We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2012
‘O Sogenes of the Euxenid clan, I swear that I did not, having stepped up to the line, hurl forth my tongue like a bronze-cheeked javelin which sends the neck and strength of limbs without sweat from the wrestling before the limb falls in the glare of the sun.’ Nem. vii 70–3)
In the passage given above, Pindar employs the image of the javelin thrower to describe the kind of poet which he is. Within the simile there occurs the participial phrase, τέρμα προβαίς, which I translate as ‘having stepped up to the line’, the line here being the one from which the athlete throws the javelin and over which he cannot step without being penalised. However, before I present my reasons for this interpretation of the phrase, it will be helpful to explain more fully the meaning of the simile.
First the image itself. The poet compares himself to a javelin thrower in order to assure the audience that his pronouncements do justice to the merits of the victor. In Greek athletics the javelin throw was one of the five contests which comprised the pentathlon, the other four event being the foot race, discus, long jump, and wrestling.
For their assistance with the photographs I am indebted to the following: Plates Ia and Ib: Ms J. Goldstein and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Plate IIa: Dr E. Rohde and Die Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Sammlung, Berlin; Dr K. Vierneisel; Ms B. Diehl, Mr B. Perry and the Indiana University Press, Bloomington, for permission to reproduce pl. 12A from H. A. Harris, Greek Athletes and Athletics (Bloomington & London 1966). Plate IIb: Professors A. E. and I. K. Raubitschek and the Hearst family. Plate IIc: Martin v. Wagner-Museum, Würzburg.
The text of Pindar is the Teubner edition of H. Maehler post B. Snell, Pindari Carmina Cum Fragmentis i (Leipzig 1971). Note that in line 71, the manuscripts read προβάς, but that Maehler-Snell and Turyn both prefer the Aeolic προβαίς. For the Scholia I have used A. B. Drachmann, Scholia Vetera in Pindari Carmina, 3 vols., (Leipzig 1903). For the text of Julius Pollux, Onomasticon, I have used the edition E. Bethe, 3 vols. (Leipzig 1900–1937), which is the Teubner Lexicographi Graeci, ix 1–3.
1 There is disagreement among scholars concerning (a) the order of the first four events in the pentathlon, and (b) the system of qualification for the wrestling finale. For recent opinions see Harris, H. A., Greek Athletes and Athletics (Bloomington, Indiana and London 1966) 77–80Google Scholar, henceforth GAA, and Patrucco, R., Lo Sport Nella Grecia Antiqua (Firenze 1972) 199–222Google Scholar, who furnishes a comprehensive bibliography. Harris (77–8) believes that the foot race was held fourth and that the victors in the four preliminary events moved on to the final contest; if, however, an athlete managed three victories prior to the wrestling, the competition was halted at that point and he was declared the winner of the pentathlon. Patrucco (198–9) leans toward the view that the foot race was held first and uses Nemean vii 73 to support his opinion that the javelin, not the race, was prior to the wrestling. The passage, however, is not ideally conclusive. Patrucco also denies that the pentathlon could end before the wrestling, and advocates (220–1) a system of points as the means for deciding who would participate in the wrestling.
2 For the interpretation that Pindar denies having made a losing throw, I follow Segal, C. P., ‘Two Agonistic Problems in Pindar, Nemean 7.70–4 and Pythian 1.42–45’, GRBS ix (1968) 31–45Google Scholar. However, Floyd, E. D., ‘Pindar's Oath to Sogenes (Nemean 7.70–4)’, TAPA xcvi (1965) 139–51Google Scholar, argues that Pindar is disavowing comparison to a winning javelin thrower who has made the event a third victory and thus won the pentathlon without having to endure the toil and sweat of the wrestling match; by such a comparison the poet intends to assert that his praise is not yet over and that he has still more to say on behalf of the victor. There are several difficulties with Floyd's interpretation. As I attempt to show in a losing contestant is equivalent to inadequate praise. By implication the poet is claiming that, on the contrary, his utterances are like a winning cast. this article, it is based on an inaccurate definition of τέρμα and fits less clearly with other portions of the ode. It is also open to Segal's objection, op. cit. 34, 38–9, that it necessitates an uncommon usage of ἐκπέμπειν. The word means ‘to send away, to dismiss’, not ‘to exempt’, as Floyd would have it.
2a On the javelin throw in general, see Harris, , GAA (above, note 1) 92–7Google Scholar, and Patrucco, (above, note 1) 171–88. For the interpretation of ἔξω ἁγῶνος Patrucco, op. cit. 181–5 and especially 183–4, n. 5, gives a valuable summary of the alternate interpretations. I concur with his view that ἔξω ἁγῶνος is not an equivalent expression for τέρμα προβαίς, though I believe he is in error in taking the latter as a reference to a foul.
2b Thummer, E., Pindar: Die Isthmischen Gedichte i (Heidelberg 1968) 82–102Google Scholar, for the topos in the odes; on pp. 94–8, he discusses Nemean vii. For the theoretical principles underlying Thummer's views, see Bundy, E. L., Studia Pindarica i, ii (= University of California Publications in Classical Philology xviii [1962] 1–34 and 35–92) 1–4, 35–6, 91–2Google Scholar. Tugendhat, E., ‘Zum Rechtfertigungsproblem in Pindars 7. Nemeischen Gedicht’, Hermes lxxxviii (1960) 399–404Google Scholar, also has a valuable discussion of the section following the myth.
2c I find attractive the interpretation of Thummer (above, note 2b) 97 note 82, who takes the ‘citizens’ to be the Aeginetans and connects this allusion with the reference given immediately beforehand to the Achaeans who dwell over the Ionian Sea. The result is an antithetical doublet meaning ‘all Greeks, both near and far’. The other possibility is to see in the Achaeans an allusion to the Molossians mentioned earlier in the ode (38), whom Neoptolemos ruled for a while. The ‘citizens’ would then be either the Thebans of Pindar's homeland or the Aeginetans.
2d For ἀδόκητον and δοκέοντα as ‘inglorious’ and ‘glorious’, I follow David Young, C., ‘A Note on Pindar Nemean 7.30 f.’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity iv (1971) 249–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2e I explore the meaning of this difficult ode more fully in an unpublished article, ‘The Poetic Laudator and the Conclusion of Nemean 7’, in which, following Bundy, 's approach, I explain the conclusion (Nem. vii 102–5)Google Scholar not as an apology for Paean vi but as another instance of the poet asserting the quality of his praise. The ‘apology’ is internal to the poem. For a recent study of the ode with the relevant bibliography, see Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Modern Interpretation of Pindar: The Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes’, JHS xciii (1973) 109–35Google Scholar, who sees a reference to Paean vi.
3 Floyd (above, note 2) 139–42, and Segal (above, note 2) 33–4, 37–8. Floyd, 142, and Segal, 38, then take τέρμα as an accusative of goal with a verb of motion.
4 Segal (above, note 2) 34 quotes Gorgias, Helen 5Google Scholar, DK11 ii 289.17–19: 
5 Patrucco (above, note 1) 182; Harris, H. A., ‘Greek Javelin Throwing’, Greece and Rome n.s. x (1963) 28Google Scholar; also Gardiner, E. N., ‘Throwing the Diskos’, JHS xxvii (1907) 10Google Scholar, and ‘Throwing the Javelin’, ibid. 268–9.
6 Floyd (above, note 2) 142–3.
7 Such a mixture of imagery is not by itself an argument against Floyd's interpretation. Cf., for example, Isthmian ii 35: 
8 Segal (above, note 2) 37–9, following Eustathius.
9 Jüthner, , ‘Zu Pindar Nem. 7, 70 ff.’, WS 1 (1932) 168–9Google Scholar.
10 Segal (above, note 2) 33.
11 Jüthner, J., Über antike Turngeräthe, (Vienna 1896) 56–7Google Scholar, which Gardiner, , Javelin, (above, note 5) 268Google Scholar, and Patrucco (above, note 5) 183–4 and 183 n. 5, both discuss and reject.
12 LSJ s.v. See also Iliad xxiii 309, 462 and 465.
13 See the works cited above, note 5. Harris, appears to maintain this view in his later Greek Athletes and Athletics, (above, note 1) 81Google Scholar, 93, and 205 n. 33, but without a specific reference to Nemean vii 71.
14 Floyd (above, note 2) 141 and Segal (above, note 2) 33, following Jüthner, WS (above, note 9) 168Google Scholar. Slater, W. J., Lexicon to Pindar (Berlin 1969)Google Scholar s.v., offers ‘starting, finishing mark’, but provides no further explanation. Floyd, op. cit., 141 n. 7 says that Paley, F. A., The Odes of Pindar (Cambridge 1868) 199Google Scholar n. 5, takes τέρμα to mean the starting line or the mark from which one throws; I have not seen Paley.
15 For Greek stadia and the starting gates, see Harris, , GAA (above, note 13) 64–73Google Scholar, and plates 23a–29a; much the same information is contained in briefer form in his earlier ‘Stadia and Starting-grooves’, G & R n.s. vii (1960) 25–35, and the more recent Sport in Greece and Rome (London 1972) 27–33, henceforth SGR. However, at some stadia, for example in Priene, there is evidence of only one sill, as Harris, , SGR 30–1Google Scholar, notes.
16 See Harris, , GAA (above, note 1) 73Google Scholar; Patrucco (above, note 1) 96.
17 There is some dispute about the nature of the turn in the diaulos. For the view that the runners all turned round a common post, see Harris, , SGR (above, note 15) 31–2Google Scholar, and GAA (above, note 13) 71–2. Patrucco (above, note 1) 106–10, would have each runner turn around a separate post.
18 That the finish and not the start remained the same is the consensus of opinion; see Gardiner, E. N., Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford 1930) 133–5Google Scholar, hereafter, AAW; Harris, , GAA (above note 1) 70Google Scholar and 204 n. 33, and SGR (above, note 15) 30–1; and Patrucco (above, note 1) 106.
19 The javelin thrower on the Würzburg stamnos has straightened his body and begun to bring his arm forward to launch his throw; the moment is thus subsequent to that represented on the cups from Berlin and Boston (Plate Ia). On the other hand, it may be argued that his bearing is too relaxed and that the moment represented is that when the athlete is about to begin his run prior to throwing. If the second interpretation is true then the column is merely decorative.
20 To judge from the evidence of vase-paintings and sculpture, the crouching start with at least one hand on the ground was very rare in Ancient Greece. The standing start was by far the common practice. Harris, , GAA (above, note 1) 66Google Scholar, denies that Greek runners started off their hands; but see Gardiner, , AAW (above, note 18) 142Google Scholar, fig. 97, and Patrucco (above, note 1) 113–5.
21 Harris, , GAA (above, note 1) 73–4Google Scholar, so interprets the scene. For the entire painting see Harris, GAA pl. 4a–b, or Jüthner, J., Die athletischen Leibesübungen der Griechen, ed. Brein, F., i (Vienna 1965)Google Scholar plate XIb and c, and ii (Vienna 1968) pl. VI [= Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 249, 1–11]; henceforth Leibes.
22 Jüthner, , Leibes. (above, note 21) ii 346–7Google Scholar, denies the connection on the basis of the columns, but is controverted by both Patrucco (above, note 1) 149–50, 180, and Harris, , GAA (above, note 1) 229Google Scholar note to plate 12a.
23 It is possible though somewhat improbable that several athletes would employ the same stone sill simultaneously, as shown on the Boston kylix, and we are probably meant to view the action of the athletes separately, each using the sill in turn. The superimposition of several actions on one another results in a composite picture which is not meant to be viewed by the standards of strict realism. The lack of realism is carried one step further in the scene illustrated in Plate Ia, where the jumper is advancing in the direction opposite to that of his comrades. Placing the jumper in this direction enables the artist to effect a symmetry which echoes that on the other side of the cup.
24 Often, as in the Boston kylix (plates Ia–b), objects such as sponges, strigils, and aryballoi are depicted in the background and are to be understood as hanging from a wall. In such cases the athletes are exercising in a gymnasium, the porticoes of which provide the shade lacking in the open area of the stadium. See Harris, , GAA (above, note 1) 144Google Scholar. The paintings if precisely interpreted thus bear testimony of the existence of stone sills with columns in the gymnasia. Both Patrucco (above, note 1) and Jüthner Leibes., (above, note 21) are convenient and abundant sources of vase-paintings depicting Greek athletes. In many of the illustrations columns can be seen. Gardiner, AAW (above, note 18) and Drees, L., Olympia (Stuttgart 1967Google Scholar) are also well-illustrated.
25 Xenophon, , by his use of the term τὰδρομικά, ‘the stadium events’, (Hellenica vii 4.29)Google Scholar, indicates that at Olympia, the first Tour events of the pentathlon were held in the stadium, and the wrestling nearby between the stadium and altar. See Patrucco (above, note 5) 205 and n. 3.
26 Pollux iii 147 
Both aphesis and another word for start, apheteria, are derived from ἀφίημι and thus mean literally ‘release, letting go’. The husplex is more properly the starting gate; see references in note 15. The grammē was originally simply a line scratched out in the ground. The derivation of balbis is more enigmatic. The Suda, s.v. balbis, states, ‘For the gramme under the husplex is called the balbis on account of the fact that the runners take their pia ce on it’. Patrucco, (above note 1) 105–6 n. 8, handily provides a collation of the relevant texts.
27 For the balbis in the discus, see Harris, GAA (above, note 1) 87–8Google Scholar, and Patrucco (above, note 1) 147–51.
28 Pollux iii 151: 
For the use of the sill in the long jump, see Harris, GAA (above, note 13) 83Google Scholar and Gardiner, , AAW (above, note 18) 144Google Scholar.
29 Jüthner, , WS (above, note 9) 168–9Google Scholar. Patrucco (above, note 1) 183 and n. 2, appreciates the merit of this interpretation.
30 Isthmian iv 67 = Isthmian iii + iv 85 in SnellMaehler.
31 Above, note 2.
