. In short, the third edition is no more than a reprint of the first with a few cosmetic changes. 461 The comment does not explain the words of the lemma alone but vv. 4f. 462 Cf. Estienne’s translation “consortibus”, on which v. p. 107 above. 463 On which v. pp. 106–8 above. The second edition published in 1566 was a reprint of the first. 464 Not “obscrutationes” (Schmitz [1993] 291) – a misspelt lapsus freudiano for “obscurationes”? 465 Regrettably the remarks of Estienne’s son-in-law are confined to a brief discussion of the Doric dialect of the epinikians.

20. The commentarii Aretii (1587)

113

20. The commentarii Aretii (1587) The appearance of a new commentary on Pindar by the Bernese theologian Benedictus Aretius (Benedikt Marti)466 some four years after that of Portus reflects the continuing interest in the poet in Protestant Switzerland. Whereas Portus’ commentary was little more than a series of glosses interspersed with short explanations, Aretius guides the reader through the text step by step. He prefaces the Ninth Nemean with a brief introduction in which he explains that Chromios was a friend of Hieron who appointed him ἐπίτροπος, i.e. praefectus.467 After he won the chariot race in the Pythian games in Sikyon, he was called Aetnaeus because he was then living in Aitna. He won with the chariot, although he was not present, ut adnotat Scholiastes.468 Aretius then remarks that the ode does not have the usual triadic form used for odes written for victories in the major games, but is composed of twelve cola (δυωδεκάδες), a form sometimes employed for odes written for victories in other games.

466 Marti was born in Bätterkinden in the Canton of Bern as the son of a priest in 1522 and, after studies in Strasbourg and Marburg, was appointed the head of the Latin school in Bern and later professor of Greek and Hebrew at the Academy, which would eventually become the University. Apart from his Pindar commentary Marti is best remembered for his Latin description of an ascent of the Niesen and Stockhorn in the Berner Oberland and his defence of the decapitation of the antitrinitarian Italian Giovanni Valentino Gentili by the Bernese authorities in 1566. While the first with its careful catalogue of the plants growing on the Alps reveals his humanistic interests which he shared with his friend, Zürich’s polymath Conrad Gessner (1516–1565), the second with its justification of an act paralleled by the burning at the stake in Geneva of another antitrinitarian Michael Servetus (1509/11–1553) reminds us of the other side of the Protestant Reformers. On Aretius the basic study remains Haller (1901). Marti’s Descriptio, which was first published by Gessner in 1561, has been edited and translated by Bratschi (1992). Aretius’ Valentini Gentilis iusto, capitis supplicio Bernae affecti brevis historia …, published in Geneva in 1567, appeared in an English translation by the Reverend Dr. Robert South in London in 1696. 467 Cf. sch. Ne. 9, inscr. (III 149,22–150,1 Dr.). 468 Cf. sch. Ne. 9,123a (III 163,9–10 Dr.).

114

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

*Appendix Documents for the Study and Interpretation of Nemean Nine *1. The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine (III 149,14–164,7 Drachmann) Inscr. Περὶ τῶν ἐν Σικυῶνι Πυθίων ὁ Ἁλικαρνασεὺς οὕτω γράφει· *** φησὶ δὲ ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῶν Κρισαίων κατὰ θάλασσαν ῥᾳδίως τὰ ἐπιτήδεια ποριζομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μακρᾶς γινομένης τῆς πολιορκίας, Κλεισθένην τὸν Σικυώνιον ναυτικὸν ἰδίᾳ παρασκευάσαντα κωλῦσαι τὴν σιτοπομπίαν αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν εὐεργεσίαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν λαφύρων ἔδοσαν τῷ Κλεισθένει καὶ Σικυωνίοις. ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ Σικυώνιοι τὰ Πύθια πρῶτον παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς ἔθεσαν. ὁ δὲ Χρόμιος οὗτος φίλος ἦν Ἱέρωνος, κατασταθεὶς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τῆς Αἴτνης ἐπίτροπος· ὅθεν καὶ Αἰτναῖος ἐκηρύχθη. αὗται δὲ αἱ ᾠδαὶ οὐκέτι Νεμεονίκαις εἰσὶ γεγραμμέναι· διὸ κεχωρισμέναι φέρονται. (BD) 1a. Κ ω μ ά σ ο μ ε ν π α ρ’ Ἀ π ό λ λ ω ν ο ς · ἀπὸ τοῦ χοροῦ ὁ λόγος. ἔνιοι δέ, κωμάσομεν εἰς τὴν Αἴτνην, φασί. νεόκτιστον δὲ ταύτην φησίν, ἐπειδὴ ἦν ὁ Ἱέρων νεωστὶ αὐτὴν ἀνακτίσας, πρότερον Κατάνην καλουμένην. ξείνων δὲ θύραι, αἱ τῆς φιλοξενίας. τὸ δὲ νενίκανται ἀντὶ τοῦ ἥττηνται· παντὶ οὖν εἴκουσαι ξένῳ καὶ οὐδένα ἀπελαύνουσαι νικῶνται τῇ φιλοξενίᾳ τοῦ νικηφόρου· ἢ νίκας ἔχουσιν, ἐν οἴῳ τρόπῳ ἐστεφανῶσθαι τόνδε, ἀντὶ τοῦ στέφανον ἔχειν. τὴν δὲ ὅλην Αἴτνην εἰπὼν ἐπήνεγκε Χρομίου δῶμα, ὥστε ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ (θ 362f.)  



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149,14

20

150,1

   

ἣ δ’ ἐς Κύπρον ἵκανε φιλομμειδὴς Ἀφροδίτη, ἐς Πάφον. (BD)

5

10

15

115

Appendix: 1. The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine

b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὕτω· χορεύσωμεν, ὦ Μοῦσαι, καὶ ὑμνή­ σωμεν ἐκ Σικυῶνος ἥκοντες καὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἐκεῖσε Ἀπόλλωνος εἰς τὴν καλλίστην Αἴτνην, ἐν ᾗ πᾶσιν ἀνεῳγυῖαι θύραι τοῦ Χρομίου τῆς οἰκίας ἥττηνται ὑπὸ τῶν ξένων, ἔνθα πᾶσι ξένοις ὁ πλούσιος οἶκος ἀνέῳκται ὑπὸ φιλοξενίας ἡττηθείς. ἄγε δὴ οὖν, ὦ Μοῦσαι, διανύσατε καὶ πράσσετε τοὺς ἡδυτάτους διὰ λόγων ὕμνους. τὸ γὰρ τοὺς λοιποὺς κρατοῦν καὶ νικῶν ἅρμα ἐλαύνων ὁ Χρόμιος τῇ τε Λητοῖ καὶ τοῖς δυσὶν αὐτῆς παισὶ τὸ θαυμάζεσθαι δίδωσιν, οὖσιν αὐτοῖς τῆς ὑψηλοτάτης Πυθῶνος καὶ ὁμοκλήροις καὶ ἴσοις ἐπισκόποις. (BD) 8. τ ὸ κ ρ α τ ή σ ι π π ο ν γ ά ρ · κρατήσιππον ἤτοι τὸ συν­ έχον ἐν τάξει τοὺς ἵππους, ἢ τὸ κρατοῦν καὶ νικῶν τοὺς ἐναντίους. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

13a. ἔ σ τ ι δ έ τ ι ς λ ό γ ο ς ἀ ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν · ἔστι γάρ τις παλαιὰ παραίνεσις καὶ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις ᾀδομένη, ὡς οὐ δεῖ τὸ ὑπό τινος κατεργαζόμενον καλὸν σιγῇ παραδιδόναι, ὥστε εἰς γῆν κατενεχθῆναι καὶ ἄδοξον διὰ τῆς σιωπῆς γενέσθαι. (BD) b. τὸ οὖν ἐπιτελεσθὲν ἀγαθὸν οὐ δεῖ, φησί, τῇ σιγῇ παραδοῦναι οὐδ’ ἀνεπισήμαντον ἀφεῖναι. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

151,1

 

   

5

   

18a. ἀ λ λ’ ἀ ν ὰ μ ὲ ν β ρ ο μ ί α ν φ ό ρ μ ι γ γ α · ἑαυτῷ παρα­ κελεύεται ὑμνεῖν τὸν νικηφόρον. βρομία δὲ ἡ φόρμιγξ, ἤτοι  

25

   

16a. θ ε σ π ε σ ί α δ’ ἐ π έ ω ν κ α ύ χ α ς ἀ ο ι δ ὰ π ρ ό σ φ ο ρ ο ς · τοῖς νενικηκόσι, φησί, πρόσφορός ἐστι καὶ ἐοικυῖα ἡ διὰ τῆς καυχήσεως ᾠδή· τίνες γὰρ ἄλλοι μέλλουσι καυχᾶσθαι ἢ οἱ νικήσαντες; Ἀττικοὶ δὲ λέγουσι καύχην τὴν καύχησιν, καὶ ἄνθην τὴν ἄνθησιν, καὶ βλάστην τὴν βλάστησιν. (BD) b. ἢ οὕτω· προσφορωτέρα ἐστὶ τῆς καυχήσεως ἡ τῶν ἐπῶν ᾠδή· ἢ πρόσφορος καὶ ἀγαθή τις ἡ τῆς τῶν ἐπῶν καυχήσεως ᾠδὴ ἢ ἡ καυχητικὴ ᾠδή. (BD) c. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· ἀλλ’ ὅτι πρόσφορός ἐστι καὶ ἁρμόζουσα τούτοις θαυμαστή τις λόγων ᾠδή. (BD)  

20

10

15

116

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

παρὰ τὸν βρόμον καὶ τὸν ἦχον τὸν ἀποτελούμενον κατὰ τὸν κιθαρισμόν, ἢ βρομίαν τὴν συναναστρεφομένην τῷ Διονύσῳ. Ὅμηρος (θ 99 et ρ 271)· φόρμιγγός θ’ ἣν δαιτὶ θεοὶ ποίησαν ἑταίρην. (BD) b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· διὰ τοῦτο δὴ σὺν πᾶσιν ὀργάνοις μουσικοῖς, τοῦτο μὲν κιθάρᾳ, τοῦτο δὲ αὐλῷ, ὁρμήσωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν κορυφὴν τῶν ἱππικῶν ἄθλων, ἐπὶ τὸ ἐξαίρετον, τουτ­έστι τὴν νίκην. (BD) 20. ἅ τ ε Φ ο ί β ῳ θ ῆ κ ε ν Ἄ δ ρ α σ τ ο ς · ἅτινα, τὰ Πύθιά φησι· κατ’ αὐτὸν τὸν Πίνδαρον· ἀνατίθησι γὰρ τὴν τῶν Πυθίων θέσιν ἐν Σικυῶνι Ἀδράστῳ, ποιητικὴν ἄγων ἄδειαν, Κλεισθέ­νους αὐτὰ διαθέντος, καθὰ δεδήλωται (inscr.). ἵν’ οὖν ἐνδοξότερον ἀποφήνῃ τὸν ἀγῶνα, ὧνπερ, φησίν, ἄθλων μνημονεύσας ἐγὼ καὶ τῶν ἐνδόξων μνησθήσομαι τιμῶν τοῦ ἥρωος Ἀδράστου. (BD)  

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

   

30a. φ ε ῦ γ ε γ ὰ ρ Ἀ μ φ ι ά ρ η ο ν · περὶ τῆς Ἀδράστου εἰς Σικυῶνα μεταστάσεως Ἡρόδοτος (5.67.4) μὲν οὕτω φησίν· «οἱ δὲ Σικυώνιοι εἰώθεισαν μεγαλωστὶ κάρτα τιμᾶν τὸν Ἄδρηστον. ἡ γὰρ χώρη αὕτη ἦν Πολύβου· ὁ δὲ Ἄδρηστος ἦν Πολύβου θυγατριδέος, ἄπαις δὲ ὁ Πόλυβος τελευτῶν διδοῖ Ἀδρήστῳ τὴν χώρην». Μέναιχμος δὲ ὁ Σικυώνιος (FGrHist 131 F 10) οὕτω γράφει· «χρόνου παρελθόντος πολλοῦ Πρῶναξ μὲν ὁ Ταλαοῦ καὶ Λυσιμάχης τῆς Πολύβου βασιλεύων Ἀργείων ἀποθνῄσκει, καταστασιασθεὶς ὑπὸ  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

152,1

   

25a. ὃ ς τ ό τ ε μ ὲ ν β α σ ι λ ε ύ ω ν · ὅστις Ἄδραστος τὸ τηνικαῦτα λοιπὸν ἐκεῖ βασιλεύων ἐν τῇ Σικυῶνι, οὐκέτι ἐν Ἄργει, παντοίαις ἀρεταῖς, τοῦτο μὲν ἀγωνίσμασιν ἀνδρῶν τοῖς ἐκ δυνάμεως, τοῦτο δὲ φιλοκαλίαις ἁρμάτων γλαφυρῶν καὶ ὡραίων καὶ καινοτέραις εὐωχίαις, ἐμφανεστάτην καὶ ἀοίδιμον ἐποίει τὴν πόλιν. (BD) b. καὶ Κλεισθένης μὲν τὰ ἐν Σικυῶνι Πύθια διέθηκε πρῶτος, ἀνατίθησι δὲ τὸ ὅλον Ἀδράστῳ ὡς διαθέντι, ἐπειδὴ καὶ διωρθώσατο αὐτὸς ὕστερον, καὶ ἄλλως ἐνδοξότερος ὁ ἀνήρ. (BD)  

20

5

10

15

   

20

25

117

Appendix: 1. The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine

Ἀμφιαράου καὶ τῶν Μελαμποδιδῶν καὶ τῶν Ἀναξαγοριδῶν· Ἄδραστος δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Πρώνακτος φυγὼν ἦλθεν εἰς Σικυῶνα, καὶ τὴν Πολύβου τοῦ μητροπάτορος βασιλείαν παραλαβὼν ἐβασίλευσε τῆς Σικυῶνος, καὶ τὸ τῆς Ἥρας τῆς Ἀλέας καλουμένης ἱερὸν καθ’ ὅνπερ ᾤκει τόπον ἱδρύσατο. τὴν δὲ ἐπωνυμίαν ἔλαβε ταύτην τὸ ἱερὸν διὰ τὸ φεύγον­ τα τὸν Ἄδραστον ἱδρύσασθαι καὶ καλέσαι ἱερὸν Ἥρας Ἀλέας. τὸ δὲ φυγεῖν τινες ἀλᾶσθαι ὠνόμαζον». Διευχίδας δὲ ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ τῶν Μεγαρικῶν (FGrHist 485 F 3) τὸ μὲν κενήριον τοῦ Ἀδράστου ἐν Σικυῶνί φησιν, ἀποκεῖσθαι δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν Μεγάροις. (BD) b. οἱ δέ φασι· Προῖτος ἐβασίλευσε τοῦ Ἄργους, τῶν θυγατέρων δὲ αὐτοῦ μανεισῶν Μελάμπους μάντις ὢν παρεγένετο· ὁμολογηθέντος δὲ αὐτῷ μισθοῦ τῶν δυεῖν μερῶν τῆς βασιλείας, ἐκάθηρεν αὐτάς· ὡς δὲ ἐκάθηρεν, ἔλαβε κατὰ τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ ἐκοινώσατο τῷ ἀδελφῷ Βίαντι, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ κατέσχεν αὑτῷ, ὥστε γενηθῆναι τὴν ὅλην βασιλείαν τριμερῆ, Μελαμποδίδας, Βιαντίδας, Προιτίδας. Μελάμποδος μὲν οὖν Ἀντιφάτης, οὗ Ὀϊκλῆς, οὗ Ἀμφιάραος· Βίαντος δὲ Ταλαός, οὗ Ἄδραστος· Προίτου δὲ Μεγαπένθης, οὗ Ἱππόνους, οὗ Καπανεύς, οὗ Σθένελος. διαφορὰ δὲ ἐγενήθη τοῖς περὶ Ἀμφιάραον καὶ Ἄδραστον, ὥστε τὸν μὲν Ταλαὸν ὑπὸ Ἀμφιαράου ἀποθανεῖν, τὸν δὲ Ἄδραστον φυγεῖν εἰς Σικυῶνα καὶ γῆμαι τὴν Πολύβου θυγατέρα, τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Πολύβου χωρὶς ἐπιγονῆς ἀρσενικῆς τὸν Ἄδραστον ἔχειν τὴν Σικυωνίων βασιλείαν. εὐλόγως οὖν εἶπε· φεῦγε γὰρ Ἀμφιάρηον ὁ Ἄδραστος διὰ τὴν στάσιν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς Μελαμποδίδας. ὕστερον μέν­ τοι συνεληλύθασι πάλιν, ἐφ’ ᾧ συνοικήσει τῇ Ἐριφύλῃ ὁ Ἀμφιάραος, ἵν’ εἴ τι μέγ’ ἔρισμα μετ’ ἀμφοτέροισι γένηται (cf. Δ 38), αὐτὴ διαιτᾷ. (BD) c. ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὕτως· ἔφευγε γὰρ πρὸ τούτου πολέμιον ὄντα τὸν Ἀμφιάραον, καὶ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν στάσιν δεινὴν οὖσαν ἔφευγε καὶ ἐκ τῆς πατρῴας ἑστίας καὶ ἀπὸ Ἄργους. (BD) 32. ἀ ρ χ ο ὶ δ’ ο ὐ κ έ τ’ ἔ σ α ν Τ α λ α ο ῦ π α ῖ δ ε ς · οὐκέτι δὲ εἰς ἄρχοντας ἠριθμοῦντο ἐν τῷ Ἄργει οἱ Ταλαοῦ παῖδες οἱ  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

153,1

5

10

15

20

154,1

5

   

10

118

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

περὶ Ἄδραστον, βιασθέντες ἐν τῇ στάσει καὶ τῷ πολέμῳ τῷ πρὸς Ἀμφιάραον· ἔφυγε γὰρ Ἄδραστος. (BD) 35a. κ ρ έ σ σ ω ν δ ὲ κ α π π α ύ ε ι δ ί κ α ν τ ὰ ν π ρ ό σ θ ε ν ἀ ν ή ρ · ὁ δὲ ἰσχυρὸς ἀνὴρ τὸ προϋπάρχον δίκαιον καταπαύει. ἐν ἄλλοις ὁ Πίνδαρος (fr. 169a.1–4 Maehler)· «νόμος ὁ πάντων βασιλεὺς | θνατῶν τε καὶ ἀθανάτων | ἄγει δικαιῶν τὸ βιαιό­τατον | ὑπερτάτᾳ χειρί». (BD) b. ἢ δεκτέον τοῦτο εἰρῆσθαι διὰ τὴν ἔχθραν τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ Ἀδράστῳ· διὸ δὴ καὶ οὗτος ἰσχυθεὶς τότε ὑπὸ Ἀμφιαράου ὕστερον αὐτὸν μετῆλθε, κρείσσων φανεὶς καὶ συνετώτερος. πῶς δὲ μετῆλθε; μέσην ποιησάμενος τὴν Ἐριφύλην τῶν πρὸς αὐτὸν διαφορῶν· ἔφθειρε γὰρ ἐκείνην τῇ δόσει τοῦ ὅρμου, καὶ μετῆλθεν αὐτὸν, ὥστε ἀπολέσθαι. (BD) c. ἀνδροδάμαν δὲ τὴν τὸν ἄνδρα ἀνελοῦσάν φησιν· ἡ γὰρ Ἐριφύλη τὸν ἑαυτῆς ἄνδρα Ἀμφιάραον προὔδωκεν εἰς φόνον. μέμνηται τούτου καὶ Ὅμηρος (λ 326f.) στυγερήν τ’ Ἐριφύλην, ἣ χρυσὸν φίλου ἀνδρὸς ἐδέξατο τιμήεντα. (BD) d. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· ὁ δὲ συνετὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ κρείσσων τῶν λοιπῶν ὁ Ἄδραστος κατέπαυσε τὴν μάχην τὴν προτέραν οὕτω· τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ τὴν Ἐριφύλην τὴν τὸν πρότερον ἄνδρα δαμάσασαν ἔδωκε τῷ Ἀμφιαράῳ, ἥτις ὥσπερ τις ὅρκος πιστότατος δοθεῖσα τῷ Ὀϊκλέος παιδὶ Ἀμφιαράῳ καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ γενομένη ἔσβεσε τὴν μάχην, καὶ οὕτω τῶν ξανθοκόμων Ἑλλήνων ἐγένοντο περιφανέστεροι οἱ περὶ Ἄδραστον. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41. κ α ί π ο τ’ ἐ ς ἑ π τ α π ύ λ ο υ ς Θ ή β α ς · ἐντεῦθεν δὴ καὶ εἰς τὰς Θήβας ποτὲ τὰς ἑπταπύλους στράτευμα ἤγαγον οὐκ αἰσίοις οἰωνοῖς χρησάμενοι οἱ περὶ Ἀμφιάραον καὶ Ἄδραστον· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ Ζεὺς ἀστραπὴν δεξιὰν μηνύσας μαργῶντας αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπειγομένους ἀπὸ τῶν οἴκων ἀπιέναι προσέταξεν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀποσχέσθαι τῆς ἀφίξεως. οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτοῖς δεδώκει δεξιὸν σημεῖον. εἰς δὲ φανερὰν ἄτην καὶ βλάβην τὸ τούτων ἔσπευδε στράτευμα {καὶ} (secl. Drachmann) παραγενέσθαι σὺν τοῖς χαλκοῖς ὅπλοις, φησὶ τοῖς πεζοῖς, καὶ τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν. (BD)  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

20

25

155,1

5

 

10

15

119

Appendix: 1. The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine

53a. Ἰ σ μ η ν ο ῦ δ’ ἐ π’ ὄ χ θ α ι σ ι γ λ υ κ ὺ ν ν ό σ τ ο ν ἐ ρ ε ι σ ά μ ε ν ο ι · τουτέστιν ἀποθανόντες ἐπὶ ταῖς τοῦ Ἰσμη­ νοῦ ἀναβολαῖς. (BD) b. λευκανθέα δὲ λέγει τὰ σώματα· γίνεται γὰρ τὰ σώματα τῶν καιομένων νεκρῶν λευκά· ἢ (add. Kayser), ὅτι ὁ καπνὸς διὰ τὴν πιμελὴν λευκός ἐστι καὶ βαρύς, παρὸ οὐδὲ πόρρω διϊκνεῖται μετέωρος καθὼς ὁ ἐκ τῶν ξηρῶν ξύλων καπνός. (BD) c. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· τοιγαροῦν παρ’ αὐταῖς ταῖς ὄχθαις τοῦ Ἰσμηνοῦ πεσόντες αὐτόθι καὶ τὴν οἴκοι ἀνακομιδὴν ἀπέθεντο, θανάτῳ λυθέντες καὶ ἑαυτῶν τὰ σώματα τροφὴν δόντες τῷ πυρί. ἑπτὰ γὰρ ὅλαι πυρκαϊαὶ τὰ τῶν νέων κατ­ ευωχήθησαν καὶ κατέφλεξαν σώματα. τὸ δὲ ἑπτὰ πυραὶ οὐ πρὸς τοὺς λοχαγούς, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τῶν νέων στράτευμα· ἐφ’ ἑκάστῃ γὰρ πύλῃ πολυάνδριον ἐγένετο. (BD)  

 

   ­­

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57a. ὁ δ ὲ Ἀ μ φ ι ά ρ η ϊ σ χ ί σ σ ε · τουτέστιν· ὁ δὲ Ζεὺς τῷ Ἀμφιαράῳ διέσχισε τὴν γῆν κεραυνὸν βαλὼν, ὥστε καταποθῆναι αὐτὸν τῷ πάντα βιαζομένῳ κεραυνῷ. τοῦτο οὖν λέγει ὡς τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου συνισταμένου τῷ Περικλυμένῳ, ὃς ἦν υἱὸς Ποσειδῶνος καὶ Χλωρίδος τῆς Τειρεσίου ὁμώνυμος τῷ Νηλέως. πρὶν οὖν φησὶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Περικλυμένου τρωθῆναι τὰ νῶτα τὸν Ἀμφιάραον φεύγοντα καταποθῆναι· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἐπεδίωκεν αὐτόν. (BD) b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὕτως· ὁ δὲ Ζεὺς τῷ Ἀμφιαράῳ διέσχισε καὶ διέστησε τὴν γῆν τὴν πλατεῖαν, ἄνωθεν ἐπιπέμψας τὸν κεραυνὸν τὸν πάντας βιάζεσθαι δυνάμενον, καὶ οὕτως ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ἐκρύφθη ὁ Ἀμφιάραος ἅμα τῷ ἅρματι τῷ ἑαυτοῦ, πρὶν ἢ τῷ τοῦ Περικλυμένου δόρατι τρωθῆναι τὰ νῶτα φεύγοντος αὐτοῦ, καὶ αἰσχύνην προστρίψασθαι τῇ ἀνδρειοτάτῃ ψυχῇ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου, τὸν τοιοῦτον θάνατον. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

   

     

 

 

25 156,1

   

63. ἐ ν γ ὰ ρ δ α ι μ ο ν ί ο ι σ ι φ ό β ο ι ς · ἐν γὰρ τοῖς μεγίσ­ τοις καὶ ἐνθέοις φόβοις συνέχονται καὶ οἱ τῶν θεῶν παῖδες καὶ φεύγουσι. συγγνώμη οὖν, φησί, καὶ τῷ Ἀμφιαράῳ φεύγοντι· ὁ γὰρ Ζεὺς συνεμάχει τότε τοῖς Θηβαίοις, διὸ ἔφευγε  

20

 

   

5

10

15

   

20

120

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

τότε ὁ Ἀμφιάραος. οὕτω καὶ ὁ Αἴας ἔφευγεν «ἐντροπαλιζό­ μενος, ὀλίγον γόνυ γουνὸς ἀμείβων» (Λ 547), τὸν Δία ἔχων ἀντιστάτην. (BD) 67a. π ε ῖ ρ α ν μ ὲ ν ἀ γ ά ν ο ρ α · πεῖραν, τὴν λῃστρικὴν ἐπίθεσιν. (BD) b. Φ ο ι ν ι κ ο σ τ ό λ ω ν ἐ γ χ έ ω ν · μεθ’ ὧν οἱ Φοίνικες ἐστάλη­σαν δοράτων, ἤτοι ὑπὸ Φοινίκων ἐσταλμένων, ἐπειδὴ Φοίνικες ᾤκησαν τὴν Λιβύην μετὰ Καρχηδονίων, οἵτινες ἀνιόντες ἐπολέμουν Σικελούς. διὸ νῦν εὔχεται ὁ Πίνδαρος τῷ Διὶ ὥστε μὴ ἐμποδισθῆναι αὐτῶν ὀργήν. (BD) c. ἄλλως. οἱ Καρχηδόνιοι ἦσαν τότε Φοίνικες, οἵτινες μέγα ἰσχύοντες ἐπεβάλοντο καὶ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ τῆς Σικελίας κρατῆσαι, ἀντεῖχον δὲ οἱ περὶ Γέλωνα καὶ Ἱέρωνα. διὸ καὶ Φοινικόστολα εἶπεν ἔγχη τὰ ὑπὸ Φοινίκων στελλόμενα ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν. τὸ δὲ λεγόμενον τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν· ὦ Ζεῦ, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν ἀναβαλέσθαι τὴν πεῖραν, (BD) | ἀναβάλλομαι. (B) d. πρὶν εἰς πεῖραν τὰ Σικελικὰ καὶ Φοινικικὰ ἔγχη συμβάλλεσθαι περὶ ζωῆς καὶ θανάτου, (B) | ἀναβάλλομαι αὐτά, ὦ Ζεῦ, καὶ ὑπερτίθεμαι. (BD) e. ἢ οὕτω· τὸν μὲν πόλεμον τὸν Φοινικικὸν ἀναβάλ­ λομαι, ὦ Ζεῦ, αἰτῶ δέ σε μοῖραν εὔνομον τοῖς παισὶ τῶν Αἰτναίων δοῦναι. τουτέστιν αἰτῶ δέ σε ἱκετεύων, ὦ Ζεῦ, ὥστε ἐπὶ πολὺν χρόνον τοῖς τῶν Αἰτναίων παισὶν εἰρήνης μοῖραν παρέχειν. ἀπὸ μέρους δὲ τὸ πᾶν, ἀπὸ τῶν Αἰτναίων δηλοῖ τοὺς σύμπαντας Σικελιώτας. (BD)  

 

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

   

73a. ἀ γ λ α ΐ α ι σ ι δ’ ἀ σ τ υ ν ό μ ο ι ς ἐ π ι μ ί ξ α ι λ α ό ν · καὶ πολλαῖς εὐφροσύναις ἐπιμίξαι τοὺς ὄχλους, εὐφρο­σύναις δὲ ἀναστρεφομέναις κατὰ τὴν πόλιν. εἰσὶ γάρ σοι ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἱππικώτατοι ἄνδρες καὶ νικῶντες τῇ προαιρέσει τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ οὐχ ἡττώμενοι χρημάτων. (BD) b. ἢ οὕτως· εἰσὶν ἄνδρες ἐν Σικελίᾳ καὶ φίλιπποι καὶ ἱπποτρόφοι, ὡς νῦν ὁ Χρόμιος ἵπποις νενικηκώς. εἰς τοῦτον γὰρ ἡ ἀπότασις. (BD)  

 

 

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

   

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

157,1

5

10

15

 

20

121

Appendix: 1. The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine

78a. ἄ π ι σ τ ο ν ἔ ε ι π’ . α ἰ δ ὼ ς γ ὰ ρ ὑ π ό κ ρ υ φ α κ έ ρ δ ε ι κ λ έ π τ ε τ α ι · ἄπιστον δὲ εἶπον, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὅτι τὴν προαίρεσίν εἰσί τινες βελτίους χρημάτων. καὶ γὰρ αἰδὼς ὑποκλέπ­ τεται διὰ τοῦ κέρδους, ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐκ αἰδοῦνται διὰ κέρδος τι πρᾶξαι, ἥτις αἰδὼς εὐδοξίαν φέρει. (BD) b. καὶ ὅτι ἡ αἰδὼς ἡ φέρουσα δόξαν ἔστιν ὅτε παραλογίζεται ὑπὸ φιλοκερδείας. (BD) c. ἄλλως. κἄν τις, φησίν, αἰδήμων ὑπάρχῃ, ὑπὸ τοῦ κέρδους παραλογίζεται· ἕνεκα γὰρ τοῦ κέρδους καὶ οἱ αἰδήμονες πολλάκις ἀναισχυντοῦσιν. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80. Χ ρ ο μ ί ῳ κ ε ν ὑ π α σ π ί ζ ω ν · τῷ Χρομίῳ συμπαρὼν ἂν ἔν τε πεζομαχίᾳ καὶ ἱππομαχίᾳ καὶ ναυμαχίᾳ, ἔκρινας οἷός τις ὁ κίνδυνος ὁ τῶν πολέμων. φαίνεται δέ, ὅτι βούλεται αὐτὸν ὡς ἀνδρεῖον καὶ διασῴζοντα τοὺς συνόντας αὐτῷ ἀφόβως παραστῆσαι. ἐπεὶ πῶς ἂν ἀγαθὸς γένοιτο κριτὴς μετὰ δέους ἀναστρεφόμενος ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ; (BD)  

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

10

   

89. π α ῦ ρ ο ι δ ὲ β ο υ λ ε ῦ σ α ι φ ό ν ο υ · ὀλίγοι, φησί, φόνου ἐνεστηκότος βουλεύσασθαι δυνατοὶ τὴν τοῦ πολέμου νεφέλην τρέψαι πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους κτείνοντες αὐτούς, καὶ χερσὶ καὶ ψυχαῖς, καὶ ἐν τῷ δρᾶσαι καὶ φονεῦσαι τοὺς πολεμίους, καὶ ἐν τῷ βουλεύσασθαι πῶς δεῖ ἀνελεῖν αὐτούς. κατορθοῦται γὰρ ὁ πόλεμος γνώμῃ καὶ χειρί· χειρὶ τῇ ἀνδρείᾳ, ψυχῇ τῇ φρονήσει, ἵν’ ᾖ ῥώμῃ μετὰ φρονήσεως. ἀμφότερα δὲ ταῦτα ἔχει ὁ Χρόμιος· καὶ γὰρ οὗτος βουλῇ καὶ χειρὶ ἐγένετο ἀγαθὸς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τῷ πρὸς τοὺς Φοίνικας. (BD)  

158,1

   

85a. ο ὕ ν ε κ ε ν ἐ ν π ο λ έ μ ῳ κ ε ί ν α θ ε ό ς · ὁ λόγος ἐπὶ τῆς προειρημένης αἰδοῦς. ᾔδεσαν οὖν, φησίν, ὅτι ἐν τῷ πρὸς τοὺς Φοίνικας πολέμῳ ἐκείνη ἡ θεός, δηλονότι ἡ Αἰδώς, παρ­ εσκεύαζεν αὐτοῦ τὸν θυμὸν αἰχμητὴν εἶναι, ὥστε ἀμύνειν λοιγὸν Ἐνυαλίου. Ὅμηρος (Ε 531)· αἰδομένων δ’ ἀνδρῶν πλέονες σόοι ἠὲ πέφανται. (BD) b. παρεσκεύαζεν οὖν ἡ Αἰδὼς τῷ Χρομίῳ, οὐχ ἵνα κτήσηται τὸ κέρδος, ὡς ἄλλοι ἀπαναισχυντοῦσιν, ἀλλ’ αὐτοῦ χάριν τοῦ καλοῦ, ἵνα τῇ πατρίδι ἀμύνῃ. (BD)  

25

 

15

20

   

25

122

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

93a. Ἕ κ τ ο ρ ι μ ὲ ν κ λ έ ο ς ἀ ν θ ῆ σ α ι · ἀπεικάζει αὐτὸν τῷ Ἕκτορι, καὶ τῷ Ἕκτορί φησιν ἀνθῆσαι τὸ κλέος μαχο­ μένῳ παρὰ τῷ Σκαμάνδρῳ. τοῦτο δὲ εἰς ἔπαινον παρείλκυσε τοῦ Χρομίου. τὸν δὲ Ἕκτορα παρείληφε καὶ οὐκ Αἴαντα ἢ Ἀχιλλέα, τῷ καὶ τὸν Ἕκτορα μεμαχῆσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος, ὡς καὶ τὸν Χρόμιον. (BD) b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· λέγεταί γε μὴν καὶ ᾄδεται τῷ μὲν Ἕκτορι τὴν εὐδοξίαν *** παρὰ τῷ Σκαμάνδρῳ, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἀκταῖς τοῦ Ἑλώρου ποταμοῦ, {ἀφ’} (del. Mommsen) οὗ δὴ καὶ ὁ Ἀρείας πόρος καλεῖται, δέδεικται τοῦτο τὸ φέγγος τῷ Χρομίῳ, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ καὶ νέᾳ ἡλικίᾳ. ἐνίκησε γὰρ ἐνταῦθα Καρχηδονίους συμμαχῶν Γέλωνι τῷ τυράννῳ τῷ Ἱπποκράτους διαδόχῳ. (BD)  

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

95a. β α θ υ κ ρ ή μ ν ο ι σ ι δ’ ἀ μ φ’ ἀ κ τ α ῖ ς Ἑ λ ώ ρ ο υ · περὶ τοῦτον τὸν ποταμὸν συνέστη Ἱπποκράτει τῷ Γελώων τυράννῳ πρὸς Συρακουσίους πόλεμος· ὁ δὲ Γέλων, (Boeckh, ὃς post ἑταῖρος codd.) οὗτος ἑταῖρος, ἱππάρχει τότε Ἱπποκράτει. ἐν δὴ τούτῳ φησὶ τῷ πολέμῳ Χρόμιον ἐπιδείξασθαι πολλὰ ἔργα κατὰ τὴν μάχην. περὶ δὲ τούτου τοῦ πολέμου Τίμαιος ἐν τῇ ι´ (FGrHist 566 F 18,6– 10) δεδήλωκε. «καθάπαξ γάρ», φησὶν ὁ Δίδυμος (fr. 59 Braswell), «οὐδεμίαν ἄλλην μάχην ἔχομεν εὑρεῖν περὶ τὸν Ἕλωρον τῶν συνηκμακότων τῷ Χρομίῳ τυράννων, ὅτι μὴ σὺν Ἱπποκράτει τοῦ Γέλωνος πρὸς Συρακουσίους. ὅτι μὲν οὖν Γέλωνα ἱππαρχεῖν κατέστησεν Ἱπποκράτης, σαφὲς ὁ Τίμαιος (FGrHist 566 F 18,10–14) ποιήσει γράφων οὕτως· “Ἱπποκράτης δὲ μετὰ τὴν Κλεάνδρου τελευτὴν ἅμα μὲν τοῦ Γέλωνος ἐν τῇ τεταγμένῃ μεμενηκότος, ἅμα δὲ τοῖς Γελώοις χαρίσασθαι βουλόμενος, μεταπεμψάμενος αὐτὸν καὶ παρακαλέσας ἐπὶ τὰς πράξεις, ἁπάντων τῶν ἱππέων τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἐκείνῳ παρέδωκεν”. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ὁ Γέλων τῷ Χρομίῳ ἐχρῆτο ἑταίρῳ, δῆλον πάλιν ἐξ ὧν φησι Τίμαιος ἐν τῇ β´ (add. Schwartz; FGrHist 566 F 21,6–8) γράφων οὕτως· “ἐπιτρόπους δὲ τοῦ παιδὸς μετ’ ἐκεῖνον κατέστησεν Ἀριστόνουν καὶ Χρόμιον τοὺς κηδεστάς· τούτοις γὰρ ὁ Γέλων δέδωκε τὰς ἀδελφάς”». (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

159,1

5

10

 

15

20

25 160,1

5

123

Appendix: 1. The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine

b. ἄλλως. Ἕλωρος χωρίον Σικελίας ἤτοι ποταμὸς Συρακούσαις, ἐν ᾧ πολέμου γεγονότος μεταξὺ Ἱπποκράτους τοῦ τυράννου καὶ Συρακουσίων συνεμάχησε Γέλωνι συμμάχῳ τοῦ Ἱπποκράτους ὁ Χρόμιος καὶ ἠρίστευσεν. ἡ δὲ μάχη ἐν στερρῷ χωρίῳ τῷ Ἕλωρι· ὁ δὲ αἰγιαλὸς καλεῖται Ἀρείας πόρος. (D) c. ἄλλως. Ἀρείας πόρος ἐλέγετο πᾶς ὁ περὶ τὸν πορθμὸν καὶ τὸ Ῥήγιον τόπος. ἔχει δὲ ὁ ποταμὸς ἱεροὺς ἰχθύας, οἳ παρὰ τῶν διαβαινόντων δέχονται τροφήν. ὁ δὲ τῆς Ἀρείας πόρος ἀνεξήγητός ἐστι· διὸ καὶ ἄδηλον, εἴτε Ἀρείας εἴτε Ῥείας λεκτέον εἴτε ὑφ’ ἓν Ἀρειάσπορον. καὶ καλεῖσθαι μέχρι τοῦ νῦν Ἀρείας πόρον διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν φυομένων, ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκέναι ἐκεῖσε πόλεμον. Ἄρεα δὲ οἱ ποιηταὶ τὸν πόλεμόν φασιν. (BD) 102a. π ο λ λ ὰ μ ὲ ν ἐ ν κ ο ν ί ᾳ χ έ ρ σ ῳ · χέρσῳ τῆς ἠπεί­ ρου φησί· γείτονι δὲ πόντῳ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις καὶ θαλασσίοις τόποις. ἐν ὑπερβατῷ δέ φησιν· ἐν δὲ ἄλλαις ἡμέραις φήσω καὶ διελεύσομαι τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῆς ἠπείρου καὶ τὰ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις αὐτῷ διηνυσμένα. (BD) b. ἢ οὕτως· ἐὰν κατορθώσῃ, πάλιν ἐρῶ ὕστερον τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῆς ἠπείρου, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

   

104a. ἐ κ π ό ν ω ν δ έ , ο ἳ σ ὺ ν ν ε ό τ α τ ι γ έ ν ω ν τ α ι · ἐκ τῶν πόνων τῶν ἐπιτελεσθέντων τῇ νεότητι, καὶ πόνων γε τοιού­των τῶν σὺν δικαίῳ τελεσθέντων, μία ἡμέρα αἰῶνος ὅλου τάξιν ἔχει εἰς εὐφροσύνην· ἐπειδάν τινες ἐν νεότητι πεπονηκότες ὦσι καὶ βεβιωκότες δικαίως, ἡμέρα μία ἐν τῷ γήρᾳ συγκριτική ἐστι πρὸς ὅλον τὸν αἰῶνα. τινὲς δὲ θηλυκῶς φασιν ἐξενηνέχθαι τὴν ἡμέραν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἥμερος, καὶ τὸν αἰῶνα θηλυκῶς εἰρῆσθαι· ἡ αἰών ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἡμέρα, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἥμερος καὶ προσηνής ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ὁ βίος πρὸς γῆρας, ὅταν ὦσιν ἐν νεότητι πεπονηκότες δικαίως. τὰ δὲ προσηνῆ κατὰ μεταφορὰν ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας σημαίνεται, ὥσπερ τὰ χαλεπὰ ἀπὸ τῆς νυκτός. (BD) b. ἢ οὕτως· ὁ δὲ ἐκ πόνων καὶ κινδύνων αἰὼν καὶ χρόνος, οἵτινες ἂν πόνοι μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἐν τῇ νέᾳ ἀνυσθῶσιν  

10

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

20

161,1

 

5

10

15

124

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

ἡλικίᾳ, τούτῳ ὁ πρὸς τὸ γῆρας πᾶς χρόνος ὥσπερ μία ἡμέρα παρατρέχει διὰ τὸ εὐθυμεῖν καὶ μὴ ἐπαισθάνεσθαι τῶν φαύλων. (BD) c. τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς· ὁ δὲ αἰὼν πρὸς τὸ γῆρας τούτοις τελέθει ἀεὶ φῶς τοῖς πόνοις, οἳ ἂν ἐν νεότητι γένωνται καὶ σὺν δίκῃ. ἔστι δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου τῷ Ὁμήρου (τ 360)· αἶψα γὰρ ἐν κακότητι βροτοὶ καταγηράσκουσιν. (BD) 109a. ε ἰ γ ὰ ρ ἅ μ α κ τ ε ά ν ο ι σ ι π ο λ λ ο ῖ ς · εἰ γὰρ ἅμα τῷ πλουτεῖν καὶ δοξασθήσεταί τις καλὰ ἐργασάμενος, οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπερθέσθαι ταύτην τὴν μακαριότητα, ὅταν συνέλθῃ δόξα πλούτῳ. (BD) b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· ὁ γὰρ ἅμα πλήθει περιουσίας καὶ δόξαν εὐκλεῆ καρπωσάμενος οὐκέτι περαιτέρω θνητὸς ὢν ὀφείλει περισκοπεῖν οὐδὲ ἄλλης εὐτυχίας ὁδοὺς ἐπιζητεῖν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ποσίν. ἀνυπέρβλητος γάρ, φησίν, αὕτη ἡ ἀρετή. παρέοικε δὲ τῇ ἄνω διανοίᾳ (Ne. 3.19f.)· «εἰ δ’ ἐὼν καλὸς ἔρδων δ’ ἐοικότα μορφᾷ, οὐκέτι πόρσω», καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. (BD)    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

114a. ἡ σ υ χ ί α δ ὲ φ ι λ ε ῖ μ ὲ ν σ υ μ π ό σ ι ο ν · τῇ μὲν οὖν εἰρήνῃ καὶ ἡσυχίᾳ προσφιλές ἐστι τὸ συμπόσιον, ἡ δὲ νεωστὶ καταπραχθεῖσα νίκη συναύξεται τῇ μαλθακῇ καὶ ἡδείᾳ ᾠδῇ. (BD) b. ἢ οὕτω· τὸ συμπόσιον τὴν ἡσυχίαν φιλεῖ· καὶ ἔστιν ὅμοιον τῷ (Ne. 5.6) «ματέρ’ οἰνάνθας ὀπώραν». ἡ δὲ νικηφορία οὐ φιλεῖ ἡσυχίαν, ἀλλ’ ὕμνους. (BD)  

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

162,1

5

 

 

 

 

 

10

   

119a. ἐ γ κ ι ρ ν ά τ ω τ ί ς μ ι ν γ λ υ κ ὺ ν κ ώ μ ο υ π ρ ο φ ά τ α ν · τοίνυν τὸν κρατῆρα τὸν ἱστάμενον ἐπὶ τῇ νίκῃ ἐγκιρνάτω  

25

   

117a. θ α ρ σ α λ έ α δ ὲ π α ρ ὰ κ ρ α τ ῆ ρ α φ ω ν ὰ γ ί ν ε τ α ι · παρὰ δὲ τὸν κρατῆρα, ὃς ἵσταται διὰ τὸ τέλος τῆς νίκης, θαρσαλεωτέρα ἡ φωνὴ γίνεται, καὶ δύναταί τις θαρρῶν ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ νικηφόρου ἀνδραγαθίᾳ μετὰ παρρησίας τὸν ὕμνον ᾄδειν τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ νίκῃ. (BD) b. ἢ ἄλλως· ὅταν τις νικήσῃ, μετὰ παρρησίας εἰς αὐτὸν φωναὶ γενέσθωσαν καὶ ὕμνοι. (BD)  

20

 

15

 

20

125

Appendix: 1. The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Nine

τις προηγητὴν ὄντα τοῦ ὕμνου. προηγητὴν δὲ ἔφη τοῦ ὕμνου τὸν κρατῆρα, ἐπειδὴ τῇ νίκῃ ἅμα κρατὴρ τῆς σπονδῆς ἵσταται, εἶθ’ οὕτως ὁ ὕμνος ᾔδετο. (BD) b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· ἤδη κιρνάτω τις τὸν κρατῆρα, ὅς ἐστι προοίμιον καὶ προφήτης κώμου. κωμάζωμεν οὖν αὐτὸν καὶ ὑμνῶμεν, ὅτι νενίκηκεν. (BD) 121. ἀ ρ γ υ ρ έ α ι σ ι δ ὲ ν ω μ ά τ ω φ ι ά λ α ι σ ι · μετὰ τὸ κερασθῆναι τὸν κρατῆρα, φησί, ἀποβαπτιζέτω τις τὰς φιάλας, καὶ διανεμέτω τοῖς κατακειμένοις. ποίας δὲ φιά­ λας; ἃς ἔλαβεν ὁ Χρόμιος νικήσας ἔνθεν. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς κατὰ Σικυῶνα Πυθίοις ἀργυραῖ φιάλαι ἔπαθλα. βιατὰν δὲ ἀμπέλου παῖδα τὸν οἶνόν φησιν, ἤτοι τὸν βίᾳ θλιβόμενον, ἢ τὸν βιάζεσθαι εἰδότα καὶ εἰς μέθην ἄγειν. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

     

123a. ἅ ς π ο θ’ ἵ π π ο ι κ τ η σ ά μ ε ν α ι · ἅστινας φιάλας αἱ τοῦ Χρομίου ἵπποι προσεκόμισαν διὰ τῆς νίκης τῷ δεσπό­ τῃ ἅμα τοῖς μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ὑπάρξασιν αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος στεφάνοις ἐκ τῆς ἱερᾶς Σικυῶνος. οὐ παρῆν δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν νίκην, ἀλλ’ ἐπεπόμφει τὸ ἅρμα. (BD) b. ἃς ἤνεγκαν, φησίν, ἅμα τοῖς στεφάνοις οἱ ἵπποι. θεμιπλέκτους δὲ τοὺς στεφάνους φησὶν ἤτοι νομίμως καὶ καθηκόντως πεπλεγμένους, ἢ καθὸ πάρεδρός ἐστι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἡ Θέμις χάριν τοῦ χρηστηρίου· καὶ γὰρ ἦν προφῆτις· ἢ ὅτι δικαίως καὶ ἄνευ δωροδοκίας ἐστέφθη. ἱστορεῖται δὲ τὰ ἐν Φωκίδι χρήμασιν ἀνύεσθαι, διὸ καὶ πρόσκειται ἐνταῦθα τὰ ἐν Σικυῶνι. οἰκείως δὲ ἱερὰν τὴν Σικυῶνα προσηγόρευσεν· ἡ γὰρ Μηκώνη ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ἐστιν, ἐφ’ ἧς οἱ θεοὶ διεδάσαντο τὰς τιμάς. Ἡσίοδος (Th. 535f.)· καὶ γὰρ ὅτ’ ἐκρίνοντο θεοὶ θνητοί τ’ ἄνθρωποι Μηκώνῃ. καὶ Καλλίμαχος (fr. 119.1 Pfeiffer = Aet. fr. 119.1 Harder)· Μηκώνην μακάρων ἕδρανον αὖτις ἰδεῖν. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

   

163,1

5

     

127a. Ζ ε ῦ π ά τ ε ρ , ε ὔ χ ο μ α ι · εὔχομαι δὴ οὖν, πάτερ Ζεῦ, καὶ ταύτην αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀρετὴν ὑμνῆσαι ἐπιχαρίτως, ἐπὶ πολλῶν τε καὶ ἄλλων τὴν νίκην αὐτοῦ ὑμνῆσαι τοῖς λό 

25

10

15

20

 

25

126

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

γοις προπέμπων μου τὴν Μοῦσαν ἐγγὺς τοῦ σκοποῦ· οἱονεὶ ἐπαξίως αὐτὸν ὑμνῆσαι. (BD) b. ἄλλως. τιμαλφεῖν λόγοις, ἀντὶ τοῦ τιμᾶν αὐτὸν λό­ γοις, προσβάλλων ταῖς Μούσαις τὴν νίκην καὶ συναρμόζων αὐτήν· τοῖς ὕμνοις βάλλων τὴν νίκην. τινὲς δὲ ἀνέγνωσαν περισπωμένως νικᾶν, ἵν’ ᾖ· ὑπὲρ πολλῶν νικῶν τιμᾶν τοῖς λόγοις· ἀκοντίζων δὲ ἐγγὺς τοῦ σκοποῦ τὴν Μοῦσαν, ἤτοι διϊκνούμενος ταῖς Μούσαις. (BD)

164,1

5

*2. The Vita Pindari of the Souda (π 1617 [IV 132,26–133,9 Adler]) Πίνδαρος, Θηβῶν, Σκοπελίνου υἱός, κατὰ δέ τινας Δαϊφάντου· ὃ καὶ μᾶλλον ἀληθές· ὁ γὰρ Σκοπελίνου ἐστὶν ἀφανέστερος καὶ προσγενὴς Πινδάρου. τινὲς δὲ καὶ Παγωνίδου ἱστόρησαν αὐτόν. μαθητὴς δὲ Μυρτίδος γυναικός, γεγονὼς κατὰ τὴν ξε´ ὀλυμπιάδα καὶ κατὰ τὴν Ξέρξου στρατείαν ὢν ἐτῶν μ´. καὶ ἀδελφὸς μὲν ἦν αὐτῷ ὄνομα Ἐρωτίων καὶ υἱὸς Διόφαντος, θυγατέρες δὲ Εὔμητις καὶ Πρωτομάχη. καὶ συνέβη αὐτῷ τοῦ βίου τελευτὴ κατ’ εὐχάς· αἰτήσαντι γὰρ τὸ κάλλιστον αὐτῷ δοθῆναι τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ ἀθρόον αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν ἐν θεάτρῳ, ἀνακεκλιμένον εἰς τὰ τοῦ ἐρωμένου Θεοξένου αὐτοῦ γόνατα, ἐτῶν νε´. ἔγραψε δὲ ἐν βιβλίοις ιζ´ Δωρίδι διαλέκτῳ ταῦτα· Ὀλυμπιονίκας, Πυθιονίκας, Προσόδια, Παρθένια, Ἐνθρονισμούς, Βακχικά, Δαφνηφορικά, Παιᾶνας, Ὑπορχήματα, Ὕμνους, Διθυράμβους, Σκολιά, Ἐγκώμια, Θρήνους, δράματα τραγικὰ ιζ´, ἐπιγράμματα ἐπικὰ καὶ καταλογάδην παραινέσεις τοῖς Ἕλλησι, καὶ ἄλλα πλεῖστα.

Appendix: 3. The Vita Thomana

127

*3. The Vita Thomana (I 4,8–8,4 Drachmann) Πινδάρου γένος Πίνδαρος τὸ μὲν γένος Θηβαῖος, υἱὸς Δαϊφάντου κατὰ τοὺς ἀληθεστέρους· οἱ δὲ Σκοπελίνου· οἱ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν Σκοπελίνου φασίν. οἱ δὲ Παγώνδα καὶ Μυρτοῦς, ἀπὸ κώμης Κυνοκεφάλων. ἡ δὲ Μυρτὼ ἐγαμήθη Σκοπελίνῳ τῷ αὐλητῇ, ὃς τὴν αὐλητικὴν διδάσκων τὸν Πίνδαρον, ἐπεὶ εἶδε μείζονος ἕξεως ὄντα, παρέδωκε Λάσῳ τῷ Ἑρμιονεῖ μελοποιῷ, παρ’ ᾧ τὴν λυρικὴν ἐπαιδεύθη. γέγονε δὲ κατὰ [τοὺς] χρόνους Αἰσχύλου, καὶ συγγεγένηται, καὶ τέθνηκεν ὅτε καὶ τὰ Περσικὰ ἤκμαζον. ἔσχε δὲ θυγατέρας δύο, Εὔμητιν καὶ Πρωτομάχην. κατῴκει δὲ τὰς Θήβας, πλησίον τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς μητρὸς τῶν θεῶν τὴν οἰκίαν ἔχων. ἐτίμα δὲ τὴν θεὸν σφόδρα, ὢν εὐσεβέστατος, καὶ τὸν Πᾶνα, καὶ τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα, εἰς ὃν καὶ πλεῖστα γέγραφε. νεώτερος δὲ ἦν Σιμωνίδου, πρεσβύτερος δὲ Βακχυλίδου. κατὰ δὲ τὴν Ξέρξου κατάβασιν ἤκμαζε τῇ ἡλικίᾳ. ἐτιμήθη δὲ σφόδρα ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν Ἑλλήνων διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος φιλεῖσθαι οὕτως, ὡς καὶ μερίδα λαμβάνειν ἀπὸ τῶν προσφερομένων τῷ θεῷ, καὶ τὸν ἱερέα βοᾶν ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις· «Πίνδαρον ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ θεοῦ». λόγος καὶ τὸν Πᾶνα εὑρῆσαί ποτε ᾄδοντα περὶ τοῦ Πέλοπος· λόγος δὲ ὅτι ποτὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι Βοιωτοὺς ἐμπρήσαντες καὶ Θήβας ἀπέσχοντο μόνης τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ, θεασάμενοι ἐπιγεγραμμένον τὸν στίχον τοῦτον· «Πινδάρου τοῦ μουσοποιοῦ τὴν στέγην μὴ καίετε». ὅπερ καὶ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον μετὰ ταῦτά φασι πεποιηκέναι· καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ἐμπρήσας τὰς Θήβας μόνης ἐκείνης ἐφείσατο. ἐχθρωδῶς δὲ διακειμένων τῶν Ἀθηναίων πρὸς τοὺς Θηβαίους, ἐπεὶ εἶπεν ἐν τοῖς ποιήμασιν (cf. fr. 76.1 Maehler et Py. 7.1)· «ὦ ταὶ λιπαραὶ καὶ μεγαλοπόλιες Ἀθᾶναι», ἐζημίωσαν αὐτὸν χρήμασι Θηβαῖοι, ἅπερ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ἔτισαν Ἀθηναῖοι. γέγραπται δὲ αὐτῷ ἑπτακαίδεκα βιβλία, ὧν τέσσαρα ἡ λεγομένη περίοδος λέγει τάδε· Ὀλυμπιονίκας Πυθιονίκας Ἰσθμιο­ νί­κας Νεμεονίκας. (EHKQQbθ) | ἔστι δὲ τὰ Ὀλύμπια ἀγὼν εἰς τὸν Δία, τὰ Πύθια ἀγὼν εἰς τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα, τὰ Νέμεα ἀγὼν καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς Δία, τὰ δὲ Ἴσθμια ἀγὼν εἰς Ποσειδῶνα. τὰ δὲ ἔπαθλα τούτων ἐλαία, δάφνη, σέλινον ξηρόν τε καὶ χλωρόν. (Qbv) | ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν

128

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

τῶν ἄλλων καὶ τὰ ἐπιβάλλοντα τούτοις ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν· νῦν δὲ περὶ τῆς θέσεως τῶν Ὀλυμπιονικῶν λεκτέον. τινὲς μὲν οὖν ταύτην εἰς τὰ περὶ Οἰνομάου καὶ Πέλοπος τοῖς χρόνοις ἀναφέρουσιν· ἄλλοι δέ φασιν ὡς οὕτως αἰσχρὰν οὖσαν τὴν θέσιν οὐκ ἂν διεφύλαξαν· ἄλλοι δὲ Ἡρακλεῖ ἀνατιθέασιν, ὡς καὶ Πίνδαρος (Ol. 10), ἐνδοξοτέροις κοσμῶν τὸν ἀγῶνα. ἐπεὶ γὰρ τὴν Αὐγείου κόπρον καθῆρε καὶ τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων οὐκ ἔτυχε, συναγαγὼν στρατόπεδον τόν τε Αὐγείαν φονεύει καὶ τὴν Ἦλιν παρίσταται, καὶ πολλὰ λάφυρα περιποιησάμενος ἀγῶνα τίθησι τοῖς μετ’ αὐτοῦ πολεμήσασιν· ὅθεν καὶ τὸ ἔθος διαμεῖναι. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ αὕτη ἔμεινεν ἡ θέσις, ἐπεὶ τῆς συμβάσης αὐτοῖς δυσχερείας ὑπόμνησις ἦν. ἀλλ’ Ἴφιτός τις καὶ Εὐρύλοχος τοὺς Κιρραίους πολεμήσαντες (οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν οἱ τὴν πάραλον τῆς Φωκίδος λῃσταὶ κατέχοντες) καὶ πολλὰ λάφυρα συναγαγόντες, ὁ μὲν Ἴφιτος τὰ Ὀλύμπια κατέβαλεν, ὁ δὲ τὰ Πύθια· καὶ ταύτην ἐπιμεῖναι τὴν θέσιν συνέβη. (EHKQθ) Τέθνηκε δὲ ὁ Πίνδαρος ἓξ καὶ ἑξήκοντα ἐτῶν γεγονὼς ἐπὶ Ἀβίωνος ἄρχοντος κατὰ τὴν ἕκτην καὶ ὀγδοηκοστὴν Ὀλυμπίαδα. ἤκουσε δὲ Σιμωνίδου. (EHKQθ) ὁ δὲ ἐπινίκιος οὗ ἡ ἀρχή (Ol. 1.1)· «Ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ», προτέτακται ὑπὸ Ἀριστοφάνους τοῦ συντάξαντος τὰ Πινδαρικὰ διὰ τὸ περιέχειν τοῦ ἀγῶνος ἐγκώμιον καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ Πέλοπος, ὃς πρῶτος ἐν Ἤλιδι ἠγωνίσατο. γέγραπται δὲ Ἱέρωνι βασιλεῖ Συρακουσίων· αἱ δὲ Συράκουσαι πόλις τῆς Σικελίας· ὃς καὶ κτίστης ἐγένετο Αἴτνης πόλεως, ἀπὸ ὄρους αὐτῆς οὕτως αὐτὴν ὀνομάσας. ἀποστείλας δὲ οὗτος ἵππους εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν ἐνίκησε κέλητι. (EKQθ) Τὸ μέτρον τούτου ὑπάρχει τριάς· τριὰς δέ ἐστι ποίημα ἐν ᾧ στροφὴ, ἀντίστροφος, ἐπῳδός. (EKQ)

Appendix: 4. The recensio Tricliniana

*4. The recensio Tricliniana Χρομίῳ Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι α´ 1 2 3 4 5

κωμάσομεν παρ’ ἀπόλλωνος σικυωνόθε μοῖσαι, τὰν νεοκτίσταν εἰς αἴτναν ἔνθ’ ἀναπεπταμέναι ξείνων νενίκανται θύραι ὄλβιον ἐς χρομίου δῶμ’. ἀλλ’ ἐπέων γλυκὺν ὕμνον πράσσετε τὸ κρατήσιππον γὰρ ἐς ἅρμ’ ἀναβαίνων, ματέρι, καὶ διδύμοις παίδεσσιν αὐδὰν μηνύει πυθῶνος αἰπεινᾶς ὁμοκλάροις ἐπόπταις.

β´ 6 7 8 9 10

ἔστι δέ τις λόγος ἀνθρώπων. τετελεσμένον ἐσλὸν μὴ χαμαὶ σιγᾶ καλύψαι. θεσπεσία δ’ ἐπέων καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος. ἀλλ’ ἀνὰ μὲν βρομίαν φόρμιγγ’. ἀνὰ δ’ αὐλὸν ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ὄρσωμεν ἱππείων ἀέθλων κορυφὰν, ἅτε φοίβω θῆκεν ἄδραστος ἐπ’ ἀσωποῦ ῥεέθροις. ὧν ἐγὼ μνασθεὶς ἐπασκήσω κλυταῖς ἥρωα τιμαῖς.

γ´ 11 12 13

ὃς τότε μὲν βασιλεύων κεῖθι νέαισί θ’ ἑορταῖς ἰσχύος τ’ ἀνδρῶν ἁμίλλαις ἅρμασί τε γλαφυροῖς ἄμφαινε κυδαίνων πόλιν. φεῦγε γὰρ ἀμφιάρηόν τε θρασυμήδεα, καὶ δεινὰν στάσιν

129

130

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

14 15

πατέρων οἴκων, ἀπό τ’ ἄργεος. ἀρχοὶ δ’ οὐκ ἔτ’ ἔσαν ταλαοῦ παῖδες βιασθέντες λύα κρέσσων δὲ καππαύει δίκαν τὰν πρόσθεν ἀνὴρ,

δ´ 16 17 18 19 20

ἀνδρομέδαν τ’ ἐριφύλαν ὅρκιον ὡς ὅτε πιστόν. δόντες ὀϊκλείδᾳ γυναῖκα. ξανθοκομᾶν δαναῶν ἦσαν μέγιστοι, καί ποτ’ ἐς ἑπταπύλους θήβας ἄγαγον ἀνδρῶν στρατὸν αἰσιᾶν οὐ κατ’ ὀρνίχων ὁδὸν οὐδὲ κρονίων ἀστεροπὰν ἐλελίξαις οἴκοθεν μαργουμένους στείχειν ἐπώτρυν’, ἀλλὰ φείσασθαι κελεύθου.

ε´ 21 22 23 24 25

φαινομέναν δ’ ἄρ’ ἐς ἄταν σπεῦδεν ὅμιλος ἱκέσθαι. χαλκέοις ὅπλοισιν ἱππείοις τε σὺν ἔντεσιν ἰσμηνοῦ δ’ ἐπ’ ὄχθαισι γλυκὺν νόστον ἐρυσάμενοι λευκανθέα σώμασ’ ἐπίαναν καπνόν ἑπτὰ γὰρ δαίσαντο πυραὶ νεογυίους φῶτας, ὁ δ’ ἀμφιάρηϊ σχίσεν κεραυνῶ παμβία ζεὺς τὰν βαθύστερνον χθόνα κρύψεν δ’ ἅμ’ ἵπποις

ϝ´ 26 27

δουρὶ περικλυμένου πρὶν νῶτα τυπέντα μαχατὰν, θυμὸν αἰσχυνθῆμεν. ἐν γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις

Appendix: 4. The recensio Tricliniana

28 29 30

φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες θεῶν. εἰ δυνατὸν κρονίων πεῖραν μὲν ἀγάνορα φοινικοστόλων ἐγχέων ταύταν θανάτου πέρι καὶ ζωᾶς ἀναβάλλομαι. ὡς πόρσιστα. μοῖραν δ’ εὔνομον αἰτέω σε παισὶν δαρὸν αἰτναίων ὀπάζειν,

ζ´ 31 32 33 34 35

ζεῦ πάτερ. ἀγλαΐαισιν δ’ ἀστυνόμοις ἐπιμίξαι λαὸν, ἐντί τοι φίλιπποί τ’ αὐτόθι καὶ κτεάνων ψυχὰς ἔχοντες κρέσσονας ἄνδρες ἄπιστον ἔειπ’. αἰδὼς γὰρ ὑπόκρυφα κέρδει κλέπτεται ὃ φέρει δόξαν χρομίω κεν ὑπασπίζων παρὰ πεζοβόαις. ἵπποις τε ναῶν τ’ ἐν μάχαις ἔκρινας ἂν, κίνδυνον, ὀξείας ἀυτᾶς.

η´ 36 37 38 39 40

οὕνεκεν ἐν πολέμω κείνα θεὸς ἔντυεν αὐτοῦ θυμὸν αἰχματὰν ἀμύνειν. λοιγὸν ἐνυαλίου παῦροι δὲ βουλεῦσαι φόνου παρποδίου νεφέλαν τρέψαι ποδὶ δυσμενέων ἀνδρῶν στίχας χερσὶ, καὶ ψυχᾷ δυνατοί· λέγεται μὰν ἕκτορι μὲν κλέος ἀνθῆσαι σκαμάνδρου χεύμασιν ἀγχοῦ, βαθυκρημνοῖσι δ’ ἀμφ’ ἀκταῖς ἑλώρου

θ´ 41 ἔνθ’ ἀρείας πόρον ἄνθρω ποι καλέοισι δέδορκεν

131

132

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

42 43 44 45

παιδὶ τοῦτ’ ἀγησιδάμου φέγγος ἐν ἁλικία πρώτα. τά δ’ ἄλλαις ἁμέραις πολλὰ μὲν ἐν κονία χέρσω τὰ δὲ, γείτονι πόντω φάσομαι. ἐκ πόνων δ’ οἳ σὺν νεότατι γένωνται σύν τε δίκα τελέθει πρὸς γῆρας αἰὼν ἁμέρα· ἴστω λαχὼν πρὸς δαιμόνων θαυμαστὸν ὄλβον.

ι´ 46 47 48 49 50

εἰ γὰρ ἅμα κτεάνοις πολλοῖς ἐπίδοξον ἄρηται κῦδος οὐκέτ’ ἐστὶ πρόσω θνατὸν ἔτι σκοπιᾶς ἄλλας ἐφάψασθαι ποδοῖν ἡσυχίαν δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν συμπόσιον νεοθαλὴς δ’ αὔξεται μαλθακᾶ νικαφορία σὺν ἀοιδᾷ. θαρσαλέα δὲ παρὰ κρητῆρα φωνὰ γίνεται ἐγκιρνάτω τίς μιν γλυκὺν κώμου προφάταν.

ια´ 51 52 53 54 55

ἀργυρέαισι δὲ νωμάτω φιάλαισι βιατὰν ἀμπέλου παῖδ’ ἅς ποθ’ ἵπποι κτησάμεναι χρομίω, πέμψαν θεμιπλέκτοις ἀμφὶ λατοΐδα στεφάνοις ἐκ τᾶς ἱερᾶς σικυῶνος ζεῦ πάτερ. εὔχομαι ταύταν ἀρετὰν κελαδῆσαι, σὺν χαρίτεσσιν ὑπὲρ πολλῶν τε τιμαλφεῖν λόγοις, νικᾶν ἀκοντίζων σκοποῦ ἄγχιστα μοισᾶν.

Appendix: 5. The editio Aldina

*5. The editio Aldina Χρομίῳ Αἰτναίῳ ἅρματι μέλος θ´ στροφή 1 2 3 4 5

κωμάσομεν παρ’ ἀπόλλωνος σικυωνόθε μοῖσαι, τὰν νεοκτίσταν εἰς αἴτναν ἔνθ’ ἀναπεπταμέναι ξείνων νενίκανται θύραι ὄλβιον ἐς χρομίου δῶμ’. ἀλλ’ ἐπέων γλυκὺν ὕμνον πράσσετε τὸ κρατήσιππον γὰρ ἐς ἅρμ’ ἀναβαίνων, ματέρι, καὶ διδύμοις παίδεσσιν αὐδὰν μηνύει πυθῶνος αἰπεινᾶς ὁμοκλάροις ἐπόπταις

ἀντ. 6 7 8 9 10

ἔστι δέ τις λόγος ἀνθρώπων τετελεσμένον ἐσλὸν μὴ χαμαὶ σιγᾷ καλύψαι θεσπεσία δ’ ἐπέων, καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος. ἀλλ’ ἀνὰ μὲν βρομίαν φόρμιγγ’. ἀνὰ δ’ αὐλὸν ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ὄρσωμεν ἱππείων ἀέθλων κορυφὰν, ἅτε φοίβῳ θῆκεν ἄδραστος ἐπ’ ἀσωποῦ ῥεέθροις. ὧν ἐγὼ μνασθεὶς ἐπασκήσω κλυταῖς ἥρωα τιμαῖς.

ἐπ. 11 12 13

ὃς τότε μὲν βασιλεύων κεῖθι νέαισί θ’ ἑορταῖς ἰσχύος τ’ ἀνδρῶν ἁμίλλαις ἅρμασί τε γλαφύροις ἄμφαινε κυδαίνων πόλιν φεῦγε γὰρ ἀμφιάρη-

133

134

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

14 15

όν τε θρασυμήδεα, καὶ δεινὰν στάσιν πατέρων οἴκων, ἀπό τ’ ἄργεος ἀρχοὶ δ’ οὐκ ἔτ’ ἔσαν ταλαοῦ παῖδες βιασθέντες λύᾳ κρέσσων δὲ καππαύει δίκαν τὰν πρόσθεν ἀνὴρ,

στρ. β. 16 17 18 19 20

ἀνδρομέδαν τ’ ἐριφύλαν ὅρκιον ὡς ὅτε πιστόν. δόντες ὀϊκλείδᾳ γυναῖκα. ξανθοκομᾶν δαναῶν ἦσαν μέγιστοι, καί ποτ’ ἐς ἑπταπύλους θήβας ἄγαγον ἀνδρῶν στρατὸν αἰσιᾶν οὐ κατ’ ὀρνίχων ὁδὸν οὐδὲ κρονίων ἀστεροπὰν ἐλελίξαις οἴκοθεν μαργουμένους στείχειν ἐπώτρυν’, ἀλλὰ φείσασθαι κελεύθου.

ἀντ. 21 22 23 24 25

φαινομέναν δ’ ἄρεσ’ ἄταν σπεῦδεν ὅμιλος ἱκέσθαι. χαλκέοις ὅπλοισιν ἱππείοις τε σὺν ἔντεσιν ἰσμηνοῦ δ’ ἐπ’ ὄχθαισι γλυκὺν νόστον ἐρυσάμενοι λευκανθέαν σώμασ’ ἐπίαναν καπνὸν ἑπτὰ γὰρ δαίσαντο πυραὶ νεογυίους φῶτας, ὅ δ’ ἀμφιάρηϊ σχίσεν κεραυνῷ παμβίᾳ ζεὺς τὰν βαθύστερνον χθόνα κρύψεν δ’ ἅμ’ ἵπποις

ἐπ. 26 27

δουρὶ περικλυμένου πρὶν νῶτα τυπέντα μαχατὰν θυμὸν αἰσχυνθῆμεν. ἐν γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις

Appendix: 5. The editio Aldina

28 29 30

φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες θεῶν. εἰ δυνατὸν κρονίων πεῖραν μὲν ἀγάνορᾳ φοινικοστόλων ἐγχέων ταύταν θανάτου πέρι καὶ ζωᾶς ἀναβάλλομαι. ὡς πόρσιστα. μοῖραν δ’ εὔνομον αἰτέω σε παισὶν δαρὸν αἰτναίων ὀπάζειν,

στρ. γ. 31 32 33 34 35

ζεῦ πάτερ. ἀγλαΐαισιν δ’ ἀστυνόμοις ἐπιμίξαι λαὸν, ἐντί τοι φίλιπποί τ’ αὐτόθι καὶ κτεάνων ψυχὰς ἔχοντες κρέσσονας ἄνδρες ἄπιστον ἔειπ’. αἰδὼς γὰρ ὑπόκρυφα κέρδει κλέπτεται ὃ φέρει δόξαν χρομίῳ κεν ὑπασπίζων παρὰ πεζοβόαις. ἵπποις τε ναῶν τ’ ἐν μάχαις ἔκρινας ἂν κίνδυνον ὀξείας αὐτᾶς.

ἀντ. 36 37 38 39 40

οὕνεκεν ἐν πολέμῳ κείνα θεὸς ἔντυεν αὐτοῦ θυμὸν αἰχματὰν ἀμύνειν. λοιγὸν ἐνυαλίου παῦροι δὲ βουλεῦσαι φόνου παρποδέου νεφέλαν τρέψαι ποδὶ δυσμενέων ἀνδρῶν στίχας χερσὶ, καὶ ψυχᾷ δυνατοί· λέγεται μὰν ἕκτορι μὲν κλέος ἀνθῆσαι σκαμάνδρου χεύμασιν· ἀγχοῦ, βαθυκρημνοῖσι δ’ ἀμφ’ ἀκταῖς ἑλώρου

ἐπ. 41 ἔνθ’ ἀρείας πόρον ἄνθρω ποι καλέοισι δέδορκεν

135

136

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

42 43 44 45

παιδὶ τοῦτ’ ἀγησιδάμου φέγγος ἐν ἁλικίᾳ πρώτᾳ. τά δ’ ἄλλαις ἁμέραις πολλὰ μὲν ἐν κονίᾳ χέρσῳ τὰ δὲ, γείτονι πόντῳ φάσομαι. ἐκ πόνων δ’ οἳ σὺν νεότατι γένωνται σύν τε δίκᾳ τελέθει πρὸς γῆρας ἐὼν ἁμέρᾳ· ἴστω λαχὼν πρὸς δαιμόνων θαυμαστὸν ὄλβον.

στρ. δ. 46 47 48 49 50

εἰ γὰρ ἅμα κτεάνοις πολλοῖς ἐπίδοξον ἄρηται κῦδος οὐκ ἔτ’ ἐστὶ πρόσω θνατὸν ἔτι σκοπιᾶς ἄλλας ἐφάψασθαι ποδοῖν ἡσυχίαν δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν συμπόσιον νεοθαλὴς δ’ αὔξεται μαλθακᾷ νικαφορίᾳ σὺν ἀοιδᾷ. θαρσαλέα δὲ παρὰ κρητῆρα φωνὰ γίνεται ἐγκιρνάτω τίς μιν γλυκὺν κώμου προφάταν.

ἀντ. 51 52 53 54 55

ἀργυρέαισι δὲ νομάτω φιάλαισι βιατὰν ἀμπέλου παῖδ’ ἅς ποθ’ ἵπποι κτησάμεναι χρομίῳ, πέμψαν θεμιπλέκτοις ἀμφὶ λατοΐδα στεφάνοις ἐκ τᾶς ἱερᾶς σικυῶνος ζεῦ πάτερ. εὔχομαι ταύταν ἀρετὰν κελαδῆσαι, σὺν χαρίτεσσιν ὑπὲρ πολλῶν τε τιμαλφεῖν λόγοις νικᾶν ἀκοντίζων σκοποῦ ἄγχιστα μοισᾶν.

Appendix: 6. The editio Romana

*6. The editio Romana Χρομίω Αἰτναίω ἅρματι εἶδος θ´ Δυωδεκὰς α´ 1 2 3 4 5

κωμάσομεν παρ’ ἀπόλλωνος σικυωνόθε μοῖσαι, τὰν νεοκτίσταν εἰς αἴτναν ἔνθ’ ἀναπεπταμέναι ξείνων νενίκανται θύραι, ὄλβιον ἐς χρομίου δῶμ’. ἀλλ’ ἐπέων γλυκὺν ὕμνον πράσσετε τὸ κρατήσιππον γὰρ ἐς ἅρμ’ ἀναβαίνων, ματέρι, καὶ διδύμοις παίδεσσιν αὐδὰν μανύει, πυθῶνος αἰπεινᾶς ὁμοκλάροις ἐπόπταις.

β´ 6 7 8 9 10

ἔστι δέ τις λόγος ἀνθρώπων. τετελεσμένον ἐσλὸν, μὴ χαμαὶ σιγᾶ καλύψαι. θεσπεσία δ’ ἐπέων, καύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος. ἀλλ’ ἀνὰ μὲν βρομίαν φόρμιγγ’. ἀνὰ δ’ αὐλὸν ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ὄρσωμεν ἱππείων ἀέθλων κορυφὰν, ἅ τε φοίβω θῆκεν ἄδραστος ἐπ’ ἀσωποῦ ῥεέθροις. ὧν ἐγὼ μνασθεὶς ἐπασκήσω κλυταῖς ἥρωα τιμαῖς.

γ´ 11 12

ὃς τότε μὲν βασιλεύων κεῖθι νέαισί θ’ ἑορταῖς ἰσχύος τ’ ἀνδρῶν ἁμίλλαις, ἅρμασί τε γλαφυροῖς ἄμφαινε κυδαίνων πόλιν.

137

138

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

13 14 15

φεῦγε γὰρ ἀμφιάρηόν τε θρασυμήδεα, καὶ δεινὰν στάσιν πατρώων οἴκων, ἀπό τ’ ἄργεος. ἀρχοί δ’ οὐκ ἔτ’ ἔσαν ταλαοῦ παῖδες βιασθέντες λύα. κρέσσων δὲ καππαύει δίκαν τὰν πρόσθεν ἀνὴρ.

δ´ 16 17 18 19 20

ἀνδρομέδαν τ’ ἐριφύλαν ὅρκιον ὡς ὅτε πιστόν. δόντες ὀϊκλείδα γυναῖκα. ξανθοκομᾶν δαναῶν ἦσαν μέγιστον, καί ποτ’ ἐς ἐπταπύλους θήβας ἄγαγον ἀνδρῶν στρατὸν αἰσιᾶν οὐ κατ’ ὀρνίχων ὁδὸν οὐδὲ κρονίων ἀστεροπὰν ἐλελίξαις οἴκοθεν μαργουμένους στείχειν ἐπώτρυν, ἀλλὰ φείσασθαι κελεύθου.

ε´ 21 22 23 24 25

φαινομέναν δ’ ἄρεσ’ ἄταν σπεῦδεν ὅμιλος ἱκέσθαι. χαλκέοις ὅπλοισιν ἱππείοις τε σὺν ἔντεσιν. ἰσμηνοῦ δ’ ἐπ’ ὄχθαισι γλυκὺν νόστον ἐρυσάμενοι λευκανθέαν σώμασ’ ἐπίαναν καπνόν. ἑπτὰ γὰρ δαίσαντο πυραὶ νεογυίους φῶτας. ὅ δ’ ἀμφιάρηϊ σχίσεν κεραυνῶ παμβία ζεὺς τὰν βαθύστερνον χθόνα κρύψεν δ’ ἅμ’ ἵπποις,

ϝ´ 26 δουρὶ περικλυμένου πρὶν νῶτα τυπέντα μαχατὰν, 27 θυμὸν αἰσχυνθῆμεν. ἐν γὰρ

Appendix: 6. The editio Romana

28 29 30

δαιμονίοισι φόβοις, φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες θεῶν. εἰ δυνατὸν κρονίων πεῖραν μὲν ἀγάνορα φοινικοστόλων ἐγχέων, ταύταν θανάτου πέρι καὶ ζωᾶς ἀναβάλομαι. ὡς πόρσιστα. μοῖραν δ’ εὔνομον αἰτέω σε παισὶν δαρὸν αἰτναίων ὀπάζειν,

ζ´ 31 32 33 34 35 η´ 36 37 38 39 40

ζεῦ πάτερ. ἀγλαΐαισιν δ’ ἀστυνόμοις ἐπιμίξαι λαὸν, ἐντί τοι φίλιπποί τ’ αὐτόθι καὶ κτεάνων ψυχὰς ἔχοντες κρέσσονας, ἄνδρες ἄπιστον ἔειπ’. αἰδὼς γὰρ ὑπόκρυφα κέρδει κλέπτεται ἃ φέρει δόξαν χρομίω κεν ὑπασπίζων παρὰ πεζοβόαις. ἵπποις τε ναῶν τ’ ἐν μάχαις ἔκρινας ἂν κίνδυνον, ὀξείας ἀυτᾶς.

θ´

οὔνεκεν ἐν πολέμω κείνα θεὸς ἔντυεν αὐτοῦ θυμὸν αἰχματὰν ἀμύνειν. λοιγὸν ἐνυαλίου παῦροι δὲ βουλεῦσαι φόνου, παρποδίου νεφέλαν τρέψαι ποδὶ δυσμενέων ἀνδρῶν στίχας χερσὶ, καὶ ψυχᾶ δυνατοί. λέγεται μὰν ἕκτορι μὲν κλέος ἀνθῆσαι σκαμάνδρου χεύμασιν. ἀγχοῦ, βαθυκρημνοῖσι δ’ ἀμφ’ ἀκταῖς ἑλώρου.

41 ἔνθ’ ἀρείας πόρον ἄνθρω-

139

140

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

42 43 44 45

ποι καλέοισι δέδορκεν, παιδὶ τοῦτ’ ἀγησιδάμου φέγγος ἐν ἁλικία πρώτα. τάδ’ ἄλλαις ἁμέραις πολλὰ μὲν ἐν κονία χέρσω. τὰ δὲ, γείτονι πόντω φάσομαι. ἐκ πόνων δ’ οἳ σὺν νεότατι γένωνται σύν τε δίκα, τελέθει πρὸ γῆρας ἐὼν ἁμέρα. ἴστω λαχὼν, πρὸς δαιμόνων θαυμαστὸν ὄλβον.

ι´ 46 47 48 49 50

εἰ γὰρ ἅμα κτεάνοις πολλοῖς ἐπίδοξον ἄρηται κῦδος οὐκ ἔτ’ ἐστὶ πόρσω θνατὸν ἔτι σκοπιᾶς, ἄλλας ἐφάψασθαι ποδοῖν ἡσυχίαν δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν συμπόσιον. νεοθαλὴς δ’ αὔξεται μαλθακᾶ νικαφορία σὺν ἀοιδᾶ. θαρσαλέα δὲ παρὰ κρητῆρα φωνὰ γίνεται. ἐγκιρνάτω τίς μιν γλυκὺν κώμου προφάταν.

ια´ 51 52 53 54 55

ἀργυρέαισι δὲ νομάτω φιάλαισι βιατὰν ἀμπέλου παῖδ’ ἅς ποθ’ ἵπποι κτησάμεναι χρομίω, πέμψαν θεμιπλέκτοις ἀμφὶ λατοΐδα στεφάνοις ἐκ τᾶς ἱερᾶς σικυῶνος. ζεῦ πάτερ. εὔχομαι ταύταν ἀρετὰν κελαδῆσαι, σὺν χαρίτεσσιν ὑπὲρ πολλῶν τε τιμαλφεῖν λόγοις, νικᾶν ἀκοντίζων σκοποῦ ἄγχιστα μοισᾶν.

Appendix: 7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri

141

*7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri (fol. lxxixr–lxxxviiir) Praefatio Stephani Nigri in Pindarum, poetam eminentissimum, Medio­ lani in publico gymnasio habita. […] (fol. lxxixr–lxxxv) Inter quos Pindarus ὁ μεγαλοφωνότατος maxime recensendus est, qui cum Horatio teste: Musa dedit fidibus diuos puerosque deorum Et pugilem uictorem et equum certamine primum Et iuuenum curas et libera uina referre.469 Omisso uino, quo hominum mentes attonitae interdum redduntur, iuuenumque neglectis curis ac solicitudinibus, in sacris Graecorum certaminibus uersatus est, quorum uictores eo prosecutus est carmine ut, ubique aureus ubique diuinus appareat, nusquam non supra humanam conditionem sese extollat et usquequaque eximius ac mirabilis existat, de quo Quintilianus haec haud immerito rettulisse uideri potest: “Nouem lyricorum longe Pindarus princeps spiritus magnificentia, sententiis, beatissima rerum uerborumque copia et uelut quodam eloquentiae flumine. Propter quod Horatius eum merito credidit nemini imitabilem”.470 Pindarus ac Terpander (ut Plutarchus Cheron[ensis] scribit) musicae fortitudinem coniunxere. Sed quid ego in Pindaro laudando diutius immoror, ad quem pro dignitate ac meritis exornandum, altero, me hercule, opus esset Pindaro? Itaque ad grammaticorum me praecepta conuertam, a quibus librorum interpretes admonentur sex iis esse in primis animaduertenda, qui aliquem sibi authorem sumunt interpretandum: poetae uitam, operis titulum, carminis 469 Hor. ars 83–85. 470 Quint. inst. 10.1.61: nouem uero lyricorum longe Pindarus princeps spiritus magnificentia, sententiis, figuris, beatissima rerum uerborumque copia et uelut quodam eloquentiae flumine: propter quae Horatius eum merito credidit nemini imitabilem (Hor. carm. 4.2).

142

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

qualitatem, scribentis intentionem, librorum numerum et omnium postremum explanationem. Quare, cum Pindarum nobis sumpserimus interpretandum, ab eius uita exordium sumamus necesse est. Natus est Pindarus (ut Suidas ait) Thebis Boeotiis, patre Scopelino uel, ut aliis placet, Daiphante siue Pagonide, matre Myrto sexagesimasexta Olympiade. Myrtidos mulieris discipulus fuit, Simonidi quoque operam dedisse fertur.471 Quo autem tempore Xerxes in Graeciam expeditionem fecit, quadragesimum agebat aetatis annum. Habuit fratrem Ereotionem et filium Diophantem filiasque Protomachem et Eumetim. Extremum autem obiit diem in theatro cum Theoxeni a se dilecti genibus inhaerens petiisset, ut quod homini optimum esset, sibi daretur.472 Fama est (inquit Plutarchus) iis qui a Boeotiis ad Apollinem missi fuerant ex Pindari mandato quod homini optimum esset sciscitantibus, Promantin, hoc est Pythiam, respondisse quod et ipse minime ignorat, si eorum, quae de Trophonio atque Agamede litterarum monimentis mandata sunt, ipse author est. Quod si periculum facere concupiscit, haud multo post id exploratum fore. Quae cum audisset, Pindarus ad obitum spectantia extemplo coepit considerare, nec multo post decessit.473 Pausanias libro nono: “Pindarus (inquit) diuino poeta ingenio, cum adolescentulus adhuc Thebis aestiuo tempore Thespias proficisceretur, meridiano caloris aestu usque adeo afflictus oppressusque est, ut lassitudine ac somno obrutus paululum extra uiam prostratus quieuerit; ad cuius dormientis labra aduolantes apes mellificauerunt, quod certissimum suauissimi cantus praesagium Pindaro fuisse perhibetur”.474 Vnde minime mirari oportet, quod in Philostrati Imaginibus legitur, Pana, μουσικότατον θεόν, Pindari cantibus usque adeo oblectatum fuisse ut, cum primum Pindarus ad scribendum animum appulit, choreas sibi charissimas neglexisse et quicquid a Pindaro componeretur cecinisse dicatur.475 Caeterum, cum eius nomen per uniuersam Graeciam celeberrimum haberetur, ad summum gloriae culmen Pythia euexit. Praedixit enim Delphis, ut omnium quae Apollini offerebantur primitiarum aequa Pindari portio 471 Cf. e.g. Vita Ambrosiana, I 2,21–3,3 Drachmann; Eust. Prooimion 25–26 (p. 22,3–13 Kambylis). 472 Suid. π 1617 (IV 132,26–133,9 Adler = p. 126 above). 473 ‘Plu.’ Moralia 109a. 474 Paus. 9.23.2. 475 Philostr. Im. 2.12 (p. 358,14–16 Kayser).

Appendix: 7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri

143

impenderetur. Aiunt praeterea Pindaro iam senescenti Proserpina per quietem obuersatam fuisse contestatamque quod omneis praeter ipsam deos hymnis celebrasset. Id tamen facturum, cum ad se uenisset. Quare, cum ante decimum a uisione diem decessisset, Pindarus aniculae cuidam, affinitatis uinculo sibi coniunctae cantusque quam plurimos canere assuetae, dormienti adstitit hymnumque in Proserpinam cecinit, quem ipsa experrecta statim conscripsit, in quo sunt et alia Plutonis cognomina et χρυσήνιος. Stadium est Thebanis ante Pretidas portas, ut idem Pausan[ias] author est. Transeuntibus autem stadium occurrit hippodromus, in quo Pindari extat monimentum, cuius uestigia domus ultra directe uisuntur.476 Scripsit autem multa Dorica lingua. Alexander, cum Thebas deleret, Pindari stirpem ac penates incolumeis seruauit (ut testatur Plutarch[us]). Fuit et alter Pindarus Thebanus et ipse lyricus, superioris consobrinus. Titulus operis est Πινδάρου Ὀλύμπια, Πύθια, Νέμεα, Ἴσθμια; quae certamina, in quorum honorem celebrarentur, quibusque praemiis donarentur uictores, Archias hoc tetrasticho elegantissime ostendit:477 Τέσσαρές εἰσιν ἀγῶνες ἀν᾿ Ἑλλάδα τέσσαρες ἱροὶ, οἱ δύο μὲν θνητῶν, οἱ δύο δ’ ἀθανάτων· Ζηνὸς, Λητοΐδαο, Παλαίμονος, Ἀρχεμόροιο. ἆθλα δὲ τῶν κότινος, μῆλα, σέλινα, πίτυς. Quae singula ut uobis omnibus planius innotescant, quam breuissima fieri poterit oratione quo Pindarum ordine percurremus et ab Olympiis ut ipse auspicabimur, Eleorum uetustissima celebrantes. […] (fol. lxxxiv–lxxxiiiir) Carminis qualitas diuersa est, nam, cum in primis metrorum nouem sint species ἰαμβικόν, τροχαικόν, ἀναπεστικόν, χοριαμβικόν, ἀντισπαστικόν, ἰωνικὸν ἀπὸ μείζονος, ἰωνικὸν ἀπ’ ἐλάσσονος, παιανικόν478, ἡρωικόν. Eorum quam plurimis lyrici poetae usi sunt. Lyrici autem dicti, quod ad lyram eorum uersus canerentur, nomen 476 Paus. 9.23.3–4, 25.3. 477 AP 9.357 (cf. Auson. ecl. 12 Green). 478 παιονικόν Negri.

144

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

sortiti sunt; quorum circularis chorus quinquaginta constabat uiris. Tauro donabantur. Eorum opuscula odae siue hymni dicebantur. Αἱ εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς ᾠδαὶ, inquit Pollux,479 παιᾶνες480 communiter siue hymni appellantur. Priuatim uero, Dianae hymnus οὔπιγγος481 dicitur, Apollinis παιάν, utriusque προσόδια,482 Dionysi διθύραμβος, Cereris ἴουλος. Nam linus et litierses fossorum atque agricolarum sunt cantus. Sunt praeterea de hymnis in deos alii, ut Menander ait,483 κλητικοί, alii ἀποπεμπτικοί, alii φυσικοί, nonnulli μυθικοί, quidam γενεαλογικοί, alii πεπλασμένοι, alii εὐκτικοί, alii ἀπευκτικοί, μικτοί alii, qui uel duobus ex his uel tribus uel omnibus simul constant. Κλητικοί, hoc est uocatiui appellantur quales sunt multi tam apud Sapho quam apud Anacreontem et alios melicos,484 multorum deorum inuocationem habentes. Ἀποπεμπτικοί uero, hoc est, ut ita dicam, remissiui siue comitatiui, quales nonnulli apud Bachylidem reperiuntur, ut migrationis alicuius atque abitionis comitatum habentes. Φυσικοί, hoc est naturales, Apollinis siue Iouis aliorumue deorum naturam exprimunt, cuiusmodi apud Orpheum plurimi inueniuntur. Μυθικοί, hoc est fabulosi, simplici quadam allegoria fabulas continent, ut Apollo muros duxit uel Admeto seruiuit uel aliquid huiusmodi. Γενεαλογικοί deorum natiuitatem ferunt, ut cum Latonae filium Apollinem dicimus, Iouis et Mnemosynis musas. Πεπλασμένοι, hoc est ficti, cum aliquem deum fingimus, ut Simonides Αὔριον daemonem uocauit, alii Ὄκνον et alii alium. Εὐκτικοί, optatiui, nudas continent preces. Ἀπευκτικοί simpliciter contraria deprecantur. Sunt qui addant ἀπορητικοὺς siue διαπορητικοὺς, hoc est dubitatiuos, ut si dubitaueris sit ne Amor χάους an Veneris filius.485 Quinque autem fuere apud Heroes (ut Eustachius ait) odarum species: σωφρονιστική, ἐγκωμιαστική, θρηνητική, ὀρχηματική καὶ παιανική.486 Quarum quanta sit uis atque utilitas, in secundo de legibus his uerbis docet Plato:487 “Probus (inquit) legumlator poetico uiro 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487

Poll. 1.38 (I 11,11–14 Bethe). πεᾶνες Negri. ὕπιγγος Negri. προσώδια Negri, προσῴδια Pollucis cod. Π deperditus. Men. Rh. 333,1–26 (p. 6 Russell/Wilson). metricos Negri (cf. Men. Rh. 333,9). Men. Rh. 343,17–20 (p. 26 Russell/Wilson). Eust. ad Il. 1.472–4 (I 211,25–212,1 van der Valk); παιονική Negri. Pl. Lg. 660a; 659d–e.

Appendix: 7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri

145

suadebit et si opus fuerit coget ut bonorum ac fortium uirorum gesta iis rythmicis complectatur, quas odas uocamus, quae merito ἐπῳδαί,488 id est incantationes circa animos nostros dici possunt, ob id de industria compositae, ut hominum animi, cum dolendo, tum gaudendo legibus obsequantur”. Tanta enim est odarum facultas ac robur ad incitandos comprimendosque ac sedandos animos, ut Pythagoras nos admoneat ne ullum mane negotium prius aggrediamur, quam asperitatem quandam ex recenti adhuc e somno excitatione mentibus nostris atque animis insidentem rythmicis atque harmoniacis cantibus excusserimus,489 quo sinceriores ac placidiores ad diuturnas actiones praeparemur.490 Euclides quoque in musicis ait deos etiam nostras facilius exaudire preces, si hymnis harmoniacisque cantibus eorum opem imploremus. Quo factum est ut sacrae491 Christicolarum litterae per pientissimos ac sapientissimos uiros compositis affluant, qui singulis diebus in suppliciis deorum pientissime ac suauissime canantur, quos musices flores ipse Pindarus appellat.492 Illud autem in primis sciendum est, lyricos poetas in opusculis suis στροφῇ, ἀντιστροφῇ καὶ ἐπῳδῷ493 uti consueuisse, quod eorum chorus modo ad sinistram, modo ad dexteram conuerteretur et quandoque consistentes odas caneret, nec id temere fecisse produntur: nam quoties a dextris ad sinistram ducebatur, chorus circularem uniuersi ab oriente ad occidentem motum referebat. Dextra enim Homerus quae ad ortum uergunt, sinistra quae ad occasum appellat, et hoc στροφή nominabatur. Cum uero a sinistra ad dexteram reuertebatur, chorus ab occasu ad ortum planetarum motum innuebat, quod ἀντιστροφή appellabatur. Ἐπῳδός494 dicebatur, ubi consistens chorus odas concinebat, quod constantem atque immobilem terrae statum indicabat. Cum autem haec omnia κώλοις, hoc est membris membranariis constent metris metraque ipsa multiplicibus insistant pedibus, non ab re fore arbitratus 488 ἐποδαί Negri. 489 Cf. e.g. Iamb. VP 15.65 (p. 36,11–15 Deubner); Boeth. mus. 1.1 (p. 186,1–4 Friedlein). 490 praeparentur Negri. 491 sacram Negri. 492 Cf. e.g. sch. Pi. Ol. 1.20i (I 25,7–9 Dr.). 493 ἐπῴδα Negri. 494 Ἔποδος Negri.

146

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

sum, si quot sint pedes quibusque singuli constent syllabis in medium protulero. Sunt autem omnes pedes ut Ἡφαιστίων ait,495 octo supra uiginti, quorum quatuor disyllabi: – – – –

Pyrrichius, qui duabus constat breuibus, ut λόγος Iambus breui et longa, ut λέβης Trocheus longa et breui, ut ἦτορ Spondeus duabus longis, ut ἥρως

Trisyllabi octo: – – – – – – – –

Choreus, tribracus etiam dictus, qui tribus constat breuibus, ut λόγιος Dactylus longa et duabus breuibus, ut ἥλιος Amphibracus breui, longa et breui, ut ἄμητος Anapestus duabus breuibus et longa, ut ἀπάτωρ Bacceus breui et duabus longis, ut δομήτωρ Amphimacrus, Creticus etiam atque Ionicus dictus, longa, breui et longa, ut λημότης Palimbaccheus, qui et Hyppobaccheus appellatur, duabus longis et breui, ut συγνωστός Molottos tribus longis, ut Ἡρώδης

Quadrisyllabi sexdecim: – – – – – – – – – – – –

Proceleusmaticus, qui 4 constat breuibus, ut ἀνιαρός Peon primus longa et tribus breuibus, ut ἡμίονος Secundus breui, longa, duabus breuibus, ut ἀγάσσιος Tertius duabus breuibus, longa et breui, ut παράκοιτις Quartus tribus breuibus et longa, ut Πελοπίδης Ionicus a maiori duabus longis totidem breuibus, ut Κλειτώνυμος Ionicus a minori duabus breuibus et totidem longis, ut κακοδαίμων Ditrocheus longa et breui, longa et breui, ut ἀρχέδημος Diiambus breui et longa, breui et longa, ut θεηγοστῶν Antispastus breui, duabus longis et breui, ut θεώκητος Choriambus longa, duabus breuibus et longa, ut χειρονομῶν Epitritus primus breui et tribus longis, ut θεωρρήμων

495 Heph. Ench. 3 (pp. 10,11–12,23 Consbruch).

Appendix: 7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri

– – – –

147

Secundus longa, breui et duabus longis, ut χειροήθης Tertius duabus longis, breui et longa, ut αὐτοκράτωρ Quartus tribus longis et breui, ut εἰρήναρχος Dispondeus quatuor longis, ut χειρωνάκτης

His igitur pedibus constant metra, quorum aliud ἀκαταληκτόν, cui nihil deest, aliud καταληκτόν, cui una deest syllaba, aliud βραχυκαταληκτόν, quod integrum desiderat pedem, aliud ὑπερκαταληκτόν, quod una superabundat syllaba.496 Lyrico autem carmine usi sunt quam plurimi, inter quos numero nouem maxime excelluerunt. Pindarus, de quo satis diximus. […] (fol. lxxxvir–lxxxviir) Scribentis intentio eo spectat ut et se et quos laude prosequitur immortaleis reddat, reliquosque ad uirtutem exhortetur. Librorum numerus certaminum numero continetur. Reliqua nunc est sola explanatio, quam non prius aggrediemur, quam huiusce primae odes argumentum a nobis fuerit enarratum. Hiero, Syracusarum rex, Dinomenis filius et Gelonis frater, ἵππῳ κέλητι uel (ut nonnulli uolunt) quadrigis uictoriam in Olympia assecutus est, quare Pindarus et certamen ipsum et Iouem, cui certamen dicatum est, et Hieronem et equum, Φερένικον appellatum, elegantissimo ac diuino prosecutus est hymno.497 Pausanias de Hierone loquens ait:498 “Geloni, Dinomenis filio, Siciliae tyranno, successit Hiero frater. Huic Dinomenes filius, qui pro patre ea dicauit Ioui Olympio, quae pater pro uictoria uouerat et hoc indicat epigramma:499 Σόν ποτε νικήσας, Ζεῦ Ὀλύμπιε, σεμνὸν ἀγῶνα, τεθρίππῳ μὲν ἅπαξ, μουνοκέλητι δὲ δίς, δῶρα Ἱέρων τάδε σοὶ ἐχαρίσσατο500· παῖς δ’ ἀνέθηκε Δεινομένης, πατρὸς μνῆμα Συρακουσίου”. 496 497 498 499 500

Cf. e.g. Heph. Ench. 4 (13,1–14,6 Consbruch). Cf. sch. Pi. Ol. 1, inscr. a–b (I 15,21–16,18 Dr.). Paus. 8.42.8–9. Preger (1891) 103 (No. 126a). δῶρ’ ἱερὸν τὰ δὲ σοι ἐχαρίσσατο Negri.

148

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Ἄριστον μὲν ὕδωρ501 Variae sunt philosophorum de rerum origine opiniones. Thales Milesius (ut Plutarchus scribit)502 in Aegypto philosophatus, senior iam factus, Miletum rediit, unde Ionica secta initium sumpsit. Is omnia ex aqua oriri atque in aquam resolui propterea dicit, quod genitale omnium semen liquidum sit et quod omnes plantae humore alantur ac fructus ferant, absque humore uero arescant, et quod ipse solis ac siderum ignis aquarum exhalationibus nutriatur, indeque factum esse ut Oceanus ab Homero rerum pater dicatur. Anaximander Milesius τὸ ἄπειρον omnium rerum principia uoluit, Anaximenes Milesius aerem. Anaxagoras Clazomenius omnium rerum principia dixit τὰς ὁμοιομερείας.503 Archelaus Atheniensis ἀέρα ἄπειρον καὶ τὴν περὶ αὐτὸν πυκνότητα καὶ μάνωσιν, hoc est ignem et aquam. Pythagoras omnia ad numeros atque harmonias504 referebat. Heraclitus et Hippasus Metapontinus omnia nasci ex igni atque in ignem desinere asserebant. Epicurus, Democritum sequutus, duo dicit rerum principia, corpus, hoc est atomos, et inane. Empedocles quatuor elementa, iuxta cuius sententiam Lucretius ait: Ex imbri, terra atque anima nascuntur et igni. 505 Socrates, ut Plato, tria rerum principia posuerunt, τὸν θεὸν, τὴν ὕλην, τὴν ἰδέαν. Zeno Κιτιεῦς506 ἀρχὰς μὲν τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὴν ὕλην, ὧν ὁ μὲν ἐστι τοῦ ποιεῖν αἴτιος, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πάσχειν, στοιχεῖα τέτταρα. Pindarus inter elementa ac rerum principia optimam esse aquam ait, cui (ut Plutarchus inquit) Hesiodus astipulatur dicens: ἤτοι μὲν πρώτιστα Χάος γένετο.507 Plurimis enim hoc nomine aquam appellasse uidetur,

501 502 503 504

Pi. Ol. 1.1. ‘Plu.’ Moralia 875d–878c. ὁμοιωμερίας Negri. ‘Plu.’ Moralia 876e: τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς καὶ τὰς συμμετρίας τὰς ἐν τούτοις, ἃς καὶ ἁρμονίας καλεῖ. 505 Lucr. 1.715 (ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri [procrescere: gignuntur Boeth. et nascuntur Serv. libere citantes]). 506 Κιτεῦς Negri. 507 ‘Plu.’ Moralia 955e; Hes. Th. 116.

Appendix: 7. The praefatio of Stefano Negri

149

παρὰ τὴν χύσιν, unde παλαιὰ θάλασσα dicitur, hoc est mare canum, quod aqua sit omnium elementorum uetustissimum. Videte Plutarchum ipsum in eo tractatu qui inscribitur Πότερον ὕδωρ, ἢ πῦρ χρησιμώτερον. Ostendit utriusque elementi defensores pareis esse nec, mehercule immerito, nam καθάπερ πῦρ χωρὶς ὑγρότητος ἄτροφον ἐστι ξηρὸν, οὕτω ὕδωρ ἄνευ θερμότητος ἄγονον καὶ ἀργόν.508 Sunt tamen qui aquam caeteris esse elementis idcirco praeferendam censeant, quod ex ea reliqua gignantur, ex tenuissima eius parte aer et ignis, ex crassiore tellus. Homerus, literarum princeps, maximum inesse aquae alimentum nouit, cum: Αἰγείρων ὕδατος τροφέων ἄλσος,509 dicit, hoc est, populorum ab aquis nutritarum lucum. Candorem praeterea in aquis laudat, cum ait: Κρῆναι πίσσυρες ῥέον ὕδατι λευκῷ.510 Sed tenuitatem in aquis plurimi faciendam tunc euidentissime ostendit, cum Titaresium fluuium ἱμερτόν, hoc est optabilem propterea dixisse uidetur, quod ea leuitate super Peneo flumine feratur, ut ne ipsi quidem misceat.511 Nouit et tepidam aquam uulneribus conferre, cum Eurypylum ea curat.512 Feruentem quoque ad sedandos dolores facere non ignorauit. Frigidissimi etiam fontis meminit Homerus, quem ait aestiuo tempore grandini ac niui similem fluere.513

508 509 510 511 512 513

Cf. Plu. Moralia 263e. Od. 17.208: ἀμφὶ δ’ ἄρ’ αἰγείρων ὑδατοτρεφέων ἦν ἄλσος. Od. 5.70: κρῆναι δ’ ἑξείης πίσυρες ῥέον ὕδατι λευκῷ. Il. 2.751–54. Il. 11.828–30, 845f. Il. 22.151f.

150

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

*8. The first epistola of Huldrych Zwingli (editio Basileensis) (fol. *2r–*5v) Linguarum candidatis Huldrichus Zuinglius sal[utem]. Pindarum quisquis studet, ut ab Horatiano carmine ordiar, commendare, ceratis Daedali pennis nititur, optime lector. Quum enim laudem eius a coeli plaga inferorumque abyssis, quo lyrae ipsius uox penetrauit, colligere necessarium sit, non feret alarum mitis cerae glutino concinnatarum opus, nec superum ardores, nec inferorum faces. Vnde qui tam immanem gloriam complecti tentabit, uitreo daturus est nomina ponto.514 Equidem ingenue fateor lyricorum omnium, dicerem libentius poetarum, facile principem indignum esse, ut alterius quam summi alicuius eloquentissimique uiri praeconio laudetur, nedum nostro, cui uix tantulum suppetit, ut altissime positum poema suspicere queam. Quum uero Iacobus Ceporinus, homo ad nihilum aliud natus quam ad eruendos illustrandosque tum uetustissimos tum eruditissimos autores, tanta instantia urgeret, ut suo nomine in Pindari Olympica, Pythia, Nemea et Isthmia, quae Cratander homo uigilantissimus excuderat, praefarer, non debui optimo uiro negare quod tantopere orabat, etiamsi non ignorarem cui me ludibrii aleae committerem. Ad rem enim facturum fore ratus est si, ante Pindaricae lyrae sonum, ad quam Musae prae omnibus laetae ac gratae in chorum coeunt, praesultor aliquis egregie ineptiret, qui sibi tamen uideretur omnia acu tangere, quo deinde inusitatum hoc et inedicibile poetae decus maiorem admirationem inueniret. Homo hercle uehementer ad gratificandum spectatoribus intentus: citra lusum enim nostrum, iamiam secum Pindarus amoenitatem attulisset, ut capere labor fuisset. Attamen, quocumque consilio ille nos persuasit, paruimus: imo si nudum saltare praecepisset, obtemperauissemus. Quoniam autem translatitium omnibus est autorum uitam in primis narrare, redigemus et nos Pindari nostri uitam in compendium ex Suida.515 514 Hor. carm. 4.2.1–4: Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari, | Iulle, ceratis ope Daedalea | nititur pennis uitreo daturus | nomina ponto. 515 Suid. π 1617 (IV 132,26–133,9 Adler = p. 126 above).

Appendix: 8. The first epistola of Huldrych Zwingli

151

Pindarum Thebis natum esse omnes consentiunt, parentibus non usque adeo claris, quod hinc patet quod alii alios homini adsignant, diuina nusquam cessante prouidentia, ne imaginibus aut sanguini tribuamus quod illius est bonitatis. Rari enim admodum fuerunt claro sanguine creti, quibus simul ingenium sit ac eruditio data. Discipulum aiunt cuiusdam foeminae Myrtidis fuisse, liberos treis habuit, marem unum Diophanton, foeminas duas, Eumetem et Protomacham. Natus est autem circa sexagesimamquintam Olympiadem. Xerxe Graeciam infestante annos erat natus quadraginta. Quumque annum quinquagesimumquintum ageret, uoti compos, quo perpetuo optauerat pulcherrimum sibi finem donari, animam reddidit frequentissimo theatro, re­ clinatus in amantissimi Theoxeni genua. Scripsit autem Dorica dialecto Olympionicas, Pythionicas, Nemeonicas, Isthmionicas, quae quidem uictoriae reliquae nobis factae sunt; aliorum operum eius nomina si placet nosse, e Suida petenda sunt. Fuit Pindarus non minus dextero ac sancto quam erudito amoenoque ingenio. Eruditio autem tanta fuit hominis ut hac in re nemo uideatur ei anteferendus esse, quod istae uictoriae probant, in quibus alicubi subindicat sua non temere citra interpretem intellectum iri.516 Vtitur ille aut non uulgaribus uerbis, sed de sublimi petitis, aut si utitur, sublimia reddit. Quod magnifice de illo praedicat Horatius, quum canit Dircaeum olorem multa aura uehi.517 Horum autem uerborum tam docta est apud illum compositio, tam tersa contrectatio ac mundities ut quicquid illis aut addas aut adimas, pecces in eruditionem ipsam: semper cadit illi feliciter Iouis tessera. Amoenitatem uero quis digne laudabit? Exoleta nouat, reficit ac oculis uelut praesentia subiicit; priscis ho­ norem ac maiestatem induit, praesentia non supra modum extollit neque inuidiosius deprimit. Quis cultus similium ac dissimilium? Quanta eorum ubertas? Quanta translationum uis? Quam proprius earum usus? Quam in loco semper adsunt? Sententiarum uero quam anxia cura ne uspiam desint? Quae harum est cum auctoritate coniuncta familiaritas, καὶ τὸ ἐπιεικές? Dexteritas ea est, ut parem haud inuenias. Nullos enim sic laudat, ut si quid illis uitii haereat non ciuilissime taxet. Si quos maiorum criminibus innocentia probitateque mederi uidet, praesentem 516 Cf. Pi. Ol. 2.85f.: ἐς δὲ τὸ πὰν ἑρμανέων | χατίζει. 517 Hor. carm. 4.2.25: multa Dircaeum leuat aura cycnum.

152

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

uirtutem sic defendit, ut tamen aculeos domesticae infamiae non eximat, quo currentem nunquam non hortetur.518 Si alicuius maiores nouit iustitiam cum audacia mutauisse, sic utranque non tacet, ut simul uitiorum horrorem cum uirtutum facibus inserat. Sanctitas ea, ut nusquam petulantia, nusquam procacitas linguae adpareat: nihil salax aut lasci­ uum excidit, quo pectoris aliquid ὕπουλον deprehendere queas. Vt de Pindaro, si de quoquam, dicere liceat pectus habuisse ueri sancti ho­ nestique studiosissimum ac incoctissimum. His limpidissimis gurgitibus uoluitur Pindarici carminis flumen. Nihil est in omni opere quod non sit doctum, amoenum, sanctum, dextrum, antiquum, prudens, graue, iucundum, circumspectum et undique absolutum. Loquatur licet de diis magnifice, at non sentit de uulgo multitudineque; eorum magnifice sed saepenumero unicam istam diuinam coelestemque uim inducit. Imo quemadmodum diuus Augustinus alicubi et Origenes contra Celsum519 de philosophis ac poetis sentiunt, quod tametsi uerbis ac nominibus plurimos deos canere uiderentur, re tamen ipsa non ignorarent unicam esse oportere uim quae deus est: sic nostrum uidemus etiamsi deos uocet, unicum tamen esse credat. Id quod ne Hebraeis quidem alienum est. Quum enim ‫אלהים‬520, hoc est deos perpetuo uocent unum istum conditorem rerum omnium, nihil est incommodi, nihil flagitii, si plurimorum numero gentilium tum poetae tum philosophi unicum deum adpellent: fit enim istud nonnunquam ornatus gratia, amplitudinis ac uetustatis. Neque etiam Latini desinunt Camillos, Cicerones, Fabios pro Camillo, Cicerone, Fabio iactare. Longum fuisset omnium, quae iam de Pindaro inope stylo praedicauimus, exempla producere: auido lectori ista committimus, cui et has faces indimus, ut ad hunc thesaurum confestim properet. Quantum autem hoc putas allaturum esse, optime lector, quod mea quidem sententia nullus Graecorum autorum sic uidetur prodesse ad sacrarum literarum intellectum atque hic noster, praesertim si abstrusissimas Hebraeorum cantilenas ac hymnos, quales psalmi sunt, Iobi carmina ac aliorum hinc inde numeris ligatae laudes cupias penitus habere perspectas? Sunt enim apud istos coelestes cantilenae, quae, ut pietate ac spiritu omnes 518 Otto (1890) 102f. (486). 519 Cf. e.g. Orig. Cels. 3.47.21; 4.30.60. 520 elohim.

Appendix: 8. The first epistola of Huldrych Zwingli

153

antecellunt, sic sunt eruditione, grauitate, amoenitate nullis, ne nostri quidem huius carminibus, inferiores. Quales ferme omnes Dauidicae, praesertim tamen CIII psalmus521 et XLIII filiorum Core,522 quae tales cantilenae sunt, ut satis admirari nequeas. Quamuis ipsi nostros thesauros interim strenue ignorantes ubicunque ad tam excelsam eruditionem non attingimus, mysterium aliquod fingendo, nobis non aliter placemus quam sophista quidam olim, qui quum in schola quadam polliceretur Aeneida se Virgilii praelecturum, ubi iam ad rem praesentem esset uentum, aderant enim haud parum multi, qui cupiebant quid montes parturirent uidere. Ibi festiuus homo, quum aliquot carmina legisset, tandem sic ridiculum murem eiecit: “Arma uirumque cano” est propositio de copulato extremo, et “arma uirumque” non est subiectum sed praedicatum, et istud pronomen “ego” est subiectum illius uerbi “cano”, et est propositio sic: “ego cano arma et uirum”. Coepitque sese homo mirari ac palam testari Virgilium hactenus a nullo mortalium sic enarratum esse. Quae leuitas ferme nostrae φιλαυτίᾳ similis est, qua nobis persuasimus, confestim ut stylus aliquis contigit, quantumuis ieiunus et scaber, quod iam ad grauissima quaeque explicanda simus idonei: quumque id quod exponimus ipsi non intelligimus, fingimus quod exponamus ac piissimis eruditissimisque ποιήμασι obtrudimus, ut auctoritatis non­ nihil nostra ab istis indipiscantur. Et si moneas ne extra oleam523 aut ne sutor supra crepidam,524 protinus illorum πρόμαχοι exiliunt “Attamen pia sunt!” Quibus inquam: quid tum? Et Pauli ad Romanos epistola pia est, at non exponit psalmum istum Deus repulisti nos.525 Scribant de Christiana religione quam immanes uelint commentarios, at de quibus strenue ignorant loqui ne praesumant. Hoc enim de Hebraeorum poematis adfirmare ausim tantum esse illis tum eruditionis tum gratiae, quantum est siue apud Pindarum siue Horatium. Quod autem a uetustatis scientia tantum absumus quodque malumus nostra legi quam aliena discere, fit ut triduani graculi526 (Graeculi uolebam dicere) sanctissimis Hebraeorum 521 Benedic anima mea Domino. 522 Deus auribus nostris audiuimus Filiorum Core: cf. etiam LXX Ps. 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48. 523 Otto (1890) 248 (1256) = Hor. epist. 2.1.31. 524 Otto (1890) 97 (462) = Plin. nat. 35.85. 525 LXX Ps. 59. 526 Otto (1890) 15 (64).

154

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

poetis sensus extorqueamus ab eorum mente alienissimos. Has ergo calamitates audaciae inscitiaeque ut aliquando pellamus, hunc nostrum poetam adeuntes aurum, argentum, uestem ut mutuo det oremus, quibus ille abundat nec nobis inuidet, quo et suis uocabulis discamus ueritatem aliquando nominare et uestem eius sic agnoscere ut, si superne eius cognitio negetur, propius tamen agnoscamus, quum uestitum eius probe agnouerimus. Nihil moueor criticis istis, quibus ipsa mundities immunda est quique arbitrantur flagitium summum esse, si gentilem poetam legas: nam ego non quemuis legendum propono, sed eum in quo periculi nihil, frugis autem multo plurimum indipisci queas, quique unus plus ad Hebraeorum scripta inuestiganda prodest quam reliquorum poetarum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum omnium omnia monimenta. Habuit enim uetustas sua quaedam, sicut et quaelibet aetas habet, quae non temere capias, nisi cum priscis uersatus sis: exolescunt enim omnia, non modo linguae, uestitus, ingenia, sed homo ipse quantus quantus est. Quum autem hic noster non loquutiones, sed ingenium habere uideatur sanctissimae aetati simile, de quibus post libri calcem paucula dicturi sumus, tuto ad illum pium auditorem mittimus: imo adseueramus pietatem ipsam ad eum secure mitti posse, tam sancta et casta sunt omnia. Tu, interim, Ceporini nostri diligentia Cratandrique sudoribus fruere: multo enim emendatior prodit quam hactenus. Offendes fortasse mendula, quae una litera aut altera constent; id uero te nihil moueat, conniuent ad ista nonnunquam oculi sua sponte, dum mens sententiam percepit. Vale candide lector, detque Deus opt[imus] max[imus] ut, gentili poeta magistro, discas ueritatem cum apud Hebraeos intelligere, tum apud omnes gentes amoenissime exponere. Ex Tiguro, XIIII die Febr[uarii] MDXXVI

Appendix: 9. The interpretatio Loniceri

155

*9. The interpretatio Loniceri (fol. A2r–A2v) Eruditione ac morum integritate praestanti M. Adamo, illustrissimi Hessorum principis, etc. a sacris concionibus [Johannes Lonicer] εὖ πράττειν. Vbi superiore anno, charissime Adame, Pindarum, lyricorum principem succisiuis horis uertissem, neque temerarium neque εὔηθες me ratus sum quicquam admittere, si qualescumque labores illos meos in lucem publicarem. Primum, ut, quia pudicum, religiosum, adeoque pietatis amantissimum uatem profiteri statuissem, facilius studiosi haberent quo Pindaricae phrasis siue dictionis difficultatem adsequerentur effugerentque. Deinde, ut iuuentuti copia fieret exercendi sese, uel in aemulatione uirtutum, quarum ut ubique eximium praeconem agit, sic nusquam non mentem suam iisdem imbutam ostendit Pindarus, uel declamationibus, inde sumpto argumento. Continent enim in uniuersum ii certaminum hymni aliud nihil atque genus laudis ἐπιδεικτικόν. Quandoquidem perpetuo uictores a genealogia, ab educatione, a patria, ab affinibus adeoque locis eo pertinentibus euehit ad sydera. Quorum locorum nexus et cohaerentia, dum nobis obscurior apparet, fit, quo minus Pindaricam agnoscamus mentem. Proinde tu prae reliquis mihi occurristi, ornatiss[ime] Adame, cui uatem hunc et pientissimum et clarissimum dedicarem. Neque ueritus sum Theologo poetam offerre, potissimum talem, qui uel a summo theologo legi mereatur. Praeclare quidem Horatius cecinit: Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari, ceratis Daedali pennis nititur.527 Vidit nimirum amplissimam diuini uatis maiestatem, characteris seu λέξεως praestantiam. Vt enim semper de diis, heroibus, principibus, uictoribus canit, ita grauibus uerbis antiquisque sententiis undique abundat, ut plane grandiloquentiae exemplum nobis in propatulo per ipsum exhibeatur. Atque utinam Demosthenis nunc eloquentia lucerem, quo laudum Pindari catalogum percensere possem. Enimuero sese ipse 527 Hor. carm. 4.2.1–3: Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari, | Iulle, ceratis ope Daedalea | nititur pennis.

156

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

in hunc ubique modum commendat, ut uel mediocriter erudito intuenti, inenarrabilia prorsum tanti uatis praeconia occurrant. Eam uero ob causam, optimum uatem, ornatissime Adame, prodire in lucem sub tui nominis patrocinio uolui, quo minus liuidorum stupidos dentes metuam. Nam si labor meus οὐχ ὅλως ἀνωφέλιμος uisus tibi fuerit, longum obtrectatoribus dixero “Vale”. Valla, dein et Volaterranus Homerum soluta oratione Latio donauere, non sine nullo studiosorum emolumento: et mihi uitio dabitur, si idem in Pindaro moliar? Sed utroque longe inferior ego. Quid tum? Aliquid me tamen, si non plura ac certe pauca praestitisse, nisi fallar, equidem arbitror. Sed ea de re aliorum esto iudicium. Porro, si studiosis haec non ingrata esse perspexero, Pindarum nostrum, propitio Christo, ita scholiis (citra quae fieri non potest ut penitius intelligatur) adornaturum polliceor, uti sperem nulli non apertissimum fore. Optime in Domino uale meque redama. Francofordiae, Anno M. D. XXVII. Chromio Aethnaeo curru, ode nona. (fol. 68r–69v) Dyodecas I. Cum tripudio procedamus ab Apolline e Sicyone Musae, ad recens conditam Aetnam, ubi apertae reuolutaeue hospitibus uincuntur ianuae, ad fortunatas Chromii aedes. Caeterum dulcem carminum hymnum pangite. Siquidem ad equis regendum currum conscendens, matri et geminis liberis carmen nunciat eximiae Pythonis aequalibus inspectoribus. Dyodecas II. Est uero prudentia quaedam hominum, rem insigniter gestam, adeoque absolutum bonum, non tacite humi recondere528: diuina enim carmina commodam uictori laudem praebent. Atqui per sonoram citharam, atque tibiam ipsam excitemur ad equestrium529 certaminum culmen, quae Phoebo posuit Adrastus ad Asopi fluenta. Quorum equidem recordatus inclytis heroem honoribus illustrabo. 528 recodnere Lonicer. 529 equestrum Lonicer (corr. 1535).

Appendix: 9. The interpretatio Loniceri

157

Dyodecas III. Qui tum quidem illic regnans, in nouis festiuitatibus, fortiumque uirorum coetu, et caelatis curribus fulgebat administrans urbem. Nam fugiebat Amphiaraum consilio temerarium, dirumque paternarum aedium statum, et ab Argo. Neque porro Talai filii seditione compressi in Argiuorum principum numerum ueniebant, quanquam meliore uiro lis componatur prior, Dyodecas IIII. Cum prioris mariti sui domitricem Eriphylam, (qui ueluti maximum pulchra caesarie praestantium Danaorum iusiurandum fuerunt) Oeclis filio Amphiarao uxorem darent. Deinceps et Thebas septem portis insigneis electum exercitum duxerunt, non iuxta fatalis augurii uiam: neque enim fulmine deiecto, Saturnius a charis suis festinantes progredi excitauit, sed ab ea potius temperandum sibi profectione submonuit. Dyodecas V. Perspicuum itaque damnum accedere festinabat coetus, ferreis cum armis equestribusque copiis. Deinde quum prope Ismeni ripas dulcem reditum † liberantes530 corporibus albicantem impinguarunt fumum, septem nanque pyrae robustos corruperunt uiros. At uero Iupiter Amphiarao uehementissimo tonitru profundam pectore terram dehiscere fecit, ipsumque una cum equis absorbuit, Dyodecas VI. Priusquam animo confunderetur, bellaci dorso, Periclymenis hasta percussus. Caeterum diuinis prae terroribus, et ipsi Deorum filii in fugam se conuertunt. Si fieri posset, Saturni eximie peritas hastas a Phoenicibus missas, pro morte et uita huius deuouerim quam longissime. Obsecro te felicem fortunam Aetnaeorum liberis diu tribuas. Dyodecas VII. Iupiter pater, ac urbis uirtutibus uulgus admoue: sunt enim illic † uiri531 equorum gerentes curam, et † animos532 rebus praestantiores habentes. 530 In mg.: deponentes. 531 In mg.: i. diuites. 532 In mg.: i. sapientes.

158

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Incredibile fortassis dixerim. Quandoquidem lucrum uerecundiam et honestatem suffurari soleat: quae uerecundia533 inquam gloriam adfert Chromio534, defendens ipsum tum in pedestri et equestri, tum nauali quoque pugnis, ubi periculum eius acris uirtutis fecisti. Dyodecas VIII. In bellis ergo † dea535 illa bellicosum eius animum instruebat, ut sese de Martis peste ulcisceretur. Iam paucos est reperire, qui instante pugna, nubem, adeoque hostium ordines a se manu et consilio uertere queant. Praedicatur quidem gloria Hectori florere ad Scamandri fluxum. At circa praecipitio profunda Helori littora, Dyodecas IX. Quem locum Martis transitum uocant, in prima aetate haec Agesidemi filio lux uisa est. Alia uero aliis diebus pleraque et in Epyri terra, aliaque in insulis facinora eius egregia percenseo. Porro e laboribus, qui iuste in iuuentute peracti fuerint, senii tempore dies ipsa transigitur. Sit uero nactus536 a diis admirandam felicitatem, Dyodecas X. Qui cum rerum copia gloriosam pariter laudem tulerit. Nam eiusmodi homini non licet porro alium felicitatis scopum pedibus suis attingere: symposium uero quietem amat. Et nuper uictoria parta, cum dulci augustior fit encomio. Porro confidens uox iuxta craterem editur, quem quidem craterem non iniucundum hymni praecentorem quisquam nunc misceat, temperet. Dyodecas XI. Ac in argenteas phialas uiolentum uitis filium infundat. Quas olim equi hero suo Chromio e sacra Sicyone cum iuste plicatis Apollinis coronis, tulerunt. Hanc ipsam illius uirtutem celebrare, ac non sine Gratiis multo uenerari praeconio, uictoriarum proxime Musas apprehenso scopo, exoptarim. 533 534 535 536

uerecunda Lonicer (corr. 1535). Chronio Lonicer (corr. 1535). In mg.: Pudicitia, reuerentia. In mg.: Sciat se nactum.

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

159

*10. The enarrationes Loniceri (fol. α2r–α6v) Imaginibus, virtutibus et literis claro, D. Iacobo a Tubenheym, Illustrissimi Hessorum Principis a consiliis, domino suo, Ioannes Lonicerus εὖ πράττειν. Callimachus, minime uulgaris poeta, eximie uir, gnomen cedro dignam inter alias plerasque hanc memoriae prodidit: Diuitiae sine uirtutibus haudquaquam aliquem felicem constituunt.537 Verissima profecto sententia: qua quid quaeso rectius ab elegantissimo Musarum sacerdote dici potuit? Nonne enim sanctissimum uerbum est Diuitiae sublatis uirtutibus homini nihil prosunt, non reddunt beatum?538 Siquidem ad summi omnium rerum conditoris imaginem formatus homo, immortalis et aeternus, caducis ac paulo post interituris bonis uere et feliciter exornari nequit. Etiamsi enim corpus laute alatur, splendide uestiatur, molliter curetur, animus tamen adhuc nihilominus impolitus et indecorus manet. Fingamus purpura quempiam amictum, auro et argento circumfusum, smaragdis, chrysolithis et amethistis et collum et digitos redimitum: uirtutem adime, quid differet rogo a pecore, a bestia, a bellua? Atqui, ut aer ni sole illustretur obscurus, tenebricosus et horridus est, non dissimilem ad modum humanum ingenium, nisi uirtutibus excolatur, stupidum, ignobile, Boeoticamque suem spirans perseuerat. Quod in Tantalo praesertim et Mida ingeniosissimi et prudentissimi rerum indagatores poetae pulchre, mehercle, adumbrarunt: qui quum nullo plane honesti respectu soli Pluto et auaritiae dediti essent, ignauorum regum notam apud posteros consequuti sunt. Ad haec doctissima Sappho, quae ob lyrices suae excellentiam decima Musa a Graecis nominatur, a Callimachi sententia non dissidet dum ait:539

537 Call. Jov. 95f.: οὔτ’ ἀρετῆς ἄτερ ὄλβος ἐπίσταται ἄνδρας ἀέξειν | οὔτ’ ἀρετὴ ἀφένοιο. 538 Pi. Ol. 2.53f.; Py. 5.1–4. 539 Sapph. 148 Voigt (e sch. Pi. Ol. 2.96f. [I 86,6 Dr.]).

160

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Opes citra uirtutis eximium decus Domum male incolunt, sin has commisceas Felicitas hinc summa belle nascitur. Et Isocrates: Sola, inquit, uirtutis possessio immortalis.540 Ecquur non merito sacratissimas has chrias demirabimur? Proinde quum tua humanitas, praestantissime Iacobe, et opibus θεῶν βουλῇ aucta et uirtutibus decorata sit, optimo in literas et Musas affectu esse a doctissimis quibusque depraedicetur ei intelligit, ni fallar, quali quantaue felicitate clarescat. Denique, quum praeter has praeclarissimas coelitus communicatas dotes, pietatis etiam amore flagret et ardeat praestantia tua, est quur ego cupiuerim te cum sanctis tum pudicis uetustissimi lyricorum principis Pindari monumentis et patronum et defensorem, uti claritudinis tuae fulgore in uestibulo operis choruscante aliquid luminis et gratiae meo labori accedat: habeatque Pindarus meus, imo tuus, quo sese aduersum liuidos aliquatenus tueatur: cuius encomion, quoniam subnexum est, hic lubens praetermitto. Amico ergo uultu ne dedigneris Pindarum oro et si quando per ocium uacat, eo simul fruere: eius enim te (scio) hymni et lyrae sonitus mirandum in modum oblectabunt. Recognoui priorem Pindari aeditionem meam; correctior et lucidior iamnunc in lucem prodiit, iuxta paroemian δευτέρων ἀμεινόνων. Enar­ ra­tiones adiecimus e Graecis scholiis et optimis quibusque utrius­que linguae autoribus decerptas: quarum ope Pindarum nostrum apertiorem fore quam antehac equidem spero. Qui quum ubique principes, heroes, uiros uirtutibus et literis insignes euehat, potissimum eos, qui quatuor Graeciae celeberrimis ludis Olympiacis, Pythiis, Nemeis, Isthmiis uictoriam retulere, cuius gratia uictores ipsi per uniuersam Graeciam clarissimi habebantur, ac perpetuus solius honestatis sit amator, honestissimo uirtutum pariter et pietatis eximio amatore te, unice, eximie Iacobe, gaudebit. Vertimus autem eam ob causam prosa oratione Pindarum, quod immensi propemodum laboris sit Pindaricas odarum leges simili uersu exprimere neque facile Pindaricae lyrae maiestatem et sublimitatem assequi aliquis posse uideatur; deinde, quod lyrica carmina non multum a soluta loquendi formula discedant. Si enim, 540 Isoc. 1.5.

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

161

ut Cicero inquit,541 optimorum quorumque poetarum, qui λυρικοὶ a Graecis appellantur, uersus cantu spoliaueris, nuda remanebit oratio et nisi tibicen accesserit, orationi sunt solutae simillimi. Curaui, quantum in me est, uti Thebanus uates, ni mihi nimium blandiar, a Latinis etiam intelligi possit. Superest iam uti praestantia tua, eximie uir, et poetam hunc et laborem nostrum exporrecta et hilari fronte suscipiat: quod si factum esse percepero, satis praemii pro sudoribus hisce meis reportasse arbitrabor. Sin quibusdam hae uigiliae meae displicuerint, nihil mirum, quandoquidem Somni et Noctis filius Momus ne superos quidem inculpatos relinquere queat. ἔρρωσο. Marpurgi M. D. XXXII. Pindari encomium a Ioanne Lonicero Marpurgi pronunciatum et uitam et insignia uatis decora complectens. Quia Latinis auribus autorem, quod equidem sciam, fere incognitum, iamnunc enarrandum, ut uires meae tulerint, recepi, Pindarum nimirum, ut lyricorum omnium facile principem, sic uetustate ac pietate iuxta apprime conspicuum, non indignum fuerit, magnifice domine rector, uiri et adolescentes iucundissimi, tanti uatis et laudum et uirtutum catalogum quendam texere, ut inde uel ad sempiternum neque ullis seculis interiturum eius poema inflammentur alacrioresque ad coelestem Pindaricae lyrae siue citharae sonitum audiendum (quo aquila in sceptro Iouis residens prae nimia dulcedine in soporem collocatur)542 studiosi reddantur. Quod ut rectiori ordine perficiamus, de lyricis poetis nonnihil primum dicendum: Pindari nostri encomion hac uia apertius illustriusque in medium prolaturi. Porro Latinae linguae cum decus tum gloria M. Cicero, Pompeium pro lege Manilia commendaturus, facilius orationis illius initium quam exitum inueniri posse testatur.543 Quod ipsum praesenti nostrae causae longe pulcherrime accommodare possemus. Tot enim tanta tamque uaria ad summas Pindari laudes facientia me circunstant, ut fere undenam principium ducam et ubi tandem finem quaeram, haesitem. Interim tamen hoc oratum 541 Cic. orat. 183f. 542 Pi. Py. 1.6–10. 543 Cic. Manil. 1.3.

162

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

impetratumque uelim, magnifice domine rector, caeterique disertissimi uiri, ut si quid minus ingenio perfectum industriaue elaboratum a me animis uestris perceperitis, boni consulatis. Nihil enim ostentandi causa a me proficiscetur, nihil arrogans, nihil tumidum, nihil nimium audietis. Veri studiosus nihil aliud conabor quam ut, si fieri modo poterit, et plane et succinctim amplissima Pindari praeconia ob oculos uestros ponam. Lyrici igitur poetae sunt, quorum poemata ad lyram sunt decantata. Lyra uero idem organon est quod Graecis κιθάρα et φόρμιγξ appellatur, ut ita lyra et cithara non diuersum ualeant, ut passim in Pindaricis est uidere.544 Cuius lyrae et uires et epoenus quum ipse Pindarus noster in prima Pythiorum ode celebret, auream et Apollinis et Musarum possessionem lyram nuncupans:545 eadem iamnunc praetermittere lubet, ne a maioribus longe, quae sequentur, diutius aequo auocer. Proinde lyrici poetae in uniuersum nouem celebrantur, ut haec senariorum trias docet. Dabitis autem, ornatissimi uiri, ueniam, si in Graeci poetae efferendis ornamentis Graeca etiam nonnunquam interseruero: λυρικοὶ ποιηταί εἰσιν ἐννέα· Αλκαῖος, Σαπφὼ, Στησίχορος, Ἴβυκος, Βακχυλίδης, Σιμωνίδης, Ἀλκμὰν, Ἀνακρέων, καὶ Πίνδαρος, hoc est: Lyrici poetae sunt nouem: Alcaeus, Sappho, Stesichorus, Ibycus, Bacchylides, Simonides, Alcman, Anacreon et Pindarus. Enimuero in Epigrammatis Graecis et fusius et uenustius hunc ad modum numerantur:546 Ἔκλαγεν ἐκ Θηβῶν μέγα Πίνδαρος· ἔπνεε τερπνὰ ἡδὺ μελιφθόγγου μοῦσα Σιμωνίδεω. λάμπει Στησίχορός τε καὶ Ἴβυκος, ἦν γλυκὺς Ἀλκμάν, λαρὰ δ’ ἀπὸ στομάτων φθέγξατο Βακχυλίδης· 544 In mg.: de lyrae et citharae discrimine fusius disputatur 2. Olympiorum ode. 545 Pi. Py. 1.1f. 546 AP 9.571.

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

163

πειθὼ Ἀνακρείοντι συνέσπετο· ποικίλα δ’ αὐδᾷ Ἀλκαῖος κύκνῳ Λέσβιος Αἰολίδι· ἀνδρῶν δ’ οὐκ ἐνάτη Σαπφὼ πέλεν, ἀλλ’ ἐρατειναῖς ἐν Μούσαις δεκάτη Μοῦσα καταγράφεται. quod est, si utcunque Latine reddatur: Thebanus clanxit certe ardua Pindarus, inde Suaue sonat grati Musa Simonideo. Fulget Stesichorus, dulcis post Ibycon Alcman, Oreque iucundo Bacchylides resonat. Suada et Anacreonta suum comitatur adestque Alcaeus cycno Lesbius Aeolico. Nona ne est inter Sappho lyricosque uirosque, Sed numerum Musis auget et haec decima. Plura de lyricorum origine, patria, parentibus, dialectisque adferre nec unius horulae celeritas permittit nec praesens institutum requirit. Nouem igitur Graecorum lyricos eximios uates, ex hisce quantum satis est, ni fallar, accepimus. Verum quis inter eos primas tenet? Quis inter illos omnium longe praestantissimus? Num Alcaeus, quem primo loco senarii superiores produxere? An ne Pindarus, a quo Heroelegii duxere principium? Difficile profecto est ullam hac de re sententiam proferre, quandoquidem de reliquorum lyricorum monumentis nihil ad nos usque deuenerit, neque quicquam de illis sit nobis traditum. At esto sane quod nihil aliorum lyricorum uiderimus, quid tum postea? Quum Fabius ille Quintilianus adsit, alterum illud eloquentiae lumen, qui nisi omnium insignia opera suis temporibus euoluisset, perlustrasset, contulisset, nihil de ipsorum scriptis iudicare potuisset. Age ergo, Marce Fabi, de lyricis mentem nobis atque sententiam ostende tuam, cuinam inter eos primas defers? Nonne Pindaro? Maxime. Sic enim literis tra­didisti: “Nouem uero lyricorum longe Pindarus princeps, spiritus magni­ ficentia, sententiis, figuris beatissima rerum uerborumque copia et ueluti quodam eloquentiae flumine: propter quae Horatius eum merito credidit nemini imitabilem”.547 Principem igitur lyricorum esse diuinum illum 547 Quint. inst. 10.1.61 (v. n. 470 above).

164

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

uatem nostrum euicimus. Nunc, ut et uirtutes et reliqua ipsius monu­men­ torum praeconia rectius attingamus, facilius id fieri non arbitror, quam si uitae eius uniuersam rationem ordine recenseamus, ampli­­tudinem hinc Pindari poematum, phrasis seu dictionis obseruaturi: tandem etiam quid ex Pindaro requirendum, quid commoditatis expectandum, quarum item uirtutum eximium praeconem agat, in propatulum collocaturi. Pindarus itaque genus suum ad Thebanos refert, perinde ac Thomas Magister digessit.548 Diophanti filius, ut illorum est sententia quibus plus fidei adhibendum uel, ut alii uolunt, Scopelini. Quanquam sint qui Diophantum et Scopelinum eundem esse uelint. Alii Pagonidae et Myrtus gnatum contendunt, a uico Cynocephalis. Heroici tamen uersus in scholiis matri huius Clidice nomen fuisse tradunt. Atenim, siue Myrto siue Clidice genitrix ei fuerit, Scopelinum patrem tibicinem extitisse constat: unde et ipsum tibia canere filium docuit. Verum, quum pater egregiam nati indolem animaduerteret, Laso Hermioni insigni musico tradidit, apud quem in lyrice institutus est. Aeditus in huius mundi lucem fertur Aeschyli temporibus. Qui, quum et literis et moribus praeclare ornatus esset, non reliquorum perditorum iuuenum instar corporis sui cum integritatem tum incolumitatem foedissimis scortis perdidit, non aliis detestabilissimis uitiis (quibus Graecia referta erat) obnoxiam reddidit: enimuero casto pudicoque matrimonii toro frui maluit quam illicita nefariaque Venere et corporis sui uires et facultates amittere, profundere, absumere. Duas e coniugio filias sustulit, Polymeten et Protomachen. Thebis proxime templum Rheae matris deorum demorans, quam uir longe pientissimus prae caeteris coluit. Post hanc Pana et Apollinem charos habuit, quos et carminibus suis celebrauit. Minor natu Simonide, Bacchylide senior. Xerxicae expeditionis temporibus claruit, ab uniuersis Graecis uehe­menter dilectus. Quid uero mirum? Quum et Apollini adeo in deliciis esset, ut partem semper immolationum, quae Apollini offerrentur, acciperet sacerdosque in sacrificiis palam inclamando Pindarum ad coenam Dei uocaret. Fama tenet Pana deum illum pastorium Arcadicumque hymnum, quem in eius gloriam Pindarus conscripserat, saltando chorumque ducendo in montibus laetabundum passim decantare. O excellens ingenium o summum et eruditissimum uirum, qui tam docta, tam celebria, tam inclyta, imo summa et 548 Vita Thomana, I 4,8–7,13 Drachmann (= p. 127 above).

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

165

praeclarissima aedere potuit, ut ab Apolline, a Rhea et Pane diis illis immortalibus unice diligeretur ac summo in precio esset. Fertur etiam Lacedaemonios, quum Boeotos atque Thebanos incendio uastarent ac depopularentur, a solis Pindari aedibus sibi abstinuisse, quod hoc trochaico ornatas uiderent: Πινδάρου τοῦ μουσοποιοῦ τὴν στέγαν μὴ καίετε, hoc est: Pindari poetae tecta incendio ne perdite. Quod ipsum et Alexandrum fecisse aiunt. Etenim quum ille Thebas incendisset, unis Pindari aedibus pepercit. Praeterea, quando acre odium inter Thebanos atque Athenienses uigeret ac Pindarus in odis suis O praeclaris urbibus constitutae Athenae cecinisset,549 multa ob eam rem pecuniaria suum afflixere Pindarum, quod Athenas suis hymnis adeo decorasset. Scripsit libros septemdecim: quorum quatuor sunt Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Suidas alios percenset, nempe Prosodia, Parthenia, Enthronismos, Βακχικά, Δαφνηφορικά, Παιᾶνας, Ὑπορχήματα, Ὕμνους, Διθυράμβους, Σκολιά, Ἐγκώμια, Θρήνους, Δράματα τραγικὰ, ἐπιγράμματα, ἐπικά, paraeneses tandem Graecis et alia quam plurima.550 Diem suum obiit Pindarus annos natus sexaginta sex, uel secundum alios octuaginta, regnante Abione, Olympiade octuagesimasexta. Proinde uitam Pindari breuissime, uti res tulit, enarrauimus, e qua tanti uatis magnitudinem et pietatem agnoscere licet: quandoquidem tantopere a diis immortalibus dilectus sit adeoque ei tum ab indigenis tum exteris sit parsum. Equidem iam reliqua a me promissa demonstrarem, nisi Philostratus Pindari quoque imaginem uidendam nobis proponeret et exhiberet: quam, quia graphice depicta est, ac blandula sui forma nobis arridere uidetur, primum consideremus, Philostrati iuxta de eadem sententiam audituri.551 “Arbitror mirum, inquit, tibi uideri apes adeo subtiliter pictas, quarum proboscis manifesta, mox pedes, alae, ipse habitudinis 549 Vita Thomana, I 6,1–2 Drachmann. 550 Suid. π 1617 (IV 133,6–9 Adler = p. 126 above). 551 Philostr. Im. 2.12 (p. 358,1–27 Kayser).

166

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

colos, non sunt inelegantes, postquam eos picturam perinde uarie ornauit atque natura. Nonne prudentia et coniunctione ratiocinationeque excellunt? Nonne in urbe Diophanti aedeis aduolant? Quid ita? Natus est iam Pindarus ut uides et ab ipsis incunabulis sic depictus, ut concinnus sit et ad literas ingenuam prae se indolem ferat. Deinde repositus est infans ad laurum et myrti ramos, colligente patre se sacrum habiturum filium. Hinc cymbala domi personuerunt in eius natali, tympanaque ab Rhea audita. Nymphas chorum eius natiuitatis causa ducere fama est atque ipsum adeo Pana saltare, quem ferunt etiam, ubi sese Pindarus ad poeticen conuertisset, posthabita saltatione sua, Pindarica tantummodo concinere. Porro simulacrum Rhea perfecit illicque ad aedem suam constituit sacram, quod lapideum esse puto, indurata illic et confirmata pictura et quid aliud quam rasa? Quin roscidas Nymphas adfert, quales sunt fontium. Pan ad rhythmum quendam salit, cui cum hilaris forma, tum nihil sub naribus iracundiae est. Apes intus puellum formant, mel infundentes aculeosque suos retrahentes, ne ipsum laedant, ex Himetto552 fortasse aduentant et liparis atque aoedimis. Etenim idipsum eas arbitror instillare Pindaro”. Haec de uatis nostri imagine Philostratus. Quis iam adeo et mentis et corporis oculis orbus iudicetur, ut non neque animaduertat neque clarissimi poetae praestantiam agnoscat? Quur enim apes, quur mella ei adfingit? Nisi quod mellitum eloquentiae flumen subindicet; deinde, ut ostendat poemata eius et phrasin talia esse, ut natiuam iucunditatem ac gratam nunquam non dulcedinem praestent; nihil fellis, nihil aloes, nihil ueneni, sed mella potius, sed meliphylla, sed saluberrima cunctis mortalibus alexipharmaca neque optimas non paraeneses contineant. Quemadmodum autem apes non obsunt mortalium generi, sed maxime prosunt excellentissimo admirandae industriae opere, cum fucis duntaxat et furibus acre illis bellum, sic Pindari poemata nullis mentem siue nefaria libidine siue aliis id genus uitiis, sceleribus, criminibus inficiunt. Non Lalages, non Lydiae, non Galateae, non Pasiphaes, non uana Iouis hic adulteria disces, uerum ex pudico lyrico pudicam etiam lyram, uel si mauis citharam audies. Quinetiam et in Deum et homines pientissimus uirtutes unice praedicat. Et quum in hocce quatuor certaminum siue ludorum circuitu reges, principes aliosque insignes uictores semper celebret, ubi ut 552 Himeto Lonicer.

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

167

praeclarissima quaeque docet ac in summis uersatur rebus, ita summo etiam dicendi charactere utitur, propter quem et Horatius nemini imitabilem existimauit. Pertinet quidem Fabii iudicium553 non ad solam hanc spectaculorum Graeciae periodon, sed ad alia eius pariter opera. Attamen in his ludis phraseos eius σεμνότης, grauitas et sublimitas satis sese ostendunt; augusta honestorum argumentorum tractatio ubertim etiam pro lyrices norma enitescit. Strenuos, mehercule, et forteis, aequos et iustos laudibus adusque sydera euehit, ignauos, effoeminatos, iniquos et iniustos ad Tartara usque protrudens. Interim de industria quaedam occultat, adeo ut et ipse non cuiuis sese planum fore putet dum inquit:554 πολλά μοι ὑπ’ ἀγκῶνος ὠκέα βέλη ἔνδον ἐντὶ φαρέτρας φωνάεντα συνετοῖσιν, ἐς δὲ τὸ πὰν, ἑρμανέων χατίζει, id est: Multae sunt mihi sub cubito in pharetra sagittae, quae intelligentibus tantummodo sonant et omnino interpretatione egent. Atque hanc uoluntariam Pindari nostri nebulam et absconsionem, difficultatem quis appellare possit, eamque ob rem me una cum Pindaro in discrimen uocare tali uel consimili apud iudicem obiurgatione in­ uadens: ecquae est ista melliflua uatis eloquentia, quaenam et qualis illa poetae grauitas, quod ex composito Heracliti τὸν σκοτεινόν,555 ad quem Delio, ut aiunt, natatore opus sit, adamarit? Et Graeci et Latini dicendi praeceptores τὴν σαφήνειαν καὶ ἐνάργειαν, hoc est perspicuitatem ipsam, summum dictionis lumen, maximam orationis uirtutem, pulcher­ rimum ornamentum, uno ore eademque sententia praedicant. Ab hac ergo amussi, ab hac Venere deflectens Pindarus eloquentiae flumine manare, cum a Philostrato adumbrabitur, tum a Quintiliano praedicabi­ tur? Τὴν σαφήνειαν requiro, τὴν ἐνάργειαν efflagito: ualeat cum umbris 553 Quint. inst. 10.1.61 (v. n. 470 above). 554 In mg.: Ode Olympiorum 2 [Pi. Ol. 2.83–86 (πᾶν ἑρμηνέων Lonicer)]. 555 Arist. Mu. 396b20; Cic. fin. 2.15.

168

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

et numeris Platonicis. Hic bona uerba, inquam, consideratius loquere. Si luce et perspicuitate poetam nostrum uacare demonstraueris, tum sesquipedalibus obiectionibus submittemur. Atqui, ni summis orationis luminibus exuberasset, haudquaquam inter lyricos concordi seculorum iudicio palmam esset adeptus nec hymni eius tantopere ab ipsis Graecis tot, tantis, tamque uariis laudibus cumulati forent. Enimuero, quum et terram et pelagus eius lyrae sonitus pertransierit, uti in Isthmiis planum sit, frustra quispiam huiusmodi causabitur.556 Nec se obscuritatem quaerere Pindarus gloriatur, uerum intelligentibus loqui. Si quisquam, inscitiae suae causa, multa in Cicerone non adsequatur, propterea elo­ quentiae laudibus non orbabitur ipse Cicero. Idem de Pindaro iudi­candum. Sapiens, uirtutibus clarus et eruditione facile ut alia sic etiam Pindarica obtinebit, quae nulla prudentia redimitus, sed nullis non uitiis inquinatus inertiaque deformatus nunquam sane deprehendet. Et sapientem et eruditam mentem Pindarus exigit, a qua intelligatur, et puram etiam. A quibus summis uirtutibus tametsi maximo interuallo absim nimirum sapientia, eruditione, mentisque puritate, studium tamen erga uos meum, imo et pia uoluntas (beneuolentiam enim et syncerum cum in uos, tum literariam rem publicam affectum meum haud satis exprimere possum) quod in hisce mihi deest, ni mihi nimium ad­blandiar, resarcient. Equidem excellentissima quaeque et omnia summa, quantum per ingenioli mei tenuitatem licet, perspicio. Apes igitur, ut unde de­f leximus reuertamur, mellifluum certe profecto dictionis flumen ostendunt. Quod autem solis Pindari aedibus parsum est, quid aliud in causa quaeso fuit atque eximium et sempiternum, nulli mortis generi seu inter­ necioni obnoxium monumentorum Pindari decus? Quorum fastigium dum uiuus ipse etiamtum perspiceret, ita in Nemeis de sese canebat:557 Οὐκ ἀνδριαντοποιός εἰμ’ ὥστ’ ἐλινύσοντ’ ἐργάζεσθαι ἀγάλματ’ ἐπ’ αὐτᾶς βαθμίδος ἑσταότ’. Non sum, inquit, statuarius ut inertia fabricem simulacra, in uno solo loco stantia. 556 In mg.: Isthmiorum ode 5. 557 In mg.: Nemeorum ode 5 [Pi. Ne. 5.1f. (ὥς’ ἐλλινύσοντ’ Lonicer)].

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

169

Quas Chares, Lyndius et Xenodorus finxere statuas Rhodi et Auernis Galliae urbe permansere immobiles: at Pindari monumenta per omnia orbis terrarum regna peruolarunt, adeo grata, adeo iucunda nemini non habita sunt. Quis et quantus sit Pindarus, qualis item certaminum eius quatuor periodus, exposuimus. De usu porro et commoditate paulum modo dicendum restat: de uirtutibus etiam, quarum praeconiis passim exuberat. Quid ergo emolumenti ei qui Pindaro nauat operam expectandum? Quid ex eo requirendum? Hoc sane, ut mentem ille suam praeclaris uirtutibus et sententiis ornet atque instituat, utque uel ex prophano, sed praeceptionum sanctitate claro, morum integritatem discat, ne morum et puritatis, quum tamen Christo nomen dederit, expers esse uideatur. Tum, ut epidictici generis rationem inde colligat. Et quamuis ex rhetoribus, qui ex professo ἐπιδείξεις tractarunt, discendum considerandumque sit hoc encomiasticon genus nec ex lyrico orationis (quae copia et dilatatione rerum et fluxu materiarum gaudet) formula adeo absolute sumi possit, quum lyricorum argumenta semper breuitatem subsidant. Nam et ipse de breuitate et ornatu suo pronunciat, dum inquit: Breuiter ornateque dicta intelligere sapientum est. Pulchre tamen et scite, quoad lyra permisit, ad epidictici filum omneis odas suas tractauit, una et altera generis suasorii demptis. Hac hymnorum oeconomia obseruata, facile est uidere cum schemata tum tropos, ubi prae caeteris saepius occurrent, comparationes, allegoriae, metaphorae, ut in quibus praecipue regnet, quanquam omnis generis figuris et coloribus luxuriet belle, iam tamen connumerata triade est frequentior. Ecquis dubitat haud uulgarem hanc esse commoditatem? At quarum uirtutum praeconem agit? Quarumcunque praeclarissimarum, nempe pietatis, iustitiae, temperantiae, fortitudinis, ut alias interim omittam. Nonne summa pietas est, quum canit hunc in modum in cithara sua: εἰ δὲ θεόν τις ἔλπεται τι λαθέμεν ἔρδων ἁμαρτάνει.558 Et in Pythiis: A deo omnes humanarum uirtutum conatus sunt: sapientes praeterea quique potentia et eloquentia magni habentur.559 Qua sententia quid quaeso sanctius, quid magis pium, quid θεολογικώτερον? Temperantiam commendat, dum sic ait:560 558 In mg.: 1. Olymp. [Pi. Ol. 1.64: εἰ δὲ θεὸν ἀνήρ τις ἔλπεταί ‹τι› λαθέμεν ἔρδων, ἁμαρτάνει]. 559 In mg.: 1. Pyth. [Pi. Py. 1.41f.]. 560 Pi. Ol. 5.23f.

170

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

ὑγίεντα δ’ εἴ τις ὄλβον ἄρδει, ἐξαρκέων κτεάτεσσι καὶ εὐλογίαν προστιθείς, μὴ ματεύσῃ θεὸς γενέσθαι. Hoc est: si quis sanitati diuitias coniunctas uel mediocres habuerit ac bonum nomen, ne porro Deus fieri laboret. Fortitudinem et tolerantiam periculosarum, uirtutum causa, rerum, dum ita canit:561 ἀκίνδυνοι δ’ ἀρεταί, οὔτε παρ’ ἀνδράσιν, οὔτ’ ἐν ναυσὶ κοίλαις τίμιαι. Omnium uirtutum et eximiarum rerum genera si percensere debeam, dies me citius defecerit, tantum abest, ut unius horae spacio perficiam. Quare satis fuerit has paucas denumerasse: reliquas enim suis posthac locis in ipso autore sumus obseruaturi. Summam autoritatem et lyrici huius poetae uirtutes, quibus ubique praefulget, hactenus pro uirili nostra in propatulo conspiciendas collocauimus, non ut dignum neque ut tanti autoris grauitas meruisset, uerum ut mea tenuitas potuit. Reliquum est, studiosissimi adolescentes, dum uirtutes perpetuo ab hoc lyrico commendari audimus eoque ipso ethnico, ut et nos minime desides, ad earum amorem accendamur, earum desiderio exardescamus, mentem nostram illarum formationi submittamus, ne inferiores in bono gentibus deprehendamur olim, quando cunctarum gentium conditor et gubernator cum omnibus et sin­ gu­lis rationem gestae uitae est initurus. Mores etiam et studia nostra ita instituamus, ut largitor omnis preciosae rei Deus Opt[imus] Max[imus] inde nunquam non praedicetur, futurae semper uitae memores. Sic fiet ut longe praestantioribus bonis, quam uirtutes sunt Pindaricae, exornemur. Pindari encomii finis.

561 In mg.: 6. Olymp. [Pi. Ol. 6.9f.].

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

171

Chromio Aetnaeo curru, ode IX. (pp. 375–84) Dyodecas I. tripudio procedamus Apolline e Sicyone Musae cad recens d conditam Aetnam, ubi apertae reuolutaeue hospitibus uincuntur ianuae, ead fortunatas Chromii aedes. f Caeterum dulcem carminum hymnum pangite: gsiquidem ad equis regendum currum conscendens, hmatri et geminis liberis carmen denunciat, ieximiae Pythonis aequalibus inspectoribus. aCum

bab

Dyodecas II. uero prudentia quaedam hominum, rem insigniter gestam, adeoque absolutum bonum, non tacite humi recondere: diuina enim carmina commodam uictori laudem praebent. Atqui lper sonoram citharam atque tibiam ipsam excitemur ad equestrium certaminum culmen, mquae Phoebo posuit Adrastus ad Asopi fluenta: quae equidem recordatus, inclytis heroem honoribus illustrabo. k Est

Enarratio In Chromii Aetnaei gratiam hoc encomion conscripsit. Hieroni Siciliae regi charus fuit Chromius, hinc eum Aetnae gubernatorem constituit: unde et Aetnaeus a uictoria promulgatus est. A Sicyoniorum Pythiorum uictoria Chromium euehit: unde Nemeorum uictoribus haec oda non est adscribenda, quum propter Nemea nihil quicquam Chromius laudetur. Deinde digreditur ad Adrasti Sicyonii regis (qui Pythia haec condidit) res gestas apud Thebas: postea a ciuium Aetnaeorum fortitudine et sapientia, a uerecundia et pudicitia iuuenilis Chromii aetatis, a fructu et praemio uictoriae. a. Cum tripudio procedamus. Ab apostrophe ad Musas orditur et ab epodo,562 qua rem ipsam uictoris aggreditur: hortatur enim Musas, ut relicto et Apolline et Sicyone Chromii Aetnaei aedes inuisant. b. Ab Apolline et Sicyone. Hoc est, a Pythiis ludis, qui in Apollinis decus Sicyone celebrantur. 562 ephodo Lonicer.

172

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

c. Ad recens conditam Aetnam. Recens conditam et instauratam ideo dicit, quod quum antea Catane nominaretur, ab Hierone renouata, Aetnae sit nomen sortita. d. Vbi apertae. Ab hospitalitate cum Aetnaeos tum Chromium laudat. e. Ad fortunatas. A felicitate rerum et ubertate Chromium laudat. f. Caeterum dulcem. Quomodo Musae debeant Chromii aedes accedere, pangendo hymnum, quo Chromius magnificat. 563 g. Siquidem. A causa, quur pangere Musas hymnum Chromio conueniat: nimirum ideo, quod curru uicerit. h. Matri et geminis liberis. Hoc est, Latonae et filiis eius duobus, Apollini et Mercurio, carmen nunciat uictoria sua. Quia Pythia uicit, quorum praeses Apollo, ideo et Apollo eius uictoriam, uirtutem et encomion et promulgationem eius admiratur. i. Altae Pythonis. Vrbis apud quam Pythia certamina quinquennalia aguntur, Apollo et Mercurius aequalem haereditatem adeuntes, sunt praesides, sunt spectatores, sunt episcopi. k. Est uero prudentia. Digreditur ad encomiorum excellentiam. Non cuiuslibet esse, rem insigniter gestam, pro decoro efferre laudibus. l. Atqui per sonoram citharam. Seipsum ad laudem uictoriae excitat. m. Quae Phoebo posuit. Periphrasis est Pythiorum ludorum. Adfirmat autem Pythia illa certamina instituta esse ab Adrasto, quum ad Clisthenem uerius referantur. Nam ita de Pythiis Sicyoniis Alicarnaseus, ut scholia habent, tradit: “Quum Crisaei in bello facile commeatum in mari adipiscerentur eamque ob causam obsidio proferretur in longius tempus, Clisthenem Sicyonium suis sumptibus instructa classe, commeatum hostibus in mari interclusisse. Cuius beneficii gratia, tertiam praedae partem Clistheni dederunt et ipsam Sicyoniam. Vnde et Sicyonii apud sese Pythia primum institueruntˮ. 564 Porro Sicyon Peloponnesi urbs est, Crisa uero Phocidis, ut Stephanus habet. 565 Hic ergo poetica licentia Pythiorum Sicyoniorum institutionem Adrasto regi tribuit. Quanquam Pindarum rectius hac defenderim ratione, a Clisthene quidem instituta Pythia, sed ab Adrasto in melius redacta. 563 magnifiat Lonicer. 564 Sch. Pi. Ne. 9, inscr. (III 149,14–22 Dr.). 565 St. Byz., s.v. Σικυών (σ 158 Billerbeck = p. 569,3–5 Meineke), s.v. Κρῖσα (κ 221 Billerbeck = p. 385,3–4 Meineke).

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

173

Dyodecas III. tum quidem illic regnans, in nouis festiuitatibus fortiumque uirorum coetu et caelatis curribus fulgebat administrans urbem. bNam fugiebat Amphiaraum consilio temerarium, dirumque paternarum aedium statum et ab Argo. cNeque ultra Talai filii, dseditione compressi, ein Argiuorum principum numerum ueniebant, fquanquam meliore uiro lis componatur prior, aQui

Dyodecas IIII. prioris mariti sui domitricem Eriphylam, hqui ueluti maximum pulchra caesarie praestantium Danaorum iusiurandum fuerunt, Oeclis filio Amphiarao uxorem darent. gQuum

a. Qui tum quidem illic regnans. Ad Adrasti Argiui Pythiorum in Sicyone conditoris in Argo discessum digreditur. b. Nam fugiebat Amphiaraum. Occupatio. Qui factum sit, quod, quum fuerit rex Argi, nunc Sicyone regnet: migrationem eius ab Argo Sicyonem exponens. Vt uero ex Argo Sicyoniam peruenerit, ex Herodoto scholia recitant. Sicyonii, inquit, consueuerant ualde in precio habere Adrastum. Nam ea erat regio Polybi. Adrastus autem Polybi gener erat. Sine liberis porro discedens Polybus, Adrasto regionem illam tradit. Menaechmus Sicyonius, Adrastum ab obitu fratris sui Pronactis filii Talai et Lysimaches filiae Polybi fugisse Sicyonem, et illic aui materni regnum accepisse, autor est. Dieutychidas Adrasti lactes et interanea Sicyone quidem esse ait, ipsum uero corpus Argi tumulo conditum, memoriae prodidit in tertio Megaricorum. Alii uero hunc Argi dominorum catalogum faciunt: Proetus in Argo primus regnauit: ibi quum filiae eius insania correptae essent, aduenienti Melampodi uati duas regni sui parteis, si gnatas suas curaret, pollicitus est. Vt ergo eas a furore liberauit, promissam accepit mercedem. Alteram partem cum fratre suo Biante partitus est, alteram dimidiam nempe sibi ipse retinuit, ut ita uniuersum regnum in tria scinderetur, in Melampodidas,566 Biantidas et Proetidas. Melampodis igitur filius erat Antiphates, cuius Oicles, cuius Amphiaraus. Biantis Talaus, cuius Adrastus. Proeti Megapenthes, cuius Hipponus, cuius Capaneus, cuius Sthenelus. Ortum est autem dissidium inter Amphiarai et Adrasti parteis, ut ab Amphiarao 566 Melampidas Lonicer.

174

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Talaus mortem oppeteret, Adrastus autem fugeret Sicyonem, Polybique filiam duceret: ibi quum socer eius Polybus sine mascula prole ex hac uita discederet, regnum Sicyonium genero Adrasto tradidit. Scite ergo, dixit Pindarus, fugiebat Amphiaraum Adrastus, propter dissidium aduersus Melampodidas: postea tamen in gratiam redierunt. c. Neque porro Talai filii. Id est Adrasti et eius posteritas et amici. d. Seditione compressi. Quam Amphiaraus regni nomine concitarat. e. In Argiuorum principum. Id est, Adrastus, Talai filius, cum suis non amplius Argiui regni partem retinuit, quandoquidem ob patris sui internitionem bellum et seditionem Amphiarai declinarit. f. Quanquam meliore uiro. Quomodo in gratiam redierint Adrastus et Amphiaraus commemorat. Meliore uiro, hoc est, ipso Adrasto, qui Amphiarao prudentior erat, lis prior inter Melampodidas et Biantidas orta componitur. g. Quum prioris mariti sui. Modum explicat, quo Amphiaraum reconciliarit Adrastus. Eriphylam, inquit, sororem suam, Adrastus in uxorem tradidit Amphiarao, ita lis est prior sedata. Porro haec Eriphyla priori marito suo causa necis fuerat. Posteriorem uero Amphiaraum fratri suo Adrasto reconciliauit. h. Qui ueluti maximum. Adrasti familiares per hoc quod Eriphylam Amphiarao matrimonio copularunt, fuerunt maximum iusiurandum: hoc est ‘metaphoricos’, res certa, fidelis, firma et perspicua. Summa, omnium reputati sunt celeberrimi, perinde ac iusiurandum firmum, sanctum et celebre habetur. a Deinceps

et Thebas septem portis insigneis electum exercitum duxerunt, iuxta fatalis augurii uiam: neque enim fulmine deiecto, Saturnius a charis suis festinantes progredi excitauit, sed ab ea potius temperandum sibi profectione submonuit. bnon

Dyodecas V. itaque damnum accedere festinabat coetus, dferreis armis equestribusque copiis. eDeinde, quum prope Ismeni ripas fdulci reditu liberati corporibus galbicantem impinguarunt fumum. hSeptem nanque pyrae robustos absumpserunt uiros. iAt uero Iupiter Amphiarao uehementissimo tonitru profundam pectore terram dehiscere fecit, ipsumque una cum equis absorberi curauit, cPerspicuum

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

175

Dyodecas VI. Priusquam animo confunderetur, bellaci dorso Periclymenis hasta percussus. kCaeterum diuinis prae terroribus et ipsi deum filii in fugam se conuertunt. a. Deinceps et Thebas. Expeditionem quam Adrastus et Amphiaraus aduersum Thebanos destinarunt, breuiter attingit, cuius in superioribus saepe meminit: acris enim clades fuit, in qua septem exercitus, ante septem portas, nobilissimi principes amiserunt. Huius belli argumento, Isocrates probat Athenarum urbis benefacta, quod et antiquiores sint cum Lace­ daemoniis, tum praestantiores benefaciendo. Nam Theseo Atheniensium regi ab eo bello Adrastus supplicauit, ut eius autoritate posset impetrare a renuentibus Thebanis fusorum in proelio corpora ad sepulturam. Citat eam historiam Isocrates in encomio Helenae, in Panegyrico, in Panathe­ naico, in Plataico et Archidamo,567 Aeschylus in Tragoedia, quam Septem apud Thebas inscripsit, ut Aristophanes in βατράχοις eam adducit. 568 b. Non iuxta fatalis augurii. Non bonis auibus ad Thebas profectos fratres illos Amphiaraum et Adrastum innuit. Iouis enim fulmine admonitos, ut ne proficiscerentur Thebas, sed domi potius suae apud charos et uxores et liberos manerent. c. Perspicuum itaque damnum. Fatis Argiuos principes restitisse testatur, quum Iupiter tonitru et fulgure eos absterruerit a profectione et interim ipsi perrexerint proficisci, periculum suum atque damnum accelerarunt. d. Ferreis cum armis. Hoc est, cum peditatu et equitatu. e. Deinde quum prope Ismeni. Ismenus Boeotiae fluuius prope Thebas, ubi exercitus Adrasti et Amphiarai cecidit et fusus est. Quomodo perierint apud Ismenum uel Thebas renitentes fatis enarrat. Quia Iupiter eam urbem suis filiis Hercule et Libero patre nobilitarat ac Thebas ea de causa charas habebat, ipse in hoc bello pro Thebanis et stetit et dimicauit eorumque hostes fudit. f. Dulcem reditum liberantes. Dulci reditu liberati siue soluti, hoc est prope Ismenum flumen cum Thebanis congressi ceciderunt, adeo ut ad dulcem reditum non porro accingerentur. Vel, reditum suum morte apud Ismenum persoluerunt. 567 Isoc. 4.54f., 6.99, 10.31, 12.168f., 14.53. 568 Ar. Ra. 1021.

176

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

g. Albicantem impugnarunt fumum. Dum enim fusi in proelio cremati sunt, fumus per pinguedinem albus est redditus: albus enim fere fumi color dum in propinquo cernitur, apparet. h. Septem nanque pyrae. Apud septem Thebarum portas, septem fusi exercitus: quos Adrastus Thesei ope a Thebanis recuperauit, ut paulo ante subindicatum, ad sepulturam: quae erat, quod ueterum ritu corpora cremarentur. Πεῖραν pro ἐπειρατία, fraude et dolo accipit, qualis est piratarum et marinorum praedonum. i. At uero Iupiter. Quod terra Amphiarao dehiscuerit, propterea quod cum Periclymeno conserere manum uoluerit, recitat. Fuit autem Periclymenus filius Neptuni et Chloridis filiae Tiresiae. Antequam ergo, inquit, Amphiaraus dorso suo Periclymenis tela exciperet, terra Iouis tonitru cogente absorptus est. k. Caeterum diuinis prae terroribus. Funesta est historia de expeditione Adrasti aduersum Thebanos, unde non multum laudis neque Adrasto neque familiae eius accedere potest: ideo apologeticam hic gnomen adiungit. Non est mirum, inquit, Adrastum et Amphiaraum non obtinuisse uictoriam apud Thebas: non enim cum hominibus, sed Ioue ipso pugnarunt. Quasi dicat: parum imo nihil decedit uirtuti Adrasti uel Amphiarai, quod succubuerint, caeterum nihilominus fortissimi et nobilissimi principes existimandi sunt. Si enim homines cum hominibus depugnassent, eorum uirtus et auitum iuxta decus enituisset. Adscribit posthac laudi Amphiarao, quod terra sit absorptus, nempe ne miserius et infelicius Periclymeni telo interiisset. aSi

fieri possit, Saturni, contumacem et arduam conflictationem per hastas a Phoenicibus missas, de morte et uita agentem quam longissime reiecero. bQuaeso te felicem fortunam Aetnaeorum liberis diu tribuas. Dyodecas VII. Iupiter pater, ac urbis uirtutibus uulgus admoue: [c]sunt enim illic uiri equorum gerentes curam, det animos rebus praestantiores habentes. eIncredibile fortassis dixerim, quandoquidem lucrum uerecundiam et honestatem suffurari soleat: quae, uerecundia inquam, gloriam adfert Chromio, defendens ipsum tum in pedestri et equestri, tum nauali quoque pugnis, f ubi periculum acris conflictus fecisti.

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

177

a. Si fieri possit. A rebus gestis Adrasti, ad uictorem redit, a patria eum extollens. Meminit autem belli, quod Hieron et Gelon cum ingruentibus cum in Italiam tum Siciliam Phoenicibus gesserunt. Si fieri posset, inquit, Iupiter, bellum cum Phoenicibus gestum, quo utrinque acriter depugnatum est, quam longissime reiecero. Verbum ἀναβάλλομαι, quod et reiicere et praeludere cithara sonat, hic ambiguam sententiam reddit. Si pro reicere accipitur, clanculum indicat grauiter adflictam Siciliam in eo proelio: estque precatio, ut Iupiter in posterum a tali acerbitate proelii ipsum uictorem Chromium conseruet. Sin pro praeludere, tum haec Pindari mens est: si possibile est, repetam funestum bellum, in quo de uita et morte certatum inter Siculos et Phoenices. Enimuero prior mihi sensus magis arridet. Est enim praeteritio, qua sese protelaturum id bellum adfirmat: et interim tamen breuiter, quum ad Siculos et Aetnaeos sese confert, eam belli historiam adducit. b. Obsecro te felicem. Εὐχή est et precatio, pro Aetnaeorum sequundiore successu. [c.] Sunt enim illic equorum curam. Ab equitatu et diuitiis Aetnaeos laudat: equos enim alere est opulentiorum. d. Et animos rebus praestantiores. A sapientia Aetnaeos extollit. e. Incredibile fortassis. Chromium a uerecundia et pudicitia, summa in adolescente uirtute, praedicat idque a contrario gnomes argumento ducto. A lucro et pudicitia et uerecundia uincitur, at uerecundia Chromii neque terrestri neque nauali pugna expugnari superariue potuit. f. Vbi periculum. Apostrophe ad Chromium. Ὀξείας ἀϋτᾶς, acris proelii. Spondeus et Bacchius. Dyodecas VIII. bellis ergo dea illa bellicosum eius animum instruebat, ut sese de Martis peste ulcisceretur. bIam paucos est reperire, qui instante pugna nubem, adeoque hostium ordines a sese manu et consilio uertere queant. cPraedicatur quidem decus Hectori florere ad Scamandri fluxum. At circa praecipitio profunda dHelori littora, a In

Dyodecas IX. Quem locum eMartis transitum uocant, in prima aetate haec fAgesidemi filio lux emicuit. gAlia uero aliis diebus pleraque et in puluerulenta terra, aliaque in insulis facinora eius egregia percenseo. hE laboribus

178

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

quidem, in iuuentute iuste peractis, senii tempore dies ipsa transigitur. iSciat autem se nactum a diis admirandam felicitatem, Dyodecas X. Qui cum rerum copia, gloriosam pariter laudem tulerit. Nam eiusmodi homini non licet porro alium felicitatis scopum pedibus suis attingere. kSymposium uero quietem amat. Et recenter comparata quidem uictoria, dulci encomio augustior fit. lAtqui confidens et alacris uox apud mcraterem aeditur, quem haud iniucundum hymni praecentorem quisquam nunc misceat. Dyodecas XI. Ac in argenteas phialas uitis filium infundat. oQuas olim pequi domino suo Chromio, e qsacra Sicyone cum recte textis Apol­ linis coronis tulerunt. [r]Hancipsam illius uirtutem celebrare, ac non sine Gratiis multo uenerari praeconio, uictoriarum proxime Musas apprehenso scopo, equidem ardeo. nuiolentum

a. In bellis ergo. Pudicitiam deam fingit, quae eum in bellis adiuuerit ut uinceret. b. Iam paucos est reperire. Gnome est, qua paucos consilio et fortitudine in rebus bellicis praestanteis reperiri adseuerat. c. Praedicatur quidem gloria Hectori. A comparatione. Hectori Chromium comparat et non Achilli uel Aiaci, ideo quod perinde Chromius pro patria atque Hector pugnauerit. d. Helori. Apud Helorum amnem Chromius Carchedonios fudit, Gelonem regem adiuuans Hippocratis successorem. Helorus, inquit Stephanus, Siciliae fluuius est, unde ciuitas eiusdem nominis Helorus. 569 Fluuius ille pisces habere dicitur, qui e manibus hominum cibum sumunt, ut Apollodorus Chronicorum suorum primo tradit. Haec Stephanus. Scholia de Heloro eadem fere proferunt. 570 e. Martis transitum. Ἀρείας πόρον. Dubium est num sit legendum, inquiunt scholia, ἀρείας πόρον, uel ῥείας πόρον, uel ἀρειάσπορον 569 St. Byz., s.v. Ἔλωρος (ε 76 Billerbeck = p. 270,3–7 Meineke). 570 Sch. Pi. Ne. 9.95a–c (III 159,13–160,18 Dr.).

Appendix: 10. The enarrationes Loniceri

179

per hyphen. 571 Atqui a Marte uel bello apud illum fluuium gesto per Gelonem et Chromium, flumen ἀρείας πόρον uocitatum, ueluti belli fluxum seu transitum probabile est. Taediosum hic foret referre, quomodo ex Timaeo confirment bellum hoc Hippocratem Geloorum regem aduersum Syracusas mouisse, cuius hipparchus uel magister equitum fuerit Gelon, Gelonis autem gener Chromius. 572 g. Alia uero aliis. Apodixis573 est, qua, quum bellicas uirtutes Chromii prope fluuium Helorum enumerarit, alia eius nunc egregia facinora quae cum continenti seu terra, tum mari peregerit, in aliud tempus procrastinaturum, ceu iam non uacaret nec temporis ratio pateretur, dicit. h. Porro e laboribus. A fructu uictoriae. Est autem sententia generalis, qua iuuentutis uirtutes et commoda senii dicit esse releuamina. i. Sciat se nactum a diis. Alia gnome est προσαποδόσει ornata, cui plures hactenus similes attulit, qua et omnes alios uictores, Chromium praecipue beatum esse pronunciat. k. Symposium quietem amat. Comparat inter sese symposium, quietem, uictoriam et encomium. Vt conuiuium iucundum, amoenum et dulce est, in quo desunt rixae, iurgia, contentiones et quies, pax et amica societas praesto est: ut inquam quies, pax et unanimitas et amica conuersatio conuiuarum ipsum conuiuium exornant, sic hymnus et encomium uictoriam et nicephoros decorant. l. Porro confidens uox. Crater ad finem uictoriae statuebatur, quo libabant diis et quo uictori gratificabantur, ut e scholiis colligitur hincque initium sumebat laus uictoris et conuiuium. Est ergo haec metaphora: misceat nunc et apparet nobis aliquis craterem, quo uictorem suae uictoriae nomine celebremus. m. προφάταν. 574 Pro prooemio et principio conuiuii et laudis accipit. Potest etiam simpliciter de conuiuii cratere accipi, ut sic hymnum et encomion conuiuali laetitiae adaequet. Quemadmodum dulcia miscentur colloquia circa pocula et crateres et conuiuae exhilarantur, hunc ad modum uictor Sicyoniorum Pythiorum hymno, quo uictor 571 572 573 574

hyphena Lonicer. Timae. FGrHist 566 F 18, F 21 (e sch. Pi. Ne. 9.95a). Apodioxis Lonicer. προφήτην Lonicer.

180

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

celebratur, gaudet et laetatur. Et crateris commodum meminit, quod amplioris uasis uini nomen est, παρὰ τὸ κρατέω, id est capio, quia ad phialas argenteas, quas ex uictoria retulerit, orationem sit translaturus. n. Violentum uitis filium. Periphrasis Bacchi. o. Quas olim. A uictoriae praemio. Sicyon enim Pythiorum suorum uictoribus phialas argenteas pro ἐπάθλῳ dabat. p. Equi hero suo. Hic Chromius ipse uictoriae non interfuit, sed currum misit, cuius gubernator domino suo Chromio honorem et decorem attulit. q. Sacra Sicyone. Sacram ideo Sicyonem dici scholia putant, quod super eam sita fuerit Merone, ubi deorum sedes sit, Hesiodo et Callimacho testibus. Verum quid obest eam sacram appellari, Pythiorum certaminum nomine? r. Hanc ipsam illius. Voto cludit encomium.

*11. The Aristologia of Michael Neander (fol. α2r–β6v) Amplissimis atque sapientissimis uiris d. d. Consulibus et Senatoribus in inclyta Lignitia, suis Dominis atque patronis colendissimis s. d. Pindarum lyricum poetam, uatem castissimum et sapientissimum, uetus­ tissimum quoque, clarissimi Domini, intelligere uolenti in primis opus est, ut prius diligenter cognita habeat quae apud bonos authores de ueterum Graecorum seu certaminibus, seu ludis literarum monumentis ad posteritatem prodita sunt. […] (fol. α2r–α6r) Eos nunc uiros, qui in his quatuor Graeciae ludis uictores coronam et uictoriam adepti essent, celebrat Pindarus, poeta lyricus ut suauissimus et sapientissimus, ita quoque caeterorum lyricorum facile princeps optimus, seu spiritus magnificentiam seu sententiarum grauitatem spectes, seu etiam figuras seu eloquentiam, beatissima rerum uerborumque

Appendix: 11. The Aristologia of Michael Neander

181

opt[ima] ubertate exultantem consideres, seu etiam antiquissimas et memoratu dignas Graecorum historias attendas, in quas dum studio quodam singulari ab ipsis uictorum rebus in singulis prope hymnis digreditur, uolens eos potius a progenitoribus commendatos efficere omnibus, quam non sine nota adulationis turpissima proprias ipsorum uirtutes laudibus uehere, quod tamen foecundissima breuitate super haec omnia facere solet fidelissime, multas historias antiquas a nemine similiter proditas recitat. Eas dum plerumque tegit et ornat fabulis, uel quia ueterum reges et principes noluerunt perferri ad populum sua quaedam arcana, uel etiam quia ex ueteri quadam consuetudine omnium poetarum dulci figmento, sub quo ueritatem aliquam abscondit, lectorem attrahere et attractum deinde retinere et docere uoluit, ut in uersu dicitur: Et prodesse uolunt et delectare poetae.575 Singulos et omnes diligenter instituit de rebus omnibus, de quibus doceri homines debent et quae in hominum communi uita euenire possunt, de Deo, de prouidentia, de pietate, poenis impiorum apud inferos et gaudio piorum in campo Elysio, seu beatorum insulis, in quibus uiuere et laetari canit Achillem, Cadmum et alios heroas, uiros praestantes, qui uirtute et uitae integritate gauisi sunt.576 Tantalum uero contra torqueri apud inferos asserit, perpetuo metu lapidis, quem capiti suo impendere et perpetuam ruinam minitari iusserunt superi, quod nectar e conuiuio deorum furatus esset.577 Sic Ixion impurus, libidinosus, ingratus et homicida, rotae impositus, uoce incessabili ad gratitudinem et pietatem erga deos, cunctos hortatur homines:578 Dum ipse miserrimus omnes Admonet et magna testatur uoce per umbras: “Discite iustitiam moniti et non temnere diuos”. 579

575 576 577 578 579

Hor. ars 333: aut prodesse uolunt aut delectare poetae. In mg.: Olympiorum hymno 2 [Pi. Ol. 2.78–80]. In mg.: 1. Olymp. [Pi. Ol. 1.36–39]. In mg.: 2. Pythiorum [Pi. Py. 2.21–24]. Verg. Aen. 6.618–620 (Phlegyasque miserrimus omnis …).

182

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Concionatur ubique hominum conatus sine Deo eiusque auxilio omnes esse irritos. Eam doctrinam crebro repetit et inculcare nunquam desinit: non ignarus scilicet quam soleant sibi placere homines in rebus secundioribus, admiratione propriae suae uirtutis, pietatis, fortitudinis, eruditionis et sapientiae. De fortunae quoque inconstantia uictores saepe admonet, ne elati uictoria turpi aliqua calamitate e statu dignitatis excutiantur, quem­ admodum Bellerophontes, postquam ornatus esset multis praeclaris uictoriis, diuina ope ex periculis, quibus obiiciebatur, semper cum gloria ereptus, cum coelum etiam ascendere cuperet, quemadmodum et Gigantes a Ioue deturbatus est.580 Nulla enim felicitas alias, etiamsi quis qualia Bellerophon et Gigantes non affectet, perpetuo constans esse solet581, nec ullus est hominum, qui non tristem aliquem diaboli morsum in uita senserit, quod Cadmi et Pelei exemplis conatur ostendere.582 Horum nuptiis, quamuis dii interfuissent, Musae quoque sua praesentia et dulcissima musica eas ornare non grauatae fuissent, tamen calamitates et tristitias graues effugere non potuerunt. Intra septa quoque et limites suae uocationis quemque iubet consistere, ne, quemadmodum Aesculapius medicus, dum mortuos uitae restituit, a Ioue coelitus fulmine percutitur, dedecus et infortunium quis­ que nobis similiter accersamus.583 Iasonem Thessalum et caeteros Argonautas praestantissimos eius temporis heroas, Herculem, Pelea, Orphea, Telamonem, Aiacis Telamonii patrem etc., exantlatis multis mari terraque periculis et laboribus, e Colchis aureum uellus in Graeciam adauctos opibus et celebri nominis gloria apportasse memorat.584 Eo quid aliud ostendere uoluit quam quod alibi dicit:585 Ἄπονον χάρμα παῦρους τινας εἰληφέναι.586 τῶν θεῶν δῆτα τἀγαθὰ αὐτῶν τῶν πόνων πωλούντων, 580 581 582 583 584 585 586

In mg.: 13. Olymp. [Pi. Ol. 13.84–92]. In mg.: 1. Nemeorum. In mg.: 3. Pythiorum [Pi. Py. 3.86–88]. In mg.: 3. Pythiorum [Pi. Py. 3.57f.]. In mg.: 4. Pythiorum. In mg.: 10. Olymp. [Pi. Ol. 10.22]. Ol. 10.22: ἄπονον δ’ ἔλαβον χάρμα παῦροί τινες.

Appendix: 11. The Aristologia of Michael Neander

183

ut in Menandri uersu dicitur587, nec unquam quenquam mortalium, decus, gloriam et opes ocio sine labore consequi potuisse. τῆς (γὰρ) ἀρετῆς ἱδρῶτα θεοὶ προπάροιθεν ἔθηκαν, ut in Hesiodi uersu dicitur.588 Rhodiis Iupiter aureum imbrem mittit coelitus, propterea quod primi Mineruae, postquam e suo capite prosiliisset, aram extruere et sacra facere studuissent.589 Iidem hoc etiam ob pietatem consecuti sunt, ut in statuaria insignes laudem facilem, opes et decus sibi pararent apud homines. Sic semper curat Deus Musarum famulos, pascit et alit liberaliter, dignitatibus quoque ornat et honoribus. Troiam narrat destructam funditus ob raptum Graecae mulieris Helenae.590 Thebas quoque obsidione pressas misere ob incestas Oedipi cum matre nuptias, cum cecidissent prius mutuis uulneribus Eteocles et Polynices uterque ex nefando matris et filii progeniti concubitu. Clytemnestram et Aegysthum obtruncat Orestes, Agamemnonis filius.591 Sic punit Deus incestas nuptias, libidines, adulteria et homicidia et redundant unius peccata plerumque in plurimos, ut in uersu dicitur:592 Πολλάκι καὶ ξύμπασα πόλις κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐπαυρεῖ. Exemplum fraterni et ueri amoris duo sunt Dioscuri. Pollux alternis mortalis esse expetit, ut fratri Castori quoque cum superis liceat uiuere.593 Bonos quoque fortitudine et uirtute praeditos filios Dei donum esse asserit, qui a Deo precibus impetrandi sunt: quemadmodum Hercules precibus apud Iouem impetrat Telamoni amico, ut fortis sibi filius Aiax nascatur Telamonius.594 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594

Epicharm. fr. 271 Kassel/Austin (PCG I 155); cf. Otto (1890) 180f. (889). Hes. Op. 289 ((γὰρ) sic Neander: δ’ Hes.). In mg.: 7. Olymp. [Pi. Ol. 7.34–51]. In mg.: 6. Olymp. In mg.: 11. Pythior. [Pi. Py. 11.36f.]. Hes. Op. 240 (ἀνδρὸς ἀπηύρα ex Aeschin. 2.158, 3.135). In mg.: 10. Nemeorum [Pi. Ne. 10.55–90]. In mg.: 16. Isthm. [Is. 6.41–54].

184

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Veteres suas iungebant filias, non cum opulentissimis, non potentissimis, sed qui uirtute praestabant caeteris: malebant enim uirum sine pecunia quam pecuniam uiri indignam.595 Id exemplum laude dignissimum quomodo nostri aemulentur homines scripsit Satyricus:596 Protinus ad censum, de moribus ultima fiet Quaestio. Et in uersibus Theognidis idem eleganter simul et docte indicatum est:597 Οὐδεμία κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀναίνεται εἶναι ἄκοιτις πλουσίου, ἀλλ’ ἀφνεὸν βούλεται ἀντ’ ἀγαθοῦ. In laudandis artibus et honestis omnibus literis, multus est semper et eximius: quas omnibus, magnis praecipue in orbe dominis, laudatissimas studet efficere et hac ratione a contemptu iniquorum et uulgi, hostis studiorum, uindicare nititur. Docet etiam ab initio fuisse semper qui aliorum honeste dicta ac facta dente Theonino arroderent:598 κακολόγοι γὰρ οἱ πολῖται.599 Feramus ergo et nos calumnias mitius, quando Pindarus, quo nihil fuit doctius, nihilque in literis et uirtutibus omnibus consummatius, suo etiam seculo, ubi minus tunc uitiorum fuisse credendum est (διότι παλαιοί, κρείττονες ἅμα καὶ ἐγγυτέρω θεῶν ἐγένοντο)600, morsum tamen Zoilorum et inuidorum κακηγόρων effugere nullo modo potuit. Et quis enumerare posset in breui hac charta eximias omnes uirtutes Pindari, omnes doctrinas utiles, quibus ad studium et uirtutis amorem inflammat homines? Habent in Pindaro quod cum uoluptate legant reges potentissimi, habent principes, nobiles et ignobiles, habent etiam quod ibidem discant diuites et pauperes, docti cum non doctis, senes quoque cum iuuenibus. Eos omnes pariter morti deberi crebro repetit. Solet enim Pindarus omnibus se accommodare hominibus, 595 596 597 598 599 600

indigam Neander; in mg.: 9. Pythior. Iuv. 3.140f. Theogn. 1.187f. (Οὐδεμία Neander: οὐδὲ γυνὴ Theogn.). In mg.: 8. Nemeor. [Pi. Ne. 8.20–34; dente Theonino: Hor. epist. 1.18.82]. In mg.: 11. Pythior. [Pi. Py. 11.28: κακολόγοι δὲ πολῖται]. In mg.: Plato in Philebo [Pl. Phlb. 16c7: καὶ οἱ μὲν παλαιοί, κρείττονες ἡμῶν καὶ ἐγγυτέρω θεῶν οἰκοῦντες].

Appendix: 11. The Aristologia of Michael Neander

185

Ἐν παισὶ νέοισι παῖς, ἐν δ’ ἀνδράσιν ἀνήρ, τρίτον δ’ ἐν παλαιτέροισι παλαίτερος γενόμενος, ut ipse canit de Aristoclida.601 Et quid uerbis opus est? In Pindaro, uate ut antiquissimo ita quoque suauissimo, sunt σεμνά, χαριέστατα, μουσικώτατα, καὶ μελικώτατα, θειότατά τε καὶ μεγαλοφωνότατα omnia,602 plena uoluptatis, gratiae et doctrinae utilis de totius uitae pia et honesta gubernatione, quae pleraque omnia eo603 cum gratia et dulcedine coniuncta sunt, ut et alliciant facilius et quod uolunt apud lectores impetrent felicius, quam ulla quaecumque etiam quorumcunque philosophorum prolixa simul et morosa cum obscuritate intricata commentaria. Hunc ergo nostrum uatem μεγαλοφωνότατον (sic eum semper nominare solet Athenaeus) merito maximi fecit ueneranda Antiquitas, ut magistrum et doctorem omnis uirtutis, honestatis et probitatis castissimum et probatissimum. Vnde eo nato Nymphas cum Musis, Pana quoque choreas duxisse, laetantes et gratulantes scilicet tantum poetam mortalibus, referunt philologi, et Pan, ut credidit antiquitas, sola Pindarica, posthabitis cantilenis omnibus, canere deinceps est solitus.604 Apes etiam in ore Pindari, in cunis adhuc uagientis, dum mella faciunt, natiuam eius uatis iucunditatem, dulcedinem et admirandam eloquentiam hominibus eo augurio monstratam uoluerunt, in qua nihil fellis, nihil aloes, nihil ueneni, sed mella purissima inessent, referta saluberrimis Alexipharmacis, optimis paraenesibus,605 quibus usque adeo referta sunt membra singula, ut merito quod Cicero elogium uersibus Euripidis tribuit, de Pindaro multo magis eum id dixisse intelligi debeat; uerba autem Ciceronis de

601 In mg.: 3. Nemeo. [Pi. Ne. 3.72f.: ἐν παισὶ νέοισι παῖς, ἐν {δ’} ἀνδράσιν ἀνήρ, τρίτον | ἐν παλαιτέροισι, μέρος ἕκαστον οἷον ἔχομεν]. 602 In mg.: Haec epitheta saepe tribuit Lyricis Athenaeus in Dipnosophistis. 603 ea Neander. 604 In mg.: Philostratus in Imaginibus [Philostr. Im. 2.12 (p. 358,14–16 Kayser)]. 605 Cf. Loniceri encomium fol. α5r (= p. 166 above): “nihil fellis, nihil aloes, nihil ueneni, sed mella potius, sed meliphylla, sed saluberrima cunctis mortalibus alexipharmaca neque optimas non paraeneses contineant”.

186

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Euripide ad hunc modum habent: “Euripidem quanti tu facias nescio. Ego certe singulos eius uersus singula testimonia puto”.606 […] (fol. β1v–β3r) Tot nunc, uiri sapientissimi, rationibus, tot laudibus Pindari adductus, tot quoque utilitatibus, quibus abundat in uerbis et uersibus singulis, motus, coepi cogitare quomodo eum authorem omnibus familiarem et parabilem etiam redderem, cum alias sine tali aliquo adminiculo parum inde ad adolescentes fructus redire posse mihi exploratum esset. Obseruaui ergo primo diligentissime, longo tempore, multo labore et studio, cuncta quae in Pindaro essent illustria, insignia, notatu quoque digna et in scholis, communi denique hominum uita, ad uarias res, euentus atque casus ac­ commodabilia. Ea postea excerpsi diligenter omnia, adiecta semper e regione uersione Latina: adscripta quoque ad marginem causa et occasio­ ne singularum seu historiarum seu fabularum seu etiam grauissimarum sententiarum, quae singulae instar Delphici cuiusdam oraculi haberi possunt, accommodatione quoque singulorum ad certos usus in uita, cum additione sententiarum aliarum lectissimarum similium, quae uel senten­ tias Pindari singulas illustrant, uel eundem usum quem Pindarica apud adolescentes habere possunt. Ostendi quoque scholasticis fideliter ubi et a quibus authoribus plerorumque, quae ex Pindaro secundum hymnorum seriem annotauimus, uberior uel melior explicatio petenda esset. Vt eum namque laborem recte et utiliter absolueremus, consuluimus ueteres scriptores, Graecos pariter et Latinos, longe optimos et rarissimos, unde deprompsimus cuncta quae et uiderentur optima et cum iucunda aliqua utilitate coniuncta. Multum uero in primis nobis profuit opera incomparabilis uiri Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, Germaniae unici decoris et splendoris summi et de tota Republica literaria praeclarissime meriti, qui in Chiliadibus suis, opere nunquam satis laudato et utriusque linguae tum Graecae tum Latinae thesauro preciosissimo, pleraque quae Pindarus habet memorabilia felicissime exposuit, quemadmodum ut prouerbia singula, in quibus Pindarica et citat et explicat, diligenter 606 In mg.: Ciceronis testimonium de Euripide, lib. 16 Epistolarum familiarium [Cic. Fam. 16.8.2 = E. fr. 906 Kannicht (TrGF V 2,914); Euripidem quanti tu facias nescio Neander: cui tu quantum credas nescio Cic.].

Appendix: 11. The Aristologia of Michael Neander

187

ad marginem adscripsimus. Reuerendi quoque praeceptoris nostri D. Philippi Melanthonis studio adiuti sumus in locis aliquot felicissime. Multum quoque nos debere fatemur doctissimo uiro Ioanni Lonicero, qui cum in aliis authoribus, tum etiam Pindaro praeclaram operam iuuentuti praestitit, quemadmodum et id porro facere assidue pergit. […] (pp. β4r–β6v) Valete, amplissimi Domini et Neandrum uobis commendatum esse sinitote. In ipso die gloriosissimae resurrectionis filii Dei Iesu Christi Saluatoris nostri, ὥσπερ μονωτάτου, οὕτω καὶ βιαρκεστάτου, Anni 1556. V[iris] Praestant[ibus] addictiss[imus] Michael Neander Sorauiensis. Aristologia Nemeorum Hymni Noni (pp. 314–17) Argumentum Chromium Aetnaeum a Sicyoniorum Pythiorum uictoria, quam curru obtinuit, euehit. Vnde Nemeorum uictoribus haec ode non est ascribenda, cum propter Nemea nihil quicquam Chromius laudetur. Deinde digreditur ad Adrasti Sicyonii regis (qui Pythia haec condidit) res gestas apud Thebas. Postea rursum laudat ipsum a ciuium Aetnaeorum fortitudine, sapientia et hospitalitate. A uerecundia et pudicitia iuuenilis aetatis, a fructu denique et praemio uictoriae. aἜστι

δέ τις λόγος ἀνθρώπων, τετελεσμένον ἐσλόν μὴ χαμαὶ σιγᾷ καλύψαι· θεσπεσία δ’ ἐπέων bκαύχας ἀοιδὰ πρόσφορος. a. Virtus et res praeclare gestae merentur aeternam laudem et per carmina celebres redduntur. Vide prouerbium ‘Honos alit artes’.607 b. Pro καύχης, genitiuus Doricus. 607 Otto (1890) 38 (170).

188

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship aVetus

apud homines sermo est, Rem insigniter gestam finitum laborem Non tacite humi recondendam esse. Diuina enim per carmina Gloriationis laus decet (uictorem). a. Virtutes laudandae sunt, sed non est cuiuslibet rem insigniter gestam pro decore efferre laudibus: obiter lyricen suam a contemptu uindicans. cκρέσσων

δὲ καππαύει δίκαν τὰν πρόσθεν ἀνήρ. c. Huc pertinet quod Euripides scripsit in Hecuba:608 λόγος γὰρ ἔκ τ’ ἀδοξούντων ἰὼν, κἀκ τῶν δοκούντων αὐτὸς οὐ ταὐτὸν σθένει. Et Plutarchus uersum hunc eiusdem sententiae citat sine autore in Moralibus:609 οὐκ οἶδεν ἡμᾶς ὁ βασιλεύς, ἀλλ’ ἑτέρους ὅρα μᾶλλον. * Syncope est pro καταπαύει. bMelior

(sapiens praestans authoritate) componit litem Aliquam inueteratam uir. b. Sapientia et prudentia lites et contentiones componuntur et pax conciliatur. cἘν

γὰρ δαιμονίοισι φόβοις, φεύγοντι καὶ παῖδες θεῶν. c. Diis difficile pugnare. ἀργαλέος γάρ τ’ ἐστὶ θεὸς βροτῷ ἀνδρὶ δαμῆναι: Homerus, Odyss. δ.610

608 E. Hec. 294f. 609 Plu. Moralia 533e5f. (ὅρα Madvig: ὁρᾷ codd., Neander). 610 Od. 4.397.

Appendix: 11. The Aristologia of Michael Neander

189

cDiuinis

namque terroribus In fugam se coniiciunt Et deorum filii. c. Non est mirum, inquit Pindarus, Adrastum et Amphiaraum611 non obtinuisse uictoriam apud Thebas, quia inuitis diis pugnabant, qui pro Thebanis stabant: quibus quam facile sit pugnare docent exempla. d Αἰδὼς

γὰρ ὑπὸ κρύφα κέρδει κλέπτεται, ἃ eφέρει δόξαν. d. Pecunia expugnat omnia, pudorem etiam et uerecundiam. Horatius lib. 3 Carminum:612 “Aurum per medios ire satellites, et perrumpere amat saxa potentius, Ictu fulmineo”. Vide prouerbium ‘Orci galea’. e. Αἰδομένων ἀνδρῶν πλέονες σόοι ἠὲ πέφανται: ut ait Homerus.613 dVerecundiam

enim (et honestatem) clam lucrum suffurari solet, Quae (uerecundia) affert gloriam (hominibus). d. Pudicitia et uerecundia a lucro uincitur. aΠαῦροι

δὲ βουλεῦσαι, φόνου παρποδίου νεφέλαν τρέψαι ποτὶ614 δυσμενέων ἀνδρῶν στίχας χερσὶ καὶ ψυχᾷ δυνατοί. a. Bellum regitur consilio et uiribus. Καὶ μὴν τὸ νικᾶν ἐστι πᾶν εὐβουλία: Euripides; ἐν γὰρ χερσὶ τέλος πολέμου, ἐπέων δ’ ἐνὶ βουλῇ:615 Homerus Iliad. π.616 611 612 613 614 615 616

Amphiarum Neander. Hor. carm. 3.16.9–11. Il. 5.531 = Il. 15.563 (σόοι: σῶοι Neander). ποδὶ Neander. E. Ph. 721 (καὶ μὴν: ἀλλὰ μὴν Neander; ἐστι πᾶν: πᾶν ἐστι Neander). Il. 16.630.

190

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship a Pauci

consulere, pugna Instante (ut) nubem Vertant a sese hostilium uirorum ordines, bManibus et consilio possunt. a. Pauci consilio et fortitudine in rebus bellicis praestantes reperiuntur. b. Κατορθοῦται γὰρ ὁ πόλεμος γνώμῃ καὶ χειρί· χειρὶ τῇ ἀνδρείᾳ, ψυχῇ, τῇ φρονήσει, ut ait interpres.617 Ἐκ bπόνων δ’ οἳ σὺν νεότατι γένωνται, σύν τε δίκᾳ, τελέθει πρὸς γῆρας αἰὼν ἁμέρα. b. “Est enim quiete et pure et eleganter actae aetatis placida ac lenis senectus”: Cicero in Senectute.618 E claboribus qui in iuuentute peraguntur Iuste comparatur Senectuti tempus tranquillum. c. Vita in iuuentute cum uirtute et laude peracta, senectutis leuamen est maximum. cἼστω,

λαχὼν πρὸς δαιμόνων θαυμαστὸν ὄλβον. εἰ γὰρ ἅμα κτεάνοις πολλοῖς ἐπίδοξον ἄρηται κῦδος, οὐκ ἔτ’ ἐστὶ πόρσω619 θνατὸν ἔτι σκοπιᾶς ἄλλας ἐφάψασθαι ποδοῖν. c. Honesta fama cum opibus coniuncta beatissimum reddit hominem. 617 Sch. ad loc. (III 158,26f. Dr.; om. alt. χειρὶ Neander). 618 Cic. Cato 13. 619 οὐκ ἔτ’ ἐστὶ πόρσω Neander: οὐκέτι πόρσω B, οὐκ ἔστι πρόσω D.

Appendix: 11. The Aristologia of Michael Neander

191

Ἐπὰν ἐν ἀγαθοῖς εὐνοούμενός τις ὢν, ζητεῖ τι κρεῖττον ὧν ἔχει, ζητεῖ κακά: Menander apud Stobaeum.620 dSciat

se nactum a diis Admirandam felicitatem. Si enim cum rerum copia Gloriosam pariter tulerit Laudem, non licet porro Homini (tali) scopum (felicitatis) Alium attingere pedibus. d. Gnome est, cuius plures similes habuit hactenus Pindarus, qua et omnes alios uictores, Chromium autem praecipue, beatum esse pronunciat. d Ἡσυχίαν

δὲ φιλεῖ μὲν συμπόσιον. eνεοθαλὴς δ’ αὔξεται μαλθακᾷ νικαφορία σὺν ἀοιδᾷ. d. οὐδέ τι δαιτὸς ἐσθλῆς ἔσσεται ἦδος, ἐπεὶ τὰ χερείονα νικᾷ: Odyss. σ.621 e. Res gestae sunt celebriores carminibus. eQuietem

uero amat Symposium, recenter uero comparata celebrior sit Dulci uictoria encomio. e. Comparatio est: quemadmodum quies, pax et unanimitas et amica conuersatio conuiuarum, ipsum conuiuium exornant, sic hymnus et encomium, uictoriam et uictores decorant.

620 Stob. 3.4.28 = Men. fr. 713 Kassel/Austin (PCG VI 2,352). 621 Od. 18.403f. (ἦδος: ἦθος Neander).

192

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship f Θαρσαλέα

δὲ παρὰ κρητῆρα φωνὰ γίνεται. f. κατιόντος τοῦ οἴνου εἰς τὸ σῶμα, ἐπαναπλέειν, ὑμῖν ἔπεα κακὰ καὶ μαινόμενα: Herodotus.622 Vide prouerbium: ‘Quod in animo sobrii, in lingua est ebrii’. f Confidens

et alacris apud Craterem uox editur. f. Homines bene poti, abacta omni tristitia, audacius et liberius multa et dicunt et faciunt. “Foecundi calices quem non fecere disertum? Contracta quem non in paupertate solutum?”, Horat. lib. I. Epistol.623

*12. The interpretatio Philippi (pp. 3–10) Magnifico uiro, nobilitate generis, sapientia et uirtute praestanti Domino Christophoro a Carolouuitz, Consiliario inclyti Regis Ro[manorum] Hungariae et Boiemiae, etc. patrono suo colendo, Caspar Peucerus Budissinus s.d. Necesse est discernere genera doctrinarum: sapientiae politicae, quae ex lege, id est noticiis quae diuinitus insitae sunt uniuerso generi humano, oritur, et sapientiae quae est Euangelii propria et Ecclesiam Dei a caeteris gentibus distinguit. De hoc discrimine ut iuuentus commonefiat, saepe et libenter recito Angeli Politiani sermonem de Pindaro et Dauide, prophanum quidem, sed communem ualde multis, omnibus temporibus, qui Ecclesiam Dei non norunt. Cum enim interrogaretur 622 Hdt. 1.212.2 (ἐπαναπλέειν, ὑμῖν: ἐπαναπλέει Neander; ἔπεα κακὰ: κακὰ ἔπεα Neander; καὶ μαινόμενα add. Neander). 623 Hor. epist. 1.5.19f.

Appendix: 12. The interpretatio Philippi

193

Politianus, quid de Dauidis Psalmis iudicaret: “Ego uero”, inquit, “illa antiqua poemata plena sapientiae esse uideo. Sunt ibi omnium uirtutum praecepta, sunt commonefactiones de Prouidentia, comminationes de sceleratorum poenis et promissiones de iustorum praemiis et protectione. Insertae sunt et ueteres historiae illius gentis et ut traderetur memoria uetustatis posteris, et simul poenarum et defensionis exempla in conspectu essent. Hanc sapientiam magnifacio”, inquit, “utilem uitae et moribus et figuras in sua lingua concinnas esse existimo. Et olim harmoniae additae sunt, ad ciendos animorum motus accomodatae. Sed in Pindaro”, inquit, “res eaedem dulcius narrantur et exemplis splendidius illustrantur”. Haec Politianus.624 Etsi autem in Pindaro, ut postea dicam, sententiae sunt de moribus et de poenis sceleratorum cum lege diuina congruentes, quia legis noticia nobiscum nascitur et similes quaedam sunt in Psalmis, tamen longe alia est Psalmorum sapientia. In hac deducimur ad uerum Deum, non ad commenticia numina et repetitur promissio de Filio Dei, Domino nostro Iesu Christo et de reconciliatione. Hoc discrimen Psalmorum et Pindari initio considerandum est. Postea cogitetur ad quid prosit Pindari lectio. Vt multi alii poetae et scriptores historici extra Ecclesiam, narrant alii alias historias et intexunt sententias et admonitiones uitae utiles, ut Homerus, Herodotus et alii, ita Pindarus magnam partem ueteris Graecae historiae recitat, Pelopidas, Argonautas, Aeacidas, quorum memoria praecipue delectatur. Nam ordine Aeacum, deinde Pelea, Telamonem, Achillem et Aiacem praedicat. Laudat et urbes et quarundam initia commemorat, ut Cyrenes et Thebarum. Athenas cum prae caeteris laudasset, irati Thebani mulctam ei indixerunt, quam Athenienses, cum nollent ei officium quod ipsis tribuerat damno esse, soluerunt. Legatur ergo Pindarus propter ueterem historiam, praesertim cum multa narret, quae nusquam alibi extant. Quaedam interdum fabulis inuoluit, ut cum ait Tantalum punitum esse, quod adhibitus ad deorum epulas ambrosiam furatus sit.625 Quo inuolucro significat aliquam religionis uiolationem. Bellerophontem, inquit, cum Pegaso uectus saepe uicisset magnos hostium exercitus, tantis elatum successibus, Pegaso 624 On this quotation v. Stichel (2007) 637–46. 625 Pi. Ol. 1.37–40.

194

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

uoluisse intra coelum uehi, sed excussum in terram delapsum esse et crus fregisse ac postea moerore extinctum esse.626 Qua pictura significat infoelices esse conatus omnium hominum, qui erumpentes extra metas sui loci, altiora concupiscunt, ut exempla ostendunt omnibus aetatibus. Antonius, non contentus dimidia Imperii Romani parte, cum solus regnare uellet, prorsus opprimitur. Et constat hanc salutarem admonitionem etiam diuina auctoritate traditam esse. Iubet enim Paulus eo nos excellere, uidelicet studio quietis et propria faciendi,627 significans ambitiosas naturas excellentiam quaerere contrario modo, scilicet studio turbandi ordinem gubernationis et erumpendi extra metas proprii officii. Historiis uero intexit ubique grauissima praecepta ac praecipue de iusticia et de modestia, de poenis iniuste rapientium aliena et eorum qui stulta ambitione moti non necessaria bella mouent. Grauissime inquit ἔα πόλεμον, ἔα μαχὰν χωρὶς θεοῦ.628 Ac saepe monet eas poenas non casu accidere, sed diuina prouidentia regi et ordine diuinitus sancito scelerum comites esse. Talis fuit uetus sapientia narrationi historiarum addere praecepta, ut uitae regulas cum illustribus exemplis coniungerent et homines perterrefactos mirandis ruinis potentium regum et principum ad iusticiam et modestiam flecterent. Virgilius, paucis uerbis mutatis, sumpsit a Pindaro sententiam, quae est uelut argumentum uniuersae mundi historiae:629 Discite iusticiam moniti et non temnere diuos Hanc uocem ait Pindarus assiduo clamore repetere cruentum Ixionem in rota iacentem,630 ut exemplo suae poenae discant homines esse Prouidentiam uindicem ac punientem scelera, nec laxent frenos caecis et errantibus cupiditatibus, sed semper intueantur lucentem in mentibus noticiam diuinitus accensam, quae discernit iusta et iniusta et seuerissime praecipit iusta et prohibet contraria. 626 627 628 629 630

Pi. Ol. 13.84–91. 1 Ep. Thess. 4.11. Pi. Ol. 9.40f.: ἔα πόλεμον μάχαν τε πᾶσαν | χωρὶς ἀθανάτων. Verg. Aen. 6.620. Pi. Py. 2.21–24.

Appendix: 12. The interpretatio Philippi

195

Aliquid in naturis non monstrosis conducunt ad regendos mores crebra cogitatio de uirtute, lectio et consideratio exemplorum et diligentia excitata lectione et uoce sapientium adsuefaciens animos ad curam frenandi immoderatos impetus. Et magis penetrat in animos talia scripta, in quibus dulcissime mixta sunt historiis praecepta; quod cum in Pindaricis carminibus splendidissime et suauissime fiat, nihil dubium est eorum lectionem bonis naturis ualde prodesse. Multa Dircaeum leuat aura cygnum, Tendit, Antoni, quotiens in altos Nubium tractus inquit Horatius.631 Quod uerissimum esse lectores animaduertent, cum uidebunt Pindarum, sumpta occasione ex urbis aut familiae alicuius origine, relicto humili argumento, uelut euolantem in sublimem aeneam regionem laetissimo cantu ueteres historias celebrare. Saepe igitur iuuentus hunc cygnum audiat. Saepe legat eius dulcissima carmina, quae omnibus temporibus gratissima sapientibus fuerunt. Alexander Macedo uulneratus agnouit militem Thebanum esse, qui procul magno clamore, quasi consolaturus Regem, pronunciauit uersum Pindari ῥέζοντά τι καὶ παθεῖν ἔοικεν.632 Nec arbitror tantum sono motum esse Alexandrum, qui Boeotiis communis erat, sed uersum insignem agnouisse. Nec uetuisset Pindari domum destrui in excidio Thebarum, nisi dulcissimis eius scriptis delectatus esset. Nota sint igitur et nostrae iuuentuti. Ac ut a pluribus legi et intelligi Graeca possint, Latinam interpretationem edidi, quae utcunque sententias reddit, omissis interdum epithetis, quae obscuritatem in Latina lectione allatura erant. Etsi autem hae tenues pagellae non sunt munus conueniens tanto uiro, cui propter sapientiam et uirtutem partem gubernationis reges et principes tribuunt, tamen, cum scirem te et inter caeteras res uitae necessarias tuendas gubernatori etiam complecti curam conseruandi literas et doctrinas, quae sunt nerui legum, religionis, disciplinae et multarum artium quae uitae necessariae sunt, 631 Hor. carm. 4.2.25–27. 632 Pi. Ne. 4.32.

196

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

speraui tibi non ingratum fore, si tui nominis mentio in hac editione fieret, praesertim cum eruditae antiquitatis et ueterum historiarum cognitione maxime delecteris. Teque oro ut hanc significationem mei erga te studii boni consulas. Id si non merentur hae pagellae, tamen Pindari nomini tribuito, quem iuniores auidius legent, cogitantes hunc ueterem scriptorem a te quoque magnifieri. Bene uale. Ode IX Chromio Aetnaeo (pp. 100–3) Ibimus cantatum ab Apolline Sicyonio, Musae, ad instauratam Aetnam, ubi patent fores hospitibus completae, ad domum Chromii. Exigite igitur dulcem hymnum carminum, propter uictorem matri et geminis fratribus et spectatoribus altae Pythonis. Est autem sermo hominum, non occultanda esse egregia facta. Sed congruit carmen honestis argumentis. Sed per uices citharam et tibiam moueamus, quae sunt fines equestrium certaminum, quae Phoebo posuit Adrastus ad Asopi fluuium: quorum ego memor magno honore celebrabo Adrastum, qui regnans in Sicyone, in festis et coetu fortium uirorum et curribus ornabat urbem. Fugiebat enim Amphiaraum audacem et seditionem domesticam ex Argo, nec erant domini filii Talai seditione oppressi. Sed litem sedat uir melior, cui dedit Eriphylen coniugem tanquam fidele pignus amicitiae. Deinde ad Thebas duxerunt exercitum non faustis auspiciis, nec Iupiter fulgur edens impulit ex domo stultos procedere, sed potius omittere hanc profectionem. Ad manifestam igitur cladem festinauit hic exercitus, cum aeneis armis et equis. In ripis autem Ismeni impedito reditu pinguefecerunt fumum, quia septem pyrae robustos uiros absumpserunt. Sed Iupiter Amphiarao fulmine diuisit terram, ut eum cum equis hiatu absorpserit, priusquam hasta Periclymeni percussus pudefieret. Nam in diuinis terroribus fugiunt etiam deorum filii. Si fieri possit, Iupiter, congressum cum Phoenicibus de uita et morte quam longissime remoue: tribuas autem diu tranquillam uitam Aetnaeis et da populo laeticiam. Sunt enim ibi equites et qui habent mentes quae antecellunt diuitiis. Dico rem incredibilem. Verecundia enim lucro expellitur, quae gloriam

Appendix: 12. The interpretatio Philippi

197

affert Chromio. Nam qui fuit miles eius in proeliis pedestribus et eques­ tribus et naualibus potuit iudicare magna fuisse pericula pugnarum, quia in bellis illa dea Verecundia armat eius animum bellicosum, ut pugnae malum depellat. Pauci autem possunt praesente caede deliberare quomodo auertant nubem, uidelicet hostilem aciem, manibus et consilio. Dicitur Hectoris gloria floruisse ad Scamandrum, sed prope arduas ripas Helori, ubi nominant homines Martis traiectum, lux emicuit Chromii in prima iuuenta. Dicam alio tempore alia eius facta in terra et in mari. Ex laboribus iustis in iuuentute fit senectuti placidum aeuum. Sciat se nactum esse a deo beatitudinem, qui habet cum diuitiis gloriam. Nam mortalibus non conceditur aliam speculam pedibus attingere. Tranquillitatem amant conuiuia et recens uictoria crescit molli cantilena. Vox est in conuiuio confidentior. Aliquis infundat hymni inchoatorem calicem et argenteis phialis uinum circumferat, quas equi acquisiuerunt Chromio et miserunt Apollini cum coronis ex Sicyone. Iupiter facito, ut celebrem hanc uirtutem cum Gratiis et super multas uictorias praedicem eam carminibus, iaculans proxime ad scopum Musarum.

*Bibliography

Pindar from 1513 to 1587 Editio Aldina = Manutius, Aldus, Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Callimachi hymni qui inveniuntur. Dionysius de situ orbis. Licophronis Alexandra, obscurum poema. Venetiis, 1513. Editio Romana = Callierges, Zacharias, Pindarou Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Romae, 1515. Praefatio Negri = “Praefatio in Pindarum poetam eminentissimum a Stephano Nigro in Publico Gymnasio Mediolani habita”, in Stephani Nigri elegantissime e grae­ co authorum subditorum translationes. Mediolani, 1521, fol. lxxixr–lxxxviiir. Editio Basileensis = Ceporinus, Jacobus, Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Basileae, 1526 (repr. 1556). Interpretatio Loniceri = Lonicerus, Ioannes, Pindari poetae vetustissimi, lyricorum omnium principis, Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Basileae, 1528. Enarrationes Loniceri = Lonicerus, Ioannes, Pindari poetae vetustissimi, lyricorum facile principis, Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Basileae, 1535. Editio Brubacchii = Brubacchius, Petrus, Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Francforti, 1542. Aristologia Pindarica = Neander, Michael, Aristologia Pindarica graecolatina. Basi­ leae, 1556. Editio Moreliana = Morelius, Guilielmus, Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Parisiis, 1558. Interpretatio Philippi = Melanchthon, Philippus, Pindari Thebani Lyricorum veterum principis. Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Basileae, 1558. Editio prima Stephani = Stephanus, Henricus, Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Caeterorum octo Lyricorum carmina, Alcaei, Anacreontis, Sapphus, Bacchylidis, Stesichori, Simonidis, Ibyci, Alcmanis, nonnulla etiam aliorum. Genevae, 1560. Interpretatio et commentarius in Nemea Sudorii = Sudorius, Nicolaus, Pindari Opera omnia videlicet Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, et Isthmia. Parisiis, 1582. Commentarii Francisci Porti = Portus, Franciscus, Commentarii in Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Genevae, 1583. Editio tertia Stephani = Stephanus, Henricus, Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Caeterorum octo Lyricorum carmina, Alcaei, Anacreontis, Sapphus, Bacchylidis, Stesichori, Simonidis, Ibyci, Alcmanis. Genevae, 1586. Commentarii Aretii = Aretius, Benedictus, Commentarii absolutissimi in Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia. Genevae, 1587.

200

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

General bibliography Studies listed in the bibliography Braswell has begun, but cited nowhere in the manuscript, are preceded by an asterisk (*). Abel, Eugenius (1884), Scholia in Pindari Epinicia ad librorum manuscriptorum fidem edidit. Pars II: Scholia vetera in Pindari Nemea et Isthmia. Berlin. Abel, Eugenius (1891), Scholia in Pindari Epinicia ad librorum manuscriptorum fidem edidit. Pars III: Scholia recentia, Vol. 1: Scholia in Olympia et Pythia. Budapest/ Berlin. Adler, Ada (1928–38), Suidae Lexicon. 5 vols. Leipzig. Arrighetti, Graziano/Calvani Mariotti, Giovanna/Montanari, Franco (1991), Con­­cor­dantia et Indices in scholia Pindarica vetera curaverunt. Hildesheim/Zürich. Arrighetti, Graziano (1977), “Hypomnemata e scholia: alcuni problemi”, Museum Philo­logum Londiniense 2, 49–67. Aubreton, Robert (1949), Démétrius Triclinius et les recensions médiévales de Sophocle. Paris. Babut, Daniel (1969), Plutarque, De la vertu éthique. Paris. Barker, Nicolas (21992), Aldus Manutius and the Development of Greek Script & Type in the Fifteenth Century. New York (Sandy Hook, Conn., 11985). Bécares Botas, Vicente (1985), Diccionario de terminología gramatical griega. Sala­ manca. Bener, F. (1945), Die Amphiaraossage in der griechischen Dichtung. Diss. Zürich. Chur. Berger, Hugo (1880), Die geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes neu gesammelt, geordnet und besprochen. Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam, 1964). Bergk, Theodorus (1843, 21853, 31866–67, 41878–82), Poetae Lyrici Graeci recensuit. Leipzig. Bernardakis, Gregorius N. (1888–96), Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia recognovit. 7 vols. Leipzig. Berve, Helmut (1967), Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen. 2 vols. (continuous pagination). München. Beschi, Luigi/Musti, Domenico (31990), Pausanias, Guida della Grecia. Libro I: Attica, Introduzione, testo e traduzione a cura di D. Musti, commento a cura di L. Beschi e D. Musti. Milano. Bethe, Ericus (1900–37), Pollucis Onomasticon e codicibus ab ipso collatis, denuo edidit et adnotavit. Lexicographi Graeci 9. 3 vols. Leipzig. Bickel, Ernst (1942), “Genus, εἶδος und εἰδύλλιον in der Bedeutung ‘Einzellied’ und ‘Gedicht’ (Zum Proömium der Ciris)”, Glotta 29, 29–41. Bietenholz, Peter G. (ed.) (1985–87), Contemporaries of Erasmus: A biographical regis­ter of the Renaissance and Reformation. 3 vols. Toronto/Buffalo/London.

Bibliography

201

Billerbeck, Margarethe/Zubler, Christian (2000), Das Lob der Fliege von Lukian bis L. B. Alberti: Gattungsgeschichte, Texte, Übersetzungen und Kommentar. Sapheneia: Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 5. Bern. Billerbeck, Margarethe (2006–), Stephani Byzantii Ethnica recensuerunt Germanice verterunt adnotationibus indicibusque instruxerunt M. Billerbeck et alii. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 43. Berlin/New York. Blum, Rudolf (1951), La Biblioteca della Badia Fiorentina e i codici di Antonia Corbinelli. Studi e testi 155. Città del Vaticano. BNJ = Brill’s New Jacoby. Internet: www.brillonline.nl. Boeckhius, Augustus (1811–21/22), Pindari opera. 2 vols. in 4 parts. Leipzig (II 2,348– 550 contain “Explicationes ad Nemea et Isthmia” of Ludolf Dissen). Braswell, Bruce Karl (1988), A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar. Texte und Kommentare 14. Berlin/New York. Braswell, Bruce Karl (1992), A Commentary on Pindar Nemean One with an Iconographical Appendix by Jean-Marc Moret. Fribourg. Braswell, Bruce Karl (1998), A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine. Texte und Kommentare 19. Berlin/New York. Braswell, Bruce Karl (2012), “Reading Pindar in Antiquity”, Museum Helveticum 69, 12–28. Braswell, Bruce Karl (2013), Didymos of Alexandria, Commentary on Pindar edited and translated with Introduction, Explanatory Notes, and a Critical Catalogue of Didymos’ Works. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 41. Basel. Bratschi, Max A. (1992), Niesen und Stockhorn: Berg-Besteigungen im 16. Jahrhun­ dert. Zwei Lateintexte von Berner Humanisten. Thun. Bremme, Hans Joachim (1969), Buchdrucker und Buchhändler zur Zeit der Glaubens­ kämpfe: Studien zur Genfer Druckgeschichte 1565–80. Genf. Brenzoni, Raffaello (1960), Fra Giovanni Giocondo Veronese. Verona 1435 – Roma 1515: figura genialissima e tipica della versatilità rinascimentale italiana alla luce delle fonti coeve e dei documenti esposti cronologicamente. Firenze. Bruchmann, Carl F. H. (1893), Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Graecos leguntur. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, Supplement 1. Leipzig. Buffière, Félix (21989), Héraclite: Allégories d’Homère. Paris. Bundy, Elroy L. (1962), Studia Pindarica. Berkeley/Los Angeles (repr. 1986). Bursian, Konrad (1883), Geschichte der klassischen Philologie in Deutschland von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. 2 vols. (continuous pagination). München/ Leipzig. Calvani Mariotti, Giovanna (1987), “Ricerche sulla tecnica esegetica degli scholia vetera a Pindaro”, in Interpretazioni antiche e moderne di testi greci. Ricerche di filologia classica 3. Pisa, 83–167. Cameron, Alan (1993), The Greek Anthology: from Meleager to Planudes. Oxford. Cammelli, Giuseppe (1942), “Andronico Callisto”, La Rinascita 5, 104–121, 174–214. Camps, W. A. (1966), Propertius, Elegies: Book III. Cambridge.

202

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Chaix, Paul/Dufour, Alain/Moeckli, Gustave (21966), Les livres imprimés à Genève de 1550 à 1600. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 86. Genève. Chamoux, François (1992), Pausanias, Description de la Grèce. Livre I: L’Attique, texte établi par M. Casevitz, traduit par J. Pouilloux et commenté par F. Chamoux. Paris. Chandler, Henry W. (21881), A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation. Oxford. Consbruch, Maximilianus (1906), Hephaestionis Enchiridion cum commentariis ve­ teribus edidit. Leipzig. Deas, Henry Thomson (1931), “The Scholia Vetera to Pindar”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 42, 1–78. Deubner, Ludovicus (1975), Iamblichi De vita Pythagorica liber edidit, editionem addendis et corrigendis adiunctis curavit Udalricus Klein. Stuttgart. Dickey, Eleanor (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. Dill, Ueli/Jenny, Beat R. (2000), Aus der Werkstatt der Amerbach-Edition. Christoph Vischer zum 90. Geburtstag. Mit einem Beitrag von Alfred R. Weber. Basel. Diller, Aubrey (1956), “Pausanias in the Middle Ages”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 87, 84–97 (repr. in Dieter Harlfinger [ed.], Griechische Kodikologie und Textüberlieferung. Darmstadt, 1980, 484–500; repr. in Aubrey Diller, Studies in Greek manuscript tradition. Amsterdam, 1983, 149–62). Diller, Aubrey (1957), “The manuscripts of Pausanias”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 88, 169–88 (repr. in Dieter Harlfinger [ed.], Griechische Kodikologie und Textüberlieferung. Darmstadt, 1980, 501–25; repr. in Aubrey Diller, Studies in Greek manuscript tradition. Amsterdam, 1983, 163–82). Dissen, Ludolf (1821), “Explicationes ad Nemea et Isthmia”, in Augustus Boeckhius, Pindari opera II 2,348–550. Leipzig. Drachmann, A. B. (1903–27), Scholia vetera in Pindari Carmina recensuit. 3 vols. Leipzig. Drachmann, A. B. (1925), Isaac Tzetzae De metris Pindaricis commentarius. Køben­ havn. Drachmann, A. B. (1934), “Zur Überlieferung des Pindartextes”, in Mélanges Bidez. Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 2. Bruxelles, 331–42. Egger, Emile (1869), L’hellénisme en France: leçons sur l’influence des études grecques dans le développement de la langue et de la littérature françaises. 2 vols. Paris. Egli, Emil/Finsler, Georg/Köhler, Walther/Farner, Oskar (1927), Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke. Vol. 4: Werke April 1525 bis März 1526. Corpus Reformatorum 91. Leipzig. Egli, Emil (1901), Analecta reformatoria. Vol. 2: Biographien: Bibliander, Ceporin, Johannes Bullinger. Zürich. Ernesti, Johann C. Th. (1795), Lexicon technologiae Graecorum rhetoricae. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim, 1962).

Bibliography

203

Fedeli, Paolo (1985), Properzio, Il libro terzo delle Elegie, Introduzione, testo e commento. Bari. Fera, Vincenzo (1997), “La prima traduzione umanistica delle Olimpiche di Pindaro”, in Vincenzo Fera/Giacomo Ferraú (ed.), Filologia umanistica. Per Gianvito Resta. Vol. 1. Padova, 693–765. FGrHist = Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker hrsg. von Felix Jacoby. Berlin, 1923–30, Leiden, 1940–58, 1994–. Fletcher, Harry G. III (1988), New Aldine Studies. Documentary Essays on the Life and Work of Aldus Manutius. San Francisco. Fogelmark, Staffan (2006), “The 1515 Kallierges Pindar: A First Report”, in S. Eklund (ed.), Συγχάρματα: Studies in Honour of Jan Fredrik Kindstrand. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Graeca Upsaliensia 21. Uppsala, 37–48. Fontenrose, Joseph (1978), The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Fraenkel, Hermann (1961), “Schrullen in den Scholien zu Pindars Nemeen 7 und Olympien 3”, Hermes 89, 385–97. Friedlein, Godofredus (1867), Anicii Manlii Torquati Severini Boetii De institutione arithmetica libri duo, De institutione musica libri quinque e libris manu scriptis edidit. Leipzig. Gaisford, Thomas (1848), Etymologicum Magnum. Oxford. Gamillscheg, Ernst/Harlfinger, Dieter (1981), Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. I/A (Großbritannien). Wien. Gamillscheg, Ernst/Harlfinger, Dieter (1989), Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. II/A (Frankreich). Wien. Gamillscheg, Ernst (1997), Repertorium der griechischen Kopisten 800–1600. III/A (Rom mit dem Vatikan). Wien. Gardiner, E. Norman (1930), Athletics of the Ancient World. Oxford. Geanakoplos, Deno J. (1962), Greek Scholars in Venice: Studies in the Dissemination of Greek Learning from Byzantium to Western Europe. Cambridge, Mass. Geanakoplos, Deno J. (1984), “Italian Renaissance Thought and Learning and the Role of the Byzantine émigrés Scholars in Florence, Rome and Venice. A Reassessment”, in Miscellanea Agostino Pertusi. Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi 3. Bologna, 129–57 (repr. in Albert Rabil [ed.], Renaissance Humanism. Vol. 1: Humanism in Italy. Philadelphia, 1988, 350–81; repr. in Deno J. Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West. Madison/London, 1989, 3–37). Geiger, Ludwig (1871), Johann Reuchlin: Sein Leben und seine Werke. Leipzig. Gelzer, Thomas (1967), “Eine Aristophaneshandschrift und ihre Besitzer”, in Κωμῳδο­τραγήματα. Studia Aristophanea viri Aristophanei W. J. W. Koster in honorem. Amsterdam, 29–46. Gelzer, Thomas (1981), “Pindarverständnis und Pindarübersetzung im deutschen Sprach­bereich vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert”, in Walther Killy (ed.), Geschich­ te des Textverständnisses am Beispiel von Pindar und Horaz. München, 81–115. Gentili, Bruno (1958), Anacreonte, Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione, studio sui frammenti papiracei. Lyricorum Graecorum quae exstant II, 3. Roma.

204

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Gerber, Douglas E. (1976), Emendations in Pindar 1513–1972. Amsterdam. Gerber, Douglas E. (1985), “Emendations in the Odes of Pindar: An Historical Analysis”, in André Hurst (ed.), Pindare. Huit exposés suivis de discussions. Entre­tiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 31. Vandœuvres-Genève, 1–32. Gerber, Douglas E. (1989–90), “Pindar and Bacchylides 1934–1987”, Lustrum 31, 1989, 97–269; 32, 1990, 7–98, 283–92. Grafton, Anthony (1977), “The Scholarship of Poliziano and its Context”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 40, 150–88. Grafton, Anthony (1991), Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1400–1800. Cambridge, Mass./London. Green, R. P. H. (1999), Decimi Magni Ausonii opera recognovit brevique annotatione critica instruxit. Oxford. Griffin, Audrey (1979), “A new Fragment of Dionysios of Halikarnassos ὁ μουσικός”, Historia 28, 241–46. Grossmann, Maria (1975), Humanism in Wittenberg 1485–1517. Bibliotheca humanistica et reformatorica 11. Nieuwkoop. Gundlach, Franz (1927), Catalogus professorum Academiae Marburgensis. Vol. 1: Die akademischen Lehrer der Philipps-Universität in Marburg von 1527 bis 1910. Marburg. Günther, Hans C. (1998), Ein neuer metrischer Traktat und das Studium der pindarischen Metrik in der Philologie der Paläologenzeit. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 180. Leiden. Haag, Eugène/Haag, Emilie (21877–88), La France protestante. 6 vols. Paris. Haller, Albert (1901), Benedikt Marti (Aretius). Ein bernischer Gelehrter und Forscher des 16. Jahrhunderts. Neujahrsblatt herausgegeben vom Historischen Verein des Kantons Bern für 1902. Bern. Hansen, Peter Allan (2005), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, post Kurt Latte continuans recensuit et emendavit. Vol. 3: Π–Σ. Berlin/New York. Harder, Annette (2012), Callimachus, Aetia, Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. 2 vols. Oxford. Hardie, C. (21966), Vitae Vergilianae Antiquae. Oxford. Harding, Phillip (2006), Didymos on Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford. Harlfinger, Dieter (ed.) (1989), Graecogermania. Griechischstudien deutscher Huma­ nisten: Die Editionstätigkeit der Griechen in der italienischen Renaissance (1469–1523). Ausstellungskataloge der Herzog August Bibliothek 59. Weinheim/ New York. Harris, Edward M. (1989), “More Chalcenteric Negligence”, Classical Philology 84, 36–44. Hartfelder, Karl (1889), Philipp Melanchthon als Praeceptor Germaniae. Monumenta Germaniae paedagogica 7. Berlin. Hartmann, Alfred/Jenny, Beat R./Dill, Ueli (1942–2010), Die Amerbachkorrespon­ denz. 11 vols. Basel.

Bibliography

205

Heath, Malcolm (1986), “The origins of modern Pindaric criticism”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 106, 85–98. Helm, Rudolf (31984), Eusebius, Werke. Bd. 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Leipzig. Henri Estienne. Cahiers V. L. Saulnier 5. Paris, 1988. Herman, Gabriel (1987), Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge. Heyne, Christian G. (1773–74, 21798–99, 31824), Pindari carmina. Göttingen/London. Hieronymus, Frank (1992), Ἐν Βασιλείᾳ πόλει τῆς Γερμανίας: Griechischer Geist aus Basler Pressen. Ausstellungskatalog. Basel. Hieronymus, Frank (1997), 1488 Petri – Schwabe 1988: eine traditionsreiche Basler Offizin im Spiegel ihrer frühen Drucke. 2 vols. Basel. Holzberg, Niklas (1981), Willibald Pirckheimer: Griechischer Humanismus in Deutsch­land. München. Hopfner, Theodor (1912), Thomas Magister, Demetrios Triklinios, Manuel Moscho­ poulos. Wien. Hubbard, Thomas K. (1992), “Remaking Myth and Rewriting History: Cult Tradi­­tion in Pindar’s Ninth Nemean”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94, 77–111. Hug, Arnold (1874), Aufführung einer griechischen Komödie in Zürich am 1. Januar 1531. Zürich. Hummel, Pascale (1997), Philologica lyrica: La poésie lyrique grecque au miroir de l’érudition philologique de l’antiquité à la Renaissance. Bibliothèque d’études classiques 12. Louvain/Paris. Hunger, Herbert (1978), Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. Hand­ buch der Altertumswissenschaft 12,5. 2 vols. München. Huss, Werner (1985), Geschichte der Karthager. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 3,8. München. Hutton, James (1935), The Greek Anthology in Italy to the Year 1800. Cornell Studies in English 23. Ithaca, N. Y. Irigoin, Jean/Mondrain, Brigitte (1990), “Marc Mousouros et Pindare”, in Dieter Harlfinger (ed.), Φιλοφρόνημα: Festschrift für Martin Sicherl zum 75. Geburts­ tag. Paderborn, 253–62. Irigoin, Jean (1952), Histoire du texte de Pindare. Études et Commentaires 13. Paris. Irigoin, Jean (1958), Les scholies métriques de Pindare. Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 310. Paris. Irigoin, Jean (1974), Pindare, Olympiques: Reproduction du Vaticanus Graecus 1312 (Fol. 1–95) avec une introduction. Città del Vaticano. *Irmscher, J. (1981), “Pindar in Byzanz”, in Ernst G. Schmidt (ed.), Aischylos und Pindar: Studien zu Werk und Nachwirkung. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 19. Berlin, 296–302. Jannaris, Antonius N. (1897), An Historical Greek Grammar chiefly of the Attic Dialect as written and spoken from classical Antiquity down to the present time, founded upon the ancient texts, inscriptions, papyri and present popular Greek. London (repr. Hildesheim, 1968).

206

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Kambylis, Athanasios (1991a), Eustathios von Thessalonike, Prooimion zum Pindar­ kommentar: Einleitung, kritischer Text, Indices. Göttingen. Kambylis, Athanasios (1991b), Eustathios über Pindars Epinikiendichtung: Ein Kapitel der klassischen Philologie in Byzanz. Göttingen. Kannicht, Richard (1969), Euripides, Helena. 2 vols. Heidelberg. Kayser, C. L. (1870–71), Flavii Philostrati opera auctiora edidit. 2 vols. Leipzig. Keil, T. Heinrich (1874), Scriptores artis metricae. Grammatici Latini VI. Hildesheim (repr. Leipzig, 1923; Hildesheim, 1961). Kindstrand, Jan F. (1990), Plutarchi De Homero. Leipzig. Knös, Börje (1945), Un ambassadeur de l’hellénisme: Janus Lascaris et la tradition gréco-byzantine dans l’humanisme français. Uppsala/Stockholm/Paris. Koster, Willem J. W. (1957), Autour d’un manuscrit d’Aristophane écrit par Démétrius Triclinius. Groningen. Krchňák, Aloysius (1960), De vita et operibus Ioannis de Ragusio. Roma. Kristeller, Paul O. (1969), Der italienische Humanismus und seine Bedeutung. Basel. Kühner, Raphael/Gerth, Bernhard (31898–1904), Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. 2 vols. Hannover/Leipzig. Lefkowitz, Mary R. (1975), “The Influential Fictions in the Scholia to Pindar’s Pythian 8”, Classical Philology 70, 173–85 (repr. in Mary R. Lefkowitz, First-Person Fictions. Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’. Oxford, 1991, 72–88). Lefkowitz, Mary R. (1985a), “The Pindar Scholia”, American Journal of Philology 106, 269–82 (repr. in Mary R. Lefkowitz, First-Person Fictions. Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’. Oxford, 1991, 147–60). Lefkowitz, Mary R. (1985b), “Pindar’s Pythian V”, in André Hurst (ed.), Pindare. Huit exposés suivis de discussions. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 31. Vandœuvres-Genève, 33–63 (repr. in Mary R. Lefkowitz, First-Person Fictions. Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’. Oxford, 1991, 169–90). Lefkowitz, Mary R. (22012), The Lives of the Greek Poets. Baltimore (first ed.: London, 1981). Lehrs, Karl (1873), Die Pindarscholien. Eine kritische Untersuchung zur philologischen Quellenkunde. Leipzig. Leuker, Tobias (1997), Angelo Poliziano: Dichter, Redner, Stratege. Eine Analyse der Fabula di Orpheo und ausgewählter lateinischer Werke des Florentiner Humanisten. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 98. Stuttgart. Leutsch, Ernst L. von/Schneidewin, Friedrich G. (1839–51), Corpus Paroemio­ graphorum Graecorum. 2 vols. Göttingen (repr. Hildesheim, 1965). Lobel, Edgar/Page, Denys (1955), Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta. Oxford. Lowry, Martin (1979), The World of Aldus Manutius: Business and Scholarship in Renaissance Venice. Oxford. Ludwig, Walther (1975), Die Fabula Penia des Rinucius Aretinus, herausgegeben, eingelei­tet und kommentiert. München. Ludwig, Walther (1998), Hellas in Deutschland: Darstellungen der Gräzistik im deutsch­sprachigen Raum aus dem 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Hamburg.

Bibliography

207

MacPhail, John A. (2011), Porphyry’s Homeric Questions on the Iliad. Berlin. Maehler, Herwig (1986), “Literarische Texte unter Ausschluss der christlichen: Lyrik”, Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 32, 79–85. Maehler, Hervicus (1989), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis edidit. Pars II: Fragmenta. Leipzig (corr. repr. of Snell, Bruno/Maehler, Hervicus, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis. Pars II: Fragmenta. Leipzig, 1975). Maïer, Ida (1965), Les manuscrits d’Ange Politien. Catalogue descriptif, avec dixneuf documents inédits en appendice. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 70. Genève. Maïer, Ida (1966), Ange Politien: La formation d’un poète humaniste 1469–1480. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 81. Genève. Maillard, Jean-François/Kecskeméti, Judit/Portalier, Monique (1995), L’Europe des humanistes (XIVe –XVIIe siècles). Paris. Manoussakas, M./Staïkos, C. (1988), L’activité éditoriale des Grecs pendant la Renais­sance: De l’Italie à Genève, XVe –XVIe siècles. Exposition à la Biblio­ thèque publique et universitaire de Genève, 19 octobre–20 décembre 1988. Athènes. *Matthaios, Stephanos/Montanari, Franco/Rengakos, Antonios (ed.) (2011), Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts. Trends in Classics, Supplementary Volumes 8. Berlin/New York. Matthes, Dieter (1962), Hermagorae Temnitae testimonia et fragmenta: adiunctis et Hermagorae cuiusdam discipuli Theodori Gadarei et Hermagorae minoris fragmentis. Leipzig. Mayser, Edwin (1934), Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Vol. II 3: Satzlehre. Berlin/Leipzig. Meier, Eugen A./Pfister-Burkhalter, Margarete/Schmid, Markus (1966), Andreas Cratander: Ein Basler Drucker und Verleger der Reformationszeit. Basel. Meineke, August (1849), Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt. Berlin (repr. Graz, 1958; Chicago, 1992). Meissner, Burkhard (1992), Historiker zwischen Polis und Königshof: Studien zur Stellung der Geschichtsschreiber in der griechischen Gesellschaft in spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer Zeit. Hypomnemata 99. Göttingen. Menge, Rudolf (1868), “De Marci Musuri Cretensis vita, studiis, ingenio narratio”, in Moritz Schmidt, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Vol. 5. Jena, 1–88. Mertens/Pack 3 online Database. Internet: web.philo.ulg.ac.be/cedopal. Meyer, Gustav (31896), Griechische Grammatik. Bibliothek indogermanischer Gram­ matiken 3. Leipzig. Mommsen, Car. Ioh. Tycho (1864), Pindari carmina ad fidem optimorum codicum recensuit, integram scripturae diversitatem subiecit, annotationem criticam ad­ didit. Berlin. Mommsen, Car. Ioh. Tycho (1865), Scholia recentiora Thomano-Tricliniana in Pindari Nemea et Isthmia. Frankfurt. Mommsen, Car. Ioh. Tycho (1877), Parerga Pindarica. Frankfurt. *Montana, Fausto (ed.) (2010), Aner Polytropos: Ricerche di filologia greca antica dedicate dagli allievi a Franco Montanari. Storia e Letteratura 261. Roma.

208

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

*Montanari, Franco/Pagani, Lara (ed.) (2011), From Scholars to Scholia: Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship. Trends in Classics, Supplementary Volumes 9. Berlin/New York. Montanari, Franco (1997), “The fragments of Hellenistic scholarship” in Glenn W. Most (ed.), Collecting Fragments. Göttingen, 273–88. Negri, Monica (2000), Eustazio di Tessalonica, Introduzione al commentario a Pindaro. Brescia. Neumann-Hartmann, Arlette (2010), “Pindar und Bakchylides (1988–2007)”, Lustrum 52, 181–463. Nobbe, Karl F. A. (1843–45), Claudii Ptolemaei Geographica. 2 vols. Leipzig. *Nünlist, René (2009), The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge. Orlandi, Giovanni (1975), Aldo Manuzio editore: Dediche, prefazioni, note ai testi, in­tro­­duzione di C. Dionisotti, testo latino con traduzione e note a cura di G. Orlandi. Documenti sulle arti del libro 11. 2 vols. Milano. Otto, A. (1890), Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer gesammelt und erklärt. Leipzig. Pack, Roger Ambrose (21965), The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt. Ann Arbor. Parks, Georg B./Cranz, F. Edward (1976), “Dionysius Periegetes”, in F. Edward Cranz/Paul O. Kristeller (ed.), Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries. Annotated lists and guides. Vol. 3. Washington, 21–61. Pasquali, Georgius (1908), Procli Diadochi in Platonis Cratylum commentaria. Stuttgart/Leipzig. PCG = Poetae Comici Graeci ediderunt R. Kassel et C. Austin. Berlin/New York, 1983–. Pease, Arthur S. (1955–58), M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass. (repr. Darmstadt, 1968). Pfeiffer, Rudolf (1949–53), Callimachus edidit. 2 vols. Oxford. Pfeiffer, Rudolf (1968), History of Classical Scholarship. From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford. Pfeijffer, Ilja Leonard (1999), First Person Futures in Pindar. Stuttgart. Pfister, Friedrich (1909–12), Der Reliquienkult im Altertum. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 5. 2 vols. (continuous pagination). Giessen. Pfister, Rudolf (1952), Die Seligkeit erwählter Heiden bei Zwingli: eine Untersuchung zu seiner Theologie. Zollikon/Zürich. PLF = Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, ediderunt E. Lobel et D. L. Page. Oxford, 1955. PMG = Poetae Melici Graeci: Alcmanis, Stesichori, Ibyci, Anacreontis, Simonidis, Corinnae, poetarum minorum reliquias, carmina popularia et convivialia quaeque adespota feruntur edidit D. L. Page. Oxford, 1962.

Bibliography

209

Porter, James I. (1992), “Hermeneutic Lines and Circles: Aristarchus and Crates on the Exegesis of Homer”, in Robert Lamberton/John J. Keany (ed.), Homer’s Ancient Readers. Princeton, 67–114. Preger, Theodorus (1891), Inscriptiones Graecae metricae ex scriptoribus praeter Anthologiam collectae edidit. Leipzig (repr. Chicago, 1977). Preisendanz, Karl (1955), “Die Bibliothek Johannes Reuchlins”, in Manfred Krebs (ed.), Johannes Reuchlin 1455–1522: Festgabe seiner Vaterstadt Pforzheim zur 500. Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages. Pforzheim, 35–82. Proctor, Robert G. C. (1900), The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century. Oxford (repr. Hildesheim, 1966). Race, William H. (1990), Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes. American Classical Studies 24. Atlanta. Radt, Stefan (2002–11), Strabons Geographika mit Übersetzung und Kommentar herausgegeben. 10 vols. Göttingen. RE = Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft hrsg. von Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus und Konrat Ziegler. Stuttgart/ München, 1893–1980. Reichenberger, Sigmund (1891), Die Entwicklung des Metonymischen Gebrauchs von Götternamen in der griechischen Poesie bis zum Ende des alexandrinischen Zeitalters. Karlsruhe. Reinsch-Werner, H. (1976), Callimachus Hesiodicus: Die Rezeption der hesiodischen Dichtung durch Kallimachos von Kyrene. Berlin. Renouard, Antoine A. (21843), Annales de l’imprimerie des Estienne ou histoire de la famille des Estienne et de ses éditions. Paris (repr. Genève, 1971). Renouard, Philippe (1965), Répertoire des imprimeurs parisiens, libraires, fondeurs de caractères et correcteurs d’imprimerie depuis l’introduction de l’imprimerie à Paris (1470) jusqu’à la fin du seizième siècle. Paris. Revard, Stella P. (1985), “Neo-Latin Commentaries on Pindar”, in Richard J. Schoeck (ed.), Acta conventus neo-latini Bononiensis: Proceedings of the Fourth Inter­ national Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Bologna 26 August to 1 September 1979). Binghamton, N. Y., 583–91. Revard, Stella P. (2001), Pindar and the Renaissance Hymn-Ode: 1450–1700. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 221. Tempe. Reverdin, Olivier (1991), Impressions grecques en Suisse aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Athènes. Rhein, Stefan (1993), “Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522). Ein deutscher ‘uomo univer­ sale’”, in Paul G. Schmidt (ed.), Humanismus im deutschen Südwesten: Bio­ graphische Profile. Sigmaringen, 59–75. Richardson, Nicholas James (1985), “Pindar and later Literary Criticism in Antiquity”, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 5, 383–401. Riedweg, Christoph (2000), “Ein Philologe an Zwinglis Seite: Zum Geburtstag des Zürcher Humanisten Jacob Wiesendanger, gen. Ceporinus (1500–1525)”, Museum Helveticum 57, 201–19.

210

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Romani, Giovanni (1830), Storia di Casalmaggiore. Vol. 10: Memorie degli uomini illustri di Casalmaggiore. Casalmaggiore. Rupprich, Hans (1955), “Johannes Reuchlin und seine Bedeutung im europäischen Humanismus”, in Manfred Krebs (ed.), Johannes Reuchlin 1455–1522: Festgabe seiner Vaterstadt Pforzheim zur 500. Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages. Pforzheim, 10–34. Russell, D. A./Wilson, N. G. (1981), Menander Rhetor edited with translation and commentary. Oxford. Ruysschaert, J. (1971), “Trois recherches sur le XVIe siècle romain”, Archivio della Società romana di Storia patria, ser. 3, 25, 11–29. Santé, Paolo (2008), Gli scoli metrici a Pindaro. Studi di metrica classica 13. Pisa. Schaefer, Gottfried H. (1811), Gregorii Corinthii et aliorum grammaticorum libri De dialectis linguae Graecae. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim, 1970). Schäublin, Christoph (1977), “Homerum ex Homero”, Museum Helveticum 34, 221–27. Scheer, Eduard (1881–1908), Lycophronis Alexandra recensuit. 2 vols. Berlin (repr. 1958). Schmid, Erasmus (1616), Πινδάρου Περίοδος hoc est Pindari lyricorum principis. 4 parts. Wittenberg. Schmitt, Wolfgang O. (1981), “Pindar und Zwingli. Bemerkungen zur PindarRezeption im frühen 16. Jahrhundert”, in Ernst G. Schmidt (ed.), Aischylos und Pindar: Studien zu Werk und Nachwirkung. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 19. Berlin, 303–22. Schmitz, Thomas (1993), Pindar in der französischen Renaissance: Studien zu seiner Rezeption in Philologie, Dichtungstheorie und Dichtung. Hypomnemata 101. Göttingen. Schneider, Johann Gottlob (1816), Nicandri Colophoni Theriaca. Leipzig. Schrader, Hermann (1890), Porphyrii quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium. Leipzig. Schreiber, F. (1988), “La tyrannie de Renouard sur Henri Estienne”, in Henri Estienne. Cahiers V. L. Saulnier 5, Paris, 13–20. Schweiger, Franz L. A. (1830–34), Handbuch der classischen Bibliographie. 2 vols. Leipzig. Seaford, Richard (1984), Euripides, Cyclops. Oxford. Sicherl, Martin (1974), “Musuros-Handschriften”, in John L. Heller (ed.), Serta Tury­ niana: Studies in Greek Literature and Paleography in Honor of Alexander Turyn. Urbana/Chicago, 564–608. Sicherl, Martin (1978a), Johannes Cuno: Ein Wegbereiter des Griechischen in Deutschland. Heidelberg. Sicherl, Martin (1978b), “Aldinen (1495–1516)”, in Griechische Handschriften und Aldinen. Eine Ausstellung anlässlich der XV. Tagung der Mommsen-Gesellschaft in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel. Wolfenbüttel, 119–49. Sicherl, Martin (1997), Griechische Erstausgaben des Aldus Manutius. Druckvorla­ gen, Stellenwert, kultureller Hintergrund. Paderborn. Skalistes, S. K. (1984), Thomas Magistros: Ho bios kai to ergo. Thessalonike.

Bibliography

211

Slater, William J. (1971), “Pindar’s House”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 12, 141–52. Slater, William J. (1989), “Problems in Interpreting Scholia on Greek Texts”, in John N. Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts. Papers given at the TwentyThird Annual Conference on Editorial Problems (University of Toronto, 6–7 November 1987). New York, 37–61. Smyth, Herbert W. (1956), Greek Grammar, revised by G. M. Messing. Cambridge, Mass. Snell, Bruno/Maehler, Hervicus (1971–75), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis post Brunonem Snell edidit Hervicus Maehler. Pars I: Epinicia. Pars II: Fragmenta, Indices. Leipzig (corr. repr. of Pars I: 1980, 1984, 1987). Sodano, Angelo R. (1970), Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericarum liber I. Napoli. Speyer, Wolfgang (1993), Italienische Humanisten als Kritiker der Echtheit antiker und christlicher Literatur. Mainz. Staikos, Konstantinos Sp. (1998), Charta of Greek Printing: The Contribution of Greek Editors, Printers and Publishers to the Renaissance in Italy and the West. Vol. 1: Fifteenth Century. Köln. Stäuble, Antonio (1968), La commedia umanistica del Quattrocento. Firenze. Steinmann, Martin (1967), Johannes Oporinus: Ein Basler Buchdrucker um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 105. Basel. Steinrück, Martin (2009), “Les scholies métriques”, in S. David/C. Daude/E. Geny/ C. Muckensturm-Poulle (ed.), Traduire les scholies de Pindare … . Vol. 1: De la traduction au commentaire: problèmes de méthode. Dialogues d’histoire an­ cienne, Supplément 2. Besançon, 107–20. Stichel, Rainer (2007), Beiträge zur frühen Geschichte des Psalters und zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Psalmen. Paderborn. Summers, Montague (1923), The Complete Works of William Congreve. 4 vols. London. Tessier, Andrea (1987), “Demetrio Triclinio revisore della colometria pindarica”, Studi italiani di filologia classica 80, 67–76. Tessier, Andrea (1989), Scholia metrica vetera in Pindari carmina. Leipzig. ThLL = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Leipzig, 1900–. Thumb, A. (1888), Untersuchungen über den spiritus asper im Griechischen. Stras­ bourg. Tissoni, F. (1992), “Zaccaria Calliergi e la vulgata di Pindaro”, Sileno 18, 169–81. TLG = Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, online Database. Internet: www.tlg.uci.edu. Treadgold, Warren T. (1980), The nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 18. Washington, D. C. TrGF = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta ediderunt B. Snell, S. Radt et R. Kannicht. 5 vols. Göttingen, 1971–2004. Tsavari, Isabelle O. (1990), Histoire du texte de la description de la terre de Denys le Périégète. Ioannina. Turner, Eric G. (1987), Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. London. Turyn, Alexander (1932), De codicibus Pindaricis. Polska Akademja Umiejętności, Archiwum Filologiczne 11. Kraków.

212

I. History of Pindaric Scholarship

Turyn, Alexander (1944), Pindari epinicia edidit. New York. Turyn, Alexander (1948), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis edidit. Kraków (repr. Oxford, 1952). Uebel, Fritz (1976), “Literarische Texte unter Ausschluss der christlichen”, Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 24–25, 191–251. Uhlig, G. (1883), Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica. Grammatici Graeci I. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim, 1965). van der Valk, Marchinus (1958), “On Apollodori Bibliotheca”, Revue des études grecques 71, 100–68. van der Valk, Marchinus (1963–64), Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad. 2 vols. Leiden. van der Valk, Marchinus (1971–87), Eustathii Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani edidit. 4 vols. Leiden. van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (1987), Hephaestion: On metre, a translation and commentary. Leiden. van Thiel, H. (2002), Scholia D in Iliadem. Proecdosis: http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/ 1810. Verdenius, Willem J. (1985), A commentary on Hesiod, Works and days, vv. 1–382. Leiden. Vernet, André (1961), “Les manuscrits grecs de Jean de Raguse”, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 61, 75–108. Vogel, Marie/Gardthausen, Victor (1909), Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance. Leipzig. Voigt, Eva-Maria (1971), Sappho et Alcaeus, Fragmenta edidit. Amsterdam. Vorsokr. = Diels, Hermann/Kranz, Walther, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Grie­ chisch und Deutsch. 3 vols. Berlin, 51934–37 (corr. repr. 1951). Vos, Harm (1956), Themis. Bibliotheca Classica Vangorcumiana 7. Assen. West, Martin L. (1966), Hesiod, Theogony edited with Prolegomena and Commentary. Oxford. West, Martin L. (1978), Hesiod, Works and days edited with Prolegomena and Com­ mentary. Oxford. West, Martin L. (21989–92), Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati. 2 vols. Oxford. West, Richard/Welsted, Robert (1697), Pindari Olympia, Nemea, Pythia, Isthmia. Oxford. West, S. (1970), “Chalcentric Negligence”, Classical Quarterly 20, 288–96. Whitman, Jon (1987), Allegory: The Dynamics of Ancient and Medieval Technique. Oxford. Widmann, Hans (1970), Der Drucker-Verleger Henri II Estienne (Henricus II Stepha­ nus). Mainz. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von (1889), Euripides, Herakles. Vol. 1: Einleitung in die attische Tragödie. Berlin (repr. Darmstadt, 1959).

Bibliography

213

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von (21895), Euripides, Herakles. 2 vols. Berlin. Wilson, Alice E. (1973), Andrea Navagero, Lusus, Text and Translation, edited with an Introduction and with a Critical Commentary. Bibliotheca humanistica et reformatorica 9. Nieuwkoop. Wilson, Nigel G. (1967), “A Chapter in the History of Scholia”, Classical Quarterly 17, 244–56. Wilson, Nigel G. (1971), “An Aristarchean maxim”, Classical Quarterly 21, 172. Wilson, Nigel G. (1976), “Aristarchus or a sophist”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 22, 123. Wilson, Nigel G. (1983), Scholars of Byzantium. London. Wilson, Nigel G. (1984), “The Relation of Text and Commentary in Greek Books”, in Cesare Questa/Renato Raffaelli (ed.), Il libro e il testo. Atti del Convegno inter­ nazionale (Urbino, 20–23 settembre 1982). Urbino, 103–10. Wilson, Nigel G. (1992), From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance. London. Wilson, Nigel G. (2007), “Scholiasts and Commentators”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 47, 39–70 (English version of “Scoliasti e commentatori”, Studi classici e orientali 33, 1983, 83–112). Wilson, Penelope B. (1974), The Knowledge and Appreciation of Pindar in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Diss. Oxford (typewritten). Wilson, Penelope B. (1980), “Pindar and his Reputation in Antiquity”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 206, 97–114. Winnington-Ingram, R. P. (1963), Aristidis Quintiliani De musica libri tres. Leipzig. Young, David C. (1970), “Pindaric Criticism”, in William Musgrave Calder III/Jacob Stern (ed.), Pindaros und Bakchylides. Wege der Forschung 134. Darmstadt, 1–95 (repr. from Minnesota Review 4, 1964, 584–641). Young, David C. (1971), Pindar, Isthmian 7: Myth and Exempla. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 15. Leiden.

II A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Ten with an Appendix Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

Editor’s Note

A commentary on Pindar’s Nemean Ten was the second project Bruce Karl Braswell had been working on at the time of his death. Most of the files he had created for this publication date to July 2005. In 2012 Braswell compiled a working bibliography of important studies of Nemean Ten and, on this basis, made some final changes to his commentary on Nemean Ten in March 2013. The files contain the intended table of contents for the book, the Greek text of Nemean Ten, Braswell’s translation of the first three triads, his commentary on the first two triads, his translation of the scholia on the first triad and an appendix, “Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments”, which is an important supplement to the commentary on the first triad. Since Braswell’s commentary ends after the first two triads, I decided to limit the publication of his manuscript to these. Accordingly, I have translated the scholia on the second triad of Nemean Ten, which are missing in Braswell’s manuscript. Also, taking Braswell’s commentary on Nemean One and Nemean Nine as a model, I collected the testimonia for the first two triads of Nemean Ten and compiled a synopsis of readings for this part of the ode. I also added a conspectus siglorum and established the critical apparatus by collating manuscripts B, Ḅ, and D on the microfilms Braswell used for his commentary on Nemean Nine, and by consulting the editions of Mommsen (1864) and Turyn (1948), as well as Gerber’s inventory of emendations (1976). All sections that I have added to Braswell’s manuscript are indicated by an asterisk (*). Dr. Tanja Ruben and I compiled the bibliography on the basis of Braswell’s manuscript and his previous monographs on Pindar. We have placed an asterisk next to recent publications on Nemean Ten that are listed in Braswell’s working bibliography for Nemean Ten, but are not cited in the manuscript. These include the conference proceedings La città di Argo: Mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche, edited by P. Angeli Bernardini (2004); the chapter by M. Cannatà Fera, on the heroes

218

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

mentioned in the first triad of Nemean Ten and Pausanias’ account of the statues of Argive heroes dedicated by the Argives at Delphi, is particularly relevant to Braswell’s commentary. Another publication listed only in Braswell’s working bibliography is the commentary on Nemean Ten published by W. B. Henry in 2005. When Braswell came across this publication, he was worried that his own commentary might not add anything substantially new. Indeed, the two commentaries partially overlap. Braswell’s commentary on the first triad, however, enriched by the appendix on Pausanias’ account of Argive legends and monuments, is much more detailed than Henry’s. His commentary on the second triad, though, is much shorter; when I was establishing the critical apparatus and translating the scholia on this triad, I could not help but wonder whether this section was actually as finished as it seemed at first glance. As in Braswell’s previous publications, Greek authors are normally cited according to the abbreviations used in the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell/Scott/Stuart Jones (Oxford, 1925–1940; Supplement, 1968) and Latin authors according to the index volume of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Munich, 21990). In some cases, notably with Pindar, Braswell uses an extended form for greater clarity (for example, Ol. not O. for Olympians and Py. not P. for Pythians).  

219

Table of Contents

Testimonia.......................................................................................... 221 Synopsis of Readings......................................................................... 223 Conspectus Siglorum......................................................................... 225 Text and Translation of Nemean Ten (vv. 1–36)................................. 226 Commentary 1–18. Catalogue of Argive Legends ............................................. 233 19–36. Praise of the Victor and his Ancestors.............................. 262 Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten (vv. 1–36)............................................................................................ 268 Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments.......... 286 Bibliography....................................................................................... 329

*Testimonia ad vv. 1–36

v. 25

Sch. (A) Il. 24.58a (V 529,86 Erbse) Ἕκ τωρ μὲ ν θ νητός τε · τοῦτο ἔνιοι τῶν κριτικῶν κατὰ συνωνυμίαν μεταλαμβάνουσιν λέγοντες ταὐτὸν εἶναι γυναῖκα καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ θνητόν, ὡς γίνεσθαι τοιοῦτον· «Ἕκτωρ μὲν θνητός, θνητόν τε θήσατο μαζόν». ἄλλοι δὲ παρειλῆφθαι τὸ γυναῖκα ἀντὶ τοῦ κτητικοῦ γυναικεῖον· τοὺς δὲ Ἀττικοὺς καὶ Δωριέας τοῖς κυριωτέροις χρῆσθαι ἀντὶ κτητικῶν, «Ἕλληνα στρατόν» (Ne. 10.25) ἀντὶ 1 Ἑλληνικόν, καὶ «ἄνθρωπον ἦθος» (adesp. fr. 451 Kannicht/ Snell [TrGF II 131]) ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπινον, καὶ Ἑλλάδα διάλεκτον.2 τοῦ add. Bekker || 2 Cf. Eust. ad Il. 24.58 (IV 869,3 van der Valk) Ἀττικοὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωριεῖς τοῖς κυριωτέροις χρῶνται ἀντὶ κτητικῶν, ὥς φασιν οἱ παλαιοί, οἷον «Ἕλληνα στρατόν» (Ne. 10.25) τὸν Ἑλληνικόν, «ἄνθρωπον ἦθος» (adesp. fr. 451 Kannicht/Snell [TrGF II 131]) ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπινον, Ἑλλάδα διάλεκτον, «δοῦλον γένος» (E. Or. 1115 et E. fr. 49.1 Kannicht [TrGF V 1,187]), «Σκύθην οἶμον» (A. Pr. 2). Cf. etiam Lesb. Gramm. 12 (p. 186 Blank) Ἰωνικόν· «συνέβη τρωθῆναι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ἵππον» (cf. D. S. 17.34.5) ἀντὶ τοῦ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου· συντασσομένων γὰρ τῶν πρός τί πως ἐχόντων ὀνομάτων παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐπὶ γενικῆς πτώσεως, ἐκεῖνοι ἐπὶ αἰτιατικὴν ἐκφέρουσι· ὡς τὸ «γυναῖκά τε θήσατο μαζόν» (Il. 24.58) ἀντὶ τοῦ γυναικὸς μαζὸν ἐθήλασεν. ὅθεν τινὲς λέγουσι τὸ γυναῖκα εἰρῆσθαι ἀντὶ τοῦ κτητικοῦ, τοῦ γυναικεῖον· ὡς Ἀττικοὶ «Ἕλληνα στρατόν» (Ne. 10.25) ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικόν (A, καὶ «Ἕλληνα στρατόν» ἀντὶ τοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων B). 1

*Synopsis of Readings for vv. 1–36 (adopted in this edition which differ from those in the editions of Snell/Maehler [1987] or Turyn)



Braswell

Snell/Maehler

Turyn

5 Αἰγύπτῳ καταοίκισεν

Αἰγύπτῳ καταοίκισεν

Αἰγύπτοιο κατῴκισεν

12 πατρὶ δ’

πατρὶ δ’

πατρί τ’

15 τῷ

τῷ

τῷ δ’

29 πὰν

πὰν

πᾶν

31 πέρι

πέρι

περί

34 νιν

νιν

μιν

*Conspectus Siglorum

B

codex Vaticanus graecus 1312

D

codex Laurentianus 32,52

Ḅ

codex Monacensis graecus 565

Triclin.

codices Tricliniani

Blem

B in lemmate scholii

Σ

lectio quam testantur scholia vetera

Bi

B in linea

Bs

B supra lineam

Bac

B ante correctionem

Bpc

B post correctionem

Alia signa secundum Turyn Codices describuntur in Braswell (1998) 7–10.

NEMEAN X ΘΕΑΙΩΙ ΑΡΓΕΙΩΙ ΠΑΛΑΙΣΤΗΙ

Δαναοῦ πόλιν ἀγλαοθρό νων τε πεντήκοντα κορᾶν, Χάριτες, Ἄργος Ἥρας δῶμα θεοπρεπὲς ὑμνεῖ τε· φλέγεται δ’ ἀρεταῖς μυρίαις ἔργων θρασέων ἕνεκεν. μακρὰ μὲν τὰ Περσέος ἀμφὶ Μεδοίσας Γοργόνος, 5 πολλὰ δ’ Αἰγύπτῳ καταοίκισεν ἄστη ταῖς Ἐπάφου παλάμαις· οὐδ’ Ὑπερμήστρα παρεπλάγχθη, μονό- ψαφον ἐν κολε͜ ῷ κατασχοῖσα ξίφος. Ia

Ib Διομήδεα δ’ ἄμβροτον ξαν θά ποτε Γλαυκῶπις ἔθηκε θεόν· γαῖα δ’ ἐν Θήβαις ὑπέδεκτο κεραυνω θεῖσα Διὸς βέλεσιν μάντιν Οἰκλείδαν, πολέμοιο νέφος·

5

10

15

*Testimonia (v. p. 221 supra) *Codices: B(Ḅ)D (v. Braswell [1998] 7–10) *De apparatu critico v. p. 217 supra Inscr. Θεαίῳ Ἀργείῳ παλαιστῇ Boeckh (1811): om. BD, θειαίῳ παιδὶ ἡλίου (Οὐλίου Callierges) παλαιστῇ Triclin. 2 ὑμνεῖτε B: ὑμνεῖται D    4 μακρὰ B: κακρὰ D    Περσέος Triclin.: Περσέως BD 5 Αἰγύπτῳ καταοίκισεν Maas (1914): Αἰγύπτῳ κατῴκισθεν BDBlemDlem, Αἰγύπτοιο κατῴκισεν Heyne (31824, subiectum ponens Argos), Αἴγυπτον κάτα ᾤκισεν Hermann apud Heyne (21798–99), Αἰγύπτῳ καταοικίσατ’ Von der Mühll (1964)    6 ῾Υπερμήστρα B: Ὑπερμνήστρα D μονόψαφον BD: μονόψαφος Hecker (1850) κολεῷ BD: κουλεῷ Hermann (1809)    8 βέλεσιν Triclin.: βέλεσι B, βέλεϊ D

NEMEAN X For Theaios of Argos, the Wrestler

Ia Celebrate in song, Graces, the city of Danaos and his fifty daughters with their splendid thrones, Argos, Hera’s dwelling place fit for a god. For it shines forth through countless accomplishments because of bold deeds. Long is the story of Perseus concerning the Gorgon Medousa, 5 while many are the cities which Argos founded at the hands of Epaphos in Egypt, nor did Hypermestra go astray when she held fast in its scabbard her sword alone in its resolve. Ib And once did golden-haired Glaukôpis make Diomedes an immortal god, while the earth at Thebes, blasted by the bolts of Zeus, received the seer, Oikles’ son, the cloud of war,

228

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

10 καὶ γυναιξὶν καλλικόμοισιν ἀριστεύει πάλαι· Ζεὺς ἐπ’ Ἀλκμήναν Δανάαν τε μολὼν τοῦ τον κατέφανε λόγον· πατρὶ δ’ Ἀδράστοιο Λυγκεῖ τε φρενῶν καρπὸν εὐθείᾳ συνάρμοξεν δίκᾳ·

20

Ic θρέψε δ’ αἰχμὰν Ἀμφιτ͜ ρύωνος. ὁ δ’ ὄλβῳ φέρτατος ἵκετ’ ἐς κείνου γενεάν, ἐπεὶ ἐν χαλκ͜έοις ὅ ͜πλοις 25 15 Τηλεβόας ἔναρεν· τῷ ὄψιν ἐειδόμενος ἀθανάτων βασιλεὺς αὐλὰν ἐσῆλθεν, σπέρμ’ ἀδείμαντον φέρων Ἡρακλέος· οὗ κατ’ Ὄλυμπον 30 ἄλοχος Ἥβα τελείᾳ παρὰ ματέρι βαίνοισ’ ἔστι, καλλίστα θεῶν. IIa βραχύ μοι στόμα πάντ’ ἀναγή- σασθ’, ὅσων Ἀργεῖον ἔχει τέμενος 20 μοῖραν ἐσλῶν· ἔστι δὲ καὶ κόρος ἀνθρώ πων βαρὺς ἀντιάσαι· ἀλλ’ ὅμως εὔχορδον ἔγειρε λύραν, καὶ παλαισμάτων λάβε φροντίδ’· ἀγών τοι χάλκεος ͜ δᾶμον ὀτρύνει ποτὶ βουθυσίαν Ἥ ρας ἀέθλων ͜ τε κρίσιν· ͜ Οὐλία παῖς ἔνθα νικάσαις δὶς ἔ σχεν Θεαῖος εὐφόρων λάθαν πόνων.

35

40

45

11 Ἀλκμήναν BD: Ἀλκμάναν Triclin. τοῦτον BlemDlem: τὸν BD    12 πατρὶ δ’ Dlem: πατρί τ’ BDBlem Triclin.    14 ἐς κείνου D: ἐς ἐκείνου B    15 ἔναρεν Triclin.: ἔναιρε B, ἔναρε D τῷ Mingarelli apud Heyne (31824): τί οἱ BD, τῷ δ’ Hermann apud Heyne (21798–99)    18 ματέρι D: μητέρι B    19 Ἀργεῖον B: Ἀργείων D    22 φροντίδ’ BDpc: φρονδ’ Dac χάλκεος BiD: χάλκεον Bs    24 οὐλία B: ἀλίαου D νικάσαις D: νικήσαις B Θεαῖος Hermann (1809): Θειαῖος BD εὐφόρων BiD: εὐφρόνων BsΣ

Text and Translation of Nemean Ten

229

10 and Argos from old has excelled in its women with their lovely hair. For Zeus in coming for Alkmene and Danaë made this statement evident. And for the father of Adrastos and for Lynkeus did Argos join the fruit of wisdom with unswerving justice. Ic And Argos it was which nurtured the spear of Amphitryon. And he whose bliss is supreme entered into the family of that man, when he in brazen armour 15 had slain the Teleboans. Assuming his shape the king of the immortals came into his dwelling bearing the intrepid seed of Herakles, who has on Olympos as his wife Hebe, fairest of goddesses, she who walks beside her mother, the fulfiller of marriages. IIa My mouth is too small to relate all that is excellent which the bounds of Argos 20 hold. Then too there are men’s feelings of excess which are irksome to encounter. But still arouse the well-strung lyre, and take thought for wrestling bouts, since the contest for the bronze is rousing the people to sacrifices of cattle to Hera and to the judgment of contests, where Oulias’ son, Theaios, twice victorious, gained forgetfulness of his toils well borne.

230

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

IIb 25 ἐκράτησε δὲ καί ποθ’ Ἕλλα͜ να στρατὸν Πυθῶνι, τύχᾳ τε μολών καὶ τὸν Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ στέφανον, Μοί σαισί τ’ ἔδωκ’ ἀρόσαι, τρὶς μὲν ἐν πόντοιο πύλαισι λαχών, τρὶς δὲ καὶ σεμνοῖς δαπέδοις ἐν Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ. ͜ Ζεῦ πάτερ, τῶν μὰν ἔραται φρενί, σιγᾷ οἱ στόμα· πὰν δὲ τέλος 30 ἐν τὶν ἔργων· οὐδ’ ἀμόχθῳ καρδίᾳ προσφέρων τόλμαν παραιτεῖται χάριν. IIc γνώτ’ ἀείδω θεῷ ͜ τε καὶ ὅστις ἁμιλλᾶται πέρι ἐσχάτων ἀέθλων κορυφαῖς. ὕπατον δ’ ἔσχεν Πίσα ͜ Ἡρακλέος τεθμόν. ἁδεῖαί γε μὲν ἀμβολάδαν ͜ ͜ ἐν τελεταῖς δὶς Ἀθαναίων νιν ὀμφαί 35 κώμασαν· γαίᾳ δὲ καυθείσᾳ πυρὶ καρπὸς ἐλαίας ἔμολεν Ἥρας τὸν εὐάνορα λαὸν ἐν ἀγγέων ͜ ἕρκεσιν παμποικίλοις.

50

55

60

65

[vv. 37–90 non explanati a Braswell]

29 μὰν Er. Schmid (1616, e scholiis): μὲν BD πὰν Schroeder (1896): πᾶν BD    31 θεῷ BD: οἷ Kayser (1840) πέρι Schroeder (1900): περί BD    32 ὕπατον B: ὕστατον D    33  γε om. D    33–34 ἁδεῖαί γε … ἐν τελεταῖς BD: ἁδείᾳ γε … ἐν τελετᾷ Σ     34 δὶς BpcD: ὠδὶς Bac νιν Boeckh (1811): μιν B, om. D

Text and Translation of Nemean Ten

IIb 25 And once too he mastered Hellas’ host at Pytho, and, accompanied by good fortune, gained the crown at the Isthmus and Nemea, giving the Muses a field to plough, thrice obtaining it at the gates of the sea, and thrice too on the hallowed ground in accordance with Adrastos’ foundation. Father Zeus, what truly he longs for in his thoughts, his mouth keeps silent, but the fulfilment 30 of deeds lies entirely with you, nor does he entreat your favour with a heart that shrinks from toil displaying his courage as he does. IIc What I sing is known to the god and anyone who competes for the peak of the highest game. For supreme is Herakles’ institution which Pisa gained. Nevertheless, as a prelude, in the festivals of the Athenians, sweet voices have twice celebrated him 35 in a revel, and in earth baked by fire came the fruit of the olive to Hera’s brave folk in brightly painted walls of pots. [vv. 37–90 not commented on by Braswell]

231

Commentary

1–18. Catalogue of Argive Legends The ode begins with a long list of mythological stories connected with Argos. These include (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Danaos and his daughters (v. 1) Perseus and his slaying of Medousa (v. 4) Epaphos and his foundations in Egypt (v. 5) Hypermestra and the saving of her husband (v. 6) Diomedes and his gift of immortality from Athena (v. 7) Amphiaraos and his disappearance near Thebes (vv. 8–9) Alkmene and Danaë as loves of Zeus (v. 11) Talaos and Lynkeus as wise and just kings (v. 12) Amphitryon, his slaying of the Teleboai, and his affiliation to Zeus (vv. 13–17) (10) Herakles as son of Zeus and his marriage to Hebe (vv. 17–18) It is difficult to discern any one principle determining the arrangement of the myths. However, in the sequence he follows Pindar has evidently been influenced by several considerations, most notably that of mythological association. These are discussed individually below, but may be conveniently summarized as follows: (1) Danaos because he was regarded as the founder of Argos (v. App., comm. ad no. 5, pp. 299–301 below). (The mention of the Danaids here does not necessarily mean that Pindar knew nothing of their punishments as sinners in the Underworld [first mentioned in ‘Pl.’ Ax. 371e], since it would be natural to ignore it in an encomiastic context.) (2) Perseus because of the spectacular nature of his feat. (3) Epaphos because of the association of his land Egypt with Perseus. (4) Hypermestra because of her father Danaos from whom she needed to be slightly separated. (5) Diomedes because he like Perseus received divine aid from Athena.

234

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

(6) Amphiaraos because of his association with Diomedes’ father Tydeus on the expedition against Thebes. (7) Alkmene and Danaë perhaps because of Zeus who saved Amphiaraos from disgrace and perhaps partly too because Alkmene was closely associated with Thebes. (8) Talaos and Lynkeus because they stand as a substitute for the more famous Adrastos who would logically come here, but is only alluded to indirectly possibly on account of his quarrel with Amphiaraos and perhaps still more because of the disastrous results of his reckless expedition against Thebes. (9) Amphitryon because as the husband of Alkmene he should be placed as close to her as discretion allows. (10) Herakles because of his family relation to Amphitryon and, above all, as the greatest of the heroes to provide a suitable climax. The function of such a catalogue is to praise the city of the victor; this was understood by sch. Ne. 10.1a (III 165,17–21 Dr.), which aptly compares the opening of a hymn to the Thebans (fr. 29 Maehler) in which Pindar rhetorically asks if he should sing one of some eight legends connected with Thebes. This technique was nevertheless misunderstood by some critics in later antiquity; cf. Plu. Moralia 347f–348a, where Pindar is alleged to have been reproached by Korinna for indiscriminately mixing myths in the exordium to the hymn. Until recently such criticism has generally been accepted at face value (cf. Sandys [21919] 515, n. 1, and, on the genesis of such anecdotes, v. Lefkowitz [22012], esp. 66f.); Bundy (1962) 13, 75, however, has rightly pointed out the laudatory function of the catalogue at the beginning of Ne. 10 (without reference to the scholia). It should be noted that all ten legends alluded to in the catalogue were well known to Pindar’s Argive audience (see Appendix as well as the commentary on the individual legends below) so that mere mention of them would have been enough to produce the appropriate response. That all of the legends belong to pre-Dorian Argos should not surprise since the Dorian “invasion” was conventionally regarded as the “return of the Heraklids”. Clearly the antiquity of the myths and their nearness to the world of the gods counted most. For a similar catalogue cf. Is. 7.1–21 (Theban glories), on which v. Race (1990), esp. 115–17. On the catalogue as a poetic form v. further Trüb (1952).

Commentary

235

1. Danaos and his Fifty Daughters. Pindar has placed Danaos at the head of the catalogue of Argive legends because he was regarded as the founder of Argos (v. App., comm. ad no. 5, pp. 299–301 below). In fact, he was not only counted as its founder and early king, but the inhabitants of Argos were also supposed to have been called “Danaoi” after him (cf. E. fr. 228.7f. Kannicht [TrGF V 1,316 = fr. 1.7f. Harder], quoted by Str. 8.6.9 [C. 371,23–24 Radt], sch. A [= D] Il. 1.42), a name for the Greeks used in the Iliad (141x) interchangeably with “Argeioi” and “Achaioi”. Danaos and his daughters had been treated before Pindar in an epic called the Danaïs (PEG I, pp. 121f. Bernabé; EGF, p. 141 Davies), in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (cf. fr. 127–29 Merkelbach/West), in tragedies by Phrynichos (TrGF I 3 T 1, F 4 [Danaïdes], cf. also F 1 and 1a [Aigyptoi]), and, most notably for us, by Aischylos in his extant Hiketi­ des (on its place in the trilogy/tetralogy v. Garvie [1969], esp. 163–233, Friis Johansen/Whittle [1980] I 21–25, and Radt in TrGF III 54f., 111f.). There is no certain iconographical evidence for Danaos (v. E. Keuls, s.v., in LIMC III 1 [1986] 341–43), while that for the Danaïdes is later (v. Keuls, s.v., ibid., 337–41). Considering their murderous reputation it is not surprising that the daughters of Danaos, except for Hypermestra (v. comm. ad 6 below), received no special honours or memorials in Argos and were recalled only indirectly (v. App., comm. ad no. 9, pp. 313f. below). Outside the city there were places associated with Danaos and his daughters, notably at Lerna (Paus. 2.37.1f. = App. no. 12[a–b]) and at Genesion, where they were supposed to have first landed in the Argolid (Paus. 2.38.4 = App. no. 13). Δαναοῦ: the name is placed first to give it special emphasis; cf. e.g. Py. 11.1 Κάδμου κόραι, Ne. 7.1 Ἐλείθυια, 8.1 Ὥρα πότνια, 11.1 Παῖ Ῥέας. For a city alluded to by the name of a legendary king or founder cf. e.g. Ne. 7.30 πρὸς Ἴλου πόλιν, A. Th. 74 Κάδμου πόλιν, 135f., E. fr. 228.6 Kannicht (TrGF V 1,316 = fr. 1.6 Harder) Ἰνάχου πόλιν (on how Danaos could be said to have founded Inachos’ city v. App., comm. ad no. 5, p. 300 below). As often in early Greek poetry “a person or place is mentioned first by a periphrasis and then only later identified by a more familiar name” (v. Braswell [1988] 62 ad Py. 4.2[g]); here the identification (Ἄργος) comes immediately at the beginning of v. 2.

236

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Δαναοῦ: born by common consent in Egypt (Hdt. 2.91), but of Argive descent through Io (‘Apollod.’ 2.1.3–4 [§§5–10 Wagner]). According to Pausanias (2.19.3 = App. no. 4[a]) the most famous sanctuary in Argos in his time (as indeed it was already in the 5th cent.) was that of Apollo Lykios which stood on the site of an original foundation ascribed to Danaos (Paus. 2.19.3f. = App. no. 4[a–b]). A bronze throne dedicated in front of the temple was supposed to have been that of Danaos (Paus.  2.19.5 = App. no. 4[c], and 2.19.7 = App. no. 4[e]), who was also said to have dedicated wooden images of Apollo Lykios (Paus. 2.19.3 = App. no. 4[a]) and of Zeus and Artemis (Paus. 2.19.7 = App. no. 4[e]). Appropriately a tomb of Danaos, the so-called “Palin­ thos”, was shown on the marketplace (Paus. 2.20.6 = App. no. 5[c], Str. 8.6.9 [C. 371,25–26 Radt]) of the city of which he was considered the founder (v. App., comm. ad no. 5, pp. 299f. below). When the Argives dedicated statues of their civic heroes at Delphi in the 4th cent. Danaos took his place as “the mightiest of the kings in Argos” (Paus. 10.10.5 = App. no. 16[c]). ἀγλαοθρόνων: “with splendid thrones”. Bury (1890) 187, implies that the epithet would be associated with the representation of the Danaids in art. For this we have no contemporary evidence; v. above. In fact, however, the epithet is conventional; cf. Ol. 13.96 (Muses), B. 17.124f. (sea-nymphs in a cortège). The compound is not found elsewhere except perhaps at Pae. 3.1, so that it may be presumed to be a lyric invention of the 5th cent. The first element is more important emphasizing as it does the splendour of those who receive the epithet. On the final element v. Braswell (1988) 358 ad Py. 4.260–61(c). πεντήκοντα: the number was canonical; cf. A. Supp. 321 (with Friis Johansen/Whittle [1980] 258 ad loc.), ‘Apollod.’ 2.1.4 (§12 Wagner). The mention in Py. 9.113 of the fact that Danaos found husbands for fortyeight daughters in one morning at Argos provoked a typical ζήτημα which, according to sch. 195b (II 239,9–13 Dr.), was resolved by explaining that Amymone had already been seduced by Poseidon (on which v. App., comm. ad no. 12, p. 320 below) and that Hypermestra had fallen in love with Lynkeus (v. ad 6 below).

Commentary

237

κορᾶν: on the fluctuation of the forms κορ- and κουρ- in Pindar v. Braswell (1988) 80 ad Py. 4.14(d). Χάριτες: invoked by Pindar here and in Ol. 14, an ode for a victor from Orchomenos where the Charites were especially honoured (v. Verdenius [1987] 106). Cf. also the opening of B. 9 in which the Charites are asked to bestow δόξα on the victor. The close association of the Graces with the Muses (on which Braswell [1998] 147 ad Ne. 9.54) makes their invocation generally appropriate, while the special need to emphasize the glory of Argive past has presumably influenced their choice here. Moreover, Paus. 2.17.3 (= App. no. 2[c]) reports that in the pronaos of the Heraion located on the road from Mykene to Argos ancient statues of the Graces stood on one side, while there was a kline of Hera on the other. On the invocation of divinities of quasi-divine abstractions at the beginning of Pindaric odes v. Braswell (1988) 57f. ad Py. 4.1–3. 2. Ἄργος Ἥρας δῶμα: the city of Danaos (v. 1) is now identified as Argos, which is then further designated as the “dwelling-place of Hera”. Sch. 1c (III 166,1–2 Dr.) cites Il. 4.51f., where Hera mentions Argos, Sparta, and Mykene as the cities which are especially dear to her. In fact, the cult of Hera was particularly important in Argos; v. Farnell (1896–1907) I 179–257, esp. 186–89, 213–19, Tomlinson (1972) 203f. The inscriptio to Ne. 10 (III 165,9–11 Dr.) reports: “In Argos a sacred contest, the Hekatombaia, which they also call the Heraia, is celebrated in honour of Hera. During the festival they sacrifice a hundred cattle to Hera” (cf. Ne. 10.22f., sch. Ol. 7.152c [I 230,24–231,2 Dr.]). In this contest Theaios, the victor celebrated in the ode, had twice won victories (vv. 22–24). On the Heraia in Argos v. further Nilsson (1906) 42–45. Ἥρας δῶμα: οἰκητήριον … τῆς Ἥρας (sch. 1c), i.e. the place where Hera regularly dwells; cf. Ne. 1.3 δέμνιον Ἀρτέμιδος (with Braswell [1992] 34 ad loc.). More specifically, Pindar will doubtless have been thinking of her temple, the Heraion, one of the most famous in Greece; cf. Paus. 2.17 (= App. no. 2), and v. further Gruben (41986) 105–108, Foley (1988) 135–39, 172 (with bibliography to 1985) as well as Tomlinson (1972) 230–46. Within the city there were two sites dedicated to Hera, the sanctuary of Hera Akraia on the Ridge approaching the

238

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Larissa (Paus. 2.24.1 = App. no. 9[a]) and the temple of Hera Anthea (Paus. 2.22.1 = App. no. 7[a]) in the lower town, but neither would have enjoyed anything comparable to the prestige of the venerable Heraion outside the city. θεοπρεπὲς: presumably a Pindaric formation since the adjective is attested only here in poetry and then in later prose where such compounds of -πρεπής are common enough (in early Greek a substantive is not used elsewhere as the initial element of -πρεπής composita). At A. Pers. 904 (lyr.) θεόπρεπτος occurs as a variant reading. ὑμνεῖτε: “sing of”, “celebrate in song”. The command is, as often in choral lyric, at once its fulfilment; on the convention v. Braswell (1998) 130 ad Ne. 9.43. On the variant -ται in D v. Braswell (1998) 50 ad Ne. 9.2. φλέγεται: ἀντὶ τοῦ λαμπρύνεται καὶ δοξάζεται (sch. 1d). Cf. Is. 7.23 φλέγεται (sc. the victor Strepsiades) … Μοίσαις. Pindar uses the active intransitively in this sense at Ne. 6.37f. Χαρίτων | … ὁμάδῳ φλέγεν (where the metaphorical sense δοξάζεται is even more obvious), and Pae. 2.66f. ὁ … καλόν τι πονήσαις | εὐαγορίαισι φλέγει (cf. Radt [1958] 64 ad loc.). The choice of form will have been largely a matter of metrical convenience. δ᾿: “for” (Sandys). On the use of δέ for explanatory γάρ v. Denniston (21954) 169. 2–3. ἀρεταῖς | … ἔργων … ἕνεκεν: the ἔργα are the concrete acts, the “deeds”, while the ἀρεταί are the deeds regarded as “accomplishments”. The basic meaning of ἀρετά is “excellence” which is notably expressed in “deeds of prowess” both in the games and in war; it is from these that δόξα accrues to the victor. On ἀρετά v. further Braswell (1988) 271 ad Py. 4.187(a). 4–5. μακρὰ μὲν … | πολλὰ δ᾿: the asyndeton is explanatory; v. Dissen (1830) Ι 274.

Commentary

239

4. Perseus and his Slaying of Medousa. The most spectacular of the ἔργα catalogued here by Pindar, and as such deserving mention immediately after Danaos, the early king of Argos, who initially identifies the city. Although the genealogy of Perseus was known to Homer (Il. 14.319f.) as was the Gorgon head on the aegis (Il. 5.741f., 8.349, 11.36f., Od. 11.634), the first reference to the hero’s slaying of Medousa is found in Hesiod (Th. 276–86). The Hesiodic Shield of Herakles depicts the feat in some detail (216–36). In Py. 10, his earliest ode (498), Pindar mentions Perseus’ slaying of the Gorgon (v. 46), while in Py. 12 of 490 he treats the same event at some length (vv. 9–18). Later in Is. 5.33 the poet alludes to the honours accorded to Perseus at Argos. Pindar also treated the Perseus legend in Di. 1, presumably written for the Argives (v. van der Weiden [1991] 34–51, esp. 38f., and Zimmermann [1992] 41–43). The story of Perseus including the slaying of Medousa was told by Pindar’s contemporary Pherekydes of Athens in the second book of his Historiai (FGrHist 3 F 10–12). According to Paus. 2.21.5 (= App. no. 6[c]) the head of Medousa, which was represented in stone near the sanctuary of Kephistos (Paus. 2.20.7 = App. no. 5[d]), was buried in a mound of earth in the marketplace at Argos next to which was the grave of Perseus’ daughter Gorgophone (Paus. 2.21.7 = App. no. 6[d]), while Perseus himself had a hero-shrine on the road from Mykene to Argos (Paus. 2.18.1 = App. no. 3). For other reminders of Perseus in the Argive agora cf. Paus. 2.20.4 (= App. no. 5[a]), 2.22.1 (= App. no. 7[a]). Outside of the marketplace the temple of Cretan Dionysos had a double association with Perseus: first, as the original site of the bronze chamber in which he was conceived, and, secondly, as a reminder of his acceptance of the Dionysian cult (Paus. 2.23.7–8 = App. no. 8[c–d]). In the statuary group of their heroes dedicated by the Argives at Delphi in the 4th cent. Perseus headed the line which descended genealogically to Hera­ kles (Paus. 10.10.5 = App. no. 16[c]). Moreover, Perseus and Medousa had their place in early Greek iconography; v. L. Jones Roccos, s.v. Perseus, in LIMC VII 1 (1994), esp. 338–41, and further Schefold/Jung (1988) 100–7. μακρὰ: with the implication that it would in fact take “too long” to tell in full; cf. sch. 6 (III 166,15f. Dr.) μακρὰ τοίνυν ἂν εἴη λέγειν καὶ

240

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

διηγεῖσθαι τὰ Περσέως καὶ Μεδούσης τῆς Γοργόνος, and further Is. 6.56 ἐμοὶ δὲ μακρὸν πάσας ἀναγήσασθ᾿ ἀρετάς. Hence, its frequent use in break-offs, on which v. Braswell (1988) 340 ad Py. 4.247(a). τὰ Περσέος: “the story of Perseus” (recte sch. 6 τὰ διηγήματα τὰ περὶ Περσέως). For further Pindaric examples of the substantival use of the article v. Hummel (1993) §216. Περσέος: corr. Triklinios metri gratia; Περσέως codd. Pindar uses two forms of the gen. sg. for names ending in -εύς: (1) -έος (Ol. 3.28, 13.58, Py. 3.92, Ne. 7.21, 10.4, 10.70, Is. 8.42, 8.48, fr. 172.1 Maehler; with synizesis at Is. 6.25, fr. 169a.7 Maehler) and (2) -ῆος (Ol. 2.29, Py. 9.80). The ending -έως is frequently found in the MS tradition, but always contra metrum or only optional (except perhaps at fr. 164 Maehler where the metre is uncertain). Μεδοίσας Γοργόνος: daughter of Phorkys and Keto, and as such counted among their monstrous progeny; cf. Hes. Th. 276 (with West [1966] 243f. ad 270–336). She was attractive enough to receive the attentions of Poseidon (Th. 278f.) and to compete with Athena in a beauty contest (sch. 6 [III 166,20–167,8 Dr.], sch. Py. 12.24b [II 266,21– 267,1 Dr.], ‘Apollod.’ 2.4.3 [§46 Wagner]), while Pindar bestows the epithet εὐπάραος on her in Py. 12.16. According to Paus. 2.21.5 (=  App. no. 6[c]) Perseus admired her beauty even in death and cut off her head to show it to the Greeks. On the beauty of the Gorgon v. further Braswell (2013) 94 with notes 255 and 256. The name Γοργώ(ν) (cf. γοργός “lively”, “wild”, “terrible” esp. in look or appearance) will doubtless have contributed to her negative image; nevertheless it was common enough as a female name in Greece, borne amongst others by the daughter of king Kleomenes of Sparta (Hdt. 5.51.1). On the form and inflection v. Braswell (1988) 63 ad Py. 4.3(d). The Gorgoneion is presumably earlier than the myth (so H. von Geisau, in DKP II [1967] 853,19f.); like other grotesque masks such as those from the Lötschental in the Swiss canton of the Valais its original function was apotropaic.

Commentary

241

5. Epaphos and his Foundations in Egypt. Epaphos has presumably been placed immediately after Perseus because of the latter’s association with his birthplace Egypt to which Perseus pursued the Gorgons (cf. Hdt. 2.91 with Lloyd [1975–88] II 367f. ad loc.). Although the Argive princess Io had her place in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (cf. fr. 124–26 Merkelbach/West, and v. West [1985] 76f., 149–51) and the Aigimios (cf. fr. 294–96 Merkelbach/West), the first extant references to Epaphos, her son by Zeus, come from the 5th cent.; cf. esp. B. 19.39–48, A. Supp. 40–46, 291–315, ‘A.’ Pr. 846–52. When Pindar calls Libya “the daughter of Epaphos” at Py. 4.14 he takes the knowledge of the genealogy for granted. Epaphos, unlike his mother Io, does not seem to have been represented in ancient art. According to Hdt. 2.153 the name of the Egyptian god Apis is “Epaphos” in Greek; for the identification of the two figures cf. Ael. NA 11.10, and v. further Lloyd (1975–88) II 171f. ad Hdt. 2.38. Of the cities supposedly founded by Epaphos only Memphis, which was reputedly named after his wife, is mentioned in our sources; cf. ‘Apollod.’ 2.1.4 (§10 Wagner), ‘Hyg.’ fab. 149, 275, sch. Lucan. 9.411, sch. Stat. Theb. 4.737, Mythogr. Vatic. 2.93 Kulcsár (2.75 Bode). Epaphos would presumably have not been credited with founding Egyptian cities before the Greeks had established themselves in Nau­ kratis at the end of the 7th cent.; on the settlement v. Boardman (21980) 118–33. In the usual genealogy (cf. ‘Apollod.’ 2.1.4 [§§10f. Wagner]) Epaphos was the great-grandfather of Danaos who brought the family back to Argos. καταοίκισεν: κατῴκισθεν BDBlemDlem, paraphrased by the sch. ad loc. (8) with κατῳκίσθησαν (sc. πόλεις). In v. 5 we expect the metrical pattern e – D x …, i.e. – ⏑ – – – ‘⏑ ⏑ – ⏑ ⏑’ – x …, but our MSS have – ⏑ – – – ‘⏑ – – ⏑’ – – … . No theory of anaclasis could justify such a responsion (rightly, Maas [1914] 11 with n. 2). Schroeder (1900) 332, adopted (but later withdrew, Appendix, 524) καταοίκισθεν; this assumes an anaclasis which is theoretically possible (v. West [1982] 24), but has no parallel in Pindar (v. Höhl [1950] 66–71). Of the many corrections proposed only two deserve closer consideration: (1) καταοίκισεν (Maas, ibid.), and (2) καταοικίσατ᾿ (Von der Mühll [1964] 97f.). For the influence of a digamma cf. Schwyzer

242

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

(1923) 175.2 (Gortyn) καταϝοικί(δ)δε(θ)θαι, and for Pindar (in οἶκος and its compounds), Py. 7.5, 8.51, Ne. 6.25, Pae. 4.32 (but neglected at Ne. 10.58; at fr. 119.1 Maehler κατῴκισθεν [καταοίκισθεν Schroeder, never retracted], the metre is uncertain). For examples of the neglect by copyists of the influence of an original digamma v. Young (1970) 116. Von der Mühll’s καταοικίσατ᾿ keeps the passive of the scholiastic paraphrase (on the use of the aorist medio-passive in Pindar v. Braswell [1988] 332 ad Py. 4.243[d]), but assumes a corruption which cannot be easily explained. On the other hand, Maas’ καταοίκισεν makes Argos the subject of the verb. However, this presents no difficulty; cf. ἀριστεύει (10), συνάρμοξεν (12), and θρέψε (13), where the resumption of Argos as the subject in v. 10 is further eased if it has already been resumed as subject here after the initial mention in v. 2. In fact, since the whole triad is devoted to the praise of Argos, it could readily be supplied as a subject wherever it would be appropriate. In this case the corruption can be explained. The obvious explanation lies in the omission by a scribe of the ending -εν in the archetype of our MSS; on its frequent loss v. Bast (1811) 762, 786. A subsequent copyist could easily have taken ἄστη as the subject of the verb and supplied the passive ending -θεν (on a pl. predicate with a neuter pl. subject v. Hummel [1993] §42), which then was later glossed with -θησαν (sc. πόλεις) in the scholia. In short, Maas’ καταοίκισεν is virtually certain and has rightly been adopted by Schroeder (31930), Snell (/Maehler), Race. On the use of the verb v. Casevitz (1985) 165–73. ἄστη: always uncontracted in Homer (as at B. 13.188 ἄστεα), but probably already contracted at Alcm. PMGF 3, fr. 23.5. ταῖς Ἐπάφου παλάμαις: “at the hands of Epaphos” with an allusion to the popular etymology of the proper name which derived it from ἐπαφάω “touch”; cf. A. Supp. 16, 45–48, 315, ‘A.’ Pr. 848–51, and v. Friis Johansen/Whittle (1980) 42 ad Supp. 45 for further references. 6. Hypermestra and the Saving of her Husband. With a more prosaic logic Pindar might have placed Hypermestra as one of the daughters of Danaos second, immediately after the mention of her father and his progeny, but as the disobedient daughter who incurred his wrath she

Commentary

243

needed to be separated slightly from him and her sisters. The poet typically concentrates for the moment on those aspects of individual myths which are most laudatory for the city. According to ‘Apollod.’ 2.1.5 (§16 Wagner) Hypermestra was the eldest of the daughters of Danaos and was alloted by her father to Lynkeus, the son of Danaos’ brother Aigyptos; Lynkeus eventually succeeded Danaos as king of Argos (cf. v. 12 below). (This Lynkeus should not be confused, as does Rumpel [1883] s.v., followed by Slater [1969] s.v., with the son of Aphareus whose fight with the Tyndari­ dai is related in the principal myth of the ode [vv. 55–90].) According to sch. 10b and ‘Apollod.’ loc. cit. (§21 Wagner) Hypermestra spared her husband’s life when her sisters on the orders of Danaos murdered their husbands on their wedding-night because Lynkeus did not consummate the marriage. (According to ‘A.’ Pr. 865–68 she did so either because she was in love with him or because she desired children depending on whether we take παίδων with μίαν, which is more likely [v. Verdenius (1976) 467f.], or with ἵμερος; the erotic explanation is presumably a late development.) Thereupon Danaos had her locked up and placed under guard, but subsequently accepted the marriage as fait accompli (so ‘Apollod.’ loc. cit. [§22 Wagner]). This is presumably the early version of the story. (Hypermestra certainly had her place in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women [cf. fr. 129 and 135 Merkelbach/West], but it is uncertain how much of the story was told there. She may owe at least part of her importance to the place of her son Abas in the list of early Argive kings; cf. however Paus. 10.35.1 = App. no. 17 with comm., pp. 327f. below.) In Aischylos’ tetralogy devoted to the daughters of Danaos the third play, the Danaïdes, has been supposed on the basis of a fragment of a speech by Aphrodite (fr. 44 Radt [TrGF III 159]) to have contained a scene in which Hypermestra was indicted by her father and defended by the goddess much as Apollo defends Orestes in the Eumenides, but v. Garvie (1969) 204–28, and Winnington-Ingram (1983) 55–72, esp. 58–61. In any case, according to Paus. 2.20.7 (= App. no. 5[d]) there was a place near the theatre in Argos called the Κριτήριον (“JudgmentPlace”) where Hypermestra was supposed to have been brought to trial by Danaos. Moreover, an image of Aphrodite Nikephoros (“the VictoryBringer”) in the temple of Apollo Lykios at Argos was said to have been

244

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

dedicated by Hypermestra to commemorate her acquital (Paus. 2.19.6 = App. no. 4[d]), while the shrine of Artemis Peithous in the marketplace was reputedly an offering of hers made on winning the trial (Paus. 2.21.1 = App. no. 6[a]). According to Paus. 2.21.2 (= App. no. 6[b]) the tomb of Hypermestra and her husband Lynkeus stood in the marketplace at Argos. At Delphi the statues of Hypermestra and Lynkeus dedicated by the Argives in the 4th cent. are specifically mentioned by Pausanias (10.10.5 = App. no. 16[c]) in a context that suggests that the couple were regarded as providing the vital genealogical link between Perseus and Herakles, the ancestor of the Dorian kings of Argos. Finally, there was a festival of torches held every year in commemoration of Lynkeus’ escape to Lyrkeia and Hypermestra’s to the Larissa (Paus. 2.25.4 = App. no. 10[d]). On the representations of Hypermestra in ancient art v. G. Berger-Doer, s.v., in LIMC V 1 (1990) 588–90. Ὑπερμήστρα: B, Ὑπερμνήστρα D; the sch. ad loc. (10) reflect the same dichotomy. At Py. 11.17 all MSS and the sch. ad loc. (II 257,9. 15 Dr.) have Κλυταιμνήστρα, which Schroeder (1900) 30 (§57) corrected to -μήστρας. The majority of evidence elsewhere, esp. from inscriptions, suggests that -μη- was the correct form in both names; v. Fraenkel (1950) II 52f. ad A. Ag. 84, however Κλυταιμνήστρης is much better attested at Il. 1.113 and could represent what later poets regarded as the established form. παρεπλάγχθη: “did (not) … go astray”; cf. Ol. 7.30f. αἱ δὲ φρενῶν ταραχαί | παρέπλαγξαν καὶ σοφόν (the poet’s gnomic comment on Tlepolemos’ slaying of a relative). Pindar implies that Hyper­ mestra acted rightly in disobeying her father and sparing her husband. Lynkeus’ place amongst the early kings of Argos, on which v. ad 12 Λυγκεῖ below, would itself have provided a post eventum exculpation of his wife. μονόψαφον: BD, but the paraphrase of sch. 10b μόνη ἡ Ὑπερμήστρα, …, οὐκ ἐφαίνετο ἰσόψηφος ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς, ἀλλὰ μονόψηφος, might be taken to imply that the nominative stood in the text, and so has it been corrected by Hecker (1850) 439, and adopted e.g. by Mommsen,

Commentary

245

Bergk3–4, and Christ. On the other hand, words for weapons generally receive epithets in poetic language, so that an enallage is what we might expect here. The adjective is attested elsewhere only at A. Supp. 373 (lyr.) μονο­ψή­φοισι νεύμασιν, where however the meaning is different. Never­the­less it is hard not to think that Pindar has adopted it from his Athenian contemporary. κολεῷ: ͜ synizesis (or synekphonesis) occurs fairly often in this ode; cf. also 14 χαλκέοις, 31 θεῷ, 36 ἀγγέων, 77 πενθέων, 88 χρυσέοις. Where the first vowel is epsilon this is common enough; v. West (1982) 12f. On synizesis in Pindar v. further Peter (1866) 29–32. The conjecture of Wesselmann (2008) 305 to read κόλπῳ for κολεῷ is not only totally unnecessary, but produces an improbable situation. It is possible to hide a μάχαιρα in the fold of a robe but hardly a ξίφος. κατασχοῖσα: not “having kept” (Slater [1969] s.v. κατέχω, b), but “in keeping”, i.e. “when she held fast”. The participle describes the essential ingredient expressed by the leading verb; on the ‘coincident’ use of the aor. participle v. Barrett (1964) 213f. ad E. Hipp. 289–92. ξίφος: used interchangeably with φάσγανον by Pindar to designate any kind of sword, but not the short μάχαιρα, which in Pindar is generally associated with butchery (v. Braswell [1988] 331 ad Py. 4.242[f]). The epic word ἄορ is absent as such from lyric poetry (on the compound adj. χρυσάορος/χρυσάωρ v. Maehler [1982] II 46 ad B.  3.28). On the terms for swords in early Greek v. further Trümpy (1950) 60–66. 7. Diomedes and his Gift of Immortality from Athena. Since Diomedes and Perseus had both received divine aid from the same goddess, it was reasonable to mention Diomedes as soon as feasible after the reference to the earlier hero. Although Diomedes has a place of considerable importance in the Iliad and is even given an ἀριστεία of his own in books five and six, there is no hint in the Homeric poems that he is to enjoy a special fate such as Proteus predicts for Menelaos (Od. 4.561–69). The first known mention of his receiving the gift of immortality occurs in Ibykos (PMGF 294 = sch. 12a [III 168,2 Dr.]), in whose

246

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

native Southern Italy the cult of Diomedes was wide spread (v. Farnell [1921] 289–93). Sch. 12b explains that when Tydeus was wounded in the first Argive expedition against Thebes, Athena was about to make him immortal, but his hostile ally Amphiaraos killed his Theban assailant Melanippos, cut off his head, and gave it to the enraged Tydeus who sucked out the brain like a wild beast. Repelled by his cannibalism the goddess then desisted from her intention, whereupon Tydeus begged her to transfer the intended gift to his son Diomedes. Cf. also sch. (AbT) Il. 5.126 (= Pherecyd. FGrHist 3 F 97). In sch. Genav. (= D) ibid. a later hand has added: ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς, which has led several critics to assign the incident to the cyclic Thebais (cf. fr. 9 Bernabé [PEG I 27], fr. 5 Davies [EGF 24]), but v. Braswell (1998) 33, n. 26. According to Paus. 2.20.5 (= App. no. 5[b]) a statue of Diomedes stood in a group of the seven Epigonoi which was placed in the agora of Argos. For the reminders of Diomedes in Argos v. App., comm. ad no. 9, p. 313 below. Outside of Argos Diomedes was commemorated by the Argives in their dedication of the statues of the Epigonoi at Delphi which Pausanias (10.10.4 = App. no. 16[b]) supposed to come from the spoils of the Spartans after their defeat at Oinoë a few years before the performance of Ne. 10. On Diomedes in ancient art v. further J.  Boardman and C. E. Vafopoulou-Richardson, s.v., in LIMC ΙΙΙ 1 (1986) 396–409, and esp. for his representations on gems Moret (1997). Διομήδεα … ἄμβροτον … ἔθηκε θεόν: cf. Py. 9.63 θήσονται (sc. the Horai and Gaia) … νιν (sc. Aristaios) ἀθάνατον, as well as Ol. 1.61–64 ἁλίκεσσι συμπόταις | νέκταρ ἀμβροσίαν τε | δῶκεν (sc. Tantalos), οἷς νιν (Bergk3–4, οἷσιν codd.) ἄφθιτον | θῆκαν (Rauchenstein, θέσ(σ)αν αὐτὸν codd., αὐτὸν del. Byz.), where the text is much disputed. ἄμβροτον: on the original use of the adj. as an epithet of gods v. Braswell (1988) 111 ad Py. 4.33(d). ξανθά: an epithet of Demeter (cf. Il. 5.500, h. Cer. 302 with Richardson [1974] 257 ad loc. for further references), for whom it presumably has

Commentary

247

a symbolic significance (ripe corn), and of other goddesses and heroines, but apparently not used of Athena before Pindar; cf. also fr. 34 Maehler ξανθὰν Ἀθάναν. Curiously at A. Pers. 617 ξανθῆς ἐλαίας καρπὸς, the olive, Athena’s special tree, is given the epithet (cf. Verg. Aen. 5.309 flava … oliva); usually it is called γλαυκή (S. OC 701 [lyr.]) or γλαυκόχρως (Ol. 3.13). For the use of the epithet with heroes v. Braswell (1998) 77 ad Ne. 9.17. ποτε: although indefinite adverbs as enclitics tend to occupy the second position in a clause or as close to it as feasible, Pindar nevertheless often postpones them for metrical convenience; v. Braswell (1988) 80 ad Py. 4.14(b). The use of the indefinite adverb suggests that the poet knows the fact but not necessarily the specific occasion. Sch. 12b, after noting that Diomedes is honoured as a god in Thurii and Metapontum, remarks: καὶ οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ τοῖς ἱστορικοῖς εὑρέσθαι αὐτοῦ τὸν θάνατον (III 168,23f. Dr.). Str. 6.3.9 (C. 284,5–6, 27–32 Radt) mentions four different versions of Diomedes’ end including one according to which he was made to disappear (ἀφανισθῆναι) on the Islands of Diomedes in the Adriatic and another in which his end (καταστροφή) was amongst the Heneti, who call it his “apotheosis”. Clearly there was no general agreement about the circumstances of Diomedes’ immortalization. Γλαυκῶπις: a common Homeric epithet of Athena, the origin of which remains disputed; v. LfgrE, s.v. Since Pindar uses γλαυκώψ as a descriptive adjective for serpents at Ol. 6.45 and Py. 4.249, he presumably understood it as a colour word, on which v. Braswell (1988) 342 ad Py. 4.249(c). It is possible therefore that he understood the feminine form in the same way at Ne. 7.96 κόραν ... γλαυκώπιδα, i.e. “the green-eyed maiden”, though it would be possible to interpret the phrase as κόραν … Γλαυκώπιδα, i.e. “the maiden Glaukôpis”. (At Di. 4.38f. π]ọλίοχον γλαυ|κώπιδ], if Lobel’s restoration is right, either adjective could be substantivized.) Where however the word is used absolutely as e.g. in Il. 8.406, Od. 6.47, Ol. 7.51, and here, it is preferable to regard it as an alternative name for Athena and to leave it untranslated.

248

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

8–9. Amphiaraos and his Disappearance near Thebes. The mention in the previous verse of the immortality conferred on Diomedes, which was originally intended for his father Tydeus, leads naturally to Amphiaraos, Tydeus’ rival on the Argive expedition, who was responsible for Athena’s transferring her gift from the father to the son. The miraculous disappearance of the Argive seer Amphiaraos, who with his horses and chariot sank into the ground after Zeus blasted it open to save him from a disgraceful death, represents the culmination of his career. Afterwards he was regarded as immortal, hence in part his place in the catalogue of Argive glories, and as the source of a famous oracular shrine at Oropos. In Argos he certainly had his place as well, since according to Paus. 2.20.5 (= App. no. 5[b]) there were statues in the marketplace of Poly­ nikes and the seven principal leaders of the first Argive expedition against Thebes, of whom Amphiaraos was one. Moreover, according to Paus. 2.21.2 (= App. no. 6[b]) his mother Hypermestra, the daughter of Thestios, had her grave in the marketplace as well. Outside of the agora Amphiaraos had a sanctuary, opposite which was located the tomb of his treacherous wife Eriphyle. Not too far away Baton, his charioteer who disappeared with him near Thebes, had a sanctuary of his own (Paus. 2.23.2 = App. no. 8[a]). At Delphi Amphiaraos along with Baton standing in the chariot was represented among the statues of the leaders of the first expedition against Thebes dedicated by the Argives after the battle of Oinoë not long before Ne. 10 was composed (Paus. 10.10.3 = App. no. 16[a]). Pindar mentions Amphiaraos in several works, most notably in the central myth of Ne. 9. On the legend of Amphiaraos in Greek literature from Homer to Pindar and in early Greek art v. Braswell (1998) 63–97 ad Ne. 9.11–27. γαῖα … ὑπέδεκτο κεραυνωθεῖσα Διὸς βέλεσιν | μάντιν Οἰκλεί­ δαν: cf. Ol. 6.14 κατὰ γαῖ᾿ αὐτόν τέ νιν (sc. Amphiaraos) καὶ φαιδίμας ἵππους ἔμαρψεν, Ne. 9.24f. ὁ δ᾿ Ἀμφιάρῃ σχίσσεν κεραυνῷ παμβίᾳ | Ζεὺς τὰν βαθύστερνον χθόνα, κρύψεν δ᾿ ἅμ᾿ ἵπποις. 8. ἐν Θήβαις: cf. Od. 15.247 ὄλετ᾿ (sc. Amphiaraos) ἐν Θήβῃσι. The hero met his fate “at Thebes”, not “in Thebes” as the phrase is sometimes translated (cf. e.g. Dornseiff, Dönt, Bremer): the Seven never succeeded

Commentary

249

in entering the city. On the occasional imprecision in the use of ἐν in the giving of geographical location v. Braswell (1988) 90 ad Py. 4.20(d). ὑπέδεκτο: an epic athematic preterite variously classified as imperfect or aorist. The sense required is usually that of an aorist (v. Chantraine [1958–63] I 296); cf. sch. ad loc. (14) ἐδέξατο, and Py. 9.9 ὑπέδεκτο glossed with ὑποδέξατο by the sch. ad loc. (II 222,12 Dr.). The choice of the verb implies that the reception was a kindly one; cf. sch. ad loc. (14) εἰς τιμὴν αὐτοῦ. It is wayward of Shapiro (1994) 93, to maintain that Amphiaraos in disappearing into the ground was “suffering the most exquisite punishment that Zeus reserved for him”. κεραυνωθεῖσα: first attested in Hes. Th. 859. This denominative does not seem to have found favour elsewhere in poetry. A κεραυνός is specifically a bolt of lightning, hence the use of βέλη here; on Pindar’s words for lightning v. Braswell (1998) 84 ad Ne. 9.19. Διὸς βέλεσιν: cf. ‘A.’ Pr. 358f. ἀλλ᾿ ἦλθεν αὐτῷ (sc. Typhon) Ζηνὸς ἄγρυπνον βέλος, | καταιβάτης κεραυνὸς ἐκπνέων φλόγα, 917 τινάσσων (sc. Zeus) … ἐν χεροῖν πύρπνουν βέλος. On the thunderbolt as Zeus’ principal weapon v. Cook (1914–40) II 722–824. 9. μάντιν: on the seer and his profession v. Braswell (1988) 274 ad Py. 4.190(a), to which add Roth (1982). Οἰκλείδαν: Amphiaraos was presumably so well known in Argos and elsewhere that it was sufficient simply to mention his patronymic; cf. Ol. 6.13 where he is first mentioned as μάντιν Οἰκλείδαν (as here) and then afterwards further identified as Amphiaraos. On Oikles and the patronymic v. further Braswell (1998) 77 ad Ne. 9.17. πολέμοιο νέφος: cf. Il. 17.243 πολέμοιο νέφος (Hektor). On the metaphorical use of “cloud” v. Braswell (1998) 118 ad Ne. 9.37–38. 10–11. The general proposition stated in v. 10 is exemplified in the following verse; v. below.

250

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

10. γυναιξὶν … ἀριστεύει: on the use of the dative with the verb v.  Hummel (1993) §128. At Ne. 1.14 its use c. gen. is comparative; v. Braswell (1992) 43 ad loc. καλλικόμοισιν: a conventional epic (and lyric) epithet of sexually desir­able women; cf. LfgrE, s.v. ἀριστεύει πάλαι: “from of old … has excelled [and still does]”. English idiom unlike e.g. Latin, French, or German requires the use of the perfect to render this construction; v. Goodwin (21889) §26. ἀριστεύει: although Argos was last mentioned by name in v. 2, we easily supply it here (cf. sch. ad loc. [17] ἀριστεύει τὸ Ἄργος), since the city has been present by implication throughout the enumeration of its glories. 11. Alkmene and Danaë as Loves of Zeus. Why Pindar should place the loves of Zeus immediately after Amphiaraos is not at first sight obvious. Perhaps he did so in part because it was Zeus who saved the Argive hero, but also in part perhaps because Alkmene was closely associated with Thebes (as well as with Argos). In any case, Pindar has arranged the mention of Perseus (v. 4) and of Herakles (v. 17) chiastically with that of their respective mothers, Alkmene and Danaë (v. 11). The distance that here separates the mothers from their sons emphasizes the importance they enjoy in their own right. In Zeus’ catalogue of his extramarital affairs in Il. 14.317–27 both Danaë and Alkmene are mentioned along with their sons. Ζεὺς – λόγον: the asyndeton is explanatory: Zeus chooses only the best. The movement of thought was rightly understood by the sch. ad loc. (17), which asks for the proof (ἀπόδειξις) of the previous statement and finds it in Zeus. V. 11, we should note, is logically subordinate to v. 10; this is important in determining the subject of vv. 12 and 13 below. ἐπ’: with a verb of motion the preposition is not often used c. acc. pers., but cf. e.g. Od. 5.149f. ἐπ᾿ Ὀδυσσῆα … νύμφη | ἤϊ᾿, S. OT 555f.

Commentary

251

ἔπειθες …, ὡς χρείη μ᾿ ἐπὶ | τὸν σεμνόμαντιν ἄνδρα πέμψασθαί τινα, Ar. Ra. 1418 ἐγὼ κατῆλθον ἐπὶ ποιητήν. In this construction the sense implied is to come or go “for” someone with a particular purpose in mind. Ἀλκμήναν: on the variant -μάναν in two recentiores (ε´, ζ´), adopted by Schroeder, v. Braswell (1988) 250 ad Py. 4.172(a). Alkmene as the daughter of Elektryon, the son of Perseus, was originally at home in the Argolid, where her father was king either of Mykene (so ‘Apollod.’ 2.4.6 [§54 Wagner]) or of Midea (so Paus. 2.25.9 = App. no. 10[f]). Her presence in Thebes, where she was visited by Zeus and bore Herakles (so already Il. 14.323f.), was explained as the result of her following her husband Amphitryon into exile after he had slain her father (‘Hes.’ Sc. 1–3, 11–13; cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 195 Merkelbach/West). Elsewhere Pindar emphasizes Thebes as the home of Alkmene and her sons Herakles and Iphikles not only in odes for victors from his native city (cf. Is. 1.12f., 3/4.70–73), but also for victors from overseas (cf. Py. 9.79–86, Ne. 1.33–72). A scene of Alkmene with Zeus disguised as Amphitryon was depicted on the sixth-century Chest of Kypselos preserved in the temple of Hera at Olympia (Paus. 5.18.3 = App. no. 14); on Alkmene in ancient art v. further A. D. Trendall, s.v., in LIMC I 1 (1981) 552–56. Δανάαν: mentioned as the daughter of Akrisios and the mother by Zeus of Perseus in Il. 14.319f. How much of the story of Danaë, her father, and her son, such as we find in Pherekydes of Athens, FGrHist 3 F 10 (= sch. A. R. 4.1091), and ‘Apollod.’ 2.4.1 (§§34f. Wagner), was told in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women is not entirely certain, but besides the genealogy (fr. 129.10–15 Merkelbach/West), it is clear that at least the λάρναξ in which Danaë and her infant son were exposed to the sea (fr. 135.3 Merkelbach/West) was mentioned. A reference to Perseus’ conception by means of the shower of gold is likely (cf. fr. 135.4f. with West’s suggested supplements), but this section of the Cata­logue does not seem to have narrated the story in any great detail (v. West [1985] 82). In any case, Simonides developed the pathetic potentials of the exposure incident in the well-known lament of Danaë (PMG 543 = fr.

252

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

271 Poltera) copied as prose by Dionysios of Halikarnassos (Comp. 26.14–15), while Pindar refers to Perseus’ miraculous conception in Py. 12.17f. In the Perseus myth of Py. 10 Danaë is only once referred to and then simply as the mother of the hero (v. 45), whereas in Py. 12 Pindar also tells of her forced marriage to Polydektes (vv. 14f.). According to sch. (A = D) Il. 14.319 Pindar also told how Danaë had been debauched by her father’s brother Proitos which led to conflict between the two (cf. also ‘Apollod.’ 2.4.1 [§34 Wagner]); Snell has suggested that this may have been referred to in Di. 4.15, but the reference there could be to Danaë’s enforced relation to Polydektes (v. van der Weiden [1991] 157 ad loc.). According to Pausanias (2.23.7 = App. no. 8[c]) an underground structure was shown in Argos upon which the bronze chamber once stood where Akrisios kept his daughter under guard; the chamber itself had been destroyed by the tyrant Perilaos in the 6th century (v. App., comm. ad no. 8, pp. 309f. below). Representations of Danaë are absent from archaic art, but become common at the beginning of the 5th cent.; v. J.-J. Maffre, s.v., in LIMC III 1 (1986) 325–37. μολὼν: lyric poets employ only the aorist (the present βλώσκω [< *μλώσκω], already used in Homer in compounds, is probably a secondary development); on the origin of the aorist v. Strunk (1970). The aorist is terminal: “entweder … kommen (an den Ort, wo sich das psychol. Subj. befindet) oder … gelangen (an e. and. Ort)” (LfgrE, s.v. βλώσκω). Here it has the first meaning. κατέφανε: normally intransitive, but since the simplex φαίνω is used transitively in the active, Pindar can employ the compound in the same way. This is facilitated by the fact that the prefix is an intensive: φαίνειν “to make appear”, καταφαίνειν “to make clear”. On this use of κατα- v. Schwyzer (1950) II 476, and, for Pindar, Bossler (1862) 39 (with further examples). 12. Talaos and Lynkeus as Wise and Just Kings. The most famous early king of Argos was doubtless Adrastos, who as the leader of the first expedition against Thebes occupied a place in epic comparable to that of Agamemnon as the leader of the more successful expedition

Commentary

253

against Troy. Logically we would expect Adrastos to be mentioned not too far after Amphiaraos, but instead he is only alluded to in a peri­ phrasis for the name of his father Talaos. Possibly his quarrel with Amphiaraos (cf. Ne. 9.11–17) has led Pindar to substitute two other early Argive kings for him, but more likely it was the desire of the poet not to recall the disastrous results of the Theban expedition which reflected adversely on Adrastos as a wise and responsible leader (v. further below). In Argos the house of Adrastos was seen by Pausanias (2.23.2 = App. no. 8[a]); beyond it was a sanctuary of Amphiaraos, the tomb of Eriphyle, and a sanctuary of Amphiaraos’ charioteer, Baton (Paus. ibid.). Adrastos, son of Talaos, had his place along with Amphiaraos and Baton in the statuary group of the leaders of the first expedition against Thebes dedicated by the Argives at Delphi not long before Ne. 10 was written (Paus. 10.10.3 = App. no. 16[a]). On Adrastos v. H. W. Stoll, s.v. (1), in Roscher, Lexikon I 1,78–83, and now for the iconographical evidence I. Krauskopf, s.v., in LIMC I 1 (1981) 231–40. On Talaos and Lynkeus v. below. πατρὶ … Ἀδράστοιο: i.e. Talaos; cf. Ol. 6.15 Ταλαϊονίδας (of Adrastos) and Ne. 9.14 Ταλαοῦ παῖδες (i.e. the Biantidai and specifically Adrastos; v. Braswell [1998] 70 ad loc.). In extant Greek literature Talaos does not play an independent role; for the literary evidence on him v. K. Buslepp, s.v., in Roscher, Lexikon V 15f. (there are no pictorial representations of him). Nevertheless he was presumably more than just a name in the list of early Argive kings (for his genealogy v. sch. Ne. 9.30b [III 153,10–19 Dr.], ‘Apollod.’ 1.9.13 [§103 Wagner], since according to Paus. 2.21.2 (= App. no. 6[b]) the grave of Talaos, the son of Bias, stood in the marketplace at Argos opposite to the tomb of Hypermestra and her husband Lynkeus. (The proximity of the tombs of Lynkeus and Talaos may well have influenced Pindar in choosing the two kings as examples; v. App., comm. ad no. 6, p. 304 below.) However, Pindar’s reason for including Talaos among the glories of Argos almost certainly has less to do with his own importance in the history of the city than that of his son Adrastos. The use of the periphrasis allows the poet to mention indirectly one of the very great figures of Argive mythological history, whose ultimate

254

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

failure at Thebes cast a shadow over his reputation. It would have been difficult to praise Adrastos for “the fruit of his wisdom” (Ne. 10.12) in light of his having led an expedition “without propitious omens” (Ne. 9.19) “to its manifest ruin” (Ne. 9.21). δ᾿: so sch. Dlem ad loc. (21a). B, D, and Triklinios all read τ᾿, presumably a change induced by taking Zeus as the subject of συνάρμοξεν (so sch. 21a, b), on which v. below. Λυγκεῖ: the son of Aigyptos (not to be confused with Lynkeus, the son of Aphareus; v. ad 6 above) is closely linked to his wife Hypermestra, whose heroic decision to spare his life is alluded to in v. 6 above. By mentioning him separately Pindar accords Lynkeus an importance of his own as king of Argos, for which cf. ‘Apollod.’ 2.2.1 (§24 Wagner), Paus. 2.16.1 (= App. no. 1), and v. further K. Seeliger, s.v., in Roscher, Lexikon II 2,2206f., esp. 2207,44–57. Lynkeus not only had a grave (heroon) in the marketplace at Argos, which he shared with his wife Hypermestra (so Paus. 2.21.2 = App. no. 6[b]), but his statue stood along with those of his wife and her father Danaos in Delphi, all votive offerings of the Argives (Paus. 10.10.5 = App. no. 16[c]). On the festival of torches held every year in commemoration of his escape v. ad 6 above. We hear as little of the reign of Lynkeus as we do of that of Talaos, so that the qualities ascribed to both by Pindar are hardly more than conventional attributes of good kings; cf. e.g. D. Chr. 53.11, where in his summary of the Homeric doctrine of kingship Dion stresses wisdom and justice. φρενῶν καρπὸν: cf. Py. 2.73f. ὁ δὲ Ῥαδάμανθυς εὖ πέπραγεν, ὅτι φρενῶν | ἔλαχε καρπὸν ἀμώμητον, which the sch. ad loc. (II 55,11 Dr.) glosses: τουτέστι τὸν λογισμόν, as do the sch. ad loc. here (21a). Moreover, as Py. 2.74 continues, οὐδ᾿ ἀπάταισι θυμὸν τέρπεται ἔνδοθεν, i.e. he avoids the intrigues which lead men to act unjustly; hence, in Ol. 2.75 Pindar can speak of the just who lives in the Islands of the Blest βουλαῖς ἐν ὀρθαῖσι Ῥαδαμάνθυος. In other words, Talaos and Lynkeus as wise and just kings share those qualities with Rhadamanthys who could well serve as their model; on Rhadamanthys and his

Commentary

255

reputation, above all for justice, v. O. Jessen, s.v., in Roscher, Lexikon IV 77–86, esp. 78, 59–79, 81. φρενῶν: “wits”, “intelligence”, “reasoning power”, “wisdom”; cf. above. For a detailed study of φρήν/φρένες v. Sullivan (1995) 36–53, who concludes (p. 53) that “phrenes are associated with different psychological activities, including those that are volitional, emotional, and intellectual”, but that the intellectual predominate. “Unlike noos that seems capable of grasping truth with a form of inner vision, phrenes are associated more often with pondering or deliberation.” In other words, the φρένες operate primarily in the sphere of practical wisdom or what Aristotle would later call φρόνησις (cf. EN 6.5 [1140a24–31], 7 [1141b8–14], etc.). καρπὸν: i.e. the concrete results, here of wise reasoning; cf. Ol. 7.8 γλυκὺν καρπὸν φρενός (i.e. the actual ode being performed), Is. 8.46– 46a ἐπέων δὲ καρπός | οὐ κατέφθινε (i.e. what Themis said produced results), as well as Py. 2.73f. discussed above. εὐθείᾳ … δίκᾳ: i.e. as kings Talaos and Lynkeus administered justice correctly; v. Braswell (1988) 236 ad Py. 4.153(d). συνάρμοξεν: in Homer two forms of the aorist of ἁρμόζω and its compounds are attested: -ρμοσ- (Il. 3.333, etc.) and -ρμοσσ- (Il. 19.385). Pindar uses the single sigma form at Py. 3.114, Ne. 7.98. Elsewhere he uses -ξ-: here, Ol. 3.5, Is. 1.16. This corresponds to his treatment of the aorist e.g. of κομίζω, on which v. Braswell (1988) 241 ad Py. 4.159(e), where the extended use of -ξ- in the aorist of verbs in -ζω (-ζω, -ξα originally restricted to guttural stems) is discussed. The sch. ad loc. (21a) asks the question, τίς δὲ συνήρμοσεν, and answers ὁ Ζεύς. In favour of this interpretation are (1) the connecting particle τ᾿ read by the MSS, (2) the fact that Zeus was the last subject mentioned (v. 11), and (3) the special relation of kings to Zeus (cf. e.g. Hes. Th. 96 ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες). However, the whole recital of Argive glories in the first triad serves primarily to praise the city (cf. 1f. Χάριτες, | Ἄργος … ὑμνεῖτε). With Argos already supplied as the subject of ἀριστεύει in v. 10 it is natural enough to continue with the same

256

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

subject here and in v. 13, where the city’s positive influence on its heroes is extolled. Moreover, the logical subordination of v. 11 to v. 10 (v. ad 11 Ζεὺς – λόγον above) facilitates the resumption of the subject of v. 10 in v. 12 and its continuation in v. 13. 13–17. Amphitryon, his Slaying of the Teleboai, and his Affiliation to Zeus. Pindar alludes to the story told at the beginning of the Hesiodic Shield of Herakles (vv. 1–56; cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 195 Merkelbach/West) according to which Alkmene followed her husband Amphitryon into exile at Thebes (cf. ad 11 Ἀλκμήναν above) after he had slain her father Elektryon χωσάμενος περὶ βουσί (v. 12), but refused to allow him to consummate their marriage until he had avenged the death of her brothers who had been killed by the Taphians and Teleboans. Having successfully accomplished this task Amphitryon eagerly returned to his wife and took his pleasure with her the whole night, but in fact she had already been visited by Zeus just before in the guise of her husband. The result of Alkmene’s protracted bouts of lovemaking was the birth of the two unequal twins Iphikles, the son of Amphitryon, and Herakles, the son of Zeus. Pindar mentions the conception and birth of Herakles and his brother in other odes, notably Py. 9.84–86 τέκε οἱ καὶ Ζηνὶ μιγεῖσα δαΐφρων | ἐν μόναις ὠδῖσιν Ἀλκμήνα | διδύμων κρατησίμαχον σθένος υἱῶν, Is. 7.5–7 ἢ χρυσῷ μεσονύκτιον νείφοντα δεξαμένα τὸν φέρτατον θεῶν, | ὁπότ᾿ Ἀμφιτρύωνος ἐν θυρέτροις | σταθεὶς ἄλοχον μετῆλθεν Ἡρακλείοις γοναῖς (on the motif of the shower of gold, more familiar from the Danaë legend, v. Thummer [1968–69] II 116f. ad Is. 7.5–7), and esp. Ne. 1.33–72 (birth of the twins, Herakles’ killing of the serpents, and Teiresias’ prophecy of his future labours) with its pendant Pae. 20 (on which v. Bona [1988] 285–96, esp. 291–95, and Rutherford [2001] 399–402, who doubts that the fragment comes from the Παιᾶνες). 13. θρέψε: sc. Argos, continuing the subject of συνάρμοξεν in v. 12. The city as nurse of its young warriors is Homeric; cf. Od. 9.27 ἀγαθὴ κουροτρόφος (of Ithaka). For further Pindaric examples of a place having nurtured a person cf. Py. 1.16f., 8.25–27, 9.88f., Ne. 2.13f., fr. 156. On the verb v. Moussy (1969) 37–72, esp. 57f.

Commentary

257

αἰχμὰν Ἀμφιτρύωνος: i.e. Amphitryon as an αἰχματάς. Of the vari͜ ous words for weapons in early Greek it was αἰχμή which served as the base for one of the principal terms for “warrior”; v. further Trümpy (1950) 52–60, esp. 59, 176–80. The quality of Amphitryon repeatedly stressed is his martial prowess. According to sch. Od. 3.267 there was supposed to have been an early epic by ‘Demodokos’ on Amphitryon’s campaign against the Teleboans; cf. EGF, pp. 94f. Davies, and v. further Wehrli (21968) 85f. ad Demetr. Phal. fr. 191–92. In Ne. 1 Pindar brings him on the scene of the infant Herakles’ struggle with the snakes ἐν χερὶ … κολεοῦ γυμνὸν τινάσσων (v. 52), while according to Theoc. 24.119–24 (cf. ‘Apollod.’ 2.4.9 [§63 Wagner]) the young Herakles was taught chariot-driving by Amphitryon, whose epithet διφρηλάτας at Py. 9.81a might have been the starting-point of a later elaboration. ὁ δ᾿ ὄλβῳ φέρτατος: “and he whose bliss is supreme”, a periphrasis for Zeus (recte sch. ad loc. [24a]); cf. A. Supp. 526 (lyr.) ὄλβιε Ζεῦ (with Friis Johansen/Whittle [1980] 411 ad loc.), and v. Hummel (1993) §205. 14. κείνου: i.e. of Amphitryon (recte sch. ad loc. [24a]). ἐν χαλκέοις ὅπλοις: cf. Ne. 1.51 χαλκέοις σὺν ὅπλοις, 9.22 χαλκέοις ͜ ͜ ͜ ͜ ὅπλοισιν (with Braswell [1992] 67 and [1998] 87 ad locc.). χαλκέοις: on the synizesis v. ad 6 κολεῷ ͜ ͜ above. 15. Τηλεβόας: a people of west central Greece living in Akarnania and the neighbouring islands; v. RE, s.v., V A 1 (1934) 311f. and ibid., 312f. (s.v. Teleboas, 1). On the occasion of Amphitryon’s campaign against them v. ad 13–17 above. ἔναρεν: sc. Amphitryon. The subject as often is to be understood from a noun in the oblique case of the preceding clause; v. Kühner/Gerth (31898–1904) I 35 (§352,e). The denominative is especially appropriate to the martial context: originally “to strip the arms” of a slain enemy, then “to kill” an enemy in battle; v. LfgrE, s.v. ἐναρίζω. Outside of epic the verb is almost exclusively limited to lyric (1x Ibyc., 3x Pi.) and the lyric parts of tragedy.

258

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

τῷ ὄψιν ἐειδόμενος: “making himself like him in appearance”, “assuming his shape”. It is a common epic convention that gods can assume the likeness of a person; cf. e.g. Il. 2.791–95 εἴσατο (sc. Iris) … φθογγὴν … Πολίτῃ, | … | … | … | τῷ (sc. Polites) μιν (sc. Priam) ἐεισαμένη προσέφη … Ἶρις (with Ameis/Hentze [71923] 257 ad 791), and v. LfgrE, s.v. εἴδομαι (II 421,76–422,35) for more examples. For a Pindaric example cf. Py. 4.21 θεῷ ἀνέρι εἰδομένῳ “from a god in the likeness of a man” (of Triton giving a clod of earth to Euphemos). On the scene of Alkmene with Zeus disguised as Amphitryon depicted on the Chest of Kypselos cf. ad 11 Ἀλκμήναν above and v. App., comm. ad no. 14, p. 322 below. τῷ: the MSS all have τί οἱ, an unmetrical reading (synizesis is excluded; v. Braswell [1988] 97 ad Py. 4.23[d]), which in any case makes no sense in this context. Ceporinus’ οἱ would be possible syntactically, but defies Pindar’s consistent practice of placing this pronoun after a word ending with a vowel (v. my comm. loc. cit.). Gottfried Hermann apud Heyne (21798–99) ΙΙΙ 336, proposed the reading τῷ δ᾿, which unfortunately he later rejected ([1805] 788–90) in favour of οἷ. (Although τῷ δ᾿, which has been adopted by Bowra and Turyn, neatly restores the text, the corruption would not be easy to explain [v. below] and, moreover, the connective is superfluous both syntactically [the demonstrative pronoun avoids asyndeton; v. Braswell (1988) 237 ad Py. 4.154] and prosodically [v. ad 15 ὄψιν below].) In the same edition Heyne mentions (I 547) the conjecture τῷ supplied to him by Mingarelli (in a letter from Bologna dated 1 May 1792 = Göttingen, Univ. Bibl. cod. Philol. 30, fol. 46v), which however he did not adopt. This was first done by Schroeder (1900), whose text has been followed here by Snell (/Maehler). Pindar will presumably have written τῷ as ΤΟΙ (v. Braswell [1988] 80 ad Py. 4.14[d]), which could easily have been corrupted to τί οἱ (possibly with τοι first becoming τι, on which v. Young [1970] 119). Of the many conjectures which have been proposed Mingarelli’s τῷ is the only one which restores both sense and metre, conforms to epic convention (v. ad 15 τῷ ὄψιν ἐειδόμενος above), and allows a plausible explanation of the corruption. ὄψιν: Mingarelli’s conjecture τῷ (v. above) assumes the influence of a digamma which avoids hiatus. In early epic there is only one instance

Commentary

259

of the use of ὄψις preceded by a vowel: Il. 6.468 πατρὸς φίλου ὄψιν ἀτυχθείς, where the epic correption shows its neglect. Strabo (8.5.3 [C. 364,16–17 Radt]) cites Antimachos fr. 96 Wyss (fr. 79 Matthews) ἱερὴ ὄψ as an example of the use of an abbreviated form of ὄψις, which is also found in Emp. Vorsokr. 31 B 88 (also cited by Arist. Poe. 21 [1458a5]). Matthews (1996) 232f., while accepting the Empedoclean instance, has recently attempted to explain the apparent hiatus in the Antimachean fragment by taking ὄψ there as the otherwise unattested nominative of ὄπα “voice” which once had a digamma. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Strabo thought ὄψ was a shortened form of ὄψις in both passages and that it could be preceded by a long vowel without undergoing epic correption. There seems no reason therefore to doubt that Pindar might have treated ὄψις as though it had once contained a digamma whether in fact it did or not. Poets of the 5th cent. inherited a poetic technique which allowed them to leave vowels unchanged or not before certain words; on Pindar’s practice v. Braswell (1988) 92 ad Py. 4.21(d). Since they will hardly have known why apparent hiatus was sometimes tolerated, it is not surprising that they should occasionally have allowed it in the case of some words which did not originally have a digamma; cf. e.g. B. 5.75 εἵλετο ἰόν, on which v. Maehler (1982) I 13. ἐειδόμενος: although this form of the pres. partic. does not occur in epic, the nine instances of a digammated aor. partic. ἐεισαμεν- in the Homeric corpus would have provided ample justification for it. The di­ gammated pres. partic. found favour with Hellenistic and later poets; v. Livrea (1973) 76 ad A. R. 4.221 for examples. 16. ἀθανάτων βασιλεὺς: for the phrase cf. Hes. Op. 668, Thgn. 743, 1346, Ne. 5.35 (all of Zeus; at Pi. fr. 169a.1f. Maehler it is νόμος which is βασιλεὺς θνατῶν τε καὶ ἀθανάτων). A more common variant (always used of Zeus) is θεῶν βασιλεύς (first at Hes. Th. 886, where it is not formulaic), on which v. Richardson (1974) 268 ad h. Cer. 358; for Pindar cf. Ol. 7.34, Ne. 7.82. αὐλὰν: the sch. ad loc. (24b) correctly paraphrases with οἶκον (for the implications of which v. Braswell [1998] 69 ad Ne. 9.14 οἴκων);

260

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

what is in fact implied is the place where Amphitryon passes the night (αὐλίζεται); cf. S. Ant. 944–47 (lyr.) ἔτλα καὶ Δανάας οὐράνιον φῶς | ἀλλάξαι δέμας ἐν χαλκοδέτοις | αὐλαῖς· κρυπτομένα δ᾿ ἐν | τυμβήρει θαλάμῳ κατεζεύχθη. 17. σπέρμ᾿ ἀδείμαντον … Ἡρακλέος: enallage for “the seed of intrepid Herakles”; cf. Is. 1.12f. τὸν ἀδείμαντον Ἀλκμήνα τέκεν | παῖδα. Bers (1974) 39, compares Ol. 1.66 τὸ ταχύποτμον … ἀνέρων ἔθνος, but while what is true of the group is also true of its members, what is true of the developed man is hardly true of him in potentia. Although Hera­ kles is for Pindar the dauntless hero par excellence, he does describe his rout in battle at the hands of Kyknos in Ol. 10.15f. (on which v. Braswell [1998] 97 ad Ne. 9.27). σπέρμ᾿ … φέρων: cf. Ne. 10.80–82 τόνδε … πόσις | σπέρμα θνατὸν ματρὶ τεᾷ πελάσαις | στάξεν ἥρως. In Py. 3.15 φέροισα σπέρμα θεοῦ καθαρόν, and Ol. 9.61f. ἔχεν … σπέρμα μέγιστον | ἄλοχος, it is the female who bears the seed. Pindar’s references to re­produc­­tion are too vague to determine whether or not they reflect the theory put forward by Apollo in defence of Orestes’ matricide that οὐκ ἔστι μήτηρ ἡ κεκλημένη τέκνου | τοκεύς, τροφὸς δὲ κύματος νεοσπόρου· | τίκτει δ᾿ ὁ θρῴσκων, ἡ δ᾿ ἅπερ ξένῳ ξένη | ἔσωσεν ἔρνος (A. Eu. 658–61); cf. also E. Or. 552–56 (with West [1987] 221 ad 553). In any event, Arist. GA 4.1 (763b30–764a2) ascribes this theory to Pindar’s younger contemporary Anaxagoras (Vorsokr. 59 A 107) and ἕτεροι τῶν φυσιολόγων, so that the poet could have known it either from the philosophers or Aischylos (on whom v. further Sommerstein [1989] 206–8 ad Eu. 657–66). On ancient notions of reproduction v. Lesky (1950), esp. 53–56. 17–18. οὗ κατ᾿ Ὄλυμπον | ἄλοχος Ἥβα: on the deified Herakles’ marriage to Hebe v. Braswell (1992) 81 ad Ne. 1.71. 18. Ἥβα … παρὰ ματέρι βαίνοισ᾿: according to Paus. 2.17.5 (= App. no. 2[e]) in the Heraion near Argos there stood beside the statue of Hera by Polykleitos an ἄγαλμα of Hebe which was ascribed to Naukydes. Both works are certainly later than our ode, but there was also an older

Commentary

261

image of Hera on a pillar nearby as well as a still older seated image which Pausanias does not identify (on these two ξόανα v. Musti/Torelli [1986] 269 ad Paus. 2.17.4–6). We do not know whether it is merely a matter of coincidence that Pausanias mentions immediately afterwards the altar dedicated by the emperor Hadrian on which the marriage of Hebe and Herakles was depicted (2.17.6 = App. no. 2[f]). Somewhat surprisingly Pausanias mentions no monument in Argos or the surrounding countryside specifically commemorating Herakles as such; however, in the 4th cent. the Argives set up a statue of him at Delphi which was the last in a series of their civic heroes beginning with Perseus (Paus. 10.10.5 = App. no. 16[c]). τελείᾳ: Hera is called τελεία because she presides over marriages (sch. 31), or, more precisely, because she has the power and authority to bring them to fulfilment; v. Waanders (1983) 204. For this cult-title cf. A. Eu. 214, fr. 383 Radt (TrGF III 432, quoted by sch. 31), Ar. Th. 973, Paus. 8.22.2 (= App. no. 15[a], on which v. comm., p. 324 below), and v. further W. H. Roscher, s.v. Hera, in Roscher, Lexikon I 2,2103,51– 2104,6. On Hera as the goddess of marriage v. RE, s.v. Hera, VIII 1 (1912) 392,26–393,18. On the cult of Hera in Argos v. Roscher, op. cit., 2075,28–2077,53. καλλίστα θεῶν: a junctura used only here. She is called θαλερά at Ne. 1.71 and ἀγλαόγυιος at Ne. 7.4, both of which emphasize the youthful bloom of her beauty. According to Hes. Th. 120 it was Eros who was κάλλιστος ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι, while Il. 20.233 describes Ganymedes as κάλλιστος … θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων, the sort of phrase which might have suggested the present one. The triad thus ends on an epic note which subtly prepares for the Homeric beginning of the next.

262

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

19–36. Praise of the Victor and his Ancestors After praising the victor’s city in the first triad by recounting the glories of its mythological past Pindar ends the catalogue with a break-off formula (vv. 19–20) and then turns to the praise of the victor and his ancestors (vv. 21–48). First, the most recent victory of Theaios in the local games of Argos where he has been successful for the second time (vv. 21–24). Then victories in three of the four Panhellenic games (vv. 25–28) followed by an allusion to the victor’s hope of rounding them off as a περιοδονίκης by a victory at Olympia (vv. 29–33). Next his successes in the local games at Athens, which the poet suggests are a prelude to what would be his culminating achievement (vv. 33–36). Finally, the numerous victories of his ancestors, Thrasyklos and Antias, at the Isthmus and Nemea as well as in various local Peloponnesian contests (vv. 37–48). The wide range given to the civic and familial encomia is skilfully balanced by the long mythological narrative which continues uninterrupted to the end of the ode. 19. βραχύ – ἀναγήσασθ᾿: cf. Il. 2.484–90, esp. 488f. πληθὺν δ᾿ οὐκ ἂν ἐγὼ μυθήσομαι οὐδ᾿ ὀνομήνω, | οὐδ᾿ εἴ μοι δέκα μὲν γλῶσσαι, δέκα δὲ στόματ᾿ εἶεν. On the break-off formula v. Braswell (1988) 339 ad Py. 4.247f. and further Race (1990) 41–57. Here the asyndeton is transitional, on which v. Dissen (1830) I 279. βραχύ: “too small”; on the use of the positive where we would expect a comparative in English v. Braswell (1988) 340 ad Py. 4.247(a). τέμενος: all of Argos was considered sacred to Hera; cf. already Il. 4.51f. (ἠμείβετ᾿ … Ἥρη·) “ἤτοι ἐμοὶ τρεῖς μὲν πολὺ φιλταταί εἰσι πόληες, | Ἄργος τε Σπάρτη τε καὶ εὐρυάγυια Μυκήνη”, and v. further ad 2 above. 20. μοῖραν ἐσλῶν: a periphrasis for ἐσλά; v. Braswell (1988) 213 ad Py. 4.127(b).

Commentary

263

κόρος: “satiety”, “excess”. Pindar constantly strives to avoid longeur in his poems. On Pindaric ποικιλία v. Pfeijffer (1999) 22f. (with further literature). 21. ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως: after the extensive praise of the city Pindar apologetically introduces another long encomium, that of the victor and his ancestors. εὔχορδον: a hapax legomenon. Compounds of -χορδος are not frequent before the Hellenistic period, but cf. ἀ- (Adesp. lyr. PMG 951), ἑνδεκα- (Ion Lyr. fr. 32.1 West2), δι- (Sopat. 12.2 Kassel/Austin [PCG I 282]), πολυ- (Adesp. lyr. PMG 947, E. Med. 196, ‘E.’ Rh. 548), προσ(Pl. Lg. 812d), τρι- (Anaxil. 15.1 Kassel/Austin [PCG II 284]). 22–23. ἀγών – κρίσιν: the asyndeton is explanatory, on which v. Dis͜ sen (1830) Ι 274. 22. τοι: does little more than call the audience’s attention to what follows; v. Denniston (21954) 537, 542. ἀγών – χάλκεος: the sch. ad loc. (39) are uncertain whether the contest is called “brazen” because it was violent or because the prize was a bronze shield. That it was the latter is confirmed by Zen. 6.52 (I 175,13–17 Leutsch/Schneidewin) ὡς τὴν ἐν Ἄργει ἀσπίδα καθελὼν σεμνύνεται, although a victor may well have received other bronze objects as part of his prize; cf sch. Ol. 7.152a (I 230,19–22 Dr.) τὰ Ἥραια … λαμβάνουσι δὲ ἐντεῦθεν οὐκ ἀργὸν χαλκόν, ἀλλὰ τρίποδας καὶ λέβητας καὶ ἀσπίδας καὶ κρατῆρας. 23. βουθυσίαν: according to sch. Ne. 10, inscr. a hundred cattle were sacrificed at the Heraia in Argos; v. further ad 2 Ἄργος Ἥρας δῶμα above. 24. Οὐλία: cf. the German proper name Krause. The Greek name is not very common, though it is occasionally found in inscriptions, e.g. IG II2 1602.17 (Athens, ΙV BCΕ).

264

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

εὐφόρων: “well borne”. Adopting an explanation of the sch. ad loc. (39) Mezger, Bury, Puech, Dönt, and others have taken it to mean “fruitful”, but this meaning is not otherwise attested before Aristotle and then only in prose where it is generally used in a technical sense of the fertility of animals and plants. λάθαν πόνων: a victory allows an athlete to forget all the toils he has suffered to obtain it; cf. Ol. 2.18f. λάθα … πότμῳ σὺν εὐδαίμονι γένοιτ᾿ ἄν. | ἐσλῶν γὰρ ὑπὸ χαρμάτων πῆμα θνᾴσκει. 25. ἐκράτησε: governs both στρατὸν and στέφανον. Not an example ͜ of zeugma, as Slater (1969) 288, s.v. κρατέω (a.β), calls it, but simply an example of a verb with a wider semantic range in Greek than any approximate equivalent in English; v. Braswell (1988) 86 ad Py. 4.18(d). 26. ἀρόσαι: “[a field] to plough”; cf. Ne. 6.32 Πιερίδων ἀρόταις, Py. 6.1–3 Ἀφροδίτας | ἄρουραν ἢ Χαρίτων | ἀναπολίζομεν. Pindar often uses a metaphor drawn from agriculture; v. Braswell (1992) 41 ad Ne. 1.13. 27. ἐν πόντοιο πύλαισι: i.e. at the Isthmus of Corinth. 28. σεμνοῖς … νόμῳ: i.e. at Nemea. ἐν Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ: “in accordance with Adrastos’ foundation”. ͜ Adrastos was supposed to have founded the Nemean contests as funeral games for the infant Opheltes while he and the Argive expedition of the Seven were on their way to Thebes; cf. the hypothesis to the Nemeans (III 1–5 Dr.), and v. further Doffey (1992). For ἐν used in the sense “in accordance with” v. Braswell (1988) 143 ad Py. 4.59(e). 29. Ζεῦ πάτερ: prayers often serve as a rhetorical strategy. Here it allows the poet to allude to Theaios’ wish for a victory at Olympia over which Zeus was thought to preside. On prayers in Pindar v. further Race (1990) 119–40.

Commentary

265

μὰν: the particle is emphatic; v. Denniston (21954) 330f. οἱ: “his”; always placed after a vowel in Pindar, on which v. Braswell (1988) 97 ad Py. 4.23(d). πὰν: practically adverbial here. 30. ἀμόχθῳ: i.e. (with a heart) that does not shrink from toil, which, along with talent and divine aid, is one of the prerequisites for a victory. τόλμαν: in his hard training and his readiness to enter competitions Theaios has shown his courage. 31. θεῳ: ͜ i.e. Zeus. ὅστις: general, but Theaios is clearly implied. 32. ἐσχάτων ἀέθλων: i.e. of the four Panhellenic games. ͜ κορυφαῖς: i.e. Olympia; cf. Ol. 2.12f. ἕδος Ὀλύμπου νέμων (sc. Zeus) | ἀέθλων τε κορυφὰν. The plural is presumably employed here for metrical reasons; v. further Wackernagel (21926–28) I 97f. δ᾿: explanatory use of the particle; v. Denniston (21954) 169. Πίσα: i.e. Olympia. On the name and its relation to Olympia v. E. Meyer, RE, s.v. Pisa, Pisatis, XX 2 (1950) 1732–55. 33. Ἡρα κλέος: the mythical founder of the Olympian games; cf. Ol. ͜ 3.36–38, and esp. 10.43–59. As Farnell (1930–32) II 10 ad Ol. 1.90–95 rightly pointed out, the race between Pelops and Oinomaos described in Ol. 1 does not pertain to the foundation legend. τεθμόν: practically a synonym of νόμος in v. 28. ͜ 33–35. ἁδεῖαί – κώμασαν: Theaios has twice been victorious in the Panathenaia.

266

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

33. γε μὲν: adversative. The sense is: an Olympian victory is doubtless the highest, but still he has won twice in Athens. On the combination of particles v. Denniston (21954) 387. ἀμβολάδαν: “as a prelude”; cf. h. Merc. 426. The victories in Athens presage an even greater one in Olympia. 34. τελεταῖς: originally used of mystic “rites” esp. those including initiation as in the Eleusian mysteries, but here used in a more general sense “festivals”; v. Schuddeboom (2009) 9. The reference in vv. 35f. to the prize makes it clear that the Panathenaia are meant. They did not include mystic rites but by the second quarter of the sixth century had been transformed into a civic festival in which athletic contests were a major feature; v. Parker (1996) 75f., 89f. On the Panathenaia more generally v. Deubner (1932) 22–35, which remains the fundamental study, while Parke (1977) 33–50, provides a good survey in English. νιν: an extreme example of the displacement of an enclitic from its preferred second position in a clause or sentence (Wackernagel [1892]). Here metrical considerations have presumably influenced the choice of position. ὀμφαί: an old-fashioned word used originally of the voice of the gods which together with the use of τελεταί gives the passage an air of solemnity. It too, however, is used in a more general sense. 35. κώμασαν: “celebrated in a revel” with song and dance; v. Braswell (1998) 45 ad Ne. 9.1. γαίᾳ … καυθείσᾳ πυρὶ καρπὸς ἐλαίας: i.e. olive oil in clay pots, the prize at the Panathenaia. The large Panathenaic amphoras can be seen in abundance in most major archaeological collections. Young (1984) 115–27, has attempted to calculate how much a prize at the Panathenaia was worth. According to him the first prize in wrestling was worth 720 drachmas or what a skilled workman would have earned in a year and a half. On the poetic paraphrase, the so-called kenning, v. Wærn (1951),

Commentary

267

who, however, does not deal with the present example in her section on Pindar (pp. 123–25). 36. ἕρκεσιν: a ἕρκος is a barrier of any kind, i.e. something that holds another thing in. παμποικίλοις: an appropriate epithet for the elaborately decorated amphoras.

Scholia vetera in Nemeonicarum carmen X (III 165,9–175,6 Drachmann)

Inscr. Ἐν Ἄργει τελεῖται τῇ Ἥρᾳ ἀγὼν ἱερὸς Ἑκατόμ­ βαια, ὃν καὶ Ἥραια καλοῦσιν· ἐν γὰρ τῇ τοῦ ἀγῶνος πανηγύρει ἑκατὸν βοῦς θύουσι τῇ Ἥρᾳ. ὁ δὲ Δαναὸς Βήλου παῖς ὢν τοῦ Ἄργους ἐβασίλευσεν, ὁ δὲ Αἴγυπτος τῆς ὁμωνύμου χώρας, ὁ δὲ Ἀγήνωρ τῆς Φοινίκης. (BD) 1a. Δ α ν α ο ῦ π ό λ ι ν ἀ γ λ α ο θ ρ ό ν ω ν τ ε · ἔνιοί φασιν εἰς πλείους νίκας τὸν ἐπίνικον συντετάχθαι· λαβεῖν γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ Ἴσθμια καὶ Πύθια καὶ Νέμεα. περὶ δὲ τῶν Ὀλυμπίων εὔχεται, ὅτε φησί (v. 29)· «Ζεῦ πάτερ, τῶν γε μὰν ἔραται». ὁ δὲ Πίνδαρος ὅτε βούλοιτο ἐπαινεῖν τὰς πατρίδας τῶν νενικηκότων, ἀθροίζειν εἴωθε τὰ πεπραγμένα ταῖς πόλεσι περιφανῆ, καθὼς ἐν τῇ ᾠδῇ, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή (fr. 29.1 Maehler)· «Ἰσμηνὸν ἢ χρυσηλάκατον Μελίαν». (BD) 1b. ὁ δὲ λόγος· ὑμνεῖτε, ὦ Χάριτες, τὴν τοῦ Δαναοῦ πόλιν καὶ τὰς πεντήκοντα αὐτοῦ θυγατέρας. (BD) 1c. ὁ δὲ νοῦς ὅλος· τὴν τοῦ Δαναοῦ πόλιν καὶ τῶν πεντήκοντα θυγατέρων αὐτοῦ, φημὶ δὲ τὸ Ἄργος, ἥτις πόλις Ἀργείων οἰκητήριον θειωδέστατόν ἐστι τῆς Ἥρας, ὑμνήσατε, ὦ Χάριτες. ἔστι δὲ παρὰ τὸ Ὁμηρικόν (Δ 51f.)· ἦτοι ἐμοὶ τρεῖς μὲν πολὺ φίλταταί εἰσι πόληες, Ἄργος τε Σπάρτη τε καὶ εὐρυάγυια Μυκήνη. καὶ Καλλίμαχος (fr. 55 Pfeiffer = Aet. fr. 55 Harder)· τὸν μὲν ἀρισκυδὴς εὖνις ἀνῆκε Διὸς Ἄργος ἔθειν, ἴδιόν περ ἐὸν λάχος· ἀλλὰ γενέθλῃ Ζηνὸς ὅπως σκοτίῃ τρηχὺς ἄεθλος ἔοι. (BD) 1d. τὸ δὲ φλέγεται ἀντὶ τοῦ λαμπρύνεται καὶ δοξάζεται· ἐκλάμπει χάριν τῶν ἀρετῶν ὧν ἔσχε. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165,9

   

15

20

25 166,1

5

The Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

Inscription. In Argos a sacred contest, the Hekatombaia, which they also call the Heraia, is celebrated in honour of Hera. During the festival they sacrifice a hundred cattle to Hera. Danaos, who was the son of Belos, was king of Argos, and Aigyptos was king of the land that bears his name, while Agenor was king of the Phoenician land. 1a. City of Danaos and [his fifty daughters] with their splendid thrones: some say that the victory ode was composed for several victories. For he (sc. Theaios) won at the Isthmian, Pythian, and Nemean games. And he (sc. Pindar) is praying for a victory in the Olympic games, when he says (v. 29): “Father Zeus, what truly he longs for”. And Pindar, when he wishes to praise the native countries of victors, is accustomed to catalogue the famous accomplishments of the cities as in the ode which begins (fr. 29.1 Maehler): “[Shall it be] Ismenos or Melia with the golden spindle [… whom we shall celebrate in song?]”. 1b. The statement is: celebrate in song, Graces, the city of Danaos and his fifty daughters. 1c. The sense [understood] as a whole is: the city of Danaos and his fifty daughters, I am referring to Argos, the city of the Argives which is the most divine dwelling-place of Hera, celebrate it, Graces. There is a passage in Homer (Il. 4.51f.): “I have three cities which are much the dearest to me, Argos, Sparta, and Mykene with broad passage ways”, and Kallimachos (fr. 55 Pfeiffer = Aet. fr. 55 Harder): “the very wrathful spouse of Zeus loosed him (sc. the Nemean lion) to devour Argos, though it was her alloted portion, and as a hard labour for the unlawful offspring of Zeus”. 1d. The verb φλέγεται (‘it is ablaze’) is used instead of λαμπρύνεται (‘is distinguished’) and δοξάζεται (‘is held in honour’). It shines forth the charm of the excellence which it had gained.

270

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

6. μ α κ ρ ὰ μ ὲ ν τ ὰ Π ε ρ σ έ ω ς · ἀπὸ Περσέως ἄρχεται· Ἀργεῖος γὰρ οὗτος. μακρὰ οὖν, φησί, τὰ διηγήματα τὰ περὶ Περσέως, ἃ ἔπραξε κατὰ τὴν Γοργόνα. μακρὰ δὲ αὐτὰ εἶπεν, ἤτοι ὅτι παλαιά ἐστι τὰ λεγόμενα, οἷον ἀπὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου μήκους διῖκται εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἢ μακρὰ οἷον ὑψηλὰ καὶ ἔνδοξα· ἢ καὶ τρίτον μακρά ἐστι τὰ διηγήματα, ἐὰν ἄρξωμαι εἰπεῖν τὰ περὶ Περσέως. μακρὰ τοίνυν ἂν εἴη λέγειν καὶ διηγεῖσθαι τὰ Περσέως καὶ Μεδούσης τῆς Γοργόνος. καὶ ῥητορικῶς δὲ τοῦτο ποιεῖ· δοκῶν παραιτεῖσθαι τὸ λέγειν καθ’ ἕκαστα (suppl. Mommsen) τῶν Ἀργείων ἀνδραγαθήματα, λεληθότως καταριθμεῖται αὐτά. ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἱστορία αὕτη. Μέδουσα, μία δὲ τῶν Γοργόνων αὕτη, ἤρισέ ποτε περὶ κάλλους τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ, ἡ δὲ πρὸς τὴν πρόκλησιν ἀγανακτήσασα πείθει Περσέα εἰς τὸν Ὠκεανὸν διαβῆναι, παρασχοῦσα αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν Ἄϊδος κυνέην, εἴη δ’ ἂν ἡ ἀορασία, καὶ ἀποτεμεῖν τῆς Γοργόνος τὴν κεφαλήν, ὁ δὲ τῷ αὐτοῦ τάχει θαρρῶν καὶ τῇ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς συμπραξίᾳ ἐπὶ τὸν ἆθλον στέλλεται, καὶ κατειληφὼς τὰς Γοργόνας καὶ ἰδὼν διαδούσας ἀλλήλαις τὸν ὀφθαλμόν, ἑνὶ γὰρ αἱ πᾶσαι ἐχρῶντο, ἁρμοζόμενον τὸ διδόμενον πρὸς τὸ ἐγχείρημα σκοπήσας ἀποτέμνει τῆς Μεδούσης τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ δίδωσι τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ· ἡ δὲ δεξαμένη ἐνέθηκε τῷ ἑαυτῆς στήθει, ὅπως ἂν ἐν τῇ παραθέσει ἡ τοῦ κάλλους εἴη διάκρισις. ἐδυνήθη δὲ καὶ τῇ τῆς Γοργόνος κεφαλῇ τὴν Ἀνδρομέδαν τοῦ κήτους ἀπολύσασθαι· δείξας γὰρ τῷ κήτει τὴν Γοργόνα καὶ ἀπολιθώσας αὐτὸ ἀπέλυσε τῆς βορᾶς τὴν παρθένον. οἱ γὰρ ὁρῶντες τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς Γοργόνος ἀπελιθοῦντο. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

8. π ο λ λ ὰ δ’ Α ἰ γ ύ π τ ῳ κ α τ ῴ κ ι σ θ ε ν ἄ σ τ η · πολλὰ δ’ ἂν εἴη λέγειν, ὅπως ἐν τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ κατῳκίσθησαν πόλεις ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ Ἐπάφου χειρῶν. Ἔπαφος δὲ Διὸς καὶ Ἰοῦς, Ἰὼ δὲ Ἰνάχου τοῦ ἐν Ἄργει ποταμοῦ καὶ νύμφης· οὗτος οὖν ὁ Ἔπαφος ἐβασίλευσεν Αἰγύπτου, Ἀργεῖος ὢν ἀπὸ μητρός. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

15

20

25 167,1

5

   

10

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

271

6. Long is the story of Perseus: he (sc. Pindar) begins with Perseus, for he was an Argive. Long, he says, is the narrative of what Perseus did in the case of the Gorgon. He calls it long either because the story is old, so to say, it reaches us from a distant past, or long, so to say, as lofty and famous, or also, a third possibility, it is a long narrative, if I begin to tell of the affairs concerning Perseus. It would be long to tell and narrate the account of Perseus and Medousa the Gorgon. He does this skilfully. While seeming to excuse himself from relating in detail the heroic deeds of the Argives, he recounts them imperceptively1. The story is as follows. Medousa, the famous one of the Gorgons, once competed with Athena for beauty, and she, irritated at the challenge, persuaded Perseus to cross over to Okeanos, presenting him with the cap of Aïs (Hades)2, that he might be invisible, and to cut off the head of the Gorgon. And he trusting in his speed3 and the aid of Athena set off to the task, and coming upon the Gorgons and seeing that they handed around their eye to each other, for all of them used one, he watched out for the moment the eye had been handed over and was being fitted in to make his attempt. He then cut off the head of Medousa and gave it to Athena. She took it and placed it on her breast4, so that by the juxtaposition the difference in their beauty would be apparent. With the head of the Gorgon he was also able to free Andromeda from the seamonster. For by showing the Gorgon to the sea-monster and turning it into stone, he freed the maiden from being devoured. For those who saw the head of the Gorgon were turned to stone. 8. while many are the cities which it (sc. Argos) founded in Egypt: it would be possible to say many in that cities were founded in Egypt at the hands of Epaphos. Epaphos was the son of Zeus and Io, and Io was the daughter of Inachos, the river in Argos, and a nymph. Now this famous Epaphos was king of Egypt and an Argive through his mother.

1 2 3 4

The critic has recognized that Pindar uses a form of the rhetorical device of praeteritio often employed in oratory. Familiar as the German Tarnkappe. Implied in his possession of winged shoes (talaria). The familiar Gorgoneion.

272

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

10a. ο ὐ δ’ Ὑ π ε ρ μ ή σ τ ρ α π α ρ ε π λ ά γ χ θ η · τί δ’ ἄν τις φήσειε περὶ τῆς Ὑπερμήστρας; ἥτις οὐκ ἐσφάλη φεισαμένη τοῦ αὑτῆς ξίφους καὶ μὴ ἀνελοῦσα τὸν Λυγκέα. παρεπλάγχθη δέ, ἀντὶ τοῦ τοῦ δέοντος ἀπεπλανήθη λογισμοῦ. (BD) 10b. ἄλλως· καὶ τοῦτο εἰς ἔπαινόν φησι. τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων Δαναΐδων κοινῇ γνώμῃ ἐπιθεμένων τοῖς Αἰγυπτιάδαις, μόνη ἡ Ὑπερμήστρα, ἐπεὶ διεφύλαξεν αὐτὴν ἁγνὴν παρθένον ὁ Λυγκεύς, οὐκ ἐφαίνετο ἰσόψηφος ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς, ἀλλὰ μονόψηφος ἐγένετο, ψῆφον ἤνεγκε μόνη καθ’ ἑαυτήν, ἀπολυτικήν τινα ταύτην, ἐν κολεῷ κατασχοῦσα τὸ ξίφος· τουτέστι μόνη παρὰ τὰς ἄλλας Δαναΐδας, ἰδίᾳ ψήφῳ χρησαμένη, οὐκ ἔσπασε κατὰ τοῦ Λυγκέως τὸ ξίφος. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

12a. Δ ι ο μ ή δ ε α δ’ ἄ μ β ρ ο τ ο ν ξ α ν θ ά π ο τ ε Γ λ α υ κ ῶ π ι ς ἔ θ η κ ε θ ε ό ν · καὶ οὗτος Ἀργεῖος, ὃς δι’ ἀρετὴν ἀπηθανατίσθη· καὶ ἔστι περὶ τὸν Ἀδρίαν Διομήδεια νῆσος ἱερά, ἐν ᾗ τιμᾶται ὡς θεός. καὶ Ἴβυκος (PMGF 294) οὕτω· *** τὴν Ἑρμιόνην γήμας ὁ Διομήδης ἀπηθανατίσθη σὺν τοῖς Διοσκούροις· καὶ γὰρ συνδιαιτᾶται αὐτοῖς. καὶ Πολέμων (fr. 20 Preller) ἱστορεῖ· «ἐν μὲν γὰρ Ἀργυρίπποις ἅγιόν ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἱερόν· καὶ ἐν Μεταποντίῳ δὲ διὰ πολλῆς αὐτὸν αἴρεσθαι τιμῆς ὡς θεόν, καὶ ἐν Θουρίοις εἰκόνας αὐτοῦ καθιδρύσθαι ὡς θεοῦ». (BD) 12b. ἄλλως. οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τὸν Διομήδην ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ θεὸν ἐποίησε; κατὰ γὰρ τὸν Θηβαϊκὸν πόλεμον Μελάνιππος, ἦν δὲ οὗτος ἥρως Θηβαῖος, ἔτρωσε τὸν Τυδέα· ὁ δὲ πρὸς τὴν πληγὴν θυμήνας καθικέτευσε τὸν Ἀμφιάραον ἀνελεῖν τὸν Μελάνιππον καὶ προσαγαγεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν κεφαλήν. προσαχθείσης δὲ αὐτῷ τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ τῆς ὀργῆς νικησάσης τὸν δέοντα λογισμόν, ἀπεγεύσατο τῶν Μελανιππείων κρεῶν, ὡς καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐν τῷ Μελεάγρῳ (fr. 537 Kannicht [TrGF V 1,567]) φησίν· «εἰς ἀνδροβρῶτας ἡδονὰς ἀφίξεται | κάρηνα πυρσαῖς γένυσι Μελανίππου σπάσας». τετρωμένῳ οὖν τῷ Τυδεῖ ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ τὴν ἀθανασίαν παρήγαγε, καὶ οὐκ ἀπήλαυσε τῆς δωρεᾶς ἔτι διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρωπείων κρεῶν βρῶσιν· εἶτα ὡς αὐτὸς οὐκ ἠδυνήθη    

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

20

25

   ­

 

168,1

5

10

15

20

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

273

10a. nor did Hypermestra go astray: what would anyone say about Hypermestra? She did not go wrong by sparing her sword and not slaying Lynkeus. [He says] “go astray” instead [of giving] the reason that would have required her to stray off. 10b. Alternatively: and he says this as praise. For when the other Danaïdai resolved in common to attack the sons of Aigyptos, Hypermestra alone, since Lynkeus respected her virginity, did not vote like her sisters, but voted alone, she brought to herself alone the vote, this absolution, by keeping her sword in the scabbard. That is, she alone in contrast to the other Danaïdai cast a single ballot and did not draw the sword against Lynkeus. 12a. And the golden-haired Glaukôpis once made Diomedes an immortal god: and he (sc. Diomedes) was an Argive who was immortalized because of his excellence. And there is a sacred island Diomedeia in the Adriatic on which he is worshipped as a god. And Ibykos (PMGF 294) says ***1 when Diomedes married Hermione he was immortalized together with the Dioskouroi. For he was living together with them. And Polemon (fr. 20 Preller) relates: “For in Argyrippa there is a holy shrine of his. And in Metapontum he was extoled with great honour as a god, and in Thurii images were set up for him as a god.”2 12b. Alternatively: did not Athena also make Diomedes a god? For in the Theban war Melanippos, and this hero was a Theban, wounded Tydeus. And he, enraged by the blow, entreated Amphiaraos to kill Melanippos and to bring him his head. When the head was brought and his anger overcame good judgment, he tasted the flesh of Melanippos, as Euripides says in the Meleager (fr. 537 Kannicht [TrGF V 1,567]): “He will arrive at cannibalistic pleasures when he has rent the head of Melanippos with his ruddy jaws.” It so happens that when Tydeus was wounded, Athena was about to bring him immortality, and yet he did not have benefit of the gift because of his eating of human flesh. Since *1 *2

Boeckh, followed by Drachmann, indicated a lacuna, whereas Page (ad PMG 294) and Davies (ad loc.) did not. The quotation marks are from Braswell’s translation of the scholion. Preller considered only the first phrase (ἐν μὲν γὰρ Ἀργυρίπποις ἅγιόν ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἱερόν) as being from Polemon’s work On dedications in Sparta.

274

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

τῆς ἀθανασίας τυχεῖν, ἠξίωσε τὴν θεὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Διομήδην τὸ δῶρον μεταθεῖναι. τιμᾶται γοῦν καὶ παρὰ Θουρίοις καὶ Μεταποντίοις ὡς θεὸς Διομήδης, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ τοῖς ἱστορικοῖς εὑρέσθαι αὐτοῦ τὸν θάνατον. (BD) 14. γ α ῖ α δ’ ἐ ν Θ ή β α ι ς ὑ π έ δ ε κ τ ο · καὶ ὁ Ἀμφιάραος Ἀργεῖος. Θηβαῖοι οὖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὡς θεὸν τὸν Ὀϊκλέους παῖδα Ἀμφιάραον, σχισθείσης ὑπὸ κεραυνοῦ τῆς γῆς καὶ δεξαμένης αὐτόν; ὁ γὰρ Ζεὺς εἰς τιμὴν αὐτοῦ σχίσας τὴν γῆν τῷ κεραυνῷ καταδεχθῆναι ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν σὺν τῷ ἅρματι, καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν ἀθάνατον· ἀφ’ οὗ δὴ μέχρι νῦν τὸ τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου μαντεῖον ἐνδοξότατον τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος. ἀμφίβολον δὲ πότερον τὸν Ἀμφιάραον ἐδέξατο ἡ γῆ πολέμου ὄντα νέφος, ἢ ὅτε τὸ τοῦ πολέμου νέφος τοῖς Ἀργείοις ἐπῆλθε τὸ ἀπὸ Θηβῶν, τότε ὁ Ζεὺς κηδόμενος τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς δεχθῆναι καὶ εἶναι ἀθάνατον. (BD)  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. κ α ὶ γ υ ν α ι ξ ὶ κ α λ λ ι κ ό μ ο ι σ ι · προεξαριθμησάμενος τὰς τῶν Ἀργείων ἀρετάς φησι μὴ μόνον ἥρωσι διαπρέπειν αὐτούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡρωΐσι γυναιξὶ διαπρέπειν πάλαι, ἀρχῆθεν. τίς ἀπόδειξις ὅτι καὶ γυναιξί; Ζεὺς ἐπ’ Ἀλκμήναν Δανάαν τε μολὼν τοῦτον κατέφηνε λόγον· ὅτι καὶ γυναιξὶν ἀριστεύει τὸ Ἄργος, οὐχ ἕτερος μάρτυς ἀλλ’ ὁ Ζεύς, ὃς καὶ πρὸς Ἀλκμήνην ἀφίκετο καὶ Δανάην Ἀργείας οὔσας. (BD)  

   

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

169,1

5

 

21a. π α τ ρ ί τ’ Ἀ δ ρ ά σ τ ο ι ο Λ υ γ κ ε ῖ τ ε · οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τῷ τοῦ Ἀδράστου πατρὶ Ταλαῷ καὶ τῷ Λυγκεῖ ἄριστον λογισμὸν παρέσχε καὶ μετὰ δικαιοσύνης συνήρμοσε; καρπὸς δὲ φρενῶν ὁ λογισμός. τίς δὲ συνήρμοσεν; ὁ Ζεύς. (BD) 21b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· καὶ ἐπὶ Ταλαῷ οὖν καὶ Λυγκεῖ τὸν τῶν φρενῶν καρπὸν εὐθὺν ἐποίησεν, ὅ ἐστι δίκαιον αὐτῶν τὸν νοῦν ἐποίησεν ὁ Ζεύς. ἀπὸ Λυγκέως δὲ οἱ περὶ Περσέα. (BD)  

25

 

 

 

10

15

   

20

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

275

then he was not able to attain immortality himself, he asked the goddess to transfer the gift to Diomedes. At any rate Diomedes is honoured by the Thurians and the Metapontians as a god, and it is not possible to find an account of his death in the historians. 14. while the earth at Thebes received [Oikles’ son]: and Amphiaraos was an Argive. Do not then the Thebans consider the son of Oikles, Amphiaraos, a god, since the earth was split open by a thunderbolt and received him? For in his honour Zeus split open the earth by a thunderbolt and caused him to be taken in together with his chariot and made him immortal. From that time on up to now the oracular shrine of Amphiaraos has been very famous among those of Greece. It is uncertain however whether the earth received Amphiaraos because he was a cloud of war or because when the cloud of war came to the Argives it was the cloud of war from Thebes, Zeus then in his concern for Amphiaraos ordered him to be received beneath the earth and to be [made] immortal. 17. And [Argos from old has excelled] in women with their lovely hair: in his initial enumeration of the excellences of the Argives he (sc. Pindar) says that not only were they eminent in their heroes, but from old they were also eminent in their heroic women, i.e. from the beginning. What evidence is there that they were eminent in their women too? Zeus in going to Alkmene and Danaë proves this statement. That Argos is excellent in women too, there is none other witness but Zeus who went to Alkmene and Danaë who were Argive women. 21a. And for the father of Adrastos and for Lynkeus [did he join the fruit of wisdom with unswerving justice]: did he not grant excellence to Adrastos’ father Talaos and to Lynkeus and join it with a sense of justice? Justice is the fruit of wisdom. Who joined them? Zeus1. 21b. The sense is: for Talaos and Lynkeus he made the fruit of their mind upright, that is Zeus made their understanding just. Perseus and his family were descended from Lynkeus. 1

More likely Argos; v. my comm. ad Ne. 10.12, p. 255 above.

276

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

24a. ὁ δ’ ὄ λ β ῳ φ έ ρ τ α τ ο ς ἵ κ ε τ’ ἐ ς κ ε ί ν ο υ γ ε ν ε ά ν · κοινω­σό­μενος τῷ Ἀμφιτρύωνι τὴν γενεὰν ὁ Ζεὺς ἵκετ’ εἰς ἐκείνου γενεάν (ἵκετ’ – γενεάν om. B). πῶς δὲ παρεγένετο συγγενέσθαι; ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ζεὺς τῇ προτέρᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγέννησε τὸν Ἡρακλέα, ὁ δὲ Ἀμφιτρύων τῇ ἑξῆς τὸν Ἰφικλέα, καὶ ἐμίχθη τὰ γένη ἀμφοτέρων. (BD) 24b. οὐχὶ δὲ ὁ Ζεὺς παρεγένετο εἰς τὴν ἐκείνου σποράν; ὅτε γὰρ τοῖς ὅπλοις ἀναιροῦντος αὐτοῦ τοὺς Τηλεβόας, τηνικαῦτα τὴν ὄψιν ἀφομοιωθεὶς ὁ Ζεὺς τῷ Ἀμφιτρύωνι (D) | καὶ οὕτως εἰς τὸν οἶκον ἐλθὼν τῆς Ἀλκμήνης ἐπλησία­ σεν αὐτῇ καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα ἔσπειρεν. ἆθλον γὰρ ἡ Ἀλκμήνη τὸν ἑαυτῆς γάμον προὔθηκε τῷ τοὺς Τηλεβόας καταπολεμή­ σοντι· ἔπραττε τοῦτο Ἀμφιτρύων, καὶ ἐκείνου περὶ τὸν πόλεμον ἀσχολουμένου ὁ Ζεὺς ἀφομοιωθεὶς συνῆλθεν αὐτῇ. (BD) 24c. ἀδείμαντον δὲ ἔφη τὸ σπέρμα, ὃ ἔμελλεν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Ἡρακλέους γένεσιν καταβαλεῖν ὁ Ζεύς, ὅ ἐστιν ἄφοβον· ὁ γὰρ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθεὶς ἦν ἄφοβος Ἡρακλῆς. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31. ο ὗ κ α τ’ Ὄ λ υ μ π ο ν ἄ λ ο χ ο ς · οὗτινος Ἡρακλέους ἡ γαμετὴ κατὰ τὸν Ὄλυμπον Ἥβη παρὰ τῇ τελείᾳ ἑαυτῆς μητρὶ προϊοῦσα πορεύεται τῶν θεῶν ἐκπρεπεστάτη. λέγει δὲ μητέρα τελείαν τὴν Ἥραν. καὶ Αἰσχύλος (fr. 383 Radt [TrGF III 432])· «Ἥρα τελεία, Ζηνὸς εὐναία δάμαρ». ἔστι γὰρ αὐτὴ γαμηλία καὶ ζυγία. ἔστι δὲ ὁ γάμος τέλος διὰ τὸ τελειότητα βίου κατασκευάζειν. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

170,1

5

10

   

35. β ρ α χ ύ μ ο ι σ τ ό μ α π ά ν τ’ ἀ ν α γ ή σ α σ θ α ι · ἥτ­τη­ ταί μοι, φησί, τῶν Ἀργείων ἀνδραγαθημάτων ὁ λόγος, καὶ ἀδυνάτως ἔχει πάντα διηγήσασθαι τὰ τοῦ Ἄργους καλά. διατί δὲ εἰς ταῦτα παρεκβέβηκεν; ὅτι ὁ ἀγών, ὃν ἐνίκα ὁ Θειαῖος, τὰ Ἑκατόμβαια, οὐκ ἦν ἐπίσημος οὐδ’ ἐκτροπὰς ἔχων. ἵν’ οὖν ἔχῃ μῆκος περιποιῆσαι τῇ ᾠδῇ, ἐπὶ τὴν κοινότητα τῶν ἐπαίνων τῆς πατρίδος αὐτοῦ κατήντησεν. (BD)  

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

   

20

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

277

24a. And he whose bliss is supreme entered into the family of that man: Zeus1 came to share the family with Amphitryon when he came to the family of that man. How did he come to enter in? Zeus begat Herakles on the first day, while Amphitryon begat Iphikles on the following one, and the families of both were mixed. 24b. Was not Zeus at hand for the procreation? For when he (sc. Amphitryon) slew the Teleboans while under arms, Zeus then made himself like Amphitryon in appearance and coming thus to the house of Alkmene had intercourse with her and begat Herakles. For Alkmene had stipulated as a trial for her marriage the defeat in war of the Teleboans. Amphitryon performed this, and when he (sc. Amphitryon) was occupied with the war, Zeus took on his form and had intercourse with her. 24c. He (sc. Pindar) called the seed “intrepid”, which Zeus was about to ejaculate for the birth of Herakles, that is fearless. For he who was begot by him was fearless Herakles. 31. who has on Olympos as his wife: when Hebe, the wife of Herakles on Olympos, appears beside her mother the fulfiller, she moves along most splendidly among the gods. He (sc. Pindar) calls her mother Hera “fulfiller”. And Aischylos (fr. 383 Radt [TrGF III 432]) says: “Hera fulfiller, Zeus’ spouse with whom he shares his bed”. For she presides over marriages and weddings. Marriage is fulfilment on account of its preparing for the completeness of life. 35. My mouth is too small to relate all: the account of the manly deeds of the Argives is too great for me, he says, and it is impossible to recount all the excellences of Argos. Why does he digress to this? Because the contest in which Theaios was victorious, the Hekatombaia, was not distinguished, nor is there a digression. In order then that he might lend importance to the ode, he had recourse to general praise of the victor’s native land.

1

Others understand the subject as Amphitryon, but v. my comm. ad Ne. 10.13, p. 257 above.

278

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

37a. ἔ σ τ ι δ ὲ κ α ὶ κ ό ρ ο ς ἀ ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν β α ρ ὺ ς (BD) | ἀ ν τ ι ά σ α ι · ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ὁ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φθόνος βαρὺς πρὸς ἐναντίωσιν· οὐχ ἡδέως γὰρ ἀκούουσιν ἀλλοτρίων θαυμάτων οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς κόρον ἴσχουσι τῶν ἐπαίνων διὰ βασκανίαν. (B) 37b. ἄλλως· ὁ κόρος βαρύς ἐστιν ὁ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (B) | ἀντιάσαι καὶ συναντῆσαι, τουτέστιν ἀντίος γενηθεὶς ὁ κόρος τῶν ἀνθρώπων βαρύς ἐστι καὶ δυσβάστακτος· διὸ τὸν ὕμνον τῶν Ἀργείων καταλείψας τὸν κόρον φεύξομαι, ὅ ἐστι τὸν φθόνον. (BD)  

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

39. ἀ λ λ’ ὅ μ ω ς ε ὔ χ ο ρ δ ο ν ἔ γ ε ι ρ ε λ ύ ρ α ν · πρὸς ἑαυτόν φησι ταῦτα ὁ Πίνδαρος· ὅμως μέντοι τὴν εὐάρμοστον λύραν λάμ­βανε καὶ τὴν φροντίδα τῶν παλαισμάτων δέξαι, τουτέστιν ἐπαίνει τὸν παλαιστήν. χάλκεον δέ φησι τὸν ἀγῶνα, ἤτοι ὅτι ἰσχυρός ἐστιν, ἢ ὅτι χαλκοῦν ὅπλον τὸ ἔπαθλον. ὁ τοίνυν ἀγὼν ὁ στερρότατος τὸν δῆμον παρορμᾷ εἰς τὴν τῆς θεοῦ θυσίαν, εἴς τε τὴν τῶν ἄθλων κρίσιν τὸν δῆμον ὁ τοῦ Οὐ­λίου παῖς Θειαῖος παρορμᾷ. τὸ παρορμᾷ δὲ ἀπὸ κοινοῦ. δὶς δὲ αὐτόν φησι νενικηκέναι τὰ Ἑκατόμβαια καὶ ἐσχηκέναι εὐφόρων λήθην πόνων. ἐπιλανθάνονται γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄθλησιν πόνων, ὅταν νικήσωσι. γράφεται δὲ καὶ εὐ­ φ­ρόνων· εὐφόρων μέν, ἐπεὶ εὔφοροί εἰσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι πόνοι τῷ ἄριστα ἆθλα ἐνηνοχέναι· εὐφρόνων δέ, τῶν εὐφραντικῶν. (BD)  

171,1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

46a. ἐ κ ρ ά τ η σ ε δ ὲ κ α ί π ο θ’ Ἕ λ λ α ν α σ τ ρ α τ ό ν · κοινῶς τὸ πλῆθος στρατὸν εἶπεν, ὡς καὶ Πύθια νενικηκότος αὐτοῦ καὶ Ἴσθμια καὶ Νέμεα. (BD) 46b. ἢ οὕτω· παραγέγονε δὲ καὶ ἐκράτησε πάντων τῶν ἀνταγωνιστῶν ἐν τοῖς Πυθίοις. (BD) 46c. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· σὺν εὐτυχίᾳ δὲ παραγενόμενος ἐκράτησε πάλιν καὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἰσθμῷ καὶ Νεμέᾳ στεφάνους. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

15

20

    

49a. Μ ο ί σ α ι σ ί τ’ ἔ δ ω κ’ ἀ ρ ό σ α ι · τουτέστι ταῖς Μού­ σαις ἔδωκεν ἀρόσαι καὶ σπεῖραι τοὺς στεφάνους διὰ τὸν ὕμνον· ἢ ὡς ἑτέρων ποιησάντων καὶ ὑμνησάντων αὐτὸν ἐπὶ ταῖς νίκαις ἐκείναις τοῦτό φησιν. (BD)  

5

25

     

172,1

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

279

*37a. Then too there are men’s feelings of excess which are irksome to encounter: for men’s envy is irksome to encounter: men do not like to hear about the wonderful achievements of others, but straightway feel that such praise is excessive on account of their jealousy. *37b. Alternatively: men’s feelings of excess are irksome to encounter and to meet with, that is, when men’s feelings of excess are contrary, they are irksome and hard to bear; therefore, having abandoned the hymn of the Argives I will avoid feelings of excess, that is, envy. *39. But still arouse the well-strung lyre: Pindar says these words to himself: “Nevertheless take up the harmonious lyre and give thought to the wrestling bouts”, that is, “praise the wrestler”. He says that the contest is brazen, either because the contest is violent or because the prize is a bronze shield. The hardest contest incites the people to sacrifice to the goddess, and Oulias’ son, Theaios, incites the people to judge the contests. One must take the word “he urges on” ἀπὸ κοινοῦ.1 He says the he (sc. Theaios) has won twice at the Hekatombaia and gained forgetfulness of his well-borne toils. For men forget the toils of a contest when they win. εὐφρόνων is also written: εὐφόρων, because such toils are well borne if the highest prizes are won; εὐφρόνων, i.e. cheerful. *46a. And once too he mastered Hellas’ host: in general he (sc. Pindar) called the people στρατός, because he (sc. Theaios) has also won at the Pythian, Isthmian, and Nemean games. *46b. Or thus: he (sc. Theaios) came and defeated his competitors at the Pythian games. *46c. The sense is: coming with good fortune, he (sc. Theaios) again won the crowns at the Isthmus and in Nemea. *49a. and he gave the Muses a field to plough: that is, he (sc. Theaios) gave the Muses the crowns to plough and to sow through their song.2 Or he (sc. Pindar) says this because others did so and sang of him in honour of those victories. 1 2

On the schema ἀπὸ κοινοῦ v. Braswell (2013) 154. The scholiast misunderstood the construction in vv. 25f., considering στέφανον as the object of ἀρόσαι; v. Henry (2005) 101 ad loc. and Braswell’s comm. ad Ne. 10.25, p. 264 above.

280

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

49b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· καὶ παρέσχε πρόφασιν ταῖς Μούσαις· τρίτον μὲν γὰρ κληρωθεὶς ἐνίκησε τὰ Ἴσθμια· πόντου γὰρ πύλας εἶπε τὸν Ἰσθμὸν διὰ τὸ στενόν· τρὶς δὲ τὰ Νέμεα κατὰ τὴν Ἀδράστου διοίκησιν καὶ νομοθέτησιν τελούμενα. οἱ γὰρ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας ἀνενεώσαντο τὰ Νέμεα, ὧν εἷς Ἄδραστος. ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς τῶν ἐν Ἄργει ἐπιφανῶν, διὰ τοῦτο Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ φησί, χαριζόμενος καὶ διὰ τούτου πλέον τι τοῖς Ἀργείοις. σεμνοῖς δὲ δαπέδοις, τοῖς Νεμείοις φησὶν ὁ Δίδυμος (fr. 60 Braswell)· πλησίον γάρ ἐστι Σικυῶνος. Ὅμηρος (Β 572)· «ὅθ’ Ἄδρηστος πρῶτ’ ἐμβασίλευσεν». ἐτίθετο δὲ πάλαι ἐν τῇ Σικυῶνι τὰ Νέμεα· οὐ γὰρ ἂν σημαίνοι τὰ Πύθια τὰ ἐν Σικυῶνι ἀγόμενα· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος περιοδικὸς ὁ στέφανος, ἀλλ’ ὁ τῶν Νεμέων· βούλεται δὲ νῦν τοὺς περιοδικοὺς εἰπεῖν. τολοιπὸν γὰρ ἐπιφέρει τὸν Ὀλυμπιόνικον, εὐχόμενος τελειωθῆναι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν περίοδον. (BD) 53a. Ζ ε ῦ π ά τ ε ρ , τ ῶ ν μ ὲ ν ἔ ρ α τ α ι · διὰ τούτων φανερόν, ὅτι περὶ τῶν Ὀλυμπίων λέγει, φάμενος αὐτὸν ἐπιθυμεῖν καὶ τοῦτον τὸν στέφανον λαβεῖν, ἵν’ ἐκπληρώσῃ τὴν περίοδον, σιγᾶν δὲ καὶ ἐπιτρέπειν τῷ θεῷ. διὰ δὲ τοῦ παραιτεῖται χάριν ὑπακουστέον, ὅτι παρὰ σοῦ αἰτεῖται τὴν χάριν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τολμῶν καὶ μοχθῶν τι πράσσειν τῶν πρὸς τὸ ἔργον συντεινόντων. (BD) 53b. ὁ δὲ νοῦς· ὧν γε μὴν ἐπιθυμεῖ τυχεῖν, ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ κρύπτει σιωπῶν διὰ τὸ νεμεσητόν. βούλεται δὲ λέγειν τὰ Ὀλύμπια· διὸ καὶ τῷ Διῒ εὔχεται. ἐὰν οὖν, φησί, σὺ θέλῃς, καὶ τὰ Ὀλύμπια ἕξει· παντὸς γὰρ πράγματος τέλος ἐν σοί ἐστιν, ὦ Ζεῦ. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

10

15

     

20

25

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

281

49b. The sense is: and he (sc. Theaios) provided an occasion for the Muses. For thrice he obtained a victory as his lot at the Isthmus (for he calls the Isthmus the gates of the sea on account of the narrow), and thrice at the Nemean games which was obtained in accordance with the administration and ordinance of Adrastos. For the Seven against Thebes, of whom Adrastos was one, revived the Nemean games. Since he himself (sc. Adrastos) was one of the notables in Argos, on account of this he (sc. Pindar) says “in accordance with Adrastos’ foundation”, obliging the Argives the more through this. The hallowed ground refers to the Nemean games, says Didymos (fr. 60 Braswell). For Nemea is near to Sikyon. Homer (Il. 2.572): “where (sc. Sikyon) Adrastos was first king”. The Nemean games were established long ago in Sikyon. For he (sc. Pindar) would not refer to the Pythian games held in Sikyon, for that crown is not one that is gained in the great games, but that of the Nemean games is one. He wishes in this instance to mention those gained in the great games. For the future he implies an Olympic victory for him praying that the Panhellenic round may be completed by him.1 *53a. Father Zeus, what truly he longs for [in his thoughts]: with these words it is obvious that he (sc. Pindar) is speaking about the Olympic games, saying that he (sc. Theaios) also desires to win this crown in order to complete the Panhellenic cycle, but keeps silent and trusts in the god. With the phrase παραιτεῖται χάριν (‘he entreats your favour’) one must understand that he seeks your favour, but also undertakes acts of courage and toil that help to accomplish this feat. *53b. The sense is: he (sc. Theaios) hides in his thought what he desires to achieve, keeping silent in order to avoid retribution. He (sc. Pindar) means the Olympic games; for that reason he also prays to Zeus. Thus, he says, if you are willing, he will also win at the Olympic games; for the fulfilment of all actions depends on you, o Zeus.

1

Text and translation are from Braswell (2013) 239f.

282

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

55. ο ὐ δ’ ἀ μ ό χ θ ῳ κ α ρ δ ί ᾳ · οὐ χωρὶς μόχθων αἰτεῖται τὰ Ὀλύμπια, ἵνα ἀμόχθως αὐτὰ λάβῃ, ἀλλὰ μοχθήσας καὶ πονήσας καὶ παλαίων παραιτεῖται τὴν χάριν. οὐ συνήθως δὲ τὸ παραιτεῖται ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰτεῖται· ὅ ἐστιν ἐπικέκληται. ἐπιφέρει γάρ· παρὰ σοῦ αἰτεῖται τὴν χάριν ταύτην καὶ τὴν δωρεάν, ὦ Ζεῦ, τὰ Ὀλύμπια νικῆσαι. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

57a. γ ν ώ τ’ ἀ ε ί δ ω θ ε ῷ τ ε · εὔγνωστα δὲ λέγω αὐτῷ τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ Θειαίῳ, ὅστις Θειαῖος ἁμιλλᾶται καὶ σπουδάζει περὶ τῆς κορυφῆς τῶν ἐσχάτων ἄθλων. ἐσχάτων δέ, τῶν τὸ τέλειον ἐχόντων τῆς δόξης. (BD) 57b. ἢ οὕτω· φανερὰ δὲ λέγω τῷ τε Δϊὶ καὶ τῷ βου­ λομένῳ παντὶ ἁμιλλᾶσθαι καὶ σπουδάζειν περὶ τῆς κορυ­ φῆς τῶν τελευταίων ἄθλων. ἄθλων δὲ κορυφὴ καὶ τέλος τὰ Ὀλύμπια. εἰκότως δέ, φησίν, ἐπιθυμεῖ τῶν Ὀλυμπίων· τὸν γὰρ ἐνδοξότατον καὶ ὑπερέχοντα θεσμὸν ἔσχεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους τὰ Ὀλύμπια. (BD) 57c. ἢ οὕτως· ἐπεὶ προεῖπεν αἰνιγματωδῶς, ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι εἰπεῖν τίνων ἐρᾷ, ἦν δὲ τῶν Ὀλυμπίων, ἐπεῖπε· ταῦτα γνωστὰ λέγω καὶ σοί, ὦ Ζεῦ, καὶ σοὶ τῷ ἐπιθυμοῦντι ἁμιλλήσασθαι περὶ τούτων τῶν ἄθλων, οἵ εἰσι κορυφαὶ ἔσχαται τῶν ἄθλων. διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἐσχάτου σημαίνει τὸ πρῶτον τῶν ἄθλων· καὶ γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον ἔσχατόν ποτε δύναται γε­ νέσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον πρῶτον. κέχρηται καὶ Σοφοκλῆς (fr.  907 Radt [TrGF IV 578]) τῷ ἐσχάτῳ ἀντὶ τοῦ πρώτου· «ἤδη γὰρ ἕδρᾳ Ζεύς», φησίν, «ἐν ἐσχάτῃ θεῶν», ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

61. ἁ δ ε ῖ α ί γ ε μ ὲ ν ἀ μ β ο λ ά δ α ν · ὡς δὶς αὐτοῦ νενικη­ κότος τὰ Παναθήναια ταῦτά φησιν· ὀμφαὶ οὖν ἡδεῖαι τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐκώμασαν αὐτὸν ἀμβολάδαν, τουτέτιν ἀνατετα­ μένως τῇ φωνῇ καὶ λαμπρῶς· ἢ ἀμβολάδαν ἀνακρουόμεναι, καθὸ προαναβολὰς λέγουσι τὰ πρὸ τοῦ προοιμίου. δὶς οὖν ὑμνήθη καὶ ἐκωμάσθη, φησίν, ᾀδόντων καὶ ὑμνούντων αὐτοῦ τὴν νίκην τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς. ἔστι δὲ καὶ οὕτω προενέγκασθαι ἁδείᾳ ἐν τελετᾷ· ἐν ἡδείᾳ τελετῇ ἐκώ­ μα­σαν αὐτὸν αἱ τῶν Ἀθηναίων ὀμφαὶ δίς. τινὲς δὲ τὸ ἀμβο­  

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

173,1

5

10

15

20

   

174,1

5

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

283

*55. nor with a heart that shrinks from toil: he (sc. Theaios) does not ask for an effortless victory at the Olympic games in order to win them effortlessly, but rather seeks this favour after having toiled and laboured at wrestling. It is unusual to say παραιτεῖται (‘he entreats’) instead of αἰτεῖται (‘he seeks’), that is ἐπικέκληται (‘he prays for’). For he (sc. Pindar) adds: he seeks this favour and present from you, o Zeus, to win at the Olympic games. *57a. What I sing is known to the god: I say something familiar both to the god himself and to Theaios, Theaios who competes and strives for the peak of the highest games. They are the highest, because they have the greatest glory. *57b. Or in this way: I say something that is obvious to Zeus and to everyone who wants to compete and strive for the peak of the highest games. The peak and fulfilment are the Olympic games. Fittingly, he (sc. Pindar) says, he (sc. Theaios) desires victory at the Olympic games; for the Olympic games had received the most famous and outstanding law from Herakles. *57c. Or in this way: after he mysteriously said that I cannot say what he desires (it was about the Olympic games), he then said: I say these things known to you, o Zeus, and to you who desire to compete in these games that are the highest peaks of games. He means by the highest the first of games; for the first can become the highest, and the highest the first. Sophocles (fr. 907 Radt [TrGF IV 578]) also uses the highest instead of the first: “for Zeus already”, he says, “on the highest seat of the gods”, instead of “on the first”. *61. as a prelude [in the festivals of the Athenians] sweet [voices have twice celebrated him in a revel]: he (sc. Pindar) says this because he (sc. Theaios) has won twice at the Panathenaia. Thus the sweet voices of the Athenians have joyously celebrated him as a prelude, that is, raising their voices and distinctly; or striking up the prelude, since they call what comes before the prelude an ante-prelude. He thus was celebrated in a hymn and in a revel twice, he says, as the Athenians sang and celebrated his victory during their festivals. It is also possible to say ἁδείᾳ ἐν τελετᾷ (‘in a sweet festival’): in a sweet festival the voices of the Athenians celebrated him twice in a revel. Some under-

284

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

λάδην οὕτως ἀκούουσιν, ὅτι δὶς μὲν ἐνίκησε τὰ Παναθήναια, οὐκ ἐφεξῆς δέ, ἀλλ’ ἀναβολάδην, τουτέστιν ἀναβολῆς τινος γενομένης μεταξύ. (BD) 64a. γ α ί ᾳ δ ὲ κ α υ θ ε ί σ ᾳ π υ ρ ὶ κ α ρ π ὸ ς ἐ λ α ί α ς ἔ μ ο λ ε · γαῖαν {δὲ} (secl. Drachmann) κεκαυμένην εἶπε τὴν ὑδρίαν ἐν ᾗ τὸ ἔλαιον· ὀπτᾶται γὰρ ὁ κέραμος. διὰ δὲ τούτου σημαίνει τοὺς τὰ Παναθήναια νενικηκότας· τίθενται γὰρ Ἀθήνησιν ἐπάθλου τάξιν ἐλαίου πλήρεις ὑδρίαι. διὸ καὶ Καλλίμαχος (fr. 384.35f. Pfeiffer)· «καὶ παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις γὰρ ἐπὶ τέγος ἱερὸν ἧνται | κάλπιδες, οὐ κόσμου σύμβολον, ἀλλὰ πάλης». γῇ οὖν διὰ πυρὸς καυθείσῃ ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἐλαίας ἔμολε, τὸ ἔλαιον. (BD) 64b. Ἥρας δὲ εὐάνορα λαὸν τὸ Ἄργος· ὁ γὰρ Θειαῖος Ἀργεῖος. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἐξαγωγὴ ἐλαίου ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν, εἰ μὴ τοῖς νικῶσι. φησὶν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν πλήρη ἐλαίου κεκομικέναι ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν εἰς Ἄργος τὸν Θειαῖον νικήσαντα. τοῖς γὰρ ἀθληταῖς τοῖς τὰ Παναθήναια νενικηκόσι δίδοται ὑδρία ἐλαίου πλήρης. (BD)  

 

 

 ­

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

10

 

   

67a. ἐ ν ἀ γ γ έ ω ν ἕ ρ κ ε σ ι π α μ π ο ι κ ί λ ο ι ς · ἐν πεποικιλμένοις ἀγγείοις· ἐζωγραφοῦντο γὰρ αἱ ὑδρίαι. (BD) 67b. ἄλλως. ἐν ἀμφιφορεῦσι χαλκοῖς ἔλαιον ἐτιμῶντο οἱ ἀγωνιζόμενοι Ἀθήνησι τὰ Παναθήναια, ἐπεὶ τὴν ἐλαίαν εὗρεν ἡ θεός. τὰ δὲ χαλκᾶ ταῦτα ἄγγη ἐκ γῆς καιομένης γίνεται· ἡ οὖν γῆ καιομένη δίδωσι τὸν χαλκόν, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ χαλκοῦ γίνεται τὰ ἀγγεῖα, ἐν οἷς βάλλεται τὸ ἔλαιον. ταύτην οὖν φησι τὴν διάνοιαν. τούτοις γὰρ ἐτιμῶντο. (BD)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

   

15

20

   

175,1

5

Text and Translation of the Scholia Vetera on Nemean Ten

285

stand the word ἀμβολάδην as meaning that he won at the Panathenaia twice, not successively, but as a prelude, that is, there was a delay bet­ ween them. *64a. and in earth baked by fire came the fruit of the olive: he called the jar, in which the olive oil was stored, “earth baked by fire”; for potter’s earth is burnt.1 With this he (sc. Pindar) means the winners of the Panathenaia; for jars full of olive oil are given as prizes at Athens. Therefore Kallimachos (fr. 384.35f. Pfeiffer) also says: “For by the Athenians too jars were attached to the sacred roof, as a token not of ornament, but of contest.” Thus the fruit of the olive tree, the olive oil, came into earth baked by fire. *64b. Hera’s brave folk is Argos, for Theaios is Argive. There is no export of olive oil from Athens, except by the victors.2 Thus he (sc. Pindar) says that Theaios brought the jar full of olive oil from Athens to Argos after his victory, for a jar full of olive oil is given to the athletes who have won at the Panathenaia. *67a. in brightly painted walls of pots: in decorated pots, for the jars were painted. *67b. Alternatively: the contenders in the Panathenaia at Athens were awarded olive oil in bronze amphoras, because the goddess discovered the olive tree. These bronze jars were made from burnt earth. Thus the earth burnt produces the bronze, and from the bronze are made the jars in which the olive oil is poured.3 Thus he (sc. Pindar) says this thought, for they were awarded these jars.

1 2 3

On the use of the term ὑδρία here and below in 64b and 67a v. Peters (1942) 10f. On this comment v. Bentz (1998) 89. This scholion obviously contradicts Pindar’s poetic allusion to the Panathenaic amphoras. Nevertheless it has been used as evidence to explain why there are no Panathenaic amphoras on which the name of the archon who held office in the year of the Panathenaia is inscribed; v. L. Ziehen, RE, s.v. Panathenaia, XVIII 3 (1949) 475,11–25, further Peters (1942) 6–8 with Bentz (1998) 24f.

286

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Appendix Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments In the first triad of Nemean Ten Pindar alludes to more than a dozen figures of Argive myth. Where a modern reader approaching the ode for the first time might find this rapid display of “headlines” confusing or simply pedantic, the effect on the poet’s Argive audience would have been very different. All the legends mentioned were in fact very present to the Argives who could view in their midst the sanctuaries and monuments commemorating their local heroes and, moreover, participate in the rites and festivals connected with their cults. Not only were the names thoroughly familiar and the legends surrounding them well known, but their mere mention would have been enough to conjure up the glory of Argive past and bestow honour on the contemporary city. Even where the traces of the monuments have long since disappeared we can nevertheless gain some notion of what the Argives of the mid-fifth century could see every day from the careful description of the town and countryside included by Pausanias in his Ἑλλάδος περιήγησις written in the second half of the second century A.D., a time when most of the classical sites were intact and the legends associated with them still current. The relevant passages in Pausanias make it abundantly clear that Pindar in the Tenth Nemean recalls only what was well known in Argos; these in fact provide an invaluable guide to understanding the ode, above all the very compressed exordium. In the commentary above references are given to Pausanias at the appropriate place with an indication where the text can be found in this appendix. For the following passages the Greek text1 has been included along with a translation and short commentary on each section: 1

Where the text adopted here differs substantially from the Teubner edition of Rocha-Pereira (1973–81, corr. reprint 1989–90), this has been duly noted. In most cases the full text of a paragraph has been given in order to provide an adequate context. Paragraphs with omissions are indicated by an asterisk (*). The section numbers and their subdivisions adopted here are indicated in bold-face (1, 2[a], 2[b], etc.).

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

2.16.1 = no. 1 2.17.1 = no. 2(a) 2.17.2 = no. 2(b) 2.17.3 = no. 2(c) 2.17.4 = no. 2(d) 2.17.5 = no. 2(e) 2.17.6 = no. 2(f) 2.17.7 = no. 2(g) 2.18.1 = no. 3* 2.19.3 = no. 4(a) 2.19.4 = no. 4(b) 2.19.5 = no. 4(c) 2.19.6 = no. 4(d) 2.19.7 = no. 4(e) 2.20.4 = no. 5(a) 2.20.5 = no. 5(b) 2.20.6 = no. 5(c) 2.20.7 = no. 5(d) 2.21.1 = no. 6(a) 2.21.2 = no. 6(b) 2.21.5 = no. 6(c) 2.21.7 = no. 6(d) 2.22.1 = no. 7(a) 2.22.5 = no. 7(b) 2.22.6 = no. 7(c)

287

2.23.2 = no. 8(a) 2.23.5 = no. 8(b) 2.23.7 = no. 8(c) 2.23.8 = no. 8(d) 2.24.1 = no. 9(a)* 2.24.2 = no. 9(b) 2.24.3 = no. 9(c) 2.25.1 = no. 10(a) 2.25.2 = no. 10(b) 2.25.3 = no. 10(c) 2.25.4 = no. 10(d) 2.25.5 = no. 10(e) 2.25.9 = no. 10(f) 2.25.10 = no. 10(g) 2.36.6 = no. 11 2.37.1 = no. 12(a) 2.37.2 = no. 12(b) 2.38.4 = no. 13 5.18.3 = no. 14* 8.22.2 = no. 15(a) 8.22.3 = no. 15(b)* 10.10.3 = no. 16(a) 10.10.4 = no. 16(b) 10.10.5 = no. 16(c) 10.35.1 = no. 17

In the discussion of Pausanias’ account of Argos readers will find some new interpretations proposed. The most important are the following: (1)  Danaos was considered the οἰκιστής of Argos in the 5th cent. (v. comm. ad no. 5, pp. 299–301), and (2) Perilaos, the 6th-cent. tyrant, who as an Argive champion killed the Spartan Orthryadas in the battle of 546 is confused by Herodotos (1.82) with Perilaos’ father Alkenor (v. comm. ad no. 8, p. 310, n. 17).

288

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Paus. 2.16.1 (no. 1) 1 = 2.16.1 Ἄργος δὲ Φορωνέως θυγατριδοῦς βασιλεύσας μετὰ Φορωνέα ὠνόμασεν ἀφ’ αὑτοῦ τὴν χώραν. Ἄργου δὲ Πείρασος γίνεται καὶ Φόρβας, Φόρβαντος δὲ Τριόπας, Τριόπα δὲ Ἴασος καὶ Ἀγήνωρ. Ἰὼ μὲν οὖν Ἰάσου θυγάτηρ, εἴτε ὡς Ἡρόδοτος ἔγραψεν εἴτε καθ’ ὃ λέγουσιν Ἕλληνες, ἐς Αἴγυπτον ἀφικνεῖται· Κρότωπος δὲ ὁ Ἀγήνορος ἔσχε μετὰ Ἴασον τὴν ἀρχήν, Κροτώπου δὲ Σθενέλας γίνεται, Δαναὸς δ’ ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου πλεύσας ἐπὶ Γελάνορα τὸν Σθενέλα τοὺς ἀπογόνους τοὺς Ἀγήνορος βασιλείας ἔπαυσεν. τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου καὶ οἱ πάντες ὁμοίως ἴσασι, θυγατέρων τῶν Δαναοῦ τὸ ἐς τοὺς ἀνεψιοὺς τόλμημα καὶ ὡς ἀποθανόντος Δαναοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν Λυγκεὺς ἔσχεν. 1 = 2.16.1 Argos, the son of Phoroneus’ daughter, was king after Phoroneus and named the land after himself. Argos had two sons, Peirasos and Phorbas, and Phorbas a son Triopas, while Iasos and Agenor were sons of Triopas. Io, the daughter of Iasos, went to Egypt, whether in the way in which Herodotos described or as the Greeks say. Krotopos, the son of Agenor, came to the throne after Iasos, and Krotopos had a son Sthenelas, but Danaos sailed from Egypt against Gelanor, the son of Sthenelas, and put an end to the kingship of Agenor’s descendants. Everybody alike knows what happened after that: the reckless deed of Danaos’ daughters committed against their cousins and how Lynkeus on the death of Danaos succeeded to the throne. Commentary In 2.15.5–16.3 Pausanias gives a list of early kings of Argos beginning with Inachos and continuing down to Perseus. According to him the kingship passed from Iasos, the father of Io who herself went to Egypt, to his nephew Krotopos, the son of Agenor. Eventually Danaos (his descent from Io is implied but not mentioned) came from Egypt and wrested the rule from Gelanor, the grandson of Krotopos. Lynkeus as husband of Danaos’ daughter was so well known that Pausanias need not mention the fact explicitly; cf. also 2.19.6 (no. 4[d]), 2.21.1–2 (nos. 6[a–b]), 2.25.4 (no. 10[d]), 10.10.5 (no. 16[c]), 10.35.1 (no. 17).

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

289

Paus. 2.17.1–7 (no. 2) 2(a) = 2.17.1 Μυκηνῶν δὲ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ πέντε ἀπέχει καὶ δέκα στάδια τὸ Ἡραῖον. ῥεῖ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὕδωρ Ἐλευθέριον καλούμενον· χρῶνται δὲ αὐτῷ πρὸς καθάρσια αἱ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν ἐς τὰς ἀπορρήτους. αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἱερόν ἐστιν ἐν χθαμαλωτέρῳ τῆς Εὐβοίας· τὸ γὰρ δὴ ὄρος τοῦτο ὀνομάζουσιν Εὔβοιαν, λέγοντες Ἀστερίωνι γενέσθαι τῷ ποταμῷ θυγατέρας Εὔβοιαν καὶ Πρόσυμναν καὶ Ἀκραίαν, εἶναι δὲ σφᾶς τροφοὺς τῆς Ἥρας. 2(a) = 2.17.1 Some fifteen stades (ca. 3 km.) from Mykenai (sc. on the way to Argos) there is the Heraion on the left. Beside the road flows the brook called Eleutherion (Freedom). The women of the sanctuary use it in purifications and for sacrifices which are secret. The sanctuary itself is on the lower slope of the Euboia. Now Euboia is the name they give to the hill here, saying that the river Asterion had three daughters, Euboia, Prosymna, and Akraia, and that they were nurses of Hera. 2(b) = 2.17.2 καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν Ἀκραίας τὸ ὄρος καλοῦσι τὸ ἀπαντικρὺ τοῦ Ἡραίου, ἀπὸ δὲ Εὐβοίας ὅσον περὶ τὸ ἱερόν, Πρόσυμναν δὲ τὴν ὑπὸ τὸ Ἡραῖον χώραν. ὁ δὲ Ἀστερίων οὗτος ῥέων ὑπὲρ τὸ Ἡραῖον ἐς φάραγγα ἐσπίπτων ἀφανίζεται. φύεται δὲ αὐτοῦ πόα πρὸς ταῖς ὄχθαις· ἀστερίωνα ὀνομάζουσι καὶ τὴν πόαν· ταύτην τῇ Ἥρᾳ καὶ αὐτὴν φέρουσι καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν φύλλων αὐτῆς στεφάνους πλέκουσιν. 2(b) = 2.17.2 The hill right opposite the Heraion they call after Akraia, the area around the sanctuary they call after Euboia, and the space below the Heraion they call Prosymna. The Asterion here flows above the Heraion and falls into a chasm where it disappears. On its banks grows a grassy plant to which they also give the name asterion. This is the plant they offer to Hera and from its leaves they weave her garlands. 2(c) = 2.17.3 ἀρχιτέκτονα μὲν δὴ γενέσθαι τοῦ ναοῦ λέγουσιν Εὐπόλεμον Ἀργεῖον· ὁπόσα δὲ ὑπὲρ τοὺς κίονάς ἐστιν εἰργασμένα, τὰ μὲν ἐς τὴν Διὸς γένεσιν καὶ θεῶν καὶ γιγάντων μάχην ἔχει, τὰ δὲ ἐς τὸν πρὸς Τροίαν πόλεμον καὶ Ἰλίου τὴν ἅλωσιν. ἀνδριάντες τε ἑστήκασι πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου καὶ γυναικῶν, αἳ γεγόνασιν ἱέρειαι τῆς Ἥρας, καὶ ἡρώων ἄλλων τε καὶ Ὀρέστου· τὸν γὰρ ἐπίγραμμα

290

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

ἔχοντα, ὡς εἴη βασιλεὺς Αὔγουστος, Ὀρέστην εἶναι λέγουσιν. ἐν δὲ τῷ προνάῳ τῇ μὲν Χάριτες ἀγάλματά ἐστιν ἀρχαῖα, ἐν δεξιᾷ δὲ κλίνη τῆς Ἥρας καὶ ἀνάθημα ἀσπὶς ἣν Μενέλαός ποτε ἀφείλετο Εὔφορβον ἐν Ἰλίῳ. 2(c) = 2.17.3 They say that the architect of the temple was Eupolemos of Argos. The figures carved above the pillars represent on the one side the birth of Zeus and the battle between the gods and the giants and on the other the Trojan war and the capture of Ilion. Before the entrance stand statues both of women who have been priestesses of Hera and of various heroes including Orestes. For they say that the one with the inscription claiming that it is the emperor Augustus is in fact Orestes. In the front hall of the temple there are ancient sculptures of the Graces [on the left], while on the right there is a couch of Hera as well as a votive offering consisting of the shield which Menelaos once took from Euphorbos in Ilion. 2(d) = 2.17.4 τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα τῆς Ἥρας ἐπὶ θρόνου κάθηται μεγέθει μέγα, χρυσοῦ μὲν καὶ ἐλέφαντος, Πολυκλείτου δὲ ἔργον· ἔπεστι δέ οἱ στέφανος Χάριτας ἔχων καὶ Ὥρας ἐπειργασμένας, καὶ τῶν χειρῶν τῇ μὲν καρπὸν φέρει ῥοιᾶς, τῇ δὲ σκῆπτρον. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐς τὴν ῥοιάν – ἀπορρητότερος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος – ἀφείσθω μοι· κόκκυγα δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ σκήπτρῳ καθῆσθαί φασι λέγοντες τὸν Δία, ὅτε ἤρα παρθένου τῆς Ἥρας, ἐς τοῦτον τὸν ὄρνιθα ἀλλαγῆναι, τὴν δὲ ἅτε παίγνιον θηρᾶσαι. τοῦτον τὸν λόγον καὶ ὅσα ἐοικότα εἴρηται περὶ θεῶν οὐκ ἀποδεχόμενος γράφω, γράφω δὲ οὐδὲν ἧσσον. 2(d) = 2.17.4 The statue of Hera sits on a throne, huge in size and made of gold and ivory, a work of Polykleitos. She wears a crown with the Graces and Seasons depicted upon it, while in one hand she holds a pomegranate and in the other a sceptre. About the pomegranate, since the story is something of a secret – enough said. They explain the cuckoo seated on the sceptre by the story that when Zeus was in love with the virgin Hera he changed himself into this bird and that she caught it as a pet. I record this story and similar ones told about the gods although I do not believe them, but I record them all the same. 2(e) = 2.17.5 λέγεται δὲ παρεστηκέναι τῇ Ἥρᾳ τέχνη Ναυκύδους ἄγαλμα Ἥβης, ἐλέφαντος καὶ τοῦτο καὶ χρυσοῦ· παρὰ δὲ αὐτήν

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

291

ἐστιν ἐπὶ κίονος ἄγαλμα Ἥρας ἀρχαῖον. τὸ δὲ ἀρχαιότατον πεποίηται μὲν ἐξ ἀχράδος, ἀνετέθη δὲ ἐς Τίρυνθα ὑπὸ Πειράσου τοῦ Ἄργου, Τίρυνθα δὲ ἀνελόντες Ἀργεῖοι κομίζουσιν ἐς τὸ Ἡραῖον· ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸς εἶδον, καθήμενον ἄγαλμα οὐ μέγα. 2(e) = 2.17.5 A statue of Hebe standing beside Hera is said to be the work of Naukydes. This too is of ivory and gold. Beside it there is an old statue of Hera on a column. The oldest statue is made of wild-pear wood, and was dedicated in Tiryns by Peirasos, son of Argos, but when the Argives destroyed Tiryns, they carried it off to the Heraion. I saw it myself, a seated statue not very large. 2(f) = 2.17.6 ἀναθήματα δὲ τὰ ἄξια λόγου βωμὸς ἔχων ἐπειργασμένον τὸν λεγόμενον Ἥβης καὶ Ἡρακλέους γάμον· οὗτος μὲν ἀργύρου, χρυσοῦ δὲ καὶ λίθων λαμπόντων Ἀδριανὸς βασιλεὺς ταὼν · ἀνέθηκε δέ, ὅτι τὴν ὄρνιθα ἱερὰν τῆς Ἥρας νομίζουσι. κεῖται δὲ καὶ στέφανος χρυσοῦς καὶ πέπλος πορφύρας, Νέρωνος ταῦτα ἀναθήματα. 2(f) = 2.17.6 Among the votive offerings the following deserve mention: an altar with the reputed marriage of Hebe and Herakles wrought on it in relief. This is of silver, but the peacock dedicated by the emperor Hadrian is of gold and glittering stones. He dedicated it because they consider the bird sacred to Hera. Also placed here are a golden crown and a purple robe, dedications of Nero. 2(g) = 2.17.7 ἔστι δὲ ὑπὲρ τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τοῦ προτέρου ναοῦ θεμέλιά τε καὶ εἰ δή τι ἄλλο ὑπελίπετο ἡ φλόξ. κατεκαύθη δὲ τὴν ἱέρειαν τῆς Ἥρας Χρυσηίδα ὕπνου καταλαβόντος, ὅτε ὁ λύχνος πρὸ τῶν στεφανωμάτων ἥπτετο. καὶ Χρυσηὶς μὲν ἀπελθοῦσα ἐς Τεγέαν τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν τὴν Ἀλέαν ἱκέτευεν· Ἀργεῖοι δὲ καίπερ κακοῦ τηλικούτου παρόντος σφίσι τὴν εἰκόνα οὐ καθεῖλον τῆς Χρυσηίδος, ἀνάκειται δὲ καὶ ἐς τόδε τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ κατακαυθέντος ἔμπροσθεν. 2(g) = 2.17.7 Higher up than this temple are the foundations of an earlier temple and whatever else of it that escaped the flames. It burnt down when sleep overcame Chryseis, the priestess of Hera, and the lamp in front of the wreaths set them on fire. Chryseis fled to Tegea and took

292

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

refuge in the shrine of Athena Alea. Although so great a misfortune had befallen them, the Argives did not remove the image of Chryseis, and to this day it stands in front of the burnt temple. Commentary The site of the Argive Heraion is located 4.5 km. from Mykene travelling first west by the present connecting road and then south by the main road which leads to Argos 9 km. to the south. The sanctuary can be reached from Mykene by a shorter path leading south along the mountain and then turning east. The temple known to Pindar’s audience was a peripteral structure of the seventh century located on a terrace of the hill (cf. 2[g] above) above the site of the later temple described by Pausanias (2[c–f] above), the foundations of which can now be seen. Although the first temple was destroyed by the fire of 423 (cf. Th. 4.133.2), some of the contents evidently survived, so that Pausanias’ list presumably reflects in part what Argives of the mid-fifth century could have seen there. Even later works such as Naukydes’ statue of Hebe (cf. 2[e] above), which Pausanias certainly saw (recte Hitzig/Blümner [1896–1910] I 2,567 ad loc.), may have had their earlier counterpart. In any case, when Pindar calls Argos Ἥρας δῶμα in Ne. 10.2 his audience would doubtless have thought not only of the city as a whole but also, more specifically, of the Heraion. On the less important sites dedicated to Hera within the city cf. Paus. 2.24.1 (= no. 9[a]), the sanctuary of Hera Akraia, and Paus. 2.22.1 (= no. 7[a]), the temple of Hera Antheia.

Paus. 2.18.1 (no. 3) 3 = 2.18.1 Ἐκ Μυκηνῶν δὲ ἐς Ἄργος ἐρχομένοις ἐν ἀριστερᾷ Περσέως παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν ἐστιν ἡρῷον. ἔχει μὲν δὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα τιμὰς παρὰ τῶν προσχωρίων, μεγίστας δὲ ἔν τε Σερίφῳ καὶ παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις, (add. Spiro) Περσέως τέμενος καὶ Δίκτυος καὶ Κλυμένης βωμὸς σωτήρων καλουμένων Περσέως. ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἀργείᾳ προελθοῦσιν ὀλίγον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡρῴου τούτου Θυέστου τάφος ἐστὶν ἐν δεξιᾷ· … 3 = 2.18.1 When you go from Mykenai to Argos there is a hero-shrine of Perseus beside the road on the left. He receives honours from the local

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

293

people but the greatest honours in Seriphos and among the Athenians have a precinct of Perseus and an altar of Diktys and Klymene who are called “rescuers” of Perseus. When you go a short distance in Argive territory after this hero-shrine you find the grave of Thyestes on the right. … Commentary The sites of the heroon of Perseus and the grave of Thyestes have been identified with those of the chapels of St. Demetrios and St. Catherine on the grounds that they are built from ancient material; v. Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) I 2,569 ad loc. On the cult of Perseus at Mykene and the statue of the hero represented on the coins of Argos v. Musti/Torelli (1986) 270 ad loc.

Paus. 2.19.3–7 (no. 4) 4(a) = 2.19.3 Ἀργείοις δὲ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει τὸ ἐπιφανέστατόν ἐστιν Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν Λυκίου. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἄγαλμα τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν Ἀττάλου ποίημα ἦν Ἀθηναίου, τὸ δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς Δαναοῦ καὶ ὁ ναὸς καὶ τὸ ξόανον ἀνάθημα ἦν· ξόανα γὰρ δὴ τότε εἶναι πείθομαι πάντα καὶ μάλιστα τὰ Αἰγύπτια. Δαναὸς δὲ ἱδρύσατο Λύκιον Ἀπόλλωνα ἐπ’ αἰτίᾳ τοιαύτῃ. παραγενόμενος ἐς τὸ Ἄργος ἠμφισβήτει πρὸς Γελάνορα τὸν Σθενέλα περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς. ῥηθέντων δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ δήμου παρ’ ἀμφοτέρων πολλῶν τε καὶ ἐπαγωγῶν καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον δίκαια λέγειν τοῦ Γελάνορος δόξαντος, ὁ μὲν δῆμος ὑπερέθετο – φασίν – ἐς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν κρίνειν. 4(a) = 2.19.3 Of the Argives sanctuaries in the city the most notable is that of Apollo Lykios. The present-day statue is the work of Attalos of Athens, but the original temple and the wooden image were a dedication of Danaos. I say this because I am convinced that all images of those days were wooden, particularly the Egyptian ones. Danaos established the sanctuary of Apollo Lykios for the following reason. On coming to Argos he laid claim to the throne against Gelanor, the son of Sthenelas. Many persuasive arguments were brought before the people by both sides, and Gelanor’s arguments seemed no less valid than those of

294

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Danaos, so that the people reportedly deferred judgment until the following day. 4(b) = 2.19.4 ἀρχομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ἐς βοῶν ἀγέλην νεμομένην πρὸ τοῦ τείχους ἐσπίπτει λύκος, προσπεσὼν δὲ ἐμάχετο πρὸς ταῦρον ἡγεμόνα τῶν βοῶν. παρίσταται δὴ τοῖς Ἀργείοις τῷ μὲν Γελάνορα, Δαναὸν δὲ εἰκάσαι τῷ λύκῳ, ὅτι οὔτε τὸ θηρίον τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις σύντροφον οὔτε Δαναός σφισιν ἐς ἐκεῖνο τοῦ χρόνου. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸν ταῦρον κατειργάσατο ὁ λύκος, διὰ τοῦτο ὁ Δαναὸς ἔσχε τὴν ἀρχήν. οὕτω δὴ νομίζων Ἀπόλλωνα ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγέλην ἐπαγαγεῖν τῶν βοῶν τὸν λύκον, ἱδρύσατο Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν Λυκίου. 4(b) = 2.19.4 At daybreak a wolf fell upon a herd of cattle grazing before the city wall, attacked, and fought with the bull that was the leader of the herd. Now it occurred to the Argives that Gelanor was like the bull and Danaos like the wolf because that wild beast does not live with men nor had Danaos lived with them up to that time. Since the wolf dispatched the bull, Danaos accordingly got the kingship. Thus Danaos, in the belief that Apollo had caused the wolf to attack the herd of cattle, founded the sanctuary of Apollo of the Wolves (Lykios). 4(c) = 2.19.5 ἐνταῦθα ἀνάκειται μὲν θρόνος Δαναοῦ, κεῖται δὲ εἰκὼν Βίτωνος, ἀνὴρ ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων φέρων ταῦρον· ὡς δὲ Λυκέας ἐποίησεν, ἐς Νεμέαν Ἀργείων ἀγόντων θυσίαν τῷ Διὶ ὁ Βίτων ὑπὸ ῥώμης τε καὶ ἰσχύος ταῦρον ἀράμενος ἤνεγκεν. ἑξῆς δὲ τῆς εἰκόνος ταύτης πῦρ καίουσιν ὀνομάζοντες Φορωνέως εἶναι· οὐ γάρ τι ὁμολογοῦσι δοῦναι πῦρ Προμηθέα ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ ἐς Φορωνέα τοῦ πυρὸς μετ­ άγειν ἐθέλουσι τὴν εὕρεσιν. 4(c) = 2.19.5 Here is dedicated the throne of Danaos, and here too is placed a statue of Biton represented as a man carrying a bull on his shoulders. According to the poet Lykeas, when the Argives were once sacrificing to Zeus at Nemea, Biton with might and main picked up a bull and carried it. Next to this statue they keep a fire burning which they call the fire of Phoroneus. For they do not at all admit that it was Prometheus who gave fire to mankind, but want to impute its discovery to Phoroneus.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

295

4(d) = 2.19.6 τὰ δὲ ξόανα Ἀφροδίτης καὶ Ἑρμοῦ, τὸ μὲν Ἐπειοῦ λέγουσιν ἔργον εἶναι, τὸ δὲ Ὑπερμήστρας ἀνάθημα. ταύτην γὰρ τῶν θυγατέρων μόνην τὸ πρόσταγμα ὑπεριδοῦσαν ὑπήγαγεν ὁ Δαναὸς ἐς δικαστήριον, τοῦ τε Λυγκέως οὐκ ἀκίνδυνον αὑτῷ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἡγούμενος καὶ ὅτι τοῦ τολμήματος οὐ μετασχοῦσα ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς καὶ τῷ βουλεύσαντι τὸ ὄνειδος ηὔξησε. κριθεῖσα δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἀργείοις ἀποφεύγει τε καὶ Ἀφροδίτην ἐπὶ τῷδε ἀνέθηκε Νικηφόρον. 4(d) = 2.19.6 As to the wooden images of Aphrodite and Hermes, they say that the latter is the work of Epeios, while the former is a votive offering of Hypermestra. For she was the only one of the daughters of Danaos who ignored his command, whereupon Danaos brought her to trial because he considered his safety in danger with Lynkeus alive and because by not sharing in the crime of her sisters she had increased the disgrace of the planner of the deed. When she was tried, she was acquited by the Argives and dedicated a statue of Aphrodite the Victory-Bringer (Nikephoros) in commemoration of her acquital. 4(e) = 2.19.7 τοῦ ναοῦ δέ ἐστιν ἐντὸς Λάδας ποδῶν ὠκύτητι ὑπερβαλλόμενος τοὺς ἐφ’ αὑτοῦ καὶ Ἑρμῆς ἐς λύρας ποίησιν χελώνην ᾑρηκώς. ἔστι δὲ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ναοῦ (add. Hitzig) θρόνος (Ag, βόθρος alii codd.) πεποιημένα ἐν τύπῳ ταύρου μάχην ἔχων καὶ λύκου, σὺν δὲ αὐτοῖς παρθένον ἀφιεῖσαν πέτραν ἐπὶ τὸν ταῦρον· Ἄρτεμιν δὲ εἶναι νομίζουσι τὴν παρθένον. Δαναὸς δὲ ταῦτά τε ἀνέθηκε καὶ πλησίον κίονας καὶ Διὸς καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος ξόανον. 4(e) = 2.19.7 Within the temple is a statue of Ladas, the fastest runner of his day, and one of Hermes gripping a tortoise to make a lyre. In front of the temple is the throne with a relief representing the fight of the bull and the wolf, and with them a girl throwing a stone at the bull. They think the girl is Artemis. Danaos dedicated this as well as the pillars nearby and the wooden images of Zeus and Artemis. Commentary Having described in 2.17 the most important sanctuary of the Argive countryside, the Heraion, Pausanias selects for mention first the most

296

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

famous sanctuary in the city, that of Apollo Lykios2. According to sch. S. El. 6 it was located by the marketplace: ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, ὅπερ ἀρχαιότατόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ Ἄργει ἀγοράν. On the precise location of the sanctuary, probably on the north side of the agora, v. Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) I 2,574 ad loc. and now Piérart (1982) 152, who places it south of the access road from the Eileithyian gate. The 5th-cent. references (Th. 5.47.11, S. El. 6f.) confirm its importance in contemporary Argos. Although the tradition which connected its foundation with Danaos is not attested before Pausanias, it was evidently an2

The principal sanctuary of Apollo at Argos is regularly given the epithet Λύκειος in inscriptions; cf. Collitz, SGDI 3288.11; Dittenberger, SIG3 644/5.10f.; Sokolowski, LSCG 57.8. However, the paradosis of Pausanias consistently has Λύκιος (1.19.3 [ter], 2.19.3 [bis], 4, 8.40.5) except at 2.9.7 Λυκαίου (twice corrected to Λύκιου in Va) and at 8.46.3 ἠλείου (Λυκίου Facius). At 2.9.7 and 2.19.3f. Pausanias connects the epithet with wolves (λύκοι), which would lead us to expect the regularly attested form λύκιος; cf. e.g. δήμιος < δῆμος, and v. Risch (21974) 112. At ‘E.’ Rh. 208 we do find λύκειον ἀμφὶ νῶτ᾿ ἐνάψομαι δορὰν, but there λύκειος is doubtless a metrically lengthened form of λύκεος; cf. λυκέη “wolf’s skin” (Il. 10.459), and v. Risch (21974) 129–33. As for the variant Λυκαίου in Paus. 2.9.7, this would normally suppose a derivation from an η(ᾱ)-stem as e.g. δίκαιος < δίκη; v. Risch (21974) 126. This latter point was correctly noted by Farnell (1896–1907) IV 114, who however failed to distinguish clearly between the origin of -­ιος and -ειος adjectival formations. What seems to be the historically correct form of the epithet Λύκειος would most likely imply an original *-εσιος derived from an εσ-stem, e.g. ἑρκεῖος (v.l. ἕρκειος) < ἕρκος, gen. sg. -εος (< *-εσος); v. Risch (21974) 129f.; for other possible but less common derivations of -ει- v. Ruijgh (1967) 278–81. If indeed Λύκειος is the original form, we need not suppose a derivation from Λυκία (sc. γῆ), itself a grammatical feminine of Λύκιος, i.e. we can eliminate the alleged connection with Asia Minor as far as the form of the name is concerned. The same applies to a derivation from Λύκος, the son of Pandion (RE, s.v. [21], XIII [1927] 2,2399ff.), who according to Paus. 1.19.3 gave his name to the Athenian gymnasium Λύκιον (codd. Paus.), where the god Apollo allegedly first received the epithet Λύκιος (codd. Paus.), as well as to the people of Asia Minor originally called the Termilai, to whom Lykos fled and who were subsequently called Λύκιοι after him. Very likely Λύκειος was a traditional epithet of Apollo, the original source and meaning of which had long been forgotten before the 5th cent. when it first appears in our texts. Nevertheless we should doubtless adopt the form Λύκιος consistently in the text of Pausanias, since he clearly derived the name, even if incorrectly, from λύκος or, alternatively, from Λύκος. This fact, moreover, makes it most unlikely that Pausanias’ Λύκιος is merely an itacistic form of Λύκειος (on the interchange of ι with ει v. Jannaris [1897] 47, §34).

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

297

cient. The variant account of Danaos’ succession to the kingship related as a local Argive legend in Plu. Pyrrh. 32.9f. would seem to confirm this. Likewise the throne of Danaos mentioned in 2.19.5 (= no. 4[c]) and 2.19.7 (= no. 4[e])3 implies a tradition of considerable antiquity as do the wooden images supposedly dedicated by him (2.19.3 = no. 4[a]; 2.19.7 = no. 4[e]). On the other hand, the statue of Aphrodite Nikephoros (2.19.6 = no. 4[d]) may have been associated with Hypermestra at a later date. In any case, we can be sure that for Pindar’s Argive audience both Danaos and Hypermestra were closely linked to the sanctuary of Apollo Lykios.

Paus. 2.20.4–7 (no. 5) 5(a) = 2.20.4 τὸ δὲ μνῆμα τὸ πλησίον Χορείας μαινάδος ὀνομάζουσι, Διονύσῳ λέγοντες καὶ ἄλλας γυναῖκας καὶ ταύτην ἐς Ἄργος συστρατεύσασθαι, Περσέα δέ, ὡς ἐκράτει τῆς μάχης, φονεῦσαι τῶν γυναικῶν τὰς πολλάς· τὰς μὲν οὖν λοιπὰς θάπτουσιν ἐν κοινῷ, ταύτῃ δέ – ἀξιώματι γὰρ δὴ προεῖχεν – ἰδίᾳ τὸ μνῆμα ἐποίησαν. 5(a) = 2.20.4 The tomb near it (i.e. the temple of Tyche) they call that of the maenad Choreia, whom they say together with other women joined in an expedition with Dionysos against Argos, and that Perseus being victorious in battle, put most of the women to the sword. The rest were buried in common, but this one (i.e. Choreia), because of her high rank, was given a tomb of her own. 3

In 2.19.7 (I 151,1–3 Rocha-Pereira) the paradosis reads ἔστι δὲ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ναοῦ βόθρος πεποιημένα ἐν τύπῳ ταύρου μάχην ἔχων καὶ λύκου, σὺν δὲ αὐτοῖς παρθένον ἀφιεῖσαν πέτραν ἐπὶ τὸν ταῦρον. However, ἐν τύπῳ makes it clear that what is being described is a work of art in relief, not a pit (βόθρος). Amasaeus’ correction βάθρον … ἔχον (adopted by Rocha-Pereira and, hesitatingly, by Musti/Torelli) involves two changes and, moreover, leaves open the question why Pausanias would mention a pedestal (βάθρον) without saying what was on it or else that nothing was on it. The obvious correction is ὁ θρόνος, which was in fact already made except for the article in a late MS (Angelicus gr. 103) and was rightly adopted by Hitzig/Blümner. This is confirmed by Plu. Pyrrh. 32.8f., where the scene of the wolf and bull fighting is stated to be on a votive offering in bronze located outside of the temple. Clearly this was the throne of Danaos which Pausanias mentions after the wolf and bull story but does not describe at that point in order to avoid what might have been felt as tiresome repetition.

298

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

5(b) = 2.20.5 ἀπωτέρω δὲ ὀλίγον Ὡρῶν ἱερόν ἐστιν. ἐπανιόντι δὲ ἐκεῖθεν ἀνδριάντες ἑστήκασι Πολυνείκους τοῦ Οἰδίποδος καὶ ὅσοι σὺν ἐκείνῳ τῶν ἐν τέλει πρὸς τὸ τεῖχος μαχόμενοι τὸ Θηβαίων ἐτελεύτησαν. τούτους τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐς μόνων ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸν κατ­ ήγαγεν Αἰσχύλος, πλειόνων ἔκ τε Ἄργους ἡγεμόνων καὶ Μεσσήνης καί τινων καὶ Ἀρκάδων στρατευσαμένων. τούτων δὲ τῶν ἑπτά – ἐπηκολουθήκασι γὰρ καὶ Ἀργεῖοι τῇ Αἰσχύλου ποιήσει – πλησίον κεῖνται καὶ οἱ τὰς Θήβας ἑλόντες Αἰγιαλεὺς Ἀδράστου καὶ Πρόμαχος ὁ Παρθενοπαίου τοῦ Ταλαοῦ καὶ Πολύδωρος Ἱππομέδοντος καὶ Θέρσανδρος καὶ οἱ Ἀμφιαράου παῖδες, Ἀλκμαίων τε καὶ Ἀμφίλοχος, Διομήδης τε καὶ Σθένελος· παρῆν δὲ ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων Εὐρύαλος Μηκιστέως καὶ Πολυνείκους Ἄδραστος καὶ Τιμέας. 5(b) = 2.20.5 A little farther on is a sanctuary of the Seasons. Going back from there you see the statues of Polyneikes, the son of Oidipous, and of all the commanders who died with him in battle before the walls of Thebes. Aischylos reduced the number of these men to seven only, although more leaders went on the expedition, coming from Argos and Messene and some even from Arkadia. And close to the Seven – for the Argives too have followed the drama of Aischylos – are also placed the statues of those who captured Thebes: Aigialeus, son of Adrastos; Promachos, son of Parthenopaios, son of Talaos; Polydoros, son of Hippomedon; Thersandros; Amphiaraos’ sons, Alkmaion and Amphilochos; Diomedes and Sthenelos. And besides there was also to be seen near these Euryalos, son of Mekisteus, and Polyneikes’ sons, Adrastos and Timeas. 5(c) = 2.20.6 τῶν δὲ ἀνδριάντων οὐ πόρρω δείκνυται Δαναοῦ μνῆμα καὶ Ἀργείων τάφος κενὸς ὁπόσους ἔν τε Ἰλίῳ καὶ ὀπίσω κομιζομένους ἐπέλαβεν ἡ τελευτή. καὶ Διός ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα ἱερὸν Σωτῆρος καὶ παριοῦσίν ἐστιν οἴκημα· ἐνταῦθα τὸν Ἄδωνιν αἱ γυναῖκες Ἀργείων ὀδύρονται. ἐν δεξιᾷ δὲ τῆς ἐσόδου τῷ Κηφισῷ πεποίηται τὸ ἱερόν· τῷ δὲ ποταμῷ τούτῳ τὸ ὕδωρ φασὶν οὐ καθάπαξ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἀφανισθῆναι, ἀλλὰ ἐνταῦθα δὴ μάλιστα, ἔνθα καὶ τὸ ἱερόν ἐστι, συνιᾶσιν ὑπὸ γῆν ῥέοντος. 5(c) = 2.20.6 Not far from the statues are shown the tomb of Danaos and the cenotaph of the Argives who met their death at Ilion or on their

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

299

journey home. Here too is the sanctuary of Zeus the Saviour, and when you go past it, there is a building where the women of Argos lament Adonis. On the right of the entrance stands the sanctuary dedicated to Kephisos. They say that Poseidon did not cause the water of the river to disappear totally, but particularly here, where the sanctuary is located, it can be heard flowing beneath the ground. 5(d) = 2.20.7 παρὰ δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Κηφισοῦ Μεδούσης λίθου πεποιημένη κεφαλή· Κυκλώπων φασὶν εἶναι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον. τὸ δὲ χωρίον τὸ ὄπισθεν καὶ ἐς τόδε Κριτήριον ὀνομάζουσιν, Ὑπερμήστραν ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ Δαναοῦ κριθῆναι λέγοντες. τούτου δέ ἐστιν οὐ πόρρω θέατρον· ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἄλλα θέας ἄξια καὶ ἀνὴρ φονεύων ἐστὶν ἄνδρα, Ὀθρυάδαν τὸν Σπαρτιάτην Περίλαος Ἀργεῖος ὁ Ἀλκήνορος· Περιλάῳ δὲ τούτῳ καὶ πρότερον ἔτι ὑπῆρχε Νεμείων ἀνῃρῆσθαι νίκην παλαίοντι. 5(d) = 2.20.7 Beside the sanctuary of Kephisos there is a head of Medousa in stone, which is said to be another work of the Kyklopes. The space behind it is called to this day the Tribunal (Κριτήριον) because it was here they said Hypermestra was brought to trial by Danaos. Not far from this is a theatre. In it are various things worth seeing including one man slaying another: the Argive Perilaos, son of Alkenor, killing the Spartan Othryades. Before this Perilaos had won a victory in wrestling at the Nemean games. Commentary Having moved away from the sanctuary of Apollo Lykios and gone as far as the tomb of the maenad Choreia (v. comm. ad no. 7 below) and the sanctuary of the Seasons (2.20.3f.) Pausanias then returns to the central area of the marketplace to describe the statues of the seven leaders of the first Argive expedition against Thebes, of whom Amphiaraos was one (2.20.5 = no. 5[b]). Near to them stood statues of the Epigonoi who eventually took the city. Among these is one of Diomedes who is mentioned by name (2.20.5 = no. 5[b]). Still in the middle of the marketplace Pausanias mentions that near the statues the tomb (μνῆμα) of Danaos was pointed out to visitors (2.20.6 = no. 5[c]). Its location in the agora implies heroic status; v. Pfis-

300

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

ter (1909–12) 445. Moreover, Strabo’s statement that it was located κατὰ μέσην τὴν τῶν Ἀργείων ἀγοράν (8.6.9 [C. 371,25 Radt]) and had a special name “Palinthos” (meaning unknown, but evidentially pre-Greek as the formans -nth- indicates) suggests that Danaos was not just another hero buried in the agora such as Phoroneus who still received the appropriate sacrifices (ἐναγίσματα) in Pausanias’ time (2.20.3), but was regarded as the actual οἰκιστής of Argos, since οἱ … οἰκισταὶ ἐν μέσαις ταῖς πόλεσιν ἐθάπτοντο ἐξ ἔθους (sch. Ol. 1.149b [Ι 49,3f. Dr.]), on which v. Pfister (1909–12) 445–48 (with more examples). That Danaos was indeed considered the οἰκιστής of Argos in the 5th cent. is confirmed by the prologue of the late Euripidean play Archelaos in which the poet helped his Macedonian patrons to provide an Argos connection for themselves; cf. fr. 228.6 Kannicht (TrGF V 1,316 = fr. 1.6 Harder) ἐλθὼν ἐς Ἄργος ὤικισ᾿ (sc. Danaos) Ἰνάχου πόλιν. But how could Danaos be regarded as the founder of Argos when Inachos was considered to be the first king of the Argolid (Paus. 2.15.4), Phoroneus, his son, the first to gather the inhabitants into the town of Argos (Paus. 2.15.5), and Argos, grandson of Phoroneus, the one who gave his name to it (Paus. 2.16.1 = no. 1)4? The answer is provided by Strabo who before mentioning the location of Danaos’ tomb reports (8.6.9 [C. 371,20 Radt]): Τὴν … ἀκρόπολιν τῶν Ἀργείων οἰκίσαι λέγεται Δαναός. In other words, Argos was the “city of Danaos” in the same way that Thebes was the “city of Kadmos” (A. Th. 74, 136f. [lyr.], E. Antiop. fr. 48.86, 99 Kambitsis), since both were considered responsible for founding the citadel of their respective cities.5 We now see why Pindar placed Danaos at the head of his catalogue of Argive legends. 4

5

Indeed, according to St. Byz., s.v. Ἄργος (α 400 Billerbeck = p. 113,5f. Meineke) the city was called “Argos” after its κτίστης, but this is presumably no more than a surmise based on statements such as Paus. loc. cit. Ἄργος … ὠνόμασεν ἀφ᾿ αὑτοῦ τὴν χώραν. Polignac (21995) 174 (Engl. ed., 1995, 146), notes a similar mythical sequence of events in Megara which eventually led to the city’s foundation, but does not draw the logical conclusion that Danaos was regarded in the 5th. cent. as the actual οἰκιστής of Argos. For Kadmos as the founder of the Kadmeia, the akropolis of Thebes, cf. esp. D. S. 19.53.4, Paus. 9.5.2; on the various attempts to reconcile the Cadmean tradition of the foundation of Thebes with the rival one of its foundation by Amphion and Zethos v. Robert (41920–26) 114. Both Danaos and Kadmos are credited with a foreign origin (Danaos from Egypt, e.g. Hdt. 2.91; Kadmos from Phoe-

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

301

Going away from the tomb of Danaos in the middle of the Agora Pausanias then moves west in the direction of the theatre eventually passing the sanctuary of Kephisos beside which is a head of Medousa made of stone (2.20.7 = no. 5[d]). His ascription of it to the Kyklopes indicates not only its antiquity but also its size. An open space beyond it he identifies as the Κριτήριον, the judgment place or tribunal, where Danaos was supposed to have brought Hypermestra to trial. This has been identified with a platform supported by a long terrace some 100 metres northeast of the theatre (v. Tomlinson [1972] 20).6 Clearly any one following Pausanias’ route would have been reminded successively of Amphiaraos and Diomedes, Danaos as founder of the city, Perseus and Medousa, and finally the trial of Hypermestra.

Paus. 2.21.1–2, 5, 7 (no. 6) 6(a) = 2.21.1 κατελθοῦσι δὲ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τραπεῖσιν αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν, ἔστι μὲν Κερδοῦς Φορωνέως γυναικὸς μνῆμα, ἔστι δὲ ναὸς Ἀσκληπιοῦ. τὸ δὲ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν Πειθοῦς, Ὑπερμήστρα καὶ τοῦτο ἀνέθηκε νικήσασα τῇ δίκῃ τὸν πατέρα ἣν

6

nicia, e.g. E. Phrix. fr. 819 Kannicht [TrGF V 2,863], Phoen. 638f., Hdt. 2.49.3, 5.57f.), and both are alleged to have discovered sources of water for their respective cities (Danaos, Str. 1.2.15 [C. 23,31f. Radt], 8.6.8 [C. 371,13–15 Radt]; Kadmos, ‘Dicaearch.’ fr. 59.13 [FHG II 258; GGM I 102f.]). For a recent presentation and discussion of the question of water in Argos v. Piérart (1992), esp. 119–27, 149–55 (discussion). However disinclined we may be to speculate about any possible historical background to the legends of Danaos and Kadmos, it is hard not to suspect that they both may represent the recollection of some sort of foreign influence in the early development of the two communities. In the same way Kissos and Temenos were later regarded as the later Dorian οἰκισταί of Argos; cf. Ephor. FGrHist 70 F 18b (= Str. 8.8.5 [C. 389,41 Radt]). In both cases the outsiders were provided with genealogical links to Argos, Danaos through Io, and the Dorian Kissos and Temenos through Herakles (cf. Paus. 2.6.7, 18.7, Str. 8.3.33 [C. 357,16f. Radt], 8.5.5 [C. 389,41 Radt]). This can be reached by climbing about half-way up the theatre and then following a narrow path to the right. The area around the platform was covered by brushwood when I visited it in 1999, so that it was not visible from below. However, since the space which Pausanias calls the Κριτήριον was apparently not far behind the sanctuary of Kephisos where running water could be heard, it was, I suspect, located at a lower level close to the present-day Gounaris Street.

302

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

τοῦ Λυγκέως ἕνεκα ἔφυγε. καὶ Αἰνείου ἐνταῦθα χαλκοῦς ἀνδριάς ἐστι καὶ χωρίον καλούμενον Δέλτα· ἐφ’ ὅτῳ δέ – οὐ γάρ μοι τὰ λεγόμενα ἤρεσκεν –, ἑκὼν παρίημι. 6(a) = 2.21.1 When you go down from there (i.e. the sanctuary of Aphro­ dite) and turn again into the marketplace you come to the tomb of Kerdo, the wife of Phoroneus, where the temple of Asklepios stands. As to the sanctuary of Artemis with the epithet Peitho (Persuasion), this was another offering of Hypermestra made after winning against her father in the trial which she stood on account of Lynkeus. Here too is a bronze statue of Aineias and a place called Delta. The reason why it is so called I deliberately pass over, since the account of it was not to my liking. 6(b) = 2.21.2 πρὸ δὲ αὐτοῦ πεποίηται Διὸς Φυξίου βωμὸς καὶ πλησίον Ὑπερμήστρας μνῆμα Ἀμφιαράου μητρός, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Ὑπερμήστρας τῆς Δαναοῦ· σὺν δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ Λυγκεὺς τέθαπται. τούτων δὲ ἀπαντικρὺ Ταλαοῦ τοῦ Βίαντός ἐστι τάφος· τὰ δὲ ἐς Βίαντα καὶ ἀπογόνους τοῦ Βίαντος ἤδη λέλεκταί μοι. 6(b) = 2.21.2 In front of it stands an altar of Zeus Phyxios (the protector of fugitives) and nearby the tomb of Hypermestra, the mother of Amphiaraos, while the other tomb is that of Hypermestra, the daughter of Danaos, with whom is also buried Lynkeus. Opposite these is the grave of Talaos, the son of Bias. I have already told the story of Bias and his descendants. 6(c) = 2.21.5 τοῦ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τῶν Ἀργείων οἰκοδομήματος οὐ μακρὰν χῶμα γῆς ἐστιν· ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ κεῖσθαι τὴν Μεδούσης λέ­γουσι τῆς Γοργόνος κεφαλήν. ἀπόντος δὲ τοῦ μύθου τάδε ἄλλα ἐς αὐτήν ἐστιν εἰρημένα· Φόρκου μὲν θυγατέρα εἶναι, τελευτήσαντος δέ οἱ τοῦ πατρὸς βασιλεύειν τῶν περὶ τὴν λίμνην τὴν Τριτωνίδα οἰκούντων καὶ ἐπὶ θήραν τε ἐξιέναι καὶ ἐς τὰς μάχας ἡγεῖσθαι τοῖς Λίβυσι καὶ δὴ καὶ τότε ἀντικαθημένην στρατῷ πρὸς τὴν Περσέως δύναμιν – ἕπεσθαι γὰρ καὶ τῷ Περσεῖ λογάδας ἐκ Πελοποννήσου – δολοφονηθῆναι νύκτωρ, καὶ τὸν Περσέα τὸ κάλλος ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ νεκρῷ θαυμάζοντα οὕτω τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτεμόντα αὐτῆς ἄγειν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐς ἐπίδειξιν.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

303

6(c) = 2.21.5 Not far from the building (i.e. commemorating Pyrrhos) in the marketplace of Argos is a mound of earth in which they say lies the head of Medousa the Gorgon. Leaving aside the myth, this is what is told about her: she was the daughter of Phorkys, and when her father died, she ruled over the people living around the Tritonian lake and used to go out hunting and to lead the Libyans into battle. And on one particular occasion, when she was encamped with her army over against the forces of Perseus, who was followed by picked troops from the Peloponnesos, she was treacherously slain by night. Perseus admired her beauty so much even in death that he cut off her head and brought it to show to the Greeks. 6(d) = 2.21.7 ἐν δὲ Ἄργει παρὰ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ μνῆμα τῆς Γοργόνος Γοργοφόνης τάφος ἐστὶ τῆς Περσέως. καὶ ἐφ’ ὅτῳ μὲν αὐτῇ τὸ ὄνομα ἐτέθη, δῆλον εὐθὺς ἀκούσαντι· γυναικῶν δὲ πρώτην αὐτήν φασι τελευτήσαντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς Περιήρους τοῦ Αἰόλου – τούτῳ γὰρ παρθένος συνῴκησε –, τὴν δὲ αὖθις Οἰβάλῳ γήμασθαι· πρότερον δὲ καθ­εστήκει ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἐπὶ ἀνδρὶ ἀποθανόντι χηρεύειν. 6(d) = 2.21.7 In Argos beside this mound of the Gorgon there is the grave of Gorgophone, the daughter of Perseus. The reason why she was given this name is clear as soon as you hear it. On the death of her husband Perieres, the son of Aiolos, whom she married as a virgin, she remarried Oibalos, being the first woman, they say, to do such a thing. Previously it had been the custom for women to remain widowed when their husband died. Commentary In 2.19.6 (no. 4[d]) Pausanias mentions that Hypermestra dedicated a wooden statue of Aphrodite Nikephoros in the temple of Apollo Lykios in commemoration of her acquital and in 2.21.1 (no. 6[a]) he adds that the sanctuary of Artemis Peitho7, also in the marketplace, was an offering of hers made as a result of the same event. These apparent doublets well illustrate the importance of Hypermestra in Argive mythological 7

Peitho is sometimes regarded as an independent goddess and sometimes as an epithet of another, notably Aphrodite; v. Buxton (1982) 29–48, esp. 30. On the association of Peitho with Artemis at Argos v. Buxton (1982) 35.

304

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

history. Moreover, in 2.21.2 (no. 6[b]) we learn from Pausanias that not too far away from the sanctuary of Artemis there were two tombs associated with the name Hypermestra. One was supposed to be that of Danaos’ daughter and her husband Lynkeus8 and the other that of Amphiaraos’ mother9. Opposite the grave of Lynkeus was that of Talaos, the father of Adrastos. It is perhaps not without significance that Pindar in Ne. 10.12 links the two as examples of wise and just kings even if the mention of Talaos serves primarily to allude to his better known son. Two reminders of Perseus were the mound of earth in the marketplace supposed to contain Medousa’s head (no. 6[c]), which was also represented in stone near the theatre (2.20.7 = no. 5[c]), and the nearby grave of his daughter Gorgophone10 (no. 6[d]).

Paus. 2.22.1, 5–6 (no. 7) 7(a) = 2.22.1 Τῆς δὲ Ἥρας ὁ ναὸς τῆς Ἀνθείας ἐστὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Λητοῦς ἐν δεξιᾷ καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ γυναικῶν τάφος. ἀπέθανον δὲ αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν μάχῃ πρὸς Ἀργείους τε καὶ Περσέα, ἀπὸ νήσων τῶν ἐν Αἰγαίῳ Διονύσῳ συνεστρατευμέναι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Ἁλίας αὐτὰς ἐπονομάζουσιν. ἀντικρὺ δὲ τοῦ μνήματος τῶν γυναικῶν Δήμητρός ἐστιν ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν Πελασγίδος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱδρυσαμένου Πελασγοῦ τοῦ Τριόπα, καὶ οὐ πόρρω τοῦ ἱεροῦ τάφος Πελασγοῦ. 7(a) = 2.22.1 On the right of the sanctuary of Leto is the temple of Hera Antheia (the Promoter of Growth) in front of which there is a grave of women. The women died in a battle against the Argives under the 8 9

10

For other examples of a pair buried together in a single tomb (ὁμόταφοι) v. Larson (1995) 80. Not of course a doublet. For Hypermestra, the daughter of Thestios and Eurythemis, cf. ‘Apollod.’ 1.7.10 (§62 Wagner), probably already in ‘Hes.’ fr. 23(a).5 Merkelbach/West, D. S. 4.68.5 (‘Thespios’), and for her as wife of Oikles and mother of Amphiaraos, cf. ‘Hes.’ fr. 25.34–36 Merkelbach/West, D. S. 4.68.5–6. Gorgophone, according to Pausanias, was the mother by Perieres of Aphareus and Leukippos (4.2.4) and by Oibalos of Tyndareus (3.1.4), and thus the common grandmother of the Apharetidai, Lynkeus and Idas, and the Leukippides, Hilaeira and Phoibe, as well as of the Tyndaridai, Kastor and Polydeukes, the six actual or implied principals of the major myth of Ne. 10 (vv. 55–90). On the importance of the dual siblings in cult and politics v. Larson (1995) 65.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

305

leadership of Perseus, having taken to the field from the islands in the Aegean in support of Dionysos. For this reason they give them the name “Haliai” (Women of the Sea). Opposite the tomb of the women is a sanctuary of Demeter with the epithet Pelasgian so called from its founder, Pelasgos, the son of Triopas, and not far from the sanctuary is the grave of Pelasgos. 7(b) = 2.22.5 προελθόντι δὲ οὐ πολὺ τάφος ἐστὶν Ἄργου Διὸς εἶναι δοκοῦντος καὶ τῆς Φορωνέως Νιόβης· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Διοσκούρων ναός. ἀγάλματα δὲ αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ παῖδές εἰσιν Ἄναξις καὶ Μνασίνους, σὺν δέ σφισιν αἱ μητέρες Ἱλάειρα καὶ Φοίβη, τέχνη μὲν Διποίνου καὶ Σκύλλιδος, ξύλου δὲ ἐβένου· τοῖς δ’ ἵπποις τὰ μὲν πολλὰ ἐβένου καὶ τούτοις, ὀλίγα δὲ καὶ ἐλέφαντος πεποίηται. 7(b) = 2.22.5 Going on a little farther you come to the grave of Argos, reputedly the son of Zeus and of Phoroneus’ daughter Niobe. Beyond this stands the temple of the Dioskouroi. The statues are those of the Dioskouroi themselves and their sons, Anaxis and Mnasinous, and with them their mothers, Hilaeira and Phoibe. They are the works of Dipoinos and Skyllis and are made of ebony. For the horses, mostly ebony has been used in making them, but also a little ivory as well. 7(c) = 2.22.6 πλησίον δὲ τῶν Ἀνάκτων Εἰληθυίας ἐστὶν ἱερὸν ἀνάθημα Ἑλένης, ὅτε σὺν Πειρίθῳ Θησέως ἀπελθόντος ἐς Θεσπρωτοὺς Ἄφιδνά τε ὑπὸ Διοσκούρων ἑάλω καὶ ἤγετο ἐς Λακεδαίμονα Ἑλένη. ἔχειν μὲν γὰρ αὐτὴν λέγουσιν ἐν γαστρί, τεκοῦσαν δὲ ἐν Ἄργει καὶ τῆς Εἰληθυίας ἱδρυσαμένην τὸ ἱερὸν τὴν μὲν παῖδα ἣν ἔτεκε Κλυταιμνήστρᾳ δοῦναι – συνοικεῖν γὰρ ἤδη Κλυταιμνήστραν Ἀγαμέμνονι –, αὐτὴν δὲ ὕστερον τούτων Μενελάῳ γήμασθαι. 7(c) = 2.22.6 Near the Lords (Anaktes) is a sanctuary of Eilethyia, an offering of Helen made when Aphidna, after the departure of Theseus with Peirithous for Thesprotia, was captured by the Dioskouroi and Helen was being taken to Lakedaimon. She was pregnant at the time, they say, and gave birth in Argos, where she founded the sanctuary of Eilethyia, and gave the daughter she bore to Klytaimnestra, who was already married to Agamemnon, while she herself later married Mene­ laos.

306

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Commentary Besides the mound of earth supposed to hold the head of Medousa (no. 6[c]) and the nearby grave of his daughter Gorgophone (no. 6[d]) there were other reminders of Perseus in or near the marketplace of Argos. Three were connected with the opposition of the Argives under Perseus to the introduction of the cult of Dionysos. In 2.20.4 (no. 5[a]) Pausani­ as mentions the individual grave of the maenad Choreia and in 2.22.1 (no. 7[a]) a common grave located in front of the temple of Hera the Promoter of Growth (Antheia)11. In this grave were the remains of the other women who like Choreia were killed on the expedition of Dionysos against Argos. These had the name Haliai, the women from the sea, i.e. from the islands of the Aegean, as Pausanias explains. Finally, in 2.23.7 (no. 8[c]) Pausanias mentions the temple of Cretan Dionysos which commemorated the peace concluded between Perseus and Dionysos with the subsequent introduction of the god’s cult into Argos. The incident is told at some length in Nonn. D. 47.474–741. On the story v. further F. A. Voigt, s.v. Dionysos, in Roscher, Lexikon I 1,1057,42–63. The Dioskouroi, whose fight with the Apharetidai is recounted in the principal myth of Ne. 10 (vv. 55–90), had a temple in Argos12 in which there were sixth-century statues13 of the Dioskouroi, their wives Hilaeira and Phoibe, and their sons (no. 7[b]). Outside of Argos the Dioskouroi also had a sanctuary near Lerna (Paus. 2.36.6 = no. 11). The presence of the Spartan twins in Argos was presumably explained by their stay there when Helen gave birth to Theseus’ child on her way back to Sparta from Aphidna in Attika, where her abductor had taken her (no. 7[c]). 11

12

13

The epithet Ἄνθεια does not refer in the first instance to flowers (as it is usually interpreted, e.g. by Frazer, Musti/Torelli) but to growth, viz. that of the produce of the earth; cf. EM gen. α 877 (II 60,1f. Lasserre/Livadaras) Ἄνθεια· ἡ Ἥρα· ὅτι ἀνίησι τοὺς καρπούς (a function regularly ascribed to Demeter; cf. h. Cer. 332 καρπὸν ἀνήσειν, 471), and v. further Braswell (1998) 88 ad Ne. 9.23. W. H. Roscher, s.v. Ἄνθεια, in Roscher, Lexikon I 1,368, connects the epithet used of Hera with the ἱερὸς γάμος, rightly perhaps; v. Burkert (22011) 169f. (Engl. ed., 1985, 108f.). Tomlinson (1972) 213, assumes it was on the eastern side of the city, not far from the Eileithyian gate because of the mention (no. 7[c]) of the proximity of the sanctuary of Eileithyia. In Pae. 18 (fr. 52s Maehler) written for the Argives the sanctuary of the Tyndaridai is taken by Pindar as the starting-point of the poem. On the date of the sculptors Dipoinos and Skyllis v. Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) I 2,551 ad Paus. 2.15.1.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

307

Paus. 2.23.2, 5, 7–8 (no. 8) 8(a) = 2.23.2 τοῦ Διονύσου δὲ ἐγγυτάτω οἰκίαν ὄψει τὴν Ἀδράστου καὶ ἀπωτέρω ταύτης ἱερὸν Ἀμφιαράου καὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ πέραν Ἐριφύλης μνῆμα. ἑξῆς δὲ τούτων ἐστὶν Ἀσκληπιοῦ τέμενος καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἱερὸν Βάτωνος. ἦν δὲ ὁ Βάτων γένους Ἀμφιαράῳ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τῶν Μελαμποδιδῶν καὶ ἐς μάχην ἐξιόντι ἡνιόχει τοὺς ἵππους· γενομένης δὲ τῆς τροπῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θηβαίων τείχους χάσμα γῆς Ἀμφιάραον καὶ τὸ ἅρμα ὑποδεξάμενον ἠφάνισεν ὁμοῦ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν Βάτωνα. 8(a) = 2.23.2 Right next to the temple of Dionysos you will see the house of Adrastos, beyond it a sanctuary of Amphiaraos, and across from the sanctuary the tomb of Eriphyle. Next to these is the precinct of Asklepios and after this the sanctuary of Baton. Now Baton came from the same family as Amphiaraos, the Melampodidai, and drove the horses of his chariot when he went out to battle. When the rout occurred at the walls of Thebes an opening in the earth received Amphiaraos and his chariot and caused this Baton to disappear along with them. 8(b) = 2.23.5 τῆς δὲ Ἀρτέμιδος τῆς Φεραίας – σέβουσι γὰρ καὶ Ἀργεῖοι Φεραίαν Ἄρτεμιν κατὰ ταὐτὰ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ Σικυωνίοις – τὸ ἄγαλμα καὶ οὗτοί φασιν ἐκ Φερῶν τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ κομισθῆναι. τάδε δὲ αὐτοῖς οὐχ ὁμολογῶ· λέγουσι γὰρ Ἀργεῖοι Δηια­ νείρας ἐν Ἄργει μνῆμα εἶναι τῆς Οἰνέως τό τε Ἑλένου τοῦ Πριά­μου, καὶ ἄγαλμα κεῖσθαι παρὰ σφίσιν Ἀθηνᾶς τὸ ἐκκομισθὲν ἐξ Ἰλίου καὶ ἁλῶναι ποιῆσαν Ἴλιον. τὸ μὲν δὴ Παλλάδιον – καλεῖται γὰρ οὕτω – δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐς Ἰταλίαν κομισθὲν ὑπὸ Αἰνείου· Δηιανείρᾳ δὲ τὴν τελευτὴν περὶ Τραχῖνα ἴσμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐν Ἄργει γενομένην, καὶ ἔστιν ὁ τάφος αὐτῇ πλησίον Ἡρακλείας τῆς ὑπὸ τῇ Οἴτῃ. 8(b) = 2.23.5 The Argives, like the Athenians and Sicyonians, worship Artemis of Pherai (Pheraia), and like them they say that her image was brought from Pherai in Thessaly. But I do not agree with the Argives when they say that in Argos there are tombs of Deïaneira, the daughter of Oineus, and of Helenos, the son of Priam, and they have in their

308

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

midst the image of Athena which was carried off from Ilion, thus causing the city to be captured. For it is evident that the Palladion, as it is called, was brought to Italy by Aineias. In the case of Deïaneira we know that her death occurred near Trachis and not at Argos. Her grave is close to Herakleia beneath Oeta. 8(c) = 2.23.7 ἄλλα δέ ἐστιν Ἀργείοις θέας ἄξια· κατάγαιον οἰκοδόμημα, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ δὲ ἦν ὁ χαλκοῦς θάλαμος, ὃν Ἀκρίσιός ποτε ἐπὶ φρουρᾷ τῆς θυγατρὸς ἐποίησε· Περίλαος δὲ καθεῖλεν αὐτὸν τυραννήσας. τοῦτό τε οὖν τὸ οἰκοδόμημά ἐστι καὶ Κροτώπου μνῆμα καὶ Διονύσου ναὸς Κρησίου. Περσεῖ γὰρ πολεμήσαντα αὐτὸν καὶ αὖθις ἐλθόντα ἐς λύσιν τοῦ ἔχθους τά τε ἄλλα τιμηθῆναι μεγάλως λέγουσιν ὑπὸ Ἀργείων καὶ τέμενός οἱ δοθῆναι τοῦτο ἐξαίρετον. 8(c) = 2.23.7 The Argives have other things worth seeing. There is, for example, an underground structure above which was the bronze chamber that Akrisios once had made to guard his daughter. However, when Perilaos became tyrant, he destroyed the chamber. This structure is also the tomb of Krotopos and a temple of Cretan Dionysos. For they say that after he had waged war against Perseus and subsequently put an end to hostilities, Dionysos was greatly honoured by the Argives and that this precinct was given him as a special honour. 8(d) = 2.23.8 Κρησίου δὲ ὕστερον ὠνομάσθη, διότι Ἀριάδνην ἀποθανοῦσαν ἔθαψεν ἐνταῦθα. Λυκέας δὲ λέγει κατασκευαζομένου δεύτερον τοῦ ναοῦ κεραμέαν εὑρεθῆναι σορόν, εἶναι δὲ Ἀριάδνης αὐτήν· καὶ αὐτός τε καὶ ἄλλους Ἀργείων ἰδεῖν ἔφη τὴν σορόν. πλησίον δὲ τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ Ἀφροδίτης ναός ἐστιν Οὐρανίας. 8(d) = 2.23.8 Later it received the name “Cretan” because, when Ariadne died, he buried her here. Lykeas says that when the temple was being constructed for a second time, a terracotta urn was found and that it was Ariadne’s. He said that he and other Argives as well had seen it. Near the temple of Dionysos there is also one of Heavenly Aphrodite.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

309

Commentary Outside the marketplace Pausanias (2.23.1) describes his progress along the Hollow Road (Κοίλη ὁδός)14 to a temple of Dionysos which is located on the right. Close to the temple were sites identified with figures who played a major rôle in the first Argive expedition against Thebes: the house of Adrastos, a sanctuary of Amphiaraos, both of whom had statues in the marketplace (Paus. 2.20.5 = no. 5[b]), the tomb of Amphiaraos’ treacherous wife Eriphyle, and finally a sanctuary of Baton, Amphiaraos’ charioteer, who shared his companion’s fate at Thebes (Paus. 2.23.2 = no. 8[a]). Having retraced his way along the Hollow Road, Pausanias comes to the sanctuary of Asklepios (2.23.4). After describing it he adds in a kind of appendix (Paus. 2.23.7 = no. 8[c]) that there are other things worth seeing in Argos without however specifying where they are. Noteworthy for him was an underground15 structure still to be seen in which there was the tomb of the early Argive king Krotopos (cf. Paus. 2.16.1 = no. 1) and another temple of Dionysos called the Cretan16. 14

15

16

The Κοίλη is attested as the name of a district of the town as well as that of the road (v. Musti/Torelli [1986] 288 ad loc.), but cf. Il. 23.419 στεῖνος ὁδοῦ κοίλης, and Ol. 9.34 κοίλαν πρὸς ἄγυιαν, which suggest that it may well describe in the first instance a common feature of the construction of roads presumably serving also as drainage channels. A prominent feature of Argos in the third century, and also earlier, was the system of open water channels (ὀχετοί), “of which the city was full” (Plu. Pyrrh. 32.6). The Κοίλη ὁδός, which ran near the area where Pyrrhos’ mounted troops were seriously hindered by the ὀχετοί, may well have served to drain off excessive water. Perhaps the district in Argos received its name from the road which ran through it. The MSS are divided between the Ionic form κατάγαιον (influence of Herodotos [?], cf. κατάγαιον οἴκημα 5x) and the rare form κατάγεων (Att. κατάγειων), with which cf. 1.27.3, 28.6, 42.5, 2.16.6, 3.25.5 ὑπόγαιος, but 2.2.1, 36.7 ὑπόγεως. The rare form is preferable here both as the lectio difficilior and in light of its at­ testa­tion in Pseudo-Herodian, Epim., p. 208 Boissonade, and Suid., s.v. ὑπόγεων (υ 463 [IV 667,27 Adler]), and was rightly adopted by Hitzig/Blümner and RochaPereira, pace Musti/Torelli. Why the Argives connected Dionysos with Crete is uncertain. Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) I 2,593f. ad Paus. 2.23.7 suppose that the epithet Κρήσιος was falsely derived from Crete and that it in fact indicates “das Wachsthum der Feldfrüchte”, but Κρήσιος is a regular derivation from Κρής and is attested in S. Tr. 118f. (lyr.) πέλαγος | Κρήσιον, E. 5x, fr. adesp. PMG 967, Limen. 39 (p. 150 Powell), D. S. 5.77.7, Plu. Lys. 28.4, orac. apud Paus. 10.6.7 (492.2 Parke/Wormell = L 121.2 Fontenrose = 139.2 Andersen), etc. Farnell (1896–1907) V 117, assumes

310

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

This particular structure had a double association with Perseus. First, as the original site of the bronze chamber17 in which his mother Danaë had been confined by her father Akrisios, and, secondly, as the precinct accorded to Dionysos on the ending of hostilities with Perseus and the Argives (v. comm. ad no. 7, p. 306 above).

17

that in the prehistoric period “the influence of the Dionysos-Ariadne cult and myth may have radiated from Crete to the mainland of Greece, suggesting to the Argives the worship of Dionysos Κρήσιος, ‘the Cretan’, with a legend of Ariadne attaching”. The only evidence for this is the name Κρήσιος and the statement of Pausanias (no. 8[d]) that Dionysos buried Ariadne in Argos. Tomlinson (1972) 212, states without argument that “Cretan Dionysus [was] a Minoan god whom the Greeks identified with Dionysus”. More relevant possibly is the statement of Pausanias (no. 7[a]) that the cult of Dionysos in Argos came from the islands in the Aegean. Perhaps the cult did come to Argos from Crete by way of, e.g., Naxos, but we cannot be sure. According to Pausanias (2.23.7 = no. 8[c]) the bronze chamber was torn down by Perilaos when he became tyrant. Commentators on Pausanias and historians in general have been curiously slow in identifying this Perilaos. Levi (1971–79) I 186, n. 139 ad loc., denies we know anything about him at all. Berve (1967) I 35f., mentions him and suspects that he could have lived in the 6th cent. when there might have been a tyranny in Argos; cf. also Tomlinson (1972) 189, Meyer/ Eckstein (31986–89) I 513, n. 62 ad loc. He is totally ignored in the history of Argos by Piérart/Touchais (1996), and barely mentioned by Kelly (1976) 195, n. 9; 196, n. 25. Musti/Torelli (1986) 289 ad loc. remark that he is probably to be identified with the champion of Argos, Perilaos, the son of Alkenor, in the battle with the Spartan Othryadas mentioned by Pausanias in 2.20.7 (= no. 5[d]). This is certainly right, but in their comment on that passage (p. 279) they distinguish between father and son and suppose each fought against a Spartan named Othryadas. This is a misguided attempt to reconcile the account of Pausanias (2.20.7 = no. 5[d]) in which Perilaos, the son of Alkenor, kills Othryadas with the account of Herodotos (1.82) in which there were three survivors of the battle in 546 of the six hundred Argive and Spartan champions, the two Argives, Alkenor and Chromios, and a sole Spartan, Othryades, who committed suicide from shame at having survived his comrades. The detail of the suicide sounds like a Spartan attempt to cover up what was initially a defeat which was only made good in a second, full encounter of the two armies (cf. also Paus. 2.38.5). In other words, Pausanias’ Perilaos, the son of Alkenor, and Herodotos’ Alkenor are the same person, and there was only one battle with a Spartan Othryadas who was killed by his Argive opponent. After the general defeat by the Spartans the Argives lost the Thyreatis and evidently experienced a change of government. Perilaos, the son of Alkenor, who had previously won a victory in one of the great games (a recommendation for would-be tyrants, cf. the case of Kylon, Hdt. 5.71, Th. 1.126) and emerged from the Argive defeat as a war hero, seized power. His destruction

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

311

Paus. 2.24.1–3 (no. 9) 9(a) = 2.24.1 Τὴν δὲ ἀκρόπολιν Λάρισσαν μὲν καλοῦσιν ἀπὸ τῆς Πελασγοῦ θυγατρός· ἀπὸ ταύτης δὲ καὶ δύο τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ πόλεων, ἥ τε ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ καὶ ἡ παρὰ τὸν Πηνειόν, ὠνομάσθησαν. ἀνιόντων δὲ ἐς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἔστι μὲν τῆς Ἀκραίας Ἥρας τὸ ἱερόν, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ναὸς Ἀπόλλωνος, ὃν Πυθαεὺς πρῶτος παραγενόμενος ἐκ Δελφῶν λέγεται ποιῆσαι. τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα τὸ νῦν χαλκοῦν ἐστιν ὀρθόν, Δειραδιώτης Ἀπόλλων καλούμενος, ὅτι καὶ ὁ τόπος οὗτος καλεῖται Δειράς. … 9(a) = 2.24.1 They call the citadel Larissa18 after the daughter of Pelasgos. Two cities in Thessaly are also named after her: one by the sea and

18

of the bronze chamber in which Danaë supposedly conceived Zeus’ son Perseus will doubtless have had political motives, perhaps to abrogate the claims of the royal house, if one still existed at the time, to sovereignty based on descent from Perseus through Herakles. At the beginning of the 6th cent. king Pheidon (on his date v. Kelly [1976] 94–111, esp. 111) claimed descent from Herakles through Hyllos and Temenos; v. Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F 393 with Jacoby ad loc. (pp. 400–2), and, further, Robert (41920–26) 656f., West (1985) 113. It is conceivable that Perilaos drew his support from a pre-Dorian element in the population as did the tyrant Kleisthenes at Sikyon, who gave insulting names to the Dorian tribes of his city (Hdt. 5.68). In short, the account of Pausanias provides valuable evidence for the rise of a sixth-century tyrant to power at Argos, Perilaos, the son of Alkenor, whose statue depicting him as the slayer of the Spartan Othryadas was still seen by Pausanias in the theatre of Argos (no. 5[d]). The MSS of Pausanias regularly have the form Λάρισσα (locc. apud RochaPereira III 286), which Bekker changed everywhere to Λάρισα on the basis of St. Byz., s.v. (λ 45 Billerbeck = p. 412,18–413,6 Meineke). However, the MSS of Stephanos are themselves inconsistent (v. Billerbeck ad loc.) in adopting a single or double sigma form of this and similar place-names, which are mostly of pre-Greek origin. Seemingly in favour of writing the Argolid Λάρισ(σ)α with one sigma is its occurrence at Str. 8.6.7 (C. 370,19 Radt) in the 5th-cent. palimpsest P (Π Diller) and the 10th-cent. codex A, where the other MSS have the double sigma form. Nevertheless Λάρισσα has good manuscript authority elsewhere, e.g. Hellanic. FGrHist 4 F 36a apud sch. (T) Il. 3.75 (I 373,81 Erbse), D. H. 1.21.3, Ant. Lib. 23.3 (p. 40,23 Papathomopoulos), Eust. ad D. P. 419 (I 175,9 Bernhardy). The tendency of editors, e.g. Jacoby ad Hellanic. loc. cit. and Wendel ad sch. A. R. 1.40f. (p. 10,6–16), where the MSS are in fact divided, to normalize without recording variants suggests a consensus which in fact does not exist. In any event, we should try to establish the normal orthography for each au-

312

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

the other on the Peneios. Going up to the citadel you come to the sanctuary of Hera of the Heights (Akraia)19 and also to a temple of Apollo, which is said to have first been built by Pythaeus when he came from Delphi. The present image is a standing bronze statue called Apollo of the Ridge (Deiradiotes) because this place is called the Ridge (Deiras) as well. … 9(b) = 2.24.2 τοῦ Δειραδιώτου δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος ἔχεται μὲν ἱερὸν Ἀθηνᾶς Ὀξυδερκοῦς καλουμένης, Διομήδους ἀνάθημα, ὅτι οἱ μαχομένῳ ποτὲ ἐν Ἰλίῳ τὴν ἀχλὺν ἀφεῖλεν ἡ θεὸς ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν· ἔχεται δὲ τὸ στάδιον, ἐν ᾧ τὸν ἀγῶνα τῷ Νεμείῳ Διὶ καὶ τὰ Ἡραῖα ἄγουσιν. ἐς δὲ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἰοῦσίν ἐστιν ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τῆς ὁδοῦ τῶν Αἰγύπτου παίδων καὶ ταύτῃ μνῆμα. χωρὶς μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἐνταῦθα αἱ κεφαλαί, χωρὶς δὲ ἐν Λέρνῃ σώματα τὰ λοιπά· ἐν Λέρνῃ γὰρ καὶ ὁ φόνος ἐξειργάσθη τῶν νεανίσκων, ἀποθανόντων δὲ ἀποτέμνουσιν αἱ γυναῖκες τὰς κεφαλὰς ἀπόδειξιν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὧν ἐτόλμησαν. 9(b) = 2.24.2 Near the temple of Apollo of the Ridge (Deiradiotes) is a sanctuary of Athena with the epithet the Sharp-sighted (Oxyderkes), a dedication of Diomedes, made because once when he was fighting at Ilion the goddess removed the mist from his eyes. Near it is the stadium in which they hold the games in honour of Nemean Zeus and the festival of Hera. As you go to the citadel there is also here on the left of the road a tomb of the sons of Aigyptos. For their heads are there apart from the bodies, the remains of which are at Lerna. It was in fact at Lerna that the murder of the young men was perpetrated, and after they had been killed, their wives cut off the heads to show their father what they had dared to do.

19

thor individually, since he may have adopted a particular form for reasons which do not apply in the case of another author. Whether his spelling is historically correct, where this can be determined, is ultimately irrelevant for the establishment of his text. In the case of Pausanias we should almost certainly retain the form Λάρισσα which has been transmitted in our MSS, whereas Radt with good reason has consistently adopted the single sigma form in his recent edition of Strabo. This was on the eastern slope of the Larissa where the church of St. Mary of the Rock (Παναγία τοῦ βράχου) now stands.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

313

9(c) = 2.24.3 ἐπ’ ἄκρᾳ δέ ἐστι τῇ Λαρίσσῃ Διὸς ἐπίκλησιν Λαρισσαίου ναός, οὐκ ἔχων ὄροφον· τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ξύλου πεποιημένον οὐκέτι ἑστηκὸς ἦν ἐπὶ τῷ βάθρῳ. καὶ Ἀθηνᾶς δὲ ναός ἐστι θέας ἄξιος· ἐνταῦθα ἀναθήματα κεῖται καὶ ἄλλα καὶ Ζεὺς ξόανον, δύο μὲν ᾗ πεφύκαμεν ἔχον ὀφθαλμούς, τρίτον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου. τοῦτον τὸν Δία Πριάμῳ φασὶν εἶναι τῷ Λαομέδοντος πατρῷον ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ τῆς αὐλῆς ἱδρυμένον, καὶ ὅτε ἡλίσκετο ὑπὸ Ἑλλήνων Ἴλιον, ἐπὶ τούτου κατέφυγεν ὁ Πρίαμος τὸν βωμόν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ λάφυρα ἐνέμοντο, λαμβάνει Σθένελος ὁ Καπανέως αὐτόν, καὶ ἀνάκειται μὲν διὰ τοῦτο ἐνταῦθα. 9(c) = 2.24.3 On the peak of the Larissa there is a temple of Zeus with the epithet Larissaean. It is without a roof, and the image made of wood was no longer standing on its pedestal. There is also a temple of Athena worth seeing. Among the votive offerings placed here is a wooden image of Zeus with two eyes where we have them and a third on the forehead. This Zeus, they say, was the ancestral god of Priam, the son of Laomedon, and stood in the open part of his inner courtyard, and when Ilion was taken by the Greeks, it was to the altar of this god to which Priam fled for refuge. When the spoils were divided, Sthenelos, the son of Kapaneus, received the image, and that is why it is dedicated here. Commentary Although Diomedes evidently did not receive heroic honours in Argos as he did in the West (v. comm. ad Ne. 10.7, pp. 254f. above), there were several reminders of him in the city. Besides his statue among the Epi­ gonoi in the agora (cf. no. 5[b]), the temple of Athena Oxyderkes, which he was supposed to have founded,20 would have reminded visitors to the nearby stadium of the Argive hero. The stadium was the site of the Heraia, at least in Pausanias’ time, and may well have been the place where Theaios, the victor celebrated in Nemean Ten, won the wrestling 20

Pausanias reports that Diomedes founded the temple because Athena had once removed the mist (ἀχλύς) from his eyes when he was engaged in combat. This refers of course to the well-known incident in Diomedes’ aristeia at Troy when Athena tells him ἀχλὺν δ᾿ αὖ τοι ἀπ᾿ ὀφθαλμῶν ἕλον, ἣ πρὶν ἐπῆεν, | ὄφρ᾿ εὖ γιγνώσκῃς ἠμὲν θεὸν ἠδὲ καὶ ἄνδρα (Il. 5.127f.), and not to her gift of immortality which was bestowed on a later occasion.

314

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

match at that festival centuries earlier. Both the stadium and the temple of Athena were near the Ridge (Deiras) between the two hills of Argos, the Larissa and the Aspis.21 Beyond the Deiras gate on the other side of the torrent called Charadros along the road to Mantinea was another site associated with Diomedes, the Oinoë, so called from his paternal grandfather, the Aetolian king Oineus, who took refuge with Diomedes in Argos. When Oineus died, he was buried on this spot (Paus. 2.25.2 = no. 10[b]). Moreover, within the city the Palladion which Odysseus and Diomedes stole from Troy was supposed to be kept. Although Pausanias (2.23.5 = no. 8[b]) denies that it was ever there because it was handed over to Aineias who took it to Italy (cf. Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 2.166), the Argives would doubtless have associated it with their local hero.22 On the way from the stadium to the acropolis on the Larissa there was a macabre reminder of the Danaïdes: a spot where the severed heads of their victims were supposed to be buried. Pausanias adds that the headless bodies were buried at Lerna where the sons of Aigyptos had been murdered by their brides.

Paus. 2.25.1–5, 9–10 (no. 10) 10(a) = 2.25.1 Ἡ δ’ ἐς Μαντίνειαν ἄγουσα ἐξ Ἄργους ἐστὶν οὐχ ἥπερ καὶ ἐπὶ Τεγέαν, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῶν πυλῶν τῶν πρὸς τῇ Δειράδι. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ὁδοῦ ταύτης ἱερὸν διπλοῦν πεποίηται, καὶ πρὸς ἡλίου δύνοντος ἔσοδον καὶ κατὰ ἀνατολὰς ἑτέραν ἔχον. κατὰ μὲν δὴ τοῦτο 21

22

The temple of Athena Oxyderkes was in fact on the lower slope of the Aspis to the right of the road leading out of the city over the narrow col known as the Deiras. (On the largely artificial problems which have been raised concerning the toponym Aspis v. Musti/Torelli [1986] 291f. ad loc.) The location of the stadium is unknown; possibly on the left of the road under the temple of Hera Akraia on the lower slope of the Larissa, if it was not outside the city walls, on which v. Musti/Torelli (1986) 292 ad loc. The alleged Trojan Palladion was in fact kept in the temple of Athena at the top of the Larissa (Paus. 2.24.3 = no. 9[c]) and not in the Oxyderkes sanctuary near the Ridge; cf. Paus. 2.25.10 (= no. 10[g]) ξόανον (sc. in the temple of Athena at Lessa) οὐδέν τι διάφορον ἢ τὸ ἐν ἀκροπόλει τῇ Λαρίσσῃ, and v. Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) I 2,596 ad Paus. 2.24.3, Vollgraff (1938) 39, n. 4, Bulloch (1985) 15 with n. 3, and Piérart (1996) 179–81.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

315

Ἀφροδίτης κεῖται ξόανον, πρὸς δὲ ἡλίου δυσμὰς Ἄρεως· εἶναι δὲ τὰ ἀγάλματα Πολυνείκους λέγουσιν ἀναθήματα καὶ Ἀργείων, ὅσοι τιμωρήσοντες αὐτῷ συνεστρατεύοντο. 10(a) = 2.25.1 The road leading to Mantineia from Argos is not the same as that to Tegea, but starts from the gates at the Ridge. On this road there is a double sanctuary with an entrance on the west side and another on the east. In the eastern sanctuary there is a wooden image of Aphrodite, and in the western there is one of Ares. They say that the images are votive offerings of Polyneikes and of the Argives who took part in his punitive expedition. 10(b) = 2.25.2 προελθοῦσι δὲ αὐτόθεν διαβάντων ποταμὸν χείμαρρον Χάραδρον καλούμενον ἔστιν Οἰνόη, τὸ ὄνομα ἔχουσα, ὡς Ἀργεῖοί φασιν, ἀπὸ Οἰνέως. Οἰνέα γὰρ τὸν βασιλεύσαντα ἐν Αἰτωλίᾳ λέγουσιν ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀγρίου παίδων ἐκβληθέντα τῆς ἀρχῆς παρὰ Διο­ μήδην ἐς Ἄργος ἀφικέσθαι. ὁ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ἐτιμώρησεν αὐτῷ στρατεύσας ἐς τὴν Καλυδωνίαν, παραμένειν δὲ οὐκ ἔφη οἱ δύνασθαι· συνακολουθεῖν δέ, εἰ βούλοιτο, ἐς Ἄργος ἐκεῖνον ἐκέλευεν. ἀφικόμενον δὲ τά τε ἄλλα ἐθεράπευεν, ὡς πατρὸς θεραπεύειν πατέρα εἰκὸς ἦν, καὶ ἀποθανόντα ἔθαψεν ἐνταῦθα. ἀπὸ τούτου μὲν Οἰνόη χωρίον ἐστὶν Ἀργείοις. 10(b) = 2.25.2 Going on from here, after crossing a winter stream called the Torrent (Charadros), you come to Oinoë, which according to the Argives has its name from Oineus. They say that Oineus, who was king in Aitolia, on being driven from his throne by the sons of Agrios, came to Diomedes at Argos. He redressed his wrongs by undertaking an expedition to Kalydonia, but said he was unable to remain with him, and urged him to accompany him to Argos, if he wished. When he came, he bestowed the care on him which it was proper to bestow on a father’s father, and when he died, he buried him here. After him the Argives give the name Oinoë to the place. 10(c) = 2.25.3 ὑπὲρ δὲ Οἰνόης ὄρος ἐστὶν Ἀρτεμίσιον καὶ ἱερὸν Ἀρτέμιδος ἐπὶ κορυφῇ τοῦ ὄρους. ἐν τούτῳ δέ εἰσι τῷ ὄρει καὶ αἱ πηγαὶ τοῦ Ἰνάχου· πηγαὶ γὰρ δὴ τῷ ὄντι εἰσὶν αὐτῷ, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ οὐκ ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐξικνεῖται τῆς γῆς.

316

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

10(c) = 2.25.3 Above Oinoë is Mount Artemision with a sanctuary of Artemis on the top. On this mountain are also the springs of the Inachos. For it really has springs, but the water does not flow very far above ground. 10(d) = 2.25.4 ταύτῃ μὲν δὴ θέας οὐδὲν ἔτι ἦν ἄξιον· ἑτέρα δὲ ὁδὸς ἀπὸ τῶν πυλῶν τῶν πρὸς τῇ Δειράδι ἐστὶν ἐπὶ Λύρκειαν. ἐς τοῦτο λέγεται τὸ χωρίον Λυγκέα ἀποσωθῆναι τῶν πεντήκοντα ἀδελφῶν μόνον· καὶ ἡνίκα ἐσώθη, πυρσὸν ἀνέσχεν ἐντεῦθεν. συνέκειτο δὲ ἄρα αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν Ὑπερμήστραν ἀνασχεῖν τὸν πυρσόν, ἢν διαφυγὼν Δαναὸν ἐς ἀσφαλὲς ἀφίκηταί ποι· τὴν δὲ καὶ αὐτὴν ἀνάψαι λέγουσιν ἕτερον ἀπὸ τῆς Λαρίσσης, δῆλα καὶ ταύτην ποιοῦσαν ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὴ καθέστηκεν ἔτι κινδύνῳ. ἐπὶ τούτῳ δὲ Ἀργεῖοι κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον πυρσῶν ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι. 10(d) = 2.25.4 Here there was nothing else worth seeing. There is another road which leads from the gates at the Ridge to Lyrkeia. It is said that Lynkeus made his escape to this place, the only one of the fifty brothers, and when he had escaped, he raised a torch. He had agreed with Hypermestra to do so, if he evaded Danaos and reached a place of safety. They say that she kindled another torch on the Larissa as well to make clear that she too was no longer in danger. In commemoration of this the Argives hold a festival of torches every year. 10(e) = 2.25.5 τὸ δὲ χωρίον τότε μὲν Λυγκεία ἐκαλεῖτο, οἰκήσαντος δὲ ὕστερον ἐν αὐτῷ Λύρκου – παῖς δὲ ἦν Ἄβαντος νόθος – τὸ ὄνομα δι’ αὐτὸν ἔσχηκε· καὶ ἄλλα τέ ἐστιν οὐκ ἀξιόλογα ἐν τοῖς ἐρειπίοις καὶ εἰκὼν ἐπὶ στήλῃ τοῦ Λύρκου. ἐς μὲν δὴ ταύτην ἐστὶν ἐξ Ἄργους ἑξήκοντα μάλιστά που στάδια, ἐκ δὲ Λυρκείας ἕτερα τοσαῦτα ἐς Ὀρνεάς. Λυρκείας μὲν δὴ πόλεως, ἅτε ἠρημωμένης ἤδη κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλήνων στρατείαν ἐπὶ Ἴλιον, οὐκ ἐποιήσατο Ὅμηρος ἐν καταλόγῳ μνήμην· Ὀρνεὰς δέ – ἔτι γὰρ ᾠκοῦντο –, ὥσπερ τῷ τόπῳ τῆς Ἀργείας ἔκειντο, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσι προτέρας ἢ Φλιοῦντά τε καὶ Σικυῶνα κατέλεξεν. 10(e) = 2.25.5 The place was at that time called Lynkeia, but later Lyrkos, Abas’ bastard son, lived there, and it got its name from him. Besides some things not worth mentioning there is among the ruins a

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

317

figure of Lyrkos carved on a stone slab. From Argos to here it is about sixty stades (ca. 12 km.), and from Lyrkeia to Orneiai as far again. Homer does not mention the town Lyrkeia in the Catalogue, since it was already deserted at the time of the Greek expedition against Ilion. Orneai, however, was still inhabited, and so he listed it in his epic before Phlious and Sikyon, which corresponds to its location in Argive territory. 10(f) = 2.25.9 καταβάντων δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ θάλασσαν, ἐνταῦθα οἱ θάλαμοι τῶν Προίτου θυγατέρων εἰσίν· ἐπανελθόντων δὲ ἐς τὴν λεωφόρον, ἐπὶ Μιδέαν ἐς ἀριστερὰν ἥξεις. βασιλεῦσαι δέ φασιν Ἠλεκτρύωνα ἐν τῇ Μιδέᾳ τὸν πατέρα Ἀλκμήνης· ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ δὲ Μιδέας πλὴν τὸ ἔδαφος ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐλείπετο. 10(f) = 2.25.9 Going down in the direction of the sea, you come to the chambers of Proitos’ daughters. Returning to the highway, you will reach Midea to the left. They say that Elektryon, the father of Alkmene, was king in Midea, but in my time nothing was left of Midea except the foundations. 10(g) = 2.25.10 κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐς Ἐπίδαυρον εὐθεῖάν ἐστι κώμη Λῆσσα, ναὸς δὲ Ἀθηνᾶς ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ξόανον οὐδέν τι διάφορον ἢ τὸ ἐν ἀκροπόλει τῇ Λαρίσσῃ. ἔστι δὲ ὄρος ὑπὲρ τῆς Λήσσης τὸ Ἀραχναῖον, πάλαι δὲ Ὑσσέλινον (Hesychius, σάπυς ἐλάτων codd.) ἐπὶ Ἰνάχου τὸ ὄνομα εἰλήφει. βωμοὶ δέ εἰσιν ἐν αὐτῷ Διός τε καὶ Ἥρας· δεῆσαν ὄμβρου σφίσιν ἐνταῦθα θύουσι. 10(g) = 2.25.10 On the direct road to Epidauros there is a village Lessa in which is a temple of Athena with a wooden image exactly like the one on the citadel Larissa. Above Lessa is Mount Arachnaion which had received the name Hysselinon long ago in the time of Inachos. On it are altars to Zeus and Hera. When there is need of rain, they sacrifice to them here. Commentary The leaders of the first Argive expedition against Thebes not only had their collective memorial in the form of seven statues in the marketplace at Argos (no. 5[b]), but were associated with the double sanctuary of Ares and Aphrodite outside the Deiras gates on the road to Manti­-

318

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

neia (no. 10[a]). The wood images of the two gods were supposed to be their dedication. Farther along beyond the Charadros there was a place called Oinoë specifically associated with Diomedes (no. 10[b]). Its name was allegedly derived from that of his paternal grandfather, the Aetolian king Oineus, who died there in exile. Another road from the Deiras gates led to Lyrkeia, which was supposed to be the place from where Lynkeus on his escape signalled with a torch to Hypermestra who answered with another torch signal from the Larissa (no. 10[d]). This was commemorated every year by a festival of torches. East of Argos, just off the main road to Epidauros, was the deserted town of Midea23 associated with Alkmene, whose father Elektryon was once its king (no. 10[f]). Farther along the road to Epidauros was the village Lessa24 where there was a temple of Athena containing a wooden image of the goddess which was a duplicate of the Palladion on the Larissa (no. 10[g]) alleged by the Argives to be the one stolen from Troy by Diomedes and Odysseus and later dedicated in Argos by Sthenelos, the son of Kapaneus (cf. no. 9[c]).

Paus. 2.36.6 (no. 11) 11 = 2.36.6 ἀπέχει δὲ Ἀργείων τῆς πόλεως τεσσαράκοντα καὶ οὐ πλείω στάδια ἡ κατὰ Λέρναν θάλασσα. κατιόντων δὲ ἐς Λέρναν πρῶτον μὲν καθ’ ὁδόν ἐστιν ὁ Ἐρασῖνος, ἐκδίδωσι δὲ ἐς τὸν Φρίξον, ὁ Φρίξος δὲ ἐς τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν μεταξὺ Τημενίου καὶ Λέρνης. ἀπὸ δὲ Ἐρασίνου 23

24

In 2.25.9 (= no. 10[f]) the paradosis of Pausanias has Μήδεια and Μηδεία in 8.27.1, but Μιδεία at 2.16.2 and Μιδέα at 6.20.7. The correct form of the name was Μιδέα (cf. Str. 8.6.11 [C. 373,5–7 Radt] and Billerbeck [2014] 319 n. 255 ad St. Byz. μ 182) and should be adopted consistently for Pausanias. On the possible identification of Lessa with the present-day Lygourio v. Musti/ Torelli (1986) 297 ad loc. The earlier name of Mount Arachnaion above Lessa has been corrupted to σάπυς ἐλάτων in the paradosis of Pausanias, but cf. Hsch. υ 840 (IV 132 Hansen/Cunningham) Ὑσσέλινον· τὸ νῦν Ἀραχναῖον ὄρος ἐν Ἄργει καλούμενον. If Hesychios has preserved the correct form of the name (so Levi, rightly, I think), then the reading of the archetype is no more than a desperate attempt by the scribe to reproduce what he thought he saw in his exemplar.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

319

τραπεῖσιν ἐς ἀριστερὰ σταδίους ὅσον ὀκτώ, Διοσκούρων ἱερόν ἐστιν Ἀνάκτων· πεποίηται δέ σφισι κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ἐν τῇ πόλει τὰ ξόανα. 11 = 2.36.6 The sea at Lerna is not more than forty stades (ca. 8 km.) distant from Argos. When you go down from there to Lerna, what you first encounter on the road is the Erasinos, which empties into the Phrixos. The Phrixos in turn empties into the sea between Temenion and Lerna. Going left from the Erasinos for about eight stades (ca. 1.6 km.) you come to a sanctuary of the Lords Dioskouroi. Their wooden images are made in the same way as those in the city. Commentary Besides their temple in the city (Paus. 2.22.5 = no. 7[b]) the Dios­kou­ roi had a sanctuary in the countryside some eight stades (ca. 1.6 km.) from the river Erasinos, the present-day Kefalari. The similarity of the statues to those of the Dioskouroi in the city would indicate a close link to the urban cult. Why the Anaktes had a shrine near Lerna is unknown.

Paus. 2.37.1–2 (no. 12) 12(a) = 2.37.1 Ἀπὸ δὴ τοῦ ὄρους τούτου τὸ ἄλσος ἀρχόμενον πλατάνων τὸ πολὺ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καθήκει. ὅροι δὲ αὐτοῦ τῇ μὲν ποταμὸς ὁ Ποντῖνος, τῇ δὲ ἕτερος ποταμός· Ἀμυμώνη δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Δαναοῦ θυγατρὸς ὄνομα τῷ ποταμῷ. ἐντὸς δὲ τοῦ ἄλσους ἀγάλματα ἔστι μὲν Δήμητρος Προσύμνης, ἔστι δὲ Διονύσου, καὶ Δήμητρος καθ­ ήμενον ἄγαλμα οὐ μέγα. 12(a) = 2.37.1 Beginning at this mountain (sc. Pontinos) a sacred grove consisting mainly of plane trees stretches down to the sea. It is bounded on the one side by the river Pontinos and on the other by another river. The latter has its name from Amymone, the daughter of Danaos. Inside the grove are images of Demeter Prosymne and of Dionysos as well as a rather small seated statue of Demeter. 12(b) = 2.37.2 ταῦτα μὲν λίθου πεποιημένα, ἑτέρωθι δ’ ἐν ναῷ Διόνυσος Σαώτης καθήμενον ξόανον καὶ Ἀφροδίτης ἄγαλμα ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ

320

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

λίθου· ἀναθεῖναι δὲ αὐτὸ τὰς θυγατέρας λέγουσι τὰς Δαναοῦ, Δαναὸν δὲ αὐτὸν τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίνῳ ποιῆσαι τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. καταστήσασθαι δὲ τῶν Λερναίων τὴν τελετὴν Φιλάμμωνά φασι. τὰ μὲν οὖν λεγόμενα ἐπὶ τοῖς δρωμένοις δῆλά ἐστιν οὐκ ὄντα ἀρχαῖα. 12(b) = 2.37.2 These are made of stone. Elsewhere in a temple there is a seated wooden statue of Dionysos the Saviour (Saotes) and at the sea a stone image of Aphrodite. They say that the latter was dedicated by the daughters of Danaos and that Danaos himself was responsible for building the sanctuary of Athena by the Pontinos. The Lernaean mysteries are said to have been established by Philammon. The words used in the rites are clearly not ancient. Commentary Argives who went down to Lerna, where there was a mystery cult of Demeter, would have been reminded of Danaos and his daughters when they visited the sacred grove below Mount Pontinos. The river Amymone recalled the daughter of Danaos who gave it her name. According to ‘Apollod.’ 2.1.4 (§14 Wagner) when her father sent her out to search for water, Poseidon revealed the springs of Lerna to her after he had seduced her. Her son by the god was Nauplios (‘Apollod.’ 2.1.5 [§23 Wagner]; cf. also Paus. 2.38.2). She was nevertheless given in marriage to a son of Aigyptos, Enkelados (‘Apollod.’ ibid. [§16 Wagner]). This agrees with the usual accounts (cf. Paus. 2.19.6 = no. 4[d]) including Pindar’s in Ne. 10.6 that only Hypermestra of the fifty Danaids was not involved in the murder of their cousins. On the forty-eight brides mentioned by Pindar in Py. 9.113 v. comm. ad Ne. 10.1 above. On the other side of the grove by the river Pontinos was a sanctuary of Athena which was supposed to have been founded by Danaos, while at the sea a stone image of Aphrodite was allegedly a dedication of his daughters.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

321

Paus. 2.38.4 (no. 13) 13 = 2.38.4 ἔστι δὲ ἐκ Λέρνης καὶ ἑτέρα παρ’ αὐτὴν ὁδὸς τὴν θάλασ­σαν ἐπὶ χωρίον ὃ Γενέσιον ὀνομάζουσι· πρὸς θαλάσσῃ δὲ τοῦ Γενεσίου Ποσειδῶνος ἱερόν ἐστιν οὐ μέγα. τούτου δ’ ἔχεται χωρίον ἄλλο Ἀπό­ βαθμοι· γῆς δὲ ἐνταῦθα πρῶτον τῆς Ἀργολίδος Δαναὸν σὺν ταῖς παισὶν ἀποβῆναι λέγουσιν. ἐντεῦθεν διελθοῦσιν Ἀνιγραῖα καλούμενα ὁδὸν καὶ στενὴν καὶ ἄλλως δύσβατον, ἔστιν ἐν ἀριστερᾷ μὲν καθήκουσα ἐπὶ θάλασσαν καὶ δένδρα – ἐλαίας μάλιστα – ἀγαθὴ τρέφειν γῆ. 13 = 2.38.4 There is also another road from Lerna which runs right by the sea to a place called Genesion. At the sea there is a rather small sanctuary of Poseidon Genesios. Next to this is another place known as the Landings (Apobathmoi). It was here, they say, that Danaos and his daughters first disembarked in the Argolid. From here having crossed the so-called Tribulations (Anigraia) over a road which is narrow and hard to pass, to the left you find land stretching down to the sea which is good for growing trees, especially the olive. Commentary The coastal road from Lerna leads south to Genesion25 where next to the sanctuary of Poseidon Genesios26 the landing place of Danaos and his daughters was pointed out. According to Plu. Pyrrh. 32.9 the place where Danaos first landed was near Pyramia27 in the Thyreatis. In any event, visitors to the coast southwest of the city would have been reminded of the original arrival of Danaos and the Danaids in the Argolid. 25

26

27

Possibly the same place as the Genethlion mentioned by Pausanias at 8.7.2 (so Hitzig/Blümner [1896–1910] I 2,656 ad 2.38.4, contra F. Bölte, RE VII 1 [1910] 1133,3–10). On the location of Genesion in the coastal plain north of Mount Zavitsa v. Musti/Torelli (1986) 339 ad Paus. 2.38.4–6. The exact meaning of the epithet γενέσιος (< γένεσις) in the present context remains uncertain. Perhaps the γενέσια, the Greek equivalent of the Roman Parentalia, were celebrated in the precinct of Poseidon. On the γενέσια cf. Hdt. 4.26 and esp. ‘Ammon.’ Diff. 116 (p. 29,3–8 Nickau), and v. Jacoby (1944). If this refers to a construction in the form of a pyramid, a connection with the Egyptian Danaos could easily have been made. On the existing pyramid of Kenchreiai (Hellinikon) not far from Lerna v. Tomlinson (1972) 35f. with pl. 9 (opposite p. 34).

322

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Paus. 5.18.3 (no. 14) 14 = 5.18.3 χιτῶνα δὲ ἐνδεδυκὼς ἀνὴρ τῇ μὲν δεξιᾷ κύλικα, τῇ δὲ ἔχων ἐστὶν ὅρμον, λαμβάνεται δὲ αὐτῶν Ἀλκμήνη· πεποίηται δὲ ἐς τὸν λόγον28 τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὡς συγγένοιτο Ἀλκμήνῃ Ζεὺς Ἀμφιτρύωνι εἰκασθείς. … 14 = 5.18.3 A man dressed in a tunic is holding a cup in his right hand and a necklace in his left. Alkmene is taking hold of them. The scene depicts the Greek myth that Zeus in the likeness of Amphitryon had sexual intercourse with Alkmene. … Commentary Outside the Argolid there are a few monuments described by Pausanias which have a special relevance for the myths of Nemean Ten. Numerous Argives, as presumably Pindar himself, doubtless visited the many temples at Olympia when they attended the games. One object of particular interest might well have been the early sixth-century Chest (λάρναξ) of Kypselos29 preserved in the temple of Hera (Paus. 5.17.5–19.10). Although several mythological figures of Ne. 10 had their place on the Chest,30 one scene is especially relevant in that it depicts Zeus appearing to Alkmene in the likeness of Amphitryon (cf. Paus. 5.18.3 = no. 14 with Ne. 10.15–17). 28

29 30

There is no need to change the paradosis here (pace Hitzig and Rocha-Pereira who read ἐν τῷ λόγῳ and Spiro who suggested κατὰ τὸν λόγον; recte Maddoli/ Saladino, who however do not discuss it) which has preserved an unexceptionable text: πεποίηται δὲ ἐς τὸν λόγον τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὡς συγγένοιτο Ἀλκμήνῃ Ζεύς, lit. “it (sc. the scene) has been made in accordance with the story of the Greeks that Zeus had sexual intercourse with Alkmene”. For this use of ἐς/εἰς cf. e.g. ‘Arist.’ Mir. 100 (838b12–14) ἐν τῇ Σαρδοῖ τῇ νήσῳ κατασκευάσματά φασιν εἶναι εἰς τὸν Ἑλληνικὸν τρόπον διακείμενα τὸν ἀρχαῖον, ἄλλα τε πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ καὶ θόλους (“On the island of Sardinia they say that there are many fine buildings constructed in the ancient Greek style including rotundas”), and v. further Eucken (1868) 34. For a reconstruction v. Schefold (1964) illustr. 26, pp. 68f. (Engl. ed., 1966, pp. 72f.; new ed., 1993, illustr. 190a/b, pp. 190f.). These include Amphiaraos (Paus. 5.17.7f.), Herakles (5.17.9, 11, 18.4, 19.1), Idas (5.18.2), Perseus (5.18.5), and the Dioskouroi (5.19.2f.).

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

323

Paus. 8.22.2–3 (no. 15) 15(a) = 8.22.2 ἐν δὲ τῇ Στυμφάλῳ τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ Τήμενόν φασιν οἰκῆσαι τὸν Πελασγοῦ καὶ Ἥραν ὑπὸ τοῦ Τημένου τραφῆναι τούτου καὶ αὐτὸν ἱερὰ τῇ θεῷ τρία ἱδρύσασθαι καὶ ἐπικλήσεις τρεῖς ἐπ’ αὐτῇ θέσθαι· παρθένῳ μὲν ἔτι οὔσῃ Παιδί, γημαμένην δὲ ἔτι31 τῷ Διὶ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὴν Τελείαν, διενεχθεῖσαν δὲ ἐφ’ ὅτῳ δὴ ἐς τὸν Δία καὶ ἐπανήκουσαν ἐς τὴν Στύμφαλον ὠνόμασεν ὁ Τήμενος Χήραν. τάδε μὲν ὑπὸ Στυμφαλίων λεγόμενα οἶδα ἐς τὴν θεόν. 15(a) = 8.22.2 It was in old Stymphalos that Temenos, the son of Pelasgos, is said to have lived and where Hera was raised by this Temenos who established three sanctuaries for the goddess and gave her three titles. He called her Girl while she was still a virgin, Complete while she was still married to Zeus, but when she quarrelled with Zeus for some reason or other and came back to Stymphalos, Temenos named her Bereaved. This, I know, is what the Stymphalians tell about the goddess. 15(b) = 8.22.3 ἡ δὲ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν πόλις τῶν μὲν εἰρημένων οὐδέν, ἄλλα δὲ εἶχε τοσάδε. … 15(b) = 8.22.3 In our time I found the city to have none of these sanctuaries, but it did have the following things worth noting. … Commentary Pausanias’ account of the three cult titles of Hera in Stymphalos is a typical aetiological myth told to explain names no longer understood. Such titles reflect not details of divine biography but supposed functions of a divinity.32 Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) III 1,183 ad loc., saw in the Hera cult at Stymphalos “ein[en] pelasgische[n] Naturdienst, bei dem Hera als Repräsentantin der Erde in den drei verschiedenen Jahreszeiten erschien: im Frühling als Jungfrau, im Sommer als Gattin, im Winter als Witwe”. A pretty allegory, but one for which there is no evidence 31 32

Editors since Korais have accepted his deletion of ἔτι; unnecessarily so, since a subsequent separation is envisaged, i.e. Hera was Τελεία so long as she was married. Later she was Χήρα. Contra Jost (1985) 359, who takes the myth too literally.

324

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

whatsoever. Moreover, as Farnell (1896–1907) I 191, rightly pointed out, the seasons do not really match the three conditions. More plausible is Farnell’s own suggestion that the titles represent three stages in the life of woman: maidenhood, marriage, and, possibly, divorce or separation. Better perhaps to say that Hera presides over three possibles stages in a woman’s life: unmarried, married, and deprived of husband, whether through death, divorce, or separation. In Ol. 6.87 Pindar alludes to the cult of Hera Parthenia at Stymphalos, on which the sch. ad loc. (I 188,12 Dr.) remarks: οἱ δὲ ὅτι γαμήλιος καὶ αἰτία γενέσεων (“but some [say] that she presides over marriage and is the cause of births”), i.e. Hera prepares the girl for marriage and her rôle as mother.33 Correspondingly Hera Teleia does not imply that the goddess is “complete” in the sense of being married as Pausanias’ myth would have it, but that she brings marriages to their fulfilment (τέλος); cf. comm. ad Ne. 10.18 above. Hera Chera does not seem to be attested as a cult title elsewhere, but attached to her cult in Plataiai was a similar myth of a quarrel of Hera with Zeus which led to her subsequent withdrawal to Mount Kithairon (Plu. fr. 157.6 Sandbach = Eus. PE 3.1.6, as well as Paus. 9.2.7ff.), on which v. Wilamowitz (1931–32) I 239–45.

Paus. 10.10.3–5 (no. 16) 16(a) = 10.10.3 πλησίον δὲ τοῦ ἵππου καὶ ἄλλα ἀναθήματά ἐστιν Ἀργείων, οἱ ἡγεμόνες τῶν ἐς Θήβας ὁμοῦ Πολυνείκει στρατευσάντων, Ἄδραστός τε ὁ Ταλαοῦ καὶ Τυδεὺς Οἰνέως καὶ οἱ ἀπόγονοι Προίτου,34 33

34

Paus. 2.38.2f. reports the Argive claim that Hera bathes every year in a spring called Kanathos at Nauplia and thereby becomes a virgin again (τὴν Ἥραν φασὶν Ἀργεῖοι κατὰ ἔτος λουμένην παρθένον γίνεσθαι). Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) III 1,183 ad loc. interpret this to mean that there was a cult of Hera Parthenos in the Argolid. Perhaps. In any case, a ritual bath, here presumably of a statue from the Heraion, was a regularly part of the preparation of a bride for her marriage. The MSS read οἱ ἀπόγονοι Προίτου καὶ Καπανεὺς Ἱππόνου καὶ Ἐτέοκλος ὁ Ἴφιος, but Palmerius’ (Jacques Le Paulmier, 1587–1670) deletion of the first καί (accepted by Rocha-Pereira) is surely right; cf. e.g. 9.5.3 … οἱ Σπαρτοί, Χθόνιος καὶ Ὑπερήνωρ καὶ Πέλωρος καὶ Οὐδαῖος. Here too it would be preferable to place a comma before the individual examples standing in apposition.

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

325

Καπανεὺς Ἱππόνου35 καὶ Ἐτέοκλος ὁ Ἴφιος, Πολυνείκης τε καὶ ὁ Ἱππομέδων ἀδελφῆς Ἀδράστου παῖς.36 Ἀμφιαράου δὲ καὶ ἅρμα ἐγγὺς πεποίηται καὶ ἐφεστηκὼς Βάτων ἐπὶ τῷ ἅρματι, ἡνίοχός τε τῶν ἵππων καὶ τῷ Ἀμφιαράῳ καὶ ἄλλως προσήκων κατὰ οἰκειότητα· τελευταῖος δὲ Ἀλιθέρσης ἐστὶν αὐτῶν. 16(a) = 10.10.3 Near the horse are other votive offerings of the Argives. They represent the leaders of those who went with Polyneikes on the expedition against Thebes: Adrastos son of Talaos, Tydeus son of Oineus, the descendants of Proitos, namely Kapaneus son of Hipponous, and Eteoklos son of Iphis, Polyneikes, Hippomedon son of Adrastos’ sister. Nearby Amphiaraos’ chariot is also represented with Baton, the charioteer and kinsman of Amphiaraos, standing in it. Last of all there is Alitherses. 16(b) = 10.10.4 οὗτοι μὲν δὴ Ὑπατοδώρου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονός εἰσιν ἔργα, καὶ ἐποίησαν σφᾶς, ὡς αὐτοὶ Ἀργεῖοι λέγουσιν, ἀπὸ τῆς νίκης ἥντινα ἐν Οἰνόῃ τῇ Ἀργείᾳ αὐτοί τε καὶ Ἀθηναίων ἐπίκουροι Λακεδαιμονίους ἐνίκησαν. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν ἔργου καὶ τοὺς Ἐπιγόνους ὑπὸ Ἑλλήνων καλουμένους ἀνέθεσαν οἱ Ἀργεῖοι· κεῖνται γὰρ δὴ εἰκόνες καὶ τούτων, Σθένελος καὶ Ἀλκμαίων, κατὰ ἡλικίαν ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν πρὸ Ἀμφιλόχου τετιμημένος, ἐπὶ δὲ αὐτοῖς Πρόμαχος καὶ Θέρσανδρος καὶ Αἰγιαλεύς τε καὶ Διομήδης· ἐν μέσῳ δὲ Διομήδους καὶ τοῦ Αἰγιαλέως ἐστὶν Εὐρύαλος.

35

36

According to Paus. 2.18.5 Iphis was a son of Alektor and brother of Kapaneus: Ἴφις μὲν γὰρ ὁ Ἀλέκτορος τοῦ Ἀναξαγόρου Σθενέλῳ τῷ Καπανέως ἀδελφοῦ παιδὶ ἀπέλιπε τὴν ἀρχήν, where Clavier wished to read ἀνεψιοῦ for ἀδελφοῦ, but as Hitzig/Blümner (1896–1910) I 2,572 ad loc. remark, Pausanias may have been inexact. This is likely, since Pausanias nowhere mentions the name of Hipponous’ father, who according to sch. (MTA) E. Ph. 180 was Anaxagoras. For a genealogical table of the descendants of Proitos v. Frazer (21913) V 267 ad Paus. 10.10.3, and cf. West (1985) 177 (without Iphis and Eteoklos). Hitzig followed by Rocha-Pereira supplied καὶ Ἀμφιάραος after παῖς, but the mention of Amphiaraos’ chariot and his driver Baton was almost certainly intended to imply the presence of Amphiaraos himself. Moreover, Pausanias may have wished to avoid a further repetition of the name which is mentioned twice here.

326

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

16(b) = 10.10.4 These are the work of Hypatodoros and Aristogeiton, who made them, as the Argives themselves say, from the spoils of the victory at Oinoë in Argive territory when they and their Athenian allies defeated the Lakedaimonians. It was from the same source, I think, that the Argives dedicated the statues of those the Greeks call the Epigonoi. For of these too images have been set up: Sthenelos and Alkmaion, who, I think, is honoured before Amphilochos because of his age, and in addition to them Promachos, Thersandros, Aigialeus, and Diomedes. Between Diomedes and Aigialeus stands Euryalos. 16(c) = 10.10.5 ἀπαντικρὺ δὲ αὐτῶν ἀνδριάντες εἰσὶν ἄλλοι· τούτους δὲ ἀνέθεσαν οἱ Ἀργεῖοι τοῦ οἰκισμοῦ τοῦ Μεσσηνίων Θηβαίοις καὶ Ἐπαμινώνδᾳ μετασχόντες. ἡρώων δέ εἰσιν αἱ εἰκόνες, Δαναὸς μὲν βασιλέων ἰσχύσας τῶν ἐν Ἄργει μέγιστον, Ὑπερμήστρα δὲ ἅτε καθαρὰ χεῖρας μόνη τῶν ἀδελφῶν· παρὰ δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ ὁ Λυγκεὺς καὶ ἅπαν τὸ ἐφεξῆς αὐτῶν γένος τὸ ἐς Ἡρακλέα τε καὶ ἔτι πρότερον καθῆκον ἐς Περσέα. 16(c) = 10.10.5 Right opposite their statues are others which the Argives dedicated when they joined with the Thebans under Epaminondas in the Messenian foundation. They are statues of heroes: Danaos, the mightiest of the kings in Argos, and Hypermestra who has a place because she alone of her sisters kept her hands unstained. Beside her stands Lynkeus and all their descendants in a row down to Herakles as well as their ancestors back to Perseus. Commentary Just as the representations of their myths at Olympia were doubtless familiar to many Argives who attended the games (cf. comm. ad no. 14 above), so too were similar representations at Delphi. Besides the Pythian games Delphi possessed a major attraction in the form of Apollo’s oracle along with the rich collection of votive offerings by the more important Greek states which used them for a public display outside their boundaries of their mythological glories and their more recent military successes. The victory of the Argives over the Spartans at Oinoë, presumably that in 456 (v. Hitzig/Blümner [1896–1910] III 2,682f. ad loc.), was commemorated at Delphi by dedicating statues of the leaders of

Appendix: Pausanias on the Argive Legends and Monuments

327

the first great expedition against Thebes including of course Adrastos and Amphiaraos. After reporting that this account was the one he had heard from the Argives themselves Pausanias adds that he believes the statues of the leaders of the second expedition, the Epigonoi, including Diomedes, were also a dedication to be traced back to the same event. If indeed both groups of statues belong to the mid-5th cent., at the time of the performance of Nemean Ten they would certainly have been known not only to numerous Argives who would naturally go to see their own dedications when visiting Delphi but also to Pindar from nearby Thebes. Although the statues of Danaos, Hypermestra, and Lynkeus date from the 4th cent., they nevertheless testify to the continuing importance attributed to these heroic figures in Argos.37

Paus. 10.35.1 (no. 17) 17 = 10.35.1 Ἐς Ἄβας δὲ ἀφικέσθαι καὶ ἐς Ὑάμπολιν ἔστι μὲν καὶ38 ἐξ Ἐλατείας ὀρεινὴν ὁδὸν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Ἐλατέων ἄστεως, ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ Ὀποῦντα λεωφόρος ἡ ἐξ Ὀρχομενοῦ καὶ ἐς ταύτας φέρει τὰς πόλεις. ἰόντι οὖν ἐς Ὀποῦντα ἐξ Ὀρχομενοῦ καὶ ἐκτραπέντι οὐ πολὺ ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰν ὁδός 39 ἡ ἐς Ἄβας. οἱ δὲ ἐν ταῖς Ἄβαις ἐς γῆν τὴν Φωκίδα ἀφικέσθαι λέγουσιν ἐξ Ἄργους καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ἀπὸ Ἄβαντος τοῦ οἰκιστοῦ λαβεῖν τὴν πόλιν, τὸν δὲ Λυγκέως τε καὶ Ὑπερμήστρας τῆς Δαναοῦ παῖδα εἶναι. Ἀπόλλωνος δὲ ἱερὰς νενομίκασιν εἶναι τὰς Ἄβας ἐκ παλαιοῦ, καὶ χρηστήριον καὶ αὐτόθι ἦν Ἀπόλλωνος. 17 = 10.35.1 You can reach Abai and Hyampolis from Elateia by the mountain road on the right of the town, but there is also a highway from Orchomenos to Opous which leads to those cities. When you are going to Opous from Orchomenos and turn off a little to the left, there is a road to Abai. The people of Abai say that they came to Phokis from 37 38

39

Part of the 4th-cent. inscription identifying the statues of the Argive heroes has survived at Delphi; v. Dittenberger, SIG3 161 (I 220f.). The MSS have μὲν καὶ … δὲ … καὶ, where the first καί is apparently pleonastic and has often been deleted by editors, e.g. Schubart. However, Rocha-Pereira is right to retain it since this correspondive use of the particle in two clauses is a not uncommon feature of narrative prose style; v. Denniston (21954) 306. ὁδός add. Spiro.

328

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Argos and that the city received its name from Abas, the founder, who was the son of Lynkeus and Hypermestra, the daughter of Danaos. Abai has been considered sacred to Apollo from of old, and here too there was an oracle of Apollo. Commentary The fame of the mythological kings of Argos was such that a relatively unimportant city outside the Argolid, Abai in Phokis, gladly constructed a link on the basis of the apparent similarity of names; cf. also St. Byz., s.v. Ἄβαι (α 1 Billerbeck = p. 1,1f. Meineke): πόλις Φωκική, … κέκληται δὲ ἀπὸ ἥρωος Ἄβα. Although Abas enjoyed an importance in his own right (cf. W. H. Roscher, s.v. [1], in Roscher, Lexikon I 1,29–2,18), he is specifically remembered as the son of Lynkeus and Hypermestra.

329

*Bibliography

Books listed in Braswell’s “Working Bibliography on Nemean Ten” but cited nowhere in the manuscript, are preceded by an asterisk (*). Ameis, Karl Friedrich/Hentze, Carl (71923), Homers Ilias erklärt. Erster Band/Erstes Heft: Gesang I–III. Siebente Auflage bearbeitet von Paul Cauer. Leipzig/Berlin. Andersen, Lene (1987), Studies in Oracular Verses: Concordance to Delphic Responses in Hexameter. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 53. Copenhagen. *Angeli Bernardini, Paola (ed.) (2004), La città di Argo: mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Urbino, 13–15 giugno 2002). QUCC Atti di convegni 8. Roma. Barrett, W. S. (1964), Euripides, Hippolytos edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Bast, Friedrich Iacob (1811), Commentatio palaeographica, in Gregorii Corinthii et aliorum grammaticorum libri De dialectis linguae Graecae edidit Gottfried H. Schaefer. Leipzig, 701–861. Bentz, Martin (1998), Panathenäische Preisamphoren. Eine athenische Vasengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6.–4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Antike Kunst, 18. Beiheft. Basel. Bergk, Theodorus (1843, 21853, 31866–67, 41878–82), Poetae Lyrici Graeci recensuit. Leipzig. Bernhardy, Godofredus (1828), Dionysius Periegetes, Graece et Latine cum vetustis commentariis et interpretationibus ex recensione et cum annotatione. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim/New York, 1974). Bers, Victor (1974), Enallage and Greek Style. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 29. Leiden. Berve, Helmut (1967), Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen. 2 vols. (continuous pagination). München. Billerbeck, Margarethe (2006–), Stephani Byzantii Ethnica recensuerunt Germanice verterunt adnotationibus indicibusque instruxerunt M. Billerbeck et alii. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 43. Berlin/New York. Blank, David L. (1988), Lesbonax, Περὶ σχημάτων edited with an Introduction, in Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker (SGLG) hrsg. von Klaus Alpers, Hartmut Erbse, Alexander Kleinlogel. Vol. 7. Berlin. Boardman, John (21980), The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade. London (new and enlarged edition with 319 illustrations; first ed.: Baltimore, 1964). Bode, Georgius Henricus (1934), Scriptores rerum mythicarum Latini tres Romae nuper reperti edidit ac scholiis illustravit. Celle (repr. Hildesheim, 1968). Boeckhius, Augustus (1811–21/22), Pindari opera. 2 vols. in 4 parts. Leipzig (II 2,348– 550 contain “Explicationes ad Nemea et Isthmia” of Ludolf Dissen).

330

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

*Boehringer, David (2001), Heroenkulte in Griechenland von der geometrischen bis zur klassischen Zeit: Attika, Argolis, Messenien. Berlin. Boissonade, Jo. Fr. (1819), Herodiani Partitiones e codd. Parisinis edidit. London (repr. Amsterdam, 1963). Bona, Giacomo (1988), Pindaro, I Peani, testo, traduzione, scoli e commento. Cuneo. Bossler, Carolus (1862), De praepositionum usu apud Pindarum. Diss. Giessen. Darmstadt. Bowra, C. M. (21947), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit. Oxford (first ed.: 1935). Braswell, Bruce Karl (1988), A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar. Texte und Kommentare 14. Berlin/New York. Braswell, Bruce Karl (1992), A Commentary on Pindar Nemean One with an Iconographical Appendix by Jean-Marc Moret. Fribourg. Braswell, Bruce Karl (1998), A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine. Texte und Kommentare 19. Berlin/New York. Braswell, Bruce Karl (2013), Didymos of Alexandria, Commentary on Pindar edited and translated with Introduction, Explanatory Notes, and a Critical Catalogue of Didymos’ Works. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 41. Basel. Bremer, Dieter (1992), Pindar, Siegeslieder: griechisch/deutsch herausgegeben, über­ setzt und mit einer Einführung versehen. München. Bulloch, A. W. (1985), Callimachus, The Fifth Hymn edited with Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 26. Cambridge. Bundy, Elroy L. (1962), Studia Pindarica. Berkeley/Los Angeles (repr. 1986). Burkert, Walter (22011), Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Die Religionen der Menschheit 15. Stuttgart (first ed.: 1977; Engl. ed.: Greek Religion, translated by John Raffan. Cambridge, 1985; repr. Oxford, 1990). Bury, J. B. (1890), The Nemean Odes of Pindar edited, with Introductions and Commentary. London (repr. Amsterdam, 1965). Buxton, R. G. A. (1982), Persuasion in Greek Tragedy. A Study of Peitho. Cambridge (repr. 2010). Casevitz, Michel (1985), Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien. Étude lexico­logique: les familles de κτίζω et de oἰκέω-οἰκίζω. Études et commentaires 97. Paris. Chantraine, Pierre (1958–63), Grammaire homérique. Vol. 1: Phonétique et morpho­ logie; Vol. 2: Syntaxe. Paris. Christ, W. (1896), Pindari carmina prolegomenis et commentariis instructa edidit. Leipzig. Collitz, Hermann (ed.) (1884–1915), Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften. 5 vols. Göttingen. Cook, Arthur Bernard (1914–40), Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion. 3 vols. Cambridge. Denniston, J. D. (21954), The Greek Particles. Oxford. Deubner, Ludwig (1932), Attische Feste. Berlin (repr. Darmstadt, 1956).

Bibliography

331

Dissen, Ludolphus (1830), Pindari carmina quae supersunt cum deperditorum fragmentis selectis ex recensione Boeckhii, commentario perpetuo illustravit. 2 vols. Gotha/Erfurt. Dittenberger, Wilhelm (31915–24), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. Leipzig. DKP = Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike auf der Grundlage von Pauly’s Real­ encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgelehrter bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Konrat Ziegler, Walther Sontheimer und Hans Gärtner. 5 vols. Stuttgart/München, 1964–75. Doffey, Marie-Christine (1992), “Les mythes de fondation des concours néméens”, in Marcel Piérart (ed.), Polydipsion Argos. Actes de la table ronde “Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’État classique” (Fribourg Suisse, 7–9 mai 1987). Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 22. Athènes/ Fribourg, 185–93. Dönt, Eugen (1986), Pindar, Oden: Griechisch/Deutsch übersetzt und herausgegeben. Stuttgart. Dornseiff, Franz (21965), Pindars Dichtung übertragen und erläutert. Leipzig. Drachmann, A. B. (1903–27), Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina recensuit. 3 vols. Leipzig. EGF = Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta edidit Malcolm Davies. Göttingen, 1988. Erbse, Hartmut (1969–88), Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia vetera) re­ censuit. 7 vols. Berlin. Eucken, Rudolf (1868), Über den Sprachgebrauch des Aristoteles: Beobachtungen über die Präpositionen. Berlin. Farnell, Lewis Richard (1896–1907), The Cults of the Greek States. 5 vols. Oxford (repr. Chicago, 1971). Farnell, Lewis Richard (1921), Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Oxford. Farnell, Lewis Richard (1930–32), The Works of Pindar translated, with literary and critical commentaries. 3 vols. London (Vol. 2: Critical Commentary to the Works of Pindar, repr. Amsterdam, 1965). FGrHist = Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker hrsg. von Felix Jacoby. Berlin, 1923–30, Leiden, 1940–58, 1994–. FHG = Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum collegit, disposuit, notis et prolegomenis illustravit, indicibus instruxit Carolus Müllerus. 5 vols. Paris, 1841–73. Foley, Anne (1988), The Argolid 800–600 B. C.: An Archaeological Survey, together with an Index of Sites from the Neolithic to the Roman Period. Studies in Mediterranean archaeology 80. Göteborg. Fontenrose, Joseph (1978), The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Fraenkel, Eduard (1950), Aeschylus, Agamemnon edited with a commentary. 3 vols. Oxford (corr. repr. 1962). Frazer, James George (21913), Pausanias’s Description of Greece translated with a commentary. 6 vols. London. Friis Johansen, H./Whittle, Edward W. (1980), Aeschylus, The Suppliants edited. 3 vols. Copenhagen.

332

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Garvie, A. F. (1969), Aeschylus, Supplices: Play and Trilogy. Cambridge. Gerber, Douglas E. (1976), Emendations in Pindar 1513–1972. Amsterdam. GGM = Geographi Graeci Minores e codicibus recognovit prolegomenis annotatione indicibus instruxit tabulis aeri incisis illustravit Carolus Müllerus. 2 vols. Paris, 1855–61 (repr. Hildesheim, 1965). Goodwin, William W. (21889), Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. London. Gruben, Gottfried (41986), Die Tempel der Griechen. Aufnahmen von Max Hirmer. Reise und Studium. München/Darmstadt. Hansen, Peter Allan/Cunningham, Ian C. (2009), Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, editionem post Kurt Latte continuantes recensuerunt et emendaverunt. Vol. 4: T–Ω. Berlin/New York. Harder, Annette (1985), Euripides’ Kresphontes and Archelaos. Introduction, Text and Commentary. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 87. Leiden. Harder, Annette (2012), Callimachus, Aetia. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. 2 vols. Oxford. Hecker, Alfonsus (1850), “Epistolae criticae ad F. G. Schneidewinum V. Cl.”, Philologus 5, 414–512. *Henry, W. B. (2005), Pindar’s Nemeans: A Selection, edition and commentary. Leipzig. Hermann, Godofredus (1805), Orphica recensuit cum notis H. Stephani, A. Chr. Eschenbachii, I. M. Gesneri, Th. Tyrwhitti. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim, 1971). Hermann, Godofredus (1809), De dialecto Pindari observationes. Leipzig (= Opuscula. Vol. 1. Leipzig, 1827, 245–68). Heyne, Christian G. (1773–74, 21798–99, 31824), Pindari carmina. Göttingen/London. Hitzig, Hermann/Blümner, Hugo (1896–1910), Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio edidit, Graeca emendavit, apparatum criticum adiecit Hermannus Hitzig, commenta­ rium Germanice scriptum cum tabulis topographicis et numismaticis addiderunt Her­mannus Hitzig et Hugo Bluemner. 3 vols. in 6 parts. Leipzig. Höhl, Herbert (1950), Responsionsfreiheiten bei Pindar. Diss. Köln. Köln (typescript). Hummel, Pascale (1993), La syntaxe de Pindare. Bibliothèque de l’Information grammaticale 24. Louvain/Paris. Jacoby, F. (1944), “ΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ: A forgotten Festival of the Dead”, Classical Quarterly 38, 65–75 (= Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, zu seinem achtzigsten Geburtstag am 19. März 1956 herausgegeben von Herbert Bloch. Leiden, 1956, 243–59). Jannaris, Antonius N. (1897), An Historical Greek Grammar chiefly of the Attic Dialect as written and spoken from classical Antiquity down to the present time, founded upon the ancient texts, inscriptions, papyri and present popular Greek. London (repr. Hildesheim, 1968). Jost, Madeleine (1985), Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie. Études Péloponnésiennes 9. Paris.

Bibliography

333

Kambitsis, Jean (1972), L’Antiope d’Euripide, édition commentée des fragments. Athènes. Kayser, Carl Ludwig (1840), Lectiones Pindaricae. Heidelberg. Kelly, Thomas (1976), A history of Argos to 500 B.C. Minnesota Monographs in the Humanities 9. Minneapolis. Kühner, Raphael/Gerth, Bernhard (31898–1904), Ausführliche Grammatik der griechi­ schen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. 2 vols. Hannover/Leipzig. Kulcsár, Péter (1987), Mythographi vaticani I et II. Corpus Christianorum. Series latina 91C. Turnhout. Larson, Jennifer (1995), Greek Heroine Cults. Madison, Wis. Lasserre, François/Livadaras, Nikolaos (1976; 1992), Etymologicum magnum genui­ num, Symeonis etymologicum una cum magna grammatica, Etymologicum magnum auctum synoptice ediderunt. Vol. 1: ἀ–ἀμωσγέπως. Roma; Vol. 2: ἀνά–βώτερες. Athens. Lefkowitz, Mary R. (22012), The Lives of the Greek Poets. Baltimore (first ed.: London, 1981). Lesky, Erna (1950), Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken. Mainz. Leutsch, Ernst L. von/Schneidewin, Friedrich G. (1839–51), Corpus Paroemio­gra­ phorum Graecorum. 2 vols. Göttingen (repr. Hildesheim, 1965). Levi, Peter (1971–79), Pausanias, Guide to Greece translated with an Introduction. Vol. 1: Central Greece; Vol. 2: Southern Greece. Harmondsworth/New York. LfgrE = Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, begründet von Bruno Snell, vorbereitet und hrsg. vom Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. 4 vols. Göttingen, 1955–2010. LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. 9 double vols. Zürich/ München/Düsseldorf, 1981–99. Livrea, Enrico (1973), Apollonii Rhodii Argonauticon liber quartus, introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento. Biblioteca di Studi Superiori 60. Firenze. Lloyd, Alan B. (1975–88), Herodotus Book II. 3 vols. Leiden. Maas, Paul (1914), Die neuen Responsionsfreiheiten bei Bakchylides und Pindar. Vol. 1. Berlin (= Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 39, 1913, 289–320). Maddoli, Gianfranco/Saladino, Vincenzo (1995), Pausania, Guida della Grecia. Libro V: L’Elide e Olimpia, testo e traduzione a cura di G. Maddoli, commento a cura di G. Maddoli e V. Saladino. Milano. Maehler, Herwig (1982), Die Lieder des Bakchylides. Erster Teil: Die Siegeslieder. Vol. 1: Edition des Textes mit Einleitung und Übersetzung; Vol. 2: Kommentar. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 62. Leiden. Maehler, Hervicus (1989), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis edidit. Pars II: Fragmenta. Leipzig (corr. repr. of Snell, Bruno/Maehler, Hervicus, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis. Pars II: Fragmenta. Leipzig, 1975). Matthews, Victor J. (1996), Antimachus of Colophon, Text and Commentary. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 155. Leiden/New York/Köln.

334

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Merkelbach, R./West, M. L. (31990), Hesiodi Fragmenta selecta ediderunt. Oxford. Meyer, Ernst/Eckstein, Felix (31986–89), Pausanias, Reisen in Griechenland, Gesamtausgabe in drei Bänden auf Grund der kommentierten Übersetzung von Ernst Meyer hrsg. von Felix Eckstein. 3 vols. Darmstadt. Mezger, Friedrich (1880), Pindars Siegeslieder erklärt. Leipzig. Mommsen, Car. Ioh. Tycho (1864), Pindari carmina ad fidem optimorum codicum recensuit, integram scripturae diversitatem subiecit, annotationem criticam addidit. Berlin. Moret, Jean-Marc (1997), Les pierres gravées antiques représentant le rapt du Pal­la­ dion. 2 vols. Mainz. Moussy, Claude (1969), Recherches sur τρέφω et les verbes grecs signifiant “nourrir”. Paris. Musti, Domenico/Torelli, Mario (1986), Pausania, Guida della Grecia. Libro II: La Corinzia e l’Argolide, testo e traduzione a cura di D. Musti, commento a cura di D. Musti e M. Torelli. Milano. Nickau, Klaus (1966), Ammonii qui dicitur liber De adfinium vocabulorum differentia edidit. Leipzig. Nilsson, Martin P. (1906), Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen. Leipzig (repr. 1995). Papathomopoulos, Manolis (1986), Antoninus Liberalis. Les métamorphoses, texte établi, traduit et commenté. Paris. Parke, H. W./Wormell, D. E. W. (1956), The Delphic oracle. 2 vols. Oxford. Parke, H. W. (1977), Festivals of the Athenians. London (repr. 1986). Parker, Robert (1996), Athenian Religion: A history. Oxford. *Patten, Glenn (2009), Pindar’s Metaphors: A Study in Rhetoric and Meaning. Heidel­ berg. PCG = Poetae Comici Graeci ediderunt R. Kassel et C. Austin. Berlin/New York, 1983–. PEG = Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum testimonia et fragmenta edidit Albertus Bernabé, cum appendice iconographica a R. Olmos confecta. Pars I–II (in 4 vols.). Stuttgart/Leipzig, 21996, 2004–7. Peter, Guilelmus Augustus (1866), De dialecto Pindari. Diss. Halle. Halle. Peters, Karl (1942), Studien zu den panathenäischen Preisamphoren. Schriften zur Kunst des Altertums 2. Berlin. Pfeiffer, Rudolf (1949–53), Callimachus edidit. 2 vols. Oxford. Pfeijffer, Ilja Leonard (1999), Three Aeginetan Odes. A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III, & Pythian VIII. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 197. Leiden. Pfister, Friedrich (1909–12), Der Reliquienkult im Altertum. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 5. 2 vols. (continuous pagination). Giessen. Piérart, Marcel/Touchais, Gilles (1996), Argos. Une ville grecque de 6000 ans. Paris. Piérart, Marcel (1982), “Deux notes sur l’itinéraire argien de Pausanias”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106, 139–52.

Bibliography

335

Piérart, Marcel (1992), “‘Argos assoiffée’ et ‘Argos riche en cavales’. Provinces cul­ turelles à l’époque proto-historique”, in Marcel Piérart (ed.), Polydipsion Argos. Actes de la table ronde “Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’État classique” (Fribourg Suisse, 7–9 mai 1987). Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, Supplément 22. Athènes/Fribourg, 119–55. Piérart, Marcel (1996), “Pour une approche du panthéon argien par la mythologie: le bouclier d’Athéna”, Kernos 9, 171–94. PMG = Poetae Melici Graeci: Alcmanis, Stesichori, Ibyci, Anacreontis, Simonidis, Corinnae, poetarum minorum reliquias, carmina popularia et convivialia quaeque adespota feruntur edidit D. L. Page. Oxford, 1962. PMGF = Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta post D. L. Page edidit Malcolm Davies. Vol. 1: Alcman, Stesichorus, Ibycus. Oxford, 1991. Polignac, François de (21995), La naissance de la cité grecque: cultes, espace et société aux VIIIe –VIIe siècles avant J.-C., préf. de Claude Mossé. Paris (= Engl. ed.: Cults, territory, and the origins of the Greek city-state. Chicago, 1995). Poltera, Orlando (2008), Simonides lyricus: Testimonia und Fragmente, Einleitung, kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 35. Basel. Powell, Johannes U. (1925), Collectanea Alexandrina: Reliquiae minores Poetarum Graecorum Aetatis Ptolemaicae 232–146 A. C. Epicorum, Elegiacorum, Lyrico­ rum, Ethicorum, cum epimetris et indice nominum edidit. Oxford. Preller, L. (1838), Polemonis Periegetae Fragmenta collegit, digessit, notis auxit. Leipzig (repr. Amsterdam, 1964). Puech, Aimé (1922–23), Pindare, texte établi et traduit. 4 vols. Paris. Race, William H. (1990), Style and Rhetoric in Pindar’s Odes. American Classical Studies 24. Atlanta. Race, William H. (1997), Pindar. Vol. 1: Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes; Vol. 2: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments edited and translated. Cambridge, Mass. Radt, Stefan Lorenz (1958), Pindars zweiter und sechster Paian, Text, Scholien und Kommentar. Amsterdam. Radt, Stefan (2002–11), Strabons Geographika mit Übersetzung und Kommentar herausgegeben. 10 vols. Göttingen. Rauchenstein, R. (1845), Commentationum Pindaricarum particula altera. Aarau. RE = Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft hrsg. von Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus und Konrat Ziegler. Stuttgart/ München, 1893–1980. Richardson, N. J. (1974), The Homeric Hymn to Demeter edited. Oxford. *Ringleben, Joachim (2002), Pindars Friedensfeier: Eine Interpretation der Zehnten Nemeischen Ode. Göttingen. Risch, Ernst (21974), Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin/New York. Robert, Carl (41920–26), Die griechische Heldensage. 5 parts (continuous pagination). Berlin. Rocha-Pereira, Maria Helena (1973, 1977, 1981), Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio edidit. 3 vols. Leipzig (corr. repr. 1989–90).

336

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Roscher, W. H. (1884–1937), Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie im Verein mit vielen Fachgelehrten herausgegeben. 6 vols. Leipzig/ Berlin. Roth, P. A. (1982), Mantis: The Nature, Function, and Status of a Greek Prophetic Type. Diss. Bryn Mawr. Ann Arbor. Ruijgh, C. J. (1967), Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam. Rumpel, Ioannes (1883), Lexicon Pindaricum composuit. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim, 1961). Rutherford, Ian (2001), Pindar’s Paeans. A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre. Oxford. Sandys, Sir John (21919), The Odes of Pindar including the principal Fragments, with an Introduction and an English Translation. London (repr. 1978; first ed.: 1915). Schefold, Karl/Jung, Franz (1988), Die Urkönige Perseus, Bellerophon, Herakles und Theseus in der klassischen und hellenistischen Kunst. Geschichte der griechischen Sagenbilder 4. München. Schefold, Karl (1964), Frühgriechische Sagenbilder. München (Engl. ed.: Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art. London, 1966 = new ed.: Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der Früh- und Hocharchaischen Kunst. München, 1993). Schmid, Erasmus (1616), Πινδάρου Περίοδος hoc est Pindari lyricorum principis. 4 parts. Wittenberg. Schroeder, Otto (1896), “Zur Sprache Pindars”, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 23, 221–24. Schroeder, Otto (1900), Pindari carmina recensuit. Leipzig (Appendix 1923). Schroeder, Otto (31930), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis selectis edidit. Leipzig (11908, 21914). Schuddeboom, Feyo L. (2009), Greek Religious Terminology – Telete & Orgia. A Revised and Expanded English Edition of the Studies by Zijderveld and Van der Burg. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 169. Leiden. Schwyzer, Eduard (1923), Dialectorum Graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora edidit. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim, 1960). Schwyzer, Eduard (1950), Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns griechischer Grammatik. Vol. 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik vervollständigt und herausgegeben von Albert Debrunner. München (repr. 1988). Shapiro, H. A. (1994), Myth into Art: Poet and Painter in Classical Greece. London/ New York. Slater, William J. (1969), Lexicon to Pindar. Berlin. Snell, Bruno/Maehler, Hervicus (1970), Bacchylidis carmina cum fragmentis post Brunonem Snell edidit Hervicus Maehler. Leipzig. Snell, Bruno/Maehler, Hervicus (1971–75), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis post Brunonem Snell edidit Hervicus Maehler. Pars I: Epinicia. Pars II: Fragmenta, Indices. Leipzig (corr. repr. of Pars I: 1980, 1984, 1987). Sokolowski, Franciszek (1969), Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Paris.

Bibliography

337

Sommerstein, Alan H. (1989), Aeschylus, Eumenides. Cambridge. Strunk, Klaus (1970), “Über tiefstufige set-Wurzeln im Griechischen”, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28, 109–27. Sullivan, Shirley Darcus (1995), Psychological and Ethical Ideas: What Early Greeks say. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 144. Leiden. Thummer, Erich (1968–69), Pindar, Die isthmischen Gedichte, textkritisch heraus­ gegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert, mit einer Analyse der pindarischen Epinikien. 2 vols. Heidelberg. Tomlinson, Richard Allan (1972), Argos and the Argolid: From the End of the Bronze Age to the Roman occupation. London. TrGF = Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta ediderunt B. Snell, S. Radt et R. Kannicht. 5 vols. Göttingen, 1971–2004. Trüb, Hansrudolf (1952), Kataloge in der griechischen Dichtung. Diss. Zürich. Ober­ winterthur. Trümpy, Hans (1950), Kriegerische Fachausdrücke im griechischen Epos: Unter­ suchungen zum Wortschatz Homers. Diss. Basel. Freiburg in der Schweiz. Turyn, Alexander (1948), Pindari carmina cum fragmentis edidit. Kraków (repr. Oxford, 1952). van der Valk, Marchinus (1971–87), Eustathii Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani edidit. 4 vols. Leiden. van der Weiden, M. J. H. (1991), The Dithyrambs of Pindar, Introduction, Text and Commentary. Amsterdam. Verdenius, W. J. (1976), “Notes on the Prometheus Bound”, in J. M. Bremer/S. L. Radt/ C. J. Ruijgh (ed.), Miscellanea tragica in honorem J. C. Kamerbeek. Amster­dam, 451–70. Verdenius, W. J. (1987), Commentaries on Pindar. Vol. 1: Olympian Odes 3, 7, 12, 14. Mnemosyne, Supplementum 97. Leiden. Vollgraff, W. (1938), “Le Palladium de Rome”, Bulletin de la classe des Lettres de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, 34–56. Von der Mühll, Peter (1964), “Weitere Pindarische Notizen”, Museum Helveticum 21, 96–98 (= Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften hrsg. von Bernhard Wyss. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 12. Basel, 1976, 228–30). Vorsokr. = Diels, Hermann/Kranz, Walther, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Grie­ chisch und Deutsch. 3 vols. Berlin, 51934–37 (corr. repr. 1951). Waanders, F. M. J. (1983), The History of ΤΕΛΟΣ and ΤΕΛΕΩ in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Wackernagel, Jacob (1892), “Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung”, Indogermanische Forschungen 1, 333–436 (= Kleine Schriften hrsg. von der Aka­demie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Vol. 1. Göttingen, 1953, 1–104). Wackernagel, Jacob (21926–28), Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berück­ sichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. 2 vols. Basel. Wærn, I. (1951), ΓΗΣ ΟΣΤΕΑ: The Kenning in Pre-Christian Greek Poetry. Uppsala.

338

II. Commentary on Nemean Ten

Wehrli, Fritz (21968), Demetrios von Phaleron. Die Schule des Aristoteles, Texte und Kommentar Heft 4. Basel. Wendel, Carolus (1935), Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium vetera recensuit. Berlin. Wesselmann, Katharina (2008), “Der ‘Dolch im Gewande’”, Rheinisches Museum, N. F. 151, 305–12. West, Martin L. (1966), Hesiod, Theogony edited with Prolegomena and Commentary. Oxford. West, Martin L. (1982), Greek Metre. Oxford. West, Martin L. (1985), The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure and Origins. Oxford. West, Martin L. (1987), Euripides, Orestes edited with translation and commentary. Warminster. West, Martin L. (21989–92), Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati. 2 vols. Oxford. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von (1931–32), Der Glaube der Hellenen. 2 vols. Berlin (repr. Darmstadt, 1994). Winnington-Ingram, Reginald P. (1983), Studies in Aeschylus. Cambridge. Wyss, Bernhardus (1935), Antimachi Colophonii reliquiae collegit, disposuit, ex­ plicavit. Berlin. Young, David C. (1984), The Olympic Myth of Greek Amateur Athletics. Chicago. Young, David C. (1993), “‘Something like the Gods’: A Pindaric Theme and the Myth of Nemean 10”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 34, 123–32. Young, Douglas (1970), “Some Types of Scribal Error in Manuscripts of Pindar”, in William Musgrave Calder III/Jacob Stern (ed.), Pindaros und Bakchylides. Wege der Forschung 134. Darmstadt, 96–126 (repr. from Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 6, 1965, 247–73). Zimmermann, Bernhard (1992), Dithyrambos: Geschichte einer Gattung. Hypo­mne­ mata 98. Göttingen.

Sapheneia: Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie Die Reihe fördert – ihrem Titel entsprechend – die Interpretation antiker griechischer und lateinischer Texte und bietet Raum nicht nur für Monographien zu speziellen Themen und Autoren, sondern auch für Ausgaben mit erklärenden Anmerkungen oder einem ausführlichen Kommentar. Der Tradition der kritischen Wissenschaft verpflichtet, versteht sich die Reihe als eine streng philologische, ohne sich jedoch neuen Richtungen und erweiterten Methoden der textlichen Auslegung zu verschliessen. Die aufgenommenen Bände tragen aus eigenständiger Forschung zum Verständnis antiker Texte bei, sei es durch deren Exegese, sei es durch problembezogene Untersuchungen. In diesem Sinn bilden sie originale Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie. Grosse Bedeutung innerhalb der Reihe kommt dem Nachleben antiker Texte zu, und zwar in erster Linie der Überlieferungs- und Interpretationsgeschichte sowie dem historischen Aspekt der philologischen Disziplin. Um eine möglichst grosse Leserschaft zu erfassen, publiziert die Reihe in deutscher, englischer und französischer Sprache. Besonderen Wert legt sie auf klare Präsentation der Forschungsergebnisse sowie auf eine verständliche sprachliche Form. Letztlich soll Sapheneia über die wissenschaftliche Fragestellung hinaus das Verständnis für die geistige Tradition des Abendlandes vertiefen.

Die Herausgeber

Bisher erschienene Bände: Bd. 1: Poltera, Orlando. Le langage de Simonide. Etude sur la tradition poétique et son renouvellement. 686 Seiten, 1997. Bd. 2: Grossardt, Peter. Die Trugreden in der Odyssee und ihre Rezeption in der antiken Literatur. 493 Seiten, 1998. Bd. 3: Hummel, Pascale. L’épithète pindarique. Etude historique et philologique. 677 Seiten, 1999. Bd. 4: Guex, Sophie. Ps.-Claudien, Laus Herculis. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire. 244 Seiten, 2000. Bd. 5: Billerbeck, Margarethe/Zubler, Christian. Das Lob der Fliege von Lukian bis L.B. Alberti. Gattungsgeschichte, Texte, Übersetzungen und Kommentar. 272 Seiten, 2000. Bd. 6: Amherdt, David. Sidoine Apollinaire, Le quatrième livre de la correspondance. Introduction et commentaire. 592 Seiten, 2001. Bd. 7: Billerbeck, Margarethe/Guex, Sophie. Sénèque, Hercule furieux. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire. 617 Seiten, 2002. Bd. 8: Hummel, Pascale. Philologus auctor. Le philologue et son œuvre. 438 Seiten, 2003. Bd. 9: Amherdt, David. Ausone et Paulin de Nole: correspondance. Introduction, texte latin, traduction et notes. 255 Seiten, 2004. Bd. 10: Luis Arturo Guichard. Asclepíades de Samos. Epigramas y fragmentos. Estudio introductorio, revisión del texto, traducción y comentario. 583 Seiten. 2004. Bd. 11: Tamara Neal. The Wounded Hero. Non-Fatal Injury in Homer’s Iliad. 352 Seiten. 2006. Bd. 12: Marcelle Laplace. Le roman d’Achille Tatios. «Discours panégyrique» et imaginaire romanesque. XV, 797 Seiten. 2007.

Bd. 13: Braswell, Bruce Karl / Billerbeck, Margarethe. The Grammarian Epaphroditus. Testimonia and Fragments edited and translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. 454 Seiten. 2008. Bd. 14: Rodríguez Adrados, Francisco. Greek Wisdom Literature and the Middle Ages. The Lost Greek Models and Their Arabic and Castilian Translations. 392 Seiten. 2009. Bd. 15: Marcelle Laplace: Les Pastorales de Longos (Daphnis et Chloé). VII, 193 Seiten. 2010. Bd. 16: Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer. Hypatia. Die spätantiken Quellen. Eingeleitet, kommentiert und interpretiert. XII, 385 Seiten. 2011. Bd. 17: Francesco Lardelli. Dux Salutis. Prudenzio, Cathemerinon 9-10: Gli Inni della Redenzione. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento. 343 Seiten. 2014. Bd. 18: Bruce Karl Braswell. Two Studies on Pindar. Edited by Arlette Neumann-Hartmann. 338 Seiten. 2015.