A Commentary on Pindar, Nemean Nine [Annotated] 3110161249, 9783110161243

Table of contents :
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
METRICAL ANALYSIS
THE MANUSCRIPTS
TESTIMONIA
SYNOPSIS OF READINGS
CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM
Text and Translation of Nemean IX
COMMENTARY
Introduction
1-10. Invocation of the Muses and Praise of Chromios' Victory
11-27. The Legend of Amphiaraos
28-34. Prayer for and Praise of Aitna
34-47. Chromios' early Career and its later Rewards
48-55. Preparation for the Revel
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY of publications cited in abbreviated form
INDICES

Citation preview

Bruce Karl Braswell A Commentary on Pindar Nemean Nine

W DE G

TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe In Verbindung mit Olof Gigon • Alfred Heuß t • Otto Luschnat |

herausgegeben von

Felix Heinimann und Adolf Köhnken

Band 19

1998 Walter de Gruyter • Berlin • New York

A COMMENTARY ON PINDAR NEMEAN NINE

by

Bruce Karl Braswell

1998 Walter de Gruyter • Berlin • New York

Library of Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Bras well, Bruce Karl, 1933— A commentary on Pindar Nemean nine / Bruce Karl Braswell. p. cm, - (Texte und Kommentare ; 19) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 3-11-016124-9 1. Pindar. Nemean odes. 9. 2. Laudatory poetry, Greek-History and criticism. 3. Sicily (Italy)—History— To 800—Biography. 4. Chromios, of Aitna.—In Literature. 5. Statesmen-Italy-Sicily-Biography. 6. G e n e r a l s Italy-Sicily-Biography. 7. Chromios, of Aitna. I. Title. PA4274.N5B73 1998 884'.01-dc21 98-4904 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek —

Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Braswell, Bruce Karl: A commentary on Pindar Nemean nine / by Bruce Karl Braswell. - Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1998 (Texte und Kommentare ; Bd. 19) ISBN 3-11-016124-9 ISBN 978-3-11-016124-3

© Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, das die US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt. © Copyright 1998 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin. — Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Margarethe Billerbeck eiSÓTi t o i èpéœ

PREFACE Pindar wrote two odes for the Sicilian soldier and statesman Chromios of Aitna, Nemean One and Nine. The present commentary on the Ninth with text and translation, although largely self-contained, is meant to complement in several respects my commentary on the First Nemean (Fribourg, 1992). As I indicated in the preface to that commentary, Nemean Nine, because of its relative neglect by critics, has required more extensive discussion than Nemean One. Although the present commentary is often more detailed, the aim of both is the same: to provide the necessary exegesis and critical comment required to understand the ode as such, i.e., in the first instance, as a work of linguistic and literary art situated in its historical context. It is hoped, however, that each may also provide information useful beyond the immediate context. Specifically, the fuller discussion here of some general problems of Pindaric usage which I have not had occasion to discuss before is intended to supplement my commentary on the Fourth Pythian (Texte und Kommentare 14, Berlin / New York, 1988) and to reduce still further the necessity of repetition in future commentaries which I hope to publish. Similarly, the preliminary sections on the metre, the manuscripts, and the testimonia are features which are intended to present aspects of the text in a wider context without overburdening the commentary. The twelve instances where my Greek text, which has been based on a fresh inspection of the primary manuscripts, differs from that of Snell-Maehler or Turyn are listed in a synoptic table (p. 14). Since I have already discussed the dates of the two Aetnaean odes as well as the career of Chromios in the Introduction to my previous commentary, it will not be necessary to repeat the discussion here except to remind readers that I date Nemean Nine prior to Nemean One suggesting a time not too long before 470 for the Ninth and probably 469 for the First. However, a brief survey of the literary and iconographical evidence for the Amphiaraos legend before Pindar has seemed desirable as part of the Introduction, where the question of the relevance of this particular legend to the victor celebrated in the ode is discussed. To this is added an analysis of the composition of Nemean Nine.

vm

Preface

In citation I have followed the same conventions adopted in my previous commentaries. Greek authors are, except for Pindar himself, normally referred to by the abbreviations adopted in the preface to the ninth edition of Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (with the additions in the preface to S u p p l e m e n t 2 ) supplemented by those adopted in the preface to Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon. The few divergences should be self-evident. For classical and late Latin authors reference should be made to the abbreviations listed in the second edition of the index volume (1990) of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. The editions of classical authors used are indicated in the Index of Passages Cited at the end of the volume. In the case of authors for whom more than one edition is indicated I have normally recorded my choice of readings where the editions differ. Current periodicals are cited according to the system of abbreviations adopted in L'Année Philologique. Secondary works quoted only once or twice are provided with the necessary bibliographical information at the point at which they occur. Other secondary works to which more frequent reference is made are normally cited in abbreviated form. For a guide to these see the select bibliography at the end of the commentary. Although I intend to publish separately a comprehensive survey of the study and interpretation of Nemean Nine as a contribution to the history of Pindaric scholarship, I take the opportunity at the suggestion of the editors to mention the principal exegetical aids previously available to readers of the ode. The commentary of Ludolf Dissen published in close collaboration with August Boeckh (1821-1822) provides what may be called with some justification the first modern interpretation of the work. Thanks to the revolutionary discoveries of Boeckh in Pindaric metre Dissen was able to base his commentary on a metrically rational text even if the manuscript basis for it was still inadequate. In the eleven pages devoted to the ode information on the historical background constitutes the major part. This reflects Boeckh's propensity to interpret the odes as historical commentaries. For example, Boeckh saw in the myth of Amphiaraos, Adrastos, and Eriphyle an allusion to the quarrel between Hieron and Theron which was settled with the marriage of Theron's niece to Hieron (apud Dissen, pp. 457-59). At the time Dissen expressed his basic agreement (p. 457), but later felt obliged to refute his friend's interpretation when in 1830 he published his own edition and commentary on the whole of Pindar (ii, 490f.). In it Ne. 9 received hardly more space than in the earlier commentary, but somewhat more attention to language and literary conventions. Dissen's treatment of asyndeton e.g. in the new work (i, 273-82) has never been superseded. In the

Preface

IX

intervening years Dissen had developed his theory of the Grundgedanke according to which the import of a poem can be reduced to a short prose paraphrase. In the case of Ne. 9 it is: "Chromius fortitudine bellica inde a prima adolescentia insigni maximam gloriam consequutus est, ad quam nunc ludicra ornamenta accedunt; praeterea divitias habet. Fruitur igitur admirabili divinitus data felicitate" (ii, 483). Dissen's exegesis of the ode dominated most of the nineteenth century as did the two general tendencies to regard myths and literary motifs as historical allusions, even if doubts were occasionally expressed about certain interpretations, and, above all, to seek a simple message in a poem. The next substantial advance in the interpretation of Ne. 9 came fifty years later in 1880 with the Pindar commentary of Friedrich Mezger who found no more room for it than had Dissen. Mezger is critical of Boeckh's attempt to discover historical correspondences with the myth in the ode, but fully accepts Dissen's theory of the Grundgedanke. This he finds best formulated for Ne. 9 by Leopold Schmidt who argued that the poem intends "auf der Grundlage eines Bildes von Zwietracht und Schrecken, das Glück, den Frieden und die innere Ruhe aus[zu]malen, deren Aetna und Chromios nach Wunsche des Dichters geniessen sollen" (p. 115 = Schmidt, Pindar's Leben und Dichtung, Bonn, 1862, 240). Mezger's own contribution to the methodology of Pindaric interpretation was his theory of tautometry according to which the repetition of words in the same metrical position of the same verse in corresponding stanzas provides "den Schlüssel zum Verständnis des ganzen Gedichts" (p. 40). In Ne. 9. 29 and 54 e.g. the repetition of Toakav in the same sedes of the same verse of the strophe is supposed to imply that "wie der Dichter jene Waffenprobe weit von sich wegweist..., so freut er sich diese zu preisen" (p. 121). In 1890 the Anglo-Irish scholar J. B. Bury, who had published his two-volume History of the Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene the year before, brought out an edition and commentary on the Nemean odes in which Ne. 9 was treated in greater detail than it had been by his predecessors. A ten-page introduction offers an unstructured mixture of information on historical and mythological background with a speculative literary analysis which discovers such things as "a covert comparison of the life of Chromius to an initiation and education in divine Mysteries" (p. 160). Bury's Pindar commentaries are perhaps best remembered for the extremes to which he took Mezger's tautometric theory, of which Ne. 9 abounds in examples. Bury was not always sure in metre as with the variants Ttpdaaexe | 7rpdaa£Tca in v. 3 or happy with his conjectures as with OCÒTGBV in v. 8, but the sixteen pages he

X

Preface

devoted to the text and commentary contain an ambitious exegesis of the ode which shows him fully abreast with contemporary continental scholarship. If he is sometimes exasperating when e.g. he rewrites verses as at 25, his judgment is nevertheless often sound and his remarks acute. His commentary has continued to influence readers, often unknowingly, to the present day in the form of Sir John Sandys' Loeb translation (1915) which not infrequently is based on an interpretation of Bury. An edition of the whole of Pindar with an English translation and commentary by L. R. Farnell appeared in three volumes between 1930 and 1932. In the first volume the translation of Ne. 9 is followed by two and a half pages of "literary comments" (pp. 221-23). After a very brief sketch of the historical and mythical background of the poem, Farnell sensibly rejects any attempt to find in it "a deeper, more inward relevance, some mystic significance attaching to the myth, some cryptic allusion to contemporary events, or some moral warning against an unrighteous war" (p. 222). However, he is convinced that the myth of the ode is irrelevant and serves merely to entertain. After the praise of Chromios (in vv. 34-47) the poem ends for him with an "almost... bacchanalian ring" (p. 223). The actual literary comment restricts itself to strings of descriptive predications: Pindar tells the tale "lyrically, with rapidity, fervour, and thrill, lighting up a few saliant points, with moralising reflections" (pp. 222f.), with "fervour" and "thrill" repeated in a similar string summarizing the poem at the end of the comments (p. 223). The heart of Farnell's work is the second volume containing a "critical commentary" intended unlike the first volume, which was "mainly for the literary public", for "the narrower circle of Greek scholars" (p. v). The Ninth Nemean receives only six pages of which the first is devoted largely to a discussion of Pindar's ascription of the foundation of the Sicyonian games to Adrastos (p. 310). As a commentator Farnell is not a reliable guide in metre (v. his arguments against Maas, pp. xxiiif., and his comment on Ne. 9. 41) or in grammatical analysis (cf. the comm. ad 18-19 below), nor is he felicitous in his textual criticism (v. his arguments for reading eptaod|xevov and aoon-ai' ¿7uavav in v. 23), but he was an expert in the history of religion who had published valuable work on the Greek cults. He put his specialist knowledge to good use in Ne. 9 when he correctly explained vv. 19f. to mean that Zeus failed to lighten as the Argive expedition was departing for Thebes. Farnell's third volume contains a Greek text without critical apparatus. The next item chronologically I mention only to warn readers that it is not worth the trouble of consulting. This is a 1988 doctoral dissertation of the University of Iowa by James Stephen Clark, A Literary Study of

Preface

XI

Pindar's Nemean Nine, in which the author purports to follow "methods which were propounded by Elroy Bundy" (p. 1). The main body of the study (pp. 8-131) consists of a line by line encounter with the text followed by a short "discursus" at the end of the comment on each strophe. Practically no effort is made to deal with the historical and linguistic problems presented by the ode, but instead we are given what is little more than a paraphrase padded out with abstruse speculation about word order and acoustical effects which totally obscures the rhetorical analysis originally intended. In 1993 Thomas Poiss published a literary study of a very different calibre, Momente der Einheit: Interpretationen zu Pindars Epinikion und Hölderlins "Andenken ". As the title indicates the author addresses himself to the perennial problem of the Pindaric odes, the question of their unity. He has thought carefully about methodology and formulates his hermeneutic premisses in a short introductory chapter (pp. 22-28). Poiss' professed aim (p. 28) is to interpret a poem in the first instance as a work of art which transcends its cultural context rather than merely as a witness to it. In his search for the unity of the Pindaric epinikion Poiss investigates ten odes, including Nemean Nine, with Hölderlin's poetic souvenir of Bordeaux introduced as a foil toward the end. Pindaric unity he finds in a Heraclitean coincident opposition, as have others before him, which he thinks is matched by that of the German romantic poet (p. 243). This is a description which would in fact apply to almost any elaborate lyric poem. Poiss' contribution to the elucidation of the ninth Nemean is divided into five parts. First come preliminary remarks (pp. 29-40) in which the author explains the relative neglect of the ode. The explanation he finds in its unconspicuousness. For him it is Pindar's "durchschnittlichstes Lied" (p. 29). This description is hardly more helpful than the appreciative effusions of Farnell. More to the point would be to say that it contains all the typical elements of an epinikion: statement of the occasion, myth, gnomic reflections, and praise of the victor and his city. Poiss then announces his intention of providing a commentary on the ode which will not only purvey the essential information needed by the reader but also the kind of interpretation which he finds conspicuously lacking in recent commentaries on Pindar (pp. 29-31 with n. 3). Thereafter we are given a useful sketch of the historical background in Sicily (pp. 31-33) and an equally useful survey of the mythological background (pp. 35-37). In both the author is well informed in the secondary literature, but seldom attempts to deal with open questions such as whether or not Chromios was appointed guardian of Gelon's

xn

Preface

son (cf. p. 33 with n. 17 where it is taken for granted) as he was later of Hieron's. At the end of the section a two-page excursus discusses the conditions under which the ode might have been performed. The second part of Poiss' discussion (pp. 40-48) consists of a Greek text without critical apparatus divided into small units followed by a German translation with short interpretative remarks between each section. The text is that of Snell-Maehler with two divergences (28 (¡JOIVIKOCTO^CDV, and 40 evöa 'Peag [?]). The translation is less felicitous than that of Dönt (1986), perhaps in part because of an understandable wish to avoid repetition. The accompanying remarks are generally helpful and provide a useful guide for continuous reading. While this arrangement may be justified by the primarily literary intention of the study, it does complicate the consultation of the work. The detailed commentary on the ode occupies the third part (pp. 4871). The metre receives short shrift at the beginning with a promise of a brief discussion of some details in the "Zeilenkommentar" which follows; unfortunately the promise is not kept. The commentary itself consists of a series of concise notes on individual words and phrases in which parallels are intelligently collected along with helpful references to secondary literature. For a rapid reading Poiss' notes are a serviceable guide. Seldom, however, does he attempt to work out a knotty problem on his own, and when he does, as with atiSocv ixavuet in v. 4, the results are not convincing. The separation of the interpretive part of the commentary from the individual notes again makes consultation of the work unduly difficult. The fourth part (pp. 72-74) offers a new round of interpretation in which the author begins by drawing a disappointing balance resulting from the previous "zweifachen Interpretationsgang": "zahlreiche Topoi, ein Bündel schwer zu funktionalisierender Wort- und Themenbezüge und ein verunglückter Mythos". A renewed reading of the ode is undertaken in an attempt to discover a poetic principle which would allow a meaningful reconstruction of the disjecta membra. What follows is a paraphrase of the ode in which elements are polarly linked to one another. Result: "Chromios' gegenwärtiger Segen (V. 3 und V. 45), nicht Panik (V. 27), ist Gabe von Seiten der Götter. Das Lied zeigt in seinem Progreß, daß und wie der Adressat auf agonalem Gebiet mit dem Wagen den Heroen gleichkommt, sie aber an Konstanz im werthaften Verhalten übertrifft" (p. 74). At the end the Heraclitean opposites coincide: "Geeint kommen aktueller Verlauf des Liedes, Bahn des Siegers und Wurf des Dichters im letzten Wort zur Ruhe, im Namen der Musen" (p. 74). What Poiss offers is an interpretation which is certainly

Preface

xrn

more subtle than that of his predecessors, but which no less than that of Dissen or Leopold Schmidt reduces the poem to a Grundgedanke strongly coloured by personal preference and taste. The fifth and final part (pp. 74-76) is devoted to a retrospect in which the author reviews and conscientiously completes his answers to five interpretive questions he had initially postulated to be asked about an ode (p. 27). (1) The context of the ode's performance must have been a symposion or at least a place in front of Chromios' house. (2) and (3) The myth reflects political events in Sicily and offers "ein grundsätzliches, deutliches und zugleich auch erst zu deutendes Handlungsmuster". (4) The choral 'I' is not a real problem, "da keine Aussagen zur Person und zur Weltsicht des Sprechers getätigt werden". (5) The unity of the poem is achieved in that the "Sieg-Lied (= xpeoq) Thematik ... wird im durch den Mythos perspektivierten Tatenbericht belegt", so that Chromios' success, wealth, blessing, and peace are "proved" (bewiesen) to be deserved and legitimate. After so much effort it is disappointing to find, apart from the generally useful notes of the commentary, such a meagre harvest, not the least in the literary interpretation of the ode where greater expectations were raised. In general, the basic weakness of Poiss' work is its hybrid nature: a literary study which attempts to provide commentaries on no less than ten odes including several of the most difficult. It should be obvious that in a work of some 250 pages it would be impossible to comment adequately on some 750 verses of so difficult a poet and provide at the same time a satisfactory literary analysis replete with theoretical discussion. More of less would have been salutary. In retrospect the exegesis of Nemean Nine over the past two centuries appears excessively reductionistic. Commentaries have sought some one key which would explain the ode. Boeckh's supposed historical parallels to the mythological narrative reduced the ode to a contemporary roman-ä-clef. Dissen's Grundgedanke reduced it to the moral of a Lutheran sermon. Mezger's tautometry reduced it to a system of Wagnerian Leitmotive. In fact there is no passe-partout which will open all the doors to a Pindaric epinikion. The commentator must have at his disposal a whole arsenal of hermeneutic tools and a comprehensive knowledge which he can apply wherever necessary. Only then can we hope to grasp something of the rich variety, the KOiKi^ia, of Pindar's poetry. Finally, a word on interpretation. Certain recent critics have the unfortunate tendency to use the term ambiguously. A good example is Poiss who quotes approvingly Schadewaldt's unexceptionable observation that "jede Pindarbetrachtung Interpretation ist" ( A u f b a u ,

XIV

Preface

265) while claiming at the same time that there are Pindar commentators who have completely renounced interpretation (p. 30, n. 3). No one in his right mind would deny that commenting on a Pindaric ode involves interpretation, indeed at many levels. Behind Poiss' ambiguous use of "interpretation" lies the conviction which he expresses but does not attempt to justify that "jedes Verhalten zu einem Text ... auch wertend [ist]" (p. 29). In other words, for him there can be no interpretation without value judgments. Perhaps (though here we must distinguish the psychological from the philosophical problem), but a commentator who attempts to keep the influence of his own private opinions about the worth of a literary work at a minimum will ultimately be of more service to his readers at a scholarly level than those who happen to embody current fashions and prejudices. Such an intention is not a renouncement of interpretation, but a commitment to an ideal of objectivity. It is with great pleasure that I thank all who have helped me in one way or another in preparing this commentary. In particular, Tilman Krischer and William Race have kindly corresponded with me on points of interpretation, Jean-Marc Moret has freely placed his archaeological expertise at my disposal, and Stefan Radt has generously read an earlier draft and offered me detailed criticism from which I have much profited. Simonetta Marchitelli has repeatedly aided my work with bibliographical assistance as has Christian Zubler who also finished typing as well as formatting the manuscript which François Piccand began. In addition, the latter two have assisted me in the use of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. My sincere thanks are due to the editors of the series "Texte und Kommentare" for their acceptance of my work for publication as well as for the helpful advice which Professors Felix Heinimann and especially Adolf Kôhnken have placed at my disposal. My greatest debt remains to my wife to whom this work is dedicated. Fribourg June, 1997

B.K.B.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface VH Metrical Analysis 1 The Manuscripts 7 Testimonia 11 Synopsis of Readings 14 Conspectus Siglorum 15 Text and Translation of Nemean IX 16 Commentary Introduction (a) The Legend of Amphiaraos before Pindar 27 (b) Composition of Nemean IX 42 I-10. Invocation of the Muses and Praise of Chromios' Victory . 45 I-3. Invocation of the Muses 45 4-5. Announcement of Chromios'Victory 51 6-7. Gnome 54 8-9. Invitation to celebrate the Victory 56 9-10. Transition to the Myth 59 II-27. The Legend of Amphiaraos 63 II-17. Adrastos driven into Exile (and restored) by Amphiaraos 63 11-12. Adrastos as Ruler of Sikyon 63 13-15. The Usurpation at Argos 65 16-17. Eriphyle and the Restoration to Argos 74 17-27. Adrastos'Expedition against Thebes 79 17-20. Lack of propitious Omens 79 21-24. Destruction of the Expedition 85 24-27. Amphiaraos hidden in the Ground by Zeus 93

XVI

Table of Contents

28-34. Prayer for and Praise of Aitna 28-29. Prayer to delay a Carthaginian Invasion 29-32. Prayer for Good Order and Festivities 32-33. Praise of Aitna 33-34. Gnome and Transition to Chromios 34-47. Chromios' early Career and its later Rewards 34-37. Chromios valiant in the several Types of Battle . . . . 37-39. Chromios'military Skill 39-40. Comparison with Hektor 40-42. Chromios'great Victory on the Heloros 42-43. His other Feats 44. Gnomic Transition 45-47. Chromios'later Rewards 48-55. Preparation for the Revel 48-49. Gnomic Transition 50-53. Summons to the Revel and Praise of Chromios . . . 53-55. Prayer to Zeus for the Celebration Select Bibliography General Index Index of Words Discussed Index of Passages Cited

98 98 102 105 108 Ill Ill 118 120 123 129 130 132 137 138 141 146 150 176 182 184

METRICAL ANALYSIS

Dactyloepitrite: I-XI

1

D — D —I

2

e — e — ;D ; — e — e | |

3

D ; — D — ell

4

e — D — ; D — e —ell

5

— e — e — e-—III

32.47 -48

-22 -22 13 -29.34

As we might expect in a monostrophic ode, the metrical pattern of Ne. 9 is relatively simple. It will be revealing to compare it with the only other monostrophic ode which Pindar wrote in dactyloepitrites,i Py. 12 composed almost twenty years earlier in 490. First, however, a preliminary point. There is no reason to doubt that editors of Ne. 9 since Boeckh have rightly assumed period-end at the end of what they print as the first verse of the strophe, although it is attested at this point only by the consistent occurrence of word-end and not by either hiatus or brevis in longo.2 The longest certain period in Pindaric dactyloepitrites is Py. 1, str., 6 containing 30 syllables followed by Ne. 5, str., 1 and Ne. 9, 4 both containing 27 syllables.' This would seem to be the exceptional 1 The four other monostrophic odes (Py. 6, Ne. 2, 4, Is. 8) are basically aeolic. 2

1

On the criteria which determine a period v. Snell, Griech. Metrik4, 7, and West, Greek Metre, 4-6. For the signs used in the metrical analysis v. Maehler, Pindari carmina ii (1989), 178. To these Turyn would add Is. 3/4, ep., 7 containing 27 syllables in his colometry, but Snell-Maehler more reasonably divide it into two periods.

2

Metrical Analysis

upper limit of period length which would presumably have made considerable demands on singers accustomed to the convenient pauses for breathing found in the more usual short periods." If we assume that verses 1 and 2 of Ne. 9 form a single period as Korzeniewski, Griech. Metrik, 151, apparently does, we would have a period of 39 syllables; however, this would demand a pause at the natural break after the first 16 syllables before launching into the final 23, so it is surely preferable to accept period-end at the pause provided by consistent word-end at that point. Nevertheless, Korzeniewski's grouping of the cola presents a convenient optical representation which allows us to see more clearly (but not to hear) how the elements are related to one another. It may be set forth as follows: 32.47

1/2

D

—

3

D: —

D —1

(2)

e

-22

-22

—

e — • D •— e — ell

-48 13

D —

e||

-29.34

4

e — D

—; D —

e

—

ell

—

e

—

e

5

—

e

—III

With this schema we may now compare that of Py. 12, which consists of four strophes composed of eight periods: 1

— D

—

D||

2

D

—

D|

3

— D

—

e —

e||

-28

4

4

D: —

Dll

On this aspect of metrics with special reference to Ne. 9 v. L. Pearson, "The Dynamics of Pindar's Music: Ninth Nemean and Third Olympian," ICS 2 (1977), 54-69. In the case of very long periods singers will probably have found short pauses where breathing would be possible without unduly interrupting the flow of the rhythm.

Metrical Analysis

5

— D —

e —

e||

— e —

ell

3

31?

6

— D

7

D —

ell

8

e

e —

—

e

—III

The very simple arrangement of dactylic and epitritic cola in Py. 12 presumably reflects earlier practice in this metres Ne. 9, while metrically more sophisticated, nevertheless has certain obvious features in common with the earlier ode. Both odes begin their respective strophes with a dactylic verse containing 16 syllables arranged in the same metrical pattern except that there is a preceding longum in Py. 12 ('—' D — D) corresponding to a final one in Ne. 9 (D — D '—')." This is an even running rhythm with a slight retardation produced by a sequence of three long syllables in the middle. The retardation at the end of the first period in Ne. 9 effects the transition to the epitrites of 2, while in Py. 12 the dactyls, after a minimal pause, are continued in 2. A similar parallelism is found in the closing verse of the respective strophes of the two odes with — e — e — e — of Ne. 9 corresponding to e — e — e — of Py. 12, the only difference being that the twelvesyllable verse (period 8) of Py. 12 lacks the initial longum of the corresponding verse (period 5) in Ne. 9. Both produce the slower

5

Compare e.g. the metrical analysis of the Lille "Stesichorus" (= PMGF 222[b]) given by P. J. Parsons, ZPE 26 (1977), 12f.: str./ant. D x D — ll(2) D x e — lli(xpT|öv xe) presumably represents an attempt to improve the text metri gratia. 4 The scholia Vetera, quoted from the edition of Drachmann (1903-27) supplemented by that of Abel (1884), are numbered according to the traditional colometry of Heyne's Pindar edition of 1798 represented by the small Arabic numerals in the right margin of the text of modern editions. ( H e y n e ' s colometry generally corresponds to that found in the Pindaric M S S and which is also prescribed in the metrical scholia to Pindar, for which v. J. Irigoin, Les scholies métriques de Pindare, Paris, 1958, and now also the new edition by A. Tessier, Scholia metrica Vetera in Pindari carmina, Leipzig, 1989; on the traditional colometry of Pindar v. A. Tessier, Tradizione metrica di Pindaro, Padova, 1995.) The large Arabic numerals printed in the left margin indicate the verses according to the modern colometry (cf. n. 8 below) established by Boeckh (1811). 5 On the edition v. n. 7 below. For a good, brief account of Triklinios' activities v. N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, London, 1983, 249-56. See also H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner ii, München, 1978, 73-77.

The Manuscripts

9

which for the Nemeans and Isthmians was based on a MS very close to D.f These are the following: a'=

Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Codex Laurentianus, conv. soppr. 94, dated ca. 1330; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 338-40. P ' = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex graecus 2882, dated ca. 1500; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 372f. Y - Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 8 sup. (cat. 269), dated end of 15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 362. y " = Roma, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vaticanus graecus 2286, dated ca. 1500; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 362. 8' = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex graecus 2834; dated 2nd half of 15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 395. 8' = Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, C o d e x Laurentianus, plut. 32, 41; dated end of 15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 394f. 8 ' = Roma, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Codex Vaticanus graecus 985; dated mid-15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 394f. 8' = Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, S 31 sup. (cat. 734), dated end of 15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 395. 8 " = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon, gr. 10, dated 15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 394f. 8 " = London, British Library, Burney 109, dated 15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 394f.

6

See Irigoin, Histoire, 334, 337f. For examples in Ne. 9 of Triclinian readings which agree against B with those of D or presuppose them cf. 4 |ir|vu£i, 13 'Ajx^idpriov xe, 16 dv8po(j.e8av, 17 'Oi Kiel 5(a), 23 epuaanevoi. On the other hand, Triklinios sometimes preserves a correct reading which agrees with B where D has gone wrong, but these are mostly minor orthographical mistakes which may not have been present in the MS or MSS used by Triklinios. For examples in Ne. 9 of Triclinian readings which agree against D with B cf. 3 npdaaexe, 4 r c a i 8 e a a i v , 15 KaitTtauei, 22 ijnteioiq, 24 veoymovi;, 2 8 Tieipav, 31 Zefi, 33 KXeJitetat, 38 7tap7to8io'o, 39 n\ 4 5 o ^ p o v , 5 2 0e|xiTcX.eKxon;, 5 4 xi(iaA.((ieiv.

10

The Manuscripts

e' = Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, C 22 sup. (cat. 173) dated end of 15th cent.; v. Irigoin, Histoire, 387f. = Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Codex a . N. 7. 17 (olim III C 21, gr. 250), dated 1485); v. Irigoin, Histoire, 387. Triclin. = the consensus of the Triclinian MSS implying his edition.' For Ne. 9 seven of the Triclinian MSS ( a ' , p', 8', 5', 8', e', (¡') were collated by Tycho Mommsen in preparing his editio maior, and for these I rely upon his report (supplemented by my own collation of made in situ ). In addition, I have collated in microfilm three other MSS (y', 8", 8"). The Triclinian recension thus implied should be regarded in the same way as the work of a modern philologist.«

7

This will have been his complete edition of all four books of the Pindaric odes known to him, since if he did produce a second edition (so Irigoin, Histoire, 331-64, esp. 362-64; contra A. Turyn, The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides, Urbana, 1957, 32, n. 49 [v. pp. 34f.]), it will have contained, according to Irigoin, only the Olympians. s See Irigoin, Histoire, 331-64. It has long been recognized (cf. e.g. U. von Wilamowitz, Euripides Herakles i, Berlin, 1889, 194 [= repr. Darmstadt, 1959, 195], and Th. Hopfner, Thomas Magister, Demetrios Triklinios, Manuel Moschopulos, SAWW 172, 3. Abh., Wien, 1912, 59f.) that Triklinios had a better knowledge of elementary metrics than his predecessors; v. further Irigoin, Les scholies métriques, 93-106, esp. 99, and, less favourably, A. Tessier, "Demetrio Triclinio revisore della colometria pindarica," SIFC 80 (1987), 6976. Although no one before Boeckh (1809, 1814) had grasped the essential fact that Greek lyric verse forms periods which are distinguished by pauses (word-end, hiatus, and brevis in longo), Triklinios' awareness that strophe and antistrophe correspond metrically allowed him to make a number of simple corrections which account for his relatively frequent appearance in the critical apparatus of the texts of Pindar; cf. e.g. Ne. 9. 1, 25, 30, 31, 32, 41, 44, 46. (A. Kambylis, Eustathios iiber Pindars Epinikiendichtung, 72f. with n. 255, has recently [1991] argued on the basis of the statement oi nivSapiKoi erciviiaot TT] Ttpoaexœç 8e5T|Xa>jiévi] tpiriSi éva^XdySriv c u v t e X o i i v t a i K a t ' (XKoXou0iav ETjavvToucTov èvapnôviov, fjv OÙK ë a t i 7iapaPf[vai in the Prooimion (38. 3; p. 31, 15-17 Kambylis) to the apparently lost Pindar commentary of Eustathios of Thessalonike [ca. 1115—1195/96] that the archbishop understood the principle of strophic metrical responsion. This seems to me an overinterpretation of the rather vague formulation; in any case, neither Eustathios nor any other Byzantine scholar before Triklinios seems to have made use of this principle in the treatment of the Pindaric text, if indeed it was known at that time [Tessier, Scholia metrica Vetera, viii, implies without argument that Isaac Tzetzes (ca. 1110-1138) was aware of it, but v. Irigoin, Les scholies métriques, 57-72].) Triklinios also compiled his own scholia to the Nemeans EK xcov naXaiwv o^oWcov (edited by Tycho Mommsen, Frankfurt am Main, 1865), but for Ne. 9 (Mommsen, pp. 24f.) these are of little interest.

TESTIMONIA

v. 2

Sch. vet. (EH et Triclin. (Lh) Ar. Ach. 127a (p. 26, 1-8 Wilson), (i) T O v q 5e ^ e v í ^ e v v : rcapoi|o.íai £7ti xcov KoXXovq tqévovq vnoSexonévcovZ "OVSÚKOI' ÍO%EI tí Gúpa". 3 (ien-VTitai4 Kai E\moX,ic; év Oi^oiq (fr. 286 K.-A. [PCG v, 467] "vt| xóv noaei8co toúSéTiox' ío%eit f(5 eúpa". Kai KalM|a.axo f| Kassel-Austin dubitanter 11 6 xiov Pfeiffer: xtov sch. (ErLh) Ar. 11 7 EXE yap Suid. (e 345; ii, 212, 24 Adler), Et. Gud. (s.v. 'Exa^/tv, p. 438, 23 de Stef.): EOXE yap An. Ox. (ii, 436, 10 Cramer), EOX' Ee-uyoDOii K a i

yap "ev

rcaiSec;

fj

a\>v yap

0ec5v"

(Ne.

9. 27). 1 8ai|a.ovioi7t6KpDa

•ujto Kpu^a

v i t b Kpva

41

ev9a 'Peaq

ev0' 'Apeiaq

44

d|j.epa

ril^epa

illjipa

47

CUKET'

OVK EOTl

dv5p'

e o n

nopoco

>

TE

OUK ECTTl

Tiopoto

7tp6ocoGEv

50

viv

(XVV

52

a|ia

a|ia

CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM B

codex Vaticanus graecus 1312

D

codex Laurentianus 32, 52

B

codex Monacensis graecus 565

Triclin.

codices Tricliniani

Blem

B in lemmate scholii

X

lectio quam testantur scholia Vetera

Bi

B in linea

Bs

B supra lineam

ac

B ante correctionem

Bpc

B post correctionem

B

Alia signa secundum Turyn Codices describuntur in pp. 7-10 supra.

NEMEAN IX XP0MIÍ2I AITNAIQI I

APMATI

K o û i i d a o ^ e v 7tap' 'AjtôM,covoç LIKUIOVÓOE, M o ï a c a , x à v v e o K T Í a x a v è ç A'íxvav, ë v 0 ' àva7tejn:a|i.évai ÇEÎVCDV v e v í r a v x o u 0-úpai,

3

5

ö X ß i o v è ç XpOU-ÍOD 6KÙv \)|ivov s p a c c e t e , x ò KpaxTÍaiTCTcov y à p è ç a p n '

ävaßaivtov

l i a x é p i K a i 8iSi3p.oiç m i ô e a o ï v orôSàv n . a v ó e i 5 n

ë a x i 8é x i ç X o y o ç àv0pc07t(ûv, x e t e À e o ^ é v o v è o X ó v H-f) xa|i.ai a i y a K a À ù y a r 0 e a 7 c e a i a S ' ènécov Ka-u^aç à o i S à

3

15

7ipôa(j)opoç.

à X X ' à v à jièv ß p o ^ i i a v 4>óp|xiyy% à v à 8 ' avkòv

en' a i ) x à v öpao|xev

Í7c7cía)v Qǧ9X,(ÔV Kopixjiàv, a x e Ooißcp erjKev " A ^ g a a x o ç èit' 'Aaawioù peé0poiç- kev ímacjTiíÇcov rtapà îtEÇopôaiç 'ircrcoiç xe varöv x' Èv | i à x a i ç EKpivaç, â v kîvSvvov ô^eiaç droxàç,

75

80

24 veoyviovç B: veoyriouç D ó ô' Triclin.: ó Se BD 'An^iápi] Heyne: 'A|¿iápTii BD, 'An^iapfli Er. Schmid, 'A|X(|>iapeï Schroeder axíaoev Boeckh: a / i a a e D |em , a^iaev D, axiae Bs, axiaaoaç B' rta(ißia B: Taußia D 25 Kpi)\|/ev Triclin.: Kpúye BD 2 8 rceipav B: Tteïpoiç D í>oiviKoaTÓXcov BDlem: «toiviKoatóA-ov D 29 rcépi B: 7tepi D 30 a i t y p Triclin.: ai-céo) BD jtaiaiv Triclin.: icaiai BD 31 Zeíí B: co Zev D ayXavaioiv Triclin.: á y X a í a i a i BD é7ti|ieì!;ai Schroeder: éiciniÇai Schneidewin, Bergk 14 , é m u l a i BD 32 i ' Triclin.: te BD 32-33 Kpéccovaç I âv8peç D: Kpéooovaç, âvôpeç I àvSpeç B 33 ai8a>ç BD |em : aiôôç D •ùnÒKp'u