Inconsistency in Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan

Portada
Cambridge University Press, 2007 M04 19
How should we react as readers and as critics when two passages in a literary work contradict one another? Classicists once assumed that all inconsistencies in ancient texts needed to be amended, explained away, or lamented. Building on recent work on both Greek and Roman authors, this book explores the possibility of interpreting inconsistencies in Roman epic. After a chapter surveying Greek background material including Homer, tragedy, Plato and the Alexandrians, five chapters argue that comparative study of the literary use of inconsistencies can shed light on major problems in Catullus' Peleus and Thetis, Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, Vergil's Aeneid, Ovid's Metamorphoses, and Lucan's Bellum Civile. Not all inconsistencies can or should be interpreted thematically, but numerous details in these poems, and some ancient and modern theorists, suggest that we can be better readers if we consider how inconsistencies may be functioning in Greek and Roman texts.
 

Páginas seleccionadas

Contenido

Sección 1
18
Sección 2
32
Sección 3
33
Sección 4
34
Sección 5
41
Sección 6
44
Sección 7
47
Sección 8
55
Sección 12
85
Sección 13
91
Sección 14
104
Sección 15
108
Sección 16
114
Sección 17
118
Sección 18
121
Sección 19
123

Sección 9
56
Sección 10
69
Sección 11
77
Sección 20
128
Sección 21
131
Sección 22
136

Otras ediciones - Ver todas

Términos y frases comunes

Acerca del autor (2007)

James J. O'Hara is George L. Paddison Professor of Latin at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is the author of Death and the Optimistic Prophecy in Vergil's Aeneid (1990) and True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (1996), as well as numerous articles and reviews on Latin literature.

Información bibliográfica