King's College London

The epilogue to the volume does not seek to synthesize the positions of the various chapters into a conclusive, homogeneous, monolithic notion of metalepsis in general and in ancient literature and art in particular. Rather, it sums up and further explores the productive tensions and perspectival differences that remain among the contributions, while also taking stock of the emerging common ground that can simultaneously be established. It draws out and comments on the recurring concerns of this volume, which cluster in particular around the issues of historically contingent reception aesthetics, dynamics of performance, affect, intermediality, narrative ontology, and differences between genres. All of these themes intersect richly with a wide range of current developments in literary studies, and the critical perspectives associated with them can be mobilized to confront and address some of the unsatisfactory dimensions of structuralist narratology.

In sum, the epilogue shows how the volume as a whole expands the scope and methods of narrative theory by incorporating specifically classical parameters of narration, and thus advances the developing theoretical field of historical narratology. In doing so, the epilogue sketches avenues for future research and draws out some of the ways in which the present volume seeks to set an agenda for new directions in classical scholarship.