The scope of K.'s book is grand, as motifs and roles related to the author in Virgil's Eclogues, Horace's Odes and Propertius' Elegies belong to some of the most central aspects of Latin literature. The volume is a reworked version of K.'s dissertation ‘Literarische Distriktion und öffentlicher Raum: Vergil, Horaz und Properz über Autorschaft’. As this latter title indicates, the motifs and roles of the author under scrutiny tend to be related to the public sphere of Augustan Rome.
The approach of K.'s study is wide-ranging and encompasses at times lengthy discussions, which are divided into three parts: terms and lines of enquiry; the author and the production of a work; and the author, the work and the grounds of authority. The first of these parts takes us through theoretical reflections centred on the author. In addition to well-known examples of modern theorists, such as Foucault (e.g. p. 3), the first part includes a number of German scholars in the field. The second part discusses motifs of authorial dependency, understood in terms of inspiration, originality and power to create (pp. 22–77). The third part scrutinises the role of the author regarding the rhetorical fides, his biographical individuality, aetiologies of the poet's role, and the author as architect, triumphator, pupil, teacher and priest (pp. 78–196).
Two issues appear particularly relevant to these topics: politics and the design of the poetry book, which depends on various poetic genres. These issues are both related to a third crucial aspect: the chronological order of the authors and works in question. This chronological order is commented upon in the book, yet a räumlichen Sinne (‘spatial sense’), according to which the works relate to each other in a non-linear manner, remains prominent in this study (cf. pp. 22–3). Though this is an intriguing alternative understanding, the publication of Virgil's Eclogues around 39 b.c. and the appearance of Propertius' last book around 16 b.c. frame a period of great change, not least in terms of the role of the author. The book would arguably have benefited from discussing more fully the political framework of the time and identifying more clearly the points of reference between politics and poetry that are relevant. Likewise, an outline of the various designs of the poetry books (and collections of poetry books), as well as the poetic genres to which they belong, would have been useful in order to corroborate the various hermeneutical points promoted in this study.
On the more detailed level, certain points appear slightly underdeveloped. In the case of Virgil, the otherwise interesting discussion of trees in the Eclogues (pp. 31–49) fails to identify greater patterns and their significance. The chapter mainly treats Eclogues 1 and 8–10, but Eclogues 2 and 5–7 also display variations on the tree theme, emphatically found in the poems' opening lines. It would have been interesting to see how the observations made would fit into the greater arboreal scheme of the Eclogues. Metapoetic understandings of the kinds of trees involved, especially the beech, are linked to the idea of inspiration and writing material (e.g. p. 44), and one therefore wonders what could have been made of the pocula fagina (‘cups of beech-wood’) at Ecl. 3.36–7 in terms of metapoetics (see e.g. W.R. Nethercut, Vergilius 13 [1967], 16–27 and R. Faber, AJPh 116 [1995], 411–17). On the other hand, primarily non-metapoetic, but rather historical-geographical observations such as that the beech is native to Northern Italy (p. 42) could have been linked to the significance, also in metapoetic terms, of geographical markers such as Arcadia, Sicily (passim), Mantua and Cremona (Ecl. 9. 27–8) in Virgil's work.
The book dismisses the importance of genuine originality among the Augustan poets (p. 30). Yet, the question reoccurs, particularly in the case of Horace (pp. 53–4), and considering the importance of originality to Augustan authors, not least Horace, this is a point that arguably would have benefited from a more comprehensive treatment. The discussions of Horace's Odes 1.22, 2.13 and 2.20 (pp. 134–5, 143) could also have taken into account T. Woodman, Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace (2002), pp. 53–64, 213–18, as well as at least some of the bibliography of the new fragments of Sappho found in 2004 that are relevant to the understanding of Horace, especially V. Di Benedetto, ZPE 153 (2005), 7–20.
In the case of Propertius, there are some minor problems. With the exception of a brief mention in footnote 240, which treats the theme of fame, the lack of discussion of Propertius' elegy 3.1 is conspicuous, since there is a very famous grove (nemus) in this poem, which is relevant to K.'s book (pp. 22–31), and the poem features a poet as a priest (sacerdos), a phenomenon discussed in the fine case of Horace (esp. pp. 168–9). The poem should have been discussed, if only to justify its omission, preferably in tandem with R. Hunter, The Shadow of Callimachus (2006). Moreover, the elegiac trope of militia amoris (‘soldiery for love’) is infelicitously handled. It is claimed that the Propertian lover regards himself as armed (p. 39) with reference to Prop. 1.6.29–30, where the poet says that he is not born for weapons, and the militia mentioned must be understood exclusively as of an erotic kind. Similarly, an otherwise fine summary of the same elegiac trope closes with the claim that Liebesdienst / Kriegsdienst are equally valuable activities in elegy (p. 139). Elegy does not recognise proper warfare as an activity that is as valuable as the battle in bed (cf. L. Cahoon, TAPA 118 [1988], 293–307). One poem that illustrates this point acutely is Prop. 2.15. The absence of this poem from K.'s book is also conspicuous, not only because the poem features so prominently in J. Connolly's article ‘Asymptotes of Pleasure’ (Arethusa 33 [2000], 71–98), which is much referred to throughout the book, but also because it is a rare, yet important counter-example to claims that, for example, elegy never (‘nie’) entails a union between the speaker and his addressee (p. 97). Finally, the discussion of fides in the case of Propertius appears problematic as the book equates elegy with Propertius (e.g. p. 78). Though fides is indeed a term that occurs frequently in his poetry, this Propertian feature is not necessarily typical of the elegiac genre as a whole: for example, while fides occurs nearly 20 times in the second book of Propertius, Tibullus uses the word only twice in his second book.
Among the minor inconsistencies are the different texts printed of Prop. 1.18.23 at pages 36 and 39 (cf. J.N. Grant, Phoenix 33 [1979], 56–8) and the irregular appearance of translations of the passages discussed throughout the volume. There is one typographical error at page 88 (‘Täikeit’), and the index fails to include, for example, Prop. 2.14 (cf. pp. 140–1).
The book appears as a somewhat premature publication. Yet, with its rich bibliography that includes so many German works, it will provide a valuable point of reference for international scholarship, which in the Classics is so predominantly Anglophone.
