Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Definingthe(Latin)epyllion:somerecapitulations
25
bonds.Inthisrespect,thepoem,wherethemythisnotidealizedasopposedtothereality
butjudgedagainstthecategoriesoftheRomanmoralism,canbeseenasaproductofthe
Augustanculture,theculturethattriedtozregainbalance,aferthesocio-politicaland
moralcrisisofthelateRepublicanera,propagatingthereturntotheRomantradition
andethics.58
Ovid,sepyllicnarrationgivesupsuchmoralisticambitionspeculiartotheneoteric
miniatureepic.TespeakingegooftheMetamorphoseswithacleardistancedescribes
thereactionsofhisprotagonists,quiteofenespeciallyinthecaseoftheheroinesby
meansofmonologues,modeledonrhetoricalcontroversiae.Henolongerprovidespro-
foundethicaljudgmentoftheirbehavior,exceptforjustafewcases,liketheMyrrhaepi-
sodeintheMetamorphosesBook10.59Hedoesnottrytoidentifywiththem,either.Ovid
asPerutelliarguesseemsnottonoticethecrisisofvaluesthatabsorbedhispredeces-
sorsexploitingthegenreoftheepyllion.Itmightevenbesaidthatapparentlyhedoes
notreallyintendtocasthimselfintheroleoftheonewhoshouldspeakindefenseofthe
endangeredvalues.60Hence,sotypicalofhisnarrator,thelackofinterestorconcernfor
themoralcontentofthenarratedstory.InPerutelli,sview,Ovid,sepyllioncanbeprob-
ablyconsideredtheconclusivephaseoftheprocessofappropriationoftheAlexandrian
literaryformbytheLatinpoets.Paradoxically,theNeoterics,whointroducedtheHel-
lenisticminiatureeposintothesystemoftheRomanliterature,markedthegenrewith
traitsquitealientowhatwaspostulatedbytheHellenisticpoetry,celebratingthehuman
ratherthantheheroic.ItisonlyinOvidwherethemythologicalprotagonistsareagain
reducedtothezbourgeois,dimension,dictatedbythecanonsoftheAlexandrianpoetics,
anddonotappearasadmirableheroes61born“inhappiesttimeofages.”62
58SeePerutelli1979:69-93.Perutelliadds(p.92n.29)thathisobservationsonthemythas
presentedandcommentedintheCiriscouldprovidecertainargumentsasregardsthedatingofthe
poem.Similarly,Pinotti(1978:26)arguesforthe(late)zneoteric,natureoftheScyllastory,whereas
Lyne(1971:233f.;1978:54f.)postdatesthepoemtothefirstoreventhesecondcenturyA.D.
YetforPerutellihimselfmoreimportantthanthequestionofthedatingassuchisthefactthatas
heisconvincedtheepyllionshouldbeconsideredafalsification,atextpretendingtobewritten
byVirgil.
59OnemayagreewithPerutelli(1979:99)thattheexclamationsmadefromtimetotimeby
Ovid,snarrator,likee.g.theonetobefoundintheScyllaepisode:intratet(heufacinus!)fatali
nataparentem/crinesuumspoliat(Met.8.85-86),cannotbeseenasseriousethicaljudgmentson
thepartofthespeakingego;rather,theirroleistomarktheculminatingpointofthestory.Infact,
theMyrrhaepisodeinMet.10seemstobetheonlyoneprovidedwithasubstantiallylongerand
moreelaboratednarratorialintroduction,focusedindeedonthemoralcontentofthestory.Tis
detailmaybeofsomeimportanceifwetakeintoconsiderationthefactthatitconstitutesaclear
modelfortheauthoroftheAegritudoPerdicae,onwhichseemoreinCh.I.6.
60ToillustratethecompletelydiferentapproachofOvidtothemoralissues,Perutelli(1979:
112-113)quotesthewell-knownpassagefromtheFasti1(201f.),wherethepoetactuallyironizes
themoralistspraisingtheaustereandpoorarchaicRome:laudamusveteres,sednostrisutimuran-
nis:/mostamenestaequedignusuterquecoli(225-226).
61SeePerutelli1979:94-113.
62SeeCatullus,scarm.64.22,translationbyFrancisWarreCornishinGoold1995:99.