BMCR 2008.12.34, Maria Elisabetta Giannuzzi, Stratone di Sardi

Maria Elisabetta Giannuzzi (ed.), Stratone di Sardi: Epigrammi. Satura,
7.  Lecce:  Pensa multimedia, 2007.  Pp. 478.  ISBN 9788882356408.
EUR 34.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Guillermo Gala/n Vioque, Universidad de Huelva
([email protected])
Word count:  1463 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-12-34.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/12/20081234.html
-------------------------------

The publication of a philological commentary is always a welcome event,
and this one is no exception. However, the appearance of the commentary
reviewed here is somewhat overshadowed by the fact that it is no less
than the fourth monograph devoted to the epigrams of Strato in just
over a decade, following on as it does from the studies by M. Gonza/lez
Rinco/n (Estrato/n de Sardes. Epigramas, Sevilla 1996), W. Steinbichler
(Die Epigramme des Dichters Straton von Sardes: Ein Beitrag zum
griechischen paiderotischen Epigramm, Frankfurt am Main 1998) and L.
Floridi (Stratone di Sardi, Epigrammi, Alessandria, 2007). It actually
coincides in the year of publication with the excellent commentary by
L. Floridi, with which comparison is inevitable.[[1]]

The book opens with a bibliography which cites, in exclusively
alphabetical order, editions, commentaries, translations and specific
works on Strato together with secondary literature (pp. 7-40). One
might have hoped at least for a distinction to have been made between
editions and commentaries, on the one hand, and the rest of the
bibliography on the other. The bibliography does not include the
editions by F. Duebner, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis,
Parisiis 1864-90, H. Stadtmueller, Anthologia Graeca epigrammatum
Palatina cum Planudea, Leipzig 1894-1906, or W. R. Paton, The Greek
Anthology, London-Cambridge Mass. 1916-8, although they are mentioned
in the commentary; nor does it list the useful work by N. Hopkinson,
Greek Poetry of the Imperial Period, Cambridge 1994, which the author
appears not to have used even though it includes and comments upon the
epigrams AP 12.4 and 6.[[2]] We also note the absence of any reference,
either in the bibliography or in the commentary, to certain studies on
Strato, such as those by H. Heydemann, "Zur Anthologia Graeca Palatina
XII 207", Hermes 11, 1876, 124-5 and P. L. Furiani, "Omofilia e
androcrazia nella societa\ maschile di Stratone di Sardi", Euphrosyne
15, 1987, 217-26.

There follows a brief introduction dealing with the chronology of the
poet (pp. 41-53), the manuscript tradition (pp. 53-63), and the
editions, commentaries and translations (pp. 63-73). In the
controversial issue of chronology the author inclines towards the later
dating that would place the poet in the philo-Hellenic period of
Hadrian (pp. 52-3) (while Floridi opted for the time of Nero[[3]]). The
sections dedicated to the manuscript tradition and the editions are the
least satisfactory part of the whole work. The author hardly mentions
the apographa, which she relegates to the section on editions without
even listing them or specifying their content (pp. 66-7). Also
inadequate is the treatment of the syllogai.[[4]] It is true that the
oldest syllogai contain no pederastic epigrams, but it would have been
advisable to mention that the sylloge Euphemiana contains an epigram of
debatable authorship, attributed to Strato or Meleager, APl 213 (= 100
Gonza/lez-Rinco/n, 102 Floridi) (this epigram also appears in sylloge
<greek>*S</greek><greek>p</greek>, though attributed there to
Leonidas). In relation to sylloge S the author lists the epigrams of
Strato contained therein but overlooks AP 12.223, and in the case of AP
12.237 she does not specify that, apart from not including the first
line, it has l. 3 in a different position. In the Appendix
Barberino-Vaticana only ll. 3-4 of epigram 12.237 are included and, in
contrast to what the author claims (p. 63), epigrams 11.19 and APl 213
are not included. There is also no mention of sylloge I, which contains
two epigrams by Strato (AP 12.235 and 237.3-4). In general, caution is
advised  regarding the data she offers, as they may lead to confusion.
For example, the edition which H. Stadtmueller left unfinished
(Anthologia Graeca...) extended as far as epigram 9.563, not 11.563, as
the author incorrectly states (p. 71).

However, what is striking about the introduction is not so much what it
says as what it fails to say, as it lacks sections on prosody and
metrics (although the author does offer relevant comments on the metre
in the introduction and the commentary itself), on form and structure,
language and style, and themes and motifs. All these are customary in
philological commentaries and are present in the editions of Gonza/lez
Rinco/n and Floridi.

The author has dispensed with the task of producing a critical edition
and a fresh collation of the manuscript transmission, basing her work
instead on the editions by R. Aubreton, Anthologie grecque. Anthologie
Palatine. Tome X (Livre XI), Paris 1972 and R. Aubreton-F. Buffie\re,
Anthologie grecque. Anthologie Palatine. Tome XI (Livre XII), Paris
1994, and she states that she deals in the commentary with those
passages where she differs from the edition she has taken as her model
(p. 7). This is, however, not the case on the numerous occasions on
which she has altered the punctuation.[[5]] Nor in AP 12.222.6, where
she differs from Aubreton-Buffie\re without indicating so: she reads
<greek>th\n fa/ruga</greek> along with the other editors (including
Floridi) except Aubreton-Buffie\re, who correctly point out that in P
the reading is <greek>to\n fa/ruga</greek>. And in the commentary on AP
12.240.1 she again differs, this time to correct the reading
Aubreton-Buffie\re discern in P (<greek>poliai\ ei)</greek>), also
mistakenly included in Floridi (the reading in P is <greek>poliai\
ai(</greek>). In addition, she gives the impression of a problem-free
transmission when she publishes--without indicating them--the
conjectures accepted by Aubreton-Buffie\re in their text; indeed she
very rarely defends the choice of a conjecture against the transmitted
text.

The great contribution of this book to the study of Strato is the
commentary (pp. 75-470). In the selection of the epigrams to be
commented on the author adopts a conservative stance, including as the
work of Strato fewer epigrams than her predecessors. She comments upon
the ninety-four epigrams of book 12 ascribed to Strato in P and the
five dubious ones transmitted in book 11. She therefore does not
include the epigrams attributable to Strato on account of their
thematic content which are included in the sylloge Parisina (58, 76,
103-105 in Floridi's edition), or epigram APl 213, attributed to Strato
or Meleager in the sylloge Euphemiana and which Gonza/lez Rinco/n and
Floridi do comment upon.

There are brilliant entries in which the author provides us with
valuable information for the interpretation of the epigrams under
study: for instance, the epic resonance of the beginning of AP 12.8 and
the introduction to AP 12.192, 12.240 and 12.247. Most outstanding are
the entries in which she analyses literary themes or motifs,
particularly mythological ones, such as the entries she devotes to
"Dionysus" in AP 12.2.6, "Tiresias" and "Tantalus" in AP 12.175.7, the
number of the Graces in the introduction to 12.181, and "the winged
Eros" in AP 12.202.1. In general, consultation of this section of the
work always proves profitable, although there are some debatable points
where one would have expected certain bibliographical references or
cited passages. Thus, when dealing with the nautical metaphor of love
it seems unavoidable to quote the article by P. Murgatroyd, "The Sea of
Love", CQ 45, 1995, 9-25; for the comparison of quarrels between lovers
and war, that of L. Cahoon, "The bed as battlefield: erotic conquest
and military metaphor in Ovid's Amores", TAPhA 118, 1988, 293-307, as
well as the classic monograph by A. Spies, Militat omnis amans. Ein
Beitrag zur Bildersprache der antiken Erotik, Diss. Tuebingen 1930
(reprinted New York 1978), and for the metaphorical use of
<greek>sau/ra</greek> in reference to the male sexual organ it is
appropriate to cite J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, Baltimore
1982, p. 30, E. Montero Cartelle, El lati/n ero/tico. Aspectos le/xicos
y literarios, Sevilla, p. 91 and J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse.
Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, New York 1991, p. 127, as well as M.
T. Cassanello, Lessico erotico della tragedia greca, Roma 1993, p. 102,
for the erotic use of <greek>o(milw=</greek> in AP 12.1.3. And in
12.16.4 the author makes no mention of the fact that
<greek>xa/ris</greek> is a euphemism for sexual favour, and neither
does she do so in the various internal references to which she directs
the reader (among which the reference to 12.185.1 is erroneous; it
should be 12.183.1). Although mentioned in the bibliography, one has
the impression that the author has taken little advantage of works like
J. Henderson's The Maculate Muse, the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae ab
Henrico Stephano constructus, ed. K.B Hase-W. Dindorf-L. Dindorf,
Parisiis s.a. (1831-1865), the most obvious absentee from this
commentary, and even the indispensable LSJ.

The volume closes with some useful indexes of Greek terms, debatable
passages and prominent names and themes  (pp. 471-8).

To conclude, in spite of some objections I have raised, this commentary
duly offers what should be expected of a philological commentary, as it
serves to provide assistance in the understanding of the text and to
stimulate discussion, and is a welcome addition to the ever-increasing
number of commentaries on Greek epigrammatic literature.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Read the review by L. A. Guichard in the present journal (BMCR
2008.01.03), and my own in JHS 128, 2008, forthcoming. The present
review forms part of Project FFI2008-00940. I would like to thank Mr.
J. J. Zoltowski for the English translation.

2.   See Greek Poetry, pp. 22-3 and 92-3.

3.   See Stratone di Sardi..., p. 13.

4.   On the syllogai, read now F. Maltomini, Tradizione antologica
dell'epigramma greco. Le sillogi minori di eta\ bizantina e umanistica,
Roma 2008 (a review of this work will appear in the next issue of
Exemplaria Classica).

5.   Without attempting to be exhaustive, there are modifications to
the punctuation in AP 12.3.5 and 6, 4.6, 8.5 and 7, 9.1, 11.3, 176.4,
177.2 and 4, 178.4, 186.2 and 3, 214.2, 219.3, 220.4, 222.4, 231.2,
252.2, 253.1 and 11.225.1.