The Neoteric Poets

The modern definition of “Neoteric poets” derives from three references of Cicero, who first refers to neoteroi (Ep. ad Attic. 7.2.1), then poetae novi (Orat. 161), then cantores Euphorionis (Tusc. 3. 45 for a brief review of past scholarly contributions, see Christopher Tuplin. 1977. “Cantores Euphorionis.” Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 1:1–23), a group of authors linked by a different way of doing poetry, characterized by a refined erudition inspired by Hellenistic poets, in some ways subjective and nonconformist, and, above all, in polemic with the austere and politically engaged tradition, also poetic and in particular with epic, represented by the archaic poet Q. Ennius. Perhaps under the influence of Parthenius of Nicaea (on which see Jane L. Lightfoot. 1999. Parthenius of nicaea. the poetical fragments and the erotika pathemata. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 54–72), Neoteric poetics is inspired by Callimachus and Euphorion, a Greek poet known for the obscurity of his compositions. It is precisely Catullian poetry that can help to ascertain the treatment of the Alexandrian background of poetry in Rome in the first century bce, as highlighted in the pages on “Roman Alexandrinism” in the introduction of Fordyce’s commentary on Catullus (Fordyce, Christian James. 1961. Catullus: A commentary. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 18–22). In fact, with the exception of Catullus, we have only a few fragments of the production of the other poets; some of their names are mentioned by Catullus himself in nugae or in his epigrams. They inclide Licinius Calvus, Helvius Cinna, Furius Bibaculus, and Quintus Cornificius. To these should be added P. Valerius Cato (whose place in the group is inferred from a mention in Suetonius), Ticida, and Varro Atacinus. Beyond the name to be assigned to the poets in question (supported also by the indications of Cicero mentioned above), it should be noted that scholars have long debated the real existence of a group of poets unified by a single aesthetic view. The sources do not provide us with tangible and overwhelming proof of this, although it is possible to point out that, starting from the fragments preserved, we can identify some elements that were essential for these authors in composing verses. The aesthetic cornerstones of these authors are the varietas (“variety” metric and thematic), the brevitas (“brevity” of the poem), and the levitas (“lightness” of the tones); moreover, they preferred mythological and amorous subjects, often associated in the epyllion. A further element that criticism has often highlighted concerns the relationship between negotium (understood as a civil commitment to the res publica) and poetic writing; in particular, it is noted that in the dimension of otium (already present in prose authors, such as Sallust) the authors try to identify positive values, and you can see how the importance given by writers to the private sphere of the civis Romanus—without subverting traditional morality—progressively coincides with a total disengagement from public office (see Sarah Culpepper Stroup. 2010. Catullus, cicero, and a society of patrons. The generation of the text. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). Three other authors (Lutatius Catulus, consul with Gaius Marius in 102 bce; Valerius Aedituus; and Porcius Licinus) have been considered “pre–neoteric” by some scholars, as their production (only a few fragments, unfortunately for us) seems to anticipate, in part, the tendencies made explicit by the next generation of poets, developing different aspects, as demonstrated in Luciano Landolfi. 2010. Epigramma preneoterico, epigramma neoterico: Linee di continuità, linee di discontinuità. La parola del passato 375:394–453. Scholars have long debated whether these authors belong to a real “neoteric circle”; see Alfonsi, Luigi. 1945. Poetae novi. Storia di un movimento poetico. Como: Marzorati thought of the presence of two currents, one composed by Valerius Cato, Furius Bibaculus, and Ticida, the other by Catullus, Licinius Calvus, and Quintus Cornificius; this thesis, however, remained rather isolated. Crowther, Nigel B. 1970. Οἱνεώτεροι, poetae novi, and cantores Euphorionis. The Classical Quarterly 28: 167–187 appears to be skeptical about considering Valerius Cato as a neoteric poet and, in general, of the existence of a “neoteric circle.” More prudent is R.O.A.M. 1978. The neoteric poets. The Classical Quarterly 28: 167–187, which suggests the idea of a group of poets who influenced each other (and perhaps only Cinna and Calvus were influenced by Parthenius), without recognizing a prevailing figure, a master. Deichgräber, Karl. 1971. Überlegungen zu den Gedichten und Gedichtbüchern der Neoteriker. Hermes: Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie 99:46–70 has already highlighted the intertextual form and content links traceable to authors such as Cinna and Calvus.