MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 Phthonos and Parphasis: The Argument of Nemean 8.19-34 Andrew M Miller I N THE SECOND TRIAD of Pindar's Eighth Nemean Ode, composed to celebrate a victory in the double-stade race won by Deinis of Aegina, the poet announces a rhetorical pause 09-22): ., ~, "A..~" , , upra,."at O'Y'J 7rOUeTt KOVo/'-'t~, aJ.L7rVEWV TE 7rptv Tt ¢aJ.LEV. 7rOAAa yap 7rOAAc!. A€AEKTat, VEapa 8' E~EV- , ~, {3a' pOVTa oOJ.LEV eTavcp E~ EAEYXOV, a7ra~ Kiv8vvo~' ot/JOV 8f. AoYOt ¢(JOVEpOI,UtV, ., ~, , \" " , ~'" :r a7rTETaL 0 EeT",WV aEL, XELPOVEeTUt 0 OVK EP"':,Et. Of these lines and the account of Ajax's suicide that follows E. L. Bundy offers, in passing, this interpretation: In N. 8.19-22, thought of the criticism (cb(JolJo,,) which his praise may evoke among the enemies of Deinis induces him to pause 09-22), even to illustrate the dangers of praising a man among his peers (23-34), before he can confidently return to his task. 1 On this view the "something" (Tt) that the poet is drawing breath to say, the "new things" (PEapa) that he is hesitating to submit to his audience for judgement, pertain neither to Ajax nor to Cinyras2 but 1 E. L. Bundy, Studia Pindarica I (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1962) 40. The text of Pindar used throughout is that of H. Maehler (Leipzig 1971). 2 According to the great majority of commentators, from the scholia onward, Pindar is concerned here with the introduction into traditional stories of original elements that, precisely because they depart from the standard account, are likely to be seized upon by the ill-disposed as a pretext for captious criticism. Those who take veapa as looking forward to the Ajax story are notably unable to agree on what can safely be labeled 'new' in Pindar's version~ c/ F. Mezger, Pindars Siegeslieder (Leipzig 1880) 328~ J. B. Bury, The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London/New York 1890) 147: A. M. Fennell, Pindar: The Nemean and Isthmian Odes2 (Cambridge 1899) 103~ C. Gaspar, Essai de chronologie pindarique (Brussels 1900) 43: L. R. Farnell, The Works of Pindar I (London 1932) 215-16~ N. O. Brown, "Pindar, Sophocles, and the Thirty Years' Peace," TAPA 82 (1951) 15: J. Finley, Pindar and Aeschylus (Cambridge [Mass.] 1955) 155. C. M. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford 1962) 344, even concludes, as it were in despera­ tion, that Pindar in fact has nothing new to say and is merely "making excuses for telling an old story again." Others follow the scholia (32a [III 143 DrachmannD in referring veapa backward to Cinyras: L. Dissen in A. Boeckh, Pindari Carmina II (Leipzig 1821) 445: W. Christ, Pindari Carmina (Leipzig 1896) 295: F. Arnaldi, Sfrut- III MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 112 PHTHONOS AND PARPHASIS: NEMEAN 8.19-34 to the victor himself; the AoyOt upon which the envious feast with such relish are neither mythographically innovative stories nor mali­ cious slander3 but words of praise; and the relation of the 5"'0" clause to what precedes is, logically if not formally, explicative, defining wherein the "danger" faced by the poet consists. Although Bundy's reading preserves continuity of thought throughout the passage4 and accounts for the introduction of phthonos as a topic of discourse without resorting to conjectures about politics or literary intrigue,5 it requires elaboration and clarification on several points. If W. 1. Slater is right (and I believe he is) in saying that Pindar's epinicians "pro­ ceed step by step building argument on argument as impressions accrue from preceding lines" and that "the establishing of the argu­ ment throughout the ode is the minimum prerequisite for an inter­ pretation of an ode,"6 then the minimum work required for Nemean 8, at least as regards its second triad, has not been completed. Our present task is threefold: to show that "eapa can allude, in context, to Deinis' victory as a poetic subject; to define the 'danger' inherent in the treatment of such subjects; and to determine the precise rhe­ torical function or functions of the Ajax exemplum. tura e poesia nel/e odi di Pindaro (Naples 1943) 16; H. Gundert, Pindar und ~ein Dichter­ beru! (Frankfurt 1935) 143 n.390. 3 According to A. KOHNKEN, Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar (Berlin/New York 1971: hereafter 'Kohnken') 30-33, lines 19-21 (through a.7Ta" KI.1I8vII0") are an en­ tirely self-contained variant of the 'EVPllc:TtE7T-rj,,-Motif', in which the poet summons up the energy and courage required for the production of a new song (thus IlEapa="jedes neue Lied"), and the 8E of line 21, far from signaling any connection with what pre­ cedes, announces the introduction of a completely independent thought ("Neider ergotzen sich an missgUnstigen Worten"), in which the 'envy' at issue is that evoked in others by the athlete's success and the 'words' in which the envious take greedy delight are their own malicious attacks on his character and achievement. Kohnken himself admits (30, 33), however, that the identification of the logoi as the "missgUn­ stigen Worten" of the envious becomes clear only retrospectively, with the reflections on Ex.9pa 7Tapc/xxc:Tt" in 32-34. Pindar's hearers were indubitably sophisticated in the conventions of epinician argument, but he can scarcely have expected them to suspend their interpretation of 01/1011 8~ AOYOt cp(JOIIEPO'ic:Ttll for eleven lines when an eminently reasonable hypothesis- that AoYOt refers, like AEAEKTat in the preceding line, to poetic activity and its products-lies immediately to hand. 4 The sharp break in thought involved in Kohnken's interpretation is veiled in his paraphrase (31-32) by ten lines of intercalated ratiocination in small type. The steps he expects Pindar's listeners to work out for themselves in the interval of several seconds seem too many and too complex to be credited: (1) Every new song involves danger. (2) Why? Because it is always difficult to achieve the proper matching of word and deed. (3) What in fact should the poet's attitude toward his subject be? (4) Not that of the phthoneroi, certainly, who ... 5 On the traditional historicistic interpretations see Kohnken 19-23. 6 W. J. Slater, "Doubts about Pindaric Interpretation," CJ 72 (1977) 196, 197. MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 ANDREW M. MILLER 113 As regards the meaning of vEapa, the first fact to be observed is that the rhetorical and logical structure of lines 20-21 not only sets up a contrast between two categories of poetic subject matter but also implies that these categories are mutually exclusive; in other words, the "new things that it is dangerous to submit to the touchstone for testing" evidently have not, like the 7ToAAa, been previously treated in a variety of modes, while the "many things that have been said in many ways" are evidently not vEapa but 7TaAaw. Once these logical implications are grasped it becomes obvious that Pin dar is here con­ cerned, as so often, with the contrast between ancient and contempo­ rary themes of song. The general human preference for the contem­ porary as a subject of discourse (formulated as early as Od. 1.351-52, , , • ~ , "\ \ • \ / ,./ 0 tI. / 'T71V yap aOLu71v f..UX",,,,OV E7TLK",EWVCT av PW7TOL, 71 'TL~ aKOVOV'TECTCTL VEW'Ta'T71 aJ..«/>L7TEA71'TaL) is found as a topos throughout the odes. In Isthmian 7.16ff, for example, it motivates the transition from the "ancient grace" (7TaAaLll: xapL~) of Thebes' "earlier native glories" (I -2, 'TWV 7Tapo~ ... KaAwv E7TLXWPl.wV) to the occasion of Strepsi­ ades' present victory in the pancratium. In Nemean 6.53ff the poet concludes a brief eulogy of the Aeacids in general and of Achilles in particular by remarking that although the deeds of the Aeginetan heroes provided ancient poets (7TaAat(hEpOL) with ample material for song, material in which he himself takes zealous interest, at the moment his attention is and must be claimed by "the wave that rolls nearest to the mainsheet of my ship" -the victory, in other words, of Alcimidas at N emea. In Pythian 8.21-34 lack of time and the threat of tedium dictate that the "whole long tale" of Aegina's heroic and historical past (c! 25, 8o~av a7T' apxa~) be set aside in favor of what lies to hand as "the most recent of glories" (33, vEwTaTov KaAWV) , Aristomenes' success in wrestling. This last passage is of particular relevance to Nemean 8.20, not only because it provides in VEW'Ta'TOV an unambiguous gloss on vEapa but because in 25-28 (7TOAAOtCTL J.LEv yap aEi8ETat K'TA') it presents fully developed the praeteritio that is merely implicit in 7TOAAa yap 7TOAA~ AEAEK'Tat. As regards the association of neara with phthonos, the passages just cited all suggest in their different ways that contemporary themes offer a poet at least one distinct advantage over ancient: they produce a far more immediate and intense response in his audience. Inextri­ cably linked with this heightened interest and emotional involve­ ment, however, is a correspondingly heightened risk of touching people too nearly and giving offense. So Penelope, grieving for a loss that she feels peculiarly her own (Od. 1.342, E7TEi J.LE J.LtiALCTTa KaOiKE- MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 114 PHTHONOS AND PARPHASIS: NEMEAN 8.19-34 TO 'TTE V(}OC; aAa{TTO V), attempts to divert Phemius from the tale of the Achaean Returns to other less painful themes in the bardic reper­ toire~ in doing so, as Telemachus points out, she is "begrudging" (346, cf>(}OVEEt.C;) the poet his freedom of choice and feeling "indigna­ tion" (350, VEf,LEUl,C;) when such a response is inappropriate. And when the treatment of contemporary themes is explicitly laudatory in intent, the danger of arousing dissatisfaction and disapproval is, given human nature, even greater than in the situation imagined by Ho­ mer. Aristotle remarks (Rh. 2.10.5) that "people envy those who are near them in time, place, age, and reputation" (Tm~ yap E~ Kat XpOV~ Kat TO'TT~ Kat iJA"K~ Kat Bofu cf>(}OVOVUl,V) , and it is a com­ monplace of encomiastic rhetoric that earlier generations are free from the grudging malice that plagues the living. Pindar himself provides an example in Paean 2.56, 0 B' EX(}pa v07]U'al,~ r;B7J cf>(Jovo~ OiXETat TWV 'TTClA-at 'TTpo(JavovTwv, with which one may compare Thu­ cydides 2.45, cf>(}OVO~ yap TO'~ ~WUl, 'TTPOC; TO a vTi'TTaAO V, TO BE #LT, E#L'TToBWv avavTaywvwT~ EVVO~ TETi#L7JTat.7 vEapa refers, then, neither to originality in mythic narrative nor to 'new song' in general but to a specific category of subject matter.8 Unlike legendary or historical material, which is emotionally neutral, as it were, and thus susceptible of great variety of treatment, contem­ porary themes require in their presentation considerable circumspec­ tion and tact if they are to "pass the test" with an audience. In light of the conventional (and, one might add, psychologically accurate) association between the praise of contemporaries and the evocation of phthonos, the logical function of the ol{Jov clause is now confirmed as unambiguously explicative of what precedes:9 the handling of neara is dangerous because such discourse is a "tasty tidbit for the envious," to be seized upon eagerly and torn apart. Since Pindar's concern is less with any particular set of phthoneroi than with the emotion itself as a general human constant, however, he leaves his listeners to supply the abstract noun as the grammatical subject of the following 7 c.r Oem. 18.315, 19.313. In his dedicatory preface to The Faerie Queene Spenser writes: "I chose the historye of king Arthure, as most titte for the excellency of his person, being made famous by many mens former works kr 7TOAAa yap 7TOAA/i. AEAEK­ Tad, and also furthest from the daunger of enuy, and suspition of present time." B Rhetorical context is the determinative factor here; elsewhere 'newness' can have different connotations. Mythographical innovation may be at issue in 01. 9.48-49 {cf schol. 86c), musical innovation in 01. 3.4. For E~EVpOVTa denoting the 'discovery' of material for song (EVPHTL<;, inventio) cf Nem. 6.54, Pyth. 1.60, fro 122.14, on which see B. A. van Groningen, Pindare au banquet (Leiden 1960) 37. 9 On 0 Se aVTL TOV yap see W. J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969) s. v. SE 2.h, and 1. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles2 (Oxford 1954) 169-70. MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 ANDREW M. MILLER 115 gnome, that which "always attacks the noble but has no quarrel with the man who is inferior." 10 A compliment is of course intended toward Deinis, who by implication is included among the esloi so vulnerable to hostility and malice. Thus far Bundy's assertion that in Nemean 8.19-34 "the hesitation is prompted by fear of detraction aimed against the victor" 11 is borne out by the evidence. But what of the account (23-27) of Ajax's suicide? '"' \ T \ '"' ~ ',I, ., KEtvO~ Ka(. El\.a/-UVvo~ uao/EV VWV, cpa (rya V~ al-'¢('KvAi(Jm~. '" ,~,). , 1" ~"'\ '(J' YJ Ttv aYl\.wu(JOV /-tEV, YJTOP u aI\.K('J,.tOV, Aa a KaTEXEt '\ '"', , ~" '\ ,I,' E v I\.V'YP~ VEtKEt' I-'E'Y(.UTO V u mol\.~ o/EV- 5::' ' , , uEt yEpa~ a VTETaTat. Kpv¢im(J(. "lap EV I/Ja¢o(.~ 'OBvU(J71 aavaoL (JEpa7TEvuav' , ~, A" (J \., A.r(. , XPVUEWV u ta~ (JTEPYJ Et~ 07TAWV ~V~ 7TaAa(.UEV. The fact that KE'ivO~ points-and presumably can only point-to the unexpressed singular subject (¢(Jovo~) of a7TTETm and Epi~Et estab­ lishes at the outset one function of the exemplum at least: to illustrate Pindar's claim that the superior man rather than the inferior is envy's chosen victim. The category of eslos alone is overtly represented in line 23, but an audience familiar with the story of Ajax's death will instantly identify Odysseus as the second (and as yet unspecified) member of the antithesis, the cheiron with whom envy has no quarrel. That such is Pindar's intention is, given Odysseus' notoriety as a master of lies, immediately confirmed by the terms in which the antithesis is reformulated in 24-25, which emphatically assert as a general truth (note the asseverative ~ and the indefinite nva) that when excellence of character is coupled, as often it is, with inarticu­ lateness, it finds itself helpless to ward off envy's attack or to press its claim to recognition, with the result that the "greatest prize" is given not to genuine worth but to specious plausibility, alOA~ I/JEvBEt. In 26-27 general statement is once again clarified by specific example and the eslosl cheiron antithesis is reformulated yet again, in reversed or­ der and with the substitution of proper names. I stress the reiteration of the antithesis because it establishes an important point that has been generally overlooked: the phthonos at issue in the first part of the exemplum is the Danaans' envy and not that of Odysseus, whose implied or overt syntactical role in 25-26 (indirect object of aVTETa­ Tat, direct object of (JEpa7TEvuav) portrays him rather as the benefi- 10 cr: schol. 37, O:7TO TWIl cbOOIlOVIlTWIl €7TL TOil cbOOIlOIl J.l,ETT,yaYE TOil AOYOIl. 11 Bundy (supra n.1) 31 n.75. MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 116 PHTHONOS AND PARPHASIS: NEMEAN 8.19-34 ciary than as the architect or instigator of Ajax's disgrace, though of course aWAq> "'Ev8EL hints at his contribution. The point of KPVCPLaLUL is not that Odysseus falsified the votes but simply that the Danaans reached their decision by secret ballot-with the additional implication that it was the very secrecy of the process, the freedom from the restraint of public opinion, that encouraged them to indulge their envious spite against Ajax's patent excellence.12 At this juncture the poet, no longer able to contain his indignation, bursts out (28-34): .ry "uXv avo~ul yE ~Of,ULV EV (JEP~ xpo/: tAKEa p1jga v 1rEAEf.U'Of.LE VOl, 1m' aAEgLJL{3POTq> AOYX~, TO: "uv aJLcf>' ~XLAEt VEOKTOVq>, aMwv TE ~X(JWV EV 1rOAVcp(JOPOf,<; ., • (J \ ~, ., , A.,,., l' " \ aJLEpat<;. EX pa u apa 1rap'P"(Tf,<; r,v Kat 1ra",aL, • '\ 1_' '(J ., A.,~ af,JLvl\.Wv JLV WV O~'fIVf,- TO<;, 80Aocppa8r,<;, KaK07TOf,OV OVEt8o<;" & TO "uv AaJL1rpOV {3uiTaf" " ~,. A.,,! "~., (J' TWV u a'P"VTWV KVuO<; aVTEtVEt (Ta pOV. How is it possible that in awarding Achilles' armor as they did the Danaans could overlook or willfully ignore Ajax's intrinsic superiority as a warrior, a superiority reflected in the manifestly unequal effect (avo~ul yE ... EA.KEa) that the two men had on the Trojan adver­ sary? The poet announces, with an apa in which inference and 'enlightenment'13 seem to be combined, that only one conclusion is possible: in the heroic age too (Kat miAat), not merely nowadays, a malicious power above and beyond man's innate, untutored phthonos must have been at work-a power that he calls mxpcpauL<;. The verb 1rapacpr,f.U from which 7TapcpauL<; is derived seems to have two distinct meanings depending on the force of the preposi­ tional prefix. In Homeric usage the 7Tapa clearly retains its original spatiality ('alongside'); both noun and verb denote, in morally neu­ tral fashion, a process of 'bringing over to one's side through speech' whereby a person is induced to change his state of mind or course of action.14 A more specialized sense of 'erotic persuasion' or 'seduc- 12 c.r. Kohnken 27 n.29; C. Carey, "Pindar's Eighth Nemean Ode," PCPS N.S. 22 (976) 29. 13 Denniston (supra n.9) 35-36: and cf Carey (supra n.12) 32. 14 c.r. /I. 1.555 and 577, 11.793, 15.404,24.771, Od. 2.189; not coincidentally associ­ ated with forms of rpe1Tw in II. 6.61-62, 12.249, Hes. Theog. 89-90. Only in Od. 16.287 (= 19.6) does 1Tcxp1>Ctu8m have (in context) connotations of deceit. MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 ANDREW M. MILLER 117 tion' is apparent in Iliad 14.217, where "parphasis that cozens the minds even of the wise" is listed as one of the OEh.KT-rypUX in Aphro­ dite's girdle; and this presumably is the meaning of the participle as applied to Hippolyta's solicitation of Peleus in Nemean 5.31-32, 7TOA- " '0" , I I h Aa -yap vUJ 7TaVTI. V~ 7Tapcfxx.J.tEva h.t/TaVEVEV. n t e other two Pindaric uses, however, Olympian 7.65-66 ({)E~V 8' tPKOV J-tE-yav J-t~ 7Tap4xXJ.tEv) and Pythian 9.43 (7Tap4xXJ.tEv TOVTOV h.o-yov), the prefix quite clearly has the metaphorical sense of 'amiss' or 'wrongly' that is apparent in verbs like 7Tapa-yw or 7TapaKovw, and the compound must be rendered 'misspeak' or 'utter insincerely'. How then are we to translate 7Tapcfxx.(TIS in Nemean 8.32? 'Perversion of truth', 'deformation', 'misrepresentation' and the like15 do justice to one aspect of the word and are apparently confirmed by the charac­ terization of parphasis as BOAocppaB-ry1i ('contriver of guile'), as well as by aiOh.~ t/JEvBEt eight lines earlier. 'Persuasion\ on the other hand, is strongly suggested by the phrase ai!-,vh.wv !-,vOwv OJ,UJCPOLTOIi, in which the "flattering words" recall, prejudicially, the "soft words" (~Aa­ KOt(TL E7TEE(T(J"t) so closely associated with parphasis in epic diction. I6 A plausible inference is that Pindar intends both senses to be understood in a single notion of 'persuasion through the misrepresentation of facts'. Since Odysseus is no less famous for his consummate effective­ ness as an orator than he is for his skill at telling lies, the audience will have no difficulty in discerning that here at last he emerges with an active role in the drama. Despite the temptations of the secret ballot it is possible that, left to themselves, the Danaans might have controlled their phthonos out of some vestigial sense of shame or self-respect; but Odysseus so worked upon them with artful argument and innuendo that they were eventually persuaded to cast public norms aside and give free vent to private grievance. Though parphasis is like phthonos in reversing the true hierarchy of value, "doing violence to the illustrious and lifting up the rotten glory of the obscure," this similarity should not lead us to identify or conflate the two; 17 they are conceptually 15 Bury (supra n.2) 155; 1. Duchemin, Pindare, pol;te et prophefe (Paris 1955) 162 n.3; Slater (supra n.9) s. v. 1TO:p¢x;r.(TLt;. 16 c.r II. 6.337, Od. 16.287, Hymn.Hom.Cer. 336, Hes. Theog. 90. 17 As does Kohnken 30: "4>8oIJot; und 7TO:p¢x;r.(nt; gehoren zusammen; wie die Verben lin 22 and 34] deutlich machen, setzt Pindar die beiden Begriffe praktisch gleich." Later he suggests that the subject to be supplied in 22 is "ein Begriff wie 4>8oIJepa 1TO:p¢x;r.(TLt;" (33). Of course parphasis may well be motivated by phthonos, as no doubt it was in the case of Odysseus; but that does not justify us in regarding them as synony­ mous. c.r. E. L. Bundy, "The 'Quarrel Between Kallimachos and Apollonios'," CSCA 5 (1972) 90 n.111: "In the judgment of distinction in meaning and not in the dis­ solving of near resemblances into one homogeneous appearance lies the critic's task." MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 118 PHTHONOS AND PARPHASIS: NEMEAN 8.19-34 distinct, though no doubt allied psychologically, and it is their inter­ action that issued in tragedy for Ajax and that rouses the poet to such impassioned denunciation. IS In the end, then, the Ajax passage has a double function. As intro­ duced, it is designed to demonstrate the fearsome power of envy and thus indirectly to "illustrate the dangers of praising a man among his peers" -not because such praise plays any role in the storyl9 but because according to encomiastic convention (and the laws of human nature) people are particularly prone to envy "those who are near them in time, place, age, and reputation." In the course of the exem­ plum, however, the focus of attention shifts from phthonos, the instinctive hostility of the ordinary toward the exceptional, to par­ phasis, the deliberate abuse of language for malicious and destructive ends.20 Correlative with this shift is a transformation in the paradig­ matic significance of Odysseus. Introduced as an example of the undeserving laudandus, the cheiron who receives the recognition due to his betters, he stands revealed at the end as an example of the corrupt or perverse rhetorician who uses his intellectual and verbal skills not to praise and defend virtue but to legitimize man's basest impulses and so subvert and undermine established social and ethical standards. The duality of function in the Ajax exemplum proves pivotal, more­ over, in the unfolding of Pindar's argument through the ode as a whole. Having moved by gradual stages from general reflections on the power of Hora to the particular facts that specify the epinician occasion (1 -18), the poet hesitates to speak further on the subject of Deinis' victory because he fears the envy that arete all too often arouses in human hearts (19-22). Subjecting that psychological phe­ nomenon to ethical analysis through the medium of traditional para­ digms (23-34), he discovers another and perhaps even more danger­ ous enemy of excellence in parphasis, the exploitation and manipula­ tion of human weakness by unprincipled rhetorical skill. While the 18 On uafJpov and the effect of its position in line 34 see Carey (supra n.12) 33. I follow Bury (supra n.2) 155, Finley (supra n.2) 154, G. Meautis, Pindare Ie dorien (Neuchatel 1962) 340, in taking OVEtOO~ as a concrete 'matter of reproach', 'disgrace', 'shame' rather than as an active 'reproach', 'blame', 'censure'; see, however, G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (Baltimore/ London 1979) 226-28. The common rendering 'slander', 'calumny' (e.g. Fennell [supra n.2] 104; E. Myers, The Odes qf Pindar [London 1892] 132; C. M. Bowra, The Odes qf Pindar [London 1969] 216) is perhaps a propos to the context but misrepre­ sents the ordinary meaning of the word. 19 Cr. Kohnken 31. 20 T'he shift is noted by E. Thummer, Die isthmischen Gedichte I (Heidelberg 1968) 99. MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 ANDREW M. MILLER 119 first danger pertains chiefly to the audience and their emotional re­ sponse, the second inheres in the poet's own capacity for effective speech; thus it is above all Odysseus' character as exponent and ex­ emplar of parphasis that he abjures in 35 (et71 J.LT, 1TOT€ J.LOL TOLOVTOV i}(JOt;) and Odysseus' "reputation of ill sound" that he deprecates in 36 ({Jav~v w<; 1TauT~ K'A~O<; J..L~ 'T~ 8~lT~J..LOv 1TpOlTat/lw) .21 Only when the spirit of malice and guile conjured up by the tale of Ajax has been exorcised by an extended meditation on the social and educative func­ tions of poetry (35-44) does the poet at last return to the particu­ larities of the occasion and deliver himself of the "something" an­ nounced so many lines before (44-48). As it happens, however, this "second praise" adds little to the data reported in line 16; indeed, aside from recording the fact of Megas' death and mentioning the name of the clan to which Deinis' family belongs, it simply reiterates the duplication of achievement by father and son (cf. 48, Bit; B,ry Bv­ o'iv). The material seems innocuous enough, and one might wonder why the poet should profess such doubt about its advisability or spend fully one half of the ode preparing for (and thus postponing) its intro­ duction; but we must never lose sight of the jictionality inherent in Pindar's handling of the epinician. If from one perspective Nemean 8 is a "structure of poetic argument for the end of glorifying the vic­ tor, "22 from another it is a kind of dramatic monologue marked by moments of great excitement and strong feeling: the speaker's sudden access of uncertainty and fear, his outburst of indignation at the cor­ ruption to which the arts of language are subject, his fervent apologia pro vita et arte sua, his final modulation to a tone of intimate sympathy with the victor's joys and sorrows. Whether or not Deinis and his family in reality had dangerous enemies in Aegina23 is in an important sense entirely irrelevant to the ode, for its fiction is self-sustaining. 21 TOWVTOV is the third in a series of adjectives of quality, each appearing in the first line of a stanza, that serve to articulate important stages of the argument: the others are OlOL (6), which defines per exemplum what the poet means by 'superior desires', and avoJ-Ww (28), which contrasts the effectiveness of Ajax and Odysseus as warriors. According to Carey (supra n.l2) 33-34 and 40 n.41, the 'I' of 35-39 must be an in­ stance of the 'first person indefinite', with particular applicability to the victor, because "none of the qualities praised is especially relevant to the encomiast." In fact ethical a.7TAOTTI" and the desire to win acceptance from fellow-citizens are as appropriate to an encomiast as to anyone else, while Carey himself recognizes that line 39 "suggests the role of poet and chorus as remembrancers of great deeds." It makes little sense, more­ over, that an exhortation to eschew phthonos and parphasis should be even implicitly directed toward the victor when he has just been designated (by analogy) as their potential victim. 22 Slater (supra n.6) 195. 23 (I: Bury (supra n.2) 148. MILLER, ANDREW M., "Phthonos and Parphasis": The Argument of "Nemean" 8.19-34 , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 23:2 (1982:Summer) p.111 120 PHTHONOS AND PARPHASIS: NEMEAN 8.19-34 Pindar was a master craftsman of encomiastic argument, adept at spinning general truth and particular fact into a single thread of ra­ tional discourse; and when he came to construct the particular enco­ miastic argument that we know as Nemean 8, he saw how the univer­ sally observable phenomenon of envy, brought into relation with a young Aeginetan's victory in the double-stade race, could convinc­ ingly motivate a long, powerful, and serious meditation on issues of the utmost importance to human life in community. THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AND THE CENTER FOR HELLENIC STUDIES May, 1982