D. E. Gerber, Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry 1967-1975, CW 70 PDF

Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry: 1967-1975
Author(s): Douglas E. Gerber

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Classical World, Vol. 70, No. 2, Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry: 1967-1975 (Oct.,
1976), pp. 65-157
Published by: Classical Association of the Atlantic States
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4348599 .
Accessed: 28/11/2011 09:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Classical Association of the Atlantic States is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Classical World.
http://www.jstor.org
OCTOBER1976 THE CLASSICALWORLD 65
Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry: 1967-1975
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction ...................................... 66
II. General .......................................... 66
III. Elegy and Iambus .................................. 72
IV. Elegy . .73
A. Callinus .74
B. Tyrtaeus.75
C. Mimnermus .76
D. Solon .78
E. Xenophanes .80
F. Theognis .80
V. Iambus .......................................... 84
A. Archilochus ................................... 84
B. Semonides ................................... 91
C. Hipponax ................................... 93
VI. Melic Poets (excluding Pindar) ......................... 94
A. Alcman . ...................................... 94
B. Stesichorus ................................... 100
C. Sappho and Alcaeus .............................. 105
D. Sappho ................................... 106
E. Alcaeus ................................... 115
F. Ibycus ................................... 117
G. Anacreon ................................... 119
H. Simonides ................................... 122
I. Bacchylides ................................... 125
J. Corinna ................................... 130
K. Melici Minores, Carmina Convivialia,
Fragmenta Adespota .............. .............. 130
VII. Pindar . .132
A. Olympian Odes .139
B. Pythian Odes .144
C. Nemean Odes . 149
D. Isthmian Odes .153
E. Fragments .154
66 THE CLASSICALWORLD OCTOBER1976
I. INTRODUCTION
The following survey covers work published on Greek lyric, elegiac, and iambic
poetry subsequent to my previous survey in CW 61 (1967-68) 265-79, 317-30, 378-85.
A few items which were overlooked then have been included now. The present survey
was initially completed in July of 1975, but was later expanded to incorporate those
items which came to my attention between July of 1975 and April of 1976, hence the
rather large number of entries followed by a letter. A few of these have appeared so
recently that there has not been time to do more than simply list them. In a few other
instances, where a summary has proved impossible or would serve no useful purpose,
the same procedure has been followed. I have attempted to include everything which
is devoted exclusively or largely to Greek lyric, except that I have omitted unpublished
dissertations and those items on Tyrtaeus, Solon, and Xenophanes which are
primarily of a historical or philosophical nature. Also omitted are works which are
exclusively or essentially translations, unless these are in book form and are in
English.
Unless otherwise indicated, references to the elegiac and iambic poets are from
West's edition, Sappho and Alcaeus from Lobel and Page's Poetarum Lesbiorum
Fragmenta, Pindar and Bacchylides from the latest Teubner editions, and the
remainder from Page's Poetae Melici Graeci [PMG] or Supplementum Lyricis
Graecis [SLG]. In most instances the abbreviations of periodicals are those used by
L 'Annee Philologique.
II. GENERAL
1. G. Broccia, Tradizione ed esegesi. Studi su Esiodo e sulla lirica greca ar-
caica (Brescia 1969). Pp. 151
2. C. Calame, Etymologicum Genuinum: Les citations de poetes lyriques
(Rome 1970). Pp. 54
2a. G. Marcovigi, "Le citazioni dei lirici corali presso l'Etymologicum
Genuinum. Edizione comparata, I," QTLCG 1(1970)11-49. I have not seen this.
3. D. A. Campbell, Greek Lyric Poetry. A Selection of Early Greek Lyric,
Elegiac and Iambic Poetry (London 1967). Pp. xxxiii, 461
4. Q. Cataudella, Intorno ai lirici greci. Contributi alla critica del testo e
all'interpretazione (Rome 1972). Pp. 417
5. J. A. Davison, From Archilochus to Pindar (London 1968). Pp. xv, 347
6. J. Ferrate, Liricos Griegos Arcaicos (Barcelona 1968). Pp. 363
7. D. E. Gerber, Euterpe. An Anthology of Early Greek Lyric, Elegiac, and
Iambic Poetry (Amsterdam 1970). Pp. xii, 436
8. R. Harriott, Poetry and Criticism before Plato (London 1969). Pp. xiii,
168
9. G. M. Kirkwood, Early Greek Monody. The History of a Poetic Type
(Ithaca 1974). Pp. xviii, 299
10. A. Ortega, El despertar de la Lirica en Europa. De Arquiloco a Saffo
(Salamanca 1974). Pp. iv, 195. I have not seen this.
11. D. L. Page, Lyrica Graeca Selecta (Oxford 1968). Pp. vii, 268
12. D. L. Page, Supplementum Lyricis Qraecis. Poetarum lyricorum Grae-
corum.fragmenta quae recens innotuerunt (Oxford 1974). Pp. 174
13. C. 0. Pavese, Tradizioni e generi poetici della Grecia arcaica (Rome
1972). Pp. 288
14. G. A. Privitera, Dioniso in Omero e nella poesia greca arcaica (Rome
1970). Pp. 165
15. H. Schmitz, Hypsos und Bios. Stilistische Untersuchungen zum
Alltagsrealismus in der archaischen griechischen Chorlyrik(Bern 1970). Pp. xii, 98
16. M. S. Silk, Interaction in Poetic Imagery with special reference to early
Greek poetry (Cambridge 1974). Pp. xiv, 263

17. A. Szastynska-Siemion, Studia Hellenistica. Liryka archaiczna w, zw,ier-
ciadle poezji aleksandryjskiej(Wroclaw 1967). Pp. 177
18. E. Wahlstrom, Accentual Responsion in Greek Strophic Poetry (Helsinki
1970). Pp. 22
The first (11) of PAGE's two books contains the most significant fragments of
Poetae Melici Graeci and of Sappho and Alcaeus, including the recently discovered
additions to Stesichorus' Geryoneis and to Alcaeus, fr. 298. The second (12) contains
all the fragments published since PMG and PLF, as well as corrigenda and addenda
to both volumes.
In my previous survey I noted that there was nothing in English comparable to the
many anthologies, containing texts and commentary, published in Italy. This
deficiency has been remedied by CAMPBELL (3) and GERBER (7). Both are aimed
primarily at the senior undergraduate and graduate student and for the most part
include the same fragments, except that the former places slightly more emphasis on
the melic poets and the latter adds three examples from Pindar who is omitted by
CAMPBELL. FERRATE (6) provides a 38 page introduction, followed by a text and
Spanish translation of the major lyric, elegiac and iambic fragments. Bacchylides is
omitted, but Pyth. 1 is included. There is no commentary.
KIRKWOOD's book (9) contains chapters on Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho,
Anacreon, lesser monodists (Telesilla, Praxilla, Timocreon), and "Monody and
Epigram," together with an appendix on metre. Although not an intensive or detailed
study of the poets covered, it is one from which students and specialists alike will learn
much. It is also a pleasant relief to find literary criticism presented in an eminently
readable style. For an accurate assessment see Campbell's review in Phoenix 28 (1974)
361-63. See also Russo's review article, "Reading the Greek Lyric Poets (Monodists),"
in Arion n.s. 1 (1973-74) 707-30. Although many of the objections raised by Russo are
valid, too little emphasis is placed on the book's merits.
PAVESE's important study (13) is divided into four sections, "Lingua epica
continentale," "Lingua della lirica corale come lingua poetica continentale,"
"Dizione formulare continentale," and "Generi poetici della Grecia arcaica." See
also (39) and (40). HARRIOTT (8) attempts, not very satisfactorily, to illustrate the
"Greek poet's attitude to the Muses, to his audience and to his own art." Her book is
often superficial and tends to fall between two stools, neither clear enough for the
Greekless reader nor rigorous enough for the specialist. SCHMITZ's dissertation (15)
contains a rather cursory examination of the use made by expressions which belong
not to elevated style ("Hypsos"), but to everyday language ("Bios"), in Alcman,
Stesichorus, Simonides, Bacchylides and Pindar.
SILK's book (16) may well have as much importance for the study of early Greek
poetry as Bundy's has had for the study of Pindar. He has broken down into a large
number of categories examples of interaction, i.e. "any local cross-terminological
relation between the tenor and vehicle of an image, either aurally . . . or extra-
grammatically ... or by intrusion ... or by neutral terminology." The period covered
is from Archilochus to Pindar and Aeschylus, with the exception of the Presocratics,
and with about a third of the examples taken from Pindar and a third from
Aeschylus. This is not an easy book to read because of the technical language em-
ployed, but it is a book which will amply repay careful and repeated study. The main
thrust of BROCCIA's book (1) is to prove his contention that the correct un-
derstanding of many texts is hindered rather than aided by a consideration of parallel
passages. To accomplish this he examines two passages in Hesiod's Erga, three in
Archilochus, and one each in Mimnermus (fr. 2.4-5) and Sappho (fr. 31). His views on
the last three poets will be discussed under the appropriate headings. The same
applies to the next two items.
CATAUDELLA's book (4) contains 39 previously published articles and four that
are new. A little less than half is devoted to Greek lyric, the rest pertaining to
Hellenistic and Christian poets. DAVISON's book (5) consists of material previously
published, except for chapters on Stesichorus, Sappho, "Pindar's Conception of
Poetry," and "Melic Antecedents of Attic Drama," the last containing useful com-
ments on Arch. frr. 120-21, Alcman's Partheneion and Bacchylides' Dithyrambs. On
pp. 96-139 PRIVITERA (14) examines references to Dionysus in Archilochus,
Alcaeus, Anacreon, Pindar, Lasus and Bacchylides. For an evaluation of the book as a
whole see L. S. Spatz in CJ 70.1 (1974) 81-83. WAHLSTROM (18), after analyzing
accentual patterns in Sapp. fr. 1, Alc. fr. 129, Alcm. fr. 1, and Pind. P. 4 and N. 4,
concludes that "there did, in fact, exist an accentual responsion, though of a much
freer kind than the metrical responsion." The reason for this "lies in the endeavour on
the part of the poet to avoid distorting his text by setting accentuated syllables to low
tones and unaccentuated syllables to high tones." According to the French summary
(pp. 169-76), SZASTYNSKA-SIEMION (17) studies the influence of Sappho,
Alcaeus, Anacreon, Hipponax, Archilochus and Semonides on Alexandrian poetry of
the 3rd and 2nd centuries. CALAME (2) provides a useful compilation of passages in
the Et. Gen. which quote from the iambic, elegiac and melic poets down to Pindar.
For a list of omissions and errors see West's review in CR 23 (1973) 100.
19. C. Calame, "Reflexions sur les genres litteraires en Grece archaique,"
QUCC 17 (1974) 113-28
20. A. Clavier, "Temoignages de tragiques et de lyriques grecs sur le sym-
bolisme solaire," LEC40 (1972) 35-42
21. F. J. Cuartero, "La metifora de la nave, de Arquiloco a Esquilo," BIEH 2
(1968)41-45
22. W. Donlan, "A Note on Aristos as a Class Term," Philologus 113 (1969)
268-70
23. W. Donlan, "Changes and Shifts in the Meaning of Demos in the
Literature of the Archaic Period," PP 25 (1970) 381-95
24. W. Donlan, "The Tradition of Anti-aristocratic Thought in Early Greek
Poetry," Historia 22 (1973) 145-54
25. B. Gentili, "L'interpretazione dei lirici greci arcaici nella dimensione del
nostro tempo. Sincronia e diacronia nello studio di una cultura orale," QUCC 8
(1969) 7-21
26. B. Gentili, "Prospettive critiche nell'interpretazione della cultura greca
dell'et'adei lirici," StudUrb 45 (1971) 817-36
27. B. Gentili, "Lirica greca arcaica e tardo arcaica," in Introduzione allo
studio della Cultura Classica (Milan 1972) 57-105
28. N. S. Grinbaum, "The Language of Greek Choral Lyric as Historical
Source Material," VDI 130 (1974) 24-43. In Russian with English summary.
29. S. Gzella, "The Competition among the Greek Choral Poets," Eos 58
(1969-70) 19-32
30. S. Gzella, "Self-publicity and Polemics in Greek Choral Lyrics," Eos 58
(1969-70) 171-79
31. S. Gzella, "Conditions sociales et politiques du developpement de la lyrique
chorale grecque," Meander 26 (1971) 168-81. In Polish, with French title as given in
APh.
32. S. Gzella, "Problem of the Fee in Greek Choral Lyric,"Eos 59 (1971) 189-
202
33. P. Innocenti, "Eidos-Idea. Le premesse di un conflitto " in Atti e Memorie
dell'Accademia Toscana diScienze eLettere, La Columbaria 37 (1972) 1-14
34. S. Jakel, "Mousaon therapon'n in Acta Conventus XI 'Eirene' (Wroclaw
1971) 245-55
35. P. Janni, "Nuove ricerche stilistiche sui lirici greci," QUCC4 (1967) 194-98
36. V. N. Jarcho. "Zum Menschenbild der nachhomerischen Dichtung,"
Philologus 112 (1968) 147-72

37. W. Kuchenmuller, "Die Musen," Platon 20 (1968) 45-58
37a. F. Lasserre, "Ornements erotiques dans la poesie lyrique archaique" in
Serta Turyniana. Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeography in honor of
Alexander Turyn (Urbana 1974) 5-33
38. J. Mossay, "Les anciens poetes lyriques grecs,"LEC41 (1973)163-80
39. C. 0. Pavese, "La lingua della poesia corale come lingua d'una tradizione
poetica settentrionale," Glotta 45 (1967) 164-85
40. C. 0. Pavese, "Semantematica della poesia corale greca," Belfagor 23
(1968) 389-430
41. A. J. Podlecki, "Three Greek Soldier-Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Solon,"
CW63 (1969) 73-81
42. A. J. Podlecki, "The Language of Heroism from Homer to Pindar" in
Classics and the Classical Tradition. Essays presented to R. E. Dengler on the oc-
casion of his eightieth birthday (University Park 1973) 143-62
43. L. E. Rossi, "I generi letterari e loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle letteri
classiche," BICS 18 (1971) 69-94
44. J. Vara Donado, "Melos y Elegia," Emerita 40(1972)433-51
CALAME (19) rejects the methodology used in previous studies on the classification
of Greek lyric on the grounds that they rely too heavily on Alexandrian scholarship or
on Plato and do not give sufficient attention to the evidence provided by the early
poets themselves. This is an important article and it is to be hoped that CALAME will
expand his "reflexions" into a more detailed and systematic study. ROSSI (43)
discusses the laws governing literary genres from the archaic to the Hellenistic period
and concludes that for the former there were "leggi non scritte, ma rispettate."
CLAVIER (20) argues that references in tragedy and lyric to the sun's voyage on the
ocean at the end of the day point to a connection between Helios and the underworld.
CUARTERO (21) examines the way in which the metaphor of the ship is used in
Arch. frr. 105-06, Alc. frr. 6 and 326, Theognis 671-82, and several times in
Aeschylus' Seven against Thebes.
In his first article (22) DONLAN discusses the word aristos from Homer to the 4th
century, concluding that "during the archaic period. . . aristos was not employed as a
social term to indicate the nobility" and finding it "highly doubtful that hoi aristoi
was ever in use by the Greeks as a commonly accepted term to denote a social class."
In his second article (23) he studies the examples of demos from Homer to Theognis
and finds no "technical change in meaning" throughout this period, although "in
contexts which emphasized political or social problems, the word acquired specialized
shades of meaning." In his third (24) he lists numerous examples from the early poets
which reveal "criticism of traditional values that are associated with the epic or heroic
ideal, criticism of the aristocratic way of life or of qualities associated with
aristocrats," and "statements that reflect a nonaristocratic or lower class outlook."
Some of the aristocratic values are retained, but they have the community rather than
the individual as their focal point, and "explicitly or implicitly the basis for approval
or disapproval . . . is usefulness." Some traces of an anti-aristocratic outlook can also
be found in Homer.
In GENTILI's first article (25) he illustrates the difficulties we encounter in in-
terpreting "archaic Greek lyric, which through the multiplicity of its human
dimensions, through its vision of the world and through its direct relation with the
public, is very distant from us," and argues that in order to understand it we must
adopt both a synchronic and diachronic approach. The former involves an awareness
of imagery, style and the poet's concept of his profession; the latter the changes in
meaning which words underwent so as to reflect a new social outlook. In his second
article (26) he discusses the recent trends in translation and interpretation of Greek
lyric. In his third (27) he provides an excellent analysis of the structure and nature of
early Greek lyric and of the different critical approaches that have been taken during
the past 30 years. Ten pages of bibliography are added at the end.
GZELLA first (29) traces the meanderings of Simonides, Bacchylides and Pindar
throughout the Greek world and describes their competition for commissions. The
topic is important but the treatment is extremely uncritical. To give only one example,
we are told that Pindar and Simonides may have competed in a contest sponsored by
Thorax. "Pindar's words ti kompeo para kairon (Pyth. 10.4) could in that case ex-
press his modesty and consciousness that it was not easy to struggle with and defeat
great Simonides. Be that as it may, it is afact (my italics) that Pindar wrote Pyth. 10
with the purpose of surmounting the Simonidean influences in Thessaly and gaining
the patronage of the Aleuads for good. With that end in view he praised them ardently
in the first and last verses of his song." Then (30) he gathers together passages in
epinician poetry which describe the poet's praise of his own composition and his
criticism of those of others. In many instances, however, GZELLA misinterprets the
passage concerned or blindly trusts the comments of the scholiasts. For example, N.
7.23-24 is quoted as an illustration of a "vulgar mob ... not responsive to the charm
of choral poetry" and 0.2.86-88 is treated as an unquestionable reference to
Simonides and Bacchylides. It seems we even have Bacchylides' reply (fr. 5)! Finally
(32) he collects references to payment for choral compositions and passages, mostly in
Pindar, where wealth and liberality are mentioned, but the use made of these
references is seldom convincing. For example, GZELLA believes that the language of
P. 11.41-42 indicates that Pindar "intended to encourage Thrasydaios to pay the fee
as soon as possible."
INNOCENTI (33) studies the use of eidos and idea in the lyric poets and JAKEL
(34) examines the invocation of the Muses from Homer to Euripides. In the case of the
lyric poets he deals with Alcm. frr. 14 and 27, Arch. fr. 1, Sapp. fr. 1.1-2, Sol. fr. 13.1-
4 and 51-52. JANNI (35) gives his assessment of R. Fiuhrer's Formproblem-
Untersuchungen zu den Reden in derjfrfihgriechischenLyrik (Munich 1967) listed in
my previous survey (p. 266). JARCHO's article (36) is an important study of the way in
which the post-Homeric writers, primarily the early lyric poets, expressed emotion
and intellectual activity and how this differed from Homer. Special attention is given
to Archilochus and Sappho. KUCHENMULLER (37) devotes a few pages to Sappho,
Alcaeus and Solon and MOSSAY (38) seeks to demonstrate what a study of the lyric
poets can "apporter d'utile a nos eleves d'humanites." LASSERRE (37a) attempts to
determine to what extent erotic language in several early poets is to be considered as a
genuine declaration of love, arguing that in general such declarations serve an en-
comiastic purpose. The poets examined are Alcman (frr. 1,3,59), Stesichorus, Ibycus,
Pindar (1. 2.3-5), Bacchylides (fr. 4.79-80), and Sappho (frr. 1,31,47,96,130). In some
instances there are also detailed textual notes.
In the first (39) of his two articles PAVESE argues that "nel complesso della lingua
corale non esistono dorismi veramente degni di questo nome" and that "la lingua
corale e composta d'una serie di elementi meridionali, che sono dovuti a quel ramo
della tradizione aedica rappresentato da Omero, e da una non meno cospicua serie di
elementi settentrionali." This also appears as the second chapter of his book (13). In
his second article (40) PAVESE rightly stresses that choral poetry made extensive use
of repeated themes and motifs and that many passages become clear only when we
understand the traditional element present in them. He defines motif as "un'idea
essenziale frequentemente ripetuta e definita da fasci di relazioni tipiche nel genere
letterario considerato," theme as "un complesso di motivi omogenei," and the word
"semantematica" of his title as "quella branca speciale delia morfologia che studia gli
elementi compositivi al livello della motivazione." PAVESE lists 175 motifs present in
epinician poetry, 41 "nel racconto mitico o leggendario," and 10 themes (augurium,
catalogus, gnomica, laus, mythus, catalogus mythicus, preces, praeparatio,
praeteritio, victoria). A discussion follows on the purpose and use of these themes and
the conclusion is drawn that "la funzione precipua della poesia corale greca e
celebrativa. Non esiste infatti una singola specie e nemmeno un singolo poema, nel
complesso della poesia corale a noi nota, in cui questa funzione manchi, e in cui la
varia tessitura dei motivi non sia subordinata a questa funzione." This important
article ends with a schematic analysis of the themes and motifs found in Pindar's
Isthmians and Alcman's Partheneion, and a discussion of certain passages in the
Isthmians.
PODLECKI (41) examines the poetry of Archilochus, Alcaeus and Solon in order to
reveal the "essential and striking differences in the way each conceived his own
relation to the life of a soldier, and ... [the] fundamental difference in outlook among
the three." In his second article (42), after citing and commenting on examples from
Homer to Pindar, hb concludes: "Homer's individual but almost spiritual idea of
heroism gives way to Archilochus' hard, realistic, anti-heroic pose, which exists side-
by-side with Tyrtaeus's submersion of the individual in a militaristic group-heroism.
Alcaeus in his turn represents a romanticizing throwback to Homeric grandeur, but
in the service of a narrow, rather selfish, aristocratic cadre, while Xenophanes en-
deavors to replace athletic achievement as a measure of heroism with a more
philosophic standard of arete. It is a spiritualized athletic ideal which prevails,
however, in Pindar's verses, where the old Homeric terms are applied to the individual
and his polis, winning as it were a corporate glory in the games which test and
ultimately prove a man's true heroic worth."
VARA DONADO's article (44) contains an English summary in Emerita as
follows: "The semantic study of melos and melopoios shows that before Plato they
answered to two different referents: melos 'musical tone' or 'words + musical tone'
and melopoios 'composer, poet of words and music.' After Plato both words,
previously neutralized, polarize as melos 'musical tone' and melopoios 'author of
musical tones.' But, being elegy (at least threnodic elegy) sung, it is evident that
Erinna's meleessin were only her elegies and when Anite and Nossis are called
melopoios, there is no reason to think of them as the creators of a hypothetical lyrical
poetry which did not reach us: they receive this denomination because of their
elegies."
45. J. Davison, "Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2506," Atti dell' XI Congresso Inter-
nazionale di Papirologia (Milan 1966) 96-106
46. J. Diggle, "Notes on Greek Lyric Poets, " CR 20 (1970) 5-6
47. R. Fiuhrer,"Zu P. Ox. 2625 (Choral Lyric),"Maia 21 (1969) 79-82
48. A. Garzya, "La poesia lirica greca nella Magna Grecia," P&I 10(1968) 237-
48
49. G. Giangrande, "Sympotic Literature and Epigram," L'Epigramme
Grecque, Entretiens sur l'antiquite'classique 14 (Geneva 1968) 91-177
50. G. Giangrande, "Interpretationen Griechischer Meliker," RhM 114 (1971)
97-131
50a. R. Merkelbach, "Verzeichnis von Gedichtanfangen," ZPE 12 (1973)86
51. G. Nagy, "Phaethon, Sappho's Phaon, and the White Rock of Leukas,"
HSCP 77 (1973) 137-77
52. D. L. Page, "Fragments of Greek Lyrical Poetry: P. Oxy. 2637," PCPhS 196
(1970) 91-96
53. D. L. Page, "Ibycus; Stesichorus; Alcman (P. Oxy. 2735, 2618, 2737),"
PCPhS 197 (1971) 89-98
54. D. L. Page, "Notes on P. Oxy. XXXIX," CQ 23(1973)199-201
55. M. L. West, "Melica," CQ 20 (1970) 205-15
55a. M. L. West, "Some Lyric Fragments Reconsidered," CQ 25 (1975) 307-309
DAVISON (45) first argues that P. Oxy. 2506 is not a commentary on Greek lyric,
but 'part of a series of Lives of the Poets,' and then he discusses some of the
problems raised by frr. 26, 77 and 98 (= Stes. fr. 16 and Alc. frr. 280 and 282 SLG).
DIGGLE (46) provides textual comments on Stesichorus (frr. 11.20-24, 15.7, and
104.12 SLG), Boeotica 39 fr. 5.6, Philoxenus Cytherius fr' 5, and Adespota frr. 7(d).10
and 7(e).10 and 15. FUHRER (47) finds responsion in fr. 460.8 ff. SLG, a poem on
Demeter composed for the Ceans, and suggests that the author may be Bacchylides.
GARZYA's article (48) is a general study of Stesichorus, Ibycus, and Theognis, with
the major attention centred on Stesichorus and only the question of homeland
considered for Theognis. His remarks are sensible, but there is nothing new here.
In the first part of his first article (49) GIANGRANDE deals with "sympotic
Leitmotive" in Theognis, Attic Scolia, Alcaeus and Anacreon, with particular em-
phasis on the last who he well shows has "a notable affinity with Alexandrian
epigrammatists." His primary concern, however. is to illustrate how these Leitmotive
in the four poets influenced the Alexandrians (Alcaeus had no influence at all, since
his sympotic poetry is straightforward and unimaginative). In his second article (50)
he discusses Alcm. frr. 16 and 26, Ibyc. fr. 5, Anac. frr. 4, 39, and 70, Sim. fr. 74,
Melanippides fr. 1, and Castorion fr. 1. These will be summarized later under the
appropriate poets. MERKELBACH (50a) prints the partially preserved beginnings of
some poems of Sappho, Alcaeus, and Anacreon. Although NAGY's long article (51)
contains much that has no direct connection with Greek lyric and is at times overly
discursive and speculative, it should not be ignored by anyone who is concerned with
Alcm. fr. 1.49, Anac. fr. 31, and especially the story of Sappho and Phaon.
PAGE first (52) discusses the text of several fragments in P. Oxy. 2637, which he
considers a commentary on Greek lyric, and favours Ibycus as the author of the
lemmata quoted in fr. 1(a)= 220 SLG. In his second article (53) he discusses the text,
contents and metre of P. Oxy. 2735 frr. 11 and 16 ( 176 and 181 SLG) and gives
reasons for assigning them to Ibycus. The same procedure is followed for P. Oxy. 2618
frr. I and 3 (= 148 and 150 SLG) which are judged to be from the Eripkvle of
Stesichorus. Finally he argues that in P. Oxy. 2737 fr. 1 col. ii. 18-19 (= fr. 1 SLG),
chrysokoma philomolpe: Alkmanos he arch' the commentator meant that "the
beginning (sc. of Aristophanes' stanza) belongs to Alcman," not that he was quoting
"the first words of Alcman's first poem," as Lobel states. In his third (54) he provides
textual comments on several papyrus scraps in vol. 39. For the purpose of this survey I
mention only that he adduces a metrical argument against assigning P. Oxy. 2878 to
Sappho or Alcaeus and reconstructs the text of P. Oxy. 2879 col. i.1-5 (=458 SLG), a
passage which Lobel thinks might be from Stesichorus. WEST (55) writes on Alcm. fr.
1.60-63, "The Stesichori," Ibyc. frr. 1.46-48 (on the identity of Polycrates) and 4.4-
5. Anac. frr. 13.5-8. 15. and 50.11, Sim. fr. 26.1 and 6-7, Pind. 0. 10.25. P. 1.56, 1.87,
3.18, 1. 8.24, frr. 106 and 185, and the Epidaurian Hymn to the Mother of the Gods.
WEST (55a) defends his earlier explanations of Ibyc. frr. 1.24-25, 5, 17, Anac. frr.15,
38, and Sim. fr.26.1.
56. J. Labarbe, "Une epigramme sur les neuf lyriques grecs," AC 37 (1968) 449-
57. I. Gallo, "L'epigramma biografico sui nove lirici greci e il 'canone'

alessandrino," QUCC 17 (1974) 91-112
LABARBE analyses the epigram on the nine lyric poets, preserved in some of the
manuscripts of Pindar (cf. Drachmann I. pp. 10-11), and emends the text in several
places. Although the poem itself falls outside the scope of this survey, many of
LABARBE's comments are of value for those interested in the early lyric poets.
GALLO writes on the same topic but in somewhat greater detail.
III. ELEGY AND IAMBUS
58. M. L. West, lanmbiet Elegi Graeci aniteAlexandrum canitati(Oxford 1971-
72). Vol. 1, pp. xvi, 256; vol. 2, pp. x, 246
59. M. L. West, Studies in GreekElegy and Iambus (Berlin 1974). Pp. 198
WEST's two volumes (58), the first of which includes Archilochus, Hipponax and
Theognis, are a worthy companion of Page's Poetae Melici Graeci. Bergk's
enumeration is followed whereverthis is possible and one can only hope that scholars
in future will do the same. For a more detailed assessment see my review of vol. 1 in
CW 67 (1974) 393-94 and Young's of vol. 2 in CW 68 (1974-75) 266-68. WEST's
second work (59) serves as a useful adjunct to his edition, although the reasons behind
many of the decisions made in the edition are still left unexplained. A little less than
half is devoted to specific passages in the poets, the remainder consisting of chapters
on the nature of elegy and iambus, the history of the Theognidea, the life and times of
Theognis, the date of Mimnermus and the nature of his poetry, and a long chapter on
the language and metre used by the elegiac and iambic poets.
60. Friihgriechische Lyriker. Erster Teil: Die fruien Elegiker. Zweiter Teil: Die
Jambographen. Deutsch von Z. Frany6, Griechischer Text bearbeitet von B. Snell,
Erlauterungen besorgt von H. Maehler (Berlin 1971-72). Pp. 110 and 134
These volumes are intended primarily for the general reader, but the apparatus
contains a number of emendations by SNELL which will interest the specialist.
IV. ELEGY
61. G. Pfohl (ed.), Die GriechischeElegie (Darmstadt 1972). Pp. 472
PFOHL has edited 22 previously published articles or portions of books on Greek
elegy, mostly on the early poets. The few items not originally written in German have
been translated.
62. L. de Camargo Schutzer, "Ensaio sobre a hist6ria da moral e da arte lirica
na Grecia (III)," Revista deHistoria 37 (1968)3-31
63. D. A. Campbell, "Flutes and Elegiac Couplets," JHS 84(1964)63-68
64. B. Gentili, "Epigramma ed elegia," L Epigramme Grecque. Entretiens sur
l'antiquite classique 14 (Geneva 1968) 37-90
65. P. Giannini, "Espressioni formulari nell'elegia greca arcaica," QUCC 16
(1973) 7-78
66. C. Miralles, "La renovaci6n de la elegia en la epoca clasica," BIEH 5,2
(1971) 13-31
67. T. G. Rosenmeyer, "Elegiacs and Elegos," CSCA 1(1969)217-31
68. P. Steinmetz, "Das Erwachen des geschichtlichen Bewusstseins in der
Polis" in Politeia und Res Publica. Beitrage zum Verstandnis von Politik, Recht und
Staat in der Antike dem Andenken Rudolf Starks gewidmet, ed. P. Steinmetz
(Wiesbaden 1969)52-78
69. M. Treu, "Von Pentameterdiharesen," QUCC6 (1968)101-13
70. J. Vara Donado (see 44)
CAMARGO SCHUTZER's article (62) is concerned exclusively with early Greek
elegy. The first part is entitled "Natureza e constituicao da elegia," the second
describes the poetry of Callinus and Tyrtaeus, and the third the poetry of Mim-
nermus. It is perhaps enough to say that Croiset seems to have been the chief source
for much of his account. CAMPBELL (63) discusses the evidence for elegy ac-
companied by the flute and argues that, except possibly for festivals and formal
occasions, in early elegy at least it is unlikely that there was any flute accompaniment.
Elegy was not so different from epic that it needed a different kind of accompaniment
and highly personal poems would seem strange with flute accompaniment. He does
not state, but perhaps implies that a lyre might have been used by the performer
himself GENTILI (64) ably discusses the use of the words elegos and elegeion and
how it was that short poems written in the elegiac metre came to be called
epigrammata. He makes a strong case for the view that Simonides was the one
primarily responsible, since some of his elegiac poems which are traditionally called
epigrams are in fact neither genuinely dedicatory nor sepulchral. He concludes with
an appendix which lists a large number of sepulchral and dedicatory inscriptions and
their loci similes in the early elegiac poets.
GIANNINI (65) lists 88 words or combinations of words which appear more than
once in the pentameters of early elegy, indicating the point at which they appear in the
line and parallel examples from Homer and verse inscriptions. The data are then
analysed and the following conclusion is drawn: "The presence of memorized
elements frees the poet from the effort of 'creating' verbal expressions with which to
fill out a determined part of the verse, allowing him to concentrate his poetic effort on
the remaining part, thereby realizing an activity in which repetition and creativity
mutually exist." MIRALLES' article (66) is devoted to an analysis of the poetry of
Dionysius Chalcus and Critias, with briefer comments on Ion, Euenus and
Antimachus. He illustrates the main characteristics of their poetry, concentrating on
those aspects which are innovative and which appear in the Alexandrian poets.
ROSENMEYER (67) agrees with CAMPBELL (63), but feels that his arguments can
be supplemented in two ways. "We may show that other internal references, if taken
as narrowly as the references to auloi in elegiac, would lead to preposterous results:
and second, it may be possible to say more about the relation between elegiac and
elegos, a putative kinship which had much to do with the rise of the aulos myth." In
conclusion he states: "There is no hard evidence for a family tie between elegos and
elegiac. Elegiac derives from epic verse, as early references to it prove. There is no
evidence that it was sung, and some evidence that it was not. There is no reason to
assume any necessary connection between elegiac and the aulos."
STEINMETZ (68) has written an important study of passages (primarily Tyrt. frr.
2, 4, 5 and Mimn. frr. 9,14) which illustrate the growth of an historical awareness in
the 7th and 6th centuries. Some textual problems in these fragments are discussed in
considerable detail. TREU (69) argues that P. Oxy. 2507 (=Arch. fr. 4 Tard., adesp.
eleg. 61 W.) should be assigned to Archilochus because of the "subjektiven Ich-
Aussagen in einer kriegeriscben Elegie," but that P. Oxy. 2508 (= Arch. fr. 5 Tard.,
adesp. eleg. 62 W.) should not be assigned to him because of the use of oratio recta
(which he says is not found in elegy before Mimn. fr. 13a W.) and of gar (v. 3) before
the diaeresis in the pentameter (rare before Hellenistic times). Much of the article is
devoted to a study of the diaeresis in pentameters in all periods of Greek elegiac
poetry.
A. CALLINUS
71. P. P. Matsen, "Social Status in Callinus 1," C! 69(1973)57-59
72. W. J. Verdenius, "Callinus Fr. 1. A Commentary,"Mnemosyne 4.25 (1972)
1-8
MATSEN argues that in vv. 16-17 Callinus is not distinguishing between two kinds
of warriors. Rather the de is apodotic, as in II. 9.508-12, and the lines mean: "But the
man not in any case dear to the people or an object of their desire, him small and
great mourn for if anything happens to him." As long as a marl has an alkimon
thymon (v. 1) and fights, he will find that his social status is improved, regardless of
whether he lives or dies. VERDENIUS has written a line-by-line commentary,
prompted by the inadequacies or errors he sees in the commentaries of CAMPBELL
(3) and GERBER (7).
See also (62), (75), (78).

B. TYRTAEUS
73. C. Prato, Tirteo. Introduzione, testo critico, testimonianze e commento

(Rome 1968). Pp. 257
74. B. Snell, Tvrtaios und die Sprache desEpos (Gottingen 1969). Pp. 63
PRATO has written a very useful commentary on the fragments of Tyrtaeus which
is preceded by a long introduction (102 pp.) covering the following topics: "La vita e
l'opera," "Le guerre messeniche," "Lingua, metrica, storia del testo," and 22 pages
of bibliography. For the most important reviews see West in CR 20 (1970) 149-51,
Parry in AJP 91 (1970) 498-500, Rossi in RFIC 98 (1970) 434-41, and Dover in
Gnzonion43 (1971) 305-06. SNELL discusses certain concepts and expressions in
Tyrtaeus in relation to Homer and shows how they have been modified or changed.
For an accurate assessment of the book see Hainsworth's review in CR 21 (1971) 174-
75.
75. G. Broccia, "Pothos (da Omero a Tirteo) " in Lexeis. Ricerche di lingua e di
stile (Rome 1971) 37-46
76. Q. Cataudella, "Tirteo in uno scolio a Dionisio Trace " in Intorno ai lirici
greci (Rome 1972) 42-51
77. P. Janni (see 203)
78. L. I. Lindo, "Tyrtaeus and Horace Odes 3.2," CP 66 (1971) 258-60
79. I. Munoz Valle, "Tirteo y Solon," ECIds 16 (1972) 33-56
80. 0. Musso, "Tirteo in Erodoto VI, 52?" SIFC 39 (1967) 224-26
81. F. Rossi, "La 'strategia' di Tirteo," AV 126 (1967-68) 343-75
82. C. M. Stibbe, "De relatie tussen Sparta en Delphi in de zevende eeuw,
speciaal met het oog op de dichters Tyrtaios, Terpandros en Thaletas," Hermeneus 39
(1967-68) 110-20
BROCCIA (75) devotes himself primarilyto a refutation of SNELL's (74) claim that
in fr. 12.28 Tyrtaeus' use of pothos differs from that of his predecessors. SNELL states
that in Homer pothos either does not denote a strong intensity of feeling or, when it
does, it is the feeling of one individual for another and not, as in Tyrtaeus, of the
entire state. Although Callin. fr. 1.18 is similar to Tyrtaeus, the verses which follow in
the latter poet show that he "emphasizes the emotional to a completely different
degree." BROCCIA's objections are as follows: (1) it is a gratuitous assertion that in
Il. 2.703, 709, 726, 778 and 11.161 pothein means little more than "they missed him;"
(2) it is surprising that SNELL ignores passages such as Od. 1.343, 18.204 and 19.136
where "the nostalgic longing for loved ones who are far away or believed dead takes
on a poignant tone;" (3) in Il. 23.16 the intensity of feeling belongs to the whole race;
(4) the same adjective used by Tyrtaeus also modifies pothos in Hes. Erga 66; and (5)
in Arch. 13.1-5, even though the actual word pothos is not used, the nostalgia is
equally strong and is felt by the entire state. CATAUDELLA (76) is primarily con-
cerned with refuting Gigante's defence of the reading Tyrtaion in the scholium on
Dionysius Thrax (=test. 37 in Prato) which includes Tyrtaeus among those who make
use of metre, but are not really poets. He concludes that the text originally read ton
Araton and that when the abbreviated ton was misread the copyist, faced with
Taraton, changed it to Tyrtaion. LINDO (78) maintains that although Odes 3.2.13,
dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, expresses a sentiment found in several Greek
poets (Il. 15.496, Callin. fr. 1.6-7, Tyrt. fr. 10.1-2 and Alc. fr. 400), it was Tyrtaeus that
Horace had in mind because of other Tyrtaean parallels which he finds in the ode.
MUNOZ VALLE (79) gives a very general account of Tyrtaeus' poetry and of how it
reflects contemporary Spartan attitudes. There is little that is new or provocative,
although some may reasonably dispute his claim that Tyrtaeus did not compose
separate poems, but rather, as circumstances demanded, simply added to what he
had already written. MUSSO (80) suggests that Tyrtaeus was one of the poets
Herodotus had in mind when he said that no poet agrees with the claim of the
Lacedaemonians that it was Aristodemus rather than his sons who led them to their
land. MUSSO feels that in fr. 5 Tyrtaeus probably referredto the story in Paus. 4.3.4-
5 according to which Cresphontes used trickery against the sons of Aristodemus in
order to gain possession of Messenia. Praise of the fertility of Messenia and a
reminder of the injustice perpetrated by Cresphontes would serve to incite the
Spartans to greater effort in the Second Messenian War. ROSSI (81), after a detailed
examination of the sources, especially Strabo 8.4.10, ably defends the view that
Tyrtaeus was a Spartan and held a high military position.
82. C. Prato, "Nota a Tyrt. 9,4," Paideia 28(1973)45-46
83. W. J. Verdenius, "Tyrtaeus Fr. 4-5, 6-7," Hermeneus 39 (1967-68) 121-27
84. W. J. Verdenius, "Tyrtaeus 6-7 D. A Commentary," Mnemosyne 4.22
(1969) 337-55
85. M. L. West, "The Berlin Tyrtaeus," ZPE 1(1967)173-82
West, in his review of PRATO's book (73), dismissed as impossible the claim that in
fr. 12.4 theo6tmeans "in a chariot race." PRATO now (82) defends his interpretation
at greater length, arguing that theon cannot be a repetition of pod6n aretes in v. 2
because repetitions of this kind are not found in Tyrtaeus and would have no
justification. The participle must refer to the chariot race and he feels this is possible
since in Homer theo can be used of other kinds of running than with one's own feet
(e.g., I. 1.483, Od. 3.287 and 8.193). In his book he also noted that in mythology
winds can be represented as horses (cf. esp. II. 20.223-24). It seems to me, however,
that one could see a chiastic order in vv. 2-4, with v. 3 amplifyingpalaimosyne'sand v.
4 amplifying podo6naretes. VERDENIUS (83) provides a text and elementary notes in
Dutch on frr. 5, 6, and 10. In (84) he gives a very useful running commentary on fr. 10,
in the course of which he rightly defends the view that a new poem does not begin at v.
15. WEST (85) provides us with "a detailed transcript. together with notes on possible
readings and interpretation," of P. Berol. 11675 (= frr. 18-23). He maintains that
there is no evidence to support any combination of the six fragments and thinks it
possible that more than one poem may be involved.
See also (62), (68), (366).
C. MIMNERMUS
86. D. Babut, "Semonide et Mimnerme," REG 84 (1971) 17-43 (see also 178)
87. E. Cavalcanti, "A proposito di Testimonia vetera, - RFIC 94 (1966) 251-52
88. R. Stefanini, "Riflessioni onomastiche su Nan6o ', RIL 104 (1970)196-201
89. K. Szabo, "Ein Philetas-Fragment in der Tradition des Streites mit
Mimnermos," AAntHung 16 (1968) 165-71
90. S. Szideczky-Kardoss, "Ein Kapitel aus dem Nachleben des Mimnermos:
Philetas und Mimnermos," AAntHung 16 (1968) 157-64
91. S. SzAdeczky-Kardoss, "Konjektur und handschriftliche Uberlieferung in
der Textrekonstruktion der Mimnermos-Fragmente" in Studi filologici e storici in
ontoredi Vittorio de Falco (Naples 1971) 71-85
92. C. Talamo, "Per la storia di Colofone in eta arcaica," PP 28 (1973) 343-75
93. I. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, "Mimnermus and Propertius" in Problems in
A,icienitLiterature and Classical Philology (Moscow 1966) 307-20. In Russian.
BABUT (86) discusses Mimnermus' philosophy of life, especially as it is revealed in
fr. 2, and compares it with that of Semonides. In spite of striking similarities between
the two poets, the difference in outlook is very real. Of the two themes found in Sem.
frr. 1 and 29D., the blind delusion of the human spirit and the fleeting nature of
happiness, only the latter is developed in Mimnermus. The essential difference,
however, is that whereas Semonides stresses the emptiness of human aspirations,
Mimnermus stresses the contrast between the joy of youth and the sufferings of old
age. Another difference is that when the miseries of life - old age, illness, reversals of
fortune, death - are described in Hesiod and Semonides, they do not appear in any
order of significance, whereas in Mimnermus all miseries are subordinate to those
which attend old age. CAVALCANTI (87) writes a review article on S. Szadeczky-
Kardoss, Testimonia de Mimnermi vita et carminibus (see p. 270 of my previous
survey), half of which is devoted to an account of what the book contains and half to a
criticism of the chronological order adopted by the author in listing the testimonia.
She feels that it would be more useful if they were grouped according to content so as
to give a "visione organica delle notizie tramandateci." STEFANINI (88) illustrates
the Anatolian sources of the "Lallname" Nanno. SZABO (89) and SZADECZKY-
KARDOSS (90) both discuss the influence of Mimnermus on Philetas, the former
including reminiscences of Mimnermus in many other Greek poets and the latter
concentrating on the relationship between fr. 6 and Phil. fr. 11 Powell, with comments
on the meaning of paignion. After listing the ancient sources and those modern works
which provide information on the manuscript tradition, SZADECZKY-KARDOSS
(91) examines 24 passages where the transmitted text has been disputed. TALAMO
(92) is useful for the understanding of Xen. fr. 3 as well. See also G. Fogazza,
"Colofone arcaica," QUCC 18 (1974) 23-38.
94. H. Jehu, Otia 15 (1967) 131; C. Josserand, ibid. 131-32; J.-M. Pironet, Otia
16 (1968) 27; R. Crahay, ibid. 28; G. Stegen, Otia 17 (1969) 51-52
95. G. Broccia, "Mimnermo" (see 1) 93-106
95a. D. E. Gerber, "Mimnermus, Fragment 2.4-5," GRBS 16 (1975) 263-68
Fr. 2.4-5 has been exposed to a barrage of studies in the last few years. The readers
of Otia were asked to give their views on the meaning of the passage and five scholars
responded. JEHU believes the verse means: "les jeunes, prodigues de leurs forces,
sont insouciants, imprevoyants, ils ne se rendent pas compte du mal - ou du bien-
qui est en germe dans leurs actions, ils ne prevoient pas les consequences de leur
conduite." She doubts that out' agathon has much significance here. JOSSERAND
compares Soph. Ajax 552-55, where Ajax "assimile phronein a chairein et lupeisthai,
et . . . affirme que l'ignorance de la double realite representee par ces deux derniers
verbes fait tout le charme d'une existence d'enfant." The advantage of youth is that it
is not able to distinguish between good and bad. PIRONET argues for the meanings,
"Jeunes, nous ne savons pas ce qui nous attend (oute kakon ... est developpe par les
vers suivants)" and "Jeunes, nous ne savons pas non plus que c'est le plus bel age (out'
agathon, en rejet, est important aussi) - et cet age est le seul qui merite d'etre vecu,
dira le poete dans la suite (v. 9-10)," and feels that "sur le plan moral, l'ignorance des
jeunes gens corresponde a l'etat d'innocence ou, en tout cas, d'inconscience des
plantes.' CRAHAY agrees with JOSSERAND, but adds that the young "sont
heureux. mais d'un bonheur fugace, et, malheureusement, les dieux ne leur ont pas
reveel ou est pour eux le malheur (qui les attend) et le bonheur (dont ils jouissent
actuellement). L'experience va les instruire." STEGEN maintains that the passage in
the Ajax adduced by JOSSERAND is not entirely parallel. Ajax "est plus malheureux
qu'un enfant parce qu'il a confondu le mal et le bien... Cette confusion est due a la
folie et non a l'ignorance ... Les hommes malheureux dont parle Mimnerme ne le
sont que pour des maux envoyes par la nature ou par le sort." Mimnermus "feint de
croire que l'adulte ne pratique ni le bien, ni le mal, mais subit seulement les miseres
de la nature et du sort."
BROCCIA (95) discusses the same passage. After commenting on earlier in-
terpretations, and after analysing the style of the opening verses, he argues that the
words in question cannot be separated from anthesin hebe's terpometha, so that we
are not justified in seeing in them any reference to the malevolence of the gods or to
human impotence in the face of the inscrutable designs of the gods. He sees a contrast
between the "positivita" of the first part and the "negativita" of the image of the two
Keres. The phrase in this context refers to the innocence or heedlessness which is
proper for youth and should not be compared with passages such as Sem. fr. 1.1-5
which illustrate ame^chania.Much of BABUT's article (86) also deals with vv. 4-5.
GERBER (95a) argues that "kakon and agathon have equal significance, that neither
expression refers to a future allotment by the Keres or Zeus but only to the period of
youth, and that it is their unawareness of kakon and agathon that constitutes the
blissfulness of the young."
96. R. Schmiel, "Youth and Age: Mimnermus 1 and 2," RFIC 102 (1974) 283-
89
97. J. M. Cook, "Mimnermus' River" in Charisterion eis A. K. Orlandon I
(Athens 1965) 148-52
97a. K. J. McKay, "Mimnermus Fr. 13,9ff. Diehl (Fr. 14 West)," Hermes 103
(1975) 373
98. G. Broccia, "Mimn. 9 D. <Hes., Erga 762 e appunti sul Mimnermo
'esiodeo'," AFLM 5-6 (1972-73) 503-10
99. R. Kassel, "Kritisch und exegetische Kleinigkeiten III," RhM 112 (1969)
97-103 (97-98)
SCHMIEL (96) analyses the structure of frr. 1 and 2, comments on the text and
meaning of selected passages, and notes the different outlook in the two poems. In the
first "Mimnermus looked ahead to old age" and in the second he "is looking back to
youth from the vantage point of experience." COOK (97) records all the emendations
offered for fr. 9.5 and rejects them. "There is no notable river of Colophon, and a
reference to an unnamed and unspecified stream there would have been meaningless
to the poet's audience. The various conventional epithets that have been proposed are
therefore not only individually more or less arbitrary, but they are in general unac-
ceptable. The Ales mentioned by Pausanias "would not have been seen at any point
by a traveller setting out from Colophon for Smyrna." COOK suggests that the river is
the Meles, just south of Smyrna, and emends to d'aute Meletos, finding support in
Homeric Epigram 4. Its author "takes up the points that relate to Smyrna in the
Mimnermus passage" and in v. 7 refers to the river Meles. We must, therefore,
assume that Mimnermus' ancestors "had advanced as far as the river Meles, and that
it was from there that they effected the capture of Aeolic Smyrna." McKAY (97a)
emends pheret' in fr. 14.11 to theret', comparing Pind. N. 4.14 for the sense and Anth.
Pal. 12.61.2 for the corruption.
BROCCIA (98) begins by noting the similaritybetween frr. 15-16 and Erga 762 and
then proceeds to list a large number of passages in Mimnermus which he believes
show the influence of Hesiod. He also feels that Mimnermus' views on the happiness
of youth and the misery of old age owe something to Erga 112-15 and 130-31.
KASSEL (99) reminds us that, although the word memnetai which the paro-
emiographer uses to introduce fr. 15 D. does not preclude the possibility of a literal
quotation, it makes this unlikely. West (fr. 21a) clearly agrees.
See also (62) and (68).
D. SOLON
100. W. den Boer, "A New Fragment of Solon?" Mnemosyne 4.19 (1966) 46-47
101. I. N. Dampasis, "He iatrike tou Sol6nos, "Platon 19(1967)163-70
102. A. Martina, "Plutarco, Sol. 14, 8," QUCC 14(1972)41-45

103. 1. Munoz Valle (see 79)
104. G. M. R. Starzybski, "Solon, estadista e poesia," BEC6 (1967) 75-90
DEN BOER (100) suggests that the anecdote, "tyranny is a fine stronghold, but
there is no way down from it" (Plut. Solon 14.8), is a paraphrase of Solon's words and
he puts them into iambics. MARTINA (102) rejects DEN BOER's ascription of the
passage to Solon, arguing that the thought is typical of the 4th century, but not of
Solon, and that if Plutarch had lifted the anecdote from Solon's poetry he would have
expressed himself differently. DAMPASIS (101) examines those passages in Solon
which illustrate his place in the history of Greek medicine. MUNOZ VALLE (103)
deals in a general way with Solon's poetry and his political and moral views, offering
little that has not been said before. I see no justification for his suggestion that "the
political elegies of Solon formed a connected series, so that their elements were in part
autonomous and in part subordinate to the whole." STARZYBSKI (104) states that
Solon's historical importance has resulted in his poetry not receiving the attention it
deserves. He, therefore, attempts to illustrate Solon's poetic achievements, largely by
giving a text and translation of about 100 verses. This could be a useful article for a
Portuguese-speaking undergraduate, but is of no importance for anyone else.
104a. O. Ameduri, "L'Eunomia di Solone e le Eumenidi," AFLNn.s. 1(1970-71)

15-22
105. H. Kolleritsch, "Konnte Solon von 'Tragodien' Arions sprechen?" Eranos
66 (1968) 1-9
106. G. O. Rowe, "A Problem of Quotation in Demosthenes' Embassy Speech,"
TAPA 103 (1972)441-49
107. E. Will, "Soloniana. Notes critiques sur des hypotheses recentes," REG 82
(1969) 104-16
KOLLERITSCH (105) is primarily concerned with the statement made by loannes

Diaconus (Sol. fr. 30a) that Solon in his elegies mentioned Arion's introduction of
tragoidias drama, and particularly with the question of whether the word tragoidia
could have appeared in elegiac verse. An examination of the metrical practices of the
early poets indicates that some forms of the word would have been possible. The
article contains two tables, one on the examples of epic correption in Solon and one
on the examples of Attic correption in the elegiac poets. ROWE (106) disputes the
view held by Wilamowitz and Jaeger that only the first 16 verses of fr. 4 were "ap-
plicable to the immediate context of the oration" and that consequently "it was only
due to a scribe's ignorance that the elegy was transcribed complete." ROWE then
proceeds to show how the poem "is paralleled throughout Demosthenes' speech in
respect to purpose, theme, subjects, and even imagery."
WILL's (107) comments, prompted by Cataudella's book, Atene fra il VII e VI
secolo (Catania 1966), fall under three headings, "Sur le sens du mot hekte^moroi,"
"Sur le traitement que Solon fit subir aux horoi," and "Sur la reforme metrologique."
Only the second is closely connected with Solon's poetry. In this he rejects
Cataudella's argument that in fr. 36.6 aneilon means "I set up" and pepe^gotasmeans
"had been planted." According to Cataudella the horoi were boundary markers
which the rich overturned whenever they appropriated someone's property. WILL
argues that if the participle referred to horoi which had been planted and were no
longer in existence, Solon would have added a word such as prosthen. "Les horoi
etaient donc necessairement encore fiches en terre lorsque Solon y toucha." Reasons
are also given for retaining the meaning "I destroyed" or "caused to disappear"
which is traditionally given to aneilon.
107a. R. Westman, "Ein uberdecktes Wort in \Solons Salamiselegie," Arctos 8

(1974) 187-93
107b. H. Lloyd-Jones, "More about Antileon, Tyrant of Chalcis (Solon Frag. 33
and Aristophanes Eq. 1042-44)," CP 70 (1975) 197
WESTMAN (107a) rejects oiden in fr. 1.2 on the grounds that it is superfluous,
since kosmos epeon "already comprises the notion 'poetry'," and because nouns in
apposition are normally modified. He argues that the word is a gloss on kosmos epeon
and perhaps replaced ligeon, noting that ligyphthongos is a standard Homeric
epithet of heralds. In CR 70 (1956) 200 Maas corrected Alc. fr. 296a.8 so as to give us
the name Antileon. LLOYD-JONES (107b) sees a further reference to the tyrant in
Solon and Aristophanes.
See also (34), (37), (41), (133).
E. XENOPHANES
108. D. Babut, "Xenophane critique des poetes," AC43 (1974)83-117
BABUT concentrates on frr. 2, 10, and 11 D. and ably demonstrates that
Xenophanes' criticism of poets who speak of the athemistia erga of figures in myth is
not based primarily on religious grounds, but rather on grounds of practicality. Such
stories contain nothing that is useful for the political and social life of the citizens.
108a. N. Marinone, Lessico di Senotane (Rome 1967, repr. Hildesheim
1972). Pp.117
108b. J. Wiesner, "Die Eleaten. 1. Xenophanes 1957-1969 (1970)," AAHG 25
(1972) 1-15
MARINONE, in addition to providing a competent lexicon to the remains of
Xenophanes, also includes an "indice metrico e prosodico" and other indices on
topics such as word frequency, emendations and supplements not found in Diehl's
text, and the distribution of grammatical forms.
See also (92).
F. THEOGNIS
109. M. M. Carosi and E. L. Najlis, Teognis. Elegias (Buenos Aires 1968). Pp.
207
110. G. Cerri, "Un nuovo studio sulle elegie di Teognide," QUCC 8 (1969) 134-
39
111. V. Steffen, Die Kyrnos-Gedichte des Theognis (Wroclaw 1968). Pp. 86
112. V. Steffen, "Die Elegien des Theognis," Acta Philologica Aenipontana II
(Innsbruck 1967) 68-70
112a. D. Wender, Hesiod and Theogniis. Translated and with introductions
(Harmondsworth 1973). Pp. 170
113. D. Young, Theognis (Leipzig 1971 2)
Eccentric approaches to the problems of the Theognidean corpus are not unknown,
but STEFFEN's book (111) is surely the ultimate example of misplaced ingenuity. His
aim is to restore the work which the Suda calls pros Kyrnon . . . gn6mologia
di'elegeio'n and to accomplish this he arbitrarily combines 386 verses into eleven
elegies, assembled according to subject matter. A few textual alterations are made, so
that the passages combined will fit together more smoothly. To illustrate his method,
his eleventh elegy, Theognis' epilogue, is a combination of 1182-83, 801-04, 1184a-b,
369-70 and 237-52 in that order, with the men of 237 changed to gar. In short, the
only pages that deserve more than a cursory examination are 68-74, which are con-
cerned with the historical situation in Megara and Theognis' political terminology,
although even here some of the conclusions are vitiated by the way in which passages
have been combined. For a more detailed criticism of STEFFEN's views on the
meaning of agathoi, kakoi, and astoi, see CERRI's review article (110). STEFFEN's
short article (112) gives a brief description of the contents of each of the elegies which
he constructs in greater detail in his book.
A second edition of YOUNG's Teubner text (113) has appeared. The text is in fact
unchanged, but the bibliography has been brought up to date and the apparatus has
been corrected and enlarged by two pages of addenda at the end. I have not seen the
book by CAROSI and NAJLIS (109), but according to Humbert's review in BSL 67,2
(1972) 100-102, it contains a text, Spanish translation, and very elementary com-
mentary. A new edition, "refondue et augmentee," of Carriere's Bude Theognis has
appeared (Paris 1975), but I have not had time to compare it with the 1948 edition.
114. J. Carriere, "Introduction 'aTheognis," Pallas 18 (1971) 3-30
115. J. Carriere, "Pindare et Theognis: retour sur la Seconde Olympique, a
Theron " in Studifilologici e storici in onore di Vittorio de Falco (Naples 1971) 105-11
116. J. Carriere, "Toujours a propos du papyrus de Theognis," Maia 23 (1971)
39-46
117. J. Carriere, "Pour en finir avec le papyrus de Theognis," REG 85 (1972) 33-
38
118. G. Cerri, "La terminologia sociopolitica di Teognide: 1. L'opposizione
semantica tra agathos-esthlos e kakos-deilos," QUCC 6 (1968) 7-32
119. A. I. Dovatur, "Theognis of Megara," VDI 112(1970)41-59. In Russian.
120. A. I. Dovatur, "Theognis and Megara" VDI 117 (1971) 38-46. In Russian.
121. A. I. Dovatur, "Theognis von Megara und sein soziales Ideal," Klio 54
(1972) 77-89
121a. M. Gronewald, "Theognis 255 und Pap. Oxy. 2380,"ZPE 19(1975)178-79
122. E. MarOti, "Zum r6merzeitlichen Weiterleben des Theognis," AAntHung
15 (1967) 153-58
123. S. I. Oost, "The Megara of Theagenes and Theognis," CP 68 (1973) 186-
96
124. A. Peretti, "La fonte teognidea di Stobeo" in Studia Florentina A. Ronconi
sexagenario oblata (Rome 1970) 325-48
125.- A. Peretti, "Postilla teognidea," Maia 23 (1971) 47-56
126. M. V. Skrzinskaja, "T'he Theme of Tyranny in the Poetry of Theognis,"
VDI 118 (1971) 150-56. In Russian.
127. V. Steffen, "Theognis uber die Mischehen," Eos 57 (1967-68) 32-36
128. V. Steffen, "De versibus qui in Theognidis reliquiis iterantur," Eos 58
(1969-70) 5-18
CARRIERE (114) gives a general, but useful, survey under the headings of
"Theognis et son oeuvre," "La morale de Theognis," and "Le texte des elregies."Its
chief virtue is that it makes the student aware of the main problems concerning
Theognis and the solutions which have been offered. CARRIERE (115) also notes
various reminiscences of Theognis in 0. 2, particularly 583-84 and 0. 2. 15-17, and
argues that Pindar is "un discret censeur" of the pessimism evident in Theognis'
complaints about divine injustice. The tiresome feud between CARRIERE and
PERETTI, mentioned in my previous survey (p. 272), has not slackened. PERETTI's
reply [Maia 19 [1967] 113-53) to CARRIERE's claim [REG 75 [1962] 37-44) that P.
Oxy. 2380 refutes the main thesis of PERETTI's book has now elicited a retort
trioni CARRIERE (116). PERETTI (125) has responded in turn and again
CARRIERE (117) has replied. It is pointless to attempt any summary of their
respective arguments and I can only express my hope that CARRIERE will keep his
word when he says, "Le silence sera desormais ma regle," and that PERETTI will do
the same. GRONEWALD (121a) suggests that the remains of v.255 preserved in P.
Oxy. 2380 belong to the beginning rather than to the end of the line and that there
may have been something written in front of these letters to indicate that a new
section of the collection was commencing.
CERRI (118) provides a sound analysis of the significance conveyed by the words
agathos, esthlos, kakos, and deilos in Theognis. In the aristocratic language of the 6th
and 5th centuries agathos-esthlos has lost the amoral significance of "strong" or
"excellent" which it has in Homer and denotes a person who has the necessary
qualities of an aristocrat, i.e. birth, wealth, and such ethical characteristics as loyalty,
regard for dike',courage amid misfortune, gratitude. etc. "Therefore agathos-esthlos is
one who, belonging to the aristocratic class by geiios and ploutos, has completely
assimilated their gnome; kakos-deilos is whoever is deprived of such gno^me^, either
because by not belonging to the aristocratic class he has not received their paideia or
because, although belonging to the aristocratic class by genos and ploutos, he has not
taken advantage of the education he has received because of an intrinsic moral
baseness." Although in Theognis these words are sometimes primarily ethical and
sometimes primarily socio-political, they overlap and should be translated by the
same word. In Italian he suggests "nobile" and "vile." Much of the same ground is
covered by DOVATUR (121), but with less satisfactory results. MAROTI (122)
discovers that a portion of an inscription from Oenoanda, dated to the 3rd century
A.D., reproduces with only two variations the text of Theognis 245-46. OOST (123)
describes the political and historical conditions in Megara during the 7th and 6th
centuries. This lucid account, although necessarily speculative in places, should
become the standard introduction for students of Theognis to the historical
background of his elegies. OOST dates Theognis' birth to "early in the sixth century"
and his death to "some time after 500."
PERETTI (124) examines the citations from Theognis in Stobaeus and argues that
Stobaeus "non attinse le sue citazioni teognidee dalla raccolta secondaria che si
presume confluita nel nostro CTh verso il X secolo." Rather his variant readings
"rappresentano un filone autonomo di elegie teognidee rispetto a quello incorporato
nel CTh: vanno cioe considerate come lectiones tertiae rispetto a quelle della presunta
tradizione bipartita." STEFFEN (127) discusses those passages which are concerned
with marriage between agathoi and kakoi (183-96, 621-22, 1109-12) and argues that
1109-12 should not be considered spurious because of their similarity to 57-60. The
earlier verses have a political reference, but in 1109-12 Theognis wanted to show "that
the changes in Megara applied not only to political but also to private life." STEF-
FEN's comments can also be found in pp. 34-38 of his book (111). In his second
article (128) STEFFEN examines the repeated passages in the first book and argues
that in all but one instance only the passages which appear first in the collection are
genuine. The one exception is 71-72 and 1109-10 which he believes were deliberately
altered by the poet. STEFFEN suspects that at some stage the text of Theognis was
lost and his poems survived only orally, until an admirer gathered them together and
included in his collection both the genuine poems and those which had suffered
alterations through faulty memory.
129. Q. Cataudella, "Ancora su ou moi pinetai oinos (261-66) e su altri versi di

Teognide," RCCM 9 (1967) 165-76
130. Q. Cataudella, "Canzoni della malmaritata nella Grecia classica" in Studi
in onore di C. Naselli I (Catania 1968) 93-106. Reprinted in his Intorno ai lirici greci
(Rome 1972) 139-55
131. G. Cerri, "Isos dasmos come equivalente di isonomia nella silloge
teognidea," QUCC 8 (1969) 97-104
132. B. Gentili, "Il 'letto insaziato' di Medea e il tema dell'Adikia a livello

amoroso nei lirici (Saffo, Teognide) e nella Medea di Euripide," SCO 21 (1972) 60-72
133. H. Harrauer, "(Theognis) 1153-1156" in Antidosis. Festschrift.fiir Walter
Kraus zum 70. Geburtstag (Vienna 1972) 150-56
134. J. C. Kamerbeek, "Notes sur quelques passages de Theognis," Mnemosyne
4.21 (1968) 159-62
134a. K. J. McKay, "Bird-Watching in Theognis and a Callimachean Echo" in
Grazer Beitrage 2 (1974) 105-19
135. A. D. Skiadas, "Hermenneutikaiparate^re'seis, " EEAth 16 (1965-66) 396-405
(396-98)
136. M. Vetta, "Ps.-Teognide 1231-34 e Apollonio Rodio," RFIC 100 (1972)
283-94
137. M. Vetta, "Theogn. 1235-38," SIFC44 (1972) 267-71
CATAUDELLA (129) states that van Groningen did not correctly record his in-
terpretation of 261-66 and most of the article is devoted to a refutation of Labarbe's
unpublished explanation, approved by van Groningen, and to a reaffirmation of his
o\n view of the passage. Comments are also made on 398-400. 567-70, and 579-80.
In his second article (130) he argues that 257-60 and 579-80 are "poesia di carattere
popolare," and that in both a woman is complaining that her husband is inept
(kakiston and kakon) as a lover. In 579-80 pareimi should be translated "I am
present" rather than "I pass by" and the woman, carefree as a bird, is present for a
"sospirata avventura." Examples of the theme of the ill-married woman are noted in
Greek, French, and Italian "canti popolari." CERRI (131) ably maintains that,
although the meaning "division of booty" or "division of rations" is possible in 678 on
the allegorical level, the primary meaning of the verse is: "there is no longer
isonomia." In the 5th century isonomia is synonymous with democracy, but in
Theognis' time it denotes the aristocratic political ideal of parity among the nobility in
contrast to the absolute power of a tyrant. GENTILI (132) convincingly defends the
reading aple^stouin Medea 151 and shows the importance of the theme of dikeând
adikia, of reciprocity and the absence of it, in erotic contexts. He illustrates this theme
not only from numerous passages in the Medea and other tragedies, but also from
Theognis 1283-94 and Sappho fr. 1.18-28, which are examined at some length.
HARRAUER (133) argues that, since the other passages in the collection (as well as
many in Hesiod and Solon) which have wealth as their theme emphasize the ethical
aspects associated with it, 1153-56 cannot be assigned to Theognis. KAMERBEEK
(134) writes brief notes on the text or meaning of vv. 47 (read Schoemann's atrem'
esesthai), 51-52 (read te in place of de and punctuate after it rather than after an-
dron), 87 (on the meaning of eche), 91-92 (translate: "cet homme-l'aest un compagnon
dangereux et qu'il vaut mieux avoir comme ennemi que comme ami"), 93 (either
emend the Attic an or reject Theognidean authorship), 102 (in Theognis deilos means
"inferieur" or "malheureux," never "lache"), 127 (read kaiper pot' es ho6rionelthon
and translate "et tu ne pourrais en juger (de la vraie qualite interieure) quelque beau
que soit celui que tu as rencontre"), 128 (on ideai), 171 (read theois' euchou su,
theoisin ... ), and 195-96 (metaphor of the yoke in anankeêntuei). McKAY (134a)
provides an attractive interpretation of Theognis 579-84 and argues for an echo of
these lines in Callim. Epig. 28 Pf. He sees a riddle in the Theognis passage, the first
couplet representing a statement by Philomela, the second by Procne, and the third by
Tereus.
SKIADAS (135) sees no justification in treating 1153-54 and 1155-56 as separate
poems. In both wealth is only hypothetical. VETTA in his first article (136) argues
that the author of 1231-34 used Apollonius Rhodius 4.445-49 as his model and in his
second (137) he makes a strong case for taking damasas phrenas in 1235 in an erotic
sense, with the pronoun emeu governed by phrenas rather than by akouson. Thus the
four verses have the "carattere di introduzione-dichiarazione" and "il poeta gnomico
si annuncia come eraste's, manifestando senza equivoci il contenuto parenetico-

erotico della sua poesia."
See also (21), (48), (49), (228), (285b), (300), (399), (541).
V. IAMBUS (See III)

A. ARCHILOCHUS
138. T. Breitenstein, Hesiode etArchiloque (Odense 1971). Pp. 71
139. G. Tarditi, Archiloco. Introduzione, testimonianze sulla vita e sull'arte,
testo critico, traduzione (Rome 1968). Pp. 298
140. F. Will, Archilochos (New York 1969). Pp. 136
Students of Archilochus are fortunate to have now two splendid editions of the
poet, TARDITI's (139) and WEST's (58). TARDITI's is a handsomely produced and
soberly written book which is considerably more conservative in its treatment of the
papyrus fragments than WEST's. Its value is enhanced by the addition of five indexes
and fourteen pages of bibliography. BREITENSTEIN (138) had made a very
thoroughly documented attempt to show that Archilochus was much influenced by
Hesiod. "Le prologue de la Theogonie, les reflexions sur les dieux et les hommes, les
descriptions de la vie des saisons, - ce sont donc la les parties de l'oeuvre hesiodique
dont Archiloque a subi l'influence." Even though his general thesis is not convincing
at every point, the reader will find much of value in many of the comments made on
both Archilochus and Hesiod. WILL's book (140), aimed at the Greekless reader, is
by far the worst ever written on Archilochus. It is grotesquely euphuistic (e.g.
"Ai-chilochos ... was onanistically bent over the moods of his own viscera"), absurd in
its poetic analyses (e.g. on fr. 36, "they leaned against the wall in the shadow," we are
told that "in sound and vocabularythe line testifies to acceptance of the world as it is.
The simple mystery of this effect is inexhaustible. But the pathos and quality of
human life, as far as they can be captured by organization of sense-awareness, are
captured here"), and contains errors or unjustified deductions on almost every page.
Three previously published articles on Hesiod, Solon, and Sappho are included in an
appendix.
141. G. Broccia, "Archiloco," in Tradizione ed esegesi(Brescia 1969) 75-92

142. E. Degani, "Note sulla fortuna di Archiloco e di Ipponatte in epoca
ellenistica," QUCC 16 (1973) 79-104
142a. C. Gallavotti, "Note di esegesi archilochea," Maia n.s. 27 (1975) 27-36
143. P. Green, "The Individual Voice: Archilochus and Sappho" in The Shadow
qt the Parthenoni.Stuidies in Ancient History and Literature (Berkeley 1972) 152-92
(152-69)
144. P. Green, "The Date of Archilochus" (143) 268-75
145. 0. Lendle, "Archilochos, Politischer Ratgeber seiner Mitbiirger" in
Politeia und Res Publica. Beitrage zum Verstandnis von Politik, Recht und Staat in
der Antike den: AnidenkenRudoltfStarksgeevidmet(Wiesbaden 1969) 39-51
146. J. A. Notopoulos, "Archilochus, the Aoidos," TAPA 97 (1966) 311-15
147. A. J. Podlecki, "Archilochus and Apollo," Phoenix 28 (1974) 1-17
148. H. D. Rankin, "Archilochos was no magician,"Eos 62(1974)5-21
148a. H. D. Rankin, "Archilochus and Achilles," Hermathena 118 (1974) 91-98
148b. H. D. Rankin, "Moichos Lagnioskai Hybristes: Critias and His Judgement
of Archilochos," GB 3 (1975) 323-34
148c. A. D. Skiadas, "PsogerosArchilochos, "Athena68(1965)33-42
149. E. Zwierlein-Diehl. "Nektar chyton. Moisdniidosin.' MDAI(A) 83 (1968)
186-99
BROCCIA's (141) main argument is that often the mere citation of Homeric
parallels obscures rather than aids interpretation and in the case of Archilochus (frr.
1, 13, 191) he takes issue with Page's view that "the language is wholly traditional."
In fr. 1 he notes that, although both therapon Aretosand Mousaon therapo6nare epic
phrases, Archilochus does not use the latter. The use of epistamenos shows that
Archilochus does not feel that he is a mute instrument in the hands of the Muses, but
possesses a technical skill of his own. It is, however, a gift of the Muses, so that,
although Archilochus is indicating that he is subject both to Ares and to the Muses, it
is to the former that this subjection is more pronounced. A similar method of ap-
proach is used in discussing frr. 13 and 191. DEGANI (142) ably demonstrates that
Callimachus and some of the epigrammatists were hostile towards Archilochus, but
greatly admired Hipponax. This has seemed surprising to most scholars, but
DEGANI argues that their antipathy towards Archilochus resulted from their seeing
in him "l'antitesi dell'equilibrio e della misura classiche" and from the strong
Homeric influence in his poetry, whereas they saw in Hipponax a poet who was anti-
Homeric and whose verses revealed an allusiveness, cleverness, humour and technical
skill that appealed to them as poetae docti. GALLAVOTTI (142a) believes that there
is much less obscenity in Archilochus than most critics maintain and that we should
not "confondere una vigorosa descrizione anatomica o fisiologica con la compiacenza
per il lubrico." To illustrate this he provides a new interpretation, with varying
degrees of success, of frr. 34, 39-43, 125 (together with Anac. 44), 218, 222 and 252,
with briefer comments on frr. 89.12, 99 and 112.
GREEN (143) writes a highly entertaining account of Archilochus' life and poetry
which, although sometimes very perceptive, is more often incredibly fanciful. It most
certainly should not be placed in the hands of students without due warning. No one,
however, would quarrel with his general thesis that "even in grammarians' snippets
and torn papyrus fragments we can sense something wholly new in Greek literature:
the voice of the individual speaking loud and clear." In his appendix on the date (144)
GREEN argues that the eclipse referred to by Archilochus was that of 11 January,
689, and that the poem in which it was mentioned must have been written shortly
after Archilochus' engagement to Neobule was broken, presumably when he was
about twenty-five. "This gives us a hypothetical birth date of 716/5 - a figure which
twice recurs in the chronological calculations of his fioruit, being Gyges' putative
accession date and the (traditionally accepted) year of Romulus' death." Other events
in his life are fitted into this scheme and his death is assigned to "probably soon after
652/ 1." The first part of LENDLE's article (145) is an imaginative, though not
unattractive, reconstruction of the sequence of thought in fr. 89 and the inscription
which introduces it. The poem is an appeal to Erxies for assistance in a war between
Naxos and Paros which is threatening to destroy the latter. In the second part which
deals with fr. 23 he supplements the ends of vv. 8-9 with kakon and euphronon and
explains the poem as follows. Myrmex has set himself up as a tyrant over a city which
he has captured, but his position is being contested and he reproaches Archilochus,
presumably for being afraid to come to his defense. Archilochus answers this ac-
cusation by quoting a reply he once gave a woman who had made a similar ac-
cusation. One should not fear what the kakoi say, but "Myrmex will be envied in the
future because of his position in the eyes of the euphrones and because of his
reputation." LENDLE believes that both poems are evidence of Archilochus' role as a
"politischer Ratgeber" and of his pride in the power of his poetry to shape society.
NOTOPOULOS (146) seeks to corroborate Page's thesis that Archilochus was an
oral poet by adducing evidence that he was also an epic poet. This evidence is based
primarily on Theoc. Epig. 21, Plato's Ion (531-32), and testimonia which refer to the
presence of mythological themes in his poetry. In addition he believes that in fr. 1.2
the "gift of the Muses" is "the gift of epic poetry." Although it is obviously possible
that Archilochus was an epic poet, none of the evidence given by NOTOPOULOS
need be so interpreted. But even if Archilochus composed orally, I see no reason to

assume that "without training and practice in epic poetry Archilochus could not have
applied successfully the oral technique to the composition of oral lyric poetry."
PODLECKI's (147) well-documented article provides a judicious assessment of Paros'
colonizing efforts and Archilochus' involvement. The Monumentum Archilochi and
the Mnesiepes inscription are dealt with at some length and several pages are devoted
to Delphi's "prominence in stories regarding the foundation of Thasos and the career
of Archilochus generally." RANKIN (148) rightly disputes the claim made by some
that Archilochus should be considered as a Greek equivalent of early Irish poets
whose magical satire could cause death, though he admits a degree of analogy. "The
parallel between the poetic curses and satires of Irish bards and the furious ex-
pressions of Archilochus about his foes . . . reduces itself to the basic thesis that the
archaic Greeks probably took poetic ridicule more seriously than we would, and that
the Irish took it more seriously than the Greeks." If Lycambes and his daughters did
commit suicide because of what Archilochus said, "this was because of the injurythat
their honour suffered from the diffusion of his ridicule throughout an honour-
oriented or 'shame' society rather than because they were placed under a spell by
magical words."
In his second article RANKIN (148a) tries to find points of comparison between
Archilochus and Achilles. Both consider themselves unjustly treated concerning a
woman, both inveigh against deceit, and both angrily justify their "conception of
simple honesty in personal relations." In his third article (148b) he rather superficially
examines obscene references in Archilochus and argues that Critias' denunciation
was prompted not so much by Archilochus' sexual preoccupation itself as by his open
admission of this preoccupation. The "sophistic recipe for success" demanded that
the public man be kept separate from the private man. SKIADAS (148c) analyses a
number of passages, mostly from the Anthologia Palatina, which refer to the cen-
sorious nature of Archilochus' poetry. ZWIERLEIN-DIEHL (149) supports the view
that the Boston pyxis (middle of the 5th century) which depicts a herdsman leading a
cow refers to the story in the Mnesiepes inscription according to which the Muses gave
Archilochus a lyre in exchange for the cow.
150. B. Gentili, "La lancia di Archiloco e le figurazioni vascolari" in Studia
Florentina Alexandro Ronconi sexagenario oblata (Rome 1970) 115-20
151. G. Giangrande, "Archiloque au pilori," QUCC 14 (1972) 37-40
152. P. Mingazzini, "Spigolature vascolari,"ASAA 29-30 (1967-68) 327-53 (327-
34)
153. H. D. Rankin, "Archilochus Fg. 2. D, Fg. 7. (L-B),"Emerita 40(1972)469-
74
154. W. H. Schuchhardt, "Archiiologisches zu Archilochos" in Opus Nobile.
Festschrift zum 60, Geburtstag von UlfJantzen (Wiesbaden 1969) 153-55
155. M. Tortorici and A. Di Sparti, "Ricerca automatica dei gruppi isofonici in
testi poetici ed applicazione ad Archiloco Fr. 2," Atti della Accademia di Scienze,
Lettere ed Arti diPalermo 4.30, pt. 1 (1971) 309-39
Fr. 2 continues to perplex scholars. MINGAZZINI (152) and SCHUCHHARDT
(154) argue that the Mycenaean warriorvase which depicts soldiers carrying a wallet
attached to their spears will explain Archilochus' en dori. Food and wine hang
suspended from the poet's spear and he drinks while leaning on his spear. GENTILI
(150) disputes the evidence of the vase painting, arguing that it is rather the Homeric
enchos from which the wallets are suspended and that on the other side of the vase,
where no wallets appear, it is the Homeric dory. The former is heavy and used for
hand-to-hand combat, whereas the latter is light and used for throwing, a spear too
flexible for one to lean on. In addition keklimenos plus en cannot mean "lean on."
We should, therefore, translate all three occurrences of en dori by "on board ship."
As in RFIC 93 (1965) 129-34, GENTILI argues that the couplet comes from the same
poem as fr. 4, so that there is no problem in explaining dori as denoting the wood of a
ship (cf. II. 15.410 and Od. 9.498). GIANGRANDE (151) translates: "for me, enclosed
as I am in the pillory, there is bread; for me, enclosed as I am in the pillory, there is
wine; I am drinking, reclining in the pillory." In pino keklimenos he is playing, in his
usual impudent fashion, on phrases like klitheti kai pinomen (Eur. fr. 691). Even
though pilloried he treats the whole matter as though he were at a banquet.
RANKIN (153) believes that the couplet formed part of a scolion, that the poet is
being ironical, and that en is "non-spatial" in its first two occurrences, but "spatial"
in its third. He attempts to show this play on words by translating: "My bread
depends upon my spear; my vintage wine depends on it; so do I myself as I drink, for
it is my diner's couch." For klinesthai followed by en and the dative he quotes II.
23.335-36 and suggests that, even if en in the Homeric passage is to be understood in
the same way as in fr. 36, Archilochus could, "for humorous effect, have permitted
himself a variation of the construction of klinesthai." "Archilochus wants his
audience first of all to be deceived into thinking that all three occurrences are
precisely the same in meaning, and subsequently to realize, with amusement, that
they are not all the same." TORTORICI and DI SPARTI (155) believe that with the
aid of an "elaboratore elettronico" one can arrive at a better understanding of a
poetic text. They argue that the sounds and their collocation in fr. 2 indicate that
Archilochus felt bitter about his hard life as a soldier, but that there was some con-
solation from the fact that this same life enabled him to obtain wine. Most of the
article is written in a highly technical language which I generally fail to understand,
but in my opinion no one interested in Archilochus need consult it.
156. I. Boserup, "Archilochos' forste digt. Bemaerkninger til to indskrifter fra
Paros," Museum Tusculanum 19 (1972) 46-62. I have not seen this.
157. W. Donlan, "Archilochus, Strabo and the Lelantine War," TAPA 101
(1970) 131-42
158. M. D. Reeve, "Eleven Notes," CR 21 (1971) 324-29 (324-25)
159. L. Braccesi, "Syros Potamos (nota ad Archil. 18 Diehl)," RFIC 101 (1973)
220-24
159a. F. Bossi, "Archiloco e la Propontide." RFIC 103 (1975) 129-35
160. H. D. Rankin, "Archilochus (Pap. Ox. 2310 Fr. 1, Col. 1)," Eranos 72
(1974) 1-15
161. W. Morel, "Die Ameise bei Archilochos," ZPE8 (1971)143-44
161a. R. Merkelbach, Kritische Beitrage zu antiken Autoren (Meisenheim 1974)
28. On fr. 26.6.
162. I. Boserup, "Archiloque ou epigone alexandrin? Sur l'authenticite du fr.
56A (Diehl)," C&M 27 (1966) 28-38 (appeared in 1969)
163. I. Garcia Lopez, "Sobre la autenticidad del Fr. 56A de Arquiloco," Emerita
40 (1972) 421-26
163a. V. Schmidt, "Promethesai bei Archilochos," ZPE 19(1975) 183-90
164. J. Russo, "The Inner Man in Archilochus and the Odyssey," GRBS 15
(1974) 139-52
165. Q. Cataudella, "Archiloco in una citazione di Giulio Africano," Intorno ai
liricigreci (Rome 1972) 11
166. J.-T. Papademetriou, "A Reinterpretation of Archilochos 53D," EEThess
13(1974)75-81
166a. D. E. Gerber, "Archilochus Fr. 119 W," Phoenix 29(1975)181-84
167. G. Lanata, "Archiloco69D.," QUCC6(1968)33-35
168. D. E. Gerber, "Eels in Archilochus," QUCC 16 (1973) 105-09
168a. G. Broccia, "II linguaggio amoroso di Archiloco e la terminologia guerresca
della tradizione omerica," AFLM 7 (1974) 311-21
169. W. Buhier, "Ein neues Archilochosfragment und ein neues Wort fur
Menander aus einer Oxforder Kyrillhandschrift,"Hermes 96 (1968) 232-38
169a. E. Lobel, "Sophocles Aichmal6tides fr. nov. (formerlyArchil. fr.306)," ZPE
19 (1975) 209-10
169b. F. Bossi, "Note ad Archiloco," MCr 8/9(1973-75)95-106
DONLAN (157) persuasively argues that fr. 3, although referring to the Lelantine
War, points to the introduction of hoplite fighting and "that the inscription which
Strabo [10.1.12] saw concerns not a voluntary ban on missiles in the Lelantine War
btit the garbled remembrance that close combat replaced long-range fighting at some
point in the war." He adds that "the events described by Archilochus should be
placed after 700, but before 650, because by the middle of the century hoplite tactics
had become standard on the mainland." On fr. 13.6 REEVE (158) makes the at-
tractive suggestion that Archilochus may have written krateron, noting that "en-
durance is a powerful antidote," is more natural than "powerful endurance is an
antidote." BRACCESI (159) is persuasive in his argument that the river Siris men-
tioned in fr. 22.2 is in fact the river Syrus (the modern Gebren Su) which flows into the
Propontis at Cios. According to Strabo 10.5.7 Paros founded the city Parium on the
Propontis. After a brief discussion of BRACCESI's article, BOSSI (159a) examines
the evidence concerning Koiranos and concludes that fr. 192 also refers to the early
colonization of the Propontis.
RANKIN (160) arguiesthat frr. 23-24 are one poem. that the wonian addressed in
23.8 is Neobuile. and that the general subject of the verses is Archilochus' attenipt to
convince Neobule that "he really is somebody of importance." MOREL (161) sup-
ports those who see in miyrmex (fr. 23.16) an "Appellativum" rather than an
"Eigenname." On the basis of Theoc. 9.31, Dio Chrys, 40.32, and Hor. Ep. 7.11-12,
which state that animals of the same species do not show anger towards one another,
he argues that Archilochus is here comparing himself to the ant. BOSERUP (162)
assigns fr. 106 to the Alexandrian period on the following grounds: the metre is more
probably iambic than trochaic; promethesai in v.7 is "une forme barbare d'imperatif
aoriste ou - plus probablement - d'indicatif present;" the Zenon papyri reveal that
"les aspirations litteraires de Zenon etaient peu elevees et que l'interet qu'il y portait
etait fort bourgeois;" the circumstances and the spirit of frr. 105 and 106 are different
and, whereas an allegorical interpretation of 105 is specifically attested by Heraclitus,
no such interpretation is possible for 106.GA RCIA l OPFZ (163) attempts to refute
Boserup, but fails to give what is probably the strongest reason in favour of
Archilochian authorship, namely that Plutarch (De Superst. 8) who quotes 105
continues in language reminiscent of 106. After a detailed examination of
promethesai in fr. 106.7, SCHMIDT (163a) concludes that there is no reason to reject
Archilochian authorship on the basis of this form.
RUSSO (164) makes a strong case for the view that the alleged novelty of
Archilochus in contrast to Homer is not as great as many have believed. To illustrate
this he analyses fr. 114 and compares the point of view expressed there with passages
in Homer, especially the Odyssey. The description of Eurybates in Od. 19.246-48, for
example, is very similar to fr. 114. "It is in his inner quality as opposed to his mere
appearance that Eurybates is quite the opposite of Thersites and very much like
Archilochus' little captain." CATAUDELLA (165) thinks that there is a reminiscence
of fr. 114 in Julius Africanus. Cest. p. 113 Vieillefond (kalonlde kai to iambeion to
archaioni, h6s lvsitelesteros tou propetous ho asphales he^gemon).Vieillefond cites
Eur. Phoeni. 599 as Africanus' source and this seems to me to be equally possible, if
not preferable. PAPADEMETRIOU (166), noting that what evidence there is for
Parian figs indicates that they were of superior quality, sees a double entendre in the
s'ka of fr. 116. Since sYkon can denote the pudenida muliebria, Archilochus is con-
temptuously bidding farewell to the women of Paros. He also maintains that we are
not justified in explaining the words thalassion bion by anything as explicit as "the
life of a fisherman." Rather a broader interpretation, "life of the sea," should be
given. GERBER (166a) offers evidence in support of the view that in fr. 119 dresten
and askon denote the male and female genitalia respectively. No connection is seen
between frr.118 and 119.
LANATA (167) notes that some have explained fr. 125 as an example of
Archilochus' thirst for fighting, whereas others have seen an erotic significance. After
citing numerous parallel passages in support of both interpretations, she sensibly
concludes that we have no means of determining which was intended here. GERBER
(168) rejects previous explanations of fr. 189, primarily on the grounds that they are
not supported by attested meanings of dechomai, and argues that, if the verb is taken
in an obscene sense (cf. Arch. fr. 331. Sem. fr. 7.48-49, Anth. Pal. 9. 416.5-6) and if
enchelys is a metaphor for the membrum virile, satisfactory sense can be obtained.
BROCCIA (168a), by a careful study of fr.193 especially, shows how Archilochus'
erotic language makes use of the epic vocabulary of war. BUHLER (169) discovers a
two-word fragment of Archilochus (othneen hodon, now 244 W.) in a Bodleian
manuscript of Cyril's Lexicon. The adjective was previously not attested before
Euripides, although in fact the fragment has long been known from Choeroboscus
who cites it anonymously.
LOBEL (169a) prints a papyrus scrap which shows that fr.306 should be assigned to
Sophocles, not Archilochus. BOSSI (169b) examines frr.178, 263, 274 and 313. After a
full discussion of the testimonia for frr.178 and 313 and of the various interpretations
put forward, he defends the optative tychois in 178 and the authenticity of 313.
Archilochus has takenimelampygos from a proverb, probably deriving from the story
of Heracles and the Cercopes, transferred it to a fable involving an eagle, and con-
trasted this eagle with one which is weaker(;i'gargos). He alsosuggeststhat fr.234 may
be from the same poem, in view of Eubulus fr.61 K. With regard to fr.263 he makes a
good case for rejecting West's version of Hesychius and for assigning to Archilochus
only the gloss under aedonion, i.e. the poet used this word in the sense of vagina.
Finally, he argues that in fr.274 it is kyphonismos, not klyphon, that should be at-
tributed to Archilochus.
170. E. Degani, "Note al primo Epodo di Strasburgo," MCr 5-7 (1970-72) 63-80
171. E. Degani, "Archil. 79a, 2D.-B.," QIFG 2(1967) 3
DEGANI's important article (170) concentrates on vv. 2-3 and 11-12 of fr. 79a D
(=Hipp. 115 W) and on the various glosses of Hesychius that have been referred to this
poem, only one or two of which have, he feels, any possible relevance. His comments
on the gymnon gloss (Arch. fr. 265) are especially valuable (only the second
explanation of Hesychius refers to Archilochus). In vv. 2-3 he defends the sup-
plements kymasi and euphronestata, maintaining that the latter is supported by Od.
7.255-56. In v. 11 he argues that Ahrens' emendation of Il. 20.229 (rhegmina) is
correct and that the author of the epode used the Homeric passage as his model, and
in v. 12 the infinitive is given the meaning "to have experience of' (with auton sup-
plied as its subject). In his other article (171) he adduces Greg. Naz., Anth. Pal.
8.210.1-2, in support of the supplement kymasi in v.2.
172. R. Merkelbach and M. L. West, "Ein Archilochus-Papyrus,"ZPE 14 (1974)
97-112
173. R. Merkelbach. "Nachtrage zu Archilochos," ZPE 16 (1975) 220-22
174. M. L. West, "Archilochus Ludens. Epilogue of the other editor," ZPE 16
(1975) 217-19
175. E. Degani, "Il nuovo Archiloco," A&R n.s. 19 (1974) 113-28
176. J. Ebert and W. Luppe. "Zum neuen Archilochos-Papyrus. Pap. Colon. inv.
7511," ZPE 16 ( 1975) 223-33

177. C. Gallavotti, "Note al nuovo Archiloco," MCr8/9 (1973-74) 22-31
177a. T. Geizer, "Archilochos und der neue Kolner Papyrus (Pap. Colon. inv.
7511)," MH 32 (1975) 12-32
177b. T. Gelzer, W. Theiler. L. Koenen, M. L. West, H. Flashar and K. Maurer.
"Ein wiedergefundenes Archilochos-Gedicht?" Poetica 6 (1974) 468-512
177c. R. Kannicht, "Archilochos, Horaz und Hephaistion (Zu P. Colon, inv.
751 )," ZPE 18 (1975) 285-87
177d. M. Marcovich, "A New Poem of Archilochus: P. Coloni.inv. 7511." GRBS
16 (1975) 5-14
177e. B. Marzullo. "Note al nuovo Archiloco." MCr 8/9 (1973-74) 32-92
177f. F. Risch. "Sprachliche Betrachtungen zum neuen Archilochos-Fragment
(Pap. Colon. Inv. 7511)," GB 4 (1975) 219-29
177g. .1 Van Sickle. "Archilochus: A New Fragment of an Epode," CJ 71(1975-
76)1-15
177h. A. Barigazzi, "Note al nuovo Archiloco," MCr8/ 9 (1973-74) 5-10
177i. G. Bona, "P. Colon. inv. 7511: nuovo Archiloco," RFIC 102 (1974) 397-98
177j. M. G. Bonanno, "Note al nuovo Archiloco," MCr 8/9 (1973-74) 11-13
177k. F. Bossi, "Note al nuovo Archiloco," MCr 8 / 9 (1973-74) 14-17
1771. G. Bur7acchini, "Note al nuovo Archiloco," MCr 8 / 9 (1973-74) 18
177m. V. Casadio. "Note al nuovo Archiloco," MCr 8/9 (1973-74) 19-20
177n. 0. Montanari, "Note al nuovo Archiloco," MCr 8/9 (1973-74) 93-94
177o. S. R. Slings, "Three Notes on the New Archilochus Papyrus," ZPE 18
(1975) 170
MERKELBACH and WEST (172) have published with a brief commentary a new
35 line fragment (= 478 SLG), only the end of which is preserved. The papyrus also
contains the first five lines of a second poem, the first two lines of which were already
known from fr. 188. MERKELBACH adds an epilogue in which he states that these
new verses confirm what was already known, namely that Archilochus was "ein sch-
werer Psychopath," a view rightly rejected by virtually all other critics of the poem. In
separate articles on the same fragment MERKELBACH (173) offers textual notes,
mostly supplements, many of which were communicated to him by other scholars, and
suggests that frr. 189-91 may belong to the same poem, while WEST (174), after brief
notes on vv. 5, 13, 17 and 35, suggests that fr. 196 may have formed the second line of
the poem, comments on the setting for the seduction, discusses Archilochus' attitude
towards Neobule's sister, and points out that "accounts of sexual adventures" were
typical of iambus and need not be true. DEGANI (175) records his own views and
those of others on the text of the fragment and discusses its metre, style, language and
contents. EBERT and LUPPE (176) provide a text of the papyrus, with all the lacunae
supplemented, together with a commentary. In the introduction they argue that the
girl in the poem is not Neobule's sister. GALLAVOTTI (177) fills in all the lacunae in
a manner radically different from that which is generally adopted. alters the trans-
mitted text in a few places, and provides a translation and commentary. He main-
tains that the girl is not Neobule's sister and that there is no reference to marriage
between the girl and Archilochus. He also includes a text and commentary on the
addition to fr. 188. GELZER (177a) rejects Archilochian authorship on the grounds of
content, thought, style, language and metre, and assigns it to the late Hellenistic
period at the earliest.
The six contributors named in (177b) individually present their interpretation of the
new poem. WEST and KOENEN defend Archilochian authorship, GELZER and
THEILER reject it, while FLASHAR and MAURER feel that the question is still
open. The article also contains a text (together with the various supplements that have
been suggested) and translation. KANNICHT (177c) maintains that late Greek
metrical theory should not be used to determine the poem's authenticity. MAR-
COVICH (177d) provides a revised text, together with a translation and commentary.
He sees the poem as a "fresh and naive love story." MARZULLO (177e) gives a line-
by-line commentary (including the addition to fr. 188), in the course of which he finds
numerous objections, mostly of a linguistic and stylistic nature, to Archilochian
authorship. He also argues that the poem refers to three daughters of Lycambes, not
two. RISCH (177f) analyses the poem's language, illustrating the large degree to
which it is indebted to Homer, but concentrating on the few words or expressions
which are foreign to epic. VAN SICKLE (177g) provides a text, translation and
analysis, concentrating on "language, character, and the general character of
language in the dialogue." In the course of this he compares the Odysseus-Nausicaa
episode and the Zeus-Hera seduction scene in Homer. "The poem as a whole appears
to move between the contraries represented by the heroic and the iambic ethos." VAN
SICKLE's "The New Erotic Fragment of Archilochus," QUCC 20 (1975), had not yet
appeared at time of writing. BARIGAZZI (177h) restricts himself primarily to vv. 9-
13, for which he suggests several new supplements, including melanthei[s hainati in
v. 11, a reference to menstruation, i.e. Archilochus proposes marriage after she
reaches puberty. In the last line he sees a reference to onanism. He stresses the lack of
feeling in the poet's description of the seduction and interprets this to mean that the
poet seduced the girl simply to gain revenge on Lycambes. Finally he argues that the
style is typically Archilochian and that this could not be so closely imitated by an
Alexandrian. BONA (177i) does little more than summarize the contents of the epode
except to make the suggestion that Neobule's sister is addressed as the daughter of
Amphimedo because Archilochus, since he is stressing her good character in contrast
to Neobule's, refuses to call her the daughter of the hated Lycambes. BONANNO
(177j) discusses vv. 2 (the transitive use of the second verb), 4 (tereina is hinted at in
the anthos of v. 18 because of the frequent association of the two words), 10 (the last
part is not interrogative), 17-18 (comparison with Theoc. 7.120-21), and 25 (supply
dolous at the end, since this goes better than philous with what immediately
precedes). BOSSI (177k) discusses the epic models, especiallyII. 14.292-351, for w. 2-
5, supports Page's periphronos in v. 7. and suggests supplements in vv. 33-34.
BURZACCHINI (1771)makes a good case for explaining epelysin in v. 33 as meaning
"bewitchment," comparing epe^lysite and Hesychius on epelysis. CASADIO (177m)
argues for ge tis at the end of v. 16 and considers HCer 108 the model for anthos
partheneîonin v. 18. MONTANARI (177n) illustrates the metaphor in thrinkou (v.
14) by adducing Arist. Thesm. 58 ff. and argues that telethaessi (v. 29) is a dative of
telethaeis. SLINGS (177o) briefly discusses vv. 11 (the supplement soi botrys is
defended), 15 (sche'so^ can mean "steer one's course" as well as "land"), and 31 (in
contrast to Homer so6mahere means "living body").
See also (5), (9), (14), (17), (21), (34), (36), (41), (69), (75), (181), (203), (615a).
B. SEMONIDES
178. D. Babut (see 86)
179. R. J. Konet, "Semonides lambographus and Horace Odes 1.11," CW 68
(1974-75) 257-58
180. D. E. Gerber, "Semonides of Amorgos, Fr. 1.4," TAPA 100(1969)177-80
181. H. Lloyd-Jones, Females of the Species. Semonides on Women (London
1975). Pp. 109
182. M. Rabanal Alvarez, "El Yambo de las mujeres, de Semonides de
Amorgos," Durius 1 (1973) 9-22
183. W. J. Verdenius, "Semonides uber die Frauen. Ein Kommentar zu Fr. 7,"
Mnemosyne 4.21 (1968) 132-58, and "Nachtrag zu Kommentar zu Fr. 7," ibid. 4.22
(1969) 299-301
184. W. Bauer, "Zu Semonides, Fragment 7, Vers 42," Hellenica 21 (1971) 363-
67
185. W. Marg, "Zum Wieseltyp in Semonides' Weiberjambos," Hermes 102
(1974)151-56
186. D. E. Gerber, "Semonides, Fr. 7.62," Phoenix 28 (1974) 251-53
187. M. L. West, "Notes on newly-discovered fragments of Greek authors,"
Maia 20 (1968) 195-205 (195-97)
188. D. Holwerda, "De Semonidis fragmento nuper reperto," Mnemosyne 4.22
(1969) 77-78
BABUT (178), in an important and well-documented article, concentrates
primarily on frr. 1 W. and 29 D. (=Sim. fr. 8 W.). He feels that fr. I is incomplete, that
Stobaeus did not quote the positive aspect of Semonides' exhortation because it did
not pertain to his chapter. The end may have been an invitation to hedonism as the
proper way to combat the sorrows of life. "C'est donc cette philosophie de la vie,
caracterisee par une sorte de prudence craintive, de resignation teintee d'un
he'donisme opportuniste, que semble constituer l'apport original de Semonide par
rapport aux poetes dont il depend par ailleurs etroitement, Homere et Hesiode." The
presence of these same themes in fr. 29 D is in his opinion the strongest reason for
assigning the poem to Semonides. Regardless, however, of whether one is convinced
by his case for Semonidean authorship, he has many perceptive observations on the
thought of both poems and on the meaning of specific passages. KONET (179) sees
the influence of fr. 1 on Odes 1.11. GERBER (180) defends the text of Diehl-Beutler,
arguing that by bota Semonides meant "sheep," animals proverbial for their
stupidity, and hence appropriate in this context.
LLOYD-JONES' book (181) on fr. 7 contains a text, translation, and commentary
preceded by an introduction that discusses the nature of iambic poetry, the life of
Semonides, the influence of Hesiod and the beast fable, and character-study and the
attitudes towards women in Greek literature. In five brief appendices he gives a text
acndtranislationiof frr. I and 29 D.. together with some coninients on the aluthorshipof
the latter. a text and translation of Phoc. fr. 2 D.. a text of the new Cologne
Archilochus with a half-page introduction and M. Robertson's translation, a survey of
scholarship on Semonides from Aristarchus to the present, and a reproduction of
Addison's article on fr. 7 published in the Spectator. The most valuable part is the
commentary, but it is to be regretted that in a book devoted entirely to one poem
LLOYD-JONES did not write in greater detail. Much of the introductory material,
including the translation, can also be found in his article, "Females of the Species. On
118 Lines of Semonides," Encounter 44 no. 5 (1975) 42-55. The chief purpose of
RABANAL ALVAREZ' article (182) is to rescue Semonides from the charge of having
written "poesia brutalemente antifemenina" and to accomplish this he quotes a large
number of examples from Spanish proverbs and folksongs where animals, birds, and
fish are compared to women. The parallels are interesting, but I am not sure that they
are of much significance for Semonides, except to show that poetry of this type is not
peculiar to one race of people. VERDENIUS (183) has written a useful commentary
on fr. 7. but devotes only two pages to the poem as a whole and to its background.
BAUER (184) objects to the idea of ponttos having a phye in fr. 7.42 and emends to
panitos(e),without mentioning that Nauck had made the same emendation. I am more
inclined to think that v. 42 was added by someone who felt that an indication should
be given of in what respect such women resembled the sea and he found a model in v.
11. It is the flatness of the verse and the absence of allote which offend rather than the
notion that the sea can have a phve. See also MARG (185) p. 154 n. 11.
MARG (185) describes the characteristics of the weasel, both as they appear
elsewhere in Greek literature and as they are known today, and attempts to relate
these to the type of woman being described in fr. 7.50-56. Much of what Marg says
aids our understanding of the passage, but at times he carries his analysis too far. For
example, he sees a contrast between the quick movements and curiosity of the weasel
and the sluggishness of the ass in the preceding section, but Semonides does not
actually mention these characteristics of the weasel. Similarly, he sees a greater
distinction between the sexual propensities of the two classes of women than is
justified. GERBER (186) discusses the various interpretations which have been of-
fered for fr. 7.62 and argues that the sentence means, "she forces a man (or her
husband) to love her." HOLWERDA (188) and WEST (187) both attempt to restore
the very corrupt fragment of Semonides (now 10a W) recorded by Erenius Philo and
printed in Nickau's Teubner edition of Ammonius (p. 73). WEST's version, which is
far more convincing than HOLWERDA's, may be translated as follows: "Do not
pride yourself in being unwashed, nor worship water, nor let your beard need trim-
ming, nor deck out your body with a filthy tunic," As WEST remarks, "it emerges
that the stock type of the unwashed, unkempt, unlaundered ascetic was already
established by 600 B.C."
See also (17) and (168).
C. HIPPONAX
189. W. de Sousa Medeiros, Hipponactea. Subsidios para uma nova edicao

critica do iamb6grapho diEfeso (Coimbra 1969). Pp. 107
MEDEIROS has written what might be called addenda et corrigenda to his earlier
edition and includes a discussion of the recently discovered fragments. For more
detailed comments see my review in Phoenix 25 (1972) 166-68 and West's in CR 21
(1971) 12-13.
190. E. Degani, "Metafore ipponattee" in Studi filologici e storici in onore di
Vittorio de Falco (Naples 1971) 89-103
191. E. Degani (see 142)
191a. E. Degani. "Ipponatte parodico" MCr 8/9(1973-74)141-67
192. J. M. Marijuan Fernandez,"Tipologia metrica del coliambo en Hiponacte"
in Doroi syn oligoi. Homenatge a Josep Alsina (Barcelona 1969) 45-50
DEGANI (190) concentrates primarily on frr. 48 and 34. In fr. 48 he emends to

melaines on the basis of Babr. 19.1, suggests that the verse may be sensu obscaeno,
and notes that the circumlocution, which seems to be a favourite of Hipponax (cf. frr.
103.10 and 144), is rare elsewhere. Two examples, however, appear in Aeschylus
(Septem 494 and Agam. 494-95) and he sees in them the influence of Hipponax. The
metaphor, however, is not a creation ex novo of Hipponax, but was suggested by
Homeric passages such as II. 9.2 and 14.231. The metaphorical use of pharmakon
with a genitive in fr. 39 and especially in fr. 34 leads DEGANI into an examination of
numerous parallel passages. Particular attention is paid to Pind. 0. 9.97 which he
believes is a contamination of II. 16.224, Od. 14.529, and Hipponax. He argues that
Hipponax is referring, by way of parody, to the chlaina which was the victor's prize in
the Hermaea at Pellene, hence the appeal to Hermes. "Nel contesto della sua
preghiera, la chlainiadaseia, gia simbolo di kydos e di aretd, si riduce ad un prosaico
pezzo di lana, che serve unicamente a far fronte al gelo che fa 'battere' i denti e
'crepare' i geloni." After a few pages on Hipponax' place in the history of Greek
parody and on fr. 32 (especially the form of the word Maiadeu), DEGANI (191a)
devotes the rest of his article to a detailed and learned examination of fr. 128. If this is
indicative of what we may expect in his forthcoming book, Studi ipponattei, it will be
extremely valuiable. MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ (192) offers a new method of
schematizing the choliambic, which it is impossible to summarize, but which seems to
be no particular improvement over traditional methods.
193. W. Belardi, "Gr. kollix (Hippon. 39, 6 D? etc.)." Athenaeum 47 (1969) 25-
29
194. R. Kassel, "Kritische und exegetische Kleinigkeiten IV," RhM 116 (1973)
97-112(104)
195. M. L. West, "Notes on newly-discovered fragments of Greek authors,"
Maia 20 (1968) 195-205 (198-99)
196. D. Holwerda, "De nonnullis poetarum Graecorum fragmentis nuper
repertis," Mnemosyne 4.22 (1969) 301-03
197. M. Naoumides, "New Fragments of Ancient Greek Poetry," GRBS 9 (1968)
267-90 (276-78)
BELARDI (193) connects kollix with Pahlavi kulcak, "a small, round loaf."
Kollix, therefore, is another example of Asiatic influence on the Greek of Ionia which
passed into the literary language of Greece through Hipponax. On the basis of Arist.
Pax 440 and Equites 1286, KASSEL ( 94) proposes eska ell(s)ein fr. 70.8. Three short
fragments of Hipponax, which have turned up in Herbert Hunger's decipherment of a
palimpsest of Herodian's Katholikie Pros6idica(cf. JOEBvzfG 16 [196711-33). are
discussed by WEST (195) and HOLWERDA (196). For further comments see
MEDEIROS (189) and the reviews by GERBER and WEST cited there. These
fragments are 155, 155a, and 155b in West's edition. A fourth new fragment (172a W.)
is published by NAOUMIDES (197) from Cyril'sLexicon.
See also (17), (170), (171).
VI. MELIC POETS (excluding Pindar)
A. ALCMAN
198. M. Balasch, "Todavia sobre la patria de Alcman," Emerita 41 (1973) 309-
22
199. F. J. Cuartero, "Alcmiany Esparta," BIEH 6 (1972) 3-34
200. F. J. Cuartero, "La poetica de Alcman," CFC4 (1972) 367-402
201. T. Gelzer, "Alte Komodie und hohe Lyrik. Bemerkungen zu den Oden in
Pap. Oxy. 2737," MH 29 (1972) 141-52
202. Y. Hirokawa, "Alcman as one of the Forerunners of Philosophical
Cosmogonists,"JCS 20 (1972) 40-48. In Japanese.
203. P. Janni, La cultura di Sparta arcaica. Ricerche II (Rome 1970) 49-73 and
121-26
204. K. Tsantsanoglou, "Dyo Alkmanes? (P. Oxy. 2802)," Hellenika 26 (1973)
107-12
BALASCH (198) is largely a review of previous discussions concerning the
homeland of Alcman and although he defends the view that Alcman was born in
Lydia of Laconian parents, he does so without adding much to earlier studies.
Essentially he supports Bowra's arguments for a Lydian homeland (GLP 17-19) and is
convinced that Alcman is speaking about himself in fr. 16. CUARTERO's first artic!e
(199) covers six topics: (1) "Sparta in the 7th century," (2) "Poets and musicians in
Sparta," (3) "The date of Alcman," (4) "The origin of Alcman," (5) "Poetry and daily
life," and (6) "Poetic inspiration." He assigns Alcman to the second half of the 7th
century and argues that he was a Laconian. For political reasons he was said to be a
Lydian and this was based on an arbitrary interpretation of fr. 16. Brief analyses,
including textual and metrical comments, are given of frr. 14(a), 17, 19-20, 26-28, 39-
40( 95(b), 96, 98, 102, 125, and the end of 5 (fr. 2) col. i. In general, CUARTERO's
argumentation is sober, although his discussion of some of the fragments suffers from
an apparent unawareness of studies previously published. In his second article (200)

he provides a text, translation, and commentary on fr. 3 and then discusses Alcman
under the headings "The Religion of Sparta" (382-90), "The Dioscuri" (390-96) and
"The Influence of Epic" (397-402). GELZER (201) discusses portions of a recently
published commentary on an unknown comedy (in all probability by Aristophanes)
and examines at some length two references to Alcman mentioned in it. In fr. 1, col. ii,
lines 18-19 (= fr. 1 SLG) we are given the lemma chrysokoma philomolpe and told
that it conies from "the beginning of Alcman." GELZER's parallels strongly suggest
that the epithets refer to Apollo and he is persuasive in his argument that the words
appeared in a hymn to Apollo which stood first in the Alexandrian edition. A second
lemma (fr. 1, col. i, lines 19-27) consists of kyknos hypo pterygo6ntoionde, with a
lacuna of apparently one syllable at the end. The commentator gives the Homeric
Hymns as the source, referring presumably to Hymn 21, but adds that others give
Terpander, Ion and Alcman as the source. It is possible that Alcman was named
because of fr. 1.100f. GELZER proposes se for the lacuna and argues that the words
began the ode of the comedy, with the other lemma forming the beginning of the
antode.
After discussing the evidence for the role played by Lycurgus in importing the
poetry of Homer and after refuting Merkelbach's statement that frr. 41, 65, and 67a
D. of Archilochus provide a terninulisanite quweml for the Odyssey, JANNI (203) con-
centrates on Homeric parallels in Alcman and Tyrtaeus. He introduces this section
with the following statement: "An expression or a single verse can be introduced
independently by two poets by means of an ancient literary tradition, but if the
fragments of a lyric poet repeatedly record a specific part of the Iliad or the Odyssey,
the hypothesis of a dependence acquires a degree of probability that is undoubtedly
much greater." He thinks it possible that Alcman wrote an epyllion on the sojourn of
Odysseus among the Phaeacians and on his meeting with Nausicaa, and in support of
this he compares frr. 70c, 82, 84 and 85b with Od.6.168, 6.138, 5.277 and 7.147. More
important, however, is the fact that fr. 81 seems to be a contamination of Od. 6.244
and 7.311, and if we add that fr. 80 names Odysseus together with Circe, we can
hardly doubt that the Odyssey was known in Sparta in the second half of the 7th
century. JANNI now takes a different approach to the problem and argues that if one
could show that both Alcman and Tyrtaeus were influenced by the same portion of
Homer, the case would be even stronger. To this end he compares Il. 12 with Alcm. fr.
89 and various passages in Tyrtaeus, and to a lesser degree he feels that both poets
were also influenced by II. 3. Although the extreme sceptic might still argue that
Alcman and Tyrtaeus were drawing upon the same literary tradition as the Homeric
poems, JANNI has helped to strengthen the general view that both poets were in-
fluenced by the Iliad and the Odyssey. TSANTSANOGLOU (204) supplements lines
3-4 of P. Oxy. 2802 (=fr.5 SLG), apparently a life of or commentary on Alcman, in
such a way that Didymus is recorded as the source of the "drivel" that there were two
Alcmans. He cites examples of both ancient and modern critics who invent homonyms
to explain away biographical difficulties and concludes with a discussion of the notice
in the Suda which mentions a second Alcman.
205. F. R. Adrados, "Alcman, el Partenio del Louvre: Estructura e in-
terpretaci6n," Emerita 41 (1973) 323-44
206. Q. Cataudella, "Sugli scoli A, B al Partenio di Alcmane" in Intorno ai lirici
greci (Rome 1972) 21-41
207. F. J. Cuartero, "El partenio del Louvre(Fr. 1 Page)," BIEH 6,2(1972) 23-76
208. A. Griffiths, "Alcman's Partheneion: the morning after the night before,"
QUCC 14 (1972) 7-30
209. J. W. Halporn, "Agido, Hagesichora, and the Chorus (Alcman 1.37ff.
PMG)" in Antidosis. Festschriftffir Walter Kraus zum 70. Geburtstag (Vienna 1972)
124-38
210. P. Janni, "Nuovi studi alcmanei," QUCC4 (1967)188-93

211. V. N. Jarkho, "Alcman, the Hippocoontids and World Justice," VDI 113
(1970)44-62. In Russian.
212. D. D. Lipourlis, "Artemis Orthria," EEThess 10(1968)365-403. I have not
seen this.
213. C. O. Pavese, "Alcmane, ilParteniodel Louvre," QUCC4(1967)113-33
214. G. B. Pighi, "II Partenio del PLouvr E 3320," Studi di Ritmica e Metrica
(Turin 1970) 87-105
215. M. L. West (see 55, p. 205)
PAVESE's (213) article is one of the most important studies that have been written
on the Partheneion and a brief summary cannot possibly do it justice. He argues that
vv. 2-12 are an example of praeteritio (similar to that found in fr. 1 of Ibycus), so that
Alcman is saying: "I sing not of Lycaethus or the Hippocoontidae, but of the beauty
of Agido," with 13-39 being an "intermezzo gnomico." Valuable comments follow on
13-15, on the gnomic topos of 36-39 as a way of introducing words of praise, on the
meaning of 40-43 (Agido is beautiful like the sun which she summons to bear witness
to her beauty), on the persons and their roles in the poem, and on the characteristic
features of the partheneion (fr. 3 and Pind. fr. 94b are compared). The article con-
cludes with a paraphrase of the poem and a list of the themes and motifs as they
appear in it. ADRADOS (205) argues that a proem to the Partheneion must have
existed and that it was sung by Hagesichora alone. The rest of the poem was sung by
the chorus while Hagesichora, their leader, performed certain rites associated with the
festival. The Peleiades represent a rival chorus whose leader is Agido. Both choruses
are offering a robe to the goddess. An agon between the two choruses took place at the
conclusion of the Partheieio,t and in this contest the rival choruses were judged for
their beauty, garments, dancing, and singing. ADRADOS also devotes several pages
to notes on selected passages (57-59, 60-64, 65 ff., 78-79, 98-99) and has much to say
about fr. 3. This is a provocativearticle which deserves careful study.
GRIFFITHS (208) proposes an entirely new interpretation of the Partheneion,
namely that it is an epithalamium and that Theocritus 18 is "dependent on Alcman."
The chorus originally consisted of twelve, but one has already married (leaving the
eleven of v. 98) and it is on the occasion of the marriage of a second member that the
chorus (now numbering ten, v. 99) is singing. The bride is Agido and the "lyric is
being sung at the break of dawn after the marriage-night." The Peleiades are the
constellation and signify simply "the approach of dawn." In vv. 60-63 the emen-
dations orthriais phawos and awe'romnenaisachonitai are proposed, with achontai
explained by Ovid, Fasti 4.169 ff. Hagesichora is Helen and Aotis is Artemis. To the
question how the ancients could have misunderstood the poem, GRIFFITHS answers
that there must not have been any proem indicating the subject-matter and that the
Parthenieiontmay have been "forgotten and only rediscovered in the late fourth or
early third century." These are only the highlights of this charmingly written article,
but even if his main thesis is not convincing there is much of value in many of his
observations. PIGHI (214) gives the myth of Heracles and the Hippocoontidae as it
appears in Pausanias and Apollodorus, an interpretation of what is taking place as
the Partherneiornis sung, a text (with all lacunae filled) and translation, and an
analysis of the metre, complete with musical notation. Much of this article is pure
fantasy. JANNI (210) writes a review article on Rosenmeyer's "Alcman's Partheneion
I Reconsidered," GRBS 7 (1966) 321-59, and West's "Alcman and Pythagoras," CQ
17 (1967) 1-15 (summarized on p. 326 of my previous survey), indicating where he
disagrees with their conclusions.
CATAUDELLA (206) concentrates on schol. A to vv. 60-63 and schol. B, fr. 6, col.
ii, lines 8-9. In the latter passage he argues that the significance of Atarnides may be
determined from a comparison with Anith.Pal. 7.89 where an Atarnian asks Pittacus
whether he should marry a woman from the same level of society as he is or one who is
higher. CATAUDELLA suggests that the scholiast introduced this reference because
he saw a comparison between the erotic behavior of the Hippocoontidae (cf. v. 17 and
Page, Alecnan 31-32) and the erotic character of the non-mythical part of the poem.
The greater portion of his article, however, is devoted to a discussion of vv. 60-63 and
the comments of the scholiast on them. In brief, he argues that pharos means
"plough," the Peleiades are Agido and Hagesichora, they are referred to in this way
because the best time to plough is at the setting of the Peleiades (Erga 614-17),
machontai with the dative means "fight on behalf of," and the correct reading in v. 61
is orthiai (nominative) which probably indicates their "excitement" or "impatience."
Whatever one may think of his interpretation of vv. 60-63 as a whole, he has made a
strong case for giving the meaning "plough" topharos. WEST (215) translates vv. 60-
63 as follows: "For the Pleiades range themselves against us, before dawn, as we bear
the plough through the ambrosial night, bringing Sirius up with them as they do." He
suggests changing hate to to te and states that the time must be "late July or early
August." This is not one of WEST's more convincing efforts. CUARTERO's (207)
long article contains a text, translation, metrical analysis, and commentary. Its full
documentation and sound scholarship make it an important contribution to the study
of this difficult poem. HALPORN (209) first discusses the methods used to elucidate
the Partheneion, emphasizing with some justification that in matters of literary
criticism we should restrict ourselves to "the poem itself and what we can tell of the
poet's mind from his other work (and of other poets of similar mind)," then comments
on the imagery, and concludes with a translation and running commentary. Some of
the points made in this valuable study are that neither Agido nor Hagesichora is the
chorus leader, the chorus is in love with both girls but they have eyes only for each
other, and the Pleiades are doves, the star-cluster, and Agido and Hagesichora.
216. F. Sisti, "Alcmane fr. 3,63 Page," Helikon 11-12 (1971-72)431-32
217. H. Humbach, "Diipetes und diopetes," ZVS 81 (1967) 276-83
218. R. Renehan, "Diaipetes in Alcman," RhM 115(1972)93-96
219. F. D. Harvey, "Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2390 and Early Spartan History,"
JHS 87 (1967) 62-73
220. J.-P. Vernant, "Thetis et le poeme cosmogonique d'Alcman" in Hom-
mages a Marie Delcourt (Brussels 1970) 38-69
221. J. L. Penwill, "Alkman's Cosmogony," Apeiron 8 (1974) 13-39
222. R. Fuhrer, "Responsion in Alkman Fr. 10(b) P.," ZPE 11 (1973) 130
223. G. Giangrande see 50)
224. 0. Musso, "Hiaros ornis (Alcm. fr. 26 Page, v. 4)," SIFC45 (1973) 134-35
225. J. K. Bos, "Een fragment van Alkman," Hermeneus 39 (1967-68) 107-109
226. F. G. Sirna, "Alcmane heuretes ton erotikon mel6n," Aegyptus 53 (1973)
28-70
227. C. Gallavotti, "Le pernici di Alcmane," QUCC 14 (1972) 31-36
228. B. Gentili, "I frr. 39 e 40 P. di Alcmane e la poetica della mimesi nella
cultura greca arcaica" in Studifilologici e storici in onore di Vittorio de Falco (Naples
1971) 59-67
229. M. Hofinger, "Note sur la traduction des adjectifs tetratryphos et
oktabl6mos, "AC 36 (1967) 457-60
229a. P. E. Easterling, "Alcman 58 and Simonides 37," PCPhS 200 (1974) 37-43
(37-41)
230. A. Allen, "Alcman and Niobe's children," RhM 117(1974) 358-59
231. J. Alsina, "Un motivo comiin en Alcman, Goethe y Lrmontov," BIEH 6, 2
(1972) 121-24
232. M. F. Galiano, "Iris Murdoch, Alcman, Safo y la siesta," EClds 13 (1969)
97-107
233. T. Morrissey, "Nightsong: Alcman and Goethe," CB 43 (1966-67) 73-74
233a. K. J. McKay, "Alkman Fr. 107 Page," Mnemosyne 4.27 (1974) 413-14
234. M. A. Livadaras, "Zu Alkmans Fr. 172 (Page)," RhM 115(1972) 197-99
SISTI (216) argues that in fr. 3.63 the seductive power of Astymeloisa mentioned in
the two preceding verses is still being described. "Not in vain is she sweet" means that
she is successful in inspiring the chorus with love for her. HUMBACH (217) connects
diipete's and diaipete'swith dieros "fluchtig, rasch," hence "rasch dahineilend" in fr.
3.67. RENEHAN (218) treats diaipetes as a Laconian form of diipete's "bright." The
meaning "falling through" or "flying through" is wrong because "the ouranos is a
region to which or from which travel is possible, but one does not go through it in
early Greek poetry; a divinity or object travels rather through the aither (or ae^r)."
RENEHAN makes the same point very briefly in Glotta 50 (1972) 44. HARVEY (219)
supplements most of Alcm. 5, fr. 2, col. i, lines 13-28, and ably discusses the historical
significance of the passage. It seems that Alcman mentioned or alluded to the Spartan
king Leotychidas and that he was alive at the time of Alcman's reference to him, i.e.
near the end of the 7th century.
VERNANT (220), in a wide-ranging article, studies the cosmogonical problems
presented by Alcman 5, fr. 2, col. ii, and argues that "Poros et Tekm16rsemblent ....
avoir conjointement pour role de dissiper l'obscurite totale qui regne dans la Nuit des
eaux primordiales en ouvrant les voies par ou le soleil pourra en cheminant apporter
la lumiere du jour et les etoiles tracer dans le ciel nocturne les routes lumineuses des
constellations ... Poros ne designe pas seulement, au sens le plus concret, une route,
un pasage, un gue; tekm6r, une marque distinctive, un indice, un signe. Les deux
termes ont une signification intellectuelle, evidente pour poros, dans son rapport avec
m'tis: c'est le stratageme, l'expedient que decouvre l'astuce d'un 'tre intelligent pour
se sortir d'une (iporia .... Mais tekmar, dans certains de ses emplois.... est
synonyme de mechos, plan, remede a une situation difficile. On comprend ainsi que
Thetis, divinite marine doucee du meme type d'intelligence rusee et d'esprit fertile en
ressources que Metis ou les Vieux de la mer, suscite par la seule presence, aussitot
qu'elle apparailt, Poros et Tekmor." PENWILL (221) makes a strong case for in-
terpreting Poros as the "path" or "passage" which "divides earth from heaven," both
in fr. 5 and in the Partheneion, Tekmor (like Aisa) as the "determinative power which
presides over world order," and for removing Thetis, the Nereid, in favour of thetis.
"a Laconian form of thesis, i.e. a "spatial ordering." He argues that fr. 20 on the
creation of the seasons may belong to the same poem and as such would join amar.
selaina, and skotos among the creations which came into being through the power of
this "ordaining" force. Finally, he tentatively suggests that it is Tekmor who performs
this thetis. FUHRER (222) finds responsion in portions of fr. 10(b), although in so
doing he is forced to introduce two emendations, both of which are, however,
probable.
GIANGRANDE (223, pp. 127-31) argues for Welcher's par' asophoisin in fr. 16.2,
with para having the comitative meaning "associating with" and the phrase
modifying ane^r.He also retains oud' at the beginning of v. 4. In the same article (pp.
97-105) he gives reasons for rejecting Boissonade's ne^deesin fr. 26.4 and defends the
reading ne^lees,arguing that it means "dogged, resolute." Alcman is comparing
himself to an aged ke^ryloswhich, though weak, is still determined to fly on his own.
The comparison, however, is cast in the form of a wish and this shows that the poet
realizes that he does not have the same determination to join in the dance as the
ke^ryloshas to fly unaided. GIANGRANDE also retains eiaros in the same verse and
may well be right in his view that in hexameters or in poems which are clearly in-
fluenced by epic there is no need to introduce dialectal forms. MUSSO (224) defends
Hecker's emendation hiaros in v. 4, adducing Arist. HA 5.8-9 and Sim. fr. 3 as
evidence that the halcyon was not a "bird of spring" and noting that Palatinus
Graecus 398 of Antigonus in fact reads heiaros rather than eiaros. The article by BOS
(225) on the same fragment contains little that is not in Bowra, GLP. The major
portion of SIRNA's article (226) is devoted to a reconstruction of Alcman's Kolym-
bosai, based largely on Statius' Achilleid. He argues that its theme was the meeting
between Odysseus and Nausicaa, that it formed part of Book 1 of the Alexandrian
collection, and that many of the fragments of Alcman can be assigned to it. He also
discusses at some length frr. 39 (where he reads gegl6ssamenon, taken with melos,
and alluding "in maniera vistosa alle note consuetudini delle tribadi," and where v. 3
should be translated "avendo considerato di buon augurio un canto di pernici," a
reference to the lascivious nature of partridges) and 59, proposing that fr. 59b im-
mediately precede fr. 39 and that the verses belong to the Kolvn1b6sai.
After briefly defending the text of fr. 39 as it appears in PMG, GENTILI (228)
argues that gegl6ssamenon . . . synthemenos indicates how Alcman found his words
and melody, i.e. by verbalizing the sound of partridges. "Le nozioni del sapere
(eidenai), dell'apprendere (manthanein), del trovare (heuriskein), del comporre
(thesthai, synthesthai) si configurano in un preciso sistema semantico dell'operare
poetico, correlato explicitamente o implicitamente all'idea basica di mimesi non solo
della natura e dell' uomo, ma anche dei testi poetici della tradizione orale." To
illustrate this he refers to Pind. 0. 2.86, P. 12.19-21, HAp 162-64, Aesch. fr. 17 M,
Democ. fr. 154 D-K, Theogn. 369-70. and Bacch. fr. 5. GALLAVOTTI (227)
maintains that except for dialectal corrections the only alteration required is the
emendation homa for the onomnaof Athenaeus. He, therefore, reads epage de kai
melos Alkman heure te gl6ssamendn kakkabidon homa synthemenos and translates:
"poi aggiungeva anche la musica Alcmane, e la trovo componendo all'unisono con
cinquettanti pernici." This, he feels, is also indicated by the fact that Athenaeus
speaks only of music and not of words. For the three distinct parts of poetry men-
tioned by Aristotle, namely words, music, and dance, he compares fr. 27, arguing that
epi. k.hymnon ... tithe supports his reading in the first verse of fr. 39. On the word
kakkabido6nsee G. R. Cardona, "Un nom grec de la 'perdrix': kakkabe,' Orhis 16
(1967) 161-64, who maintains that it was not formed through onomatopoea, but was
borrowed from a near-Eastern language. Most of HOFINGER's (229) article is
concerned with Hes. Erga 442,but on the last page he discusses atrnphon in fr. 56.6
and states: "il ne faut pas le traduire par n1onicoupk, mais par n1onl
petri."
EASTERLING (229a) argues persuasivelythat the galingale of fr. 58.2 is thought of
as forming part of a garland worn at a symposium and that Alcman is distinguishing
between Aphrodite and Eros because the kind of emotion he is describing here is
more appropriate to "the whimsical mischief of a boy at play." It is Alcman's way of
saying: "What I am describing is not what we call Aphrodite, it is better called the
boy Eros playing games." Alcman may well have been the first to depict "Eros as a
player of games," an image which soon became extremely popular. ALLEN (230)
notes that Alcman alone of the early poets does not exceed Homer's number of 12 for
Niobe's children and therefore he emends the passage in Aelian ( =fr. 75 PMG) to
read <d' hekkai) deka. GALIANO (232) takes as his point of departure a passage in
Iris Murdoch's The Unicorn (pp. 103f. of the Penguin edition) which refers to fr. 89 as
either a poem about night or as an "account of a sinister enchanted siesta," and he
adduces a large number of parallels which suggest that the subject of the fragment
may well be "una colosal siesta c6smica" rather than the nocturnal sleep of nature,
the interpretation commonly given. The second half of his article is devoted to Sappho
fr. 2, especially vv. 6-8. Here he argues that eskiast' means "covered," not "shaded,"
that k6mw is a "sopor o stupor religioso provocado por una fuerza sobrenattural,"not
"un sueno cualquiera" (numerous parallels are cited in support of both arguments),
and that the occasion is some nocturnal festival. He, therefore, tentatively suggests
that the lacuna in vv. 11-12 might be supplemented with kalas za nyktos imeroessas.
MORRISSEY (233) compares fr. 89 and Goethe's Wanderers Nachtlied II and
ALSINA (231) adds a poem by the Russian poet Lermontov to the comparison.
McKAY (233a) agrees with the commonly held view that the woman in fr. 107 is called
Pasicharea because she is promiscuous, and he suggests that the man's name
Pollalegon means "Collecting much." This man "is as complaisant as the mate of the
promiscuous wife" described in Anth. Pal. 11.4.4. LIVADARAS (234) puts forward
the attractive suggestion that fr. 172 should appear as enetidas polous: en
i.e., the gloss refers to Eur. Hipp. 230 and has nothing to do with
Stel)phiani,phoroi.
Alcman.
See also (15). (18). (34). (37a), (40). (51). (53). (360a).
B. STESICHORUS
235. A. Farina. Stiudi stesicorei. Parte /)rima: il m1tito di Elena (Naples

1968). PI).41
236. L. Ferrari, Congetture stesicoree (Palermo 1968). Pp. 75
237. M. N6thiger, Die Sprache des Stesichorus und des Ibycus (Diss. Zurich
1971). Pp. 201
FARINA's book (235) is of little value, consisting mainly of a superficial account of
the evidence for the blindness of Stesichorus, the nature of his Helen and Palinode
(they are separate poems and there is only one Palinode), and the treatment of Helen
in Herodotus, Euripides, Gorgias and Vergil. Lloyd-Jones,in CR 20 (1970) 398, begins
his short review of FERRARI's book (236) with the following two sentences: "This
book offers a number of guesses at the subject-matter of the fragments of Stesichorus
published in Parts xxiii, xxix, and xxxii of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, together with a
number of attempted supplements. The former are wholly fanciful, and the latter
show that Signor Ferrari has little notion of the style, language, metre, or prosody of
his author." I completely concur. NOTHIGER's (237) dissertation is a competent
analysis of Stesichorus' and Ibycus' language, approximately half of it dealing with
the forms used and half with compound epithets. Although the emphasis is on these
two poets, much information is also provided by way of comparison for Homer,
Hesiod, Alcman, Simonides, Pindar and Bacchylides. Detailed indexes enhance the
book's usefulness.
237a. J. L. Calvo Martinez, "Estesicoro de Himera," Durius 2 (1974) 311-42

238. Q. Cataudella, "Lirica greca in Sicilia: Stesicoro" in Intorno ai lirici greci
(Rome 1972) 83-102
239. Q. Cataudella (238) 103-06
239a. M. Doria, "Bibliografia Stesichorea, 1945-1950," QTLCG 1 (1970) 81-88. I
have not seen this.
240. M. W. Haslam, "Stesichorean Metre," QUCC 17 (1974) 7-57
240a.' A. Lopez Eire, "Un poeta llamado Estesicoro: su encuadramiento
cronol6gico," EClas 18 (1974) 27-60
240b. A. Lopez Eire, "Estesicoro, autor de Palinodias, "EClis 18(1974)313-45
241. A. Podlecki, "Stesichoreia," Athenaeum 49(1971)313-27
242. C. Santini, "Omerismi in Stesicoro," GIF22,3 (1970) 71-76
243. L. dal Santo, "L'Elegia latina del Pascoli a L. Michelangeli e i frammenti di
Stesicoro" in Fons perennis. Saggi critici di Filologia Classica raccolti in onore del
Prof Vittorio d Agostino (Turin 1971) 125-230
244. M. L. West, "Stesichorus," CQ 21 (1971) 302-14
CALVO MARTINEZ (237a) discusses Stesichorus under the headings "Datos

biogrifcos, fuentes y estado de las obras" and "Naturaleza, ejecuci6n y estructura de
la obra de Estesicoro." CATAUDELLA (238) discusses the nature of Stesichorus'

poetry, his treatment of myth, and the extent to which his themes reflect local legend.
Included are several pages devoted to the Palinode. He accepts Chamaeleon's
statement that there were two of them and lists various reasons which might have
prompted their composition: political (in support of Spartan propaganda), religious,
artistic, or personal (e.g. an illness and oracular response). In (239) he gives a very
general account, intended primarily for a non-classical audience, of frr. 32 and 45.
Recent papyrus discoveries have probably contributed more to our knowledge of
Stesichorus' metrical structures than to our knowledge of his poetry. Although in the
majority of instances complete verses are not preserved, enough is recorded to enable
us to have a much better understanding of his metrical schemes and even of their finer
points. Prior to HASLAM's article (240) studies were for the most part confined to
individual poems, but now we have a detailed and brilliant analysis of all the metrical
schemes revealed by the remains. These are grouped in three categories, dactylo-
anapaestic, dactylo-epitrite, and "an intermediate category that combines features of
both."
In his first article LOPEZ EIRE (240a) seems to be arguing that Stesichorus called
all his poetry damomata and that these poems, since their contents reflect the outlook
of the contemporary aristocracy, naturally show a greater influence of post-Homeric
epic than of Homer. In his second (240b) he concentrates on why Stesichorus
recanted, arguing that in his opposition to the Homeric account he is showing himself
to be a kind of early Xenophanes. PODLECKI's article (241) consists of three parts.
In the first he finds the evidence for Stesichorus' visit to Sparta and for his writing of
Spartan propaganda weak. The Palinode, which is thought by some to have been
written in order to appease the Spartans offended by the poet's treatment of Helen,
should rather be "placed in a context of specifically Italo-Sicilian politics," i.e.
Pausanias' account (3.19.11-12) of Stesichorus' role in the war between Croton and
Locri should not be discounted. In the second part PODLECKI discusses the possible
influence of Stesichorus on tragedy and in the third he argues that there was only one
Palinode. The "golden-winged maiden" who Chamaeleon says was invoked at the
beginning of the second Palinode is probably Iris and she may have been the one who
"wrapped Helen in a cloud and wafted her to Egypt." The other invocation men-
tioned by Chamaeleon may have begun the Iliou Persis, i.e. a portion of this poem
gave a "corrected" version of Stesichorus' earlier account of Helen and this portion
\vwasalso given the title Pali,iodc (cf. the use of the titles Doloneia, Telemnacheia. etc.
given to parts of Homer). SANTINI (242) examines some of the expressions in
Stesichorus, especially in the Geryoneis, with regard to their dependence on Homer.
Perhaps the only new suggestion in this article is the hypothesis that the story of
Heracles' threatening of Oceanus (Athen. 11.470) appeared in the Geryoneis and that
the storm raised by Oceanus was a direct result of a request made to him by his
daughter, Callirrhoe, the mother of Geryon.
Pp. 125-66 of DAL SANTO's article (243) contain a detailed study of a twenty-two
line poem by Pascoli to Michelangeli which begins: "Quando ego chalcidicae visam
viridaria Zancles? /quando ego te, interpres callide Stesichori?" The remainder is
devoted to Stesichorus. This consists of a brief introduction on the life of Stesichorus,
followed by the text of the fragments as they appear in PMG and a commentary. The
sequence adopted is testimonioumu (in Italian). text, metrical scheme, translation.
linguistic commentary, and general analysis (the latter often consisting simply of a re-
printing of Michelangeli's remarks). This is one article which fully deserves the ob-
scurity that often attends contributions to Festschriften. The commentary is banal,
the metrical analysis is 19th century, and problems or controversies are ignored.
WEST (244) examines various aspects of Stesichorus. These are grouped under the
following headings: "Stesichorus in South Italy," "S. in Himera and elsewhere,"
"Other chronological considerations," "S. and the citharodes" (important also for
Terpander), "The nomes," "Rhythm and melody," "Triadic structure," and
"Historical sketch." Two of his most significant conclusions are that Stesichorus' life
in all probability "fell wholly within the sixth century" and that the triadic structure
of his poetry "is no evidence that it was choral."
245. R. Fuhrer, "Zum 'Stesichorus Redivivus'," ZPE 5 (1970) 11-16
246. R. Fuhrer, "Zu P. Oxy. 2803 (Stesichoros),"ZPE 7 (1971) 265-66
247. R. Fuhrer, "Nachtrage zu P. Oxy. 2803 (Stesichorus),"ZPE 8 (1971) 251-54
248. L. Lehnus, "Note stesicoree (Pap. Oxy. 2506 e 2619)," SCO 21 (1972) 52-55
249. D. L. Page, "Stesichorus: P. Oxy. 2735 fr. 1, 2618 fr. 1, 2619 fr. 1," PCPhS
195 (1969) 69-74
250. D. L. Page, "Stesichorus: The 'Sack of Troy' and 'The Wooden Horse' (P.
Oxy. 2619 and 2803)," PCPhS 199 (1973) 47-65
251. M. L. West, "Stesichorus Redivivus,"ZPE 4(1969)135-49
252. M. L. West, "Further Light on Stesichorus' Iliu Persis," ZPE 7 (1971) 262-
64
WEST (251) reconstructs the metrical scheme of the Iliou Persis (P. Oxy. 2619) and
of P. Oxy. 2735 fr. 1 (= 166 SLG), which he suggests may be from theHelen. Both are
an early form of dactylo-epitrite. The characteristics of Stesichorean metre in general
are analysed and numerous textual comments are made on both poems. The latter
poem is particularly important because of its similarity to Ibyc. fr. 1, which suggests
that Ibycus may have been influenced by Stesichorus, and because of its evidence that
Stesichorus "stayed at Sparta and sang before a Spartan prince." PAGE (249),
however, assigns the poem to Ibycus, not Stesichorus. FUHRER (245) makes some
modifications to WEST's metrical scheme and WEST (252), after essentially ac-
cepting FUHRER's modifications, argues that P. Oxy. 2619 fr. 18 (= 105b SLG) and
2803 fr. 11 (= 143 SLG) should be combined, with the result that 2619 and 2803
contain portions of the same poem. The roll from which the fragments of 2803 are
taken has the remains of a title which suggests that it was some form of Hippos.
WEST does not feel that this precludes the ascription of these fragments to the Iliou
Persis, since it may have been an alternativetitle or "an informal designation of part"
of the Iliou Persis. FUHRER (246), independently of WEST, combined the same two
fragments of P. Oxy. 2619 and 2803 and in his third item (247) adds further comments
on the metre of P. Oxy. 2803. PAGE (250) concentrates on the metre of P. Oxy. 2619
and 2803, arguing that the schemes proposed by WEST and FUHRER are untenable.
He also notes that both 2619 and 2803 tell the story of the wooden horse and con-
cludes that presumably Stesichorus wrote two poems featuring this episode, the Iliou
Persis represented by 2619 and the Wooden Horse represented by 2803, though the
latter title was unknown before the discoveryof 2803. In his earlier article (249) PAGE
discusses the metre of the first (= 166 SLG) and third (= 88 SLG) fragments listed in
the title and offers some comments on the text and background of all three. Con-
cerning the authorship of the first fragment he says: "The meagre evidence may
rather suggest that Love ... and handsome young men .. - would seem a little more at
home in Ibycus." LEHNUS (248) first discusses fr. 16.16-24, arguing for Thespiado^n
in line 20, and then supports WEST's reconstruction of P. Oxy. 2619 fr. 15(b). 3-5
( 89 SLG) by comparing an inscription on the Tabula Iliaca.
253. R. Fuhrer, "Die metrische Struktur von Stesichoros' Ge^ryoneis(P. Ox.

2617)," Hermies 96 (1968) 675-84
254. J. de Hoz. "El genero litterario de la Gerioneida de Estesicoro" in
Honmenajea Antonio Tovar ofrecido por sus discipulos, colegas v amigos (Madrid
1972) 193-204
255. 0. Mtusso. "Esiodo e Stesicoro nel fr. 109 M (=74 N2) degli 'Eraclidi' di
Eschilo (Un nuovo frammento della 'Gerioneide'),"Aevum'41 (1967) 507-508
256. O. Musso, "Due note papirologiche,"Aegyptus 49(1969)72-74
257. D. L. Page, "Stesichorus: The Geryoneis,."JHS 93 (1973) 138-54
258. M. Robertson, "Gervoneis: Stesichorus and the Vase-Painters," CQ 19

(1969) 207-21
259. T. B. L. Webster, "Stesichoros: Geryoneis,"Agon 2 (1968) 1-9
FUHRER (253) reconstructs the metre of the Geryoneis in essentially the same
manner as Page (cf. LGS p. 263). The only difference is that FUHRER postulates one
extra syllable at the end of the epode. DE HOZ (254) is more concerned with
Stesichorus' position in early Greek literature and how this is illustrated by the
Geryoneis than he is with the poem itself. He discusses the relationship between
Stesichorus and Homer and the influence on Stesichorus of the cultural context
within which he lived. MUSSO (255) emends katekta in Aesch. fr. 109.4 to kataktas in
order to avoid the hysteron proteron. On the basis of verbal similarities he feels that
vv. 1-4 have Hes. Theog. 287-94 as their source, but that the description of Geryon is
indebted to Stesichorus (cf. fr. 9). In his second article (256) MUSSO supplements fr.
15.3 (SLG) with a form of dolos, noting that this fits well with other references to
stealth and deception in the same fragment. PAGE (257) prints all the significant
fragments of the Gervoneis. together with an apparatus, discusses the myth as we find
it in Apollodorus, Stesichorus and vase-paintings, explains in detail the metre and
structure of the poem, and provides a commentary on the larger fragments.
ROBERTSON (258) provides a brilliant analysis of vase-paintings depicting the
Geryon myth, some of which assist our understanding of Stesichorus' poem. The
unusually large number of paintings on1this theme during the second half of the 6th
century may well reflect the popularity of Stesichorus' work. WEBSTER (259)
analyses the metre of the Geryoneis fragments, outlines the literary and artistic
evidence for Stesichorus' treatment of the myth, and attempts to fit the papyrus
remains into this scheme.
260. L. Alfonsi, "Varia Philologa Graeco-Latina" in Time6tikonAphieroma K. I.
Merentite (Athens 1972) 11-16 (13-16)
261. F. Bertini, "L'eido6londi Elena" in Mythos. Scripta in honorem Marii
Untersteiner (Genoa 1970) 81-96
262. J. A. Davison, "Stesichorus and Helen" in From Archilochus to Pindar
(London 1968) 196-225
263. G. Devereux, "Stesichoros' Palinodes: Two Further Testimonia and Some
Comments," RhM 116 (1973) 206-09
264. P. Leone, "La Palinodia di Stesicoro," AFLN 11(1964-68)5-28
265. L. I. Lindo, "Horace's Seventeenth Epode," CP64 (1969)176-77
ALFONSI (260) lists several references in Christian writers to Stesichorus' Palinode

and notes that Iren. ConitraHaer. 1.16.2 Harvey speaks of palinodes. ALFONSI also
suggests that the plural laudes Helenae in St. Jerome, Epist. 102.1, may indicate that
he was aware of more than one palinode. BERTINI (261) does not believe that we
should reject Tzetzes' statement that Hesiod was the first to introduce the eido^lonof
Helen (fr. 358 M.-W.). This could have appeared in the Catalogiie of Women or in a
poem which Tzetzes, perhaps wrongly, ascribed to Hesiod. He argues that the Helen
and the Palinode were the same poem, that Stesichorus began to narrate the story of
Helen along Homeric lines, but suddenly realized he was wrong to speak ill of a
goddess, that he addressed the Muse (Chamaeleon's first invocation) and began his
retraction (part of which would be fr. 15), and that he then addressed the Muse again
(Chamaeleon's second invocation), retracting the Hesiodic version which probably
involved Helen and Theseus. There is also a discussion of fr. 12 and of Stesichorus'
influence on Euripides' Helen. DAVISON (262), though previously unpublished, was
actually written in 1948, but it contains a four-page appendix on the papyrus
discovery. He prints and discusses all the testimonia pertaining to Stesichorus'
treatment of Helen and gives his views on the nature of the Palinode. In the appendix
he accepts Chamaeleon's statement about the existence of two palinodes and states
that Plato and Isocrates spoke of only one either because "they regarded the two
poems as parts of a single work" or more probably because "they were not well in-
formed about the complete works of Stesichorus." He believes that in Hesiod Helen
went only as far as Egypt where Proteus gave Paris an eid6lon of her, whereas in
Stesichorus Helen was transported by the gods from Sparta to Egypt and Paris carried
the eidolon from Sparta. See also DAVISON (45) where much the same arguments
are put forward. DEVEREUX (263) finds references in two Christian writers, Hipp.
Contra Haer. 6.19.3 Wendland and Iren. ContraHaer. 1.16.2 Harvey, for Stesichorus'
having written more than one palinode. He then suggests that Stesichorus suffered
from "attacks of hysterical blindness" and postulates that he " 'cured' his first at-
tack . .. by retracting his earlier accusations and his second attack by writing a
praise of Helene." But surely the view that Stesichorus became aware of a mental
blindness in his treatment of Helen is simpler and likelier. DEVEREUX also notes
that Stesichorus' eidolon differed from other eid6la in that it is "solid" and "durable"
and he argues that the representation of Stesichorus on a coin of Himera depicts him
as having been blind in his old age.
LEONE (264), the most amply documented of all on the Palinode, maintains that
there was only one palinode, but that this was in two parts or in two books. In the first
Stesichorus differed from Homer in making only an eidolon of Helen accompany
Paris to Troy and in the second he differed from Hesiod in making the substitution
take place in Sparta rather than in Egypt. LEONE thus accepts Tzetzes' statement
that Hesiod was the first to introduce the eidolon of Helen and feels that Stesichorus'
divergence from Hesiod was one of detail rather than substance. Even if LEONE's
reconstruction is not convincing in all aspects, his article is important for its detailed
examination of previous studies (especially those of Bowra, Davison, Doria, and Sisti)
and of ancient references to Helen in Stesichorus and elsewhere. LINDO (265) sees
various indications of indebtedness to the Palinode in Horace's recantation addressed
to Canidia. In particular he suggests that pudica and proba (v. 40) go back not to
Catullus, but to Stesichorus' treatment of Helen.
266. R. D. Dawe, "Stesichorus, Fragment 207 P," PCPhS 198 (1972) 28-30
267. 0. Bruno, "L'epistola 92 dello Pseudo-Falaride e i Nostoi di Stesicoro,"
Helikon 7 (1967) 323-56
268. P. Janni (see 203, pp. 129-35)
269. M. I. Davies, "Thoughts on the Oresteia before Aeschylos," BCH 93 (1969)
214-60
270. D. Holwerda, "Ad POx 2506, 26e 1-7," Mnemosyne 4.18 (1965) 74
271. A. A. Barrett, "P. Oxy. 2359 and Stesichorus Syotherai," CP 67 (1972) 117-
19
272. R. Fuhrer, "Zur metrischen Struktur von Stesichoros' Sl'othr(rai(P.Ox.
2359=Fr. 222 P.)," Hermes 97 (1969) 115-16
273. G. Nagy, "On the Death of Actaeon," HSCP 77 (1973) 179-80
DAWE (266) draws attention to the remarkable statement (fr. 30) made by a
scholiast to Pindar that Cycnus, the son of Ares, was constructing a temple of skulls in
honour of Apollo, and makes the ingenious suggestion that "Apoll6ni may be a
substitute for Phoiboi, and Phoiboi ... a corruption of Phoboi." He also suggests that
"Phobos might stand in the same relationship to Ares as Enualios does - half-
identical, half-discrete," and he finds evidence for this in an inscription from Selinus,
where Phobos seems to be "another name for Ares." BRUNO (267) assembles all the
ancient sources which refer to the return of the Greeks from Troy and concludes that
the passage in a letter of Pseudo-Phalaris addressed to Stesichorus which mentions in
succession Caphareus, the Planctae, and Charybdisis indebted to Stesichorus' Nostoi.
Even though the evidence for this assumption is not very substantial, BRUNO's
article is a mine of information concerning various aspects of the myth of the Nostoi
from Homer to the 5th century A.D. JANNI (268) discusses the influence of Od. 15 on
fr. 32, the way in which Stesichorus adapts the Homeric account, and the evidence for
Spartan influence in Stesichorus' poetry. DAVIES' long article (269) examines
evidence, both literary and artistic, for the treatment of the Oresteia theme before
Aeschylus. On pp. 248-51 he discusses Stesichorus, in the course of which he gives
reasons for identifying the basileus of fr. 42.2 with Agamemnon rather than Orestes.
HOLWERDA (270) fills the lacunae in the first seven lines of fr. 40 and adds two
lines at the beginning so as to give a satisfactory continuity of thought. I translate his
supplemented passage as follows: "Aeschylus sometimes sides with Stesichorus'
innovations, and the majority of the other poets are not content with Homer and
Hesiod because of what Aeschylus says and much prefer to follow Stesichorus."
BARRETT (271) argues that a connection between the two columns of fr. 45 can be
seen, if hizanon in v. 2 of col. ii is given the meaning "to assume a hostile position"
which it sometimes has. "The warriors are assuming hostile positions not against one
another, but against the boar itself," i.e. around the nets. FUHRER (272) argues for
responsion between the two columns of fr. 45 and for supplements which result in vv.
2-4 of col. i consisting of four dactyls each, followed by two in v. 5. NAGY (273) op-
poses Bowra's non-metaphorical interpretation (GLP 99-100) of Pausanias' words
elaphou peribalein derma Aktaioni which seem to reflect Stesichorus' account of the
myth (fr. 59). According to Bowra, "derma is not the same as demas" and therefore
Stesichorus' version must have represented Artemis as throwing a deerskin around
Actaeon rather than as transforming him into a stag. NAGY argues, however, that
traces of "the notion of equating one's identity with one's 'hide"' appear in several
Indo-European languages and that we should therefore follow Rose's interpretation
in Mnemosyne 59 (1931) 431-32.
See also (15), (37a), (45), (46), (48), (53), (54).
C. SAPPHO AND ALCAEUS
274. E.M.Voigt, Sal;/'ho( t Ale/tes(Amnsterdanm1971). Pp.507

VOIGT'S monumental edition of all the remains of Sappho and Alcaeus except for
the smallest papyrus scraps is of inestimable value to the serious student of Lesbian
poetry. For each fragment the testimonia and parallel passages are cited in full and an
apparatus is provided which lists not only variant readings and emendations, but also
bibliographical references to works pertaining to the fragment in question. Also
included are a 13 page bibliography, conspectus metrorum, index verborum, index
ftontiumet testimoniorum and numerorum tabulae.
274a. J. Boonen, "Notities by gedichten van Alkaios en Sappho," Kleio 1,3 (1971)
1-12. I have not seen this.
275. G. Danielewicz, "De elementis hymnicis in Sapphus Alcaei Anacreontisque
carminibus obviis quaestiones selectae," Eos 62 (1974) 23-33
276. A. La Penna, "Sunt qui Sappho malint. Note sulla synkrisis di Saffo et
Alceo nell'antichit'a,"Maia 24 (1972) 208-15
277. E. Livrea, "Un'eco saffica in Apollonio Rodio," Helikon 8(1968)447
278. F. Rebelo Goncalves, "De quorundam compositorum adverbiorumaccentu
in Sapphus Alcaeique fragmentis commentariolum," Euphrosyne n.s. 1 (1967) 147-50
279. M. Treu, "Ne6tera peri Sapphous kai Alkaiou," EEAth 2.19 (1968-69) 301-
17
280. M. L. West, "On Lesbian Accentuation," Glotta 48(1970)194-98
DANIELEWICZ (275) examines the hymnal poetry of Sappho, Alcaeus and
Anacreon, concentrating on the form and literary function of the middle element, i.e.
the part where the poet refers to services rendered in the past, and on the extent to
which "personarum in Sapphus, Alcaei Anacreontisque carminibus agentium verba
ipsorum poetarum cogitationes exprimant et quo officio lyricae enuntiationes illic
allatae fungantur." LA PENNA (276) discusses the attitude toward S. and A. in Latin
writers (especially Horace) and in Greek literary criticism. He feels that Odes 2.13
contains a comparative assessment of S. and A. and that Horace comes down on the
side of the latter. This is directed against Catullus and also against the author of On
the Sublime who does not even mention Alcaeus. LIVREA (277) sees an echo of fr.
inc. 16 L-P in Ap. Rh. 1.538-39. REBELO GONCALVES (278) argues that in S. and
A. ouketi and mefketi should be accented on the penultimate syllable, but oudama
and medama on the antepenultimate. TREU (279) discusses the text and significance
of P. Oxy. 2506 frr. 48, 77, and 98 (=276, 280, 282 SLG). WEST (280) discusses various
anomalies in Lesbian accentuation, particularly as these are revealed in the papyrus
remains of S. and A.
D. SAPPHO
281. H. Saake, Zur Kunst Sapphos. Motiv-analytische und kom-

positionstechnische Interpretationen (Paderborn 1971). Pp. 230
282. H. Saake, Sapphostudien. Forschungsgeschichtliche, biographische und
literarasthetische Untersuchungen (Paderborn 1972). Pp. 108
282a. K. Thomamuller, Ade, rosenfingriger Mond! Auf dem Wege zum ur-
sprunglichen Text der lesbischen Dichteriz Sappho (Bern and Frankfurt 1974). Pp.
157
283. G. J. de Vries, Sappho's Keus (Amsterdam 1971). Pp. 23
SAAKE (281) provides a text, translation and interpretation of ten fragments,
together with a chapter entitled "Kunstwiurdigung."Textual criticism is generally
avoided, but bibliographical references to individual passages are cited fully. His
second book (282) has three divisions, first a survey of the contributions to the study of
Sappho made by scholars from Stephanus to the present, second the questio of
Sappho's date, and third an analysis of ten fragments.
THOMAMULLER (282a) analyses frr. 1, 2, 5, 16, 31, 44, 47, 49, 94 and 96. This
book arrived while my manuscript was being typed and I have not been able to read it
with any care, but from a quick glance it seems that the author believes some of the
fragments listed above are not Sappho's and all are extremely corrupt. He claims that
his restoration of the genuine Sappho is "sensational," but I doubt that many will
think this an appropriate adjective to use. DE VRIES (283) gives some observations
on Sappho's use of epithets. Pp. 15-23 list DE VRIES' publications.
284. E. Barilier, "La figure d'Aphrodite dans quelques fragments de Sappho,"

EL 3.5 (1972) 20-61
285. G. Basta Donzelli, "Di Catullo e Saffo," SIFC 36 (1964) 117-28
285a. M. G. Bonanno, "Note a Saffo." MCr8/9 (1973/74)111-20
285b. V. Casadio, "Note a Saffo," MCr 8 /9 (1973/74) 121-26
286. J. Danielewicz, "Experience and its Artistic Aspect in Sappho's Subjective
Lyrics,"Eos 58 (1969-70) 163-69
287. J. A. Davison, "Sappho" in From Archilochus to Pindar (Londoni 1968)
226-41
288. A. Garzya, "Per la fortuna di Saffo a Bisanzio," JOEB 20 (1971) 1-5
289. P. Green (see 143, pp. 169-92)
290. M. Gronewald, "Fragmente aus einem Sapphokommentar: Pap. Colon.
inv. 5860," ZPE 14 (1974) 114-18
291. E. Heitsch, "Zum Sappho-Text," Hermes 95 (1967) 385-92

292. J. T. Hooker, "Sapphos Brododaktylos und Verwandtes" in Grazer
Beitrage 1 (1973) 165-69
293. H. D. Larranaga, "Safo," REC 13 (1969) 73-102
294. C. W. Macleod, "Two Comparisons in Sappho," ZPE 15 (1974) 217-20
295. R. Merkelbach, "Wartetext 11: Sappho?" ZPE 13 (1974) 214
296. G. Morelli, "Una testimonianza di Aftonio su un verso di Saffo," QUCC 13
(1972) 38-53
297. S. L. Radt, "Sapphica," Mnemosyne 4.23 (1970) 337-47
298. C. Segal, "Eros and Incantation: Sappho and Oral Poetry," Arethusa 7
(1974) 139-60
299. I. Waern, "Flora Sapphica," Eranos 70(1972)1-11
300. M. L. West, "Burning Sappho," Maia 22 (1970) 307-30
301. F. Will, "Sappho and Poetic Motion," CJ61 (1965-66) 259-62
BARILIER (284) examines the significance of Aphrodite in frr. 1, 2, and 31.
"Sappho entretient avec la divinite une relation extraordinaire, intime, au point de
conferer l'etre aux choses mortes, et de vivre, au spectacle de la beaute, l'irruption du
divin dans son corps. Un tel etre meriterait presque d'etre appele lui-meme divin."
BASTA DONZELLI (285) discusses several poems of Catullus and Sappho and
contrasts Catullus' attitude towards Lesbia with Sappho's towards Helen.
BONANNO (285a) stresses the significance of II. 6.201f. for the interpretation of fr.
96.15-17 and argues that bore^taiin v. 17 means voratur. In front of it she supplies
karcharoi. Then she discusses various aspects of fr. 138, defending Fick's m 'anta in v.
1. CASADIO (285b) sees an influence of fr. 94.7-11 on Soph. Ajax 520-21 and Arist.
Pax 591-93, notes the similarity between vv. 22-30 and Theognis 1063-67, and defends
the readings dauois and etaras in fr. 126.
DANIELEWICZ (286) attempts to explain the form in which Sappho expressed
"her most personal experiences" and concentrates primarily on frr. 1, 2, 16, 31, and
96. Much is repetitive of what others have said and when he strikes out on his own I
doubt that many will find him convincing. For example, fr. 31 is said to be a didactic
poem, one in which "Sappho wants her girl ward to follow her own model of ex-
periencing reality."DAVISON (287) begins by asking two questions, "Is Sappho fit to
read?" and "Is Sappho worth reading?" He then proceeds to demonstrate, first, that
we should "not allow irrelevant moral scruples . . . to misinterpret [her poetry] more
grossly than we must," and, second, that her verses (fr. 16 is analysed as an
illustration) have every right to be called poetry, since they fulfil Davison's definition
of what constitutes poetry ("does it set my emotions ringing peals in the belfry of my
imagination?"). GARZYA (288) adduces passages which he believes demonstrate that
Sappho's works, in part at least, were known in 12th century Byzantium in a direct
tradition. GREEN's (289) analysis of Sappho is no less entertaining than his treat-
ment of Archilochus, and somewhat less fanciful. After several pages on the
biographical tradition, he examines a number of her poems which illustrate her
"genius for economy and the mot juste," her "passionate concern for small
touchstone details, the vital minutiae of private life," her "self-mockery and waspish
sense of humour," her "humiliating fits of jealousy," and her "passionate and violent
emotional involvement with other members of her own sex." GRONEWALD (290)
prints two tattered fragments (= 261A SLG), one of which seems to compare Sappho
and Alcaeus. Whereas Alcaeus is always embroiled in strife with those in power,
Sappho spends her time quietly training (paideuousa) the best girls of Lesbos and
Ionia. Callias of Mytilene is then cited as authority for the statement that Sappho was
held in high esteem by her fellow citizens. The second fragment contains two columns,
the first of which cites at least three quotations from Sappho.
HEITSCH (291) writes textual notes on frr. 1.18 (read eisagen, "whom am I to
persuade to come again into your love?"), 5.7-8 (on possible supplements), 22.13-16
(text and meaning), 44.15 (read atalosphyron), and 96.8 (convincing defense of
Schubart's selanna). HOOKER (292) doubts that in the Lesbian dialect words which
originally began with digamma and rho were spoken with initial br-. He notes that in
the 14 examples of such words in S. and A. they sometimes appear with initial br-,
sometimes with r-, and he suggests that in general they used the double consonant
only when a preceding short syllable needed to be lengthened for metrical reasons.
Later, by false analogy, the double consonant was inserted even when it was not
metrically required. LARRANAGA (293) argues that Sappho's only real theme is love
and that anything else is merely incidental. Several of the fragments are then analysed
to illustrate this, but she seems unaware of the literature on Sappho and scholarly
rigour is almost totally absent. MACLEOD (294) illustrates how the similes in frr. 16
and 96 "have more than one aspect" and are "an oblique way of putting divergent
thoughts and feelings," thereby removing the charges of irrelevance that have
sometimes been levelled against both. MERKELBACH(295) prints Pap. Colon. inv. 8
(= 476 SLG), an eight-line fragment of which 5 to 12 letters per line are decipherable,
and tentatively assigns it to Sappho. Music and dancing seem to be the theme.
MORELLI (296) argues that the statement of Aphthonius (Gram. Lat. 6 p. 163 Keil)
that a glyconic with a syllable added is called a hendecasyllabon sapphicon should be
emended to enneasyllabon sapphicon. Although Aphthonius is the only Latin writer
to give the name "Sapphic enneasyllable" to the hypercatalectic form of the glyconic,
Hephaestion says that this form is called either the Sapphic enneasyllable or the
hipponactean. MORELLI sees no reason to doubt that Sappho used such a metre,
since it appears in Alcman and Alcaeus.
RADT (297) writes notes on frr. 1.3 (the plural nouns indicate that Sappho's
"Liebesschmerz" returns again and again), 1.21, 2.7-8 (Sappho is thinking of a mid-
day siesta, not, as Frankel states, of evening), 2.14-16 (Eur. Tr. 820 may be a
reminiscence), 16 (additional arguments in support of Koniaris' interpretation), 16.2
(since the genitives of v. 1 have no epithet, melainan modifies gan, not naon), 31 (a
contrast is intended between the calm of the man and Sappho's own extreme
agitation), 31.9 (defense of the digamma and of the appropriateness of the verb), 44
(the distinction between Homer's and Sappho's "Erzahl-Technik" is not nearly as
great as Frankel maintains), 44.34 (explanation of the form of the first word as third
person imperfect), and 94.1 (the question whether the thought is conventional is
irrelevant, since the poem is concerned only with an "imaginative experience").
SEGAL (298) sees incantatory elements and ritualized patterns in Sappho's poetry
which he argues are typical of an oral culture. "The habits of the oral tradition ...
reveal themselves externally in the deliberate echoing of epic phraseology and epic
situations; but they are reflected, at a deeper level, in the poet's reliance upon the
auditory, mimetic reflexes created in oral performance, where insistent rhythm still
evokes age-old incantation, where patterned sound, tempo, and ceremonial gestures
can still work their magic." These features are pointed out in several poems,
especially 31. WAERN (299) identifies ten genera of plants in Sappho and discusses
some of the passages where they occur. She concludes that because the plants
mentioned all "grow in the town or in its surroundings" Sappho was not interested in
those "which were difficult of access or rarities." Several passages are convincingly
elucidated, especially fr. 96.8, but I doubt that the epithet iokolpos refers to the Viola
Lesbiaca whose flowers are creamy-white or yellow. WEST (300) analyses Sappho's
attitude towards poetry and love, rightly stressing that "she was first and foremost a
servant of the Muses." This is an important article containing many acute ob-
servations (not the least of which are the parallels noted between Sappho and the
erotic passages in the Theogniidea) on both the meaning and the text of a large
nuimber of her fragments. WILL (301) rightly notes the prominence of "patterns of
coming and going" in Sappho, but I doubt that many will agree that "this disposition
had roots in ultimate erotic tendencies such as inviting the world to the breast, and of
dreading the trauma of losing the world." This is reprinted in his book on
Archilochus (140).
302. M. G. Bonanno, "Osservazioni sul tema della 'giusta' reciprocita amorosa

da Saffo ai comici," QUCC 16 (1973) 110-20
303. V. DiBenedetto, "II volo di Afrodite in Omero e in Saffo," QUCC 16 (1973)
121-23
304. B. Gentili (see 132)
305. T. Krischer, "Sapphos Ode an Aphrodite," Hermes 96 (1968) 1-14
306. J. S. Lasso de la Vega, "La ode primera de Safo," CFC6 (1974) 9-93
307. G. A. Privitera, "La rete di Afrodite. Ricerche sulla prima ode di Saffo,"
QUCC4 (1967) 7-58
307a. J. Svenbro, "Sappho and Diomedes. Some Notes on Sappho 1 LP and the
Epic," Museum Philologum Londieniense 1 (1975) 37-49
308. I. M. Tronskij, "Notes on Sappho 1 (L.-P.)," AAntHung 16 (1968) 133-38.
In Russian.
309. W. F. Wyatt, Jr., "Sappho and Aphrodite," CP 69 (1974) 213-14
310. R. Merkelbach, "Aglaothronos,"ZPE 11(1973)160
311. R. Neuberger-Donath, "Sappho Fr. 1.1. Poikilothron' oder Poikilophron',"
WS 82 (1969) 15-17
312. G. A. Privitera, "Sappho, Anacreonte, Pindaro," QUCC 13 (1972) 131-40
(131-33)
313. E. Risch, "Thronos, throna und die Komposita vom Typus chrysothronos,"
StudClas 14 (1972) 17-25
314. R. van Bennekom, "Sappho I, 18-19," Mnemosyne 4.25(1972)113-22
315. W. J. W. Koster, "Ad Sapph. 1, 18-19," Mnemosyne 4.21 (1968)415-16
316. V. Pisani, "Zwei Vermutungen zu Sappho. 1. Noch einmal Sappho 1. D., 1.
L.-P., v. 18-19," Glotta 50 (1972) 28-29
317. Z. Stirnimann,"ZuSapphol, 18-19LP,"MSS27(1969)111-21
318. A. Rivier, "Observations sur Sappho 1, 19sq.," REG 80(1967)84-92
BONANNO (302) supports GENTILI's arguments (304) that the Greeks con-
sidered it an act of adikia if proferred love was rejected and she illustrates this from
Plato's Phaedrus, Epicharmus, Aristophanes and several Hellenistic authors. DI
BENEDETTO (303) argues convincingly that in fr. 1 Sappho was influenced by the
situation described in It. 5.363ff. In addition to verbal similarities (e. g. vv. 13 and 19-
20 compared with 5.367 and 373) we have the sequence offense-flying carriage-
consolation in both, but in Sappho the movement is from rather than to Olympus and
Aphrodite brings rather than seeks comfort. KRISCHER (305) rightly rejects Page's
view that Sappho is not completely serious. A girl has left Sappho and she is confident
that Aphrodite, as she has in the past, will help her to win the girl back. KRISCHER
also notes that the emphasis on swiftness is a topos in early Greek literature to depict
the effect of divine action (e.g. Hes. Theog. 98-103) and that the Achilles-Thetis scene
in 11. 1.352ff. provides a close parallel for the form of the poem. LASSO DE LA
VEGA (306) has written a detailed commentary, strophe by strophe, on fr. 1. More is
to follow in a later volume.
PRIVITERA's (307) long analysis, although concerned with the entire ode, con-
centrates on the significanace of doloploke and on the relationship between the
beginning and the end. One emendation is offered, kou ke theloisan in v. 24. In spite
of its prolixity in places, this is an important contribution to our understanding of the
ode. SVENBRO (307a) begins by showing in some detail how Sappho borrowed the
theme of Il. 5.720-72 in her poem and argues that this suggests that Sappho
presumably also had an epic source in mind when she composed the first word of her
poem. The epithet, therefore, is modelled on II. 22.441 and means "flower-
embroidered." He then discusses why Sappho chose to use a Homeric theme and
phraseology, concluding that in so doing "she was looking for stability to compensate
for the social instability of her epoch." WYATT (309) suggests that "Sappho
etymologizes Aphrodite's name to mean something like 'she who renders one
aphron"' and gives the following reasons: Sappho is in a "passionate, irrational
state;" the negative prefix in athanat' "raises the expectation in the hearer's mind
that the a of Aphrodita is also the negative prefix," Theognis 221-26 may be
dependent on Sappho and seems to point to the same etymology, and the variant
reading poikilophron suggests that some ancients saw this etymology here.
MERKELBACH (310) states that aglaothronos, euthronos and poikilothronos should
all be connected with throna. The first epithet means "mit herrlichen gestickten
Blumen (auf den Gewiindern)." Concerning Bacch. 17.124 he says that since the
kourai are Athenian maidens, they could not sit "auf herrlichen Thronen."
NEUBERGER-DONATH (311) gives seven reasons for preferringthe variant reading
poikilophron in v. 1. PRIVITERA (312) examines each of NEUBERGER-
DONATH's arguments and attempts to refute them. Most, I think, will agree that,
although the latter has made a strong case, the traditional reading has greater
probability.
Although only half a page is devoted to Sappho, RISCH's article (313) is of con-
siderable importance for our interpretation of the first word, since he makes a careful
study of all examples of thronos (including occurrences in Mycenaean) and its
compounds and of throna. He feels that although suitable sense can be obtained in
Sappho by a reference to either thronos or throna, the rarity of the latter and the
apparent ignorance of it in the period between Homer and Hellenistic writers make it
unlikely that Sappho intended us to think of throna. VAN BENNEKOM (314) reads
Peithon7ais' agen which amounts to "Whose turn is it this time to be led by Peitho to
your love?" Most of the article deals with the meaning of aisa which he argues can
have a temporal meaning "due time." KOSTER (315) reads Peitho (or Peithon) and
some form of maiomai at the beginning of v. 19 (probably either mass' or mais').
STIRNIMANN (317) ably disposes of this suggestion. No less likely is PISANI's (316)
suggestion that we read mais as an old word preserved by Lesbian Aeolians and akin
to Gothic mais, Oscan mais and German mehr. He translates: "Wen soll ich uber-
zeugen, damit ich ihn (sic!) noch mehr (oder: noch einmal) zu deiner Liebe fuhre?"
STIRNIMANN (317) rejects previous attempts to correct the text of vv. 18-19 and
argues for Blass' peitho-mai s(oi) agen, translating: "Wen wiederum soll ich, indem
ich dich erh6re, in die Liebe zu dir fuhren?" RIVIER (318) is a discussion primarily of
adikeei which he argues does not refer to a strictly personal love between Sappho and
the girl. He adopts MERKELBACH's view of the relationship between Sappho and
her girls and argues that the girl here has abandoned the "societe de jeunes filles" of
which Sappho is the leader. She has left presumably in order to join "une autre
compagnie, celle de telle ou telle rivale dont les fragments ont conserve le nom." The
same kind of adikia is involved in Arch. fr. 79a. 13-14 D where the bonds which unite
hetairoi have been broken. Consequentlyphilotata here is not "l'amour comme realite
percue subjectivement," but the feeling of love shared by the members of the
"societe" and directed towards Sappho.
319. M. F. Galiano (see 232)
320. T. McEvilley, "Sappho, Fragment Two," Phoenix 26(1972)323-33
321. K. Nickau, "Planudes und Moschopulos als Zeugen fur Sappho (fr. 2, 5-6
L.-P. =Voigt)," ZPE 14 (1974) 15-17
322. P. Wiesmann, "Was heisst koma? Zu Interpretationen von Sapphos
'Gedicht auf der Scherbe'," MH 29 (1972) 1-11
McEVILLEY (320) provides a text, translation, and interpretation of fr. 2. Good
arguments are adduced for the view that the ode is complete in four stanzas, that we
have no autobiography, but rather "the geography of the imagination," and that the
poem is a "symbolic picture, describing a spiritual condition." "It is a magical scene,
like the house in the woods that is stumbled upon in fairy tales, where everything
stands in readiness, but no one is home." NICKAU (321) discusses the
"Uberlieferungswert" of the testimonia on w. 5-6, most of which are listed in Voigt's
edition. WIESMANN (322) examines in detail all examples of koma and concludes
that Sappho uses the word to indicate that she is, as it were, under a spell and no
longer in control of herself. It does not mean that Sappho is unconscious or asleep,
but rather that she is so powerfully affected by the surroundings that she is in a state
of "Benommensein."
322a. R. Tosi, "Sapph. fr. 5 V.," MCr 8/9 (1973/74) 133-34

323. G. A. Privitera, "Su una nuova interpretazione di Saffo fr. 16 L.-P.,"
QUCC 4 (1967) 182-87
324. E. M. Stern, "Sappho Fr. 16 L.-P.," Mnemosyne 4.23(1970) 348-61
325. G. Wills, "The Sapphic 'Umwertung aller Werte'," AJP 88(1967)434-42
TOSI (322a) adds the following loci similes for the invocation of fr. 5: Il. 1.18-20,
13.375, 18.52ff., Od. 7.331, 9.530. PRIVITERA (323) writes on Koniaris' in-
terpretation of fr. 16, agreeing with much of what he says, but arguing that the poem
is not an encomium of Anactoria. Rather it is "una dichiarazione di fede nell'amore, e
il credo di Saffo in Afrodite." Critics ignore the important fact that for Sappho the
choice of Helen was not free (vv. 1fI) and this indicates the great favour of the
goddess for her. "No other heroine of myth was for her the very symbol of love: the
best loved by the goddess, the most beautiful and desired, the one who lived only for
love, who wholly and totally testifies to her divine power. To her it was allowed to have
the most beautiful thing of all, the man she loved: to Sappho it was allowed only to
long for the most beautiful thing, the radiant presence of Anactoria." STERN (324)
gives a good analysis of the poem under the headings "Die Priamel," "Der Mythos,"
"Gnomen und allgemeine Sentenzen," "Zusammenfassung," and "Anhang: Sappho
16 L.P. und Alkaios 283 L.P." WILLS (325) concentrates on the form of the priamel
in fr. 16 and argues that ego de does not "signal a rejection of what went before." The
climax to the priamel is in vv. 17-20. Sappho does not "contrast woman's world with
man's," but chooses "items that can serve as objects of man's eros." He also has
much to say on the significance of the myth of Helen.
326. F. J. Brevet, "Sappho en de dokter," Hermeneus 41 (1970) 250-51

327. G. Devereux, "The Nature of Sappho's Seizure in Fr. 31 LP as Evidence of
her Inversion," CQ 20 (1970) 17-31
328. R. 0. Evans, "Remarks on Sappho's 'Phainetai moi'," StudGen 22 (1969)
1016-25
329. E. J. Jonkers, "Sappho's liefdeslied in verschillende tijden," Hermeneus 41
(1970) 195-98
330. G. L. Koniaris, "On Sappho, Fr. 31 (L.-P.),"Philologus 112(1968)173-86
331. M. Lefkowitz, "Critical Stereotypes and the Poetry of Sappho," GRBS 14
(1973) 113-23
332. F. Manieri, "Saffo: appunti di metodologia generale per un approccio
psichiatrico," QUCC 14 (1972) 46-64
333. M. Marcovich, "Sappho Fr. 31: Anxiety Attack or Love Declaration?" CQ
22 (1972) 19-32
334. G. A. Privitera, "Il commento del peri hypsous al fr. 31 L.P. di Saffo,"
QUCC 7 (1969) 26-35
335. G. A. Privitera, "AmbiguitA antitesi analogia nel fr. 31 L.P. di Saffo,"
QUCC8 (1969) 37-80
335a. C. A. Ronchi March, "La oda 31 L.-P. de Safo a la luz del papiro Fiorentino
publicado en 1965," Actas del primer symposio nacional de estudios clasicos, mayo
1970 (Mendoza 1972) 257-59. I have not seen this.
336. L. Rydbeck, "Sappho's Phainetai moi kenos, "Hermes 97(1969)161-66
337. G. Wills, "Sappho 31 and Catullus 51," GRBS 8 (1967) 167-97
338. D. E. W. Wormell, "Catullus as Translator" in The Classical Tradition.
Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan (Ithaca 1966) 187-201
339. G. A. Privitera, "Saffo Fr. 31, 13 L.-P.," Hermes 97 (1969) 267-72
340. V. Pisani, "Zwei Vermutungen zu Sappho. 2. Zu Sappho 2. D., 31. L.-P., v.
15-16," Glotta 50 (1972) 29
BREVET (326) discusses the anecdote recorded by Plut. Dem. 38 concerning the
love-sick Demetrius and the physician Erasistratus. DEVEREUX (327) argues on
psychological and philological grounds that fr. 31 depicts an "anxiety attack" and
that the description of her symptoms proves she was a lesbian. All ten symptoms are
psycho-physiological, none purely psychological, and describe a "perfect, 'text-book
case,' anxiety attack." She is not envious of the girl, but is identifying herself with the
man. She suffers what all masculine lesbians suffer, the "female castration complex."
He examines various passages in Greek and Roman authors which support his view
that "Sappho's state was primarily a pathological seizure . .. and only secondarily a
manifestation of excessive love, even of excessive lesbian 'love'." He also discusses the
text of v. 9 and states that in a case of extreme anxiety the tongue and mouth become
extremely dry, a condition best satisfied by Cobet's pepa^ge,an emendation supported
by Theoc. 2.110 where epagen appears "at the end of the verses which imitate Sap-
pho's poem." EVANS' article (328) is an attempt to use "some of the methods of
comparative literature" in order to "shed additional light on the poem." Though such
an approach may well be legitimate, its particular application here is not convincing.
It is pointless, for example, to argue from French literature that hiatus is deliberate in
v. 9: " 'My tongue is broken . . . ,' writes the poet, implying that here the poem is
broken, too." JONKERS (329) prints and briefly discusses works based on fr. 31 in
Latin, French and Dutch poets.
KONIARIS (330) begins by discussing and rejecting previous interpretations
(Wilamowitz, Page, Beattie, Jachmann, del Grande, Setti) and then examines certain
parts of the poem, noting that w. 1-8 may be a reminiscence of Od. 6.158-61.
"Sappho deems the man 'blessed' neither for his temperament nor for any intellectual
attitude or the like on his part toward the girl's beauty, but only for his close relation
with the girl." LEFKOWITZ (331), commenting on the way in which scholars have
analysed the poetry of Emily Dickinson and Sappho, maintains that "applying
assumptions our society makes about 'normal' female psychology to the work of
women poets can do little to advance our understanding of their poems." To illustrate
this, she examines the language of fr. 31 and argues that what Sappho "feels is not
jealousy but the response of lovers to beauty in their beloved." Sappho is describing
an "illusion" and "the deliberate generalizing of the poem, the absence of proper
names and specific references to time and place, indicate that this poem is meant to
bring to mind no particular place or occasion." MANIERI (332) gives reasons why the
approach to fr. 31 adopted by DEVEREUX (327) is erroneous. "The use of a
psychiatric model . . . runs the serious risk of being sterile and an end in itself, both
in its implications and in its results." The article deals more with the question of the
legitimacy of a clinical assessment than with the poem itself. A more damning
refutation of DEVEREUX is provided by MARCOVICH(333) who sees no rival in the
poem. "No human being can stand your charms: only a superhuman one could. As
for me, I have been passionately in love with you ever since I first met you."
In his first article (334) PRIVITERA suggests solutions to the various problems
presented by the first sentence of Otn the Sublime 10.3. In his second (335) he
discusses some textual problems, proposing to de'moi in v. 5 and kam . . . g eage in
v. 9, gives a survey of previous interpretations of the poem, a lengthy account of the

ambiguities in w. 1-6 and the parallels and opposites in vv. 7-16, and concludes:
"Non l'amore tout-court o l'ammirazione di Saffo per la ragazza o il suo amore per
l'uomo o la sua gelosia verso di lui o verso di lei e il movente dell'ode, ma il suo amore
ancora segreto e gia infelice perche tormentato dal timore che la ragazza non debba
ricambiarlo: l'amore nel momento iniziale della solitudine." At the end there are
some remarks on fr. 1.3-4. RYDBECK (336) is primarily concerned with ottis in v. 2
which he argues is not generalizing. In dialects outside of Attic, the distinction
between hostis and hos is not nearly so rigid. He thinks an obvious answer to the
question of what situation could have given rise to the poem before us is "the
marriage of one of Sappho's proteges, who will thus no longer be in her care. Sappho
loved this girl, and basing her description on a particular event - which, in the poem,
is depicted in the present tense, but which Sappho now views at a certain distance -
she describes her own attitude towards the girl." WILLS' well-documented article
(337) represents an important contribution, even if more by the questions asked than
by the answers given, to our understanding of both Sappho and Catullus. In essence,
he follows Welcker's explanation of the opening verses: "He is strong as the gods who
sits near you. That - sitting near you - would surely stun me, since merely to look at
you affects me so violently." In order to obtain this meaning WILLS emends vv. 5-6 to
to cdJ keni kardian mnien... I am not convinced by the emendation, but his in-
terpretation of isos theoisin, "godlike in power" ("the man can sit there because he is
able to endure her dazzling proximity and Sappho is not"), may well be right. WILLS
feels that in the last stanza Sappho stated that in spite of the effect the girl's presence
has on her, she intends "to enter that presence, to bear that obliterating proximity."
WORMELL (338) illustrates Catullus' artistry as a translator by comparing Cat. 51
and 66 with Sappho 31 and Callim. fr. 110. Concerning the former he states:
"Catullus not only reproduces in Latin the form and content of Sappho's poem, but
gives it a new depth and a new dimension, yet in such a way as to reilluminate the
original and to enhance its impact." PRIVITERA (339) argues for ek de m'idros
psychros echei, tromos de in v. 13 and Pisani (340) reads phainomai alld in v. 16 (alld
being the Aeolic form of the Ionic eleos which in Homer is elos and probably belongs
to alaomai).
341. P. Innocenti, "Ancora su eidos: Sapph. 34.2 LP," Atti e Memorie

dell'Accademia Toscana diScienze eLettere, La Columbaria 36 (1971) 1-13
341a. W. Rosler, "Ein Gedicht und sein Publikum. Uberlegungen zu Sappho Fr.
44 Lobel-Page," Hernmes103 (1975) 275-85
342. A. Luppino, "Una formula omerica in Saffo," PP 22 (1967) 286-91
343. F. Rebelo Goncalves, "De Lesbiacis quibusdam verborumcopulationibus,"
Euphrosynien.s. 2 (1968) 151-54
344. G. Caduff, "Zu Sapphos Fragment 94 LP (= 96 D.). Neubegriundungeiner
vergessenen Deutung," Serta PhilologicaAeniponitana 2 (1972) 9-12
345. T. McEvilley, "Sappho, Fragment Ninety-Four," Phoenix 25(1971)1-11
346. M. A. Lindenburg, "Le parfum royal de Sappho," Studia Byzantina et
NeohelleniicaNeerlandica (Leiden 1972) 330-39
347. W. Seelbach, "Ezra Pound und Sappho Fr. 95 L.-P.," A&A 16(1970)83-84
INNOCENTI (341) analyses the sequence of images in fr. 34 and the significance of
eidos within the imagery. Much of what he says, e.g. eidos "assolve alla funzione di
rovesciamento dell'ottica," seems to me to be unjustified by the language of the
fragment. ROSLER (341a) discusses the setting of fr. 44 ("ein Hoch-
zeitsgedicht . .. das beim Zug durch die Stadt, also vor der versammelten
Bevolkerung, vorgetragen wurde") and the significance of the mythical references.
After discussing and disagreeing with earlier interpretations of fr. 55.3-4, LUPPINO
(342) argues that the meaning is essentially "invisibile. .. nel regno dell'
Invisibile ... fra morti invisibili." Sappho does not think that there is a place in
Hades where poets are honoured. Rather Hades is a place of oblivion reserved for the
rich but ignorant woman, while the poetess lives on earth after death in the memory of
man. REBELO GONCALVES (343) follows the text of Lobel-Page in fr. 91, except
that oudama should be accented on the first and last syllables and he sees no reason
for a capital letter in the next word.
CADUFF (344) rejects the view that fr. 94 is a poem of consolation and gives
reasons in support of Wilamowitz who held that Sappho is accusing a girl of being
disloyal and of forgetting her. McEVILLEY (345) provides a brilliant analysis of the
poem's structure and meaning. LINDENBURG (346) examines the root basil-, which
he believes originally signified "prosperity" or "growvth,"the words Basilos, Basile
("noms de divinites d'un type tres ancien") and Basilai ("probablement une famille
qui avait le privilege de ce sacrifice"), the use of basilikon to denote a plant which
because of its aroma was dedicated to Aphrodite, and the association of this plant
with religion. He concludes from this that Sappho in fr. 94.20 spoke of an "herbe
bien-aimee, odorante, dediee a sa deese Aphrodite." Much of his evidence, however,
as he himself admits, is very late.
348. T. McEvilley, "Sapphic Imagery and Fragment 96," Hermes 101 (1973)
257-78
349. L. Weld and W. Nethercut, "Sappho's rose-fingered moon. A note," Arion
5 (1966) 28-31
350. C. Calame, "Sappho fr. 96, 15-17 LP," QUCC4 (1967)101-106
McEVILLEY (348) examines Sappho's use of nature in her poetry and the
significance of the long simile in fr. 96. He concludes that her "nature images . .. do
not describe the outside world so much as the world of the imagination" and that "the
description of the moonlight ceases, at about line 11, to be primarily (or at all) a
comparison." The moon and the girl become one and the same. Fr. 34 and its im-
portance for the understanding of fr. 96 is also discussed. WELD and NETHERCUT
(349) discuss references to night and day in Sappho and state that the epithet "rosy-
fingered" is applied to the moon because it "is seen to play a dual role and to act as a
partial substitute for the sun." I find this highly improbable. For a more natural
interpretation of the epithet see WAERN (299, p. 4). Starting from Aesch. P. V. 881,
CALAME (350) argues for Schubart's kardia in v. 17. For the anacoluthon he
compares Il. 6.510f. and 5.135f. In both cases the subject of the participle is a person,
but the subject of the verb is a part of the body. He then gives examples of the archaic
view which assimilates the feeling which seizes a person to the objective force which
comes from outside and strikes a part of the body. In all of these the person who is
subject of the preceding phrase is picked up by a dative case and so he emends the
awkwardpoi to woi, "belonging to her."
351. E. D. Floyd, "Sappho's word for 'sheep,' 104A.2 (L.-P.)," CR 18(1968)266-
67
352. J. A. Davison, "A Marriage Song of Sappho's (S 104 and 105)" in From
Archilochus to Pindar (London 1968) 242-46
353. H. Akbar Khan, "On the art of Catullus carm. 62.39-58, its relationship to
11.21-24 and the probability of a Sapphic model," Athenaeum 45 (1967) 160-76
354. M. Marcovich, "On Sappho fr. 111 L.-P.," Humanidades 5-6 (1963-64)
223-27
355. M. Marcovich, "Bedeutung der Motive des Volksglaubens fur die Text-
interpretation," QUCC 8 (1969) 22-36 (34-36)
356. J. F. Killeen, "Sappho Fr. 111," CQ 23(1973)198
FLOYD (351) keeps Demetrius' phereis in v. 1 and in v. 2 reads aiga phereis eperon
te, phereis apu materi paida. The word eperon occurs only in an inscription from
Aeolic Asia Minor where it means "ram," but since it is formed from epi and eros,
"wool," it could presumably also mean "sheep" or "lamb." DAVISON (352) suggests
that frr. 104a, lOSa and 105c come from an amoebean marriage-song, with 104a
appearing near the beginning and with 105c preceding 105a. AKBAR KHAN (353)
sees no reason to assume that fr. 105c was the model for Cat. 62.39ff. A more obvious
source would be Eur. Hipp. 73-78, but "the conventional nature of the sexual symbols
Catullus uses and his entire method of procedure would tend to suggest that neither
Sappho nor Euripides was needed to provide Catullus with a springboard for the
imagery discussed here." In both articles (354, 355) MARCOVICH reads gambros eis
isos Arei in fr. 111.5 and rejects any obscene meaning. He maintains that it is Ares'
tall stature that is referred to (cf. II. 21.407) and that Sappho's epithalamia do not
include the obscenity which is common in later epithalamia. Essentially the same view
is put forward in an appendix to his article on fr. 31 (333). KILLEEN (356) adduces fr.
851a PMG as support for the view that the last verse of fr. 111 refers to "a fan-
tastically ithyphallic bridegroom" and rejects Marcovich's claim that Arist. Pax. 1351
is not a relevant parallel.
356a. F. Fiorini, "Sapph. fr. 112 V.," MCr8/9(1973-74) 127-28
356b. A. Andrisano, "Sapph. fr. 120 V.," MCr 8/9(1973-74) 107-10
356c. M. Paterlini, "Sapph. fr. 135 V.," MCr8/9(1973-74) 131-32
356d. G. M. Lee, "Sappho, Fr. 137,7," SO 50 (1975) 89
356e. M. P. Funaioli, "Sapph. fr. 183 V.," MCr 8/9 (1973-74) 129-30
FIORINI (356a) provides strong reasons for rejecting Voigt's combining of vv. 1-
2 with 3-5 in fr. 112, concluding with a list of passages which illustrate the "epicit'a"of
Sappho's phraseology in the fragment. ANDRISANO (356b) discusses fr. 120 in the
light of epic parallels, concentrating on the meaning of abake'n. PATERLINI (356c)
discusses the relevance of Anth. Pal. 9.57 and 9.70 for fr. 135. LEE (356d) suggests
that in fr. 137.7 os might be read for se, a word which accounts for the houtos of
Aristotle's paraphrase and the quae or quod of William of Moerbeke's translation.
FUNAIOLI (356e) argues that only katore^sis correct in fr. 183, Eustathius' katare^
being a corruption caused by the preceding katarasson.
See also numbers (9), (17), (18), (34), (36), (37), (37a), (SOa),(51), (54), (491-93).
E. ALCAEUS
357. H. Martin, Jr., Alcaeus (New York 1972). Pp. 192
MARTIN's book, aimed at the Greekless reader, is in three parts ("The ., as
Partisan," "The Poet as Poet," and "The Poet as Metrician"). This is the second book
to appear on Greek lyric in the Twayne's World Authors Series and is a vast im-
provement over the first (140).
358. T. Cirisola, "Alceo e Orazio. Studio comparativo" in Fons perennis. Saggi
critici di Filologia Classica raccolti in onore del Prof V. dAgostino (Turin 1971) 107-
23
359. J. C. Kamerbeek, "Alcaica," Mnemosvne 4.26 (1973) 390-92
360. M. Naoumides, "New Fragments of Ancient Greek Poetry," GRBS 9 (1968)
267-90 (272-74)
360a. V. Tammaro, "Alcae. Addend. p. 507 V.," MCr 8/9(1973174)138-40
361. R. Renehan, "A Fragment of Alcaeus in Seneca?" RhM 112(1969)187-88
362. V. Steffen, "Die politische Krise in Mytilene in der Zeit des Dichters
Alkaios" in Die Krise dergriechischen Polis I (Berlin 1969) 7-10
363. J. TruTmpf,"Ub5erdas Trinken in der Poesie des Alkaios," ZPE 12 (1973)
139-60
The aim of CIRISOLA's article (358) is stated clearly in the opening paragraph:
"Quello che ci proponiamo non e tanto di vedere cib che Orazio ha imitato da Alceo,
quanto piuttosto di vedere come Orazio ha visto Alceo e in quale posizione si e messo
nei suoi confronti." This aim seems to have been accomplished satisfactorily.
KAMERBEEK (359) discusses frr. 70.1-5, 72.3-6, and 129.21-24 and suggests
severaTsupplements. NAOUMIDES (360) informs us that the Cyril Lexicon cites
Alcaeus (more probably the Lesbian than the comic writer) as authority for the use of
phoinix "date tree" to mean "grove of date trees." TAMMARO (360a) disagrees with
NAOUMIDES and makes a good case for connecting the Alcaeus gloss with maRadis
rather than with phoinix. He also suggests that Alcaeus may be an error for Alcman,
since the latter is recorded as having used the word magadis (fr. 101). RENEHAN
(361) argues convincingly that the Graecus poeta of Sen. Dial. 9.17.10 (nam sive
Graeco poetae credimus "aliquando et insanire iucundum est") is Alcaeus. This
identification is suggested by similar passages in Horace which were clearly modelled
on Alcaeus. STEFFEN's (362) brief description of political life in Mytilene and of
Alcaeus' role in it adds nothing to what was already known. TRUMPF (363) is a
revision of the first section of his 1958 dissertation, Studien zur griechischen Lyrik.
mentioned in my previous survey(p. 322).
363a. M. G. Bonanno, "Alcae. fr. 6, 12-15V.,"MCr8/9(1973/74) 135-37
364. F. Rebelo Gonqalves(see 343)
364a. 0. Longo, "Ad Alceo 112, 10 L.P.: Per la storia di un topos," Bollettino
dell'Istituto diFilologia Greca 1 (1974) 211-28. I have not seen this.
365. G. Tarditi, "Dioniso Kemelios (Alceo, fr. 129, 8 L.-P.)," QUCC 4 (1967)
107-12
366. G. Cerri, "Un'espressione tirtaica in un contesto allegorico di Alceo: un
caso di ambivalenza espressiva," QUCC 14 (1972) 65-70
366a. B. Marzullo, "Lo smarrimento di Alceo (fr. 208 V.)," Philologus 119(1975)
27-38
367. G. Maurach, "Schilderungen in der archaischen Lyrik. Zu Alkaios Fr. Z
34," Hermes 96 (1968) 15-20
368. W. Buhler, "Beitrage zu den griechischen Lexikographen," QIFG 2 (1967)
93-107 (105)
BONANNO (363a) argues that Herodotus 7.53.1 had Alc. fr.6 in mind and that this
supports the supplements printed by Voigt in vv. 12 and 15. She also notes that
Alcaeus used as his model not only Od. 24.508 (mentioned by Voigt), but also II.
6.208f. REBELO GONCALVES (364) argues for the text of Lobel-Page in fr. 69.5,
except that oudama should be accented on the first and last syllables. TARDITI (365)
examines the evidence for Dionysus in Mycenaean times and for Hera in the role of
Magna Mater. He connects kemelios with Mycenaean ke-me-ri-jo and ka-ma (cf.
Hesych. s.v. kaman: ton agron. Kretes) and says that if this is valid "I'epiclesi dovra
indicare Dioniso in relazione con la vita agricola, in quanto e un dio della
vegetazione o, meglio, nel suo rapporto con la Terra, come appartenente ad essa."
CERRI (366) makes a strong case against combining fr. 208a with fr. 326 and for
seeing in v. 5 of 208a a variation of Tyrt. frr. 10.31 and 11.21. In Alcaeus the podes are
the two lower corners of the sail (not a man's feet, as Page and others argue) and they
are exhorted to hold fast against the wind just as a hoplite is exhorted to hold fast
against attack. MARZULLO (366a) provides a perceptive analysis of fr. 208 Voigt
(= 326+ 208a L-P) and discusses some of the poem's textual problems. MAURACH
(367) analyses the style of fr. 357 and compares it to other fragments ot Alcaeus.
BU HLER (368) notes a Cyril gloss Karion: lophon and compares fr. 388.
369. C. Gallavotti, "Alcaei carmen de Aiace," ZPE4 (1969)174

370. C. Gallavotti, "Ricostruzione del nuovo carme d'Alceo," QUCC 8 (1969)
83-85
371. C. Gallavotti, "Aiace e Pittaco nel carme di Alceo," BPEC 18 (1970) 3-29
372. H. Lloyd-Jones, "The Cologne Fragment of Alcaeus," GRBS 9 (1968) 125-
39
373. R. Merkelbach, "Ein Alkaios-Papyrus," ZPE 1 (1967) 81-95, and
"Nachtrage," ZPE 2 (1968) 154
J /4. G. Tarditi, "L'asebeia di Aiace e quella di Pittaco," QUCC 8(1969)86-96
375. A. Henrichs, "Zu Kallimachos Ep. 8," ZPE4 (1969)38
376. G. Huxley, "Aigai in Alkaios," GRBS 10 (1969) 5-11
MERKELBACH's article (373) is the editio princeps of P. Colon. 2021, a papyrus

which adds considerably to our knowledge of fr. 298 (cf. 262, SLG). We now see that
the myth of the Locrian Ajax is cited within the framework of a political poem and it
may well be, therefore, that some of the other fragments whose preserved portions are
purely mythological were in fact political. MERKELBACH also provides a com-
mentary that is concerned mostly with establishing the likeliest text. In his first article
(369) GALLAVOTTI prints the text of vv. 1-32 with all the lacunae supplemented to
the end of v. 27, including the nonexistent first verse. In his second (370) he prints the
same text, but adds a translation and a few notes. In his third (371) he again prints a
fully supplemented text with translation (in Latin) but adds a lengthy commentary.
He believes that the first stanza began the poem and that a new poem commences at
v. 32. LLOYD-JONES (372) prints a text without any major supplements, a full
apparatus, translation, commentary and some remarks on Alcaeus' sources.
TARDITI (374) prints a text with the supplements of various scholars and briefly
discusses a few of the readings, but his primary concern is to show the connection
between the myth and Pittacus. Just as Ajax was guilty of asebeia by dragging
Cassandra from Athena's statue, so Pittacus was guilty of asebeia by violating the
oath which he and Alcaeus' friends swore. Also, just as the Achaeans were struck by a
storm for not having avenged the sacrilege, so the Mytilenaeans will be punished by
the gods if they accept the presence of the impious Pittacus. HENRICHS (375) sees a
parody of the first verse of the Cologne fragment in Callim. Epig. 8.5. HUXLEY (376)
disagrees with MERKELBACH and LLOYD-JONES who locate Aegae (v. 6) in
Euboea and argues that Alcaeus is referring to the same storm off Lesbos as is
mentioned in fr. 17 of Sappho. On the basis of Strabo 13.1.68 and a scholiast on Ap.
Rh. l.1l65c he thinks that Aegae is a promontoryon the Aeolic coast off Lesbos. This
is supported by vv. 23ff. of fr. 298 which mention the storm aroused by Athena im-
mediately after the account of the rape of Cassandra. He also feels that a storm close
to Lesbos strengthens the mood of Alcaeus' poem. "The Achaeans suffered here, close
to our home in Lesbos, because they had failed to condemn Aias to death. We too are
now suffering (in Lesbos, presumably), because we failed to stone a sinner to death."
HUXLEY's view is attractive, though the evidence for an Aegae on the coast opposite
Lesbos is tenuous.
See also (5), (9), (14), (17), (18), (21), (37), (41), (45), (49), (50a), (54), (78), (107b),
(290), (292).
F. IBYCUS
377. M. N6thiger (see 237)

378. G. Marcovigi, "Pap. Ox. XXXII (1967) 2637 fr. 5 (a) 5-7 Lobel," SIFC 43
(1971)65-78
379. F. Mosino, "Ibico e Pascoli," Historica. Rivista bimestr. di cultura 20
(1967) 83-90
380. M. L. West (see 187, P. 199)
MARCOVIGI (378) argues that the new fragment of Ibycus published by Lobel
(=223 SLG)should be combined with P. Oxy. 1790 (b) frr. 5 and 7 and P. Oxy. 2081 (f)
frr. 3 and 4 (PMG, pp. 146-47), all of which he refers to a poem dealing with the myth
of Pegasus and Bellerophon. He also argues that the words attributed to Ibycus (fr. 28
Bergk) by the scholiast on Arist. Aves 192 should in fact be assigned to Ibycus and not
to Bacchylides (cf. Snell ad 5.26). This fragment too comes from the same poem. I
have not seen MOSINO (379). WEST (380) comments briefly on the new word
amerimnaios ascribed to Ibycus by Herodian (258 SLG).
381. J. P. Barron, "Ibycus: To Polycrates," BICS 16 (1969) 119-49

382. G. F. Gianotti, "Mito ed encomio: il carme di Ibico in onore di Policrate,"
RFIC 101 (1973)401-10
383. M. Robertson, "Ibycus: Polycrates, Troilus, Polyxena," BICS 17 (1970) 11-
15
384. F. Sisti, "L'ode a Policrate. Un caso di recusatio in Ibico," QUCC 4 (1967)
59-79
385. V. Tammaro, "Note a Ibico," MCr 5-7 (1970-72) 81-82
386. B. Gentili, "Metodi di lettura (su alcune congetture ai poeti lirici)," QUCC
4(1967)177-81
387. K. Alpers, "Zu Ibykos Fr. 1, 41 Page," Hermes 96 (1968) 127-28
388. M. L. West (see 55, pp. 206-209)
388a. M. L. West (see 55a)
BARRON's extremely valuable article (381) contains a revised text, commentary,
discussion of the metre and authorship, general interpretation, and comments on the
occasion for which fr. 1 was written, concluding with an appendix on the unplaced
fragments of the papyrus. He rejects SISTI's recusatio explanation and states that the
Homeric expressions are used deliberately to emphasize the point that the epic heroes
are "immortal precisely because of the poetry written about them and for no other
reason." Ibycus' boast is that he will ensure immortality for Polycratesjust as Homer
did for the epic heroes. GIANOTTI (382) illustrates the similarity between fr. 1 and
the epinician odes of Pindar and Bacehylides. In both the purpose is to praise the
recipient and in both the poet stresses that the fame of the recipient depends upon the
fame of the poet. Most of the article is devoted to a discussion of w. 23-24, especially
sesophismenai, and vv. 46-48. He points out that this is the first occurrence of the root
soph- to describe divine activity and that Ibycus substitutes the participle for the epic
eidenai panta (e.g., II. 2.485). With regard to vv. 46-48 he rightly defends heavy
punctuation after v. 46 and notes that the key-word is aien; "la perennita della
bellezza degli eroi del mito e il modello ideale su cui commisurare il kleos aphthiton di
Policrate." He is probably also right in taking kleos in v. 48 as governed by kata.
ROBERTSON (383) disagrees with BARRON's view that in fr. 1.41-45 Zeuxippus
and Troilus "were indistinguishable for beauty as gold and orichalc are in-
distinguishable to the eye." Rather he believes that just as in P1. Critias 114e gold is
slightly more precious than orichalc, so here Troilus is slightly superior to Zeuxippus.
Comments follow on the possible reasons for the mention of Troilus and on the
likelihood of Polyxena's sacrifice having been included in the poem. SISTI (384)
discusses the metre, language, style (Homeric parallels are quoted at length) and
meaning of fr. l. Largely on the basis of Hor. Odes 1.6 he sees the theme of recusatio
in the poem, but, as BARRON has pointed out, the comparison with Horace is
"illusory" and there are no examples of recusatio before Hellenistic times. TAM-
MARO (385) briefly discusses two passages in fr. 1. In the first he argues that II.
24.699-70 provided the model for vv. 8-9, an indication that Diehl was right in per-
sonifying Ate here. In the second he defends those who do not punctuate at the end of
v. 46. His only arguments, however, are that aiei often accompanies aphthitos and
that metesti followed by a genitive and dative is not attested before Herodotus and is
characteristic of Attic writers.
GENTILI (386) rejects West's emendations of frr. 1.25 and 5.12 proposed in
Philologus 110 (1966) 152-53. In the first West emended thnatos to autos so that the
final syllable of v. 24 could be short, but GENTILI replies that thnatos is supported
by Od. 6.201, the model for the verse, and he provides examples of dactylic lines
which end with a cretic clausula. In the second he defends Athenaeus' phylassei
against West's laphyssei, noting the parallelism between vv. 7 and 12.
WEST (388a) replies that the metrical parallels adduced by GENTILI are
irrelevant for fr. 1.24 and maintains that phylassei in fr. 5.12 introduces a "badly
muddled imagery, indicative of corruption." ALPERS (387) argues that the entry by
Page in his apparatus under v. 41 should be excised, since it is merely the end of v. 21.
"Die letzten 5 Buchstaben von Kol. I reichen durch die Lange des Verses bis un-
niittelbar vor Kol. II und gerieten, als der Pap. zwischen den Kolumnen zerriss, auf
die rechte Halfte." WEST (388) rejects BARRON's argument that this Polycrates was
the father of the famous one and maintains that the poem was addressed to the well-
known tyrant. Ibycus and Anacreon may well have come to Samos "at the invitation,
or during the rule, of Polycrates' father, whose name, as we know, was Aeaces," as we
are told by Himerius and the Suda. The Polycrates poem may have been composed
during Aeaces' rule or shortly after Polycrates' accession in 538.
389. L. Palmieri, "Note a Ibico," MCr5-7 (1970-72) 83-84
390. M. L. West (see 55, p. 209)
391. G. Giangrande (see 50, pp. 106-108)
392. D. L. Page, "Poetry and Prose: Simonides, P.M.G. 531, Ibycus 298," CR 21
(1971) 317-18
393. A. D. Skiadas, -Hermnineutikaiparatereseis. "EEAth 16 (1965-66) 396-405
(398-400)
PALMIERI (389) examines frr. 2 and 36a. In the first she supports Nauck's aleo6
for the obviously corrupt daraoi, noting the similar passages in Od. 23.93 and II.
9.30. In the second she supports Hermann's akrotatois/xanthai, noting Ibycus'
predilection for piling up adjectives and stating that a verb could have appeared later
in the fragment. WEST (390) emends argyre6i in fr. 4.5 to argyphe6i because "white"
is the standard colour of eggs. But, as GIANGRANDE (408, p. 129) rightly points out,
argyreon can mean "white." GIANGRANDE (391) defends phylassei in fr. 5.12 and
emends paidothen to pantothen, comparing Bacch. 19.19ff. where Argus "looking
every way (panitothen)with tireless eyes . . . kept watch (phvlassen) over sleepless lo."
Argus can look "every way" because he has many eyes and Eros can do the same
because he takes the shape of a storm. PAGE (392) replies to West's assertion in CR
17 (1967) 133 that part of fr. 17 is prose, commenting that the latter had ignored his
two reasons given in CR 67 (1953) 1.WEST (55a) defends his earlier argument.
SKIADAS (393) gives a general discussion of fr. 29.
See also (37a), (48), (52), (53), (249), (251).
G. ANACREON
394. E. Bazzarelli, "Anacreonte in Russia," Acme 23 (1970) 29-40
395. G. Danielewicz (see 275)
396. M. F. Galiano, "Anakreon gestern und heute," Das Altertum 18 (1972)

223-35
397. J. M. Snyder, "Aristophanes' Agathon as Anacreon," Herntes 102 (1974)
244-46
398. M. F. Verdier, "Les introuvables e'ditions des Odes d'Anacreon (Remy
Belleau)," BiblH&R 33 (1971) 359-63
GALIANO (396) describes the influence of Anacreon and the Anacreontea on
several European writers since Petrarch and provides some general comments on
Anacreon's poetry. This is presumably the same as his "Anacreonte, ayer y hoy."
Atlantida, Revista del pensamiento actual 7 (1969) 570-91, which I have not seen.
SNYDER (397) notes that the apparel worn by Agathon in Arist. Thesm. 137-39 and
253-62 corresponds closely to that worn by Anacreon on a large number of vases. She
concludes, therefore, that "the humorous effect of Agathon's costume" lies in its
being "a ridiculous jumble of male and female apparel and accountrements" and in
the implication that Agathon is thinking of himself as a rival to Anacreon.
398a. M. and A. Blanchard, "La mosiaiqued'Anacreon a Autun," REA 75 (1973)

268-79
399. B. Gentili, "Note anacreontiche," QUCC 16 (1973) 134-37
400. G. Giangrande (see 49)
401. G. Giangrande (see 50)
402. M. L. West (see 55)
The article by the BLANCHARDS (398a) is devoted in part to an inscription which

contains much of fr. 51 (including the me'of Athenaeus rather than the de'of Orion)
and small portions of fr. 84. The latter is shown to have been at least four lines in
length and they reconstruct the second two verses on the basis of Anacreontea 45.8-12
Bergk. GENTILI (399) first rejects WEST's (402) argument that the search in fr. 15
"must be a literal one" (he adduces Heracl. fr. 117 D-K as a parallel for the situation
he envisages) and points to Theognis 1299-1304 (WEST in 55a now recants, adducing
the same Theognis passage) as proof of the erotic significance of dize^mai.Then he
argues that the kour,>of fr. 73 cannot be a maiden in view of chrvsopeple and suggests
that she is probably Aphrodite. GIANGRANDE (400, pp. 109-11) argues that fr. 50 is
not a lament on old age and death, but a lament that after death one cannot make
love any more, anabe^naito be taken in an erotic sense. On pp. 113-17 he defends the
reading ho's nze in fr. 51. Anacreon is asking for wine so that he may get drunk, lose
his reasoning, and not fight against, i.e., welcome Eros. On p. 118 he states that in fr.
86 "the poet is satirizing a boy who, because now too old, is no longer visited by lovers,
although he leaves - hopefully but in vain - his door unbolted." This shows a
reversal of the motif normally found in komos poems where revellers demand ad-
mission and try to force their way in.
GIANGRANDE (401) comments on frr. 4, 39, and 70. In fr. 4 he defends the
variant reading kyamaspidas, arguing that Anacreon is referring to some poet who is
satirizing the lalysians for using "beans as shields," i.e. for carrying the obsolete
bean-shaped (figure eight) shields. In fr. 39 he rejects the commonly accepted
emendation of Pytho to Peith6. Anacreon is referring to the old days when Pytho was
"not yet argyvre(i.e. metaphorically, rich in money,philargyros, money-seeking), but
was still chrse (i.e., metaphorically, rich in gold)." As a result "Anacreon's argyre^
Pvtho is a pointed and witty allusion to chryse^Pytho." In fr. 70 he emends the par-
ticiple to liaz6n and translates, "throwing Sicilian wine with bent hand." WEST (402)
comments on frr. 13, 15 (see above), and 50.1 1. In fr. 13 he takes the last verse to
mean that the girl "is deep in trivial conversation with her friend" and euktitou
Lesbou to indicate that "Lesbian girls can afford to be choosy, they have young ad-
mirers enough to pick from." I know of no evidence for the last statement and the tirst
removes the sting so often found at the end of Anacreon's poems. In fr. 50.11 he
proposes kei to avoid the "unusual kaigar."
403. F. J. Cuartero, "Anacreonte, fr. 346/1 P." in Homenatge a Josep Alsina
(Barcelona 1969) 51-61
404. G. Serrao, "L'ode di Erotima: da timida fanciulla a donna pubblica
(Anacr. fr. 346, IP.=60 Gent.)," QUCC6 (1968) 36-51
405. M. L. B. Emley, "A Note on Anacreon, P.M.G. 347 fr. 1," CR 21(1971)169
406. E. R. Panyagua, "Interpretaci6n de un infinitivo en Anacreonte,"
Helmantica 22 (1971) 395-99
407. B. Gentili, "La ragazza di Lesbo," QUCC 16 (1973) 124-28
408. G. Giangrande, "Anacreon and the Lesbian Girl," QUCC 16 (1973) 129-33
408a. M. Campbell, "Anacr. fr. 358 P.," MCr8/9 (1973-74) 168-69
409. B. Gentili (see 386)
410. R. Hosek, "Doriazein, aufdorische Weise," SPFB 18 (1969) 57-58
411. G. A. Privitera(see 312, pp. 133-37)
412. J. Labarbe, "Aganos. Anacreon fr. 28, 1 Gentili," LEC 37 (1969) 229-35
413. E. Fraenkel, "Oud' au m' easeis," MH 26 (1969) 158
414. W. Buhler (see 169, p. 238)
415. W. Buhler, "Eine vollstiindigere Fassung von Anacr. Fr. 122 G.," MCr 4
(1969) 9-14
416. R. Fuhrer, "Zum neuen Anakreon," MH 29 (1972) 278-79
SERRAO (404), after discussing and rejecting the hypotheses previously advanced
to explain the contrast between the timid figure in fr. 1.2-3 and the prostitute
Herotima in v. 13, argues that the lines depict different moments in the life of
Herotima. Although the use of the present tense in the early part of the poem makes
this unlikely, SERRAO has some valuable comments on the text of the fragment and
on the imagery of vv. 7-9. CUARTERO (403) is on the whole less satisfactory than
SERRAO. He seems to suggest that the poem is about a young prostitute who is under
the guardianship of Aphrodite rather than her mother, an interpretation which others
have also held. Although he may be right in arguing that pros in v. 2 means "in ad-
dition to," I think it most unlikely that the verb in v. 10 should be explained as an
aorist participle of kateko. On the basis of II. 6.342-48 EMLEY (405) argues that the
woman of fr. 2.12 is Helen, since she most of all could be designated as arignoton. She
has no connection with vv. 1-10, additional proof that a new poem begins at v. 11. I
think it more likely that the woman is a contemporary of Anacreon, although he may
well have had the Homeric passage in mind when he composed the versep.
PANYAGUA (406) rightly prefers d' in fr. 12.10 because of the symmetry which he
illustrates in vv. 6-11, but he also argues that neither infinitive has the force of an
imperative. Rather both de's are "continuativo-explicativo," i.e. they explain the
reasons for the imperatives and should be omitted in translation. He admits there is
no precise parallel and I see no reason why both infinitives could not have imperatival
force. GENTILI (407) shows that girls from Lesbos did not have a reputation for
indulging in homosexual love, but rather in fellatio, and he argues that in the last
verse of fr. 13 "the other" denotes the black, pubic hair of another guest.
GIANGRANDE (408) gives the same explanation as GENTILI, except that he
believes the pubic hair is Anacreon's. Both have harsh words for WEST's (402) in-
terpretation. See also GIANGRANDE (49, p. 112) and the ensuing discussion (pp.
176-77).
CAMPBELL(408a) argues against pubic hair because Anacreon avoids "downright
obscenity" and because the contrast with v. 6 shows that v. 8 cannot refer to the poet's
hair, whether pubic or cephalic. The point is simply that the girl prefers a man who
has a "fine head of hair." She is "preoccupied with one who is chrysokomes, like Eros
himself (line 2)." GENTILI (409) defends the metre and sense of fr. 38 against the
alterations proposed by West in Philologus 110 (1966) 154. WEST (55a) defends his
interpretation against GENTILI. HOSEK (410) believes that since Anacreon wrote
for Ionic society his choice of the verb doriazein in fr. 54 reveals a common type of
popular humour, i.e. the ridicule of the different customs of another society.
PRIVITERA (411) argues that fr. 57 (b) should be translated "in the eyes of/in the
judgement of Eros the person who is just (in love) is kalos." A comparison with
Sappho, fr. 1, shows that what is just with regard to love is reciprocity.
LABARBE (412) ingeniously eliminates aganos in fr. 63.1 by explaining it as a
corruption of egoun hos which he assumes was written as a gloss above hoia. With the
removal of the adverb (which is preserved in only some of the MSS of Pindar, has no
equivalent in Horace's parallel, and is unsuitable in sense), the lines can be arranged
so as to give tetrameters with the anaclasis now appearing in the same place in each
verse. FRAENKEL (413) defends the transmitted text in fr. 67, comparing Soph, O. T.
676, El. 630-31, and Arist. Eq. 336 and 338. It is an idiomatic Ionic-Attic expression
and as in the examples mentioned should be interrogative. BUHLER (414) finds a
new testimonium to fr. 72.1 (on loxon) in Vat. Graec. 12. In the Biblioteca Estense at
Modena BUHLER (415) discovered a manuscript of the Peri barbarismou kai
soloikismnouwhich contains a longer citation of fr. 78 (cf. 313 SLG) in the following
form: koime'son soloikon phthongon, me' pos barbara baxe&is.Although the com-
bination of a pherecratean and trochaic verse is unparalleled in Anacreon, he feels
that Page's text should be retained. FUHRER (416) removes the vocative Zeu and
assumes a lacuna after phthongon, with the result that we have three verses consisting
of a pherecratean, glyconic, and pherecratean, a more normal Anacreontic metre.
See also (9), (14), (17), (49), (50a), (51), (142a).
H. SIMONIDES
417. P. A. Bernardini, "Simonide: rassegna critica delle edizioni, traduzioni e
studi dal 1949 al 1968 (1969)," QUCC8 (1969) 140-68
418. 0. Werner, Simonides, Bakchylides. Gedichte (Munich 1969). Pp. 270
BERNARDINI has compiled an excellent surveyof work published over a period of
twenty years,, including items which are only partially concerned with Simonides.
WERNER provides a text and translation of the works and major testimonia of
Simonides and Bacchylides. For more detailed comments see Stern's review in CP 66
(1971) 200-202.
419. N. Austin, "Idyll 16: Theocritus and Simonides," TAPA 98 (1967) 1-21
420. M. Balasch, "Sofocles y Simonides," BIEH 1(1967)45-63
421. C. S. Floratos, "Die Anfange der vergleichenden Kunstwissenschaft bei
Simonides von Keos," Philosophia 1 (1971) 135-40
422. J. H. Molyneux, "Simonides and the Dioscuri," Phoenix 25(1971)197-205
423. A. J. Podlecki, "Simonides: 480," Historia 17 (1968) 257-75, and
"Simonides and Themistocles: Supplementary Notes," Historia 18 (1969) 251
424. A. Skiadas, "Simonides ho Keios," EEAth 2.19 (1968-69) 318-38
425. W. J. Slater, "Simonides' House," Phoenix 26(1972)232-40
426. M. Treu, "Sizilische Mythologie bei Simonides (P. Ox. 2637)," Kokalosl4-
15 (1968-69) 428-38
AUSTIN (419) shows that Theocritus refers to Simonides rather than to Pindar
because he felt himself more akin to the former. Simonides had a sceptical attitude
towards the value of encomiastic poetry and this same scepticism was felt by
Theocritus' contemporaries. Theocritus sadly accepts this as a fact of life, but feels
that if Simonides was successful in spite of his scepticism, he too might be appreciated
by some court. But as the poem progresses, Theocritus becomes more despairing and
ends with an attempt to find self-recognition. "The references to Simonides, the
Scopads, the Lycians, Odysseus' servants can have interest only for academicians; it is
hardly to be expected that they would cause Hiero to take note of this new voice in the
land. With the realization that his arguments and echoes of classical topoi are
irrelevant, and hence will never persuade Hiero, Theocritus in pessimistic resignation
allows the poem to become a preoccupation with the sorry predicament of the im-
possibility of poetry."
BALASCH (420) examines Simonides' religious and philosophical concepts,
especially his view of arete as revealed primarily in frr. 36 and 37, and claims that
Sophocles' depiction of man owes much to Simonides' rationalism. FLORATOS (421)
argues that Simonides' reference to painting as silent poetry and poetry as painting
which speaks should not be interpreted to mean that Simonides considered painting
and poetry as two equivalent methods of expression. Painting is of less significance
than poetry because painting is simply an image, whereas poetry gives images to
words. A long summary in Greek is given on pp. 138-40. MOLYNEUX (422) examines
the conflicting accounts of the story that Simonides was saved by the Dioscuri from
the collapse of a banquet-hall (cf. fr. 5) and concludes that Quintilian 11.2.11-16 has
recorded "two quite different versions of the story, and . . . has reported them in a
most awkward and confusing manner." MOLYNEUX believes that the collapse was a
"pure accident," that there must have been odes in honour of Glaucus, Leocrates,
Agatharchus, and Scopas, in each of which the Dioscuri were praised, that fr. 16
formed part of Simonides' dirge on the death of the Scopadae in the collapse, and that
the detail about the refused fee was first attached to an ode for a boxer and then later
transferred to Scopas. SLATER (425) rejects MOLYNEUX' interpretation, claiming
that it "seems very unwise to accept any part of Quintilian's account as historical
truth." He also sees "no good evidence for believing that the death of Skopas was
mentioned" in fr. 16 and speculates that "somewhere Simonides sang of the fall of a
house, and this was taken literally, and brought into connection with an epinikian
victory in order to extract a fixed chronology for a noble family." SLATER's com-
ments concerning the principles on which and the purposes for which ancient vitae
were constructed and his speculation on the origin of the story about the collapse of
the banquet-hall are convincing, although it should be mentioned that his
"speculation" is not new (cf. H. Flach, Geschichte der griechischen Lyrik [Tubingen
1884] 613 n. 3).
PODLECKI (423) examines the evidence for Simonides' poetic activity in 480 under
the headings Thermopylae, Artemisium, and Salamis. In the first section the
epigrams quoted by Herodotus 7.228 and fr. 26 are discussed. He convincingly refutes
Bowra's interpretation of fr. 26 as a cult-song and conjectures that it was composed
for "private singing, possibly in the men's messes at Sparta." In the second section he
discusses the nature of Simonides' Sea-battle off Artemisium, particularly the
prominence assigned to Boreas in it, and rejects Bowra's view that Himerius (cf. fr. 30)
is referring to Simonides' Sea-battle at Salamis rather than to his Artemisium. In the
third section he gives a possible explanation for the Suda's error in stating that the
Artemisium was in elegiacs and the Salamis in lyric metre and comments on lines
which might have formed part of the latter, especially P. Oxy. 2327 and fr. 62 D. In
conclusion he suggests that the "outburst of poetic activity by Simonides" in 480 may
have been prompted at least in part by his "close personal relationship" with
Themistocles. SKIADAS (424) discusses the major fragments of Simonides,
primarily in order to determine his views on man. TREU (426) attempts to determine
the contents of the two poems in P. Oxy. 2637 fr. la (=220-21 SLG). Both poems he
thinks are Scolia or Encomia and should be ascribed to Simonides. The first, which
has a Sicilian setting and mentions a hunter, is compared to D.S.4.3-4. The second
poem has the title Callias and TREU discusses which Callias might be referred to
here.
427. J. Fontenrose, "The Hero as Athlete," CSCA 1 (1968) 73-104

428. M. L. West (see 55, pp. 210-11)
429. H. Lloyd-Jones, "Simonides, P.M.G. 351," CR 24 (1974) 1
430. D. L. Page (see 392)
431. E. des Places, "Simonide et Socrate dans le Protagoras de Platon," LEC 37
(1969) 236-44
432. W. Donlan, "Simonides, Fr. 4 D and P. Oxy. 2432," TAPA 100 (1969) 71-
95
432a. P. E. Easterling (see 229a, pp. 41-43)
433. J. Filee, "Simonide et Millevoye. Les Plaintes de Danae," LEC 40 (1972) 97-
117
434. C. 0. Pavese, "Simon. 38, 11 P.," QUCC4 (1967) 134-35
435. G. Giangrande, "Simonides und Eros," AC 38 (1969) 147-49
437. D. M. Lewis, "Delendum?" CR 18 (1968) 267
FONTENROSE (427), in an appendix (pp. 99-103), discusses the evidence for
Glaucus of Carystus and makes a strong case for the view that "the anonymous poet
of Lucian Imagg. 19 may not be Simonides [fr. 4] and the verses do not belong to the
ode mentioned in Quint. Inst. 11.2.11-16, which was probably addressed to Skopas
II." WEST (428) finds further proof that fr. 26.1 is prose in the fact that Leonidas in
v. 7 is introduced as evidence for what has been said. Therefore what precedes is
general, not specific. In v. 6 se^kosis a "metaphorical heroon which is beyond the
reach of time and decay." He thinks andron . . se^kos"would be overloaded as a noun
phrase" and so he treats it as a separate sentence, inserting d' after oiketan. PAGE
(430) refutes WEST's arguments that v. l is prose and LLOYD-JONES (429) adds
that if it were prose apothanont6n would be expected. WEST (55a) now defends and
expands upon his earlier objections to v. 1 as poetry.
DES PLACES (431) attempts to answer two questions, what meaning Simonides
intended fr. 37 to have and how Socrates sought to explain the poem. He believes that
"le plus original dans cette morale de Simonide est qu'elle consider6re les actes sans
faire dependre d'une aristocratie la moralite du jugement; ce qui nous y parait
quelque peu banal devait alors sembler revolutionnaire." As for Socrates, he is "plus
sophiste que Protagoras." DONLAN (432), after a discussion of the early meanings of
agathos, esthlos and kakos and of previous interpretations of fr. 37, offers an analysis
which seeks to prove that "Simonides was making a conscious attempt to redefine, in
moral terms, the common notions of the 'good' and 'bad' man, and, consequently,
that he was an important innovator in the formulation of higher ethical thought." The
poet begins by giving his definition of the ane^ragathos which is made "in terms of
moral perfectability." He uses "the conventional rhetoric because he has no other
categories at his disposal." Simonides is contrasting this new concept which em-
phasizes the "internal qualities of character" with the current concept which em-
phasizes "external achievement" and is saying in essence that the words agathos,
esthlos, and kakos "should no longer be used to describe man in his external fortunes,
but rather in terms of his internal worth." EASTERLING (432a) disagrees with those
who see a distinction between genesthai in v. 1 and emmenai in v. 13 and argues that
there is no real contradiction between the two phrases in which these words occur.
The second is simply a refinement and qualification of the first, as the following lines
show.
FILEE (433) gives a rather superficial analysis of fr. 38 and of a poem by Millevoye
on the same theme. PAVESE (434), after recording previous attempts toemend v. 11,
proposes that we read lampei (2nd pers. sing. mid.) with de placed after rather than
before nykti and te retained in v. 12. GIANGRANDE (435) defends the reading
dolome^desand dolome^chano6i in fr. 70, the passage being an example of the common
"like begets like." The epithet given to Ares describes him in his r6le as destroyer of
marriages. On the basis of Hes. Erga 287ff., Aratus 127ff., and Q. S. 5.49ff.
GIANGRANDE (436) argues that vv. 2 and 3 of fr. 74 cannot refer to the same
location. He retains the text as transmitted and translates: "A story is told that Arete
used to live on rocks hard to climb, but now she, the fast one, dwells in a holy place."
This interpretation is convincing, but thoan is awkward and I should prefer to follow
those who read theon. LEWIS (437) thinks that fr. 135 should be removed from
editions of Simonides. Ammianus was probably thinking of Eur. fr. 2 PMG.
438. P. J. Bicknell, "Simonides 141 E," Mnemosyne 4.22 (1969)425
439. L. Bertelli, "L'epigramma per i morti di Tanagra (IG 12 946 = Simon. 11 7
D.2)," QUCC 6 (1968) 52-98
440. R. Merkelbach, "Hexenta?"ZPE 2(1968)4-5
440a. A. J. Podlecki, "Epigraphica Simonidea," Epigraphica 35(1973)24-39
BICKNELL (438) identifies the Callias of fr. 141 Edmonds with "Kallias
Lakkoploutos the Kerykid, the son of Hipponikos Ammon" and assumes that
Megacles was his son. The Alcmeonid name was presumably chosen because Callias
had married the daughter of Megacles II. Thus, in the early fifth century "the leading
Kerykes and Alkmeonidai may have been hetairoi." BERTELLI (439), after a
detailed examination of the problems involved, concludes that "sia la caratteristiche
grafiche del frammento sia lo stile dell'epigramma ci conducono . . . verso il periodo
d'anni immediatamente precedente la tregua del 450, se non vogliamo limitare la
datazione a questo stesso anno. Anche alcune forme linguistiche notevoli testimoniate
dal frammento e dalla tradizione manoscritta dell'epigramma converrebbero alla
situazione politica che abbiamo descritto per questo periodo." MERKELBACH (440)
proposes the Corinthian word hexe-ntain fr. 147.4 D. PODLECKI (440a) discusses the
attribution to Simonides of frr. 63, 76, 90, 92a, 96, 104a, 105 and 109 D, as well as two
other epigrams not included in Diehl's edition. A summary of this article appears
under the title "Simonides on Stone," Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongressesfiir
Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik, Munchen 1972 (Munich 1973) 427-29.
Mention should also be made that the epigrams of Simonides, as well as those at-
tributed to several other poets included in this survey, can now be conveniently found
in D. L. Page, Epigrammata Graeca (Oxford 1975).
See also (15), (29), (64), (446), (447), (541).
I. BACCHYLIDES
441. H. Kriegler, Untersuchungen zu den optischen und akustischen Daten der

bacchylidischen Dichtung (Vienna 1969). Pp. 256
442. H. Maehler, Bacchylidis carmina cumfragmentis (Leipzig 1970). Pp. lxiii,
172
443. H. Machler, Bakchylides, Lieder und Fragmente (Berlin 1968). Pp. 160
444. 0. Werner (see 418)
For an accurate assessment of KRIEGLER's dissertation (441) see Innes' review in

CR 22 (1972) 15-16. Except for some minor alterations the main change in
MAEHLER's (442) Teubner edition from Snell's is the addition of a few tattered
papyrus fragments. MAEHLER (443) has also printed a text (with modified ap-
paratus) and German translation.
445. M. Balasch, "Las ideas religiosas de Baquilides," BIEH 5 (1971) 3-12
446. 22 (1971) 369-
M. Balasch. "La teoria poetica de Baquilides." Helniicanitica
86
447. M. Balasch, "La concepci6n del hombre en Baquilides," BIEH 6 (1972) 35-
46
448. N. G. Bouras, "To epitheton para Bakchylide'i,"Platon 19 (1967)118-30
449. W. M. Calder III and J. Stern (see 496)
450. J. Duchemin, "L'usage compare du mythe chez Bacchylide et chez Pin-
dare," Bollettino dell' Istituto di Filologia Greca 1 (1974) 180-93. I have not seen this.
450a. J. Endzelins, "De dialecto et clocutione Bacchylidis. Pars I de dialecto."
Darbu Izlase I (Riga 1971) 44-79
451. R. Merkelbach, "Pionische Strophen bei Pindar und Bakchylides," ZPE
12 (1973) 45-55
452. C. 0. Pavese, "Gli epinici di Bacchilide," AIV 132 (1973-74) 299-328
453. R. F. Renehan (see 527)
454. M. Tselios, "Symbole eis ten apokatastasin tou keimenou poiematon tou
Bakchylidou, " Platon 21 (1969) 96-112
455. M. Tselios, "Bakchylideia,"Platon 23 (1971) 215-28
456. M. Tselios, "Bakchylideia,"Platon 24 (1972) 313-25
BALASCH (445) analyses a number of passages in Bacchylides which illustrate his

religious outlook. Some of his conclusions are that the function of daimon is
analogous to that of aisa, Bacchylides did not believe in the Olympian gods, and the
remains of his poetry do not reveal a consistent or unified concept concerning religion.
In his second article (446) BALASCH examines passages in Bacchylides which reveal
his concept of poetry and he compares his views with those of other poets, especially
Simonides and Pindar. In his third (447) he compares Bacchylides' concept of man
with that of other Greek poets, especially Simonides. and concludes that, although the
similarities between uncle and nephew are striking, "Baquilides elabora un concepto
de hombre mias completo que el de Sim6nides." In fact "la visi6n baquilidea del
hombre es. . . una visi6n total.' BOURAS (448) lists the epithets found in Bac-
chylides according to the kinds of words modified, their apparent coinage by Bac-
chylides, their morphology, the frequency of certain types of compounds, and their
position (478 precede the noun modified and 157 follow). See also Tselios' review of
this article in Platon 21 (1969) 323-26. ENDZELINS' study (450a) of Bacchylides'
dialect was actually written in 1898, but it was not published until his Ausgewahlte
Werke (this forms a second title page) appeared in 1971. In spite of the date of
composition his study, which concentrates on "De sonorum proprietatibus" and "De
flexionis proprietatibus," is not completely without value today. A second part on
elocutio seems never to have been written.
MERKELBACH (451) analyses the paeonic rhythm of Pind. 0. 2, fr. 108, and
Bacch. 17. The basic element is the cretic, either of whose longa can be resolved into
two brevia. This in turn can be expanded by the addition of a longum and breve
within, bv two longa and two brevia or by three longa and three brevia. In each case it
will be only the first and last longum that can be resolved. At the beginning and end of
these periods and sometimes between cola there can be a single longum or breve as in
dactylo-epitrites. I find his analysis attractive and convincing. PAVESE (452) extends
the approach to choral poetry described earlier (40) to include an analysis of the
themes and motifs in Bacchylides' epinician odes. TSELIOS (454) supplements the
following passages with either his own conjectures or those of others: 1.1-9; 3.40-44;
9.59-63; 9.77-80; 10.1-8; 10.54-56; 13.157-63; 13.221-27; 15.1-7; 17.97-101; frr. 4;
20A. 25-31; 20D. 1-3. His second article (455) is in two parts. In the first he argues
that fr. 64 is not, by Bacchylides and in the second he discusses problems of text and
interpretation in the following passages: 13.79-83; 13.167; 17.90-91; 17.97-101; 19.28;
28; frr. 4.59-60; 66.13-15; P. Oxy. 2368 (pp. 128-29 Maehler). In his third article (456)
similar probleihs are discussed in 1.174-77; 6; 10.39-47; 20; frr. 4.47-49; 4.52-54;
4.60; 64.21-32.
457. P. T. Brannan. "Bacchylides' Third Ode," CF 27 (1973)187-229

458. C. Segal, "Croesus on the Pyre: Herodotus and Bacchylides," WS 84 (1971)
39-51
459. R. Wind, "Bacchylides and Pindar: A Question of Imitation," CJ67(1971)
9-13
460. L. Woodbury, "Truth and the Song: Bacchylides 3.96-98," Phoenix 23
(1969) 331-35
BRANNAN (457) illustrates the sequence of thought of Ode 3, pointing out the
many cross references. He sees "a two-fold purpose . .. in the ode: praise and
consolation" and argues that gold is the "symbol which neatly unifies the entire
poem." The fact that gold is in the poem both a "real thing having real value" and
also "representative of something else which is not tangible" creates certain dif-
ficulties. "Yet it is this very tension which ultimately binds the ode very tightly
together. For example, the gold tripods are a real manifestation of Hieron's victories
and piety, but at the same time they are symbols of his arete not just as memorials of
his accomplishments but because of their own intrinsic worth. But beyond this as
concrete representations of Hieron's eusebeia they are golden pledges or tokens of his
euphrainein thymon or euphrosyna." SEGAL (458) provides a good analysis of the
different treatment of Croesus by Herodotus and Bacchylides, showing how the latter
concentrates, in the archaic fashion, on the externals, whereas the former "brings out
the inner dimension of the action." "Bacchylides' narrative is god-centered;
Herodotus focuses on man" and there is a tragic quality in his account which is absent
in Bacchylides. WIND (459) compares the proem of 0.1 and Bacch. 3.85ff. and
attempts to show that "Bacchylides has re-shaped the stuff of the Pindaric image into
a different and contrary form, one which fits a different and contrary poem."
WOODBURY (460) argues that in 3.96-98 syn means "by right of' and charin is
adverbial. He translates: "By right of those glories that have been made manifest in
the outcome of the contest there shall be a song of praise (about them), and by grace
also of the honey-voiced nightingale of Ceos."
461. P. T. Brannan, "Bacchylides' Fourth Ode," CF26 (1972)175-84
BRANNAN offers a sound analysis of the text, structure, and meaning of the ode.
In many respects he follows Gallavotti, RFIC 22-23 (1944-45) 1-15 (e.g. the (ll(ktorof
v. 8 is the poet and in v. 14 we should read paresti m1a,,), but in v. 10 he proposes the
attractive change to epeseis' an, thereby explaining both alla more easily and also the
verb in v. 13.
462. P. T. Brannan, "Hieron and Bacchylides," CF26 (1972) 185-278
463. M. R. Lefkowitz, "Bacchylides' Ode 5: Imitation and Originality," HSCP
73 (1968) 45-96
464. A. Bonnafe, "L'Aigledans BacchylideV. 26-30,"ZPE9(1972)35-40
464a. W. J. Verdenius, "Two Notes on Bacchylides V," Mneinos.vne 4.28 (1975)
63
465. M. R. Lefkowitz, "Cultural Conventions and the Persistence of Mistrans-
lation," CJ68 (1972) 31-38 (34-36)
LEFKOWITZ (463) argues that Bacchylides alludes to many passages in earlier
poetry, especially epic, and also "resets and rephrases what he said earlier in the poem
to join together the different aspects of his narrative." These allusions and imitations
are then discussed in great detail. In conclusion she states: "To his contemporaries,
Bacchylides' epic recollections could serve as a kind of metaphorical language, in
which a few words could bring to mind a fuller picture, and comparison could add
new meaning to the poem. Thus brief references to the 'generation of leaves,'
Odysseus' descent to the lower world, Hector's death, and Achilles' meeting with
Priam add vast scope to Meleager's narrative, and repeated recapitulation of the
proem of the Theogony strengthens the impression of man's isolation in the present
world. In short, the very qualities for which Bacchylides has since antiquity been
criticized seem, in Ode 5 at least, to be the most creative and effective aspects of his
art." This is a useful analysis, although many of the associations she finds both with
epic and within the ode itself are too subtle to carry conviction. After a few pages
which discuss the external circumstances of the ode (it is not "a victory ode in the
strict sense at all, but rather a poetic epistle"), the bulk of BRANNAN's article (462)
is devoted to an analysis based largely on echoes and allusions within the ode. Some of
these echoes are useful and aid our understanding of the poem, but many (e.g., that v.
97 is an echo of vv. 1-2) are not convincing. He believes that the myth is "laudatory
and premonitory" and that "Meleager and Heracles are both ideals and models and
also warnings" for Hiero.
BONNAFE (464) argues that etheiran in v. 29 can only mean "crest," not "plumage
(of the wing)," and that since "crest" could not be the object of a verb such as nomao
it must be an accusative of respect. The closest parallel to the meaning which he
postulates for the verb is in Soph. fr. 941.11-12 P. He suggests that Bacchylides' eagle
is the royal or golden eagle which has a yellow crest. His translation runs: "II va,
souverain, dans l'abime sans bornes, et, legere sotns les soutftlesdu Zephyr qu'elle
accompagne, sa criniere. chez les hommes, le fait reconna'tre de loin au premier coup
d'oeil." VERDENIUS (464a) defends met' in 5.30 against Maehler's excision. The
phrase is a "deliberate attempt at combining two ideas: (1) the poet is superior to his
fellow-men, but (2) not foreign to them. Similarly, the eagle is (1) a heavenly being (v.
24ff.), but (2) clearly visible from the earth and therefore in a sense belonging to it."
Then VERDENIUS finds the asyndeton of dynai in 5.56 "awkward" and after
discussing Jebb's kai gar and kai man he suggests kai toi, comparing Pind. L.4.52.
LEFKOWITZ (465) treats primarily Bacch. 5.63-67, Pind. P. 2.86, and Aesch. P. V.
901-06. She argues that Jebb's translation (followed by most others) is wrong because
it gives a quantitative force to hoi(J and suggests that the leaves are on the trees. In
Bacchylides, the leaves are on the ground, swirling around the headlands of Ida, a
better simile for the dead than leaves on a tree.
466. G. W. Pieper, "The Prooemium of Bacchylides' Ode 7," GRBS 10 (1969)

229-34
467. M. Marcovich, "Bacchylides' Ode 7 Again," GRBS 11(1970)181-84
PIEPER attempts to refute earlier identifications of the deity invoked at the
beginning of Ode 7 and argues for Hecate, comparing Hes. Theog. 435-38, Bacch. fr.
IB. and the link between the full moon and the Olympic games. MARCOVICH
rejects PIEPER's identification on the grounds that Chronos is nowhere given as the
father of Hecate and that there is no point in comparing lipara in v. 1 with HDem 25.
He supports the common identification with Hemera, quoting Hes. Theog. 124 and
Eur. Suippl. 787-88 for the genealogy. "Ode 7 is a precious piece of evidence for the
crowning of the winning athletes on the last (sixteenth) day of the Olympic games."
468. R. Merkelbach. "Bakchylides auf einen Sieger in den HWne,rasiazu

Lousoi," ZPE 11 (1973) 257-60
469. M. G. Tselios, "Myke^naikosapoikismos eis tin N. Italian," Platon 21
(1969) 308-09
470. R. Merkelbach, "Bakchvlides 13. 205 und 59." ZPE 12 (1973) 90-91
MERKELBACH (468) argues that w. 37-39 of Ode 11 should be understood to
mean that Alexidamos won in the He^nerasia in honour of Artemis at Lousoi in
Arcadia. The myth of the Proetides is related in order to explain the worship of
Artemis there (cf. vv. 40-42 and 110-12 which introduce and conclude the myth) and
only in this way does the myth have proper relevance. Whoever wrote the title for the
ode was misled by v. 13 which in fact refers to an earlier victory won at the Pythian
games. TSELIOS (469) notes that the discovery of a cemetery near Tarentum dating
to the 11th century confirms the hypothesis of a Mycenaean colonization of southern
Italy and shows that Bacchylides in Ode 11.113-23 was following a tradition which
had a historical foundation. On the basis of 3.94-98, 5.187-90, 8.20, and 9.79-87
MERKELBACH (470) argues for the accusative nikan in Ode 13.205 rather than the
genitive plural and suggests that we should capitalize alatheia, nikan, and chronos. In
v. 59 he supplements with Nika rather than Nikas, treating anthea as an "Accusativus
Graecus" after the participle. It is not so much the flowers that secure fame for the
victor as Nike, the goddess of victory.
470a. B. Gentili, "Problemi di metrica, II: Il carme 17 Snell di Bacchilide" in
Serta Turyniana. Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeography in honor of
Alexander Turyn (Urbana 1974) 86-100
471. G. W. Pieper, "Conflict of character in Bacchylides' Ode 17," TAPA 103
(1972) 395-404
472. E. Scholz-Wust (see 604, pp. 72-79)
473. J. Stern, "The Structure of Bacchylides' Ode 17," RBPh 45 (1967) 40-47
474. E. Wiust, "Der Ring des Minos. Zur Mythenbehandlung bei Bakchylides,"
Hermes 96 (1968) 527-38
GENTILI (470a) proposes a new colometry and metrical analysis which show that
the similarity between the metre of Bacch. 17 and Pind. 0.2 is not as close as Maas
postulated and which enable us to retain the text of the papyrus in vv. 38, 72 and 91.
PIEPER (471) attempts to show how "through a well-developed series of epithets,
verbal repetitions, and images, he [i.e. Bacch.] juxtaposes the heroes physically,
emotionally, and morally." Special attention is given to images involving the erotic,
the sea, and darkness and light. While her general thesis is correct, the attempt to
find allusions is sometimes carried to extremes (for example,"chalkothorax refers to
protective armor, and it is as protector of the Athenian youths that Theseus heeds
Eriboia's cry"). STERN (473) points out that the first half of Ode 17 is "bombastic,
virile, and overly-heroic," the second "winsome, feminine, and lyrical in tone," and
feels that "the second part of the ode clearly represents a verbal reaction against the
first part." This "reaction" is shown in two ways: "Poseidon is invoked by the hero,
but Amphitrite is not because the male parent is suggestive of the overly-extended,
violent part of the ode which the poet has, by the second part of his poem, left behind,
while the female parent is needed to complement the lightness of that second part"
and "similarly, the ring is ignored at the end of the poem because it has become a
symbol of that episode which Bacchylides desires to contrast with his picture of
Amphitrite and her nymphs beneath the sea." WUST (474), in an article not always
easy to follow, discusses Bacchylides' independent treatment of myth in Ode 17 and
the use made of Bacchylides' version by later poets.
475. R. Merkelbach. "Der Theseus des Bakchvlides (Gedicht fuirein attisches

Ephebenfest)," ZPE 12 (1973) 56-62
476. R. Wind, "Myth and History in Bacchylides Ode 18," Hermes 100 (1972)
511-23
477. R. Fuhrer, "Zu P. Ox. XXXII (1967), p. 160: addendum to 2364 (Bacch.
Dith.)." Maia 21 (1969) 83-85
478. R. Merkelbach, "Bakchylides Fr. 4, 45," ZPE 12 (1973) 44
MERKELBACH (475) convincingly argues that the occasion of Ode 18 is some
ephebic festival and he shows how the depiction of Theseus reveals him as a "Prototyp
des attischen Epheben." Similarly much of what the chorus says is better understood
if we think of them as representing ephebi. WIND's (476) overly-subtle analysis is
proved invalid by MERKELBACH's article, although it was too recent for him to
have referred to it. FUHRER (477) finds responsion in Ode 28 Maehler. In fr. 4.45
MERKELBACH (478) reads t'amphyll(a), with something like dendrea understood.
Enphvllos instead of emphvllos is simply a "graphische Variante" such as often ap-
pears in inscriptions.
See also (5), (14), (15), (29), 30), (37a), (47), (228), (378), (382), 391), (Slia), (515),
(548), (555), (566a), (699).
J. CORINNA
479. A. Allen and J. Frel, "A Date for Corinna," CJ68 (1972) 26-30
480. L. Lehnus, "Una glossa pindarica in Corinna di Tanagra," RIL 107 (1973)
393-422
481. K. I. Merentitis, Myrtis kaiKorinna (Athens 1970). Pp. 33
482. M. L. West, "Corinna," CQ 20 (1970) 277-87
ALLEN (479) argues on external grounds that Corinna must have been a con-
temporary of Pindar in view of the unanimous tradition of antiquity and finds alleged
instances of lateness in her language unconvincing. FREL discusses the
iconographical evidence and seems to defend a 5th century date also. The 4th century
portrait by Silanion is simply an "ideal" one. LEHNUS (480), in a very learned article,
examines the scholium on Arist. Ach. 720 which attests that Corinna (fr. 35) criticized
Pindar (fr. 94d) for using the Attic verb agorazein. He discusses the textual problems,
the meanings of agorazein, the source of the gloss, and the evidence which the
fragment provides for the date of Corinna. He argues that the reference to the first of
Pindar's Partheneia signifies the first poem in the first book of the Partheneia, that
the gloss probably goes back to Phrynichus, and that a Hellenistic date is to be
preferred for Corinna. MERENTITIS' pamphlet (481) can safely be ignored. He
seems totally unaware of the controversy over the date of Corinna and writes as
though both Myrtis and Corinna were unquestionably Pindar's contemporaries. After
an uncritical recording of the testimonia pertaining to both poetesses, he devotes
thirteen pages to a discussion of Pindar's myths in the light of Corinna's famous
reproof and three pages to an assessment of Pindar's indebtedness to Hesiod. WEST
(482) writes an important article which argues on various grounds for a 3rd century
date for Corinna. The fragments classed as "Boeotica incerti auctoris" by Page are
assigned by WEST to Corinna.
See also (46).
K. MELICI MINORES, CARMINA CONVIVIALIA, FRAGMENTA
ADESPOTA
483a. E. Livrea, "Telestes Fr. 805 (= 1). C. 2 Page," RhM 118 (1975) 189-90
484. H. Lloyd-Jones, "Melanippides Fr. 1.1-2 (Page PMG 757)," Philologus 112
(1968) 119
485a. G. G. Brussich, "La lingua di Timoteo," QTLCG 1(1970)51-80. I have not
seen this.
486. D. Korzeniewski, "Die Binnenresponsion in den Persern des Timotheos,"
Phioloogus 118 (1974) 22-39
486a. R. Merkelbach, Kritische Beitrage Zu anitikei Aitor-e (Meisenheim 1974)

28-29. On Timocreon fr. 3.
GIANGRANDE (483) argues that in Castorion, fr. 1, epiomorphos should not be
emended, since "benign-faced" is supported by Athenaeus who says that Demetrius
"wanted to be hilaros in appearance and to seem hedys to those who met him."
LIVREA (483a) accepts Bergk's aeroen in fr. 805c.2, but disagrees with the way it has
been translated. He provides parallels in support of his view that the word is a
synonym of ligu or lepton. In v. 1 of Melanipp. fr. 1 LLOYD-JONES (484) reads
momphan oneidos, translating: "For they did not sustain (i.e. regard) the censure of
men as a reproach," and in v. 2 he suggests alkan. GIANGRANDE (485) maintains
that the only emendation required is in v. 1 and he reads morphan oneidos, with
oneidos ("object of shame") in apposition and governing the genitive. The first two
verses mean that the Danaides had neither a white complexion nor the same rosy
complexion that women have. In v. 3 asdea means "dry places" and for the lacuna in
v. 5 a verb meaning "they inspected" would give appropriate sense. Finally phoinikas
means "palm-trees," not "dates," as Athenaeus states, and pateusai governs termata.
487. M. L. W. Eggheider, "Die Wahrheltserkenntnis des Pythermos. Eine

Denkproblemuntersuchung," ZPE 3 (1968) 255-56
487a. G. Giangrande, "Le danse des dauphins chez Arion et chez Anacreon,"
RPh 48 (1974) 308-309
488. D. L. Page, "The Song of Hybrias the Cretan," PCPhS 191 (1965) 62-65
EGGHEIDER (487) writes ou den rather than ouden in Carm. Conv. 27, punc-
tuates as a question, and translates: "Ist also das Ichts nicht das Andere, was nicht
Gold ist?" GIANGRANDE (487a) defends choreuontes in v. 15 of Arion (fr. 939
PMG) by comparing Anacreontea 55.23f. V. 15 signifies "me faisant danser au
moyen de vos dos," and the poet means that the dolphins, "qui dansaient eux-
memes .... communiquaient leur mouvement de danse au poete qui se trouvait sur
leurs dos." PAGE (488) analyses the text, metre, dialect, and contents of Carm. Conv.
26 and tentatively assigns it to the 5th century.
489. F. J. Cuartero, "Estudios sobre el escolio atico," BIEH 1 (1967) 5-38
490. M. Van der Valk, "On the Composition of the Attic Skolia," Hermes 102
(1974) 1-20
CUARTERO discusses the meaning of the word skolion, the origin and
arrangement of the Scolia preserved in Athenaeus 694c-695f, and their metres, and
provides an analysis of the Scolia grouped according to their supposed connection
with the Pisistratidae, Alcmeonidae, the party of Miltiades, and two which do not fit
any of these categories (numbers 8 and 9). VAN DER VALK maintains that the Scolia
were "arranged according to a definite pattern." I find his arguments unconvincing,
but he has useful comments on how the Scolia reflect "the mood, the hopes and the
wishes of the guests." He seems unaware of CUARTERO's article.
491. P. Berrettoni, "Per una lettura linguistica di un frammento di poesia
eolica," SCO 19-20 (1970-71) 254-69
492. D. Clay, "Fragmentum Adespotum 976," TAPA 101 (1970)119-29
493. H. Hoffmann-Loss, "Die Bedeutung von ora in Dedyke men a selanna,"
Mnemosyne 4.21 (1968) 347-56
BERRETTONI (491) concentrates on the temporal aspects of fr. adesp. 58 and
states that v. 3 provides a transition from the objective to the subjective part. He feels
that 6ra means either "youth" or "time of night." His analysis of the fragment is
primarily linguistic rather than literary. CLAY (492) argues eloquently that the four
main reasons against attributing fr. adesp. 58 to Sappho (metre, dialect, thought, and
the fact that Hephaestion cites the verses anonymously) are not convincing. Less
satisfactory, however, is his view that the poet is conceiving of Selene as sinking into
the sea to join Endymion and that all three examples of de indicate a contrast.
HOFFMANN-LOSS (493) gives an excellent account of the shades of meaning which
the word h6ra can have and argues that here the meaning is "hour," but in the sense
of the English "in the hour of danger" rather than an hour of sixty minutes. "The
hour passes" would be an accurate translation of the Greek in v. 3.
See also (9), (46), (49), (356).
VII. PINDAR
494. H. Maehler, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis. Pars I. Epinicia. Post B.
Snell (Leipzig 1971). Pp. xi, 191. (Pars II, containing the fragments and indices,
appeared in 1975, but I was not able to examine it in time to provide any comments on
it.)
495. G. Calvani, "Note a due papiri pindarici (P. Berol. 13419 e P. Oxy. 2451),"
SCO 21 (1972) 113-21
MAEHLER's Teubner text differs only slightly from Snell's last edition. Most of
CALVANI's article is devoted to a reconstruction of P. Berol. 13419 which contains a
badly mutilated scholium on P. 2.17. In the course of this she argues that it correctly
supports Spiegel's emendation poinimos. She suggests that the first two lines of P.
Oxy. 2451, fr. 4a, col. ii refer to the end of I. 6, not I. 7 as Lobel thought.
496. W. M. Calder III and J. Stern (edd.), Pindaros und Bakchylides (Darmstadt
1970). Pp. 431
497. D. E. Gerber, A Bibliography of Pindar, 1513-1966 (Cleveland 1969). Pp.
xv, 160
498. A. M. Komornicka, "Tworczosc Pindara w swietle badan ostatniego
piecdziesieciolecia," Meander 25 (1970) 375-92
499. M. Rico, Ensayo de bibliografia pindarica (Madrid 1969). Pp. ix, 354
500. L. E. Rossi, "Rileggendo due opere di Wilamowitz: Pindaros e Griechische
Verskunst," ASNP 3.3 (1973) 119-45
501. W. J. Slater,Lexicon toPindar(Berlin 1969). Pp. 563
501a. E. Thummer, "Pindaros, 3. Bericht. Umfassend die Jahre 1967-1972,"
AAHG 17 (1974) 1-34
CALDER and STERN (496) have selected ten articles on Pindar and seven on
Bacchylides and STERN has contributed "An Essay on Bacchylidean Criticism" to
balance admirably David Young's "Pindaric Criticism." Unlike previous volumes in
the Wege der Forschung series, no articles are translated into German. GERBER
(497) and RICO (499) published bibliographies of Pindar in the same year. For a
comparative assessment see Willcock's review in CR 21 (1971) 16-17 and 22 (1972)
101-02. KOMORNICKA (498) surveys Pindaric scholarship over the preceding fifty
years. Although she concentrates on recent publications, she also includes older
stucdiesbv wav of introduction or comparison. The larger portion of ROSSI's article
(500) is devoted to an assessment of the methodology used bv Wilanioxwitzin his
Piudcloam-s hich this methodology has with that of both earliel
anldto the relationlshipwN
anld later Pindarists. SLATER's (501) lexicon is a model of accuracy, com-
prehensiveness. and scholarship. and will long remain an invaluable tool for all
stucdenltsof Pindar.
502. C. M. Bowra, The Odes of Pindar, translated with an introduction (Har-

mondsworth 1969). Pp. 256
503. G. S. Conway, The Odes of Pindar, translated into English Verse (London
1972). Pp. xxxi, 268
504. R. A. Swanson, Pindar's Odes, translated, with Preface, Introduction, and
Notes (Indianapolis 1974). Pp. lvii, 358
505. 0. Werner, Pindar, Siegesgesange undFragmente, Griechisch und deutsch
herausgegeben und ubersetzt (Munich 1967). Pp. 571
Of the three English translations I find that by CONWAY particularly attractive,
allthoughSWANSON's book, because of the long introduction and the notes, would
be the most useful for teaching Pindar in translation. WERNER prints many of his
own supplements for the lacunae in the fragments.
506. G. Arrighetti, "La biografia di Pindaro del Papiro di Ossirinco XXVI
2438," SCO 16 (1967) 129-48
507. I. Cazzaniga, "Due contributi filologici. I. L'elenco degli scritti pindarici in
Orazio C. IV.2, ed in P. Oxy. 2438," SCO 19-20 (1970-71) 5-8
508. 1. Gallo, Uia ntov,a biogrcfla diPiuidaro (P. Oxv. 2438). Introduzione, testo
critico e commentario (Salerno 1968). Pp. 89
509. I. Gallo, "Gli skolia di Pindaro. Nota critica al catalogo pindarico del
Papiro di Ossirinco XXVI 2438," QUCC8 (1969) 105-12
510. I. Gallo, "Nota alla Vita di Pindaro del Papiro di Osserinco 2438: Archia o
Ipparco," QUCC8 (1969) 113-15
511. I. Gallo, "Un nuovo frammento di Cameleonte e il problema della biografia
'grammaticale' alessandrina," Vichiana n.s. 2 (1973) 241-46
51la. M. R. Lefkowitz, "Pindar's Lives" in Classica et Iberica. A Festschrift in
Honor oqttheReverend Joseph M. -F. Marique, S.J. (Worcester 1975) 71-93
In 1961 Lobel published P. Oxy. 2438 which contains 47 lines, in part reasonably
well preserved, of a hitherto unknown Life of Pindar. On the methodology used by its
aLithor,see E. G. Turner, Greek Pajivri (Princeton 1968) 104-106. ARRIGHETTI
(506) provides a detailed and sound study of this new Vita and of its position in the
biographical tradition on Pindar. CAZZANIGA (507) writes a highly speculative
article on the relationship between the classification of Pindar's poetry as this appears
in Horace, Odes 4.2, and the new Vita. GALLO (508) provides a text with apparatus,
translation, commentary, and introductory chapters entitled "II bios di Ossirinco
nella tradizione biografica di Pindaro" and "La classificazione delle poesie di Pindaro
nelle biografie antiche." In his preface he informs the reader that he is preparing a
critical edition with commentary of all the Lives of Pindar. In his first article (509)
GALLO discusses the evidence for the division of Pindar's works into 17 books and
concludes that the author of the new Vita erred in speaking of only one book of
Hyporchemes. He supplements the end of line 38 to include a reference to Scolia
which were here included among the Encomia. In his second (510) GALLO gives
additional reasons for concurring with D. M. Lewis (CR12 [1962] 201) that we should
not emend the reference to Archias in the Vita to Hipparchus. GALLO's third article
(511) is of more importance for Chamaeleon than for Pindar. LEFKOWITZ (51la)
expands the approach taken in her treatment of the scholia on P. 8 (623b) to include
the portrayal of Pindar as found both in the ancient scholia and in modern
scholarship. She rightly deplores the "fantasy world" that frequently emerges from
attempts to find biographical information in his poetry and is equally critical of those
who see Pindar only as a "computer technician" skilled in making "the right
demands on the material stored in his memory bank." Instead, the safest approach is
to see "in certain characteristic concerns and expressions a record, if not of events, at
least of attitudes." Some perceptive comparisons are also drawn between Pindar and
Bacchylides.
512. P. A. Bernardini, "Linguaggio e programma poetico in Pindaro," QUCC4
(1967)80-97
512a. D. S. Carne-Ross, "Three Preludes for Pindar," Arion n.s. 2(1975)160-93.
Mostly on aspects of 0. 14 and P. 10.
513. E. Fraenkel, "Pindaro senza lacrime," Belfagor 27 (1972) 78-96
514. J. Garcia Lopez, "Los 'Prooimia' y Preludios en los epinicios de Pindaro,"
Emerita 38 (1970) 393-415
514a. G. F. Gianotti, Per una poetica pindarica (Turin 1975). Pp. 155. I have not
seen this.
515. R. Hamilton, Epinikion. General Form in the Odes of Pindar (The Hague
1974). Pp. VIII, 126
515a. J. Peron, Les images maritimes de Pindare (Paris 1974). Pp. 358
516. C. A. P. Ruck and W. H. Matheson, Pindar: Selected Odes. Translated,
with Interpretive Essays (Ann Arbor 1968). Pp. 269
517. E. Salvaneschi, "La critica pindarica di D. C. Young. Problemi e
suggerimenti di metodo," PP 27 (1972) 426-37
518. M. Simpson, "The Chariot and the Bow as Metaphors for Poetry in Pin-
dar's Odes," TAPA 100 (1969) 437-73
519. D. C. Young, Three Odes of Pindar. A Literary Study of Pythian 11,
Pythian 3, and Olympian 7 (Leiden 1968). Pp. XI, 133
BERNARDINI (512) ably illustrates that in Pindar's concept of poetry there is

combined the traditional view of the poet's indebtedness to the Muses with a new
awareness of the poet's own active role in shaping the material suggested by the
Muses. The article concludes with an appendix listing 33 passages "in which are
enunciated the norms which the poet intends to follow in the composition of his
odes." R. Roncali has edited FRAENKEL's (513)lecture notes delivered at Bari in
1967 on selected passages in 0.14, P.1, 3, 9, 11, N.1, and fr. 122. GARCIA LOPEZ
(514) first analyses the structure of Pindar's nine shortest odes and then compares this
structure with that of the opening sections of the remaining odes. In most instances he
finds the same tripartite scheme and from a rapid survey of other early authors he
concludes that this same scheme is the basis of all types of composition in archaic
Greek poetry. HAMILTON's book (515) does not make exhilarating reading and its
usefulness is seriously impaired by the lack of an index locorum, but it is the first
detailed study of the nature, position, length etc. of the parts that make up an
epinician ode and deserves the careful attention of all Pindarists. Bacchylides'
practice is also compared and in three appendices a variety of topics are touched
upon, e.g., "'I' in Pindar,""Bundy's Olympian Eleven," "Form within Gnomic
Clusters," "Victory Data," and "Isthmian Three" (not to be joined to I.4).
PERON's superbly documented study (515a) of maritime imargery is a valuable
contribution not only to Pindaric scholarship, but also to our understanding of this
imagery in early Greek literature in general. RUCK and MATHESON (516) translate
and analyse 0. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, P.1-4, 8, 9, 12, N. 3, 6, 7, I. 5, 6, and 8.
Their translations are occasionally excellent, generally adequate, sometimes
grotesque. The interpretive essays are often original, but in several instances do not
carry conviction and their style at times borders on the unintelligible. For a good
assessment of both aspects see Willcock's review in CR 21 (1971) 13-15. SIMPSON
(518) finds "ten metaphors of the chariot and nine of the bow" used by Pindar as
images for poetry and seeks to determine, by examining a representative selection,
how these figures reveal his concept of poetry. YOUNG's (519) analysis of three odes
reveals the best features of Bundy's approach to Pindar. He has clearly proved that
there are no historical allusions in P.11 and his argument that vv. 1-76 of P.3 serve as
an elaborate recusatio is convincing, but his imagistic interpretation of 0. 7 is hardly
supported by the language of the ode. In two appendices the theme of the near and
the far is illustrated from a variety of authors and the structure of 0. 1 is outlined.
SALVANESCHI's (517) review article is more a study of the methodology used by
YOUNG in his two books (519 and 669) than a critical assessment of his analyses of
the four odes treated. YOUNG's approach to Pindar is rightly said to differ from
BuLnldy's in that he is not an "eversore della tradizione precedente. La sua posizione si
pub definire conciliativa in genere. perch' coglie volta per volta il nucleo di validita
che pluosussistere nelle varie teorie."
520. A. Ardizzoni, "Note sul testo di Pindaro," GIF 26(1974)252-62

521. M. Casevitz, "Notes sur la langue de Pindare" in Melanges de linguistique
de philologie grecques offerts a Pierre Chantraine (Paris 1972) 23-26
522. N. S. Grinbaum, "Les textes creto-myceniens et la langue de la poesie
lyrique chorale grecque (Pindare)" in Studia Mycenaea. Proceedings of the
Mycenaean Symposium, Brno, April 1966 (Brno 1968) 75-86. In Russian with
summary in French.
523. N. S. Grinbaum, "The Language of Pindar and the Inscriptions of Crete,"
StudClas 11 (1969) 31-38. In Russian.
524. N. S. Grinbaum, "The Language of Pindar and the Inscriptions of Crete,"
Acta Conventus XI "Eirene" (Wroclaw 1971) 575-84. In Russian.
525. S. A. Kosmas, Kephalaia apo ten chre'se tou epithetou ston Pindaro
(Thessaloniki 1970). Pp. XX, 175
526. L. Pearson, "Catalexis and Anreps in Pindar: A Search for Rhythmical
Logic," GRBS 15 (1974)171-91
527. R. F. Renehan, "Conscious Ambiguities in Pindar and Bacchylides,"
GRBS 10 (1969) 217-28
528. P. Schurch, Zur WortresponsionbeiPindar (Bern 1971). Pp. 104
529. W. J. Slater, "Futures in Pindar," CQ 19 (1969) 86-94
530. W. Stockert, Klangfiguren und Wortresponsionen bei Pindar (Vienna
1969). Pp. 117
530a. A. Tovar, "Boeotian and Other Linguistic Influences on Pindar" in Serta
Turyniana. Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeography in honor of Alexander
Turyn (Urbana 1974) 51-61
531. C. Verdier, Les eolismes non-epiques de la langue de Pindare (Innsbruck
1972). Pp. 144
ARDIZZONI (520) writes notes on P.3.27-29, 4.17-18, 57, 105-108, L.4.90, and fr.
124ab. 1-4. CASEVITZ (521) points out that Pindar not only avoids Boeotian forms,
but what has not been sufficiently emphasized, that he also avoids forms which were
common to both Doric and Boeotian. KOSMAS' book (525) contains four chapters,
"The adjective with abstract nouns," "Hapax legomena adjectives in Pindar," "The
semasiological content of Pindar's adjectives," and "The use of poetic expressions
with the adjective." Although mere lists comprise a large portion of the study, she also
includes non-Pindaric passages where the adjective in question appears and this is
particularly useful. A second volume on the same topic is being prepared. For an
accurate assessment see Innes' review in CR 23 (1973) 84-85. PEARSON (526) rejects
the standard view that in the dactylo-epitrite metre we can analyse the epitrite as a
cretic followed by a syllaba anceps. He considers "the whole notion of syllabae an-
cipites . . . alien to rhythmical theory" and after an examination of numerous
p)assagesin tragedy and Pindar concludes that neither epitrite nor syllaba alCeC)s is a
legitimate term. "One can now say that the rhythm uses spondees, dactyls, and
trochees, and that the trochee differs from the other two not in megethos but only in
logos or arithmos. And at suitable places there will be catalexis, when the singer is
silent for one or more chronoi, recovering his breath while his feet continue to move."
RENEHAN (527) rightly notes that in Pindar and Bacchylides we sometimes find
"the deliberate selection of one word intended to convey simultaneously several
meanings" and he illustrates this by an examination of 0.8.25 and 71 (dyspales and
antipalon), 0.1.8 (polyphatos), 0.2.45 and 6.69 (thalos), N.9.28 (Phoinikostol6n),
I.3/4.29 (eschataisin), fr. 52f.129 (rhothia), Bacch. 17.89 (hodon), and 16.32
(kalymma). For a good critical review of SCHURCH's (528) book, see Slater, Gnomon
45 (1973) 490-92, who rightly states that SCHURCH's "criteria for defining the
problem are inadequate" and that his solutions are often subjective. SLATER (529)
has written an important article on Pindar's use of the future and of future-
equivalents, with special attention devoted to 0.6.87-92, N. 7.102-03, and the methods
Pindar uses to address himself. STOCKERT's dissertation (530) contains chapters on
alliteration, rhyme, anaphora, repetition involving identical words, repetition in-
volving synonymous or nearly synonymous expressions, assonance, and metrical
analyses of 0.4, 10, 13, P.6, 7, 11, N.2, 4, and L.8. For the most part there is little
critical evaluation, but it is useful to have the examples collected. TOVAR (530a)
examines Boeotian and Attic influences on Pindar's language, seeing him as
representing a transitional stage in the history of the Greek language. VERDIER's
book (531) consists of six chapters, "Le probleme phonetique," Moisa-Mousa and
similar words, participles in -oisa, accusatives in -ais and -ois, third person plurals in
-oisi(n), and aorist participles in -ais. At the end there are useful tables which list all
the words in Pindar which fall under the categories mentioned above, the manuscript
readings and the names of editors who have emended to the Aeolic form. The degree
to which the Aeolic forms in question seem to have been used in other lyric poets is
also discussed.
532. J. Ducheniin. "Pindare et la Sicile: retlexions sur quelques themes

mythiques" in Honmmnages() Marie Delcourt (Brussels 1970) 79-91
532a. J. Duchemin (see 450)
533. M. A. Grant, Folktale and Hero-Tale Motifs in the Odes of Pindar
(Lawrence 1967). Pp. 172
534. A. Guzzo, "Gli eroi, rievocati da Pindaro," Filosofla 22 (1971) 199-206
534a. G. Huxley, Pindar's Vision of the Past (Belfast 1975). Pp. 50
535. A. K6hnken, Die Funktion des Mythos bei Pindar. Interpretationen zu
sechs Pindargedichten (Berlin 1971). Pp. 247
536. A. Moraglia, "L'oltre tomba in Pindaro." RSC 16 (1968) 107-14
537. T. Oksala, " 'Polymythia' in Pindars Aiginetan-Oden," Arctos n.s. 7 (1972)
93- 105
538. G. Pini, "Correzionidi miti in Pindaro," Vichiana 4 (1967) 339-82
539. P. Vivante, "On Myth and Action in Pindar," Arethusa 4 (1971) 119-35
DUCHEMIN (532) gives a subjective and biographical interpretation of several
odes (primarily 0.1, 2, and P.1, 2) which she connects with Pindar's visit to Sicily.
Although she may be right in arguing that the "themes concernant l'au-dela illustres
par le poete le sont avec predilection dans les Odes siciliennes" and that these themes
were emphasized becauiseof the importance in which "crovances a la retribution des
nierites dans un monde d'outre-tombe" were held in Sicily, much of the article,
especially the section on P.2, assumes as fact what is by no means certain. GRANT's
book (533) contains a useful classification of Pindar's mythical motifs and a com-
parison of them with the folklore motifs of other races, primarily North American
Indians, but there is little critical analysis and our understanding of Pindar's use of
myth is seldom enhanced. GUZZO (534) is little more than a paraphrase of Pindar's
treatment of Heracles, Aeacus, Peleus, and Achilles, with some commentary on how
Pindar's depiction differs from Homer's and how Pindar saw in athletic victories a
"continuity of the Hellenic virtues" exemplified in the lives and exploits of the heroes.
HUXLEY (534a) in three chapters entitled "On Interpreting Pindar," "The Editorial
Poet," and "The Poet's Perception of History," is generally successful in showing how
Pindar's "belief in the Olympian religion prompted him to interpret the present in the
light of his inherited knowledge of the past and also piously to purify tradition so as to
endow it, in his opinion, with the truth of history."
KOHNKEN's book (535) is an analysis of Pindar's use of myth in P. 10, 12, N.4, 7,
8, and L.4. This is an extremely important contribution to Pindaric studies and one
whose value extends beyond the mythical portions of the odes examined. For an
accurate assessment see Willcock's review in CR 24 (1974) 191-96. Radt's long review
in Gnomon 46 (1974) 113-21 is unduly harsh. MORAGLIA (536) discusses first the
views of Pindar's predecessors concerning life after death and then those of Pindar,
with particular reference to 0.2. The treatment is rather superficial. OKSALA (537),
in an uncritical and rather summary manner, discusses the different aspects of the
myths of the Aeacidae which Pindar treats in his eleven Aeginetan odes. PINI (538)
examines a large number of passages where Pindar explicitly or implicitly corrects the
traditional version of the myth concerned. VIVANTE's article (539) deals with the
"mythical representation of action" in Pindar, especially in P.4. He argues that
Pindar was more concerned with "the wholeness, the culmination of achievement"
than with a narrative account of it. "For Pindar the action is far more important than
its actors, it is a divine fulfillment taking place outside the domain of individual
responsibilities."
540. J. Defradas, "Pindare, poete delphique," IL 21 (1969) 127-34

541. J. H. Finley, Jr., "Pindar's Beginnings" in The Poetic Tradition. Essays in
Greek, Latin, and English Poetry, edited by D. C. Allen and H. T. Rowell (Baltimore
1968) 3-26
542. M. I. Finley, "Silver Tongue" in Aspects of Antiquity. Discoveries and
Controversies(London 1968) 38-43
543. A. M. Komornicka, "Quelques remarques sur la notion d'alatheia et de
pseudos chez Pindare," Eos 60 (1972) 235-53
543a. G. Kurz, "Humor bei Pindar?" in Musa iocosa. Arbeiten uberHumor und
Witz, Komik und Komodie der Antike. Andreas Thierfelder zum 70. Geburtstag am
15.6.73 (Hildesheim 1974) 3-25
544. G. Marzi, "Pindaro e la musica," Vichiana n.s. 1(1972) 207-19
545. W. Mullen. "Place in Pindar.,"Arioi 6(1967)462-91
546. A. Ortega, "Poesia y verdad en Pindaro,"Helmantica 21 (1970) 353-72
546a. H. J. Padr6n, "Pindaro. Notas al tema del hombre y el tiempo," Actas del
primer simposio nacional de estudios cl6sicos, mayo 1970 (Mendoza 1972) 211-16. I
have not seen this.
547. A. Ruiz Diaz, "La dignidad del poeta segun Pindaro," REC 13 (1969)103-
28
548. A. Szastynska-Siemion, "Le ponos du sportif dans l'epinice grec," Acta
ConvetntusXI "Eirene" (Wroclaw 1971) 81-85
549. P. Vivante, "On Time in Pindar," Arethusa 5 (1972) 107-31
The purpose of DEFRADAS' article (540) is to illustrate the extent to which Pindar
acted as a spokesman of Delphic ideology and defended the Delphic point of view.
FINLEY (541), firmly adhering to the historical and biographical school, gives his
assessment of Pindar's indebtedness to Theognis and Simonides and of Pindar's style,
religion and general outlook on life. Some idea of FINLEY's approach can be gained
from the following quotation: "For lack of any such stirring impulse as the Persian
invasion, he might, one imagines, have relaxed his unifying grip to let his poems sink
back again toward the mood of P. 10 and 6, bright enhancements of festive occasions.
As it was, the novelty-and surely to some degree the shock-of alien Sicily forced him
upon himself, and he supplied by coruscation what he lacked in familiarity." FINLEY
(542) offers some brief comments on Pindar's "professionalism" and on his value-
judgements. KOMORNICKA (543) is useful on the many aspects of truth and
falsehood found in Pindar. She provides a large number of examples and examines
the precise function which the various terms have in their context. KURZ (543a), after
examining about twenty passages, concludes that "Pindars 'Humor' ist . . . ein
heiteres Sich-Freuen am geistreichen Spiel mit Situation and dichterischen
Ausdrucksmitteln. Pindars 'Ironie' ist . . . lachelndes Wissen um die Begrenztheit
menschlichen Strebens und sicher auch manchmal . . . des eigenen dichterischen
Werkens."
MARZI (544) devotes more attention to a discussion of music before Pindar than he
does to those passages where Pindar refers to musical composition or instruments.
MULLEN (545) examines "Pindar's preoccupation with place" in 0.1, 3, 7, P.3, 5, 9,
and N.6. ORTEGA (546) points out what every reader of Pindar knows, that he felt
his poetry was divinely inspired and that what he said was true. RUIZ DIAZ (547)
discusses Pindar under the headings of the poet inspired, the poet as craftsman, and
the poet as one who "busca en la poesia una verdad para su vida contando solamente
con su vocaci6n personal para lograrla." There is nothing in this that is new or
significant. In what is largely a belabouring of the obvious SZASTYNSKA-SIEMION
(548) comments on the passages where Pindar refers to the toil required in order to
achieve victory in the games and compares Pindar's attitude towards toil with
Hesiod's. It is useful, however, to be reminded that Bacchylides seemed to attach
much less importance to the "ponos du sportif." VIVANTE (549) gives a perceptive
analysis of Pindar's concept of time and compares it with that of Homer and Greek
tragedy.
550. P. A. Bernardini, "Pindaro e la storia," QUCC6 (1968)136-40
551. K. I. Merentitis, "Ho eros tes patridos kai tes eleutherias para Pindaroi
(Athens 1967). Pp. 100
552. K. I. Merentitis, Ho "Mdismos" tou Pindarou (Athens 1968). Pp. 68
553. W. Mullen, "Pindar and Athens: A Reading in the Aeginetan Odes," Anion
n.s. 1 (1973-74)446-95
554. C. G. Starr, "Pindar and the Greek Historical Spirit," Hermes 95 (1967)
393-403
555. E. Wust, PindaralsgeschichtschreibenderDichter. Interpretationen der 12
vorsizilischen Siegeslieder des sechsten Paians und der zehnten olympischen Ode
(Tiubingen1967). Pp. 296
I have not read MERENTITIS' first book (551), but to judge from Lasserre's review
in AC 37 (1968) 263-64, no great loss will be incurred if Pindarists ignore it. For the
second book (552) see Willcock's review in CR 20 (1970) 241. MULLEN (553)
examines 1.5 and 8, composed "just before and just after Plataea" and P.8 and N. 8,
composed "just before and just after the Thirty Years' Peace," in the light of
Aeginetan and Athenian history during this period. STARR (554) argues that Pin-
dar's poetry "furnishes precious illumination as to the views of men in the early fifth
century with regard to time, space, man, and the contemporary world in its relations
to past and future." No other author, he feels, "so clearly parallels the Herodotean
attitude on these points, though in Pindar this outlook lies as an unconscious sub-
stratum." A slightly abbreviated version of this article appears in his TheAwakening
of the Greek Historical Spirit (New York 1968) 124-30.
In WUST's dissertation (555) 0.10, 11, 14, P.6, 10, 12, N.2, 5, 7, 1.5, 6, 8 and Pae. 6
are lprovidedwith a translation, commentary, general interpretation, discussion of the
date, and analysis of the myth. There are also appendices on the etymology of
rhapsoidos, on Bacch. 13, and on Pindar's use of kai gar. Although scholars such as
Bundy. Young. and Thummer have clearly demonstrated that an historical approach
to Pindar is based on an incorrect understanding of the purpose and nature of
epinician poetry, thereby invalidating WUST's basic thesis, there is much in her book
which has nothing to do with history and these sections are not without value.
BERNARDINI (550), in her review article of WUST. feels that WUST is better when
she gives a concrete examination of the text than in her general historical comments.
555a. A. Ardizzoni, "Una presa di posizione di Apollonio Rodio riguardo a un

particolare mitico in Pindaro," Bollettino dell' Istituto di Filologia Greca 1 (1974)
164-72. I have not seen this.
556. M. Brozek, "De scriptoribus Latinis antiquis Pindari laudatoribus et
aemulis, " Eos 59 (1971) 101-07
557. A. Gentilini, "Palamas e Pindaro," QUCC6 (1968)143-66
558. R. Niunlist. Homler, Aristoteles uind Pindar in der Sicht Her-ders (Bonn
1971). Pp. 1-24
559. I. Opelt, "Die christliche Spatantike und Pindar," ByzF2 (1967) 284-98
560. I. Opelt, "Zwei griechische pindarische Oden aus dem fruhen 17.
Jahrhundert,"Mnemosyne 4.21 (1968) 374-85
561. R. A. Swanson, "Valery, Camus and Pindar," Mosaic 1.4 (1968) 5-17. I
have not seen this.
562. L. P. Wilkinson, "Pindar and the Proem to the Third Georgic" in For-
schungen zur romischen Literatur. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von KarliBuchner
(Wiesbaden 1970) 286-90
563. W. Wiust, "Dichtersprachliche Zusammenhange zwischen Veda und
Pindar" in Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. Festschrift fir
Franz Altheim zum 6.10.1968, vol. 1 (Berlin 1969) 24-34
BROZEK (556) discusses the degree to which Pindar was known and the extent of
the influence of his poetry on Latin writers from the 2nd century B.C. to the 4th
century A.D. GENTILINI (557) provides a criticism of Palamas' translations of
Pindar which show that he was not a "grande filologo" and comments on some of his
poems which were influenced by or modelled on Pindar. On pp. 91-112 NUNLIST
(558) discusses the influence of Pindar on Herder. In her first article (559) OPELT
illustrates the considerable esteem in which Pindar's poetry, especially his gnomic
utterances, was held by several Christian writers. In her second (560) she gives a text,
Latin translation, and analysis of two Pindaric odes by Petrus Bovillius, 1575-1641.
WILKINSON (562) finds a large number of similarities to Pindaric expressions in the
proem of Vergil's Third Georgic and argues that even though they cannot "severally
be nailed down as certain results of influence . .. the conjunction of such a number
of probabilities makes it virtually certain that the inspiration of the whole is Pin-
daric." WUST (563) finds 19 examples of imagery in the Veda which are paralleled in
Pindar and which he argues point to the existence of a common Indo-European poetic
language.
A. OLYMPIAN ODES
564. C. O. Pavese, "Le Olimpiche di Pindaro," QUCC 20(1975)65-121
PAVESE extends the approach to choral poetry described in an earlier article (40)
to include an analysis of the themes and motifs in the Olympian odes.
565. A. Kohnken, "Pindar as Innovator: Poseidon Hippios and the Relevance of
the Pelops Story in Olympian 1," CQ 24 (1974)199-206
566. S. Noica, "Un prolog Pindaric," StudClas 14 (1972) 49-58
566a. T. Krischer, "Die logischen Formen der Priamel," GB 2 (1974) 79-91

567. R. Wind (see 459)
567a. F. J. Nisetich, "Olympian 1.8-11: An Epinician Metaphor," HSCP 79
(1975) 55-68
568. E. D. Floyd, "Kydos in Pindar, Olympian 1, 107," Hermes 100 (1972) 485-
87
569. S. Ebbesen, "Pindaros, 0. 1, 106-108," Hermes 102 (1974) 503
570. A. Wasserstein, "Schol. PindarO. 1.12," CR 24 (1974) 173
KOHNKEN (565) provides an excellent analysis of Pindar's purpose and technique

in the myth of 0. 1. The introduction of Poseidon into the myth of Pelops is shown to
be an innovation by Pindar based on the Zeus-Ganymede story and this particular
god was chosen because he was the patron of horsemen. The references to horses in
the myth (41, 77, 87) emphasize the relevanceof Poseidon for Hieron. The rejection of
the story that Tantalus served Pelops to the gods is prompted not so much by religious
considerations as by Pindar's desire to construct a myth involving Pelops which would
honour Hieron's victory at Olympia, "the colony of Pelops." NOICA (566) discusses
the symbolism of the prologue and especially the importance of the symbolism of light
here and in Greek literature generally. KRISCHER (566a) summarizes the studies
devoted to the priamel and points out that they concentrate on the contents of the
priamel without paying sufficient attention to its differences in terms of form. Then
he analyses 0.1. 1-7, 3.42-44, and Bacch. 3.85-92. NISETICH (567a) adduces parallels
to show that crowns belong to the victor, not to the poet, and therefore he translates:
"whence the song becomes a coronation through the devisings of the wise, in order
that they might cry aloud . . ."
FLOYD (568) feels that kados is to be rejected because it is pleonastic with
epitropos and medetai merimnaisin and because me^domairegularly means "intend,
plot, devise, contrive," not "take care, keep watch," as it is usually translated here.
He, therefore, prefers kydos, referring it back to vv. 100-105 and treating it as apo
koinou with me^detaiand echon. A literal translation runs: "A god, watching over,
devises this glory which he has. Hieron. for your ambitions." EBBESEN (569) accepts
FLOYD's arguments for kydos but disagrees with his explanation of echon, He takes
the participle closely with medetai in the sense of "works continuously to bring
about." WASSERSTEIN (570) emends he's en aitiai of the scholium to read he's
enantia and translates: "Squeezing out (of a letter) of which insertion (of a letter) is
the opposite." The same emendation also appears in R. Neuberger, "Zu Pindar,"
RhM 18 (1975) 191.
571. C. Carlisky de Pozzi, "Sobre la Olimpica II," AFC 9(1964-65)5-21

572. J. Carriere(see l15)
573. J. Defradas, "Sur l'interpretation de la deuxieme Olvmpique de Pindare,"
REG 84 (1971) 131-43
574. J. Carriere, "Sur l'Olympique Il de Pindare, a propos d'un recent examen,"
REG 86 (1973) 436-43
574a. N.- Demand. "Pindar's 01lnmpian 2. Theron's Faith. and Empedocles'
Katharmioi, GRBS 10 (1975) 347-57
575. G. F. Gianotti, "Sull'Olimpica seconda di Pindaro," RFIC 99(1971)26-52
576. R. Merkelbach (see 451)
577. T. Smerdel, "Legens Pindarum," Platon 22(1970)194-96
578. J. Potiillotux. "L'Oeil de la Sicile (Piindare. Olvmpiques. II. 9/15)." PA
(1974) 227-28
579. F. Solmsen, "Two Pindaric Passages on the Hereafter," Hermes 96 (1968)
503-506
580. C. A. P. Ruck, "Marginalia Pindarica,"Hermes 100(1972)143-69(159-69)
581. L. Piccirilli, "La controversia fra lerone I e Polizelo in Diodoro, negli

Scholia Vetera e nello Scholion Recens a Pindaro, 0!. 2, 29," ASNP 3.1 (1971) 65-79
CARLISKY DE POZZI (571) provides a general analysis and discussion of the
ode's structural and thematic unity. DEFRADAS (573) has written what is to some
degree a review article of van Leeuwen's massive study of 0.2, in the course of which
he has valuable comments on vv. 17, 52, 54, 57-67, and 85-88. CARRIERE (574)
disagrees with some of DEFRADAS' views on 0.2, concentrating on the meaning and
text of v. 52. GIANOTTI (575) analyses the ode, arguing that it contains only typical
Pindaric concepts, that the unifying theme is the "alternanza tra dolore e gioia," and
that we need see no references to orphic-pythagorean beliefs or to any other form of
mystery-religion. Vv. 68ff. cannot refer directly to Theron, because no mortal is ut-
ter-lyfree of injustice (cf. 15ff.). Only the heroes of myth can pass along the Dios hodos
to the Isles of the Blessed. Much of what he says is sound, but I find unclear what he
feels is the meaning of 68ff. If these verses apply only to the heroes of myth, how can
they be said to be examples of vv. 68-69? SMERDEL(577) sees the influence of 0.2
and fr. 129 on epigrams 649 Kaibel and 38 Pfohl. POUILLOUX (578) suggests that
Agrigentum was called the "eye of Sicily" because from the long southern wall look-
outs could keep a watchful eye on any Carthaginian attack against Sicily.
SOLMSEN (579) discusses the kinds of existence described in vv. 61-67, in the Isles
of the Blessed, and in frr. 129-30. In 61-67 "what renders the existence there at-
tractive is the absence of what makes life on Earth hard and miserable," i.e. it is a
negative kind of description. On fr. 129 he says: "Ifthe blissful existence of frg. 129 is
reserved solely or primarily to the initiates of the teletai, the majorityof mortals might
have an indifferent, undistinguished existence in a place comparable to the Hades of
the Homeric nekyia." RUCK (580) analyses the sequence of thought in 0.2 and
concludes that vv. 85-88 are part of an elaborate break-off formula by means of which
Pindar curtails "the catalogue of heroes in the islands of the blessed by saying that he
has many arrows he could shoot, many things more he might say because he has wide
knowledge; but his knowledge is true knowledge, knowledge which comes from within
himself and therefore constitutes what we would call an ability to think, whereas other
poets have merely the encyclopedic knowledge of poetic recall." There is no reference
to Simionidesand Bacchylides here.
582. G. Devereux, "The Exploitation of Ambiguity in Pindaros 0. 3.27," RhM

109 (1966) 289-98
DEVEREUX argues that since generally in literature and vase-paintings Artemis'

reception of Heracles is distinctly hostile, Pindar used dechomai because it can mean
both "welcome" and "receive as an enemy." Pindar "leaves it up to the audience to
decide whether it does, or does not wish to recall the tradition of the clash, i.e.,
whether or not it prefers to dwell on the sin of sacrilege or on the rewardsof heroism."
583. J. Brunel, "La V' Olympique et la reconstruction de Camarine en
461/460," REA 93 (1971) 327-42
584. R. Hamilton, "Olympian Five: A Reconsideration," AJP 93(1972)324-29
After a detailed examination of scholia 20e, 27b, and 29e Dr., BRUNEL puts
forward the hypothesis that vv. 12-13 refer to a specific event in the past (ardei and
kolldi are "presents narratifs"), this event pertaining to a time when the settlers
lacked water for everyday needs as well as for construction because of the dryness of
the river. A sudden (tache6s) flood solved both problems and the clay earth around
the river bank, being soaked by the flood, provided mortar already prepared for them.
Only some situation as desperate as this could be referred to by amachanias. Whether
this hypothesis is correct or not, he is surely right in arguing that the river, not
Psaumis, must be the subject of kolldi. The epithet semnous is given because the
sudden flood would seem divinely caused. HAMILTON illustrates the balanced
structure of 0.4 and argues that there is a repetition and amplification of this
structure in 0.5. He finds it difficult to imagine that an imitator could have done this
so successfully.
584a. L. L. Nash, "Olympian6: Alibaton and lamos' Emergence into Light," AJP
96 (1975) 110-16
585. J. Stern, "The Myth of Pindar's Olympian 6," AJP 91 (1970) 332-40
586. C. A. P. Ruck, "Marginalia Pindarica," Hermes 96 (1968)129-42 (132-42)
586a. J. R. Vieillefond, "Damater phoinikopeza" in Studi classici in onore di Q.
Cataudella I (Catania 1972) 141-48. I have not seen this.
STERN analyses the language and imagery of the myth of Iamos in order to show
that there is a "hesitation between threatening danger and joyful birth . . .
throughout." RUCK first discusses previous explanations of 0.6.82-87 and then
examines the structure of the ode, arguing that 82-87 balance 12-21. "What Adrastus
said has been already spoken; Pindar's phrase is on the tip of his tongue, awaiting
utterance." He translates vv. 82-83 as follows: "The thought upon my tongue is
whetstone-honed to resonance and creeps upon me - o may it come - with the
liquid breath of flutes."
587. J. H. Barkhuizen, "Structural Patterns in Pindar's Seventh Olympian
Ode," AClass 11 (1968)25-37
587a. J. Defradas, "Diorthosai logon: la septieme Olympique" in Serta
Tuirvniiatna.Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeographv in honor of Alexander
TuIrT1(Urbana 1974) 34-50
588. J. Pouilloux, "Callianax, gendre de Diagoras de Rhodes, a propos de la VIle
Olympique de Pindare," RPh 44 (1970) 206-14
589. 0. Smith, "An Interpretation of Pindar's Seventh Olympian Ode," C&M
28 (1967, printed in 1970) 172-85
590. W. J. Verdenius, Pindar's Seventh Olympian Ode. A Commentary
(Amsterdam 1972). Pp. 33
591. C. A. P. Ruck (see 586, pp. 129-32)
BARKHUIZEN (587) finds five major chiastic patterns in the myths of 0. 7, as well
as several minor examples of chiasmus and parallelism. "Whilst the myths themselves
convey the idea of success granted by the gods in spite of mistakes made, this idea of
light and shade is emphasized even more clearly by the chiastic and parallelistic
arrangement established in the structural patterns. The appositeness of this idea may
lie somewhere in the history of Diagoras or his family. We do not know, owing to the
lack of precise data. We can merely endeavour to indicate that Pindar heightens the
emphasis on the idea pointed out and already expressed by the myths themselves by
means of structural patterns within the myths." DEFRADAS (587a) makes a strong
case for assigning the meaning "redresser"to diorthosai in v. 21 and for interpreting
the version given of the three myths as representative of Pindar's typical desire to
depict the gods in the most favourable light possible. POUILLOUX (588) constructs a
family tree for Diagoras' ancestors and descendants based on Paus. 4.24.3 and 6.7.1-8
and argues that the Callianax of v. 93 is the son-in-law of Diagoras mentioned by
Pausanias, and not an ancestor as the scholiast claims. He also thinks that the
gambroi of v. 4 is this Callianax. This is attractive, but he errs in attempting to find
historical evidence to support the various references to "malaise" and "inquietude"
in the ode.
SMITH (589) gives his analysis of the ode, disagreeing with many of YOUNG's
(519) comments. The poem should not be reduced to any "Grundgedanke;" rather it
has "its quality from the insoluble conflict of attitudes. On one side we have the glory
and success of Diagoras, Tlepolemos, Rhodes and its inhabitants, highlighted in the
poem as a whole (Diagoras), the mythical narrative 11. 20-77 (Tlepolemos). the second
myth (the Rhodians), the third myth (Rhodes), these three mythical sections being foil
for Diagoras. On the other side we encounter the dark forces operating on the terms
of foil (Tlepolemos, Rhodes and the Rhodians) and it is left as a silent conclusion,
hinted at in the myths and gnomes that these attitudes are at conflict, they are in-
compatibie. Thus the unity of the poem is not created by convergence of all parts and
structures to one basic idea; it is rather created by an ironical tension between con-
flicting attitudes." VERDENIUS (590) has written a line-by-line commentary on 0.7.
Such commentaries are much needed, since too often scholars attempt to analyse the
whole of an ode without first explaining its parts, and as a result a unity is seen which
upon closer scrutiny turns out to be illusory. RUCK (591) deals with 0.7.53 and at-
tempts to demolish the theory that Pindar is referring to the Telchines or that sophia
denotes the Rhodians' skill in sculpture. Rather v. 53 refers to the corrected version of
the myth of Tlepolemus and Rhodes which Pindar puts forward. RUCK paraphrases:
"Pindar's poetry (sophia) is greater than Homer's (meizon), because Pindar knows or
has learned the truth (daenti). By telling the whole story and not just the beginning
(telMthei).he has told you the simple truth (adolos), which is sufficient glory for the
island of Rhodes." But kai is ignored and surely sop)hia must refer to the Rhodians
also, since dacu1tipicks up techniani.
592. M. Simpson, "Pindar's Ninth Olympian," GRBS 10 (1969) 113-24
593. J. H. Molyneux, "Two Problems concerning Heracles in Pindar Olympian
9.28-41," TAPA 103 (1972) 301-27
SIMPSON states that the central theme of 0. 9 is "replacement. or introdcuction
of people into new situations for their greater glory." He feels that the kallinikos
hymnos of Archilochus contained the myth of Heracles "fighting gods at Pylos" and
so in Pindar's mind was inappropriate as a parallel for Epharmostos. Pindar wishes
"to exorcise, as it were, the victor's association with a figure in an impious myth."
Much of this I find unconvincing. MOLYNEUX first discusses the question of
whether Pindar invented the encounter between Heracles and the gods. Of three
possible answers, that Pindar "was following an early version of the fight at Pylos,
now lost to us, in which Poseidon, Apollo, and Hades all resisted Heracles together,"
that he was "following an early version in grouping Poseidon and Hades together as
Heracles' opponents at Pylos, but has himself accidentally added Apollo to the list,"
or that "Pindar really intends to refer to three separate incidents," the third is
rejected and "the first seems somewhat preferable to the second." He then considers
various criteria which might help to support the traditional interpretation of vv. 29ff.,
"for [i.e. to quote an instance in proof] how else could Heracles have successfully
defied Poseidon, Apollo, and Hades?" or Farnell's interpretation, "for [i.e. to dismiss
an instance which would contradict this statement] how could it have been true that
Heracles successfully defied various gods?" His conclusion is that although Farnell's
interpretation is superior in terms of "clarity, consistency, precision, and self:
confidence," whereas the traditional interpretation "is marked by tension, com-
plexity, profundity, and, perhaps, a unity of a less obvious kind," the "latter group of
qualities ... are more in accordance with the nature of Pindar's poetry."
594. H. Erbse, "Bemerkungen zu Pindars 10. olympischer Ode" in Silv'ae.
Fcstschrift ffir ErntstZiiunzumn60. Gebturtstag(Tiubingen1970) 21-34
594a. P. J. Nassen, "A Literary Study of Pindar's Olvynpian 10." TAPA 105
(1975) 219-40
595. M. L. West (see 55, p. 211)
ERBSE argues that forgetfulness of the promise Pindar made and his remorse over
his neglect, which form the central thought of the proem, serve as a guide for the
meaning of the ode as a whole. An analysis of the ode then follows, in the course of
which he shows how tender cordiality and praise of the love of truth harmonize.
NASSEN (594a) illustrates how the "intricately interwoven" structure of 0.10 is
achieved by "a recurrence of imagery, thought, and vocabulary and by a progression
and expansion of themes throughout the ode." WEST treats bomoi in 0.10.25 as a
gloss on samati and reads pais, connecting Dios with this rather than with themites.
596. W. S. Barrett, "Pindar's Twelfth Olympian and the Fall of the

Deinomenidai," JHS 93 (1973) 23-35
597. W. J. Verdenius, "Pindar's Twelfth Olympian Ode, A Commentary" in
Zetesis. Album amicorum door vrienden en collega's aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. de
Strycker (Antwerp & Utrecht 1973) 332-41
BARRETT discusses in great detail the dates for Ergoteles' victories and the
historical background for 0.12. He argues that it was composed following Ergoteles'
Pythian victory of 466. The freedom alluded to at the beginning of the ode is that
which has been achieved by the overthrow of Thrasyboulus, Hieron's successor in
Syracuse, and this overthrow is dated also to 466. VERDENIUS writes a useful line-
by-line commentary on 0.12.
598. R. von Scheliha, "Interpretation der XIV. Olympischen Ode von Pindar
mit einer Einleitung uber Pindars Leben" in Freiheit und Freundschaft in Hellas:
Sechs Basler Vortrage (Amsterdam 1968) 81-105
599. F. S. Newman, "Unity in Pindar's Fourteenth Olympian Ode," RBPh 52
(1974)15-28
Both SCHELIHA's chapter on 0.14 and the following one on P.1 were originally
delivered as lectures during the years 1943-47, but were not published until 1968.
Although the kind of audience for which the lectures were intended is not stated, it
was presumably one that knew little about Pindar, since the analyses of 0.14 and P. 1
are of a very general nature, with no account taken of the views of others. By counting
the words in each section of 0.14 and by showing where key words appear in these
sections, NEWMAN attempts to demonstrate the concern for symmetry revealed in
the ode. In this way she feels that one can see what themes and images Pindar was
seeking to emphasize. Although the method may not be without some value, when it is
carried to this extreme Pindar's odes become almost a kind of acrostic and words take
on an unjustified and artificial significance.
B. PYTHIAN ODES
600. J. Duchemin, Pindare Pythiques (III, IX, IV, V). Edition, introduction et
commentaire (Paris 1967). Pp. 186
DUCHEMIN's student edition is generally helpful in terms of line-by-line exegesis,
but inadequate in terms of literary criticism. For a balanced assessment see
Willcock's review in CR 18 (1968) 273-74.
601. T. N. Gantz, "Pindar's First Pythian: The Fire Within," Ramus 3 (1974)
143-51
602. A. Kohnken, "Hieron und Deinomenes in Pindars erstem Pythische
Gedicht," Hermes 98 (1970) 1-13
603. R. von Scheliha, "Interpretation der ersten Pythischen Ode von Pindar"
(see 598, pp. 106-40)
604. E. Scholz-Wust, "Griechische Chorlyrik als Schullektiure?"AU 13 (1970)

72-90 (80-90)
605. S. D. Skulsky, "Poll6n peirata syntanysais: Language and Meaning in
Pythian 1," CP 70 (1975) 8-31
606. S. G. Kapsomenos, "To prooimio tou protou Pythionikou tou Pindarou,"
EEThess 12 (1973) 303-17
607. P. Von der Muhll, "Weitere pindarische Notizen," MH 25 (1968) 226-30
(229-30)
608. W. J. Verdenius, "Nostos, "Mnemosyne 4.22 (1969) 195
609. J. D. Ellsworth, "Pindar's Pythian 1.44: agonos balein exo, A New
Suggestion," AJP 94 (1973) 293-96
610. C. P. Segal (see 661)
611. M. L. West (see 55, p. 211)
GANTZ (601) offers a sound, if not particularly novel, analysis of the "pattern of
myth, metaphor, advice, and historical allusion" which constitutes "the complex and
conflicting elements" of P. 1. KOHNKEN (602) provides convincing reasons why vv.
85ff. should be explained as referring to Hieron rather than to his son, Deinomenes.
Included is a lengthy discussion of v. 92. SCHOLZ-WUST (604) laments the lack of
attention given to Greek lyric in the classroom and seeks to show how Pindar and
Bacchylides can be successfully incorporated into the lower levels of teaching. To
illustrate this, she gives what amounts to a lesson plan for P.1 and Bacch. 17.
SKULSKY (605) analyses the imagery of P.1, in the course- of which frequent
reference is made to parallel passages elsewhere in Pindar in the belief that "it is only
by reference to the total oeuvre that the semantic infrastructureof the single Ode can
be shown to be coherent." Particular attention is paid to N. I and P.8, both of which
are considered similar to P. 1 in many respects. SKULSKY's comparative approach is
useful and important, but the article, although frequently displaying perceptive
insight into Pindar's use of imagery, all too often carries the attempt to find
parallelism or inter-relationship to excess. To quote only one brief example, it may
well be legitimate to state that the javelin of v. 44 "corresponds to the kela" of v. 12,
but to expand the association of imagery to include the kion of v. 19 seems to me to be
grotesque.
KAPSOMENOS (606) concentrates on textual problems in the opening strophe and
antistrophe of P.1, reading teas (with synizesis) . . . archan in v. 2, defending
katanchomenos in v. 10, and reading lema te, koma in v. 12. VON DER MUHLL
(607) argues that in P.1.35 nostos means "outward voyage." The word can mean
either "voyage out" or "voyage home," but in this context the former is more suitable.
VERDENIUS (608) finds this unsatisfactory and on the basis of HAp 469-72 argues
that nostos everywhere "die Tatsache bedeutet, dass man zu seinem Ziel gelangt."
ELLSWORTH (609), after discussing the possible meanings of agon and the nature of
javelin-throwing contests, concludes that whatever the precise significance of agonos
is in this passage Pindar is saying that "he has no desire to make an excessively long
throw." By this metaphor Pindar means that he must not be excessive in his praise of
Hieron. WEST (611) discusses P.1.56 and 86. In the first he suggests that Hieroni is
an "epexegetic interpolation" for "an anapaest such as epi toi," and in the second he
notes that no apparatus mentions that Galen (vol. 8, p. 682 K) quotes v. 86 with
apseude',which he feels "is surely better."
612. H. Lloyd-Jones, "Modern interpretation of Pindar: the Second Pythian and

Seventh Nemean Odes," JHS 93 (1973) 109-37
613. J. Martin, "La 2ePythique de Pindare," REG 82, 2(1969) XXII-IV
614. E. Thummer, "Die zweite pythische Ode Pindars," RhM 115 (1972) 293-
307
615. P. Von der Muhll (see 607, pp. 226-29)

615a. H. D. Rankin, "Archilochus in Pindar Pvthian 2," Emerita 43 (1975) 249-
55
615b. J. Peron, "Pindare et Hieron dans la IIepythique (vv. 56 et 72)," REG 87
(1974)1-32
616. E. D. Floyd, "Peparein,"AJP92 (1971) 676-79
616a. B. C. Dietrich, "Another View of Peparein," GB 3 (1975) 69-72
617. M. Leflkowitz(see 465, pp. 32-34)
LLOYD-JONES (612) prefaces his article with a nine-page discussion of Pindar's

view of life and the ways in which he has been interpreted. We are told how the
romantic approach to Pindar sees in his poetry a "spontaneous outpouring" of the
poet's soul, how the historical approach often treats his poems as if they were works of
history or biography, and how since Bundy the emphasis has been upon the formal
conventions of epinician poetry. This section of his article should be required reading
for every student of Pindar, especially p. 117 which correctly demonstrates both the
merits of Bundy's methods and the danger of applying them too rigidly. He then gives
his analysis of P. 2 and N.7. Each section of the text is translated and its significance
discussed. The final triad, he believes, is "fully understandable if we suppose that
Pindar is dilating on a common theme of encomiastic poetry, that of the duty of men,
and particularly poets, to give great men proper credit for their benefits to others and
to abstain from envy." In contrast to P.2 he maintains that N.7 does contain personal
allusions. He sees references to Pae. 6 in vv. 33ff. (where he adopts Hermann's molon),
48ff., and 102ff. Although I see no reason why Pindar could not be making "amends
for the alleged slight to Neoptolemus," I do not think that LLOYD-JONES has
proved the necessity of such an interpretation. MARTIN's (613), given in the form of a
resume, can only be described as perverse. For example, vv. 52-56 are taken to mean
that Pindar must avoid being slandered since he has tried to deter Hieron from acting
like Ixion. Hieron has in mind some unjust action, probably an "enterprise
belliqueuse," and in trying to deter him Pindar is meeting with slander from those
who flatter Hieron.
THUMMER's article (614) is one of the best ever written on P.2. He convincingly
shows that no actual slander or hostility is referred to in the last triad. What Pindar
has said up to v. 67 amounts to: "I praise you, Hieron, as you deserve because of your
athletic success, your wealth, your power, your esteem and your wisdom. Perceive
from my words what sort of man you are." What is still missing is the thought, "And
my words are true." It is to this idea that the last triad is devoted. VON DER MUHLL
(615) discusses P.2.42-48, concentrating on the various versions of the origin of the
Centaurs and the popular etymology of the word.
RANKIN (615a) maintains that Pindar "uses Archilochus and ideas associated
with him as a vehicle for resentment against enemies" of his at Hiero's court. PERON
(615b), after a detailed and carefully argued study of the many problems presented by
vv.56 and 72, concludes that v.56 means "wealth of wisdom with the aid of fate is
best" (a contrast is seen between Archilochus' wealth of hatred and Pindar's wealth of
wisdom) and that v.72 means "having learned what kind of man you are, show
yourself to be such."
FLOYD (616) argues that we should follow the scholiasts and consider peparein (P.
2.57) a "reduplicated alternative form of porein, differing only in vocalism from
another alternative peporein." Thus it means "offer" rather than "show," which is
the usual translation based on Hesychius' gloss. DIETRICH (616a) disagrees with
FLOYD's explanation of peparein and connects it with pepanos with the meaning
"become ripe," hence metaphorically "become prosperous." He thinks it more
probably a present infinitive. DIETRICH may be right, but I do not see how the
traditional explanation "give" or "show" can be said not to fit "Pindaric sentiment."
LEFKOWITZ (617) feels that "construing nomos [P. 2.86] in English terms un-
necessarily narrows the implications of Pindar's metaphor." She seems to suggest that
"area" is best, but in view of vv. 87-88 I find it hard to believe that nomon does not
have a political significance, just as in P.10.70. The fact that 88-92 are "concerned
with marking and measurement" need not mean that Pindar is thinking of a
"measured area" in nomon. It is unfortunate that in an article devoted to the
"persistence of mistranslation" she should translate stathmas ... helkomenoi in v. 90
as though the noun were accusative ("some pull down the standards too far").
618. E. D. Floyd, "The Premiere of Pindar's Third and Ninth Pythian Odes,"
TAPA 99 (1968) 181-202
619. C. V. Verde Castro, "Comentario a la Pitica III," AFC 10(1966-67)69-112
620. J. H. Barkhuizen, "A Note on PindarPyth. III 8-60,"AClass 13(1970)137-
39
621. M. L. West (see 55, pp. 211-12)
622. W. J. Slater, "Pindar's House," GRBS 12 (1971) 141-52
FLOYD (618) argues that P.3 and 9 were composed for performance on the same
day in Thebes and that P.9 preceded P.3 in the program. He also divides P.9.87-105
among three different speakers (victor, poet, chorus). Although the main points of
FLOYD's article are not convincing, it is useful to have the similarities between the
two odes drawn to our attention. VERDE CASTRO's (619) article is in two parts, "La
estructura" and "Los mitos y la interpretaci6n del poema." He believes that although
P.3 is not an epinician in "contenido," it is in "sentido." BARKHUIZEN (620)
illustrates the close correspondence between the various parts of P.3.8-60 (myth,
gnomes, and simile) and the general theme of gnothi seauton. WEST (621) feels that
in P.3.18 either hetairai or hetairais should be read. "Better sense" is achieved and
the scholium adds support. SLATER (622) ably demonstrates the unreliability of the
biographical tradition concerning Pindar's house in Thebes. In P.3.77-79 prothyron
"refers to Hieron's or the chorus' forecourt," the Mater is probably Demeter, and the
"performativeutterance" of v. 77 should be referred "to the chorus and victor and not
to Pindar."
623. F. Sandgren, "Funktion der Reden in Pindars Pythia IV," Eranos 70 (1972)
12-22
623a. E. Robbins, "Jason and Cheiron: The Myth of Pindar's Fourth Pythian,"
Phoenix 29 (1975) 205-13
SANDGREN discusses the use made of direct and indirect speech in P.4, the role
such speeches play in the ode and how Pindar has constructed them to suit his
purpose. Similarities to speeches in epic are also pointed out. In general, this is a
useful study, although I think it unlikely that we should identify Jason with
Damophilus and Pelias (also Aeetes) with Arcesilas. The latter parallel is especially
unconvincing. ROBBINS (623a) argues that in P.4 Arcesilas, like Hiero at the end of
P. 1, "has two models set before him," the one of Jason and the other of Pelias. That
Pindar is urging Arcesilas to follow the model of Jason is indicated by the fact that
Pindar stresses the healing quality of both Jason and Arcesilas. The latter can make
the "body politic ... sound again by recalling and being reconciled to Damophilus,
himself suffering from the terrible disease ... of exile" (v.293).
623b. M. R. Lefkowitz, "The Influential Fictions in the Scholia to Pindar's

Pythian 8," CP 70 (1975) 173-85
By concentrating on scholia lab, 78a, 82 and 83a to P.8 and by comparing similar
scholia on other odes (especially on N.7.1), LEFKOWITZ ably illustrates how un-
critical ancient commentators were. For the most part the scholia tell us more about
Alexandrian methods of scholarship than about Pindar.
624. E. D. Floyd (see 618)

625. R. P. Winnington-Ingram, "Pindar's Ninth Pythian Ode," BICS 16 (1969)
9-15
626. R. 0. A. M. Lyne, "Prop. 4, 4, 65sqq. and Pind. Pyth. 9, 23sqq.," Hermes
99 (1971) 376-78
627. L. Woodbury, "Apollo's First Love: Pindar, Pyth. 9.26ff.," TAPA 103
(1972) 561-73
628. E. D. Francis," 'Chiron's Laughter' (Pvth. 9.38)," CP 67(1972)288-91
WINNINGTON-INGRAM (625) analyses the ode, concentrating on the Cyrene
myth and in particular the scene between Apollo and Cheiron, and suggests that
Aeschylus may have had P.9 in mind when he composed his Danaid trilogy. LYNE
(626) argues that in Prop. 4.4.65-68 Tarpeia is entrusting herself to sleep as to a lover
and he suggests that the image may have been borrowed, perhaps through
Callimachus, from P.9.23-25. WOODBURY (627) demonstrates that Apollo is not
asking Cheiron if it is right for him to rape Cyrene,that the aid6s which Apollo shows
is the restraint and circumspection appropriate at the onset of love, and that Apollo's
meilichos orga is the result of his aid6s. Cheiron "does not laugh at Apollo's joke, nor
dismiss his question as lacking in seriousness, nor urge restraint upon a ruffianly
pupil. He explains to Apollo what is happening to him, showing delight in the god's
deference and modesty during the first flush of passion and an amused sense of his
own predicament as teacher of an omniscient divinity. The god's aidos, which is the
right and natural accompaniment of first love, has diverted him from his own om-
niscience." FRANCIS (628) has made a strong case for reading chlaron in P. 9.38. He
translates the phrase by "laughing indulgently with gentle gaze."
629. J. H. Barkhuizen, "Une note sur Pindare, Pyth. X, 28-31," AClass 12 (1969)
169-70
629a. C. 0. Pavese, "La decima et la undecima Pitica di Pindaro" in Studi
Triestini diAntichita in onore diLuigia Achillea Stella (Trieste 1975) 235-53
BARKHUIZEN takes issue with Meautis' statement that Pindar introduced the
myth of P. 10 "en reunissant les deux mots plooni et niauisi."It is rather eschatoul
which leads to the transition, since it "rappelle au poete a ce propos la limniteextreime
dii ,iord. et l'amene donc a la foule des Hyperboreens." PAVESE writes a useful
motif-analysis and commentary on selected passages in P. 10 and 11.
630. G. Pini, "Osservazioni sulla Pitica XI," SIFC 44(1972)197-220
631. P. Vivante, "Pindar, Pythian XI, 1-11," Teiresias, Supp. 1 (Montreal 1972)
41-50
PINI's article is essentially in three parts. In the first he discusses vv. 54b-57.
adopting a text which is largely a combination of Boeckh and Bergk and translating:
"gli invidiosi sono battuti da cieca sciagura. Se qualcuno. raggiunto il vertice e
vivendo in tranquillita, sfugge alla hybris rovinosa, ebbene quello ottiene pitubello il
termine della nera morte, ecc." In the second he discusses w. 29-30, explaining v. 30
as meaning: " 'colui che e in basso stato oscuramente si agita,' cioe puo agire come
vuole restando ignorato." In the third he adduces a large number of parallel passages
from Aeschylus in an attempt to show that in his Oresteia Aeschylus was influenced
by Pindar, support for the date of 474 for the ode. Although some of his comments are
not without value, parts of his article are vitiated by an historical interpretation of
certain verses, especially 52-53, which YOUNG (519), who is not mentioned, has
convincingly rejected. VIVANTE takes the invocation at the beginning of P.1 l as a
starting-point and adduces other passages in Pindar in which "myth is . .. made to
coincide with geography" and in which figures from myth "underlie the delicate and
elusive relations which bind places to the sense of divinity emanating from them."
632. "Pindar's Twelfth Pythian." Translations by R. Lattimore, H6lderlin, E.
Romagnoli, and A. Boeckh. Comments by J. Hynd, C. Middleton, and D. S. Carne-
Ross, Arion 7 (1968) 234-66
633. J. Alsina, "Simbolismo en la Pitica XII de Pindaro," BIEH 2, l(1968) 45-47
634. E. Schlesinger, "Pindar, Pyth. 12," Hermes 96 (1968) 275-86
635. H. Maehler, "Notes on Theon's Hypomnema to Pindar's Pythians (Pap.
Oxy. 2536)," ZPE 3 (1968) 100
636. P. A. Bernardini, "II banchetto di Polidette in Pindaro, Pyth. 12, 14 e il
nuovo scolio papiraceo di Teone (P. Oxy. 2536)," QUCC 11 (1971) 99-101
637. G. Calvani, "Nota al P. Oxy. 2536 (Hypomnema a Pind. Pyth. XII, w. 14-
32), 11. 5-14," QUCC 16 (1973) 142-45
637a. M. Treu, "Theons Pindarkommentar (Pap. Oxy. 2536)" in Serta
Turyniana. Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeography in honor of Alexander
Turyn (Urbana 1974) 62-85
The first article listed above (632) is an interesting assessment of translations of
P.12 into four different languages and of the degree to which they represent what
Pindar says. ALSINA (633), in the manner of Norwood, sees the symbol of flowing
water as the unifying thread in P.12. Such metaphors, however, are so common in
Greek poetry that their appearance here can hardly be considered unusual or of
special significance for the interpretation of the ode. SCHLESINGER(634) comments
on the structure of P.12, the relationship between the myth and Athena's invention,
and Pindar's concept of beauty. "Wie nun das Schreckliche, die Medusa und die
Gorgonen, schon ist, so sind auch das Leid und der Schmerz nichts anderes als
Erscheinungsformen der kosmischen Schonheit und brauchen nur in Musik
umgesetzt, in das Lied verwandelt zu werden, damit ihre Anmut sinnlich greifbar
werde und beim Horer das entsprechende Lustgefuhl hervorrufe.Dies tut Athene hier
mit der Totenklage der Euryale."
In 1966 E. G. Turner published P. Oxy. 2536, "the bottom portion of the final two
columns of a commentary on Pindar, Pythians XII" by the grammarian Theon. It
consists of a number of lemmata with commentary starting at v. 14 and continuing to
the end of the ode (38 lines in all). Its most important features are the mention of two
verses from Euripides' Oedipus not previously known and the verification of Her-
mann's kallichoron ... polin in v. 26. MAEHLER (635) offers some brief notes on
the text of lines 4, 5ff., and 28-29. BERNARDINI (636) points out that the com-
mentary corrects the scholiast's statement on v. 25a Dr. and confirms that on P.
10.72a, namely that the banquet alluded to in v. 14 took place at the conclusion of
Perseus' undertaking rather than at the beginning. CALVANI (637) supplements line
11 xwitha reference to Medusa rather than Gorgo and suggests that the commentator
was thinking of Eur. Ioni987-89 when he recorded the alternative genealogy according
to which Gorgo was the daughter of Earth rather than Phorcys.
C. NEMEAN ODES
638. G. A. Privitera, "Eracle nella prima Nemea," GIF 24 (1972) 28-51
639. P. W. Rose, "The Myth of Pindar's First Nemean: Sportsmen, Poetry, and
Paideia," HSCP 78 (1974) 145-75
640. T. G. Rosenmeyer, "The Rookie: A Reading of Pindar Nemean 1," CSCA 2

(1969) 233-46
641. C. Segal, "Time and the Hero: The Myth of Nemean 1," RhM 117 (1974)
29-39
642. E. D. Lasky, "A Note on PindarNemean 1.24-25," CP68 (1973) 219
642a. G. A. Privitera, "Tre Note alla prima Nemea (vv. 18, 37, 64)," Hermes 103
(1975) 286-92
PRIVITERA (638) rejects previous attempts to explain the myth of N. 1. There is no
analogy to be drawn between Heracles and Chromios, but the ode nevertheless has
unity. "II rapporto di Eracle non e con Chromios, ma con la concezione generale delle
virtu che spiegano la vittoria del committente." Much of the article deals with the
significance of vv. 1-33, expecially w. 6 (Zenos . .. charin), 8-9, and 24-33. ROSE's
article (639) contains not only the most convincing analysis of N. 1 yet written, but also
much valid criticism of Bundy's approach to Pindar. Rose ably illustrates the con-
nection between the myth and what precedes it, arguing that "Pindar presents the
moral excellence of the victor as a consequence of his birth, then expands upon that
association of morality and high birth in the myth." ROSENMEYER (640) argues
that "the temper of Pindar's Heracliscus niyth is one of gaiety, its mode one of calm
repose, and its burden one of promise and the bright future." Pindar chose the myth
of the infant Heracles because of the parallel between the prophecy of his future
exploits and the prospects of future victories for Chromios.
SEGAL (641) stresses the significance of chronos in N. 1 for Heracles and Chromius.
"Poet and prophet both, by virtue of their breadth of view and their command of
truth which extends beyond what the participants themselves can discern, behold the
present deed, whether Heracles' or Chromius', as resplendent with its future
fulfilment. They look beyond the chronos of the moment (46) to the chronos which is
the link between great moments (69), the junctures of a large design, the points where
a hero realizes his phya (25b), where the gods fulfil their 'law' (semnon nomon, 72b),
destroying those who practise hybris (50b) and know not dike (63)." LASKY (642)
maintains that "the point which the poet is trying to make is not at all that
smoke/envy is to be quelled or extinguished, but that it is to be kept from bursting
into flame. So long as envy produces only smoke, it is ineffectual, and the presence of
water/friends at Chromius' side keeps it that way." This seems far too subtle and I see
no reason to reject the view that "water against smoke" signifies futility. Farnell's
objection, which iLASKY accepts, that a large amount of water will in fact extinguish
smoke, is an example of the danger of excessive rationalism in interpreting poetic
imagery. PRIVITERA (642a) argues that in v. 18 kairon is spatial rather than tem-
poral, i.e. is virtually the equivalent of skopon, and is governed only by the participle;
in v. 38 he reads host' (or h6t') with the meaning "as one who did not escape . . ." and
with enkateba governed by the hos of v. 35; and in v. 64 he accents tina so that it is
interrogative, with hossous men ... steichonta dependent upon phase ... moron.
The first two passages may well be rightlyexplained, but in the third I find it hard to
accept his statement that the syntax of ktanon . . . nin, with both dependent on
phase, is "ineccepibile."
643. F. S. and J. K. Newman, "L'unite musicale dans les Odes de Pindare. La
deuxieme Nemeenne," LEC 42 (1974) 3-12
644. E. Scholz, "Zum Aufbau eines pindarischen Epinikion. Nemea 2," WS 82
(1969) 18-27
After devoting several pages to a reviewof previous methods of determining unity in

the Pindaric ode, the NEWMANS argue that the key can be found in the music and
the arrangement of words, the latter being put into relief "peut-etre simplement en les
soulignant d'un fortissimo. " To illustrate this they schematize the structure of N.2,
showing its "disposition circulaire" and the virtually identical length of the
corresponding parts. SCHOLZ analyses the structure of N.2 in a less mechanical way
than the NEWMANS and with more emphasis on how the various parts contribute to
the overall meaning of the ode.
645. H. Erbse, "Pindars dritte nemeische Ode," Hermes 97 (1969) 272-91
646. C. A. P. Ruck, "Marginalia Pindarica," Hermes 100 (1972)143-69(153-69)
647. "Inediti di Eugenio Grassi. Pindaro, N. III 69,"A&R n.s. 15 (1970) 20
ERBSE's article (645) on N. 3 is important not only for its exegesis of the ode as a
whole, but also for the valuable comments on individual passages. The principles
enunciated in vv. 70-75 are exemplified in the mythical section of the ode and con-
tribute to its unity. RUCK (646) discusses the kinds of arguments used to establish the
date of N. 3 and rightly shows that they have no weight. Three passages containing the
metaphor of the eagle (N. 3.80-82, 0. 2.86-88, and Bacch. 5.16-30) are of no help in
determining chronology. RUCK also analyses the progression of thought in N.3 and
sees the words opse per in v. 80 as an example of Pindar's subtle humour. "The
wandering out toward the pillars of Heracles had made the travellers [i.e. Pindar and
his Muse] late. Both they and the chorus back on Aegina are looking for the poem."
GRASSI (647) suggests that a comparison with Bacch. 19.11 shows that in N.3.69
merimnais denotes "lode del poeta" rather than "fatica dell' atleta."
648. H. Maehler, "Zu Pindar, N. 4, 22," Hermes 101 (1973) 380-82.
MAEHLER rightly argues that Aiginas hekati does not mean "for the sake of
Aegina" as it is commonly translated, but "by the will of" or "with the aid o.
Aegina," the meaning which heketi has in poets prior to Pindar. The idea that an
athlete was successful because of the aid given by a deity whose worship was
prominent in his homeland is common in epinician poetry.
649. C. Segal, "Arrest and Movement: Pindar's Fifth Nemean," Hermes 102
(1974) 397-411
650. J. Stern, "The Structure of Pindar's Nemean 5," CP 66 (1971) 169-73
SEGAL seeks to show how Pindar unites "narrative technique and meaning, form
and content" in N.5. STERN demonstrates how Peleus' heroic stature is revitalized
after the inauspicious beginning and he finds the same kind of development in
Pindar's conception of his own poetry. "It too is at first shrouded in darkness and
grows to fulfillment by the very act of persevering through that darkness."
651. S. Fogelmark, Studies in Pindar with particular reference to Paean VI and
Nemean VII (Lund 1972). Pp. 156
652. 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
JanmesHutton (Ithaca 1975) 56-90
653. H. Lloyd-Jones(see 612)
654. C. P. Segal, "Pindar's Seventh Nemean," TAPA 98 (1967) 431-80
655. A. Setti, "Persona e 'poetica' nella VII Nemea " in Studia Florentina A.
Ronconi oblata (Rome 1970) 405-29
656. B. Borecky, "K interpretaci Pind. Nem. VII 5," LF 92(1969)206-207
657. D. C. Young, "Pindar Nemean 7: Some Preliminary Remarks (w. 1-20),"
TAPA 101 (1970) 633-43
658. D. C. Young, "A Note onPindar Nemean 7.30f," CSCA 4(1971)249-53
659. G. Kromer. "Homer and Odysseus in Ne-ewatn 7.20-27," CW 68 (1975)437-

38
660. C. A. P. Ruck (see 646, pp. 143-53)
661. C. Segal. "Two Agonistic Problems in Pindar, Nen7(an 7.70-74 and Pvthian
1.42-45," GRBS 9 (1968) 31-45
In the first half of his book FOGELMARK (651) argues on the basis of Pindar's use
of colour words and his manner of referring to Zeus and Apollo that N.7 and Pae.6
shotuld be dated about 467. In the second half he attacks Theiler's Die zwei Zeit-
sti/f/'l inl Pinclars Stil iaid Vers. SLATER's "Futures in Pindar" (529). and
Hoekstra's "The Absence of the Aeginetans," concluding with "A note on the
chronology of mnetain Pindar" and "A note on nmate'r in Pindar." As Stern rightly
comments in his review in CW 67 (1973) 114-15, the book contains a strange mixture
of the "reasonable" and the "bizarre." KIRKWOOD (652) illustrates at length the
prominence which Pindar gives to the theme of vicissitude in his odes and argues that
if we interpret N.7 in this light many of the problems disappear. Pindar often depicts
the dark side of myth as well as the bright, since this exemplifies the mutability of
fortune. In Pae. 6 only the dark side of Neoptolemus was given, but in N. 7, because of
the objections that had been taken to this treatment of him, Pindar shows that
Neoptolemus, like most others, has a bright side too. Pindar is not recanting his
earlier treatment of Neoptolemus; he is rather expanding on it and pointing out that
Neoptolemus, after vicissitude, attained a position of honour.
SEGAL (654) analyses the structure and symbolism of N.7. Although he may be
justified in finding "symbolic clusters" such as "water-life-light-poetry-fame; sea-
death-darkness-envy," as so often happens in symbolic interpretations, the author's
zeal exceeds the evidence of the text. For example, SEGAL rightly notes the similarity
between vv. 100-101 and 39-40, but wrongly states that 100-101 recall "the prayer for
the continuity of Neoptolemus' race in 39-40." There is no prayer in 39-40. SETTI
(655) takes issue with those who maintain that N.7 has nothing to do with Pae. 6 and
aittempts to show how the ode "e tutta informata . . . a un intento apologetico. che si
attuia progressivamente intrecciandosi con gli altri elementi 'programmatici' e
poetici." The German summary of BORECKY (656) runs as follows: "Anap-
neomien . . . ist zut interpretieren als 'wir werden geboren.' Dieser Sinn wird abgeleitet
Von delr ersten Einatmung bei der Geburt. Durch diese Interpretation gelangen die
Vv. 5 f. in engen Zusammenhang mit dem Gedanken der ersten Strophe von der
aingeborelneln Ttigend."
YOUNG's tirst article (657) comments on the relevance of Eleithvia for Sogenes.
the significance of the proem and the meaning of w. 17-18. He makes the attractive
suggestion that the epigram of Simonides which the scholiast, Aristodemus, mentions
is in fact Sim. fr. 168 Bergk and that it was adduced not "as a historical source for the
biography of Sogenes, but as a literary parallel for the kind of onomastic pun that he
has just attributed to Pindar." YOUNG also makes a strong case for explaining
sophoi in v. 17 as "wise patrons," comparing similar passages in Theoc. 16.15 and 63.
In his second article (658) YOUNG rejects milv interpretation (AJP 84 [19631182-88) of
v. 31 and argues for "esteemed" and "unesteemed." KROMER (659) argues that hoi
in N.7.22 can denote either Homer or Odysseus and that the ambiguity is deliberate.
"Through this rhetorical device Pindar simultaneously describes and demonstrates
the power of song through which poet and hero become inseparable from one
another." RUCK (660) rightly refers tria epea in N.7.48 to the account just given of
Neoptolemus, but I am not convinced by his attempt to show that Pindar's feigned
reftusalto etulogizein the expansive manner of epic explains several passages in what
follows nolrbv his interpretation of martvs as Apollo. SEGAL (661) translates vv. 70-
74 as follows: "I swear, Sogenes, that in stepping forth toward the marker (set by
other javelins), I did not wield my tongue like the bronze-cheeked javelin which sends
the neck and strength (of a losing contestant) unwetted out of the wrestling before his
limbs fall on the burning sun. If there was toil, it (the toil) seeks after joy the more."
This may well be right. In P.1.42-45 he argues that atgoniiosbalein exo refers "to the
process of being eliminated because of an inferior throw and not to a foul or a wild
throw."
662. G. Maurach. "Pindars Religiositat in Nem. 10" in Pro mnunere grates.

Studies opgedra aan H. L. Gonin deur oud-studente en kollegas (Pretoria 1971) 117-
21
663. J. Stern, "The Myths ofPindar'sNemean 10," GRBS 10(1969)125-32
MAURACH concentrates on the religious aspect of N. 10, with some comments on

the style. He argues that the purpose of the Dioscuri myth is to provide an analogy for
Theaeus. Just as Zeus granted Polydeuces' prayerbecause of his worthiness, so Zeus is
asked to grant the prayer of Theaeus, the protege of the Dioscuri, for an Olympian
victory. STERN examines the choice of words and the verbal echoes employed in the
myths of N.10 to emphasize the ode's theme, i.e. "the communication which exists
between the world of men and the world of the divine."
D. ISTHMIAN ODES
664. E. Thummer, Pindar. Die Isthmischen Gedichte. Textkritisch her-
ausgegeben, ubersetzt und kommentiert, mit einer Analyse der pindarischen
Epinikien, 2 vols. (Heidelberg 1968-69). Pp. 207, 149
665. P. A. Bernardini, "Una nuova fonte sull'istituzione dei giochi istmici (P.
Oxy. 2451 fr. 1)," QUCC 16 (1973) 138-41
THUMMER's first volume contains a lengthy analysis of the many themes of praise
employed by Pindar, followed by a text and translation of the Isthmian odes. The
second volume is devoted to the commentary. THUMMER is an excellent Pindarist
and his commentary is generally convincing. The classification of Pindar's methods of
praising the victor extends the usefulness of his study beyond the Isthmian odes alone.
BERNARDINI notes that Plut. Theseus 25.4-5 helps to explain the origin of the Isth-
mian games which seems to be described in the opening lines of P. Oxy. 2451, fr. 1
(col. i). All four of the main games were thought of as deriving their origin from an
ag6n epitaphios, but were later organized as athletic contests by a particular in-
dividual.
665a. V. Schmidt, "Zu Pindar," Glotta 53 (1975) 36-43 (36-39)
On the analogy of other keisthai compounds that are transitive, SCHMIDT argues
that in 1.1.41 katakeitai should be treated as transitive with organ as its direct object.
666. L. Woodbury, "Pindar and the MercenaryMuse: Isthm. 2.1-13," TAPA 99

(1968) 527-42
WOODBURY discusses and rejects previous interpretations of the proem of I.2.
"The contrast between the ancient poets and the mercenary Muse does not aim at
approval of the former nor at reproof of the latter. Its purpose is to demonstrate the
increased capabilities and achievements of wealth properly used, and so to praise the
public use that Thrasybulus has made of his own wealth by commissioning and
producing the present ode." The profit which the Muse seeks is "the highest profit,
the praise of excellence."
666a. J. B. Lidov, "The Poems and Performance of Isthmians 3 and 4," CSCA 7
(1974)175-85
After a discussion of the metre of I.3 and 4 and an analysis of their contents,
LIDOV concludes that they are separate odes, but "were written for continuous
performance."
666b. D. Bremer, "Theia bei Pindar - Mythos und Philosophie," A&A 21 (1975)
85-96
667. D. Korzeniewski, "Pindars Verskunst in seinem funften isthmischen
Gedicht," RhM 115 (1972) 204-14
668. G. F. Gianotti, "Pindaro, I. 5, 56-58," RFIC 98(1970)405-407
KORZENIEWSKI illustrates the "kunsterlerische Einheit von Wort und Metrum"
in I.5 and shows how this contributes to the ode's structure. GIANOTTI emends L
5.58 to elpidon knizon opin.
669. D. C. Young, PindarIsthmian 7, Myth and Exempla (Leiden 1971). Pp. 51
670. B. Moreux, "Demeter et Dionysos dans la septieme Isthmique de Pindare,"
REG 83 (1970) 1-14
YOUNG's study of I.7 has conclusively shown that the historical and biographical
interpretation of the ode is misguided. For further details see Willcock's review in CR
24 (1974) 14-16. MOREUX argues, primarily on the basis of chalkokrotou (v. 3), that
Demeter had in Thebes acquired some at least of the characteristics of Cybele.
671. A. Deman, "Crime et chatiment du revolutionnaire dans l'historiographie

antique," WZRostock 18 (1969) 331-37
672. C. A. P. Ruck, "Marginalia Pindarica," Hermes 96 (1968) 661-74
673. M. L. West (see 55, p. 212)
674. D. C. Young, "The Text of Pindar Isthmian 8.70," AJP 94 (1973) 319-26
DEMAN (671) argues that Tantalus symbolizes rebellion against the established
order. In I.8 the stone of Tantalus "dans le contexte des guerres m6diques doit
signifier que la faute d'Hybris a ete commise par Thebains tyrannistes qui voulaient
renverser l'aristocratie." A similar interpretation of the myth of Tantalus is seen in
other authors also. RUCK (672) examines passages which have been explained as
revealing Pindar's attitude towards Theban medizing and argues that there is "no
certain evidence that Pindar ever espoused the oligarchic pro-Persian cause in
Thebes." L.8.5-6 should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the ode itself and the
balance between vv. 5-16 and 62-71 suggests that the grief Pindar feels in v. 5 is for the
death of the victor's cousin Nicocles. WEST (673) reads epekraine in 8.24, comparing
Bacch. 13.45 and Eur. Hcld. 143. YOUNG (674) supports Theiler's emendation in v.
70, although he prefers the genitive kolpou to Theiler's dative and proposes a dif-
ferent interpretation. On the basis of Theoc. 16.16f. he argues that the passage
means: "He did not curb his youth (unspent) in his pocket ignorant of noble deeds,"
i.e., "Kleandros did not hold back his youthful strength as a miser holds back ex-
penditures."
E. FRAGMENTS
675. W. J. W. Koster, "De quibusdam colis dactylicis deque ceteris metris

Pindari Pae. IV et IX," Mnemosyne 4.20 (1967) 396-402
676. A. C. Cassio, "Pind. Pae. 4 (fr. 52d Sn.), 21-24," ASNP 3.2(1972)469-71
676a. V. Schmidt (see 665a, pp. 39-43)

677. K. Forstel, "Zu Pindars achtem Paian," RhM 115 (1972) 97-113
678. H. Maehler, "Wartetext 5: Ein Pindarfragment,"ZPE 3 (1968) 97-99
KOSTER (675) gives a different explanation of the metre of Paeans 4 and 9 from
that given elsewhere.
CASSIO (676) makes a good case for explaining v. 24 as meaning "providing
abundant themes for song," comparing N.6.29-34 and Pae. 18.1-3. There is,
therefore, no reference to Simonides and Bacchylides in the passage, as most scholars
have maintained or at least suspected. SCHMIDT (676a) argues that in v.50 of Pae.
7b tas=teos.
FORSTEL (677) gives a good analysis of the text and significance of Pae. 8, much of
which extends beyond the Paean itself and is of value for the general understanding of
Pindar's poetry.
MAEHLER (678) publishes a small and very tattered fragment of Pindar (P. Berol.
21114) which came from the same roll as P. Oxy. 1792, i.e., from a roll containing
Pindar's Paeans.
679. D. del Corno, "P. Berol. 9571 verso uber den Dithyrambos. Pindar und die
Poetik des Aristoteles," Akten des XIII. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses
(Munich 1974) 99-110. An abstract appears in BASP 8 (1971) 60-61.
680. R. Fuhrer, "Responsionen in Pindarfragmenten,"ZPE 9(1972)41-42
681. G. A. Privitera (see 312,pp. 137-40)
682. A. Henrichs, "Toward a New Edition of Philodemus' On Piety," GRBS 13
(1972) 67-98 (84-86)
683. L. Lehnus, "Nota al fr. 80 di Pindaro," ZPE 10(1973)275-77
FUHRER (680) finds enough responsion to argue that in fr. 70d. 15 the epode
begins and in v. 42 the antistrophe begins or that the antistrophe begins in v. 15 and
the epode in v. 42. PRIVITERA (681), after some preliminary remarks in which he
supports Johansen's view that fr. 75 was written for a dithyrambic competition in the
agora at the Anthesteria, concentrates on w. 7-9, arguing that Diothen. . .
poreuthent'. . . deuteron means that Pindar "was made to go second by Zeus." By lot
Pindar was the second poet to compete and the reference to lot is expressed in this
manner because Zeus is the god responsible for whatever is allotted to men.
HENRICHS (682) reads desp]oin[an] Kybe(lan] mat[era] in fr. 80 and LEHNUS (683)
argues that this new text suggests that we have the beginning of a hymn, dithyramb or
partheneion. He notes the frequency of parallels at the beginning of a poem for the
name of the deity celebrated, for the ascription of power to the deity concerned, and
for the indirect apostrophe in the accusative.
684. L. Lehnus (see 480)

685. J. A. Haldane, "Pindar and Pan: frs. 95-100 Snell," Phoenix 22 (1968) 18-
31
686. L. Lehnus, "Pan kyon pantodapos in Pindaro fr. 96.2 Snell3," RIL 107
(1973) 423-27
687. E. D. Francis, "Pindar Fr. 104b Snell," CQ 22 (1972) 33-41
688. M. L. West (see 55, p. 212)
HALDANE (685) gives an excellent and detailed analysis of the evidence for
Pindar's partheneion on Pan and reconstructs as much of the song as can reasonably
be determined from the testimonia and fragments. "We may readily believe that it
was the rumoured epiphany of the god at Thebes that was primarily responsible for
the decision to worship him there, and that the performance of Pindar's Partheneion
was the central act of the installation ceremony. In that case there is no difficulty in
seeing why it was 'set apart.' It was predominantly a sacral and not a secular com-
position, concerned with acknowledging the favour shown by the god and with of-
fering him new praise and honours in return." LEHNUS (686) argues convincingly
that ky6n means "servant" and that pantodapos denotes the "carattere miscellaneo
della figura caprina e umana del dio." FRANCIS (687) gives a magisterial analysis of
the language, dialect, and metre of fr. 104b which cast grave doubts on Pindaric
authorship. "To conclude that this fragment may belong to the corpus of Ionic lyric is
congruent with the most self-consistent account of the dialect of its textual
tradition. Since Pindar characteristically employed Ionic and Aeolic as well as Doric
forms in his work, it would obviously be senseless to insist that he did not write a poem
whose diction is not homogeneously Doric. On the other hand the burden of proof
surelv rests with an editor who wishes to claim that this fragment was written by
Pindar and that Plutarch has Ionicized its dialect." WEST (688) treats Lakainan kyna
in fr. 106.1-2 as a gloss and suspects that it displaced something like dizeo.
689. L. Castagna, "Pindaro, fr. 169 Sn.3: interpretazione e proposta di
datazione," SIFC43 (1971)173-98
690. E. Dont, "Pindar und Platon," WS 83 (1970) 52-65
691. M. Gigante, "Euripide e il nuovo frammento pindarico (169 Snell3),"PP 23
(1968) 48-50
692. H. Lloyd-Jones, "PindarFr. 169," HSCP 76(197245-56
693. C. Pavese, "The New Heracles Poem of Pindar," HSCP 72 (1967) 47-88
694. G. Pini, "Sul Nomos ho panton basileus di Pindaro (fr. 169 Sn.4)," SIFC46
(1974) 185-210
695. M. Plezia, "De novo Pindari fragmento Arabico," in Philomathes. Studies
and Essays in the Humanities in Memory of Philip Merlan (The Hague 1971) 270-80
CASTAGNA (689) provides a text, detailed apparatus, translation, commentary on
selected passages, general analysis, and a lengthy attempt to determine the date. On
evidence which I find unconvincing, such as an alleged similarity between passages in
fr. 169 and 1.5, he dates the fragment to shortly after 480. DONT (690) shows that the
concept of nomos in fr. 169 and in Plato's Crito and Laws is the same. The version of
v. 3 which appears in the Gorgias was an intentional modification. GIGANTE (691)
argues that Euripides knew fr. 169 and that this is indicated by a comparison of vv.
1ff. with Hec. 79-80, 26-29 with Her. 382-85, and 29-32 with Bacch. 1133-34 and 1139-
42. LLOYD-JONES (692) provides a commentary on selected passages, metrical
analysis, and defends the view that "nomos here means the law of the universe, and
particularlythe law of Zeus."
PAVESE's (693) detailed study of the text of fr. 169 and of the meaning of certain
words is one of the most important so far written on this difficult poem. PINI (694)
concentrates on the opening five verses. PLEZIA(695) discusses a fragment of Pindar
found in a work entitled "Epistula Aristotelis ad Alexandrum de administratione
civitatum" and written in Arabic. The passage dealing with Pindar is translated as
follows: "Item recte se habet Pindari sententia, praecedentibus haud dissimilis, cum
dicit: Verum enimvero Lex cum omnibus quae sua sunt ad lustitiam accedit; eadem
(Lex) est, quae veritatem ad effectum adducit et vim possidet (parem) atque eius
(veritatis) est." After his analysis he concludes that "satis probabile videtur
fragmentum Arabice traditum ad idem atquefirg. 169 carmen pertinere." A Polish
version with the title "Pindar i prawo" appears in Meander 25 (1970) 198-210.
696. M. L. West (see 55. p. 212)

697. W. J. W. Koster, "De Pindari Fr. 189 Sn.," Mnemosyne 4.24 (1971) 385
698. W. J. W. Koster, "De Phrynichi Trag. Fr. 9.1 et 10; Denuo de Pindari Fr.
189 Sn.," Mnemosyne 4.26 (1973) 393-95
699. H. Lloyd-Jones, "Heracles at Eleusis: P. Oxy. 2622 and P. S. I. 1391," Maia

19 (1967) 206-29
WEST's (696) note on fr. 185 runs as follows: "tacheon is close to Boeckh's
teicheon (with Heyne's eti for esti). But toichekon may be more revealing. If ek is a
correction of esti, we get ek de toichon. If we prefer teicheon, it is town that is burn-
ing; if toichon, I would guess a ship." KOSTER (697) notes that in MS V of Arist.
Vespae the first word of fr. 189 is given as pandeimantoi and he feels this should be
preferred. He calls the line a "tetrameter choriambicus acephalus et hyper-
catalecticus." Further comments on MS V are given in his second note (698).
LLYOD-JONES (699) prints the text of both fragments (for the latter cf. Pind. fr. 346)
and discusses supplements and the train of thought, but concentrates primarilyon the
katabaseis in the Odyssey, Bacch. 5, Frogs, Aeneid 6, Apollodorus etc. (showing their
inter-relation) and the katabasis of Heracles which was probably written in the 6th
century by an Athenian "or a person belonging to the orbit of Athenian culture" who
"had a marked interest in Eleusis and in Athens." It is quite possible that fr. 249a,
Dith. 2, and the new fragment are all the same poem, but they might be two or even
three different poems.
See also (5), (14), (15), (18), (29), (30), (32), (37a), (40), (190), (213), (228), (382), (446)
(470a).
University of WestemnOntario Douglas E. Gerber
NOTICETO READERS
The September and October issues are being mailed to all who subscribed to
Volume 69 (1975-76). We remind you that individualsubscriptions (as distinct
from those of libraries) are contingent in the U.S.A. upon membership in the
appropriate Regional Associations.
The names of the respective Secretary-Treasurers appear on the renewal form

(enclosed in the September issue) and on the inside back cover of the journal.
Early renewals are urged, continuation cannot be guaranteed beyond the
October issue unless payment is made.
All enquiries about subscriptions may be addressed to

Prof. Evelyn H. Clift
Secretary-Treasurer,CAAS
441 Townsend Rd.
Newark, Delaware 19711

D. E. Gerber, Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry 1967-1975, CW 70 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. E. Gerber, Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry 1967-1975, CW 70 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry: 1967-1975

Author(s): Douglas E. Gerber

Studies in Greek Lyric Poetry: 1967-1975

Greek poetry (Cambridge 1974). Pp. xiv, 263

Philologus 112 (1968) 147-72

57. I. Gallo, "L'epigramma biografico sui nove lirici greci e il 'canone'

See also (62), (75), (78).

73. C. Prato, Tirteo. Introduzione, testo critico, testimonianze e commento

See also (62), (68), (366).

102. A. Martina, "Plutarco, Sol. 14, 8," QUCC 14(1972)41-45

104a. O. Ameduri, "L'Eunomia di Solone e le Eumenidi," AFLNn.s. 1(1970-71)

KOLLERITSCH (105) is primarily concerned with the statement made by loannes

107a. R. Westman, "Ein uberdecktes Wort in \Solons Salamiselegie," Arctos 8

129. Q. Cataudella, "Ancora su ou moi pinetai oinos (261-66) e su altri versi di

132. B. Gentili, "Il 'letto insaziato' di Medea e il tema dell'Adikia a livello

si annuncia come eraste's, manifestando senza equivoci il contenuto parenetico-

V. IAMBUS (See III)

141. G. Broccia, "Archiloco," in Tradizione ed esegesi(Brescia 1969) 75-92

need be so interpreted. But even if Archilochus composed orally, I see no reason to

7511," ZPE 16 ( 1975) 223-33

189. W. de Sousa Medeiros, Hipponactea. Subsidios para uma nova edicao

DEGANI (190) concentrates primarily on frr. 48 and 34. In fr. 48 he emends to

See also (17), (170), (171).

VI. MELIC POETS (excluding Pindar)

an apparent unawareness of studies previously published. In his second article (200)

210. P. Janni, "Nuovi studi alcmanei," QUCC4 (1967)188-93

235. A. Farina. Stiudi stesicorei. Parte /)rima: il m1tito di Elena (Naples

237a. J. L. Calvo Martinez, "Estesicoro de Himera," Durius 2 (1974) 311-42

CALVO MARTINEZ (237a) discusses Stesichorus under the headings "Datos

la obra de Estesicoro." CATAUDELLA (238) discusses the nature of Stesichorus'

253. R. Fuhrer, "Die metrische Struktur von Stesichoros' Ge^ryoneis(P. Ox.

258. M. Robertson, "Gervoneis: Stesichorus and the Vase-Painters," CQ 19

ALFONSI (260) lists several references in Christian writers to Stesichorus' Palinode

274. E.M.Voigt, Sal;/'ho( t Ale/tes(Amnsterdanm1971). Pp.507

281. H. Saake, Zur Kunst Sapphos. Motiv-analytische und kom-

284. E. Barilier, "La figure d'Aphrodite dans quelques fragments de Sappho,"

291. E. Heitsch, "Zum Sappho-Text," Hermes 95 (1967) 385-92

302. M. G. Bonanno, "Osservazioni sul tema della 'giusta' reciprocita amorosa

322a. R. Tosi, "Sapph. fr. 5 V.," MCr 8/9 (1973/74) 133-34

326. F. J. Brevet, "Sappho en de dokter," Hermeneus 41 (1970) 250-51

v. 9, gives a survey of previous interpretations of the poem, a lengthy account of the

341. P. Innocenti, "Ancora su eidos: Sapph. 34.2 LP," Atti e Memorie

369. C. Gallavotti, "Alcaei carmen de Aiace," ZPE4 (1969)174

MERKELBACH's article (373) is the editio princeps of P. Colon. 2021, a papyrus

377. M. N6thiger (see 237)

381. J. P. Barron, "Ibycus: To Polycrates," BICS 16 (1969) 119-49

396. M. F. Galiano, "Anakreon gestern und heute," Das Altertum 18 (1972)

398a. M. and A. Blanchard, "La mosiaiqued'Anacreon a Autun," REA 75 (1973)

The article by the BLANCHARDS (398a) is devoted in part to an inscription which

427. J. Fontenrose, "The Hero as Athlete," CSCA 1 (1968) 73-104

See also (15), (29), (64), (446), (447), (541).

441. H. Kriegler, Untersuchungen zu den optischen und akustischen Daten der

For an accurate assessment of KRIEGLER's dissertation (441) see Innes' review in

BALASCH (445) analyses a number of passages in Bacchylides which illustrate his

457. P. T. Brannan. "Bacchylides' Third Ode," CF 27 (1973)187-229

466. G. W. Pieper, "The Prooemium of Bacchylides' Ode 7," GRBS 10 (1969)

468. R. Merkelbach. "Bakchylides auf einen Sieger in den HWne,rasiazu

475. R. Merkelbach. "Der Theseus des Bakchvlides (Gedicht fuirein attisches

486a. R. Merkelbach, Kritische Beitrage Zu anitikei Aitor-e (Meisenheim 1974)

487. M. L. W. Eggheider, "Die Wahrheltserkenntnis des Pythermos. Eine

See also (9), (46), (49), (356).

502. C. M. Bowra, The Odes of Pindar, translated with an introduction (Har-