Hide browse bar
Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the
line to jump to another position:
Table of Contents:
Syntax
Pindar's syntax differs from Homer's at many points, but it is not
easy to tell what belongs to the period, what to the department,
what to the individual. Only the most important points can be
touched here,1 and completeness of statistic is
not attempted.
One mark of advance is the extension of the substantive use of the
neuter adjective, which can itself take another adjective. We
feel ourselves nearer to Thukydides than to Homer when we read
τερπνὸν ἐπάμερον (I. 6 [7],
40), ἀτειρεῖ σὺν ἀγαθῷ (O. 2.33), ἐν
ἀμείβοντι (N.
11.42).
The scarcity of the dual is also noteworthy. The dual is preserved chiefly by
Homer and the Attic writers. In the Attic orators, even, it dies out
as we come down. It is not found in the Ionic of Herodotos. It is a
stranger to Asiatic Aiolic, as it is a
stranger to Latin. In P. there are very few examples. The dual
substantive, χεροῖν (O. 13.95), is a rarity, and so is
ποδοῖν (N. 9.47), but such duals are found occasionally even in
the so - called common dialect. κασιγνήτα (O. 13.6) is
not dual, and we must be satisfied with an occasional dual
participle, ἀτυζομένω (O. 8.39), καταβάντε (O. 9.46).
It is very unlikely that P. should have used the few dual verbs
(O. 2.97:
γαρύετον, O. 9.49:
κτισσάσθαν) without a full
appreciation of the dual force.2
The distributive plural as O. 12.9:
τῶν μελλόντων φραδαί, O. 9.21:
στεφάνων ἄωτοι, P. 1.4:
προοιμίων ἀμβολάς, P. 10.72:
πολίων κυβερνάσιες, the use of the
plural abstract as concrete, ἀγλαΐαι,
ἀρεταί, and the like, are Pindaric. The Homeric use
of the abstract plural is not common. See note on O. 5.20. The plural of stateliness
— ἀγγελίαι, δόμοι, θάλαμοι,
λέκτρα — occurs often. In P. 3.66 we have a plural of courtliness
and reserve. A remarkable plural for singular is found in O. 9.60.
Peculiarities of concord, such as the singular verb with combined
subjects (O. 5.15; P. 2.10; 4, 66; 10, 4. 10; 11, 45), and neut. pl.
with verb pl. (O. 8.12; 10 [11], 93;
P. 1.13; 4, 121), may be passed
over with bare mention. Not so the σχῆμα
Πινδαρικόν, which, however, hardly deserves its
name, for the trustworthy examples are few. The peculiarity of this
figure is the combination of a plural substantive with a singular
verb. But the singular is the general and the plural the particular;
and if the verb precedes, we have not so much a want of concord as
an after-thought. As it is, most of the Pindaric instances have
disappeared under critical treatment. See the note on O. 11 (10), 6.
The case-register of a poet is of especial importance for his style,
and Pindar's use of the cases shows in an eminent degree his genius for vivid presentation.3 His free use of the
accusative is a return to the original sweep of the case. What is called
the outer object is really an extension of the inner object.
ἄνδρα κτείνειν is ἀνδροκτασίαν ποιεῖσθαι or else
ἀνδροκτόνον εἶναι. The
countless number of outer objects is apt to obscure the inner
object, in which almost all the variety of the accusative lies. In
Pindar the inner object has its wide poetic, its wide popular sweep.
νικᾶν Ἑλλάδα (P. 12.6) is commonplace. Not so
νικᾶν δρόμον (O. 4.20), νικᾶν
στέφανον (N. 5.5). To
the same class belongs πῦρ
πνεόντων (O. 7.71; 13,
90), ἀλκὰν ὁρῶντα (O. 9.119), ὗσε
χρυσόν (O. 7.50),
ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντέφλεξε Μήνα
(O. 3.20), οὐ καλὰ δένδρεα θάλλεν ὁ χῶρος (O. 3.23). A very different effect would
have been produced by ὗσε χρυσῷ,
δένδρεσσιν ἔθαλλεν.
The adverbial accusative is so familiar a form of the inner object
that it is not necessary to cite examples, especially of the
neuter accusatives. Nor need we note such common uses as δίκην and τρόπον.
καιρὸν εἰ φθέγξαιο (P.
1.81) reminds one of Sophokles'
“καιρὸν δ᾽ ἐφήκεις”
(Ai. 34)
. The appositive accusative, the object effected, of the
sentence, ἄποινα (O. 7.16 al.), χάριν (O. 10 [11], 86 al.), is often distinctly felt
in its case-relation, though the post-Homeric deadening of χάριν is also found, Διὸς χάριν (P.
3.95).
An old use of the accusative of the outer object is the combination
with passives, intransitives, adjectives, verbal nouns, not
otherwise felt than such loose English compounds as
“hoof-bound,”
“shoulder-shotten,”
“footsore,” “heart-sick.” In
Pindar these accusatives refer chiefly to the body and its parts,
either as such or as the seat of thought and emotion, seldom to
abstracts. σῶμα, μέλη, χρῶτα, κάρα,
πρόσωπα, νῶτα, ἦτορ, κέαρ, φρένας, ὀργάν, ψυχάν,
θυμόν, νόον, φύσιν, τάχος, μῆτιν, ἀρετάν.
εἶδος and ὄψιν are
hardly felt as abstracts.
Double accusatives in Pindar show few extensions of any importance.
ἐρέφω takes the acc. of the
whole and the acc. of the part, a familiar Homeric figure,
λάχναι νιν μέλαν γένειον
ἔρεφον (O. 1.68).
ἐρημόω takes the acc. of the
person and the acc. of the thing (P.
3.97), somewhat strangely; μέρος, however, may be an after - thought. The factitive
predicate is boldly used in P. 4.6:
χρῆσεν οἰκιστῆρα Βάττον,
“Battos for the leader.” Proleptic (predicative)
uses must be watched. The absence of the article leaves the
adjective and substantive, as in Latin, without any external
indication of the figure. So O. 1.68:
λάχναι νιν μέλαν (“to
blackness”) γένειον
ἔρεφον, v. 82: τά κέ τις
ἀνώνυμον γῆρας . . . ἕψοι; v. 88: ἕλεν . . . παρθένον σύνευνον, and so
in almost every ode.
The acc. of extent in space and time requires no notice.4 The terminal accusative, which is not a whither-case,
but only a characteristic of motion, occurs in Pindar, who,
like Homer, limits it to a comparatively narrow range of verbs and
substantives. ἵκειν and its
kindred should not be counted, — they are transitive like
Shakespeare's “arrive,” — but ἐλθεῖν, μολεῖν, βῆναι, νίσεσθαι
cannot be excluded. So ἐλθεῖν with
πεδίον (P. 5.52), μέγαρον
(P. 4.134), δόμον (O.
14.20), Κρόνιον (O. 1.111), Λιβύαν (I. 3 [4], 72). I. 2, 48: ἠθαῖον ἔλθῃς seems doubtful. O. 2.105:
αἶνον ἔβα κόρος has given way
to αἶνον ἐπέβα, but O. 9.76:
πεδίον μολών, and N. 10.35:
ἔμολεν Ἥρας τὸν εὐάνορα
λαόν stand. Pindar far prefers the more concrete
preposition, and it is a mistake to attempt the extension of the
terminal accusative, as has been done.
The genitive as a fossilized adjective stands in the same relation to
the substantive as the accusative to the verb. The denominative verb
takes the genitive by reason of its substantive element, just as the
adjective takes the accusative by reason of the verbal activity in
the floating predicate. Noteworthy is the large employment of the
adj. in -ιος
for relations otherwise expressed by the genitive,
especially of possession, origin, time, place. The dialectical
preference for -ιος instead of the genitive of the father
is marked.5 In Attic
“ὁ μὲν Κλεινίειος οὗτος”
(Plat. Gorg. 482 D)
is said with a tone of poetic persiflage; to Pindar himself
the effect must have been less striking than it is to us. So
ὦ Κρόνιε παῖ (O. 2.13), Ποσειδάνιον Κτέατον (O. 10 [11], 30), Ξενάρκειον . . . υἱόν (P. 8.19).
With the genitive proper is blended the ablative. The significations
of the two cases often meet in languages in which the forms are
quite distinct. Of special uses of the genitive in either direction
there is not much to note. Possession, origin, cause, material, are
familiar everywhere. The genitive of material varies with the
adjective. λίθινος is the rule, but
Παρίου λίθου (N. 4.81) is a necessity, as in
prose.6
ἀδαμάντινος is used once (P. 4.224), ἀδάμαντος once (P.
4.71), ἐξ ἀδάμαντος once
(fr. IX. 2, 3). χρύσεος, which,
however, is often used figuratively, is far more common than
χρυσοῦ.
Quality is everywhere in the language expressed by the adjective, and
there is no example of a genitive of quality in Pindar.7 The appositive genitive is rare, as
δρακόντων φόβαι (P. 10.47), where δρακόντειοι φόβαι might have been used. Κάστορος βία (P. 11.61), Αἴαντος
ἀλκά (I. 3 [4], 53), σθένος
ἡμιόνων (O. 6.22),
λῆμα Κορωνίδος (P. 3.25), are familiar idioms. Pindar
can even say, P. 6.35:
Μεσσανίου γέροντος δονηθεῖσα φρὴν βόασε
παῖδα ϝόν, and the boldness of P. 1.73:
Τυρσανῶν ἀλαλατὸς . . . ἰδών,
is exemplary. Cf. N. 3.60.
The genitive in the predicate is common. So after εἶναι
(O. 9.57; P. 3.60). φυτεύεσθαι has the privilege of γίγνεσθαι (P.
4.256), κεκλῆσθαι is an
extension of εἶναι (P. 3.67). On the genitive with πεμφθέν, see O.
8.43, and consult further the note on O. 4.10.
The comparative genitive, which is an ablative, allows the well-known
brachylogy, hardly felt in English. Ὀλυμπίας
ἀγῶνα
φέρτερον (O. 1.7) =
(τοῦ) Ὀλυμπίας (ἀγῶνος) ἀγῶνα
φέρτερον, where I have not thought it worthy of a note. A
remarkable comparative is πρίν with
the genitive, πρὶν ὥρας (P. 4.43), where it is
quasi-prepositional.
Of the verbs of hitting and touching the most remarkable deviations
are in the direction of the dative, for which see p.
xciv. An unusual construction is ὕμνον
ἄρχε (N. 3.10), where
we should expect the genitive. The ἀρχή is the ὕμνος,
ἄρχε is ἀρχομένη
ὕμνει or ἀναβάλλου.
The common uses of the genitive, whether referred to the genitive
proper or the ablative genitive, or left to hover between the two,
need not detain us. So the genitive after verbs of desire (P. 2.27; 3, 20), under which class
ὀρούειν (P. 10.61) and ὀργᾶν, after Christi's conjecture (P. 6.50), the genitive of remembering
(P. 9.95) and forgetting (O. 8.72; P.
4.41), of hearing (P. 1.2;
4, 135), of the part by which such as χειρός (P. 9.132),
αὐχένων (N. 1.44) — with strong
ablative leaning — the genitive of price (O. 12.12; P.
1.39), of cause (O. 7.6),
of time within which (O. 6.61; P. 4.40).
The genitive as a whence-case is used with somewhat more freedom than
in prose. Outside of the verbs of separation the boldest is O. 1.58:
κεφαλᾶς βαλεῖν, and the
interpretation there is doubtful. See also note on O. 4.10. For all local uses Pindar
greatly prefers the preposition, which he employs with peculiar
clearness and force. λύω with the
genitive is perfectly legitimate (O.
2.57; P. 3.50; 11, 34), but he
has ἐκ twice (O. 4.19; I. 7 [8], 5).
The genitive absolute will be taken up under the participle, but it
may be said here that Pindar seems to go somewhat beyond the Homeric
limits.
The dative case in Pindar shows the three elements — the
dative proper, or personal dative (Latin dative), the local dative,
and the
instrumental, or, better, comitative. The personal dative is a
locative plus sensibility; the locative is limited in
its range; the comitative has a personal as well as a local
character, and this is brought out especially when it is reinforced
by σύν.
The personal dative is used in Pindar with poetic freedom, but the
differences from Homeric use and from prose use are not startling
for the most part. The differences are differences of degree, not of
kind, and it is unnecessary to go through the categories of the
dative of possession (so-called), of profit and loss, freely
combined with verbal nouns as well as with verbs, the ethic dative.
It may, however, be worth while to say that there is no double
dative in the sense of whole and part as in the acc. (σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος). In
Pindar, as in Homer, the dative of the whole depends on the complex
with the second dative. So O. 2.16:
ἄρουραν πατρίαν σφισὶ κόμισον λοιπῷ
γένει, σφισί depends on the whole group, ἄρουραν πατρίαν κόμισον λοιπῷ
γένει. The dative of reference (O. 2.93:
φωνάεντα συνετοῖσιν), the dative
of the participle (O. 8.60:
εἰδότι, “to one that
knows”), (P. 10.67:
πειρῶντι, “to one that
tests”), which is the beginning of a dat. absol. that did
not ripen, the dative with verbals in -τός all belong to the common apparatus of the language.
The so-called dative of the agent, however, is really a dative of
personal interest. The agency is only an inference. The prose
construction is generally with the perf. or equivalent aor. (cf.
P. 1.73:
ἀρχῷ δαμασθέντες). On the
construction with the present, see O.
8.30; 12, 3. The Homeric construction of δέχομαι with dat. is used in Pindar
also. The giver is interested as well as the receiver. See notes on
O. 13.29 and P. 4.21.
The conception often seems to be in suspense between the personal
dative and the local. The dat. of inclination is a personal dative.
So the dat. with κλίνεσθαι, N. 4.15:
τῷδε μέλει κλιθείς, but in O. 1.92:
Ἀλφεοῦ πόρῳ κλιθεῖσα, it would
seem to be rather instrumental, as in P. 10.51:
ἔρεισον χθονί. In O. 6.58:
Ἀλφεῷ καταβὰς μέσσῳ, it is
better to personify.
An unusual extension of the personal dative is seen in verbs of
touching, which in Pindar are construed as verbs of approach, though
the other construction with the genitive is also known to him.
ψαύω has the dat., P. 9.130; the normal genitive, O. 6.35; N.
5.42; ἅπτομαι the dat.,
P. 10.28; N. 8. 36 (ἐφ.); I. 3 (4), 30; the genitive, O. 3.43; P.
3.29; N. 8.13. 22;
θιγγάνω the dat., P. 4.296; 9, 42; genitive, I. 1, 18.
With some verbs which familiarly take the dative, Pindar occasionally
uses a preposition to make the image more vivid. So especially
ἐν with the favorite μίγνυμι, O.
1.90; P. 4.251; I. 2, 29.
The adjectives that vary between genitive and dative vary according
to the predominance of the fixed element or floating element
(“his like,” “like him”),
N. 5.8. φίλος as a subst. takes genitive, as an adj., the
dat., N. 4.22; I. 1, 5. There is a
certain caprice in these matters that it is not profitable to
pursue. In O. 3.30:
Ὀρθωσίᾳ ἔγραψεν ἱεράν, the
dat. gives an ugly but not unexampled hiatus
which can be removed by substituting the genitive.
Of the adverbs, ἔνδον, which
regularly takes the genitive (as O.
2.93; 7, 62; P. 11.64), takes
the dat. (N. 3.52; 7, 44). ἄγχι with dat. (N. 6.11) is figurative, but ἀγχοῦ (N. 9.40) is
local. The government of a dative by such a word as κοινωνίαν (P.
1.98) is an extension not to be wondered at in
postHomeric Greek, though not very common in the standard language.
The comitative, or, as it is more usually called, the instrumental
dative, is common enough in Pindar, as O.
1.49:
Comitative (Instrumental)
Dative. |
μαχαίρᾳ τάμον,
but he often uses the more personal σύν, as σὺν ἔντεσι
(P. 12.21), the more concrete
ἐν, as ἐν χερσί (P. 2.8). As
the verbal noun has much of the verbal motion in Pindar, we are
prepared for such extensions as I. 2, 13: Ἰσθμίαν ἵπποισι νίκαν. Instrument, manner,
cause, run into one another. They are all common in Pindar, and need
not be cited. The causal dative construction, however,
it may be noted, is not so common in Homer. Whether the dative as
the measure of difference is instrumental or local is open to
discussion. The local conception has simplicity in its favor. We can
say διαφέρειν ἐν, we can say
ἐν βασάνῳ. So πάλᾳ κρατέων (O. 8.20) is “wherein” rather than
“whereby,” though local and instrumental are not
far apart. The descriptive dative, or dat. of manner, ἀλαθεῖ νόῳ (O. 2.101), ἐλευθέρᾳ
φρενί (P. 2.57), ἀσθενεῖ χρωτί (P. 1.55), is common, and there are a few dative adverbs
varying with prepositional combination. τύχᾳ is less common than σὺν
τύχᾳ δίκᾳ than σὺν δίκᾳ,
ἀνάγκᾳ than σὺν
ἀνάγκᾳ.
From the local dative must be separated the locative proper, such as
Ἰσθμοῖ and Πυθοῖ. Whatever rights the local dative
may have,
Pindar does not exercise them freely. When the simple dative is
followed by ἐν with the dat., as
P. 5.70:
Λακεδαίμονι | ἐν Ἄργει τε, we have every reason to
suppose that the ἐν was forefelt
just as the οὐ may be forefelt when
οὔτε follows. Some examples
may be construed personally, as P. 3.4:
βάσσαισι（ν) ἄρχειν Παλίου, or
instrumentally, as O. 6.31:
κρύψε δὲ παρθενίαν ὠδῖνα
κόλποις.
Nor is the temporal dative very common. χρόνῳ by itself is not temporal, but comitative or
instrumental. It means, as in prose, “at last,” e.
g. O. 10 [11], 93; P. 4.258. For the
active side see N. 1.46. Yet χρόνῳ has a temporal sense with an
adjective, as P. 4.55:
χρόνῳ | ὑστέρῳ, though we find P. 10.17:
ὑστέραισιν | ἐν ἁμέραις. So O. 1.43:
δευτέρῳ χρόνῳ, O. 2.41:
ἄλλῳ χρόνῳ. In ἁμέραισιν (P.
1.22) the ἐν of ἐν ὄρφναισιν is forefelt. νυκτί occurs only in O. 1.2. The dative of time of sacred
festivals and games is claimed by some for O.
5.5; N. 2.24, but even
these are doubtful. The explanation of Pindar's limited use of the
dat. of place and time is to be sought in his liking for the
preposition, which in his hands is potent.
The suffix -θεν is freely used by Pindar, and sometimes takes the
place of the ablative genitive, ἄνευ
σέθεν (N. 7.2), πὰρ σέθεν (P.
1.88), ἐκ σέθεν (I. 3
[4], 5), and so of the possessive, σέθεν ὄπα (N.
3.5), σέθεν παῖδας (I.
1, 55), not that the whence force is lost. The local -δε is little used. We find it in οἴκαδε, Πυθῶνάδε, Τροίανδε.
The limits of this outline make it impossible to go into the details
of the use of the prepositions in Pindar.8 A few illustrations must serve to show the plastic
power he puts forth. The local signification is seldom effaced; we
feel the motion in space, the rest in space, everywhere. ἐς γένος — the MSS. have
ἐς γενεάς — (N. 4.68) is not simply γένει, there is an element of purpose
moving to an end. In O.
6.12:
τὶν δ᾽ αἶνος ἑτοῖμος ὃν ἐν
δίκᾳ | ἀπὸ γλώσσας
Ἄδραστος μάντιν Οἰκλείδαν ποτ᾽ ἐς Ἀμφιάρηον
| φθέγξατο, each
preposition is used in its full force. The word moves roundly off
the tongue, the praise is not simply about Amphiaraos, but goes out
towards the lost στρατιᾶς
ὀφθαλμός. Compare the festal picture, O. 7.1:
ἀφνειᾶς ἀπὸ χειρὸς δωρήσεται.
Another passage where the ἀπό of
time is also the ἀπό of space is
P. 5.114:
ποτανὸς ἀπὸ ματρὸς φίλας,
“a winged soul from his mother's lap,”
“from the time he left his
mother's lap.” ἐξ is to
ἐν as ἀπό is to ἐπί,
and while ἀπό and ἐξ occur in similar combination,
ἐξ largely outnumbers ἀπό. In N. 5.7:
ἐκ δὲ Κρόνου ἥρωας φυτευθέντας καὶ
ἀπὸ Νηρηΐδων, it would be unwise to insist on the
difference, but ἀπὸ θεοῦ would
not satisfy us for ἐκ θεοῦ in O.
11 (10), 10: ἐκ θεοῦ δ᾽ ἀνὴρ σοφαῖς
ἀνθεῖ πραπίδεσσιν. ἐξ in the sense of
“outside of,” “beyond,”
“above,” occurs once in O. 6.25. Pindar's favorite preposition
is ἐν, Every one who has watched
the behavior of ἐν in composition,
where the original force best shows itself, is acquainted with its
realistic touch. Compare, for instance, even in prose, ἀποδείκνυμι, ἐπιδείκνυμι, and
ἐνδείκνυμι. Pindar uses it
adverbially. So O. 13.22 and O. 7.5. He uses it occasionally in
Aiolic odes for εἰς with the acc.,
P. 2.11. 86; 5, 38; N. 7.31. Especially noteworthy is what
is called the instrumental use of ἐν, a use which is especially familiar to us from the Greek of the New Testament, although there
it is the result of Semitic influences. Everywhere in this so-called
instrumental ἐν we can trace the
local ἐν, the seat of the
manifestation, the abode of the power. In many of the examples
English itself would tolerate the local “in” as
well as the instrumental “with.” We can
understand N. 11.28:
ἀνδησάμενος κόμαν ἐν πορφυρέοις
ἔρνεσιν, as well as I. 1, 28: ἀνδησάμενοι ἔρνεσι χαίτας. So N. 1.52:
ἐν χερὶ τινάσσων φάσγανον, P. 2.8:
ἀγαναῖσιν ἐν χερσὶ ποικιλανίους
ἐδάμασσε πώλους, which brings before us the image
of the reins in the hands of the tamer. O.
5.19:
ἀπύων ἐν αὐλοῖς is a perfectly
comprehensible combination to any one who considers the nature of
that wind-instrument. The combination of ἐν with νόμῳ gives the
limits, the environment (P. 1.62;
N. 10.28; I. 2, 38). ἐν δίκᾳ is not a stranger to prose.
The proleptic use of ἐν with the
dat., instead of εἰς with the acc.,
is common everywhere with τιθέναι,
and common in Pindar, who, however, extends it. The anticipation of
the result has the same effect of resistlessness that thrusts the
local διά with the acc. out of
prose in favor of διά with the
genitive. In some of the Pindaric passages ἐν has been made adverbial, or, in other words, tmesis
has been assumed, but the image often loses by it. There can be no
tmesis in O. 7.69:
λόγων κορυφαὶ |
ἐν ἀλαθειᾳ πετοῖσαι =
ἀλαθεῖς γενόμεναι.
σύν is an intensely personal
preposition. In standard prose its use is limited to consecrated
phrases of religion (σὺν θεῷ）
and business. The comparatively frequent
use of it in Xenophon and in later Greek has made scholars
regardless of its infrequency in model prose. Thukydides does not
use it often, Isokrates never. Pindar, as a poet, has σύν very often, μετά with the genitive very rarely. The use of
σύν where we should have
expected the simple dative has already been touched. It serves to
personify, to make the tool an accomplice. To bring this to our
consciousness we sometimes do well to translate “with the
help of,” as “with” by itself has
become faint to us. P. 12.21:
ὄφρα σὺν ἔντεσι μιμήσαιτ᾽ ἐρικλάγκταν
γόον,
N. 9.48:
“νεοθαλὴς δ᾽ αὔξεται ι
μαλθακᾷ νικαφορία σὺν ἀοιδᾷ”
. The σύν of
time is not infrequent, P. 11.10:
κελαδήσετ᾽ ἄκρᾳ σὺν ἑσπέρᾳ,
P. 8.7:
καιρῷ σὺν ἀτρεκεῖι, but it is
well to remember that the Greek considers time as an attendant (cf.
ὁ χρόνος μακρὸς συνών) and
not as a medium merely.
With διά in a local sense, the
genitive is more common, as it is the exclusive use in prose. With
the genitive the passage is already made, or
as good as made. With the accusative διά is ‘along’ as well as
‘through’ (compare ἀνά and κατά), but it
is not safe to insist. He who says πέτεται δ᾽
ἐπί τε χθόνα καὶ διὰ θαλάσσας (N. 6.55), says also ἐπὶ χθόνα καὶ διὰ πόντον βέβακεν
(I. 3, 59). In a transferred sense, διά with the acc. is “owing to,”
never “by means of.” So N. 7.21:
διὰ τὸν ἁδυεπῆ Ὅμηρον, is
“thanks to,” “because of;”
so διὰ δαίμονας (I. 4, 11).
ὑπέρ in Pindar with the genitive is
“above,” both literally and metaphorically; once
“beyond” (N.
3.21), where ὑπέρ with
acc. would be more common. He who
stands over stands to protect, hence ὑπέρ is “in behalf of;” only once
“by reason of” (I. 5 [6], 29); with the acc. it
is “beyond” (O.
1.28); “above” (P. 2.80).
κατά occurs only once with the
genitive, O. 2.65:
κατὰ γᾶς. With the acc. the
perpendicular motion is transformed into horizontal motion,
“along,” and then, to extent, position. κατ᾽ οἶκον (P.
1.72), is “at home,” κατ᾽ Ὄλυμπον (N. 10.17), of the abode of Hebe, κατ᾽ ἄκραν (O.
7.36), of the head of the Olympian, the stage of Athena's
first appearance. The transferred meaning of κατά, “according to,”
“in accordance with,” needs no illustration.
κατά, “after the
likeness of,” is found in P. 2.67:
κατὰ Φοίνισσαν ἐμπολάν. In
P. 4.125, κατὰ κλέος, κ. is “following
hard.”
ἀνά,
which has little scope in prose, has in P. the poetical use with the
dat. (O. 1.41; 8, 51, etc.), and is
as horizontal as κατά with the acc.
(P. 2.60, etc.).
ἀμφί,
another preposition for which prose has little use, is frequent in
Pindar. It is an adverb, O. 1.50
(though the passage is disputed); P.
4.81. On P. 8, 85, see note. As a preposition it has all the oblique
cases, most frequently the dat. The
“both-sidedness” of ἀμφί may be inside, or, more commonly, outside the
dat., ἀμφὶ ποδί, “about
the foot” (P. 4.96),
ἀμφὶ κόμαις, “about
the hair” (O. 13.39). In
this outside use ἀμφί is sometines
weakened as the English “about” is weakened. So
ἀμφὶ κρουνοῖς, “at
the fountain” (O. 13.63),
ἀμφ᾽ ἀνδριάντι σχεδόν,
“hard by the statue” (P.
5.41). In ἀμφὶ
τοκεῦσιν (P. 6.42), where
we should use in prose περὶ
τοκέας, encompassing affection may come in. The parents
are guarded on the right hand and on the left. Then ἀμφί with the dat. is used of the
prize, like περί with dat.,
ἀμφ᾽ ἀργυρίδεσσιν (O. 9.97), and thence transferred to
other relations. For the inside use compare P. 1.12, where ἀμφὶ
σοφίᾳ is “with the environment of
art,” and P. 8.34:
ἐμᾷ ποτανὸν ἀμφὶ μαχανᾷ. So
in O. 13.37:
ἁλίῳ ἀμφ᾽ ἑνί, it is the sun
that compasses, where ἀμφί is felt
almost as an adverb. ἀμφί is also
found with genitive and accusative. The most noteworthy use is O. 10
(11), 85, where τὸν ἐγκώμιον ἀμφὶ
τρόπον seems to make the tune the centre of the song. In
ἀμφὶ κᾶπον (P. 5.24) and ἀμφὶ πανάγυριν (O.
9.103) the κᾶπος and the
πανάγυρις are measured from
within.
As ἀμφί is comparatively common in
Pindar, so περί is comparatively rare. In περὶ δείματι (P. 5.58) it is fear that surrounds. In περὶ ψυχάν (P.
4.122) joy fills the heart from within.
(used adverbially, P. 4.64),
besides the usual prose constructions (O.
1.60 al.; P. 5.11 al.),
has the acc. (O. 1, 66) and the dat.
(O. 2.32) in the sense of
“amid,” and the acc. as
“after” in the sense of “to
get,” as O. 4.21:
μετὰ στέφανον ἰών. Noteworthy is
μετά with genitive in the
general sense of “among,” i. e. “as
part of” (μέτοχος), P. 5.94. πεδά, which answers in meaning to μετά, is construed with acc. πεδὰ μέγαν κάματον (P.
5.47), and in σοφὸς πεδ᾽
ἀφρόνων (P. 8.74) would
be represented in prose by ἐν with
dat. ἐπί,
the most difficult of the Greek prepositions, is used most
frequently with the dative, when the superposition sense makes
itself felt. So O. 11 (10), 13: ἐπὶ
στεφάνῳ
is not “on account of,” but
“in addition to.” (See note on O. 9.121.)
παρά is limited in prose to persons
and personified things, except in the acc. As P. uses παρά freely, there is danger of feeling the personal sense too much.
An old phrase is πὰρ ποδός (P. 3.60; 10, 62). παρά is used freely with the dat. of place. See note
on O. 1.20. παρά with the acc.=propter, appears once in P., κεινὰν παρὰ δίαιταν (O.
2.71). It is the first instance of this use, which does
not become common until much later times.
πρός, not unfrequently in the form
ποτί, once in the form ποτ᾽ (O.
7.90), is a favorite preposition with persons and seems sometimes to personify slightly.
Hence P. 4.295:
θυμὸν ἐκδόσθαι πρὸς ἥβαν
πολλάκις, we feel ἥβαν
almost as a person, and the difference from the personal dative is
not great. So πρός με in prose is
almost μοι. Even with designations
of time, πρὸς ἀῶ (P. 9.27), πρὸς
γῆρας (N. 9.44), the
coming of dawn, of old age, is felt as the approach of an enemy.
πρός with the dat. is seldom
used. πρός
with the genitive of the agent is preferred to ὑπό with the genitive, which is the ordinary prose
construction, and therefore colorless. Pindar tries to keep his
ὑπό fresh, and his ὑπό with the genitive is still
“under,” still what we should call ὑπέκ, although the local meaning comes
out more distinctly with the dative. See note on O. 6.35. These are only specimens, but
they are sufficient to show that in Pindar's poetry the prepositions
stand out with local vividness.
The large use of the adjective instead of the genitive has already
been remarked on, and needs no further emphasis, Adjective. Proleptic
use. |
except so far as it seems to show that neither genitive
of place nor genitive of time is local. The proleptic, or
predicative, use of the adjective is common, and must be watched.
See p. xc.
In the use of the demonstratives Pindar differs from the tragic poets
in his comparatively scant employment of ὅδε, which is pre-eminently dramatic.
Lyric poetry makes little use of the article proper. This is best
shown by a comparison of chorus and dialogue in the drama. In Pindar the
old demonstrative sense is still conspicuous, the article can still
represent and does represent freely an independent demonstrative
pronoun; it can be used as a relative. In combination with the
substantive it has the familiar anaphoric use, the emphatic
reference to that which is known, the use in vision, like ὅδε. In the dactylo-epitrite poems, in
which the article is generally less freely employed, the article
seems to serve to bind the qualifier to the far-distant substantive,
as in the noted passage, O. 12.5:
αἵ γε μὲν ἀνδρῶν ι πόλλ᾽
ἄνω, τὰ δ᾽ αὖ κάτω ψευδῆ μεταμώνια τάμνοισαι
κυλίνδοντ᾽ ἐλπίδες. That this occurs only in the
dactylo-epitrites9 is not
surprising. It is only in the dactylo-epitrites that the movement is
deliberate enough to allow the separation. In the tumult of the
logaoedic the nexus would be lost. The ordinary use of the article
is also found in Pindar, but it would take very little stress to
revive the demonstrative meaning. The extensions of the article that
are most noteworthy, in comparison with Homer, are the combination
with the adjective τὰ τερπνά
(O. 9.30), that with the
participle ὁ μὴ συνιείς (N. 4.31), and especially that with the
inf., always, except in the disputed passage, O. 2.107, in the nominative. The full
development of the articular inf. was reserved for prose.
The free position of the relative and its equivalent article belongs under
another head. Especially worthy of note is the use of the relative
in transitions.10
The voices present few peculiarities in Pindar, and it is hardly
worth while to notice the so-called intransitive use of transitive verbs, as
any verb can be used intransitively in any sphere of the language.
The shifting use of δρέπειν and
δρέπεσθαι, of κτίσαι and κτίσασθαι, may be easily explained on general
principles. The middle is no more causative than the
active, and it is a mistake to apply the causative formula as the
key wherever the conception seems remote to us. Difficult is
βάλεθ᾽ ἁλικίαν (P. 1.74), and the causative explanation
may be the true one there, though βαλέσθαι as a nautical term may have been extended. The
middle has more color, more feeling, than the active, and we might
be tempted to see in Pindar's use of εὑρεῖν, where we might expect εὑρέσθαι (P. 2.64),
a certain aristocratic contempt of effect, but we find the fut.
middle of κελαδῶ (O. 10 [11], 79)
and of γαρύω (I. 1, 30) where it is
worth while to notice the analogy of ᾁσομαι, βοήσομαι, and the rest.11 In ἀναδήσαντες κόμας (P.
10.40), κόμας takes the
place of the reflexive pronoun as corpus does in Latin, and so does χαίταν in ἐστεφάνωσε
χαίταν (O. 14.24). On the
passive use of κατασχόμενος, see
P. 1.10. Pindar has no future
passive apart from the future middle (see note on O. 8.45:
ἄρξεται).
As to the present indicative in Pindar, chiefly worthy of note is the
absence of the so-called historical present. Brugmann has recently
vindicated the proethnic rights of the historical present on the
just ground of the timelessness of the present. It is therefore not
a little remarkable that Pindar uses it as little as Homer uses it.
To them the historical present must have been either too vulgar or
too hurried. νίσεται (O. 3.34) is a true present, and so is
δέκονται (P. 5.86). The oracular use of the praesens propheticum is put in the mouth of
Apollo, O. 8.40:
ἁλίσκεται, of Medeia, P. 4.49:
ἐξανίστανται.
The conative force of the present participle is conspicuous, so that
it may stand, as in prose, where we might expect the fut., though
some would read κομίξων (P. 4.106) and κομίξοντας (O.
13.15). But all Pindar's uses of the present participle can
be paralleled in good prose. The present inf. in oratio obliqua to represent the imperfect
after a pres. tense occurs in O.
7.55, a usage very common in Herodotos. A special study has
been consecrated to the use of the imperfect and
aorist in Pindar,12 and it has been shown that
the aorist, preponderating as it does in lyric narrative, is used,
as a rule, with more frequency in the logaoedic poems than in the
dactylo-epitrite. An interchange of tenses is not to be conceded.
λεῖπε is not equivalent to
ἔλιπε, but means
“had to leave” (O.
6.45), τίκτε, “she
was a mother” (O. 6.85).
The negatived aor. of a negative notion has for its pendant a
positive imperfect in P. 3.27:
οὐδ᾽ ἔλαθε σκοπόν . . . ἄιεν ναοῦ
βασιλεύς. The conative imperfect is Panhellenic. The
perfect has originally nothing to do with completed action as such.
Completed action is only the result of intense action. The perfects
of the senses, such as δέδορκε
(O. 1.94), of emotion, γέγαθε (N.
3.33), like the perfects of sound, κέκραγα, κέκλαγγα, τέτριγα, are not perfects in
the ordinary sense. The perfect of the result of action requires no
notice. The pluperfect, the perfect of the past, is of rare
occurrence in Pindar (O. 6.54) as in
Aischylos. The picturesque Homeric use is not found. The aorist abounds in
sharp summaries, and is used with full consciousness. The gnomic
aorist, either as the aorist of the typical action, or as the aorist
of experience (empiric aorist), with a negative as οὔ πώ τις εὗρεν (O. 12.8), or with ποτέ as εὐναὶ παράτροποι
ἔβαλόν ποτε (P.
2.35), has many examples in Pindar. In combination with the
universal present it sometimes produces the effect of sharp,
incisive action (see note on P.
2.90); but we must not overstrain the point.
The future has many marks of a modal origin. It is not simply
predictive. Like the English periphrastic
“shall” and “will,” it was originally
something more than the foretelling of what was to come. Traces of
this modal future are found here and there in P. ἐρέω, “I must needs
tell” (O. 8.57). So
κωμάσομαι (P. 9.96).
The tenses of the moods — durative (present) and complexive
(aoristic) — are used in conformity with the
general principles of the language. When a verb of thinking becomes a verb of wishing or willing, there is no
difficulty about the use of the aorist as a future (see note on
P. 1.44), but the fut. often lies
too near, as P. 4.243, where
πράξασθαι must give way to
πράξεσθαι on account of the
negative.
The indicative mood requires little comment. In one place the future
takes ἄν, N. 7.68:
μαθὼν δέ τις ἂν ἐρεῖ, where
ἀνερεῖ is possible. The large use of
the indic. in the conditional sentence is especially characteristic
of Pindar's love of the concrete.13
The pure subjunctive in prose, whether in dependent or in independent
clauses, is always imperative in its character, whether we call it adhortative,
interrogative, or final. The subjunctive question expects an
imperative answer. Examples of familiar constructions are P. 1.60:
ἄγ᾽ ἔπειτ᾽ ἐξεύρωμεν ὕμνον,
I. 7 (8), 6: μήτ᾽ ἐν ὀρφανίᾳ πέσωμεν
στεφάνων ι μήτε κάδεα θεράπευε, O. 5.24:
μὴ ματεύσῃ θεὸς γενέσθαι. On
the short-vowel subj., see O. 1.7. In
O. 2.2:
κελαδήσομεν may be either fut. or
subj. The Homeric use of the subjunctive in which the imperative
tone is lowered to simple prediction (compare the toning - down of
“shall” and “will,” just
referred to) is not found in Pindar.
The opt. when standing free is regularly a wishing mood in Pindar,
the wish passing easily, at times, into the semblance of a command. The opt.
of wish usually dispenses with εἰ
γάρ in P. — εἰ
γάρ with opt. is found in P.
1.46; N. 7 (8), 98 — and the present seems to occur
more frequently than is usual in proportion to the aor. Pres. e. g.
O. 1.115; 4, 12; 6, 97 (?). 102;
8, 85. 88; 9, 80; P. 1.46. 56; 10,
17; 11, 50. Aor. e. g. O. 8.29; 9,
84; 13, 25; P. 1.47; 9, 90. In one
breath we have the opt., O. 13.26:
ἀφθόνητος γένοιο, in the next the
imperative, εὔθυνε (v. 28).
φέροις (O. 9.44), ὑποσκάπτοι
τις (N. 5.19), are to all
intents imperatives, and so the optatives O.
3.45 and P. 10.21, where
εἴη is commonly set down as
potential opt., and equivalent to opt. with ἄν. Of this old potential use of the opt. there are
only a few examples, and hardly one of these beyond
cavil. The clearest is O. 11 (10), end: οὔτ᾽
αἴθων ἀλώπηξ ι οὔτ᾽ ἐρίβρομοι λέοντες
διαλλάξαιντο ἦθος, where Hartung reads διαλλάξαιντ᾽ ἂν ἦθος despite
digamma, Schroeder, διαλλάξαντο
(gnomic aor.).
The imperative follows the rule. As every other idiomatic Greek
author, Pindar has many examples of the weight of the present imperative
— a string, P. 1.86 foll.
— of the impact of the aor., see O. 1.76 foll. Special uses have not been noted.
Inseparably connected with the use of the moods is the use of the
particles ἄν and κεν.14 In Homer
κεν preponderates over
ἄν: in Pindar ἄν has gained greatly on κεν. In the Iliad κεν stands to ἄν as
4 to 1. In Pindar they nearly balance. In all Homer there is but one
κεν with inf., Il. 22. 11, and that used in a
confused way, but one ἄν, Il. 9. 684, and that with direct
reference to v. 417. Pindar has no ἄν with the inf., but he uses κεν three times with the inf., with pres. (P. 7.20), with aor. (P. 3.111), with fut. (O. 1.110). Pindar has Homer's leaning
to ἄν with the negative, but he
does not use it in the formulated conditional sentence, although it
has effected a lodgment in the generic relative and in the temporal
sentence, from which in Attic it was destined to shut out the old
constructions with the pure subjunctive.
A short space must suffice for the behavior of the moods in compound
sentences. The structure of the sentence is very much simplified by
the large use of the participle and the freedom of the infinitive.
Pindar has much less variety than Homer, and in syntax, as in other
matters, shows a certain daintiness of selection.
The Homeric form of oratio obliqua is
also the Pindaric. The reigning form is the infinitive. So with
λέγοντι, O. 2.31; 9, 53; φαντί, O. 7.54; P. 4.88; φᾶ, O. 6.49; φάτο, P.
4.33; εὔχοντο, O. 6.54; φθέγξομαι, O. 1.36.
Even with εἶπε (against the rule),
O. 7.62. (Cf. J. Mart. Ap. I. 12,
32.)
The ind. with ὡς (N. 1.35) or ὅτι (O. 1.48) is
occasionally used. Notice the prolepsis in O. 14.22:
υἱὸν εἴπῃς ὅτι . . . ϝοι . . .
ἐστεφάνωσε χαίταν.
Homer does not use the opt. after a past tense to represent the
indicative, except after an interrogative.15 So in Pindar
the indicative after an interrogative may remain as P. 4.63; N.
1.61; 3, 25, or be changed into the opt. as P. 9.126, where one would be tempted
to turn the fut. opt. into the fut. indic. were it not for O. 6.49, where the relative, being
confounded with the interrogative, takes the opt.
In the causal sentence we find ὅτι,
O. 1.60; 3, 39; 8, 33; 10 (11),
35; P. 2.31. 73 al.; ὡς, O.
13.45; N. 6.34, but chiefly
ἐπεί, O. 2.108; 3, 6; 4, 12; 6, 27; 7, 61. 90 al. The mood is
the indicative or an equivalent opt. and ἄν (O. 13.45).
The chief final particle is ὄφρα, a
particle that was already obsolescent. Selected by Pindar doubtless
for its antique sound, it was soon to disappear from classical
poetry. That he had no feeling for its original signification is
shown by the fact that he never employs it in its temporal
sense.16
ὄφρα occurs eleven times, ὡς three times, ὡς ἄν once, ὅπως
once, μή four times, ἵνα, “in order
that,” never. For ὡς ἄν
see O. 7.42; ὅπως (N. 3.62) has
been needlessly attacked. The sequence is regular, principal tenses
being followed by the subj., historical tenses by the opt.
— a rule fixed by Homer. The two exceptions are easily
explained. P. 4.92:
ὄφρα . . . ἔραται is good for
all time, O. 7.13:
κατέβαν is an aorist used as a
perfect, the perfect form being regularly used as a present.17
Remarkable for its narrow range and its sharpness is Pindar's
treatment of the conditional sentence.18 The most striking feature is the predominance of the
logical hypothesis, the indicative in protasis,
the indicative or equivalent in apodosis. This form outnumbers far
all the others put together. It is largely a mere formal condition.
It is based on what the poet knows or sees. Sometimes it is generic
(see O. 11 [10], 4), but it almost always has in view a particular
illustration of the principle involved.
The generic condition proper is put in the old form of this
hypothesis, εἰ with the subj.,
chiefly, perhaps exclusively the aorist subj., for in I. 4 (5), 12:
εἰ ἀκούσῃ, almost forces
itself on the reader. Pindar knows nothing of εἴ κε, ἤν, εἰ ἄν.
Pindar's few ideal conditions (εἰ
with opt.) occur in dreamy, wistful passages, which seem to show
that the optative is, after all, not ill-named. Sometimes we can
feel the growth out of the wish (O.
1.108; P. 3.110), sometimes
formal wish is followed by an apodosis (P.
1.46). Still fewer are the unreal conditions, conditions
against fact, and in these we hear the hopeless wish (P. 3.63. 73). We are evidently in a
different world from Homer's, we are lapsing into formulae.19
The relative sentence follows the lines of the first two classes of
the condition, except that it admits κεν and ἄν in generic
sentences with the subj. κεν, N. 4.7 (acc. to the
Schol.), ἄν, P. 1.100; 5, 65; 10, 23; N. 4.91; pure subj., O. 3.11; 6, 75; 8, 11; N. 3.71; 9, 44; I. 1, 50; 6 (7), 18.
The Homeric κεν with subj. of a more
exact future occurs in the most epic of all the odes, P. 4.51. Opt. with ἄν occurs in P. 9.129:
ὃς ἂν ψαύσειε, for which see
the passage.
It is in the temporal sentence that the need of expressing generic
and particular action, prior and subsequent action, is felt most
distinctly. The original generic here too was the pure subj. which
Pindar retains here and there in the fragments. But ἄν with the temporal particles has
already formed a stable compound for the expression of indefinite
and future relations. O. 2.23; 6, 67;
10 (11), 100; P. 1.4; 2, 11; 3, 106;
5, 2; 8, 8. 96. This ἄν with subj. is retained after a past tense, O. 13.80; N.
1.67; there is no frequentative opt., no opt.
representing ἄν w. subj. in
Pindar.
Of course the indicative is used of particular occasions. Noteworthy
is the use of ὁπότε with the
indic. (see note on P. 3.91). The
fulness of the form gives it the effect of the exact ἡνίκα.
Of the temporal particles of limit Pindar uses ἇς = ἕως once, O.
10 (11), 56, πρίν with the aor.
inf., according to the norm, in the sense of
“before,” as P.
2.92; 3, 9; 9, 122; N. 7.73;
8, 51; 9, 26, πρίν with the indic.,
also according to the norm, in the sense of
“until,”20
O. 9.57; 13, 65, with neg., N. 4.28.
The infinitive plays a large part in Pindar. It has been sufficiently
deadened to admit the article (post-Homeric).21 Most of the examples are in the aorist, O. 2.56. 107; 8, 59. 60; 9, 40; P. 1.99; N.
8.44. The present occurs in O.
9.41; P. 2.56; N. 5.18. These are all nominatives
except the disputed O. 2.107, and
all retain the demonstrative force of the article. The language has
not yet allowed itself to violate the sense of form by using a
preposition with what had been so long felt as a dative. And this
dative force — for the infinitive seems to be the dative
of a verbal noun — accounts for all that is peculiar in
the use of the Pindaric infinitive. Whether we call it epexegetic,
whether we call it final, we are still in the sphere of the dative.
It is hardly needful to cite ἀγαθὸν
μάρνασθαι (O. 6.17),
σοφὸς κορυσσέμεν (P. 8.74), or even εὑρησιεπὴς ἀναγεῖσθαι (O.
9.86), and ἐπιφανέστερον
πυθέσθαι (P. 7.7). What
the later language has retained only here and there in phrases,
Pindar uses as of right, δῶκε . . .
χρίεσθαι (P. 4.222),
πέμπεν ἀναδεῖσθαι (I. 2, 16).
The inf. is consecutive enough, and seldom takes ὥστε, but four times in all, once O. 9.80. The consecutive
notion proper (ὥστε with indic.)
is not suited to epic and lyric, in which the final abounds. Of
course the infinitive had long been so far deorganized as to serve
as a representative of the indic. in oratio
obliqua, and in this respect Pindar presents no
peculiarities, except that he sometimes holds the aorist inf. to its
timelessness. See above, p. civ.
The infinitive is closely akin to the opt., and it is not surprising
that it should be used as such. P. 1.67:
Ζεῦ τέλεἰ, αἰεὶ διακρίνειν λόγον
ἀνθρώπων (= εἴθε διακρίνοι
λόγος).
For the inf. as an imperative see O.
13.114, where some read κούφοισί μ᾽
ἐκνεῦσαι ποσίν, and give the inf. an optative use.
After a long discourse, in which participles had been used very
freely, Sokrates says in Plato's Phaidros, 238 D: τὰ νῦν γὰρ οὐκέτι πόρρω διθυράμβων
φθέγγομαι, and it is natural that the lyric poet should make
large use of the participle, which enables him to concentrate his
narrative on the main points, while preserving the color of the
thought or the description. We are prone to analyze the participle,
to call it temporal, conditional, adversative, whereas the
participial form avoids and often defies the analysis. When the
later rhetorician wanted logical clearness, he would none of the
participle, and Dionysios of Halikarnassos makes a distinct point
against Isaios22 for multiplying
the genitive absolute. In narrative the participle gives color,
gives atmosphere. Turn it into a finite verb and you have a
catalogue, at best an outline, and not a picture. Notice the effect
of O. 1.49-51, where each point of
horror is accentuated, τάμον . . .
διεδάσαντο καὶ φάγον. When the poet finds that he
has been too leisurely in his narrative, his haste is marked by the
use of finite verbs. So at the close of the story of the Argonautic
expedition, after recounting the adventure with the fire-breathing
oxen, in which descriptive participles play a conspicuous part
(P. 4.224-237), Pindar, as if
feeling that his time was short, has not a participle to throw away
on the adventure of the dragon, and when he openly
acknowledges (v. 247) that he must be brief, he touches off each
stage in the subsequent action with a single finite aorist verb, and
does not even allow a parenthetic imperfect.
Instead, then, of the formal sentences of time, cause, adversative
relation, condition, purpose, we often find the participle, although
in many cases it is best not to analyze. The temporal relation is of
course that which is rooted in the participle, and all the
others come from that. Ordinarily the aorist part. precedes in time
the finite verb with which it is associated. O. 1.71:
ἐλθὼν . . . ἄπυεν, O. 6.37:
πιέσας χόλον . . . ᾤχετ᾽ ἰών,
O. 13.86:
ἀναβὰς . . . ἔπαιζεν, P. 4.112:
κᾶδος . . . θηκάμενοι . . .
πέμπον, v. 149: ἀπούραις . . .
νέμεαι, P. 9.32:
σεμνὸν ἄντρον . . . προλιπὼν θυμὸν . . .
θαύμασον, N. 1.43:
πειρᾶτο δὲ πρῶτον μάχας . . . δοιοὺς . .
. μάρψαις . . . ὄφιας. The tenses are often so
combined that the durative tense of the participle accompanies and
colors the leading verb in the aor. The effect of this is to hold
the balance between the tenses. Any descriptive passage will give
examples.23 So O.
6.46:
ἐθρέψαντο . . . καδόμενοι, v. 48:
ἐλαύνων ἵκετο, P. 4.95:
ἵκετο σπεύδων, v. 135: ἐσσύμενοι . . . κατέσταν. The action
is often coincident. O. 10 (11), 53: ἔθηκε
δόρπου λύσιν ι τιμάσαις πόρον
Ἀλφεοῦ, I. 5 (6), 51: εἶπέν τε
φωνήσαις ἅτε μάντις ἀνήρ, P. 3.35:
ἐς κακὸν τρέψαις ἐδαμάσσατό
νιν. So with the durative tenses, P. 4.271:
χρὴ μαλακὰν χέρα προσβάλλοντα τρώμαν
ἕλκεος ἀμφιπολεῖν. The coincidence is sometimes
disguised by the negative. So O. 8.29:
τοῦτο πράσσων μὴ κάμοι (=
καρτεροίη), O. 6.36:
οὐδ᾽ ἔλαθε (=φανερὰ ἦν) . . . κλέπτοισα.
The participle is used after verbs of perception (intellectual and
actual) as usual. O. 6.8:
ἴστω . . . ἔχων, I. 6 (7), 27:
Participle after Verbs of
Perception. |
ἴστω . . .
αὔξων, O. 14.16:
ἰδοῖσα τόνδε κῶμον . . . κοῦφα
βιβῶντα, P. 2.54:
εἶδον . . . Ἀρχίλοχον . . .
πιαινόμενον, N. 11.15:
θνατὰ μεμνάσθω περιστέλλων μέλη,
O. 10 (11), 3: ὀφείλων
ἐπιλέλαθα. Actual perception is seldom put
in the aor. part., usually in pres. or perf., P. 5.84:
καπνωθεῖσαν πάτραν . . . ἴδον,
P. 10.23:
ὃς ἂν . . . υἱὸν ἴδῃ τυχόντα
στεφάνων, I. 7 (8), 36: υἱὸν
εἰσιδέτω θανόντ᾽ ἐν πολέμῳ.
Causal is an inference from temporal. So often with verbs of emotion.
So P. 1.13:
ἀτύζονται . . . ἀίοντα, P. 4.112:
δείσαντες ὕβριν . . . πέμπον, v. 122:
γάθησεν . . . γόνον ἰδών,
N. 3.33:
γέγαθε . . . ταμών. For a
remarkable construction, where the participle is treated exactly as
ὅτι with a finite verb, see
P. 7.15.
The adversative relation is expressed in Greek chiefly by the
participle. The language is sometimes kind enough to give
warning of this by καίπερ and
ὅμως, but often no notice is
given, and failure to understand it is charged to stupidity. I. 7
(8), 5: καίπερ ἀχνύμενος, N. 6.7:
καίπερ οὐκ εἰδότες, P. 4.140:
τραχεῖαν ἑρπόντων πρὸς ἔπιβδαν
ὅμως, O. 1.46:
μαιόμενοι, N. 4.85:
κεῖνος ἀμφ᾽ Ἀχέροντι ναιετάων ἐμὰν
ι γλῶσσαν εὑρέτω κελαδῆτιν. So P. 1.64:
ναίοντες, P. 4.180:
ναιετάοντες.
Pindar has a number of participles, which, if analyzed, would yield a
conditional precipitate. This analysis is sometimes forcibly
suggested by κε. So O. 6.7:
ἐπικύρσαις=εἰ ἐπικύρσειε, O. 10 (11), 22: θήξαις=εἰ
θήξειε, P. 10.29:
ἰών = εἰ
ἴοις, v. 62: τυχών
= εἰ τύχοις, N. 4.93:
αἰνέων = εἰ
αἰνοίη, N. 9.34:
ὑπασπίζων = εἰ ὑπήσπιζες. But it is often best to let analysis
alone. Given, εὑρήσεις ἐρευνῶν
(O. 13.113), and causal and
conditional meet. The Attic would resolve: ἐὰν ἐρευνᾷς, εὑρήσεις, not so Pindar.
The fut. participle, as is well known, has a very limited range in
Greek, being employed chiefly24 in the
old modal sense of the future after verbs of motion, or as
the representative of the indicative after verbs of perception and
after ὡς — the last a
comparatively late growth. After verbs of motion
Pindar has the future participle, e. g. O.
6.38:
ᾤχετ᾽ ἰὼν μαντευσόμενος, O. 5.19:
ἔρχομαι αἰτήσων: but the present
participle occurs so often with verbs of motion that it is not worth
while to change ἀγκομίζων (P. 4.105) into ἀγκομίξων, P. 2.3:
φέρων μέλος ἔρχομαι, N. 5.3:
στεῖχε . . . διαγγέλλοισα, N. 10.16:
αὐλὰν ἐσῆλθεν . . . φέρων, v.
66: ἦλθε . . . διώκων, N. 11.34:
ἔβα . . . ἀνάγων. There is of
course a difference, as appears O. 5.19:
ἔρχομαι Λυδίοις ἀπύων ἐν αὐλοῖς
αἰτήσων, but the two blend, as is seen O. 8.49:
ἅρμα θοὸν τάνυεν ἀποπέμπων . . .
ἐποψόμενος.
This is not the place to discuss the origin and development of the
genitive absolute. The detachment must have been gradual,
beginning probably with the genitive of the time within which with
the present and extending to the aorist, beginning with the pure
genitive and extending to the abl. genitive until it became
phraseological and lost to consciousness. The last step is taken
when the subject is omitted, a step not taken by Homer except Il. 18. 406 = Od. 4. 19. In Pindar it is rare. See note on P. 8.43.
In Pindar the genitive absolute is evidently not so free as it is in
later times, and whenever there is easy dependence we must accept
it. P. 3.25:
ἐλθόντος εὐνάσθη ξένου ι
λέκτροισιν ἀπ᾽ Ἀρκαδίας, P. 11.33:
πυρωθέντων ι Τρώων ἔλυσε
δόμους ἁβρότατος. See also note on P. 8.85. In Homer the present part. is
far more common than the aor.;25 in Pindar, acc. to a recent count, aor. and pres.
nearly balance. The relation is chiefly temporal; cause and
condition come in incidentally. Of time aor., P. 1.80:
ἀνδρῶν καμόντων, O. 3.19:
βωμῶν ἁγισθέντων,26
P. 4.69:
πλευσάντων Μινυᾶν, P. 4.292:
λήξαντος οὔρου
al., pres., O. 5.23:
υἱῶν παρισταμένων, P. 11.17:
φονευομένου πατρός. Of cause or
condition, O. 3.39:
εὐίππων διδόντων Τυνδαριδᾶν,
P. 10.55:
Ἐφυραίων . . . προχεόντων al.
The participle differs from the infinitive, from the verbal noun in
concreteness, and concreteness is one of the marks of Concrete use of
Participle. |
Pindar's style; so that it is not surprising to
find him using the participle instead of the infinitive, instead of
the abstract noun. We are so used to this in certain Latin authors
that we overlook its rarity in Greek, and yet we are startled when
we meet such a specimen as O. 9.111:
ἄνευ δὲ θεοῦ σεσιγαμένον ι οὐ
σκαιότερον χρῆμ᾽ ἕκαστον, where the participle has
a much more cogent effect than σεσιγᾶσθαι. An analysis into ἐὰν
σεσιγημένον ᾖ would weaken the sentence
hopelessly. P. 11.22:
πότερόν νιν ἄρ᾽ Ἰφιγένεἰ ἐπ᾽
Εὐρίπῳ ι σφαχθεῖσα τῆλε πάτρας
ἔκνισεν; P. 3.102:
[Ἀχιλλεὺς] ὦρσεν πυρὶ καιόμενος ι ἐκ Δαναῶν
γόον. See note on O.
3.6. In like manner interpret P.
2.21:
Ἰξίονα φαντὶ ταῦτα βροτοῖς ι
λέγειν ἐν πτερόεντι τροχῷ ι παντᾷ
κυλινδόμενον. Ixion does not preach; he gives an
object lesson.
The few examples of the participle in the predicate fall under the
rule. They are either adjectives or are dissociated from
the copulative verb.27 Compare note on P. 6.28, and notice the parallelism,
N. 9.32:
ἐντί τοι φίλιπποί τ᾽ αὐτόθι καὶ
κτεάνων ἔχοντες κρέσσονας ἄνδρας.
Many other points must be omitted for want of space, and the reader
is referred to the commentary for further particulars. The large use
of parataxis makes the Pindaric handling of the particles of
especial interest to the grammarian, and we find exactness as in the
use of τε . . . τε . . ., τε καί,
paired with bold variation as μὲν . . .
τε. It must suffice here, if the impression has been
produced that in syntax, as in everything else, Pindar is sharp,
cogent, effective. There is no “subjectivity”
about his pictures, and the syntax plays its part, too often
overlooked, in producing the bold contour. A complete
Pindaric syntax would be at the same time a theory of Pindaric
style.
The order of words in Pindar is of prime importance to those who
would study “composition” in the antique sense,
but the
effect of the sequence of sounds must be left to special
studies.28 Noteworthy is
Pindar's fondness for alliteration in δ, π, κ,
τ, μ. Sigmatism, which his teacher, Lasos of Hermione,
avoided so much that he actually composed a number of asigmatic
poems, was not shunned by Pindar, as appears in P. 2.80. Nor did he scrupulously avoid
the recurrence of the same groups in successive syllables, P. 2.80:
ὑπὲρ ἕρκος, O. 6.16:
εἶπεν ἐν Θήβαισι, O. 4.22:
ἐν ἔντεσι, P. 1.69:
ἁγητὴρ ἀνήρ. Rhymes are not
infrequent. Of course they are felt chiefly when rhythmical stress
brings them out, P. 4.193:
χρυσέαν χείρεσσι λαβὼν φιαλάν,
P. 4.32:
ἀλλὰ γὰρ νόστου πρόφασις
γλυκεροῦ, less where the rhyming words have different
stress, as O. 9.24:
μαλεραῖς ἐπιφλέγων ἀοιδαῖς. To
the average reader, however, the position of words is chiefly of
interest, so far as it gives emphasis to the leading elements, and
in this respect the study of the rhythms aids very much in removing
the difficulties that the beginner may find. In the equable measures
of the dactylo-epitrites the separation of the words gives very
little trouble. Our minds are attuned to the leisurely motion, and
we can afford to wait. The stress - points of the verse signal to
one another. No matter what the distance between beginning and end
of a verse, they are never really far apart, and then again the
meaning is often to be gathered from the edge of the ode in a manner
of acrostic. The attention is often kept alive by suspense, the
object being held back as if it were the answer to a riddle, and
this very suspense serves to preserve the organic unity as well as
to bind epode more closely to antistrophe. Sometimes when the
thought seems to have reached its legitimate end, a message follows,
a momentous codicil to the poetic testament, a condition, a
restriction. Sometimes again a word is held by the
power of the rhythm until it penetrates the whole structure.
Sometimes the poet strikes sharply two or three notes that convey to
the student the movement of the whole, and O. 2 and P. 5 give up
their secret to the skilled in song. All this is capable of
demonstration, but it is a weariness to demonstrate what every one
who attacks Pindar resolutely will soon find out for himself.29 Certain peculiarities of
position,30 such as hyperbaton
and chiasm have been duly noticed in the commentary. The hyperbata
are not over-common nor over-harsh. Chiasm is not unfrequently
overlooked by the beginner; it is the beautiful Greek method of
giving a double stress to opposing pairs, a stress that we are prone
to bring about by the mechanical expedient of hammering emphasis and
dead pause.
A word here as to the figure known as hypallage, for while hypallage
is not the result of the order of words, it is the result of the close
knitting of words. By hypallage an attribute that belongs in logical
strictness to one word of a complex is applied to another. Sometimes
it makes so little difference that no notice has been taken of it in
this edition. If, for instance, the kine are dun, what trouble is
given by βοῶν ξανθὰς ἀγέλας
(P. 4.149)? In other cases,
however, the effect is much more marked, the words are rolled
together so as to give a superb unity, as O.
3.3:
Θήρωνος Ὀλυμπιονίκαν ὕμνον
rather than Θήρωνος Ὀλυμπιονίκου
ὕμνον, as in O. 10 (11), 6: ψευδέων ἐνιπὰν ἀλιτόξενον, as in
P. 4.255:
“ὑμετέρας ἀκτῖνος ὄλβου”
. Of Pindar's noble compounds something has been said already,
but the range is much extended if we consider the manner in which he
gathers up word after word into the sweep of his movement, and we
begin to feel that there is something in the profundo ore of Horace.
