Text
Editionsbericht
Literatur: Cowley
Literatur: Pindar-Rezeption
[1] IF a man should undertake to translate Pindar word for word, it would be thought that one Mad-man had translated another; as may appear, when a person who understands not the Original, reads the verbal Traduction of him into Latin Prose, then which nothing seems more Raving. And sure, Rhyme, without the addition of Wit, and the Spirit of Poetry (quod nequeo monstrare, & sentio tantùm) would but make it ten times more Distracted then it is in Prose. We must consider in Pindar the great difference of time betwixt his age and ours, which changes, as in Pictures, at least the Colours of Poetry, the no less difference betwixt the Religions and Customs of our Countreys, and a thousand particularities of places, persons, and manners, which do but confusedly appear to our eyes at so great a distance. And lastly, (which were enough alone for my purpose) we must consider that our Ears are strangers to the Musick of his Numbers, which sometimes (especially in Songs and Odes) almost without any thing else, makes an excellent Poet; for though the Grammarians and Criticks have labored to reduce his Verses into regular feet and measures (as they have also those of the Greek and Latine Comedies) yet in effect they are little better then Prose to our Ears. And I would gladly know what applause our best pieces of English Poesie could expect from a Frenchman or Italian, if converted faithfully, and word for word, into French or Italian Prose. And when we have considered all this, we must needs confess, that after all these losses sustained by Pindar, all we can adde to him by our wit or invention (not deserting still his subject) is not like to make him a Richer man then he was in his own Countrey. This is in some measure to be applyed to to all Translations; and the not observing of it, is the cause that all which ever I yet saw, are so much inferior to their Originals. The like happens too in Pictures, from the same root of exact Imitation; which being a vile and unworthy kinde of Servitude, is incapable of producing any thing good or noble. I have seen Originals both in Painting and Poesie, much more beautiful then their natural Objects; but I never saw a Copy better than the Original, which indeed cannot be otherwise; for men resolving in no case to shoot beyond the Mark, it is a thousand to one if they shoot not short of it. It does not at all trouble me that the Grammarians perhaps will not suffer this [2] libertine way of rendring foreign Authors, to be called Translation; for I am not so much enamoured of the Name Translator, as not to wish rather to be Something Better, though it want yet a Name. I speak not so much all this, in defence of my maner of Translating, or Imitating (or what other Title they please) the two ensuing Odes of Pindar; for that would not deserve half these words, as by this occasion to rectifie the opinion of divers men upon this matter. The Psalms of David, which I believe to have been in their Original, to the Hebrews of his time, though not to our Hebrews of Buxtorfius his making, the most exalted pieces of Poesie) are a great example of what I have said; all the Translators of which (even Mr. Sands himself; for in despight of popular error, I will be bold not to except him) for this very reason, that they have not sought to supply the lost Excellencies of another Language with new ones in their own; are so far from doing honour, or at least justice to that Divine Poet, that, methinks, they revile him worse then Shimei. And Bucanan himself (though much the best of them all, and indeed a great Person) comes in my opinion no less short of David, then his Countrey does of Judaea. Upon this ground, I have in these two Odes of Pindar taken, left out, and added what I please ; nor make it so much my aim to let the Reader know precisely what he spoke, as what was his way and manner of speaking; which has not been yet (that I know of) introduced into English, though it be the noblest and highest kind of writing in Verse; and which might, perhaps, be put into the List of Pancirollus, among the lost Inventions of Antiquity. This Essay is but to try how it will look in an English habit: for which experiment, I have chosen one of his Olympique, and another of his Nemaean Odes; which are as followeth.
Erstdruck und Druckvorlage
A. Cowley: Poems.
viz. I. Miscellanies. II. The Mistress, or, Love Verses. III. Pindarique Odes.
And IV. Davideis, or, a Sacred Poem of the Troubles of David.
London: printed [by Thomas Newcombe] for Humphrey Moseley 1605.
Hier: III; 2 Seiten (ungezählt).
Die Textwiedergabe erfolgt nach dem ersten Druck
(Editionsrichtlinien).
URL: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_poems-_cowley-abraham_1656
Literatur: Cowley
Dubrow, Heather: The Challenges of Orpheus.
Lyric Poetry and Early Modern England.
Baltimore 2008.
Kap. 1: The Rhetoric of Lyric.
Definitions, Descriptions, Disputations.
Edson, Michael / Reverand, Cedric D. (Hrsg.):
Abraham Cowley (1618-1667). A Seventeenth-Century English Poet Recovered.
Clemson, SC 2023.
Knoppers, Laura L. (Hrsg.): The Oxford History of Poetry in English.
Volume 5: Seventeenth-Century British Poetry. Oxford 2024.
Major, Philip (Hrsg.): Royalists and Royalism in 17th-Century Literature.
Exploring Abraham Cowley.
New York u. London 2020.
Stogdill, Nathaniel: Abraham Cowley's 'Pindaric Way':
Adapting Athleticism in Interregnum England.
In: English Literary Renaissance 42.3 (2012 Autumn), S. 482-514.
URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43607537
Literatur: Pindar-Rezeption
Brix, Michel: Pindare en France de Boileau à Villemain.
In: Les Études classiques 63 (1995), S. 135-153.
Brokoff, Jürgen u.a. (Hrsg.): Norbert von Hellingrath
und die Ästhetik der europäischen Moderne.
Göttingen 2014 (= Castrum Peregrini; Neue Folge, 7).
Buisson, Georges: Les débuts de Le Brun dans l'ode pindarique.
In: L'ode, en cas de toute liberté poétique.
Actes du colloque organisé à l'Université de
Toulouse-Le Mirail les 14-15-16 janvier 2004.
Hrsg. von Didier Alexandre.
Bern u.a. 2007 (= Littératures de langue française, 3), S. 23-42.
Burdorf, Dieter: Der Berglöwe. Rudolf Borchardts Pindar
– mit einem Exkurs zu Pindar bei Friedrich Nietzsche.
In: Rudolf Borchardt und Friedrich Nietzsche.
Schreiben und Denken im Zeichen der Philologie.
Hrsg. von Christian Benne u. Dieter Burdorf
Berlin 2017, S. 73-93.
Currie, Bruno / Rutherford, Ian (Hrsg.): The Reception of Greek Lyric Poetry in the Ancient World.
Transmission, Canonization and Paratext.
Leiden u. Boston 2020 (= Studies in Archaic and Classical Greek Song, 5).
Fitzgerald, William: Agonistic Poetry.
The Pindaric Mode in Pindar, Horace, Hölderlin, and the English Ode.
Berkeley u.a. 1988.
Foster, Margaret u.a. (Hrsg.): Genre in Archaic and Classical Greek Poetry.
Theories and Models.
Leiden u. Boston 2020 (= Studies in Archaic and Classical Greek Song, 4).
Fowler, Robert L.: Pindar and the Sublime.
Greek Myth, Reception, and Lyric Experience.
London 2022.
Girot, Jean-Eudes: Pindare avant Ronsard.
De l'émergence du grec à la publication des "Quatres premiers livres des Odes" de Ronsard.
Genève 2002.
Hamilton, John T.: Poetica Obscura: Reexamining Hamann's Contribution to the Pindaric Tradition.
In: Eighteenth-Century Studies 34.1 (2000), S. 93-115.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ecs.2000.0057
Hopkins, David / Martindale, Charles (Hrsg.):
The Oxford History of Classical Reception in English Literature.
Bd. 3: 1660 - 1790.
Oxford 2012.
Kampakoglou, Alexandros: Studies in the Reception of Pindar in Ptolemaic Poetry.
Berlin u. Boston 2019.
Keener, Frederick M.: Implication, Readers' Resources, and Thomas Gray's Pindaric Odes.
Newark 2012.
Krummacher, Hans-Henrik: Principes Lyricorum.
Pindar- und Horazkommentare seit dem Humanismus als Quellen der neuzeitlichen Lyriktheorie.
In: Ders., Lyra. Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte der Lyrik vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert.
Berlin u.a. 2013, S. 3-76.
Krummacher, Hans-Henrik: Pindar – Horaz – Ossian.
Zur Entwicklung von Herders Lyrikanschauung.
In: Ders., Lyra. Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte der Lyrik vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert.
Berlin u.a. 2013, S. 125-179.
Maslov, Boris: Pindar and the Emergence of Literature.
Cambridge 2015.
Meyer-Sickendiek, Burkhard: Affektpoetik.
Eine Kulturgeschichte literarischer Emotionen.
Würzburg 2005.
Revard, Stella P.: Politics, Poetics, and the Pindaric Ode, 1450-1700.
Tempe, Ariz. 2009.
Schmitz, Thomas; Pindar in der französischen Renaissance.
Studien zu seiner Rezeption in Philologie, Dichtungstheorie und Dichtung.
Göttingen 1993.
Undusk, Jaan: Pindar als Erneuerer der europäischen Dichtung.
Am Beispiel von Johann Wolfgang Goethe und Kristian Jaak Peterson.
In: Baltische Literaturen in der Goethezeit.
Hrsg. von Heinrich Bosse u.a.
Würzburg 2011, 131-186.
Vöhler, Martin: Ein Adler über den Krähen?
Zur Funktion der Antike im europäischen Kulturtransfer des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts
am Beispiel Pindars.
In: Europäischer Kulturtransfer im 18. Jahrhundert.
Literaturen in Europa – Europäische Literatur.
Hrsg. von Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp u.a.
Berlin 2003 (= Aufklärung und Europa, 13), S. 163-177.
Vöhler, Martin: Pindarrezeptionen.
Sechs Studien zum Wandel des Pindarverständnisses von Erasmus bis Herder.
Heidelberg 2005 (= Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften; Reihe 2, N.F., 117).
Vöhler, Martin: Hölderlins Pindar. Zum Öffentlichkeitsbezug von Hölderlins "Spätwerk".
In: Hölderlin-Jahrbuch 41 (2018/19), S. 33-54.
Wilkinson, Elizabeth M. / Willoughby, L. A.: Goethe's 'Pindar' Letter to Herder, July 1772.
Some Problems of Pedagogic Presentation.
In: Elizabeth M. Wilkinson / L. A. Willoughby:
Models of Wholeness. Some Attitudes to Language, Art and Life in the Age of Goethe.
Hrsg. von Jeremy Adler u.a.
Oxford u.a. 2002
(= Britische und Irische Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 30), S. 127-142.
Edition
Lyriktheorie » R. Brandmeyer