Preface: Later Greek Epic and the Latin Literary Tradition

The idea of exploring later Greek epic alongside, and in the light of, Latin literature came up in May 2017, during dinner after a conference in the wonderful city of Athens: while talking about the presence of the Latin literary tradition in the Greek epic of the imperial period — a topic both intriguing and elusive, considering the different ways in which the ‘presence’ of some works in the subtext of others may be conceived —, we realised that it was worth engaging in this debate. All the more so, as the last two decades have witnessed a surge of interest in later Greek epic, both in the study of individual works and in their broader contexts, leading to the collapse of many prejudices that have long precluded a lucid and balanced approach to these literary texts.1

Reliable editions, modern annotated translations, and book-length studies on Quintus’ Posthomerica, Triphiodorus’ Sack of Troy, the Orphic Argonautica, and Nonnus’ Dionysiaca have now made these poems considerably more accessible to scholars interested in ancient Greek literature, the evolution of the epic tradition, and Late Antiquity. In the past decade a series of well-attended international conferences on these authors and their respective contexts, among which the meetings on Quintus (Zurich, 2006; Cambridge, 2016) and the conference series ‘Nonnus of Panopolis in Context’ (Rethymno, 2011; Vienna, 2013; Warsaw, 2015; Ghent, 2018), have reignited systematic and in-depth study, and brought together scholars from a variety of traditions. The edited volumes resulting from these meetings, together with the Brill’s Companion to Nonnus of Panopolis and the number of monographs on the Posthomerica and Dionysiaca in the last few years, attest to this recent ‘explosion’ of scholarly interest in later Greek epic poetry.

Despite the proliferation of innovative work on late antique Greek epic in recent years, scholarship has not explored systematically the interaction of imperial Greek epicists with the Latin tradition. Comparative examinations of the Greek and the Latin literary traditions in the imperial period and in Late Antiquity are beginning to appear in this shifting landscape. Daniel Jolowicz’s most recent monograph entitled Latin Poetry in the Ancient Greek Novels begins with an introductory chapter that puts forward evidence to support the claim that there was Greek engagement with Latin poetry in the early and high imperial periods,2 and makes an overall compelling case that there were some, at least, Greek-speaking individuals in the imperial period who read Latin poetry.3 Moreover, a volume entitled Greek and Latin Poetry of Late Antiquity: Form, Tradition, and Context, which has just been published, results from a conference held in Ghent in September 2016 and constitutes the first organised effort to bring together scholars working in the fields of late antique Greek and late Latin poetry. In their introduction, the volume editors (and organisers of the highly successful Ghent conference), Berenice Verhelst and Tine Scheijnen, underscore the significance of comparative study between the two literary traditions to trace and comprehend in depth the respective elaborate developments across a period of several centuries.4

The present volume narrows down this comparative examination to focus on Latin epic, which it aspires to analyse not only from a bilingual perspective but also under the assumption that the two traditions do not necessarily develop independently from, and ignorant of, each other. As both the Greek and the Latin epics of Late Antiquity are influenced by the same poetic rules and aesthetic principles, the admission of ongoing interaction, not always conscious, sought after, and sustained, between the Greek and the Latin epic traditions may help modern readers reconsider their understanding of ‘Greek’ or ‘Latin’ at a time when both have acquired new definitions.

After reflection and exchange of ideas, and aware that the study of bilingual allusion in late antique poetry is only at the beginning, we organised a panel on The Latin literary tradition and later Greek poetry at the conference organised by the Fédération internationale des associations d’études classiques (FIEC), held in London in July 2019. The rich and lively debate that followed this panel encouraged us to continue along the path. Thus, we enrolled a small but enthusiastic group of experts with the shared aim to study in depth, and from different points of view, this complex yet stimulating topic.

In our approach, we tried to embrace the new trends in the study of Late Antiquity and to rephrase the issue commonly set by those who explore late antique intertextuality, who seek to prove if (and to what extent) Greek poets such as Quintus and Nonnus read, or not, Latin models like Vergil and Ovid.5 There is evidence that Latin language and the major Roman poets were known, and even taught at school in late antique Egypt; but there is no way to determine if really a single Greek poet read and imitated a specific Latin model. The difficulties are many, starting from the (contemptuous?) silence that Greek poets keep on Latin poetry and the awkwardness of a comparison between works in different languages; but the coup de grace is the possibility that analogies between Greek and Latin texts derive from a common (Greek) model. We have chosen, therefore, to avoid going over arguments already stated by others, and not to dwell on explorations of textual and/or structural relationships between Greek works and (possible) Latin models; we have rather tried to analyse relationships that exist anyway, at least in a cultural dimension. We are less concerned, in other words, with the issue if and how Quintus and Nonnus came to know the great Latin epicists; we acknowledge that it is possible that the Greek poets of Late Antiquity were indeed familiar with crucial works of Latin poetry such as Vergil’s Aeneid and Ovid’s Metamorphoses, be it in the original or in translation, and that this familiarity was used in individual, creative ways.

Besides, we tried to enhance the interpretative perspective that we, as modern readers of ancient epic, forged and shaped, approaching the late antique poems as interfaces at the end of an ongoing interaction between the Greek and the Latin tradition — an interaction that may not necessarily be intentional or ascertainable. Thereby, we hope to have combined, or at least to have adopted alongside with each other and in mutual support, the authorial perspective and the informed readers’ critical reception. We have tried to take into account in our inquiry the main exponents of later Greek epic, including the epyllion and a hexameter composition with epic subject matter, in order to outline a wide and varied overview of the subject. Thus, Emma Greensmith and Silvio Bär have focused on Quintus’ relationship with the Aeneid, a relationship in which differences and omissions speak even more than analogies, with problematic implications of ‘cultural policy’; and it is along the same lines that Giampiero Scafoglio has studied Triphiodorus’ approach to Vergil. The latter’s Eclogue 6 is at the core of an emulative process that overcomes the boundaries of literary genre in Nonnus’ Dionysiaca, as argued by Sophia Papaioannou. Helen Lovatt revisits Nonnus’ treatment of the Phaethon narrative in the light of a sophisticated reception process of Ovid’s celebrated account of the same story by the Flavian epicists. Markus Kersten, in turn, has dealt with the Orphic Argonautica, in which he has detected the use of some poetic features prominent in the treatment of myth in Latin epic poetry. The analysis of the metaphor of ‘the poet as sailor’ performed — in different ways and for different audiences — in both Greek and Latin language by Claudian has allowed Katerina Carvounis to explore the interaction between the two literary traditions from the specific point of view of a bilingual poet. Admittedly, our journey on mined ground starts from a healthy dose of scepticism, with the overview by Ursula Gärtner on previous research on the subject, which works as a reminder of the risks and limits of the voyage we have undertaken. It is hoped, nevertheless, that the new readings of select passages and themes in later Greek epic that are offered in this volume may be a step towards fruitfully considering these works alongside, or in the light of, Latin poetry.

Before ‘setting sail’ (to recall a metaphor that is the subject of one of the chapters in our volume), we wish to thank warmly all the contributors, as well as Philip Hardie and Dan Jolowicz, who participated in the FIEC 2019 panel which became somehow the first stage of our voyage. We would also like to thank the anonymous readers of the volume for their feedback and some thought-provoking comments; and the editors of the ‘Trends in Classics — Supplementary Volumes’ series, Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos, who championed this book. Not least, we thank in advance the readers who will approach our bold — and maybe sometimes...