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-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:44:12.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 9 - National Traditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2024

By
Therese Fuhrer
Edited by
Roy Gibson  and
Christopher Whitton
Roy Gibson
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Christopher Whitton
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

The chapter examines the developments in the field of Latin studies in different periods and in different countries and institutions. Section 1 gives an outline of the history and the status of Latin studies in the schools and universities in a variety of continents and countries, over a certain period of time and in politically and ideologically distinct phases. The chapter analyses the diverging methods and research issues in Latin studies resulting from different institutional conditions. It scrutinises the influence of western European educational institutions in which Latin has been taught on individual academic disciplines also outside Europe, and raises the question whether they are determined by national or ideological schools of thought. Section 2 contains case studies seeking to determine the extent to which characteristic ‘national’ differences impinge on research in Latin. Using the example of critical editions of specific Latin texts, of the developments in the commentary tradition and of approaches derived from theoretical discourses elsewhere, the chapter attempts to illustrate the persistence or slowdown of national traditions in Latin studies to the present day.

Keywords

history of classical scholarshipLatin schoolsschool curriculumsnew humanismEurocentrismcolonialisationdead languagetextual criticismtranslation projectsinternationalisation
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 447 - 515
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

Adams, J. N. (2008) Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Albrecht, A., Danneberg, L. and De Angelis, S., eds. (2017) Die akademische ‘Achse Berlin-Rom’? Der wissenschaftlich-kulturelle Austausch zwischen Italien und Deutschland 1920 bis 1945, Berlin.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities, London.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. J. (2016) ‘Heracles’ choice: thoughts on the virtues of print and digital commentary’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 483–93.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. (2014) ‘Pasquali rittratista’, in Arrighetti et al. 2014, 1–28.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. et al., eds. (1989) La filologia greca e latina nel secolo XX: atti del congresso internazionale, Roma, consiglio nazionale delle ricerche … 1984, 3 vols., Pisa.Google Scholar
Arrighetti, G. (2014) Giorgio Pasquali sessantʼanni dopo. Atti della giornata di studio (Firenze, 1 ottobre 2012), Florence.Google Scholar
Ash, R. (2002) ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis? Historiographical commentaries on Latin historians’, in Gibson and Kraus 2002, 269–94.Google Scholar
Ash, R. (2017) Tacitus, Annals Book xv, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Averna, D. (2002) Lucio Anneo Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus. Testo critico, traduzione e commento, Rome. With 4th edn, 2014.Google Scholar
Axer, K. and Kolendo, J. (2002) ‘Poland I. Reception history A. Literature 5. Significance of the Latin language and classical culture’ = ‘Polen I. Rezeptionsgeschichte A. Literatur 5. Bedeutung der lateinischen Sprache und der antiken Kultur’, DNP 15.2: 398–9.Google Scholar
Barnard, J. L. (2017) Empire of Ruin: Black Classicism and American Imperial Culture, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsby, J. (1995) ‘Latin studies in New Zealand’, in Acta selecta Octavi Conventus Academiae Latinitati Fovendae (Rome), 683–95.Google Scholar
Bartera, S. (2016) ‘Commentary writing on the Annals of Tacitus’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 114–35.Google Scholar
Bate, J. (2008) Soul of the Age: The Life, Mind and World of William Shakespeare, London.Google Scholar
Baumann, U. (2003) ‘United Kingdom ii. The modern period’ = ‘United Kingdom ii. Neuzeit’, DNP 15.3: 797–822.Google Scholar
Beard, M. (2002) ‘Ciceronian correspondences: making a book out of letters’, in Wiseman, T. P., ed., Classics in Progress (London), 103–44.Google Scholar
Beard, M. (2012) ‘Saving Latin from the Tory party’, Times Literary Supplement, 22.06.2012. Available online: www.the-tls.co.uk/saving-latin-from-the-tory-party/.Google Scholar
Bers, V. and Nagy, G., eds. (1996) The Classics in East Europe: from the End of World War II to the Present, American Philological Association Pamphlet Series, Worcester, MA.Google Scholar
Binder, G. (1971) Aeneas und Augustus: Interpretationen zum 8. Buch der Aeneis, Meisenheim am Glan.Google Scholar
Bloch, R. H. (1995) Godʼs Plagiarist: Being an Account of the Famous Industry and Irregular Commerce of the Famous Abbé Migne, Chicago.Google Scholar
van Bommel, B. (2015) Classical Humanism and the Challenge of Modernity: Debates on Classical Education in 19th-Century Germany, Berlin.Google Scholar
Borzsák, I. (1984) Quinti Horati Flacci opera, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bossina, L. (2016) ‘Giorgio Pasquali e la filologia come scienza storica’, in Lanza, D. and Ugolini, G., eds., Storia della filologia classica (Rome), 277–314.Google Scholar
Bossina, L. (2017) ‘I rapporti tra Italia e Germania nella filologia classica (1920–1940)’, in Albrecht, Danneberg and De Angelis 2017, 229–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braund, S. M. (2002) Latin Literature, London and New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Brink, C. O. (2010) English Classical Scholarship: Historical Reflections on Bentley, Porson, and Housman, revised edn, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchheit, V. (1963) Vergil über die Sendung Roms. Untersuchungen zum Bellum Punicum und zur Aeneis, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Bulwer, J. (2018) ‘Changing priorities in Classics’, in Holmes-Henderson et al. 2018, 67–88.Google Scholar
Buschendorf, C. (2003) ‘United States of America’, DNP 15.3: 833–75.Google Scholar
Butrica, J. L. (1997) ‘Editing Propertius’, CQ 47: 176–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butrica, J. L. (2006) Review of P. Fedeli, Properzio, Elegie, Libro ii. Introduzione, testo e commento, Cambridge 2005, BMCRev 2006.03.25.Google Scholar
Butterfield, D. (2013a) The Early Textual History of Lucretiusʼ De rerum natura, Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
Butterfield, D. (2013b) ‘Why learn Latin?’, in Butterfield, D. et al., Latin for Language Lovers: Ancient Languages, the New Curriculum and GCSE (London), 4–5.Google Scholar
Butterfield, D. (2014) ‘Lucretius auctus? The question of interpolation in De rerum natura’, in Martínez, J., ed., Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature: Ergo decipiatur! (Leiden), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, D. (2016) ‘Some problems in the text and transmission of Lucretius’, in Hunter and Oakley 2016, 22–53.Google Scholar
Butterfield, D. and Stray, C., eds. (2009) A. E. Housman: Classical Scholar, London.Google Scholar
Calanchini, P. (2015) Cicero, De fato – Über das Schicksal, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Calder, W. M., iii (1994) ‘Classical scholarship in the United States: an introductory essay’, in Briggs, W. W., Jr, ed., Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport, CT and London), xix–xxxix.Google Scholar
Calder, W. M. (1998) Men in Their Books: Studies in the Modern History of Classical Scholarship (ed. J. Harris, P. and Scott Smith, R.), Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Cessi, C. (1930) Review of G. Gervasoni, Studi e ricerche sui Filologi e la Filologia classica fra il 700 e lʼ800 in Italia, Bergamo 1929 – Linee di storia della Filologia classica in Italia. Parte I: sino ai filologi settentrionali della prima metà dellʼ800, Florence 1929, Aevum 4: 62–5.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (1966) ‘Uno studioso tedesco di letteratura latina: Friedrich Klingner’, CS n.s. 5: 481–503.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. (2016) Critical Notes on Virgil, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, S. et al., eds. (2017) Ark of Civilization: Refugee Scholars and Oxford University, 1930–1945, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha Corrêa, P. (2018) ‘Reintroducing Classics in a Brazilian public school: project Minimus in São Paulo’, in Holmes-Henderson et al. 2018, 55–66.Google Scholar
De Martino, D. (2014) ‘Pasquali maestro di italianisti: il caso di Lanfranco Caretti’, in Arrighetti et al. 2014, 97–114.Google Scholar
Delz, J. (1988) Review of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, ed. Q. Horati Flacci opera (Stuttgart 1985), Gnomon 60: 495–501.Google Scholar
Dettmer, H. A. (2000) ‘Japan’, DNP 14: 721–2.Google Scholar
Deufert, M. (2005) Review of Titus Lucretius Carus. De rerum natura. Edizione critica con introduzione e versione a cura di Enrico Flores. Volume primo (Libri i–iii) (Naples 2002), Gnomon 77: 213–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deufert, M. (2017) Prolegomena zur Editio Teubneriana des Lukrez, Berlin.Google Scholar
Deufert, M. (2018) Kritischer Kommentar zu Lukrezens ‘De rerum natura’, Berlin.Google Scholar
Devine, M. and Stephens, L. D. (2013) Semantics for Latin: An Introduction, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A., eds. (2010) Colloquial and Literary Latin, Cambridge. With 2nd edn, 2016.Google Scholar
Doblhofer, E. (1992) Horaz in der Forschung nach 1957, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Dominik, W. J. (2003) ‘South Africa’ = ‘Südafrika’, DNP 15.3: 342–6.Google Scholar
Dummer, J. (1999) ‘GDR i. Classical studies’ = ‘DDR i. Die klassischen Altertumswissenschaften’, DNP 13: 681–89.Google Scholar
Edmunds, L. (2005) ‘Critical divergences: new directions in the study and teaching of Roman literature’, TAPhA 135: 1–13.Google Scholar
Eliot, T. S. (1945) What Is a Classic?, London.Google Scholar
Elsner, I. (2017) ‘Pfeiffer, Fraenkel, and refugee scholarship in Oxford during and after the Second World War’, in Crawford et al. 2017, 25–49.Google Scholar
Espagne, M. and Maufroy, S., eds. (2011) ‘La philologie allemande, figures de pensée. Denkfiguren der deutschen philologischen Tradition. Philology in Germany: figures of thought’, Revue Germanique Internationale 14 (n.pag.).Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2001) Latin Language and Latin Culture from Ancient to Modern Times, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (2005) ‘Eduard Fraenkel on Horace and Servius, or, texts, contexts, and the field of “Latin studies”’, TAPhA 135: 91–102.Google Scholar
Fedeli, P. (1986) ‘Sul modo di costituire il testo di Properzio’, RFIC 114: 238–50.Google Scholar
Fedeli, P (2006) ‘The history of Propertian scholarship’, in Günther, H.-C., ed., Brillʼs Companion to Propertius (Leiden), 3–21.Google Scholar
Feile, T. et al., eds. (2021) Brill’s Companion to Classics in the Early Americas, Leiden and Boston.Google Scholar
Feys, X. and Sacré, D. (2018) ‘Regina linguarum: the teaching of Latin at the Collegium Trilingue, 16th–18th Century’, in Papy, J., ed., The Leuven Colloquium Trilingue 1517−1797: Erasmus, Humanist Educational Practice and the New Language Institute Latin-Greek-Hebrew (Leuven), 103–28.Google Scholar
Flashar, H., ed. (1995) Altertumswissenschaft in den 20er Jahren. Neue Fragen und Impulse, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Flashar, H. et al., eds. (1979) Philologie und Hermeneutik, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J. et al. (1993) Patristique et antiquité tardive en Allemagne et en France de 1870 à 1930. Influences et échanges: actes du colloque franco-allemand de Chantilly (25–27 octobre 1991), Paris.Google Scholar
Fornaro, S. (1999) ‘Germany III. Up to 1806’ = ‘Deutschland III. Bis 1806’, DNP 13: 792–805.Google Scholar
Fraistat, N. and Flanders, J. (2013) ‘Introduction: textual scholarship in the age of media consciousness’, in Fraistat, N. and Flanders, J., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Textual Scholarship (Cambridge), 1–15.Google Scholar
Frolov, E. (2004) ‘The first steps of St. Petersburg classical scholarship: an academician Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694–1738). Classical scholarship in modern Russia’, Hyperboreus 10: 10–21.Google Scholar
Fürst, A. (2002) ‘Patristic theology/Patristics’ = ‘Patristische Theologie/Patristik’, DNP 15.2: 197–203.Google Scholar
Galinsky, K. (1988) ‘The anger of Aeneas’, AJPh 109: 321–48.Google Scholar
Galinsky, K. (1992) ‘The current state of the interpretation of Roman poetry and the contemporary critical scene’, in Galinsky, K., ed., The Interpretation of Roman Poetry: Empiricism or Hermeneutics? (Frankfurt), 1–40.Google Scholar
Gatti, P. L. (2012) ‘Rostagni, Augusto’, DNP Suppl. 6: 1082–3.Google Scholar
Gavrilov, A. (2002) ‘Russia’ = ‘Russland’, DNP 15.2: 1014–30.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. (2016) ‘Fifty shades of orange: Cambridge classical texts and commentaries’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 346–75.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. and Kraus, C. S., eds. (2002) The Classical Commentary: Histories, Practices, Theory, Leiden, Boston and Cologne.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildenhard, I. (2011) Creative Eloquence: The Construction of Reality in Cicero’s Speeches, Oxford.Google Scholar
Glei, R. (1990) ‘Von Probus zu Pöschl: Vergilinterpretationen im Wandel’, Gymnasium 79: 321–40.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. (2016) ‘The future of antiquity: an afterword’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 512–23.Google Scholar
Gonzales de Tobia, A. M. (2001) ‘Latin America’ = ‘Lateinamerika’, DNP 15.1: 20–47.Google Scholar
Goold, G. P. (1990) Propertius Elegies, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gratwick, A. S. (1993) Review of O. Zwierlein, Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus I: Poenulus und Curculio (Mainz, 1990), CR 43: 36–40.Google Scholar
Gudemann, A. (1909) Grundriss der Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, Berlin. 2nd edn, Darmstadt 1967.Google Scholar
Günther, H.-C. (1997) Quaestiones Propertianae, Leiden.Google Scholar
Güthenke, C. (2020) Feeling and Classical Philology: Knowing Antiquity in German Scholarship, 1770–1920, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guida, A. (2014) ‘Firenze maggio 1925: lʼincontro di Thomas Mann con Wilamowitz, Pasquali, e Snell’, in Arrighetti et al. 2014, 37–57.Google Scholar
Habermehl, P. and Seidensticker, B. (1999) ‘Germany v. The 20th century (after 1918)’ = ‘Deutschland v. 20. Jahrhundert (ab 1918)’, DNP 13: 817–28.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. (2005) ‘Latin literature between text and practice’, TAPhA 135: 83–9.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. (1997) ‘Writing as an American in classical scholarship’, in Hallett, J. P. and Van Nortwick, T., eds., The Personal Voice in Classical Scholarship (London), 120–52.Google Scholar
Hallett, J. P. (2019) ‘Expanding our professional embrace: the American Philological Association/Society for Classical Studies 1970–2019’, TAPhA 149: 61–87.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. R. (1986) Virgil’s Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium, Oxford.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. (1995) ‘Some twentieth-century views of Horace’, in Harrison, S., ed., Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration (Oxford), 1–16.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. (2016) ‘Two-author commentaries on Horace’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 71−83.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. (2019) ‘Heaney as translator: Horace and Virgil’, in Harrison et al. 2019, 244–62.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J., ed. (1990) Oxford Readings in Vergil’s Aeneid, Oxford.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. ed. (2001) Texts, Ideas, and the Classics: Scholarship, Theory, and Classical Literature, Oxford.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. ed. (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Horace, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. et al., eds. (2019) Seamus Heaney and the Classics: Bann Valley Muses, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Hazlitt, W. (1825) Table Talk or Original Essays, vol. 2, Paris.Google Scholar
Heck, E. and Schmidt, E. A., eds. (1990) Res humanae ‒ res divinae. Kleine Schriften, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Heesakkers, C. L. (2001) ‘Netherlands and Belgium ii. The northern Netherlands after 1575’ = ‘Niederlande und Belgien ii. Die nördlichen Niederlande nach 1575’, DNP 15.1: 994–1015.Google Scholar
Heesakkers, C. L. and Tournoy, G. (2001) ‘Netherlands and Belgium i. The low countries to 1575’ = ‘Niederlande und Belgien i. Die alten Niederlande bis 1575’, DNP 15.1: 985–94.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (2006) ‘Oxford Redsʼ: Classic Commentaries on Latin Classics, London.Google Scholar
Hentschke, A. and Muhlack, U. (1972) Einführung in die Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Heslin, P. (2016) ‘The dream of a universal variorum: digitizing the commentary tradition’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 494–511.Google Scholar
Heyworth, S. J. (2007) Cynthia: A Companion to the Text of Propertius, Oxford.Google Scholar
Heyworth, S. J. (2009) ‘Housman and Propertius’, in Butterfield and Stray 2009, 11–28.Google Scholar
Heyworth, S. J. and Morwood, J. H. W. (2011) A Commentary on Propertius, Book 3, Oxford.Google Scholar
Heyworth, S. J. and Morwood, J. H. W. (2017) A Commentary on Vergil, Aeneid 3, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbold, I. (2019) ‘Jules Marouzeau and L’Année philologique: the genesis of a reform in classical bibliography’, History of Classical Scholarship 1: 174–202.Google Scholar
Holmes-Henderson, A. (2016) ‘Teaching Latin and Greek in primary classrooms: the classics in communities project’, Journal of Classics Teaching 33: 50–3.Google Scholar
Holmes-Henderson, A. et al., eds. (2018) Forward with Classics: Classical Languages in Schools and Communities, London and New York.Google Scholar
Holtermann, M. (1999) ‘Germany iv. The 19th century to 1918’ = ‘Deutschland iv. 19. Jahrhundert, bis 1918’, DNP 13: 806–17.Google Scholar
Holtermann, M. (2002) ‘Philological seminar’ = ‘Philologisches Seminar’, DNP 15.2: 328–31.Google Scholar
Holzberg, N. (1994) ‘Horaz und seine “Deutsche Schule”’, Lampas 27: 290–330.Google Scholar
Hopkinson, N. (2009) ‘Housman and J. P. Postgate’, in Butterfield and Stray 2009, 175–91.Google Scholar
Horn, C. (2018) ‘Werner Jaeger’s Paideia and his “Third Humanism”’, Educational Theory and Philosophy 50: 682–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hose, M. (2009) ‘“ … und Pflicht geht vor Neigung”: Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff und das Leiden am Großbetrieb der Wissenschaft’, in Baertschi, A. and King, C. G., eds., Die modernen Väter der Antike. Die Entwicklung der Altertumswissenschaften an Akademie und Universität im Berlin des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin and New York), 445–80.Google Scholar
Hošek, R. (2003) ‘Czech Republic v. History of the study of antiquity A. Classical philology and ancient history’ = ‘Tschechien v. Geschichte der Altertumswissenschaften A. Klassische Philologie und Alte Geschichte’, DNP 15.3: 638–43.Google Scholar
Housman, A. E. (1934) ‘Review: Butler and Barberʼs Propertius: H. E. Butler and E. A. Barber, The Elegies of Propertius’, CR 48: 136–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Hübner, W. (2010) Manilius, Astronomica Buch V. Band 1: Einführung, Text und Übersetzung, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hunt, S. (2018a) ‘Getting Classics into schools? Classics and the social justice agenda of the UK coalition government, 2010–2015’, in Holmes-Henderson et al. 2018, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, S. (2018b) ‘Latin is not dead: the rise of communicative approaches to the teaching of Latin in the United States’, in Holmes-Henderson et al. 2018, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, R. and Oakley, S. (2016) Latin Literature and Its Transmission: Papers in Honour of Michael Reeve, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. (2016) ‘Western classics in modern Japan (German)’, CUNY academic works summer 7–12: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/qb_pubs/32.Google Scholar
James, P. (1996) Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community, London.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. (1989) ‘Australia – New Zealand: Greek and Latin philology’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 543–78.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. (1993) ‘Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus. i: Poenulus und Curculio by Otto Zwierlein’, Gnomon 65: 122–37.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. (1996) ‘Zur Kritik und Exegese des Plautus. ii: Miles gloriosus by Otto Zwierlein’, Gnomon 68: 402–20.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. (1997) ‘Charles Oscar Brink (1907–1994)’, PBA 94: 319–54.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., ed. (2019) Antipodean Antiquities: Classical Reception Down Under, London and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. R. (1976) Darkness Visible: A Study of Vergilʼs Aeneid, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.Google Scholar
Jönsson, A. and Vogt-Spira, G., eds. (2017) The Classical Tradition in the Baltic Region: Perceptions and Adaptations of Greece and Rome, Hildesheim, Zürich and New York. 2nd edn, 2018.Google Scholar
Karsai, G. et al., eds. (2013) Classics and Communism: Greek and Latin behind the Iron Curtain, Ljubljana.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. (1997) ‘Modern receptions and their interpretative implications’, in Martindale, C., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (Cambridge), 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, E. J. (1974) The Classical Text: Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J. (1989) ‘Great Britain: Latin philology’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 619–49.Google Scholar
Keulen, W. et al. (2015) Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11, Leiden and Boston.Google Scholar
King, C. G. (2017) ‘Einführung’, in King, C. G. and Lo Presti, R., eds., Werner Jaeger: Wissenschaft, Bildung, Politik (Berlin), 1–4.Google Scholar
Kondratieff, E. J. (2014) ‘Future city in the heroic past: Rome, Romans, and Roman landscapes in Aeneid 6–8’, in Kemezis, A. M., ed., Urban Dreams and Realities in Antiquity: Remains and Representations of the Ancient City (Leiden), 165–228.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. and Muecke, F. (1993) ‘Richard Bentley as a reader of Horace’, CJ 88: 179–86.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. et al. (2001) ‘The Classics in the Americas’, CB 77: 209–44.Google Scholar
Kopff, E. C. (1994) ‘Shorey, Paul’, in Briggs, W. W., ed., Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport, CT), 582–4.Google Scholar
Krämer, H. (2011) Die Altertumswissenschaft und der Verlag B. G. Teubner, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. (2008) ‘The “Oxford Reds”’ (review of Henderson 2006), CR 58: 122–5.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. and Stray, C., eds. (2016) Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Krömer, D. (2001) ‘Lexicography iii. Thesaurus linguae Latinae’ = ‘Lexikographie iii. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae’, DNP 15.1: 143−9.Google Scholar
Kubo, M. (1989) ‘Japan: Greek and Latin philology’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 669–84.Google Scholar
Laird, A. and Miller, N., eds. (2018) Antiquities and Classical Traditions in Latin America, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
Lamers, H. et al., eds. (2020) Studies in the Latin Literature and Epigraphy of Italian Fascism, Leuven.Google Scholar
Lana, I. (1989) ‘Italia. La filologia latina nel secolo XX’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 1141–67.Google Scholar
Landfester, M. (2002) ‘Philology I. Greek A–B’ = ‘Philologie I. Griechisch A–B’, DNP 15.2: 237–55.Google Scholar
Landfester, M. (2017) ‘Werner Jaegers Konzepte von Wissenschaft und Bildung als Ausdruck des Zeitgeistes’, in King, C. G. and Lo Presti, R., eds., Werner Jaeger: Wissenschaft, Bildung, Politik (Berlin), 5–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landfester, M. (2018) Review of van Bommel 2015, Gnomon 90: 109–14.Google Scholar
Lanza, D. and Ugolini, G. (2016) Storia della filologia classica, Rome. Translated as History of Classical Scholarship: From Bentley to the 20th Century, Berlin and Boston, 2022.Google Scholar
La Penna, A. (1982) Review of R. Hanslik (1997), Sexti Propertii Elegiarum libri iv, Gnomon 54: 515–23.Google Scholar
Latacz, J. (2002) ‘Philology I. Greek C–D’ = ‘Philologie I. Griechisch C–D’, DNP 15.2: 255–78.Google Scholar
Lawlor, S. (2013) ‘Latin GCSE: aims and means’, in Latin for Language Lovers: Ancient Languages, the New Curriculum and GCSE (London), 2–3.Google Scholar
Lehnus, L. (2012) Incontri con la filologia del passato, Bari.Google Scholar
Lindberg, B. (2002) ‘Sweden’ = ‘Schweden’, DNP 15.2: 1115–20.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1990) ‘Twentieth century philology’, CR 40: 459–62.Google Scholar
Lohse, G. (2014) ‘Bruno Snell und Hermann Fränkel. Zu einem Berufungsverfahren an der Universität Hamburg 1930/31’, A&A 60: 1–20.Google Scholar
López Férez, J. A. (2003) ‘Spain I. History of scholarship’ = ‘Spanien I. Wissenschaftsgeschichte’, DNP 15.3: 102–27.Google Scholar
Luck, G. (2009) ‘Lessons learned from a master’, in Butterfield and Stray 2009, 247–54.Google Scholar
Ludwig, W. (1986) ‘Amtsenthebung und Emigration Klassischer Philologenʼ, Würzburger Jahrbücher 12: 217–39. First published in Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 7 (1984), 161–78.Google Scholar
Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1987) Further Voices in Virgil’s Aeneid, Oxford.Google Scholar
Malitz, J. (1998) ‘Römertum im “Dritten Reich”: Hans Oppermann’, in Kneissl, P. and Losemann, V., eds., Imperium Romanum. Studien zu Geschichte und Rezeption (Stuttgart), 519–43.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (2002) ‘Classics, theory, and thought’ (review of Harrison, 2001 and Braund, 2002), Arion 10: 141–55.Google Scholar
Matters, E. (2018) ‘Classics in Australia: on surer grounds?’, in Holmes-Henderson et al. 2018, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, W. (2002) ‘A network with a thousand entrances: commentary in an electronic age?’, in Gibson and Kraus 2002, 359–402.Google Scholar
Mount, H. (2008) Amo, amas, amat … and All That: How to Become a Latin-Lover, London.Google Scholar
Movrin, D. and Olechowaka, E., eds. (2016) Classics and Class: Greek and Latin Classics and Communism at School, Warsaw and Ljubljana.Google Scholar
Mutschler, F.-H. and Mittag, A., eds. (2008) Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford.Google Scholar
Näf, B. (2002) ‘Switzerland’ = ‘Schweizʼ, DNP 15.2: 1120–56.Google Scholar
Näf, B. (2017) ‘Werner Jaeger, der Dritte Humanismus und Italienʼ, in Albrecht, Danneberg and De Angelis 2017, 203–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norberg, D. (1989) ‘Danemark, Finlande, Norvege, Suede’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 745–62.Google Scholar
O’Higgins, L. (2017) The Irish Classical Self: Poets and Poor Scholars in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, F. (2002) ‘Portugal’ = ‘Portugal’, DNP 15.2: 516–26.Google Scholar
OʼRourke, D. (2011) Review of G. Giardina (ed.), Properzio. Elegie, Pisa and Rome 2010, BMCRev 2011.06.48.Google Scholar
Otis, B. (1963) Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry, Oxford. 2nd edn, Ann Arbor, MI, 1995.Google Scholar
Owen, M. and Gildenhard, I. (2013) Tacitus, Annals, 15.20–23, 33–45: Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary and Commentary, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachenko, D. (1992) ‘Teaching the classics: private education in the USSR’, Brown Classical Journal 8 (Suppl.).Google Scholar
Paschoud, F. (1996) ‘Le cinquantième anniversaire de la FIEC. Exposé présenté le 22 août 1997 à Varsovie lors de la 24e assemblée générale des délégués de la FIEC’, Eos 84: 5–17.Google Scholar
Pasquali, G. (1934) Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, Florence. 2nd revised edn, Florence, 1962.Google Scholar
Pasquali, G. (1953) Storia dello spirito tedesco nelle memorie d’un contemporaneo (ed. Romani Mistretta, M.), Florence. Reprinted Milan, 2013.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. and Morgan, L. (2010) Latin for Language Learners: Opening Opportunity for Primary Pupils, London.Google Scholar
Petitmengin, P. (1983) ‘Deux têtes de pont de la philologie allemande en France, le Thesaurus linguae Graecae et la “Bibliothèque des auteurs grecs” (1830–1867)’, in Bollack, M. et al., eds., Philologie et herméneutique au 19e siècle, II (Göttingen), 76–107.Google Scholar
Petitmengin, P. (1992) ‘La bibliothèque de l’École normale supérieure face á l’érudition allemande au XIXe siècle’, RS 113: 55−68.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1968) History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford. 2nd edn 1978. Translated as Geschichte der klassischen Philologie. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus, Munich, 1970 (with revised edn 1978).Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1976) History of Classical Scholarship: From 1300 to 1850, Oxford. 2nd edn 1978. Translated as Die klassische Philologie von Petrarca bis Mommsen, Munich, 1982.Google Scholar
Piatkowski, A. (2002) ‘Romania iii. History of classical studies’ = ‘Rumänien iii. Geschichte der Altertumswissenschaften’, DNP 15.2: 1010–14.Google Scholar
Pirker, E. U. (2010) ‘“Black Romans” – Die Antike im öffentlichen Diskurs um eine “schwarze” britische Geschichteʼ, in Gehrke, H.-J. and Sénécheau, M., eds., Antike, Archäologie und Öffentlichkeit: Für einen neuen Dialog zwischen Medien und Wissenschaft (Bielefeld), 103–22.Google Scholar
Plezia, M. (2002) ‘Poland ii. History of scholarship A. Classical philology’ = ‘Polen ii. Wissenschaftsgeschichte A. Klassische Philologie’, DNP 15.2: 404–7.Google Scholar
Pollock, S. (2009) ‘Future philology? The fate of soft science in a hard world’, Critical Inquiry 35: 931−61.Google Scholar
Poppe, E. (2000) ‘Ireland’ = ‘Irland’, DNP 14: 641−8.Google Scholar
Pöschl, V. (1950) Die Dichtkunst Virgils. Bild und Symbol in der Aeneis, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Pöschl, V. (1962) The Art of Vergil: Image and Symbol in the Aeneid, Ann Arbor, MI (trans. of Pöschl, 1950).Google Scholar
Postgate, J. P. P. (1881) Select Elegies of Propertius, London.Google Scholar
Raeburn, D. A. (1999) ‘Ancient languages, teaching of ii. Great Britain’ = ‘Altsprachlicher Unterricht ii. Großbritannien’, DNP 13: 120–2.Google Scholar
Reeve, M. D. (2000) ‘Cuius in usum? Recent and future editing’, JRS 90: 196–206.Google Scholar
Reverdin, O. (1980) Les études classiques aux XIXe et XXe siècles. Leur place dans l’histoire des idées, Vandœuvres.Google Scholar
Richard, C. J. (2010) ‘Vergil and the early American republic’, in Farrell, J. and Putnam, M. C. J., eds., Vergilʼs Aeneid and Its Tradition (Malden, MA), 355–65.Google Scholar
Rimell, V. (2015) The Closure of Space in Roman Poetics: Empire’s Inward Turn, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritoók, Z. (2003) ‘Hungary ii. History of classical studies’ = ‘Ungarn ii. Geschichte der Altertumswissenschaften’, DNP 15.3: 754–9.Google Scholar
Roche, H. (2017) ‘Classics and education in the Third Reich: Die Alten Sprachen and the Nazification of Latin- and Greek-teaching in secondary schools’, in Roche, H. and Demetriou, K. N., eds., Brill’s Companion to the Classics, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany (Leiden), 238–63.Google Scholar
Rommel, B. (2000) ‘France iii. 16th–18th century’ = ‘Frankreich iii. 16.–18. Jh.’, DNP 14: 27−54.Google Scholar
Ronnick, M. V. (2010) ‘Vergil in the Black American experience’, in Farrell, J. and Putnam, M. C. J., Vergilʼs Aeneid and Its Tradition (Malden, MA), 376–403.Google Scholar
Ross, D. O., Jr (1989) ‘United States: Latin philology’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 295–314.Google Scholar
Rubel, A. (2019) ‘Quo vadis Altertumswissenschaft? The command of foreign languages and the future of Classical studies’, CW 112: 193–223.Google Scholar
Rummel, E. and Kooistra, M. (2007) Reformation Sources: The Letters of Wolfgang Capito and His Fellow Reformers in Alsace and Switzerland, Toronto.Google Scholar
Sacré, D. (2001) ‘Netherlands and Belgium iii. The southern Netherlands after 1575’ = ‘Niederlande und Belgien iii. Die südlichen Niederlande nach 1575’, DNP 15.1: 1016–36.Google Scholar
Salmen, B. (2000) ‘James Loeb – Leben und Wirken’, in James Loeb 1867–1933: Kunstsammler und Mäzen (Munich), 17–72.Google Scholar
Sandys, J. E. (1903–8) A History of Classical Scholarship, 3 vols., Cambridge, MA. 2nd edn, New York, 1958. 3rd edn, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
Scheidel, W., ed. (2009) Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires, Oxford and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, E. A. (2001) ‘The meaning of Vergil’s Aeneid: American and German approaches’, CW 94: 145−71.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. L. (1995) ‘Zwischen Anpassungsdruck und Autonomiestreben: Die deutsche Latinistik vom Beginn bis in die 20er Jahre des 20. Jahrhundertsʼ, in Flashar 1995, 115–82.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. L. (2001) ‘Latin studies in Germany, 1933–1945: institutional conditions, political pressures, scholarly consequences’, in Harrison 2001, 285–300.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. L. (2002) ‘Philology ii. Latin’ = ‘Philologie ii. Lateinisch’, DNP 15.2: 278–327.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Dengler, W. (2003) ‘Austria iii. 20th century’ = ‘Österreich iii. 20. Jahrhundert’, DNP 15.3: 1292–7.Google Scholar
Schmitz, T. (2003a) ‘France iv. 19th and 20th century’ = ‘Frankreich iv. 19. und 20. Jahrhundert’, DNP 15.3: 1253–73.Google Scholar
Schmitz, T. (2003b) ‘Philology i. Greek’ = ‘Philologie i. Griechisch’, DNP 15.3: 1297–1307.Google Scholar
Schöllgen, G. (2018) ‘Franz Joseph Dölger-Institut zur Erforschung der Spätantike’, in Becker, T. and Rosin, P., eds., Die Natur- und Lebenswissenschaften. Geschichte der Universität Bonn, vol. 4 (Göttingen), 646–9.Google Scholar
Schwindt, J. P. (2003) ‘Philology ii. Latin’ = ‘Philologie ii. Lateinisch’, DNP 15.3: 1307–22.Google Scholar
Searle, E. et al. (2018) ‘Widening access to Classics in the UK: how the impact, public engagement, outreach and knowledge exchange agenda have helped’, in Holmes-Henderson et al. 2018, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serracino, C. (2018) ‘The gateway to honour: a history of Classics at the University of Malta from 1800 to 1979’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Universities of Malta and Oxford.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1956) Propertiana, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sinanoğlu, S. (1989) ‘Turchia. La filologia classica’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 579–89.Google Scholar
Skempis, M. and Ziogas, I., eds. (2014) Geography, Topography, Landscape: Configurations of Space in Greek and Roman Epic, Berlin.Google Scholar
Stahl, H.-P. (2015) Poetry Underpinning Power. Vergil’s Aeneid: The Epic for Emperor Augustus, Swansea.Google Scholar
Stanford, W. B. (1976) Ireland and the Classical Tradition, Dublin.Google Scholar
Stark, I. (2016) ‘Johannes Irmscherʼs unofficial activity for the state security of the German Democratic Republic’, in Movrin and Olechowaka 2016, 257–90.Google Scholar
Stewart, Z. (2000) ‘Gründung und Geschichte der Loeb Classical Library’, in James Loeb 1867−1933. Kunstsammler und Mäzen (Munich), 99–106.Google Scholar
Stiewe, B. (2011) Der ‘Dritte Humanismus’. Aspekte deutscher Griechenrezeption vom George-Kreis bis zum Nationalsozialismus, Berlin and New York.Google Scholar
Stotz, P. (1999) ‘Pronunciation ii. Latin’ = ‘Aussprache ii. Latein’, DNP 13: 353–8.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (1998) Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and Society in England, 1830–1960, Oxford.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (2007) Review of Henderson 2006, JRS 97: 309–10.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (2010) ‘“Patriots and professors”: a century of Roman studies, 1910−2010’, JRS 100: 1–31.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (2014) ‘Eduard Fraenkel: an exploration’, SyllClass 25: 113–72.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (2016) ‘A Teutonic monster in Oxford: the making of Fraenkelʼs Agamemnon’, in Kraus and Stray 2016, 39–57.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (2017) ‘Eduard Fraenkel (1888–1970)’, in Crawford et al. 2017, 180–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stray, C. (2018) Classics in Britain: Scholarship, Education, and Publishing, 1800–2000, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
Stroh, W. (2001) ‘Living Latin’ = ‘Lebendiges Latein’, DNP 15.1: 92–9.Google Scholar
Stroh, W. (2016) ‘Vitae parallelae: on Classical studies which took place (or could have taken place) in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and German Democratic Republic (GDR) up until 1989’, in Movrin, and Olechowaka, 2016, 113–22. Originally published in Latin as Stroh, V., ‘Vitae parallelae’, Vox Latina 50 (2014): 54–61.Google Scholar
Suerbaum, W. (1981) ‘Gedanken zur modernen Aeneis-Forschungʼ, AU 24: 67–103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Sutton, D. A. (2018) Introducing A. E. Housman (1859–1936): Preliminary Studies, Newcastle.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (1983) ‘Horace’, in Reynolds, L. D., ed., Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford), 182−6.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (2006) ‘Propertian textual criticism and editing’, in Günther, H.-C., ed., Brillʼs Companion to Propertius (Leiden), 45−65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (2012) Virgil. Aeneid Book xii, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (2016a) Texts, Editors, and Readers, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (2016b) ‘A new critical edition of Horace’, in Hunter and Oakley 2016, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R. F. (2001) Virgil and the Augustan Reception, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torresin, G. (1999) ‘Denmark’ = ‘Dänemark’, DNP 13: 679–81.Google Scholar
Tränkle, H. (1993) ‘Von Keller-Holder zu Shackleton Bailey. Prinzipien und Probleme der Horaz-Edition’, in Reverdin, O. and Grange, B., eds., Horace (Vandœuvres), 1–29.Google Scholar
Vainio, R. (1999) ‘Finland’ = ‘Finnland’, DNP 13: 1148–52.Google Scholar
van der Blom, H. (2010) Ciceroʼs Role Models: The Political Strategy of a Newcomer, Oxford.Google Scholar
Verhaart, F. (2020) Classical Learning in Britain, France, and the Dutch Republic, 1600–1750, Oxford.Google Scholar
von Ungern-Sternberg, J. (2017) Les chers ennemis. Deutsche und französische Altertumswissenschaftler in Rivalität und Zusammenarbeit, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Waquet, F. (2000) ‘France V. History of the teaching of Latin’ = ‘Frankreich V. Geschichte des Lateinunterrichts’, DNP 14: 54–61.Google Scholar
Waquet, F. (2001) Latin or the Empire of a Sign: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries (trans. John Howe), London and New York. Translation of Le latin ou l’empire dʼun signe, XVIe–XXe siècle, Paris, 1998.Google Scholar
Watson, G. (1989) ‘Ireland: Greek and Latin philology in the twentieth century, ii’, in Arrighetti et al. 1989, 983–1002.Google Scholar
Wegeler, C. (1996) ‘… wir sagen ab der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik’. Altertumswissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus. Das Göttinger Institut für Altertumskunde 1921–1962, Vienna.Google Scholar
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1921) Geschichte der Philologie, Leipzig. 2nd edn, Stuttgart, 1998. Translated as History of Classical Scholarship (ed. H. Lloyd-Jones), Baltimore, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. D. (1983) The Aeneid of Virgil. Edited with Introduction and Notes, 2 vols., New York.Google Scholar
Winterer, C. (2002) The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life 1780–1910, Baltimore and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlosok, A. (1973) ‘Vergil in der neueren Forschung’, Gymnasium 80: 129–51.Google Scholar
Wlosok, A. (1990a) ‘Vergil in der neueren Forschung’, Heck and Schmidt 1990, 279–301 (reprint of Wlosok, 1973).Google Scholar
Wlosok, A. (1990b) ‘Aeneas vindex: ethischer Aspekt und Zeitbezug’, in Heck and Schmidt 1990, 419–36.Google Scholar
Wright, C. D. (1993) The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. (2015) Review of Arrighetti et al. 2014, BMCRev 2015.04.07.Google Scholar
Zuckerberg, D. (2018) Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle 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
×