Titanen, Giganten und Riesen im antiken Epos: Eine literaturtheoretische Neuinterpretation by Arnold Bärtschi

196 PHOENIX and reasoning provided in support of her interpretations, many of which readers are likely to find insightful. Brook’s unremitting determination, however, to apply the approach of “ritual poetics” to the study of Sophocles sometimes also leads to results that may be less convincing. Her interpretations occasionally lack differentiation and nuance, perhaps due to an eagerness to spot as many instances of ritual action as possible. As a consequence, she does not always sufficiently distinguish between “real” rituals that are a part of the tragedy’s plot, actions that are not rituals but are referred to or framed as such by some characters, and events that share similarities with rituals but are considered by no one to be rituals (for instance, bloodshed and killing can be a part of murder as well as sacrifice). In addition, in Brook’s analyses, the plots of entire tragedies can appear to be driven by rituals gone wrong, which lead to further rituals that also go wrong, and so forth. This sometimes obfuscates the actual causal dynamics, such as murder leading to revenge and then more revenge; and Ajax did not kill himself because he committed a ritual flaw. Lastly, some readers may remain skeptical about Brook’s extremely anti-closural readings of the final scenes of Sophoclean tragedies, not least because she systematically places more weight on what, as she claims, must be implied or assumed or silently extrapolated (from flawed rituals that happened earlier in the play) than on what the final scene’s text overtly says. This hermeneutic procedure runs the risk of simplifying rather than resolving the interpretive difficulties that Sophoclean endings always pose. These criticisms notwithstanding, Brook’s study is a valuable addition to the secondary literature on Sophocles that should, and no doubt will, find many readers in the community of scholars of Greek tragedy. Lafayette College Markus Dubischar Titanen, Giganten und Riesen im antiken Epos: Eine literaturtheoretische Neuinterpretation. By Arnold BÈ artschi. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 2019. Pp. ix, 465. Epic is the giant among ancient literary genres. However, a comprehensive study on giants in ancient epic has been missing so far. Arnold Bärtschi fills this gap with his monograph, which is based on a doctoral thesis defended at the University of Bochum in 2018. The book consists of four chapters: an introduction (“Einleitung,” 1–36), an examination of the hybrid character of giants in antiquity (“Hybridität von Riesenfiguren ,” 37–103), a diachronic study of epic giant figures from Homer to Valerius Flaccus (“Topographische und geopoetische Verortung von Riesenfiguren,” 105–184), and an in-depth discussion of giants in Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica (“Posthomerische Riesenfiguren,” 185–354). Oddly, a conclusion which the author announces in his introduction as his fifth chapter (“ein kurzes Abschlusskapitel 5 fasst die zentralen Ergebnisse der Untersuchung zusammen,” 35) was not included. Five appendices follow (350–390), including an overview of epic “giant passages,” the geographical location of giants in epic poetry, and comparisons and similes involving giants in the Posthomerica. The bibliography is substantial (391–418), as is the index of passages cited (419–465). A general index was, unfortunately, not produced. In the introduction, the scope and the methodological premises of the study are laid down. The main focus of Bärtschi’s enterprise lies in Greek epic (Homer, ps.-Hesiod, BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 197 Apollonius of Rhodes, Quintus of Smyrna), but with Valerius Flaccus it also incorporates Latin epic. Epic poetry from late antiquity was deliberately (and understandably) excluded for reasons of space and scope. It does not, however, become clear why Valerius Flaccus should be the only representative of Latin epic; one would have expected at least some justification for not including Vergil (whose narration of the Hercules-Cacus episode in Aeneid 8 would have been a perfect fit for this book). Methodologically, Bärtschi combines the vast fields of narratology and intertextuality. Regarding the latter, he distinguishes between what he calls “Einzeltextreferenzen” and “Systemreferenzen” (29), that is, allusions to concrete text passages and general references to, or reminiscences of, the literary tradition. Strangely, two further important theoretical concepts remain unmentioned, namely diachronic narratology (which follows logically from pairing narratology with intertextuality) and...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.