Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
14
THEMINIATUREEPICINVANDALAFRICAANDTHEHERITAGEOFA.NON-GENRE’
studiesreceivedshortshriffromW
.Allen,7whoarguedthatthetermshouldbebanished
fromourcriticalvocabulary,especiallyifappliedtodefineazgenre,;fortheAmerican
scholaritwouldbeacceptableonlyifusedinawidersense,withreferencenottoanar-
rowgroupoftextsbutto“allpoemsinthenewnarrativestyleasopposedtotheHomeric
epics.”8
Allen,sobjectionsdidserveassomecounterbalancetocertainstatementsofthezthe-
oreticians,ofthegenre,attimestooconfidentintheirclaimsaboutitscharacteristicsand
subdivisions,9yethismainconclusionthatthewordzepyllion,has“noproperplace”10
inthecriticalvocabularyoftheclassicalphilologygainedinefectlittleacceptance.In
thecontemporaryscholarship,thekinship(or,atleast,acertainkinship)ofthepoems
groupedunderthiscategory11isgenerallyrecognized,andsoistheneedtospeakofthe
hensivestudyinEnglishistheonebyCrump,publishedin1931,republishedin1978and1997.In
morerecenttime,Perutellipublishedin1979hisveryinspiringbookontheLatinepyllionandits
transformations.In2004,BartelspublishedastudyontheLatinepyllionfocusedinparticularon
theproblemofnarrativestrategies.InhisbookontheaestheticsofLatinRepublicanpoetry,Styka
(1994:157-167;1995:220-229)proposestoredirectthefocusofstudiesonthephenomenonofthe
epyllionfromstructuraltoaestheticaspects,inparticulartosuchcategoriesasgratiaandvariatio
combinedwithbrevitasandlearnedness.Indeed,evenifpurelyaestheticqualitiescanserverather
asadditionalcriteriafordeterminingwhichpoemsareclassifiableasepyllia(andwhicharenot),
itisbeyonddoubtthattheprinciplesofgratiaandvarietas,togetherwithatendencytodisplay
one,slearnednessdespitetheshortform,didshapetheliterarysensitivityofpoetswritingmini-
atureepic.ForsomeobservationsontheaspectasnoticeableinDracontius,sepyllia,seeespecially
Chs.I.3andI.4.
7Allen1940.Tescholaremphasizesthreefacts:thatthetermwasnotusedinsuchasense
inantiquity,thatonecannotdemonstrateanyconnectionbetweenthistypeofliteratureandthe
hypotheticalquarrelbetweenCallimachusandApolloniusRhodius,and,whichisthemostim-
portantargumentinhisopinion,thattherehasbeen,inefect,nosuccessinascribingcommon
characteristicstotheworksusuallyclassedasepyllia.
8Allen1940:25.
9Allen,scriticismisdirectedmainlyatthestudybyM.Crump(infact,throughouthispaper
he,rathermaliciouslyIwouldsay,persistsincallingherzMissCrump,
,seee.g.p.3),where,indeed,
certainstatementsorconclusionsmayseemsomewhatpremature,likee.g.thesharpdivisionof
theepyllion,inLatinasinGreekpoetry,intotwodefinitetypes:theidyllicandthenarrative,the
idyllicbeingtheearlier(Crump1931:48),orthezconfident,observationthattheaveragelengthof
anepyllionwasprobablyfourtovehundredlines(p.22).
10Allen1940:1.
11Teusualperspectiveinzcomprehensive,studiesoftheepylliontraditionistheonepro-
posedbyCrump,“fromTeocritustoOvid.”Jackson(1913:39)lists“twoorthreeamongtheidylls
ofTeocritus[yet,ashestates,modernscholarsarenotunanimousinclassifyingpoemsofthis
sortinTeocritus],twoofthepoemsofMoschus,andinLatinthesixty-fourthpoemofCatullus,
theCulexandtheCirisintheAppendixVergiliana,andtheAristaeusepisodeinthefourthbookof
theGeorgics.”Richardson(1944:17;76-77),whofocusesontheLatinepyllion,lists:Attis(Catul-
lus,scarm.63),PeleusandTetis(Catullus,scarm.64),Ciris,Culex,Moretum,andVirgil,sAristaeus
(Georg.4.315-588).Perutellistudiesthreespecificzmoments,oftheLatinepyllion:Catullus,scarm.
64,theCiris,andOvid,sMetamorphoses.BartelsfocusesonCatullus,scarm.64,Ciris,Culex,More-
tum,Virgil,sAristaeus,Ovid,sCephalus(Met.7.490-8.5).Tezkinship,ofthepoemsclassifiedas