Two Agonistic Problems in Pindar, "Nemean" 7.70-74 and "Pythian" 1.42-45 Segal,
Charles Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1968; 9, 1; ProQuest pg. 31

Two Agonistic Problems in Pindar, 
Nemean 7.70-74 and pythian 1.42-45 

Charles Segal 

I 

GOTTFRIED HERMANN in 1822 offered a clue to a satisfactory 
interpretation of lines 70-74 of the Seventh Nemean. The text 
itself presents no major problems; and, with the minor 

exception of the Aeolic form 7Tpof3aLs for the manuscripts' 7Tpof3aS, is 
given as follows in the most recent editions of Bowra, Snell and 
Turyn: 

70 E 'i:.' '" , 8 '{""'II , I 
V~EVLOa 7Ta7pa E ~WYEVES, a7TofLvvw 

" f3 ' " 8' <I \ ' " fLTJ 7EpJ.La 7TpO as aKOV W7E Xal\K07Tapaov opaaL 

8 ' \ ~ '" i:. '.1. \ I oav Yl\waaav, os EC;E7TEfL.,.,EV 7Tal\aLafLa7WV 

" \ 8' ''''' "8 aVXEva Kat a EVOS aOLaV70V, a L WVL 

7TP'tV a,\{Cf' YVLOV €fL7TeaELv. 

74 ' I ..,., \ \ ' ~ , 
EL 7TOVOS TJV, 70 7Ep7TVOV 7TI\EOV 7TEVEPXE7at. 

Hermann's De Sogenis Aeginetae victoria quinquertii dissertatio was 
published in the 1828 edition of his Opuscula1 and has been ignored 
(not entirely without justification) by recent students of the problem. 
Yet despite weaknesses in Hermann's overall argument, he made a 
twofold contribution to the understanding of these lines. First, he saw 
that there is no validity in the stories given in the scholia about 
Sogenes' escaping the wrestling: "Nihil facilius usu venire videmus ... 
quam ut quis falsa, si ab antiquis auctoribus tradita sint, pro veris 
habeat," are the words with which he begins his study (Opuscula 
III.22). This suspicion of the scholia has been shared more recently by 
such scholars as Wilamowitz and Hermann Fraenkel. 2 Second, 
Hermann perceived that there is no reference to overshooting the 
mark, as most commentators have assumed. 

1 Godofredi Hermanni OpuscuZa III (Leipzig 1828) 22-36. 
B U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 163 nA. Hermann Fraenkel, 

"Schrullen in den Scholien zu Pindars Nemeen 7 und Olympien 3," Hermes 89 (1961) 
385-97. 

31 



32 TWO AGONISTIC PROBLEMS IN PINDAR 

Hermann gives the kernel of his interpretation in an extraordinarily 
complicated passage which itself, like Pindar, "needs interpreters"; 
and, accordingly, I offer the following translation: 

For since it seems hardly possible that the words 'Tlpp.a. 
1Tpof3cXs can mean anything other than what I have suggested, 
namely 'setting the limits in advance (of the contest)' 
[terminum praejiniens], the poet seems to be comparing him­
self with one who, in the contest itself or in the exercises 
before the contest (in the latter case imagine the person to be 
an official of the pentathlon), throwing his javelin marks the 
limits; and since this person himself is not in the number of 
the competitors, he is sent away from the javelin (contest) 
without the sweat of the wrestling before the heat of the 
midday sun, whereas on the other hand the throwing of the 
javelin (which from these very words may be inferred to 
have been last in the pentathlon) sends out the competitors 
so that they leave the contest after the noonday heat and 
sweating from the wrestling. .. You may understand the 
passage briefly as follows: "I did not say anything rashly, as 
one who sets the limits for the javelin throw at the pentathla 
while he himself is not a contestant nor subject to the sweat 
of the wrestling; for there is greater pleasure from toil."3 

This idea of a contrast between a non-contestant who sets the goal 
or the boundaries and thus escapes the wrestling and the actual con­
testants who face the wrestling is neither very likely nor very plausible 
in Pindar's context; nor are all the parts of Hermann's interpretation 
possible in terms of present evidence. Almost certainly the wrestling, 
not the javelin throw, was last. And why should the official mark the 
limits or the goal by throwing his javelin C . .. iaculo misso terminum 
signee), a procedure which would leave a great deal to chance? But 
Hermann's view of'Tlpp.a. 1Tpof3&s as referring to a throw which sets 

3 Hermann (supra n.1) 34: "Quum enim verba T€P/LIX 7TpO~&S vix aliud videantur signi­
ficare posse, quam quod diximus, terminum praefiniens, videtur poeta se comparare cum 
eo, qui sive in certamine ipso, sive in exerdtationibus ante certamen, puta aut em eum 
esse aliquem magistrum quinquertii, iaculo misso terminum signet, quumque ipse non 
sit in numero certantium, a iaculo ante meridiani solis calorem sine luctae sudore dimitta­
tur, quod contra iUos, qui certant, iaculi iactus, quem ex his ipsis verbis ultimum in 
quinquertio fuisse coniid potest, ita dimittat, ut et post meridiem et sud antes a lucta e 
certamine exeant ... Pauds haec ita comprehendas: 'non temere quid quam dixi, ut qui 
iaculi iactum quinquertionibus praeit, ipse non certans, nec sudans e lucta: maior enim 
ex labore voluptas est:" 



CHARLES SEGAL 33 

the outer limits for the contest, though unconvincing in the precise 
sense in which Hermann took it, leads, if suitably modified, to a view 
of the passage which solves most of the problems without assuming 
for the Greek words meanings which they nowhere else have in the 
classical period. 

One of the scholiasts (ad Nem. 7, 106b Drachmann) thought that 
lines 70-73 referred to an extraordinary length of throw on Sogenes' 
part which discouraged the other contestants so that Sogenes was 
able to win the pentathlon without having to compete in the 
wrestling. Among more recent students of the problem, Jiithner 
accepted this view and took -dpfLa to mean the end-limits of the 
throwing-field or the limits set by the previous throws, all of which 
Sogenes' "record throw" surpasses: "Durch den jeweils besten Wurf 
ist eine Grenze gesetzt, die die tibrigen Werfer zu tiberbieten haben 
... Auf jeden Fall isr ein Wurf gemeint, der tiber die anderen hinaus­
geht und zusammen mit den bisherigen Leistungen den Kampf vor 
dem Ringen beendigt. "4 We shall come back to this view of -r€pfLa; 
but we must reject Jiithner's interpretation of the passage as a whole 
because it gives the impossible meaning, 'surpass' or 'overshoot' to 
7TPOf3&S, and also involves for the verb J~'7TEfL~EV the equally un­
exampled meaning 'exempt' (on this point see the further discussion 
below). 

Though Jiithner's view gives at least a plausible meaning to -r€pfLa, 
his interpretation has not been generally received. The most widely 
held interpretation is that the throw is not by Sogenes, and Pindar is 
referring to a foul of some sort: either an opponent's throw which 
exceeds the proper bounds or an opponent's stepping over the 
starting line. In either case the opponent disqualifies himself and thus 
releases Sogenes from the need to engage in the wrestling. Pin dar will 
then be made to say, "I swear that I did not step beyond the due 
bounds (of my song) like that javelin (of your opponent) which went 
astray and thus sent you out of the wrestling, i.e. freed you from the 
necessity of competing in the wrestling." 

This view, however, labors under three difficulties. (1) The ex­
pression -r€pfLa 7TpOf3&S has an impossible meaning. The noun cannot 
mean 'starting line', as some of those who take this approach to the 
passage would have it. Also 7TPOf3&S cannot mean 'overstep' or 'trans­
gress'. Hesychius' gloss, 7TpOf3&S' tJ7TEpf3&S, which may well have been 

• Julius Jiithner, "Zu Pin dar Nem. 7, 70ff.," WS 50 (1932) 169. 
3-G·R.B.S. 



34 TWO AGONISTIC PROBLEMS IN PINDAR 

invented as a desperate expedient for this very passage, has led 
interpreters astray. A passage in Gorgias (Helen §5, Diels/Kranz, 
FVSII 11.289.17-19), which has not, so far as I know, been brought to 
bear on the problem, confirms the fact that the two verbs cannot be 
so identified: T(>v Xp6vov OE Tci> A6yct> TOV T6T€ <Tci» VVV {J1T€pf3as E7T' T~V 
ap~v TOV P.'''''OVTOS A6yov 7Tpof3~aop.at ... The two words, each in 
its proper meaning, occur very close together, the first clearly mean­
ing <go beyond', <pass by', and the second <advance toward'. One need 
hardly emphasize how conscious a writer like Gorgias is of the distinc­
tions and similarities between related words. The passage is tanta­
mount to a late fifth-century definition of the difference between the 
two verbs. (2) The verb EK7TEP.7T€tV is usually used of sending someone 
out of a place in which he already is and hence is inappropriate when 
used of the wrestling match which Sogenes never entered. Even more 
serious is the fact that it means <dismiss', when what is needed is a 
verb meaning <release', like EKAv€w, as Bury pointed out.5 The verb 
EK7T€P.7T€tV may also have a pejorative connotation in its meaning 
< dismiss', not only in the special sense of < divorce', but more generally 
as well: cf. Homer, Od. 18.336; Sophocles, OT 789; Aeschylus, Cho. 98. 
Obviously any pejorative connotation would be most out of place if 
the verb refers to Sogenes' extraordinary success. (3) Finally the 
sequence of thought with line 74 is awkward: after congratulating 
Sogenes on having avoided the wrestling, Pin dar will then be alluding 
to his 7T6vos. This last objection is not as serious as the first two, for 
presumably the events preceding the wrestling (assuming that 
Sogenes escaped the latter) would have involved <toil' enough to 
justify line 74. 

Farnell tried to mitigate some of these difficulties by taking the 
passage to refer not to Sogenes' particular case, but rather to the 
circumstances of the pentathlic competition in general: "By this 
figure then Pindar avers that he has not blundered by speaking 
recklessly at Delphi like a careless spear-thrower: he has not over­
stepped the mark."6 Farnell at least avoids the scholiast's explanations 
in terms of the actual details of Sogenes' victory. But his own view 
still involves the impossible translation <stepping beyond the starting 

5 For this problem of J~''TT€p.t/JOI see J. B. Bury, The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London 1890) 
139-40. 

8 L. R. Farnell, The Works of Pindar II (London 1932) 300. The idea of a foul by stepping 
beyond the starting line in this passage has even pervaded general discussions of the 
Greek javelin throw: see H. A. Harris, "Greek Javelin Throwing," G&R 10 (1963) 28 with 
n.l. For the impossibility of 'rtp/La meaning 'starting line', see Jiithner (supra n.4) 168. 



CHARLES SEGAL 35 

line' for 'rEP/Lcx 7TpOf3aS. It also involves a new difficulty in the relative 
clause of lines 72-73, 8s ... E/L7T€U€tV. The verb EgE7T€/L!f€V on this view 
is a gnomic aorist; but such a victory could never have been a very 
common occurrence, so that the verb, in Farnell's own words, "puts 
as generally true what was only occasionally true." Farnell's last 
recourse is a counsel of despair: "It may be that here, as elsewhere in 
the ode, he [Pin dar] fails to make himself quite plain because he has 
an uneasy conscience."7 Both of these difficulties-the meaning of 
7'EP/LCX 7TPOf3aS and the use of a gnomic aorist for a rather unusual 
occurrence-will hold true for any interpretation which seeks to 

translate the former by 'overstepping the limits or the starting line' 
while yet assuming a general, common situation and not some specific 
reference to the details of Sogenes' victory. 

Wilamowitz proposed an ingenious solution to the passage: he 
placed a period after yAwuucxv and a comma after E/L1TEU€I;V.8 This 
repunctuation solves the problem of 7T€SEPX€7'CX' , which is usually tran­
sitive (except in the Homeric sense of 'go among or between', which 
is clearly not appropriate here), but here must be given an intransitive 
and otherwise unexampled meaning 'come after', 'follow after' (see 
below, section III). Wilamowitz' text gives the sense, "Whoever has 
sent his neck and strength out of the wrestling unwetted (by sweat) 
before his limbs fell upon the burning sun, if there was toil, yet he 
seeks after joy the more." But the sequence of relative clause and 
conditional clause is awkward and the grammar disturbing, since one 
would expect in the first clause a conditional relative construction with 
a subjunctive eef Isthmian 1.50-51).9 Wilamowitz' text also leaves the 
problems of 7'EP/LCX 7Tpofi&s still unsolved. Though Schadewaldt and 
Snell in his first two Teubner editions accepted this interpretation,lO it 
has not met with favor from editors and has now been abandoned 
by Snell in his third Teubner edition (1959). It has been criticized also 
by Jiithner and, more recently, by Floyd.ll 

Solution by textual change and repunctuation is also advocated by 
Puech, the only modem editor who follows Heyne and keeps the 

7 Farnell (preceding note) loc.cit. 
8 Wilamowitz, Pindaros (supra n.2) 163. 
9 See Edwin D. Floyd, "Pindar's Oath to Sogenes (Nemean 7.70-74)," TAPA 96 (1965) 149. 
10 W. Schadewaldt, "Der Aufbau des Pindarischen Epinikion," Schriften der Konigsberger 

Gelehrtcn Gesellschaft V Hft. 3 (1928) 317-18; Bruno Snell, Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis, 
ed. 1 (Leipzig 1953); cd. 2 (Leipzig 1955) ad loco 

11 Jiithner (supra n.4) 166-67; Floyd (supra n.9) 148-49. 



36 TWO AGONISTIC PROBLEMS IN PINDAR 

reading of B, €glTTEfLtPas. He translates as if there were a strong pause 
after YAwaaav: " ... Sogenes, je jure n'avoir pas passe la limite en 
lan<;ant comme un javelot ala joue d'airain, rna parole rapide, 0 toi 
qui as lib ere de la lutte ta nuque vigoureuse, sans que la sueur l' eut 
mouillee, avant que ton corps se fUt expose au soleH torride."12 But 
in addition to the awkward separation of the relative clause from the 
vocative which it modifies, Puech's version still presents the same 
three problems enumerated above. 

The only other textual approach worth mentioning is the conjec­
ture of Bergk, adopted by W. Christ in his editio maior,13 (5 a' €glTTEfLtPEV. 

But this emendation too, implausible on other grounds as Bury 
pointed out,14 also solves none of the three problems. Most scholars 
are now agreed that the text of D, as given in the first paragraph of 
this essay, is sound; and it is that which we must now seek to explain. 

Floyd, in his recent study of the passage, has at least grappled with 
the problem Of,r/.PfLa 7Tpo{1as and, by showing again the inadequacies 
of most current interpretations, cleared the ground for a new ap­
proach. Floyd's own suggestion is that 'r/.pfLa here means the limits or 
end of the race course and that the oath therefore means, "I swear 
that I have not come to the end of my course, like your (winning) 
javelin which sent you out of the contest before the wrestling."15 On 
this view, the oath is a promise that Pindar has not come to the end of 
his poem, that he will not end too soon. But this view too, while it 
gives a possible meaning to TlpfLa TTPO{1&S, has several difficulties of its 
own. First, there is the inherent implausibility of Pindar's making 
such an assertion. He is not generally concerned with length or with 
the abruptness of his endings. Indeed, it is a common feature of his 
epinikia to end rather suddenly and abruptly; and Floyd offers no 
parallels in other epinikia to such a promise about not finishing too 
soon. Second, Floyd's view of the passage involves a mixture of 
athletic metaphors. In itself the mixture of metaphors is no surprise 
in Pindar; but in this particular context it would be awkward. To 

11 A. Puech, Pindare III, Nbneennes, ed. 3 (paris 1958) 100. 
13 W. Christ, Pindari Carmina Prolegomenis et Commentariis Instructa (Leipzig 1896) 291. 
14 Bury (supra n.5) 140. 
15 Floyd (supra n.9) 142 translates lines 70-73 as follows: "Euxenidas from your clan, 0 

Sogenes. on oath I deny that, having advanced to completion, I urged on my swift tongue 
like the bronze-cheeked javelin, which sent forth from the wrestling both neck and 
strength unwetted, before any limb fell in the burning sun." It is to be noted. incidentally, 
that Floyd takes aM'll in 73b as a locative dative, whereas it seems easier to take it as most 
interpreters do as a dative with EP.'IT€C1€IV, 'fall upon', 'encounter' the sun. 



CHARLES SEGAL 37 

introduce into this rather technical description of the javelin throw 
in the pentathlon a metaphor from an entirely different contest 
would be confusing. Such a mixing of athletic events would be all the 
more surprising if, as Floyd believes, Pindar is here referring to the 
special circumstances of Sogenes' own victory.ls And third, the prob­
lem of €tE7TEfL!fEV noted above is still unsolved. If Sogenes' javelin 
enabled him to escape the wrestling, this verb is used to describe his 
being sent out of a place he never entered, which is contrary to normal 
usage; and it must be given the unusual meaning <exempt'. 

I come, finally, to what I believe to be the correct interpretation. 
Hermann adduced (as others have done) Odyssey 8.186-203. Here, as 
Eustathius notes, TEpfLaTa and a~fLaTa are used more or less synony­
mously and mean the markers set at the point where the discus lands. 
Hermann suggests that TEpfLa has that meaning in Nemean 7,17 This 
suggestion seems to me the most plausible that has been put forth. 
In this case (as in Floyd's interpretation too) there is no reference at all 
to overstepping limits. The contest would, of course, be based not on 
hitting a target but on the length of the throw, as is the case in 
Pythian 1.42-45 and Isthmian 2.35. The distance-throw seems to have 
been the most frequent, if not the only, form of the javelin contest.18 

The next question is the meaning of 7TpofMs. This verb can then have 
its normal meaning, namely to advance up to a certain point and 
continue onward to an indefinite distance. There are many examples 
of this usage, especially in a metaphorical sense (see LS] S.v. 1.3). 
Aeschylus PV 247 is a good example. Prometheus has been describing 
his benefactions to the human race, and the chorus asks him if he 
went farther still: 

" '{J ~~, , fLYJ 7TOV n 7TpOV YJS TWVU€ Kat 7T€patT€pW; 

Similarly in Euripides, Medea 907 the chorus prays, 
\, Q' ""Y " ,.... I Kat fLYJ 7Tpo!-,atYJ fLEtsov YJ TO VVV KaKOV. 

One may also compare Sophocles, Ant. 853; Euripides, Ale. 785, Hipp. 
342, Or. 511 and 749. 

The phrase TEpfLa 7TpofMs will then refer to the effort to win and 
could be paraphrased loosely as H advancing towards the markers set 

18 Floyd (supra n.9) 143 and passim. 
17 Hermann (supra n.1) 33ff. 
18 For length of throw rather than accuracy in hitting a mark in the ancient javelin 

contest, see H. A. Harris, Greek Athletes and Athletics (London 1964) 92, with n.45, p.206. 
For a useful collection of passages bearing on the question see Hermann (supra n.1) 32-33. 



38 TWO AGONISTIC PROBLEMS IN PINDAR 

by the javelins of those who have gone before." The verb 7TpofMs will 
be primarily metaphorical, <advancing toward', 'reaching toward'. 
But this metaphorical meaning is perhaps fused with the literal 
meaning if there is some notion of the action of the throw itself: the 
athlete, to gain momentum for his throw, runs forward, <advances 
toward', the markers before him where other javelins have already 
landed. These markers give both the participant and the audience an 
immediate knowledge of victory or defeat. For the excitement 
attaching to the placing of these markers one may cite here part of 
the relevant passage from Odyssey 8.192-98: 

t ~, t I I J 

o 0 V7TEP7T'TCt'TO U 7J f.L Ct 'T Ct 7TCtV'TWV 

tI J... f} , '\ '''f} '" \, , 'Af}' ptf.L'f'Ct EWV Ct7TO XELpOS' E 7JKE OE 'TEpf.LCt'T 7JV7J 

, '" \ "" ,.. ~" , "J... ,,, '" r 
CtvopL OEf.LCtS EtKVtCt, E7TOS 'T E'f'Ct'T €oK 'T OVOf.LCtSE· 

"V ' , '\' t ~ '" ' \ ~ nCtt K CtI\CtOS' 'Tot, ~EtVE, ULCtKPWELE 'TO U7Jf.LCt 

) A.. A..' ."" " \ ~ '\ 
Ctf.L'f'Ct'f'OWV· E7TEt OV 'Tt f.LEf.LtYf.LEVOV EU'TtV 0f.LtM.p, 

, \ \ ' \ ,~ , '" \ () , I '" ,,, ()\ 
CtI\I\Ct 7TOI\V 7TPW'TOV· UV OE CtpU€t 'TOVOE Y CtE I\OV· 

" A'.' ''''' "e ,"',.,,, OV 'TtS ovCtL7JKWV 'TOOE y L~E'TCtL OVO V7TEp7JUEL. 

The meaning which I have suggested for the phrase 'Tlpf.LCt 7TPOf1&S 

gains additional support from the last line of this passage and from 
line 202 spoken by Odysseus shortly after: 

~ ~ 'J...' () I 'TOV'TOV VVV Ct'f'LKEU E, VEOL ••• 

In both of these passages a neutral verb of motion crgE'TCtL 198; acpLKEu()E 

202) with an accusative of place-to-which is used to denote the effort 
of reaching the marker set by an opponent's missile. The meaning 
<try to reach this (discus or marker), is appropriate to our passage, and 
the constructions are identical. The fact that Homer refers to the 
discus-throw, not the javelin, is irrelevant for the principles are the 
same, and Pindar himself fuses the two contests in Isthmian 2.35: 

,~ I " """f}' " f.LCtKpCt OLUK7JUCtLS' CtKOV'TtUUCt'f.LL 'TOUOV J OUOV • • • 

If 'Tlpf.LCt 7Tpof1a.S is understood as here suggested, it becomes easier 
to give to Egl7TEf.LtPEv its normal meaning 'send out', 'dismiss'. Only 
those who had enjoyed some measure of success in the preceding 
contests could participate in the wrestling (the complicated problem 
of the scoring of the pentathlon does not concern us here). Arriving 
at the wrestling match was, therefore, itself a sign that one had done 
well in previous contests. The phrase oi S' Els 7Ta."\7JV acpLK0f.LEVOL, which 



CHARLES SEGAL 39 

Xenophon uses of an Olympic pentathlon (Hell. 7.4.29), indicates that 
even arriving at the wrestling is a mark of achievement.19 Many enter 
the pentathlon, but most are excluded before reaching the wrestling. 
Pindar here gives assurance (metaphorically) that he, like Sogenes, is 
not one of those who is 'sent out' or eliminated in an early contest. 
His skill is such that he stays in to the very end. 

The verb JtE7T€/-'!f€V, then, will have a proper and well attested 
meaning 'dismiss' or 'reject', and will not be, as it should not be, a 
synonym here for JtEAvu€v. The pejorative connotations of dismissal 
or rejection (see above) will also be appropriate, since the verb refers 
not to Sogenes, but to the competitors whom he has defeated. Pindar 
swears that he has not wielded his tongue like one of those losing 
javelins which eliminated the thrower from continuing on to the 
wrestling.20 For Pindar's vivid sense of the defeated competitors one 
may compare Pythian 8.81-87. 

On this view, Sogenes actually did wrestle, and the allusion to 
1TOVOS and the ensuing TEp1TVOV in line 74 is quite appropriate. 21 The 
entire passage, then, may be translated as follows: 

I swear, Sogenes, that in stepping forth toward the marker 
(set by other javelins), I did not wield my tongue like the 
bronze-cheeked javelin which sends the neck and strength 
(of a losing contestant) unwetted out of the wrestling before 
his limbs fall on the burning sun. 

For this interpretation it would be helpfu1, though not absolutely 
necessary, if the javelin contest came fourth, immediately before the 
wrestling. It would thus be the crucial point at which all but the very 
few (perhaps in practice all but two) finalists were eliminated. 
Gardiner, in his study of Greek athletics, places the javelin throw 
fourth. 22 This view, however, has been contested. Though fourth 
place for the javelin throw is probable for Pindar's time, there seems 
now to be no certainty about the order of events save that the wrest-

19 For this phrase and its significance see George E. Bean, "Victory in the Pentathlon," 
AJA 60 (1956) 361-68, esp. 362. 

20 For the successive reduction of competitors by elimination at the pentathlon see 
Bean (preceding note) 364. For a recent and lucid discussion of the problems of victory and 
scoring in the pentathlon see also Harris (supra n.18) 77-80. 

21 See Hermann (supra n.l) 34-35. 
22 E. N. Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals (London 1910) 363-65; also Athletics 

of the Ancient World (Oxford 1930) 177. See also Julius Jlithner, RE 19 (1937) 526 s.v. 
PENTATHLON; Floyd (supra n.9) 144-45. 



40 TWO AGONISTIC PROBLEMS IN PINDAR 

ling was always last.23 But even if the javelin throw came earlier, our 
interpretation is still quite possible. Pindar will have chosen the 
javelin throw for his simile because it is more suited than, say, the 
foot race or broad jump to the idea of 'driving' or 'wielding' the 
tongue; and the javelin is a finer and lighter missile than the discus 
(which he might also have used) and hence more appropriate to the 
context. There are also indications that a metaphor of throwing is 
something of a poetic convention for such statements in the epinikion 
(e.g. Ol. 13.93-95, Pyth. 1.42-45, Isthm. 2.35, Bacchyl. 10.51), a con­
sideration which would have influenced Pin dar' s choice of this 
particular athletic metaphor here. 

Pindar, then, is making no allusion here to having spoken out of 
line as most commentators assert. He touches on that subject in lines 
69 and 75-76; and there is no reason for him to repeat himself as he 
would be doing if the usual view of 70-73 were accepted. Sogenes 
might well have good reason for being uncomfortable at this point 
in the poem since Pindar has said little of his victory. Pindar does con­
sider his client's possible feelings in so far as he does address him by 
name in these lines to give a reassurance of some sort. But that re­
assurance is not necessarily a statement that he has not wandered 
from the subject of the victory he is celebrating. It would, in fact, be 
a patent falsehood for Pindar to say, "I swear, Sogenes, that I have not 
gone off the track and digressed from your victory," when in actuality 
he has done exactly that, and in a most blatant manner. What he does 
assure Sogenes in these lines is that he is a winning poet and that his 
victorious skill is a fitting complement-and compliment-to the 
victory of Sogenes. The passage will then resemble, in its general pur­
port, other assertions of skill such as Olympian 2.83ff and Pythian 
1.42-45. Passages like Nemean 9.55 and Olympian 13.93-95 (where it is 
a question of hitting a target, not throwing for distance),24 along 
with references to getting off the track in passages like Pythian 
11.38-40 or Bacchylides 10.51-52, have misled interpreters into looking 
for an allusion to 'going astray' or 'going beyond the limits' here. 

The view of the passage advocated here perhaps helps to explain 
the form of expression of line 73. Pindar does not use clearly personal 

118 Bean (supra n.19) 362-64. Bean's evidence is mainly for a later period; and the sugges­
tion of Floyd (supra n.9) 145-46 that in Pindar's time the javelin contest still came fourth 
is most attractive. 

U Hence the confusion of the scholiast on Pyth. 1.44 (82 Drachmann). See in general 
Christ (supra n.13) p.1l8 on Pyth. 1.44. 



CHARLES SEGAL 41 

nouns but speaks of the 'neck', 'strength' and 'limbs' involved. 
Generally these nouns are taken to refer to Sogenes with the pro­
nominal adjective 'your' understood. But if Pindar is referring to the 
usual circumstances of the contest, these nouns would rather stress 
the generality of the situation. Their non-specificity and impersonality 
would also be especially appropriate to the nameless contestants who 
did not reach the wrestling and hence have not earned the special 
distinction that makes a winner like Sogenes stand out. 

If, as argued here, lines 70-73 refer to the process of elimination in 
the later stages of the pentathlon, Pindar would be making up for 
not describing Sogenes' victory in detail by recalling, in his usual 
condensed but intense manner, the familiar mechanism of the com­
petition and the atmosphere of elation or dejection which must 
surround such successive eliminations. The passage would thus com­
bine an assertion of Pindar's own poetic prowess with a brief and 
vivid recapitulation of the excitement of the closing events of the 
contest, the tense period when, after the initial contests, the finalists 
begin to be narrowed down for the last and decisive trial. 

This last point provides a partial answer to a possible objection to 
our interpretation. If lines 70-73 contain a reference to the losing 
javelins and not to Sogenes' winning javelin, why does Pindar lavish 
so detailed a description on his client's opponents and on losers? The 
reason, as suggested above, is that this vivid description of the usual 
process of elimination is a partial compensation to Sogenes. As a re­
minder of the magnitude of his achievement, it fills the place of the 
enumeration of victories or agonistic description which the victor 
naturally expected. It may be noted that Pindar gives no such victory­
list or description elsewhere in the ode. Also the emphasis on the 
effort of the wrestling in 73, albeit given from a negative point of 
view, would be more to the point if Sogenes actually did wrestle. 

There is another reason for such an elaboration of detail which lies 
in the art-form itself. There is a natural tendency in archaic poetry, 
as in archaic art in general, to elaborate details simply for the sake of 
adornment, out of a love of the plenitude and richness of the concrete 
and the sensuous. The Homeric simile is perhaps the most con­
spicuous example of this tendency, but one may see it in many 
Pindaric passages as well. The description of the birth of Iamus in 
Olympian 6.39-57 will serve as a clear and famous instance. 

As noted earlier, it would be linguistically possible to understand 



42 TWO AGONISTIC PROBLEMS IN PINDAR 

the javelin of71 as the winning javelin which <sends out' of the contest 
the victor's opponents before they reach the wrestling. I mentioned 
as militating against this view the problem of the transition to line 74. 
I may now note another and more important difficulty, namely the 
negative of line 71. If Pin dar were referring to the winning javelin, he 
would swear that he in fact wielded his tongue like such a javelin. 
But the point of his oath is that his tongue is not like such a javelin. 
If that javelin were Sogenes', Pindar, in denying such an association, 
would here be refusing that connection between victor and poet 
which he is usually fond of making. 

These same objections, incidentally, hold for the scholiasts' and 
Jiithner's idea of a winning «record throw" by Sogenes (assuming that 
such a view were linguistically possible). If Sogenes had won by such 
an extraordinary cast «beyond the limits," it would be strange and 
perhaps tactless for the poet, whose concern it is to praise such a throw, 
to say that he did not wield his tongue like such a javelin. The oath 
that he did not so wield his tongue would thus constitute an implicit 
criticism of such a throw. To avoid this difficulty, one would have to 
assume a somewhat humorous irony in the passage. But such irony 
is hardly likely in a personal oath of Pindar and especially one which 
begins so solemnly: 

E 'c:.' '" ' 0 ~, , , VsEJltoa TTa'Tpa E ",",WYEJlES', aTTOfLJlVW .•• 

II 

This passage may help in explaining another difficult agonistic 
passage, Pythian 1.42b-45: 

42b aJlopa 0' €yw KELJlOJl 

alvijaat fLEJlOtJIWJI lATTOfLat 

44 ' \ I "0' f' ") .... fL'YJ xal\KOTTapaOJl aKOJl waE"t'T ayw-

JlOS' f3aAELJI 19w TTaAaWr. OOJl€WJI, 

45 \ '" \ • /,/. ' , 0" , fLaKpa OE P"'f'atS' afLEvaaa aJl'TtovS'. 

In both passages Pindar uses the word xaAK07TCJpaOJl, which occurs no­
where else in the odes and is rather unusual as an epithet of javelins. 
It is possible, then, that he had the one passage in mind when he 
wrote the other, though given the uncertainty of the date of Nemean 7 
it is impossible to say which came first. 



CHARLES SEGAL 43 

It is worth considering the possibility that the difficult phrase 
&ywvos f3aAELv ;.gw in Pythian 1.44 may also refer to the process of being 
eliminated because of an inferior throw and not to a foul or a wild 
throw.25 "To throw the javelin outside of the contest" would then 
mean simply to lose, i.e. to eliminate oneself from the remaining 
competition. Pythian 1.44 would then assert the condition of victory 
from a negative point of view (i.e. not being eliminated), while line 45 
will make the positive assertion of actual victory. It matters little that 
this passage does not refer to a pentathlon, for presumably the same 
process of elimination would be involved even if the contest were only 
the javelin throw itself. In such a case, each contestant would see 
himself eliminated, placed "outside of the contest," as he observed 
his javelin landing short of the TEpfLa set by the leading javelins. For 
the situation one may refer once more to the passage from Odyssey 8 
cited above. In Nemean 7 Pindar need not state explicitly the positive 
victory, as he does in Pythian 1.45, since the context of the pentathlon 
and Sogenes' pentathlic victory imply that having reached this point 
and having passed through the javelin contest into the last event(s), 
the poet, like the athletic victor, will not fail. 

III 

It remains only to consider the meaning of Nemean 7.74: 

" 'I' \ \ \1 ~I 
EL TrOVOC; 'Y)V, TO TEpTrVOV TrI\EOV TrEOEpXETat. 

The problem here is less serious. The verb TrE8EpXEaOat (fLETEpxeaOat) 

is usually transitive except in the common Homeric usages <come 
among', <go among', which are not appropriate here. One expects 
the meaning <seek after', as in Isthmian 7.7. Most commentators (and 
also LSJ, who cite only Nemean 7.74) give the verb the otherwise un­
exampled meaning <follow after', <come after', and translate, "If 
there was toil, joy comes after the more." Wilamowitz tried to avoid 

25 Farnell (supra n.6) II.1I2 takes the phrase to refer to a wild throw outside "a fixed 
course of prescribed breadth within which the javelin should be thrown." His view is 
adopted by R. W. B. Burton, Pindar's Pythian Odes (Oxford 1962) 100-101. But Burton's 
suggestion that aywv could deSignate such a space is by no means certain. Od. 8.380 and 
Pind. Ol. 10.24 which he cites are hardly to the point. For such a meaning one would 
expect a phrase like the T€PP.CtCJtv . •• aywvos of Pyth. 9.114. See also C. A. M. Fennell, 
Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes (Cambridge 1893) p.150 on Pyth. 1.44. Pyth. 10.30 is 
more to the point, but still not decisive, since the word there has too general a sense for 
our passage. 



44 TWO AGONISTIC PROBLEMS IN PINDAR 

this unattested meaning first by emending to the first person, 
7TES£pxofLaL,26 and later in his Pindaros by the repunctuation described 
above.27 Floyd has revived the first of Wilamowitz' solutions, except 
that he emends, with greater palaeographical plausibility, to the 
second rather than the first person.28 

It is perhaps possible, however, to make sense of the passage with­
out emendation. One may understand 7T()VO~ from the conditional 
clause as the subject of 1TES£PXE'Tat and then give the verb its regular 
transitive meaning: "If there was toil, it (the toil) seeks after joy the 
more." The different tenses, imperfect and present, raise no real 
problem. The difference of tense probably points to the function of 
the passage as a transition between past and present, a point with 
which I shall deal more fully in a forthcoming study of the Seventh 
Nemean as a whole.29 The imperfect points back to the past toil and 
suffering of the athletic contest, of Neoptolemus and of Pindar him­
self. Over against this past stands the present search for joy: for the 
athlete the victory ode itself; for Neoptolemus the vindication of 
lines 44-50; and for Pindar the assertion by a concrete example of his 
poetic prowess and his innocence of blame. 

The vividness of 7T()VOS is enhanced by the quasi-personification that 
occurs when it becomes the subject of an active verb like 7TES£PxeraL. 

This vividness is appropriate in a context which has brought home 
the effort and excitement of the pentathlon: the risk and the dis­
appointment of being eliminated before the wrestling and the effort 
of the wrestling itself for those who have survived the earlier events. 
Further, the generalizing and non-personal subject 7TdVOS, rather than 
Sogenes himself (whom the readings of Wilamowitz [in part] and 
Floyd seek to restore), will follow naturally on the general and non­
personal language used in lines 72-73, especially as interpreted here. 
The idea of 'toil' is also important in the ode and hence well deserves 
the emphasis which it would receive if 7Tdvos were the subject of 
1TES£PXETCXL: cf line 36: ... Tf!, Kat Llavaot 7T6v7lucxv. 

For the sequence of thought in lines 70-76, then, I offer the following 
paraphrase: "Those whom a losing throw dismisses from the pen­
tathlon before the wrestling do indeed escape the toil of this contest; 

16 U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, "Pindars siebentes nemeisches Gedicht," SB Berlin 
(1908) 340. 

97 Wilamowitz, Pindaros (supra n.2) 163. 
28 Floyd (supra n.9) 150-5l. 
It "Pindar's Seventh Nemean," forthcoming in TAPA 98 (1967). 



CHARLES SEGAL 45 

but you, 0 Sogenes, are a winner in athletics as I am in poetry, and 
hence we must face the toil of the final test. I did not wield my tongue 
like one of those losing javelins which eliminates its thrower (nor did 
you, Sogenes, throw such a javelin). If there was toil (as there was, 
for you reached the wrestling), that toil seeks (and finds) its reward, 
joy, the more. Let me (give that joy), for even ifI am lifted aloft and 
carried far from my main theme, I am not harsh at repaying my 
debt of song to a victor." 30 

THE CENTER FOR HELLENIC STUDIES 

November, 1967 

30 Some aspects of the interpretation offered here were presented in a seminar on 
Nemean 7 at Cornell University on 2 November 1967. I am grateful to Professor Gordon M. 
Kirkwood for the opportunity to address his Pindar seminar and for his own comments.