¹ Young, David, ‘Pindaric criticism’, in: Pindaros und Bakchylides, ed. Calder, W. M. & Stern, J. (Wege der Forschung cxxxiv, Darmstadt 1970) 1–95 Google Scholar; the quotation is from p. 2. (This is a revised reprint of an article first published in the Minnesota Review iv [1964] 584–641 Google Scholar; in spite of its shortcomings, some of which I shall touch on in due course, it remains an essential survey of developments in Pindaric studies during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.)

² ‘Pindar was generally misunderstood, unappreciated, and unpopular before Boeckh and Thiersch’ (Young [n. 1] 3 n. 4); this, as we shall see, is scarcely adequate. Little work seems to have been done, however, on the earlier history of Pindaric criticism; in addition to P. B. Wilson's thesis, ‘The knowledge and appreciation of Pindar in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’ (Oxford D.Phil., 1974), see Z. Lempiecki, ‘Pindare jugé par les gens des lettres du XVIIe et du XVIIIe siècle’, Bullétin Internationale de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences el des Lettres (Cracovie), Classe de Philologie, 1930, 28–39.

³ Boeckh, A., Pindari opera quae supersunt, II/2 (Leipzig 1821) 6–7 Google Scholar.

⁴ Prefaced to his edition (Gotha & Erfurt 1830); cited here from the reprint with additional notes by Schneidewin (Gotha 1843).

⁵ See n. 3 above. In addition to Young's (somewhat unsympathetic) account (n. 1), see Newman, J. K. & Newman, F. S., Pindar's art (Berlin 1984) 1–22 Google Scholar. The Newmans stress the Idealist background to Boeckh's work; I shall attempt to show, however, that this determined the articulation more than the substance of his theory, the origins of which were historically more remote. (So, for example, in the eighteenth century the underlying premise of the theory could be formulated in terms of the Leibniz-Wolff philosophy, as in Baumgarten's, A. Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus [Halle 1735]Google Scholar, propositions 65–6: ‘Id cuius repraesentatio aliarum in oratione adhibitarum rationem sufficientem continet, suam vero non habet in aliis, est thema. Si plura fuerint themata non sunt connexa; pone enim A esse thema, B item, si fuerint connexa aut ratio sufficiens τοῦ A est in B aut τοῦ B in A, ergo aut B aut A non est thema. Iam vero nexus est poeticus; ergo poema unius thematis perfectius illo, cui plura themata.’)

⁶ Young (n. 1) 9.

⁷ The reviews of Dissen and of Hermann's De officio interpretis (see n. 11 below) were first published in the Jahrbücher für wissenschaftlicher Kritik for Oct. 1830 and Jan. 1835 respectively; they are cited here from Kleine Schriften VII (Leipzig 1872) 369–403, 404–77Google Scholar. Encyclopädie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften² (Leipzig 1886)Google Scholar [abbreviated as Enc.].

⁸ This assumption is not self-evident. Charles Batteux had taken the characteristic unity of the ode to be that of the emotion expressed ( Principes de la littérature [Lyons 1820] III 196–7Google Scholar; this work was first published under the title Cours de Belle-Lettres [Paris 1750 Google Scholar], and went through many editions); and this theory was widely accepted in Germany during the eighteenth century (e.g., Eschenburg, J. J., Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften [Berlin 1783] 115 Google Scholar: ‘Die Einhcit in der Ode ist Einheit der Empfindung’); see Scherpe, K. R., Gattungspoetik im 18 Jahrhundert (Stuttgart 1968) 105–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Cf. Enc. 90: ‘Das Wesen des Dramas ist die Darstellung einer Handlung, aber der innere Kern der Handlung, der Seele derselben, ist ein Gedanke, der sich darin offenbart’. For example, Antigone: ‘In dem verschiedenen Personen der Handlung sich lebendig der ethische Gedanke verkörpert, dass das Maass das Beste ist und selbst in gerechten Bestrebungen sich Niemand überheben und Leidenschaft folgen darf’. (Boeckh is aware of the allegorical nature of such interpretation, designating it ‘moral allegory’.) It is interesting to see here an ancestor of current intellectualising approaches to tragedy in such close association with a centripetal theory of unity; both seem to me very much alive (I therefore have reservations about Young's remarks on the uniqueness of Pindaric scholarship [n. 1] 7), and highly misleading: see my forthcoming book, The poetics of Greek tragedy.

¹⁰ The late Neoplatonist theory of unique σκοπὀς which Proclus presupposes is a misinterpretation of Plato, and quite untypical of earlier Greek attitudes to literary unity; I hope to publish a more extensive survey of the Greek critical literature in due course.

¹¹ See G. Hermann, review of Dissen: Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik ((1831) 44–91, cited from Opuscula VI (Leipzig 1835) 1–69 Google Scholar; De officio interpretis (Leipzig 1834)Google Scholar, cited from Opuscula VII (Leipzig 1839) 96–128 Google Scholar.

¹² See Drachmann, A. B., Moderne Pindarfortolkning (Copenhagen 1891) 5–17 Google Scholar, for a discussion of the Pindaric scholia (there is a Latin summary on p. 314).

¹³ The commentaries cited in this paragraph are those of J. Lonicer (Basel 1535), B. Aretius (Geneva 1587), and J. Benedictus (Saumur 1620).

¹⁴ Schmid, E., Pindari carmina (Wittemberg 1616)Google Scholar. An indication of Schmid's analytical style can be gained from his treatment of the exordium of P. 2, which (he says) indicates (i) the place (a) to which the song is brought (Syracuse, which is praised for: its size; the protection it receives from Ares; the bravery of its people; the competitive aptitude of its horses), and (b) from which the song is brought (Thebes, which the poet calls λιπαραί), and (ii) what is brought (i.e., a song celebrating Hiero's chariot victory). In the original these subdivisions are set out in tabular form, using curly brackets.

¹⁵ Meusel, J. G., De veterum poetarum interpretatione (Halle 1766) 37 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Sudorius, N., Pindari opera omnia (Paris (1582) 2 Google Scholar. (Noce artificiose: these rhetorically minded critics were not confused by Pindar's rhetorical poses.)

¹⁷ L'art poétique II 72 ( Oeuvres complètes, ed. Escal, F. [Paris 1966] 164 Google Scholar); the poem was published in 1674.

¹⁸ See, for example, Congreve's criticism of Cowley's ‘Pindaric Odes’: ‘The character of these late Pindariques, is, a Bundle of rambling incoherent Thoughts, express'd in a like Parcel of irregular Stanzas. … There is nothing more regular than the Odes of Pindar, both as to the exact observation of the Measures and Numbers of his Stanzas and Verses, and the perpetual Coherence of his Thoughts. For tho’ his Digressions are frequent, and his Transitions sudden, yet is there ever some secret connexion, which tho' not always appearing to the Eye, never fails to communicate itself to the Understanding of the Reader.’ (This optimistic judgement is to be found in ‘A Discourse on the Pindarique Ode’, published in 1706; Complete works [London 1923] IV 83 Google Scholar.) Compare Edward Young on the ode: ‘Its conduct should be rapturous, somewhat abrupt, and immethodical to a vulgar eye. That apparent order, and connexion, which gives form and life to some compositions, takes away the very soul of this…. Thus Pindar, who has as much logic at bottom as Aristotle or Euclid, to some critics has appeared as mad’ (‘Discourse on Lyric Poetry’, first published in 1728; Complete works [London 1854] I 415–16Google Scholar).

¹⁹ Perrault, C., Parallele des Anciens et des Modernes (Paris 1688) II 235 Google Scholar, cf. III 184.

²⁰ de La Motte, A. Houdart, ‘Discours sur la poésie en général, et sur l'ode en particulier’, in Odes (Paris 1707)Google Scholar; cited from Les paradoxes littéraires de La Motte, ed. Jullien, B. (Paris 1859) 78–110 Google Scholar.

²¹ Published in 1693, with a prefatory ‘Discours sur l'Ode’, replying to Perrault's attack on Pindar. (In the Oeuvres complètes [n. 17 above], the ‘Discours’ may be found on pp. 227–9, the ode on pp. 230–4; it is interesting to observe that Boileau suppressed the original second stanza, which had contained a ‘Pindaric’ self-defence [p. 1023].)

²² In his ‘Discours a l'occasion des Machabées’ ([n. 20] 440–70), the preface to one of his own tragedies (published in 1722), La Motte argues that dramatic critics had neglected the most important of the ‘unities’, that of ‘interest’: ‘Si plusieurs personnages sont diversement intéressés dans le même événement, et s'ils sont tous digne que j'entre dans leurs passions, il y a alors unité d'action et non pas unité d'interêt, parce que souvent, en ce cas, je perds de vue les uns pour suivre les autres, et que je souhaite et que je crains, pour ainsi dire, de trop de côtés’ (455). I have argued elsewhere (see n. 9 above) that ‘unity of interest’, though desired by many modern critics, is regularly neglected in Greek tragedy; this is another instance of the discrepancy between current centripetal assumptions and Greek aesthetics.

²³ Fraguier, C. F., ‘Le caractère de Pindare’, in: Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belle-Lettres, vol. 2 (Paris 1717) 34–47 Google Scholar (this volume covers the years 1701–1710).

²⁴ Lowth, R., De sacra poesi Hebraeorum (Oxford 1753)Google Scholar; the references are to Lecture 26.

²⁵ Barth, F. G., De digressionibus poeticis (Wittemberg 1766)Google Scholar; for his discussion of Pindar, see pp. 14–20, 34–9.

²⁶ Trapp, J., Praelectiones poeticae (ed. 3, London 1736)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Lawson, J., Lectures concerning oratory (Dublin 1758)Google Scholar; Blair, H., Lectures on rhetoric and belle-lettres (London 1783)Google Scholar. (Blair's lectures were written in the late 1750s or early ‘60s, according to Kennedy, G., Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition [London 1980] 234–5Google Scholar.)

²⁸ A frequent complaint against Euripides' Hecuba in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century criticism (see, for example, the discussion in Hermann's edition of the play [Leipzig 1831], xv–xvi). In the Renaissance, by contrast, the play was greatly admired—and not only because, as the first play of the triad, it was the most familiar (see Wilson, N. G. A&A xix [1973] 87 Google Scholar); as the sixteenth-century editor Gaspar Stiblinus (Basel 1562) commented: ‘Haec fabula propter argumenti turn varietatem, turn plusquam tragicam atrocitatem, iure principem locum tenet’ (38).

²⁹ An eccentric instance can be found in Ruckersfelder's, A. F. Sylloge commentationum et observationum philologico-exegeticarum et criticarum (Utrecht 1762)Google Scholar. He argues that Pindar always has a single Grundgedanke (15: ‘quod omnia in ejus carminibus, faciant ad confirmandam, vel illustrandam unicam propositionem primariam, sine digressionibus, aut aliis poetarum licentiis, duplicem scopum conjungentibus’); but he regards this regularity as unique to Pindar, and does not think it necessary to poetic excellence (10: ‘en, exempla carminum, elegantissimorum certe, quae non unicam sed duplicem veritatcm confirmant, quaeque non ad unicum, et simplicem, sed ad duplicem scopum directa esse videntur’; he cites Ps. 19, Hor. Odes 1.12).

³⁰ The main source is Chabanon's paper on P. 4, in: Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belle-Lettres, vol. xxxv (Paris 1770) 364–85Google Scholar; his paper on P. 2 was read in 1762 and published in vol. xxxii of the Mémoires, 485–96. Chabanon says that Garnier's reply was read to the Academy, but I have not found it in the Mémoires, or elsewhere.

³¹ Boeckh seems to have been anticipated also in Vauvilliers', J. F. Discours sur Pindare (Paris 1772)Google Scholar. Vauvilliers imposed a requirement of centripetal unity (‘Ainsi ce que nous appellons dans l'Ode, épisode ou ecart, ne devient plus qu'une digression froide et ridicule, si le Poëte n'a pas l'art de le lier à son sujet, de manière à ne former qu'un tout inséparable’ [16–17]); and he regarded the odes as uniting a subject or occasion (i.e., the victory) with ‘l’objet particulier du Poëte’—for example, the poet may use the character or circumstances of the victor for (public or individual) instruction, correction or exhortation (72–3): thus a reconstruction of the circumstances will disclose ‘la raison des épisodes, qui ne paroissent avoir par eux-mêmes aucune relation directe avec la victoire’. (I have not seen this work, and am here indebted to P. B. Wilson [n. 2] pp. 284–91.)

³² Cf. vol. xxxii, 459–60 for his unease over Pindar's ‘disorder’, and for his attempts to mitigate the fault.

³³ Schneider, J. G., Versuch über Pindars Leben und Schriften (Strasburg 1774)Google Scholar; Jacobs, F., ‘Pindar’, in: Charaktere der vornehmsten Dichter aller Nationen ( = Nachträge zu Sulzer's allgemeine Theorie der schönen Kunste), ed.Dyk, J. G. & Schaz, G. (Leipzig 1797–1808) I 49–76 Google Scholar. (This article, published anonymously, is acknowledged in Jacobs' Vermischte Schrifien VII [Leipzig 1840] 350, although not reprinted.)

³⁴ See Lloyd-Jones, H., JHS 103 (1973) £116Google Scholar; this article contains a useful survey of the new approach (initiated by W. Schadewaldt, Der Aufbau der Pindarischen Epinikions [Halle 1928], and deriving much of its impetus from Bundy, E. L., ‘Studia Pindarica’, UCPCP xviii [1962] 1–92 Google Scholar), as well as a demonstration of how P. 2 can be handled from this perspective.

³⁵ Slater, W. J., CJ 72 (1976/1977) 196–7Google Scholar; but for an important qualification see Classical Antiquity 2 (1983) 129–32Google Scholar.

³⁶ Young, D., Three odes of Pindar (Mnemosyne Suppl. 9, Leiden 1968) 90–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ D. Young (n. 36) 66.

³⁸ None of the proponents of Grundgedanken would have disputed the comment which Young quotes from Rauchenstein (himself a Grundgedanke theorist): ‘nicht der Grundgedanke ist die Poesie … sondern die Darstellung derselben im Liede’ (19 n. 49, citing R. Rauchenstein, Zur Einleitung in Pindars Siegeslieder [Aarau 1843] 133). When Young speaks (for example) of the assumption … that the unity in “unity” refers not to the whole poem but to a single vinculum within the poem’ (p. 10), he is engaging in wild polemic. No one disputed that the unit was the poem; the question was, what made the poem a unit? The Grundgedanke theory answered: the coherently expressed development of a single thought; it is not obvious that Young's answer is fundamentally different—and neither is self-evidently right.

³⁹ Young (n. 1) 62: ‘In his analysis of Nemean 7, the two elements [‘the praise of the victor and Pindar's persönliche Absicht'] do not become one but are merely dovetailed. Parts of the poem concerned with Pindar's supposed apologia for the offence taken by the Aeginetans at Paean 6 alternate or coexist with parts concerned with the program … That is not unity …’ Yet, as we have seen, Renaissance commentators would have found nothing untoward in such an interpretation.