Talk:French alexandrine

Surely the history is more complex

Although this entry is rated of Low Importance, I cannot disagree that it is C-Class on the quality scale. Surely the genesis of the French alexandrine writing of the 16th century has roots in classical Greek poetry of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. See Auguste Couat's la Poésie alexandrine... (Paris, 1882, Hachette) for the full background. It is perhaps worth noting too that the poets of that period wrote in iambic trimeter, which constitute half a line of the 12-syllable form of the French alexandrine.

I am at a loss too to understand why Mikhail Gasparov should be taken as an expert on this topic when he seems unfamiliar with Couat's work and has spent so much time on Russian versification.

Can another Talker enlighten me? GianniBGood (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll address your points more or less in reverse order. Mikhail Gasparov is a respected philologist; the book in question was published by Oxford University Press and well-reviewed (e.g. by M. L. West JSTOR 710593 and Roger Pensom JSTOR 3736117). This is a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. That doesn't mean it's true (for which see WP:Verifiability not truth)... but it is a RS. Possibly, as you suggest, Gasparov is unaware of Couat. It seems more likely to me that for the necessarily high-level survey he produced, he simply didn't find Couat's ultra-deep-dive germane.

Is Gasparov right? I dunno. His is the only origin-story I recall coming across in my research. Honestly it didn't strike me as a knock-down argument at the time, which is the main reason I explicitly attributed the hypothesis to Gasparov rather than simply stating it as a (cited, of course) fact.

Should alternative origin-stories be included? Of course, if they're found in RS's. I haven't read Couat, and I'm not gonna. Because I can't read French. However I have taken a very quick look at the English translation by James Loeb. This is old scholarship, but certainly still looks like RS to me. But what I failed to find (and correct me if I've just missed it in my haste) is where Couat makes the connection you're making. Indeed, it looks like WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH motivated by the false etymology of alexandrin="of Alexandria" as opposed to that found in RS's: alexandrin="of Alexander the Great". The hypothesis is literally far-fetched in that, to explain a 16th-century French verseform it looks to nearly 2000-year-old Egyptian practice, as opposed to the 200-year-old all-but-identical French form, supported in RS's. For such a wild origin-story, I'd probably want to see multiple modern RS's. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Phil:

Thank you for your prompt reply. Leaving the Gasparov question aside, I think the alternative-origin idea needs to be pursued. I myself have not read Couat but found his work referred to in the first volume of Ferdinand Brunetière's four-volume work Histoire de la literature française classique (1515-1830) (Paris, undated). In several of his essays in this volume concerning the coterie of poets known as La Pléiade he refers to their familiarity with the Alexandrian poets and their frequent borrowing from them (eg. p. 348). I would think these assertions need to be given adequate weight as Brunetière himself was a member of the Académie Française. However, for another source, this time in English, refer to Britannica's entry on Pierre de Ronsard, where it is stated "With a group of fellow students he formed a literary school that came to be called La Pléiade, in emulation of the seven ancient Greek poets of Alexandria: its aim was to produce French poetry that would stand comparison with the verse of classical antiquity."

Separately, I appreciate your suggestion by e-mail that I might like to look into editing in more detail, but frankly I am only a gadfly and prefer to continue on my way after leaving my observations. Irresponsible, perhaps, but I can only read so much and prefer to stick as close as possible to original documents. GianniBGood (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)