 |
VincentHunink.nl |
|
|
|
Vincent
Hunink text
published in: Mnemosyne
55, 2002, 381-3;
Latin
hymns are by no means exclusively Christian in nature. This clearly shows in the
new Italian study by La Bua (LB), that counts well over 500 pages without
dealing with any Christian texts at all. LB discusses pagan Latin hymnographic
texts from the earliest, archaic authors until Martianus Capella, Boethius and
the Carmina Latina Epigraphica. It is an impressive, learned book (some 1900
footnotes, 100 pages of bibliography and an index locorum), that covers just
about all relevant texts in the field.
The study opens on a theoretical
section (1-89) that deals with the history and definition of the term both in
Greek and Latin (where it is first attested in a fragment of Seneca), the laus
deorum in epideictic rhetoric, the codification of the genre in Greek
literature, and the specific form it receives in Latin literature. More than in
Greek literature, Latin hymns appear to be integrated into other genres (e.g.
lyric or epic; see also F. Cairns, Generic composition in Greek and Roman
poetry, Edinburgh 1972, 91-92). Meanwhile, hymnic texts are characterized by
typical, well-known elements, such as the invocation and address of a person or
power (`"Du"-stil'), the reference to earlier benefits and the request
for further favours.
The rest of the book (91-436) consists
of a more or less full inventory of Latin poetic texts that qualify as hymns,
arranged in chronological order. In each case, LB briefly describes the text,
analyzes its structure, and discusses its relations to other hymnic texts,
giving some additional remarks on specific topics and with relevant bibliography
in the notes. To his credit, LB has not hesitated to include virtually unknown
or scarcely read authors like Caesius Bassus, Optatianus Porphyrius, or
Tiberianus. His main interest, however, is doubtless the Augustan era, which is
given as many pages as the entire rest of the Imperial Period. So it is Vergil,
Ovid, and above all Horace, who, once again, receive the prominent places in the
book.
In such an enormous volume, there are,
inevitably, things one disagrees with or which seem missing. I will limit myself
to just one or two examples, and focus on some issues of wider importance. To
start with the former, it may be regarded as a pity that no discussion has been
included of the archaic prayers in Cato's De agricultura. Even if these
can be ruled out on formal grounds as `prose' texts (although the matter seems
rather debatable), the wealth of details that link these texts to the hymnic
(sub)genre, as well as their sheer antiquity and importance as specimens of
Roman prayer, would surely have merited an exception. On an editorial note, one
would have welcomed the use of summaries or clear subdivisions, especially in
the longer discussions of Augustan poets.
As a matter of principle, I do feel
quite happy with the strict division line that is drawn between Christian and
non-Christian texts. In present day studies of ancient history and history of
art, this division line, that once seemed to be so clear-cut, tends to become
blurred and vague, and it is often shown to be far less sharp than used to be
taken for granted. Literary studies, however, mostly continue along the old line
of thought, although there are many reasons to discuss the division between
pagan and Christian here too. The (sub)genre of hymnography, with its dominant
religious overtones, would even have provided a splendid test-case here, since
there seem to be so many structural parallels between pagan and Christian hymns.
One would, therefore, have liked to see some discussion of the continuity of the
motifs and topoi, rather than find the traditional watershed. This line of
enquiry would, indeed, have brought something new in the study, for
theoretically it hardly moves beyond Cairns' 1972 study. In practical terms, it
can be easily defended that LB has limited the field to non-Christian texts, so
as to prevent the book from acquiring excessive dimensions. On the other hand,
it could also be said that an `intercultural' approach would have required a
sensible restriction of the material to be analyzed in detail. With all due
respect for either Horace or Optatianus Porphyrius, one may argue that some
curbing would indeed have seemed possible.
On a more practical note, given the
often detailed readings of texts, I regularly wondered why LB chose to write a
full, descriptive inventory, rather than e.g. an lavish anthology of Latin texts
with a generic commentary. Surely, the commentary form would have made the
material more accessible to readers, and would have formed a stronger invitation
to actually read and compare some of the texts in question.
These critical remarks refer to what
the study could have done or what it might have been. Being as it is, it may
still be said to be of considerable value, in that it discusses many famous and
lesser-known texts. LB provides scholars with much relevant material concerning
pagan hymns in Latin, and allows them to follow the development of the subgenre
in Latin literature, where it seems to have become ever more present and
conspicuous, given the late Latin examples. One cannot help thinking that this
is not an autonomous evolution within pagan literature, but rather a sign of its
interaction with Christian literature, that had gradually become dominant. latest changes here: 30-07-2012 16:01 |
|
|
