Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Chapter 4 - Author and Identity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures and Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Canons
- Chapter 3 Periodisations
- Chapter 4 Author and Identity
- Chapter 5 Intertextuality
- Chapter 6 Mediaeval Latin
- Chapter 7 Neo-Latin
- Chapter 8 Reception
- Chapter 9 National Traditions
- Chapter 10 Editing
- Chapter 11 Latin Literature and Linguistics
- Chapter 12 Latin Literature and Material Culture
- Chapter 13 Philosophy
- Chapter 14 Political Thought
- Chapter 15 Latin Literature and Roman History
- Chapter 16 Latin Literature and Greek
- Envoi
- Index Locorum
- General Index
- References
Summary
This chapter addresses problems in the philosophy of interpretation with regard to Latin authors. Its central question is what we mean by the ‘author’. The history of ‘persona’, the notion that the speaker in first-person literature and by extension the image of the author presented in any text is a ‘mask’, is explored for its theoretical and interpretive value, but also critiqued for the potential ethical and political issues it raises. The author should be considered not a window onto the life of the flesh-and-blood Roman, but rather as a construct arising in part, but only in part, from an initial human consciousness living in a specific historical place and time, then developed through a dynamic process of reception. The battle for the life and soul of the author is the story of interpretation, in which the question of the extent to which ‘original intention’ can or should be the goal of exegesis was one of the great controversies of the 20th century and remains a creatively unsolvable problem. I argue that there are certain kinds of readings which are rightly and explicitly situated outside the scope of ‘original intention’, of which I take feminist readings as exemplary.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 158 - 207Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Abbott, H. P. (2011) ‘Reading intended meaning where none is intended: a cognitivist reappraisal of the implied author’, Poetics Today 32: 461–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, W. S. (1964) ‘Anger in Juvenal and Seneca’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 19: 127–96.Google Scholar
Ash, R. (2013) ‘Drip-feed invective: Pliny, self-fashioning, and the Regulus letters’, in Marmodoro and Hill 2013, 207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. (1977) Image – Music – Text: Essays Selected and Translated by Stephen Heath, London.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. (2006) The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Empire, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. and Schiesaro, A., eds. (2015) The Cambridge Companion to Seneca, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batstone, W. W. (2018) ‘Sulpicia and the speech of men’, in Frangoulidis, S. and Harrison, S. J., eds., Life, Love and Death in Latin Poetry (Berlin), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, M. (2002) ‘Ciceronian correspondences: making a book out of letters’, in Wiseman, T. P., ed., Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome (Oxford), 103–44.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. and Royle, N. (2016) An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, 5th edn, London and New York.Google Scholar
Churchill, L. J., Brown, P. R. and Jeffrey, J. E., eds. (2002) Women Writing Latin in Roman Antiquity, Late Antiquity and the Early Christian Era, New York.Google Scholar
Drinkwater, M. (2013) ‘Militia amoris: fighting in love’s army’, in Thorsen, T. S., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy (Cambridge), 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabre-Serris, J. (2018) ‘Intratextuality and intratextuality in the Corpus Tibullianum (3.8–18)’, in Harrison, S. J., Frangoulidis, S. and Papanghelis, T., eds., Intratextuality and Latin Literature (Berlin), 67–79.Google Scholar
Farrell, John (2017) The Varieties of Authorial Intention: Literary Theory Beyond the Intentional Fallacy, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Joseph (2019) ‘Virgil’s intertextual personae’, in Martindale, C. and Mac Góráin, F., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, 2nd edn (Cambridge), 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetterley, J. (1978) The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Fish, S. (1991) ‘Biography and intention’, in Epstein, W. H., ed., Contesting the Subject: Essays in the Postmodern Theory and Practice of Biography and Biographical Criticism (West Lafayette, IN), 9–16.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. and Hanink, J., eds. (2016) Creative Lives in Classical Antiquity: Poets, Artists and Biography, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977) Language, Counter-Memory Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (ed. Bouchard, D; trans. D. Bouchard and S. Simon), Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (2001) ‘Narrative: introduction’, in Harrison, S. J., ed., Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory, and Classical Literature (Oxford), 65–9.Google Scholar
Freudenberg, K. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenberg, K. (2005) ‘Introduction’, in Freudenberg, K., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire (Cambridge), 1–30.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, L. (2017) A Literary Commentary on the Elegies of the Appendix Tibulliana, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gallia, A. B. (2016) ‘“Some of my best friends”: reading prejudice in Juvenal’s third Satire’, CJ 111: 319–46.Google Scholar
Geue, T. (2019) Author Unknown: The Power of Anonymity in Ancient Rome, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. and Gubar, S. (1979) The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination, New Haven.Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1988) ‘Personhood and personality: the four-personae theory in Cicero De officiis 1’, OSAPh 6: 169–99.Google Scholar
Gloyn, E. (2013) ‘Reading rape in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: a test-case lesson’, CW 106: 676–81.Google Scholar
Gould, T. (1990) The Ancient Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, F. M. (2015) ‘Witnesses and participants in the shadows: the sexual lives of enslaved women and boys’, Helios 42: 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, E. (1998) ‘Travesties of love: violence and voyeurism in Ovid Amores 1.7’, CW 92: 409–18.Google Scholar
Greene, E. (2000) ‘Gender identity and the elegiac hero in Propertius 2.1’, Arethusa 33: 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurd, S. A. (2011) Work in Progress: Literary Revision as Social Performance in Ancient Rome, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, S. P. (1993) ‘Black feminist thought and Classics: re-remembering, re-claiming, re-empowering’, in Rabinowitz, N. S. and Richlin, A., eds., Feminist Theory and the Classics (New York), 23–43.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. (1989) ‘Women as same and other in classical Roman elite’, Helios 16: 59–78.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. (2002) ‘The eleven elegies of the Augustan poet Sulpicia’, in Churchill, , Brown, and Jeffrey, 2002, 45–65.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. and Moore, H., eds. (2010) Classical Literary Careers and Their Reception, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. J. (2013) ‘Author and speaker(s) in Horace’s Satires 2’, in Marmodoro, and Hill, 2013: 153–71.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. (2016) ‘Optima tu proprii nominis auctor: the semantics of female authorship in ancient Rome, from Sulpicia to Proba’, Eugesta 6.Google Scholar
Hemelrijk, E. (1999) Matrona docta: Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to Julia, London.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. G. W. (1991) ‘Wrapping up the case: reading Ovid, Amores 2.7 (+8) i’, MD 27: 37–88.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. G. W. (1992) ‘Wrapping up the case: reading Ovid, Amores 2.7 (+8) ii’, MD 28: 27–83.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. G. W. (2003) ‘Portrait of the artist as a figure of style: P.L.I.N.Y’s letters’, Arethusa 36: 115–25.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (1987) ‘The poetess and the reader: further steps towards Sulpicia’, Hermathena 143: 29–46.Google Scholar
Holzberg, N. (1998) ‘Four poets and a poetess or a portrait of the poet as a young man? Thoughts on book 3 of the corpus Tibullianum’, CJ 94: 169–91.Google Scholar
Irwin, W. (1999) Intentionalist Interpretation: A Philosophical Explanation and Defence, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
James, S. L. (1997) ‘Slave-rape and female silence in Ovid’s love poetry,’ Helios 24: 60–76.Google Scholar
James, S. L. (2012) ‘Teaching rape in Roman love elegy, Part II’, in Gold, 2012, 549–57.Google Scholar
Keith, A. M. (1994) ‘Corpus eroticum: elegiac poetics and elegiac puellae in Ovid’s Amores’, CW 88: 27–40.Google Scholar
Keith, A. M. (1999) ‘Slender verse: Roman elegy and ancient rhetorical theory’, Mnemosyne 52: 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutzko, D. (2006) ‘The major importance of a minor poet: Herodas 6 and 7 as a quasi-dramatic diptych’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F. and Wakker, C. G., eds., Beyond the Canon (Leuven), 167–84.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. (1992) ‘Intention and interpretation: a last look’, in Iseminger, G., ed., Intention and Interpretation (Philadelphia), 221–56.Google Scholar
Littlewood, C. A. J. (2015) ‘Theater and theatricality in Seneca’s world’, in Bartsch and Schiesaro 2015, 161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liveley, G. (1999) ‘Reading resistance in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in Barchiesi, A, Hardie, P. R, and Hinds, S. E, eds., Ovidian Transformations: Essays on Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Its Reception (Cambridge), 197–213.Google Scholar
Marmodoro, A. and Hill, J., eds. (2013) The Author’s Voice in Classical and Late Antiquity, Oxford.Google Scholar
Martelli, F. (2017) ‘The triumph of letters: rewriting Cicero in Ad fam. 15’, JRS 107: 90–115.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1993) Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. G. (2003a) ‘Persona<l> problems: the literary persona in antiquity revisited’, MD 50: 55–80.Google Scholar
McCarthy, C. (2016) ‘Textual criticism and biblical translation’, in Barclay, J, ed., The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Companion (Princeton), 532–56.Google Scholar
McCutcheon, R. W. (2016) ‘A revisionist history of Cicero’s Letters’, Mouseion 13: 35–63.Google Scholar
McIntosh Snyder, J. (1989) The Woman and the Lyre: Women Writers in Classical Greece and Rome, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Milnor, K. (2002) ‘Sulpicia’s (corpo)reality: elegy, authorship and the body in [Tibullus] 3.13’, ClAnt 21: 259–82.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T., ed. (1985) Against Theory: Literary Studies and the New Pragmatism, Chicago.Google Scholar
Moodie, E. K. (2012) ‘The bully as satirist in Juvenal’s third satire’, AJPh 133: 93–115.Google Scholar
Morello, R. (2003) ‘Pliny and the art of saying nothing’, Arethusa 36: 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morello, R. (2008) ‘Segregem eam efficit: Virgil’s Camilla and the scholiasts’, in Casali, S. and Stok, F., eds., Servio: stratificazioni esegetiche e modelli culturali/Servius: Exegetical Stratifications and Cultural Models, Collection Latomus 317 (Brussels), 38–57.Google Scholar
Morrison, A. D. (2013) ‘Authorship and authority in Greek fictional letters’, in Marmodoro, and Hill, 2013, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nappa, C. (1998) ‘Place settings: convivium, contrast, and persona in Catullus 12 and 13’, AJPh 119: 389–97.Google Scholar
Nichols, M. F. (2009) ‘Social status and the authorial personae of Horace and Vitruvius’, in Houghton, L. B. T. and Wyke, M., eds., Perceptions of Horace: A Roman Poet and His Readers (Cambridge), 109–22.Google Scholar
Oliensis, E. (2014) ‘The paratext of Amores 1: gaming the system’, in Jansen 2014, 206–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2018) ‘Make war not love: militia amoris and domestic violence in Roman elegy’, in Gale, M. R. and Scourfield, J. H. D., eds., Texts and Violence in the Roman World (Cambridge), 110–39.Google Scholar
Pandey, N. B. (2018) ‘Caput mundi: female hair as symbolic vehicle of domination in Ovidian love elegy,’ CJ 113: 454–88.Google Scholar
Pasco-Pranger, M. (2012) ‘Duplicitous simplicity in Ovid, Amores 1’, CQ 62: 721–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. (2012) The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake: Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. (2013) ‘Ille ego qui quondam: on authorial (an)onymity’, in Marmodoro and Hill 2013, 251–85.Google Scholar
Peirano Garrison, I. (2014) ‘Sphragis: paratextual autobiographies’, in Jansen 2014, 224–42.Google Scholar
Perkins, C. A. (2015) ‘The poeta as rusticus in Ovid Amores 1.7’, Helios 42: 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant, I. M. (2004) Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome: An Anthology, London and Norman, OK.Google Scholar
Plate, L. (2016) ‘Gynocriticism’, in Naples, N., Wickramasinghe, M. and Wong Wai Ching, A., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
De Pretis, A. (2003) ‘“Insincerity,” “facts,” and “epistolarity”: approaches to Pliny’s epistles to Calpurnia’, Arethusa 36: 127–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, B., ed. (2011) Implied Author: Back from the Grave or Simply Dead Again? (= Style 45), DeKalb, IL.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. (1991) ‘Reading Ovid’s rapes’, in Richlin, A., ed., Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome (Oxford), 158–79.Google Scholar
Rimell, V. (2006) Ovid’s Lovers: Desire, Difference and the Poetic Imagination, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Salzman-Mitchell, P. (2005) A Web of Fantasies: Gaze, Image, and Gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Schlegel, C. M. (2005) Satire and the Threat of Speech: Horace Satires 1, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Schmid, W. (2009) ‘Implied author’, in Hühn, P., Pier, J., Schmid, W. and Schönert, J., eds., Handbook of Narratology (Berlin), 161–73.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2000) ‘Constructing characters in Propertius’, Arethusa 33: 263–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2015) ‘Warrior women in Roman epic’, in Keith, A. and Fabre-Serris, J., eds., Women and War in Antiquity (Baltimore), 157–78.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2020) ‘Gender and transformation: reading, women, and gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in Sharrock, A. R., Malm, M. and Möller, D., eds., Ovidian Readings: Transformations of Language, Gender and the Metamorphoses (Oxford), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, A. R. (2021) 读者与文本身份政治:女性与男性, 读者与文本’ [Identity politics: women and men, readers and texts], (trans. Yi Zeng), in Liu, J., ed., 全球视野下的古罗 马诗人奥维德研究前沿 [The New Frontiers of Research on the Roman Poet Ovid in the Global Context] (Beijing).Google Scholar
Showalter, E. (1977) A Literature of Their Own: British Women Novelists from Brontë to Lessing, Princeton.Google Scholar
Spentzou, E. (2002) Readers and Writers in Ovid’s Heroides: Transgressions of Genre and Gender, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. (2005) Women Latin Poets: Language, Gender, and Authority from Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (2016) Texts, Editors, and Readers: Methods and Problems in Latin Textual Criticism, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tempest, K. (2013) ‘An “ethos” of sincerity: echoes of the De republica in Cicero’s Pro Marcello’, G&R 60: 262–80.Google Scholar
Uden, J. (2014) The Invisible Satirist: Juvenal and Second-Century Rome, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlig, A. (2016) ‘A poetic possession: Pindar’s Lives of the poets’, in Fletcher and Hanink 2016, 103–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, P. (2006b) ‘Introduction: criticism, theory, and anti-theory’, in Waugh 2006a, 1–33.Google Scholar
White, P. (2010) Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic, Oxford.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2013) ‘An I for an I: reading fictional autobiography’, in Marmodoro and Hill 2013, 233–47.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K. and Beardsley, M. C. (1946) ‘The intentional fallacy’, The Sewanee Review 54: 468–88.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K. and Beardsley, M. C. (1949) ‘The affective fallacy’, The Sewanee Review 57: 31–55.Google Scholar