I cannot help thinking that the whole of this introduction is remarkably simple and unornamented, though a very judicious and ingenious Critic seems to be of a contrary opinion.
[84.] Hab. ch. iii. v. 3.
[85.] Mr. West. See the Preface and Notes of his Translation.
[86.] It is generally to be supposed, that a Poet in a panegyrical address to his Patron will select with solicitude every circumstance in his character and actions which excite approbation, in order to render his encomium as perfect and compleat as possible. When therefore he is unexpectedly engaged to retouch a subject which he had formerly discussed, we ought to expect, either that he will fix upon new points of panegyric, which is always a matter of the greatest difficulty; or we must indulge him in the liberty of calling in adventitious assistance, when he is deprived of other materials. This appears on many occasions to have been the case of Pindar. No less than four of his Odes are inscribed to Hiero King of Syracuse, all on account of his victories in the Games of Greece. Two Odes immediately following the first to Hiero are addressed to Theron King of Agrigentum; Psaumis of Camarina is celebrated in the 4th and 5th Olympic; and the 9th and 10th are filled with the praises of Agesidamus the Locrian. Every reader must make great allowances for a Poet, who was so often obliged to retouch and to diversify subjects of one kind.
[87.] Vide supra, p. 57.
[88.] Ce son des tableaux d’un Eleve habile, ou l’on reconnoit la maniere du Maitre, bien qu’ on n’y retrouve pas a beaucoup près tout son genie. Mem. de Liter. Tom. III. p. 49.
[89.] Car. Lib. I. Od. 3.
[90.] Id. Lib. III. Od. 27.
[91.] Carm. Lib. III. Ode 3.
[92.] Il est aise d’en marquer la difference sans parler de celle du stile qui dans Pindare a toujours plus de force, plus d’energie, & plus de noblesse que dans Horace, &c. Mem. de Lit. ubi supra.