Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:39:43.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 5 - Intertextuality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2024

By
Donncha O’Rourke  and
Aaron Pelttari
Edited by
Roy Gibson  and
Christopher Whitton
Roy Gibson
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Christopher Whitton
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Since Kristeva invented the term in the late 1960s, intertextuality has become a dominant concern in Latin literature, despite the fact that Latinists often use the term in a narrow sense. A brief history of intertextuality enables this chapter to model different understandings of intertextuality across different genres and periods. Consideration begins with a passage of Virgil long recognised as a calque of Homer, and moves to other maximal cases of intertextuality in Plautus and Terence. Awareness of the dynamics and ideological power of intertextuality enables fuller consideration of the metaphors with which such passages as these comment on their situation in wider networks of text. The importance of historical context is discussed through several phenomena prevalent in late antiquity, namely cento poetry, compilation and typological interpretation. Developments across these periods in the technology of text focus attention on the cognitive and material dimensions of memory. The chapter closes by putting intertextual memory in Latin literature into dialogue with emerging methods of reading enabled by digital corpora, search algorithms, hypertext and linked data.

Keywords

Intertextualityallusionreceptionself-reflexive annotationJulia KristevaRoman comedyVirgilcento poetrymemorydigital humanities
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 208 - 271
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahl, F. (1985) Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Allen, G. (2011) Intertextuality, 2nd edn, New York.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. S. (1993) Barbarian Play: Plautus’ Roman Comedy, Toronto.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. (1995) ‘The impossibility of metathesis: Philodemus and Lucretius on form and content in poetry’, in Obbink, D, ed., Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace (New York), 210–32.Google Scholar
Ash, R. (2007) Tacitus Histories. Book 2, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Auerbach, E. (1944) ‘Figura’, in Neue Dantestudien (Istanbul), 11–71. Revised from E. Auerbach, ‘Figura’, Archivum Romanicum 22 (1938), 436–89.Google Scholar
Austin, R. G. (1939) ‘The epilogue to the Agricola’, CR 53: 116–17.Google Scholar
Bagnall, R. and Heath, S. (2018) ‘Roman studies and digital resources’, JRS 108: 171–89.Google Scholar
Bain, D. (1979) ‘Plautus vortit barbare: Plautus Bacchides 526–561 and Menander Dis exapatōn 102–112’, in West, D. and Woodman, T., eds., Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (Cambridge), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barchiesi, A. (1984) La traccia del modello: effetti omerici nella narrazione virgiliana, Pisa.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. (1994) ‘Immovable Delos: Aeneid 3.73–98 and the Hymns of Callimachus’, CQ 44: 438–43.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. (2001) Speaking Volumes: Narrative and Intertext in Ovid and Other Latin Poets (trans. M. Fox and S. Marchesi), London.Google Scholar
Barchiesi, A. (2015) Homeric Effects in Vergil’s Narrative (trans. I. Marchesi and M. Fox), Princeton.Google Scholar
Bažil, M. (2009) Centones Christiani: métamorphoses d’une forme intertextuelle dans la poésie latine chrétienne de l’Antiquité tardive, Paris.Google Scholar
Bažil, M. (2017) ‘Elementorum varius textus: Atomistisches und Anagrammatisches in Optatians Textbegriff’, in Squire and Wienand 2017, 341–68.Google Scholar
Ben-Porat, Z. (1976) ‘The poetics of literary allusion’, PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1: 105–28.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T. (2006) ‘Linked data’, Design Issues, www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O. (2001) ‘The semantic web’, Scientific American 284: 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, M., B. Almas and G. R. Crane (2016) ‘The Leipzig Open Fragmentary Texts Series (LOFTS)’, in N. Bernstein and N. Coffee, eds., Digital Methods and Classical Studies, Special edition of Digital Humanities Quarterly 10.2.Google Scholar
Bloom, H. (1973) The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry, New York.Google Scholar
Breed, B. (2006) Pastoral Inscriptions: Reading and Writing Virgil’s Eclogues, London.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. (1972) ‘Ennius and the Hellenistic worship of Homer’, AJPh 93: 547–67.Google Scholar
Buchheit, V. (1988) ‘Vergildeutung im Cento Probae’, Grazer Beiträge 15: 161–76.Google Scholar
Carruthers, M. (2014) The Book of Memory, 2nd edn, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Chahoud, A. (2004) ‘The Roman satirist speaks Greek’, Classics Ireland 11: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citroni, M. (2011) ‘Arte allusiva: Pasquali and onward’, in Acosta-Hughes, B., Lehnus, L. and Stephens, S., eds., Brill’s Companion to Callimachus (Leiden), 566–86.Google Scholar
Clark, E. A. and Hatch, D. F. (1981) The Golden Bough, the Oaken Cross: The Virgilian Cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba, Chico, CA.Google Scholar
Clément-Tarantino, S. (2006) ‘La poétique romaine comme hybridat féconde. Les leçons de la greffe (Virgile, Géorgiques, 2, 9–82)’, Interférences – Ars Scribendi 4, http://ars-scribendi.ens-lsh.fr/article.php3?id_article=37&var_affichage=vf.Google Scholar
Coffee, N. (2013) ‘Intertextuality in Latin poetry’, Oxford Bibliographies Online, DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780195389661-0113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffee, N. (2018) ‘An agenda for the study of intertextuality’, TAPhA 148: 205–23.Google Scholar
Coffee, N. and Forstall, C. (2016) ‘Claudian’s engagement with Lucan in his historical and mythological hexameters’, in Berlincourt, V., Milić, L. G. and Nelis, D., eds., Lucan and Claudian (Berlin), 255–83.Google Scholar
Coffee, N., Koenig, J.P., Poornima, S., Ossewaard, R., Forstall, C. and Jacobson, S. (2012) ‘Intertextuality in the digital age’, TAPhA 142: 383–422.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (1974) Memoria dei poeti e sistema letterario. Catullo, Virgilio, Ovidio, Lucano, Turin.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (1984) Virgilio: il genere e i suoi confini. Modelli del senso, modelli della forma in una poesia colta e ‘sentimentale’, Milan.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (1986) The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (2014) Dell’imitazione: furto e originalità, Pisa.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (2017) Stealing the Club from Hercules: On Imitation in Latin Poetry, Berlin.Google Scholar
Crawford, M. (2019) The Eusebian Canon Tables: Ordering Textual Knowledge in Late Antiquity, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cucchiarelli, A. and Traina, A. (2012) Virgilio, le Bucoliche, Rome.Google Scholar
Dawson, D. (2002) Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity, Berkeley.Google Scholar
DeBrohun, J. B. (2003) Roman Propertius and the Reinvention of Elegy, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Desbordes, F. (1979) Argonautica: trois études sur l’imitation dans la littérature antique, Brussels.Google Scholar
Dexter, J. P., Katz, T., Tripuraneni, N., Dasgupta, T., Kannan, A., Brofos, J. A. (2017) ‘Quantitative criticism of literary relationships’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: E3195–E3204, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1611910114.Google Scholar
D’Ippolito, G. (2000) ‘Il concetto di intertestualità nel pensiero degli antichi’, Classica Salmanticensia 2: 13–32.Google Scholar
Dufallo, B. (2013) The Captor’s Image: Greek Culture in Roman Ecphrasis, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmunds, L. (2001) Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. (2017) ‘Late Narcissus: classicism and culture in a late Roman cento’, in Elsner, J. and Hernández Lobato, J., eds., The Poetics of Late Latin Literature (Oxford), 176–206.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. (1968) ‘Act iv of the Menaechmi: Plautus and his original’, CPh 63: 175–83.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. (2011) Roman Readings: Roman Response to Greek Literature from Plautus to Statius and Quintilian, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, J. (1991) Vergil’s Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: The Art of Allusion in Literary History, Oxford.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (1997) ‘The Virgilian intertext’, in Martindale, C., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (Cambridge), 222–38.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (1999) ‘Aeneid 5: poetry and parenthood’, in Perkell, C., ed., Reading Vergil’s Aeneid (Norman, OK), 96–110.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2005) ‘Intention and intertext’, Phoenix 59: 98–111.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2009) ‘The impermanent text in Catullus and other Roman poets’, in Johnson, W. and Parker, H., eds., Ancient Literacies (New York), 164–85.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2019) ‘Virgil’s intertextual personae’, in Mac Góráin, F. and Martindale, C., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, 2nd edn (Cambridge), 299–325.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. (2016) Beyond Greek: The Beginnings of Latin Literature, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, S. (1980) Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. (2016) Variety: The Life of a Roman Concept, Chicago.Google Scholar
Fontaine, M. (2006) ‘Sicilicissitat (Plautus, Menaechmi 12) and early geminate writing in Latin (with an appendix on Men. 13)’, Mnemosyne 59: 95–110.Google Scholar
Fontaine, M. (2014) ‘The Terentian reformation: from Menander to Alexandria’, in Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 538–54.Google Scholar
Fontaine, M. and Scafuro, A. C., eds. (2014) The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forstall, C., Coffee, N., Buck, T., Roache, K. and Jacobson, S. (2015) ‘Modeling the scholars: detecting intertextuality through enhanced word-level n-gram matching’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30: 503–15.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. (1997) ‘On the shoulders of giants: intertextuality and classical studies’, MD 39: 13–34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, E. (1922) Plautinisches im Plautus, Berlin.Google Scholar
Friedländer, P. (1941) ‘Patterns of sound and atomistic theory in Lucretius’, AJPh 62: 16–34.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, L. and Stover, T., eds. (2016) Repeat Performances: Ovidian Repetition and the Metamorphoses, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. (1994) Myth and Poetry in Lucretius, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gale, M. R. (2000) Virgil on the Nature of Things: The Georgics, Lucretius and the Didactic Tradition, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ganiban, R. T. (2007) Statius and Virgil: The Thebaid and the Reinterpretation of the Aeneid, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genette, G. (1987) Seuils, Paris.Google Scholar
Gibson, B. J. (1999) ‘Ovid on reading: reading Ovid. Reception in Ovid Tristia 2’, JRS 89: 19–37.Google Scholar
Gibson, B. J. (2014) ‘Paraintertextuality: Spenser’s classical paratexts in The Shepheardes Calender ’, in Jansen 2014, 242–61.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. (2002) ‘“Cf. e.g.”: a typology of “parallels” and the function of commentaries on Latin poetry’, in Gibson and Kraus 2002, 331–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. K. and Kraus, C. S., eds. (2002) The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, Leiden.Google Scholar
Gladhill, C. W. (2012) ‘Sons, mothers, and sex: Aeneid 1.314–20 and the Hymn to Aphrodite reconsidered’, Vergilius 58: 159–68.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. (1983) ‘Terence, Cato, and the rhetorical prologue’, CPh 78: 198–211.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. (2019) Afterlives of the Roman Poets: Biofiction and the Reception of Latin Poetry, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowers, E. (2004) ‘The plot thickens: hidden outlines in Terence’s prologues’, Ramus 33: 150–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafton, A. and Williams, M. (2006) Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gratwick, A. S. (1993) Plautus: Menaechmi, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Green, R. (1997) ‘Proba’s introduction to her cento’, CQ 47: 548–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. (2008) ‘Which Proba wrote the cento?’ CQ 58: 264–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habinek, T. (1997) ‘The invention of sexuality in the world-city of Rome’, in Habinek and Schiesaro 1997, 23–43.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. and Schiesaro, A., eds. (1997) The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Handley, E. (1968) Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison, London.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (1988) ‘Lucretius and the delusions of Narcissus’, MD 20/21: 71–89.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (1993) The Epic Successors of Virgil: A Study in the Dynamics of a Tradition, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (1998) Virgil, Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (2002) Ovid’s Poetics of Allusion, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (2007) ‘Polyphony or Babel? Hosidius Geta’s Medea and the poetics of the cento’, in Swain, S., Harrison, S. and Elsner, J., eds., Severan Culture (Cambridge), 168–76.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (2012) Rumour and Renown: Representations of Fama in Western Literature, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (2019) Classicism and Christianity in Late Antique Latin Poetry, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. (2007) Generic Enrichment in Vergil and Horace, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, N. (1989) ‘Compilatio: from plagiarism to compiling’, Viator 20: 19–44.Google Scholar
Heaney, S. (2016) Aeneid Book vi, London.Google Scholar
Heath, M. (2002) Interpreting Classical Texts, London.Google Scholar
Hedges, M., Jordanous, A., Lawrence, K. F., Roueché, C. and Tupman, C. (2017) ‘Computer-assisted processing of intertextuality in ancient languages’, Journal of Data Mining and Digital Humanities, Special Issue on Computer-Aided Processing of Intertextuality in Ancient Languages, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01265297.Google Scholar
Heerink, M. (2015) Echoing Hylas: A Study in Hellenistic and Roman Metapoetics, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Heinz, C. (2007) Mehrfache Intertextualität bei Prudentius, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Hejduk, J. D. (2018) ‘Was Vergil reading the Bible? Original sin and an astonishing acrostic in the Orpheus and Eurydice’, Vergilius 64: 71–102.Google Scholar
Henkel, J. (2014) ‘Vergil talks technique: metapoetic arboriculture in Georgics 2’, Vergilius 60: 33–66.Google Scholar
Heyworth, S. J. and Morwood, J. (2017) A Commentary on Vergil Aeneid 3, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, S. (1998) Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (2014) ‘The self-conscious cento’, in Formisano, M and Fuhrer, T, eds., Décadence: ‘Decline and Fall’ or ‘Other Antiquity’ (Heidelberg), 171–97.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (1989) ‘Aeneas the colonist’, Vergilius 35: 8–27.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (1990) ‘Virgil and the illusory footnote’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 6: 49–63.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (1991) L’epopea in alambicco, Naples.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. (2006) Virgil, Aeneid 3: A Commentary, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsfall, N. (2016) The Epic Distilled: Studies in the Composition of the Aeneid, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. (2013) Greek to Latin: Frameworks and Contexts for Intertextuality, Oxford.Google Scholar
Irvine, M. (1994) The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory, 350–1100, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jachmann, G. P. (1934) ‘Terentius Afer’, RE 5A: 598–650.Google Scholar
Jansen, L., ed. (2014) The Roman Paratext: Frames, Texts, Readers, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. (2010) Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: a Study of Elite Communities, New York.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. and Parker, H., eds. (2009) Ancient Literacies, New York.Google Scholar
Joseph, T. (2012) Tacitus the Epic Successor: Virgil, Lucan, and the Narrative of Civil War in the Histories, Leiden.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. (2011) Macrobius: Saturnalia, 3 vols., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. (2008) Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Knauer, G. N. (1964a) Die Aeneis und Homer: Studien zur poetischen Technik Vergils, mit Listen der Homerzitate in der Aeneis, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Knauer, G. N. (1964b) ‘Vergil’s Aeneid and Homer’, GRBS 5: 61–84.Google Scholar
König, A. and Whitton, C., eds. (2018) Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian: Literary Interactions, ad 96–138, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, J. and Woolf, G., eds. (2013) Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstan, D. (1988) ‘Lucretius on poetry: iii.1–13’, ColbyQ 24: 65–70.Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. (1980) ‘Word, dialogue and novel’, in Kristeva, J., Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature, New York. Reprinted in T. Moi, ed., The Kristeva Reader (New York, 1986), 35–61. Translated from ‘Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman’, Critique 239 (1967), 438–61.Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. (2002) ‘“Nous deux” or a (hi)story of intertextuality’, Romanic Review 93: 7–13.Google Scholar
Kroll, W. (1924) Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, L. (2018) ‘Seeing the light, Part ii: the reception of Aratus’s LEPTĒ acrostic in Greek and Latin literature’, Dictynna 15, http://journals.openedition.org/dictynna/1575.Google Scholar
Laird, A. (2002) ‘Juan Luis de la Cerda and the predicament of commentary’, in Gibson and Kraus 2002, 171–203.Google Scholar
Lamacchia, R., ed. (1981) Hosidius Geta. Medea: Cento Vergilianus, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Lamberton, R. (1986) Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lausberg, H. (1966) ‘Rhetorik und Dichtung’, Der Deutschunterricht 18.6: 47–93.Google Scholar
Lefèvre, E., Stärk, E. and Vogt-Spira, G., eds. (1991) Plautus barbarus: Sechs Kapitel zur Originalität des Plautus, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Leigh, M. (2004) ‘The Pro Caelio and comedy’, CPh 99: 300–35.Google Scholar
Leo, F. (1913) Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Vol. 1: Die archaische Literature, Berlin.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1992) ‘Stoic readings of Homer’, in Lamberton, R and Keaney, J. J, eds., Homer’s Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes (Princeton), 41–66.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. (2010) ‘The symbolic value of grafting in ancient Rome’, TAPhA 140: 461–88.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. (2013) ‘Women scorned: a new stichometric allusion in the Aeneid’, CQ 63: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, D. (2014) ‘A stichometric allusion to Catullus 64 in the Culex’, CQ 64: 862–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, W. (1968) ‘The originality of Terence and his Greek models’, GRBS 9: 169–92.Google Scholar
Lyne, R. (2016) Memory and Intertextuality in Renaissance Literature, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1987) Further Voices in Vergil’s Aeneid, Oxford.Google Scholar
McAuley, M. (2016) Reproducing Rome: Motherhood in Virgil, Ovid, Seneca, and Statius, Oxford.Google Scholar
McElduff, S. (2004) ‘More than Menander’s acolyte: Terence on translation’, Ramus 33: 120–9.Google Scholar
McElduff, S. (2013) Roman Theories of Translation: Surpassing the Source, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, S. (2005) Virgil Recomposed: The Mythological and Secular Centos in Antiquity, Oxford.Google Scholar
McNelis, C. and Sens, A. (2016) The Alexandra of Lycophron: A Literary Study, Oxford.Google Scholar
McGill, S. (2012) Plagiarism in Latin Literature, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mac Góráin, F. (2019) ‘Virgil: the future?’, in Mac Góráin and Martindale 2019, 472–7.Google Scholar
Mac Góráin, F. and Martindale, C., eds. (2019) The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, 2nd edn, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mackail, J. (1896) Latin Literature, 2nd edn, London.Google Scholar
MacPhail, E. (2014) Dancing Around the Well: The Circulation of Commonplaces in Renaissance Humanism, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1994) Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuwald, G. (2014) ‘Tragedy, paratragedy, and Roman comedy’, in Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 580–98.Google Scholar
Marchesi, I. (2008) The Art of Pliny’s Letters: A Poetics of Allusion in the Private Correspondence, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, C. (1993) Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Miller, J. F. (2009) Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moretti, F. (2000) ‘The slaughterhouse of literature’, Modern Language Quarterly 61: 207–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretti, F. (2013) Distant Reading, London.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. (1999) Patterns of Redemption in Virgil’s Georgics, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narducci, E. (1973) ‘Il tronco di Pompeo’, Maia 25: 317–25.Google Scholar
Nelis, D. (2001) Vergil’s Aeneid and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, Leeds.Google Scholar
Nelis, D., Forstall, C. and Galli Milić, L. (2017) ‘Intertextuality and narrative context: digital narratology?’ HAL, https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01480773.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. (2020) ‘Lucretian echoes: sound as metaphor for literary allusion in De rerum natura 4.549–94’, in O’Rourke, D., ed., Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De rerum natura (Cambridge), 124–39.Google Scholar
Norden, E. (1957) P. Vergilius Maro Aeneis Buch vi, 4th edn, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Norwood, G. (1923) The Art of Terence, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nugent, S. (1992) ‘Vergil’s “voice of the women” in Aeneid v’, Arethusa 25: 255–92.Google Scholar
Oliensis, E. (2001) ‘Freud’s Aeneid’, Vergilius 47: 39–63.Google Scholar
Olson, S. D. (2011) ‘Immortal encounters: Aeneid i and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’, Vergilius 57: 55–61.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2011) ‘“Eastern” elegy and “western” epic: reading “orientalism” in Propertius 4 and Virgil’s Aeneid’, Dictynna 8, https://journals.openedition.org/dictynna/699.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2012) ‘Intertextuality in Roman elegy’, in Gold, B. K., ed., A Companion to Roman Love Elegy (Chichester), 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2014) ‘Paratext and intertext in the Propertian poetry book’, in Jansen 2014, 156–75.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2017) ‘Hospitality narratives in Virgil and Callimachus: the ideology of reception’, The Cambridge Classical Journal 63: 1–25.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2019) ‘Knowledge is power: dynamics of (dis)empowerment in didactic poetry’, in Canevaro, L. G. and O’Rourke, D., eds., Didactic Poetry of Greece, Rome and Beyond: Knowledge, Power, Tradition (Swansea), 21–52.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2020) ‘Infinity, enclosure and false closure in Lucretius’ De rerum natura’, in O’Rourke, D., ed., Approaches to Lucretius: Traditions and Innovations in Reading the De rerum natura (Cambridge), 103–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, T. M. (2009) ‘Death ante ora parentum in Virgil’s Aeneid’, TAPhA 139: 447–86.Google Scholar
Otto, A. (1890) Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Page, T. E. (1894) The Aeneid of Virgil, 2 vols., London.Google Scholar
Panayotakis, C. (2010) Decimus Laberius: The Fragments, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquali, G. (1920) Orazio lirico, Florence.Google Scholar
Pasquali, G. (1942) ‘Arte allusiva’, Italia che scrive 25: 185–7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Pelttari, A. (2014) The Space that Remains: Reading Latin Poetry in Late Antiquity, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Pelttari, A. (2019) ‘The reader and the resurrection in Prudentius’, JRS 109: 205–39.Google Scholar
Petrides, A. K. (2014) ‘Plautus between Greek comedy and Atellan farce: assessments and reassessments’, in Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 424–46.Google Scholar
Pierzak, D. (2015) ‘Was Cicero’s audience aware of how Orpheus died (Arch. 19)?’, Scripta Classica 12: 75–82.Google Scholar
Plett, H. F. (1999) ‘Rhetoric and intertextuality’, Rhetorica 17: 313–29.Google Scholar
Polara, G. (1989) ‘I centoni’, in Cavallo, G., Fedeli, P. and Giardina, A., eds., Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica. Vol. 3: La ricezione del testo (Rome), 245–75.Google Scholar
Pucci, J. (1998) The Full-Knowing Reader: Allusion and the Power of the Reader in the Western Literary Tradition, New Haven.Google Scholar
Reckford, K. J. (1996) ‘Recognizing Venus (i): Aeneas meets his mother’, Arion 3: 1–42.Google Scholar
Riffaterre, M. (1987) ‘The intertextual unconscious’, Critical Inquiry 13: 371–85.Google Scholar
Ross, D. O. (1975) Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy and Rome, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Salanitro, G. (1981) Osidio Geta: Medea, Rome.Google Scholar
Schafer, J. K. (2017) ‘Authorial pagination in the Eclogues and Georgics’, TAPhA 147: 135–78.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. (1994) ‘The palingenesis of De rerum natura’, PCPhS 40: 81–107.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. (1997) ‘The boundaries of knowledge in Virgil’s Georgics’, in Habinek and Schiesaro 1997, 63–89.Google Scholar
Schiesaro, A. (2008) ‘Furthest voices in Virgil’s Dido’, SIFC 6: 60–109, 194–245.Google Scholar
Schottenius Cullhed, S. (2015) Proba the Prophet: The Christian Virgilian Cento of Faltonia Betitia Proba, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, A. (2009) Roman Comedy: Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and Terence, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharrock, A. (2013) ‘Terence and non-comic intertexts’, in Augoustakis, A. and Traill, A., eds., A Companion to Terence (Malden, MA), 52–68.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. (2018) ‘How do we read a (w)hole? Dubious first thoughts about the cognitive turn’, in Harrison, S., Frangoulidis, S. and Papanghelis, T., eds., Intratextuality and Latin Literature (Berlin), 15–31.Google Scholar
Sineri, V. (2009) ‘Musaeus come Mosè nel centone di Proba’, RCCM 51: 153–60.Google Scholar
Small, J. P. (1997) Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity, London.Google Scholar
Smith, P. M. (1981) ‘Aineiadai as patrons of Iliad xx and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’, HSPh 85: 17–58.Google Scholar
Smith, R. A. (1990) ‘Ov. Met. 10.475: an instance of “meta-allusion”’, Gymnasium 97: 458–60.Google Scholar
Smith, S. J. (2002) ‘Tacitus’ Agricola: Representing Imperial Rome’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Squire, M. (2009) Image and Text in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Squire, M. and Wienand, J., eds. (2017) Morphogrammata / The Lettered Art of Optatian: Figuring Cultural Transformations in the Age of Constantine, Paderborn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staley, G. (2000) ‘Juvenal’s third satire: Umbricius’ Rome, Vergil’s Troy’, MAAR 45: 85–98.Google Scholar
Stärk, E. (1989) Die Menaechmi des Plautus und kein griechisches Original, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Steele, C. E. W. (2001) Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stemplinger, E. (1912) Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Stock, B. (1990) Listening for the Text: On the Uses of the Past, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Struck, P. T. (2004) Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts, Princeton.Google Scholar
Thomas, O. (2016) ‘Homeric and/or hymns: some fifteenth-century approaches’, in Faulkner, A., Vergados, A. and Schwab, A., eds., The Reception of the Homeric Hymns (Oxford), 277–99.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. (1999) Reading Virgil and His Texts: Studies in Intertextuality, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. (2001) Virgil and the Augustan Reception, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Underwood, T. (2019) Distant Horizons: Digital Evidence and Literary Change, Chicago.Google Scholar
Usher, D. (1998) Homeric Stitchings: The Homeric Centos of the Empress Eudocia, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Volk, K. (2002) The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warden, J. (1982) ‘Epic into elegy: Propertius 4,9,70 f.’, Hermes 110: 228–42.Google Scholar
Whitton, C. (2013) Pliny the Younger. Epistles Book ii, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Whitton, C. (2019) The Arts of Imitation in Latin Prose: Pliny’s Epistles/Quintilian in Brief, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Williams, R. D. (1962) P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber tertius, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wills, J. (1996) Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wray, D. (2003) ‘What poets do: Tibullus on easy hands’, CPh 98: 217–50.Google Scholar
Yates, F. A. (1966) The Art of Memory, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, J. M. and Putnam, M. C. J. (2008) The Virgilian Tradition: The First Fifteen Hundred Years, New Haven.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×