This note discusses the lacuna at Nemean 9.17, considers the supplements suggested to date and proposes a new one.

ἔτεκεν δ᾽, ἁνίκα Μοῖραιτέλεϲαν, ταυρόκερων θεὸν 100ϲτεφάνωϲέν τε δρακόντωνϲτεφάνοιϲ, ἔνθεν ἄγραν θηρότροφον μαι-νάδεϲ ἀμφιβάλλονται πλοκάμοιϲ.102-3 θηρότροφον praeeunte Musgrave Allen : -τρόφοι ‹L›P The subject of ἔτεκεν and ϲτεφάνωϲεν is Zeus. If the text is right, Zeus gave birth to Dionysus, and Zeus then crowned him with snakes. This note argues that the text is corrupt because vase painting shows Dionysus born already crowned, and the notion that Zeus should crown anyone is quite exceptional. I conclude that in 101 Euripides probably (...) wrote ϲτεφανωθέντα, not ϲτεφάνωϲέν τε. (shrink)

45 τόλμᾳ γὰρ εἰκώϲθυμὸν ἐριβρεμετᾶν θηρῶν λεόντωνἐν πόνῳ, μῆτιν δ᾽ ἀλώπηξ,αἰετοῦ ἅ τ᾽ ἀναπιτναμένα ῥόμβον ἴϲχει·χρὴ δὲ πᾶν ἔρδοντ᾽ ἀμαυρῶϲαι τὸν ἐχθρόν.46 θηρᾶν: HeyneFor he [sc. Melissus, the victor] resembles the boldness of loudly roaring wild lions in his heart during the struggle, but in skill he is a fox, which rolls on its back to check the eagle's swoop. One must do everything to diminish one's opponent.

This note considers a Pindaric crux. It argues that Aristarchus’ ‘solution’ should not have been so readily accepted because the evidence can be interpreted differently, giving more satisfactory sense if ἐϲλ᾽ ὡς rather than ἐϲλούϲ is read for the manuscripts’ ἐϲλόϲ.

This note questions the transmitted word order at Pind. Ol. 2.100 and proposes a transposition to remove short open vowel at verse end.

εἰ δέ τιϲ ὄλβον ἔχων μορφᾷ παραμεύϲεται ἄλλουϲ,ἔν τ᾽ ἀέθλοιϲιν ἀριϲτεύων ἐπέδειξεν βίαν,θνατὰ μεμνάϲθω περιϲτέλλων μέλη, 15καὶ τελευτὰν ἁπάντων γᾶν ἐπιεϲϲόμενοϲ.ἐν λόγοιϲ δ᾽ ἀϲτῶν ἀγαθοῖϲί νιν αἰνεῖϲθαι χρεὼνκαὶ μελιγδούποιϲι δαιδαλθέντα μελίζεν ἀοιδαῖϲ.The Loeb translates lines 15–16 ʻlet him remember that mortal are the limbs he clothes and that earth is the last garment of all he will wear'. It is debatable whether τελευτάν is an adverbial accusative with ἁπάντων added as a qualifying genitive, as it seems more natural to take (...) the phrase as a simple apposition to γᾶν. But there is a real difficulty in that τελευτὰν ἁπάντων could be taken to indicate that death is ‘the end of everything’ (or ʻof all men') and that contradicts indications elsewhere in Pindar that death is not, or at least not quite, the end. (shrink)

πολλὰ γὰρ πολλᾷ λέλεκται, νεαρὰ δ᾽ ἐξευρόντα δόμεν βαϲάνῳ 20ἐϲ ἔλεγχον, ἅπαϲ κίνδυνοϲ· ὄψον δὲ λόγοι φθονεροῖϲιν,ἅπτεται δ᾽ ἐϲλῶν ἀεί, χειρόνεϲϲι δ᾽ οὐκ ἐρίζει.κεῖνοϲ καὶ Τελαμῶνοϲ δάψεν υἱόν, φαϲγάνῳ ἀμφικυλίϲαιϲ.21. ὄψον δὲ λόγοι BD : δὲ λόγοι om. Tricliniusφθονεροῖϲιν BD : φθόνῳ εἰϲίν Vauvilliers I translate: ʻFor many things have been told in many ways, but to give novel things, when one has found them out, to the touchstone | For testing is pure danger: words are anamuse-boucheto the envious, | (...) And it fastens on good men always, not taking issue with inferiors. | That too gnawed at Telamon's son, had him writhing on a sword.’ The difficulty presented by the transition in 22 from the plural ʻthe envious' to the singular subject ʻit' will be obvious. However, some commentators, including Mezger, Fennell and Bury, have assumed that φθόνοϲ can be supplied as the subject of ἅπτεται in 22 from φθονεροῖϲιν in 21, and the modern texts of Pindar – Bowra, Puech, Turyn and Snell–Maehler – do not mention the possibility of corruption in 21. (shrink)