The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
On Pindar's Olympian Odes
J. Arbuthnot Nairn
The Classical Review / Volume 15 / Issue 01 / February 1901, pp 10 - 15 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00029346, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00029346
How to cite this article: J. Arbuthnot Nairn (1901). On Pindar's Olympian Odes. The Classical Review, 15, pp 10-15 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00029346
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 147.188.128.74 on 06 Jul 2015 10 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
ON PINDAR'S OLYMPIAN ODES.
01. 1, 62-4 [the numbering of Gilder- form of rWr/fu, when examined is seen to sleeve's edition for Olympians and Pythians be different: has been followed in this paper : i.e. of course, the left hand (Bockh's) numeration]. v€KTap iv KOI aft/3po6repa KaXwv re fiSpiv a/x/xe Kal Schroder in Teubner's series—which, though hvvafjuv Kvpiwrepov apparently a fifth edition of Bergk's work TS>V ye vvv KXVTCU&I SaiSaXaKre/tei' v/ivov on Pindar completed under Schroder's guidance, is virtually independent of Bergk's a/A//,e is a correction for metrical reasons of influence—the optimi libri have Oia-av avrbv, the MSS. apa. In support of it may be while Oia-aav avrbv is only given by pars cited the corruption of a/x/uc to a/xa at 01. 9, Thomm{anorum), i.e. of the interpolated 106. Sch. V^et. has woreicr/tat aKptjSois fir/Seva codices influenced by Thomas Magister. fi i€Ti fyLXov TS>V VVV avOpdnrav eyKwfiid&ai: OrJKav has the support of Rauchenstein :where the aorist Inf., probably a mere mis- Comm. Pind. II. 11. According to Rumpel's take for iyicwfudo-eiv as so often, gives no Lexicon, however, we have no instance of support to Mommsen's view that SaiSaAco- this form. The ordinary alternation of (re/xev is aorist; nor again is a/x/xe supported e&jKa: Weptv is observed throughout : by the previous words of the Scholiast. It OrjKaiiLevoavS>crai KCLVOV prerogatives of strong and weak Aorist of v. 100 with its correspondence in pro- forms : while to my ear at least Or/Kav after minence of the singer and the king, weaken SiaKtv (v. 63) is unpleasantly cacophonous. his claims on his patron by sharing them in This is intensified by the form TrpmjKav, the next clause with the whole chorus. v. 65, as Schneidewin saw. There is yet another word confused in the The other suggestions may be seen in MSS. of Pindar with a/ta, viz. dfj,L See Schroder's note to the passage. Remember- Nem. 9, 52, where the reverse corruption of ing that the number of uncial corruptions in a/ia to atiqii points to the form diia (AM AI to AMI) on which cf. Schroder's introduc- the MSS. of Pindar is considerable, a state 1 •of affairs which the papyrus of Bacchylides tion, p. 37. ISpiv a'/x<£l KaXmv for the more has more recently illustrated, I propose a familiar "8piv KOXZV is not unlike the use in reading which seems to satisfy the conditions 01. 12, 8 a-v/iftoXov—Trurrbv d/j.(f>l irpa^ios of the problem at least as well as any eo-croiteVa? evpe OeoOtv, where to our gram- already put forward : viz. matical sense d/j. = KTI£O) may be This leads me to speak of 01.1,113 where supported by ea-cravro in Pyth. 4, 204, where a syllable is wanted to complete antistrophic the explanation of the scholiast is HKTMTOLV. 1 I find that Manr. Schmidt has conjectured a/upl Finally, the passage Pyth. 9, 63, which is already: but he couples &nl xa\ Swd/iei (which he at first sight parallel and in favour of some reads for ) THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 11 correspondence at the beginning of the line. garlands were given to the victors on this It seems to me that Schroder is right in particular occasion. That' clothing ' of any reading a/xcp' dAAoicri 8' dAAoi /xeyaXoi, not iir'kind was a prize in addition is a mere aWoicri of the codices interpolati. He com- unsupported inference of the Scholiast: ij pares ocra S' afL' dedXois Nem. 2, 17, and TO eira$Xov io-Or/s- We are plainly not at ra fnkv dfitjii TT6VOLdpfiaKov avpav of 01. 9, 104 (1) because this may be used, in case cn-l is as Schroder was an institution peculiar to Pellene, and thinks a genuine mark of antiquity and not (2) because there was a special reason for as I prefer to believe itself an interpolation. the institution of a prize so bizarre, viz. that the games at Pellene were held in Here again the form A M AI is to be posited c v AS the preliminary stage of the corruption : winter. (Sch. ad loc. lv ncW^T) x^ " ' the similarity of AMAI to AAA[OICI eSt'SoTo T<5 VIKU)VTI x«jU. de'0W with Pyth. 4Pyth, . 9, 115 sqq. shews that girls even 253 tv6a Ka.1 yvitov de'0A.ois iireSiiiavro Kpitriv were allowed to be present at the games in «r0ai-os d/x<£t's. Here the only change Cyrene, as one of the institutions perhaps needed is the restoration of the active of the "YAXW orafl/m (Pyth. 1, 62). One of the Argonauts who competed in the games £ire&ei£av: cf. Nem. 11, 14 lv T aiOXounv at Lemnos before Lemnian women was the apicrrevrnv £7re8etf£v f}iav. KpMTiV before ancestor of the kings of Oyrene (v. Pyth. 4 /ev 6.€$\i. Rumpel cites no other the passage formed by ancient critics. example of the word in Pindar, nor can I find any evidence elsewhere of the assumed Thus Sch. iire$ei£avTO TWV [i,c\5)v rr/v avSpeiav meaning. Thus to Dissen's ' d/*<£ts pr. Kal rrjv Kpi(riv (i.e. probably TTJV Kpicriv KO! seorsim non dixit Pindarus ' the tu quoque TT]V avSpuav. Compare for the use of /cat = ' afils pr. a./j.(f>l non dixit Pindarus aliusue id est, Lehrs' Pindar-Scholien). Before quisquam ' is too tempting to be avoided. dismissing Pyth. 4, 253 on which I may 01. 2, 65. The peculiar reading ra/tiow now say, 8 of BD - for Tt/u'ois in the strange phrase srapa /xiv TI/XIOIS Oewv is not enough to build 'H p" o> t\oi Kar' a/jLevcriiropov TptoSov conjectures upon. It probably is a mere variant spelling of TI/U'OIS, i.e. Tet/*tots, as we opOav K4\CV6OV Iwv roirpiv, see by comparing Kpacrovoiv, D's reading at I should like to remark that £v. Written in most probably means according to one view ligature ct as c,, (« and tv) were often con- of the Scholiast TJ)S CO^TOS ^tapls, Towe'ori fused with d. The latter confusion is better yviwoi. There is clear point in mentioning known, and has been treated by Cobet: an this, for it was only possible in certain example in Pindar is at 01. 2, 90 where A places e.g. Doric states, for the presence of has tv/xaxov for d/jia^ov. women to be permitted in spite of the lack 01. 2, 86 sqq. In attempting to say any- of the 8id£//.a. Now 01. 4, 24 shews that thing new on this passage, I fear I am aspiring Zevs yevicrOai. But it seems to me 1 Cf. Agamemnon 649, Dindorf: x6'/*"*' 'Ax<"ois that a correction of three letters will restore i f 6eav ("Axa'ai" -9«ois 11.). an intelligible construction to these verses. 12 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. <£s 6 iroXXa. £(8u of the abbreviation for the termination—rac fxaOovTei 8e \af3poi as—TOV.1 irayy\.wo~aria K0paKt<; (us axpavra yapverov This may be thought mere speculation; Aios irpos opvi^a $tiov. but what are we to make of the rest of Simplicius' quotation? The use of the We are met at the outstart by a cloud singular in Kopa£ fiSXkov S« KOAWS is very of witness: yapverov libri c. Scholl. et testi- remarkable, considering the unanimity of moniis (Aristid. ii, 34 D, Theophyl. Bulg. ancient scholars in regarding the enemies Epp. 6 p. 12 Meurs., Greg. Cor. p. 218) of the eagle as a flock of crows, or as Sim- omnibus. So Schroder. The use of the dual plicius would prefer, jackdaws, the noisier for the plural is not tolerable, as Gilder- bird (cf. KoA.o>os in Homer). This indeed is sleeve rightly says. In the theories which at first sight the intention of the poet. introduce now Simonides and Bacchylides, The picture of ' the eagle (Pindar) sitting now Corax and Teisias as Pindar's rivals, I quiet and disdainful on the sceptre of Zeus,' for one can put no belief. But with a read- seems to gain by contrast with the numbers ing of such antiquity as yapverov, and with of his ineffective assailants : cf. Soph. Aias such persistence in the MS. tradition, the v. 171, of the lesser birds in the presence ordinary methods of criticism are not likely of the filyas aiywno's. Yet the custom of to lead us to a definite conclusion. We can poets varies. Thus Theocritus can in con- alter the text as we please, but we cannot trasting similarly rival claimants to poetic explain how, in our opinion, the corrupt merit say (7, 41) reading found its way into the text. All I aim at is to shew that there was once a /3oiTpa)(os St ITOT' aKpiSai v\a£ cett. clear evidence that the quotation is following The construction is then seen to be fiaOorrts very closely the words of the original. The Si... (yapvovrai) Scholia will shew. readings as ap^al for dp\a, 01. 11 (10), 6, Why then was yapverai not kept? I can (where see Gildersleeve's note) are largely suggest two reasons : (1) The use of the due to the syntactical irregularity which the Present Middle may have seemed impossible passage under consideration presented even to a scribe familiar with the frequent active while yapverai was still read ; the corruption form. The case of the Future at Isth. 1, 34, where we have yapvo-ofiai without any 1 Cf. the reading of B in 91-2 ravvaas an variant is different, on account of the common for aiSdaofuti ; also of Codex D at Isth. 1, 15 KO occurrence of Future Middle with words of rabv for xal T& : that is, the abbreviation for OP, ", has been wrongly ailed. I do not lay stress en the hearing, seeing, &c, while aelSio but dcicro/xai frequent corruption of neuter adjectives used ad- may have exercised an influence. This verbially from pi. into sg. as at Pyth. 10, 63 : it analogy indeed is recognised by Gilder- may be due to other causes. sleeve as an agent in the formation of 2 Cf. Fulgentius, Mythology, i. 13 : corvus seewn- dum Pindarum sohos inter omnes aves sexaginta quat- •yapvo/tai (Introduction p. cii. : he cites tuor significaliones habet vocum. This is put as Frag. the list in Rutherford's New Phrynichus 285 (with a query) in Schroder. The conjecture of p. 383). Welcker that 01. 13, 99 is referred to (by a corrup- tion of xipvKos to Kipaicos X) is very wild. I see no (2) There may have been a misreading reason to suppose Fulg. to be mistaken. THE CLASSICAL REVIEW, 13 •of icdpaicos to KopaKes removed the only means 01. 8, 54, sq. by which the construction could be main- tained as regular. It is certainly a remark- et 8' iyi> MeXrjo-ta i£ dyivuiav KDSOS dveSpa- able fact that in the first case where Schema f/.OV V/J.VU} Pindaricum, could be assumed (with the ixr).f}a\(T<0 /xe XWia Tpa^ct tpdovos. reading yapverai) there should now be no trace in the Scholl. of its being invoked as KOSOS ef ayeveitov is often taken to mean a Otos drrb /xrj^avrj^. This can only be due 'glory derived from beardless youths.' -to a very early corruption of yapvcrai, on the Bub comparing the phrases KBSOS avSpwv 01. lines suggested above. I should not consider 9, 88, and, for the use of the preposition, as equally probable a suggestion to which KVSOS ii aiA.iKTi6vu>v Pyth. 4, 66, we ought more probably to take the phrase as ' glory Bergk's reading yapverav, 'garriant licet' 1 might give birth : viz., that yapverov came won at the expense of beardless youths.' from the imperative (with which Schroder So in Latin triumphare de aliquo. This has compares Irarv for iovriav, Aesch. Eum. 32) the advantage of making rawrai' \dptv below by the depravity of the ii,eraypa\pdix.fvot (seesomewhat easier. This is usually para- •Christ on these passages : 01. 6, 97 ; 14,12. phrased by Toiavrrjv, ' the same kind Pyth. 1, 69 ; 3, 60. Nem. 1, 24 ; 7, 83. of honour as Alcimedon' : as however Isth. 1, 26). Alcimedon himself won against ayeveioi, we have to separate ravrav \"-Plv decisively from 01. 2, 107-8 : said of ef dycveiW KVSOS lest a wrong (ex hypothem) meaning of the latter phrase should be TO \a\ayripa06vos generosity, and affects equally all that in v. 55 is naturally the jealousy excited by follows : cf. Nem. 4, 31. a7reipo/*a^as ia>v KG Melesias' success as a trainer, not that en- <£av«iJ/ Xoyov 6 fir] crwieiV iirel pe£ovra TI KOXgendered by his past exploits as a competitor iraOilv loucev. The Paratactic construction in the games, which as the whole passage is frequent in Pindar: a notable instance is shews had more or less passed out of the •01. 10, 11. sqq. (where the doubt as to the memory of the Aeginetans. Finally, there is reading does not touch the point at issue). no reason to doubt with Christ (p. lxxv) The MSS. of the better class have KaKcivos, that a distinction was made between muSes the interpolati present eVccivos. I am not and ayeveioi: cf. Blass Bacchylides2 p. lxv. quite satisfied however with the construction Kpvcpov Oepev Ipyots though adopting in the 01. 9, 13 sqq. main the necessary corrections of Aristar- OVTOI )(ayit(U7reTeu>v Xoyiov itftdtf/eai, •chus. The verb should I think be lirmOevat dfufpl iiaka.L(TfW.(Tiv ia to see in' self-check' as Gildersleeve thinks. The the words ©erios ydvos in v. 82 a trace of a climax does not come until v. 45. ICTTTOVTO W Mezgerian respor.sion to tferos vios. The required, finally, as a correction of efovr word yovo/JL6V irarepo'; suspicion arises that it is a mistake to con- 'EWavlov (mures i.e. Aios 'EWaviov. I pro- ect a-vv with the verb at all. aitv varpl sc. pose to insert Trarpos after 'ApKam. Written THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 15
•JT/JOS this would become unmeaning and be avopova-e the true reading : cf. also [e6rjKoiiJi€vai (others KarOrjK.). omitted in the archetype (so Schroder) and J. ABBUTHNOT NAIRN. in Codex A is at 01. 8, 40 opovae A for
NOTES ON EURIPIDES.
THE numeration is that of Kirchhoff's there is nothing among mine so good as text, which has been the basis of my work. Prof. TyrrelPs dAA' t"t 6V y in O.C. My plan has been the same which I follow 590 or his hruov in 145 t. in all authors,—to read a plain text first", and then, after making what I can of it myself, to turn and see what others think. ALCESTIS (with Wecklein 1899). Hitherto I have been content to compare The earlier lyrics in this play have been Kirchhoff's notes and Paley and Nauck's grievously interpolated. So far as metre text; and their omissions have sometimes goes, this is my view of the original: led me to publish as my own conjectures made already—even by Musgrave and 218 li> Zev TTS. TIS av iropos KO.K V Hermann long ago. But that has done nd yivoiro KCU Xvats ru^as harm, since Dr. Wecklein has undertaken, 220 .... „_„__ and nearly completed, for Euripides what efe«ri TIS ; rj -rep-ip Tpi)(a Kai he has performed for Aeschylus, the im- /xeAava crroX/xov TT€irX.iuv mense task of collecting all conjectures and 223 fiX Ifi assigning them to their original inventors ; in which he may be relied upon for the most = 232 scrupulous accuracy. Considered even from this point of view alone—for the body of 234 . suggestion it contains—his work is of incal- ap' a£ia. KCU v KUKUIV ^/JAV yevoiro 7) irut's Dr. Wecklein's text; but at present I have rj irov).—In 220 = 234 it seems to me that the only had leisure to consult it for these new metre was either a irdpa Koipdvouriv as 223, contributions. Many of mine, as usual, I 225, 265 (and this accounts best for the have found anticipated ; but a few of these, MS. a 7rapeoTi Koipavois), or a Koipdvois irdpea-Ti not being generally accepted, are mentioned as 263. But what Musgrave conjectured, fi here with the name of their originator for irdp€ the sake of the consideration they may quite foreign to this metre—or I would claim from coincident opinion. invite those who approve it to produce a parallel. Except to critics, it might seem ungrace- ful to welcome a new text by proposing 228 7r6pi£e 877 iropi£e" KOU n-apos yap alterations in it, but critics know how the TO08' ec^evpes, Kai vvv effect of any marked advance is to quicken Xvrrjpios €K Oavdrov yevov and help them in removing blemishes that still remain. The few small suggestions on = 242 /Joacrov ai orcrafov a> $epata Sophocles dispersed among these notes are •)(&u>v TO.V apicrrav chiefly the result of studying the text pub- ywaiKa fia.paivojj.tvav vo&w lished by Sir Richard Jebb in 1897 on the 1 So in Philoct. 834 where L gives voi Se fr&arr completion of his great edition. It leaves irais 54 ^uoi Tavrev0ey...the original I suppose was irSE but scanty grains for others to glean after ; dBee. 1059 ir$ &u>;