BMCR 2009.04.56: Rocha on Sante, Gli scoli metrici a Pindaro. Studi di metrica classica 13

Paolo Sante/, Gli scoli metrici a Pindaro. Studi di metrica classica
13.  Pisa/Roma:  Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2008.  Pp. 71.  ISBN
9788862271080.  EUR 36.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Roosevelt Rocha, Universidade Federal do Parana/-Brasil
([email protected])
Word count:  1262 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-56.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090456.html
-------------------------------

Metrics can be a very difficult matter, not only owing to its specific
terminology but also for the limited number of sources from ancient
times that deal with it. A summary list of sources would include
Hephaestion's Enchiridion, Aristides Quintilianus' De Musica (I,
20-29), many observations by Roman grammarians and the metrical scholia
to some authors like Aristophanes and Pindar. Sante/'s book deals with
this last category to show that, if we want to understand difficult
passages in Pindar's poems, we should be more attentive to the scholia
on his verses.

In the Introduction, Sante/ (henceforth S.) states his principal
thesis: the metrical scholia contained in Pindar's Epinicia manuscripts
help us understand the ancient colometry of the Pindaric odes. As S.
explains it, even today, after generations of scholars studying
Pindar's metrics, the specific structure of the Boeotian poet's verse
is still controversial. There are some points considered beyond debate
nowadays, notably those criteria established by Boeckh to mark the end
of a verse: the frequent presence of word end linked to brevis in longo
and to hiatus. If we compare the ancient colometry present in the
scholia to the Pindaric poems especially with that of the Snell-Maehler
edition, we will see that there are many examples of verses in which
the ancient versification, proposed in the scholia, can be maintained,
contrary to modern colometry. S. gives some examples taken from Nemean
5, Isthmian 1,  Nemean 2, Olympian 13.

In the next chapter, entitled "Problems in Interpretation: Alternatives
and Variations in the Scholia", S. shows that already in the scholia we
can find alternative interpretations in the metrical analysis. There
are metrical schemes that can be considered open to different opinions.
Even the scholiasts, who are supposed to have more documents and more
information on the metrical analysis of Pindar's poems than we do,
sometimes hesitate and present two analyses for a passage or two
analyses in the corresponding verses of strophe and antistrophe. As S.
shows, an iambic sequence can sometimes be analysed as ionic,
antispastic can be read as anapestic, dactylic as prosodiac, and so on.
In this kind of poetry, in which the verses are not kata stichon and
have their own scheme different from the last verse, it's difficult to
establish a single interpretation.

Not only can the scholiasts hesitate in their analyses, they can also
make mistakes, as S. shows in the next two chapters, "Mistakes in
Interpretation and Scansion Mistakes". One example occurs in the
scholium to Nemean 6 str. 3 (p. 24, 12-13 Tessier), where the scholiast
analyses the scheme - u - u u - ? ? which is a catalectic pherecratean
or a hemiasclepiad I, as a hexaseme trochee followed by an ionic a
minore. About the scansion errors, S. explains that there is a tendency
in the metrical scholia to Pindar to limit the analysis to the first
triad of the poem. If the scholiast had observed the responsion in the
other strophes and epodes in a poem, he could have solved some
prosodical ambiguities caused by correptio attica, synizesis,
abbreviation in hiatus or dichronos. To prevent these mistakes, it
would be enough comparing the strophes and epodes in the poem.

After discussing these mistakes, S. presents an Appendix where he deals
with some analyses of the scholia and some cases of brevis in longo in
verbal synapheia. What S. intends to show in this part of the book is
that it is not necessary to analyse some examples of final syllables as
brevis in longo in verbal synapheia correspondence, as many modern
experts do. It is better in this case to follow the ancient colometry
found in the scholia and consider these final syllables as an
indifferent element. One example of this we can find in the scholium to
Olympian 1, str. 8 (p. 1, 12 Tessier). Also in the Appendix, S. lists
some scholia that present analyses of rare or difficult metrical
schemes that are problematic from outset. In the examples discussed by
S., the text found in the scholium has a descriptive and
non-interpretative aspect, with the didactic purpose of helping the
beginner. One example of this is the scholium to Olympian 1, str. 13
(p. 1, 15-16 Tessier).

In "Conclusions" S. summarizes his argument. If we consider all the
scholia that are related to Pindar's epinicia in kat'enoplion-epitrite,
we see that a new and coherent application of the ancient metrical
theory is needed. In other words, what S. is proposing is a new
interpretation of the colometric disposition of Pindar's versification.
In his view, besides giving us general information about the metrical
theory, the scholia to Pindar's epinicia can clarify colometric
problems, even if we find some hesitation and variation in the metrical
analyses. S. reminds us that some of these alternative interpretations
derive from ambiguities in the metrical marks and they are a testimony
to the scholiasts' intellectual honesty. There are also some
descriptive and non interpretative scholia. One should remember that
the corpus is a composite work in which we see the contribution of many
authors through centuries of Pindaric scholarship, starting with the
Library of Alexandria, passing through the Imperial and the Byzantine
times. There are also mistakes in some analyses found in the scholia.
This way, the picture seems uneven: mingled with correct and
interesting analyses in the kat'enoplion-epitrite poems we find other
interpretations that are less reliable, especially in the poems with
more complex 'mixed structures'. But, as S. concludes, if the ancient
metrical scholia are not rejected as a whole but rather evaluated with
accuracy in connection with the papyri and the manuscripts, one can
reassess their value.

In the final chapter, "Brief Textual and Exegetical Notes", S. proposes
new readings to the text of some metrical scholia: Olympian 14, str. A'
10, Olympian 13, str. 10 (pp. 11, 21 and 12,1 Tessier), Pythian 11,
str. 6 (p. 21, 5 Tessier) and Nemean 7, str. 4 (p. 25, 6-8 Tessier).

Closing the book, there is an "Index of Metrical Scholia Examined and
Quoted".

The edition was very well done. I have found just a few typos: there is
an 'introduction' at the top of page 11 that shouldn't be there; p. 29,
n. 54, <greek>sukgei/menon</greek> for <greek>sugkei/menon</greek>; p.
37, 73, 'antipasti' for 'antispasti'; and p. 48, line 11,
'pentememimere' for 'pentemimere'.

To conclude, I think it's important to say that S.'s book, though very
short, has a large amount of information in its few pages. S.'s subject
requires organizing the pertinent ancient material and engaging other
specialists in the field; herein lies the book's strength. S. has
studied with Antonietta Gostoli and Bruno Gentili, two of the major
names in Italian philology and many of S.'s ideas can be traced back to
these scholars. Furthermore, S. certainly was strongly influenced by
Jean Irigoin, author of Les scholies me/triques de Pindare (Paris,
1958). But this influence does not mean that S. refrains from
criticizing his predecessors. As a consequence S.'s book indicates the
need for a new edition of Pindar's poems in kat'enoplion-epitrite, with
a new colometry.

The only thing that left me unsatisfied was the 'telegraphic style'
characteristic of this kind of book. The material is difficult and a
less elliptical presentation would have improved this. Indeed, many
times it is not easy to understand what S. is saying, though this
doesn't mean that the author didn't explain himself satisfactorily.
This happens with most books on metrics, yet it is important to present
this discipline clearly, especially to beginners. And books like the
one by S. make a major contribution to this debate.


-------------------------------
The BMCR website (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu) contains a complete and
searchable archive of BMCR reviews since our first issue in 1990.

Please do not reply to this email as this is an unmonitored mailbox.
You can contact us by sending e-mail to [email protected]. To
subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, visit
http://newmailman.brynmawr.edu/mailman/listinfo/bmcr-l. To unsubscribe,
you may also send a blank e-mail to [email protected] with
the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

_______________________________________________
BMCR-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://newmailman.brynmawr.edu/mailman/listinfo/bmcr-l