The Ancient Critic at Work. Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia by She René Nünlist
Abstract
434 RHETORICA svista, se ho ben rilevato, alia nota 62, p. 173, dove luserit Asopida di Ovidio, Metamorfosi, 6,113 va corretto in Asopida luserit. Un contributo dotto e laborioso, dunque, questo della L.: destinato a imporsi, al pari di quelli che lo hanno preceduto nella medesima collana, come strumento irrinunciabile di consultazione per l'intelligenza dei due testi scolastici e come punto di partenza di qualsiasi ulteriore contributo all'interpretazione di questa ancora misconosciuta ma straordinariamente affascinante produzione letteraria. Mario Lentano University di Siena She René Nimlist, The Ancient Critic at Work. Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ix + 447 pp. ISBN 1107403049 This is an exceptionally useful book, one many people have for sev eral years wished for so that they could read it. The scholia, the marginal comments in manuscripts of Greek literary texts that encapsulate the com mentaries of ancient scholars, are the best source we have for ancient practical criticism. However, scholia are immensely difficult. Their sometimes tech nical Greek is difficult, and the difficulties are compounded by the process of amalgamation and abbreviation they have undergone. Often they are corrupt besides. This is the first attempt at a systematic, book-length study of literary criticism in the scholia. Not surprisingly, the scholia to the Iliad predominate, because they are by far the richest extant, but Niinlist uses those on the Odyssey, Hesiod, the dramatists, the orators, and Theocritus too. Niinlist says in the introduction that such a discussion could be orga nized in two ways: around Greek terms, and around underlying concepts. He has wisely chosen the second—he is very helpful in pointing out the variability in terminology in the scholia—while providing a handy glossary of literary terms at the back. (One could also conduct a literary study of the scholia to a particular text, but that would not offer the breadth this book does.) The first section considers concepts found in scholia on a vari ety of authors and genres, while the second part deals with characteristics that, in the view of ancient critics, were confined to Homer or to drama. The first few chapters are narratological—plot, time, narrative and speech, focalization but the discussion expands to cover a variety of issues, in cluding style, characterization, mythology, indirectly conveyed or hidden meanings. For Homer, there are chapters on type scenes, speeches, epithets, gods, similes, and "reverse order," while a long chapter on drama deals with such questions as entrances and exits, costumes and props, and acting. The selection of topics represents issues that are prominent in the scholia. The Reviews 435 book does not look at rhetorical figures, but it frequently refers to the close connection between literary criticism and rhetoric in antiquity It does not usually engage in source-criticism (an obsession of older work on scholia), but occasionally discusses ancient scholarly controversies. This is a learned book, and I have learned an immense amount from it—and it has directed me towards many questions that I hope that I, or my students, may explore further. It is at times more descriptive than profoundly critical. Throughout, although Niinlist is aware of imposing modern cate gories on ancient critics, he is biased in favor of seeing similarities rather than differences. His ancient critics are foreshadowers of Genette as students of narrative, of Arendt in understanding type-scenes, of Parry on epithets. I am not entirely easy about equating focalization with the ancient solution "from the character," because structuralist narratology offers a precise definition of "focalization," and the ancient critics are not so clear about exactly what they mean. Perhaps because of this slant towards modern questions, the book does not treat "appropriateness" except in passing, though it argues (p. 250 n. 46) that "appropriateness is not exclusively a moral category." It com ments on the chauvinism of the Homeric scholia (the critics are pro-Greek and typically try to understand Homer as pro-Greek, too), but has little to say about the problem of Homer's cultural authority. Scholia often praise Homer for opposite practices in different passages— here for being brief, but there for being expansive. This is unlikely to be...
- Journal
- Rhetorica
- Published
- 2011-09-01
- DOI
- 10.1353/rht.2011.0004
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- Closed
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
Cites in this index (0)
No references match articles in this index.
Related Articles
-
Pedagogy Jan 2026
-
Pedagogy Oct 2025modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism genre theory cultural rhetorics first-year composition writing pedagogy advanced composition creative writing writing across the curriculum graduate education two-year college service learning teacher development technical communication professional writing labor and working conditions archival research multimodality artificial intelligence literacy studies race and writing gender and writing disability studies literary studies editorial matter
-
Literacy in Composition Studies Dec 2024Elizabeth Kimball
-
Rhetoric & Public Affairs Mar 2024Literacy in a Long Blues Note: Black Women's Literature and Music in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries ↗Cecilia Cerja
-
Written Communication Jan 2023Humanistic Knowledge-Making and the Rhetoric of Literary Criticism: Special Topoi Meet Rhetorical Action ↗Sarah Banting