Ilias Latina: Text, Interpretation, and Reception

433 Pages·2021·1.661 MB·English

by  Maria Jennifer Falcone, Christoph Schubert

IliasLatina
Mnemosyne
Supplements
monographs on greek and
latin language and literature
ExecutiveEditor
C.Pieper(LeidenUniversity)
EditorialBoard
K.M.Coleman(HarvardUniversity)
C.C.deJonge(LeidenUniversity)
AnnaHeller(UniversityofTours)
T.Reinhardt(OxfordUniversity)
volume 443
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/mns
Ilias Latina
Text,Interpretation,andReception
Editedby
MariaJenniferFalcone
ChristophSchubert
leiden | boston
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Falcone,MariaJennifer,editor.|Schubert,Christoph,1970-editor.
Title:IliasLatina:text,interpretation,andreception/editedbyMariaJennifer
Falcone,ChristophSchubert.
Description:Leiden;Boston:Brill,[2022]|Series:Mnemosynesupplements,
0169-8958;volume443|Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.|
Identifiers:lccn2021033346(print)|lccn2021033347(ebook)|
isbn9789004469495(hardback)|isbn9789004469532(ebook)
Subjects:lcsh:Homer.IliasLatina.|lcgft:Essays.
Classification:lccpa4037.a5i452022(print)|lccpa4037.a5(ebook)|
ddc883/.01–dc3/eng/20211005
lcrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2021033346
lcebookrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2021033347
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill‑typeface.
issn0169-8958
isbn978-90-04-46949-5(hardback)
isbn978-90-04-46953-2(e-book)
Copyright2022byMariaJenniferFalconeandChristophSchubert.PublishedbyKoninklijkeBrillnv,
Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillnvincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillNijhoff,BrillHotei,BrillSchöningh,BrillFink,
Brillmentis,Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,BöhlauVerlagandV&RUnipress.
KoninklijkeBrillnvreservestherighttoprotectthispublicationagainstunauthorizeduse.Requestsfor
re-useand/ortranslationsmustbeaddressedtoKoninklijkeBrillnvviabrill.comorcopyright.com.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
MariaJenniferFalconeandChristophSchubert
2 ZurStrukturundErzähltechnikderIliasLatina 14
GiuseppeAricò
3 TheIliasLatinaintheContextofAncientEpitomeTranslation 39
MassimoCè
4 BauforminderKürze:ZumUmgangmitepischenStruktureninder
IliasLatina 67
ChristianeReitz
5 Die„Schlachtenbücher“inderIliasLatina:Beobachtungenzu
GefallenenundTodesdarstellung 83
FabianHorn
6 NarrativeStrategienderlysisinausgewähltenSzenenvonIlias24und
dieUmsetzunginderIliasLatina:AufschubimMonumentalenund
HervorhebungderarchaischenanthropologischenGrunderfahrungim
Leidvs.IliaslightmitrömischemAnstrich 115
AntonBierl
7 HomerwithouttheCalories:EatingandDrinkingintheIlias
Latina 143
GeorginaWhite
8 HomeralsHintergrundtextfürdieIliasLatina(!?) 156
GerlindeHuber-Rebenich
9 DieIliasnachVergil:ZurCharakterisierungtrojanischerHeldeninder
IliasLatina 173
MariaJenniferFalcone
10 Baebius’Ovid 194
LuigiGalasso
vi contents
11 AboutSomeNarrativeandDiscursiveDevicesintheIliasLatina 211
JudithRohman
12 DiepoetologischeBedeutungderSphragisderIliasLatina 229
KatrinSchürmann
13 DieAkrostichaderIliasLatinaundihrepoetologischeBedeutung 243
ChristophSchubert
14 FightingOverWomenatTroy:RomanSexualAggressionintheIlias
Latina 281
StevenJ.Green
15 TheGestaBerengariiimperatoris:WitnessoftheIliasLatinaRevivalin
the10thCentury 299
FrédéricDuplessis
16 DieIliasLatinainelegischerForm:ZurRezeptioninder
CentonendichtungTroilusdesAlbertvonStade 316
ThomasGärtner
17 DerMenschenMühsalundderGötterRuh’:EinemittelalterlicheIlias
Latina 328
MicheleC.Ferrari
18 DieRückkehrdesAchilleusnachGriechenland(2):RomandeTroieund
ΠόλεμοςτηςΤρωάδος 363
CaterinaCarpinato
19 GesamtbibliographiezurIliasLatina 382
EdoardoGalfré
IndexCodicum 397
IndexNominum 398
IndexRerum 401
IndexLocorum 406
1
Introduction
MariaJenniferFalconeandChristophSchubert
In the Ilias Latina, one finds a fascinating chapter of Homer’s reception in
the Roman world. Compressed into a single book, which freely follows the
Homericmodelbymakingremarkablechoicesandintroducingpeculiartopics,
this poem narrates Achilles’ wrath, the battles at Troy, the deaths of Patro-
clusandHector.ItsversesareindebtedtoVirgilandOvidandwrittenforthe
Romanpublic,whohadlearnedtoreadtheTrojanWarasthebackgroundto
Aeneas’wanderingsandsubsequentarrivalinLatium.Beingtheonlypoetic
metaphraseof the Iliad inLatinfullytransmittedinthemedievalworld,the
IliasLatinabecameinthatperiodoneof themostimportantsourcesforthe
Trojanepics,alongsidethelateantiquenovelsaboutTroy.InthelaterMiddle
Agesthepoemwasevenaschooltext,astheabundanceofmanuscriptsclearly
shows.UntiltherediscoveryoftheoriginalGreektextintheRenaissance,this
shortpoemmadeasubstantialcontributiontohowreadersintheWestcon-
ceivedofHomerandtheIliad.
Theresearchonthispoemsawasignificantsurgeinthedecadesbetween
the19thand20thcenturies.Thefocuswasplacedonthedating,theauthorship
oftheshortwork(duringtheMiddleAgesitwasentitledasorattributedto,var-
iously,Homerus,LiberHomeri,IliasHomeriandlateralsoPindarus),theprecise
reconstructionandinterpretationoftheacrosticsatthebeginningandatthe
conclusionofthepoem,andtheconstitutiotextusanditsrelationshipwiththe
Greekoriginal,withanattemptatexplainingthedifferencesfromtheHome-
rictradition.Substantiallyboostedbythecriticaleditionof EmilBaehrensin
the PoetaeLatiniMinores,thisstageinthescholarlyappreciationof the Ilias
LatinawasroundedoutbythecontributionsofFriedrichVollmer,specifically
hiscommentaryandneweditionforthePLM.
Welcome Tilroe’s dissertation at the University of Southern California in
1939, which offered a new reading of the text through an edition with com-
mentary,couldhavegivenfreshimpetustotheongoingresearch.Duetothe
outbreakofWorldWarii,however,thisworkwasneverquotedinthe Année
Philologique,andremainedunseenandineffectiveuntilitsdigitalizationafew
yearsago.
AsecondcrucialmovementintheresearchontheIliasLatina,whichcon-
tinues to this day, began with Marco Scaffai’s edition (1982), which provided
© MariaJenniferFalconeandChristophSchubert,2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004469532_002
2 falcone and schubert
scholarswithanewcriticaltextandthestandardcommentary.Bothinthisedi-
tionandlaterintheabridgedversionpublishedinANRW,1Scaffaiofferedan
overviewofpreviousresearch.Inthesecondeditionofhiscommentary(1997),
Scaffai augmented this survey with the studies published in the years 1982–
1994.AtthesametimeasScaffaiorafterhim,G.Broccia,A.GrilloandP.Venini
gainedauthorityinthefieldof studiesontheIliasLatina.Thecompletebib-
liography of this volume demonstrates that since then the attention on the
IliasLatinahasnevercometoastandstill.ButwhiletranslationsintoEnglish
(Kennedy)2andFrench(Fry)3exist,andoneintoGermanisinpreparation,itis
neverthelessstrikingthatthemostrecentmonographsolelydedicatedtothis
textwaswrittendecadesago.4
As a result, both in the conference which preceded this volume and in
thevolumeitself,wehaveaimedtoapproachtheshortpoem,whoseappeal
and importance have not been sufficiently appreciated, from a multitude of
scholarlyperspectives.ThepaperspresentedattheconferenceheldinErlan-
genandsupportedbygenerousresearchgrantsfromtheFriedrich-Alexander-
Universität and the Alfred-Vinzl-Stiftung—and those added to the volume
afterwards (Galasso, Green, Schubert)—reveal a surprising commonality of
approach. On the one hand, the Ilias Latina is primarily interpreted as an
autonomousworkwithliteraryaspirations,whosefeaturescanbeexplained
withreferencetoawork-internalratio;ontheotherhand,thecomparisonof
theIliasLatinawithitsHomericmodelandothertexts,bothGreekandLatin,
allowsforamorepreciseevaluationofthework.Thisleadsfruitfullytoachal-
lenging synthesis between the earliest research on the poem, which mainly
readtheIliasLatinainthelightofHomer,andthemostrecentstudies,which
converselyhighlighttherelativeautonomyoftheLatinpoem.
Thepapersof thisvolumefocusonthreemainissues:1)thedifferentele-
mentsof thenarration,suchasmacro-andmicrostructure,singleBauformen
(“poetic structures”) and motifs, characters and scenes; 2) the Ilias Latina’s
intertextualallusionstoHomerandthetextsoftheRomanpoetictradition,at
thelevelbothofsinglecorrespondencesandofamorecomplexreferencesys-
tem;3)theissuesinvolvingliterarygenreandpoeticprogram,analyzedinthe
explicitlymetaliterarypassagesanddrawnoutfromtheimplicitnarrativeand
poeticchoices.Takinguptheseissuesindifferentformsandfocusinginvari-
ouswaysonthetechniqueofvertere,theauthorsofthisvolumedealwiththe
1 Scaffai1985.
2 Kennedy1998.
3 Fry2014.
4 Grillo1982.
introduction 3
mostimportantquestionsraisedinrecentdecadesandwiththemaintrendsof
currentresearch.Thereis,therefore,noneedhereforaresearchreport,which
wouldhaveonlybeenarepetitionof whatiseasytofindinthepapersthem-
selves.5Thevolumealsoincludespapersfocusedonafourthimportantissue,
namelythemedievalreceptionoftheIliasLatina.Thesechaptersshowthata
newconsiderationofthemanuscriptsandtheoveralltraditionisneededand
couldleadtoasubstantiallynewedition,6afieldwhichlendsitselfforfurther
research.
Whilethevolumedoesnotincludeaspecificcontributiononthepolitical
andsocio-literarycontextofthework,theobservationsscatteredthroughthe
variouschaptersonnarrativetechnique,intertextuality,genreandpoeticpro-
gram provide information on the likely setup of the poem’s target audience.
Thefollowingparagraphsof thisintroductiontrytopresent,howeverbriefly,
thestatusquaestionisonthecontiguousissuesof dating,authorship,andthe
literaryandpoliticalagendaofthepoem.
Sincethefirsthalfofthe19thcenturyandevenbeforethediscoveryofthe
acrostics,afirst-centurycedatingoftheIliasLatina,tobemorenarrowlylim-
ited to the Neronian period at a later point, has gained widespread support
independently from the related issue of authorship.7 Indeed, strong textual
evidence seems to confirm it: 1) the literary allusions to Virgil and Ovid are
regardedasaclearterminuspostquem;2)thereferencetotheJulio-Claudian
dynasty at vv. 899–902 implies at least Augustus’ apotheosis and provides a
terminus ante quem, namely the year 68ce;8 3) remarkable textual parallels
5 Amongthestudiesofthelast25yearswhichposebroaderquestions,thefollowingarepar-
ticularlynoteworthy:Brugnoli2001(lateantiquereception),Polymerakis2004(character-
izationofAchillesandPatroclus,poeticprogramandpoliticalcontext),Polymerakis2005
(figures of Helen, Venus and Paris, political context), Reitz 2007 (literary technique and
genre),Gärtner2007(Helen),Gasti2008(epictranslationtechniqueandcataloguesaswellas
Romanizationandmetapoeticcommentary),Koll2011(Romanizationoffemalecharacters),
FerreiraAlmeida2012(adaptationofHomer),Putnam2018(Virgil’sreceptionandcompar-
isonwithNeronianliterature)andGlei2018(theILasaRomanizedsequeloftheIliad),to
whichImayaddmyobservationsinSchubert1998,229–244(imageofNero,poeticprogram,
structure).
6 Forthestatusquaestionisonthemanuscripttraditioncf.Scaffai1997,29–56,andmorein
depthScaffai1980.Alistofthemanuscriptsuptothe13thcenturycanbefoundinMunk
Olsen1982,413–420.StillusefulareVollmer1913,4–25andManitius1935,123–125.Newaddi-
tionsinScaffai2008andCancelaCilleruelo2017.
7 FirstproposedbyLachmann1841,161f.;forthedatingunderNeroalreadyMüller1860,481.
A research report in Scaffai 1997, 18–29. Important stages are found in Nathansky 1906,
Nathansky1907,276–288,Morelli1914,126–130andScheda1965.
8 IL899–902:Quem[sc.Aenean]nisiservassetmagnarumrectoraquarum,/utprofuguslaetis
4 falcone and schubert
withSeneca’stragediessuggestachronologicalproximitytothisauthor;94)the
peculiardescriptionof Achilles’shield(vv.876–891)containsmotifs(Apollo,
harmony of the spheres, golden age) and keywords (pax, ius, aequitas) that
are typical of Neronian panegyric and recur in contemporary texts, such as
Seneca,CalpurniusSiculus,LucanandtheCarminaEinsidlensia.10Thanksto
ameticulousinterpretationof thislastpassage,Scaffaiproposedrefiningthe
date and placing the composition of the work between the years 60–65ce
instead.11Thereisnodoubtthatthisview,whichhaswonbroadapproval,is
correct.12Moreover,adatingtothelateryearsofthisrangeseemsmoreproba-
ble.13ThefollowingelementsprovidefurtherevidenceforaNeroniandating:1)
themetricaltechniquesuggestsaplacebetweenOvidandtheFlavianauthors;
2)languageandstyle,althoughrelyingonVirgilandOvid,donotshowclear
parallelswithLucanandtheFlavianepics;onthecontrary,theideaof apro-
Trojanmetaphraseof Homerseemstofollowanalternativepoeticproject,14
whichisconsistentwiththeculturalclimateinNero’sreign.15
BeforethediscoveryoftheacrosticsintheproemandepilogueoftheIlias
Latina,theevidencefortheprobableauthorwasrestrictedtothestylisticand
metrical analysis of the poem and the study of its political claims. In 1877,
thewordITALIC*S,detectedintheopeningsectionofthepoem,encouraged
scholarstoattemptamorepreciseattribution.Inthewakeofearlierscholars,
VollmerconclusivelydisprovedSiliusItalicus’authorship16andacknowledged
theattributionofthepoemtoBaebiusItalicus.Thisnameoccursinalateand
otherwisemarginalHumanistmanuscript,theVindobonensis3509(BebiiIta-
licipoetaeclarissimiepithomeinquatuorvigintilibroshomeriiliados) and an
Troiam repararet in arvis / Augustumque genus claris submitteret astris, / non clarae
gentisnobismansissetorigo.Vollmer’sclaimthatsuchversescouldstillhavebeenwrit-
tenintheFlavianperiod(Vollmer1913(comm.),122andVollmer1914)withgoodreason
remainedisolated.RecentlyonthispassagePolymerakis2003.
9 Onthiscf.Courtney2001.
10 OnthisFuchs1967,Scheda1966and1969,Grillo1982,Grillo1992,Scaffai1997,20–22;Schu-
bert1998,230–237.
11 Scaffai1997,26.Fortheyear65asterminusantequem,seeCourtney2001,whoseargument
isbasedontextualparallelswiththeLausPisonis.
12 ToocautiousCourtney1998,933.AnearlierdatingunderClaudiuswasproposedbyHer-
rmann1947basedondubiouspremises.
13 SeeSchubert1998,235withn.28.
14 Cf.Scaffai1997,57f.and469.
15 OnthisPutnam2018.
16 ForthisdebateseeScaffai1997,11–15.465–467andSchanz–Hosius1967,507f.Theat-
temptsofHerrmann1947andDuckworth1967,100–109torelaunchtheSilius-hypothesis
canbeseenasunsuccessful.