Ruins

Abstract

Abstract Latinists as a group remain wary of theory, and especially wary of literary theory. So many ancient works beg for study and present so many specific problems of language, style, and interpretation that we often think it distracting or even self-indulgent to divert attention from the literature we serve to our method of serving it. Yet the introspective exercise that theory entails is not entirely frivolous, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Karl Lehrs warned long ago against unthinking invocations of method, and one good check on that recurring temptation is a clear awareness of the assumptions on which our scholarly method is based.1 The need for such introspection is especially keen as we confront a subject as problematic and demanding as early Roman epic. The relevant poems are in fragments. Little is known of their creators, and much of what is said about them is fiction. The conditions that encouraged their work are poorly attested and even more poorly understood. Historical, textual, and aesthetic problems are thus inextricably bound, challenging our technical skill and critical acumen even as they tax our patience. What can we realistically hope to learn from such difficult and often uncongenial material?