In one of his Epistles, Horace famously uses the expression [rerum] concordia discors (1.12.19) to describe Empedocles’ vision of how the fighting force of elements in nature paradoxically produces harmony. Indeed, this was a laudable philosophical position to take while engaged in administrative activities, as was the case for the addressee of Horace’s letter, Iccius, who at that moment labored on behalf of Agrippa in Sicily. This motif appears in poetry, particularly in relation to how the skillful and almost thaumaturgic poet can compete with the forces of nature in order to accomplish his enterprise. As a literary topos it is addressed throughout antiquity, consider, e.g., Empedocles’ fragments ([Laks-Most] P16–17 with D4; D41; D43–44) or the Orphic reference in the first preface of Dracontius’ Romulea (1.10–11).
The late antique poet Claudian often deals with the motif of nature, the impressive phenomena of the cosmos and the bold and skillful artist (read, a poet like himself) who, through his ars, his very poetry, creates something that competes and surpasses nature itself. The metapoetic tension that arises from such a certamen can be clearly seen in numerous poems of his oeuvre, as for example in the so-called Sphere of Archimedes (c.m. 51). There, Jupiter sarcastically envies the perfect representation of the universe the Syracusan mathematician had invented (and which, at the same time, is nothing else than the very poem we are reading, i.e. Claudian’s own quasi-demiurgical creation). We see a similar tendency in the series of Latin and Greek epigrams dedicated to a piece of crystalline ice that contained flowing water within (c.m. 33-39; epigrammata Graeca 4-5): through the poet’s voice they render a mesmerizing sort of microcosm.
In the last decades, work on late antique poetry, and on Claudian in particular, has (deservedly) burgeoned, as his poetic techniques and generic characteristics have found the attention they have long merited. The latest additions to this field are two monographs from the University of Gießen. Both books—the results of, respectively, Wiebke Nierste’s and Leon Schmieder’s dissertations—constitute a sort of binominal: not only do they appear in two consecutive volumes in De Gruyter’s Millennium-Studien series and deal with Claudian, ekphrasis, and late antique (meta)poetics, but they also share a similar mode of analysis and approach.[1]
In particular, Nierste’s book focuses on the thematic contrast between “nature” and “art” in Claudian, in particular in the carmina minora (c.m.) and, to a lesser degree, in De raptu Proserpinae (DRP) and selected carmina maiora. More specifically, Nierste focuses on the poetological implications of ars and natura as a motif in Claudian’s compositions. As Nierste remarks, such an analysis should help to identify the “inter- and intratextual references” (p. 5) Claudian seems to build for readers within his poems in order to guide their reading (“als Mittel der Leserlenkung”, p. 286) and invite them to compare different passages within the carmina minora and DRP. Nierste states that her observations are based on three main pillars: (1) the natura-ars contrast, (2) the idea of the concordia discors in passages regarding “nature” and “art”, and (3) the implications of “inter- and intratextuality” in Claudianic metapoetics (p. 5). And one could summarize Nierste’s most important findings by anticipating the main conclusions of her investigation: (1) the contrast between the poet’s ars and natura’s force is indeed a central motif in Claudian’s work, (2) Claudian does stylize himself as poeta artifex—i.e. as a poet who, through his verses, competes with, and is able to surpass, nature—and (3) Claudian’s poems actually develop inter- and intratextual strategies to direct the reader’s attention.
Nierste’s book consists of five chapters: (1) an introduction; (2) the main analysis, subdivided into five parts; (3) a sort of preview of the implications of Nierste’s theses (“Ausblick”) on DRP and IV Hon.; (4) a summary; and (5) an appendix with word tables and passages of (untranslated) Latin and Greek texts that serve as references (“Belegstellen”) for the analyzed corpus of carmina minora. Bibliography and indices conclude the book.
The book analyses in depth the following poems (in order of appearance in the book, I quote Bernstein’s English titles): c.m. 51 (Archimedes’s sphere); 33–39 (series On an ice crystal); 29 (The magnet); 9 (The porcupine); 49 (The electric eel); 26 (Aponus); 46–48 (series on different gifts from Serena to Honorius and Arcadius), as well as app. (or spur.) 4 (= Charlet’s/Bernstein’s c.m. 48b: A belt sent by Serena to the emperor Arcadius). Nierste also focuses on the following passages of DRP: 1.246–272 (Proserpina’s unfinished cloak), 2.40–54 (Proserpina’s tunic), and 71–118 (the flowers in Mt. Aetna’s meadow), and of IV Hon.: 585–601 (Honorius’ consular robe).[2]
Nierste’s book deals with highly relevant aspects of Claudian’s poetics. Its central thesis on the function of internal references is also convincingly argued. Her analyses are meticulous and the use of secondary bibliography is very comprehensive (with the only exception of Meunier’s rich study on Claudian’s poetics,[3] which Nierste acknowledges she was not able to incorporate into her work).[4]
Despite the commendable qualities of this work, I want to highlight two main issues that may be considered if not problematic, at least regrettable.
First, the general structure of the study seems to hinder a more convincing presentation of Nierste’s argument. The reading experience of the main chapters can, at times, be rather fatiguing: the different analyses are often structured in an overtly encapsulated and repetitive way, with hyperextended outlines on every subject.
Let’s take, for example, the central subchapter in chapter 2 (“2.2 Mineralische Mirabilia”), about the series of epigrams on the ice crystal (c.m. 33–39, a total of slightly over 40 lines) that runs almost hundred pages (pp. 53–151). After minutely describing what the subchapter will cover (“2.2.1 Der Kristall”), Nierste develops her study. We first find an outline about the crystal as a motif in 19th and 20th century aesthetic discourse (“2.2.1.1. Das Kristalline”) and as a motif in ancient literature (in particular in the Hellenistic period, “2.2.1.2 Der Kristall in der antiken Literatur”). Then we are introduced to Claudian’s crystal epigrams, with said introduction mainly discussing the “seriality” of the composition (i.e. the question of whether the epigrams transmitted in most codices as a single poem build a series, as is commonly accepted, or not; “2.2.1.3 Claudians Kristallepigramme”). Immediately after this we find an explanation of the analysis that will follow (“2.2.1.3.1 Vorgehen”), for which Nierste proposes a quadruple structure referring to (a) “Content and linguistic-stylistic forming”, (b) “Serial references”, (c) “Association horizon”, i.e. intertextual references, and (d) “Summary”. We now, finally, come to the analyses of the seven compositions. Some of these (“2.2.1.3.2 carmen 33”, “2.2.1.3.2 carmen 34”, “2.2.1.3.5 carmen 36”) follow the quadruple structure (letters a to d), while others do not conform to that framework and, instead, enfold five, six, or even eight subdivisions (“2.2.1.3.3 carmen 34”, “2.2.1.3.4 carmen 35”, “2.2.1.3.6 carmen 37”, “2.2.1.3.7 carmen 38”). Conversely, one receives only a shorter, three-part structure (“2.2.1.3.8 carmen 39“). Some include one single summary, others include two of them; the last analysis (carmen 39) has no summary at all. The summarized information of the conclusion (“2.2.1.3.9 Fazit”) is persuasively presented: on the basis of the textual tradition and the thematic content, we can certainly consider the epigrams on the ice crystal as a series; such a series consists of three smaller thematic groups (c.m. 33–35; 36–38; 39); further, Claudian plays with the motif of the tension between nature and the poet, both as a mesmerizing creator (artifex); and it is also clear which literary models Claudian follows or varies, in particular regarding the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition (whose poetology however differs from Claudian’s, since Claudian would engage himself more in rendering the “artificialization of the natural wonders” [p. 151] in a poetological way, rather than merely describing it in an aesthetically pleasing manner). Readers, however, might already be rather exhausted by the time they get to this point.
Besides this issue of structure, there are also some inconsistencies in terms of content. A minor example is the differentiation of preface and proem. When Nierste analyzes the well-known short poem on the magnet, c.m. 29 (“2.2.2 Der Magnetstein”), she divides the poem into five sections. The first part of the analysis is dedicated to what Nierste calls a “praefatio”, i.e. the first nine lines of the poem (“2.2.2.1 praefatio”). Here, Nierste explicitly refers (p. 153 n. 291) to the characteristics Fritz Felgentreu highlights in his monograph on Claudian’s praefationes.[5] Felgentreu, however, emphatically argues for a differentiated consideration of the terms prooemium and praefatio, understanding (late) antique praefationes as “all prefatory texts by ancient authors that are not integrated into the main work, [i.e. that are] formally separate from it, while the term prooemium stands for the introductory part of a larger text” (p. 17, my translation). He accordingly deals only with Claudian’s paratextual praefationes, which accordingly do not include c.m. 29 (nor its proem) at all. Reading Nierste’s considerations about the characteristics of the opening lines of c.m. 29, however, one might get the impression that there is a misunderstanding in regard to what Felgentreu considers a praefatio and a proem. As a consequence of this, Nierste’s analyses of this phenomenon—for instance, a reference to the apparently “typical sonority of the praefationes” (p. 154)—unfortunately become questionable.
Other inconsistencies are more relevant: some important passages in Claudian are strikingly absent from the analysis. A noteworthy example is the crucial role of Nature in c.m. 53 (the Latin Gigantomachy). In this poem, Natura is opposed to what we find in DRP—an entity “capable d’intervenir et modifier le cours des choses” (Meunier 2019: 441) and, thus, capable of competing with Jupiter—. In c.m. 53 she is subject to the wrath of Tellus, the Giants, and the Olympics, all of them ready to destroy her in order to triumph (see, especially, lines 29–32 and, more explicitly, 60–65). Moreover, her appearance in c.m. 53 can also be read as a metapoetic device of the poet expressing his own (creative or destructive) influence on the world. To this discussion, one might also add the personified Natura in Stil. 2.424–445: (in Hall’s edition) she is parens, like in DRP 1.250, or at least potens (in Charlet’s edition). This Natura plays a poetically fascinating role because of her mysterious and paradoxical characterization as an old and beautiful woman, who incarnates the force of creation and order (on this see Guipponi-Gineste 2010: 175). She exists beyond the sphere of the divine (vix adeunda deis, Stil. 2.425) and is not only the guardian of the cosmos, but also the origin of life itself (on this see Meunier 2019: 442–444). At the same time, in Claudian’s epic universe, she serves the worldly existence of Stilicho and Honorius and is, thus, somehow subordinated to the poet’s voice. Finally, the role of natura in VI Hon. 512 is also missing in Nierste’s analysis. There, natura refers to the “miraculous” waters of river Clitumnus’ spring, which Honorius visits when going triumphally to Rome in 403/404, and which seem to recognize the strong mores of the emperor by “swirling and seething” when he approaches. Thus, as noted by Meunier (2019: 84), natura in VI Hon. anticipates the link between “miraculous” water and nature as a motif in c.m. 26 (Aponus, on the thermal fountain of Abano Terme) and the “miraculous” force of Love and Nature in c.m. 29 (The magnet, on the effect of iron over magnets, exemplified in a couple of sculptures of, respectively, Mars and Venus).
This takes me to the last point. In 2010, Marie-France Guipponi-Gineste published an important and extensive book on Claudians poetology, which basically shows the pivotal role of the poet’s self-presentation throughout his whole oeuvre and explores in detail the metapoetic mechanisms behind his main motifs[6]—amongst them, the alliance de contraires (i.e. the concordia discors) plays a central role (see her chapter IV, Les mirabilia ou l’usage du monde, dedicated to the c.m.). Although Nierste mentions Guipponi-Gineste’s contributions to the motif of ars and natura in Claudian’s poetology at the beginning of her book (p. 12), and she also quotes Guipponi-Gineste’s observations every now and then as a kind of parallel confirmation of her own observations, it is not always clear which innovations she is actually proposing other that a perhaps more systematic analysis of (part of) the corpus of the poems.[7] A more explicit stance on the matter could have been undoubtedly beneficial. It is also a pity that Nierste decided not to integrate Delphine Meunier’s monograph (2019) on the poetics of Claudian’s epics into her book. Especially since Meunier dedicates the culminating chapter of her study to the role of Natura as an allegory and as one of the heroic figures within Claudian’s epics (i.e. in the carmina maiora and in DRP, yet however taking the carmina minora also into account, although with minor intensity). In particular, thinking on the role of nature in the carmina maiora, which Nierste rather neglected, I think Meunier’s book could have been an interesting tertium comparationis. Moreover, Nierste could have immensely benefited by highlighting aspects of her approach that differ from Meunier’s—after all, Nierste convincingly explored in much more detail the role of “miraculous” nature that seems to menacingly challenge the poet throughout the carmina minora.
Nierste’s general conclusions (that the contrast between ars and natura is a central motif in Claudian’s poetology, that Claudian stylizes himself as poeta artifex, and that Claudian’s poems develop inter- and intratextual strategies to direct the reader’s attention) may not be totally surprising[8]—but they are certainly convincing. Despite the issues discussed above, Nierste’s book is an important contribution to take into account for future studies on Claudian and on late antique poetry. Perhaps further development of the dissertation manuscript before publication might have avoided some of the issues outlined above. Nevertheless, I want to stress that Nierste delivers a stimulating and comprehensive study on an important matter and that her ingenium and ars are admirable.
Notes
[1] For Schmieder’s Deskription und Metapoetik in der spätantiken lateinischen Dichtung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Beschreibung bei Claudian, Prudenz und Ausonius (Berlin/Boston 2022), see here (open access).
[2] In the introduction, Nierste briefly analyzes c.m. 7 (A marble statue of a chariot); 17 (On the dutiful brothers and their statues); as well as DRP pr. 1 (sailor metaphor) and Stil. 2.339-361 (Stilicho’s consular robe).
[3] Delphine Meunier, Claudien. Une poétique de l’épopée. Paris: Belles Lettres, 2019. On this matter, see below.
[4] See p. 2 n. 10.
[5] Fritz Felgentreu, Claudians praefationes: Bedingungen, Beschreibungen und Wirkungen einer poetischen Kleinform. (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 130). Stuttgart/Leipzig: Teubner, 1999. Reviewed in BMCR 2000.10.03.
[6] Marie-France Guipponi-Gineste, Claudien: poète du monde à la cour d’Occident. Paris: De Boccard, 2010. Reviewed in BMCR 2012.01.08.
[7] In the notes 60–61 (p. 12), Nierste links Guipponi-Gineste’s book to two classic articles by British Hispanist Anthony J. Close. The latter’s “eight theses to the relation between art and nature” will be often taken up by Nierste; Guipponi-Gineste, however, does not mention them (nor Close) anywhere in her book.
[8] The internal references, for example, at a macro-textual level, have already been researched by scholars such as Valéry Berlincourt (see e.g. his article on internal repetitions as literary strategy in Claudian, in Chiara Battistella’s and Marco Fucecchi’s book from 2019); this is also a central topic in Catherine Ware’s book on Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition (Cambridge 2012). Aaron Pelttari’s The Space that Remains (Ithaca/London 2014) is mentioned almost exclusively in the introduction (p. 8f.), and the implications of his (crucial) conception of intertextuality in late antique literature are, unfortunately, not really taken into account in this analysis of the Claudianic corpus.