MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

Pindar, Nemean 7.64-67 

Glenn W Most 

SNELL AND MAEHLER print Nemean 7.64-67 as follows:! 

64 EWJI S' EyylJ~ ~xaLo~ ov ~, .. LtfJE'TaL J.L' aJl-i]p 
65 'I ' ., • \ ' , 

OJlLa~ tnTEp al\O~ OL-
, , 1:' , (]'" ~ , 

K~P, Kar. 7TpO~ E JILl!- 7TE7TOL ,E JI 'TE uaf..W'Tar.~ 

66 OJ.LJ,LaTL SEPKOJ,LaL AaJ.L7TpO JI, OVx inrEP {3aAcfw, 
67 /3 ' " , ~.!,' LaLa 7TaJl'T EK 7TOuu~ EpvuaL~· 

With regard to the constitution of the text, this passage is quite 
straightforward.2 But its interpretation has provoked considerable per­
plexity and disagreement, particularly as the difficulties that have 
obscured it are not independent of one another but are instead thor­
oughly interconnected. These difficulties will be examined here in the 
following order: (1) the meaning of {mEp and the identity of the 

1 B. Snell and H. Maehler, edd., Pindarus J5 Epinicia and 114 Fragmenta (Leipzig 
1971, 1975); where necessary I indicate and explain my divergences from this text. 

2 The metrical correction of the transmitted lnrEp{3&UWV in line 66 is due to E. 
Schmid. There is, however, no metrical need to tamper with 65, analyzed by Snell­
Maehler and Turyn, for example, as two choriambs (of which the first element of the 
second is, here as always in the poem, resolved into two shorts) followed by a hippo­
nacteum and an iambus (whose first element is always short in this poem). Objection 
to this analysis has been based on (1) the synizesis required if OlKEWV is to yield a 
spondee, and (2) the resulting long in the first element of the hipponacteum (whereas 
elsewhere in the poem this element is short, with the probable single exception of line 
86, pace P. Maas, "Die neuen Responsionsfreiheiten bei Bakchylides und Pindar," 
Jahresb.d.Phil. Ver.zu Berl. 39 [1913] 289-320, esp. 301: the minor metrical license of 
tll-IMV seems far preferable to the considerable morphological singularity of tIMV, which 
appears in Homer but not in lyric or iambic, and in elegiac only in a doubtful conjec­
tural exception at Theognis 806; it is never transmitted in Pindar and is always pre­
cluded by meter). Thus Hermann deleted Kai, and Mommsen the first syllable of 
1T'pO{EV~; as a twin result of either step, OlKEWV yields a cretic and the first element of 
the hipponacteum is short. But synizesis in OlKEWV occurs elsewhere in Pin dar at Isthm. 
1.31 and 4.19, and in other -EWV participles at 01. 9.11 0 «(Japa-EWV) , 01. 12.19 (OILt­
AEWV) , and Pae. 2.31 (apKEwv; cf the uncertain 8I.aKOIl-1T'EWV in fr.157.2). It happens 
quite often in Pindar that the first two elements of full aeolic bases (or the first ele­
ment of acephalic aeolics), which are on principle anceps, are not consistently long or 
short thoughout a whole poem, but show one or two exceptions within a single ode. 
Thus while in Nem. 7 this element is elsewhere short, it is probably long in line 86; 
and the first element of the acephalic hipponacteum (which forms the second half of 
the eighth verse of the strophe) is short thoughout, with the single exception of line 37 
(if we accept Boeckh's unavoidable transposition). See, in general, A. M. Dale, "The 
Metrical Units of Greek Lyric Verse. II," CQ 45 (1951) 20-30, esp. 23. 

315 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

316 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

'AXaws- aV1)p; (2) the function of the particles Kat and n; (3) the 
nature of the 1TpO~EVW.; and (4) the identity of the 8a~Tac.. Finally, 
in summarizing our conclusions we shall offer a slightly revised text 
with translation. 

1. 'Axac.oS' av-r,p 'IoviaS' lnrEP aA.oS' OiKEWV 

Who is the Achaean man who will not blame Pin dar if he is near? 
The only answer Pindar gives us lies in the words 'Iovw.s- irrrEp aAoS' 
OlKEWV. We must understand this phrase if we are to make use of 
that answer; in particular, we must determine what is meant by the 
preposition lmEP, for the various interpretations of the sentence turn 
upon the meaning we give it. 

Pindar uses the preposition lmEP in its local sense in the following 
passages:3 

(a) With verbs of motion, tmEP specifies that the movement takes place upon 
the surface of a finite body and traverses that body so as to end on its farther 
side; the substantive governed bytmEp can appear in the genitive or in the 
accusative, without any perceptible difference in meaning. This is the construc­
tion in Pyth. 2.68,4 80,54.26,6 and 9.52;7 at Nem. 3.21 the aspect of traversing 
to the other side seems to predominate over that of moving upon the surface. 
In three other passages the verb itself is not transmitted, but there can be no 
doubt that Pindar wrote a verb of motion: Pae. 8.14, frr.189 and 292. 
(b) With explicit or implied verbs of rest, lnrEP denotes a stable location at 
an unspecified altitude above some reference point and in spatial separa­
tion from but direct relation to it; in this sense, lnrEP in Pindar always 
governs the genitive case. This construction occurs in Pyth. 1.18,8 Isthm. 

3 See K. Bossler, De praepositionum usu apud Pindarum (Darmstadt 1862) 3lf (who 
nevertheless follows Dissen [n.23 infra] on this passage); cf J. Rumpel, Lexicon Pin­
daricum (Leipzig 1883) S.V., and W. J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969) S.V. 

4 Cf Pyth. 2.3ff, and A. B. Drachmann, ed., Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina (Leip­
zig 1903-27, cited hereafter by lemma number) ad Pyth. 2.125b. 

5 Accepting Wilamowitz's unavoidable et,.u. for the transmitted elJLi (Pindaros [Berlin 
1922] 291); otherwise the preposition would mean, not that the cork was floating upon 
the surface of the water, but rather that it was hovering magically at some height above 
the water in the air. 

6 Cf 1: ad Pyth. 4.46. 
7 Cf 1: ad Pyth. 9.90a. 
8 This must refer to the volcanic peaks on the Cape of Misenum above Cumae (on 

the mountains of this area cf e.g. Agathias 1.8.2f, and on its volcanoes Vitro De arch. 
2.6). H. Frankel, Dichtung und Philosophie des frilhen Griechentums3 (Munich 1976) 522 
and n.28 (followed by Slater [supra n.3] s. v. ciA/,EpKij~, OXOa, 1nrEP 1.b.J3), objects that 
ciA.u.pKEe" can only describe an island, and consequently proposes instead to identify 
Pindar's cliffs as the island of Ischia. Yet, as Frankel himself parenthetically concedes, 
Pindar also applies the epithet to an isthmus Usthm. 1.19); other non-technical authors 
use similar language in their descriptions of peninsulas, e.g. Hymn. Hom.Ap. 4lO, Liv. 
5.33.7, Sil. Pun. 15.22Of. Frankel's own translation ("die 'meerumgUrteten Klippen vor 
Kyme''') gives 1nrEP an impossible meaning. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 317 

8.9,9 and Pae. 8.70. In one passage the verb is not transmitted but may be 
conjectured to have been some form of vaiw: fr.140b.6. To these may be 
added two other passages in which lnrEP has the same meaning but is used 
adverbially: 01. 1.57, fr.5Ia.3. 1o 

In view of these passages, we may reject the proposal that 'lovia" 
lJ1ffP dAD\' OiKEWV means "dwelling beyond the Ionian Sea";H for the 
preposition to bear this sense, the verb would have to be one of 
motion. The most natural interpretation of the phrase is "dwelling 
above the Ionian Sea": but in what sense "above"? 

Fr.140b.2-6, cited above, provides a helpful parallel: 

ao,6 [av K]t;tt apI-Wviav 
av~ [Ot" E) 7TEcppacr [a'To 
'Tw[v 'TE AO]KpWV 'TIS, o{ 'T' apytAocpov 

, 'Z,I,.' \ ' 1Tap 6pVPWV KOl\wvav 
v [. .. : vaovcr' Grenfell-Hunt, vawvO' Schroeder, v1Te]p 

Avcrovia [" aAo" Wilamowitz.12 

Here, too, there is apparent reference to people who dwell V1TEP a 
sea. What, then, was the spatial relationship between Locri Epi­
zephyrii and the Ausonian Sea? From Strabo we learn that 'Avcrovwv 
7TEAayo" was the earlier name of what later came to be called iJ 
I,'KEAU<T, 8aAcl'T'T'Y} , viz. the body of water bounded on the west by 
Sicily and on the northwest by the coast of Italy as far as Locri 
Epizephyrii (2.5.20, cf 5.3.6): hence the Ausonian Sea lay immedi­
ately before the town, which was built upon a hill (Strab. 6.1.7). Evi­
dently, therefore, V1TEP in this passage has a quite concrete sense: the 
Epizephyrian Locrians lived above the Ausonian Sea, i.e., on the 

9 Cf I ad Isthm. 8.17a. 
10 This usage is not recorded in R. KUhner and B. Gerth, AusJuhrliche Grammatik der 

griechischen SpracMl 11.1 (Hannover/Leipzig 1898 [hereafter 'KG']) 527. 
11 So e.g. E. Friese, Pindarica (Berlin 1872) 24f; C. O. Pavese, "La settima Nemea di 

Pindaro," in E. Livrea and G. A. Privitera, edd., Studi in onore di Anthos Ardizzoni II 
(Rome 1978) esp. 674f; Slater (supra n.3) s. v. V1TEP (but cf s. v. 'Axaw~ and 'IOvw~); 
E. Thummer, ed., Pindar: Die isthmischen Gedichte I (Heidelberg 1968) 97 n.82; and 
O. Werner, ed., Pindar: Siegesgesange und Fragmente (Munich 1967) 261. Others, e.g. 
B. L. Gildersleeve, "The Seventh Nemean Revisited," AJP 31 (1910) 125-53, esp. 
138f, and G. M. Kirkwood, "Nemean 7 and the Theme of Vicissitude in Pindar," in 
Poetry and Poetics from Ancient Greece to the Renaissance: Studies in Honor of James 
Hutton, ed. G. M. Kirkwood (Ithaca 1975) esp. 85f, try to combine both interpretations 
by translating "beyond the Ionian Sea" while understanding an Epirote; but this is both 
linguistically and geographically dubious. Among those who have understood the prep­
osition along the lines proposed here, cf especially A. Puech, ed., Pindare. III: Neme­
ennes3 (Paris 1958) ad lac.; Rumpel (supra n.3) s. v.; and J. Sandys, ed., The Odes of 
Pindar3 (London 1937) ad lac. 

12 Cf supra n.5: 501f; although the designation 'Ausonian Sea' first recurs in the 
Hellenistic age, this supplement is regarded, generally as here, as certain. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

318 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

hills overlooking the sea. It seems reasonable to suppose that in 
the passage in question from the Seventh Nemean Pindar is refer­
ring to an Achaean who lives on the hills overlooking the Ionian 
Sea. 

But what, for Pindar, is the Ionian Sea? It is sometimes thought 
that throughout the fifth century this term always referred to the 
whole of what is now called the Adriatic Sea, stretching northwest 
from the Peloponnesus beyond Illyria and bounded on the west by 
the coasts of Italy and Sicily; 13 but it is most unlikely that Pindar 
would have had this whole region in mind. He never refers to any 
location on the eastern side of the Adriatic more northerly than Do­
dona and Ephyra (such as Apollonia and Epidamnus in Illyria), nor, 
on the western side, any point on the southeastern or eastern shore 
of Italy more northerly than Locri Epizephyrii {such as Metapontum 
or Tarentum).14 It appears that for Pindar these were simply non­
Greek regions in which he seems to have had no particular interest 
or familiarity.I5 

On the other hand, Pin dar was capable of considerable precision 
when referring to parts of the world that did interest him and with 
which he may well have been familiar from personal experience. He 
names the Ionian Sea in two other passages which together yield a 
coherent geographical picture. In an ode to Hieron, Pindar writes of a 
voyage from Thebes to Sicily "cleaving the Ionian Sea" ('10 via v 
TaJJ.vwv 8a"Aauuav, Pyth. 3.68). We need not understand him to 
imply that the Ionian Sea extended from Thebes all the way to the 

13 H. Treidler, "Das Ionische Meer im Altertum," Klio 22 (1929) 86-94, esp. 86f; cj. 
Jacoby, FGrHist Ia 337f ad IF90-108, and W. S. Barrett, Euripides. Hippolytus (Oxford 
1964) ad 735-37. See in general V. Burr, Die antiken Namen der einzelnen Teile des 
Mittelmeeres (diss. WUrzburg 1932) 56-68. 

14 Cj. H. Reinhold, Griechische Oertlichkeiten bei Pindaros (Progr. Quedlinburg 1894) 
21, 26, 30. In one passage (Nem. 10.7) Pindar refers to Athena's gift of immortality 
to Diomedes; the scholia (ad Nem. 10.12a, b) see here a reference to the cult of 
Diomedes, widespread throughout the Adriatic region (cj. R. L. Beaumont, "Greek 
Influence in the Adriatic Sea Before the Fourth Century B.C.," JHS 56 [1936] 159-
204, esp. 194tf, and L. R. Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality [Ox­
ford 1921] 289tf). But it is not certain that Pindar is thinking here of a particular cult, 
or if so, of this one. The story may well have been told in the Thebais (cj. L 
Gen. ad Il. 5.126) and was certainly narrated by Ibycus (PMG 294) and Pherecydes 
(FGrHist 3F97). 

15 Greeks of this period certainly had some degree of familiarity with the upper Adri­
atic (cj. Beaumont [supra n.14] 159tf), but Pindar generally prefers the moral or legen­
dary aspects of distant geography to the actual facts. He declares it impossible, for 
example, to sail beyond the pillars of Heracles (01. 3.44, Nem. 3.21, Isthm. 4.12); yet 
by the end of the seventh century the Greeks had already sailed through the Straits of 
Gibraltar. Cj. G. Norwood, Pindar (Berkeley 1945) 44f, and the discussion of Pindar's 
subjectivist geography infra. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 319 

island (as is unnecessarily assumed by L ad Pyth. 3.120b): the pas­
sage is written from the viewpoint of someone setting out on a jour­
ney westward from Thebes, and from such a perspective the Ionian 
Sea is that body of water one enters after having passed through the 
Corinthian Gulf, and of which the western boundary is neither clear 
nor relevant. The suggestion that, for Pindar, the Ionian sea is simply 
that body of water whose eastern shore is Greece is further strength­
ened by the second passage (cited by I. ad Nem. 7.95a): 

N E07TTOAEJ.LO~ 8' a7TEipC!! 8UX7TPV(j~ (sci!. KpaTE'i) , 
/30V/30Tat ToBL 7TPWVE~ leOXOL KaTCXKELVTat 
~w&;JVa(JEv apX0/-LEVOL 7TPO~ '!OVLOV 7TOPOV (Nem. 4.51-53). 

Here, too, the Ionian Sea is defined from the point of view of 
Greece: it is that sea which begins at Epirus and stretches westward 
an indeterminate extent. In general, Pindar describes bodies of water 
subjectively from the point of view of people living on their shores.16 

Just as the Ausonian Sea is that extending southeast from Locri 
Epizephyrii, so too the Ionian Sea is that extending westward from 
the shore of Epirus southward. This interpretation is not contradicted 
by the fact that Hecataeus17 -as well as the later Hellanicus18 and 
Herodotus l9 -mention more northerly, and Pherecydes20 more wes­
terly, locations as bordering on the Ionian Sea: Pindar, was not, after 
all, a professional historian or geographer. Further support may be 
found in our only other early poetic reference to the Ionian Sea, at 
Aesch. PV 836-41.21 

The passage from Nemean 4 just cited is of particular importance in 
this context, for it asserts a close relation between the people who 
revere Neoptolemus, the mountains of Epirus, and the Ionian Sea. 

16 This kind of subjectivist geography has recently received a celebrated illustration: 
Steinberg's map of America viewed from Manhattan, later imitated for many other 
cities. 

17 FG,Hist IF91 (the Istrians), FI06 (Oricus). 
18 FGrHist 4F4 (the mouth of the Spina). 
19 Hdt. 6.127 (Epidamnus), 9.92 (Apollonia). 
20 FGrHist 3F156 (the Peucetians in Italy). Thuc. 6.10.1 can also be so interpreted, 

but it seems preferable to understand the sentence in the same way as Pyth. 3.68f. 
21 While it is not quite certain what the great gulf of Rhea is, it seems best to take it 

as Ocean: cf. the scholia ad loco and Wilamowitz, Aischylos. Interpretationen (Berlin 
1914) 153f and n.l; this interpretation is supported by the phrase T.ryV 7TapaKTUxv / 
KEA.EVl)ov (836f), which implies a journey northward along the coast rather than west­
ward across the sea towards Sicily. The stress upon lo's being thrown backwards by 
counter-currents (838) leaves the northward extent of the Ionian Sea beyond the 
latitude of Dodona vague, perhaps purposely, and certainly unemphasized. The earliest 
poetic reference by name to the Adriatic is apparently Aesch. fr.67 Nauck; the earliest 
in prose is Hecataeus, FGrHist 1 F90. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

320 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

Pindar's reference to the 19OXOL 7rpWVEr.; indicates that he had at least 
heard of the most prominent feature of the landscape of Epirus, the 
jagged mountain ranges along the coastline that make this area 'the 
Helvetia of Hellas'.22 Not only are Dodona and the Molossian king­
dom located at a high altitude: even more interestingly Ephyra, the 
town Pindar has mentioned slightly earlier as the point where Neop­
tolemus landed after his wanderings (Nem. 7.37), was built upon a 
hill overlooking the Ionian Sea and is referred to by Greek prose 
writers in phrases that provide striking parallels to Pindar's 'Ioviar.; 

t " "\" " 23 V7TEp al\.or.; OtKEWV. 

Such passages do not prove that Pindar could have been referring 
only to the hills of Epirus with these words: they merely remove any 
linguistic or geographical objection to our interpreting him as having 
done so. On principle the phrase 'Axator.; avr,p 'Ioviar.; lnrEP aAor.; 
OlKEWV could be understood to denote an Achaean dwelling at any 

22 For TTPWIJ in the sense of mountainous promontories, rather than mere forelands, 
cf II. 8.557, 12.282, 16.299, 17.747; Hymn. Hom. Ap. 22, 144; Hes. Sc. 437; for the 
altitude of Dodona cf also PV 829ff. On the geography of the coast of Epirus cf N. G. 
L. Hammond, Epirus (Oxford 1967) 8-14, and A. Philippson et al., Die griechischen 
Landschaften 11.1 (Frankfurt a.M. 1956) 21ff. 

23 Thuc. 1.46.4, ErIn /)E A.tlJ-~lJ, Kat 7T()A.ts" lnrEP atlTov KEtTat ... 'E</>vp7J; Strab. 7.7.5, 
WEpKEtTat /)E TOVTOV ~IJ TOV KOATTOV KLXVP0S", ..q TTpOTEpOIJ "E</>vpa ... EyyVS" /)E TI/S" 
Ktxvpov TTOALXIIWII BOVXETWIJ KarIrIW7TaLwIJ, IJ-tKpOIJ wEP rijS" 8aACXTT7}S" OIJ; 7.7.8, 
'HTTEtpW'rat /)' eirIt Kat 'AJ.L<t>LAOXOt Kat oi lnrEPKELlJ-ElJOt Kat fIVlJaTTTOIITES" TOtS" 'IUvptKOtS" 
OPErIt, TpaXELaIJ OiKOVIJTES" xwpalJ, MOAOTTOL ... Cx.lJalJ-E~KTat /)E TOVTOtS" Ta TTPOS" Tc1J 
IJOT~ ~PEt TI/S" OPEWijS" KaL Ta wEP TOV 'IolJwv KOATTOV ... ElT' E7TtKpaTOVIJTWIJ Cx.EL 
TtIJWIJ KaTErITpE.pEIJ aTTalJTa EiS" rTjlJ MaKEI50IJwlJ Cx.PX~IJ, TTAr,1J OAL-YWIJ TWIJ wEP TOV 
'Iollwv KOA7TOV. L. Dissen, apud A. Boeckh, ed., Pindari opera quae supersunt (Leipzig 
1811-21) ad Nem. 7. 64ff, cited some of these passages to support the suggestion that 
lnrEP £lAOS" could mean simply "on or next to the sea," so that Nem. 7.65 could be 
translated as "ad Ionium mare habitans" or "Ionium mare accolens." He has been fol­
lowed, for example, by LSJ (s. v. WEP, 1.1) Bossler (supra n.3), and H. Lloyd-Jones, 
"Modern Interpretation of Pindar: The Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes," 
JHS 93 (1973) 109-37, esp. 135 and n.129, but is surely mistaken (cf W. G. Cookes­
ley, ed., Pindari Carmina [Eton 1842-511 145f ad loc., and C. A. M. Fennell, ed., 
Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes [Cambridge 1883 1, 18992] ad loc.). The single 
case of Epirus will not support this generalization; and in fact when the Greeks mean 
'ad mare' they use the appropriate prepositions: EIJ 8aAaTTYI (KG 1.464 cite Xen. An. 
4.8.22), ETTL 8aAaTTYI (KG 1.499 cite Hdt. 7.89), TTapa 8aAaTTYI (KG 1.511 cite Xen. 
An. 7.2.25). lnrEP 8aA.aTT7}S" never means simply 'next to the sea', but always instead 
'at a significant altitude overlooking the sea'. Because the coastline in the Mediter­
ranean is often a strip of low-lying land on whose inland side rise hills and mountains, 
tJ7TEP very frequently takes on the meaning 'inland from': but in such cases it never 
denotes simply distance from the sea at the same altitude (for this, the usual expres­
sion is Cx.TTO 8aAaTT7}S", e.g. Thuc. 1.46.4), but rather always includes the notion of 
moving upwards (so e.g. Hdt. 7.115.2). Cf in general R. Helbing, Die Prapositionen bei 
Herodot und anderen Historikern (= Schanz' Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der grie­
chischen Sprache 16 [Wlirzburg 1904]) 148-50, and E. Reitz, De praepositionis lnrEP 
apud Pausaniam periegetam usu locali (diss.Freiburg i.B. 1891) 25ff. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 321 

point along the rocky eastern coast of the Ionian Sea: in Elis,24 in 
Acarnania, or in Epirus. But the passage quoted from the Fourth 
Nemean, as well as the reference in this poem to Neoptolemus' 
arrival at Ephyra and kingship over the Molossians, make the hypoth­
esis that in 64f Pindar is again referring to the Molossians by far the 
most economical explanation available.25 

Which, then, of the Epirotans is Pindar thinking of? His words 
imply neither that only kings or members of the royal house might 
be called Achaeans (which would imply an improbable journey by the 
Molossian kings to Aegina to hear Pindar's poem) nor that all mem­
bers of the Molossian tribe could be so called (which would suggest a 
more thorough Hellenization than we expect of them in this period). 
Instead, the words refer to any Molossian for whom the honor due 
Neoptolemus was so important that he could be regarded, or could 
regard himself, as an Achaean. What percentage of the Molossians 
could be accurately described in these terms is not a question likely 
to have occurred to Pindar.26 

24 So Dissen (supra n.23). 
25 This is the interpretation of the ancient scholia-which, to be sure, also offer the 

implausible alternative that Neoptolemus himself could be meant: ef L ad Nem. 7.94a, 
b. The latter suggestion has been resurrected by L. Bornemann, "Pindar's siebente 
nemeische Ode ein Siegertotenlied," Philologus 45 (1886) 596-613, esp. 608, and L. 
Woodbury, "Neoptolemus at Delphi: Pindar, Nem. 7.30ff.," Phoenix 33 (979) 95-133, 
esp. 123ff. But it seems unlikely that, after the emphasis upon Neoptolemus' death and 
burial at Delphi (34f, 42, 44ff), we should find him turning up in Aegina. Woodbury's 
observation that "in the Fourth Nemean Pindar says that Neoptolemus 'reigns' in 
Epirus" does not help matters much: that is a far less immediate context; and in gen­
eral, under normal circumstances, strict limits were set to the spontaneous mobility of 
heroes after their death (ef W. Burkert, Grieehisehe Religion der arehaisehen und klassi­
sehen Epoehe [Stuttgart/Berlin 1977] 316; M. P. Nilsson, GGR I 189, 715f; and E. 
Rohde, Psyche2 I [Freiburg i.B.lLeipzig/TUbingen 1898] 159ff). 

2fi Woodbury's objection, that the Epirotans of this period seem to have been barbar­
ians (supra n.25: 114-33) is refuted by C. Carey, A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar 
(New York 1981) 152 ad Nem. 7.40 and 162 ad 64-68. It is important that we not 
overestimate the certainty of our knowledge of the history of the period at the cost of 
the transmitted poetry. It would not be impossible, for example, for a tribe considered 
by the Greeks as barbarians to have been ruled by a dynasty claiming descent from 
Greek heroes. This is precisely what Strabo attests for the Molossians 0.7.8, Kat TWIJ 
'H1THpwrWIJ 8e MOAOTTOt lJ1TO ITvppcp Tep N~01TTOA~~V TOV 'AX.u...A~w<; Kat TOt" a1TOYOIJOt" 
athov 0~TTaAOt" o~m y~yOIJOT~"), and there is no adequate reason to reject his testi­
mony. The locus classicus for the barbarian nature of the Molossians is Thuc. 2.80.5f, 
where they appear in the company of the Chaonians, the Thesprotians, and others; but 
at least the Thesprotians seem to have traced their ruling dynasty back to Odysseus, as 
implied by the Telegony (Procl. 109.l8ff Allen; c/ Apollod. Epit. 7.34f). The later 
increase in the hellenization of the Molossians (cf Hammond [supra n.22] 507f; M. P. 
Nilsson, Studien zur Geschichte des alten Epeiros (= Lunds Universitets Arsskrift N. F. Afd. 
1,6:4 [Lund 1909] 32-46; Woodbury [supra n.25] 121f) by no means precludes this hy­
pothesis: quite the contrary. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

322 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

2. Kat . .. TE 

Traditional interpretation associates the reference to 1T'pO~EVUx in 
line 65 closely with the preceding sentence concerning the Achaean 
man and sees the beginning of a new thought in the words lv TE 
8a~Tat~: however they may disagree about the precise denotation of 
'Axaw~ aV-r1P, of 'IovUx~ lnrEP &A.o~, and of 1T'pO~EVUx, commentators 
seem unanimous in interpreting these lines to mean that Pindar's 
confidence in some proxeny relieves him of any fear that the Achae­
an man will blame him; there is similar agreement that the major 
break in thought occurs after 1T'E'TrodJa.27 

But this interpretation represents a grave violation of the syntax of 
Kat and TE. It may be formulated as a general rule that, when three 
elements A, B, and C are coordinated by these particles in the form 
A-Kai-B-C-TE, TE links only Band C with one another, while Kai 
unites A with the complex formed by Band C together: hence the 
result is A + (B+C).28 This rule holds whether the elements in ques­
tion are words or phrases. Consider the following examples: 
(a) Substantive + (substantive + substantive): 
1. Pyth. 11.59-64: eX. 'TE 'TOV 'Iqx,KAEi8av / 8c.af/>EpEt 'IOAaov / VIJ-VTJ'TOV EOV'Ta, 

, u..!. a/". /' "1: n ). '1:>_ • '8 ~ / " , '9 KaL n.uU'TOpo<; ,.-...V, UE 'TE, ava~ O",VvtVKE<;, VLOL EWV, 'TO p,EV 11'ap alJ-ap 
18paLUL 9EpcbTva<;, / 'TO 8' OlKEOVTa<; [voov 'OAVIJ-11'OV. Iolaus was the son of 
Iphic1es, Castor and Polydeuces were the sons of Zeus (c! L ad Pyth. 11.91). 
2. Nem. 4.9-11: 'TO IJ-OL 8Ep,EV Kpovi&tt 'TE ai Kai NE~~ / TLIJ-aUO:PXov 'TE 
11'0:A~ / VIJ-VOV 11'POKWIJ-WV EiTJ. Praise is due, on the one hand, to god, and on 
the other-almost by hendiadys (c! Fennell [supra n.23] ad loc.) -to Tima­
sarchus' victory at Nemea. 

(b) Phrase + (phrase + phrase): 
1. 01. 13.24-30: tma'T' EVPV avo:uuwv / 'OAVIJ-11'ia<;, acp80vTJ'To<; [11'EUULV / 
YEVOW )(povov eX.11'avTa, ZEV 11'0:'TEP, / Kat 'TOV8E MOV a{3Aa{3i, VEIJ-WV / 2EVO­
cpWV'TO<; Ev8vvE 8atIJ-OVO<; o~pOV, / 8E~aL 'TE 29 0 ;' U'TEcpO:VWV EYKWIJ-WV / TE8~v, 
TOV aYEL 11'E8iwv EK nwa<;, / 11'EV'TaE8A~ eX.1J-a u'Ta8iov / VLKWV 8polJ-Ov. Despite 
the conventional punctuation (a colon after o~pov) it seems evident that the 
first phrase speaks in general terms of the relation between Zeus and the 
poet's words, while the second two phrases, belonging closely together, de­
scribe specifically the reciprocal relation between Zeus on the one hand and 
Xenophon and the Corinthians on the other; this is underlined by the use of 
an optative in the first phrase and then of two imperatives in the second two. 

27 Many editions leave this unclear by punctuating with two commas or two cola; but 
that the interpreters have understood the passage in this way is beyond doubt. 

28 This is implied by KG 2.242f, 246, 251f n.2, and J. D. Denniston, The Greek Par­
ticles2 (Oxford 1954) 496; it is asserted clearly by Fennell (supra n.23) ad Pyth. 1.42. 

29 One of the two families of manuscripts (v) offers ~ instead of Te: modem editors 
accept the latter reading but punctuate as though they read the former. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 323 

2. Pyth. 3.93-95: KaL (JEoL 8awav'To 7Tap' alUPo'Tepov;, / KaL Kpovov 7Tat8a~ 
13cl(nAfja~ £'80v )(pV- / (J'eaLt; EV l8paL~, l8va 'TE / 8e~avTO. First the general 
situation is described from the perspective of the gods, who are the gram­
matical subject; then two concrete particulars are depicted from the perspec­
tive of the mortals, who are the subjects of the last two verbs (el I. ad Pyth. 
3.165, first clause; 166, second two). 
3. Pae. 5.35-42: E~- / ]jlotav lAov Ka( tvamraV' / MiE !&Ju' "A7TOAAOV' / 

, '~A.._ '\ /" " c-' ,,, / A" Kat (J'7Topaua~ 'f'CPE/.L"f'/I\.OV~ EK'Tt(J'av va(J'o~ EptKVoEa ~ E(J'XOV LlaAov, 

brei (J'cfxv 'A7TOAAwV / BWKEV 0 )(PV(J'OKOI-£a~ I 'A(J''TEpia~ 8el-£a~ OiKELV. First 
Euboea, then the Sporades, the latter being further subdivided into the 
Sporades in general and Delos in particular. 

Clearly the lines in question from the Seventh Nemean should also, 
if possible, be interpreted as being organized in this way, with the 
primary division of thought located, not after n-ETrodJa, but after 
OiKEWV. This suggestion is confirmed by two further grammatical 
considerations: first, the change in the person of the verbs, from 
third person in the first clause to first person in the second two 
clauses, with the consequent change in perspective from the speaker 
as object in the first clause to the speaker as subject in the second 
two clauses~ and second, the change in tense of the verbs, from 
future in the first clause to the more closely correlated perfect and 
present in the second two clauses.3o The text is usually punctuated 
with two cola or two commas, one after OiKEWV and one after 7rE7rO«.-

8a~ but in light of this discussion, it may be preferable to adopt a 
different and less ambiguous punctuation, one as far as I know not 
previously proposed, viz. a colon after OlKEWV and a comma after 
7rE7rodJa. While this change is not absolutely necessary, it may help to 
clarify the relations obtaining among the various clauses. 

3. 7TPO~Evla 
With few exceptions, the 7rpO~Evia to which Pindar refers in line 65 

has been understood as the technical term for the office of 7rpO~EVO<;, 
the institution whereby-at least after approximately the end of the 
sixth century (and perhaps much earlier) -a citizen of one city might 
be charged by another with the honorable duty of looking after the 
interests of those members of the second city who might, for one 
reason or another, find themselves in the first.31 Those scholars who 

30 On the relation between perfect and present cf P. Chantraine, Histoire du parfait 
grec (Paris 1927) 16-20, 146f. 

31 Among the exceptions, E. Bundy, Studia Pindarica II: The First Isthmian Ode 
(CPCP 18 [Berkeley/Los Angeles 1962] 35-92, esp. 89 n.122; F. Gschnitzer, RE 
Sup pI. 13 (I973) 633 s. v. "Proxenos"; Pavese (supra n.11) 677: C. A. P. Ruck, "Mar­
ginalia Pindarica IV-VI," Hermes 100 (1972) 143-69, esp. 151; A. Setti, "Persona e 
'poetica' nella VII Nemea," in Studia jlorentina Alexandro Ronconi sexagenario oblata 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

324 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

have mistakenly connected the words (Kat) 1TPO~EV~ 7TE1T'01,,8a to the 
preceding phrase rather than to the following one were naturally led 
to believe that Pindar was referring to his own 7TpO~Evia with regard 
to the Achaean man dwelling above the Ionian Sea: that, for exam­
ple, Pindar was the official 1TpO~EVO~ in Thebes for the Molossians, 
and therefore did not need to fear the blame of any Molossian who 
happened to be nearby.32 

In addition to the syntactical difficulties we noted above, a closer 
study of the usage of 7TpO~EVO~ and 1TpO~Evia will show that a techni­
cal understanding of this term must also be rejected. 

The first literary author33 to use the term 7TpO~EI"VO~ as a regular des­
ignation of this quasi-ambassadorship is Herodotus, who speaks of the 
Macedonian 1TpO~EtVO~ for Athens (8.136.1, 143.1) and the Plataean 
1TpO~EI.VO~ for Aegina (9.85.3; cf. 6.57.2, where the term is applied to 
officials appointed by the Spartan king). But Herodotus is not the first 
author to use the words 1TpO~EVO~ and 1TpO~EVia: they occur repeatedly 
in poetic contexts throughout the fifth century in non-technical refer­
ence to any person in one city who acts as a protecting host for trav­
ellers from another city. In every such case, there is no permanent 
contractual obligation for the host to entertain and protect his guests: 
he does so because of his hospitality and humanity. That is, in poetry 
of this period the term indicates not so much an office as a concrete act 
of hospitality or a generally hospitable disposition. Such is the usage in 
the three other passages in Pindar in which these words occur: 

(1) OJ. 9.83: 1f'po€Ev0 34 8' aPET~ T' ~A80v / n~opo.:; 'Iu8J,UauTL Aaf.'1f'PO­
~x.ov / JJi,TpalS, OT' aJ.L4>OTEPOf, KpaT'TlUav / J,Uav EP'YOV av' a,."Epav.35 The 

(Rome 1970) 405-29, esp. 421 and n.45; Slater (supra n.3) s.v. 7TpO~EVO~; Woodbury 
(supra n.25) 126 and n.137. Lloyd-Jones (supra n.23: 135) adopts the non-technical 
meaning of 7TPO~VO<:; but sees the relationship as one obtaining between Pindar and the 
Achaeans who dwell above the Ionian Sea. For the technical meaning cj. Gschnitzer 
629ft'; P. Monceaux, Les proxenies grecques (Paris 1885) 3ft'; and M. B. Wallace, "Early 
Greek Proxenoi," Phoenix 24 (1970) 189-208, esp. 189ft'. 

32 So e.g. Wilamowitz, "Pindars siebentes nemeisches Gedicht," SitzBerlin 15 (1908) 
328-52 (cited from W. M. Calder III and 1. Stern, edd., Pindaros und Bakchylides 
[Darmstadt 1970] 127-58, esp. 141) and Pindaros (supra n.5) 167f. 

33 I exclude here non-literary sources such as the famous Corcyraean tomb of Me­
necrates (ca 600 B.C.: Epigr. 26 Friedllinder-Hoffieit; M.lL. 4): they can tell us nothing 
about the literary traditions to which Pindar's poetry belongs. 

34 Here, as in Parth. 2.41 and Nem. 7.65, Pindar uses the generalizing substantive in 
-la, derived from the adjective. As I have shown elsewhere (The Measures of Praise: 
Structure and Function in Pindar's Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes [Gottingen 
1985] 141 and n.28), such substantives form an important part of his vocabulary; as 
here, they are usually abstract rather than concrete. 

35 The scholia on this passage are divided: some (ad 01. 9.123a, c) see a reference to 
the institution of proxeny, others (123c, d, e) interpret the word more broadly as 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 325 

datives indicate the considerations that prompted Pindar to come: on the one 
hand, the excellence that manifested itself in athletic victory; on the other, 
the friendliness towards him indicated by the invitation. The former picks up 
apETaWtV from line 16 and EpYOt(JW from line 66, for the eponymous Opus 
is made closely parallel to his newly successful descendants (as is clear from 
the emphasis on the combination, shared in both cases, of physical beauty 
and practical valor~ cj 65f and 95) ~ 36 parallels for the latter appear not only 
in Pindar's reference to the city of Opus as cjJiAav 1TOAtv (21), but also and 
more significantly in the statement that people travelled from other cities, 
including Thebes, to admire the hero Opus (67f). 
(2) Isthm. 4.8: TOL ~v JJv E>-r,{3aLUL TLJ,UXEVTE<; apxa(}Ev AEYOVTat / 1TPO£Evoi 
T' aJU!>tKTWvWV KEAaSEvva<; T' 0PcPaVOL / v{3pto<;. Pindar contrasts the honor 
the Cleonymids received from their fellow Thebans with their friendly rela­
tions to members of neighboring cities. A narrow interpretation of the word 
1TpO~EJJOt would be at variance with the generality and abstractness of the 
other two attributes of the Cleonymids; moreover, the word apxa(}Ev refers 
us to a primordial age in which the institution of 1TpO~Evia was not yet 
known.37 

(3) Parth. 2.41: 1TtUTO: S' 'AyaUtKAEEt / ~pTV<; 7/AV(}OV E<; xopov / EuAolS TE 
~ /' ",,#..; ~' , / () \ \ '. \ ~ / ' , ",,#.. YOVEVUtV afoA"lA 1TPOEVtatUto TL- /-UX EV yap Ta 1Ta"at Ta vvv T a~t-

, / or ", .., [. / ' ,\, A . h KTtoVEUUtV t1T1TWV T WKV1TOuWV 1T9 "v- yVWTOt~ E1Tt VtKaL~ . . .. gam t e 
reference is to the continuity, since ancient times, of friendly relations be­
tween Agasicles' ancestors and the surrounding towns, as manifested in 
honors after athletic victories, and excludes any notion of the concrete insti­
tution of proxeny. 

The same holds for the usage of 7TpO~EVO~ in Attic tragedy. In Aes­
chylus' Supplices the word twice refers to the non-institutionalized 
protection King Pelasgus offers the Danaids who have arrived in his 
kingdom (419, 491); later it recurs in the dialogue between Pelasgus 
and the Egyptian herald to designate the kind of local patronage with­
out which the latter's conduct is foolhardy, and without denoting any 
kind of official ambassador (919 [note the plural] and perhaps 92038); 

the ideal combination of hospitality and protection is described explic­
itly by King Pelasgus in lines 954-65 (cf 7Tpo(J"TaTYI~, 963). In a 
papyrus fragment of the Diktyoulkoi, where the dramatic situation is 

cfx)o..La. Most modern scholars follow the former, e.g. L. R. Farnell, ed., The Works of 
Pindar (London 1930), Fennell (supra n.23), B. L. Gildersleeve, ed., Pindar: The 
Olympian and Pythian Odes2 (New York 1890) ad loc.; cf Wilamowitz (supra n.5) 
349f. 

36 Cf D. C. Young, Pindar Isthmian 7. Myth and Exempla (=Mnemosyne Suppl. 15 
[Leiden 1971]) 19 n.6l. 

37 Cf Thummer (supra n.1l) II 66 ad 25f. 
38 At Suppl. 920 Page (OCT [Oxford 1972]) daggers 7TpogevwL as an intrusive dittog­

raphy from 919. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

326 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

similar-Danae and Perseus have been washed onto the shore of 
Seriphos and are offered protection and hospitality - Aeschylus glosses 
the word by juxtaposing with it 'Trp01TpaKTwp (P.Oxy. XVIII 2161.1.4). 
Sophocles uses the word once in describing Clytemnestra's hospitality 
to her spurious Phocian guests (EI. 1451). Euripides uses it (Jon 551, 
1039; Andr. 1103) in reference to the Delphic officials in charge of 
welcoming foreign guests from all other Greek cities, not just from 
those with which they had a special contractual relation; 39 a fragment 
(fr.721 Nauck) is transmitted by Ammonius s. v. 1TpO~EVO~, with the 
revealing comment, OVK op8~ ovv Evpc.'TriaT}'i EV TT}AEcfxp 1TpO~EVOV 
EipT}KE TOV WW~EVOV. If the uncertainly transmitted 1TpO~EVlaV in Med. 
359 is accepted,40 it will have exactly the same meaning. So too in 
Aristophanes Thesm. 602, the word describes merely someone who 
watches out for another's interests.41 Finally, the verb 1TpO~EVEW, 
when used in its literal sense (rather than with the meaning 'to 
effect'), refers in the fifth century to the general act of protecting, 
not to fulfilling the office of 'TrpO~EVO'i in its technical sense (Eur. 
Med. 724, Ar. Thesm. 576). 

It would thus be anomalous if in Nem. 7.65 Pindar were refer­
ring to the institution of proxeny. But if he is not, then what spe­
cific protective hospitality towards a foreigner does he have in mind 
here? The answer is provided a few lines earlier when Pindar says 
of himself (with regard to Thearion, father of the victorious So­
genes) ~avo~ EiJ,u (61). Clearly the two words ~E'VO'i (61) and 'TrPO­
~EVla (65) balance and explain one another; both denote the re­
lationship of guest-friendship obtaining between Pindar and his host 
Thearion, the former from Pindar's point of view and the latter 
from Thearion's. Neither the Molossians nor an official proxeny have 
any business here: if Pin dar feels confident, it is because of the 
generous hospitality his host has extended to him. Understood in 
this way the passage has an exact parallel in the Tenth Pythian 
(64-66): 

1TE'TrOc.8a ~EV~ 1TpouavE,:@wpa-
f'I " " KO~, OU'TrEP EJ.LaV 'Troc.'TrVVWV xapC.V 

'~'''r 1:-" n '~I' ' TOu E~EV~o:V apJ.La C.EpC.uwV TETpaopov, 
c/xAEWV ¢C.AEOVT" aywv ayovTa 1TpO¢pOVW'i.42 

39 Cf Monceaux (supra n.31) 259ft'; Gschnitzer (supra n.31) 636f is too skeptical 
here. 

40 But cf D. L. Page, ed., Euripides, Medea (Oxford 1938) 99 ad loc. 
41 The ancient scholia interpret the other passage in which Aristophanes uses the 

noun (Av. 1021) in terms of proxeny; this seems possible but unlikely. 
42 Cf 1: ad Pyth. 10. 99a, the terminology of which echoes that of 1: ad 01. 9.123d, e. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 327 

4. 8aJ,LOTai. 
Since antiquity the 8a~TaL to whom Pindar refers in line 65 have 

generally been understood as his fellow Thebans:43 Pindar would thus 
be describing, in Aegina, the merits of his conduct at home among 
his fellow citizens in Thebes. 

But this interpretation is almost certainly mistaken. It is only in 
Attic Greek that the word BTU.wT"I7~ has a reciprocal value: that is, 
only in Attk can two members of the same Bfif..W~ call one another 
B"I7J.WT"I7~ and thereby mean not only 'member of a Bfif..W~' but also 
'fellow member of the Bfif..W~ to which I belong' .44 In this usage, of 
course, the Bfif..W~ in question is not the folk or the populace at large, 
but rather the deme, the unit of municipal administration into which 
the reforms of Cleisthenes organized Attica.45 This usage is familiar, 
for example, from Aristophanes46 and the Attic orators.47 

On the other hand, in archaic and classical non-Attic Greek the word 
never has a reciprocal value but instead always denotes a member of 
the class of free citizens in explicit or implicit contrast to a ruling or 
otherwise prominent individua1.48 In Tyrtaeus the B"I7J.WTa~ allBpa~ are' 
contrasted to the 8EOTtJJ.7}T01Jf; f3a(J'I.Afia~ and the 7TPE(J'f3v'YElIEa~ 'YE-

43 The few exceptions: FennelP (supra n.23) 80 (retracted in ed.2 92); G. Fraccaroli, 
Le Odi di Pindaro (Verona 1894) 592 n.3; H. M. Lee, "The TEPMA and the Javelin in 
Pindar, Nemean vii 70-73, and Greek Athletics," JHS 96 (976) 70-79, esp. 72 and 
n.2c, follows and clarifies Thummer (supra n.ll), who implies a more correct under­
standing of the word but offers no argumentation in support; Woodbury (supra n.25) 
126 (as Thummer). E. Bundy, "The 'Quarrel between Kallimachos and Apollonios.' 
Part 1. The Epilogue of Kallimachos' Hymn to Apollo," CSCA 5 (972) 39-94, esp. 81 
n.99, applies the word to the Aeginetans but misconstrues it as "Thearion's fellow 
townsmen." Misunderstanding of this word is at least as old as the scholia (ad Nem. 
7.97a, b, c), whose ignorance of the subtleties of non-Attic Greek is perhaps not 
surprising. 

44 On such reciprocal terms cf E. Benveniste, Problemes de linguistique gimerale (Paris 
1966-74) II 273-80. The restriction to Attic is recognized in passing by F. Ellendt, 
Lexicon Sophoeleum2 (Berlin 1872) s. V. 1TpO~EVO<;; I have been unable to trace his source. 

45 Cf Hdt. 5.66-69, Arist. Ath.Pol. 21. 
46 Ach. 319, 328, 333 (E~<; 8.),349, 675; £eel. 1023, 1115 (+YELTOVE<;); Eq. 320; 

Lys. 335 (E/Ul18 8.), 685; Nub. 210 (ov/-Wt 8.), 1210, 1219, 1322 (cL 'YELTOVE<; Kat ~'Y­
'YEVEL<; Kat 8,); Plut. 254 (+cPD-OL), 322. Only in Pax 920, where the term is opposed to 
'YEWP'YLKOV, is non-Attic usage likely. Cf in general V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aris­
tophanes2 (Oxford 1951) 214ff, on the duties and relations among 8T1Juhat. 

47 E.g., [Dem.] 52.28; Dem. 57.24, 61, 62, 69, etc. 
48 Cf W. Donlan, "Changes and Shifts in the Meaning of Demos in the Literature 

of the Archaic Period," ParPass 25 (970) 381-95, esp. 381ff; V. Ehrenberg, "Der 
Damas im archaischen Sparta," Hermes 68 (933) 288-305, esp. 289f; A. Forti Mes­
sina, "aij/-W<; in alcuni lirici," in ANTIM1PON Hugoni Henrico Paoli oblatum: Miscel­
lanea philologica (Genoa 1956) 227-41; G. Maddoli, "aAMOl:' e BAI.IAHEI.. Contri­
buto allo studio delle origine della polis," SMEA 12 (970) 7-57, esp. 46ff. This is the 
usage recorded in LSJ s. v. as "one of the people, a commoner as opposed to a man of 
rank. " 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

328 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

pOVTar; (4.3-5 West) .411 Susarion addresses the Icarian populace as w 
8T1~Tat but emphasizes in the previous line that he himself is a Me­
garian (2f West); obviously he does not mean to suggest by this form 
of address that he belongs to the same BijJ-Wr; as the Athenians of 
lcaria.50 So also in Herodotus the word occurs three times, in each case 
designating ordinary citizens in contrast to rulers (2.172.2, 5; 5.11.2). 

Since the reciprocal meaning of BTI~TTlr; is peculiarly Attic, one 
might expect to find it in the Athenian tragedians. But almost with­
out exception they exclude the local usage in preference to the non­
Attic, non-reciprocal one. This self-censorship may well b~ evidence 
for a sense of dramatic propriety: presumably there was a desire to 
avoid the embarrassing incongruity of mythic figures speaking like 
Athenian burghers. In Sophocles' Ajax 1071, Menelaus refers con­
temptuously to the dead hero as &lI8pa 8T1~TTllI, that is, as a com­
mon soldier from the viewpoint of the king and commander; at 
Antigone 690, Haemon describes the terrifying power of the king with 
respect to the ordinary citizen, avBpt 8T1~rn. The same tendency is 
found in Euripides. In his famous A&(JE I3WJuar; speech Ion says BTJJ.«>­
TTlr; all EVTUXT,r; / ~ijll all (JEAOtJ.U J,UXlloll Ti ropallllor; cOv (Jon 625[); 
Menelaus reminds Agamemnon of his eagerness to find support for 
the Trojan expedition with the words, wr; Ta1TELlIOr; ;'u(Ja, 1TaUT/r; 
8E~uir; 1Tpou(JtyyallwlI / Kat (Jvpar; EXWlI aKA11uTovr; T~ (JEAovn 8T1J-W­
TWV / Kat 8t80vr; 1TPOUPTlUtll E~r; 1Tfiut (JA 339-41); in explaining 
Clytemnestra's failure to remarry, Electra claims that 1/I0YOll TPE­
J-Wvua 8T1J.LOTWlI EAEi1TETO (EI. 643); and a fragment from the Erech­
theus contrasts E~VU~ ElITVXWlI (the attainment of public office) with 
ainxpoVr; EpwTar; BTlJ.LOTWlI 8UJJKa(JEtll (fr.362.24f Nauck). The same 
usage is found in a frequently misunderstood passage in the Alcestis:51 

hesitating to accept Heracles' request that an apparently unknown 
woman be lodged in the palace, which is still mourning the queen's 
death, Admetus says (1057-60): 

Bt1TAijv cbol3ovJUX.t "uJ.LI/I""' EK TE BTJJ-WTWlI, 
J.LT, Tir; J.L' EAEyrn TT, 11 EJ.LT, 11 EVEPYEnll 

~, " "\ \ ~ , , , 1TPOuOllT Ell al\I\TJr; uEJ.LlIWtC; 1TtTlIEtll lIEac;, 
, '" (J , 

Kat TTlC; allovUT/c; .... 

49 Cf C. Prato, ed., Tyrtaeus (Rome 1968) 73 ad loc. 
50 This is misunderstood by A. Pickard-Cambridge and T. B. L. Webster, Dithyramb 

Tragedy and Comedy 2 (Oxford 1962) 185, and by M. L. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and 
Iambus (Berlin/New York 1974) 32. The Parian Marble dates Susarion between 581/0 
and 5621l-at least half a century before Cleisthenes' reforms. 

51 E.g. LSJ s. v. 8Tj~'TT/~ II (cited as the only parallel for Nem. 7.65); Ehrenberg 
(supra n.46) 215 (but cf 82 n.2). 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 329 

Admetus fears reproaches both from within the royal house (from 
the dead Alcestis) and from without (from the citizenry): but Adme­
tus is a king, and the citizens are his subjects, not his fellow citi­
zens.52 Indeed, there are only two passages in all Attic tragedy where, 
with some degree of plausibility, the Attic meaning of 8'Y1J.WT'Y1~ might 
be claimed: Soph. OC 77-79 (but here the words may mean, not 'my 
fellow demesmen', but rather 'those members of the populace who 
live C 1Jtside the town', 53 and in any event the scene of the action is 
Attica, in the deme of Colonus, so that an Atticism might seem less 
anomalous), and Eur. Supp. 890-95 (where the phrase 8'Y1J.WT'Y1~ TE 

Kat gEJlO~ does suggest the meaning 'fellow citizen' for the former 
word, unless the passage is to be interpreted as contrasting-from the 
viewpoint of Adrastus-members of the non-royal populace with resi­
dent foreigners). But neither of these latter passages can offer any 
serious support for the notion that in Nemean 7 Pin dar could be 
referring to his fellow citizens as 8aJ.WTat. 

The result may seem curious. After all, a 7roAiT'Y1~ can be a member 
of the same 7r()A/'~, an (hTTO~ of the same aCTTv, a cf>vA-r]T'Y1~ of the 
same cf>vA-r]; in Latin both ciuis and popularis can be used as reciprocal 
terms. Why should such an exception be made for 8'Y1f.LOT'Y1~? The 
answer is simple. Such reciprocity belongs exclusively to terms drawn 
from the sphere of political organization: established political divisions 
create classes, all of whose members have the same reciprocal rela­
tion to one another of belonging to the same group.54 Outside the 
terminology of political administration, on the other hand, such an 
attitude has no foundation. The Mycenaean damo may well have 
been a local administrative unit bound to the land and occupied in 
agriculture, subordinated to the central power but at the same time 
enjoying some as yet undetermined degree of autonomy.55 But this 
function seems not to have survived the general collapse of the 

52 Any notion that Admetus might have an other than royal attitude towards his 
subjects is precluded by lines 425f, 507f, 510, and 1154f. 

5a Cj R. C. Jebb, ed., Sophocles, Oedipus Coloneus (Cambridge 1900) 24f ad loc. 
54 The dependence of this linguistic reciprocity upon structures of political organiza­

tion is illustrated perfectly by Arist. Ath.Pol. 21.4: Kat fjT}~m<; E7T'oiT}UEV aU7}AWV TOV<; 
OlKovvTa<; EV iKauT~ nov fj7}j.UJJv, iva J.'~ 7T'uTpo8EV 7T'pOua-yopEvoVTE<; E~EAE-YXwu"LV 
TOV<; VE07T'OALm<;, aAAa nov fj7}j.UJJv aVa-YOPEVWU"LV' 08EV Kat Kat..ovmv 'A8T}vatOL uq,a<; 
alJTov<; nov fj7}j.UJJV. 

55 Cj 1. Chadwick, The Mycenaean World (Cambridge 1976) 76f; M. Lejeune, "Le 
'damos' dans la societe mycenienne," REG 78 (1965) 1-22, esp. Iff, 6; Maddoli (supra 
n.48) 17ff; L. R. Palmer, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts (Oxford 1963) 
85ff; M. Ventris and 1. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek2 (Cambridge 1973) 
232f; K. Wundsam, Die politische und soziale Struktur in den mykenischen Residenzen nach 
den Linear B Texten (diss.Vienna 1967) 153-63. 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

330 PINDAR, NEMEAN 7.64-67 

Mycenaean administrative system; for in the archaic and classical 
periods, almost everywhere in Greece outside the Attic-Ionic sphere, 
the 8~J.W~ was never a unit of municipal administration but denoted 
instead the free citizenry in its relation to the land. Hence only in 
Athens, and only after Cleisthenes' innovation, could 87n.wTl1~ be­
come a reciprocal term. 

We must, then, discard the notion that Pindar might be referring 
to his fellow Thebans with the words EJI 'TE 8a~,(hac.~; but if not to 
them, then to whom is he referring? Pindar's usage of the word 
&iJ.W~ provides the answer. In two passages the word describes the 
members of the population of the victor's city in contrast to the 
victor himself: in Pyth. 1.70, the Aetnaeans in contrast to Hieron and 
Deinomenes (c! 68 aU'TOL~ Kat {3aUtAEVUtJl); and in Nem. 10.23, the 
citizens of Argos in contrast to the victor Theaeus.56 Such usage is 
thoroughly consistent with the passages discussed above: the contrast 
between victor and populace may be regarded as the epinician equiv­
alent of that between king or prominent citizen and populace. It 
seems inevitable that with the words EJI 'TE 8a~(hac.~ Pindar is con­
trasting the ordinary citizens of Aegina to the family of the Aeginetan 
victor Sogenes, son of Thearion, particularly as the immediately pre­
ceding words, Kat 'TrPOgEJlUtt 7TETTm(Ja, had alluded to this very family. 
5. Conclusion 

We have obtained the following results for the four problems with 
which we began: 
1. 'IoJlLa~ inTEP aAo~ OiKEWJI means "dwelling on the hills overlooking 
the Ionian Sea," and the Achaean man of line 64 is consequently in 
all probability a Molossian to whom the honor of Neoptolemus is a 
matter of some concern; 
2. the primary division of thought precedes the word Kat, which adds to 
the preceding sentence the complex unit formed by the two phrases 
linked together by 'TE; 
3. 'TrPOgEJlLa is not a terminus technicus here but instead describes the 
friendly and protective hospitality offered to Pindar by the family of 
Thearion; 
4. the 8a~uhat are not Pindar's fellow Thebans, but rather the mem­
bers of the populace of Aegina other than the family of Thearion. 

56 In 01. 3.16, the reference is to the populace of the Hyperboreans as a whole; Pae. 
7c.c.4 is too fragmentary to be securely interpreted; in the spurious 01. 5.14 it is uncer­
tain whether the citizens of Camarina are being contrasted with the victor Psaumis (so 
G. Hermann, "Ueber Pindars fiinfte olympische Ode," Opuscu/a VIII [Leipzig 1877] 
99-110, esp. 100) or with the river Hipparis (so 1: ad 01. 5.27, 29, followed by most 
modem scholars). 



MOST, GLENN W., Pindar, "Nemean" 7.64-67 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:4 
(1985:Winter) p.315 

GLENN W. MOST 331 

These results may be correlated in the form of the following re­
punctuated text together with a translation: 

~ , ~" "''A ' , '.,. "" EWlJ 0 E'Y'YV~ xatO~ ov f.LEf.L'PE'Tat f.L alJ'YJP 

'IolJia~ tJ7TEP aAo~ oi-
I , l:. I I (J'" ~ I 

KEWV' Kat. 7TpO~ElJ~ 7TE7TOt. ,ElJ 'TE oaf.LO'Tat.~ 

" 8' \ ' ,t D \ ' OJ..LJLaTL EpKOJLat J\.QJ..L'TTpOV, OVX V7TEPpQJ\.WV, 
n' I,. ~\. I 
/Juxta 7TalJ'T EK 7TOoO~ EpV(Tat.~. 

If any Achaean man who dwells on the hills overlooking the Ionian 
Sea [i.e., any Molossian to whom the honors due Neoptolemus are 
important] should happen to be near, he will not blame me; and 
[as for the Aeginetans,] I have confidence in the hospitality [of 
Thearion] and among the other citizens [of Aegina] I can look with 
brightness in my eye, for I avoid excess and keep all violence far 
from myself. 

That is, Pindar divides his audience into two groups, Molossians and 
Aeginetans; then he subdivides the latter into two sub-groups, the 
family of the victor and the remaining populace. The two larger 
audiences correspond to the two primary topics that Pindar has dis­
cussed in the course of the poem: the Molossians represent the myth 
of Neoptolemus, the Aeginetans the epinician occasion of Sogenes' 
victory. In claiming with these words that neither audience will find 
fault with him, Pindar is stating, in effect, that he has so far dealt 
successfully with both topics. To what degree he has in fact done so, 
I have examined in some detail elsewhere.57 

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 

January, 1986 

57 Cj supra n.34, Chapter 3. I am grateful to Professor Richard Kannicht for his 
comments on an earlier version of this paper.