I am far out of my depth here but does 'barbarica' really have the implications of English 'barbaric' or 'barbarian'? (I always thought it simply meant 'foreign', i.e. not Greek or Roman.) Someone (my wife I think) once told me that it was like our British expression 'rhubarb, rhubarb' used to described people saying something boring or unintelligible. The word was coined, in a sense, as a parody of foreign tongues.
So might 'barbarica' mean simply 'foreign' or, less pejoratively, 'exotic', or something difficult or impossible to understand? BTW, would the forgotten article be: Fowler, D., "Deviant Focalisation in Virgil's Aeneid," PCPS 36 (1990)? I found this via a web search and haven't a clue what PCPS is. Patrick Roper > I am generally in favour of looking at ancient literature > with modern > methods: at least there is some useful terminology. I read > an article > recently on focalisation - an example of useful > terminology? some might > disagree - in the context of 'ope barbarica' in Aen.II > (503-4). (I have > lost the > reference to this article; I don't know if anyone can remind me?) > Aeneas uses the term OPE BARBARICA in reference to the > architecture and > decorative art of Troy - here V follows a predecessor, I > think Naevius, in > a passage that was a favourite of Cicero. Thinking of the > focalisation of > this phrase seems quite helpful. Does it mean: > WHAT THE GREEKS CALL BARBARIC? - this makes A's words into > a scornful > comment on the violent 'cultural imperialism' from which he > had suffered > WHAT YOU (DIDO, BEING ADDRESSED HERE) CALL BARBARIC? - Dido > is a Tyrian > but her aesthetic sense is Greek: her Temple to Juno is > clearly in Greek > style. Is Aeneas acknowledging, perhaps unconsciously, a sense of > underlying hostility between himself and Dido? > WHAT EVEN I NOW THINK OF AS SOMEWHAT BARBARIC? Both Dido > and Aeneas are > easterners who have moved west - Aeneas has spent 7 years > wandering in > Greek-influenced places. In this sense the word conveys > some solidarity > with Dido rather than hostility to her, and perhaps conveys > even more > strongly a sense of anguish that Aeneas now, even with all > his resentments > against the Greeks, is beginning to think in Greek ways. > All these three focalisations can be combined to give this > startling word > something like its full (?) meaning. - Martin Hughes > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Paul Roche wrote: > > > Dear Listmembers, > > I have a question about lit-crit style approaches to > Virgil: I desperately want a response and perspectives from > listmembers on both sides of the Atlantic would be > particularly appreciated, so come on people now, smile on > your brother etc. > > First up: > > I've just read Hinds' monograph "Allusion and Intertext" > (I really liked it). Also I've found myself reading a lot > of material on Latin Epic from the pages of Ramus and from > scholars of what Don Fowler once called the "New Latin" > (Arachnion #2: Arachnion. A Journal of Ancient Literature > and History on the Web, nr. 2 - http://www.cisi.unito.it/arachne/num2/fowler.html). I am very late to critical theory and its application to Classical Literature (until very recently, my main area of research was propaganda in the Roman Empire - especially the Flavians and Trajan - as it applied to state control of Art and Architecture). My lateness to these theories and their application was, initially, exactly proportional to my excitement. To really showcase the belated nature of my introduction to this area (fatebor enim), I was turned onto Don Fowler's work in this field by Philip Hardie's review of his "Roman Constructions", and through his chapters in the Martindale edited "Cambridge Companion to Virgil". From these beginnings, Hardie's own contribution to the "Roman Literature and its Contexts" series: "The Epic Successors..."; the well known book by Jamie Masters on Lucan; Henderson's articles on Lucan and Statius; and on, and on, and on. I was at the stage where I was really getting dazzled when I read E J Kenney's comments in the current Classical Review, especially as they apply to narratology. Kenney suggested that a lot of narratology is concerned with rationalising instinctive responses to texts and wondered (in regard to one of the books under review - the Horace one) whether the effort invested was commensurate with the results such approaches achieved. > O.K., now: > My own main concern here is with narratology, but I would like to get listmembers perspectives on what they feel are the pertinent theoretical approaches to Latin Literature now, especially Epic, especially Virgil. > 1. We should start with a glib one. Am I too late? Is the work already done? > 2. What are the 'classic' works which approach epic in this manner? In March Leofranc Holford-Strevens > recommended the Fowler JRS articles and "Roman Constructions": what else? what are the 'best books/articles'? I need a little guidance. > Because the answer to 1 is no, 3. Aside from each approach only being as good as the book/reading/scholar who uses it what, in the opinion of the members, are the most useful approaches to Latin Epic: what has not been done, and what seems to be a good avenue to explore now. > I've been good: now it's your turn to do your part for your list brother. > I look forward to hearing from you all, > Paul Roche, > UQ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply. Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply. Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub
