Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Definingthe(Latin)epyllion:somerecapitulations
23
shouldbeakindofzmini-tragedy,intheepicform).Tesezintrusions,ofthenarratorinto
thenarratedstorybecomeinfact,asPerutelliemphasizes,apeculiarqualityoftheLatin
epyllionthatmakesitquitediferentfromitsHellenisticcounterpart.49Indeed,theHel-
lenisticminiatureepic(ifwetakeintoconsiderationCallimachus,sHecale,butalsoMo-
schus,sEuropa)seemstolacktheintrusivepresenceofthepoet-narrator.50Ontheother
hand,thezinjectionofthepersonalityofthenarratorintothenarrative,ischaracteristic
ofCallimachus,sAetia.AsCameronputsit,Callimachus,“whileanxioustoincreaseand
enhancetheroleofthenarratorinelegiacnarrative,wasnolessanxioustokeepitinvisible
inepicnarrative.”51Tus,itmightbeimpliedthat,again,itwastheHellenisticelegyand
theHellenisticelegiacnarrativelikeCallimachus,sAetiathatshapedtheLatinepyllion,
oferingmoreopportunitiesforexperimentationandinnovationintheareaoftheroleof
thenarrator.
Atthesametime,thespeakingegooftheLatinminiatureepic,evenifinspiredby
whatcouldbefoundinCallimachus,smajorwork,isalsosubstantiallydiferentfrom
thenarratoroftheAetia.IfinCallimachusthenarratorintervenedmainlyasphilologus
doctus,stressingthat“hesingsofnothingunattested,”fortheRomanepyllionistswhat
mattersisthemoraljudgment;themoralinterpretationisimplicitintheirtexts.52Tis
particulardiferencereveals,inPerutelli,sview,averyzRoman,attitude:theauthorsofthe
Latinepylliawerewellawareoftheirzhighstatus,asepicpoets,53astatusthatgavethem
theright,ifnotaninnerobligation,tospeakaboutthezmoral,issues.
49Perutelli(1979:64)notes:“l,introduzionedelraccontoexabruptopropriadell,epillioales-
sandrinononsiriprodurràpiùnellaletteraturalatina,dovesiregistralapresenzaquasicostantedi
varieformuledimediazione,cheinnescanoilmecchanismodelnarrare.”
50AsnotedbyCameron1995:451(whoactuallyquotesHunter).AsIhavealreadymen-
tioned,Cameron,emphasizinghowdiferentfromoneanothertheHellenisticpoemsclassified
asepylliaare,pointstotheEuropaofMoschusas“theonlyHellenisticpoemthatresemblesthe
Latinepylliainanysignificantway,”butnotasfarasthediscussedabovelackoftheintrusive
presenceofthepoet-narratorisconcerned.Infact,inCameron,sview(p.445,againaquotation
fromHunter),itisinApollonius,sepicnarrativethatwefind“afargreaterprominenceforthe
poet,sperson,thenarratingego,thanisfoundinHomer.”
51Cameron1995:445.Heevenarguesthattheso-calledzmixingofgenres,
,ofenseenasthe
mainprincipleoftheHellenisticpoetry,wasnotCallimachus,sattitudetoepicandelegy.Asre-
gardstheroleofthenarratorialinterludesintheAetiathescholarobserves(p.439):“thisisnot(of
course)aglimpseofthepoet,srealworld;itisnothispurposetocommunicateinformationabout
sourcesRather,byplayingwiththetraditionaldisclaimerstheselinesdirectourattention
lesstothepoet,ssourcesthantohisownpersonalandoriginaluseofthem.”
52SeePerutelli1979:110-113.TefactwasalsoemphasizedbyRichardson1944:89:“Te
poetalwaysplacesemphasisonthemoralaspectsofthethemeofhispoemandthelessonthathe
proposes.”AmongtheLatinepylliaoftheclassicalphase,itisonlyintheintroductiontotheCiris
thatthespeakingegoadoptstheposeoftheAlexandrianpoetadoctus,presentinganddiscussing
thecredibilityofvariousversionsofamyth,seePerutelli1979:74.
53Perutelli1979:115:“l,autoredell,epillioèconsapevoledellasuaspecificaqualitàdipoeta
epicoedavverteinqualchemodol,impegnoimpostoglidatalequalifica.Cosiindulgeallediscus-
sionimoralistichechefornisconounospecificodiserietàedidecus,dicuifregiarsirispettoadaltri
generi,evitando,almenonellepartiprincipali,ognivulgarismoespressivo.Ilcarattereparadig-