In a brief essay on Cato the Younger, Montaigne draws together five excerpts from Latin verse in Cato's honour; by the time he returned to the essay in his final years, those excerpts elicited some of the author's richest remarks on poetry and the poetic sublime. This essay argues that the anthology, in its various shapes and forms, offered early modern readers a way of doing literary criticism. Taking its cue from Montaigne's essay, it focuses on a number of English anthologies, associated with John Bodenham, and often known as the ‘Wits’ series, printed at around the turn of the seventeenth century. It argues that the commonplace-book structure of these volumes acted as a spur to detailed stylistic analysis. Anthologies encouraged their readers to compare poets with one another, working out what they had in common, and what made each one distinct; in this, they fostered the sort of critical scrutiny discussed in Scaliger's Poetics, and put into practice in the theatrical exchanges of the ‘Poets' War’. But as in Montaigne's case, they could also spark reflections about those verses that lay beyond criticism's reach, in the numinous realm of the sublime.
{"title":"Marvels and Commonplaces in the Elizabethan Anthologies","authors":"T. Tregear","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In a brief essay on Cato the Younger, Montaigne draws together five excerpts from Latin verse in Cato's honour; by the time he returned to the essay in his final years, those excerpts elicited some of the author's richest remarks on poetry and the poetic sublime. This essay argues that the anthology, in its various shapes and forms, offered early modern readers a way of doing literary criticism. Taking its cue from Montaigne's essay, it focuses on a number of English anthologies, associated with John Bodenham, and often known as the ‘Wits’ series, printed at around the turn of the seventeenth century. It argues that the commonplace-book structure of these volumes acted as a spur to detailed stylistic analysis. Anthologies encouraged their readers to compare poets with one another, working out what they had in common, and what made each one distinct; in this, they fostered the sort of critical scrutiny discussed in Scaliger's Poetics, and put into practice in the theatrical exchanges of the ‘Poets' War’. But as in Montaigne's case, they could also spark reflections about those verses that lay beyond criticism's reach, in the numinous realm of the sublime.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"49-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47788064","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article puts the bear back in Horace, demonstrating the role bears have played from antiquity through the Renaissance as the great disruptor of the classical literary artefact, simplex et unum. The first section of the article treats bear’s place in ancient poetics. The second section exposes its role in Horace’s corpus, demonstrating how it instantiates both historical interpretive conflicts over one of Aristotle’s definition of the poet’s vocation and a wide range of Roman cultural and literary developments in the late first-century bce. The third and final section finds Horace’s bear stalking Renaissance artes poeticae and starring as the unstable genre-crossing centre of Shakespeare’s ‘The Winter’s Tale’ (1611). This article shows that Shakespeare’s bear has as much to do with the history of poetics (and the War of the Poets) as with the material history of stagecraft, which has often been the intriguing focus of scholarship on the bear. In addition to heightening our sense of the monstrous qualities of Augustan literature, and to troubling our notions about the classicism of classical literature, this article clarifies how classical poetics could function, in its own time and thereafter, as both analytic field and a literary genre sui generis.
{"title":"Exit Pursued by Horace: Bears, Shakespeare, and the Classical Tradition","authors":"Aaron J. Kachuck","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article puts the bear back in Horace, demonstrating the role bears have played from antiquity through the Renaissance as the great disruptor of the classical literary artefact, simplex et unum. The first section of the article treats bear’s place in ancient poetics. The second section exposes its role in Horace’s corpus, demonstrating how it instantiates both historical interpretive conflicts over one of Aristotle’s definition of the poet’s vocation and a wide range of Roman cultural and literary developments in the late first-century bce. The third and final section finds Horace’s bear stalking Renaissance artes poeticae and starring as the unstable genre-crossing centre of Shakespeare’s ‘The Winter’s Tale’ (1611). This article shows that Shakespeare’s bear has as much to do with the history of poetics (and the War of the Poets) as with the material history of stagecraft, which has often been the intriguing focus of scholarship on the bear. In addition to heightening our sense of the monstrous qualities of Augustan literature, and to troubling our notions about the classicism of classical literature, this article clarifies how classical poetics could function, in its own time and thereafter, as both analytic field and a literary genre sui generis.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"86-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44684346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Literary historians tend to associate a poetics of rule-following with seventeenth-century neoclassicism, and with the sixteenth-century Italian commentators and theorists on whom the neoclassical critics drew; but thinking about the value and limitations of rules for writing is a pervasive and philosophically distinctive feature of pre-modern poetics more generally. Drawing on texts from different national literatures, on the literary theory of classical antiquity, on reflections on rule-following in non-literary early modern disciplines, and on some of the rich thinking on rules by modern philosophers, this article attempts to identify and describe some of the distinct kinds of rule-making and rule-following that constituted the discipline and practice of poetics in the sixteenth-century. To do so it focuses on three texts: Jodocus Badius Ascensius’ edition of Horace’s Ars poetica (1503), which divides the text up into ‘regulae’; Julius Caesar Scaliger’s Poetices libri septem (1561), which probes the ways in which ancient texts might function as ‘normae’ to which literary practice might be referred; and Samuel Daniels’ Musophilus (1599), which deeply if idiosyncratically meditates on the poet’s obligations and freedoms, and voices a profound scepticism about a literary practice that conforms to rules inherited from prior writers or imposed by critics.
{"title":"‘Non per instituir altri’? Attitudes to Rule-Following in Sixteenth-Century Poetics","authors":"M. Hetherington","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Literary historians tend to associate a poetics of rule-following with seventeenth-century neoclassicism, and with the sixteenth-century Italian commentators and theorists on whom the neoclassical critics drew; but thinking about the value and limitations of rules for writing is a pervasive and philosophically distinctive feature of pre-modern poetics more generally. Drawing on texts from different national literatures, on the literary theory of classical antiquity, on reflections on rule-following in non-literary early modern disciplines, and on some of the rich thinking on rules by modern philosophers, this article attempts to identify and describe some of the distinct kinds of rule-making and rule-following that constituted the discipline and practice of poetics in the sixteenth-century. To do so it focuses on three texts: Jodocus Badius Ascensius’ edition of Horace’s Ars poetica (1503), which divides the text up into ‘regulae’; Julius Caesar Scaliger’s Poetices libri septem (1561), which probes the ways in which ancient texts might function as ‘normae’ to which literary practice might be referred; and Samuel Daniels’ Musophilus (1599), which deeply if idiosyncratically meditates on the poet’s obligations and freedoms, and voices a profound scepticism about a literary practice that conforms to rules inherited from prior writers or imposed by critics.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"9-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42414492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The decades around 1600 saw a Europe-wide vogue for artists, writers, orators, and actors to fully identify with their sitters, subjects, or characters, the practice often being justified with the Horatian dictum, ‘If you want me to cry, mourn first yourself’ (Russell and Winterbottom 1972: 282 [Ars 101]). Among the more extreme manifestations are the young sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini, who in 1617 burnt himself while preparing to carve the martyrdom of St Lawrence on a gridiron, and the French actor Montdory, famous for full-throttle mad scenes, who in 1637 suffered a paralytic stroke to the tongue and right arm while acting Herod (Bernini 1713: 15; Bernini 2011: 103; Wiley 1960: 103–6).1 The philosopher and heretic Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639) cited Horace’s dictum in his treatise of rhetoric (Campanella 1954: 751, 763), adding yawning to the roster of expressions — ‘if you want me to yawn, yawn first yourself…’. When Campanella was in the Inquisition’s prison, he became notorious for mimicking people’s physiognomy, sometimes only on the basis of a verbal description, claiming it enabled him to read their mind. He would grimace as he imagined he possessed their features and even hair, so that visitors thought he was suffering the permanent affects of torture, or was insane (Campanella 2007: 116–17; Gaffarel 1629: 266–70). The purpose of this essay is two-fold. I want to historicize this ‘baroque’ fashion, arguing that the rediscovery of Aristotle’s Poetics helped put what I term sympathetic mimicry centre stage. I will also analyse four relevant scenes from Shakespeare — three of which centre on portrait painting — in which the issue of sympathetic mimicry is explored in various ways. I shall argue that Shakespeare exhibited both fascination and scepticism for this classical technique and the raw power it unleashes, and that he particularly associated it with painters.
{"title":"Parallel Lives: Shakespeare and the Debate Over Emotional Involvement","authors":"J. Hall","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA017","url":null,"abstract":"The decades around 1600 saw a Europe-wide vogue for artists, writers, orators, and actors to fully identify with their sitters, subjects, or characters, the practice often being justified with the Horatian dictum, ‘If you want me to cry, mourn first yourself’ (Russell and Winterbottom 1972: 282 [Ars 101]). Among the more extreme manifestations are the young sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini, who in 1617 burnt himself while preparing to carve the martyrdom of St Lawrence on a gridiron, and the French actor Montdory, famous for full-throttle mad scenes, who in 1637 suffered a paralytic stroke to the tongue and right arm while acting Herod (Bernini 1713: 15; Bernini 2011: 103; Wiley 1960: 103–6).1 The philosopher and heretic Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639) cited Horace’s dictum in his treatise of rhetoric (Campanella 1954: 751, 763), adding yawning to the roster of expressions — ‘if you want me to yawn, yawn first yourself…’. When Campanella was in the Inquisition’s prison, he became notorious for mimicking people’s physiognomy, sometimes only on the basis of a verbal description, claiming it enabled him to read their mind. He would grimace as he imagined he possessed their features and even hair, so that visitors thought he was suffering the permanent affects of torture, or was insane (Campanella 2007: 116–17; Gaffarel 1629: 266–70). The purpose of this essay is two-fold. I want to historicize this ‘baroque’ fashion, arguing that the rediscovery of Aristotle’s Poetics helped put what I term sympathetic mimicry centre stage. I will also analyse four relevant scenes from Shakespeare — three of which centre on portrait painting — in which the issue of sympathetic mimicry is explored in various ways. I shall argue that Shakespeare exhibited both fascination and scepticism for this classical technique and the raw power it unleashes, and that he particularly associated it with painters.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"67-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42216013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article offers a reading of the coverage of the 2013–14 Ashes series by way of exploring the limits of classical reception. Focusing on the poetics of recusal (recusatio, praetritio) and their place in advertising memory sanctions as site of contested power, I suggest that although the coverage lacks explicit reference to classical material, it nevertheless can be read as classical by analogy, and as such ought to be treated as a case of classical reception.
{"title":"Not cricket, not classics? A case study in the limits of reception","authors":"A. H. Lushkov","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article offers a reading of the coverage of the 2013–14 Ashes series by way of exploring the limits of classical reception. Focusing on the poetics of recusal (recusatio, praetritio) and their place in advertising memory sanctions as site of contested power, I suggest that although the coverage lacks explicit reference to classical material, it nevertheless can be read as classical by analogy, and as such ought to be treated as a case of classical reception.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44179012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Heidegger, perhaps the most influential philosopher of the last century, sought to do something with the Greeks never done before: to establish a new tradition of thinking. He saw in their literature and philosophy a concern with what is most essential and vital to man, and which has been glossed over and forgotten in modern thought. Controversial as his readings are, the exploration given here of Heidegger’s attempt to revive the spirit of Greek thinking reveals not only the fundamentally receptive nature of his philosophy but also the philosophical import of classical reception. While few would argue that Heidegger initiated a new tradition, he set in motion an intellectual crisis surrounding how the ills of modernity are rooted in modes of thought we must overcome. By making the Greeks the solution to this, Heidegger shifted the so-called ‘discourse of modernity’ to an assessment of the Greek’s impact on thinking today and their potential for us to think anew. As such, he made classical reception the vehicle for both understanding and critiquing the form of Modernity and its thinking. Therein lies the value of Heidegger for classical reception, because he gives it the intellectual impetus to confront what man is today.
{"title":"Heidegger, classical reception and the discourse of modernity: a crisis in thinking","authors":"J. M. Walsh","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAB006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAB006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Heidegger, perhaps the most influential philosopher of the last century, sought to do something with the Greeks never done before: to establish a new tradition of thinking. He saw in their literature and philosophy a concern with what is most essential and vital to man, and which has been glossed over and forgotten in modern thought. Controversial as his readings are, the exploration given here of Heidegger’s attempt to revive the spirit of Greek thinking reveals not only the fundamentally receptive nature of his philosophy but also the philosophical import of classical reception. While few would argue that Heidegger initiated a new tradition, he set in motion an intellectual crisis surrounding how the ills of modernity are rooted in modes of thought we must overcome. By making the Greeks the solution to this, Heidegger shifted the so-called ‘discourse of modernity’ to an assessment of the Greek’s impact on thinking today and their potential for us to think anew. As such, he made classical reception the vehicle for both understanding and critiquing the form of Modernity and its thinking. Therein lies the value of Heidegger for classical reception, because he gives it the intellectual impetus to confront what man is today.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41712511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Jules Dassin’s 1960’s film Never on Sunday, Ilia is a Greek prostitute at the port of Piraeus, who is very fond of Greek tragedy. Yet, while she has seen Euripides’ Medea fifteen times, she keeps denying that, at the end of the play, Medea kills her children. This article explores the reasons why Ilia insists on seeing the play again and again, while also insisting on recasting a revenge plot into a love story with a happy ending. Furthermore, it discusses gender dynamics in the film, focusing on Ilia’s firm opposition to all female oppression. Finally, it argues that, through Ilia’s misinterpretation of Medea, Never on Sunday invites discussion of the various disguises of human vulnerability and of an all too common fear—the fear of love.
在达辛(Jules Dassin) 1960年的电影《永不星期日》(Never on Sunday)中，伊利亚(Ilia)是比雷埃夫斯港的一名希腊妓女，她非常喜欢希腊悲剧。然而，尽管她已经看过欧里庇德斯笔下的美狄亚十五遍，但她一直否认，在戏剧的最后，美狄亚杀死了她的孩子。这篇文章探讨了伊莱娅坚持一遍又一遍地看这部剧的原因，同时也坚持把复仇的情节重新塑造成一个幸福结局的爱情故事。进一步探讨了影片中的性别动态，重点关注伊莱娅对所有女性压迫的坚决反对。最后，它认为，通过伊莱娅对美狄亚的误解，《星期日永不》引发了对人类脆弱的各种伪装的讨论，以及对一种非常普遍的恐惧——对爱的恐惧。
{"title":"Medea and other women in Jules Dassin’s Never on Sunday","authors":"Georgia Sermamoglou-Soulmaidi","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAB003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAB003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In Jules Dassin’s 1960’s film Never on Sunday, Ilia is a Greek prostitute at the port of Piraeus, who is very fond of Greek tragedy. Yet, while she has seen Euripides’ Medea fifteen times, she keeps denying that, at the end of the play, Medea kills her children. This article explores the reasons why Ilia insists on seeing the play again and again, while also insisting on recasting a revenge plot into a love story with a happy ending. Furthermore, it discusses gender dynamics in the film, focusing on Ilia’s firm opposition to all female oppression. Finally, it argues that, through Ilia’s misinterpretation of Medea, Never on Sunday invites discussion of the various disguises of human vulnerability and of an all too common fear—the fear of love.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CRJ/CLAB003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47801004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
José Fuentes Mares’ La joven Antígona se va a la guerra (‘Young Antigone Goes to War’) is a Mexican adaptation of Sophocles’ Antigone written and first performed in 1968. The play, full of unique accomplishments, demonstrates a deep engagement with the Sophoclean original and has a complex original performance context. It premiered a week after the biggest student massacre in Mexican history, the Tlatelolco Massacre of 2 October 1968. In this article, I bring attention to Fuentes Mares’ work as an exceptional contribution to the Latin American reception of Sophocles’ Antigone. I detail the play’s explicit invitations to be read against Sophocles’ original and highlight the playwright’s choices to reframe Antigone’s resistance by reworking long-standing dualisms. I argue that Fuentes Mares’ adaptation of Antigone advises introspection, compassion, and endurance in the face of violent oppression. This function differs from other Latin American adaptations of Antigone, which tend to give a voice to the marginalized with calls for organized social action or pleas for the acknowledgment of ongoing abuses. This analysis should help expand our understanding of the reception of Sophocles’ Antigone as a multifaceted instrument varying in its response to oppressions throughout Latin America.
JoséFuentes Mares的《年轻的Antigone去打仗》（La joven Antígona se va a La guerra）是一部墨西哥改编自Sophocles的《Antigone》的作品，于1968年创作并首次演出。该剧充满了独特的成就，展现了对Sophoclean原作的深度参与，并有着复杂的原创表演背景。它在墨西哥历史上最大的学生大屠杀——1968年10月2日特拉特洛尔科大屠杀——一周后首播。在这篇文章中，我提请大家注意富恩特斯·马雷斯的作品，这是他对索福克勒斯的《安提戈涅》在拉丁美洲受到欢迎的杰出贡献。我详细介绍了该剧明确邀请读者对照索福克勒斯的原作阅读，并强调了剧作家选择通过重新塑造长期存在的双重性来重塑安提戈涅的抵抗。我认为富恩特斯·马雷斯对《安提戈涅》的改编建议在面对暴力压迫时反省、同情和忍耐。这一功能不同于拉丁美洲改编的《Antigone》，后者倾向于通过呼吁有组织的社会行动或呼吁承认正在发生的虐待行为来为边缘化群体发声。这一分析应有助于扩大我们对索福克勒斯的《安提戈涅》的理解，将其视为一种多方面的工具，在应对整个拉丁美洲的压迫时有所不同。
{"title":"Humanity and revolution in José Fuentes Mares’ ‘La joven Antígona se va a la guerra’","authors":"Andrés A Carrete","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 José Fuentes Mares’ La joven Antígona se va a la guerra (‘Young Antigone Goes to War’) is a Mexican adaptation of Sophocles’ Antigone written and first performed in 1968. The play, full of unique accomplishments, demonstrates a deep engagement with the Sophoclean original and has a complex original performance context. It premiered a week after the biggest student massacre in Mexican history, the Tlatelolco Massacre of 2 October 1968. In this article, I bring attention to Fuentes Mares’ work as an exceptional contribution to the Latin American reception of Sophocles’ Antigone. I detail the play’s explicit invitations to be read against Sophocles’ original and highlight the playwright’s choices to reframe Antigone’s resistance by reworking long-standing dualisms. I argue that Fuentes Mares’ adaptation of Antigone advises introspection, compassion, and endurance in the face of violent oppression. This function differs from other Latin American adaptations of Antigone, which tend to give a voice to the marginalized with calls for organized social action or pleas for the acknowledgment of ongoing abuses. This analysis should help expand our understanding of the reception of Sophocles’ Antigone as a multifaceted instrument varying in its response to oppressions throughout Latin America.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46413667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Organized by a private association with the support of the French Protectorate, the 1906 and 1907 pageants or fêtes de Carthage, held at a recently excavated Roman theatre at an important site of ancient colonization, celebrated the achievements and the promise of archaeology in Tunisia. Inspired by open-air theatricals in the ancient theatres of Orange and Béziers, the elaborate stagings involved hundreds of actors, large volunteer crews, and sumptuous period costumes. After a program of excerpts from neoclassical drama and opera in 1906, the 1907 pageant featured two specially commissioned plays, one of them an encounter between a modern-day poet and a Carthaginian priestess on the very archaeological site where her tomb is discovered. The pageants drew on both specific archaeological findings and a pervasive visual culture that depicted French colonizers as preservers of the ancient culture of which they had found traces in North Africa. The violence of colonization was thus consigned to the realm of performance and archaeology cast as a valuable source of knowledge. Although the pageants operated in a nostalgic mode, they ultimately served a more historicist sense of time in which archaeology as an emerging science helped to police the boundary between past and present.
在法国保护国的支持下，由一个私人协会组织的1906年和1907年的迦太基庆典（fêtes de Carthage）在一个古代殖民地的重要遗址最近挖掘的罗马剧院举行，庆祝突尼斯考古的成就和前景。受Orange和Béziers古老剧院露天剧场的启发，数百名演员、大批志愿者和华丽的时代服装参与了精心制作的舞台表演。在1906年的一系列新古典主义戏剧和歌剧节选之后，1907年的选美比赛有两部特别委托的戏剧，其中一部是一位现代诗人和一位迦太基女祭司在发现她的坟墓的考古遗址上的相遇。这些选美比赛既借鉴了具体的考古发现，也借鉴了一种普遍的视觉文化，这种文化将法国殖民者描绘成他们在北非发现痕迹的古代文化的保存者。因此，殖民化的暴力行为被归入表演领域，考古学被视为宝贵的知识来源。尽管选美比赛是以怀旧的模式进行的，但它们最终提供了一种更具历史主义意义的时间感，在这种时间感中，考古学作为一门新兴科学，有助于监督过去和现在之间的界限。
{"title":"Staging Archaeology: Empire as Reality Effect at the 1906–07 fêtes de Carthage","authors":"Daniel J. Sherman","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Organized by a private association with the support of the French Protectorate, the 1906 and 1907 pageants or fêtes de Carthage, held at a recently excavated Roman theatre at an important site of ancient colonization, celebrated the achievements and the promise of archaeology in Tunisia. Inspired by open-air theatricals in the ancient theatres of Orange and Béziers, the elaborate stagings involved hundreds of actors, large volunteer crews, and sumptuous period costumes. After a program of excerpts from neoclassical drama and opera in 1906, the 1907 pageant featured two specially commissioned plays, one of them an encounter between a modern-day poet and a Carthaginian priestess on the very archaeological site where her tomb is discovered. The pageants drew on both specific archaeological findings and a pervasive visual culture that depicted French colonizers as preservers of the ancient culture of which they had found traces in North Africa. The violence of colonization was thus consigned to the realm of performance and archaeology cast as a valuable source of knowledge. Although the pageants operated in a nostalgic mode, they ultimately served a more historicist sense of time in which archaeology as an emerging science helped to police the boundary between past and present.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43943756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article focuses on selected complete Russian verse translations of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and of Vergil’s Aeneid produced over a period of nearly two centuries. By focusing on translation approach and goals, historical and cultural circumstances, and the literary talent of the translators, the authors explore the reasons for a particular translation’s success or failure. Further, they address the question of how Russian translators achieved canonical, or generally accepted, translations of the Homeric epics, while translations of Vergil’s epic found no such success.
{"title":"Epic Victories and Failures: Homer and Vergil in Russia","authors":"Judith E. Kalb, Z. Torlone","doi":"10.1093/CRJ/CLAA023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article focuses on selected complete Russian verse translations of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and of Vergil’s Aeneid produced over a period of nearly two centuries. By focusing on translation approach and goals, historical and cultural circumstances, and the literary talent of the translators, the authors explore the reasons for a particular translation’s success or failure. Further, they address the question of how Russian translators achieved canonical, or generally accepted, translations of the Homeric epics, while translations of Vergil’s epic found no such success.","PeriodicalId":42730,"journal":{"name":"Classical Receptions Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CRJ/CLAA023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46470608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：