NEMEAN4.33-43:THE CASEOF THE BREAK-OFF
PINDAR'S
Pindar's Nemean 4 celebratesthe victory of Timasarchosof Aigina, who won
t he wre stl ing c om pet it io n a t N e m e a , p ro b a b l y b e tw e en 474-473 B .C .1 In
lines 33-43,, after a mythical narrative on the exploits of Herakles and Telamon, Pindar inserts a break-off formula that has generated much scholarly
discussion:
t& ptaxp& E' i(evdnerv Ep6xet pteteOpt6q
6pai I trcety6pevat'
iuyyr D' Etrxoprar&top veoprlviq Or,ydpev.
(,pna, xainep €yet po.9eia rcovtr,&g&).pa
ptdooov,dvt[tetv' inr,Bou].lar,q'og68pa 66(opev
Dai'ov Ondptepot €v go,et xano'po,ivew'
gOovep& E' &),),og&unp p),dncov
.ivcbpravxevedv ox6rat xuLiv8et
lapai rcercitoav. ipoi 6' 6noiav dpet&v
dEo-rxel-l6tpoq &vo'\,
e6 oiD' 6tr Xp6vog Epncovnenpcopdvav re\€oeP.
The aim of this paper is to show, firstly, that the passagedoes not serve to
break-off entirely from the mythical narrative that precedesit, but rather to
reaffirm the poet's commitment to mythical narratives about the Aiakidai and
int ro d u ce t he c at alogue o f th e h e ro e s th a t fo l l o w s; secondl y, that i t
introduces themes central to the catalogue of the Aiakidai and the narrative
on Peleus;and thirdly, that this break-off is unique, and thus a testamentto
the variety of strategiesthat Pindar's odes utilise to maintain the interest of
their audiences.Before presenting my own approach, I shall summarisethe
various approachesto the passage.
thanksto Prof.C. Careyfor his help.
I would like to expressmy deepest
datethe odeto 474-473B.C.;seeT.
1. The dateof the ode is uncertain.Most commentators
Bergk,PindariCarmina,Lipsiae41878,p. 9; G. M6autis,Pindarele Dorien,Paris1962,pp. 311312; C. Gaspar,Essaide chronologiepindarique,Brussels1900, p. 116; G. Norwood, Pindar,
Mito e attualifi nelleodi di Pindaro.La
Berkeleyand LosAngeles1945,p. 178; P. A. Bernardini,
Nemea4,|'Olimpica 9,|'Olimpica 7, Roma 1983,p. 95; B. M. Bowra,Pindar,Oxford 1964,p.
409,p. 412.
Epinicia,
2. Line referencesto Pindar are basedon the eighth edition of Snell-Maehler's
Leipzig1987.
258
AthanasiaK. Palaiogeorgou
The first approach beginswith the ancient scholiasts,who explained tlie
lines as Pindar'swish to end the story of Herakles(lines 25-32) before he hacl
completed it, and to defend himself againstpoetic rivalss.The scholia ignore
Telamon and his associationwith Aigina. The scholiasts'statementhas been
t he b a si s for biogr aphic a l c o n j e c tu re . A c l e a r e x a m pl e i s \fl i l amorvi tz' s
int erp re ta tionof Nem . 4. 3 5 , w h e re h e a s s u m e da re a l t ri p of P i ndar, speci fi cally, his trip to Sicily, and claimed that the sea preventshim from going t, r
the victor's housea.Againstthis interpretation,a number of scholars,especially in recent decades,seethe passageas a conventionalformula5. A variation
and mo d i f ic at ion of t he s e tw o a p p ro a c h e s c a n b e seen i n the recerl t
discussionsof Kohnken, Carey, Kyriakou and Miller.
Kohnken, in his long analysisof Nemean 4, acceptsthat the myth begins
at line 25.He explainsthe break-off as Pindar'srefusalto praisethe Aiakiclai,
and, through thern, the victor, with something outside the Telarnon-m1'th;
t his i s b e caus eof t he ex te rn a l o b s ta c l e so f l i n e s 3 3 -4. These obstacl esare
contrasted- the Ed of line 35 is taken as adversative- with Pindar's internai
wis h to p r ais e t he v ic t or i n l i n e 3 5 fu l fi l l e d i n l i n e s 44 ff . w i th the continuation of the myth of the Aiakidai6.
Th e re is , howev er , on e m a i n o b j e c ti o n to Ko h n ken' s di scussi on.H i s
equation of praise of the victor with praise of the Aiakidai is logically u'eak.
A s Mi l l e r has point ed o u t n i f to p ra i s e th e Ae a c i d s i s i n fact to prai sc
T ima sa rchos as
, K ohnk en 2 1 1 a s s e rtso, n e w o n d e rs w hat ki nd of " S atzung"
c oul d p o ss ibly f or bid it r z . y .r, Ko h n k e n ' s d i s c u s s i o nmakes an i mporrr.urt
c ontri b u ti o n, s inc e he ap p l i e s l i n e s 3 3 -4 3 to th e v i c tor, and di scussesthc
wrestling terms used in these lines, by showing their application to Tirlasarchos.
Carey offers a slightly different interpretation. Though he agreesrvirh
Kohnker-rthat the section is concernednot only with the poet but also rvith
the victor, he seesthe mythical narrative of Telamon as quite distinct frorn
the catalogueof the Aiakidai, "fe1 the latter deals with kingship, while the
former dealswith successand the hardship involved in success,s.The breakoff servesto separatetwo distinct myths and to introduce the theme of envy;
3 . S e es c h o l5. 3 a , 6 0 b p, p . 7 3 - 7 5D r a c h m a n n .
4. U. Von., Moellendorf,Vilamowitz,Pindaros,
Berlin 1922,p. 400.
5.J. 8. Bury,The NemeanOdes of Pindar,London 1890, ,. 63; I. E. Thummer,I)ie
isthmischen
Gedichte,2vols.,Heidelberg
1968,p. 94; Bernardini,
op.cit.,pp. 122 ff.;J. P6ron,
LesImagesmaritimesde Pindare,Pais1974,pp.92 ff.
6. A. Kcthnken,Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar: Interpretationenzu sechsPindargedichten,
Berlin I97I, pp. 2Ll ff .
7. A. M. Miller, "N. 4 33-43andthe Defense
of Digressive
Leisureo,
CJ78(1983)207 n. 1U.
8. SeeC. Carey,"ThreeMythsin Pindar:N.4,O.9, N.J",Eranos78 (1980)148.
Pindar'sNemean4.33-43:The Caseof the Break-off
259
he also takes hnes 25-43 as a separatesection,and seesthe myth of Telamon
as "technicallybelongingto the program of the odeo.
Carey establishesa contrast between the mythic core and the prograrnmatic sectione. His distinction between two myths is difficult to accept,
becauseTelamon belongsto the Aiakidai, and the adjectiveTe),apc,rvtdDaq,
in line 47, clearly establisheshis connection with what follows after the
break-off. Moreover, the distinction between hardship involved in successin
the caseof Telamon and kingship in the cataloguedoes not stand up; in tl-re
caseof Peleuswe also have the idea of successinvolving hardshipl0.
Miller's approach to the passageis quite different from the previous
interpretations.Starting from Bundy's view on the rhetorical function of the
section,Miller seeslines 33-43 as a ndefenseof digressiveleisure,. For him,
the poet, after setting up obstaclesto the continuation of the myth of the
Aiakidai in the caseof Telamon, thrusts aside these rules (lines 35 ff.) and
continueswith the myth of the Aiakidai. Lines 35 ff . are seenas establishinga
contrast between two types of poet, the generousone who recognisesthat
more must be said about the Aiakidai, and the ungenerousone who obeys his
rules. Miller also opposesKohnken in seeinglines 4 I-42 as a referenceto the
poe t a l o n e and not t he v ic to rl l .
The main problem with Miller's position is the fact that it is very unusual
for Pindar to thrust asidehis rules and continue the samestory. Moreover, as
will become clear, this interpretation is too narrow in its focus solely on the
poet, to the exclusionof the victor. There is, finally, a problem with the term
(and the concept) uleisureo,which suggestslack of economy on the part of
the poet. The poet regularly lays claim to brevity, using the terms doXo).oq
and &oXo),ia (lack of leisure),to avoid pcrxpcryop[a12.
A different approach to the passageis offered by Kyriakou. She seesthe
break-off as Pindar's intention to
"distancehimself emphaticallyfrom undue
indulgencein digressivepracticesfavoured by othersrr3.The break-off is seen
as a poetic reassurance
to the audience,primarily to the victor and his family,
9 , C a r e y ' s ,( n T h r e em y t h s . . . " , o p . c i t . , 1 5 1 ) s u b d i v i s i o no f t h e o c l ei s a s f o l l o w s : l i n e s 1 - 2 4 ,
v i c t o r i e s a n d v i c t o r ' s f a m i l y , l i n e s 2 5 - 4 3 l a b o u r s o f T e l a m o n - T i m a s a r c h o s ,i n e f f e c t r . r apl l o t s
a g a i n s tT i m a s a r c h o s ,l i n e s 4 4 - 5 3 c a t a l o g u eo f t h e A i a k i d a i , l i n e s 5 4 - 7 2 i n e f f e c t u a lp l o t s a g a i n s t
P e l e u s ,l a b o u r so f P e l e u s ,l i n e s 7 3 - 9 6 , v i c t o r i e sa n d v i c o r ' s f a m i l y .
1 0 . F o r t h i s o b j e c t i o n ,s e ea l s o M i l l e r , o p . c i t . , 2 0 4 n . 7 .
1 1 . M i l l e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n h a s b e e n f o l l o w e d b y l W . H . R a c e ,S t y l e a n d R h e t o r i c i n P i n t l a r ' s
O r l e s ,A t l a n t a 1 9 9 0 , p . 2 9 , n P i n d a r f o r c e f u l l y r e j e c t st h e s ec o n s i d e r a r i o n si n t h e f o l l o w i n g l i n e s ,
b e f o r e f i n a l l y r e s u m i n gt h e c a t a l o g u s " ;P . B u l m a n , P h t h o n o si n P i n d a r , B e r k e l e y 1 9 9 2 , p p . 6 3 f f .
1 2 . F o r P i n d a r ' su s e o f t h e t e r m a o l o ) . ( a a n d i t s c o g n a t e s ,s e eP y t h . 8 . 2 9 , N e m . 1 0 . 4 6 ; c f . e l s < r
1 . 1 .1 - 6 .
1 3 . P . K y r i a k o u , n [ V a r i a t i o n o f t h e P i n d a r i cB r e a k - O f f " ,A J P Ul l 7 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 3 1 .
260
Athanasia K. Palaiogeorgou
that the delicate issue of digressionwill be handled carefully and that what
follows is going to be a short myth.
Kyriakou's position is the opposite of Miller. \flhile Miller presentsPindar
as a poet who is committed to digressionand diffuseness,Kyriakou presents
him as a poet committed to brevity. Her emphasisis primarily on the poet
and his role. She does not explain why the poet needs to reassurehis audience that he is going to be brief here. Her statementthat the first break-off
does not lead to a changeof direction, but it is merely "" forceful acknowledgement of the problem"ta (that the glory of the Aeacidscannot be accommodated in only one song) is to undermine the structural role of the passage.
Of the above approaches,I find Miller's the most appealing, since, in
terms of syntax and sequenceof ideas,it createsfewest problems. However,
this approach requires adjustmentbecauseof its narrow focus on the poet.
My starting point will be Miller's claim that the poet is thrusting aside his
rules and continuing the same story.
The section of lines 33-43 indeed starts as a ,,break-off" of the myth of
Telamon which had started in line 25. Three factors compel the poet t<r
break-off the story: teOpdq, 6par inery6peval (line 34), and his own desire
to focus on Timasarchosand his victory. Some preliminary points should be
clearedhere.
Much has been said of the first term. Tethmos is always presented by the
poet as a kind of external compulsion, and has been traditionally viewed b-v
scholarsas having to do with the laws or the formal structure of the epinicirn
genrers.But, as Carey has pointed out, the rule is merely a nusefulfiction" for
stating his own desire to changesubjectr6.
The second term is frequently misunderstood in modern discussionsof the
passage.Scholars have taken it to refer to the time of the performance,
translating it as othe pressing hoursorT.In the archaic and classicalworld,
however, there was no way of measuringtime precisely,and thus the word
hora never came to be used with this meaning. It is agreed that the hour-
1 4 . S e eK y r i a k o u , o p . c i t . , 3 0 .
Leipzig 1880, p. 393;C. A. M. Fennell, Pindar: The
15. See F. Mezger, Pindars Siegeslieder,
Nemean and Isthmian Odes, Cambridge 1899, p. 46; Bowra, op.cit., p. 1961,J. H. Finley, Pindar
and Aeschylzs,Cambridge, Mass. 1955, p. 33.
1 6 . I n l . 6 . 1 9 f f . t h e p o e t s a y st h a t i t i s t d 0 p r o v t o p r a i s e t h e A i a k i d a i , a s t a t e m e n tu ' h i c h
leads to the praise of Peleusand Telamon. For the idea that tetbmos is a fiction used by the poet
t o e x t e r n a l i s eh i s o w n d e s i r e ,s e e C a r e y n T h r e e m y t h s . . . D ,o p . c i t . , l 4 7 , w h o n o t e s t h e s i l e n c eo f
B a c c h y l i d e so n t h i s i s s u e .
17. See for example \f. H. Race (ed. & transl.), Pindar. Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes (vol.
I), Pindar. Nemean Odes. lsthmian Odes. Fragments(vol. II), Cambridge, Mass. & Lonclon 1997,
p . 3 7 , K y r i a k o u , o p . c i t . , 2 1 , B u r y , o p . c i t . , 7 2 , M i l l e r , o p . c i t . ,2 0 7 .
Pindar'sNemean4.33-43:The Caseof the Break-off
261
system did not come into common use in Greece before the early Hellenistic
period18.The basicsenseof the term is,.season,(long or short)re.Pindar uses
the term in O/. 4.1 to establishthe implication that horai, the goddesses,
bring things at their season,and dispatch komos to his destination. If we
accept the traditional meaning of the word2O,the phrase ripar I tnety6pevdr
establishesthe implication that the ode is expected and is not yet ready.
Pindar is pretending that he has yet to complete his commission. This is a
fiction similar in function to the opening lines of Nemean 3, where the poet
pretends that his song is not yet ready2r.The fiction presents the ode as
something spontaneous,createdby the poet on the spot22.It generally implies
an extemporaneoussituation, shared by the poet and its audience,since both
knew perfectly well that the ode had already been composed.
In line 35, the poet speaksmetaphoricallyof his overwhelming desire to
praise the victor23.The particle Ed is used here to suggestthat the poet's
desire is something additional to the previous rules; this is often the case
when the poet cites three elementsza.
The erotic element, implied in iuy(, is
used metaphoricallyto denote that the poet is drawn to the subjectof praise.
The bird is usually associatedwith magical practices,and was used as a love
charm. The implication of magic looks back to the magic effect of song on
, a r a s i t e sa, r - r dG i r l s
1 8 . F o r a u s e f u l d i s c u s s i o no n t h i s i s s u e ,s e eA . S . G r a t w i c k , n S u n d i a l s P
from Boeotiau,CQ 2 (1979) 312 and 321.
1 9 . S e eO d . 1 9 . 1 5 2 - L 5 3 , 1 1 .6 . 1 4 8 - 1 4 9 , H e s . T h e o g , 5 8 - 5 9 ; a l s o ' W e s t o n H e s . T h e o g . 9 0 l ,
G r a t w i c k , o p . c i t . , 3 2 1 , w h o n o t e s t h e c o m p l e t e a b s e n c eo f s e a s o n a lh o u r - r e c k o n i n g s i n
Xenophon, Plato, the fragmentsof fourth-century historians,Comedy and especiallythe Orators.
2 0 . H o r a i s u s e d f o r l o n g p e r i o d so f t i m e i n O I . 6 . 2 8 , P y t h . 4 . 2 4 7 , P y t h . 9 . 5 9 - 6 0 .
2 1 . F o r a d i s c u s s i o no f t h e f i c t i o n i n t h e o p e n i n g l i n e s o f N e m e a n 3 , s e e C . C a r e y n T l i e
Performance of the Victory Odeo, AJPU 110 (1989) 551-553; S. Instone, Pindar. SelectedOdes.
Olympian One, Pythian Nine, Nemeans Two (y Tbree, Isthmian One, \/ arminster 1996, p. 15(r.
22. The idea of spontaneiryin archaic poetry has been discussedby C. Carey, A Commentary
on Fiue Odes of Pindar: Pythian 2, Pythian 9, Nemean 1, Nemean 7, lsthmian 8, Salem 1981, pp.
4-5, and C. Carey, "Pindar and the Vicory Ode", in L. Ayres (ed.),The PassionateIntellect. Essays
on the Transformation of Classical Traditions Presentedto ProfessorI. G. Kidd, New Brunswick &
L o n d o n L 9 9 5 , p p . 9 9 - 1 0 0 ; R . S c o d e l , " S e l f - C o r r e c t i o n ,S p o n t a n e i t y , a n d O r a l i t y i n A r c h a i c
'Worthington
(ed.), Voice into Text: orality and literacy in ancient Greece,Leiden
Poetry,, in Ian
1 9 9 6 , p p . 5 9 - 7 9 , a n d r e c e n t l y b y A . B o n i f a z i , . " S u l l " i d e a d i s o t t e r f u g i oo r a l e n e g l i e p i n i c i
p i n d a r i c i " ,Q U C C 9 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) 7 0 - 8 4 .
2 3 . S o m e h a v e t a k e n t h e p o e t ' s d e s i r et o b e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s t h e m y t h i c a l A i a k i d a i , a n d n o t
towards the victor, a somewhat difficult suggestion,since the syntax must be <touch on the new
moon>, which is the regularuse of dative with verbsof touching in Pindar. It is difficult to see
how this can expressa desire to addressthe mythic narrative, since the mention of new moon has
n o o b v i o u s r e l e v a n c et o t h e m y t h . I t i s m o r e l i k e l y t o r e f e r t o t h e t i m e i n w h i c h t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
f e s t i v a fi s b e i n g c e l e b r a t e d ;s e eM e z g e r , o p . c i t . , p . 3 9 4 ; G . F r a c c a r o l i ,L e o d i t l i P i n d a r o , V e r o n e
1 8 9 4 , p . 3 1 6 ; L . R . F a r n e l l ,T h e ' V l o r k so f P i n d a r , L o n d o n 1 9 3 2 , p . 2 6 6 . T h e c a s eo f N e m . 3 . 3 0 ,
o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i s a c l e a r s t a t e m e n tf o r t h e p o e t ' s d e s i r et o p r a i s et h e A i a k i d a i .
2 4 . F o r o t h e r c a s e s otfh i s u s e o f E d , s e e R a c e , S / y / e . . . , o p . c i t .1, p
4 .n . 1 2 a n d p . 1 5 .
262
AthanasiaK. Palaiogeorgou
the victor, in the opening lines of the ode. (cf. the term 0dlyco). Clearly the
emphasisin both casesis on the psychologicaleffect. Although scholarshave
noticed the unusual languageand the insistenceon this third element. they
have not explored the reasonsfor Pindar'sinsistenceon personaldesire.The
effect is once more to stressthe personal bond with the victor, which was
implied in lines 22-24, in the poet's emphasison the philia between himself
and the victor. The idea of philia was also implied in the first lines of the ode,
in Pindar'soffering of the presentsong to the victorzs.
In lines 36 ff ., the poet introduces a self-exhortation.The word 6prna in
the most caseshas an adversativeforce - <nevertheless,
nonethelesso2('.
There
is , h o we ver , a s y nt ac t ic a l p ro b l e m w i th x a tn e p w h i ch usual l y takes a
participle; the use of xuixep with finite verbs is unusual and suspect2T.
The
problem is sorted out, if we read xd(nep, and translateit as (even if"28.It is
clear that these words refer to what the poet has just said. The strong
adve rsa ti v e c onnec t iv e (E p n a ) a n d th e p o e t' s e mphati c statement of
resistance,indicate that he rejectsthe previously stated compulsions,and is
determined to go on with the mythzr. This is unique in the Pindaric corpus,
but Pindar is an author who experimentswith the epinician form3O.The poet
createsthe temporary impressionthat he is going to return to the praise of
the victor, but immediately after disappointstheseexpectationsby stating his
intention to continue the myth. For the audience,who receive the ode in a
linea r wzy , and c ould no t re a d fo rw a rd s , th e s u d d e n change of di recti on
f rustra te s t he ex pec t at i o n o f a p ra i s e o f th e v i c to r and sti mul ates thei r
anti ci p a ti o n of what is to fo l l o w . In th i s w a y , Pi n d a r keeps hi s audi ence
2 5 . S e eL . K u r k e , T b e T r a f f i c i n P r a i s e . P i n d a r a n d t h e P o e t i c s o f S o c i a l E c o n o m y i 9 9 1 , p p .
r43-r46.
2 6 . F o r t h e a d v e r s a t i v ef o r c e o f E p . n a i n a l m o s t a l l t h e c a s e s ,s e e V . J . S l a t e r , L e x i c o n t o
P i n r l a r ,B e r l i n 1 9 6 9 , s . v . ; S . L . R a d t , P i n d a r sz w e i t e r u n d s e c h s t e rP a i a n , A m s t e r d a m 1 9 5 U , p p .
200-208.
'Willcock,
27. SeeM. M.
Pindar. Victory Odes. Olympians 2, 7, 1 1 ; Nemean 4, Isthrnians 3,
1, 7, Crmbridge 1995, p. 101.
2U. This reading was suggestedby W. Christ, Pindari carmina prolegomeniset comrnentariis
')63.For
i n s t r u c t a ,L i p s i a e 1 8 9 6 , p .
a d i s c u s s i o no f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e so f t h e s y n t a x o f x a i n e p , s e eP .
l - { r " r m m eLl ,e S y n t a x ed e P i n d a r e ,P a r i s 1 9 9 3 , p . 3 4 8 .
2 9 . 1 a c c e p th e r e M i l l e r ' s p o s i t i o n ( o p . c i t . )o n p a g e 2 0 3 , s i n c e i t g i v e sa b e t t e r s c n s c ;i r i s
'nevertheless,
more logical for Pindar to say that,
even if I am preventedfrom continuing the
story of Telamon by tethmos, hora, I will go on with the myth' rather than Carey's, "Thre e
M y t h s . , . ) , o p . c i t . , i n t e r p r e t a t i o no f t h i s p a s s a g eo n p a g e 1 4 9 : " n e v e r t h e l e s s( c v e n i i I r r n r
p r e v e n t e df r o m p u r s u i n gt h e t a l e o f T e l a m o n f u r t h e r ) t h o u g h t h e d e e p s e ah o l c i sy o r . rb y t h e u ' e i s t
h o l d o r " r at g a i n s tt h e p l o t s , ; C a r e y i n t r o d u c e st h e r e f e r e n c et o p l o t s r a t h e r a b r L r p t l ya n d i n r p l i c s . r n
a b r u p t c h a n g eo f d i r e c t i o n ; h e i n t r o d u c e st w o e x t e r n a l s o u r c e so f c o m p u l s i o n ,w h i l e l r { i l l e r s c e s
j u s t o n e i n t e r n a l ,t h e p l o t o f P i n d a r ' sr u l e s .
3 0 . F o r t h e i d e a o f e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n s, e eC a r e y , n P i n d a ra n d t h e V i c t o r y O d e , , o p . c i t . , 1 0 1 .
Pindar'sNemean 4.33-43: The Caseof the Break-off
zo)
guessingabout the developmentof the ode and makesit more attentiveto the
ode.
The poet, however, frustratesonce more the audience'sexpectationsin
the next lines, since he does not proceed to a continuation of the mythical
narrative, but elaborateson the idea of obstaclesin his determination to go
on with the myth. This double frustration is especiallyeffective and makes
the audiencemore anxious to seewhat is to follow. Evident in these lines is
the interaction of wrestling and seaimagery. Pindar givesfirst the image of a
swimmer trying to stay afloat. This effort is described in terms that also
suggesta wrestling contest:the phrase61er prdooovdenotesboth the specific
waist lock hold, and in a wider sense,the position of advantageit brings to a
wrestlerlr. It is used here to provide a complimentaryreferenceto the victor's
own discipline. The imperative dvrirewe has a special force, and gives a
dramatic quality in the lines.
The relevanceto the poet would be immediately obvious to the audience,
since the emphasishas been on the poet's task, but there is good reason not
to see a referencesolely to the poet. The combination of the wrestling terminology with the phthonos-motif, which usually relates to the victor32,
suggestsa further application to the victor. The use of the term epiboulia may
imply hostility to both the poet and the victor, since the term relatesto the
idea of phthonos that follows. Epiboulia rs closelyrelated to phthonos, since
it suggeststreachery and the deliberate effort to conceal another's merit3l.
The plots of the envious are always directed against <greatrfl€n>34,a category
which includes both the victor and the poet; the victor attractsenvy because
of his athletic success,
and the poet becauseof his praiseof this success35.
In lines 39-40, the poet relatesthe idea of treacheryand hostility to that
of envy. Envy characterises
the behaviour of &).1o6dvnp with whom Pindar
'l7hereas
contrasts himself.
the poet was victorious, this &).).oq &vrip, as is
clear from the contrast befween light and dark, is condemned to failure. The
expression Xapai neroTocxvshows the futility of his plot5lr'. The imagery
3 1. SeeM. B. Poliakoff, Studiesin the Terminology of the Greek Combat Sports,Meisenheim
1982, p. Il9.
3 2 . F o r t h e m o t i f o f p h t h o n o s a p p l i e d t o t h e v i c t o r , s e eO / . 6 . 7 4 f f . , P y t b . l . 8 l - 8 4 , P y t h .
7. r8 -2 t,12. . 43- 45.
3 3 . T h a t e p i b o u l i a i s r e l a t e d t o p h t h o n o s h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e db y C a r e y n T h r e e M y t h s . . . , ,
o p . c i t . , o n p a g e 1 4 9 : n t h e a u d i e n c ew o u l d h a v e u n d e r s t o o d i t b e c a u s ei t w a s a t r u i s m f o r t h e
Greeks that achievementattracts envy>.
34. Cf . dv aya0oig in Pyth . 2.81, &n:"erar 6' iokiv in Nem. 8.22.
3 5 . P h t h o n o si s d i r e c t e da g a i n s tt h e p o e t b e c a u s eo f h i s p r a i s ei n O / . 8 . 5 3 - 5 5 , I . 7 . 3 9 .
and inevitable failure of the envious people in similar terms
36. Pindar stressesthe uselessness
i n P y t b . 2 . 5 8 - 6 1 , a n d 8 9 - 9 3 w h e r e w e h a v e a v i o l e n t d e n o u n c e m e n ta g a i n s tt h e m a l e v o l e n t
264
Athanasia K. Palaiogeorgou
Pindar uses to describe the failure of the plots ties in with the wrestling
imagery of the previous lines. The term xutriv8cois also appropriate to the
heaving waves37.The interaction of seaand wrestling imagery continues here.
'Whereas
in the previous lines the poet was in a great danger, here the image
gives the poet's victory.
This last remark brings us to the issue of the identity of this man. There
are two approaches: the first is represented by scholars who see here a
referenceto a rival poet3tr.The second approach identifies him with anyone
who enviesthe victor3e.
The secondapproach seemspreferable,since Pindar nowhere in the odes
speaksexplicitly of envious poets. The agonistic connotations of the terms
used, and Pindar's tendency to presentthe reputations of the victor as being
at risk, show that the lines can apply to Timasarchos.Though I find myself in
sympathy with many aspectsof Miller's discussion,where he would apply the
lines to the poet alone, I suggesta further implied referenceto the victora0.
The idea of the need to overcome obstaclesand difficulties which emerges
in these lines, combined with the languageof wrestling and competition, was
present both in the opening of the ode (with the emphasison ponos in the
first lines) and in the story of Telamon. By presenting himself both as a
castawayand a wrestler, the poet suggeststhat poetic composition is also a
difficult job involving pain and effort. Implicit here is the idea of the poet's
co-operation with the victor, and the athletic metaphors appear to be for the
poet a vivid way to emphasisethis idea. The poet's alliancewith the victor,
looks both backwards to the story of Telamon and his alliance with Herakles,
and forwards to the narrative of Chiron's contribution to the victory of
Peleus.It also looks forwards to the sectionon Melesias(lines 93-96) with its
themes on plotting, physical effort, alliancewith the poet and success4r.
The poet concludesthis break-off with a generalisedstatement(lines 4143). This gnome has been taken by some modern scholars to refer to the
poet, a n d has been s ee n a s a s ta te me n t o n Pi n d a r' s superi ori ty and sel f-
b e h a v i o u ro f g 0 o v e p o i . F o r a t t a c k sa g a i n s tp b t h o n o s , s e ea l s o P y t h . 7 . 1 8 f f . , P y t h . 1 1 . 5 4 - 5 6 ,
Nem.8.2l ff.
3 7 . S e eP o l i a k o f f , o p . c i t . , p . 1 4 0 .
3 8 . S e eM e z g e r , o p . c i t . , 3 9 4 , B u r y , o p . c i t . , p . 7 2 , W i l a m o w i t z ,
o p . c i t . , p . 3 3 , B u l m a n , o p . c i t . ,p p . 6 5 f f . , M i l l e r , o p . c i t . , 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 .
3 9 . S e eK o h n k e n , o p . c i t . , p p . 2 0 6 - 2 0 8 , \ T i l l c o c k , o p . c i t . , p . 1 0 1 , P 6 r o n , o p . c i t . , p . 9 9 .
40. For the application to the victor, see Kcihnken, op.cit., pp. 209-220, Carey, uThree
M y t h s . . . D ,o p . c i t . ,1 4 9 , ' S T i l l c o c ko,p . c i t . ,p . 1 0 1 .
4 1 . F o r t h e p a r a l l e l sb e t w e e n t h e p o e t ' s a l l i a n c e w i t h t h e v i c t o r , T e l a m o n ' s a l l i a n c e w i t h
Herkles, see N. Nicholson, nPindar Nemean 4. 57-58 and the arts of poets, trainers, ancl
wrestlers",Arethusa 34 (2001) 48-55.
Pindar'sNemean4.33-43:The Caseof the Break-off
265
confidencea2.This is surely the case, if we take the word d.perocvto refer
solely to the poet's virtue. But, the word can also be used for the victor's
glorya3.The presenceof Time together with the use of the future suggeststhe
poet's role in preserving the patron's glory. The phrase looks back to the
poet's claim in line 6 that words live longer than deeds, and emphasisesthe
necessityof song to survivalaa.
Lines 4l-43, however, do not refer only to Timasarchos.They also look
forward to the report of the fulfilment of the fate of the Aiakidai and the
report of it in Pindar's song (lines 45 ff.; cf. the use of the term nenpcopdvov
in line 61, which looks back to line 43). The poet has gradually shifted the
focus of the myth from individual battle, in the story of Telamon, through his
report of his own and the victor's battles (lines 33-43), to the theme of fame
and endurance of fame in time.
My interpretation of lines 4l-43 does not mean that a reference to the
poet must be excluded here. The emphatic pronoun at the beginning clearly
supports, as in other cases,the application to the poet. But it is far more
likely (given Pindar's emphasisin the previous lines on the poet's struggleson
behalf of the victor, and the identification of the other man with anyone who
envies the poet and the victor) that this is a statement about his encomiastic
task and his ability to securethe fame of the victor. The application of the
lines also to the Aiakidai createsa parallel berween the victor and the heroes,
which is to be made clear in the story of Peleus. Although most commentators have noted the similarity of line 61 to lines 4L-43, they have not
discussedits further implications. The use of the term nenpcopdvovin line
61, which looks back to line 43, makes clear that lines 4I-43 imply the
poetic contribution to the preservationof fame: the poet contributes to the
endurance of victor's glory, through song, as Chiron helped Peleusto fulfil
his own fateas.ln the final place, it is the poet's song, which immortalises
both the victor's and Peleus'sexploits.
The application of the lines to both poet and victor is a significant aid to a
proper understanding of the myth. This section is thus seen to change the
focus of the myth and its direction, from the emphasison individual action in
4 2 . S e eK y r i a k o u , o p . c i t . , 2 5 - 2 6 , M i l l e r o p . c i t . , 2 0 8 , B u l m a n o p . c i t . , p . 6 5 , M . R . L e f k o w i t z ,
First-Person Fictions: Pindar's poetic o1", Oxford 199I, p. 49.
4 3 . S e eS l a t e r ,o p . c i t . , p . 6 9 ; a l t h o u g h h e c i t e st h e p a s s a g ei n t h e f i r s t m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d a s
ndistinction, talent, excellencer,he gives the word the additional meaning of "reputation, renown
for success,gloryr.
4 4 . T h i s h a s b e e n s t r e s s e db y C a r e y n T h r e e M y t h s . . . " , o p . c i t . , 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 ; c l e a r l y , t h e u s e o f
the term Xp6vog looks back to the use of the term Xpovlrirtepov in line 6; the reference also to
nenpcopdvav in line 43 looks back to rfyatin line 7.
4 5 . T h e p a r a l l e lb e t w e e nC h i r o n a n d P e l e u sh a s b e e n d i s c u s s e db y K o h n k e n , o p . c i t . , p . 2 0 8 .
266
AthanasiaK. Palaiogeorgou
Telamon's caseto the more generalemphasison the expansionof the fame of
the Aiakidai. It begins as a break-off, but is actually a kind of nintermezz()>>
within the myth which dealswith both the poet and the victor, and helps to
smooth the change of the focus in the myth. On this interpretation, the
passageservesa specifictransitionalfunction as well as a rhetorical one. The
poet defendshis choice of continuing with the myth on the grounds that this
is go o d for t he r eput at i o n o f th e v i c to r, w h i l e th e break-off serves to
introduce themeson which Pindar is going to expand in the mythic sectionof
the ode. The themesof plots, physicaleffort and the final success,re-emerge
in the story of Peleus, and later in the praise of Melesias (lines 93-96).
Finally, it is worth mentioning here that it is with the second break-off (lines
'Whereas
69-72) that the poet ends the whole mythic section.
in the first
break-off the poet created expectationsof a return to the present occasion,
these expectations are actually fulfilled with the second break-off, whose
basic function is to smooth the return to the praise of the victor.
This structure (myth interrupted by general reflections on the poet and
the victor and then return to myth) is found in other Pindaric odes; these
casesare also characterisedby a change of focus within the myth. In the first
Olympian, the poet starts a myth about Pelops (lines 25-28), which he
interrupts with general reflections on the art of poetry (lines 29-35); he then
continues the myth of Pelopsby offering a modification. Similarly, rn Nem.
5. 17 -1 9 , the poet br eak so ff th e s to ry o f Ph o k o s ' m u rder by Tel amon and
Peleuswith a transitionalsection of generalreflectionson his song, and then
ret urn s to P eleus ,giv ing a l o n g , fu l l a c c o u n t o f h i s adventures and hi s
marriage to Thetis, as sung by the Muses' chorus.Again the section servesto
changethe direction and focus of the myth4".
The style and languageof this break-off are similar to those of the breakoff in Nem. 3.26-33. As in our case,there too Pindar breaks-off a myth by
checking himself. There, however, Pindar makes clear from the beginning
that the break-off servesto changethe myth, from a narrative about Herakles
to one about the Aiakidai. In our ode, both the poet's audience and the
modern reader have to work much harder to establishthe functions of the
break-off. Another difference with the caseof Nemean 3, is that the break-off
t here se rv es t o t er m ina te a n d d i s ti n g u i s h th e H e rakl es-story from the
Aeginetan myths, while here it changesthe focus of the myth.
These casesshow the variety of the practical ends achievedby the Pindaric
4 6 . l n P y t h . 4 . 6 3 - 7 0 w e a l s o h a v e a d i g r e s s i o na b o u t t h e v i c t o r b e f o r e P i n d a r c h a n g e st h e
focus of the myth from Medea's prophecy and the reference to Battus to the Argonautic
expedition; in Pyth. 8.29 ff. the poet breaksoff the story of the Aiakidai, and lines 3l-39 are
devoted to the victor before proceeding to the story of Epigonoi.
Pindar'sNemean4.33-43:The Caseof the Break-off
267
break-off. Some are used to end a myth and to effect the transition to another
more appropriate onea7lothers change the focus and direction of the same
myth by modifying ita8,or simply by introducing a new theme.
It is also important to bear in mind the possibleimplications of performative context for Pindar's practice with reference to the break-off. Pindar
might have been especiallyinterestedin varying the functions of the breakoffs, in the Aiginetan odes, sinceat the performancesof these odes, his audience would have been made up of much the same group of people, namely
Aigina's ruling families.Aigina's population in 480 B.C. is estimatedby Figue ir a a ro u n d 42. 000, wit h 7 .0 0 0 -1 0 .0 0 0 s l a v e sa n d fre e dmenae.
H ow ever, a
few leading families were dominant in the island, and this elite consistedof
aristocratic clans50.Therefore the audience of performance is likely to be
much the same.Thus, the devicewould be easilyexpectedby a large part of
the Aiginetan audience.By varying the usesof the break-off, the poet clearly
avoids the predictable for an audiencethat is familiar with his manner.
Th e u se of t he br eak-o ff fo rm u l a e i s a c l e a r e x a mpl e of how P i ndar
exploits the fact of performance. The poet's technique of breaking-off an
account or a narrative, by reflecting on his own methods of composition or
by inventing constraints,is especiallyeffective.The pretenceof meditating on
the composition of the ode, during the actual performance, createsfor the
audiencethe illusion of live, extemporecreation,sincethe audiencefeelsthat
is witnessingan act of creation, not a ready artefact.The element of surprise
is also important: in most casesthe audience would not be expecting the
break-off.
The above discussionhas shown that the Pindaricbreak-off is varied. Both
the position of the break-off structurally and the manner of its introduction
varies from ode to ode, so that even if the audience could anticipate the
possibilityof a break-off at some point, it could not know when, where, and
how it would be introduced in the ode. The caseof the break-off in Nemean
four proves that Pindar is willing to test the full potentials of the device and
is a clear exampleof how the poet handlesthe expectationsof his audience.
Universityof Ioannina
ATHANASIAK. PALAIOGEORGOU
4 7 . T h i s i s o b v i o u s l yt h e c a s eo f N e m . 3 . 2 6 - 3 3 , O l . 9 . 4 0 - 2 .
4 8 . T h i s i s t h e c a s eo f O / . 1 . 5 1 f f .
4 9 . S e eT . J . F i g u e i r a , A e g i n aS
, o c i e t ya n d P o l i t i c s ,S a l e m 1 9 8 1 , p p . 3 7 f f . , e s p .p a g e 4 7 .
5 0 . F o r a d i s c u s s i o no f A i g i n a ' sr u l i n g f a m i l i e s ,s e eF i g u e i r a ,o p . c i t . , p p . 3 0 0 f f .