Lucretius Franco-Hibernicus: Dicuil's Liber de Astronomia and the Carolingian Reception of De Rerum Natura

F. Tutrone
{"title":"Lucretius Franco-Hibernicus: Dicuil's Liber de Astronomia and the Carolingian Reception of De Rerum Natura","authors":"F. Tutrone","doi":"10.5406/illiclasstud.45.1.0224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Since its coinage in the nineteenth century, the concept of Carolingian renaissance has been primarily based on the revival of classical texts promoted by Charlemagne and his successors. Among the positive consequences of Carolingian classicism is the careful—if discreet—preservation of the text of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura, which survives in three valuable ninth-century manuscripts. Whereas rigorous philological studies of these manuscripts have been offered, little attention has been paid to their role in, and connection with, the reception of Lucretius in ninth-century literature. It has been generally assumed that for the Carolingians the DRN was essentially a source for grammatical and metrical usage, and extensive efforts have been made to distinguish between direct and indirect quotations of Lucretian lines. In the present paper, I shall adopt a different approach, starting from the observation that the diffusion of DRN in ninth-century Europe coincided with an increasing interest in its content. I shall argue that a deeper understanding of Lucretius's Carolingian reception can be achieved if one overcomes the dichotomies usually maintained by the philological Quellenforschung, as such dichotomies tend to overshadow the historically and culturally specific features of the early medieval practice of imitatio. By endorsing the perspective of intertextual studies, reception theory, and rhetorical criticism, I shall point out a so far unrecognized imitatio Lucretii in the astronomical work (Liber de Astronomia) of the Irishman Dicuil, whose allusions to Lucretius—particularly to the cosmological treatment of Book 5, the so-called \"apology\" of Book 1 (921–50 = 4.1–25), and the calf argument of Book 2 (352–66)—are representative of the peculiarities of Carolingian reading culture.","PeriodicalId":81501,"journal":{"name":"Illinois classical studies","volume":"45 1","pages":"224 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Illinois classical studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/illiclasstud.45.1.0224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract:Since its coinage in the nineteenth century, the concept of Carolingian renaissance has been primarily based on the revival of classical texts promoted by Charlemagne and his successors. Among the positive consequences of Carolingian classicism is the careful—if discreet—preservation of the text of Lucretius's De Rerum Natura, which survives in three valuable ninth-century manuscripts. Whereas rigorous philological studies of these manuscripts have been offered, little attention has been paid to their role in, and connection with, the reception of Lucretius in ninth-century literature. It has been generally assumed that for the Carolingians the DRN was essentially a source for grammatical and metrical usage, and extensive efforts have been made to distinguish between direct and indirect quotations of Lucretian lines. In the present paper, I shall adopt a different approach, starting from the observation that the diffusion of DRN in ninth-century Europe coincided with an increasing interest in its content. I shall argue that a deeper understanding of Lucretius's Carolingian reception can be achieved if one overcomes the dichotomies usually maintained by the philological Quellenforschung, as such dichotomies tend to overshadow the historically and culturally specific features of the early medieval practice of imitatio. By endorsing the perspective of intertextual studies, reception theory, and rhetorical criticism, I shall point out a so far unrecognized imitatio Lucretii in the astronomical work (Liber de Astronomia) of the Irishman Dicuil, whose allusions to Lucretius—particularly to the cosmological treatment of Book 5, the so-called "apology" of Book 1 (921–50 = 4.1–25), and the calf argument of Book 2 (352–66)—are representative of the peculiarities of Carolingian reading culture.
摘要:加洛林文艺复兴的概念自19世纪出现以来,主要基于查理曼大帝及其继任者所推动的经典文本的复兴。加洛林古典主义的积极影响之一是小心翼翼地——如果谨慎地——保存了卢克莱修的《论自然》的文本,它保存在三份珍贵的九世纪手稿中。尽管对这些手稿进行了严格的语言学研究,但很少有人注意到它们在九世纪文学中对卢克莱修的接受中所起的作用和与之的联系。一般认为,对于加洛林王朝的人来说,DRN本质上是语法和韵律用法的来源,并且已经做出了广泛的努力来区分直接和间接引用的卢克莱安诗句。在本文中,我将采用一种不同的方法,从观察到DRN在9世纪欧洲的传播与对其内容的兴趣日益增加相吻合。我认为对卢克莱修的卡洛林式接受有更深的理解如果人们克服了语言学上的二分法,因为这种二分法往往掩盖了中世纪早期模仿实践的历史和文化特征。通过赞同互文研究、接受理论和修辞批评的观点,我将指出,在爱尔兰人迪库伊的天文学著作(《天文学著作》)中,有一个迄今未被认识到的对卢克莱蒂的模仿,他对卢克莱蒂的典故——尤其是对第五卷的宇宙学处理,第一卷的所谓“道歉”(921-50 = 4.1-25),以及第二卷的calf论证(352-66)——代表了加洛林阅读文化的特点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信