HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

Envy and the Invisible Roar: 
Pindar, Pythian 11.30 

Thomas K. Hubbard 

M ENTION OF SEXUAL IRREGULARITIES in the house of Atre­
us prompts Pindar to interrupt the narration of the Or­
esteia-myth in Pyth. 11 with a gnomic interlude on 

gossip and envy (lines 25-30): 

'to bE: v£CUC; UAOXOlC; 
£x6uJ'tov UIl7tA(lK:LOV KUA{nvul 1:' ullUXUVOV 
UAA01:piul<Jl "(A..WcrcrUlC;· 
Ka1WA..0YOl bE 1toA..t'tCn. 
tcrXEl 't£ yap OA~OC; ou Ildovu cp6ovov· 
(, bE: XUIlTlA..U 7tV£WV acpuvtov ~PEIlEl. 

The final verse of this passage remains a source of controversy 
on three counts: (1) Who or what is 0 bE: XUIlTlA..a 7tV£wv? (2) 
What is the meaning of the expression acpuvtov ~P£IlEl? (3) 
How does this line relate to the context? I wish to offer a new 
resolution of these three interrelated questions. 

Past scholarship falls into two camps on the indentity of 0 bf 
XUIlTlA..a 7tV£wv. The preponderant view is that he is the poor 
man with low ambitions or ineffective results, who in his 
obscurity escapes all envious notice and is thus an antithetical 
foil to the OA~OC; of line 29. 1 A minority of scholars, however, 

1 Cf F. Mezger, Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig 1880) 296; B. L. Gildersleeve, 
Pin dar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes (New York 1885) 360f; G. 
Fraccaroli, Le Odi di Pindaro (Verona 1894) 500 n.2; F. Dornseiff, Pindars Stil 
(Berlin 1921) 121; H. Bischoff, Gnomen Pindars (Wiirzburg 1938) 11f; G. 
Norwood, Pindar (Berkeley 1945) 121; J. H. Finley, Jr., Pindar and Aeschylus 
(Cambridge [Mass.] 1955) 161; R. W. B. Burton, Pindar's Pythian Odes 
(Oxford 1962) 67; D. C. Young, Three Odes of Pindar: A Literary Study of 
Pythian 11, Pythian 3, and Olympian 7 (Leiden 1968) 4 n.2; G. Pini, ·Osser­
vazioni sulla Pitica XI," StIt 44 (1972) 206-10; J. Peron, "Le theme du c:p86vo<; 
dans la Xle Pythique de Pindare," REA 78-79 (1976-77) 67-71 and ·Pindare 
et la tyrannie d'apres la Xle Pythique," REG 99 (1986) 2-7; W. J. Slater, 
"Pindar's Myths: Two Pragmatic Explanations," in G. W. Bowersock et aL, 

343 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

344 ENVY AND THE INVISIBLE ROAR 

have referred 0 OE to <peOVOV at the end of line 29,2 and thus see 
30 as one of Pindar's many reflections on the futility of cavil 
against the high and noble. I believe that both views accord 
poorly with the preceding context and err by attempting to 
treat 29f in isolation. Pindar cannot be saying in 30 that Envy is 
ineffective and unheard, since 25-29 assert just the opposite: 
adultery among the high and mighty cannot be hidden precisely 
due to the power of UAAO'tptUtcn yArocrcrUt~ and KUKOAoYOt OE 
1tOAt'tUl. Nor is there any point in declaring that the poor. man 
goes unheard (and by implication unenvied), when the em­
phasis of lines 25-29 is on the power of common citizens' 
speech to harm princes like Agamemnon and Clytemnestra. 
Ordinary men are indeed heard-all too clearly for the comfort 
of those with OA~O~. 

There are further problems for those wishing to reduce line 
30 merely to antithetical padding for line 29. This view has been 
reasserted recently by D. E. Gerber, who in criticizing the 
minority view of 0 OE as <peovo~, states (21 n.2) that "It is far 
more natural, not only in this context but also in view of the 
Greek love of polarity, to assume that Pindar would draw 
attention to the contrasting levels of envy aroused by those of 
high and low station." Of course, line 30 says nothing about the 
amount of envy which 0 8E XUJlllAU 7tVEWV arouses; the line 
simply refers to the amount of noise that he makes, and it is 
only by inference that one can conclude that the amount of 

edd., Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox (Berlin 
1979) 66; D. E. GERBER, "Pindar, Pythian 11.30," GRBS 24 (1983: hereafter 
'Gerber') 21-26; S. Instone, "Pythian 11: Did Pindar Err?" CQ N.S. 36 (1986) 
89. The passage is also clearly taken in this sense by all the modern 
translations that I have consulted (Sandys, Farnell, Bowra, Lattimore, 
Swanson, Conway, Nisetich). 

2 Cf. F. Gedike, Pindars Pythische Siegshymnen (Berlin 1779) 240f; R. 
Rauchenstein, "Ueber die tendenz und die zeit der elf ten pythischen Ode 
Pindars," Philologus 2 (1847) 205f; L. Cerrato, Le odi di Pindaro II (Sestri 
Ponente 1916 [=Atti della R. Universita di Genova 23 (1917)]) 446f; U. von 
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 260; A. Luppino, "Esegesi 
Pindarica," P P 68 (1959) 364; D. C. C. Young, "Gentler Medicines in the 
Agamemnon," CQ N.S. 14 (1964) 15; F. S. Newman, "The Relevance of the 
Myth in Pindar's Eleventh Pythian," Hellenika 31 (1979) 47 n.2. A serious 
difficulty with this view is that line 30 would personify Envy, whereas it is 
introduced in line 29 (ou ,.u:iova <peavov) in a way that is clearly not 
personified. As Pini notes (supra n.1: 20M), Envy is not elsewhere a personified 
concept in Pindar. 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

THOMAS K. HUBBARD 345 

noise may result in a corresponding amount of envy. Elsewhere 
(Pyth. 11.50-54), however, Pindar quite explicitly discusses the 
degree of envy that a man may experience: 

8£o8£v £PUtJlUV KUAWV, 
~ \ , 'f'l' ouvu'tu IlULOIl£voC £v UAtKtU. 
'tWV yap ava 1tOAtV fUptaKrov 'ta JlEaU JlUKPO'tEPCP 
oAJ3q> 'tf8uAO'tU, JlEJlCPOJl' utauv 'tupUVV {OWV . 
~uvu'iat ()' aJlcp' apE'tu'ic; 'tE'tUJlUt· cp80VEPOl 0' aJluvov'tUt. 3 

I would submit that it is in this passage, not in line 30, that we 
have the antithetical complement that critics have sought for 
line 29. The antithesis is not between the rich man who is 
envied and the poor man who is not, but between the rich man 
and the man of medium station (EuplaKwv 'ta JlEau), who by 
pursuing ~uvu'iat apE'tu'ic; escapes the affliction of having cp8ov­
fPOt. This antithesis between lines 25-29 and 50-54 is not at all 
compatible with that which critics have imagined between lines 
29 and 30. 4 If we were to accept an antithesis between lines 29 
and 30, its tendency would be analogous to Pyth. 1.85f, N em. 
8.22, or Parth. 1.8ff5-dismissing envy as the inevitable result of 
good fortune by treating with contempt anyone who is not 
envied. But 50-54 convey the altogether different idea that envy 
can and should be avoided by prudent and reasonable men who 
behave in a modest and public-spirited way, unlike the 
Atreidae, whose arrogant behavior quite properly provoked 
the envy and outcry of KUKOAoYOt 1tOA'i'tUt in the poem's myth.6 

We cannot have both antitheses in the same poem without 

3 For purposes of this paper, I shall avoid taking a position on the textual 
crux of line 55, which may, depending on what we read, continue line 54. 
Peron (1976-77 [supra n.1] 72-78) has made an interesting case for inCH as the 
subject of 0lluvov'tat. 

4 Pini (supra n.1: 208£) and Peron (1976-77 [supra n.1] 69££, 80; 1986 [supra 
n.1] Sf£) try to avoid the problem by giving line 30 a positive sense (<lla securite 
relative des gens de condition modeste"). But I think that Gerber 22f shows 
convincingly that terms such as XUIl"'A6~ and XUllul always have a pejorative 
sense in Pindar. 

5 Pini (supra n.1: 208£), Peron (1986 [supra n.1] 6), and Instone (supra n.1: 
89) lay particular stress on the parallel with Parth. 1.8ff. But this passage may 
be ambiguous, also implying that the poor man is the envious man. 

6 On the myth of this poem as a paradigm for the rejection of 'tupuvvi~, see 
the discussion of Young (supra n.1) 4-20. 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

346 ENVY AND THE INVISIBLE ROAR 

accusing Pindar of serious disregard for poetic-and 
ethical-consistency.7 

Since the traditional interpretations of line 30 fit neither the 
immediate context nor the poem as a whole, a different ap­
proach is clearly needed. What has seldom been noted in the 
debate over 0 Or xaJ.1llAa xv£rov is that the poor man and the 
envious man are in fact the same. 8 One need only think of 
"reproachful Archilochus, in his poverty fattening himself on 
heavy-worded hatred" (Pyth. 2.54ff: EV clJ.1axavl(f 'JIOYEPOV 
'APXlAOXOV papuAoYOt~ EXeEcrtV 7ttatvoJ.1€vov).9 Perhaps the 
closest analogue to this nebulous 0 Or is the equally insubstantial 
aAAo~ clv1lP of Nem. 4.39ff: cpeOVEpa ... PA£xrov yvroJ.1av KEVEav 
crKOtql KUAlVOEt xaJ.1ai xEtOtcrav. Here we see the same assoc­
iation of envy, darkness, and falling to the ground as in Pyth. 
11.30. 10 The idea of low ambition, sticking to the ground, is also 
conveyed vividly by Pindar's image of the screeching daws 
who tax£tva v£J..1ovtat (N em. 3.82) in constrast to the high­
flying eagle; in 01. 2.87f they are represented as crows 
chattering aKpaVta against the eagle. Pindar posits that those 
with low ambition and low accomplishments are by definition 
hostile to high-achievers. It is thus wrong to see 0 Or xaJ.1llAa 
7tV (rov either as Envy itself or as the poor man who escapes 
envy; he is rather the poor and envious man. tt 

7 For a study of Pindar's care in the logical coordination of antitheses 
throughout a poem see T. K. Hubbard, The Pindaric Mind: A Study of 
Logical Structure in Early Greek Poetry (Leiden 1985). Slater (supra n.l: 66) so 
much as admits the logical confusion engendered by his interpretation when 
labelling it an -archaic form of 'gnomic progression', whereby every 
sentiment is related only to the one after it and the one before.» In my view, 
Pindar's artistry was not so one-dimensional or tunnel-visioned. 

8 That envy proceeds from a sense of inferiority is suggested by passages 
such as Pyth. 1.84, 2.88ff; Soph. Ajax 157; Eur. fro 294 Nauck. 

9 That Archilochus' poverty was traditional is suggested by fro 295b West2• 

10 Nem. 4.36ff makes it quite clear that the (lA-we; avftp is not just an anti­
thetical foil, but an active enemy whom the poet must overcome. On this 
passage see the remarks of A. K6hnken, Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar 
(Berlin 1971) 208-12, with whose views I am in substantial accord. 

11 This seems to have been recognized by some very early Pindaric com­
mentators but has been ignored in modern times. A. Boeckh, Pindari Opera 
quae supersunt (Leipzig 1821) II 2, 341, follows C. G. Heyne in paraphrasi~9 
line 30 as humiles et plebeii homines clam potentium obtrectent laudibus. CJ. 
L. Dissen, Pindari Carmina quae supersunt (Gotha 1847) II 365. 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

THOMAS K. HUBBARD 347 

Critics have also misinterpreted the phrase acpuv1:ov (3pEJlEl. 
Young and Gerber are right to insist that ~pEJln should be given 
its full force as 'make a loud noise' or 'roar', rather than being 
watered down to something like 'mutter' or 'grumble' (a sense 
nowhere else clearly attested for the verb ).12 But they are 
wrong in inferring that the phrase must therefore pertain to the 
poor man's strenuous efforts to be heard, which go unnoticed 
no matter how loudly he behaves. The idea of strenuous efforts 
to be heard contradicts the idea of low ambition clearly 
conveyed by XUJlllAU 1tVEWV, 13 and Gerber admits that the 
gnomic parallels do not support the association of poverty with 
loud speech calling attention to itself. 14 We would do better to 
reconsider the meaning of the term acpav'tov: derived from 
CPUtVW (and the verbal root cpUV-),15 its associations are properly 
with the realm of vision, not of hearing. 16 The sense of a<pav'tov 
~PEJlEt is not 'roars unnoticed', but 'roars unseen'. The loud 
noise denoted by ~PEJlEl is indeed heard, even though the hum­
ble people making the noise may be invisible, hidden by the 
anonymity of the crowd and the obscurity of their low station. 
While Norwood (supra n.1: 124ff) may exaggerate in imagining a 
reference to the bumble-bee, the insect analogy nevertheless 
seems appropriate, particularly in view of XaJlllAu 1tVEWV . What 
better expression for the effect of KUKOAoYOt 1tOAt1:Ut and their 
envious gossip against the powerful than to call it loud but un­
seen: literally a buzz rising up from the ground? 

12 Young (supra n.1) 4 n.2; Gerber 23-26. This had earlier been argued by J. 
S. T. Hanssen, .. A Note on Pindar, Pyth. XI 38ff.," Aevum 24 (1950) 163. 

13 Gerber 22f tries to avoid this problem by rendering XaJlTjA6. as "inef­
fectively," but the word's basic sense is locative ('on the ground'), and Gerber 
extracts 'ineffective' only from parallels with xaJlai or xaJlal1t£'tT1C;, where that 
meaning is clearly drawn from the metaphor by the context. Parallels such as 
Nem. 3.82 ('ta1t£WCx vtJlov'tm) suggest low ambition and ability. 

14 Gerber 25f, wrongly suggesting Nem. 3.82 and 01. 2.87f as counter­
examples. The daws and crows have nothing to do with poverty, but are poets 
of inferior ability: they make noise not because inferior people necessarily 
make noise, but because they are poets, whose business is to make sound. 

15 On this root's unambiguous associations with vision and light see H. 
Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch II (Heidelberg 1961) 982ff; P. 
Chantraine, Dictionnaire itymologique de fa langue grecque IV.2 (Paris 1980) 
1170ff. 

16 The associations of acpav'toc; are clearly visual in Pindar's two other uses 
ofthe word (OL 1.46, Nem. 8.34). I have been unable to find an example of its 
being associated with sound (='unheard') anywhere in Greek literature, nor 
even of its meaning 'unnoticed '. 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

348 ENVY AND THE INVISIBLE ROAR 

Pindar elsewhere alludes to common citizens' unseen envy of 
the great and its harmful effects, as in Pyth. 1.84 (aeS'trov 0' aKOa 
KPUCPtOV SUJlov ~ClpUVEl JlaAlO't' EOAOlOlv Err' aAAo'tplOl<;) or 
with the envious neighbor who secretly started the rumor 
about Pelops being eaten by the gods (0/. 1.47: EVVE1tE KPUCP~ n<; 
ClUtlKCl cpSOVEPWV YEl'tovc.ov). This theme seems to have found 
particular favor in Pindar's odes for the ever-suspicious Hieron, 
and is especially prominent with the unseen slanderous 
'whisperings' of Pyth. 2.75-96, to which Pindar contrasts his 
own forthrightness of speech. Indeed, unseen envy is com­
monplace in Greek literature: Xenophon (Cyr. 4.6.4) speaks of 
restraining U1tO OKO'tOU 'tOY cpSovov, as Herodotus (8.74.2) says 
that aVllP avopl 1tClPClO'ta<; Olyft AOYOV E1tOlEE'tO in criticizing 
their leader's folly. The first example, like Pyth. 11.30, uses a 
metaphor of darkness and invisibility shrouding envy, while the 
second uses oxymoron. Both devices are employed in 
Sophocles Ant. 690-700, where Haemon tells Creon that he is 
able to hear critical mutterings of the citizens invisible to the 
ruler's eye: 

'to yap oov OJlJlCl OElVOV avopl OllJlo'tTI ... 
AOYOl<; 'tOLOU'to~ ot<; ou Jlll 'tEP'VTI KAUc.ov· 
EJlol 0' aKOU£lV EOS' U1tO O1(O'tOU 'taOE ... 
'tOlaO' EPEJlVll olY' U1tEPXE'tCll cpan<;. 

Again, the malicious talk of the common people takes place in 
darkness (U1tO o KO'tOU ), obscure (EPEJlVll), both spoken ( cpa'tt!;) 
and seemingly silent (my').1? 

But closer to Pyth. 11 is the prominence of this theme in 
Aeschylus' Oresteia, where the concealed grumblings of the 
common people, as represented by the chorus in the Agamem­
non, are a leifmotif. 18 In commenting on families' resentment of 
the many who have fallen at Troy in service of the Atreidae, the 
chorus declares (Aesch. Ag. 449ff, 456-62, 468-74): 

17 Haemon's remarks here pick up on Creon's suspicions of secret and 
seditious popular mumblings against him (Ant. 189-92); the motif is clearly 
thematic in this play, as in the Oresteia (see infra). 

18 For the theme of the common people being afraid to say openly what 
they think of their rulers see Ag. 36-39, 546-50, 788-98, 1025-34; Cho. 46£, 
75-83, 102-05, 264-68; fum. 379f, in addition to the passage below. See also 
W. G. Thalmann, • Speech and Silence in the Oresteia 2," Phoenix 39 (1985) 
228; and on popular stasis generally, C. W. Macleod, ·Politics and the 
Oresteia, " ]HS 102 (1982) DOf. 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

THOMAS K. HUBBARD 

'tel~h: criYel ne; ~uu~n, 
<pSOVEPOV 0' im' a'Ayoe; Ep1tEl 
1tPOOlKOle; 'A'tpd8ule; .... 
(3uPEtU 0' acr't(l)V cpelne; cruv KO'tcp· 
~ , ~, ,,,' I 
01'\~OKpav'to'\) 0 apac; 'tLVEl XpEOC;. 
J.lEVEl 0' aKoucrul 'tl J.lOl 
J.lEPlJ.lVU VUK'tTlPEcpEe;. 
'trov 7tOAUK'tOVroV yap OUK acrK01tOl 
SEol .... 
'to <>' U7tEpK07troe; KA:UElV E1) 
{3upu' {3el'AAE'tUl yap ocrcrole; 
~lOSEV KEpUUVOe;. 

KptVro 8' a<pSovov oA{3oV' 
J.lll't' ElTlv 1t'tOAl1tOpSTle;, 
J.lll't' o-\)v uu'toe; CxAOUe; un' a'A­

'Arov {3lov Ku'tlOOlJ.ll. 

349 

Again, we see the oxymoron of people's speech, which is both 
loud ({3UU~El means 'bark', and is no less emphatic than (3pEJ.lEl) 19 

and unheard by the powerful (Otyu). The association of the 
common man's curses (ucr'twv <pane; ... <>TlJ.l0KpaV'tOU 8' upae;) 
with envy is made explicit not only by the cpSOVEPOV a'Ayoe; that 
slowly creeps against the Atreidae, but also by the invocation of 
divine vengeance on the famous and martially victorious heroes 
in lines 460-70. 20 In contrast to the Atreidae, the chorus prefers 
a medium estate with just enough wealth to avoid envy 
(a<pSovov o'A{3ov), neither a conqueror nor conquered; this last 
statement constitutes a resonant parallel to Pindar's announced 
preference for the middle estate (Pyth. 52f: 'ta J.lEcrU J.lUKpO'tEpcp 
OA{3cP 'tESUAO'tU) that avoids envy (Pyth. 11.54: <p80VEPOt 8' 
UJ.lUVOV'tUl), also in contrast to the Atreidae. In a later ode, the 

19 E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus: Agamemnon (Oxford 1950) I 119, translates 
~(lut;n here as 'mutter', watering the verb down as commentators have 
tended to do with ~PEIl£1. Aeschylus expresses the people's emotional conflict 
through sharp oxymoron. 

20 The relevence of this passage to the interpretation of Pyth. 11.30 has been 
noted by several critics: cf L. R. Farnell, The Works of Pindar (London 1932) 
II 224; P. Altenhoven, "Notes sur trois passages de Pindare," AnnPhilHist 5 
(1937) 15f; I. During, "Klutaimestra-vllA'h~ yuva," Eranos 41 (1943) 112f. 
Even critics who do not favor seeing Envy (or the envious man) as the subject 
of Pyth. 11.30, such as Burton (supra n.1: 67f) and Peron (1976-77 [supra n.1]: 
67f), admit that this passage provides a strong argument in favor of doing so. 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

350 ENVY AND THE INVISIBLE ROAR 

chorus complains that its low station prevents it from express­
ing its anxieties outright, but instead it "roars in darkness, pained 
in the heart" (Ag. 1029f: vuv ()' U7tO (J1conp ~PEJlEt 6UJlClA:yftC; ); 
again, there is loud sound (i.e., this very choral ode), but it is 
invisible.21 In the final reconciliation of the Eumenides, the 
chorus prays that Faction should never 'roar' (E um. 978: 
~PEJlEtV) in Athens. 

Given the likelihood, on independent grounds,22 that Pyth. 11 
dates to 454-as well as the strong arguments that have been 
made for the influence of Aeschylus' Oresteia 23 on Pindar's 
telling of the myth-I regard it as probable that the choral ode 
of Ag. 449-74 and the theme of lurking popular discontent 
motivated Pindar's digression on the KClKOAoYOt 7tOAltClt in 
Pyth. 11.25-30, as well as his comments on the mean estate in 

21 I do not think that the chorus is saying in this passage that they cannot 
utter their thoughts (as Gerber 24 implies-"this loud protest is not put into 
words but kept within the breast"), but that they must keep their thoughts 
among themselves, as in this ode, rather than voicing their discontent at first 
impulse (Ag. 1027f) in the face of the powerful. Again, the emphasis is on 
popular criticism that is loud, but invisible to its victims. 

22 1: Pyth. 11.lnscr.a (Drachmann) gives two possible dates for the ode, 
when Thrasydaeus was recorded as having Pythian victories in the footrace-
474 or 454. I am impressed by the political arguments in favor of the latter 
date, as articulated by C. M. Bowra, "Pindar, Pythian XI," CQ 30 (1936) 133-
39, which remain unrefuted. Probably the most serious argument in favor of 
the earlier date has been that of P. Von der Muhll, "Wurde der elfte Pythie 
Pindars 474 oder 454 gedichtet?" MusHelv 15 (1958) 143f, arguing that the 
reference to this as the "third crown" brought to the paternal hearth (Pyth. 
11.13f) must designate the earlier victory, since Thrasydaeus' father had an 
Olympic chariot victory and his name Pythonicus suggests a Pythian victory 
by his own father (Pyth. 11.43-48). But the "third crown" must refer only to a 
third Pythian victory, as suggested by the way it is introduced (ayrovi 'tE Kip­
pali, tv tcp epaau~oli EJ!vaaEv tatiav tpitov E1tl at£<pavov 1tatpci)(lv ~aA.cOv, 
tv acpvwlC; apoupmal nUA.clOa Vl1crov). In this case, we are indeed dealing with 
Thrasydaeus' later Pythian victory, which together with his childhood victory 
(lines 49f) and his grandfather's victory would be the third for the family. It is 
most unlikely that a family with Olympic and Pythian victories to its credit 
would not also have many crowns from minor contests; this cannot be meant 
as the third athletic victory in all contests. 

23 On this question I regard the work of During (supra n.20) nf, 109-16 as 
definitive. The recent article of J. Herington, ·Pindar's Eleventh Pythian Ode 
and Aeschylus' Agamemnon," in D. E. Gerber, ed., Greek Poetry and 
Philosophy: Studies in Honour of Leonard Woodbury (Chico 1984) 137-46, 
adds little, save for a questionable generalization about motivation never 
being at issue except in Tragedy (or through the influence of Tragedy). 
Motivations are certainly an issue in Homeric epic. 



HUBBARD, THOMAS K., Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar "Pythian" 11.30 , Greek, Roman 
and Byzantine Studies, 31:4 (1990:Winter) p.343 

THOMAS K. HUBBARD 351 

11.50-54. If this is correct, it provides us with one more reason 
for reading Pyth. 11.30 not as a statement about the poor man's 
futility and consequent freedom from the envy of others, nor 
as a statement about Envy's futility, but as a reflection of the 
ever-present envy that lowly men feel toward the rich, and 
which seethes just beneath the surface of social relations, 
audible but not fully visible. 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN 

May, 1991