Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
8
INTRODUCTION
zlonglateantiquity,
,4onecanndevenmoresurprisinginstancesofsimilarzreturns,to
genreswillinglyexploitedinthezclassicalphase,oftheRomanliterature(ifwelabelsothe
lateRepublican,theAugustan,andtheearlyImperialera)butlater,asitseems,falleninto
disuse.Tepresentbookisdedicatedpreciselytosuchgenericre-explorations,orindeed
rediscoveries,proposedbyauthorsactiveinVandalAfrica(Dracontius,presumablythe
anonymousauthoroftheAegritudoPerdicae,Luxorius,andmostprobablythepoetofthe
Sylloge)andinOstrogothicItaly(EnnodiusandquitecertainlyMaximianus),theauthors
forwhomtheImperiumRomanumisnolongerapoliticalentitybutratheran“Empireof
aSign,”5theempireofthelanguageandcivilization.
PartsOneandTwotreatofminiatureepicandloveelegy,thegenresznormally,as-
sociatedbyclassicalphilologywiththeneotericpoetryandthegoldenageoftheRoman
literature,i.e.theAugustanperiod.Ofcourse,Latinistsareatleastoughttobewell
awarehowfragmentaryourknowledgeofahistoryofacertainformusuallyis:astudy
conductedfromthediachronicperspectiveisalwaysbasedonextanttextsonly.Never-
theless,itdoesseemthatboththeepyllionpracticedinLatinbyCatullus(carm.64),
arguablybyVirgil(Aristaeus,sepisodeinGeorg.4.315-588),6bysomepoetswhoseworks
canbefoundintheAppendixVergiliana,nallybyOvid(whoseMetamorphosesare,afer
all,animpressivecollectionofinterconnectedepyllia)andtheRomanloveelegy,not
withoutreasoncalledzAugustan,
,arethegenreswhichtrulyzlaydormant,insubsequent
periods.Terefore,itisnot,andshouldnotbeseenas,amarginalphenomenonthatin
LatinpoetrycomposedalreadyintheRomano-Barbaricageonecanndagaintexts
interpretableasminiatureepic(Dracontius,spoemsandtheAeParehexametricpieces
shorterthan1,000linesonmythologicalorquasimythologicaltopics)oraseroticelegy
(Maximianus,selegy/corpuselegiarum/treatsoflove,howeverloveasamissedoppor-
tunity).Tisprovesthefactfrequentlyemphasizedingenology,namelythatgenresat
leastinpre-modernliteraturewhichhardlyeverdeniesbeinggenre-oriented7dohave
anintrinsicability,quiteunusualandindeedsomewhatmysterious,toregenerate,ofen
unexpectedly.Tesezregenerations,maybeonlymomentarysuchappeartobethose
discussedinthepresentbooknonetheless,theyalwaysareasignofthecontinuityand
theself-consciousnessoftheliteraryculture.Terefore,inreferencetosomelateantique
littérateurs,itmayindeedseemfair(classicalscholarshipstillndsitquitefairattimes)
tousethelabelofmerezlatecomers,
.Infact,theyfrequentlydomaketheimpressionof
beingostentatiouslyanachronistic.Acloserreading,however,ofMaximianus,selegyfor
instancebutalsoofDracontius,sepylliaandLuxorius,sepigrammatonliber,onwhich
belowdoesnotconfirmthisstereotype.Tepoetrywhichiszliterary,
,evendensewith
4Teproblemofperiodizationoflateantiquityisstillorrather:isanewamatterofdebate,
eventhough,asitiswellknown,insocio-culturalstudiesBrown,sproposaltoreadlateantiquityas
zalonglateantiquity,hasturnedouthighlyinfluential.SeerecentlyMarcone2008.
5ToevoketheinspiringtitleofthebookbyWaquet2001.
6Needlesstosay,notfewscholarswouldarguethattheAeneidBook4isanepyllionparexcel-
lence.
7Asnotedeveninthepost-structuraltheoryofliterature,notrarelyhostiletotheveryideaof
literarygenres,seeSendyka2006forsomevaluableobservations.