Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T10:10:44.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PINDAR, NEMEAN 1.24

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2022

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

Abstract

This note considers a Pindaric crux. It argues that Aristarchus’ ‘solution’ should not have been so readily accepted because the evidence can be interpreted differently, giving more satisfactory sense if ἐϲλ᾽ ὡς rather than ἐϲλούϲ is read for the manuscripts’ ἐϲλόϲ.

Keywords

Greek literaturePindartextual criticism

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , December 2022 , pp. 939 - 942
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
λέλογχε δὲ μεμφομένοιϲ ἐϲλοὺϲ ὕδωρ καπνῷ φέρειν
ἀντίον.Footnote 1
24 ἐϲλὸϲ (-ὼϲ ΣB): AristarchusFootnote 2

It is his lot to bring good men against his detractors as water against smoke.Footnote 3

ἐϲλόϲ in the paradosis, while unmetrical and plainly wrong, is at least a natural subject for the verb λέλογχε (‘it is a good man's lot to …’). Aristarchus’ change to ἐϲλούϲ, which assumes an original Doric accusative plural -οϲ for -ουϲ, restores metre,Footnote 4 but also produces uncertainty about who or what the subject of λέλογχε is (or whether it is being used impersonally) and who or what its object is.Footnote 5

  1. 1. Carey, Kirkwood and Race all favour ‘it is Chromius’ [or ‘his’] lot to …’, with the subject Chromius supplied from the preceding ἀνδρὸϲ φιλοξείνου (20).Footnote 6 However, if Chromius chooses to bring good men against his critics, λέλογχε is not a natural way to say so because the verb implies something outside Chromius’ control rather than a conscious choice.Footnote 7 This approach also requires the audience either to treat ὕδωρ καπνῷ as a metaphor in apposition to μεμφομένοιϲ ἐϲλοὺϲ or to supply a particle of comparison.Footnote 8 But it is harsh to take ὕδωρ καπνῷ as appositional and this may be why in practice a particle of comparison has often been supplied by commentators and translators.Footnote 9

  2. 2. Braswell's interpretation is more subtle. Like Carey, Kirkwood and Race, he thinks that the subject of λέλογχε is Chromius and that he can be supplied as the subject easily. However, Braswell suggests that the object of λέλογχε is not ἐϲλούϲ (which he construes as the object of μεμφομένοιϲ) but τὰ καλά, that is, Chromius’ victory, which he supplies from καλά (20).Footnote 10 The trouble is that this approach is rather too subtle in expecting the audience to supply not only the subject but also the object of λέλογχε.

  3. 3. Following Fennell and Fraccaroli,Footnote 11 Waring argues that the subject of λέλογχε is ὕδωρ καπνῷ φέρειν | ἀντίον and the object ἐϲλούϲ.Footnote 12 But he provides no Pindaric parallels for such a phrase as the subject of the verb, and the suggestion sits awkwardly with the fact that in Pindar the force of the infinitive had become ‘sufficiently deadened to admit the article’.Footnote 13 With Waring's interpretation μεμφομένοιϲ is difficult to explain, as is well illustrated by Kurke's rendering: ‘To bear water against the soot of those who blame is the task allotted to the noble.’Footnote 14 Also against this interpretation is Pindar's normal use of λαγχάνω with a human or divine subject. Moreover, the position of the infinitive as the penultimate word in the sentence makes it an unpromising subject.Footnote 15 All told, this approach is unconvincing.

  4. 4. The latest commentator prefers Radt's approach, translating ‘e chi biasima i valorosi accade di gettare acqua contro fumo’.Footnote 16 The difficulty with this is that the only evidence for λαγχάνω used impersonally with the dative is Hellenistic, as Waring notes.Footnote 17 Bringing water to smoke must also on this interpretation be a metaphor for futility, but water is invariably good in Pindar and not something one would expect obfuscating critics to bring to bear on anything.Footnote 18

None of the explanations of Aristarchus’ change is entirely satisfactory. However, one might instead interpret the manuscript evidence differently. If one writes λέλογχε δὲ μεμφομένοιϲ ἔϲλ᾽ ὡϲ ὕδωρ καπνῷ φέρειν | ἀντίον, one may then translate ‘It is his [sc. that of the ἀνὴρ φιλόξεινοϲ mentioned in line 20] lot to bring to bear his successes against critics like water against smoke.’Footnote 19 This has the following advantages:

  1. 1. It provides a connection between what precedes and what follows.Footnote 20 The singer praises Chromius’ hospitality and sings of his success (19–24). Inevitably, this has the potential to give rise to envious criticism. But Chromius’ lot is to bring to bear his successes against critics as water against fire (24–5). That is Chromius’ way, but different men have different talents and a man must take the straight path, that is, use the approach that comes most naturally to him (25).

  2. 2. It introduces a particle of comparison which is not easily supplied and which alleviates the double dative construction considerably (‘brings to bear against critics successes as water against fire’).

  3. 3. It avoids any possible implication that Chromius’ motive for throwing his doors open to ξένοι might be something other than good old-fashioned φιλοξενία.Footnote 21

The underlying thought is that the best answer to criticism is success itself, because it extinguishes criticism as effectively as water extinguishes fire.Footnote 22 This provides a similar sense to that desired by Braswell, but it makes what must otherwise be supplied from line 20 express in ἐϲλά.Footnote 23 There is no difficulty with smoke standing for fire.Footnote 24 Once Pindar mentions singing of Chromius’ victory, it was natural that the counter-effect of praise, φθόνοϲ, should suggest itself (if it is not already implied by μεμφομένοιϲ). Bringing to bear successes is one of various techniques that can employed to negate criticism, and clearly one that reflects the ‘straight road’ highlighted by the singer in what follows: τέχναι δ᾽ ἑτέρων ἕτεραι· χρὴ δ᾽ ἐν εὐθείαιϲ ὁδοῖϲ ϲτείχοντα μάρναϲθαι φυᾷ (25).

Footnotes

I am grateful to James Diggle, Ben Henry and David Kovacs for helpful comments.

References

1 Pind. Nem. 1.24–5. This is the text as printed in the Budé, OCT, Teubner and Loeb editions.

2 Ben Henry points out per litteras that the Teubner apparatus criticus (B. Snell and H. Maehler [edd.], Pindari carmina cum fragmentis. Pars I: Epinicia [Leipzig, 19878], 104) is misleading in two respects: (i) ‘μεμφόμενοι Σγρ’ suggests that μεμφόμενοι appears in the scholia as a graphetai variant, but it does not appear in the scholia at all (H.L. Ahrens, ‘Coniecturae Pindaricae’, Philologus 16 [1860], 52–9, at 55 thought that it lay behind Σ 34c [= A.B. Drachmann (ed.), Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1903–27), 3.16.14–15]); (ii) ‘(-ὼϲ ΣBD)’ suggests that ἐϲλώϲ appears in the scholia to MSS B and D, but it does not appear in MSS ΣD.

3 Transl. Race, W.H., Pindar: Nemeans Odes, Isthmian Odes, Fragments (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1997), 7Google Scholar.

4 Σ 34b (= Drachmann [n. 2], 3.16.2–8). For other conjectures, see Gerber, D.E., Emendations in Pindar 1513–1972 (Amsterdam, 1976), 99Google Scholar. Braswell, B.K., A Commentary on Pindar Nemean One (Fribourg, 1992), 49Google Scholar provides a bibliography of the discussions of this passage; add Hummel, P., La syntaxe de Pindare (Louvain, 1993), 277–8Google Scholar.

5 For painstaking discussion, see Carey, C., A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar: Pythian 2, Pythian 8, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, Isthmian 8 (Salem, NH, 1981), 111–14Google Scholar.

6 Carey (n. 5), 112; Kirkwood, G., Selections from Pindar (Chico, CA, 1982), 252Google Scholar; Race (n. 3); also Verity, A., Pindar: The Complete Odes (Oxford, 2007), 89Google Scholar: ‘It has fallen to him to …’.

7 Moreover, ἐϲλούϲ as object of φέρειν could suggest that Chromius’ motive for surrounding himself with good men is to ‘drown out’ detractors, whereas Pindar does not seem to be suggesting that there is any motive other than the φιλοξενία expected of an ἀνὴρ φιλόξεινοϲ, for which Chromius has just been praised (19–24). This is one of four objections made by Radt, S.L., ‘Pindars erste Nemeische Ode: Versuch einer Interpretation’, Mnemosyne 19 (1966), 148–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 157 = A. Harder, R. Regtuit, P. Stork and G. Wakker (edd.), Noch einmal zu … Kleine Schriften von Stefan Radt zu seinem 75. Geburtstag (Leiden / Boston / Cologne, 2002), 12: ‘wird nur von Dingen gesagt auf deren Erlangung der Mensch keinen Einfluss hat …, passt also nicht auf das Gewinnen von Freunden durch Gastlichkeit’.

8 L.R. Farnell, The Works of Pindar, 3 vols. (London, 1930–2), 2.245–6 doubts whether Pindar would ever have said of anyone λέλογχε ἐϲλούϲ as he might have done λέλογχε φίλουϲ ϲυμμάχουϲ and feels that the two datives give an intolerable phrase if joined without ὥϲπερ to the same verb (observing that Bury, in his attempt to justify such an approach, could quote nothing ‘so harsh as this’).

9 So e.g. Σ 34a–d (= Drachmann [n. 2], 3.15.22; 16.4, 9–10, 16–17 and 17) (ὥϲπερ ὑπὸ πυρὸϲ ὕδωρ [a]; ὥϲπερ καπνῷ ὕδωρ [b, c]; ὡϲ ὕδατι καπνόν [b, d]); Matthiae, A., ‘De nonnullis locis Pindari; tum de Babrii fabulis’, Neues Archiv für Philologie und Pädagogik 2 (1825), 676–82Google Scholar, at 681 = Vermischte Schriften (Altenburg, 1833), 97–8 (‘ὥϲπερ ὕδωρ καπνῷ ἐναντίον φέρειν’); Bury, J.B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London and New York, 1890), 15Google Scholar (‘as with water the smoke of envious cavillers’); G. Fraccaroli, Pindaro, Le odi e i frammenti (Verona, 1894), 533 (‘Come quei che sul fumo acqua versò’); Sandys, J.E., The Odes of Pindar including the Principal Fragments (London and New York, 1937), 319Google Scholar and Braswell (n. 4), 49 (‘like water against smoke’); Race (n. 3) and Verity (n. 6), 89 (‘as water against smoke’); Eckerman, C., ‘Pindar's Olympian 1, 1–7 and its relation to Bacchylides 3, 85–87’, WS 130 (2017), 7–3Google Scholar2, at 13 (‘as noble men against fault-finders’).

10 Braswell (n. 4), 49: ‘He [sc. Chromius] has obtained them [sc. τὰ καλά, i.e. his victory] as his portion to carry against those who blame the noble like water against smoke.’

11 C.A.M. Fennell, Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes (Cambridge, 18992), 10; Fraccaroli (n. 9), 522 n. 2.

12 Waring, P., ‘Pindar, Nemean 1.24 – smoke without fire’, CQ 32 (1982), 270–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 276.

13 Gildersleeve, B.L., Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes (New York / Cincinnati / Chicago, 1885), cviiiGoogle Scholar.

14 L. Kurke, The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (Berkeley, CA, 20132), 120 n. 4. There is no ‘soot’ or ‘of those who blame’ in the text.

15 Of the twenty-five instances where the subject is clearly identifiable cited by W.J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin, 1969), 297–8 s.v. λαγχάνω, only three do not have a human or divine subject, i.e. Ol. 1.53 (ἀκέρδεια), 10.88 (πλοῦτοϲ) and Pyth. 2.26 (Διὸϲ εὐναί). There are better alternative subjects for the verb in those places.

16 Fera, M. Cannatà, Pindaro: Le Nemee (Milan, 2020), 29Google Scholar, 274–6. Radt (n. 7), 159–60 argued, following Mezger, that μεμφομένοιϲ governs ἐϲλούϲ and is governed by λέλογχε.

17 Waring (n. 12), 276 with n. 16.

18 See Fränkel, H., Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, transl. Hadas, M. and Willis, J. (Oxford, 1975), 460–1 n. 39Google Scholar; also Kirkwood (n. 6), 252 (‘In Pindaric language water is good, not only in the maxim in O. 1.1 and O. 3.42, but in a passage that provides so close an analogy as to be … decisive for interpretation [sc. Nem. 7.61–3, quoted n. 24 below] … the metaphor of “quenching smoke” for putting down an evil is clearly an old maxim’). Braswell (n. 4) says that ‘the point of the opposition smoke–water is the simple one that where there is smoke there is fire, and water extinguishes the fire which produces smoke.’ Consideration of the opposite expression, πῦρ ἐπὶ πῦρ φέρειν, which is equivalent to the English ‘add fuel to the flame’, i.e. to make a bad situation worse, supports this approach.

19 On misdivision as a cause of manuscript errors, see D. Young, ‘Some types of scribal error in manuscripts of Pindar’, GRBS 6 (1965), 247–73, at 257–8 = W.M. Calder III and J. Stern (edd.), Pindaros und Bakchylides (Darmstadt, 1970), 96–126, at 108.

20 Carey (n. 5), 113 observed that the interpretations which take λέλογχε as impersonal provide a gnomē which ‘neither follows from what precedes nor prompts what follows’.

21 See n. 7 above.

22 For Pindar's use of ἐϲλόν as a substantive, see Slater (n. 15), 202 s.v. ἐϲλόϲ 2b (x 11, unless ἐϲλῶν at Nem. 8.22 is masc. pl.). Bacchylides has four instances of ἐϲθλόν used in this way: 4.20, 5.198, 14.3, 17.132 Maehler. For ἐϲλά ‘success’, cf. Pyth. 1.84 ἀϲτῶν … ἀκοὰ κρύφιον θυμὸν βαρύνει μάλιϲτ᾽ ἐϲλοῖϲιν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοιϲ, 8.73–4 εἰ γάρ τιϲ ἐϲλὰ πέπαται μὴ ϲὺν μακρῷ πόνῳ, | πολλοῖϲ ϲοφὸϲ δοκεῖ, Nem. 5.46–7 χαίρω δ᾽ ὅτι | ἐϲλοῖϲι μάρναται πέρι πᾶϲα πόλιϲ.

23 Henry, W.B., ‘Simonides, PMG 541’, ZPE 121 (1998), 303–4Google Scholar, at 303 n. 2 suggests that water here is metaphorical for Chromius’ merits, in particular his hospitality. That is quite possible, but if Eckerman (n. 9) is right that water is symbolic of song, the link between song and success in καλὰ μελπόμενοϲ (20) suggests that the metaphor is directed more specifically to singing of Chromius’ victory and hence his success rather than his hospitality.

24 As Gedike, F., Pindari carmina selecta (Berlin, 1786), 253Google Scholar saw, ‘Pulcre autem invidia et calumnia comparatur cum fumo, non cum igne, ut occulta invidorum consilia et studia significentur.’ If any distinction is to be drawn between smoke and fire, Pindar may be suggesting that by fighting criticism with ἐϲλά Chromius can extinguish it before the fire takes hold. In other words, this form of fighting criticism head on is particularly effective. Smoke can suggest something inconsequential: Arnott, W.G., ‘Further notes on Menander's Sikyonioi (vv. 110–322)’, ZPE 117 (1997), 21–34Google Scholar, at 28. The turning of what was fire into smoke may therefore proleptically represent the effect of pouring water on fire, i.e. neutralizing the danger of criticism. Alternatively, Pindar may have chosen smoke for its ability to obscure, which is deleterious to true κλέοϲ: cf. Nem. 7.61–3 ϲκοτεινὸν ἀπέχων ψόγον, | ὕδατοϲ ὥτε ῥοὰϲ φίλον ἐϲ ἄνδρ᾽ ἄγων | κλέοϲ ἐτήτυμον αἰνέϲω.