A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar

Citation preview

TEXTE UND KOMMENTARE Eine altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe In Verbindung mit Hellfried Dahlmann · Kurt von Fritz f Alfred Heuss ■Paul Moraux f herausgegeben von

Olof Gigon · Felix Heinimann Adolf Köhnken · Otto Luschnat

Band 14

1988 Walter de Gruyter · Berlin ■New York

A COM M ENTARY O N T H E FO U R T H P Y T H IA N O D E O F P IN D A R

by

Bruce Karl Braswell

1988 Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Braswell, Bruce Karl A commentary on the fourth Pythian ode o f Pindar ; Bruce Karl Braswell. p. cm. — (Texte und Kommentare ; Bd. 14) Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 3-11-010708-2 : $120.00 (U.S. : est.) 1. Pindar, Pythian odes. 4. 2. Medea (Greek mythology) in literature. 3. Jason (Greek mythology) in literature. 4. Argonauts (Greek mythology) in literature. I. Title. PA4274.P5B74 1988

C lP -Titelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek

Braswell, Bruce Karl: Commentary on the fourth Pythian ode of Pindar j Bruce Karl Braswell. — Berlin ; N ew York : de Gruyter, 1988 (Texte und Kommentare ; Bd. 14) ISBN 3-11-010328-1 NE: Pindarus: Fourth Pythian ode; GT

© 1988 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 30 Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der Übersetzung in fremde Sprachen, Vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfältigen. Printed in Germany Satz und Druck: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin 30 Buchbinder: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin 61

To W. S. BARRETT

PREFACE The Fourth Pjthian is not only Pindar’s longest but also his most complex and demanding ode. The previous commentaries on Pindar which have included Pjthian I V , although containing much that is useful, have been far too rapid and selective to provide an adequate explanation o f the difficulties found at almost every point in the ode. Its length and complexity alone would therefore justify its choice as the object o f a separate and detailed commentary. In the present commentary an attempt has been made to explain not only the immedi­ ate passage under consideration but, where possible, similar uses of language, metre, themes, and lyric conventions found elsewhere in Pindar. This is intended to place Pindar’s practice in Pjthian I V in the larger context o f his poetic technique as well as to allow subsequent commentaries which I plan to write on other odes to be considerably shortened by a reference to the treatment here. Since the present commentary not only attempts to elucidate the immediate passage under consideration, but also to establish certain general principles of Pindaric usage, the pursuit o f these aims, particu­ larly o f the second, has inevitably entailed certain deliberate limitations o f scope. First, much that pertains to the influence o f Pindar upon later Greek language and, more especially, literature has been excluded. The usage o f his predecessors and contemporaries can almost always help us understand Pindar, that o f his successors more rarely. A notable exception, however, are the Hellenistic poets, especially Apollonius Rhodius. Their treatment o f the same material and use, to some degree, of the same language can often allow us to see by contrast certain features in the work o f the earlier poet which might otherwise be overlooked. In general, wherever later writers seem to me to throw genuine light on Pindar, I have not hesitated to cite them. Where the listing o f Pindaric imitations would only illustrate his general cultural and literary influence, I have usually preferred to say nothing. Secondly, the influence o f Pindar on Latin (Renaissance as well as ancient), Italian, French, Spanish, English, Dutch, and German literature, to mention only the obvious ones, has been excluded for the same reason. This is a special subject which deserves systematic treatment rather than casual reference. Thirdly, explicit statements about the aesthetic and moral worth o f the work have been deliberately suppressed, not because I think a commentator should not have an opinion on these matters, but

vm

Preface

because such opinions are inevitably subjective and do not contribute to the elucidation o f the work as such. Fourthly, reference to conjectures, interpretations, and controversies which have only a historical interest has been avoided, since, once again, these would not contribute to the understanding o f the work as such. Fifthly, no attempt has been made to collect all parallels in every discussion of a particular problem but only enough (and always the most relevant ones) to explain the point at issue. On the other hand, where these are few in number completeness has usually seemed desirable. Sixthly, reference has been made to secondary literature not because the same problem may happen to be mentioned there, but either to show the starting point o f my discussion or to indicate where additional material may be found. Seventhly, a Greek text has not been included because in practice most readers of this commentary will prefer to have the text in a separate volume before them. Moreover, since I am convinced that a notable advance in the improvement of the Pindaric text will come not from a further investigation o f the manuscripts, but only after all of the odes have been subjected to detailed modern commentary, it has seemed premature to embark upon a new edition of Pindar at this time. Use o f the two most serviceable editions, those o f Turyn and Snell-Maehler, in conjunction with the present commentary will be facilitated by reference to the synoptic table o f readings provided below. The numbering both o f the poems, including the fragments, and o f the lines is that o f SnellMaehler. No less than the omission so too the inclusion of certain information requires perhaps a word o f explanation. There are some readers who will not need to be told that Pindar is imitating or varying, e. g., a particular Homeric phrase, since they will recognize it at once. How­ ever, since not all learned readers are necessarily equally learned in all matters, it has seemed advisible in the interest o f general utility to assume a lesser, rather than a higher common denominator. This is especially true in the discussion o f linguistic matters. While a basic knowledge o f the more obvious facts o f Greek language in general and Pindaric dialect in particular has been assumed, even readers who are perfectly familiar with certain less common usages may be presumed on occasion to wish a fuller discussion o f the problem and reference to specialist works on the subject. An indispensable part o f any commentary on a difficult text written in a language no longer spoken will almost inevitably be for many readers a translation into a modern language. Such a translation cannot o f course reproduce the original adequately, but it can explain much in an economical way and thereby reduce the size o f the commentary considerably. In the commentary which follows I have not regularly

IX

offered after the lemma a rendering o f the word or phrase explained, since I assume that the reader will, when in doubt, have already consulted the translation which I have provided. Certain further individual aspects o f the present commentary should be briefly mentioned. Parallels have been fully quoted only when they seem indispensable for illustrating the point at issue; otherwise, reference has been made to the place where they can be found. In the case of Homer and of Pindar himself as well as o f certain other authors for whom adequate indices and special lexica exist I have often deliberately refrained from presenting a long list o f references, since anyone who requires them can readily find them from the information given. Economy o f space has also dictated the form in which references are quoted. Greek authors are, except for Pindar himself, normally referred to by the abbreviations adopted in the preface to the ninth edition o f Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon supplemented by those adopted in the preface o f 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 index volume o f the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Secondary works quoted only once or twice are provided with the necessary bibliographical information at the point at which they occur. Current periodicals are cited according to the system o f abbreviations used in L ’Année Philologi­ que (see especially P. Rosumek, Index des Périodiques, Supplement à L’Année Philologique, tome LI, Paris, 1982). Other secondary works to which more frequent reference is made are cited in the commentary in abbreviated form. For a guide to these see the bibliography at the end of the commentary. The source o f information about the readings of Pindaric manuscripts has normally been the editio maior of Tycho Mommsen supplemented by the editio maior of Otto Schroeder and the edition o f Alexander Turyn. Finally, it would be disingenuous o f a commentator on Pindar to avoid completely some reference to general trends in Pindaric scholar­ ship which have made this field a truly Boeotian battleground for the past century and a half. I have attempted to answer the traditional question regarding unity with reference to this particular ode in the introduction to the first part o f the commentary (see ad 1 —12), so that it will not be necessary to review it here. That less of recent discussion of Pindar’s epinikia as encomiastic poetry is mirrored in the commentary on Pythian I V than might perhaps be expected by some arises not from the fact that I have been unimpressed by the new insights gained over the past two decades (or, sometimes, old truths rediscovered), but rather from the simple fact that these are less readily applicable to this ode than to more conventional epinikia. Nevertheless, Pythian I V is, as I

have tried to show in the commentary, in its own way a grand encomium for Arcesilaus, but having made this perfectly valid point the interpreter of this or any other epinikion has by no means explained all that is to be said. Encomium for what? Many o f Pindar’s patrons were rich and powerful men who were presumably concerned with doing more than having their vanity flattered or, more important, their fame preserved. In many odes, and in Py. 4 and 5 in particular, the political implications are perfectly clear to anyone prepared to see them. The study o f literary form and convention has helped us to understand Pindar far better than was the case sixty years ago, but formalism pursued for its own sake can lead to as one-sided an assessment o f the poet as did the excesses o f the biographical approach, which itself was an understand­ able product of late romantic criticism. The philologist will o f course welcome the insights gained by a study of the form and conventions o f epinikia, but if he pretends to maintain his central position within humanistic studies, he will attempt to integrate them fully within the context o f the society which gave rise to them. In the course o f my work on the present commentary I have benefited from various kinds o f help which it is a pleasure to record here. At an early stage a first draft on vv. 1 —134 was submitted to the Freie Universität Berlin in conjunction with my Habilitation in Classical Philology and subsequently the whole o f an earlier version of the commentary for the degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy to the University o f Oxford. For helpful suggestions I am indebted to the anonymous referees o f Berlin as well as to my Oxford examiners, Mr. R. W. B. Burton and Professor Μ. M. Willcock. My thanks are also due to the following scholars who have aided my work in one way or another: Professors Hartmut Erbse, Tilman Krischer, Franco Munari, Dr. JeanMarc Moret, as well as the late R. M. Ogilvie and the late Leonard Woodbury. My parents and Laurel Braswell have also contributed much help in their own way. To Mr. W. S. Barrett I owe a special debt. It was with him that I first began my study o f Pindar in Oxford. Later when the commentary on Pythian I V had already begun to take shape and I was no longer in Oxford, it was my singular good fortune that he was prepared to accept the supervision o f my work for the D. Phil, degree. His criticism at that stage saved me from many errors and would have saved me from many more if circumstances o f time and distance had permitted. It is as a small token o f my esteem for his austere judgment and the uncompromising integrity o f his scholarship that I dedicate this work to him. That my work on Pindar continued to develop beyond the stage of an academic exercise owes most to my wife, Margarethe Billerbeck, who has helped create that unity o f private and professional life which is a prerequisite o f all serious scholarship.

XI

A final word o f thanks is due to the editors o f the series “Texte und Kommentare” for their acceptance o f my work for publication as well as to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for granting the requisite subsidy. Moreover, Professors Felix Heinimann, Otto Luschnat, and especially A dolf Köhnken have all kindly given me the benefit o f their advice. Freie Universität Berlin January, 1987

B. K. B.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface......................................................................................................... Introduction............................................................................................. 1. The Occasion o f the Ode ......................................................... 2. The Myth of the Argonauts before P in d a r ........................... 3. Composition o f Pjthian I V .......................................................... 4. The Style o f Pjthian I V ................................................................

VII 1 1 6 23 30

Metrical A n a ly sis....................................................................................

38

Synopsis o f Readings

...........................................................................

39

Translation o f Pjthian I V .....................................................................

41

Commentary............................................................................................. T itle ............................................................................................................ 1—12. E xord iu m .................................................................................... 1—3. Invocation o f the Muse ...................................................... 4 —8. The Oracle given to B a t t u s ................................................ 9 —12. Introduction to Medea’s S p eech ....................................... 13 —56. Medea’s Speech (Argonautic Expedition, second part) 13 —20. Colonization from Thera to Libya .............................. 20—37. Encounter o f Euphemus with Triton/Eurypylus . . . 38 —49. Explanation o f the Delay in C o lo n iza tio n .................. 50—53. Euphemus, the Ancestor o f the Battiads, on Lemnos 53 —56. The Oracle given to B a ttu s............................................. 57 —69. Middle S e c tio n ........................................................................ 57 —58. Closing Formula o f Medea’s Speech ........................... 59 —63. The Founder of Cyrene ................................................... 64—69. Arcesilaus and his Victory ............................................. 70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part) ........................ 70—187. Iason in Iolcus and the Preparations for the Expedi­ tion .................................................................................... 70 —71. How did the Quest for the Golden Fleece begin? 71 —78. The Oracle given to P elias.......................................... 78—94. Iason appears in Iolcus. Description o f him in the M arket-p lace.................................................................. 94—120. First Encounter with P elia s....................................... 120 —134. Interlude in the House of Iason’s F ath er............

53 55 56 57 64 73 78 79 89 117 131 133 138 138 141 150 160 161 161 164 172 186 208

Table of Contents

XIV

134—168. Second Interview with P e lia s................................. 169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts ..........................................

219 247

188 —246. The Voyage and the First Events in Colchis . . . .

272

188 —211. The Voyage to Colchis .......................................... 188 —201. Preparations for Departure .............................. 202 —211. The V o y a g e ............................................................

273 273 284

211—246. The first events in Colchis .................................... 211—213. Arrival in C o lc h is ................................................ 2 1 3 -2 2 3 . The Winning of Medea’s L o v e ........................ 224 —243. The Ploughing C o n test....................................... 244—246. Description o f the S erp en t.................................

293 293 296 309 333

247 _ 262. The Winning o f the Golden Fleece and the Return 247 —248. Formula of T ran sition ............................................. 249 —250. The Slaying o f the S e r p e n t.................................... 251—256. The Return by way o f Lemnos ........................... 256 —262. The Euphemids from Lemnos to Cyrene . . . . 263 —299. Plea for the Return of D e m o p h ilu s.............................. 263 —269. Parable of the Oak ...................................................... 270 —276. Praise o f A r c e sila u s...................................................... 277 —299. Praise o f Demophilus and Plea for his Recall . . . 2 9 8 -2 9 9 . Sphragis .....................................................................

339 339 342 345 354 360 361 369 377 398

Appendix

................................................................................................

402

Bibliography.............................................................................................

404

Indices ............................................................................................

424

INTRODUCTION 1. The Occasion of the Ode In the year 462 B. C.1 Arcesilaus IV, king o f Cyrene, won the chariotrace at the Pythian Games. This victory was duly celebrated by Pindar in the Fifth Pythian Ode, an epinikion containing most o f the familiar elements o f its genre.2 With it the victor was suitably praised and the occasion adequately commemorated. However, for this same victory Pindar wrote another ode, the Fourth Pythian, which spectacularly springs the conventions o f the epinikion, while only incidentally men­ tioning Arcesilaus’ sporting success. The Pythian victory was in fact only the formal occasion for the ode and cannot alone account for why P i . 4 was written. The real motive for the composition o f the Fourth Pythian is to be sought in contemporary political conditions at Cyrene. An hereditary monarchy such as we find there with real political power in an economi­ cally advanced Greek state in the second quarter o f the fifth century was obviously an anachronism. We know, mainly from Herodotus (4. 162 —67), that Battiad rule in Cyrene had been repeatedly threatened by the local aristocracy since at least the reign o f Arcesilaus III (before

1 Cf. sch. Py. 4, inscr. a Γράφεται ή φδή Άρκεσιλάφ Πολυμνήστου παιδί, Κυρηναίφ τό γένος τής Λιβύης, νικήσαντι τήν τριακοστήν πρώτην ΠυΟιάδα, inscr. b ταύτην έγραψεν Άρκεσιλάφ τφ Κυρηναίων βασιλεϊ νικήσαντι τήν τριακοστήν πρώτην Πυθιάδα, sch. Py. 5, inscr. Γέγραπται καί αϋτη ή φδή νικήσαντι τφ Άρκεσιλάφ δρματι τήν λα' Πυθιάδα. Since the first Pythian Games were probably held not in 586/85, pace S. G. Miller, C S C A 11 (1978), 127—58, but in 582/81, so A. A. Mosshammer, C R B S 23 (1982), 15 —30, the date o f Arcesilaus’ victory in the thirty-first Pythiad will correspond not to Olympiad 78, 3 = 466 B. C. (so, e. g., Gildersleeve, Comm., pp. 278, 305), but to Olympiad 79, 3 = 462 B. C. This later dating also fits better one further detail reported by sch. Py. 4, inscr. a ενιοι καί (τήν) όγδοηκοστήν ’Ολυμπιάδα· άλλ’ ούκ έγραψεν εις τήν ’Ολυμπιακήν αύτοϋ νίκην, καίτοι μετά τήν Πυθικήν γενομένην, άλλ’ εις τά Πύθια μόνον, since the prayer for an Olympian victory for Arcesilaus at the end of Py. 5 suggests that the king intended to enter that contest on the next occasion, which in this case would have been Olympiad 80 (460 B. C.). 2 For a recent discussion o f the ode v. M. R. Lefkowitz, “Pindar’s Pythia» V ” in Pindare, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique, 31, Vandceuvres-Genève, 1985, 33 —63.

Introduction

525 — after 522).1*3 That the Battiads were able to maintain their political power for so long is doubtless to be ascribed to the submission of Arcesilaus III to Cambyses in 525 and the continuation o f Cyrene’s dependence upon Persia by his successors Battus IV and Arcesilaus IV.4 In the last resort the king could always count on Persian help. After 480/79, however, the anti-Battiad faction will have taken heart since the prospect o f Persian intervention now seemed more remote. Just when the new unrest began we do not know, but it clearly forms the background o f Py. 4 and 5 and is reflected in both. Pythian Five, which would seem to have been written for a broader public than the Fourth Pythian,5 is understandably more restrained in its allusions to past political unrest. Two passages, however, make it clear that not all has gone well for Arcesilaus. In verses 10—11 Pindar assures him that Castor now εύδίαν ... μετά χειμέριον δμβρον τεάν / καταιθύσσει μάκαιραν έστίαν. The same image is recalled toward the end o f the ode (vv. 117 —21): θεός τέ οί τό νΰν τε πρόφρων τελεί δύνασιν, καί τό λοιπόν όμοια, Κρονίδαι μάκαρες, διδοΐτ’ έπ’ έργοισιν άμφί τε βουλαΐς 120 έχειν, μή φθινοπωρίς άνεμων χειμερία κατά πνοά δαμαλίζοι χρόνον. N o one in the Cyrenaean audience will have been in doubt that the poet was alluding to political storms.6 1 The fullest modern account o f early Cyrenaean history remains that o f F. Chamoux, Cjrène sous la monarchie des Battiades, Paris, 1953. See pp. 144 —201 for the reigns for the last three kings and p. 210 for a convenient table o f Chamoux’ calculation o f the regnal dates. 4 See the important article o f B. M. Mitchell, “Cyrene and Persia,” J H S 86 (1966), pp. 99 —113, who plausibly argues against Chamoux that Cyrene did not break with Persia after Xerxes’ defeats at Salamis and Plataea. s In the case of another pair of odes written to celebrate a single victory (Theron’s in the chariot-race at Olympia in 476 B. C.), Ol. 2 and 3, the first appears to have been destined for a more select audience than the latter; see further Otto Schroeder, Pjth., p. 34. On the esoteric doctrine o f Ol. 2 see now H. Lloyd-Jones, “Pindar and the After-Life” in Pindare, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique, 31, Vandceuvres-Genève, 1985, 2 4 5 -7 9 . 6 The literal interpretation o f the first passage by Chamoux, op. cit., p. 182, to refer to the rainy season in Cyrene was adequately refuted by Mitchell, op. cit., p. 109, n. 56. The suggestion o f Lefkowitz, op. cit., p. 35, that “Pindar probably has in mind human fortune in general” has nothing to recommend it; see the objection of A. Köhnken, ibid., p. 64, who rightly compares the metaphorical use o f χειμέριος ζόφος at Is. 3 4. 36.

1. The Occasion of the Ode

3

A background o f political unrest is even more clearly implied in the Fourth Pythian. Toward the end o f the ode Pindar addresses Arcesilaus in terms that reveal the seriousness o f the threat which the king had had to face and which was still latent (vv. 270 —76):

275

έσσί δ’ ίατήρ έπικαιρότατος, Παιάν τε σοί τιμςί φάος. χρή μαλακάν χέρα προσβάλλοντα τρώμαν έλκεος άμφιπολεΐν. βφδιον μέν γάρ πόλιν σείσαι καί άφαυροτέροις· άλλ’ έπί χώρας αδτις έσσαι δυσπαλές δή γίνεται, έξαπίνας εί μή θεός άγεμόνεσσι κυβερνατήρ γένηται. τίν δέ τούτων έξυφαίνονται χάριτες. τλάθι τάς εύδαίμονος άμφί Κυράνας θέμεν σπουδάν απασαν.

An example o f the opposition to the king is then revealed in the person of Demophilus, a Cyrenaean exile, for whom Pindar formally enters a plea for recall (vv. 279 —end). Demophilus was a member o f the aristo­ cracy and may even have been related to Arcesilaus.7 The political background o f Arcesilaus’ Pythian victory and its celebration emerges still more clearly from the importance which the king obviously attached to it. In the Fifth Pythian Pindar devotes a remarkably long section (vv. 26 —53) to Carrhotus, the driver of the winning chariot. He was in fact no less a personage than the king’s brother-in-law.8 Further, sch. Py. 4. 455e reports that Carrhotus was 7 On Demophilus as a member o f the aristocratic opposition see Chamoux, op. cit., pp. 195 —96. That Demophilus was related to Arcesilaus appears to be implied by the remark o f sch. Py. 4. 467 έν τοϊς οδν στασιώταις ήν καί ό Δημόφιλος, ος καί αυτός άνύστατοςγέγονε τής πατρίδος, καί ιρυγαδευθείς έρχεται είς Θήβας καί άξιοι τόν Πίνδαρον (τινές δέ, ότι καί τόν μισθόν του έπινίκου δίδωσι τφ Πινδάρω αύτός), ώστε τή τού έπινίκου γραφή διαλλάξαι αύτόν προς τόν Άρκεσίλαον. ήν δέ αύτφ καί προς γένους, where it is grammatically natural in the last sentence to understand Demophilus from the previous αύτόν as the subject o f ήν and Arcesilaus as the reference o f αύτφ (so, e. g., Boeckh ad Py. 4. 280). It is less likely that the subject o f ήν is Pindar and that αύτφ refers to Demophilus, a possibility suggested by Mitchell, op. cit., p. 109, n. 60 (so already, e .g ., O tto Schroeder, Pyth., p. 33). * Cf. sch. Py. 5. 34 Κάρρωτος ...τής Άρκεσιλόου γυναικός άδελφός ..., the authority for which is stated to be Didymus quoting Theotimus έκ του πρώτου περί Κυρήνης; cf. P G rH ist 470 F 1. Less likely is the alternative explanation o f sch. Py. 5. 33 είσί δέ οΐ καί τής Άρκεσιλάου γυναικός πατέρα είναι έφασαν τόν Κάρρωτον. In any case, Carrhotus will not only have been related to the king by marriage but also a member o f his inner circle.

Introduction

not the only important Cyrenaean in the king’s équipe, but that it was led by a contemporary Euphemus9 who was also charged with recruiting mercenaries in mainland Greece: τέταρτος (sc. Εύφημος) δ κατά τον Άρκεσίλαον, ον ξενολογήσοντα έπεμψεν ό βασιλεύς καί τον Πυθικόν άγώνα άγωνιούμενον. This information is corroborated and supple­ mented by sch. Py. 5. 34 which quotes Theotimus (F G rH ist 470 F 1) on the authority o f Didymus (cf. note 8): διαπίπτουσαν δε τήν πράξιν αίσθόμενος Άρκεσίλαος καί βουλόμενος δι’ αύτοδ τάς Εσπερίδας οίκίσαι πέμπει μέν εις τάς πανηγύρεις 'ίππους άθλήσοντας Εύφημον άγοντα, νικήσας δέ τά Πύθια καί τήν έαυτοΰ πατρίδα έστεφάνωσε καί έποίκους είς τάς Εσπερίδας συνέλεγεν. Εύφημος μέν ούν έτελεύτα· Κάρρωτος δέ τής Άρκεσιλάου γυναικός αδελφός διεδέξατο τήν τών έποίκων ηγε­ μονίαν.10 The Cyrenaean mission to Greece in 462 was obviously o f the greatest political importance to the king, who with his very considerable financial resources11 was able to assure its success.12 With the prestigious Pythian victory secured13 Arcesilaus’ next con­ cern will have been to exploit it to the best advantage. Pindar had doubtless come down to the Games from Thebes prepared to accept commissions from the winners. In any case, he was well known to the

9 The name suggests that his family claimed descent from the Argonaut Euphemus and that he was probably a Battiad like Arcesilaus. 10 In her discussion of Didymus’ interpretation o f the quotations from Theotimus Lefkowitz, op. cit., pp. 4 0 —41, wrongly understands στρατιωτικόν as “soldiers’ pay”, whereas the context o f sch. Py. 5. 34 as well as the use o f στρατολογήσαι there and ξενολογήσοντα in sch. Py. 4. 455e make it clear that a “body o f soldiers” is meant as, e. g., at Th. 8. 83. 3 (which even if it is an interpolation nevertheless illustrates later Greek usage), U P Z 110. 103 (2nd cent. B. C ), Dessau IL S 8851 (ca. A. D. 240), Hdn. 1. 5. 8, 9. 1, 2. 9. 1. Arcesilaus had the money; what he needed were mercenaries whom he could establish as a reliable garrison. This point is not unimportant since it invalidates Lefkowitz’ attempt to discredit Didymus’ use o f historical information as being based on a mere surmise from the reference to wealth at the beginning of Py. 5. 11 Cf. Py. 5. 1 —14. On the economic prosperity o f Cyrene under the Battiads v. Chamoux, op. cit., pp. 229 —43. 12 Forty wrecked chariots on the course (Py. 5. 49 —50) and Carrhotus alone trium­ phantly reaching his goal (Py. 5. 34 —39) seems almost too much to attribute only to Castor (Py. 5. 9) and the driver’s άταρβής φρήν (Py. 5. 51). 13 Mitchell, op. cit., p. 109, suggests that Arcesilaus’ motive in seeking a Pythian victory in 462 was to gain the “firm support from the Greek mainland” which he could not necessarily expect from Persia at that time. It is difficult, however, to imagine how a sporting success at Delphi would in itself have brought the king any practical help from abroad. More likely the prestige thereby acquired for Cyrene was intended to impress and to some extent placate his potentially rebellious subjects at home.

1. The Occasion o f the Ode

5

Cyrenaeans from the Ninth Pjthian composed for the victory o f their fellow-countryman Telesicrates in the hoplite race a dozen years be­ fore.14 Presumably Euphemus and Carrhotus would have been author­ ized in advance to order an epinikion from Pindar either on the spot or after further negotiations. The victory and its appropriate celebration would thus alone adequately account for the composition o f the Fifth Pjthian. At the end o f the Fourth Pjthian Pindar tells us that Demophilus, the Cyrenaean exile for whose return he pleads, was recently at Thebes. If so, it is unlikely that he was not at Delphi when Arcesilaus’ team won. For an exile longing to return home (cf. Pj. 4. 293 —94) the opportunity o f meeting on neutral ground men close to his king would hardly have been missed. The result o f such a meeting was presumably the beginning or possibly the continuation, if they had already begun, o f negotiations which would ultimately lead to the recall o f Demophilus as envisaged in the Fourth Pjthian. We know o f course nothing of the details o f such negotiations. Nevertheless, the situation depicted in the ode itself when seen against the political background described above allows us to give a plausible explanation o f what probably happened between Arcesilaus’ Pythian victory and the composition o f Pj. 4. It should be obvious to anyone with even a little sense o f political reality that Pindar could not have entered a plea for Demophilus’ recall in an ode to be performed in Cyrene unless the king had agreed to it beforehand.15 In other words, the plea was carefully staged to afford a public demonstration o f the king’s clemency, which would also have been a gesture o f reconciliation to the political opposition. Since Dem o­ philus was the direct beneficiary o f Pindar’s successful plea and since Arcesilaus’ victory was adequately celebrated by Pj. 5, it is hardly a bold guess to presume that the exile also paid for the Fourth Pjthian. 16

14 For a recent interpretation o f the ode v. A. Köhnken, “ ‘Meilichos orga’. Liebesthema tik und aktueller Sieg in der neunten pythischen Ode Pindars” in Pindare, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique, 31, Vandceuvres-Genève, 1985, pp. 71 —111. 15 Those to whom this may not be immediately evident should reflect that rejection of the plea for Demophilus would have had a negative effect on the public opinion which Arcesilaus with his Pythian victory was obviously at pains to influence positively. I stress this point since, although Gildersleeve, Comm., p. 278, long ago acutely observed that “the reconciliation had doubtless been quietly arranged in advance”, interpreters continue to misunderstand Pindar’s role as advocate and to doubt whether his plea was successful; cf., e. g., Wilamowitz, Pindaros, p. 378, Mitchell, op. cit., p. 109, Seibert, Flüchtlinge, p. 288, and, for a recent healthy protest, D. M. Lewis’ review o f Seibert in C R , n. s. 31 (1981), p. 133. 11 So too according to an opinion reported by sch. Py. 4. 467, quoted in n. 7 above.

Introduction

Since Py. 4. 290 implies that Demophilus’ possessions in Cyrene had not been confiscated, he would, once restored, have had the means to pay Pindar the fee appropriate to such an ode as Py. 4. We may therefore be reasonably sure that Demophilus used the occasion o f the royal Cyrenaean victory at Delphi to negotiate for his recall, the price of which was presumably the Fourth Pythian. If Arcesilaus’ chariot-victory was the formal occasion o f Py. 4 and Demophilus’ recall the immediate motive, the real reason why the ode was composed is to be found in the contemporary political crisis in Cyrene and the attempt o f the Battiad monarchy to justify its further existence. Ironically perhaps, although Pindar appears in Py. 4 ostensibly as the advocate o f Demophilus, the success o f whose case is a foregone conclusion, he is in fact pleading for Arcesilaus, whose fortunes were much more uncertain. Pindar’s plea for the monarchy is simple: the Euphemids were divinely chosen to become kings of Cyrene and have continued to exercise their royal prerogative by the will o f the gods. Proof of this is offered in the form of the Argonautic myth to which we now turn.

2. The Myth of the Argonauts before Pindar Although the Fourth Pythian contains the earliest extant account o f the Argonautic adventure, the many scattered references to it before Pindar show that it was well known long before his time and that several narrative versions o f it may have been available to him. It would of course be o f interest in assessing Pindar’s use of the myth to know the earlier forms of it, but since the fragmentary nature of the evidence does not allow us to reconstruct any one of them and, further, since a composite version conflated from material drawn from disparate sources would almost certainly be misleading, we must content ourselves with the more modest aim o f recording the principal evidence, both literary and iconographical, for the Argonautic myth before Py. 4 .171 11 Since the relation o f details in Py. 4 to those o f the Argonautic myth known before Pindar has been discussed at the appropriate places in the commentary, this is not repeated in the survey which follows, but reference is given to the relevant lemmata. Moreover, two special problems will only partially concern us here: first, the relation of the sources to one another, and, secondly, their absolute dates. For our purposes it will usually be enough that they could theoretically have been available to Pindar in one form or another. For further discussion o f the Argonautic myth see Seeliger in Roscher, Lexikon i (1884—86), coll. 510, 25 —519, 11; Jessen, R E ii (1895), coll.

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

7

(a) The literary evidence The Homeric corpus In the Iliad Iolcus, the traditional starting-point o f the voyage o f the Argo is ruled by Eumelus, the grandson o f Pelias (2. 711 —15).*18 Actual knowledge o f the voyage is implied by the references to Euneus, the ruler o f Lemnos, who is a son o f Iason and Hypsipyle {II. 7. 467 —69; cf. also 21. 40 —41, 23. 747), herself presumably the daughter o f the Thoas mentioned in 14. 230 and 23. 745. The Odyssey provides us with the first direct reference to the Argo as well as some knowledge o f the more remote background o f the voyage. In the Nekyia Tyro, the daughter of Salmoneus, appears as the mother of Pelias by Poseidon and o f Aeson by Cretheus {Od. 11. 253 —59).19 At Od. 10. 135 —39 we hear o f Aeètes and his sister Circe who lives on the island Aeaea apparently located somewhere in the East {Od. 12. 1 —4).20 Far more important, we are told at Od. 12. 59—72 how the Argo πδσι μέλουσα21 alone o f ships passed the rocks called the Planctae on her way back from Aeétes. Hera made it possible since “Iason was dear to her”.22 Clearly, whereas the Iliad implies at least an indirect knowledge o f the saga, the poet o f the Odyssey seems to know a narrative dealing with the voyage o f the Argo.23

18

19 20 21 22 23

745, 13 —749, 64; P. Friedländer, “Kritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Heldensage. 1. Argonautensage,” RhM, n.F., 69 (1914), pp. 299—317 ( = Studien sytr antiken Literatur und Kunst, Berlin, 1969, pp. 19—34); Carl Robert, Heldensage (1921), pp. 758 —875; J. R. Bacon, The Voyage of the Argonauts (1925), pp. 18—36; L. Radermacher, Mythos und Sage bei den Griechen2, Brünn—München—Wien, 1943, pp. 157—237; Vian, Apolionios de Rhodes'. Argonautiques i (1974, 19762), pp. xxvi—xxxix; M. Vojatzi, Frühe Argonautenbilder, Beiträge zur Archäologie, 14, Würzburg, 1982, pp. 11—22; Blatter, L I M C ii, 1 (1984), coli. 592, b —593, a. A. Uruschadze, Ancient Colchis in the Saga of the Argonauts, Tbilisi, 1964 (in Georgian), is known to me only from the author’s article “Pindars Pythia 4” in Aischylos und Pindar. Studien zu Werk und Nachwirkung, hrsg. von Ernst Günther Schmidt, Sehr, zur Gesch. und Kultur der Antike, 19, Berlin, 1981, p. 62, n. 3. Cf. comm. ad 125 (e). We may also note that M. L. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, Oxford, 1985, p. 137, posits the existence o f an Iolcus cycle o f early Greek heroic poetry comprising the story o f Pelias, Iason, The A rgo’s voyage, the funeral games for Pelias, the sack o f Iolcus by Peleus, and deeds of Achilles. Cf. comm, ad 136 (a), 1 4 2 -4 3 , 1 5 7 -5 8 . Cf. comm, ad 10 (d). I.e. “known to all”; cf. Od. 9. 19 —20 εΐμ’ Όδυσεύς Λαερτιάδης, 6ς πάσι δόλοισιν / άνθρώποισι μέλω, καί μευ κλέος ούρανόν ΐκει. Cf. comm. ad 10 (d), 184 (e), 2 0 8 - 9 . On the possible influence o f a pre-Homeric Argonautica on the Odyssey v. comm, ad 25 (b).

Introduction

As an appendix to the Homeric corpus we may mention three passages connected in one way or another with the Argonautic saga. In Nosti, fr. 6 (v, p. 141 Allen) Medea’s rejuvenation o f Aeson is described,24 while in Oechaliae Halosis, fr. 4 (v, p. 147 Allen) Medea kills Creon, the ruler o f Corinth, flees to Athens, and is falsely blamed for the murder o f her children whom Creon’s relatives killed in revenge. Both stories belong o f course to the sequel to the Argonautic voyage and doubtless represent the kind o f accretions which the central narra­ tives regularly received in early epic poetry until at last a cycle was formed. Finally, in the Telegonia, fr. 1 (v, pp. 143 —44 Allen) o f the sixth-century Cyrenaean poet Eugammon we learn that Odysseus had a second son by Penelope called “Arcesilaus” which is “a hint that the Battiadai were his descendants”.25 The Hesiodic corpus At Theogony 340 the river Phasis is mentioned for the first time, wherever Hesiod may in fact have located it.26 At Th. 956 —62 a genealogy o f Aeètes is given which agrees with that in Od. 10. 137 —39. To it is added that o f Medea, the daughter o f Aeètes. Medea appears again at Th. 992 —1002 in a context which suggests that she was originally immortal.27 We hear o f her marriage to Iason and his perform­ ance o f “grievous labours” imposed by Pelias who is ύβριστής.28 Chiron raises Medeus, Iason’s son, just as he traditionally did Iason himself.29 The Catalogue of Women even in the fragmentary form in which we have it contains much that pertains to the background o f the Argonautic myth but few details o f the quest itself. In the reconstruction of Merkelbach and West the genealogy o f the Aeolidae is found in fr. 10—76 (and apparently continued in fr. 77 —121).30 O f more special relevance are the story o f Tyro (fr. 30 —32 M.-W.), which essentially

24 In Pindar Aeson is also old (P j. 4. 121) and Medea skilled in the use o f drugs (Pj. 4. 2 2 1 -2 2 , 233). 25 West, The Hesiodic Catalogue, p. 87. 25 Cf. comm, ad 211 (b). 27 Cf. comm, ad 11 (c). Hesiod may have been reported by Athenagoras, Legatio 14 ( = fr. 376 M.-W.) as having made Medea a goddess, but the text is probably corrupt. 28 Cf. comm, ad 112 (a). n Cf. comm, ad 115 (c). Cinaethon, fr. 2 (p. 197 Kinkel) also mentioned Iason’s son Medeus as well as a daughter Eriopis. This same poet is reported to have told of Heracles’ search for Hylas (p. 212 Kinkel), which was the reason he left the Argo; cf. [Hes.] fr. 263 M.-W. noted below. * On the Aeolids who figure in P j. 4 v. comm, ad 72 (a).

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

9

agrees with that told in Od. 11. 235 —59,31 the section on Iason’s family and education by Chiron (fr. 38 —42 M.-W.), which Pindar presumably knew,32 and two very brief references to Phrixus, Helle, and the Ram and to Athamas and the attempted sacrifice o f Phrixus (fr. 68 —69 M.-W.).33 Among the Minyan descendants o f Aeolus Tityus was men­ tioned (fr. 78 M.-W.), who according to Pindar was the grandfather of Euphemus.34 The Catalogue of Women also told the story o f Phineus (fr. 138, 157 M.-W.) and his difficulties with the Harpies (fr. 151 M.-W.) who were eventually driven away by the Boreads (fr. 150, 156 M.-W.). Although this story is found in later accounts o f the Argonautic voyage (cf. A. R. 2. 178ff.),35 it seems originally to have been told in a different context.36 Two fragments show that the Argonauts were perhaps men­ tioned at some length in the Catalogue. From fr. 241 M.-W. we learn that in the Hesiodic text they sailed out o f the Black Sea through the Phasis into Oceanus and came to Libya where they carried the Argo to the Mediterranean.37 Fr. 63 M.-W. reports that Hesiod, which here must mean the Catalogue of Women, did not include Iphiclus among the Argonauts. This negative information implies that there was some kind of list o f Argonauts in the work.38 The Μεγάλαι Ήοΐαι told how Mecionice bore Euphemus to Poseidon (fr. 253 M.-W.).39 If fr. 241 M.-W. should be placed here (cf. n. 37 above), Euphemus’ story included the return o f the Argonauts through Libya and probably also his receipt o f the clod o f earth from Triton, both of which details presumably reflect Cyrenaean influence. The work also mentioned that Phineus was blinded because he had shown Phrixus the way to Colchis (fr. 254 M.-W.). Presumably he was later also consulted by the Argonauts. Fr. 255 M.-W. names the four sons of Phrixus, while one o f them, Argos, appears in fr. 256 M.-W. 11 On the Hesiodic Catalogue as a possible source for the Nekyia v. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue, p. 32 with n. 7. On Tyro v. further comm, ad 142—43 and 157 —58. 52 On fr. 40. 2 cf. comm, ad 115 (c), on fr. 41 cf. comm, ad 102 (e), and on fr. 42 cf. comm, ad 103 (a). 33 Cf. comm, ad 160 (a) and 231 (a). 34 Cf. comm, ad 46 (a). 35 But not in Py. 4; on the Boreads cf. comm, ad 182 and 182—83. 36 On the story o f Phineus as “a pièce de résistance designed to round o ff the whole Inachid stemma” v. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue, pp. 49 —50, 84. 57 West, The Hesiodic Catalogue, p. 87, thinks that this fragment should be assigned to the Μεγάλαι Ήοΐαι, fr. 253 M.-W. On the return o f the Argonauts in Py. 4 v. comm, ad 2 5 1 -5 2 ; on [Hes.] fr. 241 M.-W. cf. also comm, ad 25 (b), 4 2 - 4 3 (a), and 211 (b ).

38 Cf. comm, ad 1 6 9 -8 7 . * See comm, ad 46 (a) and cf. ad 42—43 (a).

introduction

The Wedding of Keyx mentions that Heracles left the Argo at Aphetae in Magnesia (fr. 263 M.-W.),40 while another Hesiodic work, the Aegimius, tells how Phrixus sacrificed the ram and after purifying the fleece was voluntarily received by Aeètes because o f it (fr. 299 M.-W.).41 The Naupactica Whereas the Argonauts seemed to have been mentioned only inciden­ tally in the Hesiodic corpus, they apparently received attention in their own right in the Naupactica or Ναυπάκτια επη (pp. 198 —202 Kinkel), which may itself have been a genealogical poem.42 The very variety of details pertaining to the Argonauts which are reported in the testimonia suggests that the poem contained a continuous narrative o f their adven­ ture. The Harpies appeared in it (fr. 3 K.) as did Medea’s brother Apsyrtus (fr. 4 K.). The yoking contest with the bulls was evidently described for which all the leaders volunteered (fr. 5 K.) and which Iason was urged to undertake by Idmon (fr. 6 K .).43 When Aeètes treacherously invited the Argonauts to a feast with the intention of killing them and burning the ship, Aphrodite intervened to save them by sending Aeètes off to bed to lie with his wife, which with Idmon prompting allowed them to escape (fr. 7 —8 K .).44 Medea followed taking with her the Golden Fleece which was in her father’s palace (fr. 9 K.). The story was evidently continued after the return o f the Argonauts to Iolcus, since Iason is reported to have left the place after the death of Pelias and to have settled in Corcyra where he was living when his elder son Mermerus was killed by a lioness while hunting on the mainland opposite (fr. 10 K .).45 The Corinthiaca of Eumelus It is uncertain whether Eumelus o f Corinth dealt with the Argonautic adventure as a separate narrative in his epic poem on the mythical

40 Cf. comm, ad 171 (e). 41 Cf. Py. 4. 242 and see comm, ad 160 (a). 4Z Pausanias (10. 38. 11) calls it “a poem about women”; on which cf. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue, pp. 4 —5. See further comm, ad 25 (b). 44 On the ploughing contest c f comm, ad 224—43. 44 C f comm, ad 2 1 3 -2 3 . 45 Since Hus, the son o f Mermerus was mentioned in the Odyssey (1.259) as living somewhere between Ithaca and Ephyra, this detail may have been an attempt to link the narrative with the Homeric poem comparable to that made by Eugammon in the Tekgonia (see above).

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

11

history o f Corinth, the Corinthiaca (pp. 187 —92 Kinkel).46 According to him Aeétes was originally king o f Ephyra, which he identified with Corinth, but immigrated to Colchis (fr. 2 K .).47 Later when Corinthus, a great-grandnephew of Aeétes died and the throne of his enlarged kingdom became vacant, the Corinthians, as they were now called, summoned Medea from Iolcus and bestowed the kingdom on her through whom then Iason became king in Corinth. Medea tried unsuc­ cessfully to make her children immortal, and their death led to the separation and departure o f both Medea and Iason from Corinth (fr. 3 K .).48 To account for how Medea came to Iolcus Eumelus must have told something o f the story o f the Argonauts. According to sch. A. R. 3. 1354—56a (pp. 257, 17 —258, 2 Wendel) Apollonius took 3. 1354 ff. (not 3. 1372 ff. as in fr. 9 K.) from Eumelus, where the words were addressed by Medea to Idmon (L, Ίάσωνα P). The verses in question describe the growth o f the γηγενέες from the ground and their appear­ ance. Whatever the occasion may have been, Eumelus presumably described Iason’s battle with the Spartoi.49 Epimenides Also in the epic tradition is the poem in 6500 verses on the building o f the Argo and the voyage o f Iason to Colchis attributed to Epimenides (Vorsokr. 3 A 1; i, p. 28, 26 —28).50 Even if the Cretan prophet really did compose such a work, we cannot be sure that this was necessarily the source o f the few scraps o f information in some way related to the Argonautic myth which are ascribed to him. Two fragments ( Vorsokr. 3 B 7 and 9) mention the Harpies, who seem, however, to be located in the West. Epimenides is reported as saying that Aeétes was by birth

46 On Eumelus and his epic history v. Éd. Will, Korinthiaka, Paris, 1955, pp. 81 —129. 47 Cf. comm, ad 10 (d). 48 Since Medea did not flee from Iolcus but was summoned from there and since Iason returned there after his sojourn in Corinth (fr. 3 K.), Eumelus presumably did not make Medea the murderess o f Pelias any more than o f her own children. This would be in keeping with an eulogistic treatment o f Corinthian mythical history. 45 Jacoby ad Eumelus, F C rH ist 451 F 3 finds in this notice “die bestätigung dafür dass E. die Argonautengeschichte ausführlich dargestellt hat”. If Eumelus described the battle with the Spartoi, it is very likely that he also mentioned the ploughing contest which is its prerequisite; cf. comm, ad 224—43. Nevertheless, it is impossible to determine how much o f the Argonautic myth he told and whether the incidents related formed a continuous narrative. * On Epimenides and his poetry v. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry (1969), pp. 80—84. On the problem o f his authorship in general see Jacoby ad F G rH ist 457, pp. 308—15.

Introduction

a Corinthian and that his mother was Ephyra ( Vorsokr. 3 B 13). He also mentioned a fifth son of Phrixus named Presbon ( Vorsokr. 3 B 12).51 In short, we have enough evidence to assume the existence of a body o f early Greek hexametric poetry in which the Argonautic myth was dealt with in one way or another including apparently independent narratives but not enough to be certain what was in fact contained in any one o f these, much less how it was constructed.52 However, epic was not the only genre which made use of the Argonautic myth. Mimnermus Amongst the earliest references to the Argonautic voyage in lyric poetry is that found in Mimnermus.53 In fr. 11 and 11a West the poet mentions the city o f Aeètes on the edge o f Oceanus in the East to which υβριστής Pelias ( ~ Hes. Th. 996) sent Iason who completed the unpleasant journey and brought back the Fleece from Aea.54 The way in which Mimnermus refers to the story would seem to imply that a continuous narrative of it was known to him and familiar to his audience.55 Stesichorus and Ibycus The West Greek poets Stesichorus and Ibycus both touched on subjects related to the Argonautic myth. To the former is ascribed a poem on the funeral games for Pelias (P M G 178 —80), The scanty fragments show little more than that there must have been descriptions o f a chariot-race56 as well as of contests in leaping, javelin-throwing, and boxing and that the Dioscuri, Amphiaraus, and Meleager were 51 Cf. Jacoby ad F G rH ist 457 F 11 —12 ( = Vorsokr. 3 B 13 and 12). Although the context was presumably not Argonautic, one fragment ( Vorsokr. 3 B 11) in which he denies that the earth has a navel is o f interest in light o f Pj. 4. 74. ■- Although the fragments o f the Naupactica afford us the best idea o f what an Argonautic epic narrative before Pindar may have contained, it is overly optimistic to believe, as V. J. Matthews, Phoenix 31 (1977), p. 207, seems to imply, that any reconstruction based on the fragments can give us anything approaching the complete story. 55 Aleman like Hesiod (cf. n. 27 above) may have been reported by Athenagoras, Legatio 14 ( = P M G 163) as having made Medea a goddess, but the text is probably corrupt. 54 Cf. comm, ad 10 (d) and 231 (b). 55 The apodotic form o f fr. 11, for which no protasis has been preserved, suggests that we have here a mythological exemplum rather than part o f an independent narrative by Mimnermus himself. Cf. comm, ad 220 (b). * In the iconographical tradition Euphemus was the winner o f this race. See below pp. 2 2 - 2 3 .

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

13

participants. Stesichorus is also reported to have made Eteoclymene (and not Clymene) the grandmother o f Iason (P M G 238). More interest­ ing for the growth o f the Argonautic legend is the statement that Ibycus was the first to tell that Achilles married Medea when he came to the Elysian plain (P M G 291). He also seems to have mentioned the Harpies (P M G 292) and Hippolyte, the sister o f Iason (P M G 301)5758 and to have made Talos the έραστής o f Rhadamanthus (P M G 309). Simonides When Simonides is reported to have said in his Miscellanea that the Minyans used to dwell in Iolcus (P M G 540), this need only pertain to the remote background o f the Argonautic voyage. However, several fragments, only one o f which can be placed in a definite context, might seem to suggest an Argonautic narrative o f some sort, although they are doubtless derived from different works so that it would be rash to attempt to reconstruct a single story on the basis o f them. Sch. Pj. 4. 451 reports that the detail about the Argonauts competing for a garment on Lemnos (P j. 4. 253) was found in Simonides (P M G 547).58 We also learn that Simonides called the Symplegades συνορμάδες (P M G 546)5960 and the Fleece a νάκος for which he was later blamed (P M G 544).80 In a hymn to Poseidon he said that the Fleece was dyed in sea-purple {P M G 576).61 Talos must have been mentioned in some context as the guardian o f Crete (P M G 568), but whether this was an Argonautic one is uncertain. Parallel to the rejuvenation o f Aeson in the Nosti (see above) Medea is supposed according to Simonides to have made62 Iason young (P M G 548). In what almost certainly came from a very different context Simonides alludes to Stesichorus’ poem on the funeral games for Pelias (P M G 564). Eumelus (see above) is identified by sch. B E. Med. 19 as Simonides’ source in making Iason ruler o f Corinth through Medea (P M G 545). On the other hand, he followed Ibycus (see above) in having Achilles marry Medea on coming to the Elysian plain (P M G 558).

51 Perhaps identical with the wicked wife o f Acastus mentioned by Pindar at Ne. 4. 57 and 5. 26 in which latter passage she is called Κρηθεΐς (“granddaughter o f Cretheus”?). 58 Cf. comm, ad 253 (b). 55 Cf. comm, ad 208—9. 60 See comm, ad 68 (c). 61 It is perhaps not impossible that Simonides told o f the Argonautic voyage in this work, but this will hardly have been the only place it was mentioned. On the colour o f the Fleece v. comm, ad 231 (a). a By boiling; cf. also sch. Lyc. 1315.

Introduction

Pindar It is not only in the Fourth Pythian that Pindar makes use o f the Argonautic myth. Elsewhere he occasionally mentions persons or things connected in one way or another with the myth. In the Hymns he said that Phrixus’ stepmother was called Demodike (fr. 49 Snell-Maehler).63 According to sch. A. R. 1. 411 he mentioned Aesonis, a city in Magnesia, named a/ter Iason’s father (fr. 273 S.-M.). At Ne. 3. 53 —54 he mentions that Chiron raised Iason as well as other heroes.64 In 01. 4. 19 —27 there is another reference to the games65 held by the Argonauts on Lemnos, but this time (unlike Py. 4. 252 —57) with Hypsipyle specifically mentioned, so presumably the visit was the traditional one on the outward voyage. Sch. A. R. 1. 1085 —87b report that the detail o f the appearance o f the halcyon after the storms following Cyzicus’ death (A. R. 1. 1085 —86) was taken from Pindar who says that it was sent by Hera (fr. 62 S.-M.). This reminds us o f how selective Pindar was in Py. 4 where the Argo moves from Iolcus to the entrance to the Inhospit­ able Sea in less than five verses (200—4). His ability to adapt myth to the demands o f the occasion is illustrated by fr. 172 S.-M. where (vv. 6 —7) we learn that Peleus, who is not mentioned in Py. 4, “took” (είλε) Medea in the halls o f the Colchians.66 Peleus was apparently mentioned as an Argonaut also in a hymn o f Pindar where he is said to have accidentally killed Eurytion, an Argonaut, while hunting (fr. 48 S.-M.).67 Finally, in 01. 13, a Corinthian ode, Pindar in mentioning various heroes connected with that city characterizes Medea as one who resolved on her marriage against her father’s will (v. 53)68 and thus saved the Argo and its crew (v. 54).69 Aeschylus In 472, a decade before Arcesilaus’ Pythian victory which afforded the formal occasion for Py. 4, Aeschylus produced a tetralogy, the first play of which was Phineus and the second the Persae (T 55a Radt, p. 48). From the very few fragments o f Phineus (258 —60 Radt) nothing certain 63 64 65 66

Cf. comm, ad 162 (a). Cf. comm, ad 115 (c). Probably funeral games for Thoas; The fragment may well have come Peleus’ importance would thus be for an Aeginetan victor), on which Cf. comm, ad 179 (a). 68 Cf. comm, ad 217 —18 (b). 65 Cf. comm, ad 213—23.

v. comm, ad 253 (b). from an Aeginetan context. The exaggeration of comparable to that at Ne. 3. 33 —34 (in an ode v. p. 19 below (on Pherecydes, F G rH ist 3 F 62).

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

15

can be said about the piece, much less its relation to the other plays in the tetralogy.70 That the Harpies appeared in it is very probable (cf. esp. fr. 258 R.), but we cannot be entirely sure whether the Argonauts had a role in it at all.71 In another tetralogy, however, incidents drawn from the voyage o f the Argonauts may have been dramatized by Aeschylus in all four plays. Unfortunately we do not know when the tetralogy was produced nor, for that matter, the exact names and the order o f the plays.72 Whatever its place in the tetralogy may have been, one o f the plays was certainly called Argo (fr. 20 —21 R.). A corrupt verse referring to the speaking beam o f the ship probably comes from here (cf. 20 R.), while the only certain fact we know about the play is that the helmsman Tiphys was called Iphys in it (fr. 21 R.). A little more can be determined about the contents o f the Cabiri (fr. 95 —97a R.) which may have been satyric or a tragicomedy like the Euripidean Alcestis. According to Athenaeus 428 f Iason and his men were repre­ sented in it as being drunk. Fr. 96 R. refers to wine and fr. 97 R. may imply it. The mention o f wine and the Cabiri o f the title are not inconsistent with the assumption that the action took place on Lemnos. 3 Moreover, sch. Pj. 4. 303b ( = fr. 97a R.) reports that Aeschylus gave a catalogue o f Argonauts in the play.74 The only thing which we know about the Hypsipyle, which must have belonged to the tetralogy, is that in it the Lemnian women put on armour and tried to keep the Argonauts from landing, but then came to terms and went to bed with them (p. 352 R.). In the catalogue o f Aeschylus’ plays there appears a work called Λήμνιοι (T 78, d, 9, p. 59 R.), which might con­ ceivably have dealt with the story o f Philoctetes, but has with more probability been explained as a mistake for Λήμνιαι, from which two words are now expressly attested (fr. 123a and 123b R.). This would presumably have been one o f the plays o f the Argonautic tetralogy, but we have no real idea o f its content.75*124 70 Much ingenuity has been expended on the subject to little avail; v. bibliography in Radt, p. 359, to which may be added the convenient summary in H. D. Broadhead, The Persae of Aeschylus, Cambridge, 1960, pp.lv —lx. 71 That fr. 259 R. describes the shoes o f the Boreads is a mere guess. Fr. 260 R. may have mentioned the Boreads. If the vases mentioned in n. 109 below can be safely ascribed to this play, then the Argonauts certainly had a role in it. 12 For a synoptic table o f the attempts to determine the names and order o f the Argonautic tetralogy v. TRI B XII, p. 118 Radt. 3 Lemnos was already mentioned for its wine in the Iliad (7. 467 —69) where Euneus, Iason’s son, exports it. For the cult o f the Cabiri on Lemnos v. B. Hemberg, Die Kabiren, Uppsala, 1950, pp. 160—70. 14 Cf. comm, ad 169 —87. ,s There is also a title in the Aeschylean catalogue Νεμέα (T 78, b, 11, p. 59 R.) which has been supposed to have dealt with the Opheltes story (fr. 149a R.) and perhaps

Introduction

Early genealogists H e c a t a e u s o f Miletus writing perhaps half a century before Pj. 4 included the Argonauts in his Genealogiae. Only two fragments can be ascribed with certainty to the section that dealt with them.*76 From the first (F G rH ist 1 F 17) we learn that in Hecataeus Phrixus’ ram spoke. In the second (F 18a) he said that the Argonauts passed through the Phasis to Oceanus, then from there to the Nile, from where they reached the Mediterranean.77 In the same tradition and perhaps not much later A c u s i l a u s of Argos wrote his Genealogiae which Clement of Alexandria dismissed as a paraphrase of “Hesiod”.78 Acusilaus is reported as having told how Zetes and Calais sailed with the Argonauts in quest o f the Fleece {.F G rH ist 2 F 30 = Vorsokr. 9 B 35) and how they were killed by Heracles near Tenos (2 F 31 = 9 B 19).79 Two other fragments can be assigned to the section on the Argonauts with some probability. The first (2 F 37 = 9 B 29) reports that according to Acusilaus the Fleece was dyed sea-purple.80 The second (2 F 38 = 9 B 25) notes that Acusi­ laus agrees with “Hesiod” (fr. 255 M.-W.) that Iophosse, the daughter o f Aeétes, was the mother of the sons o f Phrixus. Much more that is relevant to the Argonautic myth has been pre­ served o f our last author, P h e r e c y d e s o f Athens, who wrote his ten books of history based on mythological genealogies some time after the Persian wars.81 Since his intellectual world does not seem to have been so remote from that of Pindar, we should probably be right in placing him closer to 480/79 than to the middle o f the century.82

76

T! 18

7 m 81 K:!

to have been one o f the plays o f the Argonautic tetralogy, in which case two of those mentioned above must have been identical. This, however, seems unlikely. What the Νεμέα dealt with we do not know. In F G rH ist 1 F 2 from the Historiae Hecataeus presumably mentioned the Thessalian cult o f Athena Itonia but not necessarily her part in building the Argo, pace Seeliger in Roscher, Lexikon i, col. 513, 44 —45. See comm. ad 251 —52 and cf. ad 10 (b). On the relation o f F 18b to F 18a v. Jacoby ad loc. Strom. 6. 2. 26. 7 ( = F G rH ist 2 T 5 = Vorsokr. 9 A 4) τά δέ 'Ησιόδου μετήλλαξαν είς πεζόν λόγον καί ώς ίδια έξήνεγκαν Εϋμηλός (cf. F G rH ist 451 T 1) τε καί Άκουσίλαος οί Ιστοριογράφοι. Jacoby ad F G rH ist 2 F 30—31 argues that the fragments belong to the story of Heracles rather than to that o f the Argonauts. Cf. also comm, ad 182. Cf. comm, ad 231 (a). Cf. R. Laqueur, R E xix (1938), col. 1992, 22—23. Eusebius (F G rH ist 3 T 6) dated Pherecydes 456/5, on which v. Jacoby ad loc. “von der ionischen Wissenschaft, auch von ihrem rationalismus, ist er unberührt” Jacoby ad F G rH ist 3 T, p. 386, 31—32. His books were thus almost certainly

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

17

Although Pherecydes seems to have treated the voyage of the Argonauts in books 6 and 7 o f his work, we cannot be sure o f the original order o f the fragments. Moreover, some details pertaining to the background o f the myth obviously came from other parts o f the work. Very likely most o f the mythological figures mentioned by Pindar in Py. 4 found their place in Pherecydes’ genealogies. For example, Euphemus’ grand­ father Tityus (cf. Py. 4. 46) appears in F G rH ist 3 F 55 where Pherecydes is reported as saying that when Zeus had intercourse with Elare, the daughter o f Orchomenus, he shoved her pregnant beneath the ground in fear o f Hera’s jealousy and that Tityus burst forth from the ground. For that reason he is called “earthborn”.83 More interesting is the remark o f sch. Py. 4. 160b ( = 3 F 56) that while Pindar says that Tityus was killed by Artemis {Py. 4. 90) Pherecydes ascribes her death to Apollo and Artemis.84 Where Pindar speaks o f an unnamed stepmother who threatened Phrixus {Py. 4. 162),85 Pherecydes (3 F 98) calls her “Themisto” and says that Phrixus, when the crops failed, voluntarily offered himself for sacrifice.86 The story of his escape must have been told, since 3 F 99 reports that the ram which carried Phrixus and Helle had a golden fleece as in “Hesiod” (fr. 68 M.-W.).87 Pherecydes is reported as saying in the 6th book that the daughter o f Aeètes who married Phrixus was called Euenia, but that she had the bynames Chalciope and Iophossa (3 F 25a). Apparently the children o f Phrixus were supposed to have come to Greece before the voyage o f the Argo.88 In any case, Pherecydes is reported as saying that the Argo was called after Argus, the son o f Phrixus (3 F 106),89 and that the fountain Hypereia in Pherae received its name from Hyperes, the son o f Melas, the son o f Phrixus, and Eurycleia (3 F 101).90 Like Pindar (fr. 273 S.-M.) Pherecydes mentioned Aesonis, a city in Magnesia, named after Iason’s father (3 F 103). According to Pherecydes the mother o f Iason was Alcimede, the daughter o f Phylacus (3 F 104). What Pindar could have found in Pherecydes is shown by a long abstract (preserved by

83 84 85 86 87 88 85 50

available to Pindar in 462, and in fact we may suspect they could have been a welcome reference work for the poet. On Tityus v. comm, ad 46 (a). Cf. comm, ad 90 (c). In the hymns Pindar named her as “Demodike” and said that she, having conceived a passion for Phrixus, plotted against him so that he had to flee (fr. 49 S.-M.). On Phrixus’ stepmother cf. further comm, ad 162 (a). Cf. comm, ad 231 (a). So Jacoby ad 3 F 101. Cf. comm, ad 25 (b). Cf. comm, ad 125 (e).

Introduction

sch. Py. 4. 133a explaining τόν μονοκρήπιδα at Py. 4. 75), which may not be too far from the original text (3 F 105): Pelias was going to sacrifice to Poseidon and invited everybody to be present. These included both Iason and other citizens. N ow Iason happened to be ploughing near the river Anaurus and crossed it unshod. On crossing it he put on his right sandal but forgot the left one, and so went to the feast. On seeing him Pelias understood the oracle but kept quiet at the time. The next day he sent for him and asked what he would do if he received a prophecy that he would be killed by a certain one of the citizens. Iason replied that he would send him to Aea to bring back the Golden Fleece from Aeètes. Hera put this idea in Iason’s head so that Medea might come as an evil for Pelias. The differences between this version o f the story and that in Py. 4 make it virtually certain that Pindar made no direct use o f Pherecydes here.91 A catalogue o f Argonauts could hardly have been lacking in Pherecydes’ account, and indeed five fragments might well have come from such a context. In the 6th book Pherecydes said that Philammon,92 not Or­ pheus sailed with the Argonauts (3 F 26).93 The steersman Tiphys was mentioned as coming from Potniae in Boeotia (3 F 107), while Idmon, who was killed by a boar in Mariandynia, was expressly distinguished from his son Thestor (3 F 108). Aethalides with his remarkable gift of metempsychosis was also mentioned (3 F 109). Sch. A. R. 1. 45—47a note that neither Homer nor Hesiod nor Pherecydes says that Iphiclus sailed with the Argonauts (3 F 110), which at least in the case of the last named would seem to imply a more or less complete catalogue of participants.94 Heracles began the voyage but was left at Aphetae in Thessaly when the Argo said she was unable to bear his weight (3 F 111a).95 Three fragments, all mentioned as deriving from book 6, must 1,1 Cf. comm, ad 75 (a), 184 (e), and 250 (c). The version in A. R. 1. 5 —17 is much closer to that o f Pherecydes. Jacoby ad 3 F 105 supposes that Apollonius is following the same epic narrative which was presumably the source o f Pherecydes; however, Vian ad A. R. 1. 17, p. 239, may be right in assuming that Apollonius used Pherecydes directly. 92 On Philammon, the son o f Philonis and Apollo, v. 3 F 120 as well as [Hes.] fr. 64. 14 —16 M.-W. Cf. comm, ad 177 (b). 94 Cf. comm, ad 169 —87. 55 In 3 F 111b Pherecydes is apparently reported to have followed “Hesiod” (fr. 263 M.-W.) in saying that Heracles was left at Aphetae (so Jacoby ad loc.), but the text is not entirely certain (v. Wendel’s apparatus ad sch. A. R. 1. 1289 —91a). On Heracles’ participation in the voyage v. comm, ad 171 (e).

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

19

have come from the Phineus episode during the voyage to Coichis. In one (3 F 27) we are told that Phineus’ sons were Mariandynus and Thynus, eponyms o f their respective districts, in another (3 F 28) that the Boreads pursued the Harpies across the Aegean and Sicilian seas, and in the third (3 F 29) that the Harpies fled to a cave in Crete (cf. Naupactica, fr. 3 K.). Pherecydes presumably described them at some point. In any case, we learn that the Aeaean island was in the Phasis and the Fleece on it (3 F 100). In the 5th book he had told how Ares and Athena gave Cadmus and Aeetes each half o f the dragon’s teeth (3 F 22a —b).90 Two fragments pertain to the ploughing contest. In the 6th book Aeetes is said to have ploughed fifty acres (πεντηκοντόγυον) with his bulls (3 F 30). From the same context will have come the notice that the bulls had brazen feet and breathed fire (3 F 112).*97 In the 7th book Iason killed the dragon (3 F 31).98 This information taken together shows that Pherecydes knew three contests: the yoking o f the bulls, the battle with the Spartoi, and, finally, the slaying o f the dragon.99 Also from the 7th book comes the notice that Medea took the baby Apsyrtus from his bed and brought him on Iason’s advice to the Argonauts. When they were being pursued, they killed the baby, dismembered him, and threw the parts into the river (3 F 32a—b). From sch. E. Med. 167 we learn that the name was etymologized as ’Άξυρτος (3 F 32c). Two fragments derive from the story o f Iason after the return of the Argo. Pherecydes like Simonides (P M G 548) said that Medea made Iason young (3 F 113).100 Finally, sch. Ne. 3. 57 remark that Pindar’s claim is not true that Peleus took Iolcus alone without an army (Ne. 3. 33 —34), i. e. when he made war against Acastus, the son o f Pelias, because he did it together with Iason and the Tyndaridae “as Pherecydes relates” (3 F 62).101 (b) The iconographical evidence Only a limited number o f themes from the Argonautic myth seem to have been illustrated by artists before Pindar.102

% Cf. comm, ad 224—43. 57 Cf. comm, ad 225 —26. 58 Cf. comm, ad 249 (d). 59 Cf. Jacoby ad 3 F 3 0 - 3 1 . 100 See n. 62 above. 101 Cf. n. 66 above. 102 In the following reference will normally be made to the catalogue and discussion of the earliest representations in M. Vojatzi, Frühe Argonautenbilder, Beiträge zur Archäologie, 14, Würzburg, 1982, pp. 28 —107 (discussion), 108 —26 (catalogue),

Introduction

Phrixus, Helle, and the ram A favourite subject was the ram which was depicted in at least twenty-five known representations from the 5th century or earlier. One group shows Phrixus riding on the ram (Vojatzi, nos. 1—4). The oldest o f these (ca. 570) is the fragment o f a metope from the Sicyonian treasury at Delphi (Vojatzi, no. I),*103104 where other scenes from the Argonautic myth were illustrated (see below). More commonly Phrixus is represented next to the ram (Vojatzi, nos. 5 —16). These are all from the 5th century including some from the second half, but one Melian relief (Vojatzi, no. 6) is contemporary with the 4th Pj. On five Melian reliefs (Vojatzi, nos. 17 —21) Helle is shown riding on the ram, two of which (nos. 17 —18) are dated between 470 —60. Three scenes have been interpreted as the sacrifice o f the ram (Vojatzi, nos. 22—24).!04 The oldest (no. 22) is a black-figure fragment { A B V 13, 44) dated 5 9 0 -8 0 . Argo Less common are early depictions of the Argo and its crew (Vojatzi, nos. 26 —33). The most celebrated are those from the Sicyonian treasury (ca. 570) at Delphi from which the Phrixus metope (see above) came. These metope fragments depict the Dioscuri on horseback next to the bow o f the Argo and two lyre-players in it, one o f whom is designated as Orpheus.105 An even older Corinthian pinax (Vojatzi, no. 31) has been interpreted as a scene o f the Argo and specifically as the encounter o f Euphemus and Triton, but this is doubtful.106 Phineus It is perhaps not surprising that the Phineus episode was especially popular (Vojatzi, nos. 34—58). For archaic artists with a predilection for Gorgons and other winged figures the Harpies and the Boreads were obviously welcome subjects. Thus it is not without significance that the earliest representation o f the Phineus story with fleeing Harpies and pursuing Boreads (ca. 600) is a black-figure krater or “louterion”

103 104 105 ,m

supplemented by R. Blatter, L I M C ii, 1 (1984), coll. 593, a—599, a, ii, 2 (1984), pp. 4 3 0 -3 3 . Illustrated in Vojatzi, pi. 1, 1. To these may be added the description in Pausanias 1. 24. 2 (Vojatzi, no. 25). For a discussion o f the evidence v. Vojatzi, op. cit., pp. 40—48 with pi. 2. Also illustrated in L IM C ii, 2, p. 430, pi. 2. Cf. comm, ad 25 (b). See Vojatzi, op. cit., pp. 48—49. Cf. pi. 3, 2 —3.

2. The Myth o f the Argonauts before Pindar

21

(A B V 5, 4; Vojatzi, no. 34)107 of the Nettos Painter who also executed the eponymous neck-amphora {A B V 4, 1), now in Athens, on which are depicted not only Heracles slaying Nessos but also magnificent Gorgons with oversize wings pursuing Perseus.108 The continuing popularity o f the Phineus episode is attested not only by its treatment on the Attic stage (on Aeschylus’ play see above) but by the persistence of the theme in contemporary vase-painting.109 Iason and the serpent Iason’s fight with the serpent was not a popular theme in early art (Vojatzi, nos. 59 —63). The most famous representation o f it, the early red-figure cup o f Douris { A R V 437, 116 = Vojatzi, no. 61), dated 480—70, is unrepresentative insofar as it depicts a version o f the myth unknown in the literary tradition.110 On it Iason is shown being disgorged by a monstrous serpent with Athena looking on and the Fleece hanging on a tree nearby. Likewise divergent from the early literary tradition as represented by Pindar at least is a slightly later redfigure column-krater in New York { A R V 524, 28 = L I M C ii, 1, col. 595, a, no. 12), dated 470—60, on which a remarkably puny Iason grasps the Fleece in the presence o f Athena with the poop o f the Argo visible.111 Iason and Medea Iason and Medea were occasionally depicted together in archaic art (Vojatzi, nos. 64 —68), the earliest example being on the chest o f Cypselus (Paus. 5. 18. 3 = Vojatzi, no. 64).112 There they were shown 107 Formerly in Berlin, Antiquarium F 1682, but missing since the last war. Illustrated in Schefold, Frühgriech. Sagenbilder, pi. 44a (Perseus and Athena), 64a (Harpies). 109 Illustrated in Schefold, Frühgriech. Sagenbilder, pi. 59. 109 Three vases which may illustrate Aeschylus’ Phineus are reproduced in A. D. Trendall and T. B. L. Webster, Illustrations of Greek Drama, London, 1971, pp. 58—61: III. 1, 24 (A R V 502, 7 = Vojatzi, no. 48), III. 1, 25 { A R V 652, 2 = Vojatzi, no. 51), III. 1, 26 {L IM C ii, 1, coll. 594, b —595, a, no. 11, and ii, 2, p. 431, no. 11, conveniently depicting a side not seen in Trendall Webster). 110 But not in the iconographical tradition; cf. Vojatzi, nos. 59—60, and v. op. cit., p. 89. Cf. also comm, ad 244 (e) below. 111 Illustrated in L. Radermacher, Mythos und Sage hei den Griechen1, Brünn—M ün ch en Wien, 1943, pl. 9 opposite p. 159. N . C. L. Hammond and W. G. Moon, A f A 82 (1978), pp. 377 —78, have argued that the vase illustrates a scene in Aeschylus’ Argo (on which see above). 112 To be dated perhaps as early as 570, but v. Vojatzi, op. cit., p. 65 with n. 545. For a reconstruction v. Schefold, Frühgriechische Sagenbilder, illustr. 26, pp. 68—69 ( = Engl, ed., pp. 7 2 -7 3 ).

Introduction

with Medea seated flanked by Iason and Aphrodite with an inscription Μήδειαν Ίάσων γαμέει, κέλεται δ’ Άφροδίτα (186, 2 Preger). A terra­ cotta relief in Basel (Vojatzi, no. 65), dated ca. 550, has been interpreted as another wedding scene o f the pair, this time placed between Hera and Aphrodite, but the interpretation is by no means certain.113 Three Attic black-figure lekythoi from the third quarter o f the 6th century ( A B V 471, 117 —19 = Vojatzi, nos. 66 —68) depict in profile the bust o f a formidable Medea surrounded by two snakes which are presumably intended to indicate her magic powers.114 Medea and the Peliads Another favourite subject in late archaic art was the murder o f Pelias, which was unintentionally perpetrated by his daughters (Vojatzi, nos. 69 —97).115 This is never shown as such, but is implied by the rejuven­ ated ram emerging from the caldron which convinced the Peliads to try the same treatment on their father. Amongst the earliest representa­ tions o f this scene is the one on a black-figure neck-amphora in London ( A B V 321, 4 = Vojatzi, no. 69), dated ca. 510, which balances the ram and caldron with old Pelias and a divine Medea116 on the left and the astonished Peliads on the right.117 The funeral games for Pelias The funeral games held in honour o f Pelias provided an occasion for the reunion o f the Argo’s crew. Just as Stesichorus is supposed to have dealt with them in poetic form (see above), so too were they often depicted by artists o f the archaic period (Vojatzi, nos. 98 —116). Two early representations are o f special interest for Pj. 4. The first is that on the chest o f Cypselus (Paus. 5. 17. 9 = Vojatzi, no. 100) from the first half of the 6th century (cf. n. 112 above). There Euphemus was shown winning the chariot-race. The second representation is that on

in 114 115 116 117

gee Vojatzi, op. cit., pp. 92—93. Cf. Vojatzi, op. cit., pp. 93—94, and for an illustration o f no. 66, v. pi. 11,2. See further comm, ad 250 (c). Shown by her polos. Illustrated in Vojatzi, pi. 12, 1, and in Hugo Meyer, Medela und die Peliaden, Roma, 1980, pi. 3, 1 —2. Meyer, whose work appeared too late for Vojatzi, provides illustrations o f the most important representations o f this theme as well as a full account o f the legend and the archaeological evidence. On the disputed interpretation o f the metopes 32—33 o f the so-called primo thesauros o f Foce del Sele, Paestum (Vojatzi, no. 84) v. Meyer, op. cit., esp. pp. 53 —65.

3. Composition of Pythian I V

23

a lost late-Corinthian column-krater formerly in Berlin (Vojatzi, no. 99), dated ca. 560, which showed Euphemus winning the same race.1,8 From the survey o f the literary and iconographical evidence it is clear that Pindar could have known the Argonautic myth in several forms, none o f which can now be fully reconstructed. Although the main lines o f the story are generally discernable, because of the gaps in our evidence we cannot say what version or versions Pindar may have followed. Whatever his primary sources may have been, he ob­ viously felt free to select and adapt his material as he pleased. How Pindar made use o f the Argonautic myth is a question o f composition to which we now turn.

3. Composition of Pythian I V The composition119 o f the Fourth Pythian can best be understood in terms o f the poet’s goal and the means which he employs to attain it. Pindar’s primary aim, as we have already observed, was to show that the Euphemids were divinely chosen to become kings o f Cyrene and that their rule is in accordance with the will o f the gods. The means which Pindar uses to demonstrate this is the narration o f the Argonautic myth suitably adapted to reveal Euphemus’ divine mission. A secondary aim is to set the stage for the recall o f the Cyrenaean exile Demophilus, who may have commissioned the ode. A tertiary aim, though in fact the ostensible occasion for the ode, is the celebration o f Arcesilaus’ Pythian victory, which receives its full due in Py. 5. In accordance with the primary aim the Argonautic myth occupies the central and dominant place within the ode (vv. 13 —56, 70—262). The secondary aim, the staging of Demophilus’ recall, receives much less attention and is, appropriately enough, placed at the end o f the ode so that the king could have dramatically announced his pardon at the end of the performance. The tertiary aim is perfunctorily fulfilled by an allusion to the victory at the beginning o f the ode (vv. 2 —3) and a brief reference to it (vv. 66 —67) in the middle section between the two parts o f the Argonautic myth. Whereas in more conventional epinikia Pindar often provides an elaborate opening, which sometimes takes on an independent character*15 118 On both cf. comm, ad 46 (a) below. For other scenes and events v. the discussion o f Vojatzi, op. cit., pp. 100—7. 115 A schematic outline o f the ode with an indication o f the several subdivisions has been provided above as part o f the table o f contents.

Introduction

of its own, in Py. 4 he makes no attempt to give it a prooemium proportional to the narrative which follows, but in keeping with the epic character o f the Argonautic myth plunges at once in medias res. In a brief exordium (vv. 1 —12) the poet invokes the Muse (vv. 1 —3), who is to assist at Arcesilaus’ celebrations o f his Pythian victory, and then moving by means o f a relative adverbial locative (v. 4) mentions the oracle once given to Battus at Delphi (vv. 4 —8). The oracle thus forms a link between the story o f the Argonautic expedition, which begins in v. 13, and the reigning Battiad king o f Cyrene (named in v. 2), whose claim to sovereignty rests in part on events told in that narrative.120 Pindar then moves paratactically (v. 9) from the historical oracle121 to the mythical speech of Medea delivered before the Ar­ gonauts on Thera, the starting-point o f Cyrenaean colonization seven­ teen122 generations later. Her speech is briefly introduced in vv. 9 —12, which close the formal opening o f the ode. Medea’s speech (vv. 13 —56) is in fact the second part of the Argonau­ tic myth, although it is told first. In it she singles out one of the Argonauts, Euphemus, the ancestor o f Battus (and thus ultimately of Arcesilaus), to tell how he received the original right to sovereignty over Libya. Clearly Pindar has placed this part o f the Argonautic story first because o f its importance for the claim o f the Battiads to kingship in Cyrene. In her speech Medea tells the latest events first: the future colonization o f Libya from Thera (vv. 13 —20) and then the encounter of Euphemus with Triton/Eurypylus (vv. 20 —37).123 Next comes an explanation of the delay in colonization (vv. 38 —49) followed by an allusion to Eu­ phemus on Lemnos (vv. 50 —53) and finally a return to the oracle once given to Battus (vv. 53 —56).124 The prophetic speech of Medea is skilfully devised both to present a Cyrenaean audience with an exciting and impressive episode from its mythical history which blends imperceptively with historical reality

120 The importance o f the oracle is further emphasized by a return to it in vv. 53—56, which close the “ring” at the end o f Medea’s speech, and also by the direct address to Battus, the son of Polymnestus, in vv. 59—63, in the middle section between the two parts o f the Argonautic myth. 121 Cf. Hdt. 4. 150 ff. 122 Counting inclusively. 123 The main lines o f the Argonautic myth are thus told in regressive order since the narration o f the events before Libya only begins in v. 70. 124 Since Medea’s speech is in the form o f a prophecy, parts are couched in suitably riddling language. This heightens the contrast with the straight narration o f the main part of the Argonautic myth which follows.

3. Composition o f Pythian I V

25

and, at the same time, to provide a visible demonstration o f the divine right and favour o f Battiad rule. A short summons to attention (v. 13) accompanied by a deictic gesture (v. 14)125 leads at once to the equivalent of a foundation oracle (vv. 14 —20) in which the transformation o f the Theraean islanders to the lords o f the Libyan plain and the growth of their cities is prophesied. Mention o f Libya leads at once through a connecting relative (v. 20) to the encounter o f Euphemus with the indigenous god who presents him with a clod o f earth (w . 20 —37).126 The significance o f the clod is now explained (vv. 38 —49).127 It was a symbol o f sovereignty over Libya which would mark the startingpoint o f a future colonization o f that land. The clod was in fact destined to be placed at the entrance to the Underworld near Euphemus’ home in Taenarus, but, Medea explains, it was washed overboard and has been cast up on Thera.128 The consequence o f this accident is that the Euphemids will not settle Libya from the Peloponnesus in the fourth generation after the Argonautic expedition. Resuming her oracular style Medea alludes to Euphemus’ impending fatherhood on Lemnos (vv. 50—53) and the future migration o f the Euphemids to Thera where at last a descendant will be born who will be charged by the Delphic oracle to colonize Libya (vv. 53 —56). With the reference to the oracle given to Battus Pindar has brought us back to the point from which he started in vv. 4 —8 before the beginning o f Medea’s speech. Medea’s speech receives a closing formula (vv. 57 —58) which is a lyric equivalent of similar formulas in epic in which the reaction o f the listeners is described. Here the formula not only adds to the epic character o f the ode but also emphasizes the importance o f her words. Like a clever publicist Pindar now inserts his message between the two parts o f the Argonautic story. First, he apostrophizes the oecist Battus (vv. 59 —63) explaining that it was he to whom Medea alluded at the end o f her speech. Coming as it does at this central point in the ode, the direct address to the founder o f the city and its ruling dynasty emphasizes his importance as a link between Euphemus, the Argonaut

125 Pindar has o f course brought the Argonauts to Thera and made it the setting of Medea’s speech because it is the mother-city (v. 20) o f the Cyrenaeans. 126 Whereas the colonization o f Libya was appropriately described in oracular language (vv. 14 —20) the scene between Euphemus and Triton is straight narrative. 127 Medea implies that she knew its significance from the beginning, although she only tells the Argonauts now what it was. The reason for waiting is o f course to allow Pindar to dramatize the speech as much as possible. 128 Pindar lived in an age in which there was presumably little danger that anyone in his audience would have wondered how a clod o f earth could float in the sea or why the Argonauts did not send out a party to search for it while they were there.

who received the original symbol of sovereignty over Libya, and Arcesilaus, the reigning Euphemid-Battiad king o f Cyrene, whose Py­ thian victory afforded the formal occasion of the ode. Here Pindar gives a dramatic demonstration of the king’s divine right to the throne. As Euphemus is meant to provide an ultimate justification for this claim, so too is Arcesilaus’ less remote ancestor Battus as oecist a direct one. Having placed Arcesilaus in the line o f Battiad kings and mentioned anew his Pythian victory (vv. 64—67) Pindar now returns to his starting-point. The first three triads o f the ode with the myth of Euphemus, the historical allusion to Battus, and praise o f Arcesilaus, might seem complete in themselves. However, in the last three verses (67 —69) Pindar effects a rapid transition to the theme o f the quest for the Golden Fleece, which in fact forms the major episode in the narrative o f the Argonautic myth. Like an epic poet Pindar now takes fresh breath and asks how the quest for the Golden Fleece began (vv. 70 —71). He answers the question in a narrative which occupies the next 190 verses or almost two-thirds o f the ode. This main part o f the Argonautic story (vv. 70 —262) falls into three clearly defined sections: (1) Iason in Iolcus and the preparations for the expedition (vv. 70 —187), (2) the voyage and the first events in Colchis (vv. 188—246), and (3) the winning o f the Golden Fleece and the return (vv. 247 —62). In the first two sections the narrative proceeds linearly, but is then suddenly interrupted in vv. 247 —48 just when Iason is about to gain the object of his quest. The third section provides a rapid summary o f the events up to the arrival on Lemnos on the return voyage with another mention of how the Euphemids came from there to Cyrene by way o f Lacedaemon and Thera. In this main part the story moves forward without complication and with considerable expansion o f details so that the effect is not unlike that o f epic. However, only selected incidents are told, while others which would doubtless have found their place in a real epic are omitted. Moreover, the transitions are rapid as always in choral lyric and not the more leisurely ones o f epic. Having asked the question how the quest for the Golden Fleece began Pindar first tells of the oracle which Pelias received warning him that the Aeolids would cause his death and in particular to be on his guard against a man wearing a single sandal (vv. 71—78). N o sooner has the oracle been told than the instrument o f its accomplishment appears (vv. 78 —79). In his description o f Iason in the market-place of Iolcus (vv. 79—94) Pindar provides one o f his rare still portraits (vv. 79 —83). He then goes on to give a more vivid and dynamic impression o f the young hero by telling how those who saw him reacted (vv. 87—92). This is followed by Iason’s first encounter with Pelias (vv.

3. Composition o f Pythian I V

27

94—120) and an interlude in his father’s house (vv. 120 —34) which allows him to prepare himself for the second interview with Pelias (vv. 134—68) at which the quest is proposed. Pindar has thus skilfully divided Iason’s confrontation with Pelias in such a way that we see him in two different roles. At the first encounter he is still the ephebe who has yet to prove his merit. His stance is correspondingly defensive, although he announces his ultimate intentions in no uncertain terms. After the family reunion in Aeson’s house and a brief moment o f felicity which provides a welcome contrast to the tensions o f the preceding and following scenes Iason reappears for his second interview with Pelias, this time fully established as the legitimate claimant to the throne who now moves to the offensive. In the interval Iason has assumed the leadership o f his clan and thus appears as a mature leader capable o f undertaking a great enterprise. At his first encounter with Iason the initial reaction o f Pelias, the usurper, resembles in some respects that o f a typical stage-tyrant. He is suspicious, brusque, and impatient, though not in fact insulting. He is afraid, but cleverly conceals his fear. Pelias’ cleverness and apparent self-control are even more apparent in the second encounter when he proposes the quest for the Golden Fleece from which he hopes Iason will not return. The first section closes with a partial catalogue o f Argonauts (vv. 169 —87) who assemble in Iolcus to join the expedition announced by Iason at the end o f his encounter with Pelias. The principle o f selection is clear: only sons o f gods are named and these are listed in the order of their fathers’ dignity (Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Hermes, and Boreas). Clearly the selection was made with the intention o f suggesting that Euphemus, the ancestor o f Arcesilaus, can as a son o f Poseidon take his place amongst the elite o f what is itself an elite. Thus the ultimate encomiastic and political aims o f the ode are never quite lost sight of even here where the emphasis on heroic narrative might seem politically neutral. The catalogue concludes with a mention o f Hera, the divinity who inspired the expedition (vv. 184 —87). The second section o f the main part o f the Argonautic myth deals with the voyage and the first events in Colchis (w . 188 —246). The voyage itself (vv. 188—211) falls into two parts: the preparations for departure (vv. 188 —201) and the actual journey (vv. 202—11). The first events in Colchis (vv. 211—46) are told in four parts o f varying length: (1) the arrival in Colchis (vv. 211 —13), (2) the winning of Medea’s love (vv. 213—23), (3) the ploughing contest (vv. 224—43), and (4) the description o f the serpent (vv. 244—46). In the description of the voyage we clearly see the difference between Pindar’s lyric technique and the more leisurely style o f epic. O f the 23 verses which

Introduction

deal with the voyage the greater number describe the elaborate prepara­ tions for departure. Iason first musters his men and then has his prophet conduct divinations, which turn out favourable. After embarkation Iason prays to Zeus for success and receives further encouragement in the form of a peal o f thunder.129 By dwelling at some length on the departure of the Argonautic expedition Pindar has not only stressed its importance but also given us such a memorable impression o f it that he need select only two incidents from the actual journey for telling. The first, the establishment of Poseidon’s precinct at the entrance to the Inhospitable Sea (vv. 204 —6), not only provides entertaining aetio­ logy but also reminds us of the hazard of the enterprise, while the second, the passing of the clashing rocks (vv. 207—11), describes one such danger. Pindar has thus provided just enough detail of the voyage to give the impression o f an epic narrative without losing the intensity and compression o f lyric. With the arrival in Colchis (vv. 211 —13), which Pindar effects in less than a sentence from the clashing rocks, the story becomes still more impressive. Pindar tells o f Medea’s passion for Iason (vv. 213 —23) in his best lyric style: concise, allusive, and striking in its imagery. No time is lost on the psychology o f love, which is regarded as a divine intervention from without, but rather its effect is memorably described. Although Pindar doubtless knew o f three tasks o f Iason in Colchis,130 he mentions only two concentrating on the ploughing contest (vv. 224—43). No sooner than he has been successful in that, Iason is confronted with overcoming the serpent which guards the Golden Fleece. A short description o f the monster follows (vv. 244—46), but then the poet interrupts the narrative which has moved forward chronologically over the past seven triads. The final section o f the main part o f the Argonautic story tells of the winning o f the Golden Fleece and the return of the heroes (w . 247 —62). It is introduced by a formula of transition (vv. 247 —48) followed by an apostrophe to Arcesilaus in which Pindar simply states that Iason slew the serpent by craft and stole away Medea, the killer of Pelias, with her own help (vv. 249—50). The return o f the Argonauts, rapidly described, brings them to Lemnos (vv. 251—56). In doing so Pindar has rearranged the logical and traditional sequence of events for encomiastic and political purposes. Since Arcesilaus was descended from Battus, the founder o f Cyrene, who in turn traced his ancestry

29 Cf. V. 23 where the transfer o f the symbol o f sovereignty over Libya is similarly dramatized. 10 So already in Pherecydes (v. above p. 19) and presumably in his source as well.

3. Composition o f Pythian I V

29

back to the union o f the Argonaut Euphemus with a Lemnian woman, Pindar chose to make Lemnos the climax o f his Argonautic story. His reason for doing so was presumably not only to pay a compliment to Arcesilaus but also to dispose o f a possible difficulty in the Euphemids’ mythological claim to the Cyrenaean throne. If Euphemus had already received the symbol of sovereignty over Libya before he sired his natural son, the claim o f his descendants would be psychologically (if not logically) stronger than if he had received the symbol long after a casual visit to Lemnos. The section ends with a brief mention o f the athletic contests o f the Argonauts on Lemnos, their union with the women, and the migration o f the Euphemids from Lemnos by way o f Lacedaemon and Thera to Cyrene, which has been given to Arcesilaus by the gods to govern (vv. 256 —62). At this point the ode takes a new turn. The last section has run over into the beginning o f the antistrophe with a reference to Arcesilaus’ ability to discover right-advising counsel (v. 262). Then with inferential asyndeton a parable is proposed to the king. This last part o f the ode contains in fact a plea for the return o f a Cyrenaean citizen Demophilus (vv. 263 —99), who has not been mentioned before. After the parable of the oak (vv. 263 —69) the poet again praises Arcesilaus (vv. 270 —76) and then concludes with a recommendation of Demophilus and a plea for his recall at the end o f which he sets his own seal (vv. 277 —99). When Pindar turns in this last section from the general glorification of the Euphemids to enter a plea for Demophilus, he is setting the stage for a public demonstration o f their contemporary greatness. The recall of the exile, as has been suggested above, may well have been announced during the continuation o f the festivities after the perform­ ance o f the ode. With such timing o f the gesture o f clemency Arcesilaus would have given maximum publicity to an act meant to place his regime in a favourable light. The first part o f the plea, the parable o f the oak, is quite simple and was correctly explained by the scholia vetera ad loc. The oak represents the exiled Demophilus. The only points o f correspondence between the oak of the parable and Demophilus are (1) the marring o f the branches, which corresponds to Demophilus’ loss o f civic rights and the enjoy­ ment of his property, and (2) the displacement of the oak, which stands for Demophilus’ exile. The rest, which can only apply to a tree, is there simply to provide graphic details. After the parable Pindar again praises Arcesilaus and this time in terms specially chosen with a view to the present situation. N ot all in Cyrene is in order, and here Pindar o f course alludes to the past political troubles and the resultant exile o f Demophilus, which has just been depicted in the parable, but the king, he says, is the man who can put

Introduction

it right. It has sometimes been maintained that the poet, in calling Arcesilaus an ίατήρ, is asking him to become a second Ίάσων, but in the absence o f any mention o f Iason’s name in the context this is intrinsically improbable.131 In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever for an equation Iason and Pelias — Arcesilaus and Demophilus or Iason and Demophilus — Pelias and Arcesilaus, both o f which have been maintained.132 Both the Argonautic story and the plea for the exile’s return are fully intelligible in themselves and gain nothing from such allegorical interpretations. After the exhortation to Arcesilaus (v. 276) the stage is now set for a direct mention o f the exiled Demophilus. Before the plea for his recall is entered the possible grounds for a royal pardon are stated in advance: Demophilus’ character is just (vv. 280—81) and if he was guilty o f any offence in the past, he has learnt his lesson, so that no one would have any reason to fear him in the future. The actual plea, which occupies the final epode, is stated in the form o f Demophilus’ own wish to enjoy a quiet, non-political life at home. The ode concludes with a proud seal set by the Theban poet.

4. The Style of Pythian I V The poetry o f Pindar is distinguished neither by originality o f ideas nor profundity o f thought. The basic values implied in it are those professed by his patrons and as such represent the contemporary atti­ tudes and poses o f the rich and successful.133 The distinctive qualities o f Pindar’s poetry are to be sought rather in his power o f imagination and technical skill. Whereas poetic imagination is a quality more easily perceived than defined, the means by which a poet gives expression to the reality he creates can be profitably studied. In the following the style of Py. 4 will be analysed in terms o f the devices which Pindar uses to produce its distinctive qualities. The foundation o f Pindar’s style is the use o f strong verbal expres­ sions instead o f pictoresque nouns and adjectives or colourless predi­ cates. At the beginning o f Py. 4 the Muse is asked to stand beside 131 Cf. comm, ad 270 (b). 132 Cf. comm, ad 270 (b). 133 This is what H. Lloyd-Jones, P B A 68 (1982), p. 139, calls Pindar’s “distinctive vision o f the world” which taken together with his other qualities has in the admitted absence o f philosophical doctrine qualified him for election as one o f the British Academy’s “Master Minds”.

4. The Style o f Pythian I V

31

Arcesilaus not just to “sing” but αΐίξης ούρον δμνων (v. 3). Medea’s prophecy is not simply to be “fulfilled” but άγκομίσαι (v. 9). She did not “speak” it but άπέπνευσ’ (v. 11). Libya will not be “colonized” but βίζαν φυτεύσεσθαι (v. 15). When Euphemus receives the clod, Zeus does not “thunder” but εκλαγξε βροντάν (v. 23). Euphemus was not to have “placed” the clod at the entrance to the Underworld but βάλε (v. 43). On Lemnos Euphemus will not “beget” a race but εύρήσει (v. 50). The closing formula o f Medea’s speech makes the rows o f her words “speak” (v. 57). Pindar announces the beginning o f the main part of the Argonautic narrative by saying he “will give up” (v. 67 άπό δώσω) Arcesilaus and the Fleece to the Muses. Honours do not just “await” the Argonauts but φύτευθεν (v. 69) for them. The beginning of voyage δέξατο (v. 70) them. Danger δήσεν (v. 71) them with spikes. Young Iason is not just “wearing” his clothing, but έσθάς ... νιν εχεν (v. 79). The rains he is protected against are themselves φρίσσοντας (v. 81). Locks when cut ώχοντ’ (v. 82). Before they καταίθυσσον (v. 83) the whole back. An arrow θή ρεύσε (v. 90) Tityus. Loves are something you έπνψαύειν (v. 92). Pelias addresses Iason not καλύπτων his fear but κλέπτων (v. 96). Every triad would furnish further examples. For the rest o f the ode we may restrict our notice to a few o f the more striking ones. For example, the baby Iason is not just sent away secretly, but his parents do so νυκτί κοινάσαντες όδόν (v. 115). On seeing him his father does not “weep” but tears πομφόλυξαν (v. 121). At the family reunion Iason τάνυεν (v. 129) good cheer to its full length. Meeting Pelias for a second time Iason βάλλετο κρηπίδα σοφών έπέων (ν. 138). Pelias holds Iason’s family property πλούτον πιαίνων (v. 150). Pelias explains that old age άμφιπολεϊ him, while the flower o f Iason’s youth άρτι κυμαίνει (v. 157 —58). Poseidon’s sons join the expedition αίδεσθέντες άλκάν (v. 173), while Hermes’ do so κεχλάδοντας ήβμ (v. 179). Hera πόθον ενδαιεν (v. 184) in the Argonauts for the ship, so that none might be left behind πέσσοντ’ (v. 186) a life without danger. Rowing ΰπεχώρησεν (v. 202) from their hands. Aphrodite places the wryneck on the wheel not by “binding” but ζεύξαισα (v. 215) it. Longing for Hellas δονέοι (v. 219) Medea. Aeètes ploughs αύλακας έντανύσαις (v. 227). Aeètes does not “shout” at Iason’s success but ϊυξεν (v. 237). The Fleece is in a thicket ένθα νιν έκτάνυσαν (v. 242) the sacrificial knife o f Phrixus. Demophilus όρφανίζει (v. 283) an evil tongue o f its clear voice. In his exile he ούρανώ προσπαλαίει (vv. 289 —90) like Atlas. Once νοΰσον διαντλήσαις (v. 293) he hopes to see home. Then φόρμιγγα βαστάζων he will ήσυχίμ θιγέμεν (v. 296). Pindar’s style often impresses by its fulness of expression as, e. g., vv. 30 —31 (words) ξείνοις άτ’ έλθόντεσσιν εύεργέται j δεΐπν’ έπαγγέλλοντι πρώτον, where the participle and the adverb, though strictly

Introduction

speaking unnecessary, add weight and precision to the description, 118 έπιχώριος ού ξείναν ίκάνω γαϊαν άλλων, where άλλων is pleonas­ tic after ξείναν but makes the statement more emphatic, and vv. 222—23 (Iason and Medea) καταίνησάν τε κοινόν γάμον / γλυκόν έν άλλάλοισι μεΐξαι, where the adverbial prepositional phrase reinforces the first adjectival modifier o f the substantive. On the other hand, Pindar’s expression can be short and staccato as, e. g., at v. 120 ως φάτο- τόν μέν έσελθόντ’ εγνον όφθαλμοί πατρός, where a single participle does all the work of getting Iason from the market-place to Aeson’s house. Al­ though metrical considerations will have often influenced the use o f fulness or conciseness in any given context, the variation between them allows the poet to slacken or quicken his pace as he wishes and to provide his listeners with an agreeable variety. Conciseness is often achieved by the use o f several types o f brachylogical figures. Some are simple as at v. 91 where Artemis’ arrow which hunted down Tityus έξ άνικάτου φαρέτρας όρνύμενον: the bow need not be mentioned. Several common types of ellipse are found in Py. 4; e. g. o f χείρ at v. 35 δεξιτερμ, of the subject which is to be supplied from the context at v. 18 νωμάσοισιν, of the object at v. 228 ήλαυν’, o f the subject which is to be supplied from a word used in an oblique case in the preceding sentence at v. 25 έπέτοσσε, o f the object similarly to be supplied at v. 70 δέξατο. A special case o f brachylogy is the schema άπό κοινοΰ. Genuine examples of this figure in the narrow sense are largely restricted to the occurrence o f a word which must be supplied from the second member o f a construction to the first as, e. g. a conjunction at v. 78 ξεΐνος a h ’ ών άστός, or an adjectival modifier in vv. 195 —96 νύκτας τε καί πόντου κελεύθους / αματά τ’ ευφρονα. However, we may speak o f άπό κοινού in a broad sense in the case, e. g., o f the double reference o f the oblique case o f a pronoun such as oi at vv. 47 —48 and v. 73. Here the omission was probably felt less in Greek than the necessity to supply a second pronoun when rendering the text into a modern language. Likewise, the omission o f πονεί in v. 152 may be regarded as άπό κοινού in the broad sense or simply as a natural ellipse.134 We may note in passing several other types o f brachylogy all of which contribute to the intensity and force o f expression. The omission o f the article as at v. 161 δέρμα ... κριού βαθύμαλλον where a particular object is meant will hardly have been felt as an ellipse, but it does make the expression more concise. The same is true o f the omission o f the V.

114 In English we often render such an omitted predicate with a partially elliptical “do” where most other modern European languages have no equivalent.

4. The Style o f Pythian I V

33

article with the substantivized participle ναιετάοντες at v. 180, where, however, it is more conspicuous. Intensity is also gained by the omission o f the subject o f the participle used in a genitive absolute construction as at v. 232 ώς ftp’ αύδάσαντος. The same is true o f the omission o f the participle έλθουσι / έλθόντεσσι at 259 ένθεν ... υμμι ... επορεν. The omission of a predicate in a comparison introduced by ωτε (ώστε) is common enough, but at v. 64 ώτε φοινικανθέμου ήρος άκμφ a subject must be understood as well which is only vaguely implied in the context. A natural conciseness is also achieved by the use o f a single predicate where we would normally require two to express the same idea in English.135 Two types may be distinguished in Pj. 4. At v. 18 όνία τ’ άντ’ έρετμών δίφρους τε νωμάσοισιν άελλόποδας the predicate means both “ply” and “guide” and so, applying equally to reins, oars, and chariots, a second verb is unnecessary. At vv. 104 —5 ούτε έργον / ουτ’ έπος ... είπών a second predicate έρξαις must be supplied at least in thought with the first member. Finally, we may note a simple type o f brachylogy which nicely illustrates another important feature o f Pindar’s style. At vv. 281—82 κείνος γάρ έν παισίν νέος, / έν δέ βουλανς πρέσβυς έγκύρσαις the clearly expressed opposition between the two phrases would normally require a balancing μέν in the first. Its omission like that o f a balancing αϊτέ in v. 78 discussed above produces a typical Pindaric asymmetry. It is not just the tendency to brevity which produces asymmetry. For example, a main clause is sometimes followed by appositional clauses, the first o f which contains a participle as predicate and the second a finite verb as at vv. 79 —81 έσθάς δ’ άμφοτέρα νιν έχεν, / a τε ... έπιχώριος άρμόζοισα ... γυίοις, / άμφί δέ παρδαλέςι στέγετο. Such shifts, which presumably originated in a basically oral style, not only allow a certain flexibility in the choice of metrical forms, but also produce variety in expression. Pindar’s preference for asymmetry may be noticed even in smaller units. For example, at v. 195 we may be reasonably sure that the majority of the MSS are right in reading κυμάτων ριπάς άνέμους τ’ rather than the variant άνέμων, which produces a facile symmetry. Pindar’s use o f abrupt transition is a notorious feature o f his style. In Pj. 4, owing presumably to the relatively greater freedom afforded by its length, these present little difficulty. In v. 4 we find the traditional device of a connecting relative adverb (ένθα) used to move from the mention o f a place to a narrative.136 At v. 224 the ploughing contest is 135 This is often loosely called “zeugma”. 136 At vv. 10 and 20 the relative pronouns are probably used in the same way, although the narrative could be regarded as already beginning with their antecedents.

Introduction

introduced without any transitional device; however, it was alluded to in a very general way in vv, 212 —13 and more specifically in v. 220 άέθλων, so it does not come entirely as a surprise. In vv. 247 —48 Pindar uses the special device o f transition usually called “Abbruchsformel” which allows him to bring the narrative to a rapid conclusion before passing on to the next theme. The choice o f the image used in the formula, the return along the carriageway, has been suggested by return of the Argo which is to come, so that even here the abruptness is more apparent than real. In Pindaric transitions in which an obvious link is not expressed there is often an implicit association o f ideas as in the preceding instance. The sphragis in vv. 298 —99 provides another. After depicting an idyllic scene o f Demophilus performing to the lyre at a symposium by Apollo’s fountain in Cyrene, Pindar concludes: καί κε μυθήσαιθ’, όποιαν, Άρκεσίλα, / εύρε παγάν άμβροσίων έπέων, πρόσφατον Θήβμ ξενωθείς. Not only has the mention o f Pindar’s own verse been foreshadowed by Demophilus’ lyre, but, more important, the reference to Apollo’s fountain has suggested the image of the wellspring and thus provided an implicit transition through an association o f ideas. A similar problem is presented by apparent shifts of images within a single theme. For example, in the paraenetic section137 toward the end o f the ode Pindar observes (vv. 272—74): fiqSiov μεν yàp πόλιν σεϊσαι καί άφαυροτέροις· / άλλ’ έπί χώρας αδτις έσσαι δυσπαλές δή γίνεται, έξαπίνας / εί μή θεός άγεμόνεσσι κυβερνατήρ γένηται. What allows the poet to move from the image o f a city being shaken to that o f the steersman setting things aright? The point of the comparison is surely that both a city and a ship are thought of as structures to both of which σεϊσαι is applicable, while behind the association o f the two ideas is the traditional image o f the ship of state. In colloquial language Pindar is saying that it is easy “to rock the boat”, but that divine guidance is needed to steer it straight. As in transitions between subjects the Pindaric shifts o f images within a theme usually presuppose some association o f ideas.138

:!7 It is a convention of Pindaric epinikia that praise is often partly expressed in the form o f advice, which o f course is consciously in harmony with the known intentions o f the person praised. i « At vv. 268 —69 μόχθον δλλοις άμφέπει δύστανον έν τείχεσιν, / έόν έρημώσαισα χώρον the ambiguity implicit in the parable of the oak is exploited to allow the poet to move from describing what primarily pertains to a tree to that which has only secondary relevance to a tree, but basically describes a human situation. In the use o f the association o f ideas the technique is fundamentally the same.

4. The Style o f Pythian I V

35

N ot only does the association o f different ideas play a role in Pindar’s technique but also the deliberate anticipation of a single idea which is then subsequently developed. For example, when Pindar tells how the Argonauts came to the Phasis, ένθα κελαινώπεσσι Κόλχοισιν βίαν / μεϊξαν Αίήτα παρ’ αύτφ (νν. 212—13), he does not refer to an otherwise unknown battle as some have thought, but rather anticipates the trial of strength which Iason will later undergo. This in turn provides a frame for another important event, Medea’s infatuation for Iason, upon which the success o f the contest will partly depend. This technique is a form o f ring-composition, which is employed in a more familiar way at vv. 4 —8 ~ 53 —56 and vv. 20 —23 ~ 34—37. The last example illustrates another principle o f Pindar’s technique: the use o f variatio. Verses 34—37 not only close the ring which began with vv. 20 —23, but carefully vary the first statement: 35 ξένιον ~ 22 ξείνια, 35 μάστευσε δούναι ~ 21 διδόντι, 36 ήρως ~ 22 Ευφαμος, 36 θορών ~ 22 καταβαίς, 37 βώλακα — 21 γαίαν; only δέξατο (37 and 23), which expresses the main fact, is repeated. Much simpler is the variation δράκοντος (v. 244) ~ δφιν (v. 249). Metrical considerations may sometimes be a factor, but the striving for variety is presumably more important. Variation is also implied whenever the poet choses a less common word for the same object. For example, at v. 227 Pindar uses ζεύγλα instead o f ζυγόν, although the former is strictly speaking the strap and not the yoke itself. The use o f a specific term such as ζεύγλα instead o f a more general one is characteristic o f another important aspect o f Pindar’s style: focus on the particular. For example, at v. 244 δράκοντος δ’ εΐχετο (sc. the Fleece) λαβροτατάν γενύων the poet concentrates on an important and striking aspect o f the monster. It is in the selection of the particular to characterize the whole that the poet often best reveals his powers of imagination. The short description o f the serpent at vv. 244—46 also illustrates further aspects o f Pindar’s style. After mentioning its ferocious jaws he adds that it was a serpent, ος πάχει μάκει τε πεντηκόντορον ναΰν κράτει, / τέλεσεν αν πλαγαί σιδάρου. The first relative clause is a comparison which by an association o f ideas reminds us o f the Argo, the return voyage o f which will be told immediately thereafter.139 The second relative clause is an addition in epic style which strictly speaking does not advance the action but provides further variety in the narrative. The use o f the singular predicate τέλεσεν in v. 246 with a plural subject

159 Although Pindar freely uses comparisons and similes, metaphor is often preferred as at v. 289 κείνος "Ατλας as being more forceful.

Introduction

πλαγαί is an example o f the so-called “schema Pindaricam ”; cf. also V. 57 ή βα Μήδειας έπέων στίχες, where ή is the verb and not the particle. Where a singular verb precedes a plural subject this construc­ tion is unexceptionable and by no means exclusively Pindaric.140 Another natural figure is the constructio ad sensum as at v. 51 γένος, οϊ, and vv. 256 —57 γένος Εύφάμου ... μιχθέντες, which is common enough after a collective singular. Its use allows the poet greater variety of expression and metrical flexibility. It may be noted in passing that Pindar preserves some remarkably archaic features of style. A notable example is found in v. 217 λιτάς ... έπαοιδάς, where the two nouns refer to contrasting methods o f gaining another’s affection and thus constitute a “polar” expression141 which here stands in an archaic type of asyndeton.142 Pindar will presumably not have made use o f archaic features for their own sake, but because they belonged to the tradition of poetic diction which he had inherited. In this same tradition are a number o f other figures o f style found in Py. 4. At v. 94 ήμιόνοις ξεστμ τ’ άπήνα we have an example of hendiadys, a figure less common in Greek than in Latin. Its employment is usually a matter o f metrical convenience. This too may often be a factor in the use o f enallage as at v. 149 βοών ξανθάς άγέλας and v. 205 φοίνισσα ... άγέλα ταύρων. More striking is the enallage at 144 σθένος άελίου χρύσεον, where the transference of the epithet, because it is strictly speaking illogical, produces a strong effect. A figure deeply rooted in the Greek language is polyptoton, a common example of which we find at v. 37 χενρί ... χειρ’. The same tendency to juxtapose common elements in varied form may be noted at vv. 19 —20 πολίων / ματρόπολιν. In both cases the effect is one o f emphasis. Different though related is the use o f a compound adjective, the second element o f which is pleonastic in relation to the substantive it modifies as, e. g., at v. 63 δυσθρόου φωνάς. Here again the effect is one of emphasis, although variety o f expression and metrical convenience may also be factors in the choice o f such constructions. Finally, we may observe that all three factors just mentioned influence Pindar’s word-order to some degree. In a sentence such as καί νυν έν τμδ’ αφθιτον νάσω κέχυταν Λιβύας / εύρυχόρου σπέρμα πριν ώρας at νν. 42—43, the marked separation o f the attribute αφθιτον from its N o more so o f course than the schema Alcmanicum is confined to that poet; cf. v. 179 τον μέν Έχίονα, κεχλάδοντας ..., τον δ’ Έρυτον. 111 Cf. also v. 78 ξεΐνος αϊτ' ών αστός. 142 Pindar is as careful and deliberate in his use o f asyndeton as he is o f connecting particles. All instances o f both in Py. 4 have been discussed at the appropriate places in the commentary.

4. The Style of Pythian I V

37

substantive σπέρμα, even if it reflects in part metrical convenience, nevertheless emphasizes the unit to a greater degree than would a less extreme hyperbaton. The prepositional phrase in the sentence is a further illustration o f the interlaced word-order employed by Pindar; cf. also vv. 95 —96 άρίγνωτον πέδιλον j δεξιτέρφ μόνον άμφί ποδί, where μόνον is especially emphasized by its position, 106 —8, 167, 1 8 2 -8 3 , 239, 2 9 5 - 9 6 .143 From our examination o f the more important stylistic devices em­ ployed by Pindar in Py. 4 it should be obvious that he not only had an impressive array available to him but that he used them with masterly skill. Useful as such analyses may be in making us more aware o f how a poet works, we should nevertheless not imagine that we can fully understand Pindar’s style by dissection and classification. The only way to do so is to read the Greek text.

143 In Py. 4 Pindar has successfully avoided the kind o f ambiguity which could easily arise in interlaced word-order. On vv. 66—67 έξ Άμφικτιόνων ... / ιπποδρομίας see comm. ad loc. (c) below. This particular case suggests that potentially ambiguous elements were meant to be construed with the first element available, i. e. that there is a natural word-order even in hyperbaton.

METRICAL ANALYSIS Dactyloepitrite: I —XIII Str.

1

2 3 4 5

6 7

8 Ep.

e __D We _ D e __D e __D __ e __ e __ D d2 ò e _ II D __e ó e II e _ e _ D d2 II e __e __ e e II 31 . 54.108

_

,

CTO c — —

8,

_

c-

1 e __ D __ e __ e || 2 D __ e _ D II 3 e _e __ D II 4 d> i 2 e e D || 5 _ D d2 _ e u D 12(3) 6 e _e __ d1 II 7 e 9 D e __e __ |||

(1) N o word-end at 125 (postpositive). (2) N o word-end at 66 (proper name), 89 (proper name), 204 (elision), 273. (3) Brevis in ionga and syntactical pause at 90, but no example o f hiatus at this period end.

SYNOPSIS OF READINGS (adopted in this commentary which differ from those in the editions of Snell-Maehler [1971] or Turyn) This Commentary 8 15 23 27 30 36 39 44 56 58 64 66 77 78 79 79 102 105 109 115 115 119 131 140 145 149 155 176 178 184 188 204

άργϊνόεντι μελησιμβρότων αίσίαν είνάλιον άτ’ νιν έναλίαν ’Αίδα άγαγεΐν ήρώες ώτε Άμφικτιόνων Ίαολκοΰ άρα άμφοτέρα νιν Χίρωνος έκτράπελον νιν τράφειν Χίρωνι κικλήσκων εύζωάς έπιβδαν άφίσταντ’ άπούραις άναστάη φορμιγκτάς πέμπε ένδαιεν Ίαολκόν είναλίου

Snell-Maehler

Turyn

άργεννόεντι μελησίμβροτον αίσιον έννάλιον ά τ’ ίν έναλίμ ’Άιδα άγαγέν ή ροές άμφικτιόνων ήρα

έντράπελον

ή ροές ώτε άμφικτιόνων Ίαωλκοΰ ήρα άμφότερον μιν Χείρωνος έντράπελον μιν

τράφεν

εύζοίας

Χείρωνι κικλήσκων εύζοίας έπίβδαν

άφίσταιντ’ άπούρας άναστάσης φορμικτάς πέμψε ένέδαιεν Ίαωλκόν ένναλίου

207 213 223 228 232 234 234 240 243 245 246 248 250 250 253 255 255 258 263 264 264 265 270 282 298

This Commentary

Snell-Maehler

ίέμενοι ώκυτάτων μεϊξαι άνά βωλακί’ · ές κρόκοεν βοέους άνάγκας

ίέμενοι όξυτάτων άνά βωλακίας κρόκεον

μείξειν άναβωλακίας κρόκεον βοέοις

άνάγκα μιν

VIV

ήλπετο πεντηκόντορον τέλεσεν οίμον ώρκεσίλα Πελιαοφόνον Ιν’ άκτϊνος όλβφ ηθεσιν έν όξυτόμφ έξερείψαν κεν αισχύνη πέρ τε σοί έκατονταέτει μυθήσαιθ’, όποιαν

Turyn

έλπετο πεντηκόντερον οίμον ώ^Αρκεσίλα Πελίαο φονόν κρίσιν

πεντηκόντερον τέλεσαν

Πελίαο φονόν κρίσιν άκτίνας

όλβου

έξερείψειεν αίσχύνοι περ’ τέ σοι έκατονταετεΐ

ήθεσι τάν όξυτάτφ έξερείψη κεν περ’ έκατονταετεΐ μυθήσαιτο ποίαν

N.B. The corrected reprints of Snell-Maehler (1980 and 1984) have now adopted the readings of this commentary at 105 έκτράπελον, 178 πέμπε, and 250 Πελιαοφόνον; v. further d o tta 58 (1980), 217 —22, and Philologus 126 (1982), 3 1 0 -1 3 .

PYTHIAN IV For Arcesilaus o f Cyrene, Victor in the Chariot-Race Ia

Today, Muse, you must stand beside a friend, the king o f Cyrene, excellent in its horses, so that together with Arcesilaus as he holds his celebrations you may swell a favouring breeze o f songs which is owed to Leto’s children and to Pytho, where one day, 5 when Apollo was not away from home, the priestess who sits beside the golden eagles o f Zeus proclaimed in her oracle Battus as the founder o f fruit­ bearing Libya, so that he might at last leave the holy island and establish a city o f excellent chariots on a white breast o f earth

lb

and redeem in the seventeenth generation what Medea said 10 at Thera, those words which Aeétes’ spirited daughter, mistress o f the Colchians, once breathed forth from her immortal mouth, and thus did she speak to the demigods who sailed with spearman Iason: “Listen, you sons o f bold-hearted mortals and o f gods! For I declare that from this sea-beaten land Epaphus’ daughter 15 will one day be planted with a root o f famous cities amid the foundations o f Zeus Ammon.

le

And when they have taken swift horses in place of short­ winged dolphins, in place o f oars they will ply the reins and guide chariots with teams fleet-footed as the storm-wind. That omen will bring it to pass that 20 Thera will become the mother-city of mighty cities, the omen which once amid the stream from the Tritonian lake, Euphemus, descending from the prow, received from a god in the likeness o f a man, who offered him earth as a gift o f hospitality (and in turn Father Zeus, the son of Cronus, sounded for him an auspicious peal o f thunder),

42

Translation o f Pythian I V

Ha

at the time when the god fell in with us 25 as we were hanging the bronze-jawed anchor against the ship, swift Argo’s bridle. For twelve days before we had been carrying the sea-going bark from Ocean over desolate stretches of land, having drawn her up on my advice. Then it was that the solitary divinity drew near, assuming the glad countenance o f a considerate man, and 30 began with friendly words, the ones with which the chari­ table first o f all offer a meal to strangers when they come.

lib

But in fact the excuse o f our sweet home-coming prevented us from staying. He said that he was Eurypylus, the son of Gaeäochus (imperishable Ennosidas). He recognized that we were hurrying on our way and seizing up at once some soil 35 in his right hand, sought to give what first came to hand as a hospitable gift. And he did not fail to persuade him, but the hero leapt upon the shore, and pressing hand to hand received the divine clod of earth. But I hear that it was washed overboard and in the sea went with the brine

He

40 at evening, following the flowing waters. Often indeed did I urge the attendants who ease our labours to keep it safe, but their minds forgot. And now the imperishable seed o f spacious Libya has been washed on to this island before its time. For if Euphemus, horse-ruling Poseidon’s lordly son, 45 whom Europa, Tityus’ daughter, once bore by the banks of the Cephisus, had gone to holy Taenarus and cast it down at home beside Hades’ mouth in the ground,

Ilia

his blood in the fourth generation born after him would together with the Danaans have taken possession o f that broad continent. For at that time they would depart from great Lacedaemon and from the gulf o f Argos and from Mycenae. 50 Now, however, he will find in the beds of alien women a choice race, who by favour o f the gods

Translation o f Pythian I V

43

will come to this island and beget a man to be master o f the dark-clouded plains. He it is whom, when at length he enters the Pythian shrine, Phoebus in his house, rich in gold, will one day admonish in his oracle Illb

55 to lead many men in ships to the rich precinct o f the son o f Cronus by the Nile.” So spoke the rows o f Medea’s words, and crouching motionless the godlike heroes listened in silence to her shrewd coun­ sel, O fortunate son o f Polymnestus, you it was whom in accordance with this speech 60 the oracle o f the Delphic Bee exalted with spontaneous cry, she who thrice bade you “Hail!” and revealed you to be the destined king o f Cyrene,

IIIc

when you were enquiring what satisfaction there would be from the gods for your ill-sounding voice. Indeed afterwards, even now, as at the height o f spring with its crimson flowers, eighth in the line o f these sons flourishes Arcesilaus, to whom Apollo and Pytho granted the glory o f victory in the chariot-race from the hands o f the Amphictyons. I shall give up to the Muses him and the all-golden fleece o f the ram. For, when the Minyans sailed in quest o f it, heaven-sent honours were planted for them.

65

IVa

70

75

What beginning o f the voyage awaited them? And what danger bound them fast with strong spikes of adamant? It was divinely ordained that Pelias would die through the noble sons o f Aeolus, either by their own hands or by their unyielding counsels. And there came to him an oracle chilling to his shrewd heart, one which was spoken beside the navel in the middle o f the fair-wooded Mother, that he should be on his close guard in every way against the man with a single sandal, when he comes down from the lofty steadings to the clearseen land o f famous Iolcus,

44

Translation o f Pythian I V

IVb

whether stranger or indeed citizen. And so in time he came, a man awe-inspiring with his twin spears. He had on clothing of two kinds, 80 the native dress of the Magnesians closely fitting his marvellous limbs, while round about he kept off the shivering rains with a leopard-skin. Nor had the splendid locks of his hair been cut off and lost, but poured down his whole back. Swiftly did he go straight on and took his stand, 85 as the crowd was thronging in the market-place, making trial of his undaunted purpose.

IYc

They did not recognize him. But, awed as they were, someone nevertheless said among other things: “Surely this is not Apollo, nor again is it Aphrodite’s lord either, he whose chariot is o f bronze. And they say that on gleaming Naxos Iphimedeia’s sons died, Otus and you, bold lord Ephialtes. 90 Then too Artemis’ swift missile, speeding from her unconquerable quiver, hunted down Tityus, so that a man might long to attain the loves that are in his power.”

Va

Such things did they utter in turn to one another. And upon his polished mule-cart came Pelias 95 in headlong haste. He was at once astounded as he cast an anxious glance at the single sandal, easily recognizable, on the right foot, but concealing the fear in his heart he accosted him: “Which country, stranger, do you declare to be your fatherland? And who o f the men born upon the earth sent you forth from her venerable womb? Without defiling it with detestable lies 100 tell me your race.”

Vb

Confidently he answered him thus with gentle words. “I think I bring proof o f Chiron’s teaching. For I come from his cave,

Translation o f Pythian I V

105

Vc

45

from Chariclo and Philyra, where the pure daughters o f the Centaur nurtured me. And having completed twenty years without committing a devious deed or uttering such a word to them I have come home to recover the ancient prerogative o f my father, now being exercised improperly, that royal prerogative which Zeus once be­ stowed upon the leader o f the people, Aeolus, and his sons.

For I hear that lawless Pelias, hearkening to his pale heart, stripped it by force from my parents, who had the original right. They, when I very first saw the light o f the day, fearing the violence o f the overbearing ruler, made dark mourning in the house, mingled with the wailing o f women, as though I had died. Then secretly they sent me away in purple swaddlingclothes, 115 imparting my journey to the night, and gave me to Cronus’ son, Chiron, to raise.

lio

Via

But now you know the main points o f my story; so come, dear fellow-citizens, point out to me clearly the house o f my fathers, masters o f white horses. For as Aeson’s son, born here, I come to no foreign land o f others. And the divine beast, when he used to speak to me, called me Iason.” 120 Thus he spoke. As he entered, his father’s eyes recognized him. And, behold, from his aged eyelids burst forth tears, for he rejoiced in his soul, as he saw his exceptional offspring, fairest o f men.

VIb 125

And to them came both his brothers at the news o f that man, Pheres from nearby, who left the fountain Hypereia, and Amythaon from Messene. And quickly Admetus and Melampus came, well-disposed, to their cousin. Amid the feast

46

Translation o f Pythian / K

130

Vic

135

V ila 140

145

V llb

Iason welcomed them with gentle words and, providing fitting hospitality, extended the good cheer to its full length as he, for five days and nights on end, reaped the holy flower o f good living. But on the sixth day, telling the whole story earnestly from the beginning, he imparted it to his kinsmen, and they assented. At once he started up from the couches along with them. And then they came to the hall of Pelias. Hastening inside they took their stand. When he heard them, he himself came forth to meet· them, the offspring of Tyro with the lovely locks. And Iason, letting gentle discourse flow with soft voice, laid a foundation of wise words: “Son o f Poseidon o f the Rock, the wits o f mortals are all too quick to approve o f crafty gain rather than right, though they are moving all the same toward a rough morning after, but you and I must chasten our passions with justice and thus weave the web o f our prosperity for the future. You know what I am going to tell. One dam was the mother of Cretheus and bold-contriving Salmoneus, and we, who in turn look upon the golden strength o f the sun, are sprung from them in the third generation. But the Fates stand aside, if any enmity comes upon relatives so as to hide their respect.

It is unfitting for us two to divide up the great prerogative o f our forefathers by bronze-piercing swords or by spears. For the flocks and tawny herds o f cattle I leave to you, and all the fields which you wrested 150 from my parents and now hold fattening your wealth, and it does not distress me that these supply your house in excess, but what does is the sceptre o f single rule and the throne upon which the son o f Cretheus once sat as he guided his judgments straight for his people of horsemen — release these without distress on both sides,

Translation o f Pythian I V

47

V ile

155 lest for us some worse ill should arise from them.” Thus he spoke, and Pelias too made his reply softly: “Such shall I be. But already the elderly portion o f my life is encompassing me, whereas your flower o f youth is just now swelling. You have the power to lay the wrath o f those beneath the earth. N ow Phrixus bids us 160 to go to the halls o f Aeètes to bring back his soul and to carry off the deep-fleeced hide o f the ram, by which he was once saved from the sea

Villa

and from the godless weapons o f his stepmother. This is what a wondrous dream says which came to me. And I have consulted the oracle at Castalia as to whether any quest is to be made, and it urges me to provide escort by ship as quickly as possible. 165 Accomplish this task o f your own will, and I swear that I will hand over to you sole rule and kingship. As the mighty pledge o f my oath let Zeus of our family be witness for us both.” They approved this arrangement and parted. But by that time Iason, on his own, was already

VIII b

PO setting messengers in motion to disclose everywhere that a voyage was under way. And soon there arrived Zeus Kronidas’ three sons, unwearying in battle, those o f round-eyed Alcmene and o f Leda, and two warriors, their hair piled high, offspring o f Ennosidas, with an awe-filled respect for their valour, from Pylos and from the promontory o f Taenarus, whose 175 noble fame found its fulfilment, that o f Euphemus and yours, Periclymenus, far extending in your might. And from Apollo came the lyrist, the father o f songs, renowned Orpheus.

Ville

And Hermes o f the golden wand sent his twin sons, bursting with youthful vigour, to toil unceasingly, the one Echion and the other Erytus. Quickly 180 came they who dwelt at the base o f Pangaeus. For the king o f the winds, their father Boreas, too was willing and with joyful heart all the more speedily urged on Zetes and Calais,

Translation o f Pythian I V

men both o f them, though their backs were undulating with purple wings. Hera it was who kindled in the demigods the all-persuasive sweet longing IXa

185 for the ship Argo, that none might be left behind, remaining by his mother’s side to coddle his span o f life without danger, but that even at the price of death each might find the fairest means o f realizing his own excellence together with others o f the same age as he. And when the flower o f the sailors came down to Iolcus, Iason counted them all and praised them. Then 190 the prophet Mopsus, carrying out for him divinations by means o f birds and holy lots, readily embarked the expedition. When they had suspended the anchors from the beak-head above,

IXb

the leader took in his hands a golden bowl and at the stern called upon the father o f the Uranidae, Zeus, whose spear is the thunderbolt, and 195 for the force o f the waves and for the winds to be swift moving, and for the nights and the paths of the sea and the days to be kindly, and for their home-coming to be favourable. And from the clouds he answered him with an auspicious peal o f thunder, while bright bolts o f lightning came bursting forth. The heroes recovered their breath 200 trusting in the signs o f the god. By telling them

IXc

o f his sweet hopes the observer o f portents summoned them to fall to the oars, and the rowing went out from under their swift hands insatiably. Then, sped on by the breezes o f the South Wind, they came to the mouth o f the Inhospitable Sea, where they established a hallowed precinct o f Poseidon, god o f the waters; 205 and there was at hand a reddish herd of Thracian bulls and, newly made out o f stones, an altar with a hollow surface. And, as they were hastening on into deep peril, they besought the lord o f ships.

Translation o f Pythian I V

49

Xa

that they might escape the irresistible movement of the rocks that run together. For both were alive and used to roll more swiftly 210 than the ranks o f the loud-roaring winds, but at last that voyage o f the demigods brought them their end. After that they came to the Phasis, where they pitted their might against the grim Colchians in the presence o f Aeétes himself. But the mistress o f the swiftest darts, Cyprogeneia, yoking the dappled wryneck, four-spoked, 215 to an indissoluble wheel,

Xb

brought for the first time the maddening bird from Olympus to men and thus taught the son of Aeson to be skilled in supplications and incantations, so that he might take away from Medea her awe-filled reverence for her parents, and that Hellas, passionately longed for, might with the whip o f Persuasion set her awhirl as she was ablaze in her heart. 220 And at once she revealed to him the outcome o f her father’s trials. Then she prepared with oil the sap o f cut roots as a remedy against harsh pain and gave it to him for anointing himself, and thus they agreed to enter in common a sweet union between themselves.

225

230

But when Aeètes had planted in their midst the adamantine plough and the oxen, which were breathing the flame o f blazing fire from their tawny jaws and kept stamping the ground with their brazen hoofs in turn, them did he bring and make come near to the yoke-strap by himself. And straight were the furrows he stretched as he drove them on up and down the ploughland, and six feet deep he clove the expanse o f earth. Then he spoke thus: “Let the king, the one who is in command o f the ship, finish this work for me and carry away for himself the imperishable couch.

50

Translation o f Pythian I V

XIa

the fleece dazzling with its golden fringe.” When he had spoken thus, Iason threw off his saffron robe, and trusting in god, set to work. Thanks to the instructions of his hospitable friend, skilled in all kinds of remedies, the fire did not daunt him, but after he had drawn out the plough and bound 235 the necks o f the oxen with a constraining harness, the powerful man, thrusting unceasingly the goad into their strong sides, finished off the allotted measure o f his toil. And Aeètes, astounded by his strength, cried out in anguish, inarticulate though it was.

X lb

Toward the mighty man his comrades 240 kept stretching out their hands and covering him with crowns o f leaves as they received him with kindly words. And at once Helios’ wondrous son told him where the sacrificial knife o f Phrixus had spread out the radiant pelt, but he was hoping that that labour at least he would not now accomplish. For it lay in a thicket and was hard by the very greedy jaws o f a serpent, 245 which exceeded in thickness and length a ship o f fifty oar, wrought by the blows of iron.

XIc

Too far is it for me to go back along the carriageway: for time is pressing, and I know a short cut. For many others I lead the way in skill. He slew by craft the green-eyed snake with its dappled back, 250 O Arcesilaus, and stole away Medea with her own help, the killer o f Pelias, and they came amidst the stretches o f Ocean, and the red sea, and the race of Lemnian women, slayers of men. There it was in the contests o f limbs they displayed their strength for the sake of a garment,

X lla

and went to bed with them. Then in foreign 255 furrows did the destined days or nights prosperously receive the seed o f your splendour.

Translation o f Pythian I V

260

X llb

265

XIIc

270

275

X llla

280

51

For there the race o f Euphemus was planted and arose for the rest of eternity. And after sharing in the homes and ways o f the men o f Lacedaemon they in time settled on the island once called “Fairest”. From there Leto’s son granted you the plain o f Libya to make rich through the favours o f the gods, and the divine city o f golden-throned Cyrene to govern, you who have found out right-advising counsel. Know now the wisdom o f Oedipus. If someone were to tear away with a sharp-cutting axe the branches o f a mighty oak and disfigure its marvellous shape, even though it be barren o f fruit, it gives account o f itself, if ever it comes at last to a wintry fire or if, supported by the upright columns o f a master, it engages in wretched toil within other city-walls, after leaving its own place empty. But you are a most fitting physician, and thus does Paean bestow as an honour on you the light o f deliverance. One must apply a gentle hand in tending an ulcerous wound. It is easy to shake a city, even for those who are weak, but to set it in place again is a hard struggle indeed, unless suddenly a god becomes a steersman for its leaders. But for you the web o f this favour is being woven out. Have the courage to devote your whole zeal to Cyrene, the divinely blessed. O f the sayings of Homer take this one to heart too and give heed to it. He said that a noble messenger brought the highest honour to every undertaking. Even the Muse is strengthened by truthful reporting. Cyrene and the most renowned hall o f Battus have recognized that Demophilus’ heart is just. For that man, a youth among boys but in counsels an elder who has attained the life of a hundred years, deprives an evil tongue o f its clear voice and has learned to hate one who acts with violence,

Translation o f Pythian I V

XHIb

285 not striving against the noble nor prolonging the accomplishment of any action. For opportunity from the human point of view has a brief span. Well does he know it. He follows it as an attendant, not as a drudge. But they say that what is most painful is for a man to recognize the good but to be constrained to keep out o f its bounds. And indeed that man like Atlas 290 is wrestling against the sky even now away from his fatherland and from his possessions (yet imperishable Zeus released the Titans, and with time, when the wind has died down,

XIIIc

the sails change), but he prays that, when he has endured this accursed affliction to the end, he may one day see his home and engage in drinkingparties at Apollo’s fountain 295 often giving over his heart to youthful joy and clasping the richly ornamented lyre amid his fellow-citizens skilled in song attain peace, neither doing harm to anyone and himself not suffering it from his countrymen. And he would tell, Arcesilaus, o f what a well-spring o f immortal verse he found when o f late he was a guest at Thebes.

COMMENTARY

Title It is unlikely that Pindar used any formal title to designate individual odes. When it was necessary to refer to a particular poem, it could be identified by its opening words. This is the way in which Plato identifies Pindar’s famous poem on Heracles’ stealing of the cattle from Geryones (fr. 169a): Πίνδαρος ... έν τφ ασματι έν φ λέγει οτι — νόμος ό πάντων βασιλεύς / θνατών τε καί άθανάτων- / οδτος δέ δή, φησίν, — άγει δίκαιων τό βιαιότατον / ... (Grg. 484b). Cf. also the way he quotes Simonides’ poem addressed to Scopas (P M G 542) in Prt. 339a—346d. In both cases the beginning is given to identify the work, which is then discussed. Normally both author and reader relied on memory to identify a passage o f any given work, so that it was not usually felt necessary to designate it more precisely. After the individual poems of Pindar had been collected and, more importantly, arranged in seventeen books by Aristophanes o f Byzantium (cf. Sch. vet. in Find. carm. i, 3, 6 - 9 [Vita Ambr.], 6, 3 - 5 [Vita Thom.], 7, 1 4 - 1 5 [Hypoth. Ol.] D., and V. Irigoin, Histoire du texte, 35 —50, Bowra, Pindar, 159 —60, and esp. Pfeiffer, Hist, of Class. Scholarship [1968], 183 —84), it became possible to refer at least to the individual book in which a particular passage occurs. (The epinikia had probably already been grouped by Callimachus according to the place o f the contest; v. Pfeiffer, op. cit., 130.) Thus we find Athenaeus sometimes quoting Pindar in this way; cf. 14, 641c Πίνδαρος έν Όλυμπιονίκαις περί τής Πέλοπος κρεουργίας διηγούμενος (I 50)· τραπέζαισι δ’ άμφί δεύτερα κρεών / σέθεν διεδάσαντο καί φάγον. Within an individual book each epinician ode was apparently given a title in the form o f the name o f the victor and the event in which he won but very probably not a number. This is the practice for the epinicians as reflected in the large Bacchylides papyrus (A), where the titles (which also include a reference to the festival) have normally been supplied in the left-hand margin by the correctors. It seems therefore a reasonable inference that the titles o f the Pindaric odes which have been transmitted in the medieval manuscripts ultimately go back to an ancient text, which in turn may well reflect the work o f the Alexandrian scholar who classified the poems in the first instance. Cf. further A. E. Harvey, CQ, n. s. 5 (1955) 157 —75. For a discussion of the evidence relating to titles which is found in the ancient grammarians v. Th. Bergk, P L G A (proli. IV) i, 22 —25. A convenient synopsis o f the manuscript evidence for the titles o f all the odes is given by Otto

1 —12. Exordium

Schroeder, ed. mai. (proli. IV), 55 —75. A more recent discussion o f the general problem will be found in E. Nachmanson, Der griech. Buchtitel, Göteborg, 1941, esp. 36 —49, and E. Schmalzriedt, Περί φύσεως. Zur Frühgeschichte der Buchtitel, München, 1970, 26, n. 10. The classification o f this ode as one celebrating a chariot victory of Arcesilaus in the Pythian Games is formally justified by the single reference to it in 66 —67 and by the allusion to it in 2 —3 (cf. also 7 and 17—18). Nevertheless it clearly occupies an anomalous position in the collection of epinician odes as the writer of the sch. la remarks: τάττεται ή φδή εις τούς έπινίκους, μεϊζόν τι ή κατά έπίνικον ούσα διά τό μεμηκύνθαι καί πραγμάτων εχειν άφήγησιν έντοπίων, το δέ άνωτάτω καταλλαγήν φυγάδος Δαμοφίλου τινός. It would be wrong, however, to go so far as Schmid-Stählin, Gesch. I, i, 569, who maintain that it is “kein Siegeslied, da sie des Sieges gar nicht gedenkt”, on which v. Thummer, Is. i, 43, n. 19. 1—12. Exordium Pindar, the master of the impressive prooemium (cf., e. g., 01. 6, 7, Py. 1, and v. Thummer ad Is. 1. 1), does not attempt to provide an elaborate opening proportional to the narrative which follows. Instead, in keeping with the epic character o f the story to be told he plunges at once in medias res. A short invocation to the Muse (1 —3) provides a statement o f the occasion for the ode. We are led immediately by means o f an introductory relative (ένθα 4) to the oracle once given to Battus (4 —8), which serves as the central link between the narration of the Argonautic expedition and the reigning Battiad king o f Cyrene whose claim to sovereignty rests in part on some o f the events told in that narrative. The importance o f the oracle is further emphasized by a return to it in 53 —56, which close the “ring” at the end o f Medea’s speech, and also by the direct address to Battus, the son o f Polymnestus, in 59 —63, which divides the two parts of the Argonautic myth. With the historical oracle (cf. Hdt. 4. 150 ff.) mentioned in 4 —8 Pindar goes on to link paratactically (καί 9) the mythical speech supposed to have been delivered by Medea at Thera, the future starting-point o f the Cyrenaean colonization. In it (13 —56) she singles out one o f the Argonauts, who will prove to be an ancestor of Battus (and ultimately o f Arcesilaus), in order to tell how he received the original right to sovereignty over Libya. Her speech is briefly introduced in 9 —12, which close the formal opening o f the ode. What follows is already the Argonautic narrative. It is necessary to emphasize this point, since some commentators, e. g. Illig, Form, 81, and Burton, Pyth., 150, regard 1—67 (or 69) as a proem to the main story (but v. Dornseiff, Mythenerz·,

57 51, and cf. ad 13 —56). Such an interpretation has the unfortunate result o f obscuring the relevance of the Argonautic story as a whole to the concrete situation which provided the real motive for the composition of the ode. Moreover, the story of the Golden Fleece would then be merely decorative. Once, however, we have recognized that there is only one myth in the Fourth Pythian, we can see why the poet has arranged the two parts as he has. Although the part which comes first (13 —56) is actually second in the temporal sequence, Pindar has clearly placed it first because it is more important for the claim o f the Battiads to kingship in Cyrene. Once their ancestor Euphemus has been singled out for special attention then the main story o f the Argonautic adventure can begin. While the principal part o f the myth (70 —262) has doubtless high value as entertainment, it is certainly more than merely decorative. Euphemus, though now no longer exclusively emphasized, takes an honourable place not only among the Argonauts in general, but also in particular among the sons o f gods (175), who alone are mentioned by name in the catalogue o f participants in the expedition (171—83). Toward the end o f the narrative Euphemus appears once more (256) in the context o f the Lemnian episode as ancestor o f the Cyrenaean royal family. Thus the longer part o f the myth (70—262), which derives its relevance to the ode as a whole from the importance assigned to a single Argonaut in the first part, has the function ultimately o f contri­ buting to the greater glory o f Arcesilaus (and at the same time o f stressing his divine right to the throne) through the celebration o f his illustrious and heroic ancestor Euphemus. (The myth o f the Argonaut Euphemus is in fact a typical “charter myth”; cf. G. S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient and other Cultures, Cambridge, 1970, 20—21.) The political situation in Cyrene at the time required some massive buttressing up o f royal authority (cf. Chamoux, Cyrène, 202 —9). An attempt to contribute toward this, however transitory it may have proved in the end (Arcesilaus was eventually murdered and Battiad rule brought to an end; cf. sch. Py. 4, Inscr. b, and for the date, ca. 440, i. e. more than twenty years after our ode, v. Chamoux, Cyrène, 209), far more than the ostensible occasion o f a chariot victory or even the recall o f Demophilus (cf. ad 263 —99), was the real reason why Pindar was induced to write the Fourth Pythian. On the importance o f the political background o f the ode cf. G. Méautis, Pindare le Dorten, Neuchàtel, 1962, 216 —51, and esp. 226 on the legitimacy and continuity of the power o f Arcesilaus as the major theme o f Py. 4 and 5. 1 —3. Invocation of the Muse. Only in one other ode {Ne. 3) does Pindar begin by invoking a single Muse alone. In Ne. 9 he addresses his command to the Muses and in Ol. 10 to a single Muse together

with Aletheia. Bacchylides calls upon the Muses at the beginning o f 1 and Cleto by name at the beginning o f 3 and 12 but not a single unnamed Muse in any o f the extant epinicians (cf. fr. 65. a. 12? “dub.”). Both poets prefer more often to summon a divinity or quasi-divine abstraction; cf., e. g., 01. 4 (Zeus), 8 (Olympia), 12 (Tyche), 14 (Charites), Py. 8 (Hesychia), 11 (the daughters o f Cadmus), 12 (Acragas), Ne. 7 (Eleithyia), 8 (Hora), 10 (Charites), 11 (Hestia), Is. 1 (Thebe), 5 (Theia), 7 (Thebe), B. 2 (Pheme), 9 (Charites), 10 (Pheme), 11 (Nike). Although there is obviously a cletic element in the invocation of a Muse just as there is in that of any other divinity, the summoning of the Muse places an ode more firmly in the epic tradition whereas the invocation o f another divinity (even if it is asked to perform the same encomiastic function) points rather to the traditional hymn. Pindar is in fact drawing on elements from both traditions in composing the prooemia to his odes. In Py. 4 it is the epic element which is, appropri­ ately enough, predominant. The Iliad, Odyssey, and Thebaid all (cf. also Stesich. P M G 193 [2 x ], 210, 240) began with a command to a single Muse (or unnamed goddess) to tell the story which follows (but cf. the beginning o f the Epigoni addressed to the Muses as a group), and it is clearly this type o f opening which Pindar is consciously adopting here. Then instead o f stating the subject o f his narrative, as is usual in both epics and hymns (cf. Richardson ad h. Cer. 1 —3. Proem), the poet mentions the occasion for which the ode is being performed. This is a natural adaptation o f an epic and hymnic convention to the needs of another genre. On the influence o f the hymn on the initial invocation in the epinician ode v. Herbert Meyer, Hymnische Stilelemente, 54—64. On the exordium o f Py. 4 v. Meyer, 62, n. 58. 1 (a). Σάμερον: common in Homer (10 x + h. Merc. 371, 466) and twice elsewhere in Pindar {01. 6. 28, Py. 12. 29), but otherwise avoided in early Greek poetry. In Attic τήμερον was clearly colloquial, which may account for absence o f any form o f the word in tragedy except at E.(?) Rh. 683 (E. fr. 698. 1 N. is corrupt). Pindar o f course formulates his odes in advance with a view to the dramatic time at which they will be performed; cf., e. g., 01. 6. 28 δει σάμερον έλθεΐν έν ώρμ, and v. Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad 9. 73, Burton, Pyth., 53—54, and W. J. Slater, CQ, n.s. 19 (1969), 88. 1 (b). μέν: not uncommon at the beginning o f a work without an antithesis being expressed or implied; cf. besides here A. Pers., A.(?) Pr., S. A j., Tr., E. Hel. Such cases should be distinguished from those in which an answering δέ is more or less clearly implied but then quietly forgotten after a long intervening sentence; cf. A. Ag. 1 (v. Fraenkel ad loc.), S. Ph. 1, E. Hipp. 1 (v. Barrett ad loc.). Elsewhere Pindar like

1 —3. Invocation o f the Muse

59

Bacchylides normally has an answering particle whenever an ode begins with μέν. On the inceptive use o f the so-called μέν solitarium v. further Denniston, C P , 382—84, whose suggestion, however, that this use may arise from a wish “to mitigate the harshness o f the inevitable asyndeton” is unacceptable. Since the opening o f a work could not be connected with anything before, it makes no sense to speak o f asyndeton in such a case. Here μέν emphasizes σήμερον, though it need not {pace Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc. and Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 387, n. 3) imply a contrast with past festivities. There is in fact no evidence either in the odes themselves or indeed elsewhere to show in what order Py. 4 and 5 were performed. 1 (c). χρή: Pindar often speaks o f his encomiastic function in terms of necessity or obligation (the two notions are often not clearly distin­ guished in early Greek; v. Redard, Recberches sur χρή, χρήσθαι, esp. 53 —62). For such statements (1) at the beginning o f an ode cf. 01. 6. 4, Is. 3/4. 7 —8, (2) elsewhere cf. 01. 1. 103, 6. 27, 8. 74, etc., as well as B. 5. 187 (probably), 14. 20. On a variation o f the same χρέος-motif at Py. 4. 67 v. ad loc. (b) below. On the so-called “Verpflichtungsge­ danke” v. further Schadewaldt, Aufbau, 277—81, and cf. Bundy, Studia, 57—63. The obligation is commonly alleged by the poet to arise from the merit o f the victor (cf. Bundy, 10—11) or else from the performance of great deeds, the fame o f which can only be adequately perpetuated by the poet (cf. H. Lloyd-Jones, J H S 93 [1973], 129). The real obligation is of course the one entailed by the commission, or, as Gildersleeve, Odes, 278, remarks: “ ‘Urgent request’ means in Pindar’s case a lordly recompense”. (For Pindar’s attitude to the financial side o f his commis­ sions cf. esp. Py. 11. 41 —44, Is. 2. 1 —11, and v. L. Woodbury, T A P h A 99 [1968], 5 2 7 -4 2 .) 1 (d ). σε: J. Wackernagel, Kl. Sehr., 1 —104, observed (following Bergaigne and Delbrück) that the enclitic forms o f the personal pronoun show a marked tendency to occupy the second position in a sentence or clause; cf. 61 α σε, 111 τοί μ’, 287 εύ νιν. Often, however, it is postponed as here; cf. also 43, 79, 98, 103, 109, 119, 157, 164. In such cases metrical or stylistic factors seem to influence the position. For one approach to this complex subject v. Ed. Fraenkel, Kl. Beitr. i, 7 3 -139. 1—2. παρ’ άνδρί φίλω / στάμεν: cf. Ol. 3. 4 Μοΐσα δ’ οϋτω ποι παρέστα μοι. Greek παρά c. dat. used with ΐστημι (and esp. the com­ pound παρίστημι), like English “to stand by” or “beside (someone)” (cf. Latin “adsistere”), can imply help as well as presence, even when (as here) it is not specially emphasized; cf. also B. 11. 5. For the preposition used in a similar context without ΐστημι cf. Py. 1. 58 —59

1 —12. Exordium

Μοΐσα, καί πάρ Δεινομένει κελαδήσαι / πίθεό μοι ποινάν τεθρίππων. (To ask a Muse to stand beside someone is not very different from summoning her with δεύρο or a similar expression. On this latter as primarily a lyric rather than an epic convention v. West ad Hes. Op. 2.) A. R. 3. 1 —3 Εί δ’ άγε νΰν, Ερατώ, παρά θ’ (recte, pace Η. Fränkel) ϊστασο καί μον ένισπε, / ενθεν δπως ές Ίωλκόν άνήγαγε κώας Ίήσων / Μηδείης ύπ’ έρωτι may well have been influenced by the opening of Pj. 4. On the influence of our ode on Apollonius, which has been denied, e. g., by Farnell, Comm., 148, v. ad 244 (c). 1 (e). άνδρί φίλω: implies nothing regarding the intimacy o f Pindar with the king. The poet often refers to a victor as a friend; cf., e. g., Pj. 1. 92 (addressed to Hieron, not Deinomenes; v. A. Köhnken, Hermes 98 [1970], 1 —13), 3. 69, Ne. 3. 76, 7. 62, Is. 2. 48 (addressed in fact to Thrasybulus on the occasion o f his father’s victory), 6.18. For Bacchylides cf. 5. 11, 12. 5. A. Kambylis, “Anredeformen”, 159, remarks that Pindar in addressing someone as φίλος “gibt damit sein freundschaftliches Verhältnis zu diesem kund”. This is correct if we allow that for Pindar such a relationship need mean no more than that he has received a commission from the person concerned; cf. ad 1 (c). On the other hand, the adjective in the phrase φίλος άνήρ is not used here simply as a reflexive possessive pronoun (as at 239, cf. ad loc. [d]) as claimed by Landfester, D as griecb. Nomen “philos”, 45 —48 (of his exx. in 46, n. 10 only Py. 12. 18 is certain). 2 (a), στάμεν: the Doric form o f this infinitive (cf. ad 34 [a]) is attested only here; cf., however, Snell-Maehler on the dubious fr. 358. On the use o f other Doric forms o f the aor. 2 o f this verb v. Lautensach, Aoriste, 6. 2 (b). εύίππου: found in Homer only as a proper name (II. 16. 417; cf. [Hes.] fr. 70. 10 M.-W.) and first attested as an adjective at h. A p. 210 (cf. [Hes.] fr. 150. 21 M.-W.); cf. also the analogous εΰπωλος (Horn. 5 x ) as well as πολύϊππος (li. 13. 171). On the development o f -ίππος compounds in Homer v. Risch, Wortbildung, § 68a. Although our adjec­ tive is first attested in Greek comparatively late as such, on the basis o f Vedic and Avestan parallels Rüdiger Schmitt, Dichtung und Dichter­ sprache, 242 —43, would like to claim ευιππος as an epithet o f IndoEuropean poetic language. On the use o f ευιππος and similar laudatory epithets connected with horses v. Kienzle, Lobpreis, 47 —48. The epithet like εύάρματος in v. 7 (neither ornamental, since the ode formally celebrates a chariot victory; cf. 66 —67 and on the title) is particularly appropriate for Cyrene, since Libya was famous for its horses (and chariots) in antiquity; cf. Hdt. 4. 189. 3, S. E l. 701—2, 727, Alex. 239 Ko. (C A F ii, 384), Call. fr. 716. 2 Pf. (recalls present passage), Str. 17.

1—3. Invocation o f the Muse

61

3. 21, D. P. 213, Paus. 6. 12. 7 as well as Py. 9. 4 διωξίππου ... Κυράνας. This reputation is also reflected on the early coins o f Cyrene; cf. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, pi. 198, and v. B M C Cyrenaica, esp. lxxix-lxxx, 136 (s. v. “horse” and “horseman”) as well as ad 17 (a) below. On the place o f the horse in Cyrenaean society and economy v. Chamoux, Cyrène, 234—37. 2 (c). βασιλήϊ Κυράνας: the gen. o f place with βασιλεύς is used {pace Gildersleeve ad Py. 1. 60) instead o f a gen. o f the people without any apparent difference in nuance or meaning; cf., e. g., 01. 10. 35 Έπειών β. with Py. 1. 60 Αίτνας β. and Ne. 8. 7 Οίνώνας β. So too already II. 7. 180 ( = 11. 46) β. ... Μυκήνης; cf. further Ar. Av. 504, and esp. Th. 2. 95. 1 Σιτάλκης ... Θρακών βασιλεύς έστράτευσεν έπί Περδίκκαν ... Μακεδονίας βασιλέα (that the choice o f expression is a matter o f variatio is confirmed by the use shortly thereafter of the phrase έπί βασιλείς τών Μακεδόνων). The first syllable o f Κυράνα is always short in Pindar (as already at [Hes.] fr. 215. 2 M.-W.). For its long scansion (first in Aristophanes) v. Fr. Williams ad Call. A p . 73. 2 (d). δφρα: cf. ad 2 1 7 -1 8 (b). 2 (e). κωμάζοντι: neither κώμος nor κωμάζειν occurs in Homer (κώμος at h. Merc. 481), but cf. είλαπινάζειν {II. 14. 241, Od. 2. 57, 17. 410, 536), the denominative o f είλαπίνη, which probably served as the model for a small group o f later verbs in -άζειν meaning “to celebrate a feast”: έορτάζειν, θοινάζειν, θυρσάζειν, and κωμάζειν (v. Debrunner, GW, § 246). A κώμος was normally accompanied by a flute (cf. Thgn. 1065, but cf. also h. Merc. 481) and could be either a stationary celebra­ tion or a procession moving from one place to another (cf. [Hes.] Sc. 281—84, where we need not assume with Fr. Solmsen that 281 and 283 are both interpolated). Here the verb is used intransitively and (unlike 01. 9. 4 and Ne. 9. 1, where the context implies a procession) without implication o f movement; cf. Py. 9. 89, Is. 3/4. 8, 7. 20 —21. On the κώμος v. besides Headlam ad Herod. 2. 34—37, Greifenhagen, Komos, esp. 35 —37, 97, n. 67. (Bundy, Studia, 22—23, discusses the relation of κώμος to ύμνος as though they were two separate elements in a victory celebration and asserts that song regularly “caps” the revelry. Song, however, was an essential part o f any κώμος, so that it is highly artificial to speak o f the revelry as a “foil” for song. Pindar as a supplier o f the song part o f the revelry naturally stresses it, so much so that he sometimes uses κώμος to mean the ύμνος sung in a revel as, e. g., at Ne. 3. 4 —5 μελιγαρύων τέκτονες j κώμων νεανίαι.) 2 (f). συν: the use o f σύν c. dat. to express association and accompani­ ment is still far more common in Pindar (for Py. 4 cf. ad 39 [c]) than

that o f μετά c. gen. (only 6 x ), which tends gradually to replace it in later Greek; cf. besides Schwyzer ii, 481—85, 487 —90, and Wackernagel, Syntax ii, 154, 242—43, esp. Tycho Mommsen, Präpositionen, 1—24, 569 —78 (on Pindar). The instances o f μετά c. gen. in Pindar are, however, clearly too few to serve as a possible chronological criterion as Fogelmark, Studies, 133 —35, would like. 2 (g). Άρκεσίλμ: Pindar sometimes prefers to use a second noun instead o f a pronoun referring back to a substantive just mentioned (here βασιλήϊ Κυράνας); cf. Py. 5. 102 —3 υΐφ ... / ... Άρκεσίλα, and V . Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad 2. 66 —71. The effect is to give greater, precision and to identify more exactly a noun which was referred to at first in a more general way. Behind this lies a convention o f early Greek poetry by which a person or place is mentioned first by a periphrasis and then only later identified by a more familiar name; cf. II. 1. 307 Μενοιτιάδης (but Patroclus only at 337), Py. 4. 6 —7 ίεράν j νάσον (identified as Thera in 10), 8. 39 Όϊκλέος παϊς (56 Άμφιάρηος), Ne. 8. 7 Οίνώνας βασιλεύς (identified as Aeacus in 13), B. 3. 24 Λυδίας άρχαγέταν (28 Κροΐσον), 5. 70 Πορθανίδα (77 Μελεάγρου). By placing the name o f the Cyrenaean king both here at the end o f the second verse from the beginning and again at the end o f the second verse before the conclusion o f the ode (298) as well as at the opening (65) and the close (250) o f the Colchian narrative, Pindar makes it serve as a frame not only for the whole ode but also for the central episode within it and thus gives it special prominence. On this archaic technique (ring-composition), which is extensively employed in Py. 4, v. ad 3 4 -3 7 . 3 (a). Μοϊσα: whereas Bacchylides seems consistently to use the Attic-Ionic form (5. 4 Μοισάν is presumably a slip and should probably be treated as such, while fr. 55. 2 is o f doubtful authenticity), Pindar prefers (or was thought by his Alexandrian editors to have preferred) the Aeolic form, which had established itself very early in choral lyric (cf. Eumel., P M G 696. 1); v. Nöthiger, Sprache, 93, and Verdier, Les éolismes, 21—33, 124—27. On Pindar’s invocation of the Muse v. ad 1 —3, and cf. A. Kambylis, “Anredeformen”, 110, 122, 153 —54. 3 (b). Λατοίδαισιν: this metronymic (normally singular, o f Apollo) appears predominantly in the Homeric hymn to Hermes (7 x ) and in Pindar (7 x , plus 2 or 3 probable). N o instance in Homer and the other Homeric hymns; one in the Hesiodic Scutum and one (of Asclepius) in the Catalogus·, one in each o f Theognis, Aleman, Alcaeus, “Simonides”, Bacchylides, Corinna; then one in Aristophanes. The plural here in­ cludes Artemis explicitly and Leto implicitly, i. e. the triad who presided over the games at Delphi; cf. Ne. 9. 4 —5 ματέρι καί διδύμοις παίδεσσιν

1 —3. Invocation o f the Muse

63

... / Πυθώνος αίπεινάς όμοκλάροις έπόπταις, and Ne. 6. 36 —37 άδών j £ρνεσι Λατοΰς, where a victory in the Pythian Games is referred to in an indirect way as here. At Delphi the amphictyonic oath was sworn to Pythian Apollo, Leto, and Artemis; cf. IG II2 1126 ( = Schwyzer, Dial. 325 = Sokolowski, L S C G 78). 8. On the triad elsewhere v. Wide, Lakonische Kulte, 96. 3 (c). όφειλόμενον: in an ode celebrating a victory praise is naturally due to the gods in whose honour (and their cult-seat at which) the games are held. Moreover, divinities are considered to be in some way ultimately responsible for success at the games over which they preside; cf. 01. 8. 17 Άλκιμέδοντα δέ πάρ Κρόνου λόφφ / θήκεν (se. Zeus) Όλυμπιονίκαν, and Pj. 10. 10—11, and v. Bowra, Pindar, 173 —76. On the “Verpflichtungsgedanke” here v. Schadewaldt, Aufbau, 278, n. 1. 3 (d). Πυθώνι: Pindar, like Homer and other early Greek poets (cf. S. Lauffer, “Pytho”, R E xxiv, 569 —71; Pindar, 570, 53 —571, 11), uses forms o f Πυθώ (original) and Πυθών (secondary) interchangeably to refer to the place (Πόθων as the name o f the snake appears comparatively late; probably first in Ephorus, so Allen-Halliday-Sikes ad h. A p. 300 —74, p. 246, but v. J. Fontenrose, Python·. A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins, Berkeley, 1959, 15, n. 5). He shows a marked preference for the secondary -ώνος, etc., but employs the original declension in nom. and voc. (for neither of which -ών is exemplified), in loc. Πυθοϊ (never with adj. or prep.), and in Πυθώθεν. A few other names o f places (and persons) imply the variation -ώ and -ών (cf. Schwyzer i, 479), e. g., Σαρδώ, -οΰς and Σαρδών (Hdn. Gr. i, 25, 4 L. is uncertain, but cf. St. Byz., s.v. Σαρδώ) but -όνος, Γοργώ, -οΰς and Γοργών but again -όνος. (The use o f the secondary v-forms in the declension o f feminines in -ώ probably arose from a desire to mark the case distinctions more sharply; v. Frei Lüthy, Personennamen, 73 —74.) The mention o f Πυθώνι here serves both to identify the place where the victory was won and also to provide the setting for the myth which follows; on its function as the antecedent o f the relative adverb which introduces the mythical narration v. ad 4 (a). For the linking o f a place with a divinity cf. 66 ’Απόλλων ä τε Πυθώ, Ne. 4. 9 Κρονίδμ τε Ai καί Νεμέμ. 3 (e), αυξης: first attested at Hes. Th. 493 and then regularly used thereafter beside the Homeric form άέξω ( < *ά/τέξω). In addition to these two Pindar, like Aeschylus and Euripides, uses the expanded form αύξάνω (first attested in the 5th cent.). On the alternative forms v. Kujore, Greek Polymorphic Presents, 194, 204, 275 —76. On Pindar’s use of metrically convenient alternatives v. Appendix. Cf. also ad 279 (a) for the literal use o f this verb.

1 —12. Exordium

3 (f). ούρον ύμνων: cf. Ne. 6. 28 —29 εϋθυν’ έπί τούτον, αγε, Μοΐσα, / οδρον έπέων / εύκλέα. A. Ch. 821—22 (lyr.) ούριοστάταν (“iure suspec­ tum” Page, but cf. now P. Oxy. 39, 2881 [b]. 6 ούριοστάτης) / . . . νόμον, has also been compared, e. g., by Groeneboom ad loc., but the exact sense o f the whole passage there remains uncertain because of the formidable textual difficulties (for a possible interpretation v. van Nes, Bildersprache, 10—11, 29). In the first instance the “breeze” refers both here and at Ne. 6. 28b to the physical act o f singing. Secondarily, however, an implication o f favour is present in the use o f ούρος in both instances; cf. sch. Ne. 6. 48b ... τήν ούριότητα των ποιημάτων άγε. In other words, the “breeze of song” is a favouring one (οΰριος) which accompanies the victor in his celebration; cf. H. Frankel, Dicht, und Philos., 497, n. 3, and Bowra, Pindar, 11. (Péron, Les images, 181, finds in the image o f the breeze a reference to the inspiration of the Muse, but this is only by implication and hardly the main point here.) The image is also appropriate here in the prooemium o f an ode which will narrate the voyage of the Argonauts; cf. further ad 299 (a). On Pindar’s use o f ούρος cf. further ad 292 (c). 4 —8. The Oracle given to Battus. A victory at Delphi in the Pythian Games by the Battiad king o f Cyrene leads logically enough to a mention of the famous oracle once given at the same place to the eponymous ancestor o f the royal family. Both the victory and the oracle are examples o f the divine favour which has attended the family from the time o f its remote ancestor Euphemus. The political importance of this divine approval is repeatedly implied and stressed in what follows. On the function o f the oracle as a link between the mythical and historical parts v. ad 1 —12. 4 (a), ένθα ποτέ: it is a traditional device of early Greek poetry, once the subject has been stated, to introduce a narrative by means o f a relative clause; for epic cf. II. 1. 2, Od. 1.1 , Hes. Th. 2 (v. West ad loc.), Op. 3, [Hes.], fr. 1 {Catal.). 3 M ,W , Sc. 57, II. Parv. fr. 1.2, Thebais, fr. 1. Hymns and prayers to deities often employ this technique as well, esp. to introduce their places o f cult, list their powers, and tell legends connected with their birth; cf. h. Cer. 2 (v. Richardson ad 1 —3), h. A p . 2, h. Ven. 2, h. Horn. 6. 2, Ale. 34 (a). 5, 308 (b). 2, 325. 2 L.-R, and v. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 168 —76. Pindar frequently uses this device to introduce a mythical narration. Most commonly it takes the form o f a relative pronoun, either with or without ποτέ; so, in Olympians and Pythians (ποτέ at *), 01. 1. 25, 3. 13*, 6. 29, 8. 31, 9. 70, 10. 24, 13. 63, Py. 9. 5*, 80, 10. 31*, 11. 17, 12. 6* {Py. 4. 10*, 20*, 6. 30 may be added, though their antecedents could arguably be regarded as

4 —8. The Oracle given to Battus

65

introducing the narrative [Barrett privatim]). For further instances v. des Places, Pronom, 48 —50 (whose list, however, is not complete; cf. Köhnken, Funktion, 132 —33). Pindar also employs ένθα (on which cf. Monteil, La phrase relative, 385) and other relative adverbs and correla­ tives in the same way (cf. already Thebais, fr. 1 ένθεν); cf. Ol. 2. 70 (ένθα), 7. 34 (ένθα ποτέ), 9. 42 (iV), Pj>. 3. 5 (οίος ... ποτέ; the myth already begins here and not at 8 τόν, as des Places, op. cit., 48 suggests), 5. 74 (δθεν), Ne. 8. 6 (olot), D i. 2. 27 (ένθα ποθ’), fr. dub. 333. a. 9 (ένθα ποτέ. [, i. e. ένθα ποτέ, ut videtur), and v. Radt ad Pae. 6. 104, Bundy, Studia, 8, η. 27, and David C. Young, Three Odes, 3 with n. 4. Bacchylides makes much less use o f this traditional device in general; cf., however, 9. 40, 11. 40. 4 (b). χρυσέων Διάς αίετών: according to Str. 9. 3. 6 Pindar told elsewhere (cf. fr. 54) the story o f how two eagles were sent by Zeus, one from the West and the other from the East, to locate the centre of the earth. Their meeting at Delphi was marked by a white stone called the όμφαλός (cf. ad 74 [a] and Paus. 10. 16. 3 with note o f P. Levi [transl. 1971] ad loc., i, 446, n. 102). At some point two golden eagles were set up on either side o f the stone (cf. sch. 6, 7b), which are still represented on stone relief carvings o f the 4th cent. (cf. Levi ad loc.). However, they were allegedly carried off at the time o f the Sacred War (356 —346 B. C.) when the Phocians seized Delphi (cf. sch. 7b). Al­ though Strabo’s account would seem to imply that images o f some sort were mounted on the stone in his day, they were obviously no longer there when Pausanias visited the site over 150 years later. Toward the end of Antiquity Claudian retold the story in Panegyr. Theod., praef. (16). 11 —16 (v. Simon ad loc.). 4 (c). χρυσέων: χρυσός, and so properly χρόσεος, as always in Homer; χρόσεος (here and elsewhere, e. g. 144, 231) will have arisen from a misunderstanding, e. g. o f άργύρεον, χρϋσέοΐσΐν άορτήρεσσιν άρηρός {II. 11. 31) as χρϋσέοΐσΐν or o f the verse-ending, δώκε χρϋσεϊϊ ’Αφροδίτη {II. 22. 470) as χρϋσδη. (Siegfried Schmid, Stoffadjektive, 14—22, thinks that the analogical shortening was already adopted by Homer, but there is not a single passage in which we must read χρϋσε-.) The analogical shortening seems to have become well established by the 5th cent.: ten times (instances listed by Slater, s. v. χρύσεος) in Pindar (χρϋσε- ca. 25 x ) , thrice (5. 174, 10. 6, 16. 2) in Bacchylides (χρϋσε- ca. 11 x including compounds), and also in tragic lyric (cf. S. Schmid, op. cit., 44 —45, and Page ad E. Med. 633 —34). In one place Pindar even allows an analogous χρύσός {Ne. 7. 78). 4 (d). αίετών: the second syllable constitutes the only short anceps at this point in the colon within the whole ode (on άνσπάσ(σ)αντες in

27 V. ad loc. [d]). The same phenomenon occurs in the use o f άργϊνόεντι in 8 (cf. ad loc. [a]) and o f αίσΐαν in 23; cf. also τυχόντος in 5. This is, however, in keeping with Pindar’s normal practice o f allowing a short anceps in dactyloepitrites only in the first triad or at a point in a later triad which corresponds to a short anceps in the first. There are in fact no exceptions to this rule in Py. 4, since Boeckh’s correction o f θέμεθλα to θεμέθλοις (180) is certain (cf. ad. loc. [a]) and the final syllable o f κραιπνόν (90) is a genuine brevis in longo, even though no hiatus occurs at this point in the verse which would confirm a period-end. The reading o f a single MS {a = Leid. B) αίητών, adopted by some editors (e. g. Fennell, Gildersleeve, Sandys) even after it was shown to be unnecessary by Tycho Mommsen ad loc., is obviously a late attempt to produce complete metrical responsion. On Pindar’s practice (first formulated by Boeckh i, 2, 282 and Kl. Sehr, v, 344, who did not, however, recognize it here) v. Höhl, Responsionsfreiheiten, 18 —21, and W. S. Barrett, Hermes 84 (1956), 248 —49. 4 (e ). πάρεδρος: first attested in Simonides (P M C 519, fr. 120. [b]. 5), in Bacchylides (11. 51), and in Pindar, who often uses it o f a person occupying a seat o f honour (cf. 01. 2. 76, 8. 22, Ne. 7. 1, Is. 7. 3). 5 (a), ούκ άποδάμου ’Α πόλλωνος τυχόντος: cf. Call. A p . 13 του Φοίβου ... έπιδημήσαντος (and also fr. 75. 26 Pf.), on which the sch. Ψ 1 (ii, 49 Pf.) observe: λέγεται δε των μαντευομένων θεών τα θεία καί έπιδημεΐν καί άποδημεΐν. καί όταν μεν έπιδημώσι, τάς μαντείας άληθεϊς είναι- δταν δέ άποδημώσι, ψευδείς (cf. also sch. Py. 4. 8). Since Apollo was known to have many cult centres (cf. Anan. 1 W.), e. g. Claros (,h. Horn. 9. 5), Delos {Py. 1. 39), and, more fancifully, among the Hyperboreans {Py. 10. 34—36), all o f which he would be presumed to visit from time to time (cf. Richardson ad h. Cer. 27 ff.), it could not be assumed that he would always be present to prompt the προφήτις. Originally oracles were delivered by the Pythia only on the seventh of Bysios (cf. Plu. Mor. 292 e —f), the Delphic spring month, which was celebrated both as Apollo’s birthday and as the day on which he was supposed to have returned from his winter sojourn among the Hyperboreans. Later they were allowed to be given on other days as well but not when the god was thought to be away; v. Wm. Schmidt, Geburtstag im Altertum, 86 —87, 90, and cf. Amandry, Pa mantique apollinienne, 81—85, Parke and Wormell, The Delphic Oracle i, 30. (The emphasizing o f the god’s presence does not imply [pace Halliday, The Greek Questions of Plutarch, 62, and Roux, Delphi, 72—73] that oracles were ever given when Apollo was supposed not to be present somehow to prompt the Pythia, but serves rather to provide a convenient excuse for those occasions on which the oracle did not prove correct.) For

4 —8. The Oracle given to Battus

6

'

gods being present in or absent from their own shrine cf. also Ar. Th. 40 —42 (anap.) έπιδημεϊ γάρ / θίασος Μουσών ένδον μελάθρων / των δεσποσυνών μελοποιών, IG IV2 122. 10 —13 (Epidaurus, ca. 320 Β. C.) ( = Schwyzer, Dial. 109. 10—13) ένεκάθευδε (sc. Aristagora) / έν Τροζ[άνι έν τώι] τοΰ Άσκλαπιοΰ τεμένει καί ένύπνιον είδε- έδόκει οί (ού lapis) j τούς υί[ούς του θ]εοΰ, οΰκ έπιδαμοΰντος αυτού άλλ’ έν Έπιδαύρωι έόντος, / τάγ κεφα[λάν άπο]ταμεΐν. 5 (b). ούκ άποδάμου: cf. Py. 10. 37 Μοΐσα δ’ ούκ άποδαμεΐ. For a recent discussion o f the form o f expression v. A. Köhnken, d o tta 54 (1976), 62 —67, who regards both examples as emphatic (“ ‘superlative’ Verwendung der Litotes”, p. 66). However, I see no difference between saying ούκ άποδαμεΐ and έπιδαμεϊ. It is in fact simpler to regard the first expression as a typical affirmation by denial, which involves no formal difference in meaning; on the “negative Ausdrucksweise” o f Pindar’s style cf. Herrn. Fränkel, Dicht, und Philos., 510, n. 18. 5 (c). άποδάμου: adj. first attested here as is the verb άποδαμέω at Py. 10. 37. Although an Homeric έπιδήμιος already existed, a new adj. έπίδημος was formed in the 5th cent., presumably on analogy with άπόδαμος, and regularly employed as its opposite, a function which the Homeric form was seldom made to assume. The final syllable of άποδάμου is here shortened by “epic” correption, which Pindar freely admits in all four possible places within the hemiepes (D, i. e. — Ò ώ — Ò Ó — ) in dactyloepitrites, but avoids elsewhere (very rare in d1 and d2 and totally absent from epitrites; cf. Maas, Greek Metre, § 129). For other examples o f epic correption in Py. 4 cf. 21, 33, 64, 87, 148, 164, 174, 194, 197, 254, 272, 273, 287, 293. (In this ode and elsewhere it is καί which Pindar most commonly shortens; for a list of the types o f words correpted in Pindar v. E. B. Clapp, UCPPh 1 [1904], 15 —17.) On epic correption cf. Schwyzer i, 400, and v. Sjölund, Kürzung, 43 —69. 5 (d ). τυχόντος: cf. Py. 3. 27 (of Apollo) έν ... μηλοδόκφ Πυθώνι τόσσαις, where τόσσαις (ν. ad 24—25 [c]) is a synonym o f τυχών. On the short anceps constituted by τυχόντος v. ad 4 (d). 5 (e ). ίέρεα: for the contraction ίε cf. Ol. 3. 30 (ίεράν), fr. 123. 11 (where Turyn’s ίεράν would be the consistent form rather than Bergk’s original correction ίράν, which is accepted by Snell-Maehler), fr. 189 (ίερόν), as well as B. 2. 2, where Snell-Maehler (v. also p. xxi) have restored the EPAN o f the papyrus as ί]εράν, and v. in general Otto Schroeder, ed. mai., 24—26. The contraction ίε in ίερ- (ίρ-) is also found at Sem. 7. 56, 24. 2, and possibly Anan. 1. 3 W. (cf. West, Studies, 84) as well as in the Lille “Stesichorus” 205 ίράν (v. P. J. Parsons, Z P E

1 —12. Exordium

26 [1977], 15). The Homerie form o f the word is ιέρειά (II. 6. 300, cf. also Thgn. 807), while Attic drama uses Ιερέα (cf. S. fr. 456 R., E. IT 34, 1399, Or. 261, Ba. 1114 [v. Dodds ad loc.], fr. 65. 97 Austin, Men. Dysc. 496 [v. Handley and Gomme-Sandbach ad loc.], Sic. 279). Both o f these forms are sparingly attested here, whereas ίέρεα is not only supported by most MSS, but is also explicitly prescribed by the sch. 9: ίέρεα: ή ιέρεια- καί ούτως τονισιέον- έστι γάρ κατά άποβολήν του ΐ. ου γάρ κατά ’Αττικούς ίερέα. On the several forms o f the word v. Wm. Schulze, Qu. ep., 488 —90. 6—7 (a), χρήσεν ... / ... ώς ... κτίσσειεν: the subordinate clause is final (rightly Ph. Weber, Absichtssätze i, 73, and not simply declarative as classified by Brandt, De partic. subiunct., 38, 58, and Monteil, La phrase relative, 355); cf. 01. 10. 28 —30 πέφνε δ’ Εϋρυτον, ώς Αύγέαν ... / ... μισθόν ... / πράσσοιτο, and Ne. 8. 35 —37 άλλα κελεύθοις / άπλόαις ζωάς έφαπτοίμαν, θανών ώς παισί κλέος / μή τό δύσφαμον προσάψω (in both exx. the finality is more readily obvious), and esp. Ol. 7. 39 —42 Ύπεριονίδας / μέλλον έντειλεν φυλάξασθαι χρέος / παισίν φίλοις, / ώς αν θεά πρώτοι κτίσαιεν βωμόν ..., where the main verb explicitly contains a command such as is implied here. 6 (a), χρήσεν οίκιστήρα Βάττον: an extension o f the usual construc­ tion c. acc. rei\ cf. h. A p . 132 χρήσω δ’ άνθρώποισι Διός ... βουλήν, Thgn. 807 —8 ώιτινί κεν Πυθώνι θεοΰ χρήσασ’ ιέρεια / όμφήν σημήνηι, Hdt. 4. 155. 3 έπειρωτώντι δέ οί (sc. Battus) χρά ή Πυθίη τάδε, and, in the passive, E. Ion 792 τίς ούν έχρήσθη. On the use o f χράω “proclaim in an oracle” (first attested at Od. 8. 79) v. Redard, Recherches sur χρή, χρήσθαι, 12—14. Verse 6 is restated in varied form at 61—62 a (sc. the Pythia) σε χαίρειν έστρίς αύδάδαισα πεπρωμένον / βασιλέ’ άμφανεν Κυράνμ. On Battus as founder of Cyrene v. ad 59 —63. 6 (b). οίκιστήρα: first attested in Pindar; cf. also Ol. 7. 30, Py. 1. 31, Ol. 6. 6 (συνοικιστήρ), as well as the following examples of the form used elsewhere in Cyrenaean contexts: Hdt. 4. 155. 3 (oracle given to Battus), Call. A p . 67 (of Battus), S E G 9. 3. 23 (4th cent, inscription purporting to contain the foundation decree; cf. also 19 in the introduc­ tory section). Originally agent-nouns formed from denominative verbs (like those from primary verbs) employed -τήρ, -τωρ for simplicia and -της for composita. This distinction is observed in Doric, whereas Homer sometimes and Attic-Ionic almost always uses -της in place of an original -τήρ or -τωρ. Later denominatives such as οίκίζω form agent-nouns in -της even for simplicia except in Doric where -τήρ is used not only for simplicia but also for composita as well; cf. Ernst Fraenkel, Nomina agentis i, 160 as well as 109, and v. in general

4 —8. The Oracle given to Battus

69

Debrunner, GW , §§ 338, 342 —46, and Rüdiger Schmitt, Nominalbildtmg, 78. On the oecist v. ad 59 (b). 6 (c). καρποφόρου: first attested in Pindar, here and Ne. 6. 9; cf. Homeric πϋροφόρος (also used by Pindar o f Libya, Is. 3/4. 72). On similar epithets v. Kienzle, Lobpreis, 39 —41. The Cyrenaica was often mentioned in antiquity for its fertility; cf. further Pj. 9. 7 πολυκαρποτάτας ... χθονός. Call. A p. 65 βαθύγειον ... πάλιν, Str. 17. 3. 21, Arr. Imi. 43. 13, and v. Chamoux, Cjrène, 229 —37. 6 (d). Λιβύας: Battus is more properly called the oecist o f Cyrene, but Pindar prefers to avoid repetition; cf. 2 (Κυράνας) and 14 (Έπάφοιο κόραν = Libya). 6 —7 (b). ιερόν / νόσον: in Homer Ιερός, a common epithet o f cities (cf. P. Wülfing-v. Martitz, Glotta 38 [1960], 278 —88), is used twice of islands: Euboea (II. 2. 535) and Έχινάων ( = Echinades) ... ίεράων | νήσων II. 2. 625 —26). Cf. also Hes. Th. 1015 (the Tyrsenians live) μάλα τήλε μυχω νήσων ίεράων, Β. 2. 2 ές Κ[έον ί]εράν, 10. 34—35 ίεράν / νόσον [Α’ίγιν]αν. Among the Lipari Islands the one known today as Vulcano was once called 'Ιερά and was thought to be the site of Hephaestus’ forge because o f its volcanic activity (cf. Th. 3. 88. 3). The “holy island” here is Thera (cf. 10) which like Vulcano may well have been called ιερά because of volcanic activity. (Sch. 10b notes that the island is κισσηρώδης “like pumice-stone”, a clear sign o f earlier volcanic activity.) Because o f the lack o f any report o f volcanic activity on Thera before the violent upheavals o f the Ptolemaic period, Karl Otfried Müller, Orchomenos und die MinyeP, Breslau, 1820, 324—25, rejected this obvious explanation. This in turn led Boeckh ad loc. to adopt another, much weaker explanation offered by the scholia (10b and lOf): the island was called “sacred” because o f its cults. In this he has been followed by most modern commentators. We know that there was at least one volcanic eruption o f cataclysmatic proportion about a thousand years before Pindar’s time, which because o f the effect it presumably had on Aegean civilisation may have remained alive, however tenuously, in the memory o f the Greeks; v. D. L. Page, The Santorini Volcano, and, for a more popular account, J. V. Luce, The End of Atlantis: Nem Light on an Old Legend, London, 1969, esp. 58 —95. The scientific and archaeological aspects o f the Santorini volcano were treated in a large number o f papers presented at the Second International Scientific Congress on Thera in August, 1978, which have now been published in C. Doumas (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World, Warminster, 1978 —80. On the use o f periphrasis instead o f a proper name v. ad 2 (g) and cf. ad 20 (b).

1 —12. Exordium

7 (a), νάσον ... λιπών: to say that people leave a place, like saying that they drink the water o f a particular stream (cf. Nisbet and Hubbard ad Hor. carm. 2. 20. 20), is sometimes a more elaborate way o f identifying their home (e. g., Pj. 4. 125, B. 2. 8 —9, 11. 57), esp., as here, in the context o f an emigration (e. g., Hes. Op. 636, Ne. 5. 15, Pat. 4. 29, B. 11. 60, 81, E. Ba. 1 7 1 -7 2 ). 7 (b ). ώς: normally first in its clause, but cf. also, e. g., Ne. 8. 36 θανών ώς, S. A nt. 316 καί νυν ώς (v. Jebb ad loc.), Tr. 360. Although in the case o f poetry it is doubtless metrical considerations which mainly influence postponement, the effect is in any case to emphasize somewhat the words placed before the conjunction. On hyperbaton cf. further ad 4 2 - 4 3 (b). 7 (c). ήδη: not “at once” (Sandys, Slater, s. v., b) but “endlich” (Otto Schroeder, Pjth. ad loc.); cf. 210, Is. 6. 12, S. O C 103, and v. H. Heller, Philologus 8 (1853), 264—65. The point is not that the colonizing expedition should be launched in great haste, but that the destined foundation, long delayed, should finally be undertaken (cf. 43 —48). 7 (d). κτίσσειεν: for this aorist Pindar, like Homer (cf. Wackernagel, Sprachl. Unters., 77) uses the metrically convenient alternatives, -ισσ(5 X ) and -ΐσ- (4 x ); cf. further Appendix. 7 (e). εύάρματον: first attested in Pindar (here, Pj. 2. 5, Is. 2. 17, fr. 195); on -άρματος compounds v. ad 87 (c). Having called Cyrene εδιππος in 2 (v. ad loc. [b]), Pindar again alludes to Arcesilaus’ victory and by the choice o f epithet now suggests that it was in the chariot-race. 8 (a), άργϊνόεντι: the reading o f the sch. vet. and of all the MSS except two Triclinian (α', β'), which have άργήεντι (a change metri gratia·, cf. the gloss in a': οδτως οίκείως έχει τω μέτρω). The Triclinian change was adopted by Gottfried Hermann and Boeckh (with the appropriate dialect change to άργάεντι); cf. Ol. 13. 69, where the MSS have the contracted form άργάντα (written άργάντα in three MSS), on which v. Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 115. Otto Schroeder, followed by SnellMaehler, assumed for our passage an unattested Aeolic form άργεννόεντι — a change made for dialectal reasons and not metrical ones, since he mistakenly assumed that the second syllable o f άργινόεις was in fact long, (άργινόεις was presumably formed in epic as a convenient metrical alternative to *άργΐνός; cf. the Homeric pair φαιδιμόεις : φαίδιμος, and v. Risch, Wortbildung-, § 56e.) The short iota in άργι- in fact represents, according to the law o f Caland and Wackernagel, the survival o f an original adjectival suffix -ro-; v. Risch, op. cit., §79. On (άργινόεις < ) *άργινός ; άργός ( < *άργρός) ν. Risch, op. cit., §35c. The initial element in άργινόεις is o f course the same as, e. g., in

4 —8. The Oracle given to Battus

71

άργΐκέραυνος {II. 19. 121, Ol. 8. 3), άργίλοφος (fr. 140b. 4), άργΐόδους {II. 10. 264). Thus there is no reason to doubt that Pindar like everyone else read as a dactyl the fourth foot in the verse endings at II. 2. 647 άργινόεντα Λύκαστον, and 656 άργινόεντα Κάμειρον (cf. also h. Hom. 19. 12, A. R. 2. 738, 4. 1607, A P 7. 23. 3 [Antip. Sid.], Opp. Η . 1. 797). Further confirmation of this scansion is afforded by the observation of Kurt Witte, Zur homer. Sprache, 101—2, that adjectives with the suffix -/revt- (on which cf. also Schwyzer i, 526 —28) were originally formed for use in the fifth and sixth foot o f the hexameter. If the substantive they governed ended in a dactyl or spondee, then they would usually follow it, e. g. αίγίδα θυσσανόεσσαν {II. 5. 738) or Ίθώμην κλωμακόεσσαν {II. 2. 729). If, on the other hand, the substantive ended in a trochee, then they would precede it, e. g. ήνεμόεντα Μίμαντα {Od. 3. 172). Clearly άργινόεντ(χ) — u u — ( x ) belongs to that pattern. There is thus no need to introduce Schroeder’s Aeolic form into the text (cf. also ad 27 [b] for a similar mistaken attempt). On the other hand, Farnell ad loc., though misled by Schroeder into thinking that άργενόεντι was the reading o f the MSS, opted, nevertheless, for the Homeric form άργινόεντι, which he proposed to scan here — u u — u and thus allow the two short syllables to correspond to a long elsewhere. It would not be necessary to mention this, if Farnell’s defence had not exercised a certain influence; cf. Forssman, Sprache, 89, n. 1. However, it should be noted that the syllable in question is anceps in the colon uuu — x — u ------- (uue x e — ) and nowhere else do two short syl­ lables correspond with an anceps in the pattern e x e (E) in the dactyloepitrites of Pindar or Bacchylides. At Py. 1. 92 some editors have accepted the responsion o f two short syllables with a long anceps in the pattern D x D, but there εύτράπλοις should be read instead o f εύχραπέλοις (or έντραπέλοις); v. ad 105 (a). Tycho Mommsen was therefore right to retain the MS reading άργινόεντι here and to accept the scansion — u — u , i. e. with a contraction o f o and ε (as Schroeder did for his άργεννόεντι); cf. Ol. 9. 58 Όπόεντος. For the short anceps v. ad 4 [d]. The use o f this epithet, which Homer applied to two cities in the Catalogue o f Ships, is one o f the many examples o f color epicus in this ode; v. further Hermann Schultz, D e elocutionis Pindaricae colore epico, Diss. Göttingen, 1905, esp. 12 —24, Forssman, Sprache, 86—100, and G. E. V. Gigante, A F L N 17 (1974 —75), 40—41. On the meaning of the word v. ad 8 (b). 8 (b). μαστώ: the comparison o f a hill to a female breast has often been made independently in many traditions; cf. the French use of “mamelon” and the “Paps o f Jura” in Scotland. In Greek cf. X. An. 4. 2. 6, Archestr. 4. 5 Brandt = Suppl. Hellen. 135. 5 (of Eresus on

Lesbos), Call. Del. 48 (of Samos rising out o f the sea), Str. 14. 6. 2 (of Acamas on Cyprus with its twin peaks), 14. 6. 3 (Olympus on Cyprus is μαστοειδής), Paus. 2. 26. 4 (a mountain in Epidaurus was called Τίτθιον “Titty”), and v. further L. Grasberger, Studien %u den griech. Ortsnamen, Würzburg, 1888, 82 —83. The hill upon which the first Greek settlement o f Cyrene was located (cf. also Py. 9. 55; the “Myrtle hill” mentioned at A. R. 2. 505 and Call. A p . 91 is almost certainly a different hill [v. Fraser, Ptol. A lex, ii, 920, n. 313] from the one to which Pindar refers) fits the description with regard to shape (v. Malten, Kyrene, 203 —4), but because it nowadays presents a sombre grey appearance Pindar’s epithet for it, άργινόεις, has been variously interpreted. Sch. 14 report an ancient difference o f opinion: Hierocles understood it to refer to an actual white hill, whereas Aristarchus took it to refer symbolically to the fertility o f the land and compared the usage with the Homeric οδθαρ άρούρης {II. 9. 141, 283). Aristarchus’ explanation, which has found favour with Forssman, Sprache, 89, might have been an attempt to avoid the difficulty that even in his day the hill did not present the appearance described by Pindar (arguing ex silentio we may note that Str. 17. 3. 21 in his account of Cyrene makes no mention o f such a geographical feature), but more likely it was mere speculation. Another symbolic interpretation was proposed by Norwood, Pindar, 35, who wished to see in the image a personification of Libya. This is perhaps possible (cf. Py. 1. 30, 2. 45—46, and v. Radt ad Pae. 6. 139), though it may be doubted whether Pindar had so specific an image in mind. Chamoux, Cyrène, 178 with n. 1, who rejected Norwood’s view, argued that Pindar is referring to the white appearance o f the houses o f his own time, but this explanation is o f course anachronistic. Another line o f approach has been suggested by Maehler, Komm, ad B. 5. (66 —)67 (”Ιδας άνά μηλοβότους / πρώνας) άργηστάς, who compares Pindar’s use of άργινόεις with Bacchylides’ άργηστάς. Since Maehler adopts Snell’s explanation (ad loc.) o f Bacchylides’ epi­ thet, “ventus άργεστής montes claros (άργηστάς) reddit” (with reference to S. O C 670 [lyr.] άργήτα Κολωνόν [on which v., however, Jebb ad loc.], and the Λευκόνοτος mentioned in sch. A 11. 11. 306), the Pindaric epithet o f the Cyrenaean hill should presumably mean “bright”, “clear”, 1. e. “clearly seen”. Unfortunately, the discussion in the Homeric scholia assumes (unless we accept with Erbse Schmidt’s correction o f Νότου for λευκονότου, but the MS reading seems to be supported by Str. 1. 2. 21) the identification of the άργεστής Νότος mentioned at 11. 11. 306 (cf. also 21. 334) with the wind later known as the Λευκόνοτος (cf. Arist. Mete. 362 a 14, Str. loc. cit., and esp. Hor. carm. 1. 7. 15 —16 albus ... Notus with Nisbet-Hubbard ad loc.), but whereas the latter is, properly speaking, a cloud-clearing wind, the former is apparently a

9 —12. Introduction to Medea’s Speech

73

cloud-gathering wind (recte Leaf ad II. 11. 306, pace LSJ, s. v. άργεστής, I). Moreover, the objection to understanding Bacchylides’ epithet as “white” because Ida is described by Homer as covered with woods (cf. II. 14. 285, 21. 449) is otiose, since if it is μηλόβοτος, it must be considered as having some open spaces. (Whoever wishes may think that the πρώνες are called “white” because o f the sheep.) Likewise, the objection to regarding Pindar’s άργινόεις as an epithet for “white” (the obvious meaning at II. 2. 647, 656) presumably stems from a similar overly literal rationalisation. Whether the hill on which Cyrene was originally settled was white in Pindar’s day or not, there is no reason why he should not describe it as such in Battus’ time, especially since he calls it a μαστός, the choice o f which word would itself naturally suggest by association an epithet meaning “white”. 9—12. Introduction to Medea’s Speech. Pindar moves by parataxis from the historical oracle at Delphi to the mythical speech at Thera, the “holy island” mentioned in 6 —7. Thera is chosen as the setting for Medea’s speech because it was the mother-state of Cyrene (cf. 20). 9—11. καί — Κόλχων: often Pindar does not conclude a sentence at the end o f a strophe. This type o f enjambement not only helps to bind the strophes together, but it also serves to emphasize the part which is placed at the beginning o f the new strophe. This aspect o f Pindar’s technique has been specially studied by Nierhaus, Strophe und Inhalt-, cf. esp. 16 —26, 95 —97 (on the first triad o f Pj. 4). For a brief discussion v. Bowra, Pindar, 319 —21, who, however, does not distinguish between enjambement where there is no syntactical pause at all and the less marked examples where there is one. Cf. further ad 39 —40 below. 9. το Μήδειας έπος: v. ad 277 —278. 9—10. άγκομίσαι / έβδόμμ: the obviously correct reading has been preserved by the lemmata o f the scholia in some MSS; cf. also the paraphrase o f the sch. 15a. The majority o f MSS have, however, inserted an unmetrical Θ’ (v. ad 179 —80 [b]) between the two words, probably from an attempt to make the active into the middle which one would expect in Attic usage; cf. Otto Schroeder, ed. mai., 43. On the forms of (άνα)κομίζω v. ad 159 (e). The verb άνακομίζω is regularly used of “bringing back”, “receiving” something that has gone away or has been lost; cf., e. g., E. Hipp. 831 (v. Barrett ad loc.). The metaphorical use here is an easy extension o f the literal meaning. 10 (a), έβδομα καί συν δεκάτοι: the word-order does not seem to be paralleled elsewhere. (Cf., however, A P 12. 4. 5 [Strat.] έξεπικαιδέκατον, on which v. J. Wackernagel, Kl. Sehr. 238, n. 2.) The construction

1 —12. Exordium

is not an ordinary άπό κοινού o f the preposition [pace Kiefner, Versparung, 147), which would be comparable to, e. g., Ne. 10. 53 Έρμμ καί συν Ήρακλεί (cf. Kiefner, op. cit., 27 —29), since our example forms a single concept (“seventeenth”), whereas a genuine prepositional άπό κοινού does not. On the tendency to join the preposition to δέκα, etc. in phrases such as τετράδα έπί δέκα (Th. 4. 118. 12) v. Wackernagel, loc. cit. Here “συν marks the arrival o f a moment” (Jebb ad B. 11. [ = 10]. 23); cf. also Py. 11. 10 άκρα σύν έσπέρςι, Ne. 2. 24 σύν εύκλέϊ νόστω. Apollonius Rhodius is less precise: at 4. 1751—52 Iason, interpreting Euphemus’ dream, tells him o f the island (Thera), iv’ όπλότεροι παίδων σέθεν έννάσσονται / παϊδες. 10 (b). γενεά: in early Greece reckoning by generations offered one of the main ways o f establishing some sort o f chronology. This was often important not only for historical but also contemporary political purposes as well. Naturally mythology and imagination were used to fill in gaps. About 500 B. C. (or some time before) Hecataeus o f Miletus attempted to systematize existing chronologies in his Genealogiae, which included the Argonauts among others; cf. F G rH ist 1 F 17 —18. On reckoning by generation v. D. W. Prakken, Studies in Greek Genealogical Chronology, Lancaster, Pa., 1943, esp. 1—48. On the sequence o f the seventeen generations mentioned by Pindar (of which those before Battus belong more to mythology than history) v. Malten, Kyrene, 1 9 1 -9 3 . 10 (c). Θήραιον: the use o f a possessive adjective formed from a proper name (instead o f a possessive genitive or similar construction) represents in general the older, inherited way o f expressing possession or closer relation between two substantives; cf., e. g., δόμον Πηλήϊον (II. 18. 60), Νηλήϊαι ίπποι (II. 11. 597). For possessive adjectives formed from place-names; cf., e. g., Ol. 10. 101 βωμόν παρ’ Όλύμπιον “beside the altar at Olympia”, Py. 5. 37. On this construction v. Wackernagel, Syntax ii, 68 —75, and Schwyzer ii, 176—77. The mention o f Thera here serves to identify the “holy island” alluded to in 6 —7; cf. ad 2 (g). On the place o f Thera in Argonautic geography v. ad 251 —52. 10—11. Αίήτα ... / παϊς: cf. Hes. Th. 992 κούρην ... ΑΙήταο (Medea is mentioned under her proper name at 961). 10 (d). Αίήτα: king of Ala (the same word, presumably, as the Homeric appellative αία = γαία), whence doubtless his name, just as his sister Circe, likewise a child o f the Sun by the Oceanid Perse (Od. 10. 1 3 5 -3 9 ), is called Αίαίη Κίρκη (Od. 9. 3 1 -3 2 , 12. 268, 273) and lives on the Αίαίη νήσος (Od. 10. 135, 11. 70, 12. 3). At Od. 12. 2 —4 Odysseus tells how when his ship had left the stream o f the river

9 —12. Introduction to Medea’s Speech

75

Oceanus it came to κϋμα θαλάσσης εύρυπόροιο / νήσον τ’ Αίαίην, δθι τ’ Ήοΰς ήριγενείης / οικία καί χοροί είσι καί άντολαί Ή ελίοιο. This seems to reflect the original conception in which both Αία and the Αίαίη νήσος were situated near the sunrise by the streams o f Oceanus. (The Odyssey alludes to Iason’s voyage back from Aeètes at 12. 69 —72, but does not mention his land or its location.) Ala is first named as the land from which the fleece was fetched in Mimnermus (fr. 11. 1 —2 W. ουδέ κοτ’ αν μέγα κώας άνήγαγεν αύτός Ίήσων / έξ Α'ΐης τελέσας άλγινόεσσαν όδόν), who places Αίήταο πόλιν, τόθι τ’ ώκέος Ή ελίοιο / άκτΐνες χρυσέωι κείαται έν θαλάμωι / Ωκεανού παρά χείλος (fr. Ila W.). The fabulous Aea was early identified with the real Colchis (on the presumed mention of Colchis in the cuneiform records o f Urartu V. V. Haas, “Medea und Jason im Lichte hethitischer Quellen”, A A n tH m g 26 [1978], 241 —53, esp. 243), doubtless as the Black Sea became known to Greek traders and colonists (on Greek exploration o f the region v. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, 238—45, esp. 240); so in Eumelus (fr. 2 K.), at least a generation or two before the apparently more traditional Mimnermus (on the date o f Eumelus v. R. Drews, JH S 96 [1976], 19, on that o f Mimnermus, West, Studies, 72 —74). Eumelus, as W. S. Barrett suggests to me, in making Aeetes emigrate from Ephyre (identified with Corinth) presumably does so in order to legitimize his daughter Medea in Corinth, where she was a figure o f legend in her own right; on the Eumelus fragments v. further Jacoby ad F G rH ist 451 F 1—2. See in general the fundamental essay o f Albin Lesky, “Aia”, Ges. Sehr., 26 —62, esp. 27 —40; possible etymologies of ala j Ala, ib., 40—46. 10 (e). τό ποτέ: cf. ad 4 (a). On the postponement o f the relative pronoun, here to second place (Αίήτα τό), v. ad 246 (b). 10 (f). ζαμενής: “with a strong μένος”, hence “spirited”; not “in­ spired”, a meaning which has often been ascribed to the word since Fennell (first apparently in Erasmus Schmid); cf., e. g., Mezger, Bury, Puech, Farnell, Lattimore, Werner, Slater, Conway. The prefix ζα-, an epic and Aeolic equivalent o f δια-, has an intensifying function as in ζαής, ζάθεος, ζάκοτος, etc. The final element -μενής is the adjectival suffix derived from μένος; cf. Debrunner, GW , § 140, on the accent § 155. The neuter substantive μένος, cognate with Skt. manas- (neut.) “heart”, “thought”, “spirit”, “understanding”, and Old Pers. manah(neut.) “thinking power”, “power o f will”, designates basically a “power” or “energy” of any kind, esp. that which manifests itself in mental or emotional activity. The semantic range is broad enough to indicate the “force” of the wind {II. 5. 524) or of a spear (13. 444), the “life force”, “vital energy” o f living creatures (3. 294, 5. 296), the

1—12. Exordium

“strength” o f a man’s anger (1. 103) or martial courage (2. 387) or the will without any implication o f fierceness (8. 361). Nowhere is μένος used o f prophetic inspiration, which is usually designated by μανία, a word remotely related in etymology (cf. Frisk, s. v. μαίνομαι) but very distinct in usage. The claim by Slater, s. v. that ζαμενής not only here but also at Pj. 9. 38, Ne. 3. 63, and fr. 156. 1 means “inspired” rests ultimately upon the supposed appropriateness o f this meaning in the first two passages, which introduce persons about to prophesy future events; however, “spirited” is not only perfectly appropriate to these instances but also to the latter two as well, where in fact it is the only really satisfactory sense which can be given to the word. See further my article, “Ζαμενής: A Lexicographical Note on Pindar”, d o tta 57 (1979), 1 8 2 -9 0 . 11 (a), άπέπνευσ’ άθανάτου στόματος; a variant of the poetic phrase used to describe the act o f speaking in which the organ o f speech from which the sound comes is mentioned together with a verb o f motion or articulation; cf., e .g.. II. 1. 249 άπό γλώσσης ... ρέεν αύδή (on the metaphor cf. ad 136 —37 below), Od. 12. 187, Hes. Tb. 39—40, 84, 97, [Hes.] Sc. 2 7 8 -7 9 , Thgn. 18, 266, 610, Simon. P M G 585, [Orph.j A . 420, as well as Ol. 6. 12—14, Pj. 3. 2, Pae. 12. 16, D i. 2. 1 —3, and v. Führer, Reden, 32 —33. 11 (b). άπέπνευσ’: not elsewhere used with έπος or a synonym o f it, but cf. E. Ph. 876 —77 έκ δ’ έπνευσ’ αύτοϊς άράς / δεινός. The Pindaric phrase is best explained as an extension o f such epic uses as θυμόν άποπνείων (II. 4. 524) and δεινόν άποπνείουσα πυρός μένος αίθομένοιο (II. 6. 182); cf. also ad 255 (a). 11 (c). άθανάτου; the initial (privative) alpha is always long in this word and its derivatives. This has been explained either (1) from the regular (metrical) lengthening o f words beginning with three short syllables to allow them (originally) to be used in epic (so Wm. Schulze, Qu. ep., 137 —43, esp. 140 —43), or (2) from the effect o f a postulated original digamma (so, e. g., Wyatt, Lengthening, 79 —80). Since the etymological equivalents presupposed by the second explanation are by no means certain (v. Chantraine, s. v. θάνατος), the first explanation is not only easier but also may well be correct. On άθάνατος v. further ad 33 (d). Pindar is alluding here to the view (first found in Hesiod; cf. West ad Th. 992) that Medea was originally a goddess, which was in the Corinthian, if not in the Colchian tradition; cf. Albin Lesky, “Medeia”, R E xv, 50, 64 —51, 14 along with 49, 36 —52. 11 (d). δέσποινα Κόλχων: Medea is not just a “Colchian princess”, but the “mistress o f the Colchians”, i. e. δέσποινα emphasizes Medea’s

9 —12. Introduction to Medea’s Speech

77

status and power. In Pindar (cf. also 01. 8. 2, Py. 9. 7, fr. 122. 18) as in Homer (cf., e. g., Od. 3. 403, 14. 127) the noun retains much o f its original sense (cf. Benveniste, Institutions i, 88 [ = Engl, ed., 72], who notes its use as a title o f majesty.) A δέσποινα is the female counterpart o f a δεσπότης, i. e. originally the “master o f the house”, and then more generally “master”; cf., e. g., Hdt. 1. 8. 3, where the two words are used as counterparts. See further Frisk, s. v. δέσποινα, δεσπότης. 11 (e). είπε δ’ ούτως: in Homer composita o f -ειπον are used much more often to introduce a speech than is the simplex, which gradually tends to supplant its compounds in post-Homeric Greek; v. Führer, Reden, 9 —11. Moreover, οϋτω(ς) used to introduce a speech in place of the ώδε, etc. commonly found in Homer (on ώδε v. Führer, 11 —13) is rare. Cf., however, Hippon. 35 W., A. Ag. 125 (lyr.), E. HeI. 1578, Hdt. 8. 140. a. 1. In the Hellenistic period and thereafter it becomes more common; cf. [Theoc.] 8. 32, 62, 9. 14, 23. 18, Call. Epigr. 1. 1 Pf., Babr. 95. 60, 122. 3. On the use of οϋτω(ς) to introduce (and close) a speech v. Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 615 (where it closes a speech). 12 (a), ήμιθέοισιν Ίάσονος αίχματάο ναύταις: what the nautical meta­ phor in 3 suggested and the references to the island o f Thera in 6 —7 and 10 vaguely implied is now made explicit. We are to hear o f a voyage, in fact o f the most famous o f all mythical voyages, that o f the Argo, which is here indirectly but clearly mentioned. 12 (b). ήμιθέοισιν: properly men who have a god as one o f their parents and a mortal as the other; cf. Simon. P M G 523. 1—2, and v. West ad Hes. Op. 160. However, Pindar does not sharply distinguish them from the ήρώες άντίθεοι in 58 (likewise placed at the beginning of the fourth verse o f the antistrophe; on this example o f “FugenResponsion” v. Führer, Reden, 75); cf. also 184 and 211. (On the ήμίθεοι in the strict sense among the Argonauts v. ad 169 —87.) At Pj. 5. 95 Pindar uses ήρως in the later, strict sense o f a cult-figure (cf. Erwin Rohde, Psyche2 i, 146 —99, esp. 152 —54), but in Py. 4 he implies the Hesiodic identification (cf. Op. 159 —65; and v. further Fr. Krafft, Vergleichende Unters, spt Homer u. Hesiod, Göttingen, 1964, 116 — 19) of ήμίθεοι (used in a weakened sense) with the ήρωες (used in the original, broad sense o f any distinguished warrior) o f ancient epic. (At A. R. 1. 548 the Argonauts are collectively called ημίθεοι, while at [Orph.] A . 51 Iason is called ήρώων τε καί ημιθέων πρόμος.) On ήρως ν. also West, Hes. Op., pp. 370 —73, and, more generally, Clemens Willeke, Untersuchungen sytr literarischen Verwendung des Wortes Heros, Diss. Ham­ burg, 1958 (typewritten), esp. 1 —17 (epic) and 26 —34 (Pindar). 12 (c). αιχματάο: for masculine ä-stems Pindar avails himself o f the epic genitive singular in -ào (also Aeolic including Boeotian, but local

13 —56. Medea’s Speech (Argonautic Expedition, second part)

dialect probably without influence; v. Thumb-Scherer, G D , §231) as well as the Doric form in -ä (Lind, De dialecto Pindarica, 7, notes a ratio o f fifty -ä forms to a mere six -do forms: Py. 1. 50, 4. 12, 171, 250, Ne. 4. 60, Is. 7. 8, o f which Py. 4. 250 should be eliminated; v. ad loc. [c]). As often, metrical convenience dictates the choice o f dialect forms. On the Homeric use o f αίχμητής (“immer in ehrendem Sinne”) v. Trümpy, Kriegerische Fachausdrücke, 176 —78. Its use here in substantival apposition with a proper name is Homeric; cf. II. 2. 846 Κικόνων ... αίχμητάων, and v. Schwyzer ii, 613 —14. With Ίάσονος αίχματάο cf. B. 13. 133 —34 [αί-/χματάν Άχιλλέα. 12 (d). ναύταις; in substantival apposition to ήμιθέοισιν together with which it frames another example o f substantival apposition, Ίάσονος αίχματάο; v. ad 12 (c). The ναΰται, although often including as they do here all who sail on a ship, refer primarily to oarsmen (cf. 200—2, where the Argonauts are rowing); v. Casson, Ships and Seaman­ ship, 305 (with notes 23 and 24), 309. 13—56. Medea’s Speech ( Argonautic Expedition, second part) Pindar begins the story o f the Argonautic expedition in the form o f a speech (13 —56) and then resumes it later as a narrative (70 —262). This type o f artistic arrangement o f a story is already found in the Hesiodic Scutum, where that o f Amphitryon and Alcmene is divided into two parts, o f which the first (1—27) is a straight narration and the second (79 —87) a speech; cf. Dornseiff, Mythener^., 51. The whole story, as often in Pindar, is told in regressive order: (1) colonization of Libya, (2) encounter o f Euphemus with Eurypylus, (3) Iason and the expedition to Colchis; cf. also 01. 7 in which three stages o f Rhodian (mythical) history are described in reverse order. A regressive order is also adopted in part, e. g., in Py. 3, 10 (cf. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 469 [on v. 46], Ne. 10; cf. also B. 11 (v. Maehler, Komm, ad 11. 40 —42). On this common feature o f archaic narrative v. van Groningen, In the Grip of the Past, 35 —46, esp. 44—45, and cf. his La composition littéraire, esp. 5 8 -6 0 , 1 9 5 -9 6 (on B. 11), 3 5 2 -5 8 (on Ol. 7), 3 6 6 -7 5 (on Ne. 10). On the general arrangement o f Py. 4 v. further Thornton, Time and Style, 27 —35 with fig. 2, and now A. Hurst, M H 40 (1983), 154—68, as well as J. Pinsent, L C M 10 (1985), 2 —8. Whereas Iason dominates the story in the narrative proper, Eu­ phemus, the ancestor o f the Cyrenaean royal family, is at the centre of the story in Medea’s speech. Her speech serves to focus initial attention upon this one Argonaut, who, though never lost sight o f later (cf. 175, 256), nevertheless must thereafter play a subordinate role in Iason’s

13—20. Colonization from Thera to Libya

79

great adventure. The speech falls into five distinct sections: (a) 13 —20, Colonization from Thera to Libya, (b) 20 —37, Encounter o f Euphemus with Triton/Eurypylus, (c) 38 —49, Explanation o f the Delay in Coloni­ zation, (d) 50 —53, Euphemus, the Ancestor o f the Battiads, on Lemnos, (e) 53 —56, Oracle given to Battus. Significantly, in Apollonius Rhodius, who is not concerned with glorifying the Battiad dynasty, the prophecy regarding Euphemus and the clod is reduced to a brief interpretation by Iason to Euphemus of the latter’s dream (4. 1749 —54). 13—20. Colonisation from Thera to Libya. Having brought the Ar­ gonauts to Thera so that the island can serve as the setting for Medea’s speech (cf. ad 9 —12), Pindar now provides his equivalent o f a founda­ tion oracle couched in appropriately riddling language. We move with one leap from Thera to Libya, the future goal o f the Theran colonization and likewise the place where the original token o f sovereignty over the land was received. 13—14. Κέκλυτε, παϊδες ... / φαμί γάρ: for the use o f this epic form (only here in Pindar) o f the imperative (in Homer invariably, as here, the first word o f a speech: 11. 11 x , Od. 20 x ) followed by a vocative and an explanatory clause introduced by γάρ cf. II. 17. 220—21, Od. 10. 189 —90 (v. 189 suspectus, fort. recte'), 24. 443 —44. Modelled on this epic pattern (as Otto Schroeder, Pyth., 59, noted) are also Ol. 14. 4 —5 Χάριτες ..., ... / κλΰτ’, ... σύν γάρ ύμΐν, and Py. 6. 1 Άκούσατ’· ή γάρ (where, however, the vocative is not formally expressed). On γάρ used “after an expression ... conveying a summons to attention” cf. further ad 70 (a). 13. παϊδες ύπερθύμων τε φωτών καί θεών: the Argonauts are a select crew: some are ήμίθεοι in the strict sense (v. ad 12 [b]), while the rest, like Iason, are sons o f distinguished (this is the implication o f the Homeric ύπερθύμων) mortal fathers (no sons o f divine mothers are mentioned by Pindar in his catalogue, 171 —83). (On Pindar’s partial Catalogue o f Argonauts and its principle o f selection v. ad 169 —87.) For ύπέρθυμος used as an epithet o f fathers cf. II. 2. 746, 5. 77, 8. 120, 23. 302, Od. 11. 269. 14 (a), άλιπλάκτου: the variant (in EV) άλιπλάγκτου “wandering on the sea” presumably reflects the common confusion in MSS between -πλακτ- ( < πλήσσω) and -πλαγκτ- ( < πλάζω): a variant -πλαγκτ- also at S. A j. 597 (lyr.) άλίπλακτος (-πλα- codd., -πλη- Dawe) and even at A. Pers. 307 θαλασσόπληκτον; conversely a variant -πλακτ- at S. A j. 695 (lyr.) άλίπλαγκτε as well as at A.(?) Pr. 467 (and E. Hec. 782) θαλασσόπλαγκτ-, (While the MSS support a distinction between Doric

13 —56. Medea’s Speech (Argonautic Expedition, second part)

-πλακτ- and Attic -πληκτ-, pace Dawe and Björck, Das Alpha impurum, 237, -πλαγκτ- [ < πλάζω] is o f course the regular form in both dialects.) On the relation o f -πλακτ- ( < πλήσσω) and -πλαγκτ- ( < πλάζω) v. further ad 208 —9. The use of the epithet here is not merely decorative, since it prepares us for 17—18 in which the transformation o f the islanders into landsmen is described in oracular fashion; on such uses o f epithets v. Bowra, Pindar, 218 —19. 14 (b). ποτέ: like the enclitic forms of the personal pronouns (cf. ad 1 [d]) indefinite adverbs tend to occupy the second position in a clause, but “die nachhomerische Zeit verfahrt bei diesen Partikeln recht frei”; v. J. Wackernagel, Kl. Sehr., 38. Here metrical considerations have probably led the poet to postpone the enclitic. 14 (c). Έπάφοιο κόραν: in Medea’s oracular language the land of Libya appears as its eponymous heroine, who is here called the daughter o f Epaphus; cf. also, e. g., Isoc. 11.10, [Apollod.] 2. 1. 4, and sch. ad Lyc. 894 Scheer, p. 289, as well as the defective (and corrupt) passage at A. Supp. 317 (v. Friis Johansen and Whittle ad loc.), where Libya almost certainly appeared as the daughter o f Epaphus in the genealogy o f the Danaids. Sch. ad loc. comment here on the tendency to blend a place with its eponymous heroine; cf. besides fr. 195, quoted by sch., also 01. 6. 2 8 - 3 0 , 7. 1 3 -1 4 , Py. 9. 7 3 - 7 4 , 12. 1 - 5 , Pae. 5. 42, 6. 134—40 (v. Radt ad v. 139) as well as Ol. 6. 84—85, Py. 9. 4 —5, 55 (where, however, the heroine clearly predominates in each case), and v. Gruppe, Griech. Mythologie und Religionsgesch. ii, 1058 —63, and, for Pindar, Reichenberger, Entwicklung des metonymischen Gebrauchs, 53 —55. 14 (d). κόραν: original κορ/r- gives κόρ- in most dialects, κοϋρ- in epic-ionic (on κόρην at h. Cer. 439 v. Richardson ad loc.), κώρ- in some Doric dialects (e. g. Cretan but not Boeotian; on κωρ- in the Corinna papyrus v. Page, Corinna, 49). Pindar uses both κόρα (16 x ) and κούρα (9 X ) as metrically convenient alternatives (v. further Appendix), both o f which he would have written as ΚΟΡΑ (that he intended the long o as a closed ou rather than an open co is an ancient assumption in which we can only acquiesce). It may be observed here that in the text of Pindar there are too many obvious relics o f an earlier orthography which did not distinguish between ο, ou, and ω or between e, ει, and η, and which did not indicate the gemination of consonants to allow us to suppose that the poet used the new Ionic alphabet (on the problem in general v. Schwyzer i, 145—48, 230 —31). Following the earlier work o f Boeckh and Christ the evidence for Pindar was collected by R. Herzog, Die Umschrift der älteren griech. Lit. in das ionische Alphabet, Basel, 1912, 77 —87, who unfortunately did not distinguish between the relics o f the earlier orthography and simple phonetic confusions.

13—20. Colonization from Thera to Liby:

81

For examples reference should now be made to Irigoin, Histoire du texte, 25 —28. For the opinion that Pindar used the new Ionic alphabet V ., e. g., U. V. Wilamowitz, Die Textgeschichte der griech. Lyriker, Berlin, 1900, 48, Pindaros, 99 —100, and, more recently, G. P. Goold, T A P h A 91 (I960), 284, who have by no means proved their argument. While there can be no serious doubt that Pindar used a pre-ionic orthography, this does not mean that the text o f Pindar was necessarily subjected to a systematic transliteration into the alphabet in common use after the fifth century. So long as the works of Pindar were being performed the singers would not have needed the new distinctions in orthography to pronounce their vowels and geminated consonants correctly. If there were doubtful cases, they had the music and metre to help them. When Pindar was no longer being performed, it would have been natural for readers who used the Ionic alphabet to express the vowel and other distinctions in their Pindar texts wherever their orthography permitted, i. e. they would not normally have allowed, e. g., a long, closed O to remain as O but would have written it in their texts as OY. Since such orthographical refinements would have been made at a time when the knowledge o f Pindar’s language and music was becoming less familiar, it is not surprising that some oversights or mistakes occurred here or there. These were in fact occasionally noted even in antiquity by scholars such as Aristarchus; cf., e. g., sch. Ne. 1. 34b Άρίσταρχος ούτως·... καταλείπεται δέ rfj άρχαίςι σημασίμ το έσλός· καί ή άντίστροφος άπήτει το ϋ (and indeed we should read έσλούς in v. 24, where the codices veteres have preserved έσλός). Such oversights represent for us the relics o f the original alphabet used by Pindar. On the problem of the transliteration of early Greek texts v. further West, Hesiod: Works and Days, pp. 60 —63. For the use o f κόρα to refer to a city or land cf. [Horn.] Epigr. 1. 2 πόλιν αίπεινήν (sc. Νέον τείχος), Κύμης {corr. Pauw, Ilgen) έριώπιδα κούρην. 15 (a), άστέων βίζαν: βίζα can be used o f anything from which something springs or grows (cf. E. fr. 912. 1 1 N . βίζα κακών, etc.). The metaphorical usage o f the word is especially common in early Greek in the sphere o f the family; cf. A. Th. 755 (lyr.), S. A j. 1178, Ant. 600 (lyr.), E. Ion 1576, I T 610, and, for Pindar, 01. 2. 46, Is. 8. 56. At Py. 9. 7 —8 Apollo makes Cyrene δέσποιναν χθονός / βίζαν άπειρου τρίταν εύήρατον θάλλοισαν οίκείν, i. e. she is to dwell in the third continent, viz. Libya (cf. sch. ad loc., Hdt. 4. 42), where, however, βίζα does not refer to a “foundation”, as LSJ, s. v., II, explain it, but to the “root” which was supposed to hold the earth or parts o f it in place (v. West ad Hes. Th. 728). Thus in spite o f a certain superficial

similarity of contexts, the use o f βίζα at Pj. 9. 8 has nothing to do with the present instance, which represents an extension o f the use from the family sphere to a geographical and political one, an extension which is made easier by the personification o f Libya as Epaphus’ daughter. The closest parallel to our passage is in fact B. fr. 4. 51 —57 ήλ]θ’ Άμυθαονίδας · βω]μόν τε Πυθα Αλκμάν) with the loss of the digamma; v. Risch, Worthil-

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

dung·, §24c, and, more generally, Schwyzer i, 521. For possible Myce­ naean correspondences v. A. Heubeck, d o tta 63 (1985), 2 —4. 126 (b). ταχέως: cf. ad 34 (d). 126 (c). ’Άδματος: cf. ad 72 (a). He already appears as the husband of Alcestis, Πελίαο θυγατρών είδος άρίστη, at II. 2. 715. Apollonius Rhodius includes him in his catalogue o f Argonauts at 1. 49 —50 (cf. Vian ad loc., p. 241). 126 (d). Μέλαμπος: cf. ad 72 (a). Melampus is the μάντις άμύμων mentioned at Od. 11. 291, whose story is briefly told at Od. 15. 225 —42 (cf. also [Hes.] fr. 37. 1 —9 M.-W.) and was treated at much greater length in the Hesiodic Melampodia (fr. 270—79 M.-W.), on which v. I. Löffler, Die Melampodie, Meisenheim, 1963. The epic form o f the name is Μελάμπους (cf. A. R. 1. 121), whereas Pindar uses the form -πος both here and at Pae. 4. 28, where it is guaranteed by the metre. At B. fr. 4. 50 Μελαμ[ both forms would be possible; cf. W. S. Barrett, Hermes 82 (1954), 433, n. 1. 127 (a), εύμενέοντες άνεψιόν: since εύμενέω regularly governs the dative (as do ευμενής, δυσμενής, δυσμεναίνω, etc.) and, further, since ϊκω (like ίκνέομαι) is regularly used c. acc. in the sense o f “come to” a person (v. KG i, 311 —12, Schwyzer ii, 68, and esp. V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age, New Haven, 1984, 75 —77), it is unlikely that εύμενέοντες (rather than ίκεν) was meant to govern άνεψιόν, pace Boeckh, Mezger, Sandys, LSJ, s. v. II, Bowra, Nisetich, recte R. Rauchenstein, Emendationes in Pindarum, Aarau, 1844, 10 —11. (Pauw’s suggestion άνεψιφ is superficially attractive but unnecessary.) Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc. (following Gildersleeve ad loc.) compares Py. 11. 34 —35 γέροντα ξένον / Στρόφιον έξίκετο (sc. Orestes), and adds 5. 86 οίχνέοντές σφε, Is. 2. 47 —48 όταν / ξεΐνον έμόν ... έλθης, with which Bers, op. cit., 77 (who has missed both the present example and Is. 2. 47 —48), would classify Ne. 5. 50 εί δέ Θεμίστιος ϊκεις ώστ’ άείδειν, but epinician poets come not just to sing but to celebrate specific persons. For the shift from the singular (Ικεν) to the plural (εύμενέοντες) cf., e. g., PI. Lg. 5, 729e—30a δύναται δέ διαφερόντως ό ξένιος έκάστων δαίμων καί θεός τω ξενίω συνεπόμενοι Διί, and v. KG i, 79. The construction here should be distinguished both from the socalled schema Pindaricum {pace Kirkwood ad loc.), on which v. ad 57 (a), and from the so-called schema Alcmanicum {recte, Wilpert, De schemate Pindarico, 52 —53), on which v. ad 179 (a). 127—29. έν — τεύχων: cf. 29 —31 φιλίων δ’ έπέων / άρχετο (sc. Triton / Eurypylus), ξείνοις άτ’ έλθόντεσσιν εύεργέται / δεΐπν’ έπαγγέλ-

120 —134. Interlude in the House o f Iason’s Father

213

λοντι πρώτον. Iason thus shows that he is an ευεργέτης who observes the customary rules o f hospitality. 127 (b). έν δαιτός δέ μοίρα: “at the occasion o f the feast”, “amid the feast”; cf. sch. 226a έν δέ τω συμποσιακοί καιρφ. Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc. compares II. 24. 750 καί έν θανάτοιό περ αΐση “auch in der Stunde des Todes”, μοίρα c. gen. is often little more than a periphrasis; cf. PI. Phlb. 54c έν τή του άγαθοΰ μοίρα, D. 23. 61 έν πολεμίου μοίρςι, and esp. Pj. 4. 196 νόστοιο μοίραν “the fate o f their home-coming”, i. e. “their home-coming”. On the position o f the particle cf. ad 202 —3. 128. μειλιχίοισι λόγοις ... δέγμενος: cf. 240 —41 μειλιχίοις ... λόγοις / άγαπάζοντ’ (on which ν. ad loc.). The participle δέγμενος is attested only here in Pindar, but is found in Homer (cf. Leaf ad II. 2. 794), esp. in the compounds ποτιδέγμενος and ύποδέγμενος. On this and similar athematic middle forms used by Pindar, e. g. έδεκτο (01. 2. 49, Pj. 8. 19), έγεντο (Pj. 3. 87, 6. 28, fr. 33b), v. Schwyzer i, 678 —79. Here again Pindar emphasizes Iason’s special quality o f gentleness; cf. 101 —2 (with note ad loc. [b]) and 136 —37. Significantly Iason’s first speech in Apollonius Rhodius is spoken μειλιχίοις έπέεσσι (1. 294). Cf. also the description o f Iason’s first speech at [Orph.] Λ . 76 μείλιχον ... άνενείκατο φωνήν (the clausula = A. R. 3. 635). 129 (a), ξείνι’ άρμόζοντα τεύχων: cf. Ne. 1. 21 —22 άρμόδιον / δεϊπνον κεκόσμηται. On the intransitive use o f άρμόζω v. ad 80 (b). In Homer τεύχω is regularly used o f “preparing” a meal. Cf. also S. Tr. 756 τεύχειν σφαγάς and Theoc. 7. 3 έτευχε θαλύσια. 129 (b). πάσαν έυφροσύναν τάνυεν: i. e. πάντως ε. τ.; cf. Ne. 6. 2 —3 διείργει ... πάσα (i. e. πάντως) κεκριμένα / δύναμις, Ε. Ιοη 427 απας (i. e. πάντως) ... ού γένοιτ’ αν εις ήμάς φίλος. On the use of an adjective (esp. πολύς, μέγας, πας, απας, etc.) where an adverb might seem more natural to us v. KG i, 275, Schwyzer ii, 179 —80, and cf. ad 39 (a) and 132 (c). For the epic treatment o f εύ-, i. e. έυ-, cf. έύδματος (Py. 12. 3) and έυκτήμων (Ne. 7. 92). In Homer ευφροσύνη is often associated especially with banqueting; cf. Od. 9. 5 —11, etc., and v. further J. Latacz, Zum W'ortfeld “Freude" in der Sprache Homers, Heidelberg, 1966, 161—73, esp. 165 —67. For this association of ευφροσύνη elsewhere cf., e.g., Thgn. 7 7 6 -7 9 W., Sol. 4. 10 W., Anacr. Eleg. 2 W., Xenoph. ÌZorsokr. 21 B 1. 4 —12, Certamen 84—89 (v, 228 —29 Allen = Od. 9. 6 —11). For the use o f the verb τανύω with a more or less abstract object cf. 11. 11. 336 μάχην, 14. 389 έριδα, 17. 401 κακόν πόνον, in which cases the image is that o f intensifying (like stretching a bow). Here intensity and extension are hardly to be differentiated. On Pindar’s use of τανύω v. further ad 227 (f).

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

130—32. It is an Homeric convention that one should feast for a certain number of days and then undertake a decisive piece o f action on the following day. Cf., e. g., II. 9. 466 —77, where Phoenix, after feasting nine nights with his friends, makes his escape on the tenth, and Od. 14. 249 —54, where the disguised Odysseus claims in his Cretan tale to have feasted with his companions for six days and then on the seventh to have set out with them on an expedition to Egypt. 130 (a), άθρόαις: “on end”, i. e. without interruption; cf. sch. ad loc. (a) άδιαλείπτως διά νυκτός καί ημέρας. 130 (b). δραπών: cf. Ne. 2. 9 Ίσθμιάδων δρέπεσθαι κάλλιστον άωτον, as well as Ol. 1. 13, Py. 1. 4 9 - 5 0 , 6. 48, 9. 110, fr. 6b. f. 3, 122. 8, 209. Gildersleeve observes ad loc.: “The aor., on account o f the definite number (v. 26). Otherwise we should have expected the present part., as the action is coincident with τάνυεν”. However, the aorist participle is occasionally used when it describes more or less the same action as the leading verb, whether the latter is an aorist or, as here, an imperfect; v. ad 36—37. (It should be noted that τεύχων in 129 is in the present tense, since it describes a different action from that o f the leading verb and the aorist participle.) We may note too that the sch. ad loc. not only paraphrase δραπών with present participles, which shows that the simultaneity o f the action was understood, but in the case of sch. 231b the active is quite precisely rendered with the middle δρεπόμενος; on the use o f the active for the middle here v. Gildersleeve, Syntax, § 148. Cf. also ad 50 (d) and 106 (a). On Pindar’s use o f δρέπειν cf. Bowra, Pindar, 248 —49. 130 (c). νύκτεσσιν: the form is also attested at Ol. 2. 61. On the extension o f the dat. pi. ending in -εσσι (perhaps a poetic archaism and not originally Aeolic as often thought; v. Strunk, Die sogenannten Aolismen, 75 —78, and now Bowie, Dialect, 119 —22 [with references to more recent literature, adding W. Bliimel, Die aiolischen Dialekte, Göttingen, 1982, §§270 —71]) v. Schwyzer i, 564, and cf. Chantraine, Gram. horn. 1, 2 0 4 -7 . 130 (d). θ’ άμέραις: so the majority o f MSS, but CMVXXZ have τ’ άμέραις and EF τ’ άμέραις. The aspirated form is attested alone at Ol. 2. 62, 9. 85, 13. 39, Py. 4. 26, Ne. 8. 32, 9. 42, 10. 55, Is. 3/4. 18, 34, Pae. 9. 3 (testina.), Par. 1. 15 (papyr.), fr. 108. b. 5 (testina.), while the unaspirated form is attested (always less strongly) alongside the aspi­ rated one at Ol. 1. 6, 33, 2. 32, Py. 1. 22, 10. 18 as well as here. For the compound forms we find έφαμερ- alone attested at Ne. 6. 6, Is. 7. 40, fr. 157. 1 (testina.), έπάμερ- alone at Py. 8. 95, fr. 182. 1 (testina.), and both πεμπαμέροις and πενθαμέροις (with other variants) at [Ol.] 5. 6.

120- 134. Interlude in the House o f Iason’s Father

215

Elsewhere in choral lyric the aspirated form is attested wherever the breathing is indicated or a reflex o f it affects the orthography: Alcm. P M G 1. 38 αμεραν (papyr.), B. 3. 73 εφαμερον (papyr.), 7. 2 άμέραν (testim.), 19. 27 αμερας (papyr.). Likewise, the compounds o f -αμερ(ι)ος in the lyric parts o f tragedy regularly show aspiration: A.(?) Pr. 547 έφαμερίων, E. Ion 1050 μεθαμερίων, Ph. 229 καθαμέριον; cf. also ούθ’ άμερίων at S. A j. 399 (lyr.) and A nt. 789 (lyr.). The evidence could be interpreted to suggest that Pindar (a) always wrote the aspirated form (but that it was occasionally corrupted to the unaspirated form, perhaps under the influence o f άμαρ), (b) always wrote the psilotic form (but that it was usually normalized to the more familiar aspirated form), or c) sometimes used one form and sometimes the other. (The fact that the unaspirated form is normal in Doric dialects [cf. Rüsch, Gram, der delph. Inschr., 216—17, and Thumb-Kieckers, G D , §§141. 15, 147. 14. b, 203. 19] proves nothing with regard to the practice o f Doric choral lyric which was a literary, not a spoken language.) The last interpretation has been adopted by Forssman, Sprache, 11 —13 (cf. also 33, nn. 1 and 3), who argues that the psilotic form was normal in Pindar, but the aspirated compound was deliberately employed at Ne. 6. 6 because the poet was following an epic model, viz. Hes. Op. 102 —3 (but in fact there is no real evidence for Hesiodic influence here). (For Is. 7. 40 he suspects a similar epic influence.) On the other hand, we could just as well argue on the same principle that the aspirated form was normally used by Pindar, but that έπαμερ- at Pj. 8. 95 and fr. 182. 1 (if not a simple mistake) is a conscious recollection o f the use o f the word (on which v. Herrn. Fränkel, Wege und Formen, 23 —39, and M. W. Dickie, ICS 1 [1976], 7 —14) in its unaspirated form at Semon. 1. 3 W. (on the evidence for the psilotic form in East Ionic v. West, Studies, 88 —89). In fact, it is very doubtful whether Pindar would have wished to have given a distinctly epic or Ionic color to a particular word by adopting a vocalism otherwise foreign to his poetic dialect (cf. further ad 119 [f]). In light o f the evidence o f the MSS and papyri it is much more likely that he regarded AMEPA and its compounds as aspirated. I should therefore prefer to adopt the aspirated forms throughout. 131 (a), ιερόν εύζωας άωτον: for a similar use o f the adjective cf. Critias Vorsokr. 88 B 1. 8 παννυχίδας θ’ ίεράς θήλεις χοροί άμφιέπωσιν. Pindar reflects that stage o f Greek thought before the influence of philosophy, particularly that o f Plato, had introduced a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the spiritual and the physical (on which v. W. K. C. Guthrie, Greek Philosophy: The Hub and the Spokes. An Inaugu­ ral Lecture, Cambridge, 1953, 7 —8). Moreover, his phrase, which may seem incongruous to some readers, presupposes an aspect of Greek

'0—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

religious realism which has been well formulated by H. Lloyd-Jones in another context: “Real felicity belongs only to the gods; mortal men, even those favoured by the gods, are granted only certain moments of true happiness; these quickly pass, and wili be followed by misfortune, and in the end death is inevitable” (JHS 93 [1973], 126). (Feasting before a gentle death which comes as a boon from the gods is especially stressed in the exemplary tales o f Agamedes and Trophonius as related by Pindar in fr. 3 [ = Ps.-Plu. Moralia 109a] and o f Cleobis and Biton as related by Herodotus at 1. 31.) In the sheer joy of the feast Iason and his kinsmen come for a moment as close as men can to the state which the gods are presumed to enjoy as a matter o f course (and which was once the privilege of Hesiod’s Golden race, who were also granted a gentle death; cf. Op. 115 —16). For that reason it can be called “holy”; on the divine connotations o f ιερός v. further Benveniste, Institutions ii, 192—198 ( = Engl, ed., 456 —61). (Pindar’s use o f ιερός here is thus hardly an example o f his “Wagnisse gegenüber dem Wort und dem Hörer”, as P. Wülfing-v. Martitz, d o tta 39 (I960), 31, n. 4, regards it.) With the phrase εύζωάς αωτον cf. Is. 5. 12 ζωδς αωτον ... τον δλπνιστον. 131 (b). εύζωάς: the MSS are divided between εύζωάς and εδ ζωάς. Most earlier editors including Boeckh adopted εύζωάς, but the noun is not elsewhere attested in this form and its legitimacy as a compound has been doubted. Bergk2^3 suggested (but did not adopt) εύζφας, which is attested but always in the quadrisyllable form εύζωΐα, and is in any case a late philosophical term (first attested at Arist. E N 1098b21). Otto Schroeder, Pjth. ad loc., suggested εύζοίας and in fact adopted it in his ed. minA This, in turn, has been accepted by most subsequent editors including Bowra, Turyn, and Snell-Maehler, al­ though the form is elsewhere unattested and has little to recommend it. The paraphrase o f the sch. ad loc., τής ζωής, almost certainly rules out conjectures such as εύσοίας, another suggestion o f Bergk3 (actually adopted by Otto Schroeder, ed. mail) and makes a form o f ζωά virtually certain. Tycho Mommsen, ed. min., adopted the other basic alternative and printed ιερόν εδ, ζωδς αωτον, which Bergk4 thought was supposed to imply εύίερον. More likely, however, Mommsen meant εδ to construe with δραπών. In fact, the use o f the simplex in the paraphrase of the scholia (cf. above) might seem to suggest that ζωδς and not a compound o f it stood in the text. However, the word-order would be hard to parallel unless in A. Ag. 255 (lyr.) πέλοιτο δ’ οδν τάπί τούτουσιν εδ πρδξις (εϋπραξις codd.) we accept the interpretation of H. L. Lorimer, C R 45 (1931), 21Ί, which construes εδ with πέλοιτο (cf. further Fraenkel ad loc.), but this too is by no means certain. Another possibility would be to take εδ as an adverbial modifier o f ζωδς, which as a nomen actionis

120 —134. Interlude in the House o f Iason’s Father

217

(cf. Risch, Wortbildung-, § 5d, and v. Porzig, Satcpnhalte, 229) might be regarded as virtually assuming a verbal function, i. e. εύ ζωδς would be an equivalent o f του εύ ζην. For the use o f an adverbial modifier with a substantive employed without an article cf. 258 —59 ποτέ Καλλίσταν ... / νόσον “the island once called ‘Fairest’ ” (with note ad loc. [b]). However, it must be conceded that the examples o f this usage quoted below ad 258 —59 (b) are easier to explain. One further possibility worth mentioning is εύ ζωδς which was adopted by Bergk4. However, σεύ at Ne. 8. 46 is hardly justification for introducing here this form of the reflexive, which is otherwise unattested in choral lyric, and is moreover not used in the genitive by Pindar in any form. In short, none o f the explanations given above is entirely free o f difficulties. O f all the possibilities canvassed above the most likely remains εύζωδς. The principal objection which has been raised against it is the legitimacy o f forming the compound simply by prefixing εδ to a substantive; cf. besides Bergk4 also Otto Schroeder, Pytb. ad loc. In fact, however, the same formation is found in εύδία (first attested in Pindar; cf. Ol. 1. 98, Py. 5. 10, Is. 7. 38, Pae. 2. 52, fr. 109. 1, and Aeschylus; cf. Th. 795), which, as Sommer, Nominalkomposita, 73 —77, has shown, is an original compound (from εύ and the zero grade o f an ancient word meaning “day”, on which cf. also Frisk and Chantraine, s. v. εύδία). Comparable too is the compound έκατόμβη; cf. Frisk, s. v., but v. also Chantraine, s. v. έκατόν. If Pindar needed a model for εύζωά, it will doubtless have been that o f εύδία. In any case, we need no longer doubt the correctness o f the word-formation. Neither need we be disturbed by the use o f the simplex in the paraphrase o f the scholia (cf. above), since there would have been little point in repeating what was probably a Pindaric bapax legomenon. We may therefore be reasonably sure that what Pindar wrote here was εύζωδς. 131 (c). δωτον: in Homer basically “tuft” in its natural state and then used of finished products made from it whether of wool (4 x ) or of linen (II. 9. 661); v. Buttmann, Lexilogus ii, 13—19. By the fifth century it had come to be used o f the “choicest” or “finest” part or the “pick” of anything (cf. A. Supp. 666 [lyr.] δωτον, sc. ήβας; it is also attested at B. 23. 1, where the context is fragmentary, and at A P 13. 28. 3 βόδων άώτοις, which has been claimed as the work o f an otherwise unknown Antigenes and dated ca. 490—480; v. Wilamowitz, Sappho und Simonides, 218 —23), hence the usual rendering o f the metaphorical use “flower” or, perhaps better, “cream”. (R. A. Raman, d o tta 53 [1975], 1 9 5 -2 0 7 , argues that αωτος originally meant “the ‘nap’ that lies on the surface of cloth, as well as the fleece that grows on the surface of sheep” [198] and finds the semantic link between the Homeric and later

218

7 0 -2 6 2 . The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

usages in the “shift from the concrete notion ‘top’ to the abstract notion ‘excellence’ ” [205].) Used in this metaphorical sense, it is one o f Pindar’s favourite words of approbation (19 x plus 01. 5. 1, where the writer o f that Pindaric imitation has obviously chosen it because he regarded it as particularly characteristic of his model). On Pindar’s use o f the word V. Bowra, Pindar, 228 —29. 132 (a), πάντα λόγον Οέμενος σπουδαϊον έξ άρχΰς: the contrast is between σπουδαϊον here and έυφροσύναν in 129. As the natural wordorder makes virtually certain, πάντα is accusative singular (recte sch. ad loc. δλον τον λόγον) and not neuter plural (pace Gildersleeve ad loc., cf. also Gottfr. Hermann, Opuscula vii, 140, and Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc.). (Although Pindar freely employs hyperbaton [cf. ad 42 —43 (b)], he avoids separating a syntactical unit by a word which could be falsely construed with the first element in the unit [cf. ad 66 —67 (c)].) For the phrase πάντα λόγον cf. Pj. 2. 66. 132 (b). λόγον θέμενος: not the simplex for the compound προθέμενος (so Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc.), which would be a technical usage (cf. Hdt. 8. 59, Aeschin. 2. 65, etc., where, moreover, the active is normal) foreign to Pindar, but a synonym for ποιησάμενος (so Gildersleeve), i. e. = λέξαις or είπών. The middle voice of τίθημι (like that o f ποιέω) is often used with a substantive as a periphrasis for a simple active verb; v. Stahl, Syntax, 53 —54. For a similar use with the active voice cf. 276 θέμεν σπουδάν as well as 199 άμπνοάν ... έστασαν, on which v. ad 276 (d) and 199 (a), and further 01. 2. 97 κρυφόν τιθέμεν ( = κρύπτειν), Ne. 1. 5 —6 θέμεν / αίνον ( = αίνήσαι). 132 (c). σπουδαϊον: “[telling] an earnest story” = “[telling] it earnestly”, i. e. σπουδαϊον for σπουδαίως. On the use of an adjective in place of an adverb v. ad 39 (a) and cf. ad 129 (b). 133 (a), συγγενέσιν: “kinsmen”, substantival use in this sense first attested here; cf. further Hdt. 2. 91. 6, 3. 119. 2, 4. 147. 3, 4, Ar. Av. 368, etc. Pindar in fact uses the word in this sense only here; on συγγενής v. further F. Hieronymus, Μελέτη. Uebung, Lernen und angrenzende Begriffe, Diss. Basel, ii (Anmerkungen), 1970, 17, Anm. 33. 133 (b). παρεκοινδθ’: only here, but κοινόω τινί τι is regularly used with the same meaning; cf. ad 115 (a). On Pindar’s occasional use o f a compound verb where we might expect the simplex v. ad 261. 133 (c). oi δ’: i. e. οί δέ συγγενείς; for the progressive use of δέ emphasizing a previous word which was not the subject o f the preceding sentence cf., e. g., Py. 9. 60 —62 "Ωραισι καί Γαίμ / ... / ταί δ’, Ne. 5. 23 —25 Μοισάν ... / ... / ... αί δέ, and ν. Slater, s. ν. ό, δ, δς, B, 1, e, for more examples.

134—168. Second Interview with Pelias

219

133 (d). έπέσποντ’: describes a further step in the action. Iason’s relatives not only listen sympathetically to his story, but “assent” to his plan to recover the kingship with their help. On the (expected) spiritus lenis o f the aorist v. A. Debrunner in Μνήμης χάριν, Gedenkschrift für Paul Kretschmer i, Wien, 1956, 83, and cf. Forssman, Sprache, 3, n. 1. On the form cf. further ad 40 (c) and my note cited there. For the meaning cf., e. g., Od. 12. 349 έπί δ’ έσπωνται (δέ σπώνται Bekker; cf. further Debrunner, op. cit., i, 82) θεοί άλλοι. The difference in meaning between έπέσποντ’ here and έφέπων “engage in” at 294 reflects their origin from two different words. The first is cognate with the Vedic simplex sdcate (cf. Latin sequitur) and means (like its cognates in other I. E. languages) “follow”; v. Frisk and Chantraine, s. v. έπομαι. The second, on the other hand, is cognate with the Vedic simplex sdpati “cherish”, “take care o f ’, “honour” and means basically “take care o f ’, “engage in”; v. Frisk and Chantraine, s. v. έπω. Already in early Greek the two words were sometimes confused; cf. Chantraine, Gram. horn, i, 309, η. 1, 388. Although Pindar distinguishes between έφέπειν “engage in” as at 294 and έφέπεσθαι “follow”, “assent” as here, he also reflects the Homeric practice o f using έπειν compounds with the same meaning as έπεσθαι compounds. Cf. 01. 2. 10 αίών δ’ έφεπε μόρσιμος “... followed them” (so, rightly, sch. 19d έπηκολούθησεν αύτοΐς). Cf. also Pj. 1. 50 —51 νυν γε μάν τάν Φιλοκτήταο δίκαν έφέπων / έστρατεύθη “... he followed the way of Philoctetes (i. e. imitated him) ...”. On the other hand, at Pj. 1. 29 —30 εϊη, Ζεΰ, τίν εΐη άνδάνειν, / ος τοΰτ’ έφέπεις ορος, the active έφέπεις does not mean “haunt”, “frequent”, as LSJ, s.v., II, 3, state, but has its proper meaning and is close in sense to that o f its cognate Vedic simplex sap- (cf., e. g., R V 9. 97. 37), i. e. “care for”, almost “honour” (so too, presumably, sch. 56b περιέπεις). 133— 34. αίψα δ’ άπό κλισιάν / ώρτο: cf. Od. 22. 364 αίψα δ’ ύπό (άπό v. /.) θρόνου ώρτο, and further II. 24. 515 αύτίκ’ άπό θρόνου ώρτο, 11. 645 άπό θρόνου ώρτο. On αίψα cf. ad 34 (d). The κλισίαι here are not of course “huts” (pace sch. 237c άπό των σκηνών; cf. Sandys “from the tents”, Slater, s.v.: “camp”), as often in Homer, but simply “anything for lying”, “resting”, or “reclining on”; cf. Od. 4. 123 (with sch. ad loc.: ον άλλαχοΰ ... κλισμόν όνομάζει), 19. 55. Although Homer uses both ώρτο and, less frequently, ώρετο, only the athematic form is attested in Pindar (cf. also Ol. 6. 62 ορσο). 134 (a), σύν: cf. ad 2 (f) and 39 (c). 134— 168. Second Interview with Pelias. With Iason and his kinsmen determined on a course o f action the listeners’ suspense would naturally

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

be aroused. Will they attack the king and try to recover the kingdom by force or will they attempt to negotiate? In the context o f this particular ode with its exaltation o f royal power the first alternative would presumably have been less than welcome even if Pelias was clearly identified as an usurper. In any case, however, the inherited motive for the quest would have been lost. (According to sch. Py. 4. 281a Pindar alone made the recovery o f Phrixus’ soul one o f the motives [cf. 159 —62], whereas others restricted the reason for the voyage to the quest for the Fleece.) So Iason attempts to negotiate. Pelias’ clever and diplomatic way o f disposing, as he hopes, o f the ambitious and troublesome young man by proposing a dangerous quest from which he would probably never return is o f course a typical folktale motif; cf., e. g., Bellerophontes, Perseus, or Heracles, and v. G. S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and other Cultures, Cambridge, 1970, 76. In later versions the real motive is expressly stated; cf. A. R. 1. 16—17 (Pelias imposes the voyage on Iason) δφρ’ ένί πόντφ / ήέ καί άλλοδαποΐσι μετ’ άνδράσν νόστον όλέσση, 3. 333 —39 with Vian2 ad loc., pp. 122—23), and further D. S. 4. 40. 2 (lason himself proposes an expedition and Pelias assents in the hope that the young man) έν ταϊς παραβόλαις στρατείαις διαφθαρήσεσθαι, Val. Fl. 1. 31—66, and [Orph.] A . 58 —60. Pindar, however, does not raise the question whether lason was aware o f Pelias’ true motive in proposing the quest, but concentrates on his appropriately heroic response to an opportunity to display his prowess or rather to realize his άρετά (187). 134 (b). καί f>’: cf. 189 and Pj. 3. 45, where, as here and often in Homer, f>a / apa is used to indicate immediate transition; v. KG ii, 318 —19, §2, and on the combination of particles cf. Denniston, GP, 42—43. (At 01. 7. 59, on the other hand, j5a indicates a natural consequence o f the situation just mentioned; on this latter usage v. KG ii, 319, §3). 134(c). ήλθον ... μέγαρον: cf. ad 52 (a) and 118 (e). Pindar uses μέγαρον here and at 280 primarily in the sense “palace”, but the word includes by implication in both instances the “main hall”, where all public business was transacted in the royal palace; cf. also Ol. 13. 62. (At Ol. 6. 2 and Ne. 1. 31 it simply means “house” without any implied reference to the main hall.) In this respect the Pindaric usage differs from the Homeric in which the singular normally refers to the “main hall” and the plural to a “house” or “palace”; v. A. J. B. Wace, “House and Palaces” in Wace and Stubbings, A Companion to Homer, 494. (Homeric, on the other hand, is the use o f the plural at Py. 9. 29 and D i. 2. 8.)

221 135 (a), έσσύμενοι... εϊσω κατέσταν: the participle has its full verbal force and {pace sch. ad loc. μετά σπουδής) is not merely a synonym of έσσυμένως (as it is at fr. 104b. 3 roi δ’ έπίμπλαν έσσύμενοι [“eagerly”] πίθους); cf. 11. 6. 518 σε ... έσσύμενον κατερύκω, Pat. 9. 3 —5 μένος > σθένος. 145 (a), λεύσσομεν: epic verb (also used in tragedy; cf. esp. A. Pers. 710 έως ... έλευσσες αύγάς ήλιου [said to the ghost o f Darius], E. Ph. 1084 εΐ λεύσσει φάος [i. e., if he is alive], Tr. 269 [lyr.] άρά μοι άέλιον λεύσσει; [i. e., is she still alive?]) attested in choral lyric only here and at D i. 4. (h). 8. 145 —46 (a). Μοΐραι δ’ άφίσταντ’, εΐ τις έχθρα πέλει / όμογόνοις αιδώ καλύψαι: the infinitive is consecutive after πέλει: ώστε καλύπτειν τήν αιδώ καί άποκρύπτειν, as sch. 258a rightly paraphrases. The optative άφίσταιντ’, found in a few MSS (VXZa) and approved by Chaeris according to sch. 258b, could o f course imply a wish, not, however, the wish “die Moiren möchten es nicht so weit kommen lassen” (so

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc.), which would require an active and transitive verb, but rather quite simply one that “the Fates should turn aside” (“die Moiren mögen sich abwenden”), as the use of the intrans­ itive, middle verb would make clear (the pointlessness o f such a wish has not deterred Nisetich from adopting it in his translation). (Chaeris in fact understood the statement as a future less vivid condition and presumably read πέλοι instead o f πέλει. Snell-Maehler’s άφίσταιντ’ ... πέλει, cf. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 388, n. 3, has even less to recommend it.) But Iason’s point is a straightforward statement o f fact (for the use of the indicative in the protasis of a present general supposition cf., e. g., Ol. 1. 64, and v. Goodwin, M T, §467, and further B. L. Gildersleeve, AJPh 3 [1882], 434—45) that strife among relatives is unnatu­ ral and thus contrary to the normal dispensation of things (here symbol­ ized by the Μοϊραι). (The elision o f -at in the 3rd pers. pi. ending is common in Pindar; for further examples v. Peter, De dialecto Pindari, 28.) For other examples o f Pindar’s use o f a consecutive infinitive without ώστε cf. Ol. 3. 5, Pj. 10. 48, Is. 3. 10 (whereas, e. g., at Ol. 9. 74, Ne. 5. 1, 35, 50, he uses the more common construction with ώστε expressed). On the use of intransitive verbs governing final-consecutive infinitives v. KG ii, 16 —17 and esp. Schwyzer ii, 362 —63, where, however, the present example is falsely explained by both (so already Dissen [1830] ad loc., but v. Hallström, Quaestiones Pindaricae, 9) as final following on άφίσταντ’. 145 (b). έχθρα: abstract noun ( < έχθρός; cf. Chantraine, Pa formation des noms, 226) first attested here (εχθος is Homeric; cf. also Pyth. 2. 55) and common thereafter in Ionic-Attic. 145 —46 (b). πέλει / δμογόνοις: “arises for ...”, “comes upon ...”; cf. II. 9. 592 κήδε’, δσ’ άνθρώποισι πέλει. The second element of όμογόνοις echoes γοναϊς in 143 and is itself echoed by the second element o f προγόνων in 148; όμόγονος is first attested here and thereafter only in prose. (Poetry prefers όμογενής, a form also found in prose, esp. philosophical.) For the Greeks the limits o f kinship (άγχιστεία) extended as far as a common great-grandparent (here Enarea and of course also Aeolus); cf. W. K. Lacey, The Family in Classical Greece, new. ed., Auckland, 1980, 37 with n. 14, and v. Wyse ad Is. 7. 22. 5. 146. αιδώ καλύψαι: “obscurare pietatem" (Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc.). Here αίδώ refers to the natural “respect”, “reverence”, even “awe” which blood relatives normally feel toward one another and which restrains them from acting unnaturally in their (mutual) relations; cf., e. g., 218 where Pindar describes how Medea lost her τοκέων ... αίδώ through the influence of love. On this use o f αίδώς v. von Erffa, Αιδώς, 10—11, and esp. 74 —75.

134—168. Second Interview with Pelias

231

147—55. oö — κακόν: for a similar proposal to divide the wealth and prerogatives of kingship (in Thebes between Polynices and Eteocles) cf. the Lille “Stesichorus”, vv. 220 —24, in the edition o f P. J. Parsons, Z P E 26 (1977), 16, with 20—21 (notes), 24 (notes). 147 (a), ού πρέπει: the asyndeton is inferential; cf. Dissen (1830) i, 276, and v. ad 263 (a) below. While Pindar sometimes employs the verb in its older sense “to be conspicuous” (cf. Py. 10. 67), he uses it much more often, as here, in the new moral (and aesthetic) sense “to be fitting”, which is first attested (in Pindar and Aeschylus) in the fifth century and which later became an important technical concept of philosophy (cf. PI. [?] Pip. Ma. 293e —94e, Arist. E N 1122a34 with Gauthier-Jolif ad loc.) and literary criticism (cf. Arist. Rh. 3. 7 [1408alQ —36]). 147 (b). νφν: the only certain example o f a dual pronoun in Pindar (in the London papyrus of the Paeans νώιν is found [Pindar?]; v. P. Oxy. 5, 841, fr. 94. 2), which might suggest a deliberate striving here for color epicus, but cf. Corinn. P M G 661 νώε, Lyr. Adesp. P M G 929. (a) νώι, A. Ch. 234 νώιν, S. Ant. 3 νώιν (and often in S.), E. Med. 871 νώιν (and often in E.), which suggests rather that the form remained available for poetry o f any kind. 147 (c). χαλκοτόροις: “bronze-piercing”, modelled on βινοτόρος “piercing the hide [of shields]”, epithet o f Ares at II. 21. 392, Hes. Th. 934; cf. sch. ad loc. τοϊς τόν χαλκόν τιτρώσκουσι ξίφεσιν. (At Ορρ. Hal. 5. 329 the adjective is also attested, but in a passive sense; however, in early Greek τορέω, τορός, -τορος compounds are regularly used actively [but cf. S. O T 1034 διατόρους ποδοϊν άκμάς]. The use o f τορέω to mean “work” is late, and the interpretation o f our compound as aere factus, so Boeckh, et al., a guess.) Maehler, Komm, ad B. 13. 120 observes that whereas in Homer weapons almost always receive purely factual, descriptive adjectives, lyric often gives them epithets associated with pain and misfortune, i. e. ones which express πάθος. (Objects can of course take on emotional overtones in the Homeric epics, on which v. J. Griffin, Homer on Life and Death, Oxford, 1980, esp. 1 —49.) However, against Maehler’s examples o f the “pathetic” use o f weapon epithets in Pindar {01. 9. 79, 13. 23, Py. 1. 1 0 -1 1 , Ne. 6. 5 2 -5 3 , fr. 163) we may set the following examples o f the “factual” use: here, Py. 9. 20 άκόντεσσιν ... χαλκέοις, Ne. 3. 45 βραχυσίδαρον ακοντα, 7. 27 λευρόν ξίφος, 71 άκονθ’ ... χαλκοπάραον, 10. 69 ακοντι θοφ. In other words, Pindar freely employs both types. 148 (a), άκόντεσσιν: mentioned not necessarily because the Thessali­ ans were well known for their use of these weapons, as Gildersleeve

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

ad loc. might be thought to imply, but because the spear together with the sword form a traditional pair; cf. Py. 9. 20 —21 άκόντεσσίν τε χαλκέοις / φασγάνω τε μαρναμένα (again a Thessalian context, but that is probably accidental). On chccov v. further Trümpy, Kriegerische Fachausdrikke, 54 —60. 148 (b). μεγάλαν ... τιμάν: the choice o f adjective suggests by impli­ cation that the τιμά (cf. ad 108 [cj) is big enough for them both. On the use o f the adjective in this and similar contexts cf. Bissinger, Das A djektiv μέγας, 155 —59. 148 (c). προγόνων: used in Homer only of “first-born” lambs as opposed to the μέτασσαι, those “born later” (cf. Od. 9. 221). The sense “forefathers” is first attested in Pindar (Ol. 9. 54, here, Py. 7. 17, 9. 105, Ne. 7. 92) and Aeschylus (Pers. 405). 148 (d). μήλά “flocks” of sheep and goats; cf. II. 10. 485 —86 ώς ... λέων μήλοισιν ... έπελθών, / αϊγεσιν ή όΐεσσι, 16. 352—53 ώς ... λύκοι άρνεσσιν έπέχραον ή έρίφοισι / σίνται, ύπέκ μήλων αίρεύμενοι, Od. 9. 183 —84 ένθα δέ πολλά / μήλ’, δϊές τε καί αίγες, ίαύεσκον. (Other small animals may be included too; cf. sch. 263b.) Often opposed, as here, to cattle with which they form a pair; cf. II. 9. 406 βόες καί ϊφια μήλα, Hes. Op. 795, etc. At Od. 11. 257 Pelias is said to be πολύρρηνος. For flocks (perhaps standing for the whole estate) as an object of strife cf. Hes. Op. 163 (with West ad loc.), and also A. R. 1. 1340 —41. 148 (e). γάρ: a normal explanatory use of the particle; however, there is a slight shift in thought. In 147 —48 Iason had said that it was ού πρέπει to divide the prerogative by force. This we naturally interpret as meaning “unfitting” in a moral sense in view of what he has previously said about the strength of blood-ties. However, the reasons advanced in 148 —49 adduce a different argument from the moral one why the use of force is ού πρέπει, viz. that it is in fact unnecessary since Iason is willing to compromise. Moreover, 155 adds still another practical reason: strife could go on even further. On the occasional imprecision in the connection o f thought found in the use o f γάρ v. Denniston, G P, 61—62. 149 (a), βοών ξανθός άγέλας: one o f the traditional colours o f cows in Greek literature is yellowish to reddish brown; cf., e. g., II. 13. 703 ( = Od. 13. 32) βόε οϊνοπε, II. 16. 487 —88 ταύρον ..., / αΐθωνα, Od. 18. 371—72 βόες ..., / αϊθωνες, Β. 5. 102 βοών φοινικονώτων, 11. 104 —5 βοΰς / ... φοινικότριχας, Py. 4. 205 φοίνισσα ... άγέλα ταύρων, 225 βόας, οϊ φλόγ’ άπό ξανθάν γενύων πνέον, [Theoc.] 25. 126 —28 ταύροι ... / . . . ! φοίνικες, [Ορρ.] Cyn. 2. 90 —91 Οί Φρύγιοι (sc. ταύροι) χροιήν μέν άριπρεπέες τελέθουσι, / ξανθοί τε φλογεροί τε, 100—3 Οί Σύριοι

233 ταύροι ... / ... / α’ίθωνες, as well as Mosch. Eur. 84 τού ( i.e. Zeus in the shape of a bull) δ’ ήτοι τό μέν άλλο δέμας ξανθόχροον έσκε (ν. Biihler ad loc., who attempts to determine the colour more precisely with the help o f Pompeian wall-paintings; however, we may doubt whether poets gave much thought to actual colours once certain epithets had become traditional). (In Homer ξανθός is used as an epithet of horses [II. 9. 407, 11. 680; cf. also 8. 185 Ξάνθος, Hector’s horse, 16. 149 Ξάνθος, Achilles’ horse], but never o f cattle.) On the use of ξανθός in early Greek v. further Handschur, Die Färb- und Glan^wörter, 144 —47, Müller-Bore, Farbwert, 80, 89—90, 96 —98, and for φοΐνιξ and its derivatives cf. ad 64 (e) above. Here βοών ξανθός άγέλας, like φοίνισσα ... άγέλα ταύρων in 205, is a collective noun enallage; cf. Bers, Enallage, 48, who observes that Pindar tends to exclude enallage from his myths and that those instances which do occur within a myth, such as these two, fall within the most common categories. 149 (b). άπούραις: cf. ad 22 (c). In Homer άπούρας is usually con­ strued c. dupl. acc. pers. et rei (occasionally c, dat. pers.); however, in a few passages, e. g., II. 19. 89 δτ’ Ά χιλλήος γέρας αυτός άπηύρων, where the personal genitive was probably originally intended to be possessive, it would be possible to interpret the construction as c. acc. rei et gen. pers.·, such passages doubtless provided the ultimate justification for Pindar’s use o f the construction here. 150 (a), νέμεαι: as often in Homer and Hesiod, o f “holding” land; cf. II. 2. 751 έργ’ ένέμοντο, 12. 313 τέμενος νεμόμεσθα μέγα, etc. 150 (b). πΐαίνων: normally πΐαιν- (cf. πΐων < *ntpcov; on the forma­ tion cf. Ernst Fraenkel, Griech. Denominativa, 5, and, for examples o f the invariably long scansion elsewhere, v. op. cit., 54). In other instances, however, Pindar occasionally shortens a long vowel or diphthong before another vowel within the same word; cf., e. g., Pj. 4. 58 ήρώες (v. further ad loc. [a]), Ne. 5. 2 έστάότ’, 7. 93 τετράόροισιν, 10. 74 τεθνάότ’, and presumably also at Ol. 13. 81 Γαϊαόχφ (cf. Hes. Th. 15), Pj. 8. 35 ίχνεόων, and 55 τοϊαΰτα, where in each case the assumption o f internal correption would produce complete responsion. (For correption within a word in Bacchylides cf., e. g., 17. 92 Άθαναίων, 129 παϊάνιξαν, and probably, 16. 8 παΐηόνων.) For other alleged examples of internal correption in Pindar, some o f which have been rightly, others however wrongly removed by editors (cf. ad 58 [a] above) v. Tycho Mommsen, Annotationis criticae supplementum, 174—81, and Heimer, Studia Pindarica, 117 —23. On correption within a word v. further Sjölund, Kürzung, 16 —42, West ad Hes. Th. 15 and, esp. for Ionic, West, Studies, 79.

234

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

For the metaphorical use o f πιαίνω cf. Xenoph. Vorsokr. 21 B 2. 22 ού γαρ πιαίνει ταΰτα μυχούς πόλεως (of an Olympian victor), as well as (the passive uses at) Py. 2. 55 —56 εχθεσιν / πιανόμενον (on which cf. H. Lloyd-Jones, J H S 93 [1973], 122) and B. 3. 68 φθόνωι πιαίνεται. The unpleasant connotation which Kirkwood ad loc. finds in the use o f πιαίνω here and at Py. 2. 56 lies not in the word itself, which is basically neutral in tone (cf. Xenoph., loc. cit.), but in the immediate context. 151 (a), πονεΐ: the active, transitive use is attested only here (Bergk2 suggested εϊ σε [τό P] κέντρον , πονεΐ at Anacreont. 33. 14, but cf. Bergk4 ad loc.; Pauw’s correction πονεϊς, adopted by West [35. 14] is likely in view of the intransitive use o f πονοϋσιν in 15), but the corresponding passive is found, e. g. at S. Tr. 985 —86 (anap.) πεπονημένους άλλήκτοις / όδύναις, Th. 4. 59. 1 πονουμένης μάλιστα τφ πολέμω. Like other verbs of emotion πονεΐ is used with a participial construction denoting the cause; cf. in general KG ii, 53 —54. 151 (b). πορσόνοντ’: cf. also 278 and Is. 3/4. 79 πορσϋν- as well as B. 17. 89 έπόρσϋν’, but 01. 6. 33 and Is. 6. 8 πορσαιν-. The word is attested three times in Homer: Od. 3. 403 πόρσϋνε, 7. 347 πόρσϋνε (sch. P ad loc. γρ. πόρσαινε έν ταΐς Άριστάρχου), and (as a future participle) II. 3. 411 πορσύνέουσα {v.l. πορσάνέουσα); cf. also h. Cer. 156 πορσαίνουσι, [Hes.] fr. 43a. 69 M.-W. πορσαίνεσκεν, 70. 8 πορσαίνουσ[αι, 217. 5 πορσανέουσαι, Emp. Vorsokr. 31 B 23. 5 πορσόνουσι, Ades. Iamb. 42. 4 W. πορσύνεται. As in the case of Pindar both forms πορσϋν- and πορσαιν- are used by Apollonius Rhodius, while πορσϋν- is the only form used in prose and probably in tragedy as well. Both forms o f the word are presumably denominatives of πόρσω and probably meant originally “bring forward”; v. Frisk, s. v. πόρσω, and cf. Chantraine, s. eadem v. (Risch, Wortbildung2, §108c suggests that the distribution of the two suffixes is in part determined by euphonic considerations, e. g. κυδαίνω but αίσχύνω. The only instance o f a double form is πορσύνω — πορσαίνω.) On verbs in -αίνειν and -ύνειν v. in general Ernst Fraenkel, Griech. Denominativa, 4 —66, and A. Debrunner, I F 21 (1907), 18 —70, 7 4 - 8 8 , G W § § 2 1 8 -2 7 . In Homer the verb is always used o f a woman “preparing” a bed for a man with the implication that she will share it with him. In the Hesiodic fragments it means “look after”, “care for”, while at h. Cer. 156 (cf. Richardson ad loc.) the sense is “manage”, viz. things in a house. For this basic range of meaning cf. E M , s.v. πορσύνω (683, 45 —46 G.) Σημαίνει τό εύτρεπίζω καί έτοιμάζω καί κοσμώ. At Emp. Vorsokr. 31 B 23. 5, Is. 3/4. 79, 6. 8, and B. 17. 89 πορσύνω / πορσαίνω means “prepare” and takes as its direct object the thing prepared, while

134—168. Second Interview with Pelias

235

at 01. 6. 33 it means “look after”, “care for”. The latter is clearly the basic sense implied by the use of the verb both here (“care for” > “supply”) and at 278 (“care for”) > “give heed to”). In all three instances the direct object designates the person or thing “cared for”. The shift in meaning from “preparing” something for someone to “providing” someone (or something) with something, i. e. “caring for” him or it, is comparatively slight. 151 (c). αγαν: “in excess”, i. e. o f his own needs. (Christ’s suggestion that αγαν could be taken with πονεΐ not only produces the wrong tone, but also weakens the portrayal of Iason’s natural generosity. In any case, the word-order tells strongly against it.) On αγαν v. Thesleff, Intensification, §§198 —99. 152 (a), άλλα καί σκαπτόν: sc. πονεΐ, so, rightly, sch. ad loc. (a). 152 (b). καν ... καί: not very commonly used by Pindar to link two equal units, but cf. 01. 7. 90, 9. 23 —24 (more examples in Slater, s. v. καί, A, 4), and v. Tycho Mommsen, Annotationis criticae supplementum, 184. 152 (c). σκαπτόν μόναρχον: “sceptre o f single rule” (cf. sch. ad loc. [b] το σκήπτρον τό τής μοναρχίας); cf. A. (?) Pr. 761 προς τοΰ τύραννα σκήπτρα συληθήσεται, (The word μόναρχος, first attested as μούν- at Thgn. 52, is used only here as an adjective.) On the adjectival use of substantives such as μόναρχος, etc. (instead o f a dependent genitive) v. further Williger, Komposita, 14—16, esp. 15 (where, however, his alternative interpretation o f the present example, “allein gebietendes Zepter”, is unnecessary). Cf. also ad 175 (e) and 235 below. On the sceptre as a symbol of royal authority v. F. J. M. de Waele, The Magic Staff or Rod in Graeco-Italian Antiquity, Diss. Nijmegen, Gent, 1927, 101—19, esp. 109 —14, and Benveniste, Institutions ii, 29 —33 (= Engl, ed., 323 —26), with further literature cited by West ad Hes. Th. 30. Whereas the recovery of the kingship that was hereditary in his family is the main concern o f Pindar’s Iason, Apollonius Rhodius depicts his Iason as simply wishing to accomplish the task imposed upon him, viz. the recovery o f the Golden Fleece, so that he can live in his own country “en toute quiétude, ‘bourgeoisement’, sous le sceptre de Pélias”; cf. 1. 9 0 2 - 3 with Vian ad 1. 903 (p. 260). 152 (d). σκαπτόν: so always in Pindar, but cf. B. 3. 70 σκδπτρ[ο]ν as well as Lyr. Adesp. S L G 319. 11—12 [σκά- / πτρόν. Tragedy always uses σκήπτρον even in lyric parts; cf. S. Ph. 140 (lyr.), E. Andr. 1223 (lyr.), etc. On the forms σκαπτόν / σκήπτρον v. further Felix Solmsen, Beiträge, 206 —9.

236

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

152 (e). θρόνος: so the majority o f MSS and the scholia. The variant θρόνον (FGacH), which has been favoured by some, e. g. Farnell, represents an attempt to produce what was regarded as an easier construction by making σκαπτόν and θρόνον the object o f λυσον in 155; however, if this was what Pindar intended, it is hard to see why he would have used the summary τα in 154. For the throne together with the sceptre as a symbolic pair cf., e. g., S. O C 425 δς νυν σκήπτρα καί θρόνους εχει, 448 —49. 152(f). Κρηθεΐδας: Iason’s father Aeson was a son o f Cretheus (cf. ad 72 [a]), from whom royal power was inherited, whereas Pelias was not. For another interpretation o f the Aeolid genealogy which would seem to suggest an alternative tradition (here implicitly rejected by Pindar?) in which Neleus and Pelias are the actual heirs of Aeolus v. M. Broadbent, Studies in Greek Genealogy, Leiden, 1968, 311 —12. 153 (a), έγκαθίζων: intransitive, active only here, but καθίζω is regu­ larly used so from Homer on; cf., e. g., Od. 8. 422 καθΐζον έν ύψηλοΐσι θρόνοισι. 153 (b). ίππόταις ... λαοϊς: cf. A. Th. 80 (lyr.) λεώς ... ίππότας with Hutchinson ad loc.), S. O C 898 —99 λεών / ανιππον ιππότην τε, Ε. Supp. 660 Ιππότην ... δχλον. The Thessalians were famous as horsemen; cf. Hdt. 5. 6 3 -6 4 , 7. 196, etc. 153 (c). ίππόταις: found in Homer only as a nominative ίππότά, where it is always used to fill the fifth foot in such clausulae as Γερή νιος ίππότα Νέστωρ {II. 2. 336, 433, 601 and often). (The Homeric nominative in -τα has been explained either as an original vocative, so, e. g., E. Risch, Kl. Sehr., 332—40, or, as an original nominative ending, reflecting an Indo-European *-t3, so Ernst Fraenkel, Nomina agentis ii, 185 —99, and, more recently, J. T. Hooker, Gioita 45 [1967], 14 —23 [answering Risch], Although neither explanation is free o f difficulties, the first is more plausible.) The (in dactyls metrically intractable) nominative singular ιππότης (-τας), first attested in that form at A. Th. 80 (lyr.), probably does not represent a development from *ίππο-πότης with the loss of a syllable through haplology, as Hirt, Indogerm. Gram. i, 127, argued, but rather is to be compared with Latin eques, equitis, in which case the -της is the ordinary suffix o f an agent-noun; v. Ernst Fraenkel, Nomina agentis i, 6, 27, and Rüdiger Schmitt, Dichtung und Dichtersprache, §§35, 236 —39. The plural is first attested at Alcm. P M G 2 πώλων ... δματήρες ίππόται σοφοί (of the Dioscuri). The word is not found elsewhere in choral lyric. 153 (d). εόθυνε ... δίκας: “guided his judgments straight”, not “made” or “put straight” judgments already given, as LSJ, s. v. εύθύνω,

237 II, interpret it. The construction here should not (pace Gildersleeve ad loc.) be compared with that at Sol. 4. 36 W., where it is said o f Eunomia, εύθύνει ... δίκας σκολιάς. There the attribute makes the (different) meaning clear. The passage here was rightly understood by the sch. ad loc. φτινί ποτέ τφ θρόνφ ... Αϊσων έπικαθεζόμενος έπ’ ευθείας (sc. γραμμής) ήγε τοΐς ύπηκόοις τάς δίκας; cf. also J. W. Jones, The Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks, Oxford, 1956, 27, n. 2. What we have is a Pindaric variant of the traditional description of a king administering justice; cf. 11. 18. 508 ος μετά τοΐσι δίκην ίθύντατα εϊποι, and esp. Hes. Tb. 84 —86 οί δέ νυ λαοί / πάντες ές αυτόν (sc. τόν βασιλέα) όρώσι διακρίνοντα θέμιστας / ίθείησι δίκησιν (ν. West ad loc.). For variations of the expressions cf., e. g., Hes. Op. 9 δίκη δ’ ’ίθυνε θέμιστας, 263 —64 βασιλής[,] Ιθύνετε μύθους / ..., σκολιών δέ δικέων έπί πάγχυ λάθεσθε (with West ad loc.), A. R. 2. 1026 —27 Αύτάρ έν ύψίστφ βασιλεύς μόσσυνι θαάσσων / Ιθείας πολέεσσι δίκας λαοϊσι δικάζει, Herod. 2. 99 —100 τήν δίκην όρθήι / γνώμήι κυβερνάτ’ (with Headlam and Cun­ ningham ad loc.), and, more abstractly, Ne. 10. 12 ευθεία ... δίκμ. On δίκη in the sense “pronouncement o f a legal judgment” v. Benveniste, Institutions ii, 107—10 ( = Engl, ed., 385 —88). 154—55. τα — κακόν: for the thought cf. B. 11. 69 —72. 154. τα μέν: contrasts with what precedes, not with what follows; v. Denniston, G P , 378. Here (cf. 152), as often, this use o f μέν is intro­ duced by άλλα; cf., e. g., II. 1. 210—11 μηδέ ξίφος έλκεο χειρί' / άλλ’ ήτοι επεσιν μέν όνείδισον, Py. 3. 77 —78 άλλ’ έπεύξασθαι μέν έγών έθέλω / Ματρί. (Farneil ad loc. asserts that if we read θρόνος in 152 [on which v. ad loc. (e) above], “there is asyndeton at 154 τά μέν άνευ”; however, demonstrative [and other] pronouns [and adverbs] at the beginning o f a sentence provide “eine nicht bloss logische, sondern auch grammatische Verbindung mit dem Vorhergehenden”; v. Gottfried Hermann, Opuscula vi, 16, and cf. ad 278 [b].) 155 (a), λΰσον: emphasized by being placed (without syntactical pause) at the beginning o f a new strophe; cf. ad 39 —40. MS P and the sch. ad loc. punctuate after λΰσον, while most o f the other MSS punctuate after άμμιν, thus construing the pronoun with the imperative. While earlier critics (with the exception o f C. L. Kayser, Lectiones Pindaricae, Heidelberg, 1840, 51, and Tycho Mommsen, ed. mai. ad loc.) preferred the latter interpretation, Turyn and Snell-Maehler are almost certainly right to take άμμιν with the μή-clause, since there are no examples in Pindar in which the plural personal pronoun refers unam­ biguously to a single person (cf. Slater, s. ν. εγώ). (It could hardly be argued that άμμιν here refers to Iason and his father or relatives, since there can be no question o f anyone other than Iason exercising “sole

238

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

rule”.) Although μή normally stands first in a negative, subordinate clause expressing purpose or fear, like final ώς (v. ad 7 [b]) it can be postponed in poetry for metrical or stylistic reasons (here άμμιν is emphasized by the hyperbaton); cfi, e. g., A. Th. 764—65 (lyr.) δέδοικα δε σύν βασιλεϋσι / μή πόλις δαμασθήι. On the position o f μή cf. in general Moorhouse, Greek Negatives, 69 —120, esp. 95 —96, 101—7, 1 1 0 -1 1 , 1 1 6 -2 0 . 155 (b). νεώτερον: not some “fresh” ill, so Sandys, Lattimore, Bowra, et ah, but some “worse” ill; cf. Pae. 9. 6 έλαύνεις τι νεώτερον ή πάρος, Ar. Ec. 338 δέδοικα μή τι δρά νεώτερον (with Ussher ad loc.), and v. LSJ, s. v. νεώτερος, II (where, however, the present passage is misinterpreted). (The positive νέος is also used, though less frequently, in the same sinister and euphemistic sense; cf. Page ad E. Med. 37.) The point o f Iason’s thinly veiled threat is not that Pelias’ resistance would provoke new trouble o f the same kind, but rather something much worse. Previously only the loss o f property and position (on the part o f Aeson) had been involved, but now, Iason implies, it could come to physical violence (a possibility already mentioned in 147 —48 only to be temporarily set aside, as we now see). On the use of the comparative without a second member o f the comparison expressed v. KG ii, 305 —7, Anm. 7, and cf. ad 181 (c). 155 (c). άναστάη: Georg Curtius, 1 erhum2 ii, 78 dubitanter, Wm. Schulze, Qu. ep., 431, n. 2; cf. II. 5. 598 στήη (Gottfried Hermann, Opuscula i, 258, had already conjectured άναστήη here). The evidence o f the MSS and scholia is divided between (1) subjunctive, (a) presum­ ably aor. 1, second pers. sg. -στήσης BacD, et al., -στήσας EF, hence άναστάσης Schnitzer, (b) presumably aor. 1, second pers. sg. middle -στήση BPCI, et al., sch. 274c, i. e. -στάση, and (2) optative (aor. 2, third pers. sg.) -σταίη PSQS, sch. 274a. The optative can be eliminated, since it would express no more than a mere possibility (cf. KG i, 252—53) or else a wish (cf. Gildersleeve ad loc.). The third person (intransitive), clearly implied (though the mood is wrong) by the paraphrase o f sch. 274a, gives the (right) tone o f a vague, menacing threat much better than the second person (transitive). Thus, we should doubtless read άναστάη (aor. 2, third pers. sg., subj.), which may have been corrupted first to -στάση and then to -στήση by someone unfamiliar with the epic form (-)στήη. 156 (a), ώς άρ’ έειπεν: Pindar often uses άρα (ήα) with a verb of speaking in the closing formula of both direct and reported speeches; cf. Ol. 6. 52 ώς άρα μάνυε, Pj. 4. 232 ( = Ne. 10. 89) ώς άρ’ αύδάσαντος, 9. 66 ώς άρ’ είπών, Is. 6. 49 ταΰτ’ άρα οί φαμένφ, as well as Pj. 4. 57 ή ήα Μήδειας έπέων στίχες (with note ad loc. [a]). The model is of

239 course the common Homeric formula, άρ’ ώς είποΰσ(α). On “Abschluß­ formeln” in general v. Führer, Reden 36 —44. Normally άρα serves to express the speaker’s interest in something (cf. ad 121 [b]) and thus call the listener’s attention to it, but its employment in formulaic expression inevitably weakens its effect in such combinations as the present one. (Denniston, GP, 33 —34, does not distinguish between the formulaic and non-formulaic uses.) 156 (b). άκά: only here; presumably the (instrumental) dative o f the Homeric adverbial accusative άκήν; cf. Chantraine, s. v. άκή. (Most MSS omit the iota subscript, but there is no compelling reason to follow them. The relation o f άκήν, άκq. to ήκα, the adverbial form which may have influenced the omission o f the subscript here, remains uncertain; v. Frisk, s. v. ήκα, and LfgrE, s. v. άκήν.) It was perhaps specially formed here to avoid the sequence άκαν δ’ dvr-. 156 (c). άνταγόρευσεν: “answered” (cf. sch. ad loc.); at Ar. Ra. 1072 it means “talk back to”, “contradict”. On the semantic shift in the use of the prefix v. Schwyzer ii, 442. 156 (d). Έσομαι: at Py. 3. 108 Pindar avails himself o f the alternate form έσσομαι, which is also found in epic; cf. further Appendix. 157 (a), τοϊος: “such”, i. e. as you wish me to be. For τοϊος used absolutely to refer to something mentioned earlier, a usage found often in Homer (II. 4. 289, 390, 399, etc.), cf. Is. 6. 14. 157 (b). με: on the postponement cf. ad 1 (d). 157 —58. γηραιόν ... / ... ήβας: Pelias and Iason both belong to the same degree o f descent from Aeolus, viz. the third generation (cf. 142 —44, and v. ad 72 [a]), yet the one is old and the other young. This great difference in age has seemed suspect to some commentators, e. g. Gildersleeve and Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc. However, we should not forget that Tyro was the mother o f both Aeson and Pelias, whereas she was the grandmother o f Iason. Moreover, the sequence o f events implied by the Hesiodic Catalogue (fr. 30—31 M.-W.) and [Apollod.] 1. 9. 8 —11 (and probably also by Od. 11. 235 —59) is that Tyro, having come as a ward to her uncle Cretheus, first had her affair with Poseidon to whom she bore Pelias and Neleus, and then, having exposed them, afterwards married her guardian to whom she subsequently bore Aeson, Pheres and Amythaon. Pindar could thus depict Pelias as much older than Iason without stretching natural chronology in the least. 157 (c). γηραιόν μέρος άλικίας: cf. h. Cer. 399 ώρέων τρίτατον μέρ[ος, Py. 4. 65 δγδοον θάλλει μέρος Άρκεσίλας (cf. ad loc. [c]), 12. 11 τρίτον ... κασιγνητάν μέρος (i. e. Medusa; cf. ad 65 [c] above), Pae. 4. 37 —38

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

πολίων ... έκατόν ... /' μέρος έβδομον, (γηραιόν is here quasi-quantitative and can be used to designate a specific part as opposed to the whole.) For ήλικία in the sense “time o f life”, “life” cf. II. 22. 419 —20 ήν πως ήλικίην αίδέσσεται ήδ’ έλεήση / γήρας, ΟΙ. 4. 27 παρά τον άλικίας έοικότα χρόνον, etc. 158 (a), άμφιπολεΐ: “surrounds”, “encompasses” so (rightly) sch. ad loc. περικυκλοΐ καί περιέχει, on the obvious analogy (if one was necessary) άμφιπολέω : άμφιπέλομαι :: περιπολέω : περιπέλομαι; in any case, for άμφιπολέω (-πολεύω) in the sense περιπολέω cf. S. O C 680 (lyr.), Emp. Vorsokr. 31 B 41. Elsewhere (O/. 12. 2, Pj. 4. 271, Ne. 8. 6) Pindar uses άμφιπολέω in the more familiar sense “tend”, but cf. 01. 1. 93 τύμβον άμφίπολον, which sch. 149b explains as τόν περιπολούμενον, διά τό έν μέση είναι τή πόλει. Cf. further Frisk and Chantraine, s. v. πέλομαι. The image here is thus not that o f old age “attending” on someone (Bowra) nor that of its “waiting for” someone (Slater), but rather that o f old age “encompassing” someone like a crust. Behind it is of course the Greek use of γήρας to refer to the “skin”, “exoderm”, “shell” which some animals such as the snake (cf. Arist. H A 549b26, Nie. Tb. 31) or cicada (cf. Call., fr. 1. 3 2 - 3 6 Pf.) periodically cast off. See further my “Three Linguistic Notes on Pin­ dar”, d o tta 58 (1980), 2 1 4 -1 7 . 158 (b). άνθος ήβας: cf. II. 13. 484 καί δ’ έχει (sc. Aeneas) ήβης άνθος, δ τε κράτος έστί μέγιστον, Hes. Th. 988 τέρεν άνθος έχοντ’ (sc. Phaethon) έρικυδέος ήβης (with West ad loc.), h. Cer. 108 τέσσαρες ώς τε θεαί κουρήϊον άνθος έχουσαι, h. Merc. 375 οϋνεχ’ ό μέν τέρεν άνθος έχει φιλοκυδέος ήβης, Sol. 25 1. W. ήβης έρατοϊσιν έπ’ άνθεσι, and ν. further Taillardat, Images, §§43 —46. If the original sense o f άνθος was in fact “growth” (so, J. M. Aitchison, d o tta 41 [1963], 271—78), the choice o f the verb κυμαίνει would here be particularly (though probably unintentionally) appropriate. In any case, the image of Iason’s youth, the flower of which “is just now swelling”, i. e. bursting its bounds, provides a meaningful contrast to the opposed image o f old age encompassing and confining Pelias like a crust (v. ad 158 [a] above). On Pindar’s use o f άνθος cf. further Bowra, Pindar, 248 —49. On the range of meaning of ήβα cf. ad 295 (b). 158 (c). όφελεΐν: cf. E. Med. 455 —56 βασιλέων θυμουμένων / όργάς άφήιρουν, 1150 όργάς τ’ άφήιρει καί χόλον, H F 98 —99 δακρυρρόους τέκνων / πηγάς άφαίρει (with Bond ad loc.), and esp. I T 1272 (lyr.) χθονίαν άφελεΐν μήνιν θεάς. 159 (a), μάνιν χθονίων: the dead are conceived o f as capable o f feeling emotions (cf. Ol. 14. 20 —24, Py. 5. 101, and, further, Macleod

241 ad II. 24. 592 —94) and even o f expressing them in benevolent or malevolent action. Cf., e. g., Hdt. 7. 134 —37 (the story o f the μήνις of Talthybius which befell the Lacedaemonians for their murder o f Darius’ heralds), 169 —70 (the anger o f Minos against the Cretans who failed to avenge his violent death), and v. Erwin Rohde, Psyche2 i, 189 —94. On χθονίων cf. ad 43 (e). According to A. R. 3. 337 the μήνις which the return o f the Fleece would remove was that o f άμείλικτος Ζεύς, whom we might assume in the light o f the Pindaric phrase here to be Hades (cf. II. 9. 158 Άΐδης ... άμείλιχος, 457 Ζεύς ... καταχθόνιος, and v. West ad Hes. Op. 465), if Apollonius had not made it clear at 2. 1195 (on which v. H. Fränkel, Noten, pp. 304 —7) that it is the Olympian Zeus who is meant. 159 (b). κέλεται: the present indicates that the command still holds good; cf. also 163 φωνεΐ (with note ad loc. [f]) and 164 ότρύνει. 159 (c). γάρ: “I say this because ...”, “N ow ”, explaining the reason why the previous statement was made; cf. Denniston, G P, 60 —61. 159 (d). ψυχάν κομίξαι: sch. 281a sees in this a reference to a ritual of summoning back home (άνακαλεϊσθαι) the souls o f those who have died abroad and quotes as a parallel Od. 9. 64 —65 ούδ’ αρα μοι προτέρω νήες κίον άμφιέλισσαι, / πριν τινα των δειλών έτάρων τρις έκαστον άΰσαι (cf. sch. Od. 9. 65 των άπολομένων έν ξένη γή τάς ψυχάς εύχαΐς τισίν έπεκαλοϋντο άποπλέοντες οί φίλοι εις τήν έκείνων πατρίδα, καί έδόκουν κατάγειν αυτούς προς τούς οικείους). Even assuming that the Homeric passage reflects a genuine ritual, we may agree with Farnell ad loc. that what is implied here is something more, viz. the translation of relics such as was actually practised in the sixth and fifth centuries; cf. Hdt. 1. 67 —68 (Orestes’ brought from Tegea to Sparta), Plu. Cim. 8. 5 —6, Thes. 36 (Theseus’ brought from Scyros to Athens in the archonship of Phaedo, 476/75), and v. Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 281 ffi, Erwin Rohde, Psyche2 i, 159 —66, Fr. Pfister, Reliquienkult, 188 —211. (Such a ritual as described in Homer is of course different from the more familiar necromantic practice o f summoning up [also άνακαλεϊσθαι as, e. g., at A. Pers. 621; cf. also E. Hel. 966] the souls of the dead.) Sch. 281a (cf. ad 134 —68) also asserts that Pindar alone made the recovery of Phrixus’ soul along with the Fleece a motive for the voyage to Aea. Finally, it should be observed that the use of ψυχάν κομίξαι at Ne. 8. 44 is not entirely comparable with the present example since there a recall to life is implied as well. 159 (e). κομίξαι: in Homer two forms o f the aorist o f κομίζω are attested: κομισ- (II. 3. 378, etc.) and (έ)κομισσ- (II. 2. 183, etc.). Pindar uses the single sigma form at 01. 2. 14, Py. 3. 56, 4. 9 (άγ-), Ne. 6. 30,

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition {first part)

7. 28. Elsewhere he uses -ξ-: here, Py. 5. 51, Ne. 2. 19, 8. 44. The extended use of -ξ- in the aorist o f verbs in -ζω (-ζω, -ξα originally restricted to guttural stems) is occasionally found in Homer, e. g. ένάριξα (cf. II. 17. 187), but is also a general phenomenon o f West Greek dialects (v. Buck, Greek Dialects, § 142, and cf. Lautensach, Aoriste, 194—96), and it is probably to this latter influence (though perhaps reinforced by the occasional Homeric usage) that Pindar owes the form in the case o f κομίζω (cf. also ad 135 [c]). For Bacchylides only άγκομίσσαι (3. 89) is attested. On the use o f the simplex where we might expect the compound άνακομίξαι v. ad 106 (a). 160 (a). Φρίξος: a son o f Athamas, son of Aeolus, and o f Nephele; cf. [Apollod.] 1. 9. 1, and v. Carl Robert, Heldensage, 41—51. His story was presumably told in [Hes.] fr. 68 —69 M.-W. (In Pindar as in other early Greek accounts there is no suggestion that Phrixus died a violent death in Colchis; cf., e. g., [Hes.] fr. 299 M.-W. Such a notion is presumably an inference of late Latin mythographers based on the speech of Pelias in Val. FI. 1. 40 —57, on which v. Langen ad 1. 41.) In his speech here the Aeolid Iason had appealed to family ties (142—48) in an attempt to avoid violence. In turn, Pelias appeals to them as well, but with the intent of disposing o f this troublesome relative; cf. ad 134 —68. This suggests that Pindar probably in fact invented the motif o f the recovery o f Phrixus’ soul (cf. sch. Py. 4. 281a and v. ad 159 [d] above) in order to provide Pelias with a plausible argument for his countermove. 160 (158).

(b). έλθόντας: sc. άμμε, to be understood from με (157) and σόν

160 (c). ΑΙήτα: v. ad 10 (d). 160(d ). θαλάμους: “halls”, “house”; cf. [01.] 5. 13, fr. 221.3. In Homer θάλαμος always refers to a specific part o f a house, viz. a room in the inner part, esp. a bedroom, and is never used in the plural, as here, to designate the house as a whole. Cf. also ad 134 (c). 161 (a), δέρμα ... κριού βαθύμαλλον: "the deep-fleeced hide o f the ram” (Pindar, as often [cf. KG i, 582, 2], omits the article). Although Pelias has not mentioned the fleece before, Pindar has (cf. 68 to πάγχρυσον νάκος κριού, which is deliberately varied here, as we would expect), so that the implied article would seem natural enough to the audience, who o f course knew in any case which δέρμα was meant, βαθύμαλλον is attested only here before App. Mith. 103 (and there with a conscious comparison to the Golden Fleece). It is a metrical equivalent o f δάσόμαλλοι, the Homeric epithet for άρσενες δίες (Od. 9. 425); cf. also II. 3. 197 άρνειφ ... πηγεσιμάλλφ.

134—168. Second Interview with Pelias

243

161—62 (a), έκ ... / εκ: on the repetition v. ad 290 (d). 161 (b). πόντου: possibly an allusion to the death by drowning o f Phrixus’ sister, Helle, who began the trip with him, but more likely a reference to the earlier version o f the story o f the escape in which the ram did not fly, but swam to Aea; v. D. S. Robertson, C R 54 (1940), 1 —8, esp. 7. 161—6 2 (b ). σαώθη / εκ τε ματρυιάς άθεων βελέων: cf. A. R. 2. 1181—82 πατέρ’ ύμόν (sc. Phrixus) ύπεξείρυτο (se. Zeus) φόνοιο / μητρυιής. 161—62 (c). σαώθη / / / εκ: on the triadic enjambement cf. ad 39 —40. 162 (a), ματρυιάς: sch. ad loc. (a) reports that Pindar himself called her Δημοδίκη (Heyne, Δημοτική DEG Q , Δημωτική B), i. e. Δαμοδίκα fr. 49), while Hippias (F G rH ist 6 F 11) gave her the name Γοργώπις, Sophocles (in one o f his two plays on Athamas) Νεφέλη (presumably a mistake; v. Pearson, Fragmente i, 1—4, and esp. ii, 322 —24, and cf. Carl Robert, Heldensage, 48, and S. fr. 4a R., the former hesitant, the latter non-committal), and Pherecydes (F G rH ist 3 F 98) Θεμιστώ. In the common tradition she was Ino; cf. [Apollod.] 1. 9. 1—2. Various motives were assigned for the stepmother’s plot, but of course the novercalia odia were a traditional theme. Cf., e. g., Quint, inst. 2. 10. 5 saeviores tragicis novercas, doubtless with an allusion to such figures as Ino, and v. further West ad Hes. Op. 825. 162 (b). άθέων: “godless”, i. e. “criminal”; cf. K. Latte, Kl. Sehr., 10. First attested in 5th cent.: A. Pers. 808 κάθέων φρονημάτων, Eu. 151 (lyr.) άθεον άνδρα (“de misdadiger is tegelijk een άθεος” Groeneboom ad loc.), 540 (lyr.) άθέωι ποδί, B. 11. 109 μανίαν άθέων (“god-forsaken” as at S. OF 661 [lyr.]), here, etc., but άθεεί is Homeric (Od. 18. 353), on which v. E. Risch, Kl. Sehr., 167 —75. 162 (c). βελέων: άλληγορικώς άντί του βουλευμάτων ή λόγων ή πραγ­ μάτων, so sch. ad loc. (a). However, since the danger that threatened Phrixus was that o f being sacrified (cf. [Apollod.] 1. 9. 1 with Frazer’s note ad loc.), there is no reason to doubt that the word is used primarily in its literal sense. 163 (a), ταϋτα — φωνεϊ: in Homer dreams come in recognizable human shape and speak to the sleeper; cf., e. g., II. 2. 20 ff. (a false dream sent by Zeus appears to Agamemnon in the shape o f Nestor), 23. 65 ff. (the ψυχή o f Patroclus appears to Achilles and asks for burial). Here we are probably to understand that Pelias’ (alleged) dream came in the shape o f Phrixus himself, as κέλεται ... έάν ψυχάν κομίξαι / Φρίξος in 159 —60 would suggest. Cf. also Ol. 13. 66 —72 (Athene

244

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

appears to Bellerophontes in a dream), the only other example of a “Traumrede” in Pindar (v. Führer, Reden, 109). 163 (b). ταΰτά: not o f course in asyndeton; v. ad 154. 163 (c). μοι: to be understood with both Ιών and φωνεΐ. 163 (d). θαυμαστός: v. ad 241 (c). 163 (e). δνειρος: although by the fifth century the neuter form (in Homer unambiguously attested only once, Od. 4. 841 έναργές δνειρον; cf., however, όνείρατα at Od. 20. 87 [as if from *δνειραρ, cf. E M 47. 53 G.], but όνείρους at II. 5. 150) had gained considerable ground at the expense o f the masculine form, Pindar preserves the original gender here (elsewhere ambiguous); cf. Egli, Heteroklisie, 113 —15. 163 (f). φωνεΐ: codd., φώνει Bergk4 (cf. sch. ad loc. ελεγεν). Cf., however, e. g., Ol. 8. 42—44 Πέργαμος ... άλίσκεται- / ώς έμοί φάσμα λέγει Κρονίδα / πεμφθέν ... Διός. As also in the case o f κέλεται in 159 and o f ότρύνει in 164 the action described by the verb here, though in fact in the past, is still thought of by the speaker as having an effect in the present; hence, the present tense is correct in such cases. On this grammatical convention v. Führer, Reden 95 —96 (with further examples to which add this instance). 163—64. μεμάντευμαι / εΐ μετάλλατόν τι: on the construction v. Guiraud, Ea phrase nominale, 255 —58, esp. 258. 163 (g). μεμάντευμαι: originally μαντεύεσθαι meant “to be a μάντις” or “to act the part of a μ.”, and is always so used in Homer (on the formation v. Risch, Wortbildung, § 115b); however, by the fifth century it is used more often in the sense “consult an oracle” (so always in Pindar except at fr. 150). 163 (h). έπί Κασταλία: cf. ad 294 (b). On this periphrasis for Delphi cf. Amandry, La mantique apollinienne, 135, n. 1. 164 (a), εΐ μετάλλατόν τι: “whether anything is to be sought”, i. e. whether any quest is to be undertaken, μετάλλάτος: only here; on verbal adjectives in -τος v. further Risch, Wortbildung-, § 10. 164 (b). ώς τάχος: cf. A. Th. 675, Ag. 27, Ch. 889, etc., with the variants φ τάχος (ΟΙ. 6. 23), δτι τάχος (S. A nt. 1321), etc., and ν. besides KG i, 27 —28 also Thesleff, Intensification, 119 with η. 2. 164 (c). ότρύνει: sc. μάντευμα, to be understood from μεμάντευμαι in 163. On the tense v. ad 163 (f).

134—168. Second Interview with Pelias

245

164 (d). με: on the postponement cf. ad 1 (d). 164(e). ναΐ πομπάν: cf., e. g., Od. 7. 151—52 αύτάρ έμοί πομπήν ότρύνετε πατρίδ’ ίκέσθαι / θάσσον, 191 —94 έπειτα δέ καί περί πομπής / μνησόμεθ’, ώς χ ’ ό ξεϊνος ... / πομπή ύφ’ ήμετέρη ήν πατρίδα γαΐαν ϊκηται | ... καρπαλίμως, 8. 30 πομπήν δ’ ότρύνει, 10. 18 τεΰχε δέ πομπήν. 165 (a), τούτον: provides a link with the preceding, like ταΰτα in 163 and ταύταν in 168, hence not in asyndeton; v. ad 154. 165 (b). αεθλον: “task”; cf. 220, Is. 6. 48 (of Heracles’ “labours”), and also 01. 1. 84, where the “task” is a “contest” as well. The uncontracted form is always used by Homer except at Od. 8. 160 and mostly by Pindar. In Pindar the masculine form is certain besides here only at 01. 1. 84. On the meaning o f άεθλος v. further Triimpy, Kriegerische Fachausdrücke, 150 —51. 165 (c). έκών: “o f your own will”, not in contrast to “involuntarily”, i. e. “under compulsion” (Pelias had no power to compel Iason to undertake the expedition), nor in the sense “readily” (Pelias is not interested in Iason’s private feelings), but rather in the implied sense “for your part”; cf. II. 3. 65 —66 οϋ τοι άπόβλητ’ έστί θεών έρικυδέα δώρα, / ..., έκών (“by his own will”, “for his part”) δ’ ούκ αν τις έλοιτο. 165 (d). καί: Pelias employs a natural parataxis rather than a more formal (and, here, more prosaic) hypotactic construction; cf. in general KG ii, 2 2 9 -3 1 . 165—66. toi μοναρχεΐν / καί βασιλευέμεν ... προήσειν: “will hand over to you [the] sole rule and kingship [which you mentioned]” (cf. 152 σκαπτόν μόναρχον καί θρόνος). The complementary infinitives (common already in Homer with προίημι, cf., e. g., II. 3. 118 —19 Ταλθύβιον προΐει ... ’Αγαμέμνων / ... ίέναι) are used substantially as accusative objects; cf., e. g., Hdt. 5. 49. 9 αναβάλλομαι τοι ές τρίτην ήμέραν ύποκρινέεσθαι “I defer my answer to you until the day after tomorrow”, and v. further Schwyzer ii, 365—66. (In later Greek, esp. in prose, this same construction is usually found with the article added. In Pindar, however, the articular infinitive is still very rare and restricted to the nominative [cf., e. g., Ol. 2. 51 τό ... τυχεϊν, Py. 1. 99 τό ... παθεΐν εδ, which is followed by the same use o f the infinitive without the article, εύ ... άκούειν. 2. 56 τό πλουτεϊν] except perhaps at Ol. 2. 97, where, however, the text is uncertain. On the development of the use of the articular infinitive v. B. L. Gildersleeve, T A P h A 9 [1878], 5—19 [on Pindar, 11] and, for more Pindaric examples, Erdmann, De Pindari usu syntactico, 75 —76.)

7 0 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

165 (e). μοναρχεϊν: first attested in Pindar (here and at Pae. 4. 29) and Bacchylides (fr. 20B. 12); however, μοναρχία is already attested at Ale. 6. 27 L.-P. and μούναρχος / μόναρχος at Thgn. 52 and Sol. 9. 3 W. At Pae. 4. 37 αύταρχεΐν is used as a synonym. 166(a). δμνυμι: sometimes the future is used as at II. 21. 373, but the present is normal in oaths; v. Schwyzer ii, 270. An oath in direct or reported speech is a typical feature both o f epic (v. W. Arend, Die typischen Scenen bei Homer, Berlin, 1933, 122 —23) and o f lyric (cf. Alc.fP] 304. i. 4 - 7 L.-P. [= Sapph. 44A. a. 4 - 7 Campbell], 01. 7. 64 - 68, Pae. 6. 112 —17); cf. also Führer, Reden, 108 with n. 16. 166 (b). προήσειν: “give up”, “surrender”, “hand over”; cf. Ar. Nu. 1214 είτ’ άνδρα των αύτοϋ τι χρή προϊέναι, etc. 166—67. καρτεράς / όρκος: the asyndeton is explanatory; so, rightly, Dissen (1830) i, 274. With the phrase cf. the Homeric clausula, καρτεράν όρκον (Ii. 19. 108 + 5 x , h. Merc. 536). καρτεράς: Pindar, like Homer, uses the metrically convenient pair καρτεράς — κρατερός (both < krt-; cf. Schwyzer i, 342); cf. further Appendix. On the primary suffix -(ε)ροV. besides Schwyzer i, 482, also Risch, Wortbildung-, §§ 28, 29cß. όρκος: “that by which one swears”, hence roughly “pledge”, and which is sometimes, as here, invoked as a witness; cf., e. g., II. 15. 36 —40 (quoted in part below ad 167 [c]), and v. West ad Hes. Th. 400 and Richardson ad h. Cer. 259. Although the etymology is uncertain (cf. Frisk, s. v. with Nachträge, and also Chantraine, s. v.), this meaning is almost certainly earlier than “oath” (also Homeric); v. further Buttmann, Lexilogus ii, 46 —52. 167 (a), άμμιν ... άμφοτέροις: the interlaced word-order was probably adopted here primarily for metrical convenience, but it also serves to emphasize άμφοτέροις at the end o f the clause and indeed o f the whole speech; cf. ad 42 —43 (b). 167 (b). μάρτυς: not in Homer; first attested at Hes. Op. 371. (The Homeric form is μάρτυρος, which is apparently avoided by lyric.) 167 (c). έστω: when gods or powers are invoked by someone to be a witness (primarily) for someone else, it is natural to use the third, rather than the second person imperative; cf., e. g., 11. 7. 76 Ζευς δ’ άμμ’ έπιμάρτυρος έστω, 15. 36 —38 ϊστω νυν τάδε Γαΐα καί Ουρανός ευρύς ΰπερθε / καί τά κατειβόμενον Στυγάς ύδωρ, 0ς τε μέγιστος / όρκος δεινότατος τε πέλει μακάρεσσι θεοΐσι, but cf. also II. 3. 276 —80 Ζεΰ πάτερ, ... / Ήέλιός θ’ ... / καί ποταμοί καί γαΐα, ... / ... / ύμεΐς μάρτυροι έστε (sc. to the treaty between the Greeks and the Trojans).

169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

247

167 (d). Ζευς ό γενέθλιος: cf. Ol. 8. 15 —16 Τιμόσθενες, ΰμμε δ’ έκλάρωσεν πότμος / Ζηνί γενεθλίφ (Timosthenes, an Aeginetan, may well have claimed descent from Zeus). Aeolus, the common ancestor o f Pelias and Iason, was a son o f Hellen, who in most versions (cf. ad 108 [a]) is a son o f Deucalion, but whom, according to [Apollod.] 1. 7. 2, some regarded as a son o f Zeus (cf. E. fr. 14 N ., Melanipp. Sap., prol. 1—2 in Arnim, Suppi. Eur., 26 = G L P , p. 118 [on which v. further H. Van Looy, Zes verloren tragedies van Euripides, Brussels, 1964, pp. 202 —3], and also sch. A II. 13. 307b, which quotes Ps.-Apollo­ dorus). It is presumably to this variant account that Pindar is alluding here (and not to the later one in E. Ion 63 which makes Aeolus himself a son o f Zens, pace Gildersleeve ad loc.). (Sch. ad loc. remark Σαλμωνεύς γάρ καί Κρηθεύς είς Δία το γένος άνήγον, but do not specify in which degree.) On the meaning o f γενέθλιος cf. also Vian ad A. R. 2. (3—)4 (p. 267). In calling on Zeus o f their family as his witness Pelias for his part plays upon the appeal to family ties which Iason first made (1 4 2-48); cf. ad 160 (a). 168 (a), σύνθεσιν: first attested here and in fr. 205. 3. Except at A.(?). Pr. 460 γραμμάτων ... συνθέσεις (“combinations o f letters”, i. e. writing) the word seems otherwise (Agla'ias 8, p. 97, b Cats Bussemaker, hardly counts) to have been avoided in later poetry (doubtless because it had come to be used in various technical senses in the course of the fifth century). The Pindaric usage in the sense “agreement”, “arrangement” is best understood as a variant o f the Homeric synonym συνθεσία. On σύνθεσις cf. Holt, Les noms d‘action, 105 with n. 3. 168 (b). ταύταν: cf. ad 165 (a). 168 (c). έπαινήσαντες: in early Greek more often absolute, but for the use c. acc. cf. II. 2. 335 μύθον έπαινήσαντες Όδυσσήος, h. Merc. 457 μύθον έπαίνει πρεσβυτέροισι, A. Ag. 1370 ταύτην έπαινεϊν πάντοθεν πληθύνομαι, and for Pindar also Pae. 4. 35 —36 λόγο[ν] ... Εύξαν[τίου / έπαίνεσα. 168— 69. μεν ... / άτάρ: for examples o f this combination o f particles in which άτάρ is used, as here, with a weaker adversative force v. Denniston, GP, 54. The position o f μέν is here doubtless determined primarily by metrical convenience; cf. Denniston, GP, 371—73. 168 (d). κρίθεν: i. e. διεκρίθησαν (Mezger); on the use o f simplicia for composita cf. ad 106 (a). 169— 187. Catalogue of Argonauts. In a single sentence (169 —71) Pindar moves from the agreement between Pelias and Iason to the first step taken toward its realization, the announcement o f the expedition.

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

This, in turn, serves as the introduction to the partial catalogue o f Argonauts which follows (171—83). Catalogues were a typical feature o f epic, so that it is not surprising to find one in Py. 4, but o f course with lyric brevity rather than the usual fullness o f epic. (Catalogues of Argonauts were included in some pre-Pindaric versions o f the myth; cf. [Hes.] fr. 63 M.-W., Pherecyd. F G rH ist 3 F 26 [with Jacoby ad loc.], 107 —110. According to sch. Py. 4. 303b [ = A. fr. 97a R.] there was also one in Aeschylus’ Cabiri, which, however, may be later than Py. 4.) Although there is good reason to think that Pindar may have regarded the Argo as a fifty-oar ship with a crew o f corresponding size (v. ad 245 [c]), he specifically mentions (in the actual catalogue) only ten Argonauts. (For later fuller catalogues of Argonauts cf. A. R. 1. 20 —227 [with Vian ad 1. 23, p. 240], Val. FI. 1. 352—489 [with Langen ad 1. 351], [Hyg.} fab. 14, [Apollod.] 1. 9. 16, [Orph.] A . 1 1 8 -2 2 9 , and v. further Carl Robert, Heldensage, 770—91, esp. 772, n. 4.) His principle o f selection is clear: only sons of gods are named and, as Seymour ad 171 observed, these are listed in the order o f their fathers’ dignity: Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Hermes, and Boreas (on the disputed case of Orpheus v. ad 176 [a]; cf. also ad 171 [e] and ad 175 [f]). (In a mutilated inscription o f the 5th or 4th cent, found on Chios and published by B. Haussoullier, R E G 3 [1890], 206—10, some names of the Argonauts have been preserved arranged according to the rank of their divine fathers.) Moreover, Pindar’s reason for making this particu­ lar selection of Argonauts is also evident: Euphemus, the ancestor of Arcesilaus, can as a son o f Poseidon take his place among the elite (at least with regard to birth) o f what is itself an elite. Thus the ultimate encomiastic and political aims o f the ode, which are so prominent at both the beginning and the end, are never quite lost sight of even in this section, where the emphasis on heroic narrative might seem at first sight politically neutral. Finally, the catalogue is concluded by a mention (184 —87) of the divinity that inspired the expedition. 169 (a), αυτός: “on his own”. Pelias had asked lason to undertake the voyage “of his own will” (έκών — 165). Now in his eagerness lason does not even wait for the king to provide messengers, but sends them out himself. Cf. ad 34 (d). 169—70. ήδη // ώρνυεν: on the strophic enjambement cf. ad 39—40. 169(b ). ήδη: not “forthwith” (Sandys), “at once” (Slater, s. v.), but “already” (Bowra) or, better, “by that time”. This sense is made clear by the use o f the imperfect ώρνυεν (rather than the aorist). Iason’s eagerness already implied in the use o f αυτός is further emphasized by ήδη, i. e. he has no sooner finished his interview with Pelias than he is already sending out messengers to announce the voyage. Cf. his very

169—187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

249

different reaction at [Orph.] A . 60—61 ö δ’ ώς κλύεν εκνομον αύδήν (i. e. Pelias’ proposal), / χεϊρας έπαντείνας έπεκέκλετο πότνιαν Ή ρην. 170 (a), ώρνυεν: corr. Boeckh, δρνυε(ν) paene omnes codices. The omicron here as in some Homerie MSS at II. 12. 142 and Od. 21. 100 presumably represents the survival o f the quantitatively indifferent O (cf. ad 14 [d]), which was by oversight not transliterated, rather than a genuine unaugmented form. On metrically indifferent temporal aug­ ments in Pindar v. further ad 82 (c). On the formation o f the thematic imperfect (already found in Homer, cf. above) from the athematic present v. Risch, Wortbildung-, §§95, 117. The imperfect (cf. ad 169 [b] above) is used because the messengers receive their instruction right at the end o f the interview, but have not yet left, i. e. the process is continuing. (There is no need to regard this usage under a special category o f “inchoative”; v. Schwyzer ii, 277. Moreover, it should be noted that this usage o f the imperfect is also different from that with verbs o f sending discussed at 114 [a].) 170 (b). έόντα πλόον: the voyage is conceived as already under way. This formulation reflects the eagerness ascribed to Iason. (Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 389, n. 1, assumed that the phrase represents the actual words o f the heralds: πλους έστι. While it is true that the content o f an utterance is often adapted to the construction o f the sentence [v. ad 61 (b)], this is unlikely here, since the statement in itself would be singularly uninformative. Cf. further Farnell ad loc.) 171 (a), φαινέμεν: this form is attested only here and at Od. 8. 237 (and in the compound παρα- at Hes. Op. 734). (Although the simplex is used in this general sense from Homer on [cf., e. g., Od. 12. 334 εϊ τίς μοι όδόν φήνειε νέεσθαι], later Greek generally prefers the compound άναφαίνω; cf., e. g., PI. Criti. 108c τούς παλαιούς πολίτας άγαθούς όντας άναφαίνειν.) 171 (b). παντά: on the Doric accentuation cf. Schwyzer i, 384. 171 (c). τάχα: cf. ad 34 (d). 171 (d). Κρονίδαο: the form is first attested at h. Cer. 408 and found only here in choral lyric (elsewhere, viz. Ol. 8. 43, Py. 4. 56, Is. 2. 23, Pindar uses Κρονίδα). (It occasionally appears in later epic, beginning with Antimachus, who used it in the first verse o f his Thebaid [fr. 1 Wyss]; cf. A. R. 2. 1211, 4. 520, 753, [Opp.] C l . 8, 3. 8, Q. S. 1. 707, 2. 177, 615, Nonn. D . 1. 1 + 3 0 x , Coluth. 281.) On Pindar’s use of the genitive singular in -ao v. further ad 12 (c). 171 (e). υιοί τρεις: i. e. Heracles, Polydeuces, and Castor, the three most distinguished members o f the expedition; hence, mention o f their

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

father and mothers is enough to identify them. However limited a role Heracles was ultimately to play in most accounts, he was nevertheless the most famous hero to sail with Iason. (The reason for including Heracles, the greatest hero o f his generation, amongst the Argonauts was doubtless the wish to make the company as distinguished as possible, but his presence obviously brought with it the danger that he would dominate the undertaking. Hence, it is not surprising that he is generally supposed to have been left behind along the way, cf. [Hes.] fr. 263 M.-W., Pherecyd. F G rH ist 3 F 111 [with Jacoby ad loc.], sch. Pj. 4. 303b, Hellanic. F G rH ist 4 F 130—31, A. R. 1. 1161—325 with Vian ad 1. 1171 [p. 105, n. 3], sch. A. R. 1. 1289 —91a, etc., or, according to some versions, not to have sailed on the Argo at all, cf. Herodor. F G rH ist 31 F 41, Ephor. F G rH ist 70 F 14, and Vian ad A. R. 1. 123 [p. 245].) For a possible representation o f Heracles as Argonaut v. A R V 601, 22. After Heracles in the heroic hierarchy come Polydeuces and Castor, the latter, according to Ne. 10. 80 —82, not in fact a son o f Zeus (any more than was Heracles’ less distinguished half-brother Iphicles), but this (the usual) version o f the legend is conveniently ignored here (Pj. 11. 61—64 is ambiguous, since it seems to imply both versions). Cf. also ad 175 (f) and ad 176 (a). On the earliest representa­ tion o f the Dioscuri as Argonauts (ca. 570 B. C.) v. ad 25 (b). On Castor and Polydeuces as Argonauts v. further Vian ad A. R. 1. 150 (p. 246). 171 (f). άκαμαντομάχαι: cf. Pae. 22. (f). 6 ά]καμαν[τ]ομαχα[, and also fr. 184 ύπερμενές άκαμαντοχάρμαν (a metrically useful variant with the same meaning) Αίαν. Pindar is fond o f compounds with άκαμαντο-: -λόγχας (Is. 7. 10), -πους (Ol. 3. 3, 4. 1, [Ο/.] 5. 3). Bacchylides has only the hapax legomenon άκαμαντορόας, viz. at 5. 180, but shows a distinct preference for new formations consisting o f a privative alpha and a double concept; cf. άδεισιβόας at 5. 155, 11. 61, άμετρόδικος at 11. 68, άναιδομάχας at 5. 105, and άταρβομάχας at 16. 28. Except for άκαμαντο- compounds such formations are not common in Pindar, but cf. άκερσεκόμας at Pj. 3. 14, Is. 1. 7, Pae. 9. 45 and άπειρομάχας at Ne. 4. 30. On privativa in which the final element is itself a compound v. Hj. Frisk, Kl. Sehr., 201—2, and, on negative compounds more generally, cf. besides Frisk, op. cit., 183 —229, also Gustav Meyer, Nominalkomposition, 103 —6. 172 (a). Άλκμήνας: all MSS have -μη- except BD, which have -μα(cf. Pj. 9. 85 -μα- B, -μη- rell., Ne. 10. 11 -μα- recc., -μη- veti.). Otto Schroeder, ed. mai., 20 —21, argued for -μα- in the Doric form of the name, but except perhaps for Simon. P M G 509. 3 (teste Luc. Pr. Im. 19) there is no real evidence for it. Elsewhere (Ol. 7. 27, Ne. 1. 49, Is. 1. 12, 3/4. 73, 6. 30, fr. 172. 3) only -μη- is attested in Pindar; cf. also

169—187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

251

B. 5. 71, fr. ‘dub.’ 64. 6. Likewise, -μηνα(-) is the form found in the lyric parts of tragedy (cf. S. Tr. 97, 644, E. Hipp. 553, Tr. 805). (Where an -η- is original in the root o f a word, hyperdoric -ä- is only rarely found in choral lyric. Forssman, Sprache, 36 —85, cf. esp. 84, denies its existence entirely in Pindar; however, not all apparent examples are easily explained away. The same is in large measure true o f the lyric parts o f tragedy in which “das Dorische ... besteht darin, dass in geläufigen Wortendungen und in einer begrenzten Zahl von Stämmen, meist ganz gewöhnlicher Wörter, attisches η durch ä ersetzt wird”, Björck, Das Alpha impurum, 221. Thus in both choral lyric and in the lyric parts o f tragedy Άλκμήνά is the normal form.) 172 (b). θ’ έλικογλεφάρου: τ’ έλικο- BEFGIQ, τ’ έλικο- D, τέλικοU, θ’ έλικο- rell., -βλεφάρου codd., -γλεφάρου corr. Otto Schroeder, recte (v. ad 121 [f]). Forssman, Sprache, 22—26, supposes that έλικο- was unaspirated in Pindar, but admits that “der Nominalstamm ελικ- lautet nämlich sonst, ..., stets mit spiritus asper an” (op. cit., 22). Indeed in view o f examples such as Hes. Th. 16 έλικοβλέφαρον (v. Troxler, Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods, 140, and cf. West ad loc.) and esp. [Hes.] fr. 11. 1 M.-W. θ’ έλικοβ[λέφαρον (cf. also h. Horn. 6. 19 έλικοβλέφαρε, Simon. P M G 555. 2 έλικοβλεφάρου), it is most unlikely that Pindar would have preferred an unaspirated form o f the word without a definite stylistic purpose (cf. Pi. fr. 123. 6 έλικογλεφάρου as well as his use of θ’ έλικάμπυκ[ος at Pae. 3. 15 and έλικάμπυκα at fr. 75. 19). Moreover, the compound έλικοβλέφαρος, first attested at Hes., loc. cit., is modelled on the Homeric έλίκωψ, έλικώπις, which itself is always aspirated (on the initial element έλικο-, from έλιξ, v. Frisk and Chantraine, s. v. έλίκωψ and έλιξ). As in 121 (-)γλέφαρος refers to the eyes, not the eyelids, while έλικο- almost certainly means “round”, not “rolling” (cf. Frisk, s. v. έλίκωψ, but cf. also Chantraine, s. eadem v.); hence, like έλίκωψ, our compound must mean “round-eyed”. That Alcmene should receive a conventional epithet o f feminine beauty is in keeping with the general epic colouring o f the passage (cf. ad 169 —87). (In general, Pindar’s use o f such epithets follows the Homeric practice; v. Karl H. Meyer, Untersuchungen z um schmückenden Beiwort in der älteren griech. Poesie, Diss. Münster, Göttingen, 1913, 20—21, and cf. Bowra, Pindar, 217.) On the other hand, the lack of any epithet at all for Leda in the same verse merely reflects the incidental demands o f metrical composition. (It is unlikely that έλικογλεφάρου should be understood άπό κοινού with Λήδας; cf. ad 290 [c].) 172 (c). Λήδας: not only choral lyric but even tragic dialogue (cf. A. Ag. 914, E. Hel. 19, 134, etc.) and prose (cf. Gorg. Vorsokr. 82 B 11. 3, Isoc. 10. 16, 59, etc.) use Doric endings for this name, while

252

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

-δη(-) is found only in epic. (Hence, there is no need with Wm. Schulze, Kl, Sehr., 707, to ascribe the occurrence of Λήδα in vase inscriptions to the influence o f Doric poetry.) 172 (d). ύψιχαϊται: only here, but cf. βαθυχαίτης (of Aristaeus) at Hes. Tb. 977, [Hes.] fr. 217. 1 M.-W., εύρυχαίτας (of Dionysus) at Is. 7. 4, ίππιοχαίτης (of a helmet-crest) at II. 6. 469, κυανοχαίτης / κυανοχαϊτα (esp. used o f Poseidon) at II. 13. 563 (and often), μελαγχαίτης (esp. used o f Centaurs) at [Hes.] Sc. 186, S. Tr. 837 (lyr.), etc., χρυσοχαΐτα (of Apollo) at Pj. 2. 16. The compound is presumably a metrical alternative to ΰψίκομος, used of Helen at Pae. 6. 95 (v. Radt ad loc.), which itself (when used of people) recalls άκρόκομος (of Thracians) at II. 4. 533, Hippon. 115. 6 W. The reference in Pae. 6. 95 and here must surely be to a particular hair-style (so Otto Schroeder, Pjth. ad loc. and Radt ad loc. cit.; this has been denied, e. g., by Gildersleeve who takes the epithet to refer to height [but this makes the second element of the compound otiose], and, more recently, by P. G. Maxwell-Stuart, A J P 97 [1976], 327 —30, who wishes to see in ΰψιχαίτας a reference to a plume on a helmet [but the standard epithets for crested helmets, ίππιοχαίτης, ίππόκομος, etc., make it clear out of what kind of hair they are made]). In the case o f the two heroes the reference may well be to the top-knot (κρωβύλος, κόρυμβος, κορύμβη) in fashion amongst the upper class in the early fifth century; cf. Th. 1. 6. 3 χρυσών τεττίγων ένέρσει κρωβύλον άναδούμενοι των έν τή κεφαλή τριχών (with Gomme ad loc. for the problems involved; cf. also A. Rumpf, “Tettix”, in Sjmbola Coloniensia Josephe Kroll sexagenario oblata, Köln, 1949, 85 ff.), Ar. Eq. 1331 (with sch. ad loc.), Nu. 984 (with sch. ad loc.), Antiph. 189 Ko. (C A F ii, 88), Heraclid. Pont., fr. 55 W. ( = Ath. 12, 512 a —d), Ael. V H 4. 22. That this hair-style was not confined to Attica, as the sources cited above might be thought to suggest, is shown by the verses of the Samian poet Asius (probably 6th cent.) quoted by Ath. 12, 525f ( = fr. 13 Kinkel): οϊ δ’ αυτως φοίτεσκον δπως πλοκάμους κτενίσαιντο / είς "Ηρας τέμενος, ... / ... / χρύσειαι δέ κορύμβαι έπ’ αυτών τέττιγες ω ς / χαϊται δ’ ήωρεΰντ’ άνέμφ χρυσέοις ένί δεσμοΐς (ι. e. the hair on top is bound in a knot with a brooch, while the rest flows down); cf. also Ath. 12, 518e, where a similar hair-style is reported for the Sybarites. Pindar thus ascribes to the two sons o f Poseidon a way o f wearing their hair which was in his day regarded as appropriately archaic and distinguished. 173 (a), άνέρες: “men” in the emphatic sense, esp. with the implica­ tion that they are courageous; hence, as often, “warriors”; cf., e. g., II. 5. 529 —30 ώ φίλοι, άνέρες έστε καί αλκιμον ήτορ έλεσθε, / άλλήλους τ’ αίδεϊσθε κατά κρατεράς ύσμίνας, 15. 561—62 ( = 5. 529 —30 except

169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

253

for the variant after the weak penthemimeres o f the first verse: και αιδώ θέσθ’ ένϊ θυμφ) — passages which Pindar might well have had in mind here. On the Pindaric forms o f άνήρ v. ad 21 (c). 173 (b). Έννασίδα: cf. ad 33 (e). 173 (c). αίδεσθέντες άλκάν: “with a feeling o f awe for their valour”, “with an awe-filled respect for their valour”, i. e. ϊνα μή καταιδεσθώσιν ώς άνανδροι, as sch. 308b correctly explains or, as sch. 308a puts it, έντραπέντες ήν εϊχον άλκήν καταισχΰναι “being ashamed to disgrace their valour”. Here, as in 146 (cf. ad loc.), αιδώς is the feeling which inhibits a person from doing something because the act would ultimately destroy his sense o f self-respect, which is in turn based on his standing in the eyes of others. (The phrase, however, does not mean “from selfrespect”, as Gildersleeve ad loc. renders it; cf. also von Erffa, Αιδώς, 80: “Das Partizipium gibt den Grund ihrer Teilnahme an”, as well as sch. ad loc. This interpretation overlooks the fact that [1] the basic motive for the participation o f all the Argonauts is clearly stated in 184—87, and [2] αίδεσθέντες άλκάν is parallel to άκαμαντομάχαι in 171, both attributes being used to describe the martial qualities of the respective groups o f warriors.) For αίδεϊσθαι used in a martial context cf., e.g ., 11. 5. 529 —30 and 15. 561—62, quoted above (ad 173 [a]), as well as 17. 94 —95, quoted below. For the coincident use o f the aorist participle here cf. esp. 11. 4. 401—2 "Ως φάτο, τόν δ’ οϋ τι προσέφη κρατερός Διομήδης, / αίδεσθείς βασιλήος ένιπήν αίδοίοιο, 17. 94—95 εί δέ κεν Έκτορι μοϋνος έών καί Τρωσί μάχωμαι / αίδεσθείς, and ν. ad 3 6 -3 7 . 174 (a), εκ τε Πύλου καί άπ’ άκρας Ταινάρου: the variatio in the choice of prepositions is here probably more a matter o f metrical than of stylistic consideration. Sch. 306a remarks that the construction is συλληπτικώτερον ού γάρ άμφότεροι άπό Ταινάρου καί Πύλου, άλλ’ ό μέν Περικλύμενος έκ Πύλου στέλλεται, ό δέ έκ Ταινάρου ό Εύφημος. On Euphemus’ home ν. ad 44 (c). 174—75 (a), τών ... κλέος / ... Εΰφάμου τ’ ... σόν τε, Περικλύμεν’: the apostrophe is employed in the second member as at 89 Τίτον καί σέ, τολμάεις Έπιάλτα άναξ, on which cf. ad loc. (b). On the use of apostrophe within a narrative v. ad 59 (a) above. 174 (b). μέν: used in its original, emphatic function. Pindar fre­ quently employs it to emphasize a pronoun; cf. Slater, s. ν. 1, a, for examples, and v. Denniston, G P, 360 —61. 174—75 (b). κλέος / έσλόν: κλέος έσ(θ)λόν is a common formula in early Greek (II. 6 x , Od. 6 x , etc.; v. Rüdiger Schmitt, Dichtung und

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

Dichtersprache, 82, n. 502, for list of passages} and may possibly reflect an Indo-European poetic formula; v. Rüdiger Schmitt, §§138 —46. (Whereas at 125 Pindar used κλέος in its original sense o f “news”, here he uses it in its much more common meaning “fame”; cf. further Steinkopf, Gesch. des Ruhmes, 53 —73, and esp. Greindl, Unters., 18 —29.) Pindar’s use o f κλέος έσλόν here is clearly made with reference to the name “Euphemus”, which literally means έσλόν κλέος; cf. also “Periclymenus” (“mighty in fame”). Such etymologizing o f names is characteristic o f early Greek poetry; cf., e. g., Od. 8. 472 Δημόδοκον, λαοϊσι τετιμένον, 13. 28, 19. 407 —9 πολλοΐσιν γάρ έγώ (sc. Autolycus) γε όδυσσάμενος τόδ’ ίκάνω, / ...· / τφ δ’ Όδυσεύς δνομ’ έστω έπώνυμον, Hes. Op. 80 —82, h. Ven. 198 —99, h. Horn. 19. 47, and v. E. Risch, Kl. Sehr., 294—313, and L. P. Rank, Etymologiseering, esp. 84 —95 (on paraphrased proper names), as well as West ad Hes. Th. 141 and Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 682, 687, 1461, 1485f. For some Pindaric examples cf., e. g., 01. 6. 55 —57 ’ίων ξανθαϊσι καί παμπορφύροις άκτΐσι βεβρεγμένος άβρόν / σώμα· τό καί κατεφάμιξεν καλεΐσθαί νιν χρόνω σύμπαντι μάτηρ / τοΰτ’ ονυμ’ (i. e. “Iamus”; the word-play begins already with άμεμφεϊ / ίω μέλισσαν in 46—47), 9. 44—46 άτερ δ’ εύνδς όμόδαμον / κτισσάσθαν (sc. Pyrrha and Deucalion) λίθινον γόνον / λαοί δ’ όνύμασθεν, Py. 5. 27 —28 Έπιμαθέος ... / όψινόου, and v. G. van N. Viljoen, Pindaros se tiende en elfde Olympiese Odes, Diss. Leiden, 1955, 183, n. 66, and H. L loyd-Jones./Z /i- 93 (1973), 129 with n. 117. Name-etymologies are, however, not quite so common in Pindar as has sometimes been supposed; for three doubtful examples in this ode v. ad 25 (b), 27 (c), and 270 (b). 175 (a), έσλόν: although some Pindaric MSS occasionally have έσθλός (only R, however, reads έσθλ- here), we should doubtless write έσλός consistently; cf. Ol. 13. 100, Py. 3. 66, Ne. 4. 95, where a short initial syllable shows that only the Doric from could stand there (cf. Tycho Mommsen, Annotationis criticae Supplementum, 18, and Maas, Greek Metre, §126). {Ol. 2. 19 is doubtful; cf. v. 99.) Bacchylides, on the other hand, always uses the epic form. (Since Stesichorus, Ibycus, and Simonides all use the epic form too, we may suspect that Pindar was more influenced by the metrical convenience afforded by έσλ- / Ισλ- than any wish to adopt a Doric form as such.) 175 (b). Εύφάμου: on the form of the name cf. ad 22 (b). On the person v. ad 46 (a). 175 (c). τ’ ... τε: for the use o f the two particles to coordinate words or phrases which stand in apposition cf. Ol. 13. 75 —76, Ne. 8. 11—12, Is. 1. 48, 8. 5 4 -5 5 .

169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

255

175 (d). έκράνθη: i. e. κατά τον άπόπλουν των ’Αργοναυτών, rightly, sch. 310. For Pindar, as for Homer, κλέος is not something inherited by birth or automatically acquired by position, but rather gained through personal accomplishment; v. Greindl, Unters., 19. For this Euphemus and Periclymenus, like the other Argonauts, had the essential prerequisites prescribed by Pindar; v. ad 187 (a). 175 (e). σόν: sc. κλέος, parallel with Εύφάμου (sc. κλέος). Since possessive adjectives and pronouns are used interchangeably in early Greek with possessive genitives, it is natural enough to use them (often for metrical convenience) as parallel in the same construction; cf., e. g., Ne. 8. 2 παρθενηΐοις παίδων τ’ έφίζοισα γλεφάροις, and ν. Wackernagel, Syntax ii, 68 —75, Schwyzer ii, 176 —77, as well as ad 152 (c) above. 175 (f). Περικλύμεν’: sch. 306c notes that Periclymenus, the Ar­ gonaut, is in fact the son o f Neleus from Pylos and only a grandson of Poseidon; cf. Od. 11. 254, 286, [Hes.] fr. 33(a). 12 M.-W., A. R. 1. 156 —58 (with Vian ad loc., p. 247), [Apollod.] 1. 9. 16. What Pindar has done is to blend two figures o f the same name (perhaps originally the same person), viz. (1) the real Argonaut from Pylos and (2) the son of Poseidon, who was one o f the defenders of Thebes during the first great expedition against the city; cf. Ne. 9. 26, [Apollod.] 3. 6. 8, and v. K. Scherling, R E xix 1, 792—94, s.v. Periklymenos, 3 —4. This was made easier by the fact that Periclymenus the Argonaut was supposed to have received his special gift o f transformation from Poseidon; cf. [Hes.] fr. 33(a). 1 2 - 3 6 M.-W., A. R. 1. 1 5 6 -6 0 , [Apollod.] 1. 9. 9. On Pindar’s motive for this contamination v. ad 169 —87. 175 (g). εύρυβία: a variant o f the Homeric εύρυσθενής (always used by Homer o f Poseidon), this epithet is first attested at Hes. Th. 931 (cf. West ad 239), where it is applied to Triton, another son o f Poseidon. At h. Cer. 294 it is used o f Celeus, one o f the rulers o f Eleusis. Elsewhere Pindar uses it o f Poseidon {01. 6. 58, Pj. 2. 12) and o f various heroes (Hypseus, Aias, Neoptolemus, Tenerus). 176 (a), εξ Απόλλωνος: sch. 313a shows that this passage provoked a ζήτημα o f a type often undertaken by ancient scholars, viz. how to resolve real or apparent inconsistencies in a particular author. The difficulty arises here because the mention o f Orpheus together with Apollo in a catalogue o f the (real or apparent) sons o f gods would normally imply that Orpheus was in fact Apollo’s son. This interpreta­ tion was adopted by Chaeris (and in modern time by, e. g., Boeckh), who quoted Menaechmus o f Sicyon (fr. 11 C. Müller, S R A M , p. 146, b) and Asclepiades of Tragilus {F G rH ist 12 F 6a) as authorities for Orpheus’ divine paternity. However, the ancient scholia observe that

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

Pindar himself elsewhere [Thr. 3. 11 —12) called Orpheus “the son of Oeagrus”. They go on to report that Ammonius sought to harmonize the apparent conflict by taking έξ ’Απόλλωνος to refer not to the god’s paternity but to the way Orpheus became a musician. In support of this interpretation Ammonius quoted Hes. Th. 94—95 έκ γάρ τοι Μουσέων καί έκη βόλου ’Απόλλωνος / ανδρες άοιδοί εασιν έπί χθονί (χθόνα codd., pap.) καί κιθαρισταί, and compared the following verse, έκ δέ Διός βασιληες ..., as well. Orpheus would thus be a φορμιγκτάς “by grace o f Apollo”. This explanation has received general approval in recent times; cf., e. g., Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc., and Farnell ad loc. Against Ammonius’ solution it must be said that Hesiod’s έκ Μου­ σέων, etc. “may well be meant literally, o f lineal descent” (v. West ad Th. 94, contra W. J. Verdenius, Mnemosyne, S. 4, 25 [1972], 256). But since Pindar might conceivably have understood Hesiod in the way Ammonius did, this objection is not in itself decisive. What does tell against Ammonius’ explanation is the use o f έξ ’Απόλλωνος in the same sentence with έμολεν ... Όρφεύς, which can only mean that “Orpheus came” in some sense "from Apollo”. Cf. A.(?) Pr. 667 —68 έκ Διός μολείν / κεραυνόν, which is another way o f saying that “Zeus sent the thunderbolt”. Thus when we read in the next sentence (178) πέμπε δ’ Έρμάς ... διδύμους υιούς, we will naturally infer that Apollo sent Orpheus as did Hermes his sons. What Pindar has done is strongly to imply that Orpheus was the son o f Apollo without actually stating it. For his encomiastic purposes (cf. ad 169 —87) he wanted to make his catalogue o f demigods as full and as distinguished as possible with the result that he included not only Castor (cf. ad 171 [e]) and Periclymenus (cf. ad 175 [£]), both o f whom strictly speaking did not belong to that category, but also Orpheus, whose credentials were by no means impeccable. Like all skilful publicists Pindar conceals his deliberate deception as best as he can. Important for him was the effect the work produced on a specific audience at a particular moment and certainly not the occasionally perplexed reaction o f future critics who would have the time and interest to work out the inherent inconsistencies of his statements. A. R. 1. 23 —25 report that Orpheus is said (φατίζεται) to be the son o f Oeagrus. For the conflicting testimonia regarding Orpheus’ paternity v. [Orph.], test. 22 —23 Kern (adding [Orph.] A . 77 Οίάγρου ... κούρε to no. 23). 176 (b). δέ: cf. ad 17 (b). 176 (c). φορμιγκτάς: so, CCMVXZ, the other MSS have φορμικτάς. Since this agent-noun is formed from the denominative φορμίζω, which

169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

257

itself developed from *φορμίγγ-ιειν, the original form will have been φορμιγκτής (-τάς), not φορμικτής (-τάς). The simplification -ιγκτ- > -ικτ- is a later development which is paralleled in that o f σαλπιγκτής > σαλπικτής (and still later, > σαλπιστής) and o f συριγκτής > συρικτής (and still later, > συριστής); v. Lobeck, Phrjn., 191—92, and, esp., Ernst Fraenkel, Nomina agentis i, 168 —69, 232, n. 2. In the earliest extant representation o f Orpheus (ca. 570 B. C.) he is depicted not only as an Argonaut but also as a lyre-player; v. ad 25 (b). For representations o f Orpheus v. F. M. Schoeller, Darstellungen des Orpheus in der Antike, Diss. Freiburg i. Br., 1969, esp. 15 —21 (as musician) and E. R. Panyagua, Helmantica 23 (1972), 83 —135, 393 —416, 433 —96, and cf. Brommer, Vasenlisten3, 507, and, still more generally, Brommer, Denkmälerlisten iii, 332 —42. For the literary testimonia of Orpheus as a lyrist v. [Orph.] test. 56 —58a Kern, and cf. Vian ad A. R. 1. 25 (p. 240). On the φόρμιγξ v. ad 296 (c). 176 (d). άοιδάν πατήρ: for the metaphorical use o f πατήρ cf. 01. 2. 17 Χρόνος ό πάντων πατήρ, PI. Snip. 177d πατήρ του λόγου (of Phaedrus). Pindar presumably reflects the belief which was common in the later fifth century that Orpheus was the very first poet; cf. West, Hes. 77)., p. 40 with n. 1 (list o f sources). 177 (a), εύαίνητος: only here, elsewhere (B. 19. 11, Antim. 32. 2 Wyss) εύαίνετος. The same variation is found in the simplex, cf. αίνητός (Ne. 8. 39, Epigr. Gr. 247. 6, etc.) and αίνετός (Antim. 37 Wyss, Arist. Rh. 1402M1, etc.), and in other compounds, cf., e. g., πολυαίνητος (IG IV. I2 616. 5 [Epid., 4th cent. B. C.]) and πολυαίνετος (E. Heracl. 761 [lyr.]). The fluctuation in the quantity o f the root vowel o f the verbal adjective clearly reflects the same fluctuation in the sigmatic tenses of the verb; cf., e. g., αίνήσ- at Od. 16. 380, Thgn. 1080, Ne. 1. 72, etc. and αίνέσ- at Semon. 7. 112, Ne. 7. 63, etc., and v. Schwyzer i, 753, as well as Appendix. Ibyc. P M G 306 had called Orpheus όνομάκλυτος in the earliest attested literary mention o f him (the occurrence o f his name on a metope of the Sicyonian treasury, cf. ad 25 [b], is presumably earlier, cf. [Orph.] test. 1 Kern); Pindar’s epithet here may well recall the earlier poet’s. 177 (b). Όρφεύς: for Orpheus as an Argonaut v. [Orph.] test. 78 —80 Kern, I. M. Linforth, The A rts of Orpheus, Berkeley, 1941, 4 —9, and cf. ad 25 (b). (Gildersleeve’s statement that Orpheus was “assigned to the Argonautic expedition by Simonides” rests solely on P M G 567, an inconclusive fragment o f uncertain context,/w « M. L. West, The Orphic Poems, Oxford, 1983, 4, n. 3.) Pherecyd. F G rH ist 3 F 26 said that

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

Philammon, not Orpheus sailed with the Argonauts (on which v. Jacoby ad loc.). 178 (a), πέμπε: the reading of all MSS, which most editors have rightly kept. However, Otto Schroeder, ed. min.2 3, Snell1 4, Duchemin, Werner, and Snell-Maehler (1971) all print πέμψε without indicating that it has no MS support. This may well be a mere slip going back to Schroeder’s second ed. min. o f 1914 (his ed. mai. o f 1900 and the first ed. min. o f 1908 both have the imperfect, while no correction is indicated in the Appendix to the ed. mai. published in 1923), which was then accepted uncritically by the others. It is common in the language of epic to say that a father πέμπε “sent” (the imperfect is regular in this context; on the aspectual difference between the imperfect and aorist of this verb v. ad 114 [a]) his son to a war; cf., e. g., II. 6. 207, 9. 253 ( = 439, 11. 766), A. R. 1. 78, 100, 164, 2. 814 (έκπέμπε), as well as B. 9. 19 —20 ä (sc. έλπίς) καί τότ’ ’Άδραστον ... / πέμπεν ές Θήβας. Cf. also my “Two Supplementary Notes on Pindar”, Philologus 126 (1982), 313. 178 (b). χρυσόραπις: an Homeric epithet o f Hermes {Od. 5. 87, 10. 277, 331, h. Cer. 335 [cf. Richardson ad loc.], h. Ven. 117, 121, h. Merc. 539 [cf. 529 —32 for a description o f the wand], h. Horn. 29. 8, 13, [Orph.] A . 137, etc.), elsewhere (including D i. 4. 37) -pp- for (in the case of epic) obvious metrical reasons. (On the variation -p- / -pp- in Pindar v. ad 198 [b].) On the compound cf. Frisk and Chantraine, s. v. ραπίζω. The magic wand (naturally enough golden for a god) is a constant attribute of Hermes; v. F. J. M. de Waele, The Magic Staff or Rod in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Gent, 1927, 33 —69, esp. 64 —69, and cf. West ad Th. 30 (more on magic wands). 178(c). διδύμους: “twin”, as often; cf. II. 23. 641, Ol. 3. 35, Py. 9. 86, Ne. 1. 36 (sing.), 9. 4, Is. 8. 17, Pae. 12. 15, etc. According to A. R. 1. 56 (cf. also sch. Py. 4. 318c), they were the sons o f Antianeira, the daughter o f Menetes. In his catalogue o f Argonauts Ps.-Apollodorus (1. 9. 16) mentions only Ευρυτος Έρμου. (On the variation Έρυτος / Εΰρυτος v. ad 179 [a].) Pindar’s main interest in them is their divine paternity. 178 (d). έπ’ άτρυτον πόνον: not “(sent) to that long stretch o f labour” (Bowra) or even “on this labor relentless” (Lattimore), but rather “to toil unceasingly”. As often, έπί c. acc. with a verb o f motion denotes the purpose for which someone goes; cf. Od. 3. 421 άλλ’ &y’ ö μέν πεδίονδ’ έπί βουν ϊτω “... let him go to the plain for an ox”, i. e. to get one, Ol. 1. 44 —45 ήλθε καί Γανυμήδης / Ζηνί τωϋτ’ έπί χρέος “...fo r

169—187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

259

the same use”, i. e. to be used in the same way, Py. 11. 49 Πυθοϊ ... έπί στάδιον καταβάντες “... they entered for the race”, i. e. to race, to compete in the race, Ne. 10. 49 Κάστορος δ’ έλθόντος έπί ξενίαν “... for hospitality”, i. e. to receive it, and v. KG i, 504 —5, and, esp. for Pindar, Bossier, De praepositionum usu apud P., 52. Pindar is thus saying more than that Hermes sent his sons on this particular expedition. He is in fact describing under what conditions they went. The prepositional phrase έπ’ ατρυτον πόνον is used to characterize the sons o f Hermes in much the same way as the compound adjective άκαμαντομάχαι does the sons o f Zeus in 171 and the participial phrase ανδεσθέντες άλκάν the sons of Poseidon in 173. This is a good example o f Pindar’s art o f variatio. For the phrase ατρυτον πόνον cf. Hdt. 9. 52 προσκειμένης τής 'ίππου είχον πόνον ατρυτον, and also S. A j. 787 —88 πεπαυμένην / κακών άτρύτων, [Mosch.] 4 {Meg.). 69 —70 άτρύτοισιν / άλγεσι μοχθίζουσαν. The verbal adjective άτρϋτος (cf. τρόω) is first attested as such here and in Bacchylides (cf. 5. 27 έν άτρύτωι χάει, where the phrase is used as a synonym of the epic άτρόγετος αιθήρ [v. Maehler, Komm, ad loc.], and 9. 80 ίίτ]ρυτον χρόνον), but a lengthened form Άτρϋτώνη already occurs as an Homeric title o f Athena. 179(a). τον μέν Έχίονα, κεχλάδοντας ..., τον δ’ Έρυτον: sch. 316 explain the construction as an example o f the schema Alcmanicum, πριν γάρ είπεΐν τα δύο ονόματα, μέσην έταξε τήν μετοχήν, while sch. 318b quotes as examples o f it II. 5. 774 ήχι ροάς Σιμόεις συμβάλλετον ήδέ Σκάμανδρος, and Alcm. P M G 2 Κάστωρ τε πώλων ώκέων (ταχέων sch. Pind.) δματήρες ίππόται σοφοί / καί Πωλυδεύκης κυδρός. The Aleman example is also cited by [Hdn.] Fig., iii, 102 Spengel ( = viii, 606 Walz). On the figure cf. KG i, 80, Anm. 1, Schwyzer ii, 605, 612, and v. esp. O. Wilpert, De schemate Pindarico et Alcmanico, Diss. Breslau, 1878, 4 6 -5 7 . Although Pindar generally prefers an asymmetrical construction (cf. ad 281—82 [b]), he does not avoid a more formal arrangement, such as the balancing μέν ... δέ ... here, wherever this helps make the meaning clear; cf., e. g., Py. 11.1 —3 Κάδμου κόραι, Σεμέλα μέν ..., / ’Ινώ δέ ... / ϊτε, Is. 1. 29 —31 βεέθροισί τε Δίρκας έφανεν καί παρ’ Εύρώπα πέλας, / Ίφικλέος μέν παΐς ..., / Τυνδαρίδας δ’. Gildersleeve ad loc. apparently regards Έχίων and ’Έρυτος as signifi­ cant names: “Hold-fast” and “Pull-hard”. While the following pair are certainly of that type (v. ad 182), though not invented by Pindar (cf. Acus. F G rH ist 2 F 30 = Vorsokr. 9 B 35), it is by no means clear that the poet would have understood these two in that way, however appropriate they might seem for Argonauts on that interpretation. More

likely Pindar, if he had thought about it at all, would have regarded Έχίων as derived from εχις “snake”; cf. E M , s.v. Έχίων, 404, 42—43 G. ’Από του εχις εχιος γίνεται Έχίων, όνομα κύριον. Similarly it is doubtful whether Pindar would have derived Έρυτος from έρϋω “draw”. The Pindaric form o f the name seems to be a variant of the more familiar Εΰρυτος, e. g., (1) from Oechalia, son o f Melaneus (cf. II. 2. 596, 730, Od. 8. 224, 226, 21. 32, [Hes.] fr. 26. 28 M.-W., A. R. 1. 87 —89 [with Vian ad loc., p. 243], [Apollod.] 2. 7. 7 [with Frazer ad loc.], etc.), and (2) from Elis, son o f Actor or Poseidon (cf. II. 2. 621, [Hes.] fr. 17a. 16 M.-W., 01. 10. 28, [Apollod.] 2. 7. 2 [with Frazer ad loc.], etc.); cf. Buttmann, Lexilogus i, 138. (In fact here the MSS and scholia have Εΰρυτον, which Erasmus Schmid corrected to Έρυτον metri gratia with reference to A. R. 1. 52. [Apollod.] 1. 9. 16, as noted ad 178 [c], has Εΰρυτος.) Thus Pindar would more likely have derived Έρυτος / Εΰρυτος from εύρύς; cf. E M 37, 31 —32 G. Αΐπυτος: Ό νομα κύριον παρά τό αίπύς, ö σημαίνει τον υψηλόν [τόπον], 'Ως εύρύς Εΰρυτος, Ε Μ 396, 51—52 G. Εύρυτίων: Ό νομα κύριον. Παρά τό εύρύς Εΰρυτος Εύρυτίων ϊν’ ή ό μέγας- ώς αίπύς, Αίπύτης. (According to the testimonia for Pindar’s fr. 48, there was among the Argonauts an Εύρυτίων, son of Irus and grandson o f Actor; cf. A. R. 1. 71 [with Vian ad 74, pp. 242 —43], who distinguishes him from Εΰρυτος, but according to [Apollod.] 1 .8 .1 Εύρυτίων "Ακτορος was accidentally killed during the Calydonian boar-hunt, i. e. before the Argonautic expedition. However Erytus / Eurytus may have originally stood in relation to Eurytion, it is virtually certain that the name o f Pindar’s Argonaut Erytus is simply a variant of “Eurytus”; cf. further Carl Robert, Heldensage, 783.) For Erytos and Echion as Argonauts cf. also A. R. 1. 51—56 (with Vian ad 56, pp. 241—42). 179 (b). κεχλάδοντας: reduplicated perfect (present in meaning; v. below and further ad 183 [a]) attested only in Pindar and in Hesychius (κεχληδέναι- ψοφεΐν. προσλαλεΐν). The Pindaric passages are, besides here, Ol. 9. 1—2 Τό μέν ’Αρχιλόχου μέλος / φωνάεν Όλυμπίμ, καλλίνι­ κος ό τριπλόος κεχλαδώς, and D i. 2. 8 —10 σεμνςί μέν κατάρχει / Ματέρι πάρ μεγάλα Κόμβοι τυπάνων, / έν δέ κέχλαδ[εν] κρόταλ’ αίθομένα τε δαΐς. Among the many explanations o f the sch. ad Ol. 9. 1 —2 one (3m) glosses κεχλαδώς as ό ύπό όχλου φδόμενος and another (3i) as ό μετά πλήθους κελάδων ή πληθύει τα μέλη; cf. also E M , s.v. όχλος (645, 29 —32 G.) ... Τριπλόος ό κεχλαδώς· ’Αντί τοΰ ό πληθύων. Here the sch. ad loc. first gloss it with “swelling”, viz. “with youth” (πληθύοντας τή ήβη), “full” or “swollen” (πλήθοντας), and then explain that the word properly refers to χλήδος “debris carried down by a torrent” and is used figuratively o f the noise produced by the waters. Whatever the

169 — 187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

261

exact origin o f the verb may have been, it seems likely that it may indeed have meant “swelling” in a physical sense and, like its English equivalent, have been equally applicable to sound. (E. Tichy, Onomato­ poetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen, Wien, 1983, 65, n. 5, denies that the verb can mean “schwellen” without, however, proving that it can only mean “jauchzen”.) It is the primary use o f *χλάδω as an onomatopoetic word that accounts for its appearance in the form o f a reduplicated perfect with a present meaning; on this characteristic of “Schallverba” v. Wackernagel, Syntax i, 166 —67. For the image of youthful vigour swelling cf. 158 άνθος ήβας ... κυμαίνει. 179

(c). m · · on the range o f meaning cf. ad 295 (b).

179—80 (a), ταχέες — εβαν: this sentence does not continue the account o f Echion and Erytus, as Mezger and Duchemin ad loc. thought, but begins that of Zetes and Calais. This is made clear by the following γάρ in 181, which introduces a reason for a fact already stated, viz. why in spite o f the distance the Boreads were able to arrive quickly. Cf. also sch. 319, which rightly understood the construction. {This interpretation is further confirmed by the geography. Echion and Erytus are nowhere else associated with the far north [A. R. 1. 51 assigns them to Alope, presumably the Thessalian city; cf. II. 2. 682, St. Byz., s. v., and further Pindar is not likely to have known the variant Άλόπης for Άλύβης at II. 2. 857 and assigned that place to the Strymon region on the basis o f the Homeric description δθεν άργύρου έστί γενέθλη], whereas the north., viz. Thrace, is the traditional home of the Boreads, hence the mention o f Pangaeus, cf. ad 180 [b], which serves to locate them.) 179—80 (b). ταχέες / άμφί: for ταχέες the less strongly attested variant ταχέως was generally adopted by early editors (including Boeckh) up to Tycho Mommsen, ed. mat.·, cf., however, II. 23. 287 "Ως φάτο Πηλεΐδης, ταχέες δ’ ίππήες αγερθεν, A. Pers. 739 ταχεία γ’ ήλθε χρησμών πράξις, S. Ph. 1080 υμείς δ’, όταν καλώμεν, όρμάσθαι ταχείς, and in general, for the use o f an adjective where we might expect an adverb, ad 129 (b) above. Before άμφί all MSS have a δ’, which Boeckh retained in his edition, but subsequently deleted (K l. Sehr, v, 261). In any case, δ’ whether at the end or the beginning o f a verse (like Θ’ at 9 —10 above) is metrically objectionable (pace Jebb ad B. 14 [= 15]. 61); v. Boeckh, Kl. Sehr, v, 259 —61, and cf. Maas, Greek Metre, §139. The asyndeton is in fact necessary to warn the listener that what follows is a new thought and not a continuation o f the account of Echion and Erytus. Because the identity of the άμφί Παγγ'αίου θεμέθλοις ναιετάοντες in 180 is not made clear until Zetes and Calais are finally mentioned in 182, it is imperative

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part]

that the sentence beginning with ταχέες be clearly set apart from what has been said before. (Otherwise one would suppose that the subjects of the previous sentence were the subjects of έβαν here.) This Pindar did by the use o f asyndeton, which in this case we may classify as “transitional” (cf. Dissen [1830] i, 279). The false insertion o f δ’ is easily explained as an attempt to avoid what was (wrongly) regarded as unacceptable asyndeton; v. Otto Schroeder, ed. mat., 9, for examples o f similar interpolations. Cf. also Maas, Responsionsfreiheiten ii, 29 with n. 1. 180 (a), άμφί ... θεμέθλοις: άμφί c. d a t.loc. was the inherited way of answering the question “where?” (cf., e. g., II. 12. 175, Pae. 2. 97 —98), whereas άμφί c. acc. answered the question “whither?”. However, al­ ready in early Greek άμφί c. acc. was used to express position “at” a place; v. Schwyzer ii, 436 —39. Moreover, since in later Greek, esp. in prose, άμφί c. dat. came to acquire an almost exclusively causal sense “about”, “for the sake o f ”, the text of Pindar was changed here from θεμέθλοις to θέμεθλα presumably to bring it in line with what was thought to be correct prepositional usage. Boeckh’s correction o f θέ­ μεθλα, the reading of the MSS, to θεμέθλοις is not only syntactically justifiable, but in fact demanded by the metre; v. ad 4 (d). (Lionel Pearson, GRBS 15 [1974], 186, n. 37, seems to want to keep the MS reading θέμεθλα, apparently on the grounds that — U ------------ u — u is a permissible pattern, as indeed it is, cf. Is. 2. 8 [cited by Pearson], but which, it should be noted, occurs in the first triad. However, Boeckh’s correction is required not in order to avoid this pattern, but to avoid introducing a short anceps at a point in the verse in which there is no corresponding one in the first triad.) The θέμεθλα are the “foundation(s)”, “base” of anything, perhaps originally “that upon which” something “is placed” (τίθεται); on the formation cf. Frisk, s. v. θέμεθλα, as well as Chantraine, s. v. θεμός. Homer uses the word o f the “roots” or “bed” o f the eye (II. 14. 493) and o f the “base” o f the throat (II. 17. 47), while Hes. Th. 816 applies it to the “roots”, “base”, “bed” of Oceanus. (For later examples of the use of the word v. Fr. Williams ad Call. A p. 15.) With this usage we may compare that o f βίζαι (of the eye) at Od. 9. 390 and o f βίζαισιν Αίτναίαις at A.(?) Pr. 365. In fact, the θέμεθλα o f Pangaeus and the βίζαι o f Aetna mean much the same thing; on the partial overlap in the usage o f the two words v. West ad Hes. Th. loc. cit. On the meaning o f θεμέθλοις at 16 v. ad loc. 180 (b). Παγγαίου: the mountain lies east o f the Strymon on the border between Thrace and Macedonia near the site o f Amphipolis,

169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

263

and thus mention o f it serves to identify the Boreads (cf. ad 179 —80 [a]) and their home. 180 (c). ναιετάοντες: i. e. οί άμφί Παγγαίου θεμέθλοις ναιετάοντες. The use o f a substantivized participle without the definite article is an archaic feature o f Greek found in high poetry (and formal prose); cf. e. g., Hes. Op. 12 τήν μέν κεν έπαινήσειε νοήσας (i. e. ό ν. “der Verständige”, recte Peppmüller, pace West ad loc.), 01. 2. 86 —87 μαθόντες (i. e. οί μ.) δέ λάβροι ... κόρακες ώς ακραντα γαρύετον (recte codd., for a recent defence o f which v. G. M. Kirkwood, CQ, n. s. 31 [1981], 240 —43, who, however, has dismissed too easily the possibility that Pindar may have used the dual for plural on the basis o f an assumed Homeric precedent), 13. 17 άπαν δ’ εύρόντος εργον (“but every contriv­ ance belongs to the one who invents it”), E. Ale. 127 (lyr.) δμαθέντας (i. e. τούς δ.) γάρ άνίστη, and ν. KG i, 608 —9, Schwyzer ii, 23 —24, 408 —9. (Gildersleeve ad loc. understands the participle as concessive: “Dwelling, as they did”. However, this would scarcely be intelligible, since it leaves £βαν without an identifiable subject.) 180 (d). εβαν: the form is already used in Homer; cf., e. g., II. 3. 113. As in the case o f the comparable εγνον at 120 (cf. ad loc. [b]), the final vowel is short (here unclear because o f period-end). 181 (a), καί γάρ: the γάρ introduces the reason for the previous statement (cf. ad 179 —80 [a]) and the καί (to be taken with έκών) means “too”, i. e. Boreas like Hermes sent his sons willingly. On καί γάρ ν. Denniston, G P, 108 —9. 181 (b). γελανεϊ: cf. [OL] 5. 2 καρδίμ γελανεί, another instance o f the use o f the adjective (and hence not quite an hapax legomenon, as Duchemin ad loc. supposes). (Cf. also B. 5. 80 γελανώσας ... θυμόν. The participle, a genuine hapax legomenon, is that o f a simple factitive verb in -οΰν and thus clearly formed from the adjective γελανής [v. Debrunner, GW , §§198 —207].) The adjective γελανής itself is ulti­ mately related to γελάω (cf. Schwyzer i, 513, and v. Frisk and Chantraine, s. ν. γελάω), the primary metaphorical meaning o f which was “shine”; v. West ad Hes. Th. 40 and Richardson ad h. Cer. 14. A secondary development is the sense “to rejoice at” anything pleasant. Hence, the adjective means “joyful” (and hardly “laughing” as Bowra translates it). 181 (c). θάσσον: “all the more speedily”, i. e. than he would have done if he had not been willing. The statement o f LSJ, s. ν. ταχύς, C, I, 2, that “θάσσον also often stands for the Positive, II. 2. 440, Od. 15. 201, 16. 130, Pi. P. 4. 181, ...” is misleading. In such cases there is always an implied comparison: something is being done “more quickly”

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

than it would be done under other (unnamed but implied) circumstances. (Cf. also the similar use in Latin at, e. g., Verg. eel. 7. 8 —9 ocius ... / huc ades.) This is true of most other apparently gratuitous uses of the comparative in Greek; cf. KG ii, 305 —7, Anm. 7, Thesleff, Intensifica­ tion, §§171—73, and ad 155 (b). For a similar use of the comparative at 272 V . ad loc. ( b ) . 181 (d). έντυνεν: “urged on”, so sch. 321a έκέλευσεν, rightly; cf. Thgn. 195 —96 έπεί κρατερή μιν άνάγκη / έντύει, ΟΙ. 3. 28, Py. 9. 66, Ne. 9. 36. (The original meaning o f the verb is “to provide” someone or something “with εντεα”, i. e. “equip”, “get” them “ready”; cf. II. 5. 720 εντυεν ίππους, then, more generally, “prepare”; cf. II. 9. 203 δέπας δ’ έντυνον έκάστφ, Β. fr. 4. 22 τοί δέ θοίνας εντυον. From the second meaning it is a relatively small step to the sense found here; cf. Hsch., s. v. έντύνεν κελεύει, έτοιμάζει. σπεύδει, which illustrates the basic range o f meaning.) In Homer this denominative is found in two forms: έντΰ- and έντϋν-, a dichotomy which may be explained on grounds of metrical convenience; v. Kujore, Greek Polymorphic Presents, 61. Like other such pairs they are used in epic without a recognizable difference in meaning; v. Ernst Fraenkel, Griech. Denominativa, 32. This is true for Pindar as well, who elsewhere (see above) uses only the form έντυ-. Our present example is usually classified as an imperfect, which would be normal in this context and comparable, e. g., to the use o f πέμπε in 178 (cf. ad 114 [a]) as well as of εντυεν at Py. 9. 66 and Ne. 9. 36 (at 01. 3. 28 έντυ’ a durative sense is clearly present). However, sch. 321a, as we saw above, paraphrases our instance with έκέλευσεν, whereas the scholia to the other three Pindaric passages employ almost (but not quite; cf. sch. 01. 3. 50a, but then again imperfect in 50c) always the imperfect. It is possible in fact that Pindar regarded the έντϋν- forms o f the past tense as aorists (cf. II. 9. 203 έντυνον, imperative, quoted above, II. 14. 162 έντύνασαν, etc.) and the έντΰ- forms as imperfects; so, Ernst Fraenkel, loc. cit., who argues that verbs such as έντύειν and έντύνειν “haben sich ... im Epos so geschieden, daß die Bildung -ϋειν nur im Präsens und Imperfektum vorkommt, während Futurum, Aor. Akt. u. Pass. u. s. w. durch die andere Bildung ersetzt werden, die auch in den Präsenstempora da eintritt, wo Länge des υ erfordert wird”. Neverthe­ less, no matter how Pindar might have classified the form έντϋνεν, we can be sure that he preferred it for metrical reasons and used it without any real difference of meaning from έντϋε(ν), since both the aorist and the imperfect could be used here to express the same completed action in the past. On Pindar’s use o f metrical alternatives v. further Appendix. 181—82. βασιλεύς άνεμων / ... πατήρ Βορέας: in Homer Boreas is simply one of the winds, viz. the North Wind that blows from Thrace

169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

265

(cf. II. 9. 5). (In the Odyssey the ταμίης άνέμων is Aeolus [cf. 10. 21], a man enjoying the special favour o f the gods in a fairyland world.) In the Theogony (378 —80) Hesiod provides Boreas with (divine) parents, Eos and Astraeus, and two brothers, Zephyrus and Notus, i. e. he was merely one o f the cardinal winds. The importance o f Boreas here presumably reflects, as A. Köhnken reminds me, the wish to place the father o f Zetes and Calais on a par with the other divine fathers o f the heroes mentioned in the catalogue rather than, e. g., the role he was supposed to have played in the destruction o f the Persian fleet along the Magnesian coast in 480 (cf. Hdt. 7. 189). (See J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period, London, 1975, 224, 230, on the problems involved in attributing the appearance o f Boreas on contemporary vases to this same event.) Already ca. 570 Boreas had been depicted (with serpents’ tails instead o f feet) on the Chest o f Cypselus in the act o f carrying off the Athenian princess Orithyia (cf. Paus. 5. 19. 1). A bearded and winged Boreas (with human feet) can still be seen abducting her on two vases roughly contemporary with our ode: (1) an oinochoe by the Pan Painter (London, BM , E 512, A R V 557, 125; cf. Boardman, op. cit., pi. 341) and (2) a pelike signed by Hermonax (Rome, Villa Giulia Museum, A R V 485, 33; cf. Boardman, op. cit., pi. 352). On the representations o f Boreas v. also K. Schauenburg, A & A 10 (1961), 77 —79, E. Simon, A & A 13 (1967), 101—26. Cf. also R. Hampe, Kult der Winde in Athen und Kreta, Heidelberg, 1967. 182. Ζήταν Κάλαΐν τε: unlike Echion and Erytus (cf. ad 179 [a]) a genuine case o f significant names, though not invented by Pindar (cf., e.g., [Hes.] fr. 150, 156 M.-W., Simon. P M G 534, and Acus. F G rH ist 2 F 30 —31 = Vorsokr. 9 B 35 and 19). The scholia ad loc. explain them correctly: οίονεί Ζαήτην, δ έσιιν άγαν έίοντα καί πνέοντα, καί Κάλαιν οίον καλώς άοντα. Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc., renders them as “Scharfwind” and “Schönwind”, o f which the English equivalents would perhaps be “Blow-hard” and “Blow-well”. The scholia ad loc. also report that some people (like the σοφοί whose “scientific” explana­ tion o f this particular legend Socrates professes to give Phaedrus on the banks o f the Ilissus [PI. Phdr. 229c—30a]) deny that Orithyia, the mother o f the Boreads, was in fact carried off by the wind-god. 182—83. ανδρας — πορφυρέοις: like their father the Boreads were conventionally represented as winged; so, presumably, on the chest of Cypselus where they were shown chasing the Harpies away from Phineus (cf. Paus. 5. 17. 11); for other representations cf. Paus. 3. 18. 15, J. Boardman, Athenian Black Figure Vases, London, 1974, 232, and also Schefold, Friihgriech. Sagenbilder, 72, pi. 64b ( = English ed., 77, pi.

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

64b), K. Schauenburg, ArchClass 4 (1952), 10—13, pi. 5, L. Rocchetti, “Boreadi”, Enciclopedia dell’A rte Antica ii (1959), 140, and v. above pp. 20 —21. The scholia ad loc. report that the same people who refused to accept the story of Orithyia’s rape by the wind-god (cf. ad 182) also maintained that her sons were not in fact winged but simply very fast at running. (The medieval MS tradition o f Apollonius Rhodius, possibly under the influence o f rationalistic criticism o f the traditional story, makes the Boreads anatomically less picturesque by placing their wings at the ankles [cf. 1. 219 —20], whether as actual appendages or as talaria being left, doubtless deliberately, unclear. However, a recently discovered papyrus [P. Oxy. 34, 2700] reads επί κρ]οτάφοι[σ]ι instead of έπ’ άκροτάτοισι in 219, so that the Boreads, according to Apollonius, presumably had real wings both at their temples and on their feet [v. Vian ad loc., p. 60, n. 4]. Their long dark hair [cf. 1. 221 —23] is more likely a conscious reinterpretation o f the Pindaric πτεροϊσιν πορφυρέοις rather than an allusion to their conception, which took place while their parents were surrounded by a dark cloud, as Hermann Frankel, Noten ad loc. supposes, but cf. Vian ad loc., p. 250.) 183 (a), νώτα πεφρίκοντας: cf. II. 13. 473 φρίσσει (sc. the wild boar preparing to fight) ... νώτον (where, however, the verb is used with a meaning different from here; v. below). Pindar often employs the socalled accusative of respect with parts o f the body; c f , e. g., Ne. 9. 26 δουρί Περικλυμένου ... νώτα τυπέντα, 10. 44 έπιεσσάμενοι νώτον μαλακαϊσι κρόκαις, and ν. Erdmann, De Pindari usu syntactico, 11 —12 (more exx.), and, more generally, KG i, 315 —18, Schwyzer ii, 85 —96. The participle is concessive (and rightly so rendered by Bowra in his translation) as the interlaced word-order, ανδρας ... πεφρίκοντας αμφω, helps make clear. (On interlaced word-order c f ad 42—43 [b].) Like κεχλάδοντας in 179 (v. ad loc. [b]) πεφρίκοντας is a reduplicated perfect used with a present meaning. (Curiously Slater, s. ν. φρίσσω, classifies πεφρίκοντας as a reduplicated aorist, whereas he correctly explains [s.v. κέχλαδα] κεχλάδοντας as a perfect. Both are in fact the same form.) On the use of a reduplicated perfect with a present meaning in the case o f verbs which describe gesture or behaviour (Verba der Gebärde) v. further Georg Curtius, Verbum2 ii, 175, and cf. Wackernagel, Syntax i, 167. Reduplicated perfect participles inflected (except in the nom. sg.; cf. Ol. 9. 2) as presents (-οντος, etc., hence the accent) rather than as regular perfects (-ότος, etc.; cf. the simplifying variants -ότας here and at 179) have traditionally been regarded as Aeolicisms (cf. Chantraine, Gram. horn, i, 430 —31), but this formation is by no means restricted to Aeolic and is perhaps best explained in epic as a metrical adaptation o f forms otherwise unusable in hexameters; v. further Strunk,

169—187, Catalogue o f Argonauts

267

Die sogenannten Aolismen, 104—8. Pindar will presumably have been following epic precedent in his use or creation o f such forms. Here πεφρίκοντας probably does not mean “bristling” (cf. Erasmus Schmid, Boeckh, LSJ, Slater, Nisetich) or quite, what would be more appropriate for winged creatures, “ruffling” (Lattimore, Bowra), which might imply that they were angry or cold, but rather “undulating”; cf. sch. ad loc. διακινοϋντας· φρίξ γάρ κυρίως ή ήρεμαία κίνησις των κυμάτων. (The basic meaning o f φρίξ, a deverbative root-noun from φρίσσειν [v. Risch, Wortbildung, § 3c], is, as the scholia rightly observe, a “ripple” on the surface o f water, especially as caused by a gust of wind; cf. II. 7. 63 —64 οϊη δέ Ζεφύροιο έχεύατο πόντος έπι φρίξ / όρνυμένοιο νέον, 23. 692—93 ως δ’ δθ’ ύπό φρικός Βορέω άναπάλλεται Ιχθύς / θίν’ έν φυκιόεντι, Od. 4. 401—2, A. R. 4. 1574 —75, D. P. 112 —114.) With the present use o f the word (at 81 Pindar uses it in a different sense) we may compare the poet’s description o f the sleeping eagle in Pj. 1. 8 —10 ό δέ κνώσσων / υγρόν νώτον αίωρεϊ, τεαΐς / ριπαΐσι κατασχόμενος, i. e. the bird raises its wings in rhythm to Apollo’s lyre. 183 (b). πορφυρέοις: always understood here as “purple” and prob­ ably so intended by Pindar. But why should the Boreads have purple wings? (Hardly because their parents were surrounded by a dark cloud at their conception, a detail mentioned by A. R. 1. 218, on which v. ad 182 —83.) It is perhaps just possible that Pindar is using πορφύρεος in the sense sometimes found in Homer, viz. “heaving”, “surging” (cf., e. g., II. 1. 481 —82 άμφί δέ κΰμα / στείρη πορφύρεον μεγάλ’ ϊαχε νηός ίούσης, 16. 391, 21. 326). (Frisk and Chantraine, s. ν. πορφύρω, assume that πορφύρεος “heaving” is derived from the verb πορφύρω “swell” and to be distinguished from πορφύρεος “purple”, which is derived from πορφύρα, but Risch, Wortbildung, §49a, assumes on the basis of the supposed occurrence in the Mycenaean tablets o f po-pu-reja in connection with materials that the designation o f colour was always the primary function o f the adjective and that the sense “heaving” is a secondary development.) The meaning “heaving” would in fact make excellent sense here and has the advantage o f eliminating an apparently gratuitous (and indeed even bizarre) detail. However, since πορφύρεος “heaving” is restricted in application as an epithet to the sea, waves, etc. both in Homer and in later poets and since, moreover, Pindar elsewhere clearly employs the adjective to designate colour, it would be going beyond the available evidence to claim that πορφυρέοις here means “heaving”, “surging”. 184 (a), παμπειθή: only here. The final element is not well attested in early Greek; cf., however, Thgn. 1235 —36 άπειθή / μύθον (the reading has been doubted), Pi. fr. 40 Τύχα άπειθής, S. fr. 50 R. απειθής,

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

and esp. Aeschylus, who has a distinct preference for εύπ(ε)ιθής (6 x ; on the variation in form and usage v. Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 214). On the initial element cf. Schwyzer i, 437. 184 (b). γλυκύν ... πόθον: more common is γλυκύς ίμερος; cf. II. 3. 139, h. Ven. 2. 45, 53, 143, h. Mere. 422, 01. 3. 33. πόθος, like Latin desiderium, often means “longing” for what is lost or absent (cf. II. 17. 439, Od. 14. 144, etc.), but is used here as a synonym o f ίμερος (cf. Hes. Op. 66, [Hes.] Sc. 41 [v. Russo ad loc.], A. R. 3. 262 (on which cf. ad 218 [b] below), and esp. 4. 1147 Δαϊε δ’ έν όφθαλμοϊς γλυκερόν πόθον [with Vian ad 4. 1148, ρ. 186], etc.). Cf. also Th. 6. 24. 3 καί ερως ένέπεσε τοίς πάσιν όμοίως έκπλεΰσαι (of the Athenians before the Sicilian expedition), a correspondence noted by G. Méautis, Pindare le Dorien, Neuchàtel, 1962, 230—31. 184 (c). ήμιθέοισιν: cf. ad 12 (b). 184 (d). πόθον ενδαιεν: in the second longum of the pattern e — (— u ‘— ’— ) Pindar lengthens a final -ov both here and at 01. 6. 28 σάμερον έλθεΐν, and a final -ος at 01. 6. 77 Κυλλάνας όρος, 'Αγησία, and Pj. 3. 6 γυιαρκέος Άσκλαπιόν. In addition, a final -ov is lengthened in the final longum o f a D-colon (— u u — u u ‘— ’) at 01. 6. 103 ποντόμεδον, εύθύν, Ne. 1. 69 χρόνον (cf. also fr. 169a. 7), and in first longum o f a D-colon (‘— ’u u — u u — ) at Is. 6. 42 τοιοΰτον έπος (cf. also Pae. 6. 136). (At Is. 6. 42 as well as at Pj. 4. 253 we should not assume with Heimer, Studia Pindarica, 5, 21, 33, 78, that a short syllable ending in a consonant was lengthened by the presence o f a digamma at the beginning o f the following word; cf. in general Maas, Greek Metre, § 132.) There is thus no reason to conjecture ένέδαιεν here with Turyn metri gratia. This would in turn produce an irregular responsion, which in this case would be especially unwelcome, since the second longum o f an e-colon is seldom resolved in Pindar and then only under conditions which do not prevail here (v. ad 253 [c]). Moreover, Turyn’s conjecture would produce a short anceps in the pattern e ‘— ’ e — without a corresponding one elsewhere (on which v. ad 4 [d]). Finally, it should be noted that the (apparent) occurrence o f a short syllable here and in similar places in Pindar in responsion with a long syllable has often been explained as “anaclasis”; v. Höhl, Responsionsfreiheiten, 26 —58, esp. 35 —41, and Führer, Beiträge iib, 244—50. However, the explanation o f metrical lengthening adopted consistently by Snell (cf. Pindarus ii3, 173, Bacchjlides8, 21*) and others is to be preferred as (1) being simpler and (2) avoiding a needless disturbance in the rhythmical pattern which is hardly to be justified in dactyloepitrites.

169 —187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

269

With the metaphorical use here cf. A. R. 4. 1147 quoted above ad 184 (b) (where Apollonius may well have had the present passage in mind along with Od. 6. 131—32 έν δέ οί δσσε / δαίεται). The verb is attested only here in the active, but this use o f the simplex is common in Homer (in a literal sense). 184—85. Ή ρα / / / ναός: on the triadic enjambement cf. ad 39 —40. 184 (e). Ήρα: Pindar does not tell us why Hera gave the divine impulse to the expedition o f the Argo. As in the single Homeric reference to the expedition, Pindar almost certainly assumes knowledge of this; cf. Od. 12. 69 —72 οϊη δή κείνη γε παρέπλω ποντοπόρος νηΰς / ’Αργώ πδσι μέλουσα, παρ’ Αίήταο πλέουσα- / καί νύ κε τήν ενθ’ ώκα βάλεν μεγάλας ποτί πέτρας, / άλλ’ Ή ρη παρέπεμψεν, έπεί φίλος ήεν Ίήσων (on which ν. ad 25 [b] above). One explanation o f why Iason enjoyed the special favour o f Hera, who would presumably aid an expedition undertaken by him, is provided by a comment o f Servius auct. ad Verg. eel. 4. 34, viz. that Iason once carried Hera, or rather Juno, who was disguised as an old woman, across the Anaurus (during which one o f his sandals was lost; cf. ad 75 [a]). Another explanation is provided by [Apollod.] 1. 9. 16, viz. that Hera was angry with Pelias because he did not honour her (cf. also A. R. 1. 14 — a common motif in any case) and instigated the Argonautic expedition so that Medea would prove a curse to him (cf. Pherecyd. F G rH ist 3 F 105 = sch. Pj. 4. 133a, on which v. p. 18 above). Both explanations are not exclusive (in fact A. R. 3. 64—75 combines both) and both, like many such explanations, may have been invented long after the original story to explain it at a time when the actual motive was no longer known, if indeed it was ever clearly stated in the earliest accounts. Although we cannot be sure exactly what motive Pindar assumes for the voyage (other than the immediate cause stated in 159 —67), it is clear that Hera played a central role in it. 185. ναός Άργους: strongly emphasized by triadic enjambement (here without a pause o f any kind); cf. ad 9 —11. 186 (a), τάν: the article need not necessarily be used here with an overtone o f contempt (so Gildersleeve ad loc.), but simply as an equivalent o f a possessive pronoun; cf., e. g., Ne. 9. 4 τό (“his”) κρατήσιππον γάρ ές αρμ’ άναβαίνων, and ν. R. Ullmann, SO 1 (1922), 65, and, more generally, KG i, 593. 186 (b). άκίνδυνον: cf. 01. 1. 81 —84 (Pelops is speaking) ό μέγας δέ κίνδυνος αναλκιν ού φώτα λαμβάνει. / θανεΐν δ’ οίσιν άνάγκα, τά κέ τις άνώνυμον / γήρας έν σκότφ καθήμενος έψοι μάταν, / άπάντων καλών δμμορος, 6. 9 —11 άκίνδυνοι δ’ άρεταί / οδτε παρ’ άνδράσιν οϋτ’ έν

270

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

ναυσί κοίλαις / τίμιαι- πολλοί δέ μέμνανται, καλόν εϊ τι ποναθή, and, for other examples of this attitude, v. Gerber ad Ol. 1. 81. Pindar professes an heroic ideal which seems to judge the worth o f any undertaking (at least in part) in proportion to the danger involved. (The same thought is often found applied to the great Games in which a man can acquire lasting honour or disgrace depending on whether he wins or loses. If one has the prerequisites [cf. ad 187 (a)], not to compete is itself disgraceful; v. Bowra, Pindar, 178 —84.) The ακίνδυνος βίος o f which Simonides speaks in a corrupt fragment, P M G 523. 3, is apparently regarded by him as desirable, but unattainable even for the demigods. For “the life without danger” as allegedly characteristic o f women cf. E. Med. 248 —49 λέγουσι δ’ ήμάς (i. e. women) ώς άκίνδυνον βίον / ζώμεν κατ’ οίκους, οί δέ μάρνανται δορί. 186 (c). παρά ματρί μένειν: contemptuous; cf. besides Hes. Op. 130 —31 (with West ad loc.) also Pj. 8. 85 μολόντων πάρ ματέρ’ (of the youths defeated at the Games). For the phrase cf. Hes. Op. 520 παρά μητέρι μίμνει (sc. παρθενική άπαλόχρως). 186 (d). αιώνα: not simply “life”, but “life-span” with an implication o f long duration; cf., e. g., 01. 2. 10, Is. 1. 42, fr. 165. (This meaning and any further implication it may carry depends upon the context in which the word is used; cf. Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 554.) Here the context shows that a long life is implied. In fact αιώνα is practically the equivalent o f γήρας in the similar passage in Pelops’ speech at Ol. 1. 83 (quoted above ad 186 [b]). Here it would have been somewhat incongruous to have used γήρας with ματρί. In both passages Pindar may well have in mind the famous dilemma of Achilles: glory and early death or obscurity and long life (cf. II. 9. 410 —16). On the word and its semantic development v. further E. Degani, Αιών da Omero ad Aristotele, Padova, 1961, esp. 45 —51 (on Pindar). For αιών used as a feminine cf. II. 22. 58 (on which v. Witte, Zur homer. Sprache, 33), [Hes.] Sc. 331, [Simon.] Epigr. 70. 3 R, Py. 5. 7, Ne. 9. 44, E. Ph. 1484 (lyr.), 1520 (lyr.), [Orph.] fr. 245. 4 K , and v. Schwyzer ii, 37 with n. 7 (where, however, the present instance is wrongly stated to be masculine). 186 (e). πέσσοντ’: cf. Ol. 1. 83 γήρας ... εψοι (for the context v. ad 186 [b]). The metaphorical use o f both πέσσω and εψω is probably paralleled in the development o f the English verb “coddle”, i. e. “cook” > “cherish excessively”. The beginning o f the metaphorical use o f the first verb is already found in Homer; cf. II. 2. 237, 4. 513, 8. 513, 9. 565, 24. 617, 639 (as well as the use o f the epic vocative πέπον, on which v. Frisk and Chantraine, s. v. πέπων). Vian ad A. R.

169—187. Catalogue o f Argonauts

271

1. 283, p. 63, n. 2, compares the present passage for the use o f πέσσω, but Apollonius’ use represents a later development still: “enjoys”. 186 (f). έπί καί θανάτφ: “even at the price o f death”; cf. II. 10. 303 —4 τίς κέν μοι τόδε έργον υποσχόμενος τελέσειε / δώρφ επι μεγάλφ; μισθός δέ οί άρκιος εσται, 21. 445 μισθώ επι £>ητφ, and ν. Bossier, De praepositionum usu apud P., 55 —56. For the position o f καί cf. Ol. 2. 28 έν καί θαλάσσα, Py. 9. 102 —3 έν τε καί πάσιν / έπιχωρίοις (sc. άέθλοις), and ν. Denniston, G P , 326, as well as Slater, s. ν. καί, E, 1. 187 (a), φάρμακο ν ... άρετάς: “a φάρμακον o f whatever kind is a means o f interfering with the course o f nature” (Barrett ad E. Hipp. 388 —90). What is to be interfered with is often expressed by a dependent genitive. If that is regarded as something undesirable, φάρμακον means a “remedy against” it; cf., e. g., Hippon. 34. 1—2 W. χλαΐναν / δασεϊαν έν χειμώνι φάρμακον βίγεος, ΟΙ. 9. 97 (also o f a cloak) ψύχραν ... εύδιανόν φάρμακον αύραν. If, however, it is regarded as something desirable, then φάρμακον signifies a “means o f producing” it; cf. Ibyc. P M G 313 ούκ εστιν άποφθιμένοις ζωάς έτι φάρμακον εύρεϊν, E. Pb. 893 πόλει παρασχεΐν φάρμακον σωτηρίας, PI. Phdr. 230d σύ μέντοι δοκεΐς μοι τής έμής έξόδου τό φάρμακον ηύρηκέναι, 274e. “It is the φάρμακον which makes actual each man’s αρετή” (Burton, Pyth., 163, who aptly cites 01. 6. 9 —11, already quoted above ad 186 [b]). Farnell takes άρετάς not as an objective but as an “appositional” genitive and paraphrases: “to find a charm, namely their glory”. Cf. also sch. 332a φάρμακον θανάτου ή άρετή καί ή εύκλεια, i. e. they are a charm against death. The sentiment would be Pindaric, but there are grave objections to such an interpretation. First, άρετά never means unambiguously “renown” in Pindar (see below). Secondly, Farnell’s example o f φάρμακον used with έπί c. dat., viz. Schwyzer, Dial. 710. A. 1—3 (Teos, ca. 475 —450?; cf. L. H. Jeffery, The Docal Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford, 1961, 345, no. 62) δστις φάρμακα δηλητήρια ποιοι έπί Τήιοισιν “... baneful charms against the Teans”, is not parallel to the construction here where both the genitive and έπί c. dat. are used. Thirdly, Farnell’s interpretation destroys the contrast between the inactive life without danger and the active realization o f excellence bought even at the price of death. On φάρμακον v. further W. Artelt, Studien sptr Gesch. der Begriffe “Heilmittel” und “G ift”, Leipzig, 1937 (repr. Darmstadt, 1968), esp. 3 8 -4 8 . άρετά is a fundamental word in Pindar’s poetic vocabulary. It basically means for him “excellence” as displayed in action. (Hence, he regularly uses the plural for “deeds o f prowess” in the games as well as in war;

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part) V. Slater, s . v., d, for examples.) For Pindar there are indispensable prerequisites for achieving άρετά. First, a man must have the inborn predisposition, φυά; secondly, he must develop his inborn qualities, i. e. he must engage in πόνος; and thirdly, his enterprise must be favoured by a god (σύν θεφ); v. further the excellent treatment o f those themes in Bowra, Pindar, 171—76. In the Argonautic expedition we find all three elements implied: the heroes have their φυά from the gods, either direct, as in the case o f the ήμίθεοι (in the strict sense; cf. ad 12 [b]), or indirect, where there is a more remote divine ancestor, as, e. g., in the case o f Iason (cf. ad 167 [d]); moreover, the expedition itself provides the πόνος; and finally, it is undertaken σύν θεφ, vi 2 . Hera. Thus, the expedition o f the Argo, like competition in the great Games, provided an opportunity for άρετά to be realized. (It is asserted, e. g., by Slater, s. v., c, that άρετά sometimes means “glory” in Pindar. While it is true that in some contexts the “reputation” which accrues to άρετά is present by implication, there is no single instance o f Pindar’s use o f the word in which this secondary overtone has replaced the basic sense o f “excellence”. Alleged instances o f the meaning “glory” disappear on closer inspection; cf., e. g., 01. 7. 89 “success” [v. Verdenius ad loc.] or Ne. 8. 40 “Gutheit” [v. Herrn. Frankel, Dicht, und Philos., 559]. On the meaning o f άρετά in early Greek literature v. further the useful outline provided by Frankel, op. cit., 613 —15, §5. 7, with references.)

187 (b). έάς: “his own”, cf. τινα (185), not “their”, pace AllenHalliday-Sikes ad h. Ven. 267. The epic usage o f έός with plural reference (cf. Hes. Op. 58 with West ad loc.) is indeed found in Pindar, but only at Pj. 2. 91 (cf. Schwyzer ii, 204). 187 (c). αλιξιν ... σύν άλλοις: not quite “with others as young as he” (Bowra), though this might seem to be implied in the mention of a mother in 186, or even “with companions o f the same age” (Slater), but “with others of the same age as he”. 187 (d). εύρέσθαι: cf. Ibyc. P M G 313 φάρμακον εύρεΐν, and PI. Phdr. 230d τό φάρμακον ηύρηκέναι (quoted above ad 187 [a]). (The full force o f the middle is felt here; cf. further έάς.) 187 (e). σύν: cf. ad 2 (f). 188—246. The Voyage and the First Events in Colchis The second section o f this (the second) part o f the ode falls into two distinct parts: (1) 188 —211, the immediate preparations for departure

188 —201. Preparations for Departure

273

and the actual voyage to Colchis, and (2) 211—46, the first events in Colchis up to the actual winning o f the Golden Fleece. 188—211. The Voyage to Colchis Whereas Apollonius Rhodius devotes the greater part o f his first book and the whole o f his second to the outward voyage o f the Argo, Pindar as a good lyric poet gets his heroes to Colchis in some 23 verses. (Pindar’s task is made slightly easier by his transfer o f the Lemnian episode to the return voyage; cf. ad 252 [a].) O f the few verses which deal with the voyage the greater number (188 —201) describe the elaborate preparations for departure. Only two incidents o f the voyage itself are mentioned: the establishment o f a sacred precinct in honour of Poseidon at the mouth of the “Inhospitable Sea” (204—6) and the passing o f the “rocks that run together” (207 —11). Again Pindar has provided just enough detail to give the impression of an epic narrative without, however, losing the intensity and compression o f lyric. 188 —201. Preparations for Departure. Iason first musters his men and then has his prophet conduct divinations, which turn out to be favour­ able. After embarkation Iason prays to Zeus for a successful expedition and receives further encouragement in the form of a peal o f thunder. The expedition then departs. 188 (a). Ιαολκόν: v. ad 77 (b). 188 (b). έπεί: usually stands at the beginning o f its clause, but for metrical or stylistic reasons it may be postponed; cf. also, e. g., Ol. 6. 57, Py. 5. 59, 84, 9. 80, Ne. 7. 35. 188 (c). κατέβα: the sch. ad loc. remark on Pindar’s frequent use of καταβήναι άντί τοΰ παραγενέσθαι. So he does (v. ad 55), but hardly here (pace Conway, Nisetich). The ές indicates the arrival of the Argonauts at Iolcus, while the κατα- specifies that they came down to the harbour. 188 (d). αωτος: v. ad 131 (c). 189 (a), λέξατο ... έπαινήσαις: on the coincident use o f the aorist participle v. ad 36 —37. The original meaning o f λέγω (“gather” and then, as here, “count”; cf. Chantraine, s. v.) is not very common after Homer, but cf. Ol. 13. 45—46 ώς μάν σαφές / ούκ αν είδείην λέγειν πόντιόν ψάφων άριθμόν (here we can see how λέγω “count” came to mean “say”; cf. English “tell”), Py. 8. 53 θανόντος όστέα λέξαις υίοΰ, A. Ag. 570 (cf. Fraenkel ad loc.), A.(?) Pr. 973.

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

On the Aeolic form o f the participle (here only B has -αις) v. ad 22 (c). Pindar seems to use έπαινέω and αίνέω as metrical alternatives. On the interchangeable use of simplex and compositum v. further ad 261. 189 (b). πάντας: object o f both λέξατο and έπαινήσαις as the wordorder helps make clear. 189 (c). καί jia: v. ad 134 (b). 189 (d). oi: v. ad 23 (d). 190 (a), μάντις: a regular member o f any Greek expedition as was Calchas in the Trojan (cf. II. 1. 68 ff., etc.) or Amphiaraiis in the first Theban (cf., e. g., 01. 6. 13 ff.) or, to take an historical example, Megistias, the Spartan μάντις who fell with Leonidas at Thermopylae (cf. Hdt. 7. 228. 3 —4) and for whom Simonides, according to Herodotus (loc. cit.), wrote an epitaph (6 P.). On the profession of the μάντις in general v. Löffler, Die Melampodie, esp. 11—29, and P. Kett, Prosopographie der bist, griech. Manteis bis auf die Zeit Alexanders des Grossen, Diss. Erlangen, 1966, esp. 102—14. On the importance o f divination for military expeditions v. H. Popp, Die Einwirkung von Vorzeichen, Opfern und Festen auf die Kriegsführung der Griechen im 5. und 4. fahr hundert v. Chr., Diss. Erlangen, 1957, 8 —73, and Kett, op. cit., 115 —22. 190 (b). όρνίχεσσι καν κλάροισν: two important forms o f divination. On the more familiar οΐωνοσκοπία, already implied in Homer {II. 1. 69, 2. 858 —59, 6. 76, etc.), v. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination i, 127 —45, Halliday, Greek Divination, 246 —71. On cleromancy v. Bouché-Leclercq, op. cit., i, 190 —97, Halliday, op. cit., 205 —18, and Pease ad Cic. div. 1. 12, pp. 72 —74. On divination undertaken prior to an ancient sea voyage v. esp. Wachsmuth, Πόμπιμος ό δαίμων, 177 —200. 190 (c). θεοπροπέων: “divining”, “carrying out divinations”. This denominative is attested only as a masculine participle; cf. also 11. 1. 109, 2. 322, Od. 2. 184, A. R. 2. 922, 3. 544, as well as IG VII 3207. 17 ( = Schwyzer, Dial. 488. 17) (Orchom.) θι[ο]προπίοντος, where it is used in the sense “being a θεοπρόπος”. 190 (d). ίεροΐς: both the birds and the lots are called “holy” because they are directly connected with a divinity. For the iunctura ιερός (ίαρός) δρνις cf. Alcm. P M G 26. 4, A P 7. 171. 1 (Mnasalc. 12. 1 with Seelbach ad loc.), 12. 142. 3 (Rhian. = 73. 3 Powell), Call.(?) fr. 803 Pf., Q. S. 13. 107, as well as Ol. 2. 88 δρνιχα θειον. With κλάροισι ... ίεροΐς cf. esp. Tib. 1. 3. 11 sacras ... sortes, and also Ovid’s use o f sacrae sortes in a more general sense at met. 1. 368 (with Börner ad loc.), 11. 412, Pont. 3. 1. 131.

188—201. Preparations for Departure

275

191 (a). Μόψος: according to sch. 338a, a son o f Ampyx; cf. [Hes.] Sc. 181 Μόψον τ’ Άμπυκίδην (mentioned as one o f the Lapiths who fought against the Centaurs; v. further Russo ad loc.). He is presumably to be distinguished from the seer o f the same name who is usually regarded as the son of Manto, the daughter of Teiresias, and either of Rhacius (sch. A. R. 1. 308b = Epigoni fr. 4 K. and A.) or o f Apollo (Str. 14. 5. 1 6 - 1 7 = [Hes.] fr. 279 M.-W., [Apollod.] Epit. 6. 3). (That the two figures may ultimately be identical, so Höfer in Roscher, Lexikon ii, 2, 3208, 18 —20, or at least have been partially blended with one another seems likely, but v. Carl Robert, Heldensage, 776, n. 5.) On Mopsus the Argonaut v. Carl Robert, op. cit., 775—77, and cf. Vian ad A. R. 1. 66 (p. 242), and on Mopsus, the son o f Manto, v. Carl Robert, op. cit., 1469 —78, and cf. Löffler, Die Melampodie, 47 —48. (The sch. ad loc. also mention that according to some the Argonauts had two other seers at their disposal, viz. Idmon, the son of Abas, and Amphiaraüs, the son o f Oecles. Apollonius Rhodius includes Mopsus, the son o f Ampycus [cf. 1. 65, 80, 1083, 1086; etc.; for the form o f his father’s name cf. sch. A. R. 1. 65], and Idmon, the son [not o f Abas but] of Apollo [cf. 1. 139 —45, etc.] in the Argonautic expedition. The inclusion o f Amphiaraüs like that o f still another seer Thestor among the Argonauts is a much later addition; v. Carl Robert, op. cit., 775, n. 2, 777.) 191 (b). αμβασε: the transitive use o f the aorist is Homeric; cf. II. 1. 1 4 3 -4 4 , Od. 15. 475. 191 (c). στρατόν: a general term designating any host on land, whether mounted or on foot, or on sea; cf. Sapph. 16. 1 —3 L.-P. o]l μέν ίππήων στρότον oi δέ πέσδων / οί δέ νάων φαϊσ’ έπ[ν] γδν μέλαι[ν]αν / έ]μμεναι κάλλιστον. 191 (d). πρόφρων: i. e. the omens were favourable. 191 (e). δ’: down to 207 ές δέ every new step in the narrative is introduced by δέ, making a sequence o f nine in all. Cf. also 233 —43, where there is an uninterrupted sequence o f six δέ’ε. Such relatively simple connection is especially appropriate to an epic narration moving forward linearly without undue complication. 191 (f). έμβόλου: the word is used of various objects o f a shape such that they can be conceived o f as being inserted (έμβάλλειν) into something else, e. g. “linch-pin” (Pherecyd. FG rH ist 3 F 37a), “penis” (Ar. fr. 334. 3 Kas.-A.), “headland” (01. 7. 19, Hdt. 4. 53. 6). For the sense “beak-head” cf. besides here also Hippon. 28. 3 W., Hdt. 1. 166. 2, Th. 7. 36. 3, 40. 5, Schwyzer, Dial. 62. 166, 182 (Tab. Heracl., 4th cent.) έμβολος, Did., p. 35 Schm. ( — Hsch., s. v. Σαμιακός τρόπος)

έμβόλους, A P 6. 236. 1 (Phil.), Paus. 6. 20. 10, and now P. Oxy. 26, 2451, fr. 14. i. 17 (sch. ad Pi. Is.) τό έμβολον τής νεώς (cf. Pi. fr. 6a. e. 2). (In the two certain instances o f the use o f the word in Pindar the gender is indeterminable. In Herodotus it is neuter when used in the sense “headland” and masculine when used in the sense “beak-head”. Although έμβολον “beak-head” occurs in later literary sources, e. g. A P and Paus. quoted above as well as Plu. Ant. 66. 2, the consistent use o f the masc. for this meaning in early inscriptions [v. further Casson, Ships and Seamanship, 85, nn. 40 and 43] would suggest that it was originally masculine.) A beak-head (or ram) “is a constant feature in Geometric ship representations” (Morrison and Williams, Greek Oared Ships, 37). On the εμβολος v. further Casson, op. cit., 85, and Morrison and Williams, op. cit., 280. On έμβολον as a term o f military tactics v. J. Buckler, Phoenix 39 (1985), 134—43. 192 (a), κρέμασαν: Homeric, but never used o f ships. On the forms v. ad 2 4 —25 (c). 192 (b). άγκύρας: v. ad 24 (b). 192 (c). δπερθεν: in Homer ΰπερθε(ν) is used solely as an adverb meaning primarily either “above” (e. g., II. 2. 218, 13. 75) or “from above” (e. g., Od. 24. 344). (The first meaning is presumably original, whereas the second represents a development under the influence of the purely ablative -θεν; v. Schwyzer ii, 539, and on -θεν, Schwyzer i, 628 as well as Lejeune, Adverhes, 341—44.) The word does not appear as a preposition until much later. Besides Pindar the earliest attested instances are Simon. P M G 543. 13 —15 αλμαν (Bergk, αχναν Page) δ’ ϋπερθε τεάν κομδν / βαθεΐαν παριόντος / κύματος ούκ άλέγεις, A. Th. 228 —29 (lyr.) κάκ χαλεπός δύας ϋπερθ’ όμμάτων / κριμναμενάν νεφελάν όρθοΐ, Ag. 231 —32 (lyr.) φράσεν δ’ άόζοις πατήρ μετ’ εύχάν / δίκαν χίμαιρας ϋπερθε βωμοΰ. In all three o f these examples the word clearly means “above” or “over”, whereas here Pindar uses it in its secondary sense “from above” as is shown by the fact that the anchors are placed to either side o f the prow below the level o f the deck (cf. 24—25). (In the only other example o f Pindar’s use o f ϋπερθεν as a preposition it probably means “beyond”: Is. 3/4. 79 τφ μέν Άλεκτράν ϋπερθεν δαϊτα πορσύνοντες άστοί, on which v. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 340, n. 3.) 193—96. Cf. the scene o f departure described at the end of Od. 2 (413 —34). Besides the invocation and libation note also the small correspondences in language (perhaps more than accidental): 417 évi πρύμνη ~ 194 έν πρύμνη and 429 κέλευθον ~ 195 κελεύθους. Dissen (1830), ad loc., compared the libation before sailing described in Th. 6. 32. 1 —2 (the departure o f the Athenian expedition to Sicily) and

188 —201. Preparations for Departure

277

Arr. An. 6. 3. 1—2 (Alexander embarks his army to sail down the Hydaspes), to which he might have added Arr. An. 1. 11. 6 (Alexander crosses the Hellespont) and 6. 19. 5 (Alexander sails into the sea from the Indus). For more examples v. Wachsmuth, Πόμπιμος ό δαίμων, 116, η. 181, adding [Orph.] A . 626 (if Gesner ad 629, apud Hermann, Orphica, p. 120, is right that “in hoc loco γεράσμια ίερά πέμπει v est exta porricere, libare vinum in mare”), and cf. Pease ad Cic. nat. deor. 3. 51, pp. 1088 —89. For the Greeks prayer and libation were natural preliminaries to any dangerous undertaking; cf. Benveniste, Institutions ii, 2 0 9 -2 1 , esp. 2 0 9 -1 5 (Engl, ed., 4 7 0 -8 0 , esp. 4 7 0 -7 6 ), Burkert, Griech. Rei., 399 —400, and, esp. for seafaring, Wachsmuth, op. cit., 6 3 -7 4 , 1 1 3 -1 8 . 193 (a), χρυσέαν ... φιάλαν: cf. Ol. 7. 1 —4 Φιάλαν ... πάγχρυσον, Is. 1. 20 φιάλαισι ... χρυσοΰ, 6.40 οίνοδόκον φιάλαν χρυσφ πεφρικυναν, [Orph.] A . 326 χρυσείην φιάλην (used by Orpheus before the departure of the Argonauts; since this detail is lacking in the corresponding scene in Apollonius Rhodius, cf. 1. 408 ff., it is conceivable that the author of the Orphic Argonautica took it indirectly at least from Pindar; cf. also ad 71—78, 194—96, and 209 —10). A golden bowl is o f course appropriate for any solemn occasion; cf. further Hdt. 2. 151. 1, 7. 54. 2, Arr. An. 1. 11. 6, 6. 3. 1—2, 19.5 (cf. above ad 193 —96). On the symbolism o f gold v. H. L. Lorimer, “Gold and Ivory in Greek Mythology”, in Greek Poetry and Life: Essays presented to Gilbert Murray, Oxford, 1936, 14—33, and, esp. for Pindar, J. Duchemin, Pindare poète et prophète, Paris, 1955, 193 —228 (not always illuminating). 193 (b). χείρεσσι: cf. ad 271 (c). 194 (a), άρχός: cf. II. 2. 493 άρχούς αύ νηών έρέω νήάς τε προπάσας. The leader o f the expedition is naturally enough captain o f his ship (as, e. g., at h. Horn. 7. 25). Cf. further 229 —30 βασιλεύς, / δστις άρχει ναός. (Segal, Mythmaking, 113, wrongly takes it to refer to Mopsus.) 194 (b). έν πρύμνα: cf. esp. Od. 2. 417 ένί πρύμνη, and v. ad 193 —96. Iason as captain would naturally take his place in the stern (v. Morrison and Williams, Greek Oared Ships, 195, and cf. Jebb ad B. 16 [ = 17], 83 —85), but here he has probably taken up his position on the stern simply because it would be a conveniently elevated point from which to conduct the ceremony which follows. On the stern as the place where sacral acts were conducted v. Wachsmuth, Πόμπιμος ό δαίμων, 3 4 2 -9 3 . 194 —96. πατέρ’— μοίραν: this carefully constructed sentence need never have caused difficulties. Iason invokes only Zeus (cf. 197 —98, where he alone answers), who is naturally placed together with his appositional attributes in the accusative as the direct object of έκάλει.

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

What Iason asks Zeus for is stated in the accusative as well but with an adjective used proleptically (cf. Gildersleeve ad loc.) with each request in order to make the object of the prayer clear. Since, as Farnell ad loc. rightly observed, καλεΐν regularly governs in the accusative that which is invoked and not that for which one prays, the construction is slightly elliptical. A fuller form of it with the implied participle αϊτέων actually expressed is found at 01. 6. 58 —60 Άλφεφ μέσσω καταβαίς έκάλεσσε Ποσειδάν’ εύρυβίαν, / ον πρόγονον, καί τοξοφόρον Δήλου θεοδμάτας σκοπόν, / αϊτέων λαοτρόφον τιμάν τιν’ έά κεφαλή. Here the proleptic use of the adjectives, ώκυπόρους, εϋφρονα, and φιλίαν, helps make the construction seem less elliptical. Moreover, the word-order within the implied prayer allows the construction to be understood still more easily. The first proleptic adjective ώκυπόρους stands at the beginning, the predicate έκάλει comes between the first request and the second, which is enclosed by νύκτας and εϋφρονα (on which V. below). Further, the proleptic adjective o f the second request (εϋφρονα) is placed next to that o f the third (φιλίαν), so that the second and third units are linked by a chiastic arrangement. On prolepsis in general v. Lobeck2 ad S. A j. 517, KG i, 276, Schwyzer ii, 181, and, esp. for Pindar, Erdmann, De Pindari usu sjntactico, 15 —16, who, however, has failed to recognize the correct construction in the present passage (cf. 15, §6). We may note that Orpheus’ prayer at the departure of the Argonautic expedition in [Orph.] A . 333 —52 is in a number o f points closer to lason’s prayer here than it is to Iason’s prayer to Apollo before the departure o f the expedition in A. R. 1. 411 —24. This might suggest, but by no means proves at least an indirect dependence o f the Orphic Argonautica on Pj. 4. Cf. also ad 71—78, 193 (a), 209 —10. 194 (c). πατέρ’ Ούρανιδάν: a more sonorous variant o f the Homeric πατήρ (άνδρών τε) θεών (τε). The non-Homeric Ούρανίδης is first attested in Hesiod; cf. Th. 486, 502, where it is used in the strict sense o f the actual sons o f Uranus. At Pj. 3. 4 Pindar also uses it in the strict sense of Cronus, while at D i. 2. 7, as here, he uses it more loosely as a synonym for θεοί (a usage adopted by later poets; cf. Call. Jov. 1. 3, fr. 260. 18 Pf., A. R. 2. 342 [but cf. 1232], Cere. 4. 39 R, Opp. H . 2. 687 [but cf. C. 3. 12], etc.). In using patronymics in -ίδας both of actual sons and of more remote descendants Pindar is following Homeric practice. On the use o f -ίδης names to indicate kinship generally v. Schwyzer i, 509. 194 (d). έγχεικέραυνον: a Pindaric epithet also used o f Zeus at 01. 13. 77. (As in the case o f έγχειβρόμος [Ol. 7. 43] and similar compounds o f δορι- such as δορίκτυπος [Ale. 3. 60, 7. 9] the initial element is

188—201. Preparations for Departure

279

originally an inflected case-form [dat.-instr.]; v. Schwyzer i, 452.) Cf. also the Bacchylidean hapax legomenon at 8. 26 (ώ Ζεΰ) κ[ε]ραυνεγχές, which consists o f the same elements but in reverse order. On compounds with reversible elements v. Williger, Komposita, 36, η. 2. 194 (e). Ζήνα: that Iason should direct his prayer to the supreme god is understandable since the departing expedition will need protection not only from the vagaries o f the sea (the sphere o f Poseidon, who is duly honoured at 204 —7), but also those o f the winds as well. A prayer to Zeus as the weather god, or, more particularly, as the god responsible for favourable winds is especially appropriate; on Ζευς Ούριος v. Cook, Zeus iii, 1, 140 —65. 194 (f). ώκυπόρους: in Homer used only as an epithet o f ships (cf. also Py. 1. 74). Pindar transfers it here appropriately to what makes the ships more fast. Cf. A. Ag. 1557 —58 (lyr.) πατέρ’ άντιάσασα προς ώκύπορον / πόρθμευμ’ άχέων. Hymn. Is. ( = IG XII 5. 739) 155 ώκυπόροις έλάταις (... “remis”, recte W. Peek, Der Isishymnus von Andros und verwandte Texte, Berlin, 1930, 109, s. v. έλάταις, pace R. E. Witt, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World, London, 1971, 108, who translates “by the swift vessels o f pine”), Nonn. D . 43. 211 ώκυπόρφ ... θυέλλη, 280 ώκυπόροισιν ... ϊπποις (of a team). 195 (a), κυμάτων βιπάς άνεμους τ’: “(for) the onrushings o f the waves and (for) the winds”, “(for) the force o f the waves and (for) the winds”. Iason wishes the waves and the winds always to be moving speedily in the right direction. (The basic sense o f βιπή is, like Latin impetus, the “force” or “impulse”, which is capable o f moving anything. Since this force may be weak or strong and thus produce slow or fast motion, as the case may be, Iason makes it clear in his prayer that he wishes it to be ώκύπορος.) (Although most MSS read άνέμους, editors before Otto Schroeder commonly adopted άνέμων, the reading o f PQ. They were influenced by such phrases as II. 15. 171 [ = 19. 358] ύπό βιπής ... Βορέαο [cf. B. 5. 46] and esp. Py. 9. 48 κύμασι [sic, cf. Py. 1. 45, Ne 5. 13, 50, 8. 29] (ιιπαίς τ’ άνέμων, Ne. 3. 59 άνέμων (κπαΐσι, fr. 33d. 2—3 κυμάτεσσιν ... άνέμων / βιπαϊσιν, fr. 140c. 2 πόντον ώκείας τ’ άνέμων ... βιπάς; cf. also S. A nt. 137 [lyr.] βιπαΐς ... άνέμων, A. R. 2. 1114 κύματα καί βιπαί άνέμου. While it is perhaps not to be ruled out that Pindar wrote άνέμων here, άνέμους is not only the better attested reading, but is more likely to be right considering the poet’s distinct preference for asymmetrical constructions [cf. ad 281—82 (b)]. In fact Py. 9. 48 [v. above], usually cited, e. g. by Gildersleeve, in support of άνέμων, suggests rather the accusative here.)

280

7(3 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

195 (b). έκάλει: on the imperfect used in narration cf. ad 26 (c). 195—96. νύκτας — εΰφρονα: Iason prays not only for the days to be εΰφρονα but for the nights and the sea-ways to be so as well. The construction is made clear by the deliberate placing o f εΰφρονα at the end o f the unit begun by νύκτας, i. e. Iason is, among other things, praying for the nights to be what they are often euphemistically called in Greek, viz. εύφρόναι. For the use o f εύφρόνη for νύξ cf., e. g., Hes. Op. 560 (with West ad loc.), Archil. 23. 9 W. (?), Adesp. S L G 473. 1 (?), Heraclit. Vorsokr. 22 B 26, 57, 67, 99, A. Pers. 180, 221, Ag. 265, 279, 337, 522, Eu. 692, A.(?). Pr. 655, Pi. Ne. 7. 3, etc., and v. Troxler, Sprache und Wortschatz Hesiods, 13 —19, and ad 203 (d) below. (On εύφρόνη v. further M. Durante in Wege der Forschung clxv, 306 —7.) This subtle correspondence o f νύκτας and εΰφρονα thus helps to show that the adjective is used proleptically with all three (accusative) substantives enclosed by the unit formed by the two words. On the άπό κοινού construction here v. Wilamowitz ad E. H F 237, who unlike Sandys, Bowra et al. has recognized that εΰφρονα in our passage is to be construed with all three preceding (accusative) substantives; cf. also below ad 290 (c). (Kiefner, Versparung, 37, 147, assumes that πόντου is used άπό κοινού with the other accusatives here, but this seems unlikely, since πόντου κελεύθους forms a single concept: “sea-ways”.) On the structure o f the sentence as whole v. ad 194 —96 above. 195 (c). πόντου κελεύθους: on the expression cf. A. Lesky, Thalatta, Wien, 1947, 12. 196 (a), άματά: the variant άματά found here in most MSS may represent the false influence o f the aspiration in άμέρα, on which v. ad 130 (d). (This mistake is not, however, very common elsewhere in Pindar: Pj. 4. 256, only C, 11. 63, only Fac.) 196 (b). νόστοιο μοίραν: v. ad 127 (b). On the alleged use o f νόστος here and at 32 as a kind o f leitmotif v. ad 294 (a). 197—200. έκ — πιθόμενοι: even more closely than in 23 (cf. ad loc. [b]) Pindar is following his Homeric model: Od. 20. 102 —4 ώς εφατ’ εύχόμενος· τοΰ δ’ εκλυε μητίετα Ζευς, / αύτίκα δ’ έβρόντησεν άπ’ αίγλήεντος Όλύμπου, / ύψόθεν έκ νεφέων γήθησε δέ δΐος Όδυσσεύς. Cf. further Forssman, Sprache, 87. At A. R. 1. 524—25 the departure o f the Argo is accompanied by a very different omen: the harbour as well as the speaking plank in the ship itself urge the crew to sail (v. Vian ad loc.). 197 (a), έκ νεφέων δέ οί άνταϋσε: on the position o f the particle v. ad 17 (b). For the correption of oi cf. Ne. 3. 39 επετό οι, ουδέ, and for “epic” correption in Pindar v. further ad 5 (c). On oi more generally v. ad 23 (d).

188—201. Preparations for Departure

281

197 (b). άντδϋσε: the compound is also attested at [Opp.] C. 2. 78 άντήϋσε (of one bull roaring in answer to another). (For a possible explanation o f the variation in the simplex between the present αύ- and the aorist αϋ-, ήϋ-, Doric αϋ- v. Manu Leumann, Kl. Sehr., 258 —60.) For the use o f the internal accusative with the simplex o f the verb cf. E. Supp. 798 —800 (lyr.) στεναγμόν ... / των ... νεκρών / άύσατ’ άπύσατ’ (Triclinius2, Murray, Collard; άπύσατ’ άπύσατ’ Blaydes, Diggle; άύσατ’ άπύσατ’ άπύσατ’ codd.), Ion 1446 (lyr.) τίν’ αύδάν άύσω (at Pj. 12. 11 read άνυσσεν [άυσεν codd.] ... μέρος with Boeckh; cf. sch. 19b, and v. Köhnken, Funktion, 122, n. 28, who, however, has now proposed a different explanation o f the passage in BICS 25 [1978], 92 —93). On internal accusatives used with verbs o f sound, etc. v. ad 23 (d). As in 23 above Zeus is the subject; cf. sch. 350. 197—98. βροντάς αίσιον / φθέγμα: cf. 23 αίσίαν ... βροντάν, and v. ad 23 (c). On thunder as an omen v. ad 23 (b). Although φθέγμα (and φθέγγεσθαι) is used primarily of articulated sound (cf. Pj. 8. 31, fr. 188, and also Ol. 6. 14), it is also applied to such sounds as the roaring of a bull (cf. E. Hipp. 1215 and also Hes. Th. 831) and thunder (cf. X. Cyr. 7. 1. 3). (Whereas the verb is used by Homer and Hesiod, the noun does not occur before Pindar and Aeschylus.) 198 (a), λαμπραί δ’ ήλθον άκτΐνες στεροπάς: the order, first thunder and then lightning, is also found in Homer; cf. II. 8. 133 βροντήσας δ’ δρα δεινόν άφήκ’ άργήτα κεραυνόν, Od. 12. 415 ( = 14. 305) Ζεύς δ’ άμυδις βρόντησε καί εμβαλε νηί κεραυνόν, as well as the Homeric parody in Batr. 285 —88 (where the paradoses as adopted, e. g., by Baumeister is correct). Since the thunder is the more important part of the omen, it is mentioned first (so, rightly Gildersleeve ad loc., who, curiously, denies that the construction is an example o f bjsteronproteron). On hysteron proteron v. Joh. Classen, Homer. Sprachgebrauch2, 199 —204, Havers, Syntax, 92 —93, 234 —35, and cf. KG ii, 603, Schwyzer ii, 632, 698. On the use o f δ’ here v. ad 202—3. 198 (b). άπορηγνύμεναι: sc. έκ νεφέων. (Before a vowel -p- is nor­ mally geminated [cf. Schwyzer i, 414], but Pindar adopts -p- or -ppaccording to metrical convenience [but with a preference for -p- where epic has -pp-; cf. Maas, Epidaur. Hymnen, 10 with n. 5]; cf. Py. 4. 178 χρυσόραπις [with note ad loc. ένίψω.) More likely ένίπτων was formed analogically to provide an additional metrical alternative to έννέπων (cf. Ne. 7. 69) and ένέπων (cf. Ne. 3. 75 ένέπει). On Pindar’s use o f metrical alternatives v. Appendix. 202—211. The Voyage. On the actual voyage cf. above ad 188 —211. 202 —3. εΐρεσία ... / σύν Νότου δ’ αΰραις ... πεμπόμενοι: cf. Od. 11. 640 πρώτα μέν είρεσίη (είρεσίη ν. /.), μετέπειτα δέ κάλλιμος ούρος, Α. Supp. 134—36 (lyr.) πλάτα ... / ... / ... μ' έπεμπε σύν πνοαϊς. With the coming o f the South Wind (presumably in answer to Iason’s prayer; cf. 195) the rowing o f course stops. The δ’ in 203 thus marks a new and later step in the action being narrated (cf. 197, 199, 200, 202, but not 198, where it coordinates two sentences not temporally sequential;

202—211. The Voyage

285

V. ad loc. [a]). The postponement o f δ’ to third place in 203 is different from the examples discussed at 17 (b) άντί δελφίνων δ’, in which a preposition governs a substantive without the article. Here as in 127 έν δαιτός δέ μοίρα, and Ne. 6. 24 σύν θεοϋ δέ τύχα, the particle is placed after a substantive in the genitive governed by another substantive (the prepositional object), which then takes fourth place. On the freer postponement o f δέ v. Denniston, G P, 187 —89, and cf. West ad Hes. Op. 46. (Both types o f postponement are also found in the case o f τε: cf. Ne. 5. 14 έν δίκμ τε, and Pj. 4. 294 έπ’ Απόλλωνός τε κράνα.)

202 (a), ύπεχώρεσεν ... έκ παλαμάν: the motion o f the rowing is conceived o f as going out from under the hands and thus receding from the rowers. Since ύποχωρεϊν more often governs a simple genitive, the use o f έκ here with a verb o f motion not only gives the construction greater precision (by showing from where the motion comes), but also implies a degree o f instrumentality as well; cf. Schwyzer ii, 463. 202 (b). άκορος: only here. At S. O C 120 (lyr.) άκορέστατος implies the positive άκορής, which, however, is not attested before Them. Or. 7. 90d. (But cf. διάκορος, Hdt. 3. 117. 6, etc., and διακορής, PI. Lg. 629b, etc.) The epic form is άκόρητος, while tragedy uses άκόρε(σ)τος. On the imagery here v. Bowra, Pindar, 243 —44. 203 (a), σύν: cf. ad 39 (c). 203 (b). Νότου: in early Greek any wind blowing from a southernly direction, esp. (as presumably here) from the southwest; cf. Hdt. 6. 139. 4 ή γάρ ’Αττική προς νότον κεΐται πολλόν τής Λήμνου. In the exact description o f the winds given by Arist. Mete. 363a21 —b27 νότος designates the wind from due south and λίψ that from the southwest, but earlier usage was normally not so precise, (λίψ is first attested at Hdt. 2. 25. 2, where it is distinguished from νότος, but cf. besides 6. 139. 4 quoted above also 2. 8. 1 πρός μεσαμβρίης τε καί νότου.) On Greek winds in general v. A. Rehm, “Griech. Windrosen”, SB A W , 1916, D ’Arcy Thompson, C R 32 (1918), 49 —56, J. F. Masselink, De grieks-romeinse windroos, Utrecht-Nijmegen, 1956, and R. Böker, R E viii A 2, 2288, 57 —2387, 16. On the meaning o f Νότος v. esp. K. Nielsen, C & M 7 (1945), 5 ff. Departing from Iolcus the Argonauts will first have had to row through the Gulf o f Pagasae and then after rounding the Cape o f Tisae could sail with a southernly wind behind them. For a more detailed description o f their route v. A. R. 1. 559 —85 (with Vian ad 1. 564, p. 255, and cf. Delage, Géographie, 76). A good tail wind would be a help in mastering the strong currents o f the Hellespont — a point explicitly mentioned at A. R. 1. 926 —28 (on which v. Vian ad loc.).

70 —262. The Argonauttc Expedition (first part)

203 (c). αυραις: cf. ad 292 (c). 203 (d). Άξείνου: sc. πόντου. The adjective is first attested at Hes. Op. 715, where it is opposed to πολύξεινος (both used o f a person). Applied to the Black Sea it is first found here; c f also E. Andr. 794 (lyr.), IT 125 (lyr.), 218 (lyr.), etc., as well as A. R. 2. 984 and [Orph.] A . 85, 199, 759, 785, 1160. (The notion o f inhospitality is expressed in geographical names in various traditions; cf., e. g., “die Gastlosen”, a range o f mountains in the southeastern part o f the Swiss canton of Fribourg.) This (original) Greek name for the Black Sea (cf. Str. 7. 3. 6) probably represents a popular etymology of Avestan axsaéna- “darkcoloured”, “sombre”, although that word does not seem to have been applied to the Pontos in the Iranian languages; cf. Frisk and Chantraine, s. V. Εϋξεινος πόντος. The later, more common Greek name for the Sea, Εϋξε(ι)νος (πόντος), is also first attested in Pindar (Ne. 4. 49). This latter is clearly a euphemistic modification o f a name comparable to the change from “Maleventum” to “Beneventum” (cf. Einar Löfstedt, Tate Latin, Oslo, 1959, 185 —86, and v. further J. B. Hofmann, Latein. Umgangssprache*, Heidelberg, 1951, § 132) and to be compared in Greek with the use of Ευμενίδες for Έρινύες and εύφρόνη for νύξ, on the latter o f which v. ad 195 —96 above. (On linguistic taboos v. further A. Meillet, Linguistique hist, et linguistique gén. i2, 281—91, and Wm. Havers, “Neuere Literatur zum Sprachtabu”, S A W W , 1946.) On the Black Sea in antiquity v. esp. Chr. M. Danoff, “Pontos Euxeinos”, R E Suppl. ix, 866—1175 (on its names, 950, 1—955, 4). 203 (e). στόμα: already used in Flomer aperture (cf. ad 44 [b]), including that o f a and o f a harbour or bay (Od. 10. 90, II. entrance to the Black Sea cf. Hdt. 4. 81. 3

to refer river (II. 14. 36). (+ 4 x ),

to any kind o f an 12. 24, Od. 5. 441) For its use o f the Th. 4. 75. 2.

203 (f). πεμπόμενοι: cf. Ne. 3, 59 θαλασσίαις άνέμων ριπαίοι πεμφθείς, and also Pj. 1. 34 πομπαΐον ... ούρον, E. Hec. 1289 —90 πνοάς / ... πομπίμους. 204 (a), ήλυθον: cf. Appendix. 204 (b). ενθ’: relative (not demonstrative) adverb o f place (as often in Pindar; cf. Monteil, La phrase relative, 385), hence it should be preceded here by a comma rather than a semicolon. 204 (c). άγνόν ... τέμενος: cf. h. Merc. 186 —87 άλσος / άγνόν, [Ol.] 5. 10 άλσος άγνόν. Here the epithet is not purely ornamental, since “a hallowed precinct o f Poseidon” is virtually an equivalent of “a precinct sacred to Poseidon”. The Argonauts would have “established” the precinct presumably by marking off with stones an area around the

202 —211. The Voyage

287

altar (v. ad 206 [a]) which they found there; cf. R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries, London, 1976, 17. (The original expression was τέμενος τέμνειν, cf. II. 6. 194, 20. 184, but already in Alcaeus one “establishes” a precinct; cf. 129. 1—4 L. P. ... τάδε Λέσβιοι / ... εϋδειλον τέμενος μέγα / ξΰνον κά[τε]σσαν, έν δέ βώμοις / αθανάτων μακάρων έθηκαν, as well as Β. fr. 4. 5 2 - 5 3 βω]μόν τε Πυθα τέλλω; cf. Schwyzer i, 712—16, esp. 715—16), perhaps formed directly from τέλος, which would account for its attested use in Pindar and dialect prose. In the active the basic meaning seems in fact to be “bring” something “to its τέλος”, “complete”, “fulfil”, and, in the medio-passive, “come to one’s τέλος”, “reach one’s goal”; cf., for the active, 01. 2. 70 έτειλαν Διός όδόν παρά Κρόνου τύρσιν “have brought the road o f Zeus to its end at the tower of Cronus”, i.e. have reached the tower o f C. at the end of the road of Zeus (sch. ad loc. gloss έ(σ)τειλαν with έτελείωσαν), Leg. Gort. ( = Schwyzer, Dial. 179) 10. 42—44 τέλλεμ μέν τά θΐνα καί / τα άντρόπινα τά τό άνπαναμέ/νό “he must perform the sacred and social obliga­ tions of the one who adopted him”, 45 —46 αί [δ]έ κα μέ / λέι τέλλεν άι (άι Solmsen-Fraenkel) έγρατται “but if he should not be willing to fulfil [these obligations] as is written”, and, for the medio-passive, 01. 1. 75 —76 Φίλια δώρα Κύπριας ίίγ’ εϊ τι, ..., ές χάριν / τέλλεται, i.e. if sexual compliance reaches its end (τέλος implying, I should think, intention and not, as Gerber ad loc. suggests, result) in gaining gratitude (in practical form) for oneself, 11. 4 —6 ίίμνοι / υστέρων άρχά λόγων / τέλλεται “songs reach their end as the starting-point of future fame”, i.e. songs are the starting-point o f future fame. In fact, at 01. 1. 76 and 11.6 τέλλεται has been taken as a mere synonym for γίγνεται or έστί (so sch. ad locc. and cf. Gerber ad 01. 1. 75 —76). However, in view of Pindar’s distinct preference for a forceful style, it seems more

256 —262. The Euphemids from Lemnos to Cyrene

355

likely that the word retains something o f its presumed original verbal notion even at 01. 11. 6. Later uses of the verb can also be interpreted in this way; cf., e. g., S. E l. 699 ήλιου τέλλοντος perhaps originally “when the sun is reaching its goal”, i. e. “at sunrise” (on this intransitive use o f the active cf. Schwyzer ii, 224), A. R. 1. 688 τελλομένου έτεος “while the year is reaching its goal”, i. e. “in the course o f the year”. In the same way, τέλλετο here presumably means that the race of Euphemus “reached its τέλος” on Lemnos, not in the sense that it was to remain as it was on the island, but in the sense that it found its proper form there, hence roughly “arose” (i. e. “came into existence”, not just “existed”). Before Euphemus there were o f course no Euphe­ mids, so that Pindar can speak o f the family coming to its τέλος with the union o f its eponym and the Lemnian woman from whom they were all descended. 257— 58. Λακεδαιμονίων μιχθέντες άνδρών / ήθεσιν: as in 251 (v. ad loc. [c]) μείγνυμι basically indicates physical presence. Here, however, its use with ήθεσιν (v. below) is probably meant to imply some degree of racial mixture. The pre-Dorian ancestors o f the future settlers of Cyrene in fact not only associated, but also intermarried with the Lacedaemonians (cf. Hdt. 4. 145. 5), whom the Cyrenaean descendants of the Minyans were doubtless proud to count among their ancestors as genuine Dorians; cf. further Pj. 5. 73 —75 Σπάρτας ..., / δθεν γεγενναμένοι / ϊκοντο Θήρανδε φώτες Αίγεΐδαι, A. R. 4. 1760 —64 Λήμνου ... έξελαθέντες ... / Σπάρτην είσαφίκανον έφέστιοΓ έκ δέ λιπόντας / Σπάρτην ... ήγαγε Θήρας / Καλλίστην έπί νήσον, άμείψατο δ’ οϋνομα, Θήρα, / έκ σέθεν (where έφέστιοι presumably reflects Pindar’s ήθεσιν here). A double meaning is certainly expressed by ήθεσιν: (1) “abodes” and (2) “customs”. For a different double use o f ήθη cf. PI. Phdr. 277 a. 258— 59 (a), έν ... / νάσον: so Chaeris, according to sch. 459a (who certainly did not construe έν with χρόνφ, as Slater, s. v., A, 1, b, suggests). For έν the MSS have either αν or αν (i. e. άνά). The reading äv (or rather αμ; cf. fr. 172. 4 αμ πεδίον) could be defended, as it was without argument by Gottfr. Hermann, Opuscula vii, 143; cf. fr. 119. 1 äv (έν Q5) δέ 'Ρόδον κατφκισθεν. However, έν is more probable. (1) The paraphrase o f sch. 459b εις τήν Καλλίστην ποτέ χρόνφ άπφκησαν clearly suggests έν c. acc. rather than αν (άνά). (2) The verb is elsewhere construed with ές c. acc.; cf. PI. Eutbd. 271 c άπφκησαν ... ές Θουρίους. (3) έν c. acc. has elsewhere in Pindar been erroneously corrected to άν; cf. Pae. 7b. 46. (It is possible that this has also happened at fr. 119. 1 quoted above.) (4) The erroneous correction o f έν c. acc. to αν (άνά) is easily explained by the ignorance o f this Pindaric usage. The construe-

70—262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

tion is also found, e. g., at Py. 2. 11, 86, 5. 38, fr. 75. 1, 108. a. 2. That this inherited use o f the preposition (shared by Pindar with Northwest Greek and some other dialects [including Boeotian] in general, cf. Buck, Greek Dialects, § 135, 4, and in particular with Corinna, cf., e. g., P M G 654. iii. 20 έν δόμως βάντας), should be overlooked is understandable, since it does not occur elsewhere in Doric or Aeolic poetry (v. ThumbScherer, G D , §231). Boeckh’s τάν (for άν/άν), adopted, e. g., by Otto Schroeder, Bowra, Turyn, and Slater, p. xiii, is much less probable and in fact proves superfluous once we have understood the construction ποτέ Καλλίσταν ... / νόσον discussed below. 258—59 (b). ποτέ Καλλίσταν ... / νάσον: “the island once [called] ‘Fairest’ ”. The use of an adverb as the modifier of a substantive is familiar enough when the article is used as well; cf., e. g., S. O T 1 Κάδμου τοΰ πάλαι νέα τροφή, 1043 ή τοΰ τυράννου τήσδε γης πάλαι ποτέ; “O f him who was once long ago king o f this land?”. Less common is the use o f the adverb as the modifier o f a substantive without the article; cf., e. g., II. 6. 450 άλλ’ οϋ μοι Τρώων τόσσον μέλει άλγος όπίσσω “... the grief o f the Trojans afterwards (i. e. their future grief) ...”, Hes. Tb. 486 Ούρανίδη μέγ’ άνακτι (v. West ad loc.), E. Hec. 891—92 Καλεϊ σ’ άνασσα δή ποτ’ ’Ιλίου / Εκάβη “Hecuba, Ilion’s former queen ...”, Th. 7. 81. 5 τοιαύταις δέ προσβολαϊς καί ου ξυσταδόν μάχαις οί Συρακόσιοι εικότως έχρώντο “... encounters at close quar­ ters”, PI. R. 564 a 3 —4 εις άγαν δουλείαν μεταβάλλειν (with Adam ad loc.), [Theoc.] 9. 33 —34 ούτε γάρ ϋπνος / ουτ’ έαρ έξαπίνας γλυκερώτερον “ ... sudden spring (i. e. spring’s sudden coming) ...” (with Gow ad loc.). (This usage is imitated by the Latin poets; cf., e. g., Verg. Aen. 1. 13—14 Tiberinaque longe / ostia [with Austin ad loc.], 21 populum late regem, Hor. carm. 3. 17. 9 late tyrannus, and v. Leumann-HofmannSzantyr, Lat. Gram, ii, 171.) On the use of an adverbial modifier with a substantive employed without an article v. further KG i, 609 —10, Schwyzer ii, 416, and Ed. Schwyzer, Emerita 8 (1940), 37 —41 (— Kl. Sehr., 762 —66). 258 (a). Καλλίσταν: the original name o f Thera; cf. Hdt. 4. 147. 4 ήσαν δέ έν τή νΰν Θήρη καλεσμένη νήσφ, πρότερον δέ Καλλίστη τή αυτή ταύτη, Call. fr. 716 Pf. Καλλίστη τό πάροιθε, τό δ’ ύστερον ουνομα Θήρη, / μήτηρ εύίππου πατρίδος ήμετέρης (i. e. Cyrene; cf. ad 2 [b]), A. R. 4. 1755 —64 (partly quoted ad 257 —58) with sch. ad loc., Str. 8. 3. 19, 17. 3. 21, Hsch., s. v. Καλλίστη. The mention o f alternative names, familiar as a device reflecting the aetiological interests o f Hel­ lenistic poets (cf. further, e. g., A. R. 1. 623 —25), is found already in the earliest Greek poetry; v. Rank, Etymologiseering, 109 —29.

256—262. The Euphemids from Lemnos to Cyrene

357

258 (b). άπφκησαν: for the construction here cf. PI. Euthd. 271 c 3 άπφκησαν ... ές Θουρίοος, and v. above ad 258 —59 (a). 258 (c). χρόνφ: v. ad 291 (d). 259—62. ενθεν— έφευρομένοις: cf. Call. A p . 93 —95 ού κείνου χορόν είδε θεώτερον άλλον Απόλλων, / ούδέ πόλει τόσ’ έδειμεν (ν. Fr. Williams ad loc.) όφέλσιμα, τόσσα Κυρήνη, / μνωόμενος προτέρης άρπακτύος. In keeping with the central theme o f the ode, the legitimacy of Euphemid rule in Cyrene (cf. ad 1 —12), Pindar appropriately closes the narration o f the Argonautic expedition and one o f its results, the founding o f the Euphemids, with a further statement o f the divine origin o f their kingship. 259 (a), ενθεν ... ΰμμ ι... επορεν: logically we should supply έλθουσι with ΰμμι, but its omission is scarcely felt grammatically. On brachylogy v. generally KG ii, 560 —61, and, for examples o f the apparent omission of verbal forms such as participles, op. cit. ii, 565 —66. 259—60. ΰμμι ... επορεv ... πεδίοv / ... όφέλλειν: cf. ad 222 (a). 259 (b). ΰμμι: i. e. the Euphemids and Arcesilaus in particular (cf. sch. ad loc.). On the transition from the family to its present ruling head v. below ad 263 (a). 259 (c). Λατοίδας: cf. ad 3 (b). 260 (a), συν θεών τιμαΐς: “through the favours o f the gods”; cf. ad 39 (c) and ad 51 (c). The τιμαί are the concrete acts o f favour shown to the Cyrenaeans by the gods; cf. 68 —69 μετά γάρ / κείνο (vÌ2 . the Fleece) πλευσάντων Μινυάν, θεόπομποί σφισιν τιμαί φύτευθεν. Such practical gifts (esp. o f power and wealth) are regarded by Pindar as “honours” bestowed by the gods on men; cf. further ad 270 (f). On the concept v. more generally Keyßner, Gottesvorstellung, 55 —75, esp. 67 —75, Greindl, Unters., 80—82, and Benveniste, Institutions ii, 50 —55 (= Engl, ed., 339 —45). 260— 61 (a), άστυ ... / ... Κυράνας: cf. Py. 5. 81 Κυράνας ... πόλιν, Call. A p. 73 άστυ Κυρήνης (v. Fr. Williams ad loc.). Here Cyrene is clearly the nymph as her epithet χρυσόθρονος shows, whereas in the other two passages quoted the genitive is presumably appositional as it is in the Homeric construction αστυ Ζελείης (II. 4. 103), etc. (on which v. Schwyzer ii, 121 —22). However, in view of Pindar’s tendency to blend a place with its eponymous heroine (v. ad 14 [c]), reference to the nymph is perhaps not excluded also at Py. 5. 81 (Lloyd-Jones apud Fr. Williams, loc. cit., suggests that the nymph may be meant at Call. A p . 73).

70 —262. The Argonautic Expedition (first part)

260—61 (b). άστυ ... / ... θειον: the city is “divine” in the sense that it owes its origin to a god (or gods) and remains under divine protection. On θείος as an epithet o f cities v. Kienzle, Lobpreis, 80. 260 (b). &στυ χρυσοθρόνου: sch. 464a remarks: έλλείπει ό τέ, ϊν’ fj0στυ τε χρυσοθρόνου. Some later scholars, e. g. Dawes, Beck, Hartung, Gildersleeve, have gone further and proposed to write κ&στυ. This is unnecessary, since Pindar here preserves the original Greek usage in which coordinated word-groups and clauses require no connection; cf. II. 8. 230 —32, Od. 12. 256 —57, etc. (more examples in Chantraine, Gram. hom. ii, 351), and v. Schwyzer ii, 701 —2. This lack o f connection should be distinguished from “stylistic” asyndeton; cf. Denniston, GP, xliii-xlv. 260—61 (c). χρυσοθρόνου / ... Κυράνας: golden thrones belong to the standard equipment o f several Homeric divinities including Zeus (cf. II. 8. 442—43 χρύσειον έπί θρόνον ... Ζευς / έζετο) and Athena (cf. II. 8. 436 where Athena and Hera χρυσέοισιν έπί κλισμοΐσι καθϊζον) (at II. 14. 238 —39 Hera tries to bribe Hypnos with a θρόνος χρύσεος, but he holds out for Pasithea, one o f the Charites), while the epithet χρυσόθρονος is reserved for goddesses: Hera (II. 1. 611, etc.), Artemis (II. 9. 533, Od. 5. 123), Eos (Od. 10. 541, etc.). Pindar also uses it of Hera at Ne. 1. 37 and of Demeter at fr. 346. b. 4 (on the fragment v. H. Lloyd-Jones, Mala 19 [1967], 206 —29). Compounds with -θρονος as the final element have been interpreted by U. von Wilamowitz, Die Ilias und Homer, Berlin, 1916, 31, n. 2, and L. B. Lawler, PhQ 27 (1948), 8 0 -8 4 , CJ 61 (1960-61), 3 4 9 -5 1 (cf. also R. Merkelbach, Z P E 11 [1973], 160), as being derived from θρόνα (pi. o f *θρόνον) “flowers embroidered on cloth”, but v. E. Risch, Kl. Sehr. 354—62, and cf. Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 5. Since θρόνα is very rare (found only at II. 22. 441 before the Hellenistic period) and θρόνος common, it is most unlikely that anyone in the 5th cent, (or before) would have understood the compounds in -θρονος as referring to anything other than a throne. Sch. 461 understands it in that sense here. 261. διανέμειν: first attested in Pindar: here and at Pj. 8. 61—63 τύ δ’, Έκαταβόλε, πάνδοκον / ναόν εύκλέα διανέμων / Πυθώνος έν γυάλοις “... you, who rule over the famous temple...”. It is next attested in poetry at Ar. PI. 510, where it has its normal prose sense “distribute”, and is thereafter apparently confined to prose usage. Pindar’s seemingly divergent use o f the compound verb is best understood as a simple metrical alternative for the simplex (on the opposite substitution of simplicia for composita v. ad 106 [a]). Originally νέμω meant in the active “deal out”, “distribute” (II. 9. 217, Od. 1. 179, etc.) and in the

256—262. The Euphemids from Lemnos to Cyrene

359

middle “distribute among themselves”, hence “possess”, “control” (//. 2. 751, 12. 313, Od. 11. 185, etc.). Beginning with Pindar, however, we find the active used in the normal sense o f the middle; cf. 01. 2. 12 έδος Όλυμπου νέμων, 10. 13 νέμει γάρ Άτρέκεια πόλιν Λοκρών Ζεφυρίων, 13. 27 τόνδε λαόν άβλαβή νέμων, etc. Given this use o f the simplex, it is not surprising to find the compound used as its alternative; cf. 189, where έπαινέω is used exactly like αίνέω, and 262, where έφευρίσκω is indistinguishable in meaning from ευρίσκω, as well as 133, where παρακοινάομαι is used with the same meaning as κοινάω at 115. 261—62. Κυράνας // όρθόβουλον: on strophic enjambement v. ad 3 9 -4 0 . 262 (a), όρθόβουλον μήτιν έφευρομένοις: “you who have found out right-advising counsel”. The participial phrase is not an afterthought, pace Gildersleeve ad loc. It is deliberately placed at the beginning of the antistrophe not only to emphasize it, but also to bind what has just been said to what will immediately follow (as Gildersleeve himself rightly observed). On Pindar’s common practice o f placing a participial phrase at the beginning o f a new strophe (or antistrophe) v. Nierhaus, Strophe und Inhalt, 23 —24. Moreover, we should note that since the participle is coordinate with υμμι, it attaches to the main verb and not to the second dependent infinitive as Gildersleeve might (doubtless wrongly) be taken to imply. Whatever the Homeric epithet άγκυλομήτης may originally have meant (cf. West ad Hes. Th. 18), it was often understood in antiquity to mean σκολιά βουλευόμενος (cf., e. g., E t. Gud., p. 14, 15 de S.), which might suggest that όρθόβουλος is intended here to imply that Arcesilaus’ μήτις is normally “straight” — so apparently understood, e. g., by Sandys who translates “having found ... counsel that ruleth in righteousness”. However, the use o f όρθόβουλος at Pj. 8. 75, where the emphasis is on the success attained by όρθοβούλοισι μαχαναϊς, and at A.(?) Pr. 18, where Themis is given the epithet because o f the intellectual correctness o f her advice (cf. Griffith ad loc.), indicates that it is the practical, not the moral aspect o f Arcesilaus’ advice which is implied (so also sch. 464a συνετήν γνώσιν [γνώμην DGQ]). Cf. also the use of the initial element in όρθοδίκας at Py. 11. 9 and in όρθόμαντις at Ne, 1. 61. The importance o f μήτις in early Greek thought has rightly been emphasized by M. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant, Les ruses d'intelligence (cf. esp. 300, n. 166 = Engl, ed., 325, n. 166), although their basically nonhistorical approach to philological evidence often produces results of dubious value.

360

263 —299. Plea for the Return o f Demophilus

262 (b). όρθόβουλον μήτιν: v. ad 63 (b). 262 (c). έφευρομένοις: Pindar uses έφευρίσκω as an equivalent o f the simplex ευρίσκω; cf. Pj. 12. 6 —7 τέχνες τάν ποτέ / Παλλάς έφεδρε, with v. 22 of the same ode, εδρεν θεός, which describes the same action. On the occasional semantic equivalence o f simplex and compositum in Pindar v. ad 261. 263—299. Plea for the Return of Demophilus The Argonautic myth, which was ultimately chosen as the main subject of Pj. 4 with a view to asserting the divine right o f the Euphemid Arcesilaus to the throne o f Cyrene (cf. ad 1—12 and 259 —62), has ended with a return to Cyrene. Pindar now turns from a general glorification o f the Euphemids to setting the stage for a public demonstration o f their contemporary greatness. The mise en scène which forms the climax o f the ode consists in the poet appearing, figuratively o f course, before the king to plead for the return o f a Cyrenaean citizen, Demophilus, who had been involved in a plot against the king and was subsequently exiled. (What the scholia know about Demophilus could be inferred from the ode itself except that sch. 467 states that he was related to Arcesilaus [cf. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 376 with n. 2, and v. p. 3, n. 7 above], but this detail may itself be no more than a guess.) None but the politically na'ive would suppose that the whole show had not been carefully planned and rehearsed before. The recall of Demophilus had obviously been agreed upon long beforehand (the negotiations for which may have begun at the time o f the Pythian victory celebrated in the ode; v. ad 299 [e]) and quite likely was in fact announced during the continuation o f the public festivities after the completion o f the performance o f the ode. With the timing of this gesture of clemency Arcesilaus was clearly attempting to give maximum publicity to an act which was meant to place his regime in a favourable light. (Seibert, Flüchtlinge, 288, assumes that Pindar’s plea for Demo­ philus was unsuccessful, cf. also Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 378, but v. now D. M. Lewis’ review o f Seibert in C R, n. s. 31 [1981], 133.) It is doubtless the political needs o f Arcesilaus at the time which ultimately account for the special length and character o f Pj. 4. Who paid for the ode we do not know. If I should hazard a guess, it would be that it was in fact Demophilus (so too sch. 467), who was graciously allowed by the king to pay for it from his frozen assets (cf. 290). (We do not know of course what arrangements were made with regard to Demophilus’ property during his exile. Although confiscation usually followed a formal decree o f exile, this was not necessarily the case if

263—269. Parable o f the Oak

361

the person concerned left the country voluntarily or if some other special arrangement granted him the right to retain his property or even to derive an income from it; v. further Seibert, op. cit., esp. 370 —71.) On the practical aspects o f the ode cf. further the sensible remarks of Gildersleeve ad 279 and v. pp. 5 —6 above. This final section falls into three distinct sections: (a) 263 —69, Parable o f the Oak, (b) 270 —76, Praise o f Arcesilaus, (c) 277 —99, Praise o f Demophilus and Plea for his Recall. 263 —269. Parable of the Oak. The parable is quite simple and was correctly explained by the sch. ad loc., whose explanation is easily inferred from the text itself. The oak represents the exiled Demophilus. The only points o f correspondence between the oak o f the parable and Demophilus are (1) the marring o f the branches, which corresponds to Demophilus’ loss o f civic rights and the enjoyment o f his property, and (2) the displacement o f the oak, which stands for Demophilus’ exile. (Those who enjoy speculation are free to see a further reference in the parable to Demophilus’ having taken employment in the service of another ruler as, e. g., a mercenary subaltern, an assumption which could be made to fit vv. 265 and 267. I mention this merely in the hope that no one may be tempted to propose it as his latest discovery.) The rest, e. g. εϊ ποτέ χειμέριον πΰρ έξίκηται λοίσθιον, which can only apply to a tree, is there simply to provide graphic details. Attempts (such as Boeckh ad loc.) to see other or still further correspondences are futile and only confuse what is basically a simple comparison. (That the parable was especially composed for Demophilus was rightly emphasized by Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 385; there are no grounds whatso­ ever, to suppose with Thummer, Isth. i, 43—44, that it was meant to apply to Arcesilaus or further, op. cit., 90—91, that Demophilus might have been a wandering minstrel. For a criticism o f Thummer v. C. Ca­ rey, Maia 32 [1980], 143.) Otto Schroeder, Pjth. ad loc., has suggested with some probability that the starting-point o f Pindar’s parable is Achilles’ description o f the sceptre in II. 1. 234 ff., on which v. further Burton, Pjth., 169 —70. 263 (a), γνώθι νδν: the asyndeton is inferential. The preceding sen­ tence contains the reason for the thought expressed here: “Since your family is clever at finding the best advice, know now (On the movement o f Pindar’s thought here cf. Schadewaldt, Auflau, 301—2, esp. 302, n. 1.) Pindar often employs inferential asyndeton in an apodotic sentence containing an imperative (or its equivalent) which is preceded by a protatic sentence expressing a gnome or similar general statement; cf., e.g ., OI. 1. 1 1 3 -1 4 , Pj. 3. 5 9 -6 2 , 4. 1 4 5 -4 7 , 2 7 0 -7 1 , 2 7 5 -7 6 ,

263 —299. Plea for the Return o f Demophilus

Ne. 4. 69 —70, 9. 49 —50, Is. 1. 5 —6. On inferential asyndeton in general v. KG ii, 342—43, §546, 5a, a, and, for Pindar, Dissen (1830) i, 276 —77. With the form o f the imperative here cf. Archil. 89. 17 W. γνώθί νυν ( = 99. 17 T. γνωθι νΰν), on which ν. further B. Snell, Tyrtaios und die Sprache des Epos, Göttingen, 1969, 56 —57. To bid Arcesilaus to “know the wisdom o f Oedipus” is simply another way o f inviting him to consider a riddle (cf. ad 263 [b] below) and was rightly so understood by sch. 467: προτρέπεται τον Άρκεσίλαον ό Πίνδαρος συνοράν αυτού το αίνιγμα. The implication is that he will thereby become acquainted with the kind o f wisdom characteristic o f Oedipus. (There is no ambiguity here, nor need we suppose that Pindar is quoting an other­ wise unknown parable of Oedipus [cf. ad 263 —69 above] as C. Carey, Maia 32 [1980], 144 —45, following a suggestion o f Gildersleeve, ar­ gues.) 263 (b). τάν Οίδιπόδα σοφίαν: the specific skill o f Oedipus was his ability to solve riddles. His solution o f the one propounded by the Sphinx, which brought him to the kingship of Thebes, was proverbial; cf. Zen. 2. 68 (i, 50 —51 L.-S.), and v. further [Apollod.] 3. 5. 8 (with Frazer ad loc.) as well as Otto, Sprichwörter, 252, s. v. Oedipus. Pindar bids Arcesilaus to try now to solve such a riddle (here in the form of a parable); cf. sch. ad loc. and v. Burton, Pyth., 168 —69, as well as ad 263 (a) above. (The reference to Oedipus certainly does not extend beyond his proverbial ability to solve riddles, so that we need not even consider the possibility o f an allusion to Oedipus’ exile as does Kirk­ wood ad loc.) The implication is that since the king’s family possesses the necessary heuristic ability (cf. 262), he will understand (cf. again ad 263 [a] above). On σοφία cf. ad 248 (d). 263—68. εί γάρ τις ... / έξερείψαι κεν ..., αίσχύνΐ] δέ ..., / ... διδοΐ ψόφον ..., / εΐ ποτέ ... έξίκηται..., / ή ... / . . . άμφέπει...: the transmitted text o f Pindar is here basically sound and requires no real change. First, the protasis εί ... έξερείψαι κεν is perfectly normal not only in Homer (cf. II. 5. 273, 9. 141, etc. [more instances in Monro, Gram, of the Homeric Dialect2, 285 —86, §313], and v. L. Lange, “Der homer. Gebrauch der Partikel εί. II. εΐ κεν (&ν) mit dem O ptativ...”, A S G 6, 5 (1873), Leipzig, 1874, 489 —520), but elsewhere as well (pace Smyth, Greek Grammar, 527, §2334). For non-Homeric examples cf. Hes. Op. 280 (έθέλοι CEH, sch. vet., recte, έθέλη Orion, Byz.), 361, [Hes.] fr. 286. 2 M.-W., h. Apoll. 51, Thgn. 1177 (with van Groningen ad loc.), Epich. 21. 1, 219 Kai., etc. (more instances in Ed. Hermann, Griech. Forschungen i, 7 —16, 27 —39, 135 —37, 142 —44). (Since Pindar elsewhere uses alternative endings o f the 3rd pers. sg. aor. opt. act., viz. -αι [Is. 5. 48] and -ειε(ν) [Py. 1. 47, 4. 7, 9. 120], Thiersch’s έξερείψειεν, adopted,

263—269. Parable o f the Oak

363

e. g., by Snell-Maehler, has no advantage over the form o f the optative found here in the MSS.) Secondly, the use o f the subjunctive αισχύνη in the second member o f the protasis is unexceptionable, (a) The subjunctive employed in a protasis both with and without κε is o f course very common from Homer on; cf. Od. 5. 221, 11. 110, etc. (more Homeric instances in Monro, op. cit., 265 —67, §292). (Pindar always employs εί c.subj. without κε as at 01. 6. 11, Py. 4. 274, etc.) (b) A conditional protasis c. subj. used parallel with another protasis in the optative is found in Homer and in dialect inscriptions; cf. Od. 5. 470 —73, G D I 1823. 12, 1830. 10 —11, 3206. 25 —27 {recte, pace Blass ad loc.), etc. (more instances in Ed. Hermann, op. cit., 28, 33, 34, 37, etc.). (Hence, there is no need here to write έξερείψη κεν ..., αισχύνη with Bergk2 3 and Turyn.) Likewise, the second mixed construction (266 —68), in which εί c. subj. (έξίκηται) is coordinated with an indicative (άμφέπει) in the second member, is also unexceptionable, (a) The present indicative is found together with another mood in a parallel protasis, e. g., in G D I 2092. 10 —11. (b) Additional protases not coordinate with a first protasis (as is the case here with the two double sets o f protases, εί γάρ τις and εϊ ποτέ) are not infrequently found with the same apodosis; v. Goodwin, M T, §510. Thirdly, two examples already cited illustrate the use o f the optative or subjunctive in the protasis together with a present indicative in the apodosis: Hes. Op. 280 —81 εί γάρ τις κ’ έθέλοι ..., ... διδοϊ (where the same thematic present is used as here), and Py. 4. 273 —74 γίνεται, ... εί μή ... γένηται. For Pindar’s use o f the pres, indie, in the apodosis of mixed hypothetical constructions v. further Brandt, D e partic. subiunct., 53 —55, where, however, Py. 4. 263 —68 is not correctly interpreted. Finally, the transmitted text is not only grammatically sound, but it is also much more subtle and poetically effective than any of the supposed improvements which have been offered. Pindar is touching upon a delicate issue before the king. He chooses a parable to avoid what would be awkward directness if it were not carefully introduced. It is natural therefore that he should begin the comparison by expressing it as a remote possibility, hence τις and the use o f an optative (έξερείψαι) with a modal particle in the first member o f the introductory conditional protasis. (The κεν serves to emphasize that the situation envisaged is simply a possibility and not a wish; cf. Schwyzer ii, 305, 327.) By switching to the subjunctive (αισχύνη) in the second member of this protasis, Pindar brings the possibility closer home. The present indica­ tive (διδοϊ) in the apodosis leaves no doubt that a real situation is meant. O f the two possibilities presented in the second double protasis the merely theoretical one is expressed by a subjunctive (έξίκηται), while

263 —299. Plea for the Return of Demophilus

the actual condition in which Demophilus finds himself is expressed by the indicative (άμφέπει). A laudable exception to the scholars who have inevitably wished to change the transmitted text in one way or another is Ed. Hermann, op. cit., 142, who, however, did not argue the case for it except to note that inscriptions offer enough parallels to Pindar’s shifts in moods in the present passage. 263 (c). γάρ: v. ad 70 (a). 263—64. όζους ... / ... δρυός, ... θαητόν είδος: cf. Hes. Th. 30 —31 δάφνης ... όζον / ... θηητόν (adopting Solmsen’s punctuation). Cf. also Pj. 9. 108 θαητόν είδος, which recalls the Homeric είδος άγητόν (cf. esp. II. 22. 370), and cf. further ad 80 (b). 263 (d). όξυτόμφ πελέκει: the epithet is found only here in early Greek and then much later (Opp. H . 2. 284, 373, Nonn. D . 11. 503, 40. 444). It represents a combining o f two Homeric epithets for πέλεκυς: όξύς {II. 15. 711, etc.) and υλοτόμος {II. 23. 114). Cf. also δρυτόμος {II. 11. 86, 16. 633, 23. 315). 264 (a), έξερείψαι: attested elsewhere only in the intransitive aor. 2 as, e. g., at II. 14. 414—15 ώς δ’ δθ’ υπό πληγής πατρός Διός έξερίπη δρυς / πρόρριζος, a passage which might have suggested the use of the compound here. Even more suggestive of the present passage is another Homeric simile in which the simplex o f the verb is used (again intrans­ itively): II. 13. 389 —91 ( = 16. 482 —84) ήριπε δ’ ώς δτε τις δρυς ήριπεν, ή άχερωΐς / ήέ πίτυς βλωθρή, τήν τ’ οϋρεσι τέκτονες ανδρες / έξέταμον πελέκεσσι νεήκεσι νήϊον είναι “and he fell as when some tree (cf. ad 264 [c]) falls, either a poplar or a tall pine (in Homeric similes a general term is often stated first, as here [“tree”], and then specified in alternatives; cf., e. g., II. 3. 23 —24, 22. 163 —64) ...”. The transitive use o f the simplex is common enough from Homer on, and it is doubtless this usage which Pindar has adopted for the compound here. 264 (b). κεν μεγάλος: κε μ. codd. veti., κεν μ. codd. reco. All editors who retain the modal particle, e. g. Erasmus Schmid, Boeckh, Bergk2“ 3, Turyn, have adopted κεν, and very likely rightly so. However, a short final vowel before a word beginning with mu can be treated as long not only in epic, but also in Pindar as well; cf. Pj. 5. 42 καθέσσαντο μονόδροπον (cf. Snell-Maehler ii, 174), Par. 2. 38 —39 Άγασικλέϊ μάρτυς (papyrus, fort, recte-, Άγασικλέει μ. Grenfell-Hunt; on the declension o f -κλής names v. Schwyzer i, 580), and, for a precedent in earlier choral lyric, “Stesich.” P. Lille {Z P E 26 [1977], 15), v. 216 παίδας ένί μμεγάροις ( = D), where the lengthening o f the previous syllable is shown graphically. (Maas, Responsionsfreihelten ii, 29, n. 2, rightly ac­ cepted this prosodic practice of Pindar but changed his mind in Greek

263 —269. Parable o f the Oak

365

Metre, §131, presumably under the influence of Wilamowitz, Griecb. Verskunst, 307, and Pindaros, 380, n. 3, who preferred a most unlikely metrical anomaly at Py. 5. 42, viz. U — , i. e. -ντδ μδν-, for — U, to a probable prosodic practice inherited from epic. Führer, Beiträge, 249, η. 51, supposes that Py. 5. 42 is unparalleled, but it should be further remarked that the epic practice o f allowing initial λ, μ, v, σ to count as double consonants [cf. Maas, Greek Metre, loc. cit., and, now also, West, Greek Metre, 15 —16] is not confined in choral lyric to words beginning with μ; cf. Py. 12. 24 εύκλέα λαοσσόων [codd., recte], fr. 124a —b. 7 ϊσα νέομεν [codd., recte, cf. van Groningen ad loc.], B. 17. 90 δόρυ · σόει [cf. Snell-Maehler, Bacch., xxi].) In view of this prosodic practice we might be justified in reading κε μεγάλας here, but it is more likely that a nu was lost (or perhaps never written, but originally implied) before the initial mu. For a list o f 33 examples o f the omission o f movable nu in Py. 4 v. Heimer, Studia Pindarica, 147, η. 1. 264 (c). μεγάλας δρυάς: cf. Cypr. fr. 11. 7 B. μεγάλην δρΰν (cf. cod. D sch. Ne. 10. 114a). Whereas δρυς at Ne. 10. 61 (as in the passage from the Cypria which Pindar is there following) may simply mean “tree” (cf. sch. A II. 11. 86a δρΰν ... έκάλουν οί παλαιοί... παν δένδρον, Hsch., s. v. δρυς, and ν. Benveniste, Institutions i, 107 [ = Engl, ed., 87 —88]), here the reference to (φθινό)καρπος would suggest that the oak is specifically meant (cf. Lyc. 83 δρύκαρπα probably “acorns”). 264(d ). αισχύνη: used in the concrete sense as, e. g., at II. 18. 24 χαρίεν δ’ ήσχυνε πρόσωπον, 27 κόμην ήσχυνε δαΐζων, 180, h. Α ρ. 387, S. A nt. 529 (anap.). Elsewhere it is mostly used in a moral sense. 264 (e). oi: v. ad 23 (d). 265 (a), φθινόκαρπος: only here, but perhaps modelled on the Homeric ώλεσίκαρπος (cf. Od. 10. 510: epithet o f willows). 265 (b). διδοϊ ψόφον πέρ αΰτάς: cf. Aeschin. 1 (Tim.) 77 γεγόνασι διαψηφίσεις έν τοϊς δήμοις, καί έκαστος ήμών (ύμών Franke) ψήφον δέδωκε περί τοΰ σώματος, δστις ’Αθηναίος δντως έστί καί δστις μή “there has been among the demes a series o f ballots to revise the register o f citizens, and each o f us has submitted to a vote regarding his own person, to determine whether he is genuine Athenian citizen or not”. The tree “submits itself to a vote” in the sense that it “gives account of itself ”, i. e. o f its positive qualities; cf. Burton, Pytb., 169. (This use of διδόναι ψήφον should be distinguished from φέρειν ψήφον “to cast a vote” [cf. A. Eu. 680, Lycurg. 11, etc.], with which sch. 468a misleadingly paraphrases our passage.)

26 5 (c), διδοϊ: for this thematic present cf. II. 9. 164, 519, Od. 4. 237, 17. 350, Hes. Op. 281, [Hes.] Sc. 328, Mimn. 2. 16 W., Semon. 7. 54 W., Thgn. 865, Is. 3/4. 51, A. Supp. 1010, and v. Schwyzer i, 687 —88. 265 (d). πέρ αύΐδς: evidence for the elision o f περί in early Greek is slight except in compounds. There are no instances in Homer and none in Hesiod except perhaps at Th. 678 περίαχε (v. West, p. 83). At h. Merc. 152 almost all editors read περ’ ίγνύσι (except Cassola who adopts Forssman’s probable περί γνύσι; the imitation at [Theoc.] 25. 242 περ’ ΐγνύησιν only shows that the phrase was so understood in Hellenistic times). There are apparently only two instances in Greek tragedy of the elision o f περί and in both cases in compound verbs before the augment: A. Ag. 1147 (lyr.) περέβαλον, and Eu. 634 περεσκήνωσεν, on which v. Lautensach, Augment und Reduplikation, 124 —25, and Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 1147. A general reluctance to elide περί is also shown by the Attic comic and prose writers who admit it only in the participle περιών; v. Lautensach, op. cit., 124, n. 2. In Pindar we find the following additional instances o f ΠΕΡ before a vowel: 01. 6. 38 ΠΕΡ άτλάτου, Pj. 3. 52 περάπτων, Ne. 11. 40 περόδοις, fr. 314 περιέναι. (Pae. 4. 51 ΠΕΡΙΔΑΙΟΝ would be another example if we could justify the first short iota in Περιδάιον, i. e. “around Mount Ida” [so Otto Schroeder, ed. mat., appendix, ad loc., but v. Wilamowitz, Pindaros, 475]; otherwise, we should read περιδάιον, i. e. “surrounded by enemies”, with Gottfried Hermann.) In view o f the Homeric avoidance of the elision o f περί and the rarity o f undoubted examples of it elsewhere, we should probably regard the comparatively frequent occurrence o f ΠΕΡ before a vowel in Pindar not as elision but as the alternate form o f the preposition (πέρ) found in Aeolic and other dialects; cf. Ale. 311 L.-P. οϊκω τε πέρ σώ καί πέρ (Bergk, καίπερ Α) άτιμίας, 332. 1 πέρ (Lobei, πρός codd.) βίαν, 365 πέρ (Ahrens, περί Ε, πάρ AH, παρά Q) κεφάλας, Corinn. 654. iii. 47 π[ε]ράγείς (ν. Page, Corinna, 53), IG IP 1126. 16 (Delphi, 380/ 79 B. C.) πέροδος (on which v. Riisch, Gram, der delphischen Inschr., 186, §31, 4, Anm.), G D I 2561. A. 4 (Delphi, early 4th cent. B. C.) πέρ των, C. 19 —20 πέρ τώ/ν, 346. 5 —6 (Thes.) πέρ τοΐ πα[ι]/δ[ό]ς, etc., and v. further Schwyzer ii, 499 —500. (Although the MS evidence will not count for much in this case, it should, however, be noted that both here and at Ol. 6. 38 where ΠΕΡ is found before a word beginning with a vowel, a considerable number o f MSS read περ, which would suggest that πέρ was meant, as indeed Tycho Mommsen ad Pj. 4. 265, who did not adopt it, has noted. In any event, elided περί outside of compounds is far too weakly attested anywhere to allow us to adopt it here in Pindar.) As in the case o f other alternate pairs o f prepositions

263 —269. Parable o f the Oak

367

such as πρός — ποτί and εις — έν (c. acc.), Pindar could employ the one or the other form according to metrical or prosodic convenience; V. further Appendix. 265 (e). αύτάς: for the reflexive use cf., e. g., II. 17. 407, Od. 2. 125, 24. 270, 01. 2. 76, 13. 53, Py. 2. 34, 9. 62, X. Cyr. 1. 4. 19, and v. Schwyzer ii, 192 —99, esp. 194—96, 211, and, for the several dialects, Buck, Greek Dialects, § 121, 3. 266 (a), ποτέ ... λοίσθιον: v. ad 53 (d), and, for the adverbial use of λοίσθιον, cf. S. A j. 468, A nt. 1304. 266

(b ).

χειμέριον πυρ: graphic detail; cf. ad 263 —69.

266 (c). έξίκηται: “arrives at”, “comes to” (a place from somewhere else); for this usage cf. II. 8. 439, 9. 479, 24. 481, etc., and, for Pindar, Py. 11. 35 {c. acc. pers., on which v. V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age, New Haven, 1984, 77), Is. 7. 44, Pae. 6. 110. Pindar, like Homer, uses only the aorist. 267 (a), σύν όρΟαϊς κιόνεσσιν ... έρειδομένα: in the passive the verb is usually construed with an instrumental dative; cf., e. g., Hdt. 4. 152. 4 κολοσσούς ..., τονσι γούνασι έρηρεισμένους. In instrumental constructions Pindar, however, often adds σύν, as here; v. ad 39 (c). The oak log is thought o f as being placed above the columns at right angles to them, i.e. as a lintel or architrave {recte, Heyne ad loc.), (Sch. ad loc. think o f a threshold, but έρειδομένα “supported by” makes it clear that the beam is above, not below the columns.) The suggestion that the oak beam is placed not horizontally, but vertically (cf., e. g., Dissen [1830] ad loc.: “... stans, ut columna, et cum ceteris columnis sustinens tectum”) weakens the image of the burden which it (i. e. Demophilus) has to bear. Being one among many columns is not a real test o f the oak’s strength nor need it be particularly burdensome, whereas it is precisely because o f its ability to bear extraordinary burdens that a log is chosen as a lintel and thus proves its worth (265). That the tree (Demophilus) is conceived o f as bearing the weight alone is confirmed by Pindar’s comparing Demophilus to Atlas in 289. (We need not go further, however, and suppose that the κίονες which in turn support the beam are lesser folk dependent upon Demophilus [cf. ad 263 —69]. The upright columns are probably there more for graphic detail than anything else.) 267 (b). δεσποσύναισιν: first attested at h. Cer. 143 —44 λέχος ... / δεσπόσυνον, and then, as a substantive, at Tyrt. 6 W. (the Messenians) ώσπερ δνοι μεγάλοις αχθεσι τειρόμενοι, / δεσποσύνοισι (i. e. the Lace­ daemonians) φέροντες άναγκαίης υπο λυγρής / ήμισυ πάνθ’ οσσων καρ-

368

263 —299. Plea for the Return of Demophilus

πόν αρουρα φέρει. For the adjectival use cf. further A. Pers. 587 (lyr.) δεσποσύνοισιν (-ναισιν v. I.) άνάγκαις (with Groeneboom ad loc.), Cb. 942 (lyr.) δεσποσύνων δόμων, E. Hec. 99 (anap.) τάς δεσποσύνους σκηνάς, Ar. Tb. 41—42 (anap.) μελάθρων / των δεσποσύνων. On the word v. further U. Wyss, Die Wörter auf -σύνη, Diss. Zürich, Aarau, 1954, 30, 49, and Zumbach, Neuerungen, 16. Here the choice of adjectives suggests that the labour referred to in 268 is servile. (C. Carey, Μαία 32 [1980], 145, suggests that δεσποσύναισιν should be understood here as a noun “tyranny”. This interpretation might seem plausible at first sight since the adjective is not clearly attested elsewhere as three termination and since its supposed “Motionslosigkeit” could thus serve to prevent the feminine form from being confused with the abstract noun in -σύνη [cf. Kaster, Die griecb. Adjektive, 32], However, the substantive δεσποσύνη is attested only once, viz. at Hdt. 7. 102. 1, where it was almost certainly formed ad hoc [the normal word is δεσποτεία] as a contrast to δουλοσύνη; v. Wyss, op. cit., 49. Moreover, it is clear that Pindar chose to treat the adjective as three termination here in order to prevent δεσποσύνοισιν from being understood as a noun “masters” as it is in fact used at Tyrt. loc. cit. Finally, it may be remarked that as in the other examples quoted above the adjective here is the equivalent of a genitive attribute δεσπότου and thus, since it has a different function from the first adjective όρθαϊς, it is by no means “flaccid” as Carey maintains.) 268—69. μόχθον — χώρον: the parable o f the oak now shifts from describing what primarily pertains to a tree to that which has only secondary relevance to a tree, but basically describes a human situation. On the intrusion o f the human element into the parable v. Silk, Imagery, 144 —45. The shift allows Pindar to apply the situation more obviously to Demophilus and thus prepare the way for the direct request for his recall from exile. 268 (a), άλλοις ... έν τείχεσιν: the τείχη can only be “city-walls” (so, rightly, Gildersleeve ad loc.), not “walls o f a house”, for which Greek uses a separate word τοίχοι or else the diminutive τειχία. Gildersleeve ad loc. also asserts that αλλοις = άλλοτρίοις, but v. Fraenkel ad A. Ag. 437 ff., who objects that the two are never actual equivalents. (Perhaps, but sometimes the context makes them virtually equivalent; cf. ad 118 [f] above.) In any case, we need not follow Fraenkel in accepting the explanation o f Otto Schroeder, Pyth. ad loc.: “nach bekanntem Gräzismus für άλλοθι, έν τείχεσιν, im Gegensatz zu έόν χώρον, in der Landschaft”. In fact, the phrase simply means “within other city-walls”, i. e. city-walls different from his own city-walls. Since the parable has shifted from a primary reference to a tree to that o f a

270 —276. Praise of Arcesilaus

369

man, έόν χώρον, with which αλλοις ... έν τείχεσιν is contrasted, refers not to the countryside, but to the man’s native city. The use o f αλλοις is thus quite normal, since a real contrast is implied. 268 (b). άμφέπει: “is busy with”, “takes care o f ’, “engages in”; cf. II. 5. 667 πόνον άμφιέποντες, 11. 776, etc., 01. 1. 12 άμφέπει σκαπτόν, i. e. “rules”, 6. 95 άμφέπει Δάματρα, Py. 3. 51, 108, 5. 68, 9. 70, Ne. 3. 78, 7. 91, Is. 3/4. 77, 8. 25a, Pae. 12. 4, fr. 140b. 13, 215. b. 8. (Although both άμφιεπ- and άμφεπ- are found in Homer, choral lyric like tragedy uses only the latter form.) The simplex έπω “take care o f ’, “engage in” is in origin distinct from έπομαι “follow”; v. ad 133 (d). 268 (c). δύστανον: in Homer always used o f persons. For its use of things or conditions cf. A. Ag. 1655 δύστηνον θέρος, S. A j. 1191 (lyr.) δύστανον όνειδος, El. 511 (lyr.) δυστάνοις αικίαις, A. Ra. 1333 (lyr.) δύστανον όνειρον. 269. έρημώσαισα χώρον: cf. Ε. A n dr. 314 κεί μή τόδ’ έκλιποΰσ’ έρημώσεις πέδον. Elsewhere Pindar uses the verb either c. acc. dupl. (cf. Py. 3. 97) or c. acc. et gen. (cf. Is. 3/4. 35b) in the more common sense “deprive” something o f something else. 270 —276. Praise of Arcesilaus. The king was last mentioned by name at 250; however, he has never been lost sight of in what follows; cf. 259 ΰμμι, which (as noted ad loc. [b]) refers generally to the Euphemids but specifically to Arcesilaus, and 263 γνώθι, which is addressed only to the king. The second person singular of the verb is continued by έσσί in 270, by τίν in 275, and by τλάθι in 276, so that no listener would be in the least doubt as to who is meant in the epode o f the penultimate triad. This epode is wholly devoted to the praise o f Arcesi­ laus as a wise and skilful leader. (As often [cf., e. g., Py. 1. 86—92] Pindar’s praise is partly expressed in the form of advice, which is consciously in harmony with the known intentions o f the person praised; cf. F. Cairns, Papers of the Liverpool Seminar 1976, Area 2, Liverpool, 1977, 303 with notes 21 and 23.) The praise is specifically chosen with a view to the present circumstance. Not all in Cyrene is in order (and here of course Pindar alludes to the exile of Demophilus which has just been depicted allegorically), but the king is the man who can put it right. This second section o f the conclusion o f the ode prepares the way logically and emotionally for the direct plea in the final section. In other words, it provides a skilful transition from the parable to the plea. 270 (a), έσσί δ’: the situation implied in the parable o f the tree is bad, but you, Arcesilaus, are the one who can put it right. The particle is here strongly adversative; cf. Denniston, G P, 166 —67.

263—299. Plea for the Return o f Demophilus

270 (b). ίατήρ: unlike Ιατρός (ίητρός), which is used in both poetry and prose from Homer onwards (including Pindar: Ne. 4. 2), ίατήρ (ίητήρ) became a distinctly poetic form familiar from epic (used by Pindar also at Py. 3. 65). Homeric precedent will account for its use here, but we should not forget that Doric preserved the suffix -τηρ for agent-nouns longer than most dialects; cf. Ernst Fraenkel, Nomina agentis i, 153, and v. further ad 6 (b) above. (The isolated occurrence o f τον ρατέραν in a 5th-cent. Cyprian inscription from Idalium, Schwyzer, Dial. 679. 3, merely reflects the conservative character of that dialect. On the occurrence o f otherwise poetical words in Cyprian v. Buck, The Greek Dialects, §191, and Thumb-Scherer, G D , §276, 1.) It has been maintained that Pindar, in calling Arcesilaus an ίατήρ, is asking him to become a second Ίάσων, by treating Demophilus as gently as Iason treated Pelias, i. e. ίατήρ is supposed to suggest Ίάσων; cf. J. H. Finley, Pindar and Aeschylus, Cambridge, Mass., 1955, 85, Μ. P. Wilhelm, Pindar. A Titerary Study of Pythians 4 and 5, Diss. Ohio State Univ., Ann Arbor (Univ. Microfilms), 1973, 91, E. Robbins, Phoenix 29 (1975), 210 —12, and Segal, Mythmaking, 19. As the respective quantities o f the first vowel show this could only be a popular etymo­ logy; however, the Greeks were by no means dsisinclined to indulge in such fancies on occasion. In fact, sch. 211a connects Ίάσων with ΐάσις, which was made easier by the reputation o f Iason’s teacher Chiron as a physician (sch. Hes. Th. 993a reports that Pelias himself entrusted Iason to Chiron to be taught medicine, while sch. A. R. 1. 554 relates that Iason did in fact learn medicine from Chiron, δθεν καί Ίάσων έκλήθη, παρά τήν ϊασιν). (Usener, Götternamen, 156 —58, 388 [s.v. Ίάσων], wished to see in Iason a “Heilgott” on the basis o f the alleged etymology o f his name and his associations with Chiron.) Thus it is not inconceivable that ίατήρ could be used in a name-etymology of Iason. For some genuine Pindaric examples v. ad 174—75 (b). However, here, as in the supposed case at 27, where it has been alleged that we are to hear Medea’s name in μήδεσιν ... άμοϊς (v. ad loc. [c]), there can hardly be a name-etymology for the simple reason that “Iason” is nowhere mentioned or even remotely implied. (Hence, it would be futile to look for a play on Iason’s name at E. Med. 520 δεινή τις όργή καί δυσίατος πέλει, which is not comparable to the transparent compounds Δύσπαρις at II. 3. 39, 13. 769 or Αίνόπαρις at Alcm. P M G 77, E. Hec. 945 [lyr.]. Where there is a play it is clearly indicated as at A. Ag. 687 —89 [lyr.] Έλέναν ... / έλένας έλανδρος έλέ- / πτολις.) In fact, in the absence o f Iason’s name ίατήρ would suggest Ίάσων to no one except perhaps a critic o f an allegorical cast o f mind determined to find correspondences at all costs. We may be sure that Iason does not directly enter into the context here at all.

270—276. Praise o f Arcesilaus

371

In short, it seems most unlikely that Pindar intended to imply anywhere that Iason should be a paradigm for Arcesilaus. Burton, Pyth., 168, has cautiously suggested that in Iason “Arcesilaus may see the qualities o f courtesy, restraint, and respect for family ties together with a spirit o f compromise and non-violence in dealing with Pelias which would supply a pattern o f behaviour in settling his own quarrel with his kinsman [cf. ad 263 —99 above] Damophilus”. The conduct of Iason may well be exemplary, but the fact remains that Pindar nowhere points to it as a model for Arcesilaus. This should be enough to make us hesitate to accept such an interpretation. In any case, all attempts at finding an allegorical correspondence between Iason and Pelias, on one side, and Arcesilaus and Demophilus, on the other, eventually break down when confronted with such irreconcilable differences as Arcesi­ laus’ being the reigning king while Iason is the aspirant. (This difficulty is avoided by F. Sandgren, Eranos 70 [1972], 12 —22, and C. Carey, Maia 32 [1980], 143 —52, who set Iason and Demophilus against Pelias and Arcesilaus, but the implications o f such a combination are “monstrous” as Gildersleeve ad 268 objected long ago.) The futility of such attempts which seek a more or less direct correspondence between the figures o f the myth and those o f the historical situation is clearly shown by the very variety o f the “keys” which have been offered. Gilbert Norwood is a critic o f Pindar with whom seldom it is necessary to express either agreement or disagreement, but his valid objection on aesthetic grounds to such attempts, viz. because “the narrative contains nothing for the appreciation o f which those identifications are needed” {Pindar, 213, n. 7), implies a methodological principle which others would do well to take to heart. The comparison o f Arcesilaus with a physician need have no more than a general relevance: the state o f Cyrene is not well; therefore it needs a skilled physician. The analogy statesman : physician is in fact a topos widely used (or alluded to) in Greek; cf., e. g., A. Ag. 844—50 (Agamemnon tells the Argives on his return) τα δ’ άλλα προς πόλιν . . . / . . . / βουλευσόμεσθα- καί τό μέν καλώς εχον / δπως χρονίζον εύ μενεϊ βουλευτέον, / δτωι δέ καί δει φαρμάκων παιωνίων, / ήτοι κέαντες ή τεμόντες εύφρόνως / πειρασόμεσθα πήμ’ άποστρέψαι νόσου (Dumortier, Images, 216, suggests that Aeschylus may be thinking o f Py. 4. 270 —71), and V. further J. W. Jones, Law and Legal Theory, 4 —5, Gomme et al. ad Th. 6. 14, and Fritz Wehrli, Ges. Sehr., 177 —214, esp. 206 —14. It has been further suggested (Robbins, op. cit., 212 —13) that the compari­ son gains special relevance in the context from the fact that Cyrene was apparently famous in antiquity for its physicians; cf. Hdt. 3. 131. 3, a passage deleted by most editors since Abicht as a gloss (it is clear at least that Eustathius read it in his text o f Herodotus; v. Eust. ad D. P.

372

263 —299. Plea for the Return o f Demophilus

213, p. 126, 3 —4 Bernhardy). Cyrene may well have been famous for its physicians, possibly, as Bernhardy in his note to Eustathius ad loc., p. 878, remarks, because o f the use o f silphium there. (For a possible representation o f a medical consultation in Cyrene v. Chamoux, Cjrène, 367 —68.) In any case, the general relevance o f the comparison is enough to account for its use here. 270 (c). έπικαιρότατος: not “most timely” (Sandys), but “most fit­ ting”, i. e. Arcesilaus as king is in the best position to heal the ills of the state. In fifth-century Greek έπίκαιρος has the basic meaning “fitting”, “suitable”, “appropriate”, which, while not excluding what is “timely”, represents a broader semantic range than is usually assigned to it; cf. S. A j. 1404—6 (anap.) τοι δ’ ύψίβατον / τρίποδ’ άμφίπυρον λουτρών όσιων / θέσθ’ έπίκαιρον “... a tripod suitable for ...”, OT 875 (lyr.), Th. 1. 68. 4 τό ... έπικαιρότατον χωρίον, X. Hier. 10. 5 τα έπίκαιρα “the advantages”, etc. The compound thus reflects the basic sense o f καιρός (cf. 286), on which v. Barrett ad E. Hipp. 386 —87, John R. Wilson, Glotta 58 (1980), 1 7 7 -2 0 4 , and W. H. Race, T A P hA 111 (1981), 197-2 1 3 . 270 (d). Παιάν: i. e. Apollo, who is both a god of healing and of light. He is also the άρχαγέτας o f Cyrene; cf. Pj. 5. 60. (Paean [epic Παιήων] was originally the name o f the physician o f the gods [cf. II. 5. 401—2, 899 —901] and an independent figure in his own right [cf. sch. Od. 4. 231 and 232, which quote [Hes.] fr. 307 M.-W. in support], but the paeans sung to Apollo at II. 1. 473 and h. A p . 517 already imply the later identification with Apollo, who elsewhere in the Iliad [16. 514 —29] appears as healer. Pindar uses Paean consistently as an epithet o f Apollo; cf. Pae. 2. 35, 71, 107, 4. 31, 6. 182.) 270 (e). τε: links a direct consequence o f the fact stated in the preceding sentence. On the “consequential” use o f the τε v. ad 222 (b). 270 (f). eoi τιμά φάος: not “honoureth the light that cometh from thee” (Sandys), but “bestows as an honour on you (σοί is dat. commodi) the light o f deliverance”, i. e. Apollo bestows on the king the power to provide deliverance, viz. for the state in general and for Demophilus in particular; cf. sch. 481b καί αύτός σοι ό Παιάν τήν εις τούτο δύναμιν παρέχεται. In early Greek to “honour” someone had a concrete sense, namely to “confer” a tangible benefit or gift (cf. ad 260 [a]). Thus in the Iliad Zeus is asked or said on a number o f occasions (cf. 1. 505, 2. 4, 8. 372, 15. 77, 16. 237) to “honour” Achilles by turning the tide of battle against the Achaeans, which is to make a very material contribu­ tion to Achilles’ cause. Likewise, when the Achaeans first offer gifts to Achilles to make amends, he refuses the τιμή (cf. II. 9. 607 —8). For

270—276. Praise o f Arcesilaus

373

this sense o f τιμάω cf. further S. A j. 687 —88, A nt. 514, E. Or. 828 —30 (lyr.) and esp. 01. 7. 5 συμποσίω (-ω A, -ου rell.) τε χάριν κάδος τε τιμάσαις έόν “bestowing charm on the party and honouring his sonin-law”, and V. Mnemosyne, S. IV, 29 (1976), 236 —38 (cf. also the criticism by W. J. Verdenius in ibid., 244 —45). 270 (g). σοί: σοι codci., τοι Otto Schroeder. Here the sigmatic form was presumably used to avoid excessive τ-alliteration (so. Slater, s. v. σύ, c, β). If so, we should then almost certainly write Παιάν τε σοί here with Turyn (cf. ad loc.) rather than leave the enclitic form with Snell-Maehler. At Py. 9. 55, where the MSS have πότνιά σοι and there is no need to avoid tau, we should almost certainly write τοι with Otto Schroeder. The general epic and lyric distinction between τοι and σοί (cf. LSJ, s. v. σύ) seems to be preserved with remarkable consistency in the MSS o f Homer and Pindar, so that the few exceptions, e. g. Od. 3. 359, 11. 381, are best regarded as simple mistakes. 270 (h). φάος: “light o f deliverance”. This metaphorical use of “light” is common from Homer on; cf. II. 6. 6 φόως δ’ έτάροισιν εθηκεν (sc. Aias), 11. 797, 15. 741, 16. 39, 95, etc., A. Ag. 522 (with Fraenkel ad loc.), S. A nt. 600 (lyr.), E. Med. 482 φάος σωτήριον, H F 531 (with Wilamowitz ad loc. et 563), Ba. 608 (with Dodds ad loc.), A. R. 2. 333, etc., and, for other Pindaric examples, [O/.] 5. 14, Py. 3. 75 (also in a medical context), fr. 109. 2. On the symbolic use v. further R. Bultmann, Philologus 97 (1948), 1 —36, as well as the articles of M. Treu and C. J. Classen, in Studium Generale 18 (1965), 83 —97, 97 —116. M. G. Ciani, Φάος e termini affini nella poesia greca, Firenze, 1974, has a certain usefulness as a limited collection and classification of examples (for Pindar’s use o f φάος cf. esp. 21—24). D. Bremer, Licht und Dunkel in derfriihgriech. Dichtung, Bonn, 1976 is an exercise in “Geistesgeschichte” and as such not always illuminating for the exegesis o f individual passages (for Pindar cf. 231—310, esp. 264 —65). 271 (a), χρή — άμφιπολεΐν; cf. II. Pers. fr. 5. 3 —4 A. τω (sc. Ma­ chaon) μεν κουφοτέρας χεϊρας πόρεν (sc. Poseidon) εκ τε βέλεμνα / σαρκός έλεΐν τμήξαί τε καί ελκεα πάντ’ άκέσασθαι. 271 (b). χρή μαλακάν χέρα: the asyndeton is inferential; v. ad 263 (a). With μαλακάν χέρα cf. Ne. 3. 55 τον (sc. Asclepius) φαρμάκων δίδαξε (sc. Chiron) μαλακόχειρα νόμον, A P 6. 244. 4 (Crin.) μαλακαΐς χερσί σύν Ήπιόνης (Asclepius’ wife), Herod. 4. 17 —18 άπέψησας / έπ’ ήπιας ... χεϊρας (ν. Headlam ad loc. for more exx. o f the physician’s healing hand).

374

263 —299. Plea for the Return of Demophilus

271 (c). χέρα: in Homer the initial vowel o f the acc. sg. is, as we would expect (χειρ- < *χεσρ-; cf. Frisk, s. v.), always long. The form χέρα is first attested at h. Horn. 19. 40 and is commonly used in the 5th cent. (cf. Simon. P M G 543. 6, B. 8. 19, 17. 72, 01. 2. 94, 10. 72, Pj. 9. 36) alongside o f χεΐρα (cf. B. 13. 49, 17. 11, etc. as well as Pj. 4. 37, Is. 1. 66, 2. 21, fr. 146. 2). However, already in Homer we find a dat. sg. χερί {II. 8. 289, 20. 182, 24. 101) as well as the expected χειρί. The short vowel forms are explainable as a gradual development on the basis o f analogy of what was thought to be a short vowel in the regular dat. pi. χερσί ( < *χεσρ-σι); v. Leumann, Horn. Wörter, 318 —20. (Together with χερσί Homer also uses χείρεσσι, both o f which forms are found in Pindar as well.) 271 (d). προσβάλλοντα: “apply”; cf. S. Tr. 580 —81 χιτώνα τόνδ’ έβαψα, προσβαλοΰσ’ δσα (“applying everything which”) / ζών κείνος (sc. Nessus) είπε, 843 —44 (lyr.) τά μέν αυτά / προσέβαλεν (ν. Jebb ad loc.}, E. Hec. 410 παρειάν προσβαλεϊν παρηίδι, etc. Cf. also Aen. Tact. 11. 14 σικύας προσβαλόμενοι “applying cupping instruments to themselves”, etc. On the construction of the participle cf. Oguse, Reeherches, 155. 271 (e). τρώμαν έλκεος: “an ulcerous wound”. The use o f an appositional genitive where a modifying adjective might seem more natural to us is common in early Greek poetry; cf., e. g., II. 4. 350 (and often) έρκος όδόντων “a barrier, namely the teeth”, 6. 346 άνέμοιο θύελλα “a stormy wind”, S. Tr. 656 (lyr.) πολύκωπον όχημα ναός “a vehicle with many oars, a ship”, “a many-oared naval vessel”, El. 1241—42 (lyr.) περισσόν άχθος ... / γυναικών “a useless burden, women”, “useless female burdens”, and, for Pindar, Py. 10. 47 δρακόντων φόβαισιν “with snakes as locks”, “with snaky locks”, Ne. 10. 36 έν άγγέων έρκεσιν “in jars as containers”, and v. KG i, 264—65, 280 —81, and Schwyzer ii,

121- 22. 271 (f). τρώμαν: first attested here and then at A. Ag. 866, fr. 362. 1 R. The form τρώμά is found only here; cf. [Theoc.] 21. 50 where a Doric τρώμα occurs corresponding to the usual Ionic τρώμα and Attic τραύμα. For the variation -μά (-μη) / -μά cf. βρώμη {Od. 10. 460) — βρώμα (Th. 4. 26. 5), γνώμα {Py. 4. 84) and γνώμη (Thgn. 396) yvomii (Hdt. 7. 52. 1), κωλύμη (Th. 1. 92) — κώλυμα (Th. 5. 30. 3), etc., and v. Schwyzer i, 494, and E. Benveniste, B SL 59 (1964), 37 —39. 271 (g). έλκεος: for the metaphorical use with reference to the state cf. Archil. 13. 8 W., Sol. 4. 1 7 -1 9 W. (on which v. J. W. Jones, Law and Legal Theory, 17 —18), A. Ag. 640.

270—276. Praise o f Arcesilaus

375

271 (h). άμφιπολεϊν: cf. ad 158 (a). 272— 73. μέν γάρ ... / άλλ’: on anticipatory γάρ combined with an adversative άλλά v. Denniston, G P , 71 (on the position o f γάρ cf. op. cit., 95). 272 (a), πόλιν σεϊσαι: cf. S. Ant. 162 —63 τά μέν δή πόλεως άσφαλώς θεοί / πολλώι σάλωι σείσαντες ώρθωσαν πάλιν. Gildersleeve ad loc. sees in our phrase the image o f a building (cf. also 273 έπί χώρας ... έσσαι) which then shifts to that of the familiar ship of state (cf. 274 κυβερνατήρ). This is no doubt basically right; however, in view o f the very common use o f the image o f the ship o f state in early Greek (instances listed by Taillardat, Images, 381, n. 2), it is just possible that πόλιν σεϊσαι could be taken to refer to “rocking the boat” (cf. S. loc. cit. πολλώι σάλωι σείσαντες), while, as Gildersleeve himself noted, έπί χώρας εσσαι is an equivalent o f Sophocles’ ώρθωσαν in A nt. 163. In other words, Pindar’s apparent shift o f images may not be so abrupt after all if the comparison already fits not just a building but also a ship from the very beginning. 272 (b). άφαυροτέροις: not “for weaker men than you” (Bowra), but “for those who are (rather) weak”. On this use o f the comparative v., besides ad 181 (c), Schwyzer ii, 184—85, and cf. Dornseiff, Pindars Stil, 79. 273 (a), άλλ’ έπί χώρας: contrary to Pindar’s normal metrical practice (on which v. Snell-Maehler, Pindari carmina ii, 168, reporting an observa­ tion o f W. Henseleit) there is no word-end after the d’-colon which begins the period here. The exceptions found in the corresponding position at 66 and 89 are more easily accounted for by the presence of proper names and at 204 by the use o f elision. 273 (b). έπί χώρας: “in place”. Equally applicable to the correction o f a tottering structure or a canting ship; cf. ad 272 (a). 273 (c). έσσαι: on the form cf. ad 204 (e). 273 (d). δυσπαλές: the literal sense o f the word ( < παλαίω) is presumably still felt here as it almost certainly is at 01. 8. 23 —25 δ τι γάρ πολύ καί πολλφ βέπη, ! ... ! δυσπαλές. Cf. also A. Eu. 558 —59 (lyr.) καλεϊ δ’ άκούοντας ούδέν μέσαι / δυσπαλεϊ τε δίναι. 273 (e), δή: on this emphatic use o f the particle v. Denniston, GP, 204, 206. 273— 74. γίνεται, ... / εί μή ... γένηται: cf. ad 263 —68. 273 (f). γίνεται, έξαπίνας: so, most editors since Heyne, but a few, e. g. Hartung, Tycho Mommsen, Turyn, punctuate after έξαπίνας. How-

263—299. Plea for the Return o f Demophilus

ever, the epiphany o f a god is traditionally sudden; cf., e. g., Call. A p. 4 —5 έπένευσεν ό Δήλιος ήδύ τι φοϊνιξ / έξαπίνης, and ν. Headlam ad Herod. 1. 9. 274. κυβερνατήρ: cf. esp. Py. 5.122 —23 Διός τοι νόος μέγας κυβερνμ / δαίμον’ άνδρών φίλων, Β. 13. 185 πόλιν κυβερνάν (sc. Άρετά). On the image ν. van Nes, Bildersprache, 71—92, esp. 91—92, 122 —28, esp. 127. Péron, Les images, 101—37, cf. esp. 113—15, contributes little that is new. The image has been specially studied by K. H. Kaiser, Das Bild des Steuermannes in der antiken Literatur, Diss. Erlangen, 1954 (unpub­ lished, but in part accessible in Péron, loc. cit.). 275. τίν ... τούτων έξυφαίνονται χάριτες: “for you the web of this favour is being woven out”, sc. υπό θεών (cf. sch. 489d), i. e. εχεις παρά θεών δεδωρημένον τό δύνασθαι τήν πόλιν είς τό άρχαΐον άποδοϋναι κατάστημα (sch. 489d). The plural χάριτες is augmentative; v. Schwyzer ii, 43—44, and cf. ad 36 (d) above. On the metaphor v. ad 141 (c). 276(a). τλάθι ... θέμεν: not “sustine ... ponere" (Boeckh), “Have patience ... to give” (Bowra), but “Have the courage to devote”; cf. Pj. 3. 40 —41 Ούκέτι / τλάσομαι ψυχα γένος άμόν όλέσσαι “No longer will I have the courage in my heart to destroy my own child”, τλάω, τολμάω, etc. when used with the participle “mean to endure something now going on or already done; with the infinitive, to have courage or to venture to do something not yet done” (Goodwin, M T, §903,2). Cf. also KG ii, 74, Stahl, Syntax, 626, 699, 741—42, and, on the semantic difference between infinitives and participial constructions with the same leading verb, Schwyzer ii, 395 —96. Pindar is not of course implying that Arcesilaus has not been devoting all o f his zeal to Cyrene before. Rather, he envisages the situation as new: the state has been shaken, but since the king has divine guidance, he can take courage and devote himself resolutely to its restoration. 276 (b). τλάθι τάς: the asyndeton is inferential; v. ad 263 (a). 276 (c). εύδαίμονος ... Κυράνας: Bowra’s translation, “for the sake o f Kyrene’s happiness” (cf. also Puech: “au bonheur de Cyrène”) assumes that εύδαίμονος is used proleptically. Though less common than its use in the accusative, an adjective is occasionally used proleptically in other cases; cf. 279 —81 (v. ad loc.), S. A j. 986 —87, Tr. 106 —7 (lyr.) {recte, codd., pace Dawe), Ant. 1186, O C 1200 {sic, Jebb, recte, pace Moorhouse, Syntax, 168), E. Med. 435 —36 (lyr.) (v. Page ad loc.), and ν. further KG i, 276. However, as de Heer, Μάκαρ, 54, points out (cf. also Wilamowitz ad E. H F 440), ευδαίμων in its earliest uses always means “favoured by the divine powers”; cf., e. g., Hes. Op. 826 (v. West ad loc.), Thgn. 653, 1013, Is. 6. 25 (Peleus was hardly a “happy

277 —299. Praise o f Demophilus and Plea for his Recall

377

husband o f a deity” [Sandys, similarly Thummer and Privitera], but in becoming a γαμβρός θεών enjoyed “divine favour in a signal manner”, de Heer, op. cit., 41), and v. de Heer, op. cit., 40 —44, for a discussion o f further Pindaric instances. That the adjective still has this sense here (so, de Heer, op. cit., 44) is strongly suggested by the fact that at 259 —61 Pindar has clearly stated that the θειον άστυ o f “golden-throned Cyrene” enjoys special divine favour, a notion which is repeated in other words at 274—75. Because Cyrene is “divinely blessed” Arcesilaus should take courage and devote his whole zeal to it. 276 (d). άμφί Κυράνας θέμεν σπουδάν: for the periphrasis cf. S. A j. 13 σπουδήν έθου τήνδ’. This is a poetic version o f περί τίνος σπουδήν ποιήσασθαι; cf. PI. Snip. 117 c. (The denominative σπουδάζω is first attested in Attic tragedy.) On periphrases with τίθημι, which are more common with the middle voice, v. further ad 132 (b). For άμφί c. gen. in the sense “for the sake o f ’ cf. Pj. 9. 105 άμφί γυναικός έβαν. Cf. also Pj. 4. 253 έσθάτος άμφίς (on which v. ad loc. [d]). On Pindar’s use o f άμφί (and περί) v. Bossier, De praepositionum usu apud P., 41 —49, esp. 45. 277—299. Praise of Demophilus and Plea for his Recall. The stage is now set for a direct mention o f the exiled Demophilus. But before the plea for his recall is entered the possible grounds for a royal pardon are stated in advance: Demophilus’ character is just (cf. 280 —81) and if he was guilty o f any offence in the past (this is never explicitly stated but only implied), he has learned his lesson (cf. 284), so that (the logical conclusion is in fact stated only in the plea) no one, i. e. the king, would have any reason to fear him in the future. The actual plea, which occupies the final epode, is stated in the form o f Demophilus’ own wish (cf. 293 εύχεται). 277—78. Όμηρου ... / βήμα: for this use o f βήμα with a proper name cf. Is. 2. 9 —10