Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
8
INTRODUCTION
zlonglateantiquity,
,4onecanfindevenmoresurprisinginstancesofsimilarzreturns,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,Latinistsare–atleastoughttobe–well
awarehowfragmentaryourknowledgeofahistoryofacertainformusuallyis:astudy
conductedfromthediachronicperspectiveisalwaysbasedonextanttextsonly.Never-
theless,itdoesseemthatboththeepyllion–practicedinLatinbyCatullus(carm.64),
arguablybyVirgil(Aristaeus,sepisodeinGeorg.4.315-588),6bysomepoetswhoseworks
canbefoundintheAppendixVergiliana,finallybyOvid(whoseMetamorphosesare,afer
all,animpressivecollectionofinterconnectedepyllia)–andtheRomanloveelegy,not
withoutreasoncalledzAugustan,
,arethegenreswhichtrulyzlaydormant,insubsequent
periods.Terefore,itisnot,andshouldnotbeseenas,amarginalphenomenonthatin
LatinpoetrycomposedalreadyintheRomano-Barbaricageonecanfindagaintexts
interpretableasminiatureepic(Dracontius,spoemsandtheAeParehexametricpieces
shorterthan1,000linesonmythologicalorquasimythologicaltopics)oraseroticelegy
(Maximianus,selegy/corpuselegiarum/treatsoflove,howeverloveasamissedoppor-
tunity).Tisprovesthefactfrequentlyemphasizedingenology,namelythatgenres–at
leastinpre-modernliteraturewhichhardlyeverdeniesbeinggenre-oriented7–dohave
anintrinsicability,quiteunusualandindeedsomewhatmysterious,toregenerate,ofen
unexpectedly.Tesezregenerations,maybeonlymomentary–suchappeartobethose
discussedinthepresentbook–nonetheless,theyalwaysareasignofthecontinuityand
theself-consciousnessoftheliteraryculture.Terefore,inreferencetosomelateantique
littérateurs,itmayindeedseemfair(classicalscholarshipstillfindsitquitefairattimes)
tousethelabelofmerezlatecomers,
.Infact,theyfrequentlydomaketheimpressionof
beingostentatiouslyanachronistic.Acloserreading,however,ofMaximianus,selegyfor
instance–butalsoofDracontius,sepylliaandLuxorius,sepigrammatonliber,onwhich
below–doesnotconfirmthisstereotype.Tepoetrywhichiszliterary,
,evendensewith
4Teproblemofperiodizationoflateantiquityisstill–orrather:isanew–amatterofdebate,
eventhough,asitiswellknown,insocio-culturalstudiesBrown,sproposaltoreadlateantiquityas
zalonglateantiquity,hasturnedouthighlyinfluential.SeerecentlyMarcone2008.
5ToevoketheinspiringtitleofthebookbyWaquet2001.
6Needlesstosay,notfewscholarswouldarguethattheAeneidBook4isanepyllionparexcel-
lence.
7Asnotedeveninthepost-structuraltheoryofliterature,notrarelyhostiletotheveryideaof
literarygenres,seeSendyka2006forsomevaluableobservations.