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 ad

Neuter Adjective.
jective. 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,

Concord. σχῆμα Πινδαρικόν.
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

Cases. Accusative.
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 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

Adverbial Accusative.
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,

Accusative of part.
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.

Double Accusative.
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

Terminal Accusative.
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
and Adj. in -ιος.
-ιος instead of the genitive of the father is marked.5 In Attic “ 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 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 sig

Ablative Genitive.
nifications 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 every
Gen. of Material.
where. 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

Comparatio compendiaria.
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

Unusual Constructions.
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

Gen. as a whence-case.
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

Personal Dative.
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

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: βάσσαισιν) 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

Temporal Dative.
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 illus

trations 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 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. 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 pas

sage 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 com

paratively 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,
μετά, πεδά.
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 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 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

Present Tense.
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

Imperfect and Aorist.
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

Tenses of the Moods.
(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 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 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 preponder

ἄν and κεν.
ates 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;

Oratio obliqua.
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

Causal Sentences.
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

Final Sentences.
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 Pin

Conditional Sentences.
dar'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

Relative Sentences.
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

Temporal Sentences.
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 parti

Temporal Participle.
ciple, 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 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:

Causal Participle.
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

Adversative Participle.
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 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 some

Conditional Participle.
times 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

Future Participle.
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

Genitive Absolute.
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 λέκτροισιν ἀπ᾽ Ἀρκαδίας, P. 11.33: πυρωθέντων 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 οὐ σκαιότερον χρῆμ᾽ ἕκαστον, where the participle has a much more cogent effect than σεσιγᾶσθαι. An analysis into ἐὰν σεσιγημένον would weaken the sentence hopelessly. P. 11.22: πότερόν νιν ἄρ᾽ Ἰφιγένεἰ ἐπ᾽ Εὐρίπῳ σφαχθεῖσα τῆλε πάτρας ἔκνισεν; P. 3.102: [Ἀχιλλεὺς] ὦρσεν πυρὶ καιόμενος ἐκ Δαναῶν γόον. See note on O. 3.6. In like manner interpret P. 2.21: Ἰξίονα φαντὶ ταῦτα βροτοῖς λέγειν ἐν πτερόεντι τροχῷ 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

Participle in Predicate.
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,

Order of Words.
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 re

sult 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.

1 ERDMANN, De Pindari usu syntactico, Halle, 1867.

2 The dual is claimed as Boeotian on slight evidence, MEISTER, Gr. Dial. I. p. 272.

3 ERDMANN, l. c.; FRIESE, De casuum singulari apud Pindarum usu, Berlin, 1866.

4 Two rather free uses of the acc. of extent are to be found in P. 4.83; 5, 33.

5 BERGK, G. L. G. I. p. 57. Possession: σὺν Ἀγαμεμνονίᾳ ψυχᾷ (P. 11.20), Νεστόρειον ἅρμα (P. 6.32), ἄνθἐ Ἀφροδίσια (N. 7.53). Time: ἑσπέριος φλέγεν (N. 6.43), μέλπονται ἐννύχιοι (P. 3.78), ἑσπερίαις ἀοιδαῖς (P. 3.19), ἐφαμερίαν οὐδὲ μετὰ νύκτας (N. 6.7), πεμπταῖον γεγενημένον (O. 6.53). The Hebrew says “the son of five days.” Place: ἐναλίαν βᾶμεν (P. 4.39), ἐπιγουνίδιον βρέφος (P. 9.67).

6 For an application of this in criticism, see P. 4.206.

7 It is almost incredible that scholars should have been found to combine δόμους ἁβρότατος = δόμους ἁβρούς (P. 11.34).

8 BOSSLER, De praepositionum usu apud Pindarum, Darmstadt, 1862.

9 STEIN, De articuli apud Pindarum usu, Breslau, 1868, p. 34.

10 See Index of Subjects under Relative.

11 See the list in RUTHERFORD'S New Phrynichus, p. 383.

12 American Journal of Philology, IV. pp. 158-165.

13 See American Journal of Philology, III. p. 438.

14 For particulars see American Journal of Philology, III. pp. 446-455; B. BREYER, Analecta Pindarica, p. 12 foll.

15 American Journal of Philology, IV. p. 419.

16 See WEBER, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtssätze, p. 72; American Journal of Philology, IV. p. 431.

17 American Journal of Philology, IV. p. 429 (note).

18 For details see American Journal of Philology, III. pp. 434-445.

19 For examples see Index of Subjects, s. v. Condition.

20 American Journal of Philology, II. pp. 467-469.

21 American Journal of Philology, III. p. 192 foll. Transactions Amer. Philol. Assoc., 1878, p. 11 (for the position).

22 Iudicium de Isaeo, 598 (R). Compare Am. Journ. of Phil. IX. p. 142.

23 See American Journal of Philology, IV. p. 165.

24 ἐσσομένας amounts to an adj. (O. 12.8), like the Lat. futurus. An extension of the use is seen in N. 5.1: ἐλινύσοντα ϝεργάζεσθαι ἀγάλματα. I. 2, 46: οὐκ ἐλινύσοντας αὐτοὺς εἰργασάμαν.

25 CLASSEN, Beobachtungen über den homerischen Sprachgebrauch, p. 180.

26 N. 1.41: οἰχθεισᾶν πυλᾶν. Fennell in his note admits the possibility of the dragons having opened the gates. This would have been naturally οἴξαντες πύλας. In Latin the first inference with the passive form of the abl. absol. is the identity of the agent with the subject of the sentence; in Greek with the passive form of the genitive absolute it is the last, and, to say the least, rare.

27 See W. J. ALEXANDER in American Journal of Philology, IV. 291 foll., and my Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 3, 4; 19, 5.

28 HARRE, De verborum apud Pindarum conlocatione, Berlin, 1867.

29 See Index of Subjects under Position.

30 More stress might have been laid on the regular interposition of the preposition between attribute and substantive or substantive and attribute. See notes on O. 1.37; 5, 22; P. 8.88.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (54 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (41):
    • Homer, Iliad, 18.406
    • Homer, Iliad, 22.11
    • Homer, Iliad, 9.684
    • Homer, Odyssey, 4
    • Pindar, Nemean, 1
    • Pindar, Nemean, 10
    • Pindar, Nemean, 11
    • Pindar, Nemean, 2
    • Pindar, Nemean, 3
    • Pindar, Nemean, 4
    • Pindar, Nemean, 5
    • Pindar, Nemean, 6
    • Pindar, Nemean, 7
    • Pindar, Nemean, 8
    • Pindar, Nemean, 9
    • Pindar, Olympian, 1
    • Pindar, Olympian, 12
    • Pindar, Olympian, 13
    • Pindar, Olympian, 14
    • Pindar, Olympian, 2
    • Pindar, Olympian, 3
    • Pindar, Olympian, 4
    • Pindar, Olympian, 5
    • Pindar, Olympian, 6
    • Pindar, Olympian, 7
    • Pindar, Olympian, 8
    • Pindar, Olympian, 9
    • Pindar, Pythian, 1
    • Pindar, Pythian, 10
    • Pindar, Pythian, 11
    • Pindar, Pythian, 12
    • Pindar, Pythian, 2
    • Pindar, Pythian, 3
    • Pindar, Pythian, 5
    • Pindar, Pythian, 6
    • Pindar, Pythian, 7
    • Pindar, Pythian, 8
    • Pindar, Pythian, 9
    • Plato, Gorgias, 482d
    • Sophocles, Ajax, 34
    • Pindar, Pythian, 4
  • Cross-references in notes from this page (13):
    • Pindar, Nemean, 1
    • Pindar, Nemean, 5
    • Pindar, Nemean, 6
    • Pindar, Nemean, 7
    • Pindar, Olympian, 1
    • Pindar, Olympian, 12
    • Pindar, Olympian, 6
    • Pindar, Pythian, 11
    • Pindar, Pythian, 3
    • Pindar, Pythian, 6
    • Pindar, Pythian, 8
    • Pindar, Pythian, 9
    • Pindar, Pythian, 4
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: