Lefkowitz, Jeremy B.

English

Works

Swarthmore College Works Classics Faculty Works Classics 2018 Review Of "Phaedrus: Ein Interpretationskommentar Zum Ersten Buch Der Fabeln" By U. Gärtner Jeremy B. Lefkowitz Swarthmore College, jlefkow1@swarthmore.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-classics  Part of the Classics Commons Recommended Citation Jeremy B. Lefkowitz. (2018). "Review Of "Phaedrus: Ein Interpretationskommentar Zum Ersten Buch Der Fabeln" By U. Gärtner". Anzeiger Für Die Altertumswissenschaft. Volume 71-72, 13-17. https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-classics/87 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Classics Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact myworks@swarthmore.edu. Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 71/72 (2018/2019) 13 URSULA GÄRTNER  Phaedrus. Ein Interpretationskommentar zum ersten Buch der Fabeln  München, Beck. 2015. 303 S. Gr.-8° (Zetemata, 149.)  This insightful commentary on the first book of Phaedrus’ fables partially ad-dresses a long-standing desideratum of Latin literary studies. Only partially, that is, because Gärtner’s book is concerned only with the first book of the col-lection and because it is not organized as a conventional, lemma commentary. Rather, it is a kind of hybrid of a traditional, line-by-line commentary and a more expansive, monographic mode of literary analysis, a format which the title describes as an “Interpretationskommentar,” i.e., “ein Hybrid zweier wis-senschaftlicher Textgattungen” (10). Thus, each of the thirty-one fables in Book 1 receives its own focused essay, with commentary unfolding in para-graph form, as Gärtner proceeds linearly through each verse, usually com-menting on every single line, exploring prominent themes, literary topoi, intra- and inter-texts. In practical terms, this essay-style arrangement means that it is often easier (and more pleasurable) to read through the entire discussion of a particular fable than it is to find commentary on specific lemmata divorced from context. This is not, then, the systematic, authoritative commentary on Phaedrus for which Latinists will continue to wait.1 But it is undeniably a vital and indispen-sable step in the right direction. The unconventional format allows Gärtner to address a number of historically-underappreciated literary dimensions of Phaedrian fable. Within fable studies, Phaedrus has too often been viewed merely as a quarry for text-critical projects and the work of sifting through and cataloguing story types and motifs. To the extent that non-specialists have asked literary or cultural questions of the fables, there has been a surplus of                                                              1 In addition to Eberhard Oberg, Phaedrus-Kommentar, Stuttgart 2000, our only serviceable, modern commentary on Phaedrus, useful notes on individual fables can also be found in E. Angulo Baeza, Fedro. Fábulas esópicas, introducción, edición critica, traducción y notas, Ma-drid 2011; A. Guaglianone, I favolisti latini, Napoli 2000; and G. Solimano, Fedro. Favole, introduzione, traduzione e note, Milano 1996. Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 71/72 (2018/2019) 14 interest in Phaedrus’ life (about which we have no external evidence) and his apparent status as a “freedman of Augustus” (a quasi-fact established only in the later manuscript tradition), which has led to some facile assumptions re-garding the work’s socio-political outlook (e.g., as Gärtner puts it, that Phae-drus represents “die Stimme des ‘Kleinen Mannes’”, 10). Thus there has been perhaps too much energy devoted to aspects of Phaedrus’ work that seem to reflect socio-political concerns and too little scholarly attention given to those elements of Phaedrus’ work that would place him more in the mainstream of Latin literary history, including his rather complex construction of a poetic persona, a rich intertextual program, and numerous self-reflexive comments on his chosen genre and on poetic composition itself. Indeed, the historic lack of attention to poetics, intertextuality, and allusivity in Phaedrus has partly contributed to the widely-held and uncritical assumption that the poet himself must have occupied a marginal position outside the mainstream of Roman lit-erary culture. Gärtner’s hybrid Interpretationskommentar aims above all at demonstrating that Phaedrus is a complex, sophisticated poet, one whose work is filled with the same amount of artistry and design we are accustomed to encounter in other Latin poets.2 As a commentary, it is full of the type of intricate analysis of vocabulary, word order, versification, and narrative techniques, which will convince any skeptical Latinist that Phaedrus’ fables are worthy of their serious attention. As a series of interrelated, analytical essays, it also has the space to explore Phaedrian fable as an ambiguous art form, simple in aspect but con-cealing multiple meanings, some of which may be impossible to pin down. The format is a great success: the word-by-word analyses bring to light all of the humor and dramatic tension that earlier generations of critics were wont to ignore, not only in Phaedrus but in fabulistic literature generally. Gärtner’s Phaedrus is a doctus poeta whose every decision is deliberate and carefully con-sidered; he is also playful and ironic, constantly exploiting the indirection and                                                              2 This aim is articulated most clearly on p. 10: “Lässt man sich aber auf die Fabeln ein, lernt man Texte kennen, die sich spielerisch, witzig und eigenwillig in die literarische Tradition und den Diskurs ihrer Zeit einreihen und so selbstreflektiert auch zu Fabeln über die Dich-tung werden.” Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 71/72 (2018/2019) 15 ambiguity of fable in order to pose questions about the status and function of the genre itself.  The Introduction opens with an overview of the Greek fable tradition and the survival of texts (13–21), before moving on to discuss Phaedrus’ life and work (21–58), including the labeling of Phaedrus as a “freedman of Augustus” in the title of a manuscript and other issues relating to names and naming – including Gärtner’s speculation that Phaedrus’ name is itself a playful allusion to the Pla-tonic Phaedrus (29–30) – and the names of his (otherwise unknown) address-ees and patrons. The Introduction also effectively focuses attention on the con-cepts and terms that surface throughout the commentary that follows, espe-cially the following: themes and keywords that link Phaedrus’ project to the mainstream of Augustan poetics (43–47); basic structural elements typical of the genre and the terminology (using Greek, Latin, and German) widely ac-cepted by fable scholars for the constituent parts, e.g., promythion, Exposition (“setting”), Handlung (“plot”), actio (“action”), reactio (“response”), Ergebnis (“conclusion”), and epimythion; and links between Phaedrus’ fables and extant Greek versions, which, in keeping with the agenda of the commentary as a whole, are treated not simply as differences in characterization or motifs, but also approached with an emphasis on the artistry, playfulness, and distinctly Roman character of Phaedrus’ choices vis-à-vis Greek versions. The entire In-troduction is well-annotated, including complete Greek texts and translations were relevant in the footnotes. The commentary itself begins with detailed treatment of the programmatic and allusive prologue to Book 1 (1. Prol.) (59–68). This brief, seven-line poem forms part of a network of framing poems (there are five prologues and three epilogues in the collection), which provide the most allusive and explicitly self-referential verses in the corpus. Because Gärtner’s commentary covers only the first book, there is perhaps not enough space to attend to the ways in which these pro- and epilogues constitute a complex and coherent a set of interrelated poems; this is a problem of which Gärtner is acutely aware (cf. 59–60), so a number of references to the later pro- and epilogues are therefore woven into the discussion. Gärtner starts with the overall design of 1. Prol., which she views as tripartite (59): dependence on Aesop and the question of Phaedrus’ origi-nality (1. Prol. 1–2); the function and purpose of the fables (1. Prol. 3–4); and the negotiation of reception, which consists of an anticipation of criticism and Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 71/72 (2018/2019) 16 a captatio benevolentiae (1. Prol. 5–7). Practically every word in the poem re-ceives some comment here, as Gärtner explores Phaedrus’ motivations in drawing together Aesop, Callimachus, Catullus, and Horace. The first words of Phaedrus’ work are Aesopus auctor est (1. Prol. 1), and so the first matter to address is the poet’s perspective on his place in the tradition and the originality of his project: on the one hand, the work is a genuine innovation, being the first verse collection of fables and the first fable collection of any kind in Latin; on the other hand, Phaedrus hits some ironic notes by claiming Aesop is the real author of his work and that he has merely “polished” (polivi, 1. Prol. 2) pre-existing material with his iambic senarii (1. Prol. 2). As in other matters, Phae-drus appears to want to have it both ways. An apparent duplicity is also evident in Phaedrus’ claim that his fables come with a “double dowry” (duplex libelli dos est, 3), a double reference to Catullus and Horace further developed in the allusion to Horatian satire in the following lines: quod risum movet / et quod prudentis vitam consilio monet (1. Prol. 3–4). Gärtner is particularly interested in the relative length and positioning of the “serious” part of this claim at the center of the poem. For Gärtner, the coupling of a serious claim with a gesture that undercuts it generates a playful ambiguity that she views as central to Phaedrian poetics. In the closing verse of the poem, in which Phaedrus antici-pates criticism with the defense that he merely plays with made-up stories (fic-tis iocari…fabulis, 1. Prol. 7), Gärtner identifies a programmatic function (“programmatische Funktion,” 67); for Gärtner, these words, perhaps more than any other in the collection, encourage us to read the entire prologue as something less than serious, indeed, to read all of Phaedrus, including any ap-parent reflections on historical events or people, as always involving some de-gree of joking and playfulness. The lion’s share of Gärtner’s book (69–272) consists of close readings of each of the 31 fables of the first book. A brief look at one example will give an im-pression of Gärtner’s approach and method. Phaedrus 1.11 (Asinus et leo ve-nantes) opens with a promythium (virtutis expers, verbis iactans gloriam, / igno-tos fallit, notis est derisui, 1.11.1–2). It tells the story of a hunting adventure involving a lion and a donkey, in which the lion hides the donkey in the bushes and asks him to bray at just the right moment. The plan works, as the donkey’s strange sounds frighten the wild animals and sets them fleeing right into the lion’s clutches. When the donkey asks the lion for a review of his performance Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 71/72 (2018/2019) 17 (“Qualis videtur opera tibi vocis meae?” 1.11.13), the lion closes the fable with sarcastic praise (“insignis” inquit “sic ut nisi nossem tuum / animum genusque, simili fugissem metu”, 1.11.14–15). Gärtner begins with a map of the fable’s structure, drawing on the terms and templates described in the Introduction (47–48): 1–2 promythion; 3–6a introduction (Einleitung); 6b–8, 9–10 actio and reactio; 11–12a second introduction (zweite Einleitung); 12b–13, 14–15 actio and reactio. Moving through the poem verse by verse, the analysis concentrates on the intersection of virtus, gloria, animus, and genus, with Gärtner exploring the ways in which Phaedrus’ version of the fable appears to connect virtus and gloria to birth and status – in the end, the lower-born donkey never had a chance at gloria, as his attempt at performing a praiseworthy deed is dismissed and derided. Comparison with a Greek version in the Collectio Augustana fur-ther demonstrates some distinctly Roman elements: the Greek donkey exhibits a degree of courage, but Phaedrus’ needy and presumptuous asinus is laughed off the stage (derisui, 1.11.2). As Gärtner notes, the description of the miracu-lous sounds of the donkey (novoque…miraculo, 1.11.8) may also involve a met-apoetic allusion to Callimachus (154), ironically aligning Phaedrus’ own pro-ject – and, potentially, his own social status – with the animal’s musical failings. The discussion of 1.11 closes with some attention to reception in La Fontaine and Lessing (154). In its insistence that we shift our gaze toward the literary dimensions of Phae-drian fable, Gärtner’s excellent book is in good company. The Introduction (13–58), which itself is invaluable as a concise and well-documented overview of the state of Phaedrian studies, written with Gärtner’s characteristic clarity and incisiveness, stands as a kind of mission statement for the current wave of international Phaedrian studies. Indeed, Gärtner’s studies over the last two decades have been foundational for the ongoing work of critical re-evaluation of Phaedrus,3 and the remarkably wide-ranging study she has produced here                                                              3 E.g., U. Gärtner, “Phaedrus tragicus. Zu Phaedr. 4, 7 und seinem Selbstverständnis als Dich-ter”, in Dramatische Wäldchen. Festschrift fu ̈r E. Lefèvre zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. E. Stärk, G. Vogt-Spira, Hildesheim-Zu ̈rich-New York 2000, 661–682; id., “Consulto involvit veritatem antiquita. Zu den Werten bei Phaedrus”, Gymnasium 114, 2007, 405–434; id., “Levi calamo ludimus. Zum poetologischen Spiel bei Phaedrus”, Hermes 135, 2007, 429–459; id., “Von Esel und Zikade. Überlegungen zu Phaedrus”, Latein und Griechisch in Berlin und Brandenburg 51, 2007, 23–31; id., “Maske, Perle, Feile, Lyra. Phaedrus, die literarische Gattung und die Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 71/72 (2018/2019) 18 ought to be required reading for anyone undertaking study of Phaedrus – one hopes there is even more to come.   Swarthmore College, Swarthmore (PA) Jeremy Lefkowit z  jlefkow1@swarthmore.edu  ROLAND GLAESSER  Lucan lesen – ein Gang durch das „Bellum Civile“  Heidelberg, Winter. 2018. 202 S. Gr.-8° (Sprachwissenschaftliche Studienbücher)  A distanza di quarantadue anni dalla pubblicazione dell’ormai storica Intro-duction di Frederick M. Ahl1, l’agile volume di Roland Glaesser propone ora un Einführungsgang attraverso il poema di Lucano, dagli intenti tuttavia com-pletamente diversi da quelli dello studioso anglosassone. Come Glaesser (= G.) precisa nella premessa, infatti, la sua monografia non è rivolta tanto alla comu-nità degli studiosi quanto a insegnanti, studenti e semplici appassionati di let-teratura; in questo senso essa può essere più propriamente accostata alla fortu-nata collana Very Short Introductions della Oxford Universty Press o ancora alle “Introduzioni” della casa editrice Laterza, ben note al pubblico italiano e concepite per la stessa platea di lettori cui si rivolge idealmente G. Il volume è diviso in due sezioni: la prima – il Gang vero e proprio – propone una sinossi ragionata del Bellum Civile, che dopo una brevissima sezione in-troduttiva sulla vita di Lucano e sul soggetto del poema si snoda lungo i dieci libri che lo compongono; la seconda, più breve, si sofferma su alcuni temi di                                                              klassische Bildung”, Hermes 139, 2011, 216–248; id., “Palam muttire plebeio piaculum est. Die Fabeln des Phaedrus als literarische Kommunikationsform in der fru ̈hen Kaiserzeit”, in Römische Literatur im fru ̈hen Prinzipat, eds. A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil, F.-H. Mutschler, Berlin-New York 2011, 253–277; id., “De lusu et severitate. Zum Wert des Spiels bei Phaedrus”, in Noctes Sinenses. Festschrift fu ̈r F.-H. Mutschler zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. A. Heil, M. Korn, J. Sauer, Heidelberg 2011, 294–302. 1 F. M. Ahl, Lucan. An Introduction, Cornell University Press, Ithaca (NY) 1976. 

Review Of  Phaedrus: Ein Interpretationskommentar Zum Ersten Buch Der Fabeln  By U. Gärtner

https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=fac-classics

Review Of Phaedrus: Ein Interpretationskommentar Zum Ersten Buch Der Fabeln By U. Gärtner

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Works