{"title":"亲希腊主义的概念和功能:跨文化运动的各个方面","authors":"PH I Lhellen, VÖ Ism","doi":"10.1515/9783110716023-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Philhellenism is a thing. You know it when you see it. Whether programmatically announced, visible in action or, less transparently, present in underpinning assumptions, philhellenism is readily recognisable in different places, periods and persons – and yet it also differs, in telling and significant ways, from context to context, culture to culture, individual to individual. It is so ubiquitous in (and often foundational for) the works, contexts and reception histories of ancient literature that it is near-impossible to avoid it – and yet precisely thereby it easily eludes critical analysis and interrogation. What exactly is it? How does it work? Why does it arise? What does it enable? What does it suppress? Whom does it work for? Whom does it work against? How self-identical – across space and time – is it? How do its various incarnations relate to one another? These questions are of considerable importance for scholars of classical literature as philhellenism is undoubtedly a central ‘pathway of reception’– both in antiquity and for antiquity –, the likes of which are examined in the series in which this volume appears. The title of the volume – with its focus on concepts, functions and transculturality – raises high hopes for advancing our understanding of this formative force in literary and cultural history. The collection of essays joins a slew of edited volumes on the same topic – notably M. Espagne and G. Pécout (edd.), Philhellénismes et transfert culturels (2005); E. Konstantinou (ed.), Ausdrucksformen des europäischen und internationalen Philhellenismus (2007); K. Zacharia (ed.), Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity (2008); G. Heß et al. (edd.), Graecomania. Der europäische Philhellenismus (2009) –, but promises to innovate with a ‘fundamentally new approach . . . The central thesis of this book is that European philhellenism derives its driving force from antiquity. In Rome a “classical philhellenism” emerges which . . . has been drawn on since the Enlightenment. . . . The emphasis on this transcultural aspect and on the literal movement may be what sets this edited volume apart’ (p. 1). While this claim to originality will no doubt ruffle some feathers, the volume’s tripartite structure certainly seems geared towards substantiating it. The first part, ‘Ancient Philhellenism’, takes soundings in (mostly Latin) literature of the Roman era. Pointing to the dynamics of emulation and rivalry at the heart of Roman philhellenism, the editors note in their summary of this first section that ‘[t]he articles here bring this spectrum (well-researched by classical philology) into focus’ (p. 1). Well-researched indeed: S. Tzounakas’s conspectus of moments of philhellenism across Horace’s works, D. Keramida’s reading of Martial’s Hercules epigrams (9.64, 65, 101) as a dual strategy to play to a philhellenic emperor and to establish one’s own literary and cultural footing, and Alekou’s review of Roman satire’s mocking of philhellenic fads and belittling of Graeculi all cover well-trodden ground. Undergraduate students may find these introductions useful, but researchers in the field are unlikely to come away with fresh insights here. A. Wessels’s discussion of the making of Livius Andronicus into a turning point figure in Roman constructions of Latin literary history THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 322","PeriodicalId":332106,"journal":{"name":"Concepts and Functions of Philhellenism","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concepts and Functions of Philhellenism: Aspects of a Transcultural Movement\",\"authors\":\"PH I Lhellen, VÖ Ism\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/9783110716023-001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Philhellenism is a thing. You know it when you see it. Whether programmatically announced, visible in action or, less transparently, present in underpinning assumptions, philhellenism is readily recognisable in different places, periods and persons – and yet it also differs, in telling and significant ways, from context to context, culture to culture, individual to individual. It is so ubiquitous in (and often foundational for) the works, contexts and reception histories of ancient literature that it is near-impossible to avoid it – and yet precisely thereby it easily eludes critical analysis and interrogation. What exactly is it? How does it work? Why does it arise? What does it enable? What does it suppress? Whom does it work for? Whom does it work against? How self-identical – across space and time – is it? How do its various incarnations relate to one another? These questions are of considerable importance for scholars of classical literature as philhellenism is undoubtedly a central ‘pathway of reception’– both in antiquity and for antiquity –, the likes of which are examined in the series in which this volume appears. The title of the volume – with its focus on concepts, functions and transculturality – raises high hopes for advancing our understanding of this formative force in literary and cultural history. The collection of essays joins a slew of edited volumes on the same topic – notably M. Espagne and G. Pécout (edd.), Philhellénismes et transfert culturels (2005); E. Konstantinou (ed.), Ausdrucksformen des europäischen und internationalen Philhellenismus (2007); K. Zacharia (ed.), Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity (2008); G. Heß et al. (edd.), Graecomania. Der europäische Philhellenismus (2009) –, but promises to innovate with a ‘fundamentally new approach . . . The central thesis of this book is that European philhellenism derives its driving force from antiquity. In Rome a “classical philhellenism” emerges which . . . has been drawn on since the Enlightenment. . . . The emphasis on this transcultural aspect and on the literal movement may be what sets this edited volume apart’ (p. 1). While this claim to originality will no doubt ruffle some feathers, the volume’s tripartite structure certainly seems geared towards substantiating it. The first part, ‘Ancient Philhellenism’, takes soundings in (mostly Latin) literature of the Roman era. Pointing to the dynamics of emulation and rivalry at the heart of Roman philhellenism, the editors note in their summary of this first section that ‘[t]he articles here bring this spectrum (well-researched by classical philology) into focus’ (p. 1). Well-researched indeed: S. Tzounakas’s conspectus of moments of philhellenism across Horace’s works, D. Keramida’s reading of Martial’s Hercules epigrams (9.64, 65, 101) as a dual strategy to play to a philhellenic emperor and to establish one’s own literary and cultural footing, and Alekou’s review of Roman satire’s mocking of philhellenic fads and belittling of Graeculi all cover well-trodden ground. Undergraduate students may find these introductions useful, but researchers in the field are unlikely to come away with fresh insights here. A. Wessels’s discussion of the making of Livius Andronicus into a turning point figure in Roman constructions of Latin literary history THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 322\",\"PeriodicalId\":332106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Concepts and Functions of Philhellenism\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Concepts and Functions of Philhellenism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110716023-001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Concepts and Functions of Philhellenism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110716023-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
亲希腊主义是一种东西。你一看到就知道了。无论是程序性的宣布,可见的行动,还是不那么透明的基础假设,亲希腊主义在不同的地方,不同的时期和不同的人身上都很容易被识别出来——然而,在不同的背景,不同的文化,不同的个人之间,它也在不同的方式上有所不同。它在古代文学的作品、语境和接受史中无处不在(而且往往是基础),几乎不可能避免它——然而正是因为如此,它很容易躲过批判性的分析和质疑。它到底是什么?它是如何工作的?为什么会出现这种情况?它能实现什么?它抑制了什么?它为谁工作?它对谁起作用?它在时空上的自我同一性有多高?它的各种化身是如何相互关联的?这些问题对于古典文学的学者来说是相当重要的,因为无论是在古代还是在古代,亲希腊主义无疑是一个中心的“接受途径”,这些问题在本卷出现的系列中都得到了检验。这本书的标题——以其对概念、功能和跨文化性的关注——为促进我们对文学和文化史上这种形成力量的理解提出了很高的希望。文集加入了一系列关于同一主题的编辑卷-特别是M. Espagne和G. psamcout (edd.), philhellsamismes et transferculcules (2005);E. Konstantinou(主编),Ausdrucksformen des europäischen and internationalen Philhellenismus (2007);K. Zacharia主编,《希腊文化:从古代到现代的文化、身份和种族》(2008);G. Heß et al. (edd.), Graecomania。Der europäische Philhellenismus(2009) -,但承诺以“根本的新方法”进行创新…本书的中心论点是,欧洲的亲希腊主义源自古代。在罗马,一种“古典的亲希腊主义”出现了……自启蒙运动以来一直在使用. . . .对这种跨文化方面和文字运动的强调可能是使这本编辑过的书与众不同的地方”(第1页)。虽然这种对原创性的主张无疑会激怒一些人,但这本书的三部分结构显然是为了证实这一点。第一部分,“古代亲希腊主义”,对罗马时代的文学(主要是拉丁文学)进行了考察。编辑们在对第一部分的总结中指出,在罗马亲希腊主义的核心,竞争和竞争的动态,“这里的文章将这一范围(由古典文献学进行了充分的研究)纳入焦点”(第1页)。研究确实很充分:S. Tzounakas对贺拉斯作品中亲希腊主义时刻的概述,D. Keramida对马夏尔的赫拉克勒斯(Hercules)的名言(9.64,65,101)的解读,作为讨好亲希腊皇帝和建立自己的文学和文化立身之本的双重策略,以及Alekou对罗马讽刺对亲希腊风尚的嘲笑和对Graeculi的贬低的回顾,都覆盖了广泛的领域。本科生可能会觉得这些介绍很有用,但该领域的研究人员不太可能在这里得到新的见解。a .韦塞尔关于把利维乌斯·安德洛尼克斯塑造成罗马拉丁文学史结构的转折点人物的讨论,《古典评论》322页
Concepts and Functions of Philhellenism: Aspects of a Transcultural Movement
Philhellenism is a thing. You know it when you see it. Whether programmatically announced, visible in action or, less transparently, present in underpinning assumptions, philhellenism is readily recognisable in different places, periods and persons – and yet it also differs, in telling and significant ways, from context to context, culture to culture, individual to individual. It is so ubiquitous in (and often foundational for) the works, contexts and reception histories of ancient literature that it is near-impossible to avoid it – and yet precisely thereby it easily eludes critical analysis and interrogation. What exactly is it? How does it work? Why does it arise? What does it enable? What does it suppress? Whom does it work for? Whom does it work against? How self-identical – across space and time – is it? How do its various incarnations relate to one another? These questions are of considerable importance for scholars of classical literature as philhellenism is undoubtedly a central ‘pathway of reception’– both in antiquity and for antiquity –, the likes of which are examined in the series in which this volume appears. The title of the volume – with its focus on concepts, functions and transculturality – raises high hopes for advancing our understanding of this formative force in literary and cultural history. The collection of essays joins a slew of edited volumes on the same topic – notably M. Espagne and G. Pécout (edd.), Philhellénismes et transfert culturels (2005); E. Konstantinou (ed.), Ausdrucksformen des europäischen und internationalen Philhellenismus (2007); K. Zacharia (ed.), Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity (2008); G. Heß et al. (edd.), Graecomania. Der europäische Philhellenismus (2009) –, but promises to innovate with a ‘fundamentally new approach . . . The central thesis of this book is that European philhellenism derives its driving force from antiquity. In Rome a “classical philhellenism” emerges which . . . has been drawn on since the Enlightenment. . . . The emphasis on this transcultural aspect and on the literal movement may be what sets this edited volume apart’ (p. 1). While this claim to originality will no doubt ruffle some feathers, the volume’s tripartite structure certainly seems geared towards substantiating it. The first part, ‘Ancient Philhellenism’, takes soundings in (mostly Latin) literature of the Roman era. Pointing to the dynamics of emulation and rivalry at the heart of Roman philhellenism, the editors note in their summary of this first section that ‘[t]he articles here bring this spectrum (well-researched by classical philology) into focus’ (p. 1). Well-researched indeed: S. Tzounakas’s conspectus of moments of philhellenism across Horace’s works, D. Keramida’s reading of Martial’s Hercules epigrams (9.64, 65, 101) as a dual strategy to play to a philhellenic emperor and to establish one’s own literary and cultural footing, and Alekou’s review of Roman satire’s mocking of philhellenic fads and belittling of Graeculi all cover well-trodden ground. Undergraduate students may find these introductions useful, but researchers in the field are unlikely to come away with fresh insights here. A. Wessels’s discussion of the making of Livius Andronicus into a turning point figure in Roman constructions of Latin literary history THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 322