Bibliography

[the_lady_lily]

Allusion and intertext: Dynamics of appropriation in Roman poetry - Stephen Hinds

I seem to be doing nothing but read the Roman Literature and its contexts books at the moment, for lo, this is another one. And I have to say that I honestly think most of this just went by me at high speed because my brain isn't in poetry mode at the moment. Hinds' main theme is how the reception of texts is always changed by both the moment of reception and the culture of the receiver, so no reception is ever the same. He does some very nice stuff about how to take intertextual references further than just 'oh, look, this passage looks a bit like that other passage, that's interesting' - for instance, he points out that Ennius wasn't always an archaic poet. Other poets had to create his archaic status. He also gives some good consideration to the question of deliberate degradation created by the so-called Silver Age poets, who are always talking about how degenerate their own work is - and have been rather unquestioningly believed, which is a bit of a pain and deserves further examination. (Although just because someone says he's a crap poet doesn't mean he isn't, of course.)

There's also a really brilliant bit about Hector and Andromache as sex symbols in the interplay between Ovid and Martial, and I swear, I was sitting there going 'hang on a mo, this is just like my Priapea paper except... hang on, since when did Homer become this sexy?' So that's another research project for another day.

But anyway. This book gives some very clever, very clearly written ways of thinking about allusion and intertexuality that get beyond dry analysis of 'passage X is modelled on passage Y', and thank goodness for that. I have to say that I am wondering now about genre, as Hinds deliberately only looks at poetry and not particularly at prose, and I think a lot of the points went by me as I am elbow-deep in Latin prose at the moment. It's definitely one to come back to, and one that is worth picking up - and, I'm going to put my neck out, a lot of the content is rather applicable to the reception theory question, and I am wondering whether I might at some stage try and do something with that. But again, another project for another day.

Comments

[the-lady-lily.livejournal.com]

I certainly agree with you that the prose/verse division is at best irksome and at worst deeply dangerous; trying to define myself as a Latin Literature person in general at this stage is actually more difficult than it looks when the thesis and article are both on prose works. (All the more reason to get the Priapea article into shape, but I digress.) But I think one of the problems with Hinds' book in that respect is that it does so much talk in terms of poetry that it makes it hard to work out what to do with his argument in terms of prose. My brain is currently rather sluggishly swimming around the shallows here; part of me thinks that, if I had the opportunity to do some practical application of this onto poetry, I'd work out where it needed to go in order to make sense of it in prose (and indeed across the border).

That part of me thinks many things, however, and not all of them are realistic.

[poldyb.livejournal.com]

trying to define myself as a Latin Literature person in general at this stage is actually more difficult than it looks when the thesis and article are both on prose works. Hi, you just described me.

I agree that Hinds selection of examples is hardly comprehensive; as far as I'm concerned, though, there is little difficulty in moving from poetry to prose in his, or Edmunds, terms. Certain types of prose works, like poetry, are more densely allusive, of course, and those are the types of prose works that happen to be the works I focus on.

Part of the disconnect between poetry and prose among modern Latinists may have something to do with the legacy of new criticism and its fascination with the poem as microcosm. It is much harder to read Latin prose works as a microcosm. Allusion and intertextuality, however, should help as it attacks the idea of poem as microcosm and brings it close to prose as a literary system.

Hopefully, in the next decade we Latin literature people can remake the map.

[the-lady-lily.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I have to admit that I haven't consciously come across the idea of poem as microcosm, partly because of spending most of my time playing in prose, partly because - well, that would have involved someone pointing out new criticism to me at some point before I started playing in prose. Can you just elaborate a wee bit for me? (Yes, I know I am assisting you in the hobby horse. Believe me, I wouldn't be if I wasn't finding it interesting.)

[poldyb.livejournal.com]

It is the legacy of new criticism (e.g. Cleanth Brooks, the well wrought urn. Most of our teachers - or teacher's teachers - grew up when this was the new fancy way of reading. You are unlikely to have found any of the new critical views clearly expressed since many of them had become accepted practice. Ideas like 'close reading' are a legacy.

[the-lady-lily.livejournal.com]

Now, it's interesting you should say that about close reading, given that I've always seen close reading as a tool equally applicable to prose and poetry. I may have to get around to chasing this. At some point. Along with Everything Else In The World Ever.