Pindari Olympia, Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia

This Rutgers online exhibition suggested to me that the "Salmvrii" Pindar might be a source for Milton. Subsequently, I'm working off of Kelley & Atkins' "Milton and the Harvard Pindar." I suspect that the source for this classicist's blog post on Milton & Pindar (The Intellectual Development of John Milton by Harris Fletcher) is based on research before the Kelley & Atkins research, since the quoted publication of the book precedes the publication of the article by three years.

First, Atkins & Kelley observe flaws with the handwritten notes in the Harvard Pindar, relative to six other books known to be Milton's. Second, they observe that Milton's known notes reflect different content than the Harvard Pindar. Atkins & Kelley argue that Milton's typical notes on Greek poetry were quite different than the references and commentaries in the Harvard Pindar:

In his annotations of Greek poetry, Milton focuses his attention on the text, and his studies rarely pass beyond the translation, scholia, and commentary in the volume before him. Twelve of Milton's thirty-seven Aratus notes, it is true, derive from collations of his Morel edition with the de Grabiano and Stephanus texts, and three others come "ex aliis editionibus," from Stephanus, Thesaurus Grecae Linguae, and perhaps from Grotius, Syntagma Arateorum; but in these fifteen instances, Milton's interest is in text rather than commentary--in finding the best or an equally good alternative reading; and from this purpose he varies only twice: once to quote Ovid's tribute to Aratus, and once to give a parallel from Lucretius. ... In contrast, the Pindar annotator ranges freely beyond his volume. (80)

So what's the point of looking at a book of Pindar with reference to Milton? I can still respond to past scholars, or I can strike out in a new direction. If tradition is correct to associate Milton with the Saumur Pindar, then the evidence therein can provide insight to Milton's reading practices. I don't want to attribute any manuscript annotations to Milton, but I can still refer to the print. That is, the Saumur Pindar contains an elaborate polyglot apparatus of Latin and Greek in three co-ordinated columns. This suggests a practice of reading--though, again, this suggestion is not grounded in manuscript notes or direct reference--that young Milton's annotations appeared in conversation with three other columns of notes.

Suppose that Milton were to annotate the Saumur Pindar as Atkins and Kelley find Milton to've annotated Grotius. In such a case, Milton would collate, suggest alternative translations, and occasionally he would update marginal references. I believe that Milton's readings here reproduce the work of the printing house corrector. And in this sense, this Pindar reproduces the comparative practices of the printing house through to the university student.

And, of course, this edition of Pindar reproduces the Argument, similar to the argument of Paradise Lost that generations of students have used to crib Milton's plot.