¹ For the text in line 16 see von der Mühll, P., MH 11 (1954), 53fGoogle Scholar.

² von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Pindaros (Berlin, 1922), 403Google Scholar suggests that Pindar refers to a cult of Zeus in the victor's family. But ⋯κλ⋯ρωσεν π⋯τμος in 15 suggests a relationship imposed by destiny rather than one created and maintained by the family. That the relationship is a deduction of Pindar's based on the family's success in games in honour of Zeus does not of course diminish the seriousness of the point, either for Pindar or for his audience; cf. N. 10.29–36.

³ For the element of consolation cf. Segal, C., AJP 106 (1985), 21 1fGoogle Scholar., also Miller, A., TAPA 107 (1977), 233–4Google Scholar (on O. 14.20ff.).

⁴ Schol. 16, 19b in Drachmann, A. B., Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina i (Leipzig, 1903), p. 241Google Scholar.

⁵ For Melesias as Timosthenes' trainer see Gildersleeve, B. L., Pindar: the Olympian and Pythian Odes ² (New York, 1890), p. 193Google Scholar. Whitmore, C. E., Studies in Philology 15 (1918), 346Google Scholar. For Timosthenes as jealous of Alkimedon see Whitmore, l.c., following Paton, in CR 4 (1890), 318Google Scholar. This view is disposed of by Gildersleeve, in AJP 40 (1919), 105Google Scholar.

⁶ Schol. 106a, d, f, h, k, Drachmann 262–3. Cf. Barrett, W. S. in Dionysiaca (Cambridge, 1978), p. 4Google Scholar.

⁷ Schol. N. 8. inscr. in Drachmann, A. B., Scholia vetera iii (Leipzig, 1927), p. 140Google Scholar.

⁸ Schol. N. 7. inscr., Drachman iii. 116. For a discussion of the problem see Carey, C., A Commentary on Five Odes of Pindar (New York, 1981), p. 133Google Scholar.

⁹ N. 6. inscr., Drachmann iii.101. Mähler, H., Hermes 113 (1985), 401Google Scholar is skeptical.

¹⁰ Bergk, T., Poetae Iyrici Graeci (Leipzig, 1878), i.280Google Scholar, Wilamowitz, 399, Farnell, L. R., The Works of Pindar (London, 1930). ii.283Google Scholar.

¹¹ L. Dissen* in his commentary ap. Boeckh, A., Pindari opera 2. ii (Leipzig, 1821), 403Google Scholar. For the colony at Kydonia see Hdt. 3.59. Strabo 376.

¹² Father: O. 5.8, O. 7. 17, O. 13.35, 41, 0. 14.21, P. 6. 15 (with 6), P. 10.12 (with 16), P. 11.43, N. 4.14, N. 7.91 (with 7), N. 8. 16, N. 11.11, I. 1.34, I. 2.44 (with 14), I. 8.2; grandfather: N. 4.89, N. 6.16; paternal uncle: I. 8.66; maternal uncle: P. 8.35, N. 4.80, N.5.43, N. 10.37, I. 6.62, I. 7.24; son: P. 1.70 (with 58), fr. 94b. 10. Total 26. I have ignored cases in which the victor or a relative or associate is called ‘son of X’ since in such cases it is impossible to avoid naming the parent. I append a list of such cases: O. 3.9, O. 6.8, 80, O. 10.2, 99, O. 11.12, O. 12.13, P. 1.79, P. 2.17, P. 4.59. P. 8.19f., P. 9.71, P. 10.5, N. 1.29. N. 2.10, N. 3.20, N. 5.4, N. 7.7, N. 9.42, N. 10.24, I. 2.29, I. 4.45, I. 5.20, I. 6.3, 16, I. 7.31, frr. 120, 123.15, 333a.6. Total 29. Cumulative total 55.

¹³ Relationship only: O.5.23 (sons), O. 2.49 (brother), P. 1.79 (sons), P. 5.114 (mother), P. 6.46 (paternal uncle), P. 10.69 (brothers), N. 6.22 (sons), I. 2.28f. (sons).

¹⁴ Uncertain: O. 8.70f. (grandfather), N. 6.23f. (sons), fr. 94b.69. O. 8.70f. and N. 6.23f. are dealt with in this paper. In fr. 94b it is likely that the name as well as the relationship is supplied in the text; see Lehnus, L., BICS 31 (1984), 84fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ We may tentatively compare the general reluctance of speakers addressing Athenian juries to name female relatives or women of good repute; see Schaps, D., CQ 27 (1977), 323–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ For a survey of views on the precise significance of the portent see Robbins, E., CQ 36 (1986), 317fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ I have retained the MSS readings in 45–6. If ἄρξεται is correct in 45 the sentence must mean ‘will begin with the first and (end) with the fourth’ (certainly ‘will be ruled’ is impossible; ‘parebit’, offered by Dissen, L., Pindari carmina, rev. Schneidewin, F. G. (Gotha, 1843), p. 113Google Scholar. ‘shall be subdued’ offered by Fennell, C. A. M., Pindar: the Olympian and Pythian Odes² (Cambridge, 1893), p. 89Google Scholar. and Gildersleeve's, ‘will be swayed’, p. 197Google Scholar, merely evade the problem). This is awkward, and evidently unparalleled, but surely not impossible. Of modern conjectures. ῥ⋯ξεται from ῥ⋯σσω (Gildersleeve/Wilamowitz) and ῥἠξεται (Bergk) from ῥἠγνυμι have found favour; but both seem melodramatic after the factual ⋯λ⋯σκεται in 42. Of proposed changes the most plausible is Jurenka's ἕρξεται, ‘will be achieved’. This may seem pallid compared with the alternatives, but in fact ἔρδω/ῥ⋯ζω are reserved in Pindar for significant action, usually physical achievement. For ἔρδω/ῥ⋯ζω resuming a more precise verb cf. O. 9.92–4. MSS τετρ⋯τοις may be retained if we accept, with Beattie, A. J.. CR 5 (1955). 2Google Scholar, Borthwick, E. K.. CQ 26 (1976), 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 29, Robbins 319 that Pindar reckons inclusively; πρώτοις then refers to Aiakos himself, the first generation of the family, and τετρ⋯τοις to Neoptolemos, the fourth generation (Robbins 318 n. 6 gives good reason to doubt the common assumption that Pindar also has in mind Epeios, builder of the wooden horse). πρώτοις is commonly referred to the successful expedition of Herakles against Troy, in which Aiakos' sons Telamon (N. 3.37.N. 4.25ff., I. 6.27ff.) and (at least according to fr. 172 and Eur, . Andr. 796Google Scholarff.) Peleus participated; so most recently Hubbard, T. K.. GRBS 28 (1987), 18Google Scholar n. 35. Hence the popularity of Ahrens' conjecture τερ;τάτοις which introduces an otherwise unattested form.

¹⁸ Schol. O. 8.41a, Drachmann i.247.

¹⁹ It is often supposed that Pindar derived his myth from a non-literary Aiginetan) source; see Boeckh 181, Dissen 112, Wilamowitz 405, Van der Kolf, M., Quomodo Pindarus fabulas tractaverit (Rotterdam, 1923), p. 31Google Scholar, Farnell i.45. No argument is offered for this belief, which appears to rest on a disinclination to credit Pindar with invention on this scale. However, Pindar like other Greek poets freely alters and invents when narrating myths. His silence about this crucial role for Aiakos elsewhere in the odes, and presumably (given the silence of the scholia) elsewhere in the corpus, despite frequent mention of Aiakos and specific praise at N. 8.7ff., I. 8.21ff., suggests that the myth was invented for O. 8. Hubbard 20f. argues for Pindaric invention.

²⁰ Proklos, Chrest. in Allen, T. W., Homeri opera v (Oxford, 1946), 107Google Scholar.

²¹ Méautis, G., Pindare le dorien (Neuchatel, 1962), 349Google Scholar.

²² Robbins 320 is therefore wrong to speak of ‘a humanized Apollo’ in O. 8.

²³ For Pindar's tendency to trace parallels between the victor and his city cf. Eranos 78 (1980), 162Google Scholar with n. 74.

²⁴ See Boeckh 179f., Dissen 108, Fennell 83, Gildersleeve 192, Farnell ii.60, Méautis 345, Pòrtulas, J., Lectura de Pindar (Barcelona, 1977), p. 37Google Scholar; this view is reported without comment by Lehnus, L., Pindaro: le Olimpiche (Milan, 1981), p. 136Google Scholar.

²⁵ Cf. Carey 137, following Thummer, E., Pindar: die isthmischen Gedichte (Heidelberg, 1968–1969), i. 108Google Scholar.

²⁶ It seems at first surprising that Pindar should introduce Aiakos instead of exploiting the existing legends of the first (under Herakles) and second (under Agamemnon) Trojan expeditions of the Aiakidai in order to mirror the athletic achievements of grandfather and grandson. However, by introducing Aiakos into the tale of the building of the wall Pindar creates a causally related sequence of events (Aiakos' participation creates a weakness in the wall which later enables his great-grandson to capture Troy) and thereby presents the fulfilment of a meaningful destiny. Nonetheless the complete silence of Apollo about the first Aiakid assault on Troy (according to the interpretation adopted in n. 17 above) requires explanation, for this expedition was successful. Probably the reason is twofold: (i) Troy was defeated but not destroyed by the expedition of Herakles, while the expedition under Agamemnon destroyed it completely; (ii) Pindar is more interested in emphasizing the interval of generations between the beginning of the destined fall of Troy by Aiakos and the completion of the task by Neoptolemos than in presenting a complete chronicle of Aiakid contact with Troy. The inclusion of Telamon would merely clutter and confuse the myth.

²⁷ Cf. Boeckh 186, Dissen 119, Gildersleeve 192, Fennell 92, Nisetich, F., Pindar's Victory Songs (Baltimore, 1980), p. 118Google Scholar, Lehnus 141. Hubbard 21 n. 44 inclines to Beattie's view that Kallimachos is Alkimedon's great-grandfather; this is mere speculation.

²⁸ Cf. P. 8.88–97, P. 10.17–30.

²⁹ Schol. N. 6.30, Drachmann iii.105; so also Dissen ap. Boeckh 410. Sandys, J. E., Pindar (London, 1919), p. 371Google Scholar, LSJ s.v. II.

³⁰ Bury, J. B., The Nemean Odes of Pindar (London, 1890), p. 107Google Scholar.

³¹ So Fraccaroli, G., Le odi di Pindaro (Milan, 1914), ii. 259Google Scholar, Sandys 366, Puech, A., Pindare iii (Paris, 1923), 74Google Scholar.

³² Cf. e.g. Bury 100 (‘Bassids, though probably not very nearly related to Alcimidas’), Farnell ii.284 (‘We know nothing of Hagesimachos or his other sons, nor the names of the others sons of Sokleidas’), Lattimore, R., The Odes of Pindar ² (Chicago, 1946), pp. 172–3Google Scholar (Kallias and Kreontidas are each described as: ‘An ancestor or relative of Alkimidas’), Nisetich 255 (‘fellow clansmen’).

³³ Wilamowitz 399; he is followed only by Waring, P., A Textual and Linguistic Commentary on Five Nemean Odes of Pindar (diss. Cambridge, 1984), p. 174Google Scholar. The identification was first considered but rejected by Boeckh, quoted by Dissen ap. Boeckh 410.

³⁴ See Young, D. C., HSCP 87 (1983), 35 42Google Scholar.

³⁵ Hence his readiness to detect in the victor hereditary virtues shared with both paternal and maternal uncles (as P. 6.46, P. 8.35, N. 5.43, N. 10.37fT., I. 8.65a–66).

³⁶ Pindar sometimes fails to mention the father in odes to adult victors, as O. 1, O. 4, O. 9, P. 3, P. 7, P. 12, I. 7. However, in other odes certainly or possibly written for victors in the boys' or youths' categories Pindar always mentions and names the father, living or dead; cf. O. 8.82, O. 10.2, O. 11.11, P. 8.19, P. 10.16, P. 11.43, N. 5.4, N. 7.7, N. 8.16, I. 5.21, I. 6.3, I. 8.2. His complete silence about Alkimidas' father is presumably motivated by his choice of the theme of alternation, which compels him either to pass over the father in silence or by mentioning him to draw attention explicitly to his failure.

³⁷ The superlative ὑπ⋯ρτατος at N. 6.21 indicates that Hagesimachos had at least three sons.

³⁸ Since the scholia mistake the nationality of Alkimidas' father, we cannot be confident that they give his name correctly.

³⁹ Parts of this article were delivered as papers at meetings of the Classics Research Seminars in St Andrews in January 1987 and the Classical Association of the Midwest and South in New Orleans in April 1988.