New readings of late antique creation narratives “reveal unexpectedly ‘ecological’ – i.e., compassionate and relational – views of the natural world.”

In this interview, we discuss late antiquity and ecocriticism with Paola F. Moretti (Milan) and Alessia Prontera (Venice-L’Aquila), who are members of the research team working on the project HUMAN (= HUMAns in Nature. New Insights into Late Ancient Latin Texts in light of an Ecocritical Approach), funded by the EU and the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research (PRIN 2022-PNRR). The project examines late Latin texts, both prose and poetry, most of which deal with creation in the Book of Genesis, from the point of view of ‘ecocriticism’, with the aim of bringing ancient ‘ecological’ lore into dialogue with contemporary debates. 

Can you tell us about how and why you became interested in ecocritical thinking and environmental concerns?

Perhaps the interest in ecocritical thinking and environmental concerns today is less for literary and cultural reasons than for a shared awareness of a truly compelling issue, such as the contemporary ecological crisis. It is a matter of seeing ourselves as engaged with the challenges of the contemporary world, and our research as directed towards the ‘common good’. In a word, we feel the need to give meaning to our research in the fields of literature and culture, having it interact with our present.

          Our attitude to the texts is well described by C. Schliephake, when he speaks of seeing literature “as a living, breathing act of responding to a world of human and nonhuman others”. Firstly, literature is seen as both representing and negotiating boundaries and interactions between humans and non-humans (where ‘non’ simply means ‘other than’). Secondly, literature is expected to shape boundaries and interactions not only in the past but also in the present. All in all, ecocriticism seems to be a broad field that offers a rich framework not only for describing but also for influencing these kinds of dynamics in the present.

How do you think late antique or other premodern literature might contribute to contemporary ecocritical thought?

The study of Late Antiquity could make an important contribution to ecocritical thought; in some respects, this is as true of late antiquity as it is of the study of any other – pre-modern or even modern – literary tradition. In fact, every text – even those not dedicated to ‘ecological’ themes stricto sensu – is likely to reflect some ‘ecological view’, i.e. it is likely to depict and negotiate the interrelationship between humans and non-humans in their common environment (oikos), in accordance with the ‘relational’ dimension that is proper to ‘ecology’ itself.

          However, the choice of late antique texts – our focus on the Latin tradition is, of course, a reflection of our research expertise – is intended to provide a glimpse of the boundaries and interactions as they are presented and negotiated, above all, in works devoted to a foundational text: the biblical narrative of the creation of the natural world. This text is commented upon and even somewhat retold by exegetes, preachers, and poets, who sometimes reveal unexpectedly ‘ecological’ – i.e., compassionate and relational – views of the natural world. As a matter of fact, Christianity, which is one of the elements that have shaped modern Western civilization and culture, should not be seen as a major determinant of the current global ecological crisis, although the Judeo-Christian tradition is sometimes still held to be so (see the dominion of man over nature as allegedly stated in Gen. 1.26b).

What new directions would you like to see in the fields of ecocriticism? What new directions would you like to see in the study of late antique and other premodern literature?

In ecocriticism, broadly defined, we would like to see more emphasis on the intersection of climate justice and literature. This could include exploring how different communities experience environmental change and how literature reflects or challenges these experiences. In addition, perhaps urban ecocriticism should be developed to focus on how urban environments and landscapes are represented in literature, especially in the context of sustainability and urban ecology.

          For late antique and other pre-modern literatures, we believe that the incorporation of ecological frameworks could provide fascinating, perhaps as yet unknown, insights. Even if the ecological crisis is seen to have begun with the industrial age, an analysis of how ancient and pre-modern texts depict and construct the non-human world could provide a deeper understanding of societal values and beliefs, provided that the analysis is free of a priori prejudices.

          There is another point we would like to emphasize. Hopefully, digital resources will help to analyze and categorize the relationships and/or the boundaries between humans and non-humans as they are represented and constructed by texts. This is why we are trying to build a searchable database of late ancient Latin texts that are ‘tagged’ with ‘ecological’ elements. The task is difficult, and it may take a long time to build even a preliminary version of the repository. However, we are convinced that even such an attempt could open up new avenues for research and engagement.

Can you briefly share with us a particular text or artwork that has inspired you to think in new ways about ecocriticism or late antiquity?

Alessia’s interest in ecocritical topics was sparked when she wrote her doctoral thesis on Claudian, a “poète animalier” (C. Hallet). Claudian often describes non-human elements in human terms: the spikes of the porcupine as the archery technique of the Parthians (carm. min. 9), or the union of magnet and iron as a marriage and a kiss (carm. min. 29); he also expresses a sense of wonder at natural paradoxes when he speaks of the crystal rock (carm. min. 33-39) or the flood of the Nile (carm. min. 29). In other works, however, he betrays a different view, as there seems to be no respect for the laws of nature or recognition of biodiversity: for example, the silence imposed on the forests after a colossal hunting expedition is described as a pacification, and the human act of ponere leges seems to legitimize devastation (cons. Stil. 3.284); the hunt for game is said to wear out (consumere) the mountains (pan. M. Theod. 310). If there is a hint of truth behind the encomiastic fiction, perhaps G. Cantino Wataghin’s assertion about hunting as a mere “costrutto mentale” should be ‘modulated’ by reconsidering not only the iconographic but also the textual sources: indeed, the same activity, so appreciated by (pagan) late antiquity, seems to have different connotations depending on the context. Moreover, Alessia’s curiosity was piqued by the many similarities between the pagan and Christian worlds, which lead her to research the subject. Indeed, scenarios of natural devastation can be found in Christian poetic paraphrases of Genesis, such as the felling of trees for the construction of Noah’s Ark in Avitus (carm. 4.295-303). Here Mounts Ossa and Atlans spontaneously offer the wood for the construction of the ark, and the relationship between humans and non-humans seems to be reinterpreted in the light of a new approach to nature, with non-humans being portrayed as willing to be ‘subjugated’ by humans.

          For Paola, Ambrose of Milan’s Exameron was the inspiring work that awakened her interest in both late antiquity and ecocriticism. It is the result of a rather free and literary Latin translation of Basil of Caesarea’s sermons on creation (for some contemporary attempts to revive – or rather re-enact – the ‘exameral’ tradition to which Basil and Ambrose belong, see the interview with Kate Rigby). Following Basil, Ambrose testifies to an enthusiastic attitude towards nature, contemplated in all its marvelous details. Expectedly, these are explained as the work of God – in this respect I would agree with S. Goldhill, who speaks of Basil’s “fully theological amazement” –. See, for example, the homily on sea creatures (exam. 7.10.26-29): each species of fish is assigned a place to live and does not leave it, but who is the thalassometra (cf. human geometra) who has assigned them different places? some fish move “not because of natural instability” (as humans do!) but “from the necessity of spawning”, but who has told them where to go, since they have no commander, no teacher, no surveyor, no guide? Non-humans are praised, while humans are admonished: “Fish duly comply with the celestial mandates, but humans make them void. Because a fish is mute and devoid of reason, is it, therefore, an object of contempt in your eyes? See to it that you do not begin to be more contemptible to yourself, if you prove yourself to be more irrational than the irrational creatures”. Perhaps we would dare to say that the humanization of nonhumans here is not merely a stereotype, good for teaching morals and without any implication of blurring the boundaries between human and non-human…

How do you see your work in the context of so-called ‘Italian ecocriticism’?

Recently, ecocriticism has become a prominent topic of research in Italy, largely thanks to the work of Serenella Iovino (cf. Ecologia letteraria, 2015; Ecosistemi letterari. Luoghi e paesaggi nella finzione novecentesca, 2016). Ecocriticism in Italian literature is undoubtedly linked to the environmental fragility of the Italian soil and to the strong impact of the Anthropocene. We will limit ourselves to mentioning one example, closely linked to Alessia’s birth place, Venice. As Iovino highlights (‘Cognitive Justice and the Truth of Biology. Death (and Life) in Venice’, in: Ecocriticism and Italy. Ecology, Resistance, and Liberation, 2016), Venice’s raison d’être is not only its “porous” connection between land and sea, but also its tides: the so-called “acqua alta” is on the one hand an obstacle for everyday life (at least before the introduction of the MoSE), on the other hand an attractive natural phenomenon for (over)tourism. However, it is interesting to see how the ancient inhabitants of the lagoon had to deal with the same problem. In the first half of the 6^th century, Cassiodorus (var. 12,24) recognizes the positive collaboration between humans and nature, suggesting that human care is complementary to nature, and necessary for land management; he also compares the water buildings of the ancient inhabitants of Venice to the nests of water birds. Thanks to him, we understand that even in late ancient (Christian) texts, elements of ecocriticism can be found.

          In particular, our project HUMAN aims to provide a new approach in the understanding of the late ancient – mainly Christian – relationship between humans and non-humans. The project will study as systematically as possible some of the many available textual sources from an ‘ecocritical’ perspective. As already mentioned, there are many late ancient Latin works dealing with creation (prose commentaries by Ambrose and Augustine; poetic paraphrases by Proba, Cyprianus Gallus, Marius Victorius, etc.), which are obviously the right place where to find ‘ecological views’. Just one example: man’s dominion over the nature (Gen 1.26b) is never described as that of a shameless exploiter: although Marius Victorius states that animals should obey man as their tyrannus (aleth. 1.341), ps.-Hilarius compares Adam’s role to that of a genitor (Gen. 157), and Avitus speaks of man as a cultor, protector and farmer (spir. hist. 1.54); and, interestingly, Basil’s and Ambrose’s commentaries stop at Gen 1.26a, with no mention of man’s dominion over nature.

          In short, humans hold the reins of the natural world but must also take care of it: this is a distinctly Christian ‘ecological view’, which has also been reaffirmed by Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato si’ (2015).