348 PHOENIX Recent Nonnian scholarship emphasises the debt of late antique poetry to Latin literature.3 Similarly, Montiglio includes Musaeus’ Latin models in her discussion. The author, wisely perhaps, does not draw her uninitiated reader into the very thorny (for classicists at least) issue of the poem’s characterisation as an epyllion, with which she deals just briefly (4). Montiglio stresses the poem’s sympathetic description of the two lovers, argues against it being a Christian Neoplatonic allegory,4 and downplays Musaeus’ alleged Christianity: “he could have been a Christian, but this cannot be proven,” “the new religion apparently did not leave any imprint on the poem of M” (4). She also gives a wonderful glimpse into Hero’s body language (24). The overall impression from reading Montiglio’s commentary is that it is in line with the general humanist approach to the poem as a “tragic love story.” By downplaying, however, the Christian environment in which the poem circulated, irrespective of its author’s actual religious inclination, the analysis remains focused more on the poem’s literary themes and less on its late antique contextualization. Although Montiglio highlights the poet’s debt to Nonnus, notes his adoption of the late antique themes of light and darkness (18), and even detects a (rather implausible in my view) centonic use of Homer at line 4 (69), these references are mainly stylistic. The analysis favors Ovidian and Hellenistic intertextuality at the expense of Christian models, as for instance the allusion at line 139 (86) to Luke 11:27 (“most blessed the womb that brought you forth”). However, given the current explosion of Nonnian studies and the scholarly focus on classicizing biblical poetry in late antiquity, the Christian lens might have offered a further glimpse into the poem’s Sitz im Leben. For example, the discussion of Hero’s virginity may have been perceived differently by a Christian audience; the violent intoxication, bondage, and rape of the tecnophagus Nonnian Aura (whom Montiglio compares with Hero at 22) is evocative of the late antique taste for gore, androgynous bodies, and extreme sexual violence that hardly has its equivalent in this poem, but which may serve as a foil against which this love story can be read. Certainly, no single edition can cover all themes, but the above observations are indicative of the disciplinary fragmentation between classical and Christian literary production and may highlight further research pathways. Overall, the present edition is a welcome and useful contribution to the study of Musaeus that, together with the two recent monographs on its reception, will further the field. Cambridge Anna Lefteratou Classicism and Christianity in Late Antique Latin Poetry. By Philip Hardie. Berkeley, California: University of California Press (Sather Classical Lectures 74). 2019. Pp. viii, 293. In this volume, based upon his six Sather lectures delivered at Berkeley in 2016, Philip Hardie turns his critical gaze to the Latin poetry of late antiquity, particularly that of 3 For example, K. Carvounis and S. Papaioannou, “Nonnus’ Dionysiaca and the Latin Tradition: The Episode of Ampelus,” in F. Doroszewski and K. Jaz̄dz̄ewska (eds.), Nonnus of Panopolis in Context 3: Old Questions and New Perspectives (Leiden 2020) 119–138. 4 Argued by Gelzer in Trypanis et al. (see above, n. 1) 316–322. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 349 the so-called Theodosian renaissance in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. In eight thematically organized chapters he explores the reception of Latin literature of the late republic and early empire in late antique Latin authors, both Christian and pagan: “Farewells and Returns—Ausonius and Paulinus of Nola” (Chapter One); “Virgilian Plots—Public Ideologies and Private Journeys” (Chapter Two); “Cosmos—Classical and Christian Universes” (Chapter Three); “Concord and Discord: Concordia Discors” (Chapter Four); “Innovations of Late Antiquity: Novelty and Renouatio” (Chapter Five); “Paradox , Mirabilia, Miracles” (Chapter Six); “Allegory” (Chapter Seven); “Mosaics and Intertextuality ” (Chapter Eight). Binding together and interweaving these chapters is a nuanced re-evaluation of the attempts to define a characteristic aesthetic or poetics of late antique Latin poetry (as distinct from that of earlier Latin poetry) that lie at the heart of much of the recent and bourgeoning scholarship on late antique poetry.1 Hardie also...
Read full abstract
Jun 23, 2024
Justyna Kroczak 
Open Access
