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

Front Cover
Cambridge University Press, Apr 19, 2007 - History
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.
 

Selected pages

Contents

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

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

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

About the author (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.

Bibliographic information