Later Greek Epic and the Latin Literary Tradition: Further Explorations PDF
Preview Later Greek Epic and the Latin Literary Tradition: Further Explorations
Later Greek Epic and the Latin Literary Tradition Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes Edited by Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos Associate Editors Stavros Frangoulidis · Fausto Montana · Lara Pagani Serena Perrone · Evina Sistakou · Christos Tsagalis Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabé · Margarethe Billerbeck Claude Calame · Kathleen Coleman · Jonas Grethlein Philip R. Hardie · Stephen J. Harrison · Stephen Hinds Richard Hunter · Giuseppe Mastromarco Gregory Nagy · Theodore D. Papanghelis Giusto Picone · Alessandro Schiesaro Tim Whitmarsh · Bernhard Zimmermann Volume 136 Later Greek Epic and the Latin Literary Tradition Further Explorations Edited by Katerina Carvounis, Sophia Papaioannou and Giampiero Scafoglio ISBN 978-3-11-079179-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-079190-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-079198-3 ISSN 1868-4785 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022946453 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Editorial Office: Alessia Ferreccio and Katerina Zianna Logo: Christopher Schneider, Laufen Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Abbreviations VII Katerina Carvounis, Sophia Papaioannou, and Giampiero Scafoglio Preface: Later Greek Epic and the Latin Literary Tradition 1 Ursula Gärtner Latin and Later Greek Literature: Reflections on Different Approaches 7 Katerina Carvounis The Poet as Sailor: Claudian between the Greek and Latin Traditions 31 Silvio Bär Sinon and Laocoon in Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica: A Rewriting and De-Romanisation of Vergil’s Aeneid? 55 Emma Greensmith Odysseus the Roman: Imperial Temporality and the Posthomerica 75 Giampiero Scafoglio Triphiodorus and the Aeneid: From Poetics to Ideology 101 Markus Kersten ἄντρα περικλυτά: Revisiting Mythical Places in the Orphic Argonautica 123 Sophia Papaioannou Pantomime Games in the Dionysiaca and Vergil’s Song of Silenus 151 Helen Lovatt Nonnus’ Phaethon, Ovid, and Flavian Intertextuality 179 List of Contributors 207 General Index 209 Index Locorum 211 Abbreviations Decleva Caizzi Decleva Caizzi, F. (), Antisthenis Fragmenta, Milan. EpGF Davies, M. (), Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Göttingen. FGrH Jacoby, F. (–), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Teil I-III ( volumes), Berlin. GDRK Heitsch, E. (), Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit, Göttingen. Jocelyn Jocelyn, H.D. (), The Tragedies of Ennius. The Fragments edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge (repr. with corr. ). Manuwald Manuwald, G. (), Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta (TrRF). Vo- lumen II. Ennius, Göttingen. Merkelbach–West Merkelbach, R./West, M.L. (), Fragmenta Hesiodea, Oxford. PMG Page, D.L. (), Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. PMGF Davies, M. (), Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Oxford. Vahlen Vahlen, I. (), Ennianae poesis reliquiae, iteratis curis rec., Leipzig (Leipzig ; Amsterdam , ). Weissenborn–Müller Weissenborn, W./Müller, H.J., Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Schriftsteller mit deutschen Anmerkun- gen). . Band: Buch I () und Buch II (), Nachdruck Dublin/Zurich . . Band: Buch III () und Buch IV/V (), Nachdruck Dublin/ Zurich . Abbreviations of ancient authors and texts follow L’ Annee Philologique. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110791907-203 Katerina Carvounis, Sophia Papaioannou, and Giampiero Scafoglio Preface: Later Greek Epic and the Latin Literary Tradition The idea of exploring later Greek epic alongside, and in the light of, Latin litera- ture came up in May 2017, during dinner after a conference in the wonderful city of Athens: while talking about the presence of the Latin literary tradition in the Greek epic of the imperial period — a topic both intriguing and elusive, consid- ering the different ways in which the ‘presence’ of some works in the subtext of others may be conceived —, we realised that it was worth engaging in this de- bate. All the more so, as the last two decades have witnessed a surge of interest in later Greek epic, both in the study of individual works and in their broader contexts, leading to the collapse of many prejudices that have long precluded a lucid and balanced approach to these literary texts.1 Reliable editions, modern annotated translations, and book-length studies on Quintus’ Posthomerica, Triphiodorus’ Sack of Troy, the Orphic Argonautica, and Nonnus’ Dionysiaca have now made these poems considerably more acces- sible to scholars interested in ancient Greek literature, the evolution of the epic tradition, and Late Antiquity. In the past decade a series of well-attended inter- national conferences on these authors and their respective contexts, among which the meetings on Quintus (Zurich, 2006; Cambridge, 2016) and the confer- ence series ‘Nonnus of Panopolis in Context’ (Rethymno, 2011; Vienna, 2013; Warsaw, 2015; Ghent, 2018), have reignited systematic and in-depth study, and brought together scholars from a variety of traditions. The edited volumes re- sulting from these meetings, together with the Brill’s Companion to Nonnus of Panopolis and the number of monographs on the Posthomerica and Dionysiaca 1 If we look back over the history of criticism on Quintus’ Posthomerica, for instance, we real- ise that a correct analysis of its sources has long been hindered by an aesthetic prejudice, i.e. an undervaluation of the literary merit of the Posthomerica. Until recently, critics maintained that it would be unlikely for an ‘epigonal author,’ such as Quintus, to have practised creative and selective imitation of a Latin source: had he known Vergil’s Aeneid, he would have un- doubtedly imitated it in a more obvious way; therefore, if such plagiarism is not evident, Quin- tus did not know the Aeneid. This thread was started by Richard Heinze in his pivotal book Virgils epische Technik at the beginning of the 20th century (Heinze 1915, 63–81), and it was carried on fifty years later by Francis Vian in his seminal Recherches sur les Posthomerica de Quintus de Smyrne (Vian 1959, 55–85 and 96–101). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110791907-001 Katerina Carvounis, Sophia Papaioannou, and Giampiero Scafoglio in the last few years, attest to this recent ‘explosion’ of scholarly interest in later Greek epic poetry. Despite the proliferation of innovative work on late antique Greek epic in recent years, scholarship has not explored systematically the interaction of imperial Greek epicists with the Latin tradition. Comparative examinations of the Greek and the Latin literary traditions in the imperial period and in Late Antiquity are beginning to appear in this shifting landscape. Daniel Jolowicz’s most recent monograph entitled Latin Poetry in the Ancient Greek Novels begins with an introductory chapter that puts forward evidence to support the claim that there was Greek engagement with Latin poetry in the early and high impe- rial periods,2 and makes an overall compelling case that there were some, at least, Greek-speaking individuals in the imperial period who read Latin poetry.3 Moreover, a volume entitled Greek and Latin Poetry of Late Antiquity: Form, Tradition, and Context, which has just been published, results from a conference held in Ghent in September 2016 and constitutes the first organised effort to bring together scholars working in the fields of late antique Greek and late Latin poetry. In their introduction, the volume editors (and organisers of the highly successful Ghent conference), Berenice Verhelst and Tine Scheijnen, underscore the significance of comparative study between the two literary traditions to trace and comprehend in depth the respective elaborate developments across a period of several centuries.4 The present volume narrows down this comparative examination to focus on Latin epic, which it aspires to analyse not only from a bilingual perspective but also under the assumption that the two traditions do not necessarily devel- op independently from, and ignorant of, each other. As both the Greek and the Latin epics of Late Antiquity are influenced by the same poetic rules and aes- thetic principles, the admission of ongoing interaction, not always conscious, sought after, and sustained, between the Greek and the Latin epic traditions may help modern readers reconsider their understanding of ‘Greek’ or ‘Latin’ at a time when both have acquired new definitions. 2 For this stated aim and purpose of his monograph see Jolowicz 2021, 2–3. Jolowicz 2021, 6– 10, also examines some reasons why scholars have so far been reluctant to accept Greek en- gagement with Latin literature. 3 Jolowicz 2021, 34. 4 Verhelst/Scheijnen 2022, 1–10.
The list of books you might like
