[Agor] (Fwd) BMCR 2008.06.10, Giancarlo Giardina , Seneca. Tragedie I

[Marjeta Sasel Kos]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Bryn Mawr Reviews <bmr at ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
To:             	bmcr-l at brynmawr.edu (Bryn Mawr Classical Review)
Date sent:      	Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:09:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:        	BMCR 2008.06.10, Giancarlo Giardina , Seneca. 
Tragedie I.

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

Giancarlo Giardina (ed.), Lucio Anneo Seneca. Tragedie. I. Ercole, Le
Troiane, Le Fenicie, Medea, Fedra. Testi e commenti, 22.  Pisa/Roma:
Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2007.  Pp. 387.  ISBN 978-88-6227-016-8.  EUR 95.00 
(pb).

Reviewed by Christopher Trinacty, Amherst College
Word count:  2101 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-06-10.html
-------------------------------

The study of Senecan tragedy has benefited greatly from the work of
Giancarlo Giardina. In 1966, his edition of Seneca's tragedies was one
of the first that considered the importance of the A group of
manuscripts, and, while some criticized the final product, his text was
superior in many ways to the editions in use at the time.[[1]]
Zwierlein's Oxford Classical Text, published in 1986, improved upon
Giardina's (especially in the clarity of his apparatus criticus), and
his accompanying Kommentar expertly explained the editorial decisions
he made. Indeed the last 25 years have been very fruitful for the study
of Senecan tragedy as a whole, and commentaries on the individual plays
have helped the reader to appreciate Seneca's work within its literary,
historical, and philosophical contexts.[[2]] In addition, these
commentaries, as well as the recent Bude/, edited by Chaumartin, and
the new Loeb, edited by Fitch, have contributed to our knowledge of
Seneca's text and have clarified disputed readings and textual
problems.[[3]]

Giardina's new edition offers a bold text, bursting with emendations,
and polished with his expert knowledge of the textual tradition of
Seneca's tragedies. His aim is to produce a challenging text, one that
raises questions about traditional readings and interpretations of
Seneca's plays. As he states, at the conclusion of his introduction,
"Non vuole questa edizione dare un testo standard o canonico, ma
segnare una tappa del progressivo avvicinamento a un testo
soddisfacente della importante opera drammaturgica di Seneca" (p. 64).
The book consists of a detailed introduction about the manuscript
tradition, a description of the critical criteria followed, a list of
conjectures (and sample cases with the rationale for the changes),
bibliography, sigla for the codices, and the texts of the five
tragedies.[[4]]

The introduction jumps right into the manuscript tradition, and
Giardina lays out the two primary branches of the codices (E and A).
Giardina details fine points of distinction between the two branches
that he feels are necessary for the production of his text. He begins
by showing that the manuscripts that make up the A branch (PTCS) are
not uniform and that sometimes PT agree with the E branch, listing five
pages of examples (pp. 13-18). This seems unnecessary to me, and these
examples are not uniformly noted in his apparatus criticus (a glance at
the Phoenissae examples reveals that of the 13 examples, 7 were not
noted in the apparatus). He continues to show the relative merits of P
and T and discusses the interpolation that is rife in the A branch of
manuscripts (p.20). Giardina evaluates the importance of R (a fifth
century palimpsest), analyzing the readings it has in common with the E
and A branches, and finds that the common archetype of E and A must be
later than the unknown source of R (pp. 20-4). He emphasizes that there
are many shared errors in the E and A branches, and that their
archetype had suffered damage at an early date. Because of this, he
will offer "un contributo ricco di nuove e originali soluzioni
testuali, proponendo in apparato o anche, abbastanza spesso, recependo
nel testo, le mie congetture" (p. 26). And he means it, too.

The introduction now turns to individual cases of interpolation in the
E branch, providing three examples (H.F. 767, 799, Oed. 45). Giardina
points out that the incorrect readings were caused by similar words
nearby that influenced the scribe's reading (e.g. squalent at H.F. 767
was caused by squalidus at 765). Giardina then lists examples of this
type of error, with the accepted reading or his conjecture (pp. 31-4),
before another list illustrates the interpolation of the A manuscripts
(pp. 35-8). These informative lists serve forcefully to show the reader
the different types of errors in the manuscript tradition and to offer
empirical evidence for the need for a strong editor. Giardina draws our
attention to mechanical errors involving the transposition of letters
or groups of letters and provides more examples of Influenzfehler (of
the type squalent/squalidus). He concludes the first part of his
introduction with further consideration of manuscripts (MFN, KQe) that
are rarely of independent value but sometimes provide original
conjectures. In general the lists of errors found in this initial
section of the introduction raise questions about the reliability of
the various manuscripts, even casting doubt on the relatively sound
reputation of E.

At this point, Giardina reviews the critical reception of his 1966
edition and offers a detailed rebuttal of Tarrant's comments in his
Agamemnon, and Fitch's appendix in his commentary on Hercules Furens
(pp. 45-7). This provides the stepping-stone for the elucidation of his
critical methodology for this text and the format of its apparatus
criticus. Giardina simplifies his apparatus from his previous edition,
giving the variant readings of E and A (broken down to the variant
readings of PTCS, if necessary). Next Giardina turns to the discussion
of the emendations in his text and admits that this text is
characterized by an abundance of emendations by both previous scholars
and himself. This is Giardina's most daring development, and the
greatest difference between his text and other recent editions.
Giardina's emendations are widespread and, as he admits, many are
speculative, "Non tutte le mie proposte inserite a testo pretendono di
essere definitive: ma quelle che non appariranno tali al pubblico dei
filologi potranno tuttavia valere come congetture diagnostiche (in
senso maasiano)" (p. 52). Maas, however, might have been put off by the
sheer number of conjectures that Giardina advances, although they
certainly do stimulate thought about the reliability of the transmitted
text.[[5]] Giardina compiles a list of some of the abundant conjectures
he has made (pp. 52-5), but this is not comprehensive, and one may
wonder why it is necessary if the same information is given in the
apparatus (usually with parallel quotations). Giardina gives examples
of his conjectures and the rationale behind them. He tends to
standardize Seneca's language: creating more idiomatic phrases
(possibly not the best criterion-- do we read poetry for idioms or
simplified language?), correcting geographical issues (pp. 56-7),
eliminating mechanical corruptions, and rectifying passages that seem
to him in need of emendation (although very often the manuscripts
universally agree on the transmitted reading). Of course, this final
type of conjecture is the most audacious and needs the most
explanation. Giardina devotes four pages (pp. 59-63) to the explication
of ten examples. Unfortunately, I did not find these universally
convincing. Here are a few of the examples, two that I find problematic
and two that I support:

At H.F. 272 the manuscripts read ac saeva iusta sceptra confringit manu
which Giardina changes to read ac saeva iusta monstra confringit manu.
His rationale is that Hercules is known as a slayer of monsters and
that the phrase saeva monstra is more colloquial and used later in the
play (cf. 778 monstra saeva). But, at this moment, Amphitryon is
concentrating on the whereabouts of his son and the fact that the
tyrant Lycus holds Thebes. The word sceptra is used of Lycus' power
often in this play (342, 399), and note how Megara first identifies him
(as he appears on-stage): aliena dextra sceptra concutiens Lycus (331).
I believe Seneca is foreshadowing Lycus' demise and that the emendation
to monstra sacrifices Hercules' reputation as tyrant-slayer for the
more mundane monster-slayer which has already been covered by
Amphitryon earlier in his speech (215-48).

At Phaed. 918-9 the manuscripts read o vita fallax, abditos sensus
geris / animisque pulcram turpibus faciem insuis as Theseus bemoans the
alleged discrepancy between Hippolytus' austere appearance and his lust
for Phaedra (Phaedra has just hinted that Hippolytus tried to rape
her). Giardina emends these lines to Natura fallax, abditos sensus
tegis / animisque pulcram turpibus faciem induis. The change from o
vita to Natura is bold, especially in this play in which so much hinges
around the different characters' concepts of natura.[[6]] While
Giardina parallels his reading with examples from Cicero and the author
of the Octavia,[[7]] I believe the internal characterization of Theseus
is impaired by such a change, as Theseus' exclamation when he hears
about Hippolytus' death centers on Natura: O nimium potens, / quanto
parentes sanguinis vinclo tenes, / Natura: quam te colimus inviti
quoque! (1114-6). In addition, the Chorus sings, O magna parens,
Natura, deum (959). There are more examples of the use of Natura in
this play, but I feel the use of Natura in a claim of deception and
deceit does not fit its personification in this tragedy.

At Phaed. 1275, the manuscripts read patefacite acerbam caede funesta
domum but Giardina wishes to change acerbam to aspersam. Giardina does
a fine job defending this conjecture (p. 63) and shows how acerbam is
difficult with an ablative of cause. This emendation also helps the
poetic quality of the description, and I believe could have been what
Seneca originally wrote.

At Med. 142, Zwierlein's OCT reads memorque nostri muneri parcat meo.
While the A and E branches offer different readings of muneri (A),
muneris (E), the general idea of the passage is that the "gift" is
Jason's life, and the nostri may be singular (referring only to Medea)
or plural (including her children). Giardina emends the line to read
memorque nostri foederis parcat mihi and gives multiple examples of
this use of foedus as a "patto d'amore". I find this persuasive because
of Medea's use of elegiac imagery as she vacillates between love and
hatred at this point of the play.

Giardina recognizes that this edition is not for everyone, and that
conservative textual critics may find some of his emendations
revolutionary. He advances such readings in order to provoke the reader
to question the text and his or her view of Senecan tragedy. As such,
he succeeds and I found myself pausing at each emendation (emendations
average about 2 per page!), and trying to figure out (a) how Giardina
arrived at this emendation, and (b) if it helped "to produce a text as
close as possible to the original" (Maas' first "basic notion" of
textual criticism). The results were mixed and, in the remainder of
this review I offer a smattering of observations about select
emendations, which I feel are detrimental to our reading of Seneca's
tragedies.

Giardina believes that repeated words (within the line or separated by
a small number of lines) are a prime opportunity for scribal error and
often emends one of the two. Unfortunately, I believe he takes this too
far, at times blurring an emphasis that I believe Seneca desired (e.g.
the excessive greed of the Greek forces in the Troades: forms of avidus
at Tr. 18 and 22; avidi at Tr. 399 and avidum, 400). Also, this mindset
can damage a potential authorial poetic implication. At Troades 774,
Andromache laments that Astyanax will not be able to cut down the
Greeks, nor drag Pyrrhus (non Graia caedes terga, non Pyrrhum trahes).
Giardina, however, emends trahes to premes because of the use of
tractabis in the following line, but this misses the point -- Astyanax
would want to "drag" Pyrrhus in a fitting revenge for his father's
treatment at the hands of Achilles. Seneca's rhetorical point often
hinges on words being repeated with shades of different meanings and
wholesale changes of this parallelism can obscure his powerful
declamatory style. At H.F. 405, Giardina emends the phrase bella
delectat cruor to tela delectat cruor because bello was used at 402 and
belli is used at 407. However this ruins a fine chiastic reversion of
Lycus' rhetorical question at 402: cruento cecidit in bello pater?. The
interwoven word-order of bello and bella, cruento and cruor gives
additional resonance to the final sententia. Medea addresses herself at
Med. 397-8: Si quaeris odio, misera, quem statuas modum, / imitare
amorem. Giardina emends imitare to moderare and while other passages of
Seneca do emphasize the need to "moderate" one's emotions (given as
parallels in the apparatus), that is certainly not the point of Medea's
speech as she compares the deeds done on Jason's behalf to the limits
of her revenge. Note the Chorus' later description of Medea (866-9):
frenare non scit iras / Medea, non amores; / nunc ira amorque causam /
iunxere: quid sequetur? It is the excess of both love and hate that
defines Medea's actions and that Seneca repeatedly stresses in this
play.

In conclusion, I would not recommend this edition for readers coming to
Seneca for the first time and in the market for a reliable text of his
tragedies. It will be of use for Senecan scholars who are interested in
observing the ways that Giardina emends the tragedies and puzzling out
the justification for such readings.

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


1.  Courtney's review [CR 18 (1968) 173-77] concludes, "I should have
liked to be able to pass a favourable verdict on it, but it simply is
not good enough and needs a complete revision." More generously,
Tarrant (1976) Agamemnon. Cambridge: 94 claims, "For all its
shortcomings, Giardina's is the best complete edition now available."

2.  Commentaries now exist for each play, even the fragmentary
Phoenissae, and some plays have the honor of multiple commentaries in
English (Medea, Phaedra, Troades).

3.  Chaumartin, F.R. (1996) Se/ne\que: Trage/dies. Paris; Fitch, John
G. (2002, 2004) Seneca: Tragedies. 2 volumes. Cambridge, MA.

4.  There is no Codicum stemma, which is a shame considering the amount
of time he spends discussing the manuscript tradition.

5.  Maas, Paul (1958) Textual Criticism. Oxford: 53 gives the following
about diagnostic conjectures, "To determine the value of conjecture as
a means of investigation it is unimportant whether conjectures made for
this purpose, that is 'diagnostic' conjectures, succeed in carrying
conviction in detail, or whether they merely represent, as against the
tradition, the 'lesser evil', or whether they are completely wide of
the mark. It is a matter for the nicety of the editor's discrimination
to decide which of such conjectures deserve mention in the apparatus
criticus."

6.  For more on this, cf. Boyle, A.J. (1985) "In Nature's Bonds: a
Study of Seneca's Phaedra", ANRW II.32.2: 1284-1347.

7.   Giardina often cites parallels from a variety of sources to
support his emendations, but they are rarely convincing standing alone.
Very often this is the only explanation for emendations in the
apparatus. A similar observation was made by Nau in his review of
Giardina's Propertius, BMCR 2006.05.02.


-------------------------------
The BMCR website (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/) 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 classrev at brynmawr.edu. 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 bmcr-l-request at brynmawr.edu with
the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

_______________________________________________
BMCR-L mailing list
BMCR-L at brynmawr.edu
http://newmailman.brynmawr.edu/mailman/listinfo/bmcr-l
------- End of forwarded message -------
Marjeta

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WPM$29FE.PM$
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 16221 bytes
Desc: Mail message body
URL: <http://mailman.ijs.si/pipermail/agor/attachments/20080616/f6afe286/attachment-0001.obj>