This is a revised Oxford dissertation on Nemeans 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11. The texts are printed first with a thorough apparatus, and then each ode receives two or three pages of introduction, metrical analysis, and commentary. There is a brief bibliography and no index.
In the preface Henry makes the following statement: “It is impossible at this stage in Pindaric criticism to discuss everything that has been published on any ode. I have been selective, but not, I hope, excessively so.” I think most Pindarists would agree with me that he has in fact been excessively selective. Although the commentary is good in terms of textual criticism and linguistic usage, it is woefully inadequate in terms of literary analysis and poetic technique. A prime example is his treatment of Nem. 4.33-43, a break-off passage following a brief myth. The interpretation of these verses has caused considerable difficulty and has been the subject of no less than three substantial articles in recent years, but the reader is left totally unaware of any controversy and is not referred to anyone who has discussed the passage. No mention is made of the wrestling imagery, on which see especially L. Lomiento in Nikephoros 3 (1990) 145-55. He translates
The lack of references to Pindaric critics in the passage just cited is typical of the book as a whole. There are many places where it would have been appropriate to refer the reader to such critics as Bernardini, Hummel, Nünlist, Peron, Pfeijffer, Race or Sotiriou, to name only a few of the most recent, but they are never cited. In the preface he mentions my commentary on Nem. 6 and Willcock’s on Nem. 4, but nowhere in his commentary on the two odes does he cite either one of us to indicate whether he agrees or disagrees.
There are eight passages where an emendation or supplement is proposed. In addition to Henry’s emendation of Nem. 4.36 mentioned earlier, he prints
In conclusion, I have mixed feelings about whether this is a book that deserved publication. Although I have little quarrel with what he says, there is a great amount that should have been included. It would have been much more useful if he had limited his commentary to one or two odes and covered all aspects.