Literarni zgodovinarji izraz sphragis, »pečat«, pogosto uporabljajo v pomenu avtorskega »podpisa«, ki je vključen v besedilo – ne kot informativni paratekst, temveč kot vdor empirične resničnosti v ...literarno delo. V antiki se beseda nikdar ne pojavlja kot tehnični termin, vendar jo je v metaforičnem pomenu uporabil že Teognis iz Megare (najbrž iz 6. stoletja pr. Kr.). Teognis svoj »pečat« predstavi kot zaščito besedila pred krajo, spreminjanjem in skvaritvijo, vendar se interpreti razhajajo ob vprašanju, kaj je s pečatom mišljeno: vpis avtorjevega imena v besedilo, ponavljajoči se nagovor Teognisovemu ljubimcu Kirnu, ali pa kar pečat v dobesednem smislu, kot zaščita fizičnega besedila. Razprava se v glavnem vrti okrog vprašanja, v kolikšni meri je Teognisova metafora povezana z zapisom: je Teognis svoje pesmi razumel kot zapisana besedila, ki jih je treba zaščititi pred spremembami in plagiatorstvom? Pričujoči prispevek pušča odprto vprašanje razmerja med pisnim in ustnim izrazom ter zaščite avtorstva; njegova poglavitna teza je, da Teognisovi strahovi, povezani z (ustno) objavo pesmi, že napovedujejo avtorsko tesnobo in ekskluzivistično držo rimskih pesnikov avgustejske dobe.
The Augustan poets often modelled their recusationes on Callimachus’ portrayal of Apollo in the Aetia Prologue. The paper discusses parallel passages in Horace’s oeuvre, illustrating some typical ...characteristics of Horace’s poetry and of his attitude to his poetic models. After a brief introduction, the paper first touches on three poems by Horace where the role of Callimachus’ Apollo is taken over by another deity: the Muse in C. 1.6.10-12, Venus in C. 1.19.9-12, and adeus (presumably Cupid) in Epod. 14.6-8. The three examples display similarities to, rather than identity with, the Callimachean situation: instead of supplying a direct quote, Horace merely reports the words of a ῾higher power’ which allegedly prevented him from writing what he wanted or what was expected of him. In the two Odes Horace thus refuses to compose an epic, while Epode 14 is not a typical recusatio: Horace’s polished iambics paradoxically profess his inability to compose iambic poetry, and his preference for erotic lyric poetry. The next section focuses on Satire 1.10.31-35, which portrays the Roman god Quirinus warning the young poet in a dream that writing Greek verse is pointless. An analysis of this complex programmatic satire reveals continual departures from, and approximations to, Callimachean poetic, as Horace interweaves several, at times clearly irreconcilable, traditions. Indeed, Callimachean poetic itself is not unequivocal or monolithic but contains many tensions. The short fourth section discusses Horace’s prayer to Mercury in Satire 2.6.13-15. Although superficially lacking a ῾programmatic’ dimension, the satire in fact contains several allusions to Callimachus. It serves to show that Horace’s images function at several levels at once, and that his satires closely interweave ethics with aesthetics. The final and longest section focuses on Horace’s last poem, C. 4.15. In the first strophe, Horace is finally given a warning by Apollo himself. Of all the passages discussed, this one comes closest to the description of Callimachus’ Apollo in the Aetia Prologue. Besides a detailed analysis of the similarities and contrasts between the two poets’ portrayals of Apollo, the fifth section includes a comparison with Vergil’s sixthEclogue and Propertius’ third book of elegies, which undoubtedly served as Horace’s models as well. A prominent function is given to the metaphor of seafaring, which is linked by all three Roman poets to the composition of epic poetry. The paper, moreover, underlines the surprising continuation of Ode 4.15: rather than retreat into bucolic or erotic poetry, as might be expected, Horace openly launches into an ode heralding a new Aeneid and evoking ancient hymnic poetry. Even in the final poem, Horace’s Apollo thus testifies to Horace’s originality in reworking his models.
PDF
