| dc.description.abstract | ABSTRACT
This dissertation consists of two closely related cases studies, exploring temple ecphrases in Augustan poetry.
In the first case study I will examine the intertextual relationship between the description of the poetic temple in the proem to Virgil s third Georgic (Georg. 3.1-48) and Propertius temple ecphrasis in elegy 2.31. By reading each of these two ecphrases in the light of the
allusions that I observe, a new interpretation unfolds which will have an effect upon our understanding of both texts. This will, hopefully, support my initial supposition that the temple ecphrasis in Propertius 2.31 is not merely an ornamental prelude to the following elegy 2.32, but in fact programmatic statement which enables the poet to show how his poetic project distances itself from that of his predecessor.
In the second case study, I will investigate how Callimachus use of ( envy ) as a metaphor for his literary opponents is adopted (imitatio) and transformed (aemulatio) by the Latin poets, as a vehicle for expressing literary statements. Catullus alludes to this when, as I will attempt to show, he defends his mistress from criticism caused by invidia ( envy ). Callimachus metaphor is also adopted by Virgil, who introduces the personified Invidia at
the end of the proem to the third Georgic, following the description of his poetic temple. I will argue that the combination of temple ecphrasis and Callimachean envy became a poetic motif
in Virgil s successors Propertius and Ovid. Based on the observations in these studies, I will argue that the combination of Callimachean
envy and temple ecphrasis became a forum where the Augustan poets could reveal to what extent their poetic programmes were indebted to and differed from those of their predecessors. The identification of one poem s allusions to another (or others) provides both poems with a new contextual framework, which may support or alter the way they have traditionally been interpreted. And the allusions that I draw attention to will make me able to suggest some new readings which may alter our understanding of these texts and call attention to some features of poetic development.
Finally, my study also presents arguments in favour of reuniting Propertius elegies 2.31 and 32. These two poems, which are treated as a single unit in all extant manuscripts, were separated in Renaissance editions, and have continued to be separated in modern editions. I argue that the themes of envy and ecphrasis unite these elegies, and I believe that reuniting them will not only remove the poem s obscurities, but also contribute to our understanding of
Propertius poetic programme and of how his poetry relates to the poetry of his preceding and contemporary Roman poets. | nor |