PREFACE.

Of all the great Greek poets, Pindar has received the least attention from English scholars. The only complete commentary to appear since Donaldson’s is that of Dr. Fennell. The Nemean and Isthmian Odes fared even worse than the Olympian and Pythian, which were edited separately by Cookesley and, in America, by Mr. Gildersleeve (whose work, however, was published in England). When we compare this list with the number of editions of Homer and the Greek dramatists published from year to year, it may seem unnecessary to apologize for a new commentary on the works of Pindar. Certainly, an editor of the Nemean Odes may feel secure against the charge of crambe repetita Latin: "warmed-over cabbage"—a common metaphor for redundant or repetitive work..

The methods of interpretation and the plan of exposition adopted in this volume are in many respects new. Indeed, were they not, this edition—following Dr. Fennell’s solid work, which filled a need so opportunely—would have no reason to exist. The reader will find in the general Introduction a statement of my principles of interpretation, and will see how much I owe to a new idea put forward by F. Mezger in Pindars Siegeslieder (1880). I gratefully acknowledge my obligations to other well-known German scholars who have edited or dealt with Pindar (Boeckh, Dissen, Mommsen, Bergk, etc.); their names appear on every page of my commentary. Rumpel’s Lexicon Pindaricum and E. Abel’s edition of the Scholia vetera Latin: "ancient commentaries/notes." on the Nemean and Isthmian Odes have been especially useful. Dr. Fennell’s Nemean and Isthmian Odes has always been at hand.

In the revision of the proof-sheets, I have received most...