Inconsistency in Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan (Roman Literature and Its Contexts) by James J. O'Hara

Abstract

408 PHOENIX believedwas his situation?thenwe will inevitably have difficulty inunderstanding what Cicero is trying todo, in this work and elsewhere.Indeed, theemphasis inGildenhard's book upon theprefaces may unwittingly contributeto an assumptionthatthe intellectual and argumentative content of Cicero's philosophical writings does not merit our serious engagement. This isa denselyarguedbookwhich offers most to thereader who is willing to engage closely with its clause-by-clause and word-by-word readings; but its style is remarkably lucidand itsexcellentindices make iteasy tonavigateforspecific passages and topics. It is, nonetheless, most rewardingly read as awhole, which does a great deal to fulfil its bold, and undeniably counter-intuitive, opening claim of revealing the Tusculans as a "profoundly original work" (vii). University of Glasgow Catherine Steel Inconsistency in Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan. By James J.O'Hara. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress (Roman Literature and Its Contexts). 2007. Pp. xiv, 165. In another fine volume from this notable series, O'Hara explores the topic of inconsis tencyin five Latin epic poets; he is surelyrightto regard Catullus 64 andLucretius (and indeed Ovid's Metamorphoses) as belonging to epos in ancient terms. O'Hara's main contentions are that major inconsistencies have interpretative value in indicatingliterary and/orideologicalpurposes,and thatthisisan establishedfeature of the epic genre, often highlighted at a poem's beginning; this naturally favours the "unitarian" approach (inconsistencies express something key to the work) over the "analytical" one (theyare oversights or transmissionslippages). In his first chapter (8-32) he establishes that such inconsistencies go back not just to hellenistic precedent (e.g., the issue ofwhether the Argo is the first ship isalreadyraised in Apollonius) but toHomer; he isnot afraidto admit that some inconsistencies demand an analytical explanation (e.g., the dual verbs in the embassy of Iliad Book 9, clearly looking back to a two-person delegation at an earlier stage of composition), but lays down some important principles for the unitarian approach: the needs of the particular scene or dramatic episode are often more important than overall consistency, and accordingly we should not require ancient epics to show an anachronistic interestindeep and consistentcharacterisation(nor tragedies:he righdyalludes to the work ofTycho vonWilamowitz-Moellendorf), while the tendencyof ancient epos to allude toalternative forms of itsplotsandmyths isestablishedfromtheearliestpoint (e.g., Helen is linked with bothTroy andEgypt intheOdyssey, alludingto twoseparate versions of her travels). The chapteronCatullus 64 (33-54) looksat theoft-notedinconsistency thatthe Argo here seems tobe the first ship (64.11) while the flashback passage of 64.51-264 clearly shows Theseus sailing(64.53).O'Hara tiesthisup nicely with the matching inconsistency on thematter of heroic virtue (the famous vestis is said to contain heroum virtutes but all we get is thedeserting Theseus, and thegreat Achilles of theFates' prophecyisa homicidal maniac?the wonderfullyironicquareof line372 isrighdy highlighted),and points to the irony created by the contrast between the internal narrator and audience and the knowing impliedreader.One could indeed argue further that thepoem highlightstheproblem of reliability at itsverybeginningby prominendypresentingthewhole storyas hearsay BOOKREVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 409 (dicuntur, 64.2). This is all nicely done: Iwould have also welcomed some account of the poem's complexend, which containsfurther potential inconsistency with itsopening (the "modern" vices listed of, e.g., fratricide and incest are of course famously prominent in the heroic period). The chapteron Lucretius (55-76) mainly considersthefamously paradoxicalopening of the poem, inwhich the goddess Venus is called on to intervene inRome in an Epicurean work which otherwise regards divine non-intervention as axiomatic and indeed notes this prominentlyin the same proem (1.44-49, rightly retained in the text).O'Hara neatly linksthis with the traditionalidea of the "anti-LucretiusinLucretius," andmakes the essential points for the modern reader: the conventional Roman reader is being moved from familiar and traditional material in the divine invocation to a new philosophical view of the world, and there are clear tensions between Epicurean serenity and rationality and poetic traditionand passion. One might usefullyadd that it is inorder topackage the revolutionary with theconventionalthatLucretius adopts thefamiliar but alreadyhighly archaic style of the century-old school author Ennius, a complete contrast with themodern style of the contemporary Catullus 64. The chapteron the Aeneid (77-104) contains an excellentcollectionof the (many) inconsistent variant...