Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T02:18:54.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TEXTUAL NOTES ON PINDAR'S ELEVENTH NEMEAN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2020

Nicholas Lane
Nicholas Lane*
Affiliation:
Ealing, London
*
njglane@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

      εἰ δέ τιϲ ὄλβον ἔχων μορφᾷ παραμεύϲεται ἄλλουϲ,
      ἔν τ᾽ ἀέθλοιϲιν ἀριϲτεύων ἐπέδειξεν βίαν,
      θνατὰ μεμνάϲθω περιϲτέλλων μέλη, 15
      καὶ τελευτὰν ἁπάντων γᾶν ἐπιεϲϲόμενοϲ.
      ἐν λόγοιϲ δ᾽ ἀϲτῶν ἀγαθοῖϲί νιν αἰνεῖϲθαι χρεὼν
      καὶ μελιγδούποιϲι δαιδαλθέντα μελίζεν ἀοιδαῖϲ.
The Loeb translates lines 15–16 ʻlet him remember that mortal are the limbs he clothes and that earth is the last garment of all he will wear'. It is debatable whether τελευτάν is an adverbial accusative with ἁπάντων added as a qualifying genitive, as it seems more natural to take the phrase as a simple apposition to γᾶν. But there is a real difficulty in that τελευτὰν ἁπάντων could be taken to indicate that death is ‘the end of everything’ (or ʻof all men') and that contradicts indications elsewhere in Pindar that death is not, or at least not quite, the end.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 894 - 898
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association.

I

εἰ δέ τιϲ ὄλβον ἔχων μορφᾷ παραμεύϲεται ἄλλουϲ,
ἔν τ᾽ ἀέθλοιϲιν ἀριϲτεύων ἐπέδειξεν βίαν,
θνατὰ μεμνάϲθω περιϲτέλλων μέλη, 15
καὶ τελευτὰν ἁπάντων γᾶν ἐπιεϲϲόμενοϲ.
ἐν λόγοιϲ δ᾽ ἀϲτῶν ἀγαθοῖϲί νιν αἰνεῖϲθαι χρεὼν
καὶ μελιγδούποιϲι δαιδαλθέντα μελίζεν ἀοιδαῖϲ.Footnote 1

The Loeb translates lines 15–16 ʻlet him remember that mortal are the limbs he clothes and that earth is the last garment of all he will wear'.Footnote 2 It is debatable whether τελευτάν is an adverbial accusative with ἁπάντων added as a qualifying genitive,Footnote 3 as it seems more natural to take the phrase as a simple apposition to γᾶν.Footnote 4 But there is a real difficulty in that τελευτὰν ἁπάντων could be taken to indicate that death is ‘the end of everything’ (or ʻof all men') and that contradicts indications elsewhere in Pindar that death is not, or at least not quite, the end.Footnote 5

It is a central concern of epinician poetry that death should not result in ἀρετά being forgotten.Footnote 6 Praise and song are the best antidotes and thus in lines 17–18 Pindar advocates the need for praise from one's fellow citizens and celebration in song. Phonetic equivalence might have caused a scribe to write ἁπάντων for ἄφαντον, and if so the person in question is at risk of putting on the earth as ʻan obscure end' (in apposition to γᾶν).Footnote 7 The danger of a τελευτὰ ἄφαντοϲ provides a suitable motivation for the reflection on the need for praise and song (17–18).Footnote 8

II

ἀλλὰ βροτῶν τὸν μὲν κενεόφρονεϲ αὖχαι
ἐξ ἀγαθῶν ἔβαλον, τὸν δ᾽ αὖ καταμεμφθέντ᾽ ἄγαν 30
ἰϲχὺν οἰκείων παρέϲφαλεν καλῶν
χειρὸϲ ἕλκων ὀπίϲϲω θυμὸϲ ἄτολμοϲ ἐών.

The text of lines 31–2 is suspicious for the following reasons:

  1. 1. While it does not provoke scholarly comment, ἰϲχύν (31) needs, but lacks, a qualifier to make it clear that the man in question doubts his own strength. Most pass over this, quietly supplying ἑάν or ἑαυτοῦ.Footnote 9

  2. 2. ἐών (32) is also problematic. θυμὸϲ ἄτολμοϲ already governs one strong participle, ἕλκων (32), and ἐών dilutes its impact. The expression is arguably stronger without ἐών and is weakened by the apparent afterthought of the additional participle ‘being’.

  3. 3. Normally there would be nothing amiss about describing καλά achieved abroad as οἰκεῖα in the sense ʻone's own'.Footnote 10 However, the obvious connection of οἰκεῖοϲ with οἶκοϲ makes its application to the underachievement of a stay-at-home somewhat unfortunate.

These problems indicate corruption. Better sense can be achieved at the slight cost of writing:

τὸν δ᾽ αὖ καταμεμφθέντ᾽ ἄγαν 30
ἰϲχὺν οἰκείαν παρέϲφαλεν καλῶν
χειρὸϲ ἕλκων ὀπίϲϲω θυμὸϲ ἄτολμοϲ ἑῶν.

I translate: ʻBut by a faint heart, that drags him back by the hand, a man who doubts his own strength is deprived of the achievements that are his.' The man doubts his own strength, as one would expect. With the breathing mark and accent altered, the participle becomes a possessive that gains in rhetorical strength by separation from the noun it modifies.Footnote 11 The phrase ἰϲχὺν οἰκείαν is also particularly apt to describe the strength of someone who does not prove it abroad. οἰκείαν could easily have become corrupted to οἰκείων by attraction into the case of καλῶν beneath ἀγαθῶν (30) and above ἕλκων (32).Footnote 12

III

ἀρχαῖαι δ᾽ ἀρεταί
ἀμφέροντ᾽ ἀλλαϲϲόμεναι γενεαῖϲ ἀνδρῶν ϲθένος·
ἐν ϲχερῷ δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ὦν μέλαιναι καρπὸν ἔδωκαν ἄρουραι,
δένδρεά τ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλει πάσαιϲ ἐτέων περόδοιϲ 40
ἀλλ᾽ ἐναμείβοντι.

The Loeb translates lines 37–8 ʻThe talents of ancient time produce their strength in alternating generations of men.'Footnote 13 Pindar seems to be saying that the same ancient ἀρεταί do not appear in every generation, but they resurface in some.Footnote 14

Insufficient attention is paid to what is actually changing, ἀλλαϲϲόμεναι (38): is it ἀρεταί or γενεαὶ ἀνδρῶν? Fields do not always produce crops nor plants perfumed flowers. Some γενεαί (38) are vigorous, others less so. They change, ἐναμείβοντι (42). If the ἀρχαῖαι ἀρεταί change, they will be new, not ἀρχαῖαι: calling them ʻancient' is a way of conveying their continuity.Footnote 15 Editors nevertheless seem content for the ancient virtues to be portrayed as mutable, since they leave the participle ἀλλαϲϲόμεναι in agreement with ἀρεταί.

Comments made elsewhere by Pindar about φυά (which includes inborn ἀρεταί) tend to confirm that he thought that their inherent nature does not change. A picture of ἀρεταί as unchanging, consistent intergenerationally and long-lasting emerges from a few passages: e.g. Ol. 11.19–20 τὸ γὰρ ἐμφυὲϲ οὔτ᾽ αἴθων ἀλώπηξ | οὔτ᾽ ἐρίβρομοι λέοντεϲ διαλλάξαιντο ἦθοϲ (the nature of a species does not change); 13.13 ἄμαχον δὲ κρύψαι τὸ συγγενὲς ἦθος (it is impossible to hide one's inherited nature, that is, it stays the same and keeps on resurfacing); Pyth. 8.44–5 φυᾷ τὸ γενναῖον ἐπιπρέπει | ἐκ πατέρων παιϲὶ λῆμα (that is, sons display the same qualities as their fathers through φυά);Footnote 16 Nem. 3.32 παλαιαῖσι δ᾽ ἐν ἀρεταῖς γέγαθε Πηλεὺς ἄναξ (Peleus rejoiced in ancient ἀρεταί, that is, by implication they remained the same); Isthm. 2.44; 4.4–5 αἷϲι [sc. ἀρεταῖϲ] Κλεωνυμίδαι θάλλοντεϲ αἰεί | ϲὺν θεῷ θνατὸν διέρχονται βιότου τέλοϲ (that is, the Cleonymidae always flourish through or with the same ἀρεταί).

If Nem. 3.74–5 ἐλᾷ δὲ καὶ τέϲϲαραϲ ἀρετάϲ | ‹ὁ› θνατὸϲ αἰών refers to the four canonical virtues, their finite number adds to the impression that they are unchanging. Pfeijffer argues against understanding the reference there as one to a ʻtetrad' of virtues, largely on the basis of the absence of evidence for such a list prior to Pindar,Footnote 17 but it may not be right to reject the possibility that it might.Footnote 18 More generally, one may also compare the metaphorical usage of ἄρουρα of a woman who receives seed and bears fruit, as at Pyth. 4.254–7 καὶ ἐν ἀλλοδαπαῖϲ | ϲπέρμ᾽ ἀρούραιϲ τουτάκιϲ ὑμετέραϲ ἀκτῖνοϲ ὄλβου δέξατο μοιρίδιον | ἆμαρ ἢ νύκτεϲ· τόθι γὰρ γένοϲ Εὐφάμου φυτευθὲν λοιπὸν αἰεί | τέλλετο.Footnote 19 This further suggests that it is more likely that Pindar was thinking of the γενεαὶ ἀνδρῶν as vegetal here.

Various indicators therefore make it unlikely that the ἀρεταί are being likened here to ἄρουραι (40) and δένδρεα (41).Footnote 20 If, as seems more probable, the γενεαὶ ἀνδρῶν change, a slight alteration should be considered to read ἀρχαῖαι δ᾽ ἀρεταί | ἀμφέροντ᾽ ἀλλαϲϲομέναιϲ γενεαῖϲ ἀνδρῶν ϲθένοϲ, that is, ʻThe ancient virtues repeat their strength in the alternating generations of men'.Footnote 21 The sigma could easily have lapsed from the paradosis.Footnote 22 With the dative ἀλλαϲϲομέναιϲ the expression is more balanced (each noun in the sentence being preceded by and having its own qualifier) and the continuity of ἀρεταί (emphasized by ἀρχαῖαι) is maintained.

Footnotes

I am grateful to Professor David Kovacs and to CQ's anonymous referee for helpful comments on a draft of these notes.

References

1 The text of Nem. 11 printed in these notes is that of Henry, W.B., Pindar's Nemeans: A Selection (Leipzig, 2005), 19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Otherwise, citations of Pindar are from Snell, B. and Maehler, H., Pindarus, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1987 8–9)Google Scholar.

2 Race, W.H., Pindar: Nemean Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments (Cambridge, MA and London, 1997), 127Google Scholar.

3 So e.g. Fennell, C.A.M., Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes (Cambridge, 1899 2), 138Google Scholar (on 16, τελευτάν); Bury, J.B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London and New York, 1890), 222Google Scholar (on 15); Henry (n. 1), 126 (on 16, τελευτὰν ἁπάντων). Clapp, E.B., ʻPindar's accusative constructions', TAPhA 32 (1901), 16–42, at 35Google Scholar treats this instance as an adverbial accusative where the apposition is still felt.

4 So Verdenius, W.J., Commentaries on Pindar, 2 vols. (Leiden / New York / Copenhagen / Cologne, 1987–8), 2.103–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on 16, τελευτάν), citing Isthm. 3.7 as an example of such ʻemphatic' nominal apposition. To that instance may be added Pyth. 9.23–5 τὸν ϲύγκοιτον γλυκύν | … | ὕπνον, Nem. 1.70 ἡϲυχίαν καμάτων μεγάλων ποινὰν … ἐξαίρετον and Isthm. 8.1–4 λύτρον εὔδοξον καμάτων | … | κῶμον.

5 Cf. especially H. Lloyd-Jones, ʻPindar and the after-life', in O. Reverdin and B. Grange (edd.), Pindare (Entretiens sur L'Antiquité Classique 31) (Geneva, 1985), 245–83 (= The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones: Greek Epic, Lyric and Tragedy [Oxford, 1990], 80–105, with an addendum at 105–9).

6 For song conferring immortality in Pindar, cf. Verdenius (n. 4), 1.51 (on 11, ζωθάλμιοϲ) and add to his examples Ol. 11.4–6, 6.56–7, Pyth. 1.92–4, 3.110–15, 5.46–9, Isthm. 2.28–9, 5.24–8, 8.56a–8 and fr. 121 Maehler; for discussion, cf. G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans (rev. ed., Baltimore and London, 1999), ch. 10; Currie, B., Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (Oxford, 2005), 344–405Google Scholar, especially 345–8 and 403–5; and Sigelman, A.C., Pindar's Poetics of Immortality (Cambridge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Pindar uses ἄφαντοϲ three times elsewhere (Ol. 1.46, Pyth. 11.30, Nem. 8.34). For the meaning ʻobscure', cf. Finglass, P.J., Pindar: Pythian Eleven (Cambridge, 2007), 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on 30, ἄφαντον). For the association of Ἀΐδαϲ and ἰδεῖν, cf. Gazis, G.A., Homer and the Poetics of Hades (Oxford, 2018), 36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Pindar describes Tartarus as ἀφανήϲ at fr. 207 Maehler, perhaps with the same association of death and invisibility in mind.

8 This recurring Pindaric motif is sometimes joined with approbation of leaving a good reputation for one's offspring: cf. e.g. Ol. 5.22–3, 10.91–6, Pyth. 11.55–8, Nem. 7.98–101, 8.35–9, Isthm. 6.10–16. On the close link between lines 15–16 and 17–18, highlighted by δέ (17), cf. Verdenius (n. 4), 2.103 and 2.104 (nn. on 15, θνατά and on 17, δέ).

9 Gedike, F., Pindari carmina selecta cum scholiis selectis suisque notis (Berlin, 1786), 259Google Scholar (on 40 [= 30]) is an exception: ʻτὸν δ᾽ αὖ, καταμεμφθέντ᾽ ἄγαν ἰϲχὺν (sc. ἑαυτοῦ)'.

10 Cf. LSJ s.v. οἰκεῖοϲ III. This is the only sense in which Pindar seems to use this adjective: cf. Slater, W.J., Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin, 1969), 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar s.v. οἰκεῖοϲ (citing three instances including the present one).

11 For similar separation of possessive adjectives from their noun, cf. e.g. Isthm. 8.28–9 ἄλοχον εὐειδέα θέλων ἑκάτεροϲ | ἑὰν ἔμμεν (another example where the separation and position of noun and adjective are emphatic), Ol. 9.112 Αἶαν, τεόν τ᾽ ἐν δαιτί, Ἰλιάδα, νικῶν ἐπεϲτεφάνωϲε βωμόν, Isthm. 1.58–9 Πρωτεϲίλα, τὸ τεὸν δ᾽ ἀνδρῶν Ἀχαιῶν | ἐν Φυλάκᾳ τέμενοϲ ϲυμβάλλομαι, 6.33–5 ϲφετέραϲ δ᾽ οὐ φείϲατο | χερϲὶν βαρυφθόγγοιο νευρᾶϲ | Ἡρακλεήϲ, 6.42–3 εἴ ποτ᾽ ἐμᾶν, ὦ Zεῦ πάτερ, | θυμῷ θέλων ἀρᾶν ἄκουϲαϲ.

12 As CQ's anonymous referee points out, the Alexandrian colometry would have been more conducive to the corruption envisaged with all three words standing second in line.

13 Race (n. 2), 129.

14 For discussion of Pindar's ʻdefinite' ideas on ἀρετά, cf. Sullivan, S.D., Psychological and Ethical Ideas: What Early Greeks Say (Leiden / New York / Cologne, 1995), 163–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Pfeijffer, I.L., Three Aeginetan Odes of Pindar: A Commentary on Nemean V, Nemean III & Pythian VIII (Leiden / Boston / Cologne, 1999), 188–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on 53, ἀρετάν).

15 The use of ἀναφέρω could also indicate that the ἀρεταί are the same here since the verb can mean ʻrepeat', implying that the object is the same. LSJ s.v. II.10 gives Pl. Ti. 26a as the earliest instance of this meaning, but perhaps this represents an earlier example. On the voice of ἀμφέροντ᾽, cf. Verdenius (n. 4), 2.110 (on 38, ἀμφέροντι), who argues cogently that it is active. If, however, it is passive (i.e. ἀμφέρονται elided), that can mean ʻrevive' (cf. LSJ s.v. II.7) and this would still indicate that the virtues are the same old virtues coming back to life.

16 Pindar frequently depicts grandfathers, fathers and sons displaying the same ἀρεταί and the great heroes are depicted as children with the same ἀρεταί that they display in adulthood: e.g. Nem. 1.43–7 (Heracles); Pyth. 9.84–7, Nem. 3.43–52 (Achilles). These factors contribute further to the picture of ἀρεταί as unchanging.

17 Pfeijffer (n. 14), 639–43.

18 Cf. North, H., ʻPindar, Isthmian, 8, 24–28', AJPh 69 (1948), 304–8Google Scholar and Burnett, A.P., Pindar's Songs for Young Athletes of Aigina (Oxford, 2005), 149–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 150 n. 40 (ʻthe notion of four cardinal virtues was becoming popular, as evidenced by Pindar's play between the numbers three and four'). The finale of Pyth. 6 involves three of the traditional canon of four, but replaces bravery with piety: prudence (47); justice and temperance (48); piety (50–1).

19 For the metaphor in tragedy, cf. Diggle, J., Euripides: Phaethon (Cambridge, 1970), 123Google Scholar (on 154); on the human reproductive process compared to ploughing and planting fields more generally, cf. Braswell, B.K., A Commentary on the Fourth Pythian Ode of Pindar (Berlin and New York, 1988), 352Google Scholar (on 255[b], ἀρούραιϲ).

20 So e.g. Farnell, L.R., The Works of Pindar, 3 vols. (London, 1930–2), 2.328Google Scholar (on 38–42). At Nem. 6.8–11 τεκμαίρει {δὲ} καί νυν Ἀλκιμίδαϲ τὸ ϲυγγενὲϲ ἰδεῖν | ἄγχι καρποφόροιϲ ἀρούραιϲιν, αἵ τ᾽ ἀμειβόμεναι | τόκα μὲν ὦν βίον ἀνδράϲιν ἐπηετανὸν ἐκ πεδίων ἔδοϲαν, | τόκα δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ἀναπαυϲάμεναι ϲθένοϲ ἔμαρψαν the participles both clearly refer to ἄρουραι and are envisaged as the generations of Alcimidas' family: cf. Gerber, D.E., ʻPindar, Nemean Six: a commentary', HSPh 99 (1999), 33–91, 52Google Scholar (on 9–11) (ʻWhat distinguishes both these passages [sc. Nem. 6.9–11, 11.37–43] from the multitude whose theme is the fluctuation of success and failure, happiness and grief, etc., is that here the fluctuation occurs by generations') and Henry (n. 1), 57 (on 9–11).

21 Some translate as if ἀλλαϲϲομέναιϲ were in the text: e.g. J. Sandys, The Odes of Pindar (rev. ed., London, 19372), 433 (‘But the virtues of olden time yield strong men, as their progeny, in alternate generations’); Nisetich, F., Pindar's Victory Songs (Baltimore, 1980), 289Google Scholar (ʻBut ancient qualities put forth their strength in alternate generations of men'); Race (n. 13, quoted above).

22 Cf. Young, D., ʻSome types of scribal error in manuscripts of Pindar', GRBS 6 (1965), 247–73, at 261Google Scholar (= W.M. Calder III and J. Stern [edd.], Pindaros und Bakchylides [Darmstadt, 1970], 96–126, at 112) on the liability of inflectional endings to corruption as a result of context or for no apparent reason.