BMCR 2004.10.13, Marcello Marinucci, Batracomiomachia.

Marcello Marinucci, Batracomiomachia. Volgarizzamento del 1456 di
Aurelio Simmaco de Iacobiti.  Padova:  Esedra Editrice, 2001.  Pp. 139.
ISBN 88-86413-50-5.  EUR 18.07.

Reviewed by Federico Condello, Universita\ di Bologna 
(federico.condello@xxxxxx)
Word count:  1618 words
-------------------------------

The list of Italian translators of the pseudo-Homeric Batrachomyomachia
is a very long one: the most famous of them, Giacomo Leopardi, in his
'Discorso sopra la Batracomiomachia' (1815), appears to know no fewer
than 12 translators from 1470 (Giorgio Summariva) to 1763 (Antonio
Migliarese), and many others should be added -- as many as the lines of
the poem, according to a famous boutade of Antonio Lavagnoli.[[1]] But,
unknown to Leopardi, as to Lavagnoli, was the obscure beginner of this
enduring tradition: the humanist Aurelio Simmaco de Iacobiti from
Tossicia (a little town close to Teramo, in Abruzzo), who lived in the
15th century between Aragonese Naples and the court of prince Antonio
del Balzo degli Orsini in Taranto. His date of birth is unknown; the
terminus post quem for his death is year 1499. His translation of
Batrachomyomachia is included, among other works of the same author, in
a 15th-c. MS, possibly autograph, now in Paris (BNF Ital. 1097, cart.,
67ff., 1r.-13v.). Simmaco's translation consists of 624 lines, divided
into 84 octaves, the first six of which furnish a prologue of a
pronounced autobiographic nature. It was written in Naples and is dated
August 1456 by the author himself, in a kind of final metrical
subscriptio (ll. 617-620). Thus the work predates the editio princeps
of the Batrachomyomachia by Carlo Marsuppini (Brescia, probably 1474)
by eighteen years, and it follows that Simmaco's is the earliest
vernacular translation of a poem in the Homeric corpus; and this, in
fact, is not a small title of honour.

Marcello Marinucci's (= M.) book is at present the most reliable
critical edition of this important translation. A previous edition --
not always rigorous in transcribing the manuscript, according to M. (8)
-- was published by Emanuele Antonio Giordano in 1999, and a proekdosis
by M. came out in 2000, when the study of the text was not yet
completed.[[2]] The volume includes an introduction with an overview of
the author, his works and cultural background (9-16); an extensive
treatment of 'La lingua di Simmaco' (17-24); an interesting chapter on
the probable Latin sources of the translation (25-31: see below); the
edition of the text (35-62); a line by line commentary (63-92); an
essential bibliography (93-102); and finally a useful
'Indice-Glossario' (103-139).

M. is especially interested in the history of the Italian literary
language in the humanistic age, and Simmaco's Batracomiomachia is
undoubtedly an important document as regards the transition between
regional vernaculars and Italian literary vulgar, which came to
definitive canonization during the 16th century. Simmaco's language is
an odd mixture of northern and southern idiomatic elements, with many
Latinizing hypercorrect forms, Dantean coinages and Virgilian calques;
it is, of course, an entirely artificial language, the intricate
texture of which is outlined in detail (esp. 17ff. and commentary ad
ll.). The translation is also a remarkable document of southern
humanism in the Aragonese age, although M.'s brief discussion of this
point is somewhat schematic (13-16), and his bibliography is lacking in
many important titles about the rediscovery of Greek literature in the
Humanism and Renaissance (e.g., Nigel Wilson).

Despite his prominent linguistic concern, M. raises many issues which
will not fail to arouse Greek scholars' interest. There is irrefutable
evidence that Simmaco translated the Batrachomyomachia not directly
from a Greek original, but through the Latin translations by Carlo
Marsuppini, published in 1474 but written probably in 1429, and M.
proves with certainty the dependence of Simmaco on this model (30-31).
Specifically, Simmaco used both of Marsuppini's Latin translations, the
hexametric one and the interlinear one, and M. plausibly argues that a
copy of the still unpublished work, sent by Marsuppini to Giovanni
Marrasio, arrived in Naples through Leonardo Bruni and the Panormita,
who were in touch with Marrasio during their stay in Siena. This fact
does not exclude the possibility that Simmaco may have used some Greek
source -- M. is regrettably unclear on this point -- because there are
a few mistakes which seem to derive from the misreading of Greek
letters, e.g., the name <greek>*SEUTLAI=OS</greek> (Batr. 209)
transcribed 'Sentleo', with 'n' instead of Greek upsilon (v. 435), or
traces of itacistic pronunciation of Greek names, e.g.,
<greek>*LEIXOMU/LH</greek> (Batr. 29) transcribed 'Licomile' (v. 96).

However, it is very difficult to establish which Greek source Simmaco
used -- probably via Marsuppini -- and M.'s results are interesting
but, so it seems to me, still provisional and requiring closer
investigation. M. depends entirely on the reconstruction of the
manuscript tradition offered by R. Glei[[3]] and confines himself to
speaking about 'due famiglie diverse, etichettate dai filologi a and l'
(25). M. concludes that Simmaco used a 'codice misto', i.e.,
contaminated, and nevertheless 'molto vicino' to Laur. Gr. 32,3 (L3, in
Allen's sigla: M. erroneously writes 'Laurentianus Gr. 33,3'). The
inference is quite vague, given the widespread contamination to which
the codices of the short poem are exposed, and we ought to examine the
text more meticulously. In fact, the data scrutinized by M. are too
few, and some of them are described or interpreted in a questionable
way. For example: at line 60 'garula' (= 'garrula') may presuppose both
<greek>POLU/FWNOS</greek> or <greek>POLU/FHMOS</greek> (Batr. 12), as
opposed to what M. says (26); at line 80 'oceano' (adj.) presupposes
the v.l. <greek>W)KEANOI=O</greek> (Batr. 20), which is absent from
Laur. Gr. 32,3 but present in other Florentine manuscripts (see Allen's
app. cr. on the passage); at line 200 'affando' (= 'affanno') seems
sufficiently justified by <greek>BA/ROS</greek> (Batr. 91), probably
interpreted in a metaphorical way, and there is no need to speculate
about missing manuscripts (so M. on 27); at line 216 'con ingando' (=
'inganno') presupposes perhaps the v.l. <greek>A)PATH/SAS</greek>
(Batr. 96), which is, among other manuscripts, in the 'l' family (in
Allen's sigla), on which lines 217-222 (Batr. 97-98) also seem to
depend; lines 283-285 (Batr. 119) follow, apparently, the same family:
see especially the translations 'rane' and 'morto me ll'ha' ('l' only
offers the v.l. <greek>A)PE/KTEINE</greek>; 'morto me ll'ha', however,
may be a generalization of the widespread v.l.
<greek>A)PE/PNICEN</greek>); ibid., it is difficult to imagine that
Simmaco did not know line 121 of the poem (so M. on 27: but see l.
286); at line 376 (Batr. 176), there is no reason to assume that
'singulari' translates the v.l. <greek>PANTODAPOI=SIN</greek> (so M. on
27, without explanation); at lines 428-432 the translation, according
to M., should follow 'il testo di a', but the statement remains
unsupported; at lines 435-436 (Batr. 209) 'Sentleo' kills 'Abachitro',
and not vice versa: the translation presupposes the vv.ll. which we
find in many Florentine manuscripts, but not in Laur. Gr. 32,3 nor in
the 'l' family (in Allen's sigla); in a similar way, lines 437-440
translate Batr. 210-211, which are omitted by Laur. Gr. 32,3 and by the
whole 'l' family, but are present in other Florentine manuscripts. Such
and similar data deserve more scrupulous examination before one can
speak of a 'codice misto' or infer that Simmaco's source 'non coincide
con alcuno dei codici sinora in nostro possesso' (28): which is
certainly possible, but inadequately demonstrated. Simmaco's free
paraphrase recommends caution, but the impression is that we have to
look for Simmaco's direct or probably indirect source among Allen's
'i', 'k' and 'l' families, rather than in the super-family marked 'l'
by Glei. Furthermore, according to the demonstrations given by M.
himself, it is necessary to include in the field of analysis
Marsuppini's Latin translations: the limited check of this intermediary
deprives the reader of very important data, and weakens M.'s argument,
which otherwise makes a significant contribution to the inquiry. Renata
Fabbri, in a short yet very useful analysis of Marsuppini's
translations,[[4]] points to Laur. Gr. 31,20 (L1, in Allen's sigla) as
his probable source: and this is perhaps the correct line of inquiry.

Simmaco's translation, as mentioned above, stands out among all others
for the wide freedom with which the humanist treated the original text,
often widening it as required by the ottava rima, sometimes shortening
it, for no apparent reason. It would be very difficult to argue that
the work is a masterpiece of Italian literature, and it is perhaps for
this reason that M. refrains from comments on the literary
peculiarities of the translation and restricts himself to
dialectological and linguistic remarks. The evaluation of Simmaco's
strange Kunstsprache offered by M. differs from Giordano's in that the
latter speaks about a 'lingua superdialettale',[[5]] while for M. 'il
poeta non sembra orientato alla ricerca di un modello linguistico, ma
appare attento a dare di se/ l'immagine di una persona colta' (16). The
epilogue which Simmaco appends to the translation (ll. 592-624) is
worth mentioning, because the humanist, as M. rightly points out (31),
defends the Homeric authorship of the poem against Ps.-Plutarch, with
the same arguments employed by Carlo Marsuppini in his Epistula
dedicatoria to Marrasio: being able to celebrate humble things, 'bassi
cusi', in such an elevated style, as Virgil in the Culex, is a work of
'miro ingegno'. It could be added that this is a critical topos going
back to Statius (Sylv. 1, praef.) and stretching out, through
Poliziano, Erasmus and many others (e.g., Lope de Vega), to
Leopardi.[[6]]

To sum up, M.'s book is undoubtedly valuable in that it makes available
a text which is little known and yet remarkable in the modern history
of Homerica and Pseudo-Homerica. Although the investigation of many
controversial questions should have been more meticulous, M.'s work is
a good starting point for further analysis. It is a pity that the book
is inaccurately printed -- the misprints are too many to be listed, an
annoying flaw which one hopes will be removed in a future reprint, in
order to let the qualities of the book emerge.

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


1.   See La Batracomiomachia di Omero. Greca, Latina, e Italiana,
Venezia: G.B. Albrizzi, 1744, 3.

2.   E.A. Giordano, 'Echi della tradizione omerica in Italia
meridionale nel XV secolo: la Batrachomiomachia in ottave di Aurelio De
Jacobictis da Tussicia', in Annali della Facolta\ di Lettere e
Filosofia. Universita\ degli Studi della Basilicata 9, 1999, pp.
151-174; M. Marinucci, I rifacimenti volgari della Batracomiomachia e
del VI libro dell'Eneide di Aurelio Simmaco de Iacobiti (Bibl. Nat.
Paris cod. ital. 1097), Trieste: Universita\ degli Studi di Trieste,
2000.

3.   R. Glei, Die Batrachomyomachie. Synoptische Edition und Kommentar,
Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1984, about which see M.L. West, in CR 35, 1985,
pp. 379-380 and H. Wo+lke, in Gnomon 63, 1991, pp. 196-200. M. quotes
but fails to use the excellent work of H. Wo+lke, Untersuchungen zur
Batrachomyomachie, Meisenheim a. G.: Hain, 1978, on which see E.
Degani, in Gnomon 54, 1982, pp. 617-620.

4.   R. Fabbri, 'Carlo Marsuppini e la sua versione latina della
'Batrachomyomachia' pseudo-omerica', in AA.VV., Saggi di linguistica e
di letteratura in memoria di Paolo Zolli, a c. di G. Borghello et al.,
Padova: Antenore, 1991. See also A. Rocco, Carlo Marsuppini traduttore
d'Omero. La prima traduzione umanistica in versi dell'Iliade (primo e
nono libro), Padova: Il Poligrafo, 2000, esp. 105-143.

5.   Giordano, op. cit., p. 154.

6.   The Fortleben of the pseudo-Homeric poem is a theme ignored by M.;
one should mention at least Elisio Calenzio's Croacus vel De bello
ranarum (edited by M. De Nichilo in Elisii Calentii poemata, Bari:
Adriatica Editrice, 1981), which belongs to the same historical milieu
as Simmaco's; there is a good outline in M. Fusillo, La battaglia delle
rane e dei topi. Batrachomyomachia, Milano: Guerini, 1988.