It is safe to say that, across the globe, translation is still heavily relied on as a tool for teaching classical languages and texts that are written in them, both in secondary and higher education. Indeed, translation exercises are perhaps the most common method to train and evaluate Greek and Latin text comprehension, grammar, syntax and vocabulary. Some teachers and textbooks also make use of existing translations to complement and supplement the (more or less) original texts that they are tackling in class. Given that translation plays such a prominent role in Classics, is it not remarkable, then, that students generally spend very little time reflecting on the act of translation itself, not just as a shift between different languages, but as a transfer and transformation of meaning and form between different cultures?

The term 'Greek biblical epic' is ambiguous because it suggests two concepts that have to be nuanced. It seems to refer to a subgenre of epic, but whether at all these poems can be considered as a group in terms of genre is doubtful. Alternative labels, which are sometimes used, are biblical paraphrase (which widens the scope to non-hexametric paraphrases) and cento poetry (which points out the formal relation with cento poetry on other topics, but separates Eudocia from Nonnus). One may also wonder to which degree the Greek examples of hexametric poetry with biblical topics indeed deserve the label 'epic' if at first sight their epic character is restricted to their versification and elements of vocabulary and style. Nonetheless, this chapter prefers the term 'biblical epic' over 'biblical paraphrase' because of the subtle presence of epic structural elements it aims to show in the two examples under consideration.The first part of the chapter focuses on microstructural elements in Nonnus' Paraphrase, which give his Gospel narrative epic grandeur. Moving from very small to slightly larger such elements, the chapter presents an analysis of the function of epithets, the occurrence of semi-formulaic speech introductions, the use of colourful descriptions of the passing of time, and the presence of a full-blown ekphrasis of a lamp as the poem's lengthiest 'original' passage (i.e. without direct equivalent in the Gospel of John).The second part of the chapter deals with the Homerocentones, which by definition consist of epic 'building blocks', i.e. of lines from Homer which are reordered to tell the story of the Old Testament and (mainly) the Gospels. This part of the chapter, therefore, necessarily focuses on different parameters. It looks at the overall structure of the Homerocentones (in the so-called 'first redaction'), at the epic elements in the proem and at the way the centonist makes use of Homeric type-scenes (e.g. xenia and banquet) to give shape to similar scenes in the Gospels.10 From a structural point of view, the paraphrase of the so-called prologue of the Gospel itself (Nonn. Par. 1.1-13 < Joh. 1.1-5) actually functions as a proem to the poem. 11 Telling of the cento's status as a distinct phenomenon within the biblical epic genre is Proba's absence from the studies of Roberts (1985) and Green (2006). In surveys of Greek biblical epic the Homerocentones take up a much more central position; cf. Agosti (2001b), Whitby (2007), and Whitby (2016).12 This is the case, for instance, in the Christus Patiens, attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus, but probably written (much) later. Only about a third of the text consists of lines from the tragedians in this particular case. The rest is original.13 See esp. Rey (1998, and Schembra (2007, pp. xxv-clxxxi). 14 These two epigrams have been transmitted in one of the oldest manuscripts that contains the first redaction (as well as in other, later manuscripts) and must have served an introductory purpose. The first epigram, De Homerocentonibus Patricii (AP 1.119), is a ...

Throughout the Dionysiaca Nonnus is notoriously playing with allusions to the literary tradition. The passage from book 39 (14-23) that will be discussed here might offer another example of this important feature of Nonnus' poetry. In my opinion the passage can be interpreted as a subtle adaptation of the epic motif of a teichoscopy. In scholarly research on Nonnus the contents of this short scene have briefly been discussed before but never in terms of a teichoscopy. The observation by critics Rudolf Keydell and Paul Collart of a small narrative inconsistency between this passage and a passage three books earlier (36, was rejected in the commentaries of both recent editions. A sufficient explanation is still lacking. In the last paragraph I will take up this discussion in the hope of contributing to it with my 'teichoscopic' interpretation.

No abstract

No abstract