Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T22:21:35.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Literariness and Levels of Style in Epigraphical Poetry of Late Antiquity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Gianfranco Agosti
Gianfranco Agosti*
Affiliation:
University of Udine
Get access

Extract

Nowadays, scholars usually speak of a ‘renaissance’ of poetry in the Greek literature of late antiquity, underlining at the same time the new relevance of poetic communication in late antique society and the renewal of our interest in this not so well-known production of late Greek literature. Renaissance and related terms are, of course, effective ways to describe the flowering of Greek poetry from the fourth to sixth centuries CE, so long as this does not undervalue the importance of continuity (which is not the same as tradition). Even the most significant innovation in late antique Greek poetry, namely the so-called ‘Nonnian manner’ or ‘modern style’, stems from a longtime sedimentation and perfectioning of linguistic and stylistic features which can be traced back to the Hellenistic age. Albert Wifstrand, in his seminal book of 1933, already pointed to this major fact, which Mary Whitby has systematically dealt with in an important article of 1994. Moreover, recent studies demonstrate that for a proper understanding of late antique poetry one must take into account Christian poetic production as well, which stands four-square within the traditions of Greek literature (in spite of the fact that classical = pagan is an equation which dies hard for some classicists). In the present paper both pagan and Christian epigrams will be considered to equally represent the aesthetics of late antiquity (or estetica antico-bizantina, to use Averincev's terminology).

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , 2008 , pp. 191 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For recent surveys see Alan Cameron (2004, 2007); Agosti (2006a), with further bibliography.

2. I prefer to adopt this definition, in order to avoid the ambiguous term ‘Nonnian school’: Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 29If; Gonnelli (2003) 7f.

3. Wifstrand (1933); Whitby (1994).

4. On the contribution of Christian poetry to the formation of ‘modern style’ see Agosti and Gonnelli (1995); Agosti (2009).

5. Averincev (1988); see also the important remarks by Averil Cameron (2006) 11–28.

6. I have dealt with epigraphic poems in some previous works: Agosti (1997, 1998, 2005c, 2007, 2008a).

7. Averil Cameron (1970) 18.

8. Alan Cameron (2004) 331.

9. Merkelbach and Stauber (1998–2004). Other valuable collection are Peek (1955), Bernand (1969), Alan Cameron (1973), Moretti (1979), Reynold, Roueche and Bodard (2007); Samama (2003) is a useful collection of the epigrams on doctors. Needless to say, the starting-point for every literary research in late epigraphy are the works by Louis Robert, among which Robert (1948) is particularly relevant for the history of late epigrams.

10. In spite of the great amount of materials collected and cursorily commented upon in Merkelbach and Stauber (1998–2004), a complete edition of late antique and early Byzantine epigrams is still an urgent desideratum. E. Sironen has announced a project on non-funerary epigrams; see Sironen (2003). An invaluable research tool is Feissel (2006). The present writer and Enrico Magnelli are preparing a commented edition of epigraphic and literary epigrams of late antiquity and Byzantium devoted to poets (Epigrammata Graeca de Poetis = EGPoet).

11. Agosti (2005c, 2007).

12. ‘Literature, the Formalist argued, is not a succession of masterpieces. One cannot understand the evolution of literature or assess any period in its history without taking note of the second- and third-rate. For one thing, masterpieces can be recognised as such only against the background of mediocrity. For another, failure can sometimes be as important a factor in literary dynamics as success’ (Erlich [19692] 261).

13. Among the recent literature that devoted much more attention to these problems, the article by Whitby (2006b), on metrics, style and authorship of the epigram from St Polyeuktos is particularly relevant.

14. 1G X 2.1.43 = SEG 27.306 = l.Chr.Mac. 89 Feissel. See Feissel (1989) 89; Fiaccadori (2003) 196f.,243; Agosti (2005c) 1–3.

15. API 43.3 (Smyrna, after 551 CE).

16. Cf. AP 7.672.3 (Corinth, 6th c. CE) .

17. For other examples see the incipit of the magniloquent description of Anastasios’ Chalkè in AP 9.656.1 (cf. Tissoni [2000] 30–36); IGLSyr XIII 9119 = SGO 22/42/05, 3 [ and 5 (Bostra, 5th c. CE); SEG 38.1537 = SGO 22/35/02, 8 and 12 (Kanatha, Arabia, ca. 400), and in the fourth century the epigram on Antiochia’s cathedral 111 Preger = IGLSyr 832 = SGO 20/03/03, 2f. for the Polyeuktos epigram see Whitby (2006b) 176f.

18. On the expressive force of tetracolos see, for example, the opposite views expressed by Gruzelier (1993), XXVIII; Dewar (1996) 178; Whitby (2006b) 176; Vian (2003) 215–19; Agosti (2004)38–40.

19. A significant epigraphic example is AP 1.10, on which see the excellent discussion by Whitby (2006b).

20. See Bassett (1919).

21. I.e. the masculine caesura according to Fränkel’s terminology: see Fränkel (19683).

22. The stichic hexameters began to be more popular from the end of the 2nd century onwards: see Wifstrand (1993) 151–77.

23. ’Oλετήρ is a Homeric hapax (Il. 18.114), occasionally used by Nicander (Ther. 735), Antipat. Sid. (AP 6.115.3 = HE XLVII), Opp. Hal. (thrice), [Opp.] Cyn. (3.264), Greg. Naz. (AP 8.33.5), then loved by Nonnus (twenty-four occurrences); is the ‘modern’ way of saying , an expression used in an epigram on Justinian’s equestrian statue (API 63.1). ἀριστoγέvεθλov is a hapax, cf. Nonn. D. 20.53 : cf. Nonn. D. 25.353 (et al.).

24. See Feissel (1998) 116–36. Here I am resuming, with some additions, the more detailed analysis in Agosti (2005c) 14–18.

25. For the clause of line 1 see, for example, Nonn. D. 13.196 , 13.222 , 23.96 , P. 4.194 . cf. SH 958.13 , Nonn. D. 12.126 (upon which Paul. Sil. AP 10.74.1 = 36 Viansino depends).

26. For the attestations of these terms see n.25 above; further examination in Agosti (2005c) 15.

27. Fr. 453 Kannicht = 10 Jouan-van Looy (‘Peace, with your depths of wealth, most beautiful of the blessed gods, I yearn for you, since you delay your arrival’). See now P. Köln X 398, 15–16 (preserving the reading καί at v.l).

28. IGLS IV 1599 = SGO 22/05/06; IGLS IV 1600 = SGO 22/05/07.

29. IGLS IV 1600 = SGO 22/05/07.11.

30. Feissel (1998) 121 (the first line is iambic).

31. (2): cf. Nonn. P. 1.134, 5.70; (3): cf. Nonn. D. 1.399, 32.54, P. 9.29, 15.105, 16.74; (5): = [Apol.] Met. Pss. πρ 110, Nonn. P. 1.34, 201; (6): cf. Eud. Cypr. 2.374; (7): [Apol.] Met. Pss. 36, 14 (8): cf. Nonn. D. 3.48 , P. 17.11 , Jo. Gaz. 1.159 (8): Call. Ap. 58; Nonn. P. 17.14, D. 5.50, 17.135, 43.3; [Apol.] Met. Pss. 96.8 , 88.22 , 103.18 (and AP 9.808.2 [Cyrus?] ); for ἀστυφέλικτov (11) see e.g. P. 18.48. The use of the rare λυσισήμωv at v.5 (only in [Orph.] H. 2.11 , 59.20 [Moῑραι] λυσιπήμovες, Anacreont. 50.10 West (Pierson: codd. λυσιπαίγμωv) is also noteworthy.

32. Other epigrams from the Syrian limes show a more traditional diction. For instance, IGLS II 296 (Anasartha, second decade of the 5th century CE), reedited and commented by Feissel (2002) 209–20, has some ‘modern features’ in metrics (only B1 caesura, a four-word hexameter, spondees only in the first two feet), but the vocabulary is quite exclusively Homeric.

33. See Gelzer (1975) 297f.; Fournet (1999) 678–80. Dioscorus is the only one who quotes the little known Metaphrase of the Psalms. Now, the local poets from I‘gaz seem to have the same background as Dioscorus: next to the ‘classics’ (Homer, Euripides, Menander) their scholarly education focused on Biblical poets of the mid fifth century CE.

34. Especially in the tenth and twelfth centuries: see the bibliography collected by Gonnelli (2003) 7–21; Magnelli (2004) 184–87; Agosti (2005c) 2. The circulation of the Paraphrase, however, can be better estimated thanks to some epigraphs from Aphrodisias, as I tried to show elsewhere (Agosti [2005cl 19–21).

35. The exact provenance is unknown; the epigram is not reprinted in Bernand (1969).

36. Cf. Keil (1961); Ferrua (1991) 84; a re-edition (not very useful) is offered by De Martino (1997). I am preparing an extensive work on this epigram: for its place in the history of the ‘long epigram’ in late antiquity see Agosti (2008a) 682f.

37. There are no proparoxytones at the end of the verses; the anaphora of 18f. is typically Nonnian (see the material collected by De Stefani [2002] 165 on P. 1.87, and by Agosti [2003] 509f. on P. 5.139f., both with further bibliography). As for the language, note at least (10): Nonn. P. 1.202 = 19.38 = 20.143 (19): D. 44.285 (22): Nonn. P. 3.154; (23): P. 19.114 .

38. For a good example from Scythopolis see SEG 49.2084a , with Magnelli (2005b).

39. Ed. pr. by E. Borgia and M.H. Sayar in Equini Schneider (2003) 538–40.

40. Via Greg. Naz.AP 8.188.1 ?

41. At 3 the periphrase dates back to [Hes.] Sc. 357, but it is a quite common syntagm in epigraphic poetry (variants: ).

42. Cf. Nonn. P. 4.151 ; 6.107 ; 18.32 ; D. 5.42* = 36.480* , 9.236 , et al.

43. Zenodot. AP 7.315.3f. = HE III 3642f. GP , and then Nonn. P. 5.31 : D. 10.151, 361, 368, 18.15* ( as in 42.54); [Pampr.] fr. Irl8 Livrea; Paul. Sil. S. Soph. 296 , Amb. 223 , Georg. Pisid. de Vit. Hum. 82 Gonnelli .

44. Carm. 1.11 F. and P.Cairo Masp. I 67009 rà 5–6. See Fournet (1999) 467 on Diosc. Aphrod. Carm. 2.12 .

45. For πρωτo- compounds see Agosti (2003) 540 on P. 5.175.

46. In the Aphrodisias epigram is the epic translation of πρωτεύωv (the laudandus, John, was one of the πρωτεύovτες of the municipal Council).

47. The fact that in Nonnus the iunctura is a unicum could reveal that he is quoting a model: Agosti (2005c) 20f.

48. See Wifstrand (1933), Vian (1976), Jeffreys (1981), Whitby (1994), Agosti and Gonnelli (1995), Lauxtermann (1999), Magnelli (2008).

49. See Papalexandrou (2001); Cavallo (2006) 54.

50. For earlier examples see SGO 04/24/13 (Philadelphia, Lydia; 1 st/2nd c. CE) (‘prose with poetic terms’ according to Merkelbach and Stauber): but could also scan prosastic beginning + adonean + 5da∧ + hem (Il. 9.134 ).—For similar examples in Latin epigraphs see Cugusi (1996) 395. It is also worth mentioning the interesting PTurner 8 (2 CE), which has surely an iambic sequence, put in ἔκθεσις, followed by prose (the beginning is very difficult to interpret: cr and 3ia, according to M. Haslam).

51. Similar cases are: SGO 10/02/97 (Caesarea, Paphlagonia; 218 CE; epitaph), five dactyls at the beginnings, then prose; SGO 10/02/98 (Caesarea, Paphlagonia; imperial age), one hemistich, then prose; SGO 11/06/02 (Laodicea, Pontus; 4th c. CE) dactyls, then prose.

52. Maas (1910) 11 n.2.

53. Read .

54. But it is also possible to interpret the wordplay as ‘who could not accomplish my education’.

55. Rife (2008). The epitaph was carved on a block later reutilised in the Church of Dormition at Steiri.

56. Cf. e.g. IGBulg I2 222.12, IGLSyr 13.1 9393.11.

57. ‘Segments of the last line fall into dactylic hexameter, and they might have been meant to form a hexameter’, Rife (2008) 134.

58. — ˘ ˘ —x (cf. West [1982] 30).

59. Agosti (1998).

60. Roberts (1989); Eisner (2004) 271–308.

61. See Fournet (1999) 261–64; (2004) 67–70.

62. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 333–53, with further bibliography.

63. Merkelbach (1978).

64. R. Kassel ap. SGO; Livrea (1997) 44: ‘a curious pastiche neither poetic nor prosastic.’

65. For the Homeric epigram that comments upon the mosaic floor in the Basilica A of Nikopolis see Kitzinger (1951) 101–03; Agosti (2004–5) 358f.

66. See Donceel (1987). At the end of line 1 I adopt the correction by Magnelli (2007) 40.

67. Hes. fr. 10a.32 cf. 10a.45 M-W = HHom. Cer. 315 ( also in [Opp.] Cyn. 1.366, 2.231); for see Nonn. D. 1.23, 16.49, 36.304, 36.340, 43.246, 43.409; also in SGO 01/12/11 = SEG 44.886.5 (Halikarnassos, end of the 5th c. CE); Eud. Cypr. 2.120.

68. Cf. Nonn. P. 3.6 , and 5.2 (referring to Jerusalem’s Temple, see Agosti [2003a] 274–83).

69. Epithet of Demeter in HHom.Cer. 54, 192, 492; three occurrences in Nonnus (D. 7.85, 12.263 [Dionysus], 19.44 [Methe]), but never at the end of the verse, as it happens on the contrary in our epigram.

70. GVI 1907; SEG 34.1003; 493 Samama.

71. The term ‘triple-epigram’ would be a more correct definition, according to the text’s threefold partition: 1f. (translated also into Latin), 3–6 and 7–10 (the repetition of ὲvθάδε at 7 clearly marks the beginning of another epigram).

72 (‘among them sweet-words Nestor sprang up, the clear-voiced orator from Pylos, whose voice ran from his tongue sweeter than honey’).

73. As can be easily seen in the recent collection by Samama (2003).

74. For such a phrase one can compare another epigram for a doctor, IG IX 1.881 = 078 Samama (Corcyra, 2nd c. CE), lines 3f. (‘knowing well the valid remedies which keep off diseases, by which he saved many people from death and evil’).

75. See Bowie (1989) 218.

76. Culture and literary ambitions of physicians are not rare: on learned doctors see Samama (2003) 77f., with further bibliography.

77. The reading γέρας (10) has been variously interpreted by scholars (but the only reasonable translation of it would be: ‘our city was his glory’). Feissel (1984) discovered the physician’s true hometown, recognising in γέρας the name of Gerra/Geras, a small town not far from Pelusium. Therefore we can reconstruct Dioscorus’ career: after his birth in Gerra and his studies in Alexandria, he proceeded to Milan, as a probably well-known physician. Local people might have had difficulties in recognising the name of his hometown. It is also possible that in the use of ΓEPAC there was an intentional double entendre by the epigrammatist, to point out that it was in Milan that he had reached the apex of his career. See Feissel (1984) 559.

78. For example in the second half of the fifth century Agapius, known from Damascius’ account, had studied ‘the ancient language beyond the measure of ordinary’ (Life of Isidorus F 127a At.) and was admired as a prodigy by notables in Alexandria for his ‘all round culture’: [cf. v.5 of our epigram, ] (‘for he possessed an all-round culture, wishing to be at once a researcher and a critic in both grammar and rhetoric. And to sum up, he appeared “square” in wisdom and actually was so’). After Zeno’s persecution against pagans Agapius decided to go to Constantinople, where he set up a philosophical and medical school (Life of Isidorus 107). For earlier examples of doctors praised for their culture see the epitaph of Barbas (Paphlagonia, 2nd/3rd c. CE) 321 Samama, (‘Barbas, in culture and medical skill second to nobody, etc.’); or 493 Samama (Ostia, 3rd c. CE) for Hyginus, defined (‘highly wise doctor’).

79. Gascou (1998) 46f.

80. As some other doctors in the Imperial age, Dioscorus was probably also a (‘servant of the Muses’; cf. Theocritus, doctor and poet, 329 Samama [Nikopolis, Armenia, 3rd c. CE]; or Asclepiades, 294 Samama [Aezani, Asia Minor, 2nd/3rd c. CE]).

81. But in the tenth century the funerary epigram for Michael, syncellos of Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus, was composed in Nonnian style, what presupposes acquaintance with Nonnus’ poetry among the cultivated readers of Hagia Sophia as well as the will to exhibit a high literary culture in an inscriptional (i.e. very visible) poem: cf. Sevcenko (1987); Gonnelli (2003) 15f. with further literature.

82. See especially Jeffreys (1981), Agosti and Gonnelli (1995), Agosti (2006a), Magnelli (2008).

83. For this analysis of the late hexameter see Wifstrand (1933); Jeffreys (1981) 315–19; Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 356; Lauxtermann (1999) 71–73.

84. See Cavallo (2006), with copious bibliography on the subject; focused on the Byzantine erotic novel but full of useful material wisely interpreted is the article by Agapitos (2006). On late poetry and oral performance see Agosti (2006a) 40–60.

85. Among the recent contributions Cavallo (2007) 151–56 and Majcherek (2007) 11–49, are particularly useful in this perspective.

86. An admirable exception is the article by Papalexandrou (2001).

87. But this is a point not to be underestimated, since Nonnus soon became a poet read at school, as Dioscorus of Aphrodito dramatically shows (cf. n.33 above for Dioscorus’ culture).

88. Agosti (2003a) 61–80.

89. comes from Nonn. D. 1.93 (see the commentary by Vian [1976] 140).

90. Feissel (2003) 502 n.20: ‘La longueur des lignes est délibérément inégale, selon la place variable des césures dans les hexamétres…et dans les pentamètres…. Conditionnée par la métrique, la mise en page imposait au lapicide de dilater ou de resserrer ses lignes, de 19 lettres à la ligne 1 jusqu’à 29 lettres à la ligne 7, sans compter les vacat plus o moins importants à la fin de certaines lignes (2,6 et 9) et probablement au début de certaines autres (3,4 et 6).’

91. IG XIV 14; Manganaro (1958–9) 18; see also Manganaro (1994) 79–95.

92. According to Fränkel’s terminology (see n.21 above).

93. Cf. Jeffreys (1981) 315–19, Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 356, Lauxtermann (1999) 71.

94. I wish to thank Katerina Carvounis and Richard Hunter for inviting me to the conference (and for their patience), and Alessandro Bausi, Alessandro Linguiti and Enrico Magnelli for their comments on the first draft of this paper.