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 8 - Reception
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024
By
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 provides an accessible overview of the wide, diverse and ever-expanding field of classical reception studies. It begins with an overview of the word ‘reception’ and its origins in philosophical hermeneutics, and surveys a series of critiques that have been made of the word’s usefulness. Then the chapter makes three claims. First, allusions to antiquity have frequently occurred within a broader matrix of challenge and contestation, and so the critical analysis of classical reception should pay attention to voices that challenge the values accorded to classical literature, as well as those who embrace them. Second, a focus on the history of education can help us see classical allusion as a social challenge rather than simply a submission to prevailing literary or cultural norms. Third, the study of reception is at its most vital as a mode of communication outside classics, whether to the public, to students or to scholars in other fields. Ultimately, reception studies make up a vital part of the future of classical scholarship, and yet questions remain about whether the word ‘reception’ best communicates the subject’s intellectual range and ambition.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature , pp. 395 - 446Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Archibald, E. P., Brockliss, W. and Gnoza, J., eds. (2015) Learning Latin and Greek from Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, P. (1997) Classical Culture and the Idea of Rome in Eighteenth-Century England, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bakogianni, A. (2018) ‘Classical reception for all? Performance pedagogy in the twenty-first century’, CW 112: 615–26.Google Scholar
Balmer, J. (2012) ‘Handbags and gladrags: a woman in transgression, reflecting’, Classical Receptions Journal 4: 261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, J. L. (2018) Empire of Ruin: Black Classicism and American Imperial Culture, Oxford.Google Scholar
Batstone, W. (2006) ‘Provocation: the point of reception theory’, in Martindale and Thomas 2006, 14–20.Google Scholar
Beecroft, A. (2010) Authorship and Cultural Identity in Early Greece and China, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beer, G. (2009) Darwin’s Plots: Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot, and Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 3rd edn, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, P. (1998) ‘Phillis Wheatley’s vocation and the paradox of the “Afric muse”’, Publications of the Modern Language Association 113: 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, E. (1993) Reflections on the Revolution in France (ed. Mitchell, J. G), Oxford.Google Scholar
Burke, E. (2015) A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (ed. Guyer, P), Oxford.Google Scholar
Burton, D., Perris, S. and Tatum, J., eds. (2017) Athens to Aotearoa: Greece and Rome in New Zealand Literature and Society, Wellington.Google Scholar
Butler, M. (2015) Mapping Mythologies: Countercurrents in Eighteenth-Century Poetry and Cultural History, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, S. (2016a) ‘Introduction: on the origin of “Deep Classics”’, in Butler 2016b, 1–19.Google Scholar
Castle, T. (1995) The Female Thermometer: Eighteenth-Century Culture and the Invention of the Uncanny, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, L. (2003a) ‘Introduction: why feminists do not read Gadamer’, in Code 2003b, 1–36.Google Scholar
Code, L., ed. (2003b) Feminist Interpretations of Hans-Georg Gadamer, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
Cook, W. and Tatum, J. (2010) African American Writers and Classical Tradition, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, F. (2018) Ovid’s Presence in Contemporary Women’s Writing: Strange Monsters, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culler, J. (1982) On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Darwin, E. (1789) The Botanic Garden, Part ii: Containing The Loves of the Plants, London.Google Scholar
Denecke, W. (2014) Classical World Literatures: Sino-Japanese and Greco-Roman Comparisons, Oxford.Google Scholar
DeRosa, R. (2016) ‘A criticism of contradiction: Anna Leticia Barbauld and the “problem” of nineteenth-century women’s writing’, in Shifrin, S, ed., Women as Sites of Culture: Women’s Roles in Cultural Formation from the Renaissance to the Twentieth Century (London), 221–32.Google Scholar
Dufallo, B. (2018) ‘Introduction: “Roman error”, dangerous and inspiring’, in Dufallo, B, ed., Roman Error: Classical Reception and the Problem of Rome’s Flaws (Oxford), 1–14.Google Scholar
Eden, K. (1997) Hermeneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition: Chapters in the Ancient Legacy and Its Humanist Reception, New Haven.Google Scholar
Evans, R. (2014) Reception History, Tradition, and Biblical Interpretation: Gadamer and Jauss in Current Practice, London.Google Scholar
Fertik, H. and Hanses, M. (2019) ‘Above the veil: revisiting the classicism of W. E. B. Dubois’, IJCT 26: 1–9.Google Scholar
Fish, S. E. (1981) ‘Why no one’s afraid of Wolfgang Iser’, Diacritics 11: 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, M. (2003) ‘Gadamer’s conversation: does the other have a say?’, in Code 2003b, 109–32.Google Scholar
Fletcher, K. F. B. and Umurhan, O., eds. (2019) Classical Antiquity in Heavy Metal Music, London.Google Scholar
Formisano, M. and Kraus, C. S., eds. (2018) Marginality, Canonicity, Passion, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formisano, M. and Fuhrer, T., eds. (2014) Décadence: ‘Decline and Fall’ or ‘Other Antiquity’?, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Fredericksen, E. (2015) ‘Finding another Alexis: pastoral tradition and the reception of Vergil’s second Eclogue’, Classical Receptions Journal 7: 422–41.Google Scholar
Friedman, R. (2013) ‘A reformed classical pedagogy’, Classical Receptions Journal 5: 226–37.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (2004) Truth and Method, 2nd revised edn (trans. J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall), London.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (2002) Who Needs Greek? Contests in the Cultural History of Hellenism, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. (2019) Afterlives of the Roman Poets: Biofiction and the Reception of Latin Poetry, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. and Graziosi, B., eds. (2018) Tombs of the Ancient Poets: Between Literary Reception and Material Culture, Oxford.Google Scholar
Greene, R. (2013) Five Words: Critical Semantics in the Age of Shakespeare and Cervantes, Chicago.Google Scholar
Greenwood, E. (2016) ‘Reception studies: the cultural mobility of Classics’, Daedalus 145: 41–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güthenke, C. and Holmes, B. (2018) ‘Hyperinclusivity, hypercanonicity, and the future of the field’, in Formisano and Kraus 2018, 57–74.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1985) ‘On hermeneutics’ claim to universality’, in Mueller-Vollmer, K., ed., The Hermeneutics Reader (New York), 294–319.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (trans. T. Burger), Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. (1993) The Epic Successors of Virgil: A Study in the Dynamics of a Tradition, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. (2013) ‘Redeeming the Text, reception studies, and the Renaissance’, Classical Receptions Journal 5: 190–8.Google Scholar
Hardwick, L. (2011) ‘Fuzzy connections: classical texts and modern poetry in English’, in Parker, J and Matthews, T, eds., Tradition, Translation, Trauma: The Classics and the Modern (Oxford), 39–60.Google Scholar
Harloe, K. (2010) ‘Can political theory provide a model for reception? Max Weber and Hannah Arendt’, Cultural Critique 74: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, Y. (2005) ‘Didac-tech? Prolegomena to the early modern poetry of information’, in Zielinski, S. and Wagnermaier, S. M., eds., Variantology 1. On Deep Time Relations of Arts, Sciences and Technologies (Cologne), 209–22.Google Scholar
Haskell, Y. (2013) Prescribing Ovid: The Latin Works and Networks of the Enlightened Dr Heerkens, London.Google Scholar
Heller, J. L. (1945) ‘Classical mythology in the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus’, TAPhA 76: 333–57.Google Scholar
Heller, J. L. (1971) ‘Classical poetry in the Systema naturae of Linnaeus’, TAPhA 102: 183–216.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. (2017) Black Prometheus: Race and Radicalism in the Age of Atlantic Slavery, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (1998) Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodkinson, O. and Lovatt, H., eds. (2018) Classical Reception and Children’s Literature: Greece, Rome and Childhood Transformation, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iser, W. (1974) The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, M. I. (2014) Barbarous Antiquity: Reorienting the Past in the Poetry of Early Modern England, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. (2018) Borges’ Classics: Global Encounters with the Graeco-Roman Past, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jauss, H. R. (1980) ‘Esthétique de la réception et communication littéraire’, in Kostantinovic, Z, Naumann, M and Jauss, H. R, eds., Literary Communication and Reception: Proceedings of the ixth Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association (Innsbruck), 15–26.Google Scholar
Jeffreys, P. (2015) Reframing Decadence: C. P. Cavafy’s Imaginary Portraits, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., ed. (2019) Antipodean Antiquities: Classical Reception Down Under, London.Google Scholar
Keen, T. (2018) ‘More “T” vicar? Revisiting models and methodologies for classical receptions in science fiction’, in Rogers and Stevens 2018, 9–17.Google Scholar
Keith, A. B., ed. (1922) Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy 1750–1921, 2 vols., Oxford.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. F. (1993) The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kramnick, J. B. (1999) Making the English Canon: Print-Capitalism and the Cultural Past, 1700–1779, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kramnick, J. B. (2012) ‘Living with Lucretius’, in Deutsch, H and Terrall, M, eds., Vital Matters: Eighteenth-Century Views of Conception (Berkeley), 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, A. and Miller, N., eds. (2018) Antiquities and Classical Traditions in Latin America, Chichester.Google Scholar
Litvin, M. (2011) Hamlet’s Arab Journey: Shakespeare’s Prince and Nasser’s Ghost, Princeton.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. and Shahabudin, K., eds. (2009) Classics for All: Reworking Antiquity in Mass Culture, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (1993) Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (2005) Latin Poetry and the Judgement of Taste: An Essay in Aesthetics, Oxford.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (2006) ‘Introduction: thinking through reception’, in Martindale and Thomas 2006, 1–13.Google Scholar
Martindale, C. (2013) ‘Reception − a new humanism? Receptivity, pedagogy, the transhistorical’, Classical Receptions Journal 5: 169–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, W. (2001) ‘Why Anna Letitia Barbauld refused to head a women’s college: new facts, new story’, Nineteenth-Century Contexts 23: 349–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, W. and Kraft, E. (1994) The Poems of Anna Letitia Barbauld, Athens and London.Google Scholar
McCarthy, W. and Kraft, E. (2002) Anna Letitia Barbauld: Selected Poetry and Prose, Peterborough, ON.Google Scholar
McElduff, S. (2006) ‘Fractured understandings: towards a history of classical reception among non-elite groups’, in Martindale and Thomas 2006, 180–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matzner, S. (2016) ‘Queer unhistoricism: scholars, metalepsis, and interventions of the unruly past’, in Butler 2016b, 179–201.Google Scholar
Myers, M. (1995) ‘Of mice and mothers: Mrs. Barbauld’s “New Walk” and gendered codes in children’s literature’, in Phelps, L. W. and Emig, J. A., eds., Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Composition and Rhetoric (Pittsburgh), 255–88.Google Scholar
Norman, L. (2011) The Shock of the Ancient: Literature and History in Early Modern France, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. (1959) ‘Latin language study as a Renaissance puberty rite’, SPh 56: 103–24.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, D. (2017) ‘Hospitality narratives in Virgil and Callimachus: the ideology of reception’, Classical Receptions Journal 63: 118–42.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. T. (1969) Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
Parker, G., ed. (2017) South Africa, Greece, Rome: Classical Confrontations, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passannante, G. (2011) The Lucretian Renaissance: Philology and the Afterlife of Tradition, Chicago.Google Scholar
Pfau, T. (2010) ‘“All is leaf”: difference, metamorphosis, and Goethe’s phenomenology of knowledge’, Studies in Romanticism 49: 3–41.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. (2008) ‘Reception studies: future prospects’, in Hardwick, L. and Stray, C. eds., A Companion to Classical Receptions (Malden, MA), 469–81.Google Scholar
Porter, J. I. (2018) ‘Homer in the gutter: from Samuel Butler to the Second Sophistic and back again’, in Formisano and Kraus 2018, 231–62.Google Scholar
Priestman, M. (2013) The Poetry of Erasmus Darwin: Enlightened Spaces, Romantic Times, London.Google Scholar
Rankine, P. (2019) ‘The Classics, race, and community-engaged or public scholarship’, AJPh 140: 345–59.Google Scholar
Renger, A.-B. and Fan, X., eds. (2019) Receptions of Greek and Roman Antiquity in East Asia, Leiden.Google Scholar
Rezek, J. (2020) ‘Transatlantic traffic: Phillis Wheatley and her books’, in Lynch, D. S. and Gillespie, A., eds., The Unfinished Book (Oxford), 288–302.Google Scholar
Rhorer, C. C. (1980) ‘Red and white in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: the mulberry tree in the tale of Pyramus and Thisbe’, Ramus 9: 79–88.Google Scholar
Richardson, E. (2013) Classical Victorians: Scholars, Scoundrels, and Generals in Pursuit of Antiquity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. (2017) ‘Teaching the classical reception “revolution”’, Council of University Classical Departments Bulletin 46 (n.pag.).Google Scholar
Richardson, S. (1985) Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady (ed. Ross, A.), Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Rogers, B. R. and Stevens, B. E., eds. (2015) Classical Traditions in Science Fiction, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rogers, B. R. and Stevens, B. E. (2017) Classical Traditions in Modern Fantasy, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, B. R. and Stevens, B. E. (2018) Once and Future Antiquities in Science Fiction and Fantasy, London.Google Scholar
Ross, M. B. (1994) ‘Configurations of feminine reform: the woman writer and the tradition of dissent’, in Wilson, C. S. and Haefner, J., eds., Re-envisioning Romanticism: British Women Writers, 1776–1837 (Philadelphia), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. (2010) Romantic Antiquity: Rome in the British Imagination, 1789–1832, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sapiro, V. (1992) The Vindication of Political Virtue: The Political Theory of Mary Wollstonecraft, Chicago.Google Scholar
Scarborough, W. S. (2005) The Autobiography of William Sanders Scarborough: An American Journey from Slavery to Scholarship (ed. Ronnick, M), Detroit.Google Scholar
Sharrock, A. (2018) ‘How do we read a (w)hole? Dubious first thoughts on the cognitive turn’, in Harrison, S., Frangoulidis, S. and Papanghelis, T. D., eds., Intratextuality and Latin Literature (Berlin), 15–34.Google Scholar
Silk, M., Gildenhard, I. and Barrow, R. (2014) The Classical Tradition: Art, Literature, Thought, Chichester.Google Scholar
Squire, M. (2015) ‘Theories of reception’, in Marconi, C., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture (Oxford), 637–61.Google Scholar
Stead, H. and Hall, E., eds. (2015) Greek and Roman Classics in the British Struggle for Social Reform, London.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. (2015) ‘Women writers and the Classics’, in Cheney, P. and Hardie, P., eds., The Oxford History of Classical Reception in English Literature, Vol. 2 (1558–1660) (Oxford), 129–46.Google Scholar
Stray, C. (1998) Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and Society in England, 1830–1960, Oxford.Google Scholar
Theodorakopoulos, E. (2012) ‘Women’s writing and the classical tradition’, Classical Receptions Journal 4: 149–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorn, J. (2008) ‘“All beautiful in woe”: gender, nation, and Phillis Wheatley’s “Niobe”’, Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 37: 233–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torlone, Z. M., Munteanu, D. L. and Dutsch, D., eds. (2017) A Handbook to Classical Reception in Eastern and Central Europe, Malden, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uden, J. (2020) Spectres of Antiquity: Classical Literature and the Gothic, 1740–1830, Oxford.Google Scholar
Vance, N. (1988) ‘Ovid and the nineteenth century’, in Martindale, C., ed., Ovid Renewed: Ovidian Influences on Literature and Art from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century (Cambridge), 215–32.Google Scholar
Wallace, J. (2003) ‘Confined and exposed: Elizabeth Carter’s classical translations’, Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 22: 315–34.Google Scholar
Weinbrot, H. D. (2005) Menippean Satire Reconsidered: From Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century, Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, P. (1989) The Poems of Phillis Wheatley (ed. Mason, J. D.), 2nd edn, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2006) ‘True histories: Lucian, Bakhtin, and the pragmatics of reception’, in Martindale and Thomas 2006, 104–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. (2012) ‘Women writers and the Classics’, in Hopkins, D. and Martindale, C., eds., The Oxford History of Classical Reception in English Literature, Vol. 3: 1660–1790 (Oxford), 495–518.Google Scholar
Wollstonecraft, M. (1993) A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and a Vindication of the Rights of Men (ed. Todd, J), Oxford.Google Scholar
Wood, C. S. (2012) ‘Reception and the Classics’, in Brockliss, W., Chaudhuri, P., Lushkov, A. H. and Wasdin, K., eds., Reception and the Classics (New Haven, CT), 163–73.Google Scholar